DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration, Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Garrison Project Office PO Box 832 Riverdale, North Dakota 58565

Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 1892 South Sheridan Avenue Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 Telephone (307) 673-4303/Fax (307) 673-4505 www.swca.com

For submittal by Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC 1501 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010

August 7, 2014

For more information contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District 1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 9000 Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Telephone: (402) 995-2708 or email [email protected] Comments requested by September 7, 2014 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hess Baaken Investments II, LLC (Hess) proposes a seismic study to effectively evaluate hydrocarbon reserves underlying the project area for further development of oil and natural gas reserves on the lands and waters managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the Corps) and surrounding area, located in Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota. The Corps is therefore conducting the Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Project environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This EA will allow the Corps to 1) evaluate the potential impacts of the project, hereafter referred to as the Proposed Action, in light of other resource values and management directives, and 2) decide whether to allow Hess to perform seismic exploration activities in the project area. This EA presents a history and background of the Proposed Action, and an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1500–1508) and Corps of Engineers Regulation 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230). The Corps has conducted tribal consultation and coordination for the Proposed Action as outlined in the Corps Programmatic Agreement with the Missouri River Basin tribes, and is also undertaking coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in compliance with NEPA and internal regulations. The purpose of this EA is to ensure that 1) the Proposed Action is consistent with existing land use plans and authorized purposes, 2) the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action are considered, 3) all environmental and project information is available to decision makers and stakeholders, and 4) enough information is developed to determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. Stakeholders were notified of the project by a scoping letter on February 2, 2012. The scoping letter included a project description and purpose, overview of NEPA requirements, a request for additional comments or information, and project contact information. In all, 88 comments were received from eight individuals or agencies, and substantive comments were considered and analyzed as part of the EA. The approximately 71.3-square-mile (45,638.4-acre) proposed project area is in Williams and McKenzie Counties, southeast of Williston, North Dakota; 54.9% (39.12 square miles) of the surface area is private property, 41.4% (29.55 square miles) is managed by the Corps, and 3.7% (2.64 square miles) is owned by the State of North Dakota. Approximately 26.9 square miles of the proposed project area under Corps management would lie below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea (1,850 feet above mean sea level). Although some Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are found in the project area, no proposed activities would occur on BLM-managed lands. The project would evaluate the hydrocarbon reserves in the project area over a grid pattern of seismic source points and receiver points. At each source point, acoustic energy (sound

i Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota waves) would be transmitted through the geologic layers to provide a high-resolution image of the subsurface geological features. At each receiver point, a series of motion- or pressure- sensing devices and recording boxes would record the transmitted sound waves. The layout of the grid pattern of source lines would be oriented in a northeast–southwest azimuth. The spacing of the source lines and points would vary in the project area to allow for adequate acoustic energy to be transmitted through the geologic layers under Lake Sakakawea. Approximately 72 source points per square mile at spacing intervals of approximately 880 feet are anticipated outside 0.5 mile of Lake Sakakawea. On Corps and private lands within 0.5 mile of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea, source lines spacing would be decreased to approximately 311-foot intervals to allow for adequate acoustic energy to be transmitted through the geologic layers under Lake Sakakawea, resulting in approximately 144 source points per square mile. The acoustic energy source for source points would be generated by ground vibration using two methods: 1. Vibroseis mounted on a fleet of four buggy trucks would be used on land in terrain with up to 12-degree slopes. At each source point, the fleet of buggy vibrators would park directly behind each other centered on the source point. They would generate ground vibration waves, and each buggy vibrator would lower an approximately 7 × 4–foot metal pad onto the ground surface at a pressure of approximately 15.4 pounds per square inch. All four buggy vibrators would be activated in succession, causing the pads to pulse or shake, thereby generating a series of ground vibrations. Duration and frequency of buggy vibrator shaking (or “sweep”) would be approximately 12 seconds and up to 130 hertz, respectively. The sweep would be repeated six times at each source point location. A recording period of 5 seconds would occur between each sweep. 2. Controlled detonation would occur on land in terrain with slopes between 12 and 25 degrees. The charge in each controlled detonation shot hole would be remotely detonated, one at a time by a central control truck. Prior to detonation, a source point coordinator would walk to each shot hole to prepare the charge and determine that there are no people or animals near the hole and within a 100-foot radius. The recording truck would be located on or adjacent to an existing road, trail, or staging area in the overall project area to initiate the source generation for the active receiver site locations during data recording periods. The Proposed Action description includes the effects of construction and operation of the proposed project activities. There would be short-term minor adverse effects from the Proposed Action to several resource areas, including vegetation, noise, and soils. However, no long-term adverse effects are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no vibroseis or controlled detonation activities on Corps- managed or Corps-owned lands. There would be no consequences from the No Action alternative to Corps-managed lands, and it is unlikely that these activities would occur on private or state lands absent the portion of the Proposed Action that would occur on Corps- managed lands.

ii Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Authority, Purpose, and Scope ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Authority for the Proposed Action ...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.4 Decisions to be Made ...... 2 1.5 Location ...... 3 1.6 Scoping and Issues ...... 3 1.6.1 Internal Scoping ...... 3 1.6.2 External Scoping ...... 5 2.0 Alternatives ...... 12 2.1 Alternatives Not Considered for Further Analysis ...... 12 2.1.1 Avoidance of Some Activities on Lands and Waters Managed by the Corps ... 12 2.1.2 Geothermal Surveying ...... 12 2.1.3 Two-Dimensional Seismic Survey ...... 12 2.1.4 No Vibroseis ...... 13 2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Authorization of Access or Permits) ...... 13 2.3 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 14 2.3.1 Land-Based Geophysical Exploration...... 18 2.3.2 Water-Based Geophysical Exploration ...... 27 2.3.3 Equipment ...... 30 2.3.4 Staging Areas ...... 31 2.3.5 Workforce ...... 34 2.3.6 Project Activities and Schedule ...... 34 2.3.7 Surface Use Estimates ...... 34 2.3.8 Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures ...... 37 2.3.9 Applicant-Committed Mitigation Measures ...... 44 3.0 Affected Environment ...... 45 3.1 Air Quality ...... 46 3.1.1 Regulatory Framework...... 46 3.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 46 3.1.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ...... 46 3.1.4 Greenhouse Gases ...... 47 3.1.5 Existing Air Quality ...... 47 3.1.6 Existing Emission Sources ...... 48 3.2 Paleontology ...... 48 3.2.1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification of Geologic Units ...... 49 3.2.2 Fossil Localities ...... 52

iii Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.3 Soils ...... 54 3.4 Vegetation ...... 57 3.4.1 Native Prairie, Badlands, and Ravines ...... 60 3.4.2 Noxious Weeds ...... 62 3.5 Water Resources ...... 64 3.5.1 Groundwater ...... 64 3.5.2 Surface Water ...... 65 3.5.3 Wetlands and Waters...... 67 3.6 Wildlife ...... 67 3.6.1 Common Wildlife near the Project Area ...... 68 3.7 Fisheries and Aquatics ...... 68 3.7.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species ...... 69 3.8 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Federally Protected Species...... 69 3.8.1 Potential Occurrence of Federally Protected Species ...... 70 3.9 Cultural Resources ...... 80 3.10 Recreation ...... 82 3.10.1 Boating and Fishing on Lake Sakakawea ...... 82 3.10.2 Hunting ...... 83 3.10.3 Lewis and Clark State Park and Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina ...... 86 3.10.4 Other Dispersed Recreation ...... 87 3.11 Health and Human Safety ...... 87 4.0 Potential Environmental Impacts and Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 88 4.1 Air Quality ...... 88 4.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 88 4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 88 4.2 Paleontology ...... 90 4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 90 4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 90 4.3 Soils ...... 91 4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 91 4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 91 4.4 Vegetation ...... 93 4.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 93 4.4.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 93 4.5 Water Resources ...... 98 4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 98 4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 98

iv Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.6 Wildlife ...... 102 4.6.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 102 4.6.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 102 4.7 Fisheries and Aquatics ...... 104 4.7.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 104 4.7.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 104 4.8 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Federally Protected Species...... 108 4.8.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 108 4.8.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 108 4.9 Cultural Resources ...... 114 4.9.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 114 4.9.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 114 4.10 Recreation ...... 116 4.10.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 116 4.10.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 116 4.11 Health and Human Safety ...... 118 4.11.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 118 4.11.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 118 4.11.3 Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 119 5.0 Cumulative and Residual Impacts ...... 120 5.1 Cumulative Effects Analysis Area ...... 120 5.2 Past Actions ...... 120 5.3 Present Actions ...... 122 5.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 122 5.5 Cumulative Impacts ...... 122 5.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 122 5.5.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action ...... 123 5.6 Residual Impacts ...... 126 6.0 Mitigation Summary ...... 127 7.0 Consultation and Coordination ...... 129 8.0 Status of Environmental Compliance...... 130 9.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers ...... 131 10.0 References ...... 132

v Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1.1 Stakeholder Notification List...... 5 Table 1.2. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities...... 7 Table 2.1. Land-Based Source Generation and Recording, Above the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea, Categorized by Acoustical Energy Source and Landownership...... 20 Table 2.2. Anticipated Variance in Receiver Stations within Lake Sakakawea Based on Four Water Elevations...... 29 Table 2.3. Approximate Land-Based Surface Use Requirements, Above the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea, Associated with the Proposed Project...... 36 Table 2.4. Approximate Surface Disturbance within Lake Sakakawea Associated with the Proposed Project...... 37 Table 3.1. Potential Fossil Yield of Geologic Units in the Project Area...... 51 Table 3.2. Summary of Fossil Localities Discovered in the Project Area...... 53 Table 3.3. Acres and Percent of Project Area with a Moderate or High Risk of Water or Wind Erosion...... 54 Table 3.4. Land Cover Types in the Project Area...... 57 Table 3.5. Acres of Badland Soils in the Project Area...... 60 Table 3.6. Acres of Recognized State Noxious Weed Occupied Areas in McKenzie and Williams Counties...... 62 Table 3.7. Acres of Recognized County-Listed Noxious Weed Occupied Areas in McKenzie County...... 63 Table 3.8. Groundwater Well Uses, Depths, Owners, and Locations...... 65 Table 3.9. Subwatersheds in the Project Area...... 67 Table 3.10. Wetland Types Located in the Project Area...... 67 Table 3.11. USFWS Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Protected Species Listed and Proposed for Listing for McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota...... 71 Table 3.12. Species Protected by Federal Laws within McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota...... 74 Table 3.13. Golden Eagle Nest Locations in the Project Area...... 80 Table 3.14. Open Hunting Season by Game Type Relative to the Project Schedule...... 84 Table 3.15. Lewis and Clark State Park Visitation Statistics...... 86 Table 4.1. Summary of Acreage on Non-Corps Land...... 91

vi Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 4.2. Acres of Surface Disturbance (and Percentage of Total Surface Disturbance) with a Moderate or High Risk of Water and Wind Erosion...... 92 Table 4.3. Land Cover Types and Land-Based Impacts of the Project, Outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea...... 94 Table 4.4. Badland Soil Types and Land-Based Impacts of the Project, Outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea...... 96 Table 4.5. Surface Impacts within Watersheds...... 101 Table 4.6. Distance from Land-Based Controlled Detonation Points to the Water Surface of Lake Sakakawea...... 106 Table 8.1. Major Federal, State, and Local Permits and Approvals Required for the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project...... 130 Table 9.1. SWCA Environmental Assessment Team...... 131 Table 9.2. List of Corps Interdisciplinary Team Reviewers...... 131

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1.1. Proposed Stony Creek 3D project area...... 4 Figure 2.1. Proposed layout of the source and receiver lines by source generation method...... 15 Figure 2.2. Example of proposed Stony Creek 3D grid pattern of seismic source and receiver points not within 0.5 mile of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea...... 16 Figure 2.3. Example of proposed Stony Creek 3D grid pattern of seismic source and receiver points within 0.5 mile of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea...... 17 Figure 2.4. Example of hydrostatic buggy drill...... 20 Figure 2.5. Example of hydrostatic buggy drill with water buggy during drilling...... 21 Figure 2.6. Example of freshly drilled and backfilled shot hole...... 22 Figure 2.7. Example of a node with the detachable spike installed...... 22 Figure 2.8. Example of a surface and subsurface deployed node at a receiver station...... 23 Figure 2.9. Example of helicopter transporting recording equipment in a nylon cache bag...... 23 Figure 2.10. Example of buggy vibrator trucks...... 25 Figure 2.11. Example of buggy vibrator truck, with vibrator pad lowered...... 26 Figure 2.12. Example of flat boat used for planning and support operations...... 28 Figure 2.13. Example of airboat used for planning and support operations...... 28

vii Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.14. Example of node, pressure or marsh phone, and buoy used for recording operations in Lake Sakakawea...... 29 Figure 2.15. Location of proposed staging areas for water-based activities...... 33 Figure 3.1. Potential fossil yield of geologic units and paleontological assessment areas. ... 50 Figure 3.2. Water erosion hazard in the project area...... 55 Figure 3.3. Wind erosion hazard in the project area...... 56 Figure 3.4. Land cover types in the project area...... 59 Figure 3.5. Badland soils in the project area...... 61 Figure 3.6. Watersheds, water wells, and wetlands in the project area...... 66 Figure 4.1. Overview of water surface elevations in relation to controlled detonation and vibroseis source points...... 107 Figure 5.1. Past and present actions in and near the Stony Creek 3D project area...... 121

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Scoping Report for the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project, Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota B Soils C USFWS Concurrence Letter

viii Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°F degrees Fahrenheit 2D two-dimensional 3D three-dimensional AADT annual average daily traffic AAQS ambient air quality standards amsl above mean sea level BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIAA cumulative impacts analysis area Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CSA CSA International, Inc. DBX Depth Bomb Explosive EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GHG greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS global positioning system LGL LGL Ltd. MAI Marine Acoustics Inc. MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mph miles per hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAMLA North American Mammal Land Age NDDA North Dakota Department of Agriculture

ix Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

NDDH North Dakota Department of Health NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department NDPR North Dakota Parks and Recreation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHWM ordinary high water mark PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification PM particulate matter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psi pounds per square inch SEL sound energy level

SO2 sulfur dioxide SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UTV utility terrain vehicle

x Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

1.0 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Hess Baaken Investments II, LLC (Hess) proposes a seismic study to effectively evaluate hydrocarbon reserves underlying the project area for further development of oil and natural gas reserves on the lands and waters managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the Corps) and surrounding area, located in Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota (Figure 1.1). This environmental assessment (EA) will allow the Corps to evaluate the potential impacts of Hess’s Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Project, hereafter referred to as the Proposed Action, in light of other resource values and management directives and to decide whether to authorize access for Hess to perform seismic exploration activities in the project area. Authorizing access for the proposed project on lands and waters managed by the Corps would be a federal action and thus requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), the Corps’ regulations for implementing NEPA (ER 200-2-2), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. This EA serves to document the proposed federal action, alternative actions considered, and the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of those actions. The purpose of this EA is to ensure 1) the proposed project is consistent with existing land use plans and authorized purposes, 2) the environmental consequences of the proposal are considered, and 3) all environmental and project information is available to decision makers and stakeholders, and to develop enough information to determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The primary preparation and compilation of this EA and related environmental compliance documentation have been completed by SWCA Environmental Consultants for Hess Corporation under the direction and supervision of the Corps. This action is being completed in accordance with CFR 1506.5(a) and 1506.5(b), which allow an applicant to prepare an EA for a federal action. The Corps has independently evaluated and verified the information and analysis undertaken in this EA and takes full responsibility for the scope and content contained herein.

1.2 AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Corps may authorize access to Corps-managed lands for geophysical exploration (seismic surveys) through two permits: a Letter Grant for use of Corps lands for the proposed survey and under Nationwide Permit 6, which covers surveying operations, including geophysical surveying in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Proposed Action would require Corps authorization under both of these permits.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Corps’ purpose for the proposed federal action is to allow the opportunity for a mineral leaseholder to define the federal and non-federal mineral resources underlying federally

1 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota managed lands and adjacent private and state lands per the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (as amended through Public Law 113-67, enacted December 26, 2013). The Corps’ purpose supports Hess’s intention to acquire a high-resolution image of the subsurface geologic structure and stratigraphy that would allow Hess to effectively evaluate the hydrocarbon reserves underlying the project area. The Corps maintains surface ownership of Lake Sakakawea and surrounding areas, and has a need to respond to Hess’s request for temporary surface occupancy and surveying operations. However, the Corps does not own the entirety of the minerals underlying the area. In some cases, private entities retained the subsurface mineral interests when surface rights were transferred to the federal government. Regardless of mineral ownership, the Corps is required by its laws, policies, and regulations to protect the area from any actions, including oil and gas operations, which may adversely impact or impair the resources, values, and authorized purposes of the Corps Garrison and Lake Sakakawea Project. Data gathered from proposed activities would help alleviate the need for more numerous exploration projects of lesser resolution (i.e., two-dimensional [2D]) and to allow Hess to drill horizontal wells more efficiently. As part of the permitting process, Hess is also required to allow other mineral lease owners to view the survey data, at their request. Hess owns subsurface mineral leases, permits, and/or options in the 71.3-square-mile project area, including under Corps-managed lands, which justifies the Corps to consider the geophysical operations in these areas (personal communication, letter from Josh Karmin, Land Negotiator, Hess Corporation, to Linda Phelps, Lake Manager, Corps, April 7, 2011). It is necessary for Hess to access Corps lands in the Stony Creek 3D project area during operations to fully capitalize on the mineral interests within the area.

1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

In preparing this EA, the Corps’ decision to be made is whether or not to grant access to Hess to perform seismic exploration activities on federal lands in the project area and under what terms and conditions. Although 41.4% of the project area is under Corps management, the proposed geophysical exploration on adjacent state and private lands would not provide Hess with adequate data without the allowance of geophysical activities on the Corps-managed areas. Thus, the adjacent surveys (although they do not require Corps approval) would not be feasible in the absence of a Corps permit and are “connected actions.” As such, the environmental effects of these “connected actions” are considered in this EA. Although the effects of the connected actions are considered to inform the Corps of the full environmental effects of their decision, the Corps’ decision to approve temporary use and survey permit (Nationwide Permit 6) would apply only to Corps-managed lands and waters. The Corps has no jurisdiction over adjacent lands (other than waters of the U.S.), so the Corps is not making a decision to approve the project on other lands, nor how or whether the project is implemented on other lands. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action versus the No Action. This EA is not a decision document. Instead, it presents evidence and analysis necessary to determine whether the consequences of the

2 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Proposed Action would have “significant” effects on the human environment and natural resources and whether a FONSI or a need for an EIS is necessary. The Corps Omaha District Commander makes this decision.

1.5 LOCATION

The approximately 71.3-square-mile (45,638.4-acre) proposed project area is in Williams and McKenzie Counties, southeast of Williston, North Dakota (Figure 1.1). The project boundary is located within the following areas. • Township (T) 152 North (N), Range (R) 99 West (W): Sections 2–11 and 14–18 • T152N, R100W: Sections 1–3 • T153N, R98W: Sections 7–32 • T153N, R99W: Sections 9–16 and 19–36

The proposed geophysical survey would encompass 71.3 square miles, of which 54.9% (39.12 square miles) of the surface area is private property, 41.4% (29.55 square miles) is managed by the Corps, and 3.7% (2.64 square miles) is owned by the State of North Dakota, as shown in Figure 1.1. Approximately 26.9 square miles of the proposed project area under Corps management would lie below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Lake Sakakawea (1,850 feet above mean sea level [amsl]). Although some Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are found within the Stony Creek project boundary, no proposed activities would occur on BLM-managed lands.

1.6 SCOPING AND ISSUES

In accordance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations contained in 40 CFR 1501.7, an open process has been employed for the determination and scope of issues to be addressed in this EA.

1.6.1 Internal Scoping Based on their resource expertise and management, the Corps developed a list of resource issues to be addressed in the EA, and provided the list to Hess and the NEPA consultant for incorporation in the EA on August 4, 2011. This list included vegetation, soils, wetlands, recreation, cultural resources, paleontology, wildlife, and fisheries. In addition, the Corps coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD), and Hess to refine the fisheries issues for analysis. They were refined to focus on potential impacts of the sound produced by airguns on species of special concern, including the federally endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula). Although source generation, using airguns and controlled generation, was included in the scoping for the Proposed Action, these activities are no longer being considered and, therefore, are not discussed in the EA.

3 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 1.1. Proposed Stony Creek 3D project area.

4 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

1.6.2 External Scoping Based on the interest in past projects, the Corps developed a mailing list that included approximately 39 individuals at 28 federal, state, and local government agencies, tribes, and non-profit organizations that may be interested in the project or share jurisdictional authority (Table 1.1). Stakeholders were notified of the project by a letter sent though the U.S. Postal Service on February 2, 2012. The scoping notification letter included a project description and purpose, overview of NEPA requirements, a request for additional comments or information, and project contact information. A Scoping Report was developed to document this process and its outcome, a copy of which is included as Appendix A.

Table 1.1. Stakeholder Notification List. Stakeholder Agency/Afflation Title Category Tribal Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent Tribal Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director Local Dunn County Board of Commissioners Chairman Local McKenzie County Board of Chairman Commissioners Local McKenzie County Grazing Association President Local McKenzie County Water Resource Chairman District Local Mountrail County Board of Chairman Commissioners State North Dakota Game and Fish Conservation Biologist Department State North Dakota Game and Fish Conservation Supervisor Department State North Dakota Game and Fish Wildlife Resource Management Department Supervisor State North Dakota Game and Fish Northwest Fisheries District Department Supervisor State North Dakota Game and Fish Missouri River Fisheries Department Supervisor State North Dakota State Water Commission Regulatory Section Chief

5 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Stakeholder Agency/Afflation Title Category State North Dakota State Historical Society Review and Compliance Bismarck Office Coordinator State North Dakota Department of Health Senior Environmental Scientist State North Dakota Industrial Commission – Director O & G Division State North Dakota Industrial Commission – Assistant Director O & G Division State North Dakota Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Department Division Manager State North Dakota State Land Department Director Non-Profit Friends of Lake Sakakawea Chairman Non-Profit North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife President Society Non-Profit Sierra Club None specified Non-Profit North Dakota Audubon None specified Non-Profit Independent Water Providers Chairman Non-Profit Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Natural Resource Administrator Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Energy Department Administrator Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Biologist Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Director Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Officer State North Dakota State Regulatory Office Regulatory Project Manager Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District; CENWO-PM- AA Federal Little Missouri National Grasslands District Ranger Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service State Conservationist Federal OSM - Casper Field Office - Western Field Office Director Region Federal BLM - North Dakota Field Office Field Manager Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor Local Williams County Board of Commissioner Commissioners Local Williams County Water Resource Board Chairman

1.6.2.1 Issues Raised Table 1.2 lists the issues, concerns, and opportunities to be analyzed in the EA. This list was developed from input that was received during internal and external project scoping activities.

6 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 1.2. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities. Disposition Issue Concerns and Opportunities Section Where Addressed in EA NEPA Process There are multiple federal, state, and What level of consultation or 1.6 Scoping and Issues; 7.0 local agencies that have jurisdictional coordination is appropriate for each Consultation and Coordination authority within the area. agency? Project Description The EA has information regarding the What graphic materials are needed to 2.3 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed project location and exploration methods clearly communicate the project area Action that must be clearly conveyed to the to the public and agencies? public. How can layout of land- and water- 2.3 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed based receiver lines, and descriptions Action. Source generation in Lake of drilling, vibration, and airgun Sakakawea is no longer part of the activities be best depicted? Proposed Action. Resources Air Quality Drilling of source points, or vibration or What are the short- and long-term 4.1 Air Quality blasting activities, have impacts to air impacts from gaseous, particulate, and quality. dust fractions from these activities? What opportunities exist to reduce 4.1 Air Quality impacts? Cultural Resources Development of source points, presence What cultural resources are present in 3.9 Cultural Resources of receiver lines, or vibration or blasting the area? activities could impact cultural resources. What are the direct and indirect 4.9 Cultural Resources How to avoid impacts to cultural sites impacts to cultural resources from and maintain site integrity. each of these activities? What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.8 Cultural Resources reduce impacts?

7 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Disposition Issue Concerns and Opportunities Section Where Addressed in EA Health and Safety There could be impacts to the health and What measures should be incorporated 2.3.8.4 Public/Crew Safety; 2.3.8.10 safety of park staff, families, and park to ensure the safety of visitors to the Public Land Use and Recreations visitors from activities or emissions. Lewis and Clark State Park? Water lines servicing recreation areas are What impact could air emissions 4.1 Air Quality located in the project area. (gaseous, particulate, and dust) have on the health of park staff, families, and park visitors? How can impacts be reduced? 4.1 Air Quality What impacts could seismic activities 2.3.8.2 Existing Facilities/Rights-of- have on pipelines? Way Protection; 4.11.2 Health and Human Safety How would water lines be identified 2.3.8.2 Existing Facilities/Rights-of- and protected? Way Protection; 4.11.2 Health and Human Safety Land Use The project has multiple land use and How would the NEPA process 8.0 permitting jurisdictions, including: coordinate with all entities to ensure Status of Environmental Compliance - Department of North Dakota Trust that all applicable permits are - School Trust Lands identified? - North Dakota Department of Parks and What effect would the project have on 4.3 Soils; 4.4 Vegetation; 4.10 Recreation existing land uses in and adjacent to Recreation - Wildlife Management Areas the project area? - Sovereign Lands Permitting (original What best management practices 2.3.8 Applicant-Committed river channel) (BMPs) must be incorporated to be in Environmental Protection Measures - Municipalities, Counties compliance with all applicable There are a variety of land uses in the regulations? area, such as mineral leasing and recreational.

8 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Disposition Issue Concerns and Opportunities Section Where Addressed in EA Recreation There could be interference with What are the impacts to fishing (i.e., 4.10 Recreation recreational activities. walleye), camping, picnicking, Public boat ramp use may not be boating, swimming, hiking, biking, appropriate for project use. and wildlife viewing? What opportunities exist within 2.3.4 Staging Areas; 2.3.8.4 project design to allow recreational Public/Crew Safety; 2.3.8.10 Public activities to continue? Land Use and Recreations Where can water-based project 2.3.4.2 Water-Based Geophysical activities be safely staged? Staging Areas Special Status There could be impacts to threatened, What species are present in the area? 3.8 Threatened, Endangered, Species endangered or other special-status Candidate, and Federally Protected species including plover, interior least Species tern, Dakota skipper, whooping crane, What are the impacts to identified or 4.8 Threatened, Endangered, waterfowl, and raptors. potentially protected species? Candidate, and Federally Protected Populations of species of concern or Species otherwise significant ecological What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.7 Wildlife Resources; 4.8 communities have not been fully reduce impacts to identified species? Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, identified. and Federally Protected Species Soils Accelerated erosion could be problematic What effect would the project have on 4.3 Soils to park staff and visitors. soils in the project area, including those that have reclamation-limiting factors, such as wind or soils erodibility? What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.6 Vegetation and Soil Resource reduce impacts to soils? Protection

9 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Disposition Issue Concerns and Opportunities Section Where Addressed in EA Wildlife The project should comply with the What are the impacts of airguns to 4.7 Fisheries. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and wildlife? Airguns are no longer included in the Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Proposed Action, but sound effects to state Aquatic Species Rules. pallid sturgeon are discussed in the There are identified shorebird, waterfowl, sections referenced herein. upland ground-nesting bird species, and What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.7 Wildlife Resources; 4.8.2.10; raptor nesting/breeding habitats in the reduce impacts to raptors and raptor 4.8.2.12 Golden Eagle; 4.8.2.13 area. habitat, and migratory birds? Migratory Birds There is potential for the spread of What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.5 Water Resources, aquatic nuisance species (ANS). reduce impacts to aquatic species and Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain habitat? Protection What BMPs should be incorporated to 2.3.8.5 Water Resources, prevent the spread of ANS? Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain Protection; 4.7 Fisheries

10 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Disposition Issue Concerns and Opportunities Section Where Addressed in EA Vegetation The project could result in a loss of What are the impacts to native plant 4.4 Vegetation native vegetation. communities such as prairies, ravines, The potential also exists for invasive and badland communities? species to be introduced to the project How can impacts be reduced? 2.3.8.6 Vegetation and Soil Resource area. Protection; 4.4 Vegetation What BMPs should be incorporated to 2.3.8.5 Water Resources, prevent introduction of non-native Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain species? Protection; 2.3.8.6 Vegetation and Soil Resource Protection Water Resources The project could result in stormwater What are the impacts to the surface 4.5.2.2 Surface Water; 4.11 Health runoff, siltation, or spills that may reach water within the zone of influence of and Human Safety the receiving water and result in adverse the project and underground impacts to water quality. pipelines? Drilling could result in aquifer What are the impacts to the 4.5 Water Resources contamination. groundwater resources within the zone Permits are required for stormwater of influence of the project? (North Dakota Division of Water What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.5 Water Resources, Quality) and Water Quality Certification prevent spills from entering Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain (Corps). watershed? Protection What permits would be required? 8.0 Status of Environmental Compliance Wetland Drilling activities would result in an What wetland and riparian 3.5 Water Resources Resources acreage loss or loss of function to communities exist in the project area? wetland and riparian communities. What are impacts to wetland and 4.5 Water Resources riparian communities as well as to the subsurface water flow and water tables that support wetland/riparian vegetation? What measures should be taken to 2.3.8.5 Water Resources, prevent impacts to wetlands? Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain Protection

11 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

The following alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed environmental impact analysis. Therefore, only the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative underwent this detailed analysis in the Environmental Consequences section of this document (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). No unresolved resource conflicts were identified that necessitated development of additional alternatives.

2.1.1 Avoidance of Some Activities on Lands and Waters Managed by the Corps Two variations of an alternative to avoid actions on or use of Corps lands and waters were considered, including a) avoidance of Corps waters (Lake Sakakawea), and b) avoidance of Corps lands by source generation activities. Under the first variation, no operations would be conducted within Corps waters (Lake Sakakawea). Operations would consist only of land- based operations. This method would eliminate the use of receiver station equipment within Lake Sakakawea. Under the second, no source generation operations would be conducted within Corps lands. Operations within Corps lands and waters would consist of only planning survey activities, receiver station layout, pickup, and troubleshooting.

Due to the amount of Corps-managed lands in the project area, the above described variations were not considered technically feasible, as they would leave a gap in the data set being collected as a result of operations. If no data were recorded within the 29.55 square miles (18,912 acres) of land under Corps jurisdiction, Hess would not be able to acquire an accurate image of the subsurface geology underlying that area or surrounding areas; therefore, this alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and need or allow the company, as a mineral leaseholder, to define the federal and non-federal mineral resource underlying federally managed lands and adjacent private and state lands. For the above reasons, the method of avoiding some activities on Corps-managed lands and waters was eliminated from analysis.

2.1.2 Geothermal Surveying This method uses variations in temperature at different depths to determine geological structures in the subsurface. It requires no human-made energy source. This method would eliminate the use of source generating equipment on Corps (and other) lands, and minimize impacts on natural resources, namely vegetation, soils, and natural soundscapes. However, Hess would not be able to image the full depth of hydrocarbon reserves with this type of technology; therefore, this alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and need and is not a feasible methods of define the federal and non-federal mineral resource underlying federally managed lands and adjacent private and state lands. For the above reasons, geothermal surveying was eliminated from analysis.

2.1.3 Two-Dimensional Seismic Survey 2D seismic surveys require shot holes and receiver points to be located on a single line, with little flexibility. A 2D seismic survey essentially provides a picture of a slice of the earth

12 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota underlying the line. To get information somewhat comparable to that obtained using three- dimensional (3D) technology, several 2D lines would have to be located in the project area. Even then, the data collected would not be as accurate as 3D data; therefore, Hess would not be able to drill accurate laterals and plan the right number of wells to effectively produce the resource. This alternative would not adequately meet the purpose and need for the project, in that it would poorly define the resources, and would increase the overall effects of the actions needed to do so. The lack of flexibility in source point locations could result in additional impacts to natural or cultural resources, as 2D lines would make avoidance of environmentally or structurally sensitive areas less feasible. Therefore, 2D seismic surveying was eliminated from analysis.

2.1.4 No Vibroseis Under this alternative, all source generation would be done using controlled detonation in shot holes, and no vibroseis units would be used in the project area. This alternative was considered to potentially reduce the amount of surface disturbance to vegetation, soils, and other resources, since it would use smaller drilling buggies rather than larger vibroseis units. The receiver layout and density would be the same under this alternative as described under the Proposed Action.

Two variations of this alternative were considered: 1) A source generation would be done using explosive detonations in shot holes at the same density under the Proposed Action (approximately 72 per square mile). 2) A source generation would be done using explosive detonations in shot holes at a reduced density (50 source points per square mile).

Due to the high demand of drill buggies for seismic activities, there would not be enough drill buggies and heliportable drills available to complete the project in a reasonable timeline. Based on availability of equipment, source generation and recording of the entire project area are expected to take a minimum of 300 days, not factoring in timing limitation stipulations. Additionally, due to the increased costs associated with shot hole source generation as compared to vibroseis, both variations of this alternative would not meet acceptable industry cost standards for data collection, and would lead to termination of the geophysical data- collection project. As such, this alternative was determined to be economically and logistically infeasible, and was eliminated from further consideration.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION (NO AUTHORIZATION OF ACCESS OR PERMITS)

NEPA regulations require the federal agencies to identify the No Action Alternative and use it as a baseline for comparing the environmental consequences of the other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14[d]). The No Action Alternative would be the denial by the Corps of Hess’s proposal to conduct the 3D seismic survey. Because they are connected actions that would not occur in the absence of geophysical exploration on Corps-managed lands and waters, operations on private lands, and state-administered lands would not occur under the No Action Alternative.

13 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Under the No Action Alternative, existing land and resource use activities in the project area would continue generally as is on federal lands.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 – OPERATOR PROPOSED ACTION

Under Alternative 2, the Stony Creek 3D seismic project would be conducted over a grid pattern of seismic source points and receiver points (Figure 2.1). At each source point, acoustic energy (sound waves) would be transmitted through the geologic layers to provide a high-resolution image of the subsurface geological features. At each receiver point, a series of motion- or pressure-sensing devices and recording boxes would record the transmitted sound waves. Source points would be located on land above the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea. Receiver points would encompass the land, river, and lake environments.

The layout of the grid pattern of source lines would be oriented in a northeast–southwest azimuth. The spacing of the source lines and points would vary in the project area to allow for adequate acoustic energy to be transmitted through the geologic layers under Lake Sakakawea. On lands not within 0.5 mile of the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea, source lines would be spaced at intervals of approximately 1,760 feet (Figure 2.2). The spacing of the source points is preplanned at approximately 311-foot intervals along northeast–southwest source lines (Figure 2.2). Approximately 72 source points per square mile are planned, although the final number would be determined during final surveying and project design planning.

On Corps and private lands within 0.5 mile of the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea, source lines spacing would be decreased to allow for adequate acoustic energy to be transmitted through the geologic layers under Lake Sakakawea. Source lines would be spaced at intervals of approximately 880 feet (Figure 2.3). The spacing of the source points is preplanned at approximately 311-foot intervals along northeast–southwest source lines (Figure 2.3). Approximately 144 source points per square mile are planned, although the final number would be determined during final surveying and project design planning.

Receiver lines would be oriented in a north–south azimuth at intervals of approximately 880 feet. Receiver stations would be placed approximately every 220 feet along the north–south receiver lines. Approximately 144 receiver stations per square mile are planned, although the final number would be determined during final surveying and project design planning.

The acoustic energy source for source points would be generated by ground vibration. Two methods would be used to generate the acoustic energy on land. 1. Vibroseis mounted on buggy trucks on land in terrain with up to 12-degree slopes. 2. Controlled detonation on land in terrain with slopes between 12 and 25 degrees.

The sections below describe each method in further detail. Representative photographs of the equipment are also provided below.

14 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.1. Proposed layout of the source and receiver lines by source generation method.

15 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.2. Example of proposed Stony Creek 3D grid pattern of seismic source and receiver points not within 0.5 mile of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea.

16 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.3. Example of proposed Stony Creek 3D grid pattern of seismic source and receiver points within 0.5 mile of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Sakakawea.

17 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.1 Land-Based Geophysical Exploration Land-based geophysical exploration activities, outside of the OHWM of the reservoir (1,850 feet amsl), would occur in the following order. • Permit the surface/mineral owners in the project area. • Initial planning surveys for hazard assessment and to mark source and receiver point locations. • Shot hole drilling and placement of explosives. • Receiver equipment transport and layout for a subportion of the project area. • Source generation and data acquisition (recording) within the subportion. • Picking up and moving forward of equipment to a new portion of the project area, and area cleanup of any staking or flagging materials used during the project.

This process would repeat in each new area until the project is completed.

2.3.1.1 Permitting Surface/Mineral Owners Hess would start permitting surface and mineral owners in the project area approximately 4 months before operations begin. This permitting process would not result in any disturbance in the project area. During this process, Hess’s permitting agents would compile a list of land and mineral owners within the project boundary. Hess’s permitting agents would contact each land or mineral owner for access and survey permissions. The permitting process is required to allow Hess to access private land to conduct operations and to allow Hess to conduct seismic surveys in areas where they do not own the mineral rights. In areas where Hess does not own the mineral rights, Hess is required to allow mineral rights owners to review the seismic data, at their request. During this process, Hess’s permitting agents would also obtain all necessary permits and easements, as described in detail in Section 8.0.

2.3.1.1.1 Planning Surveys To accurately define the extent and locations of project activities, a survey crew would conduct the following planning activities. 1) Identify staging areas for equipment. 2) Locate source point and receiver station locations. 3) Re-route source points and travel routes around sensitive cultural, natural, water, wetland, and paleontological resources, and existing land use features of importance, as defined in Section 2.3.8. Staging areas for land- and water-based activities would be identified during the planning phase, as described in Section 2.3.4. These staging areas would be located on pre-existing disturbance and therefore were not included in the surface use estimates. 4) Identify off-road access routes throughout the project area that would allow source- generating equipment to maneuver around topographic features and to avoid sensitive cultural, natural, water, and paleontological resources, and existing land use features of importance, as defined in Section 2.3.8, which may be encountered.

