DOE EIS-0072F Volume 2 (of 3 Volumes)
[ Final Environmental Impact Statement 1 1.1--1 ------1 i Great Plains Gasification Project
Mercer County North Dakota
U.S. Department of Energy
August 1900 DOE EIS -0072F Volume 2 (of 3 Volumes)
Final Environmental Impact Statement \ Great Plains Gasification Project
Mercer County North Dakota
Responsible Official U.S. Department of Energy
Ruth C. Clusen �.�Assistant SecretaryL...""-, for Environment August 1980 t I I I
FOREWORD
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Natural Gas Act , is authorized to issue certificates of pub lic convenience and nece ssity for the construction and operation of natural gas facilities subj ect to its jurisdiction , on the conditions that :
certificate shall be issued to any qualified �appli cant therefor , authorizing the whole or any part of the operation , sale , service , construction , extension , or �cquisition cove red by the appl ication , if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of th e Act and the requirements , rules , and regulations of the Commission thereunder, and that the proposed service , sale, operation , construction , extension , or acquisi tion , to the extent authorized by the certificate , is or will be required by the present or future pub lic convenience and necessity; otherwise such appl ication shall be deniedo
15 U.S.C. 717
The Commiss ion shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted the reunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the pub lic convenience and necessity may require .
Section 1.8 of the Commission' s Rules of Practice and Procedure details the requirements which must be met in order to intervene in this proceeding . r I I I
rEDERAL POWJ:R COMMISSION'()RDItR 4111-C facton enumerated In § 2..80 and the vtaW8 and commen .. (I) Hollco IU>d a.llon on peliliollO (I .... ed DecemlM.r 111. 97 1 3) exprelliMd LD conjunction therewith by the apPUcaDt and aU tho.. rnaldns lormal commenl punu&D1 10 tho prov1.ololU STATEMENT or GENERAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT (l) HolI.e arM! _e. PelilioRi 10 Inlerven•• 01 ctlon. when landlred 10 u.. Comm.luloa lor fIlIna. abaU abow PROCEDURES rOR COMPLIANCE WlTH THE t.hIa .. .. rvIc. thueol llpon aU pullclpanlo 10 u.. proc•• dln, In NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION eonlormlly wllh §1.17(b). OF 1969 (3) Aclloa oa pelilloa.. AI lOOa .. pracll.abl. R1TL1!8 or PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE after u.. e.Plnllon 01 the 11m. lor fIlIna _en 10 ....h 111 CFR 1.8 InufVenlioD pelilioDi 0. de/allli $hereol... provided In parqnph (0) 01 § 2.80 tbIa _lIoD, the Commlaolon wW panl or d.n,. ...ch polilion In who II or In pan or may. U 101lDd 10 be appropriale. (0) 1\ obaI.I be the •• n.. .1 poUe,. 01 Ih. r.derol Po ..er "(a) 1aI11oll0n 01 IAlelY.nllon. Pullclpallon In • pro ...thor\&e limited pullclpalloa. No pelilioRi 10 Inlarvea. Comm..laatoD. to adopt and t.o .dbl,. t.o the obJectJvtl and c�� u a.q Inurvoner may be InIl10ted .. 10Uo ...... ,. be filed or will be acted lIpon dllrina a h.ar\ni 1IDk. o1au 01 Ih. Nollonal Environm.nW PoUey Ael 01 1969 . (A.I) In 110 reluJalion under Ih. r.derol Pow.r Ad .... d pormilled hy u.. Commlaoloa aile. opportu.nlly lor aU (1) By the 01 a noU.e ol lnlorvenlioD by • tho NaturAl Gu Ad. The NaUona! EnvUonm-ntal POUe,. IilIn& partin 10 oblect therelo. Only 10 avoid d._.nl 10 th. S�1e Commlaolon. Includlnl any rqu!alory bod,. 01 tho Ad 01 1989 requlre.. unons other thinaa. aU F ...... puhU. Inlerell will any p... oId1na ofllc .. lanlallv.ly pormll Slale or mu.nlcipollly havlns jlUUdlclioD 10 nlulale rale, and aaenclu t.o include I det.aUed environmental rtatement p�c1palloa In a hear\ni In advance of. and then onl,. eha.q:eJ 'or the "'1' ot eleebic enll'1l:Y, or natural I..... u tbf' in ery ev recommendaUon or repol1 on PI'OpoaaiJ lor leidJp ...hj .. 1 10. u.. panlinl by u.. Comm.lulon 01 0 pollUoa 10 cue may bot to CODlUDlen within the lnterveni.n.S Stata or !allon and olher rno.lor red.raI 1.110... oI""lIleanlly all.e'" iIlte.rYene. mu.nldpaUly. ina the qUAllty 01 tbe human anvlronment. By oed.. 01 th. Commlaolon upon pelilioD (3) 10 tI) Llrnllallon In hear\ni.. Wb .... Ih. ... an ,,"0 0. mon . intervlM. (h) Th.nlo... . In compUan.e with Ih. Nallonal Environ Intervenen havinl ..hllanllaU y like Inlareol.o.and pooIUO .... me"W PoUe,. Acl 01 1989 the Commlaolon alAlI obaI.I malto a \be Comm..laatoD 01 prellkliDl o'ticer may. ill old.r to .x. det&.il� environment.a1 I1.atament WMD th, reaulatory (h) Who ma,. pelilion. A pollUon 10 Inlorvlno mv pedlle the hOar\ni. ur..... appropriale IimJlalioDi on th. actton t.&ken by UI under tbe Federal Power Act and be filed hy ony penon .1aIm1na • rIah' 10 Intervene !H AD aumber 01 allom'YI who will be permllted 10 ",,_.amIn. intereR 0' IUcb nature t.b.at intervenUoD' 11 nee• or Natural Gu Act ",ill baYe a Bl&nlItCADt envlronmentallmpact. ...,.,. and mall. and ...... mollo... and ohlocliollO on bebaU 01 appropriale 10 the admlnl.tUaUon 01 th. llalule undo "bIeh A tt.jet.alled miemenl" prepued In c::ompllance witb tbe aacb ta&8Yeaen.ft tho pro.eedlna bro"",!. Sueh dahl or Inlanll m.oy requlr.menl. 01 j 91.81 thrau", 2.82 01 IhlI Pon obaI.I luUy II �: develop ;he five facton liJrted bereinafter in the context 01 IUcb conaldenUoD..t u the propolled ..cUvttl'" dlrect and (1) A rlahl eonl.mod b,. llalula 01 u.. UnllaII SI.oIAo; lnd.irect effect on the dI IlDd ",Uer environment 01 th, blch ma,. dllecll,. project or natunl "" pipeline 'acWt,: on the land, W, and (2) An 1n1e.. 11 .. be aIf..,ted water biOLa: on ertabl.1.abed park ADd recreaUonal ereu; and "bleb 11 Dot adequately represented by ad.rUq putlel ADd u to wbleb peUUonen may be bou.od. by the Comm..ls and on IUe. 0' natwal. hlItorie, and lC'enIc vAluu and Elon'. acUon in the ploceedina (the 'oUowlnl may have sucb resource, 0' the aHa.. Tbo It.tement ab.a.U dbcu. the e,u·ent or 'he confonnlty 0' the propo� activity with an intered; consumeD served by the appUcan&. def.ndan" all applicable environmental J1,andard.e. Tbe I1.atement or re&pondent; bolden of aecuriUel 0' the appUca.at. defend an" or respondent; compeUton 0' the applkaD&. shall Illeo fuuy deAl witb aJtemaUvG cow•• 0' acUon to tbe aDd de'.ndAn" or respondent). propo'" and, to the muimum eztent pncUcable, the environmental eUeel. or eacb alternaUve. Further, It shall (3) AD,. olh.. Inlenll 01 oueh nature thai specifically dloeul3 pla.na for tutun development related p.llllonor'. parlldpollon ml,. be In the pubUe Inlenll. to the appUcaUon under con.ddenUo� Form and conteute 0' �t1flon.. PetUJoD.l to lnterven. The above r.cton are l.iJJted t.o merely illudrate tho (0) kinda ot valuu lbat m\Ult be cOMdeNd LD lbe Nleruent. ohaUI .. oul clearly ADil conclaoly Ih. laclo tram ..bIeh tho tn no resped u lhLa llirtlnll to be con..ttrued u coverin& all RAil.... 01 Ih. paUllono.'. aU_led rId>\ooor Inlet.1I can be relevant 'acton. determined, tbe pound. of the propoeed intervenUon. and The five facton wblch mud be qnclticaUy dbeUANd. the poa:lUon of th. petiUoner in tbe proceedin.l. 80 u tully in tbe det.a.l..led ltalement are: and completely to adviN the partles and tbe Comml.l&don u (1) the environmental lmpact or the proposed to tbe tpecltic taaue, 0' 'act or law to be rabed or contro acUon. verted, by admiUi.na:, deny.l.Dc or othel'\lf'lae lI.IUWerina: lPecift. ('J) any advene aoYbonmental eUecla wl;1icb cAUl' and In detaJl" eacb matel"iAl alle.aUon 0' 'act or law cannot be avoided should the propoul bt ....rIed In th. proceedLna, ADd dUns by appropriale r.I... implemented; ence the atatutory provlldontl or otber autbority reUed on: Provided, t�.t where the purpODe 0' the propoeed inte,... (3) aUemativeB t.o the propoled Iction, (.&) the relAtiona.h.ip between local shon-tenn vention La to obt&ln an allpc&Uon 0' natural IU 'or ..... e IlDd ueel 01 m&n'. environment and the mainte dlstrtbuUon by a penon or munlcipallty ena:aaed or le.ally nance Uld eflb..ancement or lonl-tenn Pro authorized to enllage in the local dlrtribuUon 01 natural or dueU.n.Ly. and onllicW au 10 Ih. pubUc. the pelilion maU comply willi th. 1 (0) any irreversible and lnelrievlule commU r.qulremenlo 01 Pari &6 01 1IW1 chopler (L ••• Relulallona ments of rewlUCU whtcb would be In'w'oh,ed Und•• the Nolul'oI Gu Acl). Such pelillonl ob.oIl ln olhOl' 1.17. In 'het proPODf"d. ..cUon shoulrt It be lmple reopoclo comply with Ih. ",qulremenlo 01 §§ 1.1& 10 me."ed. ·lnoh.. lv ••
(q (l) To 'he m ....un ..uo tlxhmt p,,,r.tkable nl) tlnaJ adminJ. (d) FIUna and ..rvtc. 01 poliliollS. Pelillooo 10 Inlervene .It,.".... e I.ctit"n 11 &.0 be ta.ken lUoner than ninety days after a ADd notices of lntervenUoD may b" tUrd at any Urne 'oUow dlalt �.l'i.ro�enUl l1atement h8.1 bet'n cll'culated for com lnI the 'U1n& of a noUce 0' nw or t.a.ritt cbana:e, or 0' aD ment or thir1y da.)-. a.lter the flnaJ teat of An enYbonm�ntAl appUcaUoD, peUUon, compWn" or otber document l'eekin.l J1atemen� hu been mlde I.va..i.l.a.blr to tbe Council on En.... i· Commissdon BCUOn. but in DO eveDt later than the date Ii.s.ed flJnment.aJ Quality and the pubUc. 'or tbe ttllna: ot peUUoD.l to interveDe LD any order or DoUce with "'Peel to tb" proceed.l.n&s l.uu.ed by the CommlKlon or (c) (ii) Upon I flndlng that it 1.e neceMIU'Y and appropriate itl Secretary. unle... In ezUaordi.nary clrc:umata..ncea for .ood in the pubUc lnurest. the Commls..don may dbpenae witb caUM &hOWD, tbe ComrnlBdon authOrize. a late fll.1na. any limeperiod opecilled in § § 3.00-3.83. Service obaI.I h. mad... provided In 11.17. Wh ...... penon hu be.n pennilled 10 Inlervene nOlwllhllwldlna IW 100Iure . 2.82 CompUance ..,lth the NaUonal Environmental PoUCY 10 me IW peliLion wllhin Ih. lime pre ..r1bed In IIW p .... Act of 1969 Under tblt Natural Gu Act.. ",apb, tbe CommbaioD or officer f1eqnated lo predde may wbeN tbe clrcumnancel warnnt. permit tbe waJver 0' the (d) In tbe CUtl of eacb contelted appUcaUon, the appU� requlr.;n.nlo 01 §1.26(c)(G) wilh re"Peel lo copl •• 01 ublbllo cant .. sta.ff, and all lntervenen t.ak.lnl .. poslUon on envUon for Ncb lntervener. mental rnaUen ehall oUer evidence for tbe record In IUPPOrt 0' "hell' eDvUownental PO!d.UOD. Tbe appUcant and III wcb (G) Awwen to peUUon.. ADY puty to tbe proceeding or intervene" ahall specify any dlI'erencea witb the stalf'a stal'·coun.sel may fUt AD answer to a peUUoD to lnte"ene, and in default thereof, may be deemed to bave waived lUll' poliUon, a.nd &ball include. amona other relevant 'actora.. a objection to the pantlng 01 IUcb peUUon. II made, a.nawen d..i.Kuulon 01 thell' pofiUon In tbe CODtezt ot the fact.o" moll b. filed wllhln 10 day. aII.r the dalo 01 ..rvt . . 01 lb. ItQW1U'1af(.d m§2.80. peUtlon. but not later than & daYB'prior to the date eet for the commencement 0' the bearinl. it any, unIe. 'or cause (e) In the cue of eacb conurted appUcaUoD, tbe lnJUal tbe Comml.a:loD with or without moUon ahall perecribe a iii and r�ply brier. tued by the appllcant, the- ItaH, and III differen' Urne., Tbey shill In all other rupecla cODform to In'.ervene" • podtion on envUowneotal matten taklntl th. requlr.rnenlo 01 § §1.1 & 10 1.17. Incluslv•. mul1 1Ptc'ifica.Lly ll.l1.8.lyze and evaJuate the evidence In the J.i&.ht of the envllonmental criteria enumen,ted In § 2.80. Furthennore, tb, InJUaJ Decl.Jd.on of the Preaidinc AdmlnJ maUve Law Judse In Ncb co..ee .. and the Unal order 0' the CommJ..uton dealln. whb the application on the menla in all cue .. shAU lnc1ude an evaluation 01 the envUonmental ii ,.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATO RY CO MMISSION STAFF
SU PPLEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAT EMENT ANG COAL GA SIFICAT ION COMPA NY NORTH DA KOTA PROJECT
SU MMA RY SHEET
Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, et alo Docket No. CP75-278, et alo
1. This Supplement to the Department of the Interior's Final Environmental Impact Statement (F EIS), prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is related to an administrative action.
