sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bridger Formation, Browns Park Formation, Ferris Formation, Geological formation, Hanna Formation, Lance Formation

Appendix D2 Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D2.1 Introduction ...... D2-1

D2.2 Regulatory Framework ...... D2-1

D2.3 Background ...... D2-3 D2.3.1 ...... D2-4 D2.3.2 ...... D2-4 D2.3.3 ...... D2-4 D2.3.4 ...... D2-4 D2.3.5 ...... D2-4 D2.3.6 ...... D2-9 D2.3.7 ...... D2-9 D2.3.8 ...... D2-9

D2.4 Scope of Work ...... D2-9 D2.4.1 Task 1 – Preparation for the Paleontological Survey ...... D2-9 D2.4.2 Task 2 – Conduct Paleontological Resources Survey ...... D2-9 D2.4.3 Task 3 – Curation and Deposition of Specimens ...... D2-11 D2.4.4 Task 4 – Survey Report ...... D2-12

D2.5 Literature Cited ...... D2-15

Attachment A –Maps

Attachment B – Area to be Surveyed Along the Route Centerline

LIST OF TABLES

Table D2-1 Geologic Units with PFYC of 3, 4, and 5 in the Project Area ...... D2-5 Table D2-2 Survey Area by Facility ...... D2-10 Table D2-3 Miles Crossed by and Acres with Potential to be Surveyed for the Proposed Transmission line by PFYC and Jurisdiction ...... D2-10 Table D2-4 Miles Crossed by and Acres with Potential to be Surveyed for the Proposed Transmission line by PFYC and State ...... D2-11

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-i Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AKS Ankareh AS Arapien Shale

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CHF Crazy Hollow Formation Company PacifiCorp

EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPG Environmental Planning , LLC

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FUF

GCG

HCF Hunter Canyon Formation

IF Indianola Formation

LF LS

MB Medicine Bow MGSS Mt. Garfield Formation/Sego ML Madison MS

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act PRTP Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan

SBC Sego Sandstone/Buck Tongue/Catlegate Sandstone SF SS Steele Shale

U.S.C. Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-iii Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX D2 – DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY PLAN

D2.1 Introduction Results of the paleontological resources inventory and impact assessment conducted for the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), indicate that numerous, potential fossil-bearing geological units are present in the Project area and may be affected by the activities associated with construction of the proposed Project. These geological units include rocks dating to the and eras. These geological units have either a very high, high, or moderate/underdetermined potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources throughout their extent. The primary concerns associated with the potential impacts of the Project on paleontological resources includes loss of scientifically significant and their contextual data through direct and permanent ground disturbance resulting from construction activities and/or indirect and permanent disturbance due to changes in public accessibility. With application of mitigation, impacts may be reduced or avoided.

D2.2 Regulatory Framework The purpose of this draft survey plan is to define the paleontological resources survey requirements and methodologies for the Project, document those details in the Project Plan of Development (POD), and communicate the survey requirements among PacifiCorp (Company), the coordinating agencies, and Project environmental and engineering staff. The plan addresses surveys that must be completed to inform the design of the transmission line and associated facilities, support the implementation of the geotechnical investigation, and prepare the POD for construction of the transmission line. This survey plan does not contain detailed work plans, strategies or schedules for completion, or detailed maps of survey areas. These details will be documented in separate Project-specific survey implementation plans to be developed prior to conducting detailed paleontological resources surveys. In addition to development of the survey implementation plans, pre-field activities would include analysis of aerial imagery to refine areas for detailed survey, in-field reconnaissance to further refine areas for detailed survey, and coordination with the relevant agencies to concur with the areas for detailed survey.

This survey plan does not address paleontological monitoring that could be required as a component of environmental and transmission line construction, or special circumstances that may warrant collection of additional paleontological resources data. Requirements for environmental and construction monitoring will be informed by the findings of surveys described in this document and will be documented in the POD.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Policy 8270, state codes of , , and ; and requirements for the Plan of Development for the Project, a Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan (PRTP) has been drafted (Appendix B6 – Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan). A stipulation of the PRTP is to conduct a survey of the areas along the route selected for construction of the transmission line (identified as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the EIS) identified as having a very high, high, or moderate/undetermined potential in advance of ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed Project. The purpose of the survey is to (1) meet the requirements of federal and state agencies for preservation of fossils; (2) identify any paleontological resources present that should be collected, curated, and preserved for the scientific record; and (3) refine areas of paleontological sensitivity that would need to be monitored during construction activities.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-1 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

FLPMA (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701-1784) recognizes significant paleontological resources as scientific resources and requires federal agencies to manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scientific resources and, where appropriate, preserves and protects certain public in their natural conditions. NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) directs federal agencies to use all practicable means to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural heritage….”

The basis and guidance for addressing potential paleontological resources on land BLM administers includes the following documents: (1) Paleontological Resource Management (H-8270-1); (2) General Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management (H-8270-1); (3) Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2008-009); and (4) Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2009-011).

In addition to BLM policies, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise (16 U.S.C. 470aaa et seq.). The PRPA includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the BLM, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. This includes collection of scientifically significant fossils by qualified researchers who have obtained a permit.

Utah State Code (63-73-11 through 63-73-19) requires the preservation of significant fossil resources on state lands and mandates that individuals removing or excavating significant fossils on Utah State lands be qualified and permitted under joint jurisdictional cooperation from the Utah Geological Survey, Utah Museum of Natural History, and Utah State Institutional Trust Lands Administration. Utah State Code (53B-17-603) also requires important fossils be curated by an approved and qualified institution.

The State of Colorado enacted the Colorado Antiquities Act of 1873 (Colorado State Code §24-80-401 through §24-80-411), indicating that:

…the state of Colorado reserves to itself title to all historical, prehistorical, and archaeological resources in all lands, rivers, , reservoirs, and other areas owned by the state or any county, city and county, city, town, district, or other political division of the state. Historical, prehistoric, and archaeological resources shall include all deposits, structures, or objects which provide information pertaining to the historical or prehistorical culture of people in the boundaries of the state of Colorado, as well as fossils and other remains of , plants, , and other objects of natural history in such boundaries.

Permits for paleontological work on Colorado state lands are issued by the State Historical Society of Colorado.

