# U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Final Environmental Assessment of the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal - Volume 2 of 2: Chapters 7-11 **Citation:** 09000064811add91 **Type / status:** rulemaking / current **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** Not stated FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL VOLUME 2: CHAPTERS 7 - 11 PHMSA-2012-0175 December 2012 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.3 Hydrogen Blistering of Laminations ....................................... 9-22 9.3.2.4 Surge and Hydraulic Profile ................................................... 9-22 9.3.2.5 Cracking/Fatigue Monitoring... ## Document text <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL VOLUME 2: CHAPTERS 7 - 11 PHMSA-2012-0175 December 2012 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CONTENTS 7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 IMPACTS CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 EVENT TYPES ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.3 EVALUATING IMPACTS .................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.3.1 Gasoline versus Crude Oil ....................................................... 7-2 7.1.3.2 Ignition ..................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.3.3 Leaks versus Ruptures ............................................................ 7-3 7.1.3.3.1 Leaks ................................................................. 7-3 7.2 7.3 7.1.3.3.2 Ruptures ............................................................ 7-4 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 7-4 7.2.2 IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.2.1 Construction ............................................................................. 7-4 7.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................... 7-5 7.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ................................................................ 7-5 7.2.2.3.1 Leaks ................................................................. 7-7 7.2.2.3.2 Ruptures ............................................................ 7-7 7.2.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ................................................................................. 7-7 7.2.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 7-8 IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER .................................................................................... 7-8 7.3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 7-8 7.3.2 IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 7-9 7.3.2.1 Construction ............................................................................. 7-9 7.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................... 7-9 7.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ................................................................ 7-9 7.3.2.3.1 Leaks ................................................................. 7-9 7.3.2.3.2 Ruptures .......................................................... 7-10 7.3.3 SENSITIVE AREAS/RECEPTORS ................................................................... 7-11 7.3.3.1 Karst Aquifers (including Edwards, Trinity-Hill Country, and Edwards-Trinity) .............................................................. 7-12 7.3.3.2 Fractured Rock Aquifers ........................................................ 7-13 7.3.3.3 Porous Media Aquifers ........................................................... 7-13 7.3.4 SENSITIVE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ..................................................... 7-15 7.3.4.1 Drinking Water ....................................................................... 7-16 7.3.4.2 Recreational Uses .................................................................. 7-16 7.3.4.3 Aquifer Aquatic Habitat Uses ................................................. 7-17 7.3.5 AGRICULTURAL USES ................................................................................. 7-17 7.3.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-18 7.4 AQUATIC BIOLOGY ................................................................................................. 7-18 7.4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-18 7.4.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-18 7.4.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-18 I <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.4.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-19 7.4.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-19 7.4.2.3.1 Leaks ............................................................... 7-19 7.4.2.3.2 Ruptures .......................................................... 7-20 7.4.3 AQUATIC THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................... 7-21 7.4.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-25 7.5 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY .......................................................................................... 7-25 7.6 7.5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-25 7.5.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-25 7.5.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-25 7.5.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-27 7.5.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-27 7.5.2.3.1 Leaks ............................................................... 7-27 7.5.2.3.2 Ruptures .......................................................... 7-28 7.5.3 TERRESTRIAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................ 7-29 7.5.3.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-29 7.5.3.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-31 7.5.3.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-31 7.5.3.3.1 Leaks ............................................................... 7-31 7.5.3.3.2 Ruptures .......................................................... 7-32 7.5.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-33 IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER ................................................................................ 7-33 7.6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-33 7.6.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-33 7.6.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-33 7.6.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-34 7.6.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-34 7.6.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN .................... 7-36 7.6.3.1 Rivers and Streams ............................................................... 7-36 7.6.3.2 Lakes ..................................................................................... 7-39 7.6.3.2.1 Lake Travis and Pedernales Watershed Studies ............................................................. 7-39 7.6.3.2.2 7.6.3.2.3 Sandy Creek/Llano River and Lake LBJ .......... 7-40 Barton Creek Watershed and Lady Bird Lake ................................................................. 7-40 7.7 7.6.4 RANKING OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE AREAS .............................. 7-41 7.6.4.1 Drinking Water Impacts .......................................................... 7-42 7.6.4.2 Agricultural Impacts ............................................................... 7-42 7.6.4.3 Recreational Impacts ............................................................. 7-43 7.6.4.4 Impacts to Wetlands .............................................................. 7-43 7.6.4.4.1 Construction ..................................................... 7-43 7.6.5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-44 IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY ....................................................... 7-45 7.6.4.4.2 Normal Operations ........................................... 7-44 7.6.4.4.3 Accidental Releases ........................................ 7-44 II <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-45 7.7.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-46 7.7.2.1 Construction Emissions ......................................................... 7-46 7.7.2.2 Operational Emissions ........................................................... 7-47 7.7.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-48 7.7.2.4 Noise ...................................................................................... 7-48 7.7.2.5 Impacts to Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area Air Quality ............................................. 7-49 7.7.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-51 IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................... 7-51 7.8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-51 7.8.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-51 7.8.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-51 7.8.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-52 7.8.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-52 7.8.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-52 IMPACTS TO LAND USE ........................................................................................... 7-53 7.9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-53 7.9.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-53 7.9.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-53 7.9.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-54 7.9.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-54 7.9.3 SENSITIVE AREAS/RECEPTORS ................................................................... 7-54 7.9.3.1 Parks and Natural Areas ........................................................ 7-54 7.9.3.2 Urban Areas ........................................................................... 7-54 7.9.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-55 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................... 7-55 7.10.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-55 7.10.2 IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 7-56 7.10.2.1 Construction ........................................................................... 7-56 7.10.2.2 Normal Operations ................................................................. 7-57 7.10.2.3 Accidental Releases .............................................................. 7-57 7.10.3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 7-58 7.10.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7-58 7.11 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 7-58 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .............................................................................. 8-1 8.1 PURPOSE OF EJ ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 EVALUATION APPROACH .......................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................... 8-2 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS ................... 8-2 DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ........................................................ 8-3 8.3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 8-6 9.0 PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATIONS ............................................................... 9-1 III <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ................................................................................... 9-3 9.2.1 CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................ 9-3 9.2.1.1 Health and Human Safety ........................................................ 9-3 9.2.1.2 Groundwater ............................................................................ 9-3 9.2.1.3 Aquatic Biology ........................................................................ 9-4 9.2.1.4 Terrestrial Biology .................................................................... 9-4 9.2.1.5 Surface Water .......................................................................... 9-5 9.2.1.5.1 Wetlands ............................................................ 9-5 9.2.1.6 Air Quality and Meteorology ..................................................... 9-5 9.2.1.7 Transportation .......................................................................... 9-6 9.2.1.8 Land Use .................................................................................. 9-6 9.2.1.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ....................... 9-7 9.2.1.10 Required Permits ..................................................................... 9-7 9.2.1.10.1 LMP Changes .................................................... 9-8 9.2.2 NORMAL OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 9-8 9.2.2.1 Health and Human Safety ........................................................ 9-8 9.2.2.2 Groundwater ............................................................................ 9-8 9.2.2.3 Aquatic Biology ........................................................................ 9-8 9.2.2.4 Terrestrial Biology .................................................................... 9-9 9.2.2.5 Surface Water .......................................................................... 9-9 9.2.2.5.1 Wetlands ............................................................ 9-9 9.2.2.6 Air Quality and Meteorology ................................................... 9-10 9.2.2.7 Transportation ........................................................................ 9-10 9.2.2.8 Land Use ................................................................................ 9-10 9.2.2.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ..................... 9-10 9.2.3 ACCIDENTAL RELEASES .............................................................................. 9-11 9.2.3.1 Health and Human Safety ...................................................... 9-11 9.2.3.1.1 Potential for Explosion and Fire ....................... 9-11 9.2.3.1.2 Potential for Chemical Exposure ...................... 9-11 9.2.3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................... 9-13 9.2.3.3 Aquatic Biology ...................................................................... 9-14 9.2.3.4 Terrestrial Biology .................................................................. 9-14 9.2.3.5 Surface Water ........................................................................ 9-14 9.2.3.5.1 Wetlands .......................................................... 9-17 9.2.3.6 Air Quality and Meteorology ................................................... 9-17 9.2.3.7 Transportation ........................................................................ 9-17 9.2.3.8 Land Use ................................................................................ 9-17 9.2.3.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ..................... 9-17 9.2.3.10 Environmental Justice ............................................................ 9-18 9.3 SYSTEM INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 9-18 9.3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 9-18 9.3.2 THREATS .................................................................................................... 9-19 9.3.2.1 Commodity Characteristics – Crude Composition ................. 9-19 9.3.2.2 Internal Corrosion .................................................................. 9-19 IV <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.3 Hydrogen Blistering of Laminations ....................................... 9-22 9.3.2.4 Surge and Hydraulic Profile ................................................... 9-22 9.3.2.5 Cracking/Fatigue Monitoring .................................................. 9-23 9.3.2.6 Stress Corrosion Cracking ..................................................... 9-23 9.3.2.7 Incorrect Operations .............................................................. 9-24 9.3.2.8 Security .................................................................................. 9-24 9.3.2.9 Atmospheric Corrosion .......................................................... 9-24 9.3.2.10 External Corrosion ................................................................. 9-25 9.3.2.10.1 Pipe Coatings ................................................... 9-26 9.3.2.10.2 Cathodic Protection and CP Verifications ........ 9-26 9.3.2.10.3 IR Drop (CP Voltage Measurement Criteria) ............................................................ 9-27 9.3.2.10.4 Casings ............................................................ 9-27 9.3.2.10.5 Microbiological Influenced Corrosion (MIC) ..... 9-28 9.3.2.10.6 AC Induced Corrosion ...................................... 9-29 9.3.2.10.7 Stray Currents .................................................. 9-29 9.3.2.10.8 Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC) ..................... 9-30 9.3.2.11 Third Party Damage ............................................................... 9-31 9.3.2.11.1 One Call ........................................................... 9-31 9.3.2.11.2 Public Education .............................................. 9-31 9.3.2.11.3 Excavator Education ........................................ 9-32 9.3.2.11.4 Depth of Cover and Exposed Pipe ................... 9-33 9.3.2.11.5 Pipeline Markers .............................................. 9-33 9.3.2.11.6 Pipeline Surveillance ........................................ 9-34 9.3.2.11.7 Encroachments and ROW Maintenance .......... 9-35 9.3.2.12 External Forces ...................................................................... 9-35 9.3.2.12.1 Flooding ........................................................... 9-36 9.3.2.12.2 Geohazards ..................................................... 9-36 9.3.2.12.3 Crossings ......................................................... 9-36 9.3.3 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESSES .................................................................. 9-36 9.3.3.1 Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) ............................ 9-37 9.3.3.2 PHA/ LOPA ............................................................................ 9-37 9.3.3.3 Data Management ................................................................. 9-38 9.3.3.3.1 Material Documentation Plan ........................... 9-40 9.3.3.4 Pipeline Risk Model ............................................................... 9-44 9.3.3.4.1 Conservatism ................................................... 9-45 9.3.3.4.2 Aggregation of Risk Measurements ................. 9-45 9.3.3.4.3 PoF Thresholds ................................................ 9-46 9.3.3.4.4 Basis of PoF Thresholds .................................. 9-47 9.3.3.4.5 Application of PoF Thresholds ......................... 9-47 9.3.3.5 PoF and CoF Integration ........................................................ 9-48 9.4 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9-49 9.5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 9-49 10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTED ACTIONS .................... 10-1 10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF CONNECTED ACTIONS ............................................... 10-1 V <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.1 ORION WEST EXPANSION ..................................................................... 10-1 10.1.1.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ........................................ 10-1 10.1.1.1.1 Human Health and Safety ................................ 10-1 10.1.1.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................... 10-1 10.1.1.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ......................... 10-1 10.1.1.1.2 Transportation Networks .................................. 10-2 10.1.1.1.3 Land Use .......................................................... 10-2 10.1.1.1.3.1 10.1.1.1.3.2 Regional Land Uses ................... 10-2 Parks and Natural Areas ............ 10-3 10.1.1.1.4 Environmental Justice ...................................... 10-3 10.1.1.2 Physical Resources ............................................................... 10-5 10.1.1.2.1 Groundwater Resources .................................. 10-5 10.1.1.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-10 10.1.1.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-17 10.1.1.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-20 10.1.1.2.5 Climate ........................................................... 10-21 10.1.1.2.5.1 Air Quality ................................. 10-22 10.1.1.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-23 10.1.1.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-23 10.1.1.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna ...................... 10-25 10.1.1.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora ........................ 10-28 10.1.1.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-29 10.1.1.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-31 10.1.1.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species ...................................... 10-31 10.1.1.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species ...... 10-32 10.1.1.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-32 10.1.1.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-32 10.1.2 ODESSA TO CRANE .............................................................................. 10-33 10.1.2.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-33 10.1.2.1.1 Human Health and Safety .............................. 10-33 10.1.2.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................. 10-33 10.1.2.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ....................... 10-33 10.1.2.1.2 Transportation Networks ................................ 10-34 10.1.2.1.3 Land Use ........................................................ 10-34 10.1.2.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-34 10.1.2.2 Physical Resources ............................................................. 10-35 10.1.2.2.1 Groundwater Resources ................................ 10-35 10.1.2.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-35 10.1.2.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-39 10.1.2.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-40 10.1.2.2.4.1 Climate ....................................... 10-40 VI <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.2.2.4.2 Air Quality ................................. 10-40 10.1.2.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-40 10.1.2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-40 10.1.2.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna ...................... 10-41 10.1.2.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora ........................ 10-42 10.1.2.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-43 10.1.2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-43 10.1.2.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species ...................................... 10-44 10.1.2.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species ...... 10-44 10.1.2.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-44 10.1.2.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-44 10.1.3 EL PASO GATEWAY .............................................................................. 10-45 10.1.3.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-45 10.1.3.1.1 Human Health and Safety .............................. 10-45 10.1.3.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................. 10-45 10.1.3.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ....................... 10-46 10.1.3.1.2 Transportation Networks ................................ 10-46 10.1.3.1.3 Land Use ........................................................ 10-46 10.1.3.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-47 10.1.3.2 Physical Resources ............................................................. 10-47 10.1.3.2.1 Groundwater Resources ................................ 10-47 10.1.3.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-48 10.1.3.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-49 10.1.3.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-50 10.1.3.2.4.1 Climate ....................................... 10-50 10.1.3.2.4.2 Air Quality ................................. 10-51 10.1.3.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-51 10.1.3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-51 10.1.3.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna ...................... 10-51 10.1.3.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora ........................ 10-52 10.1.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-53 10.1.3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-53 10.1.3.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species ...................................... 10-53 10.1.3.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species ...... 10-53 10.1.3.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-54 10.1.3.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-54 10.1.4 CRANE TO EL PASO .............................................................................. 10-54 10.1.4.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-54 10.1.4.1.1 Human Health and Safety .............................. 10-54 10.1.4.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................. 10-54 VII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.4.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ....................... 10-54 10.1.4.1.2 Transportation Networks ................................ 10-55 10.1.4.1.3 Land Use ........................................................ 10-55 10.1.4.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-56 10.1.4.2 Physical Resources ............................................................. 10-57 10.1.4.2.1 Groundwater Resources ................................ 10-57 10.1.4.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-58 10.1.4.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-62 10.1.4.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-64 10.1.4.2.4.1 Climate ....................................... 10-64 10.1.4.2.4.2 Air Quality ................................. 10-65 10.1.4.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-65 10.1.4.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-65 10.1.4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna ...................... 10-66 10.1.4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora ........................ 10-67 10.1.4.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-67 10.1.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-68 10.1.4.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species ...................................... 10-68 10.1.4.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species ...... 10-68 10.1.4.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-69 10.1.4.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-69 10.1.5 9TH STREET JUNCTION TO SPEED JUNCTION ................................... 10-69 10.1.5.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-69 10.1.5.1.1 Human Health and Safety .............................. 10-69 10.1.5.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................. 10-69 10.1.5.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ....................... 10-70 10.1.5.1.2 Transportation Networks ................................ 10-70 10.1.5.1.3 Land Use ........................................................ 10-70 10.1.5.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-71 10.1.5.2 Physical Resources ............................................................. 10-72 10.1.5.2.1 Groundwater Resources ................................ 10-72 10.1.5.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-72 10.1.5.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-75 10.1.5.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-76 10.1.5.2.4.1 Climate ....................................... 10-76 10.1.5.2.4.2 Air Quality ................................. 10-77 10.1.5.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-77 10.1.5.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-77 10.1.5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna ...................... 10-78 10.1.5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora ........................ 10-79 10.1.5.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-79 10.1.5.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-80 VIII <<>> 10.2 10.3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.6.2 Physical Resources ............................................................. 10-84 10.1.6.2.1 Groundwater Resources ................................ 10-84 10.1.6.2.2 Surface Water ................................................ 10-84 10.1.5.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species ...................................... 10-80 10.1.5.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species ...... 10-81 10.1.5.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-81 10.1.5.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-81 10.1.6 EAST HOUSTON TO HOLLAND AVENUE ............................................. 10-81 10.1.6.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-81 10.1.6.1.1 Human Health and Safety .............................. 10-81 10.1.6.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities ............................. 10-81 10.1.6.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis ....................... 10-82 10.1.6.1.2 Transportation Networks ................................ 10-82 10.1.6.1.3 Land Use ........................................................ 10-82 10.1.6.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-83 10.1.6.2.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................... 10-87 10.1.6.2.4 Air Quality ...................................................... 10-89 10.1.6.2.4.1 Climate ....................................... 10-89 10.1.6.2.4.2 Air Quality ................................. 10-89 10.1.6.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................... 10-89 10.1.6.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 10-89 10.1.6.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10-89 10.1.6.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 10-90 10.1.6.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 10-91 10.1.6.4.1 Historic Properties .......................................... 10-91 PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTED ACTION ........................................... 10-91 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS OF CONNECTED ACTIONS ..................................... 10-94 10.3.1 ORION WEST EXPANSION ................................................................... 10-95 10.3.1.1 Human Resources and Land Uses ...................................... 10-95 10.3.1.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety ............ 10-95 10.3.1.1.1.1 Construction ............................. 10-95 10.3.1.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................... 10-95 10.3.1.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ................. 10-96 Impacts to Transportation .............................. 10-97 10.3.1.1.2.1 Construction ............................. 10-97 10.3.1.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................... 10-98 10.3.1.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ................. 10-98 Impacts to Land Use ...................................... 10-98 10.3.1.1.3.1 Construction ............................. 10-98 10.3.1.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................... 10-99 10.3.1.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ................. 10-99 10.3.1.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................... 10-99 10.3.1.1.2 10.3.1.1.3 IX <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.2.2 10.3.1.2.3 10.3.1.3.2 10.3.1.3.3 10.3.1.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-100 10.3.1.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-100 10.3.1.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-101 10.3.1.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-101 10.3.1.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-101 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-102 10.3.1.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-102 10.3.1.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-103 10.3.1.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-103 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-106 10.3.1.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-107 10.3.1.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-108 10.3.1.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-108 10.3.1.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-109 10.3.1.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-109 10.3.1.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-109 10.3.1.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-110 10.3.1.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-110 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-111 10.3.1.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-112 10.3.1.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-113 10.3.1.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-113 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-115 10.3.1.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-115 10.3.1.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-117 10.3.1.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-117 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-119 10.3.1.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-119 10.3.1.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-119 10.3.1.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-119 10.3.1.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-120 10.3.1.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-120 10.3.1.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-120 10.3.1.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-120 10.3.1.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-120 10.3.2 ODESSA TO CRANE ............................................................................ 10-121 10.3.2.1 Human Resources and Land Uses .................................... 10-121 10.3.2.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety .......... 10-121 10.3.2.1.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-121 10.3.2.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-121 10.3.2.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-121 Impacts to Transportation ............................ 10-122 10.3.2.1.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-122 10.3.2.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-122 10.3.2.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-122 10.3.1.3.4 10.3.2.1.2 X <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.1.3 10.3.2.2.2 10.3.2.2.3 Impacts to Land Use .................................... 10-123 10.3.2.1.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-123 10.3.2.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-123 10.3.2.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-123 10.3.2.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-123 10.3.2.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-123 10.3.2.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-123 10.3.2.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-124 10.3.2.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-124 10.3.2.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-124 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-125 10.3.2.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-126 10.3.2.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-126 10.3.2.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-126 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-127 10.3.2.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-127 10.3.2.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-128 10.3.2.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-128 10.3.2.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-128 10.3.2.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-128 10.3.2.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-128 10.3.2.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-129 10.3.2.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-129 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-129 10.3.2.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-129 10.3.2.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-129 10.3.2.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-130 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-130 10.3.2.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-130 10.3.2.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-131 10.3.2.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-131 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-132 10.3.2.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-132 10.3.2.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-132 10.3.2.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-132 10.3.2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-133 10.3.2.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-133 10.3.2.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-133 10.3.2.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-134 10.3.2.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-134 10.3.3 EL PASO GATEWAY ............................................................................ 10-134 10.3.3.1 Human Resources and Land Uses .................................... 10-134 10.3.3.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety .......... 10-134 10.3.3.1.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-134 10.3.3.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-134 10.3.2.3.2 10.3.2.3.3 10.3.2.3.4 XI <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.1.2 10.3.3.1.3 10.3.3.2.2 10.3.3.2.3 10.3.3.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-134 Impacts to Transportation ............................ 10-135 10.3.3.1.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-135 10.3.3.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-135 10.3.3.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-135 Impacts to Land Use .................................... 10-136 10.3.3.1.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-136 10.3.3.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-136 10.3.3.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-136 10.3.3.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-136 10.3.3.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-137 10.3.3.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-137 10.3.3.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-137 10.3.3.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-137 10.3.3.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-137 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-137 10.3.3.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-137 10.3.3.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-138 10.3.3.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-138 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-138 10.3.3.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-138 10.3.3.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-140 10.3.3.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-140 10.3.3.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-140 10.3.3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-140 10.3.3.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-140 10.3.3.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-141 10.3.3.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-141 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-141 10.3.3.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-141 10.3.3.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-141 10.3.3.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-142 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-142 10.3.3.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-142 10.3.3.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-143 10.3.3.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-143 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-144 10.3.3.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-144 10.3.3.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-144 10.3.3.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-144 10.3.3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-144 10.3.3.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-144 10.3.3.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-144 10.3.3.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-145 10.3.3.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-145 10.3.3.3.2 10.3.3.3.3 10.3.3.3.4 XII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.4.1.2 10.3.4.1.3 10.3.4.2.2 10.3.4 CRANE TO EL PASO ............................................................................ 10-145 10.3.4.1 Human Resources and Land Uses .................................... 10-145 10.3.4.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety .......... 10-145 10.3.4.1.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-145 10.3.4.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-145 10.3.4.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-146 Impacts to Transportation ............................ 10-146 10.3.4.1.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-146 10.3.4.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-146 10.3.4.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-147 Impacts to Land Use .................................... 10-147 10.3.4.1.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-147 10.3.4.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-148 10.3.4.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-148 10.3.4.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-148 10.3.4.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-149 10.3.4.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-149 10.3.4.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-149 10.3.4.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-149 10.3.4.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-150 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-150 10.3.4.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-150 10.3.4.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-150 10.3.4.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-150 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-152 10.3.4.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-152 10.3.4.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-152 10.3.4.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-153 10.3.4.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-153 10.3.4.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-153 10.3.4.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-153 10.3.4.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-153 10.3.4.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-154 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-154 10.3.4.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-154 10.3.4.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-154 10.3.4.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-154 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-155 10.3.4.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-155 10.3.4.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-156 10.3.4.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-156 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-157 10.3.4.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-157 10.3.4.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-157 10.3.4.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-157 10.3.4.2.3 10.3.4.3.2 10.3.4.3.3 10.3.4.3.4 XIII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5.1.2 10.3.5.1.3 10.3.4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-158 10.3.4.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-158 10.3.4.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-158 10.3.4.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-158 10.3.4.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-158 10.3.5 9TH STREET JUNCTION TO SPEED JUNCTION ................................. 10-159 10.3.5.1 Human Resources and Land Uses .................................... 10-159 10.3.5.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety .......... 10-159 10.3.5.1.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-159 10.3.5.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-159 10.3.5.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-159 Impacts to Transportation ............................ 10-161 10.3.5.1.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-161 10.3.5.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-162 10.3.5.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-162 Impacts to Land Use .................................... 10-162 10.3.5.1.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-162 10.3.5.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-162 10.3.5.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-162 10.3.5.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-163 10.3.5.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-163 10.3.5.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-163 10.3.5.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-164 10.3.5.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-164 10.3.5.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-164 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-164 10.3.5.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-165 10.3.5.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-165 10.3.5.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-165 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-166 10.3.5.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-167 10.3.5.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-167 10.3.5.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-167 10.3.5.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-168 10.3.5.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-168 10.3.5.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-168 10.3.5.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-168 10.3.5.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-168 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-170 10.3.5.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-170 10.3.5.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-171 10.3.5.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-171 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-173 10.3.5.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-173 10.3.5.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-174 10.3.5.2.2 10.3.5.2.3 10.3.5.3.2 10.3.5.3.3 XIV <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5.3.4 10.3.6.1.2 10.3.6.1.3 10.3.5.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-174 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-174 10.3.5.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-174 10.3.5.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-175 10.3.5.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-175 10.3.5.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-176 10.3.5.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-176 10.3.5.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-176 10.3.5.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-176 10.3.5.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-176 10.3.6 EAST HOUSTON TO HOLLAND AVENUE ........................................... 10-176 10.3.6.1 Human Resources and Land Uses .................................... 10-176 10.3.6.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety .......... 10-176 10.3.6.1.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-177 10.3.6.1.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-177 10.3.6.1.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-177 Impacts to Transportation ............................ 10-177 10.3.6.1.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-177 10.3.6.1.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-178 10.3.6.1.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-178 Impacts to Land Use .................................... 10-178 10.3.6.1.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-178 10.3.6.1.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-179 10.3.6.1.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-179 10.3.6.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-179 10.3.6.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-180 10.3.6.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater ............................... 10-180 10.3.6.2.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-180 10.3.6.2.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-181 10.3.6.2.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-181 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-181 10.3.6.2.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-181 10.3.6.2.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-181 10.3.6.2.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-181 Impacts to Air Quality ................................... 10-182 10.3.6.2.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-182 10.3.6.2.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-183 10.3.6.2.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-183 10.3.6.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-183 10.3.6.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources ................. 10-183 10.3.6.3.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-183 10.3.6.3.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-184 10.3.6.3.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-184 Impacts to Aquatic Resources ..................... 10-185 10.3.6.3.2.1 Construction ........................... 10-185 10.3.6.3.2.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-186 10.3.6.2.2 10.3.6.2.3 10.3.6.3.2 XV <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.6.3.3 10.3.6.3.4 10.3.6.3.2.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-187 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 10-187 10.3.6.3.3.1 Construction ........................... 10-187 10.3.6.3.3.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-188 10.3.6.3.3.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-188 Impacts to Wetlands .................................... 10-188 10.3.6.3.4.1 Construction ........................... 10-188 10.3.6.3.4.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-189 10.3.6.3.4.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-189 10.3.6.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-190 10.3.6.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties ...................... 10-190 10.3.6.4.1.1 Construction ........................... 10-190 10.3.6.4.1.2 Normal Operations ................. 10-190 10.3.6.4.1.3 Accidental Releases ............... 10-190 10.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR CONNECTED ACTIONS ............................................. 10-191 10.4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 10-191 10.4.2 CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 10-191 10.4.2.1 Human Resources ............................................................. 10-191 10.4.2.1.1 Human Health and Safety ............................ 10-191 10.4.2.1.2 Transportation .............................................. 10-191 10.4.2.1.3 Land Use ...................................................... 10-191 10.4.2.3.2 Aquatic Resources ....................................... 10-194 10.4.2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......... 10-194 10.4.2.3.4 Wetlands ...................................................... 10-194 10.4.2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-195 10.4.3 NORMAL OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 10-195 10.4.3.1 Human Resources ............................................................. 10-195 10.4.3.1.1 Human Health and Safety ............................ 10-195 10.4.3.1.2 Transportation .............................................. 10-196 10.4.3.1.3 Land Use ...................................................... 10-196 10.4.2.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-192 10.4.2.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-192 10.4.2.2.1 Groundwater ................................................ 10-192 10.4.2.2.2 Surface Water .............................................. 10-192 10.4.2.2.3 Air Quality .................................................... 10-193 10.4.2.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-193 10.4.2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................... 10-193 10.4.3.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-196 10.4.3.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-196 10.4.3.2.1 Groundwater ................................................ 10-196 10.4.3.2.2 Surface Water .............................................. 10-196 10.4.3.2.3 Air Quality .................................................... 10-196 10.4.3.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-197 10.4.3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................... 10-197 XVI <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.4.4.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................. 10-198 10.4.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ....................................... 10-197 10.4.3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......... 10-197 10.4.3.3.4 Wetlands ...................................................... 10-197 10.4.3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-197 10.4.4 ACCIDENTAL RELEASES .......................................................................... 10-198 10.4.4.1 Human Resources ............................................................. 10-198 10.4.4.1.1 Human Health and Safety ............................ 10-198 10.4.4.1.2 Transportation .............................................. 10-198 10.4.4.1.3 Land Use ...................................................... 10-198 10.4.4.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water ............................ 10-199 10.4.4.2.3 Air Quality .................................................... 10-200 10.4.4.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................ 10-200 10.4.4.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................... 10-200 10.4.4.3.2 Aquatic Resources ....................................... 10-200 10.4.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......... 10-200 10.4.4.3.4 Wetlands ...................................................... 10-201 10.4.4.2 Physical Resources ........................................................... 10-199 10.4.4.2.1 Groundwater ................................................ 10-199 10.4.4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 10-201 10.5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 10-202 11.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 11-1 11.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS ............................... 11-1 11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 11-2 11.3.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................................ 11-3 11.3.2 NORMAL OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ................................................................. 11-4 11.3.3 ACCIDENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................. 11-4 XVII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL TABLES Table 7.2.1-1 Table 7.10.1-1 Table 8.2.2-1 Table 8.2.3-1 Table 8.2.3-2 Table 10.1.1-1 Table 10.1.1-2 Table 10.1.1-3 Table 10.1.1-4 Table 10.1.1-5 Table 10.1.1-6 Table 10.1.1-7 Table 10.1.2-1 Table 10.1.2-2 Table 10.1.2-3 Table 10.1.2-4 Table 10.1.3-1 Table 10.1.4-1 Table 10.1.4-2 Table 10.1.4-3 Table 10.1.4-4 Table 10.1.5-1 Table 10.1.5-2 Table 10.1.5-3 Table 10.1.5-4 Table 10.1.6-1 Table 10.1.6-2 Table 10.1.6-3 Table 10.1.6-4 Table 10.3.1-1 Table 10.3.1-2 Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline Federally Recognized Native American Tribes with Land Claims in Project Area Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Austin Area Aquifers Crossed by the Orion West Expansion Public Water Supply Wells within the Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Quality Summary – Orion West Expansion Summary of 2008 Texas 303(d) Stream Segments List per the Federal Clean Water Act Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Wetlands Orion West Expansion From Frost to Odessa Threatened and Endangered Species of Possible Occurrence in Connected Action Counties1 Aquifers Crossed by the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Water Quality Summary - Odessa to Crane Pipeline Water Bodies within Odessa to Crane Zone of Potential Impact Wetlands From Odessa to Crane Aquifers Crossed by the El Paso Gateway Pipeline Aquifers Crossed by the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Water Quality Summary Crane to El Paso Pipeline Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact Wetlands from Crane to El Paso Aquifers Crossed by the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline Public Water Supply Wells within the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact Water Bodies within 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact Wetlands from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Aquifers Crossed by the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Public Water Supply Wells within the East Houston to Holland Avenue Zone of Potential Impact Water Bodies within East Houston to Holland Avenue Wetlands from East Houston to Holland Avenue Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Orion West Expansion Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Orion West Expansion Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies XVIII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Table 10.3.2-1 Table 10.3.2-2 Table 10.3.2-3 Table 10.3.3-1 Table 10.3.3-2 Table 10.3.4-1 Table 10.3.4-2 Table 10.3.4-3 Table 10.3.5-1 Table 10.3.5-2 Table 10.3.5-3 Table 10.3.6-1 Table 10.3.6-2 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Odessa to Crane Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Odessa to Crane Pipeline Zone of Potential Impact Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking El Paso Gateway Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Crane to El Paso Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction and East Houston to Holland Avenue Sensitivity of Water Bodies within 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Sensitivity of Water Bodies within East Houston to Holland Avenue Zone of Potential Impact XIX <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL FIGURES Figure 8.2.1-1a Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project Figure 8.2.1-1b Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project Figure 8.2.1-1c Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project Figure 8.2.1-1d Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project Figure 10.1.1-1a Environmental Justice Populations on the Orion West Expansion Figure 10.1.1-1b Environmental Justice Populations on the Orion West Expansion Figure 10.1.1-2 Major Aquifers Figure 10.1.1-3 Minor Aquifers Figure 10.1.1-4a Eastern Public Water Supply Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Figure 10.1.1-4b Western Public Water Supply Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Figure 10.1.1-5 Moss Creek API Figure 10.1.1-6 Lake Colorado City and Champion Lake APIs Figure 10.1.1-7 Cities of Clyde and Baird APIs Figure 10.1.1-8 Aquilla WSD API Figure 10.1.1-9 ECO Regions Figure 10.1.2-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Figure 10.1.3-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the El Paso Gateway Pipeline Figure 10.1.4-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Figure 10.1.5-1 Environmental Justice Populations along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline Figure 10.1.5-2 Major Aquifers Figure 10.1.5-3 Southeastern Public Water Supply Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Figure 10.1.5-4 ECO Regions Figure 10.1.6-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline XX <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDICES Appendix 7A Summary of Emission Factors and Rates for Each New Pump Station and Meter Station Appendix 7B Construction Emission Estimates Appendix 9A High Consequence Area Maps Appendix 9B Summary of the Longhorn Mitigation Commitments Appendix 9C Valve Locations Under the Proposed Project Appendix 9D Process Flow Diagram Appendix 9E Referenced Procedures of the 2012 Magellan SIP Appendix 10A Highway and Railway Crossings Appendix 10B SHPO Clearance Letter (Crane to El Paso) Appendix 10C Detailed Integrity Management Information for Each Pipe Segment XXI <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL ACRONYMS µm Micrometers AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AHPA archeological high probability area APE area of potential effect API Area of Primary Influence BA Biological Assessment BEG Bureau of Economic Geology BFZ Balcones Fault Zone BG Block Group bgl below ground level BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practices BO Biological Opinion bpd barrels per day BSEACD Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District CDC Center for Disease Control CDP census designated place CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide COA City of Austin CoF Consequence of Potential CP Cathodic Protection CPM Computational Pipeline Monitoring CT census tract DEM Digital Elevation Model DOC depth of cover DOI Department of Interior DOT US Department of Transportation DRASTIC EPA Methodology Standardized System used for evaluating groundwater EA Environmental Assessment EFRD emergency flow reduction devices EGP Electronic geometry pig EIS Environmental Impact Statement EJ Environmental Justice EO Executive Order EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESL Effects Screening Level XXII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL FBE fusion bonded epoxy FEA Final Environmental Assessment FM Farm-to-Market FR Federal Register FRP Facility Response Plan ft2/d feet squared per day USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GAM Groundwater Availability Modeling GHG greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information System GLO General Land Office gpm gallons per minute GW groundwater H2S hydrogen sulfide HAP hazardous air pollutant HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HC Hill Country HCA High Consequence Area HCFCD Harris County Flood Control District HHS Department of Health and Human Services HIC hydrogen induced cracking IH Interstate Highway ILI in-line inspection IMP Integrated Management Plan IP implementation plan LAER lowest achievable emission rate LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority LDAR leak detection and repair LMC Longhorn Mitigation Commitment LMP Longhorn Mitigation Plan LOPA layer of protection analysis LST Localized Significance Thresholds MASP maximum allowable surge pressure MCL maximum contaminant level mg/l milligrams per liter MIC microbiological influenced corrosion MOCR Management of Change Request MP milepost MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) MSL mean sea level MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether MUD Municipality Utility District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers XXIII <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL NAIP National Agricultural Inventory Program NDE non-destructive examination NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Agency NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLCD National Land Cover Database NNSR nonattainment new source review NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPMS National Pipeline Mapping System NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory O3 ozone OPS Office of Pipeline Safety ORA Operational Reliability Assessment OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration PA Programmatic Agreement Pb lead PGA peak ground acceleration PHA Process Hazard Analysis PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PLDS pipeline leak detection system POE probability of exceedance PoF probability of failure PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers (um) or less PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers (um) or less ppb parts per billion PWS Public Water System QRA quantitative risk assessment REMM Riparian Emergency Management Model ROW right-of-way RRC Texas Railroad Commission RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCC stress corrosion cracking SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer XXIV <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL SIP System Integrity Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SO4 Sulfates SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasure SSESR Site Specific Environmental Study Report STORET EPA database SWSA Source Water Susceptibility Assessment T&E threatened and endangered TAS Turpin & Sons, Inc. TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDS total dissolved solids TEA Texas Education Agency THC Texas Historical Commission THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNRIS Texas Natural Resources Information System TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TWDB Texas Water Development Board TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation TXNDD Texas Natural Diversity Database USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USC United States Code USGS United States Geologic Survey UT University of Texas UTPB University of Texas Permian Basin VOC volatile organic compounds WCID Water Control and Improvement District WPP watershed protection plans WSD water supply district XXV <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 7.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 7 evaluates the potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. As described in Chapter 3, the Proposed Project includes several new construction activities and infrastructure updates. Construction impacts include ground-disturbing activities associated with nine proposed pump stations and upgrading storage capacities at the existing Crane Terminal and East Houston Terminal. Operational impacts analyzed are those associated with pipeline and pump station operation and maintenance associated with the proposed change to crude oil service and reversal of the Longhorn Pipeline. Chapter 9 addresses the existing mitigation of potential impacts identified in this chapter. 7.1.1 Impacts Classification The impacts that could result from the Proposed Project were evaluated by resource: human health and safety, groundwater, aquatic biology, terrestrial biology, surface water, air quality and meteorology, transportation, land use, archeological and paleontological resources, other NEPA impacts, and cumulative impacts. 7.1.2 Event Types Three types of impact category events were studied: construction impacts, operational impacts, and accidental releases. Construction impacts were evaluated for pipelines, pump stations, and infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Operational impacts were evaluated to include the additional and/or incremental impacts associated with any proposed changes to normal operations. Accidental releases include leaks and ruptures. The impacts from leaks or ruptures on the pipeline or at a pump station are treated similarly. In all instances, the impacts are dependent on environmental setting and the quantity and nature of the release. 7.1.3 Evaluating Impacts The current Longhorn Pipeline is a refined petroleum products pipeline and is proposed to be converted, in part, to crude oil service. This evaluation considers, among other things, the potential impacts resulting from the differences of the physical characteristics of refined petroleum product and crude oil. The process of evaluating impacts included defining levels of effect intensity and duration for each impact to a resource that is analyzed in this chapter. 7-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Attribute of Effect Description Negligible No measurable change to the current condition Minor A small, but perceivable change in the current condition Magnitude Moderate A measurable change in the current condition Major An easily measurable change in the current condition Temporary Short-lived (i.e. during construction and remediation) Duration Short-term 3 years or less Long-term More than three years For example, the construction activities may require the removal of vegetation that would result in a minor impact with a long-term duration. The effect of the removal of the vegetation would be a small, but measurable change in the current condition, as it would not have an adverse effect of the environment, but the duration of the effect would be effectively permanent. 7.1.3.1 Gasoline versus Crude Oil The potential for impacts associated with transporting crude oil and refined products is similar, however the nature of the impacts are quite different. This is caused by the differences in the physical properties and the chemical composition of crude oil and refined product. The nature of the impacts depends on the physical surroundings and the interaction with the environment. For example, crude oil moves differently on surface water than gasoline and the nature of the impact varies significantly if the release only impacts soil or if it reaches groundwater. Based on several chemical factors, modeling impacts from specific events were projected differently for crude oil and gasoline (1999 EA, 2000), as follows: • Gasoline may have higher impacts to drinking water, for both groundwater and surface water, primarily because of the higher concentrations of benzene and because transport characteristics make it more likely to reach a drinking water source in the event of a release; • Crude oil may have higher impacts to long-term water quality in groundwater because the higher viscosity, sorbability, and specific gravity make a crude oil release more likely than gasoline to sink deeper into the groundwater column, to resist natural dilution and transport through flushing, and to be less likely to volatilize. This difference in impact varies by aquifer type, stream flow, water temperature, and other factors. • Except in those potential cases involving ignition, in certain environments (such as karsts or caves) crude oil may have greater impacts to the environment than gasoline. In the absence of an ignition, a large crude oil release would result in more severe long- term impacts to human or karst invertebrate species because slower movement rates and absence of volume removal effects of volatilization; and • Gasoline is more likely to ignite than crude oil, and because of the rapid heat release and the wider area of spread from a comparable volume released, a gasoline fire would be expected to result in greater damage than a fire involving crude oil. 7-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.1.3.2 Ignition The differences between a leak resulting in ignition/fire and a standard leak are as follows: • Fires create an immediate threat to human health and safety and to property; • Fires reduce the volumes of released gasoline or crude oil, and therefore reduce contamination of water resources; • Fires associated with spills over rivers or streams can cause fish mortality in the area of the fire and downstream, caused by changes in water temperature and because surface water fires can consume dissolved oxygen in the water; and • Fires increase air quality impacts temporarily because of release of combustion byproducts. 7.1.3.3 Leaks versus Ruptures The impacts from small, but persistent releases can potentially result in a greater impact than large rapid releases (ruptures) because small releases may occur for a longer period of time without detection. Therefore, in the worst case, a small leak would remain below the sensitivity of the leak detection system and would remain undetected until an actual environmental impact was discovered along the pipeline. A rupture may overwhelm an environmental system’s capacity to retard the progress of crude oil from a rupture; conversely, a rupture is more likely to be detected, responded to quickly, and therefore, the contaminant can be contained, removed, or remediated before reaching more sensitive receptors. Both of these possibilities, neither of which can completely be characterized or predicted ahead of time, could have a large impact on the long-term consequences of an event. 7.1.3.3.1 Leaks A pipeline leak most commonly results from corrosion, failure of equipment, or third-party damages. A pipeline leak has a lower spill rate than a pipeline rupture, but may still result in a large loss of crude oil if the volume of the leak is below the detection thresholds of the leak detection systems. The Proposed Project relies on a variety of leak detection systems (see Appendix 6B). Because of the limitations of these detection technologies, it is possible that a leak of 10 bph could go undetected. This type of leak in a populated area should be detected by other means such as patrols or by local residents, and in particular, the vapors, pooling, or stressed vegetation should be readily observable by patrols. However, because this size leak is considered to be possible based on the limits of the proposed leak detection system, it is used as an upper bound for a representative sub-detection threshold leak. 7-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL A leak of this volume could contaminate (1) surface water bodies through runoff or groundwater movement, (2) groundwater, and (3) a large area of soil. 7.1.3.3.2 Ruptures This hazard involves the unlikely event of a full rupture of the pipeline, resulting in a short-term, and high-volume flow of crude oil from the pipeline. The most likely cause of a pipeline rupture would be third-party damage (e.g., a backhoe or drill operator striking the pipeline), but operational upsets or ground movement are also capable of causing pipeline rupture. A large rupture of the pipeline could result in drainage of much of the contents between the two closest valves. As a result of a pipeline rupture, the leak detection system alarms the control center, notifying the controller to shut down the pumps and initiate valve closure immediately after detecting the rupture. 7.2 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 7.2.1 Introduction The human health and safety risks were evaluated related to the Proposed Project. The possible sources of risk and consequence analysis associated with the Proposed Project were considered. The consequences of events have been estimated in qualitative terms. If a major release in a populated area occurs, potential impacts include property damage, reduced property values, injuries, and/or death. Crude oil pipelines have a risk of fire; however, releases from gasoline pipelines are more likely to ignite than crude oil pipeline releases, primarily because of the higher vapor pressure and the lower flash point of gasoline. The focus of this section is to identify potential impacts on populated areas and other sensitive receptors along the pipeline that are within the zone of potential impact. Population density is used to define sensitive and hypersensitive areas for potential impacts to human health and safety. Density measurements are not intended to measure the number of people who could be injured in a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture. Rather, the density measurements will indicate increased likelihood of impacts to human health and safety. Table 7.2.1-1 includes a listing of segments along the pipeline that are sensitive and hypersensitive (refer to Section 7.2.3 for discussion of sensitive/hypersensitive with respect to human health and safety) for potential impacts to population. 7.2.2 Impacts 7.2.2.1 Construction Section 3.1 describes the facility improvements associated with the Proposed Project. Construction activities will include typical earthwork and metal fabrication and is expected to result in negligible impacts to health and safety of the local populations. Air quality during 7-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL construction has been addressed in Section 7.7.2.1 and no adverse impact to local air quality is expected. 7.2.2.2 Normal Operations During normal operation of the Proposed Project, there are minimal impacts expected to human health and safety. Air emissions from the pipeline during normal operation are evaluated in Section 7.7.2.2 and adverse impacts are not expected. Sour crude oil service presents a risk of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) exposure, but per the 1993 EPA Report to Congress (EPA, 1993), EPA determined that H2S was a concern from an accidental release standpoint, but not from a routine operations standpoint. Magellan’s SIP and the LMP will be followed during operation of the Proposed Project. Refer to Section 3.3 for more information for the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project. 7.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases present a potential risk for impacts to human health and safety. The accidental release scenarios include leaks and ruptures. Both of these scenarios present potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) impacts. Releases are most likely to occur at the pump stations, where there are valves, pumps, flanges, etc. Leaks and ruptures can also occur as the result of third party damage (e.g., digging) or other failure modes. The potential human health and safety impacts that could result from a release of crude oil include: • Fire (less likely than gasoline, as the flashpoint of crude oil is less than 140 degrees F); • Short-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from a crude oil spill; - H2S emissions from a release of sour crude are not likely to exceed limits in an open environment. Silver Pipeline Crude Oil Fact Sheet 08-04-11, Yellowstone River spill July 1, 2011, documents that first responders tested H2S in ambient air immediately following the release and it was not at harmful levels. The spilled material was sour crude and contained 2.94 wt% sulfur (EPA SPR04 Analytical Report). H2S odor is detected at 20 ppb, olfactory fatigue occurs at 100 ppm, and levels of 150 ppm are life threatening. - Air dispersion modeling was utilized to obtain conservative ambient air concentrations for the estimated emissions that would be expected to occur as a result of a release of 5,900 barrels of crude oil containing 15 ppm wt of H2S in an upland environment. The modeling results predict H2S concentrations of 6.52 ppmv to occur directly above the crude oil spill. - Benzene (ACGIH TWA of 0.5 ppm, STEL 2.5 ppm) emissions could potentially exceed the established limits but is less likely than for gasoline, as benzene concentrations vary but are lower in crude oil (0-2% as compared to 0.5-3.5% in gasoline). Most of the benzene will volatilize in the first 24-48 hours of a spill so any impact will occur initially; however, evacuation of the public will limit exposure. 7-5 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Long-term exposure (inhalation of hazardous vapors and dermal contact) resulting from contaminated soils; and • Exposure to toxic constituents of crude oil from ingestion (contaminated water, food). The acute impacts from an accidental release include fire and inhalation (short-term exposure). • The fire risk of crude oil, although present, is less than gasoline. Although the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) gives a flammability rating of 3 to both materials, crude oil has a higher flash point. • The primary inhalation exposure risk is from benzene. Crude oil has light fractions that are volatile, but overall is less volatile than gasoline. There is also a risk of exposure to H2S from sour crude, although based on the air dispersion modeling conducted for this FEA, the potential exposure to H2S from transportation and storage facilities is considered to be low. Because of the viscous nature of crude oil, a release of crude oil will take longer to travel than gasoline, potentially allowing more time for response and evacuation. Any inhalation exposure would occur in the open area and not in an enclosed space so it is unlikely that exposure would exceed established limits. A Center for Disease Control (CDC) report (Silver Pipeline Crude Oil Spill in Yellowstone River, July 1, 2011) on the symptoms reported from excessive exposure to crude oil identified the following: • Eye, nose and throat irritation; • Headache; • Dizziness; • Upset stomach; and • Cough or shortness of breath. Sour crude oil contains H2S and the symptoms of human exposure to H2S are well known and range from irritation, breathing disorders, nausea, vomiting, and death. (EPA, 1993) The principal threat of H2S gas to human life is poisoning by inhalation. The most common consequences of exposure to routine emissions of H2S are odor nuisance and eye and respiratory tract irritation. At low concentrations (0.020 ppm), the gas will smell like rotten eggs, however, olfactory fatigue occurs at 100 ppm and is no longer an observation method. Immediate symptoms of benzene exposure are vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid or irregular heartbeat, and death (at very high levels). Benzene causes cancer in humans, and long-term exposure causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection (CDC Facts, 2011). Chronic or long-term impacts from an accidental release include inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion exposures. Clinical guidance published by the CDC identified that the light fractions of crude oil (volatile organic components such as benzene, toluene, xylene, etc.) are an inhalation 7-6 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL hazard initially caused by evaporation of those fractions. Although a longer-term exposure risk exists, it is unlikely to exceed established exposure limits (EPA, 2011). It would be difficult for the public to be exposed to the released material above established exposure limits based on monitoring done for other crude oil releases. It is expected that people will be evacuated for a release that could impact their health and safety. 7.2.2.3.1 Leaks Leaks are more likely to occur at pump stations due to the numerous valves and connections; however, leaks may occur along the mainline. The new pump stations will be located in areas of low density (0-20 residential units within the zone of potential impact), and currently all of the proposed pump stations have been sited in areas with less than 10 residential units within a 1,250-foot radius. The high-density area in Houston starts near MP 12 and continues westward through MP 38. The pump station closest to Houston is at MP 69 (Buckhorn). There are approximately seven residences within the zone of potential impact around the Buckhorn pump station. Section 5.3.4.1 addresses leak detection methodology and response. 7.2.2.3.2 Ruptures The 1999 EA modeled the consequences of a fire at a number of release locations along the pipeline by varying the type of fire (flash versus pool), the volume of the release, and the site- specific maximum release volume, the fuel (crude oil or gasoline), and the heat generation rate for pool fires. The resulting predicted impact distance for flash fire in a heavily populated area was 921 feet from the pipeline for a gasoline leak and 407 feet from the pipeline for a crude oil leak. The conversion of the pipeline to transport crude oil reduces the risk of a fire as the flashpoint for crude oil is higher than for gasoline, and the vapor pressure is lower. A rupture will result in more crude oil being released initially, with it being more likely to be detected, and response would be activated more quickly. The leak detection system would close valves, minimizing the volume of crude oil that would drain down. 7.2.3 Sensitive Receptors The sensitive areas and receptors discussed in this section are considered to have a greater susceptibility to potential impacts from releases, and therefore warrant additional analysis. It is not anticipated that there will be long-term impacts to these sensitive areas and receptors as a result of construction or normal operation. The risks to human health and safety occur from accidental releases, and the exposure pathways are inhalation, ingestion, and contact. Areas of greater potential impact are areas of higher population density, which increase the likelihood of impacts to human health and safety during an accidental release. 7-7 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Sensitive and hypersensitive areas are defined as those areas within the zone of potential impact and at a specified density: Sensitive areas are defined as: • Areas with more than 20 residences per linear mile within the zone of potential impact; • Areas with school and day care facilities within the zone of potential impact; • Areas with health care facilities within the zone of potential impact; and • Areas with parks and recreational centers within the zone of potential impact. Hypersensitive areas are defined as: • Areas with 1,000 or more residences per linear mile within the zone of potential impact. Section 4.1.2 identifies the special use areas within the zone of potential impact along the Proposed Project. The definition of special use denotes the increased vulnerability of occupants of such facilities. These vulnerable occupants include children, the elderly, and the infirmed. The majority of special use areas that occur within the zone of potential impact were identified in the Houston and Austin areas. There are 34 schools and one healthcare facility in the zone of potential impact in Houston, and five schools and one healthcare facility in the zone of potential impact in Austin. No other schools or healthcare facilities were identified within the zone of potential impact along the Proposed Project. According to Section 4.1.1.3, 393.8 miles of the pipeline are considered sensitive (medium density) and 25.5 miles of the pipeline are considered hypersensitive (high density). Table 7.2.1- 1 summarizes areas that are sensitive and hypersensitive along the pipeline route. 7.2.4 Summary The construction and normal operations of the Proposed Project will have a negligible impact on human health and safety. Air emissions have been evaluated as having a negligible impact on air quality (Section 7.7.2). H2S emissions during normal operations of sour crude service could result in an occupational exposure, but is not likely to result in a hazardous risk of exposure to the public (1993 EPA Report to Congress). Therefore, normal operation of the pipeline is anticipated to have a negligible impact on public health and safety. Accidental releases from the pipeline present the following potential impacts to public health and safety: fire and/or explosions, which could result in a major impact of temporary duration; inhalation of hazardous vapors, which could result in a moderate impact of temporary duration, and ingestion of toxic constituents, which could result in a moderate impact of temporary duration. 7.3 IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER 7.3.1 Introduction Section 4.2.1.1 describes in detail those aquifers traversed by the Proposed Project, and the factors used to determine if a groundwater resource area is sensitive to a crude oil release. A groundwater resource area, as described in Section 4.2.1.4, is classified as sensitive if it occurs 7-8 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL within the zone of potential impact. The potential impacts to groundwater resources created by a release of crude oil from the pipeline and the degree of resource sensitivity to a release are discussed in the following sections. 7.3.2 Impacts 7.3.2.1 Construction Activities associated with the construction of new pump stations, installation of storage tanks, or infrastructure updates could result in storm water runoff containing sediment or debris that could enter karst recharge features. Inorganic pollutants such as nitrate and iron could also be taken up by storm water runoff from land disturbance (land clearing or excavation) areas, infiltrate karst or non-karst aquifers, and potentially degrade groundwater quality. A storm water pollution prevention plan for all future work along the pipeline must be in place and followed to minimize such impacts. 7.3.2.2 Normal Operations The Proposed Project will be operated as a closed (isolated) system that does not allow transmitted fluids to leave the pipeline and enter the outside environment. However, small volume releases could occur during routine maintenance, equipment or valve replacement, and pipeline cleaning. Maintenance and repair crews would be onsite to identify any release to ensure that it is contained and remediated quickly to abate any impact. Therefore, impacts to groundwater resources during normal operations of the pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. 7.3.2.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of crude oil could impact a groundwater resource. The overall risk of accidental releases occurring along the Proposed Project is discussed in Chapter 6. Accidental release mitigation and alternatives are presented in Chapter 9. 7.3.2.3.1 Leaks Leaks (steady, localized, low volume releases) could occur along the pipeline and not be of sufficient volume to be immediately detected. A leak going unnoticed for a period of time could substantially degrade groundwater resource quality in that release area. Frequent patrolling of the pipeline is intended to identify visual evidence (vapors emissions, pools, distressed vegetation, etc.) indicative of a crude oil leak and initiate a rapid spill response to stop these leaks and reduce the chances of impacting groundwater resources. Three situations may delay patrols in identifying an ongoing leak that monitoring systems are not able to detect. The first situation is a leak that occurs in an alluvial aquifer immediately beneath a river or stream crossing. Crude oil leaking into the saturated alluvial aquifer is likely to be entrapped in the larger pores of the alluvial aquifer until the surface area of the crude oil release increases to the point that displacement pressure overcomes the porous media capillary 7-9 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL pressure allowing the crude oil to pass through the previously water-saturated pores and into the surface water. This would result in dissolved crude oil constituents being released into the surface water and groundwater before visual evidence (sheen on water surface or floating crude oil globules) of a leak is observed at the river or stream crossing. The second situation is a leak that occurs within the outcrop of a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer. Leaking crude oil would migrate downward through the unsaturated portion of the non- alluvial, porous media aquifer under the influence of gravity and capillary pressure. Lateral movement would be along the bottom of the pipeline trench and into the trench sidewalls with little to no visual indication in surface soil above the pipeline. As the leak continues, the volume of crude oil would increase to a point that is sufficient to overcome the retention capacity of the unsaturated porous media. The underlying porous media will become more saturated and the leading edge of the crude oil would migrate deeper into the unsaturated portion of the aquifer. Eventually, the downward migrating crude oil from the continuous leak would encounter and displace the capillary fringe above the watertable, and spread laterally. The soluble constituents in the crude oil would begin to dissolve into the groundwater creating a dissolved contaminant plume that would migrate further into the aquifer. The third situation is a leak that occurs immediately next to or above a karst feature in a carbonate rock aquifer or an open fracture in a non-carbonate rock aquifer. Leaking crude oil would readily migrate through the karst feature or fractures directly downward into the rock aquifers with minimal contamination of surface soils above the pipeline. The downward migrating crude oil would encounter the watertable allowing soluble crude oil constituents to dissolve into the groundwater creating a dissolved contaminant plume that would migrate further into the aquifer. Under this third scenario, free-phase crude oil could also migrate into caves or to springs and discharge to surface water. Potential groundwater resource impacts are discussed further in Section 7.3.3. 7.3.2.3.2 Ruptures Ruptures (rapid, large volume releases) are a different type of risk to groundwater resources than leaks. Larger volumes of crude oil released at a rapid rate can spread over a longer length within the pipeline trench, or come to the surface and flow down slope for a longer distance. For example, a large volume of crude oil from a rupture release could flow to and enter multiple karst features or open fractures that are remote to the initial release area. This situation would allow a greater volume of crude oil to migrate into and affect a larger rock aquifer area. Likewise, a larger volume of porous media would become saturated with crude oil in excess of the retention capacity allowing the crude oil to migrate downward to the watertable affecting a much larger area of the aquifer. A rupture release of crude oil coming to the land surface could flow overland towards and into aquifer recharge features removed from the pipeline trench and enter an aquifer remotely. Conversely, a crude oil rupture release flowing to the land surface could reduce the potential for groundwater resource contamination by increasing the volume of soil available to absorb the crude oil. Soil having a higher organic carbon content will usually bind to crude oil more strongly 7-10 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (EPA, 1996 and Standen and Opdyke, 2004). Potential groundwater resource impacts are discussed further in Section 7.3.3. 7.3.3 Sensitive Areas/Receptors The sensitive areas and receptors discussed in this section are considered to have a greater susceptibility to potential impacts from releases, and therefore warrant additional analysis. It is not anticipated that there will be long-term impacts to these sensitive areas and receptors as a result of construction or normal operation. The Longhorn Pipeline presently transports gasoline. The environmental impacts of a gasoline release on groundwater resources were addressed in the 1999 EA. The evaluation of the incremental impacts to groundwater resources potentially resulting from the Proposed Project (change to transmission of crude oil) requires knowledge of how gasoline and crude oil behave differently once released into an aquifer. The physical and chemical properties of these two petroleum hydrocarbons differ with respect to mobility, how easily a geologic media will be wetted, and how constituents partition into the water phase. The following discusses the behavior differences of gasoline and crude oil when released to an aquifer. A gasoline release would likely have a greater immediate impact to groundwater resources than a crude oil release. Gasoline contains a higher percentage of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) than crude oil (Burruss and Ryder, 2003 and ATSDR, 1995). Gasoline contains approximately 3.2% benzene and 6.6% total xylenes by weight, as opposed to 0.41% benzene and 3.36% total xylenes by weight in crude oil (ATSDR, 1995 and USGS, 2005). The volatile aromatics present the greatest potential concern because these compounds are more soluble in water than the saturated hydrocarbons (i.e., alkanes and cycloalkanes) that make up the majority of crude oil. Therefore, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons tend to form larger dissolved plumes than the other compounds of gasoline and crude oil. Volatile aromatic hydrocarbon plumes resulting from a gasoline or crude oil release tend to migrate laterally in the subsurface in the direction of groundwater flow extending a greater distance down-gradient than free-phase gasoline or crude oil. The partitioning of dissolved gasoline and crude oil constituents into groundwater is not controlled by the volume of gasoline or oil coming in contact with groundwater, but rather the concentration of the constituents in the gasoline or crude oil (O’Reilly, et. al., 2001). O’Reilly, et al. also demonstrated that benzene is the only crude oil constituent capable of having a dissolved concentration that would exceed a federal drinking water standard. The USGS, in studying the effects of oil and gas production operations on ground-water quality at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area in Tennessee and Kentucky, collected a fresh crude oil sample from an active production well at one of the release sites in the study area to assess the dissolution of petroleum hydrocarbons into water. The USGS study found that dissolved aromatic levels in water were in equilibrium with the aromatics in the crude oil by the tenth day of the study. The USGS study confirmed the findings of the O’Reilly, et al. study, in that, the dissolved benzene concentration in water would exceed the federal drinking water standard. This study also found that the average dissolved toluene concentration (effective solubility) of the three replicate water samples also exceeded its federal drinking water standard; however, dissolved ethylbenzene and total xylenes 7-11 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL concentrations were well below the federal drinking water standard of these two aromatics (USGS, 2005). It should also be noted that gasoline travels faster and farther in aquifers than crude oil because of its lower viscosity and lower surface tension. However, crude oil is more persistent than gasoline, having a higher viscosity, higher surface tension, lower solubility, and lower volatility than gasoline. 7.3.3.1 Karst Aquifers (including Edwards, Trinity-Hill Country, and Edwards-Trinity) The Proposed Project will involve the transport of crude oil from West Texas to the Texas Coast, and discontinue the transport of gasoline and other refined fuels through the Longhorn Pipeline. Environmental impacts from a gasoline release on karst aquifers were addressed in the 1999 EA. The zone of potential impact crosses two major karst aquifers, the Edward-Balcones Fault Zone and the Edwards-Trinity; two minor karst aquifers, the Marble Falls and the Ellenburger-San Saba; and one major fractured rock aquifer with karst features, the Trinity-Hill Country. Rose states in his 1986 study that "Edwards permeability is very high because of karstic porosity development, such as sinkholes, caverns, horizontal fissures, and honeycombed zones. In addition, the Edwards Plateau is crisscrossed by a network of tectonic fractures and joints (Wermund et al., 1978) that provide effective avenues for both vertical and lateral migration of groundwater through the carbonate mass. As a result, water moves downward to the top of the watertable very rapidly-within hours or, at most, several days." Rose’s Edwards permeability description is also applicable to the karst Marble Falls and Ellenburger-San Saba aquifers. His Edwards Plateau description is valid for the Trinity-Hill Country and Edwards-Trinity aquifers that outcrop in the Edwards Plateau. In the absence of any implemented mitigation measures, released crude oil could travel through the trench or over land to and enter an open karst feature or open fracture. The free-phase crude oil would migrate downward through the unsaturated karst feature or fracture and either get trapped in a dead-end pathway, or continue moving downward until reaching the watertable. Upon reaching the watertable, the free-phase crude oil would pool on the top of the watertable and migrate laterally depending on the presence of pores and fractures (Standen and Opdyke, 2004). Rose (1986) estimated that a spill of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) or larger has a reasonable likelihood of reaching the watertable within the recharge areas of the Edwards- Balcones Fault Zone and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. Rose estimated that an oil spill of 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) or more could possibility reach the watertable in the outcrop areas of the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. He also determined that a spill of 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) or more on the outcrop area of the Edwards or Edwards-Trinity aquifers would be expected to contaminate the groundwater of these two aquifers. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a release of the same volumes, as mentioned above, could also reach the watertables of the Trinity-Hill Country, Marble Falls, and Ellenburger-San Saba aquifers if the release occurred within the outcrops of these aquifers in absence of implemented mitigation measures. 7-12 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL After reaching the watertable, dissolved crude oil constituent plumes would develop and move in the direction of groundwater flow with little to no retardation effects (TCEQ, 2002). The dissolved plumes could reach a public water supply well or spring within days or even hours (TCEQ, 2002) depending on the distance and groundwater flow velocity. As indicated earlier, benzene and possibly toluene would be the only crude oil constituents capable of having a dissolved plume with concentrations exceeding its federal drinking water standard. Mace and others (1997 as cited by the TCEQ, 2002) have documented plume lengths of over 7,600 feet in karst aquifers. The crude oil constituents would slowly degrade in the groundwater via natural attenuation, with the lighter fractions, such as benzene, degrading more rapidly (TCEQ, 2002 and Standen and Opdyke, 2004). None of the intermediate by-products of crude oil degradation are more toxic than the parent compounds (Standen and Opdyke, 2004). Residual contamination can be trapped in dry caves and conduits then later mobilize by infiltrating rainwater resulting in a slug of contamination re-entering a karst aquifer (TCEQ, 2002). Residual crude oil adhering to the sides of karst features make it possible for public water supply wells or springs to intermittently discharge contaminated groundwater following a major rainfall event. 7.3.3.2 Fractured Rock Aquifers The Proposed Project crosses one minor fractured rock aquifer, the Hickory Aquifer. Rose (1986) indicated that a rock aquifer comprised of fine-grained sandstone, or other rock with very small pores, will not allow spilled oil to infiltrate or migrate through the rock aquifer as rapidly as a karst aquifer. The presence of large open fractures and/or bedding fissures in the rock aquifer will allow rapid infiltration and migration of surface fluids downward into the bedrock. In the absence of any implemented mitigation measures, released crude oil could travel through the trench or over land to, and enter, an open fracture, joint or fault that penetrates a rock aquifer to the top of the watertable. The free-phase crude oil would migrate downward through the unsaturated open fracture, joint or fault and either get trapped in a dead-end pathway or continue moving downward until reaching the watertable. As with a karst aquifer, once the free- phase crude oil reaches the watertable, it will pool on the top of the watertable and migrate laterally depending on the presence, size and degree of interconnectedness of these fractures (TCEQ, 2002). The movement of contaminant crude oil and dissolved plumes in a fractured rock aquifer would be very similar to movement through a karst aquifer as previously discussed. 7.3.3.3 Porous Media Aquifers Four major, four minor, and one other porous media aquifers are traversed by the Proposed Project. The four major porous media aquifers are, from east to west, the Gulf Coast Aquifer 7-13 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL System, the Carrizo-Wilcox, the Pecos Valley, and the Southern Ogallala. The four minor porous media aquifers are, from east to west, the Brazos River Alluvium, the Yegua-Jackson, the Sparta, and the Queen City. The Colorado River Alluvium is not recognized by the TWDB as either a major or minor aquifer, but is classified as “other” aquifer since it is used as a source of groundwater for drinking water purposes. The porous media aquifers are subdivided into two groups, alluvial aquifers and non-alluvial aquifers. Alluvial porous media aquifers are comprised of alluvium and terrace deposits that are limited to the river or stream valley, are generally unconfined (watertable condition), and groundwater flow is generally towards the river or stream. Non-alluvial porous media aquifers are regional in area, comprised of sediments lain down as, but not limited to, fluvial, deltaic, marine and eolian (windblown) deposits, and are both unconfined and confined (artesian condition). Crude oil released in the outcrop area of a porous media aquifer, alluvial or non-alluvial, would move downward by force of gravity into the unsaturated porous media overlying the watertable. If the volume of crude oil released is not sufficient to overcome the retention capacity of the unsaturated porous media, then the crude oil will sorb onto the porous media and the entire mass will be immobilized (EPA, 1996). However, infiltrating rainwater could dissolve the more soluble constituents from the retained crude oil, transport the dissolved constituents to the watertable, and mix with the groundwater to create a dissolved plume. If the volume of the release is enough to overcome the retention capacity of the unsaturated porous media, the crude oil will migrate downward under the influence of gravity and capillary pressure deeper into the unsaturated porous media to eventually encounter and displace the capillary fringe above the watertable, and spread laterally (EPA, 1996 and TCEQ, 2002). The majority of the free-phase crude oil would spread in the same direction as groundwater flow. However, the crude oil migration would be at a reduced rate compared to gasoline because of the higher viscosity of crude oil and the lower relative permeability of the porous medium to the oil (EPA, 1996). The lateral spreading of the free-phase crude oil will stop once the source of the release is stopped. The soluble constituents of the crude oil would dissolve into the groundwater and a dissolved plume would form. The plume would move away from the source in the direction of the local groundwater flow, which usually mimics the slope of the land surface where the aquifer is unconfined (EPA, 1996 and TCEQ, 2002). Benzene usually moves faster through porous media aquifers than the other volatile aromatic compounds because of its smaller molecular size (TCEQ, 2002). Mace and others (1997 as cited by TCEQ, 2002) compiled data on 605 benzene plumes throughout Texas; 75% of these plumes were less than 250 feet long and impacted an area of less than 49,000 square feet. Potential impacts from a crude release are greater for alluvial aquifers than non-alluvial aquifers. There is a greater potential for free-phase crude oil and dissolved plumes to migrate from an alluvial aquifer to a river or stream. The impact could adversely affect the ecologic health of river or stream, or the quality of surface water that is used for drinking water. The least potential impacts to a porous media aquifer from a crude oil release would be a release over the subcrop 7-14 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL of a non-alluvial aquifer. The confining unit overlying the saturated zone is for the most part comprised of fine-grained sediments (e.g., clay, silt) in which capillary pressures are greater. The higher capillary pressure of the confining unit can restrict the vertical migration of the free- phase crude oil. The overlying confining unit would act as a capillary barrier, thereby, reducing the likelihood that the release will reach the groundwater-bearing unit of the non-alluvial aquifer. 7.3.4 Sensitive Groundwater Resources Section 4.2.1.1 identifies the aquifers traversed by the Proposed Project. The factors used to determine if a groundwater resource along a pipeline segment is sensitive to a crude oil release are described in Section 4.2.1.2. There are four sensitive groundwater categories: drinking water use, aquifer aquatic habitat use, agricultural uses, and recreational uses. The factors used to determine groundwater resource sensitivity to a crude oil release are: • The DRASTIC ranking assigned to an aquifer by the TCEQ; • The Pettyjohn et al. Aquifer Classification Scheme used by the DOT to identify unusually sensitive drinking water and aquifer aquatic habitat resources; • The occurrence of public water system water wells within the zone of potential impact; • The encroachment of either a 2-year time-of-travel or 0.5-mile fixed-radius public water well capture zone within the zone of potential impact; • The depth of the public water supply well; and, • Unique aquifer characteristics (aquifer natural discharge to a rivers and streams). A pipeline segment is an interval along the pipeline, as measured from its MP of origin, where a sensitivity factor change occurs. An example of a sensitive pipeline segment being hypersensitive occurs between MPs 20 and 21 where public water supply wells fifty feet or less in depth produce groundwater from an aquifer outcrop area within the zone of potential impact. Table 4.2.1-4 lists the aquifers traversed by the Proposed Project and identifies those pipeline segments where sensitive groundwater resource areas are present. Some of these sensitive groundwater resource areas are also classified as being hypersensitive to a crude oil release. An area is classified as hypersensitive if: • A shallow public water supply well (50 feet or less in depth) producing from a non-karst aquifer is present within the zone of potential impact; • The capture zone of a shallow public water supply well producing from a non- karst aquifer encroaches into the zone of potential impact; • A public water supply well producing from a karst aquifer outcrop (recharge zone) is present within the zone of potential impact; • The capture zone of a public water supply well producing from a karst aquifer outcrop encroaches into the zone of potential impact; or • Unique karst habitat or karst recreational uses are linked with the groundwater resource. 7-15 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Table 7.2.1-1 lists those pipeline segments where sensitive and hypersensitive aquifer areas occur. 7.3.4.1 Drinking Water Section 4.2.1.2.2 includes an evaluation of groundwater resources relating to drinking water focused on public water supply wells belonging to community water systems and noncommunity water systems as defined by the TCEQ in §290.38 of Part 30 TAC Chapter 290. This evaluation identified two pipeline segments as being hypersensitive with regard to drinking water. These two segments and rationale for classifying as hypersensitive are: • From MP 20 to 21, the recharge zone of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System outcrops and two non-community water system wells less than 50 feet deep are present within the zone of potential impact; and • From MP 170.5 to 173.5, the recharge zone of the of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer-Balcones Fault Zone outcrops and the 2-year capture zones of two community water system wells encroach into the zone of potential impact. Numerous domestic wells used for residential drinking water are present within and adjacent to the zone of potential impact along the pipeline route. The potential exists for a crude oil release to affect one or more private wells. Private water wells were not used as a factor for classifying sensitive and hypersensitive areas. The potential impacts to private water wells would be site- specific and require mitigation measures directed at the specific needs of well owners if an impact occurs. These mitigation measures are discussed further in Chapter 9. 7.3.4.2 Recreational Uses Groundwater resources related to recreational uses were evaluated based on the potential for impacts to caverns and springs having public recreational value. This evaluation identified one pipeline segment as being hypersensitive with regard to recreational use. This hypersensitive segment is from MP 170.5 to 173.5 where the recharge zone of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer-BFZ outcrops. Dye-tracer tests conducted by the COA and the BSEACD in several recharge features in the proximity of the zone of potential impact demonstrates that recharge from these features flows to Barton Springs and other associated springs (Hauwert and others, 2004, Hauwert, 2009 and Turner and O’Donnell, 2004). Therefore, a release of crude oil entering the Edwards Aquifer within the zone of potential impact may have a short- term moderate to major impact on the recreational uses of Barton Springs and other associated springs. Recreation impacts to Lady Bird Lake by way of natural groundwater discharge (springs) is very low considering dye tracer tests by both the COA and the BSEACD show groundwater flow from the pipeline area is to Barton Springs and not Lady Bird Lake or the Colorado River. 7-16 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.3.4.3 Aquifer Aquatic Habitat Uses Section 4.2.1.2.2 includes an evaluation of groundwater resources relating to aquifer aquatic habitat use based on the potential for impacts to caverns and springs having karst and riparian ecologic value. This evaluation identified one pipeline segment as being hypersensitive with regard to karst habitat. This hypersensitive segment is from MP 170.5 to 173.5 where the recharge zone of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer-BFZ outcrops. Dye-tracer tests conducted by the COA and the BSEACD in several recharge features in the proximity of the zone of potential impact demonstrates that recharge from these features flows to Barton Springs and other associated springs (Hauwert and others, 2004, Hauwert, 2009 and Turner and O’Donnell, 2004). The Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer-BFZ in Travis County provides critical habitat for the endangered Barton Springs salamander. Turner and O’Donnell (2004) developed a four tiered Barton Springs salamander rescue plan in the event that an instantaneous gasoline pipeline spill occurred on the outcrop of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards BFZ Aquifer. The tiered responses are based on the estimated volume of gasoline entering the aquifer under various flow scenarios and spill distance from Barton Springs that will result in predicted benzene and xylene threshold levels. As discussed at the beginning of Section 7.3.3, the USGS studied the dissolution of petroleum hydrocarbons into water (USGS, 2005). The USGS found that the maximum amount of total xylenes that could become dissolved in water coming in contact with a crude oil spill was 0.580 mg/l. The first action level for xylenes that is listed in the Barton Springs Salamander Catastrophic Spill Plan is triggered by the exceedance of a total xylenes concentration of 0.990 mg/l. The USGS research suggests that a crude oil spill would not trigger a response due to the presence of total xylenes. While benzene concentrations may exceed the action levels, the concentrations of benzene in crude oil are at least ten times less than the concentrations in gasoline. Therefore, a release of crude oil entering the Edwards Aquifer within the zone of potential impact may have a short-term moderate to major impact on the aquifer aquatic habitat use of Barton Springs and other associated springs. 7.3.5 Agricultural Uses Numerous irrigation and livestock water wells are present within and adjacent to the zone of potential impact along the pipeline route. The potential exists for a crude oil release to affect one or more of these agricultural use water wells. Agricultural water wells were not used as a factor for classifying sensitive and hypersensitive areas. The potential impacts to agricultural use water wells would be site-specific and require mitigation measures directed at the specific needs of well owners if an impact occurs. These mitigation measures are discussed further in Chapter 9. 7-17 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.3.6 Summary Normal pipeline operations and construction activities present negligible to minor impacts to groundwater resources. Typical impacts include silting from construction or maintenance activities, but these are considered minor and temporary. There is a potential for damage to groundwater from a large release of crude oil along much of the pipeline. The relative magnitude and duration of potential impacts from an accidental release to groundwater is highly variable. The impacts to groundwater could range in magnitude from minor to major depending on such factors as the rate of release, the location relative to recharge, and the aquifer type. The duration of the impact is also highly variable and could range from short-term to long-term. The duration is based on the volume of the release, the aquifer characteristics, and the site-specific remediation measures. 7.4 AQUATIC BIOLOGY 7.4.1 Introduction As described in Section 4.3.2, the Proposed Project crosses a number of surface-water features, many of which support important and diverse ecosystems. Surface water features crossed by the pipeline range from small, ephemeral streams to large rivers. In addition, the pipeline also crosses a number of aquifers, some of which are tied closely with surface water and support a number of endemic underground and aquifer-dependent species. A discussion of the environmental consequences related to surface water aquatic species, aquifer-dependent species, and threatened and endangered species is covered in the following sections. 7.4.2 Impacts 7.4.2.1 Construction Impacts associated with new construction are anticipated to result in negligible to minor impacts with temporary disturbances to aquatic resources. New construction requiring ground disturbance would occur at nine locations for the proposed new pump stations located at Buckhorn, Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Eckert, James River, Cartman, Barnhart, and Texon. All potential pump station sites are located 0.1 mile or more from a USGS-identified stream segment. Impacts from the construction activities for these facilities are likely to be short-term and temporary and would not result in direct impacts to aquatic resources. Increased levels of sediment may occur; however, the impacts should be temporary and not result in significant impacts to aquatic life. Permanent impacts would be limited to the footprints of the pump stations and would not overlap with any surface aquatic habitats. Indirect impacts may occur as a result of a decrease of vegetative cover and an increase in impervious cover. The increased impervious cover at the pump station site and modification of adjacent vegetation may result in a slight increase in surface water runoff. 7-18 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL All proposed pump station locations are characterized as typical livestock grazing lands generally dominated by native and introduced grasses with scattered trees and shrubs to open woodland conditions. Because of the general situation of the proposed pump stations in upland areas, permanent impacts to aquatic ecological resources from their construction should be negligible to non-existent. 7.4.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the Proposed Project facilities would result in negligible impacts to aquatic resources. Maintenance of equipment, valve replacement, and pipeline cleaning may result in the release of small quantities of liquids. Maintenance crews would be on site to contain and remediate any release to limit impact. Therefore, impacts to aquatic resources during normal operations of the pipeline are not anticipated. 7.4.2.3 Accidental Releases For the purposes of impacts analysis, an accidental leak is considered equal in severity of impact, whether it occurs along the pipeline, at a pump station, or at a fuel storage terminal. Therefore, low-volume leaks would be considered similar in impact to minor drips and spills at pump stations or fuel storage terminals. This approach was followed in the 1999 EA as well. In terms of overall impacts to landscape-level aquatic resources, gasoline and crude oil spill impacts would have some similarities, but with some important differences. Gasoline toxicity, in many cases, could cause a greater immediate threat to aquatic resources than crude oil. Gasoline is more toxic to aquatic life, can be more difficult to visually detect, and contains more volatile compounds that are more soluble in water. Conversely, the persistence of crude oil in the environment, caused by lower volatility and higher viscosity, if left unabated, may cause greater long-term damage to some resources than lighter, and less viscous, refined products, such as gasoline. For example, crude oil may cause greater impacts in non-turbulent waters by reducing gaseous oxygen transfer through the water surface, whereas gasoline would more readily volatilize. Additionally, although the increased toxicity of gasoline may contribute to greater acute trauma or mortality of aquatic species, chronic exposure to crude oil that persists on surfaces may also lead to prolonged trauma or mortality. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from direct mortality to aquatic species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma (fire) or toxicity, to temporary or permanent impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation. 7.4.2.3.1 Leaks Leaks may potentially contaminate groundwater or surface water through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement, contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to plants and animal species. Depending on the characteristics of the aquatic habitat (flow rate, feature extent, etc.), small low-volume leaks and spills could cause short-term, temporary impacts to aquatic resources. Conversely, leaks that go undetected and ultimately release large volumes of material could result in long-term impacts. Small leaks and spills of low volume would likely 7-19 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL remain as a localized concentration of material and have a low likelihood for off-site transport, while larger volumes could more readily extend offsite and impact additional resources. Leaks that reach aquatic resources could result in localized areas of mortality and subsequent habitat degradation or destruction. Crude oil would have a detrimental impact on existing aquatic vegetation caused by the toxicity of some of its constituents. Also, without remediation, leakage may contaminate the seed bank (subterranean and surficial viable seeds), or alter resource conditions so that affected areas do not immediately support vegetative growth, possibly resulting in increased turbidity and sediment loading. Impacts to aquatic species may be negligible to major depending on duration and volume of crude oil released as well as the general environmental conditions (rainfall, drought, etc.) during the course of the leak. Aquatic species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, could be physically harmed, or killed by thermal stress from fire. Additionally, long-term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected organisms. Other impacts to aquatic resources may include habitat alteration caused by contaminant cleanup and remediation as well as increased human activity in the area. 7.4.2.3.2 Ruptures Ruptures could result in the contamination of groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement, and the contamination of soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to aquatic species. Depending on the duration and amount, ruptures could cause short-term, temporary impacts to aquatic resources such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause long-term or permanent impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water contamination. A release of crude oil could have a detrimental impact on existing aquatic resources because of the toxicity of some of its constituents. A release could affect future recruitment of new individuals into most aquatic organism populations and may contaminate the seed bank (subterranean and surficial viable seeds), or alter resource conditions so that affected areas do not immediately support vegetative growth, possibly resulting in increased turbidity and sediment loading without remediation. Impacts to aquatic species in the immediate area of the rupture could range from negligible to major, but would diminish with distance from the rupture site. Duration and amount of spill would affect overall aquatic impacts as well as the speed of recovery. Other important aspects that would affect overall aquatic impacts include the general environmental conditions (rainfall, drought, etc.) during the course of the leak. Aquatic species inhabiting affected areas could be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, could be physically harmed, or killed by thermal trauma from fire. Additionally, long-term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected organisms. 7-20 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL To assess the degree and duration of a crude oil spill impact requires an understanding of the aquatic habitats affected. In the eastern regions, where organic material, such as leaf pack, organic sediments, and coarse woody debris, and emergent wetland plants and root wads are critical habitat components, oiling of those surfaces can be devastating. In particular, habitats with a high level of complexity and surface area can retain crude oil for extended periods, increasing exposure time to aquatic life. Crude oil often remains partitioned in the water column, helping to reduce potential toxic effects to fish and benthic macro invertebrates. However, once entrained in the water column or upon contact with these complex habitats, crude oil can be sequestered in the ecosystem for extended periods of time, increasing exposure duration. Streams in central and west Texas may not be affected the same way as eastern streams. Habitats in western streams have less organic loading and are generally less complex in terms of how crude oil might be sequestered in the ecosystem. In some areas, stream banks may be comprised of large boulders or bedrock, which offers little opportunity for entrapment of crude oil. However, riffle habitats that consist of cobble and gravel are important habitat features in these streams. Once entrained in the water column, crude oil can penetrate those complex habitats and can severely alter benthic communities. In some reaches, water willow, rushes, and cattail can be important habitats that can trap crude oil. Clean-up response to spills can often lead to severe habitat degradation. In streams with complex organic habitats and gravel/cobble substrates, extracting crude oil can be difficult, and the clean-up can be more damaging than the crude oil. In many cases, oiled overhanging and emergent vegetation and woody debris are removed, altering habitats for long periods of time. 7.4.3 Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species The sensitivity of aquatic resources varies depending on the nature of the release and the resource affected. There is potential to adversely affect aquatic resources in the event of a release at any location where the pipeline crosses a stream or river, or where the release could flow overland into an aquatic environment. Aquatic resources are also at risk where a release may enter into the subsurface and enter directly into an aquifer. As of 21 July 2011, FWS and TPWD lists 35 aquatic plant and animal species as T&E (listed species) that inhabit the counties along the East Houston/Galena Park to Crane segment of Proposed Project (see Table 4.3.1-1). Six of the species are marine organisms and would not be affected by the pipeline. Of the remaining, there are nine fish, ten mollusks, five amphibians, and one plant species that are aquatic, or have aquatic life stages, associated with stream segments within the central and eastern portions of the Proposed Project. Two invertebrates are associated with Comal Springs in Hays County (central portion). The pipeline does not cross the portion of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone contributing to Comal Springs. Therefore, a pipeline spill should not affect Comal Springs or the organisms living in it. The alligator snapping turtle and Cagles map turtle are associated with stream segments in the eastern and central portions of the segment. Recent research suggests that exposure to an oil 7-21 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL spill site for 1 to 2 months may not affect adult turtle survival, but may increase embryo mortality and deformities in subsequent years (Bell, 2005). An indirect impact of oil spills on turtles may be a reduction in availability of their prey (Luiselli, L., and G.C. Akani, 2003). The alligator snapping turtle may be found in portions of the Brazos and Colorado rivers downstream of the pipeline. The habits of the alligator snapping turtle, remaining completely submerged for up to 40-50 minutes at a time, and only leaving the water to lay eggs, are likely to reduce its exposure to spill petroleum. Cagles map turtle is found in Hays County in the Guadalupe River watershed, which does not include the area potentially affected by the pipeline. Consequently, Cagles map turtle is not likely to be affected by a pipeline oil spill. Texas wild rice and the San Marcos and Texas blind salamanders in the San Marcos River headwaters are not expected to be affected by pipeline spills since the pipeline is outside the San Marcos River watershed and the portion of the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone for San Marcos springs. Potential impacts to listed species, while not anticipated, would most likely occur from an accidental release. Impacts to listed species would vary with species, environmental conditions, and the location, chemical make-up, and size of the release. With respect to the aquifer- dependent species, such as the Barton Springs salamander, the degree of potential impact from a release would increase in closer proximity to the spring. Both the Barton Springs salamander and the Austin blind salamander inhabit some of the various discharge springs of the Edward’s Aquifer as well as underground portions of the aquifer. Impacts to either species could potentially occur if an accidental release were to encounter a recharge point for the aquifer. An accidental release into a recharge point would impact portions of the aquifer extending from the recharge point through the underground extent of the aquifer to one or more discharge points. The possibility of a release and impact to either of these salamanders is relatively low, due in part to the extensive engineering controls installed along the pipeline within the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. A review of recent hydrogeologic studies conducted by Nico Hauwert was conducted to assess the potential for a release from the Proposed Project to impact Cold Springs. Cold Springs is a set of at least seven springs located on the south side of Lady Bird Lake on the western side of the Edwards outcrop in Travis County. The minor discharge (4-12 cubic feet per second (cfs)) from Cold Springs may be related to the relatively small area considered to be its contributing groundwater basin. The groundwater basin is only about 12 square miles. Based on several tracer studies conducted by Hauwert (2009), Cold Springs is considered to receive a primary contribution from the Barton Creek drainage. Much of the flow that recharges along Barton Creek may go to Cold Springs rather than Barton Springs because many of the losing stretches along Barton Creek are within these western fault blocks that constitute Cold Springs’ drainage basin. A small contribution may come from Williamson Creek, based on a high-groundwater flow tracer test conducted by Hauwert in 1997. Hauwert (2009) defines the southern extent of the Cold Spring drainage basin to be the Williamson Creek watershed. The Longhorn Pipeline is located farther to the south in the Slaughter Creek drainage. Tracer studies conducted in the Slaughter Creek watershed have 7-22 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL indicated an initial eastward flow and then northward to Barton Springs either through the Sunset Valley Groundwater Basin or through the Manchaca Groundwater Basin (Hauwert, 2009). There is no evidence that these tracers studies have discharged at Cold Springs. The studies indicate that the Cold Springs Groundwater Drainage Basin is relatively small and is restricted to the Barton Creek and Williamson Creek Drainages. It does not extend south to the Slaughter Creek drainage where the Longhorn Pipeline is located. Therefore, any potential leak from the Longhorn Pipeline is expected to travel to Barton Springs either through the Sunset Valley flow route or the Manchaca flow route, and not to Cold Springs. In addition, the Longhorn Pipeline was designed with multiple levels of safety to prevent a leak to the Edwards Aquifer. The level of protection for the pipeline is equal across the entire three- mile segment. If there is a potential flow path on the western area of Slaughter Creek (and therefore the pipeline) to Cold Springs, the level of protection in this section of the pipeline is as high for this area as it is anywhere else along the pipe. The City of Austin has implemented the Barton Springs Salamander Catastrophic Spill Plan which describes when and how the Barton Springs salamander would be protected or rescued should a catastrophic spill of petroleum constituents occur in the Barton Spring watershed. This plan establishes four tiers of response based upon predicted concentrations of xylenes and benzene that would result from a petroleum spill to the watershed. Considerable focus in the modeling performed for this plan was placed upon the sensitivity of the salamanders to xylenes. The creek chubsucker inhabits small headwater streams in Harris County. These streams are generally laden with leaf material, woody debris, and root wads. Crude oil would be easily absorbed by those habitats, causing potential toxicity and clean-up issues. Since most of the streams in which the creek chubsucker is found are small, migrating away from contaminated areas is usually not possible, potentially extending exposure time. The blue sucker inhabits the Colorado River. Due to the size of the river and mobility of the fish, small spills would probably not have a significant impact on the fish. However, a large spill could potentially oil important spawning areas, such as shallow gravel bars and riffles. The general lack of information regarding the distribution of most listed mussel species presents a greater potential for exposure to an accidental release when compared with the other listed species. In general, the mussels would most likely be found along the larger streams, but because of the paucity in data, determining whether a release into a larger stream or river would impact mussels would be more difficult. However, mussels are relatively resistant to short-term stress. Like other mollusks, they can close the valves for short periods to avoid toxicity associated with a release. Some species are known to stay alive for 10 weeks with their valves closed. There is little readily accessible information about response of, and impacts to, freshwater mussels from petroleum spills. Because mussels have the ability to rapidly close their valves when water quality deteriorates, it is expected that a spill of short duration would have limited impacts on adult mussels. Adult mussels are also typically partially buried in the bottom 7-23 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL sediment of a water body and since most petroleum products are lighter than water, adult mussels are usually, at least partially, physically separated from spilled material by the overlying water column. However, crude oil can be retained in bottom sediments for long periods of time, resulting in prolonged toxicity and inability of mussels to colonize substrates. Petroleum spills may affect mussels by increasing toxicity of water to larval mussels, glochidia, which are planktonic for a short period of time and which are parasitic on fish for up to a month. The fish hosts which may be found in these waters may be more exposed to petroleum product toxicity than the adult mussels. Oil spills, whether of short or long duration, which impact fish may impact mussels by reducing numbers of the mussels’ host fish. Direct impacts to larval mussels may be somewhat limited because it is believed the larval stages are in the water column a relatively limited time: a day or two as free-swimming plankton and up to a month as fish parasites. Possible impacts to state-listed mussel species are discussed below: False spike (Quadrula mitchelli) – This mussel has been reported to occur in the Llano River in Mason County (Howells et al. 1996). The pipeline appears to cross the Llano River in Mason County, which suggests that if false spike mussels are present in the Llano River, they may be exposed to any petroleum product spills from the pipeline in Llano County. Golden orb (Quadrula aurea) – The Federal Register (2011) reports that golden orb has not occurred in the Colorado River watershed although earlier reports suggest it was found in the Llano River and Colorado River drainages. If, as reported by the Federal Register (2011), the golden orb is not found in the Colorado River drainage, it will not be affected by a pipeline spill. If, as indicated by earlier reports, the golden orb occurs in the Colorado and Llano river watersheds, it may be affected if a pipeline spill occurs. Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) – Spills from the pipeline are not expected to impact any populations of sandbank pocketbook mussels since it is not believed to occur in the San Jacinto River watershed. If sandbank pocketbook mussels do occur in the San Jacinto watershed, it is unlikely they would be affected by a pipeline spill since the pipeline is located in the downstream, near tidal reaches of the watershed. The mussel would be found upstream of the pipeline in the freshwater portions of the watershed. Smooth pimpleback(Quadrula houstonensis) – The smooth pimpleback mussel could potentially be affected by a pipeline spill since it has been reported to occur in the Llano River, Onion Creek, Colorado, and Brazos river watersheds, all of which are crossed by the pipeline. Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata) - The Texas fatmucket mussel could potentially be affected by a pipeline spill since it has been reported to occur in the Llano River, Pedernales River, Onion Creek, Live Oak Creek, and Colorado River watersheds, all of which are crossed by the pipeline. 7-24 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon) - The Texas fawnsfoot mussel could potentially be affected by a pipeline spill since it has been reported to occur in the Llano River, Onion Creek, Colorado and Brazos river watersheds, all of which are crossed by the pipeline. Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina) - The Texas pimpleback mussel could potentially be affected by a pipeline spill since it has been reported from the Llano River, Pedernales River, Onion Creek, and Colorado River watersheds, all of which are crossed by the pipeline. 7.4.4 Summary Construction activities and normal pipeline operations would likely result in negligible to minor temporary impacts to aquatic resources. No impacts to threatened or endangered species by construction or normal operations are anticipated. Releases potentially affecting aquatic resources, including threatened and endangered species, could result in impacts ranging from negligible to major depending on the duration and volume of crude oil released. Large volume releases could cause short-term, temporary impacts such as acute exposure or displacement of aquatic species, or they could result in long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water contamination. Small volume, persistent releases could cause long-term impacts such as habitat degradation or destruction. 7.5 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 7.5.1 Introduction This section assesses terrestrial species that could be affected by the Proposed Project. The analysis also addresses potential impacts to important habitat within the zone of potential impact. The impacts to ecological resources vary depending on the nature of the impact and the resource being affected. 7.5.2 Impacts 7.5.2.1 Construction The Crane to East Houston segment of the Proposed Project does not involve any new pipeline construction; therefore, no new impacts are anticipated with pipeline construction. The Proposed Project includes the construction of nine new pump stations along the pipeline and new storage tanks at the Crane and East Houston facilities. Each proposed pump station is anticipated to be approximately 2.5 acres in area. The storage tanks will be installed within the existing property boundaries. The location of each pump station was initially determined by a hydraulic model. The proposed location of each pump station was evaluated by experienced natural resource scientists to determine if unique ecological resources were present at the site. These habitat assessments consisted of conducting a desktop assessment of the physical setting including wetlands, vegetation, and the documented presence of threatened or 7-25 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL endangered species. A field investigation was then conducted at each proposed pump station to determine if sensitive or unique natural resource conditions existed. Favorable site locations are those that would avoid impacts to ecological resources. Proposed locations of each pump station are illustrated in Figure 3.1-1. Impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the construction of new pump stations could be negligible and temporary to long-term. Observations made during habitat assessment indicate that the Industry pump station location is in an open field that is primarily used for grazing. All trees and most other terrestrial resources beneficial to wildlife have been removed or altered to short grasses for grazing. The proposed Bastrop pump station is located on an abandoned/decommissioned facility where most terrestrial resources have also been removed. It is not anticipated that new construction activities would result in adverse effect on terrestrial resources for any of these sites. Increased levels of noise and human activity during construction could potentially disrupt behavioral activities (breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, and sheltering) of individual animals using adjacent areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary, resulting in minor impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations. Observations made during the habitat assessment indicate that construction of the Buckhorn, Texon, Cartman, and James River locations could result in both short-term and long-term disturbances of woodland habitat that could directly affect terrestrial resources. Approximately ten acres of total impacts to vegetation are anticipated with the proposed construction of these facilities. However, based on habitat assessments conducted at each site, construction at these sites will not result in the removal of unique ecological resources which may provide habitat to protected species. The impacts to the adjoining area are expected to be short-term with revegetation occurring following completion of construction activities. Increased levels of noise and human activity during construction could potentially disrupt behavioral activities (breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, and sheltering) of individual animals. Disruption of such activities would be temporary, resulting in minor impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations. Long-term impacts would include removal of vegetation and degradation of habitat through permanent alteration of resources (e.g., habitat fragmentation, changes in vegetative composition or structure, soil compaction). No unique or special habitats will be impacted by the construction of the pump stations, storage tanks, or facility infrastructure upgrades; thus, the impacts will be negligible. Occasionally, small, low-mobility animals (e.g., amphibians, small reptiles, and small mammals) may be permanently displaced, injured, or killed during new construction activities; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid the construction area during active work periods. Impacts would be localized, confined to the construction footprint and adjacent areas required for access, and occur only where new construction requires long-term modification or destruction of terrestrial habitat. 7-26 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.5.2.2 Normal Operations The operations of an additional nine new pump stations and additional storage tanks at two separate facilities would result in negligible impacts to terrestrial resources. Potential adverse impacts include increased levels of noise associated with normal operations of pump stations. However, noise increases are expected to have negligible to minor impacts on terrestrial faunal populations, and individuals should acclimate, to an indeterminable extent, to this disturbance over time. Increased human activity would be a recurring, but infrequent disturbance causing only temporary disruption of animal behavior (breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, and sheltering) for individuals using new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary, resulting in negligible impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations. 7.5.2.3 Accidental Releases Impacts associated with accidental releases range from temporary to long-term resulting from contaminant cleanup and remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. 7.5.2.3.1 Leaks Releases may contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement; contaminate soil; and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, leaks and spills could cause short-term, temporary impacts to terrestrial plant and animal species associated with low-volume spills, or they could cause long-term impacts associated with small leaks that go undetected and ultimately release large volumes of material. Leaks and spills of low volume would likely remain as a localized concentration of material and have a low likelihood for off-site transport, while larger volumes could more readily extend offsite and impact additional resources. Potential impacts to the species from leaks include habitat degradation or destruction, displacement of individuals, adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. Habitat degradation or destruction would result from impacts to terrestrial ecological resources, which affects habitat suitability for terrestrial fauna. Habitat generalists, such as the coyote, gray fox, raccoon, Virginia opossum, hispid cotton rat, nine-banded armadillo, and white-tailed deer, would likely be less impacted from such habitat degradation or destruction than habitat specialists, such as the pig frog, pickerel frog, marbled salamander, barred tiger salamander, southern leopard frog, eastern narrowmouth toad, Texas toad, and others. Impacts to terrestrial fauna would also depend on the mobility of species present. Whereas mobile animals species, such as avian species and medium and large mammals, may abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills, less mobile animal species, such as some small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, would be more susceptible. Additionally, species at higher trophic levels, such as raptors, vultures, and large predators, could be more susceptible to impacts from consumption of contaminated prey due to bioaccumulation or as a result of biomagnification. Physiological 7-27 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL impacts from small leaks could be greater for amphibian species due to the uptake of toxins through their skin. Other impacts to individuals may include displacement caused by increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. A small leak detected early enough would likely remain confined within the existing ROW. A small leak that went undetected over a long period of time may have the same impacts as a rupture. Impacts to terrestrial plant and animal populations would be negligible due to concentrated clean up, remediation, habitat restoration, and recolonization by terrestrial species following a small leak. 7.5.2.3.2 Ruptures Ruptures at the pipeline or pump stations could contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement; contaminate soil; and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, ruptures could cause short-term, temporary impacts to terrestrial plant and animal species such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause long-term impacts such as plant or animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or soil contamination. Ruptures would likely result in the loss of existing vegetation, as well as contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth, and dependent faunal species, without remediation. Potential impacts to the species from ruptures include habitat degradation or destruction, displacement of individuals, adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. Habitat degradation or destruction would result from impacts to terrestrial ecological resources, which affects habitat suitability for terrestrial fauna. Habitat generalists, such as those species previously mentioned in Section 7.5.2.3.1, would likely be less impacted from such habitat degradation or destruction than habitat specialists. Impacts to terrestrial fauna would also depend on the mobility of species present. Some animal species may be directly impacted by ruptures; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by ruptures. Whereas mobile animal species, such as avian species and medium and large mammals, may abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills, less mobile animal species, such as some small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, would be more susceptible. However, the instantaneous nature and larger scale of ruptures compared to leaks would limit the ability of terrestrial fauna to escape the affected area. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas could be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should ignition occur, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected terrestrial fauna. Additionally, aerosolized products from ruptures, combined with high winds, could disperse crude oil to greater distances, causing temporary or long-term impacts to terrestrial resources by coating plant leaf surfaces and preventing photosynthesis or gas exchange; coating wildlife species, and causing skin irritation, toxicity, and mortality; coating airways and causing respiratory trauma; coating smaller prey species and making them unpalatable to predator species; contributing to bioaccumulation or biomagnification of chemical constituents; and 7-28 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL causing overall degradation of habitat quality and function. Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include species displacement from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. 7.5.3 Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species This section assesses terrestrial federal and state-listed threatened or endangered species and federal candidate species that could be affected by the Proposed Project. This analysis also addresses potential impacts to habitat along the existing pipeline and at future pump station locations and storage tank sites. Impacts to threatened and endangered species were assessed within the footprint of proposed new construction with consideration to construction, operations, and accidental releases. 7.5.3.1 Construction Experienced wildlife biologists conducted habitat assessments within the areas subject to proposed construction impacts to assess the potential for threatened or endangered species to occur. Assessments were conducted by FWS permitted biologists, when applicable, with documented experience in the identification of habitat of specific species identified in Table 4.3.1-1. Habitat assessments evaluate the occurrence of vegetation and physical settings necessary for sustaining a particular species, as described by FWS, TPWD, or other prevailing scientific literature. The habitat assessment conducted for each site included in this FEA began with a review of current aerial photography and reported occurrences of threatened or endangered species provided by the TPWD Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD). Upon establishing the general habitat conditions, the biologists then conducted a site reconnaissance to observe if the necessary conditions for suitable habitat actually exist in the study area. The species are habitat-dependent, and primary habitat features may include vegetation type, soil type, or vegetation coverage. These observations made by the biologists during the site reconnaissance are important in the determination if the suitable habitat exists at the site. As discussed in Section 7.5.2.1, the Proposed Project does not include any new pipeline construction, and therefore, no new impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated by pipeline construction. However, the Proposed Project includes nine new pump stations and two additional storage tanks at two existing sites. The purpose of the habitat assessments was to assess the potential to impact federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, as well as those listed as federally-proposed candidate species. This assessment included several protected species that have the potential to occur within the zone of potential impact. According to TPWD, six terrestrial species potentially occur within the zone of potential impact: the federally-listed endangered Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis), golden- cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Texas prairie dawn flower (Hymenoxys texana), Navasota ladies-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), and Tobusch fishhook cactus (Ancistrocactus tobuschii) as well as the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard (Phyrnosoma cornutum). The TPWD indicates that the proposed Bastrop, Warda, Industry, and Buckhorn pump stations are located within potential breeding habitat for the Houston toad. The distribution of the Texas horned lizard extends throughout the western half of 7-29 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas and includes a variety of arid and semi-arid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sandy soils that support patchy bunchgrasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs preferred by the species (Henke and Fair, 1998; TPWD, 2009). Conditions necessary for suitable habitat for the Houston toad include loose, deep soils which support loblolly pine, post oak, sandjack oak, native grasses, and little bluestem. Conditions observed by a FWS permitted biologist during the site reconnaissance at the Bastrop, Warda, Industry, and Buckhorn sites indicated the absence of these conditions to provide suitable habitat for the Houston toad and the Texas horned lizard. Although preferred habitat and ecological conditions were not observed at the proposed sites, it is still possible, though unlikely, that these species may occur within the vicinity of proposed construction locations. Impacts associated with new construction include temporary, short-term disturbances that could directly affect the Texas horned lizard or the Houston toad. Increased levels of noise and human activity during construction could potentially disrupt behavioral activities of individual Texas horned lizards or Houston toads that use new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary and minor. The habitat for the federally endangered black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked Warbler is known to occur along selected segments of the Proposed Project from Schleicher County to Travis County. The typical nesting habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler will include a mix of juniper and deciduous trees on slopes, along drainage bottoms, and in creeks. For the habitat to be suitable, the mixture and maturity of the trees is important. The black-capped vireo, on the other hand, prefers a shrub vegetation which extends from the ground to about six feet or more and covers about 30% to 60% or greater of the total area. Site reconnaissance conducted by FWS permitted biologists confirmed that none of the proposed pump station and storage tank sites support the necessary components in the landscape that are required by threatened and endangered species for breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, or sheltering. The location of the proposed Texon station was moved 1,000 feet east of the original location to avoid proximity to black-capped vireo habitat defined in the 1999 EA. Several state and federally-listed bird species could occur in the vicinity of the proposed new construction sites, though specific habitat for these species was not identified during the habitat assessment, and such occurrence would likely be limited to a rare stopover during migration. The habitat for the Texas prairie dawn flower occurs over a very small geographic area and is documented to occur in sparsely vegetated areas on slightly saline soils in coastal prairie grasslands. In contrast, the habitat for the Tobusch fishhook cactus occurs on the Edwards Plateau in very shallow gravelly soil over limestone among live oak-juniper shrublands. The Navasota ladies’-tresses occur in moist soils along the margins of intermittent tributaries of the Brazos and Navasota Rivers. Conditions observed in the vicinity of the proposed construction sites during the habitat assessment were not suitable for the occurrence of these species. Additionally, none of these plants were observed during the site reconnaissance. A thorough process involving desktop research, agency consultation, aerial photograph review, and site reconnaissance was conducted by experienced biologists to assess the potential for construction activities to impact threatened and endangered species. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project are not anticipated to impact threatened and endangered species. 7-30 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.5.3.2 Normal Operations Potential adverse impacts from normal operations of the new pump stations and storage tanks include increased levels of noise and human activity. Elevated ambient noise levels associated with normal operations should have negligible impacts on Texas horned lizard and Houston toad populations, and individuals should acclimate, to an indeterminable extent, to this disturbance over time. For the Proposed Project, the TXNDD shows potential habitat for the Houston toad, golden- cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo, Texas prairie dawn, Navasota ladies’-tresses, and the Tobusch fishhook cactus. Previous surveys have shown that none of these species have been documented within the actual pipeline ROW. However, the golden-cheeked warbler, black- capped vireo, and the Tobusch fishhook cactus have been observed in the vicinity of the ROW. According to a recent study (Buzo, 2008), the range of the Houston toad may extend eastward approximately six miles beyond the current Designated Critical Habitat Zone (MP 125-134.5) to near MP 119. In an effort to provide a greater level of protection to the Houston toad, Magellan will extend timing and work restrictions referenced in the LMP to the entire Designated Critical Habitat Zone and also to the segment of the ROW from the eastern boundary of the Designated Critical Habitat Zone (MP 125) to near MP 119. This would effectively increase the linear distance of the ROW with timing and work restrictions from 3.4 miles to over 15.4 miles. These timing and work restrictions define maintenance activity to be avoided during the period from January to June, and construction activity to be avoided from February to October. If work on the ROW is unavoidable to remain in compliance, avoidance and minimization measures would be employed. These measures are designed to minimize impacts to the Houston toad, and may include (1) fencing ROW work areas, (2) conducting daily surveys for Houston toads within the ROW work areas, and (3) removal and relocation of any Houston toads found in the ROW work areas. Therefore, no impacts to terrestrial threatened and endangered species from operations or routine maintenance are anticipated. 7.5.3.3 Accidental Releases Impacts to terrestrial threatened and endangered species from accidental releases range from direct mortality to temporary or long-term impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). 7.5.3.3.1 Leaks Releases may contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement; contaminate soil; and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, leaks and spills could cause short-term, temporary impacts to threatened and endangered species associated with low-volume spills, or they could cause long-term impacts associated with small leaks that 7-31 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL go undetected and ultimately release large volumes of material. Leaks and spills of low volume would likely remain as a localized concentration of material and have a low likelihood for off-site transport, while larger volumes could more readily extend offsite and impact additional resources. Potential impacts to the species from leaks include habitat degradation or destruction, displacement of individuals, adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. Habitat degradation or destruction would result from impacts to terrestrial ecological resources, which affects habitat suitability for the Texas horned lizard and Houston toad. Individual Texas horned lizards or Houston toads could be directly impacted by small spills and leaks; however, most individuals would abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills. Other impacts to individuals may include displacement caused by increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. A small leak detected early enough would likely remain confined within the existing ROW. Should the leak remain confined, it is not anticipated that impacts to threatened or endangered species would occur since none of these species have been identified within the ROW. 7.5.3.3.2 Ruptures Ruptures may contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement; contaminate soil; and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could result in short-term, temporary impacts to individual threatened and endangered species such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could result in long-term or permanent impacts such as mortality or habitat destruction/alteration. As such, the spatial extent of the affected area would be greater for large ruptures and/or small leaks of long duration than for short-term, localized small-volume leaks. Impacts resulting from ruptures were analyzed within the zone of potential impact. Determination of potential threatened and endangered species occurrence within this larger area was assessed by desktop review. Included in this evaluation were the habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence within the respective county (as discussed in Section 4.3), high-resolution aerial interpretation of habitat types observed along the pipeline/new construction areas, and the proximity of recorded species occurrences (TXNDD, 2011). The evaluation supported the potential occurrence of six terrestrial species within the zone of potential impact: the federally-listed endangered Texas prairie dawn flower, Houston toad, golden-cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo, Navasota ladies’-tresses, and Tobusch fishhook cactus as well as the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard, within the zone of potential impact. Potential impacts to these threatened or endangered species from an accidental release of large product volume (large rupture or small leak over long duration) include habitat destruction, displacement, and/or adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. 7-32 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Additionally, aerosolized material from large ruptures, combined with high winds, could spread crude oil to greater distances, causing temporary or permanent impacts to the species by coating individuals, causing skin irritation, toxicity, and mortality; coating airways and causing respiratory trauma; coating prey species and making them unpalatable; contributing to bioaccumulation of chemical constituents; and causing overall degradation of habitat quality and function (FWS, 2004; 2010). Other impacts to these species may include displacement from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. 7.5.4 Summary Construction activities and normal pipeline operations may result in negligible to minor, temporary impacts to terrestrial resources. No impacts to threatened and endangered species from construction or normal operations are anticipated. Impacts to terrestrial resources, including threatened and endangered species, could range from negligible to major depending on the duration and volume of crude oil released. Large volume releases could cause short-term, temporary impacts such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water and soil contamination. Small volume, persistent releases could cause long-term impacts such as habitat degradation or destruction. PHMSA and Magellan conducted discussions with USFWS regarding three species (black- capped vireo, Houston toad, and Barton Springs salamander) specifically identified by the agency. Magellan implemented additional mitigation efforts designed to avoid impacts to these species, as described below. USFWS acknowledged these mitigation efforts for the expansion, protection and conservation of these species, and did not request further action. Based on these discussions PHMSA determined no further mitigation or consultation was required. 7.6 IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER 7.6.1 Introduction The Proposed Project crosses three major river basins in Texas: San Jacinto, Brazos, and Colorado. In addition, the pipeline crosses 56 stream lines, based on USGS 1:100,000 hydrography. A description of the major river and stream crossings, including a description of streamflow regime, downstream water quality, and downstream water rights for the crossings, is provided in Chapter 4. 7.6.2 Impacts 7.6.2.1 Construction Construction related to the Proposed Project will include the installation of pump stations, meter stations, and storage tanks. These infrastructure improvements will occur at selected locations along the entire reach of the Proposed Project from Crane Station to the 9th Street Junction near 7-33 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the East Houston Terminal and may result in site conditions that could impact the surface water quality of storm water runoff for sediments, if not controlled. BMPs will be implemented; therefore, no long-term impacts will result from construction-related activities (see Section 9.2.1.2 for appropriate BMPs). Impacts to waters of the U.S. resulting from construction activities will be minimized primarily through avoidance. Sites undergoing construction have been selected to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters. However, when jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) cannot be avoided, activities would be conducted in accordance with the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Nationwide General Permits are issued under Section 404 by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a category of activities that may cause only minimal individual and cumulative adverse impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Various methods, such as horizontal directional drilling, can be used to meet the requirements of the Nationwide 12 General Permit. This permit is applicable to the construction, maintenance, repair and removal of pipelines and related facilities in waters of the U.S., provided the activity does not result in the loss of more than 1/2 acre of waters of the U.S. Impacts to jurisdictional waters related to the Proposed Project will be minimal and in accordance to Nationwide 12 General Permit. 7.6.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the Proposed Project will not significantly change from existing operations; therefore, no new or additional impacts are anticipated. 7.6.2.3 Accidental Releases A leak or rupture of the pipeline or storage vessel resulting in a release of crude oil to the environment could contaminate surface waters. This could result from: • A leak directly at a point where the pipeline crosses over or under a river or stream; • Contamination of groundwater resulting in crude oil constituents entering a surface water body from seeps, springs, or alluvial baseflow; • Overland flow of crude oil from a rupture to a surface water body, particularly through a normally dry gully, streambed, or arroyo; or • In urban areas, runoff to streets or paved areas and then to storm drain sewers, which transport the spill directly to a stream or river. The potential impact of a crude oil release into a water body is a complex issue because of the extreme variability in the water bodies that are within the zone of potential impact, i.e., canals, perennial streams, ephemeral streams, large rivers, and lakes. In addition, there are variable impacts related to such factors as the release rate, the proximity of the release to a water body, the weather conditions, the size and shape of the receiving water shoreline, and the flow characteristics of the water body. The impact of a crude oil release to a river or stream would be a function of the water flow in the river at the time of the spill and the volume of crude oil released. As discussed in Section 7-34 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 4.2.2.2.2, the watersheds of the rivers crossed by the pipeline are highly variable in size. Accordingly, the flow regimes of these stream crossings would be highly variable based upon seasonal variations and storm events. At times of high stream flow, the oil would rapidly be dispersed downstream and toxic constituents contained in the oil would be diluted. Depending upon the location and volume of the spill relative to the river, the spill could only impact one bank. However, the length of the impacted area downstream of the spill would be larger than if the spill occurred at a time of low flow conditions. For the largest expanse of impacted surface water, aquatic organisms would be exposed to relatively low concentrations of oil constituents that would quickly be broken down. Oil along the riverbanks would tend to adhere to natural and manmade features such as plants, rocks, sand, bridge tressels, docks, etc. At times of low flow, the dilution of toxic constituents in the oil would be less, but the area of impact would also be reduced. If the water body is dry, the oil would form a pool and/or percolate into the bed materials. If there is still or stagnant water in the water body at the point of the oil entry, the oil would spread out on the surface leading to concentration of toxic constituents in the oil, and the area of impact would be small compared to that of a moving water body (NOAA/API, 1994). Releases to large bodies of water such as lakes would tend to accumulate near the source of the release and to disperse evenly in the absence of wind. During windy conditions the oil would tend to disperse and move in a windward direction towards a shoreline. Open waters are considered to have low to medium sensitivity to oil spill impact because physical removal rates are high, water-column concentrations of oil can be rapidly diluted, and most organisms are mobile enough to move out of the area affected by the spill. Enclosed and protected areas of large lakes are more sensitive than offshore and near shore waters because of slower dilution rates. Human use of affected areas may be restricted for a period of time, potentially limiting access for navigation, transportation, water intakes, or recreational activities during the spill (NOAA/API, 1994). When crude oil is released or spilled onto the surface of any water body, it undergoes a number of physical and chemical changes that are generally referred to as “weathering”. The primary processes associated with weathering are as follows: • Spreading; • Evaporation; • Dispersion; • Dissolution; and • Emulsification. These processes dominate in the first few days to weeks of a spill, and, except dissolution, these processes may dramatically change the nature of the oil. In addition, a number of longer- term processes associated with weathering include the following: • Biodegradation; • Photo- and auto-oxidation; and • Sedimentation. 7-35 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL These longer-term processes are less important than the first five weathering-associated processes for the initial prediction of the fate of spilled oil, and their contribution to the oil fate is typically neglected in models. These are, however, more important in the later stages of weathering and usually determine the ultimate fate of the spilled oil. 7.6.3 Potential Impacts to the Lower Colorado River Basin The sensitive areas discussed in this section are considered to have a greater susceptibility to potential impacts to drinking water supplies from releases, and therefore warrant additional analysis. It is not anticipated that there will be long-term impacts to these sensitive areas and receptors as a result of construction or normal operation. 7.6.3.1 Rivers and Streams In the 1999 EA, stream flow modeling was conducted to represent rivers and streams crossed by the pipeline in the Lower Colorado River Basin. A description of this study and the findings were provided in Appendix 7F- Technical Memorandum Surface-Water Modeling, Longhorn Partners Pipeline of the 1999 EA and included the evaluation of various spill scenarios on the Colorado River crossing east of Bastrop, the Onion Creek crossing in the southeastern portion of Austin, and the Pedernales River crossing in Blanco County. While the original intent of the modeling was to evaluate the fate/transport properties of benzene and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at different release volumes and stream flow conditions, the modeling was also performed for a crude oil release. A one-dimensional (1D) Riparian Emergency Management Model (REMM) from the USACE was used in the 1999 EA and remains applicable for this assessment. The REMM modeling was performed to evaluate potential impacts to public drinking water supplies and the potential impacts to human health associated with the use of water consumption. Some of the major assumptions used in this model are as follows: • Pollutants instantaneously mix in the water column; • Water column is completely mixed; • Degradation processes are first-order reactions; • Interactions with the bottom sediments do not occur; • Longitudinal dispersion of floating substances is effectively modeled by dissolved substances; • Wind dispersion and shoreline effects are not considered, although wind impact on evaporation is considered; • The volume of benzene in gasoline is assumed to be 4.9%; and • The volume of benzene in crude oil is assumed to be 0.14%. 7-36 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The effects of a spill of gasoline versus a spill of crude oil were modeled to consider two spill scenarios, i.e., a 50-barrel (bbl) release and a 2,000-bbl release at low and median stream flow conditions. Figure 5-4 contained in Appendix 7F of the 1999 EA presented the results of a crude oil spill of similar size to the gasoline spill presented in Figure 5-1 of the same document at low and median flow. The results of the modeling in the 1999 EA showed a much slower loss rate of crude oil as compared to gasoline. Even with an order-of-magnitude lower initial concentration of benzene in crude oil vs. gasoline, ultimate concentrations are not significantly different. In particular, the low flow case never drops below the maximum contaminant level (MCL), and in fact, remains higher than the median flow case for the entire reach modeled despite the much longer travel time. This is likely because of the lower volatility of crude oil. 7-37 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The crude oil model of a release to the Colorado River indicates that for the first 20 miles there is a significant reduction in the concentration of benzene as the stream flow increases. By the time the benzene carried by the crude oil release reaches a point 95 miles downstream of the point of release, the benzene concentrations for both flow regimes taper off to the same level: at or near the threshold value of 5 ppb. A similar scenario was repeated for the comparative modeling of a release of crude oil versus gasoline to Onion Creek. The concentration of benzene in a crude oil release of 50 bbls is indicated to be significantly reduced over the first five stream miles of travel. For gasoline, it takes the first five miles for the concentration of benzene to reach the initial beginning concentration that was assumed to be present for a crude oil release. For all comparative modeling of crude oil versus gasoline, the models predicted that the impacts of crude oil and gasoline would be similar in terms of the distance of downstream impacts and that the concentrations of benzene would be less than those of gasoline for the same spill scenarios. 7-38 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.6.3.2 Lakes The surface water modeling conducted in the 1999 EA predicted that the Highland Lakes could theoretically be impacted by a large-volume leak upstream, resulting in a period of time when concentrations of benzene would exceed regulatory MCLs and guidance criteria. This scenario would require a large release traveling from a crossing within either Barton Creek or Pedernales River watersheds, resulting in water within Lady Bird Lake, Lake Austin, or Lake Travis exceeding threshold drinking water criteria. This model predicted that impacts to Lake LBJ from spills within the Sandy Creek or Llano watersheds as unlikely. 7.6.3.2.1 Lake Travis and Pedernales Watershed Studies In the 1999 EA, additional modeling was performed using highly protective assumptions to evaluate the potential for the contamination of Lake Travis, since it is the water supply for up to one million people served by the LCRA and City of Austin. A two-dimensional model, i.e., the USACE’s CE-QUAL-W2 model, was used. (A detailed description of the model and the findings were provided in Appendix 7G of the 1999 EA.) The W2 model is still recognized as a state-of- the-art reservoir hydrodynamic and water quality model. W2 has been successfully applied to over 200 different systems inside and outside the United States. It is the reservoir model of choice for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), USGS, USACE, and the EPA. Since Lake Travis has a length to width ratio of approximately 100:1 with very little variation until you approach the dam, the assumptions made by the model would appear to be valid. The parameters being modeled consisted of benzene and MTBE. W2 is a recognized model framework for organic constituent modeling. The modeling that was performed for the 1999 EA was carried out in three stages. In the first stage, modeling was performed to determine the concentration of the contaminants MTBE and benzene that would be reached at two critical points in Lake Travis – near Lago Vista, 28 to 31 miles from Mansfield Dam, and at the penstocks to Mansfield Dam. In the second stage, a set of iterative runs were performed to determine the maximum spill volume which could occur at the Pedernales crossing under flood flow conditions, in response to a request by the LCRA. In the third stage, two separate modeling runs were performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the model to specification of the level (e.g., epilimnion, hypolimnion) in the lake that contaminants from the Pedernales River would mix with the lake water. In one run, it was assumed that the contaminants would all mix into the epilimnion due to a warm inflow to Lake Travis, posing the highest risk to landowners and communities along Lake Travis who primarily draw domestic water from above the thermocline. In a second run, it was assumed that the contaminants would all mix into the hypolimnion due to a cold inflow to Lake Travis, posing the highest risk to the City of Austin supply as reductions in concentration would not take place through volatilization once contaminated Pedernales water mixed into the lake. 7-39 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL This model had the effect of supporting and refining the previous model results. Accordingly, for purposes of this EA, the one-dimensional model for crude oil is supported by the two dimensional model. Therefore, using the one dimensional model result from the 1999 EA for crude oil, water supply intakes within the Pedernales River above the Lake Travis headwaters may be impacted above the drinking water standards for a short period of time (24 hours or less) at the respective water intakes. Therefore, the potential impacts to these public water supplies may be major, but the impact would be temporary. Modeling performed on Lake Travis from the headwaters to the Mansfield Dam suggests that impacts to drinking water supplies would potentially be major and short-term. 7.6.3.2.2 Sandy Creek/Llano River and Lake LBJ A release of crude oil into the Sandy Creek or Llano River watershed would not be expected to result in a large amount of contamination reaching Lake LBJ because of its flow rate being lower than that of the Pedernales River and because of the creek’s sandy bottom, which is not conducive to the flow velocities achieved in the larger rock-bottomed Pedernales River. The ability for the Llano River to impact Lake LBJ is further diminished by the distance of the lake from the pipeline crossing, i.e., 85 miles. 7.6.3.2.3 Barton Creek Watershed and Lady Bird Lake The 1999 EA focused on the potential impacts of benzene on Lady Bird Lake in the event of a spill to Town Lake or the Barton Creek Watershed. The major concern was with regard to potential impacts to public water supplies, i.e., the Green Water Treatment Plant. Although it was concluded that benzene concentrations in the water associated with a spill would not have a significant impact on the treatment plant, this issue is no longer present since the plant has been decommissioned. The pipeline crossing of Barton Creek and its Long Branch tributary occurs approximately 31 miles upstream of where Barton Creek enters Lady Bird Lake. Only dissolved components of a spill would be expected to reach the surface waters of Lady Bird Lake. In this regard, the City of Austin has implemented the Barton Springs Salamander Catastrophic Spill Plan which describes when and how the Barton Springs salamander would be protected or rescued should a catastrophic spill of petroleum constituents occur in the Barton Springs watershed. This plan establishes four tiers of response based upon predicted concentrations of xylenes and benzene that would result from a petroleum spill to the watershed. Considerable focus in the modeling performed for this plan was placed upon the sensitivity of the salamanders to xylenes. Based upon research performed by the USGS that is discussed in a report entitled “Fate and Transport of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Groundwater at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee and Kentucky, 2002-2003”, the maximum amount of xylenes that could become dissolved in the water as a result of a crude oil spill was 0.580 milligrams per liter. The first action level for xylenes that is listed in the Barton Springs Salamander Catastrophic Spill Plan is triggered by the exceedance of a xylenes concentration of 0.990 milligrams per liter. The USGS research suggests that a crude oil would not trigger a response 7-40 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL due to the presence of xylenes. While benzene concentrations may exceed the action levels, the concentrations of benzene in crude oil are at least ten times less than the concentrations in gasoline. 7.6.4 Ranking of Potential Impacts to Sensitive Areas In order to adequately assess potential impacts to surface water, the need for a process to determine relative sensitivity became apparent. Since there have not been substantive changes in surface water, stream properties, stream crossings, or in designated water uses, it was concluded that the same factors that were weighed for the 1999 EA are still relevant. Also valid and applicable are the conclusions reached with regard to sensitive and hypersensitive surface water impact locations along the pipeline. Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of the 1999 EA identified the sensitive and hypersensitive areas along the pipeline. Table 7.2.1-1 of this FEA replicates this information for the MPs applicable to the Proposed Project. Details regarding the derivation of the surface water impacts contained in Table 7.2.1-1 can be found in Section 7.6 and Appendices A and 7H of the 1999 EA. In Chapter 4 of this FEA, the surface water susceptibility to contamination was differentiated based on the flow characteristics of the stream, on the ability of the stream to be isolated for cleanup, and on the downstream water uses. These three factors, which were determined for each stream crossed by the pipeline, were combined to provide an overall rating of the potential for a release incident causing significant damages to the stream impact categories. The derivation of this rating is the first step (“Step 1”) of a five-step process of assigning sensitive and hypersensitive designations for surface water bodies along the pipeline. Step 2 involves the classification of streams and rivers crossed by the pipeline as sensitive or hypersensitive based on the factors mentioned in Step 1, including a variable width buffer along the stream or river. The buffer width depends on stream size and topography. Step 3 involves the scoring of overland flow potential at every 100 meters along the pipeline, using the following inputs: • Modeled flow path to surface water body; • Slope from pipeline to surface water; • Soil permeability in the area of the overland flow trace; • Land use/land cover between pipeline and surface water; and • Classification and overland flow potential. Note: In addition to rating the stream crossings, the 1999 EA provided a database that incorporated topographic and land use data from the entire length of the pipeline, which was then used to rate the probability of a release of gasoline or crude oil at any point along the pipeline reaching a surface water body. These data were combined with receptor stream factors to create a separately scored factor for drinking water, recreational use, and agricultural use of waters crossed by the pipeline. A detailed discussion of the overland flow methodology and calculations was provided in Appendix 7H of the 1999 EA. Since the basis 7-41 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL of the calculations considered potential releases of both gasoline and crude oil and since the inputs listed above have not changed, then the scoring results contained in Appendix 7H of the 1999 EA remain the same. Accordingly, the delineation of sensitive versus hypersensitive water bodies is unchanged for purposes of this FEA. Appendix 7H is included in this FEA by reference. Step 4 involves the calculation of the combined “classification multiplied by the spill potential” score for each stretch and the sorting of these calculations to establish thresholds for defining sensitivity. These thresholds were then spot-verified by studying topographic maps. Step 5 combines the score as was done in Step 4 for each stretch to establish a threshold for defining hypersensitivity. Spot verification of thresholds was performed. In addition, crossings of lands acquired by the COA for watershed protection purposes were designated sensitive for surface water impacts. 7.6.4.1 Drinking Water Impacts Drinking water sensitivity was assigned based on distance from the pipeline crossing to the point where the water might be used for drinking water and on the overall importance of the water withdrawals at that point. The following streams were judged to present the greatest risk of contamination of a very important water supply source: • Streams on the Colorado River at MP 134.5 and at the Hunt Creek tributary to the Colorado River; • Streams within the Onion Creek and Lady Bird Lake watersheds; • Streams within the Pedernales River watershed; and • Streams within the Sandy Creek watershed. The following streams constituted a second group, posing slightly less risk to drinking water: • Streams within the Willow Creek watershed. A third set of streams, posing even less risk, include: • Streams within the Llano watershed from Panther Creek to Rocky Creek. A scoring of 1 to 10 was used to rank risk to drinking water, with 10 indicating greatest risk. A summary of streams crossing the Proposed Project is included in the 1999 EA on Table 7-6. 7.6.4.2 Agricultural Impacts Potential impacts to irrigation or stock use of surface water downstream of a pipeline rupture will be comparable to the impacts on water supplies. It may be necessary for a temporary cessation (up to 24 hours) of river or stream water use downstream of a release. A rupture or leak that 7-42 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL contaminates groundwater supplies may result in contamination of a spring or seepage-fed livestock tank. 7.6.4.3 Recreational Impacts Recreational uses were evaluated in the 1999 EA based on specific recreational areas along the pipeline ROW and those that could be affected by a pipeline rupture. These recreational uses remain unchanged in this FEA. From east to west, these recreational areas, along with their associated surface water bodies of concern, are as follows: • Buescher State Park (Hunt Creek); • McKinney Falls State Park (Marble Creek, Onion Creek, Boggy Creek, Slaughter Creek); • Barton Springs Pool and Town Lake (Long Branch, Barton Creek); • West Cave Preserve, Hamilton Pool, Hamilton Pool Preserve, Flat Creek, and Pedernales River; • Pedernales Falls State Park (Pedernales River, creeks in Pedernales watershed upstream of the state park); • Lake Travis and Lake Austin; • Enchanted Rock State Recreation Area (Sandy Creek); and • Lake LBJ. The water bodies listed above were given a maximum score for potential impacts to recreational areas. The Colorado River was also given a maximum score because this stream segment has been designated as “exceptional” aquatic habitat by the TCEQ and has correspondingly higher water-quality standards. This portion of the lower Colorado River also tends to receive additional recreational use because of the existence of the LCRA Colorado River Trail in this area. Other rivers and streams that discharge to the Highland Lakes were scored lower because the potential for impacts to recreational use of the lakes are expected to be much less than the impacts to drinking water. In addition, other major rivers crossed by the pipeline, e.g., the Brazos River, were rated for recreational impacts because of the short-term reduction in water uses and potential kill of recreational fish populations that could result during a major release. 7.6.4.4 Impacts to Wetlands 7.6.4.4.1 Construction No new pipeline will be constructed for the Proposed Project; therefore, no pipeline construction-related impacts to wetlands are anticipated. Construction activities for nine new pump stations are planned at various locations along the pipeline route. The locations of these pump stations were selected to avoid impacts to wetland areas. Review of NWI data and field verification show that construction of the proposed pump stations would not have any direct impacts to wetlands or stream locations. The locations of these pump stations are illustrated on Figure 3.1-1. 7-43 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.6.4.4.2 Normal Operations Normal operations are not anticipated to impact wetlands. 7.6.4.4.3 Accidental Releases In terms of overall impacts to wetland resources, the persistence of crude oil caused by lower volatility and higher viscosity may cause greater long-term damage to wetlands than lighter, and less viscous, refined products, such as gasoline. For example, crude oil may cause greater impacts in non-turbulent waters by reducing gaseous oxygen transfer through the water surface, whereas gasoline would more readily volatilize. The impacts of an accidental release of crude oil into wetlands along the Proposed Project would depend on the type of wetland, amount of crude oil released and several other factors. Wetlands located within the zone of potential impact along the Proposed Project include palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, and forested wetlands. Each type of wetland provides a different trophic value and habitat value. Forested wetlands typically provide greater habitat diversity and have a higher trophic value than other wetland types; consequently, a release of crude oil in a forested wetland is likely to have more widespread and far-reaching effects on the food web than a similar spill in other wetland habitats. Forested wetlands typically are comprised of a canopy of trees that provide habitat for raptor and passerine avian species that is not present within palustrine wetlands. Forested wetlands also often provide a dense understory of shrubs and forbs that provide habitat for a greater variety of reptilian and mammalian species that are not found in other wetland communities. A release could have acute and chronic impacts to wetland biota and functionality depending upon such factors as the size and duration of the release, the size, and sensitivity of the wetland biota, the potential for dilution, and the detection and response time. A full and comprehensive response action would be implemented in the event of a release, as detailed in the Facility Response Plan. 7.6.5 Summary Construction activities would likely result in negligible to minor and temporary impacts to surface water quality. Construction activities may result in site conditions that allow storm water runoff of sediments to adjacent streams. However, proper implementation of BMPs will result in negligible impacts during construction. Likewise, water quality impacts expected during the normal operation of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. No new impacts to wetlands are anticipated. The relative magnitude and duration of potential impacts from an accidental release to surface water are highly variable. However, impacts to surface water could range in magnitude from negligible to major depending on such factors as the rate of release, the relative location, and receiving water body characteristics. The duration of the impact of an accidental release is also 7-44 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL highly variable, but, given the current operating requirements of the Proposed Project, the duration of most impacts would be temporary to short-term. 7.7 IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY 7.7.1 Introduction The EPA has established NAAQS for six “criteria” air pollutants: ozone, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and lead (Pb). NAAQS have been developed for two forms of PM: PM10 and PM2.5, which is sometimes referenced as “fine” PM. Ozone is unique in that it is a criteria pollutant not emitted directly into the air, but formed, in the presence of sunlight, through chemical reactions between VOC and NOx emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Therefore, compliance with the ozone NAAQS requires regulation of VOC and NOx emissions. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area in southeast Texas is designated a “severe” nonattainment area for the 8-hr ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.344). Except for the ozone nonattainment designation for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area, the southeast and south central areas of Texas are designated to be in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. It is important to emphasize that the activities associated with the Proposed Project that generate air emissions, both construction-related and operations-related, will be spatially separated along a line (i.e., the Longhorn Pipeline) stretching approximately 456 miles (from East Houston to Crane). The vast majority of the Proposed Project is located outside the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area. Emissions generated during the temporary construction period and ongoing operations of the Proposed Project will not adversely impact the air quality in neither the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area nor the vast attainment area stretching westward to Crane. The potential impacts to air quality during construction and operation activities are discussed below. The evaluation of the effect of changes in GHG emissions on climate change is in its formative phase; therefore, the net impact to global climate cannot be determined with any confidence. The lack of scientific tools/methodologies designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts (DOI, 2010). Currently, an established mechanism does not exist to accurately predict the effect of decisions made under this FEA on global climate change. Development of the pipeline for transportation of petroleum products would reduce the number of mobile sources (e.g., tank trucks) and/or vehicle miles travelled by such sources that are currently needed to transport such products, thereby resulting in a net decrease in fuel combustion emissions (which includes GHGs). Therefore, despite the lack of analytical tools, Magellan anticipates that construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not have any effect on global climate change, and any future change in global climate is not anticipated to affect the Proposed Project. 7-45 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.7.2 Impacts 7.7.2.1 Construction Emissions The Proposed Project will result in construction-based air emissions associated primarily with construction of aboveground storage tanks (three 250,000-bbl tanks for crude oil and four 150,000-bbl tanks for refined products) at the existing East Houston Terminal, construction and reactivation of aboveground storage tanks (two new 250,000-bbl tanks and three reactivated 50,000-bbl tanks for crude oil) at the existing Crane Station, and construction of pump/meter stations along the Proposed Project. (New pump stations are to be constructed at Buckhorn, Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Eckert, James River, Cartman, Barnhart, and Texon. New metering is to be installed at Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Barnhart, Texon, and Crane.) These construction activities result in the generation of emissions from construction equipment engines, as well as the generation of fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter) from soil disturbance activities. Typical construction equipment may include cranes, bulldozers, backhoes, frontend loaders, dump trucks, and other mobile equipment. Pump/meter station and storage tank construction emissions can be broadly categorized as onsite-based or offsite-based. Onsite-based emissions would primarily consist of exhaust emissions from mobile heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment, as well as fugitive PM (dust) emissions generated by mobile equipment movement and materials handling. Offsite-based emissions would primarily consist of exhaust emissions from the traffic associated with transporting workers, equipment, excavation spoils, and other materials to and from the construction site. Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with construction/modification of multiple large petroleum product storage tanks at a single location are as follows: • VOC: 35.7 lb/day; • NOx: 163 lb/day; • CO: 86.6 lb/day; • SO2: 0.2 lb/day; • PM10 (including fugitives): 28.1 lb/day; • PM2.5 (including fugitives): 19.1 lb/day; and • CO2: 15,637 lb/day. The emission rates account for site grading, construction, and painting/coating activities, as well as worker and material transportation associated with construction/modification of the tanks. It should be emphasized that these emission rates represent a maximum daily emission scenario, and that such rates should not be presumed to persist for the entire period of construction (SCAQMD, 2010). 7-46 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with a pump station similar in size to the new pump stations for the Proposed Project are as follows: • VOC: 10.7 lb/day; • NOx: 77.0 lb/day; • CO: 36.5 lb/day; • SO2: 0.03 lb/day; • PM10 (including fugitives): 12.4 lb/day; • PM2.5 (including fugitives): 4.0 lb/day; and • CO2: 2,499 lb/day. The emission rates account for site grading, construction, and painting/coating activities, as well as worker and material transportation associated with construction of a pump station (DOI, 2011). It should be emphasized that these emission rates represent a maximum daily emission scenario, and that such rates should not be presumed to persist for the entire period of construction. To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the new storage tanks at the East Houston Terminal, new and reactivated storage tanks at the Crane Station, and pump/meter stations at the various locations along the Proposed Project, the Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction activities adopted by the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2008) were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities). The SCAQMD developed LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs are provided in look-up tables that show the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or State of California AAQS. LSTs were developed based on the background air quality of an area, size of the construction site, and distance to the nearest receptor. A review of ambient monitoring data for Texas, including the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area and rural areas, aided in the selection of the most appropriate LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily emission rates for the above-described construction activities in Houston (for the storage tanks), Crane (for storage tanks), and along the Proposed Project (for each pump/meter station). This comparison shows that the estimated construction emissions at these locations would be below the representative LSTs; therefore, such emissions would have a negligible impact on local air quality. 7.7.2.2 Operational Emissions Operation of new pump/meter stations, as well as new storage tanks at the East Houston Terminal and new and converted storage tanks at the Crane Station, associated with the Proposed Project will generate fugitive VOC emissions under normal service. This section evaluates potential impacts associated with those operational emissions. Because the crude oil will have negligible methane content, any fugitive methane (i.e., GHG) emissions associated with the transportation and storage of the oil would be negligible, and is not considered in this 7-47 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL assessment. Note that there are no new fuel combustion sources associated with the Proposed Project. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with the operation each new pump station (at Buckhorn, Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Eckert, James River, Cartman, Barnhart, and Texon) and meter station (at Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Barnhart, Texon, and Crane) will be relatively small: 11.1 lb/day and <0.1 lb/day, respectively. Therefore, the total VOC emissions for all new pump/meter stations on the Proposed Project will be about 100 lb/day. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with the new storage tanks at the East Houston Terminal and new/reactivated storage tanks at the Crane Station will be somewhat higher, totaling 139 and 63.1 lb/day, respectively, for each location. The daily VOC emission rate for a pump station is estimated based on 1) the average number of valves, flanges, pump seals, and miscellaneous other components for existing pump stations on the Orion West Pipeline; and 2) the widely-used EPA emission factors for marketing terminal components in light liquid service (EPA 1995). The basis for the daily VOC emissions for a meter station is given in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. See Appendix 7A of this FEA for a summary of emission factors and rates for an individual pump station and meter station. The daily VOC emission rate for the group of new storage tanks (refined product and crude oil storage) is based on the emissions data provided in the TCEQ permit application for the proposed expansion to Magellan’s East Houston Terminal tank farm (Nygaard, 2011), and includes working and breathing losses and associated component fugitives. Estimated impacts of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) associated with VOC emissions from the new sources would not exceed 10% of the TCEQ Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) at each location. ESLs are thresholds based on data concerning health effects, odor/nuisance potential, and effects on vegetation; for impacts below these thresholds, adverse health or welfare impacts would not be expected to occur (TCEQ, 2010). This finding is based on the conservative impact assessment results presented in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. (Note that the expanded capacity service – 225,000 barrels per day – evaluated for the 1999 EA analysis is the same as that under the current analysis for the Proposed Project.) 7.7.2.3 Accidental Releases Emissions of vapors following an accidental release of crude oil (from the Longhorn Pipeline, the Crane Station storage tanks, or the East Houston Terminal storage tanks) or refined product (from the East Houston Terminal storage tanks) would have impacts based on local population density. However, an impact analysis of an accidental release is best characterized by human health and safety standards. The potential results of an accidental release and the effects on humans are discussed in Section 7.2.2.3. 7.7.2.4 Noise Potential noise impacts were evaluated by referencing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development noise standard of 65 dBA for exterior day-night average sound levels (mean-square A-weighted sound pressure) (24 CFR §51.103). In addition, activities in Houston were evaluated using the noise standards in §30-6 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Houston, 7-48 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas (receptor on residential property: 65 dBA during daytime hours and 58 dBA during nighttime hours; receptor on non-residential property: 68 dBA at all times). Local land uses (considering the presence of obstructions or background noise) and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities were taken into consideration when assessing potential noise impacts. An important concept in the analysis of potential noise impacts is the designation of “sensitive” noise receptors. A “sensitive” receptor is a church, school, hospital, retirement home, residential area, or similar facility (HUD, 2011). These facilities are less tolerant of noise and noise levels greater than 65 dBA are considered “normally unacceptable”. Some allowance for noise levels greater than 65 dBA can be made depending on the time of day and duration. In particular, higher levels of construction noise are usually considered acceptable because they are of short duration. Receptors that are not “sensitive” (e.g., commercial businesses) tolerate higher noise levels. For example, noise levels up to 75 dBA are considered “acceptable” for office buildings (HUD, 2011). Construction-related noise impacts are generated directly by construction equipment and associated construction activities. Construction-related noise impacts would generally be intermittent and last only a few days for any individual sensitive receptor and would occur only during daylight hours. The vast majority of construction activities (including new pump/meter stations) will occur at isolated locations with no sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The continuously generated noise from a pump station would not be greater than 65 dBA at any sensitive receptor, although station noise may be audible at some receptors depending on background conditions, terrain, and the lack of obstructions. A review of the locations of the proposed pump stations indicates that no sensitive noise receptors are located within 500 feet of the Buckhorn and Industry sites, or within 1,500 feet of remaining pump station sites. Given that the pump stations will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations, no operational noise impacts are expected. 7.7.2.5 Impacts to Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area Air Quality Because construction of the Proposed Project (and Connected Actions) will occur in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area, a General Conformity determination must be conducted. The General Conformity Rule is codified in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, Subpart B, Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. A conformity determination must be conducted by the lead federal agency if a federal action’s construction and operational activities (excluding activities permitted under the PSD or NNSR programs) is likely to result in generating direct and indirect emissions that would exceed the conformity threshold levels (de minimis) of the pollutant(s) for which an area is in nonattainment or maintenance. The de minimis threshold levels that trigger a 7-49 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL conformity determination for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area are 25 tpy for NOx and 25 tpy for VOC. Construction emissions associated with the Proposed Project and Connected Actions will occur over a 2-year period. Based on the number of days of construction in each year associated with the modifications to the East Houston Terminal (installation of new tanks) and the Connected Actions (the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction pipeline segment and East Houston to Holland Avenue pipeline segment), the total NOx emissions in year one and year two are 24.8 and 16.1 tpy, respectively, and the total VOC emissions in year one and year two are 5.4 and 3.5 tpy, respectively (see Appendix 7B). These emission levels are less than 10% of the total emissions budget for NOx and VOC for the entire Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area (see Revision to the SIP for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution, HGB 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area, Table ES-1, March 2012). Based on these findings, General Confirmity requirements are not triggered for the Proposed Project and Connected Actions. In terms of operational emissions, for the East Houston Terminal, the zone of potential impact is embedded within the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area. Tank breathing and working losses, as well as miscellaneous component fugitive emissions of VOC will result from operations associated with the new crude oil and refined product storage tanks at the East Houston Terminal. The emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project are expected to be short- term, intermittent, and without any irreversible effects on air quality either locally or regionally. Use of the mitigation measures described in Chapter 9, combined with the fact that there will be few, if any, residents in the vicinity of these construction sites significantly reduces the chance of impacts from construction-related emissions. Note that the TCEQ has established a construction emissions budget (under the State Implementation Plan for the control of ozone air pollution: Revision to the State Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution - Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area, as adopted on March 10, 2010) for NOx and VOC that considers and allows for construction in the Houston- Galveston-Brazoria area to account for expected growth. Therefore, the construction activities associated with the Proposed Project (and Connected Actions) should not impair or prevent the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area from maintaining progress in air quality improvement under the TCEQ’s State Implementation Plan. The new storage tanks located at the East Houston Terminal to be constructed under this Proposed Project will be regulated under a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit issued by the TCEQ. As a result, Magellan must offset VOC emissions from the new storage tanks at a ratio of 1.3 to 1 prior to the start of operation of these tanks. Also, these tanks will be subject to the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) standard, which represents the most stringent emission limit achievable for such tanks. For LAER, Magellan will implement TCEQ’s 28LAER leak detection and repair (LDAR) program to control fugitive VOC emissions. In addition, Magellan will use internal floating roof tanks with secondary seal systems to limit emissions from working and breathing losses of VOCs. The offsetting (or reduction) of emissions associated with the new storage tanks at a ratio greater than 1 to 1 will contribute to an improvement in air quality in the Houston metropolitan region. 7-50 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.7.3 Summary Emissions generated during construction periods and normal operations will result in negligible and temporary impacts to the meteorology and air quality across the vast geographic area spanned by the Proposed Project. Emissions generated by an accidental release of crude oil would result in negligible to minor impacts, but for a short-lived or temporary duration. Construction-related noise impacts are anticipated to be negligible to minor and temporary, and would occur only during daylight hours. Given that the pump stations will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations, operational noise impacts are expected to be negligible to minor. 7.8 IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION 7.8.1 Introduction Potential transportation impacts resulting from the Proposed Project include disruption of traffic flows and access, project-related traffic from construction, disruption from an accidental release, and increased traffic from product unloading. These include roads and railroads that are in close proximity to the construction of the proposed pump stations and infrastructure updates to facilitate the reversal and conversion of the pipeline. The potential to impact transportation along the Proposed Project includes crossings at approximately 23 federal highways, 24 state highways, numerous state-designated FM and Ranch roads, and 22 railroads. The largest volume of these road crossings occur in Travis and Harris Counties and the largest volume of these railroad crossings occur in Harris County. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets (primarily in the Austin and Houston metropolitan areas). However, in each of these circumstances (construction, maintenance, or accidental spill) traffic impacts would be temporary and negligible to minor. 7.8.2 Impacts 7.8.2.1 Construction Construction activities related to the Proposed Project include two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks and a truck unloading facility at the Crane Station, three 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks at East Houston Terminal, new metering equipment and pumping equipment at Crane, Texon, Barnhart, Bastrop, Warda, Industry, and Buckhorn stations, with the existing metering at East Houston Terminal reversed. New crude oil supply connections are proposed to be constructed at Crane, Texon, Barnhart, Bastrop, Warda, and Industry Stations. New construction will be limited to selected sites along the ROW for the installation of new pump stations and infrastructure upgrades at existing pump stations. Since construction will be along the ROW and not within any roadways or railroad crossings, there should be no road closures during construction. However, for construction that is in close enough proximity to a roadway, portions of the roadway that are currently used for traffic circulation may be temporarily displaced, requiring detouring. During construction activities in urbanized settings, a temporary 7-51 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL increase in the potential for accidents involving motor vehicles, bicycles, and/or pedestrians may occur. In rural areas, construction activities may restrict access to private properties, but these restrictions would be temporary and minor. In addition to restrictions on road usage from construction activity, additional traffic would be generated in the area of construction as construction workers, equipment delivery trucks, and excavation equipment travel to and from the construction zone. The volume and nature of these vehicles (particularly slower moving construction equipment) would cause short-term disruptions to local traffic. However, these impacts would be short-term, lasting only as long as the duration of construction activities. 7.8.2.2 Normal Operations The crude oil offloading occurring at the Crane Station would be with 8,000 to 10,000-gallon tanker trucks. Projected tanker truck activity at the facility is estimated at 48 tanker trucks per day, which will relate to negligible to minor long-term impacts. Other than crude oil offloading, no additional transportation-related impacts are anticipated. 7.8.2.3 Accidental Releases In the event of a pipeline rupture in a densely populated area, temporary traffic impacts would result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. These could include road closures in the vicinity of the release and rerouting traffic to minimize traffic delays. Impacts to transportation, as a result of an accidental release, would be minimal and of short duration. No long-term impacts to transportation should occur from such incidents. No other major transportation impacts were identified in this analysis. 7.8.3 Summary Construction and normal operation could result in negligible to minor long-term impacts to transportation. There may be some impacts restricting to road usage caused by construction or maintenance vehicles, but these are considered negligible to minor and temporary. There is a potential for temporary traffic impacts that may result from an accidental release. These could include road closures in the vicinity of the release and rerouting traffic to minimize traffic delays. Impacts to transportation, as a result of an accidental release, would be minor and temporary. 7-52 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.9 IMPACTS TO LAND USE 7.9.1 Introduction Because the pipeline is already built, any impacts resulting from construction activities would occur only from the construction of the new pump stations, crude oil tanks, truck unloading facility, metering station, and crude oil supply connections. 7.9.2 Impacts 7.9.2.1 Construction Of the nine proposed pump stations, three (Barnhart, Eckert, and Warda) will be constructed within existing pump station sites; therefore, no construction-related impacts to land uses would occur as there would be no conversion of land and no changes in land use. The Bastrop pump station, while not proposed to be located within an existing pump station site, is proposed to be constructed within the footprint of an area that was previously used as a pump station; therefore, the proposed use of the site is consistent with that previous use. The surrounding area is undeveloped land, possibly used for grazing. Dirt roads already exist as access to the site, which is generally isolated. Impacts to surrounding land uses would be negligible. The remaining pump stations are all proposed to be built on currently undeveloped land. The proposed site of the Texon Station is located within an oil field, which is highly developed and contains numerous unpaved roads, pipelines, and electric distribution lines. A pump station is consistent and compatible with these surrounding uses, and no roads would need to be built for construction access. The proposed James River and Industry sites are located on undeveloped land that appears to be used for grazing, so construction would require those lands to be converted to industrial use. These sites are isolated from any other development (there are no buildings within a one-mile radius), so access roads would need to be constructed. Development would require conversion of land and the construction of access roads. Construction of these pump stations would result in change in long-term land use. However, the land use is not unique; therefore, the development would result in minor impacts on the surrounding land uses. Temporary and minor impacts are anticipated as a result of construction activities. The proposed sites of the Cartman and Buckhorn sites are also on undeveloped, probable grazing land, but are proximate to several potential residential structures. Because the surrounding area is slightly more developed than the previous two sites, access for construction would not be an issue. Therefore, development of the proposed stations would involve conversion of land, resulting in a change in long-term land use. Temporary and minor impacts are anticipated as a result of construction activities. 7-53 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.9.2.2 Normal Operations Changes to the land use occur only as a result of the construction of the proposed pump stations; therefore, there are no anticipated land use changes as a result of normal operations of the Proposed Project. 7.9.2.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate and temporary to short-term impacts to real property and land use. In addition, accidental releases could impact the quality of recreational activities because of decreases in game populations or damages to public lands. 7.9.3 Sensitive Areas/Receptors The sensitive areas and receptors discussed in this section are considered to have a greater susceptibility to potential impacts from releases, and therefore, warrant additional analysis. Since no construction is planned within sensitive areas, it is not anticipated that there will be long-term impacts to these sensitive areas and receptors as a result of construction or normal operation. 7.9.3.1 Parks and Natural Areas Several segments of the Proposed Project cross parks, natural areas, and streams contributing to parks and recreational areas (see Section 4.1.1.5). Because the pipeline is already built, there would be no construction-related impacts to these areas. A number of lakes, creeks, preserves and city, county and state parks were rated as sensitive for potential impacts to public recreational facilities. These properties are considered sensitive because of the natural attributes and their proximity to the pipeline. Urban parks located in Houston and Austin areas are ranked as sensitive for human health and safety because of the proximity to highly populated areas. A summary of recreational areas defined as sensitive and hypersensitive is listed in Table 7.2.1-1. In the event of an accidental release, access to recreational areas may be limited or restricted during cleanup activities and restoration. Public access to these areas may be limited until cleanup is completed. A response to an accidental release in a park or natural area would warrant an expedited and aggressive clean-up and restoration. An accidental release is not expected to result in a long-term (i.e., greater than three years) impact to these recreational areas. 7.9.3.2 Urban Areas Construction within urban areas is limited to the installation of two 120,000-bbl tanks and two 150,000-bbl tanks at the East Houston Terminal. These tanks will be constructed within secondary containment within an existing tank farm and the land use is the same as the 7-54 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL surrounding acreage. The remaining construction is limited to the new pump stations and associated facilities, all of which are proposed to be built in rural areas. In the event of an accidental pipeline rupture or leak, there is a potential for minor to moderate impacts to property values with a short- to long-term duration. 7.9.4 Summary Normal pipeline operations and construction activities present little or no impacts to land use. There may be some long-term impacts related to change in use, but the land in conversion is not unique; therefore, the impacts are considered minor. There is a potential for damage to real property and recreational property from a large release of crude oil along selected segments of the pipeline. A total of 2,130 acres or 1% of the land use within the zone of potential impact is classified as recreational. Impacts from a release of crude oil to a unique natural area could have a major impact on the property, requiring remediation and ecological restoration. A significant amount of study was conducted in uniquely sensitive areas to minimize the potential impact to sensitive receptors. For example, the effectiveness of mitigation (i.e., Proof of Concept to seal the pipeline trench) for the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer was studied extensively. The results of this and other previous evaluations were considered in the Proposed Project. Therefore, the potential impacts to land use resulting from an accidental release is considered minor to major with the potential duration ranging from temporary to long-term. 7.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7.10.1 Introduction Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800) requires that EPA and DOT consider the effects on cultural resources and afford the ACHP the opportunity to comment. The ACHP encourages full integration of public participation under Section 106 review with the regulations of other federal agency programs. The EPA’s NEPA implementation regulations integrate Section 106 procedures by using established public involvement processes to elicit the views of interested persons (e.g., local governments, Indian tribes and nations [Tonkawa, Comanche, Apache, Kiowa, Tigua, and Mescalero Apache], and the public) with regard to an undertaking and its effects on historic properties. The online Native American Consultation Databases maintained by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) and the National Park Service (NPS) were accessed to determine what federally recognized Indian tribes, if any, held land claims within the counties traversed by the current undertaking. This review of online databases indicated that 8 federally recognized Indian tribes claim ancestral homelands within the Project Area. These tribes and the counties for which each maintains claims are summarized in Table 7.10.1-1. However, no formally established reservations were identified adjacent to the Proposed Project. 7-55 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Similar to federal regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources, the Antiquities Code of Texas also designates the THC as the legal custodian of all cultural resources, historic and prehistoric, within the public domain of the State of Texas. While the majority of the current undertaking is located on privately-held lands, any portions of the undertaking located on public property (e.g., University of Texas Lands) are also subject to the regulations of the Antiquities Code of Texas. Programmatic Agreements are appropriate in documenting Section 106 compliance for undertakings where effects cannot be fully determined in advance of federal decision-making. EPA and DOT agreed to comply with Section 106 through a PA on the Proposed Project, in consultation with the SHPO, THPO, and the ACHP. The PA for the existing Longhorn Pipeline within this FEA is found in Appendix 4C. 7.10.2 Impacts 7.10.2.1 Construction The ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the proposed pump stations has the potential to impact significant cultural resources. Pump stations are proposed to be constructed at Buckhorn, Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Eckert, James River, Cartman, Barnhart, and Texon. The Proposed Project also includes the infrastructure improvements consisting of aboveground storage tanks at the East Houston Terminal and the Crane Station. An assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources at each location is provided in this section. The Buckhorn Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. As such, there is little probability of impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The Industry Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The Warda Station is an existing, previously disturbed pump station. Construction activities will only consist of upgrades to this existing facility. Because this existing location is already heavily disturbed and has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results, no potential impacts to significant cultural resources are anticipated. The Bastrop Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. The site is located at a former Exxon Production Company (EPC) pump station. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The Eckert Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. This area has been previously assessed for 7-56 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL cultural resources with negative results. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The James River Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated AHPA along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. This AHPA has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The Cartman Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The Barnhart Station is a new facility proposed within a portion of the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW that has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station The Texon Station is a new facility proposed within a delineated archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. As such, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources during the construction of this pump station. The East Houston Terminal is an existing, previously disturbed terminal facility. Construction activities will occur only within the heavily disturbed confines of this existing facility. Because the existing location is already heavily disturbed, little potential exists for impacts to significant cultural resources. 7.10.2.2 Normal Operations No potential impacts to significant cultural resources are anticipated during normal operation of this existing pipeline. 7.10.2.3 Accidental Releases In the event of an accidental release, significant cultural resources may be impacted by the release and the emergency response actions. Pump stations located within an archeological low probability area along the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW include Buckhorn, Industry, Bastrop, Eckert, Cartman, and Texon, and have a low likelihood of impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. Pump stations being constructed on existing, previously disturbed sites (Warda and Barnhart) have a low likelihood of impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. Proposed sites with no documented cultural resources considered eligible for or listed on the NRHP (Warda), would have no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. 7-57 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 7.10.3 Paleontological Resources The National Natural Landmarks Program (36 CFR 62) was established to identify and preserve natural areas that best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United States, including paleontological resources. As part of this program, the National Registry of Natural Landmarks is the official listing of all designated national natural landmarks. A review of this registry revealed that no portion of the Proposed Project is located within a designated National Natural Landmark. 7.10.4 Summary Construction or normal operations of the Proposed Project are not expected to impact significant cultural resources. There is a minor to a moderate potential to damage significant cultural resources from a large release of crude oil along the pipeline. The potential to impact a significant cultural resource decreases with distance from a natural water bodies. Currently, the Proposed Project will not have an incremental increase beyond the existing risk to cultural resources as a result of concurrent operations. Additionally, no formally established reservations were identified adjacent to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes. 7.11 REFERENCES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1995. Toxicological Profile for Gasoline: PB/95/264206/AS. pp. 107 – 111. Bell, Barbara A. 2005. The Effects of Crude Oil Contamination on the Reproduction of Freshwater Turtles. Ph. D. thesis, Drexel University. 129 pages Burruss, R.C., and Ryder, R.T. 2003. Composition of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Produced from 14 Wells in the Lower Silurian “Clinton” Sandstone and Medina Group, Northeastern Ohio and Northwestern Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-409. pp. 7. Buzo, Daniela, A GIS model for identifying potential breeding habitat for the Houston Toad (Bufo houstonensis), Thesis (M.S.) – Texas State University San Marcos, Texas, 2008. Byun, D. W., Kim, S.T., Cheng, F.Y., Kim, S.B., Cuclis, A., and N.K. Moon. 2003. Information Infrastructure for Air Quality Modeling and Analysis: Application to the Houston-Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area. J. Environ. Informatics, 2 (2) 38-57. CDC Facts, 2011 Document No. CS215481: Yellowstone River 2011: Silvertip Pipeline Spill Human Health Interim Clinical Guidance, EPA Region 6, Final Longhorn Pipeline Environmental Assessment, 1999 http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/xp/longhorn.htm Hauwert, N.M. 2009. Groundwater Flow and Recharge within the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Southern Travis and Northern Hays Counties, Texas: The University of Texas, Austin, Doctoral Dissertation CM-CM-2009-1. 7-58 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Hauwert, N.M., Sansom, J.W., Johns, D.A. and Aley, T.J. 2004. Groundwater Tracing Study of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer; Southern Travis and Northern Hays Counties, Texas: CM-2004-01. Report by the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and City of Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Department. Henke, S. and Fair, W. 1998. Management of Texas Horned Lizards. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Management Bull. No. 2. Howells, R. G., Neck, R. W., and H. D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. 218 pp Luiselli L. and G. C. Akani 2003. An indirect assessment of the effects of oil pollution on the diversity and functioning of turtle communities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 26 No.1. 57-65 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and American Petroleum Institute (NOAA/API), 1994 “Options for Minimizing Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Spill Response”, September, 1994. Nygaard, 2011. Letter from N.A. Nygaard, RPS to K. Kind, TCEQ, Re: Air Quality Permit Application No 94433, Magellan Pipeline Terminals, L.P. – East Houston Terminal, RN102186129, CN603167297, April 12, 2011. O’Reilly, K.T., Magaw, R.I., and Rixey, W.G. 2001. Predicting the Effect of Hydrocarbon and Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soil on Groundwater: API Soil and Groundwater Technical Task Force Bulletin 14. pp. 2 – 6. Pettyjohn, W.A., Savoca, M.E., and Self, Dale, “Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the Continental United States,” US Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/2-91/043, p 319, 1991. Rose, P.R. 1986. Pipeline Oil Spills and the Edwards Aquifers, Central Texas: Abbott, P.L. and Woodruff, C.M., Jr., eds. The Balcones Escarpment, Central Texas: Geological Society of America, p. 163-183. Simons, Robert A. 1999. “Settlement of an Oil Pipeline Leak with Contaminated Residential Property: A Case Study.” Real Estate Issues. Summer 1999: 46-52. Print. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2008. Localized Significance Threshold Methodology – Final, SCAQMD, July 2008 (Revised). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2010. Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ultramar, Inc. Wilmington Refinery, CARB Phase 3 Proposed Project, SCAQMD, State Clearinghouse No. 2000061113, March 2010. Standen, A.R., and Opdyke, D.R. 2004. Contamination Migration, Characteristics, and Responses for the Edwards–Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W. F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, p. 211-234. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2002. Effects of Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks on the Trinity Group Aquifer: TCEQ publication SFR-073. pp. vii – viii, 6 and 15 – 30. 7-59 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2005. Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program: SFR-068/04. Appendix D: Aquifer Vulnerability Ranking System. pp. 254 – 256. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010. December 2010 Effects Screening Levels, Memorandum from Toxicology Division, TCEQ, to Interested Parties, 29 December 2010. Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD), 2011, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/txndd/ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2009. Species Profile – Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). Available online at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/thlizard/ Turner, M. and O’Donnell, L. 2004. Response Tier Development Document Barton Springs Salamander Catastrophic Spill Plan. SR-05-01. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2011. Website accessed on June 8, 2011: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/environment/tr aining/guidebooks/noise U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2011. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Riverside-Corona Feeder Project, U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation, State Clearinghouse No. 2003031121, January 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2010. Proposed Pony Express Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the UNEV Pipeline, U.S. DOI, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, FES 09-20, April 2010. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 2000. Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage: 49 CFR Part 195. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 246. pp. 80532 and 80544. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991. Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States: EPA/600/2-91/043. pp. 5 – 8 and 207. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993. Report to Congress on Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas. Document No. EPA- 453/R-93-045, October 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA, November 1995, EPA-453/R-95-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for State Regulators: EPA 510-R96- 001. pp. III-4 – III-25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011, EPA Website for questions and answers - Yellowstone air monitoring) (http://www.epa.gov/yellowstoneriverspill/qanda.htm#affectedair, Accessed 10/13/2011. 7-60 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2005 Fate and Transport of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Groundwater at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee and Kentucky, 2002-2003 http://water.usgs.gov/nps_partnership/biso.php Wermund, E. G., Cepeda, J. C. and Luttrell, P. E., 1978, “Regional Distribution of Fractures in the Southern Edwards Plateau and Their Relationship to Tectonics and Caves”, The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Circular 78-2, pp. 6- 12. 7-61 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 7 TABLES <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline Begin Mile End Mile Length (mile) Sensitivity Factors Drinking Water Ground Water Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species Recreation 2.0 4.0 2 P1, R1 S S 4.0 5.0 1 P1 S 5.0 6.0 1 P1 S S 6.0 7.0 1 R1 S 7.0 10.0 3 P1 S 10.0 12.0 2 P1, R1 S S 12.0 15.0 3 P1, R1 H S 15.0 16.0 1 P1, R1 S S 16.0 17.0 1 P1, R1 H S 17.0 18.0 1 P1, R1 S S 18.0 20.0 2 P1 S 20.0 21.0 1 GWA1, GWP, P1 H S H 21.0 22.0 1 P1 H 22.0 23.0 1 P1, R1 H S 23.0 24.0 1 P1 S 24.0 25.0 1 P1 H 25.0 26.0 1 P1, R1 S S 26.0 29.0 3 P1 S 29.0 30.0 1 P1, R1 S S 30.0 31.0 1 P1 H S 31.0 32.0 1 P1, R1 H S 32.0 33.0 1 P1 H 33.0 34.0 1 P1, R1 S S 34.0 35.0 1 P1 H 35.0 37.0 2 P1, R1 H S 37.0 38.0 1 P1 H 38.0 39.0 1 P1 S 39.0 40.0 1 P1, R1 S S 43.0 46.0 1 R1 S 59 60 1 R1 S <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline (continued) Begin Mile End Mile 59.5 66.0 74.0 76.0 93.0 94.0 119.0 120.5 121.0 123.0 123.0 124.0 125.5 126.5 1 GWR S 125 126.5 Sensitivity Factors 1.5 Drinking Water Ground Water Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species GWA2, GWR 2 P2 S 1 P2 S GWA3, GWR 2 GWA3, GWR 1 P3 S 128.0 129.5 1.5 130.5 141.5 134.0 135.0 1 P3 S 135.0 136.0 143.0 148.0 152.0 154.0 154.0 155.0 157.0 159.0 159.0 160.0 160.0 162.0 163.0 165.0 163.44 163.85 Length (mile) 6.5 1.5 GWA3 S GWA3, GWR, R3 GWA3, GWR 0.12 Recreation S S S S S S S S 11 S S 1 R5 S 5 P3 S 2 P3 S 1 P4 2 P4 S 1 P4, R S S 2 P4 S 2 P5, R4 S S SW1 H 163.92 164.0 0.12 SW1 H 164.1 164.17 0.07 SW1 S 164.91 165.0 0.9 SW1 S 165.0 166.0 1 P5 S 166.0 168.0 2 P5, R4 S S 168.0 170.0 2 P5 S 170.0 173.5 3.5 GWA4, GWP, GWR, GWK, P5, R5 H S H S 173.0 181.0 8 P6 S 173.0 174.61 1.61 SW2 S S <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline (continued) Begin Mile End Mile Length (mile) Sensitivity Factors Drinking Water Ground Water Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species Recreation 173.5 198.5 25 GWA5 S S 174.0 184.0 10 P6, P7 S 174.61 174.73 0.12 SW2 S S 174.73 175.00 0.27 SW2 S S 175.00 177.90 2.90 SW2 S S 177.90 178.40 0.50 SW2 S S 179.51 179.89 0.38 SW2 H S 180.20 180.26 0.06 SW2 S S 180.86 180.98 0.12 SW2 H S 181.0 184.0 3 P7, R6 181.94 182.12 0.18 SW2 S S 182.12 182.19 0.07 SW2 H S 182.37 182.68 0.31 SW2 S S 184.73 184.86 0.13 SW2 S 185.42 185.79 0.37 SW2 S 187.53 187.65 0.12 SW2 S 189.0 190.0 1 P7 S 189.46 189.58 0.12 SW3 S 190.08 190.20 0.12 SW3 S 190.26 190.39 0.13 SW3 H 191.38 191.44 0.06 SW3 S 192.19 192.25 0.06 SW3 S 192.94 193.00 0.06 SW3 H 193.00 1993.31 0.31 SW3 H 195.0 196.0 1 R8 S 196.1 196.29 0.19 SW3 H 197.29 197.53 0.24 SW3 H 198.16 198.28 0.12 SW3 H 198.5 199 0.5 GWA6 S 198.5 206.0 7.5 GWR S 198.59 198.84 0.25 SW3 H 199 206 7 GWA7 S <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline (continued) Begin Mile End Mile Length (mile) Sensitivity Factors Drinking Water Ground Water Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species Recreation 199.34 199.46 0.12 SW3 H 201.26 201.39 0.13 SW3 S 201.88 202.13 0.25 SW3 H 202.26 202.63 0.37 SW3 H 203.13 203.44 0.31 SW3 H 204.93 205.18 0.25 SW3 H 205.98 206.05 0.07 SW3 H 206 207.5 1.5 GWA5 S 206.23 206.36 0.13 SW3 S 207.91 208.04 0.13 SW3 H 209.22 209.34 0.12 SW3 S 209.85 209.97 0.12 SW3 H 211.45 211.64 0.19 SW3 S 212.82 212.88 0.06 SW3 S 213.25 213.44 0.19 SW3 H 216 220 4 GWA5 S 222 222.5 0.5 GWA8 S 222.5 224.5 2 GWA5 S 227 227.5 0.5 GWA8 S 228.66 229.27 0.61 SW3 S 229.27 229.39 0.12 SW3 H 229.39 229.66 0.27 SW3 S 230.34 230.40 0.06 SW3 S 230.72 230.90 0.18 SW3 H 232.5 233 0.5 GWA8 S 233.08 233.32 0.24 SW3 H 234.79 234.91 0.12 SW3 H 236.56 236.78 0.22 SW3 H 237 237.5 0.5 GWA8 S 238 238.5 0.5 GWA8 S 240.22 240.35 0.13 SW4 H 246 246.5 0.5 GWA8 S <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline (continued) Begin Mile End Mile Length (mile) Sensitivity Factors Drinking Water Ground Water Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species Recreation 247.74 247.93 0.19 SW4 H 247.99 248.30 0.31 SW4 H 248.30 248.55 0.25 SW4 H 248.80 248.86 0.06 SW4 H 249.5 254.5 5 GWA7 S 249.73 250.10 0.37 SW4 H 249.5 254 4.5 GWR S 250.16 250.47 0.31 SW4 S 254.5 257.5 3 GWA8 S 254.82 255.07 0.25 SW4 S 255.94 256.00 0.06 SW4 S 257.81 258.06 0.25 SW4 S 259.92 260.10 0.18 SW4 S 261.5 263.5 2.00 GWR S 262.09 262.16 0.07 SW4 S 263.46 263.59 0.13 SW4 S 263.65 264.02 0.37 SW4 H 264 270 6 GWA7, GWR S S 265.82 266.13 0.31 SW4 S 266.69 266.82 0.13 SW4 S 267.80 267.92 0.12 SW4 H 269.49 269.55 0.06 SW4 S 270 272 2 GWA8 S 271.23 271.41 0.18 SW4 S 272 274 2 GWA7, GWR S S 274 275.5 1.5 GWA8 S 275.5 276.5 1 GWA7, GWR S S 275.76 275.96 0.20 SW4 S 276.37 276.77 0.40 SW4 H 277.5 447 169.5 GWA8 S 315.88 316.00 0.12 SW5 S 324.05 324.42 0.37 SW5 S <<>> Table 7.2.1-1 Sensitive and Hypersensitive Areas Along the Pipeline (continued) Begin Mile End Mile Length (mile) Sensitivity Factors 334.11 334.30 0.19 447 461.5 456.0 457.0 1 R S Drinking Water Ground Water SW5 S 14.5 GWA1 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Gulf Coast Aquifer GWA2 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Brazos River Alluvium Aquifer GWA3 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Colorado River Alluvium Aquifer GWA4 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Edwards (BFZ) Aquifer-Barton Springs Segment GWA5 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Trinity Aquifer System – Hill Country GWA6 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Marble Falls Aquifer GWA7 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Ellenburger – San Saba Aquifer GWA8 – Groundwater, potential impacts to Edwards – Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer GWP – Groundwater, potential impacts to public water supply GWK – Groundwater, potential impacts to karst habitat GWR – Groundwater, potential impacts to surface water and/or karst recreation use SW1 – Marble Creek and Onion Creek crossings in Colorado Alluvium SW2 – Barton Creek Watershed upstream of City of Austin Green Water Treatment Plant SW3 – Pedernales watershed rated for sensitivity to Highland Lakes drinking water quality SW4 – Llano River watershed rated for sensitivity to Highland Lakes drinking water quality SW5 – San Saba watershed 60 miles upstream of alluvial public water supply well. P Population Sensitive P1 Houston Metropolitan Area P2 Austin County P3 Bastrop County P4 Eastern Travis County P5 Austin Metropolitan Area P6 Western Travis County P7 Hays County S Sensitive H Hypersensitive Surface Water Human Population Aquatic Species Recreation GWR S <<>> Table 7.10.1-1 Federally Recognized Native American Tribes with Land Claims in Project Area County Tribes Austin Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Bastrop Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Blanco Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Bosque Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Callahan Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Comanche Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Crane Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Crockett Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Culberson Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation Eastland Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Ector Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma El Paso Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation Ellis Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Erath Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Fayette Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Gillespie Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Harris Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Hays Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Hill Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Howard Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Hudspeth Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation Kimble Comanche Nation of Tonkawa Tribe of Apache Tribe of Kiowa Tribe of <<>> Table 7.10.1-1 - Federally Recognized Native American Tribes with Land Claims in Project Area (continued) County Tribes Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Lee Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Llano Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Martin Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Mason Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Menard Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Midland Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Mitchell Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Navarro Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Nolan Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Reagan Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Reeves Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation Schleicher Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Taylor Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Travis Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Upton Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Waller Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Ward Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 7 APPENDICES <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 7A SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS AND RATES FOR EACH NEW PUMP STATION AND METER STATION <<>> A Fugitive VOC Emissions for Each New Pump Station and Meter Station In Service Equipment Type Representative Equipment Count per Station1 Service VOC Emission Factors2,3 VOC Emissions for Pipeline Pump Station VOC Emissions for Pipeline Meter Station4 (kg/hr/source) (lb/hr/source) Daily (lb/day) Annual (tpy) Daily (lb/day) Annual (tpy) Valves 44 Light liquid 0.000043 0.0000948 0.100 0.0183 Pump seals 383 Light liquid 0.00054 0.00119 10.945 1.9974 Flanges 11 Light liquid 0.000008 0.0000176 0.005 0.0008 Other 5 Light liquid 0.00013 0.000287 0.034 0.0063 TOTAL: 11.08 2.02 0.059 0.011 1Equipment counts are based on the average number of valves, pump seals, flanges, and other equipment for the following Orion pipeline pump stations: Black River, Centerville, Chico, Clyde, Cresson, Grandview, Henrietta, Hueco, Kermit, Marlin, Maypearl, Midland, Waco, 2Source: Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, U.S. EPA, EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995, Table 2-3 3Emission factors are actually for total organic compounds, which inculde methane and ethane; therefore, these factors are conservative for representing VOC emissions 4Total annual VOC emissions per operating metering station based on total VOC emissions for Odessa meter station, as presented in Appendix 7I of original EA Notes: 1. Pumps will operate on electricity from the existing grid; therefore, no combustion-related emissions will be generated at the pump and meter stations. 