18 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

While “avoidance” maneuvers would use existing roads and trails in the area to the maximum extent possible, it also is anticipated that much of this maneuvering would be cross-country to minimize overall off-road travel on/along each respective source line. When and where possible, the operational equipment would proceed from one source line to the next with a single pass and would use existing roads and trails to minimize the overall amount of off-road travel. If sufficient roads and trails do not exist, alternate receiver lines may be used for source generating equipment to access source lines.

The survey work would precede the recording crew by approximately 4 weeks. A land survey crew would locate and place flagging at receiver points and spray paint source point locations using a high-accuracy global positioning system (GPS) unit. Up to seven, two-person crews would establish and flag the receiver and source point locations and travel routes between them. The start location of the survey crews would depend on the land access established during the permitting stage. Survey crews would proceed systematically from west to east and north to south in the project area. All survey work would be completed using utility terrain vehicles (UTVs) or on foot, depending on the terrain; vehicles transporting surveyors to and from the project area would remain on existing roads and trails. During these surveys little to no vegetation would be cleared, and any woody vegetation with a trunk diameter of greater than 3.5 inches at breast height would be avoided by rerouting equipment.

2.3.1.2 Controlled Detonation Acoustic Generation—Shot Hole Drilling and Placement of Explosives In areas of steep and safely accessible terrain (slopes between approximately 12 and 25 degrees), the acoustic energy source would be controlled detonation because vibroseis trucks cannot safely access these areas but mobile drill buggies can. At these source point locations, shot holes would be drilled and 11 pounds of aluminized powder explosive encased in a plastic cylinder, such as Depth Bomb Explosive (DBX), would be placed within the shot hole, as described below.

Approximately 32.4% of the land-based operations are estimated to require controlled detonation, for a total of approximately 1,152 shot points (Table 2.1). However, the number of shot holes may vary depending on the terrain observed during planning surveys. If parameters vary significantly, then the number of shot holes would vary. No source generation activities would occur below the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea.

19 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 2.1. Land-Based Source Generation and Recording, Above the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea, Categorized by Acoustical Energy Source and Landownership. Source Generation Recording Controlled Landowner Receiver Vibroseis Points (#) Detonation Points Stations (#) (#) Private 2,262 917 5,812 State 92 132 387 Corps 48 103 375 Total 2,402 1,152 6,574

Drilling operations would begin after surveying enough source points to allow efficient drilling of shot holes. The drilling of shot holes and placement of explosives generally would proceed systematically from west to east and north to south in the project area. Depending on the terrain and site conditions, drilling would be accomplished by hydrostatic-driven drills mounted on a buggy (buggy drills).

Buggy drills (Figure 2.4) would be used to drill shot holes in any areas accessible to wheeled vehicles with slopes up to 25 degrees. Each buggy drill is an articulated, four-wheel drive, off-road transport vehicle with low-pressure tires and mounted drills. Each drill weighs approximately 17,000 pounds and is approximately 10 feet wide; each tire is approximately 3 feet wide. Surface contact pressures on the ground surface would be approximately 8 pounds per square inch (psi) for each tire. For comparison, an unloaded pickup truck weighing around 6,200 pounds exerts a ground pressure of 37.57 psi.

Figure 2.4. Example of hydrostatic buggy drill.

20 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

At each shot hole location, one 4-inch-diameter shot hole would be drilled to a depth of 60 feet, and loaded with 11 pounds of aluminized powder explosive incased in a plastic cylinder, such as DBX. Shot hole drilling may require up to 20 gallons of water per shot point (Figure 2.5). All shot holes would be drilled with potable water that would be purchased from a local municipality. Drilling water would be allowed to infiltrate into the adjacent range with prior approval of the surface managing authority.

Figure 2.5. Example of hydrostatic buggy drill with water buggy during drilling.

After placing the charge in the shot hole, the hole would be backfilled (plugged) in accordance with the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division’s Geophysical Exploration Requirements (38-08.1-06). This procedure requires all holes to be filled with cuttings, native soil, bentonite, or gravel to within 3 feet of the surface and a plug would be installed in the hole. The remaining 3 feet of the hole would then be backfilled to the surface and covered with the remaining drill cuttings (Figure 2.6). The electronic detonating wire (cap) would be buried with a small magnet for relocating, which reduces visual impact and minimizes curiosity by the general public.

21 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.6. Example of freshly drilled and backfilled shot hole.

2.3.1.3 Receiver Station Placement Once surveys are completed, and most of the shot hole locations are drilled, receiver station placement is generally expected to proceed using the following steps. Receiver stations would consist of a cable-free node (4.6-inch diameter by 5.7-inch high) (Figure 2.7) located at each receiver point. On Corps-managed lands and within avoidance buffers for cultural resource sites, the nodes would be surface deployed using a 4.6-inch-long detachable spike (Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8). On private lands outside of cultural resource sites, nodes would be inserted below the surface of the ground (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.7. Example of a node with the detachable spike installed.

22 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.8. Example of a surface and subsurface deployed node at a receiver station.

1. Recording equipment would be transported to the field and to the various staging areas (including the helicopter landing zones) by truck using existing roads and trails. Recording equipment would be placed in reinforced nylon cache bags at selected staging areas/helicopter landing zones and flown to predetermined locations for deployment at each receiver station. The helicopter would operate at an altitude of approximately 100 to 300 feet above the receiver line and deposit one bag at a time using GPS locations provided by the surveyors (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9. Example of helicopter transporting recording equipment in a nylon cache bag.

23 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2. Ground crews would be organized into field groups of two to four people and would operate at intervals of 0.5 to 3.0 miles from each other. Ground crew members would walk to the first dropped cache bag on their receiver line and prepare the nodes. The layout crew would navigate to each receiver station and deploy the node (see Figure 2.8). To reduce wind noise interference, a hole (5-inch diameter by 7-inch deep) would be dug using a pick ax and the node (4.6-inch diameter by 6.4-inch high) would be buried (see Figure 2.8). Once the nodes have been placed, the crew members would then proceed on foot to the second bag and repeat the set-up process. Nodes would be laid out in this manner at each station along each individual receiver line across the project area. Nodes would be checked approximately every 4 days to ensure that they are functioning.

Activities would proceed systematically from west to east and north to south in the project area. A minimum of 24 recording lines (at 5 miles per line) and 112 receiver stations would be active (live patch) at any given time throughout data acquisition operations. The surface footprint of the live patch would be approximately 20 square miles or 120 miles of receiver line. Source generation activities would be limited to the active recording area that is covered by receiver stations at any given time. Receiver line areas for which source generation activities have been completed would be picked up and moved in front of the lead receiver lines (leap-frog). The recording crew size would be approximately 70 personnel, including multiple layout crews, troubleshooting crews, helicopter support crews, and field coordinators.

Upon completion of data acquisition (recording) operations in an “active” receiver line area, the nodes, and related equipment would be retrieved on foot, bagged, and flown back to the primary staging area to have the equipment serviced as necessary and then flown out to a new receiver location.

2.3.1.4 Source Generation and Recording Source generation and recording activities would begin immediately after the receiver line live patch is in place. Buggy-mounted vibroseis (buggy vibrator; Figure 2.10) source generation would be used in terrain with less than 12-degree slope (see Table 2.1). Each vibroseis buggy is approximately 34 feet long, 12 feet wide, weighs approximately 63,000 pounds, and is equipped with approximately 44-inch balloon tires to minimize surface disturbance. Surface contact pressures on the ground surface would be approximately 30.7 psi for each tire. For comparison, an unloaded pickup truck weighing around 6,200 pounds exerts a ground pressure of 37.57 psi.

24 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.10. Example of buggy vibrator trucks.

2.3.1.4.1 Buggy-Mounted Vibroseis Source Generation and Recording A fleet of four buggy vibrators would stop to vibrate at each surveyed source point. A scouting UTV would travel before each fleet of four buggy vibrators to scout out the source point location and ensure safe passage. At each source point, the fleet of buggy vibrators would park directly behind each other centered on the source point. To generate ground vibration waves, each buggy vibrator would lower an approximately 7 × 4–foot metal pad onto the ground surface at a pressure of approximately 15.4 psi (Figure 2.11). For comparison, an unloaded pickup truck weighing around 6,200 pounds exerts a ground pressure of 37.57 psi. The recording truck operator would then activate all four buggy vibrators in succession, causing the pads to pulse or shake, thereby generating a series of ground vibrations. Duration and frequency of buggy vibrator shaking (or “sweep”) would be approximately 12 seconds and up to 130 hertz1, respectively. The sweep would be repeated six times at each source point location. A recording period of 5 seconds would occur between each sweep.

1 Hertz is a unit used for measuring the frequency of sound waves.

25 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.11. Example of buggy vibrator truck, with vibrator pad lowered.

2.3.1.4.2 Controlled Detonation Source Generation The charge in each shot hole would be remotely detonated, one at a time, and the resulting energy wave recorded. Shot point detonation would be controlled by a central control truck (recorder). Prior to detonation, a source point coordinator (shooter) would walk to each shot hole to prepare the charge and determine that there are no people or animals near the hole. Once the area has been deemed clear of people and wildlife, the seismic source shooter would walk to a position within sight of and at a minimum safe distance of 100 feet from the shot hole to be donated. In the unlikely event that the detonated explosive blows the plug and the drill cuttings out of the hole (blowout), the shot hole would be re-plugged as part of cleanup and demobilization.

2.3.1.4.3 Recording The recording truck containing the data acquisition control equipment would be located on or adjacent to an existing road, trail, or staging area within the overall project area to initiate the source generation for the active receiver site locations during data recording periods. The recording truck would be equipped with a receiver antenna which would be approximately 60 to 80 feet tall with a radius of 6 feet.

A repair crew also would be located nearby to repair any electrical/wiring problems that may develop with the nodes on active receiver lines during operations. Repair operations would be conducted via pickup trucks on existing roads and trails, and/or with UTVs travelling along receiver lines or source lines for replacing discharged batteries and repairing damaged nodes. All equipment movement, including helicopter operations, would be restricted to daylight hours.

26 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.1.5 Demobilization Demobilization would proceed concurrently with data acquisition. All pin flags, flagging, lath, and other materials would be gathered as the field crews complete data acquisition. Materials would be collected at points on roads or trails and transported by vehicle to staging areas where staff would store materials and equipment and dispose of used/unusable materials. A follow-up crew would make one complete sweep of the project area after the conclusion of data acquisition to ensure that no trash or equipment has been left behind upon completion of data acquisition.

2.3.2 Water-Based Geophysical Exploration Water-based geophysical exploration activities include all activities below the OHWM of the reservoir. Water-based activities would occur in the following order. • Initial planning surveys to mark receiver point locations in water depths less than 7 feet, as necessary. • Receiver equipment transport and layout within the entire lake. • Equipment in the lake would be picked up and swung forward onto new receiver lines until all lines had been laid out and recorded. • Demobilization.

2.3.2.1 Planning Surveys Planning surveys in water would be conducted in shallow water (6 to 7 feet deep) areas to identify receiver station locations that are located in waters less than 7 feet deep. These locations would be marked with cane poles. Any cane poles used would be removed from the area upon placement of receiver lines. Cane poles would be in place no longer than 7 days and would not interfere with watercraft usage of the area or cause harm to water crafts if they are accidently run over. No planning surveys would be conducted in waters greater than 7 feet deep because the equipment layout boats would be operated using real-time navigation.

Surveying in the water typically would be conducted using flat-bottomed boats and/or airboats (Figure 2.12 and Figure 2.13). These boats would be approximately 29 feet long by 9 feet wide. Each would typically be powered by twin 150-horsepower engines with 100-gallon fuel tanks and would be equipped with a navigation unit. The boats have an approximately 18-inch draft, allowing them to access shallow water areas if necessary.

27 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.12. Example of flat boat used for planning and support operations.

Figure 2.13. Example of airboat used for planning and support operations.

2.3.2.2 Receiver Line Placement Once surveys are completed, receiver line placement would proceed systematically from west to east and north to south in the project area in Lake Sakakawea. The water-based recording system would vary depending on the depth of water. The layout would be done for the entire project area within Lake Sakakawea at once. Table 2.2 summarizes the approximate number of receiver stations based on four surface elevations between the maximum and minimum water level fluctuation.

28 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 2.2. Anticipated Variance in Receiver Stations within Lake Sakakawea Based on Four Water Elevations.

Recording Water Elevation Water-Based Receiver Land-Based Receiver Stations (#) Stations (#)1 1,825.0 468 3,510 1,830.0 1,669 2,309 1,834.0 3,603 375 1,837.5 3,849 129 1 Land-based points that occur between the water surface elevation and the OHWM elevation (1,850 feet amsl).

The recording system is composed of hydrophones or marsh phones molded depending on water depth and would connect to a node that is floated on the surface of the lake (Figure 2.14). The node is firmly strapped into a specially designed and constructed Styrofoam float measuring approximately 24 × 24 inches and 4 inches thick. Each node and float combination is connected to a pressure phone or marsh phone and placed at each station, 220 feet apart along the receiver lines. The float is also connected to an anchor or weight with a piece of rope long enough for the depth of water to eliminate drifting from the original surveyed position. Every float would be marked with reflective marker and a small flag to make them highly visible to boaters in the area. Requirements for recording node buoys would be coordinated with the NDGFD. Layout and troubleshooting would be conducted using flat- bottomed boats, airboat, or by foot (described above under Section 2.3.2.1, Planning Surveys).

Figure 2.14. Example of node, pressure or marsh phone, and buoy used for recording operations in Lake Sakakawea.

29 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.2.2.1 Recording Data received by the marsh phones and hydrophones would be stored in the nodes and retrieved once those nodes have been picked up by boat and taken back to the central staging area. A repair crew would be located nearby to repair any electrical/wiring problems that may develop on active receiver lines during operations. Repair operations would be conducted via a flat-bottomed boat travelling along receiver lines repairing damaged nodes, marsh phones, or hydrophones. All equipment movement would be restricted to daylight hours.

2.3.2.2.2 Demobilization Upon completion of data acquisition (recording) operations in an “active” receiver line area, the nodes, marsh phones, and hydrophones would be retrieved by the equipment boats, returned to the primary staging area to have the equipment serviced as necessary, and then returned by boat to new receiver locations.

2.3.3 Equipment To conduct this project, the equipment described in the land-based and water-based geophysical exploration sections above would be used. All equipment would be initially brought to the project area by transport trucks/tractor-trailers as part of project mobilization. The transportation of trucks and equipment to/from the project area would be in strict compliance with North Dakota Department of Transportation rules and regulations regarding the transport of overweight and/or oversize vehicles. All vehicles would be pressure washed at a car wash facility prior to entering the project area. All equipment being placed within Lake Sakakawea would be made available to the NDGFD for inspection of aquatic nuisance species prior to staging at Lake Sakakawea.

The typical types of equipment that would be used in the land- and water-based geophysical operations are listed below. The exact number (and specifications) of each vehicle type would be determined during the planning stages of the project. All equipment would initially be brought to the project area by 12 to 20 transport trucks/tractor-trailers as part of the project mobilization. Operation of most support vehicles, including pickups, would be limited to existing roads and trails or to routes/areas surveyed and previously cleared for cultural, natural, and paleontological resources.

2.3.3.1 Land-Based Operations Equipment • Helicopters (support for equipment layout) • Hydrostatic buggy drills (on land-based source lines with slopes between 12 and 25 degrees) • Water buggy (on land-based source lines with slopes between 12 and 25 degrees) • Buggy vibrator trucks (on land-based source lines with slopes less than 12 degrees) • Double-walled trailer-mounted/bowser fuel tanks • Ford F550, or similar, recording truck • UTVs (Yamaha 450 Rhinos or equivalent) • 20-foot UTV trailers

30 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.3.2 Water-Based Operations Equipment • Flat and/or air boats (recording, troubleshooting, and support operations in Lake Sakakawea)

2.3.3.3 Project Support Equipment • ¾-ton pickup trucks • 1-ton stake bed trucks to transport recording equipment • 1-ton service truck • 48-foot van trailers (equipment transport/battery charging) • 48-foot flat deck trailer (equipment transport) • Fuel trailer • Support vehicles

2.3.4 Staging Areas Staging areas would be required for land- and water-based geophysical survey activities.

2.3.4.1 Land-Based Geophysical Staging Areas One primary staging area would be used in the project area, with several smaller staging areas strategically located throughout the overall project area to allow temporary placement of crew and equipment; fuel for the helicopter, vibroseis buggies, and support trucks; landing pad(s) for the helicopter; and parking for crew transport vehicles.

The primary staging area would be used to prepare and bag equipment prior to the equipment being flown to the receiver lines via helicopter. Satellite staging areas would make use of previously disturbed areas whenever possible and would be located to reduce travel time in the project area. Satellite staging areas are typically much smaller and involve less human activity than the primary staging area. A project trailer/office (located at one of the staging areas) would direct helicopter operations, including ferrying equipment to/from the receiver lines and transporting project personnel to/from the project area as necessary.

Land-based operation equipment staging areas would be located on private lands and would be chosen based on their strategic locations. Hess’s Environmental Health and Safety and permitting contractors would identify suitable staging areas during the planning phase of this project. Staging areas would avoid all sensitive cultural, natural, environmental, and paleontological resources. To the maximum extent possible, staging areas would be placed in areas of existing disturbance, such as farm or ranch yards. The size of primary and satellite staging areas would range between 1 and 2 acres. Depending on the site conditions at the staging areas, the non-woody vegetation may be mowed to reduce the fire-hazard danger.

31 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.4.2 Water-Based Geophysical Staging Areas Water-based operation recording, troubleshooting, and support operation equipment would use public or pre-approved launch areas to follow proposed source points across the lake as needed. Launching areas would likely be used in the mornings and evenings throughout the duration of project operations. Use of boat ramps would be limited to off peak hours (0800– 1800), as much as possible, to reduce the conflict of ramp use by the general public.

The proposed staging area for the water-based activities would be Lunds Landing in White Tail Bay, Section 15, T154N, R97W. An alternative staging area may be in the Lewis and Clark Bay, Section 25, T154N, R98W (Figure 2.15). Access to public boat ramps is managed by, and would be permitted by, the Corps. Hess would notify the Corps of selected access points and dates of access.

Hess and its contractors would not have priority use over public use at ramp sites, nor would they have priority use over public boaters on the water; however, if safety is an issue, Hess will request that Corps Rangers ask members of the public to temporarily vacate an area. If a Corps Ranger is not available, Hess and its contractors would ask the public to vacate the area upon permission from the Corps Ranger. Equipment would be staged in pre-existing disturbance, such as parking lots and boat ramps, and no new surface use would be required.

32 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 2.15. Location of proposed staging areas for water-based activities.

33 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.5 Workforce The proposed project would employ up to 120 individuals to conduct the entire project, including planning, safety, and oversight of all phases described above in the land-based and water-based geophysical operations sections. Not all individuals would be actively working in the project area at one time. The crew size would vary by the project phase, and be limited to those necessary to efficiently and safely conduct each project phase. Crew members would conduct daily operations for a minimum of 12 to 14 hours, but up to 18 hours per day until project completion. Most of the crew members would be housed in and around Watford City, North Dakota, approximately 40 miles west of the project area.

2.3.6 Project Activities and Schedule The proposed seismic survey is scheduled to begin in September 2014 and would be completed by December 2014. Project activities, as described above in the land-based and water-based geophysical operations sections, would commence as soon as the appropriate permits, real estate instruments, and approvals are in place for the project. The permitting phase would begin in May 2014. Planning surveys would begin in August or September 2014. Seismic equipment layout and data acquisition would occur in September or October 2014. Wildlife timing stipulations as outlined below would be abided by. Seismic survey activities would proceed systematically from west to east and north to south in the project area. Project activities would comply with seasonal restrictions as outlined in Section 2.3.8, Applicant- Committed Environmental Protection Measures. The duration of all phases of the project is projected to be approximately 180 days, which includes permitting, weather days, mobilization, and demobilization. The project is estimated to have some level of workforce activity on the ground for a period of 70 days, which would include land agents contacting landowners for access permission. Source generation and recording of the entire project area is expected to take approximately 40 days.

2.3.7 Surface Use Estimates As described above in Section 2.3.1.4, Source Generation and Recording, potential methods and associated surface use requirements in the project area vary based on the acoustical energy source and topography on land and in the water. A summary of the potential project activities is provided below.

2.3.7.1 Land-Based Operations above the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea The acoustic energy source for land-based source points would be generated by ground vibration. As described above, two methods would be used to generate the acoustic energy on land: 1. Vibroseis mounted on buggy trucks in terrain with up to 12-degree slopes (refer to Section 2.3.1.4.1 for detailed description). 2. Controlled detonation in terrain with slopes between 12 and 25 degrees (refer to Section 2.3.1.4.2 for detailed description).

34 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Using 12-foot digital elevation maps, the acoustical method was modeled for land-based shots to determine where vibroseis and controlled detonation would be used. The width of the equipment was then applied to create travel and surface use corridors that would be used to conduct the land-based operations. The exact number and location of the primary and secondary staging areas would be identified during the planning phase, as described in Section 2.3.4.1. The surface use numbers presented below do not include acreage associated with staging areas because their locations are unknown and they would likely be located in non-sensitive and/or already disturbed areas.

The proposed project would require approximately 541.4 acres of short-term surface use on lands above the OHWM (1,850 amsl) of Lake Sakakawea (Table 2.3). Approximately 21.7 acres of this use would be within the Garrison Project Boundary (Table 2.3). Approximately 14.9 acres of the total use would result from vibroseis source generation and travel routes, and approximately 6.8 acres from controlled detonation activities within the Garrison Project Boundary. This short-term use would occur over a 40-day period, as described in Section 2.3.6 Project Activities and Schedule. This short-term use is anticipated to return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins.

35 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 2.3. Approximate Land-Based Surface Use Requirements, Above the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea, Associated with the Proposed Project. Source Generation Recording Vibroseis Travel Routes Controlled Detonation Slope Vibroseis Receivers on Receiver Lines 12–25 Degrees Landowner Surface Surface Surface Receiver Points Lines Lines Points Lines Lines Use Use Use Stations (#) (miles) (miles) (#) (miles) (miles) (acres) (acres) (acres) (#) Private 2,262 127.2 200.5 148.0 233.2 917 53.1 64.3 5,910 244.2 State 92 5.1 8.0 3.0 4.7 132 7.7 9.4 386 16.2 Corps 48 2.3 3.7 7.1 11.2 103 5.6 6.8 436 17.7 Total 2,402 134.6 212.2 158.1 249.1 1,152 66.4 80.5 6,732 278.1

36 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.7.2 Water and Land-Based Operations below the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea Using the anticipated water surface elevations (1,825.0, 1,830.0, 1,834.0, and 1,837.5 feet amsl), the anticipated number of receiver stations was determined (see Table 2.2). In October 2012, a bathymetric survey was conducted by Erickson Contract Surveying Inc., in the project area at a water surface elevation of 1,834 feet amsl (Smith and McCauley 2012). These data combined with the 12.9-meter Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (personal communication, ISFAR DEM data provided to Wade Epperson, SWCA Geographic Information System [GIS] Specialist, from Drew Popovich, Senior Geophysicist, Hess Baaken Investments II, LLC, November 14, 2012) were used to model the depths in the project area based on the other three water surface elevations.

Based on these elevations, receiver line placement below the OHWM (1,850 amsl) of Lake Sakakawea would consist of 165.7 miles of receiver lines. Depending on the water level at the time of operations, receiver line placement could result in approximately 19.5 to 160.4 linear miles of short-term surface use on the lake bed (Table 2.4).

Staging areas for water-based activities would be identified during the planning phase, as described in Section 2.3.4.2. These staging areas would be located on pre-existing disturbance and therefore were not included in the surface use estimates.

Table 2.4. Approximate Surface Disturbance within Lake Sakakawea Associated with the Proposed Project. Recording Water-Based Land-Based1 Water Receiver Receiver Elevation Lines Lines Stations Stations (miles) (miles) (#) (#) 1,825.00 468 19.5 3,510 146.3 1,830.00 1,669 69.5 2,309 96.2 1,834.00 3,603 150.1 375 15.6 1,837.50 3,849 160.4 129 5.4 1 Land-based points that occur between the water surface elevation and the OHWM elevation (1,850 feet amsl).

2.3.8 Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures The specific environmental protection measures and best management practices (BMPs) listed below by activity or environmental resource area are integral components of the Proposed Action and would be implemented proactively to minimize resource effects and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations (see Section 8.0).

37 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

2.3.8.1 Fire Protection • Off-road equipment, including buggy drills, would be diesel powered (no catalytic converter). • UTVs and vibroseis trucks would be equipped with spark arrestors. • Vehicles may stop temporarily, but would not be parked in tall grass. • All ground vehicles would be equipped with fire extinguishers and shovels. • Helicopter landing zones at staging areas would be equipped with fire extinguishers. • Staging areas would be mowed after the completion of the migratory birds nesting season (February 1 to July 15), as needed, to reduce fire danger and impacts to migratory birds.

The following operational procedures would be followed. • All brush build-up around mufflers, radiators, headers, and other engine parts would be avoided; periodic checks would be conducted to prevent this build-up. • No fires would be allowed. • Portable generators used in the project area would be required to have spark arresters. • Hess would coordinate project activities with appropriate fire-fighting personnel in the area. The crew contingency plan would include a fire communications protocol for contacting fire-fighting personnel.

2.3.8.2 Existing Facilities/Rights-of-Way Protection • Written consent from landowners or land managers would be obtained prior to entering property and performing any work activities. • Safe operating distances (based on accepted industry standards) would be maintained between shot holes and existing facilities including producing oil and gas wells, pipelines, and electrical utility lines, and around helicopter field landing or staging areas. • Gates would be used for crossing fences whenever possible. If, however, a fence crossing is required for a location absent a gate, the fence could be let down to create a temporary opening. Upon termination of seismic survey activities, the temporary opening would be permanently rewired and stretched to its original tension. • Any facilities impacted by the proposed seismic survey would be repaired or replaced as soon as practical. Before and after photographs would be taken to document existing and restored conditions. Photographs would be retained by Hess in case a dispute arose between landowner/manager and the applicant.

2.3.8.3 Hazardous and Solid Waste/Trash Disposal • Fuel and lubricants for seismic equipment would be transported in double-walled trailer-mounted/bowser tanks for refueling vibroseis trucks in the field. These tanks are equipped with catch trays under the tank and nozzles when filling the vibroseis

38 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

trucks. All fueling would be done with a two-person team so there is always someone at the nozzle and one person at the tank for emergency shut off. The trailers and support trucks would be refueled at local gas stations. • Fuel or lubricants for other equipment may be stored in staging areas located on private lands. Fuel and lubricants would be placed on an impermeable liner that ties into a berm and stored away from water resources. These locations would be approved by the appropriate surface management agency in staging areas to minimize potential for accidental releases/spills. No other hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be brought into the project area. • All spills or leaks of fuel, hydraulic fluid, lubricating oil, and coolant, including contaminated soil material, would be excavated, stored in an approved spill-proof container, and transported to an approved disposal site. • All solid waste or trash would be transported to an approved solid waste disposal facility for disposal. • Portable toilets would be available for crew members around the job site. A local sanitation company would be hired to dispose of the waste.

2.3.8.4 Public/Crew Safety • Vehicles would travel at or below posted speed limits on main access roads and at slower speeds appropriate for conditions on more remote roads. During travel on source and receive lines, average equipment speeds would be around 5 miles per hour (mph) and would not exceed speeds of 15 mph. • Signs would be posted in public use areas, at road/trail intersections, and boat launches on either side of the next day’s planned activity to inform the public of Hess’s seismic operations, and a point of contact would be listed as a source of additional information. • Floating data recording and hydrophone cables near shore would be marked with reflective tape and/or some sort of light to make them highly visible to boaters in the area. Requirements for buoys would be coordinated with the NDGFD. • Drilling crew/staff would keep the public a safe distance away from all seismic operation equipment, and helicopter field landing or staging activity. • All survey crew members would wear safety vests, hardhats, and goggles where required. • The shot hole detonation observer would wear a hardhat and safety goggles. • Prior to detonation of each hole, it would be visually determined by the source point coordinator that there are no people near the hole. Crew members on land and in the water on boats would be present to intercept the general public and insure that they do not travel within 100 feet of the shot holes during detonation.

39 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• The helicopter would follow flight paths chosen to be efficient while following activity-specific aviation operational safety standards for flight altitudes per Federal Aviation Administration rules, 14 CFR et seq., and Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

o The helicopter and its crew would have certifications that include but are not limited to FAR Part 133, Rotorcraft External Load Operations, in the appropriate class. o The helicopter refueling and servicing would occur at staging areas and may occur at airports. o Helicopters’ inherent nature and the FARs permit flying in airspace down to but not including the earth’s surface. On designated survey lands, the helicopter, like the buggies, may have contact with the survey lands. Yet the helicopter should avoid low-level overflights of towns, hospitals, ranch buildings, livestock, and wildlife (to preclude contributing to stampeding over cliffs or through fences). • Transportation, storage, and handling of explosives would be in strict compliance with applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. All employee possessors would be authorized through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to handle and transport explosives. Local and agency law enforcement and fire department officials would be notified of the proposed storage and use of explosives in the project area. • Explosives and detonator caps would be stored in or near the project area in large, secure magazines (large locked steel boxes) per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives requirements. • Signage for the magazines would not be placed on the magazines, but on adjacent posts or other permanent features. • Explosives/detonators would be transported in accordance with Federal Department of Transportation regulations.

2.3.8.5 Water Resources, Wetland/Riparian/Floodplain Protection • Hess would comply with all laws, regulations, and policies that protect water and wetland/riparian/floodplain resources. • Field surveys for wetlands, perennial waters, and springs were conducted within a 200-foot buffer centered on proposed source lines and additional source points on Corps-managed lands in the project area in September 2012 (SWCA 2012a; Appendix A). Surveys were not conducted on private lands due to lack of landowner permissions. Water resources on private lands were identified using the National Wetlands Inventory database (USFWS 2013a). New areas would be identified and avoided during planning surveys. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units.

40 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• No shot holes would be drilled on land within 100 feet of perennial surface water features or springs. • No operations other than receiver placement would be performed within 100 feet of a spring. These locations would be identified using desktop analysis and during planning surveys. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units. • No operations other than receiver placement would be performed within 50 feet of a wetland. These locations would be identified during planning surveys using the National Wetlands Inventory database (USFWS 2013a) and mapped hydric soils (NRSC 2013a, 2013b). These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units. • No source points or vehicle traffic would occur in sensitive drainages or wetlands. No wetland/riparian vegetation would be removed during the placement of nodes. • Should saturated conditions or water in a drilled shot hole be encountered during the land-based operations, the hole would not be used for controlled detonation. Native bentonite would be packed into the shot hole to above the water level in the hole to seal the saturated zone. • Project water would be obtained from adjudicated commercial sources. • Helicopters would be used to place equipment to support placement of recording lines to reduce surface disturbance. • Fueling of vehicles would not occur near wetlands or areas that have the possibility of contaminating a body of water by runoff or migration into surface water or groundwater. • A spill cleanup kit would be accessible when fueling a vehicle. • No maintenance or fueling of vehicles or boats would be permitted on federal lands managed by the Corps. • All seismic equipment must be inspected by NDGFD for aquatic nuisance species prior to entering Lake Sakakawea. NDGFD must be given 72 hours’ notice to facilitate inspection of equipment. 2.3.8.6 Vegetation and Soil Resource Protection • No vehicle travel would be permitted on slopes greater than approximately 25 degrees. • Vehicular traffic off existing roadways would be prohibited during thawing ground or moisture conditions, which would result in wheel tracks in excess of 4 inches deep. • If any ground disturbance associated with the seismic survey consisting of ruts greater than 4 inches did occur, they would be reclaimed as close as possible to original conditions.

o On Corps-managed lands, restoration could include land contouring and reseeding vegetation, as necessary, with an approved seed mixture which

41 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

would consist of Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis glaucifolius) (15%), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) (20%), Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) (5%), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) (10%), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) (25%), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) (5%), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) (5%), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) (15%). Upon completion of the project, Hess would provide the Corps with a written document, including photographs of the pre- and post-restoration work, indicating that the vegetation and soil reclamation requirements have been completed. Upon receipt of the letter, the Corps may schedule an on-site inspection with Hess to determine satisfactory reclamation of the disturbed sites.

o On private lands, Hess would either 1) restore the ruts as described above for Corps-managed lands, or 2) pay the landowner to implement reclamation of the area.

• No vehicle traffic would be permitted below the OHWM (1,850 feet amsl) to avoid rutting. Receivers would be placed by foot traffic only. • Traffic would be planned to minimize the number of passes over the same ground, and to minimize the potential for soil compaction and for impacts to biological soil crusts. • The spinning of all vehicle tires would be avoided where possible to minimize the potential for soil displacement. • All equipment, including on-road and off-road equipment, would be cleaned using a pressure washer, to remove weed seed and soil (may contain weed seed) prior to commencing operations. • Larger shrubs, trees (defined as 3.5 inches in trunk diameter at breast height), and other obstacles would be avoided where possible; no cutting or removal of shrubs, trees, or other obstacles is proposed. • Hess would offset vehicle paths, use only the number of passes necessary to accomplish objectives, avoid operation on land in wet soil areas, and use lightweight equipment in unstable soils and along the lake shoreline. These measures would also serve to minimize vegetation damage and removal and subsequent soil destabilization leading to erosion.

2.3.8.7 Wildlife Resources • Project personnel would be subject to the following requirements: no harassing or shooting of wildlife; no damaging of nests or dens of wildlife would be allowed; no dogs may be brought to the project area; no firearms permitted; and no littering. • Sensitive wildlife resource areas or habitats, such as critical habitat for piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and eagle nests, would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and included in GIS files on the GPS units for purposes of compliance with avoidance measures by crew members.

42 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• No vehicle traffic would occur within critical habitat for piping plover. Nodes at receiver points would be placed by hand only. • Operations would not overlap with the nesting seasons of raptors (February 1 to August 15), or the nesting seasons of any of the migratory birds (February 1 to July 15) without approval from the Corps and USFWS. Planning surveys and equipment layout may be allowed after July 15 with approval from the Corps. • Operations within documented and potential nesting habitats would not overlap with the nesting seasons for interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) and piping plover (April 1 to August 31), without approval from the Corps and USFWS. Planning surveys and equipment layout may be allowed after July 15 with approval from the Corps. No activities that could result in rutting would be allowed in these areas. • Operations associated with the Proposed Action would have to be completed prior to the lake freezing over.

2.3.8.8 Cultural Resources • Hess would avoid sites eligible (or unevaluated for eligibility) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by a 100-foot buffer with source lines and point and vehicle traffic during project design. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units, based on the Class III cultural resource inventory completed by the Corps on Corps- managed lands in the project area and the Class I files search completed on all private and state-owned lands in the project area (SWCA 2012b).

• Nodes at receiver points would be surface mounted and hand placed within known archeological sites and on Corps managed lands.

2.3.8.9 Paleontological Resources • Hess would avoid sensitive paleontological resources by a 100-foot buffer with source point and vehicle traffic during project design. Locations avoided would be based on the field surveys for paleontological resources that were conducted within a 200-foot buffer centered on proposed source lines and additional source points on Corps- managed lands in the project area in September 2012 (SWCA 2012c). Surveys were not conducted on private lands due to lack of landowner permissions. These resources on private lands were identified using desktop analysis and would be verified and new areas identified during planning surveys. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units.

• Nodes at receiver point would be surface mounted and hand placed within 100-feet of sensitive paleontological resources.

2.3.8.10 Public Land Use and Recreations • Crews would offset source lines and points out of recreational areas, including picnic and other public use areas, to minimize interference with recreationists; operations in

43 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

these areas would be hand-placed receiver lines only. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units. • All crew members would wear high visibility clothing during all operations. • The Corps or lessee would monitor any areas where paths/trails are visible to insure that they are not used by the public for access. Hess would coordinate with the Corps regarding any measures necessary to reclaim trails. • Any fences that are damaged by operations would be repaired immediately. Photographs documenting the damage and the repair would be taken and provided to the Corps to document this commitment. • Signs would be posted in public use areas to inform the public of Hess’s operations within Corps lands, and a point of contact would be listed as a source of additional information.

2.3.9 Applicant-Committed Mitigation Measures 1. If a whooping crane (Grus americana) is spotted in the project area, all work would immediately cease and the USFWS would be contacted. After the bird has left the area, work may resume in coordination with the USFWS. Whooping cranes would not be expected to stay in an area for more than a few days.

44 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The construction of Garrison Dam impounded the Missouri River, creating the long and sinuous Lake Sakakawea. The shoreline of the lake is highly serrated due to the inundation of the valleys of streams tributary to the Missouri River. The terrain near Lake Sakakawea is composed of an open, expansive stream-dissected prairie. Rugged topography due to stream down cutting is extensive near Lake Sakakawea and to the southwest, specifically along the Little Missouri River Valley (Corps 2007).

Climate in the Lake Sakakawea area is defined by distinct seasonal changes: summers are hot and winters are often long and cold with occasional severe blizzards. The mountains to the west of the lake block cool, moist Pacific Ocean air masses from moving eastward. No barriers to air movement exist to the north or south. Consequently cold, dry air masses from the far north flow over the area during winter and warm, humid air masses from tropical regions flow over the area during summer. Movement of these air masses and their associated fronts often results in large day-to-day temperature fluctuations in all seasons and create nearly continuous wind (Corps 2007).

Summer temperatures near 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) are not uncommon; days are characterized by clear to partly cloudy skies 75% of the time during this season. October temperatures ranged from 41.3°F to 45.9°F between 1971 and 2000 in various cities near Lake Sakakawea. Winter temperatures are extremely variable and can range from below 0°F to 40°F to 50°F. The average annual temperature range (difference between July and January average temperatures) is large, about 60°F. Short-lived, fast-moving thunderstorms produce much of the annual precipitation during the summer; on average, it rains one out of every three to four days. Total annual precipitation ranges between 14 to 20 inches in the Lake Sakakawea area (Corps 2007).