The State of Wyoming enacted the Wyoming Antiquities Act in 1935 (Wyoming State Code §36-1-114 through §36-1-116), prohibiting:

…any excavation on any prehistoric ruins, pictographs, hieroglyphs or any other ancient markings, writing or archaeological and paleontological deposits on any state or federal public land in Wyoming without first obtaining a permit from the State Board of Land Commissioners.

This survey plan describes the tasks to prepare for and conduct the paleontological survey, curate fossil specimens discovered during the survey, and prepare a survey report. Monitoring of construction activities is not addressed in this survey plan, but rather, in the PRTP.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-2 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

D2.3 Background Geological formations, compiled for the geological inventory for preparation of the EIS, and known fossil localities, from several institutions, were used to identify the potential paleontological sensitivity of areas within 1 mile on either side of the reference centerline of each alternative route study corridor. Paleontological sensitivity levels were assigned to each using the PFYC system that was adopted by the BLM in 2007 for assessing paleontological sensitivity on federal land and based on discussions with paleontologists familiar with the areas crossed by the study corridors, meetings with resource agency personnel, reviews of pertinent regional literature, and comments received from the public and special interest groups.

The PFYC system is a five-tiered system that classifies geological units based on the relative abundance of fossils or scientifically significant or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher class number indicating a higher potential. This classification system is applied to the geological formation, member, or other distinguishable unit, preferably at the most detailed mappable level. Each class is defined below:

 Class 1 – Very Low Potential. Geological units not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. These units include igneous, metamorphic, and rocks.

 Class 2 – Low Potential. Sedimentary geological units not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. These units include aeolian, diagenetically altered, and sediments.

 Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown Potential. Fossiliferous sedimentary geological units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. Class 3 is divided into two parts:  Class 3a – Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant non-vertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in the area.  Class 3b – Unknown Potential. Units exhibit geological features and preservational conditions that suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the paleontological resources of the unit or area is known. This may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied and field surveys may uncover significant fossils.

 Class 4 – High Potential. Geological units that contain a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability.

 Class 5 – Very High Potential. Highly fossiliferous geological units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils. The results of the paleontological resources study and analysis are documented in the EIS. The proposed Project crosses 46 geological units having a PFYC of 3, 4, or 5 (Table D2-1 – Geologic Units with PFYC of 3, 4, and 5 in the Project Area). Areas of PFYC 4 or 5 associated with the Project having good exposures devoid of thick vegetation, well-developed overlying soils, and unsafe terrain will be surveyed. Since those geological units with a PFYC of 3 are considered to have moderate/undetermined sensitivity for significant paleontological resources, BLM paleontologists requested further analysis of these units to determine whether survey of these units would be prudent. The results of this analysis will be presented to the BLM for review and recommendations regarding the need for surveys of the units. EPG will survey these geological units, with a PFYC of 3 using a sampling protocol that will emphasize those areas where good exposures are present. Summaries of those formations with a PFYC of 3 are provided below.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-3 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

D2.3.1 Quaternary D2.3.1.1 Quaternary Deposits There are several geological units of Quaternary age in the Project area that are classified as having a PFYC of 3 in Colorado. These units only produce fossils rarely. These units will be discussed with the BLM to better assess whether certain areas in the Project area, having these Quaternary deposits, have produced fossils in the past. If so, a survey will be conducted in these areas with Quaternary deposits only. Environmental Planning Group’s (EPG) recommendation for these units is to use the same sample protocol as discussed above for geological units with a PFYC of 3.

D2.3.2 Miocene D2.3.2.1 Miocene Rocks This mapped unit includes sandstone, claystone, and intermittent and in parts of Wyoming is synonymous with the . Since the term “Miocene Rocks” is a general term, it is unknown whether or not fossils have been in this geological unit. The Browns Park Formation, in Colorado, is given a PFYC of 5 and will be surveyed in areas where there are good exposures.

D2.3.3 Eocene D2.3.3.1 Crazy Hollow Formation The Crazy Hollow Formation (CHF) includes sandstone, siltstone, shale, mudstone, and conglomerate and contains mostly invertebrate fossils, but some have also been found (Weiss and Warner 2001). The CHF overlies, and partially interfingers with, the (Weiss 1982). The CHF is not recommended for surveying based on its paucity of vertebrate fossils.

D2.3.4 Paleocene D2.3.4.1 Fort Union Formation The Fort Union Formation (FUF) consists of and conglomerates, , lignite, and . Previously recorded fossils from the FUF include plants, champsosaurs, , , crocodilians, , and tracks (Bartels 1980, Hickey 1980, Johnson 1986, Gingerich and Clyde 2001, Anemone and Dirks 2009) including southwest Wyoming. It is recommended that the FUF be surveyed based on fine-grained sediments and previously found.

D2.3.5 Cretaceous D2.3.5.1 Laramie Formation The Laramie Formation (LF) consists of sandstone and shale with some thin beds of lignite. Fossils previously recovered from the LF include cartilaginous fish, fish, , mammals, , crocodilians, and (Carpenter 1979, Gingerich and Clyde 2001). It is recommended that the LF be surveyed based on fine-grained sediments and vertebrates previously found.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-4 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

TABLE D2-1 GEOLOGIC UNITS WITH PFYC OF 3, 4, AND 5 IN THE PROJECT AREA PFYC1 Typical Fossils Associated Paleontological Age Geologic Unit Wyoming Colorado Utah with this Unit Potential Cenozoic Era Active and dormant sand Low to Quaternary Eolian deposits 2 3 – Rare Pleistocene fossils dunes Moderate/Unknown Gravel and assorted alluvial Low to Quaternary Gravels – 3 – Rare Pleistocene fossils material Moderate/Unknown Gravel and assorted alluvial Low to Quaternary Older gravels – 3 – Rare Pleistocene fossils material Moderate/Unknown Sandstone and claystone with Miocene Miocene rocks 3 – – Mammals Moderate/Unknown intermittent conglomerate Browns Park Canid, camel, pronghorn, Moderate/Unknown to Miocene Sandstone and siltstone 3 5 – Formation horse Very High Crazy Hollow Sandstone, siltstone, and – – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Formation conglomerate Duchesne River Sandstone, siltstone, and Significant mammalian fossil Eocene – – 5 Very High Formation mudstone collections Significant mammalian fossil Eocene Sandstone and siltstone – 5 5 Very High collections Washakie Sandstone, siltstone, and Significant mammalian fossil Eocene 5 – – Very High Formation claystone collections Significant mammalian fossil Eocene Claystone and mudstone – 5 – Very High collections Green River Mudstone, shale, and Significant mammalian fossil Eocene 5 5 4 High to Very High Formation sandstone collection, fish, turtles Moderate/Unknown to Eocene -Laney Member Oil shale and marlstone 5 3 – See Green River Formation Very High -Wilkins Peak Mudstone, siltstone, Eocene 5 – – See Green River Formation Very High Member sandstone, evaporite -Parachute Creek Mudstone, shale, and oil Eocene – 5 – See Green River Formation Very High Member shale -Tipton Shale Eocene Oil shale and marlstone 5 – – See Green River Formation Very High Member Oil shale, carbonaceous shale, Eocene -Luman Tongue 5 – – See Green River Formation Very High and sandstone Mudstone, shale, and Eocene -Lower Part – 5 – See Green River Formation Very High sandstone