2. Number of new pipeline pump stations for 'Connected Actions': Number of new pipeline meter stations for 'Connected Actions': 8 (DeLeon, Iatan, Black River, Wink, Odessa (2), and Midland-Oxy, and Cottonwood) 6 (Black River, Wink, Odessa, Crane, Midland-Oxy, and El Paso) (Connected Actions are those associated with the Orion pipeline expansion) 3. Number of new pipeline pump stations for Longhorn pipeline: 9 (Buckhorn, Industry, Warda, Bastrop, Eckert, James River, Cartman, Barnhart, and Texon) Number of new pipeline meter stations for Longhorn pipeline: 6 (Crane (outgoing), Texon, Barnhart, Bastrop, Warda, and Industry) <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 7B CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES <<>> APPENDIX 7B CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Construction Periods Emissions pounds/year tons/year Activity No. of Days NOx VOC NOx VOC Year 1 East Houston Terminal Storage Tanks (PP) 146 23,798 5,212 9th St. Jct. to Speed Jct. Pipeline (CA) 58 10,150 2,216 E. Houston to Holland Ave. Pipeline (CA) 90 15,750 3,438 11.90 2.61 5.08 1.11 7.88 1.72 Year 1 Totals: 49,698 10,866 24.8 5.4 Year 2 East Houston Terminal Storage Tanks (PP) 198 32,274 7,069 16.14 3.53 Year 2 Totals: 32,274 7,069 16.1 3.5 Notes: 1. PP = Proposed Project CA = Connected Action 2. Maximum daily construction emission factors (lb/day): Tanks construction Pipeline construction NOx VOC NOx VOC 163 35.7 175 38.2 - The emission factors for large storage tanks were given in Section 7.7.2.1 of the Final Longhorn Pipeline Reversal EA - The emission factors for a pipeline were given in Section 10.3.3.3.2.1 of the Final Longhorn Pipeline Reversal EA 3. General Conformity de minimis thresholds for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) ozone nonattainment area are 25 tpy for NOx and 25 tpy for VOC. 4. Total NOx and VOC emissions budget (2006 baseline year) for the HGB ozone nonattainment area: NOx - 559.1 tpd or 204,072 tpy VOC - 936.5 tpd or 341,823 tpy Reference: Revision to the SIP for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution, HGB 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area, Table ES-1. <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE This chapter describes the results of an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis conducted for the Proposed Project to determine if there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. The analysis includes potential impacts from normal operation of the pipeline and from pipeline failure. 8.1 PURPOSE OF EJ ANALYSIS Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high, and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In accordance with Executive Order 12898, an analysis was performed to determine the presence of any minority or low-income populations that could potentially be impacted by the pipeline, and to then determine if any potential impacts to these communities would be disproportionate compared to impacts to other communities that could potentially be affected by the pipeline. For the purpose of this analysis, a minority population is defined as a group where less than 50% of the population identifies as non-Hispanic white. A low-income population is defined as a population whose median household income is less than the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2011 poverty guideline for a family of four ($22,350) (HHS, 2011). 8.2 EVALUATION APPROACH This section describes the approach used for the EJ analysis. The table below describes the sequence of steps performed during the evaluation. Each of the steps is described in the following subsections. EJ Evaluation Method Step Description 1 Identify potential effects of the pipeline reversal. Identify potential human health, socioeconomic, and environmental effects of the Proposed Project. 2 Identify potential minority and low-income populations. Identify the locations of minority and/or low-income populations within the zone of potential impact. 3 Determine potential disproportionately high and adverse effects. Use established methods for each area along the route of the Proposed Project to determine whether potential effects on minority or low-income populations could be disproportionately high (potential impacts are identified in Chapter 7). 8-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 8.2.1 Identify Potential Effects of the Proposed Project Potential impacts that could affect EJ populations include impacts to human health and safety; impacts to groundwater and surface water resources, such as drinking water and recreational areas; and impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation. The process for evaluating potential effects of the Proposed Project and for evaluating the results of the analysis is described in Chapter 7. Locations of EJ populations for the Proposed Project are illustrated on Figures 8.2.1- 1a through 1d. 8.2.2 Identify Potential Minority and Low-Income Populations The EJ evaluation considered whether these potential effects could occur in area with high concentrations of minority or low-income populations. In order to do this, housing units within the zone of potential impact were identified, and U.S. Census data was used to determine whether these populations could be categorized as minority or low-income. A detailed description of this methodology is provided below. For this analysis, a minority population was defined using block group (BG) data from Census 2000 Summary File 1 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The minority population group, based on U.S. Census Bureau tabulation methods, includes all persons who identified racially as Black, Asian American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, some other race, or two or more races, or any person who identified as Hispanic. An equivalent definition of minority population is the total non-white population plus the white Hispanic-origin population. Low-income populations were defined using block group data from Census 2000 Summary File 3. The 2011 HHS poverty guideline ($22,350 for a family of four) was used as a threshold to determine which households to categorize as low-income. Housing units located within a BG that had a median household income lower than the HHS poverty guideline were identified as low-income. To determine where potential concentrations of minority or low-income communities existing near the Proposed Project, the U.S. Census data was overlaid with the zone of potential impact developed for the project. The zone of potential impact is defined as a corridor that is at a minimum 2,500 feet wide and extends outward to include an overland flow boundary which considers the area potentially affected by a spill. Then the EJ data were evaluated within the zone of potential impact one MP at a time. This methodology offers a practical, uniform approach to identifying communities that could experience the most significant human health effects and also encompasses areas that could be expected to experience other localized effects such as construction impacts, visual intrusion, and noise impacts. The first step in this analysis to identify areas of potential minority and/or low-income populations was to use NAIP aerial photography to identify the number of housing units (single- family and multi-family units) within the zone of potential impact along the entirety of the 8-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Proposed Project. Then population estimates were developed using the U.S. Census average household size by county (2000). In this step, the 2000 Census data were used to generate estimates of percent minority population and percent low-income population for each BG that falls or partially falls within the zone of potential impact by MP. The zone of potential impact does not coincide with the boundaries of the BG. For areas within the zone of potential impact (by MP) that fell within multiple block groups, the minority and low-income percentages were based on the proportion of housing units within each BG, as identified by the NAIP aerial photography. For example, if 100 housing units exist within an area of Harris County (280 persons), and 50 of the housing units (approximately 140 persons) are in a BG with 15% minority and 50 housing units (approximately 140 people) are in a BG with 45% minority population, the estimated minority population for the area would be: (140 persons X 15% minority) + (140 persons X 45% minority) = 84 minority persons The percent minority population for the whole area is 84 minority persons/280 total persons X 100 = 30% minority. Table 8.2.2-1 presents estimated minority and low-income populations within the zone of potential impact by MP, and also includes minority and low-income populations for the counties traversed by the Proposed Project and the State of Texas. For the purpose of this analysis, a minority population is defined as a group where more than 50% of the population identifies racially as Black, Asian American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, some other race, or two or more races, or a person of any race who identifies as Hispanic, or where the percent minority population exceeds the percent minority population of county. A low-income population is defined as a population with a greater percentage of individuals living below the poverty threshold than the county overall. As shown in Table 8.2.2-1, the majority of MPs are unpopulated or sparsely populated, and the EJ populations are associated with the larger urban areas (Houston and Austin, specifically). Of the 59 MPs in Harris County, 34 were identified as minority, and four were identified as having significant low-income populations (greater than the percent of the population categorized as low-income for the county- 27.24% for Harris County). Of the 27 MPs in Travis County, 13 (48.1%) were identified as minority, and none were categorized as low-income. None of the remaining MPs of the Proposed Project were identified as low-income, and only one additional MP (in Bastrop County) was identified as minority. Because these MPs represent EJ populations, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out. 8.2.3 Disproportionate Impacts Analysis To determine whether the Proposed Project will have disproportionate impacts to EJ populations within the zone of potential impact, a more detailed analysis of these minority and low-income populations is required. 8-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Because the minority and low-income population data for the housing units within the zone of potential impact were based on Census BG information, data for the census tracts and municipalities in which these block groups are located were collected to compare the populations within the zone of potential impact to the surrounding areas. Census tracts cover a larger area than block groups, so comparing the demographic trends of the block groups to the census tracts would determine if the populations within the zone of potential impact are consistent with the surrounding population. Houston Area EJ Populations As shown in Table 8.2.2, within Harris County, EJ populations adjacent to 31 MPs within the zone of potential impact, are categorized as minority, one MP is categorized as low-income, and three MPs are categorized as both. All of these MPs are located within the City of Houston, which has a population that is 69.2% minority and 34.0% low-income. The MPs through the City of Houston that are categorized as minority range from 60.82% to 100.00%. The MPs through the City of Houston that are categorized as low-income range from 60.10% to 100.00%. Table 8.2.3-1 shows minority and low-income data for the census tracts crossed by each of the MPs in the Houston area that had minority and/or low-income populations within the zone of potential impact. When comparing the minority populations within the zone of potential impact of the Harris County MPs (Table 8.2.2-1) to the demographics of the census tracts (Table 8.2.3-1), it is clear that the populations residing within the zone of potential impact are consistent with the population of the surrounding area. Additionally, the City of Houston’s population is 69.19% minority. To compare the low-income populations within the zone of potential impact to the surrounding areas, a slight modification to the methodology was necessary because housing units were only identified within the zone of potential impact, and these housing unit numbers were used to estimate the low-income population. Housing units within block groups that had a median household income less than the HHS poverty threshold were counted as low-income. Because the U.S. Census Bureau does not use the HHS poverty guidelines in its tabulations, the income threshold for census tracts, municipalities, and counties was determined using household income in 1999 data from Census 2000 Summary File 3. These data divide household incomes into different brackets, and the closest bracket to the HHS poverty guideline was the bracket covering incomes from $20,000 to $24,999; therefore, an income of $24,999 was used as the threshold to determine low-income status. All households below this threshold were identified as low-income, and population estimates were made based on the number of households. These estimates were used as a comparison to the percentage of households in the zone of potential impact with a median household income below the HHS poverty guideline. MP 9 had a low-income population of 100.00%. It is located in CT 2118, which had a low- income population of 90.65%, and is therefore consistent with the surrounding area. MP 3 also had a low-income population of 100.00%, and is located in CT 2309, which has a low-income population of 64.18%. MP 10 and MP 12 had low-income populations of 60.10% and 82.71% 8-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL respectively. These are much higher than the percentage of low-income persons of the census tracts in which these MPs are located (ranging from 17.39% to 39.42% low-income). The City of Houston’s population is 34.04% low-income. While the pipeline is located adjacent to several low-income areas, the pipeline was constructed in 1950, and much of the surrounding area now is industrialized. Typically, residential areas near industrial activities are not desirable and are more economical accommodations for persons of limited means, which may explain why the Proposed Project encounters such concentrations of minority and low-income persons in the Houston area. Because these populations are already located adjacent to the pipeline in industrialized urban areas, the only potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would arise from a potential pipeline failure. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population group may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. Austin Area EJ Populations As shown in Table 8.2.2-1, within Travis County, EJ populations adjacent to 13 MPs within the zone of potential impact, were identified as minority. These MPs are generally southeast of the City of Austin, with three being located in the city. Table 8.2.3-2, shows minority data for the census tracts crossed by each of the MPs in the Austin area that had minority income populations within the zone of potential impact (none of the MPs in the Austin area had low- income populations). The percent minority population within the zone of potential impact for these MPs ranges from 55.54% (MP 167) to 75.83% (MP 165). As shown in Table 8.2.3-2 the percent minority population for the census tracts ranges from 44.98% to 74.77%. Based on these similarities, the racial and ethnic make-up of the populations within the zone of potential impact are consistent with the surrounding area. The only potential impacts from operations would arise from potential pipeline failures. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. Bastrop County MP The last minority MP is MP 154, located in Bastrop County. This MP crosses a rural subdivision and is identified as having a population that is 61.24% minority. This population is located in CT 9508, which is 46.46% minority, and CT 9503, which is 27.87% minority. Bastrop County is 34.59% minority. Therefore the population located within the zone of potential impact at MP 164 represents a minority community that is not consistent with racial and ethnic trends of the surrounding areas. However, because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted with any certainty, there is no reliable way to determine if one community or population may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. 8-5 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 8.3 REFERENCES Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2011. HHS Poverty Guidelines http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. United States Summary: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml 8-6 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 8 TABLES <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population STATE OF TEXAS 20,851,820 47.57% 29.73% 9,918,507 6,200,023 HARRIS COUNTY¹ 3,400,578 57.88% 27.24% 1,968,314 926,294 0 1 277 Harris 2.79 773 76.91% 0.00% 594 0 1 2 342 Harris 2.79 1,010 65.50% 0.00% 662 0 2 3 547 Harris 2.79 1,526 70.15% 0.00% 1,070 0 3 4 248 Harris 2.79 692 88.20% 0.00% 610 0 4 5 14 Harris 2.79 39 65.86% 0.00% 26 0 5 6 140 Harris 2.79 391 65.95% 0.00% 258 0 6 7 33 Harris 2.79 92 84.24% 0.00% 77 0 7 8 22 Harris 2.79 61 86.67% 0.00% 53 0 8 9 71 Harris 2.79 198 100.00% 100.00% 198 198 0 1 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 1 2 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 2 3 67 Harris 2.79 187 99.97% 100.00% 187 187 3 4 32 Harris 2.79 89 87.57% 18.75% 78 17 4 5 29 Harris 2.79 81 84.17% 0.00% 68 0 5 6 138 Harris 2.79 385 65.76% 0.00% 253 0 6 7 18 Harris 2.79 50 65.76% 0.00% 33 0 7 8 96 Harris 2.79 268 92.00% 0.00% 246 0 8 9 190 Harris 2.79 530 27.55% 26.32% 146 140 9 10 208 Harris 2.79 580 24.34% 60.10% 141 349 10 11 226 Harris 2.79 631 98.04% 0.00% 618 0 11 12 1,151 Harris 2.79 3,211 98.56% 82.71% 3,165 2,656 12 13 1,387 Harris 2.79 3,870 97.62% 1.23% 3,778 47 13 14 1,375 Harris 2.79 3,836 98.91% 0.22% 3,795 8 14 15 1,691 Harris 2.79 4,718 98.61% 0.00% 4,652 0 15 16 704 Harris 2.79 1,964 89.65% 20.60% 1,761 405 16 17 1,425 Harris 2.79 3,976 83.58% 1.05% 3,323 42 17 18 771 Harris 2.79 2,151 80.05% 0.00% 1,722 0 18 19 602 Harris 2.79 1,680 83.42% 0.00% 1,401 0 19 20 817 Harris 2.79 2,279 77.75% 0.00% 1,772 0 20 21 899 Harris 2.79 2,508 64.12% 0.00% 1,608 0 21 22 1,422 Harris 2.79 3,967 70.16% 9.35% 2,783 371 22 23 1,846 Harris 2.79 5,150 90.78% 18.20% 4,676 937 23 24 727 Harris 2.79 2,028 92.77% 0.00% 1,882 0 24 25 1,263 Harris 2.79 3,524 94.38% 0.00% 3,326 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 25 26 1,041 Harris 2.79 2,904 86.31% 0.00% 2,507 0 26 27 354 Harris 2.79 988 83.56% 0.00% 825 0 27 28 713 Harris 2.79 1,989 67.14% 0.00% 1,336 0 28 29 467 Harris 2.79 1,303 38.36% 0.00% 500 0 29 30 683 Harris 2.79 1,906 60.82% 0.00% 1,159 0 30 31 1,758 Harris 2.79 4,905 38.14% 0.00% 1,870 0 31 32 2,234 Harris 2.79 6,233 30.28% 0.00% 1,887 0 32 33 2,476 Harris 2.79 6,908 38.44% 0.00% 2,655 0 33 34 139 Harris 2.79 388 32.24% 0.00% 125 0 34 35 1,253 Harris 2.79 3,496 32.89% 0.00% 1,150 0 35 36 4,051 Harris 2.79 11,302 32.11% 0.00% 3,629 0 36 37 2,174 Harris 2.79 6,065 31.55% 0.00% 1,914 0 37 38 1,282 Harris 2.79 3,577 33.14% 0.00% 1,185 0 38 39 280 Harris 2.79 781 34.03% 0.00% 266 0 39 40 192 Harris 2.79 536 47.83% 0.00% 256 0 40 41 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 41 42 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 42 43 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 43 44 3 Harris 2.79 8 47.83% 0.00% 4 0 44 45 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 45 46 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 46 47 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 47 48 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 48 49 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 49 50 0 Harris 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 37,878 105,735 62.64% 5.07% 66,232 5,357 WALLER COUNTY 32,663 50.13% 30.07% 16,374 9,821 50 51 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 51 52 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 52 53 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 53 54 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 54 55 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 55 56 6 Waller 2.79 17 20.50% 0.00% 3 0 56 57 2 Waller 2.79 6 20.50% 0.00% 1 0 57 58 6 Waller 2.79 17 20.50% 0.00% 3 0 58 59 7 Waller 2.79 20 20.50% 0.00% 4 0 59 60 4 Waller 2.79 11 20.50% 0.00% 2 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 60 61 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 61 62 1 Waller 2.79 3 20.50% 0.00% 1 0 62 63 0 Waller 2.79 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 63 64 2 Waller 2.79 6 20.50% 0.00% 1 0 Total 28 78 20.50% 0.00% 16 0 AUSTIN COUNTY 23,590 28.09% 30.13% 6,626 7,108 64 65 2 Austin 2.67 5 30.09% 0.00% 2 0 65 66 12 Austin 2.67 32 30.09% 0.00% 10 0 66 67 3 Austin 2.67 8 30.09% 0.00% 2 0 67 68 8 Austin 2.67 21 30.09% 0.00% 6 0 68 69 14 Austin 2.67 37 30.09% 0.00% 11 0 69 70 11 Austin 2.67 29 30.09% 0.00% 9 0 70 71 1 Austin 2.67 3 30.09% 0.00% 1 0 71 72 3 Austin 2.67 8 30.09% 0.00% 2 0 72 73 7 Austin 2.67 19 30.09% 0.00% 6 0 73 74 2 Austin 2.67 5 30.09% 0.00% 2 0 74 75 34 Austin 2.67 91 11.77% 0.00% 11 0 75 76 36 Austin 2.67 96 11.77% 0.00% 11 0 76 77 12 Austin 2.67 32 11.77% 0.00% 4 0 77 78 1 Austin 2.67 3 11.77% 0.00% 0 0 78 79 0 Austin 2.67 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 79 80 7 Austin 2.67 19 11.77% 0.00% 2 0 80 81 5 Austin 2.67 13 11.77% 0.00% 2 0 81 82 1 Austin 2.67 3 15.64% 0.00% 0 0 82 83 7 Austin 2.67 19 15.64% 0.00% 3 0 83 84 10 Austin 2.67 27 15.64% 0.00% 4 0 84 85 10 Austin 2.67 27 15.64% 0.00% 4 0 85 86 3 Austin 2.67 8 15.64% 0.00% 1 0 86 87 7 Austin 2.67 19 15.64% 0.00% 3 0 87 88 7 Austin 2.67 19 18.15% 0.00% 3 0 88 89 4 Austin 2.67 11 18.15% 0.00% 2 0 89 90 4 Austin 2.67 11 18.15% 0.00% 2 0 90 91 2 Austin 2.67 5 18.15% 0.00% 1 0 91 92 5 Austin 2.67 13 18.15% 0.00% 2 0 92 93 5 Austin 2.67 13 18.15% 0.00% 2 0 93 94 20 Austin 2.67 53 18.15% 0.00% 10 0 Total 243 649 18.36% 0.00% 119 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population FAYETTE COUNTY 21,804 20.79% 14.96% 4,533 3,262 94 95 3 Fayette 2.44 8 9.15% 0.00% 1 0 95 96 3 Fayette 2.44 7 5.07% 0.00% 0 0 96 97 5 Fayette 2.44 12 5.07% 0.00% 1 0 97 98 4 Fayette 2.44 10 5.07% 0.00% 0 0 98 99 1 Fayette 2.44 2 8.61% 0.00% 0 0 99 100 4 Fayette 2.44 10 8.61% 0.00% 1 0 100 101 13 Fayette 2.44 32 8.61% 0.00% 3 0 101 102 15 Fayette 2.44 37 8.61% 0.00% 3 0 102 103 13 Fayette 2.44 32 12.39% 0.00% 4 0 103 104 1 Fayette 2.44 2 12.39% 0.00% 0 0 104 105 5 Fayette 2.44 12 12.39% 0.00% 2 0 105 106 2 Fayette 2.44 5 12.39% 0.00% 1 0 106 107 5 Fayette 2.44 12 12.39% 0.00% 2 0 107 108 4 Fayette 2.44 10 12.39% 0.00% 1 0 108 109 2 Fayette 2.44 5 10.38% 0.00% 1 0 109 110 4 Fayette 2.44 10 10.38% 0.00% 1 0 110 111 2 Fayette 2.44 5 10.38% 0.00% 1 0 111 112 3 Fayette 2.44 7 10.38% 0.00% 1 0 112 113 6 Fayette 2.44 15 8.21% 0.00% 1 0 113 114 4 Fayette 2.44 10 8.21% 0.00% 1 0 114 115 3 Fayette 2.44 7 8.21% 0.00% 1 0 115 116 4 Fayette 2.44 10 8.21% 0.00% 1 0 116 117 1 Fayette 2.44 2 8.21% 0.00% 0 0 119 120 6 Fayette 2.44 15 13.20% 0.00% 2 0 Total 114 277 9.61% 0.00% 27 0 LEE COUNTY 15,657 31.51% 32.62% 4,933 5,107 117 118 2 Lee 2.65 5 8.21% 0.00% 0 0 118 119 3 Lee 2.65 8 17.80% 0.00% 1 0 Total 5 13 14.15% 0.00% 2 0 BASTROP COUNTY 57,733 34.59% 26.09% 19,969 15,060 120 121 0 Bastrop 2.77 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 121 122 4 Bastrop 2.77 11 20.64% 0.00% 2 0 122 123 3 Bastrop 2.77 8 20.64% 0.00% 2 0 123 124 46 Bastrop 2.77 127 20.64% 0.00% 26 0 124 125 9 Bastrop 2.77 25 20.64% 0.00% 5 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 125 126 18 Bastrop 2.77 50 20.64% 0.00% 10 0 126 127 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 20.64% 0.00% 1 0 127 128 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 20.64% 0.00% 1 0 128 129 2 Bastrop 2.77 6 20.64% 0.00% 1 0 129 130 18 Bastrop 2.77 50 20.64% 0.00% 10 0 130 131 10 Bastrop 2.77 28 20.64% 0.00% 6 0 131 132 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 20.64% 0.00% 1 0 132 133 19 Bastrop 2.77 53 13.31% 0.00% 7 0 133 134 18 Bastrop 2.77 50 13.31% 0.00% 7 0 134 135 34 Bastrop 2.77 94 13.31% 0.00% 13 0 135 136 0 Bastrop 2.77 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 136 137 0 Bastrop 2.77 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 137 138 0 Bastrop 2.77 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 138 139 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 25.83% 0.00% 1 0 139 140 5 Bastrop 2.77 14 25.83% 0.00% 4 0 140 141 2 Bastrop 2.77 6 25.83% 0.00% 1 0 141 142 5 Bastrop 2.77 14 25.94% 0.00% 4 0 142 143 14 Bastrop 2.77 39 26.37% 0.00% 10 0 143 144 27 Bastrop 2.77 75 26.37% 0.00% 20 0 144 145 31 Bastrop 2.77 86 26.37% 0.00% 23 0 145 146 40 Bastrop 2.77 111 26.72% 0.00% 30 0 146 147 20 Bastrop 2.77 55 29.14% 0.00% 16 0 147 148 31 Bastrop 2.77 86 29.14% 0.00% 25 0 148 149 10 Bastrop 2.77 28 33.87% 0.00% 9 0 149 150 0 Bastrop 2.77 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 150 151 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 33.87% 0.00% 1 0 151 152 1 Bastrop 2.77 3 33.87% 0.00% 1 0 152 153 95 Bastrop 2.77 263 46.88% 0.00% 123 0 153 154 170 Bastrop 2.77 470 61.24% 0.00% 288 0 Total 637 1,763 36.62% 0.00% 646 0 TRAVIS COUNTY 812,280 43.64% 23.77% 354,463 193,100 154 155 73 Travis 2.47 180 65.79% 0.00% 119 0 155 156 2 Travis 2.47 5 65.79% 0.00% 3 0 156 157 9 Travis 2.47 22 65.79% 0.00% 15 0 157 158 33 Travis 2.47 82 65.79% 0.00% 54 0 158 159 148 Travis 2.47 366 65.79% 0.00% 241 0 159 160 25 Travis 2.47 62 65.56% 0.00% 40 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 160 161 100 Travis 2.47 247 63.55% 0.00% 157 0 161 162 22 Travis 2.47 54 59.28% 0.00% 32 0 162 163 6 Travis 2.47 15 59.11% 0.00% 9 0 163 164 109 Travis 2.47 269 75.48% 0.00% 203 0 164 165 706 Travis 2.47 1,744 75.83% 0.00% 1,322 0 165 166 1,164 Travis 2.47 2,875 62.76% 0.00% 1,804 0 166 167 507 Travis 2.47 1,252 55.54% 0.00% 696 0 167 168 520 Travis 2.47 1,284 42.50% 0.00% 546 0 168 169 622 Travis 2.47 1,536 33.97% 0.00% 522 0 169 170 835 Travis 2.47 2,062 37.90% 0.00% 782 0 170 171 1,080 Travis 2.47 2,668 46.16% 0.00% 1,231 0 171 172 1,545 Travis 2.47 3,816 32.47% 0.00% 1,239 0 172 173 809 Travis 2.47 1,998 28.20% 0.00% 563 0 173 174 267 Travis 2.47 659 17.86% 0.00% 118 0 174 175 99 Travis 2.47 245 10.50% 0.00% 26 0 175 176 41 Travis 2.47 101 10.28% 0.00% 10 0 176 177 50 Travis 2.47 124 10.28% 0.00% 13 0 177 178 47 Travis 2.47 116 15.61% 0.00% 18 0 178 179 14 Travis 2.47 35 18.36% 0.00% 6 0 179 180 55 Travis 2.47 136 8.81% 0.00% 12 0 180 181 40 Travis 2.47 98 4.91% 0.00% 5 0 Total 8,928 22,051 44.38% 0.00% 9,786 0 HAYS COUNTY 97,589 35.50% 25.18% 34,644 24,570 181 182 30 Hays 2.69 81 6.94% 0.00% 6 0 182 183 65 Hays 2.69 175 13.27% 0.00% 23 0 183 184 34 Hays 2.69 91 11.97% 0.00% 11 0 184 185 6 Hays 2.69 16 11.49% 0.00% 2 0 185 186 10 Hays 2.69 27 5.84% 0.00% 2 0 186 187 11 Hays 2.69 30 4.42% 0.00% 1 0 187 188 14 Hays 2.69 38 4.42% 0.00% 2 0 188 189 13 Hays 2.69 35 4.42% 0.00% 2 0 189 190 29 Hays 2.69 78 4.42% 0.00% 3 0 190 191 5 Hays 2.69 13 4.42% 0.00% 1 0 191 192 5 Hays 2.69 13 4.42% 0.00% 1 0 192 193 5 Hays 2.69 13 4.42% 0.00% 1 0 Total 227 611 8.67% 0.00% 53 0 BLANCO COUNTY 8,418 17.89% 31.18% 1,506 2,625 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 193 194 8 Blanco 2.5 20 9.41% 0.00% 2 0 194 195 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 195 196 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 196 197 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 197 198 1 Blanco 2.5 3 9.41% 0.00% 0 0 198 199 1 Blanco 2.5 3 9.41% 0.00% 0 0 199 200 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 200 201 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 201 202 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 202 203 2 Blanco 2.5 5 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 203 204 4 Blanco 2.5 10 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 204 205 3 Blanco 2.5 8 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 205 206 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 206 207 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 207 208 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 208 209 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 209 210 4 Blanco 2.5 10 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 210 211 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 211 212 2 Blanco 2.5 5 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 212 213 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 213 214 2 Blanco 2.5 5 10.90% 0.00% 1 0 214 215 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 215 216 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 216 217 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 217 218 0 Blanco 2.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 27 68 10.34% 0.00% 7 0 GILLESPIE COUNTY 20,814 17.21% 29.71% 3,582 6,183 218 219 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 219 220 2 Gillespie 2.38 5 12.15% 0.00% 1 0 220 221 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 221 222 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 222 223 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 223 224 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 224 225 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 225 226 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 226 227 3 Gillespie 2.38 7 12.15% 0.00% 1 0 227 228 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 228 229 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 229 230 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 230 231 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 231 232 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 232 233 3 Gillespie 2.38 7 12.15% 0.00% 1 0 233 234 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 12.15% 0.00% 0 0 234 235 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 29.15% 0.00% 1 0 235 236 2 Gillespie 2.38 5 29.15% 0.00% 1 0 236 237 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 237 238 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 238 239 1 Gillespie 2.38 2 29.15% 0.00% 1 0 239 240 0 Gillespie 2.38 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 240 241 7 Gillespie 2.38 16 26.27% 0.00% 4 0 Total 26 62 18.54% 0.00% 11 0 LLANO COUNTY 17,044 6.89% 34.24% 1,175 5,836 241 242 2 Llano 2.13 4 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 2 4 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 MASON COUNTY 3,738 22.10% 16.67% 826 623 242 243 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 243 244 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 244 245 1 Mason 2.31 2 10.66% 0.00% 0 0 245 246 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 246 247 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 247 248 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 248 249 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 249 250 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 250 251 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 251 252 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 252 253 2 Mason 2.31 5 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 253 254 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 254 255 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 255 256 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 256 257 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 257 258 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 258 259 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 259 260 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 260 261 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 261 262 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 262 263 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 263 264 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 264 265 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 265 266 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 266 267 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 267 268 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 268 269 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 269 270 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 270 271 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 271 272 0 Mason 2.31 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 272 273 2 Mason 2.31 5 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 273 274 1 Mason 2.31 2 5.74% 0.00% 0 0 Total 11 25 6.19% 0.00% 2 0 KIMBLE COUNTY 4,468 22.09% 42.01% 987 1,877 274 275 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 275 276 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 276 277 3 Kimble 2.37 7 13.81% 0.00% 1 0 277 278 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 278 279 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 279 280 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 280 281 2 Kimble 2.37 5 13.81% 0.00% 1 0 281 282 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 282 283 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 283 284 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 284 285 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 285 286 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 286 287 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 287 288 3 Kimble 2.37 7 13.81% 0.00% 1 0 288 289 2 Kimble 2.37 5 13.81% 0.00% 1 0 289 290 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 290 291 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 291 292 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 292 293 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 293 294 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 294 295 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 295 296 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 296 297 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 297 298 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 298 299 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 299 300 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 300 301 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 301 302 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 302 303 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 303 304 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 304 305 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 305 306 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 306 307 1 Kimble 2.37 2 13.81% 0.00% 0 0 307 308 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 308 309 0 Kimble 2.37 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 309 310 1 Kimble 2.37 2 11.31% 0.00% 0 0 Total 17 40 13.67% 0.00% 6 0 MENARD COUNTY 2,360 33.60% 50.17% 793 1,184 310 311 1 Menard 2.34 2 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 311 312 0 Menard 2.34 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 312 313 0 Menard 2.34 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 1 2 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 SCHLEICHER COUNTY 2,935 45.66% 38.30% 1,340 1,124 313 314 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 314 315 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 315 316 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 316 317 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 317 318 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 318 319 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 319 320 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 320 321 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 321 322 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 322 323 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 323 324 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 324 325 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 325 326 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 326 327 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 327 328 2 Schleicher 2.59 5 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 328 329 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 329 330 2 Schleicher 2.59 5 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 330 331 3 Schleicher 2.59 8 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 331 332 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 332 333 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 333 334 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 334 335 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 335 336 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 336 337 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 337 338 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 338 339 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 339 340 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 340 341 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 341 342 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 342 343 2 Schleicher 2.59 5 43.23% 50.00% 2 3 343 344 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 344 345 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 35.69% 0.00% 1 0 345 346 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 346 347 2 Schleicher 2.59 5 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 347 348 6 Schleicher 2.59 16 18.18% 0.00% 3 0 348 349 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 349 350 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 350 351 2 Schleicher 2.59 5 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 351 352 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 352 353 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 353 354 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 354 355 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 355 356 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 356 357 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 357 358 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 358 359 1 Schleicher 2.59 3 18.18% 0.00% 0 0 359 360 3 Schleicher 2.59 8 18.18% 0.00% 1 0 360 361 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 361 362 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 362 363 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 363 364 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 364 365 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 365 366 0 Schleicher 2.59 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population Total 31 80 20.36% 3.23% 16 3 CROCKETT COUNTY 4,099 56.28% 42.99% 2,307 1,762 366 367 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 367 368 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 368 369 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 369 370 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 370 371 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 371 372 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 372 373 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 373 374 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 374 375 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 375 376 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 376 377 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 377 378 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 378 379 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 379 380 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 380 381 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 381 382 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 382 383 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 383 384 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 384 385 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 385 386 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 386 387 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 387 388 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 388 389 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 389 390 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 390 391 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 391 392 0 Crockett 2.65 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 REAGAN COUNTY 3,326 53.55% 33.01% 1,781 1,098 392 393 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 393 394 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 394 395 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 395 396 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 396 397 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 397 398 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 398 399 1 Reagan 2.96 3 24.64% 0.00% 1 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 399 400 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 400 401 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 401 402 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 402 403 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 403 404 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 404 405 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 405 406 1 Reagan 2.96 3 24.64% 0.00% 1 0 406 407 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 407 408 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 408 409 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 409 410 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 410 411 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 411 412 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 412 413 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 413 414 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 414 415 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 415 416 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 416 417 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 417 418 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 418 419 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 419 420 0 Reagan 2.96 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 2 6 24.64% 0.00% 1 0 UPTON COUNTY 3,404 45.53% 42.51% 1,550 1,447 420 421 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 421 422 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 422 423 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 423 424 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 424 425 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 425 426 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 426 427 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 427 428 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 428 429 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 429 430 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 430 431 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 431 432 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 432 433 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 433 434 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 <<>> Table 8.2.2-1 (continued) Estimated Minority and Low-Income Populations within the Zone of Potential Impact Milepost Housing Units County Persons Per Household Population Percent Minority Percent Low Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 434 435 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 435 436 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 436 437 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 437 438 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 438 439 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 439 440 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 440 441 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 441 442 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 442 443 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 443 444 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 444 445 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 445 446 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 446 447 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 447 448 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 448 449 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 449 450 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 450 451 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 451 452 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 452 453 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 453 454 0 Upton 2.68 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 CRANE COUNTY¹ 3,996 47.87% 13.36% 1,913 534 454 455 0 Crane 2.91 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 455 456 0 Crane 2.91 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 456 457 0 Crane 2.91 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 Total 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 ¹These counties contain two sets of MP numbers as they contain to different segments of the Longhorn pipeline <<>> Table 8.2.3-1 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area MPs Crossed Census Tracts Crossed by MPs Total Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 1 773 76.91% 0.00% 594 0 2337 10,593 77.84% 31.31% 8,246 3,317 2 1,010 65.50% 0.00% 662 0 2333 4,978 81.96% 10.20% 4,080 508 2335 7,694 76.94% 27.23% 5,920 2,095 3 1,526 70.15% 0.00% 1,070 0 2326 2,932 72.92% 21.32% 2,138 625 2327 13,029 91.53% 34.65% 11,925 4,514 2334 2,608 78.26% 23.43% 2,041 611 2235 7,694 76.94% 27.23% 5,920 2,095 4 692 88.20% 0.00% 610 0 2326 2,932 72.92% 21.32% 2,138 625 2327 13,029 91.53% 34.65% 11,925 4,514 5 39 65.86% 0.00% 26 0 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 6 391 65.95% 0.00% 258 0 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 7 92 84.24% 0.00% 77 0 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 8 61 86.67% 0.00% 53 0 2309 4,282 98.34% 64.18% 4,211 2,748 2311 4,906 87.16% 33.55% 4,276 1,646 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 9 198 100.00% 100.00% 198 198 2118 246 98.78% 90.65% 243 223 <<>> Table 8.2.3-1 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area (continued) Census Tracts MPs Crossed Crossed by MPs 3 187 Total Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 99.97% 100.00% 187 187 2309 4,282 98.34% 64.18% 4,211 2,748 4 89 87.57% 18.75% 78 17 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 5 81 84.17% 0.00% 68 0 2326 2,932 72.92% 21.32% 2,138 625 2327 13,029 91.53% 34.65% 11,925 4,514 6 385 65.76% 0.00% 253 0 2325 2,759 77.93% 24.47% 2,150 675 2327 13,029 91.53% 34.65% 11,925 4,514 2328 5,119 77.28% 24.63% 3,956 1,261 2329 6,645 71.56% 20.53% 4,755 1,364 7 50 65.76% 0.00% 33 0 2324 13,271 78.79% 23.08% 10,456 3,063 8 268 92.00% 0.00% 246 0 2323 10,105 68.64% 29.71% 6,936 3,002 10 580 24.34% 60.10% 141 349 2311 4,906 87.16% 33.55% 4,276 1,646 2312 6,370 97.47% 39.42% 6,209 2,511 11 631 98.04% 0.00% 618 0 2311 4,906 87.16% 33.55% 4,276 1,646 2312 6,370 97.47% 39.42% 6,209 2,511 2310 4,548 95.60% 17.39% 4,348 791 12 3,211 98.56% 82.71% 3,165 2,656 2310 4,548 95.60% 17.39% 4,348 791 2313 3,924 96.36% 35.47% 3,781 1,392 13 3,870 97.62% 1.23% 3,778 47 <<>> Table 8.2.3-1 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area (continued) MPs Crossed Census Tracts Crossed by MPs 2307 Total Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 3,115 97.78% 18.39% 3,046 573 2308 2,882 97.71% 47.92% 2,816 1,381 2314 2,471 99.64% 42.45% 2,462 1,049 2315 2,782 99.53% 41.30% 2,769 1,149 14 3,836 98.91% 0.22% 3,795 8 2307 3,115 97.78% 18.39% 3,046 573 2316 2,998 98.20% 41.13% 2,944 1,233 2318 2,643 91.26% 31.90% 2,412 843 2315 2,782 99.53% 41.30% 2,769 1,149 2319 6,968 94.62% 41.56% 6,593 2,896 15 4,718 98.61% 0.00% 4,652 0 2305 4,270 92.06% 34.05% 3,931 1,454 2317 3,805 83.26% 37.98% 3,168 1,445 16 1,964 89.65% 20.60% 1,761 405 2209 1,859 93.22% 36.04% 1,733 670 2210 4,754 87.57% 39.67% 4,163 1,886 2220 2,503 80.26% 25.41% 2,009 636 2221 5,388 82.59% 30.75% 4,450 1,657 17 3,976 83.58% 1.05% 3,323 42 2219 4,411 80.75% 33.39% 3,562 1,473 2221 5,388 82.59% 30.75% 4,450 1,657 2223 4,107 76.31% 29.49% 3,134 1,211 18 2,151 80.05% 0.00% 1,722 0 2218 4,132 79.28% 32.41% 3,276 1,339 2223 4,107 76.31% 29.49% 3,134 1,211 19 1,680 83.42% 0.00% 1,401 0 2217 7,160 75.61% 28.56% 5,414 2,045 2224 8,685 71.18% 27.44% 6,182 2,383 20 2,279 77.75% 0.00% 1,772 0 <<>> Table 8.2.3-1 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area (continued) MPs Crossed Census Tracts Crossed by MPs 2216 Total Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 7,911 63.10% 23.49% 4,992 1,858 21 2,508 64.12% 0.00% 1,608 0 5335 3,924 69.98% 19.83% 2,746 778 2216 7,911 63.10% 23.49% 4,992 1,858 2224 8,685 71.18% 27.44% 6,182 2,383 22 3,967 70.16% 9.35% 2,783 371 5333 6,436 98.52% 59.52% 6,341 3,831 5334 7,837 94.02% 31.19% 7,368 2,444 5335 3,924 69.98% 19.83% 2,746 778 5336 4,338 81.58% 27.34% 3,539 1,186 23 5,150 90.78% 18.20% 4,676 937 5334 7,837 94.02% 31.19% 7,368 2,444 5338 8,114 77.75% 19.60% 6,309 1,590 24 2,028 92.77% 0.00% 1,882 0 5330 855 96.49% 38.13% 825 326 5331 6,447 83.40% 27.95% 5,377 1,802 25 3,524 94.38% 0.00% 3,326 0 5329 5,536 88.75% 21.32% 4,913 1,180 5328 2,124 58.43% 19.82% 1,241 421 26 2,904 86.31% 0.00% 2,507 0 5324 5,637 44.26% 15.89% 2,495 896 5325 12,145 66.79% 14.49% 8,112 1,760 5326 7,060 83.54% 26.32% 5,898 1,858 27 988 83.56% 0.00% 825 0 5325 12,145 66.79% 14.49% 8,112 1,760 5341 5,540 66.84% 12.94% 3,703 717 28 1,989 67.14% 0.00% 1,336 0 5341 5,540 66.84% 12.94% 3,703 717 <<>> Table 8.2.3-1 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Houston Area (continued) MPs Crossed Census Tracts Crossed by MPs Total Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 30 1,906 60.82% 0.00% 1,159 0 5342 10,609 38.07% 15.81% 4,039 1,677 5341 5,540 66.84% 12.94% 3,703 717 5517 18,550 38.02% 6.70% 7,052 1,242 <<>> Table 8.2.3-2 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Austin Area MP Census Tracts Crossed by MP Population Percent Minority Percent Low- Income Minority Population Low- Income Population 155 180 65.79% 0.00% 119 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 156 5 65.79% 0.00% 3 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 157 22 65.79% 0.00% 15 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 158 82 65.79% 0.00% 54 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 159 366 65.79% 0.00% 241 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 160 62 65.56% 0.00% 40 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 161 247 63.55% 0.00% 157 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 24.17 7,814 68.80% 19.63% 5,376 1,534 162 54 59.28% 0.00% 32 0 24.16 9,365 59.32% 18.57% 5,555 1,739 24.17 7,814 68.80% 19.63% 5,376 1,534 163 15 59.11% 0.00% 9 0 24.17 7,814 68.80% 19.63% 5,376 1,534 164 269 75.48% 0.00% 203 0 24.17 7,814 68.80% 19.63% 5,376 1,534 24.18 4,869 44.98% 11.42% 2,190 556 24.20 9,543 74.77% 16.46% 7,135 1,571 <<>> Table 8.2.3-2 Minority and Low Income Data for Census Tracts Crossed by EJ MPs in the Austin Area (continued) Census Tracts Crossed by MP MP 165 Population 1,744 Percent Minority 75.83% Percent Low- Income 0.00% Low- Minority Income Population Population 1,322 0 24.18 4,869 44.98% 11.42% 2,190 556 24.20 9,543 74.77% 16.46% 7,135 1,571 166 2,875 62.76% 0.00% 1,804 0 24.20 9,543 74.77% 16.46% 7,135 1,571 167 1,252 55.54% 0.00% 696 0 24.20 9,543 74.77% 16.46% 7,135 1,571 24.22 5,161 55.86% 20.19% 2,883 1,042 <<>> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 8 FIGURES <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 10 20 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 8.2.1-1a Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project 1 SHEET OF 4 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 10 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_8.2.1-1a-d_EJpop_Longhorn.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 10 20 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 8.2.1-1b Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project 2 SHEET OF 4 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 10 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_8.2.1-1a-d_EJpop_Longhorn.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 10 20 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 8.2.1-1c Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project 3 SHEET OF 4 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 10 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_8.2.1-1a-d_EJpop_Longhorn.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 10 20 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 8.2.1-1d Environmental Justice Populations on the Proposed Project 4 SHEET OF 4 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 10 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_8.2.1-1a-d_EJpop_Longhorn.mxd <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.0 PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATIONS 9.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 9 considers appropriate mitigation items to minimize the impact to resources and to minimize the possibilities of failure of the System. The construction of the proposed pump stations and various infrastructure improvements is not expected to present a significant impact to resources. However, there are varying probabilities that accidental releases could occur along the System, and if these releases occur, impacts to the various resources could be significant. The mitigation measures detailed in this chapter can be classified into two categories: environmental mitigation and System integrity mitigation. Section 9.2 describes appropriate mitigation to minimize environmental impacts resulting from construction, normal operations and accidental releases, while Section 9.3 describes mitigation items identified in the risk assessment detailed in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 provided a detailed evaluation of risks associated with the operation of the system under the proposed reversal and change of product. The risk assessment concluded that the risk associated with the Proposed Project will be lower than risk associated with current operations as a result of the mitigation measures outlined in this chapter. These mitigation measures provide for continued maintenance of the integrity of the System thereby reducing the potential for a release. Therefore, this FEA concludes that the Proposed Project does not present a significant impact to resources when the System is under normal operation. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines mitigation used to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts associated with project actions and is described under the CEQ regulations as including: • Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; • Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; • Reducing or eliminating an impact over time, through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and • Compensating for an impact by replacing or proving substitute resources or environments (see 40 CFR 1507.20). The evolution of environmental regulations has resulted in a significant body of laws and regulations, both federal and state, designed to prevent or minimize the potential adverse effects of the Proposed Project. For example, existing federal and state air permit regulations are designed to protect the air quality of adjacent communities from stationary emission sources such as the proposed build out of storage tanks. For facilities such as East Houston that are located within in an area that has not achieved the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), each additional unit of emissions resulting from a Proposed Project within the severe nonattainment area is required to be offset by an 1.3x reduction of emissions, thereby lowering the overall emissions in the nonattainment area. For nonattainment areas, the federal 9-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL regulations and the state implementation plan also require that a new stationary source is subject to lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). This is the most stringent air pollution standard imposed under federal and Texas State regulations. Similarly the federal government has developed an extensive body of regulations under 49 CFR Part 195 that regulate the construction, operation and transportation of hazardous liquids in interstate pipelines such as the Longhorn Pipeline and the Proposed Project. These regulations require owners and operators to follow strict design and construction requirements, as well as operation, maintenance, corrosion, qualification of pipeline personnel, and pipeline integrity management requirements. Part 195 also provides specific pipeline integrity management standards in high consequence areas (see 49 CFR 195.452). A high consequence area includes commercially navigable waterways, high population areas and other populated areas. High consequence areas along the Longhorn Pipeline are illustrated on maps presented in Appendix 9A. Other incorporated types of mitigation in the Proposed Project include federally and state required emergency response plans, spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) requirements. In addition to the federal and state requirements, the Proposed Project is also subject to the LMP. The LMP provides specific mitigation requirements regarding the Longhorn Pipeline. These mitigation requirements will also apply to the sections of the Proposed Project that are subject to the LMP. As discussed in Section 5.1.1.2, the LMP was developed as a cooperative effort principally among the City of Austin, regulatory agencies (PHMSA, EPA, FWS, and LCRA), and Longhorn Pipeline. A summary of the LMP commitments are included in Appendix 9B. The 1999 EA utilized a ranking system to evaluate the potential impacts to resources adjacent to the pipeline. The system designated segments along the pipeline as hypersensitive (Tier 3), sensitive (Tier 2), or less sensitive (Tier 1). The tiering methodology incorporated a comprehensive consideration of the sensitivity level of each area along the pipeline as a function of the potential receptors (drinking water, population density, socioeconomics, threatened and endangered species, aquatic species, and recreational areas). The level of mitigation proposed for each segment is greatest for the Tier 3 segments and lowest for the Tier 1 segments. The sensitive and hypersensitive segments are listed in Table 7.2.1-1 and illustrated in the maps presented in Appendix 9A. The following discussion on mitigation for the Proposed Project is organized under the common event types: construction, operations, and accidental releases. 9-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 9.2.1 Construction 9.2.1.1 Health and Human Safety Potential impacts to human health and safety associated with the construction of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be negligible. Construction activities would be limited to pump stations that have been selected in rural areas. The construction will include limited earthwork and the assembly of pumps and associated piping. The construction activity is not anticipated to pose a threat to the local populations. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the Proposed Project. 9.2.1.2 Groundwater Potential impacts associated with the construction of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be negligible because of (1) the relatively small quantity of hazardous products (construction equipment fuel and oil) on the site at any one time, (2) the use of regulatory required best management practices (BMPs) and (3) the proposed construction areas are either in areas that have been previously disturbed and relatively small. Adverse impacts could arise from the potential release of fuel during fueling operations of construction equipment; potential sediment loading that could enter karst features, and the transport of inorganic pollutants resulting from storm runoff from land disturbance (clearing and excavation). Prescribed mitigation will include utilizing appropriate BMPs to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts such as: • Implementing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans; • Managing construction areas to minimize the amount of time that any individual construction area is under construction thereby minimizing exposure to potential storm runoff. • Completion of construction restoration to ensure that original surface water paths are returned to preconstruction conditions and recharge patterns are reestablished. • Avoidance of potential refueling releases by restricting the location of the refueling and storage areas and requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. • Adhering to Section 1.12.0 of the Environmental Criteria Manual of the City of Austin while performing construction in the EARZ. BMPs also include the installation of physical barriers at a construction site to provide spill prevention, construction restoration and storm water control. It is anticipated that limited construction activities associated with Longhorn will more than likely all share the following detailed BMPs in order to control and prevent any inorganic pollutants from leaving the constructions sites. • Silt Fence – Silt fence will be installed on the down-slope side on all construction activities where storm water runoff has the potential to move off site. Depending on the 9-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL degree of slope, silt fence is typically the most widely used control device and can be installed quickly if needed. • Straw Bales/Straw Socks – Straw bales can be used for several purposes. If there is too much slope for a single silt fence to contain silt or pollutants, they can be applied in conjunction with silt fences to add more stabilization and filtering. Hay bales may also be used for filtering and dissipating water flow should dewatering need to occur on site. • Rip Rap – Rip rap (i.e. rock armour) may be used in several ways to prevent or control sediment/pollution. Rip rap may be applied at the construction entrance to prevent off site sedimentation from construction vehicles. Rip rap may also be applied to dissipate and slow down larger amounts of runoff or sheet flow due to slope or other factors where silt fence may not be effective enough on its own. Rip rap may be used in conjunction with silt fence and hay bales should it be necessary. • Filter Bags – Filter bags are typically used when dewatering a trench. Should construction activities associated with the construction of pump stations on Longhorn require dewatering, filter bags may be placed at the end of the hose to filter the water as well as dissipate the flow of water and prevent erosion. • Dust Suppression – Dust suppression is occasionally needed in dry regions or during dry conditions to prevent dust and wind borne particles from leaving the site of the ground disturbance. This condition is simply maintained by spraying (or misting) water on the disturbed area to prevent the fine particulate matter from becoming airborne. 9.2.1.3 Aquatic Biology Construction activities related to the Proposed Project are anticipated to result in negligible to minor impacts to aquatic ecology including threatened and endangered species or other aquatic resources. Construction activities are anticipated to occur on uplands with open woodland conditions. During construction activities, use of standard BMPs (see Section 9.2.1.2) will be implemented to prevent potential impacts to downstream aquatic resources. These mitigation measures would avoid or minimize the transport of sediment or other potential pollutants to aquatic environments which may impact aquatic flora and fauna. Environmental oversight would also be conducted in the field during construction activities in order to monitor or locate any potential impacts to aquatic resources. 9.2.1.4 Terrestrial Biology Construction activities related to the Proposed Project are anticipated to result in negligible to minor impacts to terrestrial ecology including threatened and endangered species or other terrestrial flora/fauna. Construction activities are anticipated to occur within an existing ROW 9-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL corridor, within areas that are already used as an existing facility such as most pump station locations, or in areas that do not contain unique or protected habitat. During construction activities, avoidance and minimization practices would be followed to prevent potential impacts to terrestrial resources. These practices include avoiding construction during breeding season of sensitive species, working only within the proposed construction corridor and proper use of BMPs (see Section 9.2.1.2) to minimize dust or any other potential pollutants. Environmental oversight would also be conducted in the field during construction activities in order to monitor or locate any potential impacts to terrestrial resources. 9.2.1.5 Surface Water Potential impacts to surface water associated with construction activities are anticipated to be negligible to minor. However, proper implementation of storm water control measures will be critical to reduce the potential impacts associated with the disturbance of land at construction sites. Sediments associated with storm water runoff will be mitigated by the use of such control mechanisms as silt fencing, placement of hay bales, use of sedimentation ponds, construction of velocity dissipation devices, and the use of berms or other runoff diversionary structured. Any temporary storage of construction related petroleum products will be provided with containment and will be located away from streams or drainage ways in order to prevent a release to the surface waters of the U.S. Depending upon the size of the disturbed area, a Construction Storm Water Permit may be obtained from either the TCEQ or the RRC. Magellan must perform construction activities in conformance with the requirements of the applicable permits. Construction personnel will receive training with regard to measures to be taken at the job site to mitigate potential impacts to storm water runoff. 9.2.1.5.1 Wetlands Potential impacts to wetlands associated with construction activities will be limited to the installation of new pump stations, since no new pipeline will be installed. Potential impacts to wetlands are anticipated to be negligible. Pump station sites were selected to avoid wetland areas. If wetlands are located adjacent to the construction area, BMPs/erosion control devices will be used slope side to avoid any potential run-off impacts to these resources. All storm water runoff regulations under the NPDES would be conducted during and after construction activities. Environmental oversight would also be conducted in the field during construction activities in order to monitor or locate any potential impacts to aquatic resources. 9.2.1.6 Air Quality and Meteorology Potential impacts to air quality and meteorology as a result of construction activities are anticipated to be negligible across the geographic area spanned by the Proposed Project. BMPs and standard operating procedures as per the SIP would be used to minimize construction- related fugitive dust emissions. Reasonable precautions must be taken to reduce emissions 9-5 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL from construction sites that would create a nuisance off-site, especially in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) and in areas where the pipeline ROW is adjacent to a roadway. A common mitigation measure includes applying water as a dust suppressant. Also, material transported off-site will be securely covered prior to leaving a construction site to prevent and excessive amounts of dust generation. Note that Texas air quality regulations specifically address visible emissions/fugitive dust control in the area of Houston where the East Houston Terminal is located (see 30 TAC Chapter 111 – Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter A, Division 4). Mitigation measures will be outlined in a BMP plan developed by Magellan prior to initiation of construction. With regard to fuel-burning construction equipment, construction crews will be required to maintain engines in good condition and properly tuned. All diesel-fueled construction vehicles will be required to meet applicable emissions standards, and temporary fuel transfer/storage systems will be required to meet applicable air quality regulations. Potential impacts from construction related noise are anticipated to be negligible to minor and occur only during daylight hours. Noise mitigation also will be accomplished through compliance with any local noise ordinances and by limiting construction activities to daylight business hours, especially when construction is occurring in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. The construction contractor will be requested to provide notice to Magellan if noise levels are anticipated to exceed any local noise ordinances (e.g., City of Houston, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30 – Noise and Sound Level Regulation) for a short duration. Construction haul roads will be designed to avoid sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) to minimize fugitive dust and noise impacts. Stationary construction equipment will be placed, to the extent practicable, such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors. 9.2.1.7 Transportation Potential impacts to transportation from construction activities are anticipated to be negligible to minor impacts. Construction activities for the Proposed Project includes installation of storage tanks, pump stations, and truck unloading facilities. These construction activities are not expected to occur along a roadway or railway ROW, therefore there should be no closures to vehicle or railroad traffic during construction. No mitigation is warranted. 9.2.1.8 Land Use Potential impacts to land use from construction activities are anticipated to be negligible to minor. The installation of selected facilities would result in the change of use for some parcels; however the land selected for conversion is not unique therefore the impacts are considered to be minor. The Proposed Project requires no new pipeline to be installed. The construction of storage tanks will occur adjacent to existing tank farms so no mitigation is warranted. 9-6 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.2.1.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Construction activities related to the Proposed Project are anticipated to result in negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources. Construction activities are anticipated to occur within an existing ROW corridor, within areas that are already used as an existing facility such as most pump station locations, or in areas that have been determined to have a low probability of significant cultural resources. Prior to construction, all documented cultural resources that are listed on or considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be avoided and protected during any ground disturbing activities. Prior to ground disturbing activities, these cultural resources will be delineated via a professional archeologist. Protective fencing or other sufficient measures will then be put in place to ensure that the ground disturbance activities will not occur within the extent of the resource. Any undocumented cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) that are accidentally discovered during ground disturbing activities, even within previously surveyed areas, will be immediately reported to Magellan. All operations in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease at once, and the area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. Similarly, any undocumented human remains or burial features that are accidentally discovered during ground disturbing activities will be immediately reported to Magellan. Again, all operations in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease at once, and the area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. In compliance with the Texas Health and Safety Code, the appropriate county coroner may also need to be immediately notified if the remains cannot conclusively be determined to be of prehistoric origin. 9.2.1.10 Required Permits In addition to the requirements of this FEA, various permits are required to be obtained as a part of the Proposed Project. The following provides an indication of the types of permits required: • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality o Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) o Texas New Source Review (NSR) o Texas Permit by Rule (PBR) • Railroad Commission of Texas o Hydrostatic Test Water • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers o Nationwide Permit o Regional General Permit 9-7 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency o General Storm Water Permitting • Municipal Permitting o Building Permits o Street Crossing Permits • County Permitting o Building Permits (non-incorporated areas)/Flood Control Facility Crossings, County Street Crossing Permits • State Highway Permitting o Road and Street Crossings o Entrance Permits 9.2.1.10.1 LMP Changes The Longhorn Mitigation Plan requires specific approval and notification to the public and the LCRA of any changes to the Longhorn Mitigation Plan (LMP). Proposed changes have been submitted to PHMSA for approval. Copies of the proposal have been submitted to the Mayors of Houston, Austin, El Paso and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) General Manager and are available for public viewing on Magellan’s internet website (www.magellanlp.com). 9.2.2 Normal Operations 9.2.2.1 Health and Human Safety Impacts to human health and safety during normal operations of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be negligible. Air emissions are the most likely potential adverse impact which may result from the operation of the Proposed Project. 9.2.2.2 Groundwater Impacts to groundwater resources during normal operations of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be negligible. Potential adverse impacts to groundwater may result from normal operations and maintenance. These potential adverse impacts are mitigated by frequent and routine facility inspections (i.e. aerial patrolling and/or ground surveillance), and the timely response to remediate and abate the event. These mitigation measures are embedded and required under the operational procedures under the LMP and the SIP for the Proposed Project. Frequent patrolling of the pipeline to identify visual evidence (vapors emissions, pools, distressed vegetation, etc.) indicative of a crude oil leak and to initiate a rapid spill response to stop these leaks reduces the chances of impacting groundwater resources. 9.2.2.3 Aquatic Biology Impacts to aquatic resources during normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. Potential impacts are limited the release of small quantities of liquids occurring during scheduled 9-8 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL maintenance. These potential impacts would be readily abated by maintenance personnel using established procedures under the SIP and not result in measurable impacts to aquatic resources. Therefore, no additional mitigation is anticipated for normal operations. 9.2.2.4 Terrestrial Biology Impacts to terrestrial resources during normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. Potential impacts are limited to increased levels of noise associated with the additional pump stations. Terrestrial fauna are expected to acclimate to this disturbance over time. While the potential for impacts are anticipated to be negligible, additional mitigation will be implemented to provide an additional level of protection from maintenance and construction activities to the Houston toad. As requested by FWS, Magellan will extend existing timing and work restrictions from selected segments within the current Designated Critical Habitat Zone of the Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) (MP 125.0-125.73 and MP 127.33-130.00) to the entire Designated Critical Habitat Zone (MP 125-134.5). Magellan will also extend the timing in work restrictions to the existing ROW eastward to near MP 119. This is in response to a recent study (Buzo, 2008) that the Houston toad may be expanding its range eastward. This mitigation would effectively increase the length of the ROW with timing and work restrictions from 3.4 miles to 15.4 miles. These timing and work restrictions include maintenance activity within the ROW to be avoided during the period from January to June, and construction activity within the ROW to be avoided from February to October. If work on the ROW is unavoidable to remain in compliance, avoidance and minimization measures would be employed. These measures are designed to minimize impacts to the Houston toad, and may include (1) fencing ROW work areas, (2) conducting daily surveys for Houston toads within the ROW work areas, and (3) removal and relocation of any Houston toads found in the ROW work areas. The implementation of the timing and work restrictions should result in mitigating potential impacts to a most susceptible resource. As a result, no impacts to terrestrial threatened and endangered species from operations or routine maintenance are anticipated. 9.2.2.5 Surface Water Normal operations for the Proposed Project are not expected to change appreciably from existing operations; therefore no new or additional impacts are anticipated. Potential adverse impacts to surface water may result from normal operations and maintenance. These potential adverse impacts are mitigated by frequent and routine facility inspections (i.e. aerial patrolling and/or ground surveillance), and the timely response to remediate and abate the event. These mitigation measures are embedded and required under the operational procedures under the LMP and the SIP for the Proposed Project. 9.2.2.5.1 Wetlands Normal operations are not anticipated to impact wetlands. However, routine facility inspections as defined in the LMP and SIP are sufficient mitigation measures for this resource. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. 9-9 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.2.2.6 Air Quality and Meteorology Potential impacts for the Proposed Project would include the operation of new storage tanks located at the East Houston Terminal and the Crane Station. The storage tanks to be constructed at the East Houston facility will be regulated under a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit issued by the TCEQ. As a result, Magellan must offset VOC emissions from the new storage tanks at a ratio of 1.3 to 1 prior to the start of operation of these tanks. Also, these tanks will be subject to the LAER standard, which represents the most stringent emission limit achievable for such tanks. For LAER, Magellan will implement TCEQ’s 28 LAER leak detection and repair (LDAR) program to control fugitive VOC emissions. In addition, Magellan will use internal floating roof tanks with secondary seal systems to limit emissions from working and breathing losses of VOCs. The offsetting of emissions associated with the new storage tanks at a ratio greater than 1 to 1 should not only mitigate air quality impacts, but ultimately contribute to an improvement in air quality in the Houston metropolitan region. The storage tanks to utilize at the Crane Station are to be converted from refined product to crude oil storage therefore no mitigation will be required for these existing tanks. Because pipelines are essentially a sealed system and buried, there will be no air emissions under normal operation and thus, no mitigation measures required. Given that the new pump stations will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations and that air emissions (fugitive VOCs) from normal operations of such facilities are relatively low, no impacts to air quality are expected that warrant mitigation. Operational noise impacts will be limited to areas surrounding pump stations, due mainly to pump operation. These stations will comply with any local noise ordinances. Given that the pump stations will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations, no noise impacts under normal operation are expected that warrant mitigation. 9.2.2.7 Transportation Normal operations are not anticipated to impact transportation. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. 9.2.2.8 Land Use Normal operations are not anticipated to impact land use. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. 9.2.2.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Normal operations are not anticipated to impact cultural resources. In the event that normal operations require ground disturbing activities (see Section 9.2.9). 9-10 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.2.3 Accidental Releases 9.2.3.1 Health and Human Safety Impacts to human health and safety resulting from accidental releases could be minor to major depending on the conditions and how the incident is managed. The two most common concerns are related to explosion / fire and chemical exposure which are addressed below. 9.2.3.1.1 Potential for Explosion and Fire Explosions from crude oil releases are very unlikely since it contains a relatively small proportion of volatile hydrocarbons and most spills are unlikely to occur in confined areas. Most “petroleum or hydrocarbon pipeline explosions” occur in pipelines that are transporting highly volatile flammable hydrocarbons such as natural gas, LPG, propane, LNG, gasoline, naphtha, and similar products. The released material from these products can rapidly form a flammable vapor cloud that can explode if exposed to an ignition source within a confined area at the right concentration. A release of heavier diesel, gas condensate, kerosene, or similar refined liquid hydrocarbon will ignite and burn rapidly if the vapors are exposed to a high temperature heat source, usually a fire caused by some other accident. The PHMSA database for significant onshore hazardous liquid incidents (PHMSA 2010) indicates that only 6 of 2,706 (0.2%) reported incidents were attributed to “fire/explosion as a primary cause.” Those six incidents were related to the release of flammable hydrocarbons, such as gasoline or liquid propane, and did not involve releases of crude oil. In short, if all controls are in place and taking into account the type of material being transported, risk should be considered low. 9.2.3.1.2 Potential for Chemical Exposure Oil spills are not likely to have toxic effects on the general public because of the numerous restrictions that local, state and federal agencies would impose to restrict environmental exposure. Vapors and gases from spilled oil could lead to human health effects depending on the concentration and duration of exposure. The Proposed Project would transport a crude oil mixture of West Texas Intermediate and West Texas Sour which contains hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in varying concentrations. A recent laboratory analysis of a representative sample of West Texas Sour reported the concentration of H2S to be 10 mg/l, while the H2S concentration for the West Texas Intermediate was reported to be below the reporting limit of 1.0 mg/l. Following are general guidelines on the health effects of H2S: H2S is classed as a chemical asphyxiant, similar to carbon monoxide. It inhibits cellular respiration and uptake of oxygen, causing biochemical suffocation. Typical exposure symptoms include: 9-11 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL L O 0 - 10 ppm Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat W M O 10 - 50 ppm D Headache Dizziness Nausea and vomiting Coughing and breathing difficulty H I 50 - 200 ppm G H Severe respiratory tract irritation Eye irritation / acute conjunctivitis Shock Convulsions Coma Death in severe cases Source: Hydrogen sulfide Factsheet from Safetydirectory.com To provide an indication of the public risk to H2S in the event of an accidental release, based on the crude oil being transported in the Proposed Project, air modeling was performed in an upland spill scenario. The conditions for this evaluation included a release of 5,900 barrels in the densely populated upland area in South Austin. Although this is not the location along the System with the highest potential release volume, it is the highest potential release volume in the populated area of Austin. This volume of release is assumed to cover an area of 66,567 square feet (1.53 acre) with a six-inch average depth. The concentration of H2S of 15 mg/l (ppm wt) was considered. The estimated H2S emissions of 10.72 lb H2S correspond to the amount expected to be released immediately following the described event. Process simulation software “VMGSim” from Virtual Materials Group Inc. was utilized to obtain this worst-case emissions rate estimate. The EPA SCREEN3 air dispersion modeling program was utilized to obtain conservative ambient air concentrations for the estimated emissions. The modeling results predict a H2S concentration of 6.52 ppmv for the 15 ppm wt scenario. The Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health concentration (IDLH) for H2S is 100 ppm. Based on the above H2S guidelines and the air dispersion modeling, the risk to the public should be very low. In all cases, the utmost precautions should be used in the event of an accidental release The appropriate mitigation to address a potential release of crude oil containing H2S is public education and awareness. Magellan will provide hazard awareness materials to the public, contractors, emergency response agencies and public officials in accordance with its own “Community Awareness” procedures contained in the System Integrity Plan. 9-12 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL In addition, Longhorn has enhanced Facilities Response Plans for refined petroleum to better address public safety and firefighting outside of metropolitan areas (Houston and Austin) where HAZMAT units do not exist. Selected volunteer Fire Department personnel are trained to implement enhanced Facility Response Plans and are equipped with emergency response equipment trailers to respond to accidental releases. The response plans have been enhanced by adding over 120 site specific tactical response scenarios that provide the location, equipment and trained personnel/contractors needed to respond to a specific pipeline release. These response plans will be continually revised to reflect the transportation of crude oil and any appropriate changes. Magellan will submit revised response plans for PHMSA review and approval in accordance with 49 CFR Part 194. 9.2.3.2 Groundwater The impacts to groundwater resources as a result of an accidental release range from minor to major and vary depending on the rate of release, the location relative to recharge, and the aquifer type. These potential adverse impacts are mitigated by an extensive list of leak detection methods that increase in sensitivity with the surrounding resources. These release detection tools range from sophisticated in-line inspection tools (i.e. smart pigs), hydrostatic tests, hydrocarbon-sensing cables, and frequent visual inspections. These mitigation measures are embedded and required under the operational procedures under the LMP and the SIP for the Proposed Project. In accordance with the LMP and to mitigate the risk of impacting groundwater within the hypersensitive Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, approximately 19 miles of pipeline segment was replaced in 2002. The pipeline replacement project began at the eastern boundary of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (around MP 169.88) and extended to the western boundary of the Barton Creek watershed (about MP 188.8). This mitigation effort included: • Sealing karst features, fractures and joints in limestone traversed by the pipeline trench with concrete, grout, shotcrete, or similar materials from around MP 169.88 to 188.8; • Sealing the walls and floor of the pipeline trench that crosses the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer from about MPs 170.42 to 173.6 using gunnite, concrete, epoxy sealant and polyurethane sealant; • Replacing the original pipe from approximate MP 169.88 to 188.8 with new pipe having a minimum design factor of 0.5, and coated with fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) for corrosion protection; • Installing sensor-based leak detection across the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the Slaughter Creek watershed in the Contributing Zone (approximate MPs 170.42 to 178); • Burying the replacement pipe to a minimum depth of cover of 5 feet to the top of the pipe; • Backfilling the sealed trench with sized material to create retention capacity in the event of a release; 9-13 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Pour red, fiberglass reinforced concrete on top of the backfill to a thickness of four inches and to a width equal to that of the trench to further protect from third party damage, and backfill with soil to re-establish the natural surface grade; and, • Contouring and/or berming areas to protect down gradient sensitive areas and features should a crude oil release reach the land surface. Other sources of mitigation include compensation to mitigate impacts to groundwater from accidental releases includes: a pollution legal liability insurance of no less than $15 million and a contingency water supply plan to provide alternate water supplies to certain municipalities and private well users in the event of a release that impacts a drinking water source. 9.2.3.3 Aquatic Biology The impacts to aquatic resources range from negligible to major and vary depending on the duration and volume of the crude oil released. These potential adverse impacts are mitigated by an extensive list of leak detection methods that increase in sensitivity with the surrounding resources. The pipeline adjacent to aquatic environments defined hypersensitive (i.e. Barton Springs Segment of Edwards Aquifer) have been mitigated to avoid or minimize adverse impacts as a result of an accidental release. See Section 9.2.3.2 for a description of measures implemented to mitigate impacts to water quality and the Barton Springs Salamander. 9.2.3.4 Terrestrial Biology The impacts to terrestrial resources range from negligible to major and vary depending on the duration and volume of the crude oil released. These potential adverse impacts are mitigated by an extensive list of leak detection methods that constantly monitor for releases along the pipeline. Should a leak or rupture be detected along the pipeline, response procedures would shut down the pumps and isolate the affected segment. Mitigation measures including corrective actions would include the immediate deployment of an emergency response team to the affected site. The mitigation then focuses of the cleanup of crude oil to reduce the further footprint of potential impacts and restoration of affected areas that were impacted by the release of product. Communication with governing agencies such as FWS, TPWD and USACE would also be conducted as needed in determining other mitigation options. Continued monitoring of the affected area after cleanup would occur to make sure all mitigation measures are working as prescribed. 9.2.3.5 Surface Water The impacts to surface water resources as a result of an accidental release range from negligible to major and vary depending on the rate of release, the relative location, and the receiving water body characteristics. However, significant mitigation measures were implemented to reduce the adverse effects of potential impacts resulting from leaks and ruptures at the pipeline and pump stations. These measures are listed and described below: 9-14 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Use of hydrocarbon-sensing cable – Critical locations along the Edwards Aquifer crossing are provided with a leak sensing cable that provides early warning of a pipeline release and offers the opportunity to react to a spill and thereby reduce the severity of consequences. The sensing cable adds the capability to detect very small leaks, undetectable by other means. Increased Pipeline Patrol – Per LMC 20, the frequency of patrol of the pipeline of the Proposed Project in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas is every 2.5 days, daily within the Edwards Aquifer area, and weekly in all other areas which provides an opportunity to more readily detect a leak and potential third party damage threats and thereby reduce spill volumes. Pipeline shutdown at flood levels – To reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic spill and contamination of the City of Austin drinking water supplies, Magellan monitors stream levels and ceases pipeline operations when flow rates on the Pedernales River reach 100,000 cfs. The flow rate of 100,000 cfs was taken directly out of the Longhorn Mitigation Plan (Longhorn Mitigation Commitment No. 40, first supplement to the LMP), which was developed in consultation with and approved by the City of Austin, the LCRA, the USFWS, the USEPA, and PHMSA. Secondary containment along critical stretches of ROW – At selected locations along the pipeline, diversionary controls have been placed to retain a release thereby reducing the chance of spills reaching sensitive receptors along the ROW. Placement of check valve installations – In order to reduce the pipeline draindown potential that could result from a pipeline rupture, fast-acting valves such as check valves have been placed at strategic locations to reduce the amount of petroleum that would be released. For the pipeline reversal, the functionality of the check valves was evaluated in order to ensure their effectiveness in order to maintain the drain down volumes. The preference of Magellan was to reverse the direction of any check valve. Magellan analyzed each existing valve for the potential to simply reverse the direction. The analysis involved a review of the pipeline elevation profile as illustrated in Appendix 9C. The check valve previously located at MP 193.38 is proposed to be relocated to MP 192.45. Under the Proposed Project, other check valves will be replaced with Remotely Controlled Valves (RCVs) to ensure pipeline draindown potential is kept below levels specified within the LMP. To ensure RCV functionality, any communication or power failure will be alarmed through the Operations Control Center as a priority 1 alarm. A timer will be installed as part of this SCADA alarm to alert the Controller to shut down the system after 30 minutes if power has not been restored. The line will not operate after 30 minutes until Magellan personnel have assessed the condition and determined how to safely proceed with operating the line. A situation specific determination will be made which may include continuous manning of the valve sites or alternative power supplies. Any type of communication failure is alarmed as priority 1 with controller required actions based on primary or secondary communication failure. Table 5.2.6-2 illustrates valves installed per LMC 22 and the LCRA Settlement agreement and proposed locations of RCVs. Table 5.2.6-3 illustrates maximum release volumes for selected areas based upon the replacement of check valves with the RCVs. A process flow diagram is provided in Appendix 9D and illustrates the location of all RCVs for the Proposed Project. The 9-15 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL table provided in Appendix 9C also provides the location of all valves including manual valves and check valves under the Proposed Project. Enhanced emergency response plan – Magellan maintains an enhanced Spill Response Plan that is designed to assist responders in quickly and effectively containing and recovering spilled petroleum to protect sensitive environments and the general public. Magellan will submit revised response plans for PHMSA review and approval in accordance with 49 CFR Part 194. Emergency response center – This facility is centrally located (South Austin) and consists of offices, a conference room that is used as a command post, and storage for response personnel and equipment. The emergency response center is equipped so that under normal conditions, a maximum two-hour, full response can be assured within the Austin area. This mitigation measure is designed to decrease the response time to a spill, thereby increasing the opportunities to take consequence-reducing actions such as evacuation and containment. Because it is located closer to the pipeline in the Austin area than other spill response contractors, it can provide a quicker response to pipeline release events. Camera surveillance of pump stations – 24-hour real time surveillance of pumps stations provides the ability to visually inspect the pump stations grounds for signs of vandalism, releases, or other abnormal conditions. Remote shutdown of the pipeline system can be performed from the Control Room. Magellan will install remote cameras for monitoring at all new pump stations prior to start-up in accordance with LMC 21. Personnel Training Program – Surveillance personnel are all provided with Occupational Health and Safety Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (OSHA HAZWOPER) training. This training ensures that personnel know what actions should be immediately taken to reduce potential consequences. Contingency plans for alternate water supplies – The LMP specifies that alternate water supplies will be provided to communities impacted by a petroleum release to a drinking water supply. The alternate water supply would be maintained until cleanup is completed and the permanent water supplies are restored. Magellan conducted a study to evaluate strategies to treat potable water at municipal water treatment facilities along the Highland Lakes that treat surface water. Each identified facility was examined to determine which water treatment strategy would be the most effective given the facility’s configuration and daily capacity. The technologies evaluated included activated carbon treatment, air stripping and UV oxidation. Each technology was evaluated in terms of compliance with LMC 30, effectiveness, implementation (i.e. ability to timely construct and implement, availability of equipment and services, and impacts on the current water treatment process), and cost, including operations and maintenance costs. The results of the studies determined the most effective type of technology for that particular water treatment facility (results for future COA Water Treatment Plant No. 4 can be found on page 30-1 of the Emergency Contingency Plan, Volume III). More information of the analysis is contained in Volume III of the Emergency Response Plans. Magellan is required by the LMP to reevaluate 9-16 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the capacity to address the scope of providing an alternative water supply and treatment in the event of a spill. 9.2.3.5.1 Wetlands The impacts to wetlands as a result of an accidental release are similar to those of surface water resources and range from negligible to major and vary depending on the rate of release, the relative location, and the type of wetland impacted. See Section 9.2.3.5 for a detailed description of applicable mitigation measures. 9.2.3.6 Air Quality and Meteorology The impacts to air quality and meteorology as a result of an accidental release of crude oil would be negligible to minor. An appropriate mitigation measure, beyond those that minimize the potential for a release, would be one that limits the volatilization of VOCs to the atmosphere. Appropriate mitigation measures include an enhanced emergency response plan implemented by trained spill response team. See Section 9.2.3.5 for a description of these mitigation measures. 9.2.3.7 Transportation The impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release of crude oil would be negligible to minor. A pipeline rupture in a densely populated area would require selected road closures because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. A traffic plan designed to reroute traffic around a release would be an appropriate mitigation measure. 9.2.3.8 Land Use Accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts to real property and land use. Accidental releases could impact the quality of recreational activities because of decreases in game populations or damages to public lands. An appropriate mitigation measure, beyond those that minimize the potential for a release, would be one that compensates landowners for loss of property and use of property in the case of business of agricultural property. 9.2.3.9 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Cultural resources may be impacted by an accidental release and the subsequent corrective action. To ensure the protection of significant cultural resources within existing ROWs and facilities associated with the Proposed Project, all documented cultural resources that are listed on or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP (if any) will be avoided and protected during any ground disturbing activities. Prior to ground disturbing activities, these cultural resources will be delineated via a professional archeologist. Protective fencing or other sufficient measures will then be put in place to ensure that the ground disturbance activities will not occur within the extent of the resource. 9-17 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL If avoidance and protection of documented cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP is not possible, SHPO consultation will be necessary to determine any required mitigation actions prior to ground disturbance within the extent of the resource. Any undocumented cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) that are accidentally discovered during ground disturbance activities will be immediately reported to Magellan. All operations in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease at once, and the area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. Similarly, any undocumented human remains or burial features that are accidentally discovered during ground disturbing activities will be immediately reported to Magellan. Again, all operations in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease at once, and the area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. In compliance with the Texas Health and Safety Code, the appropriate county coroner may also need to be immediately notified if the remains cannot conclusively be determined to be of prehistoric origin. 9.2.3.10 Environmental Justice Public involvement plan will include outreach to those residential areas identified as EJ communities. The campaign will employ means that would reach these communities which may require bilingual communications for Spanish language speakers. A plan for compensating homeowners, landowners, business-owners, etc. in the event of pipeline failure and damage to properties would also be considered a component of EJ. 9.3 SYSTEM INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT 9.3.1 Introduction Mitigation related to System integrity described in this section are further categorized into those associated with risk management planning and those associated with implementation of risk reduction activities - analyses versus execution of mitigation. In addition to commitments related to improved risk management planning, Magellan has identified and committed to implementation of certain mitigations that address changing threats that result from the Proposed Project. This section discusses these planned mitigation enhancements for specific failure mechanisms. Depending on measured risks, additional location-specific mitigation may be required for these and other threats to System integrity. 9-18 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2 Threats 9.3.2.1 Commodity Characteristics – Crude Composition Crude deliveries to the system will be monitored in accordance with Magellan procedures contained in the System Integrity Plan. Product samples will be analyzed to determine compliance with the published crude tariff specifications for each product. Current pipeline tariff specifications are as follows: WTI WTS API Gravity, º American Petroleum Institute 36 – 42 30 – 35 Sulfur Content, Weight % <= 0.45 <= 2.20 Max Reid Vapor Pressure, psi 9.5 9.5 Max True Vapor Pressure, psi 11.0 11.0 BS & W <= 1.0% <= 1.0% In the event that total sulfur or BS & W contents exceed specified limits, the Corrosion Specialist will be notified. The Corrosion Specialist will review product sampling data to identify and investigate exceptions per criteria established in the Corrosion Control Program, 7.04-ADM-001 (Appendix 9E). 9.3.2.2 Internal Corrosion As discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the threat of internal corrosion will increase due to the commodity change from refined products to crude oil. In response to this changing threat, an initial internal corrosion threat management program was developed in consultation with a third- party expert. This program, being incorporated into the SIP-ADM-7.04 (Appendix 9E), defines that inhibitor injection locations and rates will be adjusted as necessary by future monitoring of internal corrosion coupons, liquids and solids samples collected in traps as part of regular cleaning pig runs, in-line inspection data analysis, and any other future analysis of internal corrosion threats. As a component of internal corrosion control management, Magellan will continuously inject corrosion inhibitor in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the system the inhibitor is designed to protect. Contingent upon more specific product characteristics defined, a highly water dispersible/soluble blend of corrosion inhibitors shall be utilized (Smart Chemical SCCI865 or equivalent). The corrosion inhibitor will be injected at each point where crude oil is received into the Longhorn system at an initial rate to achieve a concentration of 10 ppm and will be adjusted as necessary. To ensure adequate protection, supplemental injections of corrosion inhibitor may be needed based upon monitoring results. Cleaning pigs will be run every other week to ensure distribution of the corrosion inhibitor along the internal walls of the pipeline and to remove potential accumulation of water and solids at low 9-19 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL points in the system. Water and debris brought into the receiving trap by the cleaning tools will be tested to determine its potential to cause internal corrosion if a sufficient amount is present and determined necessary after consultation with the Corrosion Specialist. Water will be tested using American Petroleum Institute RP-45 or equivalent method as a guideline. Frequencies of cleaning pig runs may be adjusted as necessary based upon product upsets and the analysis of results of previous cleaning pig runs. Pipeline pigging or repigging operations will be considered when excessive particulates are identified in the pipeline, following transportation of a corrosive (off spec) product, in preparation for integrity testing with an in-line inspection tool, following hydrostatic testing of a pipeline, etc. Although the presence of particulate in the receiving scraper trap does not necessarily indicate the quantity of material removed from the pipeline, it should be taken into consideration when determining the frequency of the cleaning pig operations. The physical condition of the pigs should also be taken into consideration, as a badly worn pig may be the result of excessive pipeline particulates. During normal cleaning operations, a combination cup and brush pig (1st pig) followed, as soon as practical, by a combination cup and disc pig (2nd pig) should be utilized. Where excessive particulates and paraffin buildup is thought to exist, specialty pigs such as pin-wheel, Pit Boss™, scraper/plow blade attachments, and magnetic cleaning pigs shall be utilized as necessary based upon sound engineering judgment. Significant separation between the multiple pigs is not required and separation by more than a few yards will actually decrease the effectiveness of the operation. Cleaning pigs should be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer recommendations. Pigs worn beyond the manufacturer’s recommend tolerance will not be used. Normal cleaning operations should be conducted at a continuous 3 ft/sec or less where practical. Caution should be observed when pigging lines that start and stop. Debris may fall out in front of the pig causing the pig to become stuck. Cleaning is conducted during normal operations and flow rates. Magellan will monitor internal corrosion rates and corrosion inhibitor effectiveness through coupons monitoring locations and water sample traps. Coupons will be tested using NACE RPO775 or equivalent as a guideline. Coupon/water sample collection points will be located in facilities at origination points, along the pipeline system, and end points. Locations chosen for initial sampling points likely include Ft. McKavett, Cedar Valley, Satsuma, and East Houston. Additional coupon/water sample collection points may be installed as determined necessary through further hazard analysis or as project design parameters are finalized. Water sample traps will be mounted on the bottom of the pipe to facilitate the collection and analysis of free water using American Petroleum Institute RP-45 or equivalent method as a guideline. These locations will be inspected for water monthly and if a sufficient amount of water is present (typically >1 pint) this water shall be analyzed for bacteria using NACE TMO194 or equivalent methods as a guideline, pH, iron using NACE RPO775 or equivalent method as a guideline, manganese, chlorides, and inhibitor residual using ASTM D2327 or equivalent as a guideline. Bacteria counts in excess of 1:100 colonies/ml. (i.e. 2 vials), pH readings outside a range of 4-8, inhibitor residual less than approximately 10ppm, or an increase in iron, 9-20 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL manganese, or chlorides could indicate an increased threat to internal corrosion. Biocides and/or other specialty chemicals such as cleaners, surfactants, and paraffin inhibitors will be used as necessary when testing or data identifies issues or threats which these chemicals can effectively address. At least three times each calendar year, and not exceeding intervals of 4.5 months, corrosion coupons will be removed from the test locations and forwarded to an appropriate laboratory for corrosion analysis. New corrosion coupons will be installed in place of those removed at this time. Any alternate or supporting corrosion monitoring methods will be accomplished at the same minimum frequency. Pertinent monitoring data shall be documented in the Internal Corrosion Database and/or the appropriate inspection forms. Coupon corrosion rates over 1 mpy of general corrosion or pitting (including MIC) will trigger a detailed analysis directed by NACE certified corrosion control personnel. This analysis will include a review of incoming product quality sample data, inhibitor injection rates, bacteria testing and, if necessary, inhibitor performance testing. Deficiencies will be resolved within six (6) months of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. Results will be integrated into the risk analysis and ORA. Considerations for likelihood of corrosion at sampling points will be included in the use of this information (i.e., to what extent does collected information represent corrosion potential at all unmonitored points along the System?). The continued use of metal loss ILI tools will enable Magellan to monitor any localized corrosion metal loss along the entire length of the pipeline. Periodic integrity re-assessments will be conducted to mitigate the threat internal corrosion. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) Process to evaluate the internal corrosion threat. Corrosion rates established through the ORA are completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability (1 in 10,000,000) of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. Magellan will inspect dead leg piping for internal corrosion in accordance with procedures contained in the Risk Based Inspection Program, 7.13-ADM-013 (Appendix 9E). A dead leg is defined as a piece of piping subjected to pressure but not flow and exceeds 2 ½ times the O.D. of the pipe or two feet, whichever is less. One end of the piping is typically capped or blinded. Utilizing appropriate risk assessments, in conjunction with site specific surveys, site specific integrity issues, and the project risk score for prioritization, inspections, purges, removals or direct assessments will be conducted. Ultrasonic Testing equipment will be utilized to determine the extent of pitting and the remaining life of the dead leg. Mitigation plans will be developed for any dead leg with a remaining life of less than five years. Magellan performs future inspections following the base line inspection, based on the schedule determined by American Petroleum Institute 570 Piping Inspection Code. 9-21 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.3 Hydrogen Blistering of Laminations As discussed in Section 6.3.1.3, the change in the transported commodity from refined products to crude oil will lead to an increased threat of hydrogen blistering. Managing internal corrosion as described above will provide mitigation of this threat by minimizing the production of hydrogen that is produced by anaerobic corrosion. Magellan has previously conducted inspection with Ultrasonic UT smart pig in compliance with the LMP to find any blisters and injurious laminations that may exist in the system. All injurious laminations were repaired. As a future intervention method to prevent any existing non-injurious laminations from becoming injurious, future Electronic Geometry Pig (EGP) runs will be used to inspect for the formation of blisters. These EGP tools are required to be run every three years in accordance with the LMP. As discussed in Section 6.3.1.3 this interval is 15 times more frequent than the interval required to form a blister. Any deformations identified by these tools or other applicable ILI inspections will be correlated with existing laminations and investigated. Upon investigation by excavation if any new indicated deformation interacts with an existing lamination the feature will be repaired in accordance with SIP-ADM-7.03 (Appendix 9E). Areas of investigation will undergo non- destructive examination (NDE) specifically to include Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) to determine the presence of cracks. Any bulging, sloping, or non-planar lamination or blister identified will be repaired in accordance with SIP-ADM-7.03 (Appendix 9E). Repair and NDE information will be recorded and tracked in the data management system discussed in 9.3.3.3. Studies to better define crack potential related to laminations as discussed further in Section 9.3.2.5 will enhance the ability to predict the formation of blisters from laminations. Magellan will engage a third party metallurgical consultant to investigate and propose potential methodologies to quantify through laboratory study and, field trials (if meaningful results can be obtained) the mechanism for the formation of blisters and rate of growth of blisters resulting from the absorption of hydrogen into existing laminations in the steel. It is uncertain whether or not this can be successfully simulated in a laboratory environment. This potential study may better quantify the mechanism of hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) and the associated crack growth rates of HIC. A separate investigation or study could also propose methods for determining and further quantifying threats associated with MIC and sulfide stress corrosion cracking (SSCC) to determine appropriate integrity testing methods and associated test intervals. 9.3.2.4 Surge and Hydraulic Profile As discussed in Section 6.3.1.4 the Proposed Project will result in a change in the threat associated with the hydraulic profile and surge overpressure potentials due to the change in flow direction. Upon completion of final hydraulic design including pump sizing and configuration and valve specification and location, Magellan completed a final surge analysis and design of overpressure protection measures. Appendix 6F contains an Operating Pressure Summary Table that contains the maximum surge pressures for each pump station segment as compared to the MOP of the pipeline in that segment. Overpressure protection measures, as validated by the PHA/LOPA process discussed in Section 9.3.3.2, will ultimately protect the system as a result of changes to the hydraulic profile and resultant surge potentials. The surge analysis 9-22 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL assists with the determination of the necessary overpressure protective devices to prevent surge and will incorporate the worst-case product specifications. The surge analysis completed evaluates potential surge pressure created by any and all surge generation scenarios, including the inadvertent closure of all motor operated valves installed or currently in place and part of the Proposed Project final design. In accordance with LMC 31, Magellan has submitted surge mitigation measures to PHMSA for approval. Appendix 6F contains a table of the proposed overpressure protective devices to prevent and/or mitigate surge. Surge mitigation has been defined and quantitatively assessed for effectiveness and reliability. These assessments will be used with the surge probabilities to define PoF related to surge events at all points along the System. 9.3.2.5 Cracking/Fatigue Monitoring As discussed in Section 6.2.1.4, the threat of cracking as a result of pressure cycle induced fatigue will change as a result of the Proposed Project. Magellan manages and monitors pressure cycle induced fatigue of longitudinal seam weld cracks as part of the existing ORA process. Pressure cycle analysis is conducted each year and reassessment intervals to evaluate for the presence of longitudinal seam weld cracks are established. In-line inspection utilizing TFI tool technology was conducted to detect any existing longitudinal seam weld cracks. All identified cracks and crack-like features were repaired. Based upon the tool detection capabilities the maximum size of any crack that could be remaining is established. This information utilized in conjunction with the pressure cycle analysis conducted after gathering operating information for the crude oil operation when pumping from Crane to Houston, will allow adequate management of this threat. As discussed in Section 6.2.1.4, hypothetical scenarios were evaluated in which it was assumed that pressure cycles increased three fold over current levels. These scenarios resulted in a hypothetical reassessment interval of 12 years based upon applying a safety factor of 2.22 (45% of fatigue life as defined within Section 4 of the LMP) to the full theoretical remaining life. This indicates that a sufficient margin of safety is available to allow time to gather new operational data after project startup and establish appropriate re-assessment intervals to manage this threat. 9.3.2.6 Stress Corrosion Cracking Pressure cycles also have an effect on other forms of environmentally assisted cracks (EAC) such as SCC. Management and monitoring of pressure cycles also mitigates the threat of growth from these types of crack initiators. Additionally, Magellan conducts NDE in the form of MPI to evaluate for the presence of cracks at each dig site. To date Magellan has conducted these inspections at over 700 dig sites. These investigations have not indicated the presence of SCC or other forms of EAC. These investigations will continue to be conducted and will provide for mitigation of any changing threat of EAC. The continued surface examination using magnetic particle NDE by trained technicians will be formalized by documentation into the SIP and covered in the OQ. For all cracking mechanisms, and for the purposes of determining appropriate inspection intervals for cracks, a distribution of crack growth rates from all causes will be estimated for all 9-23 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL portions of the System. These are hypothetical crack growth rates without any mitigation applied. Distributions shall consider location-specific characteristics such as stress and coating conditions. Distributions shall include consideration of all relevant contributing factors including stress cycling, surge potential, environment, and others. Point estimates of crack growth rate will be selected from these distributions for use in subsequent Time to Failure (TTF) and POE type estimates. The hypothetical unmitigated rates will be adjusted by estimated effectiveness of mitigation, for use in the subsequent calculations to ultimately arrive at actual estimated crack growth rates. The basis for the selection of the point estimates will be documented and conservative, incorporating a bias towards choosing larger, though rare, crack growth rates from the distribution. 9.3.2.7 Incorrect Operations Risk Analysis Enhancement as further discussed in the following section will ensure a high reliability of redundant controls and safety systems typical of pipeline operations. Formal analyses such as HAZOP and subsequent LOPA will be conducted as part of the mitigation discussed in this chapter. Ongoing risk assessments further described will measure and maintain PoF. The threshold selected as appropriate for all threats combined is 1E-4 failures per mile-year at each non-facility portion and 0.01 per year at each facility. These values are below the estimated current levels for the threat of incorrect operations alone. Therefore, successful application of this mitigation measure ensures that the risks associated with this failure mechanism are reduced by the Proposed Project to levels below current. 9.3.2.8 Security Mitigations described in this chapter are designed to improve data management and tracking related to location-specific security threats and maintain this knowledge in a database. This should improve estimates of PoF. Additional mitigations to improve risk assessment and risk management, and to maintain PoF levels below specified levels, will reduce failure potential from this threat when applied successfully. Magellan’s existing procedures contained in SIP-ADM-8.01 (Appendix 9E) provide for security measures such as security fencing, monitoring cameras, physical barriers, and locks to adequately limit access and mitigate security threats. 9.3.2.9 Atmospheric Corrosion The Proposed Project does not present a measurable increased risk of atmospheric corrosion. Locations where the threat of atmospheric corrosion will change represent an insignificant contribution to the overall pipeline risk profile. It is reasonable to expect a lower PoF related to atmospheric corrosion compared to current operations where some pipe segments currently located below ground are re-located above ground for the installations of facilities and valves. This is due to the fact that buried metal corrosion rates exceed atmospheric corrosion rates. 9-24 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Magellan’s existing procedures contained in 7.04-ADM-002 (Appendix 9E) establish standardized methods for monitoring, inspecting, and reporting atmospheric corrosion conditions on aboveground facilities. Surveys are conducted annually at above ground piping and facilities. Any exposed pipes are visually inspected when the pipeline is exposed for any reason. Design Standards housed within SIP-ADM-4.01 (Appendix 9E) provide specifications for coatings on new installations of above grounding piping, supports, and transition areas to protect from atmospheric corrosion. The Coating Selection Application and Maintenance Procedure, 7.04-ADM-016 (Appendix 9E), provides a standardized reference for the selection, application, and maintenance of coatings used to prevent corrosion. Corrosion found during atmospheric inspection surveys is evaluated using the RSTRENG Effective Area method. Coatings are evaluated during atmospheric inspection surveys utilizing ASTM D610/SSPC-Vis2 standard. Corrective action for noted deficiencies found during atmospheric inspection surveys are determined and completed as soon as practical, depending on the severity of the situation with respect to location of the pipeline and the potential for damage. Deficiencies relating to pipeline integrity are immediately be forwarded to “Asset Integrity” and “Field Operations” for resolution. Deficiencies in external coating (paint) are resolved within one (1) year of discovery except deficiencies of such nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections are done immediately. 9.3.2.10 External Corrosion The factors affecting external corrosion are not anticipated to change. The fluid (or product) inside the pipeline has no effect on the outside of the pipeline or how the outside of the pipeline interacts or is affected by the environment around the pipeline. Therefore these threats and how they are managed and monitored does not need to change because of the change in product or flow direction. Threats from these causes are monitored by the ORA and if an increase in risk occurs it can be accounted for in the ORA process. The continued use of metal loss ILI tools will enable Magellan to monitor any localized corrosion metal loss along the entire length of the pipeline. Periodic integrity re-assessments will be conducted to mitigate the threat of external corrosion. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the internal corrosion threat. Corrosion rates established through the ORA are completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability (1 in 10,000,000) of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9-25 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.10.1 Pipe Coatings Existing corrosion control and integrity management procedures contained in the SIP are designed to mitigate the effects of deterioration of pipe coatings. Evidence of the current coating condition is found through visual inspection reports, pipe-to-soil potential surveys, and detection of previous corrosion damages through in-line inspection. Design Standards housed within SIP- ADM-4.01 (Appendix 9E) provide specifications for coatings on new installations of buried piping, areas to protect from external corrosion. The Coating Selection Application and Maintenance Procedure, 7.04-ADM-016 (Appendix 9E), provides a standardized reference for the selection, application, and maintenance of coatings used to prevent corrosion. Periodic re-assessments will be conducted to manage the threat of external corrosion due to potential damages caused by pipe coating failure. These re-assessments will be conducted by High Resolution MFL tools or Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurement Tools. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the external corrosion threat. Corrosion rates are established through the ORA completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability (1 in 10,000,000) of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9.3.2.10.2 Cathodic Protection and CP Verifications The Corrosion Control Program, 7.04-ADM-001 (Appendix 9E), provides detailed procedures and processes designed to maintain cathodic protection systems to prevent external corrosion of buried pipelines. These procedures detail the corrosion control survey frequencies specific to the Longhorn Pipeline and specified in the LMP: • Pipe to Soil Potential Surveys – Conducted annually (not to exceed 15 months) in Tier 1 areas and semi-annually (not to exceed 7 ½ months) in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas. • Close Interval Pipe to Soil Potential Surveys are conducted annually in Tier 3 areas. • Foreign Line Crossing Surveys – Critical Bonds are inspected six times each calendar year with intervals between inspections not to exceed 2 ½ months. • Rectifier Inspection Surveys are conducted monthly (not to exceed 45 days) at each cathodic protection rectifier. This is double the frequency required by 49 CFR Part 195. Corrective actions for noted pipe to soil potential deficiencies are determined and completed as soon as practical depending on the severity of the situation with respect to location of the pipeline and the potential for damage. All deficiencies are resolved with one year of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature that present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections are completed immediately. 9-26 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Corrective action for noted deficiencies in rectifier component operation are determined and completed as soon as practical, depending on the severity of the situation with respect to location of the pipeline and the potential for damage. All rectifier component deficiencies are resolved within one (1) month of discovery except deficiencies of such nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections are made immediately. Rectifier outages are typically triggered by a natural event, such as a thunderstorm. A pattern or trend of rectifier outages triggers a detailed analysis by NACE certified corrosion control personnel. This inspection includes the use of a multimeter and/or various other electrical testing equipment as well as visual inspection of the rectifier components. System enhancements identified during this analysis to mitigate against any such pattern or trend are implemented as soon as practical, not to exceed six months. 9.3.2.10.3 IR Drop (CP Voltage Measurement Criteria) Magellan’s Corrosion Control Program, 7.04-ADM-001 (Appendix 9E) of the SIP contains procedures for addressing CP criteria including consideration for IR drop. The Corrosion Control Program in part provides that IR drop is considered by taking potential readings directly over or as near as practical to the structure surface. The effect on the potential measuring circuit is kept to a minimum by using a high resistance volt meter and being mindful of lead lengths and the condition, contact to structure and contact to electrolyte. Furthermore, CP levels are to be evaluated utilizing CP criteria within procedure 7.04-ADM-006 (Appendix 9E) that defines methods for considering the effects of IR drop including the use of: • High resistance voltmeter • Historical operating information • Reference cell placement • Calculation • Current interruption • Buried coupons In addition to deficient CP voltage, excess voltage can also be a concern. In order to avoid excess voltage, Magellan uses -1.2 volts pipe to soil potential as a limit on pipe-to-soil voltage as an informal guideline. Episodes of higher voltage are individually evaluated and mitigated. 9.3.2.10.4 Casings The Proposed Project is not seen to change the external corrosion threat associated with casings. The integrity of pipe in casings in managed through procedures contained in the Corrosion Control Program, 7.04-ADM-001 (Appendix 9E). During each cathodic protection survey, readings are taken at each cased crossing to detect any location where the carrier pipe may be shorted to the casing pipe. If the casing potential is within 100 millivolts of the pipeline potential, the casing is investigated to determine whether a 9-27 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL metallic short to the carrier pipe is present. If a short is verified, a plan of action is developed within three months from the time of discovery. The practicality of clearing the short will be considered before any other measures are used. Action shall be taken to clear the short (a) in Tier 1 areas within six months of development of the action plan; and (b) in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas within three months of development of the action plan. In the interim, from the time a short is verified and action taken to clear the short, the location is inspected for corrosion or the casing/pipe interstitial space may be filled with a high dielectric corrosion inhibiting material. During any interval that a casing has been determined to be shorted, the casing/pipe interstitial space will be monitored. Tier 1 areas are monitored twice per year at intervals not to exceed 7½ months. Tier 2 and 3 areas are monitored monthly at intervals not to exceed six weeks. During the time that the line is purged to prepare the line for reversal of product flow, data will be evaluated to determine locations where the carrier pipe is shorted to the casing pipe. For shorts that are verified, action shall be taken to clear the short. Periodic re-assessments will be conducted to manage the threat of external corrosion due to potential damages caused to the carrier pipe within casings. These re-assessments will be conducted by High Resolution MFL tools or Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurement Tools. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the external corrosion threat. Corrosion rates are established through the ORAs completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9.3.2.10.5 Microbiological Influenced Corrosion (MIC) The Proposed Project is not seen to change the threat associated with external MIC nor has it manifested as an injurious mechanism to the Longhorn Pipeline. As defined within the Corrosion Control Program, 7.04-ADM-001 (Appendix 9E), in the event that the pipeline system experiences one or more confirmed discoveries of injurious MIC, or where accelerated corrosion from MIC is anticipated, a Bacteria Testing Protocol will be established to evaluate future integrity threats from MIC. The line specific protocol will be utilized until such time that the threat from MIC has been assessed and appropriate mitigation actions have been taken. Testing for MIC shall be conducted in accordance with Bacteria Testing – Serial Dilution Method. Periodic re-assessments will be conducted to manage the threat of external corrosion due to potential damages caused by MIC. These re-assessments will be conducted by High Resolution MFL tools or Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurement Tools. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the external 9-28 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL corrosion threat. Corrosion rates are established through the ORA completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9.3.2.10.6 AC Induced Corrosion The Proposed Project is not seen to change the threat associated with AC induced corrosion. The SIP procedure, 7.04-ADM-023 (Appendix 9E), establishes a standardized method for identifying and mitigating induced AC. AC potential surveys are conducted on each buried, in contact with the ground, submerged pipeline facility, and/or breakout tank near high voltage power lines once each calendar year with intervals not to exceed fifteen months. AC potentials greater than 5 volts will be evaluated to determine if additional testing or remedial actions are required. To mitigate corrosion, remedial actions are required where through testing or calculations, AC current discharge densities are found to be greater than 20 A/m2 . To reduce step and touch shock hazards remedial actions and/or protective devices, such as ground mats, are required if AC potentials exceed 15 volts. Recording voltmeters should be considered in areas where high voltage transmission lines parallel the pipeline over long distances. Periodic re-assessments will be conducted to manage the threat of external corrosion due to potential damages caused by AC induced corrosion. These re-assessments will be conducted by High Resolution MFL tools or Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurement Tools. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the external corrosion threat. Corrosion rates are established through the ORA completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9.3.2.10.7 Stray Currents The Proposed Project is not seen to change the threat of external corrosion due to stray currents. Stray current interference testing, including, but not limited to close interval pipe-to-soil surveys, will be conducted where practical and determined necessary by sound engineering practices. Indicators of the necessity to conduct such tests shall include annual pipe-to-soil surveys, internal inspection data, pipe inspection, or other related corrosion information or testing. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded on Magellan Foreign Line Interference Test Form. Procedure 7.04-ADM-015 (Appendix 9E), Testing for Interference Currents and 9-29 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Remedial Measures, establishes a standardized method for identifying, testing for and mitigating the harmful effects of interference currents. Periodic re-assessments will be conducted to manage the threat of external corrosion due to stray currents. These re-assessments will be conducted by High Resolution MFL tools or Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurement Tools. Table 5.3.1-1 details the currently established integrity assessment intervals per the ORA Process to evaluate the external corrosion threat. Corrosion rates are established through the ORA completed by third party consultant approved by PHMSA. These corrosion rates are utilized as part of the POE analysis process. This process evaluates each unrepaired feature to ensure a low probability of a feature growing to a level that would exceed repair criteria. All corrosion features identified by the ILI tools are repaired to a level to ensure that remaining strength of pipe exceeds 1.39 times the maximum pressure allowed at the location of the feature. This maximum pressure determined includes any potential surge pressures as evidenced by pipeline surge analysis. 9.3.2.10.8 Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC) The Proposed Project is not seen to change the threat associated with external corrosion selective to the pipeline longitudinal seam weld. Per the requirements of the LMP, a TFI smart pig inspection was conducted. The TFI tool is designed to identify any corrosion of or along the longitudinal seam or SSC. Past inspections did not reveal any confirmed metallurgical indications of SSC on the Longhorn Pipeline. The Inline Inspection Analysis Guideline, 7.03- ADM-007, provides criteria for determining areas of SSC to investigate. Any identified areas of potential SSC are remediated in accordance with the Pipeline Defect Evaluation and Repair Procedure, 7.01-ADM-001. Magellan’s processes and procedures contained within the SIP Integrity Management Program, SIP-ADM-7.06 (Appendix 9E), provide for determinations of re- assessment intervals to evaluate the integrity of longitudinal seam welds. Future longitudinal seam weld inspections are designed to detect any potential indications of external or internal corrosion of or along the longitudinal seam which could potentially be corrosion that is selective to the seam weld. Mitigations to manage the threat of internal corrosion are seen to also successfully mitigate any threat associated with internal corrosion selective to the longitudinal seam weld. Additionally, Magellan’s processes for evaluation of future metal loss features identified by MFL or UT tools are integrated with seam location information gathered from the TFI tools. This information is utilized to evaluate any metal loss of or along the longitudinal seam. This evaluation will determine if high corrosion rates are occurring at selected areas which may indicate selective seam corrosion is occurring. Through the ORA process any new information regarding areas of high corrosion rates would be considered to establish appropriate features to investigate. Information gathered from the investigation of features would be used to establish appropriate re-inspection intervals via the POE and ORA processes. 9-30 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.11 Third Party Damage Minimal changes to threats from third party damage will occur as a result of the Proposed Project due to localized areas where above ground valve sites and facilities are added. For the overall system the aggregation of local changes should not become a significant driver of risk, even under conservative estimates. Damage Prevention programs incorporated within the SIP meet or exceed industry standard requirements of performance. The program is a comprehensive approach designed to educate the public and to prevent accidents resulting from excavation activities. Through cooperative efforts with excavators and the public, this program creates widespread awareness on the importance of damage prevention. The program exceeds 49 CFR Part 195 requirements in the areas of permanent pipeline markers, ground and aerial surveillance, excavator education, public education, and line spotting activities to achieve uncompromising public safety. Per the LMP and LMC 12a, Magellan conducts EGP Inspections every three years which exceeds regulatory requirements. These inspections are a final intervention to prevent failure from third party damage. Proactive mitigation programs such as One-Call, Public Education, Excavator Education, Depth of Cover monitoring and maintenance, Pipeline Marking, Pipeline Surveillance, Encroachment Management and ROW maintenance are all designed to prevent third party damage to the pipeline. These programs are detailed in the following sections. Magellan annually evaluates the effectiveness of these programs through the Annual Third Party Damage Prevention Program Assessment. This assessment evaluates the potential for inadvertent third party damage caused damages through the evaluation of one-call activity levels, tracking of unauthorized encroachments, physical hits, near misses, mechanical damage repairs, and in-line inspection results. This assessment is provided to the third-party ORA contractor to be incorporated into recommendations including integrity inspection intervals. 9.3.2.11.1 One Call Magellan has established a standardized One Call program to protect Company Assets from damage due to excavation, encroachments, and other third party activities. Magellan has established and maintains a One Call membership with respective state agencies and follows industry standards to receive, record, respond, and document One Call Locate Notifications. 9.3.2.11.2 Public Education Magellan will revise public awareness programs to account for changes in product characteristics from refined product to crude oil. Public education is an important element for insuring widespread awareness and cooperation to protect the public, property, and the environment. This program as defined within the SIP-ADM-10.01 (Appendix 9E), Public Awareness Initiative, utilizes mailings, flyers, public meetings, emergency responder meetings, periodic radio public service announcements, and newspaper ads to educate the local public. 9-31 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Annual mailing to groups such as schools, residences, hospitals, churches, retirement homes and other businesses include the following information: • One Call information • Product identification information • How to identify and report a suspected leak • Personal safety guidelines in the event of a leak • "Dig Safely" or Call 811 program information Annual (not to exceed 15 months) mailings target a one-quarter (1/4) mile radius of the pipeline in metropolitan areas and a one (1) mile radius in rural areas. Mailings include items such as phone stickers, refrigerator magnets, and rulers to ensure that emergency contact information and "Call 811" information will be readily available. Door-to-door visits with the public in areas adjacent to the pipeline are performed in Tier 2 and 3 areas every two years (not to exceed 30 months). Damage prevention flyers and “Call 811” literature are distributed to the public at county fairs, trade shows, agricultural shows, feed and seed stores, home and garden shows, and equipment rental companies. Non-emergency response government agencies that are exempt from one-call mandates, such as city and county planning, zoning and building permit offices, and agricultural agencies are contacted annually (not to exceed 15 months) with mailings and a personal visit to distribute maps of the pipeline route and inform developers of the presence of the pipeline. Reply cards and records of personal visits, along with third party damage incident scorecards, are used to measure the effectiveness of the program. Emergency response agencies within each county that the pipeline passes through are contacted at intervals not to exceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, in person and provided with maps of the system. Specific emergency response requirements and plans are reviewed on an annual basis with applicable LEPC and emergency responders. Annual emergency response drills are conducted. 9.3.2.11.3 Excavator Education Excavator education is an important element of damage prevention in order to reduce the likelihood of unintended third party damage caused from excavation activity. The program as defined within the SIP-ADM-10.01 (Appendix 9E), Public Awareness Initiative, focuses on promoting cooperation and awareness throughout the following groups: • General contractors (i.e., irrigation, dirt, fencing, plumbing, landscaping) • Land owners • Real estate developers • Utility companies 9-32 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Mining and quarry operations The identified excavators are provided with the following: • Information on the "Dig Safely" program initiated by DAMQAT (Damage Prevention Quality Action Team - a joint industry and government effort to educate the public on the prevention of damages to all underground and submerged facilities). • Information on the Texas One Call system. • Information about the location of the pipeline and products in the line. • What to do in the event that unintentional damage of the pipeline occurs. • Instructions on how to recognize and report a leak. Direct mail flyers, written in English and Spanish, include items such as dashboard calendars and stickers so that emergency contact information and "Dig Safely" information will be readily available. Reply cards will be included to measure the damage prevention program effectiveness. Advertisements are placed in various trade journals and/or community publications along the Longhorn right of way to reinforce the "Dig Safely" program and to instruct the excavators to use the One-Call system. 9.3.2.11.4 Depth of Cover and Exposed Pipe Threats from third party damage are mitigated through the SIP Depth of Cover (DOC) Program, 7.05-ADM-009 (Appendix 9E). The purpose of the Depth of Cover (DOC) Program is to manage risks associated with areas of shallow or exposed pipe. Land use, population density, environmental issues and changes to the absolute depth of cover are expected to change over time. Continual monitoring of these changes is performed through Depth of Cover Surveys, Aerial Patrols, In-Line (Smart Pig) Inspections, One-Calls and Line Spotting. Through a formalized DOC Mitigation Process risks are managed through a variety of methods, all designed to reduce the likelihood of unintended outside force damage and consequential damages to a defined level. The DOC Program focuses effort and resources to those areas of highest relative risk. The investigative and resulting mitigation processes consequently focus on High Consequence Areas (HCAs) and on the defined areas of hypersensitive (Tier 3), sensitive (Tier 2), and other (Tier 1), in descending order. 9.3.2.11.5 Pipeline Markers Permanent pipeline markers are used to notify the public of the general location of our pipeline. Pipeline markers are installed and maintained in accordance with SIP procedure 7.05-ADM-002 (Appendix 9E). Permanent pipeline markers are maintained in Tier 1 (general), Tier 2 (Sensitive), and Tier 3 (Hypersensitive) areas as follows: • Pipeline markers meet or exceed all requirements of 49 C.F.R. §195.410. 9-33 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Marker spacing for Tier 1 areas are placed within line-of-sight of each other. Exceptions may be necessary for land use (i.e., cultivation), and landowner and tenant issues. Discussions explaining the importance of line markers, as identified in Magellan’s Public Education program are held with landowners or tenants. • Marker spacing for Tier 2 and 3 areas are placed such that if any one marker is removed, the location of the pipeline can still be identified from either direction from any point in between. • All line markers are written in English and Spanish. • Marker placement and density is evaluated routinely through aerial and ground surveillance. • Missing or damaged markers are replaced within 7 days of discovery. • Markers are located at all aboveground facilities to identify the operator of the system. • Markers are located on each side of each public road crossing, water crossing, and railroad crossings. 9.3.2.11.6 Pipeline Surveillance Most pipeline rights-of-way corridors are accessible through aerial surveillance, which is the primary method of right-of-way inspection and damage prevention. Periodic conditions such as weather, however, may render certain segments of the right-of-way inaccessible via fixed wing aircraft or helicopter and thus ground surveillance can supplement air surveillance. In addition, ground surveillance is utilized when vegetation temporarily obstructs aerial surveillance. Pipeline surveillance is conducted in accordance with the SIP procedure 7.05-ADM-031 (Appendix 9E). Surveillance intervals are conducted as follows: • Tier 2 and 3 areas: Every 2.5 days, not to exceed 72 hours • Tier 1 areas: Once a week, not to exceed 12 days, but at least 52 times per year • Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone: Daily (one day per week shall be a ground-level patrol) Aerial and ground surveillance frequency is increased across Tier 2 (sensitive) and Tier 3 (hypersensitive) areas when the threat of flooding and/or severe erosion is identified near the pipeline right-of-way. Emergency situations identified during aerial or ground surveillance are immediately reported to the Pipeline Control Center located in Tulsa, OK. All surveillance personnel and line spotters are trained and certified in OSHA HAZWOPER to the first responder level. Every consideration is given to endangered species when conducting ground surveillance in and around the pipeline right-of-way. Maps depicting the location and habitat of endangered species are utilized for this purpose. 9-34 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.11.7 Encroachments and ROW Maintenance Magellan manages encroachments in accordance with 7.05-ADM-012 (Appendix 9E), Encroachment Procedure and the requirements of the LMP. Execution of this procedure ensures that: • Encroachments do not hinder the ability to safely operate and maintain the assets • Pipeline adjustments are designed in accordance with sound engineering judgment to ensure compliance with governing regulations. • The respective rights and privileges in the easements are maintained. • Proper reimbursement for work performed. An encroachment is any infringement on the pipeline and associated rights-of-way. An encroachment is any activity or structure that materially or unreasonably interferes with or impedes the pipeline(s) or easement rights. In accordance with the LMP and SIP procedure 7.05-ADM-003 (Appendix 9E), Right-of-Way Maintenance Program, ground cover is mowed to a level so that all pipeline markers, including painted fence posts, are visible from the air and while standing on the ground. High canopy vegetation is cleared or trimmed to the extent necessary to allow clear visibility. All debris is cleared from the right-of-way. 9.3.2.12 External Forces The Proposed Project will not change the potential of failure related to geohazards such as seismic activity, aseismic faulting, landslides, scouring, subsidence, inclement weather, or unrelated adjacent fires. In accordance with the LMP, Magellan meets with local emergency responders in the areas of all new facilities to coordinate emergency response activities to protect Magellan facilities, the environment, and the public from the impact of adjacent wild- fires. Magellan will instruct emergency responders to contact Magellan in the event that wildfires are threatening the facility. In the event of wildfires, facilities threatened will be shut- down and blocked-in. Magellan continues to manage external force threats as recommended by studies conducted as part of the 1999 EA and as required by the SIP. These studies and their conclusions remain valid for the System, and as such, the discussion as found in the 1999 EA is still relevant. The Proposed Project may change failure potential from these threats at certain locations where valves are re-configured and possibly at station modifications. Threats are very location- dependent. An assessment of their frequency and magnitude is part of the design process. Industry accepted design and construction practices will ensure that integrity is not compromised by such threats. 9-35 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.3.2.12.1 Flooding Scheduled inspections occur at various water crossings at six-month and five-year intervals. Inspections also occur after certain flood events to evaluate for scouring, erosion and flood potential. As a result of PHMSA Advisory ADB-11-04, Magellan implemented the Flooding Conditions Procedure, 7.05-ADM-039 (Appendix 9E) to provide standards for recognition, surveillance, and responses to flooding conditions near mainline pipelines. 9.3.2.12.2 Geohazards Studies are performed every six months to evaluate for ground movement, subsidence and aseismic faulting. Surveys are conducted every five years to evaluate landslide potential. Additionally, the Earth Movement Inspection Procedure, 7.05-ADM-020 (Appendix 9E), provides methods for the investigation and monitoring of areas of the pipeline identified as having high susceptibility to earth movement or where earth movement has been identified. Pipeline surveillance activities pay particular attention, within the target area, to signs or indicators of earth movement or subsidence such as ground cracks, sink holes, erosion, heaving, or buckling. ORAs since 2005 have updated geohazard threat analysis, especially aseismic faulting threat. No new issues have been identified and some previously identified issues have been recognized as being less severe than was initially (and conservatively) deemed plausible. 9.3.2.12.3 Crossings Magellan manages the integrity of overhead pipeline crossings with the Overhead Pipeline Crossing Integrity Procedure, 7.05-ADM-030 (Appendix 9E). This procedure manages integrity through a comprehensive risk-based program which identifies risk reduction projects to improve structural component integrity. Magellan manages the integrity of buried river crossings with the Navigable Crossings Integrity Procedure, 7.05-ADM-014 (Appendix 9E). This procedure requires inspection to determine pipeline depths at these crossing at least once every five years per regulatory requirements. 9.3.3 Risk Assessment Processes Central to risk management and planning are the processes and procedures to measure and manage risks, especially PoF, at all points along the System. To accommodate anticipated changes in threats to System integrity, Magellan will enhance processes and tools to facilitate improvements in areas of threat forecasting, threat diagnosis, proactive avoidance of damages, and reduced reliance on intervention type mitigations. Risk assessment includes data collection and models that characterize risk. Mitigation measures under the Proposed Project address enhancements to the risk assessment process and are essential in managing risks to pre-established target levels. 9-36 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The risk assessment included in Chapter 6 evaluated future threats as part of the Proposed Project. Enhancements to current capabilities are planned under the Proposed Project and are discussed here. 9.3.3.1 Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) The independent, third party ORA as specified by the Longhorn Mitigation Plan is conducted annually by Kiefer and Associates, Inc. (KAI). Results are submitted to PHMSA and made available to the public via posting on Magellan’s internet website. This process will be enhanced to include an annual validation of the results of the risk analysis and as necessary may make recommendations to enhance or improve the risk analysis. As part of the annual ORA, KAI and Magellan evaluate process improvements to the ORA and make any changes as necessary. Any new threats identified as part of this process are evaluated and modifications to the ORA are considered. Magellan has committed to expand the annual ORA to include certain threats to system integrity as identified by the risk assessment discussed in Chapter 6. As an essential element in monitoring and managing threats to system integrity, this expansion enables these threats to be managed in a manner equivalent to threats that are currently managed under the ORA process. As part of the annual ORA process, Magellan will enhance procedures to validate corrosion growth rates. For both internal and external corrosion, a distribution of unmitigated corrosion growth rates will be estimated for all portions of the System. Distributions shall consider location-specific characteristics, including electrolyte corrosivity for external corrosion and potential accumulation locations for internal corrosion. Distributions shall include consideration of all relevant contributing factors including AC induction, DC stray current, MIC, and others. Point estimates of corrosion growth rate will be selected from these distributions for use in subsequent TTF-type estimates. The unmitigated rates will be adjusted by estimated effectiveness of mitigation, for use in the subsequent calculations. The basis for the selection of the point estimates will be documented and conservative incorporating a bias towards choosing larger, though rare, corrosion growth rates from the distribution. Where feasible the process will establish feature specific growth rates when ILI data is available and fit for this purpose. This process requires a repeat run with an equivalent ILI tool technology in order to be able to compare raw data signals of the same feature. Comparing these signals spread out over the time period between tool runs allows a much more accurate estimate of corrosion growth rates to be determined. To date, the Longhorn pipeline has had three separate tool runs from Galena Park to Crane; however, they were different technologies (MFL, TFI, and UT). Feature specific growth rates determined will represent mitigated growth rates and will also be used in defining risk assessment inputs of exposure, mitigation, and resistance. 9.3.3.2 PHA/ LOPA The preliminary system design for the Proposed Project will undergo a process hazard analysis (HAZOP) in accordance with most current procedures and all scenario likelihoods will be 9-37 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL quantified. As a part of the HAZOP, a Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) will be applied as a function of the outcome of the HAZOP Risk Matrix. Based upon the level of risk defined by the HAZOP, LOPA will be conducted to evaluate mitigation measures. Magellan will evaluate the necessary mitigation measures and layers of protection generated by LOPA and determine if they are feasible and practical to mitigate the hazards identified during the HAZOP. Each new or modified System component as part of the Proposed Project will undergo a HAZOP and subsequent LOPA. Any PHA as part of the Proposed Project will incorporate surge analysis and ensure that the scenarios that cause surges on the mainline are considered in the system and facility HAZOP’s. These PHA’s will also include all other integrity-threatening incidents that may initiate at a facility and manifest elsewhere along the System. Final recommendations from the initial HAZOP and LOPA will be incorporated into the final system design prior to startup if deemed feasible and practical. Ongoing PHA studies will be triggered by MOC as detailed in the SIP. Recommendations will be implemented as necessary to maintain threshold PoF levels or more stringent Magellan-identified thresholds. 9.3.3.3 Data Management Magellan currently collects and documents data critical to integrity management in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.452. This data is stored in multiple different databases and formats. To conduct risk analysis, in many cases, data is manually integrated in order to identify additional preventive and mitigative measures to reduce risk for a particular pipeline segment. As a part of the Proposed Project, Magellan will enhance these data collection and maintenance processes by providing more automated and efficient data integration. These enhancements will be formalized into procedures within the SIP. This includes implementation of an electronic data management system that functions as a single data source for full integration and alignment of data sets needed to manage risk for the Longhorn System. These data sets include all those specified by 49 CFR Part 195.452 and any others that are pertinent. Data includes: • In-line inspection (ILI) anomaly and repair data, collected and maintained in a way that allows identification of redundancies and repeated feature calls between ILI tool runs. This data will allow integration of past ILI features with future identified features to analyze and determine interacting and new threats. • ILI repair data including various details from correlation reports and excavation reports. This will included identified areas of coating disbondment and potential for shielding of cathodic protection current. • Fixed test station pipe to soil potentials. • Close interval survey pipe to soil potentials. • Atmospheric inspection survey results. • Zones of influence for each fixed pipe to soil potential test station. • Stray current threats including foreign line crossings • Monitoring locations for AC induced corrosion and associated survey data. • Internal corrosion coupon analysis results. • Water sampling analysis test results. • Depth of cover data. • Third party activity reflected in one call frequency of tickets requiring line marking. • Third party near misses including one call violations and unauthorized encroachments. 9-38 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Locations of above ground pipe, exposed pipe areas, and overhead crossings. • Location specific third party and earth movement hazard threats at above ground valves sites and facilities. • Relevant pipe specification information including pipe diameter, wall thickness, grade, manufacturer, seam type, and coating information • Construction and repair information • Relevant measurements and observations from excavations • Locations and characteristics of features that may exacerbate corrosion (e.g., AC sources, DC sources, internal corrosion accumulation points, etc.) • Locations and characteristics of geohazard features • Relevant potentials for overpressure and rupture including information from surge analysis and facility process hazard analysis (PHA). • Hydrostatic pressure testing information including locations of previous failures. • Elevation, hydraulic, and surge profiles. • High Consequence Areas as defined in 49 CFR Part 195 and Tier Areas as defined by the Longhorn Mitigation Plan. • Relevant information from the Magellan RRA. • Relevant information related to past incidents. Results of incident analyses will be directly used in PoF estimates of exposure, mitigation, and resistance, as defined in the following section. The role of pipe repairs will be quantified in the risk assessment, distinguishing between pressure-containing and non-pressure containing designs. Additional benefits including increased resistance to external forces and ability to arrest crack propagation may also be acknowledged in risk measurements. Procedures controlling this flow of information will be made a part of the SIP. Magellan currently compiles these variables into the relative risk assessment model. This model utilizes fixed segments. When data is changed or new data is available it is incorporated into the model; however, the segment lengths do not change. The enhanced risk assessment model will allow modification of risk segments lengths as risk assessment variables are changed allowing a dynamic-segmentation risk assessment to be performed. Quality control of data inputs will be conducted using defined procedures to ensure accurate and complete information is contained in the database. Quality and age of information will be noted and will be a consideration in the subsequent use of the information in risk assessment. An efficiently designed database structure will be implemented to maintain to the extent practical readily available and consistently managed System integrity information. Administration processes related to this database will be documented and related processes developed to ensure that the database can fully support detailed risk assessment. Magellan will take an industry accepted database structure to create and maintain an integrated data set. As part of the database information, notations of assumed information will be included to alert users of reliability of information, allowing compensations in the use of the data where appropriate. This aspect of the information will be considered in subsequent use of the information in risk assessment, as will be defined in documented SIP procedures. Associated 9-39 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL processes and controls to control changes and prevent corruption of the data will be specified and documented into the SIP. As a product of the integrated dataset, Magellan will create maps integrating Pipe diameter, wall thickness, grade, and seam type; pipe coating; maximum operating pressure (MOP); Tier areas (including boundaries on aerial photography); high consequence areas (HCAs) (including boundaries on aerial photography); hydrostatic test pressure including any known test failures; casings; any in-service ruptures or leaks; in-line inspection (ILI) survey results including HR- MFL, HR-geometry/caliper or deformation tools; close interval survey (CIS) surveys – all; depth of cover surveys; rectifier readings – past 5 years; test point survey readings – past 5 years; AC/DC interference surveys; pipe coating surveys; pipe coating and anomaly evaluations from pipe excavations; stress corrosion cracking (SCC) excavations and findings; and pipe exposures from encroachments. Data integration should be outlined on pipeline route sheets with parallel sections for each integrity category and recent aerial photography. Data integration will be updated on a continuing basis and with an annual review of integrity issues to be remediated conducted as part of the Scenario Based Risk Mitigation Analysis (SBRMA). 9.3.3.3.1 Material Documentation Plan The Material Documentation Plan has been added to further pipeline safety by requiring the implementation of procedures that require life time documentation of pipeline data, assessments of the existing pipeline where documentation is incomplete, and remediation of the pipeline where any integrity issues are identified through these assessments. Definition for Material Documentation: Material documentation is documentation from a third party (e.g. pipe manufacturer, material supplier, or testing lab) such as mill test reports, mechanical test reports, chemical test reports or other as-built documentation that provides information about the pipe or other material characteristics and properties including mechanical and chemical properties, wall thickness, seam type, coating type, diameter, etc. and whether the pipe meets a certain code or industry standard such as American Petroleum Institute Standard 5L, 5LX or 5LS. Operators use material documentation to establish and justify internal design pressure, maximum operating pressure, and anomaly remediation operating pressures. If other material properties such as pipe or weld seam toughness (Charpy impact) are needed to determine material strength, these properties must be documented in mill (mechanical and/or chemical) test reports or other destructive tests. Material documentation for valves, flanges, fittings, or fabricated assembles must include information such as: the manufacturer pressure rating stamp or tag, mechanical and chemical properties tests, and/or procurement specifications. Operator responsibilities with respect to Material Documentation: Operators must review and scrutinize pipeline infrastructure documents and records, including but not limited to as-built drawings, alignment sheets, purchase requisitions, specifications, design, construction, inspection, testing, material manufacturer, operational maintenance data, 9-40 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL and other related records, to ensure operating records accurately reflect the pipeline's physical and operational characteristics. These records should be traceable, verifiable, and complete to meet §§195.106, 195.302, 195.406, and 195.452. Incomplete or partial records are not an adequate basis for establishing internal design pressure, maximum operating pressure (MOP), and anomaly remediation. Traceable records are those which can be clearly linked to original information about a pipeline segment or facility. Traceable records may include pipe mill records, purchase requisition, or as-built documentation that indicates the minimum pipe yield strength, seam type, wall thickness and diameter. Documentation: Magellan must maintain and be able to produce the following documentation upon request: 1) Material documentation for all pipe segments. This documentation must establish that each pipe segment meets the American Petroleum Institute Standard 5L, 5LX or 5LS, “Specification for Line Pipe” (API 5L) referenced in the 49 CFR Part 195 code at the time of manufacture. If pipe was manufactured and placed in-service prior to the inception of 49 CFR § 195, then the pipe must meet the API 5L standard in usage at that time, and 2) Material documentation for all pipeline appurtenances 2” and larger (i.e., valves, fittings, flanges, and fabricated assemblies) or appurtenances that are directly installed and cannot be isolated from the mainline pipeline. 3) Documentation showing that each pipeline segment has received a 49 CFR § 195, Subpart E, hydrostatic test for eight (8) continuous hours and at a minimum pressure of 1.25 times maximum operating pressure (MOP) (1.25 x MOP) for a four (4) hours test interval of the test period in accordance with § 195.304. a. If Magellan does not have hydrostatic test documentation, then the pipeline segment must be hydrostatically tested to meet this requirement within one (1) year of the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). For any pipeline segment, including those listed in Table 5.2.1-1b in Chapter 5 of the Longhorn Reversal FEA that does not meet the above criteria in Paragraphs 1 or 2, Magellan must do the following: 4) Develop and implement procedures to cut-out and test pipe samples to determine material attributes, as follows: a. Pipe samples must be cut-out at a maximum interval of 50 miles, b. All unique combinations of pipe vintages, characteristics, material manufacturing periods, and construction periods must be sampled (Pipe with wall thicknesses within 10%, same pipe grades, same seam type, same seam manufacturing 9-41 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL processes, and pipe manufacturing dates within 5 years, which are of the same pipe manufacturer, are defined as the same pipe vintage.), or c. Pipe lengths of the same vintage (See above parenthetical.) that are less than 500 feet in total length without: 1) indications of cracking, 2) un-remediated wall loss that exceeds 30% of nominal wall thickness, 3) failure pressure ratios (FPR) less than 1.39, or 4) low strength pipe (i.e. pipe expansion detected by in-line inspection (ILI) or direct examination) are not required to have pipe samples cut- out and tested. 5) Develop and implement procedures to cut-out and test pipe/material samples of all pipe segments without material documentation that are removed from the pipeline as part of future maintenance activities. Sampling frequency for future pipe cut-outs must be in accordance with § 195.106(b)(1)(i). 6) Develop and implement procedures for conducting non-destructive or destructive strength tests for 50% of all annual pipe excavations associated with in-line inspection anomaly evaluations or remediation. These procedures must have measures to account for measurement uncertainties in using non-destructive testing methods to establish material strength. Measure wall thickness and document seam and coating type on all pipe when exposed. a. Procedures for non-destructively or destructively strength testing pipe will require a Third Party technical review by a PHMSA approved technical source. b. Where the pipe excavation is of an immediate repair condition in accordance with § 195.452(h)(4)(i), neither non-destructive or destructive strength tests are required when measurement equipment is not available. 7) Develop and implement procedures to establish and document the pressure rating or strength of all appurtenances 2” and larger such as valves, fittings, flanges, and fabricated assemblies or appurtenances that are directly installed and cannot be isolated from the mainline pipeline. These procedures must have remediation measures for materials with pressure rating, strength, corrosion, cracking, expansions, or other integrity deficiency issues. 8) Develop and implement procedures to compensate for any reduced pipe or material strength for internal pressure, maximum operating pressure (MOP), or other integrity verification measures as demonstrated in the anomaly repair calculations by: a. Reducing the Folias Factor in the anomaly repair calculations of all pipe segments that do not have mill test reports; or b. Repairing corrosion anomalies, if metal loss exceeds 40% of nominal wall thickness and the failure pressure ratio (FPR) is less than 1.39. 9) Perform in-line inspection (ILI) tool runs, evaluate findings, taking into account tool accuracy and uncertainty of tool results, and remediate all anomalies. The MFL, TFI and Deformation tools were previously run and the pipeline was remediated in accordance with 9-42 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the requirements of the Longhorn Mitigation Plan (LMP). Inspection and re-inspection frequencies for pipeline threats are determined based upon an independent technical review of all integrity and risk assessment data as part of the annual Operation Reliability Assessment within the LMP: a. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) tool (corrosion/metal loss): Remediate all indications of metal loss in accordance with the criteria specified in Paragraph 8, above; b. Transverse Field Inspection (TFI) tool (cracks): Remediate indications of pipe body cracking, seam cracking, and pipe deformations as follows: i) All stress corrosion cracks (SCC) found in the pipe that are over 10% of wall thickness and greater than 2-inches in length must be remediated; ii) All seam cracks must be remediated; iii) Deformation Tool (deformations, expansions, and bulges): Remediate pipe expansions or bulges greater than 1.5% of pipe diameter; iv) Hardspot Tool that can detect pipe hard spots: (1) Remediate indications that pipe is susceptible to hard spots (over 325 Brinell hardness) based upon known pipe information (i.e. manufacturing vintage, has had a past leak or failure due to a pipe hard spot in the pipeline) as soon as practicable but no later than one (1) year after Hardspot Tool run. v) Paragraph 9(i), (ii) and (iii) must be remediated within the intervals specified in § 195.452 or where not specified within one (1) year of the date of discovery of the anomaly. 10) Include all undocumented pipeline segments in the Liquid Integrity Management ( IM) Plan (§ 195.452), notwithstanding whether the pipeline segment is in a location that could affect an high consequence area (HCA); 11) Limit surge pressures to the pipeline segment MOP, until the pipeline segment meets these conditions and operating with surge pressures over MOP has been reviewed in accordance with Paragraph 19. 12) Submit procedures and perform Close Interval Surveys (CIS) on a maximum 5-year basis and remediate findings. Perform initial survey within one-year of PHMSA issuance of FONSI; 13) Submit procedures and perform AC Potential Interference Surveys on a maximum 5-year basis and remediate findings. Perform initial survey within one-year of PHMSA issuance of FONSI; 14) Have corrosion mitigation and IM Plans for pipeline segments that do not allow passage of ILI tools; 9-43 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 15) Perform internal corrosion mitigation by developing and implementing procedures to limit basic sediment and water (BS&W), periodically (minimum of twice yearly) run cleaning pigs, and quarterly test and review pigging and crude oil quality samples. 16) Annual reporting to Director, PHMSA Southwest Region of these conditions by March 1st of each year. 17) Magellan must: a. Develop procedures to document all pipe, valves, flanges, fittings, and fabricated assemblies that are installed on future pipeline replacements that include attributes for pressure rating and coating such as: diameter, wall thickness, grade, seam type, coating type, and ANSI rating. b. Retain material documentation for the life of the pipeline. 18) Magellan must submit a material documentation plan to the Director, PHMSA Southwest Region after receipt of a FONSI and prior to field material documentation work and ten (10) days prior to filling the pipeline segment with hazardous liquid product: a. That meets these conditions, or b. Third party technical justification that shows that the pipeline segment has proper material documentation to substantiate the pressure and MOP calculations in § 195.106 and for integrity evaluations in accordance with § 195.452. 19) Prior to modification of any of the material documentation conditions in Paragraphs 4 through 17 above, Magellan must submit to PHMSA’s Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety and Director of Southwest Region any technical and integrity justifications. PHMSA will review and consider these requests based upon the appropriate 49 CFR Part 195 sections and the documentation of technical and operational results. a. Any proposed technical or integrity management plan modifications require a Third Party technical review by a PHMSA approved technical source. 20) In the event of a conflict between this document and the LMP, Magellan must implement the more stringent safety remediation criteria. 9.3.3.4 Pipeline Risk Model Magellan will enhance the risk assessment process prescribed within 49 CFR 195.452 and the LMP. This enhancement will provide a more robust and conservative risk assessment that utilizes integrated data and incorporates a dynamic segmentation process to maintain adequate resolution and avoid mischaracterization or loss of detail. The enhanced risk assessment process will provide dynamic segmentation capabilities, more precise risk assessments, and more ability to integrate data. 9-44 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL This risk management commitment includes specifications to ensure that risk levels are appropriately measured. Provisions require that specific risk measurement processes will be transparent and readily verifiable. Assessments will be made for all known failure mechanisms at points along the System. Magellan will implement a risk measurement methodology that has the following characteristics: 2. TTF produced for all known time-dependent failure mechanisms, expressed in units of time 3. PoF estimates produced via quantification of three aspects—aggressiveness of unmitigated failure mechanisms; effectiveness of mitigation; fraction of damage incidents that lead to failure. These three aspects will be referred to as ‘exposure’, ‘mitigation’, and ‘resistance’, respectively, in this document (but not necessarily in final Magellan processes). a. measured or estimated exposure (aggressiveness of failure mechanism) for all known failure mechanisms in verifiable measurement units (e.g., events/mile- year, mpy, etc.) b. measured or estimated benefits of each mitigation measure, expressed as % or fraction of exposures successfully repelled. c. measured or estimated amount of resistance to failure; expressed as % or fraction of damages that do not result in failure. 4. All known elements of risk are measured in verifiable units (e.g., mpy, events per mile- year, years to leak, etc.) Pipe wall thickness estimates shall be made along the System and will reflect potential for threat interaction by considering possible concurrent damages from multiple failure mechanisms. Pipe strength will also consider potential for manufacturing and construction weaknesses. If Magellan is unable to demonstrate a sufficiently low probability of manufacturing/construction related weaknesses via existing inspections and analyses, or from previous pressure tests and operational history then additional measures such as pressure testing or more inspection will be performed. 9.3.3.4.1 Conservatism For pipeline risk assessments it is necessary to fully populate the risk algorithms with data. In some cases, certain data may not be available at the time of evaluation. Conservative defaults will be used to highlight knowledge gaps, encouraging acquisition of better information. When an input cannot be reliably estimated, a distribution representing plausible values at the specific location being assessed will be hypothesized. Values selected will be at least one standard deviation from average towards higher risk or be based on an equivalent statistical parameter resulting in a value that ensures conservatism. For example, if the average depth of cover was 24 inches, but the standard deviation of the dataset was 6 inches, Magellan would use a value of 18 inches for the depth of cover. Procedures to manage unknown or missing data are contained within SIP-ADM-7.06 (Appendix 9E) and will be enhanced to incorporate these principals. 9.3.3.4.2 Aggregation of Risk Measurements 9-45 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL A risk profile quantifying risks within each portion of the System will be generated. Aggregation methodology will be defined in SIP procedures and will ensure the most appropriate characterization of the risk of the collection of segments. Proper aggregation will ensure that estimates for certain failure mechanisms are not ‘averaged down’ by other failure mechanisms, are not biased by use of elements such as weightings, and that accumulations of lesser PoFs are shown to be equivalent to single, higher PoFs. 9.3.3.4.3 PoF Thresholds PoF thresholds management is a tool to manage pipeline integrity and evaluate risk in accordance with 195.452. The risk algorithms that determine the PoF measurements will incorporate the risk factors as defined in 195.452(e). The PoF measurement will integrate all available information about the integrity of the pipeline. This integration will aid in identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect high consequence and Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas along the pipeline. Additionally the PoF threshold management process will assist with the continual process to evaluate, assess, and maintain a pipeline’s integrity by facilitating and providing information to determine pipeline segment reassessment intervals. The PoF threshold measurement is comprised of three major components: (1) Exposure, (2) Mitigation, and (3) Resistance. Exposure is the likelihood of a failure mechanism to act on the pipe. Mitigation is the activity conducted to reduce exposures or threats. Resistance is the inherent capabilities of the asset or equipment to resist the failure mechanism. These three factors are quantified and combined to determine the PoF at any particular point or aggregated segment of the system. To ensure that PoF levels are maintained at acceptable levels, thresholds of maximum PoF have been established for the Proposed Project. Maximum PoF levels will be formalized into risk assessment procedures and methodologies within the SIP. These procedures will govern the ongoing maintenance and analysis of the risk assessment model. The procedures will be submitted to PHMSA for review. Risk estimates will be updated using the enhanced risk assessment methodologies within 6 months of startup. Estimates will be produced for intended operations under the Proposed Project using conservative inputs for operational parameters that are not sufficiently defined at the time of startup (e.g., pressure cycles, product compositions, etc.). PoF will be maintained at or below 1E-4 (0.0001) failures (PHMSA reportable incidents) per mile-year at all locations along the non-facilities portions of the pipeline and at 0.01 failures (PHMSA reportable incidents) per facility per year. These values are to be formalized in SIP and are therefore subject to review by PHMSA. After one year from startup, if values are seen to be in need of updating for any reason, Magellan will engage subject matter experts to validate the need for a change and to justify a new target. New targets will be submitted for PHMSA review and approval. Intervening in failure scenarios via integrity assessments will remain an essential element of the risk management process. Integrity assessments will be scheduled to maintain PoF levels during the intervals between intervention opportunities at or below PoF defined threshold levels. These thresholds represent PoF levels below those that existed prior to the implementation of the Proposed Project. PoF levels will be demonstrated on a periodic basis using the risk 9-46 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL assessment system described above. Magellan procedures contained in Section 2 and Section 6 of the Integrity Management Plan within SIP-ADM-7.06 (Appendix 9E) detail risk assessment procedures and processes to measure and manage pipeline risk. Any changes to the risk assessment process will be controlled by processes to manage changes to the System Integrity Plan. 9.3.3.4.4 Basis of PoF Thresholds PoF thresholds ensure that new threats brought on by the Proposed Project are appropriately managed. Thresholds are chosen based on the following: • Targets are generally achievable, as evidenced by Texas and PHMSA incident rates. Texas and PHMSA mainline only incident rates are discussed in Appendix 6A and are generally measured to be 1.0 leaks per 1000 mile per year. • Targets are achievable on the System as evidenced by 6.5 year operational history. Appendix 6A details the overall (mainline and facility) incident rate of the Longhorn system to be 1.7 leaks per 1000 mile per year. • Targets result in risk performance superior to current operations (i.e. 1.0E-4 < 1.7E-3). • Targets result in risk performance superior to TX and US averages (i.e. 1.0E-4 < 1.0E- 3). Targets are consistent with PoF estimates from 1999 EA (non-facilities). The 1999 EA target was 7.50E-5. Relative to the 1999 EA, the relevance of the one reportable incident that occurred outside of a facility is questionable. The 1999 EA specifically excluded facilities in its estimate of a future, mitigated failure rate of 7.5E-5 incidents per mile year. The incident in question involved an equipment failure on a temporary component - a portable pig launcher. This incident could be considered to be inconsistent as a comparison event and removed from the incident rate calculation. Its removal would show that Magellan has had zero reportable incidents outside of facilities in the seven years of operation since start up. This leads to two pertinent observations based upon the fact that Magellan has not experienced a reportable leak from mainline piping since operation of the system began in 2005. 1. Estimates of current PoF are conservative relative to recent experience, and 2. Recent experience is on track with PoF threshold values. 9.3.3.4.5 Application of PoF Thresholds The following graphic illustrates the PoF profiles associated with the three operational scenarios of 1) current operations, 2) unmitigated future operations, and 3) mitigated operations under the Proposed Project. Scenario 2 is not a viable operational scenario and is included only to demonstrate how uncertainty related to Proposed Project would be modeled as increased risk in the absence of mitigations. For charting purposes, some aggregation has been performed. 9-47 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL PoF Profile failures per year 1.E+00 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 Length future unmitigated current future mitigated As illustrated above, the Proposed Project “future mitigated” operation shows lower and more consistent risk levels compared to other scenarios. This improvement is forecast based on successful implementation of risk management mitigations. The lower variability in the Proposed Project mitigated profile is due to uncertainty regarding specifics of final operations (modeled as increased PoF) and the achievement of target risk estimates through mitigation. A PoF profile generated by assessments with finalized Proposed Project information should show more variation, but still remain below current levels. Relevant details regarding the production of these profiles are provided in Appendix 6A. The PoF profiles are subsequently used to identify risk areas along the pipeline. As discussed in Section 3.5.3 of the LMP, following the identification of risk areas along the pipeline, the individual segments by prioritized Tier groupings are analyzed to determine if there are protective measures or mitigation methods that could reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of a negative event. This typically brings an analysis of operating parameters, third party damage prevention measures, public awareness programs, and available control measures and system safeguards, all of which lead to a pipeline system of higher integrity and overall risk reduction. Enhanced risk mitigation measures, implemented as a result of the PoF profiles generated from the Risk Assessment Model, are discussed relative to Tier groupings. The PoF profiles are subsequently provided to the Scenario Based Risk Mitigation Analysis Program as well as the Preventive and Mitigative Measures analysis completed per Section 6 of the Magellan Integrity Management Plan. These risk assessment processes are discussed in Section 5.3.3. 9.3.3.5 PoF and CoF Integration Magellan will enhance risk assessment through advanced data integration using conservative estimates of risk to assist with the determination of future mitigations. Probability of failure estimates will be applied to receptor sensitivities as part of the ongoing update and analysis of the risk profile. This will be part of the Scenario Based Risk Mitigation Analysis as per LMP 9-48 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL which is conducted annually to identify potential additional mitigation measures that would lower the probability and/or consequence of an incident. Quantification of rupture potential along the System will be a part of the evaluation of potential consequence to receptors. As part of the ongoing continual improvement process as defined within Section 1 of the Integrity Management Plan contained within SIP-ADM-7.06 (Appendix 9E), Magellan will utilize the analysis of spill volumes and receptor sensitivities developed as part of this FEA for incorporation into the HCA determination process. 9.4 CONCLUSION The overall risk reduction arising from the collective mitigation ensures that the probability of failure will be reduced from current levels, and in compliance with 49 CFR Part 195 and the LMP. Chapter 7 shows how potential consequences (impacts) from the Proposed Project will, with appropriate mitigations outlined in this chapter, result in no significant impact. 9.5 REFERENCES Buzo, Daniela, A GIS model for identifying potential breeding habitat for the Houston Toad (Bufo houstonensis), Thesis (M.S.) – Texas State University San Marcos, Texas, 2008. International Oil Spill Conference, 1999, Modeled Exposures to Freshly Spilled Crude Oil; Evan C. Thayer and Joan G. Tell; Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.; International Oil Spill Conference, 1999. Safety Directory website, Hydrogen Sulfide Factsheet http://www.safetydirectory.com/hazardous_substances/hydrogen_sulfide/fact_sheet.htm, accessed May 2012. 9-49 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 9 APPENDICES <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9A STRIP MAPS <<>> 20S0O% 29450' Fauna Garrett Ra LONGHORN PIPELINE OLD GV J1 - GREEN RIVER RD. Line ID=6644, Status=|NACTIVE SPEED JCT - DEER PARK 24' Line ID=7035, Status=ACTIVE Beau JOHN ANDERSON, s Golder Forest: Park TEXAS CITY - PASADENA 18" Sthist 4 Asmine Dr Parkway ine ID=7005, Status=ACTIVE Carr lot e Magnolia Dr EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 3à Robert E L EDWARD SHIPMAN can Mathiason Re THAM LATERAL Paulst • ID=7020, Status=ACT Crown Jct Estates Redwood Estates F Woodland Galena Park LAmoco Jct Tidwell Ro EAST HOUSTON - FAUNA 20" Line ID=6954, Status=ACTIVE 5°150 W Federal Rd Jct N Shave GENOA JCT - SPEED JCT 24" ine ID=7030, Status=ACTIVE Forest Woodgfeng Kentshire GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 20" LOGAN - PASADENA 12" Pasaden: Line ID=7000, Status=ACTIVE Lotterty Rol Houston Dyersdalg bre Green Line ID=6843. Status=ACTIVE Jacinto City -Galena Park™ Holland Ave Jet Galena Park Speed Jct SPEED JCT - VALERO JCT 24" See GPEP-2 Songwood -Motiva e ID=7040, Status=ACTIVE House pr Barker Ra East GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 16" GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 20" Line ID=6953, Status=ACTIVE Line ID=6643, Status=ACTIVE RSICANA - E. HOUSTON 1 Valero Jet le ID=6928, Status=ACTIV SPEED JCT - VALERO JCT 24 ine ID=7040, Status=A CTIVE South Houston East Houston GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 12* ine ID=6950, Status=ACTIVE Tidwell Chages H - MosCardens Housto LYONDELL - VALERO 12" le ID=6952, Status=/NACTIVE Pad Ra Actual pipeline and facility locations completeness of the information depicted on this copy. BEG ther owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. out witten permission trom madelan or • • • Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Magellan Pipeline • magcilan lier 1 ripcine Cer Magellan ripeline (inactive Other Magellan Pipeline • Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline 811. Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 20" GALENA PARK - EL PASO GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 12" 6643 GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 16" 6950 STRIP MAP Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Valve High Consequence Area (HCA) EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 6953 5/17/2012 Pump Station Terminal Pipeline Milepost Valve - Check Know Call before you dig. what's below. Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Facility Pipeline Aerial Marker Scale: State(s): Texas 1" = 1 Mile MAGELLAN considered to be within Immediate Response Areas GPEP-1 <<>> 95°200 W 95 150W 95°100W Inde RoS Bend Acres practi Kings Lake 699 POSER COMMENCA GO-C Estates 115 MELIAM GEVEI Meadows city Kinwood 16-46 JOHN FLANDERS 125 oneldor торжк в 82,91101 *a Coron 6" Line ID=6955, Status=ACTIVE ALDINE - HOUSTON INTERCONT. AIRPORT opens 5 Ridgerend f Mount Houston Rd MAGTEX - ALDINE TANKS 12" Line ID=6957, Status=ACTIVE Connorvale Ra 2955C ollyvale Di Tralee - Garden pubeney oil Mieranne Mall Rd Aidine Houston Motint 714 159 Edgewarth t та, Зан -ACTNE cien dak E Hardy Rd ling 508 shes Lind. PREDICA W Lorine a War Si Flace ates Pirand Ste manet Fam Coction Metal on (249 Hardy Oakwilde s TidwellRd 5 Houmant See GPEP-3 Park Brock Estates a Table Bay or cerose gang se Raiston 95 250W Kine 80 on wore 1328) JOHN ANDERSON- Roxolla st stanfiete RIVER RD. Line ID=6644, Status=INACTIVE GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 20" EDWARD SHIPMA (251 Line ID#6643, Status=ACTIVE Mellose 159S Wynnsenelope or g wood Acres EAST HOUSTON - FAUNA 20 ine ID=6954, Status=ACTIVE Park came Wallcuille Gardens (lan) to represent approximate focations of GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 16" Line ID=6953. Status=ACTIVE Actual pipeline and facility locations Horman GALENA PARK - EAST HOUSTON 12' Line ID=6950, Status=ACTIVE on unis copy are pronioted without witten permission Trom Madelan o he owners draperies dracules copieda hordon - - • Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Magellan Pipeline • magcilan licE 1 ripcine Cer Magellan ripeline (inactive Other Magellan Pipeline -Magellan Tier 3 Pioeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline 811 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) GALENA PARK - EL PASO EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 STRIP MAP Magellan Pipeline (Retired) High Consequence Area (HCA) 5/16/2012 Pump Station Terminal Valve Valve - Check Know Call before you dig. / what's below. Meter Station Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Junction Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility Scale: 1" = 1 Mile State(s): Texas MIDSTREAM PARTNERS MAGELLAN considered to be within Immediate Response Area: GPEP-2 <<>> 95-350W 95°300 W 95°250'W BRACER CO ME 1922- 14531286 1496 1133 625) 249) obell Rd. 4350 1493 1494 Valle Canta dr 6918 11360 1617 1069 13552 1358 West Rd Derrington Rd 635 1701- 695 AST HOUSTON - EL PAS T HOUSTON - EL PASC e ID=6645, Status=ACTI 15. Status=ACT - EAST HOUSTON - EL PASC Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE arche BIvO Yate Country Hudson Willet Valley Satsuma Test aCre WARYIMOFARL AND, umad Northmet woodland Garden 3 Oaks 1.00 [ City Park 261 JAMES GIARKSON Lans Nort Highland Acres EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 1290 Line ID=6645. Status=ACTIVE Forest say Band., W Little Simont- 15153 SHERER Heights Eudoro Dr Bontale somerali Yorktown Northcourty baks W Liftie This copy York Rd Bingle Ro Forest ent approximate locations of W Tidwell Rd Nalman In Actual pipeline and facillty locations ancy Re Cale • ALESANDERAREA 2901 Par West Park Center neare Forest on unis copy are proniored without witen permission rom Madelan o. ther owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Rd. west Par Forrest anner Re Indeper - - • Magellan Pipeline - Inactive - magellan Pipeline mageian hier t ripcine other madellan ripeline (inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Magellan her 3 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline 811. Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO GALENA PARK - EL PASO 6645 STRIP MAP Magellan Pipeline (Retired) High Consequence Area (HCA) 5/16/2012 Pump Station Terminal Valve Valve - Check Know / what's below. Meter Station Pipeline Milepost Call before you dig. Pipeline Junction Magellan Facility Pipeline Aerial Marker State(s): Texas considered to be within Immediate Response Area: Scale: 1" = 1 Mile MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P. GPEP-3 <<>> H&TC RR CO, 1 H&TC RR CO, 1 SP RR CO, SP RR CO, HT&B RR CO, 6 HT&B RR CO, 6 HT&B RR CO, HT&B RR CO, ROBERT HALL, ROBERT HALL, HT&B RR CO, HT&B RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, H&TC RR CO, 2 H&TC RR CO, 2 WC RR CO, 2 WC RR CO, 2 WILLIAM READ, WILLIAM READ, EVAN THOMAS, EVAN THOMAS, , , CHARLES BOWMAN, CHARLES BOWMAN, H&TC RR CO, 2 H&TC RR CO, 2 , , Golden Sage Ln Little Riata Dr Fieldglen Dr H e b e r t R d Jazzy Cv S out h Dr Stockton Falls Dr Cranbrook Hollow Ln Canyon Lakes Blevins Dr Poppy Trails Ln Dove Field Ln Mound Rd J a r v i s R d Barker Bend Ct Canyon Cypress Ln Cedar Sage Dr Ashland Springs Ln Jack Rd Berkshire Oak St Unnamed Street Otter Trail Ct W est R d Cannon Fire Dr Bandit Trail Dr Warren Ranch Rd Fair Grange Ln Q u e e n s t o n B l v d House Hahl Rd Stiller Park Ct Stoney Glade Ct Sk in ne r Rd Little Pinto Ct Autumn Light Ln Wide Creek Dr Le wis Dr Liner Ln Trails West Dr Fairgrove Park Dr Galleon Field Ln Mason Rd W Little York Rd Ashton Hills Ct Colony Shore Dr N Wimbledon Dr Short Ct Q u e e n s l a k e D r Preston Point Dr Barker Grove Ln Azalea Valley Ct Upland Oak Trce Coyotillo Ln Katy Hockley Rd Haywood Oaks Dr Redcrest Ln Morrison Rd Bear Mist Dr N Bend Ldg Old Hickory St Hig hw ay 290 Shadow Ledge Dr Arbor Creek Dr Bontura St Cretian Point Ct Columbia Springs Ln Cypress Mist Ct Bennet Ridge Dr Gate Cliff Ln Gable Pt Willams Reach Dr Cypress Prarie Dr Bedford Chase Rocky Trace Ln B er r y Ln Adobe Dr Feather Lance Dr We st Dr Lyndon Meadows Dr Major Elm St Coral Cove Ct Waverly Bend Ln Canyon Glen Dr Vanlynn Ln Hunterclif Ln Grackle Dr Azalea Leaf Ct Snowny Hills Dr Cypres Mill Place Blvd Haley Falls Ln Crosscut Great Bluff Ct Yellow Bird Rd Josey Creek Ct Yaupon Pass Dr Saber Trails Katy Hockley Rd Walder Ct Avery Grove Ct Lakeridge Park Ln Brighton Lake Ln Mystic Harbor Ln N Bridge Port Pass Cir Dundee Ct Aylesbury Ln Canyon Knoll Dr Turner Point Cir FM 2855 Rd Blacktail Ct Remington Grove Dr Peek Rd Fall Fair Ln Mound Rd Skyline Park Dr Prairie Lea St Central Dr Ashwood Valley Dr Broad Bend Dr S Oblong Cir Middle Creek Ct U n n a m ed S t re e t General Gresham Ln Jade Ridge Ln Becki Rd North Dr Crimson Canyon Dr Bartlett Rd Lake Trails Dr Mosbriar Ln Pine Flats Dr Vermillion Ct Unnamed Street Black Sands Dr Stock dick Scho ol Rd Vicki Rd Channel Wood Dr Cisco Ct Turquoise Stream Dr Freeman Rd C y p r e s s w o o d D r Harnett Dr Longenbaugh Rd Gable Glen Ln Marble Crest Dr Opal Ridge Dr Delta Estates Ct Hill Side Ct Bottlebrush Ln FM 529 Rd Crestbrook Manor Ln Granite Ridge Ln Rawhide Trl Winding Star Ln Cypress Bend Dr Crossriver Ln Galde Water Ct Secret Branch Ln Linda St Igleside Park Dr Whispering Star Ct Castle Pond Ct M a h o n R d Shadow Ln Wilderness Rd Ivy Wild Ln Gauthier Rd Briar Moss Ln N Austin Shore Dr Castle Peak Dr Chilton Bluff Blvd Cactus Thorn Dr Cypress N Houston Rd Santolina Ln Sycamore Valley Dr House Hahl Rd Swan Valley Dr Mason Terrace Ln Barker Gate Ct Courtly Estates Ln Lina Rd Golden Manor Ln 2nd St Crossland PRK Ln Epsom Downs Dr Grand Terrace Ct Kendal Ridge Ln Glenfield Hollow Ln Driftwood Springs Dr Cartage Knolls Dr Hollow Cove Ct Green House Rd Chantalle Dr Northern Colony Ct Laguna Trail Dr Shoal Lake Ln W Laura Shore Dr High Knoll Ln Mathis Rd Cloverland Park Ln Oakshield Ln Castlemoor Ct Layton Castle Ln Oakwood Canyon Dr Macquarie Dr Broken Pine Ln Becker Rd Patriot Park Ln Sperry Landing Dr Bernley St Sandy Valley Dr Cypress Village Dr New World Dr Stoney Haven Dr Duffton St Stoney Falls Dr Curlew Dr Hamilwood Dr E Morgans Bend Dr Greenhouse Rd Westwego Trl Longenbaugh Rd Hillsdale Park Dr Dundee Rd Oakfield Glen Ln Wild Willow Ln Laguna Springs Dr Riata Ranch Blvd Hempstead Rd Forest Dew Dr Jodie Lynn Cir Smoke House Dr Mound Creek Rd Autumn Flowers Dr Meadow Creek Rd Panters Voice Dr Grasmere Dr Glenmark Dr Twilight Creek Ln Sharp Rd Billineys Park Dr Unnamed Street Legacy Pines Dr Pattison Rd Warren Ranch Rd Longenbaugh Rd Dusty Creek Dr S m al le y R d Swansbury Dr Austinville Dr Glenpatti Dr Dry Creek Ranch Rd P o h l R d Unnamed Street Crayton Rd House Rd R o c h e n R d Unnamed Street Porter Rd Freeman Rd N Bridgelands Lake Pkwy Katy Hockley Cut Off Rd Park Westside Park C y p r e s s R o s e h i l l R d Spring Cypress Rd Fry Rd W Little York Rd F r y R d W e s t R d Barker Cypress Rd 547 547 231 231 256 256 752 752 681 681 116 116 401 401 285 285 261 261 664 664 247 247 238 238 615 615 672 672 738 738 1031 1031 710 710 1527 1527 324 324 403 403 402 402 90 90 133 133 349 349 234 234 633 633 293 293 409 409 279 279 1733 1733 1732 1732 262 262 579 579 499 499 973 973 131 131 1030 1030 1015 1015 1568 1568 729 729 325 325 207 207 102 102 739 739 850 850 494 494 313 313 287 287 112 112 203 203 316 316 648 648 584 584 350 350 90 90 162 162 336 336 1217 1217 653 653 914 914 260 260 1334 1334 654 654 717 717 411 411 433 433 432 432 1227 1227 363 363 161 161 467 467 775 775 1392 1392 456 456 465 465 1391 1391 630 630 89 89 425 425 426 426 163 163 283 283 142 142 1338 1338 457 457 434 434 1364 1364 1363 1363 466 466 1712 1712 174 174 1522 1522 406 406 1377 1377 1378 1378 442 442 1337 1337 284 284 160 160 313 313 913 913 1226 1226 424 424 1566 1566 393 393 408 408 1225 1225 1376 1376 445 445 1592 1592 1396 1396 443 443 1470 1470 462 462 1518 1518 1402 1402 1716 1716 199 199 377 377 282 282 164 164 150 150 1480 1480 1469 1469 1539 1539 1485 1485 912 912 616 616 673 673 1534 1534 1388 1388 441 441 1368 1368 459 459 1365 1365 455 455 378 378 1594 1594 173 173 285 285 159 159 1468 1468 1467 1467 1528 1528 423 423 447 447 911 911 446 446 1387 1387 444 444 529 6 6 290 290 W Wa al ll le er r C Co o. . H Ha ar rr ri is s C Co o. . Amhurst Amhurst Autumn Autumn Run Run Bear Creek Bear Creek Plantation Plantation Cypress Cypress Highland Highland Village Village Hot Hot Wells Wells Northglen Northglen Paddock Paddock Settlers Settlers Village Village Strathmore Strathmore Tealbrook Tealbrook Reservation Reservation MP 4 0 MP 4 5 MP 5 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 95°40'0"W 95°45'0"W 95°50'0"W 30°0'0"N 29°55'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-4 1'' = 1 Mile EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-5 See GPEP-3 <<>> THOMAS BARNETT, THOMAS BARNETT, ARTHUR LOTT, ARTHUR LOTT, H&TC RR CO, H&TC RR CO, H&TC RR CO, 1 H&TC RR CO, 1 , , THOMAS BALL, THOMAS BALL, SP RR CO, SP RR CO, , , HT&B RR CO, 6 HT&B RR CO, 6 JOHN NICHOLS, JOHN NICHOLS, ROBERT HALL, ROBERT HALL, HT&B RR CO, HT&B RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, H&TC RR CO, 2 H&TC RR CO, 2 WILLIAM READ, WILLIAM READ, JOHN MARSHALL, JOHN MARSHALL, JAMES CUMMINS, JAMES CUMMINS, HORATIO CHRIESMAN , HORATIO CHRIESMAN , JAMES PERRY, JAMES PERRY, JOHN KELLY, JOHN KELLY, ABNER KUYKENDALL, ABNER KUYKENDALL, SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, DL&C CO, DL&C CO, ISAIAH FLANAKIN, ISAIAH FLANAKIN, , , NOEL MIXON, NOEL MIXON, H&TC RR CO, H&TC RR CO, HT&B RR CO, 3 HT&B RR CO, 3 Shiloh Rd Minn Rd M at hi s R d RR 3 Hebert Rd Canty Rd Grimes Rd Muske Ln Warre n Ranch Rd Binford Rd Bet ka Rd H a u c k R d Roberts Rd 3rd St James St Lazy Kay Ln Eagle Ln Calvit St Jack Rd Windmill Dr Buller Ranch Ct 1 s t S t Peek Rd Meadows Ln Fields Store Rd Dio rio Rd L i e n d o P k w y 5th St Dahila St Betk a Rd Cherry St P ra ir ie G ra s s R d J i n g l e s R d Ive s Creek Rd Millers Ln B a u e r H o c k l e y R d Penick Rd Mallard Dr Coc o St Falcon Ln Lisa Mae Rd Gindorf Rd Pi n Oa k Ln Washington St Eric Trail Dr Windmill Rd Walton Rd M ille r Rd Krotofil Ln 24th St Tara Park Ln H i g h w a y 2 9 0 Brazos Estates Dr Morning Pine Trl 9th St Katy Hockley Rd Elm St Newso m Rd Freeman Rd N Fawnlake Dr Morrison Rd Bronze Leaf Dr Premium Dr Hope Center Hill Rd Ol d Ho us to n H wy A St Hegar Rd M i l l s R d Peregrine St 19th St Lange Ln Aura Dr S c h o o l R d L e s c h p e r R d Loretta Ln Kyle Crest Trl Scruggs Rd FM 28 55 Rd F M 1 4 5 6 R d Lake Rd Ber ry Ln Nine Point Ct Wiestruck Rd Dreamer St S a d l e r R d N FM 2429 Rd Redwood Rd Holik Rd B ru m lo w Rd Jackson Rd Pineridge Rd Pin Oak Dr Park Ln E School Rd E Glenn St Clay Rd Torrey Rd Bosque Rd E Hacienda St 4th St H o ff R d G r a s s n e r R d 20th St Oasis Pt 7th St Waller St Graybill Ct Ski 14th St Joswiak Ln 25th St FM 331 Rd Blacktail Ct S Red Leaf Ln Harris St Widgeon St Ro ch en Rd Brazos St Mou nd R d Mitchamore Rd Forest Run Dr Brace St Willie Scott Ter Oak St S u n n y Si d e R d 22st St Addie Gee Rd FM 362 Co ch ra n R d M u e s c h k e R d Hopfe Rd Hutchins St Ku rt Rd Park 290 Drive Beckendorff Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t D i e m e r R d Schli pf Rd Coshatte Rd Jeanie Dr Hous e Hah l Rd F a l c o n D r Hazelnut Ln B St Oil Field Rd Kerr Rd Birdie St Bartlett Rd Diamond G Rd S Tesch St Sunrise Dr Whit Williams Rd Hargrove Rd Cochran Rd Shell P lant Rd Ognoskie Rd K o e h n R d Rhine St F M 1 8 8 7 R d Da vis Rd Irving Pl Kenny St Ka ty Ho ckl ey Rd Unnamed Street Stepan Rd Viereck Rd Catron Xing FM 529 Rd Blackbird Ln R i v e r w o o d L n Jay Ln Steck Bottom Rd Kickapoo Rd Unname d Street Waller Rd Domino Rd H a y R d Frank Scott Blvd Groce Ln Saint Lucia Jessica Ct Totis Rd Bell Rd Langberg Rd P it t s R d K r u e g e r R d Monaville Catbird Ln Palo Duro Dr E Mill St B u l l e r R d Linda Ln Pohl Rd Teal St Kiesewetter Rd Telephone Rd Ralstony St Silhouette Dr Whiddon Rd Unnamed Street K m i e c R d Smith Rd China Green Ln Cactus Ln Manni x Rd Austin B ranch R d Hawk Ln RR 3 Moore St Merle Rd Short Rd Cumberland Ridge Dr McDade Rd E Elm Cir Brook Way St W Farwood Ter Baethe Rd Unnamed Street 23rd St Heath Green Cir Longenbaugh R d Concord Hill Dr Country View Ln Cowbird Ln Goldfinch Ln St ef ka R d Cyrus Ln Bauer Rd Divot Dr Clapp Rd Moore Rd M o u n d C r e e k R d B r o o k s R d Pine Tree Ln Meadow Creek Rd T o t t e n h a m R d Neliu s Rd Four Sixes Ln College Ave Windrose Ln Bean Rd Sharp Rd Hamilton Rd Glenmar Rd B o z e m a n R d Hartman Rd Peach Blossom Ln Ueckert Rd E Youngblood Rd Co un ty Ro ad 11 7 Quail Holw Blinka Cir Pine St Zadelsky Rd A d a m s F l a t R d Wisteria Ln Patt ison Rd Vaclavik Rd Glen Rose Rd F Jasek Ln P e t e r s R d Heartsong Way Cattle Creek Rd Smalley Rd Bell St Wilson Rd Starling Ln Shore St Witte Rd C h a p m a n R d Waak Rd County Road 118 Village Rd Dove Ln Quail St Mayde Creek Dr Unnamed Street Porter Rd Loo p Rd La mp Rd Shadow Grass Dr Willowbrook St Nicky St Brown Rd Point Rd Meadow Bend Rd Aztec St Mona Ln F M R o a d 3 3 4 6 Dusek Ln Raccoon Bend Rd Kidd Ln Morton Rd Ho us e Rd Pryor Rd Buller Ln Mason Rd Atlas Cedar Dr Klaus Ln Grove Park Dr Franklin Rd London Derry Dr Sea St Ski Ln Repka Rd McKenzie Rd Sc hm id t R d Cooke Rd Hall Rd Noel Ln Morgan Rd Purvis Rd RR 1 Marti Rd Rodeo Rd Bobwhite St Richard Frey Rd Ray Wright Rd Charter Ln Delma Rd Harpers Church Rd Haley Rd Unnamed Street Unnamed Street Heritage Trl S Hoover Ln Burton Cemetery Rd Fisher Rd Thomas Ln Levandowski Rd Becker Rd M c G r e g o r L n Kulh anek Rd Prairie Grass Ln Fisk Ln H a n n a y R d Trackside Rd Stockdick Rd FM 529 Rd Stockdic k School Rd Blinka Rd Frey Rd Bluebird Ln Windsock Ln Neiman Rd L a n e R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t Bridge Oak Dr Signal St K at y H o c kl e y C u t O ff R d Martins St Quail Hollow Dr Buller Ranchettes Wies e Rd B o n n e r R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t Four Seasons Park Harris County Katy Park Westside Park Zube Park Grawunder Field Airport Grawunder Field Airport Morton Rd E Hacienda St Fields Store Rd Market St 3rd St N Baron St 9th St Baker St Hamilton St E Glenn St 5 t h S t 15 th St F r a n z R d 74 74 47 47 86 86 1 1 71 71 19 19 12 12 332 332 41 41 131 131 72 72 123 123 92 92 754 754 258 258 24 24 79 79 958 958 116 116 61 61 73 73 63 63 255 255 42 42 333 333 202 202 140 140 64 64 138 138 146 146 90 90 139 139 91 91 846 846 388 388 149 149 30 30 338 338 498 498 242 242 705 705 282 282 286 286 133 133 263 263 312 312 141 141 227 227 755 755 317 317 153 153 254 254 285 285 193 193 585 585 101 101 399 399 51 51 547 547 845 845 302 302 231 231 578 578 147 147 491 491 307 307 301 301 103 103 341 341 256 256 490 490 191 191 752 752 681 681 180 180 116 116 277 277 130 130 337 337 151 151 320 320 291 291 285 285 15 15 255 255 261 261 664 664 247 247 238 238 615 615 672 672 236 236 181 181 340 340 1031 1031 46 46 271 271 324 324 326 326 402 402 90 90 190 190 124 124 349 349 234 234 633 633 293 293 409 409 279 279 95 95 262 262 182 182 579 579 17 17 499 499 335 335 327 327 131 131 1030 1030 1015 1015 729 729 325 325 207 207 102 102 13 13 39 39 850 850 146 146 189 189 287 287 203 203 350 350 162 162 183 183 336 336 1217 1217 315 315 192 192 148 148 1334 1334 654 654 296 296 260 260 294 294 381 381 175 175 717 717 411 411 432 432 278 278 1227 1227 363 363 161 161 305 305 300 300 145 145 188 188 309 309 467 467 85 85 19 19 31 31 323 323 317 317 184 184 55 55 456 456 465 465 48 48 630 630 89 89 425 425 426 426 163 163 283 283 149 149 312 312 368 368 193 193 280 280 318 318 1338 1338 352 352 370 370 176 176 457 457 354 354 353 353 1364 1364 364 364 1363 1363 466 466 174 174 1522 1522 406 406 41 41 1377 1377 1378 1378 442 442 1337 1337 126 126 179 179 284 284 160 160 313 313 144 144 298 298 187 187 129 129 102 102 54 54 1566 1566 319 319 178 178 215 215 26 26 238 238 445 445 1592 1592 1396 1396 443 443 1470 1470 462 462 1402 1402 1716 1716 199 199 377 377 282 282 164 164 150 150 311 311 303 303 194 194 40 40 57 57 177 177 56 56 1539 1539 1485 1485 337 337 186 186 78 78 1388 1388 441 441 1368 1368 459 459 251 251 1365 1365 455 455 378 378 173 173 285 285 89 89 159 159 314 314 143 143 342 342 299 299 59 59 77 77 74 74 64 64 1468 1468 1528 1528 345 345 127 127 82 82 266 266 219 219 446 446 1387 1387 444 444 1395 1395 463 463 1421 1421 200 200 374 374 165 165 195 195 310 310 281 281 151 151 38 38 269 269 130 130 265 265 1551 1551 1563 1563 1591 1591 50 50 287 287 1369 1369 440 440 288 288 382 382 1532 1532 1489 1489 453 453 1366 1366 1715 1715 375 375 204 204 172 172 286 286 158 158 289 289 142 142 31 31 1459 1459 185 185 225 225 448 448 1323 1323 450 450 1497 1497 1329 1329 464 464 308 308 201 201 373 373 166 166 290 290 69 69 226 226 339 339 439 439 1339 1339 1455 1455 452 452 1427 1427 205 205 333 333 171 171 280 280 157 157 328 328 1585 1585 1416 1416 1484 1484 1514 1514 451 451 1367 1367 1540 1540 1711 1711 376 376 196 196 202 202 332 332 1556 1556 1510 1510 1429 1429 421 421 1333 1333 471 471 2920 529 331 1456 362 359 1371 529 359 159 36 6 6 290 290 290 W W a a s s h h i i n n g g t t o o n n C C o o . . W W a a l l l l e e r r C C o o . . W W a a s s h h i i n n g g t t o o n n C C o o . . A Au u s st t i in n C Co o . . W Wa a l ll le e r r C C o o. . H Ha ar rr ri is s C Co o. . W Wa al ll le er r C Co o. . A A u u s s t t i i n n C C o o . . Buckhorn Buckhorn Burleigh Burleigh Chappell Chappell Ridge Ridge Inwood Inwood Park Park Lewisville Lewisville Monaville Monaville Phillipe Phillipe Pine Pine Forest Forest Pineview Pineview Terrace Terrace Raccoon Raccoon Bend Bend Saint Saint Paul Paul Sauney Sauney Stand Stand Williamsburg Williamsburg Parish Parish Bellville Bellville Cochran Cochran Hempstead Hempstead Hockley Hockley Pine Pine Island Island Sunny Sunny Side Side Waller Waller MP 6 5 MP 7 0 MP 5 5 MP 6 0 MP 4 5 MP 5 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 95°45'0"W 95°50'0"W 95°55'0"W 96°0'0"W 96°5'0"W 96°10'0"W 30°5'0"N 30°0'0"N 29°55'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-5 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-6 See GPEP-4 <<>> SAMUEL HINCH, 9 SAMUEL HINCH, 9 OBADIAH HUDSON, 10 OBADIAH HUDSON, 10 ISAAC JAMEISON, 3 ISAAC JAMEISON, 3 JAMES BEARDSLEE, 11 JAMES BEARDSLEE, 11 WILLIAM PRYOR, 8 WILLIAM PRYOR, 8 GREEN DEWITT, GREEN DEWITT, MARY PHELPS, 12 MARY PHELPS, 12 JAMES SCHRIER, 2 JAMES SCHRIER, 2 JOSIAH D LESTER, 7 JOSIAH D LESTER, 7 NELSON SMITH, 1 NELSON SMITH, 1 HARMON HENSLEY, 6 HARMON HENSLEY, 6 JOHN SCHULTZ, JOHN SCHULTZ, JOSHUA FLETCHER, 6 JOSHUA FLETCHER, 6 AMAZIAH BAKER, 2 AMAZIAH BAKER, 2 GAIL BORDEN, 4 GAIL BORDEN, 4 , , JAMES WINN, 6 JAMES WINN, 6 SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 5 SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 5 FREDERICK GRIMES, FREDERICK GRIMES, HENRY CHEVES, 3 HENRY CHEVES, 3 JAM ES STE PHE NSO N, JAM ES STE PHE NSO N, JAMES COOPER, JAMES COOPER, WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, 1 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, 1 JOHN HODGE, 4 JOHN HODGE, 4 WILLIAM H JACK, 5 WILLIAM H JACK, 5 JAMES HALL III, JAMES HALL III, JOHN TOWNSEND, JOHN TOWNSEND, , , DAVID SHELBY, 5 DAVID SHELBY, 5 ELIZABETH M KUYKENDALL, 3 ELIZABETH M KUYKENDALL, 3 JOHN SHAW, JOHN SHAW, SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 2 SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 2 JOHN LOGAN, 4 JOHN LOGAN, 4 BENJAMIN GREENVILLE, BENJAMIN GREENVILLE, WILLIAM SUTHERLAND, 4 WILLIAM SUTHERLAND, 4 JOHN MARTIN, JOHN MARTIN, STEPHEN F AUSTIN, STEPHEN F AUSTIN, W ILL IA M J R U S S E LL , 6 W ILL IA M J R U S S E LL , 6 BENJAMIN EATON, 2 BENJAMIN EATON, 2 WILLIAM W SHEPHERD, 3 WILLIAM W SHEPHERD, 3 WILLIAM BURNETT, 3 WILLIAM BURNETT, 3 ARTHUR LOTT, ARTHUR LOTT, EARLY ROBBINS, EARLY ROBBINS, NATHANIEL TOWNSEND, 5 NATHANIEL TOWNSEND, 5 GEORGE GRIMES, 1 GEORGE GRIMES, 1 JOHN JONES, 2 JOHN JONES, 2 BRAZILLA KUYKENDALL, BRAZILLA KUYKENDALL, FREDERICK ERNST, 2 FREDERICK ERNST, 2 SAMUEL P BROWN, SAMUEL P BROWN, JOHN NICHOLS, JOHN NICHOLS, JAMES MILES, 1 JAMES MILES, 1 ROBERT PEEBLES, 4 ROBERT PEEBLES, 4 JOHN F PETTUS, JOHN F PETTUS, JOHN M HENSLEY, 8 JOHN M HENSLEY, 8 JAMES MURPHY, JAMES MURPHY, ALEXANDER EWING, ALEXANDER EWING, MAT STEUSSY, MAT STEUSSY, , , SAMUEL O PETTUS, SAMUEL O PETTUS, JOHN M HENSLEY, JOHN M HENSLEY, JO HN BREEDING , JO HN BREEDING , JAMES CUMMINS, JAMES CUMMINS, GEORGE CUMBERLAND, GEORGE CUMBERLAND, ROBERT KLEBERG, ROBERT KLEBERG, ROBERT HARVEY, ROBERT HARVEY, Henniger Ln R e e s e R d A l l J e r s e y R d FM 954 W i l l o w S p r i n g s R d P a l m R d A l m o u s R d Homeyer Mountain Rd Bybee Rd W i l d e R d Stein Br FM 389 Rd Blezinger Rd New Weh dem Rd WM B Travis Ln F M 2 7 1 4 Bauer Rummel Unnamed Street Fisher Rd Fink e Rd R i p p l e L n Mill Creek Rd Meckel Rd H a c k e m a c k R d Lorena Ln Oak Forest Rd Kovar Rd S e c a t s R o c k h o u s e R d Schroeder Rd S a n d er R d H i l l s R d Leaning Oak Ln Douglas Dr Schroeder Rd Schoenst Rd Dabney Rd FM Road 389 O i l F i e l d R d Dandelion Ln C a r m i n e C e m e t e r y R d Sp ie ss Rd A r r i e n s R d W Austin St Fr an ke Rd Page S Berlin Rd Glory Ln Betty Ln W F u c h s R d Ullrich Rd Round Top Rd King St Meier Ln Shelby Rd W o l ff R d Fordtran Rd T r a v i s R d P e c h a c e k R d Park Prairie Rd Apperson Rd H o p p e R d S Pecan St Cem eter y R d Bednar Ln Haverman Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t H a w C r e e k R d Kneip Rd Springfield Ln Prihoda Rd Neumann Rd Hall Rd Bils ki Ln Blue Hole Rd Nicholson Lake Rd K r a u s e R d L e s c h p e r R d C a r t e r S t K l i m e k R d R e k H i l l R d R i c h t e r R d Ska lits ky R d John Schoelikopf Rd Woodlands Rd Hardcastle Ln Goebel Rd County Road 261 Buxkemper Rd N H i n z e R d K r e b s R d Old Park Rd S y c a m o r e C r o s s i n g R d Buffalo Creek Ct Dogwood Acres Ln Josie Ln Wittner Rd Azalea Ln Klaus Rd Stokes Pieper Rd Mayer Cemetery Rd H i n k e l R d S c h u l l e R d Boundary School Rd Williams Creek Rd N Weyand Rd Carmine Ln E m s h o f f R d Jaster Rd Marigold Ln Plum Ln Greenvine Rd A s t e r R d Salem Cemetery S c h o e n b e r g R d Larkspur Ln V 2 Bar Ranch Rd N Oil Field Rd Skalak Rd S h u n k a R d Vogler Ln W a g n e r R d Ar ni n g R d Old 36 Rd Ho ra k Rd Unnamed Street Center Hill Rd Gebhard Rd N e w B r e m a n R d A l b e r t R d Jeter Ln Schoenau Rd Roznov Rd Froelich Ln Fayetteville Farms Rd R a n d l e H i l l R d Dierking Rd K e m p s t e a d R d W y n n e L n Wagner Rd Darden Loop Salem Cemetery Ln K o y R d Jamie Ln Grapevine Ln S y k o r a R d Dahlia Ln Indian Creek Ln V i s t a V i e w D r Zoo Ln C o u fa l R d S N a s s a u R d H o p p e S i s t e r R d E c k e r m a n n R d Wagoner Rd T i g e r p o i n t R d G a l l e L n E b e n R d Trailer Park Rd G l a e s e r R d M ik esk a Rd Glory Rd Toliver Rd Beuchmann Rd M a n d S L n Syler Kramer Rd Triangle Z Ln County Road 93 Brunn Ln Rohde Rd C R 8 7 CR4 E Fuchs Rd Mikeska Ln T e g e l e r R d Kamas St Brune Rd County Road 88 S e m p r o ni u s R d P i l c i k R d Lily Ln S c r a n t o n G r o v e R d N e u m a n n R d Oak Tree Ln Renner Rd Scattered Oaks Ln S q ui rr el R d Kraemer Rd M i l l e r R d Turtledove Ln Buttercup Ln Clover Ln Faist Rd Salem Rd Krueger Rd B e d n e r R d Skull Creek Rd Wolfe Rd C o u n t y R o a d 1 3 Lesikar Rd F M 3 3 2 R d R i n n R d S t o k e s R d R e d B i r d R d Unnamed Street Violet Ln Zettel Rd B a u e r R d Hoppe House Rd Church Rd C o u n t y R o a d 1 5 A d a m e k R d Daisy Ln Leslie Rd Ueckert Rd W Spring Creek Rd Tr a c k R d M i e t h R d R o c k y R d White Rd Wieghat Ln Willow Springs Rd Kramer Rd Begonia Ln Unnamed Street Kamas Rd Balke Ln Halamicek Loop Sommy Ln Sawmill Rd Lilac Ln Lesiker Rd G r o t e R d M a r e k R d County Road 11 Center Hill Cir N Loop Rd Oakwoods Dr Lusk Ln Reinhardt Rd Wic kel Rd War mke Rd S c h u l t z R d Unnamed Street Tori Ln Game Warden Rd Wonder Hill Rd Holub Ln Yaupon Rd Hurtig Rd Havemann Rd S t a t e S p u r 4 5 8 Deer Run Rd Brandt Rd Peach Blossom Ln Z e t t e r R d P o s t O a k P o i n t R d N o a k R d Shirttail Rd Artists Circle Dr Homeland Ln B r a v e n e c L n Coral Berry Rd Jones-Wilke Rd F M 2 7 5 4 R d County Road 1 South Hinze Rd We iss Ln Hueske Ln S t a r H i l l R d Goldenrod Rd Unnamed Street Clens Rd Dogwoo d Rd Doe Run Ln Red Oak Rd Duerr Dr Wonder Hill Sq S y c a m o r e R d Stalmach Rd Aschenbeck Rd Knipstein Ln Gar lin Rd Lynn Rd Post Oak Rd Balsam Ln Wehring Rd County Road 33 Floyd Ln Unnamed Street U l l r i c h R d F M 9 5 4 Church Rd Bluebonnet Rd County Road 12 Indian Paintbrush Rd I r i s L n L e h m a n n L n Krause Rd Magnolia Ln Janicek Ln County Road 89 Leonhardt Rd County Road 90 Villanova Ln Maeckel Rd County Road 38 B e e l e r R d Mill Creek Ranch Rd S Sycamore Crossing Rd S W eyan d Rd L a n g e R d Bastian Ln Cutoff Rd Yellow Rose Rd I n d u s t r y R d Cedar Ridge Rd State Loop 458 Mimosa Ln S h u p a k R d Homestead CR10 Hickory Creek Rd Hall Rd Frank Ln Meier Rd Long Branch St Do ck al Rd Hickory Bend Ln Piney Creek Rd Maresh Rd Sandy Ln M e r t z R d Winners Ln C R11 L a n g h o r n R d Sacred Heart Rd A n d r e a s R d Parkisons Ln F l o r i d a C h a p e l R d S c h m i d t R d Bleiblerville Rd Tiem ann Rd Club Rd Wiecker Rd J a e g e r R d W Hacienda Rd S Holland St M i l l C r e e k R d Bell ville Cat Spri ngs Rd 60 60 2 2 31 31 63 63 75 75 90 90 180 180 139 139 5 5 67 67 13 13 95 95 168 168 169 169 171 171 77 77 167 167 161 161 143 143 194 194 127 127 159 159 190 190 187 187 98 98 79 79 124 124 82 82 117 117 55 55 120 120 149 149 123 123 131 131 245 245 164 164 76 76 152 152 158 158 183 183 121 121 130 130 153 153 101 101 112 112 186 186 100 100 59 59 154 154 28 28 176 176 71 71 41 41 8 8 14 14 280 280 155 155 114 114 125 125 110 110 44 44 48 48 312 312 51 51 23 23 94 94 43 43 103 103 176 176 92 92 160 160 275 275 104 104 35 35 270 270 264 264 113 113 61 61 27 27 134 134 272 272 261 261 292 292 57 57 286 286 276 276 187 187 105 105 47 47 49 49 102 102 144 144 65 65 106 106 103 103 86 86 284 284 60 60 244 244 24 24 92 92 25 25 16 16 91 91 46 46 66 66 33 33 96 96 70 70 4 4 154 154 89 89 34 34 36 36 94 94 14 14 40 40 20 20 254 254 184 184 50 50 83 83 103 103 44 44 59 59 58 58 35 35 62 62 242 242 45 45 22 22 73 73 37 37 69 69 78 78 348 348 75 75 32 32 64 64 171 171 428 428 13 13 54 54 133 133 262 262 48 48 303 303 171 171 157 157 43 43 243 243 419 419 237 237 121 121 403 403 172 172 211 211 160 160 122 122 18 18 290 290 76 76 18 18 327 327 31 31 267 267 3 3 6 6 272 272 311 311 137 137 132 132 159 159 150 150 363 363 154 154 207 207 318 318 119 119 128 128 45 45 248 248 191 191 118 118 314 314 117 117 135 135 189 189 98 98 333 333 256 256 68 68 245 245 313 313 127 127 109 109 243 243 162 162 309 309 147 147 288 288 186 186 287 287 299 299 308 308 274 274 33 33 109 1291 2502 389 109 1291 1457 2502 36 159 36 237 237 159 159 159 159 290 W Wa as sh hi in ng gt to on n C Co o . . F F a ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . W Wa as sh hi in ng gt to on n C Co o. . A Au us st ti in n C Co o. . F Fa ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . A Au us st ti in n C Co o. . F Fa ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . C Co ol lo or ra ad do o C Co o. . A Au us st ti in n C Co o. . C Co ol lo or ra ad do o C Co o. . Bleiblerville Bleiblerville Greenvine Greenvine Klump Klump Krebsville Krebsville La Bahia La Bahia Latium Latium Muellersville Muellersville Nelsonville Nelsonville New New Bremen Bremen New New Wehdem Wehdem Oldenburg Oldenburg Park Park Phillipsburg Phillipsburg Pisek Pisek Post Oak Post Oak Point Point Rek Hill Rek Hill Rockhouse Rockhouse Roznov Roznov Walhalla Walhalla Warrenton Warrenton Wehdem Wehdem Welcome Welcome Wesley Wesley Willow Willow Springs Springs Winedale Winedale Carmine Carmine Industry Industry Kenney Kenney Round Round Top Top MP 9 3 MP 9 8 MP 9 7 MP 9 2 MP 9 1 MP 9 6 MP 9 5 MP 1 0 0 MP 8 5 MP 9 0 MP 7 5 MP 8 0 MP 9 9 MP 9 4 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 96°15'0"W 96°20'0"W 96°25'0"W 96°30'0"W 96°35'0"W 96°40'0"W 96°45'0"W 30°5'0"N 30°0'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-6 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-7 See GPEP-5 <<>> JOHN CARMEAN, JOHN CARMEAN, CHARLES S SMITH, CHARLES S SMITH, CALVIN GAGE, CALVIN GAGE, WILLIAM THOMPSON, WILLIAM THOMPSON, JESSE HOLDERMAN, JESSE HOLDERMAN, JOSEPH J YOUNG, JOSEPH J YOUNG, GREEN DEWITT, GREEN DEWITT, WILLIAM K PAULLING, WILLIAM K PAULLING, , , WILLIAM M EASTLAND, WILLIAM M EASTLAND, NATHANIEL GOCHER, NATHANIEL GOCHER, SAMUEL G POWELL, SAMUEL G POWELL, RUTH MACKEY, 3 RUTH MACKEY, 3 IRA MU NSO N, IRA MU NSO N, ELIAS GILPIN, ELIAS GILPIN, JO H N G R E E N , JO H N G R E E N , WILLIAM GOODWIN, WILLIAM GOODWIN, WILLIAM LEWIS, WILLIAM LEWIS, CHARLES MASON, CHARLES MASON, EARLY RO BBINS, EARLY RO BBINS, JAMES BURLESON, 4 JAMES BURLESON, 4 AM HIGHSMITH, 19 AM HIGHSMITH, 19 EDWARD BURLESON, 21 EDWARD BURLESON, 21 GEORGE W BRAZEALE, GEORGE W BRAZEALE, JO H N P FE R R ILL , JO H N P FE R R ILL , SARAH COTTLE, 20 SARAH COTTLE, 20 BENJAMIN BOWLES, 18 BENJAMIN BOWLES, 18 JAMES BIRD, JAMES BIRD, JO H N B R E E D IN G, JO H N B R E E D IN G, PERRY B ISLES, 22 PERRY B ISLES, 22 CHARLES EDWARDS, 2 CHARLES EDWARDS, 2 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, 1 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, 1 W IL LIAM PRICE, W IL LIAM PRICE, WILLIAM NABERS, WILLIAM NABERS, FELIX TAYLOR, FELIX TAYLOR, THOMAS GREEN, THOMAS GREEN, GEORGE W WHITESIDE, 1 GEORGE W WHITESIDE, 1 JAMES G WILKERSON, 2 JAMES G WILKERSON, 2 JOH N C HUN T, JOH N C HUN T, A DICKSON, A DICKSON, STE PHEN F AUST IN, STE PHEN F AUST IN, JAMES GREEN, 15 JAMES GREEN, 15 WILLIAM J RUSSELL, 6 WILLIAM J RUSSELL, 6 JOHN C CUNNINGHAM, 23 JOHN C CUNNINGHAM, 23 THOMAS J GAZLEY, 11 THOMAS J GAZLEY, 11 JAMES R PHILLIPS, 11 JAMES R PHILLIPS, 11 THOMAS H MAYS, THOMAS H MAYS, JAMES CURTIS, 12 JAMES CURTIS, 12 ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, 24 ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, 24 RICHARD ANDREWS, RICHARD ANDREWS, MICAH ANDREWS, MICAH ANDREWS, LEWIS LOMAS, 10 LEWIS LOMAS, 10, , JOHN INGRAM, JOHN INGRAM, SAMUEL P BROWN, SAMUEL P BROWN, JESSE H CARTWRIGHT, JESSE H CARTWRIGHT, FW GRASMEYER, FW GRASMEYER, LEW IS BAR KSDALE , LEW IS BAR KSDALE , THOMAS ALLEY, THOMAS ALLEY, SYLVANUS CASTLEMAN, SYLVANUS CASTLEMAN, FRANKLIN LEWIS, FRANKLIN LEWIS, JOHN GARRETT, 50 JOHN GARRETT, 50 WILLIAM MEDFORD, 51 WILLIAM MEDFORD, 51 JOHN H MOORE, JOHN H MOORE, RE U BE N F IS H E R, RE U BE N F IS H E R, WILLIAM H TAYLOR, 4 WILLIAM H TAYLOR, 4 Private Road 2051 Boar Farm Ln Heather St Round Top Rd Lisa Ln K e l l a r R d Linda Ln R e i n s c h R d P i n e T r e e L o o p Prim Rd Grassyv ille Rd Ke lly Rd Rivers St Pine Hill Dr F M 2 1 4 5 Unnamed Street Private Road 2110 S e r b i n R d Norfolk Dr West End Rd K e l l e y R d T i e t j e n R d P o r t e r R d NW 6th St Fritsch Rd R o c k y C r e e k R d Pony Grass Ln K C Dr Withers Rd Old Lake Rd Farris L n O w l C r e e k R d Lange Rd Spring Branch Ln Valentine Rd Unnamed Street J o n e s S t 44 86 Veterans Memorial Dr County Road 224 Randolph Cir Blume Ln P o n d e r o s a R d C o u n t y R o a d 2 2 1 County Road 226 County Road 21 6 W Point Loop Hig h Cro ssing Rd Kaanapali Ln Fre ric h R d Affeld Ln J Rod Rd 4 4 8 8 S t i l t R d Bunte St S c h u s t e r R d County Road 22 5 C o u n t y R o a d 2 0 8 E m i l R d E Cuero St F M 1 8 0 G re as y B n d Center St Schott R d Dump Ground Rd W il li s L n Private Road 2052 U n n a m e d S t r e e t Davis T usia Hill Rd 4 4 8 5 Private Road 7709 Fis he r R d Luther Hill Rd H a r m o n R d Private Road 2136 Gr ee ns Cr ee k Rd Sante Fe Rolling Pines Dr Mueller Rd River Bend Rd Front St C o u n t y R o a d 2 1 3 Martin Ln Swan Ct Travis Rd C o u n t y R o a d 2 1 9 Waldeck Church Ln Pineridge Rd C o u nt y R o ad 21 4 U n g e r R d Post Oak Rd C o u n t y R o a d 2 7 D e e r H a v e n R d Gotier Trace Rd AJ Rod Rd County Road 118 J a n s s e n L n J u r k R d P r i v a t e R o a d 6 0 0 4 O k R d Ru et he r Rd County Road 227 S c h u b e r t R d Private Road 2231 Egy pt R d O i l F i e l d R d C a m e l b a c k R d P i e t s c h L n C o p e l a n d H i l l D r Co unty Ro ad 205 K r e n e k L n Z a c k L n Plum Main St Hidden Blf P a r k R o a d 1 C B i g B o w O ld P in O a k R d Karisch Rd F l o w e r H i l l R d Unnamed Street Piney Creek Rd N i n k R d Private Road 2085 Cheyenne Dr Ross St Fritsche Rd 7706 Sae gert Rd Wied Rd NE 4th St Pine Knoll St 4484 Martha Justice Rd Private Road 2251 W i l d w o o d R d N Pinto Ct Thomas St 4th Ave FM 2571 Unnamed Street Concho Trl Pa ff en Rd County Road 222 C o l o v i s t a P k w y FM 3011 River Dr West Point Depot Loop Kleiber Ln S t a t e H w y P a r k R o a d 1 Raelee Rd Private Road 2061 S Appaloosa Ct Yucca Ln Har ms Rd L o i s L n Center Union Rd S a n d R o c k R d F M 29 81 Pecan Shrs Hidden Pines Dr Saddle Ct Joe Cole Ln Raymond Rd Bunte Rd Winfield Thicket Rd T u r n e r L n Z a p a l a c R d S Old P ota to Rd Mark Young Rd B a r o n R d Tietien Rd B a r t o n O a k s K il li a n R d Cedar Creek Dr Boren Ln Bridle Ct Private Road 6002 K r c h n a k R d Ho rseshoe La ke Rd C i r c l e R d C o u nt y R oa d 22 0 D a v i s L n S Ra ymon d Rd Z i l s s R d Unnamed Street G o e h r i n g R d C h a p p a r a l R d Redbird Ln Belot a Walla Rd Park Hill Farms Rd Unnamed Street Private Road 2331 Citzler Rd Quiet Dr Turkey Run Squirrel Run Valley Ln Huskey Trl Barras Rd Chaparrel Ln Powell Rd Rick Rd Sun Dance Goebel Store Ln Private Road 6013 Sage Cv B ar to n s C r e e k R d Pine Bark Dr Freytag Wilkes Cir Pine Valley Dr S Bob White Dr Bear Cre ek Rd B u c k s R d Doe Ln Drisdale Rd Unnamed Street Granite Rd Hunters Chase S Mesa View Dr Kirkham Rd James St Power Plant Rd Turner Ln S plit O a k R d Houston Ct Morgan Ln Rabbs Pr airie Rd Hel Kat Rd V a l l e y V i e w T r l 3 r d S t Buescher State Park F e l i x D r E Front St Saint Delight Rd Alum Creek Dr G r a y L n H i d d e n P i n e s P k w y Kingdom Path Private Road 2103 Riverwalk Ln Private Road 6001 Oleander Dr Private Road 2181 Adlaie Loop Iowa Rd G i e s e L n Beck Rd Weltner Ln L o n g T r l P r i v a t e R o a d 6 0 1 1 Barker Ln Pathfinders Way Palamino Ct Private Road 2132 Le ag ue Li ne R d Waldeck Rd Ponderosa Loop Cluck Farm Ln Oil Rd Z o c h R d JZJ Ln Greystone Dr County Road 2 23 Millennial Way County Hwy 236 Sandy Loam Dr Chance Ln U n n a m e d S t r e e t Prairie Valley Rd Lonesome Dove Rd Robin Rd Private Road 7707 Village Forest Dr C o l o v i s t a R a n c h R d Unnamed Street Melissa St Vacula Ln A n t i o c h R d Hidden Shores Loop Peaceful Ln Private Road 1281 G r e y W o l f L n County Road 211 FM 2239 Timberline Trl Cardinal Loop Old Firetower Rd Private Road 2332 County Road 394 Peace Haven Ln O l d A n t i o c h R d Hudson Rd J o h n s R d Woodland Ct Old Plum Hwy Comanche Dr Shelby Ln Hidden Pines Cir McAllister Rd Hannah Rd Wal hall a R d Private Road 2176 Hoskins Rd Private Road 7701 County Road 397 A l u m C r e e k R d Angle Rd Private Road 2263 River Forest Dr Drescher Ln County Road 359 Wynne Ln Private Road 2201 Pines Park Dr Tom's Turn Majestic Frst FM 2104 FM County Road 144 Loop Rd H a ll R d Cricket Hollow Ln Mesa Pinto Dr Meuth Rnch Private Road 2191 Ann Powell Rd Buckeye Trl Coyote Trail Ln Bernshausen Rd Windy Hill Ln Eth el Dr Bastrop State Park Buescher State Park Keilberg Park Giddings-Lee County Airport Giddings-Lee County Airport Colorado St W Cuero St E Loop 230 Charleston Blvd NE Loop 230 85 85 224 224 13 13 194 194 20 20 124 124 341 341 11 11 310 310 32 32 358 358 168 168 112 112 174 174 42 42 173 173 307 307 291 291 323 323 71 71 338 338 253 253 384 384 350 350 21 21 34 34 286 286 146 146 329 329 244 244 314 314 255 255 66 66 41 41 192 192 140 140 372 372 339 339 242 242 190 190 284 284 355 355 205 205 161 161 51 51 373 373 94 94 165 165 137 137 159 159 352 352 265 265 309 309 293 293 294 294 24 24 105 105 133 133 256 256 306 306 377 377 155 155 131 131 305 305 106 106 245 245 164 164 107 107 306 306 83 83 103 103 184 184 22 22 47 47 234 234 158 158 279 279 254 254 334 334 142 142 249 249 104 104 196 196 96 96 181 181 134 134 349 349 411 411 308 308 332 332 75 75 193 193 56 56 247 247 210 210 138 138 236 236 273 273 5 5 17 17 168 168 170 170 243 243 39 39 16 16 357 357 126 126 148 148 177 177 306 306 279 279 234 234 117 117 111 111 312 312 92 92 331 331 141 141 151 151 2 2 21 21 294 294 14 14 114 114 292 292 261 261 40 40 55 55 270 270 50 50 212 212 103 103 30 30 285 285 12 12 113 113 269 269 264 264 150 150 226 226 121 121 104 104 251 251 72 72 322 322 320 320 123 123 191 191 156 156 23 23 69 69 41 41 332 332 9 9 46 46 108 108 26 26 379 379 270 270 73 73 88 88 25 25 325 325 127 127 139 139 52 52 199 199 138 138 194 194 262 262 64 64 275 275 179 179 162 162 281 281 230 230 278 278 27 27 4 4 340 340 106 106 163 163 189 189 220 220 225 225 218 218 89 89 299 299 33 33 83 83 48 48 184 184 253 253 8 8 271 271 61 61 326 326 26 26 434 434 1 1 74 74 86 86 46 46 39 39 43 43 103 103 259 259 217 217 320 320 125 125 57 57 99 99 56 56 22 22 29 29 35 35 344 344 101 101 148 148 312 312 115 115 317 317 9 9 304 304 11 11 291 291 1 1 385 385 10 10 347 347 32 32 64 64 30 30 183 183 34 34 423 423 182 182 99 99 100 100 173 173 49 49 116 116 42 42 147 147 161 161 190 190 28 28 71 71 181 181 97 97 18 18 31 31 90 90 448 1441 2239 2104 153 535 1291 95 159 71 21 71 71 95 77 290 L Le ee e C Co o. . B Ba as st tr ro op p C Co o. . L Le ee e C Co o. . F Fa ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . B Ba as st tr ro op p C Co o. . F Fa ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . W W a a s s h h i i n n g g t t o o n n C C o o. . F Fa ay ye et tt te e C Co o. . Alum Alum Creek Creek Circle D Circle D Estates Estates Colorado Colorado Flower Flower Hill Hill Grassyville Grassyville KC Estates KC Estates Kirtley Kirtley Ledbetter Ledbetter Nechanitz Nechanitz Northrup Northrup Pin Oak Pin Oak Pine Pine Hills Hills Plum Plum Prairie Prairie Valley Valley Rabbs Rabbs Prairie Prairie Serbin Serbin Waldeck Waldeck Winchester Winchester Rutersville Rutersville Smithville Smithville Togo Togo Upton Upton Warda Warda West Point West Point MP 1 3 5 MP 1 2 5 MP 1 3 0 MP 1 2 0 MP 1 1 5 MP 1 0 5 MP 1 1 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 96°50'0"W 96°55'0"W 97°0'0"W 97°5'0"W 97°10'0"W 97°15'0"W 30°10'0"N 30°5'0"N 30°0'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-7 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-8 See GPEP-6 <<>> WILLIAM PORTER, WILLIAM PORTER, PHILLIP MCELROY, 18 PHILLIP MCELROY, 18 JAMES BURLESON, 19 JAMES BURLESON, 19 JESSE C TANNEHILL, 29 JESSE C TANNEHILL, 29 , , REUBEN HORNSBY, 17 REUBEN HORNSBY, 17 JAMES GILLELAND, 13 JAMES GILLELAND, 13 JOHN BURLESON, 33 JOHN BURLESON, 33 ISAAC DECKER, 20 ISAAC DECKER, 20 JOSEPH DUTY, JOSEPH DUTY, MARTIN WELLS, 8 MARTIN WELLS, 8 JOHN F WEBBER, JOHN F WEBBER, JOSEPH ROGERS, 6 JOSEPH ROGERS, 6 SOLOMON DUTY, SOLOMON DUTY, SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 4 SAMUEL M WILLIAMS, 4 JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO, JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO, JOHN B WALTERS, JOHN B WALTERS, ISAAC HARRIS, 2 ISAAC HARRIS, 2 JOSIAH WILBARGER, 5 JOSIAH WILBARGER, 5 LEMAN BARKER, 3 LEMAN BARKER, 3 BAM THOMAS, BAM THOMAS, JOHN JONES, JOHN JONES, STEPHEN F AUSTIN, 1 STEPHEN F AUSTIN, 1 AYRES MOODY, AYRES MOODY, MICHAEL GREEN, MICHAEL GREEN, DANIEL GRAY, DANIEL GRAY, MARTHA BARKER, MARTHA BARKER, JAMES PRIESTLEY, JAMES PRIESTLEY, PETER C HARRISON, PETER C HARRISON, ISAAC LINDSEY, ISAAC LINDSEY, REUBEN GAGE, 10 REUBEN GAGE, 10 , , ADDISON LITTON, 1 ADDISON LITTON, 1 HENRY M DOWNMAN, HENRY M DOWNMAN, JACOB BETTS, JACOB BETTS, JAMES STUART, 2 JAMES STUART, 2 MOZEA ROUSSEAU, 17 MOZEA ROUSSEAU, 17 STEPHEN F AUSTIN, STEPHEN F AUSTIN, DAVID HOLDERMAN, DAVID HOLDERMAN, GEO RGE HERDER, GEO RGE HERDER, JACOB WALTERS, 3 JACOB WALTERS, 3 JAMES DOYLE, 3 JAMES DOYLE, 3 JOHN W BUNTON, JOHN W BUNTON, WILLIAM PORTER, WILLIAM PORTER, LC CUNNINGHAM, LC CUNNINGHAM, EDWARD GRITTEN, EDWARD GRITTEN, JAMES MONTGOMERY, 4 JAMES MONTGOMERY, 4 JAMES KNIGHT & WC WHITE, 16 JAMES KNIGHT & WC WHITE, 16 ALBERT M LEAVY, 5 ALBERT M LEAVY, 5 EDWARD JENKINS, 15 EDWARD JENKINS, 15 JOSE SEFERINO MORA, 6 JOSE SEFERINO MORA, 6 ELISHA W BARTON, 14 ELISHA W BARTON, 14 BERNARD BYRD, 4 BERNARD BYRD, 4 EDWARD BURLESON, EDWARD BURLESON, CHARLES S SMITH, 17 CHARLES S SMITH, 17 SAMUEL WOLFINBARGER, 18 SAMUEL WOLFINBARGER, 18 JAMES B BLALOCK, 7 JAMES B BLALOCK, 7 RUFUS GRIMES, RUFUS GRIMES, HIRAM BROWN, HIRAM BROWN, HENRY WARNELL, HENRY WARNELL, GIDEON PACE, GIDEON PACE, ANDREW MAYS, 19 ANDREW MAYS, 19 JOEL D RAINS, JOEL D RAINS, EG RECTOR, EG RECTOR, , , JACOB G LENTZ, 20 JACOB G LENTZ, 20 WILLIAM M EASTLAND, 30 WILLIAM M EASTLAND, 30 DANIEL GRAY, DANIEL GRAY, NICHOLAS W EASTLAND, 29 NICHOLAS W EASTLAND, 29 Pitt St Wilson St Gateshead Dr Brents Elm Dr Wilcab Rd L in d e n R d Farm St L e e R d S Dunlap Rd Waller St Linda Ln Villita Avenida St E Oltorf St B l o c k e r L n Colton Rd S e r v i c e R d Tillery St H o k a n s o n R d S I H 35 M cA ngus Rd McCall Ln Jimmy Clay Dr D u f f D r Old Hwy 71 Bolm Rd Satterwhite Rd Water St Phones Ln E l r o y R d Onion St Rental Car Ln Kaukonahua Pine Canyon Dr E 8th St Southshore Rd Night Star Dr Summer Cir C al d w el l Ln Oldham St Thompson Ln Patton Ave Meye rs Rd Levander Loop Dancy St W 26th St Greenwood Dr Cedar St Tiner Cutof f Salina St Nile St Zequiel Dr P e c a n A c r e s R d Edge Rock Dr H i l l s P r a i r i e R d Crockett St E Highway 71 E 15th St Sandy Rd Teri Rd S Turnersville Rd R o s s Muck Dr Porter St Bu ck Ln Prairie Dunes Dr Grand Canyon Dr W a l t e r H o f f m a n R d River Timber Dr Cottonmouth School Rd Mustang Mesa Dr FM 2571 Smith County Down Dr Unnamed Street Desirable Dr Meadow Dr Davis St Flow Ln Santos St Moko-Manu Dove Ct Red Bluff Rd Humber Cv Wilhelm Way Wild Dunes Dr Peach St W i l b a r g e r B e n d R d Valley Spur N I H 35 Victorine Ln W i l l i f o r d L n Earl St Ewa Ct H u n t e r s B e n d R d Westall St Smith School Rd Trumpet St Old Perkins Rd Fohn Rd L a u r a L n Grelle Ln Shaw Ln Varrelman St E 10th St L i n a m L n Country View Cir Brandi Dr Lucian Dr Reines Cv Doctor Scott Rd S h i l o h R d Viewpoint Dr Ponca St W a l n u t C r e e k R d E 16th St Kay St Mill St Airline Ter Petras Way P al m er R d Brown Ln Imperial Dr My Rd Schriber Rd B e c k L n St M a r y' s R d E 18th St M a h a R d Ellon Rd Navarro Creek Rd S a n d r a L n Split Rail Pine View Loop Maha Loop Rd Shoreside Dr Woodland Ave Glass Ln Pearce Ln Eva St Spruce Ln Nixon Ln Von Qui ntus Rd Pine Valley Cv Whisper Wind Dr W ri g ht R d Shadow Wood Trl Patti Cv S Oak Leaf Dr Basrock Ave Deep Cir Trapper Trl Norvich Dr Lovers Ln Curve St Marjess Dr F a g e r q u i s t R d Moore Ln Vine Hill Dr White Tail Dr Green Leaf Dr KC Dr Watersedge Terrace Dr Shady Oaks Dr Garden Gate Dr Cactus Dr Longhollow Rd Old Lo ckhart Rd Lower Dr Howard Ln Barb Rd P o p e B n d S Crossroads Dr P o s t O a k R d Mill St Lava Hill Rd E Clearview Cemetery Rd H u b b a r d S t E 13th St Whirlaway St Indian Oak Dr E 2nd St Neal St Mann Ln W 16th St Bigelow Dr Callies Ct W 17th St L e h m a n L n Citation Cir Ulit Ave Heine Farm Rd Walnut Creek Cv Tom Sassman Rd Jacobs on Rd E 32nd St R i d d l e R d H o f f m a n R d Turnersville Rd Saddle Cir Braemar Cv R e i d s B n d Lois Ln W o l f L n Hiway 40 Mark Adams Rd FM 2430 Terri Trl Unnamed Street Paia Ln Willow St Mary St W Evelyn Rd Perry Rd Shadow Oaks Dr Pl ea sa nt Ch ap el Rd F M 1 2 0 9 Artesian Dr Sunset Ln Maha Cir Alice Ave Hornsby Cemetery Hergotz Ln M c K i n n e y F a l l s P k w y Orch ard Rd Mustang Dr Upper Elgin River Rd Catalina Dr Speegle Ct Kalama Dr Mesquite Cv FM 67 2 E v el y n R d River Front Dr N Cedar Creek Dr L o w e r R e d R o c k R d N u n n L n M o o r e R d S a y e r s R d Cedar Creek Cir Purple Sage Dr Pahoa Ln Meadow View Blvd Bradshaw Rd Alum Creek Dr Elm Ln Blue Bell St Edwin Ln Tu ck er Hi ll Ln Rocky Ln Cotton Top Dr Darold Dr Foxhead Dr Turkey Ridge Cv Elizabeth Ln High View Ranch Dr F a l l w e l l L n T h o u s a n d O a k s D r Johnson Rd Frio Ct Peterson Rd P e c a n L n Aquaplex Maha Loop Oak Hill Ln Sedona Sky Papawai Dr Beth Rd Lytton Acres Dr Green Mountain Dr S Eskew Ln Whitworth L n Pine Lodge Dr Caldwell Rd Welsh Way H i l l S t FM 1625 Union Hill Rd Blackjack Cv W ill ia m s o n R d Winecup Path Bahia Ln M a p l e D r Easybend Dr Redbird Ln M il a m L n Llano Ct W at ts L n Harper Dr Paloma Blanca Way Cedar Hollow Rd Alice Ave County Road 380 Bronco Ct Dearbonne Dr Carter S t Da ir y Rd Comal St C r e e k L o o p R d Miller St D e e G a b r i e l C o l l i n s R d Unnamed Street Mohawk Way Berdoll Ln Scarlet Harts Ln Tiner Hill Loop Man O War Dr Hilbig Ln Piland Triangle B o c k R d Kimberly Cv Mueurer Ln Sage Cv M e s a D r Pocmont Trl Maverick Ct Verde Ct Litton Ln The Forrest Rd Kite St Horizon Ln W a ln u t R d g S C e d a r C r e e k D r Sendero Cv Turkey Run Lo n e St a r R d Post Oak Rim Hollow Rd Campina Xing Guerrero Dr Hayride Cir Lone Star Dr Eleanor St S K auf fman Rd Cedar Dr Etheredge Dr Dalton Ln County Road 436 Fuller Ln Valerie Ln Gra ef R d Wood Hollow Ct H i g h G r o v e R d Woodway Dr Coachman Ln Bern Dr Alysheba Dr Pecos St Slate Ct Dobush Dr Sandy Brown Ln Humble Ln T r i g g R d Cheryl Lynn Rd Lower Wood Ln L o w e r E l g i n R d Henzen Ln Sonesh View Ln Waugh Way Stork Rd Veldt Dr Alum Park Pl Colorado Dr Creekside Cv Bania Ln 4th St Utley Rd Laws Rd Ric h L n W Oak Dr Brooks Ln Anken Dr Greens Creek Cv Geia Ln Aqualux Cv Ponder Ln Ponderosa St Rustys Way El m G rov e Rd Lambert Ln Arrowhead Ct Old McDade Rd Leisure Ln Caleb Dr Belinda Ln Houston Rd M o u n t P l e a s a n t R d Larkdale St Hunters Ridge Rd Royal Ln County Line Rd Deer Run Dr Caballo Dr Green Grove Dr Ebert Ave P r i v a t e R d Aspen Glen Blvd Lonesome Dove Dr del Sol Clinger Rd River Rd Unnamed Street Hayride Rd A s h l y n D r Timber Hills Dr Barclay Ln Smith Rd Angelia Dr Tucker Ln Dove Ln Glass Rd Walker Dr Crane Rd G r e y W o l f L n Royal Dr Della Mae Dr Millennial Way Joshua Smith Ln Cedar Creek Farms Rd Saldana Dr Harold Green Dr Todd Trl County Road 174 Po p e B nd N Lake Front Dr Cedarwood Ln M e s q u i t e D r B o b s T r l Union Chapel Rd Rolling Oak Dr Avis Rd Big Skye Rd Shady Oaks Loop McDonald Ln E S Ridge Dr Lazy River Ln Heritage Oaks Dr M e s q u i t e L o o p Lone Star Cir T h e R a n c h R d PVT Dr K e l l a m R d Calder Rd Lantana Ln Stoney Brook Dr Green Valley Dr Misty Ln E Greenway County Road 43 U n n a m e d S t r e e t Bar L Mesa Dr Clover Rd Li nu m Ln Meadowwood Ln P l a t t L n N Eskew Ln Griesenbeck Ranch Rd Valley Creek Dr B J M a y e s R d Oak Forest Ct Huggard Rd Manawianui Dr Post Oak Trl Eil er Rd Maegan Ln Joseph Ln Milo Rd Willy Rd Cynthia Dr Unnamed Street T h e F o r e s t R d Maschmeier Rd Headquarters Rd Cliffbrook Dr Lytton Ln Margies Way Watte rson Rd Skyline Rd Norwood Ln Flahive Rd Rinard Rd Do yle O ve rt on Rd Go ert z D r Goforth Rd Josie Ln El Camino Real River Rd Citation Dr Synergy Dr B a r t o n R d Becker Ln Lange Ln Unnamed Street Earhardt Rd Tomahawk Trl Black Jack Rd Deadwood Rd U n n a m e d S tr e et R i n a r d C r e e k W a l l e r C r e e k B l u n n C r e e k R i n a r d C r e e k S h o a l C r e e k Bastrop State Park Colorado River Greenbelt Little Stacy Park Metz Park Onion Creek District Park South Shores Park Walnut Creek Greenbelt Yates Park Nuckols Crossing Rd E Rivers ide Dr E 1 2th St R i v e r s i d e D r E Salt Springs Dr S I H 3 5 Congress Ave S Hanauma Dr MC Kenzie Rd Mesquite St Lamaloa Ln Heleakala Dr Thaxton Rd Pleasant Valley Rd Rosewood Ave O l d L o c k h a rt H w y Oltorf St W W 1st St W 15th St E St Elmo Rd Molokini Dr Kaaawa Ln Cedar St Guadalupe St Presidential Blvd Mano r Rd Waikakaaua Dr E 2n d St E 7 t h S t Peca n St Airport Blvd B u r l e s o n R d Springdale Rd Pleasant Valley Rd S M c K e n z i e D r S 1 s t S t A k a l o a D r R i v e r s i d e D r E S t a s s n e y L n C o l t o n B l u f f S p r i n g s R d 7 7 16 16 4 4 22 22 215 215 19 19 586 586 784 784 15 15 12 12 5 5 8 8 9 9 68 68 24 24 26 26 55 55 23 23 29 29 122 122 10 10 71 71 18 18 67 67 38 38 6 6 70 70 6 6 53 53 378 378 11 11 292 292 228 228 210 210 5 5 3 3 2196 2196 530 530 54 54 61 61 TATE1 TATE1 585 585 797 797 479 479 531 531 314 314 179 179 633 633 7 7 399 399 632 632 2104 2104 785 785 226 226 31 31 98 98 657 657 45 45 457 457 218 218 155 155 369 369 59 59 798 798 271 271 62 62 159 159 268 268 56 56 225 225 2 2 196 196 79 79 165 165 347 347 239 239 480 480 599 599 338 338 97 97 28 28 115 115 15 15 359 359 32 32 24 24 2095 2095 2677 2677 44 44 523 523 42 42 481 481 81 81 36 36 41 41 522 522 185 185 193 193 9 9 83 83 320 320 329 329 219 219 166 166 171 171 195 195 58 58 235 235 51 51 812 812 355 355 357 357 132 132 180 180 339 339 91 91 364 364 286 286 112 112 342 342 230 230 248 248 84 84 308 308 297 297 296 296 265 265 266 266 253 253 229 229 157 157 186 186 105 105 347 347 290 290 156 156 125 125 402 410 969 20 973 1327 812 973 2001 1704 1441 535 535 969 21 71 95 21 71 71 21 304 71 183 183 35 T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . B Ba as st tr ro op p C Co o. . T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . H Ha ay y s s C C o o. . T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . C Ca al ld dw we el ll l C Co o. . B Ba as st tr ro op p C Co o. . C Ca al ld dw we el ll l C Co o. . Carl Carl Clearview Clearview Colton Colton Dunlap Dunlap Elroy Elroy Elysium Elysium Hornsby Hornsby Bend Bend Iglehart Iglehart Maha Maha Montopolis Montopolis Moores Moores Crossing Crossing Pershing Pershing Phelan Phelan Pilot Pilot Knob Knob Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill Smoot Smoot Turnersville Turnersville Utley Utley Watterson Watterson Bastrop Bastrop Camp Camp Swift Swift Cedar Cedar Creek Creek Creedmoor Creedmoor Del Valle Del Valle Garfield Garfield Hills Hills Prairie Prairie Onion Onion Creek Creek Webberville Webberville Wyldwood Wyldwood Austin Austin MP 1 4 5 MP 1 5 0 MP 1 3 5 MP 1 4 0 MP 1 6 5 MP 1 5 5 MP 1 6 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 97°15'0"W 97°20'0"W 97°25'0"W 97°30'0"W 97°35'0"W 97°40'0"W 30°15'0"N 30°10'0"N 30°5'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-8 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-9 See GPEP-7 <<>> , , HENRY P HILL, 21 HENRY P HILL, 21 REUBEN HORNSBY, 17 REUBEN HORNSBY, 17 ISAAC DECKER, 20 ISAAC DECKER, 20 CHARLES H RIDDLE, CHARLES H RIDDLE, THEODORE BISSELL, 18 THEODORE BISSELL, 18 JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO, JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO, WILLIAM CANNON, 19 WILLIAM CANNON, 19 AYRES MOODY, AYRES MOODY, STEPHEN F SLAUGHTER, 1 STEPHEN F SLAUGHTER, 1 WALKER WILSON, 2 WALKER WILSON, 2 MICHAEL GREEN, MICHAEL GREEN, JAMES PRIESTLEY, JAMES PRIESTLEY, PETER C HARRISON, PETER C HARRISON, , , JACOB BETTS, JACOB BETTS, JAMES STUART, 2 JAMES STUART, 2 JAMES DOYLE, 3 JAMES DOYLE, 3 Linden Rd Vougeot Dr Pl ov er Pl Employee Dr Moonview Dr Dan Jean Dr Blocker Ln C o l t o n R d Trade Center Dr Corral Ln Little Texas Ln Running Water Dr Hokanson Rd Cogbill St McAngus Rd Unnamed Street E u c l i d A v e Uphill Ln E lr o y R d Atascosa Dr Dome Vw Teal Trl Mini Cir Ponciana Dr Sunder Land Dr G o l f c o u r s e R d Pebble Beach Dr W Gate Blvd Lunar Dr M c C a l l L n Zequiel Dr Marble Ridge Dr Oltorf Norwood Ln Promontory Point Dr E Riverside Dr P e a r c e L n R os s Muck Dr D r o s s e t t D r Bluebonnet Ln R i c h a r d s D r Lyle Rd Merle Dr Norwood Ln Terry O Ln Cottonmouth School Rd B u r c h D r Scott Dr Lark Cv County Down Dr Spirit of Texas Dr Foremost Dr Capitol View Dr Flow Ln Felter Ln Chapel Ln E S t a s s n e y L n Aldford Dr Pedigree Cv San Jos e Ave Dove Ct La Costa Ct Indio Cir Wild Dunes Dr Cocao Cir Brock Cir Omni Dr Karen Ann Ct Spanish Bluff Dr Amur Dr Wi lli fo rd Ln Olmos Dr Orr Dr Ari Ct Estates Cv E Bluff Dr Smith School Rd B a r t o n H i l l s D r Cynthia Dr Grelle Ln Shaw Ln Royal Palms Dr Grizzly Oak Dr Cooing Ct Canella Dr Leisure Run Rd Yarsa Blvd W i c k e r s h a m L n Ferndale Cv Wiley Way N e w A i r p o r t D r Westhill Dr Bourg Cv T h ax to n R d Morelos Cv Flournoy Dr Reines Cv S Pleasant Valley Rd Legends Ln C l a w s o n R d Byron Dr Scrappers Cv Do cto r Sco tt R d Elm Creek Dr Hialeah St Turk Ln Rowood Dr Granberry Dr Schebler St Juanita St S a s s m a n R d Doyle Ov erton Rd Airline Ter E A l p i n e R d Circle Hvn FM 2430 La Guardia Ln Penion Dr Dip Cv G r o v e B l v d Post Rd Mesa Rd Dalton Ln Deridder Ct E Saint Elmo Rd Willow Creek Dr Claude Ct Monks Tale Ct Hub ach Ln Button Bend Rd Geoffs Dr Ellon Rd Taos Blvd Na va rro Cr ee k R d Sunny Hills Dr Faro Dr Berkeley Cv Alexis Cv S la u g h t e r C r e e k D r Holly Oak Cir Cedar Gln Ionic Dr Springtime Trl Racetrack Dr Von Qui ntu s Rd Mary St Plains Valley Dr Aldford Cir Point Clear Ct Country Meadow Cir Tunnel Trl Peach Ct F o l e y D r Dolphin Dr Longhorn Way Hidatas Cv Alpine Dr Little Valley Cv Cherry Hill Dr King Edward Pl Vine Hill Dr C h a p p ell L n Herndon