Prevailing winds occur out of the west to northwest and average around 11 mph in the Lake Sakakawea area. The average wind speed is greatest in April and May. During the recreation season, which extends from the beginning of May through August, winds commonly occur from the east and south. The monthly average wind speed in Bismarck is 10.5 and 10.4 mph during September and October, respectively, with a west-northwest prevailing direction. The monthly average wind speed in Williston is 10.1 and 10.0 mph during September and October, respectively, with a southwest prevailing direction (Corps 2007).

The Affected Environment sections in this chapter summarize the existing physical, biological, and social resources in the project area that may be affected by the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. The following critical resources/elements are not present in the project area, or are present but would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Action. These resources are not discussed further in the EA. • Geology • Noise • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

45 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• Environmental Justice • Floodplains • Prime or Unique Farmlands • Land Use • Socioeconomics • Visual Resources

3.1 AIR QUALITY

3.1.1 Regulatory Framework The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (42 United States Code [USC] 7401 et seq.), as amended in 1977 and 1990, is the basic federal law governing air pollution. Provisions of the CAA that may be relevant to the Proposed Action are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The Nonattainment New Source Review, Conformity Regulations, New Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are not applicable to the Proposed Action. North Dakota is currently in attainment with all NAAQS. Because of this status and because geophysical survey equipment is typically classified as mobile, non-major sources, it is assumed that no air quality permits or authorizations are required from the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), Air Quality Division, for the Proposed Action.

3.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards The CAA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. NAAQS have been set for six common air pollutants, or criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (PM), including PM equal to or less than 10.0 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). When a designated air quality area or airshed in a state exceeds a NAAQS, that area may be designated as a “nonattainment” area. Areas with levels of pollutants below the health-based standard are designated as “attainment” areas. To determine whether an area meets the NAAQS, air monitoring networks have been established and are used to measure ambient air quality and determine attainment status.

The NDDH, Air Quality Division regulates air quality throughout the state, except for on Indian reservations. North Dakota has promulgated ambient air quality standards (AAQS) in addition to the NAAQS. These standards include hydrogen sulfide; for all other pollutants, the NAAQS are equivalent or more stringent than the North Dakota AAQS. Both the NAAQS and AAQS apply to the proposed project.

3.1.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration New projects within attainment or unclassified areas must demonstrate conformance with limits defined under the PSD program. The PSD requirements provide maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations for areas that are already in compliance with the

46 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

NAAQS. Certain sensitive areas, defined as Class I areas under the CAA, have a smaller allowable incremental increase in new emissions than Class II and Class III areas. The only Class I areas in North Dakota are Lostwood Wilderness in Burke County and Theodore Roosevelt National Park in Billings and McKenzie Counties (the north unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park is over 20 miles south of the project area).

The Proposed Action is not a PSD source because it does not have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air contaminant regulated under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23-25. In addition, the project area is not located near any Class I areas.

3.1.4 Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the air are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, which are contributing to global warming. Global warming is defined as the ongoing rise in global average temperature near the earth’s surface. Global warming is causing climate patterns to change.

The High Plains Regional Climate Center provides climate data for the High Plains region of the United States, consisting of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. Based on a review of data over a 118-year period (1895–2013), the High Plains region shows an average annual temperature warming trend of 1.9°F. The greatest amount of warming on an annual basis occurred in North Dakota (2.9°F), while the least amount of warming occurred in Kansas and Nebraska (1.3°F). Precipitation shows a 1.3% increase (with high year-to-year variability) in the High Plains region during the same period (High Plains Regional Climate Center 2013).

Climate models project a warming in the High Plains region of about 4°F by 2050 and 8°F or higher by 2090. With regards to precipitation, models show general drying in summer and autumn, with wetter conditions in winter. Spring is projected to be wetter in the northern part of the region.

3.1.5 Existing Air Quality The NDDH, Air Quality Division, operates a network of ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the state to collect data on criteria pollutant concentrations and meteorological conditions. The only monitoring station in Williams and McKenzie Counties is located in Theodore Roosevelt National Park – North Unit. This station monitors SO2, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, as well as meteorological parameters such as wind speed and ambient temperature. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park – North Unit monitoring station, and all other state monitoring stations, indicate that North Dakota and the proposed project area is in attainment for all ambient standards for criteria pollutants (NDDH 2012).

47 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.1.6 Existing Emission Sources Emissions sources in McKenzie and Williams Counties include non-road, mobile, diesel and gasoline equipment; on-road, mobile, heavy and light-duty vehicles; prescribed fires, wildfires, and agricultural field burning; biogenics; commercial cooking; residential, commercial, and industrial fuel combustion; oil and gas production; locomotives; aircraft; waste disposal; and road, crop, construction, and livestock dust (EPA 2011).

Traffic counts from 2011 indicate average annual daily traffic (AADT) ranges from 4,305 to 6,425 on U.S. Route 85, west of Watford City, in McKenzie County (AADT; defined as the total volume of vehicle traffic on a road for a year, divided by 365 days). U.S. Route 85 is the nearest road to the south of the project area with traffic counts. The AADT for commercial truck traffic on this highway ranges from 1,745 to 2,235. Traffic counts in 2011 also show an AADT of 3,955 on Highway 1804 east of Williston, in Williams County. This is the nearest road to the north of the project area with traffic counts. The AADT for commercial truck traffic on this portion of Highway 1804 is 1,105 (North Dakota Department of Transportation 2011).

3.2 PALEONTOLOGY

Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains, imprints, or traces of once-living organisms preserved in rocks and sediments. These include mineralized, partially mineralized, or un-mineralized bones and teeth, soft tissues, shells, wood, leaf impressions, footprints, burrows, and microscopic remains. Paleontological resources include not only fossils themselves, but also the associated rocks or organic matter and the physical characteristics of the fossils’ associated sedimentary matrix. Fossils are considered non-renewable resources because the organisms they represent no longer exist. Thus, once destroyed, a fossil can never be replaced (Murphey and Daitch 2007).

Among federal agencies, the BLM has taken the lead in the development of paleontological resource management guidelines. Therefore, the BLM’s definition for Significant Paleontological Resource (BLM 2008:1-18 to 1-19), which is widely accepted by professional paleontologists, was used for this project and is as follows: Any paleontological resource that is considered to be of scientific interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and traces, and certain rare or unusual invertebrate and plant fossils. A significant paleontological resource is considered to be scientifically important because it is a rare or previously unknown species, it is of high quality and well-preserved, it preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic, provides new information about the history of life on earth, or has identified educational or recreational value. Paleontological resources that may be considered to not have paleontological significance include those that lack provenience or context, lack physical integrity because of decay or natural erosion, or that are overly redundant or are otherwise not useful for research. Vertebrate fossil remains and traces include bone, scales, scutes, skin impressions, burrows, tracks, tail drag marks, vertebrate coprolites (feces), gastroliths (stomach stones), or other physical evidence of past vertebrate life or activities.

48 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

This EA is based on data obtained from a paleontological technical report prepared for the proposed project (Knauss and Murphey 2012). The technical report includes a review of published scientific literature, geologic maps, and museum records; and it presents the results of the paleontological field survey of Corps lands that was completed within the project area boundary.

3.2.1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification of Geologic Units The paleontological sensitivity of each geologic unit in the project area was evaluated according to the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system (BLM 2007). Geologic units, usually at the formation or member level, are classified according to the probability of yielding scientifically significant paleontological resources that are of concern to land managers. Only areas where geologic bedrock is exposed or occurring in the shallow subsurface (covered by less than 1 meter of surficial sediment) are classified. PFYC values are assigned to geologic units on the taxonomic diversity and abundance of previously recorded, scientifically significant fossil occurrences from each geologic unit, and the potential for future discoveries. Following are the definitions of each class.

• PFYC Class 1 – Very Low: Geologic units not likely to contain recognizable fossils remains. • PFYC Class 2 – Low: Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant non-vertebrate fossils. • PFYC Class 3a or 3b – Moderate or Unknown: Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. • PFYC Class 4 – High: Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface-disturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological resources in many cases. • PFYC Class 5 – Very High: Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural degradation.

The project area contains four mapped geologic units. From oldest to youngest, these geologic units are the Sentinel Butte Formation (PFYC 4); the Tertiary Fort Union Group (PFYC 5), which could contain both the Sentinel Butte and the Bullion Creek Formations; the Coleharbor Group (PFYC 2); and Quaternary deposits consisting of alluvial terraces and sheet moraines (PFYC 2) (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1).

49 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.1. Potential fossil yield of geologic units and paleontological assessment areas.

50 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.1. Potential Fossil Yield of Geologic Units in the Project Area. PFYC Acres in Geologic Unit Rating Project Area Sentinel Butte Formation 4 8,794.6 Tertiary Fort Union Group1 5 13,380.8 Quaternary Deposits2 2 11,700.5 1 Fort Union Group may contain the Sentinel Butte Formation and the Bullion Creek Formation. 2 Quaternary deposits consist of alluvial terraces and sheet moraines including units of the Coleharbor Group.

All geologic units in the project area, other than Holocene-age surficial deposits, have the potential to contain fossils of varying abundance, taxonomic diversity, and significance. The general paleontological content of the geologic units in the project area are described below in approximate ascending stratigraphic order (from oldest to youngest).

3.2.1.1 Fort Union Group Although recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as a formation, the Fort Union is recognized by the North Dakota Geological Survey as a group, and is divided into the Ludlow, Cannonball, Slope, Bullion Creek (or Tongue River), and Sentinel Butte formations (Hartman et al. 2002). The Bullion Creek and Sentinel Butte formations are mapped in the project area (Carlson 1985; Clayton et al. 1980; Freers 1970).

3.2.1.1.1 Bullion Creek Formation (or Tongue River Formation) Fossil from the Bullion Creek Formation include mammals, reptiles, fish, fossil trackways, invertebrates, and plants (Hanks et al. 2002; Erickson 1991; Hartman 1984). There are a number of highly productive vertebrate fossil localities from the Bullion Creek Formation. Wannagan Creek, the best known Bullion Creek locality, was first collected in 1971 by the Science Museum of St. Paul, and has produced thousands of fossil vertebrates including a famous reptilian fauna (Erickson 1982a, 1982b, 1991). The Judson locality is an important mammal-rich locality which, for a time, was thought to be within the Slope Formation (Hartman and Kihm 1991; Kihm and Hartman 2004). Fossils collected indicate that the Bullion Creek is of Torrejonian and Tiffanian North American Land Mammal Age (NALMA) (Hartman and Kihm 1995). Fossils are relatively abundant in the Bullion Creek Formation. Therefore, it is considered to be highly sensitive and is designated as PFYC Class 5.

3.2.1.1.2 Sentinel Butte Formation Mammal fossils are known including a number of specimens of Titanoides (Pantodonta) from the lower Sentinel Butte Formation (Hartman and Kihm 1991). The mammal fossils collected from the Red Springs Quarry in central North Dakota indicate a late Tiffanian NALMA for the Sentinel Butte Formation (Kihm et al. 1993). In addition to the mammals, other vertebrate fossils are known and have been collected from the Sentinel Butte Formation; however, most of these fossils are known from unpublished fossil collections located primarily in the North Dakota State Fossil Collection (personal communication with Dr. John Hoganson [2012]). A

51 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota soft-shell turtle death assemblage was collected by the North Dakota Geological Survey, and was the subject of an unpublished master’s thesis (Kays 1999). Several molluscan fossil localities were also found near the Red Springs Quarry and are known from elsewhere in west-central North Dakota (Hartman 1984). While leaves and other plant fossils including fruits have been documented during stratigraphic studies and collections have been made from a few well-preserved and diverse silicified floras including Almont (Morton County, North Dakota) and Beicegel Creek (McKenzie County, North Dakota), these collections remain largely unpublished (Crane et al. 1990; Stull et al. 2012; Pigg et al. 2008; Pigg and DeVore 2005). Silicified wood as indicated above is prominent within the formation and much of it has been referred to as conifer (Taxodiaceae, sequoia family), including those specimens analyzed within two units in the lower Sentinel Butte which preserve silicified stumps in upright position and are exposed in the southern portion of Theodore Roosevelt National Park (Fastovsky and McSweeney 1991). The Sentinel Butte Formation is considered to have moderate sensitivity and is designated as PFYC Class 4.

3.2.1.2 Quaternary Deposits Pleistocene surficial deposits (PFYC 2) in the project area were deposited in stream channels, on floodplains and alluvial fans; and as glacial sheet moraines (Carlson 1985; Freers 1970). Pleistocene-age surficial deposits, particularly alluvium, may contain mineralized or partially mineralized animal bones, invertebrates, and plant remains of paleontological significance. Although Pleistocene-age glacial outwash sands and gravels in the northern portions of North Dakota are known to contain fossils including those of plants (spruce and aspen), animals including the giant ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersoni), horses, deer, Bison latifrons, and insects (Hoganson and Murphy 2003), these are relatively rare.

3.2.2 Fossil Localities Paleontological records searches were conducted to identify known fossil localities in the project area and nearby in the same geologic formations. One previously documented locality and a number of stratigraphic columns with documented fossil occurrences are located in the project area (Hartman 1984; Freers 1970). Some or all of these could intersect with project source or receiver lines and access routes, but the locality data provided do not permit precise georeferencing. The fossils found at these locations include invertebrates (Campeloma nebrascenses nebrascense?; Viviparus sp. indet.) and plants from the Sentinel Butte Formation.

The paleontological field survey, limited to Corps lands in the project area, was conducted in September 2012 (Knauss and Murphey 2012). Paleontological field surveys were not completed on private lands due to lack of regulatory requirements and landowner permissions. The objective of the field survey was to identify all significant fossils within seismic source lines to provide surface clearance by delineating avoidance areas as appropriate. Because only pre-plot data were available, survey corridors for all source lines were at least 200 feet wide (100 feet on either side of the centerline). All paleontologically sensitive areas with exposed bedrock within these corridors were surveyed (377 acres). Areas on Corps land both within (87.2 acres) and outside (718.7 acres) of the corridors that are so heavily vegetated that bedrock is not exposed were cleared using aerial photography (see Figure 3.1).

52 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Ten fossil localities were documented in the project area during the field survey. These were all recorded within the Sentinel Butte Formation on Corps land. Seven significant fossil localities were recorded in the project area as well as three non-significant fossil occurrences. Non-significant fossils observed were poorly preserved, fragmentary, and unidentifiable.

A summary of the localities recorded with in the project area during the field survey is provided in Table 3.2. Two of the significant fossil localities exemplify and document the extensive silicified wood found throughout the project area, and represent multiple separate locations that were not each given a separate locality number due to the commonality of the fossils. One documents in-situ occurrences, while the other represents ex-situ silicified stumps that are interpreted to have accumulated along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea. Additional fossil types found in the project area consist of turtle shell fragments, bivalve and gastropod shells, and leaves. No fossils were collected during the field survey (Knauss and Murphey 2012). Additional details about the fossil localities are included in the paleontological technical report prepared for the proposed project (Knauss and Murphey 2012).

Table 3.2. Summary of Fossil Localities Discovered in the Project Area.

Field Number Fossil Description Geology1 Significant F5-120905-01* Plantae (c.f. conifer) undet.- silicified tree stumps and logs Tsb (ex-situ, specifically recorded along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea) F5-120907-01 Plantae undet.- leaves (at least 4 types including conifers) Tsb F5-120907-03* Plantae (c.f. conifer) undet.- silicified stumps (specifically Tsb, Tfu recorded on the buttes, in-situ or nearly in-situ) F5-120908-01 Bivalvia undet. A (mussel) - shells; Bivalvia undet. B (pill Tfu clam) - shells; Gastropoda undet. - shells; Plantae undet. - leaves (at least 3 types); Plantae (c.f. Cercidiphyllum) undet.- seed F5-120908-02 Trionychoidea undet.- partial shell, also potential limb bone Tfu although texture suggests different animal F5-120909-02 Gastropoda undet.- shell and shell fragments; Trionychoidea Tfu undet.- shell fragments F5-120912-01 Plantae undet. (Type A, fernlike)-leaves; Plantae undet. Tsb (Type B)-one leaf Non-significant F5-120907-02 Gastropoda undet.- half shell in cross section; Plantae undet.- Tsb leaves (at least 3 types) F5-120909-01 Vertebrata undet.- bone fragments Tfu F5-120909-03 Testudines (?) undet.- shell fragments Tfu 1 Tsb – Sentinel Butte Formation; Tfu – Fort Union Formation * Extensive localities

53 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.3 SOILS

In general, soils around Lake Sakakawea fall into three major categories. The first category is deep soils that are predominantly formed on glacial till and are gently rolling to steep. These soils are located in the eastern one-third of the lake area and the slope is a major restriction for any land use. The second category consists of shallow soils developed on weathered, soft bedrock materials that are shallow and steep. These soils are present in the central portion (approximately 50%) of the lake area; land uses here are restricted by slope, soil depth, and lack of moisture due to rapid run-off. Within this second category, there are small areas of fairly level and deep soils on terraces, bottomlands, and outwash plains which allow more intense land use. The third category is deep, level soils formed on bottomland, located at the western tip of the lake. The major land use restriction on these soils is occasional, brief flooding.

Numerous specific soil series exist within the three general soil categories described above. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic data (NRCS 2013a) were used to determine these soil series and soil characteristics for the project area. Eighty- eight soil types occur in the project area. Soil types may have restrictive features, such as water and wind erosion hazards, that make reclamation and restoration after disturbance more difficult. Project area soil types are listed in Table B.1 in Appendix B and are classified as having low, moderate, or high water and wind erosion hazards. These ratings were developed using soil erodibility, runoff factors, and the wind erodibility group and index, as defined in the National Soil Survey handbook (NRCS 2012). Water erodibility indicates the soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impacts. Wind erodibility indicates the susceptibility of soil to blowing or wind erosion. Typically, soils found on steeper slopes have a high water erosion hazard and soils found on gentler slopes have a low water erosion hazard. Finer grained soils are at a greater risk of wind erosion, and soils with more gravel and/or stones have a lower risk of wind erosion. Wind and water erosion hazards become critical issues when protective vegetation is removed during and following human activities.

In summary, 57 of the 88 soil types in the project area have water or wind erosion hazards (Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3). Twenty-one soil types found in the project area have a moderate risk of water erosion and 40 soil types have a moderate risk of wind erosion. Thirteen soil types have a high risk of water erosion and six soil types have a high risk of wind erosion. Table 3.3 summarizes the acres and percent of the project area that have a moderate or high risk of water or wind erosion.

Table 3.3. Acres and Percent of Project Area with a Moderate or High Risk of Water or Wind Erosion. Water Erosion Risk Wind Erosion Risk Project Area Moderate High Moderate High Acres in Project Area 6,962.8 15,172.8 18,335.4 1,668.5 % of Project Area 15.2 33.2 40.1 3.7

54 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.2. Water erosion hazard in the project area.

55 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.3. Wind erosion hazard in the project area.

56 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.4 VEGETATION

SWCA conducted natural resource surveys in the project area in 2012, but was unable to survey non-Corps lands due to a lack of regulatory requirements and landowner permissions. Vegetation communities identified during the Corps lands survey were found to be consistent with the Landfire National Land Cover Dataset (U.S. Department of the Interior 2009); therefore, this analysis uses the Landfire classification system and dataset, which covers the entire project area. Landfire lists the most common land cover types within the survey area to be Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie (43.4%), followed by Open Water (31.6%), Herbaceous Wetlands (5.4%), National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS)-Close Grown Crop (4.6%), and Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine (3.4%) (Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4). Table 3.4. Land Cover Types in the Project Area. Land Cover Type Acres % Cover Agriculture-Cultivated Crops and Irrigated Agriculture 872.0 1.91 Agriculture-Pasture and Hay 191.7 0.42 Barren 1,096.8 2.40 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 15.8 0.03 Developed-Roads 319.7 0.70 Developed-Upland Deciduous Forest 12.5 0.03 Developed-Upland Evergreen Forest 3.6 0.01 Developed-Upland Herbaceous 60.9 0.13 Developed-Upland Mixed Forest 5.1 0.01 Developed-Upland Shrubland 33.9 0.07 Herbaceous Semi-wet 21.4 0.05 Herbaceous Wetlands 2,472.9 5.41 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 7.8 0.02 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 80.9 0.18 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 21.3 0.05 Introduced Upland Vegetation-Perennial Grassland and 8.7 0.02 Forbland NASS-Close Grown Crop 2,120.3 4.64 NASS-Fallow/Idle Cropland 275.8 0.60 NASS-Row Crop 67.2 0.15 NASS-Row Crop-Close Grown Crop 18.7 0.04 Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 19,834.0 43.38 Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland 1,064.4 2.33 Open Water 14,433.6 31.57 Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems 846.3 1.85 Western Great Plains Dry Bur Oak Forest and Woodland 13.9 0.03 Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems 62.4 0.14

57 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Land Cover Type Acres % Cover Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 186.6 0.41 Western Great Plains Sparsely Vegetated Systems 0.4 0.00 Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 1,569.3 3.43 Note: Due to rounding, percentage and acreage totals may not sum exactly. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior 2009

58 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.4. Land cover types in the project area.

59 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

No threatened, endangered, or candidate vegetation species were identified during SWCA’s natural resources survey, and none are likely to exist in the project area according to North Dakota’s threatened and endangered species list (SWCA 2012a; USGS 2013a).

3.4.1 Native Prairie, Badlands, and Ravines Prairies, badlands, and ravines are all sensitive plant communities that exist in the project area. Native prairie ecosystems provide habitat for unique wildlife as well as dense grass cover important for nesting species. Native prairie habitats are identified by the following Landfire land cover types: Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie, Western Great Plains Sand Prairie, and Central Mixedgrass Prairie. Native prairie habitats (Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie, Western Great Plains Sand Prairie, and Central Mixedgrass Prairie) comprise approximately 43.82% of the project area (see Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4). Native prairie is susceptible to invasion by non-native weeds and grasses (Corps 2007).

Badlands are sparsely vegetated, barren areas where soil is not developed on steep slopes, and are the most ecologically sensitive land type in the project area due to lack of soil or soil fragility and steep slopes. There are approximately 8,378 acres of badland soil types in the project area, which comprises 18.4% of the project area (Table 3.5 and Figure 3.5). According to the NRCS (2013b), badland soils in the project area occur on backslopes and shoulders of ridges. Badlands serve wildlife as transition zones, located between upland prairie types and bottomlands thus providing escape routes and shelter from the open, windy areas (Corps 2007).

Table 3.5. Acres of Badland Soils in the Project Area. Percentage of Acres in Project Soil Type Badland Soils Project Area in Soil Type Area (%) Badland, 9%–150% slopes 90 1,030.1 2.3 Badland, high precipitation 90 75.1 0.2 Badland, outcrop-Lambert-Cabba complex, 42 218.8 0.5 6%–50% slopes Brandenburg-Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex, 16 52.4 0.1 9%–70% slopes Cabba-Badland complex, 6%–70% slopes 36 5,701.5 12.5 Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex, 9%–70% 36 1,300.4 2.8 slopes Total 8,378.3 18.4 Source: NRCS 2013b

60 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.5. Badland soils in the project area.

61 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

In the badlands, vegetation and soil relationships are largely dependent on landscape characteristics. Concave landscape positions that receive water from above, particularly on the north aspect, are typically forested (Butler et al. 1986). Steep, north-facing slopes are often covered by dense stands of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), small seeded ricegrass (Oryzopsis micranth), and other woody vegetation such as skunkbush (Rhus trilobata), dwarf juniper (Juniperus communis), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). In contrast, south-facing badland slopes composed largely of clay are typically devoid of vegetation due to low moisture and high summer insolation (Godfread 1994). Therefore, convex landscape positions on the south aspect or in the backslope positions can be covered by grasses (Butler et al. 1986).

A ravine is a deep-sided valley that has seasonal runoff characteristics. Ravines hold the rare woodland communities found in the badlands, and are scattered throughout the project area (Corps 2007).

3.4.2 Noxious Weeds A noxious weed is an invasive plant that has been designated by a governing body as a nonnative plant that is difficult to control, easily spread, and injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Primary vectors for noxious weeds are wind, birds, and other wildlife. Additional causes of noxious weed invasion include soil or seeds spread by vehicles (North Dakota 2010).

North Dakota law (North Dakota Century Code 4.1-47-02) requires citizens to do all things necessary and proper to control the spread of noxious weeds. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) coordinates weed boards in all counties and certain cities in North Dakota (NDDA 2013a). According to the North Dakota's Noxious Weeds 2012 Survey Report, McKenzie County’s most pervasive noxious weeds were Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with approximately 36,000 acres, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) with approximately 35,000 acres, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with approximately 27,000 acres, and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) with approximately 25,000 acres (NDDA 2012). In Williams County, leafy spurge (approximately 10,000 acres) and Canada thistle (approximately 9,000 acres) dominate (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6. Acres of Recognized State Noxious Weed Occupied Areas in McKenzie and Williams Counties.

McKenzie County Williams County Common Name Scientific Name (acres) (acres) Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium 200 0 Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 35,883 9,400 Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 35,008 0 Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 26,362 10,190 Musk thistle Carduus nutans 20 0 Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 28 1 Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens 35 0

62 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

McKenzie County Williams County Common Name Scientific Name (acres) (acres) Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe 42 5 Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris 28 0 Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica 57 0 Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima 25,027 0 Total 122,646 19,596 Source: NDDA 2012

In addition to North Dakota’s state noxious weeds list, many counties also produce county- specific noxious weeds lists. Williams County does not have a county-specific noxious weeds list. The species list and associated acres for McKenzie County is listed in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7. Acres of Recognized County-Listed Noxious Weed Occupied Areas in McKenzie County.

Common Name Scientific Name Acres Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger 1.77 Common burdock Arctium minus 0.12 Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale 0.07 Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus 0 Baby's breath Gypsophila muralis 0 Source: NDDA 2008 Note: Noxious weed location data for McKenzie County are not available for 2009 through 2012 (Higgins 2013).

In 2002, the Lake Sakakawea Interagency Weed Task Force (Task Force), comprising federal, tribal, state, county, and local agencies and some private entities, was created to increase surveying for noxious weeds on Corps-administered land, promote educational products and tours, and help develop mapping requirements and standards for noxious weed control. The noxious weed species being monitored and controlled on lands around Lake Sakakawea in 2007 include salt cedar, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) (Corps 2007). Brief descriptions of their occurrences in the project area are provided below. For more information about these weed species, see the Garrison Lake Sakakawea Master Plan (Corps 2007).

3.4.2.1 Salt Cedar According to the North Dakota Weed Mapper (NDDA 2013b), salt cedar is the most prolific weed species in the project area with infestations along both banks of Lake Sakakawea in the project area, mainly below the OHWM, according to data from 2002 through 2007. Noxious weed location data for McKenzie County are not available for the years 2009 through 2012 (Higgins 2013). In addition, salt cedar has been identified in upland areas both north and south of the lake in the project area.

63 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.4.2.2 Leafy Spurge In 2004 and 2007, clusters of leafy spurge were reported near the southernmost border of the project area (NDDA 2013b). Year 2007 data also show one infestation just north of the project area near the intersections of 48th Street and 122nd Avenue, approximately 2 miles west of Lewis and Clark State Park. Additionally, leafy spurge infestations show up along 39th Street and 116 ½ Avenue along the routes themselves, near the intersections of the routes, and along Clear Creek 5 to 8 miles east of the project area (NDDA 2013b).

3.4.2.3 Canada Thistle According to the North Dakota Weed Mapper (NDDA 2013b) 2008 data, approximately 10 infestations of Canada thistle are along the northern bank of Lake Sakakawea in the project area, mainly below the OHWM, and none recorded in the portion of the project area south of the lake.

3.4.2.4 Absinth Wormwood According to the North Dakota Weed Mapper (NDDA 2013b), in 2007 there was one cluster of absinth wormwood near the southernmost border of the project area. Additionally, absinthe wormwood infestations were recorded along and near the intersection of 39th Street and 116 ½ Avenue and along Clear Creek 5 to 8 miles east of the project area.

3.5 WATER RESOURCES

Water resources in the project area consist of groundwater, surface water, and wetlands and springs. These resources are discussed in detail in the sections below.

3.5.1 Groundwater The project area is within the lower Tertiary aquifers of the Northern Great Plains aquifer system. The lower Tertiary aquifers, which are the shallowest of the five aquifers that make up the Northern Great Plains system, are composed of sandstone beds that are Eocene and Paleocene in age. Water in the lower Tertiary aquifers is said to be unconfined; however, in some places clay beds act as confining units. This takes place where glacial deposits overlay the aquifers (Whitehead 1996a). A local monitoring site within the Hofflund Aquifer of this system indicates the depth of the aquifer was 27.07 feet below ground surface in November 2012 (USGS 2013b).

The water that is contained in the five aquifers that make up the Northern Great Plains aquifer system is used in many different ways. The main uses of the water include public supply, domestic and commercial, agricultural, and industrial. Irrigation uses the largest portion of the water from the aquifer system. This is important for the longevity of the aquifers, because excess irrigation is a key source of recharge for all of the aquifers. North Dakota uses about 2 to 3 million gallons of water per day per county (Whitehead 1996b). According to a 1990 USGS survey, water utilization from the aquifer system in North Dakota is approximately 65% for irrigation, 23% for public supply, 8% for domestic and commercial, and 4% for mining, industrial, and power.

64 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

There are six permitted groundwater wells in the project area (North Dakota State Water Commission 2013). Five of these wells are permitted for stock and one is used for domestic water supply (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8. Groundwater Well Uses, Depths, Owners, and Locations. Distance to Closest Permit Depth Site Location Uses Owner UTM X UTM Y Source Number (feet) Point (feet) Unknown 15209902CAA Stock Well 0 Private 625490.1136 5319289.636 621.2 Unknown 15209903ABC Stock Well 1,610 Private 624059.7836 5319979.477 666.3 Unknown 15209908AAA Stock Well 1,675 Private 621473.0149 5318287.01 382.2 Unknown 15209917CAC Stock Well 1,750 Private 620575.7556 5315675.513 272.9 Unknown 15209917DAD Stock Well 1,795 Private 621581.7773 5315695.141 452.9 Domestic Unknown 15210003BBB 750 Private 613677.8175 5320020.599 383.6 Well Source: North Dakota State Water Commission 2014

3.5.2 Surface Water The project area falls within the Lake Sakakawea watershed. Lake Sakakawea has been designated as a Class 1 lake by the State of North Dakota’s water quality standards. As such, the lake is to be suitable for a coldwater fishery (i.e., salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life); swimming, boating, and other water recreation; irrigation; stock watering; wildlife; and water for municipal or domestic use after appropriate treatment.

Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the State of North Dakota placed Lake Sakakawea on the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters, as habitat quality for fish and other aquatic life is impaired due to low dissolved oxygen, high water temperature, and high methyl mercury concentrations. A total maximum daily load, to identify the source of impairment, has not been completed for Lake Sakakawea (EPA 2013).

According to EPA watershed profiles, the project area would be located in portions of seven subwatersheds (all within the Lake Sakakawea watershed) (Figure 3.6). The affected subwatersheds are listed in Table 3.9. The total acreage of these subwatersheds is 129,091 acres.

65 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 3.6. Watersheds, water wells, and wetlands in the project area.

66 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.9. Subwatersheds in the Project Area. Total Acres in % Subwatershed HUC_12 Acreage of Project Project Watershed Area Area Cedar Coulee 101101010705 28,199.7 6,084.4 13.3 Cedar Creek 101101010605 30,218.5 17,006.5 37.2 Halfbreed Creek 101101010702 23,185.2 18,784.0 41.1 Long Creek 101101010703 13,111.2 8.6 0.0 Lower Tobacco Garden Creek 101101010809 16,369.3 327.6 0.7 Wild Cow Creek 101101010701 10,673.9 2,820.7 6.2 Willow Creek 101101010603 7,333.4 674.9 1.5 Total 129,091.2 45,706.7 100.0

3.5.3 Wetlands and Waters Perennial and ephemeral streams occur throughout the project area. Common wetland types found in the project area include freshwater emergent, freshwater forested/shrub, freshwater pond, and lake (Table 3.10). Field surveys for wetlands, perennial waters, and springs were conducted within a 200-foot buffer centered on proposed source lines and additional source points on Corps-managed lands in the project area in September 2012 (SWCA 2012a). Surveys were not conducted on private lands due to lack of regulatory requirement and landowner permissions. Water resources on private lands were identified using desktop analysis.

Table 3.10. Wetland Types Located in the Project Area.

Wetland Type Total Count Acres Freshwater emergent wetland 50 21.9 Freshwater forested/shrub wetland 1 0.5 Freshwater pond 40 25.1 Lake 23 33,216.2 Other 2 1.3 Source: USFWS 2013a

3.6 WILDLIFE

A variety of wildlife habitat types can be found in and around Lake Sakakawea, including woodlands, grasslands, open fields, shorelines, and wetlands. Large mammals that occupy the Lake Sakakawea region include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces americanus), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). Small mammals common to the region include two species of rabbits, six species

67 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota of bats, two species of shrew, the woodchuck (Marmota monax), several species of squirrels, the plains pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius), several species of mice, two species of vole, the porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) (Corps 2007).

Area furbearers, traditionally hunted or trapped for fur, include beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), badger (Taxidea taxus), mink (Mustela vison), least weasel (M. nivalis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Felis rufus) (Corps 2007).

Of the 365 bird species known or thought to occur in North Dakota, 245 of them have been recorded as occurring in the Lake Sakakawea area. About 15% of these are year-round residents. Eight amphibians are found in the Lake Sakakawea region, including four species of toad, three species of frog, and the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). Reptile species occurring in the area include three turtle species, two lizard species, and seven snake species (Corps 2007).

Thirteen butterfly and nine moth species have also been recorded in the Lake Sakakawea region (Corps 2007).

3.6.1 Common Wildlife near the Project Area Wildlife species data more specific to the project area were collected during natural resource surveys conducted on Corps lands in 2012 on an area about 2.6 times the size of the current 45,638-acre project area. Species observed during the surveys included the common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), American coot (Fulica americana), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), red fox, white-tailed deer, and coyote (SWCA 2012).

3.7 FISHERIES AND AQUATICS

The creation of Lake Sakakawea in 1967 resulted in a conversion of a riverine warm-water river fishery to a predominantly cold- and cool-water lake fishery. Sixty-five different fish species are known to occur within Lake Sakakawea (Fryda et al. 2010). Sport fisheries for walleye (Sander vitreus), sauger (Sander canadensis), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and northern pike (Esox lucius) occur within Lake Sakakawea. In addition, special status species including the pallid sturgeon and the paddlefish occur in Lake Sakakawea.

In the project area, Lake Sakakawea is predominately a riverine zone supporting a warm water fishery consisting of native and non-native fishes. The water elevation level can greatly influence the fish community in the project area, especially the density and composition of the non-native sport fisheries.

68 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

The riverine zone in the project area serves as an important rearing habitat for many fishes including shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), pallid sturgeon, paddlefish, sauger, and burbot (Lota lota) (Corps 2007). The project area also provides habitat for sport fishes including walleye, sauger, channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and northern pike (Corps 2007; Fryda et al. 2010).

3.7.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic nuisance species are also present within or have the potential to be introduced in Lake Sakakawea. These species have the potential to negatively affect the ecosystem dynamics within Lake Sakakawea. Aquatic nuisance species that are present in Lake Sakakawea include curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriopyllum spicatum). The following species are not presently known to occur in North Dakota but have high potential for introduction: zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), quagga mussel (D. bugensis), Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), and Asian carp (four species). Additional information on these species can be found in Section 2.13.3 of the Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan with Integrated Programmatic Environment Assessment (hereafter the Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan; the Corps 2007).

3.8 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, AND FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES

Six wildlife species considered threatened or endangered species under the ESA and one critical habitat designation are found in the two counties (McKenzie and Williams) overlapped by the project boundary as outlined in Table 3.11 (USFWS 2012a).

In addition to species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, there are three species proposed for listing and one candidate species. Proposed species are those species that are found to warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and are officially proposed as such in a Federal Register notice. Consultations with USFWS are required when the proposed action may affect listed species. However, for a proposed species, a conference is required only when the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat (ESA Section 7[a][4]). The Corps (or any federal action agency) may request a conference on any proposed action that may affect proposed species or proposed critical habitat. The USFWS may also request a conference after reviewing available information suggesting a proposed action is likely to jeopardize a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

The Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) is proposed as threatened and also includes proposed designated critical habitat (USFWS 2013b). The rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is proposed as threatened (USFWS 2013c) and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is proposed as endangered (USFWS 2013d). There is also one federal candidate species, the Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii). Candidate species are those species for which the USFWS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposal to list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently

69 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota precluded by higher priority listing actions (61 Federal Register 7596-7613 [February 28, 1996]).

In addition to the ESA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 USC 668– 668d, 54 Sta. 250) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (916 USC 703–711) protect bald and golden eagles and nesting migratory bird species.

3.8.1 Potential Occurrence of Federally Protected Species Plant and animal species listed and proposed for listing under the ESA, BGEPA, and MBTA for McKenzie and Williams Counties (USFWS 2012a) were reviewed to determine their status and likelihood of occurrence in the project area, as shown in Table 3.11 and Table 3.12. The species that may be present based on habitat availability and suitability or biological records are described below.

70 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.11. USFWS Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Protected Species Listed and Proposed for Listing for McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota.

Status in the Project Species Federal Status Primary Habitat Association Area Mammals Black-footed ferret Endangered, McKenzie Ferrets inhabit extensive prairie dog Not present. Species is Mustela nigripes County complexes of the Great Plains, typically presumed extirpated composed of several smaller colonies in from North Dakota. proximity to one another that provide a Suitable habitat not sustainable prey base. present. Gray wolf Endangered, McKenzie The gray wolf uses a variety of habitats Not present. Nearest Canis lupus and Williams Counties that support a large prey base, including known gray wolf montane and low-elevation forests, populations exist in grasslands, and desert scrub. Minnesota, Canada, Montana, and Wyoming. Western North Dakota sightings in the late twentieth century are speculated to be solitary, transient, young adult males seeking to establish territory.