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-5 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

TABLE D2-1 GEOLOGIC UNITS WITH PFYC OF 3, 4, AND 5 IN THE PROJECT AREA PFYC1 Typical Fossils Associated Paleontological Age Geologic Unit Lithology Wyoming Colorado Utah with this Unit Potential Sandstone with variegated Significant mammalian fossil Paleocene-Eocene 5 5 4 High to Very High claystone and siltstone collections -Cathedral Bluffs Claystone, mudstone, and Moderate/Unknown to Paleocene-Eocene 5 3 – See Wasatch Formation Tongue sandstone Very High Paleocene-Eocene Flagstaff Formation Limestone and mudstone – – 4 High Sandstone, shale, and Significant mammalian fossil Paleocene 5 – – Very High conglomerate collections Fort Union Sandstone, shale, and thin Significant mammalian fossil Paleocene 3 3 – Moderate/Unknown Formation coal beds collections North Horn Sandstone, siltstone, and , , , Cretaceous-Paleocene – – 4 High Formation limestone , mammal Mesozoic Era Shark, bony fish, turtle, Cretaceous-Paleocene Sandstone and shale 5 – – Very High , dinosaur Sandstone with shale and Cretaceous 5 – – Dinosaur Very High conglomerate lenses Shale, claystone, sandstone Cretaceous Laramie Formation – 3 – Dinosaur Moderate/Unknown and major coal beds Medicine Bow Cretaceous Sandstone, shale, and coal 3 – – – Moderate/Unknown Formation Marine shale with sandstone Cretaceous Lewis Shale 3 3 – Ammonite Moderate/Unknown beds Sandstone, shale, and coal Moderate/Unknown to Cretaceous 3 – 4 Ammonite, dinosaur beds High Williams Fork Sandstone, shale, and major Cretaceous – 5 – Dinosaur Very High Formation coal beds

Cretaceous Iles Formation Sandstone, shale, and coal – 5 – Ammonites, bivalves Very High

Hunter Canyon Cretaceous Sandstone and shale – 3 – – Moderate/Unknown Formation Price River Sandstone, siltstone, and Cretaceous – – 4 Dinosaur trackways High Formation conglomerate Indianola Sandstone, siltstone, and Cretaceous – – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Formation conglomerate

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-6 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

TABLE D2-1 GEOLOGIC UNITS WITH PFYC OF 3, 4, AND 5 IN THE PROJECT AREA PFYC1 Typical Fossils Associated Paleontological Age Geologic Unit Lithology Wyoming Colorado Utah with this Unit Potential Plant fragment, , Cretaceous Mancos Shale Shale and sandstone – 3 3 ammonite, shark teeth, Moderate/Unknown mosasaur Mt. Garfield – Lower Cretaceous Formation and Sego Sandstone, shale, coal – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Sandstone Sego Sandstone, – Buck Tongue, and Lower Cretaceous Sandstone and shale – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Castlegate Sandstone Cretaceous Steele Shale Marine shale with bentonite 3 – – – Moderate/Unknown Cretaceous Limestone and shale 5 – – Fish, mosasaur, plesiosaur Very High Dakota Sandstone, Burro Canyon, Sandstone, shale, and Cretaceous – 5 5 Fossil , dinosaur High to Very High Cedar Mountain conglomerate Formations Mudstone, sandstone, and Petrified wood, bivalve, Jurassic – 5 5 Very High limestone crocodile, dinosaur Jurassic Arapien Shale Shale – – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Summerville Jurassic Shale and siltstone – – 3 Dinosaur, trace fossils Moderate/Unknown Formation. Dinosaur trackways and Jurassic Glen Canyon Group Sandstone – – 3 Moderate/Unknown fossils Triassic Ankareh Shale Shale – – 3 – Moderate/Unknown Paleozoic Era Madison Limestone Limestone – 3 – Invertebrate fossils Moderate/Unknown SOURCES: Green 1992; Green and Drouilard 1994; Gunnell and Bartels 1999; Hamblin and Bilbey 1999; Higgins 2003; Hintze et al. 2000; Honey and Izett 1988; Kass 1999; Kirkland et al. 1999; Rasmussen et al. 1999a; Rasmussen et al. 1999b; Robinson et al. 2004; University of California-Santa Barbara 2012 NOTE: 1Potential fossil yield classification numbers represent class levels of potential (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = moderate or unknown, 4 = high, 5 = very high). For more explanation, refer to Section 3.2.3.4 of the Final EIS.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-7 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

D2.3.5.2 Lewis Shale The Lewis Shale (LS) consists of shale and sandstone. Fossils recovered from the LS include , trace fossils, and dinosaurs (Roehler 1993, Kues and Lucas 1985, Kass 1999, Lucas et al. 2005a). Surveying of LS is recommended, considering the discovery of dinosaurs in this formation in other areas such as southwestern Colorado and northeastern .

D2.3.5.3 Medicine Bow The Medicine Bow (MB) consists of shale, coal, and sandstone. Fossils discovered in the MB include invertebrates, plants, and ceratopsian dinosaurs (Bowen 1918, Ryan 1977, Merewether et al. 2011). It is recommended that the MB be surveyed.

D2.3.5.4 Hunter Canyon Formation The Hunter Canyon Formation (HCF) consists of sandstone and shale. Fossils discovered in the HCF include turtle scutes, crocodilian bones, plant fossils, and trackways (Armstrong 1985). It is recommended that the HCF be surveyed.