Ln Glen Meadow Dr Rhonda Ct Indian Wells Dr Fagerquist Rd Bixler Dr Dove Dr Innisbrook Dr Bramble Dr Rodri guez Rd Matador Dr Gobi Dr Tawny Dr S u n f l o w e r D r Dillweed Dr Easy St Cliffridge Rd S Glenn St Minturn Ln R o s s R d Walnut Grove Dr Skyloop Dr Old Lockhart Rd Arnold Ln Philco Dr Firefly Dr La Casa Dr Slaugh ter Ln Cayuse Cv Lava Hill Rd Fort Drum Dr S 3rd St Westland Dr G o l f C o u r s e R d Cilantro Way Village Cir Garden Villa Ln High Noon St U n n a m e d S t r e e t Reynero Ln Shiloh Dr Krebs Ln Glencoe Cir Hillmoore Dr Meredith Dr Vigen Cir Ravey St Terry Ln Scioto Ct Overlook Ranch Cir F a l l w e l l L n Kansas River Dr Callies Ct W Saint Elmo Rd Hedgewood Dr Gilwell Dr Twin Creek Cv Fleming Ct FM 1625 Heine Farm Rd Roberts Ave Jacob son R d Sussex Dr Proud Panda Dr Buffalo Pass Caldwell Ln Dunlap St Parker Ln B a i n R d Rainbow Ln P e a c e f u l H i l l L n Birch St Wanda Dr Coulver Rd Timber Creek Dr Goliad Ln Interlachen Ln Star Dr Diane Dr Katy Ln E Oltorf St M a h a C i r Alice Ave Edge Park Cir Shep St McKinney Falls Pkwy Japonica Ct Slaughter L i p t o n L o o p Forest Glenn Cv Caddie St Kasper St Maha Loop Rd S 1 s t S t E William Cannon Dr Brighton Rd Trede Dr M o o r e R d Iva Ln Jones Rd Southgate Ln Ben Howell Dr Meadow View Blvd Buffalo Lake Ln B r a d s h a w R d Hank Ave Blue Bell St Keats Dr Engler Park St Carson Rdg Colonade Vw Elm Forest Rd Sir Gawain Dr Quirin Dr Leanna Oaks Loop Carter Ln Lowden Ln Cats Eye Ln Peterson Rd Tickford Dr Maha Loop La Paz Barge St Westforest Dr F a i r O a k s D r Ensign-Bickford Rd Harwick Dr Iwanna Dr Clifford Dr Mueurer Ln Mistletoe Trl Peacock Ln Welsh Way Freidric h Ln Pinehurst Dr S Oak Dr Maybach Dr Silcantu Dr Yellowstone Dr Douglas St Ashen Ln C a r g o A v e Havana St Allison Dr Burleson Ct Southport Dr Sneed Cv Ashley Way Sunbonnet Cv Ainez Dr Carovilli Dr Buenos Aires Pkwy Brook Crest Rd Rental Car Ln Malvern Hill Dr Kingfisher Creek Dr Paloma Blanca Way Thoroughbred Dr Little Cypress Ln Dearbonne Dr E Slaughter Ln Anna St Laramie Trl Red Bird Ln Broad Brook Dr S Hearsey Dr Glade Line Dr Oakhaven Dr Lightsey Rd Locke Ln Sacramento Dr Polk Rd Braeswood Rd Santa Fe Dr Brockman Ln Falcon Hill Dr Pioneer Forest Dr Armadillo Rd D e e G a b r i e l C o l l i n s R d Sandra St Pimlico Dr Stambourne St Gillis St Scarsdale Dr Albert Rd Charlotte Estates Dr Rosenberry Dr Jinx Ave Kedington St Piland Triangle Apple Orchard Ln Appomattox Dr Berkett Dr Crow Ln Franklins Tale Loop Unnamed Street Unnamed Street Horizon Ln S 4th St W a g o n B n d Palomino Trl S Trace Dr Cinnamon Path Dunstan Dr Crown Colony Dr Campina Xing Guerrero Dr Hayride Cir Wing Feather Dr Speer Ln Angel Oak St Stone River Dr Mozelle Ln Orleans Dr Shiny Rock Dr Creekmere Ln Wood Cliff Dr Burly Oak Dr Old San Antonio Rd Fuller Ln Susie St McAngus Cv Whitecrowe Trl Little John Ln Greenheart Dr Shinnecock Hills Dr Blueberry Hl Romney Rd Bern Dr Richmond Ave Manchester Cir Alysheba Dr Dobush Dr Unnamed Street S 5th St Redbud Trl Creedmoor Dr Chasewych Dr Sahara Ave Kimono Ridge Dr Cheryl Lynn Rd Wild Onion Dr Capriola Dr Stork Rd Hillside Oaks Dr Carnarvon Ln Donahue Ln Miles Ave Lee Hill Dr B u r t o n D r Doyal Dr Creekline Dr Tether Trl Linda Vis Salem Hill Dr Saint Albans Blvd Anken Dr China Berry Rd Meadow Crst Enchanted Ln S 2nd St Ponder Ln Dime Cir W i n n e b a g o L n Glen Oak Dr Lambert Ln Baltusrol Dr Echo Ln W ol f L n Wessex Way Larkdale St Montopolis Dr Kavanagh Dr Lendall Ln Aspen Glen Blvd Judson Rd d e l S o l Teri Rd Boggy Creek Dr Forest Wood Rd Morgan Ln W are R d T i m b e r H i l l s D r Forest Hill Dr Carlow Dr Bitter Creek Dr S u ns et Trl Cliffbrook Dr Lava Ln Unnamed Street Creek View Dr The Ranch Rd Towery Ln Linden Loop K e l l a m R d South View Hills Cir Eiler Rd J o s e p h L n M a s c h m e i e r R d Cromwell Cir R i n a r d R d Becker Ln W e n d e R d Barton Creek Greenbelt Battlebend Park Big Stacy Park Del Valle Fields Ditmar Park and Rec Center Franklin Park Garrrsion District Park Joslin Park Kendra Page Park Mabel Davis District Park McKinney Falls State Park Onion Creek District Park Ponciana Park South Austin Park Valley Creek Park Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Airport Nu ckol s Cr ossi ng Rd E R i v e r s i d e D r S I H 3 5 Manchaca Rd S a l t S p r i n g s D r S 1st St S I H 3 5 C o n g r e s s A v e S W William Cannon Dr Thaxton Rd Pleasant Valley Rd S Lamar Blvd Old Lockhart Hwy D a v i s L n Montopolis Dr E St El mo Rd Todd Ln Presidential Blvd O l t o r f S t W William Cannon Dr E B e n W h it e B l v d O l t o r f S t E Sl aught er Ln W S Capital of Texas Hwy Burleson Rd W S ta s s n e y L n Be n W hi te Blvd McKenzie Dr W i l l i a m C a n n o n D r W S 1st St William Cannon Blvd Dittmar Rd W E Stassney Ln C o lt o n B l u f f S p r i n g s R d 14 14 15 15 8 8 24 24 769 769 676 676 3 3 18 18 6 6 2196 2196 20 20 377 377 530 530 27 27 54 54 61 61 TATE1 TATE1 585 585 797 797 479 479 531 531 314 314 179 179 633 633 399 399 632 632 2104 2104 657 657 457 457 12 12 369 369 59 59 62 62 28 28 1626 812 973 973 71 71 71 290 183 183 35 35 T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o . . B Ba as st tr ro op p C Co o . . Bluff Bluff Springs Springs Carl Carl Colton Colton Elroy Elroy Moores Moores Crossing Crossing Pilot Pilot Knob Knob Vinson Vinson Del Del Valle Valle Garfield Garfield Manchaca Manchaca Onion Onion Creek Creek San San Leanna Leanna Sunset Sunset Valley Valley MP 1 6 5 MP 1 5 5 MP 1 6 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 97°35'0"W 97°40'0"W 97°45'0"W 30°15'0"N 30°10'0"N 97°50'0"W 30°15'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-9 1'' = 1 Mile EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-10 See GPEP-8 <<>> AB&M, AB&M, , , , , JM DICKSON, JM DICKSON, WILLIS FAWCETT, WILLIS FAWCETT, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, RH GRAHAM, RH GRAHAM, E HALLMAN, E HALLMAN, JUANA RODRIGUEZ, JUANA RODRIGUEZ, JOHN MOAT, JOHN MOAT, B&B, B&B, ROBERT MCKINNEY, ROBERT MCKINNEY, A&B, A&B, JOHN L BRAY, JOHN L BRAY, MARY J HUNTER, MARY J HUNTER, TINSLEY D WADE, TINSLEY D WADE, ED BROWN, ED BROWN, HJ DORROH, HJ DORROH, AW NICHOLS, AW NICHOLS, WILLIAM P MOORE, WILLIAM P MOORE, JR MORGAN, JR MORGAN, ANTHONY G DAVY, ANTHONY G DAVY, HUGH MCCLURE, HUGH MCCLURE, BE NEDICT BEE CHAM , BE NEDICT BEE CHAM , FANNIE AD DARDEN, FANNIE AD DARDEN, AUGUSTINE BOWLES, AUGUSTINE BOWLES, THOMAS ANDERSON, 17 THOMAS ANDERSON, 17 AL EXANDER EANES, AL EXANDER EANES, RS YOUNG, RS YOUNG, THOMAS W MOORE, THOMAS W MOORE, JOHN BARTON, JOHN BARTON, HERMAN BENSON, HERMAN BENSON, SFIW CO, SFIW CO, HUGH KELLY, HUGH KELLY, GEORGE J HUNT, GEORGE J HUNT, GEO RGE HEISSNER, GEO RGE HEISSNER, SL HARRIS, SL HARRIS, THOMAS ANDERSON, THOMAS ANDERSON, JESSE WILLIAMS, JESSE WILLIAMS, THEODORE BISSELL, 18 THEODORE BISSELL, 18 JOHN MOORE, JOHN MOORE, WILLIAM S HOLTON, WILLIAM S HOLTON, SAMUEL HAMILTON, 16 SAMUEL HAMILTON, 16 JOHN PITTS, JOHN PITTS, CORBET STEVENS, CORBET STEVENS, WR WOOD, WR WOOD, PHILIP A SMITH, 26 PHILIP A SMITH, 26 I&GN RR CO, I&GN RR CO, JONATHAN BURLESON, JONATHAN BURLESON, JD CADY, JD CADY, WALKER WILSON, 2 WALKER WILSON, 2 JOHN G MCGEEHEE, 6 JOHN G MCGEEHEE, 6 MT KEY, MT KEY, UNSURVEYED, UNSURVEYED, JR WORRALL, JR WORRALL, FW SUTOR, FW SUTOR, JOHN G MCGEHEE, 6 JOHN G MCGEHEE, 6 Ariock Ln Clarion Dr Unnamed Street Nesbit Dr Circle G Ranch Rd S Mo Pac Expy S a w y e r R a n c h R d Jim Bridger Dr Unnamed Street Wy ld w o o d R d Briar Ridge Dr Kenosha Pass Curlew Dr Siskin Dr L o s t O a s is H o l w Country White Ln Aldford Dr Aspen Dr Salcon Cliff Dr Allegro Lugar St Dupree Ln Mission Oaks Blvd Gaines Ct M i d w o o d P k w y Summer Sky Dr One Oak Rd Home Depot Blvd Belgrade Dr K it C a r s o n D r Amber Oak Cv Ruxton Ln M c C ar ty L n Vega Ave Blue Hill Dr Long Br Pauls Valley Rd Westward Look Gemstone Rd K e m p H i l l s D r Tasajillo Cv Tanak Cv Moon Rock Rd Sky Mountain Dr Ri al to Bl vd Cedar Paw Ln McGrath Dr Antler Bend Rd Paisano Cir D a v i s L n Burliegh Cv T r a v i s C o u n t r y C i r Allerton Ave McMea ns Trl Glasgow Dr Arrow Dr Monarch Dr Kaylynn Pl Tasajillo Trl C i r c l e D r E C r e e k D r Rae Way Yellow Rose Trl Tabor Ct R a w h i d e T r l D M o r g a n R d Oliver Cir Teya Ct U n n a m e d S t r e e t London Dr Ramies Run Lenape Cv Rimrock Trl Serenity Ct B o n h a m R a n c h R d Colusa Ct Caspian Dr Emerald Oaks Dr Shankel Dr Cusseta Cv Lovridge Ct Bruce Jenner Ln Jumano Ln Bonham Ln W F i t z h u g h R d Bordley Ct H i d d e n H i l l s D r Carrington Dr Bella Vista Trl Polo Club Dr T r a i l D r i v e r C i r Blue Hills Dr Merlyn Ct B B B Lavendale Ct Hill Country Ln Black Mesa Cv Blue Hill Ct Targa Ct F i t z h u g h R d Iguana Cir Kellywood Dr Savin Hill Ct Kentish Cv L o n g B r a n c h D r Cima Cir Foster Ranch Rd Jays Ln Back Bay Ln Dryden St Sunset Canyon Dr Leo St Hays Country Acres Rd Hewitt Ln Spillar Ranch Rd Hunnicut Ct School Rd Canyon View Rd D e r e c h o D r Kiev Cv Split Cedar Cv E c h o B l f O a k B l v d Goodnight Trl Silk Oak Dr Orrick Dr Bluestar Dr Leafield Dr H e r i t a g e O a k s D r L o s t V l y Wildwood Rd N M a d r o n e T r l Twilight Mesa Dr Falling Leaves Dr Allison Ave Kingston Dr Longwo od Rd C r u m l e y R a n c h R d Oxford Ct Corran Ferry Loop Lewis Mountain Dr Baxter Cir Magee Bnd Allred Dr E v e r g r e e n W a y Saffron St Cohoba Dr S u n s e t C a n y o n D r S Victorian Oaks Ln Thomaswood Ln Hendon St Via Ricco Dr York Bridge Cir Longmont Ln September Song Dr Flatrock Ln Granite Trl Indian Ridge Dr Cactus Xing White Tail Trl Red Stone Ct S u n d o w n R d g Roaring Springs Dr T a r a L n Estate Cir Dalton St D a v y C r o c k e t t D r Coalwood Cv G a l l a n t F o x R d H o n e y c o m b D r Covered Bridge Dr Geneva Pkwy Copper Hills Dr Chancery Ct Scarlet Cir Pittsburgh Dr Bear Creek Pass Camp Fire Trl Silvermine Dr Old Mill Dr Clear Creek Ln Eveningstar Dr Samar Cv Summervale Dr Capistrano Trl Red Oak Cv Reese Dr White Elm Dr Unnamed Street Tra il Dri ver St Lookout Hill Cv Madrone Mountain Way Belgrave Falls Ln Canyon Rim Dr L e n a p e T r l Pompey Ct Galliano Cir S C a n y o n w o o d D r Barton Creek Blvd Rehobeth Cir Siringo Pass Brighton Ln Cortina Dr Scarlet Rdg Fulbright Ln Tea Rose Trl Hackamore Dr Silver Dale Dr Hazy Hills Dr N Canyonwood Dr Cedar Cv Eagles Lndg Summit Pass S i g n a l H i l l R d Via Dr Dark Ridge Cv Dedham Ln Eddie Egan Ln Wildwood Cir D a ni el B o o n e Dr Grand Prairie Cir Texas Trl San Juan Pass Distant View Dr Abbott Dr Oakclaire Ln C a t t l e m a n D r Boston Ln Sun Spirit Dr Secretariat Dr Linkmeadow Dr Oak Crest Dr Boling Dr Desert Oak Cir Stone Ledge Cir La Plata Cv Shavano Dr Bender Dr Sp rin g Val ley Rd Festus Dr W i n d m i l l R d Anchusa Trl Y o u n g L n Sharl Cv Phyllis Park Dr Wier Loop Rd Jones Rd Pepperidge Dr Pitter Pat Ln Bandera Creek Trl Latta Dr Unnamed Street L a C r e s a d a D r Topper Ln Hibiscus Valley Dr Cardinal Hl Lookout Cv Nubian Ln Eclipse Ln Dee r Ln Ladle Ln Teresina Dr C a r r ia g e H o u s e L n W Gate Blvd Gun Metal Dr Live Oak Cir Heiden Ln Six Gun Trl S M a d r o n e T r l A p p a l o o s a R u n S View Rd Indian Scout Trl White Hawk Cir Zeke Bnd Maevas Way S Bend Ave Collazo Way Deerfoot Trl Shumard Oak Trl Amicus Way Kinser Ln Yellow Tail Cv Escarpment Blvd Oak Valley Ct Terravista Dr Acton Dr Putt Rd Edwardson Ln H i g h S i e r r a Raspberry Rd Bliss Spillar Rd Sleepy Hollow Rd Oak Cir Wisteria Valley Dr Belterra Dr Spivey Dr Deer Creek Skyview Adelaide Dr W V i e w R d Crandall Rd Indian Smt Lakeshore Dr Nairn Dr Bisson Rd Sundance Ridge Rd Vol Walker Dr P ai s a n o Tr l Barton Creek Dr Cannon Mountain Dr Niles Cv Boxtree Pl Zyle Ln Steed Dr Burson Dr F i t z h u g h R d Axis Dr Terra Vista Dr Cava Pl Trelawney Ln Sentinel Hl Ridgeview Cir Bankside St O l i v e r D r Kachina Dr Via Grande Dr Whites Dr T o w a n a T r l Twin Creek Cir Robins Run Sheri Oak Ln Shoshoni Trl Forest Oak Dr Finch Trl Old Harbor Ln Vivas Ln Rearden Rd Whispering Creek Dr Sundara Dr Deer Creek Skyview Ln Rhett Butler Dr Silver Creek Rd Lowdes Dr In rid ge Dr Indian Point Dr Aloysia Dr Grennock Dr Travis Green Ln Keota Dr Nancy Gale Dr Palmer Path La Crosse Ave Rifle Bnd Billy Fiske Ln Walebridge Ln Kay Ln Kiras Ct Roy Creek Ln W Canyon Dr Deeringhill Dr Pemberton Way Foothills Dr Tanaqua Ln Fitzhugh Cors Ho bb it on Tr l Sussex Gardens Ln Sunset Rdg W ag on R d W Red Willow Dr Chesney Ridge Dr Gate Ridge Dr Doncaster Dr W C r e e k D r Niemann Dr Poncha Pass Longhorn Skwy Evergreen Cv Alsatia Dr Carnellian Dr U n n a m e d S t r e e t B r o d i e L n Sickle Cv Carol Ann St Ledgestone Ter Miller Ln Saloma Pl O v e r l o o k P a s s Frog Pond Ln Shackelford Dr Rickerhill Ln Ebony Hollow Pass Velasco Pl Thunderbird Rd Austral Loop U n n a m e d S t r e e t Sarasota Dr Canterbury Dr Lynnbrook Dr Regal Oaks Dr Sendero Dr Anglin Ln Harpers Ferry Ln Eiger Rd La Tosca Dr Crackling Creek Dr Hollister Dr Steer Trl Conifer Cv Twilight Shadow Dr Janabyrd Ln Johnson Ln Doe Run Laurie Ln Westland Ridge Rd Oak Valley Dr Shallowford Dr Red Mesa Holw Upper Branch Cv Tabor Oaks Dr Spruce Canyon Dr Cap Rock Dr Washita Dr El Rey Blvd Cherry Creek Dr Culberson Dr Navarro Pl Blanco River Pass Sanders Ln Wagtail Dr Lancaster Dr B l a z y k D r Goldbridge Dr Rachels Canyon Dr Aftonshire Way Stormy Ridge Rd Bushnell Dr C a n o n a d e San Diego Rd Terrace Canyon Dr Selway Dr Signal Hill Dr U n n a m e d S t r e e t Bright Star Ln Spotted Horse Trl Winding Brook Dr Red Gate Ln Adobe Trl Fieldstone Dr Brady Pass Valley Vista Rd Dry Wells Rd Saddlestring Trl Fencerail Rd Friar Villa Dr Unnamed Street Sun Vista Dr Green Oak Dr Stillman Rd Feather Hill Rd Garrett St Aspen Creek Pkwy Oak Valley Rd Tamil St Deer Haven Rd Fence Line Dr Trails End Desco Dr B r o o k s L n Leadville Dr M o n t e r e y O a k s B l v d L a u r e l H l Rooster Springs Rd Pier Branch Rd Landsman Dr Hot Springs Dr O a k d a l e D r Crystal Way Meridian Park Blvd Twilight Trl Arterial 12 Eagle Feather Dr Collingwood Dr Hillside N Hansa Loop Southbound Ln W i l d w o o d H i l l s L n L i t t l e T h i c k e t R d O a k B ra n c h D r R o a n L n Whirlaway Schmidt Ln Twin Lake Loop Rimstone Trl B ea r Cr ee k Dr Candelaria Dr Burnt Oak Dr Cottonwood Creek Rd S W O a k s Old Baldy Trl Onion Hollow Run Rugged Earth Dr Willi ams on Cree k Dr Lauralan Dr Morningsun Dr Zyle Rd Derecho Bnd D o r e l l a L n M a d r o n e R a n c h T r l Sam Carter D r County Hwy 184 T r i p l e C r e e k D r F l i n t r o c k C i r Wheel Rim Cir A p p a l o o s a R u n D r D e e r C r e e k C i r S i g n a l H i l l V w W h i t e t a i l R d g D e s t i n y H i l l s D r T a l l O a k s T r l Cannon Ranch Rd Trautwein Rd L o n g C r e e k R d F r i e n d s w o o d L n E l D o r a d o D r Barton Creek Greenbelt Circle C Metropolitan Park Dick Nichols District Park Travis County Park Valley Creek Park Frate Ba rker Rd B e c k e t t R d Edwards Hollow Run E s c a r p m e n t B l v d W W il li a m C a n n o n D r C o n v i c t H i l l R d B r o d i e L n Circle Dr Thomas Springs Rd S l a u g h t e r L n W Leo St B r o o k s R a n c h R d M a n c h a c a R d Travis Cook Rd Da vi s Ln W i l l i a m C a n n o n D r W O l d B e e C a v e s R d S o u t h w e s t P k w y N u t t y B r o w n R d 42 42 498 498 799 799 2472 2472 228 228 211 211 298 298 415 415 533 533 334 334 2216 2216 678 678 2182 2182 2169 2169 759 759 2441 2441 2265 2265 658 658 2179 2179 14 14 380 380 309 309 558 558 2642 2642 2158 2158 551 551 2527 2527 2133 2133 125 125 2195 2195 2274 2274 301 301 74 74 276 276 441 441 358 358 643 643 296 296 468 468 2149 2149 2206 2206 2093 2093 300 300 684 684 2400 2400 535 535 126 126 524 524 517 517 2606 2606 549 549 2118 2118 550 550 807 807 2148 2148 412 412 2234 2234 48 48 2292 2292 579 579 202 202 2446 2446 561 561 33 33 448 448 2205 2205 225 225 2478 2478 2566 2566 2256 2256 2468 2468 556 556 2477 2477 588 588 2547 2547 410 410 2410 2410 408 408 86 86 803 803 50 50 2520 2520 677 677 842 842 672 672 639 639 843 843 2594 2594 148 148 2593 2593 436 436 2554 2554 829 829 569 569 770 770 769 769 830 830 110 110 99999999 99999999 638 638 101 101 2 2 292 292 118 118 2094 2094 594 594 266 266 841 841 2264 2264 114 114 261 261 715 715 87 87 676 676 548 548 70 70 139 139 394 394 71 71 2479 2479 41 41 460 460 2592 2592 405 405 416 416 28 28 414 414 2142 2142 402 402 788 788 363 363 2275 2275 650 650 538 538 513 513 411 411 2117 2117 2528 2528 473 473 222 222 454 454 383 383 84 84 3 3 404 404 417 417 379 379 2321 2321 44 44 565 565 437 437 2230 2230 760 760 566 566 350 350 403 403 378 378 438 438 58 58 245 245 116 116 340 340 769 769 61 61 40 40 371 371 740 740 567 567 415 415 555 555 667 667 673 673 176 176 97 97 768 768 326 326 560 560 341 341 224 224 817 817 758 758 699 699 426 426 240 240 575 575 475 475 693 693 113 113 120 120 362 362 16 16 13 13 98 98 323 323 2301 2301 139 139 27 27 17 17 359 359 196 196 127 127 396 396 197 197 128 128 273 273 18 18 500 500 23 23 440 440 12 12 111 111 185 185 1826 12 3238 1626 71 1 45 1 71 290 290 290 T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . H Ha ay ys s C Co o. . Cedar Cedar Valley Valley Fitzhugh Fitzhugh Ford Ford Oaks Oaks Kincheonville Kincheonville Shady Shady Hollow Hollow Williamson Williamson Bear Bear Creek Creek Oak Hill Oak Hill Tanglewood Tanglewood Forest Forest MP 1 8 5 MP 1 7 5 MP 1 8 0 MP 1 7 0 Cedar Valley EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 97°50'0"W 97°55'0"W 98°0'0"W 30°15'0"N 98°5'0"W 30°15'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-10 1'' = 1 Mile EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-11 See GPEP-9 <<>> JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, B&B, B&B, , , CHARLES OSBORN, CHARLES OSBORN, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, AB&M, AB&M, JOSEPH BIRD, JOSEPH BIRD, JOHN F TORREY & CO, JOHN F TORREY & CO, JESSE BILLINGSLEY, JESSE BILLINGSLEY, JOHN GIBSON, JOHN GIBSON, , , JESSE DAVIS, JESSE DAVIS, T&NO RR CO, T&NO RR CO, JJ SMITH, JJ SMITH, AG PEERY, AG PEERY, SM&S, SM&S, IRA JONES, IRA JONES, WILLIAM MITCHELL, WILLIAM MITCHELL, JOHN GILBERT, JOHN GILBERT, JOHN WILLIAMS, JOHN WILLIAMS, TWNG RR CO, TWNG RR CO, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, CARL GOETH, CARL GOETH, BS&F, BS&F, DAVID DAVIS, DAVID DAVIS, , , EDWARD GRITTEN, EDWARD GRITTEN, G RR CO, G RR CO, AB&M, AB&M, JAMES M MILLER, JAMES M MILLER, BS&F, BS&F, JO H N F T OR R EY & C O , JO H N F T OR R EY & C O , CEPI&M CO, CEPI&M CO, WILLIAM SMITH, WILLIAM SMITH, D GAMBLE, D GAMBLE, WILLIAM M EVANS, WILLIAM M EVANS, JOHN GREEN, JOHN GREEN, WB MOORE, WB MOORE, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, WILLIAM HARRIS, WILLIAM HARRIS, EL&RR RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, B&B, B&B, JOHN L OSBORN, JOHN L OSBORN, AL CASPARIS, AL CASPARIS, RT C O , RT C O , THOMAS B LEE, THOMAS B LEE, TC RR CO, TC RR CO, SM&S, SM&S, PW MUSICK, PW MUSICK, TC RR CO, TC RR CO, I&GN RR CO, I&GN RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, RM DAVIS, RM DAVIS, HT & B R R CO , HT & B R R CO , RO B ER T L EW IS, RO B ER T L EW IS, WM CO, WM CO, C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, SFIW CO, SFIW CO,, , H&OB RR CO, H&OB RR CO, JHH DAVIS, JHH DAVIS, JOHN LEWIS, JOHN LEWIS, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, MA BINGHAM, MA BINGHAM, WILLIAM JOHNSON, WILLIAM JOHNSON, GEORGE ALEXANDER, GEORGE ALEXANDER, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, AUGUST REUSS, AUGUST REUSS, ELIJAH W INGRAM, ELIJAH W INGRAM, HENRY OTTENS, HENRY OTTENS, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, HINTON CURTIS, HINTON CURTIS, SAMUEL J SPINDLE, SAMUEL J SPINDLE, WILLIS WEST, WILLIS WEST, WW DAVIS, WW DAVIS, CT&MC RR CO, CT&MC RR CO, MRS CC ROGERS, MRS CC ROGERS, JUANA RODRIGUEZ, JUANA RODRIGUEZ, EPI CO, EPI CO, JOHN MOAT, JOHN MOAT, , , I&GN RR CO, I&GN RR CO, A ROBINSON, A ROBINSON, E HALLMAN, E HALLMAN, WILLIAM D TALLEY, WILLIAM D TALLEY, ELIJAH MARSHALL, ELIJAH MARSHALL, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, FREDERICK GRIMES, FREDERICK GRIMES, SETH BATSON, SETH BATSON, AN T ON IO MEN C H A C A , AN T ON IO MEN C H A C A , ED BROWN, ED BROWN, ROBERT H TOBIN, ROBERT H TOBIN, AB&M, AB&M, DANIEL W CLOUD, DANIEL W CLOUD, JO H N M C AYC E, JO H N M C AYC E, ANTHONY G DAVY, ANTHONY G DAVY, WILLIAM G STILL, WILLIAM G STILL, EDWARD NELSON, EDWARD NELSON, JOHN COUGHLIN, JOHN COUGHLIN, JOHN BARTON, JOHN BARTON, C& M R R C O , C& M R R C O , SFIW CO, SFIW CO, HERMAN BENSON, HERMAN BENSON, THOMAS MORGAN, THOMAS MORGAN, MIMA WILSON, MIMA WILSON, GH&H RR CO, GH&H RR CO, H&OB RR CO, H&OB RR CO, WP SMITH , WP SMITH , J POITEVENT, J POITEVENT, BENJAMIN F HANNA, 28 BENJAMIN F HANNA, 28 WILLIAM H HAGGARD, 30 WILLIAM H HAGGARD, 30 WR WOOD, WR WOOD, PHILIP A SMITH, 26 PHILIP A SMITH, 26 SAM HERRING, SAM HERRING, THOMAS B LEE, THOMAS B LEE, JESSE MASSEY, JESSE MASSEY, GC & SF R R C O , GC & SF R R C O , FANNIE AD DARDEN, FANNIE AD DARDEN, THOMAS R JACKSON, 25 THOMAS R JACKSON, 25 SA LAT H IEL W YEA G ER , SA LAT H IEL W YEA G ER , WILLIAM COCKBURN, WILLIAM COCKBURN, FREELOVE WOODY, 23 FREELOVE WOODY, 23 T r i p l e S T r l Smiling Achers T o w h e a d V a l l e y R d N Avenue Q Yucca Rd Bonnie Dr 16th St Vixen Ct Shetland Rd Fearless Treadway Wolf Ranch Rd Elm St Ems Scott Dr Myers Creek Rd Caudill Ln C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 Live Oak St U n n a m e d S t r e e t The Hills Dr K e i t h R d Upland Dr M o u n t G a i n o r R d T r a i l s E n d R d Overlook Cv Creek Rd Trophy Dr Hilltop Dr Metaire Rd Ham ilto n Poo l R d Woods Loop Caliche Tracks Tiger Ln Oak Springs Dr Needham Kelly Ln Foothills Dr Hammets Xing Pepper Flat Rd O v e r l a n d S t a g e R d W C a v e L o o p R a n c h R o a d 2 7 2 1 Martin P a r k R o a d 6 0 2 6 A v e n u e H Sandy Beach Rd M o u n t a i n T o p R d Buffalo Creek Rd H e n l y L o o p Bonham Ranch Rd B o n h a m L n W Fitzh ugh Rd B e l l S p r i n g s R d B B B Panorama Dr Shelton Ranch Rd Fisher Ln Oak Cir F i t z h u g h R d Camey Cir U n n a m e d S t r e e t S c o t t R d Stubbs Rd Hillview Cir Vista Oaks Dr Hookbilled Kite Sisk Ln P e d e r n a l e s F a l l s S t a t e P a r k Hidden Creek Ln F r i e n d s h i p L n Sundance Trl Circle N Dr C o u n t y R o a d 3 0 7 Little Creek Trl C r a w f o r d R d O l d R e d R a n c h R d Hawk St W Cave Cv U lr i c h R d Winnie Smith Rd C r u m l e y R a n c h R d Chestnut Rdg Texas Blue Bell Dr O d i o r n e R d Country Ln S m i t h W e s t R d D &S Circle Dr R o b C r i d e r R d Parker Rd 6th St Live Oak Canyon Rd Pin Oak St Road 4 Rd 2 Baird Ranch Rd Lookout Hill Cv Ye ag er Cr ee k Rd Flat Creek Rd Klett Ranch Rd P u r s l e y R d F a s e l L n Halls Trl Miller Creek Rd Mesquite Trl Canyon Ranch Trl Spring Cv Wren Rd Madrone Canyon Dr Sitting Bull Ln Frontier Crossroads Dr Rudder Dr Wittkohl Rd Cactus Trl Vickers St T h e r i o t T r l Broken Lance Kelly Cove Peabody Pl Ella Ln Stirrup Cir Maheo Way Bat Hawk Cir Largo Cv River View Dr O l d S p i c e w o o d R d Bar J Lookout Cv Pi on ee r Trl Postoak Dr Darden Hill Rd Reese Cv Navajo Trl Steven Wayne Ct Tyx Trl E Creek Cv Bauerle Ln W Creek Cv T r a i l R o c k R d Hill View Trl Patten Dr Serene Hills Ct Unnamed Street Youngblood Rd B e e C r e e k R d Barton Creek Dr Madrone Ranch Trl Cypress Ranch Blvd R o y C r e e k T r l Canyon Rd Unnamed Street Russell Ln G a n t R d Onion Creek Ln Fitzhugh Cors Oak Ln Destiny Cv Mussey Rd Sickle Cv Carol Ann St Stonegate Dr Avenue F F a r r e l l R d Three Creek Trl Vesper Ln Vaughn Ln Oak Ct Blue Hills Dr Glen Cv High Point Trl Rough Holw R e i m e r s - P e a c o c k R d Vickers Ln B B B Safelot Ln Elsa Ln Verde Knoll Cv Ho ld er Ln W i l s o n R a n c h R d Upper Branch Cv Avispa Way Cotton Rd Blue Creek Dr Truffles Trl Forest Oak Dr 5th St Lechow Ln Oak Grove Dr James Hall Rd XU2 Ranch Rd Stanton Ranch Loop Terrace Canyon Dr Settlers Trl R a n c h R o a d 9 6 2 e Brady Pass Travis Vista Dr S O a k F o r e s t D r N o g a l e s R d Sce ni c D r C y p r e s s M i l l R a n c h R d Star Canyon Rd Pawnee Pass S Old Stieler Rd Bertram Ln Garrett St Ridge Dr Barton Bnd Retreat Rd Brooks Ln Crestmont C a n y o n V i e w R d Deerfield Rd Valleyview Oak Ct Home Pl B o b W i r e R d B r a d f o r d L n Los Encinos Dr G r o o m s L n Cordwood Hilltop Dr Benjie Ln Sullivan Rdg Laurel Hl Byrds Nest Dr Madrone Vista Dr Barnett Glenn Rd Medlin Creek Loop D a w n V w Unnamed Street C o u n t y R o a d 2 0 1 Old Austin Hwy Shadywood Ln Whirlaway Little Barton Dr Cross Creek Dr Valley West Dr S t r i b l i n g R d Vailco Ln H o p e L n Ernest Ln Whitley St Ridge Pole Ln P l a n t L a d y L n Easy St Twin Lake Loop Evidence Cv R a n c h T o M a r k e t R o a d 1 E g a n R d Golden Bear Dr L i t t l e L n Cottonwood Creek Rd N Creekwood Dr Oak Forest Dr S h o v e l M o u n t a i n R d Wildwood Ln Red Fox Ln Wells Fargo St Chamness Ranch Rd Saddle Blanket Dr Stirrup Dr Deike Dr Tradewind Dr B y r a m R a n c h R d Ridgeway M ar ti n R d Madrone Ranch Trl H i d d e n C r e e k D r Quail Ridge Dr Polvado Rd County Hwy 184 Barton Sycamore Valley Rd 3M Ranch Rd L o s t V a l l e y R d Sean Avery Path Manning Ranch Rd Harmon Hills Rd H e r e f o r d D r Cristol Ln Valley Oak Dr Z o o T r l S p r i n g V a l l e y D r E Lakeshore Dr Browning Dr Burleson Rd Deer Creek Cir B r o c k H o l l o w D r E M o u n t G a i n o r R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t Destiny Hills Dr EE Ranch Rd Stonegate Ln Indian Springs Trce Texas Longhorn Trl County Road 215 Cypress Mill Rd Pedernales Oaks Dr Kevins Way Cannon Ranch Rd M c G r e g o r L n Unn ame d Stre et P Fullman Ranch Rd C o u n t y R o a d 20 4 C o u n t y R o a d 3 0 1 Cypress Field Dr A l t h a u s R a n c h R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t RM One Gibson Rd Fountain Ranch Rd Billy Sisson Rd Stagecoach Ranch Rd M a j i c S p r i n g s R d H o g T h i e f B n d Hammetts Xing Corky Cox Ranch Rd Herff Ranch Rd B a r t o n C r e e k P i e r B r a n c h Jackson Branch O n i o n C r e e k White Branch Pedernales Falls State Park B r o o k s R a n c h R d Lakeway Blvd E l d e r H i l l R d 165 3232 12 1323 681 681 670 670 228 228 685 685 454 454 1247 1247 866 866 801 801 494 494 165 165 776 776 492 492 102 102 103 103 1008 1008 343 343 831 831 867 867 491 491 794 794 521 521 1275 1275 736 736 71 71 57 57 13 13 539 539 614 614 465 465 98 98 809 809 236 236 320 320 58 58 811 811 160 160 1150 1150 938 938 572 572 986 986 305 305 604 604 294 294 908 908 382 382 96 96 1418 1418 1099 1099 947 947 775 775 519 519 432 432 214 214 853 853 790 790 894 894 166 166 493 493 1263 1263 870 870 468 468 1436 1436 1404 1404 1121 1121 576 576 271 271 159 159 803 803 869 869 342 342 197 197 623 623 467 467 219 219 1437 1437 53 53 1341 1341 385 385 817 817 386 386 1227 1227 220 220 621 621 636 636 977 977 336 336 641 641 651 651 943 943 85 85 295 295 840 840 880 880 1086 1086 285 285 879 879 690 690 598 598 537 537 761 761 227 227 1365 1365 389 389 975 975 249 249 153 153 229 229 381 381 211 211 13 13 1012 1012 868 868 785 785 881 881 948 948 648 648 463 463 704 704 194 194 443 443 802 802 2484 2484 2567 2567 740 740 806 806 391 391 1438 1438 712 712 2577 2577 416 416 778 778 263 263 322 322 501 501 662 662 538 538 994 994 2310 2310 728 728 601 601 669 669 635 635 131 131 267 267 45 45 984 984 2194 2194 2437 2437 795 795 94 94 560 560 2172 2172 556 556 1168 1168 633 633 225 225 67 67 361 361 571 571 156 156 400 400 179 179 226 226 963 963 41 41 390 390 565 565 66 66 2432 2432 224 224 747 747 2569 2569 133 133 1380 1380 2539 2539 399 399 2097 2097 1493 1493 1435 1435 303 303 2499 2499 2163 2163 453 453 1558 1558 335 335 829 829 753 753 293 293 799 799 527 527 603 603 524 524 2098 2098 269 269 748 748 417 417 563 563 264 264 155 155 157 157 284 284 455 455 43 43 12 12 501 501 130 130 209 209 210 210 238 238 138 138 680 680 754 754 500 500 738 738 2260 2260 2500 2500 63 63 2501 2501 580 580 367 367 208 208 195 195 886 886 187 187 134 134 528 528 906 906 531 531 100 100 33 33 409 409 418 418 564 564 177 177 818 818 724 724 2498 2498 282 282 1101 1101 797 797 2124 2124 2747 2747 2123 2123 456 456 597 597 1322 1322 839 839 420 420 295 295 174 174 324 324 204 204 1060 1060 686 686 821 821 184 184 625 625 493 493 402 402 101 101 646 646 294 294 2473 2473 741 741 755 755 2633 2633 819 819 119 119 432 432 893 893 536 536 1083 1083 297 297 665 665 1097 1097 2529 2529 1400 1400 1126 1126 800 800 366 366 1142 1142 904 904 2679 2679 2255 2255 2525 2525 129 129 117 117 505 505 2161 2161 176 176 26 26 568 568 1107 1107 2136 2136 705 705 962 962 645 645 789 789 808 808 1354 1354 429 429 1161 1161 708 708 2259 2259 451 451 782 782 431 431 2137 2137 2109 2109 569 569 42 42 760 760 664 664 553 553 1246 1246 547 547 2245 2245 251 251 781 781 2282 2282 498 498 39 39 2247 2247 256 256 36 36 1240 1240 693 693 583 583 873 873 660 660 1128 1128 2475 2475 805 805 323 323 2263 2263 367 367 769 769 398 398 62 62 340 340 341 341 5 5 644 644 230 230 818 818 1414 1414 240 240 562 562 313 313 799 799 816 816 2472 2472 322 322 97 97 669 669 540 540 228 228 386 386 662 662 650 650 1268 1268 241 241 699 699 211 211 298 298 355 355 415 415 2223 2223 927 927 793 793 595 595 620 620 791 791 918 918 533 533 334 334 600 600 2216 2216 561 561 678 678 338 338 526 526 2182 2182 731 731 91 91 824 824 242 242 1349 1349 1319 1319 1225 1225 759 759 239 239 594 594 2265 2265 658 658 172 172 193 193 278 278 277 277 562 562 380 380 1127 1127 309 309 523 523 558 558 2158 2158 190 190 115 115 634 634 317 317 114 114 2527 2527 1091 1091 657 657 274 274 57 57 1064 1064 413 413 1479 1479 890 890 736 736 641 641 599 599 150 150 711 711 780 780 846 846 499 499 656 656 2149 2149 1115 1115 884 884 282 282 768 768 259 259 588 588 393 393 147 147 524 524 517 517 262 262 325 325 719 719 1117 1117 549 549 2118 2118 291 291 590 590 611 611 1167 1167 885 885 847 847 1531 1531 412 412 48 48 508 508 835 835 1420 1420 1542 1542 244 244 42 42 202 202 149 149 607 607 909 909 103 103 599 599 383 383 1094 1094 2477 2477 850 850 594 594 243 243 1391 1391 1348 1348 18 18 639 639 1139 1139 1140 1140 800 800 1432 1432 586 586 587 587 148 148 314 314 395 395 259 259 384 384 558 558 203 203 245 245 439 439 442 442 116 116 557 557 2094 2094 106 106 739 739 261 261 694 694 209 209 339 339 70 70 289 289 394 394 71 71 2479 2479 41 41 621 621 22 22 155 155 1005 1005 1062 1062 748 748 333 333 359 359 363 363 140 140 681 681 513 513 632 632 34 34 1016 1016 254 254 1433 1433 1027 1027 383 383 253 253 466 466 1356 1356 1507 1507 619 619 435 435 268 268 1056 1056 860 860 332 332 248 248 44 44 834 834 1475 1475 1506 1506 1325 1325 437 437 170 170 351 351 555 555 65 65 1036 1036 1441 1441 742 742 422 422 452 452 1413 1413 1451 1451 765 765 771 771 1604 1604 664 664 438 438 58 58 1446 1446 247 247 603 603 704 704 116 116 222 222 1498 1498 779 779 126 126 8 8 160 160 762 762 1337 1337 1393 1393 769 769 844 844 61 61 40 40 125 125 764 764 46 46 614 614 643 643 371 371 545 545 772 772 567 567 555 555 421 421 24 24 1406 1406 176 176 518 518 876 876 424 424 768 768 280 280 506 506 630 630 763 763 1405 1405 773 773 240 240 575 575 475 475 293 293 279 279 971 971 482 482 181 181 362 362 1429 1429 16 16 13 13 306 306 193 193 315 315 143 143 98 98 615 615 767 767 307 307 101 101 366 366 295 295 448 448 664 664 9 9 174 174 336 336 510 510 97 97 96 96 20 20 745 745 551 551 582 582 150 962 3238 2766 620 71 281 290 290 290 281 T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . B Bl la an n c co o C C o o. . T Tr ra av vi is s C Co o. . H Ha ay ys s C Co o. . B Bl la an n c co o C C o o. . H Ha ay y s s C C o o. . Cypress Cypress Mill Mill Driftwood Driftwood Fitzhugh Fitzhugh Hammetts Hammetts Crossing Crossing Mount Mount Gainor Gainor Dripping Springs Dripping Springs Henly Henly Johnson Johnson City City Round Mountain Round Mountain Sandy Sandy The The Hills Hills MP 1 8 5 MP 1 9 0 MP 2 0 5 MP 2 1 0 MP 1 8 0 MP 1 9 5 MP 2 0 0 Cedar Valley EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 98°0'0"W 98°5'0"W 98°10'0"W 98°15'0"W 98°20'0"W 98°25'0"W 30°25'0"N 30°20'0"N 98°30'0"W 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-11 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-12 See GPEP-10 <<>> , , GREGORIA ESPARZA, GREGORIA ESPARZA, WILLIAM RABB, WILLIAM RABB, JOHN BROCKNER, JOHN BROCKNER, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, TWNG RR CO, TWNG RR CO, CT & AF MOSS, CT & AF MOSS, HENRY W KARNES, HENRY W KARNES, RAMON TREVINO, RAMON TREVINO, GEORGE W HANSEL, GEORGE W HANSEL, JOHN GOODBR EAD, JOHN GOODBR EAD, WILLIAM K SIMPSON, WILLIAM K SIMPSON, AB&M, AB&M, JOSEPH M CHADWICK, JOSEPH M CHADWICK, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, DOMINGO PEREZ, DOMINGO PEREZ, WILLIAM TYNDALE, WILLIAM TYNDALE, ENCARNACION GARCIA, ENCARNACION GARCIA, BS&F, BS&F, JOHN F TORREY, JOHN F TORREY, C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, DAVID S KORNEGAY, DAVID S KORNEGAY, S SHARP, S SHARP, JOHN J LACKEY, JOHN J LACKEY, LYSANDER WELLS, LYSANDER WELLS, MONTGOMERY BAXTER, MONTGOMERY BAXTER, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, S&M, S&M, ANAVATOS MARTINEZ, ANAVATOS MARTINEZ, AB&M, AB&M, JESUS GARCIA, JESUS GARCIA, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, WILLIAM P PATTERSON, WILLIAM P PATTERSON, WT RR CO, WT RR CO, WT RR CO, WT RR CO, JV MASSEY, JV MASSEY, , , I RR CO, I RR CO, ENCARNACION GARCIA, 477 ENCARNACION GARCIA, 477 B&B, B&B, SM&S, SM&S, B&B, B&B, CCI&M CO , CCI&M CO , TT RR CO, TT RR CO, C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, TC RR CO, TC RR CO, JESSE MCCOY, JESSE MCCOY, GEORGE BUTLER, GEORGE BUTLER, BBB&C RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, , , H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, H&OB RR CO, H&OB RR CO, JOSHUA R WADE, JOSHUA R WADE, GE CO, GE CO, SA&MG RR CO, SA&MG RR CO, GWT&P RR CO, GWT&P RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, THOMAS QUIRK, THOMAS QUIRK, JAMES LOVE, JAMES LOVE, ALLEN B JONES, ALLEN B JONES, BBB&C RR CO, BBB&C RR CO, I&GN RR CO, I&GN RR CO, BS&F, BS&F, RB SMITH, RB SMITH, JAMES GIBSON, JAMES GIBSON, HENRY MARTIN, HENRY MARTIN, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, , , ABE COLESON, ABE COLESON, SAMUEL WOODS, SAMUEL WOODS, LI&M CO, LI&M CO, WFH DAVIS, WFH DAVIS, LI&A ASSOC, LI&A ASSOC, AUGUST GROTE, AUGUST GROTE, AB PEDIGO, AB PEDIGO, AB&M, AB&M, CCD CO, CCD CO, WILLIAM MCCLURE, WILLIAM MCCLURE, TJ M OO RE, TJ M OO RE, NICOLAUS RUSCHE, NICOLAUS RUSCHE, JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, STEPHEN TOWNSEND, 215 STEPHEN TOWNSEND, 215 IRA MUNSON, IRA MUNSON, CHARLES ERAMBERT, CHARLES ERAMBERT, JOHN A DURBIN, JOHN A DURBIN, AB&M, AB&M, SA&MG RR CO, SA&MG RR CO, WILLIAM B BENSON, WILLIAM B BENSON, ASA WALKER, ASA WALKER, ALEXANDER BELL, ALEXANDER BELL, PETER HALL, PETER HALL, AUG UST BO ETT CHER, AUG UST BO ETT CHER, I&GN RR CO, I&GN RR CO, GE CO, GE CO, JOHN FORDNEY, JOHN FORDNEY, CEPI&M CO, CEPI&M CO, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, RUTERVILLE COLLEGE, 216 RUTERVILLE COLLEGE, 216 RUTERVILLE COLLEGE, 217 RUTERVILLE COLLEGE, 217 RICHARD SLACK, 194 RICHARD SLACK, 194 ROBERT J CALDER, 195 ROBERT J CALDER, 195 , , JOHN C BURKE, 187 JOHN C BURKE, 187 JOHN GIBSON, JOHN GIBSON, HENRY M DOWNMAN, HENRY M DOWNMAN, A BAHN, A BAHN, WILLIAM PRICE, WILLIAM PRICE, PERRY PRICE, PERRY PRICE, BS&F, BS&F, YUDELACIO DIAS, YUDELACIO DIAS, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, GEORGE W JONES, GEORGE W JONES, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, H&W, H&W, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, SP RR CO, SP RR CO, H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, SA&MG RR CO, SA&MG RR CO, , , SAMUEL L WHEELER, SAMUEL L WHEELER, ED HOLDEN, ED HOLDEN, SETH BATSON, SETH BATSON, TM SMITH, TM SMITH, Holtz Buck Rd County Road 308 Bruns Koehne Rd R a n c h R o a d 2 7 2 1 A D a v i s R a n c h R d Adams Lake Rd Lower Crabapple Rd W e l g e h a u s e n R d J a c o b R d D S R d Summerhill Ln K e e s e R d Clarence Jacoby Rd D i e t r i c h R d County Road 111 Jost Dr A l t h a u s - D a v i s R d A l t h a u s D a v i s R d Orchard Ln Black Jack Ranch Rd G W C r e n w e l g e L o o p Pecan Springs Rd Rheingold School Rd W a h r m u n d A h r e n s R d Moss Rd Bruns Ranch Rd R e g u R d McLendon Rd S a n d y S c h o o l R d N Grape Creek Rd Bomer Rd K e e se Sa g e biel R d S t u e l e r L n Unnamed Street R a n c h R o a d 3 3 4 7 Sandy Creek Ln Country Creek Ln D oub l e H o r n Rd Crabapple Cemetery Rd W i l l o w C i t y L o o p C h e r r y S p r i n g R d Docs Ln D r y H o l l o w R d S c h n e i d e r M o e l l e r i n g R d C r o w d e r R d Hickory Spg C l e a r S p r i n g s R d Kast-Itz Rd Barn Rd Walter Rd Sumac Rd Weitz Rd Old Willow Rd C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 9 Dor Jen Rd It z K as t R d Crownover Ln E r s c h B r u n s R d C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 0 K e n t H a t c h e r y R d Knaupp Mohr Rd Munoz Rd Ranch Road 2721 C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 3 A Farm-To-Market Road Road 2721 B i g M t n T rl T Anchor Rd R a n c h R o a d 1 6 3 1 W e n de l- A h r e n s R d E r S a g e b i e l R d Miller Cox Rd S c h m i d t R d Achtzehn Rd Deer Park Rd Cottontail Trl Ahrens Crenwelge Rd S m i t h W e s t R d Peaceable Rd Hill Top Dr Remuda Rd Lindeman Ln Willow City-Click Rd Homer Young Rd Goehmann Moore Rd Oak Crest Dr C a m p H o u s e R d Henry P Schmidt Rd Bell Mountain Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t R ob Cr id er R d Limestone Ridge Rd Stevenson Rd R o d e o D r J M R d Kast Rd F o o t h i l l s L n Grandview Ct E c k e r t R d K o e n n e c k e E c k h a r d t R d Brewer Rd Unnamed Street F rit z R d A d j L n Carlos Young Rd Dennis Schneider Rd Staats Rd Bendele Rd F i e l d s t o n e R d g M e i e r R d H e r i t a g e L n Kurt Kramer Rd Ledford Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t S K L n Lynn Hardin Rd S t e d m a n R d L i n d i g L n M e i e r s G a r d e n R d The Great Dv Glen Grote Rd P a r k e r R a n c h R d G y p s u m M i n e R d O t t m e r s R d C a n d R R d K l e i n A h r e n s R d Adobe Ranch Rd Ersch-Bruns Rd Unnamed Street T r e i b s R d Unnamed Street Walter Welgehausen Rd H o h m a n n R d R e d H e a d L n C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 9 A Farm-To-Market Road 2323 S c h e r e r R d L o y a l V a l l e y R d V i c t o r S t a h l R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t M o o r e R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t E l m R i d g e R d Andy Moore Mountain Rd K o t h e R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t Unnamed Street P r e s s l e r R d W a l n u t C r e e k C h e r r y S p r i n g C r e e k Enchanted Rock State Park 965 648 1323 2323 965 31 31 191 191 497 497 501 501 416 416 624 624 512 512 1172 1172 83 83 1447 1447 166 166 332 332 331 331 290 290 172 172 144 144 112 112 113 113 1174 1174 803 803 749 749 1171 1171 1 1 1212 1212 444 444 781 781 929 929 370 370 1446 1446 280 280 1183 1183 666 666 84 84 1194 1194 21 21 63 63 306 306 323 323 363 363 210 210 615 615 137 137 473 473 62 62 1303 1303 1233 1233 138 138 120 120 830 830 616 616 480 480 424 424 961 961 507 507 987 987 1208 1208 839 839 1180 1180 572 572 513 513 750 750 393 393 981 981 1089 1089 382 382 1140 1140 1041 1041 581 581 782 782 279 279 374 374 1045 1045 1324 1324 470 470 STATS STATS 795 795 115 115 664 664 1037 1037 1025 1025 824 824 489 489 471 471 1503 1503 1474 1474 116 116 870 870 623 623 793 793 1050 1050 1352 1352 1213 1213 1542 1542 171 171 127 127 755 755 498 498 610 610 92 92 392 392 23 23 1516 1516 321 321 508 508 1537 1537 1372 1372 600 600 573 573 126 126 1387 1387 1365 1365 320 320 1378 1378 1384 1384 1375 1375 1377 1377 1371 1371 1360 1360 932 932 1202 1202 479 479 1599 1599 1412 1412 315 315 550 550 743 743 1830 1830 1468 1468 716 716 1404 1404 1481 1481 394 394 498 498 1355 1355 1238 1238 1463 1463 509 509 1480 1480 316 316 1357 1357 240 240 98 98 36 36 1189 1189 1114 1114 896 896 980 980 1182 1182 1132 1132 947 947 477 477 325 325 152 152 1568 1568 854 854 105 105 1067 1067 960 960 1113 1113 30 30 1133 1133 1280 1280 99 99 1421 1421 1052 1052 1015 1015 894 894 47 47 59 59 1403 1403 1303 1303 1167 1167 1715 1715 453 453 900 900 456 456 1402 1402 907 907 50 50 1620 1620 113 113 548 548 914 914 865 865 913 913 70 70 630 630 720 720 866 866 933 933 1315 1315 241 241 623 623 249 249 464 464 783 783 153 153 49 49 740 740 317 317 73 73 891 891 1051 1051 1698 1698 494 494 1169 1169 1545 1545 1123 1123 49 49 954 954 955 955 979 979 44 44 31 31 111 111 698 698 10 10 235 235 619 619 261 261 644 644 652 652 114 114 1607 1607 575 575 1273 1273 1043 1043 625 625 400 400 493 493 1422 1422 1399 1399 645 645 1546 1546 102 102 940 940 93 93 1234 1234 1409 1409 1138 1138 727 727 1165 1165 351 351 184 184 1327 1327 161 161 6 6 401 401 998 998 1278 1278 1177 1177 804 804 749 749 1010 1010 52 52 1369 1369 758 758 507 507 931 931 1318 1318 1354 1354 1163 1163 1340 1340 306 306 499 499 1006 1006 1254 1254 1279 1279 1009 1009 465 465 1363 1363 1179 1179 900 900 639 639 58 58 390 390 346 346 64 64 899 899 552 552 1014 1014 1684 1684 1319 1319 727 727 730 730 936 936 129 129 381 381 232 232 321 321 1246 1246 551 551 1293 1293 276 276 920 920 661 661 35 35 378 378 176 176 924 924 71 71 316 316 473 473 185 185 635 635 1178 1178 1298 1298 442 442 528 528 953 953 719 719 566 566 1211 1211 620 620 119 119 925 925 1433 1433 1005 1005 319 319 925 925 554 554 75 75 643 643 164 164 13 13 256 256 494 494 318 318 630 630 648 648 76 76 122 122 212 212 149 149 641 641 383 383 1610 1610 1741 1741 738 738 184 184 1186 1186 608 608 53 53 182 182 807 807 9 9 1013 1013 1295 1295 1256 1256 1835 1835 1351 1351 220 220 211 211 108 108 1608 1608 978 978 313 313 561 561 1049 1049 308 308 519 519 77 77 851 851 1255 1255 1644 1644 534 534 147 147 1386 1386 15 15 1106 1106 758 758 12 12 942 942 73 73 1176 1176 72 72 1166 1166 454 454 455 455 1040 1040 880 880 8 8 1359 1359 94 94 483 483 595 595 811 811 536 536 1181 1181 784 784 974 974 1371 1371 14 14 1442 1442 38 38 411 411 1143 1143 11 11 986 986 679 679 813 813 1056 1056 398 398 688 688 1219 1219 158 158 491 491 806 806 1047 1047 1148 1148 1676 1676 1026 1026 1112 1112 146 146 80 80 249 249 1557 1557 1022 1022 506 506 658 658 482 482 1614 1614 704 704 209 209 1039 1039 1675 1675 68 68 157 157 150 150 631 631 1312 1312 447 447 199 199 210 210 51 51 518 518 356 356 31 31 943 943 628 628 20 20 655 655 171 171 17 17 812 812 1104 1104 838 838 1311 1311 1076 1076 1394 1394 1025 1025 378 378 66 66 736 736 1175 1175 30 30 667 667 1553 1553 461 461 1439 1439 802 802 605 605 587 587 306 306 181 181 65 65 966 966 357 357 712 712 285 285 1771 1771 16 16 72 72 1066 1066 622 622 1103 1103 642 642 60 60 112 112 1525 1525 851 851 1283 1283 1412 1412 654 654 588 588 1310 1310 678 678 205 205 1287 1287 756 756 675 675 41 41 394 394 709 709 80 80 1357 1357 228 228 393 393 674 674 202 202 1132 1132 757 757 984 984 795 795 837 837 5 5 1317 1317 62 62 533 533 504 504 571 571 567 567 610 610 105 105 220 220 114 114 338 338 67 67 43 43 1124 1124 1569 1569 1017 1017 474 474 1044 1044 283 283 878 878 723 723 689 689 1111 1111 1125 1125 581 581 1348 1348 852 852 274 274 1834 1834 681 681 1352 1352 477 477 613 613 1673 1673 1307 1307 446 446 379 379 235 235 246 246 127 127 154 154 1116 1116 682 682 1160 1160 133 133 97 97 1142 1142 540 540 539 539 676 676 78 78 556 556 520 520 286 286 374 374 305 305 441 441 604 604 7 7 309 309 1431 1431 1432 1432 255 255 152 152 358 358 1303 1303 130 130 616 616 531 531 324 324 1097 1097 1194 1194 955 955 889 889 769 769 85 85 84 84 395 395 757 757 359 359 110 110 1212 1212 332 332 1378 1378 714 714 360 360 86 86 656 656 371 371 231 231 779 779 376 376 141 141 626 626 451 451 86 86 544 544 910 910 1481 1481 629 629 1243 1243 854 854 1373 1373 672 672 1372 1372 897 897 1482 1482 872 872 481 481 46 46 1221 1221 457 457 1228 1228 373 373 1480 1480 570 570 653 653 1321 1321 292 292 896 896 237 237 1323 1323 967 967 199 199 291 291 1340 1340 911 911 1188 1188 1553 1553 357 357 770 770 375 375 927 927 276 276 585 585 339 339 349 349 140 140 777 777 637 637 612 612 1317 1317 750 750 1127 1127 735 735 42 42 666 666 350 350 1110 1110 1298 1298 56 56 311 311 1030 1030 299 299 409 409 1001 1001 79 79 150 150 213 213 273 273 200 200 729 729 179 179 32 32 823 823 980 980 1035 1035 123 123 1323 16 16 87 L Ll la an no o C C o o. . B Bl la an nc co o C Co o. . L Ll la an no o C Co o. . G Gi il ll le es sp pi ie e C Co o . . B Bl la an nc co o C Co o . . G Gi il ll le es sp pi i e e C Co o. . Blowout Blowout Cherry Cherry Mountain Mountain Crabapple Crabapple Eckert Eckert Hilltop Hilltop Post Oak Post Oak Prairie Prairie Mountain Mountain Rocky Rocky Creek Creek Rocky Creek Rocky Creek Willow Willow City City MP 2 3 5 MP 2 4 0 MP 2 2 5 MP 2 3 0 MP 2 1 5 MP 2 2 0 MP 2 1 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 98°30'0"W 98°35'0"W 98°40'0"W 98°45'0"W 98°50'0"W 30°30'0"N 30°35'0"N 30°25'0"N 98°55'0"W 30°30'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-12 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-13 See GPEP-11 <<>> , , CI CO, CI CO, CJ LANGER, CJ LANGER, H&W, H&W, WM CO, WM CO, H&OB RR CO, H&OB RR CO, CLEMENTE BUSTILLO, CLEMENTE BUSTILLO, H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, A BAHN, A BAHN, LIM&C CO, LIM&C CO, ALBERT CABANIS, ALBERT CABANIS, JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, NATHAN HAMILTON, NATHAN HAMILTON, JOHN SUTHERLAND, JOHN SUTHERLAND, WILLIAM WRIGHT, WILLIAM WRIGHT, JAMES DEVER, JAMES DEVER, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, J POITEVENT, J POITEVENT, , , GEORGE LW STIEREN, GEORGE LW STIEREN, AB&M, AB&M, VAUGHAN A&M CANAL CO, VAUGHAN A&M CANAL CO, WR WOOD, WR WOOD, FISHER & MILLER, FISHER & MILLER, GEORGE ALLEN, GEORGE ALLEN, B&B, B&B, GWT&P RR CO, GWT&P RR CO, GM&D, GM&D, WILLMIRTH FISHER, WILLMIRTH FISHER, JOHN M HENSLEY, JOHN M HENSLEY, WILLIAM WELLS, WILLIAM WELLS, WILLIAM WALTERS, WILLIAM WALTERS, JO HN B BERRY, JO HN B BERRY, EUGENIA PATTERSON, EUGENIA PATTERSON, JESUS GOMEZ, JESUS GOMEZ, JAMES DENMAN, JAMES DENMAN, C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, JOHN CAMERON, JOHN CAMERON, AMELIA HADLEY, AMELIA HADLEY, ALBINO CABASOS, ALBINO CABASOS, JW WHITE, JW WHITE, I RR CO, I RR CO, GH&H RR CO, GH&H RR CO, NATHANIEL PECK, NATHANIEL PECK, GH&H RR CO, GH&H RR CO, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, WILLIAM J RUSSELL, WILLIAM J RUSSELL, ENOCH HARRIS, ENOCH HARRIS, GR WHEELOCK, GR WHEELOCK, AB&M, AB&M, CEPI&M CO, CEPI&M CO, EL&RR RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, JEPTHA BOYCE, JEPTHA BOYCE, ELIJAH ALLEN, ELIJAH ALLEN, FISHER & MIL L ER, FISHER & MIL L ER, MRS ESTER F HEARD, MRS ESTER F HEARD, GEORGE W HANSEL, GEORGE W HANSEL, THOMAS MENEFEE, THOMAS MENEFEE, ALFRED KELSO, ALFRED KELSO, , , S&M, S&M, RT CO, RT CO, HENRY HOLBROOK, HENRY HOLBROOK, BS&F, BS&F, , , GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, BS&F, BS&F, I RR CO, I RR CO, JOHN LEWIS, JOHN LEWIS, CCD CO, CCD CO, JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, MRS L O UISA S HENDRICKS, MRS L O UISA S HENDRICKS, CHRISTIAN KOTHE, CHRISTIAN KOTHE, H&W, H&W, JAMES ANDERSON, JAMES ANDERSON, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, JD JENNINGS, JD JENNINGS, JOHN NELSON, JOHN NELSON, JE MIM A HE ARD, JE MIM A HE ARD, I RR CO, I RR CO, J POITEVENT, J POITEVENT, BFI&M CO, BFI&M CO, SFIW CO, SFIW CO, WILLIAM G COOKE, WILLIAM G COOKE, ACH&B, ACH&B, MIGUEL DEL TORO, MIGUEL DEL TORO, BEXAR CSL, BEXAR CSL, GEORGE LAW, GEORGE LAW, JV MASSEY, JV MASSEY, GUADALUPE CAST IL LO , GUADALUPE CAST IL LO , SW CUSHING, SW CUSHING, JOHN CARRIGAN, JOHN CARRIGAN, CCSD&RGNG RR CO, CCSD&RGNG RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, GH&SA RR CO, N GH&SA RR CO, N WILLIAM ALLEN, WILLIAM ALLEN, HORACE EGGLESTON, HORACE EGGLESTON, JOSEPH BORDEN, JOSEPH BORDEN, TRINIDAD COY, TRINIDAD COY, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, CHRISTIAN MOELLER, CHRISTIAN MOELLER, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, THOMAS HAND, THOMAS HAND, CT&MC RR CO, CT&MC RR CO, THOMAS R MILLER, THOMAS R MILLER, AB&M, AB&M, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, CI CO, CI CO, HUGH M FRAZIER, HUGH M FRAZIER, AB&M, AB&M, H&GN RR CO, H&GN RR CO, H&OB RR CO, H&OB RR CO, MARIA LOUISA RODRIGUEZ DE XIMENES, MARIA LOUISA RODRIGUEZ DE XIMENES, ANTONIO DE PORAS, ANTONIO DE PORAS, WM EVANS, WM EVANS, SM&S, SM&S, TWNG RR CO, TWNG RR CO, , , C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, BS&F, BS&F, Salt Branch Loop Threadgill Creek Rd Salt Branch Rd K-W-1 Rd Doss Spring Creek Rd Mill Creek Rd T o m H o l l o w C r e e k R d E v e r s R d S i m o n s v i l l e R d West Simonsville Rd P a n t h e r C r e e k R d H o u s e M o u n t a i n R d W oern er Rd Chimney Hollow Rd R C D Rd Doss Rd Mill Creek Rd Ch erry Sp ring Rd S c h e p C r e e k R d Keyserville Rd K e t t n e r - W i l l m a n n R d Company Place Rd Ranch Road 2389 Keyser Rd M a s o n C o u n t y R d S w a y b a c k M o u n t a i n R d Cold Spring Creek Rd Premiere Ranch Rd Dreck-Strasse Rd L e h m a n n R d Unnamed Street U n n a m e d S t r e e t S q u a w C r e e k R d D u s t y W h i t e t a i l T r l U n n a m e d S t r e e t Er ne st Jo rda n R d L e o n C r e e k R d Panther Circle Rd Z e s c h R d S t e h l i n g - H a h n R d D o s s - C h e r r y S p r i n g R d L a n g e s M i l l R d Dreck Strasse Three Hills Rd V-K Rd Schmidt Anderegg Rd Link Rd W i l l m a n n R d B l u e b o n n e t H i l l R d G r o s s e L n J a c k R a b bi t R d E c k e r t R d C e d a r B l u f f R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t Lookout Rd G e i s t w e i d t R d K e t t n e r R d Double M Rd Unnamed Street Emeths Rd Lively Rd S i m o n s v i l l e R d C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 0 Centerfork Rd Sieckmann Rd Sauer Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t A n d e r e g g W a y GL RCH Rd Franks Rd Heard Ranch Rd L o e f f l e r L n East Mill Rd Bucks Run Rd Bear Springs Rd County Road 105B C r o s s T r i a n g l e R d Kidd Rd Brusenhan Ln Unnamed Street Schmidt-Anderegg Rd B r a n d e n b e r g e r R d O ni o n Cr ee k R d Grossville School Rd James River Rd Unnamed Street Pump Station Rd Unnamed Street U n n a m e d S t r e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t H i c k o r y C r e e k Doss-Harper Rd N R anc h R oad 783 783 152 648 1871 407 407 802 802 257 257 622 622 61 61 1051 1051 1317 1317 1070 1070 639 639 638 638 150 150 293 293 83 83 82 82 1188 1188 1369 1369 1235 1235 1047 1047 481 481 1009 1009 1919 1919 1426 1426 1180 1180 1340 1340 1022 1022 137 137 958 958 957 957 1148 1148 1045 1045 167 167 166 166 1039 1039 222 222 853 853 1591 1591 1972 1972 1898 1898 1377 1377 821 821 1590 1590 825 825 1676 1676 1072 1072 1041 1041 1085 1085 689 689 1023 1023 1908 1908 822 822 195 195 1982 1982 30 30 294 294 1497 1497 1353 1353 1675 1675 1592 1592 485 485 666 666 1239 1239 399 399 1225 1225 665 665 939 939 415 415 1502 1502 1719 1719 305 305 594 594 611 611 596 596 1161 1161 1062 1062 1040 1040 45 45 1286 1286 937 937 420 420 767 767 1660 1660 258 258 1295 1295 780 780 923 923 284 284 41 41 879 879 669 669 219 219 421 421 1560 1560 259 259 987 987 994 994 333 333 996 996 988 988 1522 1522 384 384 880 880 914 914 1511 1511 376 376 782 782 1430 1430 921 921 781 781 1243 1243 1355 1355 1360 1360 1929 1929 537 537 334 334 6 6 1 1 99 99 1958 1958 976 976 1232 1232 21 21 1509 1509 105 105 946 946 1168 1168 963 963 933 933 1553 1553 768 768 832 832 1473 1473 330 330 44 44 320 320 595 595 932 932 385 385 766 766 1930 1930 55 55 1513 1513 1299 1299 842 842 1510 1510 1263 1263 1649 1649 471 471 1359 1359 1208 1208 472 472 1493 1493 1358 1358 171 171 463 463 1169 1169 168 168 170 170 138 138 1928 1928 649 649 1372 1372 648 648 169 169 462 462 843 843 1603 1603 248 248 23 23 1648 1648 249 249 1915 1915 1105 1105 1641 1641 22 22 366 366 478 478 1198 1198 149 149 174 174 430 430 1191 1191 191 191 1610 1610 1943 1943 473 473 246 246 1965 1965 612 612 464 464 512 512 146 146 1257 1257 379 379 1507 1507 508 508 1623 1623 470 470 1647 1647 615 615 820 820 669 669 285 285 1241 1241 763 763 1563 1563 934 934 1483 1483 663 663 1596 1596 1668 1668 378 378 1475 1475 1512 1512 962 962 477 477 1944 1944 476 476 1575 1575 1327 1327 659 659 197 197 514 514 1170 1170 139 139 1506 1506 510 510 1554 1554 1036 1036 1425 1425 442 442 1601 1601 1452 1452 232 232 1178 1178 465 465 1505 1505 513 513 31 31 1256 1256 46 46 1620 1620 1945 1945 1574 1574 27 27 1199 1199 148 148 964 964 1472 1472 1447 1447 1251 1251 1172 1172 1482 1482 116 116 758 758 813 813 1868 1868 614 614 1585 1585 1878 1878 1074 1074 1845 1845 26 26 1537 1537 1615 1615 658 658 182 182 550 550 136 136 509 509 1979 1979 1088 1088 131 131 1296 1296 1538 1538 1508 1508 1093 1093 1516 1516 554 554 1486 1486 1190 1190 443 443 652 652 916 916 749 749 785 785 20 20 817 817 662 662 181 181 1619 1619 613 613 144 144 1135 1135 383 383 1950 1950 1568 1568 1418 1418 899 899 1624 1624 63 63 1413 1413 STATA STATA 1269 1269 1861 1861 965 965 1595 1595 2 2 1134 1134 1569 1569 392 392 444 444 160 160 393 393 52 52 132 132 507 507 1662 1662 1534 1534 1240 1240 1238 1238 1953 1953 1952 1952 1951 1951 1143 1143 28 28 188 188 370 370 531 531 651 651 733 733 1108 1108 1812 1812 1646 1646 1097 1097 1432 1432 1376 1376 1116 1116 1700 1700 183 183 1300 1300 1262 1262 930 930 25 25 1366 1366 1504 1504 486 486 815 815 1656 1656 1119 1119 1146 1146 1503 1503 1365 1365 1414 1414 1400 1400 2011 2011 935 935 1273 1273 506 506 1175 1175 541 541 452 452 726 726 725 725 140 140 450 450 451 451 2010 2010 323 323 8 8 1364 1364 814 814 390 390 441 441 113 113 961 961 1268 1268 185 185 43 43 1824 1824 1098 1098 769 769 712 712 618 618 1206 1206 502 502 900 900 1645 1645 389 389 1248 1248 1399 1399 1347 1347 770 770 1144 1144 1823 1823 1501 1501 1565 1565 117 117 905 905 161 161 220 220 474 474 172 172 1312 1312 133 133 1352 1352 1058 1058 449 449 448 448 1059 1059 367 367 784 784 793 793 928 928 186 186 1057 1057 894 894 331 331 1139 1139 1224 1224 65 65 393 393 1814 1814 32 32 1145 1145 626 626 1091 1091 501 501 1287 1287 1450 1450 907 907 903 903 53 53 118 118 454 454 1223 1223 64 64 654 654 655 655 381 381 1350 1350 1092 1092 1219 1219 505 505 1306 1306 187 187 1877 1877 1308 1308 627 627 1217 1217 1403 1403 1218 1218 1272 1272 154 154 157 157 653 653 1142 1142 483 483 226 226 1215 1215 173 173 1777 1777 1778 1778 824 824 145 145 1141 1141 1182 1182 715 715 48 48 716 716 1090 1090 1220 1220 1564 1564 4 4 736 736 906 906 155 155 228 228 332 332 1713 1713 791 791 225 225 1873 1873 917 917 1140 1140 2006 2006 177 177 1348 1348 1181 1181 1237 1237 147 147 1179 1179 484 484 227 227 158 158 245 245 143 143 142 142 1871 1871 1899 1899 1859 1859 54 54 1830 1830 1926 1926 153 153 737 737 5 5 1858 1858 555 555 1910 1910 1872 1872 1579 1579 1753 1753 1639 1639 1633 1633 859 859 923 923 1533 1533 686 686 1641 1641 1489 1489 1635 1635 938 938 508 508 983 983 568 568 16 16 479 479 21 21 940 940 1467 1467 808 808 224 224 860 860 982 982 581 581 582 582 300 300 1314 1314 152 152 978 978 593 593 82 82 203 203 1325 1325 56 56 743 743 734 734 1460 1460 1459 1459 977 977 638 638 1625 1625 921 921 1605 1605 289 289 138 138 1198 1198 253 253 437 437 366 366 144 144 164 164 241 241 464 464 109 109 110 110 113 113 163 163 1439 1439 500 500 745 745 143 143 834 834 472 472 1285 1285 446 446 819 819 162 162 439 439 1038 1038 919 919 1696 1696 1626 1626 1095 1095 890 890 142 142 141 141 139 139 1282 1282 401 401 271 271 236 236 254 254 963 963 787 787 326 326 788 788 1733 1733 1526 1526 1514 1514 818 818 1759 1759 1328 1328 501 501 452 452 438 438 1077 1077 176 176 175 175 840 840 1513 1513 776 776 1073 1073 746 746 747 747 541 541 1688 1688 542 542 250 250 340 340 1292 1292 1281 1281 310 310 608 608 913 913 313 313 1687 1687 29 29 259 259 517 517 251 251 1075 1075 341 341 1076 1076 1430 1430 1359 1359 523 523 1383 1383 792 792 1382 1382 793 793 961 961 828 828 1716 1716 912 912 1070 1070 773 773 20 20 1199 1199 96 96 1410 1410 1496 1496 95 95 1624 1624 1185 1185 774 774 87 87 M Ma as so on n C C o o. . L Ll la an no o C Co o. . M Ma as so on n C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . G Gi il ll le e s sp pi ie e C Co o. . Doss Doss Grossville Grossville Hilda Hilda Cherry Cherry Spring Spring Hedwigs Hedwigs Hill Hill Loyal Loyal Valley Valley MP 2 7 5 MP 2 6 5 MP 2 7 0 MP 2 5 5 MP 2 6 0 MP 2 4 5 MP 2 5 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 99°0'0"W 99°5'0"W 99°10'0"W 99°15'0"W 99°20'0"W 99°25'0"W 30°40'0"N 30°35'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-13 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-14 See GPEP-12 <<>> J O H A N N B H A L F M A N N , J O H A N N B H A L F M A N N , H & G N R R C O , H & G N R R C O , I& G N R R C O , 1 I& G N R R C O , 1 , , G H & S A R R C O , A G H & S A R R C O , A B B B & C R R C O , B B B & C R R C O , VA LE N TIN E H O P F, VA LE N TIN E H O P F, G C &S F R R C O , G C &S F R R C O , B S & F, 1 B S & F, 1 JO H N H G IB S O N , 1 JO H N H G IB S O N , 1 JV M A S S E Y, 1 JV M A S S E Y, 1 E L & R R R R C O , E L & R R R R C O , A & B , 1 A & B , 1 B S & F, B S & F, CH A R L E S D UN C A N , CH A R L E S D UN C A N , JO H N H G IB S O N , JO H N H G IB S O N , A B & M , A B & M , J A M E S Y O U N G , J A M E S Y O U N G , H E N R Y P R E D F IE L D , H E N R Y P R E D F IE L D , , , T & N O R R C O , T & N O R R C O , GC &SF R R CO , GC &SF R R CO , T& P R R C O , H T& P R R C O , H C O N R A D R IC H A R T, C O N R A D R IC H A R T, L O R E N Z K A U F H O L D , L O R E N Z K A U F H O L D , B & B , B & B , I R R C O , I R R C O , FIS H E R & M ILLE R , FIS H E R & M ILLE R , JA C O B S C H R O E D E R , JA C O B S C H R O E D E R , I R R C O , I R R C O , , , C I C O , C I C O , E LIS H A A L LE N , E LIS H A A L LE N , JO H N H G IB SO N, L JO H N H G IB SO N, L G C & S F R R C O , A G C & S F R R C O , A G E O R G E S E A G E R , G E O R G E S E A G E R , T & N O R R C O , H T & N O R R C O , H P J B E N T O N , P J B E N T O N , B S & F, B S & F, A N P O T E E T, A N P O T E E T, HE IN R IC H N IE B UR H R , HE IN R IC H N IE B UR H R , I R R C O , H I R R C O , H B & B , B & B , B E R R Y M E R C H A N T, B E R R Y M E R C H A N T, TW NG R R CO , TW NG R R CO , R O B E R T C O C H R A N , R O B E R T C O C H R A N , C H A R L E S B R IE C H E L , C H A R L E S B R IE C H E L , G U S T A P H P F E R F R IN , G U S T A P H P F E R F R IN , , , K IM B LE C S L, K IM B LE C S L, H F F IS H E R & B M I L L E R , H F F IS H E R & B M I L L E R , B E R N H A R D W IT T E , B E R N H A R D W IT T E , H & G N R R C O , H & G N R R C O , B S & F, 1 B S & F, 1 ER N S T M ID D EL E G G E , ER N S T M ID D EL E G G E , C C S D & R G N G R R C O , C C S D & R G N G R R C O , C H R IS T IA N N A R T E N , C H R IS T IA N N A R T E N , JO H A N N D IE T Z E L , JO H A N N D IE T Z E L , G C & S F R R C O , G C & S F R R C O , G R R C O , G R R C O , , , TW N G R R C O , 4 TW N G R R C O , 4 B E R N H A R D H U B I N G E R , B E R N H A R D H U B I N G E R , H T & B R R C O , H T & B R R C O , H E R M A N N R U N G E , H E R M A N N R U N G E , D A N IE L L L O Y D , D A N IE L L L O Y D , J P O IT E V E N T, J P O IT E V E N T, JO H A N N D N A P P, JO H A N N D N A P P, K IM B LE C S L, 751 K IM B LE C S L, 751 A B & M , A B & M , B & B , B & B , TT R R C O , TT R R C O , , , JW C O V IN , JW C O V IN , FR IED R IC H N IE B U H R , FR IED R IC H N IE B U H R , W IL L IA M P A C E , W IL L IA M P A C E , H & G N R R C O , H & G N R R C O , H E N R Y R R E D F IE L D , H E N R Y R R E D F IE L D , JV M A S S E Y, JV M A S S E Y, T T R R C O , 1 5 T T R R C O , 1 5 TW N G R R C O , 15 TW N G R R C O , 15 T & N O R R C O , T & N O R R C O , I R R C O , I R R C O , J O H N P A G E , J O H N P A G E , G W T& P R R C O , G W T& P R R C O , J O H N K T E R RY, J O H N K T E R RY, E N C A R N A C IO N D E L G A D O , E N C A R N A C IO N D E L G A D O , S & M , S & M , I& G N R R C O, I& G N R R C O, TW N G R R C O , TW N G R R C O , JO S E P IN E D A , JO S E P IN E D A , H E IN R IC H H A B E N IC H T, H E IN R IC H H A B E N IC H T, G E O R G E C K I M B L E , G E O R G E C K I M B L E , G H & S A R R C O , D G H & S A R R C O , D G C &S F R R C O , G C &S F R R C O , W IL L IA M M AY F IE L D, W IL L IA M M AY F IE L D, C A R L L A S S M A N N , C A R L L A S S M A N N , J O H N H G IB SO N , J O H N H G IB SO N , E L& R R R R C O , E L& R R R R C O , H A R R IET T M C ILVA IL , H A R R IET T M C ILVA IL , G H & S A R R C O , N G H & S A R R C O , N Saline Rd Spr ing Holl ow Rd Whiskey Rd Ellis Rd Unnamed Street Count y Road 21 3 D a v i s R d K C 2 10 K C 3 1 5 1 W i n s l o w L n Fire St KC 320 Lodge Rd U n n a m e d S t r e e t County Road 322 Farm-To-Market Road 1773 Tri County R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t C o u n t y R o a d 3 5 1 Robbins Ranch Rd C o u nt y R oa d 37 2 County Road 211 E van s R d K L R L L E a s t Hight Rd R o b i n s o n R a n c h R d Carp Rd K C 3 1 4 C o u n t y R o a d 2 1 2 E r na R d County Road 333 P o w e l l L n Kibd Ln U n n a m e d S t r e e t Farm Road 3480 Ben son Rd M i d d l e R d U n n a m e d S t r e e t KC 322 Old Pasture Rd M o o d y R d Cou nty Roa d 34 0 C o u n t y R o a d 3 3 0 C o u nt y R o a d 3 1 3 G e nt ry C re e k R d Portz Place Rd C o u n t y R o a d 3 7 1 X County Road 331 Bannowsky Rd B o u r b o n S t Spiller Ln Linscomb Ln KC 315 K C 3 1 6 Bernard Ln County Road 214 Kidd Ln U n n a m e d S t r e e t Bois D Arc S e a l e R a n c h R d Tillman Ranch Rd C a t t l e R a n c h R d Hardeman Rd Williamson Rd Unnamed Street L e o n C r e e k R d County Road 377 S te v e n s R d E lli s R d Unnamed Street C o u n t y R o a d 3 7 2 1 County Road 311X J o r d a n / C o n g e r R d R e d C r e e k R d W e i t z R a n c h R d C o u n t y R o a d 3 7 0 C o u n t y R o a d 3 4 1 385 1871 2291 1773 1079 1079 1000 1000 357 357 358 358 1859 1859 423 423 443 443 963 963 248 248 1846 1846 247 247 1824 1824 323 323 400 400 1080 1080 249 249 1049 1049 1248 1248 1842 1842 1075 1075 154 154 1841 1841 330 330 1780 1780 19 19 818 818 1900 1900 820 820 1844 1844 422 422 817 817 1754 1754 251 251 856 856 1840 1840 32 32 1799 1799 1770 1770 854 854 150 150 1728 1728 1729 1729 591 591 206 206 725 725 1153 1153 502 502 584 584 583 583 1889 1889 1688 1688 264 264 1808 1808 153 153 1839 1839 149 149 1686 1686 582 582 205 205 1861 1861 1813 1813 927 927 1812 1812 838 838 1620 1620 592 592 1619 1619 1138 1138 1826 1826 1266 1266 835 835 1217 1217 185 185 507 507 1068 1068 1866 1866 1809 1809 1894 1894 265 265 316 316 1898 1898 1853 1853 329 329 1111 1111 331 331 326 326 1757 1757 1133 1133 159 159 1807 1807 508 508 1806 1806 634 634 1125 1125 724 724 240 240 241 241 761 761 484 484 208 208 841 841 1320 1320 1845 1845 760 760 662 662 661 661 1503 1503 1159 1159 1893 1893 509 509 1825 1825 1822 1822 1827 1827 1834 1834 1852 1852 1810 1810 1877 1877 1816 1816 729 729 1694 1694 315 315 1847 1847 1875 1875 300 300 1774 1774 305 305 1758 1758 158 158 1174 1174 1124 1124 626 626 625 625 1662 1662 494 494 493 493 1263 1263 806 806 902 902 906 906 843 843 184 184 1044 1044 1016 1016 1352 1352 1829 1829 563 563 759 759 1370 1370 1369 1369 1450 1450 278 278 572 572 1762 1762 1043 1043 1343 1343 1805 1805 337 337 1687 1687 1794 1794 336 336 1273 1273 969 969 956 956 1218 1218 1655 1655 1345 1345 1854 1854 175 175 1749 1749 279 279 314 314 1763 1763 1115 1115 301 301 1775 1775 306 306 1788 1788 157 157 1160 1160 1756 1756 1823 1823 762 762 763 763 515 515 514 514 765 765 911 911 226 226 532 532 227 227 533 533 432 432 1494 1494 719 719 720 720 1410 1410 1432 1432 1437 1437 279 279 81 81 1149 1149 406 406 1828 1828 1897 1897 1042 1042 1689 1689 1065 1065 1282 1282 1162 1162 1468 1468 724 724 1747 1747 1745 1745 1857 1857 1173 1173 178 178 1690 1690 1172 1172 313 313 1851 1851 1848 1848 303 303 1783 1783 307 307 1781 1781 156 156 1765 1765 389 389 388 388 1077 1077 531 531 95 95 1205 1205 671 671 670 670 1755 1755 1790 1790 1482 1482 488 488 585 585 225 225 442 442 1495 1495 431 431 1608 1608 1398 1398 747 747 571 571 1107 1107 569 569 570 570 1188 1188 1161 1161 1761 1761 1497 1497 1375 1375 1374 1374 1133 1133 1890 1890 1858 1858 1489 1489 289 289 850 850 1849 1849 302 302 1782 1782 308 308 1279 1279 155 155 1772 1772 1393 1393 1759 1759 1420 1420 1329 1329 1773 1773 1746 1746 766 766 738 738 628 628 1664 1664 1663 1663 649 649 648 648 764 764 602 602 603 603 430 430 789 789 107 107 1351 1351 792 792 793 793 1408 1408 1431 1431 200 200 1066 1066 746 746 1174 1174 1060 1060 1791 1791 151 151 1413 1413 1631 1631 1358 1358 459 459 458 458 712 712 27 27 348 348 36 36 1423 1423 1460 1460 1459 1459 581 581 428 428 1409 1409 576 576 946 946 942 942 1410 1410 1873 1873 1169 1169 1908 1908 1547 1547 152 152 154 154 2036 2036 55 55 2044 2044 58 58 1764 1764 1872 1872 399 399 398 398 1458 1458 369 369 368 368 575 575 130 130 848 848 129 129 1456 1456 1546 1546 1035 1035 347 347 29 29 28 28 346 346 1273 1273 1272 1272 1304 1304 308 308 309 309 60 60 1124 1124 863 863 2177 2177 673 673 1876 1876 1874 1874 72 72 950 950 846 846 1039 1039 994 994 2062 2062 1274 1274 1275 1275 815 815 2099 2099 2088 2088 1109 1109 2176 2176 54 54 59 59 1760 1760 60 60 627 627 1867 1867 117 117 116 116 823 823 128 128 111 111 110 110 126 126 127 127 737 737 1093 1093 740 740 794 794 776 776 1317 1317 1329 1329 1067 1067 1048 1048 84 84 83 83 71 71 1835 1835 736 736 735 735 397 397 1078 1078 396 396 1936 1936 1800 1800 51 51 52 52 793 793 2017 2017 629 629 1725 1725 630 630 1864 1864 1865 1865 615 615 614 614 4 4 3 3 578 578 114 114 734 734 125 125 577 577 1307 1307 1301 1301 795 795 1306 1306 381 381 382 382 805 805 1073 1073 69 69 1878 1878 78 78 80 80 1836 1836 379 379 416 416 417 417 1788 1788 2034 2034 447 447 2035 2035 50 50 931 931 624 624 1181 1181 1726 1726 622 622 1109 1109 631 631 633 633 616 616 1768 1768 1770 1770 395 395 1780 1780 909 909 344 344 455 455 454 454 378 378 917 917 1310 1310 1311 1311 1068 1068 1879 1879 81 81 2041 2041 79 79 1787 1787 401 401 2010 2010 457 457 456 456 1930 1930 1962 1962 877 877 49 49 1761 1761 623 623 1724 1724 1869 1869 621 621 632 632 617 617 1893 1893 1892 1892 814 814 579 579 813 813 410 410 409 409 377 377 367 367 366 366 1328 1328 150 150 783 783 70 70 82 82 1880 1880 811 811 1161 1161 773 773 878 878 483 483 839 839 147 147 424 424 1299 1299 1499 1499 1386 1386 988 988 1915 1915 1723 1723 590 590 943 943 2016 2016 597 597 1718 1718 551 551 938 938 620 620 619 619 618 618 580 580 412 412 1370 1370 1021 1021 1139 1139 414 414 415 415 467 467 12 12 1769 1769 893 893 149 149 1871 1871 371 371 876 876 951 951 149 149 1601 1601 1128 1128 718 718 1339 1339 1952 1952 449 449 1331 1331 1165 1165 584 584 589 589 1950 1950 596 596 1833 1833 604 604 1147 1147 1727 1727 340 340 1888 1888 113 113 1870 1870 1721 1721 1719 1719 1005 1005 452 452 453 453 1381 1381 822 822 1028 1028 985 985 1203 1203 1034 1034 1033 1033 132 132 1153 1153 1980 1980 1563 1563 426 426 1793 1793 1336 1336 427 427 514 514 148 148 1767 1767 786 786 1020 1020 834 834 1319 1319 864 864 996 996 73 73 96 96 1379 1379 1440 1440 1439 1439 2135 2135 425 425 1119 1119 825 825 1337 1337 320 320 486 486 547 547 361 361 554 554 360 360 674 674 675 675 1894 1894 885 885 1114 1114 1007 1007 1891 1891 1981 1981 1356 1356 1887 1887 1322 1322 2084 2084 1172 1172 373 373 671 671 445 445 1152 1152 953 953 515 515 982 982 1886 1886 1321 1321 97 97 15 15 679 679 1716 1716 1042 1042 680 680 676 676 1722 1722 476 476 421 421 328 328 1338 1338 672 672 372 372 1027 1027 1889 1889 1168 1168 1376 1376 1332 1332 837 837 1134 1134 330 330 319 319 375 375 999 999 1397 1397 681 681 1715 1715 1717 1717 1269 1269 1076 1076 1314 1314 1403 1403 177 177 1214 1214 771 771 7 7 98 98 408 408 1618 1618 8 8 146 146 1133 1133 2152 2152 1808 1808 431 431 176 176 1323 1323 1533 1533 420 420 1576 1576 359 359 374 374 800 800 1504 1504 175 175 1998 1998 1312 1312 387 387 174 174 1502 1502 799 799 1308 1308 1373 1373 1500 1500 1538 1538 179 179 1221 83 377 377 M Me en na ar rd d C Co o. . M Ma as so on n C C o o. . M Me en na ar rd d C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . M Ma as so on n C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . Erna Erna Saline Saline Yates Yates Cleo Cleo London London MP 3 0 5 MP 2 9 5 MP 3 0 0 MP 2 8 5 MP 2 9 0 MP 2 7 5 MP 2 8 0 Kimble County E A S T H O U S TO N - E L PA S O Line ID = 6 64 5, S ta tu s= A C TIV E E A S T H O U S TO N - E L PA S O Line ID = 6 64 5, S ta tu s= A C TIV E E A S T H O U S TO N - E L PA S O Line ID = 6 64 5, S ta tu s= A C TIV E 99°30'0"W 99°35'0"W 99°40'0"W 99°45'0"W 99°50'0"W 99°55'0"W 30°45'0"N 30°50'0"N 30°40'0"N 30°45'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-14 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-15 See GPEP-13 <<>> GH&SA RR CO, M GH&SA RR CO, M GH&SA RR CO, I GH&SA RR CO, I , , RA BRANTLEY, V28 RA BRANTLEY, V28 THOMAS J CARTWRIGHT, EEE THOMAS J CARTWRIGHT, EEE WM PIERCE, EEE WM PIERCE, EEE SUSAN SKINNER, V28 SUSAN SKINNER, V28 GC&SF RR CO, A1 GC&SF RR CO, A1 AB&M, A AB&M, A H&W, H&W, GC&SF RR CO, A2 GC&SF RR CO, A2 GH&SA RR CO, L GH&SA RR CO, L TWNG RR CO, 9 TWNG RR CO, 9 JOHN H GIBSON, JOHN H GIBSON, I RR CO, A I RR CO, A JO HANN BRO D, JO HANN BRO D, GH&SA RR CO, A GH&SA RR CO, A FRIEDRICH SCHMIDT, FRIEDRICH SCHMIDT, SAMUEL AMENDT, SAMUEL AMENDT, I RR CO, I RR CO, FISHER & MILLER, FISHER & MILLER, AUGUST D KRAMER, AUGUST D KRAMER, THOMAS BALL, THOMAS BALL, WILHELM MOELLER, WILHELM MOELLER, ADAM PELZER, ADAM PELZER, H&W, A H&W, A RICHARD DOUGLASS, RICHARD DOUGLASS, JOHANN G AHLERS, JOHANN G AHLERS, ALBERT SCHMIDT, A ALBERT SCHMIDT, A JE ALLEN, A JE ALLEN, A JOHN H GIBSON, A JOHN H GIBSON, A GC&SF RR CO, V17 GC&SF RR CO, V17 MRS DC OGDEN, MRS DC OGDEN, BS&F, B BS&F, B WA BINNION, V14 WA BINNION, V14 GH&SA RR CO, K GH&SA RR CO, K WH MAUDLIN, V14 WH MAUDLIN, V14 T&NO RR CO, T&NO RR CO, AB&M, AB&M, RT CO, RT CO, BS&F, BS&F, JOHN H GIBSON, L JOHN H GIBSON, L WILLIS J WATTS, V14 WILLIS J WATTS, V14 GC&SF RR CO, V14 GC&SF RR CO, V14 PJ BENTON, PJ BENTON, JD WHITTEN, JD WHITTEN, CT&MC RR CO, CT&MC RR CO, TWNG RR CO, 16 TWNG RR CO, 16 GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, TWNG RR CO, 5 TWNG RR CO, 5 MRS ZH SHORT, MRS ZH SHORT, , , CCSD&RGNG RR CO, CCSD&RGNG RR CO, TJ MOORE, TJ MOORE, GH CROWDER, GH CROWDER, HEINRICH RUEL, HEINRICH RUEL, TWNG RR CO, 4 TWNG RR CO, 4 JOSE MARIA GARCIA, JOSE MARIA GARCIA, GH&SA RR CO, E GH&SA RR CO, E WG SCALES, WG SCALES, EMILY A T URNER, EMILY A T URNER, GWT&P RR CO, A GWT&P RR CO, A LA PATILLO, LA PATILLO, TT RR CO, TT RR CO, K County Road 22 Private Road 2245 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4 5 Ada Rd MC G owa n Ranc h Rd Private Road 2249 County Road 238 Toe Nail Trl O l d F o r t M c K a v e t t R d 2 2 2 8 C o u n t y R o a d 2 2 4 2450 P r i v a t e R o a d 2 2 8 8 KC 210 U n n a m e d S tr e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t C o u n t y R o a d 2 2 0 Private Road 2256 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4 5 P r i v a t e R o a d 2 2 6 2 S C R 2 1 5 Private Road 2527 2 0 6 5 Count y Road 22 Lo pez Dr C o u n t y R o a d 2 2 5 1 K C 2 1 4 2058 Priv a te Ro a d 227 2 SCR217 P ri v at e R o ad 2 2 67 P r i v a t e R o a d 2 2 6 1 2 0 6 6 Unnamed Street Private Road 2247 Morales Rd Lopez Ln U n n a m e d S t r e e t C o u n t y R o a d 2 4 3 Win sto n R d O l d P i p e l i n e R d 3172 2 4 3 1 K C 2 4 Ranch Road 2597 2 0 6 8 C o u n t y R o a d 2 3 South Bear Creek Dr County Road 245 Private Road 2273 U n n a m e d S t r e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t K C 2 1 5 U n n a m e d S t r e e t C o u n t y R o a d 2 0 2 Unnamed Street P r i v a t e R o a d 2 2 7 1 23 60 U n n a m e d S t r e e t North Valley Prong 864 2596 1674 1018 1018 1105 1105 807 807 1134 1134 1114 1114 1868 1868 1016 1016 1112 1112 1103 1103 1102 1102 1173 1173 1426 1426 1867 1867 1168 1168 1113 1113 1215 1215 1169 1169 1741 1741 1588 1588 1260 1260 1131 1131 1497 1497 1264 1264 1324 1324 1366 1366 1365 1365 207 207 1341 1341 206 206 918 918 1667 1667 1536 1536 1243 1243 1241 1241 1994 1994 1242 1242 1664 1664 1665 1665 1666 1666 1240 1240 1181 1181 1346 1346 1104 1104 1166 1166 1499 1499 1200 1200 1902 1902 1072 1072 208 208 89 89 55 55 90 90 1185 1185 476 476 10 10 20 20 12 12 19 19 18 18 13 13 16 16 14 14 17 17 15 15 1525 1525 24 24 1523 1523 1367 1367 1643 1643 1793 1793 1524 1524 1198 1198 1537 1537 1199 1199 1071 1071 477 477 31 31 5 5 4 4 35 35 36 36 37 37 21 21 8 8 7 7 1655 1655 1399 1399 1978 1978 878 878 501 501 210 210 412 412 799 799 333 333 347 347 798 798 1054 1054 735 735 455 455 49 49 50 50 1167 1167 1645 1645 1659 1659 1067 1067 1303 1303 1197 1197 1786 1786 635 635 52 52 668 668 666 666 669 669 727 727 475 475 983 983 982 982 1995 1995 1535 1535 984 984 1040 1040 1179 1179 1042 1042 981 981 1043 1043 1 1 667 667 2 2 1818 1818 1819 1819 500 500 498 498 1658 1658 684 684 332 332 1438 1438 224 224 636 636 505 505 411 411 506 506 980 980 537 537 335 335 538 538 1021 1021 633 633 630 630 250 250 1831 1831 1368 1368 1644 1644 1651 1651 1070 1070 1690 1690 1689 1689 1069 1069 1503 1503 1152 1152 479 479 1846 1846 53 53 1979 1979 1671 1671 986 986 1996 1996 985 985 987 987 1670 1670 1180 1180 1041 1041 1668 1668 631 631 632 632 47 47 1691 1691 1966 1966 923 923 253 253 1056 1056 1621 1621 252 252 254 254 1832 1832 981 981 198 198 199 199 1236 1236 334 334 499 499 20 20 1660 1660 508 508 741 741 509 509 1126 1126 1498 1498 1068 1068 1965 1965 1066 1066 1504 1504 770 770 700 700 3 3 769 769 82 82 81 81 80 80 79 79 75 75 480 480 76 76 916 916 1244 1244 1695 1695 1390 1390 78 78 1892 1892 1232 1232 262 262 1047 1047 263 263 1696 1696 255 255 264 264 1233 1233 256 256 917 917 1661 1661 257 257 1646 1646 1124 1124 1693 1693 1480 1480 1064 1064 202 202 1546 1546 1642 1642 1087 1087 1641 1641 875 875 474 474 1692 1692 83 83 988 988 84 84 1669 1669 874 874 85 85 1481 1481 1915 1915 876 876 77 77 1977 1977 1697 1697 1189 1189 478 478 266 266 1693 1693 265 265 1157 1157 267 267 261 261 1055 1055 380 380 260 260 1085 1085 259 259 521 521 522 522 1125 1125 1388 1388 1065 1065 1506 1506 1088 1088 1688 1688 1640 1640 184 184 1136 1136 1605 1605 1391 1391 481 481 1635 1635 1892 1892 1634 1634 1794 1794 32 32 1610 1610 1389 1389 1057 1057 268 268 269 269 1086 1086 270 270 1237 1237 276 276 1627 1627 848 848 381 381 849 849 278 278 1695 1695 1032 1032 33 33 925 925 520 520 1894 1894 1163 1163 1832 1832 1090 1090 1128 1128 1544 1544 1534 1534 1108 1108 1076 1076 1478 1478 1797 1797 1078 1078 1638 1638 1639 1639 1183 1183 907 907 1135 1135 204 204 70 70 1479 1479 1796 1796 1626 1626 1761 1761 524 524 274 274 1201 1201 1089 1089 273 273 1231 1231 277 277 275 275 914 914 740 740 1628 1628 1748 1748 272 272 1021 1021 71 71 72 72 924 924 922 922 1895 1895 1891 1891 1164 1164 1089 1089 1607 1607 1077 1077 1129 1129 1781 1781 1079 1079 1374 1374 1190 1190 1344 1344 1182 1182 1348 1348 1362 1362 1567 1567 1545 1545 519 519 73 73 523 523 69 69 1022 1022 1235 1235 43 43 665 665 1344 1344 1023 1023 176 176 1200 1200 1258 1258 88 88 763 763 1856 1856 343 343 662 662 1120 1120 1831 1831 1844 1844 1162 1162 1122 1122 766 766 1075 1075 1711 1711 1081 1081 1375 1375 1195 1195 908 908 1184 1184 205 205 1625 1625 1890 1890 1793 1793 1879 1879 1973 1973 1593 1593 1608 1608 687 687 675 675 1024 1024 1609 1609 1123 1123 1738 1738 1850 1850 1739 1739 1109 1109 1767 1767 1543 1543 1080 1080 1082 1082 1542 1542 1719 1719 1196 1196 1345 1345 1194 1194 905 905 1863 1863 1420 1420 1760 1760 1421 1421 1798 1798 1422 1422 1797 1797 1423 1423 1767 1767 1415 1415 1768 1768 1234 1234 758 758 732 732 1592 1592 1568 1568 1569 1569 1720 1720 1611 1611 1564 1564 1565 1565 728 728 870 870 731 731 729 729 871 871 1121 1121 1737 1737 1903 1903 1160 1160 1227 1227 1954 1954 1955 1955 1956 1956 1947 1947 1906 1906 1943 1943 1193 1193 1251 1251 757 757 1249 1249 138 138 939 939 139 139 938 938 2043 2043 2044 2044 2026 2026 140 140 2025 2025 2027 2027 1017 1017 1942 1942 1941 1941 141 141 1087 1087 691 691 1563 1563 1710 1710 1688 1688 1709 1709 1656 1656 1439 1439 690 690 1192 1192 1262 1262 1104 1104 881 881 1707 1707 1103 1103 1735 1735 1101 1101 1176 1176 718 718 1175 1175 1215 1215 589 589 936 936 1483 1483 600 600 609 609 1016 1016 1240 1240 618 618 1257 1257 1105 1105 1547 1547 1102 1102 1440 1440 1355 1355 1342 1342 1343 1343 719 719 59 59 60 60 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 468 468 692 692 1960 1960 979 979 872 872 693 693 590 590 937 937 1687 1687 591 591 592 592 1242 1242 601 601 610 610 1259 1259 619 619 1083 1083 1643 1643 1554 1554 1091 1091 1701 1701 723 723 2017 2017 392 392 2098 2098 777 777 778 778 1959 1959 586 586 978 978 1477 1477 980 980 1075 1075 1356 1356 484 484 588 588 1078 1078 587 587 1367 1367 1203 1203 599 599 608 608 1241 1241 617 617 1258 1258 1644 1644 1107 1107 1552 1552 1084 1084 1553 1553 1357 1357 447 447 2015 2015 606 606 1481 1481 1482 1482 205 205 1935 1935 713 713 695 695 920 920 448 448 2010 2010 1413 1413 2129 2129 233 233 1076 1076 232 232 1077 1077 231 231 593 593 1522 1522 602 602 1526 1526 611 611 620 620 1528 1528 732 732 605 605 1832 1832 433 433 203 203 1632 1632 204 204 1949 1949 234 234 976 976 866 866 290 290 1368 1368 1706 1706 235 235 1421 1421 598 598 1201 1201 607 607 597 597 2066 2066 607 607 1006 1006 1508 1508 202 202 1610 1610 1398 1398 99 99 1179 1179 473 473 1885 1885 1238 1238 238 238 977 977 237 237 1329 1329 201 201 2069 2069 200 200 604 604 1834 1834 1794 1794 406 406 294 294 864 864 407 407 1561 1561 608 608 1509 1509 2056 2056 199 199 1675 1675 603 603 2051 2051 864 190 193 S Sc ch hl le ei ic ch he er r C Co o. . M Me en na ar rd d C Co o. . S Sc ch hl le ei ic ch he er r C Co o. . S Su ut t t to o n n C C o o. . M Me en na ar rd d C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . K Ki im mb bl le e C Co o. . S Su ut tt to on n C Co o. . Fort Fort McKavett McKavett MP 3 3 5 MP 3 2 5 MP 3 3 0 MP 3 1 5 MP 3 2 0 MP 3 0 5 MP 3 1 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 100°0'0"W 100°5'0"W 100°10'0"W 100°15'0"W 100°20'0"W 100°25'0"W 30°50'0"N 30°45'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-15 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-16 See GPEP-14 <<>> HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, B GC&SF RR CO, B UNIVERSITY LAND, 53 UNIVERSITY LAND, 53 GH&SA RR CO, M GH&SA RR CO, M , , TC RR CO, TT TC RR CO, TT GC&SF RR CO, A GC&SF RR CO, A UNIVERSITY LAND, 54 UNIVERSITY LAND, 54 UNIVERSITY LAND, 55 UNIVERSITY LAND, 55 TC RR CO, LL TC RR CO, LL GC&SF RR CO, LL GC&SF RR CO, LL JW ROMINE, JW ROMINE, CONCHO CSL, 7 CONCHO CSL, 7 UNIVERSITY LAND, 57 UNIVERSITY LAND, 57 UNIVERSITY LAND, 56 UNIVERSITY LAND, 56 , , CONCHO CSL, 8 CONCHO CSL, 8 GC&SF RR CO, 1 GC&SF RR CO, 1 CONCHO CSL, 2 CONCHO CSL, 2 MRS KS KNOWLES, MRS KS KNOWLES, DL&C CO, A DL&C CO, A JA REED, JA REED, GC&SF RR CO, EEE GC&SF RR CO, EEE THOMAS J CARTWRIGHT, EEE THOMAS J CARTWRIGHT, EEE JOSEPH BURNS, DD JOSEPH BURNS, DD GH&SA RR CO, L GH&SA RR CO, L TWNG RR CO, 9 TWNG RR CO, 9 HE&WT RR CO, A HE&WT RR CO, A C&M RR CO, A2 C&M RR CO, A2 GC&SF RR CO, A2 GC&SF RR CO, A2 GC&SF RR CO, 2 GC&SF RR CO, 2 AB&M, A2 AB&M, A2 GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, JOHN C CHESTER, A JOHN C CHESTER, A TC RR CO, A TC RR CO, A GC&SF RR CO, D GC&SF RR CO, D County Road 109 Lovie St Olive St Mertzon Rd Big Lake St Denney St El Paso St Stillwell St West Ave County Road 114 1 1 9 2 County Road 412 Old Sonora Rd C o u n t y R o a d 2 2 4 Meador St E Fields Ave Rabbit Rd C o u n ty R o a d 4 0 8 2 0 5 0 Dixie Ave County Road 220 Bootlegger s Ln Hill Ave Elm St County Road 425 County Road 427 County Road 100 Oat St U n n a m e d S t r e e t County Road 110 4091 1190 County Road 107 1 1 9 3 County Road 423 R a n c h R o a d 21 29 U n n a m e d S t r e e t P o w e ll R d County Road 206 2 058 P - 2 0 5 1 U n n a m e d S t r e e t 2056 County Road 108 U n n a m e d Str e et C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 5 C o u n t y R o a d 3 0 0 County Road 404 Unnamed Street D e p ot St 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 94 U n n a m e d S t r e e t C o u n t y R o a d 3 0 2 4250 30 10 Unnamed Street 4 0 9 0 4252 Unnamed Street U n n a m e d S t r e e t Co un ty Ro ad 42 9 U n n a m e d S t r e e t County Road 102 W h i t t e n D r U n n a m e d S t r e e t M t H w y 2596 1828 915 99999999 99999999 167 167 717 717 1187 1187 1188 1188 466 466 1454 1454 467 467 1095 1095 157 157 702 702 557 557 887 887 558 558 888 888 1455 1455 556 556 1094 1094 1508 1508 158 158 555 555 886 886 553 553 1373 1373 554 554 552 552 1456 1456 1278 1278 551 551 1510 1510 93 93 1513 1513 102 102 1447 1447 1446 1446 1371 1371 543 543 542 542 1372 1372 544 544 1279 1279 545 545 1004 1004 547 547 546 546 946 946 1511 1511 1617 1617 703 703 1445 1445 92 92 101 101 606 606 583 583 588 588 603 603 939 939 585 585 1473 1473 1487 1487 1486 1486 587 587 584 584 1003 1003 945 945 586 586 1563 1563 103 103 1945 1945 1618 1618 94 94 1619 1619 1369 1369 1343 1343 1509 1509 1946 1946 1512 1512 1418 1418 181 181 1938 1938 1340 1340 1298 1298 589 589 1484 1484 590 590 944 944 592 592 940 940 591 591 1961 1961 529 529 44 44 1623 1623 91 91 1614 1614 100 100 1615 1615 1760 1760 1258 1258 1334 1334 1936 1936 609 609 1937 1937 1616 1616 1953 1953 180 180 1460 1460 1347 1347 604 604 595 595 1412 1412 943 943 938 938 594 594 593 593 941 941 174 174 1386 1386 1730 1730 1353 1353 104 104 95 95 1622 1622 1941 1941 1624 1624 711 711 1339 1339 1429 1429 2006 2006 1539 1539 179 179 1433 1433 1441 1441 596 596 1335 1335 597 597 1342 1342 1259 1259 1771 1771 598 598 1252 1252 173 173 1687 1687 1257 1257 1424 1424 1014 1014 1427 1427 1017 1017 1425 1425 1629 1629 1436 1436 90 90 824 824 99 99 99999999 99999999 1428 1428 1463 1463 1443 1443 46 46 610 610 1699 1699 704 704 178 178 1538 1538 1541 1541 605 605 600 600 172 172 1462 1462 1770 1770 599 599 1018 1018 1020 1020 1019 1019 807 807 1423 1423 105 105 1628 1628 96 96 1627 1627 45 45 505 505 1540 1540 1772 1772 1370 1370 1584 1584 1580 1580 672 672 171 171 177 177 1055 1055 1581 1581 1582 1582 777 777 601 601 877 877 602 602 1879 1879 1057 1057 1015 1015 1016 1016 1116 1116 1422 1422 1594 1594 1426 1426 695 695 716 716 689 689 1595 1595 98 98 872 872 1988 1988 183 183 795 795 611 611 607 607 778 778 175 175 1034 1034 1885 1885 1056 1056 176 176 1260 1260 40 40 106 106 156 156 97 97 1299 1299 5475 5475 26 26 1989 1989 838 838 1346 1346 1072 1072 1521 1521 1787 1787 1074 1074 837 837 628 628 462 462 884 884 793 793 185 185 1507 1507 451 451 401 401 1295 1295 794 794 441 441 411 411 816 816 431 431 845 845 839 839 421 421 1459 1459 931 931 42 42 1244 1244 43 43 147 147 1458 1458 148 148 697 697 1596 1596 2312 2312 1788 1788 1520 1520 4891 4891 2475 2475 1523 1523 1524 1524 126 126 1631 1631 125 125 1245 1245 1071 1071 1505 1505 629 629 836 836 1725 1725 400 400 461 461 1296 1296 882 882 450 450 846 846 812 812 410 410 440 440 1398 1398 805 805 430 430 420 420 844 844 107 107 124 124 1893 1893 154 154 1612 1612 155 155 932 932 4890 4890 2474 2474 4326 4326 1394 1394 881 881 1987 1987 1396 1396 1395 1395 1516 1516 1073 1073 1721 1721 630 630 1489 1489 128 128 1450 1450 1722 1722 127 127 1705 1705 399 399 402 402 1383 1383 1896 1896 442 442 815 815 792 792 452 452 412 412 1385 1385 432 432 2015 2015 1492 1492 885 885 422 422 1904 1904 1703 1703 11 11 1273 1273 114 114 1363 1363 140 140 2479 2479 4325 4325 2476 2476 1449 1449 2011 2011 1613 1613 1152 1152 1790 1790 631 631 1724 1724 1723 1723 398 398 813 813 409 409 804 804 449 449 802 802 429 429 1044 1044 791 791 1871 1871 419 419 1045 1045 439 439 460 460 130 130 1632 1632 131 131 883 883 1490 1490 1701 1701 108 108 129 129 153 153 113 113 1033 1033 860 860 1785 1785 1859 1859 1086 1086 1727 1727 632 632 1828 1828 1825 1825 397 397 403 403 814 814 803 803 443 443 1272 1272 423 423 1235 1235 433 433 453 453 1052 1052 413 413 1948 1948 1384 1384 582 582 1452 1452 132 132 1702 1702 1706 1706 1808 1808 1865 1865 1826 1826 120 120 115 115 1621 1621 1704 1704 1728 1728 1726 1726 1548 1548 1922 1922 1403 1403 1641 1641 633 633 1585 1585 1587 1587 396 396 857 857 1270 1270 428 428 408 408 1328 1328 438 438 1269 1269 418 418 1289 1289 1468 1468 448 448 459 459 801 801 109 109 111 111 1672 1672 121 121 1620 1620 152 152 1775 1775 1776 1776 1465 1465 1136 1136 1011 1011 634 634 395 395 404 404 854 854 414 414 964 964 424 424 1271 1271 434 434 444 444 1329 1329 1935 1935 454 454 776 776 1261 1261 1986 1986 116 116 119 119 1736 1736 1660 1660 1008 1008 635 635 1262 1262 394 394 1053 1053 407 407 856 856 417 417 832 832 427 427 834 834 808 808 447 447 458 458 1035 1035 1874 1874 437 437 1848 1848 636 636 1009 1009 637 637 855 855 405 405 842 842 415 415 840 840 425 425 835 835 445 445 1036 1036 435 435 714 714 638 638 1010 1010 393 393 962 962 406 406 841 841 416 416 965 965 426 426 833 833 436 436 1250 1250 1864 1864 1051 1051 743 743 963 963 745 745 843 843 747 747 756 756 1976 1976 744 744 717 717 1174 1174 278 278 720 720 277 277 190 190 190 193 193 193 S Sc ch hl le ei ic ch he er r C Co o. . C Cr ro oc ck ke et tt t C Co o . . S Sc ch hl le ei ic ch he e r r C Co o. . S Su ut tt to on n C Co o. . Eldorado Eldorado MP 3 3 5 MP 3 4 0 MP 3 6 5 MP 3 5 5 MP 3 6 0 MP 3 4 5 MP 3 5 0 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 100°30'0"W 100°35'0"W 100°40'0"W 100°45'0"W 100°50'0"W 100°55'0"W 31°0'0"N 30°55'0"N 101°0'0"W 31°0'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-16 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-17 See GPEP-15 <<>> 101°5'0"W 800 800 560 560 892 892 409 409 563 563 434 434 101°20'0"W c o t t R d 564 564 S Ball Rd Hickman Rd 437 437 199 199 571 571 435 435 570 570 436 436 569 569 882 882 Rd Tom T&P RR CO, 1 T&P RR CO, 1 Owens Rd 568 568 65 65 101°15'0"W See GPEP-18 SIMON P FORD, SIMON P FORD,, 31°5'0"N 31°10'0"N 573 573 42 42 574 574 196 196 575 575 197 197 576 576 66 66 577 577 861 861 635 635 R o C 859 859 a o C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, 826 826 217 217 198 198 218 218 884 884 785 785 860 860 Witco Witco d u EJ VAUGHN, EJ VAUGHN, HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, 67 n 3 t Unnamed 2 y , , 1248 1248 0 Street MP d 101°10'0"W 3 9 R Re e 99999999 99999999 692 692 m t e a 688 688 e n r t 816 816 n S 99999999 99999999 5 County Ro ad 147 ea ag ga I Ir ri io on n U d R WC RR CO, WC RR CO, Storey 9th St 7th St County Road 303 S T e e d an n 865 865 Barnhart Barnhart 866 866 x a s County 1st i H Road 309 687 687 863 863 681 681 864 864 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO n C C Co o C o u n t Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE E . . UNIVERSITY LAND, 43 UNIVERSITY LAND, 43 l k Co o County Road 311 i n . . s R d y R o a d 1 0 nty Ro ad 312 C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, 57 57 843 843 MP R u C o o C a UNIVERSITY LAND, 40 UNIVERSITY LAND, 40 7 7 EBBLINE COYLE, EBBLINE COYLE, 1 1 UNIVERSITY LAND, 48 UNIVERSITY LAND, 48 61 61 , 3 o d u 3 n 9 1 t y 0 Road 302 County AD ANDERSON, AD ANDERSON, 873 873 F r i e n d R d UNIVERSITY LAND, 49 UNIVERSITY LAND, 49 0 152 152 C Co o. . UNIVERSITY LAND, 38 UNIVERSITY LAND, 38 99999999 99999999 MP I Ir ri io on n 838 838 R R e ea ag g a an n C C o o. . 3 8 C Cr ro oc ck ke et tt t C Co o. . G RR CO, G RR CO, C Cr ro oc ck ke et tt t C C o o. . 5 5350 5350 4246 4246 Unnamed 3889 3889 Street 5193 5193 5274 5274 137 C ou nty R oad 2 05 2282 2282 GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 4341 4341 4380 4380 UNIVERSITY LAND, 50 UNIVERSITY LAND, 50 5189 5189 33 1727 1727 EL&RR RR CO, 1 EL&RR RR CO, 1 , , 4951 4951 4381 4381 This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a 1722 1722 subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan 4379 4379 GC&SF RR CO, BB GC&SF RR CO, BB disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or 3119 3119 TC RR CO, BB TC RR CO, BB completeness of the information depicted on this copy. 31°0'0"N 4948 4948 GC&SF RR CO, 10 GC&SF RR CO, 10 n a m e d D&SE RR CO, 9 D&SE RR CO, 9 1738 1738 4378 4378 . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown U n t r e e t 4949 4949 2946 2946 on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or S other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Magellan Pipeline 5191 5191 UNIVERSITY LAND, 51 UNIVERSITY LAND, 51 1721 1721 Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Pump Station Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Meter Station Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline Pipeline Junction High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility UNIVERSITY LAND, 44 UNIVERSITY LAND, 44 MP 3 7 5 UNIVERSITY LAND, 47 UNIVERSITY LAND, 47 99999999 99999999 Unnamed Street H w y 1 6 3 UNIVERSITY LAND, 46 UNIVERSITY LAND, 46 101°0'0"W MP 3 8 0 U n n a m e d S t r e e t UNIVERSITY LAND, 41 UNIVERSITY LAND, 41 163 Unnamed Street MP 3 7 0 UNIVERSITY LAND, 39 UNIVERSITY LAND, 39 100°55'0"W UNIVERSITY LAND, 53 UNIVERSITY LAND, 53 UNIVERSITY LAND, 52 UNIVERSITY LAND, 52 MP UNIVERSITY LAND, 55 UNIVERSITY LAND, 55 C Cr ro oc ck ke et t t t C Co o. . S Sc ch hl le ei ic ch he er r 3 6 5 C Co o. . See GPEP-16 Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE UNIVERSITY LAND, 45 UNIVERSITY LAND, 45 99999999 99999999 UNIVERSITY LAND, 42 UNIVERSITY LAND, 42 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) U n S t r n a m e e e t d EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 190 RUNNELS CSL, 2 RUNNELS CSL, 2 2832 2832 Unnamed Street UNIVERSITY LAND, 56 UNIVERSITY LAND, 56 Midway Midway 190 193 State(s): Texas Scale: 1'' = 2 Miles 6645 REBECCA ADAMS, AB REBECCA ADAMS, AB GC&SF RR CO, AB GC&SF RR CO, AB 1873 1873 JOHN HALEY, AB JOHN HALEY, AB 4464 4464 2470 2470 2689 2689 4787 4787 4783 4783 BS&F, BS&F, 1688 1688 2284 2284 RUNNELS CSL, 1 RUNNELS CSL, 1 2830 2830 2283 2283 4467 4467 2016 2016 4884 4884 2004 2004 4348 4348 2006 2006 4882 4882 1778 1778 4784 4784 Street D&SE RR CO, AB D&SE RR CO, AB Unnamed GC&SF RR CO, 1 GC&SF RR CO, 1 2614 2614 4883 4883 2018 2018 4881 4881 2003 2003 4888 4888 2005 2005 4887 4887 1779 1779 5440 5440 5475 5475 EDWIN C WOODRUFF, CD EDWIN C WOODRUFF, CD 3565 3565 1897 1897 BBB&C RR CO, CD BBB&C RR CO, CD 1998 1998 4880 4880 2002 2002 2475 2475 4786 4786 1780 1780 D&SE RR CO, CD D&SE RR CO, CD 4889 4889 3997 3997 CR PORTMAN, CD CR PORTMAN, CD 1999 1999 3123 3123 4785 4785 Taylor Rd 4885 4885 GC&SF RR CO, CD GC&SF RR CO, CD 2619 2619 4892 4892 2511 2511 GALENA PARK - EL PASO STRIP MAP 7/6/2012 GPEP-17 <<>> Casselman Rd 101°30'0"W 99999999 99999999 MP 4 1 5 Best Ln N 119 119 d D&W RR CO, D D&W RR CO, D e 101°50'0"W P 4 3 0 See GPEP-19 31°15'0"N 31°20'0"N 31°25'0"N a m t e n n r e 723 723 126 126 U S t 11 11 552 552 348 348 101°45'0"W EL&RR RR CO, D EL&RR RR CO, D 145 145 Hartgrove Rd 724 724 347 347 EL&RR RR CO, B EL&RR RR CO, B Count y Roa d 260 L&SV RR CO, H L&SV RR CO, H 184 184 780 780 142 142 839 839 Road 252 725 725 185 185 791 791 346 346 GC&SF RR CO, Y GC&SF RR CO, Y 360 360 718 718 851 851 TC RR CO, M TC RR CO, M 186 186 796 796 2594 384 384 TC RR CO, Y TC RR CO, Y 465 465 719 719 215 215 778 778 46 46 AL BRIGANCE, AL BRIGANCE, 1305 1305 383 383 MK&TE RR CO, Y MK&TE RR CO, Y HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, 849 849 101°40'0"W 25 25 1310 1310 650 650 SA&MG RR CO, SA&MG RR CO, 382 382 County Road 245 365 365 795 795 433 433 21 21 472 472 652 652 Elliott Y 593 593 1555 o 777 777 , , Rd c h GC&SF RR CO, 4.5 GC&SF RR CO, 4.5 401 401 a m R 169 169 d 210 210 190 190 GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, PB SCOTT, 1 PB SCOTT, 1 23 23 853 853 357 357 24 24 651 651 617 617 182 182 847 847 1506 1506 225 225 227 227 840 840 MP PB SCOTT, PB SCOTT, U LM LEE, LM LEE, 4 n S n 809 809 t a r e m J a m e s R d 350 350 75 75 975 975 168 168 179 179 e t e d 870 870 Unnamed 2 118 118 GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, Street 5 1528 1528 657 657 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, CCSD&RGNG RR CO, 133 133 CHRISTOPHER BENDLE, CHRISTOPHER BENDLE, 810 810 1 1 828 828 96 96 2 2 352 352 101°35'0"W GC&SF RR CO, G GC&SF RR CO, G 226 226 232 232 1529 1529 201 201 Dixon 74 74 976 976 167 167 961 961 Tu rn er Rd EL&RR RR CO, EL&RR RR CO, 194 194 136 136 871 871 Rd MP MOSES HERRIN, MOSES HERRIN, 960 960 134 134 4 2 0 99999999 99999999 Ja ck s o n L n Street Unnamed 67 Texon Rd R d E a v e s R Re ea ag ga U Up pt to on n an n C C Co o. . Co o. . 915 915 181 181 99999999 99999999 UNIVERSITY LAND, 58 UNIVERSITY LAND, 58 179 179 913 913 101°55'0"W 178 178 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE Road 320 County Road 230 County UNIVERSITY LAND, 3 UNIVERSITY LAND, 3 875 875 5 5 6 6 C&M RR CO, B C&M RR CO, B 4 4 735 735 Flat Flat Rock Rock County 874 874 This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a 252 252 completeness of the information depicted on this copy. 349 HE&WT RR CO, B HE&WT RR CO, B subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or 637 637 254 254 Road 215 and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown St Holmes 253 253 705 705 on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or 251 251 13th St other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. 734 734 11th St Rankin Rankin 822 822 Magellan Pipeline EL&RR RR CO, B EL&RR RR CO, B . Excavation, grading, construction County Road 220 135 135 Trl Bear GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, 160 160 Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Unnamed Street C o u R t y n o a d 2 2 5 UNIVERSITY LAND, 4 UNIVERSITY LAND, 4 Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) High Consequence Area (HCA) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Valve Terminal Valve - Check Pump Station Pipeline Milepost Meter Station Pipeline Aerial Marker Pipeline Junction Magellan Facility Four Corner Four Corner Windmill Windmill MP 4 1 UNIVERSITY LAND, 10 UNIVERSITY LAND, 10 U n S n t a r e m e e t d 0 County Road 113 UNIVERSITY LAND, 9 UNIVERSITY LAND, 9 K Rd EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE MP 4 0 5 UNIVERSITY LAND, 2 UNIVERSITY LAND, 2 Best Ln Best Best Landfill Rd EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE Texon Texon Santa Santa Rita Rita d e m a n n U t e e r t S o l f G C o u r s e R d County Road 22 Hod ge Rd 933 933 Lone Wolf Rd UNIVERSITY LAND, 8 UNIVERSITY LAND, 8 UNIVERSITY LAND, 1 UNIVERSITY LAND, 1 Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. Unnamed Street Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO State(s): Texas Scale: 1'' = 2 Miles 6645 946 946 G RR CO, G RR CO, 160 160 99999999 99999999 UNIVERSITY LAND, 6 UNIVERSITY LAND, 6 UNIVERSITY LAND, 7 UNIVERSITY LAND, 7 Street Unname d R Re ea ag ga an C Cr ro oc ck ke et tt t n C Co o. . C Co o. . 737 737 MN HINES, MN HINES, 31°15'0"N r d r R a C h c n 550 550 a R R d W 137 HE&WT RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, S J 216 216 793 793 , , Rocker B Ln Pembro ok Rd 792 792 184 184 101°25'0"W 692 692 B o o n e R d 691 691 551 551 894 894 552 552 Scott Rd 561 561 693 693 560 560 892 892 559 559 d R l l a B 434 434 Ranch Road 1676 Spur UNIVERSITY LAND, 11 UNIVERSITY LAND, 11 Unnamed Street O s t ri 187 187 901 901 c h R d GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, T&P RR CO, 1 T&P RR CO, 1 Reagan Vicky 812 812 562 562 409 409 563 563 435 435 Ave E 11th St County Texas E 9th St Airport E 7th St 571 571 W 8th St Oak Dr Reagan E 3rd St 186 186 U n n Big Lake Big Lake W 6th St a County MP 572 572 199 199 67 m S t e r d e Airport e t Lake St 810 810 4 S Sherriff 809 809 0 0 185 185 811 811 573 573 42 42 217 217 MP 33 183 183 808 808 C&M RR CO, C&M RR CO, 3 9 826 826 5 90 90 99999999 99999999 200 200 170 170 UNIVERSITY LAND, 49 UNIVERSITY LAND, 49 45 45 AL BRIG ANCE, AL BRIG ANCE, 825 825 W and S Rd F a R r WILLIAM ALLEN, WILLIAM ALLEN, 1 1 m EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO See GPEP-17 o a - T d o 1 - 6 M 7 a 6 r Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE k e Friend Rd t UNIVERSITY LAND, 12 UNIVERSITY LAND, 12 O7 Rd SIMON P FORD, SIMON P FORD, 152 152 137 G RR CO, G RR CO, 838 838 935 935 5350 5350 5274 5274 1884 1884 BS&F, A BS&F, A 5192 5192 1881 1881 4923 4923 1883 1883 U n n S a t m r e e d e t 5266 5266 5265 5265 WD PARKER, BB WD PARKER, BB 4738 4738 3120 3120 4381 4381 GALENA PARK - EL PASO GC&SF RR CO, BB GC&SF RR CO, BB 3118 3118 4948 4948 STRIP MAP 7/6/2012 GPEP-18 <<>> T&P RR CO, 41 T5S T&P RR CO, 41 T5S T&P RR CO, 42 T5S T&P RR CO, 42 T5S UNIVERSITY LAND, 30 UNIVERSITY LAND, 30 GC&SF RR CO, 1 GC&SF RR CO, 1 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, C CCSD&RGNG RR CO, C RH THAIN, C.5 RH THAIN, C.5 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, D CCSD&RGNG RR CO, D FM ELROY, C.5 FM ELROY, C.5 THROCKMORTON CSL, 3 THROCKMORTON CSL, 3 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, E CCSD&RGNG RR CO, E CCSD&RGNG RR CO, B CCSD&RGNG RR CO, B CCSD&RGNG RR CO, F CCSD&RGNG RR CO, F , , CCSD&RGNG RR CO, X CCSD&RGNG RR CO, X GC&SF RR CO, Y GC&SF RR CO, Y I RR CO, B I RR CO, B WA BAT ES, WA BAT ES, TC RR CO, Y TC RR CO, Y , , TC RR CO, Y TC RR CO, Y GC&SF RR CO, GC&SF RR CO, JH GIBSON, X JH GIBSON, X GC&SF RR CO, G GC&SF RR CO, G , , JO HN H GIBSO N, X JO HN H GIBSO N, X EL&RR RR CO, Y EL&RR RR CO, Y JW GROUNDS, JW GROUNDS, EL&RR RR CO, A EL&RR RR CO, A JW GROUNDS, A JW GROUNDS, A THOMAS C JONES, THOMAS C JONES, GC&SF RR CO, Y GC&SF RR CO, Y CC PHILLIPS, CC PHILLIPS,, , G RR CO, A G RR CO, A FRANCIS ROONEY, Y FRANCIS ROONEY, Y WS BINGHAM, WS BINGHAM, MK&TE RR CO, 2 MK&TE RR CO, 2 MK&TE RR CO, 3.5 MK&TE RR CO, 3.5 GC&SF RR CO, 3.5 GC&SF RR CO, 3.5 GC&SF RR CO, 4.5 GC&SF RR CO, 4.5 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, 3.5 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, 3.5 TC RR CO, B TC RR CO, B C&M RR CO, B C&M RR CO, B MK&TE RR CO, 3 MK&TE RR CO, 3 MK&TE RR CO, 1 MK&TE RR CO, 1 GC&SF RR CO, 2.5 GC&SF RR CO, 2.5 GC&SF RR CO, B GC&SF RR CO, B D&SE RR CO, D&SE RR CO, HE&WT RR CO, B HE&WT RR CO, B UNIVERSITY LAND, 15 UNIVERSITY LAND, 15 Long 3rd St N 2nd St County Road 305 County Road 11 Chevron Avenue D 13th Ave Chevron Road 13 County Road 301 U n n a m e d S t r e e t N 5th St Foundry Rd Co unty Road 30 4 W 7th St Swinford Rd N 6th St Camp Rd Brook Dr U n n a m e d S t r e e t Halff St W 3rd St Allman St 5th St Hwy 329 Chevron Ave 10th Ave Country Club Rd E 1st St 12th Ave N Chevron Rd 7th St Chevron Avenue J E 3rd St 9th St Lilley Ln Chevron Avenue U County Road 490 11th St South End Rd Tarpley Rd C o u n t y R o a d 4 8 5 Ranc h Ro ad 24 63 County Road 102 R o a d 2 Chevron Road 11 Rimer Rd Unnamed Street County Road 255 County Road 303 N Cowden Rd U n n a m e d Str e et County Road 300 16th Chevron Avenue R Road 105 Co un ty Ro ad 23 5 Roa d 109 McElroy Ranch Rd Chevron Road 7 Crider Rd Road 495 Chevron Road 8 N Katherine Humble Camp Rd Chevron Avenue A C o u nt y R o a d 1 0 5 County Ro ad 302 Rogers Rd Bartlett Rd Chevron Avenue L Chevron Avenue I County Road 306-A Chevron Avenue P Chevron Avenue H Chevron Ave E Chevron Road 12 Chevron Road 8A Unnamed Street Unnamed Street Chevron Ave N Fox Rd Hunt Oil Rd Unnamed Street County Road 137 County Road 306 R a n c h R d County Road 111 Unnamed Street County Roa d 111-A U n n a m e d S t r e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t U n n a m e d S t r e e t Leland L Martin Park 1233 1492 870 297 297 520 520 1091 1091 99999999 99999999 521 521 1453 1453 179 179 524 524 1454 1454 1479 1479 525 525 528 528 1455 1455 1092 1092 1288 1288 1475 1475 527 527 529 529 1456 1456 502 502 1480 1480 526 526 695 695 530 530 501 501 1457 1457 505 505 1481 1481 531 531 1476 1476 533 533 1458 1458 506 506 1469 1469 509 509 692 692 532 532 1386 1386 534 534 1379 1379 890 890 508 508 1482 1482 49 49 1462 1462 694 694 535 535 1381 1381 507 507 1378 1378 1470 1470 59 59 224 224 693 693 48 48 1460 1460 544 544 1463 1463 537 537 1380 1380 1461 1461 68 68 1250 1250 1471 1471 58 58 1465 1465 40 40 536 536 1382 1382 1572 1572 77 77 811 811 1459 1459 67 67 1439 1439 50 50 769 769 891 891 37 37 1268 1268 86 86 812 812 76 76 899 899 1446 1446 60 60 1579 1579 1466 1466 47 47 95 95 1561 1561 1534 1534 813 813 85 85 1485 1485 772 772 1322 1322 69 69 1440 1440 57 57 103 103 644 644 222 222 41 41 1464 1464 223 223 1487 1487 1324 1324 94 94 1088 1088 898 898 78 78 24 24 1447 1447 770 770 6 6 66 66 19 19 1438 1438 51 51 696 696 102 102 1090 1090 36 36 968 968 610 610 87 87 1323 1323 28 28 1392 1392 200 200 1543 1543 75 75 23 23 18 18 1445 1445 61 61 1294 1294 1333 1333 900 900 5 5 17 17 1467 1467 46 46 1570 1570 1488 1488 1029 1029 96 96 1089 1089 32 32 1558 1558 1567 1567 901 901 84 84 27 27 1319 1319 27 27 13 13 1321 1321 70 70 21 21 1441 1441 56 56 104 104 1489 1489 643 643 14 14 42 42 1306 1306 1028 1028 1486 1486 1383 1383 93 93 1395 1395 608 608 31 31 1005 1005 1027 1027 79 79 1032 1032 607 607 19 19 25 25 942 942 7 7 65 65 1491 1491 18 18 1437 1437 52 52 1269 1269 473 473 101 101 1035 1035 969 969 35 35 611 611 88 88 1448 1448 29 29 28 28 74 74 599 599 17 17 22 22 1444 1444 62 62 109 109 1293 1293 1307 1307 288 288 45 45 1030 1030 4 4 97 97 1033 1033 1129 1129 33 33 1031 1031 1526 1526 619 619 889 889 83 83 26 26 26 26 1391 1391 12 12 71 71 907 907 1442 1442 188 188 55 55 225 225 105 105 1490 1490 1224 1224 1292 1292 43 43 1217 1217 803 803 92 92 1545 1545 1394 1394 30 30 1330 1330 80 80 600 600 20 20 189 189 1289 1289 616 616 64 64 775 775 8 8 187 187 996 996 53 53 235 235 559 559 601 601 100 100 1034 1034 678 678 34 34 592 592 89 89 959 959 598 598 29 29 190 190 1393 1393 73 73 952 952 16 16 375 375 1290 1290 63 63 108 108 234 234 557 557 1053 1053 1571 1571 44 44 238 238 98 98 1552 1552 676 676 191 191 961 961 618 618 82 82 640 640 25 25 374 374 1186 1186 11 11 72 72 792 792 1291 1291 381 381 54 54 558 558 224 224 106 106 578 578 815 815 192 192 1094 1094 804 804 91 91 1468 1468 1175 1175 373 373 33 33 81 81 639 639 584 584 21 21 376 376 989 989 1334 1334 1521 1521 232 232 1436 1436 363 363 9 9 193 193 1525 1525 231 231 99 99 617 617 960 960 372 372 90 90 677 677 641 641 377 377 30 30 1052 1052 216 216 586 586 15 15 1443 1443 364 364 814 814 107 107 32 32 595 595 371 371 362 362 239 239 149 149 937 937 38 38 378 378 868 868 219 219 1010 1010 585 585 24 24 1025 1025 10 10 366 366 588 588 1524 1524 170 170 173 173 227 227 150 150 1449 1449 379 379 218 218 180 180 1296 1296 869 869 915 915 939 939 521 521 367 367 603 603 701 701 22 22 583 583 370 370 151 151 292 292 1450 1450 217 217 814 814 174 174 172 172 237 237 1452 1452 951 951 133 133 587 587 704 704 866 866 31 31 369 369 938 938 591 591 589 589 STATE STATE 914 914 14 14 380 380 291 291 175 175 1451 1451 171 171 236 236 867 867 368 368 1396 1396 590 590 761 761 215 215 176 176 1270 1270 53 53 1578 1578 560 560 1014 1014 1271 1271 682 682 155 155 548 548 877 877 721 721 179 179 931 931 177 177 925 925 760 760 962 962 762 762 721 721 220 220 722 722 1577 1577 332 332 702 702 331 331 958 958 855 855 342 342 203 203 824 824 329 329 1424 1424 330 330 568 568 154 154 829 829 876 876 178 178 913 913 823 823 354 354 1155 1155 1522 1522 987 987 116 116 825 825 1112 1112 345 345 673 673 344 344 343 343 711 711 326 326 569 569 1423 1423 327 327 328 328 703 703 361 361 828 828 6 6 875 875 338 338 1061 1061 346 346 674 674 675 675 319 319 311 311 387 387 1520 1520 1237 1237 386 386 715 715 1422 1422 209 209 712 712 754 754 7 7 874 874 4 4 310 310 716 716 318 318 883 883 348 348 347 347 131 131 573 573 689 689 248 248 956 956 250 250 957 957 252 252 637 637 818 818 312 312 819 819 129 129 970 970 167 167 856 856 249 249 753 753 251 251 734 734 687 687 130 130 773 773 166 166 862 862 164 164 1574 1574 156 156 882 882 165 165 570 570 157 157 99999999 99999999 162 162 894 894 329 349 329 329 329 385 385 U Up pt to on n C Co o . . C C r r a a n n e e C C o o. . Sevenmile Sevenmile Corner Corner Crane Crane Rankin Rankin MP 4 5 5 MP 4 6 0 MP 4 4 5 MP 4 5 0 MP 4 3 5 MP 4 4 0 MP 4 3 0 Crane EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE CRANE - ODESSA Line ID=6648, Status=ACTIVE 101°55'0"W 102°0'0"W 102°5'0"W 102°10'0"W 102°15'0"W 102°20'0"W 31°25'0"N 31°30'0"N 102°25'0"W 31°25'0"N 31°30'0"N 7/6/2012 STRIP MAP GALENA PARK - EL PASO Scale: State(s): Texas Magellan Pipeline Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility GPEP-19 1'' = 2 Miles EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 6645 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on this copy. . Excavation, grading, construction and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. See GPEP-20 See GPEP-18 <<>> 31°30'0"N U n n a m e d S t r e e t MP 4 6 0 MP 4 6 5 Dump Ground Rd 102°50'0"W 68 68 105 105 S Helen Ave 57 57 102°45'0"W W 39th 62 62 604 604 1216 1216 102°40'0"W St 106 106 C o u nt y R d 2 o a 0 5 1 1221 1221 452 452 408 408 1007 1007 309 309 67 67 499 499 407 407 251 251 1106 1106 1107 1107 102°35'0"W S Wilma St S Yvonne St S U rsila St 603 603 PSL, B17 PSL, B17 1122 1122 G&MMB&A, N G&MMB&A, N Loop Rd E 46t h St 56 56 250 250 1108 1108 899 899 102°30'0"W 1109 1109 63 63 935 935 1217 1217 331 331 332 332 1187 1187 66 66 388 388 1110 1110 PSL, B18 PSL, B18 211 211 Burnett 1200 1200 1081 1081 1191 1191 1222 1222 1123 1123 Rd 303 303 1190 1190 1111 1111 506 506 1262 1262 Unnamed 312 312 1114 1114 1188 1188 1189 1189 S Colorado St 107 107 55 55 1219 1219 1263 1263 1197 1197 S Loop Street 1112 1112 216 216 1201 1201 PSL, B25 PSL, B25 464 Rd 1218 1218 1264 1264 64 64 1198 1198 1242 1242 1113 1113 310 310 693 693 699 699 1265 1265 1601 65 65 1241 1241 947 947 1269 1269 PSL, B26 PSL, B26 1199 1199 698 698 1243 1243 734 734 311 311 108 108 653 653 1268 1268 694 694 Ho us e Rd Re d 109 109 18 1227 1227 1266 1266 Oak Ln Smith Rd 214 214 1277 1277 1267 1267 695 695 1011 1011 212 212 PSL, B21 PSL, B21 1244 1244 1245 1245 Shu mm Rd 694 694 615 615 1477 1477 1248 1248 1246 1246 1247 1247 1228 1228 692 692 684 684 1256 1256 1270 1270 1234 1234 989 989 1278 1278 937 937 274 274 1271 1271 468 468 322 322 1249 1249 1255 1255 716 716 677 677 1272 1272 1483 1483 1253 1253 1478 1478 1226 1226 1254 1254 718 718 213 213 382 382 1484 1484 936 936 696 696 1273 1273 Sand Hill Rd PSL, B19 PSL, B19 PSL, B20 PSL, B20 380 380 1251 1251 591 591 1252 1252 1229 1229 697 697 1257 1257 1279 1279 458 458 Unnamed Katie 1231 1231 1480 1480 1002 1002 1250 1250 693 693 1258 1258 719 719 Street 590 590 Lea Rd 378 378 1280 1280 1145 1145 1205 1205 381 381 717 717 1225 1225 681 681 1146 1146 461 461 1259 1259 589 589 Sand 1230 1230 1487 1487 1260 1260 1233 683 683 915 915 1232 1232 1240 1240 678 678 588 588 Camp Rd 1261 1261 Exxon 682 682 973 973 626 626 1281 1281 379 379 Loop 1148 1148 459 459 1126 1126 1283 1283 U 1239 1239 614 614 n n 1147 1147 MP a m 1003 1003 1048 1048 1274 1274 773 773 S t e r d 980 980 585 585 e 918 918 UNIVERSITY LAND, 31 UNIVERSITY LAND, 31 4 688 688 e t 187 187 689 689 1049 1049 1275 1275 584 584 9 1471 1471 1243 1243 1236 1236 1051 1051 917 917 627 627 1149 1149 0 1057 1057 MP 1282 1282 916 916 1052 1052 625 625 686 686 687 687 1146 1146 1284 1284 MP MP 1150 1150 MP EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO Line 726 726 PSL, B29 PSL, B29 4 4 1053 1053 1139 1139 586 586 ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 8 1276 1276 587 587 P e n n z o il L o o p 4 4 Arco Rd See GPEP-21 1347 1347 8 1168 1168 1140 1140 7 7 727 727 570 570 5 Unnamed 181 181 Street 186 186 1141 1141 569 569 728 728 596 596 1018 1018 County Road 2085 1152 1152 930 930 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 0 5 0 PSL, 32 PSL, 32 1059 1059 1151 1151 1411 1411 Line ID=6645, Status=ACTIVE 1601 1060 1060 1206 1206 1017 1017 1058 1058 1130 1130 Plant Rd Arco 929 929 1207 1207 PSL, B27 PSL, B27 H&TC RR CO, 34 H&TC RR CO, 34 919 919 1162 1162 1238 1238 1122 1122 1144 1144 571 571 612 612 1061 1061 1135 1135 County 1110 1110 1237 1237 PSL, B28 PSL, B28 1143 1143 610 610 t d County 1139 1139 e Road 338 Road 2087 1118 1118 1073 1073 1142 1142 1137 1137 C Co o. . C Co o. . 1062 1062 1136 1136 Navajo Rd e e m r t a S 180 180 1295 1295 1063 1063 1131 1131 1020 1020 n 182 182 n 1296 1296 883 883 1132 1132 565 565 31°25'0"N 711 711 611 611 801 801 1029 1029 1093 1093 1137 1137 1344 1344 745 745 1292 1292 27 27 1332 1332 1067 1067 1134 1134 1335 1335 1297 1297 601 601 1094 1094 W Wa ar rd d C Cr ra an ne e 871 871 1019 1019 U 1064 1064 1138 1138 837 837 152 152 838 838 647 647 FM 10 53 568 568 725 725 612 612 See GPEP-19 315 315 1360 1360 1066 1066 756 756 1235 1235 1133 1133 785 785 35 35 712 712 1021 1021 831 831 19 19 179 179 1286 1286 1015 1015 1290 1290 802 802 County 1298 1298 1291 1291 1319 1319 Road 255 1289 1289 1014 1014 611 611 43 43 1329 1329 151 151 153 153 613 613 Jim Tub bs Rd Street 1025 1025 Unnamed 566 566 602 602 1022 1022 473 473 JF CROSS, JF CROSS, 329 28 28 812 812 846 846 603 603 u n t y 999 999 157 157 County 1338 1338 C o R o a d 2 4 6 1287 1287 1234 1234 1024 1024 426 426 314 314 1210 1210 Barnsley 475 475 Road 344 Loop 36 36 1249 1249 313 313 1124 1124 1294 1294 1016 1016 1026 1026 26 26 1023 1023 316 316 47 47 1081 1081 1204 1204 817 817 146 146 1226 1226 225 225 754 754 1285 1285 145 145 Tubbs Tubbs 329 44 44 610 610 1254 1254 178 178 1288 1288 150 150 34 34 1293 1293 H&TC RR CO, 4 H&TC RR CO, 4 Corner Corner 1253 1253 154 154 46 46 TC BARNSLEY, NAW TC BARNSLEY, NAW 156 156 49 49 472 472 1219 198 198 235 235 158 158 1231 1231 1027 1027 425 425 777 777 Royalty Royalty 305 305 42 42 1233 1233 329 48 48 142 142 County Road 374 County 312 312 Road 349 County 311 311 1203 1203 H&TC RR CO, 5 H&TC RR CO, 5 Road 245 306 306 1013 1013 29 29 a 1125 1125 474 474 CCSD&RGNG RR CO, X CCSD&RGNG RR CO, X 317 317 234 234 18 H&TC RR CO, 3 H&TC RR CO, 3 1265 1265 196 196 830 830 1007 1007 141 141 431 431 142 142 Street 940 940 1227 1227 222 222 37 37 144 144 Unna med n d o R d r e o k C a L 25 25 223 223 41 41 1174 1174 911 911 141 141 This copy is provided by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or a subsidiary (Magellan) to represent of pipelines and/or other facilities and does not represent a survey. Magellan County Road 373 494 494 148 148 155 155 129 129 159 159 224 224 161 161 1230 1230 1232 1232 9th St 197 197 33 33 307 307 300 300 629 629 45 45 997 997 140 140 B Ave 310 310 308 308 140 140 230 230 221 221 232 232 5th 819 819 726 726 H&TC RR CO, 32 H&TC RR CO, 32 St A A v e disclaims and makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or 975 975 1208 1208 169 169 442 442 503 503 Grandfalls Grandfalls completeness of the information depicted on this copy. 994 994 139 139 1039 1039 127 127 1223 1223 40 40 U n n a m 149 149 426 426 498 498 e d 669 669 143 143 30 30 31°20'0"N S t r e e t 115 115 126 126 32 32 139 139 224 224 5156 5156 . Excavation, grading, construction Texas St 440 440 527 527 38 38 485 485 138 138 and/or vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline(s) and facilities shown 488 488 County County 160 160 1229 1229 934 934 H&GN RR CO, 8 H&GN RR CO, 8 1176 1176 other owners of pipelines or facilities depicted hereon. 233 233 Unnamed Street Road 386 309 309 5155 5155 304 304 Ranch Road 11 on this copy are prohibited without written permission from Magellan or Road 2600 301 301 116 116 302 302 526 526 931 931 MH SHORT, MH SHORT, 348 348 457 457 Ranch 234 234 1177 1177 137 137 Road 871 , , 733 733 204 204 504 504 162 162 303 303 484 484 820 820 118 118 Magellan Pipeline 438 438 528 528 C C r r a a n n e e 1314 1314 d C C o o. . 1228 1228 H&TC RR CO, 1 H&TC RR CO, 1, , 125 125 226 226 e 227 227 m 1038 1038 228 228 a t 1221 1221 521 521 n e 114 114 n e r t o. . 668 668 U S 138 138 os s C Co 263 263 1325 1325 39 39 H&GN RR CO, 9 H&GN RR CO, 9 co ec 3 5 Tin y Earp Rd 113 113 147 147 1 1 H&TC RR CO, 2 H&TC RR CO, 2 1324 1324 220 220 31 31 978 978 P Pe 0 667 667 262 262 Lake Rd 1 M 112 112 241 241 264 264 130 130 1216 1216 F 8156 8156 111 111 S Exxon Rd 233 233 122 122 Pipeline List with Line ID (This Sheet) 124 124 123 123 55 55 58 58 EAST HOUSTON - EL PASO 314 314 240 240 S Cowden 59 59 Rd 242 242 GC&SF RR CO, X4 GC&SF RR CO, X4 507 507 1311 1311 GALENA PARK - EL PASO STRIP MAP 7/6/2012 102°25'0"W 466 466 1194 1194 PSL, B24 PSL, B24 1195 1195 99999999 99999999 1233 M o b i l e R d Unnamed Street UNIVERSITY LAND, 30 UNIVERSITY LAND, 30 Magellan Pipeline - Inactive Other Magellan Pipeline Other Magellan Pipeline (Inactive) Magellan Pipeline (Retired) Terminal Pump Station Meter Station Pipeline Junction Magellan Tier 1 Pipeline Magellan Tier 2 Pipeline Magellan Tier 3 Pipeline High Consequence Area (HCA) Valve Valve - Check Pipeline Milepost Pipeline Aerial Marker Magellan Facility 6645 Immediate Response Areas (IRA): All Magellan pipelines depicted on this map are considered to be within Immediate Response Areas. State(s): Texas Scale: 1'' = 2 Miles GPEP-20 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9B SUMMARY OF THE LONGHORN MITIGATION PLAN COMMITMENTS <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9B Summary of Longhorn Mitigation Commitments The Proposed Project, as described in Section 3.1, is mitigated to include each of the 40 required Longhorn Mitigation Commitments and additional commitments as required by the Settlement Agreement with the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). These mitigation measures included such items as: enhanced leak detection; enhanced ground surveillance; replacement of selected pipe sections with new and stronger pipe; increased depth of buried sections; enhanced emergency response capability; additional block or check valves and remote operation capability, berms or appropriate containment; and increased integrity verifications. The following is a summary of each of the Longhorn Mitigation Commitments that have been implemented. Item No. 1 Longhorn completed hydrostatic tests of the hypersensitive (Tier 3) and sensitive (Tier 2) areas of the pipeline and those portions of the pipeline identified by the surge pressure analysis as being potentially subject to surge pressures in excess of current maximum allowable surge pressure (MASP). This hydrostatic testing was done in all Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas. The testing was completed prior to the startup of the system. Item No. 2 Longhorn conducted “proof tests” of all portions of the pipeline from the J1 Valve to Crane Station that had not been hydrostatically tested pursuant to Longhorn Mitigation Commitment No. 1. This hydrostatic testing was done in all portions of the pipeline between the J1 valve and Crane Station not tested in Longhorn Mitigation Commitment (LMC) 1. The testing was completed prior to the startup of the system. Item No. 3 Longhorn replaced approximately 19 miles of the existing pipeline over the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones with thick walled pipe; the pipe was buried to a minimum depth of 5 feet (ft) and protected by a concrete barrier. The pipe replacement included a segment over a three-mile reach of the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer (approximately MP 170.42 to MP 173.6), a segment east of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (approximately MP 169.88 to MP 170.42), and across the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone (approximately from MP 173.6 to MP 188.8) to the boundary of the Barton Creek Watershed. This measure was completed prior to startup of the system. Item No. 4 Longhorn performed the following additional cathodic protection (CP) mitigation work: a. Installed 13 additional CP ground beds at the locations described in Mitigation Appendix, Item 4, of the LMP. b. Performed interference testing at 20 locations. 9B-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL c. Replaced a total of 850 feet of coating as identified by the CP survey analysis at the locations described in Mitigation Appendix, Item 4, of the LMP. d. Repaired or replaced all casings identified by the CP survey analysis at the locations described in Mitigation Appendix of LMP, Item 4. These Cathodic Protection enhancements were completed prior to startup of the system. Item No. 5 Longhorn addressed shallow or exposed pipe as 12 locations (including Marble Creek). See Mitigation Appendix, Item 5, in the LMP. Certain sites listed in the LMP occurred within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge and Contributing Zones (see Item No. 3 above) including LPP-2467, LPP 2471, and LPP-2627. The Marble Creek crossing was refurbished and replaced with new pipe. This measure was completed prior to startup. Item No. 6 Longhorn removed stopple fittings at the following locations: Stations Nos. 9071+36, 8936+35, and 8796+99 (MP 171.86, MP 169.25, and MP 166.61). This measure was applied to three locations in the area bounded by MP 166.6 and MP 171.9 and the stopple fitting located at MP 171.81 was incorporated into LMC Item No. 3. This measure was completed prior to startup. Item No. 7 Longhorn replaced pipe at two locations, near Satsuma Station (1821+62, MP 34, 50) and in Waller County (2737+37, MP 21.84), as indicated by the 1995 inline inspection. This measure was completed prior to start up. Item No. 8 Longhorn replaced the pipeline at the Rabb’s Creek crossing and made appropriate repairs at five dent locations identified by the 1995 in-line inspection. This was completed prior to startup. Item No. 9 Longhorn resolved Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure (MASP) issues by hydrostatically testing those portions of the pipeline where surge pressures could be exceeded. This commitment was implemented as part of LMC Item No. 1. Hydrostatic testing of 4 segments of pipeline totaling 81.6 miles, including all Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas which was completed prior to startup of the system. Item No. 10 Longhorn conducted an in-line inspection (including remediation) of the existing pipeline (Valve J1 to Crane) with a transverse field magnetic flux inspection tool as described by the Longhorn Pipeline System Integrity Plan (SIP) (Section 3.5.2) and the associated Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) (Section 4.0). Complete. Item No. 11 Longhorn conducted an in-line inspection (including remediation) of the existing pipeline (Valve J1 to Crane) with a high resolution magnetic flux leakage tool as described by the Longhorn 9B-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Pipeline System Integrity Plan (SIP) (Section 3.5.2) and the associated Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) (Section 4.0). Complete. Item No. 12 Longhorn conducted an in-line inspection (including remediation) of the existing pipeline (Valve J1 to Crane) with an ultrasonic wall measurement tool to verify wall thickness as described by the SIP (Section 3.5.2 and the associated ORA (Section 4.0). Complete. Item No. 12A Longhorn conducted an in-line inspection (including remediation) of the existing pipeline (Valve J1 to Crane) with a “smart” geometry inspection tool as described by the Longhorn Pipeline SIP (Section 3.5.2) and the associated ORA at Section 4.0. Complete. Item No. 13 Longhorn installed an enhanced leak detection and control system at selected locations along the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the Slaughter Creek watershed (within the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone). The detection system consists of a buried hydrocarbon sensing cable capable of detecting a leak of extremely minute volume of product. The pipeline system is designed to achieve emergency shut down within five minutes of a probable leak indication. Construction complete with ongoing maintenance and calibration. Item No. 14 Longhorn conducted close interval pipe to soil potential surveys to survey (a) hypersensitive areas, and (b) pipeline segments which were not surveyed by the 1998 close interval survey [Station Nos. 10753+40 – 10811+06 (MP 203.66 – MP 204.75), 8897+60 – 8945+40 (MP 168.52 – MP 169.42), and 1729+24 – 1734+81 (MP 32.75 – MP 32.86)], and remediated corrosion related conditions identified by the surveys. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 4 (Areas 12, 13 and 15) and the Longhorn Pipeline System Integrity Plan, Section 3.5.1. Follow-up close interval surveys have been completed. Item No. 15 Longhorn performed an engineering analysis to verify that all pipeline spans were adequately supported and protected from external loading. The engineering analysis and any remediation have been completed. Item No. 16 Longhorn removed all encroachments along the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) that could reasonably obstruct prompt access to the pipeline for routine or emergency repair activities or that could reasonably be expected to hinder leak detection or other problems. Encroachments were identified in Travis County between MP 164 and MP 168. These and other potential encroachments are evaluated using the guidelines found in Section 3.5.5, Encroachment Procedures of the Longhorn Pipeline System Integrity Plan. Complete. Item No. 17 9B-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Longhorn maintains a clear right-of-way (ROW encroachments shall be resolved by Longhorn pursuant to Mitigation Commitment 16). See Mitigation Appendix, Item 17. The ROW was cleared prior to startup, and is continuously maintained. Item No. 18 Longhorn shall inspect and repair or replace, as necessary, 26 locations identified by Williams (WES) in its risk assessment model as areas requiring further investigation. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 18. This measure has been completed and all 26 areas addressed. Item No. 19 Longhorn has performed studies evaluating each of the following matters along the pipeline, and has implemented the recommendations of such studies in accordance with the Longhorn Pipeline SIP and the ORA: a. Stress corrosion cracking potential along the pipeline; b. Scour, erosion, and flood potential; c. Seismic activity; d. Ground movement, subsidence, and aseismic faulting; e. Landslide potential; f. Soil stress; and g. Root cause analysis on all historical leaks and repairs along the pipeline. These studies were completed prior to startup of the system. Item No. 20 Longhorn conducts patrols of the ROW within hypersensitive and sensitive areas at a minimum frequency of every 2.5 days, daily in the Edwards Aquifer area, and weekly in all other areas. See the Longhorn Pipeline SIP (Section 3.5.4). Ongoing. Item No. 21 Longhorn conducts patrols of pump stations in sensitive and hypersensitive areas at a minimum frequency of every 2.5 days. Additionally, remote cameras for monitoring pump stations were installed within six months of startup for existing stations and at future stations prior to startup. Complete. Item No. 22 Based on study results, Longhorn installed additional check valves at the following river and stream crossings: Marble Creek; Onion Creek; Long Branch; Barton Creek; Fitzhugh Creek; Flat Creek; Cottonwood Creek; Hickory Creek; White Oak Creek; Crabapple Creek; Squaw Creek; Threadgill Creek; and James River. Complete. Item No. 23 Longhorn has established a response center in South Austin which includes available response equipment and personnel such that under normal conditions, a maximum two hour, full response can be assured. See Mitigation Appendix, Items 23, 24 and 26. (Items 23, 24, and 26 9B-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL are grouped under the heading "Enhanced Facility Response Plan" in the Mitigation Appendix). Response resources have been developed at several locations to assure attainment of the proposed response times. Response personnel and equipment are in place. Item No. 24 Longhorn has revised its Facilities Response Plan to better address firefighting outside of metropolitan areas (Houston, Austin, and El Paso) where HAZMAT units do not exist. See Mitigation Appendix, Items 23, 24, and 26. (Items 23, 24, and 26 are grouped under the heading "Enhanced Facility Response Plan" in the Mitigation Appendix). Training of selected volunteer Fire Department personnel that are staging emergency response equipment trailers and enhanced Facility Response plans have been completed. Item No. 25 Longhorn has developed enhanced public education/damage prevention programs to, inter alia, (a) ensure awareness among contractors and potentially affected public, (b) promote cooperation in protecting the pipeline and (c) to provide information to affected communities with regard to detection of and responses to well water contamination. See the Longhorn Pipeline System Integrity Plan, Section 3.5.4. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 25. These programs were developed prior to startup and have been implemented continuously thereafter. Item No. 26 Longhorn has revised its Facility Response Plan to include more detailed response planning for areas adjacent to the pipeline ROW which have high populations of potentially sensitive receptors. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 23, 24 and 26. (Items 23, 24 and 26 are grouped under the heading "Enhanced Facility Response Plan" in the Mitigation Appendix.). The revised and enhanced Facility Response Plan was developed prior to startup. Item No. 27 Longhorn installed secondary containment at the Cedar Valley pump station in Hays County. Item No. 28 Longhorn shall revise its Facility Response Plan, if necessary, to make it consistent, to the extent practicable, with the City of Austin’s Barton Springs oil spill contingency plan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 28. The Longhorn Facility Response Plan will be made consistent with the response plans of the city and the USFWS prior to startup or as soon as these latter plans have been developed. Complete to the extent possible. Item No. 29 Longhorn has developed a routine monitoring program, including internal reporting procedures, for 12 streams crossings of the pipeline to determine the presence of gasoline constituents (See Mitigation Appendix, Item 29). Background sampling has been completed. This measure was implemented prior to the time of the project startup. The monitoring program was scheduled to be conducted for two years and has expired. 9B-5 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Item No. 30 Longhorn has made provisions to provide alternate water supplies to certain municipalities and private well users as detailed in Longhorn’s contingency plans. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 30. The contingency plan was developed prior project startup and updated every five years. Ongoing. Item No. 31 Longhorn performs a surge pressure analysis prior to any change in the system that has the capacity to cause surge pressure to occur on the system. Longhorn will be required to submit mitigation measures acceptable to DOT prior to any such change in the system, which mitigation measures will adequately address any MASP problems on the system identified by the surge pressure analysis. A surge pressure analysis is performed prior to any change in the system that has the capability of changing the surge pressure profile. Ongoing. Item No. 32 Longhorn performs pipe-to-soil potential surveys semiannually over sensitive and hypersensitive areas (which is twice the frequency required by DOT regulations – 49 CFR §195.416), and implements corrective measures, as necessary, where indicated by the surveys. See Longhorn Pipeline SIP (Section 3.5.1). This measure was initiated within six months of the project startup and implementation is part of the SIP. Ongoing. Item No. 33 (a) Longhorn has provided the necessary funding to establish an adequate refugium and captive breeding program for the Barton Springs Salamander, to offset any losses that might occur in the highly unlikely event of a release that caused the loss of individual salamanders. This program will be conducted in coordination with the Austin Ecological Services Field Office of the USFWS; and (b) Longhorn has implemented conservation measures developed in consultation with the USFWS to mitigate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species in the highly unlikely event that future pipeline construction activities and operation may adversely affect such species or their habitat. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 33. a. Will be completed within 30 days of startup b. These measures will be implemented any time that pipeline construction or operating activities could have an adverse effect on listed species or on their habitat. These requirements are complete unless construction or operating activities could have an adverse effect on listed species or on their habitat. Item No. 34 Longhorn has implemented system changes, through system and equipment modification and/or observance of operating practices, to limit surge pressures to no more than MOP in sensitive and in hypersensitive areas. Such system changes included (a) replacement of the pipe at the following locations: 6752+06 – 6758+40 (MP 127.88 – MP 128.00) and 10489+47 – 9B-6 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10490+00 (MP 198.66 – MP 198.67) and (b) installation of pressure activated by-pass systems at the Brazos, Colorado, Pedernales, and Llano rivers. In addition, Longhorn replaced a 671 ft section of pipe [Station Nos. 16992+41 – 16999+12 (MP 321.83 – MP 321.95)] which contains several shorter sections of pipe previously characterized as Grade B. See Mitigation Appendix, Item 34 and LMC 9. These system changes were implemented prior to startup and thereafter. Item No. 35 Longhorn will not transport products through the pipeline system which contain the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) or similar aliphatic ether additives (e.g., TAME, ETBE, and DIPE) in greater than trace amounts. This limitation will be incorporated into the Longhorn product specifications. This commitment is made for the duration of the operation of the pipeline. Complete. Item No. 36 Longhorn will prepare site-specific environmental studies for each new pump station planned for construction. These studies shall be responsive to National Environmental Policy Act requirements as supplements to the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Longhorn pipeline system. For each pump station, Longhorn shall submit the site-specific environmental study to DOT no less than 180 days prior to commencement of construction. These studies will be implemented prior to construction of any pump station not included in the 1999 EA of the proposed Longhorn pipeline system. Additional pump stations were not constructed after the 1999 EA. New pump stations required for the Proposed Project are included in the FEA. Item No. 37 Longhorn shall maintain pollution legal liability insurance of no less than $15 million to cover on- site and off-site third-party claims for bodily injury, property damage, and costs of response and cleanup in the event of a release of product from the System. The insurance will be in place prior to startup and will remain in place for the life of the project. Complete and Ongoing. Item No. 38 Longhorn will submit periodic reports to DOT that will include information about the status of mitigation commitment, implementation, the character of interim developments, and results of any mitigation-related studies and analyses. The reports should also summarize developments related to its ORA. These reports will be available to the public. This measure was performed quarterly for the first 2 years of system operation and annually thereafter for the operational life of the pipeline system. Complete and Ongoing. Item No. 39 9B-7 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Any changes or modifications proposed by Magellan to the Longhorn Mitigation Plan shall be for the purpose of adapting to changing technology and circumstances while maintaining equivalence to those adopted by Longhorn at the startup of its pipeline. Proposed changes or modifications to the LMP along with Longhorn’s justifications therefore shall be made available to the public (and the mayors of Houston, Austin, and El Paso, and the General Manager of the LCRA) at the time it is submitted to DOT for approval and written concurrence. This measure will be implemented for the operational life of the pipeline system. Ongoing. Item No. 40 Longhorn will monitor the river gauge at the Pedernales River to anticipate the possibility of a flood event. When the river stage reaches 100,000 cfs at the gauge, Longhorn will immediately shut down the pipeline until the river has receded below the action level (100,000 cfs) at the gauge. Magellan personnel shall inspect the pipeline to determine whether it is safe before resuming pipeline operations. This measure will be implemented for the operational life of the pipeline system. Ongoing. The LCRA Settlement Agreement as part of the Longhorn Mitigation Plan included several requirements, most of which were completed prior to startup, with the following two exceptions: Item No. 1 In addition to the LMP Item No. 3, Magellan will replace approximately six miles of existing pipeline in the Pedernales watershed that is characterized as having a time of travel for a spill from Lake Travis of eight hours or less. Pipeline segments having this characteristic are approximately as follows: Segment 1 – 9968+64 to 10057+00, Segment 2 – 10107+00 to 10142+00, Segment 3 – 10179+00 to 10209+00, Segment 4 – 10275+00 to 10375+00, and Segment 5 – 10459+00 to 10509+00. Segment 5 crossing the Pedernales River was completed prior to pipeline start up. Horizontal directional drill construction methods were used to install the section of pipe under the Pedernales River. Segments 1-4 will be replaced as determined by the SIP and ORA, but in any case no later than seven years from the startup date. (Note: the replacement of pipeline in Segments 1-4 is being constructed as this document is being prepared. Item No. 3C An Operational Reliability Assessment must be performed by an independent third party approved by OPS and results/recommendations reported to OPS/Publicly posted. Recommendations must be implemented as written by third party. This is an ongoing process. 9B-8 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9C VALVE LOCATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT <<>> APPENDIX 9C VALVE LOCATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT Longhorn Milepost Valve Type Valve Location 1.78 Remotely Operated Block Valve MOV 106 Holland Ave. - Outgoing Line "A" 5.34 Manual Block Valve GS2 (Wallisville Rd.) 9.47 Remotely Operated Block Valve MOV 231 - East Houston Term. 9.47 Remotely Operated Block Valve MOV 233 - East Houston Term. - Outgoing 2.36 Remotely Operated Block Valve MOV 237 - East Houston Term. - Incoming 2.36 Remotely Operated Block Valve MOV 235 - East Houston Term. 7.46 Manual Block Valve GS3 (S. Side Caddo St.) 11.98 Remotely Operated Block Valve GS5 (Mesa Rd./FM 527) 21.20 Remotely Operated Block Valve GS6 (Sweetwater Lane) 34.09 Remotely Operated Block Valve GS7 34.10 Remotely Operated Block Valve Satsuma Station - Incoming 34.14 Motor Operated Block Valve Satsuma Station - Outgoing 34.14 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE1 39.25 Gate Valve 63.78 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE2 (E. Side Brazos River) 64.08 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE3 (W. Side Brazos River) 112.89 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE4 112.90 Motor Operated Block Valve G2 Warda Station - Incoming 112.90 Manual Block Valve G7 Warda Station - Outgoing 112.96 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE5 133.87 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE6 (E. Side Colorado River) 135.51 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE7 (W. Side Colorado River) 139.34 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV8 (SH 304) 141.80 Remotely Operated Block Valve Bastrop Incoming Trap 141.80 Remotely Operated Block Valve Bastrop Incoming Trap 141.80 Pressure Control Valve Bastrop Pressure Control Valve 141.81 Remotely Operated Block Valve Bastrop Outgoing Trap 141.81 Remotely Operated Block Valve Bastrop Outgoing Trap 148.26 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV9 (FM 535) 166.67 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE8 (US Hwy 81) 171.53 Remotely Operated Block Valve Sendera Mesa Drive (Austin Aquifer) 172.29 Remotely Operated Block Valve Beckett Rd. (Austin Aquifer) 174.94 Remotely Operated Block Valve Silver Mtn. Rd. (Austin Aquifer) 175.51 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE9 Ramble 3 St. (Austin Aquifer) 177.13 Remotely Operated Block Valve US Hwy 290 (Austin Aquifer) 181.60 Remotely Operated Block Valve Cedar Valley - Incoming 181.65 Motor Operated Block Valve Cedar Valley - Outgoing 181.65 Manual Block Valve SE10 185.88 Remotely Operated Block Valve Fitzhugh Creek (Austin Aquifer) 9C-1 <<>> Longhorn Milepost Valve Type Valve Location 186.48 Remotely Operated Block Valve Oak Forest Drive (Austin Aquifer) 192.45 Manual Block Valve SE10A (E. Side Flat Creek) 192.45 Check Valve Check Valve (E. Side Flat Creek) 194.35 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV10 Ulrich Rd. 198.64 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE11 (E. Side Pedernales River) 198.97 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE12 (W. Side Pedernales River) 199.58 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV4 (W. Side Pedernales River 203.46 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV5 (Cypress Mill Rd.) 211.90 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE13 (Between Hickory/White Oak CKS.) 211.98 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV6 (Between Hickory/White Oak CKS.) 216.61 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV7 (W. Side White Oak Creek) 227.90 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE14 227.93 Manual Block Valve G2 Eckert - Incoming 227.94 Manual Block Valve G7 Eckert - Outgoing 228.02 Manual Block Valve SE15 276.46 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE16 (E. Side Llano River, Sta. No. 181) 276.83 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE17 (W. Side Llano River, Sta. No. 181) 280.95 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV12 (Us Hwy 377) 282.59 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV13 288.91 Manual Block Valve SE18 (CR 370) 295.19 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE19 Kimble Station 295.19 Check CV1 295.21 Manual Block Valve SE20 295.21 Remotely Operated Block Valve Cedar Valley Trap 321.95 Check Valve Ft. McKavett 321.95 Manual Block Valve SE21 324.68 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV14 (CR 245) 341.74 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV15 (W. Side Antelope Draw) 346.65 Remotely Operated Block Valve CV16 (FM 190) 358.70 Manual Block Valve SE22 373.44 Manual Block Valve SE23 Incoming (Formerly Big Lake, Sta. No. 179) 373.45 Manual Block Valve SE24 Outgoing (Formerly Big Lake, Sta. No. 179) 416.63 Manual Block Valve SE25 (SH 1555) 457.54 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE26 Crane Station 457.54 Motor Operated Block Valve Crane Station - Incoming 457.55 Motor Operated Block Valve Crane Station - Outgoing 457.55 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE27 492.26 Manual Block Valve SE26A (FM 1219) 523.63 Manual Block Valve SE27A (CR 170) 526.17 Manual Block Valve SE28 (FM 1216) 526.17 Buried Check SE28 (FM 1216) 9C-2 <<>> Longhorn Milepost Valve Type Valve Location 528.06 Lever Lock Check W. Side US Hwy 285 555.10 Manual Block Valve SE29 (CR 222) 576.32 Fire Gate SE30 Cottonwood Sta. 576.33 Manual Block Valve G3 Cottonwood Station - Incoming 576.33 Manual Block Valve G9 Cottonwood Station - Outgoing 576.33 Remotely Operated Block Valve SE31 Cottonwood Station 607.10 Manual Block Valve SE32 (SH54) 638.86 Manual Block Valve SE33 (FM 1111) 668.37 Manual Block Valve SE34 694.41 Motor Operated Block Valve SE35 - El Paso Terminal 694.41 Remotely Operated Block Valve EOL - El Paso Terminal 9C-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9D PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM <<>> TO TANKAGE FROM WARDA STA. MOP 1012 MOP 786 NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FROM BASTROP STA. MOP 1012 MOP 965 NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. TO SATSUMA STA. MOP 1012 <<>> FROM CEDAR VALLEY STA. MOP 1012 MOP 1012 TO WARDA STA. NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FROM ECKERT STA. MOP 959 MOP 1012 TO BASTROP STA. NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FROM KIMBLE CO. STA. MOP 959 MOP 959 TO CEDAR VALLEY STA. NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FROM BARNHART STA. MOP 1012 MOP 959 TO ECKERT STA. MOP 953 MOP 1012 NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FROM CRANE STA. MOP 953 TO FORT McKAVETT STA. MOP 1034 MOP 953 NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> MOP 1034 TO FORT McKAVETT STA. NOTES: 1. Per the surge analysis, the maximum surge pressure does not exceed the calculated Maximum Operating Pressure as determined in 49CFR195 based on the mitigations installed to control surge pressure. 2. Locations with Pressure Reversal Switches (PRS) include a pressure transmitter & communication to the station PLC & the RTV. <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 9E REFERENCED PROCEDURES OF THE 2012 MAGELLAN SIP <<>> APPENDIX 9E Referenced Procedures of the Magellan 2012 SIP CHAPTER 9: SIP‐ADM 4.01 SIP‐ADM 7.01‐001 SIP‐ADM 7.03 SIP‐ADM 7.04 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐001 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐002 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐006 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐015 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐016 SIP‐ADM 7.04‐023 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐002 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐003 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐009 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐012 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐020 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐031 SIP‐ADM 7.05‐039 SIP‐ADM 7.06 SIP‐ADM 7.06 – Section 1 (IMP) SIP‐ADM 7.06 – Section 2 (IMP) SIP‐ADM 7.06 – Section 6 (IMP) SIP‐ADM 7.13 SIP‐ADM 7.13‐013 SIP‐ADM 8.01 SIP‐ADM 10.01 <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–4.01 Project Management 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 1 of 4 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 The objective of this initiative is to describe the process used to manage projects. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Project Management initiative applies to the development, design, project management, construction, commissioning, and post project performance assessment of new and modified assets. Non‐complex repairs and like‐kind replacements are generally excluded from this initiative. 2.2 The assets that comprise the Galena Park to El Paso pipeline, Crane to Odessa Pipeline and the associated facilities are covered by the Mitigation Plan. 2.2.1 The Mitigation Plan places specific requirements in addition to applicable Federal, State and Local regulations, Company SIP requirements, Company guidelines, process, or best practices. Refer to the Mitigation Plan for those requirements. 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The Project Sponsor shall: 3.1.1 Notify Legal and the Director of Environmental, Health, Safety and Security of any new type of business or operation involving Company assets upon discovery to determine if there are regulatory, permitting, or licensing requirements for construction or operation of new or modified assets. 3.1.2 Review and approve the Definitive Project Plan and the Authorization for Expenditure (AFE). 3.1.3 Advise management of project deviations that impact cost, timing, or functionality, and obtain approvals in accordance with the Company’s Delegation of Authority policy. 3.1.4 Obtain Supplemental AFE approvals in accordance with Magellan’s AFE Policy. 3.2 The Project Manager shall: 3.2.1 Utilize the applicable Company Standards (Design and Construction) List on all projects. 3.2.2 If deviation from a Company standard is desired, consult and obtain approval from the Subject Matter Expert (SME), as designated in the Company Standards (Design and Construction) List on and the Director of Engineering and Construction or Director of 3.2.3 3.2.4 Asset Integrity prior to proceeding. Require design drawings be reviewed and stamped by a Professional Engineer who is appropriately licensed if: 3.2.3.1 Required by any local, state or federal code or law. 3.2.3.2 Required by contract. 3.2.3.3 Required by Project Manager or Project Sponsor. Prepare and obtain approval on a Definitive Project Plan prior to AFE submittal. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–4.01 Project Management 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 2 of 4 NOTE: The Definitive Project Plan includes the Objective, Description, Cost Estimate and Basis, Schedule, OBS, Risks, and Core Project Team and Project Sponsor Approvals. 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 Comply with the Environmental Aspects of Project Management Procedure. Engage with appropriate Environmental SME(s) as required during the project and prior to each of the following milestones: Permit Submittal, Start of Design, Start of Construction and Start Up. Comply with the Project Final Checkout Scheduling Guideline as soon as the AFE is signed. Provide quality control during construction activities to ensure compliance with industry codes, government regulations and Company standards. Select on‐site inspectors in accordance with the Contract Inspector Selection Matrix as applicable or necessary. 3.2.9 For PSM/RMP projects, validate and document that new and modified equipment are designed, installed, tested, and operated in accordance with design specifications and manufacturer’s instructions. Validate and document that associated maintenance materials, spare parts, and equipment are suitable for the process application. Place these documented validations and other PSM/RMP documentation in the local PSM/RMP files (or manual). Utilize the Documentation Checklist for New PSM/RMP Facilities as a guideline for identifying the required PSM/RMP documents. 3.2.10 3.2.11 Manage project costs and provide updates to the Core Project Team and Project Sponsor on anticipated deviations in costs, schedule and scope deviations in advance of their occurrence. Obtain approvals using the Project Change Document for deviations in the Definitive Project Plan that result in more than a $10,000 or a five percent increase in the total 3.2.12 3.2.13 3.2.14 3.2.15 3.2.16 AFE. Notify the Project Sponsor when the forecast of AFE expenditures exceeds the currently approved AFE amount by $100,000 or when the forecast of AFE expenditures is greater than $10,000 and 15% of the currently approved AFE amount. Submit cost estimates for Supplemental AFEs as requested by the Project Sponsor. Obtain Company approvals for service contract revisions (typically an RFS) when the sum of accumulated changes exceeds $100,000, or when the sum of accumulated changes is greater than $10,000 and 15% of the currently approved service contract. 3.2.14.1 Compare labor rates for specific RFS contracts with the rates in the contractor’s current Master Service Agreement (MSA). If those rates exceed rates established in the MSA, then obtain written approval from the next level of Management. Prepare and submit the Notice of Completion Form to Property Accounting when the project is mechanically complete, placed into service, or determined to be ready for service. Provide project documentation to Operations and the Asset Integrity Record Coordinator upon project completion. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–4.01 Project Management 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 3 of 4 3.2.17 3.2.18 3.2.16.1 Provide copies of all project governmental and regulatory permits to local operations and to Project Support to post on Livelink. Solicit Stakeholder input on whether a Post Project Assessment Survey should be conducted for projects that require a Supplemental AFE or that exceed $500,000 in total costs. Summarize the Stakeholder input and submit to the Core Project Team and Project Sponsor. Conduct a Post Project Assessment Survey for projects completed in excess of 3.3 3.4 $10,000,000, or as requested by the Core Project Team. The Project Management Element Owner shall: 3.3.1 Maintain the Project Life Cycle Process (PLC) Reference Materials. The Core Project Team shall: 3.4.1 3.4.2 Determine if the Post Project Assessment Survey should be conducted for Projects less Review and approve the Definitive Project Plan and the AFE. than $10,000,000. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–4.01 Project Management 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 4 of 4 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Location Brief Description of Change 1/1/05 3.1.6 Added PSM requirements including Note Box 1/1/06 SIP‐ADM‐4.01 Reviewed, no changes 04‐FORM‐4020 and 4030 Reviewed, no changes 2.1 Added post project assessment 3.1. 3.3, 3.4 added 1/1/07 3.2 Deleted PLC standard, modified Company Standards List standards, added 3.2.8 – 3.2.14 01/01/07 OBJ and DESCRIP reworded 1/17/07 3.2.10 Added more specific requirements for supplemental AFE. 1/25/07 3.2.10 Added “Company” to clarify that the approval is internal. 1/1/09 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1.3.1, 3.2.5 added 12/31/09 3.2.8 revised 12/31/09 3.2.11.1 added 12/31/09 All Annual review complete with the change above 12/31/10 All Annual review complete with the changes listed below. 12/31/10 3.2.5 Created an additional process for Environmental review of projects. 12/31/10 3.2.12, 3.2.13 Separated supplemental AFEs and service contract revisions into 2 standard s to clarify the role of the project sponsor for AFE supplements. 12/31/10 2.2, 2.2.1 Added Reference to Mitigation Plan in E4. 2.1 Added note to further define application of project management initiative. 3.2.1, 3.2.2 Updated link to point directly to the “Company Standards List” instead of E&C website. 3.2.2 Added “Director of Asset Integrity” as option for deviation approval. 12/31/11 3.2.4 Updated to reflect current process of Definitive Project Plan required for AFE submittal. 3.2.12 Removed 2nd half of requirement 3.1.4 Added per AFE policy 3.2.13 added 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 1 of 16 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized method for identification, analysis and repair of pipeline defects when necessary. 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 General 2.1.1 Exceptions—This procedure may not apply to the following conditions: 2.1.1.1 Emergency situations such as a major pipeline release 2.1.1.2 Threaded piping 2.2 Defect assessment, RSTRENG Analysis of Corrosion or KAPA, Nondestructive Testing, Maintenance Welding, Coating Application, and installation of repairs (e.g., clamps, composite repairs) are Covered Tasks. 2.3 Welding on lines that are under internal pressure (live line welding) shall be done in accordance with Company welding procedures and practices. Refer to Specification 101, Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines). 2.4 Precautions 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 2.4.7 2.4.8 2.4.9 All exposed bell and spigot girth welds shall be reinforced by means of sleeving If needed (when pipe is not resting on the ground) the pipe should be adequately supported prior to backfilling. Consideration should be given to using dirt plugs or sandbags at spacing intervals not to exceed 20 feet particularly in areas where additional weight has been applied by installation of sleeving. All exposed girth welds (including bell and spigot joints) shall be supported (supports to be placed on each side of the girth weld not to exceed 5 feet) via sandbags or equivalent settlement resistant supports prior to backfilling. Pipeline defects discovered through integrity tests such as in-line inspections (ILI), pressure test, and routine maintenance shall be assessed and repaired, in a timely and consistent manner utilizing and complying with Company procedures, industry standards and applicable regulations (DOT 195.452) and recommended practices. Pipeline defects (including general or localized corrosion) confirmed through actual field findings (not reported by ILI tool) that meet the criteria of a pressure reducing defect shall be repaired immediately. Upon discovery, a pressure and or rate reduction, or line shutdown shall be considered. Pipeline defects not repaired by means of full encirclement sleeving and or pipe replacement should be non-destructively tested prior to recoating. All repairs are made in a safe manner and are made so as to prevent damage to persons or property and to comply with DOT 195.422. All materials used for repairs or replacement such as sleeves, pipe, fittings, and valves shall meet the minimum design requirements of the asset. Ensure that the site and/or bell hole are safe, prior to and during pipeline excavation activities. For specific guidelines to trenching, refer to the Excavation Safety Procedure. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 2 of 16 2.5 2.6 2.4.10 Determine if the coating contains asbestos, before authorizing or allowing any pipeline coating removal. Refer to the Asbestos Performance Procedure. 2.4.11 If the defect appears to be associated with product loss (leaking), take appropriate measures as indicated by the Emergency Response Plans to shut the line in or reduce the pressure in the pipeline to a safe pressure based on the preliminary evaluation, feature site and pipeline operation information. 2.4.12 When cleaning pipe (i.e. sand blasting or power brushing) for preparation of evaluating, repairing, or coating pipeline defects exercise extreme care as actual depth of defect may be greater than reported or predicted. To ensure safe work practices lightly clean pipe until it is evident that sufficient remaining wall exist to allow thorough cleaning of the defect. Review and Perform the Following General Steps For Evaluation of All Defects 2.5.1 Upon completion of the excavation, photograph the repair site prior to removing the coating. 2.5.2 Prepare the site and pipeline for a detailed evaluation of the defect after it has been determined it is safe to work on or near the pipeline. This includes removing cover to fully expose the pipe, coating removal and appropriately cleaning the feature to be evaluated in order to make detailed measurements of the feature and to determine the type of defect. 2.5.3 Document all defect information on Pipeline Maintenance Report. 2.5.4 Visually determine the type of defect then use the appropriate part of this procedure, listed below, to assist with feature evaluation and the recommended repair options. Refer to Table 1 for a detailed listing of repair options. Under special circumstances, the Manager of Asset Integrity can approve deviations from the approved/preferred repair methods listed in Table 1. 2.5.4.1 Corrosion—Paragraph 2.6 2.5.4.2 Pipe body gouges and/or mill defects—Paragraph 2.7 2.5.4.3 Dents and Dents with associated gouges/stress risers—Paragraph 2.8 2.5.4.4 Arc Burns—Paragraph 2.9 2.5.4.5 Weld Defects—Paragraph 2.10 2.5.4.6 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)—Paragraph 2.11 2.5.4.7 Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC)‐ Paragraph 2.10 2.5.4.8 Hard Spots—Paragraph 2.14 2.5.4.9 Buckling—Paragraph 2.15 2.5.4.10 Cracks‐ Long Seam and Pipe Body‐ Paragraph 2.13 Evaluate and Select Repair Options For Corrosion 2.6.1 After carefully reviewing the corrosion footprint or characteristics, clean the area suitably to aid in the evaluation of the corrosion. When cleaning pipe (i.e. sand blasting or power brushing) for preparation of evaluating, repairing, or coating pipeline defects exercise extreme care as actual depth of defect may be greater <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 3 of 16 2.7 2.8 2.9 than reported or predicted. To ensure safe work practices lightly clean pipe until it is evident that sufficient remaining wall exist to allow thorough cleaning of the defect. 2.6.2 If determined necessary, measure the length (in the longitudinal direction) and determine the depth of the deepest pitting within a corroded area or a segment of that area. The corrosion analysis criterion for RSTRENG or KAPA requires division of the pitted area into segments of consistent predetermined lengths and measurement of the maximum depths within each segment. Refer to RSTRENG Analysis of Corrosion Procedure for details. 2.6.3 Refer to Paragraph 2.18 of this procedure for corrosion repair methods and options. 2.6.4 Notify Asset Integrity for assistance with repair options when internal corrosion is found or suspected. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Pipe Body Gouges and/or Mill Defects 2.7.1 Measure the defect circumferential width, length and depth at the deepest point and several other points along its length. Measure the angle, when applicable, of the defect relative to the run of the pipeline. 2.7.2 Refer to Table 1 of this procedure for gouges, pipe body and/or mill defects repair methods and options. 2.7.3 If the repair is made by removing the defect by means of sanding/grinding, upon completion, the area shall be nondestructively inspected to ensure that a stress riser, stress concentration, crack or other injurious defect does not exist prior recoating the area. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Dents 2.8.1 Measure the dent area (the length, circumference and depth at the deepest point). Examine the bottom of the dent for scratches, gouges, grooves, metal loss or heavily work-hardened material. Measure scratch, gouge, groove or metal loss, if present, length and depth at the deepest point along its length. 2.8.2 (Reference Section, when required for use with Table 1) Any dent that exceeds 2% or 0.250” in NPS < 12”, with or without visible metal loss, shall be repaired with a Type B sleeve. Dents 2% or less in NPS <12” that are proven by nondestructive inspection that a stress riser, stress concentration, crack or other injurious defect does not exist within the dent may be recoated. 2.8.3 Refer to Paragraph 2.18 of this procedure for dent repair methods and options. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Arc Burns NOTE: IF THE ARC BURN IS ON A NEW LINE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE ARC BURN SHALL BE REMOVED AS A CYLINDER, PER THE ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. 2.10 2.9.1 2.9.2 Examine arc burns for cracking and depth. Refer to Specification 101: Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines) Paragraph 7.0 and Paragraph 2.18 of this procedure for arc burn repair methods and options. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Weld Defects <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 4 of 16 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.10.1 Examine weld defects visually in accordance with Specification 100, Construction and Fabrication of Pipelines and Related Piping Systems and Specification 101, Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines). Evaluate welds that have been X-rayed in accordance with latest approved API specification. 2.10.2 Repair all in-service joint welds in accordance with Specification 101 – Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines). This will usually require the use of a small Type B repair sleeve commonly called a “wedding band”. 2.10.3 The only repair allowed on a long-seam weld is grinding or sanding to remove surface defects that do not exceed 12.5% (reference 2.5.3) of the parent metal wall thickness. Repair all other weld defects by installing a full encirclement Type B repair sleeve or cutting out a cylinder of pipe and replacing it with new pipe. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Lamination defects 2.11.1 Examine pipe for Lamination by non destructive testing of the surface in the area of concern. 2.11.2 Document the length, orientation, proximity to seam and girth weld if relevant, and note additional interactive features (metal loss, cracks, dents, etc.), if applicable note sloping, bulging, surface breaking, and blistering. 2.11.3 2.11.4 Repairs will be made in accordance with section 2.15. Inspect the full circumference of the pipeline where the sleeve ends are to be welded to the pipeline using an ultrasonic thickness instrument and/or a magnetic particle inspection technique. Ensure there are no surface cracks, laminations or thin wall that could affect the integrity of the defect, weld, or sleeve. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) 2.12.1 Examine pipe for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) by non destructive testing and or magnetic particle inspection of the surface in the area of concern. Document the findings with photographs when possible or draw a sketch showing the area affected by cracking. Document the length, density, spacing and general location of the cracks relative to other surface conditions such as longitudinal and joint welds. 2.12.2 Notify Asset Integrity for assistance with repair options when SCC is found or suspected. 2.12.3 If SCC is discovered on Assets covered by the mitigation plan, refer to the ORA process manual decision tree prior to evaluating and repairing. 2.12.4 Document whether or Not SCC was discovered on Pipeline Maintenance Report. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC) 2.13.1 Examine pipe for Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC) by evaluating the longitudinal seam weld for localized corrosion located along the bond line of low frequency electric resistance welding (LR-ERW) and Electric Flash Welding (EFW) piping, that leads to the development of a wedge shaped groove that is often filled with corrosion products. Document the findings with photographs when possible or draw a sketch showing the area affected by selective seam corrosion. 2.13.2 Notify Asset Integrity for assistance with repair options when SSC is found or suspected. 2.13.3 Document whether or Not SSC was discovered on the Pipeline Maintenance Report. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 5 of 16 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Hard Spots 2.14.1 Measure hard spot area (the length and circumference) and map the hardness using calibrated portable testing equipment. 2.14.2 Measure the hardness and make a sketch showing the hardness distribution. Use the following criteria when evaluating hard spots: Repair all hard spots when the maximum hardness exceeds Rockwell C 35. Refer to Paragraph 2.18 of this procedure for hard spot repair methods and options. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Buckling/Ripples/Wrinkles 2.15.1 Notify Asset Integrity for assistance with repair criteria and repair methods and options. 2.15.2 Refer to Paragraph 2.15 of this procedure for buckling repair methods and options. Evaluate and Select Repair Options for Long Seam and Pipe Body Cracks 2.16.1 Examine pipe for cracking by non-destructive testing and magnetic particle inspection of the surface in the area of concern. Document the findings with photographs when possible or draw a sketch showing the area affected by cracking. Document the length, density, spacing and general location of the cracks relative to other surface conditions such as longitudinal and joint welds. 2.16.2 Refer to Table 1 of this procedure for crack in pipe body or weld seam for repair methods and options. Repair Methods and Options for Features or Defects 2.17.1 Refer to the chart below for evaluating repair options. Under special circumstances, the Manager of Asset Integrity can approve deviations from the approved/preferred repair methods listed in the following chart. Table 1 Repair Method Re-Coat Defect Type Grind /Sand Type “A” Type “B” Bolt On Composite Cut Out HCA Immediate Condition Metal loss >80% (external) Assets Covered by Mitigation Plan >70% N N N X T N O Metal loss >80% (internal) Assets Covered by Mitigation Plan >70% N N N O T N X PBURST < PDPP at location of anomaly (external) N N O X T O O PBURST < PDPP at location of anomaly (internal) N N N X T N O <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 6 of 16 Repair Method Re-Coat Defect Type Grind /Sand Type “A” Type “B” Bolt On Composite Cut Out Dents above 4:00 and 8:00 with any indicated metal loss, cracking, or stress riser (See Paragraph 2.8.2) N N N X T N O Dents above 4:00 and 8:00 with a depth >6% of nominal pipe diameter (See Paragraph 2.8.2) N N N X T O O HCA 60-Day Condition Dents above 4:00 and 8:00 with a depth>3% of nominal pipe diameter (>0.250” in depth for a pipeline diameter 2% of nominal pipe diameter (>0.250” in depth for a pipeline diameter 2% of pipeline diameter (>0.250” in depth for a pipeline diameter 6% of pipeline diameter N N N X T O O <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 7 of 16 Repair Method Re-Coat Defect Type Grind /Sand Type “A” Type “B” Bolt On Composite Cut Out (See Paragraph 2.8.2) PSAFE12.5% nominal wall thickness N N N X T N O Other Conditions N N N X T N O Leaking defect Metal loss <12.5% nominal wall thickness X N N N N N N Non-Injurious Planar Laminations X N O O T N O Sloping Laminations N N N X T N O Bulging Laminations N N N X T N O Surface Breaking Laminations N N N X T N O Hydrogen Blisters N N N X T N O Laminations interacting with Deformations N N N X T N O Arc burn N X N O N N O Hard spot N N Gouges or grooves <12.5% nominal wall thickness X X Buckling O X N O Repair by cutout, pumpkin, Type B sleeve, or call Asset Integrity for assistance N N N N N N <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 8 of 16 Repair Method Re-Coat Defect Type Grind /Sand Type “A” Type “B” Bolt On Composite Cut Out SCC suspected Call Asset Integrity for assistance Leaking mechanical (Dresser) coupling Repair by tightening, using housing (pumpkin), or cutout Mechanical leaks (valves and fittings) Repair in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines or cutout and replace 2.18 2.17.2 This table outlines the approved/preferred method (X), optional (O), and temporary onshore or permanent offshore (T) methods of repairing imperfections or defects. The methods that are not permitted (N) are also indicated. The optional methods listed do not represent all optional methods but identify normally accepted options. A temporary repair may be made using any method deemed suitable using sound engineering judgment. For detailed information on repair methods, refer to Paragraph 2.19 of this procedure. General Notes on Repair Methods 2.18.1 Defects repaired by grinding and/or sanding, installing a type “A” sleeve, type “B” sleeve, composite reinforced sleeve or replacing the affected pipe as a cylinder are all permanent repairs. Bolt-on or mechanical repair clamps used onshore are considered temporary repairs therefore; replace or upgrade them with a permanent repair as soon as feasible or with approval of the Manager, Asset Integrity, a properly welded mechanical or bolt-on clamp is considered a permanent repair for onshore applications. 2.18.2 When practical, repair defects by sleeving. There are two normally used methods of sleeving non-leaking defects: type “A” and type “B” sleeve. Base the decision to use one type over the other on the specific field circumstances and Table 1 2.18.3 2.18.4 2.18.5 2.18.6 Type “A” full encirclement welded steel sleeve can be used to repair defects. This sleeve cannot be used on leaking defects or to provide longitudinal reinforcement to the pipeline. Refer to Paragraph 2.19.2 for detailed information about installing type “A” sleeves. Repair leaking defects by sleeving with a type “B” sleeve when practical. Type “B” sleeves require welding on the pressurized pipe and should not be used to repair other defects except under special circumstances. Refer to Paragraph 2.19.3 for detailed information about installing type “B” sleeves. Repair of leaking defects caused by isolated corrosion may be made by installing a bolt-on leak clamp (On-Shore Temporary) or a type “B” sleeve. Use composite reinforcement sleeves to repair defects that have been ground out, were caused by corrosion or dents on low stress pipelines without scratches. CAUTION: Do not use composite sleeves to repair leaking defects or cracking. Refer to paragraph 2.19.4 for details. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 9 of 16 CAUTION: PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY GRINDING OR SANDING ON A LIVE LINE, EVALUATE THE DEFECT TO BE REPAIRED. IF IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE DEFECT IS POTENTIALLY GREATER THAN 10% OF THE NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS, DO NOT PERFORM ANY GRINDING OR SANDING OPERATIONS AND IMMEDIATELY REFER TABLE 1 TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE REPAIR METHOD, SUCH AS INSTALLING A SLEEVE. 2.19.1.1 2.18.7 Repair submerged pipelines in navigable waters containing leaking defects by mechanically applying a full encirclement sleeve or by installing a new section of pre-tested pipe. 2.18.8 Repair any defect by removing the defective component (valve, fitting, etc.) or a cylinder of pipe containing the defect and installing a new component or cylinder of pipe. 2.18.9 Patches are not an approved repair method. 2.19 Repair Procedures 2.19.1 Repair defect by grinding and/or sanding, as follows Remove the defect by grinding and/or sanding. After grinding or sanding, if the remaining wall thickness is less than 88% of nominal, reevaluate the integrity of the pipeline and grind area using RSTRENG (Refer to RSTRENG Analysis of Corrosion) or KAPA and install a reinforcing sleeve if necessary. The transition from the area where the defect was removed to the surrounding undisturbed material shall be smooth. Nondestructively inspect all areas where defects have been removed by grinding, using magnetic particle or dye penetrant inspection method to ensure the entire defect has been removed. During NDT, pay particular attention to any indications of cracking. If the remaining wall thickness passes RSTRENG calculations, the area does not require sleeving and may be properly cleaned and recoated. If the remaining wall thickness is less than required by RSTRENG calculation, perform a repair. The area does not require blend grinding or sanding when the defect requires type “A” or type “B” sleeving. 2.19.2 Repair Defect Using a Type “A” Sleeve (Non-pressure Containing), as Follows 2.19.2.1 Prepare the pipeline to install the type “A” sleeve by removing all of the coating and thoroughly power brush or blast cleans the pipe surface in the area the sleeve will cover. Fabricate or obtain a sleeve with the same or greater overall strength (wall thickness x yield strength) as the pipeline being repaired. Refer to Specification 101—Maintenance Welding 2.19.1.2 2.19.1.3 2.19.1.4 2.19.1.5 2.19.2.2 <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 10 of 16 2.19.3 (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines) Attachment A for details. 2.19.2.3 Use a sleeve that is at least 4 inches in length. Ensure that the sleeve covers the defect(s) plus a minimum of 2" past the defect(s) on each end. Refer to Specification 101—Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines) for design details. 2.19.2.4 Clean the inside and outside surface of the sleeve by thoroughly power brushing or abrasive blasting. 2.19.2.5 Apply a hardenable filler material such as an epoxy in dents, corrosion pits, and/or adjacent to the long seam of the pipe to completely fill void areas before installing the sleeve. 2.19.2.6 Apply sleeve with backing strip to pipeline ensuring it is tight. The effectiveness of the sleeve depends on its snugness around the pipe. 2.19.2.7 Apply the sleeve to pipeline ensuring a snug fit. Weld per Specification 101—Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines) and the specified welding procedure. 2.19.2.8 Seal the ends of the steel sleeve with a mastic bar, then a shrink sleeve and coat the exterior of the sleeve following Coatings— Selection, Applications And Maintenance. Repair Defect Using a Type “B” Sleeve (Pressure Containing), as follows: 2.19.3.1 Prepare the pipeline to install the type “B” sleeve by removing all the coating and thoroughly power brush or blast clean the pipe surface in the area the sleeve will cover. 2.19.3.2 Fabricate or obtain a sleeve with the same or greater overall strength (wall thickness x yield strength) as the pipeline being repaired. Refer to Specification 101—Maintenance Welding Attachment A for details. 2.19.3.3 Use a sleeve that is at least four inches in length. Ensure that the sleeve covers the defect(s) plus a minimum of 2" past the defect on each end. Type B sleeves may be used for leaking or non‐leaking defects including circumferentially oriented defects. When multiple sleeves are used, a Type B sleeve should not be terminated within one‐half pipe diameter or 4 inches from a girth weld whichever is greater. The distance between sleeves should be at least one pipe diameter. Separated sleeves may be spaced less than one pipe diameter apart if joined by a welded bridging sleeve or made continuous by butt‐welding them together. When installed at a non‐leaking defect, a Type B sleeve may be installed in a manner that reduces the hoop stress in the carrier pipe. Methods for accomplishing this include lowering the pressure before the sleeve is installed, applying external mechanical force, or preheating the <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 11 of 16 2.19.4 sleeve to facilitate a “shrink‐fit.” 2.19.3.4 Inspect the full circumference of the pipeline where the sleeve ends are to be welded to the pipeline using an ultrasonic thickness instrument and/or a magnetic particle inspection technique. Ensure there are no surface cracks, laminations or thin wall that could affect the integrity of the weld or sleeve. 2.19.3.5 Clean the inside and outside surface of the sleeve by thoroughly power brushing or abrasive blasting. 2.19.3.6 Apply a hardenable filler material such as an epoxy in dents, corrosion pits, and/or adjacent to the long seam of the pipe to completely fill void areas before installing the sleeve. 2.19.3.7 Apply the sleeve with backing strip to pipeline ensuring a snug fit. Weld per Specification 101—Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines) and the specified welding procedure. 2.19.3.8 Nondestructively test the completed longitudinal groove weld and circumferential fillet welds in compliance with Specification 101— Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines). 2.19.3.9 Coat the exterior of the sleeve with primer and RD‐6 Tapecoat following Coatings—Selection, Applications and Maintenance. Repair Defect Using an Approved Composite Reinforced Sleeve 2.19.4.1 Do not use a composite sleeve to repair leaks, cracks, or weld defects. Refer to Table 1 for specifics. 2.19.4.2 A qualified person(s) must install composite sleeves. 2.19.4.3 Prepare the pipeline to install the composite reinforced sleeve(s) in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Usually abrasive blasting is required. 2.19.4.4 Install the composite sleeve per manufacturer’s specific requirements and specifications. 2.19.4.5 Install metallic (Caron Steel) banding at one‐foot intervals on the sleeve for the purpose of ILI tool identification. 2.19.4.6 Coat the exterior of the sleeve with primer and RD‐6 Tapecoat following Coatings—Selection, Applications and Maintenance. As an alternative, a “heat shrink sleeve” that fully encompasses the length and circumference of the Composite sleeve may also be used, if the ends of the composite sleeve are appropriately filled in order to prevent any air gaps. The heat shrink sleeve must extend past the ends of the Composite sleeve by at least 4 inches for proper encapsulation/coating of the Composite sleeve and cover adjacent bare steel areas, which may result in the use of multiple heat shrink sleeves. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 12 of 16 2.19.5 2.19.6 Repair Defects Using a Bolt-On Mechanical Clamp 2.19.5.1 Install properly designed full encirclement mechanical clamp by covering the defect. 2.19.5.2 Follow all manufacturers’ instructions when installing mechanical clamp. 2.19.5.3 Replace mechanical clamps with a permanent repair as soon as feasible. Properly welded mechanical clamps are considered permanent repairs for onshore applications, upon approval by the Manager of Asset Integrity. 2.19.5.4 Weld + Ends or similar compression type fittings shall not be used to join pipe together without a written job specific installation procedure including reviewing and following manufactures procedures to ensure correct installation and other necessary safety measures for safe and reliable operation of the pipeline system. Call Manager of Asset Integrity for further guidance, if necessary. 2.19.5.5 Coat the exterior of the sleeve with primer and RD‐6 Tapecoat following Coatings—Selection, Applications and Maintenance. Repair Defects by Cutting Out a Cylinder Of Pipe and Replacing it with New Pipe 2.19.6.1 Prior to cutting or welding check for LEL’s with Haz Gas detector 2.19.6.2 Remove pipe or fitting containing the defect as a cylinder. 2.19.6.3 Ensure any removed section has had adequate time for ventilation prior to cutting and transporting. 2.19.6.4 Whenever possible, ensure that the replacement pipe has a length of not less than one‐half the pipe diameter or not less than 3 inches whichever is greater. 2.19.6.5 The replacement pipe, fitting, or valve shall have a greater than or equal design pressure as the existing pipe or fitting and shall be pre‐ tested. 2.19.6.6 Pipe ends should be checked for magnetism prior to welding. If welding quality becomes an issue, steps to reduce or temporarily eliminate the Magnetic field on the pipe ends should be taken. NOTE: Prior to installing pretested pipe, ensure the appropriate records (i.e., MTRs, Hydrostatic Test Records) have been located, thoroughly reviewed, and verified accurate. 2.19.6.7 2.19.6.8 Ensure LEL’s have been removed from work area prior to installing new pipe Install the replacement material in accordance with Specification 101, Maintenance Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines). <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 13 of 16 2.19.6.9 Coat the exterior of the new and adjacent pipe (as needed) with primer and RD‐6 Tapecoat following Coatings—Selection, Applications and Maintenance. 2.19.7 Repair defects by Recoat 2.19.7.1 Prepare the pipeline to install coating by removing all of the existing coating and thoroughly power brush or blast clean the pipe surface in the area of the recoat. 2.19.7.2 Coat the exterior of the sleeve with primer and RD‐6 Tapecoat following Coatings—Selection, Applications and Maintenance. 2.19.7.3 After application of the RD‐6 coating, install metallic banding (Carbon Steel) four inches from each end of the recoat area and coat the metallic bands with RD‐6 coating. 2.20 Document all repairs on the Pipeline Maintenance Report and ensure a copy is sent to the Records Coordinator in Tulsa. 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 3.2 Arc Burn: Localized points of surface melting caused by arcing between electrode or ground and pipe surface. Bolt-On Fitting: Any onshore or offshore attachment to a pipeline that is attached via bolts. 3.3 Composite Reinforcement Sleeve: A nonmetallic sleeve used to repair some nonleaking pipeline defects. 3.4 Dent: An area of the pipe where the local curvature is no longer part of a circular arc having the same radius as the pipe. The local indentation shall be considered a dent if the measured distance between the lowest point of the indentation and a prolongation of the original contour of the pipe exceeds the value equivalent to 2% of the pipe’s diameter. 3.5 Hard Spot: Localized spot where the hardness of the material is greater than surrounding material. 3.6 MIC: Microbiologically induced corrosion. 3.7 RSTRENG: A modified corrosion assessment criterion to predict a minimum failure pressure based on detailed corrosion depth and length measurements. 3.8 3.9 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC): Cracking which results from stress induced corrosion. Selective Seam Corrosion (SSC): Localized corrosion located along the bond line of low-frequency electric resistance welding (LR-ERW) and electric flash welding (EFW) piping, that leads to the development of a wedge shaped groove that is often filled with corrosion products. 3.10 Type A Sleeve: A band of steel that encircles the pipeline and is not welded to the pipeline. 3.11 Type B Sleeve: A band of steel that encircles the pipeline and is welded to a pipeline at the ends forming a pressure vessel and is normally used for a leaking defect but may be used for non-leaking defects under special circumstances. 3.12 Wedding Band: A short (Usually 6 to 12 inches in length) Type B Sleeve that encompasses a joint weld. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE 7.01–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 14 of 16 3.13 Date Change Location Change By 2.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.12 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 07/23/02 Various Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson Various Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.6.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 08/08/02 2.4.3 & 2.13.1 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/21/03 All Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 12/22/03 1.0 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 12/22/03 2.1.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 12/22/03 2.1.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 12/22/03 2.1.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 12/22/03 12/22/03 12/22/03 12/22/03 12/22/03 12/22/03 12/22/03 11/21/04 9/9/04 9/9/04 9/9/04 9/9/04 9/9/04 9/9/04 Weld Defect: A weld imperfection located in a seam or girth weld. System Integrity Plan Change Log Brief Description of Change Detailed how to perform a visual assessment. Added a repair method to the table for Natural Gas. Provided details on reference sections. Replaced Paragraph 6.12 reference with 2.13. Paralleled repair language with the Welding manual to alleviate conflicts and inconsistencies. Added section for dent repair clarification. Added repair method deviation approval process. Annual Review Deleted Purpose of this procedure is to establish, inserted analysis and repair of Deleted Pump piping and Tanks Deleted DOT Part 195 governs the repairs Williams utilizes for certain pipeline repairs. These regulatory parts and subparts may be referenced within this document. Added OQ qualification paragraph Added live line welding paragraph Deleted paragraph, and re‐worded Deleted Caution Note Become 2.11. Rewrote repair options for buckling/ripples Become 2.13.7. Deleted offshore pipeline Become 2.14.4.5. Added (Carbon Steel) Become 2.14.6.4. Modified Note to read ensure the appropriate records (i.e. MTRs, Hydrostatic Test Records) have been located, thoroughly reviewed, and verified accurate. Annual Review Modified Paragraph within Note Deleted Ethylene Pipelines Modified Paragraph for changes due to new regulated requirements Modified Paragraph for changes due to new regulated requirements Modified Paragraph Added new Paragraph 2.1.5 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.2.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.6 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.12 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.7 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.15.4.5 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.15.6.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson All Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.7 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.3.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.3.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.6.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.6.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2.14.6.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE Asset Integrity 01/01/12 11/20/05 All Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 01/01/06 4.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 01/01/06 2.6.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 01/01/06 2.12.1 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 01/01/06 References Mike Pearson 1/26/06 2.14.6.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 1/26/06 2.14.6.5 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 2/15/06 2.1.5 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/06 All Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/06 2.3.3.7 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/06 2.9.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/06 2.10 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/06 4.9 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 1/10/07 2.2.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 1/10/07 2.4.1 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 1/10/07 2.2.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 5/8/07 2.2.4 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 5/8/07 2.1.1 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 6/28/07 2.2.1 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 6/28/07 2.2.2 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 6/28/07 2.5.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 6/28/07 2.8.3 Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 11/16/07 All Clyde Clausen Mike Pearson 4/01/08 2.2.1 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 4/01/08 2.2.2 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 4/01/08 2.2.3 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 7.01–ADM–001 Revision: 9 Page 15 of 16 Annual Review Added definition Minor modifications Incorporated HCA Repair Criteria removed Minor Modification to Paragraph‐ (Added Valve) Minor Modification to Paragraph‐ (Change Specification 100 to Specification 101) Removed Pressure reduction requirements from Paragraph. Annual Review Added 2.3.3.7 Added Paragraph Added 2.10 Added Definition Added precaution for cleaning pipe. Added precaution for cleaning pipe to existing paragraph. Added Paragraph to comply with 195.422. Added Paragraph to comply with 195.422. Removed reference to MPC Added Paragraph Added Paragraph for pressure reductions for defects that can’t be repaired in 8 hours. Added Paragraph for non‐destructive testing repairs that have been removed by grinding/sanding. Added reference to paragraph Conducted Annual Review Added: All exposed bell and spigot girth welds shall be reinforced by means of sleeving Added: If needed (when pipe is not resting on the ground) the pipe should be adequately supported prior to backfilling. Consideration should be given to using dirt plugs or sandbags at spacing intervals not to exceed 20 feet particularly in areas where additional weight has been applied by installation of sleeving Added: All exposed girth welds (including bell and spigot joints) shall be supported (supports to be placed on each side of the girth weld) via sandbags or equivalent settlement resistant supports prior to backfilling. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE DEFECT EVALUATION AND REPAIR PROCEDURE Asset Integrity 01/01/12 11/14/08 All Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.1.3 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.2.5 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.3.1 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.3.4.10 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.13 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 12/18/08 2.16.3.8 Dennis Vasicek Clyde Clausen 8/21/09 All Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 8/21/09 2.2.3 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 8/21/09 2.2.6 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 11/30/09 All Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 11/30/09 2.16.5.4 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 11/30/09 2.16.6.1 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 11/30/09 2.16.6.3 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 11/30/09 2.16.6.7 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/3/10 2.1.2, 2.4.2, 2.16.1.1 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/3/10 2.9.3 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/3/10 2.14.1 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/3/10 All Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/1/11 All Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 9/1/11 2.14.1 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 12/31/11 All 6/12/12 2.14 Table Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 7.01–ADM–001 Revision: 9 Page 16 of 16 Conducted Annual Review Minor modification (installation of repairs, i.e. composite/clamps) to paragraph Minor Modification to paragraph Added paragraph to photograph repair site prior to removing coating Added Section for Cracks Added Section for Cracks Minor Modifications to paragraph Conducted Annual Review, See modifications below Added not to exceed 5’ to paragraph Added requirement to NDE pipeline defects that are not repaired by means of sleeving or pipe replacement Removed reference to contact Pipeline Integrity and added Asset Integrity Added Paragraph Added Paragraph Added Paragraph Added Paragraph Added utilization of KAPA for conducting pressure assessments Added new paragraph to refer to the ORA process manual decision tree if SCC is discovered on assets covered by the mitigation plan Added Immediate repair criteria for Assets covered by the mitigation plan to repair table Conducted Annual Review Conducted Annual Review Added Lamination Repair Options to Table 2012 Annual Review complete Modified Lamination Repair Table <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY TESTING AND REHABILITATION SIP–ADM–7.03 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 Page 1 of 4 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 The objective of this initiative is to maintain asset integrity by establishing consistent processes for integrity testing. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Company utilizes pressure testing, in‐line inspection (ILI), or a combination thereof, to assess and validate the physical integrity of its pipeline system. In addition to standardized pipeline construction and maintenance practices, the Company adheres to a comprehensive Integrity Management Program that incorporates the use of appropriate integrity testing technologies and rehabilitation practices in order to assist in identifying, understanding and controlling pipeline risk and integrity threats. 2.2 A priority rating system based on relative risk is established to select pipeline segments for integrity testing schedules. The frequency of reassessments will be determined by the processes established within the Integrity Management Plan. 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The Project Manager shall: 3.1.1 Consult with the Pipeline or Facility Risk Engineer, as appropriate for type of asset, to ensure review of applicable asset integrity factors is completed prior to testing. 3.1.2 Coordinate the execution of pressure testing projects in accordance with the Pressure Testing Procedure. 3.1.3 Complete the appropriate Hydrostatic Test Documentation (Hydrostatic Test Documentation for Liquids) and remit with the required attachments to the Records 3.1.4 Coordinator within thirty days of the pressure test. Coordinate the execution of ILI projects in accordance with the In‐Line Inspection Procedure. 3.2 The Records Coordinator shall: 3.3 3.4 3.2.1 Review pressure test documentation for thoroughness and adequacy, and retain in Asset Integrity file repository for useful life of the facillity. 3.2.2 Notify the Pipeline Surge Engineer following receipt of pressure test records. 3.2.3 Input the new pressure test data and the new calculated Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) information into the Hydrostatic Test Database within 60 days following receipt of the pressure test records. The Manager of Asset Integrity Engineering shall: 3.3.1 Coordinate changes to system pressure settings with Operations Control and/or Operations Manager as applicable. The Pipeline Integrity Supervisor shall: 3.4.1 Determine the effect(s) on the MOP of the corresponding asset(s) following notice of receipt of pressure test documentation. 3.4.2 Coordinate the execution and documentation of integrity testing and rehabilitation <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY TESTING AND REHABILITATION SIP–ADM–7.03 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 Page 2 of 4 3.4.3 3.4.4 plans of existing assets. Notify the Manager of Asset Integrity Engineering of any required adjustments to system operating pressures due to integrity testing results. Maintain and annually review the In‐Line Inspection Procedure and Pressure Testing Procedure for use on Company operated assets. 3.5 The Pipeline Integrity Engineer shall: 3.5.1 Immediately evaluate reports from the ILI vendor and generate a Dig List in accordance with In‐Line Inspection Procedure. 3.5.2 Notify the Pipeline Integrity Coordinator that the Dig List has been developed in order to initiate project execution of feature investigations and rehabilitation, as required. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY TESTING AND REHABILITATION SIP–ADM–7.03 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 Page 3 of 4 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Change By Approved By Brief Description of Change 10/16/03 All Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/23/03 2.1 & 2.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/23/03 3.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/23/03 3.4.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/23/03 3.5 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/23/03 3.7.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/29/04 All Mike Pearson Michael Pearson 9/29/04 3.13 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/29/04 3.3.1 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/29/04 3.4.3 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/05 All Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 All Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 Entire Document Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.1.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.1.4 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.2.1 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.2.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.3.1 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 3.3.2 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 3.3.2 10/16/06 3.4.4 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 10/16/06 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 3.5 10/16/06 3.6 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 09/11/07 All Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/11/07 3.2.2 Michael Pearson Conducted 2003 Annual Review, (See Change Log) Minor modifications to Paragraph Inserted responsibilities of Pipeline Integrity Coordinator. Added new responsibility to Pipeline Integrity or Facility Supervisor. Added Operations Control Manager responsibilities Added new responsibility to Pipeline Integrity Engineer. Conducted 2004 Annual Review, (See Change Log) Changed 2 weeks to thirty days Added responsibility to Asset Integrity Manager Added new responsibility to Pipeline Integrity or Facility Supervisor. Conducted 2005 Annual Review‐ (No Changes) Conducted 2006 Annual Review‐ (See Change Log) Revised job titles to reflect recent organizational changes. Minor Modification to Paragraph Minor Modification to Paragraph Minor Modification to Paragraph Minor Modification to Paragraph Deleted Paragraph Moves up and becomes 3.3.1 Moved responsibility under Pipeline Integrity/ Risk Engineering Supervisor: Determine the effect(s) on the MOP of the corresponding asset(s) following notice of receipt of pressure test documentation Minor Modification to Paragraph Deleted Operations Control Manager Requirements as it is covered within 7.07 Operating Pressures. Deleted Asset Integrity Analyst Responsibilities Conducted 2007 Annual ,(See Change Log) Deleted Risk Engineer and Inserted Pipeline Surge Engineer. Deleted two weeks. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY TESTING AND REHABILITATION SIP–ADM–7.03 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 Page 4 of 4 9/11/07 3.3 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/11/07 3.4 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 9/11.07 3.4.3 Clyde Clausen Michael Pearson 1/1/09 8/21/09 All Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 8/21/09 3.1.3 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 8/21/09 Section 4 Clyde Clausen Doug Chabino 01/01/11 Deleted Director, Inserted Manager Asset Integrity Engineering Deleted Risk Engineering and made sole responsibility of Pipeline Integrity Supervisor Deleted Director and inserted Manager Asset Integrity Engineering 2008 annual review complete – no changes Conducted Annual Reivew Removed Gas Reference Removed Gas Link Reviewed, no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL SIP–ADM–7.04 Asset Integrity 09/06/11 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 6 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 The objective of this initiative is to maintain asset integrity by establishing a consistent and effective corrosion control process. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 This initiative outlines the standards and processes necessary to mitigate external and internal corrosion. These include, but are not limited to, the following: system evaluations; coating selection and application; criteria for cathodic protection; and cathodic protection system design, installation, operations and maintenance to mitigate external corrosion and cleaning, treating and monitoring the pipeline for the prevention of internal corrosion. 2.2 All of the standards are developed through sound corrosion engineering concepts and are applied under the direction of qualified personnel trained in the corrosion control field. Corrosion related data will be processed in the overall Risk Management process to determine/modify the frequency of future inspections, surveys and other corrosion mitigation measures or new developing technologies. 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The Manager of Asset Integrity shall: 3.1.1 Maintain the Corrosion Control Program for Company operated assets. 3.1.2 Coordinate the implementation, execution, and documentation of the work required by the Corrosion Control Program. 3.1.3 Monthly review corrosion control exceptions and associated remedial action plans. 3.2 The Corrosion Technician shall: 3.2.1 Execute and document the work required by the Corrosion Control Program including Pipe‐to‐Soil Potential Surveys, Close Interval Surveys, Atmospheric Corrosion Inspections, Insulating Flanges, Foreign Line Crossings, Rectifier Inspection Surveys, Bond Surveys, Remedial Actions, etc. 3.3 The Operations Supervisor shall: 3.3.1 Coordinate the execution of pipeline maintenance/cleaning pigging in accordance with the Corrosion Control Program. 3.3.2 Coordinate the inspection of additive/corrosion inhibitor pumps for proper operation and injection rate and ensure that prompt and proper repairs are made. Maintain corrosion inhibitor chemical inventories at proper levels. 3.3.3 Coordinate the collection and delivery of product samples to the Company’s laboratory for analysis in accordance with the Corrosion Control Program. 3.3.4 Coordinate the installation, removal, and replacement of internal corrosion coupons in accordance with the Corrosion Control Program. 3.4 The Supervisor of Laboratory Testing shall: <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL SIP–ADM–7.04 Asset Integrity 09/06/11 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 6 3.4.1 Distribute, collect, analyze, and document internal corrosion coupons in accordance with the Corrosion Control Program. 3.4.2 Analyze and document product samples per the Corrosion Control Program. 3.5 The Supervisor of Quality Control shall: 3.5.1 Notify the Corrosion Specialist when internal product quality tests identify free water, Haze Rating >3, or NACE Corrosion Rating 3, or NACE Rating >> Date 07/03/02 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL SIP–ADM–7.04 Asset Integrity 09/06/11 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 6 System Integrity Plan Change Log Change Location Changed By Approved By Brief Description of Change Rick 5.3 Wooldridg Michael Pearson Added Cathodic Protection Exception Report measure. e Modified 2.1 with the underlined language to address the addition of internal corrosion issues: This initiative outlines the Standards and processes necessary to mitigate external and internal corrosion. These include but are not limited Rick 2.1 Wooldridg Michael Pearson e to: system evaluations; coating selection and application; criteria for cathodic protection; and cathodic protection system design, installation, operations and maintenance to mitigate external corrosion and cleaning, treating and monitoring the pipeline for the prevention of internal corrosion. Initiative Name and 1.1 Rick Michael Pearson Deleted “External” from “External Corrosion Control” to broaden the SIP to include Internal Corrosion issues. Wooldridge Rick 3.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity” to “Manger of Asset Integrity” to address title changes. 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 5.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “External Corrosion Control Program” to “Corrosion Control Program” in order to include Internal Corrosion issues. Rick 3.1.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Removed “or exceed the” to not require compliance plus Rick 3.2.3 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted entire paragraph as it will be addressed in 3.2.1, Produce an annual Atmospheric Corrosion Report…… Rick 3.2.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced “Cathodic Protection” with “Corrosion Control” in order to address the addition of internal corrosion issues Rick 3.2.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “Manager of Pipeline Integrity” to “Manager of Asset Integrity” to address title changes. Rick 3.2.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Remove “and/or shorted casings” since shorted casings are addressed during integrity assessments and not as stand alone corrosion exceptions. Rick 3.2.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added “exposed pipe and interface areas requiring paint/coating and internal corrosion rates exceeding the established threshold” in order to include atmospheric and internal corrosion exceptions as part of the new Corrosion Control SIP. 3.4 Rick Michael Added: “The Manager of Operations Shall” from the <<>> 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/29/03 9/30/03 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL SIP–ADM–7.04 Asset Integrity 09/06/11 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 6 Wooldridge Pearson original Internal Corrosion Control SIP document. Rick 3.4.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Execute the maintenance/cleaning pigging program according to O&M Procedures”. Deleted: “and ensure that any batch treatments are completed within the system's program frequency guidelines. Complete pigging reports and submit to the Corrosion Technician” from the original Internal Corrosion Control SIP document. Rick 3.4.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “3.4.2 Perform monthly inspection of Inspect additive corrosion inhibitor pumps for proper operation and injection rate monthly and assure ensure that prompt and proper repairs are made. Maintain corrosion inhibitor chemical inventories at proper levels. Deleted: “Assure that proper repairs are made or that the Corrosion Technician is contacted immediately. Complete the Chemical Injection Check list and submit copies to the Corrosion Technician and Corrosion Control Specialist” from the original Internal Corrosion Control SIP document since it is no longer applicable. Rick 3.4.3 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Collect samples associated with pigging runs and handle according to O&M Procedures” from the original Internal Corrosion Control SIP document. Replaced: “Internal Corrosion Control Program” with “O&M Procedures” to reflect MMP processes (as opposed to WMB Midstream). Rick 4.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced: “Protection Exceptions” with “Corrosion Control Exceptions” to add clarity. Rick 4.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted: “Atmospheric Corrosion Exceptions” as they are included in 4.1 Rick 4.3 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Pipeline releases related to corrosion” since eliminating it is the primary goal 5.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “O&M Maintenance/Cleaning Pigging Procedures” 5.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “O&M Product Sampling Procedures” Rick 3.2.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Coordinate the implementation, execution and documentation of the work required by the External Corrosion Control Program” in order to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Supervisor. Rick 3.3.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Execute and document” to imply performance of work. 3.4.4 Rick Michael Added: “Install, remove, replace, and process internal <<>> 9/30/03 10/6/03 8/11/04 8/11/04 10/16/06 10/16/06 10/16/06 09/11/07 9/10/07 9/10/07 9/10/07 9/10/07 1/1/09 7/17/09 11/16/09 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL Asset Integrity 09/06/11 Wooldridge Pearson Rick 5.4 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Annual Review Michael Pearson Michael Pearson Rick 3.4 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.5 Wooldridg Michael Pearson e Rick 3.5 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.6 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.6 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick ALL Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.1.3 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.2.1 Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rick 3.2.2 Wooldridge Michael Pearson All E7 Rick Wooldridge 3.5.2 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied All E7 Rick Wooldridge SIP–ADM–7.04 Revision: 7 Page 5 of 6 corrosion coupons in accordance with O&M procedures.” Added: “O&M Internal Corrosion Coupon Procedures” Conduct annual review of the Corrosion Control SIP in accordance to 3.1.1 Changed “Manager” to “Supervisor” Conduct annual review of the Corrosion Control SIP in accordance to 3.1.1 Added responsibilities for the Supervisor Laboratory Testing Added responsibilities for the Corrosion Specialist Conducted 2006 annual review of the Corrosion Control SIP in accordance to 3.1.1 (see change log) Conducted 2007 annual review, (see change log) Replaced Produce an annual Corrosion Control Exception Report, along with associated Remedial Action Plan, and forward to the Director of Asset Integrity with Annually review corrosion control exceptions and associated remedial action plans. Added Manager deleted Supervisor Added “Remedial Actions” Deleted Conduct detailed analyses of all available Corrosion Control Program data within their area of responsibility. Provide a summary of findings, including associated recommendations for remedial action, to the Corrosion Specialist within 90 days following completion of the surveys. 2008 annual review complete – no changes Added: “product quality control reports (PQCR)” 2009 annual review complete – with minor clean‐up issues. <<>> 8/9/10 9/6/11 CORROSION CONTROL Asset Integrity All; 3.5, 3.6 E7 Rick 3.1.3 Wooldridge Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. SIP–ADM–7.04 09/06/11 Revision: 7 Page 6 of 6 Rick Wooldridge 2010 annual review; Added 3.5 and 3.6 Responsibilities for the Supervisor of Quality Control and Program Consultant to further enhance notifications when off spec product is present in the pipeline…as required per the DOT advisory related to internal corrosion. Rick Wooldridge Changed annual to monthly to reflect actual practice <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 1 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SCOPE 2.0 EXTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL 2.1 External Coating 2.2 Cathodic Protection 2.3 Corrosion Control Criteria 2.4 IR Drop Consideration 2.5 New Construction 2.6 Cathodic Protection Surveys 2.7 Cathodic Protection Rectifiers 2.8 Foreign Crossings and Interference Currents 2.9 Electrical Isolation 2.10 Test Leads 2.11 Exposed Pipe Examination 2.12 Stress Corrosion Cracking Analysis 2.13 Microbiological Influenced Corrosion (MIC) 2.14 Induced AC Corrosion 3.0 ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION CONTROL 3.1 Inspection 3.2 Paint/Coating 4.0 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Product Evaluation 4.3 Internal Corrosion Mitigation 4.4 Internal Corrosion Monitoring 4.5 Internal Examination 5.0 QUALIFICATION <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 2 of 29 5.1 Supervisor 5.2 Operator Qualification 6.0 CORROSION CONTROL RECORDS 7.0 INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATION 8.0 DEFICIENCIES IN CORROSION CONTROL <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 3 of 29 1.0 SCOPE 1.1 This program is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be used in whole or part on non‐jurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. 1.2 Texas Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as, Magellan guidelines, process, or best practices, certain pipeline system assets in Texas operate under the requirements of the Mitigation Plan. 2.0 EXTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL 2.1 External Coating 195.557, 195.559, 195.561, 16 TAC 8.305(2‐3), 192.455(a)(1) and 192.461. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 All buried or submerged newly constructed, relocated, replaced or otherwise changed steel lines shall be coated, including mainlines, terminal and station piping. The external coating shall be applied on a properly prepared surface and have sufficient adhesion to the metal surface to effectively resist underfilm migration of moisture. The coating shall be sufficiently ductile to resist cracking and have sufficient strength to resist damage due to handling and soil stress. The coating shall have properties compatible with the cathodic protection system. Electrically insulating type coatings shall have low moisture absorption and high electrical resistance. The coated pipe shall be electrically inspected using a coating deficiency (holiday) detector prior to installation. Any damage found that impairs the effectiveness of the coating shall be repaired. Furthermore, the coating shall be protected from damage resulting from adverse ditch conditions or damage from supporting blocks. Backfilling operations will be inspected to ensure that rocks, hard lumps of earth, etc. are not backfilled directly onto the pipe where they may damage the effectiveness of the pipeline coating. Precautions will be taken to minimize damage to the coating during installation if coated pipe is installed by boring, driving, or other similar method. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 4 of 29 2.2 2.1.9 Joints, fittings, and tie‐ins shall be coated with material(s) compatible with the coating(s) on the pipe. 2.1.10 Coatings selection, application, and maintenance shall be performed as prescribed in Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance. Cathodic Protection – 195.563, 195.565, 192.452, 192.453, 192.455 and 192.457 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 On facilities including newly constructed, relocated, replaced or otherwise changed pipelines, a cathodic protection system will be installed to mitigate corrosion. A cathodic protection system will be installed for breakout tanks to mitigate corrosion. The systems shall be installed in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651, unless noted in this volume why compliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the breakout tank. Noted conditions that will cause compliance with 651 to not be observed may be but are not limited to tanks set on concrete, asphalt pads, or where studies conducted in accordance with API 653 indicate that corrosion will not affect the safe operation of the tank. On facilities including newly constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed pipelines and tanks, a temporary cathodic system shall be provided as soon as practical during construction and a permanent cathodic protection system shall be provided within one year of completed construction. Refer to Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Deep Groundbed and Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Surface Groundbed for more 2.3 information. 2.2.5 Soil Resistivity may influence the design considerations for cathodic protection systems as well as development of the Relative Risk Score for the line segment. See Soil Resistivity Overview for a general description of expected soil resistivity identified by state. Corrosion Control Criteria 195.571, 192.463 2.3.1 Magellan adheres to the cathodic protection regulations in Part 195, “Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline” and to the cathodic protection regulations in Part 192, “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by ”pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards,” of the DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety Regulations. 2.3.2 When practical, Magellan requires maintaining a polarized potential of at least –0.850 volts as measured between the structure surface and a saturated <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 5 of 29 2.4 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 copper‐copper sulfate reference electrode that is in contact with the electrolyte (earth, soil, water, etc.). Where injurious aerobic bacteria has been identified, or is suspected, a polarized potential of ‐.950 volts or more negative is required. This voltage measurement shall be determined with the protective current applied and IR drop considered as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: For Tier II and Tier III areas, where practical a polarized pipe‐to‐soil potential of ‐.850 volts will be maintained. During close interval surveys, potential drops other than those across the structure to electrolyte boundary will be considered by interrupting the cathodic protection current source(s) and recording the ON” and “OFF” pipe‐ to‐soil potentials Once established, the “ON” potential and “Off” potential will be utilized to correct future pipe‐to‐soil potential readings until such time as the system configuration or coating condition changes, or a new close interval survey is performed. When a ‐0.850 volt potential is not practical, the following criteria are acceptable when approved by the Supervisor of Corrosion Control: 2.3.4.1 A minimum negative (cathodic) polarization shift of 100 millivolts The 100‐millivolt polarization decay criteria specify a minimum negative (cathodic) polarization voltage shift of 100 millivolts, measured between the structure surface and a reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Overprotection will be monitored and minimized through the analysis of data from annual pipe‐to‐soil surveys, close interval surveys, and pipeline visual inspections. A practical value of ‐1.2 volts (polarized) in reference to a copper/copper sulfate electrode will be used as value beyond which monitoring for overprotection shall be considered. Refer to Cathodic Protection Criteria for more information. IR Drop Consideration 195.571 and 192.463 (a) 2.4.1 IR drop is considered by taking potential readings directly over or as near as practical to the structure surface. The affect on the potential measuring circuit is kept to a minimum by using a high resistance voltmeter and being mindful of lead lengths and condition, contact to structure and contact to electrolyte. 2.4.2 Cathodic protection level should be evaluated utilizing Cathodic Protection Criteria. 2.5 New Construction 195.563 and 192.455(a)(2) <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 6 of 29 2.6 2.5.1 On newly constructed facilities and/or pipelines, a temporary cathodic system shall be provided as soon as practical during construction and a permanent cathodic protection system shall be provided within one year of completed construction. 2.5.2 Newly constructed facilities shall be included in and be managed in accordance with the Magellan System Integrity Plan within one year of completed construction. 2.5.3 On newly constructed facilities and/or pipelines, corrosion personnel, qualified under the Operator Qualification Ruling or with NACE Certification, shall be utilized to identify, mitigate, and monitor for inadequate cathodic protection and detrimental interference currents, prior to and during construction. Refer to Section 2.8, Foreign Crossings and Interference Currents and 2.14, Induced AC Corrosion below. Cathodic Protection Surveys 195.573 (a) (d) and 192.465 2.6.1 A cathodic protection survey shall be conducted on each buried, in contact with the ground, submerged pipeline facility, and/or breakout tank in its pipeline system that is under cathodic protection once each calendar year with intervals not to exceed fifteen months. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after the survey. 2.6.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Pipe‐to‐soil surveys shall be performed annually not to exceed 15 months in Tier I areas and semi‐annually not to exceed 7.5 months in Tier II and Tier III areas. Deficiencies will be resolved within one (1) year of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. 2.6.3 Pipe‐to‐soil readings shall be obtained at pre‐assigned locations identified as necessary to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection. These locations can include, but are not limited to, test stations, cased crossings, and above ground appurtenances. Refer to Measuring a Pipe‐to‐Soil Potential for more information. 2.6.4 For aboveground breakout tanks where corrosion of the tank bottom is controlled by a cathodic protection system, the cathodic protection system shall be inspected to ensure it is operated and maintained in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651, unless noted in this volume why compliance with all or certain provisions of API 651 is not necessary for the safety of a <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 7 of 29 2.6.5 2.6.6 particular breakout tank. Noted conditions that will cause compliance with 651 to not be observed may be but are not limited to tanks set on concrete, asphalt pads, or where studies conducted in accordance with API 653 indicate that corrosion will not affect the safe operation of the tank. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after the survey. 2.6.4.1 Potential surveys taken on above‐ground storage tanks should be conducted with an adequate level in the tank to maximize the contact of the tank bottom with the cushion material. Adequate level is typically at least 3 feet of liquid. Tank levels shall be recorded along with potential measurements. Tanks with inadequate levels shall be re‐surveyed the same calendar year, once adequate levels are attained. Additional corrosion control surveys, including but not limited to close interval pipe‐to‐soil surveys, will be conducted where practical and determined necessary by sound engineering practices. Indicators of the necessity to conduct such surveys shall include risk assessments, annual pipe‐to‐soil surveys, internal inspection data, pipe inspection, or other related corrosion information or testing. At a minimum, close interval pipe‐to‐soil surveys will be considered under the following circumstances: 2.6.6.1 When identified through risk assessment including Section 6 analysis required by the Integrity Management Plan. 2.6.6.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Close Interval surveys in Tier III areas will be conducted annually not to exceed 15 months. For Tier I and II areas close interval surveys will be managed through the Relative Risk Assessment Process within the System Integrity Model and conducted as necessary. Deficiencies will be resolved within one (1) year of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. 2.6.6.3 External Corrosion identified on the pipeline with a peak depth greater than 50% of the nominal wall, within 50 feet of a foreign pipeline crossing. Close interval survey may not be required if pipe‐ to‐soil data collected at the location indicates that cathodic protection interference is not a concern. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 8 of 29 2.6.6.4 2.6.6.5 2.6.6.6 Areas of inadequate cathodic protection as identified by pipe‐to‐soil surveys. Close interval survey may not be required if remediation of the low potentials includes the addition, modification, or adjustment of an impressed current cathodic protection that provides cathodic protection current beyond the area of inadequate potentials. Areas of interference from a foreign cathodic protection current source. Locations of potential interference include but are not limited to, construction of new cathodic protection systems near the pipeline, changes in current output from foreign cathodic protection systems, and a reduction in cathodic protection levels without a corresponding reduction in output from the existing cathodic protection system. In each case, the Close Interval Survey shall be conducted at spacing close enough to identify potential integrity threats and extend beyond the area of likely influence. Refer to Close Interval Pipe‐to‐ Soil Survey and Testing for Interference Currents and Remedial Measures for more information. 2.7 Cathodic Protection Rectifiers 195.573 (c) and 192.465 (b) 2.7.1 Each cathodic protection rectifier shall be inspected for proper operation at least six times each calendar year with intervals between inspections not to exceed 2 ½ months. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after survey. Refer to Rectifier Inspection, Cathodic Protection System Troubleshooting (Groundbed), and Rectifier Troubleshooting for more information. 2.8 2.7.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Each cathodic protection rectifier shall be inspected for proper operation at least twelve (12) times each calendar year with intervals between inspections not to exceed 45 days. Deficiencies will be resolved within one (1) month of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. Foreign Crossings and Interference Currents 195.573(c), 195.577, 16 TAC 7.86(5)(c), 192.465 (c) and 192.473 2.8.1 During each cathodic survey, a check of the integrity of each bond that exists across insulating flanges or other unions of pipeline facilities and each interference bond shall be made. Reverse current switches, diodes and <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 9 of 29 interference bonds whose failure would jeopardize structure protection shall be inspected six times each calendar year with intervals between inspections not to exceed 2 ½ months. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after the survey. Refer to Electrical Bond Inspection for more information. 2.8.2 2.8.3 Impressed current cathodic protection systems or galvanic anode systems will be designed and installed to minimize any adverse effects on existing underground metallic structures. Stray current interference testing, including, but not limited to close interval pipe‐to‐soil surveys, will be conducted where practical and determined necessary by sound engineering practices. Indicators of the necessity to conduct such tests shall include annual pipe‐to‐soil surveys, internal inspection data, pipe inspection, or other related corrosion information or testing. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded on Magellan Foreign Line Interference Test Form. Refer to Testing for Interference Currents and Remedial Measures for more information. 2.9 2.8.4 Texas Intrastate Pipeline specific: Whenever suspected areas of interference are identified, testing will be conducted within 6 months to determine the extent of interference, and appropriate action will be taken. 2.8.5 For Interference Currents related to Induced AC refer to Section 2.14, Induced AC Corrosion below. Electrical Isolation 195.575 and 192.467 2.9.1 Each buried or submerged pipeline shall be electrically isolated from other underground metallic structures, unless the pipeline and the other structures are electrically interconnected and cathodically protected as a single unit. 2.9.2 One or more insulating devices shall be installed where electrical isolation of a portion of a pipeline is necessary to facilitate the application of corrosion control. 2.9.3 During each cathodic survey, a check of the integrity of insulating flanges or other unions of pipeline facilities shall be made if inadequate cathodic protection levels are found. 2.9.4 Shorted Casings 2.9.4.1 During each cathodic protection survey, readings may be taken at each cased crossing to detect any location where the carrier pipe may be shorted to the casing pipe. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 10 of 29 2.9.4.2 2.9.4.3 If the casing potential is greater than ‐.800 volts, the casing shall be tested to determine whether an electrolytic short to the carrier pipe is present. Corresponding classification data documenting the status of the casing shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM). Refer to Shorted Casing Testing for more information. If the casing potential is within 100 millivolts of the pipeline potential, the casing shall be tested to determine whether a short to the carrier pipe is present. Corresponding classification data documenting the status of the casing shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM). Refer to Shorted Casing Testing for more information. 2.9.4.4 Following internal inspection of a pipeline, the resulting smart pig data will be integrated with and compared to the casing information in the corrosion control database. Where the carrier pipe within the casing exhibits corrosion‐caused metal loss, a risk evaluation will be conducted and action will be taken to mitigate the corrosion if deemed necessary. NOTE: For line sections integrity tested by hydrostatic test, a risk evaluation will be conducted at each shorted casing and action taken to clear the short and/or mitigate the corrosion if deemed necessary. 2.9.4.5 2.9.4.6 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: If a shorted casing is verified, a plan of action shall be developed within three (3) months from the time of discovery. The practicality of clearing the short will be considered before any other measures are used. Action shall be taken to clear the short (a) in Tier I areas within six (6) months of development of the action plan; and (b) in Tier II and III areas within three (3) months of development of the action plan. If clearing the short is impractical, the location can be monitored for leaks, or the casing/pipe interstice may be filled with a high dielectric corrosion inhibiting material. If the casing is monitored using leak detection equipment, the test must be performed twice each calendar year not exceeding 7.5 months. If monitored using internal inspection (smart pig) equipment, the inspection must be made at intervals as determined in the Magellan, Integrity Management Plan. These alternative measures, or any other <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 11 of 29 2.10 measures approved by the Manager of Asset Integrity may be employed until it is practical to clear the short. 2.9.4.7 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: In the interim, from the time, a short is verified and action is taken to clear the short, the location will be inspected for corrosion or the casing /pipe interstice may be filled with a high dielectric corrosion inhibiting material. During any interval that a casing has been determined to be shorted, casing will be monitored. Tier I areas will be monitored twice per year at intervals not exceeding 7.5 months. Tier II and III areas will be monitored monthly at intervals not exceeding 6 weeks. 2.9.5 Insulating devices installed in areas where a combustible atmosphere is reasonable to foresee shall be installed with precautions to prevent arcing. 2.9.6 Pipelines in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings, ground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable to foresee fault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, shall be protected against damage from fault currents or lightening and protective measures taken at insulating devices. Test Leads 195.567, 192.469 and 192.471 2.10.1 All cathodically protected pipelines and breakout tankage shall have a sufficient number of test stations or other locations for electrical measurement to determine the adequacy of the cathodic protection system. 2.10.2 For design purposes, test lead spacing on pipelines shall be approximately one mile. This spacing shall be affected by conditions along the pipeline. 2.10.3 Breakout tankage will be monitored at the four quadrants. 2.10.4 The test leads shall be connected directly to the structure by Thermit welding or other process, which prevents stress concentration on the pipe and is approved by the Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity. 2.10.5 Test leads shall be maintained so that electrical measurements can be obtained in order to ensure adequate protection. For locations where repair of the test station is impractical, and a reading is necessary to determine the adequacy of cathodic protecting, an insulated probe rod may be used to contact the pipe and obtain the reading. This measure may be utilized until which time the test lead is repaired. 2.10.6 During installation, test leads shall be installed with enough looping or slack to prevent the test leads from undue stress or breakage during backfilling. Test <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 12 of 29 leads installed in conduit shall be suitably insulated from the conduit. Refer to Attaching Cathodic Protection Test Leads for more information. 2.11 2.10.7 Bared test lead wire and bared metallic area at the point of connection to pipeline must be coated with an electrical insulation material compatible with the pipe coating and the insulation on the wire. Exposed Pipeline Examination 195.569 and 192.459 2.11.1 When any buried pipeline is exposed, either intentionally or unintentionally, the exposed portion shall be visually inspected for evidence of external corrosion. Refer to Examining and Documenting the Condition of an Underground Pipeline or Related Facility When Exposed for more information. 2.11.2 When external corrosion requiring remedial action is found, further investigation will be conducted, circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine the extent of the corrosion in the vicinity of the exposed portion. Refer to Pipeline Defect Evaluation and Repair for more information. 2.11.3 If the extent of corrosion cannot be determined, plans and scheduling for further investigation or the use of an internal inspection device shall be developed based on the severity of the corrosion encountered. 2.11.4 If the exposed pipe is to remain exposed, proper pipeline markers shall be installed and the pipe shall be monitored for atmospheric corrosion in accordance with paragraph 3.1.1 below. 2.12 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) 2.12.1 Basic SCC awareness information is available to operation and maintenance employees in Stress Corrosion Cracking Information. 2.12.2 The risks associated with SCC are identified and assessed per the Magellan Risk Assessment Methodology book, and include factors such as age of the 2.12.3 2.12.4 pipeline, coating type, operating stress level, proximity of pump stations and history of SCC. In the event that a pipeline system has experienced one or more confirmed incidents of SCC a systematic identification and examination of other potential locations of SCC will be conducted based upon the observations of conditions associated with the confirmed SCC incident. Areas of the pipeline identified as having high susceptibility to SCC, or any other locations identified for SCC investigation, will be investigated per Stress Corrosion Cracking Investigation. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 13 of 29 2.12.5 2.12.6 Pipe cutouts sent to a metallurgical lab for analysis will be investigated for SCC. Results of this analysis will be provided in a comprehensive report provided to Asset Integrity. SCC field examinations will be performed by a NDE Technician trained in the detection of SCC on buried pipelines and will be documented in the Pipeline Maintenance Report. 2.12.7 If SCC is determined to be present, a review of the pipeline as defined in Section 6 of the IMP will be conducted, to be followed by a re‐assessment interval recommendation per Section 7 of the IMP. 2.12.8 Annually, confirmed SCC occurrences will be reviewed to determine if changes to the SCC assessment criteria are necessary. 2.13 Microbiological Influenced Corrosion (MIC) 2.13.1 In the event that a pipeline system has experienced one or more confirmed discoveries of injurious MIC, or where accelerated corrosion from MIC is anticipated, a Bacteria Testing Protocol shall be established to evaluate future 2.13.2 2.13.3 integrity threats from MIC. The line specific protocol shall be utilized until such time that the threat from MIC has been assessed and appropriate mitigation actions have been taken. Testing for MIC shall be conducted in accordance with Bacteria Testing – Serial Dilution Method. 2.14 Induced AC Corrosion 195.577 192.473 2.14.1 AC potential surveys shall be conducted on each buried, in contact with the ground, submerged pipeline facility near high voltage power lines once each calendar year with intervals not to exceed fifteen months. Recording voltmeters should be considered in areas where high voltage transmission lines parallel the pipeline over long distances. Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after the survey. Refer to Testing for Induced AC and Remedial Measures for more information. 2.14.2 AC potentials greater than 5 volts will be evaluated to determine if additional testing or remedial actions are required. Refer to Testing for Induced AC and Remedial Measures for more information. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 14 of 29 2.14.3 Remedial actions are required where through testing or calculations, AC current discharge densities are found to be at or greater than 100 A/m2 or AC potentials are greater than 15 volts. Remedial action may be required where AC current discharge densities range from 20‐100 A/m2. Refer to Testing for Induced AC and Remedial Measures for more information. 3.0 ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION CONTROL 3.1 Inspection 195.581, 195.583, 192.479 and 192.481, and 16 TAC 8.305(1) 3.1.1 Facilities and/or pipelines, other than Breakout Tanks, shall be inspected at least once every three (3) calendar years with intervals not exceeding 39 months for onshore and at least once each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15 months, for offshore. Refer to Atmospheric Corrosion Inspections for more information. NOTE: Atmospheric corrosion inspections on exposed pipelines must be conducted visually. 3.1.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Facilities and/or pipelines, other than Breakout Tanks, shall be inspected annually for atmospheric corrosion. Refer to Atmospheric Corrosion Inspections for more information. 3.1.3 Breakout Tanks shall be inspected at least once every five (5) years with intervals not exceeding 60 months. Refer to Atmospheric Corrosion Inspections for more information. 3.2 3.1.4 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Corrective action for deficiencies found during atmospheric surveys shall be determined and completed as soon as practical. Deficiencies will be resolved within one (1) year of discovery, except deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. Coating 195.581, 195.583, 192.479 and 192.481 3.2.1 A suitable coating shall be applied to all new aboveground facilities to prevent atmospheric corrosion damage. Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance for more information. 3.2.2 A suitable coating shall be applied to all soil‐to‐air interface areas to prevent atmospheric and electrolytic corrosion damage. Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance for more information. 3.2.3 A suitable coating shall be applied to all aboveground facilities to prevent further atmospheric corrosion damage if, through the guidelines established <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 15 of 29 in the Atmospheric Inspection Procedure, a Rust Rating of 2‐G or worse is identified. Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance for more information. 3.2.4 The coating conditions on exposed assets shall be documented in the Atmospheric Corrosion database (CPDM). 4.0 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL 4.1 Introduction 195.579 and 192.477 4.1.1 The corrosive effects of pipeline cargoes (hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide) shall be investigated and if found to be corrosive, adequate steps shall be taken to mitigate internal corrosion. If steps are taken to mitigate corrosion, the effectiveness of the steps shall be monitored using corrosion coupons and/or other methods. 4.1.2 Circumstance or condition [such as those listed below] that could cause, promote, or increase the likelihood of internal corrosion should be promptly reviewed and internal corrosion mitigation plans implemented as appropriate. 4.1.2.1 Type of commodity 4.1.2.2 Flow rate 4.1.2.3 Velocity 4.1.2.4 Operating Pressure 4.1.2.5 Topography 4.1.2.6 Amount of foreign material and/or contaminants present in the pipeline and/or commodity stream such as sand, silt, water, or other materials that could cause or promote internal corrosion 4.1.2.7 Amount of sulfur, salts, acids, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or other corrosive material present and corrosive effect based upon partial pressures of material in the pipeline 4.1.2.8 Presence of microbes 4.1.2.9 Temperature 4.1.2.10 Pipe configuration, design, and material specifications <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 16 of 29 4.1.2.11 Operating conditions, including but not limited to, steady state conditions, slack line conditions, upset conditions in the pipeline system, and upset conditions in upstream facilities such as refineries or processing facilities 4.2 Product Evaluation 4.2.1 Crude Oil or natural gas containing water in the liquid phase, solids, and other corrosive constituents such as bacteria, H2S, CO2 and O2, are considered potentially corrosive. 4.2.2 Refined Petroleum Products are evaluated using NACE TM 0172‐2001, “Determining Corrosive Properties of Cargoes in Petroleum Product Pipelines”. Petroleum products are considered "corrosive" if they do not meet at least a "C" rating on this test. Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan have a target NACE rating of “A” 4.2.3 Natural Gas Liquids are evaluated using ASTM D 1838, "Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum Gases.” Natural gas liquids are considered "corrosive" if they fail to meet the Number 1 classification on this test. 4.2.4 Free water in any product is potentially corrosive 4.2.4.1 Refer to Bacteria Testing – Serial Dilution Method for more information. 4.3 Internal Corrosion Mitigation 4.3.1 Adequate steps, including eliminating the possibility of free water, removing corrosive components, or injecting corrosion inhibitor will be taken whenever investigation of the corrosive effect of the product on the metal indicates it is necessary. 4.3.2 Cleaning pigs 4.3.2.1 procedures as required. 4.3.2.2 To reduce the potential for unnecessary shut downs and/or unmanageable product contamination, pipelines with no history of pigging or those with significant amounts of known debris should not be pigged until adequate precautions and/or contingency plans have been developed. Pipeline cleaning pigs should be utilized system wide on mainline piping. Refer to Perform Pigging Operations or location specific <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 17 of 29 4.3.2.3 4.3.2.4 4.3.2.5 4.3.2.6 4.3.2.7 4.3.2.8 The frequency for routine cleaning operations of mainline product piping should be 2 times per year, approximately every 6 months. The frequency for routine cleaning operations of mainline crude piping should be 26 times per year, approximately every two weeks. Frequencies of cleaning pig runs may be adjusted as necessary based upon product upsets and the analysis of results of previous cleaning pig runs. Cleaning of facility piping, pipelines without launching or receiving equipment, and/or other non‐piggable sections should be conducted as required on a case by case basis. Pipelines transporting NH3 do not require routine pigging, but should be cleaned if excessive debris is identified prior to In‐line inspection tool runs. Pipeline pigging or repigging operations should also be considered when excessive debris is identified in the pipeline, following transportation of a corrosive (off spec) product, in preparation for integrity testing with a in‐line inspection tool, following hydrostatic testing of a pipeline, etc. Although the presence of debris in the receiving scraper trap does not necessarily indicate the quantity of material removed from the pipeline, it should be taken into consideration when determining the frequency of the cleaning pig operations. The physical condition of the pigs should also be taken into consideration, as a badly worn pig may be the result of excessive pipeline debris. During normal cleaning operations, a combination cup and brush pig (1st pig) followed, as soon as practical, by a combination cup and disc pig (2nd pig) should be utilized. Where excessive debris and paraffin buildup is thought to exist, specialty pigs such as pin‐wheel, Pit Boss™, scraper/plow blade attachments, and magnetic cleaning pigs shall be utilized as necessary based upon sound engineering judgment. Significant separation between the multiple pigs is not required and separation by more than a few yards will actually decrease the effectiveness of the operation. Cleaning pigs should be maintained in accordance with the manufactures recommendations. Pigs worn beyond the manufactures recommend tolerance should not be used. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 18 of 29 4.3.2.9 If a pig is to be run in a line which has not been pigged in many years or in a line which is suspected to be un‐piggable, soft low density Polly Pigs should be utilized until confidence is achieved that normal cleaning pigs will successfully traverse the pipeline. Specialty pigs with tracking devices may also be warranted if there is concern that the pigs may become stuck in the pipeline. 4.3.2.10 Normal cleaning operations should be conducted at a continuous 3 ft/sec or less where practical. 4.3.2.11 Caution should be observed when pigging lines that start and stop. Debris may fall out in front of the pig causing the pig to become stuck. 4.3.3 Corrosion Inhibitor 4.3.3.1 When a corrosion inhibitor is used to mitigate internal corrosion, a sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the system the inhibitor is designed to protect will be used. Initial inhibitor injection rates will be based on product characteristics of the product to be inhibited .For refined product systems a hydrocarbon soluble, water dispersible corrosion inhibitor shall be utilized (Smart Chemical SCSF260 or equivalent). For crude pipeline systems, a highly water dispersible/soluble blend of corrosion inhibitors shall be utilized (Smart Chemical SCCI865 or equivalent). 4.3.3.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Inhibitors are required to control potential internal corrosion. NOTE: Whenever a corrosion inhibitor injection pump, internal coating, or other equipment to mitigate internal corrosion, is installed or removed a Pipeline Maintenance Report shall be completed. 4.3.4 When installing a tank bottom lining in an aboveground breakout tank, the lining shall be installed in accordance with API Recommended Practice 652 unless noted in this volume why compliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 652 is not necessary for the safety of the tank. 4.4 Internal Corrosion Monitoring 4.4.1 When corrosion inhibitors are used to mitigate internal corrosion, coupons or other types of monitoring will be used to determine the effectiveness of the inhibitor and the potential extent of any corrosion. Refer to Coupon Handling and ER Probes for more information <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 19 of 29 NOTE: Whenever new coupon holding devices or ER Probes are installed, a Pipeline Maintenance Report shall be completed. 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 At least twice each calendar year, and not exceeding intervals of 7 ½ months, corrosion coupons shall be removed from the test locations and forwarded to an appropriate laboratory for corrosion analysis (Reference NACE RPO775 for more information). Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: At least three times each calendar year, and not exceeding intervals of 4.5 months, corrosion coupons shall be removed from the test locations and forwarded to an appropriate laboratory for corrosion analysis. New corrosion coupons will be installed at this time. Any alternate or supporting corrosion monitoring methods will be accomplished at the same minimum frequency. Pertinent monitoring data shall be documented in the Internal Corrosion Database and/or the appropriate inspection forms. Refer to Coupon Handling and ER Probes for more information. NOTE: There may be instances in which a product is not corrosive, and therefore not inhibited. Corrosion coupons may be used to periodically evaluate these products. In these instances, coupon monitoring may be less frequent than twice per calendar year and 7 ½ month intervals. 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.7 Effectiveness of inhibitor will be based on the inhibitor’s success in reducing the internal corrosion rate to an acceptable level. This level of acceptability may be different for each pipeline, but is typically <1 MPY for refined products and <3 MPY for crude. General corrosion rates can be classified as Low<1 mpy, Moderate 1.0 – 4.9 mpy. Sever >10 mpy. Internal corrosion rates greater than >1 MPY (refined products) or >3 MPY (crude) on inhibited pipelines shall be followed up with a detailed analysis regarding injection rates, hydro‐tests, or other unusual activities or circumstances. Action plans shall be developed if deemed necessary using sound engineering judgment. Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Coupon corrosion rates over 1 mpy of general corrosion or pitting (including MIC) will trigger a detailed analysis directed by NACE certified corrosion control personnel. This analysis will include a review of incoming product quality sample data, inhibitor injection rates, bacteria testing and, if necessary, inhibitor performance testing. Deficiencies will be resolved within six (6) months of discovery, except <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 20 of 29 4.5 4.4.8 4.4.9 deficiencies of such a nature they present a more urgent threat to pipeline integrity, in which case corrections will be done immediately. For crude pipeline systems, water sample traps will be mounted on the bottom of the pipe to facilitate the collection and analysis of free water. These locations will be inspected for water monthly and if a sufficient amount of water is present (typically >1 pint) this water shall be analyzed for bacteria, pH, iron, manganese, chlorides, and inhibitor residual (Reference API RP‐45, NACE TM0194, NACE RP0192, and ASTM D2327 for more information). Bacteria counts in excess of 10‐100 colonies/ml., pH readings outside a range of 4‐8, inhibitor residual less than ~10ppm, or an increase in iron, manganese, or chlorides could indicate an increase threat to internal corrosion. Water and debris brought into receiving traps during pigging operations will be tested to determine its potential to cause internal corrosion if determined to be necessary after consultation with the Corrosion Specialist. Crude assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Coupon/water sample collection points will be located in facilities at origination points, along the pipeline system, and end points. Locations chosen for initial sampling points include Ft. McKavett, Cedar Valley, Satsuma, and East Houston. Additional coupon/water sample collection points may be installed as determined necessary through hazard analysis. Internal Examination 195.579(c) and 192.475 (b) 4.5.1 Whenever any pipe is removed from the pipeline for any reason, the internal surface shall be inspected for evidence of corrosion. Refer to Examining and Documenting the Condition of an Underground Pipeline or Related Facility When Exposed for more information. 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 When corrosion requiring remedial action is found, further investigation will be conducted both circumferentially and longitudinally (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine the extent of the corrosion. Remedial actions will follow if necessary. Refer to Pipeline Defect Evaluation and Repair for more information. If the extent of corrosion cannot be determined, plans and scheduling for further investigation or the use of an internal inspection device shall be developed based on the severity of the corrosion encountered. The internal condition of the pipelines shall be documented on the Pipeline Maintenance Report. 5.0 QUALIFICATION <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 21 of 29 5.1 Supervisor Qualification 195.555 and 192.453 5.1.1 Magellan Asset Integrity Supervisors shall be knowledgeable of Magellan corrosion control procedures, including but not limited to those for design, installation, operation, and maintenance of internal and external corrosion control systems. 5.1.2 Supervisors may be registered professional engineers, or persons recognized as corrosion specialists or cathodic protection specialists by NACE, and/or their professional activities include suitable experience in corrosion control. 5.2 Operator Qualification 5.2.1 Operator Qualification (OQ) is required for personnel to perform identified Covered Tasks. Refer to Operator Qualification (OQ) – Covered Tasks for more information. 5.2.2 Assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: All Corrosion related activities shall be applied under the direction of competent personnel trained in the field of corrosion control. Corrosion control data shall be reviewed by NACE certified corrosion personnel. 6.0 CORROSION CONTROL RECORDS 195.404 and 192.491 6.1 Records or maps shall be maintained to show the location of: 6.1.1 Cathodically protected pipelines 6.1.2 Cathodic protection facilities, including galvanic anodes, installed after January 28, 2002 6.1.3 Neighboring structures bonded to cathodic protection systems. 6.2 Records or maps shall be maintained showing a stated number of anodes, installed in a stated manner or spacing. Specific distances to each buried anode need not be shown. 