The administrative action involved arises from applications filed jointly by Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company (M ichigan Wisconsin) and ANG Coal Gasification Company 1/ (D ocket No. CP75-278), PGC Coal Gasification Company (PGC) and Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America -(Docket No. CP77-556), and Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company (Docket No. CP75-283) which relate directly or indirectly to a proposal, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, for the sale of ANG Coal Gasification Company and PGC to Michigan Wisconsin and Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America of synthetic natural gas (SNG) produced from coal commingled with natural gas, and for the construction and operation by Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company' (Great Lakes) and Michigan Wisconsin of pipeline and compressor facilities to enable the receipt and transport of such gas. The Supplement evaluates the environmental impact resulting from construction and operation of these facilitieso The facilities for which Great Lakes is seeking authorization include an interconnection between a proposed 20-inch diameter SNG pipeline and Great Lakes' existing 36-inch diameter pipeline system near the Thief River Falls Compressor Station in Minnesota; construction of 21703 miles of new 36-inch diameter pipeline looping in eight sections across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; utilization of 39. 5 miles of "existing 36-inch diameter pipeline looping in Minnesota; and modification of six
1/ ANG Coal Gasification Company was replaced as coapplicant by ANR Gasification Properties Company on May 9, 1977.
v compressor stations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Michigan Area Council of Governments Facilities required by Michigan Wisconsin include 27.7 Michigan State Clearinghouse miles of new 30-inch diameter pipeline looping in two Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer sections across Michigan and Wisconsin, addition of one Minnesota Department of Natural Resources l2 ,SOO-horsepower (hp) compressor unit a.t the existing Minnesota Historical Society Mountain Compressor Station in Oconto County, Wisconsin, Minnesota State Clearinghouse and addition of one 3, SOO-hp compressor unit at the existing Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission Kewaskum Compressor Station in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Missouri River Basin Commission North Dakota State Clearinghouse North Dakota State Historical Society 3. Environmental impact would occur with respect to effects on Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning and man, wildlife, vegetation, soil, water quality, air quality, Development Commission and noise quality. Northwest Regional Development Commission Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission 4 . Alternative locations for placement of the pipeline loop Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission sections as well as alternative transportation arrangements Western Vpper Peninsula Planning and (i.e., utilization of the proposed Northern Border pipeline) Development Region and the alternative of not constructing the proposed facilities Wisconsin Department of Justice are considered. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Transportation 5. Copies of this Supplement are being made available to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission public and all parties involved in the proceedings on or Wisconsin State Clearinghouse about April 17, 1978, and to the following agencies: Wisconsin State Historical Society
A. Federal: C. National Citizens Groups
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Environmental Defense Fund Attorney General Office Izaak Walton League of America bepartment of Agriculture National Audobon Society Department of the Army Nature Conservancy Sierra Club Department of Commerce The Wildlife Society Department of Defense Wildlife Management Institute Department of Energy Department of Health, Ed ucat ion, and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development D. Local Department of the Interior Department of Labor Beulah City Library Department of State Bismarck Public Library Department of Transportation Dickinson Public Library Energy Resources Council Dunn County Board of County Commissioners Environmental Protection Agency Lewis and Clark Environmental Association Federal Trade Commission Mercer County Board of County Commissioners Federal Highway Administration North Dakota State University Interstate Commerce Commission North Dakota Wildlife Federation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oliver County Board of County Commissioners United Plainsmen University of North Dakota B. State and Regional: University of Wisconsin Honorable Governor Arthur A. Link Arrowhead Regional Development Commission Honorable Governor Martin J. Schreiber Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Head of the Lakes Council of Governments Headwaters Regional Development Commission vii
vi Honorable Governor William G. Milliken TA BL E OF CO NT ENTS Honorable Governor Rudy Perpich Honorable Wendall', R. Anderson Honorable Quentin N. Burdick Honorable Robert P. Griffin F:0reword 0 • 0 o 0 • 0 • • 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o • o 0 • • i Honorable Muriel Humphrey iv Honorable Gaylord Nelson Summary Sheet • •• 000000eoOoo 0 • 0 o 0 0 Honorable William Proxmire vii Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. Table of Contents o • • 0 • • • • . . • 0 o 0 • o • • Honorable Milton R. Young ix U.S. Representative Mark Andrews List of Figures and Tables. • • o 0 0 • • 0 . . • 0 0 U.S. Representative Robert J. Cornell U.S. Representative Lamar Gudger U. S. Representative James L. Oberstar A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONo o 0 o • 0 o • U.S. Representative David R. Obey U.S. Representative Phillip E. Ruppe B. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 0 • 0 • 0 U. S. Representative Ar1an Stangeland U. S. Representative William A. Steiger C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION • o • 29
Do MEASURES TO ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT OR TO AVOID OR MITIGAT E ENVIRONMENTAL EFF ECTS 0 • 0 •••o. 47
E. UNAVOIDABL E AD VERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 0 • o. 51
F. RELAT IONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF MA N' S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MA INTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY • 0 0 0 0 • • • 0 • •• 53
G. IRREVERSIBL E AND IRRETRIEVABL E COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • o 0 • 55
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION o • o 0 o 0 0 57
I. CO NCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 69
REFERENCES0 0 0 0 0 0000•• 00000000000 71
APPENDIX A Cultural Resources Management Program 75
ix I I i � I ,
II LIST OF FIGURES AND TA BLES A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Page 1. Introduction 4 Figure 1 Locations of Proposed Facilitieso 0 •••
2 Applicants' Proposed SNG Transportation On January 20, 1978, the Department of the Interior, Arrangement and the Northern Border Bureau of Reclamation (Interior) released its final environmental impact statement (F EIS) concerning the "A NG Coal Gasification Alternative • • 0 • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 Company (A NGCGC), North Dakota Projecto " The statement covered construction of a proposed coal 3 Proposed and Alternative Locations for the impact of and operation gasification complex in Mercer County, North Dakota, and its Loop Section 4. 0 • • • • 0 • • 0 0 • • 0 63 attendant facilities including the-water intake structure and pipeline, railroad spur, coal mine, and s thetic natural gas 4 Proposed and Alternative Locations for � (SNG) product pipeline. Because Interior s FEIS did not address Loop Section 5 ••••0 0 •••••0 •• 65 the environmental i�pact of facilities and operations which would be required to receive the SNG and transport it as part of a commingled gas stream, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (F ERC) has prepared the following supple mental environmental assessmento
Table 1 Pipeline Looping Areas and Environmental 5 Data 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Purpose, Facilities, and Locations 2 Hydrologic Characteristics of Selected Streams Proposed to be Crossed by the The purpose of the facilities proposed by Great Lakes and • 13 Pipeline Loop Sectionso 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Wisconsin would be to increase their respective pipeline system capacities in order to transport the 275 million 3 Designated Trout Waters Crossed by the 18 standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of SNG to be produced at the Proposed Pipeline Loop Sections 0 0 0 0 0 coal gasification complex in Mercer County, North Dakota. �I 4 Existing Land Uses Traversed by the Proposed Pipeline Loop Sections 0 0 o 0 0 20
5 Potential Sources of Hydrostatic Test 0 0 o 0 33 Water and Quantities Availableo 1.1 The following description is compiled from applications and other material submitted by Great Lakes Gas Transmission • 43 6 Maximum Compressor Emissionso 0 0 • 0 o . Company (Great Lakes) and Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company (M ichigan Wisconsin) in response to data requests. �I The total gasification complex is designed to produce 275 millJ.on scf per stream day of high Btu SNG. The plant is designed for a 91 percent on-stream factor, resulting in an average calendar day capacity of 250 million scf ' or approximately 91 billion scf annually.
1 r T
Facilities proposed to enable Great Lakes to receive and Phase II of the gasification complex would require construction transport the Phase I volumes of gas (13705 million scfd) of 504 miles of new 30-inch diameter pipeline looping in include construction of an interconnection between the proposed Wisconsin, addition of one l2, 000-horsepower (hp) compressor unit at the existin Mountain Compressor Station in Oconto 20-inch diameter SNG pipeline and Great Lakes' existing 36-inch y diameter pipeline system near the Thief River Falls Compression Co�nty, Wisconsin, _I and addition of one 3, 500-hp compressor' Minnesota; un1t at the existing Kewaskum Compressor Station in Sheboygan Station in consr�ction of 125 miles of 36 -inch diameter pipeline looping _, in seven sections across Minnesota, County, Wisconsin. Locations of the proposed facilities are Wisconsin, and Michigan; utili zation of 35. 8 miles of existing illustrated in Figure 1 with significant project data summarized 36 -inch diameter pipeline looping in Minnesota; and modification �I in Table 1. of six compressor stations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 0 Estimated Phase I project costs would be $55, 680, 700. 11 The proposed 36- and 30-inch diameter pipeline loop sections The capability to transport Phase II gas volumes (137.5 million would be designed for maximum allowable operating pressures scfd) would require construction of an additional 92.3 miles of 974 and 975 psig, respectively. of new 36 -inch diameter pipeline looping in seven sections across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and utilization of While the facilities proposed by Great Lakes and Michigan 3.7 miles of existing 36-inch diameter pipeline looping in Wisconsin to receiv� and transport the gas would be constructed Minnesotao The new pipeline facilities would be constructed in in two phases in conjunction with construction of Phase I and conjunction with Phase II of the gasification complex, with costs Phase II of the gasification complex, this assessment will to be estimated at a later dateo address the ultimate facilities proposed, i.e., those required i to receive and transport the full 275 million scfdo Facilities proposed to enable Michigan Wisconsin to receive and transport Phase I gas volumes (137.5 million scfd less fuel and line losses) to its market area and to the existing point of delivery to Natural Gas Pipe Line Company of America 30 Construction Procedures (Natural) 41 would be limited to construction of 22 .3 miles of new 30-inch diameter pipeline looping in two sections across �onsin. Phase I project costs would Pipeline construction procedures would be similar to those Michigan and Wi� Estimated be $6, 350, 660. _, Gas volumes (an additional 13705 million described in Section 1.50601, Product Gas Pipeline, of Interior's scfd less fuel and line losses) available in conjunction with FEIS. The existing rights-of-way would be surveyed and staked to identify the extent and locations of underground utilities to be crossed by the proposed loop sections. The expanded rights-of-way sections would be cleared and gradedo Pipe sections Pipeline looping consists of emplacing additional pipeline would then be laid alongside the ditch line, and the ditch sections parallel to the existing mainline to increase the excavated0 Trench dimensions typically range from 30 to 36 overall system capacity. inches greater than the diameter of the pipeline in depth and from 4 to 5. 5 feet in width. In areas where the trenching Modifications would involve replacement of the compressor operation encounters rock, either a tractor-drawn ripper or rotor assembly at the Shevlin, Cloquet, and Wakefield explosives would be used during excavationo In extensive swamp stations, and replacement of both the compressor rotor or wetland areas, construction would either be scheduled during assembly and the compressor case at the Deer River, Iron the winter when conventional techniques could be used or at River, and Crystal Falls stations 0
I "i I I
ot{TAAIO
2 CRYSTAL FALL STA'S. A S ��L�e�������� !/� � MICHIGAN WISCONSIN �
_ � �LOR H£) D I ! !./) /0 MARINETTf 17 ,/) MOUNTA?JA. I �I
o
, - - - (""'------, ------
II '" I '< LOOP LENGTH IMILESI DIAMETER CDMMPRESSOR ACTION "<: SECTION IiNCHES) PHASE I PHASE II STATION III=:(
------36 8.• ST. VINCENT � WOOOSTOCK ST:. 36 12.9 THIEF RIVER FALLS a o 36 9.2 SHEVLIN MODIFY EXISTING COMPRESSORS III "! rn 36 19,4 13,0 CLOQUET MODIFY EXISTING COMPRESSORS .,-1 36 22.8 16.4 IRON RIVER MODIFY EXISTING COMPRESSORS Locations of Proposed Facilities ., WAKEFIELD (Ultimate Development) 36 25.4 13.2 MODIFY EXISTING COMPRESSORS yrn CRYSTAL FALLS GREAT LAKES GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY ., 36 24.2 16.4 (GREAT LAKES SYSTEM) MODIFY EXISTING COMPRESSORS o ...... PROPOSED 36" PIPELINE LOOPING SECTIONS '" CRYSTAL FALLS U 30 9.0 (MICHIGAN WISCONSIN SYSTEM) MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY QI PROPOSEO PIPELINE LOOPING SECTIONS 10 30 13.3 6 .• MOUNTAIN INSTALL '·12,OOO·hp UNIT I&L:.&: v.& 30" ., III QI • COMPRESSOR STATIONS u KAWASKUM INSTALL 1·3.600·hp UNIT ., -B III � H 4 u § � .,-1 ., .0 � QI � bO .,-1 o :.:I, '", p<15 OH �. N 5 the rights-of-way. Re storation would be accomplished primarily 5. Future Plans by reseeding and fertilizing. In difficult areas , such as steep banks along creeks , sodding and mulching would be employed. The final step would be hydrostatic testing of the pipeline . Except for the con struction discussed above , the appl icants Approximately 53 gallons of water would be required per foot have indicated that there are no plans for additional pipeline of the 36-inch diameter pipeline , and 35 gallons per foot for looping or other changes to their existing systems. However, the 30-inch diameter pipeline. The length of the. test sections in the event that additional volume s of SNG became available , is not known at this time. it may be necessary to further increase or upgrade the existing facilities of both pipeline systems in order to provide adequate To accommodate placement of the 10 loop sections , the transportation capabilities. applicants propose to increase the width of their existing 75-foot rights-of-way by 25 feet. This increase would add about 3 acres per mile to the existing rights-of-way , or require a total of about 742 acres of new rights-of-way. The applicants . i do not anticipate that additional land would need to be cleared at stream crossings. Howeve r, Michigan Wisconsin indicates that if such a need arose , additional clearing would not exceed approximately 0.05 acre. While both companies intend to bore all railroad and major highway crossings , Great Lakes would not case such crossings , unless casing were required by authorities or construction conditions. The additional compre ssion facilities proposed by Michigan Wisconsin would be installed at existing compressor stations. Mich igan Wisconsin proposes to construct one building at its Mountain Compre ssor Station to house one 12, 000-hp gas compressor unit and accessories , and one building at its Kewaskum Compressor Station to house one 3,50 0-hp gas compressor unit and acce ss·or ies. Construction would entail placement of foundations , installation of the compressor units , and erection of the surrounding building. Piping and accessories would then be connected, and all components , controls, and safety devices te sted. 4. Operation and Maintenance Gas flow in the 10 pipeline loop sections and the two additional compressor units would be operated and controlled by the present systems which currently control the existing mainlines and comp re ssor facilities. Maintenance of the proposed facilities would be performed by the appl icants ' re spective maintenance personnel. Because the proposed facilities would be located adj acent to existing facilities, no special maintenance procedures are expected to be required beyond those presently being performed on the existing facilities. Procedures employed on both the Great Lakes and Michigan Wiscons in systems currentl y meet or exceed applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation , Office of Pipeline Safety Operations (49 CFR 192)0 6 7 ¥ B. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRO NMENT 1. Climate A continental-type climate, typified by 'relatively large seasonal temperature variations and occasional great extremes of temperature, is characteristic of the western Great Lakes region. Average daily maximum temperatures in the general project area range from about BooF in,Ju1y to about 200F in January. Average daily minimum temperatures range from about 550F in July to about OOF in January. Extreme minimum tempera tures as low as -40oF have been recorded on several occasions; however, such extreme winter cold generally moderates within a few days. Lakes and rivers remain frozen from early December through March, with some local variation along the route. The average frost-free period in the cooler subregions of the project area extends from mid-May through mid-September giving a normal growing season of only 12 0 days. The growing season in the southern extremities of the project area normally may extend to 150 days. Total precipitation across the western Great Lakes region generally increases from west to east within a normal range of about 20 to 36 inches _per year. Approximately two-thirds of the total precipitation occurs as thundershowers during the growing season. Total snowfall averages about 36 inches annually but increases to over 100 inches in some areas near Lake Superior which receive heavy "lake effect" precipitation. Droughts of sufficient intensity to result in significant agricultural crop losses have occurred in recent years and have caused many farmers to install supplemental irrigation systems. Spring flooding due to showers and rapid snowmelt may present problems in floodplain areas. Other types of severe weather in the project area are uncommon and are generally associated with spring and summer thunder storm activity. The region lies at the northern edge of the area of maximum tornado frequency in the U.S., and may experience damaging high winds and hail. Average annual wind speeds in the project area range from 10 to 11 miles per hour, prevailing from the northwest during all but the summer months. Extreme wind velocities of 92 miles per hour have been recorded at Minneapolis-St. Paul. 2. Ph'}1siography, Topography, and Soils The proposed pipeline loop sections would traverse the Superior Uplands physiographic province, a region where many 9 of the present-day landforms and soils can be directly Wisconsin border area may also cause erosion problems unless attributed to past glacial processes and deposits. careful measures are employed to reestablish disturbed vegetation. ou.twash-type soils are excessively well-drained so that very In the area of the Minnesota-North Dakota border, and more little soil moisture is available to help reestablish normal extensively in the adjacent areas of Canada, lakebed sedi- vegetative cover. Topography in the border area is somewhat ments and strandlines provide evidence of an extinct glacial rougher than in any of the loop sections previously described. lake that was considerably larger than any of the Great Lakes Elevations range from about 1, 000 to 1, 200 feet above sea today. Referred to as "L ake Agassiz" )j, its total area of level. Small stream channels across the area have steep, lakebed sediments covers a sprawling region about the size of unstable banks. The eastern portion of Loop Section 6 and the Montana. Loop Sections 1 and 2 would traverse a portion of entire length of Loop Section 7 lie in an area comprised almost the Lake Agassiz Basin which is very flat topographically and entirely of sandy outwash soils. The topography is an undulating is a fertile soil region. Elevations along these loop sections plain marked by many irregular depressions, shallow pits, and increase very gradually towards the southeast within a range potholes. Only a few small lakes and wetlands exist within of about 900 to 1, 25 0 feet above sea level. Slightly elevated these loop areas. Bedrock ridges are exposed at the surface in strandlines and outwash deposits 2/ at the former lake margins the eastern extremities of Loop Section 7; however, these are may be traversed and would present somewhat sandier soil avoided by the pipeline right-of-way. conditions than the former lakebed itself. The lakebed soils are finer-textured silts and clays and in many areas have required Soil conditions along Loop Sections 8, 9, and 10 (including the installation of tile drainage systems for agriculture. the Mountain Compressor Station) are similar in many respects to those found along Loop Section 7, i.e., comprised of glacial Southeast of the Lake Agassiz Basin area, the major outwash deposits with associated hilly, pitted topography. portion of Minnesota is mantled by a mixture of glacial debris, However, wetlands are more in evidence, as is surface bedrock, generally known as glacial till. The mixture contains soil particularly along Section 8. Generally, the potential for and rock of all particle 'sizes and has relatively low perme erosion is the same as previously discussed for other outwash ability. Topographically, the region is flat to slightly type deposits. undulating with elevations ranging from about 1, 300 to 1, 500 feet above sea level. Local relief along proposed Loop The area surrounding the Kewaskum Compressor Station, Sections 3, 4, and 5 is generally less than 50 feet. Drainage located on a glaciated platn west of Lake Michigan, contains is poorly developed and lakes and marshlands are numerous. a variety of drumlins, kames, eskers, and other interesting Organic soils generally associated with wetlands and wet forest glacial landforms. Examples of many of these glacial features conditions are dominant in the region and in some localities may be found in the National Park Ser vice's "Ice Age National cover extensive areas. The largest organic soil area traversed Scientific Preserve," located several miles northwest of the by the proposed project is the Floodwood Swamp, which is located Kewaskum station itself. Soils in the general area are quite along approximately 20 miles of Loop Section 5. Local soil fertile and have been extensively developed for agriculture. conditions in most areas are not suitable for agricultural development. 3. Geology Pipeline Loop Sections 6 and 7 would lie in a transitional area between the poorly-drained Minnesota lake country and a region in Wisconsin and Michigan which is covered by relatively Most bedrock in the project area is Precambrian in age and well-drained outwash-type deposits. Portions of both consists of crystalline igneous and metamorphic rock types .. A loop sections would traverse lakebed sediments deposited relatively minor otl.tcrop area of Cambrian sandstone occurs near when water levels of Lake Superior were higher and covered areas Loop Sections 7 and 8. The entire region has been subjected adjacent to the present lake shoreline. These lakebed sediments to glaciation and most ar eas are covered by glacial deposits. include clay soils that are particularly noted for their high Thickness of the glacial deposits is variable but is known to water tables and susceptibility to erosion and slumping in reach depths of 55 0 feet near Superior, Wisconsin. Exposed cut-and-fill situations. Sandy outwash deposits in the Minnesota- bedrock at the surface occurs in the upland region northwest of Lake Superior and in extreme western Michigan. 1/ After Louis Agassiz, who in 1840 became one of the earliest exponents of the glacial ice-age concept. 1 Sands and gravels deposited by rapidly flowing glacial melt 1 water. 10 c:T'OHl�OZ :;0o.::l ::t 1-" :E!' :E!rt TABLE 2 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED STREAMS PROPOSED TO BE CROSSED BY TIlE PIPELINE LOOP SECTIONS Width at Depth II Crossing (ft) � Floodplain and Bank Characteristics Stream Flow Characteristics Loop Section 1 South Branch, Two Rivers, 10 1-3 The river flows through a shallow cut Flow at Lake Bronson. Minnesota, ranges from Kittson County, Minnesota with a 1, 250-foot floodplain. 0.96 cfs in July to 4.0 cfs in September. The watershed consists of 444 square miles at this point. Loop Section Clearwater River, Red Lake County, 30 '1-4 The river is channelized; both banks Flow at Plummer, MiImesota, ranges from 7 .. 7 cfs Minnesota have been bui1 t up as levees. in July to 1,030 cfs in September.. Average discharge for the construction period would be expected to range from 100-200 cfs.. The watershed consists of 512 square miles. Loop Section 3 None Loop Section 4 Mississippi River, Itasca County, 100 3-10 The river flows through a low, broad Flow at the winnibigoshish Dam near Deer River, Minnesota floodplain; meander scars and oxbow MiImesota, ranges from 152 cfs in April to 800 lakes are frequent. cfs in January.. Average flow during construction l c 5 �� :a�:r��� ���i�� r�4f2 ���:�:nm ���; �� ���; point. Loop Section 5 Swan River, Itasca County, 20 1-3 The banks are rather abrupt and tend to Flow rates at the proposed pipeline loop cross ing Minnesota be marshy at the water f s edge; there is are estimated La range from 36 cfs in July to a vaguely determined shallow floodplain.. 186 cfs in August, averaging 75-90 cfs during construction.. The watershed drains approximately 215 square miles at this point.. Loop Section 6 Pokegama River, Douglas County, Narrow (10-20 ft); 1-3 The river is incised several feet into No records are available for the Pokegama River. Wisconsin the river would be the soil. The banks have been riprapped. An estimate of the flow rate during construction, crossed 3 times based on watershed size, runoff coefficients, within 1,000 yards. and comparison with similar rivers, is 30 to 50 cfs. The watershed is estimated to be 50 square miles at the point of crossing. Nemadji River, Douglas County, 20 2-5 The river flows through a floodplain No records are available.. Flow at the point of Wisconsin about 1 mile wide. crossing is estimated to be 200 cfs.. The watershed is estimated to be 300 square miles at this point. Amnicon River, Douglas County, 20 3-4 The river flows through a rocky gorge, No records are available. Flow at the point of Wisconsin cut through sandstone and gabbro. crossing is estimated to be 150 cfs during construction. The watershed is estimated to be 150 square miles at this point .. Middle River, Douglas County, 10 3-5 The river has a cut meandering gorge No records are available.. Flow at the point of Wisconsin about 100 feet deep. River banks are crossing is estimated to be 50-75 cfs during 10-15 feet deep through sandstone construction.. The watershed drains approximately bedrock .. 75 square miles at this point. Loop Section 7 North Fish Creek, Bayfield COl.mty, 20 1-3 The river has low, marshy banks and No records are available. Flow at the point of Wisconsin meanders through a broad, low, poorly crossing is estimated to be 50-75 cfs during defined floodplain. construction.. The watershed drains approximat: ely 75 square miles. White River, Ashland County, 20 3-10 The river flows through a floodplain USGS records for the White River near Ashland, Wisconsin about 1,000 feet wide. Wisconsin, show a range from 170 cfs in July to 4,100 cfs in August.. Average flow during construction is estimated to be 300 cfs. The watershed drains 279 square miles .. Bad River, Ashland County, 40-50 3-10 The river flows through a broad, The Bad River near Odonah, Wisconsin, discharges Wisconsin (high flow) indeterminate floodplain. from 140 cfs in March to 5,720 cfs in April. Flow during construction is expected to be from 150 to 200 cfs.. The watershed drains 611 square miles. 9 F in 1968, the are located in wildlife management areas. Proposed Loop Section After construction of the Great Lakes mainline I' 1 would be constructed within this vegetation region. right-of-way was seeded with a mixture of grasses and forbs. Although erosion problems were initially experienced in some has Along the beach ridges of former glacial Lake Aga�siz the areas, the applicant states that the existing right-of-way of grasses, topography is more rolling and there is less agriculture. 'This fully revegetated. This vegetation generally consists overstory of is an area of "border prairie, " where grasslands begin to give clovers, and other ground cover plants with a thin way to eastern forest vegetation. Aspen stands are common here shrubs and saplings. Woody vegetation has not been cleared and remnant stands of native prairie, wetlands, and maple- ' from the right-of-way since initial construction. basswood fOIBst are common vegetation types found interspersed among small farms. Most of proposed Loop Section 2 would be constructed through "border prairie" vegetation. 6. Wildlife Lands along the pipeline route f' rom Clearwater County Minnesota, eastward are dominated by forest. In the regio� south Loop Sections 1 and 2 are located where much of the natural of Lower Red Lake, where parts of Loop Sections 2 and 3 are wildlife habitat has been eliminated or altered by increasingly proposed to be constructed, maple-basswood forests generally intensive agricult,ural devlopment. This change is especially occur on well-drained hills, while pine forests occur on lower evident along Loop Section 1. The original prairie has been elevations. Red pine, Norway pine, and balsam fir are the eliminated and only those species tolerant of agricultural dominant conifers and sugar maple, basswood, red oak, ash, development have flourished. and elm are the principal deciduous trees. Deer, coyote, raccoon, red fox, pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and cottontail rabbit are among the more common species I I East of Leech Lake through northern Wisconsin where Loop I, ' Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 would be constructed, the G reat Lakes found in the vicinity of the first two loop sections. Several mainline crosses a region of mixed spruce-fir and hardwood species of waterfowl and other birds breed in the remaining forests. Balsam fir, white spruce; white, red, and Norway pines, wetlands and during migration the rivers, streams, and wetlands red oak, sugar maple, basswood, aspen, and white birch are the are used by large numbers of waterfowl. most important tree species. Large areas of bog forest and bog occur in poorly drained locations such as Floodwood Swamp. The remaining sections of pipeline looping would be con structed where at least 70 per�ent of the land is covered by Black spruc.e and tamarack are the major bog forest trees. Heath shrubs and alder occur over a mat of sphagnum moss in bogs. forest. Consequently, the wildlife in these areas differs The majority of proposed Loop Sections 4 and 5 would cross bog considerably from that of the first two sections; species asso or bog forest vegetation. Aspen, birch, red maple, and red oak ciated with forest become more prevalent. Typical species dominate extensive areas disturbed by logging or fire. Proposed include whitetailed deer, bobcat, black bear, raccoon, gray Loop Section 7 would cross pine and aspen forests in the more and fox squirrel, red fox, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse elevated, sandy lands of the Chequamegon National For est. plus a rich assortment of small mammals and birds. In the more remote and less disturbed portions of the ronte in Minnesota, timber wolves are found, though not in large numbers. Through 'the O�tawa National Forest in northwest Michigan, proposed Loop Sect10n 8 would traverse rugged glaciated terrain ' covered with northern hardwo6d-fir forests, differing from the Lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, swamps and bogs are previous forest types chiefly in a greater proportion of hard numerous throughout much of the forest. Furbearers such as river wood, such as sugar maple and birch. This area is also spotted otter, mink, beaver, and muskrat are common along many of these with bogs and bog forest where water has collected in the many waterways and wetlands. The same areas provide breeding habitat basins and depressions formed' in the till. for mallards, black ducks, wood ducks, and hooded mergansers. Closely associated with the bog habitat are several shrews and The 27. 7 miles of pipeline Loop Sections 9 and 10, proposed the uncommon bog lemming. to be constructed in northern Michigan and Wisconsin, would Several species classified as either endangered or traverse . a northern ha rdwood forest region dominated by sugar maple, white and yellow birch, and America beech. Much of this threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service occur within area supports aspen-birch forest on lands disturbed by fire or the three states that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline logging. No significant wetlands would be crossed by these loopings. These species are the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, sections. eastern timber wolf, Higgin' s eye pearly mussel, and the white cat' s mussel. Of these five species, only the bald eagle, 16 17 ri I peregrine falc on, and timb er wolf oc cur in the vic inity of the looping projec t. The two mu ssels are found in the more southern portions of the states. The peregrine falc on oc curs in the three states only as a rare migrant; no nesting takes plac e in the Great Lakes region. In addition to the federally classif ied spec ies, Minnesota, Wisc onsin, and Michigan maintain lists of spec ies whic h are endangered, rare, or have dec lining popula tions. Several of these spec ies are likely to oc cu r in the vic inity of the proposed projec t. § The proposed pipeline loopings would cross 11 rivers and .r-! nu merous smaller streams. Rivers and streams in the Great Lakes A Ul -I-l � t1l region usually su pport a mix of spec ies inc lu ding northern Ul el CJ Ul H 0 pike, walleye, smallmouth bass, yellow perc h, roc k bass and E-t H su nf ish. Brook, brown , and rainb ow trout are found in streams � u � u � 0 with low water temperatures and high water qu ality. At least Ul .r-! -I-l 23 of the waterways 'crossed by the proposed loopings have been � P-t CJ 0 Q) designated as trou t waters by state resourc e agenc ies. These 0 0 Ul designated trou t waters are listed in Table 3. E-t H I Ul � 0 � 0 ('i") � � H 7. Land Use, Rec reation, and Aesthetic s E-t H � � � � � E-t P-t a) Land Use tl A � � E-t Ul 0 The proposed natural gas pipeline looping wou ld cross the A P-t � following governmental units: Minnesota-- 12 counties, 1 E-t � P-t Indian Reservation, 1 national forest, 3 state forests, and � 1 state game refu ge; Wisc onsin-- 8 counties, 1 Indian Reserva c.!> H tion, 1 national forest, and 1 state park; Mic higan-- 2 counties Ul � � and 1 national forest. A su mmary of the land uses to be A� traversed, by loop sec tion, is given in Table 4. � Q) Q) The first loop sec tion begins in Hazelton Township, 1-1 u Minnesota. The land use along the 110.5 miles of 36-inc h dia meter � looping in Minnesota consists mainly of farmland, wetlands, and Q) 1-1 forests. Several signif ic ant natu ral and cultu ral areas would -I-l be corssed by the proposed looping. The major natural area is Ul the Floodwood Swamp (L oop Sec tion 5) whic h wou ld be traversed by approximately 20 miles of looping. Of the cultu ral areas, a small sec tion of Loop Sec tion 4 wou ld be construc ted within the Leec h Lake Indian Reservation. Approximately 6 miles of Loop Sec tion 7 wou ld cross the Bad River Indian Reservation. Wisc onsin wou ld be crossed by a total of 66 .2 miles of 36 -inc h and 18.7 miles of 3�-inch diamet er looping. The majority of this proposed looping would traverse forest lands, inc lu ding 18 a national forest . Several residential areas would be crossed by the proposed loopings inc lu ding the towns of Moqu ah and. Cedar (L oop Sec tion 7) . The ou tskirts of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport, serving As hland, wou ld also be crossed. 