D2.3.5.5 Indianola Formation The Indianola Formation (IF) consists of conglomerate and sandstone. Marine mollusks and plant fragments have been found in the IF (Hardy 1962, Franczyk 1992). It is suggested that the IF not be surveyed given the lack of reported vertebrates from this formation.

D2.3.5.6 Mancos Shale The Mancos Shale (MS) consists of shale limestone and some sandy layers. Fossils found in the MS include trace fossils, ammonites, mollusks, Mosasaur, Hadrosaur, Pliosaur, Plesiosaur, and shark teeth (Armstrong 1985, Carter 1991, Leckie et al. 1997, Kass 1999, Hettinger and Kirschbaum 2002, Armstrong 2015). It is recommended that the MS be surveyed.

D2.3.5.7 Mt. Garfield Formation/Sego Sandstone The Mt. Garfield Formation/Sego Sandstone (MGSS) consists of shale, sandstone, mudstone, and coal. Fossils previously recorded from the MGSS include invertebrates, trackways, possible egg clutch, and plants (Fisher et al. 1960, Armstrong 1985, Kirschbaum and Hettinger 2004, Armstrong 2015). It is recommended that the MGSS be surveyed.

D2.3.5.8 Sego Sandstone/Buck Tongue/Castlegate Sandstone The Sego Sandstone/Buck Tongue/Castlegate Sandstone (SBC) consists of sandstone, shale, and some conglomerate. Fossils found in the SBC are mostly invertebrates and trace fossils (Lucas and Kihm 1982, Franczyk 1989, Painter et al. 2013). It is recommended that the SBC be surveyed in Utah.

D2.3.5.9 Steele Shale Steele Shale (SS) consists of shale and sandstone with some mixed clastics and volcanic rocks. Reported fossils from the SS are mostly invertebrates (Slattery and Breithaupt 2007, Merewether et al. 2011), but shark teeth were questionably found in the SS (Higgins 2003). It is recommended that the SS not be surveyed.

D2.3.5.10 Summerville Formation The Summerville Formation (SF) consists of sandstone, mudstone, and gypsum. Skeletons and tracks of dinosaurs have been found in the SF in Utah (Lockley and Mickelson 1997, Gillette and Hayden 1997).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-8 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

The SF also has produced dinosaur fossils in New Mexico (Lucas and Heckert 2000). It is recommended that the SF be surveyed.

D2.3.6 Jurassic D2.3.6.1 Arapien Shale The Arapien Shale (AS) includes mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, salt, and gypsum. Previously recorded fossils from the AS include worm burrows (Gilbert and Ekdale 2002). It is recommended that the AS not be surveyed.

D2.3.6.2 Glen Canyon Group The Glen Canyon Group (GCG) includes the Moenave, Wingate, Kayenta, and Navajo formations. These formations consist of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and conglomerate. Crocodylians, fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, and tracks have been found in the GCG of and Utah (Lucas et al. 2005b, Lucas and Tanner 2007, Lockley and Gierlinski 2014). It is recommended that the GCG be surveyed.

D2.3.7 Triassic D2.3.7.1 Ankareh Shale The Ankareh Shale (AKS) consists of shale, limestone, and siltstone. Few fossils have been reported from the AKS (Granger 1953). It is recommended that the AKS not be surveyed.

D2.3.8 Paleozoic D2.3.8.1 Madison Limestone The Madison Limestone (ML) consists of limestone, cherty limestone, pelsparite, and oopelsparite. Fossils previously recorded from the ML include , , crinoid, and chondrichthys fish (Lageson 1977, Peterson 1984, Santucci 1998). Most fossils recorded from the ML are invertebrates or plants and, therefore, is not recommended for surveying.

D2.4 Scope of Work D2.4.1 Task 1 – Preparation for the Paleontological Survey Based on the data and information mapped for the preparation of the EIS and use of aerial photographs, a map will be created showing PFYC levels, and overlaying proposed Project facilities (i.e., geotechnical- investigation boreholes, transmission line centerline, preliminary access roads [including spur roads to the preliminary structure locations]), and other areas of temporary and permanent disturbance). A series of maps showing the areas to be surveyed along the proposed transmission line and PFYC classifications is included with this scope of work as Attachment A – Maps.

D2.4.2 Task 2 – Conduct Paleontological Resources Survey The survey will be conducted by two five-person crews (qualified paleontologists employed by EPG) under BLM Permits UT09-007C, COC75358, PA09-WY-170, Utah State Permit (renewing), Colorado State Permit (renewing), Wyoming State Permit (renewing). This survey will examine existing rocks and sediments exposed in the area of potential effect (defined in Table D2-2 – Survey Area by Facility), as well as any recorded localities within the area of potential effects, access roads that might be affected by any construction-related activities, and structure work areas. Known localities identified during the record

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-9 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

search, and in the survey corridor along the proposed transmission line route, will be examined for fossils. New localities identified during the survey will be recorded. The survey will confirm and augment geologic mapping, locate and collect any significant nonrenewable paleontological resources exposed at the surface, and assess paleontological sensitivity with more precision.

Table D2-2 – Survey Area by Facility is a list of the areas to be surveyed and their survey widths. The survey area for the proposed transmission line will be the proposed right-of-way width of 250 feet plus a buffer of 125 feet on either side of the right-of-way (a total of 500 feet). A 200-foot-wide survey transect (100 feet on each side of the centerline) will be used to survey access roads (new roads and roads needing improvement) and overland travel routes. The survey area for ancillary facilities (e.g., the structure locations, construction staging areas, and other ancillary facilities) will be conducted in the areas of disturbance plus a buffer of 200 feet. The area of potential effect for pulling/tensioning areas that fall outside the right-of-way will be the footprint of the activity plus a 250-foot radius around these points.

TABLE D2-2 SURVEY AREA BY FACILITY Areas to be Surveyed Typical Survey Area Transmission line Proposed 250-foot-wide right-of-way plus 125 feet on either side of the proposed alignment right-of-way (500-foot-wide swath) Access roads 200-feet wide along alignment of access road Ancillary facilities 200-foot buffer around the footprint of the facility Pulling/tensioning areas 250-foot radius around centerpoint Table D2-3 – Miles Crossed by and Acres with Potential to be Surveyed for the Proposed Transmission line by PFYC and Jurisdiction shows the approximate miles crossed by and acres that could be surveyed for the proposed transmission line for PFYC 3, 4, and 5 by jurisdiction. As noted above, areas with thick soil coverage or heavy vegetation may not warrant 100 percent coverage. Attachment B – Area to be Surveyed Along the Route Centerline is a table showing the areas of PFYC 3, 4, and 5 crossed by the proposed transmission line by link along the route and milepost-by-milepost.