6.3 Records shall be maintained of each analysis including root cause analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist. These records shall be maintained for a minimum of 5 years. 6.4 All pipe to soil survey, rectifier inspection, and foreign line crossing pipe to soil potential data will be recorded in the appropriate corrosion control database. All close interval pipe to soil potential data will be recorded in a hard copy report as well as the appropriate electronic format, atmospheric inspection data and exposes pipe visual inspection data will be documented on the appropriate forms and distributed <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 22 of 29 appropriately, and will feed into and be processed in overall LPSIP by populating appropriate portions of the relative risk model. 6.5 As long as the pipeline remains in service, records shall be maintained for: 6.5.1 Exposed portions of buried pipelines 6.5.2 Cathodic protection surveys, including close interval or comparable surveys 6.5.3 Internal corrosion coupon examination records and records of internal examination of removed pipe 7.0 INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATION 7.1 In accordance with the Integrity Management Plan, the Pipeline Risk Engineer will conduct integrated analysis with the External Corrosion Control Program Manager and/or SMEs to ensure effective integration of data, recommendations, and/or program enhancements identified during risk assessments and analysis. 7.2 Recommendations or process changes identified by the External Corrosion Control Program Manager and/or SMEs as a result of the integrated analysis will be communicated to and discussed with Pipeline Risk Engineer in accordance with the Magellan IMP. 7.3 Mitigation measures or process changes conducted by the External Corrosion Control Program Manager and/or SMEs as a result of the integrated analysis will be communicated to and discussed with Pipeline Risk Engineer in accordance with the Magellan IMP. 7.4 Whenever a line is added or removed from the Corrosion Control Program or elements of the Corrosion Control Program (i.e. External, Internal, Atmospheric), the Pipeline Risk Analyst shall be notified in order to update the Risk Assessment Model. All pipelines included in the Corrosion Control Program shall be maintained in accordance with the program guidelines and criteria. Corrosion Control records or data from new construction or pipeline acquisition activities shall be entered into the Corrosion Control database within one year. Pipelines not included in the program are not maintained in accordance with the program and as such, corrosion can be expected. See Inactive Pipelines and Abandoning Pipeline Segments for more details. 8.0 DEFICIENCIES IN CORROSION CONTROL 8.1 Deficiencies in Corrosion Control shall be corrected in a reasonable time. 8.1.1 Unless otherwise specified in this program, a reasonable time to correct deficiencies is defined as by the next scheduled inspection. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 23 of 29 8.1.2 8.1.3 In the case where deficiencies cannot be complete by the next scheduled inspection; planning, scheduling, progress, assessment, testing, monitoring, and/or other process that demonstrates that the threat in being addressed in a prudent and practical manner may be utilized until such time the deficiency has been resolved. A cause analysis will be performed to identify contributing factors and root causes of anomalies/deficiencies identify by corrosion control surveys. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 24 of 29 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Changed By Approved By Brief Description of Change 1.1, 1.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Revised regulation number 192.461 to 192.452. 1.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson 10/08/02 Replaced “newly buried” with “jurisdictional, newly constructed, relocated, replaced or otherwise changed.” 1.2.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “including newly constructed, relocated, replaced or otherwise changed pipelines.” 1.6.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson 11/20/02 Added “Pertinent survey information shall be recorded in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager (CPDM) within 30 days after the survey.” 1.6.3, 1.71, 1.81 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “within 30 days after the survey.” 1.9.4.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Removed wording related to “metallic” or “electrolytic” type of short. 1.9.4.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added wording related to specific requirements for 192 05/06/03 1.10.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Removed references to “permanent reference cells.” 2.1.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “39” months to “36” months to align with 192 regulations. 05/16/03 5.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added 5.0, Integrity Management Plan Integration. 6/13/03 2.1.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added 2.1.3 Breakout Tanks shall be inspected……….. 10/1/03 1.2.1, 1.6.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “Manager of Pipeline Integrity” to “Manager of Asset Integrity to reflect title changes. 10/1/03 2.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted entire paragraph “On Jurisdictional facilities each pipeline that is exposed…” The criteria for coating are depicted in the new 2.13. 10/1/03 2.1.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “A suitable coating shall be applied to all soil‐to‐air interface areas to prevent atmospheric and electrolytic corrosion damage. Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications and Maintenance.” in order to clarify the coating criteria. Added, “A suitable coating shall be applied to all aboveground facilities to prevent further atmospheric corrosion damage if, through the guidelines established in the Atmospheric Inspection Procedure, a Rust Rating of 2‐G or worse is identified. Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications and Maintenance.” in order to clarify the coating criteria. 10/1/03 4.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “Williams Pipeline Integrity Supervisors” to “Magellan Asset Integrity Supervisors” in order to reflect changes in title. Inserted: Internal Corrosion Program 10/1/03 3.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson 10/1/03 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “risk engineer” to “Pipeline Risk Engineer” in order to reflect changes in title and clarify implied responsibilities (i.e. pipeline vs facility) 11/30/03 1.2.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “On jurisdictional facilities…cathodic protection system shall be provided within one year of completed construction”. 11/30/03 1.5.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “Newly constructed facilities shall be included in and be managed in accordance with the Magellan System Integrity Plan…. 11/30/03 2.5.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “On newly constructed facilities, corrosion personnel, qualified under the Operator Qualification Ruling or with <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 25 of 29 NACE Certification, shall be utilized to identify, mitigate, and monitor for inadequate cathodic protection and detrimental interference currents, prior to and during construction. Refer to Section 1.8, Foreign Crossings and Interference Currents below.” 11/30/03 1.6.5 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added entire section related to CIS 11/30/03 1.11.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “The external condition of the pipelines shall be reported on Form 02‐LEG‐1035 – Encroachment Agreement (Short Form), Form 02‐OPR‐1581 – Maintenance Report, or equivalent form.” 12/1/03 1.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added Index and renumbered 12/1/03 9.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added Definitions 12/1/03 8.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added References 12/1/03 8.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “DETERMINING CORROSIVE PROPERTIES OF CARGOES IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPELINES” 12/1/03 8.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Refer to Copper Strip Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases.” 12/1/03 8.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “and Field Gas Analysis For CO2, H2S, O2 and Dew Point.” 12/1/03 8.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “NOTE: Corrosivity of liquid products (refined petroleum products and natural gas liquids) is rarely evaluated 12/1/03 8.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Corrosive gas shall not be transported by pipeline, ……considered to be potentially corrosive.” 12/1/03 4.6 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Rewrite to be consistent with External Examination 3/23/04 4.4.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Effectiveness of inhibitor will be based on the inhibitors success.. typically <1 MPY for refined products. 3/23/04 4.4.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Internal corrosion rates greater than >1 MPY on inhibited pipelines…..engineering judgment. 6/5/2004 3.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Note: Atmospheric corrosion inspections on exposed pipelines may be conducted visually or through the use of an in-line inspection device capable of identifying and sizing corrosion. 11/5/2004 2.2.2, 2.6.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Modified for clarification: Noted conditions that will cause compliance with 651 to not be observed may be but are not limited to tanks set on concrete, asphalt pads or where studies conducted in accordance with API 653 indicate that corrosion will not affect the safe operation of the tank. 11/30/2004 2.9.4.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced “shall” with “may” for 195 lines and added the 192 language. 1/3/05 3.3.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted: Operate Auto-Injection Pumps, Added: Internal Corrosion Remediation 1/3/05 3.4.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced reference to OJT with “Refer to Coupon Handling and ER Probes” for more information. 1/3/05 3.4.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Reviewed the procedure for accuracy and effectiveness. 4/7/05 Overall Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Minor modification and editorials added to provide clarification…no process changes. 5/16/05 1.9.4.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: “Note: For line sections integrity tested by hydrostatic test a risk evaluation will be conducted at each shorted casing and action taken to clear the short and/or mitigate the corrosion if deemed necessary.” 7/6/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Basic SCC awareness information is available to operation and maintenance employees in Stress <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 26 of 29 Corrosion Cracking Information. 7/6/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: In the event that a pipeline system has experienced one or more confirmed incidents of SCC a systematic identification and examination of other potential locations of SCC will be conducted based upon the observations of conditions associated with the confirmed SCC incident. 7/6/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: or any other locations identified for SCC investigation, 7/6/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Pipe cutouts sent to a metallurgical lab for analysis will be investigated for SCC. Results of this analysis will be provided in a comprehensive report provided to Asset Integrity. Added: SCC examinations will be performed by a NDE Technician trained in the detection of SCC on buried pipelines and will be documented in the Pipeline Maintenance Report. 7/6/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Annually, confirmed SCC occurrences will be reviewed to determine if changes to the SCC assessment criteria are necessary. 8/1/05 1.12 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson No confirmed SCC occurrences to review. 11/7/05 All Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added LPP Mitigation and Shell CD requirements. 11/7/05 3.3.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added cleaning pig requirements. 12/14/05 3.5.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added “circumferentially and longitudinally” 1/4/06 1.13, 7.13 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added MIC related information to the program. 03/06/06 2.9.4.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted “clear the short and/or” mitigate the corrosion … 4/6/2006 3.2.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Refer to Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance for more information. 4/6/2006 2.13.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced “incidents” with “discoveries” and added “injurious”. 4/6/2006 4.4.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced “Internal Corrosion Remediation” with “Auto Injection Pumps”. 9/8/2006 8.0, 10.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Section 8 ‐ Deficiencies in Corrosion Control was added and references to “as soon as practical” were removed from the document. Section 10 – Definitions was update to include “reasonable time”. 9/8/2006 ALL Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Reviewed entire document…minor editorial changes, no process changes. 10/26/2006 2.3.4.2, 2.3.6 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Removed references to Net Protective current criteria 11/30/06 TOC Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added 2.14 ‐ AC Corrosion 11/30/06 2.5.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Changed “Section 1.8 to 2.8 “and added “2.14, Induced AC Corrosion” in the last sentence. 11/30/06 2.8.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added Section 2.8.4 “For interference currents related to AC.........” 11/30/06 2.14 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added new Section – “2.14 Induced AC Corrosion” and subsections 2.14.1, 2.14.2 and 2.14.3 11/30/06 9.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added link to “Testing for Induced AC and Remedial Measures in Related Policies/Procedures 11/30/06 10 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added the definition for Induced AC Corrosion to Section 10 – Definitions 11/30/06 Deleted 12/7/09 3.2.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Longhorn Specific: A suitable coating shall be applied to all aboveground facilities and soil‐to‐air interface areas to prevent corrosion damage. All areas with signs of coating degradation and/or corrosion shall be coated/recoated. Refer <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 27 of 29 to Coatings – Selection, Applications and Maintenance for more information. 4/25/07 2.1 David Stewart Michael Pearson Added 16 TAC 7.86(3) to regulation references. 4/25/07 2.1.6 David Stewart Michael Pearson Added “…using a coating deficiency (holiday) detector…” 4/25/07 2.1.9 David Stewart Michael Pearson Added new paragraph, “Joints, fittings, and tie‐ins shall be coated with material(s) compatible with the coating(s) on the pipe.” Old 2.1.9 reference to Coatings – Selection, Applications, and Maintenance becomes 2.1.10. 4/25/07 2.8 David Stewart Michael Pearson Added 16 TAC 7.86(5)(c) to regulation references. 4/25/07 2.8.4 David Stewart Michael Pearson Added new paragraph, “Texas Intrastate Pipeline specific: Whenever suspected areas of interference are identified, testing will be conducted within 6 months to determine the extent of interference, and appropriate action will be taken.” Old 2.8.4 reference to AC testing becomes 2.8.5. 1/1/08 4.2.2 David Stewart Rick Wooldridge Added natural gas 1/15/08 2.6.4.1 David Stewart Rick Wooldridge Added paragraph requiring adequate levels in AST’s when taking potential readings, as well as requirement to document the tank levels. 2/15/08 2.3.2 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Added: “Where injurious aerobic bacteria has been identified, or is suspected, a polarized potential of ‐.950 volts or more negative is required.” 2/20/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2007 annual review 9/08/08 3.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Removed the note “or through the use of an in‐line inspection device capable of identifying and sizing corrosion…at the request of PHMSA 09/25/08 1.3 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Remove references to Shell’s Consent Decree 09/25/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2008 annual review, no changes 11/06/08 4.3.2.3 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Pipelines transporting NH3 do not require routine pigging, but should be cleaning if excessive debris is identified and/or prior to In‐line inspection tool runs. 11/16/09 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2009 annual review; Removed references to Longhorn 12/07/09 4.1.1 E7 Rick Wooldridge Removed…Pipeline cargoes shall be periodically evaluated for corrosivity. Added: The corrosive effects of pipeline cargoes (hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide) shall be investigated. 12/07/09 4.1.2 E7 Rick Wooldridge Added: Circumstance or condition [such as those listed below] that could cause, promote, or increase the likelihood of internal corrosion should be promptly reviewed and internal corrosion mitigation plans implemented as appropriate. 12/07/09 4.1.2.1 thru 4.1.2.11 E7 Rick Wooldridge Added: 4.1.2.1 Type of commodity, 4.1.2.2 Flow rate, 4.1.2.3 Velocity, 4.1.2.4 Operating Pressure, 4.1.2.5 Topography, 4.1.2.6 Amount of foreign material and/or contaminants present in the pipeline and/or commodity stream such as sand, silt, water, or other materials that could cause or promote internal corrosion, 4.1.2.7 Amount of sulfur, salts, acids, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or other corrosive material present and corrosive effect based upon partial pressures of material in the pipeline 4.1.2.8 Presence of microbes, 4.1.2.9 Temperature, 4.1.2.10 Pipe configuration, design, and material specifications, 4.1.2.11 Operating conditions, including but not limited to, steady <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 28 of 29 state conditions, slack line conditions, upset conditions in the pipeline system, and upset conditions in upstream facilities such as refineries or processing facilities 03/03/10 10 E7 Rick Wooldridge Deleted “Definitions” 03/03/10 8.1.3 Jimmy Puckett Rick Wooldridge Information added to provide a single specific location that addresses LMP requirements…cause analysis will be performed to identify contributing factors and root causes of anomalies/deficiencies identify by corrosion control surveys. 03/03/10 6.4 Jimmy Puckett Rick Wooldridge Information added to provide a single specific location that addresses LMP requirements…All pipe to soil survey, rectifier inspection, and foreign line crossing pipe to soil potential data will be recorded in the appropriate corrosion control database. All close interval pipe to soil potential data will be recorded in a hard copy report as well as the appropriate electronic format, atmospheric inspection data and exposes pipe visual inspection data will be documented on the appropriate forms and distributed appropriately, and will feed into and be processed in overall LPSIP by populating appropriate portions of the relative risk model. 3/25/10 6.3 DOT Rick Wooldridge Modified: Records shall be maintained of each root cause analysis...to read Records shall be maintained for each analysis including root cause analysis. 8/9/10 2.3.4 E7 – Ken Lybarger Rick Wooldridge Changed Supervisor of Asset Integrity to Supervisor of Corrosion Control 8/9/10 2.10.4 E7 – Ken Lybarger Rick Wooldridge Changed Supervisor of Asset Integrity to Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity to maintain consistency with pipeline welding procedures. 2010 annual review; 2.4.2 was simplified to say, “Cathodic protection level should be evaluated utilizing Cathodic 08/09/10 All E7 Rick Wooldridge Protection Criteria.”. This change was necessary to improve/clarify the process for IR drop consideration. Deleted: “4.2.1 Products entering the system shall be sampled in accordance with D 4057‐95 (2000) ‐ Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, D 5842‐95 (2000) ‐Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, and D 4177‐95 (2000) Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products”. This change removes unnecessary and likely incomplete information. 10/10/11 4.3.2.3 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino 2011 Annual Review; Added: The frequency for routine cleaning operations of mainline crude piping should be 26 times per year, approximately every two weeks. Frequencies of cleaning pig runs may be adjusted as necessary based upon product upsets and the analysis of results of previous cleaning pig runs. 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete 2/16/12 4.3.2.3 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added clarification to facility piping 5/15/12 2.9.4.4 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added section to require testing for electrolytic shorted casings 5/15/12 2.9.4 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Removed references to 192 (Gas) assets 5/15/12 4.3.2.6 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added: Where excessive debris and paraffin buildup is thought to exist, specialty pigs such as pin‐wheel, Pit Boss™, <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 7.04–ADM–001 Asset Integrity 02/19/12 Revision: 11 Page 29 of 29 scraper/plow blade attachments, and magnetic cleaning pigs shall be utilized as necessary based upon sound engineering judgment. 5/15/12 4.3.3.1 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added: For refined product systems a hydrocarbon soluble, water dispersible corrosion inhibitor shall be utilized (Smart Chemical SCSF260 or equivalent). For crude pipeline systems, a highly water dispersible/soluble blend of corrosion inhibitors shall be utilized (Smart Chemical SCCI865 or equivalent). 5/15/12 4.4.5 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added: and <3 MPY for crude. 5/15/12 4.4.8 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added: (Reference API RP‐45, NACE TM0194, NACE RP0192, and ASTM D2327 for more information) and For crude pipeline systems, water sample traps will be mounted on the bottom of the pipe to facilitate the collection and analysis of free water. These locations will be inspected for water monthly and if a sufficient amount of water is present (typically >1 pint) this water shall be analyzed for bacteria, pH, iron, manganese, chlorides, and inhibitor residual. Bacteria counts in excess of 10‐100 colonies/ml., pH readings outside a range of 4‐8, inhibitor residual less than ~10ppm, or an increase in iron, manganese, or chlorides could indicate an increase threat to internal corrosion. Water and debris brought into receiving traps during pigging operations will be tested to determine its potential to cause internal corrosion if determined to be necessary after consultation with the Corrosion Specialist. 5/15/2012 4.4.9 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added: Crude assets covered by the Mitigation Plan: Coupon/water sample collection points will be located in facilities at origination points, along the pipeline system, and end points. Locations chosen for initial sampling points include Ft. McKavett, Cedar Valley, Satsuma, and East Houston. Additional coupon/water sample collection points may be installed as determined necessary through hazard analysis. 5/15/2012 4.4.2, 4.4.8 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Added references to Standard documents 5/15/2012 2.14 Rick Wooldridge Doug Chabino Recording voltmeters should be considered in areas where high voltage transmission lines parallel the pipeline over long distances. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION INSPECTIONS 7.04–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 1 of 5 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized method for monitoring, inspecting, and reporting atmospheric corrosion conditions on aboveground facilities. 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 Identifying Areas For Inspection 2.1.1 Identify all above grade and above water line structures/facilities or parts of structures/facilities as subject for atmospheric corrosion inspection. 2.1.2 Select an appropriate number of representative locations in each facility to adequately evaluate the facility for atmospheric corrosion. Particular attention should be given to pipe and soil to air interface areas, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water. 2.1.3 Maintain a listing of all subject areas, including GPS coordinates, and updated as needed in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager. 2.1.4 Some structures/facilities with corresponding inspection requirements are: 2.1.4.1 Pump/Compressor stations, measuring and regulating stations, storage vessels and tankage, and miscellaneous facilities (building, structure, piping and equipment): 2.1.4.1.1 Pipe ground transition/interface areas 2.1.4.1.2 Pipe above grade coatings 2.1.4.1.3 Pipe condition at building wall entry/exit 2.1.4.1.4 Structure and equipment coating condition 2.1.4.2 Underground pipe or related facilities exposed to the atmosphere due to intentional or unintentional reasons (i.e., erosion, subsidence, etc.) 2.1.4.3.1 Pipe ground level transition and above ground coating conditions 2.1.4.3 Pipe spans (supported and unsupported) 2.1.4.3.1 Pipe ground level transition and above ground coating conditions 2.1.4.4 2.1.4.3.2 Pipe support and traffic guard coating conditions Suspension bridges (piping and structure): 2.1.4.4.1 Physical condition of structural steel towers, assemblies, clamps, pipe hanger system, bolts, cables, cable hardware, cable anchorages, and concrete foundations 2.1.4.4.2 Pipe ground level transition and above ground coating conditions 2.1.4.5 Pipeline valves, expansion loops, and associated piping: 2.1.4.5.1 Pipe ground level transition coating condition <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION INSPECTIONS 7.04–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 2 of 5 2.2 2.3 2.1.4.5.2 Pipe above grade coating condition 2.1.4.5.3 Structure (pipe supports) coating condition Preparing the surface for inspection and or remedial action 2.2.1 The surface to be inspected shall be visible and sufficiently clean, based on the judgment of the inspector, to allow for an accurate assessment of corrosion. 2.2.2 Valves and/or other equipment located inside valve cans should be inspected from the surface if possible. If entry into the valve can is required, the procedures for Confined Space entry shall be followed. 2.2.3 Surface rust and/or oxidation may be removed using a hand or power wire brush and water or abrasive blasting. Files, hammers, or any other equipment that may damage the pipe should not be used. 2.2.4 If pipe or pipe support movement is required: 2.2.4.1 Contact the Risk Engineer to determine the maximum movement allowable for the specific pipe and/or support. 2.2.4.2 Install a temporary support or lift the pipe using pipe protective devices such as pipe saddles or hoist with proper rigging techniques if applicable. 2.2.4.3 2.2.4.4 2.2.4.5 2.2.4.6 2.2.4.7 2.2.4.8 Remove the existing pipe support, if necessary. Perform the visual inspection as indicated in 2.4 below. Replace the pipe support, if necessary. Lower the pipe or raise the support to the desired position. Remove the temporary pipe support, if applicable. Adjust the support height to ensure a level pipe or as directed by the Risk Engineer. Performing visual inspection of surfaces 2.3.1 Visually inspect all surfaces and assign a visual “corrosion” condition code on the Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection data gathering form, in the data logger, or in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager in accordance with SPCC-VIS 2; Standard Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces, General Rusting Standard. NOTE: Given the similarity between the General Rusting and Spot Rusting SPCC-VIS 2 Standards, the General Rusting Standard (1-G...9-G) is to be used for all assets. NOTE: If pitting corrosion, corrosion is in excesses of 12.5% of the pipewall or any dents, gouges, or SCC is observed, contact an Asset Integrity Supervisor, Risk Engineer, or Pipeline Integrity Engineer/Coordinator immediately. 2.3.2 For Rust Ratings of 2-G or less, utilize the comment section on the Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection data gathering form, in the data logger, or in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager to quantify and describe the structure <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION INSPECTIONS 7.04–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 3 of 5 2.3.3 and/or coating damage. Transfer of hardcopy data to the CPDM System should take place as soon as practical following the inspection. Visually inspect the soil-to-air interface area and classify the “interface coating” as Adequate or Inadequate on the Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection data gathering form, in the data logger, or in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager. Transfer of hardcopy data to the CPDM System should take place as soon as practical following the inspection. NOTE: The interface coating is adequate if it adequately prevents corrosion at the site where the pipeline first comes in contact with the soil. 2.3.4 2.4 Remedial actions 2.4.1 2.5 Documentation 2.5.1 2.5.2 Replicate the Cathodic Protection Data Management System. Areas of atmospheric concern requiring inspection and/or remedial action will be addressed in accordance with the External Corrosion Control Program and Atmospheric Corrosion Workflows. Areas of exposed pipe identified through routine corrosion work, aerial patrol, Depth-of-Cover survey, etc. shall be entered into the Cathodic Protection Data Management System to ensure follow-up inspection. Documentation of atmospheric corrosion inspection data is handled in the Cathodic Protection Data Management System. End of Procedure <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION INSPECTIONS 7.04–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 4 of 5 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date CHANGE LOCATION Changed By Approved By Brief Description of Change 10/03/02 2.2.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Revised note before 2.2.2 to point to correct procedure. 5/13/03 2.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added NOTE: Select an appropriate number……………… 5/13/03 2.3.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Delete reference to the Manager of Equipment Technology 5/13/03 2.4.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Delete entire section as it relates to the Manager of Equipment Technology 5/13/03 2.2.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added 2.2.4 Update the Cathodic Protection Data Management System (BASS) 10/29/03 1.0, 2.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted “and offshore” and “Note” 10/29/03 2.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson 2.2. was completely rewritten to utilize SPCC-VIS 2 guidelines and processes. 10/29/03 2.3.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced “The Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity….” “with Areas of atmospheric concern requiring inspection …..”. 10/29/03 2.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added “Note: performing an atmospheric corrosion inspection is a covered task and should only be performed by those qualified in accordance with the operator qualification ruling”. 10/29/03 4.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted “Platform” and “Splash Zone” 08/11/04 2.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added Section 2.2 – “Preparing the surface for inspection and or remedial action” and its subsections. 08/11/04 2.2, 2.5 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added provisions for how to use In-Line Inspection data to conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections 8/11/04 ALL Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Reviewed procedure for accuracy and effectiveness. 1/1/06 All E7 Michael Pearson Reviewed, no changes 5/12/06 2.3.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added: Valves and/or other equipment located inside valve cans should be inspected from the surface if possible. If entry into the valve can is required, the procedures for Confined Space entry shall be ollowed. 01/01/08 All E7 Larry Davied 2007 review, no changes 09/08/08 2.2, 2.5 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Removed references to using ILI data to perform atmospheric inspections 09/08/08 2.2, 2.5 Rick Wooldridge Larry Davied Added: Particular attention should be given to pipe and soil to air interface areas, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water. 11/19/08 ALL E7 Rick Wooldridge 2008 review, no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION INSPECTIONS 7.04–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 5 of 5 Date CHANGE LOCATION Changed By Approved By Brief Description of Change 11/17/09 ALL E7 Rick Wooldridge 2009 review, minor clean-up changes 08/10/10 ALL E7 Rick Wooldridge 2010 review; Deleted all references to BASS 12/31/11 ALL 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 1 of 9 The purpose of this procedure is to establish standardized cathodic protection (CP) criteria to be used to confirm adequate external corrosion control for Company facilities. 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 2.2 2.3 Identifying CP Criteria to be Used 2.1.1 Selecting which CP criteria to use 2.1.1.1 Use the –0.850 volts Pipe-to-Soil (P/S) potential criteria as the primary criteria for all facilities. 2.1.1.2 Use the 100 millivolt shift criteria whenever the –0.850 volts P/S criteria cannot be achieved or as directed by the Manager of Asset Integrity. 2.1.1.3 The criteria employed must be specified in the Cathodic Protection Data Manager for the facility, segment, or individual test point. Using the –0.850 Volts P/S Criteria 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 Take P/S potentials per procedure Measuring a Pipe-to-Soil Potential. P/S reading must be at least –0.850 volts, with reference to a saturated copper-copper sulfate reference half-cell, while the protective current is applied. Voltage (IR) drops shall be considered per section 2.5 below. Whenever –0.850 volts P/S is not achieved, the 100 millivolt shift criteria should be applied, unless corrective actions are planned to remediate the low potential. 100 Millivolts Voltage Shift (Polarization Formation) Criteria 2.3.1 2.3.2 To use the 100 millivolt shift criteria as established by the polarization formation method, follow the procedure described below. For Existing Pipelines Or Facilities 2.3.2.1 Turn off and/or disconnect all known sources of CP influence. 2.3.2.2 Allow sufficient time for the piping or facility to depolarize. 2.3.2.3 Conduct a complete P/S survey (near native state survey). 2.3.2.4 Near native state survey, results may not be totally native state due to unknown galvanic anodes or foreign impressed and stray current influences. If other CP influences are located, these should be shut down and a new survey performed in the areas of influence. 2.3.3 Apply CP to the Pipeline or Facility 2.3.3.1 Turn on and/or reconnect all known sources of CP influence. 2.3.3.2 Allow sufficient time for the structure to polarize or re-polarize for existing structures. 2.3.4 Conduct an Interrupted P/S Survey Of The Pipeline Or Facility 2.3.4.1 Install and place in operation interrupter equipment in all influential CP current sources affecting the pipeline or facility being tested. 2.3.4.2 Synchronize all interrupters. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 2 of 9 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.4.3 Use at least an 80% duty cycle (“On” cycle set to 8 seconds and “Off” cycle set to 2 seconds). Keep the “Off” cycle as short as possible to prevent polarization decay but long enough to read after any spike (“Instant Off”) as shown in Figure 1 “Polarization Formation”. 2.3.4.4 After starting the interruption of all current sources, read the “On” potential during the “On” cycle and take the “Off” potential reading instantly after any spike. Conduct a complete P/S survey, recording both the “Instant Off” and the “On” potential readings. Calculate for the 100 millivolt shift. 2.3.6.1 Subtract the Native State or Near Native State potential from the “Instant Off” potential for each location. To meet the 100 millivolt shift criteria, the results must be greater than 100 millivolt. 2.4 2.3.8 Establish Individual Test Point “ON” criteria based on the 100 millivolt test. 2.3.8.1 When 100 millivolt or more shift occurs, the “On” potential reading is established as the P/S criteria, with CP on, for a particular test point. 2.3.8.2 As long as there are no significant changes in the environment, structure, coating, CP systems, etc., this established “On” criteria can be used for satisfying the 100 millivolt criteria through the monitoring of the “On” potentials. 100 Millivolts Voltage Shift (Polarization Decay) Criteria 2.4.1 To use the 100 millivolt shift criteria as established by the polarization decay method 2.4.1.1 Install and place in operation interrupter equipment in all influential CP current sources effecting the pipeline or facility being tested. 2.4.1.2 Synchronize all interrupters 2.4.1.3 Use at least an 80% duty cycle (“On” cycle set to 8 seconds and “Off” cycle set to 2 seconds). The “Off” cycle should be kept as short as possible to prevent <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 3 of 9 2.5 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 polarization decay, but long enough to read after any spike (“Instant Off”) as shown in Figure 2. 2.4.1.4 Conduct a complete P/S survey, recording both the “Instant Off” and the “On” potential readings. Mark each spot of electrode placement. Calculate Targeted Near Native State P/S Potentials as Follows: 2.4.2.1 Subtract 100millivolt from the “Instant Off” potential reading for each test point. This is the targeted near native state P/S potential. Test For Polarization Decay To Targeted Near Native State P/S Potentials As Follows: 2.4.3.1 Turn off and/or disconnect all known sources of CP influence. 2.4.3.2 Conduct a complete P/S survey, recording “Off” potential readings. 2.4.3.3 Observe and record polarization decay potentials. When polarization decay potentials reach targeted near native state P/S potentials, stop decay test to retain as much polarization as possible 2.4.3.4 Targeted near native state potentials may not be totally native state due to unknown galvanic anodes or foreign impressed and stray current influences and a small amount of remaining polarization. 2.4.3.5 Turn on or reconnect all known sources of CP influence as soon as possible to reestablish polarization. Establish Individual Test Point “On” criteria based on the 100 millivolt shift, polarization decay test. When 100 millivolt or more shift occurs, the “On” potential reading is established as the P/S criteria, with CP on, for that test point. As long as there are no significant changes in the environment, structure, coating, CP systems, etc., these established “On” criteria can be used for satisfying the 100 millivolt criteria through the monitoring of the “On” potentials. Methods for IR Drop Consideration 2.5.1 In accordance with Ohm’s Law of E (volts) = I (current) x R (resistance), any time current flows through a resistance, a voltage drop is produced. For cathodic protection purposes, the current flow in the soil (electrolyte) is the I and the soil resistance is R and the resulting voltage drop is E in volts. Therefore, if the amount of current or the resistance is very low, the resulting voltage or IR drop would also be low or considered negligible. The voltage drop, commonly called the IR Drop, needs to be considered when taking pipe-to- soil measurements. See figure below for a depiction of the IR Drop location in P/S measurements below. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 4 of 9 High Resistance Voltmeter See Section 2.5.3 2.5.2 Various IR Drop correction techniques can be utilized to consider the IR Drop factor in P/S measurements. These include but not limited to the following: Which Method(s) For Considering Voltage Drop (IR) In P/S Measurements Method Process Comments Is affected by proximity to the current sorce Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations Requires knowledge of various operating factors and historical information Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations May be affected by the proximity to current sorce Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations Historical Operating Information See Section 2.5.4 Reference Cell Placement See Section 2.5.5 Calculation See Section 2.5.6 Time consuming and requires various calculations Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations Current Interruption See Section 2.5.7 For proper use, requires synchronized interruption of all current sources Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations Buried Coupons See Section 2.5.8 Requires installation of special test stations containing coupons Integrity testing procedures should incorporate historical corrosion rates and growth calculations <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 5 of 9 2.5.3 High Resistance Voltmeter Method 2.5.3.1 This method considers IR drop by minimizing current flow through the measurement circuit, thus decreasing voltage drops associated with the mechanical and electrolytic components of the circuit. 2.5.3.2 A high resistance voltmeter (>50,000 ohm) is necessary to reduce the voltage drop in the external circuit. 2.5.4 Historical Operating Information Method 2.5.4.1 This method utilizes recent and historical operating information to determine if the cathodic protection system is properly protecting the structure at existing voltage levels. 2.5.4.2 The lack of corrosion related leaks or repairs in conjunction with consistent cathodic protection levels and coating condition indicates the adequacy of cathodic protection. 2.5.5 Reference Cell Placement Method 2.5.5.1 Since the amount or quantity of the IR drop is directly proportional to the distance between the reference cell and the structure to be measured, the simplest method for considering IR drop is to minimize this distance. 2.5.5.2 To minimize IR drop at test stations: 2.5.5.2.1 The reference cell should be placed over the centerline of the structure to be tested. 2.5.5.2.2 Permanent reference cells can be placed in close proximity to the buried structure. 2.5.5.2.3 If a quantitative voltage drop reading is required for the location, then a surface reading can be obtained with a portable reference cell and then by subtracting the reference cell reading, the voltage drop is obtained. Surface Reading – Reference cell reading = IR or voltage drop <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 6 of 9 2.5.5.2.4 The pipeline can be probed and a small diameter/long cylinder reference cell inserted into the hole where the probing occurred. This cell is then placed very close to the pipe’s surface without contacting the pipe. 2.5.5.2.5 A plastic or non-conductive tube can be installed directly over the pipeline. The tube should be within one or two inches of the structure, but not contacting the coating. The tube can be filled with soil or left open and the reference cell lowered into the tube for voltage measurements. 2.5.5.3 To minimize IR drop when taking P/S measurements where the structure has been excavated, the reference cell should be placed in close proximity to the structure. 2.5.5.4 To minimize IR drop when taking P/S measurements on structures that extend above grade, the reference cell should be placed in close proximity to the structure. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 7 of 9 2.5.6 Calculation Method 2.5.6.1 This method utilizes an extrapolation calculation for considering the IR drop as further noted below and in Figures 2 and 3 below. 2.5.6.1.1 When potential measurements are taken in close proximity to another structure, this method will not be valid. 2.5.6.2 Obtain a P/S measurement directly over the structure or pipeline. 2.5.6.3 Move the reference cell six feet perpendicular away from the first reading and obtain a second pipe-to-soil reading, called the offset potential. 2.5.6.4 Obtain the centerline depth of the structure. 2.5.6.5 Calculate the true or IR free potential using the following formula: TR = D – A[(E – D)/C] TR = True reading in millivolts <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 8 of 9 2.5.7 Using Current Interruption 2.5.7.1 This method utilizes current interruption to obtain what is commonly called an “Instant Off” potential. The basis for this method is that the IR or voltage drop disappears when the current is turned off according to Ohms law of E = I x R. However, care must be exercised when using this option as polarization may be lost when the interrupters are installed or during the interruption cycle. Therefore, an 80% duty cycle (8 seconds On and 2 seconds Off) is suggested. 2.5.7.2 For proper consideration of IR drop in this method, all current sources must be interrupted. Foreign current sources must also be interrupted, shut off or not in operation at the time of consideration. 2.5.7.3 To consider IR drop in this manner, the following steps should be followed: 2.5.7.3.1 2.5.7.3.2 2.5.7.3.3 2.5.7.3.4 2.5.7.4 Soil Coupons 2.5.7.4.1 2.5.7.4.2 2.5.7.4.3 2.5.7.4.4 Synchronize all interrupters to be utilized for this type of survey or consideration method. Install the interrupters on all known current sources to include bonds and foreign and Company cathodic protection facilities. Record the “On” and “Instant Off” potentials for the structure being tested. Remove all interrupters and return all facilities to normal operation. To decrease or eliminate possible errors associated with “current interruption” coupons can be installed next to the pipeline simulating a coating defect (holiday). The coupon should be installed in similar backfill as the structure to be monitored and installed in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendation. The “Off” reading is obtained by measuring the potential of the coupon while removing it from the cathodic protection circuit. Polarization decay and Native potential readings can be obtained while the coupon is disconnected from the cathodic protection system. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA 7.04–ADM–006 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 2 Page 9 of 9 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Chan ged By Approv ed By Brief Description of Change 12/1/03 Change Log Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added “Changed By” 12/1/03 Document Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Replaced Williams with Company 12/1/03 2.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “For newly constructed pipelines or facilities, the Corrosion Technician shall conduct a complete P/S survey before application of CP. Mark each spot of electrode placement 1/1/06 All E7 Michael Pearson 2005 annual review complete – no changes 10/26/06 2.1.1.3, 2.5, 4.7 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Removed references to net protective current 01/01/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2007 annual review complete – no changes 1/1/09 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2008 annual review complete – no changes 11/17/09 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2009 annual review complete – minor clean-up changes 8/3/10 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2010 annual review – This procedure was rewritten to further clarify Magellan’s process for IR Drop consideration [including the incorporation of historical corrosion rates and growth calculations]. 1/17/11 Various Larry Davied Rick Wooldridge 2011 annual review, Minor revisions 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 1 of 9 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized method for identifying, testing for and mitigating the harmful effects of interference currents. 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 2.1.1 Determining the Need for Interference Current Testing. 2.1.2 2.1.3 Determine the need for interference current testing based on the potential effects on facilities from foreign DC currents. Primary sources of potential interference are: 2.1.1.1 Static DC current: other (foreign) Cathodic Protection (CP) systems (foreign usually refers to other companies, but can refer to other systems operated by the same company, i.e., foreign refers to any system not part of the system being reviewed/surveyed/examined/tested, etc.) 2.1.1.2 Dynamic DC currents: direct current (DC) operated traction systems, such as DC railroads, subways, tramways, and mining equipment/carts 2.1.1.3 Stray currents: either static or dynamic, from an unknown source 2.1.1.4 Other sources may include welding operations, railroad signal batteries, HVDC transmission systems and related ground electrodes, chlorine and aluminum plants which utilize high DC currents, telluric forces, battery chargers, etc. Cathodic protection tests that may indicate potential interference include the following: 2.1.2.1 Low Pipe‐to‐Soil (P/S) potential area tests 2.1.2.2 Hot spot or cell‐to‐cell surveys 2.1.2.3 Line current surveys Determine the need for interference current testing based on the potential effects of Company CP systems on foreign facilities. Some reasons for testing are: 2.1.3.1 Request from foreign company 2.1.3.2 Installation of new CP system 2.1.3.3 Significant increase in output of an existing CP system 2.1.3.4 Installation of a new foreign pipeline or facility 2.1.3.5 Installation of a new pipeline or facility 2.1.3.6 Drastic unexplained change in P/S or current readings on CP surveys 2.1.3.7 Installation of new HVDC or HVAC power transmission systems 2.1.3.8 Any other significant change in the environment that might affect CP current flow/direction/consumption <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 2 of 9 2.1.3.9 2.1.4 Potential contributors to the possibility for having interference current may include: 2.1.3.9.1 Poor to no coating 2.1.3.9.2 High rectifier circuit resistance Likely areas where interference may be suspect are 2.1.4.1 Pipelines or facilities within the ground bed gradient of a foreign CP system 2.1.4.2 Pipelines or facilities located between a foreign CP system and its corresponding facility 2.1.4.3 Paralleling or crossing foreign pipelines 2.1.4.4 Buried isolation locations 2.1.4.5 Metallic structures that will provide a low total resistance path for the DC current in question to complete its electrical circuit 2.2 Testing for and Determining the Effects of Interference Current NOTE: Whenever possible, all interference testing should be a cooperative endeavor and performed mutually. Any testing conducted on or from foreign facilities/systems should be done with the permission and/or jointly with the foreign companies. NOTE: When possible, coordinate interference testing with local Corrosion Control Coordinating Committees 2.2.1 2.2.2 Identify all possible foreign static and dynamic DC current sources. (For the purpose of this procedure, foreign refers to all systems not part of the facility being tested.) Interrupt each foreign static DC current source and, whenever possible, each dynamic DC current source while conducting a P/S survey (spot or CIS) over the effected area (area in question or suspect of interference current discharge). Reference Measuring a Pipe‐to‐Soil Potential. 1.1.1 NOTE: Use an 80% duty cycle (8 seconds “On” and 2 seconds “Off”) in the interruption of current sources when checking for interference. The Supervisor of Corrosion Control may approve other duty cycles. 2.2.3 Analyze the P/S readings from step 2.2.2 of this procedure to determine if: 2.2.3.1 2.2.3.2 2.2.3.3 Interrupted current caused a change in the P/S readings from the Off to On Interrupted current caused a more negative P/S reading from the Off to On Interrupted current caused a more positive P/S reading from the Off to On <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 3 of 9 2.2.4 2.2.3.4 For each test point, add the P/S potential change (net effect) resulting from all foreign DC current sources to get the magnitude of the interference for that point or location: 2.2.3.4.1 If the total effect is Zero, there is no interference 2.2.3.4.2 If the total effect is a negative (‐) figure, the point is a current pick‐up area 2.2.3.4.3 If the total effect is a positive (+) figure, the point is a current discharge area 2.2.3.4.4 The magnitude of the total effect will determine whether the interference must be mitigated or whether it is inconsequential To test for foreign dynamic DC currents that can not be interrupted (mostly DC traction systems), conduct a continuous P/S test at each test point in question per the following steps. 2.2.4.1 Install a data logger or similar equipment at each location capable of continuously recording P/S readings for a predetermined time span. Reference Measuring a Pipe‐to‐Soil Potential. 2.2.4.2 Analyze recorded P/S data that was recorded from step 2.2.4.1 of this procedure. 2.2.4.2.1 Fluctuating P/S readings with no apparent reason indicates possible interference. Further review of the recorded data should be conducted to determine if the fluctuating pattern can be correlated to local DC operating systems 2.2.4.2.2 Comparing P/S readings from each point taken at the same time may help to indicate which point is a current pick‐up or discharge point 2.2.4.2.3 At test points exhibiting fluctuating P/S readings higher than baseline values may indicate that the point is a current pick‐ up area 2.2.4.2.4 At test points exhibiting fluctuating P/S readings lower than baseline values may indicate that the point is a current discharge area 2.2.4.2.5 If the baseline P/S is unknown, it may be determined from the logged readings taken during the continuous testing 2.2.4.2.6 The magnitude of the difference in the lowest or highest P/S reading and the baseline P/S reading will determine whether <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 4 of 9 2.3 2.4 the interference must be mitigated or whether it is inconsequential 2.2.5 Locate the unknown interfering DC current source. 2.2.5.1 In order to locate potential areas of interference, one or more of the following surveys should be conducted: 2.2.5.1.1 Hot spot or cell to cell survey 2.2.5.1.2 Close interval survey 2.2.5.1.3 DCVG survey 2.2.5.1.4 By conducting one of more of the above noted surveys, it may be possible to locate the point(s) of current discharge/pickup and/or to track the current to or from its source 2.2.6 If the attempts to locate or identify the interference source are successful, perform either step 2.2.2 or step 2.2.4 of this procedure to evaluate the effects of the interference source. Determining the Need for Interference Current Mitigation: 2.3.3 Review the data from section 2.2 of this procedure. The magnitude of the interference will determine whether the interference current must be mitigated or if it will be considered inconsequential. 2.3.3.1 A shift in the P/S potential reading that results in a potential of ‐1.000 Volt or more negative, (IR drop free) shall be considered inconsequential, unless field testing dictates otherwise. 2.3.3.2 A shift in the P/S potential reading that results in a potential between ‐ 0.850 volts to –1.000 volts (IR drop free) may require mitigation, depending upon field testing and site conditions. 2.3.3.3 A shift in the P/S potential reading that results in a potential less than ‐ 0.850 volts will require mitigation. Selecting the Type of Mitigation 2.4.1 Eliminate or reduce the potential for current exchange by physically changing the environment or facility. Suggested mitigating actions to reduce current exchange include: 2.4.1.1 Recoat the current discharge areas or current pick‐up areas on the pipeline/facility in question. Reference Coatings – Selection, Application, and Maintenance. 2.4.1.2 Install a highly resistive material between the pipeline/facility in question and the foreign pipeline/facility. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 5 of 9 2.4.1.3 Reduce high rectifier circuit resistance by installing a new groundbed. Reference Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Deep Groundbed or Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Surface Groundbed. 2.4.1.4 Relocate foreign CP groundbed or entire CP system 2.4.1.5 Move electrical isolation devices from below ground to above ground 2.4.1.1 If practical, increase the distance between foreign and Company facilities 2.4.1.2 Improve/repair DC traction systems isolation between rails and the earth (ballast, ties, padding) 2.4.1.3 Improve/repair DC traction systems electrical connection across rail ends/joints 2.4.2 Design considerations for mitigating potential interference effects include the following: 2.4.2.1 Design of a CP system with groundbed gradient located outside of any existing pipeline/facility 2.4.2.2 Design of a groundbed to reduce interference potential. Deep groundbeds have less potential to cause interference than a conventional/surface groundbed 2.4.2.3 Route new pipelines/facilities outside any potential interference current pick‐up area or groundbed gradient. If at all possible, avoid placing a new pipeline between a foreign groundbed and the structure being protected 2.4.3 Mitigation by electrical bonding 2.4.3.1 Select the appropriate bond type. Some types of bonds are: 2.4.3.1.1 Solid bonds (no control on amount of current or direction of current) 2.4.3.1.2 Resistance bonds (control on amount of current) 2.4.3.1.3 Diode bonds (control on direction of current) 2.4.3.1.4 Resistance diode bonds (control on both direction and amount of current) 2.4.3.2 Select a bonding location as close as practical to the current discharge point or current source. 2.4.3.3 Install cathodic protection cables. Reference Attaching Cathodic Protection Cables. 2.4.3.4 Install a shunt where practical to provide a means for measuring bond current direction and magnitude. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 6 of 9 2.4.4 2.4.3.5 Classify the bond as “critical to Magellan, critical to Foreign, or Courtesy (see definitions) Mitigation by installing a galvanic anode to serve as a sacrificial discharge or drain point: 2.4.4.1 Locate point of current discharge. 2.4.4.2 Install the galvanic anode(s). Reference Attaching Cathodic Protection Cables and Standard Drawing – Magnesium Anode Typical Mounting. 2.4.5 Mitigate by installing a new CP system to provide additional CP current to counter the effects of the interference current. Reference Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Deep Groundbed or Design and Installation of an Impressed Current Surface Groundbed. 2.4.5.1 2.4.5.2 Identify a groundbed location within the area of cathodic protection interference. Install a groundbed within the area of cathodic protection interference. 1.1.2 NOTE: Groundbeds must be designed and installed so as to avoid causing interference to other facilities. 2.4.6 Designing Mitigation Bonds 2.4.6.1 Conducting a P/S correction adjustment test. 2.4.6.1.1 Locate the point of maximum interference current discharge (control test point) using a close interval survey 2.4.6.1.2 Chose the proposed bond location based on accessibility and the following: 2.4.6.1.2.1 2.4.6.1.2.2 2.4.6.2 2.4.6.3 2.4.6.4 Where the two pipelines cross Where the two paralleling pipelines come closest together 2.4.6.1.2.3 Where the pipeline comes closest to a facility 2.4.6.1.2.4 At a point of ownership with an electrical isolating kit Install a temporary shunted resistance bond Interrupt the interfering current source by installing an interrupter with at least an 80% duty cycle setting. Read the interrupted (Off/On) P/S potentials and the interfering bond current at the control test point. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 7 of 9 2.4.6.5 Start the test with the bond resistance at a maximum, allowing zero bond current flow. 2.4.6.6 Slowly decrease the bond resistance until the Off/On P/S potential readings are the same. 2.4.6.7 Measure the bond resistance and then install a resistor as close as possible to that measured resistance. The current rating of the resistor must be at least as high as the planned current flow. 2.4.7 Installing Convenience/Courtesy Bonds 2.4.7.1 Install convenience/courtesy bonds for foreign pipelines/facilities, whereby: 2.4.7.1.1 2.4.7.1.2 2.4.7.1.3 2.4.7.1.4 2.4.7.1.5 CP current is temporarily exchanged when agreed upon by a foreign pipeline/facility Sufficient CP current is available Does not jeopardize the cathodic protection levels of the providing pipeline/facility Mutually agreed upon by all parties involved Reference Attaching Cathodic Protection Cables. 2.7 Documentation 1.1.3 2.7.1 Interference testing data must be documented and recorded on the Cathodic Protection Interference Test Form. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 8 of 9 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Changed By Approved By Brief Description of Change 12/01/03 Change Log Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “Changed By” 12/01/03 2.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added, “Note: Testing for interference currents and remedial measures on a DOT regulated asset is a covered task and should only be performed by those qualified in accordance with the operator qualification ruling. Reference Operator Qualification (OQ) ‐ Covered Tasks. 12/01/03 2.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “from “One Calls” or interference testing committees.” 12/01/03 2.1.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Review results of routine cathodic protection surveys and close interval cathodic protection surveys for signs of possible interference.” 12/01/03 2.1.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Review information/notices/reports of installation or intent to install new foreign CP systems or pipeline/facility.” 12/01/03 2.1.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Review new pipeline encroachment reports or notices.” 12/01/03 2.7.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Interference testing data should be electronically transferred to the Cathodic Protection Data Management System (BASS) for retention and analysis.” 12/01/03 2.7.3 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “The data should be retained for use in the design and implementation of any necessary remedial action.” 12/01/03 2.7.4 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “The data shall be considered to be accurate based on the pipe, cathodic protection, and environmental conditions at the time of the survey.” 12/01/03 2.7.5 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Survey data on a particular pipe segment shall no longer be considered to be representative if there is a significant replacement or recoating of pipeline or a change in the applied cathodic protection within the segment.” 12/01/03 2.2.2 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted, “Test for foreign static and dynamic DC current sources”. 12/01/03 5.0 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Deleted “Responsibilities” section as it is not part of the standard format. 1/1/06 All Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson 2005 annual review, no changes 01/01/07 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2006 annual review, no changes 01/01/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2007 annual review, no changes 10/14/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2008 annual review, no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INTERFERENCE CURRENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04–ADM–015 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 3 Page 9 of 9 11/18/09 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2009 annual review; Removed references and links; other minor modifications 01/01/11 Reviewed, no changes 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. COATINGS—SELECTION APPLICATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE 7.04–ADM–016 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 2 Page 1 of 2 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to communicate a standardized reference for the selection, application, and maintenance of coatings used to prevent corrosion. 2.0 PROCEDURE Selection, Application, and Maintenance of coatings includes both minor coating repairs and major coating projects. This document and its associated links are intended as a reference for OQ training purposes and for the development of a Project Scope/Job Plan. They are not intended as a step‐by‐step procedure or to replace a project specific Job Plan. The specifications below may be used all or in part as required by the individual Project Manager and assignments to both “Company” and “Contractor” may be applied accordingly. 2.1 Reference applicable Company protective coating specifications Atmospheric Coating Standards And Specifications Plant Applied Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) And Abrasive Resistant Overlays (ARO) External Coatings For Field Joints, Soil‐to‐Air Interface, and Coating Repairs 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 Documentation 2.2.1 Documentation for below ground coatings on pipelines and related facilities is stored in the Linefill Database system. 2.2.2 Documentation for above ground coatings on pipelines, tanks, and related facilities is stored in the Atmospheric Corrosion database. 2.2.3 Documentation of coating installation and repairs conducted per this procedure should be documented Project Plan, Job Book, and/or Pipeline Maintenance Report as applicable. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. COATINGS—SELECTION APPLICATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE 7.04–ADM–016 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 2 Page 2 of 2 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Changed By Changed By Brief Description of Change 10/29/03 Change Log Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Added “changed by” to the change log Michael Pearson 10/29/03 1.1 Rick Wooldridge Replaced “establish” with “communicate”. Revised paragraph to make it easier to understand. 10/29/03 2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 Michael Pearson Rick Wooldridge Removed “Williams” Michael Pearson 10/29/03 2.1.1 Rick Wooldridge Removed THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES SPECIFICATION 15.11.07 LATEST EDITION Michael Pearson 10/29/03 2.2.1 Rick Wooldridge Deleted “Record information concerning below and above ground coatings on pipelines and related facilities on the Maintenance Report.” 10/29/03 2.2.1, 2.2.2 Michael Pearson Rick Wooldridge Split below ground and above ground data storage locations to clarify. Michael Pearson 10/29/03 2.0 Rick Wooldridge Added “Note: The application of coatings is a covered task and should only be performed by those qualified in accordance with the operator qualification ruling.” 1/1/06 All E7 Michael Pearson 2005 review, no changes 01/01/7 All E7 Michael Pearson 2006 review, no changes 01/01/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2007 review, no changes 09/12/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2008 review, reformatted, minor modifications 11/19/09 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2009 annual review, minor word changes 8/10/10 All E7 Rick Wooldridge 2010 annual review; Updated links 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INDUCED AC AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04‐ADM‐023 Asset Integrity 1/1/12 Revision: 1 Page 1 of 5 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized method for identifying and mitigating induced AC. 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 Determining the need for induced AC testing. 2.1.1 Determine the need for induced AC testing based on the potential effects on facilities from High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC). Primary influences of HVAC systems include: [see NACE RPO177‐2000 for more information]. 2.1.1.1 Resistive Coupling 2.1.1.2 Capacitive Coupling 2.1.1.3 Inductive Coupling 2.1.1.4 Power Arc 2.1.1.5 Lightning 2.1.1.6 Switch Surges or other Transients 2.1.2 Tests that may indicate Induced AC include the following: 2.1.2.1 Inadequate Pipe‐to‐Soil (P/S) potential readings 2.1.2.2 AC potential readings 2.1.2.3 Predictive modeling 2.1.3 Likely areas for Induced AC: 2.1.3.1 Pipelines or facilities that enter or exit the electrical gradient of an HVAC system 2.1.3.2 Pipelines or facilities paralleling in close proximity to an HVAC system 2.1.3.3 Pipelines or facilities in close proximity to an HVAC Sub‐Station 2.1.3.4 Pipelines or facilities in close proximity to HVAC Towers and/or grounding systems 2.2 Testing for and Determining the Effects of Induced AC 2.2.1 Identify test leads and/or above ground appurtenances to be tested based on information in 2.1.3 above. 2.2.2 Measure the AC potential using an AC voltmeter. Contact resistance should be sufficiently low to preclude measurement errors. Suitable references for measurements include: 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 A metal rod inserted into the earth until no further increases in AC potential are noted. Bare pipeline casings, if adequately isolated from the carrier pipe. Tower legs or power system neutrals, in close proximity to the affected structure. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INDUCED AC AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04‐ADM‐023 Asset Integrity 1/1/12 Revision: 1 Page 2 of 5 2.2.2.4 Reference electrodes designed for gathering cathodic protection data (i.e. half‐cells, permanent reference electrodes, etc.) CAUTION: Meter connections may present a hazard during switching surges, lightning strikes, or fault conditions. 2.2.3 Analyze the AC P/S reading from step 2.2.2 of this procedure to determine if soill resistivity data is required. Criteria includes: 2.2.3.1 AC potentials greater than 10 volt 2.2.3.2 Human shock hazards have been identified (electrical shocks may occur at a voltage below the 15 volt threshold recommended by NACE, while not life threatening, mitigation may be necessary to address these shocks.) 2.2.3.3 Areas were AC potentials are cyclic, unstable, or inconsistent over time. 2.2.3.4 Areas were AC corrosion has been identified 2.2.4 If soil resistivity measurements are not required go to 2.7 below. 2.3 Soil Resistivity 2.3.1 Collect soil resistivity measurements at each location as selected per 2.2.3. 2.4 AC Current Density 2.4.1 Using the AC voltage measured in 2.2.2 and the soil resistivity measured in 2.3.1 determine the calculated AC current discharge density per the AC current density calculator in section 2.4.2. Note: Holiday size should be selected based on the typical holiday size expected on the pipeline. 2.4.2 AC Current Density Calculator Calculating AC Current Density Inputs AC Voltage 10 volts Soil Resistivity 5000 ohm-cm Holiday Size 6 cm2 AC Current Density 18.42633309 A/m2 AC Corrosion Potential AC corrosion not likely Cathodic Protection Criteria 100mv polorization AC Mitigative Action No action required AC Voltage Measured or calculated Soil Resistivity Measured or expected <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INDUCED AC AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04‐ADM‐023 Asset Integrity 1/1/12 Revision: 1 Page 3 of 5 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 The AC Current Density Calculator utilizes the relationship between the AC driving voltage, soil resistivity, and the estimated size of the coating holiday from which current can discharge, to estimate the discharge density. Where a more precise current discharge density is required coupon test stations should be installed. Determine the potential for AC corrosion 2.4.4.1 AC Current Density <20 A/m2 = AC Corrosion not likely 2.4.4.2 AC Current Density >20 A/m2 but <100 A/m2 = AC Corrosion unpredictable 2.4.4.3 AC Current Density >100 A/m2 = AC Corrosion is likely Determine the need for mitigative action (see AC current density calculator in section 2.4.2) 2.4.5.1 2.4.5.2 2.4.5.3 2.4.6 AC Current Density <20 A/m2 = No action required AC Current Density >20 A/m2 = Action required Rule of Thumb: When the AC potential, in millivolts (mV), is greater than or equal to the resistance of the soil, in ohm‐cm; a more detailed analysis and/or mitigation is typically required. Determine the criteria for cathodic protection ((see AC current density calculator in section 2.4.2) 2.4.6.1 2.4.6.2 2.5 2.6 AC Current Density <20 A/m2 = 100 mV polarization AC Current Density >20 A/m2 but <500 A/m2 = 150 mV to 250mv polarization 2.4.6.3 AC Current Density >500 A/m2 = Cathodic protection is not effective in mitigating corrosion Mitigative Action – Cathodic Protection can be effective at mitigating AC corrosion 2.5.1 Measure and/or calculate the target ON potential for each test point within the area affected by Induced AC. 2.5.1.1 Target ON is the potential, with current applied, where polarization equal to the native potential, plus the cathodic protection criteria established in 2.4.6 is achieved. 2.5.2 Document the Target ON potential in the Corrosion Database (CPDM). 2.5.3 Utilize the target ON potential as the criteria for cathodic protection. This criteria may be used as long as there are no significant changes in the environment, structure, coating, cp systems, etc. 2.5.4 Supplemental cathodic protection and/or coating rehabilitation will be required if the adequate cathodic protection potentials are not achieved. Mitigative Action – In addition to adequate cp as defined in 2.5, managing the negative effects from Induced AC or lightning is accomplished by reducing the interference voltage and/or providing a path to ground for damaging current. 2.6.1 Select and install the appropriate grounding equipment. This equipment may include: 2.6.1.1 Grounding rods (typically made of zinc, copper, graphite or cast‐iron) <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INDUCED AC AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04‐ADM‐023 Asset Integrity 1/1/12 Revision: 1 Page 4 of 5 2.6.1.2 2.6.1.3 installed where the pipeline enters and exits the electrical gradient of a HVAC system and at select locations where the pipeline parallels the HVAC system. Grounding ribbons (typically made of zinc or copper) installed parallel with and directly connected to the pipeline along the distance where the pipeline is influenced by the HVAC system. Ground mats (typically made of zinc or copper) should be installed at valves, metallic vents, cathodic protection test stations, and other above ground appurtenances where electrical contact with the affected structure is possible. Grounding mats should be large enough to extend beyond the area on which a person may be standing when contacting the affected structure and close enough to the surface that step and touch potentials are adequately reduced. NOTE: If the ground rod material used has a native voltage potential less negative than the ‐1 volt (as compared to copper‐copper sulfate electrode) an isolation device must be installed to block the flow of DC, while passing AC. Caution is advised when using grounding material with a native potential more negative than the pipeline as the ground will be anodic to the pipeline and thus corrode. 2.6.1.4 2.6.1.5 Where AC surge currents or lighting is a concern, electrical bonds designed to pass AC, should be installed across insulating flanges to prevent arcing. Groundbeds utilized for cathodic protection of the pipeline or facility will provide mitigative grounding as described above. However, precautions should be taken to protect the electrical equipment and wiring from lighting and surge current damage. 3.0 MONITORING 3.1 Induced AC and lightning mitigation equipment should be monitored to ensure its continued effectiveness. 3.2 In areas where induced AC currents have been identified, coupon test stations should be installed and monitored. 4.0 DOCUMENTATION 4.1 Data collected as part of this procedure shall be documented in appropriate sections of the Corrosion Control database (CPDM). <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. TESTING FOR INDUCED AC AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 7.04‐ADM‐023 Asset Integrity 1/1/12 Revision: 1 Page 5 of 5 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Changed By Brief Description of Change Approved By 12/06/06 NEW Rick Woolridge Michael Pearson New procedure 01/01/08 All E7 Rick Wooldridge Reviewed, no changes All E7 1/1/09 Rick Wooldridge 2008 annual review complete – no changes All E7 01/01/10 Rick Wooldridge E7 Review; no changes All E7 01/01/11 Rick Wooldridge E7 Review, no changes 9/28/11 2.2.3.1 John McMahan Rick Wooldridge E7 Review; Changed 1 volt to 10 volts 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE MARKING PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 5 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized process for safely marking the Company rights‐of‐way (ROW) with permanent line markers, in order to: 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 Meet all applicable DOT requirements. Effectively delineate the pipeline corridor. Promote public and community awareness. Identify the pipeline location for effective damage prevention. 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 This procedure is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be utilized in whole or part on non‐jurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. 2.2 Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, other specific marker requirements may be stated within the Mitigation Plan. Refer to the Mitigation Plan for those requirements. 2.3 Consent Decree Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, the Company’s Consent Decree Pipeline Systems operate under the requirements of the Consent Decree. For the period of the Consent Decree, these systems will follow the applicable process and procedures (see Consent Decree for applicable programs). 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 Consider using the most appropriate marker type, as dictated by the existing conditions. 3.1.1 3 inch PVC schedule 40 pipe with 3” cap, black/red color coded decal six inches from top of post, with warning decal or warning sign as appropriate. Refer to the Standards List. 3.1.2 Flexible fiberglass composite markers. 3.1.3 Bullet style markers. 3.2 The following special tools/equipment/materials as required for permanent pipeline marking: 3.2.1 Applicable assembled marker post or marker. 3.2.2 Pipeline Warning Decals. Refer to the Standards List. 3.2.3 “Pipeline Under Pavement” decals/or signs where applicable. 3.2.4 Color‐coded decals or stickers. 3.2.5 Signs must include “Warning” followed by “Petroleum Pipeline” with letters at least 1 inch high with an approximate stroke of ¼ inch, Company name and 24 hr phone number. 3.2.6 Posthole digger. 3.2.7 Shovel. 3.2.8 Appropriate post driver. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE MARKING PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 5 3.2.9 Auger. 3.3 Markers must be placed and maintained over each buried pipeline at the following locations: 3.3.1 Each public road crossing. 3.3.2 Each railroad crossing. 3.3.3 Where the line is above ground in areas that are accessible to the public 3.3.4 In sufficient numbers along the remainder of each buried line so that its location is accurately known. Where practical and appropriate, use the following guidelines to establish locations for additional pipeline marker placement:  Interior cross fences  Both sides of creeks and rivers  Both ends of all pipeline exposures  Developed area, commercial and residential  Vast areas with few fences or areas with changing elevations that limits marker visibility.  Markers should not be placed in an area that impedes and/or prevents landowners or tenants (e.g. ranchers, farmers businesses, etc.) from conducting daily activities, or where prohibited by local ordinances. These are best handled on a ‘case by case’ basis; consult immediate Supervisor with questions or unique circumstances. 3.4 Installation of Pipeline Markers: 3.4.1 When applicable, notify landowner prior to entering property. 3.4.2 When excavating activities are required pertaining to installation of marker posts, follow applicable state One Call regulations. (i.e. use of an auger or posthole digger, etc.) 3.4.3 Locate pipeline per Pipeline Locating Procedure. 3.4.4 Dig post hole for 3” post or drive markers as appropriate. 3.4.5 When required, install milepost numbers directly below warning decal or warning sign (at road crossings and valve sites). 3.4.6 For pipelines paralleling roadways located under the surface of the roadway where marker placement is not practical, markers should be placed at the nearest location adjacent to the pipeline and a “pipeline under pavement” decal placed beneath the existing Company warning decal. 3.4.7 Pipeline markers will be placed as close to the line as possible, however, when a marker is offset a greater distance than five feet from the pipeline; notify the appropriate Asset Integrity Supervisor. 3.5 Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan: 3.5.1 3.5.2 All markers shall be within line of sight of one another in Tier I Areas. If one marker is removed, the location of the pipeline can still be identified from either direction from any point in between Tier II and Tier III Areas <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE MARKING PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 5 3.6 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.8 All line markers will be written in English and Spanish. Marker placement and density will be evaluated routinely through aerial and ground surveillance. Missing and damaged markers will be replaced within seven days of discovery. Markers will be located at all aboveground facilities to identify the operator of the system. When practical fence crossings will have fence post on either side painted bright yellow to aid in the identification of the pipeline easement width. Documentation will be completed using Mitigation Right of Way Inspection Form, making appropriate comments including: Stationing, GPS coordinate (where possible), land use change or increased density due to Tier I, Tier II and Tier III requirements, etc. Install aerial milepost markers on jurisdictional lines that are patrolled by aerial methods as follows: NOTE: Aerial Markers are for reference only and may not reflect exact stationing. 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 Construct Aerial Markers on a triangle framework with mile number identified facing up and down stream. Numbers should be of sufficient size to be seen by aerial patrol pilots with the number being black on a yellow background. Refer to the Standards List. Use heavy gauge aluminum or fiberglass, with decal numbers and arrows. Aerial marker numbers should be assigned to match the nearest milepost number as documented on alignment sheets. Place along all mainline ROW, positioned so that they are legible as a pilot flies the line. Place at public road crossings or other appropriate points (distance between markers generally not to exceed one mile). Use special markers with arrows slanted left, right or vertical to direct pilot around locations requiring deviation of flight. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE MARKING PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 5 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Change By Brief Description of Change 010/01/05 Reviewed, no changes Troy Bronson 01/01/06 2.2.7 Replaced “Examples of universal wastes include lead acid batteries, pesticides, thermostats with liquid mercury, and florescent light bulbs.” With “Pipeline markers will be placed as close to the line as possible, however, when a marker is offset a greater distance than 5’ from the pipeline, a Maintenance Report will be generated documenting the placement and reason why.” 01/01/06 2.4.1 Troy Bronson Added “Follow applicable state one‐call regulations pertaining to installation of marker posts.” 01/01/06 Troy Bronson 2.5.1 Replaced “Numbers on signs to be 4” X 6” with the number being black on a yellow background.” With “Numbers should be of sufficient size to be seen by aerial patrol pilots with the number being black on a yellow background. Recommended size of the sign is 6” x 15” with numbers 4 ½ ” x 13 ½ “.” 01/01/06 2.5.5 Troy Bronson Removed note box: When more than 1 pipeline mile is traveled and a public road is passed without seeing a marker, the marker is considered to be missing. 01/01/06 4.2.1 Troy Bronson Added Line Locating link 01/01/06 2.2.2 Troy Bronson Added “where applicable”. 01/01/06 Applicability Dan Egner Added complete section 01/01/06 1.0 thru 1.1.4 Dan Egner Major modification 01/01/06 2.1 thru 2.1.3 Dan Egner Major modification 01/01/06 2.2.1 Dan Egner Changed to “Applicable markers” 01/01/06 2.2.9 Dan Egner Added “appropriate” 01/01/06 2.3.1 Dan Egner Removed “railroad” 01/01/06 2.3.2 Dan Egner Added “Both sides of all railroad crossings” 01/01/06 2.3.3 Dan Egner Added “appropriate and practical” 01/01/06 2.3.6 Dan Egner Added complete subpart 01/01/06 2.2.6.1 Dan Egner Added for the Consent Decree 01/01/06 2.3.10 thru 2.3.15 Dan Egner Added for the Longhorn Pipeline 01/01/06 2.4.1 Dan Egner Added “where applicable” 01/01/06 2.5.7 Dan Egner Removed (…”only”) added (…”and valve sites”) 01/01/06 2.6 Dan Egner Added NOTE: 01/01/06 2.6.3 Dan Egner Major modification 01/01/06 2.7 thru 2.7.1 Dan Egner Added subparts 01/01/06 2.8 thru 2.8.3 Dan Egner Added subparts 01/01/06 2.9 thru 2.9.2 Dan Egner Added subparts 01/01/06 4.1.2 Dan Egner Added regulation 01/01/06 4.3.2 Dan Egner Added form 01/01/06 5.5 Dan Egner Added definition 01/01/06 Removed references, renamed links 02/01/06 3.3 Clyde Clausen Added section 3.3 02/01/06 3.4 Clyde Clausen Modified section 3.4 02/01/06 3.5 & 3.6 Clyde Clausen Added 3.5 and 3.6 (Consent and Longhorn Specific) 02/01/06 3.7 Clyde Clausen Modified paragraph 3.7 02/01/06 3.8 Clyde Clausen Deleted and incorporated into 3.7 02/01/06 3.9 Clyde Clausen Deleted and incorporated into 3.5 <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PIPELINE MARKING PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–002 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 7 Page 5 of 5 2/3/06 3.2.3 Troy Bronson Changed “sign” to “decal”. 2/3/06 3.2.5 Troy Bronson Deleted “Cordless Drill” 2/3/06 3.7.7 Troy Bronson Insert “standards” link. 2/3/06 3.7.8 Troy Bronson Changed “Sign” to “Decal”. 2/3/06 3.7.9 Troy Bronson Changed “Sign” to “Decal”. 2/3/06 3.7.10 Troy Bronson Changed “contact” to “notify”. 1/1/07 3.7 Greg Walker Link to Pipeline Locating Procedure 5/22/07 3.0 Greg Walker Consolidate procedures. Added information about Warning sign details. 5/22/07 3.3.4 Greg Walker Added clarification where markers should be placed. 12/12/08 2.3 Tim Boudreaux Modified the Consent Decree statement to exclude the previous Consent Order. 12/12/08 4.0 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Pipeline Marker Repair report form link. 12/12/08 4.4 Tim Boudreaux Included Longhorn Mitigation Plan. 01/01/2009 Tim Boudreaux Conducted annual review with no changes. 01/01/2009 3.5.7 Tim Boudreaux Included Longhorn specific documentation requirements. 3‐26 3.5.6 Greg Walker Included Longhorn specific documentation requirements. 9/01/09 2.2 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Longhorn Specific 9/01/09 3.5 Tim Boudreaux Changed Longhorn Specific to Assets covered per Mitigation Plan 9/01/09 3.5.8 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Longhorn 9/01/09 4.4 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Longhorn 9/01/09 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with changes listed above 01/01/11 Reviewed, no changes 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–003 Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 6 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this program is to safely maintain Company pipeline rights‐of‐way, in order to comply with DOT requirements (Line Markings); (Inspection of Rights‐of‐Way) and Transmission Lines: Patrolling. 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 This program is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be utilized in whole or part on nonjurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. 2.2 Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, other specific right of way maintenance requirements may be stated within the Mitigation Plan. Refer to the Mitigation Plan for those requirements. 2.3 Consent Decree Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Magellan guidelines, process, or best practices, Magellan’s Consent Decree Pipeline Systems operate under the requirements of the Consent Decree, (see Consent Decree for applicable programs). 3.0 DESCRIPTION 3.1 The Right‐of‐Way Maintenance Program is a systematic and comprehensive method to effectively manage pipeline rights of way maintenance as related to : 3.1.1 Locating Line: The Pipeline Locating Procedure covers locating underground pipeline facilities for any reason. These may include, but not limited to One Call Program, line locates, Right of Way marking, clearing, mowing, spraying, surveying, inspection, or any maintenance or damage prevention activity. 3.1.2 Marking the line. The Pipeline Marking Procedure covers temporary or permanent mainline facility marker requirements and placements in order to raise public awareness of the location and type of underground facility and therefore reduce the risk of accident, injury or damage. 3.1.3 Pipeline surveillance, ground and aerial surveillance. The Inspection of Right‐of‐Way Procedure covers DOT regulated pipeline surveillance for Refined Product, NGL and 3.1.4 Natural Gas transportation facilities. Clearing Right of Way. The Right‐of‐ Way Clearing Procedure covers major vegetation 3.1.5 clearing activity along Company mainline right of way corridors. Mowing Right of Way. The Right‐of‐Way Mowing Procedure covers moderate 3.1.6 vegetation clearing activity along Company mainline right of way corridors, as well as vegetation control at road crossings. Spraying Right of Way. The Right‐of‐Way Spraying Procedure covers vegetation control 3.1.7 activity using herbicidal applications along Company mainline right‐of‐way corridors, as well as vegetation control at road crossings. Identification and Managing Encroachments. The Encroachment Process and the Encroachment Guidelines aid in identifying, mitigating and documenting easement encroachments along the Company transportation facilities rights‐of‐way. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–003 Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 6 4.0 PROGRAM 4.1 Gather Right of Way Data 4.1.1 4.1.2 Gather pertinent data for evaluating and managing right‐of‐way and included in the spreadsheet and/or electronic filing system (database). Pertinent data includes, but is not limited to; line segment, geographical location, condition of right‐of‐way, type of vegetation, maintenance needs, maintenance history, risk score, etc. The appropriate procedure listed above should be reviewed to ensure complete data is acquired for each type of maintenance activity. Conduct training, for Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan, on Endangered and Threatened Species and their Habitats for all third party contractors. Coordination of 4.1.3 clearing activities and use of the biologist developed maps depicting the location and habitats of endangered species should be utilized to avoid or minimize adverse effects during this maintenance activity. Obtain pertinent data through aerial surveillance or ground surveillance (walking the line) depending on specific requirements. Annually, a company representative will accompany the aerial patrol pilot to identify areas where excavation activity or leak detection cannot be identified by air. Annual inspections should be performed during high vegetation growth months in order to effectively identify these visibility issues, The results of the annual inspection should be documented on the Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form and copies sent electronically to the appropriate Right of Way 4.2 4.3 Initiative Manager and Field Supervisor. Assess the Right of Way Data 4.2.1 Develop a plan to systematically address areas of concerns and properly maintain the right‐of‐way, after all pertinent data regarding the right‐of‐way condition has been collected and entered into the Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form. 4.2.2 Prioritize the plan on the following factors (but not limited to): 4.2.2.1 Prioritization scores based on annual inspections (aerial or ground patrols) regarding ability to clearly identify and view surface conditions. 4.2.2.2 Concerns or comments from previous regulatory audits or inspections or specific regulatory mandated requirements imposed for pipeline section operations. 4.2.2.3 Accessibility for operations and maintenance personnel. 4.2.2.4 Third party activity trends (based on One Calls). 4.2.2.5 Real Estate Services commitments or concerns. 4.2.2.6 Accurate and visible marking of the lines. Mitigation Planning for Right of Way Maintenance: 4.3.1 Develop plans to address areas of concerns on a prioritized basis; highest priority areas receive attention first. Optimum time of year (season) or specific facility requirements such as, the Mitigation Plan, may affect this plan. 4.3.1.1 Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan: Ground cover will be mowed to a <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–003 Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 6 4.4 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 level so that all pipeline markers, including painted fence posts, will be visible from the air and while standing on the ground. High canopy vegetation will be cleared or trimmed to the extent necessary to allow clear visibility. Address both the short‐term and long‐term needs for proper right‐of‐way maintenance in the plans. Solicit bids and costs estimates for the plan. Consult herbicidal manufactures for assistance in identifying the proper herbicides and application methods for various geographical areas. Submit plan to the initiative manager or proper authority for approval. Submit plan to Pipeline Integrity for inclusion into Area Integrity Plan. Update and revise the right‐of‐way plan systematically as information is received and processed. Consult Environmental Specialists and Pipeline Integrity Real Estate Representatives before implementing initial clearing projects. Right of Way Maintenance Execution 4.4.1 Follow Project Life Cycle as related to maintenance projects which include, but are not limited to: 4.4.1.1 Assign a Project Manager. 4.4.1.2 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.4 4.4.1.5 Initiate the Right of Way Review. Develop a project plan and scope and submit to all stakeholders for review prior to starting the maintenance. Make contacts with the landowners prior to starting the maintenance on the property. Complete the maintenance and all documentation associated with the project and submit all completion reports to the Pipeline Integrity Coordinator. 5.0 REFERENCES 5.1 Related Policies/Procedures 5.1.1 One Call Program 5.1.2 Pipeline Locating Procedure 5.1.3 Pipeline Marking Procedure 5.1.4 Inspection of Right‐of‐Way Procedure 5.1.5 Right‐of‐ Way Clearing Procedure 5.1.6 Right‐of‐Way Mowing Procedure 5.1.7 Right‐of‐Way Spraying Procedure 5.1.8 Encroachment Process <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–003 Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 6 Endangered and Threatened Species and their Habitats Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form 5.1.9 Encroachment Guidelines 5.1.10 Mitigation Plan 5.1.11 5.1.12 Project Life Cycle 5.2 Forms and Attachments 5.2.1 07‐Form 1585 5.2.2 07‐Form‐1583 On Ground Right of Way Assessment Worksheet 5.2.3 07‐Form‐7035 Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) 5.2.4 07‐Form‐1581 Pipeline Maintenance Report 6.0 DEFINITIONS 6.1 Jurisdictional Lines: Pipeline segments falling under the jurisdiction of a state (i.e., Texas Railroad Commission or PSC) and/or federal regulating authority (i.e., Department of Transportation). 6.2 Spraying: The practice of applying herbicides to control undesirable vegetation growth. 6.3 Mowing: The practice of utilizing various light equipment, such as, mowers, brush hog, weed eater, hand thrasher, etc. to clear right of way of moderate vegetation. 6.4 Clearing: The practice of utilizing heavy equipment, such as dozers, track hoes, chippers, shredders, hydro axes, chainsaws, etc. to clear right of way of heavy vegetation. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–003 Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 7 Page 5 of 6 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Change By Brief Description of Change 12/22/03 1.0 Clyde Clausen Deleted Purpose, Inserted Objective 12/22/03 1.1 Clyde Clausen Deleted the purpose of this procedure is 12/22/03 2.2.9 Clyde Clausen Inserted Pipeline Integrity Real Estate Representatives 12/22/03 3.2 & 3.3 Clyde Clausen Deleted 3.2 and 3.3 10/28/05 1.0 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Objective and included Purpose Tim Boudreaux Included the purpose statement 10/28/05 1.1 Tim Boudreaux 10/28/05 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 Included all new program description, including the sub‐numbered sections 11/10/05 Header Tim Boudreaux Included the Applicability statement in the opening Paragraph. 11/16/05 1.0 Tim Boudreaux Complete rewrite of Purpose section. 11/16/05 2.0 Tim Boudreaux Included all of Description section. 11/17/05 3.0 Tim Boudreaux Rewrite all of Program document in this section. 11/17/05 4.0 Tim Boudreaux Included regulatory numbers and all policy/procedure and form links. 11/17/05 5.0 Tim Boudreaux Included definitions for clearing, mowing, visibility and accessibility. 01/01/07 Reviewed, no changes 10/30/07 All Tim Boudreaux Conducted 2007 Annual Review see change log 10/30/07 4.1.4 Tim Boudreaux Included text on Annual Aerial Patrol Surveys. 10/30/07 4.2.2.1 Tim Boudreaux Changed the paragraph to include Prioritization scores. 10/30/07 4.2.2.3 Tim Boudreaux Eliminated Aerial Patrol comments. 10/30/07 5.2.2 Tim Boudreaux Included Aerial Patrol Annual Inspection Form. 10/30/07 5.2.3 Tim Boudreaux Included On Ground Right of Way Assessment Worksheet. 12/19/08 2.3 Tim Boudreaux Modified Consent Decree Specific. 12/19/08 4.1 Tim Boudreaux Deleted all of previous 4.1.3 Consent Decree Specific. 12/19/08 4.3.1 Tim Boudreaux Deleted reference to CV02‐1178. 12/19/08 5.1.12 Tim Boudreaux Deleted link to CV02‐1178. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Pipeline Integrity 01/01/12 12/19/08 5.1.13 Tim Boudreaux 12/19/08 5.1.14 Tim Boudreaux 12/19/08 6.5 Tim Boudreaux 12/19/08 6.6 Tim Boudreaux 01/01/09 Tim Boudreaux 4/3/09 4.3.1.1 Tim Boudreaux 9/01/09 2.2 Tim Boudreaux 9/01/09 4.1.2 Tim Boudreaux 9/01/09 4.3.1 Tim Boudreaux 9/01/09 5.1.10 Tim Boudreaux 9/01/09 Tim Boudreaux 9/02/10 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.2.9, 5.2.10, 5.2.11, 5.2.12, 5.2.13 Tim Boudreaux 9/02/10 Tim Boudreaux 9/02/11 4.1.3 Dennis Vasicek 9/02/11 4.2 Dennis Vasicek 9/02/11 4.3.7 Dennis Vasicek 9/02/11 5.2 Dennis Vasicek 12/31/11 All 7.05–ADM–003 Revision: 7 Page 6 of 6 Deleted link to On the Ground Survey (OTG). Deleted line to Line of Sight Survey (LOS). Deleted definition for Visibility (no longer valid). Deleted definition for Accessibility (no longer valid). Annual Review with no changes. Added Longhorn Commitment Deleted Longhorn, added Assets covered per the Mitigation Plan Deleted Longhorn Deleted Longhorn Deleted Longhorn Annual Review with changes listed above Deleted links to all PL forms Annual Review with changes listed above Replaced reference to “Aerial Patrol Annual Inspection Form” with “Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form”. Revised distribution list for the Right of Way Assessment Form. Deleted last three sentences. Replaced, “a spreadsheet or electronic filing system” with, “the Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form.” Added Environmental Specialists Removed, “07‐Form‐1574 Inspection of Right of Way Report” and “07‐Form 1584 Aerial Patrol Annual Inspection Form”. Added, “07‐Form‐1585 Right of Way Inspection and Assessment Form” 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. DEPTH OF COVER PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–009 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 1 of 4 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the Depth of Cover (DOC) Program is to manage risks associated with areas of shallow or exposed pipe and earth movements along the Company’s pipeline system. 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 The DOC program is an on-going process. Land use, population density, environmental issues and changes to the absolute depth of cover are expected to change over time. Consequently, depth of cover data will become outdated as land uses change, land erosion occurs and topsoils are moved over time as a result of wind, rain and mechanical forces. Continual monitoring of these changes is performed through Depth of Cover Surveys, Aerial Patrols, In-Line (Smart Pig) Inspections, One-Calls and Line Spotting. Secondly, through a formalized DOC Mitigation Process, this Program intends to manage the associated risks through a variety of methods, all designed to reduce the likelihood of unintended outside force damage and consequential damages to a defined level. The DOC Program prioritizes those areas of highest relative risk. The investigative and resulting mitigation processes will consequently focus on High Consequence Areas (HCAs) and then the Non-HCAs. Furthermore, as HCAs are modified over time due to changing population and environmental concerns, the DOC prioritizations will also be modified. Assets covered per Mitigation Plan (pg. 96 section 3.5.8 Item 3) specifically states the investigative and resulting mitigation processes will consequently focus on the defined areas of hypersensitive (Tier III), sensitive (Tier II), and other (Tier I), in descending order. 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 2.2 2.3 This procedure is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be utilized in whole or part on nonjurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. Assets covered per Mitigation Plan: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices. This pipeline system operates under the requirements of the Mitigation Plan. Consent Decree Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, the Company’s Consent Decree Pipeline Systems operate under the requirements of the Consent Decree. For the period of the Consent Decree, these systems will follow the applicable process and procedures (see Consent Decree for applicable programs). 3.0 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 3.1 Shallow and Exposed Pipe 3.1.1 Shallow and exposed pipe locations are identified, prioritized, and mitigated in accordance with Depth of Cover Procedure. A review of the pipeline as defined in Section 6 of the IMP will be conducted, to be followed by a re‐assessment interval recommendation per Section 7 of the IMP. 3.1.1.1 Aerial patrols, operational activities, public input and other means may require depth of cover surveys based upon land use, environmental concerns, population density, and construction and excavation activity levels. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. DEPTH OF COVER PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–009 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 2 of 4 3.1.1.2 Depth of cover surveys will be conducted in accordance with the Depth of Cover Procedure. 3.1.1.3 Communication to landowners, tenants, developers and local authorities will be conducted as necessary to ensure an appropriate awareness of the location and risks of the pipeline and to coordinate appropriate pipeline adjustments in anticipation of and in connection with construction and development activities. 3.2 Earth Movement 3.2.1 Risks associated with Earth Movement are identified and assessed per the Company Risk Assessment Methodology book, and include factors such as landslide potential, seismic activity, scour, and history of earth movement. 3.2.1.1 Any areas of the pipeline identified as having high susceptibility to earth movement factors or where earth movement has been identified will be investigated and monitored per the Earth Movement Inspection Procedure. 3.2.1.1.1 3.2.1.1.2 Initial investigation of areas identified as having high susceptibility to earth movement will be conducted within one year. Reinspection and/or monitoring of areas identified as having high susceptibility to earth movement or where earth movement has been identified will be conducted per the Earth Movement Inspection Procedure. 3.2.1.2 If earth movement is determined to be present, a review of the pipeline as defined in Section 6 of the IMP will be conducted, to be followed by a re‐ assessment interval recommendation per Section 7 of the IMP. 3.2.1.3 Action items identified during the execution of the Earth Movement Inspection Procedure or through Section 6, Risk Analysis will be documented and tracked in the Asset Integrity Plan. 3.3 Navigable Waterway Crossing Inspections 3.3.1 Navigable River crossing inspections are conducted in accordance with the Navigable River Inspections Procedure. 3.3.1.1 Navigable waterways are derived from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics National Waterways Network database. 3.4 Overhead Pipeline Crossing 3.4.1 The purpose is to effectively manage Overhead Pipeline Crossing maintenance through a comprehensive risk-based program which identifies risk reduction projects to improve structural component integrity. 3.4.1.1 Each Overhead Pipeline Crossing structure will receive an initial risk prioritization number based on the Pipeline Risk Model. The first phase of the inspections will include the top 20% of the structures listed as highest risk based on historical water flow events, proximity to HCA’s, and historical structural knowledge. All other structures will follow (20%) per <<>> 4.0 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. DEPTH OF COVER PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–009 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 3 of 4 year, not to exceed six years. Reinspections will start over upon completion and will be conducted per the Overhead Pipeline Crossing Inspection Procedure. 3.4.1.2 Overhead Pipeline Crossing Inspections are conducted in accordance with the Overhead Pipeline Crossing Inspection Procedure. 3.4.1.3 Maintenance will be performed on structures following the Overhead Pipeline Crossing Inspections as necessary per the Overhead Pipeline Crossing Inspection Procedure. DATA MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Data initially obtained and periodically updated via the DOC program will be centralized and maintained in the DOC database. 4.2 Pipeline Integrity will further manage the recommendation and funding process associated with the implementation of DOC mitigation initiatives. 4.3 Action items associated with the DOC program will be documented and tracked in the Asset Integrity Plan. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. DEPTH OF COVER PROGRAM 7.05–ADM–009 Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 4 Page 4 of 4 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Change By Brief Description of Change 1/09/04 1.2.2 Tim Boudreaux Included Navigable River inspections paragraph. 1/09/04 2.1.3.2 Tim Boudreaux Excluded Certified letters and maps. 1/09/04 2.1.4.3 Tim Boudreaux Replaced “WES” with “MMP” 1/09/04 3.1.1.1 – 3.1.1.3 Tim Boudreaux Modified the prioritization definitions with the current updated version. 1/09/04 4.1 Tim Boudreaux Deleted “ORA”. 1/09/04 5.1.7 Tim Boudreaux Included a link to the Navigable River Inspection procedure. 12/17/04 1.1 Tim Boudreaux Change text and included Earth Movement Statement. 12/17/04 1.1.1 Tim Boudreaux Changed text to: “is an on-going process” 12/17/04 1.2 Tim Boudreaux Changed numbering format. 12/17/04 1.2.1 Tim Boudreaux Changed numbering format. 12/17/04 1.2.2 Tim Boudreaux Included this paragraph on Navigable River Inspections. 12/17/04 2.1 – 2.1.4.3 Tim Boudreaux Deleted most of this section because it is listed in the procedural document. Revised the Program Element to include 2.1 Shallow and Exposed Pipe, 2.2 Earth Movement and 2.3 Navigable River Inspections. 12/17/04 3.0 Tim Boudreaux Eliminated DOC Prioritization Guidelines since these are listed in the DOC Procedures and DOC Guidelines. Modified the Data Management section and renumbered. 12/17/04 5.0 Tim Boudreaux Modified References to include only related links within this document. Other links may be found within the Procedures and other documents. 12/17/04 6.0 Tim Boudreaux Eliminated Forms and Attachments that may be found in other more pertinent documents. 11/30/04 2.2 Rick Wooldridge Added Earth Movement and its supporting discussions 01/01/06 Intro Tim Boudreaux Added Applicability Statement 01/01/06 2.4 Clyde Clausen Added Overhead Pipeline Crossing Section 01/01/06 References Renamed links 01/01/06 Applicability Renamed scope and changed location in doc 01/01/07 Reviewed, no changes 01/01/08 Reviewed, no changes 10/27/08 1.1.1 Tim Boudreaux Included continued monitoring statement. 10/27/08 1.1.3 Tim Boudreaux Modification to Longhorn link and reference to Tier levels. 12/8/08 2.3 Tim Boudreaux Modified Consent Decree Specific statement. 01/01/2009 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with no changes. 9/01/09 1.1.3 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Longhorn 9/01/09 2.2 Tim Boudreaux Deleted Longhorn 9/01/09 3.1.1 Tim Boudreaux Included IMP Section 6 review language 9/01/09 5.6 Tim Boudreaux Added Assets covered per 9/01/09 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with changes listed above 3/1/10 3.1.1 Tim Boudreaux Replaced “Guidelines” with “Procedure” 3/1/10 5.2 Tim Boudreaux Removed Depth of Cover Guidelines 9/1/10 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with no changes 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM‐012 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 4 Page 1 of 4 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to insure safety to the surrounding public, to protect the environment from accidental product releases and to protect the usefulness and value of rights of way owned or operated by Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. or its affiliated companies (hereinafter, “Company”). 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 The provisions of this document outline procedures to be followed by any person or entity when planning construction or other activities that could affect rights of, or assets owned or operated by Company, on or near easements or rights of way owned or operated by the Company. The use of the words “shall” or “will” when referring to actions or procedures specified in this document are to be interpreted as the Company’s preferred method of operation, but are not to be construed as absolutes which would not allow for exceptions to the preferred method of operation in particular situations with proper approval and documentation of the reasons for such exceptions. 2.2 This procedure is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be utilized in whole or part on non‐jurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. 2.3 Assets covered per Mitigation Plan: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, this pipeline operates under the requirements of the Mitigation Plan. 2.4 Consent Decree Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as the Company guidelines, process, or best practices, the Company’s Consent Decree Pipeline Systems operate under the requirements of the Consent Decree. For the period of the Consent Decree, these systems will follow the applicable process and procedures (see Consent Decree for applicable programs). 3.0 PROCEDURES 3.1 All Employees shall: 3.1.1 If the notification of an encroachment originates from the One Call Center or was discovered by Field Personnel, immediately forward the encroachment details to the appropriate Asset Locator. 3.1.2 If the notification of an encroachment did not originate from the One Call Center or was not discovered by Field Personnel, immediately forward the encroachment details to the appropriate Real Estate Representative. 3.1.3 Any Employee who observes or learns of a land use change which may impact any Company Easement Tract shall report such change to the Company Real Estate Representative and Company Asset Integrity Risk Engineer for the area where the land is located and provide them the information on the land use change. 3.1.4 On each occasion where an Employee meets with a landowner or tenant, the Employee shall request the landowner or tenant notify the Company at any and every time when the land use will be changed for land on or adjacent to a Company Easement Tract. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM‐012 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 4 Page 2 of 4 3.2 All Asset Locator Personnel shall: 3.2.1 3.2.2 Check the depth of cover over its pipeline(s) and for any other potential impacts to Company pipelines and facilities. Evaluate the type of encroachment activity and determine if the Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) is applicable. Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) is to be used only for the following type encroachments that adhere to the General Encroachment Requirements: 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.2.1 Unpaved Residential Driveway 3.2.2.2 Temporary Equipment Crossing 3.2.2.3 Gas Line 3.2.2.4 Water Line 3.2.2.5 Telephone Cable 3.2.2.6 Sprinkler System 3.2.2.7 Fence 3.2.2.8 Fiber Optic Cable 3.2.2.9 Drain Tile 3.2.2.10 Television Cable 3.2.2.11 Electric Line 3.2.2.12 Other Pipeline 3.2.2.13 Other low impact encroachments (after receiving approval from the Real Estate Representative and Risk Engineer) If applicable complete and execute the Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) and forward to the Records Coordinator. If the Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) is not applicable, Field Personnel shall 3.2.5 send the encroachment notification to the Real Estate Representative. Monitor and inspect the encroachment activity to insure the General Encroachment Requirements are met. 3.3 The Real Estate Representative shall: 3.3.1 Upon discovery or notification of an encroachment employ the Encroachment Process Map. 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 Evaluate the type of encroachment activity, gather all available information regarding the type of encroachment, and send the information to the Asset Locator if the encroachment meets the Encroachment Agreement (Short Form) requirements, or to the Risk Engineer for an Impact Review if the Encroachment Agreement (Long Form) is appropriate. After receiving the Impact Review from the Risk Engineer notify the encroaching party of the impact to Company facilities. Prepare, negotiate and execute the Encroachment Agreement (Long Form) and any <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM‐012 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 4 Page 3 of 4 3.3.5 3.3.6 other applicable agreements. Send a copy of Encroachment Agreement (Long Form) to the Asset Locator and to the Records Coordinator. Send fully executed and recorded original Encroachment Agreement (Long Form) and other applicable agreements to the Real Estate Right of Way Tract File for permanent retention. NOTE: The Real Estate Representative will use 1 of the 3 preapproved Encroachment Agreement (Long Form) documents after evaluating the type of encroachment. 3.4 The Risk Engineer shall: 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 Upon receiving the encroachment information from the Real Estate Representative, evaluate the integrity risks to any Company facility, conduct an engineering assessment, prepare an Impact Review and forward to the Real Estate Representative. Execute any required pipeline adjustment or relocation made necessary by the proposed encroachment in accordance with SIP 4.01 Project Management. Longhorn personnel will manage and execute all major adjustments or relocations on the Longhorn System. Manage the financial and reimbursement duties for any pipeline adjustment or relocation. Send project documentation to the Records Coordinator. 3.5 The Records Coordinator shall: 3.5.1 Review project documentation and ensure that all Company maps, drawings and records are updated. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM‐012 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 4 Page 4 of 4 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Change BY Brief Description of Change 12/22/04 Clyde Clausen Created Internal Encroachment Document. Made numerous changes and re‐formatted the entire document. 12/22/04 4.5.7 Clyde Clausen Added Directional Drill Requirements 12/22/04 Clyde Clausen Inserted Change Log into document 01/01/05 Reviewed, no changes 01/01/06 Clyde Clausen Incorporated Shell and Longhorn specific requirements throughout document 01/01/06 Changed Magellan to “Company” 01/01/07 Bill Klein Removed redundant information that was already contained in the General Encroachment Requirements. Listed specific employee roles and responsibilities. Re‐ formatted the entire document. 01/01/08 Reviewed, no changes 01/01/09 2.4 Bill Klein 01/01/10 2.3 Changed Longhorn to Mitigation 01/01/11 Reviewed, no changes 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. EARTH MOVEMENT INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–020 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 3 Page 1 of 3 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to establish a standardized method for the investigation and monitoring of areas of the pipeline identified as having high susceptibility to earth movement or where earth movement has been identified. E: Characterizing an area, as having high susceptibility to earth movement does not imply certainty that earth movement will occur or that earth movement is not possible outside an area of high susceptibility. 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 2.2 2.3 This procedure is applicable to federal and/or state jurisdictional pipelines and/or facilities. Elements of this program may be utilized in whole or part on nonjurisdictional assets as deemed appropriate. Assets covered per Mitigation Plan: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, This pipeline operates under the requirements of the Mitigation Plan. Consent Decree Specific: In addition to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations, as well as Company guidelines, process, or best practices, the Company’s Consent Decree Pipeline Systems operate under the requirements of the Consent Decree (see Consent Decree for applicable programs. 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 Identifying Areas for Inspection. Specific pipeline segments may have regulatory requirements outside DOT 49 CFR. Please refer to those specific Plans for their individual requirements, as listed above in Applicability. 3.1.1 Identify areas to be inspected as defined by the Earth Movement Section of the Depth of Cover Program. 3.2 below. 3.2.1 Select the appropriate inspection method using the guidelines established in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Use aerial patrol for inspection and monitoring of areas with high susceptibility to earth movement. If aerial patrol is the selected inspection method go to 3.3 below. 3.2.2 Use close visual inspection in areas where earth movement has been identified. If close visual inspection is the selected inspection method go to 3.4 below. Performing Inspection and Monitoring Utilizing Aerial Patrol 3.3.1 Conduct aerial patrol in accordance with the Inspection of Right‐of‐Way Procedure. Pay particular attention, within the target area, to signs or indicators of earth movement or subsidence such as ground cracks, sink holes, erosion, heaving, buckling, etc. 3.4.1 If earth movement is identified go to 3.5 below otherwise go to 3.6 below. Performing Inspection and Monitoring Utilizing Close Visual Inspection <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. EARTH MOVEMENT INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–020 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 3 Page 2 of 3 3.5.1 Conduct close visual inspection in accordance with the Inspection of Right‐Of‐Way Procedure. 3.5.2 Document the nature of the earth movement specifying the type of movement, extent of the affected area (length, width, depth), age, characteristics, soil type, etc. using both a written description and photography (where possible). NOTE: Notify the appropriate Asset Integrity Engineer as soon as practical to discuss additional data requests and the next course of action. 3.6 Documentation 3.6.1 Use the Pipeline Maintenance Report to document any findings, with copies sent to the Asset Integrity Engineer for continued evaluation. 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 4.2 Earth Movement: Unintended movement of the soil around the pipeline. High Susceptibility (to earth movement): An area along the pipeline identified through risk assessment as having a higher likelihood of earth movement as compared to other relative locations. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. EARTH MOVEMENT INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–020 Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 3 Page 3 of 3 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date CHANGE LOCATION Changed By Brief Description of Change 1/4/03 New Rick Wooldridge New Procedure 01/01/06 Applicability Tim Boudreaux Included language to direct to Longhorn and Shell specific requirements. 01/01/06 2.1.1 Tim Boudreaux Included: “Specific pipeline segments may have regulatory requirements outside DOT 49 CFR Parts 195 or Parts 192. Please refer to those specific Plans for their individual requirements, as listed above in Applicability”. Applicability 2.0 Changed to Scope 01/01/07 Reviewed, no changes 01/01/08 Reviewed, no changes 12/18/08 2.3 Tim Boudreaux Modified Consent Decree Specific. 01/01/09 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with no changes. 9/03/09 2.2 Tim Boudreaux Removed Longhorn and Replaced with Assets covered per Mitigation Plan 9/03/09 4.3 Tim Boudreaux Removed Longhorn and Replaced with Assets covered per Mitigation Plan 9/03/09 Tim Boudreaux Annual Review with changes listed above 01/01/11 Reviewed, no changes 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ASSETS COVERED PER MITIGATION PLAN RIGHT‐OF‐WAY INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–031 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 10 Page 1 of 5 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to address specific requirements of the Mitigation Plan related to inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right‐of‐way (ROW). This document is to be utilized along with the Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. Inspection of Right of Way Procedure. 2.0 PROCEDURE NOTE: Persons performing inspection shall comply with all state and federal laws, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances or codes and Mitigation Commitments as may be required. In its contracts with inspection contractors, the Company shall identify requirements specifically related to the petroleum industry. It shall be the obligation of such contractors to comply and maintain appropriate records 2.1 Methods of Inspection 2.1.1 Aerial Patrol: As described below and in Inspection of Right of Way Procedure. 2.1.2 Ground Patrol: As described below and in Inspection of Right of Way Procedure. Also Refer to the guidelines in the Threatened and Endangered Species Avoidance And Minimization Timing Restrictions. 2.2 Patrol Requirements 2.2.1.4 Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone – Daily (once per week shall be a ground‐level patrol) 2.3 2.2.1 The specified frequency of surveillance shall meet the following requirements: 2.2.1.1 Tier 1 Areas – Once a week, not to exceed 12 days, but at least 52 times per year 2.2.1.2 Tiers 2 and 3 Areas – Every two and one‐half (2.5) days, not to exceed 72 hours 2.2.1.3 Aerial and ground surveillance frequency will be increased across Tier II (Sensitive) and Tier III (Hypersensitive) areas when the threat of flooding and/or severe erosion is identified near the pipeline right‐of‐way. Aerial Patrol and Ground Patrol Notification 2.3.1 Patrol Pilots will be required to contact the Austin Operations Office each morning to communicate the ability to fly or not to fly, “No‐Fly”, their identified patrol segments. Segments are identified as follows: 2.3.1.1 LP 301 Galena Park to Pecos River (MP 0 – MP 528) 2.3.1.2 LP 303 Crane to El Paso (MP 457 – MP 695), Crane to Odessa (MP 0 – MP 28) and El Paso to El Paso Jct. (MP 0 – 10) 2.3.1.3 Austin Operation Office will record notification of flight and await completed Right‐ of‐Way Patrol Report by Aerial/Ground form. 2.3.1.4 The Austin FOA will record each patrol on a patrol tracking spreadsheet to insure the required number of flights are made and file with monthly reports. 2.3.1.5 Upon receipt of the Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report by Aerial/Ground form. The One Call Group will create a One Call ticket and the field locator will respond to the Aerial Patrol in Ticket View. 2.3.1.6 Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Inspection Report will be sent to Austin Operations Office and the One Call Group at the end of the flight day or within 12 hours of flight <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ASSETS COVERED PER MITIGATION PLAN RIGHT‐OF‐WAY INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–031 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 10 Page 2 of 5 2.3.1.7 completion. All emergency sightings by pilot will be called into the Company One‐Call Center. The Company One‐Call Center will send to the field as an emergency ticket under the heading A/P (Aerial Patrol). All A/P emergency tickets will be responded to immediately by field personnel. Non‐emergency sightings will be reported on Right‐ of‐Way Patrol Report by Aerial/Ground form and responded to within 3 working days and documented by the appropriate personnel upon receipt of the report. NOTE: Daily patrols of these segments shall continue until confirmation of flight by the Patrol Pilot has been received. 2.3.2 2.3.3 Each and every morning, the person on call will contact the Austin Area Office message center by calling 1‐ 512‐394‐4099, enter mail box number of 4044, and the password of 404400 and verify the pilots ability to patrol there segment. If a no fly is reported an alert will be issued to personnel to be prepared for ground patrol procedures. First Level Each area COM will maintain a list of personnel designated to patrol a section of the Tier 2 and 3 segments in their area and provide that person with the required maps and other information that will describe in detail the patrol section On the morning of the second day of notification of “No‐Fly” from the patrol pilot, personnel will be instructed to proceed with Second Level Procedures. Second Level Procedure – Tier 2 and 3 segments shall be initiated. The required notification will be made to the ground patrol personnel and unless notified other wise will begin patrol of the assigned area the next morning. All sightings that can not be dealt with at the time will be called to One Call. Second Level segments need to be completed within one and one‐ half (1.5) days of the second day notification and sightings will be recorded on Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report By Aerial/Ground form. 2.3.4 On the morning of the fifth consecutive day of notification from the Patrol Pilot of “No‐Fly”, Third Level Procedures will be initiated. Third Level Procedures – Tier 1 areas shall be initiated. Each area COM will maintain a list of personnel designated to patrol a section of the Tier 1 segments in there area and provide that person with the required maps and other information that will describe in detail the patrol section. The required notification will be made to the ground patrol personnel and unless notified other wise will begin patrol of the assigned area the next morning. All sightings that can not be dealt with at that time will be called to One Call. Second Level segments need to be completed within one and one‐half (1.5) days of the second day notification and sightings will be recorded on Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report By Aerial/Ground form. 2.4 Ground Patrol Observation 2.4.1 Ground Patrol personnel patrolling the right of way need to observe Conditions that may adversely affect the safe operating condition of the pipeline system. Observations need to be documented for continued inspection, maintenance or repair activities. Observations shall be documented on the following forms. 2.4.1.1 Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Inspection Report: Marking repairs, erosion, cathodic 2.4.1.2 2.4.1.3 2.4.1.4 2.4.2 Inspection observations that should be included in the patrol are listed below: protection issues and span conditions Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report By Aerial/Ground Form: Document the section inspected for Department of Transportation (DOT) compliance Pipeline Maintenance Report: Leak, corrosion, pipe and erosion repairs Encroachment Agreement (Short Form): Third party crossings on the ROW <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ASSETS COVERED PER MITIGATION PLAN RIGHT‐OF‐WAY INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–031 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 10 Page 3 of 5 2.4.2.1 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.3 2.4.2.4 2.4.2.5 2.4.2.6 Erosion: Creek, ravines, sink holes, exposed pipe/spans and agricultural land Right‐of‐Way: Clearing/mowing, marking condition and spacing, over‐hanging trees and gate needs Third Party Activity: Dozer, trenching, boring, building construction or fencing activities on or near the ROW Leak Indications: Vapors, odor, dead vegetation, rainbow on water or stains on piping or valves. Vent pipes at road crossings should be inspected for the presents of vapors. Pipe Damage: Indication of coating damage (paint or other protective coating) or pipe damage at exposures or spans. Spans need to be inspected to determine any pipe deviation or denting from previous patrols. Cathodic Protection: Inspect test leads (conduit and face plates) and rectifier locations for visible damage to the rectifier or third activity in the anode field. Verify Anode Field Schematics are available inside the rectifier. 2.4.3 Reporting 2.4.3.1 During each patrol, emergency situations identified during aerial or ground surveillance will be immediately reported to the designated Pipeline Control Center. Aerial Patrol personnel shall remain at report location until otherwise instructed by Operation. All surveillance personnel and line spotters will be trained and certified in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) to the first responder level. 2.5 Ground Patrols (Special Conditions) 2.5.1 Several areas have been identified as requiring ground based patrols. These areas will be patrolled at the intervals specified until circumstances warrant a change in the need for ground‐based patrol or the patrol frequency. 2.5.2 Patrol Method 2.5.2.1 not be dealt with at that time will be called to One Call. 2.5.2.2 Silver Mountain Road – Special Containment Inspection:  An area from milepost 174.09 to 174.94, FM 1826 through Silver Mountain Road has been cased with High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. This casing requires  Various methods may be used to conduct a ground‐based patrol. The method used will be driven by surface conditions, equipment availability and the extensive nature of the patrol. All terrain vehicles, pickup trucks or walking may be used as each situation warrants. Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone – Austin  Daily patrols of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, from Brodie Lane to Slaughter Lane, milepost 169.79 to 173.64, are required with one (1) ground based patrol each week. Geology in this area is known to be highly porous and provides ready access to the aquifer from surface runoff or a hydrocarbon spill. Patroller will complete Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report by Aerial/Ground form. All sightings that can <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ASSETS COVERED PER MITIGATION PLAN RIGHT‐OF‐WAY INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–031 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 10 Page 4 of 5 weekly inspection for water infiltration and the presence of hydrocarbon vapors. Refer to HDPE Inspection and Dewatering procedure. Document the inspection and file the documentation in accordance with Section 3.0 of this procedure. 2.5.3 3.0 RECORDS 3.1 Written Pilot Reports 3.2 3.1.1 Pilots shall make a written report using the Right‐of‐Way Patrol Report By Aerial/Ground form of all specified and other material observations as soon as practical following each flight, but in no case more than 12 hours of flight completion with all required information: 3.1.1.1 Date of inspection 3.1.1.2 Name of person conducting the inspection 3.1.1.3 Identification of the pipeline(s), line section or right‐of‐way segment 3.1.1.4 Location of the observations by mile post number 3.1.1.5 Description of observation 3.1.1.6 Identity of Company staff, date and time (If observation was verbally reported to Operations Control) Company Action Taken and Recordkeeping 3.2.1 Employees shall take appropriate action, respond to pilot observations within 3 business days of pilot report and maintain a record of such response. Such disposition records shall reference or be linked to the report of the pilot and indicate as is applicable: 3.2.1.1 Date initially investigated by company personnel 3.2.1.2 What action was taken or will be taken 3.2.1.3 The status or disposition of the item observed or if the observation is or is not a relevant action item 3.2.1.4 All “Non‐Emergency” observations will be responded to in One Call Ticket View within 3 working days of aerial patrol. 3.2.1.5 Date each reported observation is resolved 3.2.1.5.1 Non‐Emergency sightings and comments will be evaluated by aerial patrol for removal. 3.2.1.5.2 With respect to observations that were previously reported, it is not necessary to reinspect and generate a new report, provided there is not a material change in the status or risk of the reported observation. 3.2.1.5.3 Records of the pilot observation and Company action taken shall be maintained for a period of two (2) years or until the next regulatory agency inspection, whichever is longer. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ASSETS COVERED PER MITIGATION PLAN RIGHT‐OF‐WAY INSPECTION PROCEDURE 7.05–ADM–031 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 10 Page 5 of 5 Date Change Location 12/15/2005 1.0, 3.0 and 6.0 01/01/2006 01/01/2007 01/01/2008 06/03/2008 2.3.1.7 & 2.3.1.8 01/01/2009 03/31/2009 2.2.1.3 03/31/2009 2.3.1.1 03/31/2009 2.3.1.7 03/31/2009 3.2.1 03/31/2009 3.2.1.3.1 4/29/09 2.5.2.3 4/29/09 2.5.2.4 9/03/09 header 9/03/09 2.4.3.1 9/03/09 3/4/10 2.4.3.1 01/01/11 12/31/11 All System Integrity Plan Change Log Brief Description of Change Included link to “Inspection of Right of Way procedure” Deleted references section Reviewed, no changes Reviewed, no changes Added “emergency”. Annual Review with no changes. Changed to 2.2.1.4 and added new 2.2.1.3 Changed flight segment - extended to Pecos River Added “within 3 working days” and added requirement to put one-call ticket number on aerial patrol form Added “within 3 business days of pilot report” Added section Boggy Creek ROW Cleared. Visible to aerial patrol. Daily foot patrol discontinued. Removed this section. Re-numbered due to removal of Boggy Creek Changed Longhorn Specific to Assets covered per Mitigation Plan, date and revision number Changed Longhorn to Assets covered per Mitigation Plan Annual Review with changes listed above Changed “assets covered by mitigation plan” to designated pipeline center – not a version change Reviewed, no changes 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. FLOOD CONDITIONS PROCEDURE 7.05‐ADM‐039 Asset Integrity 1/01/12 Revision: 0 Page 1 of 4 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to provide a standardized method for continued surveillance due to severe flooding conditions on mainline piping at water crossings. SCOPE The severe flooding conditions will trigger Field Personnel to direct their resources in a manner that will enable them to determine the potential effects of flooding on the pipeline system. PROCEDURE The Asset Locator shall:  Watch for the potential for damage to the pipeline caused by flooding and report it to the Pipeline Integrity Coordinator.  Report evaluations of the pipeline to the Pipeline Integrity Coordinator.  Coordinate their responses to flood conditions with Pipeline Integrity Coordinator. The Pipeline Integrity Coordinator shall:  Distribute the attached form to the affected stakeholders and obtain the data for updates to management.  Evaluate the accessibility of pipeline facilities that may be in jeopardy, such as valve settings, which are needed to isolate water crossings or other sections of a pipeline.  Extend regulator vents and relief stacks above the level of anticipated flooding, as appropriate for Natural Gas lines.  Coordinate with emergency and spill responders on pipeline locations and condition. Provide maps and other relevant information to such responders.  Consider deploying personnel so that they will be in position to take emergency actions, such as shut down, isolation, or containment. List appropriate personnel or contractors that may respond, identify the point of contact or the QI.  Determine if facilities that are normally above ground (e.g., valves, regulators, relief sets, etc) have become submerged and are in danger of being struck by vessels or debris; if possible, such facilities should be marked with an appropriate buoy with Coast Guard approval.  Perform frequent patrols, including appropriate over flights, to evaluate right-of way conditions at water crossings during flooding and after waters subside. Determine if flooding has exposed or undermined pipelines as a result of new river channels cut by the flooding or by erosion or scouring.  Perform surveys to determine the depth of cover over pipelines and the condition of any exposed pipelines, such as those crossing scour holes. Information gathered by these surveys should be shared with affected landowners. Agricultural agencies may help to inform farmers of the potential hazard from reduced cover over pipelines. Where appropriate, surveys of underwater pipe should include the use of visual inspection by divers or instrumented detection.  Ensure that line markers are still in place or replaced in a timely manner. Notify contractors, highway departments, and other involved in post-flood restoration activities of the presence of pipelines and the risks posed by reduced cover. The Compliance Coordinator shall: Advise the appropriate PHMSA Regional Office or State Pipeline safety authority if a pipeline has suffered damage, is shut-in, or is being operated at a reduced pressure as a precautionary measure as a result of flooding, before returning the line to service, increasing its operating pressure, or otherwise changing its operating status. PHMSA or the state will review all available information and advise the operator, on a case by case basis, whether and to what extent a line can safely be returned to full service. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. FLOOD CONDITIONS PROCEDURE 7.05‐ADM‐039 Asset Integrity 1/01/12 Revision: 0 Page 2 of 4 MAINLINE FLOODING COMPLIANCE FORM COMPLETED BY: DATE COMPLETED: LINE SECTION NAME: FLOOD AREA: SECTION 1: TASKS 1. FLOOD TYPE (COMPLETE QUESTIONS 1‐10) 1. ARE THE PIPELINE FACILITIES ACCESSIBLE? YES NO 2. ARE VALVE SETTINGS ACCESSIBLE? YES NO 3. HAS PERSONNEL BEEN DEPLOYED TO BE IN POSITION TO TAKE EMERGENCY ACTIONS, SUCH AS SHUT DOWN, ISOLATION, OR CONTAINMENT? YES NO 4. HAVE FACILITIES THAT ARE NORMALLY ABOVE GROUND BECOME SUBMERGED AND IN DANGER OF BEING STRUCK BY A VESSEL OR DEBRIS? YES NO 5. HAS A MORE FREQUENT PATROL PROGRAM BEEN INITIATED? YES NO 6. HAS COMMUNICATION TO THE EMERGENCY AND SPILL RESPONDERS OF PIPELINE LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS TAKEN PLACE? (NOTE BELOW IF MAPS AND PIPELINE INFORMATION WERE GIVEN) YES NO 7. CAN IT BE DETERMINED IF THE PIPELINE IS EXPOSED OR UNDERMINED AS A RESULT OF FLOODING, EROSION OR SCOURING? YES NO 8. ARE UNDERWATER SURVEYS BEING PERFORMED TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF COVER OVER PIPELINES DURING FLOODING CONDITIONS OF EXPOSED PIPELINES, SUCH AS THOSE CROSSING SCOUR HOLES? YES NO 9. ARE THE PIPELINE MARKERS STILL IN PLACE? YES NO 10. HAS INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING SURVEY BEEN SHARED WITH AFFECTED LANDOWNERS IN AREAS WHERE COVER MAY HAVE BEEN REMOVED OVER THE PIPELINE? POST FLOOD ? YES NO 2. ARE ADDITIONAL PREVENTATIVE OR MITIGATIVE MEASURES RECOMMENDED TO PREVENT A RELEASE OR DRAINAGE FROM A FLOODED AREA? (COMPLETE THE DISCUSSION SECTION WITH COMMENTARY AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE BELOW RISK FACTORS)  GENERAL PROFILE/TERRAIN OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PIPELINE  SURVEYS OF UNDERWATER PIPE / VISUAL INSPECTION BY DIVERS OR INSTRUMENTED DETECTION N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. FLOOD CONDITIONS PROCEDURE 7.05‐ADM‐039 Asset Integrity 1/01/12 Revision: 0 Page 3 of 4 SECTION 1: TASKS  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCT TRANSPORTED  AMOUNT OF PRODUCT THAT COULD BE RELEASED  THE SWIFTNESS OF LEAK DETECTION AND SHUTDOWN CAPABILITIES INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE PERSONNEL  THE POTENTIAL RATE AND VOLUME OF LEAKAGE  THE POTENTIAL FOR PRODUCT TO REACH AN IGNITION SOURCE  DAMAGED LINE, SHUT IN OR OPERATIONS AT A REDUCED PRESSURE AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE AS A RESULT OF FLOODING, REQUIRE ADVISING THE PHMSA REGIONAL OFFICE OR STATE PIPELINE SAFETY AUTHORITY BEFORE RETURNING THE LINE TO SERVICE, INCREASING THE OPERATING PRESSURE OR CHANGING ITS OPERATING STATUS. DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS: <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. FLOOD CONDITIONS PROCEDURE 7.05‐ADM‐039 Asset Integrity 1/01/12 Revision: 0 Page 4 of 4 SIP CHANGE LOG Date Change Location Brief Description of Change 1/1/12 New <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–7.06 Asset Integrity 1/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 4 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 The objective of this initiative is to maintain asset integrity through the Integrity Management Plan. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 2.2 2.3 Products transported, operating parameters, materials of construction, installation, maintenance methods and routing through a variety of population densities, land uses and environmentally defined areas characterize pipeline systems and facility assets. Taken collectively, a pipeline's or a facility’s physical attributes, products transported and operating systems are factors that characterize the relative risks to the surrounding environment and areas of population. Physical data, collected by and contributed from an integrated team of operating, technical, commercial and subject matter experts, is the cornerstone of Integrity Management. Maintaining integrity of abandoned or inactive segments is also included in Integrity Management. 2.3.1 Abandoned is defined as a pipeline facility that is permanently removed from service and is purged of product. 2.3.2 Inactive is defined as a line that is removed from active service and purged of product, but may be returned to service in the future. 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The Director of Asset Integrity shall: 3.1.1 Execute and maintain the Integrity Management Plan. 3.1.2 Develop Annual Asset Integrity Plans. Include input from key stakeholders such as Asset Integrity, Operations, Commercial, Environmental and results from section six and seven analysis of the Integrity Management Plan. 3.2 3.3 3.1.3 Coordinate the execution and track progress of the Asset Integrity Plan. Distribute a monthly Asset Integrity Plan Report. The Manager of Asset Integrity Engineering shall: 3.2.1 Complete the PHMSA Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Systems and send to the Sr. Vice President of Operations and Technical Services for certification and approval. Send approved reports to PHMSA. 3.2.2 Publish a quarterly report that contains data regarding the leaks that occurred during the previous quarter. The Senior Vice President of Operations and Technical Services shall: 3.3.1 Review, approve and certify the PHMSA Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Systems upon receipt. Send approved and certified reports to the Manager of Asset Integrity Engineering. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–7.06 Asset Integrity 1/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 4 3.4 The Employee shall: 3.4.1 Document and notify the Asset Integrity Engineer of any new threats to the integrity of the assets (i.e., third party construction, new population, new environmental, potential over pressure issues, right‐of‐way issues, over‐stressed piping, and lack of adequate tank overfill protection, pitting corrosion on tanks or piping, etc.) or operational changes. 3.5 The Project Manager shall: 3.5.1 Document and notify the Asset Integrity Engineer of any proposed change to the Company assets for risk consideration. 3.5.2 Utilize Project Life Cycle to place active pipelines in an abandoned or inactive status, or to convert a line to service. Comply with the Abandoning Pipeline Segments and/or Inactivating Pipeline Segments or Conversion to Service procedures, as appropriate. 3.6 The Asset Integrity Engineer shall: 3.6.1 Utilize the Risk Analysis for New/Modified Pipelines process in consultation with the Project Manager for 3.7 completion and documentation of risk analysis when constructing or significantly altering pipelines. The Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity shall: 3.7.1 Maintain the Abandoning Pipeline Segments Procedure, the Inactivating Pipeline Segments Procedure and the Conversion to Service Procedure. 3.8 The Records Coordinator shall: 3.8.1 Segments and Conversion to Service procedures. Retain and file all records as described in the Abandoning Pipeline Segments, Inactivating Pipeline <<>> Date 2004 10/10/05 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–7.06 Asset Integrity 1/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 4 System Integrity Plan Change Log Change Location Changed By Approved By: Brief Description of Change Chabino Michael Pearson Integrated 7.12 into this initiative Chabino Michael Pearson Removed the Project Manager requirement to Notify the Facility Risk Engineer of the incoming documents for input/updating of the Facility Risk Model per the Facility Risk Management Program within 30 days of project completion. Chabino Michael Pearson Removed the Project Manager requirement to complete a Pipeline Maintenance report and associated documentation within 30 days of completion of a pipeline project and forward to the Pipeline Integrity Records coordinator. It was redundant. Chabino Michael Pearson Changed title from Facility Integrity Supervisor to Risk Engineering Supervisor Chabino Michael Pearson All Eliminated the Facility Risk Management program and incorporated it into the Integrity Management Plan. Conducted 2004 Annual Review All Chabino Michael Pearson Conducted 2005 Annual Review Michael Pearson 2.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.7 Pearson Added standards to include abandoning and inactivating activities 3.3.1 Pearson Michael Pearson Added statement to include Conversion to Service requirements. Chabino Michael Pearson 3.5 Added requirement for Pipeline Risk Engineer to utilize risk analysis process for new/modified pipelines 3.1.1 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Removed “required” and “High Consequence Areas” 3.2.1 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Changed Asset Integrity Manager to Risk Engineer Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson 3.3.1 Removed reference to Conversion to Service procedure since redundant to new 3.3.4 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Moved PHA requirements to Element 11 3.3.4 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Combined 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 3.4.1 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Changed 30 days to 45 days <<>> 01/01/06 01/01/06 06/06/06 06/06/06 06/06/06 10/16/06 05/17/07 09/11/07 9/11/07 9/11/07 9/11/07 02/04/08 10/23/08 01/01/10 08/30/10 01/01/11 12/31/11 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SIP–ADM–7.06 Asset Integrity 1/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 4 3.4.2 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Moved PHA requirements to Element 11 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson 3.5.2 Removed Pipeline Risk Engineer requirement to comply with Conversion to Service Procedure 3.4.1 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Minor Modification to Paragraph. Deleted 45 days and inserted quarterly. 3.6 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Deleted Facility Risk Engineer or Terminal Operations Manager. 3.7 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Deleted word Mapping out of title. All Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Conducted 2006 Annual Review, no changes 3.2 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Added Paragraph 3.2 new responsibilities for VP Operations All Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Conducted 2007 Annual Review (see change log) 3.1 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Removed Director and inserted Manager of AI Engineering 3.5 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Removed Supervisor and inserted Manager of AI Engineering 3.6 Chabino/Pearson Michael Pearson Removed Risk Engineer and inserted AI Engineer 3.1 Combined Asset Integ Eng Mgr responsibilities 3.3 and 3.4 Matt Argo Doug Chabino 2008 annual review. Changed title Reviewed, no changes 3.8.2 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Removed 3.8.2, class location surveys 3.1 Changed title to Director 3.2 Moved 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 to Mgr of AI Eng responsibility Updated VP title to Sr VP of Operartions 3.8 Removed Compliance Coordinator responsibilities All 2012 annual review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 17 SECTION 1: HIGH CONSEQUENCE AREA IMPACTING PIPELINE SEGMENTS 1.1 Regulatory Requirement Background The Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 195.452, Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas, requires that hazardous liquid pipeline operators identify all pipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area. High consequence areas (HCA’s) are those locations where a pipeline spill might have significant adverse impacts to areas of population, the environment, and/or commercial navigation. High consequence areas are defined in 49 CFR 195.450 as: 1. A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. 2. An other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or other designated residential or commercial area. 3. A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists. These waterways are identified in the National Waterways Network, a geographic database created by the National Waterways GIS Design Committee. 4. An area of the environment that has been designated as unusually sensitive to hazardous liquid spills (an “unusually sensitive area” or USA). USAs are defined in 49 CFR 195.6. 49 CFR 195.452 further requires that hazardous liquid pipeline operators must periodically incorporate new or updated information into its HCA pipeline segment identification and affected area analysis. The pipeline operator must incorporate newly identified HCA impacting segments into its baseline assessment plan within one year of identification, and further must complete the associated baseline assessment within five years from the date the area is identified. 1.2 Magellan Leak Detection Capabilities Magellan utilizes a SCADA based volume and pressure leak detection operating system. Through a combination of rate of change alarms, threshold parameter settings for measured system readings, line balancing calculations, system alarms, and pressure monitoring activities, the SCADA operator (Pipeline Controller) can readily analyze and detect system deviations that may be an early indicator of product leakage. Significant product releases, such as emanating from a line puncture or complete carrier pipe rupture, will result in a rapid and noticeable change in line operating pressures and flow rates at upstream and downstream stations. Such pressure and flow rate abnormalities are indicated by the SCADA system, which subsequently alerts the Pipeline Controller of the abnormal condition. The Pipeline Controller then initiates emergency actions including pipeline flow stoppage, line segment isolation around the suspected leak, and contact company emergency responders. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 17 Magellan pipeline systems are designed to facilitate an orderly and controlled shutdown after a probable leak indication. Once the affected pipeline segment is shut down and mainline pressure sources are eliminated, the ability of continued product leakage is dependent upon the location of the release point relative to the elevation profile of the line (i.e., “drain down”), the product type (HVL versus RP which affects product expansion and depressurization release volume), and the location of emergency flow restriction devices (EFRD). 1.3 Initial HCA Pipeline Segment Identification Identification of pipeline segments that could impact an HCA in the event of an unintended product release are categorized in two basic groups:  Pipeline segments physically located within the boundaries of an identified HCA; and  Pipeline segments located outside of HCA’s that could reasonably negatively impact an HCA in the event of a product release. Figure 1.2 provides a process overview flowchart of the HCA identification process. Apply NPMS & GDT Data Sets to GIS Overlay Pipeline System onto GIS with HCA's Designate Direct HCA's Intersecting Pipeline System Determine Impact (Buffer) Zones by Product Type & Pipeline Specific Attributes Apply Buffer Zone around Magellan Pipeline System Determine Downstream HCA Receptors Determine Non-Direct HCA's (Pipeline System Located Outside HCA's that Could Impact HCA's) Dispersion Model for Vapor & Overland Spread Liquid Release Scenarios Summarize All HCA Impacting Pipeline System Assets: Direct Non-Direct Downstream Go To Risk Assessment Process Figure 3.1 <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 17 1.4 Segment Identification Process for Areas Within HCA’s Magellan utilizes the following process to identify pipeline segments physically located within the boundaries of identified HCA’s:  Magellan maintains its liquid pipeline routes on a database driven geographical interface system (GIS). Magellan utilizes Geographic Data Technologies (GDT) as a base map for identifying geographical and population features in proximity to its pipeline right‐of‐way. GDT base maps include geo‐depicted identification of highways, areas of population, ecological features, waterways, and other relevant geographical features. GDT base maps are overlayed with Magellan centerline pipeline routes and facility locations. Magellan periodically updates its GIS database by incorporating pipeline‐mapping updates (asbuilts, relocations, new pipelines via construction or acquisition, and asset retirements/divestitures, etc.) to ensure that mapping information is kept up to date.  HCA polygon shape files and associated data sets from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) are downloaded onto Magellan’s pipeline mapping GIS. NPMS data is provided to pipeline operators and is made available on a state‐by‐state basis.  The PHMSA NPMS available data is incorporated into Magellan’s pipeline GIS GDT maps as an additional layer to assist in the identification of HCA’s.  For USA and commercially navigable waterway HCA identification, the PHMSA identified NPMS information is directly used to locate and define the length of HCA pipeline segments.  For identification of HCA population areas, Magellan utilizes both NPMS and GDT to identify Direct HCA’s that are common to both data sets. Where differences exist, Magellan conservatively designates additional Direct HCA population as being identified by the combination (overlapping of both data layers to identify collective population boundaries) of NPMS and GDT data sets. 1.5 Identifying Pipeline Segments that could affect HCA’s As part of the data gathering and integration, Magellan analyzes its pipeline system to determine where unintended hazardous liquid releases could negatively impact areas of population, USA’s, and/or commercially navigable waterways (collectively HCA’s). Pipeline segments that could adversely affect HCA’s are identified and treated similarly to pipeline segments located within HCA’s for integrity assessment. The following factors are considered in the identification of pipeline segments located outside an HCA that could adversely affect an HCA in the event of an unintended release:  The nature and characteristics of the product or products transported (includes consideration for items such as refined products, highly volatile liquids, toxicity, and flammability)  The operating conditions of the pipeline (flow rate)  The diameter of the pipeline and the potential release volume  Magellan pipeline leak history impact area analysis  Dispersion Modeling  Geographical and terrain features  Land Use (Agriculture)  Leak Detection and segment isolation capabilities  Leak Type – Rupture The primary distinguishing attribute of Magellan’s hazardous liquid pipeline system is product type. Hazardous liquids transported on Magellan’s pipelines are classified as:  Refined Products (RP) – characterized as low vapor pressure motor fuels, jet fuels, and distillates. For analysis purposes, the Refined Products category will also include low vapor pressure Natural Gas Liquids  Highly Volatile Liquids (HVL) – typically form a vapor cloud when released to the atmosphere  Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) – used in agricultural fertilizer applications. NH3 has vapor cloud characteristics similar to propane when released to the atmosphere, and is analyzed similar to an HVL. Although not flammable, NH3 has toxicity properties that <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 17 are considered in the determination of the effected HCA zone. When released into water, NH3 is absorbed and contained by the water, and is analyzed similar to RP for downstream HCA impacts.  Crude Oil – characterized as low vapor pressure unrefined petroleum liquid hydrocarbon. Analysis for adverse consequences to HCA’s by inadvertent release of hazardous liquids from piping components initially located outside of HCA’s is also considered in performing HCA affecting segment identification. The U.S. Department of Transportation 1988 Annual Report on Pipeline Safety summarizes reportable releases for hazardous liquid pipelines over a ten‐year period (1979 – 1988). Report analysis provides the following:  Minor and Major leaks are the most likely to occur (90%), the least likely to be ignited (7% of minor and major leaks resulted in Immediate or Delayed Ignition), and seldom result in vapor cloud explosions.  Rupture releases are the least likely to occur (10%), and have a higher likelihood of ignition (30% of ruptures resulted in Immediate or Delayed Ignition). The above data is biased towards overstatement of negative consequences of hazardous liquid releases as pre‐2002 reporting PHMSA reporting requirements used a 50 barrel threshold (5 barrels a day for HVL’s) for releases not resulting in a fire, death, injury, or greater than $50,000 in property damage. Current PHMSA requirements for 5 gallon volume threshold reporting would likely result in a significant reduction in both the percentage of releases involving an ignition and the percentage of ruptures. 1.5.1 HVL and NH3 Pipelines– Vapor Cloud Dispersion When released to the atmosphere, both HVL and NH3 typically result in the formation of a vapor cloud. The primary consequences of concern with released HVL are a fire or explosion upon vapor cloud ignition. The primary consequence of concern with released NH3 is the consequence of toxicity levels within the vapor cloud. If an ignition source within the flammability range of the HVL vapor cloud is intercepted, then a fire or vapor cloud explosion has the potential to occur. For NH3, receptor exposure to product concentration and duration in excess of toxicity limits creates the potential for undesirable consequences. Combustion products from HVL hydrocarbons are predominantly water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon based soot. These combustion products would not have long term consequential damage to HCA receptors. Consideration of HCA receptor impact by HVL and NH3 releases that remain in liquid phase are discussed in Section 1.5.2. Product releases that result in vapor clouds are typically assisted in dispersion dilutions by winds which carry the vapor cloud away from the release sight. Alternatively, stagnant air typically results in a vapor cloud of higher product density that will tend to center around the release source. In a rupture situation, the initial mass release rate of an HVL is large, and can exceed the nominal pre‐rupture hydraulic flow rate. Immediately following the rupture, the pipeline pressure near the release point drops significantly as the HVL starts to flash within the pipe, causing higher resistance to fluid flow, and thereby lowering the exiting mass rate. In effect, the creation of a flashed gas pocket inside the pipe dampens the ability of the liquid product to exit the line. The vapor cloud size and flow path are influenced by release volume, operating pressure, release orientation, and atmospheric conditioning such as humidity, wind speed, direction, and temperature. For a major product release, such as with a backhoe tooth puncture, the product release rate immediately after the breached pipeline quickly drops and remains constant until the line section is isolated. The inherent HVL vapor pressure characteristic will allow the product to release at a relatively stable rate since drain‐up and elevation provide minimal resistance to continued depressurization. In an HVL line, the blocked line will continue to vent until the line segment is liquid free. For minor product releases, such as from a pinhole or hairline crack‐like feature, the product will typically weather as a wetted gas into the surrounding environment, which normally creates a small impact zone. The HVL gaseous product will dissipate <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 5 of 17 into the air, whether released directly into the atmosphere, into soils, or into waterways. As evidenced by the USDOT leak history, minor releases rarely ignite, and the likelihood of significant damages is low. Based on the nature and effects of HVL and NH3 releases, Magellan conservatively bases the determination of land receiver HCA impact zones upon large major and rupture product releases. Magellan addressed the HVL and NH3 risk identification associated with vapor clouds by employing Quest Consultants Inc. of Norman, Oklahoma (Quest) to perform computational based air dispersion analysis and scenario modeling to determine product ignition and toxicity boundaries associated with a release condition. NOTE: As part of its ongoing Pipeline Integrity Management Program improvement efforts, Magellan continued its vapor dispersion work with Quest to analyze and account for line specific operating pressures, product compositions, and pipeline diameters. Quest issued a final report to Magellan on September 30, 2002, and Magellan is incorporating the final report results into its HCA identification process as part of the first annual Pipeline Integrity Management Program update. Quest’s computational analysis of HVL and NH3 product releases were performed using the CANARY by Quest modeling package, which contains a set of complex models that calculate release conditions, initial dilution of the vapor, and the subsequent dispersion of the vapor introduced into the atmosphere. The models contain algorithms that account for thermodynamics, mixture behavior, transient release rates, gas cloud density relative to air, initial velocity of the released gas, and heat transfer effects from the surrounding atmosphere and the substrate. The release and dispersion models contained in the CANARY predecessor (QuestFOCUS package) were reviewed in a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored study and an American Petroleum Institute (API) study. These studies evaluated QuestFOCUS on technical merit and on model predictions for specific releases. One conclusion drawn by both studies was that the dispersion software tended to over predict the extent of the gas cloud travel, thus resulting in too large a cloud when compared to the test data (i.e., a conservative prediction). In a separate study prepared for the Minerals Management Service (MMS) that reviewed models for evaluation of routine and accidental releases of flammable and toxic gases, CANARY by Quest received the highest possible ranking in the science and credibility areas. The MMS study further recommends CANARY by Quest for use when evaluating toxic and flammable gas releases. CANARY by Quest includes the following models that were employed during the Magellan commissioned HVL dispersion analysis includes:  Fluid Release Model,  Momentum Jet Dispersion Model, and  Heavy Gas Dispersion Model Quest performed release and dispersion calculations to quantify the dispersion of hazardous fluids following an accidental release from a pipeline transporting HVL or NH3. The releases were designed to simulate the product dispersion following a rupture or puncture in a buried or above grade pipeline and related assets. The Quest analysis considered the following physical, environmental, and product characteristic attributes involving an HVL that forms a vapor cloud following a catastrophic pipeline rupture scenario:  Product Type  Product Composition  Pipeline Size  Operating Pressure and Temperature  Pipeline Segment Length  Release Elevation and Orientation  Atmospheric Conditions  Land Profile <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 6 of 17  Wind speed  Atmospheric Stability Quest performed HVL and NH3 gas dispersion calculations until specific concentrations were reached in the downwind direction. For NH3 pipeline releases, the concentration of interest to establish the impact boundary distance corresponded to the minimum lethal dose (onset of fatality) for a given exposure duration (considers the accumulative effects of NH3 concentrations). For HVL pipeline releases, the concentration (endpoint) of interest to establish the impact boundary distance was the lower flammable limit (LFL). Several releases of anhydrous ammonia were modeled to provide a range of the potential consequences. Scenarios were modeled for two pipe diameters, for two weather conditions, and two exposure durations. Maximum downwind distances under these conditions are presented in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Results for Releases from Anhydrous Ammonia Pipelines Exposure NH3 Endpoint Maximum Duration Concentration‐ Downwind Distance Nominal Wind Speed Onset of Fatality to Endpoint (minutes) Pipeline (m/s) / Stability (ppmv) (ft) Diameter (inches) 10 4,223 1.5/F 15 3,135 6 10 4,223 5.0/D 15 3,135 10 4,223 1.5/F 15 3,135 8 10 4,223 5.0/D 15 3,135 1,630 1,790 360 415 2,160 2,355 1,490 1,740 Full ruptures of propane, butane, and Demethanized Mix NGL pipelines were modeled to provide the distances to the LFL under two sets of weather conditions. Results for propane are given in Table 1.2, for butane in Table 1.3, and for the Y‐grade releases in Table 1.4. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 7 of 17 Table 1.2 Results for Propane Pipeline Ruptures Line Diameter Pipeline Pressure Distance to LFL (ft) (inches) (psig) 1.5 m/s; F 5.0 m/s;D 1,440 1,000 530 6 1,650 1,025 565 1,440 1,285 800 8 1,650 1,320 840 1,440 1,440 805 10 1,650 1,510 900 1,440 1,830 1,280 12 1,650 1,885 1,340 1,440 1,970 1,410 14 1,650 2,020 1,440 1,440 2,230 1,590 16 1,650 2,300 1,645 Table 1.3 Results for Butane Pipeline Ruptures Line Diameter Pipeline Pressure Distance to LFL (ft) (inches) (psig) 1.5 m/s; F 5.0 m/s; D 1,440 670 300 6 1,650 710 315 1,440 875 430 8 1,650 920 495 1,440 1,015 475 10 1,650 1,025 485 12 1,440 1,275 825 <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 8 of 17 1,650 1,325 890 1,440 1,365 905 14 1,650 1,420 980 1,440 1,570 1,100 16 1,650 1,650 1,155 Table 1.4 Results for Demethanized Mix Pipeline Ruptures Line Diameter Pipeline Pressure Distance to LFL (ft) (inches) (psig) 1.5 m/s; F 5.0 m/s; D 1,440 890 260 6 1,650 925 345 1,440 1,135 585 8 1,650 1,195 655 1,440 1,345 670 10 1,650 1,355 625 1,440 1,655 1,095 12 1,650 1,710 1,145 1,440 1,800 1,235 14 1,650 1,860 1,285 1,440 2,155 1,420 16 1,650 2,075 1,450 Magellan has also performed case study analysis of historic HVL product releases with the occurrence of ignition to determine its HCA impact zone. HVL leak history analysis revealed a maximum affected area of 720 feet for rupture and major type product releases. The Magellan HCA Buffer Zones designated in the above table conservatively exceeds historical flammability footprints for HVL pipeline rupture release scenarios. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 9 of 17 Combining rupture vapor cloud dispersion simulation and historical case study analysis allows for validation of computational results. Magellan selected the greater of 1,000 feet or the more conservative of the HCA Buffer Zones from Tables 1.1 through 1.4 for application on each specific line size, product type, and operating pressure across its system. The designated Magellan HCA Buffer Zones are being implemented and integrated into Magellan’s GIS pipeline mapping system to identify areas outside of designated HCA’s that could be impacted by an HVL or NH3 vapor cloud release caused by a pipeline rupture. 1.5.2 HVL and NH3 Pipelines – Liquid Phase Hazard Analysis Rapid vaporization of “light HVL’s” excludes pipeline segment that only contain these products from additional waterway HCA impact buffer zone analysis. For “heavy HVL’s” conditions (applies to product streams primarily comprised of butanes, hexanes, and heavier components), low ambient temperature can remain in the liquid phase upon release to the environment. Depending upon the ambient conditions, liquid phase released HVL’s can pool and drain similar to Refined Products (see Section 1.5.5), can form a vapor cloud, or combinations of both. For pipeline segments that transport heavy HVL’s, Magellan has applied both the Vapor and the RP Liquid HCA Buffer Zones for determining potential impacts to HCA’s. When released to waterways, NH3 can be absorbed into the water and carried downstream. High concentrations of NH3 in water have shown to be toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Although many of the waterways crossed or in near proximity to NH3 pipelines are not designated as HCA’s, Magellan chooses to include all normally flowing waterways as NH3 impacting HCA’s. Magellan has established a 50 foot buffer zone from each bank of normally flowing waterways as having potential negative impacts to these areas. The 50 foot buffers are conservative since when released to the atmosphere, NH3 will form a vapor cloud, and will typically have minimal impact to waterways and contained receptors. 1.5.3 HVL and NH3 ‐ Facilities The Magellan HCA Buffer Zones for HVL and NH3 pipeline ruptures have also been applied to HVL and NH3 handling pipeline related facilities such as pump stations, meter sites, and breakout tanks that are governed by CFR Part 195 regulations. Facility locations are typically separated from surrounding receptors by security fencing and setback zones. Large HVL or NH3 releases from these facilities, such as might be emitted from a failed relief valve or valve opening are very similar in consequences to a major release or line rupture flowing at high hydraulic capacity. Similar to pipeline occurrences, the unintentional release of an HVL from facilities highlights the concern for ignition and vapor cloud explosion to nearby receptors. Without ignition, the vapor clouds dissipate into the air. For NH3, toxicity levels relative to exposure duration is the same concern for facility and pipeline release. For HVL and NH3 Facilities located outside of direct HCA’s, Magellan selected the greater of 1,000 feet, the more conservative of the HCA Buffer Zones from Tables 1.1 through 1.4, or the results of the EPA RMP worst case scenario release calculations for application on each specific line size, product type, and operating pressure either entering or exiting each specific Facility. If the Facility has multiple incoming or outgoing pipelines, Magellan will utilize the pipeline size, operating pressure, flow rate, and product type dispersion analysis that will result in the largest rupture release volume. 1.5.4 HVL and NH3 – HCA Determination Summary The following is a summarization of the process in determining HCA’s for HVL and NH3 pipeline and facility assets:  Identify pipeline segments and facilities physically located within (direct) the boundaries of an identified HCA <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 10 of 17  Identify pipeline segments located outside HCA’s (could affect), using the more conservative of 1,000 feet or the most conservative of the HCA Buffer Zones from Table 1.1 through 1.4  Identify facilities located outside HCA’s (could affect), using the more conservative of 1,000 feet, the most conservative of the HCA Buffer Zones from Table 1.1 through 1.4, or the results of the EPA RMP worst case scenario release calculations.  Apply a 5 mile downstream HCA receptor analysis for Heavy HVL’s (butane & natural gasolines) on waterways that cross the assets or are within the more conservative of 1,000 feet or the most conservative of the HCA Buffer Zones from Table 1.1 through 1.4  Identify NH3 pipelines that cross normally flowing waterways or are within 50 feet of a normally flowing waterway as an HCA.  For pipelines transporting both HVL’s and refined products, conduct specific HCA impact analysis per product type and apply the more conservative analysis results to identify the “could affect” HCA’s. 1.5.5 Refined Products – Characteristics RP characteristics include flammability, low vapor pressure, and relatively low product density (comparative to water). Consequently, when released to the atmosphere, RP will pool on the ground, seek lower elevations, float on top of water, and may ignite if it comes in contact with an ignition source prior to significant dilution. Dilution of RP occurs through absorption into soils and through water dispersion, each of which reduces the likelihood of product ignition. 1.5.6 Refined Products Pipelines – Land Receptors As indicated above with the analysis of HVL release consequences, USDOT historic accident data was evaluated to determine the distribution and likely consequences of RP spill volumes. Once again, it is acknowledged that spill volumes of less than 50 barrels would be under‐estimated due to prior period higher reporting volume thresholds. For the reporting period of 1986 through 2000, frequency distributions plots of USDOT data confirmed the following:  Relatively small spills (less than 50 barrels) occurred most frequently.  The majority of spills were 150 barrels or less.  Less than 4 percent of hazardous liquid spills released more than 5,000 barrels of product to the environment. Historic USDOT data substantiates that the likelihood of large hazardous liquid product releases are statistically small. For an unintended release of Refined Product, the released volume will depend upon:  The leak rate, determined by size of leak opening and the internal operating pressure  Time before leak is detected  Time before leaking pipeline segment is isolated by emergency flow restriction interruption devices or via manual valve closures.  Time before pressure sources are terminated (pump shut down or closure of pressure control device)  Pipeline terrain and elevation profile that impacts the potential drain down volume. Since the amount of product that could enter an HCA is impacted by drain down volume, Federal regulation (49 CFR 195.260 (3)) stipulates that block valves are to be installed where pipelines cross rivers or streams with a 100 foot width (high water mark) to minimize drain down volume. As additional protection, Magellan also has remotely operated motorized block valves (designed to close within 5 minutes of activation) at strategic areas across its system, which assist in minimizing the response time to isolate a pipeline segment in the event of a product release. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 11 of 17 Magellan establishes a minimum buffer zone of 1,000 feet for RP pipelines. The minimum 1,000 feet radius (2,000 feet diameter) buffer zone for RP pipelines accommodates potential spray releases associated with small pipeline punctures, as evidenced by field analysis of actual puncture release scenarios. Magellan utilizes the more conservative worst case release analysis to determine potential HCA impacts even for smaller line puncture scenarios. Additionally, similar to Magellan’s modified approach for the identification of HCA impact zones for HVL and NH3 pipelines, Magellan conducts line specific analysis of RP pipelines to account for operating pressure, product type, line size, and individual drain up analysis to determine worst case leak volumes along each pipeline segment at each elevation point determined by United States Geological Service (USGS) Digital Elevation Models (DEM, 30m grid). Similar to the original HCA buffer zone process, Magellan utilizes the maximum operational flow rate for each pipeline segment and applies a conservative 15 minutes of product flow in a ruptured pipeline scenario before shutoff. Magellan assigns calculated drain up volumes at each elevation point along its pipeline and determined a combined (maximum operational flow rate before shutoff plus drain up) design rupture volume. Magellan conducts GIS based overland spread analysis for pipeline segments not already identified as HCA’s at elevation point intervals no greater than 1000 feet. Analysis points are identified at significant changes in topography, such as immediately before or after a ridge, using a published algorithm (Douglas and Peucker, 1973) and then additional elevation points are identified at intervals no greater than 1000 feet between those points if necessary. The design rupture volume for each analysis point is used as input for GIS based overland spread analysis to define additional HCA impact areas along its pipeline. Magellan utilizes a ½” product hold up, within each topography grid. The overland spread analysis continues until HCA receptors or waterways were intersected or until all of the design rupture volume product was accounted for via hold up analysis. Waterways that were intersected by an overland spread path are subsequently analyzed to determine stream flow direction to assist in identifying potential downstream HCA receptors (see Section 1.5.8) 1.5.7 Refined Product Facilities For RP Facilities located outside of direct HCA’s, Magellan utilizes the greater of 1,000 feet or the higher of the receiving or the originating location worst case rupture release volume (combination of 15 minutes of maximum operational flow rate plus drain up calculation volume), coupled with GIS based overland spread analysis to determine the potential impact to HCA receptors. If the Facility has multiple incoming or outgoing pipelines, Magellan utilizes the pipeline size, operating pressure, flow rate, and drain up volume that will result in the largest rupture release volume. MMP’s storage tanks have secondary containment (dikes) that are designed to hold the tank volume of product in a release scenario and thus, not allowing product to leave the facility property. MMP also has tank valves that will isolate additional tank product volume from significantly contributing into a mainline release site. 1.5.8 Refined Products Waterway Crossings – Pipelines and Facilities RP Product characteristics are considered for determination of receptor consequential impact due to hazardous liquid releases. This section is applicable to all Magellan’s hazardous liquid pipelines and facilities that transport RP. A GIS based process of overlaying Magellan’s hazardous liquid pipeline system with available waterways datasets is used to determine waterways that could impact HCA’s. Widths are applied to waterway centerlines (500’ for named and 250’ for unnamed waterways) when available waterway datasets do not contain width information or actual widths are not known. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 12 of 17 Waterways that intersect or are within the HCA impact buffer zone (see Section 1.5.5) of Magellan RP pipelines/facilities or overland spread analysis (see Section 1.5.6) are subsequently analyzed to determine stream flow direction to assist in identifying potential downstream HCA receptors. U.S Department of Transportation / Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 194, Response Plans For Onshore Oil Pipelines, defines requirements of oil pipeline operators to submit oil spill response plans to reduce the environmental impact of discharges. Part 194 applies to onshore oil pipelines that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on any navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. CFR Part 194.103(c)(4) provides guidance for determining distances from line sections that can be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment in the event of a discharge of oil into or on navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Oil line segments located within a 5 mile radius of potentially affected public drinking water intakes or a 1 mile radius of potentially affected environmentally sensitive areas that could reasonably be expected to reach these areas must be identified by the operator. Taking guidance from the above, Magellan integrates and expands CFR Part 194 to include population in the identification of potential downstream waterway HCA receptors located within five miles of each waterway identified. For RP hazardous liquids, Magellan applies the five mile downstream HCA receptor analysis to waterways that cross its assets or are within the more conservative of 1000 feet or the results of the overland spread analysis. For “heavy HVL’s” hazardous liquids pipeline segments, Magellan applies the five mile downstream HCA receptor analysis to waterways that cross its pipeline and facilities assets. HVL and NH3 product characteristics result in the rapid vaporization of pressurized liquids upon contact with the atmosphere. Contact with water can delay HVL and NH3 vaporization, and can also result in product absorption that can subsequently be carried downstream. The end result is the identification of Magellan’s pipeline segments with waterway crossings that could potentially affect HCA’s. These pipeline segments are categorized as Waterway Crossing HCA affected zones, and are further combined with the overall Magellan HCA listing for hazardous liquid pipeline assets. As a supplement to the guidance provided by CFR Part 194, Magellan utilized historical analysis of Magellan’s RP product releases within and around waterways to analyze the impact of released hazardous liquids on downstream receptors. This review confirms that waterway distribution of RP, HVL, and NH3 releases beyond the 5 mile buffer zone have a low likelihood of significant negative impact to HCA receptors. Although some clean‐up activities beyond 5 miles may be required, product dilution minimizes the potential for product ignition or substantial harm to the environment or drinking water supplies. Dilution of NH3 product in water and vaporization of HVL product in water minimize the impact to downstream receptors as the distance from the release point increases. Magellan identifies drinking water intakes within 50 miles downstream via waterborne pathways of a potential RP, NH3, or heavy HVL release. These sites are incorporated into Magellan’s emergency response plans to provide early notification of a potential critical water source contamination. This communication between Magellan and the drinking water municipalities provides for implementation of mitigation measures and appropriate preventive actions to minimize the effects of RP, NH3, and heavy HVL releases. Magellan’s CFR Part 194 Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines provide additional measures to minimize the impact of product releases from downstream receptors. The combination of the designation of additional HCA’s and the incorporation of drinking water intake locations and contact information into emergency response plans demonstrates discreet and proactive means to both reduce the likelihood and the consequences of potential product releases. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 13 of 17 1.5.9 Refined Products – HCA Determination Summary The following is a summarization of the process in determining HCA’s for Refined Products pipeline and facility assets:  Identify pipeline segments and facilities physically located within (direct) the boundaries of an identified HCA  Identify pipeline segments and facilities located outside direct HCA’s utilizing a 1,000 feet buffer  Conduct overland spread analysis per line segment for areas outside direct and buffered HCA’s based upon calculated release volumes  Apply a 5 mile downstream HCA receptor analysis on waterways that cross the assets or are within the 1,000 feet buffer zone or the results of the overland spread analysis  For pipelines transporting both HVL’s and refined products conduct specific HCA impact analysis per product type and apply the more conservative analysis results to identify the “could affect” HCA’s 1.5.10 Crude Oil Pipeline Systems Magellan operates several crude oil pipelines. Magellan utilizes the same process for determining HCA’s on Crude Oil Pipelines as described for the Refined Products System. 1.5.11 Consideration of Slow Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Asset Releases Slow releases of hazardous liquids from Magellan’s pipelines located outside of HCA’s have been risk assessed and categorized as being not likely to have negative consequential impacts outside of the previously defined buffer zones. Slow releases initiated from pinhole leaks, leaking flanges or pipeline appurtenances, drips, or seepage will typically be absorbed into the surrounding air or soils, depending upon the product type and characteristics. In some cases, RP or Crude Oil from small releases may be released to a water carrier and produce a petroleum sheen over the water. Neither of these consequences associated with slow releases located outside of HCA’s have historically shown to result in significant damage to areas outside the buffer zones. Concern over slow releases exists with the possibility of enlargement of the release opening, which could cause a change in leak classification to minor, major, or even the possibility of a rupture. In the event of a slow release turning into a major leak or rupture, the consequences associated with waterway distribution of RP (discussed above) could become a factor. Prevention of the escalation of unintended slow releases of hazardous liquids from pipeline assets is managed via Leak Detection Capabilities and Processes (See Section 1.2). In short, early detection of unnaturally browning vegetation, odor detection, noise, bubbles, sighting of petroleum products, or an oily water sheen by Company personnel, contractors, system instrumentation (including SCADA alarms and local leak detection sensors), or the Public are instrumental to the mitigation of small releases before they can become more significant. 1.6 Reexamination of PHMSA HCA Data The physical boundaries of existing, as well as the identification of new HCA’s, are expected to change over time as new population and environmental resource data becomes available. Accordingly, the maps and data sets delineating the locations of HCA’s must be periodically updated. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 14 of 17 Magellan will incorporate the following process to ensure that expanding and newly designated HCA’s are appropriately recognized and utilized in its Integrity Management Program:  Annually update GIS base maps and data sets showing Magellan hazardous liquid pipeline routes and the location of direct and affected buffer zone HCA’s  Annually update HCA information made available by the PHMSA (currently via the NPMS) and overlay this data onto Magellan’s GIS mapping system  Annually request field supervision to review existing HCA information and provide feedback of any newly developing or expanding HCA’s. Field Identified HCA Process.  Annually update IMP database for newly developing or expanding areas of urban or other population areas from field data collected.  Annually overlay all updated HCA data sets onto pipeline mapping GIS, and analyze for previously unidentified HCA’s  Incorporate any new HCA’s into baseline assessment plan in accordance with timing requirements of CFR Parts 195.452 1.7 Intended Use of Identified HCA Pipeline Segments Information about high consequence areas is used in several key elements of an integrity management program.  Data gathering  Risk assessment  Baseline assessment plan  Inspection and mitigation Magellan utilizes a relative risk assessment model, which allows Magellan to target and focus on those pipeline segments posing the highest risk to population and/or environment (HCA’s), and to facilitate the development of appropriate risk mitigation programs. This enables the implementation of controls and measures with which to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the potential consequences of adverse events. The inherent value in MMP’s risk management approach is that it ensures that its resources (time, talent, and money) are effectively employed and prioritized towards pipeline assets located within or in near proximity to HCA’s. The result of this heightened focus typically includes risk mitigation and/or risk management initiatives that directly lead to the reduction in likelihood or consequence of an unintended product release. 1.8 HCA Data Quality Assurance Initial and updated HCA boundaries depicted on Magellan’s GIS pipeline routing maps will be manually validated via random spot checks to ensure quality assurance of the HCA data. Spot checks will be annually performed on each class of HCA designation (direct, population, USA, navigable streams, indirect via buffer zones, and downstream waterway receptors). 1.9 HCA Identification – Continual Improvement Magellan will utilize pipeline performance data, including analysis of spill volumes and release impacting zones to annually validate and accordingly update its HCA determination process. The annual HCA identification review will primarily focus on the assessment of buffer zones that are utilized to establish the appropriate separation distances between pipeline segments located outside of established HCA’s that could impact upon HCA zones through product migration via land terrain/gradient or waterway paths. Magellan will seek out industry notable practices and industry incident analysis to help validate and consider potential modifications to HCA buffer zones. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 15 of 17 1.10 Management of Change Changes to the MMP IMP require approval by a member of the Asset Integrity Leadership Team (Vice President Tech. Services and Manager of Asset Integrity, Pipeline Integrity or Asset Integrity Engineering) and shall be documented in the appropriate change log. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 16 of 17 Integrity Management Plan Section 1 Change Log Date Change By Approved By Change Location Brief Description of Change 12/01/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Change Log Added change log to section 12/02/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.10 Added section “1.10 Management of change” 12/31/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Updated GIS Maps with HCA Data – Annual Commitment Completed by Chris Barber and documentation was added to the IMP Commitment File 12/31/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Updated database with Field Discoveries of new or expanded HCA’s. However, for 2003, there were not any new or expanded HCA’s. The annual commitment was completed by Lou Ann Smith and documentation was added to the IMP Commitment file. 12/31/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Updated NPMS Data for Re‐Examination of HCA Data. – Annual Commitment completed by Chris Barber and documentation was added to the IMP Commitment File. 12/31/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Overlaid and Analyzed updated HCA data sets for previously unidentified HCA’s – Annual commitment completed by Chris Barber and documentation was added to the IMP Commitment File. 12/31/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.8 Completed manual spot checks to validate HCA boundaries – Annual commitment completed by Chris Barber and documentation was added to the IMP Commitment File. 1/22/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.5.6 & 1.5.8 Updated section to ensure that the write up on Overland Spread was accurate. 7/26/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.5.10 Updated section to include newly acquired 20” pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to El Dorado, Kansas. 7/26/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Figure 1.2 Modified process flow chart to accurately represent the order of process steps when identifying HCA locations. 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.2 Modified “and contact of Agency and emergency responders” to “and contact company responders” & also changed “shutdown within five minutes of a probable leak” to “shutdown after a probable leak” & “emergency flow interruption restriction devices” to “ emergency flow restriction <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 17 of 17 devices” 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.5 Removed “Leak Response capability”, “likelihood and consequence analysis of PHMSA hazardous liquid leak reporting database”, “Minor (pinholes and gasket seepage), Major (crack, medium hole, small component failure), 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.5.6 Modified “Magellan will utilize the USGS DEM topography data to determine product hold up” to “Magellan utilized ½” hold up”. Also removed ”agricultural ditches & sewers from last paragraph” 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Removed “Evaluate & incorporate, as appropriate, emergent technologies……..” & “Participate with the industry, public, and other stakeholders………etc” 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.7 Modified entire section 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.9 Removed the paragraph “As part of continuing….. MMP will incorporate overland spread model” Due to the overland spread being completed. 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.6 Consolidated the 4th , 5th & 6th bullets into one. 9/14/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Entire Section Annual Review of Section 1 Completed 4/1/05 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Entire Section Annual Review of Section 1 Completed 8/8/06 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Entire Section Annual Review of Section 1 Completed, Added reference to EPA RMP worst case scenario calcs, changed OPS to PHMSA, changed Y‐grade to demethanized mix. 5/17/07 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Entire Section Annual review of section 1 completed. 6/19/07 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 1.5.7 Added second paragraph about storage tanks and dike containment. 9/26/07 Doug Chabino Michael Pearson/Larry Davied Section 1.10 Changed Titles as appropriate per promotions. – not a version change 1/1/09 2008 annual review complete – no changes 8/15/09 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Sec 1.5.6 Removed reference to 1993 Perry Study and release volume percentages 8/31/10 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Sec 1.5.10 Replace specific reference to crude systems with “several crude pipelines” 12/31/11 2012 annual review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 1 of 17 SECTION 2: ANALYZING RISK Magellan Midstream Partners (MMP) risk management program identifies, analyzes, and manages the inherent risks associated with the operation of the MMP Pipeline System. MMP intends this commitment to be made to the public at large, the communities along the pipeline path, the environment, potentially impacted flora and fauna, customers, company employees and third party contractors and suppliers. The MMP integrated risk management program is an in-house based program utilizing an all- encompassing system integrity approach. The MMP IMP is facilitated through the structural alignment and integration of Pipeline / Facility Integrity, Data Management, Real Estate Services, Engineering, Cash Management, Field Maintenance / Damage Prevention and One-Call groups. Individuals from these groups become qualified through a combination of technical training and externally administered certifications, formal education, on-the-job progressive experiences, mentoring programs, forum and seminar attendance, industry affiliations, continued learning programs, workshops, and collaborative interactive work processes. Qualifications required for specific positions related to the IMP are documented in Appendix A of this volume. Technical resources are supplemented with third party resources in fields of Metallurgical Analysis, Geographical Interface System (GIS) Data Structures, and Risk Management Consultants. 2.1 Risk Management Program Guiding Principles Risk Management is a comprehensive management decision support process, implemented as a program, and is integrated through defined roles and responsibilities into the day-to-day operations, maintenance, engineering, management, and regulatory decisions of the operator. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Risk Management is a continuous process. Risk cannot be completely eliminated. Risk can be controlled through the cost-effective application of finite resources. Risk Management increases, integrates, and enhances the value of information concerning pipeline safety. Risk Management programs are structured but flexible, allowing customized approaches to be developed for specific issues and situations, encouraging innovation, and supporting continuous improvement. The implementation of a risk management program should result in superior public safety and environmental protection. Risk Assessments are critically dependent on the quality of information requested and gathered. Inclusion of operational and technical personnel into the Integrity Program ensures accuracy and validates the results of the relative risk ranking results. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 2 of 17 2.2 Risk Management Process Similar to other pipeline systems, MMP assets have specific physical attributes that are characterized by their construction materials, as well as, their installation and maintenance methods. The products transported, operating parameters, and routing through population density, land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas, further characterize the MMP pipeline system. Taken collectively, MMP physical assets, products transported and operating systems are factors that characterize the relative risks to the surrounding environment and population. Physical data, collected by and contributed from an integrated team of operational and technical subject matter experts, is the cornerstone of the “MMP Risk Management” process. Risk Management is the process of evaluating integrity related issues and allocating resources in a manner that minimizes risk and balances cost. Risk assessment is a core function within risk management. Relative risk assessment allows MMP to target and focus on those assets posing the highest risk to population and/or environment, so to facilitate the development of risk mitigation programs. This enables the implementation of controls and measures with which to reduce the likelihood of adverse events or to mitigate the potential consequences. The inherent value in MMP risk management approach is that it ensures that its resources (time, talent, and money) are effectively employed in those areas of highest risk. Figure 2.1 illustrates the Pipeline Risk Management Process Overview Gather Data needed for Assessment Populate Relative Risk Model Conduct Pipeline Risk Assessment Prioritize Segments based on Risk Results Build Baseline Assessment Plan Conduct Section 6 & 7 Analysis Execute Pipeline Repairs Evaluate ILI Results & Determine Repairs / Timing Conduct Integrity Assessments Implement Additional Mitigation Measures Update Risk Model <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 3 of 17 Figure 2.2 - Facility Risk Management Process Overview Gather Data needed for Assessment Populate Relative Risk Model Conduct Facility Risk Assessment Identify Top Risk Facilities Identify major contributing attributes to the risk score Evaluate Integrity Alternatives Identify & Prioritize risk reducation action items Conduct further assessments & review known data Determine if further evaluation methods are needed such as PHA's Execute Plans Update Risk Model 2.3 Integration of Activities and Programs The Risk Management process incorporates the centralization and analysis of data collected through several distinct yet complementary programs. Integration of these programs provides an overall Risk Management approach to mitigating unintended risk on the MMP system. Components of the individual programs include: 2.3.1 Common Activities and Programs (Facilities and Pipelines)  External Corrosion Monitoring and Maintenance  Internal corrosion assessment program (Coupon Monitoring)  Metallurgical analysis of corrosion coupons and pipe cut outs  Root cause analysis  Pipeline coating condition reports  Field Operations and Maintenance Activities  Metal fatigue analysis and pressure cycling operational data  Incident Investigation Analysis and Recommendations  Leak History Reporting and Data Analysis  Stress Corrosion Cracking  Operations Control Operating Data (SCADA)  GIS mapping information and participation with the PHMSA National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program  Relative Risk Assessment Model  Operations Control Integrity Monitoring Program  Project Assessment Tool  Integrity Testing  Drawing Management Program  Stress Analysis  Emergency Response Program  Asset Integrity Plan <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 4 of 17 Mainline Piping Related Activities and Programs 2.3.2  Depth of cover Program  Land use and activity surveys (Encroachment mitigation and monitoring)  One-call activity levels surrounding the pipeline right-of-way easements  Aerial patrol records, encroachment sighting, corrosion monitoring and maintenance programs  Right-of-way maintenance  Leak history  Cleaning pig reports and debris analysis  Excavation report and third party crossing line inspections  Third party pipeline crossing inspections and cathodic protection interference data  Encroachment Program 2.3.3 Facility Related Activities and Programs  Identification of dead leg piping with the potential for internal corrosion  Ultrasonic Thickness Inspections per API 510/570  Internal/External Inspections of Sumps and Oil/Water Separators  Shop inspections and upgrades of tank and mainline pumps  Vibration Analysis of Rotating Equipment  Routine Inspections of Protective Devices per the Preventive Maintenance Program  Routine Inspections per the Preventive Maintenance Program to detect leaks or the potential for leaks  API 653 tank inspections  System Equipment Reviews  Process Safety Management (PSM) Program  Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program  Cast-Iron Mainline and Tank Pump replacements.  Tank Alarm Setting Process  Tank Fill Rate Process  Overfill Protection System Upgrades on Sumps and Truck Racks  Tank Pump Seal Leak Detection  Leak Testing of Drain Lines and Facility Lines  SPCC Program <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 5 of 17 Figure 2.3, The Risk Management “Circle of Life” depicts the integration of various discreet mitigation programs, coupled with various data attributes, into a comprehensive risk management program. “Circle Of Life” Gather Gather Data Data One-Call System Pipeline Patrol Depth of Depth of Cover Cover Type of Pipe Execute Execute Plan Plan Assess Assess Data Data Coating Type Failure Analysis Gather Gather Data Data Develop Develop Plan Plan Gather Data ILI Data HCA’s Execute Execute Corrosion Corrosion Assess Assess Risk Risk Execute Plan Plan Data Data Assessment Assess Plan Data Management Develop Develop Plan Plan Gather Data Develop Plan Land Use Design Pressures EFR Devices Execute Plan Operating History In-Line Inspection Assess Data ROW Condition Develop Plan Performance Metrics 3rd Party Damage Prevention Corrosion History 2.4 Relative Risk Assessment Model The procedure for performing a Pipeline Relative Risk Assessment can be found in the MMP Pipeline Risk Assessment Methodology Manual, for Magellan South 18” pipeline utilize the Mitigation Risk Manual. The procedure for a Facility Relative Risk Assessment can be found in the Facility Risk Ranking Tool Instruction Sheet within the Facility Risk Assessment Model. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 6 of 17 Figure 2.4 - An overview of the Pipeline Risk Assessment Process From HCA Identification Process Identify & create risk segments Collect detail information needed for assessment Input information into Risk Assessment Database Calculate Relative Risk Ranking Score Prioritize all segment based on risk significance Go To Baseline Assessment Plan Process Figure 3.1 Figure 2.5 – An overview of the Facility Risk Assessment Process Identify & group Facilities for risk scoring Collect detailed information needed for assessment Input information into Risk Assessment Database Calculate Relative Risk Ranking Score Prioritize all facilities based on risk significance Use Risk ranking to prioritize projects within Facility Integrity Programs Collected data regarding the attributes of the MMP System is loaded into the Relative Risk Assessment Models. The heaviest weighting is based upon changes in the surrounding population, environment, or mechanical attributes of the pipeline. This approach allows for a targeted focus on those assets that would have the greatest impact to the public or to the environment in the event of an unintended product release. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 7 of 17 The Relative Risk Assessment Models are designed to prioritize and sort assets in accordance with their scored relative risk in relation to all of the other assets. Risk is defined as the product of likelihood and consequence, with the consequence factor increasing as population density or environmental sensitivity increases. As new information is made available, as population or environmental shifts impact the line segmentation, or following the incorporation of various risk mitigation initiatives, the Relative Risk Assessment Models are reran to ensure that the risk identification and assessment model remains current and accurate (see figure 2.6 and 2.7 for updating process). The updating process continues as the linked supporting databases to the risk models are updated. Figure 2.6 Pipeline Risk Model Update Process New / Revised data received Determine risk segment(s) affected by the new / revised data Modify Risk Segment(s) Recalculate Relative Risk Score for modified risk segment(s) Document & File changes to Risk segmentation Annually update the Baseline Assessment Plan with new risk scores Figure 2.7 Facility Risk Model Update Process New / Revised data received Determine facility attributes affected by the new / revised data Modify Facility Risk Scoring Recalculate Relative Risk Score <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 8 of 17 2.5 Risk Model Factors 2.5.1 Pipeline Relative Risk Model Factors Models similar to the MMP relative risk methodology have also been called “decision-support” models. Such models are designed to provide guidance or “decision support,” as well as identification of areas with relatively higher risks. They do this by preserving the evaluation of conditions and activities that are causing the higher risks, thereby indicating specific factors that can be addressed in order to reduce risks. The model, in effect, highlights deficiencies and points to potential remedies. A decision-support model for risk management involves tradeoffs between the number of factors considered and ease-of-use of the model. The variables that impact risk are widely recognized in the industry, but the number of variables to consider in a model and the depth of that consideration are chosen by the model developers. A list of risk factors that add to or subtract from the amount of risk can be identified for the System. These factors are selected based on their ability to provide a useful evaluation of risk without adding unnecessary complexities. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 Page 9 of 17 Third-Party Damage Index  Depth of cover  Activity level  Patrol  One-call  Public education  Aboveground exposures  ROW condition Integrity Data  External Corrosion Flaw  Internal Corrosion Flaw  Third Party Flaw  Crack Flaw  Manufacturer Flaw Incorrect Operations Index  Design o Hazard Identification o Potential for Reaching MAOP o Safety Systems o Material Selection o Checks  Construction o Inspection o Materials o Joining o Backfill o Handling o Coating  Operations o Procedures o SCADA o Drug Testing o Safety Programs o Surveys o Training o Mechanical Error Prevention  Maintenance o Documentation o Schedule o Procedures Corrosion Index  Atmospheric corrosion o Facilities o Atmospheric Type o Coating  Internal corrosion o Product Type o Internal Protection  Buried pipe corrosion o Cathodic Protection o Coating Condition o Soil Corrosivity o Age of System o SCC Susceptibility o Mechanical Corrosion Effects o Test Lead o Current Flow to Other Buried Metal o AC Induced Current o Close Interval Surveys o Internal Inspection Design Index  Pipe Safety Factor  System safety factor  Fatigue potential  Surge potential  System Hydrostatic Test  Soil movements Leak Impact Factor  Product Hazard  Dispersion Factor  Population  Environmental  Leak History Factor 2.5.2 Mitigation Risk Assessment Model Factors These factors and the rationale for their inclusion are detailed in the Mitigation Risk Assessment Manual. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Third-Party Damage Index  Depth of Cover  Activity Level  Aboveground Facilities  One Call  Patrol  Public Education  ROW Condition  Third Party Repair  Third Party Leaks Corrosion Index  Atmospheric Corrosion o Atmospheric Facilities o Atmospheric Corrosion o Casings o Atmospheric Type o Atmospheric Coating  Internal Corrosion o Product Corrositivity o Drain o Year Installed  Buried Environment o Casings o Soil Corrositivity  Cathodic Protection o Close Interval Survey Readings o Close Interval Survey Date o Year Built o Close Interval Survey Age o Test Leads o ILI Corrosion Flaw  Coating Buried o Close Interval Survey o Test Leads o Coating Type o Coating Age o Coating Inspection o ILI Corrosion Flaw  Interference o Year Built o Utility Crossings o Casings  Mechanical Corrosion o Soil Corrositivity o SCC o Pipe Stress Fatigue  Internal Inspection o ILI Age o ILI Technology o ILI Findings  Leaks  ILI Corrosion Flaw HCA INDENTIFICATIONPROCESS Revision: 7 Page 10 of 17  Corrosion Repairs  Year Built Design Index  Pipe Safety Factors  System Safety Factor  Fatigue  Surge  Integrity Testing  Earth Movements  Leak  Design Repairs Incorrect Operations  Construction Design  Training  Procedures  Maps & Records  Overpressure Potential  Safety Systems  Maintenance Records  Communications  Mechanical Error Preventors  Risk Assessment  Leaks <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 Page 11 of 12 2.5.3 Facility Relative Risk Assessment Model Factors Conceptually, managing the integrity of DOT 195 regulated pipeline stations and terminals is similar to main line pipe. The various elements described in the MMP IMP apply to pipeline stations and terminals, as well as to the pipeline itself. However, some aspects of data gathering, risk assessment, inspection tools and techniques, and mitigation are specific to pipeline stations and terminals. The risk methods used to assess the risk of the MMP pipelines are applied to pipeline stations and terminals. The data used for facility assessments will vary from that used to model a pipeline. The relatively more complex nature of facility piping including manifolds, numerous valves, flanged connections, cathodic protection systems, dead legs/low flow piping legs, and auxiliary and instrumentation piping are considered in facility assessments.  Process Safety o Loading Operations o Facility Age o Overfill Protection o Over/Short Monitoring  Operations o Complexity of Operations and Staff Availability  Products Handled  Operator Response Time  Volumes Handled o Operation Inputs/Concerns o Impact to Commercial Operations  Mechanical Integrity o Program Assessment o Tank Integrity o Known Mechanical Integrity Problems o Corrosion Factors  Environmental and Public Receptors o Population o Environmental  Leak History o Number of leaks in last five years o Average volume per leak in last five years 2.6 Risk Assessment – Continual Improvement Magellan will seek out industry notable practices, new technologies and insight from our risk assessments to help validate and consider potential modifications to the MMP risk assessment model. 2.7 Management of Change Changes to the MMP IMP require approval by a member of the Asset Integrity Leadership Team (Vice President Technical Services and Manager of Asset Integrity, Pipeline Integrity or Asset Integrity Engineering) and shall be documented in the appropriate change log. 2.8 Supporting References MMP Pipeline Risk Assessment Methodology MMP Risk Assessment Documentation Appendix A – Qualifications Mitigation Risk Manual <<>> Date 5/19/03 5/19/03 5/19/03 9/01/03 12/01/03 12/01/03 12/02/03 3/05/04 11/26/04 11/26/04 4/1/05 8/8/06 5/17/07 9/26/07 9/26/07 11/17/08 9/30/09 01/01/11 12/31/11 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/10 Revision: 6 RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS Page 12 of 12 Integrity Management Plan Section 2 Change Log Change By Approved By Change Location Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 2.4 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 2 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Appendix A Linda Bean Michael Pearson All Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 2.5 Matt Argo Michael Pearson Section 2.5.1 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 2.10 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Figure 2.5 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Section Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Sections Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Sections Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Sections Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Sections Doug Chabino Michael Pearson 2.3.1 Doug Chabino 2.7 Brief Description of Change Added “The procedure for performing a Pipeline Relative Risk Assessment………..” Added “Qualifications required for specific positions related to the IMP………….” Added “Appendix A – which provides job titles & qualifications required for the job” Changed Williams to Magellan Added SCC Susceptibility to Rick Factors Added entire section Added section “2.10 Management of Change” Added figure “2.5 Pipeline Risk Model Update Process” Modified entire section to combined similar sections of pipeline assessment and facility assessment. Annual Review Annual Review Annual Review – Added hyperlinks to Pipeline Risk Methodology Book, Longhorn Risk Manual, and Facility Risk Ranking Instruction Sheet Completed Annual Review – Modified figure 2.7 Facility risk model update process Changed OPS to PHMSA. Changed titles as appropriate per promotions. Michael Pearson/Larry Davied Matt Argo Doug Chabino All Sections Matt Argo Doug Chabino 2.4 2008 Annual Review – No changes Changed “Longhorn” to “Magellan South 18” Reviewed, no changes 2012 annual review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 1 of 8 Revision: 7 SECTION 6: IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL PREVENTIVE OR MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 Overview Following a mainline integrity assessment of HCA’s, MMP will initiate a Risk Analysis Process to determine if additional preventive or mitigation measures are necessary. Additionally, following integrity related events such as an in-service externally reportable release; a risk analysis will be conducted. For facilities releases or releases from mainline components such as valves, flanges, and fittings, the Company Incident Investigation Process will be followed. For facilities a risk analysis process to determine if additional preventive or mitigative measures are necessary will be conducted on a prioritized systematic basis. Each analysis will be lead from Asset Integrity by the Asset Integrity Engineer / Analyst and is designed to be a systematic approach to gathering data, conducting analyses, formulating recommendations and implementing risk reduction measures. Each analysis for mainline piping will be documented as per the Risk Analysis Worksheet. Each analysis for facility piping systems will be documented per the System Equipment Review Form. The results of the analysis will be presented and reviewed by the Asset Integrity leadership team for approval. Documentation from the risk analysis will be retained per the Document Retention Procedure. Additionally, for the Magellan South 18”, per the Mitigation Plan, an Operational Reliability Assessment (ORA) will be conducted by a third party independent technical company. A Scenario Based Risk Mitigation Analysis (SBRMA) will also be conducted per the Mitigation Plan and the Scenario Based Risk Mitigation Analysis Procedure. The process for identifying additional preventive or mitigation measures is illustrated in Figure 6.1. Gather pipeline and facility attribute data Analyze for Additional Preventive or Mitigative Measures Document analysis results and recommendations Incorporate Additional Items into tracking databases Update Risk Model as needed Figure 6.1 * Note – Utilize the risk analysis and system equipment review worksheet and forms for data gathering, analysis and documenting results and recommendations. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 2 of 8 Revision: 7 6.2 Evaluation Process - Mainline Inputs from risk factors relevant to a particular pipeline segment such as the baseline integrity assessment, relative risk model, incident investigation results, abnormal operating conditions and other data specific to the evaluated pipeline are analyzed to determine the need for additional preventive and mitigation actions. Outputs of the process identify additional preventive and mitigation measures such as the installation of Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD’s), improved corrosion control measures, leak detection or monitoring activities, additional incident response preparation and training activities, and third party damage prevention actions. The additional and preventive mitigation evaluation process is generally outlined in the following steps:  Gather data  Populate the Risk Analysis worksheet  Analyze data utilizing the Evaluation Process Flow Maps  Conduct EFRD Analysis  Identify Areas of Enhancements  Conduct Round table discussion with Subject Matter Experts  Identify / Evaluate Risk Mitigation options to enhance Areas of Concern  Select Risk Mitigation Options  Prepare pipeline schematic, executive summary and risk analysis worksheet  Conduct Round table meeting (Operations, Operations Control, Integrity)  Obtain approval from Asset Integrity Leadership Team  Document Additional Preventive and Mitigative Measures into the Tracking database  Assigned Project Manager executes Additional Preventive and Mitigative Measure projects  Update Risk Model as needed  Identified Additional Preventive and Mitigative Measure projects progress will be tracked on the Asset Integrity Monthly report 6.3 Preventive and Mitigation Options - Mainline MMP IMP process includes applicable mitigation activities to detect, prevent, and minimize the consequences of unintended releases. Examples of potential additional preventive and mitigation actions are listed below, and further defined in the following sections:  Preventing third party damage.  Controlling corrosion.  Detecting unintended releases.  Minimizing the consequences of unintended releases. 6.3.1 Preventing Third Party Damage MMP will ensure participation in one-call utility location systems in states that the pipeline is operated. The system will be evaluated for effectiveness by ensuring that all pipelines in the system are included in appropriate one-call jurisdiction maps and documentation, and that designated personnel are equipped and trained to accurately locate and mark the pipeline in response to each one-call inquiry. Improved Line Marking Line marking is part of the first line of defense against third party incidents. Additional markers and appropriate spacing make the pipeline more visible to third parties working in the vicinity. In areas of high third party activity, intermediate line markers will be evaluated as a means to lower the risk of third party damage. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 3 of 8 Revision: 7 Increased Depth of Cover Increasing the pipeline depth of cover is one consideration that could place the pipe below many normal excavation and agricultural activities, thereby reducing the chance of third party or natural force intrusions. Improved Public Education Consideration will be given to enhance public education programs beyond the minimum regulatory requirements to reduce third party exposure. Right-of-Way Maintenance Right-of-way maintenance reduces the likelihood of third party damage. MMP guidelines address the following maintenance issues that reduce the consequences of third party encroachments and other activities on or near the right-of-way:  Control of vegetation  Removal of trash, brush and other items  Control of impediments constructed above or below ground (including, but not limited to, buildings, engineered structures, pavement, pools, fences, etc.).  Operation of heavy equipment  Blasting  Crossing the pipeline.  Excavation or boring. Frequency of Right‐of‐Way Inspections Modifications to the frequency of right-of-way inspections beyond current federal pipeline regulations will be evaluated to determine risk reduction benefits. Inspections enable MMP to identify activities that may encroach upon the right-of-way before the pipeline facility can be impacted. Mechanical Pipe Protection Mechanical protection such as concrete coating or concrete caps may be utilized to shield a pipeline from third party damage. 6.3.2 Corrosion Control Additional monitoring of cathodic protection systems utilizing close interval potential surveys and/or coating integrity surveys will be considered. Risk assessment, in-line inspection data, results of routine system monitoring, open hole inspections and release history are factors, which will be evaluated. Rehabilitation of Pipeline Coatings In areas having substandard coating system, marginal cathodic protection, in-line inspection data that indicates active corrosion, a significant release history or the results of open hole reports will be evaluated for benefits of coating rehabilitation or potential pipe section replacement. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 4 of 8 Revision: 7 Pipeline Maintenance Cleaning Periodic maintenance cleaning of a pipeline is an effective method to minimize internal corrosion as well as improve pipeline flow characteristics. 6.3.3 Detecting and Minimizing Unintended Pipeline Releases In the event of an unintended product release from within a pipeline system, the consequences can be minimized by:  Reducing the time required for detection of the release.  Reducing the time required to locate the release.  Reducing the volume associated with a release.  Reducing emergency response time. On-going operating integrity assessment processes and reaction to indications of unattended releases are described in the Operations Control Manual link Operation Control Manual - Normal Operations Reducing Volumes Lost from Unintentional Releases Release detection systems enhancements (pipeline system operation alarms, release detection testing, third party observations, emergency response agencies, etc.) will be evaluated as a part of the preventive and mitigation measure analysis. Release detection system analysis will consider factors such as:  Length and size of pipeline,  Type of products contained in the pipeline,  Cost, location of HCA’s,  Acceptable release detection system performance criteria,  Risk assessment results, and  Other integrity management data such as in-line inspection results. The potential for false alarm events associated with pipeline release detection systems must be a part of the analysis process. Communication system reliability, along with the potential release detection system limitations, or concerns for specific service suitability, should also be considered. 6.3.4 Emergency Training and Response Emergency response procedures will be evaluated for effectiveness and improvement options will be analyzed to determine risk reduction benefit. These procedures should define an action plan that includes:  Definition of organizational lines of responsibility and notification for response to unintended releases.  Training of all personnel responsible for unintended release events.  Immediate verification of unintended releases, if necessary.  Isolation and control of the unintended release source.  Control of the released product according to procedures developed for specific environmental impacts and unintended release volumes. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 5 of 8 Revision: 7 6.3.5 EFRD’s EFRD’s such as mainline (including motor operated and remotely operated) valves and check valves can be used to minimize the size of an unintended release. Since natural terrain and other factors affect pipeline locations differently, segments of pipeline will be analyzed for a range of release flow rates. In the event of an unintended release, the resulting volume is dependent upon a number of variables, including:  Physical characteristics of the fluid released,  Volume of contents within the pipeline,  Pipeline profile (ground topography),  Volume of pipeline drain down. EFRD analysis will be conducted per the Risk Analysis Worksheet, Evaluation for Additional Emergency Flow Restriction Devices Process Flow Map, and the EFRD Study and Prioritization Procedure. 6.3.6 Additional Risk Controls Additional Risk Controls, such as physical supports, operating pressures, geotechnical conditions, surge analysis, operating history and audit results will be considered when determining the need for additional preventive and mitigative measures. Evaluation Process – Pipeline Facilities 6.4 The System Equipment Review (SER) process is a proactive risk analysis that is conducted on facility piping systems to identify potential risk mitigation measures. The additional Risk Mitigation evaluation process is generally outlined in the following steps:  Gather Data  Populate Data Section of SER form  Conduct Field Site visit  Analyze Data  Identify areas of enhancements  Conduct Round Table discussions with Key Stakeholders  Identify / Evaluate Risk Mitigation Options to Enhance Area of Concerns  Select Risk Mitigation Options  Document conclusions on the SER form  Obtain approval from Asset Integrity Leadership and Stakeholders.  Document Additional Risk Mitigation Measures in the Tracking database  Assigned Project Manager executes Additional Risk Mitigation Actions  Update Risk Model as needed  Identified Additional Risk Mitigation Actions progress will be tracked on the Asset Integrity Monthly Report. 6.5 Preventive and Mitigation Options – Facilities Examples of potential additional preventive and mitigation actions for pipeline facilities are listed below: <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 Revision: 7 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 6 of 8  Modification to facility piping due to Mechanical Integrity concerns (i.e., dead legs and pipe supports)  Sump Replacements  Flare Upgrades  Tank Floor Replacements  Overfill Protection Installations or Upgrades  Overpressure Protection Device Installations or Upgrades  Pump Seal Leak Detection Installations  Electrical System Upgrades  FRP installations  Atmospheric Coating 6.6 Management of Change Changes to the MMP IMP require approval by a member of the Asset Integrity Leadership Team (Vice President Technical Services and Manager of Asset Integrity, Pipeline Integrity or Asset Integrity Engineering) and shall be documented in the appropriate change log. 6.7 Additional Preventive Measures Identification – Continual Improvement Magellan will seek out industry notable practices and new technologies to help validate and consider potential modifications to the identification of additional and preventive or mitigation measures process. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 7 of 8 Revision: 7 Integrity Management Plan Section 6 Change Log Date Change By Approved By Change Location Brief Description of Change 6/17/03 Matt Argo Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Removed “Within the next calendar year following an integrity assessment of HCA’s or other events such ….” 6/17/03 Matt Argo Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Inserted “Within the next calendar year following an integrity assessment of HCA’s, the MMP Integrity plan will incorporate a Risk Analysis Process to consider the likelihood and consequences associated with a pipeline release in or near an HCA. The Risk Analysis Process will also be initiated following other integrity related events such as a leak. Completion of the Risk Analysis will be contingent on receipt of all relevant integrity data such as In-Line Inspection, Close Interval Survey, etc. Preliminary recommendations or requests for information will be executed as appropriate. 6/17/03 Matt Argo Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Removed “Implementation of approved additional actions will be sponsored by Asset Integrity’s Risk Management Engineer. Identified Actions will be placed into the Area Integrity Plans for Implementation in the time frame specified” 6/17/03 Matt Argo Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Inserted “Approved recommendations will be documented in the Area Integrity Plan database and prioritized by relative risk score. Follow-up to approved recommendations will be conducted in accordance with Element 7.09 – Integrity Management, Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the System Integrity Plan (SIP).” 7/24/03 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Change Log Modified Change log 9/02/03 Linda Bean Michael Pearson Section 6 Changed Williams to Magellan; WES to MMP 12/01/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Change Log Added Approved by to change log 12/02/03 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 6.4 Added section “6.4 Management of Change” 6/29/04 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Section 6.2 Changed “compare” to “consider”. Deleted “to quantify the risk reduction…” 6/29/04 Rick Wooldridge Michael Pearson Section 6.2 Changed “compare” to “consider”. Deleted “The basis for comparison and ranking…”. Added, “utilizing the Magellan Project Assessment Tool (PAT).” Established Hyperlink. 11/19/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 6.1 & Figure 6.1 Changed Area Integrity Plan Database to Integrity Management Plan Database 11/19/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Corrected SIP Element 7.09 to 7.06 11/19/04 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All Sections Annual Review 12/1/05 Doug Chabino Michael Pearson Section 6.1 Annual Review - Updated to cover pipeline facilities 12/1/05 Doug Chabino Michael Pearson Added Section 6.4 Created Evaluation Process for Pipeline Facilities section 12/1/05 Doug Chabino Michael Pearson Added Section 6.5 Created Preventive and Mitigation Options – Facilities section 8/14/06 Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson Various sections Annual Review – Added links to process maps, modified figure 6.1, removed reference to Longhorn, modified 6.2 & 6.4 to list a more detailed <<>> 5/17/07 9/26/2007 10/11/200 7 01/31/08 7/3/08 10/23/08 10/23/08 10/23/08 9/29/10 12/31/11 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Asset Integrity 01/01/11 ADDITIONAL & PREVENTIVE MEASURES Page 8 of 8 Revision: 7 process for evaluation of additional measures, removed 6.3.6 “Pipeline Operating Pressure Reduction”, Added new 6.3.6 “Additional Risk Factors” Lou Ann Smith Michael Pearson All sections Completed Annual Review – Added Risk Engineer / Analyst to section 6.1 Doug Chabino Michael Pearson/Larry Davied 6.6 Changed titles appropriate to promotions. Doug Chabino Michael Pearson/Larry Davied 6.1 Added standard to conduct ORA and SBRMA on Longhorn. Global Updated Process Maps links All Doug Chabino Doug Chabino general clean-ups to the nomenclature – version update and change communication not needed All Matt Argo Doug Chabino Various nomenclature change 6.1 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Added link to Document Retention procedure 6.3.5 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Clarified which valves are EFRDs 6.1 Matt Argo Doug Chabino Removed “Longhorn” 2012 annual review complete – no changes <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SIP–ADM–7.13 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 5 Page 1 of 2 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 The objective of this initiative is to maintain the integrity of all equipment that is used to protect the employees, public, environment and Company assets through Risk Based Inspections and Preventative Maintenance. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 This initiative outlines the standards and processes necessary to manage Company assets and identify and execute risk reduction projects that keep product in the pipe. 2.2 Risk Based Inspections consist of integrity tests and maintenance of Company assets. 2.3 Preventative Maintenance consists of routine inspections and maintenance of Company assets. 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The Supervisor of Facility Integrity Engineering shall: 3.1.1 Maintain a Company piping systems Risk Based Inspection Program. 3.1.2 3.2 The Field Supervisor shall: 3.2.1 3.2.2 For Marine facilities, ensure that Marine specific preventative maintenance tasks have been identified in addition to the standard inspection tasks identified in the other inspection folders within the Preventive Maintenance Program that are sorted based on the frequency of inspections. Maintain a Company equipment Preventive Maintenance Program. Ensure that facility equipment at their location that requires a preventative maintenance inspection in accordance with the Preventive Maintenance Program has been identified and implemented into CMS. 3.2.3 3.2.4 Ensure that facility equipment is maintained according to the methods and schedules stipulated in the Preventive Maintenance Program. Approve exceptions of monthly scheduled CMS tasks prior to completion of inspection/test per the Inspection Tolerance and Reporting Procedure. 3.2.5 In consultation with Project Manager, provide identification and categorization of all new or modified equipment and instrumentation to Asset Integrity Analyst for implementation into CMS. 3.2.6 For PSM/RMP covered assets, ensure that each employee involved in maintaining the on‐going integrity of process equipment is trained in an overview of the process, the hazards of the process, and any site specific maintenance procedure to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner. 3.2.7 For additions or changes to preventative maintenance CMS tasks, complete the CMS Change Form. 3.3 The Employee shall: 3.3.1 the pipeline system between the fire gate valves at Company operated facilities. Maintain this report for two years at the facility or in CMS. 3.3.2 Comply with the procedures in the Preventive Maintenance Program for all applicable inspections, tests, maintenance and repairs. 3.3.3 For PSM/RMP covered assets, complete a Work Order Repair Report in CMS or a site specific means of documentation for each repair. Documentation should include when the deficiency was identified, when the repair was completed, and who completed the repair. Complete the DOT Facility Component Repair Report for each repair made to DOT covered components of <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SIP–ADM–7.13 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 5 Page 2 of 2 DATE LOCATION Changed By Approved By BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 10/2005 Objective & Description Chabino Michael Pearson Simplified to be more applicable to Magellan Assets 10/2005 Standards Chabino Michael Pearson Removed Asset Integrity Manager requirements and delegated to the Risk Engineering Supervisor 10/2005 Standards Chabino Michael Pearson Established a Risk Based Inspection Program 10/2005 Standards Chabino Michael Pearson Removed standard to review and address recommendations. 10/2005 All Chabino Michael Pearson Conducted 2005 Annual Review 10/16/06 All Chabino Michael Pearson Conducted 2006 annual Review, no changes 09/11/07 All Chabino Michael Pearson Conducted 2007 annual review, (see change log) 9/11/07 3.1 Chabino Michael Pearson Added Supervisor of Integrity Engineering. 9/11/07 3.2.2 Chabino Michael Pearson Added Paragraph 3.2.2 9/11/07 3.2.3 Chabino Michael Pearson Added Paragraph 3.2.3 9/11/07 2.1 J. Smith Doug Chabino Changed “facility piping systems and equipment” to “company assets” 9/11/07 2.2 J. Smith Doug Chabino Changed “facility piping systems” to “company assets” 9/11/07 2.3 J. Smith Doug Chabino Changed “facility equipment” to “company assets” 9/11/07 3.2 J. Smith Doug Chabino Changed Operations Supervisor to Field Supervisor 9/11/07 3.3.1 J. Smith Doug Chabino Added “between the fire gate valves at company operated facilities” and “at the facility or in CMS.” 9/11/07 4.4 J. Smith Doug Chabino Add 4.4 Link 10/19/07 J. Smith Doug Chabino Annual Review Complete 9/3/08 3.1 J. Smith Doug Chabino Added “Facility” 10/1/08 All J. Smith Doug Chabino Annual Review Complete 9/17/09 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 J. Smith Doug Chabino Replaced “facility” with “Company” 12/31/09 3.3.2 J. Smith Doug Chabino added 9/17/09 All J. Smith Doug Chabino 2009 Annual Review Complete 8/29/10 3.2.4 J. Smith Doug Chabino Added 3.2.4, regulatory requirement 8/29/10 3.3.3 J. Smith Doug Chabino Added, regulatory requirement 8/29/10 All J. Smith Doug Chabino 2010 Annual Review Complete 8/5/11 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.7 J. Smith Doug Chabino Clarified the CMS requirement on 3.2.1. Added 3.2.2 and 3.2.7 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RISK BASED INSPECTION PROGRAM 7.13–ADM–013 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 1 of 5 The objective of the Risk Based Inspection Program is to confirm and maintain the integrity of company assets through inspection and mitigation of identified risk issues. 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 2.0 DEAD LEGS 2.1 A dead leg is defined as a piece of piping subjected to pressure but not flow and exceeds 2 ½ times the O.D. of the pipe or two feet, whichever is less. One end of the piping is typically capped or blinded. 2.2 Utilize the Facility Risk Model, in conjunction with site specific surveys, site specific integrity issues, and the project risk score for prioritization of inspections, purges or removals. 2.3 Utilize Ultrasonic Testing equipment to determine the extent of pitting and the remaining life of the dead leg. Refer to Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Examination. 2.4 Develop a mitigation plan for any dead leg with a remaining life of less than five years. 2.5 Perform future inspections following the facility base line inspection, based on the schedule determined by API 570 Piping Inspection Code. 2.6 Utilize the following data to evaluate any piping or equipment that has been ultrasonically tested: 2.6.1 Pipe size, OD; grade and identification 2.6.2 Next UT Inspection Date 2.6.3 Next Visual Inspection Date 2.6.4 Minimum wall thickness recorded 2.6.5 Nominal wall thickness recorded 2.6.6 Remaining Service Life (Years) 2.6.7 Corrosion Rate Per Year 2.6.8 Thickness measurement Location 2.6.9 Isometric drawing depicting the thickness measurement location 3.0 PIPING INSPECTION AND REPAIR 3.1 Drain Lines 3.1.1 Based on identified integrity issues, inspect drain lines either individually or in conjunction with the inspections of the single walled sumps and oil water separators. 3.1.2 Conduct a leak test to verify the integrity of the drain lines. 3.1.3 Leak test and repair all identified integrity issues according to the Pipeline Defect and Repair Procedure. 3.2 Pipe Inspection 3.2.1 Integrity issues identified through the Corrosion Control Program may identify potential concerns requiring testing and repair. When these potential integrity threats are identified, the Mechanical Integrity Program will cover integrity inspections to verify and quantify the integrity threat through ultrasonic thickness measurements or other identification techniques. The resolution of the issue may return back to the Corrosion Control Program if it is determined that only recoating is required. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RISK BASED INSPECTION PROGRAM 7.13–ADM–013 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 8 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.3 4.0 Page 2 of 5 3.2.2 Piping systems in ethanol service may be susceptible to Ethanol Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) at areas of high external stress concentration such as tees, branches, and ell’s. 3.2.2.1 Clean all areas to be inspected to remove any coating. Inspect by Magnetic Particle Testing (MT). Inspect areas of Ethanol SCC indications by sheer wave UT to determine if Ethanol SCC that originates on the pipe I.D. and has not yet propagated to the pipe O.D. Document the location and length of any Ethanol SCC indication and develop a mitigation plan to address the SCC. 3.2.3 For piping systems associated with Process Safety Management (PSM) and Risk Management Program (RMP) assets, the Mechanical Integrity Program will cover integrity inspections to verify and quantify the integrity threat through ultrasonic thickness measurements or other identification techniques. Inspection intervals will be determined in accordance with API 570 recommendations, and tracked in the tank database. 3.3 Non‐regulatory Leak Testing 3.3.1 Test nonjurisdictional piping identified as a potential integrity issue according to the Integrity Verification Testing Procedure through the use of a hydrostatic pressure test, in‐service product test, or a nitrogen test. SUMPS AND OIL WATER SEPARATORS 4.1 Inspection, Repair, or Replacement 4.1.1 Inspect single walled steel sumps and oil water separators to determine the overall integrity of the sump. Base the inspection on identified integrity risk. . Evaluate the wall thickness, amount of corrosion and condition of appurtenances. 4.1.2 Use ultrasonic testing equipment to evaluate the remaining wall thickness of the tank in addition to a visual inspection. Perform the inspection either internally or externally based on which method is most practical. Conduct UT testing according to the Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Examination. 4.1.3 Evaluate inspection results to determine areas of repair or recommended replacements. Evaluate the sump for repair or replacement, if the calculated corrosion rate results in through wall corrosion in less than 20 years. Sandblast and recoat all tanks. 4.1.4 Alarm settings for sump tanks will be reviewed by Asset Integrity and changed if necessary utilizing the MOCR process and Sump/OWS Level Alarm Calculation. 4.1.5 Record inspection results, dimension of tank, operation of tank, current alarm settings, historical issues, and known problems. 5.0 PIPING SUPPORTS 5.1 Perform required repairs or modification of existing supports to improve the integrity of the support and ensure adequate support of pipe spans. 5.2 Perform all evaluation and construction of pipe spans and supports based on Company standards. For spans of straight pipe run without attached appurtenances such as valves or other equipment, use Safe Span Lengths for Unsupported Pipe. 5.3 Piping should be supported in a manner that limits the impact of vibration. Identified vibration should be evaluated and remediated to reduce the risk of pipe failure. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RISK BASED INSPECTION PROGRAM 7.13–ADM–013 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 8 5.4 Page 3 of 5 Record/collect pictures of support problem, length of pipe span, diameter, wall thickness and grade of pipe. 6.0 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT 6.1 Base the evaluation of supports and pipe spans on equipment performance or pipe stress analysis. 6.2 Record/collect pictures of support problem, length of pipe span, diameter, wall thickness and grade of pipe. 6.3 Following an integrity assessment, perform required repairs or modifications of existing foundations to improve the integrity of the tank pump and mainline bases, pipe support foundations and loading rack foundations. 7.0 HIGH VELOCITY PIPING 7.1 Evaluate piping operating at flow rates that exceed the erosional velocity thresholds of the pipe, carrying fluids with erosional properties, to determine remaining wall thickness. 7.2 Where pipe erosion is identified initiate corrective measures including the reduction of flow rates or the replacement of the affected piping. 7.3 Use the following equation (per API RP 14E) to determine the erosional velocity threshold: Erosional Velocity = V = c √(Density) Examples: Gasoline: Intermittent Flow Continuous Service V =250 = 37.8 ft/sec V =200 = 30.2 ft/sec √(43.8) √(43.8) Diesel: Intermittent Flow Continuous Service V =250 = 33 ft/sec V =200 = 26.4 ft/sec √(57.4) √(57.4) Crude: Intermittent Flow Continuous Service V =150 = 19.6 ft/sec V =100 = 13 ft/sec √(58.7) √(58.7) 8.0 PIPING ALIGNMENT AND DRESSER COUPLINGS 8.1 8.2 Identify through System Equipment Reviews, tank inspections, or observations by qualified personnel any existing facility piping that exceeds displacement stress ranges. This may include existing Dresser couplings or bellows expansion joint installations that exceed manufacturer’s recommended tolerances. Utilize the following data to evaluate any piping area of concern: 8.2.1 Document with a digital picture 8.2.2 Line size, OD <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RISK BASED INSPECTION PROGRAM 7.13–ADM–013 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 4 of 5 8.2.3 Pipe grade and wall thickness 8.2.4 Layout dimensions 8.2.5 Length of pipe, ft 8.2.6 Number of bends (type‐elbow, miter bend, tee) 8.2.7 Any Dresser couplings or bellows expansion joints 8.2.8 Other fittings or valves (flanges, valves, strainers, etc) 8.2.9 Total pipe settlement (measured from a known benchmark), inches 8.2.10 Angle of deflection for Dresser coupling 8.2.11 Known problems 8.2.12 Leaks, seeps, continual adjustments 8.3 Flexible piping should be evaluated for replacement when bulges and compromised steel braids are indentified. 8.4 Flexible piping should include the appropriate offset to allow for movement from thermal expansion or frost heave. 9.0 PIPE AND EQUIPMENT RATINGS 9.1 Remove any piping identified as not having an adequate internal design pressure per 49 CFR Part 195 for the intended service. 9.2 Retest any piping identified as not having an adequate hydrostatic pressure test for the intended service in accordance with the Pressure Testing Procedure. 9.3 Conduct material grade testing on any piping with an unknown yield strength that does not meet the internal design pressure for the intended service assuming a yield strength of 24,000 psig. 9.4 Remove or requalify any components other than pipe that are determined to not have a sufficient ANSI rating or allowable working pressure for the intended service. 10.0 TUBING AND INSTRUMENT PIPING 10.1 Tubing shall be evaluated for proper support to prevent sagging, vibration, or side movement. 