19 i TABLE 4 The applicants also propose to expand two compressor stations in Oc onto and Sheboygan Counties , Wisconsin. The expansion would be comp leted within the area already cleared for EXISTING LAND USES TRAVERSED BY existing facilities . The Moun't:ain Compressor Station in Oconto PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOP SECTIONS (IN MILES) County is in an area of wetlands and forested bog , wh ile the Kewaskum Compressor Stat ion in Sheboygan County is in a forested area . Loop Open/ Bog Michigan would be crossed by two loop sections - 40 .6 Sec tion Agricultural Forest Forest Total miles of 36-inch and 9 miles of 30-inch diameter loop ing (Sections 8 and 9, respective ly) . The entire 36-inch diameter portion would be construc ted in a national forest . The maj ority of (I 1 7.5 0. 9 8.4 the 30-inch loop would also cross forest land ; however, none of it is state or national forest land . 2 11. 7 6.5 10 .3 4 28.9 t I 3 3.3 3.1 0.2 2.6 9.2 b) Recreation 4 0. 5 20.5 21.0 The western Great Lakes region traversed by the proposed , i 5 3.3 4.6 16 .8 7.7 32.4 proj ect is a popular recreation area . Many high quality recrea tional resources, inc luding extensive forests , a multitude of 6 18.4 19 .8 38.2 lakes and streams , topography which lend s itself to winter sports , and an except ionally attract ive Lake Superior shoreline 7 8.6 28 .7 2 1.1 38.6 are all utilized to provide the estimated 13 million recreation days experienced in this region every year . The entire area is 8 0.3 11.6 20.1 8.6 40.6 heavily dependent on tourism. 9 7.5 1 8.5 The proposed looping would cross eight established recreational areas in Minnesota . The entire length of proposed 10 4 11.5 3 18.5 Loop Section 4 (21 miles) would be located in the Chippewa National Forest . Among the park fac ilities in the area of the proposed loop area are an historic site , a red pine seed pro duction area , a res idential area , and two boat- launchin� sites . Source : Great Lake s Gas Transmission Company and USGS Portions of this area are also designated as the Bowstr1ng State Topographic Maps Forest. Approximately 3 miles of proposed Loop Section 5 would traverse the Savannah State Forest. This section would also cross the Fond du Lac State Forest and the Floodwood Game Refuge . No deve loped recreational sites within these areas would be crossed . The remaining areas crossed in Minnesota would be the Hazelton State Game Refuge on proposed Loop Section 1 (0.4 mile) , and two private game refuges , Polk-Clearwater and Clearbrook on proposed Loop Section 2. In Wisconsin , proposed Loop Section 7 would traverse 8.6 miles of the Chequamegon National Forest, wh ile proposed Loop Section 6 would traverse the Amnicon Falls State Park for 1.2 miles . No developed recreational sites would be affected in either of these areas . The entire length of proposed Loop Section 8 (40 .6 miles) would be located in Ottawa National Forest in Michigan . Among the park fac ilities which would be in the area of this section 20 21 • ------�--..------r I are a tree seed orcha rd , a canoe route river (the Presque Isle) , of ' water-oriented recreation in the Lake Superior Bas in ind icated the Sylvania Visitor Center , a white spruce seed production area , that an estina ted 1.4 million tourists came to that area in 1964 . the Imp Lake Forest Auto Tour route , and the Imp Lake camping The same report estima ted tourist expenditures that year at' $50 facil ities and forest trail . Proposed Loop Section 9 would million. By 1977, it is estimated that these figures had nearly cross an Iron County, Michigan Forest Preserve for one-half mile . doubled . In the future , the importance of tourism is expected to inc rease in this region . c) Aesthetics Because economic and demographic patterns vary widely along the proposed pipeline route , a brief sketch of the socio economic characteristics of the areas along each proposed loop The rich and varied land features of this region contribute section follows . to its overall high aesthetic value . Minnesota is known as the "Land of 10 ,000 Lakes ." Many waterfalls cascade through the Loop Sect ion 1 - This rural area in Kittson County , coastal area of the state . State and Federal parks throughout Minnesota , rs-ma inly agricultural , with 46 percent of the region contain scenic lakes and wildernes ses . The Upper the county land area in crops . The population is Mississippi River , wh ich would be crossed by Loop Sect ion 4, dec lining steadily , fa lling nearly 20 percent in the has been proposed for inc lus ion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers county from 1960 to 1970. System. Geographic sites also add to the variety, such as the porcupine Mountains in Michigan . Reaching 1,985 feet at the ir LOOt Section 2 - The town of Thief River Falls (pop . 'I highest point , these mountains represent the mo st dramatic 8,0 8) is the dominant economic factor along this topography in the Midwest. section of pipeline . The snowmob ile manufacturing plant here is the maj or employer ; however, agriculture In a long proposed pipeline proj ect such as this one , it is still runs a close second . The trend to larger farms difficult to select any specific areas of preeminent aes thetic will reduce the number of farm worke rs in the future and value . In general , most parks and recreation areas are ma intained net out-migration is likely to continue for some time . in a natural state to enhance their aesthetic value . In addition , un ique features such as those described above may occur along or Loop Section 3 - This is the beginning of the heavy be visible from the pr oposed right-of-way . These could not be recreational area to be traversed by the pipeline ro ute . determined without a right-of-way survey . However , no official This loop would pass within 2 miles of the city of Bemidj i, state scenic areas would be crossed by this proposal . the recreational , educational, and market center for north-central Minnesota . Bemidj i had a 1970 population i I I of 11,490 , a' 20 percent inc rease over 1960. Recreation 8. Socioeconomic Considerations related employment is not categorized in census figures , but it is esti.mated to be high . Other occupational categories in this area are agriculture and forestry , Population and economic trends in the western Lake Superior wood produc ts manufac turing , and wholesale trade . region are representative of much of the Great Lakes Basin . Proj ections ind icate a mo derate increase in population of Loop Section 4 - This loop would lie entire ly within the approximately 38 percent between 1970 and 2020. Agricultural Ch ippewa National Forest. The recreational dependence emp loyment will continue to decline from its current level of of this area is obvious . Small residential areas 2.2 percent to le ss than 1 percent of the total area employment located on private land within the forest boundaries by 2020 . Mining employment will remain fairly constant but provide the only res ident population in the area . will dec line in relative importance . Manufacturing emp loyment These inc lude the towns of Bena (pop . 169) and Ball will inc rease but at a slower rate than the growth rate of total Club . Since Ch ippewa is a mul tiple-use forest, employment . Urbanization can be expected to inc rease from the res idents may be engaged in recreation-related present 63 perc ent urban population as agricultural employment ' occupations , or in forestry or agriculture . This dec lines . loop would also pass through a portion of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation . Tourism has a cons ide rable impac t on the economy of the Great Lakes region . A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study II Loop Section 5 - This loop would be located ma in ly in the Floodwood Swamp , where little development of any kind has occurred . The swampy lowlands are un suitable for heavy 11 U.S. Department of the Interior , Bureau of Outdoor Recreation , "Water Oriented Recreation in the Lake Superior Bas in," Ann Arbor , Michigan , October 1970. 23 22 J agricultural uses ; however , some pasture land and hay this area . Net out-migration still occurs in this crops are found . The surround ing area outside of the area , although it has been slowed 1;>y the increasing swamp has had to depend on industry , and so its economy recreational development . revolves around the paper mills in the area . The area is experiencing a declining population . 9. Cultural Resources Loop Sect ion 6 - This loop would be influenced by its location near the Duluth-Superior standard metropolitan statist:i.cal area (SMSA) . The comb ined 1970 population The environmental staff has consulted the National of this area was 265 ,350. This area serves as the Register of Historic Pl �es and found that no National Register shopping and manufacturing center for the region . properties would be imp'l:l;�� ted by construction of the proposed Outside of the SMSA , manufacturing is still the pipeline loop sec tions �' , Great Lakes has consulted with the predominant indus try along with agriculture and Minnesota Historical Society , the Wiscons in Historical Soc iety , forestry . Out-migration is still a problem in this and Dr . Marla Buckmaster of Northern Michigan University to i! region , however . determine that no known cultural resources would be impacted . Several cultural properties are near Great Lakes ' proposed Loop Section 7 - With the exception of Ashland County , pipeline looping areas . Two early settler cabins lie about 1 this section crosses mainly lightly populated rural mile from the proposed route of Loop Section 3, and Ind ian areas . In Ashland County , the city of Ashland (pop . mounds are known to lie within one-quarter mile. An historic 9,615) is the predominant influence . Ashland is the village is located a mile away from l.oop Section 4, and two service center for the region , but as an urban area mounds are within one-third mile of the proposed route . Flood it experienced 8.5 percent unemployment in 1970, a wood and Scotts Corner are historic towns a mile or less away figure among the highest in the state . In the rural from the proposed right-of-way of Loop Sections 5. A military areas , forestry and agriculture , as well as their road lies within a mile of the proposed route of Loop Section 8. related processing indus tries , account foe over There are no known historic properties near Great Lakes ' 40 percent of the employment. proposed Loop Sections 1, 2, 6, and 7. Th is loop section would also cross portions of Michigan Wisconsin has indicated that no cultural resources the Bad River Indian Reservation . Ab out 700 Chippewa would be impac tedby the proposed construc tion of Loop Sect ions Indians live on the reservation . Until recently , 9 and 10 . there had been an out-migration trend similar to the surrounding area ; however, this has been reversed , as many Indians are returning to the reservation . 10. Air and No ise Quality, Loop Section 8 - Th is entire loop section would be located in the Ottawa National Forest . Recreation The description o&\)ihe exi;:s ting air arid noise quality related employment is therefore high . There are two for the proj ect area is : 24 25 I J F I within the Lake Michigan Intrastate Air Quality Control Region the site . At that distance , compressor noise levels .are esti of Wisconsin . With the exception of the Green Bay area , this mated to attenuate by more than 20 dBA and have a negligible. region is characterized by relatively good air quality . Oconto impact on ambient noise levels . and Sheboygan Counties are class ified as atta inment areas for all criteria pollutants , ind icating that ambient concentrations The nearest residence to the Kewaskum Compressor Station are lower than the national ambient air quality standards . is located 600 feet north of the compressor building . Existing noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA measured at 400 feet from the Amb ient nitrogen dioxide (N02 ) data for this region was compressor building are estimated to attenuate to approximately obtained at two monitoring stations in both Oshkosh , Wiscons in , 51 to 56 dBA at the nearest res idence . A continuous noise about 35 miles northwest of the Kewaskum site , and in Door leve l of 56 dBA corresponds to a Ldn of about 63 dBA 1/ , a County , Wisconsin , about 60 miles east of the Mountain Compressor leve l characteristic of an urban res idential area . Station . 1/ The Door County station rec orded a 24-hour high of 18 pg/m3 , while the Oshkosh statiDn recorded 24-hour highs of 47 and 56 pg/m] . A tentative �nnual arithmetic mean (based on only two or three. valid sampling quarters) of 24 pg /m3 was ! I estimated for one of the Oshkosh stations . This level is significantly below the national amb ient air quality standard of 100 pg/m3 • Data at the other stations was in suffic ient to calculate annual means . 1/ EPA uses two descriptors , the Ldn and the L eq (24) to quantify amb ient noise . The Leq (24) represents �he A- . The existing fac ili.ties at the Kewaskum Compressor Station we ighted sound energy averaged over a 24-hour per10d wh 1le consist of one 1,100-hp turb ine -driven centrigugal compressor the L dn represents the Leq (24) with a 10 dB A we ighting and four 660-hp reciprocating compressors . The maximum daily applied to nighttime sound le�els (10 p.m . . to 7. a.� . � . emiss ions for the total 3,740 hp are listed in Tab le 6. (See "Information on Levels of Env1ronmental N0 1se Requ1s1te to page .) All five un its burn natural gas , a relative ly clean Protect Pu blic Health and We lfare With an Adequate Margin burning fuel , and the emissions of all pollutants except of Safety," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 550/9-74- nitrogen oxides (NOx) are relatively low . 004 , March 1974 . In their orig inal application (Docket No . CP75-278, March 26 , 1975) , Michigan Wisconsin proposed to increase their existing 7,500-hp turb ine -driven centrifugal compressor at the Mountain Compressor Station to 12 , 000 hp alld to install an additional l2, 000-hp compressor at this site . However, in a separate action involving Docket No . CP74-2l3 , Michigan Wisconsin received FPC approval to inc rease the existing 7,500-hp unit to 12, 000 hp on September 26 , 1975 . Maximum daily emiss ions for the existing l2 , 000-hp comp ressor at the Mountain Compressor Station are listed in Tab le 6. Th is unit would be suffic ient to compress Phase I gas volumes , wh ile the additional 12 , 000- hp unit would be required for Phase II. Again , NOx is the primary pollutant em itted at this site . b) No ise Quality Existing noise levels at the Mountain Compressor Station range from 55 to 60 dBA at a dis tance of 400 feet from the comp ressor building . There are no residences within 1 mile of 1/ Air Qualit U.S. Environmental Protect1on 27 26 . 1 , • C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. Climate The proposed project would have no identifiable impact on the climate of the wes tern Great Lakes region. 2. Phys iography , Topography , and Soils Construction of the proposed pipeline loop sections and compressor facilities would cause increased soil erosion , some loss of agricultural soil productivity , and localized disturbance of soil -water conditions , especially in wetland areas o Minor topographic impact would result from the slight soil berm typically left over the pipeline trench to compensate for soil I I settlement and compactiono However, there would be no significant . impact on the physiography of the regiono Soil erosion problems caused by the pipeline loop construction could be pronounced in some areas of moderate to strong topo graphic reliefo The area of greatest concern is proposed Loop Section 6, where there is a combination of highly erodible lakebed sediments and sandy outwash deposits and sharp local . topographic relief. Outwash deposit soil s are difficult to ! revegetate because their coarse-textured substrates have little capacity for holding mo isture o Stripping the surface vegetation from outwash deposit soils invites serious gully eros ion unless mulching or other moisture-holding revegetation practices are implemented 0 Lakebed sedimen�s , on the other hand , have a high clay content and are usually water-saturated at a relatively shallow depth o Primary limitations of these soils are their low shear-strength and high shrink-swell potential . Construct ion on these lakebed sediments may cause bank slumping , trench collapse , and gully erosion . The proposed Loop Sections 1 through 5 would present only very minor erosion potentials because mo st of the terrain traversed would be relatively flat . Proposed Loop Sections 7 through 10 possess a more serious erosion po tential due to the rolling topography and abundance of outwash-type depositso However , problems should be of a localized nature , and should be responsive to control by mul ching , seeding , and fertilizing. 