TABLE D2-3 MILES CROSSED BY AND ACRES WITH POTENTIAL TO BE SURVEYED FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE BY PFYC AND JURISDICTION Federal Tribal State Private Total PFYC Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 5 131.9 8,031.9 1.4 82.9 14.4 852.3 37.9 2,295.5 185.6 11,262.6 4 25.1 1,524.2 0.0 0.0 10.7 649.3 37.3 2,245.9 73.1 4,419.5 3 53.6 3,266.83 0.0 0.0 10.8 648.63 30.8 1,845.73 95.2 5,761.0 Total 210.6 12,822.9 1.4 82.9 35.9 2,150.2 106.0 6,387.1 353.9 21,443.1 NOTES: 1Approximate miles crossed by the proposed transmission line. 2Approximate number of acres to be surveyed along the route of the proposed transmission line; based on 500-foot-wide survey area. Only areas with good exposures will be surveyed. 3The number of acres of Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) 3 to be surveyed may be reduced depending on land- management-agencies’ determination.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-10 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

Table D2-4 – Miles Crossed by and Acres with Potential to be Surveyed for the Proposed Transmission line by PFYC and State shows the approximate miles crossed by and acres to be surveyed for the proposed transmission line for PFYC 3, 4, and 5 by state.

TABLE D2-4 MILES CROSSED BY AND ACRES WITH POTENTIAL TO BE SURVEYED FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE BY PFYC AND STATE Wyoming Colorado Utah Total PFYC Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 Miles1 Acres2 5 89.1 5,410.9 37.9 2,298.5 58.5 3,553.3 185.6 11,262.6 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.3 73.0 4,415.1 73.1 4,419.5 3 35.5 2,147.83 49.3 2,984.03 10.4 629.23 95.2 5,761.0 Total 124.6 7,558.7 87.3 5,286.8 141.9 8,597.6 353.9 21,443.1 NOTES: 1Approximate miles crossed by the proposed transmission line. 2Approximate number of acres to be surveyed along the route of the proposed transmission line; based on 500-foot-wide survey area. Only areas with good exposures will be surveyed. 3The number of acres of Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) 3 to be surveyed may be reduced depending on land- management-agencies’ determination. In addition, any ancillary facilities, including roads (e.g., new roads, existing roads needing improvement, and overland routes), and borehole locations for geotechnical studies associated with the Project will require survey if they are in areas of PFYC 4 or 5, or in the portions of PFYC 3 requiring survey as determined by the land-management agencies. As of the date of this draft survey plan, these facilities have not yet been located. Once the locations of these facilities have been determined, survey of these areas will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in this survey plan.

Prior to commencing survey, EPG will contact the applicable land-management agency to discuss the survey and inform them of the dates and locations the surveys. For privately owned land, EPG will contact PacifiCorp’s right-of-way specialists to ensure rights-of-entry have been acquired. The duration of the survey is estimated to be approximately 3 months, depending on PacifiCorp’s engineering schedule and authorization of fieldwork.

The following procedure will be followed for any fossil localities discovered during the survey:

 Scientifically significant fossils will be stabilized, excavated (if within a 1- by 1-meter square), and collected using standard paleontological methods.  Geology will be mapped if different than most recent geological map.  Fossil localities will be plotted on 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and Global Positioning System coordinates recorded using NAD 83.  Fossils and fossil localities will be photographed.  All observed pertinent data will be recorded, at the time of discovery/collection.  Fossil specimens that are collected will be taken to the curatorial facility at EPG for temporary curation, identification, and preparation for permanent storage before accession at an approved repository.

D2.4.3 Task 3 – Curation and Deposition of Fossil Specimens A curation plan will be followed for any fossil specimens (vertebrate, invertebrate, trace fossils, and/or plant) collected during the preconstruction survey. The curation plan will include the preparation of collected specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, preparation of large vertebrate fossils collected in plaster jackets, long-term stabilization of all collected significant fossils, and analysis. If no fossil specimens are found during surveys, no curation will be necessary.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-11 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

The following procedures will be followed for fossil specimens found during the preconstruction survey or monitoring:

 Specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (removal of excess matrix, stabilization with Vinac, etc.).  Plant macrofossils will be stabilized.  Specimens will be identified to the appropriate level for proper evaluation and assessment.  Labels will be prepared labels for all specimens.  All data pertaining to the specimens will be recorded in the collections database of the repository.  Resource locality information will be plotted on topographic maps and entered into a computerized locality database.  Card-stock printouts of all pertinent faunal, floral, locational, and lithologic data pertaining to each resource locality will be produced and filed.  Card stock files from the locality database will be printed and kept on file.  Accession and locality data will be printed in archival ink on acid-free paper tags associated with each specimen, generated from the specimen database.  Accession numbers of large fossils will be written on the fossil in permanent ink.  Labels bearing the accession number data will be glued to rock slabs containing fossils.  Extremely small specimens will be placed in gelatin capsules in glass vials.  Accession data slips will be placed inside each of the glass vials.  All specimens will have accession to an agency-approved (appropriate nonfederal) repository.  All specimens will be catalogued and accessioned under a unique number, which will identify the appropriate property and/or development project as the source of the fossils.

D2.4.4 Task 4 – Survey Report A report of the methods and results of the survey will be prepared and submitted for agency review following the completion of the survey. The report, with all appendices, figures, and attachments, will be provided in electronic format, as a searchable electronic .pdf file. This report will include the following:

 Refinement of paleontological sensitivity of the right-of-way  Description of significant discoveries  Description of stratigraphic context  Results of sampling and analysis  Preparation of an itemized accession inventory of all specimens  Discussion of the significance of each taxon discovered  Appendix of all resource locality information (not for public distribution)  Preparation of 8.5- by 11-inch maps with all paleontological resource localities plotted on a 7.5- minute USGS topographic map (not for public distribution)

D2.4.4.1 Assumptions

 The survey is based on the current configuration of the agency-preferred alternative route as identified in the EIS (January 2015).