10.2 10.3 Tubing should be installed in a manner that allows thermal expansion movement so that undue strain will not be placed on rigidly mounted instruments. Tubing should be evaluated for exposure to potential external impact. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RISK BASED INSPECTION PROGRAM 7.13–ADM–013 Asset Integrity 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 5 of 5 System Integrity Plan Change Log Date Change Location Changed By Brief Description of Change 01/01/06 References removed 01/01/06 Table of contents removed 1/1/07 Reviewed, made minor editorial changes 9/11/07 1.1 J. Smith Replaced “facility equipment and piping” with “company assets” 9/11/07 2.1.4 J. Smith Replaced “twenty” with “five” 9/11/07 2.1.5 J. Smith Replaced “the Mechanical Integrity Database” with “CMS” 9/11/07 2.1.6.3 J. Smith Deleted “allowable” 9/11/07 2.2.1 J. Smith Replaced “the Mechanical Integrity Database” with “CMS” 9/11/07 3.1.3 J. Smith Replaced “Repair” with “Identify” and added “and repair” 9/11/07 3.2.2 J. Smith Deleted “Mechanical Integrity Database” 9/11/07 3.3.1 J. Smith Added reference to Integrity Verification Procedure 9/11/07 4.1.4 J. Smith Made Sump/OWS Level Alarm Calculation a link 9/11/07 6.0 J. Smith Combine 6.2 and 6.3 into 6.1 9/11/07 6.0 J. Smith Changed 6.4 into 6.2 9/11/07 6.0 J. Smith Changed 6.1 into 6.3 9/11/07 6.0 J. Smith Deleted 6.5 9/11/07 9.1.2 J. Smith Added reference to the Pressure Testing Procedure 9/11/07 9.0 J. Smith Added 9.1.3 9/11/07 9.2.1 J. Smith Revised statement 9/11/07 10.0 J. Smith Deleted 9/11/07 11.0 J. Smith Added links for Sump/OWS Level Alarm Calculation, Integrity Verification Procedure, and Pressure Testing Procedure 10/19/07 J. Smith Annual Review Complete 9/8/08 2.1.1 J. Smith Defined dead legs 9/8/08 2.1.2 J. Smith Added “site specific integrity issues” 9/8/08 2.1.3 and 4.1.2 J. Smith Add UT Examination procedure reference 9/8/08 2.1.6 J. Smith Updated section with evaluation requirements 9/8/08 2.2.2 J. Smith Added “System Equipment Review recommendations” 9/8/08 3.1.1 J. Smith Modified to state “Based on identified integrity issues” 9/8/08 3.2.2 J. Smith Added “ethanol” in front of SCC 9/8/08 4.1.2 J. Smith Modified to state “identified integrity risk” 9/8/08 7.0 J. Smith Replaced “limit” with “threshold” 9/8/08 7.3 J. Smith Modified statement to state “Based upon need identified through evaluation” 9/8/08 10.0 J. Smith Deleted unreferenced links 9/8/08 J. Smith Annual Review Complete 9/17/09 J. Smith Added 3.2.3 9/17/09 1.2 J. Smith Removed Section 1.2 9/17/09 All J. Smith 2009 Annual Review Complete 8/30/10 2.1.2 J. Smith Added project risk score and “purges or removals” 8/30/10 2.2.2 J. Smith Added project risk score 8/30/10 5.3 J. Smith Added 5.3 8/30/10 8.3 J. Smith Added 8.3 8/30/10 8.4 J. Smith Added 8.4 8/30/10 10 J. Smith Added Section 10 8/30/10 All J. Smith 2010 Annual Review Complete 03/09/11 9.1 Removed reference to 49 CFR Part 192 8/5/11 7.2/7.3 Deleted 7.2 and clarified 7.3 8/5/11 2.1/2.2 Combined Sections 12/31/11 All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 1 of 7 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 3.0 STANDARDS The objective of this initiative is to provide a framework that complies with the security regulations governing the Company and that protects the assets, employees, the environment, stakeholders and the community from security threats. This initiative incorporates the security requirements required by regulations applicable to Company assets and operations. The Company will follow the landlord’s policies for security in the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) Tower located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At any other leased and/or rented office space(s) the landlord’s policies will provide the minimum security requirements for that office space. Without Exception, Personnel Safety Is the First Priority. 3.1 The Director of Environmental, Health, Safety & Security (EHS&S) shall: 3.1.1 3.1.2 Serve as the Company Corporate Security Officer. Establish a Security Management Team (SMT) responsible for ensuring Company security awareness to employees and implementing security measures at the workplace, as needed. Convene as needed to address security‐related topics/incidents. Notify the SMT within 24 hours of any security incident at a Company asset, to include a summary of notifications made and actions taken. Maintain Minimum Physical Security Standards for Company assets. 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 Annually review the notification information in the Security Events Procedure. 3.1.6 Annually review the Company asset list with the SMT to validate the Company DOT Critical List. 3.1.7 Annually update Company contact information to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) for execution of notification protocols by each agency, as required. 3.2 The Operations Supervisor shall: 3.2.1 Develop, maintain and comply with the Facility Security Plan (FSP) using the Facility Security Plan (Nonmarine) Template for facilities that have a loading rack and/or other loading area(s) (i.e., butane/ethanol/biodiesel), and facilities that ship loads of more than 792 gallons of hazardous liquids. Complete a Facility Vulnerability Assessment (FVA) template prior to the development of the FSP. Address any vulnerability identified by the FVA in the FSP. 3.2.1.1 Develop a FVA/FSP for any newly purchased loading rack/loading area facilities within 60 days of purchase. NOTE: The FSP for each marine facility will be developed on a site specific basis and should comply with all United States Coast Guard (USCG) requirements. NOTE: The Corporate Security Officer may determine (based on site specific factors) that additional facilities (i.e., tank farm, pump station, etc.) require a FSP. If an additional facility is determined to need a FVA and FSP, the Corporate Security Officer will advise the Supervisor to ensure completion of these documents. 3.2.2 Conduct an annual (once per calendar year) review of the FSP and the FVA with all employees to ensure familiarity with the plan and to identify inaccuracies or improvement opportunities. If there are any <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Page 2 of 7 Revision: 9 improvements, update the FSP and submit to the EHS&S Compliance Specialist for uploading into the Livelink Security Folder. 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.2.1 Note any changes in owner, operator or Corporate Security Officer in the annual review. 3.2.2.2 Complete the In‐Depth Security Training Form. Revise and update the FSP when major changes involving the facility status or security organizations occur, or as necessary to reflect other changing circumstances. Communicate these changes to affected personnel via a SIP meeting, or via email if unable to attend an SIP meeting. Send the revised FSP to the Safety Compliance Specialist for uploading into the Livelink Security Folder. 3.2.3.1 The following conditions at a minimum require a change to the FSP within 30 days: 3.2.3.1.1 Local Facility Security Officer change. 3.2.3.1.2 Modification of physical security. 3.2.3.1.3 Security procedure change. 3.2.3.1.4 Change in the facility’s configuration that materially alters the information included in the FSP. 3.2.3.1.5 Change in the type of products handled, stored, or transferred that materially alters the required response resources. 3.2.3.1.6 Any other changes that materially affect the implementation of the FSP. Include all other conditions in the annual review. Annually assess the facility using the Minimum Physical Security Standards. Assess newly acquired facilities within 60 days of purchase and annually thereafter. Use the appropriate Visitor Log and Safety Guidelines (Inland or Marine) for visitor identification, 3.2.3.2 3.2.4.1 verification and monitoring at each manned facility. Maintain completed logs locally as required. Conduct a Visitor Safety Orientation for all visitors prior to their leaving the main office area. NOTE: “Visitor” is defined as anyone, Company employee, contractor, or other, who is not assigned to work at the facility. “Visitor” is not intended to include drivers, cleaning crews, or delivery services (e.g., UPS, FEDEX, etc.). 3.2.6 Maintain the Key Control Log at the facility, listing by name and contact information whoever has been provided keys and/or automatic gate openers for the facility. NOTE: This requirement applies to employees who have keys and/or automatic gate openers permanently assigned to them until termination or transfer, and temporary keys and/or automatic gate openers that may be occasionally loaned to a contractor, cleaning crew, or utility worker for occasional access to remote facilities. 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 Ensure all employees newly assigned to the facility receive Security Awareness Training within 90 days of assignment to the facility. Report any employee threat or threat to an employee to the Corporate Security Officer or Alternate Corporate Security Officer with appropriate recommendations for ensuring workplace security. Conduct annual drills and/or exercises as outlined in 6 CFR 27.255 and the Chemical Facility Anti‐Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Site Security Plan if the facility is regulated by CFATS. CFATS facilities will be notified of their status by the Alternate Corporate Security Officer. 3.2.9.1 Document security drills and exercises on the Security Drills and Exercises Form. Comply with the Notification Procedure as outlined in Security Events. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 3 of 7 3.3 The Field Supervisor shall: 3.3.1 Periodically, not to exceed three years, review the Security Events Procedure and the Guidelines for Reporting a Suspicious Call and/or Bomb Threat to a Facility with all employees to ensure they are aware of At USCG regulated facilities, annually update Company contact information for execution of notification what constitutes a Security Event 3.4 The Marine Terminal Supervisor shall: 3.4.1 Register all individuals who are assigned at a USCG regulated facility more than 90 days, into the HomePort Database (or alternative approved registration format) within 30 days of their start date. This includes employees, temporary employees, and/or contractors. If an individual has not previously been registered, register the individual within five days, (but no later than the 90 days), at the point it is determined that he/she will need access beyond the 90‐day period. 3.4.2 Ensure all new hire employees obtain a Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) upon accepting an offer of employment. 3.4.3 Escort all new hire employees until they have acquired their TWIC card to allow unescorted access to the facility. 3.4.4 protocols. 3.4.5 At USCG regulated facilities, annually update Company contact information to the USCG for execution of notification protocols, as required. 3.4.6 Conduct security drills/exercises in accordance with 33 CFR 105.220 at all facilities regulated by the USCG. 3.4.6.1 Conduct drills every three months. 3.4.6.2 Conduct exercises annually, not to exceed 18 months between events. 3.4.6.3 Document security drills and exercises on the Security Drills and Exercises Form. 3.4.7 Maintain security related records at all facilities regulated by the USCG (33 CFR 105) for a period of two years. 3.4.8 Submit and maintain approved USCG Facility Security Plans as regulated by 33 CFR 105. 3.5 The Operations Manager shall: 3.5.1 If employees are officed in a leased or rented space in excess of 30 days, determine if security measures beyond the landlord’s polices are required and implement as needed. 3.5.2 For marine facilities: 3.5.2.1 Assign, in writing, a Facility Security Officer (FSO) for all facilities regulated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act and provide training for the FSO to serve in that capacity. 3.5.2.2 For marine terminals, review security incidents, which are considered Security Sensitive Information, with the personnel specified in the FSP. 3.5.2.3 Submit a 33 CFR 105 compliant FSP for newly acquired facilities regulated by the USCG to the applicable Captain of the Port 60 days prior to close, or as soon as practical based on confirmation of closing the acquisition. 3.5.3 Complete the Facility Security Plan (Nonmarine) Template (including the FVA) for all newly acquired nonmarine facilities within 60 days of purchase and submit to the EHS&S Compliance Specialist. NOTE: The Corporate Security Officer may determine based on site specific factors, that additional facilities (i.e., tank farm, pump station, etc.) require a FSP. If an additional facility is determined to need a FVA and FSP, the Corporate Security Officer will advise the Supervisor to ensure completion of these documents. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Page 4 of 7 Revision: 9 3.5.4 Prepare and submit grant applications for security related costs, as applicable. 3.6 The Alternate Corporate Security Officer shall: 3.6.1 Submit “Top Screen” information to the Department of Homeland Security in compliance with CFATS: 3.6.1.1 When a facility is newly acquired. 3.6.1.2 When there are material modifications to an existing facility’s operations or site including facility real estate or tank expansions. 3.6.1.3 On a resubmission schedule noted in CFATS regulations. 3.6.2 Coordinate the development of CFATS Security Vulnerability Analysis (SVA) and Site Security Plans (SSP) for facilities that fall under CFATS regulations and submit when required by regulation. 3.6.3 Coordinate a drill and exercise program for CFATS facilities and facilities that are considered TSA critical. 3.6.4 Coordinate a TSA Critical Facility Workgroup to assess Company facilities against the TSA critical facility standards. 3.6.5 Notify Operations of any facilities considered Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Critical. 3.6.6 Coordinate with Operations to develop Site Security Plans to comply with TSA guidelines. 3.6.7 Develop a Chemical Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI) based records retention program for CFATS facilities. 3.6.8 Perform the duties of the Corporate Security Officer as needed. 3.7 The Project Manager shall: 3.7.1 Identify all contractors who have the potential to conduct work at a USCG regulated facility beyond a 90‐ day period on the job plan and/or project plan. Provide the Facility Supervisor the names of the contractors listed on the job plan and/or project plan as soon as available, but no later than 30 days after the project start date. 3.7.2 Require all contractors who conduct work at a USCG regulated facility to require their employees who will be working in Company facility “Restricted” or “Secure” areas to obtain a TWIC card. Contractor employees that do not have a TWIC, are required to be escorted at all times in these areas in compliance with 33 CFR 105. 3.8 The Security Management Team (SMT) shall: 3.8.1 Review security incidents and/or security breaches for nonmarine facilities to assess whether or not any additional workplace security is warranted. 3.8.2 Review reported employee threats or threats to an employee to determine if additional security measures and/or other actions are warranted. 3.8.3 Determine if a national, regional, or facility‐specific security threat could impact or change: 3.8.3.1 The Company’s Security Threat Level and/or 3.8.3.2 Require additional security measures at one or more of the Company’s facilities. NOTE: The SMT is only tasked to address Company workplace security issues/concerns. Employees visiting non‐Company facilities should comply with the security requirements in‐place at those locations. 3.9 3.10 The EHS&S Compliance Specialist shall: 3.9.1 Upload the FSP to the Livelink Security Folder upon receipt. The Supervisor of Pipeline Integrity Engineering shall: <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Page 5 of 7 Revision: 9 3.10.1 Conduct a security analysis using the Valve Security Process to determine the appropriate security measures to be implemented to protect against vandalism and unauthorized entry for DOT regulated exposed facilities located outside of a facility (e.g., terminal, pump station or tank farm). 3.10.2 Reassessments should be considered whenever circumstances arise that suggests the need for a reassessment. Types of circumstances may include security events, encroachments, land use changes, threats, etc. 3.11 The Vice President of Technical Services shall: 3.11.1 Implement security measures as identified. 3.12 The Employee shall: 3.12.1 Report any personal or work‐related threat (verbal, written, etc.) to you or another employee to Supervisor immediately. 3.12.2 Make notifications as described in the Security Level Procedures. 3.12.3 Make primary and secondary notifications if the Corporate Security Officer or the Alternate Corporate Security Officer cannot be reached, and if the situation requires immediate notification. Notify the Corporate Security Officer via voicemail or email that such notification(s) have been made. 3.12.4 Comply with the Security Events Procedure. 3.12.5 Comply with the Security Level Procedure. 3.12.6 Complete the Security Awareness Training within 90 days of assignment to a facility (terminals and tank farms only). 3.12.7 Complete the Key Control Log as directed by Supervisor. 3.12.8 Lock all manually operated block valves upon completion of activity and prior to leaving the area. 3.12.9 Lock all gates and key buildings (manned and unmanned) anytime the facility is not occupied. 3.12.10 Complete the Visitor Log after verifying that a visitor has left the facility for the day and has not signed out or notified Company personnel that he/she has left the facility. 3.12.11 Successfully obtain a TWIC card when unescorted access is required to secure areas of Company marine facilities. 3.12.12 Complete the Declaration of Security Form for every vessel that comes to the dock only if the Marsec level is elevated to level 2 and higher. <<>> DATE 1/1/05 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 7/1/06 1/1/07 01/01/07 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 6 of 7 System Integrity Plan Change Log LOCATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2.1 Added any other leased/rented office 3.1.1 Added 3.1.3 Added 3.1.5 Added 3.1.7 Added 3.2.3 Deleted 3.2.4 Added note box 3.2.5 Rephrased 3.2.6 Added 3.2.7 Added 3.2.8 Added 3.2.10 Added 3.3.2 Added 3.3.3 Added 3.4 Added 3.5 Added 3.1 Deleted “ Develop and maintain a Company Security Plan to comply with all regulatory security requirements, including the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Transportation (TSA), the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). NOTE: The Company Security Plan is a protected document with limited employee access. 3.1 Deleted Annually validate and document that the Company’s facilities are in compliance with the Company Security Plan and document. Develop and maintain security related procedures, as required 3.19 Added for physical changes/improvements made to assets for the primary purpose of meeting the Minimum Physical Security standards and/or security enhancements 3.2.2 Added site‐specific 3.1.8 Added 3.3.4 deleted “ records associated with training, drills and exercises and incidents/breaches of security for a minimum” 3.2.11 added 3.2.3 added 3.2.4 Changed to 1 year from 3 2.1 Added “ At any other leased and/or rented office space(s) the landlord’s policies will provide the minimum security requirements for that office space" 3.3.5 Deleted “Specifically, all Company marine facilities are required to conduct a security drill once every three months. 3.5, 3.51, 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 Added 3.5.3.2 Note box added 3.6.1 Added 3.6.5 Added 4.0 Deleted link to Company Security Plan 4.0 Added “ Workplace Violence Policies and Guidance“ 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 added 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 Added 3.3.7 Split “Complete a Security Vulnerability Assessment and the Facility Security Template for all newly acquired non‐marine facilities within 60 days of purchase”. Into 2 responsibilities. Added as 3.1.9 3.3.7 Deleted “Assess the facility periodically using the Minimum Physical Security Standards. 3.2.12 and 3.6.1 Added to comply with new USCG regulations. 3.1.2 Added “convene as needed to address ….” 3.1.6 deleted <<>> 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 1/1/08 01/01/09 01/01/10 7/1/10 01/01/11 12/31/11 12/31/11 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. OPERATION ASSET PROTECTION SIP–ADM–8.01 Security 01/01/12 Revision: 9 Page 7 of 7 3.2.8 Combined with 3.2.7 3.3.7 Changed timeframe to 60 days. Added reference to SVA 3.6.1 Rephrased 3.8 added 3.9 and 3.10 added 3.11.7, 3.11.8 added 3.2.13, 3.2.10 added 3.6 added 3.1.8 Added 3.1.6 Added SMT reviews DOT “Critical” list. 3.2.1 plus note Clarify when a FSP is required at Non‐marine loading facilities. 3.2.3 Added requirements including timeframe for changes to FSP. 3.2.15 Added (moved) responsibility for updating COTP with contact information from the Director of EHS to Operations Supervisor. 3.2.16 Added (moved) responsibility for completing drills and exercises from the Operations Manager to the Operations Supervisor. 3.3.5 Added requirement for Submittal and maintain FSP for Marine terminals as required by 33 CFR 105. 3.6.2 Added TWIC credential requirements for contractors. 3.11.9 Added requirement for all affected employees at marine facilities to obtain TWIC as needed. 3.1.10 new 3.2.16.3 new 3.11 New role/responsibilities 3.12.2.1 New 3.12.9 new 3.3 Added marine area supervisor 3.3.2 Added date 3.1.9 Renamed form Facility Vulnerability Assessment 3.2.4 Changed frequency 3.2.8 Changed supervisor role from providing training to ensuring they receive 3.2.5 Changed frequency 3.2.10 Added CFATS language 3.5 Added Alternate Security officer duties 4.2, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10,4.13 Changed name of link to 3.1.8, 3.1.9 Removed. “Maintain BU summary for assest changes/improvements” and “complete FVA for new;y acquired marine facilities” 3.2.2.2 Removed, added annual (once per calendar year) to 3.2.2 3.2.1.1 New 3.4.3 Changed submission to EHSS Compliance Specialist (was Dir EHSS) 3.2.1 Modified per new requlatory requirement for facilities shipping > 792 gallons of hazardous liquids. Reviewed, no changes 3.3.6.2 Removed “once per calendar year not to exceed 365 days”, replaced with “annually, not to exceed 18 months” as per 33 CFR 105.220. 3.11.12 added 3.2.2.2 added 3.2.8 Removed “or newly hired at a facility 3.3 Added field supervisor 3.4 Revised to marine terminal supervisor All 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PUBLIC AWARENESS SIP–ADM–10.01 Community Relations 01/01/12 Revision: 8 Page 1 of 5 1.0 OBJECTIVE 1.1 1.2 1.3 The objective of this initiative is to promote public awareness of underground utilities, damage prevention and emergency preparedness. Collectively, this initiative will enhance public safety and minimize damage to property, the environment and Company assets. The Company’s Public Awareness Program was developed to comply with the standards established in American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162. Company management supports Public Awareness through Company policy, management participation, and allocation of resources and funding as described in the System Integrity Plan Magellan Management Commitment and Support Introduction and the Management Support Cover Letter. Public Awareness is a critical component of our overall safety program. The Public Awareness Program includes the following lines: Company Name Product PHMSA Operator Identification Number Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. HVL 22610 Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. Refined 22610 Magellan Pipelines Holdings, L.P. Refined 31579 Magellan Terminals Holdings, L.P. Crude 31580 Magellan Terminals Holdings, L.P. Refined 31580 Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, L.P. Ammonia 12105 Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC Crude 14391 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Company’s Pipeline Awareness Program for DOT 195 jurisdictional lines will include information and provide instruction to the affected public, emergency officials, local public officials and excavators on the following: 2.1.1 Pipeline purpose and reliability. 2.1.2 Awareness of hazards or potential hazards and prevention measures. 2.1.3 Damage Prevention Awareness. 2.1.4 One Call requirements. 2.1.5 How to recognize, report and respond to leaks and/or emergencies involving Company operated pipelines and facilities. 2.1.6 How to identify the location of Company operated pipelines, rights-of-way, facilities, and description of the purpose of pipeline markers and the information on them. 2.1.7 Emergency Preparedness Communications. 2.1.8 The “Call Before You Dig!” Campaign and the national One Call number 811. 2.1.9 How to access a list of pipeline operators through the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). 2.1.10 How to obtain additional information. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PUBLIC AWARENESS SIP–ADM–10.01 Community Relations 01/01/12 Page 2 of 5 Revision: 8 2.2 This initiative provides guidance to Company employees on the communication of Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and Emergency Response Agencies (ERA). 3.0 STANDARDS 3.1 The One Call Supervisor and Public Awareness & Communications Specialist shall: 3.1.1 3.1.2 Administer the Public Awareness Program for DOT jurisdictional assets. Determine annually, the acceptable pipeline awareness programs and annual mailings for the upcoming year. Develop the message content of these programs as described in the Message Content Guidelines. 3.1.3 Perform an annual audit of the Public Awareness Program to ensure the program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines in RP 1162. Document on the Annual Self Assessment. 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.1.9 3.1.10 Perform an Effectiveness Evaluation of the Public Awareness Program before September 1st every four years in accordance to the guidelines in RP 1162. Maintain all program evaluations, including current results, follow-up actions, expected results and annual assessments for five years. Implement the Annual Mailings Procedure annually. Conduct a pretest of public awareness materials for audience appeal, message clarity, understandability, and retention before they are widely used. A pretest can be performed using a small representative audience that is not involved with the development of the Public Awareness Program. Annually review and update the public education and damage prevention section of Magellan’s Internet Site, if necessary. Maintain and annually update the Public Awareness Folder in Livelink and the Emergency Response Guide. Coordinate with Asset Integrity and Operations personnel to ensure that the ERP Summary Folders are prepared, maintained and distributed to the appropriate LEPC and/or specific local ERAs. 3.1.11 Approve any deviations from the print ad or radio ad standards upon request. 3.1.12 Oversee public education efforts for assets covered per the Mitigation Plan to ensure that ERAs within each county that the pipeline passes through will be contacted annually (not to exceed 15 months) in person and provided with maps of the system. 3.2 The Operations Manager shall: 3.2.1 Communicate Emergency Response Plans to LEPC/ERAs. 3.2.2 Maintain a current address listing of LEPC/ERAs that could respond to a Company emergency. Provide this mailing list to the Public Awareness and Communications Specialist for the annual Mail Out Program. 3.2.3 3.2.4 Maintain an ongoing LEPC/ERAs meeting schedule. In addition to annual mailings to LEPCS/ERAs, conduct meetings on a rotating basis, with a minimum of 25% of the listed LEPC/ERAs once every 12 months, not to exceed 15 months. Conduct a meeting with each listed LEPC/ERAs at least once in a four-year calendar period. 3.2.5 Conduct meetings following the LEPC/ERA Meeting Requirements. For Intrastate pipelines in Texas, conduct face-to-face meetings with designated ERA officials annually per the LEPC/ERA Meeting Requirements. 3.2.6 Complete the LEPC/ERA/Stakeholder Meeting Form for each meeting. Distribute the appropriate updated response plan documentation (ERP, ERAP, etc.) during each meeting. 3.2.7 Complete, at a minimum, one supplemental outreach activity per year within each operating area. <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PUBLIC AWARENESS SIP–ADM–10.01 Community Relations 01/01/12 Page 3 of 5 Revision: 8 Consider external factors along the pipeline system and assess if some additional level of public awareness communications is warranted of if other supplemental/enhanced outreach activities are needed. 3.2.7.1 Use the Relevant Factors Assessment in making the evaluation and the Approved Media and Delivery Methods Procedure to determine the appropriate activity. NOTE: are required. There may be circumstances where multiple outreach activities 3.2.7.2 For each Supplemental/Enhanced Outreach Activity, complete the LEPC/ERA/Stakeholder Meeting Form, provide supporting documentation and send to the District Office or location and the Public Awareness and Communication Specialist. Maintain copies of all materials provided to each stakeholder audience in the local files for five 3.2.8 years. 3.2.9 File the completed LEPC/ERA/Stakeholder Meeting Form for five years. 3.3 The Employee shall: 3.3.1 Use the LEPC/ERA/Stakeholder Meeting Form to conduct and document pipeline safety awareness discussions with ERAs, public education and third party damage prevention stakeholder groups. Forward completed forms to the appropriate area office. 3.4 The One Call Coordinator shall: 3.4.1 Request documentation from state One Call Centers for their community outreach or public awareness activities. Information may be obtained by website if available or phone solicitation. Sort the information by state and retain for five years. NOTE: Most state One Call Centers provide public awareness activities; Magellan can incorporate these activities into its Public Awareness Program. 3.5 3.6 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 Request address listings from each applicable state One Call agency and the Company internal database of all contractors and individuals engaged in excavation activities during the previous 12 months in each state where Company assets are located. Forward the data to the vendor for incorporation into the annual mailings. Advise the Operations Managers, Asset Integrity Supervisors, and Operations Control Manager of the annual mail out messages at least ten days before distributing the mail outs. Utilize the Company Damage Prevention Newsletter to inform employees about the Public Awareness Program objectives. File the LEPC/ERA forms and Supplemental/Enhanced activity documentation in the appropriate Damage Prevention folder in Livelink. The Regulatory Compliance Coordinator shall: 3.5.1 Initiate biennial (beginning January 15, 2005 and every two years thereafter) Educational Center Surveys in accordance with the Texas Public School Survey Procedure for Railroad Commission of Texas regulated assets. The Operations Supervisor in Texas shall: 1.1.1 Conduct public school surveys (psb) upon notification from the Regulatory Compliance Coordinator. Forward the PSB Survey information to the Regulatory Compliance Coordinator within 60 days of the request, but no later than December 15th . <<>> Date 1/1/05 1/1/05 1/1/05 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/06 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 1/1/07 9-10-07 9/10/07 9/10/07 9/10/07 9/10/07 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 10/08/08 1/1/09 02/01/09 7/28/09 07/28/09 07/28/09 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PUBLIC AWARENESS Community Relations 01/01/12 Page 4 of 5 Change Change All 3.2.6 Greg Walker 3.2.1 All 2.1 3.0 3.0 3.2.2 3.5 3.5.2 3.5.3 Greg Walker 3.5.4 Multiple 3.1.6 3.2.4 3.4.1, 3.4.2 3.2.3 3.2.2 All 1.0 3.1.3 Greg Walker 2.1.1, 2.1.7 3.2.1.1 All 3.2.1.6 3.4.1 Greg Walker 3.2.2 3.3.1 All 3.1.8 3.1.10 3.2.2.5 3.3.1 Greg Walker 3.4.1 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.6, 3.7 3.5.2 All Greg Walker 3.1.7 Mike 3.2 SIP–ADM–10.01 Revision: 8 SYSTEM INTEGRITY PLAN CHANGE LOG Brief Description of Change Conducted 2004 Annual Review see change log Moved responsibility to develop and maintain lists of Emergency responders to Operations Supervisors as new Section 10 3 1 5 Added Public Education and Third Party Damage Prevention Program Conducted 2005 Annual Review see change log Deleted the objectives of a public awareness program Deleted information about the federal stds. the procedure was developed under. Developed Magellan’s “Commitment to the Program.” Deleted Operator’s responsibility of overseeing and approving budgetary responsibility. Changed OneCall Analyst to OneCall Coordinator Deleted request for address of Contractors form OneCall and documentation of Awareness Program distributed Also requirement to have this information forwarded to Operations Mgr Deleted requirement to establish and maintain the Public Awareness Program and annual review of program Deleted references to National Alliance Programs. Added content for API RP1162 compliance. Added “to determine if additional outreach programs are needed.” added clarified Added retention time and location Rephrased and defined summary report Conducted 2006 Annual Review see change log Added Management Support Documentation: E1 Goals and Management Support Cover Letter Added Effectiveness Evaluation Requirements added added Conducted 2007 Annual Review see change log Moved this to new section entitled, “3.3 Longhorn Specific Requirements:” Added One Call membership requirement in response to PHMSA Clearing House comments Added additional Relevant Factors and clarified direction for Supplemental Outreach Activities in response to PHMSA Clearing House comments Added new wording to this section Conducted 2008 Annual Review see change log Deleted – Monitor activities and determine if additional is needed. Added from E12-Maintain Public Awareness folder and ER Guide. This replaces the previous ERP distribution process Added location for supplemental documentation Added administrator for Longhorn. Moved previous 3.3.1 to 3.3.2 Deleted Operations Manager or Asset Integrity (AI) Supervisor and changed to appropriate area office Added option for website retrieval and retention time. Deleted distribution to Operations Managers/ AI Supervisors Added Manager of Damage Prevention for incorporation into the annual mailings. Deleted distribution to Operations Manager/AI Supervisors Added: Include PA objectives in One-Call newsletter Added: File Supplemental Documents in Livelink folder Moved from SIP 7.08 Changed Title to Mgr of Damage Prevention and Design Services Conducted 2009 Annual Review see change log Changed “Pipeline” to “Public” Changed the title to, “Assets Covered Per Mitigation Plan” <<>> Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. PUBLIC AWARENESS SIP–ADM–10.01 Community Relations 01/01/12 Page 5 of 5 Date Change Change 07/28/09 3.3.2.3 Hampton 07/28/09 3.3.4 07/28/09 3.3.5 07/28/09 3.4 07/28/09 3.6.2 07/28/09 3.6.4 01/01/11 2.1 3.1 3.1/3.2.2/3.2.7 8/29/11 2.1 8/29/11 3.1 3.1.4 8/29/11 3.2.2 8/29/11 3.2.7.2 12/31/11 All Revision: 8 Brief Description of Change Added “And Design Services” Deleted Section Maintain the information sent from the One Call Coordinator in the Local file for five years Added “For Five Years” This information includes documentation of the Public Awareness activities Deleted Section Added “ And Magellan’s Internal Database” Deleted “Sort this information by operating area and forward to the manager of Damage Prevention and Design Services” Added “Forward Deleted “Include Public Awareness Objectives in the One Call Newsletter.” Added “ Utilize Removed DOT 192 Changed Mgr of Design Services and Compliance to One Call Team Changed title to One Call Team Leader Added list of specific pipeline assets covered by the PAP. Changed title to One Call Supervisor Public Awareness Comm. Spec. Added date Changed title to Public Awareness Comm. Spec. Changed title to Public Awareness Comm. Spec. 2012 Annual Review complete <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTED ACTIONS 10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF CONNECTED ACTIONS The sections to follow describe the existing human, physical, ecological, and cultural resources that may be affected by each Connected Action. The zone of potential impact for each Connected Action is defined to include the potential impacts related to the construction activities and the overland flow boundary. 10.1.1 ORION WEST EXPANSION 10.1.1.1 Human Resources and Land Uses Human resources were evaluated to identify distribution of population, vulnerable receptors (e.g., schools, day cares, parks, and health care facilities), existing and planned land uses, and transportation facilities along the Connected Actions. The segments of the pipeline that are subject to a human resources analysis are those that were determined to be environmentally vulnerable due to population density and/or proximity to vulnerable land use receptors. 10.1.1.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.1.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The Orion West Expansion crosses 14 counties. In addition, seven incorporated cities are either crossed by the pipeline or are partially located within the zone of potential impact. These incorporated cities include: Odessa (Ector County), Sweetwater (Nolan County), Abilene (Taylor County), Wylie (Taylor County), Gorman (Eastland County), Walnut Springs (Bosque County), and Hillsboro (Hill County). The pipeline also crosses the extreme southern corner of Dyess Air Force Base (AFB) located west of the City of Abilene. The Orion West Expansion also crosses several unincorporated towns, including residential areas northeast of Lake Whitney, and the towns of Kopperl (Bosque County), Grimes (Nolan County), Brandon (Hill County), and Mertens (Hill County). There are no schools or hospitals located either entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact of the Orion West Expansion. 10.1.1.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis According to the 2000 Census, the total combined population of the counties traversed by the pipeline was 600,438 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). By 2009, that number had increased by 6.7% to reach 640,656 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). According to the TWDB, growth in these counties is predicted to continue, and reach an estimated 725,579 by 2030 (an increase of 13.3% over the estimated 2009 population) (TWDB, 2011). 10-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL To better define the population that would potentially be affected by the pipeline, U.S. Census Bureau block groups within the zone of potential impact were identified. A BG is a U.S. Census- defined geography that covers an area within a census tract (CT). Population data were retrieved for the BG within the zone of potential impact. These block groups are shown on Figures 10.1.1-1a and 10.1.1-1b. The total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and the zone of potential impact was 90,591 in 2000, or 15.1% of the population of the counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 10.1.1.1.2 Transportation Networks The following sections summarize the transportation networks crossed by the pipelines of the Orion West Expansion. The evaluation was made by utilizing GIS with the pipeline alignments layered over the Texas Strategic Mapping Program (StratMap), a GIS transportation feature maintained by the TNRIS. Supplemental information was provided from Google Earth Pro. The Orion West Pipeline crosses 13 federal highways, 17 state highways, and numerous state- designated FM and Ranch roads. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets, county roads, and 11 railroads. Highway and railroad crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.1.1.3 Land Use 10.1.1.1.3.1 Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD was obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the pipeline and the zone of potential impact. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the Orion West Expansion. Land Uses Traversed by the Orion West Expansion Type of Land Use Acreage Percent Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 263.6 0.2% Cultivated Crops 17,636.8 15.5% Deciduous Forest 4,366.6 3.8% Developed, High Intensity 91.4 0.1% Developed, Low Intensity 756.2 0.7% Developed, Medium Intensity 242.6 0.2% Developed, Open Space 6,061.6 5.3% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 67.1 0.1% Evergreen Forest 4,419.0 3.9% Grassland/Herbaceous 29,452.8 26.0% Mixed Forest 108.9 0.1% Open Water 1,069.2 1.0% Pasture/Hay 3,336.6 3.0% Scrub-shrub 44,021.6 38.8% Woody Wetlands 1,578.6 1.4% Total 113,472.6 100.0% 10-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL As shown above, the majority of the area traversed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact (64.8%) is characterized as either scrub-shrub (38.8%) or grassland/herbaceous (26.0%). Scrub-shrub is defined by the NLCD as “areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.” Grassland/herbaceous is described as “areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.” (USGS, 2008). Though not specified as such by the NLCD, scrub-shrub land in Texas is frequently dedicated to cattle grazing and other agricultural activities. The next most common land use crossed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact is cultivated crops (USGS, 2008). Cultivated crops include “areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.” (USGS, 2008). 10.1.1.1.3.2 Parks and Natural Areas Several recreational areas do occur within the zone of potential impact of the Orion West Expansion. The pipeline crosses Lake Colorado City and its associated state park (Lake Colorado City State Park), as well as smaller, privately owned recreational facilities, such as Comanche Trail Golf Course (Howard County), Big Spring Country Club (Howard County), and the Abilene Country Club (Taylor County). Lake Colorado City State Park is a 500-acre park located on Morgan Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River, in Mitchell County, southwest of Colorado City. It was built in 1949 to provide cooling water for a Texas Electric Service Company power plant and as a water supply for Colorado City. Activities offered include picnicking, camping, fishing, and lake swimming (TWPD, 2011). 10.1.1.1.4 Environmental Justice In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, an analysis was performed to determine the presence of any minority or low-income populations that could potentially be impacted by the pipeline, and to then determine if any potential impacts to these communities would be disproportionate, compared to impacts to other communities that could potentially be affected by the pipeline. For the purpose of this analysis, a minority population is defined as a group where less than 50% of the population is identified as non-Hispanic white. A low-income population is defined as a population whose median household income is less than the HHS 2011 poverty guideline for a family of four ($22,350) (HHS, 2011). As in the population density analysis above, to determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, BG data were retrieved for the zone of potential impact. 10-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Of the 74 block groups within the zone of potential impact, three were identified as low income (two in Nolan County, and one in Taylor County), and five were identified as minority (one each in Ector, Hill, Howard, Mitchell, and Nolan counties). There was no income data for BG 1 of CT 130 in Nolan County (the BG covering Dyess AFB). None of the block groups were categorized as both minority and low-income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). A summary of these block groups is provided below, and these BG are shown on Figures 10.1.1-1a and 1b. Environmental Justice Populations along the Orion West Expansion Median Household Ector County Geography Population Percent Minority Income 121,123 48.7% $31,152 Hill County BG 4, CT 30 32,321 2,175 76.5% $29,879 53.2% 22.4% $26,696 $31,600 Howard County BG 1, CT 9609 588 33,627 43.2% 79.3% $30,805 BG 6, CT 9508 4,357 44.9% $36,853 Mitchell County BG 1, CT 9502 3,593 9,698 53.9% $33,587 $25,399 Nolan County 15,802 33.7% 40.9% $22,339 $26,209 BG 3, CT 9504 1,233 BG 4, CT 9504 723 48.3% BG 1, CT 9505 1,182 56.5% $21,688 27.3% $34,053 $25,281 Taylor County 126,555 BG 6, CT 128 BG 1, CT 128 1,151 22.1% 794 19.9% $21,719 $21,015 In 1999 dollars The median household incomes of the two BG in Nolan County that were identified as low- income were $22,339, and $21,688, respectively, compared to $26,209 for Nolan County as a whole. These two BG do not represent a substantial decrease from the overall median household incomes for Nolan County, and are representative of the county overall. The median household incomes for the two low-income BG in Taylor County were $21,015 and $21,719, compared to $34,035 for Taylor County as a whole. Because of the substantial difference between the income for Taylor County as a whole and the two individual block groups, the individual block groups potentially represent low-income populations. Most of the counties traversed by the pipeline have substantial minority populations (ranging from 22.4% in Hill County to 48.7% in Ector County). Most of the individuals who identified as minority in the census indicated that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin, an ethnic group which is increasing in population in the State of Texas. Of the BG with minority populations, only one, BG 1 of CT 9609 in Hill County, has a percentage of minority population that is more than double that of the county. The BG with the highest percentage of minority individuals are BG 6, CT 9508 in Howard County (79.3%), and BG 4, CT 30 in Ector County (76.5%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Because of the presence of potential EJ populations, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out in Section 10.3.1.1.4 of this document. 10-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.1.2 Physical Resources 10.1.1.2.1 Groundwater Resources The TWDB GAM program recognizes and has differentiated nine major and 21 minor aquifers within Texas. The names of those major and minor aquifers used by the TWDB GAM program that are traversed by the various pipelines that are defined as Connected Actions to the Proposed Project are evaluated in this FEA. Major aquifers are generally defined as supplying large quantities of water to large geographic regions of the state. Minor aquifers typically supply large quantities of water to smaller state geographic regions or relatively small quantities in large state geographic regions. Lesser quantities of water may also be present in formations within the remainder of Texas. The major and minor aquifers, as defined by the TWDB, underlie approximately 81% of the state. The locations where the pipeline zone crosses the major and minor aquifers are shown on Figures 10.1.1-2 and 10.1.1-3. The land surface exposure, or outcrop, of the formation(s) comprising an aquifer is the area corresponding to the principal recharge zone for the aquifers. Groundwater encountered within the recharge zone is normally under a watertable or unconfined condition, and is most susceptible to contamination. When water-bearing strata dip below the surface and are covered by less permeable strata, such as clay, and artesian pressure increased, the aquifer becomes confined or under an artesian condition. The suitability of groundwater for most uses is generally determined by the amount and type of dissolved minerals contained in the water. The TDS concentration, expressed in mg/l, is the most common limiting factor governing the suitability of groundwater for most uses. A general water classification based on TDS concentration is as follows: • Freshwater contains less than 1,000 mg/l TDS; • Slightly saline water contains 1,000 - 3,000 mg/l TDS; • Moderately saline water contains 3,000 - 10,000 mg/l TDS; • Very saline water contains 10,000 - 35,000 mg/l TDS; and, • Brine contains over 35,000 mg/l TDS. The TCEQ requires drinking water supplied by all public water systems contain no more than 1,000 mg/l TDS. However, water that does not meet the 1,000 mg/l or less TDS standard may be used for public drinking water with written approval from the TCEQ. Groundwater containing up to 3,000 mg/l TDS meets most agricultural and industrial needs, while groundwater having up to 5,000 mg/l TDS is usually suitable for use by livestock. The TCEQ Source Water Assessment Program PWS water well GIS database was reviewed to identify those PWS water wells that are potentially vulnerable to a refined product release from the Orion West Pipeline. A PWS is defined as a water well supplying water to the public (more than 15 individuals) and is regulated by the TCEQ. A total of 11 PWS wells belonging to six PWS are present within or have capture zones that cross into the zone of potential impact. Two PWS wells produce groundwater from the Woodbine Aquifer. Six PWS wells produce groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer. Three PWS wells supply water from the Dockum Aquifer. 10-5 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The locations of these nine PWS water wells are shown on Figure 10.1.1-4a and Figure 10.1.1- 4b. The relative vulnerability of those aquifers discussed below for each of the Connected Actions to a refined product release from the Orion West Pipeline was assessed using the DRASTIC ranking assigned to these aquifers by the TCEQ, and the Pettyjohn et.al. Aquifer Classification Scheme developed for the EPA. This vulnerability assessment is discussed in Section 4.2.1.2. The following are descriptions of the aquifers that occur from east to west along the Orion West Pipeline from the Frost Terminal to the Odessa Terminal. Those major and minor aquifers identified as underlying the zone of potential impact are listed on Table 10.1.1-1. A summary of the characteristics of each aquifer crossed by the pipeline are also listed in this table. Table 10.1.1-2 lists the PWS having water wells within or capture zones crossing the zone of potential impact. Woodbine Aquifer The Woodbine Aquifer extends from McLennan County in North-Central Texas northward to Cooke County and eastward to Red River County, paralleling the Red River. The Woodbine Aquifer furnishes water to municipal, industrial, domestic, livestock, and small irrigation supplies throughout its North Texas extent. The Woodbine Formation of Cretaceous age is composed of water-bearing sandstone beds interbedded with shale and clay. The aquifer dips eastward into the subsurface where it reaches a maximum depth of 2,500 feet below land surface and a maximum thickness of approximately 700 feet. The Woodbine Aquifer is divided into three water-bearing zones that differ considerably in productivity and quality. Only the lower two zones of the aquifer are developed to supply water for domestic and municipal uses. Heavy municipal and industrial pumpage has contributed to water-level declines in excess of 100 feet in the Sherman-Denison area of Grayson and surrounding counties. Potential well yields are 50 gpm to 300 gpm. Chemical quality deteriorates rapidly in well depths below 1,500 feet. In areas between the outcrop and this depth, quality is considered good overall as long as groundwater from the upper Woodbine is sealed off. The upper Woodbine contains water of extremely poor quality in downdip locales and contains excessive iron concentrations along the outcrop. Average transmissivity of the Woodbine is 660 ft2/d. (R.W. Harden & Assoc., 2004). There is one PWS well completed in the Woodbine Aquifer, with a capture zone that is located within the zone of potential impact. Trinity Aquifer The Trinity Aquifer is a major aquifer system that occurs in a band extending from the Red River in North Texas to the Hill Country of South-Central Texas covering all or parts of 55 counties. The aquifer consists of the Cretaceous age Trinity Group of formations that are (from youngest to oldest) the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains-Travis Peak. The Paluxy (Upper Trinity) and Twin Mountains coalesce to form the Antlers Formation where the Glen Rose thins or is missing. The Antlers consists of up to 900 feet of sand and gravel, with clay beds in the middle section. Water from the Antlers is mainly used for irrigation in the outcrop area of North and 10-6 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Central Texas. The Paluxy Formation consists of up to 400 feet of predominantly fine to coarse- grained sand interbedded with clay and shale. The formation pinches out downdip and does not occur south of the Colorado River. Underlying the Paluxy, the Glen Rose Formation forms a gulfward-thickening wedge of marine carbonates consisting primarily of limestone. The Twin Mountains and Travis Peak Formations form the basal unit of the Trinity Aquifer. The Twin Mountains Formation is the most prolific of the Trinity Aquifers in North-Central Texas, but the water quality is not as good as that produced in the Paluxy and Antlers Formations. The Trinity Group ranges in thickness from about 100 feet in the outcrop area to approximately 1,200 feet near the downdip limit of fresh water. The Trinity Aquifer is an extensive and highly used groundwater resource primarily used for municipal and industrial purposes, but also for irrigation, livestock, and domestic purposes. Groundwater in this aquifer is fresh to slightly saline; however, groundwater in some parts of the southern hill country portion of the Trinity Aquifer is moderately saline. Potential well yields for this aquifer are 50 gpm around the outcrop to over 1,900 gpm downdip. Transmissivities are highly variable depending upon the formation that is pumped. The average transmissivities range from 730 ft2/d in the Paluxy, to 732 ft2/d in the Hensell (Travis Peak), to 1,098 ft2/d in the Hosston (R.W. Harden & Assoc, 2004). There are six PWS wells completed in the Trinity Aquifer with capture zones that are in the zone of potential impact. Dockum Aquifer Outcrop The Dockum Group of Triassic age underlies much of the Ogallala Formation of the High Plains area of Texas and New Mexico, the northern part of the Edwards Plateau, and the eastern part of the Pecos Valley Aquifer. The Dockum Aquifer crops out along the Orion West Pipeline just west of Sweetwater to west of Iatan where the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer overlies the Dockum Aquifer. The Dockum is commonly referred to as the “red bed”, because the land surface takes on a reddish color where the formation is exposed east of the High Plains caprock and in the Canadian River Basin. The Santa Rosa consists of up to 700 feet of sand and conglomerate interbedded with layers of silt and shale, and is the primary water-bearing zone in the formation. Groundwater from the Dockum Aquifer is used for irrigation in the eastern outcrop area of Scurry and Mitchell counties, and for municipal water supply in the central part of the High Plains where marginally acceptable quality conditions prevail. Elsewhere, the aquifer is used extensively for oil field water-flooding operations, particularly in the southern part of the High Plains. Concentrations of dissolved solids in the groundwater range from less than 1,000 mg/l near the eastern outcrop to more than 20,000 mg/l in the deeper parts of the aquifer to the west. Relatively high sodium concentrations pose a salinity hazard for soils, thereby limiting regional long-term use of the water for irrigation. The extent of the aquifer as delineated includes the area in which the Dockum groundwater contains less than 5,000 mg/l dissolved solids. The Dockum Aquifer is recharged by precipitation over areas where Dockum Group sediments are exposed at the land surface. The Dockum Aquifer is also recharged by downward leakage from the overlying Pecos Valley Aquifer and upward leakage from the underlying Permian Aquifer. Discharge of groundwater from the Dockum Aquifer occurs at pumping wells, small springs that contribute to stream base flow in the outcrop, evapo-transpiration, and cross-formational flow. The aquifer 10-7 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL has an average transmissivity of 4,600 ft2/day (TWDB R-345, R-356). There are two PWS wells located in the outcrop of the Dockum Aquifer in the zone of potential impact. Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer is a major aquifer that underlies the Edwards Plateau extending from the Hill Country of Central Texas to the Trans-Pecos region of West Texas. This aquifer provides groundwater to all or parts of 38 counties in Texas. The water-bearing strata comprising the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer are predominantly limestone and dolomite formations of the Cretaceous age Edwards Group and limestones and sands of the Trinity Group also of Cretaceous age. More than two-thirds of the groundwater produced from this aquifer is used for irrigation, with the remainder being used for municipal, domestic, and livestock supplies. Springs and seeps from the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer occur mostly along the margins of the aquifer from where the watertable intersects the land surface, and provide base flow to many streams of the plateau. Although the saturated thickness of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer is well over 2,000 feet, the average thickness of freshwater saturated strata in this aquifer is 433 feet. In the northwestern portion of the aquifer the formations are approximately 200 feet thick. Groundwater quality in the aquifer ranges from fresh to slightly saline, with TDS concentrations ranging from 100 mg/l to 3,000 mg/l. The aquifer outcrop area in the northwest corner of the aquifer in Ector and Midland Counties is comprised of the Edwards Group (Fredericksburg Group) and the underlying thicker Trinity Group formations. The Edwards-Trinity sediments form a wedge that thickens from the north-northwest to the south-southeast. In the northern portion of the plateau, the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer pinches out under the Ogallala sediments. The aquifer is generally unconfined; but, may be confined to semi-confined locally where relatively impermeable sediments of the overlying basal member of the Edwards Group exist. Recharge to the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer occurs mainly from precipitation infiltrating joints, crevices, and solution openings on the Edwards Group outcrop area and from stream losses from the many intermittent streams crossing this outcrop. The Trinity Group, having few outcrops areas to receive direct recharge, gets much of its water by cross-formational flow from the overlying Edwards Group. Reported well yields from this aquifer vary from less than 50 gpm to more than 1,000 gpm. The transmissivity of this aquifer ranges from about 147 ft2/d to around 879 ft2/d. There are no PWS wells located in the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. There are no PWS wells located in the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. Southern Ogallala Aquifer The Southern Ogallala Aquifer is a major aquifer in the High Plains region of Texas and provides groundwater to all or part of 31 counties in Texas. The Southern Ogallala Aquifer of Texas extends south of the Canadian Breaks to Winkler, Ector, Midland, and Glasscock counties, and from the eastern escarpment of the Southern High Plains westward to the Texas- New Mexico border. Fluvial gravel, sand, silt, clay, and eolian sand and silt of the Pliocene- 10-8 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Miocene age Ogallala Formation comprise the Southern Ogallala Aquifer. The aquifer attains a thickness of about 800 feet with an average freshwater saturated thickness of 95 feet. Groundwater in this aquifer is generally fresh; however, TDS concentrations increase southward and range from 400 mg/l in excess of 1,000 mg/l. Approximately 95% of the groundwater pumped from the Ogallala is used for irrigation, with the remaining 5% divided between municipal, industrial, livestock, and domestic uses. For many municipalities, the Southern Ogallala Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water. Numerous springs and seeps occur along the eastern High Plains escarpment, within the draws, and along the margins of salt lake basins. The Southern Ogallala outcrops throughout the Southern High Plains Region and is under watertable conditions. Recharge to this aquifer occurs principally by infiltration of precipitation on the surface and, to a lesser extent, by upward leakage from underlying formations. The primary sources of recharge to the Southern Ogallala Aquifer are direct rainfall infiltration on the outcrop, indirect rainfall infiltration through playas and headwater creeks, irrigation return flow, and upward cross-formational flow from underlying aquifers such as the Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) Aquifer and the Dockum Aquifer. The pipeline crosses the outcrop of the Ogallala Aquifer between Midland and Odessa. Only slight amounts of water are produced from the Ogallala in this locale. Water is supplied to these areas from the underlying Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. The transmissivity of the Southern Ogallala Aquifer is estimated to range from about 160 ft2/d to approximately 25,000 ft2/d. There are no PWS wells located in the Southern Ogallala Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. Pecos Valley Aquifer The Pecos Valley Aquifer (formerly known as the Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium) is a major aquifer located in the upper part of the Pecos River Valley of West Texas and provides water to parts of Andrews, Crane, Ector, Loving, Pecos, Reeves, Upton, Ward, and Winkler counties. Tertiary age and Quaternary age sediments that fill several structural basins of the Pecos Valley comprise this aquifer. These sediments include lacustrine deposits of the Pliocene age Tahoka Formation; sand along with an assemblage of mudstone, siltstone, conglomerate, limestone, shale, and gypsum of the Pliocene to mid-Pleistocene age Gatuna Formation, and eolian dune deposits of the late-Pleistocene to Holocene age Judkins and Monahans Formations. The undifferentiated valley fill reaches about 1,500 feet in thickness, with an average freshwater saturated strata thickness of about 250 feet. The majority of groundwater pumped from this aquifer is used for irrigation, and the rest is withdrawn for municipal, industrial, and power generation uses. The Pecos Valley Aquifer also sustains numerous springs that discharge into the Pecos River. Groundwater quality is highly variable, differing with location and depth. TDS concentrations range from less than 300 mg/l to more than 5,000 mg/l. The Pecos Valley Aquifer is an unconfined aquifer that occurs only in outcrop. The Pecos Valley Aquifer receives recharge from infiltrating precipitation, and from cross-formational flow from the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Surface water diverted from the Pecos River also recharges the Pecos Valley Aquifer as seepage from irrigation fields. The transmissivity of this aquifer is estimated to range from less than 1 ft2/d to about 14,000 ft2/d. There are no PWS wells located in the Pecos Valley Aquifer with capture zones in the pipeline zone of potential impact. 10-9 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Dockum Aquifer (Subcrop) The Dockum Group of Triassic age underlies much of the Ogallala Formation of the High Plains area of Texas and New Mexico, the northern part of the Edwards Plateau, and the eastern part of the Pecos Valley Aquifer. The Dockum Aquifer crops out along the Orion West Pipeline just west of Sweetwater to west of Iatan where the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer overlies the Dockum Aquifer. From Odessa to the west, the Dockum Aquifer overlies the Rustler Aquifer and underlies the Pecos Valley Aquifer to the east. A detailed description can be found in the previous description of the Dockum Aquifer (Outcrop). There is one Dockum PWS well with a 0.5-mile capture zone which encroaches into the zone of potential impact. 10.1.1.2.2 Surface Water The Orion West Pipeline intersects the following major river basins, from west (Odessa Terminal) to east (Frost Station): Colorado River, Brazos River, and the Trinity River Basins. This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals or ditches) that either cross the pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location was obtained from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provided by the USGS. The NHD is a digital vector dataset used by GIS. It contains features such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, canals, dams and stream gauges. These data are designed to be used in general mapping and in the analysis of surface- water systems. As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. Perennial streams are defined as having a continuous flow in parts of its bed all year round during years of normal rainfall. “Perennial" streams are contrasted with "intermittent" streams which normally cease flowing for weeks or months each year. During unusually dry years, a normally perennial stream may cease flowing, becoming intermittent for days, weeks, or months depending on severity of the drought. Lakes are large bodies of standing water, either formed naturally or man-made for amenity purposes. Water levels tend not to fluctuate to any great extent. Reservoirs, or dams, are man-made bodies of open water that generally serve as public water supply sources, as winter storage for crop irrigation, or as flood storage facilities in association with river corridors. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and are not included in this FEA: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The Orion West Pipeline traverses within three major river basins. From west to east (listed in order of increasing MP numbers) these river basins are the Colorado (MP 0 - 89.0), the Brazos 10-10 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (MP 89.0 – 300.3), and the Trinity (MP 300.3 – 312.0). Within these river basins, there are only two steams that would be considered to be major: the Colorado River and the Brazos River. However, there are a number of regionally important water bodies and streams along this pipeline segment. A description of these water bodies in order of occurrence from east to west is provided in the following: Mustang Draw. Mustang Draw originates at the confluence of Monument and Seminole Draws, 14 miles northeast of Andrews in northeastern Andrews County, and runs a total of 100 miles, first southeast through Martin and Midland counties and then northeast through northwestern Glasscock County and on through part of Howard County before reaching its confluence with Sulphur Springs Draw at Salt Lake, seven miles west of Big Spring in Howard County. Much of the course of the creek passes through remote oil and range lands. The draw passes through level to sloping terrain surfaced by quartz sands, gravels, clays, and sandy loams that support brush and grasses. Mustang Draw crosses the Orion West Pipeline at MP 12.0 and MP 26.4. Beals Creek. Beals Creek originates from a salt lake at the intersection of Mustang Draw and Sulphur Springs Draw, four miles west of Big Spring in Howard County. The stream runs through Big Spring and flows 67 miles east to its mouth on the Colorado River, near Pecan Crossing in southern Mitchell County. Beals Creek traverses a geologic floodplain surfaced by sand, gravel, and mud substrata with some bedrock areas. Water-tolerant hardwoods, conifers, and grasses grow in the clay and sandy loams along the creek. Beals Creek crosses the Orion West Pipeline at MP 46.7. Colorado River. The Colorado River, measured in length and drainage area, is the largest river wholly in Texas. It originates in intermittent draws in northeastern Dawson County, flows generally southeastward for 600 miles across Borden, Scurry, Mitchell, Coke, and Runnels Counties, and forms all or parts of the county lines between Coleman and Concho, Coleman and McCulloch, Brown and McCulloch, Brown and San Saba, Mills and San Saba, Lampasas and San Saba, Burnet and San Saba, and Burnet and Llano Counties, before it bends to the east across southern Burnet County and continues its southeastern course across Travis, Bastrop, Fayette, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda Counties to its mouth, on Matagorda Bay. Its drainage area is 39,900 square miles, and its runoff reaches a volume of more than 2 million acre-feet near the Gulf. Important reservoirs on the Colorado include Lake Colorado City, Lake J. B. Thomas, Buchanan Lake, Inks Lake, Lake Lyndon B. Johnson, Lake Travis, and Lady Bird (Town Lake) in Austin. The Colorado River crosses the Orion West Pipeline at MP 71.9. Morgan Creek / Lake Colorado City. Lake Colorado City is an artificial lake constructed in 1949 on Morgan Creek in the Colorado River basin four miles southwest of Colorado City in central Mitchell County. It was constructed with an earthfill dam that is 81 feet in height. The reservoir, owned and operated by a privately-owned power company, has a surface area of 1,655 acres, a normal capacity of 31,640 acre-feet, and a maximum capacity of 70,700 acre- feet. The lake drains 322 square miles, of which 32 square miles are likely noncontributing. The lake's water is used for industry and recreation and is a water supply for nearby Colorado City. When the lake's water level is low, water is pumped from Champion Creek Reservoir to 10-11 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL maintain a satisfactory operating level. The pipeline crosses through the middle of Lake Colorado City at MP 69.3 to MP 69.7. Champion Creek / Champion Creek Reservoir. Champion Creek Reservoir is an artificial lake on Champion Creek in the Colorado River basin that was constructed in 1959. The reservoir was constructed with an earthfill dam that rises 114 feet above the ground surface. It is located approximately seven miles south of Colorado City in east central Mitchell County. The reservoir is owned and operated by a privately owned electric company. Its normal water capacity is 42,500 acre-feet and its maximum design capacity is 90,200 acre-feet. Its water is used for industrial, recreational, and municipal purposes. A 30-inch pipe through the dam has a valve control for downstream water requirements and connects to a pumping plant to supply water to Lake Colorado City. The North Fork Champion Creek crosses the Orion West Pipeline at MP 78.6. Leon River. The Leon River, located in the Brazos River Basin, starts at the confluence of its North, South, and Middle Forks east of Eastland in northwestern Eastland County. The South Fork rises northeast of Cottonwood in southeastern Callahan County and runs northeast for 25 miles to its mouth on the North Fork. The North Fork rises at Cisco in northwestern Eastland County and runs northeast for 11 miles. The Middle Fork rises six miles west of Eastland and runs east for six miles to join the other two branches to form the Leon River. The river runs southeast for 185 miles through Eastland, Comanche, Hamilton, and Coryell Counties to its confluence with the Lampasas and Salado Rivers to form the Little River. The South Leon River, a tributary of the Leon, rises in extreme eastern Brown County and runs northeast across southern Comanche County to join the main stream. Communities along the river include DeLeon, Gustine, Proctor, Lamkin, Jonesboro, Levita, Gatesville, Fort Gates, and Belton. The South Fork Leon River crosses the Orion West Pipeline at MP 178.4. The Leon River crosses the pipeline at MP 212.2. Bosque River. The Bosque River originates in four main branches, the North, East, Middle, and South Bosque Rivers, at Lake Waco, on the northwest edge of Waco in central McLennan County, and flows south for four miles to its mouth on the Brazos River, in Cameron Park in the city limits of Waco. The North Bosque River, the longest branch of the river, rises in north central Erath County and cuts through Hamilton County into Bosque County, where it is joined by the East Bosque River, which rises in Erath County. From their confluence, the North Bosque continues into central McLennan County, where it is joined by the South and Middle Bosque rivers as it flows into Lake Waco. The Bosque River flows through rolling hills where the dominant vegetation includes post oak and cedar. The upper branches, in Erath, Hamilton, and Bosque Counties, are relatively narrow, free-flowing, and scenic, with clear water and heavily vegetated banks. Brazos River. The Brazos River originates at the confluence of its Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork near the eastern boundary of Stonewall County, and runs 840 miles across Texas to its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico, two miles south of Freeport in Brazoria County. The two forks of the Brazos originate 150 miles upstream in the State of New Mexico. Accordingly, the Brazos River has a watershed that is 44,620 square miles (of which 42,000 are in Texas.) 10-12 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The Brazos River has the distinction of being the longest of the Texas rivers (although not the longest located entirely within Texas) and the one with the greatest volume of discharge. Due to its length and route across Texas, The Brazos has significant changes in appearance as it transitions from the plains "draw" drainage features to the rolling plains of West Texas, thence to the Grand Prairie hill region, and thence to its meandering course through the Coastal Plain. The Brazos has seven principal tributaries, including the Salt and Double Mountain Forks. The others are the Clear Fork, the Bosque and Little Rivers, Yegua Creek, and the Navasota River. In addition, there are 15 sub-tributaries within the watershed, the most important being the Leon River. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings The general water quality of the water bodies along the Orion West Pipeline was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307. These Standards establish explicit goals for the quality of streams, rivers, lakes, and bays throughout the state. They were developed by the TCEQ to maintain the quality of surface waters in Texas in such a manner as to support public health and enjoyment and protect aquatic life, consistent with the sustainable economic development of the state. The TCEQ water quality standards identify appropriate uses for the state’s surface waters, including aquatic life, recreation, and sources of public water supply (or drinking water). The criteria for evaluating support of those uses include dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, dissolved minerals, toxic substances, and bacteria. Statewide standards may be revised on a site-specific basis when sufficient information is available to justify a change. The following table summarizes the water quality data for the Classified TCEQ Water Segments that are applicable to the water bodies that cross or come in contact with the zone of potential impact along the Orion West Pipeline route. The table provides the range in MPs that are applicable to each Classified Water Quality Segment. Although not every water body in the State is identified as being or is located within a classified segment, the TCEQ assumes the water quality to be same as that of the classified segment for all tributaries or streams that tie into the nearest classified segment for purposes of preparing TPDES permits. The TCEQ stream segments that are within the zone of potential impact of the pipeline are listed below in numerical order: Water Quality Data by Segment Segment No. Segment Description 0817 Navarro Mills Lake - from Navarro Mills Dam in Navarro County up to the normal pool elevation of 424.5 feet (impounds Richland Creek) 1203 Whitney Lake - from Whitney Dam in Bosque/Hill County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek on the Brazos River Arm in Bosque/Johnson County and to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Rock Creek on the Nolan River Arm in Hill County, up to the normal pool elevation of 533 feet (impounds Brazos River) 1222 Proctor Lake - from Proctor Dam in Comanche County to a 10-13 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Segment No. Segment Description point immediately upstream of the confluence of Mill Branch in Comanche County, up to the normal pool elevation of 1,162 feet (impounds Leon River) 1224 Leon Reservoir - from Leon Dam in Eastland County up to the normal pool elevation of 1,375 feet (impounds Leon River) 1232 Clear Fork Brazos River - from the confluence with the Brazos River in Young County to the most upstream crossing of US 180 in Fisher County 1233 Hubbard Creek Reservoir - from Hubbard Creek Dam in Stephens County up to the normal pool elevation of 1,183 feet (impounds Hubbard Creek) 1236 Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir - from Fort Phantom Hill Dam in Jones County up to the normal pool elevation of 1,635.9 feet (impounds Elm Creek) 1237 Lake Sweetwater - from Sweetwater Dam in Nolan County up to the normal pool elevation of 2,116.5 feet (impounds Bitter Creek) 1254 Aquilla Reservoir - from Aquilla Dam in Hill County up to the normal pool elevation of 537.5 feet (impounds Aquilla Creek) 1255 Upper North Bosque River - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Indian Creek in Erath County to the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork of the North Bosque River in Erath County 1412 Colorado River Below Lake J. B. Thomas - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Little Silver Creek in Coke County to Colorado River Dam in Scurry County 1420 Pecan Bayou Above Lake Brownwood - from a point 100 meters (110 yards) upstream of FM 2559 in Brown County to the confluence of the North Prong Pecan Bayou and the South Prong Pecan Bayou in Callahan County Review of these water quality data indicates that all of the above-listed segments are suitable for contact recreation, and that the majority are also a suitable source of public water supply. The water quality of streams in the upper reach of the pipeline route for MP 0 to MP 123 is elevated for total dissolved solids (TDS), i.e., chlorides and sulfates. Accordingly, these segments are not considered to be a good source of domestic water supply. Table 10.1.1-3 provides a water quality summary for the applicable stream segments listed above. Another important aspect of the water quality concerns is the water bodies that have been identified by the TCEQ to be impaired. In this regard, the TCEQ maintains what is referred to as a TMDL Program that is authorized by, and created to fulfill the requirements of, Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. An IP usually puts the TMDL 10-14 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL into action by outlining the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads through regulatory and voluntary activities. In some instances, TMDLs are implemented through WPPs. A list of stream segments with TMDLs that are located within the zone of potential impact is provided in Table 10.1.1-4. This table also provides the year that the segment was first listed and the type of impairment that caused it to be listed. None of these TMDL-listed segments are impaired due to the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD information previously discussed, there are 1,994 water bodies that either cross or are within the zone of potential impact. Seventy-four of these are classified as perennial streams, 1,615 are classified as intermittent streams, and three are classified as canals. A total of 300 of these water bodies cross the pipeline. Table 10.1.1-5 provides a listing of the surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact; the locations of where the water body enters the zone of potential impact; the location of pipeline crossings over water bodies; the names of the water bodies; and the length of water body segments within the zone of potential impact. In some cases there are multiple points of entry within the zone of potential impact that are caused by stream meandering, paralleling of the zone of potential impact, the irregular shape of portions of the zone of potential impact, and the presence of multiple tributaries. Potentially vulnerable public drinking water surface water resources along the Orion West Pipeline route were identified separately. A source water for PWS is considered to be susceptible to contamination if the API, as defined by the TCEQ, is within the zone of potential impact. The TCEQ has prepared SWSA reports for every PWS in the State as required by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The SDWA Amendments required all states to assess the susceptibility of public drinking water sources to contamination. The TCEQ provided the results of the assessments to each PWS in 2003. These comprehensive SWSA reports represent years of research, analysis, and investigation by state officials; trade organizations; federal, state, and local agencies; and water service providers. The assessments contain information specific to each PWS, its source waters, and areas of concern which may impact source waters. The information is intended to enhance the ability of a PWS to protect its source waters and ensure their continued reliability. Within the context of this FEA, the SWSA program did take into consideration potential impacts associated with petroleum pipelines. The TCEQ and the USGS developed procedures to assess the susceptibility of PWS source waters to 227 selected drinking-water contaminants. The procedures are discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.3. The locations of PWS along the Orion West Pipeline were obtained from the most recent, i.e., May 2011, version of the TCEQ Source Water Assessment Viewer files. The viewer contains the spatial datasets used and created during a source water susceptibility assessment process that was conducted by the TCEQ. These files were then imported into the GIS database 10-15 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL depicting the location of the Orion West Pipeline and the boundaries of the zone of potential impact along the pipeline path. The exact locations of all PWS intakes with an API within the zone of potential impact were then identified and listed in Table 10.1.1-2. Based upon this database, there are six PWS intakes with an API within the zone of potential impact. The PWS names and their locations are provided below: PWS Name MP API Intersection Figure ID Moss Creek Lake 45.2 10.1.1-5 65.25 68.5 – 70 Lake Colorado City 10.1.1-6 (Water intake located 0.37 mi north of pipeline crossing) Champion Lake 77.94 10.1.1-6 City of Clyde 155.30 10.1.1-7 City of Baird 161.50 10.1.1-7 Aquilla WSD 295.0-295.9 10.1.1-8 Wetlands An inventory of wetlands present within the zone of potential impact from Odessa to Frost shows 1,805 wetlands, consisting of approximately 2,195.2 acres, are present. This inventory also shows a total of 373 stream locations accounting for approximately 103.5 miles or 546,480 linear feet. USFWS NWI maps were evaluated through GIS to determine specific numbers (density per linear mile), types, and aerial extent of wetlands that are located within the zone of potential impact along the entire pipeline. NWI maps of a scale of 1:24,000 for the entire route from Odessa to Frost were used in this evaluation. Three types of wetlands (riverine, lacustrine and palustrine) were identified within the zone of potential impact from Odessa to Frost. Wetland locations were fairly uniform and consistent throughout the pipeline. Several segments of the pipeline did have a greater concentration of wetlands than most. MP 40-50 had 32 wetlands accounting for approximately 142 acres. This segment also has 21 stream locations accounting for 6.61 miles or 34,900.8 linear feet. MP 70- 80 has 138 wetlands accounting for 56.7 acres. This segment also has 5 stream locations accounting for less than one mile. Segment 100-110 has 100 wetlands accounting for 41.7 acres and 16 stream locations accounting for 4.3 miles or 22,704 linear feet. Segment 270-280 has 56 wetlands accounting for approximately 346 acres and 13 stream locations accounting for 1.8 miles or 9,504 linear feet. All wetlands identified within the zone of potential impact were located in Midland, Ector, Martin, Howard, Mitchell, Nolan, Taylor, Callahan, Eastland, Comanche, Erath, Bosque, Hill and Navarro Counties. By using GIS and NWI maps, the aerial extent of wetlands were calculated for each type of wetland where a polygon was located within the zone of potential impact. Rivers and streams where a line was used in GIS rather than a polygon was measured in total miles/linear feet 10-16 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL crossed within the zone of potential impact. The following table summarizes these acreages and miles of each wetland. Wetland Classification and Acreage from Frost to Odessa Wetland Polygons Wetland Lines Wetland Classification Acres Intermittent 6 3.60 342 95.65 Lower Perennial 3 85.70 26 6.88 Lacustrine Unconsolidated Shore Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Count 558.85 Count Miles 6 97.32 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 Lacustrine Open Water 1 0.17 0 0.0 Palustrine Emergent 219 478.15 0 0.0 Palustrine Forested 332 224.96 0 0.0 Palustrine Open Water 27 23.55 0 0.0 Palustrine Scrub –shrub 205 224.88 0 0.0 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 602 368.50 5 0.95 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 401 129.51 0 0.0 Total 1805 2,195.20 373 103.5 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact is compiled by MP and county on Table 10.1.1-6. 10.1.1.2.3 Geologic Hazards The geologic hazards (geohazards) discussed in this section are limited to earthquake/ seismic hazards, landslide/mass movement hazards, soil stress induced hazards (shrink-swell), faulting, subsidence, and erosion (scour) at stream crossings. Earthquake/Seismic Hazards For the purposes of this FEA, earthquake/seismic hazards are defined as those seismic events that can potentially compromise the integrity of the pipeline or can cause sufficient damage to the pipeline that may result in a release of petroleum products. A seismic event is a sudden motion or trembling of the Earth caused by the abrupt release of slowly accumulated strain in the Earth’s crust related to faulting or volcanism. Texas has a generally well-documented history of earthquakes in recent times. The earliest recorded event occurred in north Texas on October 22, 1882. The event epicenter was likely in southeastern Oklahoma or southwestern Arkansas and was generally felt over a 375,000- square kilometer area. In Sherman, Texas, the event was recorded as a magnitude 4.8 (Richter Scale). More recently, on April 14, 1995, an earthquake near Alpine, Texas, was recorded as a magnitude 5.7. This is the largest earthquake in Texas since the August 16, 1931 seismic event near Valentine. That earthquake was recorded as a magnitude 5.80, damaging many buildings in the community. The great majority of seismic events in Texas are of a magnitude 3.0 or less. 10-17 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (USGS Earthquake Data Base NEIC: Earthquake Search Results – viewed on May 26, 2011) The primary source of seismicity data for Texas is the USGS. The USGS has developed the most recent 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps for the conterminous United States based on a 2% (1 in 50), 5% (1 in 20), and 10% (1 in 10) probability of exceedance (PE) in a given 50- year period. PE is defined as the likelihood that a seismic event will occur in a 50-year period that will have an intensity greater than its associated peak ground acceleration (PGA). PGA is defined as the force related to the ground acceleration expressed as a percent of one standard Earth Gravity. The peak acceleration is the maximum acceleration experienced by a particle during the course of an earthquake motion. The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the Orion West Pipeline (Frost Station to Odessa Station). In each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along this segment of the Orion West Pipeline range from 0.01 gravity (g) to 0.05g. For example, in the area of northern Midland County (MP 0 – MP 15) along the Orion West Pipeline route, there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.05g within any given 50-year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.03g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.02g in any given 50-year period. (USGS 2008 Seismic Hazard Maps): PGA along the Orion West Pipeline Route: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 15 .05 15 303 .04 303 312 .05 PGA along the Orion West Pipeline Route: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 52 .03 52 276 .01 276 312 .03 PGA along the Orion West Pipeline Route: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 312 .02 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Mass movements of soil and rock, more commonly known as landslides, are defined as the moderately rapid to rapid (on the order of one foot per year or greater) downslope transport by means of gravitational body stresses. These landslides can result from a variety of causes, (earthquakes, excess groundwater saturation, volcanism, and human activity). Whenever the topographic landforms become too unstable to maintain that form against the force of gravity, a mass movement or landslide is the result. Landslides can be catastrophically rapid or a slow creep taking years to show appreciable movement. 10-18 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Types of mass movement that would be possible in Texas and specifically along the Orion West Pipeline route are landslides in soil or rock masses or rock falls from overlying rock bluffs or cliffs. Naturally occurring mass movements in Texas are not common because steep topography and inherently weak material must both be present for mass movements to occur. Geomorphic erosional processes produce topography that is stable under natural conditions. In other words, natural processes will produce slopes that are stable under natural conditions. Topography of the western half of the Orion West Pipeline is characterized as nearly flat plateaus of the Southern High Plains transitioning to hills and rolling plains of the western North- Central Plains. The geologic material in these regions ranges from loose sand in the west to limestone, sandstones, and shales in the east. These lithologies are more resistant to erosion and produce some dipping topography (based on aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), 1996). Pipeline hazards in these areas would be from rock falls in areas where the pipe is exposed below a steep ravine or rock bluff. The topography of eastern half of the Orion West Pipeline is characterized by the rolling hills of the eastern North-Central Plains transitioning to a plateaulike surface of the Grand Prairie where numerous streams dissect land that is mostly flat to gently sloping. The easternmost segment of the Orion West Pipeline is situated in the gently undulating surface of the Blackland Prairie. The soil materials are generally not capable of sustaining steep slopes over time. Consequently, topography is relatively flat from the eastern part of the North-Central Plains to the eastern terminus of the Orion West Pipeline at the Frost Station. The pipeline route does not cross through areas that are susceptible to naturally occurring mass movement (based on aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (University of Texas at Austin BEG, 1996). Mass movements are not uncommon in areas that have been altered by human activity such as road or railway cuts and embankments. Often these features are left with slopes steeper than the material can sustain over long-term natural processes, and eventually many of these slopes fail. Other activity, such as removal of material along the toe of a natural slope or adding significant amounts of fill to the crest of slopes, can also trigger mass movements. Faulting/Subsidence Hazards Faulting is not common in the Blackland Prairie Region of Texas; however, data from the USGS (USGS, 250,000 scale) indicates two faults occur south of the study area near MP 306. These are north-south trending normal faults that do not appear to cross the Orion West Pipeline. Faults of this nature are presumably inactive and are not likely to pose a structural concern to the pipeline. The geology and lithology beneath the Orion West Pipeline is not conducive to subsidence, and therefore, does not pose a subsidence hazard to the Orion West Pipeline. Soil Stress Hazards Soil stress hazards in the context of this document refer to stresses on the pipeline due to volume changes of the surrounding soil. 10-19 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The soil types which occur along the Orion West Pipeline from Frost Station to near the Walnut Springs Station are defined as Houston Black and exhibit characteristics conducive to volume changes associated with the shrink-swell properties (USDA, NRCS “General Soil Map of Texas”)(USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, viewed June 13, 2011). The susceptibility of these soils to volume change is based on their chemical and physical structure. Clay-rich soils are the most susceptible to moisture-related volume change. These soils shrink when dried and swell when moistened. The movements are seasonal and depend on climatic conditions. It is these shrink-swell movements that can create stresses on the pipeline system and cause movement as the soil moves. These movements are small (inches), gradual, and regional; therefore, a few inches of movement may occur over several hundred feet of pipe. The pipe is capable of sustaining these types of movement. Where pipes exit the ground at pump stations, there is a potential for localized differential movement between the pipe and the aboveground structures. Engineering controls are implemented which allow for flexibility at connections and reduce the risks of detrimental differential movement due to shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The process of scour, or washout, may occur at stream crossings typically during a flood event and pose a geologic hazard to a pipeline. The scour could remove the depth of cover, expose the pipe and/or remove needed support from the pipe, therefore threatening the integrity of the pipeline. Conditions which affect the scour potential include topography, stream velocity, soil conditions, grain size, depth of cover, pipe position, and length of pipeline exposed. If specific conditions exist common to a flood event, such as high stream velocity and absence of cover, the pipeline could float up into the stream flow and be exposed to flood velocity-induced stresses causing a leak. The Orion West Pipeline crosses a total of 314 streams. Stream crossings are commonly buried under the stream bed; therefore, the scour of material supporting and covering the pipeline has the potential to occur. The concern is whether flood-induced scouring could expose a sufficient length of pipeline to threaten pipeline integrity. Several conditions must occur concurrently in order to produce scour sufficiently to threaten pipeline integrity. Regular inspections of all stream crossings are an important form of prevention and are a required component of pipeline operation and maintenance. 10.1.1.2.4 Air Quality The EPA has established NAAQS for six “criteria” air pollutants: O3, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and Pb. NAAQS have been developed for two forms of PM: PM10 and PM2.5, which is sometimes referenced as “fine” PM. EPA has designated these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. 10-20 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The sources of the criteria air pollutants are varied. Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, but is formed at ground level through a series of complex reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) – ozone precursors – in the presence of sunlight. In the earth's lower atmosphere, this ground-level ozone, at elevated concentrations, is harmful to human health. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents, as well as natural sources, emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. PM is emitted directly from a variety of sources and is also formed in the atmosphere through chemical processes. PM is a complex mixture of small solid particles and liquid droplets that may be composed of a number of constituents, including acids (e.g., sulfates and nitrates), organic compounds, metals, and soil or dust particles. NO2 is primarily formed indirectly as a product of the emissions of fossil fuel combustion in cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment. In addition to contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone, as well as fine PM, NO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. SO2 is a direct product of the refining and combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil) that contain sulfur as a natural component. CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted as a byproduct of combustion processes (e.g., mobile sources and power plants). The most significant sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles (more specifically, the lead additives in vehicle fuels) and industrial sources (e.g., lead smelters). County or multi-county areas of a state, such as Texas, where measured ambient levels of a criteria pollutant exceed a NAAQS (based on a statistical analysis of the data), are considered to be in “nonattainment” of that pollutant’s NAAQS, and are formally designated as nonattainment areas. Knowledge of the attainment/nonattainment status of an area can provide a representative description of the air quality in that area. The current attainment/nonattainment status of each geographic/climatic region of Texas – north central, west, and far west Texas – that encompasses the Proposed Project is discussed below. In addition to the above-described, historically-regulated criteria pollutants, EPA now regulates GHGs. The six key GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Air quality permitting is required for GHG emissions from the nation’s largest GHG sources, most notably power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. For this assessment, the primary GHGs of concern are CO2, resulting from fuel-burning in construction equipment, and methane, resulting from the transport/storage of crude oil. Emissions of these GHGs are being estimated (and presented in this FEA) for anticipated construction and operational activities associated with the Proposed Project and Connected Actions. Note that, unlike for the criteria pollutants, there are no ambient monitoring programs for GHGs that could be used to establish current background levels in the atmosphere. 10.1.1.2.5 Climate The pipeline segment included in the Orion West Expansion begins at the Frost Terminal and ends at the Odessa Station and traverses two geographic/climatic regions in Texas: north central and west Texas. The differences in climate between these regions are discussed below. 10-21 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL North Central Texas The climate of north central Texas can be characterized as humid subtropical, although the region is more continentally influenced in the winter. Winters are generally mild, but the region can experience short periods of extreme cold due to Arctic air mass intrusions from the north (sometimes called “blue northers”). Average low temperatures in the heart of winter in the Dallas-Fort Worth area reach about 36ºF in January, with average high temperatures of about 55ºF. Average maximum high temperatures in the heart of summer reach about 96ºF, although the temperature periodically exceeds 100ºF. The mean average annual temperature is about 67ºF. The mean annual wind speed for this area is about 11 mph, with the prevailing wind direction from the south, with some variance to the north in winter. Average annual rainfall for this area is about 37 inches, with most rainfall occurring in both the spring and fall seasons and associated with thunderstorm activity (NOAA, 2004; TCEQ, 1984-1992; NOAA, 2008). West Texas Moving west across Texas, along the southern extension of the South Plains of Texas, the climate transitions from humid subtropical to semi-arid continental steppe. Winters are characterized by periodic, short-term cold periods (associated with cold frontal passages) followed by rapid warming. Average low temperatures in the heart of winter in the Midland- Odessa area reach about 30ºF in January, with average high temperatures of about 57ºF. Summers are hot and dry with numerous small convective showers. In the Midland-Odessa area, average maximum high temperatures in the heart of summer reach about 94ºF, although the temperature periodically exceeds 100ºF. The mean average annual temperature is about 63ºF. The mean annual wind speed for the Midland-Odessa area is about 11 mph, with the prevailing wind direction from the south-southeast. Most of the annual precipitation in the area comes from strong spring and early summer thunderstorms. Average annual rainfall for this area is about 15 inches; the average annual snowfall total is about 5 inches. During the late winter and early spring months, blowing dust occurs frequently with visibilities generally reduced to 1 to 3 miles ((NOAA, 2004; TCEQ, 1984-1992; NOAA, 2008). 10.1.1.2.5.1 Air Quality The pipeline and support facilities (e.g., pump stations) associated with the Orion West Expansion, located between Frost and Odessa, traverses the north central and west regions of Texas. The current attainment/nonattainment status of each of these regions is discussed below. North Central Texas The pipeline and support facilities are located in an area that is designated attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants, although other areas of north central Texas are designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the Dallas-Fort Worth area (comprised of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties), is designated a “serious” nonattainment area for the 8-hr ozone standard (40 CFR 81.344). The southernmost counties of the Dallas-Fort Worth ozone nonattainment area border the attainment counties in which the Orion West Expansion is located. 10-22 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL West Texas West Texas is currently in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.344), primarily because this region has relatively little industrial development and a low population density. Based on these factors, air quality does not appear to be a concern in this region. 10.1.1.3 Ecological Resources Ecological resources pertain to biomes (communities of living organisms of a single major ecological region), flora and fauna, and threatened and endangered species that could be affected by pipeline operations, maintenance, or an accidental release of product, or construction of new pump stations, pipeline segments, bulk storage tanks, or truck unloading facilities. The following sections provide a tiered description of the ecoregions (Figure 10.1.1-9), natural regions, vegetation, and terrestrial and aquatic resources associated with the proposed Connected Actions. This assessment considers all state and federally-listed threatened or endangered species, as well as candidates for federal listing, that may potentially occur within counties that are intersected by the proposed Connected Actions. The list provided as Table 10.1.1-7 includes 41 state and federally-listed threatened or endangered species, and three candidate species for federal listing, one of which is also a state-threatened species, and one federally-proposed endangered species. 10.1.1.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Natural Regions Associated with the Orion West Expansion Proposed activities for the Orion West Expansion include the construction of two new pump stations located at DeLeon and Iatan; the expansion of storage capacity at the existing Frost Terminal; and upgrades to existing infrastructure at Walnut Springs, Clyde, Midland Basin, and Odessa Terminal. Infrastructure improvements would not require new construction and are not anticipated to impact terrestrial resources. Therefore, only new construction activities associated with Connected Actions are considered for the assessment of potentially affected terrestrial ecological resources. The Orion West Expansion study area, which starts at Frost Terminal and ends at Odessa Terminal, occurs within four of the EPA’s 12 Level III ecoregions defined for Texas; three of the state natural regions mapped by TPWD (2011) and defined by LBJ School of Public Affairs (1978); and four of the Texas vegetational areas delineated by Gould (1960) and described by Hatch et al. (1990). The Frost Terminal expansion is located within the Northern Blackland Prairies Level IV Ecoregion, a subregion of the larger Texas Blackland Prairies Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2004). This area corresponds to the Blackland Prairies Natural Region (TPWD, 2011) and the Blackland Prairies Vegetational Area (Gould, 1960; Hatch et al., 1990). 10-23 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The DeLeon Pump Station is located within the Western Cross Timbers Level IV Ecoregion, a subregion of the Cross Timbers Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2004). This location corresponds to the Oak Woods and Prairies Natural Region (TPWD, 2011) and the Cross Timbers and Prairies Vegetational Area (Gould, 1960; Hatch et al., 1990). The Iatan Pump Station is located within the Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks Level IV Ecoregion, a subregion of the Southwestern Tablelands Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2004). This area corresponds to the Rolling Plains Natural Region (TPWD, 2011) and the Rolling Plains Vegetational Area (Gould, 1960; Hatch et al., 1990). New construction modifications to the Odessa Terminal are located within the Arid Llano Estacado Level IV Ecoregion, a subregion of the High Plains Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2004). This location corresponds to the High Plains Natural Region (TPWD 2011B) and the High Plains Vegetational Area (Gould, 1960; Hatch et al., 1990). Summaries for the Level III and Level IV ecoregions are provided in the following text based primarily on descriptions by the EPA (Griffith et al., 2004), supplemented by information from the LBJ School of Public Affairs (1978) and Hatch et al. (1990). Additionally, descriptions of the Natural Regions, as they pertain to the original Longhorn Pipeline, are provided in Section 4.3 of this report. Texas Blackland Prairies Ecoregion The Texas Blackland Prairies consist of fine-textured, clayey soils constituting rolling and well- dissected prairie that represents the southern extent of the true prairie that occurs from Texas to Canada (Hatch et al. 1990, Griffith et al., 2004). Historically an extensive tallgrass prairie, the Blackland Prairie area was almost entirely converted to agriculture during the latter part of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, but has increased in pasture and forage crops since the 1950’s (Hatch et al., 1990). Few remnant native prairie patches remain, and where such patches occur, they support diverse plant assemblages and provide important avian habitat (Griffith et al., 2004). The Northern Blackland Prairie Level IV Ecoregion consists of rolling to nearly level plains that historically supported tallgrass prairie, with wooded stream bottoms composing forested riparian areas (Giffith et al., 2004). As typical for the region, most of the prairie in the Northern Blackland Prairie ecoregion has been converted to cropland, non- native pasture, and urban landcover (Griffith et al., 2004). Cross Timbers Ecoregion The Cross Timbers ecoregion is characterized as a vegetatively transitional area between agricultural lands to the west and forested regions of eastern Oklahoma and Texas to the east, and as such, exists as a mosaic of forest, woodland, savanna, and prairie blanketing irregular plains with some low hills and tablelands (Giffith et al., 2004). It represents the southern extension of the Central Lowlands and the western extreme of the Coastal Plains, and exhibits diverse contrasts in topography, soils, and vegetation due to changes in geologic formation (Hatch et al., 1990). The Western Cross Timbers Level IV Ecoregion extends across wooded areas to the west of the Grand Prairie on sandstone and shale beds typified by cuesta topography, sandstone ridges with a gentle slope on one side and a steeper scarp on the other 10-24 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (Griffith et al., 2004). Due to past mismanagement and cultivation, uplands of the region are predominantly scrublands with mid- and shortgrass understories interspersed by bottomlands historically dominated by hardwoods, such as pecan (Carya illinoinensis), various oaks, and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), but now often invaded by honey mesquite (Hatch et al., 2000). Southwestern Tablelands Ecoregion The physiography of the Southwestern Tablelands is characterized by red-hued steep canyons, escarpments, mesas, badlands, and dissected river breaks. The Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks Level IV Ecoregion encompasses the broken country that extends eastward from the eroded edge of the High Plains, and serves as the headwater basins for several major Texas rivers, such as the Colorado, Brazos, and Red (Griffith et al., 2004). The Rolling Plains Vegetational Area, within which the Southwestern Tablands primarily occur, historically supported a tallgrass/midgrass prairie, but overgrazing and cessation of wildfires has resulted in transition to shortgrasses, shrubs, and annuals (Hatch et al., 1990). Vegetational community structure varies with location: escarpments and benches typically support shrubland, with woodlands in riparian areas. Cacti, yucca, and other xeric species sparsely vegetate badlands, with grasslands in more suitable locations with lower relief (Griffith et al., 2004). High Plains Ecoregion The High Plains ecoregion is typified by smooth to slightly irregular plains with extensive landcover in cropland (Griffith et al., 2004). The High Plains Vegetational Area encompasses a relatively level plateau interspersed by shallow siltation depressions known as playa lakes that support unique vegetation patterns and species assemblages (Hatch et al., 1990). Historic vegetation of the area was largely devoid of woody shrubland and included mixed prairie, shortgrass prairie, and, on deep, sandy soils, tallgrass prairie. Invasion of sandy sites by honey mesquite and sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), along with yucca (Yucca spp.) and prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), has converted grassland to shrubland, across the High Plains (Hatch et al., 1990). The Arid Llano Estacado Level IV Ecoregion is characterized by greater broken topography, fewer playa lakes than the plain to the north, and lower precipitation, producing more arid conditions (Griffith et al., 2004). As a consequence, agriculture is less prevalent, ranching and livestock grazing are more common, and remnant grasslands are more sensitive to overgrazing and more prone to shrub invasion (Griffith et al., 2004). 10.1.1.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna Proposed new construction activities for the Orion West Expansion are located within the Kansan and Texan biotic provinces (Blair 1950). Within the Kansan province are the proposed Iatan Pump Station and the Odessa Terminal. The proposed DeLeon Pump Station and the Frost Terminal are located within the Texan biotic province. Descriptive summaries of the Kansan and Texan biotic provinces and common species which are likely to occur within the Orion West Expansion study area are presented in the following text. 10-25 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL TEXAN BIOTIC PROVINCE The Texan Biotic Province in Texas extends between the forests of the Austroriparian and Carolinian provinces of eastern Texas and Oklahoma and the grasslands of the western parts of these states. Distinct biotic districts are not defined for this province in entirety; however, the proposed DeLeon Pump Station (Comanche County) occurs within the Western Cross Timbers district and the Frost Terminal (Navarro County) within the Blackland Prairies district. Amphibians and Reptiles Five species from the order caudata (newts, sirens, and salamanders) occur within the Texan Biotic Province, including species such as smallmouth salamander (Ambystoma texanum), barred tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium), and eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) (Blair, 1950). At least 18 species from the order anura (frogs and toads) occur or have occurred in the Texan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). Common anurans of potential occurrence in Comanche and Navarro counties include Couch’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus couchii), Hurter’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus hurterii), eastern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), Cope’s gray tree frog (Hyla chrysoscelis), and spotted chorus frog (Pseudacris clarkii). At least 16 lizard species and 39 snake species occur, or have occurred, in the Texan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). Common reptile and amphibian species of potential occurrence in Comanche and Navarro counties include green anole (Anolis carolinensis), Texas greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus), Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), Texas rat snake (Pantherophis obsoletus), and eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platirhinos) (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999; Dixon, 2000). Birds Avian species of potential occurrence in Comanche and Navarro counties include many year- round residents, migrants/summer residents, and migrants/winter residents. Grassland species associated with agricultural lands are likely the most common in the general area throughout most of the year, while waterfowl and shorebirds associated with ponds are likely the most common during the winter and migration months. Common bird species of potential occurrence in Comanche and Navarro counties include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), eastern screech-owl (Megascops asio), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhunchos). Common gamebirds include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhyncos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern bobwhite (Collinus virginianus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (Blair, 1950; Schmidley, 2004). Mammals At least 49 mammalian species occur, or have occurred, in the Texan Biotic Province, of which none are restricted to the province and most of which also occur in the Austroriparian Province (Blair, 1950). Common mammals of potential occurrence in Comanche and Navarro counties include eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), fulvous harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens), and swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) (Schmidly, 2004). Common game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and squirrel (Sciurus spp). 10-26 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL KANSAN BIOTIC PROVINCE The Kansan Biotic Province in Texas extends south and east from the Oklahoma and New Mexico borders, eventually transitioning to the Chihuahuan, Balconian, and Texan biotic provinces (Blair, 1950). The Kansan includes three distinct biotic districts: the Mixed-grass Plains, Short-grass Plains, and Mesquite Plains districts (Blair, 1950). The proposed Iatan Pump Station occurs within the Mesquite Plains district, where the regional fauna consists of a mixture of eastern forest and western grassland species, of which the latter is predominant (Blair, 1950). The Odessa Terminal occurs within the Short-grass Plains biotic district (Blair, 1950). Amphibians and Reptiles Only one species from the order caudata, the barred tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium), occurs within the Kansan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). Although recent records of the smallmouth salamander (Ambystoma texanum) exist from the eastern edge of the province in Texas (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999; Dixon, 2000), only the barred tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium) is reported from Howard (Iatan Pump Station) and Ector (Odessa Terminal) counties (Dixon, 2000). At least 14 species from the order anura occur, or have occurred, in the Kansan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). Anurans of potential occurrence in Ector and Howard counties include the plains leopard frog (Rana blairi), Couch’s spadefoot, Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus), and Texas toad (Anaxyrus speciosus). At least 14 lizard species and 31 snake species occur, or have occurred, in the Kansan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). Reptile and amphibian species of potential occurrence in Ector and Howard counties include Texas spotted whiptail (Cnemidophorous gularis), Texas greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus), southern prairie lizard (Sceloparus undulates consobrinus), Kansas glossy snake (Arizona elegans), Great Plains rat snake (Elaphe guttata emoryi), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and checkered gartersnake (Thamnophis marcianus) (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999; Dixon, 2000). Birds Avian species of potential occurrence in Ector and Howard counties include many year-round residents, migrants/summer residents, and migrants/winter residents. Grassland species associated with agricultural lands are likely the most common in the general area throughout most of the year, while waterfowl and shorebirds associated with ponds are likely the most common during the winter and migration months. Common bird species of potential occurrence in Ector and Howard counties include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), scissor-tailed flycatcher (Tyrannus forficatus), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), and Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii). Common gamebirds include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhyncos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern bobwhite (Collinus virginianus), and scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) (Blair, 1950; Schmidley, 2004). Mammals At least 59 mammalian species occur, or have occurred, in the Kansan Biotic Province, of which five species are restricted to the province. These species include swift fox (Vulpes vulpes), plains pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius), plains pocket mouse (Perognathes flavescens), 10-27 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas kangaroo rat (Dipodomys elator), and Pinyon (Palo Duro) mouse (Peromyscus truei comanche) (Blair, 1950). Common mammals of potential occurrence in Ector and Howard counties include Mexican ground squirrel (Spermophilus mexicanus), plains pocket gopher, hispid cotton rat, porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), coyote, and bobcat (Lynx rufus). Common game species include white-tailed deer, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and javelina (Pecari tajacu) (Schmidley, 2004). 10.1.1.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora Two vegetation types occur within the Orion West Expansion study area (McMahan, et al, 1984). The DeLeon Pump Station and the Frost Terminal are mapped within the Crops vegetation type. The Iatan Pump Station and the Odessa Terminal are mapped within the Mesquite Shrub/Grassland vegetation type. The Crops vegetation type contains cultivated cover crops or row crops providing food and/or fiber for either man or domestic animals. This type may also portray grassland associated with crop rotations (McMahan et al., 1984). Commonly associated crops on the Rolling Plains vegetational area, within which the DeLeon Pump Station is located, include dryland and irrigated sorghum, small grain, cotton, and forages. Commonly associated crops on the High Plains, where modifications to the Odessa Terminal are proposed, include cotton, corn, sorghum, wheat, vegetables, and sugar beets (Hatch et al., 1990). Distribution of the Mesquite Shrub/Grassland vegetation type is within the High Plains, Rolling Plains, and northwestern Edwards Plateau natural regions (TPWD 2011B). The community is typified by the dominance of honey mesquite and inclusion of the following commonly associated plant species: narrow-leaf yucca (Yucca angustissima), tasajillo (Cylindropuntia leptocaulis) , juniper (Juniperus ashei), grassland prickly pear (Opuntia cymphila), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), purple three-awn (Aristida purpurea), Roemer three-awn (Aristida roemeriana), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), James rushpea (Pomaria jamesii), scurfpea (Psoralidium spp.), lemon scurfpea (Psoralidium lanceolatum), sandlily (Leucocrinum montanum), plains beebalm (Monarda pectinata), scarlet gaura (Gaura coccinea), yellow evening primrose (Oenothera flava), sandsage, and wild buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.). Field verification of terrestrial flora present at proposed new construction sites for the Orion West Expansion was performed through an aerial survey and a limited one-day site reconnaissance. The observed landcover for the Frost Terminal is primarily cropland. Agricultural croplands cover the majority of the proposed site and the immediately adjacent areas, with most fields plowed or planted in corn at the time of the site reconnaissance. Existing bulk tanks and associated industrial facilities occur to the north of the proposed site. Landcover observed for the DeLeon Pump Station is predominantly ruderal (weedy) grass and forb species within an industrial complex. A former tank farm is located on site, along with two sumps on the northwest portion of the parcel. Adjacent areas included cropland, cleared ROWs 10-28 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL that are revegetating with honey mesquite and mixed grasses, and a forested riparian corridor along the Leon River located to the west. Prevalent woody species observed within the forested riparian corridor include pecan, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigatum), with saplings and greenbriar (Smilax spp.) in the understory. Landcover observed at the Iatan Pump Station is predominantly ruderal grasses, forbs, and shrubs within an industrial complex. Existing facilities are present, including a pump house and water pump, an adjacent dry pond, pump jacks, distribution lines, and an electrical substation. Prevalent vegetation observed include low honey mesquite shrub interspersed with mixed grasses, forbs, and lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), with tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) surrounding the dry pond. Landcover observed at the existing Odessa Terminal is predominantly caliche road base within an industrial complex. Infrastructure present includes barrel tanks, pipelines, electric distribution and transmission lines, building facilities, and other structures. Terrestrial flora interspersed with caliche-surfaced or paved pads and facilities includes frequently and infrequently mowed mixed grasslands. 10.1.1.3.2 Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources within the Orion West Expansion new construction areas consist of open- water streams, ponds, playa lakes, and stock tanks, as well as other wetland features. Hydric habitats are generally associated with streams, creeks, impoundments, and topographic lows. Bottomland/riparian hardwood forests are often associated with the streams and creeks. Impoundments generally result in either permanent or ephemeral freshwater wetlands, marshes, or fringe marshes. Vegetation in open water aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow edges of the water, but may encompass vegetated wetland features, such as emergent marsh. Plant species common to this habitat type include rushes, sedges, cattails, flat-sedges, spikerushes, tamarisk, and black willow (Salix nigra). Forested riparian corridors, primarily to the east, include tree species such as pecan, green ash, American elm, eastern cottonwood, honey locust, and sugarberry. Faunal communities important in aquatic habitats include phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, infauna and epifauna, as well as nekton species. These communities vary according to aquatic habitat characteristics and the habitat requirements and distribution of species. Collectively, these species often construct complex food webs within aquatic systems. Proposed new construction activities for the Orion West Expansion include the DeLeon Pump Station, the Iatan Pump station, the Frost Terminal, and the Odessa Terminal. Aquatic habitat and species, as they pertain to each facility, are discussed in the following text individually due to the broad geographic extent over which proposed activities span. 10-29 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The Frost Terminal is located in the northern portion of the Richland Watershed in the Trinity River Basin (EPA, 2011). The Richland Watershed intersects Ellis, Freestone, Hill, Limestone, and Navarro counties, and is positioned downstream of the Chambers Watershed and upstream of the Lower Trinity-Tehuacana Watershed. Important perennial streams in the watershed include Ash Creek, Alligator Creek, Briar Creek, Crab Creek, Grape Creek, Greenbrier Creek, Richland Creek, and White Rock Creek. Numerous intermittent and perennial tributaries are associated with these features. Field survey and map review identified an unnamed ephemeral drainage on-site that is a tributary to Richland Creek, which flows into Navarro Mills Lake. Based on a review of NWI data for the general proximity, wetland features, predominantly open- water stock ponds, are common within the region, with emergent wetlands present but less common. Forested wetlands are infrequent, but found associated with nearby tributaries. Common fish species that occur in the Trinity River Basin include alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and white bass (Morone chrysops) (Thomas et al., 2007). The DeLeon Pump Station is located within the Leon Watershed of the Brazos River Basin (EPA, 2011). This watershed intersects Bell, Brown, Callahan, Comanche, Coryell, Eastland, Erath, Hamilton, McLennan, Mills, and Stephens counties, and is situated downstream of Cowhouse Watershed and upstream of Little Watershed. Major streams in the watershed include the Sabana River, the Leon River, Middle Fork Leon River, North Fork Leon River, South Fork Leon River, and South Leon River. Numerous intermittent and perennial tributaries are associated with these features. Aquatic resources were not identified within the study area during field reconnaissance. However, the perennial Leon River occurs approximately 100 feet to the west of the pump station. The Leon River flows generally south-southeast, from the pump station, emptying into Proctor Lake to the east of the town of DeLeon. Based on a review of NWI data for the general proximity, wetland features, predominantly open-water stock ponds, are common within the region, with forested and emergent wetlands present, but infrequent. Common fish species that occur in the Brazos River Basin include plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus), channel catfish, white bass, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), Guadalupe bass (Micropterus treculii ), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) (Thomas et al., 2007). The Iatan Pump Station is located in the north-central portion of the Beals Watershed in the Colorado River Basin (EPA, 2011). The Beals Watershed intersects Glasscock, Howard, Mitchell, and Sterling counties, and is positioned downstream of the Mustang Draw and Sulphur Springs Draw Watersheds and upstream of the Upper Colorado Watershed. Important streams in the watershed include Beals Creek, Hackberry Creek, Powell Creek, South Prong Creek, Dugout Creek, Dry Hollow Creek, and numerous primarily intermittent tributaries. Aquatic resources were not identified in the study area during field reconnaissance. The nearest stream feature includes an unnamed tributary to Dugout Creek, approximately one-third mile to the south. Based on a review of NWI data for the general proximity, wetland features, predominantly open-water stock ponds, are of moderate to low frequency in the surrounding region, with emergent marsh present, but extremely uncommon and other wetland types absent. Common fish species that occur in the Colorado River Basin include Texas shiner (Notropis amabilis), 10-30 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL channel catfish, western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), black crappie, and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) (Thomas et al., 2007). The Odessa Terminal is located within the south-central portion of the Johnson Draw Watershed in the Colorado River Basin (EPA, 2011). The Johnson Draw Watershed intersects Andrews, Crane, Ector, Glasscock, Martin, Midland, Upton, and Winkler counties; has no watershed upstream; and flows downstream into Mustang Draw Watershed. Stream features in the watershed are classified as intermittent and unnamed. Aquatic resources were not identified in the study area during field reconnaissance. The nearest stream feature (approximately one- tenth mile to the southwest) includes a dammed, unnamed intermittent stream and adjacent wetlands associated with Monahans Draw. Based on a review of NWI data for the general proximity, wetland features are common in the immediate area in association with Monahans Draw and industrial activity, but less common in the surrounding landscape. Wetlands associated with industrial activity are predominantly open-water features, whereas wetlands associated with Monahans Draw are predominantly palustrine scrub-shrub with some forested and emergent wetlands. 10.1.1.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Terrestrial and aquatic animal and plant species that have a federal or state status of either endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species, as indicated on the USFWS Southwest Region Ecological Services County by County List (USFWS, 2011) and on the TPWD Annotated County List of Rare Species (TPWD, 2011b) for the 14 counties associated with the Orion West Expansion are listed in Table 10.1.1-7. Inclusion in Table 10.1.1-7 does not imply that a species occurs within the respective county, but only acknowledges previous records of occurrence, or potential occurrence, based upon information available to USFWS and TPWD at the date of the preparation of this document. 10.1.1.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species Based on the USFWS and TPWD annotated county-by-county lists, 16 state and federally-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate terrestrial species may occur within counties in which new construction activities are proposed for the Orion West Expansion. Specifically, 10 species may occur in Comanche County, where the DeLeon Pump Station is located; seven species in Howard County, where the Iatan Pump Station is located; 11 species in Navarro County, where Frost Terminal is located; and seven species in Ector County, where the Odessa Terminal is located (Table 10.1.1-7). Several listed and candidate species may occur within these counties; however, avian species would be rare migrants. Candidate or listed mammals of potential occurrence are assumed extirpated from Orion West Expansion counties. Furthermore, the TPWD TXNDD does not contain recorded occurrence of listed terrestrial species within or immediately adjacent to the DeLeon Pump Station, Iatan Pump Station, Frost Terminal, or Odessa Terminal. However, field reconnaissance indicated that habitat may exist for one protected terrestrial species, Texas horned lizard, at the DeLeon Pump Station, Iatan Pump Station, and the Odessa Terminal. 10-31 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.1.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species According to USFWS and TPWD, annotated county-by-county lists, eight state- and federally- listed endangered, threatened, or candidate aquatic species may occur within counties in which new construction activities are proposed for the Orion West Expansion. Specifically, three species may occur in Comanche County where the proposed DeLeon Pump Station is located, and five species in Navarro County, where the Frost Terminal is located (Table 10.1.1-7). The TPWD TXNDD does not indicate a recorded occurrence of protected aquatic species within or immediately adjacent the DeLeon Pump Station, Iatan Pump Station, Frost Terminal, or Odessa Terminal. Field reconnaissance/habitat assessments conducted by experienced biologists did not identify habitat favorable to listed aquatic species within or immediately adjacent to these sites. Based on these observations, and the distribution of listed aquatic species for these counties, occurrence of protected aquatic species at the new construction locations for the Orion West Expansion activities is not likely. 10.1.1.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.1.4.1 Historic Properties Frost Terminal A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of two previously-recorded archeological sites within 1,250 feet of the boundaries of the existing Frost Terminal, while a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. These cultural resources and their distances from the proposed ROW are summarized below. Based on the Atlas data, the southern half of the terminal was previously surveyed in 2007 for a USACE permitted project. Documented cultural resources within 1,250 feet of the Frost Terminal Site Trinomial, Cemetery, or Historic Property Site Type NRHP Eligibility Status Distance/Direction from boundaries 41NV695 Historic homestead and debris piles Ineligible Within boundaries (likely destroyed) 41NV696 Historic farmstead Ineligible 633 feet southeast DeLeon Station A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the proposed DeLeon Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, this location has not been previously assessed for cultural resources. However, this proposed station will be located at a previously disturbed former station site. As such, the potential for intact cultural deposits is considered to be low. 10-32 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Iatan Station A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the proposed Iatan Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, this location has not been previously assessed for cultural resources. However, this proposed station will be located at a previously disturbed former station site. As such, the potential for intact cultural deposits is considered to be low. Midland Station A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the existing Midland Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, this location has not been previously assessed for cultural resources. As this is an existing pump station, the potential for intact cultural deposits is considered to be low. Odessa Terminal A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the proposed Odessa Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, this location has not been previously assessed for cultural resources. 10.1.2 ODESSA TO CRANE 10.1.2.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.1.2.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.2.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The pipeline between Odessa and Crane traverses Ector and Crane counties. The pipeline originates 0.8 miles south of the City of Odessa, southeast of the intersection of US 385 and I- 20, and terminates north of the City of Crane, approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the Crane County Airport. The pipeline is not located within the city limits of either city, and does not cross any other incorporated cities or towns. The pipeline does cross some rural residential areas, and there are some housing units within its zone of potential impact. There are no schools or hospitals located either entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact of the Odessa to Crane Pipeline. 10.1.2.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis The combined population of the two counties traversed by the pipeline was 125,288 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). By 2009, the combined populations of these counties had 10-33 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL increased by 10.8% to 138,790 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). According to the TWDB, the combined populations of these counties are expected to continue to increase, reaching 159,432 by 2030 (an increase of 14.9%) (TWDB, 2011). To determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, the block groups within the zone of potential impact were identified. The identified block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.2-1. The total population of the block groups within the zone of potential impact was 3,856 in 2000, or 3.1% of the total population of the combined counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 10.1.2.1.2 Transportation Networks The proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline crosses one federal highway, one state highway, and one FM road. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets and county roads. No railroads are crossed. Highway crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.2.1.3 Land Use Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD was obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the pipeline. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the Odessa to Crane Pipeline. Land Use Type Acreage Percentage Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 50.5 0.5% Cultivated Crops 4.7 0.0% Developed, High Intensity 7.1 0.1% Developed, Low Intensity 54.1 0.5% Developed, Medium Intensity 7.0 0.1% Developed, Open Space 117.6 1.2% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 6.8 0.1% Grassland/Herbaceous 954.4 9.7% Scrub-Shrub 8666.0 87.7% Woody Wetlands 17.2 0.2% Total 9,885.2 100.0% As shown above, the majority of the area traversed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact (87.7%) is categorized as scrub-shrub Parks and Natural Areas No parks or natural areas are entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact. 10.1.2.1.4 Environmental Justice As in the population density analysis above, to determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, BG data were retrieved for the zone of potential impact. Of the three block groups within the zone of potential impact, one was identified as minority, and none were 10-34 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL identified as low-income. The three block groups are shown in Figure 10.1.2-1, and information regarding the BG identified as minority is provided in the table below. Environmental Justice Populations along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Geography Total Population Percent Minority Median Household Income¹ Ector County 121,123 48.7% $31,152 BG 4, CT 3 2,175 76.5% $29,879 ¹In 1999 dollars Most of the minority individuals of BG 4, CT 3 were identified as Hispanic or Latino, an ethnic group which is increasing in population in the State of Texas. While this block group does have a high percentage of minority individuals, it is not greater than twice the percentage minority for the county overall (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). However, because of the presence of a potential EJ population, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out in Section 10.3.2.1.4 of this document. 10.1.2.2 Physical Resources 10.1.2.2.1 Groundwater Resources There are three major aquifers and one minor aquifer beneath the Odessa Station (See Figures 10.1.1-2 and 10.1.1-3). At the surface is the Southern Ogallala Aquifer (see description in Section 10.1.1.2.1) which produces very little water to wells. Underlying the Southern Ogallala Aquifer and outcropping to the south of Odessa (approximately 5 miles south of the Odessa Station) is the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer (see description in Section 10.1.1.2.1). At approximately the 3.5 MP, the Pecos Valley Aquifer (see description in Section 10.1.1.2.1) overlies the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Beneath all of these aquifers along the length of the Odessa to Crane Pipeline is the Dockum Aquifer (Subcrop) (see description in Section 10.1.1.2.1), classified as a minor aquifer. Table 10.1.2-1 summarizes the aquifers associated with the Connected Action. 10.1.2.2.2 Surface Water Description of Surface Water Resources The Odessa to Crane Pipeline intersects the following major river basins, from north (Odessa Terminal) to south (Crane Station): Colorado River and the Rio Grande River Basin. This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, and canals or ditches) that either cross the pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline, but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location is the NHD provided by the USGS. 10-35 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and are not included in this FEA assessment: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The Odessa to Crane Pipeline is located within two major river basins. From north to south these river basins are the Colorado (MP 29.3 – 20.2) and the Rio Grande (MP 20.2 – 0). There are no steams that would be considered to be major located along the pipeline route through these basins. In addition, there are no perennial streams or lakes along this pipeline segment. The only water bodies consist of intermittent streams: Monahans Draw and Landreth Draw. Monahans Draw generally has standing water in the area near the pipeline crossing as a result of the discharge of treated sanitary water from the Odessa Publicly Owned Treatment Works located upstream. A description of these water bodies in order of occurrence from north to south is provided below: Monahans Draw: Monahans Draw is located within the western portion of the Colorado River Basin. The draw begins approximately five miles north of Penwell in central Ector County and runs east for 53 miles to its mouth on Midland Draw located north of Interstate Highway 20 in northeast Midland County. The draw is composed of sand substrate with sandy soil. It is a freshwater marsh during wet periods. Thickets of oak grow along its banks. Monahans Draw crosses the Odessa to Crane Pipeline at MP 28.8. Landreth Draw: Landreth Draw is located within the Rio Grande River Basin, and consists of a valley with an intermittent stream. The draw originates in southeastern Ector County and runs southwest 38 miles to its mouth on the Pecos River, 2½ miles west of the Bayview oilfield located in southeastern Crane County. Its course crosses flat to steep-sloped terrain characterized by caliche, windblown sand, sand dunes, and wash deposits. Landreath Draw crosses the Odessa to Crane Pipeline at MP 0.9. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings The general water quality of the water bodies along the proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307. Table 10.1.2-2 provides the water quality data for the Classified TCEQ Water Segments that are applicable to the water bodies that cross or come in contact with the zone of potential impact along the pipeline route. The table provides the range in MPs that are applicable to each Classified Water Quality Segment. Although not every water body in the State is identified as being or is located within a classified segment, the TCEQ assumes the water quality to be same as that of the classified segment for all tributaries or streams that tie into the nearest classified segment for purposes of preparing TPDES permits. The TCEQ stream segments that are within the zone of potential impact of the pipeline are listed below in numerical order: 10-36 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 1412 2311 SEGMENT NO. SEGMENT DESCRIPTION Colorado River Below Lake J. B. Thomas - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Little Silver Creek in Coke County to Colorado River Dam in Scurry County Upper Pecos River - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Independence Creek in Crockett /Terrell County to Red Bluff Dam in Loving / Reeves County Review of these water quality data indicates that both of the above-listed segments are suitable for contact recreation and that neither is considered to be a suitable source of public water supply. The Rio Grande segment is a poorer water quality with regard to total dissolved solids (TDS). Another important aspect of water quality concerns are those water bodies that have been identified by the TCEQ to be impaired. In this regard, the TCEQ maintains what is referred to as a TMDL Program that is authorized by and created to fulfill the requirements of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. There are no water bodies along this pipeline segment that have associated TMDLs. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD Dataset information previously discussed, there are two water bodies that either cross or are within the zone of potential impact of the Odessa to Crane pipeline. None of these are classified as perennial streams, two are intermittent streams, and none are canals. Both of the intermittent streams cross the pipeline. Table 10.1.2-3 provides a listing of the surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact, the locations of the water body entries into the zone of potential impact, the location of pipeline crossings, the names of the water bodies, and the length of water body segment within the zone of potential impact. In some cases there are multiple points of entry within the zone of potential impact that are associated with such causes as stream meandering, paralleling of the zone of potential impact, the irregular shape of some portions of the zone of potential impact, and the presence of multiple tributaries. Potentially vulnerable public drinking water surface water resources along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline route were evaluated separately. The TCEQ and the USGS developed procedures to assess the susceptibility of PWS source waters to 227 selected drinking water contaminants. The procedures are discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.3. The locations of PWS along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline were obtained from the most recent, i.e., May 2011, version of the TCEQ Source Water Assessment Viewer files. The viewer contains the spatial datasets used and created during a source water susceptibility assessment process that was conducted by the TCEQ. These files were then imported into the GIS database depicting the location of the Odessa to Crane pipeline and the boundaries of the zone 10-37 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL of potential impact along the pipeline path. The exact locations of all PWS intakes with an API within the zone of potential impact were then evaluated. Based upon this evaluation, there are no PWS intakes with an API within the Odessa to Crane zone of potential impact. Wetlands An inventory of wetlands present within the zone of potential impact from Odessa to Crane shows that 19 wetlands, consisting of approximately 27.69 acres, are present. This inventory also shows a total of one stream location accounting for approximately 0.16 miles or 844.8 linear feet. FWS NWI maps were evaluated through GIS to determine specific numbers (density per linear mile), types, and aerial extent of wetlands that are located within the zone of potential impact along the entire pipeline. NWI maps at a scale of 1:24,000 for the entire route from Odessa to Crane were used for this evaluation. Only two types of wetlands (lacustrine and palustrine) were identified within the zone of potential impact from Odessa to Crane. No wetlands were identified from MP 0–10. Six wetlands were identified from MP 10-20, accounting for 10.12 acres. The greatest concentration of wetlands along the pipeline (approximately 1.5 per linear mile) is located between MP 20 and MP 29, accounting for 17.56 acres. One stream was also identified between MP 20-29 accounting for 0.16 miles or 844.8 linear feet. All wetlands identified along the study area were located in Ector and Crane Counties. By using GIS and NWI maps, the aerial extent of wetlands was calculated for each type of wetland where a polygon was located within the zone of potential impact. Rivers and streams where a line was used in GIS rather than a polygon was measured in total miles/linear feet crossed within the zone of potential impact. Below is a table which shows these acreages and miles of each wetland. Wetland Classification and Acreage from Odessa to Crane Wetland Polygons Wetland Lines Wetland Classification Count Acres Count Miles Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 2.24 0 0 Palustrine Emergent 1 0.72 0 0 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 6 5.17 0 0 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 11 19.54 1 0.16 Total 19 27.69 1 0.16 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact is compiled by MP and county on Table 10.1.2-4. 10-38 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.2.2.3 Geologic Hazards Earthquake/Seismic Hazards The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the Odessa to Crane Pipeline. On each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along the pipeline route range from 0.02g to 0.05g. For the entire pipeline route from Odessa to Crane (MP 0 – MP 29.3), there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.05g within any given 50- year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.03g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.02g in any given 50-year period. (USGS, 2008) PGA along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Route: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 29.26 .05 PGA along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Route: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 29.26 .03 PGA along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Route: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 29.26 .02 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Flat to gently sloping topography is observed in the area of this proposed pipeline (Southern High Plains in Ector and Crane Counties). The geology (eolian silts and fine sands) consists of soil materials which are generally not capable of sustaining steep slopes over time. The pipeline route does not cross through areas that are susceptible to naturally occurring landslides or mass movement (per aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (BEG, 1996). Faulting/Subsidence Hazards Surface faults are not common in the Southern High Plains Region of Texas. Data from the USGS (USGS, 250K scale) indicates no surface expressions of faults in the region. Subsidence may occur as groundwater or oil/gas are extracted from the subsurface. The region surrounding this proposed pipeline segment is heavily developed with oil and gas exploration and production. As pore water pressures decrease in these formations due to pumping, the effective overburden stress increases, potentially resulting in consolidation. The result of the subsurface consolidation may result in collapse of the overlying strata, and be expressed at the ground surface as a sinkhole. While there are no documented sinkholes in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline, sinkholes are known to occur in the region. Soil Stress Hazards The soil types which occur along the proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline do not exhibit the shrink-swell properties that result in substantial volume changes (USDA, NRCS “General Soil 10-39 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Map of Texas”) (USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey). This section of the pipeline is not at risk of detrimental differential movement due to the shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline crosses a total of 6 streams. Stream crossings are commonly buried under the stream bed; therefore, the scour of material supporting and covering the pipeline has the potential to occur. The concern is whether flood-induced scouring could expose sufficient length of pipeline to threaten pipeline integrity. Several conditions must occur concurrently in order to produce scour sufficient to threaten pipeline integrity. Regular inspections of all stream crossings are an important form of prevention, and are a required component of pipeline operation and maintenance. 10.1.2.2.4 Air Quality 10.1.2.2.4.1 Climate The pipeline between Odessa and Crane and associated support facilities are located in the west Texas region. This region experiences a semi-arid continental steppe climate. Winters are characterized by periodic, short-term cold periods (associated with cold frontal passages) followed by rapid warming. Average low temperatures in the heart of winter in the Midland- Odessa area reach about 30 ºF in January, with average high temperatures of about 57 ºF. Summers are hot and dry with numerous small convective showers. In the Midland-Odessa area, average maximum high temperatures in the heart of summer reach about 94 ºF, although the temperature periodically exceeds 100 ºF. The mean average annual temperature is about 63 ºF. The mean annual wind speed for the Midland-Odessa area is about 11 mph, with the prevailing wind direction from the south-southeast. Most of the annual precipitation in the area comes from strong spring and early summer thunderstorms. Average annual rainfall for this area is about 15 inches; the average annual snowfall total is about 5 inches. During the late winter and early spring months, blowing dust occurs frequently with visibilities generally reduced to 1 to 3 miles (NOAA, 2004; TCEQ, 1984-1992; NOAA, 2008). 10.1.2.2.4.2 Air Quality The west Texas region is currently in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.344), primarily because the area has relatively little industrial development and a low population density. Based on these factors, air quality does not appear to be a concern in this region. 10.1.2.3 Ecological Resources 10.1.2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Natural Regions Associated with Odessa to Crane Study Area The Odessa to Crane study area occurs within two EPA Level IV ecoregions of Texas; two of the state natural regions mapped by TPWD (2011) and defined by LBJ School of Public Affairs 10-40 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (1978); and two of the Texas vegetational areas delineated by Gould (1960) and described by Hatch et al. (1990). The proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline is located within, from north to south, the Arid Llano Estacado and Shinnery Sands Level IV ecoregions, components of the High Plains Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2004). This location corresponds to the High Plains and Trans Pecos natural regions (TPWD, 2011) (Figure 10.1.1-9). According to Gould (1960), the route also intersects the High Plains and Trans-Pecos vegetational areas of Texas, as characterized by Hatch et al. (1990). Descriptive summaries for the High Plains Level III Ecoregion and the Arid Llano Estacado Level IV Ecoregion are provided under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (Section 10.1.1.4.1). The Shinnery Sands Level IV Ecoregion is described below. High Plains Ecoregion The High Plains ecoregion is typified by smooth to slightly irregular plains with extensive landcover in cropland (Griffith et al., 2004). The High Plains Vegetational Area encompasses a relatively level plateau interspersed by shallow siltation depressions known as playa lakes that support unique vegetation patterns and species assemblages (Hatch et al., 1990). Historic vegetation of the area was largely devoid of woody shrubland and included mixed prairie, shortgrass prairie, and, on deep, sandy soils, tallgrass prairie. Invasion of sandy sites by honey mesquite and sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), along with yucca (Yucca spp.) and prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), has converted grassland to shrubland across the High Plains (Hatch et al., 1990). The Arid Llano Estacado Level IV Ecoregion is characterized by greater broken topography, fewer playa lakes than the plain to the north, and lower precipitation, producing more arid conditions (Griffith et al., 2004). As a consequence, agriculture is less prevalent, ranching and livestock grazing are more common, and remnant grasslands are more sensitive to overgrazing and more prone to shrub invasion (Griffith et al., 2004). Shinnery Sands Ecoregion The Shinnery Sands Level IV Ecoregion, at the western edge of the High Plains, is characterized by disjunct areas of sand hills and dunes, as well as flat sandy recharge areas, subject to aeolian processes. This ecoregion is commonly vegetated by Havard shin oak brush (Quercus havardii) and sand sagebrush, with prairie grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Dune areas are often sparsely vegetated (Griffith et al., 2004). 10.1.2.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna The Odessa to Crane Pipeline route includes habitat within the Short-grass Plains District of the Kansan Biotic Province (Blair, 1950). A descriptive summary of this biotic province, and general terrestrial fauna, is presented under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (Section 10.1.1.3.1.1). Representative amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species that are likely to occur within the Odessa to Crane study area are also provided in Section 10.1.1.3.1.1. 10-41 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.2.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora The following vegetation types occur within the Odessa to Crane study area: Havard shin oak brush, Havard shin oak-mesquite brush, mesquite-juniper shrub, mesquite-lotebush brush, and mesquite shrub/grassland (McMahan, 1984). General description for the mesquite shrub/grassland vegetation type is provided under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (Section 10.1.1.3.1.2). The following vegetation types occur within the Odessa to Crane study area: Havard shin oak brush, Havard shin oak-mesquite brush, mesquite-juniper shrub, mesquite-lotebush brush, and mesquite shrub/grassland. Commonly associated plant assemblages with the Havard shin oak brush, Havard shin oak-mesquite brush, mesquite-lotebush brush, and mesquite-juniper shrub vegetation types are summarized below based on McMahan et al. (1984). The Havard shin oak brush vegetation type primarily occurs on sandy soil in Andrews, Crane, Ward, and Winkler counties. Plant species commonly associated with Havard shin oak include catclaw (Acacia greggii), bush morning-glory (Ipomea leptophylla), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), sandsage, honey mesquite, hooded windmillgrass (Chloris cucullata), sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii), big sandreed (Calamovilfa gigantea), false buffalograss (Monroa squarrosa), spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus), giant dropseed (Sporobolus giganteus), mesa dropseed (Sporobolus flexuosus), narrowleaf sand verbena (Abronia angustifolia), sweet sand verbena (Abronia fragrans), sand dune spurge (Euphorbia trichotoma), firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella), and plains sunflower (Helianthus petiolaris). The Havard shin oak-mesquite brush vegetation type typically occurs on sandy soils in the western Rolling Plains and southwestern High Plains vegetational areas. Havard shin oak and honey mesquite are the dominant species, with commonly associated plant species including: sandsage, catclaw, yucca, giant dropseed, sand dropseed, Indiangrass, silver bluestem (Bothriochloa laguroides), sand bluestem, little bluestem, Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis), fox glove (Digitalis spp.), and yellow evening primrose. The mesquite-juniper shrub vegetation type typically occurs on mesas and hillsides of the western Edwards Plateau Natural Region (LBJ, 1978; TPWD, 2011). Commonly associated plant species include lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), shin oak, sumac (Rhus spp.), Texas prickly pear (Opuntia engelmannii var. lindheimeri), tasajillo, kidney-wood (Eysenhardtia texana), agarito (Berberis trifoliolata), redbud (Cercis canadensis), yucca, Linheimer’s silktassel (Garrya ovata spp. lindheimeri), Texas sotol (Dasylirion texanum), catclaw, Mexican persimmon (Diospyros texana), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), Texas grama (Bouteloua rigidiseta), hairy grama, curly mesquite (Hilaria belangeri), buffalograss, and hairy tridens (Erioneuron pilosum). The mesquite-lotebush brush vegetation type typically occurs in the northeastern Trans-Pecos, northwestern Edwards Plateau, Rolling Plains, and western Cross Timbers and Prairies. This vegetation type is dominated by honey mesquite and lotebush, yet commonly associated with yucca, skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), agarito, elbowbush (Forestiera pubescens), juniper, tasajillo, cane beard-grass (Bothriochloa barbinodis), little bluestem, sand dropseed, Texas 10-42 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL grama, side-oats grama, hairy grama, tobosagrass (Pleuraphis mutica), buffalograss, Texas wintergrass (Nasella leucotricha), purple three-awn, Englemann’s daisy (Engelmannia peristenia), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and bitterweed (Hymenoxys spp.). Descriptions of the existing flora are provided for the Odessa Station and Crane Station under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (Section 10.1.1.3.1.2), based on a one-day field reconnaissance. Existing vegetation along the proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline was similar to the vegetation at the Odessa Terminal, Crane Station, and Midland Station, which consisted of mesquite brushland/grassland and Havard shin oak/mesquite brush. Plant species typical of more mesic sites in the area were present where the proposed pipeline intersects drainages, including Monahans Draw immediately south of the Odessa Station, and Landreths Draw north of the Crane Station. No croplands appear to be intersected by the proposed Odessa to Crane Pipeline. The surrounding landcover predominantly consists of oil and gas well pads, access roads, and some residential development. 10.1.2.3.2 Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources within the Odessa to Crane new construction areas consist of open-water streams, ponds, and stock tanks, as discussed in Section 10.1.2.2.2. Hydric habitats are generally associated with streams, creeks, impoundments, and topographic lows. Narrow riparian communities are often associated with the streams and creeks. Within arid regions of west Texas, impoundments generally result in ephemeral freshwater wetlands, marshes, or fringe marshes. The Odessa Terminal is located within the south-central portion of the Johnson Draw Watershed in the Colorado River Basin. The Crane Pump Station is located within the Landreth- Monument Draws Watershed in the Rio Grande River Basin, as discussed in Section 10.1.2.2.2. The existing refined product pipeline intersects both the Johnson Draw Watershed in the Colorado River Basin and the Landreth-Monument Draws Watershed in the Rio Grande River Basin (EPA, 2011). Streams intersected by the pipeline include Monahans Draw and Landreth Draw. Based on a review of available NWI data for the general proximity, wetland features are infrequent. 10.1.2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Terrestrial and aquatic animal and plant species that have a federal or state status of either endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species, as indicated on the USFWS Southwest Region Ecological Services County by County List (USFWS, 2011) and on the TPWD Annotated County List of Rare Species (TPWD 2011b) for Crane and Ector counties, are listed in Table 10.1.1-7. Inclusion in Table 10.1.1-7 does not imply that a species occurs within the respective county, but only acknowledges previous records of occurrence, or potential occurrence, based upon information available to USFWS and TPWD as of the date of the preparation of this FEA. 10-43 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.2.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species Based on the USFWS and TPWD annotated county-by-county lists, 10 state- and federally- listed endangered, threatened, or candidate terrestrial species may occur within counties in which new construction activities are proposed for the Odessa to Crane Connection Action. Specifically, seven species may occur in Ector County, where the Odessa Terminal and a portion of the proposed pipeline are located, and nine species may occur in Crane County, where the Crane Station and a portion of the proposed pipeline are located (Table 10.1.1-7). Several listed and candidate species may occur within these counties; however, avian species would be rare migrants. Of the candidate or listed mammals of potential occurrence, the gray wolf and black-footed ferret are assumed extirpated from Odessa and Crane counties, and habitat does not exist in the study area for the black bear. Furthermore, TXNDD does not contain recorded occurrence of listed terrestrial species within, or immediately adjacent to, the Odessa Terminal, the proposed pipeline, or the Crane Station. However, field reconnaissance indicated that habitat exists for one protected terrestrial species, Texas horned lizard, at the Odessa Terminal, the Crane Station, and along the existing Odessa to Crane Pipeline. Two Texas horned lizards were observed within the existing Magellan Pipeline ROW during the field reconnaissance. The distribution of the Texas horned lizard extends throughout the western half of Texas and includes a variety of habitats, though arid and semi-arid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sandy soils that support patchy bunchgrasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs are preferred by the species (Henke and Fair, 1998; TPWD, 2009). 10.1.2.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species According to USFWS and TPWD annotated county-by-county lists, three state- and federally- listed endangered, threatened, or candidate aquatic species may occur within counties in which new construction activities are proposed for the Odessa to Crane Connected Action. Specifically, three species may occur in Crane County, where a portion of the proposed pipeline ROW and Crane Station are located (Table 10.1.1-7), but no protected aquatic species are listed as known to occur, or potentially occur, in Ector County. Additionally, the TXNDD does not indicate a recorded occurrence of protected aquatic species within, or immediately adjacent to, the proposed pipeline ROW and the Crane Station. Field reconnaissance for the Odessa Terminal, and aerial photo-interpretation for the Crane Station and the existing pipeline ROW, did not suggest the occurrence of listed aquatic species within, or immediately adjacent to, these sites. Based on these observations, and the distribution of listed aquatic species for these counties, occurrence of protected aquatic species along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline is not likely. 10.1.2.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.2.4.1 Historic Properties Odessa Terminal A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the existing Odessa Station. 10-44 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, this location has not been previously assessed for cultural resources. However, based on the historic industrial activity at this facility, the possibility of intact buried cultural deposits that maintain their integrity is very low. Odessa to Crane Pipeline A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of two previously-recorded archeological sites within 1,250 feet of the Odessa to Crane Pipeline centerline, while a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within 1,250 feet of the existing centerline. These cultural resources and their distances from the proposed ROW are summarized below. Based on the Atlas data, portions of the ROW follow an existing ROW that was previously surveyed in 1998 for the University of Texas (UT). The northern extent of the ROW deviates away from previously surveyed ROW and does not appear to have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Documented cultural resources within 1,250 feet of Odessa to Crane Pipeline centerline Site Trinomial, Cemetery, or Historic Property Site Type NRHP Eligibility Status Distance/Direction from Centerline 41GR25 Prehistoric campsite Ineligible 150.0 feet east 41GR24 Prehistoric campsite Ineligible 215.0 feet west Crane Station A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the existing Crane Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. This is an existing, previously disturbed facility that was previously assessed for cultural resources by TAS in 1998. 10.1.3 EL PASO GATEWAY 10.1.3.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.1.3.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.3.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline is located in El Paso County, approximately 2 miles east of the City of El Paso. The proposed pipeline is located in an area of scattered industrial development with no identified housing units. No communities (incorporated or unincorporated) or subdivisions are crossed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact. 10-45 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL There are no schools or hospitals located either entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact of the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline. 10.1.3.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis The population of El Paso County was 679,622 in 2000, and had increased to an estimated 751,296 in 2009 (an increase of 10.5%). The TWDB predicts that El Paso County’s population will reach 1,141,414 by 2030, an increase of 67.9% over its 2000 population (TWDB, 2011). To determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, the block groups within the zone of potential impact were identified. The identified block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.3-1. The total population of the block groups within the zone of potential impact was 14,758 in 2000, or 2.3% of the total population of El Paso County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 10.1.3.1.2 Transportation Networks The proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline crosses one federal highway and several city streets, and county roads. No state highways or state-designated FM or Ranch roads are crossed. The pipeline does not cross any railroads. Highway crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.3.1.3 Land Use Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD was obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the pipeline. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline. Land Use Type Acreage Percentage Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 41.9 2.3% Developed, Low Intensity 16.0 0.9% Developed, Medium Intensity 1.6 0.1% Developed, Open Space 36.1 2.0% Grassland/Herbaceous 68.1 3.8% Scrub-Shrub 1,625.9 90.9% Total 1,789.6 100.0% As shown above, the majority of the area traversed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact (90.9%) is categorized as scrub-shrub. Parks and Natural Areas No parks or natural areas are entirely or partially located within the zone of potential impact. 10-46 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.3.1.4 Environmental Justice Population Percent Minority Median Household Income¹ 679,622 83.0% $31,051 As in the population density analysis above, to determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, BG data were retrieved for the zone of potential impact. Of the two BG within the zone of potential impact, both were identified as minority and neither was identified as low-income. A summary of these block groups is provided below, and these block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.3-1. Environmental Justice Populations along the Proposed El Paso Gateway Geography El Paso County BG 1, CT 103.18 ¹In 1999 dollars While the two block groups do have high percentages of minority individuals, they are not substantially higher than the percentage of minority persons for the county overall. The pipeline is also located in an industrialized/undeveloped area and is not in proximate to any housing developments. Because the entire pipeline is in an area of high minority population (El Paso County), there would be no disproportionate impact to the minority BG adjacent to the proposed pipeline. 6,472 80.2% $26,404 BG 2, CT 103.20 8,286 93.3% $32,429 10.1.3.2 Physical Resources 10.1.3.2.1 Groundwater Resources The El Paso Gateway Pipeline route lies entirely on the outcrop of the Hueco Bolson Aquifer, as described below (Figure 10.1.1-2). Table 10.1.3-1 provides a summary of the aquifer associated with this Connected Action. Hueco Bolson Aquifer The Hueco Bolson Aquifer is located in El Paso and Hudspeth counties in the far western tip of Texas. The aquifer is composed of Tertiary and Quaternary basin-fill (bolson) deposits that extend northward into New Mexico and westward into Mexico. The Hueco Bolson, east of the Franklin Mountains, is the principal aquifer in the El Paso area. Almost 90% of the water pumped from the aquifer is used for municipal supply, primarily for the City of El Paso. Across the international border, water for Ciudad Juarez is supplied from the Hueco Bolson. The Hueco Bolson is approximately 9,000 feet in total thickness and consists of silt, sand, and gravel in the upper part, and clay and silt in the lower part. Fresh to slightly saline water is found in the upper several hundred feet of the aquifer. The majority of the Hueco Bolson Aquifer water in Texas occurs in the El Paso metropolitan area; very little occurs in Hudspeth County. The chemical quality of the groundwater in the Hueco Bolson Aquifer differs according to its location and depth. Dissolved solids concentrations in the upper, fresher part of the aquifer range from less than 500 mg/l to more than 1,500 mg/l, averaging about 640 mg/l. Large-scale 10-47 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL ground-water withdrawals have increased the deterioration of water quality of this aquifer and are depleting the fresh water found in the aquifer. Historical large-scale groundwater withdrawals, especially from municipal well fields in the downtown areas of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, have caused major water level declines. These declines, in turn, have significantly changed the direction of flow, flow rate, and chemical quality of groundwater in the aquifer. Declining water levels have also resulted in a minor amount of land-surface subsidence. There are no PWS wells located in the Hueco Bolson Aquifer with capture zones located in the zone of potential impact. 10.1.3.2.2 Surface Water Description of Surface Water Resources This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals or ditches) that either cross the El Paso Gateway Pipeline or that are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location was obtained from the NHD provided by the USGS. The NHD is a digital vector dataset used by GIS. As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and are not included in this FEA assessment: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The El Paso Gateway Pipeline is located completely within the Rio Grande River Basin. There are no water bodies located along the pipeline route through this portion of the basin. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings There are no water bodies that cross or come in contact with the zone of potential impact along the pipeline route. The water quality applicable to this pipeline segment would be same as that for TCEQ Water Quality Segment No. 2307 which is presented in Table 10.1.4-2. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD Dataset information previously discussed, there are no surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact. Wetlands NWI maps at a scale of 1:24,000 for the entire route from El Paso Terminal to the proposed Gateway were used in this evaluation. The NWI maps did not show any wetland types along the proposed corridor. A field survey conducted on April 29, 2011 confirmed that no wetlands or 10-48 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL waters of the U.S. are present within the zone of potential impact along the proposed pipeline ROW. 10.1.3.2.3 Geologic Hazards Earthquake/Seismic Hazards The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline. On each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along the pipeline route range from 0.05g to 0.18g. For the entire length of the El Paso Gateway Pipeline route, there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.18g within any given 50-year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.07g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.05g in any given 50-year period. (USGS, 2008) PGA along the El Paso Gateway Pipeline: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.4 .18 PGA along the El Paso Gateway Pipeline: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.4 .07 PGA along the El Paso Gateway Pipeline: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.4 .05 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Flat topography is observed in the area of this pipeline (within the flat basin portion of the Basin and Range Province within El Paso County). The geology (windblown sand deposits) consists of soil materials which are generally not capable of creating or sustaining steep slopes over time. The pipeline route does not cross through areas that are susceptible to naturally-occurring landslides or mass movement (per aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (BEG, 1996). Faulting/Subsidence Hazards Surface faults are common in the Basin and Range Region of Texas. Data from the USGS (USGS, 250K scale) indicate two scarps (surface expressions of fault) along the proposed ROW for the pipeline. Several north-south trending faults are mapped in the vicinity of the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline and El Paso Terminal. The faults are thought to be tectonic in nature and a result of the tilting of the adjacent mountains (Collins, Raney BEG, 2000 Geo Map). Much of the scarp is sand-covered and not discernible. Subsidence may occur in the region of the proposed pipeline as the underlying strata are composed of unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel. The region surrounding this proposed pipeline segment has several public groundwater supply wells. As pore water pressures 10-49 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL decrease in these formations due to pumping, the effective overburden stress increases potentially resulting in consolidation. The result of the subsurface consolidation may result in compaction of the underlying unconsolidated sediment, and be expressed at the ground surface as regional subsidence and aseismic faulting. Aseismic faulting occurs in unique geologic settings characterized by unconsolidated sediment such as those found in the basin floor of a basin and range province and the Coastal Bend region of Texas. The geology beneath the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline is characterized by a lithologic unit comprised of unconsolidated sands, clays, and gravels. Subsidence in the El Paso region has been documented to occur; however, the rates of subsidence are measured on a scale of several inches. The movement caused by the subsidence generally occurs over a large area, and does not pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Soil Stress Hazards The El Paso Gateway Pipeline is not located in materials that exhibit substantial volume changes due to the shrink-swell properties of the soils (USDA, NRCS “General Soil Map of Texas”) (USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey). This section of the pipeline is not at risk of detrimental differential movement due to the shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The El Paso Gateway Pipeline does not cross any streams; therefore, scour does not present a geologic hazard to the El Paso Gateway Pipeline. 10.1.3.2.4 Air Quality 10.1.3.2.4.1 Climate The proposed new pipeline to Gateway Junction is located in far west Texas (El Paso). The climate of far west Texas, including the El Paso area, is arid subtropical, characterized by an abundance of sunshine throughout the year (84% of the time), high daytime summer temperatures, very low humidity, little rainfall, and a relatively mild winter season. Winter days are fairly mild, with average high temperatures of about 57 ºF in January, and average low temperatures of about 33 ºF. Summers are hot with very low humidity. In the El Paso area, average maximum high temperatures in the heart of summer reach about 95 ºF, although the temperature frequently rises above 100 ºF. The mean annual average temperature is about 65 ºF. The mean annual wind speed for this area is about 9 mph, with the prevailing wind direction varying by the time of the year, being from the west during the late winter/spring, from the southeast during the summer/early fall, and from the north during late fall/winter. Precipitation levels in the El Paso area are extremely low, making the climate semi-arid at times. Average annual rainfall for this area is about 9 inches; the average annual snowfall total is about 6 inches (NOAA, 2004; TCEQ, 1984-1992; NOAA, 2008). 10-50 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.3.2.4.2 Air Quality In far west Texas, only a portion of El Paso County is designated as a nonattainment area for a NAAQS (40 CFR 81.344). Specifically, the City of El Paso is designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area for PM10. Although designated by EPA to be in attainment of the 8-hr ozone NAAQS, exceedances of the standard have been measured (as recently as 2008) at one or more ambient monitors in El Paso County since promulgation of the standard (TCEQ, 2012). The far west Texas region is currently designated to be in attainment of all other NAAQS. 10.1.3.3 Ecological Resources 10.1.3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources The only natural region traversed by the El Paso Gateway Pipeline is Trans-Pecos Region (Figure 10.1.1-9). The Trans Pecos is perhaps the most complex of all the regions of Texas. It occupies the extreme western part of the state eastward generally to the Pecos River. This is a region of diverse habitats and vegetation, varying from the desert valleys and plateaus to wooded mountain slopes. Elevations range from 2,500 feet to more than 8,749 feet at Guadalupe Peak. Even the mountain ranges vary greatly in the environments for plant and animal life. Some are characterized by volcanic rocks, others by limestone. Over most of the area, average annual rainfall is less than 12 inches, but varies greatly from year to year and from lower to higher elevations. July and August are usually the higher rainfall months. Mountain outwash materials have formed the soils of the Trans Pecos. Surface textures and profile characteristics are varied. Soil reaction is generally alkaline. The various subregions reflect the diversity of the Trans Pecos. The Sand Hills area consists of shin oak and mesquite on wind-blown dunes. Flat-topped mesas and plateaus are intersected by steep-walled canyons and dry washes that comprise the Stockton Plateau. Soils with high salt content and gypsum dunes are typical of the Salt Basin area. The Desert Scrub subregion is an area of low rainfall and rapid drainage. Creosotebush flats with yucca, lechuguilla, and various small-leafed plants are common. The Desert Grassland area occurs in the central part of the region and is characterized by deeper soils with high clay content. The Mountain Ranges have higher rainfall and woody vegetation such as junipers, oaks, pinyon pine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir. 10.1.3.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna The El Paso Gateway Pipeline is located within the Chihuahuan Biotic Province. Although this province is rich in diversity of many species, most of the pipeline is located adjacent to a road or is within other maintained pipeline ROW, reducing some habitat. Other factors such as new development outside the City of El Paso have also decreased the biodiversity of the area. 10-51 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Amphibians and Reptiles Several lizards are centered in the Chihuahuan Desert, and include the Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), Texas banded gecko (Coleonyx brevis), reticulated gecko (C. reticulatus), greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus), several species of spiny lizards (Scelpoprus spp.), and marbled whiptails (Cnemidophorus tigris marmoratus). Representative snakes include the Trans-Pecos rat snake (Elaphe subocularis), Texas blackheaded snake (Tantilla atriceps), and whipsnakes (Masticophis taeniatus and M. flagellum lineatus) (Brown 1994). Birds Common bird species include the greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostra), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), Scott’s oriole (Icterus parisorum), black-throated sparrow (Amphispeza bilineata), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), Worthen’s sparrow (Spizella wortheni), and cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). In addition, numerous raptors inhabit the desert and include the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularis), Aplomado falcon (Falco columbarius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and the rare zone-tailed hawk (Buteo albonotatus). Mammals Common species to many portions of the Chihuahuan Desert region include a large number of wide-ranging mammals, such as the pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), grey fox (Unocyon cineroargentinus), jaguar (Panthera onca), collared peccary or javelina (Pecari tajacu), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), black tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), pocket mice (Perognathus spp.), woodrats (Neotoma spp.) and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.). (González-Romero & Lafón- Terrazas 1993). 10.1.3.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora Typical plant species found in the Chihuahuan biotic province include the following species: Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and tarbush (Flourensia cernua), which are common species for the Chihuahuan Desert. Common plants in the northern portions of the desert include four- winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Mariola (Parthenium incanum), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), a variety of small to medium-sized cacti, yuccas (Yucca elata, Yucca torreyi), agaves (Agave lecheguilla), ocotillo (Fouquieria spendens), sotol (Dasylirion spp.), and the barrel cactus (Ferrocactus wislizenii). Grasses include black gramma (Bouteloua eriopoda), and tobosa grass (Hilaria mutica). Field observations show that along the pipeline route, approximately 50% is vegetated with mesquite, tarbush and native grasses consisting primarily of grama spp. The area exhibits small dunes usually less than two feet capped with low growing mesquite, yucca or tarbush, with an understory of grasses. Interspersed between the dunes are lower lying blowout areas generally lacking any vegetation. 10-52 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources El Paso County has a wide variety of landscapes that vary in elevation from mountains to rivers, which provide very diverse habitat types. The El Paso Gateway Pipeline is located east of the City of El Paso in an area that is relatively flat with very little or no elevation change. As previously described, vegetation is sparse and made up of xeric type species. Field observations and NWI data show that no open water or wetlands are located within or around the proposed pipeline. There were no aquatic species identified throughout the corridor due to lack of habitat. Due to standard dry conditions and lack of any water sources, there are no aquatic species located within or around the proposed corridor. 10.1.3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The El Paso Gateway Pipeline is located just east of the City of El Paso within El Paso County. There are 14 species listed as either threatened or endangered within El Paso County. Four of the 14 species are listed federally and the remaining 10 are listed by the state. A list of all 14 species can be found in Table 10.1.1-7. The 14 listed species within El Paso County include seven avian species, two mammal species, two reptile species, two fish species and one plant species. 10.1.3.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species Based on the USFWS and TPWD annotated county-by-county lists, 14 state- and federally- listed endangered or threatened are identified within El Paso County. Several listed species may occur within El Paso County; however, avian species would be rare migrants or vagrant occurrences. Of the candidate or listed mammals of potential occurrence, the gray wolf is assumed extirpated in El Paso County, and habitat does not exist in the study area for the black bear. Furthermore, the TXNDD does not contain a recorded occurrence of a listed terrestrial species within, or immediately adjacent to, the proposed pipeline location. However, field reconnaissance indicated that habitat may exist for the Texas horned lizard and the Mountain short-horned lizard. The Sneed’s pincushion cactus does not have the proper habitat to be located in this part of the county, since this area is flat and without any rocky outcrops. 10.1.3.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species Two fish species are listed in El Paso County: the Bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus simus) and the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus). Both of these fish species are assumed extirpated or extinct. The proposed pipeline does not have any wetlands or waterways/habitat within or in the vicinity of the zone of potential impact, and is unlikely to support any aquatic species. 10-53 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.3.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.3.4.1 Historic Properties A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of 4 previously-recorded archeological sites within 1,250 feet of the El Paso Gateway Pipeline centerline, while a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within 1,250 feet of the existing centerline. These cultural resources and their distances from the proposed ROW are summarized below. Based on the Atlas data, the majority of the ROW is located within an existing ROW that was surveyed in 2009 for a General Land Office (GLO) permitted project. Additionally, the Atlas data indicates that the central portion of the ROW is also located within a previous block acreage survey conducted in 2006 for a GLO permitted project. Documented Cultural Resources within 1,250 feet of El Paso Gateway Pipeline Centerline Site Trinomial, Cemetery, or Historic Property Site Type NRHP Eligibility Status Distance/Direction from Centerline 41EP5543 Prehistoric campsite Ineligible 200.0 feet west 41EP5809 Prehistoric campsite Eligible 640.0 feet west 41EP5885 Prehistoric campsite Eligible 360.0 feet northeast 41EP5886 Prehistoric campsite with possible pit house features Undetermined 120.0 feet northeast 10.1.4 CRANE TO EL PASO 10.1.4.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.1.4.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.4.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The pipeline from Crane to El Paso crosses six counties. In addition, two incorporated cities are either crossed by the pipeline or are partially located within the zone of potential impact that was developed as the project area. These incorporated cities are Barstow (Ward County) and El Paso (El Paso County). The pipeline does not cross any unincorporated towns, or any other type of community. There are no schools or hospitals located either entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact of the Crane to El Paso Pipeline. 10.1.4.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis According to the 2000 Census, the total combined population of the counties traversed by the pipeline was 713,983 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). By 2009, that number had increased by 10-54 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 9.6% to 782,450 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). According to the TWDB, growth in these counties is predicted to continue, and reach an estimated 1,182,966 by 2030 (an increase of 51.2% over the estimated 2009 population) (TWDB, 2011). Much of this growth is attributed to the City of El Paso, which is located west of the pipeline. To determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, the block groups within the zone of potential impact were identified. The identified block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.4-1. The total population of the block groups within the zone of potential impact was 36,871 in 2000, or 5.2% of the population of the counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 10.1.4.1.2 Transportation Networks The existing Crane to El Paso Pipeline crosses three federal highways, two state highways, and numerous state-designated FM and Ranch roads. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets, county roads, and two railroads. Highway and railroad crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.4.1.3 Land Use Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD was obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the pipeline. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the existing Crane to El Paso Pipeline. Land Use Type Acreage Percentage Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 6,739.7 4.4% Cultivated Crops 475.3 0.3% Developed, High Intensity 3.1 0.0% Developed, Low Intensity 230.2 0.2% Developed, Medium Intensity 73.2 0.0% Developed, Open Space 862.1 0.6% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 62.5 0.0% Grassland/Herbaceous 13,794.7 9.1% Open Water 75.1 0.0% Scrub-Shrub 129,351.1 85.3% Woody Wetlands 48.9 0.0% Total 151,715.7 100.0% As shown above, the majority of the area traversed by the pipeline and its zone of potential impact (85.3%) is categorized as scrub-shrub. Parks and Natural Areas There are no parks or natural areas entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact. 10-55 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.4.1.4 Environmental Justice As in the population density analysis above, to determine a population more specific to the pipeline than the county, BG data were retrieved for the zone of potential impact. Of the 13 BG within the zone of potential impact, nine were identified as potential EJ populations, seven were identified as minority, and two were identified as both minority and low-income. None of the block groups were categorized as only low-income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). A summary of these block groups is provided below, and these block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.4-1. Environmental Justice Populations along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Median Household Geography Population Percent Minority Income El Paso County 679,622 83.0% $31,051 BG 1, CT 103.09 9,247 93.1% $23,775 BG 1, CT 103.15 1,644 92.1% $34,143 BG 1, CT 103.18 6,472 80.2% $26,404 BG 1, CT 103.20 2,301 97.0% BG 2, CT 103.20 8,286 93.3% $28,077 $32,429 Hudspeth County 3,344 77.0% BG 2, CT 9501 86.8% $21,045 $17,775 BG 1, CT 9502 1,897 817 66.2% $28,333 Reeves County BG 1, CT 9501 13,137 76.2% 2,536 51.5% $23,306 $20,714 Ward County 10,909 47.8% $29,386 BG 6, CT 9501 1,055 69.2% $22,593 'In 1999 dollars Most of the counties traversed by the pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact have substantial minority populations (ranging from 47.8% in Ward County to 83.0% in El Paso County). Most of the individuals who identified as minority in the census indicated that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin, an ethnic group which is increasing in population in the State of Texas. The percentage of minority population for the block groups ranges from 51.5% (BG 1, CT 9501 in Reeves County) to 97.0% (BG 1, CT 103.20 in El Paso County). Of the nine block groups that were classified as minority, only one (BG 6, CT 9501 in Ward County) is within a county that does not have a minority population greater than 50% (Ward County is 47.8% minority). None of the block groups has a percentage minority population that is double the percentage minority population of its respective county. The median household income of the low-income BG in Hudspeth County (BG 2, CT 9501) was $17,774, compared to $21,045 for Hudspeth County. The other low-income BG was BG 1, CT 9501 in Reeves County, with a median household income of $20,714 (compared to $23,306 for Reeves County). While the median household incomes of these two BG are low, they are comparable to the overall median household income of their respective counties. Both counties have a median household income below the HHS poverty line. As discussed above, there are potential EJ populations in the vicinity of the Crane to El Paso pipeline. Because of the presence of potential EJ populations, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out in Section 10.3.4.1.4 of this document. 10-56 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.4.2 Physical Resources 10.1.4.2.1 Groundwater Resources This pipeline segment traverses over several minor aquifers (Figure 10.1.1-3). In Crane, Ward, and Reeves Counties, the Pecos Valley Aquifer overlies the Dockum Aquifer (Subcrop) (see descriptions in Section 10.1.1.2.1). The pipeline segment crosses the Dockum Aquifer (Subcrop) (see description in Section 10.1.1.2.1) (Figure 10.1.1-2). A description of the Hueco Bolson Aquifer is given in Section 10.1.3.2.1. Additional details on the Bone Spring-Victorio Peak Aquifer, the Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer (eastern arc), and the Rustler Aquifer are provided below. Table 10.1.4-1 provides a summary of the aquifers traversed. Bone Spring-Victorio Peak The Bone Spring–Victorio Peak Aquifer is the primary groundwater resource in Hudspeth County producing about 100,000 acre-feet per year of brackish groundwater for irrigation in recent years in a region commonly referred to as Dell Valley. Groundwater is also used for public water supply. The Bone Spring–Victorio Peak Aquifer located in northeast Hudspeth County extends north into Crow Flats in New Mexico. Although the formations making up the Bone Spring–Victorio Peak Aquifer (the Permian age Bone Spring and Victorio Peak limestones) extend over a large area, the Texas Water Development Board recognizes the Bone Spring–Victorio Peak Aquifer as a minor aquifer of Texas. This aquifer has boundaries in the Dell Valley irrigation area in northeastern Hudspeth County, the location of a dominant fault to the south, and the edge of the Salt Basin to the east (Ashworth and Flores, 1991). The Bone Spring Limestone consists mainly of black to dark gray cherty limestone with thin interbedded black or brown shale. It has a reported thickness of at least 500 feet in the aquifer. The Bone Spring Limestone grades upwards and southwestward into the Victorio Peak Limestone. The Victorio Peak Limestone is a light gray, thick-bedded, mainly calcitic, but slightly dolomitic, limestone. It has a maximum thickness of 800 feet in the aquifer area Diablo (Peckham, 1963; Dietrich and others, 1968). Both formations have developed significant solution cavities along joints and fracture planes (Ashworth, 1995). Recharge to the Bone Spring–Victorio Peak Aquifer is sourced from the Sacramento River (primary), the Diablo Plateau–Otero Mesa, and irrigation return flow. Groundwater discharges from the aquifer through evaporation, interbasin flow, and pumping. Water in the Dell Valley area can be classified as slightly to moderately saline, with TDS ranging from approximately 1,000 to more than 6,500 mg/l, averaging about 3,500 mg/l. TDS is greatest along a north-south strip east to southeast of Dell City, where concentrations exceed 5,000 mg/l. The calculated transmissivity values for the aquifer are 1,200 ft2/day to 15,000 ft2/day (TWDB, R-364, R-356). There are no PWS wells in the Bone Spring-Victorio Peak Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer The Capitan Reef formed along the margins of the Delaware Basin, an embayment covered by a shallow Permian sea. In Texas, two arcuate strips of the reef, 10 to 14 miles wide, are 10-57 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL exposed in the Guadalupe, Apache, and Glass Mountains; elsewhere, the reef is in the subsurface. The reef extends northward into New Mexico, where it provides abundant fresh water to the city of Carlsbad. In Texas, the aquifer is composed of up to 2,360 feet of dolomite and limestone deposited as reef, fore-reef, and backreef facies. Water-bearing formations include the Capitan Limestone, Goat Seep Limestone, and most of the Carlsbad facies of the Artesia Group, including the Grayburg, Queen, Seven Rivers, Yates, and Tansill Formations. The Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer underlies the Dockum Aquifer (Subcrop) east of the downdip extent of the Rustler Aquifer. Most of the groundwater pumped from the aquifer in Texas is used for oil reservoir water-flooding operations in Ward and Winkler counties. A small amount is used for irrigation of salt-tolerant crops in Pecos and Culberson counties. The aquifer generally contains water of poor quality and yields small to large quantities of moderately saline to brine water. Water of the freshest quality is located on and near areas of recharge where the reef is exposed at the surface in the three mountain ranges. The average transmissivity of the aquifer is 0.0624 ft2/d (TWDB GW Reports R-345, R-356). There are no PWS wells located in the Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. Rustler Aquifer The Rustler Formation of Permian age crops out in eastern Culberson County in the Trans- Pecos region of Texas and extends eastward into the subsurface of the Delaware Basin. The Rustler Aquifer is located in Loving, Pecos, Reeves, and Ward Counties, where it yields water for irrigation, livestock, and water-flooding operations in oil-producing areas. High dissolved- solids concentrations render the water unsuitable for human consumption. Water occurs in highly permeable solution zones that have developed in dolomite, limestone, and gypsum beds of the Rustler Formation. The dissolved-solids concentrations of the water increase downgradient, eastward into the basin, with a shift from sulfate to chloride as the predominant anion. Wells in the Rustler Aquifer reported yield groundwater at a rate of 7 gpm to 4,400 gpm. (TWDB GW Reports R-345, R356). There are no PWS wells located in the Rustler Aquifer with capture zones in the zone of potential impact. 10.1.4.2.2 Surface Water Description of Surface Water Resources The Crane to El Paso Pipeline is located completely within the Rio Grande River Basin. This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals or ditches) that either cross the pipeline or that are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location was obtained from the NHD provided by the USGS 10-58 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and are not included in this FEA assessment: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The Crane to El Paso Pipeline is located completely within the Rio Grande River Basin. There are no streams located along the pipeline route through this basin that would be considered to be major, and there are no perennial streams. The remainder of the water bodies identified consists of intermittent streams and canals. Descriptions of regionally significant named water bodies in order of occurrence from east to west along the pipeline route are provided in the following: Monument Draw. Monument Draw enters Texas (from New Mexico) in southwestern Gaines County and runs southeast for 62 miles across southwestern Gaines County to its mouth on Mustang Draw, near FM 793 and the Hutex oilfield in northeastern Andrews County. The draw passes through rolling terrain surfaced by sand that supports grasses and nongrassy herbs. Monument Draw crosses the pipeline at MP 500.3. Upper Pecos River. The Pecos River is one of the major tributaries of the Rio Grande. It originates on the western slope of the Santa Fe mountain range in Mora County, New Mexico, and enters Texas just east of the 104th Meridian. The river flows southeast in Texas and forms the boundaries between the following counties: Loving and Reeves, Reeves and Ward, Ward and Pecos, Pecos and Crane, Pecos and Crockett, and Crockett and Terrell. It then enters Val Verde County at its northwestern corner and travels to the Rio Grande in the Amistad Reservoir approximately 38 miles northwest of Del Rio. The Pecos River is approximately 900 miles in length and its path parallels the Rio Grande for much of this distance. The topography of the river valley ranges from mountain pastures in the north, with an elevation of more than 13,000 feet above sea level, to grasslands, semiarid irrigated farmlands, desert with sparse vegetation, and, in the lowermost reaches of the river, deep canyons. The Upper Pecos River crosses the pipeline at MP 534.4. Sand Lake. Sand Lake is a playa that is located approximately two miles west of U.S. Highway 285 in central Reeves County. Sand Lake is a large playa that covers an area of 1½ miles in length and ½ mile in width. Like other playas in Reeves County, Sand Lake gives evidence of undeveloped drainage in the area, and is fed by several small, unnamed, and immature draws. The playa shrinks and sometimes disappears through evaporation between rains. Sand Lake is not shown on the current USGS map to be intersected by the pipeline. However, as a playa lake, the elevation is variable depending upon rainfall. As depicted on the USGS map, the contours surrounding the lake indicate that the water body would come in contact the pipeline at MP 531.5 should the level of water in the lake reach an elevation of 2,625 feet above mean sea level. 10-59 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Cottonwood Creek. Cottonwood Creek, also known as Cottonwood Draw, originates nine miles northeast of Dome Hill in central Culberson County and runs southeast for 45 miles before running dry five miles northeast of Toyah in central Reeves County. It is located on flat terrain that has local steep slopes upstream. Downstream the terrain is gently sloping to steep and surfaced by shallow, stony sand that supports creosote bush, cacti, scrub brush, and sparse grasses. Cottonwood Creek crosses the pipeline at multiple points beginning at MP 549.2 and ending at MP 576.3. Antelope Draw. Antelope Draw originates approximately 1.5 miles east of Tepee Butte in west central Hudspeth County. It runs northeast for 32 miles to its mouth, which is located on Eightmile Draw. Antelope Draw traverses an area of steep to gentle slopes surfaced by variable soil that supports scrub brush and grasses. Antelope Draw crosses the pipeline at MP 652.5 and MP 653.7. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings The general water quality of the water bodies along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307. Table 10.1.4-2 provides the water quality data for the Classified TCEQ Water Segments that are applicable to the water bodies that cross or come in contact with the zone of potential impact. The table provides the range in MPs that are applicable to each Classified Water Quality Segment. Although not every water body in the state is identified as being or is located within a classified segment, the TCEQ assumes the water quality to be same as that of the classified segment for all tributaries or streams that tie into the nearest classified segment for purposes of preparing Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permits. For the portion of the pipeline that lies between MP 594 to MP 623, the drainage does not appear to reach a defined water quality segment. The surface runoff in this region is located between the Sierra Diablo Mountains and the Bitter Well Mountains, and appears to dry in the various salt lakes that occur in this mountain valley. Accordingly, it is assumed that there are no relevant water quality data associated with this pipeline segment. The TCEQ stream segments that are within the zone of potential impact of the pipeline are listed below in their order of occurrence from east to west along the pipeline route: Segment No. Segment Description 2311 Upper Pecos River - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Independence Creek in Crockett /Terrell County to Red Bluff Dam in Loving / Reeves County 2307 Rio Grande Below Riverside Diversion Dam - from the confluence of the Rio Conchos (Mexico) in Presidio County to Riverside Diversion Dam in El Paso County Review of these water quality data indicates that Segments 2307 and 2311 are suitable for contact recreation. Segment 2307 is considered usable as a public water supply. Segment 2311 10-60 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL has an elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration that makes it unsuitable as a source of public water supply. Another important aspect of water quality concerns are those water bodies that have been identified by the TCEQ to be impaired. The Upper Pecos River, located within Segment 2311, is the only water body along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline that has been placed on the TCEQ’s 303(d) listing of impaired water bodies. In 2006, the Upper Pecos River was first added to the TCEQ’s 303(d) list. The basis for the Upper Pecos River being listed was because of the depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations within this water body. For this segment, the TCEQ notes additional data and information will be collected before a TMDL is scheduled. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD Dataset information previously discussed, there are 171 locations where intermittent streams egress into the zone of potential impact of the Crane to El Paso Pipeline. Of these, there are 154 locations where intermittent streams cross the pipeline and one location where a perennial stream crosses the pipeline. In this regard, a significant number of the intermittent streams do not connect to another water body downstream, and are disjointed segments. There are 11 locations where canals cross the pipeline. Table 10.1.4-3 provides a listing of the surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact, the locations of the water body entries into the zone of potential impact, the locations of pipeline crossings, the names of the water bodies, and the lengths of water body segments within the zone of potential impact. In some cases there are multiple points of entry within the zone of potential impact that are associated with such causes as stream meandering, paralleling of the zone of potential impact, the irregular shape of some portions of the zone of potential impact, and the presence of multiple tributaries. Potentially vulnerable public drinking water from surface water resources along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline route were evaluated separately. A source water for public water supply is considered to be potentially impacted if the API as defined by the TCEQ is within the zone of potential impact. Based upon this evaluation, there are no public water supply intakes with an API within the Crane to El Paso zone of potential impact. Details regarding the scope of this evaluation can be found in Section 10.1.1.2.2 of the Orion West Expansion discussion. Wetlands An inventory of wetlands present within the zone of potential impact from Crane to El Paso shows that 183 wetlands, consisting of approximately 2,760 acres, are present. This inventory also shows a total of approximately 33 stream locations accounting for approximately 11.46 miles or 58,080 linear feet. FWS NWI maps were evaluated through GIS to determine specific numbers (density per linear mile), types, and aerial extent of wetlands that are located within the zone of potential impact along the entire pipeline. NWI maps at a scale of 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 for the entire route from Crane to El Paso were used in this evaluation. 10-61 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The Longhorn Pipeline from Crane Station to the El Paso Terminal is within 1,250 feet or is within the overland flow locations of three different wetland types: riverine, palustrine and lacustrine. The greatest concentration of wetlands along the pipeline (approximately 2.9 per linear mile) is located between MP 457 and MP 560, which includes Crane, Ward, Reeves and eastern Culberson Counties. Wetlands located from MP 457 to MP 560 account for a total of 428 acres. No wetland streams were accounted for in this segment. Although the concentration of wetlands/mile is higher between MP 457 and MP 560, more acreage of wetlands were identified from MP 560 to MP 620. From MP 560 to 620, approximately 1.9 wetlands were identified per mile, accounting for 2,306.5 acres. Twenty five streams were identified in this section which account for approximately 8.5 miles or 44,880 linear feet. Culberson and eastern Hudspeth Counties are within this section of pipeline. From MP 620 to MP 694, there is an average of 2.3 wetlands/mile, accounting for approximately 25.3 acres. Eight streams were identified in this section accounting for 3 miles or 15,840 linear feet. By using GIS and NWI maps, the aerial extent of wetlands were calculated for each type of wetland where a polygon was located within the zone of potential impact. Rivers and streams where a line was used in GIS rather than a polygon was measured in total miles/linear feet crossed within the zone of potential impact. Below is a table which shows these acreages and miles of each wetland. Wetland Polygons Wetland Lines Wetland Classification Count Acres Count Miles Intermittent 3 4.17 27 10.35 Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 19.94 0 0 Lacustrine Unconsolidated Shore 14 1714.77 0 0 Lower Perennial 2 17.97 0 0 Palustrine Emergent 70 702.49 0 0 Palustrine Scrub-shrub 5 8.58 0 0 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 0.42 0 0 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 87 291.76 6 1.11 Total 183 2760.14 33 11.46 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact are compiled by MP and county on Table 10.1.4-4. 10.1.4.2.3 Geologic Hazards Earthquake/Seismic Hazards The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the Crane to El Paso Pipeline. On each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along the pipeline route range from 0.02g to 0.18g. For example, in the area of northern El Paso County 10-62 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (MP 685 – MP 694) along the pipeline route, there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.18g within any given 50-year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.07g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.05g in any given 50-year period. (USGS, 2008). PGA along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 458 488 .05 488 529 .07 529 571 .05 571 580 .07 580 590 .09 590 681 .11 681 685 .14 685 694 .18 PGA along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 458 503 .03 503 584 .05 584 694 .07 PGA along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 458 472 .02 472 555 .03 555 585 .04 585 694 .05 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Types of mass movement that would be possible along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline route are landslides in soil or rock masses or rock falls from overlying rock bluffs or cliffs. The topography of the eastern half of this western segment of the Longhorn Pipeline is characterized as nearly flat plateaus of the Southern High Plains, transitioning abruptly to the mountains of the Basin and Range Province. The geologic material in the Southern High Plains includes loose sand and silts which are not prone to landslides or mass movements. The geology of the Basin and Range Province includes numerous faults with folded metamorphic rocks within the mountainous regions that are more resistant to erosion and produce dipping topography. Pipeline hazards in these areas would be from rock falls in areas where the pipe may be exposed below a steep ravine or rock bluff (per aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro). (BEG, 1996) Mitigation measures including routine inspection and covering of the pipeline would protect against these rare occurrences. The geologic material of the basin floor regions of the Basin and Range includes fine sand, silt and gravel which are not prone to mass movement hazards. 10-63 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Faulting/Subsidence Hazards Surface faults are rare in the Southern High Plains, but common in the Basin and Range Province of Texas. Faulting is most common within the mountainous area crossed by the Longhorn Pipeline. These mountains include the Delaware, Sierra Diablo, and Hueco mountains. Data from the USGS (USGS, 250K scale) indicate numerous faults along the proposed ROW for the pipeline. These faults are tectonic in nature and a result of a late Paleozoic uplift (Collins, Raney BEG, 2000 Geologic Map). Subsidence may occur in the basin floor of the Basin and Range Region along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline as the underlying strata is composed of unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel. Due to the extreme remoteness of the majority of this pipeline, there are few public groundwater supply wells adjacent to the pipeline. However, the potential for subsidence and aseismic faulting exists near the El Paso Station. Aseismic faulting occurs in unique geologic settings characterized by unconsolidated sediment such as those found in the basin floor of a Basin and Range Region and the Coastal Bend region of Texas. The geology beneath portions of the Longhorn Pipeline is characterized by a lithologic unit comprised of unconsolidated sands, clays, and gravels. Subsidence in the El Paso region has been documented to occur; however, the rates of subsidence are considerably less than documented in the Houston Metropolitan area. The movement caused by the subsidence generally occurs over a large area and does not pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Soil Stress Hazards The Crane to El Paso Pipeline is not located in materials that exhibit substantial volume changes due to the shrink-swell properties of the soils (USDA, NRCS “General Soil Map of Texas”) (USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey). This section of the pipeline is not at risk of detrimental differential movement due to the shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The Crane to El Paso Pipeline crosses a total of 160 streams. Stream crossings are commonly buried under the stream bed; therefore, the scour of material supporting and covering the pipeline has the potential to occur. The concern is whether flood-induced scouring could expose sufficient length of pipeline to threaten pipeline integrity. Several conditions must occur concurrently in order to produce scour sufficiently to threaten pipeline integrity. Regular inspections of all stream crossings are an important form of prevention, and are a required component of pipeline operation and maintenance. 10.1.4.2.4 Air Quality 10.1.4.2.4.1 Climate Moving west across west Texas, from Crane to El Paso, the climate transitions from semi-arid continental steppe to arid subtropical. (See Sections 10.1.2.2.4.1 and 10.1.3.2.4.1 for a detailed 10-64 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL description of each climatic regime.) In general, this region of Texas is characterized by hot summers and mild winters, with annual rainfall totals decreasing to the west. 10.1.4.2.4.2 Air Quality The Crane area and the region of Texas between Crane and El Paso County is currently in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.344), primarily because the area has relatively little industrial development and a low population density. Within El Paso County, the City of El Paso is designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area for PM10. El Paso County is currently designated to be in attainment of all other NAAQS (40 CFR 81.344). Although designated by EPA to be in attainment of the 8-hr ozone NAAQS, exceedances of the standard have been measured (as recently as 2008) at one or more ambient monitors in El Paso County since promulgation of the standard (TCEQ, 2012). 10.1.4.3 Ecological Resources 10.1.4.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Natural Regions associated with Crane to El Paso The TPWD lists 11 natural regions within the state (TPWD, 1978), of which two are crossed by the Longhorn Pipeline from Crane to El Paso. The two regions crossed from Crane to El Paso are the Edwards Plateau and the Trans-Pecos (Figure 10.1.1-9). Only a small portion of the western edge of the Edwards Plateau region is within the route, and most of the pipeline location from Crane westward resembles the Trans-Pecos characteristics. Edwards Plateau The Edwards Plateau natural region extends from the Balcones Escarpment in Austin through west central Texas to the Stockton Plateau. Streams and rivers within the region typically are fast flowing and clear or nearly clear. The region is comprised of cedar brakes with dense growths of juniper, scrub oaks, and mesquite. Dominant grasses of the Plateau include switchgrass and several species of bluestems and gramas. Rocky soils of the area typically support a tall-grass understory and a brush overstory that is generally comprised of oaks, junipers, and mesquite. Streams throughout the area are often well-drained ephemeral drainages that provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species not common in more upland areas of the Plateau. Trans-Pecos The Trans Pecos is perhaps the most complex of all the regions. It occupies the extreme western part of the state and eastward generally to the Pecos River. This is a region of diverse habitats and vegetation, varying from the desert valleys and plateaus to wooded mountain slopes. Elevations range from 2,500 feet to more than 8,749 feet at Guadalupe Peak. Even the mountain ranges vary greatly in the environments for plant and animal life. Some are characterized by volcanic rocks, others by limestone. 10-65 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Over most of the area average annual rainfall is less than 12 inches, but varies greatly from year to year and from lower to higher elevations. July and August are usually the higher rainfall months. Mountain outwash materials have formed the soils of the Trans Pecos. Surface textures and profile characteristics are varied. Soil reaction is generally alkaline. The various subregions reflect the diversity of the Trans Pecos. The Sand Hills area consists of shin oak and mesquite on wind-blown dunes. Flat-topped mesas and plateaus are intersected by steep-walled canyons and dry washes that comprise the Stockton Plateau. Soils with high salt content and gypsum dunes are typical of the Salt Basin area. The Desert Scrub subregion is an area of low rainfall and rapid drainage. Creosotebush flats with yucca, lechuguilla, and various small-leafed plants are common. The Desert Grassland area occurs in the central part of the region and is characterized by deeper soils with high clay content. Finally, the Mountain Ranges have higher rainfall and woody vegetation such as junipers, oaks, pinyon pine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir. 10.1.4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna The pipeline from Crane to El Paso is located primarily within the Chihuahuan Biotic Province. As noted by the description in the Trans-Pecos region, this province is home to very diverse habitats and vegetation. Because of this diversity, the region also has many different types of species. Amphibians and Reptiles Amphibians in the Chihuahuan Province include the Rio Grande leopard frog (Rana berlandieri), Couche’s spadefoot toad, spotted chirping frog (Syrrhophus guttilatus), red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), and Great Plains toad (B.cognatus). At least 22 species of lizards are known to inhabit this region, including the Texas banded gecko (Coleonyx brevis), crevice spiny lizard (Scelopours pionsetti), canyon lizard (S. merriami), gray checkered whiptail (Cnemidophorus tesselatus), and plateau spotted whiptail (C. septemvittatus). Other reptiles include 38 species of snakes, including the Texas-Pecos rat snake (Bogertophis subocularis), Big Bend black- headed snake (Salvadora deserticola), rock rattlesnake (Crotalus lepidus), and black-tailed rattlesnake (C. molossus molossus). Birds Birds of the grasslands include the bronzed cowbird (Molothrus aeneus), Baird's sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), Harris’ hawk (Parabuteo unicintus), Inca dove (Columbina inca), and golden-fronted woodpecker. Mammals The mammalian fauna of the Chihuahuan Province is richer than that in any other region in Texas, with at least 83 species identified. These include the hooded skunk (Mephistis macroura), coyote, ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), and swift 10-66 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL fox (Vulpes velox). Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spectabilis), the desert shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi), Mexican ground squirrel (Spermophilus mexicanus), Nelson's pocket mouse (Chaetodipus nelsoni), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) are small herbivores native to the region. Bats are represented by yuma myotis (Myotis yumanenis) and the western mastiff (Eumops perotis). 10.1.4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora Due to the diversity of soils and elevations of the Trans-Pecos region, many vegetation types are present. The principal plant communities are creosote-tarbush desert scrub, desert grassland, yucca and juniper savannahs, and montane forests of pinyon pine and oak. Typical plant species found in the Chihuahuan biotic province include the following species: Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and tarbush (Flourensia cernua) which are common species for the Chihuahuan Desert. Common plants in the northern portions of the desert include four- winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Mariola (Parthenium incanum), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), a variety of small to medium-sized cacti, yuccas (Yucca elata, Yucca torreyi), agaves (Agave lecheguilla), ocotillo (Fouquieria spendens), sotol (Dasylirion spp.), and the barrel cactus (Ferrocactus wislizenii). Grasses include black gramma (Bouteloua eriopoda) and tobosa grass (Hilaria mutica). 10.1.4.3.2 Aquatic Resources The pipeline crosses approximately 33 streamlines (based on USGS 1:24,000 and 1:100,000- scale hydrography) from Crane to El Paso. Of those crossings, the Upper Pecos River is considered to be ecologically important because it supports fish species indigenous to Texas, and each major game fish species within the state is represented in this river. The western-most ecologically significant surface water body crossed by the pipeline is the Upper Pecos River. The Longhorn Pipeline crosses the river at the boundary between Ward and Reeves counties at MP 525.6. The river is sluggish, flowing through a narrow and shallow channel. The water is slightly saline due to the soils in the area and saline groundwater seeps and springs that drain to the river. The salinity creates a unique habitat for some fish species. The USFWS classifies the area of the river crossed by the Longhorn Pipeline as unconsolidated shore, palustrine, and lower perennial riverine (Millan, 1999). From Crane to El Paso, the Longhorn Pipeline is located within the Rio Grande River Basin. Faunal communities important in aquatic habitats include phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, infauna and epifauna, as well as nekton species. These communities vary according to aquatic habitat characteristics and the habitat requirements and distribution of species. Collectively, these species often construct complex food webs within aquatic systems. Common fish species that occur in the Rio Grande River Basin include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Devil’s River minnow 10-67 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (Dionda diaboli), Texas shiner, channel catfish, bluegill, and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) (Thomas et al., 2007). Vegetation in open water aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow edges of the water, but may encompass vegetated wetland features, such as emergent marsh. Plant species common to this habitat type include rushes, sedges, cattails, flat-sedges, spikerushes, tamarisk, and black willow (Salix nigra). Most aquatic flora along this segment of the pipeline is located along the Upper Pecos River and associated tributaries where water is continuously available. Other aquatic species can be found along some streams and typically on the edge of stock tanks. 10.1.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 10.1.4.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species This FEA lists all terrestrial species threatened or endangered that are known to be within counties that are crossed by the pipeline from Crane to El Paso. The list provided in Table 10.1.1-7 includes 19 terrestrial threatened or endangered species listed for counties from Crane to El Paso. This data is compiled from the Annotated County List of Rare Species from both TPWD and USFWS. Of the 19 listed species, 10 are avian species, two are plant species, two are mammal species and five are reptilian species. Several listed species may occur within these counties; however, avian species would be rare migrants. Of the candidate or listed mammals of potential occurrence, the gray wolf is assumed extirpated in El Paso County, and habitat does not exist in the study area for the black bear. Of the remaining species listed, it appears that habitat may exist within some of the pipeline corridor for several reptiles. These reptiles include the Trans- Pecos black-headed snake (Tantilla cucullata), Mountain short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), and Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). Several of these species prefer open arid/sandy soils which are frequent along the zone of potential impact. Although the surrounding area may provide suitable habitat for the aforementioned protected species, the Cottonwood Station is currently developed as an industrial oil and gas facility. As a result, the facility is not anticipated to provide suitable habitat for these species. 10.1.4.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species This assessment includes all aquatic species threatened or endangered that are known to be within counties that are crossed by the pipeline from Crane to El Paso. The list provided in Table 10.1.1-7 includes 10 aquatic threatened or endangered species listed from Crane to El Paso Counties. This data is compiled from the Annotated County List of Rare Species from both TPWD and USFWS. Of the nine species listed, two of these species are mollusks and seven are fish species. Of the nine listed species, the False spike mussel (Quadrula mitchelli), Bluntnose shiner (Notropis 10-68 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL simus simus), Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) are all assumed extirpated. The remaining species are endemic to aquatic habitat found along the Pecos River where no construction activities will take place. 10.1.4.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.4.4.1 Historic Properties Longhorn Pipeline (Crane to El Paso) In 1998, TAS conducted a cultural resources survey along the Crane to El Paso portion of the Longhorn Pipeline ROW. This survey included 17 AHPAs, 131 USACE jurisdictional crossings, the full extent of the ROW across public lands, and all “promising” landforms. Based on the findings, no significant cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP are present within this portion of the existing Longhorn Pipeline ROW. In 2007, Horizon continued consultation with the THC regarding this section of the ROW. In this letter, Horizon presented the findings of the 1998 TAS investigations followed by a recommendation that TAS has adequately surveyed all areas having the potential to contain significant cultural resources, and that no additional investigations were warranted within the remainder of this portion of the ROW (i.e. in archeological low probability areas). The THC concurred with Horizon’s recommendations on 10 September 2007 (Appendix 10B). As a result, cultural resources obligations in regard to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACT have been met for the entire length of the Crane to El Paso portion of the Longhorn Pipeline. Cottonwood Station A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated the presence of no previously recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the existing Cottonwood Station. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated the presence of no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. This is an existing, previously disturbed facility. As such, the potential for intact cultural deposits is considered to be low. 10.1.5 9TH STREET JUNCTION TO SPEED JUNCTION 10.1.5.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.1.5.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.5.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline is located entirely within Harris County. It crosses portions of the cities of Houston and Pasadena. There are no schools, hospitals, or other vulnerable receptors located either entirely or partially within the zone of potential impact of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. 10-69 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.5.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis According to the 2000 Census, the total population of Harris County was 3,400,578 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). By 2009, that number had increased by 19.7% to 4,070,989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). According to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), growth in Harris County is predicted to continue, and the population is expected to reach an estimated 5,180,439 by 2030 (an increase of 27.3% over the estimated 2009 population) (TWDB, 2011). To better define the population that would potentially be affected by the proposed pipeline, it was determined which U.S. Census Bureau block groups were crossed by the proposed pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact (Figure 10.1.5-1), and population data were retrieved for these block groups. The total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and its associated overland flow boundary was 28,226 in 2000, or 0.8% of the population of Harris County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). As in the population density analysis above, to determine a population more specific to the Connected Action than the county, block group data were retrieved for the pipeline and its associated buffer. These block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.5-1. 10.1.5.1.2 Transportation Networks The proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline crosses one state highway. No federal highways or state-designated FM or Ranch roads are crossed. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets, county roads, and eight railroads. Highway and railroad crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.5.1.3 Land Use Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD was obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the proposed pipeline. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. Land Uses Traversed by the Proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline Type of Land Use Acreage Percentage Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 0.6 0.1% Deciduous Forest 5.4 0.7% Developed, High Intensity 221.3 26.9% Developed, Low Intensity 180.6 22.0% Developed, Medium Intensity 270.4 32.9% Developed, Open Space 97.8 11.9% Mixed Forest 2.0 0.2% Open Water 40.0 4.9% Woody Wetlands 3.3 0.4% Total 821.4 100.0% 10-70 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL As shown in the table above, the majority of the area (93.7%) is developed, ranging from high intensity to low-intensity and open space, with most land (32.9%) falling into the medium- intensity category. These developed areas include a range of uses from “highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers” (high intensity) to “areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation often including single-family residences” (low intensity) (USGS, 2008). Developed, open space land is typically comprised of vacant lots and open spaces in urban and suburban areas (NLCD, 2001). Parks and Natural Areas There are no parks or natural areas located within the zone of potential impact of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. 10.1.5.1.4 Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Populations along the Proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline Geography Population Percent Minority Median Household Income¹ Harris County 3,400,578 57.9% $42,598 BG 1, CT 2337 1,431 59.4% $50,080 BG 2, CT 2337 1,012 91.3% $31,688 BG 6, CT 2337 865 77.1% $32,772 BG 7, CT 2337 565 91.0% $28,456 BG 8, CT 2337 1,850 82.9% $35,069 BG 1, CT 3204 0 NA NA BG 1, CT 3205 520 86.0% $37,500 BG 1, CT 3219 1,018 71.9% $35,625 BG 1, CT 3220 5,194 93.3% $25,514 BG 1, CT 3223 1,210 83.4% $24,219 Of the 10 block groups crossed by the proposed pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact, one had no population. Of the remaining nine, all were identified as minority and none were identified as low-income. The percentage of the population that identified as minority for the block groups ranged from 59.4% to 93.3%. While some of these block groups have minority percentages comparable to Harris County as a whole, many had substantially greater minority populations. As discussed above, there are potential EJ populations in the vicinity of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. Because of the presence of a potential EJ population, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out in Section 10.3.5.1.4 of this document. 10-71 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.5.2 Physical Resources 10.1.5.2.1 Groundwater Resources This pipeline route crosses clay-dominate and sand-dominate outcrops of the Chicot Aquifer hydrologic unit of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System. The location relative to the major aquifer is illustrated in Figure 10.1.5-2. A description of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System is given in Section 4.2.1.1. Table 10.1.5-1 provides a summary of the aquifer associated with this Connected Action, and Table 10.1.5-2 lists the PWSs having water wells within or capture zones crossing the zone of potential impact. The locations of two PWS water wells within the Gulf Coast Aquifer is shown in Figure 10.1.5-3. 10.1.5.2.2 Surface Water Description of Surface Water Resources The 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline is located within the San Jacinto River Basin. This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals or ditches) that either cross the pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location was obtained from the NHD provided by the USGS. As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and were excluded from assessment: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline is located entirely within the San Jacinto River Basin. There is one major water body along the pipeline route, i.e., the Houston Ship Channel. The pipeline also crosses Panther Creek and Vince Bayou, which are perennial streams. Descriptions of these water bodies are provided below: Buffalo Bayou/Houston Ship Channel: The Houston Ship Channel is part of the Port of Houston and is considered one of the United States’ busiest seaports. The channel is the conduit for ocean-going vessels between the Houston-area shipyards and the Gulf of Mexico. The channel is a natural watercourse that was created by the dredging of Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay. Through the years, the channel has been periodically widened and deepened to accommodate larger ships. Currently the Houston Ship Channel is 530 feet (160 m) wide by 45 feet (14 m) deep by 50 miles (80 km) long. 10-72 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Panther Creek: Panther Branch rises in northern Galena Park (at 29°044' N, 95°15' W) and flows southeast 3 miles to its mouth on the Houston Ship Channel, (at 29°43' N, 95°14' W). The creek flows from an urbanized area in its northern reach to an industrial tank farm setting to the south. Vince Bayou. Vince Bayou rises in southeast Harris County (at 29°40' N, 95°12' W) and runs northwest, through Pasadena, for nineteen miles to its mouth on Houston Ship Channel (Buffalo Bayou) (at 29°43' N, 95°13' W). The drainage area of Vince Bayou is highly developed. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings The general water quality of the water bodies along the proposed 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307 for Segment 1007 (Houston Ship Channel/Buffalo Bayou Tidal). Review of these water quality data indicates that Segment 1007 of the Houston Ship Channel is only suitable for navigation and industrial water supply. Water quality criteria for this segment are as follows: Chloride (mg/L) SO4 (mg/L) Temperature (°F) NA NA NA 1.0 6.5 – 9.0 168 95 TDS (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Range (SU) Indicator Bacteria #/100ml Another important aspect of water quality concerns is the water bodies that have been identified by the TCEQ to be impaired. In this regard, the TCEQ maintains what is referred to as a TMDL Program that is authorized, by and created to fulfill, the requirements of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. The Houston Ship Channel and Vince Bayou, located within Segment 1007, have been placed on the TCEQ’s 303(d) listing of impaired water bodies. In 1996, these water bodies were first added to the TCEQ’s 303(d) list. The basis for the listing these water bodies is due to elevated bacteria counts, dioxin in edible tissue, and PCBs in edible tissue. For this portion of the Houston Ship Channel, the TCEQ notes that a TMDL is underway for dioxins and PCBs. More data regarding bacteria levels will be collected before a TMDL is scheduled for this parameter. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD Dataset information previously discussed, there are two locations along this segment of pipeline that are crossed by water bodies, i.e., Panther Creek and the Houston Ship Channel (Buffalo Bayou). Table 10.1.5-3 provides a listing of the surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact, the locations of the water body entries into the zone of potential impact, the location of pipeline crossings, the names of the water bodies, and the length of the water body segment within the zone of potential impact. In some cases, there are multiple points of entry within the zone of potential impact that are associated with causes such as stream meandering, paralleling of the zone of potential impact, the irregular shape of portions of the zone of potential impact, and the presence of multiple tributaries. 10-73 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Potentially vulnerable public drinking water from surface water resources along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline route were evaluated separately. The TCEQ and the USGS developed procedures to assess the susceptibility of PWS source waters to 227 selected drinking water contaminants. The procedures are discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.3. The locations of PWS along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline were obtained from the most recent version of the TCEQ Source Water Assessment Viewer files. The viewer contains the spatial datasets used and created during a source water susceptibility assessment process that was conducted by the TCEQ. These files were then imported into the GIS database depicting the location of the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline and the boundaries of the zone of potential impact along the pipeline path. The exact locations of all PWS intakes with an API within the zone of potential impact were then evaluated. Based upon this evaluation, there are no PWS intakes with an API within the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline zone of potential impact. Wetlands An inventory of wetlands present within the zone of potential impact from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction shows that 17 wetlands, consisting of approximately 62.02 acres, are present. FWS NWI maps were evaluated through GIS to determine specific numbers (density per linear mile), types, and aerial extent of wetlands that are located within the zone of potential impact along the entire pipeline. Digital NWI maps at a scale of 1:24,000 for the entire route from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction were used in the evaluation. The digitized NWI maps for Harris County show stream locations as a polygon rather than a line. Because these data are given as polygons, acreage of stream locations were given rather than linear feet located within the zone of potential impact. Only two types of wetlands (estuarine and palustine) were identified within the zone of potential impact from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction. MP 1 - 2 had the greatest concentration of wetlands, averaging 12 wetlands/mile, accounting for approximately 55.65 acres. The lowest concentration of wetlands was located at MP -2 -3, with one wetland accounting for 0.93 acres. By using GIS and NWI maps, the aerial extent of wetlands was calculated for each type of wetland where a polygon was located within the zone of potential impact. Below is a table that shows the wetland counts, acreages, and type of each wetland. Wetland Classification and Acreage from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Wetland Polygons Wetland Classification Count Acres Estuarine Emergent 1 0.85 Estuarine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 48.01 Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 2.33 Palustrine Emergent 2 2.91 Palustrine Forested 1 0.21 10-74 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Wetland Polygons Wetland Classification Count Acres Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 8 5.21 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 3 2.47 Total 17 62.02 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact is compiled by milepost in Table 10.1.5-4. 10.1.5.2.3 Geologic Hazards Earthquake/Seismic Hazards The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. On each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along the pipeline route range from 0.01g to 0.04g. For example, in the southeastern Houston area (MP 0 – MP 2.6) along the pipeline route, there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.04g within any given 50-year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.01g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.02g in any given 50-year period (USGS, 2008). PGA along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 2.6 .04 PGA along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 2.6 .01 PGA along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 2.6 .02 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Flat topography is observed in the nearly flat prairies of the Coastal Prairies in Harris County. The geologic material in this region consists of deltaic sands and muds, which are generally not capable of creating or sustaining steep slopes over time (UT, BEG Physiographic Map of Texas, 1996). The pipeline route does not cross through areas that are susceptible to naturally occurring landslides or mass movement (per aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (BEG, 1996). 