71 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Status in the Project Species Federal Status Primary Habitat Association Area Northern long-eared bat Proposed as Endangered This bat species occupies a wide range of Not known to occur in Myotis septentrionalis rocky and forested habitats. Suitable winter the project area. Suitable habitat contains large caves and mines. summer day roost may Summer day roosts include abandoned be present in trees and buildings, bridges, hollow trees, stumps, rocky outcrops. Critical spaces under loose bark, and rock fissures. habitat has not yet been proposed by the USFWS, so no determination can be made whether the project area occurs in critical habitat. Birds Whooping crane Endangered, McKenzie During migration, whooping cranes Birds may occasionally Grus americana and Williams Counties primarily use shallow, seasonally, and stopover during semi-permanently flooded palustrine migration due to wetlands for roosting and various presence of cropland and emergent wetlands for roosting/foraging habitat feeding. in the project area. Interior least tern Endangered, McKenzie Terns nest shallow holes scraped in an Present during the Sternula antillarum and Williams Counties open sandy area, gravel patch, or exposed breeding season. flat and bare sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines.

72 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Status in the Project Species Federal Status Primary Habitat Association Area Piping plover Threatened, McKenzie Plovers in the Great Plains make their Plover present during the Charadrius melodus and Williams Counties nests on open, sparsely vegetated sand or breeding season. gravel beaches adjacent to alkali wetlands, And Designated Critical and on beaches, sand bars, and dredged Habitat material islands of major river systems.

Critical Habitat occurs on the shoreline Critical habitat present. and islands of Lake Sakakawea. Sprague’s pipit Candidate, McKenzie Native prairie habitats. Present. Anthus spragueii and Williams Counties Rufa red knot Proposed as Threatened In North America, red knots are There are no known Calidris canutus rufa commonly found along sandy, gravel, or records of rufa red knot cobble beaches; tidal mudflats; salt near the project area; marshes; shallow coastal impoundments; however, this species and lagoons could use habitat along Lake Sakakawea as a stopover during migration. Insect Dakota skipper Proposed as Threatened Native prairie habitats. Suitable habitat present. Hesperia dacotae with Critical Habitat, McKenzie and Williams Counties Fish Pallid sturgeon Endangered, McKenzie Missouri River System Present. Scaphirhynchus albus and Williams Counties Source: USFWS 2012a.

73 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.12. Species Protected by Federal Laws within McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota.

Federal Laws Protecting Status in the Project Species Primary Habitat Association this Species Area Bald eagle BGEPA and MBTA, Rivers, lakes, and marshes where their staple Suitable habitat is present, Haliaeetus leucocephalus McKenzie and Williams food (fish) can be found. In winter, the species but there are no known Counties congregates near open water in tall trees for bald eagle nests in the spotting prey and night roosts. project area. Golden eagle BGEPA and MBTA, Open prairie, plains, and forested areas. Present. Aquila chrysaetos McKenzie and Williams Golden eagles can be found in proximity to Counties badland cliffs which provide suitable nesting habitat. Migratory birds MBTA, McKenzie and A variety of habitats. Present. Williams Counties

74 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.8.1.1 Black-footed Ferret The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is listed as endangered throughout its range, with non-essential experimental status given to reintroduced populations (USFWS 2008). This nocturnal member of the weasel family is an obligate predator of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) that also depends on prairie dog burrows for shelter. Its historical distribution closely mirrored that of several North American prairie dog species and included southwestern North Dakota (Biggins 2006 in USFWS 2008; Miller and Reading 2012). The black-footed ferret inhabits large single prairie dog colonies or complexes composed of several smaller colonies located in proximity to one another. The species is largely extirpated from his historic range primarily due to range-wide decimation of the prairie dog ecosystem (Kotliar et al. 1999). As part of the species recovery plan (USFWS 1988), attempts have been made to establish self-sustaining populations in the United States and Mexico. There are currently 19 reintroduction sites; however, none are in North Dakota (USFWS 2008; Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011) and it is unlikely that any natural, wild populations are undiscovered (Lockhart 2006 in USFWS 2008).

3.8.1.2 Gray Wolf The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is currently classified as endangered throughout North Dakota. Lone wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains north and west of the project area are expected to occasionally disperse beyond the currently occupied habitat in Canada, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, into states (including North Dakota) adjacent to those populations. However, due to a lack of forested habitat and distance from Minnesota and Manitoba populations, as well as the troubled relationship between humans and wolves and their vulnerability to being shot in open habitats (Licht and Huffman 1996), the re-establishment of gray wolf populations in North Dakota is highly unlikely outside the Rocky Mountains in the foreseeable future (USFWS 2011a).

3.8.1.3 Northern Long-eared Bat On October 2, 2013, the USFWS proposed the northern long-eared bat for listing as endangered under the ESA (USFWS 2013a). This medium-sized bat ranges across the eastern and north-central United States and all of the Canadian provinces (USFWS 2013c). Throughout most of this species’ range, populations are patchily distributed. They emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and ridges, feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddis flies, and beetles.

Most records of northern long-eared bats are from winter hibernacula surveys, with more than 780 hibernacula identified within the United States. No known hibernacula are located in North Dakota, due to either no suitable hibernacula present or a lack of survey effort (USFWS 2013d). This bat species occupies a wide range of rocky and forested habitats. Suitable winter habitat contains large caves and mines (USFWS 2013c). Summer day roosts include abandoned buildings, bridges, hollow trees, stumps, spaces under loose bark, and rock fissures (Jones and Choate 1978).

75 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.8.1.4 Whooping Crane The whooping crane is listed as endangered under the ESA throughout its range. The project area is located within the 95% whooping crane migration corridor (USFWS 2010a) but the species has not been documented in the project area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; personal communication, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012; North Dakota Parks and Recreation [NDPR] 2012a). Migration from its summer breeding grounds in northern Canada normally begins in mid-September (USFWS 2012b). The species resides in North Dakota during the fall migratory season typically for only a few weeks from late September to mid-October (Orr et al. 2009). During migration, whooping cranes primarily use shallow, seasonally and semi- permanently flooded palustrine wetlands for roosting and various cropland and emergent wetlands for feeding (Johns et al. 1997; Austin and Richert 2001). Habitats used by migratory whooping cranes are present in the project area.

3.8.1.5 Interior Least Tern The interior least tern is classified as endangered under the ESA. This smallest member of the gull and tern family is mainly found in North Dakota along the Missouri River from Garrison Dam (Lake Sakakawea) south to Lake Oahe, and along the Yellowstone River from the Montana border to its confluence with the Missouri River (USFWS 2011b). The species primarily uses sparsely vegetated and barren river sandbars, sand and gravel pits, and lake and reservoir shorelines during the breeding season. Interior least tern–occupied nesting habitat occurs in the Corps Garrison Project Boundary in the project area. Although interior least terns have been documented in the vicinity, none have been documented inside the project area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; personal communication, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012; NDPR 2012a).

3.8.1.6 Piping Plover The piping plover is a federally threatened shorebird that uses prairie alkali wetlands, as well as sandbars and reservoir shorelines along the Missouri River in North Dakota (USFWS 2002). Critical habitat has been designated along the entire length of the Missouri River, including its reservoirs, in North Dakota (North Dakota Unit 11) (USFWS 2002). The Great Plains piping plover population is threatened by low reproductive success and habitat loss (USFWS 1985). Reproduction may be affected by water management, habitat loss, human disturbance, and predation (USFWS 1994, 2009). Nest loss has been characterized as extraordinary at Lake Sakakawea mostly due to nest inundation. Water levels typically increase during the plover’s nesting period and nests at lower elevations may become inundated during late stages of the nesting attempt (Anteau et al. 2012). Other risks related to human disturbance and habitat loss are similar to those previously described for interior least tern.

Critical habitat is defined as those areas that contain primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the species and that require special management considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.12[b]). Primary constituent elements for piping plover critical habitat

76 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota along the Missouri River comprise two types: riverine and reservoirs. The primary constituent elements for rivers are sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river. Reservoir elements are sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the waterbodies (USFWS 2002).

A single piping plover nest was documented in the project area in 2005 (48.071405, -103.26) in the Camp Cherith area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; personal communication, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012; NDPR 2012a).

3.8.1.7 Sprague’s Pipit The Sprague’s pipit is a mixedgrass prairie bird endemic to North America. It was listed as a candidate species under the ESA in September 2010 (USFWS 2010b). Threats to Sprague’s pipit include, but are not limited to, habitat loss or conversion from native prairie to row-crop agriculture or other non-prairie habitat, fire suppression, and habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds (USFWS 2012c). The species is closely associated with native grasslands, particularly those that are well-drained and have high plant species richness and diversity (Jones 2010). Breeding Bird Survey data from the nearest survey route (Tobacco, ND-25), which loops around Tobacco Garden Bay of Lake Sakakawea on the eastern edge of the project boundary (National Atlas 2012), indicate that Sprague’s pipits occur during the breeding season in McKenzie County. An annual average of 3.56 Sprague’s pipits has been recorded on that route (Sauer et al. 2011). The project area in McKenzie and Williams Counties contains suitable breeding habitat for Sprague’s pipit; however, the species has not been documented in the project area (NDPR 2012a).

3.8.1.8 Rufa Red Knot The rufa red knot is a robin-sized shorebird that migrates long distances annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the southeast United States, the northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America (USFWS 2013e). During migration, rufa red knots use key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed. In North Dakota, the red knot is a very rare migrant (USFWS 2013e). There are no known records of rufa red knot in the project vicinity; however, this species could use habitat along Lake Sakakawea as a stopover during migration.

3.8.1.9 Dakota Skipper The Dakota skipper, a small butterfly, is proposed as threatened with critical habitat under the ESA (USFWS 2013f). Threats to this species include those that result in loss, fragmentation, or degradation of native prairie habitats. These threats include, but are not limited to, conversion to non-grassland uses (e.g., grazing, mining, urbanization), degradation due to habitat fragmentation, intensive grazing, invasion by non-native plant species, weed and insect control measures, haying before the skipper’s flight period, and fire (USFWS 2011c).

77 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Throughout its range, the species inhabits high-quality native tallgrass and mixedgrass prairie (USFWS 2011d). The species produces an annual single generation in mid-June to early July, depending on weather conditions and geography (flights start earlier farther west in its range) (USFWS 2011c). The potential life span of adults was estimated to be 3 weeks for one population in Minnesota (Dana 1991). Adult females begin laying eggs immediately after emergence. Eggs hatch after 7 to 20 days of incubation, generally by the end of July. Larvae feed on several native grass species, particularly little bluestem. Exotic cool season grasses (e.g., smooth brome [Bromus inermis] and Kentucky bluegrass [Poa pratensis]) may reduce food availability for skipper larvae. The species overwinters in larval form in ground level or subsurface shelters (USFWS 2011c). The project area in McKenzie and Williams Counties contains suitable habitat for Dakota skipper; however, the species has not been documented in the project area (NDPR 2012a). Proposed critical habitat does not occur in the project area (USFWS 2013b).

3.8.1.10 Pallid Sturgeon The pallid sturgeon was listed as endangered in 1990 in the United States by the USFWS (1990a). The primary factor leading to the decline of this species is the alteration of habitat through river channelization, creation of impoundments, and alteration of flow regimes (USFWS 1990a). These alterations within the Missouri River have blocked movements to spawning, feeding, and rearing areas, destroyed spawning habitat, altered flow conditions which can delay spawning cues, and reduced food sources by lowering productivity (USFWS 2007). The fundamental elements of pallid sturgeon habitat are defined as the bottom of swift waters of large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with braided channels, dynamic flow patterns, flooding of terrestrial habitats, and extensive microhabitat diversity (USFWS 1990a).

The pallid sturgeon population which is found near the project area occurs from the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea and the lower Yellowstone River up the confluence of the Tongue River, Montana (USFWS 2007). This population falls within the Recovery Priority Management Areas 2, which is defined as approximately 52 river miles of the Missouri River between its confluence with the Yellowstone River to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea (USFWS 2007).

This population consists of approximately 136 wild adult pallid sturgeon (Klungle 2004 via USFWS 2007). Hatchery released pallid sturgeon populations are estimated to be approximately 10,000 individuals (personal communication between Steve Krentz, Pallid Sturgeon Project Lead, USFWS, and Laura Burckhardt, Aquatic Ecologist, SWCA, December 11, 2012). No recruitment as a result of natural reproduction has been documented; however, the 1997–1998 year class of stocked sturgeon are approaching sexual maturity (Wilson et al. 2012).

This population has been found to primarily utilize sinuous channels with subclimax sereal- stage islands and/or midchannel bars (Bramblett and White 2001). Wilson et al. (2012) found that most pallid sturgeon in the Recovery Priority Management Area 2 population were captured in large connected secondary channels, inside bends, channel crossovers, and outside bend macrohabitats. Pallid sturgeon are primarily found in the Yellowstone River during

78 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota spring and summer months and in the Missouri River between the confluence with the Yellowstone River and upstream of Lake Sakakawea in the fall and winter (Bramblett and White 2001). Bramblett and White (2001) found that pallid sturgeon appeared to avoid the impounded areas within the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea. While Lake Sakakawea is largely unsuitable habitat, pallid sturgeon have been observed within Lake Sakakawea in nets set in 80 to 90 feet of water between the New Town and Van Hook areas. Based on this information, pallid sturgeon could be found throughout Lake Sakakawea and are likely to occur in the project area (personal communication, email from Steve Krentz, Pallid Sturgeon Project Lead, USFWS, to Mike Cook, Aquatic Ecologist, SWCA, September 3, 2010). The extent of habitat use within Lake Sakakawea and the project area is not currently known.

3.8.1.11 Bald Eagle On August 9, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species, but is still protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA. Bald eagles live near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. Bald eagles will also feed on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, and other small animals and carrion. Bald eagle habitat in the project vicinity includes large lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. In winter, the birds congregate near open water in tall trees for spotting prey and night roosts for sheltering. They may also have one or more alternate nests within their breeding territory. Although the proposed project occurs within the known breeding range of the bald eagle and there is suitable habitat in the project area, according to the most recent data available, there are no known bald eagle nests in the project area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; personal communication, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012; NDPR 2012a). However, it is expected that bald eagles use suitable habitats in the project area for roosting and hunting throughout the year.

3.8.1.12 Golden Eagle Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected under the BGEPA and the MBTA. Golden eagles can be found throughout the year in a variety of habitats near the proposed project area including grasslands, forested habitat, and scrublands. They are aerial predators and eat small to mid‐sized reptiles, birds, and mammals up to the size of mule deer fawns and coyote pups. They also are known to scavenge and utilize carrion. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 15), golden eagles build nests on cliffs or in the largest trees of forested stands that often afford an unobstructed view of the surrounding habitat. Their nests are usually sticks and soft material added to existing nests, or new nests that are constructed to create strong, flat or bowl-shaped platforms. Golden eagles have been noted to be sensitive to some forms of human presence, especially near their nests. According to data provided by the NDGFD, 15 golden eagle (Table 3.13) nests are known to be in the project area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; personal communication, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012; NDPR 2012a). The activity status of these nests is unknown.

79 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.13. Golden Eagle Nest Locations in the Project Area. Latitude Longitude County TRS 48.06042 -103.43664 Williams 153N99W - 20 47.9843 -103.32292 McKenzie 152N99W - 14 47.98357 -103.39309 McKenzie 152N99W - 18 48.01468 -103.41666 McKenzie 152N100W - 1 48.04385 -103.24213 McKenzie 153N98W - 26 48.06068 -103.43622 Williams 153N99W - 20 48.05761 -103.44241 Williams 153N99W - 20 48.08273 -103.41514 Williams 153N99W - 9 48.05017 -103.46706 Williams 153N99W - 30 48.05147 -103.23248 McKenzie 153N98W - 25 48.05154 -103.23288 McKenzie 153N98W - 25 47.98235 -103.32245 McKenzie 152N99W - 14 47.98512 -103.3253 McKenzie 152N99W - 14 47.9837 -103.32205 McKenzie 152N99W - 14 47.97951 -103.38794 McKenzie 152N99W - 17 Source: Personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; NDPR 2012a.

3.8.1.13 Migratory Birds The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and other countries for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, the take or possession of migratory birds is unlawful. Unless permitted by regulations, under the MBTA it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, or take any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg. Migratory birds covered under the MBTA are present in the project area. For a complete list of species protected under the MBTA, refer to USFWS 2013b. For information on bird species known to occur around Lake Sakakawea, refer to Corps 2007.

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

“Cultural resources” is a broad term that encompasses archaeological sites, single objects, and practices of archaeological, historical, cultural, and religious significance. Cultural resources on federal and tribal lands are protected by numerous laws, regulations, and agreements, of which Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is perhaps most widely applicable. That law requires that any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a federal or federally assisted undertaking assess the effect of the proposed undertaking to cultural resources across the entire area of potential effect, before the undertaking commences. Resources shall be identified and evaluated for their eligibility as historic properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) prior to assessing the effect of the proposed undertaking. Eligibility criteria (36 CFR 60.4) include association with

80 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota important events or people; distinctive construction or artistic characteristics; and the demonstrated or latent potential to yield information that is important at a local or broader level. Cultural properties generally are not eligible for listing on the NRHP if they lack diagnostic artifacts, subsurface remains, and structural features. In contrast, properties that contain any or all of the above in their original contexts generally are considered eligible and are treated as though they are already listed on the NRHP, even if no formal nomination has been filed. If not enough is known about the site at the time of recording to determine eligibility, the site is left unevaluated and is considered potentially eligible and is treated as an eligible site would be.

Cultural resources include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places. Cultural resources in the project area were identified by conducting a file search of all public land survey system or “legal” sections containing the project area. No on-the-ground or “Class III” inventories were conducted in the project area because all Corps lands in the project area were recently block surveyed by the Corps.

A cultural resource literature review (Class I) of lands in the project area was conducted in December 2012 and updated in August 2013. On-the-ground, or Class III, inventories have been conducted on approximately 3,559.2 acres (5.6 square miles) within the proposed project area: approximately 1,405.1 acres of private, 39.3 acres of state, 71.2 acres of BLM, and 2,043.6 acres of Corps lands.

The cultural resource literature review identified 39 previously recorded sites within the proposed project area. There are also 15 isolates or site leads. Of the previously recorded sites, 28 are prehistoric in origin, 7 are historic, and 4 are of an unknown cultural affiliation. Regarding NRHP eligibility, 26 of the sites are unevaluated, 10 are recommended not eligible, and 3 are recommended eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

The results of the literature review and block surveys identified 39 previously recorded archaeological sites on approximately 3,559.2 acres. This represents a site density of approximately 0.01 site per acre.

General Land Office plats dating from 1896 through 1902 were reviewed at the North Dakota State Engineer Benchmarks (2005) website to determine if any historic trails, roads, ditches, homesteads, etc. are in the project area. Potential historic cultural resources in the project area include the following locations. • T152N, R99W: Unnamed road segments in Sections 2, 11, and 14, and Sections 15, 16, 8, and 7. • T153N, R99W: Unnamed road segments in Sections 11–13 and Sections 10, 11, 14, 23, 22, 27, and 9. The David Harris Summer Ranch in the NW of Section 14 and the David Harris Winter Ranch in the NW of Section 27. No additional resources were noted during the course of historical research.

81 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.10 RECREATION

The area of analysis for recreation resources is the project area and adjacent lands, which currently provide for a range of diversified recreation opportunities. The Lake Sakakawea area contains a variety of habitat types, including woodlands, grasslands, open fields, shorelines, and wetlands. This variety of habitats maximizes the diversity of species that can be viewed, photographed, or hunted at various seasons of the year. Major types or species of wildlife in and around the project area are discussed in Sections 3.6 and 3.7. The Corps has the mission of managing, conserving, and improving environmental and cultural resources while providing quality public outdoor recreation experiences to serve the needs of present and future generations at Corps reservoir projects (Corps 2007).

Recreational activities in the project area are dominated by fishing, boating, hunting, and camping. In addition, recreation activities and access opportunities exist at nearby Lewis and Clark State Park and on surrounding public and private lands. These include, but are not limited to, camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, bird watching, wildlife viewing, interpretive activities, trail use, photography, winter sports, and sightseeing (Corps 2007). Details on common recreational activities are provided below.

3.10.1 Boating and Fishing on Lake Sakakawea Fishing is the most popular activity in Lake Sakakawea, with anglers participating in ice fishing, shoreline fishing, boat fishing, and dark house spearing. Boating is the second most- popular activity at Lake Sakakawea. Much of the boating that occurs on the lake is related to fishing; however, much of it is also motor boating; some is sailing; and there is also a small amount of waterskiing. Wind surfing, tubing, and jet skiing are also popular water sport activities on the lake (Corps 2007).

The project lies in the westernmost portion of the Missouri River System and on Lake Sakakawea. North Dakota’s Missouri River System supports an outstanding sport fishery that is extremely important to the local and regional economy. Lake Sakakawea offers excellent fishing opportunities for species such as walleye, sauger, chinook salmon, and northern pike.

There are approximately 36 public boat ramps on Lake Sakakawea. Currently, there are no public boat ramps in the project area. Four public boat ramps are within 5.0 miles of the project area, including one approximately 5.0 miles upriver at American Legion Park (Raums) and one approximately 0.5 mile downriver at Lewis and Clark State Park. In addition, Whitetail Bay (Lunds Landing) and Tobacco boat ramps are located across the lake from one another approximately 5 miles downriver of the project area (NDGFD 2013a).

According the Corps (2007), there is little boating and fishing on Lake Sakakawea west of Lewis and Clark State Park throughout much of the recreation season because of lack of access and extremely turbid and shallow water. Turbid and shallow waters deter boaters, swimmers, fisherman, and sight-feeding fish such as walleye. The Corps expects this condition of high turbidity to persist in this area of the lake due to fluctuating water levels and

82 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota the annual sediment load from the Yellowstone River. In addition, there are few boat launches west of Lewis and Clark State Park and none in the project area.

3.10.2 Hunting The project area and adjacent lands provide ample hunting opportunities for a wide range of species on lands largely untouched by human development. Lake Sakakawea is located in the Central Flyway, and therefore provides prime waterfowl hunting habitat. Upland game bird hunting is also quite popular. Big game, small mammals, and furbearers are found and hunted throughout the lands surrounding Lake Sakakawea (Corps 2007).

The project area and surrounding lands are home to a wide range of hunting opportunities for big game, waterfowl, upland game, furbearers, and small mammals. The primary big game species hunted in the area is white-tailed deer (Visit Williston 2013). According to NDGFD (2013), one of the most coveted licenses in North Dakota is a mule deer buck license in the badlands. Hunting occurs for certain species in the project area and on adjacent lands year- round, with most hunting seasons starting in August through October and ending between December and April. Hunting seasons for all managed species in the project area and areas immediately adjacent to it are listed in Table 3.14 relative to the estimated project schedule.

83 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 3.14. Open Hunting Season by Game Type Relative to the Project Schedule. 2014 Estimated Project Schedule (August-December1)

January February March April May June July August September October November December Planning surveys Staging and data acquisition Demobilization and other Open Hunting Season by Game Type

January February March April May June July August September October November December Big game2 Waterfowl Migratory birds Upland game Furbearers Bobcat Mink/muskrat Mountain lion Weasel Other game3 Source: NDGFD 2014b 1 Duration of all project phases is projected to be approximately 180 days, which includes permitting, weather days, mobilization, and demobilization. Source generation and recording of the entire project area is expected to take approximately 40 days. 2 There was no North Dakota pronghorn season in 2013 due to low populations; the same is assumed for 2014. 3 Other game indicates small mammals (ground squirrel, rabbit, prairie dog, skunk, porcupine), which are typically hunted year round with no seasonal restrictions.

84 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.10.2.1 Big Game Hunting of big game using archery or firearms is an important fall recreation activity on and near the project area. Although data are not available for harvests or number of days of hunting in the project area, it is assumed that hunting activities on these lands are following the statewide trend of increases across the board. The primary big game species in the region are mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, and pronghorn (Corps 2007). No bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) hunting exists in or around the project area. The most popular big game species hunted in and around the project area are white-tailed deer. Though rarer, the NDGFD notes that mule deer in the badlands are a highly coveted big game species (NDGFD 2014a).

There was no North Dakota pronghorn season in 2013 due to low populations; the same is assumed for 2014, however that determination will not be made until mid-July 2014 (NDGFD 2014b). The 2014 hunting season for deer (hunting Unit 3B1) in and near the project area commences with bow hunting, which runs from August 29 through January 4. The deer gun hunting season is only open from November 7 through 23, with muzzleloader season extending from November 28 through December 14, but for white-tailed deer only (NDGFD 2014b). Elk hunting season in the southern portion (unit E2) of the project area (south of Lake Sakakawea) commences with bow hunting September 5 through 28. Regular season for elk hunting north of the lake (Unit E5) runs from September 5 through December 31. South of the lake (Unit E2), the regular elk season runs from October 3 through December 31. Lastly, moose hunting in the entire project area commences with bow hunting September 5 through 28 and continues with the regular season starting October 10 and ending on November 2 (NDGFD 2014b).

3.10.2.2 Waterfowl, Upland Game, Furbearers, and Small Mammals Hunting of waterfowl and upland game birds is an important fall recreation activity on and near the project area. Although data are not available for harvests or number of days of hunting in the project area, it is assumed that hunting activities on these lands are following the statewide trend of increases across the board. For a complete list of waterfowl species that are known to occur near Lake Sakakawea, refer to the Garrison/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan (Corps 2007). See Table 3.14 for hunting season by game type.

Fur bearers and small mammals are generally allowed to be hunted and trapped year round, and the hunting unit is typically the entire state. For a complete list of furbearer species that are known to occur near Lake Sakakawea, refer to the Garrison/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan (Corps 2007).

Hunting of small mammals in North Dakota has increased due to improved wildlife habitat combined with milder winters, which has boosted local wildlife populations. Licensing practices make it difficult to track hunting trends for furbearers and small mammals for in- state hunters, because they often do not need a license to hunt these game or they have a blanket license that covers multiple species. Therefore, non-resident hunters are required to acquire individual licenses for hunting these game species. The sale of non-resident licenses for furbearers and non-game species (mainly small mammals) increased 6-fold and 22-fold, respectively, from 1990 to 2005, indicating a large uptrend in the hunting of furbearers and small mammals (Corps 2007).

85 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

3.10.3 Lewis and Clark State Park and Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina According to the Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan (Corps 2007), recreational use of area lands is encouraged through public parks and developed recreation facilities. It is likely that the Corps-managed, state, and private lands of the project area are used for some amount of recreation, such as camping, wildlife viewing, and hiking; but no data is available for dispersed recreation opportunities specifically in the project area. There are currently no boat launches in the project area, therefore recreationists likely access the project area by car, on foot, or via boats launched at developed or primitive boat ramps. In addition, campers who are also seeking boating opportunities would likely find the project area undesirable for use, and would instead seek developed recreation areas with boat ramps (see Section 3.10.1). Because of this, it is assumed that most recreation that occurs in the project area comes from individuals staying at the Lewis and Clark State Park or other developed recreation facilities in the area, such as Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina.

North Dakota currently has 13 state parks. Lewis and Clark State Park is not located in the project area, but is located immediately northeast of and within 0.6 mile of the project area, comprising 490 acres along the north shore of Lake Sakakawea. The park currently has an active marina and boat launch, a swimming beach, a concessions stand, fishing areas, three picnic shelters, a campground with over 70 sites, and two cabins. The park also offers four hiking and nature viewing trails, including an interpretive nature trail and a cross-country ski trail. Table 3.15 presents the general park visitation statistics.

Table 3.15. Lewis and Clark State Park Visitation Statistics.

Year Visitation Camping Rentals Cabin Rentals 2011 86,266 7,197 243 2012 105,820 8,412 249

The park is located approximately 16 miles from Williston, North Dakota, the nation's fastest- growing micropolitan area in response to oil and gas development with a growth rate of 9.3% (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Visitation to the park has risen dramatically in recent years alongside the region’s oil and gas boom, with a nearly 400% increase in visitation from 2009 through 2011, while in 2012 the park saw nearly 20,000 more visitors than the previous year. The percentage of in-state versus out-of-state users has also increased. In 2011, 57.8% of visitors were in-state, while in 2012 that number jumped to 68.5%. The park currently ranks as North Dakota’s fifth most visited state park (NDPR 2012b).

The park provides both tent and recreational vehicle campsites that offer amenities such as restroom and shower facilities. Cabins are also available for rent. Seasonal boat slips, picnic shelters, canoes, and kayaks can all be rented for use at the park (NDPR 2013).

The park is particularly popular for boating, fishing, and camping recreational uses. Due to increased user demand, the park improved electrical infrastructure to campsites, chip sealed roadways, and added 40 new boat slips in 2011. According to the NDPR (2012b), boat slip

86 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota rentals are currently at 100% despite the lake level having dropped 7 feet. Current challenges facing the park include dropping lake levels, which threaten the viability of the marina in the long term, and the negative impacts associated with nearby oil and gas development (NDPR 2012b).

Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina is located approximately 7 miles downriver from the project area on White Tail Bay on Lake Sakakawea. Lund’s currently has an active marina and boat launch with a fleet of watercraft, a sandy swimming beach, a 5-mile birding trail, an 18-hole golf course, a tent and tipi campground, and six cabins. Lund’s provides guided hunting and fishing packages, boasting unsurpassed waterfowl hunting opportunities, upland game and deer hunting, and excellent walleye fishing on Lake Sakakawea (Lund’s Landing 2013).

3.10.4 Other Dispersed Recreation Though no specific data are available on types or frequency of recreation in the project area, Corps-managed, state, and private lands in the area are likely used by the public for dispersed recreation. Dispersed recreation is defined as forest, range, or desert-oriented outdoor recreation activities that typically take place outside of sites or areas that are designed to concentrate recreational use (Shafer and Lucas 1978). Dispersed recreation in the project area could include many types of potential recreation activities, including but not limited to camping, hiking, hunting, picnicking, swimming, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, bird watching, wildlife viewing, interpretive activities, trail use, photography, winter sports, and sightseeing. In addition to being deterred by the area’s turbid and shallow waters, those seeking boating and fishing opportunities are unlikely to use the project area because there are no developed boat launches and would instead seek developed recreation areas with boat ramps (see Sections 3.10.1 and 3.10.3). Recreationists are therefore most likely to access the land-based portion of the project area by car or on foot.

3.11 HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY

The analysis area for health and human safety is the project area. There are no known hazardous or other solid wastes in the project area that would present a risk to health and human safety. No hazardous materials or other solid wastes are known to have been used, stored, disposed of, or otherwise exist in the project area. A hazardous material is any substance, pollutant, or contaminant that is listed as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The term does not include petroleum products, crude oil, or natural gas. Scoping comments raised the concern of potential damage to water pipelines resulting from the proposed seismic activities; however, there are no water pipelines in the project area.

87 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter presents potential environmental impacts and consequences based on the description of the No Action Alternative (refer to Section 2.2) and the Operator Proposed Action (refer to Section 2.3), including applicant-committed environmental protective measures (refer to Section 2.3.8).

Surface use estimates were completed based on the widths of the equipment to be used, the layout of source lines and receiver lines, and travel routes on receiver lines (refer to Section 2.3.7). Because of the differences in the types of equipment used, the surface use estimates were broken out by land-based (see Table 2.3) and water-based (see Table 2.4) geophysical exploration. The surface use numbers presented in Section 2.3.7 and in the following sections do not include acreage associated with staging areas because their locations are unknown and they would likely be located in non-sensitive and/or already disturbed areas.

4.1 AIR QUALITY

4.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to air quality in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed seismic activities.

4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The analysis area for air resources is the project area and immediate vicinity because it represents an ecologically connected area within which impacts to air quality are likely to occur. Impacts to air quality are analyzed based on the number and type of vehicles and equipment to be used for the geophysical exploration, as well as the duration of project activities. In addition, air quality impacts occur from surface disturbance so the total acres of project surface disturbance are also used to evaluate impacts.

The drilling of source points, vibroseis, controlled detonation, and overland travel would result in temporary and localized increases in atmospheric concentrations of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, SO2, PM, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and GHGs from vehicles, helicopters, diesel generators, and other equipment listed in Section 2.3.3. However, because geophysical survey equipment is typically classified as mobile, non-major sources and the project area is in attainment with the NAAQS, detailed emissions inventories are not required to assess the effects of the project. In addition, the Proposed Action is not a PSD source because it does not have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air contaminant regulated under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23-25, so potential PSD impacts are not assessed.

Though the exact number of vehicles to be used is undetermined at this early stage in the project planning and permitting process, local traffic counts were used to provide context for the representative number of vehicles near the project area relative to typical project numbers.

88 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

The number of vehicles to be used for the Proposed Action is expected to be a small percentage of the lowest AADT (3,955); assuming the use of up to 30 vehicles during the Proposed Action’s peak level of activity would mean that the project would result in a maximum 0.85% increase in the local AADT. Therefore, pollutant emissions from project activities, though measurable and adverse, would be unlikely to negatively affect the air quality in the larger airshed, especially because of their short-term and localized nature.

Fugitive dust is any PM that becomes airborne, other than through an exhaust stack. Under the Proposed Action, fugitive dust would result from surface disturbance caused by vibroseis, vehicle travel on dirt roads or overland, and the drilling of source points. This surface disturbance would occur on approximately 567 acres of lands above the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea (including about 262 acres of surface use on vibroseis travel routes along 166 miles of receiver lines), and would comprise 1.2% of the 45,638-acre project area (see Table 2.3). Fugitive dust would increase local concentrations of PM and temporarily reduce visibility in the local airshed. However, these impacts would occur in a small percentage of the project area and would not be likely to impact the air quality in the larger airshed because of their short-term and localized nature; the proposed project would result in the disturbance of a relatively small areal extent (and intensity of use) compared to local agricultural operations, which have not resulted in the exceedance of air quality standards.

The severity of impacts on air quality and visibility would be reduced during the project duration by the use of fugitive dust control methods, which would include reduced speed limits on unpaved roads or other unvegetated surfaces (see Section 2.3.8.4 for the related applicant-committed protective measures).

In addition, the amount of fugitive dust would be limited by the slow speed of overland travel and the reclamation of any rutting greater than four inches (see Section 2.3.8.6 Vegetation and Soil Resource Protection). Fugitive dust would be created by vehicle travel through dried ruts; however, the reclamation of ruts may include the reseeding of vegetation which would minimize or eliminate the dust.

Overall, impacts to air quality would be short term and would occur only during the 70 days of actual on-the-ground time within the 100-day duration of the project. The highest rates of emissions would occur during the source generation and recording period lasting 40 days. Most emissions typically would be localized in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area) and would not occur across the entire project area at one time. Overall impacts on air quality in the project area and on surrounding lands would be temporary and short term.

4.1.2.1 Potential Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce or eliminate criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from the project. • Keep all internal combustion engines in good working order. • Prohibit idling, where feasible.

89 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• Locate staging areas as close to operation sites as practicable to minimize driving distances between the two areas.

These mitigation measures would reduce but not eliminate pollutant emissions; residual impacts would include short-term, localized lower concentrations of air pollutants.

4.2 PALEONTOLOGY

In general, surface-disturbing actions have the potential to affect surface and subsurface paleontological resources in rock units and overlying sediments in which they are contained. Direct impacts include fossil breakage and crushing as the result of surface and subsurface disturbance.

4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to paleontological resources in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity.

4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action As part of the Proposed Action, background research has determined the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units in the project area; a record search was used to assist with the re-location and evaluation of previously recorded fossil localities; and paleontological surveys were conducted to identify areas of avoidance of significant paleontological resources on Corps lands in the project area that would be subject to vehicular traffic. To protect significant fossils from direct and indirect project impacts, seven fossil localities (see Table 3.2) would be avoided (100-foot buffer around localities) per applicant-committed avoidance measures (see Section 2.3.8.9). These actions have been implemented to reduce adverse effects on significant paleontological resources in the project area on Corps land. Table 4.1 summarizes the acreage by geologic unit on non-Corps land that underlies travel routes and/or source and receiver lines. Although 397.1 acres of paleontological sensitive bedrock (PFYC Classes 4 and 5) underlie areas on non-Corps land that would receive surface use during the project, it is difficult to estimate the number of potential localities that would be impacted because of differences in topography, vegetation cover, and exposures of fossiliferous bedrock. There is approximately 1 scientifically significant paleontological locality per 67 acres on Corps land, which extrapolates to approximately 5.5 significant fossil localities on non-Corps lands that would be used for project activities. Based on this assumption, approximately 5.5 significant fossil localities could be damaged by the proposed project activities. The potential adverse impacts, such as crushing, to unidentified paleontological resources on non-Corps lands would be minimized with the applicant’s use of equipment with wide tires that are designed to minimize ground pressure and limit the potential for crushing of fossil localities. Additionally, the implementation of applicant-committed measures to avoid any paleontological resources that are identified in the field would prevent any fossil localities from being destroyed.

90 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 4.1. Summary of Acreage on Non-Corps Land.

Vibroseis Travel Controlled Vibroseis PFYC Routes on Receiver Detonation Slope Geologic Unit Surface Use Rating Lines Surface Use 12–25 degrees (acres) (acres) Surface Use (acres) Sentinel Butte Formation 4 81.9 72.6 1.5 Tertiary Fort Union Group1 5 62.5 116.5 70.4 Quaternary Deposits2 2 68.8 79.1 8.4 1 Fort Union Group may contain the Sentinel Butte Formation and the Bullion Creek Formation. 2 Quaternary deposits consist of alluvial terraces and sheet moraines including units of the Coleharbor Group.

4.2.2.1 Potential Mitigation Measures In addition to the applicant-committed measure, Hess would be responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the project operations that they would be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing paleontological localities or for collecting fossils. If additional fossils are discovered on any land during project activities, Hess would halt all activities within 100 feet of the find to avoid disturbing the fossils. Hess would notify the Corps and/or the North Dakota State Paleontologist of the area where the fossil was located depending on the surface ownership.

4.3 SOILS

4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to soils in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity.

4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The analysis area for soils is the project area because it represents the area where impacts to soil are expected to occur. The soils analysis only includes acreages above the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea (1,850 amsl) because the NRCS designates everything below this level as open water. Impacts to soils below the OHWM would be the same as those described below.

The analysis below assumes implementation of applicant-committed measures listed in Section 2.3.8.6. These measures include limiting vehicular travel on slopes greater than approximately 25 degrees, limiting vehicular traffic off existing roadways during thawing ground or wet conditions, leveling and restoring all ruts and wheel tracks, prohibiting vehicular traffic below the OHWM except in coordination with the Corps, minimizing the number of traffic passes over the same ground and using only the number of passes necessary, limiting vehicle speeds, avoiding vehicle tire spinning to reduce soil displacement, and using lightweight equipment in unstable soils and along the lake shoreline. In addition, the large, wide tires of the vibroseis buggy trucks are designed to minimize ground pressure and protect soils and vegetation. The use of heliportable equipment would also help reduce impacts to soils.

91 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Impacts from geophysical exploration activities could include accelerated erosion, soil compaction, rutting soil erosion (from wind and water), and reduction of soil productivity (ability to support vegetation). Accelerated erosion increases the possibility of downslope sedimentation into streams and other waterbodies. Compaction reduces the capacity of soils to absorb moisture, which can result in increased runoff and reduced root growth and plant vigor. Eroded and compacted soils can also reduce soil productivity due to the loss of soil structure and decreased infiltration of precipitation. Loss of soil productivity limits the ability of vegetation to grow and maintain healthy populations. A reduction in healthy native plant species may increase the presence of non-native and invasive plants.

Impacts to soils would generally be higher on areas with steep slopes and terrain, and in areas of sparse vegetation. Rutting may occur, but is unlikely due to the applicant-committed protective measure prohibiting vehicular traffic during thawing ground or moisture conditions. The extent of the rutting would depend upon the soil types encountered and slopes in the area. Rutting would be less evident on sandy or shallow, rocky soils as opposed to deeper loams and clay soils, or on shallow slopes as opposed to steeper hillsides.

Any equipment driven over the land surface during project activities has the potential to affect soils, as described above. The project equipment includes hydrostatic buggy drills, buggy vibroseis trucks, recording trucks, UTVs, vans, pickup trucks, stake bed trucks, service trucks, and other support vehicles, as described in Section 2.3.3.

Because the primary impacts to soils would be due to vehicle use and drilling disturbance, impacts are analyzed based on a quantitative analysis of total surface disturbance and on surface disturbance to soils susceptible to wind and water erosion. As discussed in Section 3.3, project area soils contain characteristics that may increase the risk of erosion following disturbance. The acres of project area surface disturbance (and percentage of total surface disturbance) at moderate or high risk of water or wind erosion are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Acres of Surface Disturbance (and Percentage of Total Surface Disturbance) with a Moderate or High Risk of Water and Wind Erosion. Acres of Project Area Surface Disturbance (and Percentage of Total Surface Disturbance) Type of Surface Water Erosion Hazard Wind Erosion Hazard Disturbance Moderate High Moderate High Risk Risk Risk Risk Controlled Detonation 2.8 (0.5%) 73.0 (13.5%) 73.9 (13.6%) 0.03 (0.01%) Vibroseis Travel 60.0 (11.1%) 132.2 (24.4%) 160.5 (29.6%) 14.4 (2.7%) Routes Vibroseis 70.8 (13.1%) 79.2 (14.6%) 110.3 (20.4%) 18.7 (3.5%) Total 133.6 (24.7%) 284.5 (52.5%) 344.7 (63.6%) 33.1 (6.1%) Percentage of Total 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% Project Area Note: Acres of surface disturbance and percentages are not additive because some soil types have two erosion hazards.

92 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Of the total 541.9 acres of surface disturbance above the OHWM (see Table 2.3), 133.6 acres (24.7%) would have a moderate risk of water erosion and 284.5 acres (52.5%) would have a high risk of water erosion. Also, 344.7 acres (63.6%) would have a moderate risk of wind erosion and 33.1 acres (6.1%) would have a high risk of wind erosion (see Table 4.2). Because over half of the surface disturbance would occur in areas with a high risk of water erosion and a moderate risk of wind erosion, project activities could accelerate erosion. However, as shown in Table 4.2, the acres of surface disturbance in soils susceptible to water or wind erosion is less than 1% of the overall project area for each risk category. Impacts to soils are expected to be limited and short term because of the applicant-committed protective measures for vegetation and soil resource protection discussed in Section 2.3.8.6.

4.3.2.1 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for soils. Applicant-committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to soil resources.

4.4 VEGETATION

4.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to vegetation in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity. Potential for non-native/noxious plant establishment and introduction would remain at the current level.

4.4.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The vegetation impact analysis area is the 45,718-acre project area. Seismic operations within the analysis area with the potential to affect vegetation would consist of low psi vehicle traffic along transects as described in Section 0, as well as pre-planning activities, equipment layout, and shot-hole drilling.

Staging area operations and vehicles travelling over land are expected crush or break plant stems and roots, resulting in limited mortality of individual plants and reduced vegetative vigor along these routes and use areas. Vehicles and staging equipment can also crush biological soil crusts where present, which can alter hydrology and impair seedling establishment.

Overland travel by vehicles making primarily one-way trips overland would cause “roll over” surface disturbance to approximately 1.7% (540 acres) of the 31,284-acre land-based portion (outside of the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea) of the project area (Table 4.3). Vibroseis buggy overland travel would account for approximately 460 acres of surface disturbance, while buggy drill overland travel would account for approximately 80 acres of surface disturbance. Impacts to vegetation are expected to be limited and short term because of the applicant- committed protective measures for vegetation and soil resource protection discussed in Section 2.3.8.6.

93 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 4.3. Land Cover Types and Land-Based Impacts of the Project, Outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea.

Controlled Vibroseis Travel Vibroseis Detonation % of Routes on Receiver Total Land Cover Type (slopes less than (slope 12–25 Short-term Lines (acres) 14 degrees) (acres) degrees) Disturbance (acres) (acres) Agriculture-Cultivated Crops 9.79 0.14 6.74 16.66 3.08 and Irrigated Agriculture Agriculture-Pasture and Hay 2.33 0.17 1.01 3.50 0.65 Barren 1.04 8.46 8.47 17.97 3.33 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.22 0.04 Developed-Roads 2.37 0.86 4.22 7.45 1.38 Developed-Upland Deciduous 0.08 0.01 0.22 0.30 0.06 Forest Developed-Upland Evergreen 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.02 Forest Developed-Upland Herbaceous 0.56 0.16 0.74 1.45 0.27 Developed-Upland Mixed Forest 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.02 Developed-Upland Shrubland 0.24 0.05 0.31 0.60 0.11 Herbaceous Semi-wet 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 Herbaceous Wetlands 0.76 0.29 0.71 1.76 0.33 Inter-Mountain Basins Big 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.03 Sagebrush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Big 0.24 0.52 1.09 1.84 0.34 Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins 0.00 0.22 0.25 0.47 0.09 Greasewood Flat Introduced Upland Vegetation- 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.02 Perennial Grassland and Forbland NASS-Close Grown Crop 19.95 1.86 20.03 41.84 7.74 NASS-Fallow/Idle Cropland 1.80 0.28 2.66 4.74 0.88

94 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Controlled Vibroseis Travel Vibroseis Detonation % of Routes on Receiver Total Land Cover Type (slopes less than (slope 12–25 Short-term Lines (acres) 14 degrees) (acres) degrees) Disturbance (acres) (acres) NASS-Row Crop 0.50 0.01 0.48 1.00 0.18 NASS-Row Crop-Close Grown 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.03 Crop Northwestern Great Plains 153.69 51.39 169.72 374.81 69.38 Mixedgrass Prairie Northwestern Great Plains 5.06 4.66 8.97 18.70 3.46 Shrubland Open Water 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.27 0.05 Western Great Plains 5.87 1.91 5.97 13.75 2.54 Depressional Wetland Systems Western Great Plains Dry Bur 0.01 0.11 0.16 0.28 0.05 Oak Forest and Woodland Western Great Plains Floodplain 0.67 0.28 0.63 1.58 0.29 Systems Western Great Plains Sand 1.59 0.35 1.75 3.69 0.68 Prairie Western Great Plains Wooded 5.32 8.53 12.87 26.72 4.95 Draw and Ravine Grand Total 212.15 80.55 247.55 540.25 100.00 Note: Due to rounding, percentage and acreage totals may not sum exactly. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior 2009

95 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.4.2.1 Native Prairie, Badlands, and Ravines Native prairie habitat comprises 370 acres of the projected “roll over” disturbance, which is approximately 70% of the land-based portion of the project area. Table 4.3 shows land-based surface disturbance acreage by land cover type and according to whether it is produced by vibroseis or controlled detonation operations.

Approximately 8,378 acres of badland soil types, and thus potential badland vegetation communities, exist in the project area. Due to their prominence on steep slopes, approximately 99% of potential badland vegetation communities would be avoided under the Proposed Action, which would avoid slopes greater than 25 degrees. In addition, woody vegetation, which is characteristic vegetation on north-facing badland slopes, would be avoided under the Proposed Action. Table 4.4 presents the badland soil types disturbance acreage by project activity, which is expected to result in 157.19 acres of potential “roll over” disturbance to potential badland vegetation communities. This represents only 1.9% of potential badland vegetation communities in the project area, and just 0.3% of the project area. Actual impacts to badland vegetation communities would likely be less, because badlands are sparsely vegetated to begin with, and the soil types reported contain a mixture of soil types, of which badlands soils range between 16% and 90% (see Table 3.5).

Ravines in the project area would be avoided, and slopes greater than 25 degrees, woody vegetation, and perennial streams would be avoided under the Proposed Action. Impacts to native prairie, badlands, and ravines are expected to be limited and short term because of the applicant-committed protective measures for vegetation and soil resource protection discussed in Section 2.3.8.6.

Table 4.4. Badland Soil Types and Land-Based Impacts of the Project, Outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Sakakawea. Vibroseis Controlled Vibroseis Travel Routes Detonation (slopes less Grand Soil Type on Receiver (slope 12–25 than 14 Total Lines degrees) degrees) (acres) (acres) (acres) Badland, 9%–150% slopes 9.31 9.37 0.00 18.68 Badland, high precipitation 0.76 0.65 0.00 1.40 Badland, outcrop-Lambert-Cabba 1.39 0.00 2.50 3.90 complex, 6%–50% slopes Brandenburg-Cabba-Badland, 0.36 0.00 0.76 1.12 outcrop complex, 9%–70% slopes Cabba-Badland complex, 6%– 49.35 51.89 4.26 105.50 70% slopes Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex, 13.35 3.85 9.38 26.59 9%–70% slopes Total 74.52 65.76 16.91 157.19 Source: NRCS 2013b

96 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.4.2.2 Noxious Weeds Both overland travel and staging activities could introduce new weed species and would spread existing noxious weed populations (salt cedar, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and absinthe wormwood) through the project area by seed transport on vehicles and equipment where populations are encountered. Vehicles and equipment travelling overland are conduits for seed dispersal. In addition, noxious weeds easily establish in disturbed sites such as cleared areas for staging (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992).

Stringent measures would be taken to avoid the spread of noxious weeds in the project area. Crews would avoid noxious weed locations while carrying out activities associated with the Proposed Action by avoiding known noxious weed locations, receiving training in noxious weeds identification prior to the start of project activities, and carrying photographs of noxious weeds. In addition to known populations of noxious weeds, it is possible that vehicles or individuals could encounter unmapped weeds in the project area. If weed infestations were encountered by crews, vehicles, shoes, or equipment would be washed with water or compressed air as soon as possible following the weed encounter.

If area noxious weeds were introduced or spread in the project area, they could invade and out-compete existing vegetation, resulting in potential loss of native prairie habitat. The spread of salt cedar can further stress native vegetation by lowering ground water levels and drying up springs and marshy areas. Its infestation can lead to flooding, as its root system can invade and block streambeds. Canada thistle establishes itself by crowding out and replacing native plants, thus altering the structure and species composition of natural plant communities and reducing species diversity. This thistle then prevents the coexistence of other plant species through shading, competing for nutrients, and potentially by releasing chemical toxins poisonous to other plants. The direct impact of leafy spurge is the reduction or entire local displacement of native plant communities. This dramatically alters ecosystems by affecting the properties of soils and the composition and function of plant and animal communities. These ecologic changes can directly affect local and regional economies through reduced recreational and agricultural revenue. Absinth wormwood is a prolific seed producer but also can spread by short roots, out-competing native vegetation (Corps 2007).

With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing the spread of noxious weeds in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project is not likely to introduce new weed infestations to the project area. However, cleaning vehicles prior to arrival at the project area does not prevent the spread of existing weed infestations in the project area. Because of the nature of vehicle and human travel over a grid of transect lines spanning the project area (see Figure 2.1), the Proposed Action is likely to contribute to the spread of existing weed populations along these transect lines. The spread of existing weed populations would not be a significant impact on weed populations in the area due to the limited extent of surface use in the project area. To limit the spread of noxious weed, potential mitigation measures are suggested to supplement applicant-committed measures for reducing the spread of noxious weeds in the project area.

97 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.4.2.3 Potential Mitigation Measures • Known populations of noxious weeds in and near the project area would be avoided and mapped. • Crews would receive training in noxious weeds identification prior to the start of project activities. • Crews would carry photographs of noxious weeds while conducting activities associated with the Proposed Action. • If weed infestations were encountered by crews, vehicles would be washed with water or compressed air as soon as possible following the weed encounter.

4.5 WATER RESOURCES

Impacts to groundwater, surface water, and wetlands are primarily assessed by qualitatively describing the risk of impairment, as indicated by state water quality standards, which serve as threshold indicators for water quality impacts. Impacts to water resources are also assessed by quantifying the acreage of land disturbed within each watershed affected by the proposed seismic activities.

4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to water resources in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed seismic activities.

4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action Hess would comply with all laws, regulations, and policies that protect water and wetland/riparian/floodplain resources in the project area. No shot holes would be drilled within 100 feet of perennial surface water features or springs. No operations other than receiver placement would be performed within 100 feet of a spring. These locations would be identified using desktop analysis and during planning surveys. These locations and the avoidance buffers would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GIS layers loaded on all GPS units. See Section 2.3.8.5 for a description of all applicant-committed measures for water resources.

4.5.2.1 Groundwater Contamination in the Northern Great Plains aquifer system is a concern. There is a shortage of the amount of fresh water that is available from the aquifers. Fresh water is considered to have less than 500 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids. Because of the lack of fresh water, in some areas water is used for human consumption that has dissolved solid concentrations over 2,000 milligrams per liter. The main sources of contamination come from agricultural fertilizers and pesticides. Many of the Northern Great Plains aquifers are affected by these chemicals through their recharge processes. The shallower aquifers are particularly affected because of the lack of time that the contaminant has to be absorbed. Point source contamination is also a problem in this region.

98 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

As described in Section 3.5.1, the depth of the Hofflund Aquifer, which is part of the lower Tertiary aquifer system, was at 27.07 feet below ground surface in November 2012. The proposed shot holes would be drilled to a depth of 60 feet. This puts the aquifer at risk of being intercepted by the proposed drilling activities. Drilling shot holes could introduce a path into the aquifer for contaminants if not plugged in the right spot (i.e., if the plug is above or below confining layer).

Seismic activities would introduce a risk of damage to poorly constructed water wells where the activities take place near well locations. The proposed seismic activities would use 11 pounds of explosives, and it has been found that using this size of explosive charge is unlikely to damage any fragile items buried beyond approximately 16 feet from the detonation site (Ross 1991). Hess would avoid all wells by 300 feet, unless requested differently by the landowner, in order to reduce the potential for well damage. See Table 3.8 for each well’s distance to closest source point. One well is within 300 feet of a source points as it is currently planned, but this point would be relocated or removed. Indirect impacts to groundwater resources may result from the surface disturbance and limited vegetation removal in aquifer recharge zones during vibroseis operations. These impacts could include decreased percolation and infiltration rates for groundwater recharge, changing near-surface groundwater flow paths in rare cases, or the possibility of explosive residue in near-surface groundwater where shot holes are used. Spills or leaks of fuel and/or lubricants could also potentially contaminate groundwater in the project area. The changes would be short term, localized, and most pronounced in shallow water areas. Indirect impacts to groundwater from surface disturbance and potential spills would not affect groundwater resources due to the limited extent of surface use in the project area and implementation of applicant-committed measures to prevent spills (see Section 2.3.8.5).

4.5.2.2 Surface Water Land-based seismic activities would not directly impact any perennial surface waters or springs with implementation of the applicant-committed measures (Section 2.3.8.5). However, the land-based seismic survey would result in direct disturbance along access routes consisting of compaction, rutting, damaging, or killing of vegetation, and spills or leaks of oil, gas, or lubricants from drilling equipment and/or support equipment. These types of impacts could result in increased sediment loading, erosion, surface water contamination, and/or changes in hydrology. Thus, impacts to vegetation and soils along source and receiver lines could degrade water quality in the project area or downstream. Surface disturbance would be limited to crushing of vegetation and some soil compaction. As shown in Table 4.5, this surface disturbance would affect a small percentage (0.4%) of vegetation and soils within the watersheds affected by the proposed seismic activities.

Spills or leaks of fuel and/or lubricants could contaminate surface waters in the project area. There is also a potential for DBX to enter surface runoff and nearby drainages/wetlands. To minimize the potential of contamination, no fueling of vehicles or boats would be permitted on federal lands managed by the Corps, or within 100 feet of any waterways or wetlands. Absorbent material for use on land and water would be available at the fill site for immediate use in the event of a spill.

99 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Indirect impacts resulting from vegetation removal would include increased erosion and runoff potentials, and decreased water quality and inflated total dissolved solids concentrations resulting from storm water runoff from disturbed areas. The surface disturbance would affect a small percentage (0.4%) of vegetation and soils within the watersheds affected by the proposed seismic activities.

The quality of surface water near the seismic survey would not be permanently impaired by the seismic activity. However, there are short-term changes that would occur, including temporary increases in turbidity, increases in suspended solids due to re-suspension of bottom material during placement of receivers in Lake Sakakawea, and possible increases in dissolved solids as more material may be available for dissolution due to increases in suspended matter. These changes would be caused by the placement of receiver stations and lines in the water and the travel of support boat equipment. The changes would be short term, localized, and most pronounced in shallow water areas. Suspended solids would eventually settle out of the water column and back down to the bottom, and dissolved solids would eventually be diluted within the waterbody and should not result in any measurable changes in water quality in the long term. Overall impacts on surface water in the project area would be short term, localized, and most pronounced in shallow water areas.

100 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 4.5. Surface Impacts within Watersheds. Vibroseis Total Controlled % Travel Acres Total Acres Detonation Total Watershed % Total Vibroseis Routes on Watershed within of Entire Slope 14–25 Impact within Watershed (acres)1 Receiver Project Watershed Degrees (acres)1 Project Area Impacted Lines Area (acres)1 Impacted (acres)1 Cedar Coulee 6,084.4 28,199.7 14.6 27.0 7.8 49.4 0.8% 0.2% Cedar Creek 17,006.5 30,218.5 55.6 90.9 52.7 199.1 1.2% 0.7% Halfbreed Creek 18,784.0 23,185.2 103.8 93.7 20.0 217.5 1.2% 0.9% Long Creek 8.6 13,111.2 0.2 0.5 0 0.6 7.0% 0.0% Lower Tobacco 327.6 16,369.3 3.3 4.1 0.1 7.4 2.3% 0.1% Garden Creek Wild Cow Creek 2,820.7 10,673.9 29.2 24.1 0 53.2 2.0% 0.5% Willow Creek 674.9 7,333.4 5.5 9.0 0.1 14.6 2.2% 0.2% Total 45,706.7 129,091.2 212.2 249.3 80.7 541.8 16.7% 2.6% 1 Includes private, state, and federal lands, and assumes a 13-foot-wide area of impact for vibroseis and 10-foot-wide area of impact for controlled detonation area of impact along source and receiver lines.

101 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.5.2.3 Wetlands and Waters The Proposed Action would not directly impact any wetlands or waterways because applicant-committed measures would be implemented (Section 2.3.8.5). All known wetlands and hydric soils would be avoided by truck and buggy activities, and no source points would be placed in wetlands or waters of the U.S. No surface disturbance would occur that would result in the need for the Proposed Action to seek authorization from the North Dakota Department of Health for a construction General Permit for stormwater discharges, nor would any facilities be constructed that could result in facility discharges that would result in the need for a General Permit for Mining (North Dakota Water Pollution Control Act).

To minimize the likelihood of compaction and rutting, which could lead to changes in hydrology, Hess would use lightweight drilling equipment in areas sensitive to rutting. In addition, the number of passes by equipment would be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish objectives. Wherever possible, a drill would travel only once down each source line. Impacts to soils and vegetation, including rutting, would be reduced following the measures described in Section 2.3.8.6.

Impacts to water quality in wetlands are not anticipated. During movement of trucks and buggies, a small potential exists for erosion that could make its way to wetlands or waters of the U.S. These impacts would be minor, short term, and localized. The most pronounced effects would be in shallow water areas in Lake Sakakawea as a result of the use of boats and placement of receiver points. Suspended solids in Lake Sakakawea would quickly settle out of the water column and back down to the bottom, and dissolved solids would eventually be diluted within the waterbody and should not result in any measurable changes in water quality.

4.5.2.4 Potential Mitigation Measures All known wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be avoided by land based activities. If a potential wetland or water of the U.S. is identified, the transect(s) would be routed around the potential aquatic feature, and no truck, buggy, or other equipment would be allowed to enter or cross the feature. Applicant-committed protective measures that are intended to reduce potential water quality effects are expected to minimize impacts to water resources.

4.6 WILDLIFE

4.6.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to wildlife species in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity.

4.6.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The analysis area for wildlife is the project area because it encompasses the area within which impacts to wildlife are expected to occur.

102 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Impacts to wildlife species are analyzed based on the acres of surface disturbance and timing of use in the project area because these elements are most likely to impact wildlife and wildlife habitat, as described in Sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.6. The density of area road traffic is discussed to evaluate the increase in vehicles from project activities and the likelihood of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Impacts to soils and vegetation and the size of the occupancy area are used to evaluate habitat degradation.

The analysis below assumes implementation of the applicant-committed protective measures for soil, vegetation, and wildlife listed in Sections 2.3.8.6 and 2.3.8.7. These applicant- committed protective measures would protect and minimize effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat (and its associated soil and vegetation), limiting impacts to the short term. Applicant- committed protective measures specific to wildlife include completing activities prior to the lake freezing over, prohibiting the harassing or shooting of wildlife, prohibiting the damaging of nests or dens, banning the presence of dogs, requiring the removal of litter, and other detailed measures for special status species.

The project area provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species which would be impacted by project activities. Wildlife that reside and migrate through the project area would be affected. Impacts to wildlife would consist of visual, vibration, or auditory disturbances from vehicles and people during source and receiver layout, operations, and removal; temporary loss or degradation of habitat used for foraging, nesting, migration, and cover; and an elevated risk of mortality from vehicle collisions, especially to species that cannot move quickly.

Noise, vibration, and visual disturbance (the presence of equipment and people) would occur during all phases of the seismic acquisition. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced into adjacent habitat or the disturbance would temporarily alter the normal behavior of certain species. Individuals that stay in burrows may be affected by vibrations. Increased stress to individual wildlife could occur which may impact that individual’s health or increase their vulnerability to predation. However, suitable habitat is present in the project area for the spatial redistribution of individuals, and most species would be able to return to areas of operation as soon as project activities are complete. The ability of wildlife to move away from noise sources may help reduce this impact because noise attenuates with distance.

Noise, vibration, and visual impacts would occur primarily in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area), which is 28.1% of the entire project area, and would be intermittent. These impacts would be short term because of the limited nature of the project (approximately 70 days of actual on-the-ground time); most of the impacts would occur during the 40-day source generation period.

The temporary loss or degradation of wildlife habitat would also occur from geophysical exploration activities. Temporary habitat loss would occur in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area) where individual animals would be displaced. Habitat degradation would also occur in areas of surface disturbance in the project area. Approximately 541.9 acres of short-term disturbance (1.2% of the project area) would occur on land above the OHWM (1,850 amsl) of Lake Sakakawea (see Table 2.3). In these areas of disturbance, soil compaction, soil erosion, loss of soil productivity, and the crushing or killing

103 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota of plants would negatively alter habitat quality (see Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 for additional information on impacts to soils and vegetation, respectively). A loss of healthy soils and vegetation would reduce habitat quality (by reducing its suitability for shelter, cover, nesting, and food) and likely result in the displacement of wildlife using that particular habitat.

Based on the percentage of the project area that would be impacted by surface disturbance (up to 541.9 acres or 1.2% of the project area) as an indicator of impacted habitat and the implementation of applicant-committed protective measures, habitat degradation in the project area would be limited.

Project activities would also cause an elevated risk of wildlife mortality from vehicular collisions, which could occur on existing roads or during overland travel. Species that are small and relatively immobile would most likely be affected because they are unable to quickly move away from vehicles and UTVs (e.g., reptiles and amphibians). However, vehicle speeds would be slow and the probability of vehicle strikes of wildlife species is low.

Based on the traffic counts discussed in Section 3.1.6, the number of vehicles to be used for the Proposed Action is expected to result in a maximum 0.8% increase in the local AADT (3,955); therefore, vehicle collisions with wildlife are not expected to substantially increase, especially because of the project’s short-term and localized nature.

4.6.2.1 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for wildlife. Applicant-committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

4.7 FISHERIES AND AQUATICS

4.7.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to fish species in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity.

4.7.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action Water-based survey activities would consist of receiver placement, and recording and demobilization as described in Section 2.3.2. Land-based activities, including source generation and recording, would occur above the OHWM (1,850 amsl) of Lake Sakakawea. Depending on the water elevation at the time of the proposed seismic acquisition, land-based source points would occur between 13 and 25 feet from the edge of the water in Lake Sakakawea. Potential effects of the water-based acquisition could include effects from the potential introduction of aquatic nuisance species, and behavioral and physiological effects as a result of the exposure to an impulsive sound source created by land-based controlled detonation.

4.7.2.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic nuisance species have the potential to be spread or introduced in the project area as a result of the use of water-based equipment. The greatest threat would occur from the

104 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota introduction of aquatic nuisance species from equipment that was used in waters where aquatic nuisance species occur. With the implementation of applicant-committed measures (see Section 2.3.8.5), including inspection of all equipment prior to deployment, the Proposed Action would not introduce aquatic nuisance species into the project area.

4.7.2.2 Sound Effects from Land-based Controlled Detonation Controlled detonation produces impulsive sound levels with high peak levels, as well as short rise-times and impulse durations. In general, increases in sound pressure levels within aquatic environments could result in adverse effects to fish, including temporary displacement or shifts in habitat use, injuries (e.g., hearing loss or minor bruising or external bleeding), or mortality (e.g., swim bladder rupture or kidney or gonad hemorrhage) depending on the noise levels emitted, the proximity, and species of fish in the project area (Popper and Hastings 2009; Hawkins and Popper 2012). The size or age class of fish and species of fishes (particularly the morphology of the swim bladder) can influence the level of effect the noise can have on fish present in the project area (Popper and Hastings 2009; Hawkins and Popper 2012).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Science criteria for injury to fish from underwater pile-driving activities set thresholds for adverse behavioral effects as 150 dBRMS (root mean squared noise level). Sound pressure levels in excess of 150 dBRMS are expected to cause temporary behavioral changes, such as elicitation of a startle response, disruption of feeding, or avoidance of an area. The NOAA Fisheries Science criteria for the threshold for injury is 206 dBpeak (peak decibel level) and 187 dBSEL for fish > 2 grams and 183 dBSEL (sound exposure level) for fish < 2 grams (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008; NOAA 2008). As a comparison, the background noise levels near Lake Sakakawea State Park in Lake Sakakawea were measured to be 138 dBPeak (CSA 2012). A typical recreational outboard boat noise produces a sound level of approximately 150 to 180 dBPeak (Bennett et al. 1994; Spiga et al. unknown date).

Acoustic energy (shock waves) produced by land-based source points has the potential to produce sound pressure levels that may result in behavioral and physiological effects on the fish in Lake Sakakawea. As described in Section 2.3.1.2, the proposed project proposes to use 11 pounds of DBX buried at a depth of 60 feet to produce the sound energy at land-based controlled detonation points. As described in Section 2.3.1.2, backfilling of each shot hole with bentonite would secure the hole preventing any blow out, direct the SEL into the subsurface geology, and would dampen the SEL that is emitted to the surface when the DBX is detonated.

As described in Section 2.3.8.5, land-based controlled detonation points would be placed a minimum of 100 feet from perennial water, including the water surface of Lake Sakakawea. Depending on the water elevation at the time of the proposed project, the land-based controlled detonation points would range from 100 to 1,789 feet (surface distance) from Lake Sakakawea (Table 4.6). Figure 4.1 demonstrates the variability of the water surface elevations based on the bathymetry of Lake Sakakawea (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991).

105 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Table 4.6. Distance from Land-Based Controlled Detonation Points to the Water Surface of Lake Sakakawea. Distance to Nearest Controlled Detonation Shot Hole Water Elevation Surface Distance Straight Line Distance from (feet) (feet) Bottom of Shot Hole (feet) 1,825.00 1,798 1,797 1,830.00 1,077 1,075 1,834.00 269 262 1,837.50 1,001 80 Note: During post-plot layout, source points would be placed a minimum of 100 feet from the water surface elevation.

106 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 4.1. Overview of water surface elevations in relation to controlled detonation and vibroseis source points.

107 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Explosives detonated underground produce pressure or seismic waves within the earth. Energy released from the detonation of DBX would be attenuated at a different rate depending on the density of the surrounding material (e.g., bedrock, saturate soil, unsaturated soil), the topography of the landscape, and the distance to the groundwater interface (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991). Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1991) developed blasting standards that outline required blasting offsets from aquatic environments to prevent effects on fisheries. These standards take into account the variability of the charge size, the geologic conditions or substrate, and local topography to identify required offset distances from the water surface. For waterbodies not containing anadromous fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1991) identified a minimum distance of 30 feet from the center of the charge to the water surface. For waters containing anadromous fish, using a 10-pound explosive charge, setbacks range from 63 feet for unsaturated soils to 109 feet for bedrock. Based on the guidelines from Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the variability in geology around Lake Sakakawea more closely resembling unconsolidated substrate than bedrock, a minimum offset of 100 feet would adequately attenuate the sound waves created by land-based controlled detonation. Therefore, no behavioral or physiological effects on fish are anticipated from the use of land-based controlled detonation.

The use of boats during planning surveys, receiver station layout, recording, and demobilization has the potential to produce sound levels approximately 150 to 180 dBPeak (Bennett et al. 1994; Spiga et al. unknown date) that may startle fish in the immediate vicinity, resulting in a temporary shift in habitat use. This reaction would be temporary and limited in its spatial extent. The use of boats in the project area is also consistent with the current recreational use in the project area.

4.7.2.3 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for fisheries and aquatics. Applicant- committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to fisheries and aquatics.

4.8 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, AND FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES

4.8.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed geophysical activity.

4.8.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action As described above in Section 2.3, potential resource impacts in the project area vary based on the acoustical energy source and topography on land and in the water. Potential effects of the project on land-based federally listed species would include short-term displacement of species during seismic operations as well as potential short-term surface disturbance from vibroseis and drill buggy travel. Impacts to biological and physical resources encountered would be primarily limited to: • the crushing of grass/shrub stems encountered on cross-country routes;

108 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

• equipment/vehicle noise and human presence/activity; • ground vibrations during use of vibroseis and controlled detonation; • some visible soil disturbance from vehicle passage, particularly in areas devoid of or with sparse vegetative cover and loose soils; and • minor rutting in loose soils lacking vegetative cover or in cases where sudden precipitation events overtake source generation activities and equipment must be moved back to existing roads/staging areas until soil conditions are more favorable.

Short-term disturbance would occur over a 40- to 90-day period, as described in Section 2.3.6. This short-term disturbance is anticipated to return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins.

Water-based operations of this project could be affected by equipment use and boat activity within Lake Sakakawea. Potential effects of the project on water-based federally listed species could include the introduction of aquatic nuisance species from the use of water-based equipment, behavioral effects as a result of the exposure to boat activity and placement of receiver stations, and the potential for exposure to sound waves that are transferred through the land and water from land-based source generation. Behavioral effects could include temporary displacement or shifts in habitat use.

Impact determinations for species are discussed below. The USFWS Concurrence Letter issued by the USFWS is provided in Appendix C.

4.8.2.1 Black-footed Ferret Black-footed ferrets are not known to occur in North Dakota (USFWS 2008; Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team 2011) and it is unlikely that any natural, wild populations are undiscovered (Lockhart 2006 in USFWS 2008). Additionally, habitat for black-footed ferrets, consisting of black-tailed prairie dog towns, is not known to occur in the project area. Therefore, due to lack of habitat in the project area, the Proposed Action would have no effect on black-footed ferret.

4.8.2.2 Gray Wolf The project area does not provide suitable habitat for the gray wolf, therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on gray wolf.

4.8.2.3 Northern Long-eared Bat Northern long-eared bats are not known to occur in the project area. Suitable winter habitat for northern long-eared bats does not occur in the project area. Nearby trees and rocky outcrops can act as suitable summer day roosts. Design measures have been implemented to avoid the removal of woody vegetation in draws. Due to the low likelihood of northern long- eared bat occurrence in the project area and applicant-committed measures to not remove woody vegetation, which provides summer day roosts for the bat, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat or result in the need or a Conference Opinion from the USFWS.

109 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.8.2.4 Whooping Crane Based on available research, the project area has not been identified by the USFWS as a traditional migration stopover. Cranes may occasionally pass through the area; however, these individuals or small groups would be expected to visit the area for only a few days before continuing their migration. The crane may be affected by a slight loss of suitable stopover areas due to occupation by seismic equipment and activities, but due to the size of the live patch relative to their migration corridor, they would not be noticeably adversely prevented from landing or stopping over more generally. Due to the low likelihood of occurrence, the short-term nature of the project, and implementation of the applicant-committed mitigation measure to cease activity should the species occur within a 1-mile buffer of the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.7), the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the whooping crane.

4.8.2.5 Interior Least Tern Nesting interior least terns are subject to disturbance from human-induced activities and actual or functional loss of nesting habitat (USFWS 1990b). Habitat loss or degradation may occur if seismic activities physically alter the sandbar habitat used by nesting terns. Degradation includes rutting, erosion, or soil compaction resulting in unstable, reduced, or channelized land surface. Furthermore, if a nestling falls into a rut it may be unable to escape, resulting in death. Human activity around nesting terns may flush incubating/brooding adults from nest sites leaving nestlings unprotected from weather exposure and predators.

Implementation of applicant-committed measures to reduce impacts to water, vegetation, and resources, as listed in Sections 2.3.8.5, 2.3.8.6, and 2.3.8.7, would minimize the possibility of potential adverse impacts to interior least tern and its actual or functional loss of nesting habitat in the project area. Specifically, no activities that could result in rutting would be allowed within piping plover critical habitat which extends 200-feet above the OHWM of Lake Sakakawea. Additionally, outside of piping plover critical habitat and the OHWM, Hess has committed to fixing ruts greater than 4 inches deep and to not operate under conditions that are likely to result in the formation of ruts, and operate outside of the tern’s nesting season would effectively mitigate measureable effects on nesting habitat. Therefore, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect interior least tern.

4.8.2.6 Piping Plover As described above in Section 4.8.2.5, potential impacts from seismic activity would include habitat loss or degradation, and potential mortality of nestlings if they fall into a rut or if they are left unprotected by the adults being flushed from nests. To minimize impact risk to nesting piping plovers by the proposed project’s activities, the operator has committed to not operating within nesting or critical habitat until after the nesting season (after August 31) and areas designated as critical habitat for piping plover would be clearly marked on all seismic maps and GPS units for purposes of compliance with avoidance measures by crew members (see Section 2.3.8.7). Additionally, no activities that could result in rutting would be allowed in these areas. No vehicle traffic would occur in piping plover critical habitat. All planning surveys and equipment layout would be conducted by foot. Because no seismic activities would occur

110 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota during the plover’s nesting season and implementation of applicant-committed measures would minimize risk of adverse modification of critical habitat, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect piping plover or its designated critical habitat.

4.8.2.7 Sprague’s Pipit Sprague’s pipits are known to occur in McKenzie County during the breeding season (February 1 to August 15). Native prairie habitat used for breeding by the Sprague’s pipit occurs in the project area and has the potential to be impacted by the proposed project (refer to Section 1.1.1.1). With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to vegetation in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize native prairie habitat. Additionally, any residual effects from crushing of vegetation should return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins.

The proposed project would not occur during the breeding season for this species thus it would not directly impact nesting birds. With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to native prairie in the project area and recovery of crushed vegetation by the breeding season of 2015, there would be no adverse effect to Sprague’s pipit as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.8.2.8 Rufa Red Knot There are no known records of rufa red knot near the project area; however, this species could use habitat along Lake Sakakawea as a stopover during migration. The proposed placement and demobilization of receiver stations along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea are unlikely to disturb migrating birds because of the low likelihood of occurrence and the limited activity associated with the Proposed Action. Due to the low likelihood of occurrence in the project area and the limited activity along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the rufa red knot or result in the need or a Conference Opinion from the USFWS.

4.8.2.9 Dakota Skipper The project area contains suitable habitat for this species along steep slopes surrounding Lake Sakakawea; however, the species is not known to occur in the project area. It is unlikely that an undetected population is present due to the proposed project’s location on the extreme western periphery of the species range, as well as the extensive habitat alteration and fragmentation in the area that reduces the likelihood for dispersal between disparate suitable habitat patches. The nearest known population (approximately 30.2 miles from the project boundary) is the Eagle Nest Butte population on a 10-acre site in the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Cochrane and Delphey 2002). If Dakota skipper occurs in the project area, no direct effects would occur from mortality of adults because the adult flight stage is brief (June and July), and no adults would occur in the project area in September during planned project activities. Pupa/larval stages may be present during project implementation within grassland habitats.

111 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

No proposed critical habitat occurs in the project area. Native prairie habitats suitable for Dakota skipper would be affected by the proposed project (refer to Section 1.1.1.1). With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to vegetation in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project would result in short-term and temporary effects on native prairie habitat. Additionally, any residual effects from crushing of vegetation should return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins. The extent and abundance of flowering plants that the species depends on during the adult flight period should be available to that species in 2015 at the same level they were in 2014 (i.e., project activities would not alter the vegetative composition of the project area).

With the applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to native prairie in the project area, the proposed project would have short-term minor adverse effects on habitat for Dakota skipper. No proposed critical habitat would be affected by the project. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on Dakota skipper.

4.8.2.10 Pallid Sturgeon Potential effects of the water-based acquisition could include 1) effects from the potential introduction of aquatic nuisance species and 2) behavioral and physiological effects as a result of the exposure to an impulsive sound source created by land-based controlled detonation. These effects would be the same as those described above in Section 4.7.2.

Pallid sturgeon has the potential to occur within the Lake Sakakawea portion of the project area. The use of the project area as habitat is currently unknown and may depend on the Lake Sakakawea water levels and habitat types available at the time of the survey. In the fall and winter months, pallid sturgeons are likely to primarily occur within riverine habitats in the Missouri River upstream of the project area. If water levels are low and riverine habitats are available in the project area, pallid sturgeon may be exposed to SEL produced primarily by land-based controlled detonation. However, the lower the water levels are the further away the land-based controlled detonation points would be from the water surface (Table 4.6).

Based on the information described in Section 4.7.2, pallid sturgeon present in the project area are unlikely to have a behavioral response or physiological effects as a result of exposure to SEL produced by land-based controlled detonation. The shock wave created by land-based controlled detonation would attenuate within 100 feet of the center of the shot hole, therefore not exposing pallid sturgeon to any SEL that would result in a behavioral or physiological response.

The use of boats during planning surveys, receiver station layout, recording, and demobilization has the potential to produce sound levels (approximately 150 to 180 dBPeak (Bennett et al. 1994; Spiga et al. unknown date) that may startle pallid sturgeon within the immediate vicinity, resulting in a temporary shift in habitat use. This reaction would be temporary and limited in its spatial extent. The use of boats in the project area is also consistent with the current recreational use in the project area. As a result of the potential behavioral response to the layout, operation, and demobilization of receiver stations, pallid sturgeon may be disrupted during project activities, but this would not be a significant or adverse effect. Therefore, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect pallid sturgeon.

112 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.8.2.11 Bald Eagle Although the proposed project occurs within the known breeding range of the bald eagle and there is suitable habitat in the project area, according to the most recent data available, there are no known bald eagle nests in the project area (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; NDPR 2012a). However, it is expected that bald eagles use suitable habitats in the project area for roosting and hunting. Adult bald eagles may be temporarily displaced within the live patch of the project as a result of human activity. However, this would be a localized and temporary effect. No impacts to nesting birds or fledgling success would occur as a result of the proposed project because the project would occur outside of the nesting season and no nesting habitat would be removed by project activities. With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to vegetation in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project would result in short-term and temporary effects on native prairie habitat. Additionally, any residual effects from crushing of vegetation should return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins. As a result, no adverse effects are anticipated to bald eagles as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.8.2.12 Golden Eagle No golden eagles or nests were observed during the field surveys; however, golden eagles may occur in or near the project area. According to data provided by the NDGFD, 15 golden eagle nests are known to be in the project area (see Table 3.13). The activity status of these nests is unknown (personal communication, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011; NDPR 2012a). No impacts to nesting birds or fledgling success would occur as a result of the proposed project because the project would occur outside of the nesting season and no nesting habitat would be removed by project activities. Adult golden eagles may be temporarily displaced within the live patch of the project as a result of human activity. However, this would be a localized and temporary effect. With implementation of applicant-committed measures for reducing impacts to vegetation in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project would result in short-term and temporary effects on native prairie habitat. Additionally, any residual effects from crushing of vegetation should return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins. As a result, no adverse effects are anticipated to golden eagles as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.8.2.13 Migratory Birds Migratory birds are known to occur in the project area. The project would occur after the species breeding season and impacts to nesting birds are very unlikely. Vegetation would be affected by the proposed project (refer to Section 4.4.2). With implementation of applicant- committed measures for reducing impacts to vegetation in the project area (refer to Section 2.3.8.6), the proposed project would have short-term minor adverse effects on habitat for migratory birds. Additionally, any residual effects from crushing of vegetation should return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015, when the growing season begins. With implementation of applicant-committed measures, as outlined in Sections 2.3.8.7 and 2.3.8.6, for reducing impacts in the project area, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on migratory birds.

113 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.8.2.14 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species. Applicant-committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species.

4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts to cultural resources are analyzed by evaluating the extent to which NRHP-eligible sites would be affected directly or indirectly by the alternatives. The criteria used to assess adverse effects to NRHP-eligible properties are set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. An adverse effect consists of any impact that may alter one or more of the characteristics of a historic property that make the property eligible for the NRHP.

4.9.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to cultural resources in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed seismic activities.

4.9.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The proposed seismic exploration has the potential to affect sites that are eligible for listing on the NRHP, or sites for which more data are needed before NRHP eligibility can be determined. An effect is defined as an alteration to the characteristics of an historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16[i]). These effects would primarily occur in the form of direct and indirect impacts in relation to the proposed geophysical exploration project. Direct impacts could occur from vehicle traffic through sites during geophysical field operations, surface soil displacement, and/or soil compaction. If exploration activities result in the creation of ruts, the rutting and potential reclamation could affect exposed site features. There is also a potential for the drilling of shot holes to cause subsurface disturbance to intact, buried cultural resources. Indirect effects to sites would occur through creation of trails, which subsequently might be used for access by recreationists and which may increase erosion and increase the potential for looting of cultural resources sites. Impacts to cultural resources that diminish their integrity and the qualities that make them eligible for NRHP listing are considered adverse effects.

Hess would avoid known cultural resources sites that are eligible or unevaluated for listing on the NRHP as described in Section 2.3.8.8. Cultural resources considered not eligible for NRHP nomination may be impacted by project actions, but impacts to “not eligible” cultural resources are not considered significant under the National Historic Preservation Act.

All Corps-managed lands have been surveyed and the location of eligible and unevaluated sites is known. Direct impacts to identified cultural resource sites or their settings on Corps lands would be avoided with the implementation of applicant-committed avoidance measures.

114 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

A Class III survey has been conducted on approximately 5% (1,444.4 acres) of private lands in the project area. As a result, the location of all eligible and unevaluated for listing sites is not known. As described in Section 2.3.7.1, the proposed project could result in increased vehicle use within the private and state lands. While this would not be a new use for the project area, and low-pressure tires would be used, the proposed project could still result in affects to unidentified cultural resources within the private and state lands in the project area.

Because only 5% of the project area has been subject to Class III survey, the density of cultural resource sites on surveyed lands in the project area was used as a surrogate for the number of potential sites that might be affected. Assuming a cultural resource site density of 0.01 per acre in the project area, there is potential for approximately 5 eligible and unevaluated for listing cultural resources sites within the 540.3 acres of proposed surface disturbance. Disturbing archeological features or artifacts within eligible and unevaluated for listing cultural resources sites could result in a loss of the accuracy of the scientific and archeological record at these sites. The proposed project would not result in long-term disturbance to soils or vegetation in the project area. The project disturbance primarily consists of surface use; however, some potential for the drilling of shot holes to cause subsurface disturbance to intact, buried cultural resources exists. Due to the limited extent surface disturbance, the low density of cultural sites, and the implementation of applicant- committed measures to limit the short-term impact to soils and vegetation in the project area, the proposed project would not result in the disruption of cultural resource sites that would diminish their integrity and qualification for NRHP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse effects to cultural resources. To further protect unidentified cultural resources in the project area, potential mitigation measures have been identified below.

4.9.2.1 Potential Mitigation Measures In addition to the applicant-committed measures, Hess would be responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the project operations that they would be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing cultural resource sites or for collecting artifacts. If additional cultural resource sites are discovered on any land during project activities, Hess would immediately halt all activities within 100 feet of the find to avoid disturbing the site. Hess would immediately notify the Corps and/or the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office of the area where the cultural resource site was located, depending on the surface ownership.

Protection of cultural resources is not required on private property. However, on private and state-owned property, direct impacts to cultural resources could be reduced by conducting a Class III survey in areas with a high likelihood of disturbance to eligible and unevaluated for listing cultural resource sites, such as source lines, travel routes, and staging areas in the project area. Following the Class III survey, application of applicant-committed protective measures would be expected to minimize impacts to cultural resources on Corps-managed lands. However, there is no legal requirement compelling Hess or private landowners to do these surveys. They would only be done at the request of private landowners, thus would have a limited mitigating effect.

115 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

4.10 RECREATION

4.10.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the seismic survey would not be conducted on Corps lands; therefore, there would be no impact (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to public use and recreation as a result of the No Action Alternative.

4.10.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action Project operations would temporarily and locally disrupt the quality of dispersed recreational activities in and around the project area, including but not limited to camping, hiking, fishing, boating, or hunting, by visibly and audibly intruding on recreational users. Helicopters, buggy drills, vibroseis trucks, and other operations equipment would all create noise and visual disturbance in a largely uninhabited landscape.

Elevated noise levels and visual disturbances would occur primarily in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area) and be temporary in any given area for only short periods of time over the course of project operations, as operations progress quickly along source and receiver lines. These impacts would be short term because of the limited nature of the project (approximately 70 days of ground activity); most of the impacts would occur during the 40-day source generation period. Overall project noise elevation and visual disturbance is anticipated to detract from the quality of the recreational experience but not preclude them. In addition, the project activities would be avoidable, with large areas available for recreationists to shift to, meaning that their trip may be interrupted and inconvenienced, but would not be cancelled or otherwise impossible. Hess would offset operations away from public use areas as much as possible to minimize interference with recreationists. In addition, all water-based activities associated with the Proposed Action would be delayed until after the end of the peak recreation season, or after Labor Day. Effects to recreation would be minimal because recreational areas beyond the project site would be available and because the Proposed Action would affect recreational use during the construction period only.

4.10.2.1 Boating and Fishing on Lake Sakakawea Boating and fishing activities on Lake Sakakawea would temporarily experience localized visual disturbance associated with the Proposed Action. Floating receiver stations, as described in Section 2.3.2.2, would be present on the water surface at a rate of one station every 1,760 feet, or approximately nine stations per 1 square mile within the live patch area. These devices would be the only structures remaining overnight in the live patch area. These stations could provide a visual disturbance but would not prevent access to the area. Floating receiver stations are designed to prevent recreationists from getting entangled with the receiver line cable that is connected to the stations.

Recreationists may also encounter crews launching equipment at 2 out of 36 public boat launches on the lake (Lunds Landing in White Tail Bay and Lewis and Clark Bay); however, measures would be taken to limit use of public facilities to off peak times as described in Section 2.3.4.2. Hess and its contractors would not have priority use over public use at

116 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota selected ramp sites, nor would they have priority use over public boaters on the water; however, if safety were to become an issue, Hess would ask members of the public to vacate an area.

Fishing success (catch rate) upstream, downstream, and in the project area would likely not be affected by placement, operation, or demobilization of receiver stations in Lake Sakakawea. Receiver stations would result in a visual disturbance to anglers, as described above; however, their presence in the lake is unlikely to deter any fish from using the area directly around the receiver stations.

The potential adverse impacts to boating and fishing on Lake Sakakawea would be minimized because waters west of Lewis and Clark State Park, which includes the project area, are less desirable for boating and fishing than areas downstream due to the turbid and shallow waters. Turbid and shallow waters deter boaters, swimmers, fisherman, and sight-feeding fish such as walleye from the area. Overall impacts on boating and fishing in the project area and on surrounding lands would be short term.

4.10.2.2 Hunting Project operations, as proposed, would overlap and extend into the fall hunting season (see Table 3.14). Hunters in the area are expected to experience helicopter and land-based equipment noise and visual disturbance associated with the Proposed Action. This disturbance could cause game to temporarily leave the live patch area and adjacent areas, thereby temporarily reducing hunters’ access to game species in the live patch area which could cause hunters to leave and seek alternative hunting grounds. The preliminary project schedule has project staging activities starting August or September with project completion by the end of December. Hunting displacement impacts would occur primarily in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area), which is 28% of the entire project area, and would be intermittent. These impacts would be short term because of the limited nature of the project (approximately 70 days of ground activity); most of the impacts would occur during the 40-day source generation period. Overall impacts on hunting in the project area and on surrounding lands would be temporary and short term.

4.10.2.3 Lewis and Clark State Park and Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina Visitors recreating at nearby Lewis and Clark State Park would likely experience minor helicopter noise and visual disturbance associated with the Proposed Action by seeing and hearing helicopters in the distance. The park is located between 0.6 and 3.0 miles from the northern border of the project area, so these impacts would be minor and short term. It is unlikely that visitors to Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina would see or hear helicopters associated with the Proposed Action, since it is approximately 7 miles from the northern border of the project area. In the event that visitors could see or hear helicopters, these impacts would be minor and short term.

Visitors at Lewis and Clark State Park and Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina would likely encounter crews launching water-based recording equipment at Lund’s Landing Marina and Lewis and Clark Bay public boat launches. This could crowd the public launch space and

117 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota potentially delay boat launches for public users. These delays would be minimized by Hess’s commitment to use public facilities at off-peak times and to give the public launch priority. Overall impacts on public use and recreation at Lewis and Clark State Park and Lund’s Landing Lodge and Marina would be minimal and short term.

4.10.2.4 Other Dispersed Recreation Impacts to dispersed recreationists (campers, wildlife viewers, hikers, etc.) in the project area would be similar to those experienced by hunters discussed in Section 4.10.2.2. There would likely be noise and visual disturbances that would cause people seeking recreation opportunities to leave and seek alternative recreation areas. Recreation displacement impacts would occur primarily in the live patch area (20 square miles of the 71.3-square-mile project area), which is 28% of the entire project area, and would be intermittent. These impacts would be short term because of the limited nature of the project (approximately 70 days of actual on- the-ground time); most of the impacts would occur during the 40-day source generation period. Overall impacts on dispersed recreation in the project area and on surrounding lands would be temporary and short term.

4.10.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for recreation. Applicant-committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to recreation.

4.11 HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY

Potential impacts to health and human safety are analyzed by qualitatively describing the risk presented from the use of hazardous materials, including explosives, during the proposed seismic activities. Management of hazardous materials, substances, and waste, in addition to nonhazardous waste practices (including storage, transportation, and spills) would be conducted in the project area in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 40 CFR 100–400, CERCLA, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Water Act, and other applicable federal and state regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management and solid waste management.

4.11.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to health and human safety in the project area would continue at existing levels without any additional impacts that may result from the proposed seismic activities.

4.11.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, typical lubricants and fuels important to implement seismic exploration would be used. However, no listed hazardous or other solid waste beyond the CERCLA standards would be used in the project area. In addition, any fuels and other potentially hazardous materials would be stored off site on private lands. During activities, materials such as trash and other discarded items may accumulate in the project area due to human presence. This includes stakes and flagging, as these are used to delineate a particular area for seismic activity.

118 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Land-based blasting activities would not affect health and human safety because all explosions would take place at depths underground that would have no potential for above ground effects.

During the scoping period concern was expressed that the proposed seismic activities could affect human health and safety by damaging water pipelines. However, there are no water pipelines in the project area. Thus, there would be no impact to human health and safety as a result of potential damage to water pipelines.

The potential for human health impacts from pollutant emissions from the proposed seismic activities would be unlikely to negatively affect the air quality in the larger airshed, especially because of their short-term and localized nature. Section 4.1.2 provides a more detailed discussion of the potential impacts to air quality under the Proposed Action.

Potential adverse impacts to the health and safety of project employees and others would be minimized by the implementation of applicant-committed measures listed in Section 2.3.8.4 and implementation of the project health, safety, security environmental plan (HSSE Plan). The HSSE Plan would include objectives such as: • reducing work-related illness by concentrating on good health and hygiene; • minimizing injuries by educating employees of the hazards they face and vigilance by supervisors in ensuring that policies and procedures are being followed; and • avoiding pollution by using equipment that is in good operating condition, using spill trays for refueling, and cleaning up of all fuel/oil spills in the field.

Overall impacts on health and human safety in the project area and on surrounding lands would be temporary and short term.

4.11.3 Potential Mitigation Measures No potential mitigation measures have been identified for health and human safety. Applicant-committed protective measures are expected to minimize impacts to health and human safety.

119 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

5.0 CUMULATIVE AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as “… the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (RFA) regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7).

5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS AREA

The geographic scope for the cumulative impacts analysis is the project area (45,698 acres). Due to the short-term and limited surface use of the proposed project, the proposed project is not anticipated to have resource impacts extending beyond the project area.

5.2 PAST ACTIONS

Past actions in the cumulative impacts analysis area (CIAA) that have effects on resources include agriculture, livestock grazing, oil and gas development, recreation, private residences, and water management. Specific past actions include the following. • Agriculture – Approximately 3,980 acres of the project area are currently used for agricultural development (see Table 3.4). • Roads – Based on 2009 estimates, road development accounts for approximately 320 acres of disturbance in the project area. • Oil/gas development (drilling) – Approximately 94 oil and gas and confidential wells occur within the CIAA (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2014). All of the oil and gas development has occurred since 2010 (Figure 5.1). Disturbance estimates were not available for oil and gas development because most disturbances have occurred after the Landfire National Land Cover Dataset was completed (U.S. Department of the Interior 2009). As a result, it was assumed that oil and gas development in the project area would occur at a density of two wells per pad and that each well pad would disturb approximately 10 acres. Based on this assumption, approximately 47 well pads occur within the CIAA resulting in 470 acres of surface disturbance. • Water management – Missouri River System water management in combination with the dynamic nature of inflows into Lake Sakakawea has had a large influence on the environmental conditions and habitats available within the CIAA. Because of the location of the CIAA at the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea, the drought from 2000 to 2009 greatly reduced water elevations in the project area, resulting in primarily riverine conditions within the CIAA. In 2011, water levels were the highest on record within 14 years in the CIAA, cresting at 4 feet above the OHWM at1,854.6 feet amsl. Overall, past disturbance in the project area accounts for approximately 4,770 acres or 10.4% of the CIAA.

120 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Figure 5.1. Past and present actions in and near the Stony Creek 3D project area.

121 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

5.3 PRESENT ACTIONS

Present actions in the CIAA are primarily limited to agriculture, livestock grazing, existing or proposed oil/gas development, recreation, private residences, and water management. No new wells are permitted for drilling within the CIAA (North Dakota Oil and Gas 2014). No additional information on present actions was available within the CIAA. Therefore, no additional present action disturbance is occurring within the CIAA.

5.4 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CIAA would be dominated by oil/gas development which may include the drilling of additional wells and the development of pipelines. No proposals or permit applications were available for planned oil and gas development within the CIAA (North Dakota Oil and Gas 2014). Data generated from the proposed seismic survey would be used to identify potential subsurface geologic targets that may contain commercial quantities of oil and/or natural gas. In the case that attractive targets are identified as a result of this seismic survey, it is probable that Hess would move forward with the exploration of identified prospects through the permitting process for drilling operations.

In 2012 Global Geophysical Services notified the Corps of a proposal for conducting land- and water-based seismic surveys around Lake Sakakawea. The Global Geophysical Services proposed project area is approximately 41 river miles downstream of the proposed Stony Creek project area in T151N, R94W, R93W, R92W, and R91W; T150N, R94W, R93W, R92W, and R91W; T149N, R93W, R92W, and R91W; T148N, R93W, R92W, RR91W, and R90W; and T147N, R93W, R92W, R91W, and R90W. This project is still pending project approval by the Corps.

For purposes of cumulative impact analyses, the density of active and permitted oil wells and associated facilities (including access and utility corridors) is expected to increase steadily within the CIAA over the next decade. Based on the past and present development rate of approximately 27 wells per year (81 wells since 2010), it is assumed that 270 wells could be drilled resulting in an additional 1,350 acres of disturbance over the next decade.

5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As described above, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development within the CIAA accounts for 6,120 acres of surface disturbance or 13.4% of the CIAA.

5.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in no direct or indirect impacts to resources within the CIAA. As a result, there would be no cumulative effect on resources as a result of this alternative.

122 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

5.5.2 Alternative 2 – Operator Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in short-term disturbance of approximately 541.4 acres or 1.2% of the CIAA, depending on water levels at the time of the seismic survey. This would result in a cumulative effect of 6,686.8 acres of disturbance (14.6% of the CIAA). The Proposed Action would account for 8.5% of this cumulative effect.

5.5.2.1 Air Quality Based on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development within the CIAA, vehicle use and oil and gas production would continue to occur in the project area. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in short-term impacts to air quality as a result of short-term and localized increase in emissions and fugitive dust. The Proposed Action is not expected to impact attainment status based on any of the primary and secondary NAAQS for criteria pollutants or other regulated air emissions. In combination with the impacts of activities underway or reasonably foreseeable in the CIAA, the Proposed Action would result in, at most, a minor contribution to cumulative effects because few other high emission producing projects would have activities occurring during the same period. Once the seismic project is completed, no long-term cumulative effects would result.

5.5.2.2 Paleontology Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development within the CIAA that overlaps with paleontological sensitive bedrock (PFYC Classes 4 and 5) could have direct and cumulative impacts on paleontological resources. If this development occurs as part of a federal action, planning surveys and mitigation guidance would limit the potential effects to surface exposures of paleontological resources. If this development is a private action on non-federal lands, where planning surveys and mitigation are not required, protection of paleontological resources may not occur and the information they contain may be lost.

Implementation of the Proposed Action on non-federal lands could result in impacts to unidentified surface fossil localities within paleontological sensitive bedrock (PFYC Classes 4 and 5). Based on the limited surface disturbance (397.1 acres) in paleontological sensitive bedrock (PFYC Classes 4 and 5) on non-federal lands, the increased cumulative impacts on paleontological resources from implementation of the Proposed Action could occur to 1.8% of the total paleontological resource availability the project area (22,175.4 acres).

For both federal and non-federal developments, unidentified subsurface paleontological resources have the potential to be damaged as a result of subsurface disturbance, including the drilling of wells within the CIAA. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development within the CIAA would include drilling of approximately 364 16-inch-diameter oil and gas wells. The Proposed Action would include drilling an additional 1,152 4-inch-diameter controlled detonation shot points (see Table 2.3). Approximately 48% of the CIAA occurs within paleontological sensitive bedrock with potential locality densities of approximately 0.15 per acre. Based on the low site density (0.01 site per acre) and the minimal subsurface disturbance associated with drilling, there would be limited potential for the Proposed Action to damage paleontological resources or contribute to cumulative effects.

123 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

5.5.2.3 Soils Cumulative effects resulting from the Proposed Action would include short-term disturbance of soils and increased susceptibility to erosion. When the Proposed Action is added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative effect would be up to 6,686.8 acres of soils disturbance (14.6% of the CIAA). The Proposed Action would represent up to approximately 8.5% of this cumulative effect. Any potential adverse long-term cumulative effects of the Proposed Action would be adequately mitigated through project design features and applicant-committed measures. The Proposed Action would not contribute in any additive manner over time to causing increased adverse cumulative effects on soils, as all impacts would be short term.

5.5.2.4 Vegetation Cumulative effects to vegetation resources as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action would include a short-term crushing of vegetation or short-term loss of vegetation in areas of rutting and reclamation activities. These effects could occur within up to 1.5% of the CIAA and are expected to be recovered by the next growing season, within approximately 6 months. When the Proposed Action is added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative effect would be up to 6,686.8 acres of vegetation disturbance (14.6% of the CIAA). The Proposed Action would contribute up to approximately 8.5% of this cumulative effect. Any potential adverse long-term cumulative effects of the Proposed Action would be adequately mitigated through project design features and applicant- committed measures. Potential effects to vegetation would be expected to be recovered by the next growing season, within approximately 6 months. The Proposed Action would not contribute in any additive manner over time to cumulative adverse effects on vegetation, as all impacts would be short term.

5.5.2.5 Water Resources Impacts to water resources from the Proposed Action would be short term as a result of implementation of project design features and applicant-committed measures. Effects from other projects are not likely to overlap these short-term effects in time or space. The Proposed Action would not contribute in any additive manner to cumulative adverse effects on water resources, as all impacts would be short term.

5.5.2.6 Wildlife Cumulative effects to wildlife as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action would include short-term and temporary displacement of wildlife species and short-term effects to their habitats as a result to impact to vegetation, as described above. Potential effects to wildlife habitats would occur within 1.5% of the CIAA and are expected to be recovered by the next growing season, within approximately 6 months. When the Proposed Action is added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative effect would be up to 6,686.8 acres of wildlife habitat disturbance (14.6% of the CIAA). The Proposed Action’s contribution would be approximately 8.5% of this cumulative effect. Any potential adverse long-term cumulative effects of the Proposed Action have been adequately mitigated through project design features and applicant-committed measures. The Proposed Action would not contribute in long-term to cumulative adverse effects on wildlife, as all impacts would be short term.

124 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

5.5.2.7 Fisheries and Aquatics Fishery and aquatic resources are greatly influenced by the water levels and thus the availability of habitat within the CIAA. Drought conditions in the project area adversely affect fish species that rely on lake habitats. The active stocking programs and the ability of the fishery to respond quickly to expanding habitats have reduced the cumulative effect of these fluctuations on the fishery. Future water fluctuations within the CIAA are anticipated to be similar to the past and present effects, thus only resulting in minor incremental cumulative effects. No mortality or population level effect on the fishery is anticipated from the use of receiver points in Lake Sakakawea or from exposure to SEL levels that may be generated from land-based source points. With the implementation of applicant-committed measures to have all equipment inspected for aquatic invasive species, the proposed project would have no effect on aquatic resources. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to cumulative effects on fisheries and aquatic resources.

5.5.2.8 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Federally Protected Species The Proposed Action would have potential impacts on particular land-based threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species, consisting of short-term displacement of some species during seismic operations (from equipment/vehicle noise and human presence and activities) and short-term surface disturbance from vibroseis and drill buggy travel. Surface disturbance could impact species’ habitats and primarily would be limited to the crushing of grass/shrub stems on cross-country routes, some visible soil disturbance from vehicle passage, and minor rutting in loose soils lacking vegetative cover or in cases where sudden precipitation events occur. Section 4.8.2 provides additional detail on impacts to particular species.

Potential effects of the project on water-based federally listed species could include behavioral effects such as temporary displacement or shifts in habitat use, and physiological effects including injuries resulting in minimal harm to the fish (e.g., minor bruising).

The Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species due to the temporary nature of the seismic project (short-term disturbance would occur over a 40- to 90-day period and is anticipated to return to normal conditions by late spring of 2015) and due to the implementation of protective design measures and applicant-committed mitigation measures. These measures include avoiding removal of woody vegetation in draws, halting activity should whooping crane occur within a 1-mile buffer of the project area, fixing ruts greater than 4 inches deep, not operating in conditions likely to result in the formation of ruts, operating outside of nesting seasons, and reducing impacts to vegetation. The Proposed Action would not contribute in the long term to cumulative effects on protected species because potential impacts would be adequately mitigated through project design features and applicant-committed measures.

5.5.2.9 Cultural Resources Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development that has occurred on federal lands would not have a direct impact to cultural resource sites with surface exposures as a result of compliance with Section 106 regulations and required survey and avoidance of cultural

125 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota resource sites. Unidentified subsurface cultural sites have the potential to be damaged as a result of subsurface disturbance, including the drilling of wells within the CIAA. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development within the CIAA would include drilling of approximately 364 16-inch-diameter oil and gas wells. The Proposed Action would include drilling an additional 1,152 4-inch-diameter controlled detonation shot points (see Table 2.3). Based on the low site density (0.01 site per acre) and the minimal subsurface disturbance associated with drilling, there would be limited cumulative potential for diminishment of site integrity and qualification for NRHP.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development within the CIAA on non-federal lands could also have adverse direct and cumulative impacts on cultural resources as a result of discovery of undocumented sites and the possibility of damage to those sites, if planning surveys and mitigation were not required. Implementation of the Proposed Action on non- federal lands could result in impacts to undocumented sites. Implementation of applicant- committed measures to limit the short-term impact to soils and vegetation in the project area would limit the potential for disruption of cultural resource sites that would diminish their integrity and qualification for NRHP. However, there is a low potential for this project to contribute to cumulative effects to cultural resources on non-federal lands.

5.5.2.10 Recreation Impacts to recreationists in the project area would be short-term and minor. Public access would only be restricted in areas where activities have the potential to result in a risk to public safety. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities would not have a significant effect on recreational use in the project area and new development is unlikely to overlap with the proposed project in time or space based on the project design and applicant- committed measures of development avoidance. Once the seismic project is completed, no effects would persist, therefore, there would be no contribution to cumulative effects to recreation.

5.5.2.11 Health and Human Safety Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities would continue to increase the quantities of hazardous materials and fuels used and the amounts of solid and hazardous materials and wastes generated. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on health and human safety as a result of implementation of project design features and applicant-committed measures. With continued compliance with regulatory requirements, no substantial contribution to cumulative effects would be anticipated.

5.6 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The term “residual impacts” refers to those impacts remaining after all reasonable mitigation has been applied. The disturbance of approximately 541.4 acres of soil and related wildlife habitat resulting from geophysical activities within the proposed project area would constitute a short-term impact. The short-term impact would primarily result in the crushing of vegetation and limited soil disturbance in areas devoid of or with sparse vegetative cover and loose soils. Establishment of vegetative cover in these disturbed areas would eliminate any residual impacts in association with the proposed geophysical exploration activity.

126 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

6.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY Potential mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce potential effects were identified include the following:

Air quality (refer to Section 4.1.2.1)

• Keep all internal combustion engines in good working order. • Prohibit idling, where feasible. • Locate staging areas as close to operation sites as practicable to minimize driving distances between the two areas.

Paleontology (refer to Section 4.2.2.1)

• Hess would be responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the project operations that they would be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing paleontological localities or for collecting fossils. • If additional fossils are discovered on any land during project activities, Hess would immediately halt all activities within 100 feet of the find to avoid disturbing the fossils. Hess would immediately notify the Corps and/or the North Dakota State Paleontologist of the area where the fossil was located depending on the surface ownership.

Vegetation (refer to Section 4.4.2.3)

• Known populations of noxious weeds in and near the project area would be avoided and mapped. • Crews would receive training in noxious weeds identification before project activities start. • Crews would carry photographs of noxious weeds while conducting activities associated with the Proposed Action. • If weed infestations were encountered by crews, vehicles would be washed with water or compressed air as soon as possible following the weed encounter.

Cultural resources (refer to Section 4.9.2.1)

• Hess would be responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the project operations that they would be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing cultural resource sites or for collecting artifacts. • If additional cultural resource sites are discovered on any land during project activities, Hess would immediately halt all activities within 100 feet of the find to avoid disturbing the site. Hess would immediately notify the Corps and/or the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office of the area where the cultural resource site was located, depending on the surface ownership.

127 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

No additional mitigation measures were identified for soils; water resources; wildlife; threatened, endangered, candidate, and federally protected species; recreation; or health and human safety. Applicant-committed protective measures, as listed in Section 2.3.9, are expected to minimize impacts to these resources.

128 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Based on scoping comments from the USFWS and NDGFD, the Corps continued consultation and coordination with these agencies and Hess to develop a seismic airgun impact study on pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. Coordination meetings were held on December 14, 2011, February 27, 2012, April 23 and 24, 2012, and August 20, 2012, to refine and tailor the proposed impact study to the proposed project. A meeting was held on December 11, 2012, to discuss the results of the impact study. In November 2013, Hess modified their Proposed Action to eliminate source points within Lake Sakakawea. As a result, the issues discussed during this consultation and the results of this study are no longer applicable to this EA.

Additionally, consultation with the following agencies is required in addition to a FONSI: • North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office clearance on heritage resources • USFWS consultation on threatened and endangered species

129 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

8.0 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The proposed project would be conducted in accordance with other federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations and Hess would procure any required permits or easements prior to the commencement of geophysical operations as identified in Table 8.1. Procurement of the permits would be completed during the permitting phase of the project, in the summer of 2014.

Table 8.1. Major Federal, State, and Local Permits and Approvals Required for the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project.

Agency Permit, Approval, or Action U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Letter Grant for access to Corps-managed lands. North Dakota Industrial Permit for geophysical exploration on private and state surface Commission, Oil and Gas estate. Compliance with geophysical exploration requirements Division (NDCC 38-08.1-01). North Dakota Department of Permit for geophysical operations on State of North Dakota Board Trust Lands of University and School Lands Affected Private Surface & Easements for operations on private surface and mineral estate Mineral Owners Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Permit for handling, storage, and use of explosives and Firearms U.S. Department of Permit for transport of explosives Transportation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conformance with the Endangered Species Act North Dakota Game and Fish Coordination on impacts to wildlife and state-sensitive species Department North Dakota Department of Conformance with applicable size and weight limits for trucks and Transportation permit to transport explosives North Dakota State Historic Consultation for cultural resource inventory, evaluation, and Preservation Office mitigation North Dakota Water Sovereign Lands Permit for placement of geophones in the Commission Missouri River channel.

130 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

The Stony Creek 3D seismic survey project EA was prepared by SWCA, an independent environmental consulting firm, with the guidance, participation, and independent evaluation of the Corps. A list of personnel responsible for document preparation and their individual responsibilities are provided in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2. The Corps, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5 (a) and (c), is in agreement with the findings of the analysis and approves and takes responsibility for the scope and content of this document.

Table 9.1. SWCA Environmental Assessment Team.

Name Title Area(s) of Responsibility Laura Burckhardt Project Project oversight; NEPA review; Fisheries and Manager Aquatics; Pallid Sturgeon Greg Larson and NEPA NEPA review Whitney Fiore Practitioner Jeremy Eyre Environmental Water Resources; Health and Human Safety; Cultural Specialist Resources Gretchen Semerad Environmental Air Quality; Soils; Wildlife Specialist Nicole Ulacky Environmental Vegetation; Recreation Specialist Doug Faulkner Biologist Threatened and Endangered Species; Migratory Birds Jason Kline Biologist Threatened and Endangered Species Georgia Knauss Paleontologist Paleontological Resources Alan Hutchinson Archeologist Cultural Resources Class I Report Wade Epperson GIS Specialist GIS

Table 9.2. List of Corps Interdisciplinary Team Reviewers. Name Title Area(s) of Responsibility John Shelman Environmental Resource NEPA review Specialists Eric Laux Senior Environmental Specialist NEPA review Michael Morris Natural Resource Specialist Wildlife; Threatened and Endangered Species; David Cain Archaeologist Cultural Resources; Paleontology

131 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

10.0 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1991. Blasting standards for the protection of fish. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, 802 3rd Street, Douglas, Alaska 99824. 37pp. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/license/uselicense/pdfs/adfg_blasting_standards.pdf. Accessed July 16, 2014.

Anteau, M.J., T.L. Shaffer, M.H. Sherfy, M.A. Sovada, J.H. Stucker, and M.T. Wiltermuth. 2012. Nest survival of piping plovers at a dynamic reservoir indicates an ecological trap for a threatened population. Oecologia 170(4):1167–1179.

Austin, J.E., and A.L. Richert. 2001. A comprehensive review of observational and site evaluation data of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 1943–1999. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota, and State Museum, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bennett, D.H., C.M. Falter, S.R. Chipps, K. Niemela, and J. Kinney. 1994. Effects of underwater sound simulating the intermediate scale measurement system on fish and zooplankton of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Prepared for the Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia. Contract N0014-92-J-4106. Department of Fish and Wildlife Research, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Biggins, D.E. 2006. The symposium in context. In Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret: Progress and Continuing Challenges, edited by J.E. Roelle, B.J. Miller, J.L. Godbey, and D.E. Biggins. U.S. Geological Survey.

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team. 2011. Recovery Efforts. Available at http://blackfootedferret.org/reintroduction. Accessed December 19, 2012.

Bramblett, R.G., and R.G. White. 2001. Habitat use and movements of Pallid and Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers in Montana and North Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:1006–1025.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009.

———. 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-011.

Butler, J, H. Goetz, and J.L. Richardson. 1986. Vegetation and soil-landscape relationships in the North Dakota Badlands. American Midland Naturalist 116(2):378–386 (October).

Carlson, C.G. 1985. Geology of McKenzie County, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey, B-80, Part I.

132 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Carlson, T.J., M.C. Hastings, and A.N. Popper. 2007. Update on recommendations for revised interim sound exposure criteria for fish during pile driving activities. Memo to California Department of Transportation and Washington Department of Transportation. Available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/ct- arlington_memo_12-21-07.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2012.

Clayton, L., S.R. Moran, and J.P. Bluemle. 1980. Geologic Map of North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:500,000.

Cochrane, J.F., and P. Delphey. 2002. Status Assessment and Conservation Guidelines, Dakota Skipper, Hesperia dacotae (Skinner) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae), Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

Crane, P.R., S.R. Manchester, and D.L. Dilcher. 1990. A preliminary survey of leaves and well-preserved reproductive structures from the Sentinel Butte Formation (Paleocene) near Almont, North Dakota. Fieldiana Geology. New Series 20:1–63.

CSA International, Inc. 2012. Effects of seismic surveys in Lake Sakakawea on pallid sturgeon and other key fish species. Prepared for Hess Corporation. 102 pp.

Dana, R.P. 1991. Conservation management of the prairie skippers Hesperia dacotae and Hesperia ottoe. Station Bulletin 594-1991. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Erickson, B.R. 1982a. The Wannagan Creek Quarry and its Reptilian Fauna in Billings County, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey. Reports of Investigation 72. 12 pp.

———. 1982b. Wannaganosuchus, a new alligator from the Paleocene of North America. Journal of Paleontology 56:492–506.