 Field survey can be completed within 3-4 months with two 5-person crews.

 Completion of the field survey within the schedule provided is dependent on weather conditions.

 Only areas with PFYCs of 4 and 5 (and some with PFYC 3) that are devoid of thick vegetation, well-developed soils, and unsafe terrain will be surveyed.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-12 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

 Survey areas are accessible and staked in the field. These include tower locations, access roads, spur roads, overland travel routes, pulling and tensioning areas, and any other areas of temporary and permanent disturbance.

 Generally, a 200-foot-wide survey transect will be used to inventory access roads, spur roads, and overland travel routes.

 In certain locations (e.g., steep terrain, switchbacks, etc.), survey transects greater than, or less than, 250-feet wide may be required. Necessary survey width will be determined on a case-by- case basis in these locations. No areas with steep slopes or unsafe cliffs will be surveyed.

 The discovery of large fossils (e.g., dinosaurs), a large concentration of fossils, or tracksites would require additional time to record and approval by the agency.

 The scope of work includes one meeting and one conference call with agency personnel.

 Curation fees will be paid by Rocky Mountain Power.

 EPG will prepare a searchable electronic draft report and 1 electronic copy and 10 hard copies of the final report.

 There will be only one round of review by the applicable agencies.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-13 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D2.5 Literature Cited Anemone, R.L., and W. Dirks. 2009. An Anachronistic Mammal Fauna from the Paleocene Fort Union Formation (Great Divide Basin, Wyoming, USA). Geologica Acta 7(1-2):113-124. Armstrong, H.J. 1985. Paleontological Resources Survey of BLM Class I Geologic Formations outcropping along Colorado-Ute Electric Association’s, Inc.’s proposed 345-kv Transmission Line and related access roads between the Montrose and Rifle Substations, western Colorado. Grand River Institute. ___. 2015. Comments on Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan. Bartels, W.S. 1980. Early Cenozoic reptiles and birds from the , Wyiming, in Gingerich, P. (Ed.) Early Cenozoic and of the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. University of Michigan, Papers on Paleontology 24:73-79. Bowen, C.F. 1918. Stratigraphy of the Hanna Basin, Wyoming. USGS Professional Paper 108-L, 227- 235. Carpenter, K., 1979. Vertebrate Fauna of the Laramie Formation (Maestrichtian), Weld County, Colorado. Contributions to Geology 17(1):37-49. Carter, B.R., 1991. A Plesiosaur from the Upper Mancos Shale. Guidebook for Dinosaur Quarries and Tracksites Tour: Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. Grand Junction Geological Society. Fisher, D.J., C.E. Erdmann, and J.B. Reeside, Jr. 1960. Cretaceous and Tertiary Formations of the Book Cliffs Carbon, Emery, and Grand counties, Utah, and Garfield and Mesa counties, Colorado. USGS Professional Paper 332, 80 pages. Foster, J.R., 2001. tracks (Ambystomichnus) from the Cathedral Bluffs Tongue of the Wasatch Formation (Eocene), northeastern Green River Basin, Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology 75(4):901-904. Franczyk, K.J., 1989. Depositional Controls on the Late Sego Sandstone and Implications for Associated Coal-forming Environments in the Uinta and Piceance Basins. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1787, 17 pages. ___. 1992. Cretaceous and Tertiary Paleogeographic Reconstructions for the Uinta- Study Area, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1787, 37 pages. Gardner, J.D., 1999. Comments on Amphibians from the Green River Formation, with a Description of a Fossil Tadpole. Pp. 455-461 In Vertebrate (Gillette, D.D. ed.), Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Utah Geological Survey. Gilbert, J.M., and A.A. Ekdale. 2002. Ichnology of a restricted epicontinental , Arapien Shale, , Utah, USA. , Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 183(3-4):275-286. Gillette, D.D., and M.C. Hayden. 1997. A Preliminary Inventory of Paleontological Resources within the -Escalante National Monument, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 164. Gingerich, P.D., and W.C. Clyde. 2001. Overview of Mammalian Biostratigraphy in the Paleocene- Eocene Fort Union and Willwood Formations of the Bighorn and Clark Fork Basins. In Paleocene-Eocene Stratigraphy and Biotic Change in the Bighorn and Clarks Fork Basins, Wyoming, edited by Gingerich, P.D. ed., Pp. 1-14. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology, Number 33.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-15 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

Green, G.N. 1992. The Digital Geologic Map of Colorado in ARC/INFO Format. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 92-0507.

Green, G.N., and P.H. Drouilard. 1994. The Digital Geologic Map of Wyoming in ARC/INFO Format. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-0425.

Granger, A.E. 1953. Stratigraphy of the near Salt City, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 296, 14 pages.

Gunnell, G.F., and W.S. Bartels. 1999. Middle Eocene Vertebrates from the , Utah, and Their Relationship with Faunas from the Southern Green River Basin, Wyoming. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette, pp. 429-442. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, .

Hamblin, A.H., and S.A. Bilbey. 1999. A Dinosaur Track Site in the Navajo-Nuggett Sandstone, Red Fleet Reservoir, Uintah County, Utah. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette, pp. 51-57. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Salt Lake City.

Hardy, C.T. 1962. Mesozoic and Cenozoic stratigraphy of north-central Utah. Geology Studies, Brigham Young University 9(1):50-64.

Hettinger, R.D. and M.A. Kirschbaum. 2002. Straigraphy of the upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale (Upper Part) and Mesaverde Group in the southern part of the Uinta and Piceance Basins, Utah and Colorado. USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-2764, 21 pages.

Hickey, L.J. 1980. Paleocene stratigraphy and flora of the Clark’s Fork Basin, in Gingerich, P. (Ed.) Early Cenozoic paleontology and stratigraphy of the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. University of Michigan, Papers on Paleontology 24:33-50.

Higgins, P. 2003. A Wyoming Succession of Paleocene Mammal-Bearing Localities Bracketing the Boundary Between the Torrejonian and North American Land Mammal Ages. Rocky Mountain Geology 38(2):1-34.

Hintze, L.F., G.C. Willis, D.Y.M. Laes, D.A. Sprinkel, and K.D. Brown. 2000. Digital Geologic Map of Utah. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City.