29 • f j -� t Agricultural soil fertility losses can occur due to mixing 3. Geology of the fertile topsoil layer with less fertile subsoil from the pipeline trench. The problem can be reduced by "doub1e ditching" to segregate the topsoil from the subsoil materia1 so The proposed proj ect would have an insignificant impact on Another problem enc ountered in agricultural areas is the regional geology and mineral resources extraction activities. disruption to farm operations caused by the open pipeline trench Many areas along the pipeline route are de eply mantled with and by the soil berm placed over the trench to compensate for glacial drift deposits and have little potential for hard rock future soil compaction and settlement. The trench area may be or other mineral resource development . Even if economically sufficiently uncompacted and soft to impede no rmal cultivat ion attractive mineral deposits were identified in the immediate , i for several years following construction. In extreme situations , area of the project rights-of-way , relocation of the pipelines , i it may be necessary to cultivate a single field as two field would be possible , if necessary. i i units , one on either side of the backfilled trench, for several I growing seasons . Levels of agricultural productivity would Pipeline emplacement may require some blasting of the probably be reduced during this interval ; however, the lo st bedrock, especially in the more rugged terrain encountered in produc tivity should no t be significant o Pipeline trenching the Michigan-Wisconsin border areao Exact blasting locations can also damage agricultural drainage tile and otherwise affect would be established after a complete review of the existing shallow groundwater movement . Proposed Loop Sections 1 and 2 mainlines ' in stallat ion records are corroborated by field traverse most of the agricultural lands which would be affected investigations . It is no t antic ipated that blasting of a new by the proposed proj ect o trench would re sult in any damage to the existing main1ineso There are several mechanisms by which pipeline construct ion can result in disturbance to near- surface groundwater flows in wetland soil areas o Construction activities may compa ct soi l s 4. Hydrology in the trench vicinity, effectively damming normal groundwater movement to the downhill side of the pipe1ine o In some areas ' subsoil clay layers (fragipans) ca use perched water table Potentially, the mo st significant surface water quality conditions which in turn support surface wetlands . Such wetlands impact associated with the proposed loop construct ions would be can be perm anently damaged if the subsurface clay layer is erosion. Stream crossing operations and runoff from adj acent perforated by the trenching operation o Drainage of wetland denuded areas would create increases in concentrations of areas some time s results from water movement along the pipeline suspended sedimentso trench , even when backfilled. In such situations , trench plugs may be needed to prevent water drainage at the wetland periphery . Alteration of chemical concentrations through disrup t ion of Other problems of a similar nature can usually be alleviated the stream bottom and runoff would also occur. Biochemical by giving attention to local conditions during the proj ect oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen levels, and nutrient levels plann ing and as construction proceeds . would be affected by the proposed construction. Toxins or compounds that could be released by runoff or disturbance of While all proposed loop sections would cross wetland areas , riverbed sediments could cause shifts in pH , changing the the maj or wetlands traversed would occur within Loop Sections 4, biological productivity of the affected area. The release of 5, and 8. Th8 proposed 20-mi1e crossing of the Floodwood Swamp additional nutrients would be beneficial as food for stream within Section 5 may require extensive use of ballast and anchor organisms, provided the total oxygen demand did no t exceed devices to prevent pipeline flotation . Additional discussion of reoxygenation capabilities. Factors that would determine the construct ion impact in we tlands can be found in Sections Co4 amoun t of material which would be introduced to or resuspended and Co5 which address hydrology and vegetationo in the water column would include stream velo city and turbulence , riverbank and substrate composition and slope , soil erosion potentia1� and the time necessary to stabilize the backfilled trench and banks . All such changes would be temporar� and conditions would tend to return to normal shortly after completion of constructiono 30 31 (' ' Any cons truction-associated spills or leaks of petroleum products into exposed groundwater tables or surface watercourses .c: u would adversely affect water quality. Fertilizers applied to ;:l III the rights-of-way could also affect water quality adversely if . C""l Q) ..j 1-1 ,...., 0\ 0 \D co co \D II") co 0 \D co co \D co Q) C""lN N washed or blown into streams . Trenching , pipe1aying, and .0 4-1 ..j \D • II") ..j 0 ..j l"- II") C""l co ..j l"- N ..j N ..j N 0 C""l 0 l-l'1:l co 0 0\ C""l N .... \D N .... C""l I"- 0 C""l C""l \D backfilling at stream crossings would temporarily disrupt stream 0 . cdQ) . . . ft 1"-. . l-llil N co ;3 II") 0\ C""l C""l N .... 0 C""l ..j C""l 0 \D C""l ...... C""l channe ls and floodplains. '1:1 .� ...... :>-' I=! 0 l-l'" � e III 'M III I> Q) Q) l-l;:l 'M l-l U Groundwater would be affected by proposed construction I-IQ) 1-1 �] '1:1 ;:l activities in areas where the trench would encounter a water ;:lE-< .... 0 cd I=! III U Q) table at or near the surfaceo In such areas , trench dewatering OQ) Q) .... .0 .... . i , would be required, resulting in a localized lowering of the III I=!l-l � Q) water table and a temporary alteration of local groundwater "'Q) .... ,!G I .c::>-. 'M cd l-l .... f10wo Careless dewatering discharges could result in increas ed l-l 1-10 :>-. erosion and the introduction of suspended sediments and other Q)I=! ....� Q) of: pollutants into existing watercourses. I il cd cd � o 1-1 Q) ILl � Q) I=! E-< Q) .c: The mo st significant impact previously associated with the 1-1 U � Q) � Q) .c: 1-1 III III .c: of lowland swamp s right s-o f-way in the proj ect area ...... ;:l Q) ..j .... 0 .... C""l l-l crossing by E-< .0 .... \D ou \D ..j \D 0 0\ 0 \D \D I"- 0 Ul cd cd co III 1-1 ..j N ..j N N co \D II") 1l El has been drainage disruptions . Slow swamp flows have been ILl .... C""l ;:l ..j C""l 0 1"-. 0 C""l 1"-...... l-l 0 'M . cdO C""l ft E-< " N . . II") 0 :::; N' 1-1 obstructed by the effective damming action of the right s-of-wayo ILl cd 4-1 II") III .... N .... \D 0\ N .... N 0 II") .... \D .... I"- 4-1 4-1 U H 1>0 Q) co C""l co co 0 N 0 This ha.s resulted in raising the water level on the upstream H!'Q ..j 0 I> Q) 0 0 0 C""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C""l 0 0 0 II") Q) <11 III II") l-l cd III l-l l-l l-l . ft l-l l-l l-l l-l l-l 0 . III .... :>-''1:1 .c: Q) II") ..j co II") .... Q) side of the rights-of-way , thus killing the timb er growing l-l l=! C""l .... 0 co \D 0\ \D 0\ ..j 0 0 I"- .... � 'M cd 0\ otl l"- N 0 ..j II") ..j C""l \D co .... II") .... there. This has been mitigated by the use of suitably spaced �� l-llil \D l-l 0 co C""l 0 ..j 0 co .... � 'M II") ft r: ""!, ";, cd cross ditches which maintain the natural flow and existing water � <11 �g N '1:1 0 0 N ...... j C""l co ..j � ILl Q) III ...... Q) � 5:H2 &tl l-lQ) levels in areas adj acent to the rights-of-way o If cross ditches � H cd U Q) Q) �E-< Po 1-1 1-1 .0 H 'M were not used or became ob structed, this type of impact could E:l O ;:l cd E-< uo '1:1 'M III III .... recuro l-l Q) ;:l U 0 � �� 1-1 ;3 on �§p ...... ;:l Table 5 presents a compilation of available data OA lIlil ...., 0 :>-. Ul � 'M 0 III l-l the sources of water proposed for use for hydrostatic testing . III 'M C""l El Q) Q) l-l To prevent any adverse effects on the source when test water 0 III g Po 1-1 � Q) � E-< 04-1 1-1 � H was withdrawn , only the larger sources would be used. Fish 0 1-1 Q) il 50 1-1 ....1 1-1 Q) ,!G 1-1 Q)'1:I screens would be used to prevent entrainment of fish in the Q) Q) Q) Q) ...... l-l III Q)l-l .� 'M 0 Q) � .� 1-1 Q) � n.� ...., test water. To prevent erosion and siltation when h drostatic �p.., U .� I=! cd � 1-1 1-1 1-1 .� .c: 1-1 .c: � 'M ;3 � Q) Q) 1-1 U Q) .c: � �tl ,!G £ l-l test water was discharged, the discharge rate would h e controlled. ;:l U .... 'M 'M I> Q) 1-1 .... U Q) 0 1-1 Q)'1:I Po 1-1 � .� 'M .c: Q) III I=! I=! I=! '1:1 Q) III III Ul Q) PoQ) Po Q) III 1-1 H cd 0 I=! 1-1 Q) Q) Water would be filtered or discharged to a settling pond if � l-l 'M � � .� 'Mo cd l-l l-l 1-1 ,!G 'M I> � 'M .� Q) 1-100 U 1-1 !'Q1Il p.., u III 'M 'M I=! � � I> Q) !'Qcd l-l cd suspended solids were present . It is not anticipated that any Q) 1-1 III � .,.., 0 Q) 'M I=! U'1:I 1-1 U � l-l '-'� 'M 00 '1:1 U .... Q) � 50 00 Q) I=! Q) 'M 'M significant environmental impact on hydrology and water quality cd il� cd Q)l-l III ijQ) 'M '1:1 il l-l III Ul-l .... '1:1 l-l ;:;: ;:l 'M �Q) I=! III ,!G '1:1 1-1 'M '1:1 Q) §S III I=! III would result from the proposed hydrostatic testing. o� .... o III 'M 0 'M 0 Qj 1-1 .� 8 OQ) cd 'M Q) Ul U Z cd � Ul p.., Zij � Z $ !'Q p.., U UUl 0 � ] .� .� III III The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act , Sect ion 10(a) , states I=! I=! 0 0 that "Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers U U III III III III III ...... 'M 'M system shall be administered in such a manner as to protect cd cd cd l-l l-l l-l ;:;: ;:;: and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said 0 0 0 E-< E-< E-< � � system , without , insofar as is consistent therewith , limiting 00 00 \D I"- co 'M 'M other uses do not .c: that substantially interfere with public I=! I=! I=! I=! U -5 " 0 0 0 0 'M 'M use and enj oyment of these va1ueso Po'M 'M 'M 'M � � Ol-l .... N C""l ..j II") \D l-l I"- l-l co l-l 0\ 0 o U U U U .... HQ) Q) Q) Q) ...... Ul Ul Ul Ul ;::;-, N' 32 33 I' r , I 50 Vegetation The Mississippi River is proposed to be crossed at a location where it mea nders extensively and where it would be necessary to traverse nearly a mile of associated wetlands . of the Although it is not anticipated that significant long-term Construc tion proposed pipeline looping would require env ironmental impact would occur because of the proposed crossing , the clearing of approximately 742 acres of vegetat ion for new right-of-way (3 acres per the river 's scenic , aesthetic, and scientific features would be mile) and approximately 1,485 acres disturbed for at least the duration of the proposed construction of existing right-of-way vegetation , assuming that about 50 feet of the existing right-of-way would have to be cleared. and re storation period , and the potential for long-term impact uld exist. Because a continuous pipeline loop is not required wo Construct ion of Loop area between the Shevlin and Deer River Compressor Sections 1 and 2 through northwestern in the Minnesota's prairie region relatively little adverse Stations , construction of proposed Loop Section 4 could be would have stopped short of the proposed Mississippi Rive r crossing with impact on natural vegetation , since mo st of the land is the remainder of the necessary loop mileage constructed within cu1tiv�ted o S�m� :learing of bottomland hardwood forests might a less environmentally sensitive area . (See Chapter H, occur In the vlclnlty of streams such as the South Fork Twin '�lternatives to the Proposed Action .'� River, Lost River, and Clearwater River, which could have local adverse effects on soil stability , hindering revegetation efforts. Winter construct ion through the bogs of proposed Loop Construction through, prairie wetlands would exert temporary Section 5 should mitigate most significant hydrologic impact. adverse impact on this vegetation, but these areas would recover However, overestimating the amount of sub sidence that would occur readily if the existing water r�gime were preserved. with the ice-rich backfill could result in the formation of a berm and sub sequent bog drainage disruption o Pipeline construct ion through forested areas would require ! I ; removal of trees , resulting in relatively long-term impact. The [ No significant impact on surface or groundwater quality is northern continental climate results in a lengthy recovery time antic ipated from the normal operation and maintenance of the f�r cut-over areas , as exemplified by the low density and small proposed facilities . Gas escaping from severe leaks or rupture Slze of trees on the 10-year old existing right-of-wayo The of the pipeline has a low solubility in water and would be construction right-of-way would attain a stabilizing cover of quickly dissipated. However, repairs or maintenance work at herbaceous vegetation fairly rapidly , however, and the unmaintained stream crossings or in wetlands could cause impacts similar to right-of-way border would eventually become reforestedo Such those incurred during construction . Repair or maintenance impact impact would occur along Loop Sections 3 through 100 would be greater than construction impact if summer repair or maintenance work were necessary in the wetland areas proposed to Construct ion through wetlands could potentially exert be crossed in the winter . significant adverse impact on these communities if waterflow patterns were altered. The interruption of normal waterflow in wetlands of the Great Lakes states by roads , railroads ' and pipelines ha s reportedly damaged thousands of acres of timber by flooding tree root zones in the drainage above obs tructions and drying lands below the obstructionso Pipeline construction could cause this effect by leaving a raised berm across a we tland or by compacting the porous surface layers of bog soil , where much of the waterflow occurs. Following construction of the existing Great Lakes ma inline , a berm 1-foot high remained over the backfilled trench across a 20-mi1e stretch of bog forest where proposed Loop Section 4 would be bui1to This berm still persists. Bog forests would be slow to recover from clearing because tree growth is very slow in these communities, although shrubby plants such as alders may recover fairly rapidly 0 Although wetlands occur along all of the propo sed loop sections , Sections 4, 5, and 8 would traverse particularly extensive wetland areas- -primari1y bog and bog foresto 34 35 r -� I I In areas of lakebed clay soils and other erodible sub strates on steep slopes , vegetation recovery could be inhibited None of the federally protected endangered or threatened by eros ion un less preventative measures were carried out . species or their habitats would be significantly impacted by Loop Sections 6 and 7 would traverse limited areas where erosion the proposed proj ec� . Since the peregrine fa lcon �ccurs only hazards have been notedo as a rare migrant , 1t would not be affect�d by . ha�1ta� loss or I disrup tion of nesting . The proposed 100p1ng w1th1n M1nnesota, with the exception of Loop Section 1, are located at the periphery of the timber wolves' range in Minnesota . The 6. Wildlife density of wolves in this part of its range is very low comp�red to the northeastern part of the state o The proposed br�aden1ng of the existing rights-of-way would not have any apprec1able Destruction of wildlife habitat during construction would impact on wolves in the vicinity of the proj ecto be confined to the existing rights-of-way and the 25-foot extensiono Grading and vegetation clearing in up land areas The proposed pipeline loopi�g would be located wi�hin the would remove food sources of browsing and foraging species which range of bald eagles which nest 1n the Great Lakes reg10no feed on the shrubs , herbs , and grasses within and adj acent to Construct ion of the looping is scheduled for late summer a�d the existing rights-of-way . This reduction would be minor and winter and would avoid the periods of nest selection , nest1ng , temporary if the rights-of-way are quickly revegetatedo Trees and rearing of young when the birds are mo st sensit�ve to human cleared from the rights-of-way would represent a minor loss of disturbance . Since the looping would be located ad� acent to feeding and nesting sites for woodland birds such as warblers , existing rights-of-way , there would be no increase 1n human chickadees, and woodpeckers o disturbance of remote areas which are usually favored for nest sites . Inspection of the right s-of-way by airp�an� overflight Construction activities could destroy slow-moving an imals could cause disturbance of eagle nesting, but th1s 1mpact could be such as reptiles , amphibians , and small mammals o Since avoided by proper scheduling and location of overflightso construction would occur in late summer or winter when the reproductive season of most species would be over, destruct ion Loop Section 4 would cross part of the Chippewa National of young animals in nests and dens would be avoided . This Forest which is a maj or breeding area for bald eagles . About construct ion schedule would also reduce any disturbance of 100 pairs are known to nest in the fore�t's 1,650,000 �cre� noise- sensitive species during their breeding seasons o of land and water. In th is maj or breed1ng area , the p1pe11ne would be constructed within a transmi ssion corridor wh ich avoids The permanent rights-o f-way would be maintained to prevent eagle nesting siteso The proposed pipeline would the refore be the establishment of large trees and shrubs . This increase in expected to have no effect on eagle nesting in the forest. open acreage within up land forest might have beneficial effects on some animal species, but it is unlikely that there WDuld be Although several species listed by Minnesota , Wisconsin , any significant changes in local wildlife populations . Where and Michigan as rare , endangered , or having declining populations the routes cross cropland or pastur� there would be little impact are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed proj ect, on wildlife since the lands would return to their prev ious construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not condition following construction o Any detrimental effects on be expected to significantly affect ,their populations o wildlife would be limited to the short construction periods o Construction of the proposed pipeline looping would require Construct ion in the bog forests and swamp s should not have crossing numerous rivers and strearns o Many of these waterways any impact on wildlife other than that previously de scribed. (see Table 2) are of exceptionally high quality and support Obstruction of waterflow by the pipeline could cause a reduction important trout fisheries 0 Since high water quality mu st be in tree growth and in some cases , the death of trees in areas maintained in these trout waters , the pipeline crossings of adj acent to the rights-of-way . This would cause an additional these rivers and streams present a potential for significant loss of habitat for some species of fo rest wildlife ; however , local environmental damageo other species might benefito Most problems of obstructed waterflow can be minimized or eliminated by proper construct ion methods during pipeline installation. 36 37 1 Removal of streamside vegetation , grading by heavy Approximately 4 1 percent of the proposed looping would construction equipment , and pipeline trenching result in cross bogs and bog forests . The impact on these resources is increased erosion , turbidity, and si1tation o Severe turbidity more fully discussed in Sections C.4 and C.5. Approximately and sil tation can cause the destruct ion of eggs , fry benthic 35 pe rcent of the proposed looping would be constructed in organisms , and vegetation , decrease light penetratio� and forest 1andso dissolved oxygen , and cause an overall reduction in the divers ity and "health" of the aquatic environmento Sediment carried by Trees within the broadened rights�of-way would be cleared and the corridors maintained in an early successional state runoff from the exposed rights-of-way can contribute to T siltation problems . Clearing of streamside vegetation not on ly e1imina� ing forest reso�rces for the life of the proj ect. he contributes to siltation but also reduces shade which helps cumu1at�v� e�f�ct of th�s expansion would not be serious ; keep down water temperatureso however, �nd�v�dua1 property owne rs might suffer some adverse impacts 0 These include a possible loss of timb er income and Trenching operations in the stream and river beds would increas�d encroachment of the cleared rights-of-way into private cause destruction of benthic organisms which are an important propert�eso food source for many species . This direct impact would be restricted to a small area which could quickly be repopulated Approximately 24 percent of the proposed looping would be if a suitable substrate is provided and water quality remains constructed on agricultural or pasture lands . No long-term high o impact wO\;ld 'be expected on these lands ; however, crop or pasture w�th�n, the expanded rights-of-way would be lost for an The degree to which any of the stream and river environments average of one to two growing seasons. These lands would be are affected by pipeline construction va ries among the streams , al lowed to return to their original use after constructiono but in general the impacts are temporary , though during !he proposed route does not ppear to conflict with any construction they may be mo derately severe near the crossing o , � However , if proper erosion control measures such as bank stabi off�c�a1 local land use plan exam�ned by the staff to date D There might be some temporary disruptions when the construction lization , revegetation , and continued inspection and maintenance i of the rights-of-way are not implemented, there is a potential passed through or near residentia areas , but this is expected for long-lasting local impact on water quality and aquatic 1ife o to be minimal . Some incidences of inadequate bank stabilization and resulting erosion have been noted at river crossings associated with the existing Great Lakes pipe1ine o Use of the rights-of-way by off-road vehicles has further induced and aggravated erosion b) Recreation problems at some sites along the Great Lakes right-of-way . The maj or impact on recreation would come during the construction of the loop sections through national and state recreation areas o Visitors to the parks and forests crossed 7. Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics would be exposed to noise from. the heavy machinery and dust from clearing and excavation . Often these activities. would be �dj acent to or within sight of campsites o Although constru ction a) Land Use �n each area would be short , the danger is that visitors might associate the entire recreation area with the construction � Construction of the proposed 245 miles of looping would thus reducing use. After construction was completed ' th require the commitment of an additional 742 acres of land as impact would be minimal. established rights-of-way for the life of the pr oj ect. This acreage is minimal , because it represents the addition of only 25 feet to the existing 75-foot wide rights-of-way. The effect of this expansion will vary with the land traversedo c) Aesthetics The aesthetic impact of this proj ect is difficult to quantify. Although the cleared rights-of-way are seen as an artificial landform in forested areas , the effect of broadening 38 39 7'- these artificial forms may not be as damaging as the establishment readily estimated. Michigan-Wisconsin , however , has estimated of new corridors . In mo st cases , the broadened rights-of-way that its portion of the proj ect , proposed Loop Sections 9 and would probably not be perceived as anything more than an 10 and the expansion of the two compressor stations , would incremental addition to the intrusion resulting from the existing provide approximately $35 ,000 per year to counties in Michigan corridors and therefo re would have minimal impact. and $84,000 per year to count ies in Wisconsino Similar figures are not available fo r the Great Lake s portion of the proj ect . A specific instance where broadening the existing rights of-way could have a potentially significant impact would occur at the propo sed upper Mississippi River crossing within Loop Section 4. This portion of the river has been proposed for 9. Cultural Re sources inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River Systemo The looping would parallel and widen an existing right-of-way at this point , thus increasing the aesthetic impact of the crossingo Impact on cultural resources due to construction of the propo sed pipeline looping sections cannot be determined un til site identification studies are performedo A lack of known sites in an area is a better indication that surveys have not been 80 Socioeconomic Considerat ions made rather than an indication that there are no cultural propertieso The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer cites a recent survey nearby in which only 2 of the 30 sites The socioeconomic impact of the proposed pipeline looping discovered (ioeo , less than 7 percent) had been previously proj ect includes many of the same elements of any other pipeline recorded. The rights-of-way along which the propos ed looping construction projecto Communities near the pipeline routes sections would be constructed cross many streams and near a would experience the temporary benefits of increased purchases great number of lakes and marshes. Prehistoric sites would be of goods and services by transient construction crews . Mo st of expected in these areas because aboriginal peoples tended to the region has an excess service system capacity , so no burden settle near water, often within a thousand feet of streams or on local facilities from this short -term demand would be expected. lakes 0 Division of the construct ion into two phases would further t limit this impact. In agricultural areas , short-term mino r Direct and indirec adverse impact to intact portions of economic losses might be incurred because of the disruption to cultural properties on or near the proposed rights-of-way could crops and cultivation and harvesting schedules . Grazing occur as a re sult of any terrain modificat ions , such as land animals might have to be temporarily relocated, which could clearing , grading , quarrying for fill material , trenching , involve economic costs . Landowners would be compensated for backfil ling, and heavy equipment movement . Construct ion of the losses by the app1icants, and all agricultural land would be ma inlines which the proposed looping would parallel may have restored to its original use after construction. disturbed cultural resources over or near which it passedo However, the degree of disturbance would vary so that there There �ight be some minor socioeconomic �mpact from still may be intact portions of sites on the rights-of-way 0 construction on the two Indian reservations . Short-term disruptions of hunting and fishing areas might occur. If properly arranged with tribal representatives prior to construction , such impact is expected to be minima10 10 0 Air and Noise Quality Installation of the addit ional compressor units at the Mountain and Kewaskum stations would have a negligible socio a) Air Quality economic impact on the region . D�ring the const:uction of the propo sed pipeline looping, The maj or economic impact of pipeline operation would be the ma1n sources of a1r pollutants would be the exhausts from the addition of the proposed facilities to the tax baseo Tax the gaso1ine- and diesel-powered construction equipment and assessment procedures vary considerably in different jurisdictions, fugitive dust from general construction activitieso Under and therefore the total tax benefits of this proj ect cannot be 40 41 unfavorable meteorological conditions , exhaust emissions could cause a localized increase in amb ient pollutant concentrations . Since pipeline construct ion in undeveloped areas typically r--. t:") "'co proceeds at the rate of about 1 mile per day� the impact at 00 00 any specific location wou ld be sho rt-term. The en tire 125 00 miles of Phase I pipeline looping proposed by Great Lakes would �I 00 be constructed over a 3-month period. Fugitive dust from vehicular traffic on unpaved roads , materials stockpiling , and grading , trenching, and backfilling operations would be an additional source of particulate ma tter Q) Q) Q) Q) CJ CJ CJ CJ (PM) emissions . The extent of dust generation would depend on C\1 C\1 C\1 C\1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 the level of construct ion activity and soil compo sition and �I HH HH dryness. Because of their relatively large diameter, dust particles te�d to settle in the vicinity of the construct ion site . However , dry and windy weather could create a nuisance . '0 for any nearby residences , if proper dust suppression techniques C\1 were no t implemented. o � � Land clearing wastes from the rights-of-way might be disposed � of by open burning in some locations , after the appropriate 81 burning permits bad been obtained. The smoke from open burning tB 4-l could cause a temporary nuisance fo r nearby residences. o "'H +J During the operat ional phase , the primary sources of ·H P emissions directly related to the proposed proj ect would be the �z Q) co CJ two compressor station additions required to transport Phase I l 1-1 �I Q) gas volumes. The existing compressor facilities would be p.. adequate to transport the gas volumes proposed for Phase I of o this proj ect . Minor emissions would also result from occasional co pipeline maintenance and repair activities. Q) 1-1 C\1 The maximum daily emissions for the proposed 3,500-hp CI) comp ressor addition to the Kewaskum Compressor Station are �I P o listed in Table 6. On an annual basis , this un it would emit .,-j approximately 80 tons of NO and much lower quantities of the +J x .,-j remaining pollutants . At this time , no Federal emission '0 standards apply to this un it . However, on October 3, 1977, P co " o EPA proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for gas r--. H CJ NH turbines larger than 1,000 hp . Emissions of NOx and sulfur I co dioxide (S02) would be limited to 75 and 150 ppm , respectively. lI"\Q) P When finally promulgated, the NSPS would immediately apply to � § 'j U � C\1 new , modified , and reconstructed gas -turbines greater than o 1-1 10,000 hp, wh ile smaller un its would be exempted for 5 years . :> Q) o p.. from the date of the proposal. Although the actual sc hedule Z "0 p... for implementing Phase II is uncertain at this time , it is +J P likely that the NSPS would apply to the 3,500-hp compressor Q) C\1 addition. Ullder current regulati.ons , the unit would not �� o 0 qualify as a "major source" as de fined by EPA , since the A U emissions of any pollutant are less than 100 tons per year, and a detailed amb ient air quality analysis is not required. Q) Q) CJ CJ 1-1 Q) � +J o g o CJ) CJ) Z 42 ...... � I 43 ------, Table 6 lists the maximum daily emissions for the proposed increase daytime noise levels. Nighttime noise levels would 12, 000-hp compressor addition at the Mountain Compressor not be affected, since construction would be limited to dayt ime Station . These emissions estimates reflect the reduction in hours . Construction no ise levels at the nearest res idence , approxima tely 100 NOx emissions required by the NSPS . located feet from the pipeline , are estimated to range from 75 to 85 dBA o Exposure to such noise levels has Stack data estima tes are not available for the proposed been identified as causing outdoor activity in terference and 12 ,000-hp compressor addition , due to the possible engine annoyance . modifications required to comply with the NSPS. Therefore, the combined impacts on amb ient air quality from bo th existing Operational noise levels would be limited to the two and proposed compressors at the Mountain Compressor Station were compressor additions o Since the noise environments in the estimated based on the stack data available for the uprated vicinity of each stat ion are controlled by the existing 12, 000-hp compressor. 1/ Maximum short period concentrations compressors , the noise from the additional compressors would for various combinations of windspeed and atmospheric stability have only a minor impact. Assuming that the compressor additions class were estimated us ing EPA's PTMAX program. The analysis would double the magnitude of the noise emissions at each found a maximum 1-hour level of 28 Mg/m3 for N02 and 8 pgtm3 station , property line noise levels would. increase by 3 dBA . for CO o Short period concentrations of the remaining pollutants At the nearest res idence to the Kewaskum Compressor Station , would be negligible . The contribution to the annual ave rage the impact would be a slightly noticeable increase in perceived N02 level would be 1 to 2 pg/m3 and would have little impact on sound 0 The neare st residence to the Mountain Compressor the national amb ient air quality standard of 100 �g/m3 o The Station , over a mile away , would not experience an increase in impact on the other standards would be negligible . the ambient no ise environment 0 No Federal or state noise regulation would apply to this type of faci1ityo New sources of air pol lution having a heat input greater than 30 million Btu per hour are reviewed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The department issues an approval after it determines that the source would comply with the appropriate emission standards and would not violate any amb ient air quality standards (the Wisconsin and national amb ient standards are identica1)o Both of the proposed compressor station additions would require review by the stateo The only state emission standard applicable to the compressor additions would limit PM emissions to 0015 pound per million Btu heat input . The use of natural gas would permit compliance with this standard. No state S02 or NOx emission standards apply to either unit . . b) Noise Quality Pipeline construction would have only a minor impact on the no ise environment in most locations since the maj or portion of construc tion would occur in remote areas having few permanent residences 0 In those areas where residences are located near the pipeline route , construction activities would temporarily 1/ Stack height = 30 ft o, stack diameter = 505 fto , stack o temperature = 670 F,' stack velocity = 105 ft o/seco 45 44 D. MEASURES TO AVOID OR MITIGATE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The most significant circums tance serving to mitigate the environmental impact of this projec,t is that all of the pipeline loop sections would be constructed on or adj acent to existing rights-of-way , and only areas previous ly impacted by pipeline cons truction would be involved . Experience obtained during construc t ion of the exist ing mainl ine and right-of-way restora tion would allow the applicants to anticipate areas particularly sens itive to impact and apply preventative or remedial measures. The applicants have indicated that adverse environmental impact would be mitigated or avoided through use of the following procedures: --On cultivated lands with fertile topsoil, the "double-ditching" method of construc t ion would be used . This method preserves topsoil for placement on top of the backfilled trench after construction . Growers would be reimbursed for crop losses suffered as a result of construc t ion across cultivated land . --Any drain tile cut during trenching would be replaced, with particular attention given to reestablishing the original tile line gradient and alignment . The pipeline would be . placed far enough below tile repairs to insure that it wo uld not interfere with normal drain tile operation . All repairs would be made so as to satisfy the landowner or tenant . --Backfill would be compacted where the pipeline looping would cross ditches , terraces , banks or levees . Rock or sandbag riprapping and runoff divers ion channels or terraces would be provided where necessary , especially on slopes . --Exp losives would be used only in accordance with required permits and authorization , under supervision of a licensed blasting expert . Mats would be used to contain explosion debris . --The backfilled rights-of-way would be graded and re stored to the ir original contours and stabilized by seeding , fertilizing , and mu lching or by sodding and mu lch ing . Nat ive sod pegged in place would be preferred to seeding on steep banks . A mixture of red fescue , sheep fescue , bluegrass, redtop , rye grass , clover , and/or other appropriate species might be used on mineral soils . Redtop , timo thy , clover , and reed canary grass may be used for wet, organic soils . --The restored rights-of-way would be periodically patrolled to detec t washouts, and immediate remedial action would be taken if any were found . 47 --As many existing trees on streambanks would be preserved as Permit conditions established by local and regional possible . Streamb anks would be restored to their former grade authorit ies in granting permission to cross public lands would and stab ilized by a revetment of earth and cement-filled bags be instrumental in mitigating adverse impac t. These conditions or rocks or by use of a retaining wall and supplemental are often based on intimate local knowledge of the a�eas to be riprapping and by revegetation of the banks . crossed and may serve to mitigate impact on specific sens itive areas . Private lands are usually not afforded this type of - -Full waterflow would be ma intained during construct ion at protection . stream crossings and turb idity controlled by the use of turbidity .depressants such as silt screens . Crossings would The staff believes that the applicants could further be timed to avoid fish spawning periods . mitigate or avo id potential adverse impact through the use of· procedures recommended in Chapter I,"Conclusions and Recommenda --Only the larger streams would be used as sources of hydrostatic tions .11 test water, and fish screens would be used during test water intake . Hydrostatic test water would be cascaded between tesf sections when possible , thereby reducing the vo lume of test water needed and the frequency of discharges . Discharge rates would be controlled and only approved discharge loca tions used . Discharges would be controlled by prohib iting open-end draining ot the pipe, and through flow control reservoirs or settling ponds where appropriate . --Existing waterflow and circulation patterns would be preserved in wetlands by restoring the orig inal land contour and providing cross-drainage ditches across the backfilled trench where appropriate . Drainage along the pipe would be prevented . Impervious plugs would be used to seal' swamp and ma rsh edges , preventing drainage downslope . --Floodwood Swamp would be crossed during the winter wh ile frozen , as would the Mississippi and Bad River� , thereby allowing conventional construct ion techniques to be used . --Construc t ion would be timed to avoid nesting seasons and periods of high migratory bird density when crossing streams and wetlands . Specifically, construct ion during late summe r or winter would avoid any impact on migrating waterfowl at the proposed crossings of the South Branch Two Rivers , the Clearwater River , and the Lost River in western Minnesota . Right-of-way revegetation would restore potential wildlife habitat. --A ranger from each state and nat ional fore st crossed would review plans and be detailed to the construction crew . --The Indian tribal counc ils of the Leech Lake and Bad River Ind ian Reservations would be asked to name a representative to review plans far crossing these reserva t ions . --Should cultural resources be discovered during construction , prompt action would be taken to fac ilitate the removal and preservation of disturbed artic les . The State Archaeologist wou.ld be notified to determine the discovery ' s significance and to initiate follow-up procedures. 49 48 i E. UNAVO IDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Regardless of the planning involved and precaut ions taken to prevent damage to the environment , construct ion activities will always result in some adverse environmental impact. The impact may be minor , to the extent that it goes unnoticed , may be cumulative and appear only in later stages , or may 'readily be seen and measured . The removal of forests and other vegetation for the rights of-way would result in lower primary productivity, the loss of s ome crops , the increased vulnerability of soils to erosion, and an adverse visual-aesthetic impact. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the local environment because some areas would involve more vegetation removal than others . For example , use of the existing rights-of-way entails less clearing , and the maj ority of the visual , aesthetic , and environmental changes would have already occurred . The impact of the vegetation removed in a farm field would depend on the season of construction . If construction took place before crops were to be harvested , the economic loss would be greatest. The cons truc tion process of trench excavation would leave land scars that would be visible for several years . The fertile topsoils cannot always be replaced in the ir original postion , and altered struc ture or nutrient losses may lower soil fertility. Some sed iment -related damage to the aquatic ecosystems would occur where the pipeline crossed a waterway _ The impact would vary , but there would be greater impact in the watercourses wh ich flow faster , have more fine ma terial in their beds and floodplain , or are fish resource streams . A stream with a comb ination of all these factors would have the greatest leve l of damage from sed imentation resulting from pipeline construction. Sediment-related damage could affect the aquatic life of a waterway through direct mechanical damage , such as abrasion, and indirect damage from loss of hab itat or food supply organisms . In some cases , an increase in the biochemical oxygen demand of the water would occur because nutrient-rich sed iments would be released into suspension . Pipeline construc tion through wetlands would entail a significant risk of disturbance to existing water circulatidn patterns and possible damage to wetland's beyond the immed iate pipeline rights-of-way areas. No structures would be permitted on the pipeline rigpts of-way , thup restricting res idential and commercial development in their paths . This could cause an adverse economic impact. Assoc iated with the pipeline construction would be the adverse impact of increased noise levels , vehicle exhaust emissions 51 F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN 'S and particulates released to the air , and disruption of traffic ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF on roadways where the bore and casement method is not used . LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Construc tion at the compressor stations would also result in increased noise levels . The operation of the comp ressor engines would result in the emiss ion of carbon dioxide , water vapor , The construction and operation of the proposed facilities unburned natural gas , sulfur dioxide , nitrogen oxides , and would involve short-term uses of the environment during the particulates to the atmosphere . life of the pipeline systems involved and would affect some aspects of the environment's long-term productivity . Additional land occupied by the proposed facilities would be preempted from other productive use on a short-termba sis ; soil, air quality, water, and visual resources committed to the proj ect would also experience short-term impact. Timber and mineral production , res idential development , and certain types of recreational activity would be curtailed on the pipeline rights-of-way for the life of the proj ecto Wildlife would avoid the rights-of-way areas during construction , and some species might be eliminated from the rights-of-way for the life of the pipeline faci1itieso Balanced against these short-term uses of the environment would be a short-term gain from the use of a relat ively c1ean burning fuel in the applicants' general market area. After termination of pipeline operat ions , the lands and environmental resources could return to their former use or function with little or no permanent reduction in their pr oductive capacity . Biological resources damaged during construction and operation of the facilities would mo st probably regain their former productivity . Among the possible long-term consequences of the facilities would be the intangib les of decreased wilderness area and negative aesthetic effects which would constitute a loss of environmental productivity to area residents, recreationa1ists, natural scientists , and others who value wilderness lands and scenic areas . However, because this proj ect would result in only an expansion of existing pipeline rights-of-way , long-term losses of this type would be minimal. 53 52 I G. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Quantities of energy , materials , labor, and financ ial resources would be committed to the construct ion and operation of the proposed pipeline facilities. Because of the nature of the pipeline looping project, additional fue l requirements would be limited to tha t consumed by the 15 , 500 hp of compression fac ilities proposed to be installed on the Michigan Wiscons in system during Phase II of the project. Since this operating fue l would be expended to make available sign ificant new quantities of gas to a large distribut ion system, it is a minor use of fuel resources . The commingled synthetic and natural gas transported through the proposed fac ilities would be ultimately consumed and , therefore , irretrievably lost. Any loss of soil through erosion, inj ury to endangered biota, or destruc tion of archaeo10gic resources would be irrevers ible and irretrievable . However , preventative measures are expected to significantly reduce losses of this type . No resources othe r than those connected with energy and material expenditures would be irretrievably lost. 55 H. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The alternatives to implementing the proposed project inc lude : 1) Utilization of the proposed Northern Border pipeline 2) Alternative placement of pipeline loop sections 3) The alternative of no action These alternatives are discus sed in the following pages . Alternatives related to the coal gasification comp lex , such as energy sources , plant and process design , sit ing , resource utilization , and SNG product pipeline routes , except for the Northern Border a1ter�ative , have been adequately discussed in Chapter 8 of Interior 's FE IS . 1. Utilization of the Proposed Northern Border Pipeline The mo st attrac t ive alternative to the proposed pipeline looping project would utilize the 42-inch diameter pipeline proposed by Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border) in Docket No . CP78-124 (formerly CP74-290) to transport the proposed SNG from Me rcer County , North Dakota , to the designated recip ient gas companies , Michigan Wiscons in and Natural, in the upper Midwest. This transportation alternative would not only substitute for the 245 miles of looping proposed along the Great Lakes and Michigan Wiscons in systems , but would affi o avoid construct ion of all but approximately 25 miles of the proposed 365-mi1e long SNG product pipeline , thus eliminating approxi mately 585 miles of pipeline construction . 1/ The Northern Border pipeline (part of the A1can Pipeline-Proj ect) , proposed as the eastern leg of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, would extend for 1,117 miles from Monchy , Canada,to Dwight , Illinois , passing through Me rcer County, North Dakota , just south of the proposed gasificat ion comp lex . The Northern Border project has been approved by the Pres ident of the Un ited States and the Congress under the Alaska Natural Gas Transporta tion Act and was cond itona11y certific ated by the FERC on December 16 , 1977. The Northern Border alternative , illustrated in Figure 2 , would involve construc t ion of approximately 25 miles of non jurisdictional SNG product pipeline �/ from the proposed 1/ The proposed Northern Border pipeline is expected to pass within 25 miles of the gasification comp lex . 2:../ Only those facilities required to receive the SNG , i.e. , the interconnection, and to trans�ort the commingled gas are presently under the jurisdict�on of the FERC . 57 I I gasification complex , and an interconnection between the SNG I MANITOBA pipeline and the proposed Northern Border pipeline . The proposed _ - - - - SNG delivered to Northern Border at a point· approxi - - - __ �\ would be I L ONTARIO : \ mately 10 miles south of Beulah , North Dakota , where it would \ be commingled with Alaskan and/or Canadian natural gas . �\../'"-""l.... I...f'\. Northern Border would then transport and deliver the commingled ''''-'''\._�- gas to Michigan Wisconsin at a proposed interconnection in Bureau County , Illinois , and to Natural at one or both of two proposed interconnect ions in LaSalle and Grundy Counties , Illinois . The Northern Border system would require either additional compression at seven stations between the receiving point in North Dakota and the delivery points in Illinois , or larger diameter pipe , or a higher operating pressure to handle the ultimate 275 million scfd of SNG . These modifications are WISCONSIN both technically and economically feasible. Both Michigan Wisconsin and Natural appear to have sufficient capac ity in their respect ive pipeline systems to receive and transport the scheduled Alaskan volumes plus the proposed volumes of commingled gas ; no additional facility requirements are therefore anti cipated . 1./ '- " The alternative SNG product pipeline route would traverse ------�------" predominately grassland prairie and agricultural lands similar IOWA to those surrounding the proposed ?asification comp lex site as described in Chapter 2 of Interior s FE IS. Among the rights of-way potentially availab le for the SNG pipeline , a proposed " 345/500 kilovolt transmission line right-of-way which would ���:;�����NG � DELIVERY POINTS ,. proceed southward from the proposed Antelope Valley power plant l/ TO NATURAL -==�o;;;j===-� TO MICHIGAN - would provide the most direct route . Wh ile this routing would WISCONSIN encounter several small watercourses , i.e. Spring Creek , the Knife River, and possibly Coyote Creek , it is not expected that o LOCATION OF PROPOSED GASIFIC"AT ION COMPLEX surface water impact beyond that described in Sect ion 3.1.2.d I __ GREAT LAKES GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANV* \I of Interior 's FE IS would be sustained . Other environmental ___ MICHIGAN W.ISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANV* ILLINOIS impact reSUlting from construct ion of the alternative SNG pipe ••••••••• NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA \ line would be similar to that described in Chapter 3 of APPLICANT'S PROpOSED SNG PRODUCT PIPELINE Interior 's FE IS for the proposed SNG pipeline route , but would Figure 2 APPROXIMATE ROUTE OF PROPOSED NORTHERN BORDER PIPELINE be much less extensive , affecting oril y about 25 miles of • � � < ••• � • ALTERNATIVE SNG PRODUCT PIPELINE right-of-way corridor rather than the 345-mi1e long route Applicants' Proposed SNG Transportation Arrangement APPROXIMATE LOCAT IONS OF PROPOSED NORTHERN BORDER proposed . PIPELINE COMPRESSOR STATIONS And The Northern Border Alternative * THOSE SECTIONS ILLUSTRATED IN GRAY REPRESENT THE 10 PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS 58 1/ Based on information filed in Docket Nos . CP76-43 and CP76-44 . The Antelope Valley Station , proposed by the Bas in Electric Power Cooperative , would be an 880-megawatt lignite-fired steam electric generating plant to be located adj ac ent to the proposed gasification complex . 59 I ...�. \ to In comparison to the proposed SNG transportation system, The Pres ident 's Dec is ion and Report Congress on the the Northern Border alternative is clearly environmentally Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System discusses the pos si superior . Its impact would be minimal considering that only bility of predelivery of Canad ian natural gas under existing place of Alaskan gas e nstruct ion would licenses in as a means of making effectiv about 25 miles of new pipeline co be involved Alaskan gas possible pr compared to the 365 miles of new SNG pipeline and a total of delivery of ior to actual comp letion of the entire Alcan pipeline system. 245 miles of pipeline looping required in the applicants ' Under this proposal , the portions of the Alcsn pipeline (inc lud ing the Furthermore , because all looping requirements on southern sys tem proposal . Northern Border pipeline) would be constructed first. De l iveries the Great Lake s and Michigan Wisconsin pipeline systems would of excess natural gas from Alberta could reach 1.1 billion scfd be. eliminated , pipeline construc tion would be avo ided in the by the winter of 1979-1980 . Recent ind ications from the Canadian numerous federally owned and other wetlands in Minnesota government tha t inc reased exports may indeed be authorized have Wisconsin , and Michigan . 1/ ' increased the likelihood of early construction of the Northern Border pipeline . Contracts have recently been signed between The applicants currently intend to form a consortium of pipeline companies to finance and own the gasification c�mplex Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd . and Northwe st Alaskan Pipeline Company (formerly Alcan Pipeline Company) for the sale of 1.04 and presumab ly its SNG output . Should such an arrangemen t come about , the Northern Border alternative could offer an additional billion scfd of Alberta gas , much of wh ich would be transported through the prop�sed Northern Border pipeline . adva�t�ge in that wider �istri�ution of the SNG among several part�c �pants may be poss�ble w�th a minimum of new facilities . Use of the Northern Border alternative has been estimated to save approximately $125 million 2/ over the construc tion cost of the proposed SNG transportation system. 3/ Un it cost of-service for transporting the SNG by way of Nor thern Border has b�en estimated at 37 .70 cents/Mcf comp ared to 65 .05 cents/ Mc f w�th the proposed system. �/ A potential problem facing use of this alte rnative concerns the timing of the coal gasification and Northern Border proj ects . As currentl¥ pr�posed , th� gasification complex would begin 2. Alternative Placement of Pipe line Loop Sect ions SNG product�on �n 1982�wh�le the Northern Border pipeline would not be completed until 1983 . There is a distinct possibility however , that the Northern Border pipel ine may be construc ted ' The FERC staff ha s investigated alternative locations for sooner than �983 to receive inc reased natural gas imports from the proposed pipeline loop sections to determine whether environ Canada . It �s also possible that the gasification comp lex could mental impact of the proj ect could be reduced by avoiding be delayed by a number of factors inc lud ing financ ing or construction in sensitive areas . During review of the proposed construct ion difficulties or a prolonged start-up period . loop sections , the staff found that areas potential ly sensitive to significant adverse impact would be crossed by Loop Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Alternative locations were sought for constructing these sections in an attempt to reduce the number 11 Approximately 97 .9 miles of the proposed looping would be of environmentally sens itive areas wh ich would be affected . constructed on land class ified as bog or bog forest. The arrangement of new looping sections along an existing 1976 dollars . mainline is flexible within certain technical and economic limits . G. Patrick Sanders , Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff ' hearing testimony in the ma tter of Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Company , Docket No� CP75-278, et al ., March 6, 1978. / Ib id . 60 6 1 Avoiding the need for additional compression requires a rela tive ly even distribut ion of loop sect ions along the system. The loop lengths proposed by the applicants represent the length of pipe required between compressor stations to transport the additional gas vo lume s without inc reas ing system compression and fue l use . Therefore , repos itioning the same length of pipe between two compressor stat ions along the mainline segment proposed to be looped was cons idered a reasonable means of ' The alternate Phase II portion of Loop Sect ion 4 would cross more cultivated lands and other private ho ldings , possibly inc reasing the cost of right-of-way acquis ition . However, savings in construc t ion , restoration , and ma intenance costs � would probably be real ized by eliminat ing wetlands construct ion z 0 .. .. ;:: 0 0 9 9 � � fil rr: ;; w 1/ Re location of both phases of Sect ion 4 adjacent to the Shevl in � 0 w -' " '" I- '" MP MP !2 � � :> M Compressor Station (between 131.4 and 150 .2) would further 0 z If !