10-75 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Faulting/Subsidence Hazards Data from the USGS (USGS, 250,000 scale) indicate no faults between 9th Street Junction and Speed Junction within Harris County. Review of elevation data from 1906 to 2000 indicates total subsidence on the order of seven feet in the area of the pipeline (Harris Galveston Subsidence District http://mapper.subsidence.org/). This area of magnitude occurs along the pipeline over a distance of approximately 2.5 miles within the Houston metropolitan area (Harris Galveston Subsidence District, 2000). Movements of this magnitude over such a distance are not likely to cause a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Soil Stress Hazards The soil types that occur along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline (such as Lake Charles Clay) exhibit characteristics conducive to volume changes associated with the shrink-swell properties (USDA, NRCS “General Soil Map of Texas”)(USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, viewed October 3, 2011). The susceptibility of these soils to volume change is based on their chemical and physical structure. Clay-rich soils are the most susceptible to moisture-related volume change. These soils shrink when dried and swell when moistened. The movements are seasonal and depend on climatic conditions. It is these shrink-swell movements that can create stresses on the pipeline system and cause movement as the soil moves. These movements are small (inches), gradual, and regional; therefore, a few inches of movement may occur over several hundred feet of pipe. The pipe is capable of sustaining these types of movement. Where pipes exit the ground at pump stations, there is a potential for localized differential movement between the pipe and the aboveground structures. Engineering controls are implemented which allow for flexibility at connections and reduce the risks of detrimental differential movement due to shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The 9th Street Junction to Speed Pipeline crosses a total of two streams. Stream crossings are commonly buried under the stream bed; therefore, the scour of material supporting and covering the pipeline has the potential to occur. The concern is whether flood-induced scouring could expose sufficient length of pipeline to threaten pipeline integrity. Several conditions must occur concurrently in order to produce scour sufficient to threaten pipeline integrity. Regular inspections of all stream crossings are an important form of prevention, and are a required component of pipeline operation and maintenance. 10.1.5.2.4 Air Quality 10.1.5.2.4.1 Climate The findings of this section are identical to those presented in the original FEA for the Longhorn Pipeline (2000). Therefore, Section 4.2.4.1 (Climate) of the 1999 EA (see 10-76 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/xp/longhorn_nepa_documents/lppchap4.pdf) for the Longhorn Pipeline is included by reference in this document. 10.1.5.2.4.2 Air Quality The air quality in Southeast Texas, including the Harris County/East Houston area, is discussed in Section 4.2.4.2 of this FEA. 10.1.5.3 Ecological Resources 10.1.5.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Natural Regions Associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction The 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action includes the installation of a new 20-inch pipeline located within an existing maintained ROW easement. The 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action occurs within one EPA Level IV ecoregion of Texas; one state natural region mapped by TPWD (2011) and defined by LBJ School of Public Affairs (1978); and one Texas vegetation area delineated by Gould (1960) and updated by TPWD (1984 Vegetation Map). The project location also appears to be located on or near the border of two Texas biotic provinces as described by Blair (1950), which are the Austroriparian and Texan Provinces. The proposed activities for 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction are located within the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Level IV Ecoregion (Figure 10.1.5-4), a component of the Western Gulf Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2004). This Connected Action also occurs within the urban vegetational areas of Texas. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion Harris County is located at the northern edge of the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes natural region that extends inland approximately 50 miles. The area exhibits little topographic relief and is comprised of sluggish rivers, creeks, bayous, swamps, and freshwater marshes. Climax vegetation in the area is principally grassland (tall-grass prairie) and post oak savannah; however, much of the area has been invaded by trees and brush such as mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), live oak (Quercus virginiana), prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and several species of acacias. Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), eastern grama (Tripsacum dactyloides), gulf muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), and several species of panicum. The 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline is located in a heavily industrialized part of Houston and surrounding communities. Typical vegetation types and characteristics of the Gulf Coast Prairies ecoregion are not represented in the project area. Most of the pipeline is located within maintained ROW of existing pipelines that run through various industrial sites. 10-77 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Fauna Austroriparian Province This province includes the Gulf Coast Plain from the Atlantic Coast to eastern Texas. The Longhorn Pipeline begins just inside the western boundary of this province in Harris County. The Austroriparian Province is home to a wide variety of different species throughout Texas. Common species found throughout the Austroriparian Province are described in the following paragraphs. Mammals common to this province include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginaiana), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinesis), eastern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), Baird's pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). Common game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and squirrel (Sciurus spp.). Land turtles common to this province are ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). Common snake species found in this Texas region include: cottonmouth moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortirx), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), and speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis geluta holbrooki). Other species include the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), pig frog (Rana grylio), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris). Texan Province This province is located within a transitional area between forests of the Austroriparian Province and the grasslands to the west in Texas. The integration of woodlands and grasslands within the region results in a mixture of wildlife species typical of the two general habitats. The vertebrate fauna of the Texan Biotic Province consists of at least 49 species of mammals, 16 lizards, 2 land turtles, 39 snakes, 18 anurans (frogs and toads), and 5 urodeles (salamanders, newts, etc.) (Blair, 1950). Many species that occur in the Texan Province also occur in the Austroriparian Province as well, and many share the same habitats. Mammals typical of this province include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), Louisiana pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), fulvous harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and swamp rabbit (S. aquaticus). Animals typical of grasslands of this province include the thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). Typical anuran species to this province are the Hurter's spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri), Gulf Coast toad (Bufo valliceps), Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousii), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor/chrysoscelis), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), bullfrog 10-78 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL (Rana catesbeiana), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), and eastern narrowmouth toad (Microhylla carolinensis). Typical bird species in the Texan Province include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), eastern screech-owl (Megascops asio), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhunchos). Common gamebirds include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhyncos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern bobwhite (Collinus virginianus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (Blair, 1950; Schmidley, 2004). 10.1.5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Flora The project area is located in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes natural region of Texas, which includes approximately 20,312 square miles (UT, 1978). Gulf coast prairies are nearly level with slow surface drainage and elevations ranging from sea level to approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (MSL). In addition to wildlife habitat, the prairies are used for crops, livestock grazing, and urban and industrial centers. It is estimated that as much as 99% of the coastal prairies in Texas have been converted to agricultural land (McMahan, et. al, 1984). Gulf coast marshes are low, wet, marshy coastal areas commonly inundated with saline water, ranging from sea level to a few feet in elevation above MSL. These marshes support species of sedges, rushes, cordgrasses, reeds, and forbs, which provide beneficial wildlife habitat for numerous birds and marine fisheries. Many areas in the region have been invaded by noxious volunteer species such as honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), live oak (Quercus virginiana), prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and several species of acacias. Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), eastern grama (Tripsacum dactyloides), gulf muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), and several species of panicum. The Proposed Project location does not represent typical flora species located within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes natural region of Texas. The proposed pipeline is located within a heavily industrialized area and within an existing maintained ROW. According to The Vegetation Types of Texas, the project area is within the Urban (Number 46) vegetation type (McMahan, et.al., 1984). Field observations throughout the ROW show that the primary vegetation types are maintained grasses, primarily bermudagrass (Cynadon dactylon), St. Augustine (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepence) near drainages, and bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus). Some drainages and low lying areas include several wetland species, including bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus) and (Juncus spp). 10.1.5.3.2 Aquatic Resources This portion of the pipeline crosses two water bodies (based on USGS 1:24,000 and 1:100,000- scale hydrography). Panther Creek is located at approximately MP 0.51, and the Houston Ship Channel is crossed at MP 1.09. Both of these crossings will be directionally drilled. This pipeline 10-79 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL is located in the San Jacinto watershed within the San Jacinto River Basin. The San Jacinto River watershed is a very large watershed that originates well outside of Harris County. The San Jacinto River flows through much of eastern Harris County and joins with the Houston Ship Channel before flowing into Galveston Bay along the southeastern edge of the county. The watershed (within Harris County) extends through the cities of Houston, Galena Park, Pasadena, Deer Park, Baytown, Humble, La Porte, Morgans Point, Shoreacres, and Seabrook according to the HCFCD. The channels within the watershed drain all or part of Harris, Montgomery, Waller, Walker, Grimes, Liberty, and San Jacinto Counties, for a total drainage area of approximately 4,500 square miles. In Harris County, the San Jacinto River watershed covers about 487 square miles and includes seven primary streams: San Jacinto River, Houston Ship Channel, Cotton Patch Bayou, East Fork San Jacinto River, Boggy Bayou, Patricks Bayou, and Panther Creek. Faunal communities important in aquatic habitats within the area include phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, infauna and epifauna, as well as nekton species. These communities vary according to aquatic habitat characteristics, the habitat requirements, and distribution of species. Collectively, these species often construct complex food webs within aquatic systems. Common fish species that occur in the San Jacinto River Basin include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white bass (Marone chrsops), alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula), Texas shiner (Notropis amnis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black crappie (Pomoxis annularis), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) (Hubbs et al., 1991). While these species are typical in many areas of the San Jacinto River Basin, they may not be as abundant in this part of Harris County. Due to the heavy industry in the area, nearly all waterways in this part of Harris County are impaired, and likely reduce the populations of several species. Vegetation in open water aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow edges of the water, but may encompass vegetated wetland features such as emergent marsh. Plant species common to this habitat type include rushes, sedges, cattails, flat-sedges, spikerushes, tamarisk, bulrush, water willow, water lily, spatterdock, pickerelweed, and black willow (Salix nigra). Most aquatic flora along this pipeline is located along several bayous, drainages, and low lying areas on the ROW where water is continuously or normally present. 10.1.5.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 10.1.5.3.3.1 Protected Terrestrial Species Based on the USFWS and TPWD annotated county-by-county lists, 17 state- and federally- listed endangered, threatened, or candidate terrestrial species may occur within Harris County (Table 10.1.1-7). These lists include one amphibian species, nine avian species, four mammal species, three reptile species, and one plant species. None of these species were listed as candidate species. Due to the project location and dense industrial development in the immediate and surrounding area, it is not anticipated that any of the listed species would inhabit 10-80 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the project area due to lack of habitat. Field reconnaissance along the proposed pipeline also shows that lack of habitat would indicate that these species would not be in the area. Several small pockets of undeveloped wooded/grass areas are located near or adjacent to the proposed pipeline. These areas could provide temporary stops or transient locations for some bird species, but would not be ideal for nesting. Because the pipeline would be constructed within an existing maintained ROW, it is further unlikely that any proposed T&E species would be in the direct vicinity of the pipeline. 10.1.5.3.3.2 Protected Aquatic Species According to USFWS and TPWD annotated county list, eleven state- and federally-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate aquatic species are shown to occur within Harris County (Table 10.1.1-7). The listed species include one mammal species, two fish species, three mollusk species, and five reptile species. Based on field observations, lack of habitat, desktop analysis, and the distribution of listed aquatic species in Harris County, the occurrence of these species along the proposed pipeline is unlikely. 10.1.5.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.5.4.1 Historic Properties A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline centerline. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, the extreme southern end of the proposed ROW easement is located with an area of two prior cultural resources surveys. These surveys, conducted in 1976 for a USACE-permitted project and in 2005 for a TxDOT-sponsored project, produced negative results in the vicinity of the proposed ROW easement. The remainder of the proposed ROW easement has not been previously assessed for cultural resources according to the Atlas database. However, as the proposed ROW follows an existing pipeline ROW easement through a heavily developed industrial area, the potential for any undocumented intact cultural deposits within the easement is considered to be low. 10.1.6 EAST HOUSTON TO HOLLAND AVENUE 10.1.6.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.1.6.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10.1.6.1.1.1 Potentially Affected Communities The proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline is located entirely within Harris County. It crosses portions of the cities of Houston, Jacinto City, and Galena Park. Three schools were identified within the zone of potential impact of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue 10-81 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Pipeline. These schools are Elmore Middle School, Woodland Acres Christian School, and Pyburn Elementary School. No other vulnerable receptors were identified within the zone of potential impact of the proposed pipeline. 10.1.6.1.1.2 Regional Population Density Analysis According to the 2000 Census, the total population of Harris County was 3,400,578 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). By 2009, that number had increased by 19.7% to 4,070,989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). According to the TWDB, growth in Harris County is predicted to continue, and the population is expected to reach an estimated 5,180,439 by 2030 (an increase of 27.3% over the estimated 2009 population) (TWDB, 2011). To better define the population that would potentially be affected by the proposed pipeline, it was determined which U.S. Census Bureau block groups were crossed by the proposed pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact (Figure 10.1.6-1), and population data were retrieved for these block groups. The total population of the block groups crossed by the proposed pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact was 28,226 in 2000, or 0.8% of the population of Harris County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Of the 15 block groups crossed by the proposed pipeline and its associated zone of potential impact, all were identified as minority, and three were identified as low-income. A summary of these block groups is provided in the table below and these block groups are shown on Figure 10.1.6-1. 10.1.6.1.2 Transportation Networks The proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline crosses three federal highways. No state highways or state-designated FM or Ranch roads are crossed. The pipeline also crosses numerous city streets, county roads, and three railroads. Highway and railroad crossings are listed by county in Appendix 10A. 10.1.6.1.3 Land Use Regional Land Uses Data from the 2006 NLCD were obtained in an effort to characterize the land uses crossed by the proposed pipeline. The table below summarizes the types of land uses within the zone of potential impact surrounding the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline. Land Uses Traversed by the Proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Type of Land Use Acreage Percent Deciduous Forest 123.5 4.3% Developed, High Intensity 400.7 14.1% Developed, Low Intensity 607.5 21.3% Developed, Medium Intensity 473.6 16.6% Developed, Open Space 609.6 21.4% 10-82 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Type of Land Use Acreage Percent Evergreen Forest 96.2 3.4% Grassland/Herbaceous 120.3 4.2% Mixed Forest 169.1 5.9% Open Water 21.5 0.8% Pasture/Hay 12.1 0.4% Scrub-shrub 1.4 0.0% Woody Wetlands 214.7 7.5% Total 2,850.1 100.0% As shown in the table above, the majority of the area (73.4%) is characterized as developed. These developed areas include a range of uses from “highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers” (high intensity) to “areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation often including single-family residences” (low intensity). Developed, open-space land is typically comprised of vacant lots and open spaces in urban and suburban areas (NLCD, 2001). Parks and Natural Areas The proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline crosses one park, Herman Brown Park, and has three additional parks located partially within its zone of potential impact Circle Drive Park, Groveland Terrace Park, and Smith Park. Herman Brown Park is operated by the City of Houston, and is located northeast of the I-10 and I-610 interchange. The park is approximately 715 acres, and offers tennis courts, softball fields, trails, restrooms, a playground, and a picnic pavilion (City of Houston, 2011). Groveland Terrace Park is also operated by the City of Houston, and offers playground equipment and swings (City of Houston, 2011). Smith Park is operated by Jacinto City, and Circle Drive Park is a small park associated with a subdivision development. 10.1.6.1.4 Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Populations along the Proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Geography Population Percent Minority Median Household Income¹ Harris County 3,400,578 57.9% $42,598 BG 2, CT 2117 1,106 98.4% $18,533 BG 1, CT 2118 289 100.0% $12,083 BG 3, CT 2309 834 98.9% $20,625 BG 1, CT 2311 1,724 88.7% $34,926 BG 1, CT 2325 952 65.8% $43,833 BG 2, CT 2325 1,807 84.2% $33,462 BG 4, CT 2326 1,876 75.4% $46,053 BG 2, CT 2327 2,801 90.9% $38,464 BG 3, CT 2327 3,506 97.3% $29,507 10-83 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Geography Population Percent Minority Median Household Income¹ BG 4, CT 2327 4,814 92.9% $24,570 BG 2, CT 2333 1,920 72.8% $33,445 BG 1, CT 2334 1,217 74.9% $37,083 BG 3, CT 2335 2,099 63.3% $38,065 BG 1, CT 2337 1,431 59.4% $50,080 BG 8, CT 2337 1,850 82.9% $35,069 ¹In 1999 dollars The median household incomes of the three block groups that were identified as low-income were $18,533, $12,083, and $20,625, compared to $42,598 for Harris County as a whole. These figures represent substantial differences in income (less than half of the county median household income), and are therefore potential low-income populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). All of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and its zone of potential impact have high percentages of minority persons, ranging from 59.4% to 100.0%. Most of the individuals who identified as minority in the census identify as Hispanic or Latino, an ethnic group with increasing populations in the State of Texas in general. While the population of Harris County as a whole is 57.9% minority, many of the block groups crossed by the pipeline are characterized by a much higher percentage of minority persons. As discussed above, there are potential EJ populations in the vicinity of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline. Because of the presence of potential EJ populations, a disproportionate impacts analysis will be carried out in Section 10.3.6.1.4 of this document. 10.1.6.2 Physical Resources 10.1.6.2.1 Groundwater Resources The East Houston to Holland Avenue Connected Action lies entirely on a clay-dominate outcrop of the Chicot Aquifer. A description of this unit of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, a major aquifer, is given in Section 4.2.1.1. The location relative to the major aquifer is shown on Figure 10.1.5-2, as previously referenced. Table 10.1.6-1 provides a summary of the aquifer associated with this Connected Action, and Table 10.1.6-2 lists those PWSs having water wells within or capture zones crossing the zone of potential impact. 10.1.6.2.2 Surface Water Description of Surface Water Resources The East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline is located within the San Jacinto River Basin. This section identifies water bodies (consisting of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals or ditches) that either cross the pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. For each of these water bodies, the location, type of water body, and length of 10-84 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the crossing or intrusion into the zone of potential impact is provided. For water bodies that cross the pipeline, the approximate MP of the stream crossing is provided. For water features that do not cross the pipeline, but are located within the zone of potential impact, the MP is provided for the point that the stream or water body is closest to pipeline. The source of data used to identify the type of water body and its location was obtained from the NHD provided by the USGS. As noted above, the types of water bodies included in this FEA consist of perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes and reservoirs, and canals and ditches. The following types of water bodies were not considered to be significant water bodies, and were excluded from assessment: (1) ephemeral channels that flow only for a brief time, i.e., hours or days following rainfall, and (2) ponds. Description of Significant Stream Crossings Along Route The East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline is located entirely within the San Jacinto River Basin. There are no major water bodies in the vicinity of the pipeline. The only significant water body crossing the pipeline route is Hunting Bayou, a perennial stream. A description of this water body is provided below: Hunting Bayou: The watershed for Hunting Bayou encompasses approximately 30 square miles. Hunting Bayou is the single primary stream within this watershed, and it drains to the Houston Ship Channel. There are about 45 miles of open streams within the watershed, including the primary stream and tributary channels. The watershed is highly urbanized, i.e., has an estimated population of around 91,000, with a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The middle reach is the only area that contains open space of significant size and includes Herman Brown Park. Herman Park is a forrested nature area used for hiking, bicycling, conservation, and nature study. Water Quality Downstream of Pipeline Crossings The general water quality of the water bodies along the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307. Since Hunting Bayou is not a TCEQ Classified Water Segment, the Water Quality Standards for the nearest connecting Classified Segment apply to its watershed, i.e., Segment 1007. Accordingly, the water quality of Hunting Bayou was assessed using the 2010 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Standards contained in 30 TAC 307 for Segment 1007 (Houston Ship Channel/Buffalo Bayou Tidal). Review of these water quality data indicates that Segment 1007 of the Houston Ship Channel is only suitable for navigation and industrial water supply. Water quality criteria for this segment are as follows: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) SO4 (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) pH Range (SU) Indicator Bacteria #/100ml Temperature (°F) NA NA NA 1.0 6.5 – 9.0 168 95 10-85 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Another important aspect of water quality concerns is the water bodies that have been identified by the TCEQ to be impaired. In this regard, the TCEQ maintains what is referred to as a TMDL Program that is authorized by and created to fulfill the requirements of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. Hunting Bayou, located within Segment 1007, has been placed on the TCEQ’s 303(d) listing of impaired water bodies. In 2002, Hunting Bayou was first added to the TCEQ’s 303(d) list. The Texas 303(d) List places the non-tidal segment (from the confluence with Hunting Bayou to Mercury Road) and the tidal segment (from the confluence with Hunting Bayou tidal at IH-10 to Maury Street) on the impaired water body list. The basis for the non-tidal listing is elevated bacteria counts. The basis for the tidal segment listing is elevated bacteria counts and depressed dissolved oxygen. For Hunting Bayou, the TCEQ notes that a TMDL is underway. Vulnerable Water Bodies Based upon the NHD Dataset information previously discussed, there are seven locations along this segment of pipeline that are crossed by water bodies. Two of these pipeline crossings are made by Hunting Bayou, three pipeline crossings are made by canals, and two pipeline crossings are made by intermittent streams. Table 10.1.6-3 provides a listing of the surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact, the locations of the water body entries into the zone of potential impact, the location of pipeline crossings, the names of the water bodies, and the length of water body segment within the zone of potential impact. In some cases, there are multiple points of entry within the zone of potential impact that are associated with causes such as stream meandering, paralleling of the zone of potential impact, the irregular shape of portions of the zone of potential impact, and the presence of multiple tributaries. Potentially vulnerable public drinking water from surface water resources along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline route were evaluated separately. The TCEQ and the USGS developed procedures to assess the susceptibility of PWS source waters to 227 selected drinking water contaminants. The procedures are discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.3. The locations of PWS along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline were obtained from the most recent version of the TCEQ Source Water Assessment Viewer files. The viewer contains the spatial datasets used and created during a source water susceptibility assessment process that was conducted by the TCEQ. These files were then imported into the GIS database depicting the location of the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline and the boundaries of the zone of potential impact along the pipeline path. The exact locations of all PWS intakes with an API within the zone of potential impact were then evaluated. Based upon this evaluation, there are no PWS intakes with an API within the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline zone of potential impact. Wetlands An inventory of wetlands present within the zone of potential impact from East Houston to Holland Avenue shows that 27 wetlands, consisting of approximately 150.56 acres, are present. FWS NWI maps were evaluated through GIS to determine specific numbers (density per linear mile), types, and aerial extent of wetlands that are located within the zone of potential impact 10-86 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL along the entire pipeline. Digital NWI maps at a scale of 1:24,000 for the entire route from Holland Avenue to East Houston were used in the evaluation. The digitized NWI maps for Harris County show stream locations as a polygon rather than a line. Because these data are given as polygons, acreage of stream locations were given rather than linear feet located within the zone of potential impact. Three types of wetlands (lacustrine, lower perennial, and palustrine) were identified within the zone of potential impact from Holland Avenue to East Houston. MP 2 - 3 had the greatest concentration/acreage of wetlands, averaging eight wetlands/mile, accounting for approximately 92 acres. The lowest concentration of wetlands was in MP 0 – 1, where no wetlands were identified. By using GIS and NWI maps, the aerial extent of wetlands was calculated for each type of wetland where a polygon was located within the zone of potential impact. Below is a table which shows the wetland counts, acreages, and type of each wetland. Wetland Classification and Acreage from East Houston to Holland Avenue Wetland Polygons Wetland Classification Count Acres Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 19.74 Palustrine Emergent 10 16.96 Palustrine Forested 5 75.43 Palustrine Scrub-shrub 3 9.03 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 6 16.23 Lower Perennial 2 13.13 Total 27 150.55 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact is compiled by milepost on Table 10.1.6-4. 10.1.6.2.3 Geologic Hazards Earthquake/Seismic Hazards The tables below summarize the seismic hazard zones crossed by the Holland Avenue to East Houston Pipeline. On each table, the modeled PGA (based on the associated PE) may be determined for any seismic hazard zone along the pipeline route. PGA values for all values of PE along the pipeline route range from 0.01g to 0.04g. For example, in the southeastern Houston area (MP 0 – MP 7.68) along the pipeline route, there is a 2% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.04g within any given 50-year period. In that same area, there is a 5% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.01g with any given 50-year period, and a 10% probability that the PGA will exceed 0.02g in any given 50-year period (USGS, 2008). 10-87 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL PGA along the Holland Avenue to East Houston Pipeline: 2% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.68 .04 PGA along the Holland Avenue to East Houston Pipeline: 5% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.68 .01 PGA along the Holland Avenue to East Houston Pipeline: 10% PE in 50 years Starting MP Ending MP PGA 0 7.68 .02 Landslide/Mass Movement Hazards Flat topography is observed in the nearly flat prairies of the Coastal Prairies in Harris County. The geologic material in this region consists of deltaic sands and muds, which are generally not capable of creating or sustaining steep slopes over time (BEG, 1996). The pipeline route does not cross through areas that are susceptible to naturally occurring landslides or mass movement (per aerial imagery viewed on Google Earth Pro) (UT BEG Physiographic Map of Texas, 1996). Faulting/Subsidence Hazards This segment of pipeline crosses several faults between East Houston and Holland Avenue within Harris County. The pipeline crosses three aseismic faults, at five separate locations, that are considered to be active. Regional faults have been monitored since March 2004 in accordance with the Operational Reliability Assessment. The data collected and analyzed indicate no measurable movement over time on two of the faults (Melde and Breen faults), with only slight movement of 0.06 inches over the last 5 ½ years for the Akron fault, and -0.08 inches during the same period for the Hockley fault. Review of elevation data from 1906 to 2000 indicates total subsidence on the order of 7 feet in the area of the pipeline (Harris Galveston Subsidence District, 2004). This area of magnitude occurs along the pipeline over a distance of approximately eight miles within the Houston metropolitan area (Harris Galveston Subsidence District, 2004). Movements of this magnitude over such a distance are not likely to cause a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Soil Stress Hazards The soil types (such as Lake Charles and Beaumont Clay) that occur along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline exhibit characteristics conducive to volume changes associated with the shrink-swell properties (USDA, NRCS “General Soil Map of Texas”)(USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, viewed October 3, 2011). The susceptibility of these soils to volume change is based on their chemical and physical structure. Clay-rich soils are the most susceptible to moisture- related volume change. These soils shrink when dried and swell when moistened. The movements are seasonal and depend on climatic conditions. 10-88 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL It is these shrink-swell movements that can create stresses on the pipeline system and cause movement as the soil moves. These movements are small (inches), gradual, and regional; therefore, a few inches of movement may occur over several hundred feet of pipe. The pipe is capable of sustaining these types of movement. Where pipes exit the ground at pump stations, there is a potential for localized differential movement between the pipe and the aboveground structures. Engineering controls are implemented which allow for flexibility at connections and reduce the risks of detrimental differential movement due to shrink-swell behavior of the soils. Scour at Stream Crossings The East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline crosses a total of five streams. Stream crossings are commonly buried under the stream bed; therefore, the scour of material supporting and covering the pipeline has the potential to occur. The concern is whether flood-induced scouring could expose sufficient length of pipeline to threaten pipeline integrity. Several conditions must occur concurrently in order to produce scour sufficient to threaten pipeline integrity. Regular inspections of all stream crossings are an important form of prevention, and are a required component of pipeline operation and maintenance. 10.1.6.2.4 Air Quality 10.1.6.2.4.1 Climate The findings of this section are identical to those presented in the 1999 EA for the Longhorn Pipeline. Therefore, Section 4.2.4.1 (Climate) of the 1999 EA for the Longhorn Pipeline is included by reference in this document. 10.1.6.2.4.2 Air Quality The air quality in Southeast Texas, including the Harris County/East Houston area, is discussed in Section 4.2.4.2 of this FEA. 10.1.6.3 Ecological Resources 10.1.6.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Due to the project location and similarities in habitat as well as surrounding areas, terrestrial resources for the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be the same as that given in Section 10.1.5.3.1. The ecoregions are illustrated on Figure 10.1.5-4, as previously referenced. 10.1.6.3.2 Aquatic Resources Due to project location, the baseline analysis for the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline will be similar to that given in Section 10.1.5.3.2. The pipeline crosses Hunting Bayou twice and 10-89 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL several tributaries (based on USGS 1:24,000 and 1:100,000-scale hydrography). The presence of several aquatic features will be traversed by the proposed pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. Hunting Bayou will be crossed at two different locations. The first crossing is located at MP 0.49, on the north end of the Magellan Facility, and the second crossing is located at MP 5.6. Hunting Bayou and most of the drainage features will be directionally drilled. This pipeline is located in the San Jacinto watershed within the San Jacinto River Basin. The San Jacinto River watershed is a very large watershed that originates well outside of Harris County. The San Jacinto River flows through much of eastern Harris County and joins with the Houston Ship Channel before flowing into Galveston Bay along the southeastern edge of the county. The watershed (within Harris County) extends through the cities of Houston, Galena Park, Pasadena, Deer Park, Baytown, Humble, La Porte, Morgans Point, Shoreacres, and Seabrook according to the HCFCD. The channels within the watershed drain all or part of Harris, Montgomery, Waller, Walker, Grimes, Liberty, and San Jacinto counties, for a total drainage area of approximately 4,500 square miles. In Harris County, the San Jacinto River watershed covers about 487 square miles, and includes seven primary streams: San Jacinto River, Houston Ship Channel, Cotton Patch Bayou, East Fork San Jacinto River, Boggy Bayou, Patricks Bayou, and Panther Creek. Faunal communities, important in aquatic habitats, within the area include phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, infauna and epifauna, as well as nekton species. These communities vary according to aquatic habitat characteristics, the habitat requirements, and distribution of species. Collectively, these species often construct complex food webs within aquatic systems. Common fish species that occur in the San Jacinto River Basin include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white bass (Marone chrsops), alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula), Texas shiner (Notropis amnis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black crappie (Pomoxis annularis), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) (Hubbs et al., 1991). Vegetation in open water aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow edges of the water, but may encompass vegetated wetland features, such as emergent marsh. Plant species common to this habitat type include rushes, sedges, cattails, flat-sedges, spikerushes, tamarisk, bulrush, water willow, water lily, spatterdock, pickerelweed, and black willow (Salix nigra). Most aquatic flora along this pipeline is located along several bayous and drainages where water is continuously available. Other aquatic species can be found along the edge of stock tanks or wetland communities. 10.1.6.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Due to project location and similar habitats, the baseline analysis for protected terrestrial and aquatic species for the East Houston and Holland Avenue Pipeline is the same as that given in Section 10.1.5.3.3. 10-90 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.1.6.4 Cultural Resources 10.1.6.4.1 Historic Properties A review of the THC’s Atlas website indicated no previously-recorded archeological sites or cemeteries within a 1,250-foot radius of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline centerline. Similarly, a review of the NPS NRHP Google Earth map layer indicated no historic properties listed on the NRHP within the review perimeter. Based on the Atlas data, the proposed ROW is crossed by two linear cultural resources surveys conducted in 2005 and 2007 for TxDOT-sponsored projects. Both of these prior surveys produced negative results where they cross the ROW. Additionally, although not mapped on the Atlas database, the entire length of this ROW was previously surveyed in 2005 by TAS. This survey also produced negative results. As this proposed pipeline will be located within an existing, previously disturbed pipeline ROW easement that has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results, the potential for any undocumented, intact cultural deposits within the ROW is considered to be low. 10.2 PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTED ACTION Magellan’s IMP identifies, analyzes, and manages the potential risks associated with the operation of the pipeline system. The IMP utilizes a comprehensive system integrity approach based on the structural alignment and integration of Pipeline/Facility Integrity, Data Management, Real Estate Services, Engineering, Field Maintenance/Damage Prevention, and One Call groups. The IMP process incorporates the centralization and analysis of data collected through several distinct yet complementary programs. Integration of these programs provides an overall risk management approach to mitigating risk on the pipeline system. Programs and activities integrated under the IMP include: • Pipeline Integrity Testing and Rehabilitation – This program is managed in compliance with DOT regulations under 49 CFR Part 195.452, and includes in-line inspection via intelligent smart pigs and hydrostatic testing of all mainline jurisdictional pipe on both HCA and non-HCA affecting segments. The program manages the rehabilitation of identified anomalies that meet Part 195.452 criteria for investigation, including but not limited to: corrosion, dents, cracks, and crack-like features. • External and Internal Corrosion Monitoring and Maintenance – External Corrosion is primarily managed through impressed current cathodic protection systems. Internal corrosion is managed through the use of internal corrosion coupons, cleaning pigs, and corrosion inhibitor injection systems. • Metallurgical Analysis – Most identified in-service or hydrostatic testing failures are subjected to some sort of metallurgical testing to learn more about the root cause of the failure and apply lessons learned and findings. These findings can then be translated 10-91 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL into actionable mitigation measures or procedural changes that will enhance the integrity of the system. • Outside Forces Damage Prevention Program – This program manages both the threat of third party damage and damage associated with natural forces such as earthquakes, erosion, and landslides. Third Party damage is managed through Depth of Cover Inspection and Mitigation, Line Marking, Encroachment Mitigation, Inspection and Rehabilitation of Overhead Crossings, Aerial Patrol and Pipeline Monitoring, and One Call Management. • Pressure Cycle and Crack Growth Analysis – The integrity of pipelines with longitudinal seams or history of cracking can be managed through control of pressure cycle fatigue and crack growth. • Incident Investigation Analysis and Recommendations – The objective of this program is to investigate selected incidents for probable cause, identify corrective actions to prevent recurrence, complete a management review, and communicate findings and lessons learned. • Leak History Reporting and Data Analysis – It is critical to document and track the causes of leaks. Leak history is evaluated and analyzed for trends, which may be used to predict the probability of future events. These lessons learned from history are then used to determine specific actions which may be used to prevent future incidents. • Stress Corrosion Cracking Investigations – Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) can be caused by a combination of factors. When SCC is discovered on the pipeline system, it is important to take certain mitigative steps to detect the SCC and predict the growth, such that subsequent integrity assessments can be completed to manage the integrity threat. • GIS mapping information and participation with the PHMSA National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program – NPMS provides critical data for integrity management, such as the location of High Consequence Areas including Commercial Navigable Waterways, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Drinking Water Supplies, Incorporated Towns, and High Population Areas. • Relative Risk Assessment Modeling – Collected data regarding the attributes of the MMP System are loaded into the Relative Risk Assessment Models. The heaviest weighting is based upon changes in the surrounding population, environment, or mechanical attributes of the pipeline. This approach allows for a targeted focus on those assets that would have the greatest impact to the public or to the environment in the event of an unintended product release. The Relative Risk Assessment Models are designed to prioritize and sort assets in accordance with their scored relative risk in relation to all of the other assets. Risk is defined as the product of likelihood and consequence, with the consequence factor increasing as population density or environmental sensitivity increases. As new information is made available, as population or environmental shifts impact the line segmentation, or following the incorporation of various risk mitigation initiatives, the Relative Risk Assessment Models are re-run to ensure that the risk identification and assessment model remains current and accurate. • Management of Change Program – The objective of this initiative is to identify when a Management of Change assessment is needed, to describe the process to safely and effectively manage change and mitigate associated risk, and to communicate the 10-92 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL change through the use of the Management of Change Request (MOCR) Form. This initiative also describes the process for initiating and completing a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA), when required. • Management of Company Design Standards and Specifications – Company Design Standards and Specifications ensure that the appropriate engineering and industry best practices are applied to new construction and maintenance projects, ensuring the integrity of the newly installed assets. • Operations Control Integrity Monitoring Program – Through Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems (SCADA), critical operational pipeline data such as pressures, temperatures, flow rate, and equipment operational status are collected. These data are used to control pipeline operations and detect system leaks. • Project Specific Risk Assessment and Prioritization – Funds to complete operational reliability, regulatory, and discretionary projects are centrally managed to ensure the appropriate allocation and prioritization of funding. A risk analysis is performed on all discretionary projects to determine the potential impact and improvement to human health and safety, environmental safety, and operational reliability. • Critical Drawing Management Program – Accurate pipeline maps and facility drawings facilitate safe operations, maintenance, and emergency response activities. • Emergency Response Planning - Effective spill prevention and emergency response preparedness are necessary to eliminate or otherwise minimize the impacts of spills to employees, the public, private property, and the environment. Spill response resources and the tactics and expertise required to employ them effectively comprise the core of the Company’s emergency response program. The Connected Actions pipeline segments and associated facilities will be operated under the IMP in the same manner as the Proposed Project. The objective of the IMP is to operate the assets so that there are no adverse effects to employees, the environment, the public, and Magellan customers. The IMP provides a means to improve the safety of pipeline systems and to allocate resources effectively. The Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas, 49 CFR Part 195.452, requires that hazardous liquid pipeline operators identify all pipeline segments that could affect a HCA. In addition, Part 195.452 requires hazardous liquid pipeline operators to periodically incorporate new or updated information into its HCA pipeline segment identification and affected area analysis. The Magellan IMP satisfies the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195.452. The IMP is routinely audited for compliance by the PHMSA. Detailed integrity management information for each pipe segment is included in Appendix 10C. 10-93 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS OF CONNECTED ACTIONS Section 10.3 evaluates the potential impacts resulting from the Connected Actions. As described in Section 3.2, the Connected Actions include three new pipeline segments, three proposed pump stations, and additional storage capacities at the Frost Station and the Crane Station. Operational impacts analyzed are those associated with new pipeline operations and maintenance and new pump station operation and maintenance. The potential impacts associated with the Connected Actions were evaluated by resource: human health and safety, transportation, land use, environmental justice, groundwater, surface water, air quality, terrestrial biology, aquatic biology, threatened and endangered species, wetlands, cultural resources, and cumulative impacts (Section 10.4). For each resource, three impact categories were studied: construction impacts, operational impacts, and accidental releases. Construction impacts were evaluated for pipelines, pump stations, and infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the Connected Actions. Operational impacts were evaluated for the new and additional and/or incremental impacts associated with any proposed changes to normal operations. Accidental releases include leaks and ruptures. The impacts from leaks or ruptures on the pipeline or at a pump station are treated similarly. In all instances, the impacts are dependent on environmental setting and the quantity and nature of the release. The process of evaluating impacts included establishing environmental effect categories to define the levels of effect intensity and duration for each resource that is analyzed in this chapter. These effects categories provide a common language when describing effects. Attribute of Effect Negligible Minor Magnitude Moderate Major An easily measurable change in the current condition Temporary Short-lived (i.e., during construction and remediation) Duration Short-term Long-term More than 3 years Description No measurable change to the current condition A small, but perceivable change in the current condition A measurable change in the current condition 3 years or less For example, the construction activities may require the removal of vegetation that would result in a minor impact with a long-term duration. The effect of the removal of the vegetation would be a small, but measurable change in the current condition, as it would not have an adverse effect of the environment, but the duration of the effect would be effectively permanent. Leaks involving an ignition and fire are evaluated separately from leaks without fires due to the differences in impacts. The differences between a leak resulting in ignition/fire and a leak with no fire are as follows: • Fires create an immediate threat to human health and safety and to property; 10-94 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Fires reduce the volumes of released gasoline or crude oil, and therefore reduce contamination of water resources; • Fires associated with spills over rivers or streams can cause fish mortality in the area of the fire and downstream, due to changes in water temperature and the consumption of dissolved oxygen in the water; and • Fires increase air quality impacts temporarily due to release of combustion byproducts. The impacts from small, but persistent releases can potentially result in a greater impact than large, rapid releases (ruptures) because small leaks can occur for a considerable amount of time without detection, possibly releasing as much or more contaminants than a large leak. The primary difference would be the duration of the event. In the worst case, a small leak would remain below the sensitivity of the leak detection system and remain undetected until an actual environmental impact was discovered along the pipeline. A rupture may overwhelm an environmental system’s capacity to retard the progress of gasoline from a rupture. Conversely, a rupture is more likely to be detected and responded to quickly; therefore, the contaminant can be contained, removed, or remediated before reaching more sensitive receptors. Both of these possibilities, a persistent release or a rupture, can completely be characterized or predicted ahead of time, could have a large impact on the long-term consequences of an accidental event. 10.3.1 ORION WEST EXPANSION 10.3.1.1 Human Resources and Land Uses Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Both the construction associated with, and new operations of, the Orion West Expansion Connected Action are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact from fire, exposure to hazardous vapors such as benzene, and ingestion of contaminated water. Due to the rural environment (less developed than low intensity) of the zone of potential impact, these potential impacts are considered to be minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.1.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety 10.3.1.1.1.1 Construction The construction will occur primarily in low-density population areas and is expected to result in negligible impacts. 10.3.1.1.1.2 Normal Operations Operation of the Orion West Expansion would result in negligible impacts to local populations. This Connected Action includes new operations which involve additional storage capacity for refined product, additional pumping facilities, sections of new pipeline for crude oil service, and 10-95 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL other upgraded equipment to allow for increased throughput of refined product. Normal operations are expected to result in negligible impacts to public health and safety, based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.1.2.3.2). 10.3.1.1.1.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of refined product pose a potential risk for impacts to human health and safety. The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. The accidental release scenarios include pipeline leaks and ruptures. Both of these scenarios present potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) impacts. Pipeline leaks and ruptures can occur due to equipment failure at the pump stations, where there are valves, pumps, flanges, etc., or from effects due to corrosion. Inspections, testing and operational procedures minimize the likelihood of occurrence of these leaks. Pipeline leaks and ruptures can also occur as a result of third party damage (e.g., digging). Signage (ROW), depth of cover, communication releases, and the one-call system all provide measures to minimize the likelihood of third party intervention. A rupture would result in large volumes of refined product being released initially, which would likely be detected more readily by the leak detection system; therefore, response would be activated more quickly. The leak detection system would trigger the valves to close, thereby minimizing the volume of refined product that would drain. As identified in the 1999 EA, potential human health and safety impacts which could result from a release of refined product include: • Fire or explosions (the flashpoint of gasoline is -50°Fahrenheit); • Short-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from a gasoline spill; • Long-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from contaminated soils, groundwater, or surface water; and • Exposure to toxic constituents of gasoline from ingestion (contaminated water). The acute impacts from an accidental release of refined product are fire and inhalation (short- term exposure), as described below. • The fire risk of gasoline is very high; therefore, the evacuation of people within an appropriate evacuation radius is the priority. The low flash point of gasoline inhibits the equipment that can be used for initial response, as any potential ignition sources must be avoided. • The primary inhalation exposure risk of releases of refined product is from benzene. Immediate symptoms of benzene exposure are vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid, or irregular heartbeat, and death (at very high benzene concentrations). Benzene causes cancer in humans, and long-term exposure causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, 10-96 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL leading to anemia. Benzene can also cause excessive bleeding, and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection (CDC facts). The total population of the block groups crossed by the Orion West Pipeline and within the defined zone of potential impact was 90,951 in 2000. The pipeline crosses primarily rural land with few if any residences (low density) within the zone of potential impact. Of the 113,472.6 acres of land within the zone of potential impact surrounding the Orion West Expansion, only 91.4 acres (0.1%) are considered high intensity, 242.6 acres (0.2%) medium intensity, and 756.2 acres (0.7%) low intensity. Therefore 99% of the Orion West zone of potential impact is less developed than low intensity. There are no schools or hospitals located within the zone of potential impact. The recreational areas located within the zone of potential impact include the Lake Colorado City State Park and three privately owned country club facilities. The NLCD defines ‘developed’ as areas characterized by a high percentage (30% or greater) of constructed materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc.). The land classifications are further defined on the USGS website (USGS, 2010). 10.3.1.1.2 Impacts to Transportation Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Potential transportation impacts related to the Orion West Expansion include disruption of traffic flows and access, especially emergency access on roads and railroads. These include roads and railroads that are in close proximity to the construction of the proposed pump stations and infrastructure updates (to facilitate the increase in pipeline throughput capacity), storage capacity, and equipment upgrades of the pipeline. The potential to impact transportation along the Orion West Expansion includes crossings at 13 federal highways, 17 state highways, numerous state-designated FM and Ranch roads, and 11 railroads. The majority of these road crossings occur in Hill, Bosque, Erath, Callahan, and Taylor Counties, and the railroad crossings occur in Hill, Bosque, Erath, Comanche, Taylor, and Nolan Counties. Nearby roads and intersections could also be affected by project-related traffic from construction or maintenance activities, or by disruption from an accidental release of product. However, potential impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Orion West Expansion are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to major and temporary in duration. 10.3.1.1.2.1 Construction The Orion West Expansion does not include the installation of new pipeline along the ROW. New construction will be limited to selected sites along the ROW for the installation of new pump stations and infrastructure upgrades at existing facilities. Since construction will be along the pipeline ROW and not within any roadways or railroad crossings, there should be no road closures during construction. However, if construction is in close proximity to a roadway, portions of the roadway that are currently used for traffic circulation and/or parking may be temporarily displaced, requiring detouring. 10-97 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL In addition to restrictions on road usage due to construction activity, additional traffic would be generated in the area of construction as construction workers, equipment delivery trucks, and excavation equipment travel to and from the construction zones. The resulting impacts would be minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.1.1.2.2 Normal Operations Post-expansion operation of the Orion West Expansion will not be substantially different from the current staffing and operation; therefore, there will be negligible transportation-related impacts. 10.3.1.1.2.3 Accidental Releases A pipeline rupture in a populated area would cause traffic impacts because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. Depending on the location of the release, impacts could include road closures in the vicinity of the release and rerouting traffic to minimize traffic delays. The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to major and temporary in duration. 10.3.1.1.3 Impacts to Land Use Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the Orion West Expansion would be negligible, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.1.1.3.1 Construction Because this is an existing pipeline that is currently operational, any impacts resulting from construction activities would occur only from the construction of the new pump stations and refined product storage tanks. Potential impacts could involve condemnation proceedings against private landowners, incompatibilities, or inconsistencies with existing or planned land uses, and agricultural land conversion. The DeLeon and Iatan pump stations are proposed to be constructed within the footprint of previously used pump stations, and are therefore consistent with the previous use. The areas surrounding these stations are undeveloped land and generally isolated. 10-98 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Construction of the additional storage capacity at Frost would take place within the existing property boundaries, and would be an expansion of existing capacity, which would be consistent with current land uses. Access to the site already exists, so construction impacts would be minor. Overall, construction impacts to land use resulting from the Orion West Expansion would be negligible. 10.3.1.1.3.2 Normal Operations Because the pipeline is already operational, the impacts resulting from normal operations would be negligible. Impacts to land use are not anticipated. 10.3.1.1.3.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from an accidental release of refined product may include damage to private property from soil contamination, damages related to remediation activities, and property damage in the event of a fire. The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. 10.3.1.1.4 Environmental Justice As discussed in Section 10.1.1.1.4, portions of the Orion West Pipeline cross block groups with populations that are categorized as minority, low-income, or both. Because these block groups cover an area much larger than the area covered by the zone of potential impact, the first step of the disproportionate impacts analysis is to determine if there are individuals residing within the zone of potential impact for the sensitive block groups. To determine this, housing units were identified by pipeline MP on aerial photography (NAIP, 2010). Several block groups had housing units within the zone of potential impact as detailed in the following sections. The sparse residential development currently along the Orion West Pipeline eliminates the potential for disproportional impacts. As shown in Table 10.3.1-1, of the nine EJ block groups crossed by the Orion West Expansion, four have no housing units located within the zone of potential impact of the MPs they cross. Two of the remaining five block groups have less than 10 housing units; 1 has less than 20 housing units spanning a distance of 10 miles. As a result, this Connected Action would not have the potential for disproportionate impacts on these block groups, since the housing units and potential EJ individuals are dispersed in a random pattern and do not constitute a cohesive significant EJ population. BG 4, CT 30, Ector County (BG 4) contained a substantial number of housing units (112). These are part of a subdivision located 1.4 miles east of the pump station in Odessa, which is surrounded by industrial development, including pipelines, transmission lines, and refineries— land uses that are consistent with the expansion of the Orion West Pipeline. The percent 10-99 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL minority population of BG 4, CT 30 (76.5%) is substantially higher than CT 30 (40.3%) and the City of Odessa (41.4%); therefore, it is probable that the individuals residing within these housing units represent a minority population. Because the pipeline already exists, there would be no disproportionate impacts to this population as a result of construction. The only potential impacts from operations would arise from possible pipeline failures. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population group may be impacted more than another community or population group. Additionally, these housing units are located in a highly industrialized area, and this pipeline is consistent with those land uses. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to this population are anticipated. 10.3.1.2 Physical Resources 10.3.1.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater Groundwater resources traversed by the Orion West Pipeline are discussed in Section 10.1.1.2.1. The relative vulnerability of those traversed aquifers to a crude oil or refined product release was assessed using a GIS and the ranking system discussed in Section 4.2.1.2. Sensitive groundwater resource areas within the zones of potential impact of the various Connected Actions were identified using this qualitative numerical ranking system. Also discussed is the criteria by which a sensitive groundwater resource area is determined to be present. Those pipeline segments determined to be sensitive, as described in Sections 4.2.1.2 and 7.3.4, along the zones of potential impact of the Orion West Pipeline are presented on Table 10.3.1-2. The potential for groundwater to be impacted at this or any of the Connected Actions varies considerably and is a function of aquifer vulnerability as indicated above. The potential impacts to groundwater resources posed by a release of crude oil or refined product from a Connected Action and the degree of resource sensitivity to a release are discussed in the following sections. Facility improvements to the Orion West Expansion are described in Section 3.2.1 of this FEA. The Orion West Expansion traverses four major aquifers and one minor aquifer. Four of these aquifers are non-alluvial, porous media aquifers, and one is a bedrock aquifer with karst features. A total of 11 PWS wells belonging to eight PWSs are present within or have capture zones that cross into the Orion West Expansion zone of potential impact. The locations of the 11 PWS water wells are shown on Figures 10.1.1-4a and 10.1.1-4b. Table 10.1.1-2 lists the identified PWSs along with the aquifers utilized, the number of water wells potentially at risk, and the TCEQ identification numbers of these PWSs. As indicated on Table 10.1.1-2: • Two PWS wells produce groundwater from the Woodbine Aquifer – Subcrop; • Four PWS wells produce groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer – Subcrop; • Two PWS wells produce groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer – Outcrop; • One PWS well produces groundwater from the Dockum Aquifer – Subcrop; and • Two PWS wells produce groundwater from the Dockum Aquifer – Outcrop. 10-100 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The results of the vulnerability ranking did not identify any pipeline segment along the Orion West Expansion as being a sensitive area with regard to groundwater resources. All potentially vulnerable PWS wells within or with criteria capture zone encroaching into the zone of potential impact are deeper than 100 feet. The majority of these PWS wells produce groundwater from aquifer subcrop areas (covered aquifers). Therefore, the potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Orion West Expansion are anticipated to be negligible to minor and temporary. Accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts with a temporary to long-term duration. Specifics pertaining to the potential groundwater resource impacts for this Connected Action are discussed below. 10.3.1.2.1.1 Construction Construction activities at the Frost Station terminal will most likely have negligible impacts on the groundwater resource underlying the facility. The Woodbine is overlain by more than 50 feet of clay and shale that would impede vertical migration into the groundwater-bearing strata of the Woodbine. The DeLeon and Iatan stations are located on outcrop areas of the Trinity and Dockum Aquifers, respectively. Pump station construction at these two locations could result in storm water runoff transporting inorganic pollutants, such as nitrate and metals, from land disturbance (land clearing or excavation). The impacted runoff could infiltrate aquifer outcrop areas and potentially degrade groundwater quality in these recharge areas. Therefore, the potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities at the DeLeon and Iatan stations could be negligible to minor and temporary. 10.3.1.2.1.2 Normal Operations The Orion West Pipeline is operated as a closed (isolated) system that does not allow transmitted fluids to leave the pipeline and enter the outside environment. However, small volume releases could occur during routine maintenance, equipment or valve replacement, and pipeline cleaning. Maintenance and repair crews would be onsite to identify any release to ensure that it is contained and remediated quickly to abate any impact. Therefore, impacts to groundwater resources during normal operations of the pipeline are not anticipated. 10.3.1.2.1.3 Accidental Releases Leaks Accidental releases of refined product pose a potential risk for impacts to groundwater resources. The potential risk of impact from a leak is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. The impacts of a leak for the proposed Orion West Expansion are not appreciably different than the existing pipeline system because the maximum operating pressure of the system will not change. Depending on the aquifer vulnerability, accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts with a temporary to long-term duration. 10-101 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Ruptures Pipeline ruptures (rapid, large volume releases) pose a different type of risk to groundwater resources than leaks. The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Larger volumes of refined product released at a rapid rate can spread over a longer area within the pipeline trench, or come to the surface and flow topographically down slope for a long distance. For example, a large volume of refined product from a rupture over one of the four porous media aquifers and confined to the pipeline trench could rapidly spread out along the pipeline trench, saturating a large volume of porous media with refined product in excess of the retention capacity. If the rupture occurred over the Edwards-Trinity and remained confined to the pipeline trench, the release could flow to, and enter multiple karst features or open fractures that are remote to the initial release area. In either setting, the refined product would migrate downward to the watertable affecting a much larger area of the aquifer (USEPA, 1996 and TCEQ, 2002). A rupture of refined product coming to the land surface could flow overland towards, and into an aquifer recharge area or the karst features and open fractures removed from the pipeline trench, and enter an aquifer remotely. Conversely, a refined product rupture flowing to the land surface could reduce the potential for groundwater resource contamination by increasing the volume of surface soil available to absorb the release. Soil having a higher organic carbon content will usually bind refined product more strongly (USEPA, 1996 and Standen and Opdyke, 2004). Depending on the aquifer vulnerability, accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts with a temporary to long-term duration. 10.3.1.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Construction and normal operation impacts associated with the Orion West Expansion are considered to be negligible in magnitude and temporary in duration. However, the impacts of a pipeline rupture could be minor to major for perennial streams, moderate to major for canals, and major for API zones. The duration of the impacts from a pipeline rupture could range from short-term (less than 3 years) to long-term (greater than 3 years). 10.3.1.2.2.1 Construction Construction activities could result in increased sediment transport during rain events to nearby drainages. A tributary to Dugout Creek lies adjacent to the proposed Iatan Station (MP 53.1). Dugout Creek is an intermittent stream. The proposed DeLeon Pump Station (MP 212.2) is within the Leon River drainage basin, a perennial stream. Neither water body is considered to be impaired. 10-102 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.2.2.2 Normal Operations Small volume releases could occur during routine maintenance, equipment or valve replacement, and pipeline cleaning. However, maintenance and repair crews would be onsite to identify any release to ensure that it is contained and remediated quickly to abate any impact. Therefore, negligible impacts to surface water resources during normal operations of the pipeline are anticipated. 10.3.1.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Leaks Accidental releases of refined product pose a potential risk for impacts to surface water resources. The potential risk of impact from a leak is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. The impacts of a leak for the Orion West Expansion are appreciably the same as the existing pipeline system. Ruptures A large volume rupture poses more severe consequences to surface waters, because the potentially large release volumes can cause the material to reach a waterway directly or by means of overland flow. Although the toxic constituents in refined products are highly volatile, the concentrations are elevated above those in crude oil on a unit weight basis, and would present acute impacts near the origin of the spill. For some downstream distance, a gasoline or other refined product sheen may be flammable, and could hinder spill recovery and control efforts. This distance would depend on the volume of the release, weather conditions, and the size, shape and hydraulics of the receiving water body. At the high initial concentrations in the water body immediately following the release, damages to aquatic biology can occur, either due to toxic effects or due to temporary anoxia which could result from a gasoline sheen, from chemical oxygen demands of the gasoline in water, or due to the effects of a fire on the water surface. Anoxia has been a primary cause of large fish kills in many pipeline accidents. Gasoline releases can temporarily disrupt the use of waterways for recreational purposes. As discussed in Section 7.6 of this FEA, modeling of large spill events suggests that impacts to downstream water quality could exceed levels of concern for drinking water supply intakes for a considerable distance downstream of the spill location. However, it was also determined that the duration of the impacts at a given water supply intake along a stream or river would be minor and temporary and that typical reserves of water could be adequate to serve basic needs until the surface water intake is capable of being restored. Potential impacts to the surface water intakes on small lakes along this pipeline route could be major and short-term in duration. Sensitive Areas The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the 10-103 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Potentially vulnerable water bodies along the Orion West Expansion were identified in Section 10.1.1.2.2. A listing of these potentially vulnerable water bodies was provided in Table 10.1.1-5. This listing includes water bodies consisting of intermittent and perennial streams, canals, rivers, and lakes. For each of these potentially vulnerable water bodies, this section identifies whether the relative sensitivity is classified as low, medium, or high. The factors considered in this classification were the type of water body that is potentially impacted, whether the water body crosses the pipeline, the relative length of the water body that is exposed to potential impacts, and the presence of an API within the zone of potential impact. Intermittent water bodies were ranked as having a low sensitivity since they only periodically contain water and their ability to transport a spill or release large distances is dependent upon the occurrence of a simultaneous storm event. The presence of a perennial stream or canal within the potential zone of impact (i.e., overland flow impact zone) was ranked as having a moderate sensitivity, since they normally would contain surface water. Surface water supply intakes with their API within the overland flow zone of potential impact were considered to have a high sensitivity. For each of the classifications of water bodies (i.e., intermittent, perennial, canal, water supply intake API zone), the relative sensitivity of potential impacts was elevated for impacts associated with proximity to a pipeline crossing and the length of the water body segment within the zone of potential impact. Water bodies that actually cross a pipeline were elevated in sensitivity since a spill of any size would directly enter the water body without consideration of overland flow. Water bodies that have a longer length of exposure within the overland flow impact zone have an increased potential to be impacted by a pipeline break because of the increased range of exposure along the length of the pipeline. This exposed length was based upon the GIS segment lengths calculated from the NHD Dataset provided by the USGS. An increased sensitivity was assigned to water bodies with an exposed length of 0.5 mile or greater. In the case of the Orion West Expansion, 15% of the water bodies within the zone of potential impact have a total length of exposure that is equal to or greater than 0.5 mile. This same exposure criteria is used uniformly for all of the pipeline segments in this FEA. The table provided below shows the ranking matrix used for the classification of water body sensitivities. 10-104 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Criteria (Within Zone of Potential Impact) Ranking No. Sensitivity Perennial or Canal With Pipeline Crossing GIS Length > 0.5 mile 3 Low NA X NA NA 2 Medium 1 High Intermittent X NA X NA NA API X NA X X NA NA NA NA X NA X X NA NA NA NA NA X NA NA NA X NA NA NA NA X NA X NA X X X NA NA X NA NA X NA X Note: NA = Not applicable API = Area of Potential Impact to a public water supply system Using this ranking matrix, the relative sensitivities of water bodies identified along the Orion West Expansion route are provided on Table 10.3.1-3. This data indicates that if an accidental release were to occur at specific locations along this segment, there could be major impacts to water bodies that have a ranking value of 1. For water bodies that are within the API of surface water reservoirs/lakes used as a source of public drinking water supply, impacts caused by accidental releases could be temporary to short-term in duration depending upon the size and location of the release. Such water bodies are listed in the following table. Pipeline MP Stream ID Use Classification Orion West 65.25 to 69.0 Lake Colorado City Public Water Supply Orion West 78.61 Champion Creek (< 2 mi. upstream of Champion Creek Lake) Tributary to Public Water Supply Orion West Public Water Supply Orion West Orion West 295.00 – 296.09 Aquilla Waste Supply District Public Water Supply 155.24 – 155.99 161.14 – 161.51 Lake Clyde Lake Baird Public Water Supply As noted in Section 7.6.2.3, a release to a surface water body such as a stream, river, or canal would be expected to result in only temporary (less than 24 hours) impacts to downstream drinking water intakes during the passage of the plume. Accordingly, for water bodies that have a ranking of 1, but are not within the API of a public drinking water supply, the impacts of a pipeline release are considered to be temporary in duration. These water bodies are listed in the following table. Pipeline MP Stream ID Use Classification Orion West 1.65 Unnamed Canal Irrigation Orion West 45.20 Moss Creek Lake Recreation 10-105 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Orion West 69.44 Morgan Creek Waters of the U.S. Orion West 71.92 Colorado River Waters of the U.S. Orion West 274.6 – 275.09 Brazos River Waters of the U.S. Orion West 304.92 White Rock Creek Waters of the U.S. 10.3.1.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality The assessment of potential impacts to air quality from the Connected Actions begins with an understanding of the air emissions generated by associated construction activities and subsequent on-going operations. Construction activities result in the generation of emissions from construction equipment engines, as well as the generation of fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter) from soil disturbance activities, and can be broadly categorized as onsite-based or offsite-based. Onsite-based emissions would primarily consist of exhaust emissions from mobile heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment, as well as fugitive PM (dust) emissions generated by mobile equipment movement and materials handling. Offsite-based emissions would primarily consist of exhaust emissions from the traffic associated with transporting workers, equipment, excavation spoils, and other materials to and from the construction site. Typical construction equipment may include cranes, bulldozers, backhoes, front end loaders, dump trucks, and other mobile equipment. Once constructed, operation of equipment associated with existing and new pipelines, such as pump stations, storage tanks, and truck unloading stations, will result in fugitive VOC emissions. The estimated air emissions and potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation activities that are part of each Connected Action are discussed below. Note that because the refined products and crude oil will have negligible methane content, if any, any fugitive methane (i.e., GHG) emissions associated with normal operations for each Connected Action would be negligible, and are not considered in this assessment. Also note that there are no new stationary fuel combustion sources associated with the Connected Actions. Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short-term, intermittent, and result in negligible to minor impacts to local and regional air quality. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for construction projects. Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with the VOC emissions from normal operations for this Connected Action would be below TCEQ ESLs. Note that there are few, if any, residents in the vicinity of the existing Orion West Pipeline and proposed pump stations, which significantly reduces the potential impacts from construction- and operation-related emissions. An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impact of temporary duration to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release. 10-106 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.2.3.1 Construction Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with a pump station similar in size to the proposed pump stations at Iatan and DeLeon are as follows: • VOC: 10.7 lb/day; • NOx: 77.0 lb/day; • CO: 36.5 lb/day; • SO2: 0.03 lb/day; • PM10 (including fugitives): 12.4 lb/day; • PM2.5 (including fugitives): 4.0 lb/day; and • CO2: 2,499 lb/day. The emission rates account for site grading, construction, and painting/coating activities, as well as worker and material transportation associated with construction of a pump station (DOI 2011). It should be emphasized that these emission rates represent a maximum daily emission scenario, and that such rates should not be presumed to persist for the entire period of construction. Note that construction activities associated with infrastructure upgrades at existing stations (e.g., Walnut Springs, Clyde, and Midland stations) will generate emissions significantly less than the emissions shown above for a new pump station. Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with construction/modification of multiple large petroleum product storage tanks at a single location, like those proposed for Frost Station, are as follows: • VOC: 35.7 lb/day; • NOx: 163 lb/day; • CO: 86.6 lb/day; • SO2: 0.2 lb/day; • PM10 (including fugitives): 28.1 lb/day; • PM2.5 (including fugitives): 19.1 lb/day; and • CO2: 15,637 lb/day. The emission rates account for site grading, construction, and painting/coating activities, as well as worker and material transportation associated with construction/modification of the tanks. It should be emphasized that these emission rates represent a maximum daily emission scenario, and that such rates should not be presumed to persist for the entire period of construction (SCAQMD 2010). To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the pump stations and storage tanks, the LSTs for construction activities adopted by the California SCAQMD were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities). The SCAQMD developed LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs are provided in look-up tables that show the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most 10-107 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL stringent applicable NAAQS or State of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) (SCAQMD 2008). LSTs were developed based on the background air quality of an area, size of the construction site, and distance to the nearest receptor. A review of recent ambient monitoring data for Texas, focusing on the monitor located nearest to Frost Station (in Italy in southern Ellis County) aided in the selection of the most appropriate LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily emission rates for the above-described construction activities at Frost, DeLeon, and Iatan. (Note that there are no monitoring data available for the DeLeon and Iatan regions. The general air quality in these regions is assumed to be no worse than that in the southern Ellis County region.) This comparison shows that the estimated construction emissions at these locations would be below the representative LSTs; therefore, impacts on local air quality would be minor and temporary. 10.3.1.2.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the new pump stations and storage tanks associated with this Connected Action will generate fugitive VOC emissions under normal service. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with this Connected Action will be relatively small, amounting to 11.1 lb/day for each pump station (at DeLeon and Iatan) and 67.6 lb/day total for the three refined product storage tanks at Frost. The daily VOC emission rate for a pump station is estimated based on 1) the average number of valves, flanges, pump seals, and miscellaneous other components for existing pump stations on the Orion West Pipeline; and 2) the widely-used EPA emission factors for marketing terminal components in light liquid service (EPA 1995). (See Appendix 7 of this FEA for a summary of emission factors and rates for an individual pump station.) The daily VOC emission rate for the three refined product storage tanks is based on the emission rates provided in the TCEQ permit application for the proposed expansion to Magellan’s East Houston Terminal tank farm (Nygaard 2011), and includes working and breathing losses and associated component fugitives. Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with the VOC emissions from the new sources would not exceed 10% of the TCEQ ESLs at each location. ESLs are thresholds based on data concerning health effects, odor/nuisance potential, and effects on vegetation; for emissions below these thresholds, adverse health or welfare impacts would not be expected to occur (TCEQ 2010). Therefore, VOC/HAP emissions associated with normal operations would result in negligible to minor impacts to air quality. This finding is based on the conservative impact assessment results presented in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. (Note that the expanded capacity service – 225,000 barrels per day – evaluated for the impact assessment presented in the 1999 EA analysis is significantly higher than the expanded capacity service – 110,000 barrels per day – associated with the Orion West Expansion.) 10.3.1.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to 10-108 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the population density, which is described in Section 10.1.2.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. 10.3.1.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.1.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed activities for the expansion of the Orion West Expansion, as described in Section 3.2.1, include new construction or improvement at each of the facilities. Infrastructure improvements would not require new pipeline construction and are not anticipated to impact terrestrial resources. Therefore, only new construction activities, subsequent normal operations or maintenance, and accidental releases are considered in this assessment of potential impacts to terrestrial resources. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the expansion of the Orion West Pipeline would be negligible to minor and temporary to long-term, largely associated with new construction activities at each facility. 10.3.1.3.1.1 Construction Impacts associated with new construction include negligible to minor, and temporary to long- term disturbances that would directly affect terrestrial resources. Temporary impacts from new construction activities could result in adverse effects on terrestrial resources. Increased levels of noise and human activity during construction could potentially disrupt behavioral activities (breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, and sheltering) of individual animals using new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be minor and temporary, and would not result in significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations. Long-term impacts would include destruction of unprotected habitat through permanent removal of vegetation, and degradation of habitat through permanent alteration of resources (e.g., habitat fragmentation, changes in vegetative composition or structure, soil compaction). Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species (e.g., amphibians, small reptiles, and small mammals) may be permanently displaced, injured, or killed during new construction activities; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid the construction area during active work periods. Long-term impacts would be localized and confined to the construction footprint and adjacent areas required for access. They would occur only where new construction requires long-term modification or destruction of terrestrial habitat. New construction activities at the proposed sites for the DeLeon and Iatan stations are located on former pump station sites that have been adversely impacted by past human disturbance. These parcels do not support intact vegetative communities of comparatively higher ecological value (e.g., biodiversity, productivity, rarity/uniqueness) than surrounding habitats. The DeLeon, Iatan, and Midland Stations, and the Odessa Terminal are characterized by an industrial complex land cover, often dominated by ruderal vegetation, whereas the proposed expansion of 10-109 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the Frost Terminal is currently in agricultural cultivation and vegetated with row-crop species, as described in Section 10.1.1.3.1. Because of disturbance history and existing land cover characteristics, impacts to terrestrial ecological resources from the new construction should be negligible. 10.3.1.3.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for three additional storage tanks at the Frost Terminal, new pump stations at DeLeon and Iatan, and infrastructure upgrades at the Midland Station and Odessa Terminals would result in negligible impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Potential adverse impacts include increased levels of noise and human activity from systems operation, maintenance, and inspection. Elevated ambient noise levels associated with normal operations should have negligible impacts on terrestrial faunal populations, and individuals should acclimate, to an indeterminable extent, to this disturbance over time. Increased human activity would be a recurring, but infrequent disturbance that would cause short-term disruption of animal behavior (breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, and sheltering) for individuals using new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary, and not result in significant permanent impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations. The post expansion Orion West Pipeline ROW will be maintained as it has in the past; thus, there will be no new adverse impacts from routine ROW maintenance (i.e., mowing, brushhogging, etc.). No indirect impacts are anticipated from normal operational activities for the Orion West Expansion 10.3.1.3.1.3 Accidental Releases For the purposes of impacts analysis, an accidental leak is considered equal in severity of impact, whether it occurs along the pipeline, at a pump station, or at a fuel storage terminal. Therefore, low-volume pipeline leaks would be considered similar in impact to minor drips and spills at a pump station or a fuel storage terminal. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma (fire), or toxicity to temporary or long-term impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation activities (EPA, 1999; 2011). Leaks Leaks and spills, including leaks that remain undetected over a long period of time, have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). However, the potential impacts from a leak or spill will not be appreciably different from the potential impacts associated with the current operation. Ruptures The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the 10-110 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Ruptures would conceivably result in the release of a larger volume of material, but perhaps for a shorter duration because of increased leak detection capability. Ruptures also have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could cause minor, temporary, or short-term impacts to terrestrial resources such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause major, long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or soil contamination (USFWS, 2004; EPA, 2011). Gasoline leakage would likely kill existing vegetation due to the toxicity of these chemicals, as well as contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth and dependent faunal species without remediation. Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species may be directly impacted, injured, or killed by large ruptures; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by ruptures. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination, and should such leakage ignite, be physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected terrestrial fauna. Additionally, aerosolized products from large ruptures, combined with high winds, could spread petroleum products to greater distances, causing temporary or long-term impacts to terrestrial resources by coating plant leaf surfaces and preventing photosynthesis or gas exchange; coating wildlife species and causing skin irritation, toxicity, and mortality; coating airways and causing respiratory trauma; coating smaller prey species and making them unpalatable to predator species; contributing to bioaccumulation of chemical constituents; and overall degradation of habitat quality and function (USFWS, 2010). Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include species displacement from increased human activity, and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect effects may include impacts to terrestrial fauna at higher levels in the food web from bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (USFWS, 2010). 10.3.1.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Construction impacts associated with Orion West Expansion are considered to be negligible. Normal operation impacts to aquatic resources associated with the expansion of the Orion West Pipeline would be negligible. Impacts resulting from accidental releases would range from minor to major and short to long-term. 10-111 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.3.2.1 Construction Typical impacts to aquatic resources related to construction of pipeline facilities often result from changes in water quality or available habitat. These impacts are commonly caused by sedimentation, increases in storm water volume, and direct disruption of aquatic habitats from construction equipment or placement of structures. Sedimentation and turbidity caused by construction activities in, or adjacent to streams, springs, or pools may physically clog respiratory or feeding structures of aquatic organisms, eliminate available habitat or smother immobile individuals by covering bottom area, or inhibit the growth of plants, thus disrupting the food web. These effects may be lethal to aquatic organisms, such as insect larvae and other macroinvertebrates, mussels, and adult/juvenile larval fish. Increased storm water runoff can scour drainage areas, adversely affecting biodiversity in the affected area by disrupting habitat. Additionally, higher nutrient levels often occur following increased runoff, especially following clearing activities. Elevated nutrient levels can alter resource availability, which can affect competition dynamics within a community, and have diverse negative effects, such as inducing algal production, shifting species assemblages, and/or causing algal blooms that may lower dissolved oxygen availability. Reduced dissolved oxygen availability could then negatively affect fish and other aquatic species. Removal of riparian vegetation would increase runoff to nearby water bodies. Therefore, impacts occurring in bottomland/riparian woodland or adjacent wooded areas could have more of an effect than impacts in disturbed areas, such as industrial facilities and croplands. Additionally, cropland often contains streams with heavier sediment loads and higher levels of fertilizer and pesticides than in less disturbed wooded areas. As a result, aquatic habitats in these areas are often of lower ecological value because of low diversity and the presence of noxious or invasive species. The accidental spilling or dumping of toxic compounds with transport to aquatic features during construction activities may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Some toxic chemicals may be ingested or absorbed by algae or other organisms in low trophic (feeding) levels and passed up the food web, increasing toxicity in each trophic level until lethal concentrations are reached. Additionally, uptake of toxic chemicals at non-lethal levels by organisms at lower trophic levels may accumulate to lethal levels in predators over time. Major, long-term effects to aquatic habitats are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed expansion of the Orion West Pipeline construction activities. An aquatic feature within a proposed construction area was observed only for the Frost Terminal site, consisting of an ephemeral unnamed tributary to Richland Creek. Nearby aquatic features were observed for the DeLeon Pump Station (the Leon River), the Iatan Pump Station (an unnamed tributary to Dugout Creek), and the Odessa Terminal (an unnamed, intermittent stream within Monahans Draw). Minor and short-term localized impacts may result from the proposed activities. However, such impacts would be most likely avoided, or where unavoidable, minimized through the implementation of best management practices. 10-112 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.3.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations after the proposed expansion would result in negligible impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Increased ambient noise levels and human activity from operation, maintenance, and inspection of new facilities associated with the Orion West Expansion should not have significant impacts on aquatic resources. 10.3.1.3.2.3 Accidental Releases As previously discussed for terrestrial resources (Section 10.3.1.3.1.3), an accidental leak is considered equal in severity of impact regardless of facility type. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from direct mortality to aquatic species through ingestion, absorption, thermal trauma, or toxicity to temporary or long-term impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Leaks Leaks and spills have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff or infiltration into the groundwater, and subsequent groundwater movement (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, small leaks and spills could cause short-term, minor impacts to aquatic resources associated with low-volume spills, or they could cause long-term, major impacts associated with small leaks that go undetected, and ultimately release large volumes of product. However, the potential impacts from a small leak will not be appreciably different from the potential impacts associated with the current operation of the Orion West Pipeline. Should contaminant transport to aquatic features result from small leaks, exposure may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Aquatic animal species inhabiting impacted areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination, and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma from fire. Additionally, long-term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected aquatic fauna. Other impacts to aquatic resources may include displacement due to increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Indirect impacts may include impacts to aquatic fauna at higher levels in the food web due to bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (EPA, 1999, 2011; USFWS, 2004, 2010). Potential for impact to aquatic resources from small leaks would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from a small volume accidental release would conceivably be higher for the DeLeon Station, where the perennial Leon River is within approximately 100 feet of the proposed construction site. Additionally, the on-site ephemeral tributary to Richland Creek at the Frost Terminal increases the risk for localized contamination and contaminant transport, which could negatively impact downstream aquatic resources. Although, the ephemeral water regime of Richland Creek increases leak detection probability. A higher frequency of other human activities, which could increase spill detection potential at the Odessa Terminal, and extended overland distance to aquatic resources at the 10-113 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Iatan Pump Station, reduce the potential risk of negative impacts to aquatic resources from a low-volume, short duration small leak. Risk of impacts to aquatic resources from long-term, small leaks that go undetected and result in release of large volumes are similar to those expected for large ruptures. Ruptures The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Determination of potential impacts from large ruptures to aquatic resources was remotely assessed from desktop review. This area would presumably be affected in the event of a large rupture. Large pipeline ruptures would conceivably result in the release of a larger volume of product, but perhaps for a shorter duration due to increased detection capability. Ruptures also have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to aquatic plant and animal species. Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could cause short-term impacts to aquatic resources such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or water-bottom soil contamination (EPA, 1999, 2011; USFWS, 2004, 2010). Crude oil or gas leakage would likely kill existing vegetation due to the toxicity of these chemicals, as well as contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth without remediation. Loss of vegetation could then result in increased erosion with consequent higher levels of sedimentation and turbidity, which would decrease water quality, and negatively impact aquatic resources. Where affected vegetation is adjacent to aquatic features, such losses to vegetation could impact aquatic habitat through altering water temperature and dissolved oxygen content. Aquatic animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination, and should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected aquatic fauna (EPA, 2011). Other impacts to aquatic resources may include species displacement from increased human activity, and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect effects may include impacts to aquatic fauna at higher levels in the food web due to bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey. Potential for impact to aquatic resources from large ruptures (or small leaks over long-duration that result in high leakage volume) would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from a large volume accidental release would conceivably be higher for the DeLeon Station, where the perennial Leon River is within approximately 100 10-114 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL feet of the proposed construction site. The perennial water regime of the river increases the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic resources based on the likely presence of more diverse species guilds, such as fishes, macroinvertebrates, wading birds, and reptiles. Contaminant transport rate would also be higher given the year-round presence of water, and would vary with flow rate. Likewise, presence of an ephemeral tributary to Richland Creek on-site at the Frost Terminal increases the risk for localized contamination and contaminant transport, which could negatively impact downstream aquatic resources. Should rupture occur during a dry period, the ephemeral water regime of this feature could allow rupture detection and remediation before further transport and impact to downstream aquatic resources. A large rupture at the Iatan Pump Station could result in dispersal and transport of contaminant to the unnamed intermittent tributary to Dugout Creek, a likewise intermittent feature, approximately one-third mile to the south. At the Odessa Terminal, a large rupture could impact the unnamed intermittent stream and potential adjacent wetlands associated with Monahans Draw. Table 10.1.1-6 provides the number of aquatic features and acreage of those features identified within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.1.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species Facility improvements for the Orion West Pipeline are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Construction and normal operation impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered to be negligible to minor and temporary. Impacts resulting from accidental releases could range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. 10.3.1.3.3.1 Construction Experienced wildlife biologists conducted a habitat assessment within the areas subject to proposed construction impacts to assess the potential for threatened or endangered species to occur. Assessments were conducted by FWS-permitted biologists, when applicable, with documented experience in the identification of habitat of specific species identified in Table 10.1.1-7. Habitat assessments evaluate the occurrence of vegetation and physical settings necessary for sustaining a particular species, as described by USFWS, TPWD, or other prevailing scientific literature. The habitat assessment conducted for each site included in this FEA began with a review of current aerial photography and reported occurrences of threatened or endangered species provided by the TPWD TXNDD. Upon establishing the general habitat conditions, the biologists conducted a site reconnaissance to observe if the necessary conditions for suitable habitat actually exist in the study area. For example, typical nesting habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler will include a mix of juniper and deciduous trees on slopes, along drainage bottoms, and in creeks. For the habitat to be suitable, the mixture and maturity of the trees is important. The black-capped vireo, on the other hand, prefers a shrub vegetation which extends from the ground to about six feet or more and covering about 30% to 60% or greater of the total area. These observations made during the site reconnaissance by the biologists are important in order to determine if the site conditions are suitable for habitat to exist. 10-115 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The FWS and TPWD species lists indicated that several state and federally-listed bird species could occur at the new construction sites along the Orion West Pipeline. However, due to the developed/industrial nature of the proposed construction areas and the lack of suitable conditions in the vicinity, habitat for these species does not occur. Potential occurrences would likely be limited to a rare stopover during migration. Furthermore, biologists assessed the vegetation communities surrounding each of the new construction sites but did not observe suitable conditions required by threatened and endangered avian species for breeding, feeding, nesting, roosting, or sheltering. Finally, because the proposed construction activities will occur within existing, developed industrial facilities (e.g., existing pump stations), no habitat for the remaining federally threatened or endangered species was observed, therefore subsequent presence/absence surveys were not warranted. Additionally, black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler habitat assessments were conducted by FWS-permitted biologists at selected locations along the existing Orion West pipeline. These assessments were conducted at the request of the USFWS Austin Ecological Services Office staff. Selected locations along the existing pipeline ROW were previously identified through aerial interpretation as having vegetative community structure that is consistent with other vegetative communities known to support black-capped vireos or golden- cheeked warblers. The habitat assessments consisted of pedestrian surveys within the existing pipeline ROW during the 2012 breeding/nesting season. Although minor components of suitable black-capped vireo habitat were observed adjacent to the existing pipeline ROW, neither suitable black-capped vireo habitat or golden-cheeked warbler habitat was observed within the existing pipeline ROW, and neither species were observed within or adjacent to the existing pipeline ROW during the field assessment. However, field reconnaissance within the new construction sites for the expansion of the Orion West Pipeline did indicate the presence of potential habitat for one protected terrestrial species, the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard, at the DeLeon Pump Station, Iatan Pump Station, and the Odessa Terminal, as discussed in Section 10.1.1.3.3. The distribution of the Texas horned lizard extends throughout the western half of Texas and includes a variety of habitats, though arid and semi-arid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sandy soils that support patchy bunchgrasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs are preferred by the species (Henke and Fair, 1998; TPWD, 2009). No protocol-level presence/absence surveys were conducted for threatened or endangered species within the Proposed Project area. Three protected mammal species, the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), the gray wolf (Canus lupus), and the red wolf (Canus rufus), are considered extirpated within the project area (USFWS, 2011; TPWD, 2011). Therefore, these species are not anticipated to occur. Additionally, due to a lack of aquatic environments within the proposed construction areas, no habitat for threatened or endangered aquatic species (e.g., fishes and mussels) was observed. Impacts associated with new construction include minor, temporary, or short-term disturbances that could directly affect the Texas horned lizard. Temporary impacts from the new construction activities for Orion West Expansion could result in adverse effects on the species. Increased levels of noise and human activity during construction could potentially disrupt behavioral 10-116 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL activities of individual Texas horned lizards that use new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary, and not result in significant permanent impacts to the species. Long-term impacts would involve the destruction of habitat through permanent removal of vegetation, and degradation of habitat through permanent alteration of resources (e.g., habitat fragmentation, changes in vegetative composition or structure, soil compaction). Individuals could be permanently displaced, injured, or killed during new construction activities; however, the Texas horned lizard would likely abandon or avoid the construction area during active work periods. Potential permanent impacts would be localized, confined to the construction footprint and adjacent areas required for access, and occur only where new construction requires long- term modification or destruction of Texas horned lizard habitat. 10.3.1.3.3.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for three additional storage tanks at the Frost Terminal, new pump stations at DeLeon and Iatan, and infrastructure upgrades at the Odessa Terminal would result in negligible or minor impacts to threatened and endangered species. Potential adverse impacts include increased levels of noise and human activity from systems operation, maintenance, and inspection. Elevated ambient noise levels associated with normal operations should have negligible to minor impacts on Texas horned lizard populations, and individuals should acclimate, to an indeterminable extent, to this disturbance over time. Increased human activity would be a recurring, but infrequent disturbance that would cause temporary or short-term disruption of animal behavior for Texas horned lizards using new construction sites and adjacent affected areas. Disruption of such activities should be temporary and not result in significant long-term impacts to affected populations. Where normal operations require mowing of vegetated habitats, such disturbance could result in the mortality of Texas horned lizards or, most likely, the displacement of individuals to adjacent habitats. Most frequently, where vegetation is mowed on a relatively short return interval, such activities would result in the temporary displacement of individuals and they would subsequently return after mowing. No indirect impacts to the Texas horned lizard are anticipated from normal operational activities for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action. According to information from TPWD provided by FWS, vegetation communities that could provide potential habitat for the black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler may occur along the ROW, within and in the vicinity of Erath County. However, a habitat assessment conducted by experienced biologists in May 2012 determined the vegetation along the ROW did not provide suitable habitat for either avian species. 10.3.1.3.3.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a 10-117 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL larger area of impact. For the purposes of impacts analysis, an accidental leak is considered equal in severity of impact, whether it occurs along the pipeline, at a pump station, or at a fuel storage terminal, as previously discussed. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species range from negligible to major, and temporary to short-term. Impacts occur as a result of ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity, and from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Leaks Potential impacts to the species from leaks include habitat degradation or destruction, displacement of individuals, adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. Habitat degradation or destruction would result from impacts to terrestrial ecological resources, which affects habitat suitability for the Texas horned lizard. Potential adverse impacts to these resources from small leaks are described in Section 10.3.1.3.1.3. Individual Texas horned lizards could be directly impacted, injured, or killed by leaks; however, most individuals would abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills. Texas horned lizards inhabiting affected areas could be negatively affected physiologically by contamination, and should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma from fire, while long-term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected individuals (EPA, 2011). Other impacts to individuals may include displacement due to increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Ruptures Impacts from ruptures would be similar to those for low-volume leaks, though the spatial extent over which effects occur would be greater. Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, was conducted within the portions of the expansion of the Orion West Pipeline that will incur new construction, as discussed in Section 10.1.1.3.3. Determination of potential threatened and endangered species occurrence within the zone of potential impact was assessed based on desktop review. The desktop review included a review of habitat requirements of potential species as discussed in Section 10.1.1.3.3, a review of high-resolution aerial photographs of the construction areas, and the proximity of recorded species occurrences reported by TXNDD. The evaluation for Orion West Expansion identified potential habitat for one terrestrial species, the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard, within the zone of potential impact for the DeLeon Pump Station, Iatan Pump Station, and the Odessa Terminal, which would presumably be potentially affected areas in the event of a large rupture. Approximately 439 acres of potential Texas horned lizard habitat occurs within this area. Potential impacts to the Texas horned lizard from an accidental release resulting in leakage of large product volume (rupture or leak over long duration) include habitat degradation or destruction, displacement of individuals, adverse physiological impacts from toxicity, injury, and mortality. Habitat degradation or destruction would result from impacts to terrestrial ecological resources, which affects habitat suitability for the Texas horned lizard. Potential adverse impacts to these resources from ruptures are described in Section 10.3.1.3.1.3. 10-118 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.1.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are described in Section 3.2.1. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Orion West Expansion are anticipated to be negligible. Accidental releases could result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short- to long-term duration. Discussions pertaining to the potential wetland impacts for this Connected Action are presented below. 10.3.1.3.4.1 Construction The Orion West Expansion does not propose any new pipeline to be constructed, and therefore no new wetland impacts are anticipated with pipeline construction. Two construction activities are proposed with this Connected Action. A new pump station (DeLeon) is proposed along the route at MP 212.2, and another new pump station (Iatan) is proposed at MP 53.1. Each proposed pump station is anticipated to be approximately 2.5 acres in area. The proposed DeLeon and Iatan facilities are located at former pump station sites and no wetlands are present. Through aerial interpretation, NWI data, and field verification, no wetlands will be impacted by construction of either pump station. 10.3.1.3.4.2 Normal Operations Because the Orion West Pipeline is already an existing pipeline and located on maintained ROW, it is not anticipated that any new impacts would occur during normal operations or routine maintenance. The proposed pump stations are not located within the direct vicinity of wetlands, and normal operations or routine maintenance is not anticipated to result in any new impacts. 10.3.1.3.4.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. A release of refined product to wetlands could have acute or chronic effects on the biota in the area, depending upon spill quantities and wetland types affected. A release to forested wetlands is likely to have greater adverse impacts than a release to palustrine or riverine wetlands. Forested wetlands typically provide greater habitat diversity and have a higher trophic value than other wetland types; consequently, a release of product is likely to have more widespread and far-reaching effects on the food web than a similar spill in other wetland habitats. Forested wetlands typically are comprised of a canopy of trees that provide habitat for raptor and passerine avian species that is not present within palustrine wetlands. Forested wetlands also often provide a dense understory of shrubs and forbs that provide habitat for a greater variety of reptilian and mammalian species that is not present within other wetland communities. Furthermore, a product released to a forested wetland would be more difficult to remediate than a similar release to other wetland types. Proper implementation of 10-119 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL best management practices would minimize the potential for impacts to adjacent streams. Potential impacts to wetlands along this pipeline route could be negligible to moderate and short- to long-term in duration, although not appreciably different that for the existing operations. 10.3.1.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.1.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties The assessment of the Connected Actions for the cultural resources was conducted in general accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. For a description of the regulatory requirements (36 CFR Part 800), see Section 7.10.1. Facility improvements for the Orion West Expansion are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along the Orion West Expansion are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term. 10.3.1.4.1.1 Construction The proposed construction at the Frost Terminal is anticipated to occur on an adjoining tract that was previously surveyed (2007) for an unrelated project, which reported no historic properties. Because of the results of the previous survey, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. The DeLeon and Iatan Stations are newly proposed facilities at the location of former pump station sites along the existing Orion West Pipeline ROW. Because both locations were previously disturbed during the construction of the former pump station, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. The Midland and Odessa stations are existing facilities along the existing Orion West Pipeline ROW. These locations were previously disturbed during the original construction; therefore, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. 10.3.1.4.1.2 Normal Operations The potential to impact significant cultural resources during normal operations of the existing terminals or proposed pump stations would be negligible. 10.3.1.4.1.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Orion West Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing Orion West Pipeline and the proposed Orion West Expansion could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a 10-120 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL larger area of impact. The impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term, although not appreciably different than that for the existing operations. 10.3.2 ODESSA TO CRANE 10.3.2.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.3.2.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety A description of the construction associated with the existing Odessa to Crane Pipeline can be found in Section 3.2.2. This existing pipeline is in refined product service and will undergo a reversal to connect the Orion West Pipeline to the Longhorn Pipeline, to provide refined product to the El Paso market. Both the construction associated with, and normal operation of, the Odessa to Crane Connected Action are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact of fire, exposure to hazardous vapors such as benzene, and ingestion of contaminated water. Because of the rural environment (less developed than low intensity), these potential impacts are considered to be of minor intensity and temporary in duration. 10.3.2.1.1.1 Construction The existing pipeline is proposed to transport refined product. Construction would be limited to infrastructure improvements at the existing Crane Station and Odessa Terminal. It is anticipated that this construction would result in negligible health and safety impacts to local populations 10.3.2.1.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations of the pipeline are not expected to result in any impacts to the health and safety of the local populations, based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.2.2.3.2). Magellan’s SIP will be followed during operation of the pipeline (See Section 3.3.2). 10.3.2.1.1.3 Accidental Releases For a description of impacts resulting from an accidental release of refined product refer to Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. The total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and within the defined zone of potential impact was 3,856 in 2000. The pipeline crosses primarily rural land with few if any residences (low density) within the zone of potential impact. Of the 9,885.2 acres of land within the zone of potential impact surrounding the Odessa to Crane Pipeline, only 7.1 acres (0.1%) are considered high intensity, 7.0 acres (0.1%) medium intensity and 54.1 acres (0.5%) low intensity. Therefore 99.3% of the zone of potential impact is less developed than low intensity. There are no schools, hospitals, parks, or recreational areas located within the zone of potential impact. 10-121 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.1.2 Impacts to Transportation A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.2. No new pipeline will be constructed for this Connected Action; therefore, potential transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of this segment of pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. No railroads are crossed by this segment of pipeline. Potential impacts related to construction activities will be limited to the addition of a mainline pumping unit at the Odessa Terminal. Construction and normal operations along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.2.1.2.1 Construction This Connected Action does not include the installation of any pipeline. Construction activities will be limited to the addition of a mainline unit at the Odessa Terminal. Therefore, potential impacts related to construction activities along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.2.1.2.2 Normal Operations Operation of this system will include regular visual inspections and maintenance which will utilize existing public roadways to access the ROW. However, most of the regular inspection would be conducted by aerial surveillance of the pipeline ROW. Additional personnel associated with pipeline operations would minimally affect local transportation activities in Odessa and Crane. This pipeline will be remotely operated; therefore, the number of employees required for routine operations would be limited to periodic site visits for monitoring, maintenance, and repair purposes along the extent of the pipeline. Potential impacts related to normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.2.1.2.3 Accidental Releases Transportation impacts resulting from a pipeline rupture along this segment of pipeline would vary depending on the location of the release. A response to a release could result in temporary road closures in the vicinity of the release and the rerouting of traffic to minimize delays. A release adjacent to US Highway 385 would result in a greater impact to transportation than a release in an undeveloped area. Regardless of location, negligible to minor traffic impacts of a temporary duration would result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. 10-122 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.1.3 Impacts to Land Use A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.2. Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the proposed activities would be negligible to minor, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.2.1.3.1 Construction This pipeline is an existing pipeline and is currently in operation; therefore, no impacts to land use related to construction are anticipated. 10.3.2.1.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the proposed pipeline is not likely to result in alteration of long-term trends in local development patterns. Because the area is already industrialized, the construction of the pipeline will not likely affect future land uses. Normal operations are anticipated to result in negligible impacts to land use. 10.3.2.1.3.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of refined product may impact land uses. These impacts may potentially be major resulting in long-term damage to private property from soil contamination, damages related to remediation activities, and property damaged in the event of a fire. 10.3.2.1.4 Environmental Justice As shown in Table 10.3.2-1, of the 11 Odessa to Crane MPs crossed by BG 4, only 3 had any housing units (a total of 14). This scattered number of housing units does not represent a cohesive community or substantial EJ population; therefore, a disproportionate impacts analysis is not required. 10.3.2.2 Physical Resources 10.3.2.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action is presented in Section 3.2.2. The Odessa to Crane Pipeline crosses the outcrop areas of two porous media aquifers and a bedrock aquifer with karst features. No PWS wells are present within or have capture zones that cross into the Odessa to Crane Pipeline zone of potential impact. However, the results of the vulnerability ranking did identify the pipeline segment from MP 0 to 14.38 (Crane to Odessa), which crosses the Pecos Valley Aquifer, as being a sensitive 10-123 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL area. This pipeline segment is considered sensitive as it is an unconfined, alluvium aquifer connected to surface water (see Table 10.3.2-2). The potential for the construction and normal operation of the Connected Action to impact groundwater resources is negligible. The potential for an accidental release to impact groundwater resources is negligible to minor and short-term to long-term. Detailed discussions pertaining to groundwater resource impacts along this Connected Action are presented below 10.3.2.2.1.1 Construction Potential impacts to the Southern Ogallala, Edwards-Trinity and Pecos Valley Aquifer outcrop areas due to the construction activities of the Odessa to Crane Connected Action would be similar to those impacts posed by the Orion West Expansion Connected Action construction activities as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.1. 10.3.2.2.1.2 Normal Operations Potential impacts to the three aquifer outcrop areas crossed by the Odessa to Crane Pipeline due to normal operations, as well as aquifer impact prevention measures, would parallel those of Orion West Expansion Connected Action for normal operations, as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.2. 10.3.2.2.1.3 Accidental Releases Leaks Leaks (steady, localized, low volume releases) going unnoticed for a period of time could substantially degrade groundwater resource quality in a release area located over an aquifer outcrop area. Frequent patrolling of the Odessa to Crane is intended to identify evidence (vapors emissions, pools, distressed vegetation, etc.) indicative of a refined product leak. and initiate a rapid response to stop these leaks and reduce the chances of impacting groundwater resources. A leak occurring over the subcrop area of an aquifer will have a negligible impact on that groundwater resource due to the presence of thick very low permeability strata, such as clay and/or shale (USEPA, 1996). The leaking refined product would accumulate in the backfill soil, migrate laterally within the pipeline trench and eventually become evident at the land surface within the zone of potential impact. However, a refined product leak that occurs within the outcrop of a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer would migrate downward through the unsaturated portion of the aquifer under the influence of gravity and capillary pressure. Lateral movement would be along the bottom of the pipeline trench and into the trench sidewalls, with little to no visual indication in surface soil above the pipeline. As the leak continues, the volume of refined product would increase to a point that is sufficient to overcome the retention capacity of the unsaturated porous media. The underlying porous media will become more saturated, and the leading edge of the refined product would migrate deeper into the unsaturated portion of the aquifer (USEPA, 1996 and TCEQ, 2002). Eventually, the downward migrating refined 10-124 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL product from the continuous leak would encounter and displace the capillary fringe above the watertable, and spread laterally. The soluble constituents in the refined product would begin to dissolve into the groundwater creating a dissolved contaminant plume. The dissolved contaminant plume would migrate in the direction of groundwater flow, but at a slower velocity due to retardation and attenuation by the aquifer matrix, natural organic carbon in the aquifer, and biological degradation (USEPA, 1996 and TCEQ, 2002). Mace and others (1997 as cited by TCEQ, 2002) compiled data on 605 benzene plumes throughout Texas and found that 75% of them were less than 250 feet long, and impacted an area of less than 49,000 square feet. A refined product leak occurring immediately next to or above a karst feature or solution enlarged fracture where the Odessa to Crane Connected Action crosses the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer could migrate directly downward into the aquifer with minimal contamination of surface soils above the pipeline. The downward migrating refined product would either get trapped in a dead-end pathway in the unsaturated portion of this aquifer, or continue moving downward until reaching the watertable. Upon reaching the watertable, the free-phase refined product would pool on the top of the watertable and migrate laterally depending on the presence of pores and fractures (Standen and Opdyke, 2004). After reaching the watertable, dissolved constituent plumes would develop and move in the direction of groundwater flow with little to no retardation affects (TCEQ, 2002). As indicated in Section 7.1.3.1, gasoline and other refined petroleum fuels contain a higher percentage of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) than crude oil. These volatile aromatic hydrocarbons tend to form larger dissolved plumes than the other compounds that comprise gasoline. Mace and others (1997 as cited by the TCEQ, 2002) documented plume lengths of over 7,600 feet in karst aquifers. The gasoline constituents would slowly degrade in the groundwater via natural attenuation, with the lighter fractions, such as benzene, degrading more rapidly (TCEQ, 2002 and Standen and Opdyke, 2004). None of the intermediate by-products of refined product degradation are more toxic than the parent compounds (Standen and Opdyke, 2004). Residual contamination can be trapped in dry karstic features and fractures, then later mobilize via infiltrating rainwater, resulting in a slug of contamination re-entering the aquifer (TCEQ, 2002). Residual petroleum fuels adhering to the sides of karst features and fractures make it possible for dissolved plumes to intermittently manifest in the aquifer following a major rainfall event. Also, the more volatile products, such as gasoline, trapped in dry karst features and fractures can volatilize and migrate to previously unimpacted areas, and effect groundwater. Depending on the aquifer vulnerability, accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts, with a temporary to long-term duration. Ruptures Potential impacts of the three aquifer outcrop areas crossed by the Odessa to Crane Pipeline resulting from a rupture would be comparable to those of the Orion West Expansion, as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.3. 10.3.2.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.2. Construction and normal operation impacts associated 10-125 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL with the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are considered to be negligible. There are no intermittent streams, canals, or public water intakes that are located within the zone of potential impact for this pipeline segment. For the perennial streams, the impacts from a potential pipeline rupture are considered to be moderate to major in magnitude, and to be short-term to long-term in duration. 10.3.2.2.2.1 Construction Construction of the infrastructure could lead to potential increased overland flow of surface water from disturbed areas during rain events, resulting in sediment/debris transport to the drainages that exist in the area of the pump station sites. 10.3.2.2.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts to surface water would be negligible for normal pipeline operations. 10.3.2.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Small Leaks The potential impacts to surface water bodies from small leaks are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Ruptures The potential impacts to surface water bodies from refined product pipeline ruptures are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Sensitive Areas Potentially vulnerable water bodies along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline were identified in Section 10.1.2.2.2. A listing of these potentially vulnerable water bodies was provided in Table 10.1.2-3. This listing includes water bodies consisting of intermittent streams only. There are no public water supply intakes with an API within the Odessa to Crane Pipeline zone of potential impact. For each of these potentially vulnerable water bodies, this section identifies whether the relative sensitivity is classified as low, medium, or high using the same criteria as was discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. The table provided below shows the ranking matrix used for the classification of water body sensitivities along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline route. 10-126 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Criteria (Within Zone of Potential Impact) Ranking No. Sensitivity Intermittent Perennial or Canal With Pipeline Crossing GIS Length > 0.5 mile API 3 Low NA NA NA NA NA 2 Medium X NA X NA NA 1 High NA NA NA NA NA Note: NA = Not applicable Using this ranking matrix, the relative sensitivities of water bodies identified along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are provided on Table 10.3.2-3. These data indicate that if an accidental release were to occur along this segment, there would be no major impacts to water bodies. 10.3.2.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short- term, intermittent, and result in negligible to minor impacts to local and regional air quality. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the SCAQMD for construction projects. The existing refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action is sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, no air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. Note that there are few residents in the vicinity of the existing terminal facilities, which significantly reduces the chance of impacts from construction-related emissions. An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impact to air quality of temporary duration in the immediate vicinity of the release. 10.3.2.2.3.1 Construction Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with a new pump station are shown in Section 10.3.1.2.3.1. These emission rates should be considered conservative because only a new pumping unit is being proposed for installation at the existing Odessa Terminal; i.e., an entirely new pump station will not be constructed. To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the pumping unit, the LSTs for construction activities adopted by the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2008) were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities). A review of ambient monitoring data for Texas, focusing on the monitor located in Italy in southern Ellis County, aided in the selection of appropriate, although somewhat conservative, LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily emission rates for construction activities at the Odessa Terminal. (Note that there are no monitoring data available for the Odessa region. The general air quality in the Odessa region is assumed to be no worse than that in the southern Ellis County region.) This comparison shows that the estimated emissions for construction activities at the Odessa Terminal would be below the representative LSTs; therefore, impacts to local air quality from such emissions would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. 10-127 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.2.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the new pumping unit under this Connected Action will generate fugitive VOC emissions under normal service. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with this Connected Action will be relatively small, amounting to 11.1 lb/day. (See Appendix 7 of this FEA for a summary of emission factors and rates for an individual pump station.) Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with VOC emissions from the pumping unit would not exceed 10% of the TCEQ ESLs at Odessa. This finding is based on the conservative impact assessment results presented in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. (Note that the expanded capacity service – 225,000 barrels per day – evaluated for the impact assessment presented in the 1999 EA analysis is significantly higher than the expanded capacity service – 110,000 barrels per day – associated with this Connected Action.) The existing refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, negligible air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. 10.3.2.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the population density, which is described in Section 10.1.3.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.2.1.1.3. 10.3.2.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.2.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed activities for the construction of the Odessa to Crane Connected Action are described in Section 3.2.2. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the Connected Action would be negligible to minor and short-term. 10.3.2.3.1.1 Construction Construction impacts from the existing refined product pipeline on terrestrial resources would be similar to those described above under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor to moderate short-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Construction would 10-128 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL be limited to existing pump station/terminal facilities; therefore, no direct impacts to vegetation are anticipated. 10.3.2.3.1.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts from the normal operations of the existing 8-inch refined product pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.2.3.1.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the existing 8-inch refined product pipeline would be the same as those described in detail for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from temporary impacts during contaminant cleanup and remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. However, gasoline toxicity and flammability would cause a greater immediate threat to terrestrial resources in most scenarios. Additionally, the increased toxicity of gasoline may contribute to greater acute trauma or mortality of wildlife and plant species (EPA, 1999, 2011; USFWS, 2004). 10.3.2.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.2. Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources associated with the Connected Action would be negligible. 10.3.2.3.2.1 Construction Impacts associated with new construction would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in negligible to minor, temporary impacts to aquatic resources. Two mapped intermittent tributaries (Landreth Draw and Mayfield Draw), as well as one unnamed, intermittent tributary, were identified along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline. Potential impacts include changes in water quality or available habitat. However, impacts would be most likely avoided, or where unavoidable, minimized through the implementation of best management practices. No indirect impacts are anticipated from new construction activities for the Odessa to Crane Connected Action. 10.3.2.3.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts to aquatic resources from the normal operations of the existing 8-inch refined product pipeline would be negligible. Where normal operations require mowing of vegetated habitats, such activities should not cause changes in water quality or available habitat due to elevated sedimentation, increases in storm 10-129 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL water volume, or direct disruption of aquatic habitats from maintenance equipment. Furthermore, impacts to aquatic resources from normal operations of the Odessa to Crane Pipeline facilities would be avoided or minimized through the implementation of best management practices. 10.3.2.3.2.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from small leaks and spills or large ruptures would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor, temporary impacts to moderate, short-term impacts aquatic resources. Potential for impact to aquatic resources from leaks and ruptures would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from an accidental release would conceivably be higher for those portions of the study area adjacent to the streams described above, namely the streams near the Odessa Terminal and Crane Station. Table 10.1.2-4 provides the number of aquatic features and acreage of those features identified within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.2.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species Facility improvements for the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Construction and normal operation impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered to be negligible to minor and temporary. Impacts resulting from accidental releases could range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. 10.3.2.3.3.1 Construction Field reconnaissance and habitat assessments were conducted within the new construction sites (Odessa Terminal and Crane Station) for this Connected Action by experienced biologists, using accepted methods, as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1. Due to the developed/industrial nature of the proposed construction areas and the absence of any vegetative components forming suitable habitat, the majority of the threatened or endangered species of potential occurrence within the associated counties are not anticipated to occur within the construction sites. However, the field reconnaissance and habitat assessments did indicate the presence of potential habitat for one currently protected species. Potential habitat for the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard was identified along the entire length of the Odessa to Crane Pipeline. The distribution of the Texas horned lizard extends throughout the western half of Texas and includes a variety of habitats, though arid and semi-arid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sandy soils that support patchy bunchgrasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs are preferred by the species (Henke and Fair, 1998; TPWD, 2009). The listed mammals of potential occurrence are assumed extirpated from Ector and Crane Counties. No aquatic habitat was identified in the vicinity of the construction sites. Several state and federally-listed bird species could occur at new construction sites, though specific habitat 10-130 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL for these species was not identified, and such occurrence would likely be limited to a rare stopover during migration. Impacts associated with new construction would be similar to those described under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action above, and include negligible to minor and temporary disturbances that could directly affect the Texas horned lizard. Temporary impacts from the new construction activities for the Odessa to Crane Connected Action are not likely to result in adverse effects on this species. 10.3.2.3.3.2 Normal Operations Normal operations would be similar to those describe under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action and result in negligible to minor and temporary impacts. No indirect impacts to the Texas horned lizard are anticipated from normal operational activities for the Odessa to Crane Connected Action. 10.3.2.3.3.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from leaks or ruptures would be similar to those described above for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action. Based on the localized nature of small, low-volume leaks, impacts to threatened and endangered species would likely be contained within the existing terminal sites and immediately adjacent areas. Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, identified suitable habitat for the terrestrial state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard within the area adjoining the Odessa to Crane Connected Action, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3. Potential impacts to the species range from negligible to major, and temporary to short-term. Impacts occur as a result of ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity, and from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Determination of potential threatened and endangered species occurrence within the zone of potential impact was remotely assessed based on desktop review. Included in this evaluation were the habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence within the respective county, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3, high-resolution aerial interpretation of habitat types present respective of habitat observed in new construction sites, and the proximity of recorded species occurrences (TXNDD, 2011). The evaluation for Odessa to Crane identified potential habitat for the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard and no aquatic species within the zone of potential impact for the Odessa to Crane study area, which would presumably be potentially affected areas in the event of a large rupture. Approximately 10,044 acres of potential Texas horned lizard habitat occurs within this area. Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, was conducted by an experienced biologist along the existing ROW and within the existing terminals that will incur new construction, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3. Two Texas horned lizards were observed and documented within the existing Magellan Pipeline ROW during the field reconnaissance. 10-131 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible to minor and long-term. Accidental releases could result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short- to long-term duration. Discussions pertaining to the potential wetland impacts for this Connected Action are presented below. 10.3.2.3.4.1 Construction The Odessa to Crane Connected Action consists of construction activity localized at the Odessa Terminal and the Crane Station. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities at these two industrial facilities are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. 10.3.2.3.4.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts to wetlands from the normal operations of the existing 8-inch refined product pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.2.3.4.3 Accidental Releases The impacts of an accidental release of refined product into wetlands along the pipeline from Odessa to Crane would depend on the type of wetland, amount of product released and several other factors. An inventory of wetlands present within a 75-ft ROW easement from Odessa to Crane shows that 3 wetlands, consisting of approximately 0.76 acres, are present. There are no stream crossings along this portion of the Connected Action. Only palustrine wetlands were identified within the zone of potential impact from Odessa to Crane. No wetlands were identified from MP 0–10. Two wetlands were identified from MP 10- 20, accounting for 0.31 acres. One wetland was located between MP 20 – 29, accounting for 0.45 acres. All wetlands identified along the study area were located in Ector and Crane Counties. The table below shows the acreages and miles/linear feet of each wetland type within the 75-ft construction ROW easement. Wetland Classification and Acreage from Odessa to Crane Wetland Polygons Wetland Lines Wetland Classification Count Acres Count Miles Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 3 0.76 0 0.00 Total 3 0.76 0 0.00 The number of wetlands within the zone of potential impact is compiled by MP and county on the following table. 10-132 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Wetlands from Odessa to Crane MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres Wetland Stream Count Wetland Stream Miles County 0 10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crane 10 20 2 0.21 0 0.00 Crane/Ector 20 29 1 0.45 0 0.00 Ector Total 0.76 0 0.00 A large release could have acute and chronic impacts to wetland biota and functionality. A small release could have the same impacts, but on a smaller scale. A small release could impact just a portion of a wetland, and dilution could even lessen the impacts to virtually none depending on the size of the wetland. A large release could impact an entire wetland as well as the entire biota and functionality, depending on the scale of the release and the size of the wetland. Proper implementation of emergency response actions and best management practices would minimize the potential for impacts to adjacent streams and wetlands (See Section 10.4.4.2.2). Potential impacts to wetlands along this pipeline route could be negligible to moderate and short- to long-term in duration. 10.3.2.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.2.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties A description of the construction activities associated with the Odessa to Crane Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.2. Potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along the Odessa to Crane Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term. 10.3.2.4.1.1 Construction The Odessa to Crane Pipeline is an existing pipeline ROW that is included with the Longhorn Pipeline in a Programmatic Agreement. This agreement governs construction activities and requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Additionally, if any portions of the proposed ROW cross areas under the control of a subdivision of the state (e.g., UT Lands), a cultural resources survey of these areas may also be required, in compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas. The Odessa Terminal and Crane Station are both located at existing facilities. Because the proposed construction would be limited to these existing locations, which are already heavily disturbed, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. 10-133 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.2.4.1.2 Normal Operations Impacts to significant cultural resources are anticipated to be negligible during normal operation of this existing pipeline. No potential impacts to significant cultural resources are anticipated during normal operations of the Odessa Terminal and Crane Station. 10.3.2.4.1.3 Accidental Releases In the event of an accidental release, impacts to cultural resources may occur, especially during emergency response and cleanup activities. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term. Because both stations are located in previously disturbed areas with little potential for intact cultural resources, the potential to impact significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release would be negligible. 10.3.3 EL PASO GATEWAY 10.3.3.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.3.3.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety A description of the construction activities associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.3. Both the construction associated with, and normal operation of, the El Paso Gateway Connected Action are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact of fire, exposure to hazardous vapors such as benzene, and ingestion of contaminated water. Due to the rural environment (less developed than low intensity) of the zone of potential impact, these potential impacts are considered to be of minor intensity and temporary in duration. 10.3.3.1.1.1 Construction It is anticipated that construction would result in negligible health and safety impacts to local populations. 10.3.3.1.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations are not expected to result in any impacts to health and safety of the local populations based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.3.2.3.2). Magellan’s SIP will be followed during operation of the pipeline (See Section 3.3.2). 10.3.3.1.1.3 Accidental Releases For a description of impacts resulting from an accidental release of refined product refer to Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. 10-134 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The total population of the block groups crossed by the El Paso Gateway Pipeline and the zone of potential impact was 14,758 in 2000. The pipeline crosses primarily rural land with few if any residences (low density) within the zone of potential impact. Of the 1,789.6 acres of land within the zone of potential impact surrounding the El Paso Gateway Pipeline, there are no high intensity areas; only 1.6 acres (0.1%) are considered medium intensity and 16 acres (0.9%) low intensity. Therefore 99.0% of the pipeline’s zone of potential impact is less developed than low intensity. There are no schools, hospitals, parks, or recreational areas located within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.3.1.2 Impacts to Transportation A description of the construction activities associated with El Paso Gateway Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.3. Potential transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of the new segment of pipeline associated with this Connected Action include the road crossing at US Highway 62 in El Paso County. No railroads are crossed in this section of pipeline. Potential impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the new pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.3.1.2.1 Construction This Connected Action includes the installation of 6 miles of pipeline. This pipeline is proposed to be constructed partially in a Magellan ROW easement (about 3 of 6 miles) and will be installed in a predominantly rural, sparsely developed area. The proposed pipeline follows an existing ROW across one highway and one improved road, but these road crossings may utilize subsurface boring construction methods which would eliminate the potential for impacts related to road closures during pipeline construction. A portion of the ROW is located adjacent to single- family residences, and thus construction activities may result in minor and temporary impacts. 10.3.3.1.2.2 Normal Operations Operation of this system will include regular visual inspections and maintenance, which will utilize existing public roadways to access the ROW. Additional personnel associated with pipeline operations would minimally affect local transportation activities in El Paso. Regular inspection of the pipeline may be conducted by aerial surveillance. Normal operations are expected to result in negligible impacts to transportation 10.3.3.1.2.3 Accidental Releases In the event of an accidental release of refined product, temporary traffic impacts would result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. These could include a road closure at US Highway 62, and rerouting traffic along an improved city street to minimize 10-135 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL delays. A pipeline release and the subsequent repair would likely result in negligible to minor impacts of temporary duration. 10.3.3.1.3 Impacts to Land Use Facility improvements associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action are described in Section 3.2.3. Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the proposed activities would be negligible to minor and temporary, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long- term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.3.1.3.1 Construction For three miles of its length, the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline parallels the Longhorn Crane to El Paso Pipeline. For the remaining three miles, it traverses undeveloped land, generally paralleling an improved road. Because there will be access to the area of construction, and the land is currently undeveloped, minor and temporary impacts from construction activities are anticipated from the conversion of the pipeline ROW. 10.3.3.1.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the proposed pipeline may result in alteration of long-term trends in local development patterns. Because the land surrounding the proposed pipeline is currently undeveloped, it is possible that it could be developed for industrial, residential, or commercial uses in the future. Since federal regulations do not limit the distance a new building can be placed from an existing pipeline, impacts to potential developments are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.3.1.3.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of refined product may impact land uses. These impacts may potentially be major and result in long-term damage to private property from soil contamination and damages related to remediation activities. 10.3.3.1.4 Environmental Justice As shown in Table 10.3.3-1, of the block groups listed, several had housing units within the zone of potential impact. As stated in Section 10.1.3.1.4, these block groups are located in a county with a minority population percentage of 83.0%. Because the racial and ethnic make-up of the potentially impacted block groups is consistent with the racial and ethnic make-up of the surrounding area (the City of El Paso and El Paso County), there is no disproportionate impact. 10-136 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.2 Physical Resources 10.3.3.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater Facility improvements associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action are presented in Section 3.2.3. This pipeline traverses the outcrop area of a single porous media aquifer. No PWS wells are present within or have capture zones that cross into the El Paso Gateway zone of potential impact. The results of the vulnerability ranking did not identify any pipeline segments as being sensitive areas due to the presence of the Hueco Bolson Aquifer (Table 10.3.3-2). Therefore, potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Accidental releases may result in negligible to minor impacts with a short- to long-term duration. Specifics relevant to these potential impacts are discussed below. 10.3.3.2.1.1 Construction Potential impacts to the Hueco Bolson Aquifer outcrop area due to the El Paso Gateway Connected Action construction activities could result in storm water runoff transporting inorganic pollutants, such as nitrate and metals, from land disturbance (land clearing or excavation). The impacted runoff could infiltrate aquifer outcrop areas, and potentially degrade groundwater quality in these recharge areas. Therefore, the potential groundwater resource impacts related to pipeline construction activities could be negligible to minor and temporary. 10.3.3.2.1.2 Normal Operations Potential impacts to the Hueco Bolson Aquifer outcrop areas crossed by the pipeline associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action, as well as aquifer impact prevention measures, would parallel those of the Orion West Expansion Connected Action for normal operations (see Section 10.3.1.2.1.2). 10.3.3.2.1.3 Accidental Releases Potential impacts to the Hueco Bolson Aquifer outcrop area crossed by the pipeline associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action due to accidental releases would be comparable to that for the porous media aquifer, as described in Section 10.3.1.2.1.3. 10.3.3.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water No water bodies are located along the pipeline for the El Paso Gateway Connected Action through this portion of the basin. 10.3.3.2.2.1 Construction Any potential impacts would be negligible for pipeline construction. 10-137 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.2.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts would be negligible for normal pipeline operations 10.3.3.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Leaks Any impacts to water quality from leaks should be incurred at or near the point of the leak. Because of the volatility of refined petroleum constituents, surficial spread of the released material should be confined to a small area, and would not likely have the potential to flow into the nearest (although still distant) streams or water bodies. Ruptures A pipeline rupture would tend to spread out over the surrounding land, where it would evaporate and percolate into the ground if not recovered. There are no municipal separate storm sewer systems in close enough proximity to transport impacted storm water to the Rio Grande River. Due to the absence of perennial streams, canals, lakes, rivers, or surface water intakes in the vicinity of this Connected Action pipeline, the surface water impacts would be expected to be negligible. Sensitive Areas Based upon the NHD Dataset information, there are no surface water resources that are within the zone of potential impact. Accordingly, there are no sensitive water bodies. 10.3.3.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality A description of the facility improvements associated with the new pipeline between the El Paso Terminal and the proposed Gateway Junction is provided in Section 3.2.3. The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short-term, intermittent, and without any irreversible effects on air quality either locally or regionally. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the SCAQMD for construction projects. The new refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, no air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. Note that there will be few, if any, residents in the vicinity of the new pipeline, which significantly reduces the chance of impacts from construction-related emissions. 10.3.3.2.3.1 Construction The 1999 EA provided estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions for a pipeline spread (Aspen 1998): 10-138 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • VOC: 38.2 lb/day; • NOx: 351 lb/day; • CO: 307 lb/day • SO2: 33.5 lb/day; • PM10: 24.2 lb/day; • PM2.5: <24.2 lb/day; • Fugitive PM: 101 lb/day (unmitigated); and • CO2: 17,167 lb/day. It should be emphasized that these estimates are based on emission factors developed by the EPA in the early-1990s, which would result in overly-conservative (high), unrepresentative emission rates for future construction projects. For example, the EPA’s current NOx emission factors for off-road mobile construction equipment are, on average, approximately 50% lower than the emission factors published by EPA in the early 1990s. Therefore, any new impact assessment conducted for construction-related (on-site and off-site) emissions for a pipeline spread should consider that the NOx emission rate would actually be projected to be approximately 175 lb/day, as opposed to the rate of 351 lb/day shown above. Additionally, diesel fuel sulfur content has been reduced, through regulatory requirements for on-road and off-road mobile sources, since the early-1990s; therefore, the SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emission rates shown above also are based on overly-conservative emission factors. Note that the CO2 emission rate was not included in the Aspen emissions inventory; therefore, this emission rate has been estimated based on the ratio of CO2 to VOC emissions for another pipeline spread construction project (IFC 2002). Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with a pump station similar in size to the new pump/metering station at the Longhorn El Paso Terminal are shown in Section 10.3.1.2.3.1. To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the pipeline and pump/metering station, the LSTs for construction activities adopted by the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2008) were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities). A review of ambient monitoring data for the El Paso area, focusing on the monitors located nearest to the El Paso Station/Gateway Junction (e.g., Socorro, El Paso County) aided in the selection of appropriate LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily construction-related emission rates for the new pipeline. This comparison shows that the estimated daily emissions for pipeline and pump/metering station construction activities would be below the representative LSTs; therefore, such emissions would have no adverse impact on local air quality. Note that El Paso Station, the new refined product pipeline, and Gateway Junction are located outside the El Paso City limits; therefore, these facilities are located in an attainment (or unclassifiable) area for the NAAQS for all pollutants. 10-139 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.2.3.2 Normal Operations The new refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, no air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. Operation of the new pump/metering station associated with this Connected Action will generate fugitive VOC emissions under normal service. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with this Connected Action will be relatively small, amounting to 11.1 lb/day for the pump/metering station. (See Appendix 7 of this FEA for a summary of emission factors and rates for an individual pump station.) Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with VOC emissions from these sources would not exceed 10% of the TCEQ ESLs at each location. This finding is based on the conservative impact assessment results presented in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. (Note that the expanded capacity service – 225,000 barrels per day – evaluated for the impact assessment presented in the 1999 EA analysis is significantly higher than the capacity service associated with the new pipeline between the El Paso Station and Gateway Junction.) 10.3.3.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the population density, which is described in Section 10.1.3.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.3.1.1.3. 10.3.3.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed activities for the construction of the El Paso Gateway Connected Action is described in Section 3.2.3. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the new El Paso Gateway Pipeline would be minor to moderate and short term, associated with new pipeline construction. 10.3.3.3.1.1 Construction Field reconnaissance and habitat assessments were conducted within the new construction sites for the new El Paso Gateway Pipeline by experienced biologists, as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1 above. New construction and infrastructure improvement impacts on terrestrial resources associated with the new pipeline would be similar to those described for the Odessa 10-140 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL to Crane Pipeline, resulting in minor to moderate, short-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Direct impacts to vegetation during construction would be primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation for site preparation. The proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline would parallel the existing Longhorn Pipeline for the first 3 miles. After the first 3 miles, the pipeline lies directly adjacent to an existing road ROW and utility corridor. Most of the existing ROW has been adversely impacted by past human disturbance, and does not support intact vegetative communities of comparatively higher ecological value than surrounding habitats. Roadway ROW, pipeline ROW, housing construction, and other developments are located within the vicinity, further reducing the vegetative and terrestrial habitats in the area. Long-term impacts would include loss of approximately 43.61 acres of scrub-shrub vegetation along the pipeline ROW. 10.3.3.3.1.2 Normal Operations The new 6-inch refined product pipeline will have no new above-ground facilities outside of the existing El Paso Terminal. Thus, there would be negligible impacts to terrestrial resources. 10.3.3.3.1.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline would be similar to those described for the Odessa to Crane Pipeline, resulting in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from temporary impacts during contaminant cleanup and remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. 10.3.3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources associated with the El Paso Gateway Connection Action would be negligible. 10.3.3.3.2.1 Construction No aquatic resources were identified along the El Paso Gateway Pipeline. As a result, negligible impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated to occur during construction of the proposed pipeline. No indirect impacts are anticipated from new construction activities for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline. 10.3.3.3.2.2 Normal Operations Due to lack of aquatic resources, negligible impacts are anticipated for aquatic resources during normal operations or routine maintenance of the proposed pipeline. No indirect impacts are anticipated from normal operational activities for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline. 10-141 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.3.2.3 Accidental Releases Due to lack of aquatic resources, it is not anticipated that an accidental release, large or small would have any impact on aquatic resources along the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline. The nearest water feature is a dry playa lake approximately 0.42 mile to the west of the pipeline. This water feature is surrounded by several structures and sparsely vegetated sandy soils. 10.3.3.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species Facility improvements associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action are discussed in Section 3.2.3. Construction and normal operation impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered to be negligible to minor and temporary. Impacts resulting from accidental releases could range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. 10.3.3.3.3.1 Construction A habitat assessment, including a site reconnaissance, was conducted along the proposed pipeline ROW and within the existing El Paso Terminal for this Connected Action by experienced biologists, using accepted methods, as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1. A field reconnaissance survey revealed potential habitat for the Texas horned lizard and the Mountain short-horned lizard. It is possible that several state and federally-listed bird species could occur at the new construction locations, though specific habitat for these species was not identified by biologists during the site reconnaissance, and such occurrence would likely be limited to a rare stopover during migration. Potential impacts associated with new construction include negligible to minor and temporary disturbances that could directly affect the Texas horned lizard and the Mountain short-horned lizard. Temporary impacts from the new construction activities for El Paso Gateway Pipeline could result in adverse effects on the species. Long-term impacts would include destruction of habitat through permanent removal of vegetation and degradation of habitat through permanent alteration of resources. Individuals could be permanently displaced, injured, or killed during new construction activities; however, most Texas horned lizards and Mountain short-horned lizards would abandon or avoid the construction area during active work periods. Long-term impacts would be localized, confined to the construction footprint and adjacent areas required for access, and occur only where new construction requires long-term modification or destruction of Texas horned lizard and Mountain short-horned lizard habitat. Field observations and NWI data show that no open water or wetlands are located within or around the proposed pipeline. Due to lack of water resources and habitat, negligible impacts are anticipated for aquatic threatened or endangered species during construction of the proposed pipeline. 10-142 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.3.3.2 Normal Operations Normal operations would be similar to those described under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action and result in negligible to minor and temporary impacts. No indirect impacts to the Texas horned lizard or the Mountain short-horned lizard are anticipated from normal operational activities for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline. Due to lack of water resources and habitat, negligible impacts are anticipated for aquatic threatened or endangered species during normal operations or routine maintenance of the proposed pipeline. 10.3.3.3.3.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from leaks or ruptures would be similar to those described under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action. Based on the localized nature of small, low-volume leaks, impacts to threatened and endangered species would likely be contained within the new construction sites and immediately adjacent areas. Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, identified suitable habitat for two terrestrial species, Texas horned lizard and Mountain short-horned lizard, within the El Paso Gateway Pipeline study area, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. Impacts occur as a result of ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity, and from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, was conducted within the portions of the El Paso Gateway Pipeline that will incur new construction, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3. Determination of potential threatened and endangered species occurrence within the zone of potential impact was remotely assessed based on desktop review. Included in this evaluation were the habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence within the respective county, as discussed in Section 10.1.3.3.3, high-resolution aerial interpretation of habitat types present respective of habitat observed in new construction sites, and the proximity of recorded species occurrences (TXNDD, 2011). The evaluation for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline identified potential habitat for two terrestrial species, the Texas horned lizard and Mountain short-horned lizard, and no aquatic species within the zone of potential impact for the El Paso Gateway Pipeline, which would presumably be potentially affected areas in the event of a rupture. Approximately 3,128 acres of potential Texas horned lizard and Mountain short-horned lizard habitat occurs within this area. It is not anticipated that an accidental release, large or small would have any impact on aquatic resources along the proposed pipeline. The nearest water feature is a small dry playa lake approximately 0.42 mile to the west of the pipeline. This water feature is surrounded by several structures and sparsely vegetated sandy soils. 10-143 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.3.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands A description of the proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline is provided in Section 3.2.3. No wetlands are located within the proposed ROW or zone of potential impact along the pipeline, and impacts to wetlands for this Connected Action are not anticipated for construction, operation, or accidental releases. 10.3.3.3.4.1 Construction A new 6-inch pipeline is proposed from the existing El Paso Terminal to the proposed Gateway Terminal (approximately 6 miles). As noted in Section 10.1.3.2.2, no wetlands were identified through aerial interpretation, NWI mapping and field investigations. It is not anticipated that any wetlands would be impacted by the El Paso Gateway Pipeline construction activities. 10.3.3.3.4.2 Normal Operations Because wetlands are not present, negligible impacts would occur during normal operations. 10.3.3.3.4.3 Accidental Releases Because wetlands are neither present nor in close enough proximity to the proposed pipeline, it is not anticipated that an accidental release would have any impact on wetlands. 10.3.3.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.3.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties Facility improvements for the new pipeline associated with the El Paso Gateway Connected Action are presented in Section 3.2.3. Potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along the El Paso Gateway Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible to moderate and long-term. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term. 10.3.3.4.1.1 Construction The El Paso Gateway Connected Action includes a new pipeline ROW, the majority of which is located within areas that were previously assessed for cultural resources for an unrelated project. As such, a cultural resources survey of the entire ROW may not be required by permitting agencies. However, previously unsurveyed portions of the proposed ROW and locations along the ROW where sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (i.e., sites 41EP809 and 41EP885) are within areas under the purview of federal agencies (e.g., USACE jurisdictional areas) may need to be formally assessed prior to any ground disturbance activities, in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Additionally, if any portions of the proposed ROW crosses areas under the control of a subdivision of the state (e.g., UT Lands), a cultural 10-144 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL resources survey of these areas may also be required in compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas. As a result, the potential to impact significant cultural resources is negligible to moderate and long-term. 10.3.3.4.1.2 Normal Operations Once this proposed ROW has been assessed for cultural resources, and impacts to any encountered or previously documented significant cultural resources have either been mitigated prior to construction activities or avoided via modifications to the ROW alignment, the potential to impact significant cultural resources during normal operation of this pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.3.4.1.3 Accidental Releases In the event of an accidental release, impacts to cultural resources may occur, especially during emergency response and cleanup activities. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release could be negligible to major and long-term. 10.3.4 CRANE TO EL PASO 10.3.4.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.3.4.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety A description of the construction activities associated with the Crane to El Paso Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.4. Both the construction associated with, and normal operation of, the Crane to El Paso Connected Action are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact of fire, exposure to hazardous vapors such as benzene, and ingestion of contaminated water. Due to the rural environment (less developed than low intensity) of the zone of potential impact, these potential impacts are considered to be of minor intensity and temporary in duration. 10.3.4.1.1.1 Construction Construction for this Connected Action would result in negligible health and safety impacts to local populations as installation of a pump station and metering station will be done in areas which have a primarily low population density. 10.3.4.1.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations are not expected to result in any impacts to health and safety of the local populations based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.4.2.3.2). Magellan’s SIP will be followed during operation of the pipeline (See Section 3.2.2). 10-145 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.4.1.1.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. For a description of impacts resulting from an accidental release of refined product refer to Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. The total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and the zone of potential impact was 36,871 in 2000. The pipeline crosses primarily rural land with few if any residences (low density) within the zone of potential impact. Of the 151,715.7 acres of land within the zone of potential impact surrounding the Crane to El Paso Pipeline, there are 3.1 acres (<0.1%) considered high intensity areas, 73.2 acres (<0.1%) medium intensity, and 230.2 acres (0.2%) low intensity. Therefore 99.8% of the pipeline’s zone of potential impact is less developed than low intensity. There are no schools, hospitals, parks, or recreational areas located within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.4.1.2 Impacts to Transportation A description of the construction associated with the Crane to El Paso Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.4. Potential transportation impacts related to the existing pipeline include road crossings of two federal highways (I-20 in Ward County and US Hwy 285 in Reeves County), two state highways (SH18 in Ward county and SH54 in Culberson County), and numerous state-designated FM and Ranch roads (with a majority of these road crossings occurring in Ward County). Two railroads are crossed in Ward County. Potential impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. Impacts to transportation in the vicinity of the El Paso Station related to the increased truck loading of refined product are expected to be minor and long-term. 10.3.4.1.2.1 Construction This Connected Action does not include the installation of new pipeline along the ROW. New construction will be limited to one selected site. Since construction will not occur adjacent to any roadway or railroad crossing, there should be no road closures during construction. Construction is not expected to restrict access to private properties; therefore, impacts are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.4.1.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations of this system are not expected to result in measurable impacts to transportation. Regular inspection of the pipeline will be conducted by aerial surveillance as per the LMP. 10-146 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Much of the refined product which arrives at the El Paso Terminal is transported to markets in the western states and Mexico via pipeline. However, as a result of the expansion, additional tanker trucks may be loaded at the El Paso Terminal for regional retail centers. The major roadways providing access to the El Paso Terminal include US Highway 62 and I-10. This level of additional truck traffic should result in minor and long-term impacts to area transportation. 10.3.4.1.2.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. For a description of impacts resulting from an accidental release of refined product refer to Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. Transportation impacts resulting from a rupture along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline would vary depending on the location of the release. There are several major roadways along the ROW of this that could be impacted. Regardless of location, temporary traffic impacts would result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews along public roadways. These could include road closures in the vicinity of the release, and rerouting traffic to minimize delays. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release are expected to be minor and temporary. The remoteness and limited roadways along certain segments of this pipeline may impact the capability for possible rerouting in the event of rupture and a necessary road closure. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to major and temporary in duration. 10.3.4.1.3 Impacts to Land Use Facility improvements for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action are described in Section 3.2.4. Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the proposed activities would be negligible, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.4.1.3.1 Construction Because the pipeline is currently in operation and only one pump station is proposed, impacts resulting from construction activities would be negligible. The proposed Cottonwood pump station would be constructed at an existing facility; therefore, construction-related impacts to land uses are anticipated to be minor since there would be no changes in land use. The other construction activities would also take place at existing stations (Crane and El Paso), so there would be negligible impacts to land use as a result of construction. 10-147 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.4.1.3.2 Normal Operations Because the pipeline already exists, there would be negligible impacts resulting from normal operations. Impacts to land use are not anticipated. 10.3.4.1.3.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. These impacts may potentially be major resulting in long-term damage to private property from soil contamination, damages related to remediation activities, and property damaged in the event of a fire. 10.3.4.1.4 Environmental Justice As shown in Table 10.3.4-1, several block groups had housing units within the zone of potential impact. Of the nine block groups, four (BG 1, CT 103.09, El Paso County; BG 1, CT 103.18, El Paso County; BG 1, CT 103.20, El Paso County; and BG 2, CT 9501, Hudspeth County) have no housing units within the zone of potential impact. Two (BG 1, CT 9502, Hudspeth County and BG 1, CT 9501, Reeves County) have less than five housing units (one and four, respectively) within the zone of potential impact. As a result, this Connected Action would not have the potential for disproportionate impacts on these block groups, since the housing units and potential EJ individuals are dispersed in a random pattern and do not constitute a cohesive significant EJ population. The remaining three block groups have substantial numbers of housing units and require further examination. For BG 6, CT 9501, in Ward County (BG 6), the majority of housing units (62 of 69) were located at MP 519, which is located in Barstow, Texas. All 62 of these houses are located within Barstow or in the vicinity of Barstow. The zone of potential impact passes through Barstow on the east side of Ranch Road 516 (which bisects the town), generally paralleling that road. The physical pipeline is located approximately 1.1 miles north of the northern boundary of the Barstow city limits. Barstow is a small city with a population of 406, 78.6% of whom identify as a racial or ethnic minority (compared to 69.2% of the population of BG 6). It is therefore likely that the housing units within the zone of potential impact through Barstow represent a minority community. Because the pipeline already exists, there would be no disproportionate impacts to these populations as a result of construction. The only potential impacts from operations arise from possible pipeline failures. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population group may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. 10-148 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL The remaining two block groups are both located in El Paso County in the vicinity of the City of El Paso, and both represent minority, rather than low-income, populations; therefore, both block groups are evaluated together. BG 1, CT 103.15 (BG 1) has 591 housing units located within the zone of potential impact, and BG 2, CT 103.20 (BG 2) has 598 housing units within the zone of potential impact. These block groups are categorized as minority because the percentages of their populations that identify as minority are 92.1% and 93.3%, respectively. However, these housing units are located in developments associated with the City of El Paso, 81.7% of whose population identifies as an ethnic or racial minority. Additionally, these block groups are located in a county whose percent minority population is 83.0%. Because the racial and ethnic make-up of the potentially impacted block groups is consistent with the racial and ethnic make-up of the surrounding area (the City of El Paso and El Paso County), there is no disproportionate impact. 10.3.4.2 Physical Resources 10.3.4.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater Facility improvements to the existing Crane to El Paso Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.4. The Crane to El Paso Pipeline crosses the outcrop areas of two porous media and two bedrock aquifers with karst features. No PWS wells are present within or have capture zones that cross into the Crane to El Paso zone of potential impact. However, the vulnerability ranking did identify pipeline segments, from MP 458.0 to MP 556.8, as being sensitive and was assigned a vulnerability ranking of 4 (see Table 10.3.4-2). This vulnerable pipeline segment crosses an unconfined, alluvium aquifer connected to surface water. Potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Accidental releases may result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short to long-term duration. Specifics pertaining to the potential groundwater resource impacts for this Connected Action are discussed below. 10.3.4.2.1.1 Construction Potential impacts to the groundwater resources attributable to the Crane to El Paso Connected Action construction activities would be similar to those impacts posed by the construction activities associated with the Orion West Expansion and Odessa to Crane Connected Actions, as discussed in Sections 10.3.1.2.1.1 and 10.3.2.2.1.1, respectively. 10.3.4.2.1.2 Normal Operations Potential impacts to the groundwater resource outcrop areas crossed by the Crane to El Paso Pipeline attributable to normal operations, as well as aquifer impact prevention measures, would be similar to those impacts posed by normal operations associated with the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.2. 10-149 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.4.2.1.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Potential impacts to the Pecos Valley Aquifer outcrop area crossed by the Crane to El Paso Pipeline resulting from accidental releases would be comparable to those for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (see Section 10.3.1.2.1.3). 10.3.4.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water Facility improvements to the existing Crane to El Paso Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.4. Construction and normal operation impacts associated with the Crane to El Paso Connected Action are considered to be negligible. There are no canals or public water intakes that are located within the zone of potential impact for this pipeline segment. For the intermittent and perennial streams, the impacts from a potential pipeline rupture are considered to be minor to moderate in magnitude, and to be short to long-term in duration. 10.3.4.2.2.1 Construction Construction of the pump station at Cottonwood could lead to potential increased overland flow of surface water from disturbed areas during rain events, resulting in sediment/debris transport to the drainages that exist in the area of the pump station site. 10.3.4.2.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts would be negligible for normal pipeline operations. 10.3.4.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Leaks The potential impacts to surface water bodies from leaks are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Ruptures The potential impacts to surface water bodies from refined product pipeline ruptures are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Sensitive Areas The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of 10-150 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL impact. Potentially vulnerable water bodies along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline were identified in Section 10.1.4.2.2. A listing of these potentially vulnerable water bodies was provided in Table 10.1.4-3. This listing includes water bodies consisting of intermittent streams only. There are no public water supply intakes with an API within the Crane to El Paso Pipeline zone of potential impact. For each of these potentially vulnerable water bodies, this section identifies whether the relative sensitivity is classified as low, medium, or high using the same criteria as was discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. The table provided below shows the ranking matrix used for the classification of water body sensitivities along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline route. Criteria (Within Zone of Potential Impact) Ranking No. Sensitivity Intermittent Perennial or Canal With Pipeline Crossing GIS Length > 0.5 mile API 3 Minor X NA NA NA NA X NA X NA NA X NA NA X NA 2 Moderate X NA X X NA NA X NA NA NA NA X X NA NA 1 Major NA X NA X NA NA X X X NA Note: NA = Not applicable Using this ranking matrix, the relative sensitivities of water bodies identified along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are provided on Table 10.3.4-3. These data indicate that if an accidental release were to occur at specific locations along this segment, there could be major impacts to water bodies that have a ranking value of 1. As noted in Section 7.6.2.3, a release to a surface water body such as stream, river, or canal would be expected to result in only temporary (less than 24 hours) impacts to downstream water intakes during the passage of the plume. Accordingly, for water bodies that have a ranking of 1, but which are not within the API of a public drinking water supply, the impacts of a pipeline release are considered to be temporary in duration. These water bodies are identified in the following table. Pipeline MP Stream ID Use Classification Crane to El Paso 519.57 – 520.20 Barstow Canal Irrigation Crane to El Paso 521.37 Lateral No. 3 Irrigation Crane to El Paso 522.29 – 523.82 Unnamed Canal Irrigation Crane to El Paso 521.37 Lateral No. 1 Irrigation 10-151 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.4.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality A description of the facility improvements associated with the capacity expansion for the existing Longhorn Pipeline between Crane and El Paso is provided in Section 3.2.4. The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short-term, intermittent, and without any irreversible effects on air quality either locally or regionally. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the SCAQMD for construction projects. Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with the VOC emissions from normal operations for this Connected Action would be below TCEQ ESLs. Note that there will be few, if any, residents in the vicinity of the existing pipeline and associated new equipment (e.g., pump stations), as well as associated construction sites, which significantly reduces the chance of impacts from construction- and operation-related emissions. 10.3.4.2.3.1 Construction Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions, including GHGs (i.e., CO2), associated with a pump station similar in size to the new pump station at Cottonwood are shown in Section 10.3.1.2.3.1. To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the Connected Action pump stations, the LSTs for construction activities adopted by the SCAQMD were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities)(SCAQMD 2008). A review of ambient monitoring data for the El Paso area, focusing on the monitors located nearest to the El Paso Station, aided in the selection of appropriate LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily construction-related emissions at El Paso. This comparison shows that the estimated emissions for the above- described construction activities at El Paso and Crane would be below the representative LSTs; therefore, such emissions would have no adverse impact on local air quality in these areas. This conclusion applies to the emissions associated with construction activities at Cottonwood as well, as that site is located about 110 mi east-southeast of El Paso, in a remote location of central Culberson County. Note that El Paso Station is located outside the El Paso City limits; therefore, construction activities associated with this Connected Action will occur in an attainment (or unclassifiable) area for the NAAQS for all pollutants. 10.3.4.2.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the new pump stations associated with this Connected Action will generate fugitive VOC emissions under normal service. Fugitive VOC emissions associated with this Connected Action will be relatively small, amounting to 11.1 lb/day for the pump station at Cottonwood and the new pump unit at Crane. (See Appendix 7 of this FEA for a summary of emission factors and rates for an individual pump station.) 10-152 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Estimated impacts of HAPs associated with VOC emissions from these sources would not exceed 10% of the TCEQ ESLs at each location. This finding is based on the conservative impact assessment results presented in Appendix 7I of the 1999 EA. (Note that the expanded capacity service – 225,000 barrels per day – evaluated for the impact assessment presented in the 1999 EA analysis is significantly higher than the capacity service – 110,000 barrels per day – associated with the Crane-to-El Paso Pipeline.) 10.3.4.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the population density, which is described in Section 10.1.4.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.4.1.1.3. 10.3.4.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.4.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed construction activities associated with the Crane to El Paso Connected Action are described in Section 3.2.4. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with this Connected Action would be minor and temporary, largely associated with new construction activities at each facility. 10.3.4.3.1.1 Construction New construction and infrastructure improvement impacts on terrestrial resources associated with the existing pump stations would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor, temporary or short-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Direct impacts to vegetation during construction would be primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation for site preparation. However, the new construction activities for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action occur at existing facilities. The existing facilities have been adversely impacted by past human disturbance, and do not support intact vegetative communities of comparatively higher ecological value than surrounding habitats. No indirect impacts are anticipated from new construction activities for this Connected Action. 10.3.4.3.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the existing pipeline and new pump station at Cottonwood Station would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in 10-153 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL negligible impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. No indirect impacts are anticipated from normal operational activities for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action. 10.3.4.3.1.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Impacts from accidental releases for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action would be the same as those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from short term impacts during contaminant cleanup and remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. 10.3.4.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources associated with Crane to El Paso Connected Action would be negligible. 10.3.4.3.2.1 Construction Impacts associated with new construction for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in negligible to minor, temporary impacts to aquatic resources. Impacts would be most likely avoided, or where unavoidable, minimized through the implementation of best management practices. No indirect impacts are anticipated from new construction activities associated with this Connected Action. 10.3.4.3.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts from the normal operations of the existing refined product pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.4.3.2.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Impacts from small leaks and spills or large ruptures would be similar to those described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action, resulting in minor, temporary impacts to moderate, short-term impacts to aquatic resources. Potential for impact to aquatic resources 10-154 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL from leaks and ruptures would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from an accidental release would conceivably be higher for those portions of the study area adjacent to the streams, namely the Pecos River and affiliated tributaries. Another location within the zone of potential impact where aquatic resources could be impacted is Sand Lake, located between MP 531 and 532. Several other stream and wetland locations would also be subject to higher impact risks for aquatic resources with accidental leaks. Table 10.1.4-4 provides the number of aquatic features and acreage of those features identified within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.4.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species Facility improvements for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are discussed in Section 3.2.4. Construction and normal operation impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered to be negligible to minor and temporary. Impacts resulting from accidental releases could range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. 10.3.4.3.3.1 Construction A habitat assessment, including a site reconnaissance, was conducted within the new construction sites for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action by experienced biologists, using accepted methods as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1. Due to the developed/industrial nature of the proposed construction areas, and the absence of vegetative components necessary for suitable habitat, most of the threatened or endangered species of potential occurrence within the associated counties are not anticipated to occur within the project area. However, the field reconnaissance and habitat assessments did indicate the presence of potential habitat for one currently protected species. Potential habitat for the state-listed threatened Texas horned lizard was identified at the Crane Terminal. The distribution of the Texas horned lizard extends throughout the western half of Texas and includes a variety of habitats, though arid and semi- arid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sandy soils that support patchy bunchgrasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs are preferred by the species (Henke and Fair, 1998; TPWD, 2009). It is possible that state and federally-listed bird species could occur at the new construction locations, though specific habitat for these species was not identified by biologists during the site reconnaissance, and such occurrence would likely be limited to a rare stopover during migration. No aquatic habitat was identified in the vicinity of the construction sites. Potential impacts associated with new construction include negligible to minor and temporary disturbances that could directly affect the Texas horned lizard. Temporary or short-term impacts from the new construction activities for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action could result in adverse effects on the Texas horned lizard at the Crane Terminal. Permanent impacts would include destruction of habitat through permanent removal of vegetation, and degradation of habitat through permanent alteration of resources. Individuals could be permanently displaced, injured, or killed during new construction activities; however, most Texas horned lizards would abandon or avoid the construction area during active work periods. Permanent impacts would 10-155 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL be localized, confined to the construction footprint and adjacent areas required for access, and occur only where new construction requires long-term modification or destruction of Texas horned lizard habitat. Construction activities for Crane to El Paso are not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered aquatic species since new constructions sites are not proximal to springs or perennial stream features that may support these species. 10.3.4.3.3.2 Normal Operations Normal operations would be similar to those described under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action and result in negligible to minor impacts with a temporary duration. No indirect impacts to the Texas horned lizard or other terrestrial and aquatic listed species are anticipated from normal operational activities for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action. 10.3.4.3.3.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. Impacts from small release or large ruptures would be similar to those described under the Orion West Expansion Connected Action. Based on the localized nature of small, low- volume leaks, impacts to threatened and endangered species would likely be contained within the new construction sites and immediately adjacent areas. Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, identified suitable habitat for one terrestrial species, the Texas horned lizard, along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline ROW, as discussed in Section 10.1.4.3.3. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species range from negligible to major, and temporary to short-term. Impacts occur as a result of ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity, and from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, was conducted within the portions of the Crane to El Paso study area that will incur new construction, as discussed in Section 10.1.4.3.3, but such field reconnaissance efforts were not conducted for the entire spatial extent in which effects from a large rupture could occur (i.e., the zone of potential impact). Determination of potential threatened and endangered species occurrence within this larger area was remotely assessed based on desktop review. Included in this evaluation were the habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence within the respective county, as discussed in Section 10.1.4.3.3, high-resolution aerial interpretation of habitat types present respective of habitat observed in new construction sites, and the proximity of recorded species occurrences (TXNDD, 2011). The evaluation for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline identified potential habitat for three terrestrial species, the Chihuahuan desert lyre snake, the Texas horned lizard, and the Mountain short-horned lizard, and no aquatic species within the zone of potential impact for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline study area, which would presumably be potentially affected areas in the event of a large rupture. 10-156 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Approximately 1,111 acres of potential Chihuahuan desert lyre snake habitat, 1,540 acres of potential Texas horned lizard habitat, and 1,111 acres of potential Mountain short-horned lizard habitat occur within this area. 10.3.4.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands Facility improvements for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.4. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the Crane to El Paso Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. Accidental releases could result in negligible to moderate impacts with temporary to short-term duration. Discussions pertaining to the potential wetland impacts for this Connected Action are presented below. 10.3.4.3.4.1 Construction No new pipeline will be constructed under the Crane to El Paso Connected Action; therefore, no new wetland impacts are anticipated. One new construction activity is proposed for the Crane to El Paso Connected Action. The Cottonwood station is proposed to be expanded to operate as a pump station. An existing facility is located at the proposed site, and based on aerial photography, NWI mapping, and field reconnaissance, it is not anticipated that any new impacts to wetlands will occur. USGS topographic maps and NWI maps show that a small tributary to an intermittent stream located south of the proposed facility runs through a portion of the Cottonwood site. Aerial photography and field reconnaissance do not show a defined stream at this location. Because of the existing facility at this location, it is possible that the drainage was graded during previous construction activities. No other wetlands or streams are located in the direct vicinity of the proposed pump station, and it is not anticipated that any new impacts would occur. 10.3.4.3.4.2 Normal Operations Because the Crane to El Paso Connected Action involves an existing pipeline, located on a maintained ROW, it is not anticipated that any new impacts would occur during normal operations. The proposed pump station is not located within the direct vicinity of wetlands, and normal operations are not anticipated to result in any new impacts. 10.3.4.3.4.3 Accidental Releases The potential risk of impact from an accidental release is an existing risk because the Crane to El Paso Pipeline is an operating system. In the event of an accidental release, the difference in the throughput between the existing operation and the proposed operation could cause a potential increase in the volume of released product, which could result in a larger area of impact. The impacts of an accidental release of refined product along the pipeline from Crane to El Paso would depend on the type of wetland, amount of product released, and several other 10-157 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL factors. There are no forested wetlands located within the ROW or zone of potential impact; therefore, impacts would only occur to other palustrine wetland types. Proper implementation of best management practices would minimize the potential for impacts to adjacent streams and wetlands. Potential impacts to wetlands along this pipeline route could be negligible to moderate and temporary to short-term, and not appreciably different than for the existing operation. 10.3.4.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.4.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties Facility improvements to the existing Crane to El Paso Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.4. Potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along this Connected Action are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.4.4.1.1 Construction The Crane to El Paso Connected Action includes expanded capacity for an existing pipeline that will require limited construction activities. Additionally, it has been determined, and acknowledged by the SHPO, that this previously disturbed pipeline ROW easement contains no significant cultural resources listed on, or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As such, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. The Cottonwood Station and El Paso Terminal are both existing, previously disturbed facilities. Because of the previous determination that no significant cultural resources exist in the immediate vicinity, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. 10.3.4.4.1.2 Normal Operations The potential to impact significant cultural resources during normal operation of the existing pipeline, terminal, or pump stations would be negligible. 10.3.4.4.1.3 Accidental Releases As this is an existing, previously disturbed pipeline ROW containing no significant cultural resources listed on, or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. Because the El Paso Terminal and Cottonwood Station are located in previously disturbed areas with little potential for intact cultural resources, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. 10-158 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5 9TH STREET JUNCTION TO SPEED JUNCTION 10.3.5.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.3.5.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety A description of the construction activities associated with the new 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.5. Both the construction associated with, and normal operation of, the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact of fire, exposure to hazardous vapors, dermal contact (contaminated soil), and ingestion of contaminated water. Within the zone of potential impact, 93.7% of the area is considered developed; however, only the northern and southern termini are developed with single or multi- family housing. The majority of the pipeline ROW easement is adjacent to industrial areas. An accident occurring near the residential areas has a greater likelihood of impacting human health and safety, so the potential impact would be moderate to major and temporary in duration. The potential impact to human health and safety along the rest of the pipeline would be minor to moderate intensity and of temporary duration. 10.3.5.1.1.1 Construction It is anticipated that construction would result in negligible health and safety impacts to local populations 10.3.5.1.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations are not expected to result in any impacts to health and safety of the local populations based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.5.2.3.2). Magellan’s SIP will be followed during operation of the pipeline (See Section 3.2.2). 10.3.5.1.1.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of crude oil pose a potential risk for impacts to human health and safety. The accidental release scenarios include pipeline leaks and ruptures. Both of these scenarios present potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) impacts. Pipeline leaks and ruptures can occur due to equipment failure at the pump stations, where there are valves, pumps, flanges, etc., or from effects due to corrosion. The potential human health and safety impacts that could result from a release of crude oil include: • Fire (less likely than for gasoline: flashpoint of crude oil is 20-100°Fahrenheit); • Short-term exposure to hazardous vapors (H2S, benzene) resulting from a crude oil spill: 10-159 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL o H2S emissions from a release of sour crude are not likely to exceed limits in an open environment. (Silver Pipeline Crude Oil Fact Sheet 08-04-11, Yellowstone spill 7/1/11, documents that first responders tested for H2S levels in ambient air immediately following the release, and it was not at harmful levels. The spilled material was sour crude and contained 2.94 wt% sulfur (EPA SPR04 Analytical Report). Hydrogen sulfide odor is detected at 20 ppb, olfactory fatigue occurs at 100 ppm, and levels of 150 ppm are life threatening. o Emissions of benzene (ACGIH TWA of 0.5 ppm, STEL of 2.5 ppm) could potentially exceed the established limits, but is less likely than for gasoline, as benzene concentrations vary, but are lower in crude oil (0 – 2% for crude oil, compared to 0.5 – 3.5% for gasoline). Most of the benzene will volatilize in the first 24 – 48 hours, so any impact will occur initially; however, evacuation of the public will limit exposure. Per EPA information regarding the Silver Pipeline crude oil spill, follow-up air monitoring is being performed for VOCs and H2S in the area impacted by the spill, and no detectable levels have been found. • Long-term exposure (inhalation of hazardous vapors and dermal contact) resulting from contaminated soils; and • Exposure to toxic constituents of crude oil from ingestion (contaminated water, food). The acute impacts from an accidental release include fire and inhalation (short-term exposure). The primary inhalation exposure risk is from benzene. There is also a risk of exposure to H2S from sour crude. However, based on the 1993 EPA Report to Congress, the exposure to H2S from other than wells (storage tanks, valves, etc.) is an occupational hazard, not a public health and safety hazard. Any inhalation exposure would occur in the open area and not in an enclosed space, so it is unlikely that exposure would exceed established limits. A CDC report on the symptoms reported from excessive exposure to crude oil (Silver Pipeline crude oil spill in Yellowstone River, 2011) identified the following: • Eye, nose, and throat irritation; • Headache; • Dizziness; • Upset stomach; and • Cough or shortness of breath. Sour crude contains H2S, and the symptoms of human exposure to H2S are well known, ranging from irritation, breathing disorders, nausea, and vomiting to death. The principal threat of H2S gas to human life is poisoning by inhalation. The most common consequences of exposure to routine emissions of H2S are odor nuisance and eye and respiratory tract irritation. At low concentrations (20 ppb), it will smell like rotten eggs; however, olfactory fatigue occurs at 100 ppm (and smell can no longer be used as an observation method). Immediate symptoms of benzene exposure are vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid or irregular heartbeat, and death (at very high levels). Benzene can cause cancer in humans, and long term exposure causes harmful effects on the bone 10-160 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. Benzene can also cause excessive bleeding and can adversely affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection (CDC facts). Chronic or long term impacts from a pipeline accidental release include inhalation, contact, and ingestion exposures. Clinical guidance published by the CDC identified that the light fractions of crude oil (volatile organic components such as benzene, toluene, xylene, etc.) are an inhalation hazard initially due to evaporation of those fractions. While the longer term risk is from contact it would be difficult to exceed established exposure limits due to contact. People are not likely to contact the released material unless they are involved in the cleanup effort. It is expected that people would be evacuated for a release that could impact their health and safety. As noted in Section 10.1.5.1.1, the total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and the zone of potential impact was 28,226 in 2000. The area within the zone of potential impact is predominantly industrial. There are no schools, hospitals, or other vulnerable receptors located within the zone of potential impact. Although 93.7% of the zone of potential impact is considered developed, the only residential areas are located on the west side of the northern part of the 9th Street Junction and near the southern terminus by the Speed Junction facility. The majority of the pipeline ROW easement adjacent to the facility is developed with petroleum refining and storage facilities. An accident occurring near the residential areas has a greater likelihood of impacting human health and safety, so the potential impact would be moderate to major intensity and temporary in duration. The potential impact to human health and safety within the industrial areas would be minor to moderate intensity and temporary in duration. 10.3.5.1.2 Impacts to Transportation A description of the construction activities associated with the new 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.5. Potential transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of this new segment of pipeline include road crossings of the main lanes and service lanes of SH 225. Eight railroads are crossed by the proposed Connected Action. Potential impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.5.1.2.1 Construction This Connected Action includes the installation of 2.6 miles of 20-inch pipeline. This pipeline is proposed to be constructed within an existing ROW easement, and will be installed in a densely developed urban/industrialized area. The proposed pipeline follows an existing ROW across one highway (SH 225) and several improved roads, but these road crossings may utilize subsurface boring construction methods which would eliminate the potential for impacts related to road closures during pipeline construction. A portion of the ROW is located adjacent to single- family residences; therefore, construction activities may result in minor and temporary impacts. 10-161 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5.1.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations of this system are not expected to result in measurable impacts to transportation. Regular inspection of the pipeline will be conducted by ground and aerial surveillance. 10.3.5.1.2.3 Accidental Releases In the event of an accidental release of crude oil, temporary traffic impacts could result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. These could include a road closure of the main lanes and/or service lanes of SH 225, and rerouting traffic along an improved city street to minimize delays. A pipeline release and the subsequent repair would likely result in negligible to moderate impacts of temporary duration. 10.3.5.1.3 Impacts to Land Use Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline would be negligible to minor, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.5.1.3.1 Construction The intent of the project is to construct the proposed pipeline within the existing pipeline ROW easement, which will minimize impacts to surrounding land uses. While the existing pipeline ROW easement crosses industrialized land uses, portions of the pipeline cross some residential subdivisions and commercial developments. Impacts may arise from pipeline installation but these would be negligible to minor and temporary. These subdivisions are located adjacent to an existing pipeline ROW easement, and therefore consistent with current land uses. 10.3.5.1.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the proposed pipeline is not likely to result in alteration of long-term trends in local development patterns. Because the area is already industrialized, the construction of the pipeline will not likely affect future land uses. Normal operations are anticipated to result in negligible impacts to land use. 10.3.5.1.3.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of crude oil may impact land uses. These impacts may potentially be major resulting in long-term damage to private property from soil contamination, damages related to remediation activities, and property damaged in the event of a fire. 10-162 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5.1.4 Environmental Justice As discussed in Section 10.1.5.1.4, portions of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline cross block groups with populations that are categorized as minority. Because these block groups cover an area much larger than the area covered by the zone of potential impact, the first step of the disproportionate impacts analysis is to determine if there are individuals from the sensitive block groups residing within the zone of potential impact of the proposed pipeline. To determine this, housing units were identified by pipeline MP on aerial photography (NAIP, 2010). Each of the block groups crossed had housing units within the zone of potential impact of the pipeline. Details regarding these housing units are provided in Table 10.3.5-1. Most of the area traversed by the proposed pipeline is largely industrialized, and most of the housing units are located in subdivision developments located at the proposed pipeline’s northern and southern termini. The subdivision developments at the proposed pipeline’s northern terminus are located within Galena Park, which has a population that is 77.8% minority and has a median income of $31,660. While the block groups have a slightly higher percentage of minority persons than Galena Park, the percentages are consistent with the racial and ethnic make-up of the surrounding area. The subdivision developments located at the southern terminus of the proposed pipeline are located in the City of Pasadena, and are adjacent to intense industrial development. The City of Pasadena has a minority population that constitutes 47.2% of its entire population, and its median household income is $38,522. The 250 housing units located in BG 1, CT 3220 are part of an apartment complex that is not entirely located within the zone of potential impact. The housing units in BG 1, CT 3219 and BG 1, CT 3223 are located in a subdivision adjacent to industrial development. Because the proposed pipeline would be consistent with current land uses surrounding these housing units, there would be no disproportionate impact to these communities. Because the pipeline will be built within the existing ROW, there would be no disproportionate impacts to these populations as a result of construction. These housing units are currently located adjacent to an existing pipeline and other industrial developments, and the proposed pipeline would be consistent with current surrounding land uses. The only potential impacts from operations would arise from potential pipeline failures. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population group may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. 10.3.5.2 Physical Resources 10.3.5.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater A description of construction activities associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.5 of this FEA. The 9th Street Junction to Speed 10-163 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Junction Pipeline route traverses the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, a major, a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer (See Table 10.1.5-1). Two PWS wells are present within, or have capture zones that cross into the zone of potential impact belonging to this pipeline route. The locations of these two PWS water wells are shown on Figure 10.1.5-3. Table 10.1.5-2 lists the identified PWSs along with the aquifer utilized, the number of water wells potentially at risk, and the TCEQ identification numbers of these PWSs. As indicated on Table 10.1.5-2, the two PWS wells produce groundwater from the Evangeline portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System. The results of the vulnerability ranking, listed on Table 10.3.5-2, did not identify any pipeline segment as being a sensitive area along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline route, with regard to groundwater resources. All potentially vulnerable PWS wells within or with criteria capture zone encroaching into the zone of potential impact are deeper than 100 feet, and produce groundwater from subcrop strata (covered aquifer). Therefore, the potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline route are anticipated to be negligible. Accidental releases may result in negligible to minor impacts with a temporary to short-term duration. Specifics pertaining to the potential groundwater resource impacts for this Connected Action are discussed below. 10.3.5.2.1.1 Construction Potential impacts to the groundwater resources attributable to the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline construction activities would be similar to those impacts posed by the construction activities of the El Paso Gateway Pipeline, as discussed in Section 10.3.3.2.1.1. 10.3.5.2.1.2 Normal Operations Potential impacts to the groundwater resource outcrop areas crossed by the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline attributable to normal operations, as well as aquifer impact prevention measures, would be analogous to those for the Orion West Expansion Pipeline for normal operations over a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer, as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.2. 10.3.5.2.1.3 Accidental Releases Potential impacts to the Gulf Coast Aquifer System outcrop area crossed by the pipeline associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action due to accidental releases would be comparable to that for the non-alluvial, porous media aquifer described for the Orion West Expansion Connected Action (see Section 10.3.1.2.1.3). 10.3.5.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water The proposed scope of construction activities associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline is described in Section 3.2.5. Construction and normal operation impacts 10-164 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction system are considered to be negligible. There are no public water intakes that are located within the zone of potential impact for this pipeline segment. For the intermittent and perennial streams, the impacts from a potential pipeline rupture are considered to be minor to moderate in magnitude, and to be short to long-term in duration. 10.3.5.2.2.1 Construction Construction of the pipeline could lead to potential increased overland flow of surface water from disturbed areas during rain events, resulting in sediment/debris transport to adjacent drainages. 10.3.5.2.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts would be negligible for normal pipeline operations. 10.3.5.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Leaks Releases could occur during the replacement of pipeline segments, maintenance of pumps and valves, pipeline cleaning activities, spills from vehicular traffic, releases from defective valves, etc. Any impacts to water quality from leaks should be incurred at or near the point of the leak. Because of the viscous nature of crude oil, surficial spread of the released material should be limited to the area adjacent to the leak and would not likely flow into adjacent streams or water bodies unless mobilized by storm water events. Even if mobilized by storm events, the dilution and volatilization of the released material would greatly diminish its toxicity in a receiving body of water. At or near the point of release, if a leak were to continue for an extended period undetected, concentrations of toxic constituents may build up to a steady state. Steady-state concentration would vary based on meteorological and stream flow conditions. This buildup could reach the point that it could affect water users and ecosystems in the vicinity of the release. Ruptures A pipeline rupture poses more severe consequences to surface waters, because the potentially large release volumes can cause the material to reach a waterway directly or by means of overland flow. Although the concentrations of toxic constituents in crude oil are significantly less than those contained in refined products such as gasoline, the volatility of the toxic constituents is less and the persistence of toxic constituents could be greater. If the water body is dry, as is generally the case for intermittent streams, the oil would tend to follow the path of the affected stream bed and/or percolate into the bed materials. Due to its higher viscosity, the crude oil would tend to be less mobile in subsurface soils. If there is still or 10-165 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL stagnant water in the water body at the point of the oil entry, the oil would spread out on the surface, however the concentration of toxic constituents in the oil, and the area of impact would be small compared to a release to a moving water body. During storm events, the spread and distance of travel would be increased but the toxicity would be diluted. This distance would depend on the volume of the release, weather conditions, and the size, shape, and hydraulics of the receiving water body. Sensitive Areas Potentially vulnerable water bodies along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline were identified in Section 10.1.5.2.2. A listing of these potentially vulnerable water bodies was provided in Table 10.3.5-3. This listing includes water bodies consisting of intermittent streams only. There are no public water supply intakes with an API within the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline zone of potential impact. For each of these potentially vulnerable water bodies, this section identifies whether the relative sensitivity is classified as low, medium, or high. The table provided below shows the ranking matrix used for the classification of water body sensitivities along the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline route. Criteria (Within Zone of Potential Impact) Ranking No. Sensitivity Intermittent Perennial or Canal With Pipeline Crossing GIS Length > 0.5 mile API 3 Low NA NA NA NA NA 2 Medium X NA X X NA NA X NA NA NA 1 High NA X X NA NA Note: NA = Not applicable Using this ranking matrix, the relative sensitivities of water bodies identified along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are provided on Table 10.3.5-3. These data indicate that if an accidental release were to occur along this segment, there could be major impacts to two water bodies that have a ranking value of 1. These water bodies are identified as Panther Creek and Houston Ship Channel (Buffalo Bayou). Neither of these water bodies are a source of public drinking water; however, Houston Ship Channel (Buffalo Bayou) is used for navigation and industrial water supply. 10.3.5.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality A description of the construction activities associated with the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline for crude oil service can be found in Section 3.2.5. The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short-term, intermittent, and result in negligible to minor impacts to local and regional air quality. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the SCAQMD for construction projects. The new crude oil pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, no air 10-166 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL quality impacts) are expected under normal service. An accidental release of crude oil would result in a negligible to minor impact to air quality of temporary duration in the immediate vicinity of the release. 10.3.5.2.3.1 Construction Estimates of maximum daily total onsite-based and offsite-based construction emissions (in terms of lb/day) for a pipeline spread are discussed in Section 10.3.3.2.3.1. To evaluate the potential for air quality impacts associated with the construction-related emissions for the new segment of pipeline, the LSTs for construction activities adopted by the SCAQMD (2008) were used (since the State of Texas has no technical guidance for conducting an air quality impacts assessment for construction activities). The SCAQMD developed LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs are provided in look-up tables that show the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or State of California AAQS. LSTs were developed based on the background air quality of an area, size of the construction site, and average distance to the nearest receptor along the pipeline length for this Connected Action. A review of ambient monitoring data for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area aided in the selection of the most appropriate LSTs for comparison with the estimated daily emission rates for the above- described construction activities in the East Houston area. This comparison shows that the estimated construction emissions in this area would be below (but approach) the representative LSTs; therefore, such emissions would have a temporary, negligible to minor adverse impact on air quality in the region of the pipeline. Note that the TCEQ has established a construction emissions budget (under the TCEQ’s State Implementation Plan for the control of ozone air pollution) for NOx and VOC that considers and allows for construction in the Houston area to account for expected growth. Therefore, the construction activities associated with the Proposed Project should not impair or prevent the Houston area from maintaining progress in air quality improvement under the State Implementation Plan. 10.3.5.2.3.2 Normal Operations The crude oil pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, essentially no air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. 10.3.5.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of crude oil would result in negligible to minor impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the 10-167 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL population density, which is described in Section 10.1.5.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.5.1.1.3. 10.3.5.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.5.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed activities for the construction of the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.5. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline would be minor and short term, largely attributed to the construction of the new pipeline within an existing maintained ROW easement in an area of dense industrial/urban land use. 10.3.5.3.1.1 Construction New construction and infrastructure improvement impacts on terrestrial resources associated with the new pipeline would be similar to those described for the Odessa to Crane and Midland to Crane Pipelines, resulting in minor to moderate, short-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. The proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline would be constructed within an existing pipeline ROW easement. The existing easement has been adversely impacted by past human disturbance and does not support intact vegetative communities of comparatively higher ecological value than some surrounding habitats that remain in a very industrialized/urban portion of Harris County. Direct impacts to vegetation from pipeline construction would be primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation from the ROW. Indirect impacts from vegetation removal include a potential increase in erosion and sedimentation that can be detrimental to downstream plant communities and aquatic life. These construction related impacts would result in temporary, minor effects on wildlife and short-term, minor impacts on vegetative communities. 10.3.5.3.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the new 20-inch crude oil pipeline would result in negligible impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Because the proposed pipeline will be located within an existing maintained ROW, it is not anticipated to have any new direct impact from normal operations. No indirect impacts are anticipated from normal operational activities for the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline. 10.3.5.3.1.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the new 20-inch crude oil pipeline would result in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from temporary impacts during contaminant cleanup and 10-168 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. Leaks Depending on the duration and amount, small leaks and spills could cause minor, temporary or short-term impacts to terrestrial resources, or they could cause major, long-term impacts when small leaks go undetected and ultimately release large volumes of material over time. Small leaks and spills of low volume would likely remain as a localized concentration of material and have a low likelihood for off-site transport, while larger volumes could more readily extend offsite and impact additional resources. Small persistent leaks would result in localized mortality of vegetation, where present, and consequently habitat degradation or destruction. Crude oil may kill existing vegetation and contaminate the seed bank (subterranean and surficial viable seeds), or alter resource conditions so that affected areas cannot support vegetative growth and dependent faunal species without remediation. Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species may be directly impacted, injured, or killed by small spills and leaks; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma from fire. Long- term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected terrestrial fauna (EPA, 2011). Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include displacement resulting from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect impacts may include impacts to terrestrial fauna at higher levels in the food web from bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (USFWS, 2010). Ruptures Large pipeline ruptures would result in the release of a larger volume of material, but perhaps for a shorter duration because of increased leak detection capability. Large ruptures also have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could cause minor, temporary, or short-term impacts to terrestrial resources, such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause major, long-term impacts, such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or soil contamination (USFWS, 2004; EPA, 2011). Crude oil may kill existing vegetation and contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth and dependent faunal species without remediation. Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species may be directly impacted, injured, or killed by large ruptures; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by ruptures. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected terrestrial fauna. 10-169 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Additionally, aerosolized products from large ruptures, combined with high winds, could spread petroleum products to greater distances, causing temporary or long-term impacts to terrestrial resources by coating plant leaf surfaces and preventing photosynthesis or gas exchange; coating wildlife species and causing skin irritation, toxicity, and mortality; coating airways and causing respiratory trauma; coating smaller prey species and making them unpalatable to predator species; contributing to bioaccumulation of chemical constituents; and overall degradation of habitat quality and function (USFWS, 2010). Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include species displacement from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect effects may include impacts to terrestrial fauna at higher levels in the food web from bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (USFWS, 2010). 10.3.5.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources Construction impacts to aquatic resources associated with the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline could range from negligible to minor and short-term. Normal operation impacts to aquatic resources associated with the pipeline would be negligible. Impacts resulting from accidental releases would range from minor to major and short-term to long-term. 10.3.5.3.2.1 Construction Typical impacts to aquatic resources related to construction of pipelines often result from changes in water quality or available habitat. These impacts are commonly caused by sedimentation, increases in storm water volume, and direct disruption of aquatic habitats from mobilization of construction equipment or placement of structures. Sedimentation and turbidity caused by construction activities in or adjacent to streams, springs, or pools may physically clog respiratory or feeding structures of aquatic organisms, eliminate available habitat, smother immobile individuals by covering bottom area, or inhibit the growth of plants, thus disrupting the food web. These effects may be lethal to aquatic organisms such as insect larvae and other macroinvertebrates, mussels, and adult/juvenile larval fish. Increased storm water runoff can scour drainage areas, adversely affecting biodiversity in the affected area by disrupting habitat. Additionally, higher nutrient levels often occur following increased runoff, especially following clearing activities. Elevated nutrient levels can alter resource availability, which can affect competition dynamics within a community, and have diverse negative effects, such as inducing algal production, shifting species assemblages, and/or causing algal blooms that may lower dissolved oxygen availability. Reduced dissolved oxygen availability could then negatively affect fish and other aquatic species. Removal of riparian vegetation may temporarily increase runoff to nearby water bodies. Due to the project location, it is not anticipated that runoff would increase very much due to the industrial/urban extent of existing facilities in the area. Direct runoff within the existing ROW will be reduced through best management practices and erosion control devices. Industrial areas where nearly all construction activities will occur within the existing ROW typically have a lower ecological value because of low diversity, lack of habitat, and the presence of noxious or invasive species. 10-170 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Increased runoff in bottomland/riparian woodland or adjacent wooded areas could have more of an effect than impacts in disturbed areas, such as industrial or urban areas. The accidental spilling or dumping of toxic compounds with transport to aquatic features during construction activities may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Some toxic chemicals may be ingested or absorbed by algae or other organisms in low trophic (feeding) levels and passed up the food web, increasing toxicity in each trophic level until lethal concentrations are reached. Additionally, uptake of toxic chemicals at non-lethal levels by organisms at lower trophic levels may accumulate to lethal levels in predators over time. Major, long-term effects to aquatic habitats are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline construction activities. The presence of two aquatic features will be traversed by the proposed pipeline. Panther Creek and the Houston Ship Channel will both be crossed in this segment of pipeline. The pipeline will cross Panther Creek at approximately MP 0.51. The crossing will be directionally drilled below Panther Creek. Panther Creek then runs south to the Houston Ship Channel where the pipeline will run adjacent to the creek within the existing ROW up to the Ship Channel crossing. The Houston Ship Channel crossing will be located at approximately MP 1.09. This crossing will also be directionally drilled. Minor and short-term localized impacts may result from the proposed activities. However, such impacts would be most likely avoided, or where unavoidable, minimized through the implementation of best management practices. 10.3.5.3.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations after the proposed pipeline construction would result in negligible impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Increased ambient noise levels and human activity from operation, maintenance, and inspection of the new pipeline should not result in any new or significant impacts on aquatic resources. 10.3.5.3.2.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the new 20-inch crude oil pipeline would result in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from direct mortality to aquatic species through ingestion, absorption, thermal trauma, or toxicity to temporary or long-term impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Leaks Small leaks and spills have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies through runoff or infiltration into the groundwater and subsequent groundwater movement (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, small leaks and spills could cause short-term, minor impacts to aquatic resources associated with low-volume spills, or they could cause long- 10-171 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL term, major impacts associated with small leaks that go undetected, and ultimately release large volumes of product. Should contaminant transport to aquatic features result from small leaks, exposure may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Aquatic animal species inhabiting impacted areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma from fire. Additionally, long-term exposure may reduce the fitness or even result in mortality of affected aquatic fauna. Other impacts to aquatic resources may include displacement due to increased human activity, and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Indirect impacts may include impacts to aquatic fauna at higher levels in the food web due to bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (EPA, 1999, 2011; USFWS, 2004, 2010). Potential for impact to aquatic resources from small leaks would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from a small volume, accidental release would conceivably be higher for Panther Creek and the Houston Ship Channel where the pipeline crosses. Impacts could also occur with transport to Vince Bayou which is located within the zone of potential impact. Due to the project location, a high frequency of other human activities in the area, including inspection, could increase spill detection potential along the proposed route, which could reduce the potential risk of negative impacts to aquatic resources from a low-volume, short duration small leak. Risk of impacts to aquatic resources from long-term, small leaks that go undetected and result in a release of large volumes are similar to those expected for large ruptures. Ruptures Determination of potential impacts to aquatic resources from large ruptures was remotely assessed based on desktop review. This area would presumably be affected in the event of a large rupture. Large pipeline ruptures would conceivably result in the release of a larger volume of product, but perhaps for a shorter duration due to increased detection capability. Large ruptures also have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to aquatic plant and animal species. Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could impose short-term impacts to aquatic resources such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could impose long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or water-bottom soil contamination (EPA, 1999, 2011; USFWS, 2004, 2010). Crude oil leakage would likely kill existing vegetation due to the toxicity of certain chemicals in the oil. Crude oil leakage also would contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions, so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth without remediation. Loss of vegetation could then result in increased erosion with consequent higher levels of sedimentation and turbidity, which would decrease water quality and negatively impact aquatic resources. Where 10-172 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL affected vegetation is adjacent to aquatic features, such vegetational losses could also impact aquatic habitat through altering water temperature and dissolved oxygen content. Aquatic animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected aquatic fauna (EPA, 2011). Other impacts to aquatic resources may include species displacement from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect effects may include impacts to aquatic fauna at higher levels in the food web due to bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey. Potential for impact to aquatic resources from large ruptures (or small leaks over long duration that result in high leakage volume) would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from a large volume accidental release would conceivably be higher for Panther Creek, Houston Ship Channel, and Vince Bayou. The perennial water regime of the Houston Ship Channel and Vince Bayou increases the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic resources based on the likely presence of more diverse species guilds, such as fishes, macroinvertebrates, wading birds, and reptiles. Contaminant transport rate would also be higher given the year-round presence of water and would vary with flow rate. Likewise, the presence of Panther Creek, an intermittent tributary to the Houston Ship Channel, also increases the risk for contamination and contaminant transport, which could negatively impact downstream aquatic resources. Table 10.1.5-4 provides the number of aquatic features and acreage of those features identified within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.5.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species The entire proposed pipeline is located within an existing maintained ROW throughout a heavily industrialized portion of Harris County. Construction activities associated with the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are discussed in Section 3.2.5. Construction and normal operation impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered to be negligible and temporary. Impacts resulting from accidental releases could range from negligible to major and temporary to short-term. 10.3.5.3.3.1 Construction A habitat assessment and field reconnaissance were conducted within the new construction sites for 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline by experienced biologists, using accepted methods as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1. Due to the developed/industrial nature of the proposed construction areas, and the absence of vegetative components necessary for suitable habitat, the threatened or endangered species of potential occurrence within the associated county are not anticipated to occur within the project area. Additionally, installation of the proposed pipeline along this corridor will be directionally drilled at all bayou and large 10-173 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL drainage locations. Because these locations will be directionally drilled, it is further unlikely that any of the terrestrial or aquatic species would be impacted. Therefore, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the construction of the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.5.3.3.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from normal operation activities of the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.5.3.3.3 Accidental Releases Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, identified no suitable habitat for the federal- or state-listed species within the area adjoining the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline route, as discussed in Section 10.1.5.3.3. Therefore, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.5.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands A description of the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action is provided in Section 3.2.5. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along this Connected Action are anticipated to be negligible to minor and short-term. Accidental releases could result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short- to long-term duration. Discussions pertaining to the potential wetland impacts for this Connected Action are presented below. 10.3.5.3.4.1 Construction The proposed pipeline would have a permanent maintained ROW easement of 50 ft. The same techniques (GIS and NWI mapping) were used, as described in Section 4.2.2.3, to assess the proposed impacts to wetlands. Impacts were determined based on a 75-ft wide temporary construction easement. The permanent easement would be 50-feet wide. These impacts considered all wetlands, as well as stream crossings similar to those studied in Section 4.2.2.3. Acreages of impacts presented in this section do not account for locations where directional drilling may take place. Because the directional drilling is not accounted for, most likely the impacts will be less than the numbers presented here. Directional drilling is proposed at all bayou locations along the proposed route. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are anticipated to be minor and short-term. An inventory of wetlands present within the 75-ft construction easement from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction shows that two wetlands, consisting of approximately 1.35 acres, are present. Two types of wetlands (Estuarine and Palustrine) were identified to occur within the 75- 10-174 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL ft easement from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction. Both wetland locations are between MP 1-2. The impacts in acreages of each wetland type within the 75-ft construction easement are shown in the following table. Wetland Classification and Acreage from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Wetland Polygons Wetland Classification Count Acres Estuarine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 1.15 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 0.20 Total 2 1.35 The number of wetlands within the 75-ft easement, compiled by MP, are given in following table. Wetlands from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres County 0 1 0 0.00 Harris 1 2 2 1.35 Harris 2 3 0 0 Harris Total 2 1.35 10.3.5.3.4.2 Normal Operations Upon activation, the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline will be located within an existing maintained pipeline ROW easement. It is anticipated that normal operations would have negligible impacts to wetlands. 10.3.5.3.4.3 Accidental Releases The impacts of an accidental release of crude oil into wetlands along the pipeline from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction would depend on the type of wetland, amount of product released, and several other factors. A large release could have acute and chronic impacts to wetland biota and functionality. A small release could have the same impacts, but on a smaller scale. A small release could impact just a portion of a wetland, and dilution could even lessen the impacts to virtually none, depending on the size of the wetland. A large release could impact an entire wetland as well as the entire biota, and functionality depending on the scale of the release and the size of the wetland. This portion of pipeline does not have any forested wetlands, and potential impacts would only be made to estuarine and palustrine wetlands. Proper implementation of best management practices would minimize the potential for impacts to adjacent streams and wetlands. Potential impacts to wetlands along this pipeline route could be negligible to moderate and short- to long-term in duration. 10-175 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.5.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.5.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties Construction activities associated with the proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.5. As the proposed ROW follows an existing pipeline ROW through a heavily developed urban/industrial area, potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release are also anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.5.4.1.1 Construction The 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Connected Action involves a proposed new 20-inch pipeline. As the proposed pipeline is to be constructed within an existing pipeline ROW easement, which crosses through a heavily developed urban/industrial area, potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities along the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.5.4.1.2 Normal Operations The potential to impact significant cultural resources during normal operation of this proposed pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.5.4.1.3 Accidental Releases As the proposed ROW follows an existing pipeline ROW through a heavily developed urban/industrial area, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. 10.3.6 EAST HOUSTON TO HOLLAND AVENUE 10.3.6.1 Human Resources and Land Uses 10.3.6.1.1 Impacts to Human Health and Safety A description of the construction activities associated with the new East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline can be found in Section 3.2.6. Both the construction associated with, and normal operation of, the East Houston to Holland Avenue connected action are expected to have negligible impacts to public health and safety. Accidental releases could have a potential impact of fire, exposure to hazardous vapors, such as benzene, and ingestion of contaminated water. Land use adjacent to the facility affects the impact potential on human health and safety. In the areas with sensitive populations, such as residential areas, schools, and parks, the potential impact would be major and temporary in duration. In the remaining areas adjacent to 10-176 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the facility, the land use is industrial or undeveloped and the potential impact would be minor to moderate and temporary in duration. 10.3.6.1.1.1 Construction It is anticipated that construction of the new pipeline would result in negligible health and safety impacts to local populations. 10.3.6.1.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the new pipeline are not expected to result in any impacts to health and safety of the local populations, based on evaluation of air quality (see Section 10.3.6.2.3.2). Magellan’s SIP will be followed during operation of the pipeline (See Section 3.3.2). 10.3.6.1.1.3 Accidental Releases For a description of impacts resulting from an accidental release of refined product refer to Section 10.3.1.1.1.3. As noted in Section 10.1.6.1.1, the total population of the block groups crossed by the pipeline and the zone of potential impact was 28,226 in 2000. The pipeline crosses a predominantly industrial area within the zone of potential impact. There are 3 schools and 1 park, but no hospitals within the zone of potential impact. There are 3 other parks partially within the zone of potential impact. Of the 2,850.1 acres of land within the zone of potential impact surrounding the East Houston to Holland Avenue pipeline, 48% of the pipeline’s zone of potential impact is considered less than low intensity. Land use adjacent to the facility affects the impact potential on human health and safety. Therefore, in areas with sensitive populations such as residences, schools, and parks, the potential impact would be major and temporary in duration. The land use of the remaining areas adjacent to the facility is industrial or undeveloped; therefore, the potential impact would be minor to moderate and temporary in duration. 10.3.6.1.2 Impacts to Transportation A description of the construction activities associated with the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Connected Action can be found in Section 3.2.6. Potential transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of this segment of pipeline include road crossings of I-610, US Highway 90, and I-10, and three railroads. Potential impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to minor and temporary in duration. 10.3.6.1.2.1 Construction This Connected Action includes the installation of 7.68 miles of 8-inch pipeline for refined product service. This pipeline is proposed to be constructed within an existing ROW easement 10-177 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL and will be installed in a densely developed urban/industrialized area. The proposed pipeline follows an existing ROW across three highways (I-610, US Highway 90, and I-10) and several improved roads, but these road crossings would utilize subsurface boring construction methods which would eliminate the potential for impacts related to road closures during pipeline construction. A portion of the ROW is located adjacent to single-family residences, and thus construction activities may result in minor and temporary impacts. 10.3.6.1.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations of this system are not expected to result in measurable impacts to transportation. Regular inspection of the pipeline will be conducted by ground and aerial surveillance. Operation of this system will include regular visual inspections and maintenance, which will utilize existing public roadways to access the ROW. Additional personnel associated with pipeline operations would minimally affect local transportation activities in the area. Normal operations are expected to result in negligible impacts to transportation. 10.3.6.1.2.3 Accidental Releases Transportation impacts resulting from a pipeline rupture along this segment of pipeline would vary depending on the location of the release. A release adjacent to I-610, US 90, and/or I-10 would result in a greater impact to transportation than a release in an undeveloped area. Regardless of location, temporary traffic impacts would result because of safety concerns and access for emergency response crews. These could include road closures in the vicinity of the release and rerouting traffic to minimize traffic delays. Impacts to transportation as a result of an accidental release would be negligible to moderate and temporary in duration. 10.3.6.1.3 Impacts to Land Use Overall, impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the construction and normal operations of the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be negligible to minor and temporary, while impacts to land uses resulting from an accidental release could potentially be major and long-term. Further descriptions of these potential impacts are provided below. 10.3.6.1.3.1 Construction The intent of the project is to construct the proposed pipeline within the existing pipeline ROW easement, which will minimize impacts to surrounding land uses. While the existing pipeline ROW easement crosses industrialized land uses, portions of the pipeline cross some residential subdivisions and commercial developments. Impacts may arise from pipeline installation but these would be minor and temporary. These subdivisions are located adjacent to an existing pipeline ROW easement, which is consistent with current land uses. 10-178 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.6.1.3.2 Normal Operations Operation of the proposed pipeline is not likely to result in alteration of long-term trends in local development patterns. Because the area is already industrialized, the construction of the pipeline will not likely affect future land uses. Normal operations are anticipated to result in negligible impacts to land use. 10.3.6.1.3.3 Accidental Releases Accidental releases of refined product may impact land uses. These impacts may potentially be major resulting in long-term damage to private property from soil contamination, damages related to remediation activities, and property damaged in the event of a fire. 10.3.6.1.4 Environmental Justice As discussed in Section 10.1.6.1.4, portions of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline cross block groups with populations that are categorized as minority. Because these block groups cover an area much larger than the area covered by the zone of potential impact, the first step of the disproportionate impacts analysis is to determine if there are individuals residing within the zone of potential impact of the proposed pipeline for the sensitive block groups. To determine this, housing units were identified by pipeline MP on aerial photography (NAIP, 2010). Each of the block groups crossed had housing units within the zone of potential impact of the pipeline. Details regarding these housing units are provided in Table 10.3.6-1. Of the EJ block groups crossed by the proposed pipeline, four have zero population within the zone of potential impact, and one block group has only one housing unit located within the zone of potential impact. The remaining block groups contain a substantial number of housing units, which are parts of subdivision developments located in Galena Park and Jacinto City. These subdivisions are mixed with and adjacent to commercial and industrial developments, and are in the vicinity of major highways, including Interstate 10 and Interstate 610. Jacinto City’s minority population constitutes 77.3% of its population, and Galena Park’s minority population constitutes 77.8% of its entire population. While the block groups crossed by the proposed pipeline have slightly higher percentages of minority population, they are consistent with the surrounding area. Two of the block groups that were identified as low-income (BG 2, CT 2117 and BG 3, CT 2309) had no housing units located within the zone of potential impact. The remaining low-income block group had 65 housing units within the zone of potential impact of the proposed pipeline. These housing units are part of a small subdivision located at N. McCarty Street and I-610, and are otherwise surrounded by industrial development. Because the proposed pipeline would be consistent with current land uses surrounding these housing units, there would be no disproportionate impact to this community. 10-179 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Because the pipeline will be built within existing an ROW, there would be no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations as a result of construction. These housing units are currently located adjacent to an existing pipeline and other industrial developments, and the proposed pipeline would be consistent with current surrounding land uses. The only potential impacts from operations would arise from potential pipeline failures. Because the location of a potential failure cannot be predicted, there is no way to determine if one community or population may be impacted more than another community or population group. Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to EJ populations are anticipated. 10.3.6.2 Physical Resources 10.3.6.2.1 Impacts to Groundwater The proposed alignment traverses one major aquifer, a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer (See Table 10.1.6-1). One PWS well is present within zone of potential impact belonging to this pipeline route. The location of this PWS water well is shown on Figure 10.1.5-3. Table 10.1.6-2 lists the identified PWS along with the aquifer utilized, the number of water wells potentially at risk, and the TCEQ identification numbers of the PWS. As indicated on Table 10.1.6-2, the single PWS well identified produces groundwater from the Lower Chicot Aquifer (Gulf Coast Aquifer System). The results of the vulnerability ranking, listed on Table 10.3.6-2, did not identify any pipeline segment as being a sensitive area along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Connected Action, with regard to groundwater resources. The potentially vulnerable PWS well located within the zone of potential impact is deeper than 100 feet, and produces groundwater from subcrop strata (covered aquifer). Therefore, the potential groundwater resource impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline route are anticipated to be negligible and temporary. Accidental releases may result in negligible to minor impacts with a temporary to short-term duration. Specifics pertaining to the potential groundwater resource impacts for this Connected Action are discussed below. 10.3.6.2.1.1 Construction Potential impacts to ground water resources attributable to the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline construction activities could result from storm water runoff transporting inorganic pollutants, such as nitrate and metals, from land disturbance (land clearing or excavation). Potential impacts to the underlying Gulf Coast Aquifer where it is overlain by clay-dominate outcrops of 50 feet or more in thickness would be negligible as the thick clay-dominate cover would impede vertical migration into the groundwater-bearing strata. Impacted runoff on clay- dominate outcrop areas being less than 50 feet thick, or on porous media-dominate outcroppings could infiltrate the aquifer and result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short term degradation to ground water quality in these areas. 10-180 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.6.2.1.2 Normal Operations Potential impacts to the groundwater resource outcrop areas crossed by the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline attributable to normal operations would be analogous to those for the Orion West Expansion Pipeline for normal operations over a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer, as discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.1.2. 10.3.6.2.1.3 Accidental Releases Potential impacts to the Chicot portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System outcrop area crossed by the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline due to accidental releases would be comparable to those on a non-alluvial, porous media aquifer, as described for the Orion West Expansion Pipeline (see Section 10.3.1.2.1.3). 10.3.6.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water Construction and normal operation impacts associated with the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are considered to be negligible. There are no public water intakes that are located within the zone of potential impact for this pipeline segment. For the intermittent and perennial streams, the impacts from a potential pipeline rupture are considered to be minor to moderate in magnitude, and to be short-term to long-term in duration. 10.3.6.2.2.1 Construction Construction of the pipeline could lead to potential increased overland flow of surface water from disturbed areas during rain events, resulting in sediment/debris transport to adjacent drainages. 10.3.6.2.2.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts would be negligible for normal pipeline operations. 10.3.6.2.2.3 Accidental Releases Leaks The potential impacts to surface water bodies from small leaks are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Ruptures The potential impacts to surface water bodies from refined product pipeline ruptures are the same as those discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. Sensitive Areas 10-181 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Potentially vulnerable water bodies along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline were identified in Section 10.1.6.2.2. A listing of these potentially vulnerable water bodies was provided in Table 10.1.6-3. This listing includes water bodies consisting of intermittent streams, perennial streams, and canals. There are no public water supply intakes with an API within the East Houston to Holland Avenue zone of potential impact. For each of these potentially vulnerable water bodies, this section identifies whether the relative sensitivity is classified as low, medium, or high using the same criteria as was discussed in Section 10.3.1.2.2.3. The table provided below shows the ranking matrix used for the classification of water body sensitivities along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline route. Criteria (Within Zone of Potential Impact) Ranking No. Sensitivity Intermittent Perennial or Canal With Pipeline Crossing GIS Length > 0.5 mile API 3 Minor X NA NA NA NA 2 Moderate NA X NA NA NA 1 Major NA NA NA NA NA Note: NA = Not applicable Using this ranking matrix, the relative sensitivities of water bodies identified along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are provided on Table 10.3.6-2. These data indicate that if an accidental release were to occur at specific locations along this segment, there could be major impacts to water bodies that have a ranking value of 1. These water bodies are identified as Hunting Bayou (at five locations) and three unnamed canals. None of these water bodies are a source of public drinking water. 10.3.6.2.3 Impacts to Air Quality A description of the construction activities associated with the new East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline for refined product service can be found in Section 3.2.6. The emissions associated with construction of this Connected Action are expected to be short-term, intermittent, and result in negligible to minor impacts to local and regional air quality. The projected emissions would be below significant emission levels developed by the SCAQMD for construction projects. The new refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, no air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impact to air quality of temporary duration in the immediate vicinity of the release. 10.3.6.2.3.1 Construction Potential air quality impacts associated with construction of this connected action would be similar to that described in Section 10.3.5.2.3.1. 10-182 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.6.2.3.2 Normal Operations The new refined products pipeline associated with this Connected Action will be sealed and buried underground; therefore, no fugitive VOC emissions (and, as a result, negligible air quality impacts) are expected under normal service. 10.3.6.2.3.3 Accidental Releases An accidental release of refined product would result in negligible to major impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity of the release, and any such impacts would be temporary due in part to spill mitigation/clean-up measures. The emissions from such a release would be limited to VOCs. The extent of air quality impacts is more appropriately assessed in the context of potential impacts to human health and safety. Such potential impacts would be dependent upon the population density, which is described in Section 10.1.6.1.1. The nature of the potential impacts to human health and safety, as a result of an accidental release, are described in Section 10.3.6.1.1.3. 10.3.6.3 Ecological Resources 10.3.6.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Resources Proposed activities for the construction of the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.6. Overall, the impacts to terrestrial resources associated with the proposed pipeline would be minor and short term, largely attributed to the construction of the new pipeline within an existing maintained ROW. 10.3.6.3.1.1 Construction New construction and infrastructure improvement impacts on terrestrial resources associated with the new pipeline would be similar to those described for the Odessa to Crane and Midland to Crane pipelines, resulting in minor to moderate, short-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. All of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be located within an existing pipeline ROW easement. The existing easement has been adversely impacted by past human disturbance and does not support intact vegetative communities of comparatively higher ecological value than some surrounding habitats that remain in a very industrialized portion of Harris County. Direct impacts to vegetation from pipeline construction would be primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation from the ROW. Indirect impacts from vegetation removal include a potential increase in erosion and sedimentation that can be detrimental to downstream plant communities and aquatic life. These construction-related impacts would result in temporary, minor effects on wildlife and short-term, minor impacts on vegetative communities. 10-183 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.3.6.3.1.2 Normal Operations Normal operations for the new 8-inch refined product pipeline would result in negligible impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Because the proposed pipeline will be located within an existing maintained easement, it is not anticipated to have any new direct impacts from normal operations. No indirect impacts are anticipated from normal operational activities for the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline. 10.3.6.3.1.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the new 8-inch refined product pipeline would result in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from temporary impacts during contaminant cleanup and remediation to direct mortality to terrestrial species through ingestion, inhalation, thermal trauma, or toxicity. Leaks Depending on the duration and amount, small leaks and spills could cause minor, temporary or short-term impacts to terrestrial resources, or they could cause major, long-term impacts when small leaks go undetected and ultimately release large volumes of material over time. Small leaks and spills of low volume would likely remain as a localized concentration of material and have a low likelihood of off-site transport, while larger volumes could more readily extend offsite, and impact additional resources. Small persistent leaks would result in localized mortality of vegetation, where present, and consequently possible habitat degradation or destruction. Refined material or gasoline may kill existing vegetation and contaminate the seed bank (subterranean and surficial viable seeds), or alter resource conditions so that affected areas cannot support vegetative growth and dependent faunal species without remediation. Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species may be directly impacted, injured, or killed by small spills and leaks; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by leaks and spills. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma from fire. However, long-term exposure may reduce the fitness, or even result in mortality of affected terrestrial fauna (EPA, 2011). Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include displacement resulting from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect impacts may include impacts to terrestrial fauna at higher levels in the food web from bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (USFWS, 2010). Ruptures Large pipeline ruptures would result in the release of a larger volume of material, but perhaps for a shorter duration because of increased leak detection capability. Large ruptures also have the ability to contaminate groundwater or surface water bodies (through runoff, infiltration, or groundwater movement), contaminate soil, and cause direct chronic or acute trauma to 10-184 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL terrestrial plant and animal species (EPA, 1999). Depending on the duration and amount, large ruptures could cause minor, temporary or short-term impacts to terrestrial resources such as acute exposure or displacement, or they could cause major, long-term impacts such as plant and animal mortality, habitat destruction/alteration, or severe and persistent water or soil contamination (USFWS, 2004; EPA, 2011). Refined product or gasoline may kill existing vegetation and contaminate the seed bank or alter resource conditions so that affected areas could not support vegetative growth and dependent faunal species without remediation. Occasionally, individuals of smaller, low-mobility animal species may be directly impacted, injured, or killed by large ruptures; however, most animals are mobile and would abandon or avoid habitat affected by ruptures. Terrestrial animal species inhabiting affected areas would be negatively affected physiologically by contamination and, should such leakage ignite, physically harmed or killed by thermal trauma. Contamination may also result in reduced fitness or mortality of affected terrestrial fauna. Additionally, aerosolized products from large ruptures, combined with high winds, could spread petroleum products to greater distances, causing temporary or long-term impacts to terrestrial resources by coating plant leaf surfaces and preventing photosynthesis or gas exchange; coating wildlife species and causing skin irritation, toxicity, and mortality; coating airways and causing respiratory trauma; coating smaller prey species and making them unpalatable to predator species; contributing to bioaccumulation of chemical constituents; and overall degradation of habitat quality and function (USFWS, 2010). Other impacts to terrestrial resources may include species displacement from increased human activity and habitat alteration during contaminant cleanup and remediation. Indirect effects may include impacts to terrestrial fauna at higher levels in the food web from bioaccumulation and biomagnifications of toxins within individuals as they ingest contaminated prey (USFWS, 2010). 10.3.6.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Resources Construction impacts to aquatic resources associated with the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline could range from negligible to minor and short-term. Normal operation impacts to aquatic resources associated with the pipeline would be negligible. Impacts resulting from accidental releases would range from minor to major and short-term to long-term. 10.3.6.3.2.1 Construction Impacts associated with construction activities for the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be similar to those described in Section 10.3.5.3.2.1. Typical impacts to aquatic resources related to construction of pipelines often result from changes in water quality or available habitat. These impacts are commonly caused by sedimentation, increases in storm water volume, and direct disruption of aquatic habitats from construction equipment or placement of structures. Sedimentation and turbidity caused by construction activities in or adjacent to streams, springs, or pools may physically clog respiratory or feeding structures of aquatic organisms, eliminate available habitat, smother immobile individuals by covering bottom area, or inhibit the growth of plants, thus disrupting the food web. These effects may be lethal to 10-185 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL aquatic organisms such as insect larvae and other macroinvertebrates, mussels, and adult/juvenile larval fish. Increased storm water runoff can scour drainage areas, adversely affecting biodiversity in the affected area by disrupting habitat. Additionally, higher nutrient levels often occur following increased runoff, especially following clearing activities. Elevated nutrient levels can alter resource availability, which can affect competition dynamics within a community and have diverse negative effects, such as inducing algal production, shifting species assemblages, and/or causing algal blooms that may lower dissolved oxygen availability. Reduced dissolved oxygen availability could then negatively affect fish and other aquatic species. Removal of riparian vegetation may temporarily increase runoff to nearby water bodies. Due to the project location, it is not anticipated that runoff would increase very much due to the industrial/urban extent of existing facilities in the area. Direct runoff within the existing ROW will be reduced through best management practices and erosion control devices. Industrial areas where nearly all construction activities will occur within the existing ROW typically have a lower ecological value because of low diversity, lack of habitat, and the presence of noxious or invasive species. Increased runoff in bottomland/riparian woodland or adjacent wooded areas could have more of an effect than impacts in disturbed areas, such as industrial or urban areas. Some open, undeveloped properties are located on the eastern portion of the proposed pipeline. Construction activities will be within the existing ROW throughout these areas. The accidental spilling or dumping of toxic compounds with transport to aquatic features during construction activities may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Some toxic chemicals may be ingested or absorbed by algae or other organisms in low trophic (feeding) levels and passed up the food web, increasing toxicity in each trophic level until lethal concentrations are reached. Additionally, uptake of toxic chemicals at non-lethal levels by organisms at lower trophic levels may accumulate to lethal levels in predators over time. Major, long-term effects to aquatic habitats are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline construction activities. Several aquatic features will be traversed by the proposed pipeline or are located within the zone of potential impact. Hunting Bayou and several tributaries and other drainages will all be traversed by the proposed pipeline. Hunting Bayou will be crossed at two different locations. The first crossing is located at MP 0.49, on the north end of the Magellan Facility, and the second crossing is located at MP 5.6. Hunting Bayou and most of the drainage facilities will be directionally drilled. Minor and short-term localized impacts may result from the proposed activities. However, such impacts would be most likely avoided, or where unavoidable, minimized through the implementation of best management practices. 10.3.6.3.2.2 Normal Operations Normal operations after the proposed pipeline construction would result in negligible impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Increased ambient noise levels and human activity from operation, 10-186 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL maintenance, and inspection of the new pipeline should not result in any new or significant impacts on aquatic resources. 10.3.6.3.2.3 Accidental Releases Impacts from accidental releases for the new 8-inch refined products pipeline would result in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Impacts associated with accidental releases range from direct mortality to aquatic species through ingestion, absorption, thermal trauma, or toxicity to temporary or long-term impacts from contaminant cleanup and remediation (EPA, 1999; 2011). Impacts from leaks and ruptures would be similar to those described in detail for the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline, resulting in minor, temporary to major, long-term impacts to aquatic ecological resources. Potential for impact to aquatic resources from small leaks would be dependent on proximity to aquatic features. As such, impact risk to aquatic features from a small volume accidental release would conceivably be higher for those segments of the pipeline, namely Hunting Bayou in two different locations. Due to project location and a higher frequency of human activity, it is possible that earlier spill detection could reduce the impacts from a low-volume, short duration small leak. Risk of impacts to aquatic resources from long- term leaks that go undetected, and result in releases of large volumes, are similar to those expected for ruptures. Potential for impacts to aquatic resources from a rupture would also conceivably be higher for those segments of the pipeline which cross those water bodies, or are within the zone of potential impact mentioned above. Table 10.1.6-4 provides the number of aquatic features and acreage of those features identified within the zone of potential impact. 10.3.6.3.3 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species Overall, the impacts to threatened and endangered species associated with the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be negligible. The entire proposed pipeline is located within an existing maintained ROW easement throughout a heavily industrialized portion of Harris County. Based on a desktop review, including the TXNDD on critical habitats, as well as field reconnaissance, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to any protected species. 10.3.6.3.3.1 Construction A habitat assessment and field reconnaissance were conducted by experienced biologists within the new construction sites for the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline, using accepted methods as described in Section 10.3.1.3.3.1. Due to the developed/industrial nature of the proposed construction areas, and the absence of necessary vegetative components habitat, the threatened or endangered species of potential occurrence within the associated county are not anticipated to occur within the project area. Additionally, installation of the 10-187 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL proposed pipeline along this corridor will be directionally drilled at all bayou and large drainage locations. Because these locations will be directionally drilled, it is further unlikely that any of the terrestrial or aquatic species would be impacted. Therefore, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the construction of the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.6.3.3.2 Normal Operations Any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from normal operation activities of the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.6.3.3.3 Accidental Releases Field reconnaissance for threatened and endangered species, and their habitat, identified no suitable habitat for the federal or state listed species within the area adjoining the East Houston to Holland Pipeline, as discussed in Section 10.1.6.3.3. Therefore, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.6.3.4 Impacts to Wetlands A description of the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Connected Action is provided in Section 3.2.6. This proposed pipeline is located entirely within the East Houston to 9th Street Junction Pipeline corridor/ROW. The East Houston to 9th Street Junction Pipeline is roughly .5 miles longer, but impacts to wetlands are nearly identical. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities and normal operations along the proposed Pipeline are anticipated to be minor and short-term. Accidental releases could result in negligible to moderate impacts with a short- to long-term duration. Discussions pertaining to the potential wetland impacts for this Connected Action are presented below. 10.3.6.3.4.1 Construction The proposed pipeline would have a permanent maintained ROW easement of 50 ft. The same techniques (GIS and HWI mapping) were used, as described in Section 4.2.2.3, to assess the proposed impacts to wetlands. Impacts were determined based on a 75-ft wide temporary construction easement. The permanent easement would be 50-feet wide. These impacts considered all wetlands, as well as stream crossings similar to those studied in Section 4.2.2.3. Acreages of impacts presented in this section do not account for locations where directional drilling may take place. Because the directional drilling is not accounted for, most likely the impacts will be less than the numbers presented here. Potential wetland impacts related to construction activities along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are anticipated to be minor and short-term to long-term. An inventory of wetlands present within the 75-ft construction easement from East Houston to Holland Avenue shows that three wetlands, consisting of approximately 1.59 acres, are present. 10-188 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Two types of wetlands (lower perennial and palustrine) were identified to occur within the 75-ft easement from East Houston to Holland Avenue. Two wetlands were identified between MP 4 – 6, accounting for 1.42 acres. One wetland was identified between MP 7 – 8, accounting for 0.17 acres. The impacts in acreages and miles/linear feet of each wetland type within the 75-ft construction easement are shown in the following table. Wetland Classification and Acreage from East Houston to Holland Avenue Wetland Polygons Wetland Classification Count Acres Lower Perennial 1 0.04 Palustrine Emergent 2 1.55 Total 3 1.59 The number of wetlands within the 75-ft easement, compiled by milepost, are given in the following table. Wetlands from East Houston to Holland Avenue MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres County 0 10 0 0.00 Harris 1 2 0 0.00 Harris 2 3 0 0.00 Harris 3 4 0 0.00 Harris 4 5 1 1.38 Harris 5 6 1 0.04 Harris 6 7 0 0.00 Harris 7 8 1 0.17 Harris Total 3 1.59 10.3.6.3.4.2 Normal Operations Upon activation, the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline will be located within an existing maintained pipeline ROW easement. It is anticipated that normal operations would have negligible impacts to wetlands. 10.3.6.3.4.3 Accidental Releases The impacts of an accidental release of refined material into wetlands along the pipeline from East Houston to Holland Avenue would depend on the type of wetland, amount of product released and several other factors. A large release could have acute and chronic impacts to wetland biota and functionality. A small release could have the same impacts, but on a smaller scale. A small release could impact just a portion of a wetland, and dilution could even lessen 10-189 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL the impacts to virtually none depending on the size of the wetland. A large release could impact an entire wetland as well as the entire biota and functionality depending on the scale of the release and the size of the wetland. Proper implementation of best management practices would minimize the potential for impacts to adjacent streams and wetlands. Potential impacts to wetlands along this pipeline route could be negligible to moderate and short- to long-term in duration. 10.3.6.4 Cultural Resources 10.3.6.4.1 Impacts to Historic Properties Construction activities associated with the proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are described in Section 3.2.6. As the proposed pipeline will be located within an existing, previously disturbed pipeline ROW easement that has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results, potential impacts to significant cultural resources related to construction activities and normal operations along the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of an accidental release are also anticipated to be negligible. 10.3.6.4.1.1 Construction The East Houston to Holland Avenue Connected Action involves construction of a new 8-inch pipeline. The proposed pipeline is to be constructed within an existing pipeline ROW easement which crosses through a heavily developed urban/industrial area. Additionally, the SHPO has acknowledged that this previously disturbed pipeline ROW easement contains no significant cultural resources listed on, or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As such, the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources would be negligible. 10.3.6.4.1.2 Normal Operations The potential to impact significant cultural resources during normal operation of this proposed pipeline would be negligible. 10.3.6.4.1.3 Accidental Releases As the proposed ROW will be located within an existing, previously disturbed pipeline ROW that has been previously assessed for cultural resources with negative results, there are no anticipated impacts to significant cultural resources in the event of an accidental release. 10-190 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR CONNECTED ACTIONS 10.4.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 9, mitigation is used to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts associated with proposed actions, and is described under the CEQ regulations. The evolution of environmental regulations has resulted in a significant body of laws and regulations, both federal and state, designed to mitigate the potential adverse effects of proposed projects. In particular, there is an extensive body of federal requirements under 49 CFR Part 195 that regulate the construction, operation, and transportation of hazardous liquids in interstate pipelines, such as the Orion West Pipeline and the Longhorn Pipeline. These regulations require owners and operators to follow strict design and construction requirements, as well as operation, maintenance, corrosion, pipeline personnel qualification, and pipeline integrity management requirements. Other incorporated types of mitigation for the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions include federally and state-required emergency response plans and SPCC plan requirements. The following discussion of mitigation for the Connected Actions is organized under the common impact categories: construction, operations, and accidental releases. 10.4.2 Construction 10.4.2.1 Human Resources 10.4.2.1.1 Human Health and Safety Construction activities for the Connected Actions will include the installation of new pump stations, storage tanks, truck unloading facilities, pipelines, and ancillary facilities, as well as the modification of existing pump stations and upgrades to infrastructure at existing facilities. Potential impacts to human health and safety associated with the construction of the Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the Connected Actions. 10.4.2.1.2 Transportation Potential transportation impacts from the construction of the Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.2.1.3 Land Use Impacts to land use resulting from construction of the Connected Actions are expected to be negligible to minor. To mitigate land use impacts, the Connected Actions have been designed to 10-191 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL utilize existing Magellan property, existing Magellan ROWs, and other existing utility and roadway ROWs to the extent possible. Where the projects cannot utilize existing ROWs, they have been designed to parallel existing ROWs to the extent possible. Magellan will negotiate with landowners for the compensation of potential site-specific land use impacts resulting from the construction of a Connected Action. 10.4.2.1.4 Environmental Justice There are no anticipated disproportionate impacts to EJ populations resulting from any of the proposed Connected Actions. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.2.2 Physical Resources 10.4.2.2.1 Groundwater Potential impacts associated with the construction of the various Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible because of (1) the relatively small quantity of hazardous products (construction equipment fuel and oil) on the site at any one time, and (2) the use of BMPs. The BMPs will share common practices, and include project-specific requirements based on the project-specific construction activities (e.g., tank construction or pipeline construction) of a specific Connected Action. The BMPs will include actions such as: • Developing and implementing project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and SPCC Plans; • Managing construction areas to minimize the amount of time that any individual construction area is under construction, thereby minimizing exposure to potential storm water runoff; • Completing construction restoration to ensure that original surface water paths are returned to preconstruction conditions, and recharge patterns are reestablished; and • Restricting the location of equipment refueling and storage areas, and requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. 10.4.2.2.2 Surface Water The construction of the various Connected Actions is expected to result in negligible surface water impacts. Negligible impacts are expected because of the limited surface water resources associated with some connected actions, and because of the use of standard construction BMPs. Construction of a Connected Action pipeline may require a Section 404 or Section 401 permit to cross a Water of the US or jurisdictional wetland area. Additionally, depending upon the size of the disturbed area, a Construction Storm Water Permit may be required from either the TCEQ or the RRC for specific project construction sites. In all cases, Magellan will perform construction activities in conformance with the requirements of all applicable permits. The BMPs will utilize common practices, as well as project-specific requirements identified for the specific 10-192 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL construction activities (e.g., tank construction or pipeline construction) of an individual Connected Action. The BMPs will include actions such as: • Developing and implementing project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and SPCC Plans; • Using sediment control measures, such as silt fencing, hay bales, sedimentation ponds, or runoff diversionary structures; • Managing construction areas to minimize the amount of time that any individual construction area is under construction, thereby minimizing exposure to potential storm water runoff; • Completing construction restoration to ensure that original surface water paths are returned to preconstruction conditions, and recharge patterns are reestablished; and • Restricting the location of equipment refueling and storage areas, and requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Connected Actions requiring the construction of new pipeline will use directional drilling to avoid impacts to perennial water bodies and intermittent water bodies when water is present. Open- cut crossings of intermittent water bodies will only be performed when water is not present. All open-cut crossings will be returned to preconstruction conditions to minimize erosion concerns to topography and water quality. 10.4.2.2.3 Air Quality The construction of the various Connected Actions is expected to result in negligible to minor air quality impacts. Mitigation of potential air quality impacts resulting from the construction of the Connected Actions will be similar to mitigation for the Proposed Project (Section 9.2.6). Noise mitigation will be accomplished through compliance with any local noise ordinances. 10.4.2.3 Ecological Resources 10.4.2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources The construction of the various Connected Actions is expected to result in negligible to moderate impacts to terrestrial resources. To mitigate impacts to terrestrial resources, the Connected Actions have been designed to utilize existing Magellan property, existing Magellan ROWs, and other existing utility and roadway ROWs to the extent possible. Where the projects cannot utilize existing ROWs, they have been designed to parallel existing ROWs to the extent possible. During construction activities, construction BMPs (as discussed in Section 10.4.2.2.2) will be implemented. 10-193 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.4.2.3.2 Aquatic Resources Construction related impacts to aquatic resources would range from negligible to minor. To mitigate any potential impacts to aquatic resources, construction BMPs (as discussed in Section 10.4.2.2.2) will be implemented. 10.4.2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The construction of the various Connected Actions is expected to result in negligible to minor impacts to terrestrial threatened or endangered species (i.e., protected species). Permanent loss of habitat resulting from the construction and operation of some above-ground facilities is the primary potential long-term impact of the proposed Connected Actions. To minimize potential impacts to terrestrial protected species habitat, the Connected Actions have been designed to utilize existing Magellan property, existing Magellan ROWs, and other existing utility and roadway ROWs to the extent possible. Where the projects cannot utilize existing ROWs, they have been designed to parallel existing ROWs to the extent possible. Additionally, new above-ground facilities (i.e., pump stations, storage tanks, etc.) have been sited to minimize impacts to protected species to the extent possible. During construction activities, avoidance and minimizations practices will be followed to prevent potential impacts to terrestrial protected species. Such practices include avoiding construction during breeding seasons of protected species and the use of BMPs. Impacts to aquatic protected species are expected to be negligible. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures are proposed beyond those already identified for protecting other resources. 10.4.2.3.4 Wetlands Construction-related impacts to wetlands are expected to be minor. Construction activities for the various Connected Actions will avoid or minimize impacts to wetland resources by implementing BMP mitigation measures including, but not limited to, the following: • Complying with all permit conditions; • Developing and implementing project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and SPCC Plans; • Limiting the width of the construction ROW in non-cultivated wetlands to 75 feet; • Limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to that equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration activities; • Limiting grading activities to directly over the trench line, except where additional grading is necessary to ensure safety; • Using low ground weight construction equipment or operating equipment off of timber mats within saturated or standing water wetland areas; and • Installing trench breakers or sealing the trench bottom as needed to prevent draining of a wetland, and to maintain original wetland hydrology. 10-194 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Directionally drilling all major water bodies and associated wetlands. 10.4.2.4 Cultural Resources Construction activities could result in negligible to moderate impacts to cultural resources. To ensure the protection of any documented or undocumented cultural resources listed on, or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, all portions of newly proposed ROWs or facilities that fall under the jurisdiction of a federal permitting action or are located in high probability areas will be subjected to a cultural resources survey prior to any ground-disturbing activities. The results of the survey(s) will be compiled into a formal report(s) and submitted for review by the SHPO in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. No ground- disturbing activities will occur within the extent of any documented cultural resources until comment from the SHPO and the lead federal agency has been acquired. Subsequent to the cultural resources survey, all documented cultural resources that are listed on or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP will be avoided and protected during any ground-disturbing activities. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, these cultural resources will be delineated via a professional archeologist. Protective fencing or other sufficient measures will then be put in place to ensure that the ground-disturbing activities will not occur within the extent of the resource. If avoidance and protection of documented cultural resources listed on, or eligible for listing on the NRHP is not possible, SHPO consultation will be necessary to determine any required mitigation actions prior to ground disturbance within the extent of the resource. In the event that undocumented cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) are encountered during construction, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will be stopped. The area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging, and the discovery will be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. Similarly, should undocumented human remains or burial features be discovered during construction, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease immediately. The area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. In compliance with the Texas Health and Safety Code, the appropriate county coroner may also need to be immediately notified if the remains cannot conclusively be determined to be of prehistoric origin. 10.4.3 Normal Operations 10.4.3.1 Human Resources 10.4.3.1.1 Human Health and Safety 10-195 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Potential impacts to human health and safety from the operation of the various Connected Actions would most likely result from air emissions. However, based on air quality evaluations for each Connected Action, negligible impacts to human health and safety are expected from normal operations. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the Connected Actions. 10.4.3.1.2 Transportation Potential impacts to transportation from the operation of the various Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.1.3 Land Use Potential impacts to land use from the operation of the various Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.1.4 Environmental Justice There are no anticipated disproportionate impacts to EJ populations resulting from any of the proposed Connected Actions. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.2 Physical Resources 10.4.3.2.1 Groundwater Impacts to groundwater resources during normal operations of the proposed Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. (Note that leaks are addressed in Section 10.4.4 - Accidental Releases - because leaks are not a part of normal operations.) Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.2.2 Surface Water Impacts to surface water resources during normal operations of the proposed Connected Actions are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.2.3 Air Quality Impacts to air quality from normal operations are anticipated to be negligible to minor depending on the specific facilities and location of each Connected Action. New pipelines will be sealed and buried; thus, there will be no air emissions under normal operation. The new pump stations proposed for the various Connected Actions will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations. Air emissions (fugitive VOCs) from normal operations of such facilities are relatively low, thus no impacts to air quality are expected that warrant mitigation. 10-196 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL In general, only the Connected Actions incorporating new storage tanks will result in potential minor air quality impacts. All new tanks will be constructed and operated in compliance with federal and state air quality regulations and site-specific air permit conditions. Thus, no additional mitigation measures are required. Operational noise impacts will be limited to areas surrounding pump stations, due mainly to pump operation. These stations will comply with any local noise ordinances. Given that the pump stations will be located in remote or sparsely populated locations, no noise impacts under normal operation are expected that warrant mitigation. 10.4.3.3 Ecological Resources 10.4.3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources Impacts to terrestrial resources during normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts are limited to increased levels of noise associated with the operation of new pump stations. Terrestrial fauna are expected to acclimate to this disturbance over time. Therefore, no mitigation is anticipated for normal operations. 10.4.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources Impacts to aquatic resources during normal operations are expected to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required for normal operations. 10.4.3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts to terrestrial threatened and endangered species during normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. Impacts are primarily limited to increased levels of noise associated with the operation of new pump stations. Terrestrial fauna, including protected species, are expected to acclimate to this disturbance over time. Therefore, no mitigation is anticipated for normal operations. Impacts to aquatic threatened and endangered species from normal operations are anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10.4.3.3.4 Wetlands Normal operations are expected to have negligible impacts on wetland resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required for normal operations. 10.4.3.4 Cultural Resources Normal operations are expected to have negligible impacts on cultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10-197 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.4.4 Accidental Releases 10.4.4.1 Human Resources 10.4.4.1.1 Human Health and Safety Impacts to human health and safety resulting from accidental releases could be minor to major and range from an undetected event which results in contamination of public resources to a very visible event such as a fire and/or explosion. These are rare events, but present a real concern to public safety. Should a leak or rupture occur along a pipeline, the emergency response and mitigation measures described in the pipeline emergency response plan would be implemented. These measures are designed to contain the release and protect human health and the environment. It should be noted that for Connected Actions subject to the LMP, the mitigation requirements prescribed by the LMP will be implemented. 10.4.4.1.2 Transportation Potential transportation impacts resulting from an accidental release would be negligible to major depending on the location and size of the release. Magellan would work with local officials to mitigate any site-specific transportation related impacts. 10.4.4.1.3 Land Use An accidental release from any of the proposed Connected Actions could result in major impacts to land use. Should a leak or rupture occur along a pipeline, the emergency response and mitigation measures described in the pipeline emergency response plan would be implemented. These measures are designed to contain the release and protect human health and the environment. Should an accidental release result in the temporary or permanent loss of land use, the property owner would be compensated. For Connected Actions subject to the LMP, the mitigation requirements prescribed by the LMP will be implemented. 10.4.4.1.4 Environmental Justice There are no anticipated disproportionate impacts to EJ populations resulting from any of the proposed Connected Actions. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 10-198 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 10.4.4.2 Physical Resources 10.4.4.2.1 Groundwater The potential impacts to groundwater resources as a result of an accidental release range from minor to major, and vary depending on the rate of release, the location relative to recharge, and the aquifer type. Potential adverse impacts are mitigated by leak detection methods. These release detection tools include sophisticated in-line inspection tools (i.e., smart pigs), hydrostatic tests, and routine visual inspections. These mitigation measures are required by federal regulation (49 CFR Part 195) and embedded in Magellan’s SIP. Additionally, each Connected Action is (or will be upon completion of construction) covered by an emergency response plan. Within the emergency response plan are prescribed actions designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from an accidental release. For Connected Actions subject to the LMP, mitigation requirements prescribed by the LMP will be implemented. 10.4.4.2.2 Impacts to Surface Water An accidental release from a proposed Connected Action could result in a major impact to surface water resources. Each Connected Action is (or will be upon completion of construction) covered by an emergency response plan. Within the emergency response plan are prescribed actions designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from an accidental release. In the event of a spill involving a pipeline leak or rupture, the initial mitigation actions will likely consist of: • Shutting down the pipeline; • Relieving the pressure of the affected line section; • Isolating the line section by closing the appropriate valves; • Evacuating the remaining contents of the affected line section; and • Exposing the leak or rupture, and installing a temporary patch. A station or terminal initial mitigation action may require: • Emergency shutdown of pump; • Closing the appropriate valves; and • Evacuating the remaining content of a tank or line. Source control measures are implemented as close as possible to the source of a spill to minimize the extent of the affected area, and generally involve: • Construction of barriers, trenches, or earthen berms for containment; • Construction of berms or trenches for diverting spill to a containment area; 10-199 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Deployment of containment booms in waterways down current of the source; and • Deployment of recovery equipment (pumps, vacuum trucks, skimmers). For Connected Actions subject to the LMP, mitigation requirements prescribed by the LMP will be implemented. 10.4.4.2.3 Air Quality An accidental release from a proposed Connected Action could result in a negligible to major, impact to air quality in the immediate area of the release. The severity of the impact is dependent upon the volume of the release and the type of release (crude oil or refined product). Each Connected Action is (or will be upon completion of construction) covered by an emergency response plan. Within the emergency response plan are prescribed actions designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from an accidental release. 10.4.4.3 Ecological Resources 10.4.4.3.1 Terrestrial Resources The impacts to terrestrial resources from an accidental release range from negligible to major and vary depending on the duration and volume of the release. Should a leak or rupture occur along a pipeline, the emergency response and mitigation measures described in the pipeline emergency response plan would be implemented. These measures are designed to contain the release and protect human health and the environment. Coordination with governing agencies such as PHMSA, EPA, FWS, TCEQ, RRC, TPWD, and USACE would be conducted, as required, when responding to, and mitigating an accidental release. 10.4.4.3.2 Aquatic Resources An accidental release could result in negligible to major impacts to aquatic resources depending on the duration and volume of the release. Should a leak or rupture occur along a pipeline, the emergency response and mitigation measures described in the pipeline emergency response plan would be implemented. See mitigation actions listed in Section 10.4.4.2.2. These measures are designed to contain the release and protect human health and the environment. 10.4.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The impacts to threatened and endangered species from an accidental release range from negligible to major, and vary depending on the duration and volume of the release. Should a leak or rupture occur along a pipeline, the emergency response and mitigation measures described in the pipeline emergency response plan would be implemented. These measures are designed to contain the release and protect human health and the environment. Coordination with governing agencies such as PHMSA, EPA, FWS, TCEQ, RRC, TPWD and 10-200 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL USACE would be conducted, as required, when responding to and mitigating an accidental release. 10.4.4.3.4 Wetlands An accidental release from a proposed Connected Action could result in a negligible to moderate impact to wetland resources depending on the volume of the release. Each Connected Action is (or will be upon completion of construction) covered by an emergency response plan. Within the emergency response plan are prescribed actions designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from an accidental release. Additionally, Magellan would coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies to develop and implement a remediation strategy for the impacted wetland resource. 10.4.4.4 Cultural Resources An accidental release from a proposed Connected Action could result in negligible to major impacts to cultural resources. To mitigate the potential for impact to significant cultural resources during an emergency response event, the following measures will be taken. • Portions of newly proposed ROWs or facilities that are located in high probability areas for cultural resources will be subjected to a cultural resources survey prior to construction of the facility. Results of the survey(s) will be compiled into a formal report(s) and submitted to the SHPO with site-specific recommendations for consideration of NRHP eligibility. • All documented cultural resource sites listed on, or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP (i.e. significant sites) that are within a pipeline ROW or facility property boundary will be designated within the facility emergency response plan as sensitive areas where ground-disturbing activities are prohibited, unless necessary for the immediate protection of human health and safety. Areas previously disturbed by construction activities (i.e., trench line for a pipeline) will be excluded from any ground-disturbing restrictions. • If remediation is required within a known, significant cultural resource site, the SHPO will be consulted prior to any ground disturbing activities. In the event that undocumented cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) are encountered during cleanup of an accidental release, all ground-disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will be stopped. The area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging, and the discovery will be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. Similarly, should undocumented human remains or burial features be discovered during clean- up of an accidental release, all ground-disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease. The area will be secured with temporary fencing and/or flagging. The 10-201 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL discovery will then be evaluated by a professional archeologist who will, in consultation with the SHPO, determine appropriate measures to be taken in order to prevent the loss of significant cultural value. In compliance with the Texas Health and Safety Code, the appropriate county coroner may also need to be immediately notified if the remains cannot conclusively be determined to be of prehistoric origin. 10.5 REFERENCES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for Gasoline: PB/95/264206/AS. pp. 107 – 111. Anaya, R. 2001. An Overview of the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer System, Central–West Texas: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 107 – 116. Ashworth, J.B. 1990. Evaluation of Ground-Water Resources in EI Paso County, Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 324. pp. 5 – 6. Ashworth, J.B. and Hopkins, J. 1995. Aquifers of Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 345. pp. 10 – 11, 18 – 21, 24 – 27, 29 -32, 41 – 42, and 63 – 66. Aspen (Aspen Environmental Group). 1998. Carson to Norwalk Pipeline, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P., Final Environmental Impact Report, California Public Utilities Commission, May 1998. Atlas Texas Archeological Sites Atlas Restricted Database. Texas Historical Commission. http://www.pedernales.thc.state.tx.us/. Bartlett, R.D., and P.P. Bartlett. 1999. A field guide to Texas reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. BEG Physiographic Map of Texas, University of Texas at Austin, 1996 Bené, J.E., and Harden, R. 2004. Northern Trinity / Woodbine Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model: Texas Water Development Board. pp. 2-15 – 2-29 and 4-1 – 4-37. Blair, W.F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2:93–117. Blandford, T.N., Blazer, D.J., Calhoun, K.C., Dutton, A.R., Naing, T., Reedy, R.C., and Scanlon, B.R. 2003. Groundwater Availability of the Southern Ogallala Aquifer in Texas and New Mexico: Numerical Simulations through 2050: Texas Water Development Board Report No. __. pp. 14 – 20 and 25 – 56. Boghici, R. and Van Broekhoven, N.G. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Rustler Aquifer, Trans-Pecos Texas: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 207 – 219. Bradley, R.G., and Kalaswad, S. 2001. The Dockum Aquifer in West Texas: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 167 – 172. Burruss, R.C., and Ryder, R.T. 2003. Composition of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Produced from 14 Wells in the Lower Silurian “Clinton” Sandstone and Medina Group, Northeastern Ohio and Northwestern Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03- 409. pp. 7. 10-202 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Byun, D. W., Kim, S.T., Cheng, F.Y., Kim, S.B., Cuclis, A., and N.K. Moon. 2003. Information Infrastructure for Air Quality Modeling and Analysis: Application to the Houston- Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area. J. Environ. Informatics, 2 (2) 38-57. City of Houston, 2011. Houston Parks and Recreation Department- Our parks. Accessed 5 October 2011 at http://www.houstontx.gov/parks/ourparks/ourparksA-F.html. Collins, Raney BEG, 2000 Geomap Dixon, J.R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. ESRI Transportation Map for North America and Europe. http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/Reference/World_Transportation. George, P., Mace, R.E. and Mullican, III, W.F. The Hydrogeology of Hudspeth County, Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 364. pp. 18 – 29, 41 – 48 and 66 – 68. Google Earth Pro (Accessed June 2011) Gould, F.W., G.O. Hoffman, and C.A. Rechenthin. 1960. Vegetational areas of Texas. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. L-492. Griffith, G., Bryce, S., Omernik, J., Comstock, J., Rogers, A., Harrison, B., Hatch, S., and Bezanson, D. 2004. Ecoregions of Texas (color poster with map, descriptive text, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:2,500,000). Hatch, S.L., K.N. Gandhi, and L.E. Brown. 1990. Checklist of the vascular plants of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station. Henke, S. and Fair, W. 1998. Management of Texas Horned Lizards. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Management Bull. No. 2. Heywood, C.E. and Yager, R.M. 2003. Simulated Ground-Water Flow in the Hueco Bolson, an Alluvial-Basin Aquifer System near El Paso, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 02-4108. pp. 2 – 13. International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2002. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, Final Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (Azerbaijan), Atmospheric Emissions Inventories – Method and Assumptions. December 2002. Jones, I.C. 2001. Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium Aquifer: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 121 – 128. Jones, T.L., Kelley, V.A., Yan, T. Singh, A., Powers, D.W., Holt, R.M., Sharp, J.M. 2011. Draft Conceptual Model Report for the Rustler Aquifer: Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. pp. 4-1 – 4-46. Langley, L. 1999. Updated Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas, 1990- 1999: Texas Water Development Board Report 349. pp. 3 – 26. LBJ School of Public Affairs. 1978. Preserving Texas’ Natural Heritage. The Natural Heritage Policy Research Project, Policy Research Project Report Number 31, The University of Texas, Austin. Mace, R.E. 2001. Aquifers of West Texas: An Overview: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 3 – 9. 10-203 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S. 2004 Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W.F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360. pp. 6 – 12. McMahan, C.A., R.G. Frye, and K.L. Brown. 1984. The vegetation types of Texas, including cropland. Wildlife Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places Google Earth Map Layer – South Region. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Google_Earth_Layers.html. Nordstrom, P.L. 1982. Occurrence, Availability, and Chemical Quality of Ground Water in the Cretaceous Aquifers of North-Central Texas Volume 1: Texas Water Development Board Report 269. pp. 9 -15 and 25 – 52. Nygaard. 2011. Letter from N.A. Nygaard, RPS to K. Kind, TCEQ, Re: Air Quality Permit Application No 94433, Magellan Pipeline Terminals, L.P. – East Houston Terminal, RN102186129, CN603167297, April 12, 2011. O’Reilly, K.T., Magaw, R.I., and Rixey, W.G. 2001. Predicting the Effect of Hydrocarbon and Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soil on Groundwater: API Soil and Groundwater Technical Task Force Bulletin 14. pp. 2 – 6. Sheng, Z., Mace, R.E. and Fahy, M.P. 2001. The Hueco Bolson: An Aquifer at the Crossroads: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 66 – 69. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2008. Localized Significance Threshold Methodology – Final, SCAQMD, July 2008 (Revised). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2010. Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ultramar, Inc. Wilmington Refinery, CARB Phase 3 Proposed Project, SCAQMD, State Clearinghouse No. 2000061113, March 2010. Standen, A.R., and Opdyke, D.R. 2004. Contamination Migration, Characteristics, and Responses for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W. F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, p. 211-218. Stoeser, D.B., Green, G.N., Morath, L.C., Heran, W.D., Wilson, A.B., Moore, D.W., and Van Gosen, B.S. 2005. Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States: Central States: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1351. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1351/#TX. Accessed on April 28, 2011. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2002. Effects of Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks on the Trinity Group Aquifer: TCEQ publication SFR-073. pp. vii – viii, 6 and 15 – 30. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010. December 2010 Effects Screening Levels, Memorandum from Toxicology Division, TCEQ, to Interested Parties, 29 December 2010. Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD), 2011, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/txndd/ 10-204 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 1984. The Vegetation Types of Texas Map. Austin, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2009. Species Profile – Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). Available online at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/thlizard/ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2011. Lake Colorado City State Park. Retrieved 16 June 2011 from http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/findadest/parks/lake_colorado_city/. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2011. Natural Regions of Texas Map. Adapted from Preserving Texas’ Natural Heritage, LBJ School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project 31, 1978. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2001. Bone Spring-Victorio Peak Aquifer of the Dell Valley Region of Texas: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 138 – 146. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2003. The Groundwater Resources of the Dockum Aquifer in Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 359. pp. 8 – 35. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2004. Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium Aquifer: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W.F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, pp. 135 – 144. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2004. Conceptual Model for the Edwards–Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer System, Texas: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W.F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, pp. 42 – 53. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2004. The Dockum Aquifer in the Edwards Plateau: Mace, R.E., Angle, E.S., and Mullican, W. F., III, eds. Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, pp. 152 – 157. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2007. Water for Texas: Document No. GP-8-1. Volume II, pp. 190, 192, 194, 197, 201, 207 – 208, 211, 214 and 216. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2011. County population projections in Texas. Retrieved 15 June 2011 from http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/proj/2012popproj.asp. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2011. GIS Data. Major Aquifers of Texas Shapefiles and Minor Aquifers of Texas Shapefiles. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/mapping/gisdata.asp. Accessed on April 28, 2011. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2011. Source Water Assessment Viewer. http://gis3.tceq.state.tx.us/swav/Controller/index.jsp?wtrsrc= . PWS Wells and Intakes database. Well Capture Zones database. Accessed on April 28, 2011. Thomas, C., Bonner, T., and Whiteside, B. 2007. Freshwater Fishes of Texas: A Field Guide. Texas A&M Press, College Station, Texas. TNSMP, 2005. Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program: SFR-068/04. Appendix D: Aquifer Vulnerability Ranking System. pp. 254 – 256. 10-205 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 2009 population estimates. Retrieved 15 June 2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=o n. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Data for population, race, ethnicity, and income. Retrieved 15 June 2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submen uId=datasets_1&_lang=en. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) “General Soil Map of Texas” (ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/TX/soils/tx_gsm_map.pdf) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS Web Soil Survey, viewed June 13, 2011 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2011. 2011 poverty guideline. Retrieved 15 June 2011 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2011. 2011 poverty guideline. Retrieved 15 June 2011 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2010. Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2011. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Riverside-Corona Feeder Project, U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation, State Clearinghouse No. 2003031121, January 2011. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 2000. Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage: 49 CFR Part 195. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 246. pp. 80532 and 80544. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991. Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States: EPA/600/2-91/043. pp. 5 – 8 and 207. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA, November 1995, EPA-453/R-95-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999. Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Spill Response: Understanding Oil Spills in Freshwater Environments. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Oil Program Center. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions. Retrieved 24 November 2009 from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.php. Last updated November 4, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. User’s guide, technical support documentation, and executable computer code: http://www.epa.gov/oms/nonrdmdl.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. Emergency Management: Health and Ecological Hazards. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/hazsubs/healthaz.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. Watersheds Homepage. http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/ (Accessed June 18, 2011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for State Regulators: EPA 510- R96-001. pp. III-4 – III-25. 10-206 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2004. Effects of Oil Spills on Wildlife and Habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Annotated County Lists of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species for Comanche, Crane, Culberson, Ector, Howard, Midland, Navarro, and Winkler counties, Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Endangered species list: list of species by county for Texas. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/ (accessed June 10, 2011). U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) Earthquake Data Base NEIC: Earthquake Search Results – viewed on May 26, 2011) U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1931_08_16.php), U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/texas/history.php) U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/us/PGA) U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS), 2008. 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions. Retrieved 24 November 2009 from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.php. Last updated November 4, 2008. U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS), 2011. 2006 National Land Cover Database. Published February 16, 2011. U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS), 2011. 2006 National Land Cover Database. Published February 16, 2011. Uliana, M.M. 2001. The Geology and Hydrogeology of the Capitan Aquifer: A Brief Overview: Mace, R.E., Mullican III, W.F., and Angle, E.S. eds. Aquifers of West Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 356. pp. 156 – 164. Walker, L.E. 1979. Occurrence, Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water in the Edwards Plateau Region of Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 235. pp. 47 – 55. 10-207 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 10 TABLES <<>> Table 10.1.1-1 Aquifers Crossed by the Orion West Expansion Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Woodbine Aquifer Cretaceous Sandstone beds interbedded with shale and clay Minor Trinity Aquifer Cretaceous Sand and gravel, shale, clay Major Dockum Aquifer Triassic Sand and conglomerate interbedded with layers of silt and shale Minor Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer Cretaceous Solutioned and jointed limestone, dolomite and sandstones Major Southern Ogallala Aquifer Quaternary- Tertiary Fluvial, lacustrine and eolian deposits of sand, gravel, silt and clay Major Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.1-2 Public Water Supply Wells within the Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact MP PWS ID Number PWS Name Aquifer Used Number of Water Wells 310.28 1090024 City of Mertens Woodbine-Subcrop 2 285 1090067 Woodrow Osceola WSC Pleasant VW Trinity-Subcrop 1 282.7 1090073 White Bluff Community Water System Trinity-Subcrop 1 274.83 0180043 USACE Plow Creek Park Trinity-Subcrop 1 274.5 0180059 Kopperl ISD Trinity-Subcrop 1 232 0720002 City of Stephenville Trinity-Outcrop 1 231 0720002 City of Stephenville Trinity-Outcrop 1 91.3 1770002 City of Sweetwater Dockum-Subcrop 1 80.8 1680001 City of Colorado City Dockum-Outcrop 1 80.4 1680001 City of Colorado City Dockum-Outcrop 1 <<>> Table 10.1.1-3 Water Quality Summary – Orion West Expansion <<>> Table 10.1.1-4 Summary of 2008 Texas 303(d) Stream Segments List per the Federal Clean Water Act <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Odessa & Midland to Frost 0.05 X X 1.99 10489.16 Midland to Odessa 1.65 X 0.05 240.12 Midland to Odessa 8.46 X 1.95 10320.30 Midland to Odessa 10.35 X 0.40 2128.28 Midland to Odessa 12.28 X 0.41 2170.64 Midland to Odessa 12.90 X 0.08 428.29 Midland to Odessa 13.01 X 0.01 59.58 Midland to Odessa 13.10 X 0.17 880.84 Midland to Odessa 14.79 X 1.03 5420.09 Midland to Odessa 15.75 X 0.01 35.01 Midland to Odessa 16.22 X 0.92 4853.55 Midland to Odessa 17.10 X 1.12 5899.56 Midland to Odessa 17.63 X 0.25 1305.27 Midland to Frost 12.03 Mustang Draw X X 0.77 4076.20 Midland to Frost 12.28 X 0.03 149.71 Midland to Frost 13.10 X 0.54 2868.22 Midland to Frost 18.63 X 0.61 3195.46 Midland to Frost 18.91 X 0.80 4216.60 Hamilton Midland to Frost 19.96 Draw X X 0.72 3816.44 Midland to Frost 20.30 X 0.11 604.98 Midland to Frost 20.47 X 0.37 1931.36 Midland to Frost 21.13 Hamilton Draw X X 2.30 12147.02 Midland to Frost 22.73 X 0.08 422.62 Midland to Frost 26.10 X 0.02 113.56 Midland to Frost 26.36 Mustang Draw X X 1.63 8586.85 Midland to Frost 27.47 X 0.23 1207.97 Midland to Frost 27.77 Elbow Creek X 0.79 4149.16 Midland to Frost 28.03 X 0.60 3171.40 Midland to Frost 28.17 X 0.08 417.68 Midland to Frost 28.20 Elbow Creek X X 1.27 6716.42 Midland to Frost 28.49 X 0.22 1180.64 Elbow Midland to Frost 29.70 Creek X 0.80 4243.59 Elbow Midland to Frost 30.18 Creek X 0.14 745.19 Midland to Frost 35.66 X 0.32 1707.96 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 35.67 Tributary to Cosden Lake X X 0.52 2767.38 Midland to Frost 35.87 X 0.25 1326.62 Midland to Frost 36.00 X 0.04 211.08 Midland to Frost 36.00 X 0.08 406.46 Tributary to Cosden Midland to Frost 36.06 Lake X X 0.51 2674.03 Midland to Frost 36.18 X 0.33 1750.95 Midland to Frost 36.33 X 0.03 142.65 Midland to Frost 36.38 X 0.12 619.63 Midland to Frost 36.51 X 0.21 1134.11 Midland to Frost 36.52 Unnamed X X 0.46 2444.57 Midland to Frost 36.63 X 0.05 270.99 Midland to Frost 36.71 Unnamed X X 0.40 2086.34 Midland to Frost 36.89 X 0.02 120.45 Midland to Frost 37.01 X 0.19 1003.96 Midland to Frost 37.14 X 0.03 172.85 Midland to Frost 37.36 X 0.44 2348.54 Midland to Frost 38.63 Unnamed X X 1.06 5606.23 Midland to Frost 39.52 Unnamed X X 0.75 3962.92 Midland to Frost 39.93 X 0.09 488.96 Midland to Frost 40.12 X 0.29 1521.35 Midland to Frost 40.17 X 0.17 909.73 Midland to Frost 40.18 Plum Draw X X 0.80 4238.25 Midland to Frost 40.62 X 0.13 710.82 Midland to Frost 40.66 X 0.40 2121.17 Midland to Frost 40.91 Unnamed X X 1.17 6201.59 Midland to Frost 41.35 X 0.44 2299.85 Midland to Frost 41.52 X 0.16 871.13 Midland to Frost 41.56 Red Draw X X 0.78 4138.15 Midland to Frost 41.79 Aquaduct X 0.03 135.05 Midland to Frost 42.22 Tributary Beals Creek X X 0.88 4653.30 Midland to Frost 42.51 X 0.52 2721.58 Midland to Frost 42.70 Beals Creek X 0.02 94.61 Midland to Frost 42.98 Tributary Beals Creek X X 0.74 3916.78 Midland to Frost 43.00 X 0.08 434.32 Midland to Frost 43.55 X 0.65 3455.95 Midland to Frost 43.72 X 0.25 1294.25 Midland to Frost 43.77 Tributary Beals Creek X 0.05 288.74 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 43.89 X 0.18 971.81 Midland to Frost 43.93 X 0.12 653.76 Midland to Frost 43.96 Tributary Beals Creek X 0.15 767.15 Midland to Frost 43.97 X 0.21 1105.47 Midland to Frost 44.49 X 0.19 984.08 Midland to Frost 44.62 X 0.32 1695.25 Midland to Frost 44.86 Tributary Beals Creek X 0.08 429.37 Midland to Frost 44.87 X 0.30 1568.03 Midland to Frost 45.13 X 0.29 1549.66 Midland to Frost 45.17 Tributary Beals Creek X 0.23 1212.50 Midland to Frost 45.20 Moss Creek Lake Moss Creek Lake Midland to Frost 45.26 X 0.14 728.54 Midland to Frost 45.39 X 0.26 1374.40 Midland to Frost 45.40 X 0.10 531.57 Midland to Frost 45.41 X 0.10 521.19 Midland to Frost 45.41 X 0.15 791.00 Midland to Frost 45.46 X 0.01 65.88 Midland to Frost 45.46 Beals Creek X 0.22 1176.24 Midland to Frost 45.53 X 0.00 15.28 Midland to Frost 45.54 Beals Creek X 0.01 53.98 Midland to Frost 45.57 Beals Creek X 0.01 44.30 Midland to Frost 45.62 X 0.16 863.16 Midland to Frost 45.63 X 0.65 3434.72 Midland to Frost 45.73 X 0.15 795.28 Midland to Frost 45.76 Beals Creek X 0.07 386.65 Midland to Frost 45.90 Moss Creek X 0.53 2811.69 Midland to Frost 45.90 Beals Creek X 0.24 1269.68 Midland to Frost 45.98 X 0.06 311.46 Midland to Frost 46.33 Beals Creek X 1.41 7469.85 Midland to Frost 46.52 Moss Creek X 0.76 4021.66 Midland to Frost 46.68 Beals Creek X 0.04 208.24 Midland to Frost 46.70 Beals Creek X X 0.32 1691.53 Midland to Frost 46.71 Beals Creek X 0.22 1161.75 Midland to Frost 46.73 X 0.44 2340.95 Midland to Frost 46.74 Beals Creek X 0.17 890.32 Midland to Frost 46.77 X 0.18 961.89 Midland to Frost 46.79 X 0.18 933.63 Midland to Frost 46.80 X X 0.51 2698.02 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 46.80 Midland to Frost 46.81 Midland to Frost 46.82 Midland to Frost 46.85 Midland to Frost 46.86 Midland to Frost 46.86 Midland to Frost 46.94 Midland to Frost 46.95 Midland to Frost 47.17 Midland to Frost 47.53 Midland to Frost 50.26 Midland to Frost 51.24 Midland to Frost 52.06 Midland to Frost 52.33 Midland to Frost 52.42 Midland to Frost 52.43 Midland to Frost 52.52 Midland to Frost 53.61 Midland to Frost 54.66 Midland to Frost 55.26 Midland to Frost 55.46 Midland to Frost 55.85 Midland to Frost 56.29 Midland to Frost 56.71 Midland to Frost 56.85 Midland to Frost 56.85 Midland to Frost 56.88 Midland to Frost 57.05 Midland to Frost 58.03 Midland to Frost 58.34 Midland to Frost 58.90 Midland to Frost 59.00 Midland to Frost 59.08 Midland to Frost 59.45 Midland to Frost 59.66 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Beals Creek X 0.18 936.88 Beals Creek X 0.12 656.73 Beals Creek X 0.07 376.31 Beals Creek X 0.65 3446.01 Beals Creek X 0.28 1494.02 Beals Creek X 0.10 514.80 Beals Creek X 0.38 1986.57 X 0.03 159.96 Tributary Beals Creek X X 0.33 1729.89 X 0.20 1046.20 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 0.53 2779.23 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1.59 8415.30 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 0.84 4449.15 X 0.85 4511.36 X 0.44 2305.24 X 0.29 1550.38 X 0.06 333.77 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1.81 9558.63 Unnamed X X 1.06 5595.65 Unnamed X X 0.65 3426.97 X 0.86 4555.93 X 0.22 1151.10 X 0.40 2100.80 Unnamed X X 0.73 3864.42 X 0.13 661.28 X 0.50 2665.97 X 0.16 842.17 Unnamed X X 0.60 3185.50 Unnamed X X 0.48 2509.54 X 0.05 278.20 Unnamed X X 0.84 4425.92 X 0.08 405.50 X 0.22 1181.94 Unnamed X X 0.73 3829.14 X 0.08 435.29 Midland to Frost 59.84 X 0.50 2654.78 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 60.63 Unnamed X X 1.40 7396.55 Midland to Frost 60.70 X 0.03 138.18 Midland to Frost 60.78 X 0.14 732.83 Midland to Frost 60.86 Unnamed X X 0.68 3597.01 Midland to Frost 61.47 Wildhorse Creek X 0.03 161.21 Midland to Frost 61.52 Wildhorse Creek X 0.11 604.13 Midland to Frost 61.66 Wildhorse Creek X X 0.78 4134.75 Midland to Frost 61.72 X 0.23 1235.20 Midland to Frost 61.81 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0.03 176.73 Midland to Frost 61.91 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0.54 2838.54 Midland to Frost 61.99 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X X 0.74 3881.65 Midland to Frost 62.13 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0.35 1847.30 Midland to Frost 62.19 X 0.29 1508.71 Midland to Frost 62.21 Wildhorse Creek X 0.89 4682.34 Midland to Frost 62.26 X 0.02 89.49 Midland to Frost 62.35 X 0.02 129.96 Midland to Frost 62.39 Wildhorse Creek X 0.46 2428.79 Midland to Frost 62.57 X 0.44 2300.36 Midland to Frost 64.07 X 0.15 794.03 Midland to Frost 65.25 Lake Colorado City API X City of Colorado City Midland to Frost 65.43 X 0.59 3129.86 Midland to Frost 65.76 X X 0.60 3171.15 Midland to Frost 65.78 X 0.45 2383.09 Midland to Frost 66.20 Lake Colorado City X City of Colorado City Midland to Frost 68.00 Lake Colorado City X City of Colorado City Midland to Frost 69.00 Lake Colorado City X City of Colorado City Midland to Frost 69.33 Morgan Creek X 0.03 152.55 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 69.33 Morgan Creek X 0.01 30.62 Midland to Frost 69.34 X 0.01 38.92 Midland to Frost 70.01 Colorado River X 0.72 3805.10 Midland to Frost 71.22 Colorado River X 1.16 6150.11 Midland to Frost 71.78 Colorado River X 0.02 115.38 Midland to Frost 71.88 X 0.40 2100.81 Colorado Midland to Frost 71.92 River X X 0.44 2297.72 Midland to Frost 72.19 Colorado River X 1.29 6816.36 Midland to Frost 72.35 Colorado River X 0.86 4518.84 Midland to Frost 72.75 X 0.36 1884.43 Midland to Frost 72.91 X 0.09 457.68 Midland to Frost 72.95 X 0.22 1160.44 Midland to Frost 74.28 X 2.48 13108.11 Midland to Frost 77.94 North Fork Champion Creek X Champion Lake 0.00 3.03 Midland to Frost 78.00 X 0.07 354.38 Midland to Frost 78.21 North Fork Champion Creek X 1.66 8743.21 Midland to Frost 78.61 North Fork Champion Creek X X 0.77 4061.57 Midland to Frost 78.86 X 0.43 2274.45 Midland to Frost 79.25 X 1.00 5274.99 Midland to Frost 79.46 X 0.06 342.72 Midland to Frost 82.02 X 0.36 1890.45 Midland to Frost 82.10 Unnamed X X 0.11 576.41 Midland to Frost 82.37 X 0.61 3206.27 Midland to Frost 83.84 X 1.34 7079.22 Midland to Frost 84.86 X 0.27 1438.59 Midland to Frost 85.24 X 0.20 1047.04 Midland to Frost 94.96 Long Branch X 0.11 572.39 Long Midland to Frost 95.55 Branch X X 0.83 4356.97 Midland to Frost 95.70 X X 0.42 2218.87 Midland to Frost 95.87 Long Branch X 0.31 1653.19 Midland to Frost 95.94 X 0.05 260.21 Midland to Frost 96.07 Long Branch X 0.35 1821.67 Midland to Frost 96.13 X 0.10 548.76 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 96.16 Midland to Frost 96.29 Midland to Frost 96.31 Midland to Frost 96.64 Midland to Frost 96.69 Midland to Frost 96.76 Midland to Frost 97.34 Midland to Frost 97.36 Midland to Frost 97.43 Midland to Frost 97.53 Midland to Frost 97.68 Midland to Frost 97.71 Midland to Frost 97.76 Midland to Frost 97.82 Midland to Frost 98.09 Midland to Frost 98.24 Midland to Frost 98.26 Midland to Frost 98.27 Midland to Frost 98.44 Midland to Frost 98.52 Midland to Frost 99.24 Midland to Frost 99.31 Midland to Frost 99.37 Midland to Frost 99.41 Midland to Frost 99.89 Midland to Frost 100.25 Midland to Frost 100.33 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Tributary Long Branch X X 0.47 2464.50 X 0.04 199.03 Long Branch X 0.31 1622.90 X 0.88 4662.34 Long Branch X 0.12 641.57 Long Branch X 0.13 664.29 Idlewild Creek X 0.14 759.60 Idlewild Creek X X 0.61 3214.87 Idlewild Creek X X 0.44 2309.84 X 0.10 541.00 Tributary Idlewild Creek X X 0.24 1277.16 Idlewild Creek X 0.66 3484.26 Tributary Idlewild Creek X X 0.23 1214.03 X 0.13 706.59 Idlewild Creek X 0.66 3478.35 Idlewild Creek X 0.21 1097.82 X 0.06 325.48 Tributary Idlewild Creek X X 0.27 1429.83 Idlewild Creek X 0.27 1429.72 Idlewild Creek X 0.83 4397.32 X 0.41 2149.46 X 0.06 314.42 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.38 2024.60 X 0.36 1915.25 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1.40 7413.54 X 0.05 245.88 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.63 3350.73 Midland to Frost 100.77 X 0.83 4403.71 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 100.95 Midland to Frost 100.97 Midland to Frost 100.99 Midland to Frost 101.09 Midland to Frost 101.25 Midland to Frost 101.50 Midland to Frost 101.61 Midland to Frost 101.72 Midland to Frost 101.72 Midland to Frost 101.76 Midland to Frost 101.81 Midland to Frost 102.68 Midland to Frost 103.07 Midland to Frost 103.18 Midland to Frost 103.19 Midland to Frost 103.20 Midland to Frost 103.35 Midland to Frost 103.58 Midland to Frost 103.66 Midland to Frost 103.76 Midland to Frost 103.79 Midland to Frost 103.91 Midland to Frost 103.94 Midland to Frost 103.97 Midland to Frost 103.98 Midland to Frost 104.13 Midland to Frost 104.15 Midland to Frost 104.29 Midland to Frost 104.39 Midland to Frost 104.62 Midland to Frost 105.50 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) X 0.05 283.72 X 0.15 806.66 X 0.25 1344.58 X 0.86 4548.74 Sweetwater Creek X 0.02 117.69 Unnamed X X 0.29 1521.36 Sweetwater Creek X 0.28 1489.40 X 0.15 810.97 X 0.00 18.78 Sweetwater Creek X 0.06 321.85 X 0.07 362.11 Sweetwater Creek X X 1.14 6004.88 Sweetwater Creek X 0.21 1128.34 X 0.47 2463.94 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.20 1057.45 X 0.09 473.07 Sweetwater Creek X 1.28 6746.41 Sweetwater Creek X 0.05 282.68 X 0.27 1410.80 Sweetwater Creek X 0.67 3532.52 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.55 2905.30 X 0.06 301.15 X 0.08 437.70 X 0.88 4653.16 X 0.05 238.71 X 0.65 3424.56 Sweetwater Creek X 0.53 2773.78 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.54 2863.91 X 0.30 1575.14 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 0.36 1879.75 Tributary Bitter Creek X X 0.55 2923.90 Midland to Frost 105.56 X 0.11 554.64 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 105.67 X 0.04 207.96 Midland to Frost 105.71 X 0.23 1200.70 Midland to Frost 105.76 X 0.23 1219.12 Midland to Frost 105.87 X 0.07 373.74 Midland to Frost 105.88 Tributary Bitter Creek X X 0.27 1413.27 Midland to Frost 106.30 X 0.00 19.64 Midland to Frost 106.35 Tributary Bitter Creek X X 0.79 4171.48 Midland to Frost 106.49 X 0.05 241.68 Midland to Frost 106.63 X 0.18 941.19 Midland to Frost 106.66 Bitter Creek X X 0.58 3051.02 Midland to Frost 106.67 Bitter Creek X 0.07 388.48 Midland to Frost 106.77 Bitter Creek X 0.44 2319.15 Midland to Frost 106.87 X 0.12 647.97 Midland to Frost 107.01 Bitter Creek X 0.41 2179.42 Midland to Frost 107.10 X 0.04 193.55 Midland to Frost 107.11 Bitter Creek X 0.37 1974.99 Midland to Frost 107.13 Bitter Creek X 0.13 682.07 Midland to Frost 107.18 X 0.03 151.22 Midland to Frost 107.22 Bitter Creek X 0.09 477.17 Midland to Frost 107.24 X 0.04 215.71 Midland to Frost 107.34 Bitter Creek X 0.23 1219.04 Midland to Frost 107.87 Tributary Plum Creek X X 0.46 2434.45 Midland to Frost 108.05 Plum Creek X X 0.36 1915.30 Midland to Frost 108.06 Plum Creek X 0.02 84.42 Midland to Frost 108.08 Plum Creek X 0.49 2596.12 Midland to Frost 108.17 X 0.51 2668.04 Midland to Frost 108.26 Plum Creek X 0.20 1041.49 Midland to Frost 108.27 Plum Creek X 0.27 1451.91 Midland to Frost 108.29 Plum Creek X 0.02 123.91 Midland to Frost 108.95 Unnamed X X 0.28 1464.79 Midland to Frost 109.00 X 0.26 1363.83 Midland to Frost 109.11 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 0.08 437.67 Tributary Little Stink Midland to Frost 109.17 Creek X X 0.09 468.89 Midland to Frost 109.19 X 0.10 551.17 Midland to Frost 109.24 X 0.22 1164.69 Little Stink Midland to Frost 109.30 Creek X 0.04 233.65 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 109.37 Little Stink Creek X 0.04 229.49 Midland to Frost 109.39 Little Stink Creek X X 0.34 1769.98 Midland to Frost 110.24 Little Stink Creek X 0.18 934.45 Midland to Frost 110.26 Unnamed X X 0.54 2840.60 Midland to Frost 110.30 X 0.07 386.03 Midland to Frost 110.31 X 0.99 5206.39 Midland to Frost 110.32 Little Stink Creek X 0.25 1305.90 Midland to Frost 110.39 X 0.29 1547.54 Midland to Frost 110.45 X 0.17 905.47 Midland to Frost 110.56 X 0.14 751.57 Midland to Frost 110.59 X 0.02 118.18 Midland to Frost 110.62 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 0.68 3615.64 Midland to Frost 110.74 X 0.34 1801.65 Midland to Frost 110.79 X 0.02 131.42 Midland to Frost 110.83 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 0.45 2374.24 Tributary Little Stink Midland to Frost 110.96 Creek X X 0.52 2767.86 Midland to Frost 111.24 X X 0.51 2673.62 Midland to Frost 112.05 Stink Creek X 0.78 4130.49 Midland to Frost 112.25 Stink Creek X 0.34 1814.15 Midland to Frost 112.25 Stink Creek X 0.35 1829.65 Midland to Frost 112.30 Stink Creek X X 0.67 3551.44 Midland to Frost 112.34 Stink Creek X X 0.68 3594.46 Midland to Frost 112.39 X 0.24 1255.38 Midland to Frost 112.56 X 0.53 2784.68 Midland to Frost 113.26 Noodle Creek X X 0.96 5092.96 Midland to Frost 113.37 X 0.07 364.34 Midland to Frost 113.49 X 0.32 1682.69 Midland to Frost 113.70 X 0.30 1567.16 Midland to Frost 113.96 X 0.07 359.52 Midland to Frost 113.97 X 0.73 3868.67 Midland to Frost 114.23 X 0.04 223.87 Tributary Noodle Midland to Frost 114.23 Creek X X 0.54 2849.62 Midland to Frost 114.30 X 0.01 37.79 Midland to Frost 114.33 X 0.22 1145.12 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 114.35 X 0.08 405.92 Midland to Frost 114.48 X 0.45 2373.12 Midland to Frost 114.51 X 0.10 521.29 Midland to Frost 114.57 Tributary Noodle Creek X X 0.56 2943.52 Midland to Frost 114.86 X 0.26 1357.31 Midland to Frost 114.86 X 0.51 2683.26 Midland to Frost 114.86 X 0.15 783.71 Midland to Frost 114.86 X 0.48 2559.32 Midland to Frost 114.87 X 0.06 315.72 Midland to Frost 115.70 Tributary Noodle Creek X X 0.56 2959.10 Midland to Frost 115.74 X 0.11 586.65 Midland to Frost 116.65 X 0.30 1587.03 Midland to Frost 116.81 X 0.07 358.83 Midland to Frost 118.97 X 0.66 3490.58 Midland to Frost 119.49 X 0.27 1433.79 Midland to Frost 119.49 X 0.60 3145.41 Midland to Frost 119.51 X 0.45 2395.12 Midland to Frost 119.89 X 0.10 510.34 Midland to Frost 120.12 X 0.03 137.49 Midland to Frost 120.13 X 0.02 117.31 Midland to Frost 120.14 Little Bitter Creek X 0.03 166.75 Midland to Frost 120.18 Little Bitter Creek X 0.32 1708.98 Little Bitter Midland to Frost 120.27 Creek X 1.33 7019.44 Midland to Frost 120.30 X 0.04 199.55 Little Bitter Midland to Frost 120.48 Creek X 1.20 6354.04 Little Bitter Midland to Frost 120.71 Creek X X 0.91 4779.86 Midland to Frost 121.26 X 0.15 772.51 Midland to Frost 125.14 Mulberry Creek X X 0.97 5129.60 Midland to Frost 125.46 Mulberry Creek X X 0.58 3071.94 Midland to Frost 125.63 Mulberry Creek X X 0.28 1486.82 Midland to Frost 125.66 X 0.12 652.27 Midland to Frost 125.70 X 0.07 393.73 Midland to Frost 125.84 Mulberry Creek X 1.15 6080.42 Mulberry Midland to Frost 125.99 Creek X X 1.32 6966.02 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 126.46 X 0.12 619.49 Midland to Frost 126.83 Mulberry Creek X 1.28 6761.66 Midland to Frost 126.83 Mulberry Creek X 0.38 1990.31 Midland to Frost 127.20 Mulberry Creek X X 0.55 2889.24 Midland to Frost 127.25 X 0.19 997.82 Midland to Frost 127.26 X 0.01 67.64 Midland to Frost 127.27 X 0.14 742.44 Midland to Frost 128.51 Bull Wagon Creek X X 0.55 2891.80 Bull Wagon Midland to Frost 128.55 Creek X 0.15 780.20 Midland to Frost 128.61 Bull Wagon Creek X X 0.29 1522.09 Midland to Frost 128.67 Bull Wagon Creek X X 0.36 1916.86 Midland to Frost 128.74 Bull Wagon Creek X 0.27 1451.70 Midland to Frost 129.15 Unnamed X X 0.58 3065.73 Midland to Frost 130.35 Unnamed X X 0.59 3099.34 Midland to Frost 130.37 X 0.01 48.45 Midland to Frost 130.39 X 0.02 97.33 Midland to Frost 131.73 X 0.63 3321.88 Midland to Frost 131.93 X 0.15 814.05 Midland to Frost 132.07 X 0.20 1046.77 Midland to Frost 132.14 Unnamed X X 0.24 1277.96 Midland to Frost 132.27 X 0.05 248.95 Midland to Frost 132.31 X 0.14 751.41 Midland to Frost 132.43 X 0.27 1402.00 Midland to Frost 133.02 Unnamed X X 1.15 6078.76 Midland to Frost 133.14 X 0.08 412.99 Midland to Frost 133.90 X 0.63 3346.87 Midland to Frost 134.06 Little Elm Creek X 0.00 11.04 Little Elm Midland to Frost 134.14 Creek X X 0.55 2913.69 Midland to Frost 135.13 X 0.09 481.30 Midland to Frost 136.24 X 0.59 3104.15 Midland to Frost 136.45 Unnamed X X 1.02 5362.54 Midland to Frost 136.90 X 0.03 155.68 Midland to Frost 137.13 X X 0.66 3503.02 Midland to Frost 137.29 Elm Creek X X 0.71 3745.59 Midland to Frost 138.06 Cat Claw Creek X 0.43 2289.29 Cat Claw Midland to Frost 138.09 Creek X X 0.29 1535.44 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 139.64 Buttonwillow Creek X 0.01 47.55 Midland to Frost 139.72 Buttonwillow Creek X 0.05 246.99 Midland to Frost 139.79 Buttonwillow Creek X X 0.49 2613.24 Midland to Frost 140.54 Buttonwillow Creek X 0.08 402.78 Buttonwillow Midland to Frost 140.55 Creek X 0.32 1678.69 Midland to Frost 140.89 Cedar Creek X 0.80 4230.07 Midland to Frost 140.92 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 0.38 2005.61 Midland to Frost 140.93 X 0.25 1307.56 Midland to Frost 141.07 Cedar Creek / Kirby Lake X X 0.39 2051.84 Midland to Frost 142.49 X 0.06 335.30 Midland to Frost 142.54 Unnamed X X 0.54 2841.37 Midland to Frost 142.72 X 0.18 927.38 Midland to Frost 142.78 X 0.65 3425.55 Midland to Frost 142.82 X 0.06 326.89 Midland to Frost 143.30 Lytle Creek X 0.08 445.58 Midland to Frost 143.33 Lytle Creek X 0.08 426.16 Midland to Frost 143.40 X 0.20 1034.56 Midland to Frost 143.67 Lytle Creek X 0.73 3848.03 Midland to Frost 143.78 X 0.01 40.76 Midland to Frost 143.92 X 0.21 1122.92 Midland to Frost 144.05 Lytle Creek X 0.22 1178.75 Midland to Frost 144.20 Lytle Creek X 0.24 1266.00 Midland to Frost 144.23 Lytle Creek X 0.25 1329.98 Midland to Frost 144.32 X 0.28 1501.14 Midland to Frost 144.34 Lytle Creek X 0.06 293.02 Midland to Frost 144.36 X 0.06 331.20 Midland to Frost 144.59 Unnamed X X 0.92 4844.87 Midland to Frost 144.91 Unnamed X X 0.65 3416.82 Midland to Frost 144.98 X 0.28 1462.59 Midland to Frost 145.36 X 0.03 138.83 Midland to Frost 147.47 X 0.05 253.03 Midland to Frost 147.57 X 0.19 1020.22 Midland to Frost 147.89 X 0.48 2543.67 Midland to Frost 148.14 X 0.18 938.24 Midland to Frost 148.22 Rainy Creek X X 1.36 7166.77 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 149.14 Midland to Frost 149.15 Midland to Frost 149.26 Midland to Frost 150.80 Midland to Frost 150.84 Midland to Frost 150.84 Midland to Frost 150.95 Midland to Frost 151.77 Midland to Frost 151.79 Midland to Frost 151.80 Midland to Frost 151.81 Midland to Frost 152.04 Midland to Frost 152.79 Midland to Frost 152.99 Midland to Frost 152.99 Midland to Frost 153.03 Midland to Frost 153.04 Midland to Frost 153.05 Midland to Frost 153.10 Midland to Frost 153.95 Midland to Frost 154.15 Midland to Frost 154.32 Midland to Frost 154.41 Midland to Frost 154.44 Midland to Frost 155.24 Midland to Frost 155.29 Midland to Frost 155.30 Midland to Frost 155.30 Midland to Frost 155.34 Midland to Frost 155.63 Midland to Frost 155.72 Midland to Frost 155.76 Midland to Frost 155.86 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Tributary Rainy Creek X X 0.05 261.92 X 0.14 744.32 X 0.32 1712.34 X 0.05 282.42 X 0.01 45.32 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0.02 100.18 North Prong Pecan Bayou X X 0.67 3560.07 North Prong Pecan Bayou X X 0.38 2012.05 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0.03 144.71 X 0.06 312.77 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0.03 135.61 X 0.15 781.46 X 0.35 1840.71 X 0.11 560.62 Unnamed X X 0.14 731.10 X 0.05 257.11 Unnamed X X 0.20 1080.17 X 0.09 481.68 X 0.50 2629.47 X 0.20 1038.71 X 0.17 904.00 X 0.31 1636.45 Unnamed X X 0.86 4514.68 X 0.23 1204.10 Unnamed X X 0.15 810.45 X 0.03 139.49 Unnamed X City of Clyde X 0.00 7.43 X 0.22 1164.44 X 0.35 1852.63 X 0.37 1973.48 X 0.39 2053.37 Unnamed X X 0.27 1430.89 Midland to Frost 155.99 Unnamed X X 0.50 2625.61 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 156.35 X 0.06 306.64 Midland to Frost 156.77 X 0.08 424.00 Midland to Frost 157.06 X 0.35 1828.68 Midland to Frost 157.26 Kaiser Creek X 0.16 848.97 Midland to Frost 157.29 Kaiser Creek X X 0.36 1917.19 Midland to Frost 157.57 Kaiser Creek X 0.55 2900.47 Tributary Kaiser Midland to Frost 157.62 Creek X X 0.52 2742.24 Midland to Frost 157.64 X 0.05 268.03 Midland to Frost 157.65 X 0.06 327.34 Midland to Frost 157.65 Kaiser Creek X 0.04 236.04 Midland to Frost 157.69 Kaiser Creek X 0.14 759.78 Midland to Frost 157.85 X 0.03 147.00 Midland to Frost 157.99 X 0.46 2440.55 Midland to Frost 158.13 X 0.07 386.87 Midland to Frost 158.81 Tributary Club Hollow X X 0.25 1317.89 Midland to Frost 158.81 X 0.17 888.29 Midland to Frost 158.85 X 0.02 114.33 Midland to Frost 158.87 X 0.01 78.94 Midland to Frost 158.89 X 0.37 1929.63 Midland to Frost 158.94 X 0.17 894.63 Midland to Frost 158.94 X 0.29 1539.97 Midland to Frost 159.22 X 0.05 250.40 Midland to Frost 159.26 X 0.02 84.57 Midland to Frost 159.47 X 0.41 2158.27 Midland to Frost 160.14 Tributary Club Hollow X X 0.44 2318.78 Midland to Frost 160.31 X 0.33 1754.18 Midland to Frost 161.02 X 0.34 1808.67 Midland to Frost 161.12 X X 0.57 3010.48 Midland to Frost 161.25 Mexia Creek X 0.18 944.15 Midland to Frost 161.26 Mexia Creek X 0.36 1887.48 Midland to Frost 161.27 X 0.03 164.65 Midland to Frost 161.29 Mexia Creek X 0.04 219.24 Midland to Frost 161.29 X 0.07 371.31 Midland to Frost 161.30 X 0.17 884.94 Mexia Midland to Frost 161.31 Creek X 0.21 1102.49 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 161.32 Mexia Creek X X 0.49 2597.53 Midland to Frost 161.32 Mexia Creek X 0.07 350.68 Midland to Frost 161.34 Mexia Creek X 0.08 428.85 Midland to Frost 161.34 Mexia Creek X 0.14 754.45 Midland to Frost 161.35 X 0.00 19.78 Mexia Midland to Frost 161.36 Creek X 0.24 1255.45 Midland to Frost 161.41 X 0.15 789.18 Midland to Frost 161.46 Tributary Mexia Creek X X 0.53 2773.98 Midland to Frost 161.50 Tributary Mexia Creek X City of Baird Tributary Mexia Midland to Frost 161.51 Creek X X 0.41 2161.10 Midland to Frost 162.06 X 0.31 1638.14 Midland to Frost 162.08 Tributary Mexia Creek X X 0.50 2618.49 Midland to Frost 162.15 X 0.13 675.42 Midland to Frost 162.16 X 0.12 616.32 Midland to Frost 162.25 X 0.01 63.12 Tributary Mexia Midland to Frost 162.54 Creek X X 0.70 3700.85 Midland to Frost 163.01 X 0.10 529.29 Midland to Frost 163.05 X 0.00 16.16 Midland to Frost 163.26 X 0.52 2768.11 Midland to Frost 163.99 Unnamed X X 0.19 993.27 Midland to Frost 164.01 X 0.45 2368.54 Midland to Frost 164.18 X 0.01 38.62 Midland to Frost 164.23 X 0.16 854.49 Midland to Frost 164.52 X 0.27 1418.14 Midland to Frost 164.96 X 0.75 3959.34 Midland to Frost 165.16 Unnamed X X 0.84 4419.34 Midland to Frost 165.18 X 0.05 238.77 Midland to Frost 165.58 X 0.34 1785.38 Midland to Frost 165.82 X 0.48 2550.05 Midland to Frost 165.88 X 0.41 2165.56 Midland to Frost 166.05 X 0.03 151.01 Midland to Frost 166.05 X 0.00 13.95 Midland to Frost 166.10 X 0.13 697.53 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 166.13 X 0.39 2036.93 Midland to Frost 166.22 X 0.63 3327.53 Midland to Frost 166.24 X 0.20 1047.85 Midland to Frost 166.25 X 0.02 93.29 Midland to Frost 166.25 X 0.07 364.50 Midland to Frost 166.34 X 0.17 922.09 Midland to Frost 166.40 X 0.04 185.16 Midland to Frost 166.69 Unnamed X X 0.43 2273.65 Midland to Frost 166.76 Unnamed X X 0.39 2062.44 Midland to Frost 166.81 X 0.67 3550.23 Midland to Frost 166.90 X 0.45 2352.22 Midland to Frost 166.92 X 0.41 2144.21 Midland to Frost 166.94 X 0.18 930.87 Midland to Frost 167.06 X 0.70 3691.72 Midland to Frost 167.15 Unnamed X X 1.22 6463.17 Midland to Frost 167.28 X 0.06 293.99 Midland to Frost 167.36 X 0.24 1285.43 Midland to Frost 167.43 X 0.02 97.06 Midland to Frost 167.47 X 0.11 555.54 Midland to Frost 167.53 X 0.04 197.69 Midland to Frost 167.60 X 0.93 4887.95 Midland to Frost 167.62 X 0.10 543.22 Midland to Frost 167.71 X 0.02 80.73 Midland to Frost 168.00 Unnamed X X 0.72 3801.69 Midland to Frost 168.18 X 0.06 329.07 Midland to Frost 168.40 X 0.03 162.23 Midland to Frost 168.43 X 0.10 524.30 Midland to Frost 168.44 X 0.05 285.27 Midland to Frost 168.83 Unnamed X X 1.29 6816.67 Midland to Frost 168.93 X 0.08 404.93 Midland to Frost 169.05 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0.41 2176.25 Midland to Frost 169.10 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0.17 923.75 Midland to Frost 169.12 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0.19 988.50 Midland to Frost 169.23 X 0.31 1625.44 Midland to Frost 169.46 X 1.09 5743.83 Midland to Frost 169.74 Unnamed X X 0.12 628.60 Midland to Frost 169.77 Unnamed X X 0.23 1202.11 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 169.86 X 0.07 355.94 Midland to Frost 169.99 X 0.25 1323.77 Midland to Frost 170.09 X 0.07 378.71 Midland to Frost 170.21 X 0.30 1560.06 Midland to Frost 170.46 X 0.19 977.48 Midland to Frost 170.49 X 0.01 28.01 Midland to Frost 171.10 Brushy Creek X 0.70 3711.37 Midland to Frost 171.12 X 0.35 1832.69 Midland to Frost 171.18 X 0.31 1634.84 Midland to Frost 171.27 Brushy Creek X 0.58 3055.92 Midland to Frost 171.31 Brushy Creek X 0.09 472.29 Brushy Midland to Frost 171.41 Creek X 0.19 1023.59 Midland to Frost 171.42 Brushy Creek X X 0.39 2071.71 Midland to Frost 171.46 X 0.14 734.57 Midland to Frost 171.65 Tributary Brushy Creek X X 0.34 1817.78 Midland to Frost 172.24 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0.65 3448.13 Midland to Frost 172.40 X 0.13 681.81 Midland to Frost 172.40 X 0.03 177.13 Midland to Frost 172.41 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0.08 446.66 Midland to Frost 172.61 X 0.33 1763.39 Midland to Frost 172.68 X 0.17 872.39 Midland to Frost 172.69 East Fork Brushy Creek X X 0.82 4308.51 East Fork Brushy Midland to Frost 172.70 Creek X 0.02 92.57 Midland to Frost 172.80 X X 0.19 1024.63 Midland to Frost 172.86 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0.42 2231.45 Midland to Frost 172.95 East Fork Brushy Creek X X 0.27 1439.23 Midland to Frost 173.94 East Fork Brushy Creek X X 0.46 2435.70 Midland to Frost 174.05 X 0.14 763.19 Midland to Frost 174.07 X 0.00 16.15 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 174.09 Midland to Frost 174.10 Midland to Frost 174.13 Midland to Frost 174.13 Midland to Frost 174.14 Midland to Frost 174.16 Midland to Frost 174.22 Midland to Frost 174.34 Midland to Frost 174.41 Midland to Frost 174.52 Midland to Frost 174.70 Midland to Frost 174.72 Midland to Frost 175.17 Midland to Frost 175.36 Midland to Frost 177.81 Midland to Frost 177.93 Midland to Frost 178.12 Midland to Frost 178.43 Midland to Frost 179.22 Midland to Frost 179.33 Midland to Frost 179.37 Midland to Frost 179.41 Midland to Frost 179.73 Midland to Frost 179.90 Midland to Frost 179.98 Midland to Frost 179.98 Midland to Frost 180.17 Midland to Frost 180.84 Midland to Frost 181.04 Midland to Frost 181.25 Midland to Frost 181.51 Midland to Frost 181.76 Midland to Frost 181.78 Midland to Frost 181.83 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) X 0.12 656.06 Battle Creek X 0.14 740.91 X 0.21 1110.49 Battle Creek X 0.33 1727.89 Battle Creek X 0.24 1248.88 Tributary Battle Creek X X 0.55 2887.04 X 0.26 1351.23 Battle Creek X X 0.50 2618.90 Battle Creek X 0.09 454.27 X 0.32 1666.10 X 0.01 55.31 X 0.02 130.36 X 0.57 3019.52 X 0.15 781.63 X 0.24 1279.30 X X 0.10 515.60 X 0.28 1504.31 South Fork Leon River X X 0.68 3590.19 South Fork Leon River X 0.45 2381.22 Tributary South Fork Leon River X X 0.49 2570.98 X 0.06 294.65 X 0.03 149.44 South Fork Leon River X 0.71 3739.92 X 0.09 481.52 X 0.04 191.53 South Fork Leon River X 0.30 1599.68 South Fork Leon River X 0.22 1144.69 X 0.08 416.72 Tributary South Fork Leon River X X 0.37 1932.80 X 0.02 98.21 X 0.81 4292.51 Tributary South Fork Leon River X X 0.39 2062.99 X 0.02 95.76 X 0.29 1509.31 Midland to Frost 181.83 X 0.42 2228.57 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 181.85 X 0.06 308.26 Midland to Frost 181.90 X 0.43 2290.77 Midland to Frost 182.65 X 0.03 151.88 Midland to Frost 182.65 X 0.04 213.09 Midland to Frost 182.68 X 0.12 608.95 Midland to Frost 184.67 X 0.22 1140.06 Midland to Frost 184.82 X 0.18 963.17 Midland to Frost 185.02 X 0.61 3228.37 Midland to Frost 185.04 Dead Horse Creek X 0.16 836.23 Midland to Frost 185.21 Dead Horse Creek X 0.02 96.46 Midland to Frost 185.52 X 0.40 2101.69 Long Midland to Frost 186.13 Branch X 0.11 584.48 Long Midland to Frost 186.24 Branch X 0.07 371.32 Midland to Frost 186.72 X 0.34 1778.43 Midland to Frost 187.01 Tributary Long Branch X X 0.20 1059.65 Midland to Frost 187.02 X 0.01 31.59 Midland to Frost 187.20 X 0.27 1421.37 Midland to Frost 187.23 Long Branch X 0.06 308.85 Midland to Frost 187.25 X 0.04 227.97 Midland to Frost 187.29 Long Branch X 0.21 1089.89 Tributary Long Midland to Frost 187.34 Branch X X 0.09 489.54 Midland to Frost 187.43 X 0.21 1112.57 Midland to Frost 187.47 X 0.06 329.80 Midland to Frost 187.61 X 0.41 2180.27 Midland to Frost 187.63 Long Branch X 0.23 1200.49 Midland to Frost 187.71 X 0.09 471.58 Midland to Frost 187.73 Long Branch X 0.05 286.32 Midland to Frost 187.79 Long Branch X 0.24 1271.81 Midland to Frost 187.87 X 0.43 2280.09 Midland to Frost 188.11 X 0.22 1139.74 Midland to Frost 188.29 X 0.25 1336.99 Tributary Long Midland to Frost 188.35 Branch X X 0.17 923.97 Midland to Frost 188.39 X 0.24 1279.29 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 188.76 X 0.30 1566.14 Midland to Frost 188.87 X 0.01 78.98 Midland to Frost 189.11 X 0.01 28.84 Midland to Frost 189.15 X 0.75 3951.58 Midland to Frost 189.22 Tributary Long Branch X X 0.27 1433.07 Midland to Frost 189.41 X 0.74 3888.25 Midland to Frost 189.50 X 0.17 919.78 Midland to Frost 189.59 X 0.03 164.98 Midland to Frost 189.62 X 0.60 3190.44 Midland to Frost 189.66 X 0.34 1788.61 Midland to Frost 189.72 Tributary Long Branch X 0.11 563.11 Midland to Frost 189.79 X 0.76 4031.50 Midland to Frost 189.79 Tributary Long Branch X 0.06 338.68 Tributary Long Midland to Frost 190.85 Branch X X 0.39 2079.49 Midland to Frost 191.70 X 0.12 632.41 Midland to Frost 191.97 X 0.26 1366.45 Midland to Frost 192.05 Greer Creek X 0.13 672.20 Midland to Frost 192.17 Greer Creek X X 0.99 5206.77 Midland to Frost 192.61 X 0.02 117.33 Midland to Frost 192.65 Tributary Greer Creek X X 0.48 2515.27 Midland to Frost 192.68 X 0.16 844.53 Midland to Frost 192.83 Greer Creek X 0.34 1787.18 Midland to Frost 192.98 X 0.52 2721.97 Midland to Frost 193.02 Greer Creek X 0.56 2932.46 Midland to Frost 193.31 Tributary Greer Creek X X 0.21 1084.73 Midland to Frost 193.36 X 0.01 46.74 Midland to Frost 193.48 Greer Creek X 0.23 1194.94 Midland to Frost 193.61 X 0.31 1657.89 Midland to Frost 193.83 X X 0.67 3557.41 Midland to Frost 193.84 X 0.15 775.34 Midland to Frost 193.94 X 0.26 1348.50 Midland to Frost 194.30 X X 0.92 4842.91 Midland to Frost 195.28 X 0.92 4876.54 Midland to Frost 195.40 X 0.56 2974.28 Midland to Frost 195.57 X 0.29 1544.26 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 195.65 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.07 392.84 Midland to Frost 195.67 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.01 37.37 Midland to Frost 195.69 X 0.14 738.67 Midland to Frost 195.75 X 0.56 2979.46 Midland to Frost 195.79 X X 0.35 1843.55 Midland to Frost 195.92 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.41 2189.16 Midland to Frost 196.09 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.05 281.75 Midland to Frost 196.09 X 0.00 1.69 Midland to Frost 196.14 X 0.13 677.60 Hunting Midland to Frost 196.15 Shirt Creek X X 0.47 2464.67 Midland to Frost 196.16 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.36 1876.39 Midland to Frost 196.22 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.04 211.16 Midland to Frost 196.29 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.55 2914.51 Midland to Frost 196.31 X X 0.40 2104.40 Midland to Frost 196.32 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0.36 1910.32 Midland to Frost 196.34 X 0.08 406.57 Midland to Frost 196.44 X 0.18 939.05 Midland to Frost 196.93 Unnamed X X 0.52 2758.16 Midland to Frost 198.11 X 0.12 633.44 Midland to Frost 198.12 X 0.40 2134.46 Midland to Frost 198.34 X 0.07 381.18 Midland to Frost 198.42 X 0.25 1317.47 Midland to Frost 198.47 Unnamed X X 0.48 2537.24 Midland to Frost 198.50 X 0.08 427.94 Midland to Frost 198.56 X 0.06 330.93 Midland to Frost 198.73 X 0.02 89.39 Midland to Frost 198.79 X 0.14 752.86 Currycomb Midland to Frost 199.00 Branch X 0.03 154.02 Midland to Frost 199.01 X 0.02 119.96 Currycomb Midland to Frost 199.01 Branch X 0.01 74.66 Midland to Frost 199.04 X 0.08 405.28 Midland to Frost 199.09 X 0.38 2007.42 Midland to Frost 199.11 Currycomb Branch X X 0.64 3369.87 Midland to Frost 199.37 Currycomb Branch X 0.26 1398.83 Midland to Frost 199.56 X 0.42 2229.93 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 199.59 Currycomb Branch X 0.49 2571.57 Midland to Frost 199.76 X 0.08 404.21 Midland to Frost 199.85 X 0.31 1648.53 Midland to Frost 199.87 Currycomb Branch X 0.14 729.06 Midland to Frost 199.90 X 0.12 613.31 Midland to Frost 200.02 Currycomb Branch X 0.14 729.31 Midland to Frost 200.09 X 0.01 79.12 Midland to Frost 200.11 Currycomb Branch X 0.12 652.46 Midland to Frost 200.32 X 0.06 304.64 Currycomb Midland to Frost 200.34 Branch X 0.31 1662.34 Currycomb Midland to Frost 200.34 Branch X 0.35 1834.56 Midland to Frost 200.45 X 0.15 773.53 Midland to Frost 200.64 X 0.19 1013.16 Midland to Frost 200.77 X 0.12 616.96 Midland to Frost 200.89 X 0.28 1487.98 Midland to Frost 201.01 X 0.04 218.31 Midland to Frost 201.02 X 0.09 471.90 Midland to Frost 201.03 Unnamed X X 0.41 2159.56 Midland to Frost 201.05 X 0.05 281.73 Midland to Frost 201.22 X 0.02 107.00 Midland to Frost 201.38 X 0.47 2496.52 Midland to Frost 201.80 X 0.11 595.89 Midland to Frost 201.80 X 1.02 5410.75 Midland to Frost 201.89 X 0.54 2852.48 Midland to Frost 202.06 Unnamed X X 0.52 2746.48 Midland to Frost 202.24 X 0.65 3444.88 Midland to Frost 202.31 X 0.53 2820.99 Midland to Frost 202.44 X 0.32 1698.54 Midland to Frost 202.46 X 1.06 5603.81 Midland to Frost 202.51 X 0.10 551.02 Midland to Frost 202.62 X 0.25 1306.43 Midland to Frost 202.76 X 0.39 2063.70 Midland to Frost 202.77 X 0.21 1112.27 Midland to Frost 202.79 X 0.18 971.16 Shinoak Midland to Frost 202.88 Branch X 0.41 2147.41 Midland to Frost 202.88 X 0.60 3185.15 Shinoak Midland to Frost 202.88 Branch X 0.24 1280.72 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 202.93 Shinoak Branch X 0.24 1292.71 Midland to Frost 203.05 Shinoak Branch X 0.61 3234.42 Midland to Frost 203.29 X 0.18 956.73 Midland to Frost 203.29 X 0.02 89.83 Midland to Frost 203.30 Shinoak Branch X 0.03 161.03 Midland to Frost 203.31 Shinoak Branch X 0.00 14.49 Shinoak Midland to Frost 203.31 Branch X 0.48 2531.26 Midland to Frost 203.32 X 0.03 157.68 Shinoak Midland to Frost 203.32 Branch X 0.24 1284.37 Midland to Frost 203.33 Shinoak Branch X X 0.31 1649.83 Midland to Frost 203.65 Tributary Shinoak Branch X X 0.77 4082.40 Midland to Frost 204.43 Unnamed X X 0.28 1455.02 Midland to Frost 204.50 X 0.55 2891.66 Midland to Frost 204.76 X 0.68 3567.26 Midland to Frost 204.81 X 0.43 2293.18 Midland to Frost 204.87 X 0.05 250.92 Midland to Frost 204.89 X 0.07 365.55 Midland to Frost 204.89 X 0.25 1313.37 Midland to Frost 204.93 X 0.12 628.17 Midland to Frost 204.94 X 0.45 2365.13 Midland to Frost 205.16 Unnamed X X 0.72 3805.52 Midland to Frost 205.21 X 0.05 244.83 Midland to Frost 205.58 X 0.27 1438.97 Midland to Frost 205.78 X 0.20 1037.48 Midland to Frost 205.82 Unnamed X X 0.33 1754.40 Midland to Frost 205.86 X 0.24 1242.71 Midland to Frost 205.94 X 0.17 876.26 Midland to Frost 206.10 X 0.13 690.38 Midland to Frost 206.24 X 0.19 1024.09 Midland to Frost 206.34 Unnamed X X 0.27 1431.41 Midland to Frost 206.50 X 0.45 2379.66 Midland to Frost 206.51 X 0.74 3920.28 Midland to Frost 206.75 X 0.71 3733.16 Midland to Frost 206.80 X 0.68 3601.82 Midland to Frost 206.98 X 0.13 677.44 Midland to Frost 207.10 X 0.19 996.56 Midland to Frost 207.18 X 0.04 190.08 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 207.18 X 0.03 174.69 Midland to Frost 207.26 X 0.36 1918.22 Midland to Frost 207.62 Unnamed X X 0.52 2735.07 Midland to Frost 207.97 X 0.20 1042.79 Midland to Frost 208.15 Unnamed X X 0.27 1446.15 Midland to Frost 208.25 X 0.10 553.86 Midland to Frost 208.59 X 0.72 3790.84 Midland to Frost 208.88 Unnamed X X 0.35 1863.40 Midland to Frost 208.92 X 0.02 94.15 Midland to Frost 208.99 X 0.12 643.00 Midland to Frost 209.05 X 0.25 1295.60 Midland to Frost 209.09 X 0.15 810.80 Midland to Frost 209.20 Unnamed X X 0.28 1503.10 Midland to Frost 209.20 X 0.13 662.45 Midland to Frost 209.95 X 1.76 9278.08 Midland to Frost 211.31 X 0.19 1013.59 Midland to Frost 211.44 Unnamed X X 0.52 2768.02 Midland to Frost 211.61 Unnamed X X 0.18 949.81 Midland to Frost 211.66 X 0.04 199.46 Midland to Frost 211.68 Leon River X 0.02 106.28 Midland to Frost 211.70 X 0.25 1320.64 Midland to Frost 211.72 Leon River X 0.18 925.30 Midland to Frost 211.92 X 0.37 1962.83 Midland to Frost 211.92 Leon River X 0.40 2122.96 Midland to Frost 212.18 X 0.05 240.87 Midland to Frost 212.23 Leon River X X 0.31 1621.34 Midland to Frost 212.24 Leon River X X 0.27 1403.23 Midland to Frost 212.28 X 0.08 417.43 Midland to Frost 212.37 Leon River X 0.47 2486.20 Midland to Frost 212.47 X 0.44 2311.67 Midland to Frost 212.58 X 0.61 3244.93 Midland to Frost 212.60 Leon River X 0.23 1226.66 Midland to Frost 212.73 Leon River X 0.10 515.33 Midland to Frost 212.85 Leon River X 0.18 958.58 Midland to Frost 212.86 X 0.18 952.93 Midland to Frost 212.99 X 0.00 16.84 Midland to Frost 212.99 Leon River X 0.13 691.44 Midland to Frost 212.99 X 0.00 22.82 Midland to Frost 213.00 X 0.02 101.92 Midland to Frost 213.05 Leon River X 0.15 766.87 Midland to Frost 213.16 X 0.04 232.68 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 213.21 Tributary Leon River X X 0.42 2241.34 Midland to Frost 213.32 X 0.03 184.78 Midland to Frost 213.76 Flat Creek X 0.27 1442.00 Midland to Frost 213.81 Flat Creek X X 0.40 2092.04 Midland to Frost 213.87 Tributary Flat Creek X X 0.43 2283.58 Midland to Frost 214.08 X 0.20 1045.05 Midland to Frost 214.35 X 0.47 2498.90 Midland to Frost 214.64 X 0.03 184.52 Midland to Frost 214.67 Tributary Flat Creek X X 0.26 1368.74 Midland to Frost 214.68 X 0.14 743.30 Midland to Frost 215.53 X 0.13 676.00 Midland to Frost 215.70 Tributary Leon River X X 1.02 5400.38 Midland to Frost 216.97 Tributary Armstrong Creek X X 0.46 2419.17 Midland to Frost 217.33 X 0.04 224.55 Midland to Frost 217.39 Armstrong Creek X 0.07 385.80 Midland to Frost 217.42 X 0.03 178.52 Midland to Frost 217.50 Armstrong Creek X X 1.25 6582.43 Midland to Frost 218.17 Sand Branch X 0.33 1754.56 Midland to Frost 218.30 X 0.02 114.00 Sand Midland to Frost 218.30 Branch X 0.04 186.14 Sand Midland to Frost 218.43 Branch X X 0.86 4532.06 Sand Midland to Frost 218.45 Branch X 0.09 496.88 Midland to Frost 218.46 X 0.08 417.21 Midland to Frost 218.53 X 0.12 609.99 Midland to Frost 218.60 X 0.22 1171.98 Midland to Frost 218.79 X 0.03 168.41 Midland to Frost 218.94 X 0.19 990.24 Midland to Frost 219.01 X 0.17 917.17 Midland to Frost 219.04 Unnamed X X 0.33 1736.58 Midland to Frost 219.05 X 0.19 1021.59 Midland to Frost 219.05 Unnamed X X 0.28 1495.88 Midland to Frost 219.39 X 0.24 1285.06 Midland to Frost 219.41 Unnamed X X 0.50 2631.96 Midland to Frost 219.91 Unnamed X X 0.75 3959.22 Midland to Frost 220.03 X 0.04 232.16 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 220.07 X 0.07 372.96 Midland to Frost 220.54 X 0.09 466.70 Midland to Frost 220.80 X 0.33 1739.47 Midland to Frost 221.07 Cow Creek X 0.24 1275.62 Midland to Frost 221.12 Cow Creek X X 0.34 1806.56 Midland to Frost 221.13 Cow Creek X 0.50 2636.55 Midland to Frost 221.23 Cow Creek X X 0.37 1972.39 Midland to Frost 221.58 X 0.41 2152.59 Midland to Frost 222.09 Unnamed X X 0.45 2389.04 Midland to Frost 222.12 X 0.01 74.83 Midland to Frost 222.14 X 0.02 97.89 Midland to Frost 222.16 X 0.12 607.85 Midland to Frost 222.24 Unnamed X X 0.31 1634.76 Midland to Frost 222.25 X 0.22 1183.17 Midland to Frost 222.90 Cat Branch X 0.03 141.73 Midland to Frost 222.92 Cat Branch X X 0.15 805.37 Midland to Frost 223.14 Cat Branch X 0.12 625.53 Midland to Frost 224.69 X 0.16 847.02 Buck Midland to Frost 225.38 Branch X 0.22 1162.83 Midland to Frost 225.42 Cat Branch X X 0.38 2005.56 Midland to Frost 225.50 X 0.04 225.34 Midland to Frost 225.52 Cat Branch X 0.05 240.82 Buck Midland to Frost 225.59 Branch X 0.21 1120.97 Midland to Frost 225.61 Cat Branch X 0.15 786.92 Midland to Frost 225.62 X 0.16 844.34 Midland to Frost 225.67 Buck Branch X 0.05 239.00 Midland to Frost 225.95 Buck Branch X 0.67 3541.07 Midland to Frost 226.12 X 0.09 497.87 Midland to Frost 226.25 Buck Branch X 0.19 983.89 Midland to Frost 226.30 X 0.08 448.16 Midland to Frost 226.58 Buck Branch X 0.35 1833.11 Midland to Frost 226.81 X X 0.22 1170.42 Midland to Frost 227.06 Buck Branch X 0.38 2011.50 Midland to Frost 227.50 X 0.23 1238.13 Midland to Frost 227.63 X 0.03 178.79 Green Midland to Frost 227.78 Creek X 0.10 511.61 Tributary Midland to Frost 227.94 Green X X 0.43 2261.49 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 227.99 Green Creek X X 0.28 1464.25 Midland to Frost 228.00 X 0.12 646.58 Midland to Frost 228.02 Green Creek X 0.07 344.68 Midland to Frost 228.04 Green Creek X 0.01 49.35 Midland to Frost 228.06 Green Creek X 0.03 155.88 Green Midland to Frost 228.09 Creek X 0.08 406.95 Midland to Frost 228.35 Green Creek X 0.23 1238.49 Midland to Frost 228.39 Tributary Green Creek X X 0.25 1342.45 Midland to Frost 228.40 X 0.01 68.40 Midland to Frost 228.46 X 0.14 722.13 Midland to Frost 228.62 Green Creek X 0.41 2158.42 Midland to Frost 228.76 X 0.33 1766.40 Tributary Green Midland to Frost 228.82 Creek X X 0.37 1964.47 Midland to Frost 228.85 Green Creek X 0.43 2248.55 Midland to Frost 228.91 X 0.04 223.61 Midland to Frost 229.00 X 0.23 1215.53 Midland to Frost 229.10 Green Creek X 0.01 39.71 Midland to Frost 229.58 X 0.12 626.30 Midland to Frost 229.64 X 0.13 711.16 Midland to Frost 229.64 Tributary Green Creek X X 0.21 1099.39 Midland to Frost 229.67 X 0.39 2073.99 Midland to Frost 229.80 X 0.14 714.62 Midland to Frost 229.87 X 0.31 1621.36 Tributary Green Midland to Frost 230.51 Creek X X 0.69 3617.34 Midland to Frost 230.51 X 0.59 3092.25 Midland to Frost 230.66 X 0.46 2403.20 Midland to Frost 232.06 Live Oak Creek X 0.15 810.34 Midland to Frost 232.16 X X 1.45 7678.23 Midland to Frost 233.04 X 0.00 23.06 Midland to Frost 233.09 X 0.07 385.19 Midland to Frost 233.35 X 0.81 4258.85 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 233.64 X 0.08 404.38 Midland to Frost 233.78 X 0.26 1379.76 Midland to Frost 234.01 X 0.04 223.56 Midland to Frost 234.22 Tributary Live Oak Creek X X 0.49 2588.45 Midland to Frost 234.29 X 0.08 433.19 Midland to Frost 234.43 X 0.40 2136.31 Live Oak Midland to Frost 234.51 Creek X X 0.38 2021.18 Midland to Frost 234.62 X 0.04 207.55 Midland to Frost 234.62 Live Oak Creek X 0.14 746.44 Midland to Frost 234.78 Live Oak Creek X 0.42 2195.44 Midland to Frost 234.96 X 0.14 721.09 Midland to Frost 235.08 Live Oak Creek X 0.19 995.39 Midland to Frost 235.32 Alarm Creek X X 0.77 4039.90 Midland to Frost 235.36 North Bosque River X 0.35 1862.33 Midland to Frost 235.40 Live Oak Creek X 0.39 2033.10 Midland to Frost 235.42 Sims Creek X 0.33 1742.27 Midland to Frost 235.58 North Bosque River X 0.14 740.61 Midland to Frost 235.70 North Bosque River X 0.78 4101.24 Midland to Frost 235.71 Alarm Creek X 0.23 1197.19 Midland to Frost 235.81 North Bosque River X 0.26 1348.99 Midland to Frost 235.95 North Bosque River X 0.37 1965.15 Midland to Frost 235.95 X 0.04 221.44 Tributary North Bosque Midland to Frost 235.98 River X X 0.65 3418.79 Midland to Frost 236.01 X 0.15 811.52 Midland to Frost 236.06 X 0.01 39.68 Midland to Frost 236.26 Tributary North Bosque River X X 0.39 2037.50 Midland to Frost 236.38 X 0.04 205.81 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Tributary North Bosque Midland to Frost 236.59 River X X 0.41 2164.62 Midland to Frost 236.66 X 0.39 2054.29 Midland to Frost 236.70 X 0.01 65.25 Midland to Frost 236.70 Tributary North Bosque River X X 0.26 1390.27 Midland to Frost 236.74 X 0.37 1977.86 Midland to Frost 236.78 X 0.21 1095.06 Midland to Frost 237.25 Tributary North Bosque River X X 0.94 4958.63 Midland to Frost 237.97 Tributary North Bosque River X X 0.28 1502.10 Midland to Frost 238.19 Tributary North Bosque River X X 0.38 1984.50 Midland to Frost 238.38 X 0.48 2548.12 Midland to Frost 238.50 X 0.24 1258.43 Midland to Frost 238.52 X 0.15 814.81 Midland to Frost 238.55 X 0.24 1241.47 Midland to Frost 238.58 X 0.26 1379.61 Midland to Frost 238.58 Unnamed X X 0.41 2182.44 Midland to Frost 238.65 X 0.07 369.37 Midland to Frost 238.73 X 0.28 1460.63 Midland to Frost 239.03 Round Hole Branch X X 0.81 4266.03 Midland to Frost 239.33 Round Hole Branch X 0.62 3279.09 Midland to Frost 239.37 Tributary Round Hole Branch X X 0.55 2914.05 Midland to Frost 239.49 Round Hole Branch X 0.00 5.27 Midland to Frost 239.59 X 0.42 2235.24 Midland to Frost 239.64 X 0.07 389.74 Midland to Frost 239.65 X 0.45 2366.00 Midland to Frost 239.66 X 0.05 277.10 Midland to Frost 239.66 X 0.34 1818.39 Tributary Round Hole Midland to Frost 239.67 Branch X X 0.10 553.15 Midland to Frost 239.69 X 0.25 1298.64 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 239.73 Tributary Round Hole Branch X X 0.45 2391.38 Midland to Frost 240.08 X 0.69 3624.36 Midland to Frost 240.28 X 0.05 274.90 Tributary Round Hole Midland to Frost 240.29 Branch X X 0.37 1944.33 Midland to Frost 240.97 X 0.24 1287.42 Midland to Frost 241.27 Turkey Branch X X 0.32 1679.09 Midland to Frost 241.70 X 0.71 3764.09 Midland to Frost 241.91 X 0.05 237.68 Midland to Frost 242.12 X 0.71 3730.26 Midland to Frost 242.34 Little Duffau Creek X 0.29 1510.29 Midland to Frost 242.43 Tributary Little Duffau Creek X X 0.04 210.63 Little Duffau Midland to Frost 242.45 Creek X X 0.23 1190.45 Midland to Frost 242.76 Little Duffau Creek X 1.14 6016.35 Midland to Frost 242.94 Little Duffau Creek X 0.13 670.34 Midland to Frost 243.01 Little Duffau Creek X 0.06 326.50 Midland to Frost 243.63 X 0.79 4166.46 Midland to Frost 244.03 Duffau Creek X 0.17 907.94 Midland to Frost 244.07 Duffau Creek X X 0.32 1712.95 Midland to Frost 244.18 X X 0.53 2814.26 Midland to Frost 244.22 Duffau Creek X 0.54 2863.39 Midland to Frost 244.33 Duffau Creek X 0.26 1349.14 Midland to Frost 244.39 X 0.05 243.15 Midland to Frost 244.42 X 0.27 1424.79 Duffau Midland to Frost 244.45 Creek X 0.26 1364.74 Midland to Frost 244.53 X 0.51 2711.61 Midland to Frost 244.62 Duffau Creek X 0.15 792.58 Midland to Frost 244.68 X 0.03 145.53 Midland to Frost 244.70 Duffau Creek X 0.05 239.52 Midland to Frost 244.71 X 0.11 589.94 Midland to Frost 244.73 X 0.22 1136.22 Midland to Frost 245.62 Unnamed X X 1.29 6803.65 Midland to Frost 245.84 X 0.23 1209.24 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 246.25 Camp Branch X X 0.63 3308.71 Midland to Frost 246.49 Camp Branch X 1.33 7007.85 Midland to Frost 246.50 X 0.18 938.99 Midland to Frost 246.60 Unnamed X X 0.25 1310.18 Midland to Frost 247.51 Rocky Creek X X 0.62 3258.32 Midland to Frost 247.79 X 0.17 889.94 Midland to Frost 247.81 X 0.00 17.68 Midland to Frost 247.85 Tributary Rocky Creek X X 0.26 1388.84 Midland to Frost 247.93 Tributary Rocky Creek X X 0.32 1690.78 Midland to Frost 247.93 Rocky Creek X 0.73 3867.96 Midland to Frost 248.19 X 0.06 297.20 Midland to Frost 248.23 Rocky Creek X 0.39 2059.19 Midland to Frost 248.46 X 0.81 4285.37 Tributary Rocky Midland to Frost 248.57 Creek X X 0.99 5204.14 Midland to Frost 248.78 X 0.69 3635.72 Midland to Frost 249.01 X 0.71 3725.53 Midland to Frost 249.10 X 0.66 3466.63 Midland to Frost 249.16 X 0.26 1355.22 Midland to Frost 249.79 X 0.05 268.81 Midland to Frost 249.86 Tributary Walker Branch X X 0.59 3128.42 Midland to Frost 250.03 X 0.07 348.23 Midland to Frost 250.08 X 0.05 250.10 Midland to Frost 250.09 Walker Branch X 0.17 877.15 Walker Midland to Frost 250.10 Branch X 0.40 2132.12 Midland to Frost 250.14 Walker Branch X X 0.26 1392.85 Midland to Frost 250.14 Walker Branch X 0.33 1718.21 Midland to Frost 250.16 Walker Branch X 0.23 1189.16 Midland to Frost 250.71 Boyd Branch X X 0.25 1339.79 Midland to Frost 250.91 Boyd Branch X 0.57 3023.34 Midland to Frost 251.17 X 0.13 712.06 Boyd Midland to Frost 251.21 Branch X 0.06 341.15 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Pipeline MP Midland to Frost 251.56 Midland to Frost 251.93 Midland to Frost 251.94 Midland to Frost 252.00 Midland to Frost 252.02 Midland to Frost 252.06 Midland to Frost 252.17 Midland to Frost 252.48 Midland to Frost 252.84 Midland to Frost 253.02 Midland to Frost 253.18 Midland to Frost 253.88 Midland to Frost 254.02 Midland to Frost 254.20 Midland to Frost 254.40 Midland to Frost 254.64 Midland to Frost 254.69 Midland to Frost 254.69 Midland to Frost 254.69 Midland to Frost 254.75 Midland to Frost 254.85 Midland to Frost 254.92 Midland to Frost 254.92 Midland to Frost 254.95 Midland to Frost 255.03 Midland to Frost 255.10 Midland to Frost 256.06 Midland to Frost 256.06 Midland to Frost 256.17 Midland to Frost 256.22 Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Hester Branch X X 0.85 4486.61 Hester Branch X 0.09 475.92 X 0.30 1563.80 Tributary Hester Branch X X 0.14 760.26 Hester Branch X 0.16 855.53 Hester Branch X 0.03 176.57 Hester Branch X 0.32 1674.85 X 0.10 518.09 X 0.61 3241.62 X 0.13 666.01 X 0.29 1508.25 Flag Branch X 0.93 4924.48 Tributary Flag Branch X X 0.38 2021.22 Flag Branch X 0.11 580.16 Flag Branch X 0.07 355.70 Flag Branch X 0.35 1873.61 X 0.04 192.13 East Bosque River X 0.01 73.70 Flag Branch X 0.02 121.10 East Bosque River X 0.13 700.21 X 0.05 244.37 X 0.12 634.11 Tributary East Bosque River X X 0.26 1362.67 X 0.01 57.88 East Bosque River X 0.03 153.85 X 0.12 633.00 X 0.44 2332.34 East Bosque River X 0.20 1044.98 Rough Creek X 0.05 241.67 East Bosque X 0.04 215.12 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) River Midland to Frost 256.23 East Bosque River X 0.05 283.07 Midland to Frost 256.28 X 0.13 704.40 Midland to Frost 256.43 Tributary East Bosque River X X 0.39 2044.07 Midland to Frost 256.62 Tributary Mustang Creek X X 0.42 2217.24 Midland to Frost 256.68 Mustang Creek X 0.04 226.96 Mustang Midland to Frost 256.87 Creek X 0.46 2439.23 Midland to Frost 256.92 X 0.29 1508.42 Midland to Frost 256.97 East Bosque River X 0.14 754.40 Midland to Frost 256.99 X 0.09 496.55 Midland to Frost 256.99 Mustang Creek X 0.09 483.43 Midland to Frost 257.01 East Bosque River X 0.15 767.20 Midland to Frost 257.02 Tributary Mustang Creek X X 0.24 1265.96 Midland to Frost 257.03 Mustang Creek X X 0.15 788.01 Midland to Frost 257.09 Mustang Creek X 0.10 551.81 Midland to Frost 257.11 X 0.32 1692.10 Midland to Frost 257.23 X 0.26 1354.67 Midland to Frost 257.35 X 0.01 49.55 Midland to Frost 257.48 X 0.14 719.70 Midland to Frost 258.03 X 0.03 181.91 Midland to Frost 258.05 X 0.14 739.18 Midland to Frost 258.06 X 0.08 412.86 Midland to Frost 258.08 X 0.04 201.64 Midland to Frost 258.09 X 0.33 1718.64 Midland to Frost 258.14 X 0.77 4090.14 Midland to Frost 258.66 Steele Creek X X 1.62 8579.17 Steele Midland to Frost 258.68 Creek X 0.04 234.15 Midland to Frost 258.70 X 0.05 244.01 Midland to Frost 259.39 X 0.04 230.04 Midland to Frost 259.48 Steele Creek X 0.15 817.83 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 259.59 Steele Creek X 0.12 656.57 Midland to Frost 259.61 X 0.16 850.40 Midland to Frost 259.64 X 0.05 288.00 Midland to Frost 259.65 Steele Creek X X 0.22 1147.44 Midland to Frost 259.66 Steele Creek X 0.04 198.09 Midland to Frost 259.66 X 1.04 5487.13 Midland to Frost 259.83 Steele Creek X 0.18 950.84 Steele Midland to Frost 260.01 Creek X 0.19 1018.63 Midland to Frost 260.07 X 0.09 473.93 Midland to Frost 260.09 X 0.32 1667.54 Midland to Frost 260.11 X 0.66 3474.73 Midland to Frost 260.13 X 0.08 447.02 Midland to Frost 260.14 Steele Creek X 0.07 353.54 Midland to Frost 260.17 Steele Creek X 0.01 37.06 Midland to Frost 260.79 Tributary Steele Creek X X 0.44 2338.91 Midland to Frost 260.91 X 1.14 6005.68 Tributary Steele Midland to Frost 260.91 Creek X X 0.18 959.43 Midland to Frost 260.93 X 0.06 310.49 Midland to Frost 261.16 X 0.05 259.80 Midland to Frost 261.44 X 0.93 4914.14 Midland to Frost 262.11 X 0.03 153.71 Midland to Frost 262.31 Tributary Steele Creek X X 0.69 3617.85 Midland to Frost 262.55 X 0.26 1357.25 Tributary Steele Midland to Frost 262.67 Creek X X 0.32 1708.59 Midland to Frost 262.69 X 0.10 533.00 Midland to Frost 262.97 Tributary Steele Creek X X 0.51 2686.23 Midland to Frost 262.97 X 0.11 580.64 Midland to Frost 263.53 X 0.22 1143.34 Midland to Frost 263.91 Cox Branch X X 0.67 3550.58 Midland to Frost 263.92 X 0.12 650.11 Midland to Frost 264.02 Cox Branch X 0.15 804.55 Midland to Frost 264.14 X 0.37 1951.26 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 264.33 Tributary Cox Branch X X 0.22 1137.45 Midland to Frost 264.38 X 0.02 120.84 Midland to Frost 264.45 X 0.14 742.19 Midland to Frost 264.85 X 0.16 855.87 Midland to Frost 265.16 X 0.04 220.19 Midland to Frost 265.16 Farris Creek X 0.28 1492.13 Midland to Frost 265.26 Farris Creek X 0.08 399.56 Midland to Frost 265.27 Farris Creek X X 0.22 1150.57 Midland to Frost 266.10 X 0.33 1756.43 Midland to Frost 266.25 Mesquite Creek X X 0.38 2011.34 Midland to Frost 266.31 Mesquite Creek X 0.18 952.48 Midland to Frost 266.31 X 0.20 1073.63 Midland to Frost 266.41 X 0.03 183.97 Mesquite Midland to Frost 266.69 Creek X 0.11 602.42 Midland to Frost 266.84 X 0.07 395.25 Midland to Frost 266.97 X 0.22 1139.71 Midland to Frost 267.39 X 0.12 639.25 Midland to Frost 267.50 X 0.14 720.85 Midland to Frost 267.54 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 0.56 2977.96 Midland to Frost 267.62 X 0.13 704.48 Midland to Frost 267.74 X 0.39 2058.54 Midland to Frost 267.76 Mesquite Creek X 0.10 526.68 Midland to Frost 267.89 Mesquite Creek X 0.16 861.60 Midland to Frost 268.01 X 0.05 256.18 Midland to Frost 268.08 X 0.29 1515.76 Mesquite Midland to Frost 268.09 Creek X 0.05 246.26 Midland to Frost 268.09 X 0.16 867.70 Midland to Frost 268.11 X 0.15 808.28 Midland to Frost 268.20 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 0.56 2945.87 Midland to Frost 268.53 X 0.03 179.62 Midland to Frost 268.89 X 0.05 271.32 Midland to Frost 269.18 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 0.23 1211.36 Midland to Frost 269.19 X 0.22 1158.23 Tributary Midland to Frost 269.30 Mesquite X X 1.09 5759.35 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 269.60 X 0.17 893.85 Midland to Frost 270.01 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 0.42 2223.10 Tributary Mesquite Midland to Frost 270.04 Creek X X 0.44 2336.03 Midland to Frost 270.29 X 0.85 4499.58 Midland to Frost 270.40 X 0.15 775.96 Midland to Frost 270.62 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 0.22 1162.00 Midland to Frost 270.64 X 0.06 300.65 Midland to Frost 270.73 X 0.32 1671.20 Midland to Frost 270.90 X 0.49 2564.02 Midland to Frost 271.41 X 0.04 225.25 Midland to Frost 271.58 X 0.32 1676.00 Tributary Mesquite Midland to Frost 271.79 Creek X X 0.58 3048.29 Midland to Frost 272.28 Raymond Creek X 0.15 779.52 Midland to Frost 272.34 Raymond Creek X X 0.10 536.88 Midland to Frost 272.74 Raymond Creek X 1.02 5382.25 Midland to Frost 272.90 X X 0.69 3656.19 Midland to Frost 273.10 Raymond Creek X 0.01 75.77 Midland to Frost 273.21 Raymond Creek X 0.14 757.67 Midland to Frost 273.27 X 0.03 170.99 Midland to Frost 273.31 Raymond Creek X 0.06 301.27 Midland to Frost 273.35 X 0.35 1840.40 Midland to Frost 273.43 X 0.00 8.95 Raymond Midland to Frost 273.44 Creek X 0.22 1173.18 Midland to Frost 273.49 X 0.15 778.11 Midland to Frost 273.58 X 0.12 639.98 Midland to Frost 273.61 Raymond Creek X 0.19 1012.65 Midland to Frost 273.63 X 0.09 495.42 Midland to Frost 273.63 X 0.22 1140.31 Midland to Frost 273.64 X 0.00 22.45 Midland to Frost 273.69 X 0.01 34.42 Midland to Frost 273.73 X 0.10 546.40 Midland to Frost 273.75 Raymond X 0.11 591.74 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 273.82 X 0.23 1217.40 Midland to Frost 274.01 Raymond Creek X 0.59 3093.87 Midland to Frost 274.05 X 0.10 537.17 Midland to Frost 274.24 X 0.51 2692.66 Midland to Frost 274.40 X 0.42 2227.78 Midland to Frost 274.41 X 0.22 1167.16 Midland to Frost 274.51 X 0.11 601.48 Midland to Frost 274.60 X X 0.44 2303.15 Midland to Frost 274.61 X 0.08 396.25 Midland to Frost 274.64 X 0.12 608.08 Midland to Frost 275.10 Brazos River X X Phelps Midland to Frost 276.20 Creek X 0.28 1456.74 Midland to Frost 276.28 X 0.04 226.45 Phelps Midland to Frost 276.28 Creek X 0.03 181.28 Midland to Frost 276.38 X X 0.39 2034.89 Midland to Frost 276.45 Phelps Creek X 0.31 1647.02 Midland to Frost 276.78 X X 0.43 2269.75 Midland to Frost 276.92 Phelps Creek X 0.49 2597.31 Midland to Frost 277.44 X 0.06 337.80 Midland to Frost 277.51 Hulett Hollow X X 0.31 1623.84 Midland to Frost 277.61 X 0.28 1454.03 Midland to Frost 277.66 X 0.03 137.30 Midland to Frost 277.69 X 0.22 1156.11 Midland to Frost 277.69 X 0.04 215.44 Midland to Frost 277.90 Hulett Hollow X X 0.40 2121.43 Midland to Frost 278.06 X 0.02 127.89 Midland to Frost 278.40 X 0.53 2813.98 Midland to Frost 278.61 Hog Creek X 0.20 1066.79 Midland to Frost 278.61 X 0.04 187.08 Midland to Frost 278.69 Hog Creek X 0.27 1421.69 Midland to Frost 279.00 X 0.21 1084.55 Midland to Frost 279.38 X 0.30 1563.22 Midland to Frost 279.59 X 0.04 210.83 Midland to Frost 279.72 X 0.08 396.13 Midland to Frost 279.81 X 0.11 572.45 Midland to Frost 279.86 X 0.15 800.95 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 279.94 X 0.16 833.22 Midland to Frost 280.01 X 0.11 597.73 Midland to Frost 280.02 X 0.05 259.99 Midland to Frost 280.10 Bear Creek X X 0.28 1475.04 Midland to Frost 280.22 X 0.29 1530.66 Midland to Frost 280.32 X 0.18 934.00 Midland to Frost 280.40 X 0.28 1504.49 Midland to Frost 280.43 Bear Creek X X 0.36 1886.72 Midland to Frost 280.47 Bear Creek X 0.38 1994.27 Midland to Frost 280.53 Bear Creek X 0.08 398.58 Midland to Frost 280.56 Bear Creek X 0.16 859.61 Midland to Frost 280.58 Little Bear Creek X 0.08 439.61 Midland to Frost 280.77 Little Bear Creek X X 0.81 4282.68 Midland to Frost 281.01 X 0.21 1119.21 Midland to Frost 281.14 X 0.57 3011.32 Midland to Frost 281.56 X 0.00 13.20 Midland to Frost 281.69 X 0.32 1670.04 Midland to Frost 281.77 X 0.05 260.73 Midland to Frost 281.81 X 0.02 99.35 Midland to Frost 281.90 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 0.28 1464.58 Midland to Frost 281.97 X 0.16 818.54 Midland to Frost 282.03 X 0.07 380.70 Midland to Frost 282.05 X 0.01 55.47 Midland to Frost 282.05 X 0.11 592.05 Midland to Frost 282.11 X 0.14 760.71 Midland to Frost 282.15 Cedar Creek X 0.15 814.25 Midland to Frost 282.18 Cedar Creek X X 0.84 4445.69 Midland to Frost 282.19 Cedar Creek X 0.39 2076.58 Midland to Frost 282.32 X 0.61 3202.60 Midland to Frost 283.32 X 0.52 2720.05 Midland to Frost 283.91 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 0.37 1934.49 Midland to Frost 283.92 X 0.97 5101.36 Midland to Frost 283.95 X 0.03 156.78 Midland to Frost 283.95 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 0.26 1370.29 Tributary Midland to Frost 284.05 Cedar X X 0.50 2662.20 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 285.19 X 0.95 5039.73 Midland to Frost 285.56 Little Aquilla Creek X 0.10 510.03 Midland to Frost 285.59 X X 0.56 2949.28 Midland to Frost 285.64 Little Aquilla Creek X 0.22 1158.87 Midland to Frost 285.64 Little Aquilla Creek X X 0.75 3976.00 Midland to Frost 286.00 Tributary Little Aquilla Creek X X 0.74 3890.57 Midland to Frost 286.12 Little Aquilla Creek X 0.17 880.96 Midland to Frost 286.23 Little Aquilla Creek X 0.17 914.34 Midland to Frost 286.41 X 0.55 2909.53 Midland to Frost 287.26 X 0.56 2974.49 Midland to Frost 287.58 Tributary Aquilla Creek X X 0.47 2500.52 Midland to Frost 287.64 X 0.42 2228.58 Midland to Frost 287.81 X 0.00 19.04 Midland to Frost 288.10 X 0.02 79.76 Midland to Frost 288.14 X 0.18 933.69 Midland to Frost 288.40 X 0.34 1805.13 Midland to Frost 288.59 X 0.14 763.32 Midland to Frost 288.74 Aquilla Creek X X 0.86 4559.25 Midland to Frost 288.79 X 0.29 1509.19 Midland to Frost 289.28 X 0.25 1325.87 Midland to Frost 289.33 Aquilla Creek X 0.07 354.40 Midland to Frost 289.35 Aquilla Creek X 0.12 635.66 Midland to Frost 289.37 X 0.11 557.90 Midland to Frost 289.38 X 0.06 305.73 Midland to Frost 289.45 X 0.18 939.40 Midland to Frost 289.70 X 0.63 3318.58 Midland to Frost 289.83 X 0.06 333.56 Midland to Frost 289.85 Tributary Aquilla Creek X X 0.33 1728.18 Horne Midland to Frost 290.64 Branch X X 0.54 2863.71 Horne Midland to Frost 290.66 Branch X 0.43 2269.96 Midland to Frost 290.73 Horne Branch X 0.64 3378.23 Midland to Frost 290.76 X 0.07 355.23 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 290.76 Horne Branch X 0.17 893.07 Midland to Frost 290.78 X 0.09 453.16 Midland to Frost 290.78 Horne Branch X 0.35 1826.86 Midland to Frost 290.81 Horne Branch X 0.07 392.70 Midland to Frost 290.83 X 0.01 49.83 Midland to Frost 290.96 Tributary Horne Branch X X 0.64 3378.93 Midland to Frost 292.22 Tributary Jacks Branch X X 0.38 2008.47 Midland to Frost 292.35 X 0.06 337.18 Midland to Frost 292.47 X 0.34 1785.13 Midland to Frost 292.50 Jacks Branch X X 0.78 4127.12 Midland to Frost 292.51 Jacks Branch X 0.03 160.16 Midland to Frost 292.57 Jacks Branch X 0.41 2180.41 Midland to Frost 293.35 X 0.65 3409.33 Midland to Frost 293.55 Tributary Hackberry Creek X X 0.28 1477.21 Midland to Frost 293.63 X 0.16 859.54 Midland to Frost 293.70 X 0.35 1827.64 Midland to Frost 293.77 X 0.13 662.80 Midland to Frost 293.98 X 0.48 2508.91 Midland to Frost 294.50 Tributary Hackberry Creek X X 0.88 4647.75 Midland to Frost 294.97 X 0.08 436.13 Midland to Frost 295.00 Aquilla WSD Midland to Frost 295.00 Hackberry Creek X 0.53 2807.36 Midland to Frost 295.11 Hackberry Creek X X 0.37 1938.25 Midland to Frost 295.22 Hackberry Creek X 0.95 5007.73 Midland to Frost 295.25 Hackberry Creek X X 0.37 1974.19 Midland to Frost 295.90 Aquilla WSD Little Hackberry Midland to Frost 296.09 Creek X X 1.86 9811.91 Midland to Frost 296.56 X 0.08 420.47 Midland to Frost 296.76 X 0.30 1591.92 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Midland to Frost 296.89 X 0.01 53.50 Midland to Frost 297.17 X 0.65 3444.41 Midland to Frost 297.42 X 0.23 1195.08 Midland to Frost 297.51 X 0.34 1813.37 Midland to Frost 297.53 X 0.01 42.52 Midland to Frost 297.53 Tributary Katy Lake X X 0.31 1634.05 Midland to Frost 297.54 X 0.18 935.91 Midland to Frost 297.55 X 0.05 242.67 Midland to Frost 297.58 Tributary Katy Lake X X 0.07 366.81 Midland to Frost 297.61 X 0.03 182.97 Midland to Frost 297.63 X 0.10 536.16 Midland to Frost 297.70 X 0.20 1041.86 Midland to Frost 298.11 X 0.73 3865.91 Midland to Frost 298.16 X 1.12 5906.92 Midland to Frost 298.64 X 0.31 1616.34 Tributary Midland to Frost 298.75 Katy Lake X X 0.30 1580.54 Midland to Frost 298.97 X 0.45 2391.80 Midland to Frost 299.13 X 0.45 2351.11 Midland to Frost 299.29 X 0.01 60.02 Midland to Frost 299.46 X 0.02 119.06 Midland to Frost 300.10 X 0.02 93.61 Midland to Frost 300.13 X 0.03 154.39 Midland to Frost 301.10 X 0.37 1954.40 Midland to Frost 301.33 X 0.06 317.31 Midland to Frost 301.35 X 0.04 224.23 Midland to Frost 301.38 X 0.18 950.33 Midland to Frost 301.46 X 0.23 1196.38 Midland to Frost 301.51 X 0.06 305.20 Midland to Frost 301.55 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 0.62 3279.19 Tributary Pecan Midland to Frost 301.88 Creek X X 0.44 2307.38 Midland to Frost 302.15 X 0.44 2318.28 Midland to Frost 302.31 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 0.21 1108.73 Midland to Frost 302.34 Pecan Creek X 0.11 590.85 Midland to Frost 302.44 Pecan Creek X X 0.31 1623.66 Tributary Midland to Frost 302.53 Pecan X X 0.33 1743.35 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 302.63 Pecan Creek X 0.16 854.21 Midland to Frost 302.67 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 0.42 2204.77 Pecan Midland to Frost 303.01 Creek X 0.74 3902.66 Midland to Frost 303.14 X 0.05 271.52 Midland to Frost 303.16 Pecan Creek X 0.03 147.37 Midland to Frost 303.60 X 0.39 2072.77 Midland to Frost 304.31 Tributary White Rock Creek X X 1.17 6203.76 Midland to Frost 304.92 White Rock Creek X X 1.16 6148.16 Midland to Frost 305.05 X 0.06 304.28 Midland to Frost 305.07 White Rock Creek X 0.04 217.72 Midland to Frost 305.15 White Rock Creek X 0.15 800.41 Midland to Frost 305.19 X 0.06 296.75 White Rock Midland to Frost 305.27 Creek X 0.11 580.93 Midland to Frost 305.42 White Rock Creek X 0.27 1448.69 Midland to Frost 305.48 X 0.72 3818.44 Midland to Frost 306.41 X 0.21 1122.68 Midland to Frost 307.62 X 0.23 1235.60 Midland to Frost 307.71 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.92 4880.13 Midland to Frost 308.43 Cottonwood Creek X 1.01 5313.67 Tributary Richland Creek (Dam Midland to Frost 308.45 No. 45) X X 1.35 7143.04 Midland to Frost 309.01 X 0.04 217.96 Midland to Frost 309.06 X 0.09 458.27 Midland to Frost 309.27 Tributary Richland Creek X X 1.10 5786.30 Midland to Frost 309.36 X 0.10 509.36 Midland to Frost 309.38 Richland Creek X 0.03 160.07 Midland to Frost 309.54 Richland Creek X 0.41 2176.44 Midland to Frost 309.69 Richland Creek X 0.31 1637.28 Midland to Frost 309.71 X 0.02 102.57 Midland to Frost 309.81 Richland X X 0.83 4399.82 <<>> Table 10.1.1-5 (continued) Water Bodies within Orion West Expansion Zone of Potential Impact Pipeline MP Water Body ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) GIS Length (Feet) Creek Midland to Frost 310.02 X 0.04 197.42 Midland to Frost 310.13 Richland Creek X 0.25 1334.30 Midland to Frost 310.22 X 0.06 300.85 Midland to Frost 310.46 Richland Creek X 0.75 3969.06 Tributary Richland Midland to Frost 310.51 Creek X X 0.86 4544.54 Midland to Frost 310.64 X 0.05 239.04 Midland to Frost 310.71 X 0.04 206.41 Richland Midland to Frost 310.73 Creek X 0.31 1618.23 Midland to Frost 310.78 X 0.17 874.74 Midland to Frost 310.85 X 0.02 103.15 Midland to Frost 310.88 X 0.01 78.15 Midland to Frost 310.91 X X 1.06 5616.18 Midland to Frost 310.93 Richland Creek X 0.22 1149.37 Midland to Frost 310.96 Richland Creek X 0.72 3821.12 Midland to Frost 310.96 Richland Creek X 0.08 438.41 Midland to Frost 311.00 X 0.08 404.66 Midland to Frost 311.07 X 0.28 1500.91 Midland to Frost 311.15 Tributary Richland Creek (Dam No. 47) X X 0.45 2383.76 Midland to Frost 312.26 X 0.66 3499.02 Tributary Hackberry Midland to Frost 312.31 Creek X X 0.46 2443.58 <<>> Table 10.1.1-6 Wetlands Orion West Expansion From Frost to Odessa MP From MP to Wetland Area Count Wetland Area Acres County Wetland Stream Count Wetland Stream Miles 0 10 34 82.79 Midland 0 0 10 20 27 135.10 Midland 0 0 20 25 5 1.751 Ector/Midland 0 0 0 10 16 49.34 Midland 0 0 10 20 15 59.68 Martin/Midland 0 0 20 30 67 127.93 Howard/Martin 4 0.32 30 40 12 9.84 Howard 0 0 40 50 32 141.96 Howard 21 6.61 50 60 22 7.27 Howard/Mitchell 7 2.33 60 70 43 397.45 Mitchell 12 3.53 70 80 138 56.69 Mitchell 5 0.85 80 90 23 7.10 Mitchell/Nolan 1 0.49 90 100 17 20.28 Nolan 12 3.95 100 110 100 41.69 Nolan 16 4.30 110 120 70 20.02 Nolan/Taylor 10 3.62 120 130 33 11.68 Taylor 7 4.09 130 140 39 24.42 Taylor 4 1.43 140 150 65 21.80 Callahan/Taylor 22 3.64 150 160 43 13.48 Callahan 18 3.50 160 170 51 20.17 Callahan 27 6.83 170 180 47 12.04 Callahan/Eastland 20 6.84 180 190 58 32.15 Eastland 2 0.17 190 200 72 17.96 Eastland 29 6.89 200 210 95 43.73 Comanche/Eastland 7 3.37 210 220 84 66.66 Comanche/Erath 30 7.34 220 230 75 23.98 Erath 24 4.20 230 240 53 65.50 Erath 26 6.85 240 250 79 24.80 Bosque/Erath 12 2.32 250 260 78 96.34 Bosque 29 4.21 260 270 49 37.85 Bosque 19 4.85 270 280 56 345.97 Bosque/Hill 13 1.83 280 290 91 34.28 Hill 5 1.83 290 300 65 60.51 Hill 19 4.88 300 310 73 57.36 Hill 9 2.28 310 312 32 25.47 Hill/Navarro 0 0 1,859 2,195.2 410 103.5 <<>> Table 10.1.1-7 Threatened and Endangered Species of Possible Occurrence in Connected Action Counties1 Status3 Common Name2 Scientific Name2 USF WS TPWD Counties of Potential Occurrence Potential for Occurrence4 BIRDS Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL T Comanche, Crane, Ector, Howard, Midland, Navarro, Upton, Ward, Winkler Potential Migrant Black-Capped Vireo Vireo atricapilla E E Comanche, Midland, Pecos, No Upton Common Black-Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus T Culberson Vagrant Golden-Cheeked Warbler Dendroica chrysoparia NL E Comanche No Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos NL E Comanche, Crane, El Paso, Hudspeth, Pecos, Reeves. Ward, Navarro Potential Migrant Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida T T Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth No Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis E E Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Hudspeth, Pecos, Reeves, Winkler Potential Migrant Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus NL T Comanche, Crane, Culberson, El Paso, Ector, Howard, Hudspeth, Midland, Navarro, Pecos, Reeves, Upton, Ward, Winkler Potential Migrant Piping Plover Charadrius melodius NL T Navarro Potential Migrant Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens NL T Pecos, Reeves No Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E E Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth Potential Migrant White-Faced Ibis Plegadis chihi NL T Navarro Potential Migrant <<>> Table 10.1.1-7 (continued) Threatened and Endangered Species of Possible Occurrence in Connected Action Counties Status3 Common Name2 Scientific Name2 USF WS TPWD Counties of Potential Occurrence Potential for Occurrence4 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C NL Culberson Potential Migrant Whooping Crane Grus americana E E Comanche, Howard, Midland, Navarro Potential Migrant Wood Stork Mycteria americana NL T Navarro No Zone-Tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus NL T Culberson, El Paso, Pecos, Reeves Potential Migrant FISHES Bluntnose Shiner Comanche Springs Pupfish Leon Springs Pupfish Pecos Gambusia Pecos Pupfish Proserpine Shiner Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Smalleye Shiner Notropis simus Cypriodon elegans NL E Cyprinodon bovinus Gambusia nobilis Cyprinodon pecosensis E E NL T E E E T Cyprinella proserpina Hybognathus amarus Notropis buccula NL NL T E El Paso, Hudspeth Pecos, Reeves Pecos Pecos, Reeves Crane, Culberson, Pecos, Reeves, Ward Pecos El Paso, Hudspeth NL NL Comanche Potentially Extirpated No No No No No No Potentially Extinct MAMMALS Black Bear Ursus americanus NL T Crane, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Pecos, Reeves, Upton, Ward No Black-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes NL NL Crane, Culberson, Ector, Howard, Midland, Upton, Winkler Potentially Extirpated Gray Wolf Canis lupus NL E Comanche, Crane, Culberson, El Paso, Ector, Potentially Extirpated <<>> Table 10.1.1-7 (continued) Threatened and Endangered Species of Possible Occurrence in Connected Action Counties Status3 Common Name2 Scientific Name2 USF WS TPWD Counties of Potential Occurrence Potential for Occurrence4 Howard, Hudspeth, Midland, Pecos, Reeves, Upton, Ward, Winkler Red Wolf Canis rufus NL E Comanche, Navarro Potentially Extirpated MOLLUSKS False Spike Mussel Quadrula mitchelli NL T Comanche, Crane, Pecos, Reeves, Ward Potentially Extirpated Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii NL T Navarro No Sandbank Pocketbook Lamsilis satura NL T Navarro No Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis NL T Comanche No Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus NL T Navarro No Texas Hornshell Popenaias popeii NL T Crane, Pecos, Reeves, Ward No Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi NL T Navarro No REPTILES Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii NL T Navarro No Chihuahuan Desert Lyre Snake Trimorphodon vilkinsonii T Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth Yes Mountain Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi T Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth Yes Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum NL T Comanche, Crane, Culberson, Ector, Howard, El Paso, Hudspeth, Midland, Pecos, Navarro, Reeves, Upton, Ward, Winkler Yes Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake Trans-Pecos Black- Headed Snake Crotalus horridus NL T Navarro No Tantilla cucullata NL T Pecos No <<>> Table 10.1.1-7 (continued) Threatened and Endangered Species of Possible Occurrence in Connected Action Counties Status3 Common Name2 Scientific Name2 USF WS TPWD Counties of Potential Occurrence Potential for Occurrence4 PLANTS Guadalupe Fescue Festuca ligulata C NL Culberson No Puzzle Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus T T Pecos, Reeves No Sneed Pincushion Cactus Coryphantha sneedii E E El Paso No 1According to TPWD (2011) and USFWS (2011) 2Nomenclature follows Hubbs et al. (2008), AOU (1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009), Crother et al. (2000, 2001, 2003, 2008), Baker et al. (2003), TPWD (2011), and USFWS (2011) 3E – Endangered; T – Threatened; T/SA – Threatened by similarity of appearance; DL – Federally delisted; PDL – Proposed for Federal Delisting; PE – Federally proposed endangered; PT – Federally proposed threatened; C – Federal candidate species; NL – Not listed. 4 Potential for occurrence within or immediately adjacent to new construction sites for Connected Actions. <<>> Table 10.1.2-1 Aquifers Crossed by the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Southern Ogallala Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary Fluvial, lacustrine and eolian deposits of sand, gravel, silt and clay Major Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer Cretaceous Solutioned and jointed limestone, dolomite and sandstones Major Pecos Valley Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary Discontinuous alluvium, lacustrine, eolian and valley fill deposits of sand, silt, conglomerate, limestone, mudstone, shale and gypsum Major Dockum Aquifer Subcrop Triassic Sand and conglomerate interbedded with layers of silt and shale Minor Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.2-2 Water Quality Summary - Odessa to Crane Pipeline <<>> Table 10.1.2-3 Water Bodies within Odessa to Crane Zone of Potential Impact <<>> Table 10.1.2-4 Wetlands From Odessa to Crane MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres Wetland Stream Count Wetland Stream Miles County 0 10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crane 10 20 6 10.13 0 0.00 Crane/Ector 20 29 15 17.56 1 0.16 Ector <<>> Table 10.1.3-1 Aquifers Crossed by the El Paso Gateway Pipeline Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Hueco Bolson Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary Silt, sand, clay and gravel, unconsolidated. Major Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.4-1 Aquifers Crossed by the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Pecos Valley Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary Discontinuous alluvium, lacustrine, eolian and valley fill deposits of sand, silt, conglomerate, limestone, mudstone, shale and gypsum Major Dockum Aquifer Subcrop Triassic Sand and conglomerate interbedded with layers of silt and shale Minor Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer Permian Dolomite limestone deposited as reef, fore-reef and backreef facies Minor Rustler Aquifer Permian Dolomite, limestone, and gypsum beds Minor Bone Spring-Vitorio Peak Aquifer Permian Limestones and dolomites. Minor Hueco Bolson Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary Silt, sand, clay and gravel, unconsolidated. Major Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.4-2 Water Quality Summary Crane to El Paso Pipeline <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 487.198 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.631 494.549 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.666 495.146 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.386 495.152 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.180 495.586 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.931 495.803 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.576 496.228 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 497.120 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.094 497.179 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.018 497.199 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.404 497.472 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.978 498.017 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.199 498.670 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.057 499.166 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.031 499.737 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.374 500.172 Monument Draw X 0.034 500.216 Monument Draw X 0.080 500.259 Monument Draw X 0.036 500.321 Monument Draw 500.398 Monument Draw 502.807 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 502.958 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 503.252 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 503.337 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 503.359 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 504.095 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 504.397 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.297 504.454 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 504.840 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 0.748 X X 0.831 505.243 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 505.442 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.144 X X X X X X X 0.293 X 0.017 X 0.306 X 0.755 X 1.072 X 1.201 X 0.197 X 0.225 0.489 0.676 505.589 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.507 505.784 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.114 507.241 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.360 507.638 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.426 507.832 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.891 508.201 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.203 508.272 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.370 508.395 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.206 508.660 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.053 508.859 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.850 509.222 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.066 510.211 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.067 510.436 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.110 510.439 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.070 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 510.879 Tributary Quito Draw 510.996 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.506 511.130 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.244 511.337 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.211 511.343 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.912 511.343 Tributary Quito Draw 511.399 Tributary Quito Draw 511.404 Tributary Quito Draw 511.536 Quito Draw 511.873 Quito Draw 512.163 Quito Draw X X 0.383 0.491 0.483 0.801 X X X X X X X 0.140 X 0.042 X 0.582 512.252 Quito Draw X 0.072 512.273 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.064 512.297 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.015 512.416 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.241 512.457 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.991 512.566 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.064 512.857 Tributary Quito Draw 0.898 513.735 Tributary Quito Draw 0.763 514.305 Tributary Quito Draw X 0.355 514.355 Tributary Quito Draw X X 0.333 514.484 Tributary Quarry Draw 514.805 Tributary Quarry Draw X X X X 0.605 X 0.317 X X 514.819 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.110 514.841 Quarry Draw X 0.076 514.841 Quarry Draw X 0.033 514.841 Quarry Draw X 0.037 514.841 Quarry Draw X 0.084 514.841 Quarry Draw X 0.016 514.934 Quarry Draw X 0.274 515.027 Quarry Draw X 0.298 515.069 Quarry Draw X 0.340 515.112 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.027 515.127 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.034 515.158 Tributary Quarry Draw 515.165 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.254 515.260 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.332 515.309 Tributary Quarry Draw 515.564 Tributary Quarry Draw X 0.026 515.788 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.600 516.030 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.125 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.168 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.195 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.246 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.307 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 516.915 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X 0.760 0.590 1.313 X X X X X X 0.246 0.753 X 0.446 X 0.041 X 0.016 X 0.487 516.924 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.649 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 517.207 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.041 517.284 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.186 517.689 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.763 518.006 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.042 518.086 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.067 518.800 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.157 518.959 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.396 519.220 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.815 519.296 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.724 519.571 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.474 519.586 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.645 519.717 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.133 519.937 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.487 520.199 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 520.962 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.222 521.253 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.489 521.372 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 521.582 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.221 521.966 Tributary Soda Lake X 0.185 522.049 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.394 522.288 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.445 522.584 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 522.910 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 523.366 Barstow Canal 523.366 Barstow Canal 523.822 Barstow Canal X X X X 1.084 1.097 524.205 Lateral Number One X X X X X X 1.493 0.850 X 1.199 X 0.736 X 0.157 0.735 524.217 Lateral Number One X 0.014 524.271 Lateral Number One X 0.030 524.484 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 0.843 525.123 Upper Pecos River X 0.273 525.429 Upper Pecos River X X 0.569 525.712 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 0.586 526.179 Tributary Upper Pecos River X 0.142 526.186 Tributary Upper Pecos River X 0.303 526.208 Tributary Upper Pecos River X 0.280 526.691 Tributary Upper Pecos River X 0.091 526.733 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 0.494 527.550 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.067 527.574 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.024 527.588 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.071 527.635 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.044 527.645 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.016 527.654 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.073 527.778 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.076 527.825 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.193 527.915 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.300 527.915 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.532 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 527.922 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.517 529.914 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 2.018 530.756 Sand Lake X 0.247 530.777 Sand Lake X 0.351 531.039 Sand Lake X 0.624 531.571 Sand Lake X 0.066 531.658 Sand Lake X 0.590 531.901 Sand Lake X 0.254 531.916 Sand Lake X 0.446 532.471 Sand Lake X 1.317 532.966 Tributary Sand Lake X 2.380 534.078 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.019 534.215 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.302 534.393 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.081 534.515 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.237 534.636 Tributary Sand Lake X X 0.341 534.707 Tributary Sand Lake X X 1.146 534.847 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.892 534.872 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.137 535.570 Tributary Sand Lake X 0.551 537.310 Tributary Sand Lake X X 2.082 537.490 X 0.082 538.146 X 1.392 538.238 X X 1.988 538.587 X 0.120 538.842 Tributary McIIvain Draw X 0.292 538.863 Tributary McIIvain Draw X 0.177 539.122 Tributary McIIvain Draw X 0.077 539.394 Tributary McIIvain Draw X X 1.074 541.227 McIIvain Draw X 1.793 543.873 McIIvain Draw X 2.496 545.269 McIIvain Draw X 0.011 546.117 McIIvain Draw X 1.480 547.057 McIIvain Draw X 0.368 547.086 McIIvain Draw X 0.517 547.385 McIIvain Draw X X 0.477 547.758 McIIvain Draw X X 0.840 548.835 McIIvain Draw X 0.310 549.172 Cottonwood Creek X 1.199 549.191 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.842 550.129 Cottonwood Creek X 0.967 550.402 Cottonwood Creek X 0.023 550.413 Cottonwood Creek X 0.669 551.145 Cottonwood Creek X 0.195 551.339 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.392 554.129 Cottonwood Creek X 4.537 556.194 Cottonwood Creek X 0.015 556.583 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.797 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 557.722 Cottonwood Creek X 1.541 559.707 Cottonwood Creek X 0.064 559.825 Cottonwood Creek X 0.181 559.950 Cottonwood Creek X 0.402 560.194 Cottonwood Creek X 0.072 560.270 Cottonwood Creek X 0.035 560.628 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.414 560.823 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.527 561.057 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.626 562.045 Cottonwood Creek X 1.082 562.610 Cottonwood Creek X 0.255 563.539 Cottonwood Creek X 0.086 563.748 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.723 564.042 Cottonwood Creek X 1.138 564.671 Cottonwood Creek X 0.039 565.277 Cottonwood Creek X X 1.606 565.432 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.714 567.077 Cottonwood Creek X 0.976 567.485 Cottonwood Creek X 1.531 569.231 Cottonwood Creek X 0.330 569.333 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.026 572.133 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.657 572.206 Cottonwood Creek X 0.290 573.756 Cottonwood Creek X 0.161 573.851 Cottonwood Creek X 0.042 574.314 Cottonwood Creek X 1.286 574.737 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.676 574.884 Cottonwood Creek X 0.040 574.898 Cottonwood Creek X 0.205 574.982 Cottonwood Creek X 0.266 575.354 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.315 575.362 Cottonwood Creek X 0.236 575.526 Cottonwood Creek X 0.259 575.639 Cottonwood Creek X 0.839 576.067 Cottonwood Creek X 0.071 576.337 Cottonwood Creek X X 0.625 576.361 Cottonwood Creek X 0.547 576.392 Cottonwood Creek X 0.821 576.810 Cottonwood Creek X 0.057 576.821 Budweiser Draw X 0.091 577.122 Budweiser Draw X 0.585 577.286 Budweiser Draw X X 0.897 579.082 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.988 580.121 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.730 580.875 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.498 581.043 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.442 582.486 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.043 583.249 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.383 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 583.473 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.077 583.729 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.432 583.750 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.705 583.865 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.747 584.351 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.380 584.650 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.743 585.877 Frijole Draw X X 1.671 586.909 Frijole Draw X 0.224 587.010 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.329 587.134 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.284 587.262 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 587.307 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.010 587.330 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.103 587.459 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.181 587.574 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 587.882 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.708 587.909 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 588.462 Budweiser Draw 588.599 Tributary Budweiser Draw 588.658 Tributary Budweiser Draw 588.708 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.712 588.800 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X X X X X 0.799 0.332 0.599 0.837 X X X 0.383 X 0.023 X 0.158 588.895 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.161 588.913 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.029 588.920 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.036 588.932 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.206 589.200 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.111 589.200 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.046 589.200 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.177 589.292 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.487 589.346 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.566 589.451 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.692 589.675 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.389 590.046 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.788 590.340 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.105 590.358 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.290 590.436 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 590.463 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.188 590.490 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.016 590.531 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.252 590.868 Tributary Budweiser Draw 590.962 Tributary Budweiser Draw 590.975 Tributary Budweiser Draw 0.907 X X X X X 0.675 0.337 0.363 591.230 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1.316 591.832 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.307 591.843 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.724 591.892 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.423 591.915 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.035 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 591.934 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.069 591.944 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.586 592.154 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.305 592.281 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.488 592.356 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.386 592.742 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.218 592.748 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.313 592.754 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.061 592.758 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.464 592.873 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.328 593.526 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.718 593.733 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.276 593.824 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.124 593.847 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.540 594.080 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.130 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.605 594.394 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.068 594.396 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.036 594.416 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.363 594.506 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.153 594.642 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 0.533 594.650 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.728 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.728 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.738 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.738 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.860 Tributary Budweiser Draw 0.621 X X X X 1.480 X 0.340 X 0.063 X 0.503 X 0.550 X 0.198 595.012 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.688 595.012 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 1.150 595.261 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1.458 595.641 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 2.385 595.875 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 1.224 595.971 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 1.429 595.996 Tributary Budweiser Draw X 0.755 596.069 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.322 596.107 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.375 596.203 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.226 596.203 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.100 596.203 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.192 596.330 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.004 596.370 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.103 596.457 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.788 596.561 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.114 596.633 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.432 596.633 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.175 596.633 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.479 596.633 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.484 596.634 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.034 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 596.710 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1.295 597.001 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.170 597.359 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.664 597.831 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.326 597.854 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 597.866 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 597.926 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 597.988 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.722 0.405 X X X 0.699 X 0.213 X X 598.083 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.327 598.106 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.639 598.176 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.279 598.207 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.144 598.214 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.285 598.263 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.106 598.283 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.253 598.338 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.249 598.377 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.288 598.381 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.261 598.536 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.131 598.742 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.425 598.838 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.005 598.840 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.008 598.840 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.303 598.844 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.501 598.854 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.016 598.861 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.109 598.974 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.078 598.983 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.078 598.990 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.030 598.999 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.264 599.002 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.030 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.046 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.019 599.215 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.313 599.291 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.080 599.325 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.344 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.404 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.580 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.689 599.658 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.661 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.754 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 599.779 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X X X 1.261 1.008 X 0.039 X 0.526 599.839 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 600.225 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 601.027 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 601.111 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X X X X X 0.161 0.478 X 0.037 X 0.054 X 0.061 X 0.154 1.021 0.685 0.463 601.133 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.366 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 601.173 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.856 601.177 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.049 601.255 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.150 601.358 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.133 601.394 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.196 601.420 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.237 601.490 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.043 601.500 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.255 601.528 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.050 601.549 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.228 601.552 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.014 601.579 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.099 601.604 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.721 601.619 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.046 601.640 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.059 601.665 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.147 601.673 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.020 601.683 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.119 601.724 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.033 601.762 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.351 601.902 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.122 601.922 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.428 601.941 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.107 601.953 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.403 601.969 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.396 602.080 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.625 602.088 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.628 602.135 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.038 602.146 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.051 602.148 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.038 602.157 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.158 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.109 602.275 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.061 602.294 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.261 602.317 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.514 602.339 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.356 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.424 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.425 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.036 602.454 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.809 X 0.169 602.535 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.652 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 602.659 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 0.571 X X X X X X X 0.161 X 0.473 0.569 X 0.018 0.537 602.670 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.759 602.702 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.177 602.745 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.095 602.750 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.526 602.762 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.078 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 602.877 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.178 602.889 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.119 602.898 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.661 603.027 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.757 603.135 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.575 603.217 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.216 603.242 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.572 603.259 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.181 603.312 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.690 603.513 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.245 603.571 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.154 603.742 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.458 603.742 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.353 604.249 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.709 617.608 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.581 617.900 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.536 617.927 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.249 618.173 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.471 618.795 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 618.926 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.128 618.957 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.061 618.960 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.383 618.960 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.117 618.960 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.067 618.963 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.936 618.963 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.094 619.023 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.152 619.044 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.152 619.143 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.165 619.188 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.208 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.227 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.240 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.307 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.526 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.526 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.546 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.610 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.637 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.556 619.678 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.731 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.311 0.332 X X 1.133 X X X X 0.259 X 0.754 X 0.131 X 0.189 X 0.271 X 0.006 X 0.064 X 0.109 X 0.702 619.820 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.123 619.827 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.436 619.828 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.125 619.837 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.154 619.901 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.055 620.015 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.698 620.103 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.376 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 620.152 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.478 620.178 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.492 620.186 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.538 620.297 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.540 620.393 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.026 620.581 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.519 620.595 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.442 620.690 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.330 620.792 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.789 620.792 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.114 620.794 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.757 621.049 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.494 621.510 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 621.563 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.160 621.608 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.260 621.678 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.712 621.744 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.091 621.782 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 621.862 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 622.268 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 622.471 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.025 622.792 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.336 622.897 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 0.816 X X X X X 0.481 X 0.899 X 0.023 0.388 623.309 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.399 623.867 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.080 623.898 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.065 623.906 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.156 623.944 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.914 623.948 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.112 623.963 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.016 624.057 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.249 624.172 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.016 624.210 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.275 624.263 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.053 624.289 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.072 624.318 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.622 624.447 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 624.541 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.468 624.695 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.222 624.740 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.256 624.748 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.570 624.805 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 625.005 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 625.076 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 625.129 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 625.130 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 0.783 X X X X X X X X 0.439 0.265 0.354 X 0.647 X 0.035 625.134 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.225 625.231 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.200 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 625.309 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.686 625.816 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.727 626.193 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.727 626.386 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.319 626.587 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.064 626.608 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.057 626.617 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.256 626.632 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.043 626.696 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.677 626.703 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.830 626.731 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.211 626.747 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.077 626.775 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.007 626.776 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.071 626.828 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.193 627.208 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 627.300 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 1.273 627.442 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 627.507 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.514 627.883 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.714 628.166 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.012 628.267 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.294 628.309 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 628.375 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.294 628.376 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.072 628.606 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.214 628.679 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.301 628.685 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 628.753 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.064 628.755 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.068 628.775 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 629.068 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 629.551 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 630.857 Antelope Gulch 630.894 Tributary Antelope Gulch 631.036 Tributary Antelope Gulch 631.736 Tributary Antelope Gulch 632.047 Tributary Antelope Gulch 632.179 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.269 632.337 Tributary Antelope Gulch 632.371 Tributary Antelope Gulch 632.501 Tributary Antelope Gulch 633.029 Tributary Antelope Gulch 633.032 Tributary Antelope Gulch 633.194 Tributary Antelope Gulch 633.265 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X X X X X X X 0.317 1.183 1.349 0.377 0.552 X X X X X X X X X X 0.942 0.156 1.118 2.432 X 0.067 X 0.176 X 0.012 X 0.361 X 0.648 X 0.714 X 0.604 X 0.832 X 0.935 X 0.560 633.406 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.731 633.446 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 0.382 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 633.452 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.187 633.685 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.019 633.707 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.035 633.727 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 0.445 633.810 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.515 634.301 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 0.264 634.769 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.306 635.139 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1.203 635.769 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.244 635.892 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.078 636.040 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.364 636.067 Tributary Antelope Gulch 636.223 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.060 636.288 Tributary Antelope Gulch 636.306 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.101 636.499 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.393 637.164 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.717 637.235 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.318 637.408 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.445 637.506 Tributary Antelope Gulch 637.539 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.062 637.857 Tributary Antelope Gulch 637.919 Tributary Antelope Gulch 637.930 Tributary Antelope Gulch 637.959 Tributary Antelope Gulch 638.264 Tributary Antelope Gulch 638.465 Tributary Antelope Gulch 638.526 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X X X X X 0.635 0.771 X X X X 0.460 0.544 0.651 X 0.039 X 0.041 X 0.656 X 1.230 X 1.035 638.663 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.662 639.134 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.669 639.620 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.104 639.719 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.784 639.748 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.328 640.046 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.728 640.552 Tributary Antelope Gulch 640.778 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.067 641.999 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.099 642.555 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.410 642.746 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.057 642.759 Tributary Antelope Gulch 642.877 Tributary Antelope Gulch 643.327 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 0.616 1.268 X X X 0.713 X 0.729 643.882 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.406 644.479 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.005 644.815 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 1.429 645.329 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.461 645.453 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.334 645.599 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.048 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 645.691 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.442 645.830 Tributary Antelope Gulch 646.110 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1.082 646.651 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.159 646.717 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.183 646.736 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.531 646.837 Tributary Antelope Gulch X 0.072 646.887 Tributary Antelope Gulch 647.109 Tributary Antelope Gulch 647.145 Tributary Antelope Draw 647.247 Tributary Antelope Draw 648.400 Tributary Antelope Draw 649.447 Tributary Antelope Draw X X 1.749 0.911 650.217 Tributary Antelope Draw 0.508 X X X X X X X 0.214 X 0.592 X 0.372 X 0.789 0.558 651.239 Antelope Draw 652.311 Antelope Draw X 0.429 652.342 Antelope Draw X 0.068 652.353 Antelope Draw X 0.079 652.392 Antelope Draw X 0.019 652.425 Antelope Draw X 0.089 652.432 Antelope Draw X 0.083 652.461 Antelope Draw 652.592 Antelope Draw 652.748 Antelope Draw 653.033 Antelope Draw 653.499 Antelope Draw 653.523 Antelope Draw X X 0.482 3.884 X X X 0.020 X 0.254 X 0.078 X 0.643 X 0.474 653.618 Antelope Draw X 0.592 653.679 Antelope Draw X 0.085 653.680 Antelope Draw 653.703 Antelope Draw X 0.081 653.730 Antelope Draw X 0.119 653.902 Antelope Draw X 0.055 654.260 Antelope Draw X 0.560 654.963 Antelope Draw 654.992 Antelope Draw X 0.374 655.018 Antelope Draw X 0.112 655.086 Antelope Draw X 0.184 655.304 Antelope Draw X 0.512 655.380 Antelope Draw 655.822 Antelope Draw 655.824 Antelope Draw 656.028 Antelope Draw 656.704 Antelope Draw 657.515 Antelope Draw 657.994 Antelope Draw X X X X 0.887 0.744 X X X X 0.379 0.725 X 0.581 X 0.307 X 0.085 X 1.598 X 0.103 660.224 Tributary Number 9 Draw X 0.055 660.393 Tributary Borrego Draw X 0.649 <<>> Table 10.1.4-3 (continued) Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) 661.471 Tributary Borrego Draw X 0.026 661.838 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 662.032 Tributary Borrego Draw X 0.540 662.424 Tributary Borrego Draw X 0.262 665.539 Tributary Borrego Draw 666.296 Tributary Borrego Draw 666.405 Tributary Borrego Draw X X X X 0.814 X 0.267 0.997 0.761 667.711 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 0.457 668.258 Tributary Borrego Draw X 0.205 671.399 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 0.811 674.173 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.375 675.030 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.322 675.874 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.640 676.387 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.017 676.739 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.789 676.940 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.575 678.188 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.079 679.790 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.216 680.809 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.691 684.002 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 0.855 684.568 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X 0.949 685.419 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1.110 <<>> Table 10.1.4-4 Wetlands from Crane to El Paso MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres Wetland Stream Count Wetland Stream Miles County 457 460 0 0.00 0 0 Crane 460 470 5 1.26 0 0 Crane 470 480 4 18.22 0 0 Crane 480 490 1 3.35 0 0 Crane/Ward 490 500 3 0.77 0 0 Ward 500 510 1 16.64 0 0 Ward 510 520 3 21.54 0 0 Ward 520 590 530 580 2 17.97 0 0 Reeves/Ward 530 540 7 344.94 0 0 Reeves 540 550 5 0.90 0 0 Reeves 550 560 4 2.59 0 0 Culberson/Reeves 560 570 17 42.50 5 2.51 Culberson 570 580 7 8.99 14 4.83 Culberson 5 2.54 0 0 Culberson 590 600 11 11.51 0 0 Culberson 600 610 11 4.70 6 1.11 Culberson 610 620 65 2236.30 0 0 Culberson/Hudspeth 620 630 7 6.94 0 0 Hudspeth 630 640 6 4.48 0 0 Hudspeth 640 650 2 2.02 0 0 Hudspeth 650 660 2 0.26 0 0 Hudspeth 660 670 8 7.78 0 0 Hudspeth 670 680 2 0.57 8 3.00 Hudspeth/El Paso 680 690 3 2.59 0 0 El Paso 690 694 2 0.67 0 0 El Paso Total 183 2,760.14 33 11.45 <<>> Table 10.1.5-1 Aquifers Crossed by the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Gulf Coast Aquifer System Quaternary-Tertiary Sand, silt clay, and gravel Major Aquifer Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.5-2 Public Water Supply Wells within the 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact MP PWS ID Number PWS Name Aquifer Used Number of Water Wells 1.66 1011570 HOUSTON REFINING Gulf Coast Aquifer System (Evangeline Aquifer) 1 2.01 1011570 HOUSTON REFINING Gulf Coast Aquifer System (Evangeline Aquifer) 1 <<>> Table 10.1.5-3 Water Bodies within 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact COMID* MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number of Pipeline Crossings GIS Length Miles 113255185 0.510 Panther Creek X X 1 0.9609 113255265 1.090 HSC (Buffalo Bayou) X 0.1849 113255365 1.096 HSC (Buffalo Bayou) X X 1 0.3274 113255293 1.289 Vince Bayou X 0.3420 COMID = Common identifier of an NHD Flowline as provided by the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) <<>> Table 10.1.5-4 Wetlands from 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction MP From MP to Wetland Area Count Wetland Area Acres County 0 1 5 5.43 Harris 1 2 12 55.66 Harris 2 3 1 0.94 Harris <<>> Table 10.1.6-1 Aquifers Crossed by the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Aquifer Age Lithology TWDB Designation Gulf Coast Aquifer System Quaternary-Tertiary Sand, silt clay, and gravel Major Aquifer Source: Texas Water Development Board <<>> Table 10.1.6-2 Public Water Supply Wells within the East Houston to Holland Avenue Zone of Potential Impact MP PWS ID Number PWS Name Aquifer Used Water Wells Number of 6.87 1013224 Galena Park ISD Gulf Coast Aquifer System (Lower Chicot Aquifer) 1 <<>> Table 10.1.6-3 Water Bodies within East Houston to Holland Avenue COMID MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number of Pipeline Crossings GIS Length Miles 113254065 0.424 Hunting Bayou X X 1 1.230 113254057 2.005 X 0.060 113254065 2.005 Hunting Bayou X 0.400 113253913 2.022 Hunting Bayou X 0.021 113254033 2.235 X 0.051 113253913 2.235 Hunting Bayou X 0.097 113254207 2.250 Hunting Bayou X 1.766 113254269 5.319 X X 1 0.399 113254313 5.566 X X 1 0.278 113254315 5.598 Hunting Bayou X 0.302 113254323 5.669 Hunting Bayou X X 1 0.144 113254573 5.676 Hunting Bayou X 1.491 113254353 5.732 X X 1 0.277 113254665 6.788 Hunting Bayou X 0.745 113254573 6.807 Hunting Bayou X 0.071 113254615 6.866 X X 1 0.221 113254609 6.866 X 0.349 113254675 6.890 X X 1 0.334 113254607 6.955 X 0.163 113255005 7.557 Hunting Bayou X 0.658 COMID = Common identifier of an NHD Flowline as provided by the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) <<>> Table 10.1.6-4 Wetlands from East Houston to Holland Avenue MP From MP to Wetland Count Wetland Area Acres County 0 1 0 0.00 Harris 1 2 1 0.50 Harris 2 3 8 92.00 Harris 3 4 9 19.93 Harris 4 5 5 15.33 Harris 5 6 2 2.71 Harris 6 7 3 13.44 Harris 7 8 4 7.21 Harris <<>> Table 10.3.1-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Orion West Expansion Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 4, CT 30, Ector County 22 10 23 102 24 0 25 0 Total 112 BG 1, CT 9609, Hill County 295 0 296 0 Total 0 BG 6, CT 9508, Howard County 34 7 Total 7 BG 1, CT 9502, Mitchell County 70 3 71 0 72 3 73 1 74 2 75 7 76 2 77 0 78 1 79 0 Total 19 BG 3, CT 9504, Nolan County 100 1 Total 1 BG 4, CT 9504, Nolan County 101 3 102 1 Total 4 BG 1, CT 9504, Nolan County 93 0 Total 0 BG 1, CT 128, Taylor County 136 0 137 0 Total 0 BG 6, CT 128, Taylor County 138 0 139 0 Total 0 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Starting MP 311.68 290.86 286.25 257.19 256.98 256.40 255.98 255.91 255.49 254.42 253.97 246.52 246.23 245.69 245.55 244.93 243.16 242.96 240.88 240.04 232 231 223.42 223 222.86 222.49 212.19 211.97 211.91 211.85 211.85 210.91 210.83 210.12 209.97 209.70 Table 10.3.1-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Orion West Expansion Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking Drinking Water Resource Vulnerability Ranking SUM of Rankings Sensitive Area 290.86 Woodbine-Subcrop 3 3 2 8 No 286.25 Woodbine-Outcrop 3 1 3 7 No 257.19 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 2 7 No 256.98 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 256.40 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 255.98 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 255.91 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 255.49 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 254.42 Trinity- Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 253.97 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 246.52 Trinity- Subcrop1 2 3 3 8 No 246.23 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 245.69 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 245.55 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 244.93 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 243.16 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 242.96 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 240.88 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 240.04 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 232 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 231 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 2 5 No 223.42 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 223 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 222.86 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 222.49 Trinity-Subcrop 2 3 3 8 No 212.19 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 211.97 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 211.91 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 211.85 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 211.85 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 210.91 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 210.83 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 210.12 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 209.97 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 209.70 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 202.50 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No <<>> Table 10.3.1-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Orion West Expansion (continued) Starting MP Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking Drinking Water Resource Vulnerability Ranking SUM of Rankings Sensitive Area 202.50 195.50 No Major or Minor Aquifers2 3 3 3 9 No 195.50 193.87 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 193.87 192.96 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 192.96 181.91 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 181.91 181.56 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 181.56 179.36 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 179.36 179.28 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 179.28 174.57 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 174.57 173.65 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 173.65 173.07 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 173.07 172.35 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 172.35 171.67 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 171.67 170.75 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 170.75 170.64 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 170.64 156.58 No Major or Minor Aquifers3 3 3 3 9 No 156.58 156.44 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 156.44 155.66 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 155.66 155.34 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 155.34 155.02 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 155.02 154.66 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 154.66 153.76 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 153.76 153.27 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 153.27 152.52 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 152.52 151.90 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 151.90 151.62 No Major or Minor Aquifers4 3 3 3 9 No 151.62 151.16 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 151.16 150.99 No Major or Minor Aquifers 3 3 3 9 No 150.99 148.57 Trinity-Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 148.57 99 No Major or Minor Aquifers5 3 3 3 9 No 99 92 Dockum-Subcrop6 3 3 3 9 No 92 90.21 Dockum-Subcrop6 3 3 2 8 No 90.21 85.61 Dockum-Subcrop 3 3 3 9 No 85.61 81 Dockum Outcrop 3 1 3 7 No 81 80 Dockum Outcrop 3 1 2 6 No 80 39.65 Dockum Outcrop7 3 1 3 7 No 39.65 35.06 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) 2 1 3 6 No 35.06 0a Southern Ogallala 2 1 3 6 No 0a 25.26b Southern Ogallala 2 1 3 6 No <<>> Table 10.3.1-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Orion West Expansion (continued) Notes: 1 - Trinity outcrops encroaching into zone of potential impact branches on south side between MPs 252 and 253, and 250 and 247. 2 - Trinity outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on north side between MPs 201 and 202. 3 - Trinity outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on south side at MP 164. 4 - Trinity outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on north side. 5 - Blaine outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact branch on north side between MPs 110 and 111. 6 - Dockum-Subcrop is not mapped as underlying zone of potential impact between MPs 92 and 99; however, TWDB information for PWS wells outside and adjacent to the zone of potential impact indicate these water wells produce from the Dockum Aquifer. 7 - Southern Ogallala-Outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on north side between MPs 41 and 42, Edwards- Trinity-Outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact at MP 40. a - MP west of Midland Basin Station. b - MP ending at Odessa Station. <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Odessa 1.65 X 0 0.06 1 Midland to Odessa 1.65 X 0 0.05 1 Midland to Odessa 9.61 X 0 1.95 3 Midland to Odessa 10.15 X 0 0.52 2 Midland to Odessa 10.53 X 0 0.40 3 Midland to Odessa 12.06 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Odessa 12.39 X 0 0.41 3 Midland to Odessa 12.90 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Odessa 12.95 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Odessa 13.00 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Odessa 13.03 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Odessa 13.15 X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Odessa 14.39 X 0 1.03 2 Midland to Odessa 15.75 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Odessa 15.75 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Odessa 15.75 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Odessa 15.84 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Odessa 16.53 X 0 0.92 2 Midland to Odessa 16.57 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Odessa 17.48 X 0 1.12 2 Midland to Odessa 17.53 X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Odessa 17.54 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 0.05 Midland Draw X X 1 1.99 2 Midland to Frost 12.03 Mustang Draw X X 1 0.83 2 Midland to Frost 12.12 X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 12.27 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 12.29 X 0 0.42 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 12.67 X 0 12.69 X 0 12.96 18.43 18.89 19.96 Hamilton Draw Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.02 3 0.49 3 X 0 0.57 2 X 0 0.61 2 X 0 0.80 2 1 0.72 2 20.30 X 0 0.11 3 20.42 X 0 0.37 3 20.64 X 0 0.02 3 21.13 Hamilton Draw X X 1 2.30 2 22.52 X 0 0.08 3 22.77 X 0 0.08 3 25.85 X 0 0.33 3 26.09 X 0 0.02 3 26.11 X 0 0.06 3 26.36 Mustang Draw X X 1 1.63 2 27.42 X 0 0.23 3 27.50 Elbow Creek X 0 0.08 3 27.50 Elbow Creek X 0 0.04 3 27.97 X 0 0.60 2 28.16 Elbow Creek X 0 0.79 2 28.16 X 0 0.08 3 28.20 Elbow Creek X X 1 1.27 2 28.32 X 0 0.16 3 28.52 X 0 0.22 3 29.04 Elbow Creek X 0 0.42 3 29.42 Elbow Creek X 0 0.80 2 30.11 Elbow Creek X 0 0.09 3 30.22 Elbow Creek X 0 0.14 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 35.67 Tributary to Cosden Lake X X 1 0.52 2 35.77 X 0 0.32 3 35.77 X 0 0.25 3 36.02 X 0 0.04 3 36.03 X 0 0.08 3 36.06 Tributary to Cosden Lake X X 1 0.51 2 36.17 X 0 0.33 3 36.32 X 0 0.03 3 36.40 X 0 0.12 3 36.52 Unnamed X X 1 0.46 2 36.58 X 0 0.21 3 36.61 X 0 0.05 3 36.71 Unnamed X X 1 0.40 2 36.89 X 0 0.02 3 37.13 X 0 0.19 3 37.13 X 0 0.03 3 37.51 X 0 0.44 3 38.63 Unnamed X X 1 1.06 2 39.52 Unnamed X X 1 0.75 2 39.95 X 0 0.09 3 39.95 X 0 0.02 3 40.17 X 0 0.29 3 40.17 X 0 0.17 3 40.18 Plum Draw X X 1 0.80 2 40.62 X 0 0.13 3 40.65 X 0 0.40 3 40.91 Unnamed X X 1 1.17 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 41.53 X 0 0.44 3 41.53 X 0 0.16 3 41.56 Red Draw X X 1 0.78 2 41.77 Aquaduct X 0 0.03 2 42.22 Tributary Beals Creek X X 1 0.88 2 42.49 X 0 0.00 3 42.49 X 0 0.52 2 42.69 Beals Creek X 0 0.02 2 42.98 Tributary Beals Creek X X 1 0.74 2 42.99 X 0 0.02 3 43.00 X 0 0.08 3 43.44 X 0 0.65 3 43.65 X 0 0.25 3 43.79 Beals Creek X 0 0.05 2 43.89 X 0 0.18 3 43.91 X 0 0.12 3 43.95 X 0 0.21 3 43.96 Beals Creek X 0 0.15 2 44.52 X 0 0.19 3 44.58 X 0 0.02 3 44.59 X 0 0.32 3 44.74 X 0 0.30 3 44.88 Beals Creek X 0 0.08 2 45.02 X 0 0.29 2 45.06 Beals Creek X 0 0.23 2 45.20 Moss Creek Lake Moss Creek Lake 1 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 45.21 X 0 0.14 3 45.32 X 0 0.26 3 45.38 X 0 0.10 3 45.45 X 0 0.10 3 45.45 X 0 0.01 3 45.46 X 0 0.15 3 45.53 Beals Creek X 0 0.22 2 45.53 X 0 0.00 3 45.54 Beals Creek X 0 0.01 2 45.57 Beals Creek X 0 0.01 2 45.63 X 0 0.16 2 45.67 X 0 0.15 2 45.68 X 0 0.65 3 45.79 Beals Creek X 0 0.07 3 45.98 Beals Creek X 0 0.24 2 45.98 X 0 0.06 3 46.02 Moss Creek X 0 0.53 3 46.44 Moss Creek X 0 0.76 3 46.64 Beals Creek X 0 1.41 2 46.69 Beals Creek X 0 0.04 2 46.70 Beals Creek X X 1 0.32 1 46.71 X 0 0.44 2 46.73 Beals Creek X 0 0.22 2 46.75 Beals Creek X 0 0.17 2 46.79 X 0 0.18 2 46.80 X 0 0.18 2 46.80 Beals Creek X 0 0.12 2 46.80 Beals Creek X X 1 0.51 2 46.81 Beals Creek X 0 0.07 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 46.82 Beals Creek X 0 0.18 2 46.86 Beals Creek X 0 0.28 2 46.86 Beals Creek X 0 0.65 2 46.87 Beals Creek X 0 0.10 2 46.95 Beals Creek X 0 0.38 2 46.96 X 0 0.03 3 47.06 X 0 0.02 3 47.17 Tributary Beals Creek X X 1 0.33 2 47.69 X 0 0.20 3 50.26 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1 0.53 2 50.54 X 0 0.03 3 50.72 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1 1.59 2 51.24 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1 0.00 3 52.06 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1 0.84 2 52.17 X 0 0.85 3 52.35 X 0 0.44 3 52.43 X 0 0.29 3 52.52 X 0 0.06 3 53.61 Tributary Dugout Creek X X 1 1.81 2 54.66 Unnamed X X 1 1.06 2 55.21 X 0 0.86 3 55.26 Unnamed X X 1 0.65 2 55.83 X 0 0.22 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 56.10 X 0 0.40 3 Midland to Frost 56.71 Unnamed X X 1 0.73 2 Midland to Frost 56.83 X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 56.87 X 0 0.50 3 Midland to Frost 56.93 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 57.05 Unnamed X X 1 0.60 2 Midland to Frost 58.03 Unnamed X X 1 0.48 2 Midland to Frost 58.30 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 58.33 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 58.90 Unnamed 1 0.84 2 Midland to Frost 59.01 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 59.03 X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 59.22 X X 1 0.73 2 Midland to Frost 59.43 Midland to Frost 59.44 Unnamed Midland to Frost 59.45 Midland to Frost 59.62 X X X 0 1 0.00 2 0.01 3 X X 1 0.00 2 X X X X 1 2 X 0 Midland to Frost 59.63 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 59.69 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 59.94 X 0 0.50 3 Midland to Frost 59.95 Unnamed X X 1 1.40 2 Midland to Frost 59.97 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 60.25 Unnamed X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 60.27 X X 1 3 Midland to Frost 60.29 Unnamed X X 1 2 Midland to Frost 60.37 X X 1 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 60.50 X X 1 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 60.54 X X 1 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 60.58 Unnamed X X 1 0.00 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 60.62 X X 1 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 60.63 Unnamed X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 60.68 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 60.69 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 60.71 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 60.83 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 60.85 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 60.86 Unnamed X X 1 0.68 2 Midland to Frost 61.48 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 61.54 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 61.54 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 61.66 Wildhorse Creek X X 1 0.78 2 Midland to Frost 61.81 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 61.81 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 61.82 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.54 3 Midland to Frost 61.99 Tributary Wildhorse Creek X X 1 0.74 2 Midland to Frost 62.07 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 62.19 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.89 3 Midland to Frost 62.26 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 62.33 X 0 0.29 3 Midland to Frost 62.34 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 62.36 Wildhorse Creek X 0 0.46 3 Midland to Frost 62.36 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 62.36 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 62.68 X 0 0.44 3 Midland to Frost 62.77 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 63.98 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 64.00 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 65.25 Lake Colorado City X 1 City of Colorado City 1 Midland to Frost 65.28 X 0 0.59 3 Midland to Frost 65.63 X 0 0.45 3 Midland to Frost 65.76 X X 1 0.60 2 Midland to Frost 66.20 Lake Colorado City X 1 City of Colorado City 1 Midland to Frost 68.00 Lake Colorado City X 1 City of Colorado City 1 Midland to Frost 69.00 Lake Colorado City X 1 City of Colorado City 1 Midland to Frost 69.14 Morgan Creek X 0 0.72 2 Midland to Frost 69.30 Morgan Creek X 0 0.03 2 Midland to Frost 69.32 Morgan Creek X 0 0.03 2 Midland to Frost 69.33 Morgan Creek X 0 0.01 2 Midland to Frost 69.34 Morgan Creek X 0 0.02 2 Midland to Frost 69.44 Morgan Creek X X 1 0.87 1 Midland to Frost 69.70 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 69.83 Canal X X 1 0.40 1 Midland to Frost 70.01 Colorado River X 0 1.16 2 Midland to Frost 70.01 Colorado River X 0 0.72 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 70.01 Colorado River X 0 71.78 71.78 Colorado River 71.92 Colorado River Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.17 2 X 0 0.40 3 X 0 0.02 3 1 0.44 1 72.07 Colorado River X 0 0.86 2 72.59 Colorado River X 0 1.29 2 72.90 X 0 0.36 3 72.90 X 0 0.09 3 72.99 X 0 0.22 3 73.29 X 0 0.30 3 73.54 X 0 2.48 3 77.94 North Fork Champion Creek X 0 0.00 2 78.03 X 0 0.07 3 78.61 North Fork Champion Creek X X 1 Champion Creek Lake 0.77 1 78.67 North Fork Champion Creek X 0 Champion Creek Lake 1.66 1 79.01 X 0 0.03 3 79.02 X 0 0.43 3 79.43 X 0 1.00 3 79.46 X 0 0.06 3 82.08 X 0 0.36 3 82.10 X X 1 0.11 2 82.10 X 0 0.04 3 82.14 X 0 0.02 3 82.15 X 0 0.61 3 84.23 X 0 1.34 3 84.97 X 0 0.27 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 85.30 X 0 94.92 Long Branch 95.07 Long Branch 95.55 Long Branch 95.70 Number Pipeline Crossings X X X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.20 3 X 0 0.11 3 X 0 0.06 3 1 0.83 2 1 0.42 2 95.80 Long Branch X 0 0.31 3 95.94 Long Branch X 0 0.35 3 95.94 X 0 0.05 3 96.14 X 0 0.10 3 96.16 X 0 0.10 3 96.16 X X 1 0.47 2 96.24 Long Branch X 0 0.31 3 96.28 X 0 0.04 3 96.31 Long Branch X 0 0.12 3 96.56 X 0 0.88 3 96.76 Long Branch X 0 0.13 3 97.22 X X 1 0.61 2 97.26 X X 1 0.00 2 97.29 X X 1 0.00 2 97.35 X X 1 0.00 2 97.35 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.14 3 97.36 X X 1 0.00 2 97.38 X 0 0.03 3 97.39 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.00 3 97.40 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.00 3 97.43 Idlewild Creek X X 1 0.44 2 97.53 X 0 0.10 3 97.54 X 0 0.04 3 97.68 Idlewild Creek X X 1 0.24 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 97.76 X 0 97.76 Idlewild Creek X X 97.88 Idlewild Creek X 0 97.90 Idlewild Creek 98.27 98.27 Idlewild Creek 98.27 98.27 Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.13 3 1 0.23 2 0.66 3 X 0 0.66 3 X 0 0.06 3 X 0 0.21 3 X 0 0.02 3 1 0.27 2 98.35 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.03 3 98.38 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.27 3 98.50 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.05 3 98.52 Idlewild Creek X 0 0.83 3 99.23 X 0 0.41 3 99.34 X 0 0.06 3 99.37 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.38 2 99.41 X 0 0.36 3 99.69 X 0 0.12 3 99.71 X 0 0.34 3 99.74 X 0 0.02 3 99.89 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 1.40 2 100.22 X 0 0.01 3 100.23 X 0 0.05 3 100.33 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.63 2 100.57 X 0 0.83 2 100.95 X 0 0.05 3 100.96 X 0 0.15 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 100.96 X 0 Midland to Frost 100.98 X 0 Midland to Frost 100.98 X 0 Midland to Frost 100.99 Midland to Frost 101.27 Sweetwater Creek Midland to Frost 101.27 Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 101.50 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.05 3 0.02 3 0.25 3 X 0 0.86 2 X 0 0.28 3 1 0.29 2 Midland to Frost 101.64 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 101.66 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 101.72 X 0 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 101.77 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 101.79 Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 101.81 Midland to Frost 102.62 Sweetwater Creek X X 1 1.14 2 X 0 X 0 Midland to Frost 102.68 Sweetwater Creek 1.28 3 Midland to Frost 102.64 Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.00 2 X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 103.13 Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.21 3 Midland to Frost 103.17 Sweetwater Creek 0.07 3 X 0 X 0 Midland to Frost 103.19 Tributary Town Creek X X 1 0.20 2 Midland to Frost 103.20 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 103.20 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 103.20 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 103.21 X 0 0.47 3 Midland to Frost 103.60 Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.05 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 103.60 Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.67 2 Midland to Frost 103.73 X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost 103.74 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 103.79 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 103.91 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 103.94 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X 0 0.53 2 Midland to Frost 103.96 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 103.96 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 104.06 X 0 0.88 2 Midland to Frost 104.29 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.54 2 Midland to Frost 104.30 X 0 0.65 2 Midland to Frost 104.48 X 0 0.30 3 Midland to Frost 104.54 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 104.62 Tributary Sweetwater Creek X X 1 0.36 3 Midland to Frost 105.19 X X 1 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 105.50 X X 1 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 105.61 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 105.67 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 105.68 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 105.75 X 0 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 105.83 X 0 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 105.83 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 105.88 Tributary Bitter Creek X X 1 0.27 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 106.30 X 0 106.35 Tributary Bitter Creek X X 1 0.79 2 106.51 106.59 106.66 Bitter Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.00 3 X 0 0.05 3 X 0 0.18 3 1 0.58 2 106.70 Bitter Creek X 0 0.44 3 106.70 Bitter Creek X 0 0.07 3 106.88 X 0 0.12 3 106.96 Bitter Creek X 0 0.41 3 107.08 Bitter Creek X 0 0.37 3 107.12 Bitter Creek X 0 0.13 3 107.12 X 0 0.04 3 107.17 X 0 0.01 3 107.18 X 0 0.03 3 107.20 Bitter Creek X 0 0.09 3 107.24 Bitter Creek X 0 0.23 3 107.24 X 0 0.04 3 107.87 Tributary Plum Creek X X 1 0.46 2 107.98 Plum Creek X 0 0.49 3 108.05 Plum Creek X X 1 0.36 2 108.06 Plum Creek X 0 0.02 3 108.06 Plum Creek X 0 0.02 3 108.18 X 0 0.51 2 108.19 Plum Creek X 0 0.27 3 108.26 Plum Creek X 0 0.20 3 108.27 Plum Creek X 0 0.10 3 108.29 Plum Creek X 0 0.02 3 108.95 Unnamed X X 1 0.28 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 109.09 X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 109.11 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.08 2 Midland to Frost 109.16 X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 109.17 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.09 2 Midland to Frost 109.18 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 109.18 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 109.29 Little Stink Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 109.38 Little Stink Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 109.38 Little Stink Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 109.39 Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.34 2 Midland to Frost 110.22 Little Stink Creek X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 110.26 Unnamed X X 1 0.54 2 Midland to Frost 110.30 Little Stink Creek X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 110.32 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 110.38 X 0 0.99 2 Midland to Frost 110.43 X 0 0.29 3 Midland to Frost 110.50 X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 110.50 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 110.60 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 110.61 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 110.62 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.68 2 Midland to Frost 110.77 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 110.79 X 0 0.02 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 110.83 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.45 2 110.88 X 0 0.34 3 110.96 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.52 2 111.24 Tributary Little Stink Creek X X 1 0.51 2 112.11 Stink Creek X X 1 0.67 2 112.17 Stink Creek X 0 0.78 2 112.18 Stink Creek X 0 0.04 3 112.22 Stink Creek X X 1 0.00 2 112.25 Stink Creek X X 1 0.00 2 112.27 Stink Creek X 0 0.13 3 112.29 Stink Creek X X 1 0.00 2 112.30 Stink Creek X X 1 0.00 2 112.31 Stink Creek X 0 0.01 3 112.32 Stink Creek X 0 0.35 3 112.32 Stink Creek X 0 0.34 3 112.32 Stink Creek X X 1 0.00 2 112.33 X 0 0.24 3 112.34 Stink Creek X X 1 0.68 2 112.72 X 0 0.53 2 113.26 Noodle Creek X X 1 0.96 2 113.35 X 0 0.07 3 113.42 Noodle Creek X 0 0.32 3 113.62 Noodle Creek X 0 0.02 3 113.63 Noodle Creek X 0 0.30 3 113.76 Noodle Creek X 0 0.02 3 113.85 Noodle Creek X 0 0.73 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 113.93 X 0 0.07 3 113.99 X 0 0.02 3 114.21 Noodle Creek X 0 0.07 3 114.23 Tributary Noodle Creek X X 1 0.54 2 114.23 X 0 0.04 3 114.30 X 0 0.01 3 114.30 X 0 0.01 3 114.30 X 0 0.02 3 114.31 X 0 0.22 3 114.36 X 0 0.08 3 114.37 X 0 0.02 3 114.40 X 0 0.45 3 114.55 X 0 0.10 3 114.55 X 0 0.02 3 114.56 X 0 0.02 3 114.56 X 0 0.26 3 114.57 Tributary Noodle Creek X X 1 0.56 2 114.86 X 0 0.51 2 114.86 X 0 0.48 3 114.86 X 0 0.15 3 114.86 Noodle Creek X 0 0.06 3 114.86 X 0 0.04 3 114.86 X 0 0.02 3 114.86 X 0 0.01 3 115.70 Tributary Noodle Creek X X 1 0.56 2 115.71 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 115.72 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 116.64 X 0 0.30 3 Midland to Frost 116.81 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 119.25 X 0 0.66 2 Midland to Frost 119.46 X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost 119.50 X 0 0.45 3 Midland to Frost 119.51 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 119.53 X 0 0.60 2 Midland to Frost 119.53 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 119.85 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 120.12 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 120.12 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 120.13 Little Bitter Creek X 0 1.33 3 Midland to Frost 120.13 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 120.14 Little Bitter Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 120.15 Little Bitter Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 120.29 Little Bitter Creek X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 120.31 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 120.44 Little Bitter Creek X 0 1.20 2 Midland to Frost 120.44 Little Bitter Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 120.71 Little Bitter Creek X X 1 0.91 2 Midland to Frost 121.28 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 125.14 Mulberry Creek X X 1 0.97 2 Midland to Frost 125.46 X X 1 0.58 2 Midland to Frost 125.54 Mulberry Creek X 0 1.15 2 Midland to Frost 125.54 X X 1 0.00 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 125.62 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 125.63 Mulberry Creek X X 1 0.28 2 Midland to Frost 125.71 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 125.71 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 125.99 Mulberry Creek X X 1 1.32 2 Midland to Frost 126.46 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 126.47 Mulberry Creek X 0 1.28 2 Midland to Frost 126.83 Mulberry Creek X 0 0.38 3 Midland to Frost 127.20 Mulberry Creek X X 1 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 127.26 X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 127.26 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 127.26 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 127.26 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 128.46 Bull Wagon Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 128.48 Bull Wagon Creek X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 128.51 Bull Wagon Creek X X 1 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 128.56 Bull Wagon Creek X X Midland to Frost 128.61 Bull Wagon Creek X X 1 0.29 2 Midland to Frost 128.67 1 0.00 3 X X Midland to Frost 128.74 Bull Wagon Creek X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost 129.15 Unnamed 1 0.36 2 X X 1 0.58 2 Midland to Frost 130.35 Unnamed X X 1 0.59 2 Midland to Frost 131.83 X 0 0.63 2 Midland to Frost 131.98 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 132.14 X X 1 0.24 2 Midland to Frost 132.14 X 0 0.20 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 132.14 X 0 0.04 3 132.14 X X 1 0.00 2 132.22 X X 1 0.00 2 132.28 X 0 0.05 3 132.28 Unnamed X X 1 0.06 2 132.29 X 0 0.04 3 132.29 X 0 0.14 3 132.36 X 0 0.27 3 132.55 X 0 0.02 3 133.02 Unnamed X X 1 1.15 2 133.09 X 0 0.05 3 133.11 X 0 0.08 3 133.73 X 0 0.63 2 134.06 Little Elm Creek X 0 0.00 3 134.14 Little Elm Creek X X 1 0.55 2 135.09 X 0 0.09 3 136.41 X 0 0.59 2 136.43 X 0 0.02 3 136.45 Unnamed X X 1 1.02 2 136.81 X 0 0.10 3 136.88 X 0 0.03 3 137.13 Tributary Elm Creek X X 1 0.66 2 137.29 Elm Creek X X 1 0.71 2 138.04 Cat Claw Creek X 0 0.43 3 138.07 Cat Claw Creek X 0 0.04 3 138.09 Cat Claw Creek X X 1 0.29 2 139.64 Buttonwillow Creek X 0 0.01 2 139.70 Buttonwillow Creek X 0 0.10 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 139.73 Buttonwillow Creek X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 139.79 Buttonwillow Creek X X 1 0.49 2 Midland to Frost 140.51 Midland to Frost 140.56 Buttonwillow Creek X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 140.82 Buttonwillow Creek X 0 0.08 3 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 140.85 X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 140.92 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 1 0.38 2 Midland to Frost 141.03 Cedar Creek X 0 0.80 3 Midland to Frost 141.07 Cedar Creek X X 1 0.39 2 Midland to Frost 141.10 Cedar Creek X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 142.48 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 142.49 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 142.54 X X 1 0.54 2 Midland to Frost 142.60 X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 142.71 X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 142.73 X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 142.75 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 142.75 X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 142.80 X 0 0.65 2 Midland to Frost 142.82 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 142.83 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 143.31 Lytle Creek X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 143.32 Lytle Creek X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 143.34 Lytle Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 143.48 X 0 0.20 3 Midland to Frost 143.78 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 143.78 X 0 143.82 143.93 Lytle Creek 143.94 Lytle Creek 143.95 Lytle Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.07 3 X 0 0.21 3 X 0 0.73 2 X 0 0.22 3 1 0.24 2 144.14 Lytle Creek X 0 0.25 3 144.16 Lytle Creek X 0 0.05 3 144.17 Lytle Creek X 0 0.03 3 144.19 Lytle Creek X 0 0.24 3 144.33 Lytle Creek X 0 0.06 3 144.34 X 0 0.06 3 144.52 X 0 0.28 3 144.59 X X 1 0.92 2 144.69 X X 1 0.00 2 144.71 X X 1 0.00 2 144.90 X X 1 0.00 2 144.90 X 0 0.28 3 144.91 Unnamed X X 1 0.65 2 145.36 X 0 0.03 3 145.40 X 0 0.04 3 147.46 X 0 0.02 3 147.49 X 0 0.05 3 147.52 X 0 0.07 3 147.61 X 0 0.19 3 147.64 X 0 0.03 3 147.81 X 0 0.08 3 148.08 X 0 0.48 3 148.08 X 0 0.18 3 148.22 Rainy Creek X X 1 1.36 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 149.11 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 149.14 Tributary Rainy Creek X X 1 0.05 2 Midland to Frost 149.14 X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 149.14 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 149.16 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 150.83 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 150.83 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 150.83 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 150.84 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 150.95 North Prong Pecan Bayou Midland to Frost 151.77 North Prong Pecan Bayou Midland to Frost 151.77 X 0 0.18 3 X X 1 0.67 2 X X 1 0.38 2 X 0 Midland to Frost 151.80 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 151.80 Midland to Frost 151.80 North Prong Pecan Bayou X 0 0.03 3 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 151.86 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 151.87 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 151.97 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 152.05 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 152.63 X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 152.95 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 152.95 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 152.98 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 152.99 Unnamed X X 1 0.14 2 Midland to Frost 153.01 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 153.02 X 0 0.05 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 153.03 X 0 Midland to Frost 153.03 Midland to Frost 153.03 Midland to Frost 153.04 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.02 3 X 0 0.09 3 X 0 0.50 2 1 0.20 3 Midland to Frost 153.87 X 0 0.20 3 Midland to Frost 154.02 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 154.23 X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 154.23 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 154.41 Unnamed X X 1 0.86 2 Midland to Frost 154.42 X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 154.42 X 0 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 155.24 Unnamed X X 1 City of Clyde 0.15 1 Midland to Frost 155.24 X 0 City of Clyde 0.10 1 Midland to Frost 155.28 X 0 City of Clyde 0.03 1 Midland to Frost 155.29 X 0 City of Clyde 0.03 1 Midland to Frost 155.30 X 0 City of Clyde 0.03 1 Midland to Frost 155.30 X 0 City of Clyde 0.22 1 Midland to Frost 155.30 Unnamed X City of Clyde 1 Midland to Frost 155.30 X 0 City of Clyde 0.00 1 Midland to Frost 155.43 X 0 City of Clyde 0.02 1 Midland to Frost 155.51 X 0 City of Clyde 0.35 1 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 155.73 X 0 City of Clyde 0.37 1 Midland to Frost 155.77 City of Clyde 0.01 1 Midland to Frost 155.85 X 0 City of Clyde 0.39 1 Midland to Frost 155.86 Unnamed Midland to Frost 155.99 Unnamed Midland to Frost 156.33 X 0 0.04 3 X X 1 0.27 2 X X 1 0.50 2 X 0 Midland to Frost 156.36 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 156.38 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 156.83 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 156.88 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 157.24 X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 157.25 Kaiser Creek X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 157.29 Kaiser Creek X X 1 0.36 2 Midland to Frost 157.46 Kaiser Creek X 0 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 157.62 X X 1 0.52 2 Midland to Frost 157.63 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 157.65 Kaiser Creek X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 157.65 Kaiser Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 157.66 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 157.79 X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 157.80 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 157.84 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 158.11 X 0 0.46 3 Midland to Frost 158.14 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 158.81 Tributary Club Hollow X X 1 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 158.81 X 0 0.12 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 158.85 X 0 0.02 3 158.86 X 0 0.37 3 158.87 X 0 0.17 3 158.87 X 0 0.17 3 158.87 X 0 0.08 3 158.87 X 0 0.01 3 159.02 X 0 0.08 3 159.21 X 0 0.05 3 159.26 X 0 0.02 3 159.28 X 0 0.29 3 159.29 X 0 0.02 3 159.63 X 0 0.41 3 160.14 Tributary Club Hollow X X 1 0.44 2 160.44 X 0 160.88 X 0 161.12 X X 1 0.57 2 161.12 X X 161.14 X X 0.34 3 1 City of Baird 0.00 1 1 0.00 2 161.27 X 0 0.33 3 City of Baird 0.17 1 161.28 Mexia Creek X 0 City of Baird 0.18 1 161.28 X 0 City of Baird 0.07 1 161.29 Mexia Creek X 0 City of Baird 0.24 1 161.29 X 0 City of Baird 0.03 1 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 161.29 Mexia Creek X 0 161.31 Mexia Creek 161.31 Mexia Creek 161.32 Mexia Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking City of Baird 0.36 1 X 0 City of Baird 0.04 1 X 0 City of Baird 0.08 1 1 City of Baird 0.49 1 161.35 Mexia Creek X 0 City of Baird 0.21 1 161.35 X 0 City of Baird 0.00 1 161.36 Mexia Creek X 0 City of Baird 0.14 1 161.36 Mexia Creek X 0 City of Baird 0.07 1 161.45 X 0 City of Baird 0.15 1 161.46 Tributary Mexia Creek X X 1 City of Baird 0.53 1 161.50 Tributary Mexia Creek X 1 City of Baird 1 161.51 Tributary Mexia Creek X X 1 City of Baird 0.41 1 161.98 X 0 0.20 3 162.08 Tributary Mexia Creek X X 1 0.50 2 162.12 X 0 0.31 3 162.15 X 0 0.13 3 162.17 X 0 0.13 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 162.22 X 0 162.24 X 0 162.25 162.26 162.54 162.63 162.77 Number Pipeline Crossings X X X X X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.12 3 0.03 3 X 0 0.01 3 X 0 0.02 3 1 0.70 2 1 0.00 2 1 0.00 2 162.86 X 0 0.15 3 162.97 X 0 0.10 3 163.05 X 0 0.00 3 163.29 X 0 0.52 3 163.98 X 0 0.03 3 163.98 X 0 0.45 3 163.99 Unnamed X X 1 0.19 2 164.18 X 0 0.01 3 164.30 X 0 0.16 3 164.52 X 0 0.27 3 164.84 X 0 0.75 2 165.16 Unnamed X X 1 0.84 2 165.20 X 0 0.05 3 165.73 X 0 0.34 3 165.74 X 0 0.48 3 165.91 X 0 0.41 3 166.00 X 0 0.39 3 166.05 X 0 0.13 3 166.05 X 0 0.03 3 166.05 X 0 0.00 3 166.10 X 0 0.63 3 166.21 X 0 0.02 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 166.22 X 0 166.25 X 0 166.26 166.39 166.39 166.69 Unnamed 166.76 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.20 3 0.02 3 X 0 0.07 3 X 0 0.17 3 X 0 0.04 3 1 0.43 2 1 0.39 2 166.79 X 0 0.67 2 166.85 X 0 0.10 3 166.94 X 0 0.45 3 166.95 X 0 0.41 3 166.99 X 0 0.18 3 167.15 Unnamed X X 1 1.22 2 167.19 X 0 0.70 2 167.27 X 0 0.06 3 167.29 X 0 0.04 3 167.41 X 0 0.24 3 167.42 X 0 0.02 3 167.42 X 0 0.02 3 167.43 X 0 0.03 3 167.51 X 0 0.11 3 167.52 Unnamed X X 1 0.02 2 167.52 X 0 0.04 3 167.54 X 0 0.03 3 167.57 X 0 0.10 3 167.67 X 0 0.04 3 167.70 X 0 0.02 3 167.86 X 0 0.93 2 167.91 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 168.00 Unnamed X X 1 0.72 2 Midland to Frost 168.19 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 168.38 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 168.41 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 168.46 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 168.83 Unnamed X X 1 1.29 2 Midland to Frost 168.94 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 169.08 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.41 3 Midland to Frost 169.11 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 169.12 Midland to Frost 169.30 West Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.17 3 X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 169.74 Unnamed X X 1 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 169.76 X 0 1.09 2 Midland to Frost 169.77 Unnamed X X 1 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 169.87 X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 169.87 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 170.09 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 170.34 X 0 0.30 3 Midland to Frost 170.37 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 170.49 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 170.50 X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 171.08 X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 171.15 Brushy Creek X 0 0.70 2 Midland to Frost 171.29 X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 171.32 Brushy Creek X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 171.40 Brushy Creek X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 171.41 Brushy Creek X 0 0.58 2 Midland to Frost 171.42 Brushy Creek X X 1 0.39 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 171.44 Brushy Creek X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 171.46 Brushy Creek X X 1 0.00 2 Midland to Frost 171.46 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 171.65 Tributary Brushy Creek X X 1 0.34 2 Midland to Frost 172.35 X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 172.39 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.65 2 Midland to Frost 172.39 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 172.42 Midland to Frost 172.65 0.33 3 Midland to Frost 172.67 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 172.69 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.02 3 172.69 Midland to Frost East Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.42 3 Midland to Frost 172.69 East Fork Brushy Creek 172.71 Midland to Frost 172.75 Midland to Frost 172.80 Midland to Frost 172.82 Midland to Frost 172.93 East Fork Brushy Creek X 0 0.08 3 X 0 0.06 3 1 0.82 2 X X X X 1 0.00 2 1 0.19 2 X X X X 1 0.00 2 X 0 Midland to Frost 172.95 East Fork Brushy Creek X X 1 0.27 2 Midland to Frost 173.94 East Fork Brushy Creek X X 1 0.46 2 Midland to Frost 174.03 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 174.07 X 0 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 174.07 Battle Creek X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 174.10 X 0 0.12 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 174.13 X 0 0.21 3 Midland to Frost 174.13 Battle Creek X 0 0.24 3 Midland to Frost 174.16 Tributary Battle Creek X X 1 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 174.20 Battle Creek X 0 0.33 3 Midland to Frost 174.21 X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 174.34 Battle Creek X X 1 0.50 2 Midland to Frost 174.39 Battle Creek X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 174.67 X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 174.67 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 174.70 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 174.72 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 174.73 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 175.27 X 0 0.57 2 Midland to Frost 175.32 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 175.43 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 177.88 X 0 0.24 3 Midland to Frost 177.92 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 177.93 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 177.93 South Fork Leon River X X 1 0.10 2 Midland to Frost 177.94 X 0 0.28 3 Midland to Frost 178.43 South Fork Leon River X X 1 0.68 2 Midland to Frost 179.33 X X 1 0.49 2 Midland to Frost 179.38 South Fork Leon River X 0 0.45 3 Midland to Frost 179.40 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 179.40 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 179.56 South Fork Leon River X 0 0.71 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 179.89 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 179.93 South Fork Leon River X 0 0.30 3 Midland to Frost 179.97 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 180.00 South Fork Leon River X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 180.87 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 180.94 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 181.04 Tributary South Fork Leon River X X 1 0.37 2 Midland to Frost 181.23 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 181.25 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 181.26 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 181.28 X 0 0.81 2 Midland to Frost 181.76 Tributary South Fork Leon River X X 1 0.39 2 Midland to Frost 181.78 X 0 0.42 3 Midland to Frost 181.78 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 181.78 X 0 0.29 3 Midland to Frost 181.78 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 181.80 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 181.83 X 0 0.43 3 Midland to Frost 181.87 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 182.64 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 182.65 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 182.65 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 182.65 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 182.74 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 184.69 X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 184.72 X 0 0.02 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 184.73 X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 184.90 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 184.91 X 0 0.61 2 Midland to Frost 185.03 Dead Horse Creek X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 185.21 Dead Horse Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 185.49 X 0 0.40 3 Midland to Frost 186.11 Long Branch X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 186.18 Long Branch X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 186.21 Long Branch X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 186.74 X 0 0.34 3 Midland to Frost 186.91 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 187.01 Tributary Long Branch X X 1 0.20 2 Midland to Frost 187.01 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 187.02 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 187.02 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 187.04 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 187.14 X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost 187.20 Long Branch X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 187.25 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 187.25 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 187.25 Long Branch X 0 0.21 3 Midland to Frost 187.34 Tributary Long Branch X X 1 0.09 2 Midland to Frost 187.36 Long Branch X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 187.37 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 187.39 X 0 0.21 3 Midland to Frost 187.46 X 0 0.41 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 187.46 X 0 0.02 3 187.46 Long Branch X 0 0.23 3 187.47 X 0 0.01 3 187.47 X 0 0.06 3 187.71 X 0 0.43 3 187.73 Long Branch X 0 0.05 3 187.74 Long Branch X 0 0.24 3 187.74 X 0 0.09 3 188.01 X 0 0.02 3 188.03 X 0 0.22 3 188.19 X 0 0.01 3 188.20 X 0 0.25 3 188.35 Tributary Long Branch X X 1 0.17 2 188.38 X 0 0.07 3 188.38 X 0 0.24 3 188.44 X 0 0.20 3 188.54 X 0 0.15 3 188.54 X 0 0.10 3 188.64 X 0 0.30 3 188.87 X 0 0.75 2 188.87 X 0 0.01 3 189.11 X 0 0.01 3 189.14 X 0 0.05 3 189.22 X X 1 0.27 2 189.22 X X 1 0.00 2 189.25 X X 1 0.00 2 189.30 X 0 0.02 3 189.31 X 0 0.74 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 189.47 X 0 0.01 3 189.48 X 0 0.17 3 189.55 X 0 0.34 3 189.59 X 0 0.02 3 189.59 X 0 0.03 3 189.59 X 0 0.60 2 189.69 Long Branch X 0 0.11 3 189.77 Long Branch X 0 0.06 3 189.86 X 0 0.76 2 190.85 Tributary Long Branch X X 1 0.39 2 191.76 X 0 0.12 3 191.85 X 0 0.10 3 192.09 X 0 0.26 3 192.09 Greer Creek X 0 0.13 3 192.17 Greer Creek X X 1 0.99 2 192.62 X 0 0.02 3 192.64 X 0 0.04 3 192.65 Tributary Greer Creek X X 1 0.48 2 192.65 X 0 0.16 3 192.65 X 0 0.13 3 192.69 Greer Creek X 0 0.34 3 192.94 Greer Creek X 0 0.56 2 193.07 X 0 0.52 2 193.22 X 0 0.23 3 193.30 Greer Creek X 0 0.23 3 193.31 X 0 0.11 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 193.31 Tributary Greer Creek X X 1 0.21 2 Midland to Frost 193.36 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 193.36 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 193.83 Tributary Greer Creek X X 1 0.67 2 Midland to Frost 193.83 X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 193.85 X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 193.85 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 193.85 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 194.30 Tributary Greer Creek X X 1 0.92 2 Midland to Frost 194.91 X 0 0.92 2 Midland to Frost 195.27 X 0 0.56 2 Midland to Frost 195.55 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 195.55 X 0 0.29 3 Midland to Frost 195.65 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 195.65 X 0 0.56 2 Midland to Frost 195.67 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 195.71 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 195.75 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 195.76 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 195.79 X X 1 0.35 2 Midland to Frost 195.92 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.41 3 196.05 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost Midland to Frost 196.09 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 196.09 X 0 0.00 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 196.11 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 196.15 Hunting Shirt Creek X X 1 0.47 2 Midland to Frost 196.20 X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 196.21 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 196.24 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.36 3 Midland to Frost 196.25 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.36 3 Midland to Frost 196.27 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 196.31 Hunting Shirt Creek X X 1 0.40 2 Midland to Frost 196.32 Hunting Shirt Creek X 0 0.55 2 Midland to Frost 196.37 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 196.38 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 196.48 X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 196.93 Unnamed X X 1 0.52 2 Midland to Frost 198.14 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 198.28 X 0 0.40 3 Midland to Frost 198.34 X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 198.35 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 198.36 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 198.36 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 198.36 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 198.47 Unnamed X X 1 0.48 3 Midland to Frost 198.51 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 198.52 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 198.74 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 198.75 X 0 0.02 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 198.82 X 0 Midland to Frost 199.01 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 199.01 Midland to Frost 199.01 Midland to Frost 199.01 Currycomb Branch Midland to Frost 199.11 Currycomb Branch Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.14 3 X 0 0.02 3 X 0 0.08 3 X 0 0.01 3 1 0.64 2 Midland to Frost 199.28 X 0 0.38 3 Midland to Frost 199.28 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 199.51 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.49 3 Midland to Frost 199.54 X 0 0.42 3 Midland to Frost 199.79 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 199.79 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 199.91 X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 199.92 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 199.94 Midland to Frost 200.08 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 200.09 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.14 3 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 200.15 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 200.28 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 200.29 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 200.35 Currycomb Branch X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 200.51 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 200.56 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 200.62 X 0 0.19 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 200.72 X 0 200.73 X 0 200.80 X 0 201.01 201.01 201.02 201.02 201.03 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.02 3 0.12 3 0.01 3 X 0 0.28 3 X 0 0.09 3 X 0 0.05 3 X 0 0.04 3 1 0.41 2 201.22 X 0 0.02 3 201.24 X 0 0.47 3 201.74 X 0 0.02 3 201.75 X 0 1.02 2 201.80 X 0 0.54 2 201.80 X 0 0.11 3 202.02 X 0 0.04 3 202.02 X 0 1.06 2 202.03 X 0 0.65 2 202.06 Unnamed X X 1 0.52 2 202.34 X 0 0.53 2 202.48 X 0 0.32 3 202.50 X 0 0.10 3 202.51 X 0 0.06 3 202.60 X 0 0.25 3 202.65 X 0 0.04 3 202.66 X 0 0.39 3 202.76 X 0 0.21 3 202.76 X 0 0.18 3 202.79 X 0 0.03 3 202.79 X 0 0.60 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 202.87 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.24 3 202.87 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.41 3 202.98 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.24 3 203.25 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.61 2 203.29 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.03 3 203.29 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.09 3 203.29 X 0 0.02 3 203.30 X 0 0.04 3 203.30 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.02 3 203.30 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.48 3 203.30 X 0 0.02 3 203.30 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.02 3 203.31 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.24 3 203.31 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.01 3 203.31 Shinoak Branch X 0 0.00 3 203.32 X 0 0.03 3 203.33 Shinoak Branch X X 1 0.31 2 203.36 X 0 0.18 3 203.65 Tributary Shinoak Branch X X 1 0.77 2 204.43 Unnamed X X 1 0.28 2 204.47 X 0 0.02 3 204.47 X 0 0.55 2 204.74 X 0 0.68 2 204.85 X 0 0.05 3 204.88 X 0 0.43 3 204.89 X 0 0.05 3 204.90 X 0 0.03 3 204.91 X 0 0.12 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 204.91 X 0 204.92 X 0 204.92 204.92 204.99 204.99 205.16 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.01 3 0.25 3 X 0 0.07 3 X 0 0.02 3 X 0 0.01 3 X 0 0.45 3 1 0.72 2 205.21 X 0 0.05 3 205.21 X 0 0.03 3 205.48 X 0 0.27 3 205.69 X 0 0.02 3 205.70 X 0 0.20 3 205.82 Unnamed X X 1 0.33 3 205.84 X 0 0.05 3 205.84 X 0 0.24 3 205.88 X 0 0.17 3 206.08 X 0 0.13 3 206.15 X 0 0.04 3 206.18 X 0 0.19 3 206.28 X 0 0.02 3 206.29 X 0 0.45 3 206.34 Unnamed X X 1 0.27 3 206.34 X 0 0.07 3 206.35 X 0 0.74 2 206.74 X 0 0.68 2 206.83 X 0 0.71 2 206.96 X 0 0.13 3 207.02 X 0 0.19 3 207.17 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 207.19 X 0 207.20 X 0 207.20 207.62 Unnamed 208.04 208.15 Unnamed Number Pipeline Crossings X X X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.02 3 0.36 3 X 0 0.03 3 1 0.52 2 X 0 0.20 3 1 0.27 2 208.26 X 0 0.10 3 208.88 Unnamed X X 1 0.35 2 208.89 X 0 0.03 3 208.91 X 0 0.02 3 208.93 X 0 0.72 2 208.96 X 0 0.12 3 208.98 X 0 0.25 3 209.04 X 0 0.01 3 209.16 X 0 0.15 3 209.20 Unnamed X X 1 0.28 2 209.24 X 0 0.13 3 209.41 X 0 1.76 2 210.75 X 0 0.24 3 210.80 X 0 0.42 3 211.18 X 0 0.04 3 211.23 X 0 0.19 3 211.44 Unnamed X X 1 0.52 2 211.59 X 0 0.13 3 211.61 X 0 0.25 3 211.61 Unnamed X X 1 0.18 2 211.67 X 0 0.04 3 211.68 Leon River X 0 0.02 2 211.81 Leon River X 0 0.40 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 211.81 Leon River X 0 211.82 212.18 212.23 Leon River 212.24 Leon River Number Pipeline Crossings X X X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.18 2 X 0 0.37 3 X 0 0.05 3 1 0.31 1 1 0.27 1 212.25 Leon River X 0 0.47 2 212.28 X 0 0.44 3 212.28 X 0 0.08 3 212.39 X 0 0.61 2 212.66 Leon River X 0 0.23 2 212.72 Leon River X 0 0.10 2 212.77 Leon River X 0 0.18 2 212.81 X 0 0.18 3 212.96 Leon River X 0 0.13 2 212.99 X 0 0.00 3 212.99 X 0 0.00 3 213.01 X 0 0.02 3 213.08 Leon River X 0 0.15 2 213.15 X 0 0.04 3 213.19 X 0 0.04 3 213.21 Tributary Leon River X X 1 0.42 2 213.30 X 0 0.06 3 213.30 X 0 0.03 3 213.79 Flat Creek X 0 0.27 3 213.81 Flat Creek X X 1 0.40 2 213.87 Tributary Flat Creek X X 1 0.43 2 214.00 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 214.04 X 0 0.20 3 214.50 X 0 0.47 3 214.63 X 0 0.23 3 214.64 X 0 0.14 3 214.64 X 0 0.03 3 214.67 Tributary Flat Creek X X 1 0.26 2 215.54 X 0 0.13 3 215.55 X 0 0.10 3 215.70 Tributary Leon River X X 1 1.02 2 216.97 Tributary Armstrong Creek X X 1 0.46 2 217.32 X 0 0.04 3 217.41 Armstrong Creek X 0 0.07 3 217.43 X 0 0.03 3 217.50 Armstrong Creek X X 1 1.25 2 218.29 Sand Branch X 0 0.33 3 218.29 X 0 0.02 3 218.32 Sand Branch X 0 0.04 3 218.43 Sand Branch X X 1 0.86 2 218.45 Sand Branch X 0 0.09 3 218.45 X 0 0.08 3 218.51 X 0 0.02 3 218.53 X 0 0.12 3 218.63 X 0 0.22 3 218.79 X 0 0.03 3 218.87 X 0 0.17 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 218.98 X 0 0.19 3 219.04 Unnamed X X 1 0.33 2 219.04 X 0 0.17 3 219.05 Unnamed X X 1 0.28 2 219.07 X 0 0.19 3 219.28 X 0 0.24 3 219.41 Unnamed X X 1 0.50 2 219.64 X 0 0.05 3 219.91 Unnamed X X 1 0.75 2 220.04 X 0 0.07 3 220.04 X 0 0.04 3 220.52 X 0 0.09 3 220.56 X 0 0.03 3 220.70 X 0 0.33 3 221.12 Cow Creek X X 1 0.34 3 221.12 Cow Creek X 0 0.24 3 221.15 Cow Creek X 0 0.50 2 221.23 Cow Creek X X 1 0.37 2 221.94 X 0 0.41 3 222.09 Unnamed X X 1 0.45 2 222.12 X 0 0.01 3 222.13 X 0 0.03 3 222.15 X 0 0.02 3 222.19 X 0 0.12 3 222.20 X 0 0.22 3 222.22 X 0 0.06 3 222.24 Unnamed X X 1 0.31 2 222.89 Cat Branch X 0 0.02 3 222.91 Cat Branch X 0 0.03 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 222.92 Cat Branch X 0 0.02 3 222.92 Cat Branch X X 1 0.15 2 222.99 Cat Branch X 0 0.12 3 223.08 Cat Branch X 0 0.12 3 223.31 Cat Branch X 0 0.07 3 224.41 Cat Branch X 0 0.11 3 224.59 X 0 0.16 3 225.42 Cat Branch X X 1 0.38 2 225.49 Buck Branch X 0 0.22 3 225.50 X 0 0.04 3 225.50 Cat Branch X 0 0.05 3 225.54 Cat Branch X 0 0.15 3 225.59 X 0 0.16 3 225.67 Buck Branch X 0 0.21 3 225.68 Buck Branch X 0 0.05 3 225.90 Buck Branch X 0 0.67 2 226.10 X 0 0.09 3 226.24 Buck Branch X 0 0.19 3 226.33 X 0 0.08 3 226.76 X 0 0.06 3 226.81 Buck Branch X X 1 0.22 2 226.88 Buck Branch X 0 0.35 3 226.92 Buck Branch X 0 0.38 3 227.36 X 0 0.03 3 227.39 X 0 0.23 3 227.61 X 0 0.01 3 227.63 X 0 0.03 3 227.68 X 0 0.03 3 227.83 Green Creek X 0 0.10 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 227.94 Tributary Green Creek X X 1 0.43 2 227.99 Green Creek X 0 0.07 3 227.99 Green Creek X X 1 0.28 2 228.04 Green Creek X 0 0.01 3 228.05 X 0 0.12 3 228.07 Green Creek X 0 0.03 3 228.11 Green Creek X 0 0.08 3 228.13 Green Creek X 0 0.23 3 228.39 Tributary Green Creek X X 1 0.25 2 228.39 X 0 0.01 3 228.40 X 0 0.03 3 228.42 X 0 0.14 3 228.50 Green Creek X 0 0.41 3 228.74 Green Creek X 0 0.43 3 228.75 X 0 0.04 3 228.76 X 0 0.33 3 228.82 Tributary Green Creek X X 1 0.37 2 228.90 X 0 0.04 3 228.90 X 0 0.23 3 229.11 Green Creek X 0 0.01 3 229.59 X 0 0.13 3 229.59 X 0 0.12 3 229.64 X 0 0.10 3 229.64 Tributary Green Creek X X 1 0.21 2 229.64 X 0 0.39 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 229.74 X 0 0.03 3 229.82 X 0 0.10 3 229.82 X 0 0.14 3 229.86 X 0 0.31 3 230.51 Tributary Green Creek X X 1 0.69 2 230.53 X 0 0.59 2 230.72 X 0 0.46 3 232.02 Live Oak Creek X 0 0.15 3 232.16 X X 1 1.45 2 232.61 X X 1 0.00 3 233.04 X 0 0.00 3 233.05 X 0 0.05 3 233.10 X 0 0.07 3 233.38 X 0 0.81 2 233.65 X 0 0.08 3 233.90 X 0 0.26 3 233.90 X 0 0.09 3 234.03 X 0 0.04 3 234.22 Tributary Live Oak Creek X X 1 0.49 2 234.26 X 0 0.25 3 234.30 X 0 0.08 3 234.39 X 0 0.40 3 234.51 Live Oak Creek X X 1 0.38 2 234.52 Live Oak Creek X 0 0.06 3 234.59 Live Oak Creek X 0 0.14 3 234.64 X 0 0.04 3 234.84 Live Oak Creek X 0 0.42 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 235.01 X 0 Midland to Frost 235.01 Live Oak Creek Midland to Frost 235.24 Live Oak Creek Midland to Frost 235.32 Alarm Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.14 3 X 0 0.19 3 X 0 0.02 3 1 0.77 2 Midland to Frost 235.45 North Bosque River X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 235.46 North Bosque River X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 235.48 Sims Creek X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 235.49 Sims Creek X 0 0.33 3 Midland to Frost 235.52 North Bosque River X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 235.61 North Bosque River X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 235.63 Live Oak Creek X 0 0.39 3 Midland to Frost 235.64 Alarm Creek X 0 0.23 3 Midland to Frost 235.64 North Bosque River X 0 0.78 2 Midland to Frost 235.65 North Bosque River X X 1 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 235.76 North Bosque River X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 235.76 Alarm Creek X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 235.77 North Bosque River X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 235.78 North Bosque River X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 235.80 North Bosque River X 0 0.37 3 Midland to Frost 235.82 North Bosque River X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 235.95 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 235.98 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.65 2 Midland to Frost 236.05 X 0 0.15 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 236.05 X 0 0.01 3 236.09 X 0 0.10 3 236.26 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.39 2 236.38 X 0 0.04 3 236.59 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.41 2 236.66 X 0 0.39 3 236.69 X 0 0.37 3 236.69 X 0 0.02 3 236.69 X 0 0.01 3 236.70 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.26 2 236.70 X 0 0.00 3 236.78 X 0 0.22 3 236.79 X 0 0.21 3 237.25 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.94 2 237.97 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.28 3 238.17 X 0 0.48 3 238.17 X 0 0.01 3 238.18 X 0 0.01 3 238.18 X 0 0.01 3 238.19 Tributary North Bosque River X X 1 0.38 2 238.51 X 0 0.26 3 238.53 X 0 0.24 3 238.54 X 0 0.24 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 238.54 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 238.58 Unnamed 1 0.41 2 Midland to Frost 238.62 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 238.62 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 238.73 0.28 3 Midland to Frost 239.03 X 0 Midland to Frost 239.25 Round Hole Branch X 0 0.62 3 Midland to Frost 239.22 Round Hole Branch X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 239.37 Midland to Frost 239.49 X X X 0 X 0 Round Hole Branch X X 1 0.81 2 X X 1 0.55 2 X 0 0.00 3 Round Hole Branch Midland to Frost 239.60 X 0 0.42 3 Midland to Frost 239.63 X 0 0.45 3 Midland to Frost 239.65 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 239.66 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 239.66 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 239.67 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 239.67 Tributary Round Hole Branch X X 1 0.10 2 Midland to Frost 239.70 X 0 0.34 3 Midland to Frost 239.73 Tributary Round Hole Branch X X 1 0.45 2 Midland to Frost 239.79 X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 239.82 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 240.24 X 0 0.69 2 Midland to Frost 240.26 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 240.29 Tributary Round Hole Branch X X 1 0.37 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 241.06 X 0 0.24 3 Midland to Frost 241.16 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 241.27 Turkey Branch X X 1 0.32 2 Midland to Frost 241.43 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 241.51 X 0 0.71 2 Midland to Frost 241.93 X 0 0.71 2 Midland to Frost 241.93 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 242.37 Little Duffau Creek 0.29 3 Midland to Frost 242.41 Little Duffau Creek Midland to Frost 242.43 Little Duffau Creek X X 1 0.04 2 Midland to Frost 242.45 Little Duffau Creek X 0 X 0 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 242.44 Little Duffau Creek X 0 1.14 2 X X 1 0.23 2 Midland to Frost 242.90 Little Duffau Creek X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 243.00 Little Duffau Creek 0.04 3 X 0 X 0 Midland to Frost 243.02 Little Duffau Creek X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 243.70 0.79 3 Midland to Frost 244.03 Duffau Creek X 0 0.54 3 Midland to Frost 244.05 Duffau Creek X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 244.07 Duffau Creek X X 1 0.32 2 Midland to Frost 244.18 Duffau Creek X X 1 0.53 2 Midland to Frost 244.33 X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost 244.33 Duffau Creek X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 244.34 Duffau Creek X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 244.41 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 244.56 Duffau Creek X 0 0.15 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline 244.68 X 0 244.68 X 0 244.68 Duffau Creek X 0 244.70 244.71 244.71 244.73 245.62 Duffau Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.51 2 0.03 3 0.05 3 X 0 0.11 3 X 0 0.06 3 X 0 0.03 3 X 0 0.22 3 1 1.29 2 245.70 X 0 0.17 3 245.76 X 0 0.23 3 246.25 Camp Branch X X 1 0.63 2 246.45 Camp Branch X 0 1.33 3 246.53 X 0 0.18 3 246.56 X 0 0.07 3 246.60 Unnamed X X 1 0.25 2 247.51 Rocky Creek X X 1 0.62 2 247.76 Rocky Creek X 0 0.73 2 247.79 X 0 0.04 3 247.81 X 0 0.00 3 247.83 X 0 0.17 3 247.85 Tributary Rocky Creek X X 1 0.26 2 247.88 X 0 0.05 3 247.88 X 0 0.01 3 247.90 X 0 0.03 3 247.93 Rocky Creek X X 1 0.32 2 248.14 Rocky Creek X 0 0.13 3 248.18 X 0 0.06 3 248.20 Rocky Creek X 0 0.39 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 248.26 X 0 0.81 2 248.57 Tributary Rocky Creek X X 1 0.99 2 248.68 X 0 0.69 2 248.85 X 0 0.03 3 248.87 X 0 0.03 3 248.88 X 0 0.01 3 249.14 X 0 0.66 2 249.15 X 0 0.71 2 249.17 X 0 0.02 3 249.18 X 0 0.26 3 249.20 X 0 0.08 3 249.79 X 0 0.03 3 249.80 X 0 0.05 3 249.86 Tributary Walker Branch X X 1 0.59 2 250.02 X 0 0.07 3 250.04 Walker Branch X 0 0.17 3 250.07 Walker Branch X 0 0.40 3 250.08 X 0 0.05 3 250.09 Walker Branch X 0 0.33 3 250.11 Walker Branch X 0 0.23 3 250.14 Walker Branch X 0 0.06 3 250.14 Walker Branch X X 1 0.26 2 250.71 Boyd Branch X X 1 0.25 2 250.72 Boyd Branch X 0 0.01 3 250.72 Boyd Branch X 0 0.57 3 251.10 Boyd Branch X 0 0.18 3 251.14 X 0 0.13 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 251.19 Boyd Branch X 0 0.06 3 251.56 Hester Branch X X 1 0.85 2 251.81 Hester Branch X 0 0.09 3 251.89 Hester Branch X 0 0.09 3 251.97 X 0 0.30 3 252.00 X 0 0.05 3 252.00 Hester Branch X 0 0.16 3 252.00 X X 1 0.14 2 252.04 Hester Branch X 0 0.02 3 252.04 Hester Branch X 0 0.03 3 252.08 Hester Branch X 0 0.06 3 252.11 Hester Branch X 0 0.32 3 252.21 Hester Branch X 0 0.18 3 252.30 Hester Branch X 0 0.06 3 252.33 Hester Branch X 0 0.06 3 252.38 Hester Branch X 0 0.14 3 252.47 X 0 0.10 3 252.81 X 0 0.61 2 252.92 X 0 0.04 3 252.98 X 0 0.13 3 253.07 X 0 0.02 3 253.09 X 0 0.29 3 253.31 Flag Branch X 0 0.14 3 253.45 Flag Branch X 0 0.03 3 253.53 Flag Branch X 0 0.13 3 254.02 Tributary Flag Branch X X 1 0.38 2 254.04 Flag Branch X 0 0.93 2 254.17 Flag Branch X 0 0.11 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 254.29 Flag Branch X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 254.39 Flag Branch X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 254.44 Flag Branch X 0 0.25 3 Midland to Frost 254.53 Flag Branch X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 254.69 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 254.69 Flag Branch X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 254.69 East Bosque River X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 254.81 East Bosque River X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 254.83 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 254.83 East Bosque River X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 254.84 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 254.87 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 254.89 East Bosque River X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 254.92 Tributary East Bosque River X X 1 0.26 2 Midland to Frost 254.94 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 254.95 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 255.02 East Bosque River X 0 0.46 3 Midland to Frost 255.02 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 255.06 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 255.07 East Bosque River X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 255.17 East Bosque River X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 255.17 East Bosque River X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 255.88 East Bosque River X 0 0.82 2 Midland to Frost 255.99 East Bosque River X 0 0.20 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 256.00 Midland to Frost 256.21 X 0 0.44 3 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 256.20 East Bosque River X 0 0.07 3 Rough Creek Midland to Frost 256.19 Rough Creek Midland to Frost 256.20 Midland to Frost 256.21 East Bosque River Midland to Frost East Bosque River Midland to Frost X 0 0.02 3 X 0 0.01 3 X 0 0.02 3 256.22 East Bosque River X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 256.23 East Bosque River X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 256.23 East Bosque River X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 256.23 East Bosque River X X 1 0.16 2 256.25 Midland to Frost 256.25 East Bosque River Midland to Frost East Bosque River 256.28 X 0 0.02 3 X 0 0.13 3 0.04 3 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 256.25 Midland to Frost 256.25 Midland to Frost 256.27 East Bosque River Midland to Frost East Bosque River X 0 0.46 3 Midland to Frost X 0 256.43 Tributary East Bosque River X X Midland to Frost 256.57 Midland to Frost 256.62 East Bosque River X 0 0.61 2 1 0.42 2 Midland to Frost 256.68 Mustang Creek X 0 X 0 0.04 3 1 0.39 2 Midland to Frost 256.69 East Bosque River Midland to Frost 256.89 East Bosque River 0.03 3 X 0 X 0 X X X 0 0.24 3 0.32 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 256.89 East Bosque River X 0 Midland to Frost 256.93 East Bosque River X 0 Midland to Frost 256.93 X 0 Midland to Frost 256.97 Mustang Creek Midland to Frost 256.99 East Bosque River Midland to Frost 257.00 Midland to Frost 257.01 East Bosque River X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 257.02 Tributary Mustang Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.01 3 0.14 3 0.29 3 X 0 0.46 3 0.21 3 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 257.03 Mustang Creek X 0 0.09 3 1 0.24 2 X 0 Midland to Frost 257.03 Mustang Creek X X 1 0.15 2 Midland to Frost 257.05 X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 257.12 Mustang Creek X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 257.26 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 257.31 X 0 0.26 3 Midland to Frost 257.33 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 257.34 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 257.35 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 257.42 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 258.04 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 258.04 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 258.07 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 258.08 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 258.09 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 258.09 X 0 0.20 3 Midland to Frost 258.09 X 0 0.14 3 Midland to Frost 258.11 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 258.12 X 0 0.33 3 258.13 X 0 0.77 2 258.66 Steele Creek X X 1 1.62 2 258.69 X 0 0.05 3 258.69 Steele Creek X 0 0.04 3 259.41 X 0 0.04 3 259.41 Steele Creek X 0 0.15 3 259.55 Steele Creek X 0 0.12 3 259.62 X 0 0.02 3 259.63 X 0 1.04 2 259.63 X 0 0.16 3 259.63 X 0 0.05 3 259.64 Steele Creek X 0 0.04 3 259.64 X 0 0.06 3 259.65 X 0 0.02 3 259.65 Steele Creek X X 1 0.22 2 259.69 Steele Creek X 0 0.05 3 259.74 Steele Creek X 0 0.18 3 259.92 Steele Creek X 0 0.03 3 259.94 Steele Creek X 0 0.19 3 260.07 X 0 0.32 3 260.10 X 0 0.09 3 260.16 Steele Creek X 0 0.07 3 260.17 X 0 0.08 3 260.17 X 0 0.01 3 260.18 Steele Creek X 0 0.01 3 260.20 X 0 0.66 2 260.79 Tributary Steele Creek X X 1 0.44 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 260.88 X 0 0.01 3 260.89 X 0 0.11 3 260.89 X 0 0.01 3 260.89 X 0 0.06 3 260.91 Tributary Steele Creek X X 1 0.18 2 260.93 X 0 0.06 3 260.98 X 0 1.14 2 261.16 X 0 0.93 2 261.16 X 0 0.05 3 262.12 X 0 0.03 3 262.31 Tributary Steele Creek X X 1 0.69 2 262.31 X 0 0.08 3 262.43 X 0 0.03 3 262.65 X 0 0.26 3 262.65 X 0 0.10 3 262.66 X 0 0.25 3 262.67 Tributary Steele Creek X X 1 0.32 2 262.73 X 0 0.04 3 262.84 X 0 0.12 3 262.97 Tributary Steele Creek X X 1 0.51 2 262.97 X 0 0.11 3 262.98 X 0 0.02 3 263.44 X 0 0.22 3 263.89 X 0 0.12 3 263.91 Cox Branch X X 1 0.67 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 263.96 Cox Branch X 0 0.15 3 264.23 X 0 0.37 3 264.31 X 0 0.17 3 264.33 Tributary Cox Branch X X 1 0.22 2 264.38 X 0 0.02 3 264.43 X 0 0.14 3 264.80 X 0 0.16 3 264.90 X 0 0.06 3 265.15 X 0 0.04 3 265.18 Farris Creek X 0 0.28 3 265.26 Farris Creek X 0 0.09 3 265.27 Farris Creek X X 1 0.22 2 265.28 Farris Creek X 0 0.08 3 265.28 Farris Creek X 0 0.05 3 265.97 X 0 0.33 3 266.24 X 0 0.20 3 266.25 Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.38 2 266.26 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.18 3 266.36 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.06 3 266.38 X 0 0.02 3 266.40 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.02 3 266.41 X 0 0.02 3 266.41 X 0 0.03 3 266.47 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.06 3 266.47 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.00 3 266.74 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.11 3 266.80 X 0 0.07 3 266.86 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 266.88 X 0 0.22 3 267.05 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.10 3 267.34 X 0 0.12 3 267.44 X 0 0.03 3 267.46 X 0 0.14 3 267.50 X 0 0.01 3 267.54 X 0 0.03 3 267.54 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.56 2 267.67 X 0 0.39 3 267.67 X 0 0.13 3 267.74 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.10 3 267.88 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.16 3 268.01 X 0 0.05 3 268.02 X 0 0.03 3 268.04 X 0 0.29 3 268.08 Mesquite Creek X 0 0.05 3 268.08 X 0 0.07 3 268.09 X 0 0.15 3 268.14 X 0 0.16 3 268.17 X 0 0.04 3 268.20 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.56 2 268.45 X 0 0.10 3 268.52 X 0 0.03 3 268.90 X 0 0.05 3 269.12 X 0 0.31 3 269.18 X X 0.23 3 269.25 X 0 0.22 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 269.26 X X 1 0.00 3 269.30 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 1.09 2 269.66 X 0 0.17 3 269.66 X 0 0.04 3 270.01 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.42 2 270.04 X 0 0.85 3 270.04 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.44 2 270.41 X 0 0.15 3 270.46 X 0 0.10 3 270.62 Tributary Mesquite Creek X X 1 0.22 2 270.63 X 0 0.01 3 270.64 X 0 0.06 3 270.64 X 0 0.03 3 270.68 X 0 0.07 3 270.68 X 0 0.32 3 270.72 X 0 0.49 3 271.42 X 0 0.04 3 271.43 X 0 0.02 3 271.71 X 0 0.32 3 271.73 X 0 0.03 3 271.79 X X 1 0.58 2 272.28 Raymond Creek X 0 0.15 3 272.34 Raymond Creek X X 1 0.10 3 272.34 Raymond Creek X 0 0.05 3 272.39 Raymond Creek X 0 1.02 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 272.90 Raymond Creek X X 1 0.69 2 273.11 Raymond Creek X 0 0.09 3 273.11 Raymond Creek X 0 0.01 3 273.18 Raymond Creek X 0 0.14 3 273.21 X 0 0.35 3 273.28 X 0 0.03 3 273.33 Raymond Creek X 0 0.06 3 273.43 X 0 0.15 3 273.43 X 0 0.00 3 273.53 Raymond Creek X 0 0.22 3 273.54 Raymond Creek X 0 0.19 3 273.62 X 0 0.09 3 273.63 X 0 0.22 3 273.63 X 0 0.12 3 273.64 X 0 0.08 3 273.65 X 0 0.07 3 273.65 X 0 0.00 3 273.68 X 0 0.10 3 273.68 X 0 0.08 3 273.69 X 0 0.01 3 273.70 X 0 0.23 3 273.71 Raymond Creek X 0 0.11 3 273.78 Raymond Creek X 0 0.59 2 274.01 X 0 0.04 3 274.06 X 0 0.10 3 274.21 X 0 0.42 3 274.32 X 0 0.51 2 274.33 X 0 0.01 3 274.47 X 0 0.22 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 274.56 X 0 Midland to Frost 274.58 X 0 Midland to Frost 274.60 Tributary Brazos River X X 1 0.44 2 Midland to Frost 275.08 Brazos River Midland to Frost 275.09 Brazos River Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.11 3 0.08 3 X 0 0.12 3 1 0.20 1 Midland to Frost 275.09 Plowman Creek X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 275.09 Brazos River X 0 0.18 3 Midland to Frost 275.09 Brazos River X 0 0.19 3 Midland to Frost 275.15 Brazos River X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 276.27 Phelps Creek X 0 0.28 3 Midland to Frost 276.30 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 276.30 Phelps Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 276.38 Tributary Brazos River X X 1 0.39 2 Midland to Frost 276.38 Phelps Creek X 0 0.31 3 Midland to Frost 276.78 Phelps Creek X X 1 0.43 2 Midland to Frost 277.03 Phelps Creek X 0 0.49 3 Midland to Frost 277.44 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 277.46 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 277.51 Hulett Hollow X X 1 0.31 2 Midland to Frost 277.66 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 277.67 X 0 0.28 3 Midland to Frost 277.67 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 277.68 X 0 0.22 3 Midland to Frost 277.70 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 277.90 Hulett Hollow X X 1 0.40 3 Midland to Frost 278.06 X 0 0.02 2 Midland to Frost 278.39 X 0 0.53 2 Midland to Frost 278.61 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 278.63 Hog Creek X 0 0.20 3 278.64 Hog Creek X 0 0.01 3 278.73 Hog Creek X 0 0.27 3 278.94 X 0 0.21 3 279.06 X 0 0.00 3 279.30 X 0 0.30 3 279.47 X 0 0.11 3 279.54 X 0 0.04 3 279.69 X 0 0.08 3 279.78 X 0 0.02 3 279.79 X 0 0.11 3 279.86 X 0 0.03 3 279.93 X 0 0.15 3 279.97 X 0 0.16 3 279.97 X 0 0.07 3 279.99 X 0 0.05 3 280.02 X 0 0.04 3 280.04 X 0 0.11 3 280.10 X X 1 0.28 2 280.20 X 0 0.29 3 280.26 X 0 0.18 3 280.26 X 0 0.06 3 280.33 X 0 0.01 3 280.33 X 0 0.01 3 280.34 X 0 0.28 3 280.34 X 0 0.01 3 280.43 Bear Creek X 0 0.02 3 280.43 Bear Creek X X 1 0.36 2 280.44 Bear Creek X 0 0.38 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 280.50 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 280.51 Bear Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 280.52 Bear Creek X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 280.53 Bear Creek X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 280.53 Bear Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 280.54 Bear Creek X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 280.54 Little Bear Creek X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 280.55 Bear Creek X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 280.60 Little Bear Creek X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 280.61 Midland to Frost 280.77 Little Bear Creek X X 1 0.81 2 Midland to Frost 281.04 Little Bear Creek X 0 0.08 3 X 0 0.21 3 Midland to Frost 281.11 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 281.12 X 0 0.57 3 Midland to Frost 281.56 X 0 0.00 3 Midland to Frost 281.57 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 281.69 X 0 0.32 3 Midland to Frost 281.78 X 0 0.05 3 Midland to Frost 281.79 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 281.82 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 281.90 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 1 0.28 2 Midland to Frost 281.90 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 281.92 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 282.03 X 0 0.11 3 Midland to Frost 282.04 X 0 0.07 3 Midland to Frost 282.04 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Midland to Frost 282.05 X 0 Midland to Frost 282.06 Midland to Frost 282.15 Cedar Creek Midland to Frost 282.16 Cedar Creek Midland to Frost 282.18 Cedar Creek Number Pipeline Crossings X X IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.01 3 X 0 0.14 3 X 0 0.39 3 X 0 0.15 3 1 0.84 2 Midland to Frost 282.48 X 0 0.61 2 Midland to Frost 283.37 X 0 0.52 2 Midland to Frost 283.91 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 1 0.37 2 Midland to Frost 283.95 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 1 0.26 2 Midland to Frost 283.95 X 0 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 283.96 X 0 0.97 2 Midland to Frost 284.05 Tributary Cedar Creek X X 1 0.50 2 Midland to Frost 284.85 X 0 0.95 2 Midland to Frost 285.55 Little Aquilla Creek X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 285.59 X X Midland to Frost 285.64 Little Aquilla Creek X X 1 0.75 2 Midland to Frost 285.66 Little Aquilla Creek Midland to Frost 286.00 Little Aquilla Creek 1 0.56 2 X X X 0 1 0.74 2 Midland to Frost 286.06 Midland to Frost 286.22 Little Aquilla Creek X 0 0.17 3 Midland to Frost 286.60 Little Aquilla Creek X 0 0.17 3 X 0 Midland to Frost 286.99 Midland to Frost 287.52 0.22 3 X 0 0.55 2 X 0 0.56 2 0.42 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 287.58 Tributary Aquilla Creek X X 1 0.47 3 287.79 X 0 0.06 3 287.81 X 0 0.00 3 287.83 X 0 0.16 3 287.83 X 0 0.03 3 287.98 X 0 0.01 3 288.01 X 0 0.06 3 288.09 X 0 0.18 3 288.10 X 0 0.02 3 288.21 X 0 0.08 3 288.26 X 0 0.34 3 288.51 X 0 0.01 3 288.52 X 0 0.14 3 288.66 X 0 0.03 3 288.68 X 0 0.29 3 288.74 Aquilla Creek X X 1 0.86 2 289.23 X 0 0.25 3 289.31 Aquilla Creek X 0 0.07 3 289.36 Aquilla Creek X 0 0.12 3 289.38 X 0 0.11 3 289.41 X 0 0.06 3 289.50 X 0 0.18 3 289.52 X 0 0.03 3 289.79 X 0 0.03 3 289.81 X 0 0.06 3 289.82 X 0 0.01 3 289.82 X 0 0.63 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 289.85 Tributary Aquilla Creek X X 1 0.33 3 290.64 Horne Branch X X 1 0.54 2 290.66 Horne Branch X 0 0.43 3 290.67 Horne Branch X X 1 0.00 2 290.70 Horne Branch X X 1 0.00 2 290.74 Horne Branch X 0 0.35 3 290.76 Horne Branch X 0 0.17 3 290.77 Horne Branch X 0 0.64 2 290.78 X 0 0.07 3 290.79 X 0 0.09 3 290.83 Horne Branch X 0 0.07 3 290.84 X 0 0.01 3 290.96 X X 1 0.64 2 291.11 X X 1 0.00 3 291.25 X X 1 0.00 3 292.22 Tributary Jacks Branch X X 1 0.38 2 292.32 X 0 0.06 3 292.37 X 0 0.03 3 292.38 X 0 0.34 3 292.38 X 0 0.01 3 292.41 X 0 0.05 3 292.50 Jacks Branch X 0 0.41 3 292.50 Jacks Branch X X 1 0.78 2 292.52 Jacks Branch X 0 0.03 3 292.53 Jacks Branch X 0 0.02 3 293.14 X 0 0.65 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) Pipeline MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking Midland to Frost 293.55 Tributary Hackberry Creek X X 1 0.28 2 Midland to Frost 293.57 X 0 0.06 3 Midland to Frost 293.63 X 0 0.01 3 Midland to Frost 293.63 X 0 0.16 3 Midland to Frost 293.63 X 0 0.35 3 Midland to Frost 293.79 X 0 0.13 3 Midland to Frost 293.80 X 0 0.48 3 Midland to Frost 294.14 X 0 0.12 3 Midland to Frost 294.50 Tributary Hackberry Creek X X 1 0.88 2 Midland to Frost 294.97 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 295.00 Aquilla WSD 1 Midland to Frost 295.11 Hackberry Creek X 0 Aquilla WSD 0.53 1 Midland to Frost 295.11 Hackberry Creek X X 1 Aquilla WSD 0.37 1 Midland to Frost 295.23 Hackberry Creek X 0 Aquilla WSD 0.95 1 Midland to Frost 295.25 Hackberry Creek X X 0.37 1 Midland to Frost 295.90 Midland to Frost 296.09 Little Hackberry Creek X X 1 Aquilla WSD 1.86 1 Midland to Frost 296.52 X 0 Midland to Frost 296.56 X 0 1 Aquilla WSD Aquilla WSD 1 0.10 3 0.03 3 Midland to Frost 296.57 X 0 0.08 3 Midland to Frost 296.88 X 0 0.30 3 Midland to Frost 296.89 X 0 0.01 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 297.36 X 0 0.65 2 297.48 X 0 0.34 3 297.48 X 0 0.23 3 297.53 Tributary Katy Lake X X 1 0.31 2 297.53 X 0 0.01 3 297.57 X 0 0.18 3 297.57 X 0 0.05 3 297.58 Tributary Katy Lake X X 1 0.07 2 297.59 X 0 0.03 3 297.62 X 0 0.20 3 297.64 X 0 0.10 3 297.77 X 0 0.73 2 297.79 X 0 1.12 2 298.75 X 0 0.31 3 298.75 Tributary Katy Lake X X 1 0.30 2 298.84 X 0 0.45 3 299.00 X 0 0.45 3 299.18 X 0 0.11 3 299.30 X 0 0.01 3 299.46 X 0 0.08 3 299.46 X 0 0.02 3 300.10 X 0 0.02 3 300.12 X 0 0.02 3 300.15 X 0 0.03 3 300.16 X 0 0.02 3 301.20 X 0 0.37 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 301.28 X 0 0.03 3 301.30 X 0 0.01 3 301.30 X 0 0.06 3 301.30 X 0 0.01 3 301.36 X 0 0.04 3 301.46 X 0 0.18 3 301.48 X 0 0.03 3 301.51 X 0 0.06 3 301.53 X 0 0.23 3 301.55 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 1 0.62 2 301.88 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 1 0.44 2 301.96 X 0 0.44 3 302.31 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 1 0.21 2 302.35 Pecan Creek X 0 0.11 3 302.44 Pecan Creek X X 1 0.31 2 302.53 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 1 0.33 2 302.58 Pecan Creek X 0 0.16 3 302.67 Tributary Pecan Creek X X 1 0.42 2 302.81 Pecan Creek X 0 0.74 2 303.12 X 0 0.05 3 303.17 Pecan Creek X 0 0.03 3 303.52 X 0 0.39 3 304.31 Tributary White Rock Creek X X 1 1.17 2 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Midland to Frost 304.92 White Rock Creek Midland to Frost Midland to Frost 305.08 White Rock Creek Midland to Frost 305.06 White Rock Creek X 0 0.04 3 Pipeline 305.21 Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) X X 1 1.16 1 X 0 0.06 3 305.06 Midland to Frost White Rock Creek X 0 0.11 3 X 0 0.15 3 Midland to Frost 305.21 X 0 0.06 3 305.33 305.65 Midland to Frost Midland to Frost 308.45 White Rock Creek X 0 0.27 3 Midland to Frost Midland to Frost 306.42 308.01 Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost 307.71 Cottonwood Creek Midland to Frost 308.11 Cottonwood Creek X 0 1.01 2 308.80 Number Pipeline Crossings X X 1 1.35 2 1 0.00 3 Sensitivity Ranking X 0 0.72 2 X 0 0.21 3 1 0.92 2 X 0 0.23 3 X X X X Midland to Frost 309.03 X 0 0.09 3 Midland to Frost 309.03 X 0 0.04 3 Midland to Frost 309.10 X 0 0.24 3 Midland to Frost 309.27 Tributary Richland Creek X X 1 1.10 2 Midland to Frost 309.33 X 0 0.10 3 Midland to Frost 309.39 Richland Creek X 0 0.03 2 Midland to Frost 309.61 Richland Creek X 0 0.41 2 Midland to Frost 309.70 X 0 0.02 3 Midland to Frost 309.75 Richland Creek X 0 0.31 2 Midland to Frost 309.81 Richland Creek X X 1 0.83 1 Midland to Frost 310.04 X 0 0.04 3 <<>> Table 10.3.1-3 Pipeline Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Midland to Frost Sensitivity of Orion West Expansion Water Bodies (continued) MP Stream ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 310.15 Richland Creek X 0 0.25 2 310.23 X 0 0.06 3 310.44 Richland Creek X 0 0.75 2 310.51 Tributary Richland Creek X X 1 0.86 2 310.65 X 0 0.05 3 310.65 X 0 0.01 3 310.70 Richland Creek X 0 0.31 2 310.72 X 0 0.17 3 310.72 X 0 0.04 3 310.85 Richland Creek X 0 0.22 2 310.85 X 0 0.02 3 310.88 X 0 0.01 3 310.91 Richland Creek X X 1 1.06 2 310.97 Richland Creek X 0 0.72 2 310.99 Richland Creek X 0 0.08 2 310.99 X 0 0.08 3 311.11 X 0 0.28 3 311.15 X 0 0.41 3 311.15 Tributary Richland Creek (Dam No. 47) X X 1 0.45 2 311.65 X 0 0.66 2 312.31 Tributary Hackberry Creek X X 1 0.46 2 <<>> Table 10.3.2-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 4, CT 30, Ector County 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0 25 3 26 8 27 3 28 0 29 0 Total 14 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Table 10.3.2-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Odessa to Crane Starting MP Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking PWS Water Well Ranking SUM of Rankings 0 14.38 Pecos Valley 2 1 1 4 14.38 24.5 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) 2 1 3 6 24.5 29.26 Southern Ogallala 2 1 3 6 *Sensitive Area is 4 or less Sensitive Area* Yes No No <<>> Table 10.3.2-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Odessa to Crane Pipeline Zone of Potential Impact Mile_Post ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 0.60 Landreth Draw X X 0.147 2 0.96 Landreth Draw X X 0.401 2 4.46 Landreth Draw X X 1.078 2 28.83 Monahans Draw X X 0.271 2 28.85 Monahans Draw X X 0.132 2 <<>> Table 10.3.3-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed El Paso Gateway Pipeline Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 1, CT 103.18, El Paso County 0 0 Total 0 BG 2, CT 103.20, El Paso County 0 6 1 8 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 Total 14 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Table 10.3.3-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking El Paso Gateway Starting MP Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking PWS Water Well Ranking SUM of Rankings 0 7.19 Hueco Bolson 3 1 3 6 Sensitive Area No <<>> Table 10.3.4-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 1, CT 103.09, El Paso County 674 0 675 0 676 0 677 0 678 0 Total 0 BG 1, CT 103.15, El Paso County 693 0 694 591 Total BG 1, CT 103.18, El Paso County 693 0 694 0 Total 0 BG 1, CT 103.20, El Paso County 676 0 677 0 678 0 679 0 680 0 681 0 682 0 683 0 684 0 682 0 591 691 685 0 686 0 687 0 Total 0 BG 2, CT 103.20, El Paso County 683 0 684 0 685 0 686 0 687 0 688 0 689 0 690 0 100 692 7 693 10 694 481 Total 598 <<>> Table 10.3.4-1 Housing Units by Mile Post for Environmental Justice Block groups¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline (continued) Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 2, CT 9501, Hudspeth County 638 0 639 0 640 0 641 0 642 0 643 0 644 0 645 0 646 0 647 0 648 0 649 0 650 0 651 0 652 0 653 0 654 0 655 0 656 0 657 0 658 0 659 0 660 0 661 0 662 0 663 0 664 0 665 0 666 0 667 0 668 0 669 0 670 0 671 0 672 0 673 0 674 0 675 0 676 0 677 0 Total 0 <<>> Table 10.3.4-1 Housing Units by Mile Post for Environmental Justice Block groups¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline (continued) Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP BG 1, CT 9502, Hudspeth County 610 0 611 0 612 0 613 0 614 0 615 0 616 0 617 1 618 0 618 0 620 0 621 0 622 0 623 0 624 0 625 0 626 0 627 0 628 0 629 0 630 0 631 0 632 0 633 0 634 0 635 0 636 0 637 0 638 0 Total 1 BG 1, CT 9501, Reeves County 524 0 525 1 526 3 527 0 528 0 529 0 530 0 531 0 532 0 533 0 534 0 535 0 <<>> Table 10.3.4-1 Housing Units by Mile Post for Environmental Justice Block groups¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline (continued) Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP 536 0 537 0 538 0 539 0 540 0 541 0 542 0 543 0 544 0 545 0 546 0 547 0 548 0 549 0 550 0 551 0 552 0 553 0 554 0 555 0 556 0 557 0 558 0 559 0 Total 4 BG 6, CT 9501, Ward County 501 0 502 0 503 0 504 0 505 0 506 0 507 0 508 0 509 0 510 0 511 0 512 0 513 0 514 0 515 0 516 0 517 0 <<>> Table 10.3.4-1 Housing Units by Mile Post for Environmental Justice Block groups¹ for the Crane to El Paso Pipeline (continued) Sensitive Block Group Milepost Crossed Housing Units within Zone of Potential Impact by MP 518 0 519 62 520 0 521 2 522 2 523 2 524 1 525 0 Total 69 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Table 10.3.4-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking Crane to El Paso Starting MP Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking PWS Water Well Ranking SUM of Rankings Sensitive Area 458.00 556.82 Pecos Valley 2 1 1 4 Yes 556.82 565.18 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)1 2 1 3 6 No 565.18 569.74 Rustler Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 569.18 570.06 No Minor Aquifer2 3 3 3 9 No 570.06 570.32 Rustler Outcrop 2 1 3 6 No 570.32 602.21 No Minor Aquifer3 3 3 3 9 No 602.21 612.29 Capitan Reef Complex (western arc) 2 3 3 8 No 612.29 614.15 No Minor Aquifer 3 3 3 9 No 614.15 629.66 Bone Springs-Victorio Peak 2 1 3 6 No 629.66 687.45 No Minor Aquifer4 3 3 3 9 No 687.46 694.20 Hueco Bolson 3 1 3 7 No Notes: 1 - Rustler-Outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on south side between 563.81 miles and 565.18 miles. 2 - Rustler-Outcrop encroaching into zone of potential impact on north side. 3 - Capitan Reef Complex-Subcrop encroaches into several southern branches of the potential zone of impact between MPs 596 and 602. 4 - Bone Springs-Victorio Peck encroaching into a northern branch of the zone of potential impact between MPs 632 and 633; Hueco Bolson encroaching into several southern zone of potential impact branches between MPs 674 and 686. <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 459.72 Landreth Draw X X 1 5.46 2 494.55 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 495.80 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 496.23 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.75 2 500.32 Monument Draw X X 1 1.14 2 504.84 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.83 2 1 0.67 2 1 0.58 2 X X 505.24 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.49 2 505.44 X X 1 0.68 2 505.59 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.51 2 507.24 507.83 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.89 2 508.66 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.05 2 508.86 Quito Draw 510.88 Tributary Quito Draw X X 1 0.80 2 511.34 Quito Draw X X 1 0.38 2 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.36 2 X X 512.16 1 0.48 2 X X 511.54 Quito Draw X X 1 0.49 2 512.86 Tributary Quito Draw X X 1 0.90 2 513.74 Tributary Quito Draw X X 1 0.76 2 514.36 514.81 515.16 Tributary Quarry Draw X X 1 0.25 2 515.31 Tributary Quarry Draw X X 1 0.75 2 516.03 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X 1 0.85 2 1 0.33 2 1 0.61 2 Tributary Quito Draw Quarry Draw X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.76 2 516.25 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.59 2 516.92 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.31 2 519.57 Canal (Barstow) X X 1 0.47 1 <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact (continued) MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 520.20 Canal (Barstow) X X 1 1.49 1 521.37 Lateral Number Three X X 1 0.85 1 522.29 Unnamed Canal X X 1 0.44 1 523.37 Unnamed Canal X X 1 1.08 1 523.82 Unnamed Canal X X 1 1.10 1 524.21 Lateral Number One X X 1 0.73 1 524.48 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 1 0.84 2 525.43 X X 525.48 Upper Pecos River X X 1 2.61 1 525.71 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 1 0.59 2 526.73 Tributary Upper Pecos River X X 1 0.49 2 Tributary Sand Lake Upper Pecos River 534.64 Tributary Sand Lake 534.71 Tributary Sand Lake X X 1 1.15 2 535.85 Tributary Sand Lake X X 1 2.08 2 536.90 537.31 Tributary Sand Lake 547.39 538.24 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.99 3 539.39 Tributary McIIvain Draw X X 1 1.07 2 McIIvain Draw X X X X 1 0.57 2 1 0.00 2 1 0.00 2 1 0.34 2 X X 1 0.84 2 X X 1 0.48 2 547.76 McIIvain Draw X X 1 0.84 2 549.19 Cottonwood Creek X X 551.34 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.39 2 556.58 Cottonwood Creek 560.63 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.41 3 560.82 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.53 3 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 565.43 1 0.63 3 X X 561.06 563.75 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.72 2 565.28 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 1.61 2 Cottonwood Creek 1 0.80 2 X X 1 0.71 2 <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact (continued) MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 565.52 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.00 2 565.68 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.00 2 572.13 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.66 2 574.74 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.68 2 575.35 Cottonwood Creek 576.34 Cottonwood Creek X X 1 0.62 2 577.29 Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.90 2 Frijole Draw 587.91 585.88 Tributary Budweiser Draw 587.01 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.33 3 587.26 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.33 3 587.57 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.60 3 588.80 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.80 2 590.44 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.91 3 590.96 1 0.32 2 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.84 3 X X Tributary Budweiser Draw 590.98 Tributary Budweiser Draw 594.64 591.23 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 1.32 2 591.83 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.31 2 591.89 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X X X X X 1 1.67 2 1 0.34 2 1 0.36 2 X X 1 0.42 2 592.28 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.49 2 592.76 X X 1 0.46 2 593.53 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.72 2 593.74 Tributary Budweiser Draw 593.85 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.54 2 594.08 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 0.62 2 Tributary Budweiser Draw 595.64 594.86 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 1.48 2 595.26 Tributary Budweiser Draw X X 1 1.46 2 1 0.00 2 X X Tributary Budweiser Draw 1 2.38 2 X X 1 0.53 2 X X <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact (continued) MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 596.11 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.37 3 596.71 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.30 3 597.85 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.72 3 597.99 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.40 3 599.00 599.03 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.16 3 599.33 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.48 3 600.23 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.02 3 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 601.13 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 1.01 3 X X 1 0.37 3 X X 601.03 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.69 3 601.11 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.46 3 601.95 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.40 3 602.08 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.62 3 602.16 602.45 602.54 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.57 3 602.66 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.54 3 602.75 599.78 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X X X 1 1.26 3 1 0.57 3 1 0.81 3 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.53 3 602.90 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.66 3 603.14 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.57 3 603.24 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.57 3 618.17 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.47 3 618.80 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.13 3 617.90 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 619.73 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X X X 1 0.54 3 1 0.31 3 1 0.26 3 619.21 619.24 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.33 3 619.64 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.56 3 <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact (continued) MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 621.02 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.82 3 621.05 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.00 3 621.10 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.00 3 621.51 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.00 3 622.79 622.90 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.39 3 624.11 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.78 3 624.81 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.44 3 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 625.82 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.34 3 X X 1 1.73 3 X X 625.12 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.26 3 625.13 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.35 3 624.45 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X X X X X 1 0.00 3 1 0.94 3 1 0.16 3 627.21 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.32 3 627.44 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.18 3 628.31 632.34 Tributary Antelope Gulch 633.27 628.65 Tributary Antelope Gulch 636.07 629.01 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.12 3 630.89 Antelope Gulch X X 1 2.43 2 X X 1 1.35 2 633.03 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.38 2 X X 1 0.55 2 633.45 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.38 2 633.73 Tributary Antelope Gulch 634.30 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.26 2 635.14 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 1.20 2 Tributary Antelope Gulch 637.86 636.29 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.54 2 637.51 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.65 2 1 0.45 2 X X Tributary Antelope Gulch 1 0.63 2 X X 1 0.46 2 X X <<>> Table 10.3.4-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within Crane to El Paso Zone of Potential Impact (continued) MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number Pipeline Crossings IPA Impact GIS Length (Miles) Sensitivity Ranking 638.53 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.77 2 640.55 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 1.27 2 643.33 646.11 Tributary Antelope Gulch 650.22 Antelope Draw X X 1 0.62 2 645.83 Tributary Antelope Gulch X X 1 0.51 2 Tributary Antelope Gulch Antelope Draw 654.96 647.25 Tributary Antelope Draw X X 1 1.75 2 649.45 Tributary Antelope Draw X X 1 0.91 2 651.24 Antelope Draw X X 1 3.88 2 653.52 Antelope Draw X X 1 0.48 2 653.68 Antelope Draw X X 1 0.38 2 655.82 Antelope Draw X X 1 0.89 2 657.79 Antelope Draw X X 1 0.74 2 657.99 1 1.08 2 X X 1 0.72 2 X X 661.84 Antelope Draw 667.71 Tributary Borrego Draw 666.30 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 1 1.00 2 666.41 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 1 0.76 2 Tributary Borrego Draw X X X X X X 1 0.56 2 1 0.00 2 1 0.81 2 X X 1 0.46 2 671.40 Tributary Borrego Draw X X 1 0.81 2 674.17 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 1.37 3 674.76 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.48 3 675.03 676.74 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.79 3 676.94 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.57 3 X X Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 685.42 1 0.69 3 X X 680.81 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 0.32 3 X X 684.00 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) X X 1 0.85 3 Unnamed (Disjointed Segment) 1 1.11 3 <<>> Table 10.3.5-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Pipeline SENSITIVE BLOCK GROUP MILEPOST CROSSED HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ZONE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BG 1, CT 2337 1 86 TOTAL 86 BG 2, CT 2337 1 75 2 0 TOTAL 75 BG 6, CT 2337 1 3 TOTAL 3 BG 7, CT 2337 1 98 TOTAL 98 BG 8, CT 2337 1 30 TOTAL 30 BG 1, CT 3204 2 0 3 0 TOTAL 0 BG 1, CT 3205 3 0 TOTAL 0 BG 1, CT 3219 3 TOTAL 82 BG 1, CT 3220 3 250 TOTAL 250 BG 1, CT 3223 3 23 TOTAL 23 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Table 10.3.5-2 Groundwater Resource Area Sensitivity Ranking 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction and East Houston to Holland Avenue Starting MP Ending MP Aquifer TCEQ Vulnerability Ranking Pettyjohn et al Ranking Drinking Water Resource Vulnerability Ranking SUM of Rankings Sensitive Area 0a 2.60a Gulf Coast Aquifer System 2 2 2 6 No 0b 7.68b a – 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction b – Holland Avenue to East Houston <<>> Table 10.3.5-3 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within 9th Street Junction to Speed Junction Zone of Potential Impact COMID* MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number of Pipeline Crossings GIS Length Miles Sensitivity Ranking 113255185 0.510 Panther Creek X X 1 0.9609 2 113255265 1.090 HSC (Buffalo Bayou) X 0.1849 2 113255365 1.096 HSC (Buffalo Bayou) X X 1 0.3274 1 113255293 1.289 Vince Bayou X 0.3420 2 *COMID = Common identifier of an NHD Flowline as provided by the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) <<>> Table 10.3.6-1 Housing Units by MP for Environmental Justice BGs¹ for the Proposed East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline SENSITIVE BLOCK GROUP MILEPOST CROSSED HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ZONE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BG 2, CT 2117 1 0 TOTAL 0 BG 1, CT 2118 1 65 TOTAL 65 BG 3, CT 2309 1 0 2 0 TOTAL 0 BG 1, CT 2311 2 1 TOTAL 1 BG 1, CT 2325 4 29 5 0 TOTAL 29 BG 2, CT 2325 1 0 2 45 3 7 TOTAL 52 BG 4, CT 2326 6 41 TOTAL 41 BG 2, CT 2327 5 19 6 142 TOTAL 161 BG 3, CT 2327 6 0 TOTAL 0 BG 4, CT 2327 6 40 TOTAL 40 BG 2, CT 2333 7 4 TOTAL 4 BG 1, CT 2334 6 12 7 86 TOTAL 98 BG 3, CT 2335 7 601 TOTAL 601 BG 1, CT 2337 7 0 8 8 TOTAL 8 BG 8, CT 2337 7 0 8 0 TOTAL 0 ¹BGs crossed by the pipeline that did not have minority populations, low-income populations, or both, were not included. <<>> Table 10.3.6-2 Sensitivity of Water Bodies within East Houston to Holland Avenue Zone of Potential Impact MP ID Perennial Intermittent Canal Intersect Pipeline Number of Pipeline Crossings GIS Length Miles Sensitivity Ranking 0.424 Hunting Bayou 2.235 X X 1 1.230 1 2.005 Hunting Bayou X 0.060 2 0.400 2 2.235 X 0.051 2 Hunting Bayou X 0.097 2 2.022 Hunting Bayou X 1 0.278 1 2.250 X 1.766 1 2.005 Hunting Bayou X 1 0.144 1 5.319 5.566 5.598 X 0.302 2 0.021 2 X X 1 0.399 1 X X Hunting Bayou 5.669 Hunting Bayou 5.676 Hunting Bayou X X X 1.491 2 0.745 1 6.807 Hunting Bayou X X 1 0.221 1 X X 1 0.334 2 X 0.163 3 0.658 1 5.732 X X 1 0.277 2 6.788 Hunting Bayou X X 0.071 2 6.866 6.866 X 0.349 2 6.890 6.955 7.557 Hunting Bayou X <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 10 FIGURES <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 11 22 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-1a Environmental Justice Populations on the Orion West Expansion SHEET 1 OF 2 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 11 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 11, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-1a-b_EJpop_OrionExpansion.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 11 22 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-1b Environmental Justice Populations on the Orion West Expansion SHEET 2 OF 2 Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 11 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 11, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-1a-b_EJpop_OrionExpansion.mxd <<>> 100 50 150 200 0 650 250 0 300 600 550 500 0 Mile Post Pipeline_Crane_to_Odessa_Existing Overland Spread Connected Actions Major Aquifers of Texas Carrizo - Wilcox (outcrop) Carrizo - Wilcox (subcrop) Edwards BFZ (outcrop) Edwards BFZ (subcrop) Edwards - Trinity Plateau (outcrop) Edwards - Trinity Plateau (subcrop) Gulf Coast Hueco - Mesilla Bolson Ogallala Pecos Valley Seymour Trinity (outcrop) Trinity (subcrop) Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-2 Major Aquifers Prepared By: Atkins/13029 Scale: 1" = 60 miles 0 60 Miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: June 6, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-2_Major_Aquifers_Connected.mxd <<>> 100 50 150 200 0 650 250 300 0 600 550 500 0 0 60 Miles Mile Post Pipeline_Crane_to_Odessa_Existing Overland Spread Connected Actions Minor Aquifers of Texas Blaine (outcrop) Blaine (subcrop) Bone Spring-Victorio Peak Brazos River Alluvium Captain Reef Complex Dockum (outcrop) Dockum (subcrop) Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) Ellenburger-San Saba (outcrop) Ellenburger-San Saba (subcrop) Hickory (outcrop) Hickory (subcrop) Igneous Lipan (outcrop) Lipan (subcrop) Marathon Marble Falls Nacatoch (outcrop) Nacatoch (subcrop) Queen City (outcrop) Queen City (subcrop) Rustler (outcrop) Rustler (subcrop) Sparta (outcrop) Sparta (subcrop) West Texas Bolsons Woodbine (outcrop) Woodbine (subcrop) Yegua Jackson Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-3 Minor Aquifers Prepared By: Atkins/13029 Scale: 1" = 60 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: June 6, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-3_Minor_Aquifers_Connected.mxd <<>> Erath Comanche Erath ! ! 0720002 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE ! Hamilton 0180059 KOPPERL ISD ! 0720002 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE ! ! Bosque ! 0180059 KOPPERL ISD Public Water Supply Well Public Water System Well ID Public Water System Name 2-Year Capture Zone 0.5-Mile Fixed Capture Zone Hood Somervell " WALNUT SPRINGS Bosque 0180059 KOPPERL ISD 0180043 USCOE PLOWMAN CREEK PARK ! ! 0180043 USCOE PLOWMAN CREEK PARK Hill Coryell ! 1090067 WOODROW OSCEOLA WSC PLEASANT VW Hill 1090073 WHITE BLUFF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM ) Proposed Magellan Pipeline Facility " Existing Magellan Pipeline Facility Orion Expansion Pipeline Orion Expansion Overland Spread County Boundary Johnson Ellis 1090067 WOODROW OSCEOLA WSC PLEASANT VW 1090024 CITY OF MERTENS " ! ! ! FROST 1090073 WHITE BLUFF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM Navarro Hill Ellis ! Hill ! 1090024 CITY OF MERTENS FROST " Navarro I 0 6 12 18 Miles Limestone Mclennan Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-4a Eastern Public Water Supply Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 6 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-4a_PWS_wells_Orion_East.mxd <<>> 1680001 CITY OF COLORADO CITY 1770002 CITY OF SWEETWATER Dawson Borden ! ! ! Mitchell Nolan Martin Howard MIDLAND " " Midland Glasscock ! 0180059 KOPPERL ISD Public Water Supply Well Public Water System Well ID Public Water System Name 2-Year Capture Zone 0.5-Mile Fixed Capture Zone ) Proposed Magellan Pipeline Facility " Existing Magellan Pipeline Facility Orion Expansion Pipeline Orion Expansion Overland Spread County Boundary Scurry Fisher 1770002 CITY OF SWEETWATER 1680001 CITY OF COLORADO CITY ! ! ! IATAN ) Mitchell Nolan Sterling Coke I Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-4b Western Public Water Supply Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 7 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 0 7 14 21 Miles N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-4b_PWS_wells_Orion_West.mxd <<>> Coahoma " )48 " )47 " )46 Big Spring " )44 " )43 " )42 " )40 " )41 " )45 Moss Creek Lake " )39 " )38 " )37 " )35 " )36 " )34 Moss Creek Lake API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) " )33 Dawson Borden Scurry Martin Howard Mitchell Midland Glasscock Sterling I 0 1 2 Miles Legend ! . Magellan Facility # 0 Magellan Pipeline Existing Mile Post ! Existing Magellan Pipeline ! ! Overland Spread ! API Boundary Subwatershed Boundary City Limit Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-5 Moss Creek API Prepared By: Atkins/19910 Scale: 1" = 1.5 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-5_Moss_Creek_API.mxd <<>> Colorado City Westbrook " )76 " )75 " )77 " )78 " )79 " )80 " )74 ! . " )73 COLORADO CITY " )72 " )68 " )69 " )70 " )71 " )66 " )67 " )65 " )64 " )61 " )62 " )63 Champion Lake API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) Lake Colorado City API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) Borden Scurry Fisher Howard Mitchell Nolan Glasscock Sterling Coke I 0 1 2 Miles Legend ! . Magellan Facility # 0 Magellan Pipeline Existing Mile Post Existing Magellan Pipeline Overland Spread ! ! ! API Boundary Subwatershed Boundary City Limit Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-6 Lake Colorado City and Champion Lake APIs ! Prepared By: Atkins/19910 Scale: 1" = 2 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-6_Lake_Colo_City_Champ_Lake_API.mxd <<>> Clyde " )149 ! . " )150 CLYDE " )151 " )152 " )153 " )154 " )155 City of Baird API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) " )156 " )157 " )158 " )159 " )160 " )161 City of Clyde API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) City of Clyde Surface Water Intake " )162 " )163 Jones Shackelford Stephens Legend Taylor Eastland I ! . Magellan Facility ! A Surface Water Intake Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-7 # 0 Magellan Pipeline Existing Mile Post Cities of Clyde and Baird APIsCallahan API Boundary Existing Magellan Pipeline Subwatershed Boundary Overland Spread ! 0 1 2 ! ! City Limit ! Miles Prepared By: Atkins/19910 Scale: 1" = 1.5 miles Comanche Runnels Coleman Brown Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-7_Cities_Clyde_Baird_APII.mxd <<>> " )274 " )275 " )276 " )277 " )278 " )279 " )280 " )281 " )282 " )283 " )284 " )285 " )286 " )287 " )288 " )289 " )290 " )292 " )291 " )301 " )293 " )303 " )294 " )295 " )296 " )297 " )298 " )299 " )300 " )302 ! . HILLSBORO JCT Brazos River Lake Whitney Aquilla WSD API (Blue Cross Hatched Area) Hood Johnson Ellis Hill Navarro Bosque I 1 0 2 4 Miles Legend ! . Magellan Facility # 0 Magellan Pipeline Existing Mile Post Existing Magellan Pipeline Overland Spread ! ! ! ! API Boundary Subwatershed Boundary City Limit Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-8 Aquilla WSD API Prepared By: Atkins/19910 Scale: 1" = 3 miles Limestone Mclennan Coryell Falls Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-8_Aquilla WSD_API.mxd <<>> " )100 " )50 # 0 " )150 " )0 # 0 # 0 " )200 # 0 " )650 " )250 # 0 # 0 # 0 " )0 " )600 # 0 # 0 " )550 # 0 " )500 " )0 # 0 # 0 " )300 # 0 # 0 Mile Post Gulf Prairies Overland Spread Longhorn High Plains Longhorn Pipeline Existing Piney Woods I 0 60 Miles ECO Regions Post Oak Savanah Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.1-9 ECO Regions Blackland Prairie Rolling Plains South Texas Plains Cross Timbers Edwards Plateau Prepared By: Atkins/13029 Scale: 1" = 60 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 Trans-Pecos N:\Clients\M_N\Mag_Mid_Part\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.1-9_ECO_Regions_Connected.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 10 20 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.2-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the Odessa to Crane Pipeline Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 10 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26,2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.2-1_EJpop_OdessaToCrane.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 5 10 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.3-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the El Paso Gateway Pipeline Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 5 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.3-1_EJpop_ElPasoToGatewayJct.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 16 32 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.4-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the Crane to El Paso Pipeline Prepared By: Atkins/19685 Scale: 1" = 16 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.4-1_EJpop_CraneToElPaso.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area I 0 3 6 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.5-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the 9th Street to Speed Junction Pipeline Prepared By: Atkins/24125 Scale: 1" = 3 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.5-1_EJpop_9StToSpeedJunction.mxd <<>> £ ¤ 90 £ ¤ 59 § ¨ ¦610 § ¨ ¦45 § ¨ ¦10 £ ¤ 59 " ) 2 " ) 1 # 0 # 0 " ) 3 # 0 " ) 4 # 0 " ) 0 # 0 " ) 5 # 0 " ) 6 # 0 " ) 7 # 0 " ) 7.7 # 0 " ) 0 # 0 § ¨ ¦610 " ) 1 # 0 " ) 2 # 0 " ) 2.6 # 0 § ¨ ¦10 £ ¤ 90 § ¨ ¦45 # 0 Mile Post Major Aquifers of Texas Gulf Coast Environmental Assessment TE XA S LO UIS IA NA Galveston Bay ! TWDB Public Water Wells I Connected Action Pipeline Overland Spread Connected Actions Gulf of Mexico 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Carrizo - Wilcox (outcrop) Carrizo - Wilcox (subcrop) Edwards BFZ (outcrop) Edwards BFZ (subcrop) Edwards - Trinity Plateau (outcrop) Edwards - Trinity Plateau (subcrop) Hueco - Mesilla Bolson Ogallala Pecos Valley Seymour Trinity (outcrop) Trinity (subcrop) Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.5-2 Major Aquifers Prepared By: Atkins/24125 Scale: 1" = 2 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.5-2_Major_Aquifers_Connected.mxd <<>> § ¨ ¦10 § ¨ ¦610 9TH STREET " 1011570 HOUSTON REFINING ! ! U V 225 U V 225 1011570 HOUSTON REFINING SPEED JCT " § ¨ ¦45 Montgomery Harris Liberty Chambers Fort Bend Brazoria Galveston 0 10.5 ! 1011570 HOUSTON REFINING Public Water Supply Well Public Water System Well ID Public Water System Name " Existing Magellan Pipeline Facility 2-Year Capture Zone 9th St. to Speed Junction Pipeline 9th St. to Speed Junction Overland Spread Miles I Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.5-3 Southeastern PWS Wells within Zone of Potential Impact Prepared By: Atkins/24125 Scale: 1" = 1 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.5-3_PWS_wells_9th_to_SpdJct.mxd <<>> £ ¤59 £ ¤90 § ¨ ¦610 § ¨ ¦45 § ¨ ¦10 £ ¤59 " ) 2 " ) 1 # 0 # 0 " ) 3 # 0 " ) 4 # 0 " ) 0 # 0 " ) 5 # 0 " ) 6 # 0 " ) 7 # 0 Buff a lo B ay o u § ¨ ¦610 " ) 7.7 # 0 " ) 0 # 0 " ) 1 # 0 " ) 2 # 0 " ) 2.6 # 0 § ¨ ¦10 £ ¤90 § ¨ ¦45 TE XA S # 0 Mile Post Gulf Prairies LO UIS IA NA Galveston Bay Gulf of Mexico Overland Spread Longhorn High Plains I 0.75 0 1.5 3 Miles Longhorn Pipeline Existing Piney Woods ECO Regions Post Oak Savanah Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.5-4 ECO Regions Blackland Prairie Rolling Plains South Texas Plains Cross Timbers Edwards Plateau Prepared By: Atkins/24125 Scale: 1" = 2 miles Job No.: 100019708 Date: Apr 26, 2012 Trans-Pecos N:\Clients\M_N\Mag_Mid_Part\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.5-4_ECO_Regions_Connected.mxd <<>> T Y L E R H A R D I N J A S P E R O R A N G E 2000 Census Block Group Study Area Minority Block Group in Study Area Low-Income Block Group in Study Area Minority and Low-Income Block Group in Study Area 0 3 6 Miles Environmental Assessment Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Figure 10.1.6-1 Environmental Justice Populations on the East Houston to Holland Avenue Pipeline Prepared By: Atkins/24125 Scale: 1" = 3 mi Job No.: 100019708 Date: Jul 19, 2012 N:\Clients\M_N\Magellan_Midstream_Partners\100019708\geo\fig_EA\ Fig_10.1.6-1_EJpop_HollandToEastHouston.mxd <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL CHAPTER 10 APPENDICES <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 10A HIGHWAY AND RAILROAD CROSSINGS <<>> Appendix 10A Highway and Railroad Crossings – ORION EXPANSION Navarro County: None Crossed Hill County: FM 308 SH 22 FM 1243 Union Pacific Railroad Company (2) I-35 US Hwy 77 US Hwy 81 SH 171 FM 309 FM 933 Bosque County: FM 56 (2) SH 174 SH 144 FM 203 FM 216 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation Railroad (3) Erath County: SH 220 FM 1824 (2) US Hwy 281 FM 914 FM 847 Forth Worth and Western Railroad US Hwy 67 (377) FM 219 FM 2156 Comanche County: SH 16 FM 2921 SH 6 Fort Worth and Western Railroad <<>> Eastland County: FM 1027 US Hwy 183 SH 206 FM 569 Callahan County: FM 880 FM 2228 US Hwy 283 FM 3217 (2) FM 604 FM 603 Taylor County: SH 36 FM 1750 SH Loop 322 State Spur 243 (US-83 Bus.) Union Pacific Railroad Company US Hwy 83 FM 89 US Hwy 277 FM 707 FM 1235 (3) FM 1085 (3) Nolan County: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (2) Fm 1856 SH 70 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation Railroad FM 608 FM 1230 Mitchell County: FM 644 SH 208 SH 163 Unnamed Railroad FM 2836 FM 670 <<>> Howard County: FM 821 US Hwy 87 FM 818 Martin County: SH 137 Midland County: I-20 (2) FM 307 SH 158 FM 715 SH 349 FM 1788 Ector County: SH Loop 338 FM 3503 Highway and Railroad Crossings – ODESSA TO CRANE Ector County: SH Loop 338 Us Hwy 385 Crane County: FM 1233 Highway and Railroad Crossings – EL PASO GATEWAY El Paso County: US Hwy 62 Highway and Railroad Crossings – CRANE TO EL PASO Crane County: FM 1601 Fm 1053 <<>> Ward County: SH 18 (S. Stockton Ave.) RR 1776 RR 1219 RR 1927 I-20 Union Pacific Railroad (2) RR 2355 RR 516 RR 873 FM 3398 Reeves County: US Hwy 285 RR 2119 Culberson County: SH 54 Hudspeth County: FM 2317 RR 2317 FM 1111 EL Paso County: US Hwy 62 Highway and Railroad Crossings – 9th STREET JUNCTION TO SPEED JUNCTION Harris County: Union Pacific Railroad (6) Port Terminal Railroad Association SH 225 (Pasadena Freeway) Highway and Railroad Crossings – EAST HOUSTON TO HOLLAND AVENUE Harris County: I-610 US 90 I-10 Union Pacific Railroad (3 Spurs) <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 10B SHPO CONCURRENCE LETTER <<>> Horizon.™. Environmental Services, Inc. 28 August 2007 Mr. Bill Martin Texas Historical Commission P.O. Box 12276 Austin, Texas 78711-2276 RE: Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P, Recommendations for Future Cultural Resources Investigations along the Longhorn Pipeline ROW between Crane and El Paso Crane through El Paso Counties, Texas Section 106 HJN 050175 AR 03 Dear Mr. Martin: During the week of August 20, 2007, Jeff Blackmore and I spoke with you on the telephone regarding the potential need for cultural resources investigations along the Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn) right-of-way (ROW) between Crane and El Paso, Texas. During this conversation, we explained that TAS, Inc. had surveyed areas along the ROW between Crane and El Paso that were under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). After reviewing the Programmatic Agreement (PA) in place for the pipeline, your office indicated that the PA appears to cover the entire length of the pipeline ROW in Texas and that those areas beyond the limits of TAS, Inc.'s initial cultural resources survey would likely need to be assessed if they were considered to be Archeological High Probability Areas (AHPAs). Following our conversation, I was provided a copy of TAS, Inc.'s report pertaining to the original investigations (Turpin 1998). Upon a review of this document, namely the Methods section, several items became apparent that leads to the conclusion that TAS, Inc.'s original survey actually covered the perceived AHPA's, as well as additional areas, and that future cultural resources surveys along this segment of the pipeline ROW between Crane and El Paso are unwarranted. I have enclosed a copy of TAS, Inc.'s Methods section for your review and have briefly summarized the contents below for your consideration. 1. The entire length of the ROW across state-owned lands (GLO and UT-Lands) was surveyed under TAC Permit. No. 1879. This equates to 60 miles of ROW. 2. The entire 8.2 miles of ROW across Fort Bliss was surveyed. RECEIVED AUG 31 2007 Texas Historical Commission 3. TAS, Inc. provided the USACE (Albuquerque) with a list of 17 AHPAs ranging from 1 to 5 miles in length. The USACE (Albuquerque) responded with 131 "waters of the US" that were required to be surveyed. 1507 South IH 35 * Austin, Texas 78741 * 512.328.2430 * Fax 512.328.1804 * www.horizon-esi.com CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS WBE/DBE/HUB Certified <<>> Horizon. Environmental Services, Inc. 5. TAS, Inc. surveyed a minimum of 50 meters on each side of the 131 USACE crossings plus an additional 4 non-jurisdictional crossings that were part of the original 17 TAS, inc. AHPAs mentioned in the attached Methods section. However, since crews had to access each crossing on foot, surveyed areas at each of the 135 crossings ranged between 100 meters and several kilometers. 6. Deeper water crossings were surveyed terrace to terrace. 7. ALL "promising landforms" above each crossing were surveyed as well. 8. Alternate ROW corridors and reroutes around noted archeological sites were also surveyed, avoiding all potentially significant sites. As specified in TAS, Inc.'s methodology, a considerable percentage of the Longhorn ROW between Crane and El Paso has been assessed for cultural resources. TAS, Inc. originally identified 17 AHPAs and then subsequently surveyed areas well beyond these 17 AHPAs (i.e. all public lands, the 131 USACE areas, 4 non-jurisdictional crossings, and all locations traversed while in route to the 131 USACE areas and 4 non-jurisdictional crossings). This would suggest that a current delineation of any AHPAs along this segment of ROW would be a redundant exercise. Also, prior receiving an actual copy of TAS, Inc.'s survey report, it was assumed that TAS, Inc. only surveyed areas adjacent to each area under the jurisdiction of the USACE and that such a methodology might have limited the ability of the survey crews to assess hilltops and ridges adjacent to the waterways where prehistoric camps are often located if such areas were beyond the limits of the USACE jurisdiction. However, as is highlighted above, TAS, Inc. noted that all "promising landforms" above each USACE crossing were surveyed. This further indicates that TAS, Inc. has already assessed areas containing their original 17 AHPAs, the 131 USACE jurisdictional areas, the full extent of the ROW on public lands, and all other "promising" areas that were observed during the original survey. After reviewing TAS, Inc.'s cultural resources report for the survey level investigations along the Longhorn ROW between Crane and El Paso, it is evident that TAS, Inc. has surveyed all potential AHPAs within this segment of the ROW as well as additional areas of lesser probabilities. Because TAS, Inc. has already assessed all AHPAs, as well as the fact that the Longhorn ROW is an existing, previously disturbed ROW, it is Horizon's professional opinion that any additional cultural resources investigations along the Longhorn ROW between Crane and El Paso would fail to produce any additional information and are therefore unwarranted. Horizon recommends that cultural resources clearance be granted for all of the Longhorn ROW between Crane and El Paso and that all future construction activities within the existing Longhorn ROW between Crane and El Paso be allowed to proceed without further consultation with your office. On behalf of Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. (Magellan) and Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn), Horizon is seeking documented consultation with your office in concerning the <<>> Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. information presented above. Should you concur with Horizon's recommendations, please sign below. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (512) 328-2430. Sincerely, Russ Browntow Russ Brownlow, MA, RPA Principal / Cultural Resources Director Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. Concurrence / Date Enclosures: TAS, Inc. Methodology Section CONCUR Cc: Jeff Blackmore by Project File for F. Lawerence Oaks State Historic Preservation Officer Date _ Track# 9/10/07 References: Turpin, Jeff 1998 Survey of Selected Areas along the Longhorn Partners Pipeline, Crane to El Paso, Texas. Cultural Resources Report 11. TAS, Inc. Austin, Texas. <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL APPENDIX 10C DETAILED INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT INFO <<>> Revlud: 01109 07.f'ORM-7BOO Risk Analysis Worksheet Federal RellleterNl. 85, No. 232~~ MIDSTREAM PARTNERS. L P. "9 CFR Plrt 195 ~MAGeLLAN- - - . - Odessa to EI Paso - 6', MP 0.00 (Odes98) 10 MP 116.15 (Black River) Line Description: Line ID: 6936 Compleled by: Bob Archibald StlrtDate:1J.-Jen~ Pipe Characteristics: HCA Mileposts: 00: WT Grade Year Buill Manufaclurer Seam Type Coaling Type PSMYS HeA1 0.00 -4.25 6.625 0.250 5LX-46 1957 Unknown ERW-LF Unknown/COBI Tar 3472 ps.V HCA2 6.00- 14.75 6.625 0.250 5LX-46 1957 Unknown ERW-LF Unknown/COBI Tar 3472 - HCA3 42.50·45.25 6.625 0.250 5LX-46 1957 Unknown ERW-LF Unknown/COBI Tar 3472 - HCA4 96.50 to 100.50 6.825 0.250 5LX-46 1957 Unknown ERW-LF Unknown/COBI Tar 3472 paIg HCAS 105.25 - 110.25 6.625 0.250 5LX-46 1957 Unknown ERW-LF Unknown/COBI Tar 3472 - Pressure: I Min Tesl Pressure H'ldro % SMYS Oischal'lle Pressure Dischallla Pressure % SMYSI Year of Last Test I Pump SlaUon to Pump Sialion - Odessa to Karmit I 2161 62.2% 1757 50.6% 1958 I Pump SlaUon 10 Pump Sialicn • Kermilto Black River I 2490 I 71.7% I 1846 I 47.4% I 1958 I Are appropriate llVllfP"lSSU'" protection measures In p1aee 10 p!1Nenllhe pjpellne Ircm axceedlng established muimum opel8llng pI9SSlnl87 ... Yas, !hem are appropriala conlrol valve sel1ings, high pressure shutdowns end a mainlina surpe relied valve al EI Paso. ==/qs 452 ('/12/ Ratenlion: 10 years DIstribution: Assellnlegrity Risk Engineer Pege 1 of e 07-FORM-7eoO <<>> Leak Detection: Automaled Volume Based Line Balance (Volume based includes line fill BdjuslmBnl) updaled every minulB Wllh a 24 Current Types or Leak Detection: '" ..:;h:::o.::;u:.;rlU=n::.:n"'in"'Q..:;lo,.,la=I. _ Leak Delection Thresholds: (Swiftness or Leak DelecUon) ... A low leYelalarm (investigate) Is Issued 816% of max new, A Icw-low IllY'" alarm (automaticlimmediale shutdown) is Issued al 15% of max new. Pl1lSlIure tmnsml!blfll am wrapped @ +/. 8% Of +/. 16%, depending on !he tI1lnsmltler. Flow transmitlers ere wrapped lIt-/·e'll.. Measurement:... The pruduct is melered in al Odessa and oul al EI Paso. Procedures lor Idle Linas {wilh psi):... P""",ure Is lTIllf1i1cnld @ +/.8% Of +/. 16%, depending on the transmItter. of <:unreel p!!SSure or 33 psi wlIa-er Is Q!!latBr, Additional Deleclion: ... Leak Detection Testing:... Location or Pressure Monitoring Devices: •.. Aerial Patrol, Public Awareness and Damage Prevention Progrems. Preventive maintenance 01 field deVices per SIP. OdesSll suction· Yes, scale Is 400 and MOP and 110% MOP " 2751302 Odessa discharge· Yes, scale is 3000 and MOP and 110% MOP =1760/1936 Ar8 Pr9S1lUl1l Transmitters mnged 10 mea!!1JT8 up to 110% MOP (Whalls the mnge)?: ••• -'y-=IlS=- _ Products transported and characteristics:... Various gmdes of petrolaum products, gasoline. diesal ruel, IJansmix, ate, Location or response personnel; ••• .::Od=e~8S8= ... , K:,:e::;lm=i::.1:::.an:.:d::..:E::.I.:..P.::a.:::80~ 195452WJI _ 42.00 30.50 195452/.)(3) Rtsk Ass,,"ment Results: Third PartY De,lan 'ncomlet Operallons Corroelon Lisl Index Scores HCA 1 38.00 56.00 RSlI16w Rls,," AssesJ"Mml HCA2 HCA3 HCA4 34.00 41.00 57.00 30.50 34.00 42.50 57.00 30.50 38.00 42.00 57.00 30.50 HCA5 46.00 43.50 57.00 30.50 f!lS 452 (lJ(f) GOIlftfllI RequlIumenls Ilr:la'lns to Rf1hanc9 pu/)Jlt;~a'Rty nr fH1vJffmmentRI P'O!ectJOn An op8f;tfot must lake ntSa:tumJ In pf9'\l9()J:JJ1l1 mltlQat"th~ r.nt3.'tr-qr....ne"s of af>IpPI~ fIJtllI11Ilh/ll thtdd ;jffptf Ifh'9~ O')f)$lJqllfWliC."f'Plt SUCh acll()tfs may Inc/ride but 619 not /rmlled 1(" MOOJf'1Jf79 the sy,,'ems thaI moItft()f p'essuru aftd dlJI9ct INk." 'J1H:ose tyM'olISU"$ '"elud. cond1IC1!fJ91t "$'" ;,niffy$l$ t'l1 rhp"'~~ $Arg'l'Hlnr In 1tfp"MII ;,rlrl,tK"ll?It( Relantion: 10 years Distribution: Assellntegrity Risk Engineer Page 2 of 8 07·FORM-7600 <<>> Emergency Flow RestrIctIve DevIces: ...--, Ale them any areas where~to manual valvell Is excessively slow within HCAlHIRA'B (Blower lIIan 60 mimJles)7; ••• No If yes, describe locations; ... 19!i 452 (11(4' J/ Describe specffic 8188S where Ihe potenlJal 101' 19nilJon Is high within HCAlHIRA's; 195.152 (d(41 (is. fIB,."., ndu$/riBI faclles wiIh open /lames, sic.) ••• MP 0 to MP 12 near Odessa, chemical plant wI flares, pilollighls, aulomobiles. Noll: Pl"'*nlylD __ lI-..IiIIhII'n11_dEFRllk,..,Uo... , I lIBI otiler locally conlrolled MOVs (not SCADA controlled); ... N/A ! Are lhem sites with exisUng SCAOA communlcations wID ROVs ••• Desctlbe !he IIWiltness of the pipeline's shutdown capabilities; ,.. No hhe Controller will shut down the oioeline within 5 minutes of a Low-Low Line Balence alarm or other anomolv as noled bv the Controller. I~I [; Type of Flow; Maximum DminDown Volume (bbls): 01Jq~Aow OGasAow Max volume lhal could be released 195,452 (i)(4) Rale orlea~age (bpll/cfIl): 100019.~ 452111141 l fT-1 Uno RIlIII Volume or Release (bbls): 250 195452 '''(4l (Baaed "" 15 mtnuto _I (longhcm oIWIJ .... 20llll bbl .. IhrahoJdl 642 892 422 672 1054 HCA1 HCA2 HCA3 HCA4 HCA5 369 619 1304 165 415 !i2!!: When evaluating the benefils of additional EFRDs, appropriately consider the location 01 nearesl response personnel, lhe specific lel1Bin belwBen the pipeline segment and lhe high consequence areas; as well as, the benefilll expected by reducing Ihe spill size. Proximily 10 power sources should be considered when considering the feasibility andlor location 01 EFRDs.• 195.452 (I)(4) ~; The swiftness or leak delection, types or commodity carried, and pipeline topography are also considered. 195.452 (i)(4) 195.452 (1)(1) General Requirements. An operalor musr lake measures 10 prevent and mitlgale the consequences of a plpelme latlure Ihat could a"ecr a high conseqllence area. These measures mclude conductmg a risk analysis of the plpelme segment 10 idenllfy addlllOns/acttons 10 enhance puMc SElf ely or enVironmen/al prolee/,or. Such eC/lOns may Include hut Bre nor Itmilerl 10 ..Installmg EFRD's. Relenbon: 10 years Distribution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Page 30f 8 07-FORM-7500 <<>> Additional Risk Factors/Controls DOC Coord AMwer Below FIeIcl~~1Qw- area? If so, lisllocalions or each.: ••• No No r9S 4521<1/21 § r 1Are there physical supports such as cable suspensions in the HCAlHIRA .: -- GIS Coord. AnllW8r Below -f'18lCl Mawar~bw AlB lhere any specific araas along lhe pipeline whera additional measures Ishould be considered to mitigale the oonsequence of e spill such in a rarm I field following Iha drain tile Into a walalW8Y or ditches along side the roadway '" lhatlhe pipeline crosses?: ••• No No 195~52 '''(21 is Do any valve siles have avldence of vandalism? If yes, describe locations: ... No I Heve any abnormal opelBting oondilions (AOC's) occurred on lhis line: ••• Yes, Emergency Shuldown ( Black River· pump slaMr - 2(05), 2 • high case pressure I (Black River· 2006) "'J. .1 Are thera eny eyslamic issuas thaI need to be addressed: ... suggesllhe need ror additional risk controls? •.. No SaraI)' Ralalad Concem (SRC) • April, 2006, Case prassura exceedad 110% MOP dIAlB !here any NOV's, OPS Inspection results or SIP audit rasults lhal 195.452 (i}(1) General ReqUirements. An opera/or must lake measures 10 prevent and mrligate the consequences ofa plpelrne falfure thai could affect II hrgh consequence area These mellSllres mclude conducting a risk analySIS ofthe pipeline segment to identify addilional actions to enhance public safety or environmen/a/ pro/ecUer Such aC/fOns may mclude hul are not /tmited te Adopting other management controls. Damage Prevention: 195452 (i}(1) General Requirements An operalor musltake measures to prevenl and mitigate the consequences ofa plpelina failure that could affecl a h'!}h consequence Ilrea These meas,,,es mclude conducling a nsk analySIS of the pipeline segmenl/o idrmtlfy additional actions /0 enhance public sf/fe/y or environmental pro/eclio" Such actions may mC/lIClp. bul Bre nol/tm,led to Implemenlmg Damage Prevenl,on Best Practices In/erview Questions to de/ermrne polenlial enhancemenls 10 Ihird party damage prevention program. - I N/A, line is nol covered by (ha Consenl DecreeI'~ NfA, Iina is nol covered by the Consent Decree 1 Tolal Miles or HlRA in line segmenl ••• Heve any aellons ralalad to HIRAs been implemented/undertaken? ••• Is tha One Call system In piece?: ••• Yes Is Public Education program in place?: .•• Yes Is lhera high or incraased one-call activity on any portions of lhe line? Ir so, describe localJons and nalure or activily: ••• No, lhere is averago One Call ac:tivil)' In this portion or lhe pipelina. ¥' iI' .- ~J For ereas of high thim party activity. have lhere been any... L One call Answers Below I Field An8W8ra Below I ':.fi I Unaulhorizad Encroachmenls?: ... No No One can violations?: ... Yes Yes I l!~ Naar misses?: ... Yes Yes I 0 I.Mechanical damage or phyelcal hils 10 !he line?: ... Yes I I-. IIs pipeline patrolling (i.e. aerial palrol) in piece?: ... Yes If SO, whalls lhe frequency?: ... Weekly I'!Z~ I r! Are thera ereas of high susceplibility to geolechnical aclivity?: ... No RJok Englnee,/Anatyot If 60, ara lhey being managed?: ... AlB lhere any addilional araas of concem relaled 10 seismic, lendslide, or scour relaled 10 geolechnlcal activity?: ... No irl'f~ R;noon: 0 ara ye Distribution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer 07-FORM·7600 ~ Yes Yes Weekly No No :li!-g~! i¥~o Page 4 018 <<>> Retention: 10 yean; Dislribulion: Asset Inlegrity Risk Engineer Pege 501 B 07-FORM-7600 <<>> IS ROW mainlerlBnce program In place?:... -'Y"'e:::s'- Are all shallow cover localions identified ounng aurvey or eXC8valions currenUy mitigated epproprialely1:... Was any Ihird party or mechanical damaga localed in areas 01 shallow cover or culijvation?:... Was eny third party or mechanical damage discoverad during inlegrily lesting?:... See response above _ SOme ereas whera dam!lge was found or heavy soil erosion was identified have been mitigated Discussion: Yes, dig 1113,19" Ct:1Yer, seeping lrom gouge in pipe@ 11:15 onanlation. COlTOslon: 195 452 (1)( 1) General Requiremenls. An operalor musl lake measures 10 prevent and milJgale Ihe consequences ofa pipeline failure Ihat could affect a hIgh consequence area rnclude conduc/lng a rIsk analySIS of Ihe plpelrne segmen/lo identify addillonal aC/lOns to enhence pUblic safely or environmental prolecllon Such ae/mns may rnclude bu/ Rre not ',mlJed /0. . Bet/er Monitoring of Calhodlc Pro/eet,on where cOlTOsion is a concern IntervIew Questrons 10 de/ermine polent,al enhancements to cOlTOs/on prevention program· These meflSllres Is the line highly susceptible to Strass Corrosion Cracking (SCC)?:... ..:.N:.::o:.- _ Has Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) been idenlifled on Ihis line?:... ..:.N:.::o:.... _ HilS selective Seam Conosion (SSC) been idenlified?:... .;.N:.,:o'-- _ HIlS Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) been identified?:... ..:.N:.::o:.... _ Are internal corrosion coupons presenl? II yes. whal is the coupon name and where is itlocaled on the pipeline segmenl?:... Yes, Qdess to EI Paso, Wesl ReI B, localed in EI Peso II coupon is prasent. is the internal corrosion rale acceptable?:... -'Y"'e;.:s'- _ Is tesllead spacing adequate?: ... ..,:y..::e:.:s _ Has there been indication 01 inadequate CP between existing lesl stalions7 (where?): ... ..;.N"'o _ Has a Close Inlerval Survey (CIS) been performed In the lasl ten years? (lisl )'9Br): ... ..:.;N:::o:....- _ Is calhodic protection adequate? (if no, please describe):... ..,:Y"'e:.:s _ Are AC potential surveys being performed. and mitigalion IIclions being laken il necessary?.. -'Y..::e:.:9 _ Recommendations for bailer moniloring of corrosion conlrol:... ..:.N:.,:o"-n:::e'- _ Have casings wilh melal loss been adequately addrassed?:... ..:Y..::e;.::s _ Are thera excessive corrosion gnowlh rates identified by III (>10 milslyear)7:... ..:.N"'o:.... _ Review Col1'OSlon Growth spreadsheet:... Firsl unrepairad lealum to reach rapair crileria is 7 yeers from lhe dete 01 the ILl. RIsk"Englneer~k E"ll rl!H!f J Relention: 10 years Distribulion: Assallnlegrily Risk Engineer Page B 018 07·FORM-7600 <<>> lAna ysl AnalySt RelenUon' 10 yeers Distribution: Assellntegrily Risk Engineer Page 7 ole 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Are cleaning pigs run on this line per SIP? If not, please explain why; ••• -'Y..;:e;.;:s'- _ Has Ihis line ever carried lertilizer, crude, or other corrosive pnoduct? II yes, please describe: ••• _ ,- ~. ~N::.:o:.... Training and Response: 195 45? (i)(l) General Requiremenls An operator must lake meesures 10 prevent and mlligale Ihe consequences ofa plpelme faIlure Iha/ could affect a hJgh consequence area These measures mclude conducling a nsk analysIs of tlla pipeline segment 10 Identify additional acirons 10 enhance puhlic safely or envIronmental protect,on. Such actions may mclude bul are nol "mlled /0 ..ProVldmg addlllOnal traimng to personnel on response procedures (and)... ConducJmg dnlls WIth local emergency responders. Inlervlew Oueslions to deleTTn/ne polenlial enhancemenls to traimng program: Field Answers Below .... Are emergency response plans in plece and pBfBOnnellrllined in their appllcaOon?: ... Yes Yes No No No Is addilionaltraining lor pBllIOnnel required on response procedures?: ... Ana any edditional drills needed 10 be conducted wilh local emergency responders?: •.• Delermine if any lrelning or response deficlencles were determined and approprielely 19Ctified: ... Review Incidentln""stigations of past releases (whal were the conclusions):... ..:.N.:.:o::.n;.;:e'- No None idenlified None Idenlified Flald Answers Below Risk Engineer / Analyst _ None Re-Inspectlon Interval: 195452 (/)(1) Ganeral Requ;remenls. An operator must take measures to prevent end mItigate the consequences 01 e plpelme faIlure Ihat could affect a hJgh consequence area These measures mclude conducting a nslc analySIS of Ille pipeline segment to Identify additional actIOns 10 enllance public safety or envIronmental prolecliOf' Such aellorls may mclud9 bl/t are not limited Ic· Establishing sholter inspeclJon mlervals. Interview Quesllons to determine re·mspecl/on m/erva': For lines inspected by ILl, does Corrosion Growth Analysis identity any leatures thaI were nol invesligated during the rehab process Ihal Will fail within 6 yeanl?: ... ..:.N.:.:o ...... Was the line previously inspected by Ill? Did dala comparison result in addillonal digs due to corrosion growth? Was them an increasa in dants or mechan;cal damage?: ••• ~Yc.::a~s", .:.,:N:::;o ....:.Y:es~ For linea that ware hydrotested or inspected byeltemative means, does Ihe results of the Inspection indicate 8 need 10 ra-Inspect in lass than 5 years?: ••• .:.N:::/A~ _ _ _ For lines that were inspected by TFI, UT Creck Tool, or H)'drotest, discuss results 01 Iha Creck Growth Analysia and any results lrom the ILl pertinent 10 a determination 01 re-Inspecllon interval. ••• .:.N::IA:;:... _ Retention: 10 years Dislribution: Assetlnlegrily Risk Engineer Pege 8018 07·FORM·7600 <<>> <<>> MAGeLLAN~ ~~ M I DSTR EAM PARTN ERS, L. P. Date: To: Cc: From: Subject: Larry Franklin Clyde Clausen Carter Junghanns Kyle Whitfield Lou Ann Smith Magpie ILl Report - Hard Copy upon Receipt Dennis Vasicek Inline Inspection Summary and Feature Dig Sheet Request 6936 LiD~:m:'o - ," Hon:, S....... wn.· Odessa to El Paso 6" Odessa, MP 0.0 - _. EI Paso, MP 249.1 'E~d_R.: .. AFE Or.,I:bI~OD: J .•w~ ".19r-~~ EGP-Magpie MFL- "llJi Completed:.•. EGP - 12/1512006 MFL- EGP - 6/13/2007 ~ MFL- .. Pjel1mfi~"'~';f.~ffRec'd: EIedrtJ..tr::Dnft Vftj)o :Ree'd: ~KGP·IIi~it~!a. Verbal indication received within required timeframe that no detected features met preliminary reporting criteria. EGP - 5129/2007 PJect.'lJi'IIftV~d: - EGP - 5/31/2007 ..... _._. ... 617/2007.~ve.r.Y Date: 6/812007 ]lJp.rMFJ;RqlGdRec'd: l>IIeoVCI)' Date: Ot,bu~\t:hi"dow.: ~01WIrJ;iJfE~~D. Jl~ An~ wm,acm:I MP 0-4.25, 6-14.75, 42.5-45.25, 96.5-100.5, 105.25-110.25, 236.5-249.1 ALL .. . . NA -COIDPI~: .~ :sWtRw1:EDdR~: [ IIWiDdowlJ: ~+um:·PftI~~(pslg): See Discrete Point Pressure Analysis and Dig Sheets b-emJte'RedWlOir ~- ~, .. -;;'"'. <<>> This inline inspection has been reviewed based on HCA windows and the following features have been identified: HCA'S AND AREAS THAT COULD AFFECT HCA'S: HCA's Begin MP End MP 0 4.25 Begin Pig Odometer (ft) 0.0 End Pig Odometer (ft) 22365.3 6 14.75 31517.7 78726.0 42.5 45.25 226404.6 240967.1 96.5 100.5 504019.6 532767.8 105.25 110.25 557750.9 583956.4 236.5 249.1 1251330.0 1316943.3 IMMEDIATE REPAIR CONDITIONS DIGS FEATURES Metal loss greater than 80% 0 0 Predicted burst pressure (PBURST)< maximum pressure (Popp) at location of anomaly Dents above 4 and 8 o'clock with any indicated metal loss, cracking or stress riser 0 0 0 0 Dents above 4 and 8 o'clock with a depth greater than 6% ofthe nominal pipe diameter 0 0 Other significant anomalies 0 0 SUBTOTAL IMMEDIATE DIGS 0 0 NOTES: 60-DAY CONDITIONS - Complete by 8/7/2007 (EGP) DIGS FEATURES Dents above 4 and 8 o'clock position with a depth greater than 3% ofthe pipeline diameter (greater than 0.250" in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12). 0 0 Dents located on the bottom ofthe pipeline that has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser. 0 0 SUBTOTAL 60 DAY DIGS 0 0 NOTES: <<>> 180 DAY CONDITIONS - Complete by 12/5/2007 (EGP) DIGS FEATURES Dents with reported depths greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250" in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or a longitudinal seam weld. 0 0 Dents above 4 and 8 o'clock position with a depth greater than 2% ofthe pipeline's diameter (0.250" in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12). 0 0 Dents located on the bottom of the pipeline with a depth greater than 6% ofthe pipeline's diameter. 0 0 Predicted safe operating pressure (PSAFE)< maximum pressure (Popp) at location ofanomaly Areas ofgeneral corrosion with a predicted metal loss of >50% of nominal wall 0 0 0 0 Predicted metal loss of>50% ofnominal wall at crossings of another pipeline, or is in an area with widespread circumferential corrosion, or is in an area that could affect a girth weld. Potential crack indication 0 0 0 0 Corrosion ofor along a longitudinal seam weld 0 0 Gouges or grooves greater than 12.5% ofnominal wall 0 0 SUBTOTAL 180 DAY DIGS 0 0 CALIBRATION WITHIN HCA'S DIGS FEATURES Metal Loss 0 0 II> Reductions 0 0 SUBTOTAL CALIBRATION DIGS 0 0 CASINGS WITHIN HCA'S DIGS FEATURES Casing Repair: New End SealsNent Pipes or Test Lead Installations 0 0 Casing Removal 0 0 Shorted Casing 0 0 SUBTOTAL CASING DIGS 0 0 OTHER CONDITIONS WITHIN HCA'S DIGS FEATURES Corrosion growth, predicted burst pressure (PBURsr)< maximum pressure (Popp) al location of anomaly Girth Weld Anomaly 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL OTHER CONDITIONS DIGS 0 0 SUBTOTAL HCA Digs 1 __O_..........._O_-l <<>> NON RCA'S AND AREAS NOT AFFECTING RCA'S OTHER INVESTIGATIONS DIGS FEATURES Metal loss~eater than 80% 0 0 Predicted burst pressure (POURST)< maximum pressure (Popp) at location of anomaly 0 0 Dents above 4 and 8 o'clock with any indicated metal loss, cracking or stress riser 0 0 Dents with a depth~eater than 6% ofthe nominal pipe diameter Predicted safe operating pressure (PSAFE)< maximum pressure (PDPP) at location ofanomaly Dents below 8 and 4 o'clock with associated metal loss 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dents that effect ovality of girth weld Girth weld anomalies with associated metal loss 0 0 0 0 Dents located in longitudinal seam that exceed 2% ofpipe diameter for NPS 12 and larger or 0.250" for pipe diameters less than NPS 12 Gouges, scratches, or grooves that exceed 12.5% metal loss Severe mill related defects (lamination, hard spots, etc.) Cracks located in girth weld Cracks located in longitudinal seam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cracks located in pipe body Casings 0 0 0 0 Metal Loss 0 0 Corrosion growth, predicted burst pressure (PBURST)< maximum pressure (PDPP) at location ofanomaly 0 0 SUBTOTAL Non-RCA Di2S 0 0 TOTAL DIGS= X TOTAL FEATURES TO INVESTIGATE= X A Dig List spreadsheet containing recommended digs has been produced for this line segment. These features are tabbed and highlighted in the Pipeline Listing Section ofthe attached hard copy report from Magpie. Dig sheets on these X features need to be produced from the Dig List. Once these digs have been completed this ITJ will qualify as a baseline for the Line Name #x-x" line segment per CFR parts 195.450 and 195.452 (RCA rule). <<>> <<>> Revleed: Jen.2010 07~0IlM-780 Risk Analysis Worksheet ~MAGELLAN- Federal RlllllelerM. 85, No. 232~~ MIDST REAM PARl NERS.~.P. 49 CFR Per1195 Midland 10 Odessa 12' LIne Description: L1neID: 6932 Completed by: DarianThoma~ Starto.lIt; Jun-11 Pipe Characteristics: HCA1 -1.2 -0 0.250 HCA2 0.0-e.5 12.75 0.281 52,000 1991l Unknown Manufodu",r ERW-HF Fuslon Bond EP"XX 2,292 po.Ig HCA32~.5· 25.3 12.75 0.281 52.000 1999 Unknown ManuI1Idu"" ERW-HF FusionBondE!!!!"Y 2,292 polg HCA Mileposts: 00: wr Grade Year Buill Manufacturer SeamT)'IIll Coatlng T)'IIll PSMYS ~2.000 1957 Unknown ManufaclulBr ERW-HF Fuslon _ E!!!!XX 1,500 polg 1~ Pressure: I Min TIlllI Pr8asu11l I HYdra % SMYS I Discherae ,,",ssure I Olscharao ""'""""' 'l4 SMYS I Yaar of LBsI Tesl I Midland to OdeSS91 1919 I 83.7% I 530 23.1% I 1999 I Are~Ie ........"..,..'" prollldlon rM8SU_ Tn pllloo III pnrvenIlhe Pfl>elI"" """' ·fl195457 (,J(2j .KCOOOlng ""LebTlohDd nwdlftlm DpllraUng _1 ••• Y8lI l.~ Rallll\lIon: 10 yaalll orslribu~on: AssaI Inlegrtty Risk Engineer Pege1of7 07·FORM·7600 <<>> Leak Detection: -"II leakWam; wl1lch Is a coJl1llutatlonaJ plpeUna monllorlng INk delection system using preSSUAlS and nows 10 calculate wl1ether or not CheAl has been B breach In lIle pipeline. PAlssure threshold alarms are also used to wrap the Cunanl Type9 of leak Dataclicn:...~pre=ss~u",Al=s",and=1l<7NlI==on::.:.:lIl:::e::..I~ln.::;e::.. _ leak Detection Thresholds: (Swl1InllSll of look Detedlon)... Measurement:... Proceduras for Idle Unes (wilh psl):... Additional Detactlon:... leak Dalecllon Testing:... LocaUon of Pressure Monlloong Devices: ••• Me Prnsulll TransmlllD.. runged lD measunt up 10 110% MOP (WIIalb the range)?; ••• Product& lransporied und chal'BclarisUcs: ,....lGa~so~Un.!!e~,~Fu~e!!!I.l:OI!!!I leakWam thresholds Blann on time windows of 3.6.10.15.30.60.360 and 1440 minules. The controller Is required by procedure to shut dawn the pipeline If the thrashold on one of the windows Is eXceeded. The throshold for shutdowns on each time windaw Is 23% (3 mIn). 11% (6 min). 7% (10 min). 5% (15 min). 2% (30 min). 1% (60 min). 0% (360 mfn). and 0% (1440 min) raspactivuly of maximum flaw. ThBnl era also Investigation level alarmsln LookWam on both the law and high side lIlat lila controller 15 reqUImd to Inveslgale via lnInding. These alarlll ere sel e\ various polnlll beJow the alarms for shutdown. The thmshold for elenn on Bli Pf9SSUAlS Illlnsmiltenl aAl wrapped at +/- 6% or +/- 16% dependins on lIle tlllnsmitter with naw IIlInsmittsrs wrapped al +/- 6%. The Une Is malllrad In at Frost BIId metered oul at Tye and Od9S98. All pr&SSUIllS can be mlUlual!y wrapped, wilh the most Important being part of the auto wrap program monItored through SCADA with tolarance9 between 6% and 16% depending on lite transmltter. TrendIng Is used 10 analyze any dismlpanclas 10 determine It e possible Issue exists. Aerial Palrol, oamaRe Prewnllon Program and Public AWBAlne59 Program. Field devialstesled as part of oOTlSlP raqulremanl:!l. Midland Pump Slallon has a discherge pn!SSUAl transmItter and !here Is an IncomIng line pressure at Od9S!lll. Midland Pump SIaUon Dlscharge Pressure (MOP 1080 (1166) -Illnged 0 10 1500psl), Odessa In.:omlng Line Pressure (MOP 1440 (1584) -ranged 0 to 2000 PSi), '9545,(0)(3) I I I _ 195 ilfJ7 '.U31 '954~,W3} I Third PartY 53.00 Dnlgn 71.00 Co.....lon 58.00 IncorTWCt Operation. 31.00 41.00 77.00 Location of Alspor1se pelllOOl1el: .., ..:Od=u:.:SS8=..:.T.=enn=l::..:n=a1'- _ I - '95452(,)(31 Risk AlI8eaament Re.uIUl: LIst Index Sconls Re~w RIMA!~$~me"r HCAl HCA2 HCA3 1No,., In eddJtIon 10 _ ._11_ftclaro, __ bnvth.mlSIIw or",. plpo/""._ hI."".,."""the pnmmlty 10 HCA'. on the _ .. -..groph_ conol'UUUf9 8"<1 de/pc' teak! They mea5U'eS Include~ondud/f)gII n.">" """,'Y.••" ()( thlt pfPt'h"lf !tBg,"",'" 'n,df>#'It.~ ttf1(f"o('InJt( 35.00 77.00 57,00 56.00 31.00 31.00 Emergency Flow Restrictive Devices: Are thenl any sntIIS whant response 10 manua' V1lJvM Is excessively slow Within HCAlHIRA'. (_lIIan 60 minutes)?:... No If yn, dnalbe 1oc8tIomI: ••• DllSCl1be epec/fIc areal _thepotonUellor Jgnillon Is high within HCNHIRA'.: (I.... IlfJIBa./ndIJoIrtalffJci1llJfJ. with _nllamn. file.) NDIlI: PnId'nIyIlD~.....II.CIJf'IIIIcIIr-.., h1Nll..-adEFRD~ Rulanllon: 10 years DlslJlbuUon: Asset Inlegri1y R1lllI EngIneer '0545, 11J141 '95.5, ",14/ I None Pege2of7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Lisi other locally controlled MOVa (not SCADA controlled): ... None Distribution: Assel Inlegrity Risk Engineer Retention: 10 years Page 3 of 7 <<>> ,.,.. th"", lilies with e>dollng SCADA ccmn"",1aI1lons w/c ROVe ..• Dosatbe th.lIWtnn.... a1lhe plpelln.... shuldown capablIltleo: ••• No Immedial8 '95457 (,)(41 ---, ~ I :> '" li ~ Type or Flow: IlIUquIdRcw []GMRcw Maximum Drain Down Volume (bbl9): Max volum8 th81 could be I9leased 195.452 (i)(4) (lDngtlom _ R8t8 of L88kag8 (bph/cfh): 3200 195 -If)] ,.,(4) 11 (Typk;el Une Rate) - VoIum8 of Release (bbls); 800 '9.5431M(4J e-on I' rrn.te oloJ1down) ..... 2000 bbI .._l 800 800 HCAl HCA2 HCA3 800 fi2lI: When _uallng the ben8ftto oflIld~ttIcn.1 EFROo. IPPR>IJlialely """older th. Iocallcn GI n........I_.. penlOllnel, theapecl"~ lBrTBln be_the pipeline oagmenl ond Ih. high """sequence a",••: •• be".,nts ""padlild by lllduclng the spill alza. Pruxlmlly 10 __ ..... ohou1d be coosJd_ when cooslderfng the reeslbl1l1y .ndlor Iocallcn of EFROo.- 195452 ('JI4) !!2!!: Th.lIWtftn.... of IeaIt det_, lypaa GI aomrTICllllly c:antlild. and p1pellna lopcglflp/ly .... aile ClXI1lIdel1ld. 195452 (1114) _ .', Ihe 195452 (1)(1 J GBni1fElI Requiremttnls. An operator mnsllake fOOBSf/re,.,o J1revenl and md/galo the conseqlJfJnCfls of a ptpeJln6 failure tf1al cookl affect if h'flh conseqljl}ftce ares These measures 'r'tC/ll'de conductIng it n...~ analy31s of 'he pipeline !6gmlH'lt to 1tJtinlify lKiditKJnal IICliOns '0 enhance pubfIC safety or enl/lIC)lunen/al pmlechon Such8tflOlJ~ may mclude but are flO' 11mlled '0 In."811,09 EFRO', AddItional RIsk Factors/Controls DOC Cocrd IvurNBr Below- Reid An-sWerBeiOW-= 8198? If so, ifill locations of eec:h.: ... No, the"' e", no cable suspenslons. r frAre th8", physlcal supports sucI1 as cable suspenslcns Tn the HCAlHIRA No f9545?W2J I I I -- GIS Coonl. Anawur BaIoW- ...._--Field AnSW8ri:ieIOW='-- Are !hera any spedflc 811lSS along the plpelin8 whel1l additional measul1ls 8should be oonslderad fo mlUgale the consequence of a spfD BUCh 8S In a f8nn lIald following \he drain Ulalnlo a walaIW8y or dilches 810ng side the roadway No GIS dais Is almmUy avall8bl8 for the " I l thallhe pipelln8 crosses?: ... .pecIflc al98 menUonad. No '954521,)(2) 13 I .- Do 8ny valva sllas have BVidance of VlInd8Usm? If yes, desa1be IocaUons: ••• Have any abnonnal operaUng condillons (AOC'a) ocaJrred an this linD: ... Are Ihera 8ny aysl8mlc Issues thai need 10 be add19ssed: ... Are thera 8ny NOV'8, OPS Inspection ntSUlla or SIP elldll resulls thaI suggesl No~ Y"", bul none Bffecll!!!lthe ovaralllnl8l!ri!y of tho linD. No DE!ha need for 8dditlonal risk conlrols? ... 1l1efe have been no NOV's on this 8y!!lam that would affBd tha Int!!!!.lIy or this Iina Il8!lmenl. II '95 452 (i)(1J General Requirements An operator mus/taka maasllres /0 praven/and mrligale the conS6qllences of a pipelme failure 'hal could alfact a hIgh consequence areJ! These meCfSUfBS mclude conductmg a nsk analysIs ofthe prpe/me ssgmen//o idanllfy addlllOna/actlOns 10 enhanca pUblic safety or anvrronmental pro/eeller SllCh ac/'ons may mclude bul .1'9 not itmJ/ad /e ...... .Adoptin9 other manageman/ controls R818lllion: 10 yean! D1sfribuUon' Asset Inlegrity Risk Englnser Paga4 of7 07-FORM·7600 <<>> Damage PreventIon: 195452 (')(1) General ReqlJll9men/s An operator must laklt measllres to p19venl and mtl'l1allt Ihlt conSItQllenees ofa Plpelme fad/l18 Ihal eOllld affltcl a high conSItQ/lltnce ,,,It,, These me"swes mcludlt conductmg a risk analysIs of Ihe plpelme segment 10 identify addtlional acltons 10 Itnhanee pUblIC safely or enVlronmenlat pro/ltcllon Such aclions may melude bul are not I,mlled Ie Implementing Damage Preven/ion Besl Practices InlerVlew QuesllOns 10 dlttermmlt polenllal enhancements 10 Ihlrd party damaga pravenlton program ;J., No thelll Is nol high 0( lnct9ased Ona Can Ac!lv!ty on \his portion 01 IJle line• a .. t: o I ~ RIoI< Englnoe"AnllIyel Tolal Miles of HIRA in line segmenl ••• .;.N::,;/A.:.... _ Heve any aellons related to HIRAs been implemenledlundertaken?no N/A, Illis segmentlll not part of the M!!!lallan CooBenl Deaee. Is Ille One Call sylltem In place?: ••• -'Y-"98"-- Is Public EducelJon progrum In place?: •....!Y~e!:!s Is Iller& high 0( lnaeesed oolH:811 adMty on any por1lons of Ille line? If BO. describe locallons and nalure of actMly;... ------ .. . .. For Breas of hfgh third party-aciivitY','h'a~~ ·Ih~;;be-.,r; ·~ny ... Une~EnQ'OBcl1menlB?: ... Ona Can violations?: •.. Near ml9S9ll?; .. Mechanical damage or physical hils 10 Ille line?: . Is pipeline patrolling (I.e. aerial patrol) In place?: . If so, whalls the Inlquancy?: . Are them ereas of highsuscep~bilily to gaolechnlcel activl1y7:.00 .:.N:::oo=e If BO, are they being managed?: ... Are there any addiUonal areas or ooncem relBled 10 9Blsmlc.lan~lde, or IICQUr relsled 10 geotechnicellJC:lMty?: ... .:.N:::oo=e _ _ r One Call Anawenl Below Shena ConslJuclfon 05113109 Shena ConslJuclfon 05113109 Shena ConsIJuclfon 05113109 None Field AASWlll1l Below Yes l Yes Yes No Yes, bl-weekIV nollo exceed 26~mes per year. Yes, bi-wgeKly not 10 exceed 26 11mes per YIlar. None ii i~ J. j'. \ 'af: 1" I i' J' l~ J aI' & t ,~ _ _ ~ None ~18'~ IJ:,!-J Is ROW maintenance progrum In place?: .....!Y~81!!.... _ Ale an sheRow covar locations Idenlll1ed dUring survey or excevaUon9 cumlnl!y mlUgBled approprle18Iy?:.....!Y~as2.... _ Wes eny lhirtl party 0( mechenlcel damage located In a"",9 or shallow COlIer or cultivation?: ... .:.N::;o"'- _ We9 any Ihlrd party or mechenlcal damage diSOOYllrBd during Integrity ~ S § I ~ lastlng7: ... .:;N::;o:.....- _ Retention: 10 years Dlslr1butlon° Aseellnt!!!lrity Risk engineer Page5of7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Corrosion: 195.452 (1)(1) Genellli Requiremenls An operator must take mellsures 10 prevent and mi/.gale 'he consequences ofa plpelme failure that could affect a hIgh consequence area rncludeconduc~ng a nsk analysIs ofthe pipeline segment to identify add,llOnsl ectlons to enhance public safely or environmental protection. Such scMns may rnclude but are noll,mlred 10. .. ... Belter Momtoring o( CathodIC Pro/eetion where corrosion 's a concern tnlervlflw CuesrlOns 10 delermine JX)tenlial enhancements 10 COrroSIon prevenltOn prograrr These meaSllfIlS Is Ihe line hIghly susceptible 10 Slnlss Cormslon Cmcklng (SCC)?: .....:;N~o~ Has Stress Comlslon Cmd10 mllslyear)?: ... Review CorrosIon Gmwtll sp!1ledsheel:... Am deanlng pigs run on !hIs line per SIP? If not, pleasa explaIn why: ... ..:,N:::o'---- _ Time to repair the worst remaining feature 1s 26.9 years. -'Y""98::.... Haslhis line ever carried rerllliur, crude, or othar corroslve product? If yes, pleasedesaibe: ... ..:Y..:!8'8~ _ _ Risk Engineer f .=I\r1a.l~_ i~I d I Re18l111on: 10 yeBnl Distribution: AsseIlntegrity Risk Engineer Page 6 of7 07·FORM·76DO <<>> Training and Response: 195.452 (1)(I) General Requiremenls An operator must take meaSUfflS to pnwent and mil1gale Ihe consequences ofa plpelme faIlure thaI could aHecl a hIgh consequence areaThR~e measures mclude conducting a nsk analysis ofthe pipeline segment to IdentIfy addl1ional actions to enhance public safety or enVIronmental protection SlIch actions may mc/uda bul are no/ I,mltelfto Providing additiona/trammg to personnel on ",sponse procedures (and) Conductmg drills WIth local emergency responders. Interview OuestlOns to detennme potentIal enhancements to trainmg program: Field AnBW8nl Below ...... T .. ;..iIilIl ..~efiIiTlifTiWt,. Ate emergency response plans In plece and penlOl'Inellnllned In thelr application?: ••• ..:Y..::89=- Yes Is addilionallnllning for personnel required on response procedul89?: ••• .:.N"o'- Ate any additional drUls needed to be conducted with local emergency responders?: ••• .:.N"o'-- Detennlne If any lrolnlng or response deflciencles Wenl determined and appropriately 19C1illed: ••• .:;N::.:/A..:...._~~:_:_::':""""_;:__._::_--__, Field An8Wllnl Below Review incident invesligations or past releases (what were lite concluslons): ••• _ _ _ No No None Iden!illed .:;N~/A~ _ RIsk Engineer' Anelylif There have been no releases on the hlslcry of \hIs Iina. i" Re-lnspectlon Interval: 19545:> (I}(f) Generat ReqUtremenls. An operalor must lake meaSUfBS to pre\l8nt and ml/tgate the consequences ofa pIpeline failure that could ;!Hecl a high consequence area. These measures mcillde conduclmg a risk analysis ofthe pIpeline segmenl to Idenllfy add/llOnal aclions to enhance publIC safely or enVlronmentat protection Such actions may inctude t)//I are not lImIted /0 Establishrng shorter inspecllOn intervals. tntervlew Questrons to delermrne ",-inspecllOn mlelVa.. For Ones Inspected by Ill. dOOll Conoslon Growth AnoJysts Identify any realures thai ware not Invesllgaled dUring lite rehab process \hal will reu withIn 6 yealB?: ••• No Wes lite Ilna previously InllpeC\ed by Ill? Old dam comparison resuh In addlUonel digs due to axroslon growth? Was IItBnl en Increase In dents or mechanical damage?: ... For lines \hel were hydrotested or Inspected by attetnatMo meal19, dces \he resul19 ot the Inspedlon Indlcala a need 10 t9-lnspecl in less then 5 years?: For lines that were Inspected by TFI, VT Crack Tool, or Hydrotast. dlSCllSll results of the Creek Growth AnoJysls and any rusutts from \he III pertinent 10 a datermlneUon of t9-lnspecllon Inlerval. ••• Yes: No: No No Crack Growth Analysis proceduru will be pefformed In conJuctIon with lite Tool Type Analysis prior to the next Integrity test. i ;I t~ 1 1-: Ralenlioo: 10 years Dislributicn: AsBet Inlegrity Risk Engineer Page 7 017 07-FORM·7600 <<>> MMP Integrity Management Plan - Risk Analysis Additional Preventative/Mitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Odessa to Black River 6" (Line ID 6936) MP 0.00 to MP 116.15, Southern District EXECUllVE SUMMARY 2/13/2009 Bob Archibald The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time of the analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. A baseline/leak assessment of the Odessa to Black River - 6" pipeline was performed using Magpie's EGP and MFL tool. The EGP run was completed on December 15, 2006, and final reports were validated June 8,2007. There were problems with the 6" MFL tool and the 249 mile run was completed on February 20, 2008 with final reports validated on May 5, 2008. Five HCA's were identified. HCA 1 is from MP 0.00 to MP 4.25; HCA 2 is from MP 6 to MP 14.75; HCA 3 is from MP 42.50 - 45.25; HCA 4 is from MP 96.50 - MP 100.50 and HCA 5 is from MP 105.25 - MP 110.25. A leak was found during the rehab project at MP 7.8 due to Third Party Damage. A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventive or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed February, 2009. The subject pipeline normally transports gasoline, diesel, and transmix, and is constructed primarily of 6.625" 00 x .25" Wt., 5L.X-46, ERW-LF line pipe manufactured by an unknown manufacturer, constructed in 1957. The line was hydrotested in 1958, for a duration of 36 hours to a pressure of 2,200 psig (63.0% of SMYS). Maximum discharge pressure is 1757 psig at Odessa, 1648 psig at Kermit. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices. There are 6 manual gate valves, 2 check valves and 5 remote operated valves on this line. Odessa facilities are manned 24/7. Kermit and Black River facilities are unmanned. EFRD studies performed ! in accordance with Magellan criterian indicate that drain down volumes exceed threshold. These locations will be evaluated through the EFRD prioritization procedure. RECOMMEND no EFRDs. Leak Detection. A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure, flow, and volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Leak detection thresholds: A low alarm (investigate) is issued at 6% of flow. A low-low alarm (automatic shutdown) is issued at 15% of max flow. All pressures transmitters are wrapped at +/- 8% or +/- 16% (depending upon the location of the transmitter) with flow transmitters wrapped at +/- 6%. A leak was found and immediately repaired during the rehab project at dig #13, MP 7.8 in Odessa. RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding leak detection. Third Party Damage. Weekly aerial patrols and other field personnel observations indicate an average level of one call activity. Public Education programs are in place. Right-of-Way (ROW) is generally in fair condition. Third party damage was identified at Dig #13, where a landowner hit the pipe with an auger while installing a fence post. Areas with shallow cover, where DOC investigation identified damage or heavy soil erosion have been mitigated. There have been no known unauthorized encroachments. There has not been a Depth of Cover survey on this line in the past 10 years. DOC and as surveys recommended from MP 0 to MP 15. RECOMMEND DOC survey from MP 0 to MP 15. Revision Date 1112008 <<>> Corrosion Control. Integrity testing, annual cathodic protection survey data and Maintenance Reports do not indicate corrosion issues outside those managed by the Corrosion Control Program. There are an adequate number of test stations. There were six (6) pipe·to-soil (pis) potential readings from dig locations in this pipeline segment below -o.85V criteria. Installation of 3 new ground beds, started in September, 2008 has been completed. There is a corrosion coupon, Odessa to EI Paso - West Ref 6, and internal corrosion growth rates are acceptable. . RECOMMEND CIS survey from MP 0 to MP 15. Stress Corrosion Cracking. A susceptibility analysis to Stress Corrosion Cracking was conducted on this pipeline and no areas met the high susceptibility criteria. Review of maintenance reports shows no signs of SCC. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. selective seam Corrosion. Maintenance reports did not indicate the presence of selective seam corrosion. No areas of the pipeline show evidence for the presence of selective seam corrosion. RECOMMEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response. Emergency response plans and yearly Operator training programs are in place. Yearly contacts with local emergency response agencies occur per SIP-ADM-l0.0l, Public Awareness. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response. Additional Risk Controls. Earth movement data indicates a low expectation for Landslide (ground movement intensity), medium to high for PGA (earthquake) and low to none for Scour (sediment movement). Surge analysis and operating pressure reviews have been completed. Pressure transmitters are located on suction and discharge at Odessa, Kermit and Black River. Transmitters are also installed on the east and west sides of the Pecos River. A MOCR was recently completed on the Black River discharge transmitter. Now all transmitters on this line segment are ranged to allow measurement of pressure up to 110% MOP. A Safety Related Concern (SRC) was identified in 2006 at the Black River PS when case pressure exceeded 110% MOP. There are no cable crossings on this line segment. RECOMMEND no enhancements to additional risk controls. Re-inspection interval. Pipeline does not show any characteristics that would necessitate an inspection interval less than (5) years. The pipeline is currently patrolled weekly. The pipeline will be continually monitored over the next 5 years (per section 7 of the IMP and other programs). If this monitoring reveals any significant discoveries (i.e. a leak), the line will be reanalyzed to determine a reinspection interval, subject to change due to continual assessment per Section 7 of the IMP. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the first feature to reach repair criteria in the Odessa to Black River segment is 7 years from the date of the IU. RECOMMEND reinspect within 5 years of last inspection, not to exceed 68 months. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: 02/13/2009 Summarv of Recommendations: RECOMMEND DOC survey from MP 0 to MP 15. RECOMMEND as survey from MP 0 to MP 15. RECOMMEND re-inspect within 5 years of last inspection, not to exceed 68 months. 2 <<>> <<>> MPL Integrity Management Plan - Risk Analysis Additional Preventative/Mitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Midland to Corsicana 14" (Line 10 6926) MP 16 to MP 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 2010 Darian Thomas. Risk Engineer The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. This analysis was initiated following an internal re-inspection in accordance with the IMP. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time of the analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. An integrity re-assessment of the Midland to Corsicana 14n pipeline was performed using PII's Geometry tool and TFI smart pig. The III operations were completed and final reports were validated by April 2009. There are no HCAs within this segment (MP 16 to MP 1.2). A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventative or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed in May 2010. The subject pipeline transports gasoline and fuel oils from the Stanton Valve Site to Midland and is constructed primarily of 14n 00 x 0.250n Wt., API X-46, ERW line pipe manufactured by an unknown manufacturer, constructed in 1957. The line was last hydrostatically tested in 1997 to a minimum pressure of 1434 psig (67% of SMYS). The pipeline is uni-directional, flowing East to West from the Stanton Valve site to Midland, with a maximum discharge pressure of 960 psig. There have been no in-service releases on this line. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices: There are two EFRDs on this line segment. ROVs are located at the Stanton Valve Site and Midland. EFRD studies performed in accordance with Magellan criterion indicates that drain down volumes exceed the threshold level from MP 16.1 to MP 7, however, there are no High Consequence Areas on this segment. Personnel are located at Odessa Terminal 2417 and can respond to a leak within 60 minutes with secondary response personnel located at Tye station. RECOMMEND no enhancements to EFRDs. Leak Detection: A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure and flow parameters, as well as volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Automated volume based line balance updated each minute with a rolling 24 hour total is in place. Pressure monitoring devices are located at Stanton valve site and Midland. The line is metered in at Frost and metered out at Tye and/or Odessa. RECOMMEND no enhancements to leak detection. Third Party Damage: Aerial patrols, which are performed weekly, One-Call data, and other field personnel observations indicate little to no increase in activity on or around the pipeline. The Right-of- Way is in good condition and it is maintained in accordance with the ROW maintenance program. Public Education program is in place, and the line is adequately marked. Integrity testing identified one dent located in pasture and multiple corrosion anomalies which met repair criteria. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired. The line is appropriately monitored and maintained through existing third-party damage prevention programs such as aerial patrols, one-call and DOC programs as well as ROWand public education programs. <<>> RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding third party damage. Corrosion Control: Integrity testing and annual cathodic protection survey data do not indicate corrosion issues outside of those managed by the Corrosion Control SIP-7.04. The number of test stations and the spacing between them is adequate. There have been no pipe-to-soil potential readings below -O.85V criteria in the past five years of recorded data. Inhibiter is injection at Galena Park and a corrosion coupon is located at Tye meter station which indicates a low corrosion growth rate. RECOMMEND no enhancements to the corrosion control program Stress Corrosion Cracking: Review of maintenance reports, Iinefill data, and sec analysis indicates that the line is not highly susceptible to Stress Corrosion Cracking. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. Selective Seam Corrosion: No areas of the pipeline show evidence of the presence of selective seam corrosion. RECOMMEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response: Emergency response plans and yearly operator training programs are in place. Emergency response arrangements are in place with local emergency services. Contacts do occur with these agencies per emergency response plans and SIP ADM-12.01. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response program. Additional Risk Controls: There are no areas of high susceptibility to seismic activity on this segment. Geotechnical conditions are monitored in accordance with the procedures outlined in the System Integrity Plan 7.05-ADM-020 and no geotechnical activity has been observed. Pressure transmitters at the Stanton valve site and Midland are properly ranged for 110% of the line's maximum operating pressure. AOCs have been reported in the past three years within the facilities along the line which have been resolved with no affect on the overall integrity of the line. Cleaning pigs are run on this line. RECOMMEND no additional risk controls. Re-inspection interval: There have been no documented in-service releases in the history of this line. The pipeline is patrolled weekly by air. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the time to the next repairable feature is in 28.4 years. The pipeline will be continually be monitored (per Section 7 of the IMP and other programs). If this monitoring reveals any significant discoveries (Le. a leak), the line will be reanalyzed to determine a new re-inspection interval. subject to change due to continual assessment per Section 7 of the IMP. Crack Growth Analysis procedure will be followed prior to the next integrity test in conjunction with the tool type selection process. RECOMMEND setting the re-inspection interval to 5 years with the next integrity test to take place in 2013J not to exceed 68 months from the date of the last inspection. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: _ <<>> Revised: Jan. 201007~0A»-7_ Risk Analysis Worksheet ~MAGELLAN" Fedenll ReglaterM. 85, No. 232~~ MI08TREAM PARTNERS, L.P. 49 CFR Part 195 - - Line Description: Midland 10 Corsicana 14/16120 (MP 16 - 1.2) Llne/D: 6926 Completed by: Darian Thomas SIiIrt Date: Mar-10 -- Pipe Characteristics: MileposlB; 00: WT Grade Year Buill Manufacturer 5eemType Coaling Type PSMYS 1.20 -16.10 14 0.250 46.000 1957 UnknoNn ERW-LF CoalTsr 1643 polg Nole: There lire no HeAa In Ihl. line 58gmllnt. Pru88Uru: Min Tesl Pressure Hvdro% SMYS Discharne Preuure Oischarue PTessuAl 'llo SMYS Year or Last Tesl I CI~8 10 Midland I 1434 I 87.3% 960 I 58.4% I 1997 I 195 452 (.,(2, An! appropriate OYerpnr.iaUAl In)blcIlon measutaS In pI8ce lD pnlYenllhe plpelil1e 110m exceeding establQhed maxlrnum openltlng pr1l95InS? ... -- It Yas Ralanlion: 10 years Distribulion: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Page 1 of7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Leak Detection: -. Currenl Typas of leak Detection: ... leak Delection Thresholds: (Swiftness oflaak Delection)... Measurement:... Proceduras for Idle lines (willi psI): ,.. leakWam: which is a oompuIBUonal pipeline moniloring leak deleclion syslem using prassuras and f1OWllto calculate whether or not thera hes been e bl8ach In tha pipeline. leakWam thrasholds alann on time windows of 3,6,10,15,30,60,360 and 1440 minules. Tha controller is requll8d by procedura to shut down the pipeline if the thrashold on one of lIIe windows is exceeded. The lhreshold for shutdowns on each time window is 23% (3 min). 11% (6 min), 7% (10 min). 5% (15 min), 2% (30 min), 1% (60 min). 1% (360 min), and 1% (1440 min) respeclivaly of maximum flow There ara also invesligallon level alarms in leekWam on bolll Ihe low and high side lIIallhe conlroller is requirad to invaslgale via lranding. Thesa alarts Bra set at various points below lhe alenns for shutdown. The Ihrashold for alenn on ell prassures Iransmilters era wrapped at +/- B% or +/- 16% depending on lIIe transmitter with now transmitters wrapped at +/- 6%. The line Is metered in at Frosl and meIBred out at Tye and/or Odessa. All pmssuras can be manually wrapped. with the most important being pert of the auto wrap program monitored through SCADA wilh tolerances between 6% and 16% depending on the transmitter. Trending is used to analyze any discrepancies 10 detennine if a possible issue exislll. 195 .5ll,/(3) Addilional Detecllon: ... leak Detection Testing:... Localion of Prassure Monitoring Devices: ... Ale PteSSUrB Tl1lnsmlltera ranged to IIl8llSUttl up to 110% MOP (Whalls lhe runge)?: ... Products lransported and characteristics:....;:Ga=s",o",lin~e:..;a::;nd=F:..;u:.:e:::.I-"O:.:;il~ Aerial Pelml. Damege Pravenlion Program and Public Awaranesa Program. Field devicestesled as part of DOTISIP reguiramenls. Slanlon Upstream Pressurej SIBnton Downslreem Prassurej Midlend line Pressure SIBnton Upslream Pressure (MOP 963 (1059) - ranged to 12(0); Stanton Downstream Pressure (MOP 963 (1059)- ranged 10 1200): Midland line Pressure (MOP 992 (1091). ranged to 1200) _ location of response perBonnal:... Primary; Odesse Tanninal (2417); Secondary; Tye. Taxas (Monday lhrough Friday from 7 am ·4 pm)19~ '~ll'I(JI RIsk Aal\8ssmsnt ResurlD: list Index Scores Rovl8w R.$kA:t18~~tTMr" IThlm PartY 45.00 IDeslan 28,50 Note: There ai'll no HCAa on thl'Hgmllnt (MP 18 -1.2). ICOmlslon 71.00 IIncorrect ODltrallons I 46.00 '!JS 452 fl}(" G_JWnI'RlJfJtH",m~& ~Ct.nn5 to enhsnc6 pubic ssfety 01' 19tW"",onrne"tR/ p'OI6Cl1DIt An r>pftUJfOt must bllr. tneluu",a 10 P'ftvtJnt ItndmJtlf16t~ 1Mcon~eqrl9nc#sof ij PJPf"',nttlarlut'&"'t~t eQ",ld II"""" II hogttcon$lJqf~ /tI'PJJ1?Mt~9 m''''SII'81; ,ltd.1de COI'Hflldln9 It "."'" 1I"""yS'.1 rJthe {Jfpel".",.s~n' ICJ /dP""'!v :t<'1rl.'IOIlR' SUCh aclll()t1s may lF1CftldfJ buls,.. nol'm'fllK1 to.... .... Mntt,,)'f1'f9 lhe !IystlltmS '''at~'or pnJsttJt9 and detectlealcs Retention: 10 years Oisbibution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Pege 2 of 7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Emergency Flow Restrfctlve Devices: Are there Bt1Y IIIlSB! whom response to manual velYes Is excessively slow wilhin HCAlHIRA's (slower than 60 minutes)?: ••• No nyell, describ8 Iocallom: ••• - 195452 ""41 I ! < Desaibe speclflc 9tQ8S whem the polentiallor ignition i9 high within HCAlHIRA's: _ -.y"'__II",-nlho__flIEFRD_.... (Ls. ""ras. i1dlJlllrisl flJClijes with openllamell. etc.) ••• None '9S4S2N,4) Lbl other IocaDy coolnllied MOV's (not SCADA controlled): ... NfA Are lhete aUes wlIh existing SCADA communications wfo ROV. ... No I Desctlbe IIle swiftness 01 the pipeline', shuldawncapab~itles: ••• lmmediala 195452l1J(4J li I ~ Type or Flow: 01..1qukl_ DGas_ Maximum Drain Down Volume (bbls): Max volume thai could be released 195.452 (iJ(4) Rale of leakage (bphlcfh): 2200 195 452 (,}(41 1'1 : (T1IlllC81l1neRatel Volume of Release (bbls): 550 '95 452 (,J(41 (1lllSed on 15 --l (longtlom o/I.IU ..... 2llOO bill .. lhreotddl HCA 1 6000 6550 Note: Thel1l 8111 no HCAa on this segment (MP 16 -1.2). ~: When evaluating lhG benefits olllddillonal EFRDs. approprialllly consiler lhG location of nea"",1 ""'9OOSll """",Mel, the specific blmIin b8tween lhG pipeline _nland the high~area.; as weD as. the b8nelils IXpeeled by mduclng IIle 8p11~e. Pnlxtmlty III power SClUt'CllS 'hould be consktered when conaldering lhG Ieaslblllly and/or Iocallon or EFROs•• 195 452 (I}(4) ~; The swtftnesa or leak delsc:tion, types or commodity carried, end pipeline lDpogruphyam sJso Cmenls. AI' opera/or mus/lake measures to prevenl and mliga'e 'he conseqllences 01 a pIp&',ne failure Ihal COItid affect a hrgh consequence aMa analysis ofIhe pipeline segment 10 Idenlrfy addd/Olla/acl""'S to ""hanee pI/bite safe'y or envuonmenta' protect.", Such acllOns may ",clud" bill are not /lfIltled '0 InstafflrlfJ EFRD's These MeRSfJf''r.S "'Clade condtteltng Ii fisk Retention; 10 years Olslribution: Asset Intagrity Risk EngIneer Page 3017 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Additional RIsk Factors/Controle DOC COOrd Answer Below Flilc;l~BalOW '1 §Are lhelB physical supports such as cable suspensions in !heH~IRA area? It so, list locations of each.: ••• No No '95 4!i2 flJ(2, § GIB COOrd. AntNr9f Below FIeld IwJwer SGIow Are \here any specific alBBS along lhe pipelina where additional measulBS field following the dlBin lile into a waterway or ditches along side lhe roadway Jshould be considered to mitigala lhe c:onsaquence of a spill euch in a rarm lhat lhe pipeline crosses?: ... No No '95452 (.,(2. !!l ~ " Do any valva sites have evidence of vandalism? II yes, describe locations: ... No Have any abnormal opelBting conditions (AOC's) occurred on this hna: ... None lhat have aflectad the overBlllntegrity or lhe line. Are lhare any systemic issues \het need to be addlBssad: •.. suggestlhe need for addiUonal risk controls? •.. None No 195.452 (r)(1) General ReqUirements. An opemlor must la/>> 11;rI~~ '''~·i Damage Prevention: 195452 (1)(1) General RequiremenlS An operalor musl take measures 10 prevent and mrligats the consequences ofa plpelme failure /hIlt could affect a h.gh conseqllence area. These measures include conductmg a risk analysIs ofIhe pipeline segment to Iden/tfy addl/JDnal acllons 10 enhance public safely or enVlronmenlal prolec/lOn Sue/) acllons may ",clude bul are nol r,mlled Ie Implementing Damage Prevention Besl PracUces InleTVIew QuestIOns to delerrmne potential enhancements to third party damage preven/JDn program. Total Miles of HIRA in line segmenl ... None If Have any actions related 10 HIRAs been implemenled/undertaken? ••• N/A Is the One Call system in place?: ••• Yes Is Public Education program in place?: ••• Yes Is thai'll hIgh or Incl'llased one-{:B!I activity on any portions of the line? If so, describe locations and nature of aclivity: ••• No~ For araes of high third party activity, have there been any... L One CallcAnswaJsJ~1ow -.J FlBlIfAriIlWl!l'8:'BBlov; , i,'" Unauthorized Encroachmenls?: ... No rile.. - u One Call violalions?: ... No I, Near misses?: ... No f-,'j) ,~i ~~ j.Mechanical damege or physical hits to the line?: ••• No fob "'" Is pipeline palrolling (i.a. aerial patrot) in placo?: ... Yea I .,!., 'ti !... Ye~ If 60. whal ia tha frequency?: ... Weekly >> Corrosion: 195452 (1}(1) General Req/llrements An opera/or musl lake measures /0 prevenland mlligale the consequences of8 plpelme fmll/re thai could affecl a hrgh consequence (lfeR include conductmg a fisk analysis of the plp9fin9 SBgmen/ to Iden/lfy addllional aC/lOns /0 enhance public saf9/y or environmental pro/eclion. Such acl,ons may mclade bill are not limIted /0' ... Beller Monilonng of Ca/hodlc Prolec/lOn where COITOSIOn IS a concern In/en"ew Questions /0 de/ermine potential enhancements 10 COITOSIOn prevenlion program: These measures - . Is the line highly susceptible 10 Slnlse Corrosion ClBcldng (SCC)?: .., No Has S!nlss Corrosion Crecking (SCC) been idantiAed on lhls line?: ... No Has selective Seam Corrosion (SSC) bean identified?: ... Has Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) been identified?: ... ., -I No ! 1~ No~ f.; Are inlemal corrosion coupons present? If yes, whal is lhe coupon name ifand whel1l Is It localed on lhe pipeline segment?: ... If coupon is presenl, Is the Internal corrosion rete acceplable?: ... Yes, Orion Wes116", T)'9 Meier Slalion Yes Is lesl lead spacing adequate?: ... Yes 0 Has there been indication of inedequale CP between existing test alation!? A (whare?): ... year): ... Yes,2oo7. Is calhodic prolection adequale? (if no, pleese describe): ... Yas No (IHas e Close Inlervel Survey (CIS) been perfonned in lhe lasllen years? (list Are AC potential aurvays being performed, and mitigation actions being I.. - ... laken if neCBssary? ... Yas Recommendalions for belter moniloring of corrosion control: ... Nona Have any or the following risk ractom changed thai could cause, promote, or increase the likelihood of intemal corrosion of lhe pipellna: Type of commodity, Flow Rata, Velocity, Microbes, Temperalure, Pipe Configuration, Design, Material Specifications or, Operating Conditions ... No ---- Have casings with metelloss been adequataly addressed?: ... a~ IIOperating Pressure, Topography, Foreign Material. Conlamlnants. Corrosive Malarial, t ;. I ~ ~ Inslalled now vents and end seals on 6 casings. 4 of the 6 had already been injecled wilh en Inhibitor. The other 2 need 10 be inJecled wllh corrosion inhibitor gel. No Are there axcessive corrosion growth rslBII identified by III (>10 milslyear)?: ... Review Corrosion Growth spraedsheel: ... The next feature predicted to fail is in 31.5 years_ Rlsk engineer I IMliiv8i Anelyst Are cleaning pigs run on lhis lina per SIP? tf nol, please explain why; ... Yes HBS this line ever carried fertilizer, crude, or other corrosive product? If yes,. please desctibe: ... Crude Oil lor 40 )'!lara· switched to products in 1996. - ! Relention: 10 years OislribuUon' ABsellnlegrity Risk Engineer Page 80r7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Training and Response: 195452 (1)(1) General ReqUiremenls. An operator must lake measures /0 prevent and mibgale Ihe consequences ofa pIpeline failure thai could affecl 11 hrgh consequence arefl These measures incillde conducllng a nsk analysis of Ihe Plpelme segmenllo IdentIfy addl/lonal acllOns /0 enhance public safely or environmen/al prolect/on Such actIons may mclude hilt afe nor l,m,Ied to ProVIding addlllOnal tralnmg 10pe~onnel on response procedures (and).. Conducting drills Wllh local emergency responders InlerView QllesllOns /0 delermlne polential enhancements to tramlng program: Field AnawelS Below .... Afll emergency response plans in place and pelllonnel lmined in lheir application?: ••• _Y:.:e~s~ _ Is addilional lmining for pemonnel required on response pl'OOedures?: ••• ..:N,::o=- _ Are any additional drills needed to be conducted with local emargency responders?: ••• ..:N,::o=- _ Delarmine if any training or Illsponse deficiencies were determined and appropriately rectified: ••• .;.N.::,/A:.:-_-:=,....,.,,....,......,...__ .......-:----- FIeld Answers Below Review incident investigalions of past releases (whal W8rs Ihe conclusions): ••• ..:N.::'''-A'- _ No None Identified Risk Engineer I Analyst N/A RIIi~"rl 8'1 Re·lnspectlon Interval: 195452 (1)(1) Generat Reqll/remen/s. An opera/or must lake measures 10 prevent and m/ligate the consequences ofa pipeline failure Ihal coutd affect a hrgh consequence arefl These measures include conducting a nsk analySIS of the plpelme segment 10 Idenlify additional actions to enhance pllblic safety or enVironmen/al protection. Such actions may mclude but >> <<>> MPL Integrity Management Plan· Risk Analysis Additional Preventative/Mitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Midland to Corsicana 16" (Line 10 6926) MP 127 (Merkel) to MP 16 (Stanton) MP 132 (Tye) to MP 127 (Merkel) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY August 2010 Darian Thomas, Risk Engineer The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. This analysis was initiated following an internal re-inspection in accordance with the IMP. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time of the analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. An integrity re-assessment of the Midland to Corsicana 16" pipeline, between the Stanton Valve site (MP 16) and Tye Station (MP 132) was performed using PII's Geometry tool and TFI smart pig. The III operations were completed and final reports were validated by May 2009. There are five HCAs within this segment. See Part I of the Risk Analysis Form for a complete HCA description. A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventative or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed in August 2010. The SUbject pipeline transports gasoline and fuel oils from Tye Station to the Stanton Valve Site and is constructed primarily of 16" 00 x 0.250" Wt., API X-46. ERW line pipe manufactured by Lone Star Steel, constructed in 1957. The line was last hydrostatically tested in 1997 to a minimum pressure of 1100 psig (76.5% of SMYS). The pipeline is uni-directional, flowing East to West from Tye Station to the Stanton valve site, with a maximum discharge pressure of 960 psig. There have been no in- service releases on this line. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices: There are four EFRDs on this line segment. EFRD studies performed in accordance with Magellan criterion indicates that drain down volumes exceed the threshold level in four of five HCAs and will be evaluated in our EFRD program. Personnel are located at Odessa Terminal 24/7 and can respond to a leak within 60 minutes with secondary response personnel located at Tye station. RECOMMEND no enhancements to EFRDs. Leak Detection: A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure and flow parameters, as well as volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Automated volume based line balance updated each minute with a rolling 24 hour total is in place. Pressure monitoring devices are located at Tye Station, Merkel, Colorado City. latan valve site, and Stanton valve site. The line is metered in at Frost and metered out at Tye and/or Odessa. RECOMMEND no enhancements to leak detection. Third Party Damage: Aerial patrols. which are performed bi-weekly, One-Call data, and other field personnel observations indicate little to no increase in activity on or around the pipeline. The Right-of- Way is in good condition and it is maintained in accordance with the ROW maintenance program. Public Education program is in place, and the line is adequately marked. A near miss and One Call violation was reported at MP 73.7. The city of Colorado City dug for soil samples using post hole diggers to a depth of 32". They were instructed to file a One-Call but failed to do so. Apparently, the city uses a contractor to obtain soil samples, but they were not able to secure <<>> the samples due to weather related setbacks, so the city decided to obtain the samples themselves. While no damage was sustained to Magellan assets, the excavator was contacted multiple times and informed to file a One-Call for future reference. Integrity testing identified six dents and multiple corrosion anomalies which met repair criteria. Two of the six dents were located in HCAs (one in pasture and another in cultivation). None of the dents showed indication of third party damage. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired. The line is appropriately monitored and maintained through existing third-party damage prevention programs such as aerial patrols, one-call and DOC programs as well as ROWand public education programs. RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding third party damage. Corrosion Control: Integrity testing and annual cathodic protection survey data do not indicate corrosion issues outside of those managed by the Corrosion Control SIP-7.04. The number of test stations and the spacing between them is adequate. There have been no pipe-to-soil potential readings below -0.85V criteria in the past five years of recorded data. Inhibiter is injected at Galena Park and a corrosion coupon is located at Tye meter station which indicates a low corrosion growth rate. RECOMMEND no enhancements to the corrosion control program Stress Corrosion Cracking: Review of maintenance reports, Iinefill data, and SCC analysis indicates that the line is not highly susceptible to Stress Corrosion Cracking. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. Selective Seam Corrosion: No areas of the pipeline show evidence of the presence of selective seam corrosion. RECOMMEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response: Emergency response plans and yearly operator training programs are in place. Emergency response arrangements are in place with local emergency services. Contacts do occur with these agencies per emergency response plans and SIP ADM-12.01. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response program. Additional Risk Controls: There are no areas of high susceptibility to seismic activity on this segment. Geotechnical conditions are monitored in accordance with the procedures outlined in the System Integrity Plan 7.05-ADM-020 and no geotechnical activity has been observed. Pressure transmitters at the Stanton valve site, latan valve site, Colorado City, Merkel, and Tye are properly ranged for 110% of the line's maximum operating pressure. AOCs have been reported in the past three years within the facilities along the line which have been resolved with no affect on the overall integrity of the line. Cleaning pigs are run on this line. RECOMMEND no additional risk controls. Re-inspection interval: There have been no documented in-service releases in the history of this line. The pipeline is patrolled weekly by air. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the time to the next repairable feature is in 11.6 years. The pipeline will be continually be monitored (per Section 7 of the IMP and other programs). If this monitoring reveals any significant discoveries (Le. a leak). the line will be reanalyzed to determine a new re-inspection interval, subject to change due to continual assessment per Section 7 of the IMP. Crack Growth Analysis procedure will be followed prior to the next integrity test in conjunction with the tool type selection process. <<>> RECOMMEND setting the re-inspection interval to 5 years with the next integrity test to take place in 2013, not to exceed 68 months from the date of the last inspection. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: _ <<>> Revtlled: Jan. 2010 07.f'0IUI-7800 Risk Analysis Worksheet Fede,.l ReglatllrM. 85. No. 232 411 CFR Pert 195 ~.!! Ms~§~~!E~~- Llna DescriptIon: Midland to Corsicana 14/16/20 (MP 132.0 - 16) Line ID: 6926 Complelftd by: Darian Thomas Stert D..to: Jun-10 Pipe CharacteristIcs: Mileposts: 00: WT Grade Year Buill Manufactunlr Seam Type Coaling Type PSMYS HCA 1 130.75 -128.00 16 0,250 46.000 1957 Lane Star Steel ERW-lF Coal Tar 1438 PI'll HCA2 110.00 ·105.75 16 0.250 46.000 1957 lone Star SllIfll ERW-lF CoaITer 1438 polg HCA3 103.50 • 95.75 16 0.250 46.000 1957 Lane Star Steel ERW-lF Coal Tar 1438 PI'll HCA4 50.00 • 39.75 16 0,250 46,000 1957 Lane Star Sleel ERW-lF Coal Tar 1438 1'"'1I HCAS 38.50 - 35.00 16 0,250 46.000 1957 lone Star Steel ERW-lF Coal Tar 1438 poig Pressure: Min Test Pressure HVlIro % SMYS Dischara9 Prassura 0""""'''''' Pressura % SMYS Year of LIISI Tesl Clyde to Midland I 1100 I 78.5% I 960 I 68.8% I 1997 I 1~-S <'f52tr'!21 Ate epproprlate OYerpnllISure protection meesures In place ID prevenllhe pipeline Imm exceeding established maximum openlq pressures? ••• Yes ...,. Ifj Relenlion: 10 )'Bers Distribution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Pege 1 of7 07·FORM-7600 <<>> leak Detection: Cummt Types of Leak Detection:... LeakWam; which is a compulatiol\Bl pipeline monilOfing leak delection syslem using pressures end !lows 10 calculale whether or nollhere hes been a breach In the pipeline. Leak Detection Thresholds: (Swiftness of Leak Detection)... Measurement:... Procedures lor Idla Lines (with psi):... LeakWam thresholds alarm on time windows of 3,6,10,15,30,60,360 and 1440 minules. The controller Is required by procedure to shut down the pipeline if tha threshold on one of tha windows is eXceeded. The threshold for shutdowns on each lime window is 23% (3 min). 11% (6 min), 7% (10 min). 5% (15 min), 2% (30 min). 1% (60 min). 1% (360 min), end 1% (1440 min) respectivaly of maximum flow. Thare are also investigation lavel alarms In LeakWam on both Ihe low and high Side that the conlroller is required 10 invaslgale via lrending. These alerts are sal at various points below lhe alerms for shutdown. The threshold for alerm on aU pressures lrensmilters are wrapped at +/- 8% or +/. 16% depending on the trensmitter wilh !low transmitters wrapped at +/. 6%. The line Is metered in al Frosl and metered out at Tye and/or Odessa. All pressures can be manually wrapped, with the most important being part of the aulo wrap program monilored through SCADA with lolerances between 6% and 16% dapending on the transmitter. Trending Is used 10 analyze any discrepancies to determine if a possible issue exists. Additional Detection: .,. Leak Deleclion Testing:... Aerial Palrol. Damage Pnsvention Program and Public Awareness Program. Fiald deviceslesled as part of DOT/SIP reguiremanls. Location of Pressure Monitoring Devices:... Am p"""""" T18nsm1ttenl ranged to measure up 10 110% MOP (What b I!le Tye Downslream Pressure; Merkel Upslream Pressure; Colorado City Upstream Pressure; Colorado City Downstream Pressure: lalan Upstream Pressure: latan Downstream Pressure: Stanlon Upstream Pressure. Tye Downstream Pressure (MOP 963 (1059) - ranged to 1500): Merkel Upstream Pressure (MOP 1034 (1137) • ranged 10 1200); Colorado City Upslream Pnsssure (MOP 1034 (1137) - ranged 10 2000); Colorado City Downstream Pressure (MOP 1034 (1137)· nsnged to 2000); lalan Upstream Pressure (MOP 988 (1087)· ranged 10 1200); lalan Downstream PlBssure (MOP 963 (1059) - renged to 2000): Stanton Upslream PIBSSUIB (MOP 963 (1059) - ranged to 1200)'Q~ 452 ('1(3' range)?: ... Products lrensported and chareclerislics:.....::Ga=so=lin~e~a~nd=F:..;u:::e=I~O~i1"- _ Location of response personnel:... Primary: Odessa Terminal (2417); Secondary; Tye, Texas (Monday through Friday lrom 7 am • 4 pm) 195 452 ('/IJJ 19545U.}(JI Rllk As....m.nt R18u'18: Lisllndex Scores HCA1 HCA2 HCA3 HCA4 HCA5 ThIrd Partv Deslan Corrotllon Inc:omtct OD.rallons 53,00 20.00 75.00 37.00 53.00 20.00 75.00 37.00 53.00 20.00 75.00 37.00 49.00 13.00 71.00 37.00 53.00 13.00 71.00 37.00 RevtfJw Rl$" AusssMenl 195452 Mil) GSnfI'1tI R&qfllrtHnllnrs An O{l8faf()( mrt!:.t /11"& meS31tms tOP'8rr1J1nt and mrt..gal_lhe CMseqtMnctJs 01 a fJ#Pf"/I'lB ISllrJ'9lh81 could affect a h'9" con.seqUflrtCe ares aclKJIJs/o enhance public 1i8fpl.,. 01' .nwonmttnlaJ pm'9C1JOr'l S,tCh IJCtlMl' may 'nclude but a"""IUrHlsd In Modtlytng If)e syst8,."s lhal I'Wtllorpt8.!'-,ure and delect~ltlls These mt'J)SIK1U Il'lCllrde CondCIC''"9" n51{ ,IInal)<5/S of,f'oe PJpet1r'l6 -"egl'f)P'" (0 Jd6n/"'1Ildd"'iY';11 Relantion: 10 yea/ll Distribution: Assellnlegrity Risk Engineer Page 2 of7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Emergency Flow Restrictive Devices: Am lhenl anya~ where r9SpomI& to manuel valves 15 excessively slow within HCAlHIRA's (slower than 60 rninulll9)?: , Kl""', desa1be locations: .., •• No '95452 M'4J : Desc:t1be speclflc areas whem the potential for Ignb 15 high witIlin HCAlHIRA's: (I.•. flam., Industrial faclu.. wfth open names, ele,)... _: -*y"__~_"'lho""_"'EfllI)_ 195452('114) 'I None Ust olller locally allItroIled MOV's (not SCADA controlled): ... No Are lhe'" aijllS with axisllng SCAOA communications wlo ROV.... Describe !he swiftness of lhe pipeUna'sllhutdawn cepabllldes; ••• Immediola No:~ 195452 (1)(41 !t: Type of Flow: 0\.1ql1ldflgw OGas- Maximum DrainOown Volume (bbls): Max volume thaI couId be released Rale of Leakage (bph/c1h): 2200 '95452 (11(41 Iff' (TWlcaI lJne RAlte),~ 195452 (1}(4) [long!lom _ Volume of RetBBB8 (bbls): 550 '1l5 452 (",41 (Based on lSlTlinlIta ahutdownl .... 2000 bb1 ..lhtesnokll 1307 1857 7235 7785 6371 6921 8449 8999 HCA1 HCA2 HCA3 HCA4 HCA5 1704 2254 Nole. When8Valua~ I!le b8nefll!l of Bddltionlll EFRDs. appmprlate/y cansIdGr the Iocat!>> Additional Risk Factors/Controls DOC Coord ArnrNer Below.~ Arl.-- tMiJi'JW erea? If so, IisllocaUons 01 each.: ••. No No . -_ . !Are !here physical supports such as cable suspensions in lhe HCAlHIRA 195 452 ('112, • ~ GIS Coord. A!uJWBr Below FJeld Anfter eeloW Are thare any specific areas along lha pipeline where oddilional measures field lollowing Ihe drain Iile inlo a walerway or dilches olong side Ihe modway ]should be considered 10 miUgate the consequence of a spill such In a farm l that !he pipeline crosses?: ... No No 195 452 (,)(2) I'l! " Do any valve sites have evidence of vandalism? If yes. describe locations: ... No Have any abnormal opereling conditions (AOC's) occumad on Ihis line: ... Are there any systemic issues that need 10 be addressed: .•• i "- U· None thai have affeelad the oyereli inl8llrily of the line. No'i!~ •Are therB any NOV's, OPS Insp8Clion rosulls or SIP audilrBsulls lhal suggestlhe need for addilional risk controls? ... None 195 452 (1}(1) General ReqUlremenls An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipelme failure Ihal could affect a high consequence area. These measures mclude conduclmg a fisk analysis ofIhe pipeline segment to identifyaddilional acllons to enhance publre safely or envIronmental pro/ecllon Such actions may mclude bul are no/llm,ted to ... .Adoptmg other management con/rots. Retention: 10 years DistribuUon: Assellntegrily Risk Englnoer Page 4 017 07·FORM-7600 <<>> 1f Damage Prevention: 195452 (i)(1) General Requirements An operator musl take measums to prevent and milrgale the consequences of a prpelme faJ/lIre that could affecl a high consequence area Thesemeasllre~ mcfude conducting a fisk anafysis of the pipeline segment to identify addltlonat ac/JOns /0 enhance pub/lc safely or enwonmental protecr,on Such actIOns mllY mC/llde but arf/ not limIted 10. Implementing Damage PreventtOn Best Praclicf/s fnleN/ow Questions /0 de/ermine po/enlial enhancements /0 third party damage prevention program. Total Miles 01 HIRA In line segment ... None Have any actions related to HlRAs been Implemented/undertaken? ... N/A Is the One Call Sy8lem In place?; ... Yes Is Public Education progrem in placa?; ... Yes Is Ihere high or increesed one-<:all aclivily on any portions ollhe line? If so.~ describe localions and nalure of activity: ... No l .~; 'j For areas 01 high third party activity, have there been any... 011I8 Call AnllWers~[OW---.J Fjeld Answers BeloW i.I Unauthorized Encrtlschmenls?: ... Yes Yes • ~. One Call violations?: ... Yes Yes I "2' Mechanical damage or physical hits to the line?; ... No ,~ a· INear misses?: ... Yes Yes No i I I iI Is pipeline patrolling (i.e. aerial patrOl) in place?; ... Yes, inteNals nol exceeding 3 weeks. Yes, intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, J .S m: If so. what Is lhe frequency?: ... but at least 26 times eech year. (NoIe) but at least 26 times each year. (Note) ,~" ~/Wly01 'JIIiI Are lhere areas 01 high susceptibility to geotechnical activity?; ... No If so, are they being managed?: ... . 'lit;Am there anyaddilional areas of concem related to seismic, landslide, or scour relaled to geotechnical activity?: ••• No .' No Is ROW maintenance program in placa?: ••• Yes S Am all shallow cover !ocalions identified during surveyor excavations currentty mitigated appropriately?: ••• Yes Was llny Ihird party or machanlcel damage located in areas of shallow cover 01' cultivation?: ••• No Was any lhird party or mechanical damage discovered during inlagrily l tesling?: ... No Note: The Right of Way Is sharvd wIlh loule·OreyNe Pipeline who requlrws their plpsllnes to be patrolled weekty. I ~ ~ I No ti;Uf- ~ , Relenlion: 10~ars Distribution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Page 5017 07·FORM-7oo0 <<>> Corrosion: 195.452 (1)(1) General ReQulremen/s. An opera/or mus/ take measures 10 prevent and mitigate Ihe consequences or a pIpeline railure Ihal could arrect a high consequence area. These mellSll/es mclude conductmg a risk analysis of the plpelme segment to iden/ify addltronal actIOns to enhance public safely or envlronmenlal protectIOn. Such actrons may mclude but are not !1m/ted 10:.... .......... Beller Monitoring of CathodIc Protection where cOlTosion IS a concem IntervIew Questions 10 determme potentlat enhancements to corroSIOn prevention program· - Is the line highly susceptible to SlrBss CoIfO!lIOr1 Cracking (SCC)?: ... Has Slress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) been idenlified on lhis line?; .•• No Has Selective Seem COlTOsiorl (SSC) been identified?; ... No Has Microbiologically Induced COrrosion (MIC) been identined?; ••• No No~ Are internel corrosion coupons presenl? If >'9s, what is the coupon name jland where is illocated on !he pipeline segmenl?; ••• If coupon is prasenl, is tha inlemal corrosion rale acceplable?; ... Is tesllead spacJng adequale?; ... Yes Has there been indication of inedequele CP between existing lesl slations? Has a Close Interval Survey (CIS) been performed in lhe lasllen years? (lisl (where?): ... No year): ... Yes, 2007. Is calhodic protection adequele? (if no, please describe): ... Yes Are AC potential surveys being performed, end mlligalion aelions being laken If necessary? ... Yes Recommendations for beller moniloring of corrosion conlrol; •.. None Have any of the following risk factors changed lhat could cause, promote, or increase the likelihood of intemel corrosion of the pipeline: Typo of commodity, Flow Rate, Velocity, Operaling Prassure, Topography. Foreign Material, Conlaminants, COrrosive Material, Microbes, Tempemtum. Pipe Configuration. Design, Materiel Specificalions or, Opereting Conditions ... No Yes. Orion Wesl 16", TV!! Meier Slallorl Yes 1~ ~~ 'ii;+ f!'ii =, ~ I· ~ 1\ ~ I ~ C s I'" 81 Have casings with metal loss been adequately addressed?: ... Yes go £ Are Ihem excessive corrosion growth rates identified by III (>10 milslyear)?; ... No Review ColfO!lion Growlh spreadsheet; ,.. The next feature predicled to fail is in 11.6 years. RIsk EngIneer I JAniiwl Analyst Are cleaning pIgs run on this line per SIP? If nol, plea58 explain why: '" Has thIs line ever carried fertilizer, crude, or other ccrrosive product? If yes. please describe: ... ~ Yes :ll r1. Crude Oil for 40 years· swilched 10 products In 1996. I Retention: 10 >'9ars Distribulion: Assetlnlegrity Risk Engineer Page 6 of 7 07.fORM·7600 <<>> TraInIng and Response: 195.452 (i)(1) General ReqUIrements An operalor must take measullls 10 plllvent and mitigate Ihe consequences of a pipeline faIlure Ihat could affecl a h'!1h consequence area These measures mclude conducling a risk analysIs of the plpelme segment /0 IdentIfy additional ac/rons /0 enhance pulJ/ic safely or environmental prolect,on Such actions may rnclude but are no/1Imlled te PrOVIding addllionallfilming 10 personnel on response procedures (and).. Conducting drills With locat emergency responders. InleNiew OuesllOns 10 determme polenllal enhancements 10 Irarning program Field Answelll Below .. ,. ArB emergency response plans in place and personnellnlined in Iheir opplicalion?: ......;Y:.:o:::s~ _ Yes 15 oddilional lralning tor personnel required on response procedures?: ••• .:N~o=-- _ Are any addilional drills needed 10 be conduded with local emergency respondel1l?: ••• .:N~o=-- _ Determine if eny IllIining or response deficiencies were delennined and epproprielely reclified: ••• .;.N.::;fA;.:...._-==.."..".,.......,,..,.,...,...,..,.,....-__---,. Field Answers Below Review incident investigations of past releoses (whal wars Ihe conclusions): ••• _ .:N.;;I.;..A.~ No No None Identified Risk Engineer I Analyst NfA Re-Inspectlon Interval: 195452 (i}(1) General ReqUIrements An operalor mllst lake measures 10 prevenl and mlilgate Ihe consequences of a plpelme failure /hal could affect a high consequence area These measures mclude conduclmg a nsk analysis ofthe pipelme segmenllo identify additional actions 10 enhance publIC safety or enVlronmenlal protecilOn SlIch acMns may mclude hIli Bre nol1lmlled te Eslablishing shorter mspecllOn inlervals tnlervlew Olleslions 10 delermme re·mspection in/erval. For lines inspocted by Ill, does Corrosion Growth Analysis identify any fealures lhal were nol investigetod during the rehab process thai Will fail wilhin 6 years?: ••• .:.;N:::o~ _ Wos Ihe line preViously Inspacted by ILl? Did data comparison rssuilin addiUonal digs due 10 corrosion gmwlh? Was them an incroa98 in dents or mechanical damage?:... Yes; No (no comparison mede because lalestlLI was 1FI); No. For lines Ihot wore hydrotesled or Inspocted by ollemativo means, does Ihe resulls of Ihe Inspection indicale a need to re-inspacl in less than 5 yelll1l?: ." ..:;N:lo::.... _ For linos thaI were inspected by TFI, UT Creck Tool. or Hydratesl, discuss resulls 01 Ihe Cmek Growth Analysis and any results lram Ihe III pertinent 10 a detennination 01 re-inspeclion inlervol. '" Crock Growth Analysis procedurs will be followed prior to Ihe next inlogrily lesl in conjunction with the 1001 type selection process. RelenUon: 10 years Distribution: Assellnlogrily Risk Engineer Page 7017 07·FORM-7600 <<>> <<>> MPL Integrity Management Plan - Risk Analysis Additional PreventativelMitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Midland to Corsicana 14/16/20 (Line In 6926) MP 312 (Frost) to MP 149 (Clyde) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY August 2008 Darian Thomas, Risk Engineer The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. This analysis was initiated following an internal inspection in accordance with the IMP. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time ofthe analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. An integrity re-assessment ofthe Midland to Corsicana pipeline was performed from Frost station (MP 312) to Clyde Station (MP 149) in 2006 using Magpie's Geometry tool and Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) smart pig. The ILl operations were completed and final reports were validated in 2007. Five (5) HCAs were identified. A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventative or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed in August 2008. The subject pipeline segment transports refined petroleum products from Frost pump station through Clyde pump station and is constructed primarily of 16" 00 x 0.250" Wt., APl5L X46, ERW line pipe manufactured by Lonestar Steel, constructed in 1957. The line was last hydrostatically tested in 1997 to a minimum pressure of 1036 psig (72% of SMYS). The segment from Frost (MP 312) to Walnut Springs (MP 261) has a maximum operating pressure of 829 psig and the segment from Walnut Springs (MP 261) to Clyde (MP 149) has a maximum operating pressure of 800 psig. The pipeline is operated at approximately 920 psig from Frost to Walnut Springs and 1030 psig from Walnut Springs to Clyde. Operating pressures have been set in accordance with SIP. While there have been two seam failures due to the 1997 hydrotest, there have been no documented in-service releases on the history of this line. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices: EFRDs are located at Frost (MP 312), Lake Whitney (MP 276), Walnut Springs (MP 261), DeLeon (MP 212), and Clyde (MP 149). EFRD studies were performed on this line segment in accordance with MPL processes. No additional EFRD's are recommended. Leak Detection: A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure and flow parameters, as well as volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Automated line balancing on a 60 minute rolling scale is in place. Pressure monitoring devices are located at Frost (MP 312), Lake Whitney (MP 276), Walnut Springs (MP 261), DeLeon (MP 212), and Clyde (MP 149). The line can be metered out at Frost station and metered in at Walnut Springs, DeLeon or Clyde stations. Personnel are located in close proximity to the line and can respond to a leak within 60 minutes. RECOMMEND no enhancements to leak detection. Third Party Damage: Aerial patrols, which are performed every two weeks, One-Call data, and other field personnel observations indicate little to no increase in activity on or around the pipeline. No <<>> near-misses, One-call violations, or unauthorized encroachments have been reported on this line segment. The Right-of-Way is in good condition and is maintained in accordance with the ROW maintenance program. Public Education program is in place, and the line is adequately marked. Integrity testing identified anomalies which met repair criteria. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired by installing type B sleeves. No third party damage has been identified. The line is appropriately monitored and maintained through existing third-party damage prevention programs such as aerial patrols, One-Call and DOC programs as well as ROWand public education programs. RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding third party damage. Corrosion Control: Integrity testing identified corrosion anomalies which met repair criteria. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired by installing type B sleeves. Annual cathodic protection survey data does not indicate corrosion issues outside of those managed by the Corrosion Control program in accordance with SIP-7.04. The number of test stations and the spacing between them is adequate. There have been no CP readings below criteria in the past five years of recorded data. Cleaning pigs are run on this line and corrosion coupons at Tye station and Odessa indicates a low corrosion growth rate. RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding corrosion control. Stress Corrosion Cracking: A susceptibility analysis to Stress Corrosion Cracking was conducted on this pipeline and no areas met the high susceptibility criteria. Field investigations found no indication ofthe presence ofSCC. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. Selective Seam Corrosion: No areas of the pipeline show evidence of the presence of selective seam corrOSIOn. RECOMlviEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response: Emergency response plans and yearly operator training programs are in place. Emergency response arrangements are in place with local emergency services. Contacts do occur with these agencies per emergency response plans and SIP ADM-12.01. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response program. Additional Risk Controls: Geotechnical conditions are monitored in accordance with the procedures outlined in the System Integrity Plan 7.05-ADM-020. Surge analysis and operating pressure reviews have been completed. There are no enhancements to the mainline recommended based on the surge analysis. Pressure transmitters are properly ranged for the line's operating pressures. AOCs have been reported in the past three years within the facilities along the line which have been resolved with no affect on the overall integrity of the line. Field personnel indicate the time to respond to the manual valve at MP 245 is excessive, taking approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes to reach in the event of a release indication. It is recommended that the valve be remotely operated which would provide an additional benefit of reducing the drain down in the population HCA near Walnut Springs station to levels less than the threshold which it currently exceeds. RECOMMEND remotely operating the manual valve at MP 245 and sending the signal to operations control. <<>> Re-inspection interval: There have been no documented in-service releases on the history of this line. The pipeline is patrolled every two weeks by air. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the time to the next repairable feature is 12.9 years. Crack growth analysis indicates that a seam assessment is due. RECOMMEND conducting a seam re-assessment. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: <<>> ReYiled: 11107 07.f'OAM-7600 Risk Analysis Worksheet Federal RegllterNI. 65, No. 232~ ......... MIDSTREAM PARTNERS. L.P. 49 CFR Pert 195 ~MAGeLLAN- -- Line Description: Midland 10 Conllcana 14-16-20 MP 312 - 149 (Frost 10 Clyde) i!J Llne/O: 6926~Wo-d [)acuMt: Completed by: Darian Thomas Shirt Date:Jul~ Pipe Characteristics: HCA Mlleposls: 00: WT Gmde Year Built Manufacturer Seam Type Coaling Type PSMYS HCA1 151.00-165.00 16 0.250 46000 1957 Lone Star Steel ERW·LF Coal Ter 1438 pslg HCA2 203.00· 205.50 16 0.250 46000 1957 Lone Star Sleel ERW-LF Coal Tar 1438 pslg HCA3 257.50 - 260.00 16 0.250 46000 1955 Lone Star Sleet ERW-LF Coal Tar 1438 psIg HCA" 291.50 - 299.50 16 0.250 46000 1957 Lone Star Steet ERW-LF CoalTer 1438 pslg HCA5 309.50·312.30 16 0.250 46000 1957 Lone Star Steel ERW·LF CoalTBr 1438 paig Pressure: I Min Test Pressure tMllO% SMYS Dlscherce Pressure IDischerge Pressure % SMYSI Year of Lesl Test I CI~e Pump SlaUOn • Welnut Springs Pump StaUonl 1105 78.9% 1030 71.7% 1997 I Walnut Springs Pump Station· Frost Pump Statlonl 1036 I 72.1% I 920 I 64.0% I 1997 I 19~ 4~21.)(2} Are approprlale overpressure PItltedlon measures In place 10 prevenllhe plpellne from Yes, SUllle Analysis and Operaling Pressure Reviews have been completed. 8Kc:eedIng established mBldmum opel1lting prn5SU1lIS? RelenUon: 10 years Distribution: Assellntegrity Risk Engineer Page 1 or6 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Leak Detection: Current Types of Leak Delectlon: ••• .:..A:::u:::lo::;m:.::o:.::led::::..L:;:I:.::ne::....:::B:::el:::.e:::nce::::.... _ Leak Detection Thresholds:... A low olann (invasllgale) is Issued a14.6% or max. Row. A low..cow olann (outomaUc shutdownlls Issued 018.5% or (SWillness of Leak Delectlon) ..:;m",a",x::,.,Row:.:.;:.;"". _ Moasuremonl:... Tho Une Is metel'8d at Corsicana. Frost. Tye. and Midland. Procedures lor Idle LInes (Wilh psi):... Pressure Is SCADA monlLored. Auto-wrap will be addad in Ihe noar future. ~ Additional Delectlon:... Aerial Patrol, Damaso PravenUon P!t!!lrem end Public Awareness Progrem l J- ·t· . .j 1 Loak Detection Tesllng:... PrevenUvo Maintenance of Reid devices per SIP LocaUon of Pressure Monitoring Devices:... Line pressures at Corsicana, Frost, Lake Whitney, De Leon, Abilene, Tye, Merkel, Colorado City, latan, and Stanton. There is also suction. case. and discharge pressures at Frost. Walnut. Clyde, and Midland. Products tmnsportad and chamctorisUcs:... .,:Ge=sol=ln:.::e:.L •.:d::,:ie:;:sel=,.::B:::;Ik>1=o::;:te:.;o::;nd::.::.tra=n.;:s:.::m",Ix::- _ I'mssure Tmnsmitters mnged 10 measure up to 110% MOP (Wtlal Is the rangel?:... ..:y.:e:::.s _ LocaUon of response personnel:... Response personnel are localed In close proximity 10 lhe pipeline and can respond 10 Brelease wilhin 60 minutes. 1 195452 (,)/31 RI.k As_amant R.aulbl: L1sllowest Index Soores Re~w R,sk Assessment ThIrd Partv DIlllan Corrosion Incorrect Ooeratlonll HCA 1 HCA2 HCA3 HCA4 HCAS 491 MP 151.4 - 164.4 17 I MP 160.8 - 164.4 41 / MP 160.8 - 164.4 31/ MP 151.4 -164.4 421 MP 203.7 - 205.0 7 I MP 203.7 - 205.0 421 MP 203.7 - 205.0 31/ MP 203.7 - 205.0 481 MP 259.5 - 261.0 51 MP 258.1 - 261.0 41/ MP 259.5 - 261.0 31/ MP 258.1 - 261.0 40 I MP 293.28-296.44 7/ MP 293.28-29ll.44 41 IMP 296.44-296.98 31/ MP 260.95-297.17 421 MP 309.97-311.12351 MP309.97-311.1~ 41/ MP 309.97-311.12 361 MP 309.97-311.12 Note: Design Risk Scom rrom old risk modolls nol occumte due \0 Inoorrecl elBvallons Bnd selpolnl pressums. this orlOr Is being addressed In the new risk modol. 195452 (tJf 11 Genef74' Requfr!tlTlenl$ An op6n1IOT ffllJ311ffke measures to p",..eorH and mMtgaJe '''ttCOrlstJQ1Je'~s 0'apt~'me faJfrt~ thllt COfI/dlJ"~f B 'ugh COf"I!I!'qIlBnCfJ aresThes~ mea,'liltl'f'S,nchK1~ conducting 8 nslf. analysIS ('){ '''e Olpe/lne segment to Idf'l1rrfy ;:Jdd,/lOfJsf acllOlJs ro enhonc" pHb"c Sltrety or enllJfOl1menlal prolection SUCh IIcll(Jn$ may ,nelu>> Emergency Flow RestrictIve Devices: Ate lIlere any arees where response 10 mBIllIlII valves Is~ excosslvoly slow wllhln HCA's (slower lhan 60 mlnu1ell)?: ... No 1~5 452 rl/(41 If YllS. describe Iocallons: ... Describe specillc areas whenlllle polanlial for 19rilion ;,. hlgh willin HCA's: ••• nh __oIEI'RD_ (I.e. nares, indust11aJ fllcilitiBs wtfh open namfJS, e/r;,) None 195 452 "Jr4J '~ : i_ "'-'tyOO ____ I I lbt otl1ef locally c:ontnllled MOV's: ,.. Frost and Clyde StaUons can be conuolled locally (lor malntenence) or by Ops Control (for normal operallon). _. : _. Descrlbe lIle swlflnSS!l 01 !he IiJleBne's shutdown cepabBitles: ... The pipeline will be shut down within 5 minutes of a low-low line balance alarm or other anomally seen by Ihe1~5 452 (.)(41 CCI'Ilrollar. I~ Type 01 Flow: 0u'Jlld Row oGas Row Maximum DraIn Down Volume (bbls): Max volume that could be released Rate of Leakage (bphlcfh): 2750 195452 (.)(41 il (TYJJb!llrMl Rallo) Voluma of Release (bbls): 687.5 195,ffalM("t IB8sed on 15 mInul. 011.'-') 195452 (i)(4) 1222 1909.5 2209 2896.5 HCA1 HCA2 HCA3 HCA~ HCA5 1758 2445.5 2228 2915.5 1568 2255.5 t!2m: When evaluating the benents of addiUonal EFRDs, appropriately consider the location of nearast response personnel, the specific lemlln between the pipeline sagmenl and the high consequence araBS; a9 W911 a9, the beneflls expected by reduclng the spill size. ProxImity 10 polMlr soun:es should be considered when consldering the feasibility and/or locaUon of EFRDs.• 195.452 (I)(4) Note: The swlllnass of leak detectJon, types 01 commodity carried. and pipeline topography Bra also considered. 195.452 (i)(4) 195.452 (i)(1) General Requifltmenls. An operalor must lake me8SUfltS to prevenl and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline faituflt that could affect a high consequence arBR. These mp,asures include conducting 8 risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify addilional actions to enhance public safely or enVtfonmentat protection. Such Rctions may include but are nollimited to. ...... .Instalting EFRD's. RelanUon: 10 yoars DlslJibutlon: AssaI Integrity RIsk EngIneer Pega3of6 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Additional Risk Factors/Controls DOC Coord' Answer Below ,FIeld~Below ]Are there physical supports such as cable suspensions In the HCA area? J If so, Iisllocatlons of each.: ••• No No 195452 '.}/21 § _.- -_._- GIS CoonI. AnllWllr Below F18l1$ AMWOt!5eklW··_ .. .-- Are there any speclfic areas along the pipeline where measures should be Iconsidered 10 mitigate the consequence of a splll such In a fann field following the drain lIIe InLo a waLerway or dllches along side the roadway Ol thatlhe pipeline crosses?: .•• No No 195452 ("'21 B ! No Aoes have occurred on Ihe line, but none lhatarreclthe overall Inlegrity of the line. 00 eny valve sUes have evldence of vandalism? If yes, describe locallons: ... Have any abnonnal operaling conditions (AOC's) occurred on this line: ... Are there any syslemlc Issues that need to be addrassed: ... None Are there any NOV's, OPS Inspec\ion results or SIP audit rasults thai suggest the need for addil/onal risk conlrols? ... No 195.452 (i)(1) General Requimments. An operator must take measums 10 prevent and mitigate Ihe consequences of a pipeline fa/lure Ihat could affect a hIgh consequence area include conducting a nsk analysis of the pIpeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safely or enwonmentat protectIOn. Sucha~/IOns may mclude bul are nnl I/mltedI~ ._......Adopting other management controls. These measures Damage Prevention: 195.452 (i)(1) General Requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mItigate Ihe consequences of a pipeline fei/ure that could affect a high consequence area. These mellSllfes include conducting a risk anelysis of the pipeline segment to idenlify additional actions 10 enhance public safely or environmental protection. Such fictions may include but afB notfirmted 10. Implementing Damage Prevention Best Prectices tnterview Ouestions to delermine potential enhancemenls to third party damage prevention program: ~ eo "~ Is the One Call system In place?: ... Yes Is Public Education progJBm In place?: ••• Yes Is there high or Increased one>> Is ROW malnlenance program In place?; ••• Yes J Are all shallow cover locations identified during surveyor excavations 8 currently mitigated approprialaly?; ••. No shallow cover locaUons Idenlified Was any third party or mechanical damage located In aress of shallow cover or cultivation?: ••• No Q. :> Was any third party or mechanIcal damage discovered during Inlagrlty e CI teslfng?: ••. No ~ Corrosion: 195.452 (i)(1) General Requirements. An operalor must lake measures 10 prev9nt and mitigate Ihe consequences ofa pipeline fai/ulB lhat could affect a high consequence alBa include conducting a risk analysis ofIhe pipeline segmenlto idenltty addilional actIons to enhance public safety or enVllonmenta/ protection. Such actions may include bul are nnf limIted to: .......... .. Better Momtoring ofCathodic Protection whare corrosIon is a concern IntervIew Ques/ions to de/ermine potenlial enhencements 10 corrosion prevenlion prograll'" These measures No Is tha line highly susceptible 10 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)?; ••• .; IHas Stress Corrosion Crecklng (SCC) been Identified on this line?; ... No. '"!. I Has SelBCIlve Seam Corroslon (SSe) been IdenUfied?: ... No,. 0, I ~lti' Are Intemal corroslcm coupons present? If yes, whatls Iha ooupon name and whare Is It located on the pIpeline segment?: ... If coupon Is presenl, Is the Intemal corrosion rale acceptable?: ... Yes Is testleed spacing edequate?: ••. (where?): ... No Yes Hes a I,;lose Interval :>urvey (1,;1:» been pel10rrneclln Ule laSllen yean!'1 (list year): •.. Yes, 2007 Is a Close Interval Survey (CIS) needed?: ... No Is cathodic protection adequate? (II no. please describe): ... Yes Recommendations for better monItoring of corrosion control: ... None Yes, at lye Stallon snd Odessa ~ ~ IJ,Hes there been IndlcaUon 01 Inadequate CP between exlsllng test staUons? I:.:' , r- J: I!',~I I· } " I , Yes· on the Walnut Springs to Clyde segment there are 3 casIngs lhat WIlm prepared for inhibitor gel but the gel has not yet been injected, Have casings with metal ross been adequately addressed?: ... Are !I1ere excessive corrosion growth mles ldenUfied by III (>10 I mils/year)?: ... No O! Review Corrosion Growth spreadsheet: ... The lirst unrepalred leature to reach repair crlterla Is In 12.9 years. ILl run comparison corrosion growth Indicates IIl'St unrepalred leeture regulrlr!!! mpalr Is In 4.3 years after ILl. RelenUon: 10 years Distribution: Asset Inlegrity Risk Englnaer Page 50f6 07·FORM-7600 <<>> Are cleaning pigs run on this line per SIP? If nol, please explain why:.. Yes Has this line ever carrled fertilizer, crude, or other corrosive product? if yes, please describe: ... Yes - Crude Is there high voltage AC within 500 feet of the plpeline? If yes. describe localions: ... No Training and Response: 195 452 (i)(1) General Requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area These meastires include conducting a risk anaiysis of the pipeline segment to identify additionel actions to enhance public safely or environmental protection. Such actons may include but are not limiled Ic Interview Questions to determine potential enhancements lo training program: ...Providing additional training to personnel on response procedures (and)... Conducling drills with local emergency responders. application?: ... Yes is additional training for personnel required on rasponse procedures?: ... No. Are any additional drills needed to be conducted with local emergency responders?: ... No Revlew incident Investigatons of past releases: ... There have been no in-service releases in the history of this line. Determine If any training or response deficiencles were determined and approprialety rectified: ... None Re-Inspection Interval: 195.452 (0(1) General Requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area These measunes include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to idenlily addilional actions to enhance public safely or environmental prolection. Such actions may include but are not limiled te Interview Questions to determine re-Inspeclion interval: ....Eslablishing shorter inspection intervals. fealures that were nol investigated during the rehab procase thal will fail For lines Inspected by ILI, does Corrosion Growth Analysis identify any vears. First feature requiring Invesligalion Is 3,5 years after ILI, These features did not appear on Run comparison corrosion growth Indicales four unrepared features require investigation wilhin 6 within B years?: ... the previous Tuboscope ILl run. additional digs due to comosion growth? Was lhere an Increase in denis or Was the line previously Inspected by ILI? Did dala comparison result In mechanical damage?:... Yes. Yes. Yes. For lines that were hydrolested or inspected by altemative means, does the results of the inspection Indicale a need to re-inspect in less than 5 years: ... N/A For lines that were Inspected by TFI, UT Crack Tool, or Hydrotes, discuss results of the Crack Growth Analysis and any results from the ILl pertinent lo a determination of re inspection interval, ... N/A Retention: 10 years Distribution: Asset Integrity Risk Engineer Page 6 of 6 07-FORM-7600 <<>> <<>> MPL Integrity Management Plan - Risk Analysis Additional Preventative/Mitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Midland to Corsicana 16" (Line 106926) MP 139 (Abilene) to 132 (Tye) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 2011 Darian Thomas, Risk Engineer The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. This analysis was initiated following an internal re-inspection in accordance with the IMP. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time of the analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. An integrity re-assessment of the Midland to Corsicana 16ft pipeline, between Tye Station (MP 132) and Abilene (MP 139) was performed using PlI's Geometry tool and TFI smart pig. The III operations were completed and final reports were validated by February 2009. There is one HCA within this segment. See Part I of the Risk Analysis Form for a complete HCA description. A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventative or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed in May 2011. The subject pipeline transports gasoline and fuel oils from Abilene to Tye Station and is constructed primarily of 16ft OD x 0.250ft Wt., API X-46, ERW line pipe manufactured by Lonestar Steel, constructed in 1957. The line was last hydrostatically tested in 1997 to a minimum pressure of 1207 psig (84.0% of SMYS). The pipeline is uni-directional, flowing East to West from Abilene Junction to Tye Station. with a maximum discharge pressure of 960 psig. There have been no in-service releases on this line. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices: There are two EFRDs on this line segment. EFRD studies performed in accordance with Magellan criterion indicates that drain down volumes do not exceed the threshold level within the HCA. Personnel are located at Odessa Terminal 24/7 and Tye. Texas Mon - Fri from 7 am to 4 pm and can respond to a leak within 60 minutes. RECOMMEND no enhancements to EFRDs. Leak Detection: A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure and flow parameters, as well as volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Automated volume based line balance updated each minute with a rolling 24 hour total is in place. Pressure monitoring devices are located at Abilene Junction and Tye Station. The line is metered in at Frost and metered out at Tye and/or Odessa. RECOMMEND no enhancements to leak detection. Third Party Damage: Aerial patrols, which are performed bi-weekly, One-Call data, and other field personnel observations indicate little to no increase in activity on or around the pipeline. The Right-of- Way is in good condition and it is maintained in accordance with the ROW maintenance program. Public Education program is in place. and the line is adequately marked. Integrity testing identified mUltiple corrosion anomalies which met repair criteria. The tool did not report any dents that met repair criteria. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired. The line is appropriately monitored and maintained through existing third-party damage prevention programs such as aerial patrols. one-call and DOC programs as well as ROWand public education programs. <<>> RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding third party damage. Corrosion Control: Integrity testing and annual cathodic protection survey data do not indicate corrosion issues outside of those managed by the Corrosion Control SIP-7.04. The number of test stations and the spacing between them is adequate. There have been no pipe-to-soil potential readings below -0.85V criteria in the past five years of recorded data. Inhibiter is injected at Galena Park and a corrosion coupon is located at Tye meter station which indicates a low corrosion growth rate. A Close Interval Survey was completed in 2007. RECOMMEND no enhancements to the corrosion control program Stress Corrosion Cracking: Review of maintenance reports, linetill data, and SCC analysis indicates that the line is not highly susceptible to Stress Corrosion Cracking. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. Selective Seam Corrosion: No areas of the pipeline show evidence of the presence of selective seam corrosion. RECOMMEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response: Emergency response plans and yearly operator training programs are in place. Emergency response arrangements are in place with local emergency services. Contacts do occur with these agencies per emergency response plans and SIP ADM-12.01. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response program. Additional Risk Controls: There are no areas of high susceptibility to seismic activity on this segment. Geotechnical conditions are monitored in accordance with the procedures outlined in the System Integrity Plan 7.05-ADM-020 and no geotechnical activity has been observed. Pressure transmitters at Tye station and Abilene junction are properly ranged for 110% of the line's maximum operating pressure. AOCs have been reported in the past three years within the facilities along the line which have been resolved with no affect on the overall integrity of the line. Cleaning pigs are run on this line. RECOMMEND no additional risk controls. Re-inspection interval: There have been no documented in-service releases in the history of this line. The pipeline is patrolled bi-weekly by air. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the time to the next repairable feature is in 42.0 years. The pipeline will be continually be monitored (per Section 7 of the IMP and other programs). If this monitoring reveals any significant discoveries (Le. a leak), the line will be reanalyzed to detennine a new re-inspection interval, subject to change due to continual assessment per Section 7 of the IMP. Crack Growth Analysis procedure will be followed prior to the next integrity test in conjunction with the tool type selection process. RECOMMEND setting the re-inspection interval to 5 years with the next integrity test to take place in 2013, not to exceed 68 months from the date of the last inspection. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: _ <<>> Revised: Jan. 2010O7~0IUI-7800 Risk Analysis Worksheet Federal ReglsterM. 65, No. 232~~ MIDSTREAM P .... RTNERS. L.P. "9 CFR Part 195 ~MAGeLLAN- Line Description: Midland to Corsicana 14/16120 (MP 139 - 132) Llne/D: 6926 Completed by: Darian Thomas SlartDate; May-11 Pipe Characteristics: HCA Mileposls: 00: WT Gnlde Year Buill Manulacturer seam Type Coaling Type PSMYS HCA1 132.00 - 139.00 16 0.250 46000 1957 Lonestar Steel ERW Cool Tar 1438 I'Oill Pressure: 1954521<1/2/ t Min Tesl Pressure Hvdro% SMYS Dischams Pressure Discharos PnlS9Unl % SMYSI Year 01 last Test I Clyde Pump StatIOn 10 Merkel SIalionl 1207 I 84.0% 960 I 66.8% I 1997 Anlapproprial" >> Leak Detection: Cumlnt Types 01 Leek Detection:... Laak Deleclion Thresholds: (Swiftness of Leek Deteclion)... Measurement:... Procedures for Idle Lines (wilh psi):... Additional Detection:... Leak Datection Tasling:... LeakWam: which is a compulalional pipeline moniloring leek detection syslem using Pr9SSUr9S end nows to calculate whelher or nollher9 hes been e bl9ach In lhe pipeline. LeakWam thlBSholds elarm an lime WIndows or 3,6,10,15,30,60,360 end 1440 minutes. The controller is requir9d by procedure 10 shut down lhe pipeline il (he lhr9shold on one of lha windows is axceadad. Tha lhrashold ror shutdowns on each lime window is 23% (3 min), 11 % (6 min), 7% (10 min), 5% (15 min). 2% (30 min). 1% (60 min), 1% (360 min), end 1% (1440 min) respectivaly or maximum now. There el9 also Invesllgalion lavel alarms in LeakWarn on both the low and high eide lhatthe controller is requir9d to Inveslgala via lranding. Thase alerts ara sel at various points below the alerms lor shutdown. The lhreshold lor elarm on all pressures lrensmitlers al9 wrapped at +/- 8% or +/- 16% dependin!! on lhe lrensmiller wilh now transmillers wrapped at +/- 6%. The line is meter9d in al Frost and meterad out al Tye and/or Odessa. All pressures can be manually wrapped, wilh lhe mosl important being part or lhe auto wrap program moniforad through SCADA with tolerances belween 6% and 16% depending on the lransmiller. Tl9nding is usad to anely-l:e any discrepancies to determine if a possible Issue eXists. Aerial Patrol, Demage PrevenUon Program and Public Awareness P!O!!rem. Field devices teslad as part of DOT/SIP raquiraments. 195452 (0//31 I I i Location or Pl9ssure Moniloring Devicas: ." he Pressure Transmiller.l rungad to moa....111 up 10 110% MOP (Whalla Ille runge)?; ... Products lransported end characteristics: ••• Abilene Downstream Pressure; Tye Upstream Pressure Abilene Downstraem Pressure (MOP 963 (1059) • ranged to 1200): Tye Upstream Pressura (MOP 963 (1059)- ransed to 2000) 1954521>113' ~Ga=s:::o:::li:..:ne::..:a:::nd::..:.F..:u:::e::.I.::O:::il _ Location or response personnel:... Primery: Odessa TermInal (24/7); secondary: Tye. Texas (Monday through Fridey from 7 am - 4 pm) 195 452 /.)(3) RI.k Asaenment Ra.ulbl: Revtffw RIsk ASSfJument HCA1 I I Third Partv I Dealan I COrTCl.lon IIncorTacl O...rallon. I 20.00 I 13.00 I 67.00 I 39.00 I 195452 (I)(1) GsneralReqUlrPmenl~ An O(JfI'It'rw mU$1 faitH nMnI'Ilf'8S In preverrl Bnd mJlqale thecon~Hmc8s01 a1JlPf'1~ 18Jllu& 'hal COIIidIlf(~, II ""!'Itt COf751JqtJfH'tCtJ If""" ~t"D"S 10 IfflhBnc. public safety or ftlfWOt1lTJfHJlal ptf)tectldn Such «,.anS nlsy JnCIudH bill am not lurnlM In ,. ... ModJ(yrng'''' sysUJms 'hnl tnOf)f'lor presa,,,. lfnd dtlJtec' *,1'11:$ '1hP!'i8 1TJfM$""'!'i me'ud. cnnt1tlt:trog R"~ OIt1NyS.S ,..""". PI,.,.'''''' ,'tRqnw.,,' f(l Kif'>nr.f" 1f!t1rl"oonltl RetenUon: 10 years DislribuUon: Assellntegnty Risk Engineer Page 2 of7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Emergency Flow RestrictIve Devices: Jue lhere any areas whenll1lSpOI1Slllo manual valv89 Is excessively a/ow w1lh1n HCMiIRA', (a!awe< lhan 60 minul89)?: ••• No W yes, describe localionl: ... 195457,./(4/ _,~., Describe speclflC area, when> the poIanliBl for IgniIJcn Is~h wtlhin HCAlHIRA',. (L e. fIB",., ndusMIJl fltCWell wiIh open flit""", elc,).., __._....r"'_oIEFllIl_ '95451 (oJ,4, I None List olhor locally controlled MOV. (not SCADA conlroDed): .., Tye Slallon (maintenance only per Technician) .. Ars Ihllnl sil... wiU1 exl.Ung SCADA communicalionl wlo ROV••.. No t Describe Iha swi1Iness or the pfpeIine'. ahtJIdawn capabUitie9: ... Immediata 195457 ('1,4' B ~ . li~ Type of Flow: 0iJqlJldRcM DGas_ Maximum Drain Down Volume (bbls): Max volume thai could be released Rate or leakage (bph/clh): 2200 195 451 (,U4' !.i! (T'IlicalLine~e) Volume of Release (bbls): 550 '95 452 (,/(4' (_on 15minut._1 195452 (1)(4)~.t18._2000 bblultlnDholdl HCA 1 1587 2137 !!2ll: When 8Valueltng lho benefits or edcIillonal EFRDs, epproprlately consider the location of ll88l9S1 response p9lSDl'lnel, the .peclrlC lemIln betw-. Ihe pipeline segmenl end lhe high consequence areas; a.~ 8', lhe banellts expeeled by redudng lho aplt !liz., Proximity to power lIOUI'CllS shoold be COMldenld when CXlflSldering the reaslbl1Jty end/or IocaUon of EFROs•• 195452 (4) HmI.: The swtftnes9 of leak datection. types of commodity calT1ed, and pipelinlllDpogruplly IInl elso considllnld, 195 452 (,)(4) 195452 (,)(1) General ReqUltemenls. An operalrlr must lake measums /0 prevent and mdigate the consequences ofa fYpeltne falure /JIat could affecl a high consequence 8rea analysis of the fJlP6ltne segment 10 KJenttfyadd~lOrIltl8CtIOt1S 10 enhance public safety (J{ enYltDflmenlal pro/lICtlOll Such actIOns mey If'ICtude but a", noIlomited 10....•. .Insla""!1 EFRD's These measures nc/lidecond(~(fOCIlffI"k Relention: 10 yean! Distribution: A9sellnlegrily Risk Engineer Page 3 of7 D7-FORM-760D <<>> Additional Risk Factors/Controls DOC Coord Answer Below F1IIId Ann8r 8(J1iJw. §Are there phYSical supports such as cable suspensions in the HCAlHIRA I erea? If so, list locations of each.: ••• No No '95451 (.'(1/ § GIS Coord. AnllW!lr Below FIeld ATsawer Belllw A18 there eny specific areas along the pipeline where additional measures Jshould be considered 10 miugala the consequence of a spill such in a farm ReId following lhe drain liIe inlo a waterway or dilches along side !he roadway '" that the pipeline crosses?: ... No No Ig5452M2) a ~ Do eny valve siles have evidence of vendalism? If yes. describe locations: •.. No Have any abnormal opel1lung Clmditions (AOC's) occumld on this lina: ... Are !here any systemic issues that need lo be addressed: ••• suggest !ha need tor addilional risk controls? ___ None No AOes have occurred on (ha line, but nona !hat alfecllhe overall inlegrity of Ihe line. 195.452 (i)(1) General Requlremenls. An operalor musl take measures 10 prevenl and millgate the consequences ofa plpelme fa/lure Ihat coutd affect a hrgh consequence areil mclude condueling a risk analys,s of Ihe pIpeline segmenllo iden/ify add//JOnat actIOns 10 enhance publIC safety or envIronmental pro/eellon ........Adopling other management controls. i .. ·Ii llifIA18 there any NOV's. OPS Inspeclion resulls or SIP audil Rlsul\s lhal These measures Sueh actions may mcleJde bul are no/llml/ed In. Retention: 10 years Distribution: Assellnlegrity Risk Engineer Page 4 017 07·FORM·7600 <<>> Demage Prevention: 195452 (i)(1) General Requirements An operator must take measures to prevent and mItigate the consequences ofa pipeline falllJfe thai could affect a h.g" consequence area These measures include conducting a nsk analysrs ofthe pipeline segment to rdentlfy addilional actions 10 enhance public safely or envlronmenlal pro/eclio" Sue" acllOns mey mclude but are not lImIted /0. Imp/ementmg Damage PreventIOn Best Practices Inlervlew QueS/lons /0 de/ermrne po/en/lal enhancements to Ihlfd parly damage prevenllOn program. Is the One Call system in place?: ••• Is Public Education program in place?: ••• ...;Y~e:::s:....- ...;Y~e:::s:....- Is IheAl high or increased one-all aclivily on eny portions or Ihe line? If so, describe locations and nature or activity: ••. ..:N.:.;o"- _ _ _ L One Call AIllIW9I'8 Below No No No No For areas or high Ihird party activity. have thare been any••• Ufl8uthori~ed Encroachments?: . One Call violalions?: .. Near misses?: . Mechanical damage or physical hils 10 the line?: .. Is pipeline patrolling (Le. aerial patrol) in place?: . If so, what is the frequency?: . Yes, Intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but el leesl 26 limes eech year. Are lhere areas of high susceptibility 10 geolechnlcel aclivity7: ••• "'N.;.:o=-- _ If so, are Ihey being managed?: ... Are theAl eny eddlliollal areas or COflCBm Alialed 10 seismic, lalldslide, or scour releted 10 geotechnical aclivity7:... .:.;N:.;:o:.... _ FJald Answel1l Below No i No No No I I Yes, intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but atleasl 26 times eacll year. No AM ..:..:..::....,----------~ NO i-l:'~'~ t!-_oll Is ROW meinleOllr\ce program In place?: ._. ..:Y..:s:,:s:.... _ Are all shallow covsr locations identified during survey Dr excavBliollS cUrTllnUy mitigated appropriately?:...~N.::o::..s:::ha=lI~ow=co=ve::::r....:10CB=~li~0:.:ns~id:::e:.:n:::lifi:::led:::... Was BnY third party or mechanical damage located in ereas 01 shallow cover orcullivaUon?: ...~N.::o=-- Was any lhird party or mechanical damage discover8d during intagrily lesling?: ....:...N~o~ _ _ _ Retenllon: 10 years Dislribution: Asset Integrity Risk EllQlneer Page 5 of 7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> CorrosIon: 195.452 (I)( I) General ReqUlremenls An operator mus/lake measures to prevenl and mItigate the consequences of a plpefme far/ure/hat could affect a hIgh consequence area mclude candueling a risk analysis of Ihe pipeflne segmen/to identify additional acllOns /a enhance publIc safety or envIronmental protection Such actIOns may mclude but are nat IImlled to. Be/ter Monilonng af Calhodic Protecllan where corrosion IS 8 concern /nlel'llJew Ouest/ons /a de/ermme potentlat enhancements ta corrOSIon pr,wentJOn program' These measures ..,. Is lhe line highly Busceptible to SIr9SB Corrosion Cracking (SCC)?: ... No No h'Has Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) been identified on this line?: ••• Has Selective Seem Corrosion (SSC) been identified?: ••• No l' ~i Has Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) been idenlifled?: .., No 1 Are inlemel corrosion coupons pl1lsent? If yes, whalls lhe coupon name IIand where Is 11 localed on the pipeline segmenl?: .., II coupon is present, Is Ihe inlemal corrosion rate acceptabla?: ... Yes, Orion Wes11B", Tye Meter SIation Yes Is lesllaad spacing adequate?: ... Yes Has thel1l been indication 01 inadequate CP between existing tesl slallons? (where?): ••• No Has a Close Inlerval Survey (CIS) baan performed in Ihe last len years? (Iisl year): ... Yes,2oo7. Is cathodic protection adequate? (il no, please describe): ••• Yes Are AC polential surveys being performed, and mlligation actions being laken if necessary? ... Yes Recommendalions lor belter monlloring 01 corrosion control: ... None Have any 01 the following risk lactolS changed thaI could cause, promote, or inClB8S8 tha likelihood of inlema! corrosion 01 Ihe pipeline: Type 01 commodity, Flow Rale, Velocity, Operating Pressure, Topography. Foreign Material, Conlamlnants, Corrosive Malerial, Microbes, Temperalunl, Pipe Configuralion. Design, Material Specificalions or, Operaling Conditions ... No Have casings with melalloss been adequafely addressed?: ... Yes Are lhere excessive corrosion growth rales idenlified by III (>10 milslyear)?: ... No I a Review Corrosion Growth spreadsheet: ... The next feature predicted 10 fail is in 42.0 years Risk EngIneer I IAni Anal\1Sl Anl cleaning pigs run on this line per SIP? II nol, please explain why: .•• Yes Hes this line eYer carried fertilizer, crude, or other corrosive prodUCl? II yes, l please describe: ... Cruda Oil lor 40 )'!Ian; • swilched 10 prnducls in 1996. ~ I. 1 I- I~; 'r 'J "--- 5!i fii 8J 0. _____ jijII(~~ Relention: 10 years Distribution: Asset Inlegrity Risk Engineer Page 6 017 07·FORM·7600 <<>> TraInIng and Response: 195452 (i)(l) General Requiremenls An opera/or mus/lake measures /0 preven/ and mrligate /he consequences of a plpelme failure thai could affect a hrgh consequence arae These measures include conductmg a nsk analysrs ofthe pipeline segment/o rcJenlrfy addilional aclions to enhance public safety or envlronmenlal proteclian Such acllons may mc/ude but are notl,mlled Ic ... .Providmg additIOnal lrammg /0 personnel on response procedures (and)... Conduc/mg dnlls wrth local emergencyresponde~ IntervIew Queslrons to de/emrrne po/enlial enhancements /0 /rainmg program. Are emergency response plans in piece and personnel tnlined in therr Field Ariswers Below application?: ... -'Y..;:e;::s _ Yes Is edditionallrainlng for personnel required on response procedures?:... ..:.N:=o:.... _ No An! eny addilionel drills needed to be conducted with local emergency responders?: ••• .;.N:=o'- _ Determine if any lmining or response deficienCies were determined end appropriatelyrecti~ed: ... N/A No None Identified Review incident investigations or pasl releases (what were the conclusions): ••• FIeld Answers Below There have been no relesses in lhe hislory or this line. Risk Engineer I Analyst There heve been no releases in the hislOry of lhis line. Re-Inspectlon Interval: 195.452 (i)(I) General Requiremen/s An operator must take measures to preven/ and miligate /he consequences of a plpe/ine faifure thaI could alfecl a hI!Jh consequence ares. These measl/res include conduc/mg a nsk analysis ol/he plpelme segment to iden/rfy addlilonal actions to enhance public safely or environmental prOleclian. Such aC/lons may include but are notllmlled to .. Estab!Jshmg shorter inspec/ionmteNa/~ IntervIew Quesllons to de/emrme re-inspectlon mterval. For lines inspected by Ill, does Corrosion Growth Analysis identify any fealures thai wem not investigated dunng the rehab process that will fail within 6 )'Bars?: ... Was the line previously inspected by ILl? Did dala comparison result in additional digs due to corrosion growth? Was there an incnlase in dents or mechanical damage?: ... No Yes; No (no comparison mede because letesllLl was TFlli No. For lines thai were hyttrtltested or Inspected by eltemative meens, does the resulla of the InSpedion indicale e need 10 re-Inspect in les8 then 5 years?: ••• For lines that were inspected by TFI, UT CtBck Tool, or Hydrtltesl, discuss results of the Crack Grewth Analysis and any rasulls from the ILl pertinenl to a determination of re-mspection interval. .•• No Cmck Growth AnalYSiS procedure will be followed prior 10 the next integrity test In conjunction WIth lhe (oollype selection process. Relenlion: 10 )'Bars Distribution: Assetlnlegrity Risk Engineer Pege 7 of7 07-FORM·7600 <<>> <<>> MPL Integrity Management Plan - Risk Analysis Additional Preventative/Mitigation Measure and Reassessment Interval Midland to Corsicana 14" (Line 106926) MP 149 (Clyde) to 139 (Abilene) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 2011 Darian Thomas, Risk Engineer The objective of this document is to provide a risk analysis and re-inspection interval recommendation based on an assessment of data from integrity testing and various programs in place to protect the integrity of the line. This analysis was initiated following an internal re-inspection in accordance with the IMP. The data included herein is a snapshot of the ongoing programs at the time of the analysis and is intended to be reviewed after the next integrity assessment or after a significant event such as an unintended pipeline release. An integrity re-assessment of the Midland to Corsicana 16" pipeline. between Clyde Station (MP 149) and Abilene (MP 139) was performed using PlI's Geometry tool and TFI smart pig. The III operations were completed and final reports were validated by February 2009. There is one HCA within this segment. See Part I of the Risk Analysis Form for a complete HCA description. A risk analysis of the pipeline to identify additional preventative or mitigation measures and re-assessment interval was completed in May 2011. The SUbject pipeline transports gasoline and fuel oils from Clyde to Abilene Station and is constructed primarily of 14" 00 x 0.250" Wt., API X-46. ERW line pipe manufactured by an unknown manufacturer, constructed in 1957. The line was last hydrostatically tested in 1997 to a minimum pressure of 1240 psig (75.5% of SMYS). The pipeline is uni-directional, flowing East to West from Clyde to Abilene Junction. with a maximum discharge pressure of 960 psig. There have been no in- service releases on this line. Emergency Flow Restriction Devices: There are two EFRDs on this line segment. EFRD studies performed in accordance with Magellan criterion indicates that drain down volumes do not exceed the threshold level within the HCA. Personnel are located at Odessa Terminal 24/7 and Tye, Texas Mon - Fri from 7 am to 4 pm and can respond to a leak within 60 minutes. RECOMMEND no enhancements to EFRDs. Leak Detection: A means to detect leaks by monitoring pressure and flow parameters, as well as volume balancing through SCADA is in place. Automated volume based line balance updated each minute with a rolling 24 hour total is in place. Pressure monitoring devices are located at Clyde Station and Abilene Junction. The line is metered in at Frost and metered out at Tye and/or Odessa. RECOMMEND no enhancements to leak detection. Third Party Damage: Aerial patrols. which are performed bi-weekly, One-Call data, and other field personnel observations indicate little to no increase in activity on or around the pipeline. The Right-of- Way is in good condition and it is maintained in accordance with the ROW maintenance program. Public Education program is in place, and the line is adequately marked. Integrity testing identified multiple corrosion anomalies which met repair criteria. The tool did not report any dents in an HCA that met repair criteria. All anomalies that met repair criteria have been repaired. The line is appropriately monitored and maintained through existing third-party damage prevention programs such as aerial patrols, one-call and DOC programs as well as ROWand public education programs. <<>> RECOMMEND no enhancements regarding third party damage. Corrosion Control: Integrity testing and annual cathodic protection survey data do not indicate corrosion issues outside of those managed by the Corrosion Control SIP-7.04. The number of test stations and the spacing between them is adequate. There have been no pipe-to-soil potential readings below -0.85V criteria in the past five years of recorded data. Inhibiter is injected at Galena Park and a corrosion coupon is located at Tye meter station which indicates a low corrosion growth rate. A Close Interval Survey was completed in 2007. RECOMMEND no enhancements to the corrosion control program Stress Corrosion Cracking: Review of maintenance reports, linefill data, and SCC analysis indicates that the line is not highly susceptible to Stress Corrosion Cracking. RECOMMEND no enhancements to stress corrosion cracking program. Selective Seam Corrosion: No areas of the pipeline show evidence of the presence of selective seam corrosion. RECOMMEND no enhancements to selective seam corrosion program. Training and Response: Emergency response plans and yearly operator training programs are in place. Emergency response arrangements are in place with local emergency services. Contacts do occur with these agencies per emergency response plans and SIP ADM-12.01. RECOMMEND no enhancements to training and response program. Additional Risk Controls: There are no areas of high susceptibility to seismic activity on this segment. Geotechnical conditions are monitored in accordance with the procedures outlined in the System Integrity Plan 7.05-ADM-020 and no geotechnical activity has been observed. Pressure transmitters at Clyde station and Abilene junction are properly ranged for 110% of the line's maximum operating pressure. AOCs have been reported in the past three years within the facilities along the line which have been resolved with no affect on the overall integrity of the line. Cleaning pigs are run on this line. RECOMMEND no additional risk controls. Re-inspection interval: There have been no documented in-service releases in the history of this line. The pipeline is patrolled bi-weekly by air. Corrosion growth analysis indicates the time to the next repairable feature is in 21.7 years. The pipeline will be continually be monitored (per Section 7 of the IMP and other programs). If this monitoring reveals any significant discoveries (Le. a leak), the line will be reanalyzed to determine a new re-inspection interval, subject to change due to continual assessment per Section 7 of the IMP. Crack Growth Analysis procedure will be followed prior to the next integrity test in conjunction with the tool type selection process. RECOMMEND setting the re-inspection interval to 5 years with the next integrity test to take place in 2013, not to exceed 68 months from the date of the last inspection. Date reviewed/approved by the Asset Integrity Leadership Team: _ <<>> Revised: Jsn. 2010 07.f"0IUI-7800 Risk Analysis Worksheet Federal Relll,terNl. 65, No. 232 49 CFR Pert 195 ~!S M~§~~h~~f Line Description: Midland to Corsicana 14/16120 (MP 149· 139) l/ne/D: 6926 Completed by: Darian Thomas srarf Date: May-11 Pipe Characteristics: HCA Mileposts: 00: WT GlBde Year Buill Manufaclurer Seam Type Coating Type PSMYS HCA1 146.25 - 139.26 14 0.250 46000 1957 Unknown ERW Coal Tar 1643 pslg Prassul'9: I Min Tesl Pressure I Hwro %SMYS I Disch8rQe Pressure IDischarge Pressure % SMYSI Year of Lesl Test I Clyde Station 10 Abilene Stationl 1240 I 75.5% I 960 I 58.4% I 1997 I Ale appropriate OYerpIVIISUnl proI8cIlon measures In place to prevenl the plpeIlne lrom '95452/11(2) exceetlng established lIIlIllimum oparalilg~"""'? rtf ••• Yes. ,J Retention: 10 yean; Dislnbulion: Aasetlnlegrity Risk Engineer Peg& 1 or 7 07·FORM-7600 <<>> Leak Detection: Current Types of leak Detection:... Leek Detection Thresholds: (Swiftness of Leek Detection)... Measurement:... Proceduras for Idla Lines (with psi):... LeekWam; which is e compulational pipeline moniloring leak detection system using pressures and flows to calculate whether or not there has been a breach in the pipeline. leakWam Ihresholds alerm on time windows of 3,6,10,15,30,60,360 and 1440 minules. The conlroller is reqUired by procedure 10 shut down the pipeline if the threshold on one of the windows is exceeded. The threshold for shutdowns on eech tima window Is 23% (3 min), 11% (6 min), 7% (10 min), 5% (15 min), 2% (30 min), 1% (60 min). 1% (360 min), and 1% (1440 min) respectivaly or meximum now. Thera are elso investigalion level alarms In LeakWam on both the low and high side that the conlroller is required to investgele vie lrending. These elerts are sel et various poinls below the alarms for shutdown. The threshold for alarm on ell pressures transmitters ere wrapped al +/- 8% or +/. 16% depending on the lransmitter with now lransmltters wrapped al +/. 6%. The line is metered in at Frost and metered oul al Tya and/or Odessa. All pressures can be manll8l1y wrapped, with the most importent being pert of Ihe aulo wrap progfllm monitored through SCADA with lolefllnces between 6% and 16% depending on the lransmitter. Tranding is used to analyze any discrepancies to determine if a possible Issue exists. Additional DetectIon: •.• Leak Detection Testing:... Aerial Palrol, Damege Pravenlion Program and Public Awal1lness P!'!lllram. Field devices lasted as part or DOTISIP reguil1lmenle. Location of Pressul1l Monitoring Devices: '" Am Presaum Transmlllela ranged to meesum up ID 110% MOP (Whallo the mnge)? '" Clyde Discharge Pressure; Abilene Upstream Pressure Clyde Discharge Pressure (MOP 963 (1059)· ranged to 2000); Abilene Upstraam Pressure (MOP 963 (1059). ranged 10 1200). Products transported and characteristics:... ...:Ga=so=lin"'e::.::.and:.:::.:..Fu::;e:::I.;O"'i1:..... _ Localion of response personnel:... Primary' Odessa Terminal (24/7); Seconoary: Tye, Texas (Monday through Friday from 7 am ·4 pm) '954521'1I3} 195452 (01(31 Risk An.asment Re8ullB: I IDealan ICorrosIon IlnCOmlc1 OlMll1lUons I R~V1i!Iw Rtsll AssesMI9nt HCA1 30.00 13.00 73.00 39.00 I 1!l5 452 it}f1J G"raera' RIWIUlternfHtl5 An opfJrtJ1Ql m.,t' lair,. Ibtt'fUUIW" lofY8ven# .ifld """'g"tp the C()rJ.<;POI>tJn::es 0"") ()'nf'f'ne ',lff.me! thi'lt et:iVId sfftlcla nJQh eorJ.!I9QU8'11C19 lIMtJrne~1P m9S.I.,.,..S ,nell_Con(1ltt:Jtng" nt.anaL')o~ls 0'ItMPJpe-I'~ ~menl to ldenTlfV iKkt,too,,:t/ ;Xl""'! 10 enhBnclit publJc saflJly Of 6nW"O'lmeftf"fptDIlICtKJlf SUCh ac:1Ions may Jnclude btft am not 6",.,9<1 Ia Mod,f,..,g'Pte system.s titer monttOll' P1tuute arid delecl-"'alll. Relention: 10 yaars Distribution: Assel tntegrity RISk Engineer Page 20r7 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Emergency Flow RestrictIve Devices: AlQ Ihen> BTl)' ate3lJ where response to manual valv.., is excessively slow wiltin HCNHIRA'. (slower than 60 minutes)?: ... No If yes. desaibe locations: ••• '95 <52,,,,41 Describe specific areas where \he potIlntlallor Ignitlcn is high wilhln HCNHIRA'a. _ -....,lD __Io~... o. (ie. iiams, tJdustriel flJC1liss with openlltlmtl,., etc.) ••• None __>> Additional Risk Factors/Controls DOC Coord AnSW9r Below §Are there physical supports such es cable suspensions in the HCAlHIRA Yes, "H" Braoe support FJeld AnIW8l'·BeJOw I- erea? If so, list locations of each.: ." No cable suspensions. @MP139.9. 195451 (,)(11 § GIS Coord. Answer Below FleId IwrwrKBeloW Are thera eny specific llraas elong the pipeline where addilional measures field following thll drein liIlI inlo II watelW8y Of ditches along sldll the roadway ... Jshould be considered to mitigele the lXlnsllqUenoe of II spill such in e (linn i !! lhatthe pipeline crosses?: ... No No 195451M11 Cl - 00 IIny velve sites heve evidence of vendalism? If yes, describe locations: ... No , Have eny abnonnal operating conditions (AOe's) occurred on this line: ... AOes have occurred on lhe line, bul none that affect the overall integrity of the line. .Ii Are there eny systemic issues 'hat need to be addressed: ... None$~ Are lhere eny NOV's, OPS Inspection results or SIP eudit results that suggest the need for additional risk controls? ... No [iE 195.452 (i)(1) General Requiremenls. An operator must take measuras 10 pravenl and milJgate Ihe consequences ofa pipeline failure lhat could alfect a htgh consequence area These measures mclude conduclJng a risk analysis ofIhe pipelme segmenl 10 Idenlily add,lional aclions 10 enhance public safely or envlmnmenlal pmlecl/on. Such acllOns may mclude bill are not limIted /0· .... Adopltng other mansgemenl con/rots. Retention: 10 years Oislribulion: Assellnlegrily Risk Engineer PlIge 4 of 7 07·FORM-7600 <<>> Damage Prevention: 195452 (1)(1) General ReqUiremenls An operalor mus/lake measures 10 prevent and mitigate the consequences of a p,pelme faIlure /hal could affect a high consequence area. These measures mclude conducting a fisk analySIS of /he plpefme segmen/lo Iden/lfy addil10nal actIOns to enhance public safety or environmenlat protection Such lIctions may mclude bul are nolltmlted tc' fmplementmg Damage PrevenllOn Besl Practices IntervIew QuestIOns 10 delermine polentllli enhancements to third party damage prevenlton pr09rllm. Is the One Call system in place?: ••. -'Yc:e::s'- _ Is Public Education program in place?: ••• -'Y.,:e"'s _ Is thera high or inCl'8ased OI1e-i:B1I activity on any portions 01 the line? II so, describe locations and rIBlllra of activity: ••• _ ..:.N"'o~ I ... ~, For areas of high third party aclivity, have them been any••• Unauthorized Encroachments?: ••• One Call viotalions?: ••• Near misses?: . Mechanical damage or physical hils to the line?: .. Is pipeline patrolling (i.e. aerial patrol) in piece?: ... If so. what is Ihe frequency?: ." Are thare amas of high susceptibility 10 g90lachnical aclNity?:... If so, are they being maneged?: '" Are there any additional araas of ooncem mlated 10 seismic. landslide. or scour mlated 10 geotechnical activity?:... On8 call Answers Below Field Answel'll Below No No No No No No No Yes, inlaNals not exceeding 3 weeks, but elleast 26 times each )'!Iar. "'N:..::o'-- ..:.N:..::o'- Yes. intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each year. RJolc "'N:..::o'--~.'.engl-'fAneIyol _ _ No Is ROW maintenance program in placa?:... -'Yc:e;:s'- _ Are all shallow cover Iocalions identified during surveyor axcavations currenlly mitigated appropriately?:..."'N;.;:0;.;8::.ha="ow=.,:co;::;v.:.;e::.r..:;loce=:=~;::;on..:;6:...1:::·d;:e;.;.nt::.ifi;.::led:::... _ Was any third perty or mechenical damaga located in areas of shallow cover orcultivalion?: ... "'N;.;:o'- _ Was any third party or mechanical damage discovered during inlegrity testing?: ••• ..:.N"'o'- _ Relenlion: 10 years Dislribulion: Assellnlegrity Risk Engineer Page 5 01 7 07·FORM-7600 <<>> Corrosion: 195.452 (1)(1) General ReqUlremenls An operalor must lake measures 10 provenl and mlilgale the consequences ofa plpetme failure thai could affecl a hrgh consequence area mclude conduclmg a risk analysrs of the pipeline segmenl/o rdenllfy addilionaJ actions to enhence public safely or environmenlal proleclion. Such actions may mclude bu/ are nol limrted 10·... ..... .... Beller MonHoring of Cathodic Prolection where cOIToslOn is a concem In/uNlew Queslions 10 detennme polen/ial enhancemenls 10 corrosion prevenl,on program. These meRsures No No • Is Ihe line highly susceptible to Slmss COrrosion Cracking (SCC)?: ••• Hes Slress COrrosion CllIcking (SCC) been identified on Ihis line?: ." ~~: :~ Has Saleclive Seam COrrosion (SSC) been identified?: ••• No ~I" l Has Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) been identified?: ... No ? Ar8 Intemel corrosion coupons presenl? If yes, whal is the coupon name 11and whelll is it located on the pipeline sagment?: ... If coupon is present, is the internal corrosion rele acceplable?: ••• Yes, Orion Wesl 16", Tye Meter Slation Yes Is tesllead spacing adequale?: ... Yee m Has there been indication 0/ inedequele CP between existing lest slations? (where?): ... No Has a Close Interval Survey (CIS) been performed in the lasllen years? (Iisl year): ... Yes, 2007. Is cathodic protection edequate? (if no, please describe): ... Yes Are AC potential surveys being performed, end mitigation actions being laken if necassery7 ••• Yes Recommendalions for better moniloring of corrosion control: ... None Have eny of the following risk factors chenged that could cause, promole, or increase the likelihood of internal CDrrosion of the pipeline: Type of commodity, Flow Rale, Velocity, Microbes, Temperature, Pipe Configuration. Design, Maleria! Specifications or, Operating Conditions ... No - _.-._.- .. ---- --------- ---_. .- Have casings with melal loss been adequetely addressed?: ... Yas Ar8there excessive corrosion growth rates idenUfied by ILl (>10 milslyear)?: ... No i ~ Review Corrosion Growth spreedsheet: ... The next feature pred,cted to fail is in 21.7 years. Risk Engineer f i Analyst, .. --- I , Ar8 cleaning pigs run on Ihis hne per SIP? If not, please explain why: ... Yes Hes this hne ever carried fertilizer, crude, or olher CDrroslve producl? If yes. I pleage describe: ... Crude Oil for 40 )'liars - swilched 10 products in 1998. .. " I: ;.. !~ ,,' I, "'--- a'! IiOperating Pressure, Topography. ForeIgn Materiel, COntaminanls, Corrosive Malenal. I~~""I Retention: 10 years Dislribulion: Assel Integrity Risk Engineer Page 6 017 07-FORM-7600 <<>> Training and Response: 195.452 (il(l) General Requirements. An opera/or must lake meesures 10 prevent and miligale Ihe consequences of a pipelIne faIlure Ihat could affect a hlfJh consequence area These measures mclude conducting a rrsk analysis of /he pipeline segment to tdenlify addi/ional actions to enhance public safely or enVlronmenlal proleclton Such acllOns may mclude but are nollimlted te .Providmg addllionallraining 10 personnel on response procedures (and,' Conducting drills Wllh local emergency responders. InterView Questions to delermme potenllal enhancemenls 10 Irammg program Field AnSwers Below ••• I Are emergency response plans in place andpe~nnel trained in their applica~on?: ••• ~Yc::e~s:....- _ Ves Is addilional training for personnel required on rasponse procedures?: ••• ..:.N~0O- _ Are anyaddi~onal dnlls needed to be conducted wilh local emergency responders?: ••• ..:,N"'o'--- _ Determine If Bny Ir'llning Dr response deflciencies were determined and appropriatelyrec~rted: ••• N/A Review incidenlinves~galions of pasl releases (whal were lhe conclusions): ••• No No None Identified FIeld Answers Below There have been no releases in lhe hislory of Ihis line. Risk Engineer I Analyst There heve been no releases in Ihe hislory of Ihis line. Re-Inspectlon Interval: 195 452 (1)(1) General Requirements. An operator musl take measures to prevenl and mit/gale the consequences of a pipelme failure that could affecl a hIgh consequence area These measures melllde conduclmg a risk analySIS of /he pipeline sagmenl 10 Idenlify addilional aclions 10 enhance public safety or enVironmental pro/ect/on Such aellOns may rnclude buI are not I,mlled /0 .Eslablishrng shorter mspecllonmlerval~ InleNiew Questions 10 determme re·inspeclron mlerval' For lines inspected by ILl, does Corrosion GrCJWlh Analysis idenlify Elny reEllurElS that were not investigated dUring Ihe rehab process lhal will fail within 6 yeElrs?: ••• ..:.N:,:o:..... _ Was Iha line preViously inspeclBd by Ill? Did dale comparison resutl in additional digs due 10 corrosion growth? Was lhere an Increase in denls or mechanical damElge?:... Yas; No (no comparison mede beceuse IEllest III was TFl)j No. For Jines Ihal were hydrotesled or inspeded by allemEllive means. does Ihe regulla of the Inspection indicate II need 10 re-inspeclln less Ihan 5 years?: ••• No For lines Ihal were Inspected by TFI, UT Crack Tool, or Hydrotest, discuss results of Ihe Crack Growth AnEllysis and any results Irom lhe ILl pertInent 10 EI delerminetion of re-inspection int8lVal. ... Crack Growth Analysis procedure will be Followed prior 10 lhe next Integnly Ieslln conjunction Wllh the tool type selecllon process. Retention: 10 years Dislribution: Asset Inlegrity Risk Engineer Page 7 of7 07·FORM·7600 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL 11.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 11.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS DESCRIPTION 40 CFR 1508.7 requires an evaluation of ”past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions” that may cumulatively impact resources that would be affected by the Proposed Project. Cumulative impacts were assessed by evaluating potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions in combination with the impacts of known substantial projects within the zone of potential impact that have occurred in the past, are currently occurring, or are proposed or planned in the future. These actions are included based on their likelihood of occurrence, and only projects with either ongoing or reasonably foreseeable impacts are identified. Not all actions identified in this section would have cumulative impacts in all resource areas. 11.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS Portions of the Proposed Project and Connected Actions will operate in locations that include existing energy transportation systems, including natural gas pipelines and crude oil pipelines. In addition, the following foreseeable projects have the greatest potential to contribute to cumulative impacts: Dependent Projects: While the following 8 projects are not related to the Proposed Project, they are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the completion and normal operation of the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Project. Crane, Texas Storage Tanks. Implementation of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions may cause other parties to utilize the Crane Station as a central collection point for the Proposed Project. This would require the construction of additional storage tanks and infrastructure. Crane, Texas Gathering Lines. Implementation of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions may cause other parties to install additional crude gathering lines to gather crude oil for transport to the Crane facility. Truck Unloading Areas. Implementation of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions may cause other parties to utilize the Proposed Project to transport crude oil. This may result in the need for additional truck unloading areas at various locations. Pipeline Connections. Implementation of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions may cause other parties to utilize the Proposed Project to transport crude oil. This may result in the need for additional pipeline connections at various locations. South of East Houston Facility. There is the possibility that other connections will be made to flow crude to refineries with associated piping modifications/construction required. 11-1 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL Implementation of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions may cause other parties to install connections in the Houston Area for crude distribution. Independent Projects: The following two projects are reasonably foreseeable actions; these projects are considered independent because they are not consequentially related to the completion and normal operation of the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Project. • Keystone XL Project/Other Pipeline Projects. There is the possibility that Keystone XL Project may terminate in the Houston area. • El Paso to Strauss, New Mexico Pipeline. This project will provide refined petroleum products to a new fueling rail yard located in Strauss, New Mexico. The project will originate at the existing Magellan El Paso facility, utilize an inactive segment of the Longhorn Pipeline to El Paso Junction, and build new pipe (approximately 37 miles) to Strauss, New Mexico. The lead agency for this project is the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, other crude oil pipeline projects are likely to terminate in the Houston area as well in the future. The Circuit of the Americas, a Grand Prix facility, is currently under construction in Travis County at a site approximately 1.24 miles south of the Longhorn Pipeline. The master plan consists of a variety of permanent structures designed for business, education, and entertainment. Its signature element will be a 3.4-mile circuit track for Formula 1 and motorcycle racing with capacity for 120,000 fans. The opening of the facility is planned for November 2012. 11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions would be primarily related to construction of the new pump stations, pipeline, and other infrastructure. Cumulative impacts associated with normal operations are primarily related to the storage of petroleum products. Cumulative impacts associated with accidental releases, while remotely possible, are not expected. Additionally, mitigation measures can reduce the potential risks of accidental releases (see Chapter 9). As discussed in Chapters 7 and 10, the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions would result in some level of impact to the following resources: • Human health and safety; • Traffic; • Land Use; • Groundwater; • Surface Water; • Wetlands; • Terrestrial Biology; • Aquatic Biology; • Threatened and Endangered Species; 11-2 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL • Air Quality; • Noise; and • Cultural Resources. Furthermore, evaluation of probable and potential impacts is divided between construction- related impacts, impacts from normal operations, and impacts that may result from accidents within the pipeline system or its connected actions (including emergency responses to the accidents). These are discussed below. Potential impacts for the dependent foreseeable projects discussed above may be viewed as consequentially linked to completion and operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, for the purposes of a cumulative impacts analysis, the potential significant impacts resulting from any of these projects may be considered a foreseeable result of the Proposed Project. Potential impacts for the independent projects discussed above would not be a consequence of the completion and operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, for the purposes of a cumulative impacts analysis, only those potential impacts which might combine with the assessed potential impacts of the Proposed Project and associated Connected Actions (as described in Chapters 7 and 10) are considered for this cumulative impacts analysis. For example, the potential impacts to prairie grasslands in Central Kansas that might result from construction of the Keystone Pipeline are not considered a cumulative impact with the Longhorn Pipeline, since the Proposed Project will have no impact to Kansas grasslands and the Keystone Pipeline is not dependent upon the Proposed Project. 11.3.1 Construction Impacts Construction planned by the Proposed Project and Connected Actions is discussed in Chapter 3, and the construction-related impacts are discussed in Chapter 7 and Section 10.3, respectively. Construction-related impacts from the Longhorn Pipeline or its connected actions are all considered to be negligible to minor in severity. Most construction-related impacts are expected to be temporary in duration (e.g., noise, air emissions, or traffic from construction activities), although some will be long-term (e.g., permanent alteration of wetlands along a pipeline corridor). Construction-related activities for the dependent foreseeable projects listed in Section 11.2 are also expected to be negligible or minor, and temporary. Potentially-significant construction- related impacts – primarily to listed or candidate T&E species such as the Texas horned lizard, the Chihuahuan desert lyre snake, or the Mountain short-horned lizard or their habitat - would be limited to negligible or minor by existing regulations and permitting processes. Construction of new gathering lines, unloading areas, terminals, or storage tanks would be subject to USACE, USFWS, EPA, TxRRC, DOT, OSHA and SHPO regulatory requirements, limiting their potential construction-related impacts. Construction-related activities for independent projects, like the Keystone and El Paso to Strauss pipelines, will not affect the same resources as those which may be affected during the 11-3 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL construction and operation of the Longhorn Pipeline. Therefore, construction of these independent projects will not result in any cumulative impacts in combination with the Proposed Project. 11.3.2 Normal Operational Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with normal operations of the Proposed Project and Connected Actions would be primarily related to air emissions and noise. As with operation of the Longhorn Pipeline, air and noise-related impacts from operation of dependent foreseeable projects listed in Section 11.2 are also expected to be negligible to minor. There are no other impacts related to the normal operations of the dependent foreseeable projects that are deemed potentially significant. Consideration has been given to the concept that crude oil flowing into the Houston market via the proposed Keystone Pipeline, in combination with the additional crude that will be supplied to the Houston market via the Proposed Project, may create a new demand for crude oil refining capacity in Houston and trigger refinery expansion. It should be noted that the Port of Houston already receives a substantial amount of import oil, which is off-loaded to local refineries for refining. Refinery capacity is based on the market needs and not simply on availability of crude oil. It is expected that sufficient capacity will be constructed and operated to meet those market needs irrespective of whether the crude is coming from off-shore, overseas, or from Texas oilfields via the Longhorn Pipeline. In addition, refining technology needed to handle the tar sand oils from Canada, which will be transported in the Keystone Pipeline, are in some ways different from the technology which will be used to refine Texas crudes transported by the Longhorn Pipeline, demonstrating the mutual exclusivity between the two new oil product streams entering the Houston marketplace. Normal operations of the Keystone Pipeline within the Houston airshed, and the El Paso to Strauss pipeline in the El Paso airshed, may have some cumulative impact with respect to air emissions from the Longhorn Pipeline, but these are similarly expected to be negligible to minor. 11.3.3 Accidental Impacts Consideration of potential impacts that would result from an accident along the Longhorn Pipeline is inherently a function of the potential magnitude of the impact of an accident, as well as the probability of occurrence. A “significant” impact results when the impact magnitude is combined with a probability for occurrence that is high enough to trigger a threshold level of impacts or effects on a specific resource. This approach, in which the qualitatively or quantitatively-combined impact magnitude and probability are then combined with the anticipated or potential impacts from another project or projects, complicates a cumulative impact assessment. There are three scenarios for which the Proposed Project may trigger a cumulative impacts analysis involving accidental release scenarios. The first scenario involves the potential for an accident on the Longhorn Pipeline or its connected actions, in combination with expected 11-4 <<>> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE REVERSAL impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, to result in impacts which trigger a significance threshold. The second scenario involves the potential for an accident related to one of those past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, in combination with expected impacts related to the construction or operation of the Longhorn Pipeline, to trigger a threshold level of impacts on a specific resource. The third scenario is related to the probability that an accident to the Longhorn Pipeline or its connected actions could occur in combination with some accident related to one of those past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in order to trigger a threshold level of impacts on a specific resource. The 1999 EA primarily addressed cumulative impacts with respect to existing pipelines or reasonably foreseeable future pipeline projects that shared or would share some part of the 700-mile Houston to El Paso ROW. Since these projects were independent of the Longhorn Pipeline (the 1999 EA did not consider potential new tie-ins or facilities along the pipeline length to support withdrawal of refined project for local uses, or addition of refined product from some other source to the Longhorn line), and since, as in this case, construction and normal operation-related impacts from the Longhorn Pipeline were considered negligible to minor, the assessment ultimately focused on the potential for cumulative impacts from concurrent accidents along the Longhorn Pipeline and an adjoining pipeline. The likelihood of such impacts was considered low (1999 EA, Section 7.12.3.3). It was concluded that the most likely cumulative impact would be an investigation of damages and releases from adjoining pipelines. Pipelines in close proximity, however, reduce the potential for accidental releases by increasing public awareness and industry surveillance (1999 EA, Section 7.12.4). All pipelines require routine surveillance. Therefore, pipelines in the same corridor will benefit from more frequent visual inspection and reporting. Unfavorable conditions such as unauthorized third-party activity (e.g., vandalism or tampering), signs of erosion, and exposed pipe have an increased chance of being detected. This applies also to leak detections, where an observer for one system might discover a problem with another due to greater surveillance or observation frequencies. For the Proposed Project and its Connected Actions, there is less of a relationship with either the dependent or independent foreseeable actions listed in Section 11.2 compared with the scenario of co-located pipeline segments addressed in the 1999 EA. In general, there are no mechanisms whereby an accident associated with dependent or independent foreseeable actions would combine with potential impacts from the Longhorn Pipeline to produce a greater potential risk to any specific resource, or to human health and the environment along the project as a whole. None of the three scenarios described above for determining cumulative impacts associated with an accident along the Longhorn Pipeline and its connected actions, and/or to an accident associated with a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future action, appears to have the potential to trigger a threshold level of impacts on a specific resource. Therefore, the accidental release scenarios involving the Proposed Project would not pose a potentially significant cumulative risk. 11-5 ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `regulations-gov` - SHA-256: `caf23eb59deb689ebbd7d0bbe4df361bdc083971e32a7ee90d46488077d6f634` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T02:22:46.679Z - Exported: 2026-08-25T18:01:59.384Z - Document slug: `regulations-gov-attachment-09000064811add91` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "regulations_gov_agency_attachment", "parentDocumentId": "regulations-gov-document-phmsa-2012-0175-0073", "regulationsGovDocumentId": "PHMSA-2012-0175-0073", "docketId": "PHMSA-2012-0175", "attachmentId": "09000064811add91", "format": "pdf", "authorshipClass": "agency_authored", "rightsClass": "federal_work", "ingestionDecision": "ingest", "decisionBasis": [ "organization:U.S. DOT/PHMSA", "title:U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Final Environmental Assessment of the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal - Volume 2 of 2: Chapters 7-11" ], "summaryEligibility": "eligible", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```