Honey, J.G., and G.A. Izett. 1988. Paleontology, Taphonomy, and Stratigraphy of the Browns Park Formation (Oligocene and Miocene) near Maybell, Moffat County, Colorado. U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper 1358, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, K.R. 1986. Paleocene and tracks from the Fort Union Formation, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming 24(1):1-10.

Kass, M.S., 1999. Prognathodon stadtmani: (Mosasauridae) A New Species from the Mancos Shale (Lower Campanian) of Western Colorado. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette, pp. 275-294. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Salt Lake City.

Kirkland, J.I., R.L. Cifelli, B.B. Britt, D.L. Burge, F.L. DeCourten, J.G. Eaton, and J.M. Parrish. 1999. Distribution of Vertebrate Faunas in the , East-Central Utah. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Salt Lake City.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-16 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

Kirschbaum, M.A., and R.D. Hettinger. 2004. Facies Analysis and Sequence Stratigraphic Framework of Upper Campanian Strata (Neslen and Mount Garfield Formations, Bluecastle Tongue of the Castlegate Sandstone, and Mancos Shale), Eastern Book Cliffs, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-G. Kues, B., and S.G. Lucas. 1985. Mosasaur Remains from the Lewis Shale (Upper Cretaceous), Southwestern Colorado. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 59:1395-1400. Lageson, D.R. 1977. Depositional environments and diagenesis of the Madison Limestone, northern Medicine Bow Mountains, Wyoming. The Wyoming Geological Association Earth Science Bulletin 10(1):1-12. Leckie, R.M., J.I. Kirkland, and W.P. Elder. 1997. Stratigraphic framework and correlation of a principal reference section of the Mancos Shale (Upper Cretaceous), Mesa Verde, Colorado. Lockley, M.G., and G.D. Gierlinski. 2014. A New Otozoum-dominated Tracksite in the Glen Canyon Group (Jurassic) of Eastern Utah. In Fossil Footprints of Western North America, edited by M.G. Lockley and G.D. Bierlinski, pp. 211-14. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 62. Lockley, M.G., and D.L. Mickelson. 1997. Dinosaur and Pterosaur tracks in the Summerville and Bluff (Jurassic) Beds of eastern Utah and northeastern Arizona. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 48th Field Conference, Mesozoic Geology and Paleontology of the Region, pp133-138. Lucas, S.G., and A.J. Kihm. 1982. Paleontological Resources Study and Inventory of part of the White River Resource Area and Vicinity, Piceance Creek basin, northwestern Colorado. ESCa-Tech Corporation. Lucas, S.G., and A.B. Heckert. 2000. Jurassic Dinosaurs in New Mexico. In Dinosaurs of New Mexico edited by S.G. Lucas and A.B. Heckert), Pp. 43-46 New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, Number 17. Lucas, S.G., and L.H. Tanner. 2007. Tetrapod Biostratigraphy and Biochronology of the Triassic-Jurassic Transition on the Southern , USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 244:242-256. Lucas, S.G., A.B. Heckert, and L.H. Tanner. 2005a. Arizona’s Jurassic Fossil Vertebrates and the Ae of the Glen Canyon Group. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Arizona, edited by A.B. Heckert and S.G. Lucas, pp. 95-104. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 29. Lucas, S.G., T. Ikejiri, H. Maisch, T. Joyce, and G.L. Gianniny. 2005b. The Mosasaur Prognathodon from the Upper Cretaceous Lewis Shale near Durango, Colorado, and the Distribution of Prognathodon in North America. New Mexico Geological Society 56th Field Conference Guidebook, Geology of the Chama Basin, 389-394. Machlus, M., P. E. Olsen, N.C. Blick, and S.R. Hemming. 2005. New Physical Stratigraphy for the Lower Laney Member (Green River Formation, Wyoming): Implications for Ancient Lake Classification. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 37(7):65. Merewether, E.A., W.A. Cobban, and J.D. Obradovich. 2011. Biostratigraphic Data from Upper Cretaceous Formations-eastern Wyoming, Central Colorado, and Northeastern New Mexico. U. S. Geological Survey Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3175. Olson, S.L., and H. Matsuoka. 2005. New Specimens of the Early Eocene (Pelecaniformes: Fregaridae) with the Description of a New Species. Zootaxa 1046:1-15.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-17 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

Painter, C.S., C.C. York-Sowecke, and B. Carrapa. 2013. Sequence stratigraphy of the upper Cretaceous Sego Sandstone Member reveals spatio-temporal changes in depositional processes, northwest Colorado, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research 83:323-338. Peterson, J.A. 1984. Stratigraphy and sedimentary facies of the Madison Limestone and associated rocks in parts of , Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. USGS Professional Paper 1273-A, 34 pages.

Rasmussen, D.T., G.C. Conroy, A.R. Friscia, K.E. Townsend, and M.D. Kinkel. 1999a. Mammals of the Middle Eocene Uinta Formation. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette, pp. 401-420. Utah Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Publication, v. 99-1, Salt Lake City.

Rasmussen, D.T., A.H. Hamblin, and A.R. Tabrum. 1999b. The Mammals of the Eocene Duchesne River Formation. In Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, edited by D.D. Gillette, pp. 421-427. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Salt Lake City.

Robinson, P., G.F. Gunnell, S.L. Walsh, W.C. Clyde, J.E. Storer, R.K. Stucky, D.J. Froelich, I. Ferrusquia-Villafranca, and M.C. McKenna. 2004. through Duchesnean Biochronology. In and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and , edited by M.O. Woodburne, pp. 106-155. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.

Roehler, H.W., 1993. Stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Fox Hills Sandstone and Adjacent Parts of the Lewis Shale and Lance Formation, East Flank of the Rock Springs Uplift, Southwest Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1532, 57 pages. Ryan, J.D., 1977. Late Cretaceous and Early TertiaryProvenance and Sediment Dispersal, Hanna and Carbon Basins, Carbon County, Wyoming. The Geological Survey of Wyoming Preliminary Report Number 16, 17 pages. Santucci, V.L., 1998. The Yellowstone Paleontological Survey. Yellowstone Center for Resources, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, YCR-NR-98-1. Slattery, J.S., and B.H. Breithaupt. 2007. Faunal diversity and taphonomy of the Steele Shale, Mesaverde Group, and in southeastern Wyoming. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 39(5):14. Textoris, D.A., 1963. Stratigraphy of the Green River Formation and the Bridger Basin, Wyoming. The Ohio Journal of Science 63(6):241-258.