< If ffi :I; I;; limit the potential environmental impact of construction . I" !:i 8 !z '" � However , this would necessitate crossing another reach of the i.l � z :; Mi s sissippi River (also proposed for inclus ion in the Wild and il: � '" � i;i Scenic River System) and reduce the total loop length by 2.2 miles , thus reduc ing pipeline capacity . II 62 I � � 11 63 1 and a maj or river crossing , thereby reduc ing the cost differential . This alternative would cross about one-quarter mile of terrain having slopes over 20 percent near Grant Lake and Grant Creek in Beltrami County. Standard measures to prevent right -of-way erosion and sed imentation of the water bodies would minimize the potential for these adverse impacts . � Although the proposed location of Loop Section 4 would z be within a util ity corridor designated by national forest o staff and would parallel U.S. Route 2 within 1,500 yards , there � is always the potential that pipeline construct ion wo uld §� o adversely affect the bog and bog forest ecosystems wh ich would g be crossed. · This has been amply demonstrated historically � in the Great Lakes region . Existence of a 1-foot berm over � � the applicant 's existing ma inline through the Chippewa National z o Fo rest confirms this possibility, and it would be des irable � u to avoid even those wetland areas where impact would potentially o � be mitigated by adj acent development. w > � Avoiding the long , marshy Mis sissippi River crossing with z � its attendant aesthetic impact is also highly desirable, parti w cularly in light of the river 's wild and scenic status . � o ·z � In view of these facts , the staff's alternative location o w for the 13 miles of Phase II LOOp Section 4 construc tion appears � to be environmentally preferable to the applic ants proposed � o � location . � � Proposed Loop Sect ion 5 (MP 221.4 to MP 253 .8) would cross � � nearly 25 miles of wet lands (bog and bog forest) , inc luding nearly M � 20 miles of Floodwood Swamp . It would also cross 2.8 miles of the Savannah State Forest and the Swan River, wh ich has extensive wetlands along its banks . Between the Deer River (MP 201 .2) and Cloquet (MP 269.3) Compres sor Stations , 52 .6 miles of un100ped ma inline extend between MP 201 .2 and MP 253 .8. Analys is ind icated that l.oop Section 5 could be located between MP 201.2 and MP 233 .6, as illustrated in Figure 4, instead of the proposed location . While this alternative would cross 13 miles of wet1and . a1ong the Mississippi River drainage , about 1.5 miles of the Savannah State Forest , and skirt the city of Grand Rap ids , it would avoid construction ac ross Floodwood Swamp , the Swan River, and reduce state forest looping mileage by about 50 percent . This arrangement would almost halve the distance of wet lands to be crossed and eliminate a marshy river crossing . This alternat ive might also slightly improve fue l effic iency at the Deer River Compressor Stat ion by virtue of plac ing the proposed looping on the high pressure end of the ma inline 64 65 segment to be looped . Alternative Loop Sect ion 5 would require Proposed Loop Sect ion 7 (MP 344 .4 to MP 383 .0) would traverse more road crossings , especially in the vicinity of Grand Rapids , 8.6 miles of Chequamegon Nat ional Forest across rolling topography and cross more private holdings . Three streams would also be where erosion problems were noted following construc t ion of the crossed by the alternative . Although substantial amounts of existing ma inline . These areas have since been reworked , we tland would still be affected , winter construction , as reseeded , and become stabilized, but the potential for further proposed by Great Lakes for the Floodwood Swamp crossing , disturbance remains . Proposed Loop Section 7 would also tra would minimize impact during construction in these areas and verse 12 .8 miles of the Bad River Indian Re servation , a he avily across the three streams . II forested area whe re approximztely 700 Ch ippewa Indians res ide . Within the reserva tions , the Wh ite and Bad Rivers would be crossed . In consideration of the potential for adverse impact in The se two rive rs have wide basins and the length of active wet lands from pipeline construct ion and maintenanc e, the floodplain crossed would total about 2.5 miles , par t of which avoidance of a maj or river crossing, and reduction of clearing is wetland . The reservat ion would be the mo st environmentally through forests , the staff believes that the alternative loca sens itive area to be crossed . tion for Loop Section 5 would be environmentally superior to the applicant ' s proposed location . Alternatively, 38.6 miles of loop ing could be placed on the low-pre ssure end of the ma inl ine segment to be looped , Proposed Loop Section 6 (MP 283 .5 to MP 321.7) would cross eight between MP 377.6 and the Wake field Compressor Station at significant water bodies (five maj or rivers and three desig- MP 416.2. By locating Loop Sect ion 7 in this area, all but nated trout streams) , the most of any proposed loop section. 1.2 miles of the re servat ion would be avoided , ne ither the It would also cross 1.2 miles of Amnicon Falls State Park Wh ite nor Bad Rivers would be crossed , and le ss forest would and certain areas of noted soil instability near the Minne sota be crossed . However , the Black River , Montreal River , We st Fork Wisconsin border . Available un looped mainline lies between Montreal River , and seve ral large creeks would be crossed by MP 283.5 in Minne sota and the Iron River Compressor Stat ion at the alternat ive , as we ll as nearly 6 miles of the Ottawa National MP 344.4. Forest and about 1.5 miles of we tlands along the Fourche Creek area . The additional stream crossings would double the total Re location of Loop Section 6 to the area between MP 306 . 2 number of de s ignated trout streams crossed by Loop �ect ion 7. and MP 344 .4 would eliminate approximately 3.5 miles of wetland Moreover , steep , erodible slopes in the Iron Hills area could crossings along the Pokegama River and the Nemadj i River crossing . be affected . Because relocation of Loop Section 7 would simp ly However, it would result in two other maj or river crossings , exchange one set of sens itive areas for another , the staff the Iron and Brule Rivers, and would pass along the shores of conc ludes that no environmental advantage would be gained through two lake s within the Chequamegon National Forest. Erosion this alternative . problems stemming from construc tion of the existing ma inline near the lakeshores have been noted . �/ Proposed Loop Section 8 (MP 416.2 to MP 456 .8) would be con� struc ted entirely within the Ottawa National Forest. The route is This relocation would offer no significant environmental heavily forested and would traverse approximately 26 mile s of advantage over the applicant ' s proposed location. Moreover, wetlands . l/ the applicant ' s proposed location for Loop Sect ion 6 would ma intain continuity with existing looping along this stretch The staff investigated the possibility of locating Loop of the mainline and would therefore be somewhat more efficient . Sect ion 8 on the low-pressure end of the mainl ine segment to be As such , the applicant ' s proposed location for Loop Sec t ion 6 looped (between MP 447 .1 and the Crystal Falls Compressor Stat ion appears superior to the alternative . at MP 487.7) and found that this alternative would impact approxi mate ly the same amount of forested areas , we tlands , and number of river crossings . Although it would cross about 10 fewer miles I of nat ional forest, the alternative would have similar environ l/ Wh ile winter construc t ion wOltld be expected to minimize impact mental impact to that re sulting from the applicant 's proposal. during construct ion operations , drainage alterations following the spring thaw and impact from ma intenance operat ions may still occur . The best means to minimize we tlands impact is to avoid or reduce the amount of area affected . l/ Applicant 's estima te . �/ Kenneth D. Shalda , Chequamegon National Forest, Park Falls, Wiscons in , letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commissfun staff; dated February 27 , 1978 . 67 66 The staff therefore conc ludes that no significant environmental I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS advantage would result from relocating Loop Section 8. In summation , the staff finds that proposed Loop Sections Information provided by Great Lakes and Michigan Wi sconsin 4 and 5 could be reloc ated to areas where the ir potential impact and further developed by the staff from literature research, on the env ironment would be significantly less than at the state , and other Federal agenc ies indicates that the environ proposed locations . These relocations would not appear to mental impact assoc iated with imp lementing the proposed trans require significantly greater construction or operating costs . portation proj ect , as discus sed in Chapter C of this supplement , would not result in a significant long-term impact on the human environment. The staff 's analysis of alternative transportation arrange ments indicat� that utilization of the proposed Northern Border 3. No Ac t ion or Pos tpone Act ion pipeline , should appropriate sections of it be constructed prior to operational status of the gasification plant , wou ld provide a vastly superior alternative to the transportation arrangement The actions that are ava ilable ar e to grant the var ious proposed by the app1�cants . Recent developments suggest that certificates that are sought , to deny them , or to postpone action the availab ility of the proposed Northern Border pipeline is a pending' further study . Pos tponement of a decision approving distinct possibility . transportation and sale of the proposed gas vo lume s could allegedly impede the coal gasification proj ect to the extent that it may be The staff recommends that the ap plicants consult with abandoned. However , if the sale of the commingled gas were Northern Border to assure the earliest possible consideration of approved and assurances given that some transportation system the proposed SNG volumes in the design of the Northern Bo rder would be ultimately approved , alternative transportation arrange pipeline . ments could be more fully studied in the interim without delaying the gas ification project. Should the applicants' proposed transportat ion arrangement be certificated, it is recommended that the Commission require Denial of the proposed transportation proj ect could potentially Great Lakes to comply with the following conditions in order to result in abandonment of the coal gasification project ana the minimize the potential adverse environmental impact of its loss of 275 million scfd to the Michigan Wi sconsin and Natural portion of the proposed pipeline looping proj ect. market areas or act ion which would result in the development of an alternate transportation arrangement . 1. Great Lakes shall utilize the staff's preferred locations ! for placement of Loop Sections 4 and 5 as identified in Chapter H, "Alternat ives to the Proposed Action , 2. Alternative Placement of Pipeline Loop Sections ll : (a) Construct ion of the proposed 21-mi1e long Loop Section 4 shall be accomplished between MP 131 .4 (the Shevlin Compressor Station) and MP 144.4, and between MP 180 .2 (where an existing loop section terminates) and MP 188.2. (b) Construc t ion of the proposed 32. 4-mi1e long Loop Sect ion 5 shall be accomp lished between MP 201.2 (the Deer River Comprpssor Station) and MP 233.6. The portion of this proposed loop section wh ich crosses extensive wetlands sh a1i be constructed dur ing the winter . 68 69 Although the staff has identified in Chapter D numerous REFERENCES measures which the applicants would in stitute to limit the environ mental impact of the ir proposals, to further mitigate the potential impact of the proposed proj ect it is recommended that the following additional conditions be attached to any Commission certificate . American Society of Civil Engineers o Pi e1ine Design for Hydrocarbon Gases and Liquids . 197� . 1. In consultation with offic ials of the respective state departments of natural resources, the applicants shall Baldwin , J.Lo Climates of the United Stateso Environmental de termine the location (s) of potentially sensitive streams Data Service , U.S. Department of Comme rce 0 Washington, which would be crossed and the means to mitigate the DoC. , 1974 0 impact of any such stream crossings o 1./ 2. ThtD ugh further consultation with the re spective state Boelter , DoH. and G.Eo Close. "Pipe lines in Forested Wetlands ," natural resource departments, the applicants shall de termine Journal of Forestry (September 1974) . the location(s) of any endangered plant or animal species along the propo sed construc tion routes and the means to av oid adverse effects on any such organisms o 1/ Braun , E.L. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North Americao New York , 1974 0 The applicants shall consult with the UoS. Soil Conservation Service to determine the best me thods to assure adequate erosion control in all disturbed areas . The se methods Burt , W.Ho and R.P. Grossenheidero A Field Guide to the shall be implemented except where other agencies having Mamma ls 0 Boston , 1952. jurisdiction or individual landowners specify otherwise. 1/ 4. The portions of proposed Loop Section 8 which would cross Environmental Protec tion Agency . Air Quality Data - 1975 extensive wetlands shall be constructed during the winter Annual Statistics o May 19770 when such wetlands are frozen . 5 0 The applicants are required to assure the maintenance of Environmental Protection Agency . Compilation of Air Pollutant adequate flow and drainage patterns in all marsh, bog, swamp , Emission Factors and Supplements 1-70 April 1977 . or other wetland areas proposed to be crossedo Should periodic inspection of the right s-of-way in such areas reveal that drainage patterns have been altered by the development of a Environmental Protection Agency. Impacts of Construction trough or berm over the pipeline , remedial measure s shall be Activities in Wetlands of the United State so April 19760 taken to return flow and drainage to preconstruction patterns. Wherever the proposed pipeline loop sections would cross state or federally owned lands , the applicants, in conjunction with and the de sires of officials administering the respect�ve lands , shall take measures to control access to the rights-of-way , thereby preventing their use by off-road vehic1es o Executive Office Decision and Report to 7. In consultation with the respective State Historic Preservation Con ress on Trans ortation S stemo Officers State Archaeologists , and other appropriate agencies Was ington , such as interior's Interagency Archaeological Service , the applicants shall undertake cultural resources management programs along the proposed construction rights-of-way Flint , RoFo Glacial and Quaternary Geo1ogyo 1971. consis tent with those measures outlined in Appendix A. 1/ Great Lakes Basin Commission. Great Lake Basin Framework It should be noted that the staff recommends similar measures Study o 1976. and programs be implemented along the proposed 365-m� 1: SNq product pi�e1ine route between the proposed coal gas1f1cat1on comp lex ana the proposed Thief River Falls interconnection. 70 71 --,------�---��- - .. Hadley , JoB. and JoFo Devine . Seismotectonic Map of the Shalda , ·Kenneth D. , Chequamegon National Forest, Park Falls, Eastern United States. United States Geological Survey. Wisconsin. Letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory 19740 Commi ssion staff , February 27 , 19780 UoSo Department of Agriculture , Rural Electrification I m 1 May J , •• "Competing for Survival ," Water Sp_ ectrum (Vol. 9, 1977) , pp o 7-140 Administration , Draft Environmental Impact Statement , Antelope Valley Projecto Vol . III. Washington , D.C. , 1 977 . Katz , D.Lo Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering . 19590 U.S. Department of Agriculture , Soil Conservation Serviceo Soil Conservation (December 1964) , pp o 99-1020 Kuchler, AoWo Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Second Edition . American Geographical Society Special Publication No . 360 19750 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se rvice o "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants ," Federal Register (October 27, 197 6) , pp o 47 ,181-47 ,1980 March J.Ro GoF. Martz , and R.A. Hunt 0 Breeding Duck P opulat ions and Habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources o 19730 U.So Fish and Wildlife Serviceo "Timber Wolf Reclassification Debatedo" Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. Vol o II. 1977 0 McCaffery , K.Rb and WoAo Creedo Si nificance of Forest 0 to Deer in Northe rn Wisconsino 1sconS1n Department 0 Natural Re sources o 1969 . U.S. Geological Survey0 The National Atlas of the United States of Ameri cao Washington , DoCo , 1970 . Michigan Department of Natural Re sources. "Des ignated Trout Streams for the State of Michigan , " October 19760 UoSo Geological Survey0 7�-minute Topographic Map Serieso Various quadrangles covering the pipeline route and general proj ect areao Mi 11er , C.E 0, L M T o. k d H Dur F an 0 0 0 th • Fundamentals of Soil Scienceo 1965 0 UoSo Soil Conservation Service . Ma 'or Land Resource Areas 0 Alas a and Hawaii. March Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourceso Wisconsin Trout Streams 0 Publication 6-3600(76) 0 Madison , 1974 0 Robbi ns , . C S B., . Baruun , n d H , Zim . Birds of North America. New York , 1966 , Schramm , D. Wisconsin Department of Natural Re sources , Madison , W:1.scon� in . Telephone Conversations with Federa l Energy Regulatory Commission staff on February 14 and 15 , 1978 . 72 73 " 1 APPENDIX A CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM To supplement the applicants ' mitigation measures , the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commiss ion proposes a phased program for identifying historic and prehisto�ic properties and for mitigating impact. The applicants should be required to fund and to allow suffic ient time to carry out this program, preferably under the direct ion of a single entity or institut ion to ensure comparable results . All phases should be conducted in consultation with the re"spective State Historic Preservat ion Officers , State Archaeologists , and other appropriate agenc ies and institut ions , who should receive copies of reports on all phases for an �valuation of adequacy. The program would apply to all areas of terrain modification . Phase 1, a survey of the literature on known prehistoric and historic sites , should identify any cultural properties near all proposed facilities and analyze local settlement patterns to plan for the field survey . Phase 2 would be a field survey to locate and determine the boundaries of all cultural properties potential ly impacted . Th is effort should investigate alternat ives to avoid impact to any cultural resources identified or located in Phases 1 and 2. A report should be prepared on this work which details the survey methodology , describes wh ich portions of affected land were omitted from the survey , justifies the ir omission , and summarizes the discoveries made . Subsurface sampling to identify sites may be necessary in some circums tances . Small scale excavations irt Phase 3 would eva luate the significance of sites potentially eligible for inc lusion in the Nationa l Regis ter and provide input for recommendat ions to mitiga te impact. The report for th is ph�se should inc lude the data needed to request a determination of eligibility to the Na tional Re gister . (See Vol . 42 , No . 183 of the Federa l Register , Septemb er 21, 1977 .) Requests for a determination should be I ! made for all potentially eligible properties , and eligible properties should be nominated to the National Register . The report should inc lude a re search design wh ich would govern excavation of each site wh ich could not be avoided . This research de s ign would address each property 's points of significance. Salvage excavation in Phase 4 should conform to the standards for data recovery in proposed Title 36 CFR Part 66 (Federal Register , Vol . 42 , No . 19 , January 28 , 1977) . An excavation report in Phase 5 should also conform to proposed 36 CFR 66 . 75 .. ..� ------,--- UNITED STATES POSTAG E AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE 350 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PR IVATE USE. $300 Don Ohnstad MRBC , ie11ows tone Level B 601 B��marck Av enue Bismarck , North Dakota 58501 / I