———. 1991. Flora and Fauna of the Wannagan Creek Quarry: Late Paleocene of North America. Science Museum of Minnesota 7(3):1–19.

Fastovsky, D.E., and K. McSweeney. 1991. Paleocene paleosols of the Petrified Forests of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota, A natural experiment in compound pedogenesis. Palaios 6:67–80.

Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. 2008. Memorandum to applicable agency staff, dated June 12, 2008. Subject: Agreement in Principle for Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4019ED62-B403-489C-AF05- 5F4713D663C9/0/BA_InterimCriteriaAgree.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2013.

Freers, T.F. 1970. Geology of Williams County, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey, B-48, Part I.

133 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Fryda, D., F. Ryckman, R. Kinzler, and P. Bailey. 2010. Aquatic Investigations of the Missouri Mainstem in North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Bismarck, North Dakota.

Godfread, C. 1994. The vegetation of the Little Missouri badlands of North Dakota. Reprinted with permission from: Proceedings: Leafy Spurge Strategic Planning Workshop, Dickinson, North Dakota. March 29–30, 1994. pp. 17–24. Available at http://library.ndsu.edu/tools/dspace/load/?file=/repository/bitstream/handle/10365/434 1/228go94.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed November 7, 2013.

Hanks, H.D., T.R. Lyson, E.S. Tremain, J.E. Roberts, B.R. Erickson, and S.A. Haire. 2002. A New Occurrence of vertebrate trackways from the late Paleocene (Bullion Creek Formation) of Wannagan Creek, North Dakota. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts.

Hartman, J.H. 1984. Systematics, biostratigraphy, and biogeography of latest Cretaceous and early Tertiary Viviparidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda) of southern Saskatchewan, western North Dakota, eastern Montana, and northern Wyoming [Ph.D. Thesis]. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 928 pp., 19 pls.

Hartman, J.H., J.R. Johnson, and D.J. Nichols. 2002. The Hell Creek formation and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the Northern Great Plains: An integrated continental record of the end of the cretaceous. Geological Society of America Special Paper 361, 520 pp.

Hartman, J.H., and A.J. Kihm. 1991. Stratigraphic distribution of Titanoides (Mammalia: Pantodonta) in the Fort Union Group (Paleocene) of North Dakota. Saskatchewan Geological Society Special Publication 11:207–215.

———. 1995. Age of Meek and Hayden's Fort Union Group (Paleocene), upper Missouri River, North Dakota-Montana. In 7th International Williston Basin Symposium, edited by L.D.V. Hunter and R.A. Schalla, pp. 471–428. Montana Geological Society, Billings, MT, 458 pp.

Hawkins, A.D., and A.N. Popper. 2012. Effects of noise on fish, fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic from energy industry sound-generating activities: literature synthesis. BOEM Contract M11PC00031by Normandeau Associates, Inc. Available at http://www.boemsoundworkshop.com/documents/Literature_Synthesis_Effects_of_N oise_on_Fish_Fisheries_and_Invertebrates.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2013.

Higgins, A. 2013. Personal Communication. Communication between Andrea Higgins Weed Control Officer (McKenzie County Weed Board) and Nicole Ulacky (SWCA). October 23, 2013.

134 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2013. Climate change on the prairie: A basic guide to climate change in the High Plains Region – Update. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Available at http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/climate_change.php. Accessed October 22, 2013.

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for Conservation. Conservation Biology 6(3):324–337.

Hoganson, J.W. 2012. North Dakota Geological Survey. E-mail communication. February 13.

Hoganson, J.W., and E.C. Murphy. 2003. Geology of the Lewis and Clark Trail in North Dakota. Mountain Press Publishing Company. 247 pp.

Hundt, H. 2011. Personal communication regarding whooping crane, email from Heather Hundt, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Corps, to Todd Kohler, SWCA, August 2011.

Johns, B.W., E.J. Woodsworth, and E.A. Driver. 1997. Habitat use by migrant whooping cranes in Saskatchewan. Proceedings of the Seventh North American Crane Workshop 7:123–131.

Jones, J., and J.R. Choate. 1978. Distribution of Two Species of Long-eared Bats of the Genus Myotis on the Northern Great Plains. Prairie Naturalist 10(2):49–52.

Jones, S.L. 2010. Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Karmin, J. 2001. Personal communication regarding Hess landownership in project area. Letter from Josh Karmin, Land Negotiator, Hess Corporation, to Linda Phelps, Lake Manager, Corps, April 7, 2011.

Kays, G.B. 1999. Description and taphonomy of a turtle assemblage (Chelonia: Trionychidae) in the Sentinel Butte Formation (Paleocene), Billings County, North Dakota. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of North Dakota.

Keevin, T.M., and G.L. Hempen. 1997. The environmental effects of underwater explosions with methods to mitigate impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District. Available at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR31-RD44- %20Keevin%20and%20Hempen%201997%20Environmental%20effects%20of%20u nderwater%20explosions%20with%20methods%20to%20mitigate%20impacts.pdf?id =DOCUMENT. Accessed August 4, 2013.

Kihm, A.J., and J.H. Hartman. 2004. The late Paleocene Judson Local Fauna, North Dakota, in Guide to the vertebrate paleontology of the high plains - The late Mesozoic- Cenozoic record of North Dakota, edited by J.H. Hartman. University of North Dakota Department of Geology and Geological Engineering Contribution 54:55–61.

135 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Kihm, A.J., J.H. Hartman, and D.W. Krause. 1993. A new late Paleocene mammal local fauna from the Sentinel Butte Formation of North Dakota. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 53rd annual meeting, Albuquerque, NM, United States 13:44.

Klungle, M. 2004. Field accomplishments/agency reports (RPMA 2). In Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup, 2004 Annual Report, edited by K. McDonald. Helena, Montana.

Knauss, G.E. and P.C. Murphey. 2012. Paleontological Survey for USACE Administered Lands within the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project, McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. SWCA Environmental Consultants. 155 pp.

Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dog as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177–192.

Krentz, S. 2012. Personal communication regarding pallid sturgeon, between Steve Krentz, Pallid Sturgeon Project Lead, USFWS, and Laura Burckhardt, Aquatic Ecologist, SWCA, December 11, 2012

LGL Ltd. and Marine Acoustics Inc. (LGL and MAI). 2011. Environmental Assessment of Marine Vibroseis. LGL Report TA4604-1; JIP contract 22 07-12. Prepared for Joint Industry Programme, E&P Sound and Marine Life, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London, U.K. King City, Ontario, Canada: LGL Ltd.; Arlington, Virginia: Marine Acoustics Inc.

Licht, D.S., and L.E. Huffman. 1996. Gray wolf status in North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 28:169–174.

Linton, T.L., and B.R. Murphy. 1985. A study of the effects of detonation of buried seismic charges upon caged fishes in Lake of the Pines Upshur County, Texas. Texas A&M University College Stations, Texas. 32 pp.

Lockhart, J.M. 2006. Email of preliminary allocation of ferrets for 2006. Personal communication.

Lund's Landing. 2013. Lund's Landing Marina and Lodge on Lake Sakakawea. Available at http://www.lundslanding.com/homepage.htm. Accessed November 14, 2013.

Miller, B., and R.P. Reading. 2012. Challenges to black-footed ferret recovery: protecting prairie dogs. Western North American Naturalist 72(2):228–240.

Miller, P.L., and A. Navarro. 1996. Hazardous Reactions of Aluminum Powder with Water in the Propellant, Explosive and Pyrotechnic (PEP) Industries. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Hopkins, MN. Report No. A737615. 15 pp. Available at www.dtic.mil/cgi- bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA516737. Accessed October 30, 2013.

136 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Morris, M. 2012. Personal communication regarding whooping crane, email from Mike Morris, Natural Resource Specialist, Corps, to Laura Burckhardt, SWCA, August 2012

Murphey, P.C., and D. Daitch. 2007. Paleontological overview of oil shale and tar sands areas in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, 468 pp. and 6 maps (scale 1:500,000).

National Atlas. 2012. Breeding bird survey routes. Available at http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/bbsrtsl.html. Accessed December 20, 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. NMFS Calculator. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm#Noise. Accessed October 3, 2013.

Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS). 2012. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. Available at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. Accessed October 24, 2013.

———. 2013a. Soil Survey Geographic Database. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.udsa.gov/. Accessed October 23, 2013.

———. 2013b. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 7, 2013.

Nedwell J.R., and T.S. Thandavamoorthy. 1989. Laboratory measurement of the blast pressure underwater due to the underwater detonation of buried and freely-suspended explosive charges. Institute for Sound & Vibration Research, University of Southampton, ISVR Memorandum 698.

North Dakota. 2010. Administrative Rule - Noxious Weeds - Title 7-Article-06. Available at http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/7-06-01.pdf?20131022133754. Accessed October 22, 2013.

North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA). 2008. NDDA Weed Survey - 2008 McKenzie County Annual Weed Board Report. Available at http://agdepartment.vision-technology.com/weedsurvey/report.asp. Accessed October 23, 2013.

———. 2012. 2012 Noxious Weed List Survey - Reported Acres. Available at http://www.nd.gov/ndda/files/resource/N. Accessed October 21, 2013.

———. 2013a. Noxious Weeds Program. September 2013. Available at http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/noxious-weeds. Accessed October 21, 2013.

137 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

———. 2013b. North Dakota Hub Explorer Weed Mapper. Noxious weed locations from 2002-2012. Available at https://apps.nd.gov/ndda/mapping/. Accessed October 24, 2013.

North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH). 2012. Annual Report, North Dakota Ambient Monitoring Network Plan 2012. North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Air Quality.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 2011. 2011 Traffic Volume Map, State of North Dakota. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Planning/Asset Management Division. Available at http://www.dot.nd.gov/road-map/traffic/index.htm. Accessed October 23, 2013.

North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). 2013. 2013 Hunting Outlook - Big Game. Available at http://gf.nd.gov/magazines/august-september-2013/2013-hunting- outlook/big-game. Accessed October 31, 2013.

———. 2014a. Missouri River System Boating Access Status. Available at http://gfapps.nd.gov/reports/fisheries/WebpageMRSBoatingAccess.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2014.

———. 2014b. Hunting Season Information for Various Species. Available at http://gf.nd.gov/hunting. Accessed May 2, 2014.

North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. 2014. Oil and Gas GIS Map Server. Available at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/OaGIMS/viewer.htm. Accessed April 25, 2014.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation (NDPR). 2012a. Natural heritage program database. Available upon request. Received from Christine Dirk on May 24, 2012.

———. 2012b. 2011-2012 Annual report. Available at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/information/department/attachments/p- 2012_annual_rpt.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.

———. 2013. Fees and facilities 2013. Available at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/parks/attachments/fees_facilities_brochure.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.

North Dakota State Engineer Benchmarks. 2005. GLO data accessed at North Dakota State Engineer Benchmarks. Available at http://survey.swc.nd.gov/. Accessed October 24, 2012.

North Dakota State Water Commission. 2014. North Dakota State Water Commission Mapservice. Available at http://mapservice.swc.state.nd.us/. Accessed April 24, 2014.

138 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Orr, J., J. Gray, and K. Junkert. 2009. North Dakota Endangered Species Protection Plan for Pesticides. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted by North Dakota Department of Agriculture.

Pigg, K.B., and M.L. DeVore. 2005. Paleoactaea gen. nov. (Ranunculaceae) fruits from the Paleogene of North Dakota and the London Clay. American Journal of Botany 92(10):1650–1659.

Pigg, K.B., S.R. Manchester, and M.L. DeVore. 2008. Fruits of Icacinaceae (Tribe Iodeae) from the late Paleocene of western North America. American Journal of Botany 95:824–832.

Popovich, D. 2012. Personal communication, ISFAR DEM data provided to Wade Epperson, SWCA Geographic Information System [GIS] Specialist, from Drew Popovich, Senior Geophysicist, Hess Corporation, November 14, 2012.

Popper, A.N., and M.C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 75:455–489. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0B027B4A-F9FF-4C88-8DE0- 39B165E4CD94/61427/BA_AnthroSoundonFish.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2013.

Ross, I.C. 1991. Eggs, Beer Bottles, and Light Tubes: A Perspective on the Damage Potential of Seismic Detonations. ICI Canada Inc. Calgary, Alberta. 25 pp.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis 1966–2010. Version 12.07.2011. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laureal, MD. Available at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. Accessed December 12, 2012.

Shafer, E.L., Jr., and R.C. Lucas 1979. Research needs and priorities for dispersed recreation management. Journal or Leisure Research 10(4):311–320. Available at http://www.leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/60.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

Smith, D., and K. McCauley. 2012. Bathymetric survey map of upper reaches of Lake Sakakawea, Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota. Erickson Contracting Surveying, Inc. Sidney, Montana.

Spiga, I., J. Fox, and R. Benson. Unknown date. The effects of short and long-term exposure to boat noise on cortisol levels in juvenile fish. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, USA. 3 pp.

Stull, G.W, F. Herrera, S.R. Manchester, C. Jaramillo, and B.H. Tiffney. 2012. Fruits of an “Old World” tribe (Phytocreneae; Icacinaceae) from the Paleogene of North and South America. Systematic Botany 37(3):784–794.

139 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2012a. Report of Biological Findings from Surveys Conducted on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Garrison Project Managed Lands within the Proposed Stony Creek 3D Project Area. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Hess Corporation.

———. 2012b. A Cultural Resource Literature Review of the Hess Corporation Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Project, McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. Prepared for Hess Corporation.

———. 2012c. Paleontological Survey Report for Corps Administered Lands within the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project, McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Hess Corporation.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2007. Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan with Integrated Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Missouri River North Dakota. Corps, Omaha District. Available at http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB- 2809/Garrison%20Dam%20Lake%20Sakakawea%20Master%20Plan.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau 2013. Oil and gas boom driving population growth in the Great Plains, census bureau estimates show. Newsroom. March 14, 2013. Available at http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb13-46.html. Accessed October 31, 2013.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. The National Map LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE National Existing Vegetation Type layer. Last updated August 2009. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Available at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. Accessed January 3, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Technology Transfer Network. National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. Accessed October 22, 2013.

———. 2012a. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waters/index.html. Accessed December 20, 2012.

———. 2012b. STORET and WXQ, EPA’s repository and framework for sharing water monitoring data. Available at http://www.epa.gov/storet/. Accessed December 20, 2012.

———. 2013. 2004 waterbody report for Lake Sakakawea. Available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=&p_au_id= ND-10110101-021-L_00&p_cycle=2004&p_state=ND&p_report_type=A. Accessed September 25, 2013.

140 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for the piping plover. Federal Register 50(238):50726–50734.

———. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. USFWS, Denver, Colorado.

———. 1990a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of endangered status for the pallid sturgeon. Federal Register 55(173):36641–36647.

———. 1990b. Recovery Plan for the Interior Population of the Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

———. 1994. Revised recovery plan for piping plovers Charadrius melodus breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1994/940801.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2012.

———. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Great Plains Breeding Population of the Piping Plover. Federal Register 67(176):57638–57717.

———. 2007. Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 5-year review summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator. Billings, Montana.

———. 2008. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. South Dakota Field Office, Pierre, SD.

———. 2009. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Northeast Region, Hadley, MA, and Midwest Region’s East Lansing Field Office, MI.

———. 2010a. North Dakota Whooping Crane Migration Corridor. Available at http://www.ndnrt.com/image/cache/ND_Whooping_Crane_Migration_Corridor_hi- res.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

———. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or Threatened throughout its Range. Federal Register 75(178):56028–56050.

———. 2011a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon). Federal Register 76(87):26086–26145.

———. 2011b. Least tern (Sterna antillarum). North Dakota Field Office, USFWS. Available at http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/least_tern.htm. Accessed December 12, 2012.

141 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

———. 2011c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Dakota Skipper.

———. 2011d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 76(207):66370–66439.

———. 2012a. County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota. North Dakota Field Office, USFWS. Available at http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/SEtable.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2013.

———. 2012b. Species Profile Whooping Crane (Grus americana). Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003. Accessed December 12, 2012.

———. 2012c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form. Sprague’s Pipit. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2013/r6/B0GD_V01.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

———. 2013a. National Wetland Inventory wetlands mapper. Available at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed August 2, 2013.

———. 2013b. General provisions; revised list of migratory birds. Federal Register 78(212): 65844–65864. Available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/MBTA%20LIst%20of %20Brds%20Final%20Rule.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2013.

———. 2013c. Northern Long-eared Bat Fact Sheet. Midwest Endangered Species. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/nlbaFactSheet.html. Accessed March 11, 2014.

———. 2013d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern Small-Footed Bat and the Northern Long-eared Bat as Endangered or Threatened Species; Listing the Northern Long-eared Bat as an Endangered Species; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 78(191):61046–61080.

———. 2013e. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Federal Register 78(189):60024– 60098.

142 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

———. 2013f. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for Dakota skipper and endangered status for Poweshiek skipperling; endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for Dakota Skipper and Poweshiek skipperling; proposed rules. Federal Register 78(206): 63574-63625. Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-24/pdf/2013-24778.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013.

———. 2014. Dakota Skipper – Section 7 Guidance. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Regions 3 and 6, March 2014. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask/index.html. Accessed July 16, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013a. North Dakota's Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species – 1995: Hayden's Yellow-cress (Rorippa calycina). Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/nddanger/species/roricaly.htm. Accessed October 22, 2013.

———. 2013b. Ground Water Watch. Site #481056103024201-154-096-08AA. Available at http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/AWLSites.asp?S=481056103024201. Accessed October 21, 2013.

Visit Williston. 2013. Hunting. Available at http://www.visitwilliston.com/AttractionsFF.aspx?CatID=36. Accessed October 31, 2013.

Whitehead, R.L. 1996a. Regional Aquifer Systems. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/I-text2.html. Accessed October 21, 2013.

———. 1996b. Regional Summary. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/I-text.html. Accessed October 21, 2013.

Wilson, R., T. Berger, E. Nelson, and Z. Sanders. 2012. 2011 Annual Report Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment and Associated Fish Community Monitoring for the Missouri River: Segment 4. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Missouri River Recovery Program by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Bismarck North Dakota. 120 pp.

Yelverton, J.T., D.R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders, and E.R. Fletcher. 1975. The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast. Report DNA 3677T, Director, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C.

143 Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

APPENDIX A Scoping Report for the Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Project Office Riverdale, North Dakota

Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants and Hess Corporation

April 2012

Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Project Office Riverdale, North Dakota

Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 1892 S. Sheridan Avenue Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 and Hess Corporation One Allen Center, 500 Dallas Street Houston, Texas 77002

April 19, 2012

Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 PURPOSE ...... 1 DESCRIPTION OF SCOPING ACTIVITIES...... 2 Notification Process ...... 2 Opportunities to Comment ...... 3 COMMENT SUMMARY ...... 4 Substantive Comments ...... 4 NEPA Process ...... 5 Project Description ...... 5 Air Quality ...... 5 Cultural Resources ...... 5 Health and Safety ...... 6 Land Use ...... 6 Recreation ...... 6 Soils ...... 6 Special Status Species...... 6 Vegetation ...... 7 Water Resources ...... 7 Wildlife ...... 7 Wetlands and Riparian Communities ...... 8 Non-Substantive Comments ...... 8 PRELIMINARY CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 9

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Stakeholder Notification List...... 2 2 Number of Respondents by Entity...... 4 3 Number of Comments by Disposition...... 5 4 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities...... 9

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Scoping Notification Letter B Scoping Comment Tables

ii SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Hess Corporation of Minot, North Dakota, has proposed to conduct a seismic survey within a 186-square-mile (119,040-acre) area located southeast of Williston, North Dakota. The Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project (project) would be conducted within an area owned by private landowners, the State of North Dakota, and the federal government, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Because the project will be primarily located in an area under the stewardship of the Corps, the project will require an environmental assessment (EA) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with the Corps acting as the lead agency. A project area map is located in Appendix A.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to identify the scoping comments received from the stakeholders, summarize those comments, and identify a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities for analysis in the EA. Although scoping is not required for an EA, it was determined that a solicitation of comments regarding the proposed project would enhance the content of the EA and help to identify the range of issues to be analyzed. The scoping process serves to:

• invite the participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies, affected Native American tribe(s), or other interested persons; • determine the scope and issues to be analyzed in the NEPA document; • help the agency to identify and eliminate issues which are not relevant; • be an open and early process to determine the scope of issues; • indicate any other public NEPA documents which are or will be prepared that are related to or in proximity to the proposed project; and • identify other environmental review and consultation requirements so the lead agency may prepare other required analyses and studies.

1 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

DESCRIPTION OF SCOPING ACTIVITIES

NOTIFICATION PROCESS

Based on the interest in past projects, the Corps developed a mailing list which included approximately 39 individuals at 28 federal, state, and local government agencies, tribes, and non-profit organizations that may be interested in the project or share jurisdictional authority (Table 1). Stakeholders were notified of the project by a letter sent though the U.S. Postal Service on February 2, 2012. The scoping notification letter included a project description and purpose, overview of NEPA requirements, a request for additional comments or information, and project contact information. A copy of the scoping notification letter is included in Appendix A.

Table 1. Stakeholder Notification List. Stakeholder Agency/Afflation Title Category Tribal Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent Tribal Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director Local Dunn County Board of Commissioners Chairman Local McKenzie County Board of Commissioners Chairman Local McKenzie County Grazing Association President Local McKenzie County Water Resource District Chairman Local Mountrail County Board of Commissioners Chairman State North Dakota Game and Fish Department Conservation Biologist State North Dakota Game and Fish Department Conservation Supervisor State North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Resource Management Supervisor State North Dakota Game and Fish Department Northwest Fisheries District Supervisor State North Dakota Game and Fish Department Missouri River Fisheries Supervisor State North Dakota State Water Commission Regulatory Section Chief State North Dakota State Historical Society Review and Compliance Bismarck Office Coordinator State North Dakota Department of Health Senior Environmental Scientist State North Dakota Industrial Commission – O & G Director Division State North Dakota Industrial Commission – O & G Assistant Director Division State North Dakota Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Department Division Manager State North Dakota State Land Department Director Non-Profit Friends of Lake Sakakawea Chairman Non-Profit North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society President Non-Profit Sierra Club None Specified Non-Profit North Dakota Audubon None Specified

2 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Stakeholder Agency/Afflation Title Category Non-Profit Independent Water Providers Chairman Non-Profit Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Natural Resource Administrator Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Energy Department Administrator Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Biologist Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Director Tribal Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Officer State North Dakota State Regulatory Office Regulatory Project Manager Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District; CENWO-PM- AA Federal Little Missouri National Grasslands District Ranger Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service State Conservationist Federal OSM - Casper Field Office - Western Region Field Office Director Federal BLM - North Dakota Field Office Field Manager Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor Local Williams County Board of Commissioners Commissioner Local Williams County Water Resource Board Chairman

OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT

It was requested that comments be submitted by March 2, 2012, allowing for a 30-day comment period. Members of the public and representatives of agencies were afforded the following methods for providing comments.

• E-mail comments could be sent to: [email protected] • Letters and comment forms could be mailed to: SWCA Environmental Consultants Laura Leslie Burckhardt, Natural Resource Lead 1892 South Sheridan Avenue Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 • Telephone calls could be received by Laura Leslie Burckhardt at (307) 250-1213

3 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

COMMENT SUMMARY

Public and agency comments were received via letters, emails, and one telephone call. In total, 88 comments were received from eight individuals or agencies (i.e., commenters). Once received, each response (e-mails, letters, and the telephone call) was analyzed to identify separate issues or comments. Each comment was tracked in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet along with the date, commenter, affiliation, and assigned disposition category. A comment’s disposition refers to where it will be addressed in the EA, such as the project purpose, NEPA process, or resources that are evaluated. Each comment was also identified as substantive or non-substantive. Substantive comments are within the scope of the proposed action and include supporting reasons for consideration. They provide meaningful and useful information about issues, concerns, and opportunities. Out of the 88 comments received, 78 were substantive and 10 were non-substantive. Comment identification and coding was checked for accuracy and consistency by three members of the outreach team. The comment tracking spreadsheet is included with this report as Appendix B. If any comments are received following the publication of this document, they will be recorded and used in the development of the EA.

SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS

Seventy-eight substantive comments were received from eight different commenters during project scoping from February 2 through March 2, 2012. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) submitted an additional 13 comments outside of the scoping period on March 12, 2012. All substantive comments are summarized by entity (Table 2), and disposition (Table 3). A table displaying all submitted scoping comments is provided in Appendix B

Table 2. Number of Respondents by Entity. Number of Entity Type Respondents Agencies 6 Federal 1 State 5 Local 0 Tribal 1 Business 0 Non Governmental Organization 0 Individual 1

4 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Table 3. Number of Comments by Disposition. Number of Category Comments NEPA Process 1 Project Description 2 Resources 75 Air Quality 1 Cultural Resources 6 Health and Safety 1 Land Use 12 Recreation 6 Special Status Species 19 Soils 5 Wildlife 8 Vegetation 4 Water Resources 10 Wetland Resources 3 Non Substantive 10

NEPA Process One comment was submitted regarding the NEPA process. It stated that consultation with the North Dakota Department of Parks and Recreation will be required.

Project Description Two comments were submitted regarding the project description. One comment stated that the project map (distributed with scoping letter) was lacking detail and difficult to orientate. Another inquired if the receiver lines will be on the lake bed as the scoping letter indicates.

Air Quality One comment was submitted regarding air quality. The commenter stated concern over air quality at the Lewis and Clark State Park, and questioned what short- and long-term impacts would result from the project.

Cultural Resources Six comments were submitted regarding cultural resources. Comments identified known historic sites, stated that a complete cultural survey of the park has not been completed, questioned the project’s cultural resource impacts, recommended that cultural sites are designated as no surface occupancy, and questioned what the mitigation measures would be.

5 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Health and Safety One comment was submitted regarding project health and safety. It expressed concern for the safety of park visitors from drilling, explosives, and plugging of holes and questioned what the project’s safety measures will be. Commenters also expressed concern about the impacts of seismic operations on the water lines buried in the campground areas.

Land Use Twelve comments were submitted regarding land use. A majority of the land use comments were in regard to land ownership, jurisdictional boundaries, and permitting requirements. Comments pertaining to jurisdiction noted that the state manages the Missouri River bed; minerals are managed by the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands; school trust lands are located throughout the project area; significant mineral acres are managed by North Dakota Department of Trust Lands; the North Dakota Department of Parks and Recreation asserts authority over recreation and biology of their park; and that no land is managed by North Dakota Department of Health. Permitting comments indicated that a permit is required for development on school trust lands, a permit is required if Wildlife Management Areas are impacted, a Sovereign Lands Permit is required if activities are on the original river channel, and that cities may require additional Best Management Practices and stormwater permitting and practices. Additional comments on land use include that facilities at the State Park funded by the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and property taken for non-recreational use must be replaced, and that the operations avoid school trust lands and State Park structures.

Recreation Six comments were submitted regarding recreational activities. Four comments listed the recreational activities that occur in the project area (fishing [specifically walleye], ice fishing, camping, picnicking, boating, swimming, hiking, cross country skiing, biking, and wildlife viewing). Two comments stated that it is a recreational area that needs to remain that way. One commenter stated that the boat ramp facilities are not to be used for large equipment, staging, or activities that impede public access.

Soils Five comments were submitted regarding soils located within the State Park lands. The soils were described as shallow soil high in silt and clay, and a badland soil series that is highly erodible. It was noted that increased localized erosion could be problematic to park visitors and maintenance staff. One comment inquired about what protective measures would be used, and another comment suggested that mitigation include no vehicles off roads or on trails, no staging in park boundaries, and conducting activities in dry conditions.

Special Status Species Nineteen comments were submitted regarding special status species. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department commented that the project area contains habitat for the pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. It was stated that according to the North Dakota Natural Heritage Biological Conservation Database, there have been occurrences of the blue sucker, pallid sturgeon,

6 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Sprague’s pipit, and least tern within 1 mile of the proposed project area. They added that additional species and habitats may be present, but the area has not been extensively surveyed. It was suggested that a biological assessment should examine indirect effects on habitat for the pallid sturgeon, piping plover, interior least tern, Dakota skipper and whooping crane. It was also recommended that aerial helicopter nest surveys be conducted before leaf- out. Several protection measures are recommended to avoid areas of high-value habitat, including wetland and stream avoidance, cleaning of equipment, fill placement, and erosion control measures. Another comment identifies that shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are species of concern. Raptors include the red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, Swainson’s hawk, and great-horned owl.

Vegetation Four comments were submitted regarding vegetation. In general, vegetation comments stated that the park contains diverse native communities including mixed grass prairies, woody ravines, and badland communities. Noxious weed invasions are identified as a concern. Comments suggest avoidance of vegetation trampling, no vegetative thinning, and that the project should include revegetation and reclamation efforts.

Water Resources Ten comments were submitted regarding water resources. Two comments described required permits including a storm water permit from North Dakota Division of Water Quality and a Water Quality Certification from the Corps. One comment described that shallow aquifers, springs, and seeps occur throughout the State Park. It was questioned if water quality will be impacted. Another stated the importance of the lake water as a resource for people and wildlife. Some comments suggested mitigation measures, including that creeks and streams are buffered by 350 feet on each side of the centerline; that spills of oil, grease, and fuels must be prevented from entering the watershed; and that operations should occur during dry weather and limited to existing roads to avoid impacts to water quality.

Wildlife Eight comments were submitted regarding wildlife. Commenters remarked that the lake provides quality habitat for fish and wildlife species. One commenter stated that little is known about wildlife impacts from airgun use, and that studies will be required to develop mitigation from their use. Several comments were in regards to wildlife regulations including Aquatic Nuisance Species Rules, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It was stated that compliance with these regulations would include the following protective measures and seasonal restrictions.

• North Dakota Game and Fish Department should be notified 72 hours before any and all items are placed in water (vessels, motors, trailers, equipment) ahead of launch to perform an inspection. • Raptor surveys should be conducted prior to activities to avoid impacts to nesting raptors.

7 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

• No foot or vehicle traffic should be allowed within 0.33 mile of nest sites from February 1 through August 15. • No drilling or detonations should be allowed within 0.50 mile of nest sites from February 1 through August 15. • The project should not occur during critical nesting times from February 1 through July 31. • Wildlife impacts would be minimal after migratory bird season and when lizards and amphibians are hibernating in the fall. • No foot or vehicle traffic within 0.33 mile of prairie falcon nest sites (February 1– August 15), and no drilling or detonations within 0.50 mile of prairie falcon nest sites (February 1–August 15).

Wetlands and Riparian Communities Three comments were received regarding wetland and riparian communities. One comment questioned what the environmental consequences to wetland and riparian vegetation would be. Another questioned if holes created from explosives would be filled in these community types. One comment suggested that a buffer of 350 feet be implemented around wetland and riparian communities.

NON-SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS

Ten non-substantive comments were received during the scoping period from four commenters. These comments were not concerning the scope of the proposed action, did not provide reasoning for evaluation, or meaningful information to support the development of the EA. Non-substantive comments received include background information such as I am a business owner, I have received your letter, or questions such as where is the project located. Other non-substantive comments include stating general project opposition including keep the lake recreational, I oppose this project, and there is too much greed in the area. A complete list of comments considered non-substantive is included in Appendix B.

8 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

PRELIMINARY CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Table 4 lists the issues, concerns, and opportunities to be analyzed in the EA. This list was developed from input that was received during external project scoping activities. Issues are disputes or controversies about existing or potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and management practices. Other resource concerns are also identified during the scoping process. These concerns will be addressed in the EA, but usually can be resolved through best management practices and other mitigation measures, such as those identified as project opportunities.

Table 4. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities. Concerns and Disposition Issue Opportunities NEPA Process There a multiple What level of consultation or coordination is appropriate federal, state and local for each agency? agencies that have jurisdictional authority within the area. Project The project has What graphic materials are needed to clearly Description information regarding communicate area to public and agencies? the project location How can layout of land and water based receiver lines, and exploration and descriptions of drilling, vibration and airgun methods that must be activities be best depicted? clearly conveyed to the public Resources Air Quality Drilling of source What are the short- and long-term impacts from gaseous, points, or vibration or particulate and dust fractions from these activities? blasting activities What opportunities exist to reduce impacts? have impacts to air quality Cultural Development of What cultural resources are present in the area? Resources source points, What are the direct and indirect impacts to cultural presence of receiver resources from each of these activities lines, or vibration or blasting activities What measures should be taken to reduce impacts? could impact cultural resources. How to avoid impacts to cultural sites and maintain site integrity.

9 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Concerns and Disposition Issue Opportunities Health and Safety There could be What measures should be incorporated to ensure the impacts to the health safety of visitors to the State Park? and safety park staff, What impact could air emissions (gaseous, particulate families and park and dust) have one the health of park staff, families and visitors from activities park visitors? or emissions. How can impacts be reduced? Water lines servicing recreation areas are What impacts could seismic activities have on pipelines? located within the How would water lines be identified and protected? project area. Land Use The project has How will the NEPA process coordinate with all entities multiple land /use and to ensure that all applicable permits are identified? permitting What effect would the project have on existing land uses jurisdictions, in and adjacent to the project area? including: What BMPs must be incorporated to be in compliance - Department of ND with all applicable regulations? Trust - School Trust Lands - ND Dept. of Parks and Recreation - Wildlife Management Areas - Sovereign Lands Permitting (original river channel) - Municipalities, Counties There are a variety of land uses in the area, such as mineral leasing, and recreational. Recreation There could be What are the impacts to fishing (i.e., walleye), camping, interference with picnicking, boating, swimming, hiking, biking, and recreational activities. wildlife viewing? Public boat ramp use What opportunities exist within project design to allow may not be recreational activities to continue? appropriate for project Where can water-based project activities be safety use. staged?

10 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Concerns and Disposition Issue Opportunities Special Status There could be What species are present in the area? Species impacts to TES What are the impacts to identified or potential protected species including species? plover, interior least tern, Dakota skipper, What measures should be taken to reduce impacts to whooping crane, identified species? waterfowl, and raptors. Population of species of concern or otherwise significant ecological communities have not been fully identified. Soils Accelerated erosion What effect would the project have on soils in the project could be problematic area, including those that have reclamation-limitating to park staff and factors, such as wind or soils edibility? visitors. What measures should be taken to reduce impacts to soils? Wildlife The project should What are the impacts of airguns to wildlife? comply with the What measures should be taken to reduce impacts to Migratory Bird Treaty raptors and raptor habitat, and migratory birds? Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, What measures should be taken to reduce impacts to and the state Aquatic aquatic species and habitat? Species Rules. What BMPs should be incorporated to prevent the spread There are identified of ANS? shorebird, waterfowl upland ground nesting bird species, and raptor nesting/breeding habitats in the area. There is potential for the spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS?). Vegetation The project could What are the impacts to native plant communities such as result in a loss of prairies, ravines, and badland communities? native vegetation. How can impacts be reduced? The potential also What BMPs should be incorporated to prevent exists for invasive introduction of native species? species to be introduced to the project area.

11 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Concerns and Disposition Issue Opportunities Water Resources The project could What are the impacts to the surface water within the zone result in stormwater of influence of the project and underground pipelines? runoff, siltation or What are the impacts to the groundwater resources spills that may reach within the zone of influence of the project? the receiving water and result in adverse What measures should be taken to prevent spills from impacts to water entering watershed? quality. What permits would be required? Drilling could result in aquifer contamination. Permits are required for stormwater (ND Division of Water Quality) and Water Quality Certification (Corps). Wetland Drilling activities What wetland and riparian communities exist within the Resources would result in an project area? acreage loss or loss of What are impacts to wetland and riparian communities as function to wetland well as to the subsurface water flow and water tables that and riparian support wetland/riparian vegetation? communities. What measures should be taken to prevent impacts to wetlands?

12 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

APPENDIX A Scoping Notification Letter

SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

A-1 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

A-2 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Mr.!Ms. Full name November 6, 2013 Page 3

Comments should be submitted before March 2, 2012, so that they may be addressed in the final document. Questions for the Corps can be directed to Linda Phelps, Lake Manager, at (701) 654- 7411, extension 246.

Sincerely,

Laura Leslie Burckhardt

A-3 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Mr.!Ms. Full name November 6, 2013 Page4

Miles Stony Creek 30 Project Area

Kilometers Legend 2.5 7.5 10 Q Project Boundary • :d~if~':a~:~=~=n~::ment Land Ownership Scale· 1.165,00) N • Army Corps of Engineers Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone \3N Williams: and McKcnz•c Counties. Private 3ureau of Land Management North Dakota . State Date: 113/2012 A 0 County Boundary

Created By: S\VCA Environmental Consultants

Figure 1. Proposed Hess Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Area.

A-4 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

APPENDIX B Scoping Comment Tables

SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Comments Submitted during Project Scoping.

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID N None General ND Department of This department believes that environmental impacts from the proposed Health project will be minor and can be controlled by proper methods. N None General ND Parks and Project-related activities could cause public health and safe hazards, visual Recreation obtrusions, noise issues, displacement of birds and wildlife, and destructions of native habitats. N None General ND Parks and The proposed project has the potential to directly and cumulatively affect Recreation Lewis and Clark State Park. The Department is very concerned about the significant adverse impacts the project may have on park staff, families, and visitors' health and safety, natural ecosystems, park visitation, recreational experiences, cultural and historical resources, aquatic and wildlife species, water systems, subsurface aquifers, air quality and a host of interrelated social and resource concerns regarding the proposed 3D seismic project. Lewis and Clark State Park's unique and irreplaceable environment, recreational, cultural and scenic qualities could be adversely impacted. N None Visual None Take a look around at all the garbage in road ditches, etc. we could just as Resources well make Lake Sakakawea a sewage dump or land fill if this project passes. I really do understand why we have so many long time residents relocating as there is too much greed in our area. N None General None Leave the lake alone. N None Land Use None We have enough land for the oil companies to rip up with their drilling, frac-ing, littering, driving, dust causing, land wrecking total disregard for all tranquil life. N None Recreation None Keep the lake recreational. N None Tribal Bureau of Indian His boss/co-worker is concerned if Tribal Land will be impacted by the Affairs project. N None Visual None Our landscape in the city and the rural country will never be the same and now to try to disrupt the landscape and beauty of one of the last precious gems we have in northwest North Dakota is not tolerable.

B-1 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID N None Wildlife None The wildlife in our area is nearly extinct because of the amount of increased oil activity/traffic (road kill and adapting to areas that do not have the proper habitat areas for survival). Y AQ-1 Air Quality ND Parks and Air pollution is a very real concern for park staff and visitors. What are the and Human Recreation short and long term effects and local impacts the project will have on air Health and quality that could cause health problems for park staff, families and park Safety visitors? We are concerned about emissions from project activities including both gaseous, particulate and dust fractions. Y CR-1 Cultural ND Parks and Of major significance to the park are three pre-historic sites, and two pre- Resources Recreation historic isolates located within the boundaries of the park. Several prehistoric sites have also been documented just outside the park boundaries. Y CR-2 Cultural ND Parks and Complete, systematic cultural survey for the entire park has not been Resources Recreation completed. Y CR-3 Cultural ND Parks and What are the potential impacts to cultural resources? What protective Resources Recreation measures will be put in place to ensure cultural site integrity is maintained? Y CR-4 Cultural ND Parks and We recommend that all cultural areas within the park be designated as no Resources Recreation surface occupancy for the protection of cultural resources from surface ground disturbances. Y CR-5 Cultural ND Parks and The imprint left on the land by the early pioneers is of major significance to Resources Recreation the park. The park's name commemorates the journey of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark and the Corp of Discovery. Y CR-6 Cultural ND Parks and In addition, the 1885 David Gamarche ranch was built within the park Resources Recreation boundaries. Y HS-1 Health and ND Parks and Drilling, setting off of explosives, and plugging of the holes would result in Safety Recreation a potential threat to public safety at Lewis and Clark State Park which is a year-round park. What safety measures would be implemented to ensure public health and safety? What are the distance requirements for residential property or public structure, day-use area, and trails? Y LU-1 Land Use ND Dept. of Trust There are a significant amount of surface acres managed in trust by the ND Lands Department of Trust Lands (school trust lands). Use of the surface is not allowed without a permit. In this case a seismic permit would be required.

B-2 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y LU-2 Land Use ND Dept. of Trust There are a significant amount of mineral acres managed in trust by the ND Lands Department of Trust Lands (DTL). Some of these minerals are undoubtedly leased for oil and gas development and, in addition to the seismic permit from the DTL, permission from our mineral lessee would also be required before conducting exploration on their oil and gas leasehold interest. This would also be true even when the Department of Trust Lands does not manage the surface estate. Y LU-3 Land Use ND Dept. of Trust The bed of the Missouri River below the ordinary high water mark Lands (OHWM) is owned by the state and the minerals under the bed are managed by the DTL. These mineral acres are also leased for oil and gas production and permission from the mineral lessee would be required to conduct seismic exploration of their oil and gas leasehold interest. Y LU-4 Land Use ND Dept. of Trust Staging seismic operations on land managed by the DTL is not allowed. If a Lands seismic permit is granted, trucks and other equipment cannot be parked/stored on school trust lands and the land cannot be used as a site to refuel helicopters. The surface of the school trust lands cannot be modified in any way for access by vibroseis trucks or any other vehicles. Brush and trees cannot be cut or in any manner destroyed. Y LU-5 Land Use ND Department of Also, cities may impose additional requirements and/or specific best Health management practices for construction affecting their storm drainage system. Check with the local officials to be sure any local storm water management considerations are addressed. Y LU-6 Land Use ND Department of The department owns no land in or adjacent to the proposed improvements, Health nor does it have any projects scheduled in the area. In addition, we believe the proposed activities are consistent with the State Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution for the State of North Dakota. Y LU-7 Land Use ND Game and Fish If portions of the proposed project cross or impact our Wildlife Department Management Areas (WMA's), a Special Use Permit will need to be acquired from our Williston Regional Office. Kent Luttschwager of our Williston Office (701-774-4320) will provide you with conditions of the Special, Use Permit.

B-3 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y LU-8 Land Use ND Parks and Lewis and Clark State Park is a Land and Water Conservation Fund Recreation (LWCF) site located in the project boundary. This State Park received assistance from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and is under protection of section 6(t) of the LWCF Act. Federally funded projects at Lewis and Clark State Park include the campground (#38-00495), park roadways (#38-00595), boat docks (#38-00780), concessions (#38-01017), playgrounds (#38-01140), and other park development projects (#38-00591, #38-01194, and #38-01232). Any property taken from within the boundary of this park for non-recreational use must be replaced with property of equal market value. Should any public or private utilities need to be added or relocated on LWCF recreational land, the NDPRD must be consulted prior to any action taken. Please contact Jessica Riepl (701-328-5364 or [email protected]) if additional LWCF information is needed. Y LU-9 Land Use ND Parks and In summary, the project boundary includes Lewis and Clark State Park, Recreation which is managed as an extensive year round recreational, cultural, and natural diverse area. We strongly encourage that project operations be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from any park structures and facilities, residences, use areas, trails or preferably 1,000' outside of the boundary line of the state park. Y LU-10 Land Use ND Parks and The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (the Department) has Recreation reviewed the above referenced proposed 3D seismic project. Our agency scope of authority and expertise covers recreation and biological resources (in particular rare plants and ecological communities). Y LU-11 Land Use State Water State retains title to the former Missouri River Bed below lake. Commission Y LU-12 Land Use State Water May need Sovereign Lands Permit from the State Commission. This would Commission be required if activities are on the original Missouri River channel. If a permit is required, it can be applied for at: http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubCategoryRecord/Permits%20 and%20Applications/Sovereign%20Lands%20Permits. The website is a one page description and diagram. The permit has no fee and is a 2- to 3- month process.

B-4 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y PR-1 Process ND Parks and Consultation with Department staff is required. Recreation Y PD-1 Project Bureau of Indian Does not believe the map is specific enough; would like more specific Description Affairs information such as township. Y PD-2 Project State Water Inquired if there will be receiver lines on the lake bed as the Scoping Letter Description Commission indicates: "Water-based receiver points and hydrophones would be submerged and attached to a surface buoy, marking the location along the underwater receiver lines on the lakebed.” Y R-1 Recreation ND Game and Fish In regards to public boat ramp facilities, the Department requests these Department areas not be used for any type of staging area or launching area for large barges or equipment that needs to be off loaded with a crane. Normal boat launching is approved but must not impede the general public from utilizing the ramp. Y R-2 Recreation ND Parks and Lewis and Clark State Park is a 490-acre, year-round park that contains Recreation both modern and primitive camping, sleeping cabins, marina, swim beach, camp store, day-use picnicking areas, interpretive, hiking and cross country skiing trails as well as park staff residences. Ice fishing is also a popular winter activity. The park camping, picnicking and trail systems are open year-round. Full service campsites and comfort stations are open from approximately Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. An extensive system of trails takes hikers and bikers through the Missouri River breaks country, up buttes and through coulees, marshy areas and prairie. Y R-3 Recreation ND Parks and It is the prime resource for recreation. Recreation Y R-4 Recreation ND Parks and Activities include camping, hiking, biking, fishing, skiing, and wildlife Recreation viewing. Y R-5 Recreation None Many thousands of residents utilize the lake for a place to get away from the busy activity to fish, camp have family picnics or just to relax. If this project was to pass then the residents will have to compete with oil activity near and on the lake. Y R-6 Recreation None Our passion is to fish for walleye. We fish all 4 seasons.

B-5 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y S-1 Soils ND Parks and The park soils are derived from glacial till, lakes and morainal material. Recreation They can be best described as shallow, containing high amounts of silt and clay, with sand or gravelly substratum. Y S-2 Soils ND Parks and The soils are susceptible to severe water and wind erosion. A portion of the Recreation western edge of the park contains tertiary sediments of the Cabba or Badlands soil series. This area is characterized by steep slopes where rapid erosion minimizes soil development and retention. Proposed activities associated with this project may disturb the ground surface leading to undesired localized erosion. What steps will be taken to protect soil resources? Y S-3 Soils ND Parks and No vehicles will be allowed to drive off established roads or approved two- Recreation track roads, motorized vehicles are prohibited on the trail system, staging areas will not be allowed within park boundaries, motorized off-road use is prohibited, to prevent localized erosion and soil unnecessary soil disturbance all operations should take place during dry conditions. Y S-4 Soils ND Parks and In addition to the potential for increased ground surface disturbances, what Recreation potential impacts will the project have on the parks already unstable hills and slopes that are typical of the areas badlands terrain? Any increases to the existing instabilities will only increase the potential hazards for park staff and visitors. How will impacts to these unstable areas be monitored or stabilized? Y S-5 Soils ND Parks and Increased localized erosion can become problematic for park maintenance Recreation staff. Y SS-1 Special ND Game and Fish This reach of the lake possesses the adequate characteristics to provide the Status Department necessary habitat for numerous species of fish including the federally Species endangered pallid sturgeon and the paddlefish, which is listed on the North Dakota Species of Conservation Priority list.

B-6 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-2 Special ND Parks and The North Dakota Natural Heritage biological conservation database has Status Recreation been reviewed to determine if any current or historical plant or animal Species species of concern or other significant ecological communities are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area. Based on this review, several plants, animal and significant ecological community occurrences have been identified within or adjacent to the project areas. Please see the attached spreadsheet and maps for more specific information on these species. Y SS-3 Special ND Parks and Because this information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there Status Recreation may be species of concern or otherwise significant ecological communities Species in the area that are not represented in the database. The lack of data for any project area cannot be construed to mean that no significant features are present. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources. Y SS-4 Special ND Parks and Specifically, we are concerned with numbers and seasonal distribution of Status Recreation shorebirds and waterfowl as a result of the seismic survey. In addition to Species waterfowl and shorebirds (least terns) we are concerned about potential impacts to ground nesting birds and their young. A number of upland, ground nesting bird species including Sprague's pipit, and animal species of concern, are known to inhabit the park and adjacent sections. The proposed operations could adversely affect nesting, and rearing activities. Other raptors which could be present within the project area include: red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, Swainson's hawk and great-horned owl.

B-7 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-5 Special U.S. Fish and The BGEPA prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of Status Wildlife Service the Interior, from taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Species The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The Act defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. "Disturb" means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. Y SS-6 Special U.S. Fish and The Service has a program for limited issuance of permits for the non- Status Wildlife Service purposeful take of bald and golden eagles, only when the take is compatible Species with the preservation of each species, defined as consistent with the goal of increasing or stable populations. Given the limited circumstances when a take permit can be legally issued for eagles, the Service recommends that the pipeline be sited to avoid all take of bald and golden eagles, including take that results from disturbance.

B-8 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-7 Special U.S. Fish and The Service recommends that an aerial nest survey (preferably by Status Wildlife Service helicopter) be conducted within the one-mile-wide evaluation corridor to Species identify occupied and unoccupied eagle nest sites near the proposed project area and associated facilities. The aerial surveys should include surveys for any proposed new roads. Aerial surveys should be conducted between March 1 and May 15, before leaf-out so that nests are visible. Aerial surveys should include the following: 1) Due to the ability to hover and facilitate observations of the ground, helicopters are preferred over fixed wing aircraft, although small aircraft may also be used for the raptor surveys. Whenever possible, two observers should be used to conduct the surveys. Even experienced observers only find approximately 50 percent of nests on a flight, so we recommend that two flights be performed prior to any on-the-ground work, including other biological surveys or other work. 2) Observations of any eagles and nest sites should be recorded using GPS. The date, location, nest condition, activity status, raptor species, and habitat should be recorded for each sighting. 3) We request that you share the qualifications of the biologist(s) conducting the survey, method of survey, and results of the survey with the Service. Y SS-8 Special U.S. Fish and The Service Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect Status Wildlife Service migratory birds through investigations and enforcement, as well as by Species fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and agencies that have taken effective step to avoid take of migratory birds, and by encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take of migratory birds. It is not possible to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality avoidance or other similar protective measures. However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating those who take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all reasonable, prudent, and effective measures to avoid that take. Individuals, companies, and agencies are encouraged to work closely with Service biologists to identify available protective measures when developing project plans and/or avian protection plans, and to implement those measures prior to/during construction or similaractivities.

B-9 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-9 Special U.S. Fish and We offer the following comments under the authority of and in accordance Status Wildlife Service with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Species Executive Order 13186 "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds", the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 10557), Executive Order 11990 "Protection of Wetlands", Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 43214347, January 1, 1970, as amended). In a letter dated August 22, 2011, the Corps designated SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to represent the Corps for informal Section 7 consultation under the ESA. Therefore, the Service is responding to you as the designated non-Federal representative for the purposes of ESA, and under our other authorities as the entity preparing the NEPA document for adoption by the Corps and BLM.

B-10 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-10 Special U.S. Fish and If a Federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out a proposed action, the Status Wildlife Service responsible Federal agency, or its designated agent, is required to evaluate Species whether the action "may affect" listed species and critical habitat. If the Federal agency determines the action "may affect, is likely to adversely affect" listed species and/or critical habitat, then the responsible Federal agency shall request formal section 7 consultation with this office, or work with this office to remove the likely adverse effects before proceeding. If the evaluation shows a "no effect" determination on listed species or critical habitat, further consultation is not necessary. If a non-Federal entity receives Federal funding for an activity, or if a Federal permit or license is required, the Federal funding, licensing, or permitting agency may designate in writing the fund recipient or permittee as its agent for purposes of informal section 7 consultation. The Federal action agency is responsible to ensure that its actions comply with the ESA, including obtaining concurrence from the Service for any action that may affect a threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat prior to carrying out the activity, funding, permitting or licensing the activity. Y SS-11 Special U.S. Fish and Because the purpose of the proposed project is to identify information about Status Wildlife Service the Bakken formation in order to place oil and gas wells, the Biological Species Assessment (BA) should include a discussion of the indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Y SS-12 Special U.S. Fish and A list of federally endangered and threatened species that may be present Status Wildlife Service within the proposed project's area of influence is enclosed. This list fulfills Species requirements of the Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This list remains valid for 90 days.

B-11 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-13 Special U.S. Fish and The pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) is a native Missouri River fish. Status Wildlife Service It was listed as federally endangered in 1990, due to modification of the Species pallid sturgeon's habitat. On the Missouri River, the six mainstem dams have altered spawning habitat, flow and temperature regimes, turbidity, food availability and the species' ability to find appropriate forage. There has been limited spawning and little to no recruitment since dam construction. The part of the river proposed for seismic work has been identified as Recovery Priority Management Area 2, a key area required for recovery of the species. Y SS-14 Special U.S. Fish and In North Dakota, the breeding bird season (exclusive of least terns and Status Wildlife Service piping plovers as discussed above, is generally considered to be February 1- Species July 15). The fall timing of the proposed work should reduce the likelihood of impacts on migratory birds. Y SS-15 Special U.S. Fish and Both piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) and Interior least terns (Sterna Status Wildlife Service antillarum) nest and forage along the Missouri River in the proposed Species project area. Additionally, piping plover critical habitat has been designated along the Missouri River. Critical habitat can be viewed on the Service website: (http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/pipingplove r.htm). GIS layers of critical habitat can be obtained by contacting our office at the letterhead address. Y SS-16 Special U.S. Fish and The substrate in the nesting and brood rearing areas is soft and tracks are Status Wildlife Service easily left behind. Piping plover chicks have been documented to be trapped Species and/or drowned in depressions as shallow as a few inches. Compaction of soil in dry or frozen conditions has the potential to impact nesting habitat for many years after the activity. In order to avoid disturbing these birds and their habitat, we recommend the following precautions when working in potential or known piping plover and least tern habitat: 1) Total avoidance of the documented and potential nesting wetlands from April 1 - August 1. 2) All vehicle use should be avoided in areas or conditions where they may leave tracks. If tracks are left, they should be returned to pre- project conditions prior to the following breeding season.

B-12 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y SS-17 Special U.S. Fish and The proposed project lies in the primary migration corridor, where 95% of Status Wildlife Service the migrating whooping cranes have been sighted. The Aransas Wood Species Buffalo Population (AWBP) of the endangered whooping crane is the only self-sustaining migratory population of whooping cranes remaining in the Wild, and there are only about 280 individuals remaining. These birds breed in the wetlands of Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta and the Northwest Territories of northern Canada, and overwinter on the Texas coast. Whooping cranes in the AWBP annually migrate through North Dakota during their spring and fall migrations. They make numerous stops along their migration route to feed and roost before moving on. Y SS-18 Special U.S. Fish and Whooping cranes use migration stopover habitat opportunistically and may Status Wildlife Service not use the same stopovers annually. Whooping cranes often stop wherever Species they happen to be late in the day when they find conditions no longer suitable for migration. This tendency can make for a very unpredictable pattern of stopover use, depending on daily weather conditions. Whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota for a few weeks in the fall and spring. They are unlikely to spend more than a few days in anyone spot during migration. The Service recommends that the BA include a commitment to ceasing all work within one mile of that part of the project if a whooping crane is sighted while the work is underway. In coordination with the Service, work may resume after the bird(s) leave the area. Y SS-19 Special U.S. Fish and A desktop analysis suggests that portions of the proposed project would Status Wildlife Service impact native prairie habitat, which may be used by the candidate species Species the Sprague's pipit and Dakota skipper. Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA provides a mechanism for identifying and resolving potential conflicts whereby a Federal action agency may request a conference on any proposed action that may adversely affect proposed or candidate species at an early planning stage. During the conference, the Service may assist the action agency in determining effects and may advise the action agency on ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects to candidate species. Conferences may involve informal discussions among the Service, the action agency, and the applicant.

B-13 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y V-1 Vegetation ND Parks and The park has the largest native mixed grass prairie of any of North Dakota's Recreation state parks. The native mixed grass prairie the largest native mixed grass prairie of any of North Dakota's state parks. The native mixed grass prairie in the park provides for a variety of year-round wildlife viewing and outdoor adventure opportunities. The offseason communities are intermixed with wooded ravines and badland communities. Y V-2 Vegetation ND Parks and The western portion of the park encompasses the largest and most diverse Recreation prairie vegetation in the North Dakota State Park system. At least four intact prairie types are present, intermixed with traces of woody draws and badland communities. What extent of the project area within the park boundary might suffer temporary decline in vegetation cover? What steps will be taken to mitigate impacts to existing vegetation? Y V-3 Vegetation ND Parks and Vehicle traffic will be confined to existing roads and approved two-track Recreation trails. Regarding any reclamation efforts, we recommend that any impacted areas be revegetated with species native to the project area. Project crew members will not be allowed to remove or thin vegetation anywhere within the park boundaries. Y V-4 Vegetation ND Parks and Ground disturbance and other activities have the potential to encourage Recreation weed infestation, and possible off-road travel could infect new areas. Seeds or parts of noxious weed plants may be transported by vehicles traveling through the area increasing the potential for further infestations. Y WR-1 Water ND Department of Care is to be taken during activity near any water of the state to minimize Resources Health adverse effects on a water body. This includes minimal disturbance of stream beds and banks to prevent excess siltation, and the replacement and revegetation of any disturbed area as soon as possible after work has been completed. Guidelines for minimizing degradation to waterways during construction are attached. Y WR-2 Water ND Department of Caution must also be taken to prevent spills of oil and grease that may reach Resources Health the receiving water from equipment maintenance, and/or the handling of fuels on the site.

B-14 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y WR-3 Water ND Department of Projects disturbing one or more acres are required to have a permit to Resources Health discharge storm water runoff until the site is stabilized by the reestablishment of vegetation or other permanent cover. Further information on the storm water permit may be obtained from the Department's website or by calling the Division of Water Quality (701-328- 5210). Y WR-4 Water ND Department of The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may require a water quality certification Resources Health from this department for the project if the project is subject to their Section 404 permitting process. Any additional information which may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the process will be considered by this department in our determination regarding the issuance of such a certification. Y WR-5 Water ND Parks and For creeks/streams the buffer should be measured from the center of the Resources Recreation channel on both sides for a total width of 700 feet. Y WR-6 Water ND Parks and Aquifer contamination is a critical concern. Shallow groundwater aquifers Resources Recreation occur throughout the park. Three water wells and several undeveloped springs are scattered throughout the park. Are there any anticipated water quality impacts, potential for contamination due to project operations? What impacts will this project have on local hydrology, to shallow aquifers feeding local springs and seeps? Y WR-7 Water ND Parks and Water lines are deep-buried in the campground areas. What impacts will the Resources Recreation seismic operations have on these existing lines? Y WR-8 Water ND Parks and The major water source in the park is Lake Sakakawea. It is the prime Resources Recreation resource for public water supplies. Y WR-9 Water ND Parks and Aquifer contamination is a critical concern. Are there any anticipated Resources Recreation surface water quality impacts, potential for contamination and erosion, and increased sediment delivery to adjacent water bodies due to project operations? Y WR-10 Water ND Parks and To limit or reduce any surface water quality impacts all operations should Resources Recreation occur during dry weather. Operations within the park should be suspended during inclement weather. Restricting vehicular traffic to existing roads and Department approved two-track trails will limit vegetation disturbance.

B-15 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y WET-1 Wetland and ND Parks and What are the environmental consequences to wetland/riparian vegetation Riparian Recreation zones in the project area? Y WET-2 Wetland and ND Parks and We recommend that a no-activity buffer of 350 feet be established to Riparian Recreation protect wetland/riparian vegetation in this project area. Operation activities should be limited to the dry benches above the riparian vegetation zone. Y WET-3 Wetland and ND Parks and What short-term impacts have been identified to wetland and riparian Riparian Recreation vegetation? What are the impacts associated with the drilling and use of explosives on areas with unconsolidated material? How will the operator fill the holes in wetland/riparian areas? What steps will be taken to protect changes to subsurface water flow and protect water tables that support wetland/riparian vegetation? What steps will be taken to protect water resources, wetlands and riparian areas? Y W-1 Wildlife ND Game and Fish To minimize negative impacts to nesting golden eagles and the possibility Department of causing "take" under the Eagle Act, we recommend seasonal restrictions for activities with a set distance of the nest sites. We recommend no temporary foot or vehicle traffic within 1/3 mile of the nest site from February 1-August 15. We recommend no drilling or detonations within 1/2 mile of the nest site from February 1-August 15. Y W-2 Wildlife ND Game and Fish Additionally, prairie falcons are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Department Act. While prairie falcons are not afforded additional protection such as with eagles, care should still be taken to avoid nest abandonment. We recommend no temporary foot or vehicle traffic within 1/3 mile of the nest site from March 1-August 15 and no drilling or detonations within 1/2 mile of the nest site from March 1-August 15. Y W-3 Wildlife ND Game and Fish There are many unknowns regarding the potential impacts air guns may Department have on the many different species utilizing this area of the reservoir. Realizing that a research project is currently being proposed to evaluate air gun impacts, the Department reiterates the importance of completing the study to monitor the impacts of the project as well as developing mitigation measures to minimize negative impacts.

B-16 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y W-4 Wildlife ND Game and Fish Effective April 1, 2008, Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) rules were Department enacted by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. These new regulations are to prevent the introduction of undesirable species of plants and animals. Preventive measures are now required to bring equipment into the state. State law allows for fines up to $1,000 and the confiscation of equipment. Y W-5 Wildlife ND Game and Fish Required measures include removing any and all aquatic vegetation from Department vessels, motors, trailers, or construction equipment; all water shall be drained from bilge(s) or confined spaces on vessels, boat motors or construction equipment; all species of ANS (this list can be found on the North Dakota Game and Fish Department website) must be removed from vessels, motors, trailers or construction equipment; and water must be drained from confined spaces on vessels, boat motors or construction equipment. These ANS preventative measures extend to any and all vehicles, vessels, trailers, pumps and such equipment that will be used in the project or any/all construction efforts connected with this project in or on the waters of the State. This requirement should be included if occurring during the open water season or if the operation proceeds on the ice pack. Y W-6 Wildlife ND Game and Fish The contractor or his agents or subcontractors will provide the Department Department a reasonable opportunity to inspect any and all vehicles, vessels, pumps and equipment that will be used in the project in or on the waters of the state prior to those items being launched or placed in the waters of the state. A minimum of 72 hours notice must be provided to the Department for scheduling an inspection. Y W-7 Wildlife ND Game and Fish The Department has concerns the magnitude and timing of surveys and Department drilling work will potentially negatively affect nesting raptors. The Department recommends a raptor nest survey be conducted prior to initiating the seismic work. The data acquired from the survey should be provided to our Department upon completion of the survey.

B-17 SWCA Scoping Report Stony Creek 3D Seismic Project Williams and McKenzie Counties, ND

Substantive Substantive Resource Commenter Comment Comment (Y/N) Category Affiliation ID Y W-8 Wildlife ND Game and Fish Golden eagles are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Department and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). The act prohibits 'take' which includes the action of "disturb" under the Eagle Act. Disturb means "to agitate or bother a Bald or a Golden Eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available; 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." It is well documented that golden eagles are very sensitive to disturbance, particularly human intrusion within the vicinity of their nest site during the breeding season.

B-18 SWCA Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

APPENDIX B Soils

Table B.1. Soil Types, Acres, and Erodibility in the Project Area.

Restrictive Feature Acres in Project Soil Type Project Area Water Wind Area (%) Erosion Erosion Hazard Hazard Amor-Cabba loams, 6%–9% slopes 32.5 0.1 Low Low Amor-Cabba loams, 9%–15% slopes 9.1 0.02 Moderate Low Amor-Williams-Zahl loams, 3%–9% slopes 736.0 1.6 Low Low Amor-Zahl-Cabba loams, 9%–25% slopes 2,598.8 5.7 Moderate Low Amor-Zahl-Werner loams, 9%–25% slopes 2.7 0.01 Moderate Low Appam sandy loam, 2%–6% slopes 153.9 0.3 Low Moderate Arikara-Shambo-Cabba loams, 9%–70% slopes 128.2 0.3 Moderate Low Arnegard loam, 0%–2% slopes 70.8 0.2 Low Low Arnegard loam, 2%–6% slopes 29.8 0.1 Low Low Badland, 9%–150% slopes 1,030.2 2.3 High Moderate Badland, high precipitation 75.1 0.2 High Moderate Badland, outcrop-Lambert-Cabba complex, 6%– 218.8 0.5 High Moderate 50% slopes Beisigl-Flasher loamy fine sands, 6%–15% slopes 226.7 0.5 Low High Beisigl-Flasher-Arikara complex, 15%–70% 67.3 0.1 Moderate High slopes Beisigl-Flasher-Tally complex, 9%–50% slopes 1,067.6 2.3 Moderate High Belfield-Grail silty clay loams, 0%–2% slopes 14.4 0.03 Low Low Belfield-Savage silty clay loams, 2%–6% slopes 43.5 0.1 Low Low Brandenburg-Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex, 52.4 0.1 High Moderate 9%–70% slopes Brandenburg-Cabba-Dogtooth complex, 15%– 775.9 1.7 High Low 70% slopes Brandenburg-Searing complex, 3%–70% slopes 77.7 0.2 Moderate Low Brandenburg-Searing-Dogtooth complex, 6%– 122.4 0.3 Moderate Low 15% slopes Cabba-Badland complex, 6%–70% slopes 5,701.5 12.5 High Moderate Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex 9%–70% 1,300.4 2.8 High Moderate slopes Cabba-Chama-Havrelon silt loams, 3%–70% 1,177.7 2.6 High Moderate slopes Cabba-Chama-Sen silt loams, 9%–15% slopes 167.3 0.4 Moderate Moderate Cabba-Sen-Chama silt loams, 15%–70% slopes 438.1 1.0 High Moderate Chama-Cabba-Sen silt loams, 6%–9% slopes 80.2 0.2 Low Moderate Chama-Sen-Cabba silt loams, 3%–6% slopes 5.3 0.01 Low Moderate Cherry silt loam, 0%–6% slopes 17.7 0.04 Low Moderate Cherry silt loam, 6%–9% slopes 88.8 0.2 Low Moderate Cherry-Cabba silt loams, 9%–40% slopes 27.5 0.1 Moderate Moderate Daglum-Belfield complex, 0%–6% slopes 11.7 0.02 Low Low Restrictive Feature Acres in Project Soil Type Project Area Water Wind Area (%) Erosion Erosion Hazard Hazard Daglum-Rhoades complex, 0%–6% slopes 69.3 0.2 Low Low Dogtooth-Janesburg silt loams, 0%–6% slopes 96.5 0.2 Low Low Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6%–30% 381.4 0.8 Moderate Low slopes Dooley-Zahl complex, 6%–9% slopes 4.2 0.01 Low Moderate Farland silt loam, 2%–6% slopes 129.5 0.3 Low Low Farnuf loam, 0%–2% slopes 3.5 0.01 Low Low Farnuf loam, 2%–6% slopes 133.3 0.3 Low Low Farnuf loam, 6% –9% slopes 64.2 0.1 Low Low Flasher-Rock outcrop-Vebar complex, 9%–70% 272.3 0.6 Moderate High slopes Golva silt loam, 0%–2% slopes 0.9 0.002 Low Low Harriet silt loam, 0%–2% slopes 55.3 0.1 Low Low Korchea loam, 0%–2% slopes, occasionally 24.5 0.1 Low Moderate flooded Korchea loam, channeled 0%–2% slopes 189.9 0.4 Low Moderate Korchea-Fluvaquents complex, channeled, 0%– 204.3 0.4 Low Moderate 2% slopes, frequently flooded Lawther silty clay, 0%–2% slopes 16.9 0.04 Low Moderate Lehr-Bowdle loams, 2%–6% slopes 22.3 0.05 Low Low Lihen-Parshall complex, 0%–6% slopes 10.4 0.02 Low High Livona-Zahl complex, 6%–9% slopes 52.7 0.1 Low Moderate Manning-Schaller-Wabek complex, 6%–25% 6.4 0.01 Moderate Moderate slopes Moreau-Cabba complex, 9%–15% slopes 15.5 0.03 Moderate Moderate Noonan-Niobell-Williams loams, 0%–6% slopes 3.9 0.01 Low Low Reeder-Cabba loams, 6%–9% slopes 7.5 0.02 Low Low Regent-Cabba complex, 6%–9% slopes 24.6 0.1 Low Low Regent-Janesburg complex, 0%–6% slopes 27.4 0.1 Low Low Regent-Janesburg complex, 6%–9% slopes 14.2 0.03 Low Low Rhoades-Daglum complex, 0%–6% slopes 52.3 0.1 Low Low Savage silty clay loam, 2%–6% slopes 64.6 0.1 Low Low Seroco, hummocky-banks, occasionally flooded 24.2 0.1 Low High loamy fine sands, 0%–15% slopes Shambo loam, 0%–2% slopes 32.9 0.1 Low Low Tally-Parshall fine sandy loams, 2%–6% slopes 36.3 0.1 Low Moderate Tally-Parshall fine sandy loams, 6%–9% slopes 61.5 0.1 Low Moderate Temvik-Williams silt loams, 3%–6% slopes 112.7 0.2 Low Low Temvik-Wilton silt loams, 0%–3% slopes 48.1 0.1 Low Low Tonka silt loam, 0%–1% slopes 23.3 0.1 Low Low Restrictive Feature Acres in Project Soil Type Project Area Water Wind Area (%) Erosion Erosion Hazard Hazard Vebar-Cohagen fine sandy loams, 6%–9% slopes 74.7 0.2 Low Moderate Vebar-Cohagen-Zahl complex, 9%–25% slopes 412.2 0.9 Low Moderate Vebar-Flasher complex, 3%–6% slopes 2.7 0.01 Low Moderate Vebar-Flasher complex, 6%–9% slopes 12.8 0.03 Low Moderate Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9%–15% slopes 52.9 0.1 Moderate Moderate Wabek-Appam sandy loams, 6%–25% slopes 19.2 0.04 Low Moderate Wabek-Lehr-Appam complex, 9%–25% slopes 15.0 0.03 Moderate Low Williams-Bowbells loams, 3%–6% slopes 482.7 1.1 Low Low Williams-Zahl loams, 3%–6% slopes 289.7 0.6 Low Low Williams-Zahl loams, 6%–9% slopes 1,363.9 3.0 Low Low Williams-Zahl-Zahill complex, 6%–9% slopes 361.1 0.8 Low Low Zahl-Beisigl-Tally complex, 9%–15% slopes 258.1 0.6 Moderate Moderate Zahl-Cabba-Arikara complex, 9%–70% slopes 70.6 0.2 High Moderate Zahl-Cabba-Maschetah complex, 3%–70% slopes 2,039.8 4.5 High Moderate Zahl-Cabba-Maschetah complex, 6%–70% slopes 2,152.6 4.7 High Moderate Zahl-Cabba-Williams complex, 9%–15% slopes 516.6 1.1 Moderate Moderate Zahl-Max loams, 15%–25% slopes 13.3 0.03 Moderate Low Zahl-Tally-Williams complex, 6%–9% slopes 144.9 0.3 Low Moderate Zahl-Williams loams, 9%–15% slopes 1,106.6 2.4 Moderate Moderate Zahl-Williams loams, 15%–25% slopes 56.0 0.1 Moderate Low Zahl-Williams loams, dissected, 15%–45% slopes 139.8 0.3 High Moderate Zahl-Williams-Cabba complex, 6%–9% slopes 185.0 0.4 Low Moderate Total 45,698.3 100

Draft Environmental Assessment Stony Creek 3D Geophysical Exploration Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota

APPENDIX C USFWS Concurrence Letter

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office 3425 Miriam Avenue Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 (701) 250-4481, [email protected]

July 28, 2014

Laura Burckhardt SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 Cactus Drive Cody, Wyoming 82414

Dear Ms. Burckhardt:

This is in response to your June 16, 2014, letter requesting informal consultation and the accompanying Biological Assessment (BA) regarding Hess Corporation’s proposal to conduct three-dimensional seismic data collection within an approximately 71.3-squre-mile (45,638-acre) project area, located in Williams and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota. The project area is located within lands and waters managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and requires Corps approval and a permit. SWCA Environmental Consultants has been designated by the Corps as their non-federal representative for this proposed federal action.

In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), you requested U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurrence with your determination that the project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” the endangered interior least tern (Sternula antillarum), the endangered whooping crane (Grus americana), the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirynchus albus), the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and will not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat for the piping plover.

Whooping Crane

The project area is located within the 95% whooping crane migration corridor, and contains numerous wetlands within the general vicinity of the proposed location, as well as stopover habitat on Lake Sakakawea. Significant disruption of normal migratory behavior could occur if individuals are either caused to flush from stopover habitat or if they are prevented from using stopover habitat due to the presence of personnel collecting the seismic data.

If a whooping crane(s) is sighted within one mile of the project area, the operator would immediately cease all work and the Service would be notified. After the bird has left the area, work may resume in coordination with the Service. The Service believes that the commitments by the operator to address potential disturbance to individuals has reduced this stressor to an insignificant and/or discountable level.

Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover and Piping Plover Critical Habitat

Project activities have the potential to disturb individuals that may be nesting and foraging on the shoreline below the project area. Habitat loss or degradation, including ruts, may occur if seismic activities physically alter the sandbar habitat. To avoid disturbance of individual terns and plovers, operations within documented and potential nesting habitats would not overlap with the nesting seasons for interior least tern and piping plover (April 1 to August 31), without approval from the Corps and the Service. To avoid impacts to habitat, no vehicle traffic would be permitted at any time within piping plover critical habitat. Receivers would be placed in critical habitat by foot traffic only. The Service believes that the implementation of these measures reduce the risk of disturb to individuals and effects to critical habitat to insignificant and/or discountable.

Pallid Sturgeon

Acoustic energy (shock waves) produced by land-based source points has the potential to produce sound pressure levels that may result in behavioral and physiological effects on the fish in Lake Sakakawea. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Science criteria for injury to fish from underwater pile-driving activities set thresholds for adverse behavioral effects as 150 dBRMS (root mean squared noise level). Sound pressure levels in excess of 150 dBRMS are expected to cause temporary behavioral changes, such as elicitation of a startle response, disruption of feeding, or avoidance of an area. The NOAA Fisheries Science criteria for the threshold for injury is 206 dBpeak (peak decibel level) and 187 dBSEL (sound exposure level) for fish > 2 grams and 183 dBSEL for fish < 2 grams (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008; NOAA 2008). The proposed project would use land-based controlled detonation points, and backfill each shot hole with bentonite to secure the hole and prevent any blow out, direct the sound energy level into the subsurface geology, and dampen the sound energy level that is emitted to the surface at detonation. Based on guidelines from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, an offset of 100 feet would adequately attenuate the sound waves created by land-based controlled detonation. Land-based controlled detonation points would be placed a minimum of 100-feet from the water surface of Lake Sakakawea. The Service believes the implementation of this measure makes it highly unlikely that pallid sturgeon would be exposed to sound levels above NOAA thresholds.

Based upon the project description and analysis of potential effects presented in the BA, the Service has concluded that the effects to these federally-listed resources are either insignificant or discountable. Thus, the Service concurs with your “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” determinations for whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon and designated critical habitat for the piping plover.

You also determined that the proposed action is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of the proposed northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the proposed Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae), the proposed rufa red knot (Calidris canuta rufa), and the candidate Sprague’s pipit (Angus spragueii). The Service agrees with this determination.

The BA also indicates “no effect” determinations for the endangered gray wolf (Canis lupus) and the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). There is no requirement under the implementing regulations of the Act (50 CFR Part 402) for action agencies to receive Service concurrence with “no effect” determinations, therefore the responsibility for “no effect” determinations remains with the Corps. Accordingly, we recommend the Corps retain the documentation and analysis for these listed resources in the decisional record for this federal action.

The Service’s concurrence is based on the information contained within the June 2014, biological assessment and other information included in our analysis. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Act (50 CFR 402.13), this letter concludes informal consultation on the subject action. This action should be re-analyzed if: (1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; (2) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this action.

We appreciate your efforts to insure the conservation of listed species as part of our joint responsibilities under the Act. For further information, please have your staff contact Heidi Riddle of my staff at (701) 355-8503 or at the letterhead address.

Sincerely,

Scott Larson Field Supervisor North Dakota and South Dakota Field Offices

cc: Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE (Attn: J. Shelman)