University of California-Santa Barbara. 2012. Paleobiology Database. Available at: http://paleodb.org/, accessed October 2012.

Weiss, M.P. 1982. Relation of the Crazy Hollow Formation to the Green River Formation, central Utah. Utah Geological Association Publication 10:285-289. Weiss, M.P., and K.N. Warner. 2001. The Crazy Hollow Formation (Eocene) of central Utah. Brigham Young University Geology Studies 46:143-161. West, R.M. 1969. Geology and vertebrate paleontology of the northeastern Green River Basin, Wyoming. 21st Annual Field Conference, Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, 77-92. West, R.M., and M.R. Dawson. 1973. Fossil mammals from the upper part of the Cathedral Bluffs Tongue of the Wasatch Formation (Early Bridgerian), northern Green River Basin, Wyoming. Contributions to Geology 12(1):33-41.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project D2-18 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016

Attachment A Maps

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-1 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-3 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-5 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-7 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-9 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-11 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-13 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-15 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-17 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-19 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Maps

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment B Area to be Surveyed Along the Route Centerline

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE 1 AREA TO BE SURVEYED ALONG THE ROUTE CENTERLINE Link Number From Milepost To Milepost PFYC W15 0.0 0.5 5 W21 0.5 1.5 3 W21 1.5 19.0 5 W21 19.2 23.4 5 W21 23.4 24.0 3 W35 0.0 6.1 3 W35 6.2 6.8 3 W36 0.0 1.7 3 W30 0.0 4.1 3 W30 4.3 8.5 5 W30 11.9 14.6 5 W30 15.3 15.4 5 W30 16.0 18.7 5 W30 18.7 24.4 3 W32 0.0 1.7 3 W32 1.7 6.0 5 W32 6.0 8.2 3 W32 8.5 9.7 3 W32 10.4 13.6 3 W32 14.0 16.4 3 W32 18.6 19.5 3 W32 19.9 22.8 3 W32 22.8 24.1 5 W101 0.0 4.6 5 W101 6.8 8.8 5 W125 0.0 0.4 5 W125 1.7 4.5 5 W108 0.0 10.5 5 W116 0.0 4.1 5 W116 6.0 6.8 5 W116 7.1 9.0 5 W113 0.0 12.2 5 W113 12.4 17.5 5 W302 0.0 0.9 5 W302 0.9 1.3 3 W302 1.3 5.3 5 W411 0.0 1.8 5 W411 1.8 2.4 3 W411 2.4 2.8 5 W411 2.8 3.3 3 C31 0.0 6.1 3 C61 0.0 14.1 3 C71 0.0 1.3 3 C71 3.1 4.9 3 C91 0.0 4.4 3 C91 4.4 11.1 5 C91 12.1 18.5 5 C92 0.0 0.8 5 C171 0.0 1.4 5

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-1 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Area to be Surveyed Along the Agency Preferred Route

TABLE 1 AREA TO BE SURVEYED ALONG THE ROUTE CENTERLINE Link Number From Milepost To Milepost PFYC C173 0.0 3.1 5 C173 3.1 3.5 3 C173 3.5 4.0 5 C174 0.0 0.3 5 C175 0.0 1.9 5 C175 1.9 2.4 3 C175 2.4 3.0 5 C175 3.0 12.4 3 C175 12.7 15.2 3 C186 0.0 5.2 3 C186 5.2 19.0 5 C188 0.0 1.3 5 C188 1.3 4.8 3 C188 4.8 6.0 5 U242 0.0 0.9 4 U242 3.3 3.6 5 U242 3.9 4.1 5 U242 9.7 12.3 5 U280 0.4 1.0 5 U280 1.5 1.7 5 U280 2.0 2.2 5 U285 0.3 1.0 5 U300 0.0 0.2 5 U300 0.6 3.8 5 U300 4.2 7.7 5 U300 8.3 10.0 5 U300 10.1 20.4 5 U300 20.6 21.4 5 U400 0.0 7.2 5 U400 7.2 7.6 4 U400 7.8 9.5 4 U400 9.5 10.4 5 U400 10.4 10.6 4 U400 10.6 27.8 5 U401 0.0 8.8 5 U401 8.8 12.0 4 U404 0.0 3.0 4 U413 0.0 4.1 4 U418 0.0 0.4 4 U408 0.0 1.3 4 U411 0.0 5.9 4 U417 0.0 2.7 4 U445 0.0 4.7 4 U504 0.0 1.1 4 U508 0.0 1.1 4 U514 0.0 4.2 4 U516 0.0 10.9 4 U560 0.0 1.6 4 U560 2.8 3.4 4

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-2 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Area to be Surveyed Along the Agency Preferred Route

TABLE 1 AREA TO BE SURVEYED ALONG THE ROUTE CENTERLINE Link Number From Milepost To Milepost PFYC U530 0.0 2.7 4 U530 3.9 7.0 4 U530 7.3 7.9 4 U533 0.0 3.3 4 U539 0.0 2.6 4 U539 3.2 4.2 4 U539 4.7 4.9 4 U460 0.0 0.2 4 U460 0.2 4.5 3 U460 4.5 5.3 4 U460 5.3 5.9 3 U460 6.4 7.0 3 U621 0.0 1.3 3 U621 1.3 1.7 4 U621 3.6 4.9 4 U625 7.3 12.2 4 U625 13.2 13.5 4 U638 0.0 0.5 4 U638 0.7 2.3 4 U638 3.1 4.7 4 U639 0.0 0.1 4 U639 1.2 2.1 3 U650 0.0 0.1 3 U650 0.3 0.6 3 U650 1.1 1.6 3 U650 2.0 3.6 3 NOTE: This table reflects the miles crossing Potential Fossil Yield Classifications (PFYC) 3, 4, and 5 along the route centerline only. Note that the Bureau of Land Management paleontologists recommend conducting a reconnaissance survey of the PFYC 3, 4, and 5 along the route selected for construction. The intent of the reconnaissance survey is to identify areas warranting detailed survey (transmission line, access, ancillary facilities) thereby reducing the area within PFYC 3, 4, and 5 requiring detailed survey.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-3 Plan of Development Appendix D2 – Draft Paleontological Resources Survey Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Area to be Surveyed Along the Agency Preferred Route

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK