Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects

y rg Office of e n n ry io Energy Projects E o s l t s ra la i e u m d g m e e o DATE F R C

WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC Docket Nos. CP15-XX and CP15-XX WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

WIND RIDGE PIPELINE AND SPIRITWOOD COMPRESSOR STATION PROJECTS

[Insert photograph]

Environmental Assessment

Washington, DC 20426

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: OEP/DG2E/Gas 2 WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. Docket Nos. CP15-XX and CP15-XX TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED:

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project and Spiritwood Compressor Station Project (collectively referred to as the Projects) as proposed by WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Applicants) in the above-referenced dockets. The Applicants requests authorization to construct, operate, and maintain a new natural gas pipeline, compressor station, and associated facilities in McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties, North Dakota.

The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities in McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties, North Dakota:

 about 96.2 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;

 a new 1,000 horsepower compressor station (Spiritwood Compressor Station) with 8-inch-diameter suction and discharge pipelines;

 two new meter stations;

 eight block valve settings; and

 three pig launcher and receiver facilities.

The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals

- 1 -

and groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC’s website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

A limited number of copies of the EA are also available for distribution and public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Public Reference Room 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-8371

Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before [DATE].

For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket numbers (CP15-XX and CP15-XX) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at 202- 502-8258 or [email protected].

(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;

(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

- 2 -

(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A Washington, DC 20426

Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding that would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., XX). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact 1-202-502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/esubscriptions.asp.

1 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically.

- 3 -

WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.3 Scope of this Environmental Assessment ...... 2 1.4 Public Review and Comment...... 2 1.5 Proposed Facilities and location ...... 3 1.5.1 Pipeline Facilities ...... 4 1.5.2 Aboveground Facilities ...... 5 1.6 Nonjurisdictional Facilities ...... 6 1.7 Land Requirements ...... 7 1.7.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way...... 7 1.7.2 Additional Temporary Workspace ...... 7 1.7.3 Staging Areas ...... 7 1.7.4 Temporary and Permanent Access Roads ...... 9 1.7.5 Aboveground Facilities ...... 9 1.8 Construction Schedule and Workforce ...... 10 1.9 Construction Procedures ...... 10 1.9.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures ...... 11 1.9.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures ...... 14 1.9.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures ...... 18 1.10 Construction Environmental Compliance ...... 19 1.11 Operation, Maintenance, and Safety Controls ...... 20 1.12 Permits, Approvals, and Consultations ...... 20 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 22 2.1 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology ...... 22 2.1.1 Geology ...... 22 2.1.2 Soils ...... 23 2.1.3 Paleontology ...... 27 2.2 Water Resources and Wetlands ...... 28 2.2.1 Groundwater ...... 28 2.2.2 Surface Water ...... 31 2.2.3 Wetlands ...... 35 2.3 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Fisheries ...... 40 2.3.1 Vegetation ...... 40 2.3.2 Wildlife ...... 44 2.3.3 Fisheries ...... 48 2.3.4 Special Status Species ...... 50 2.4 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources ...... 55 2.4.1 Land Use ...... 55 2.4.2 Existing Residences and Planned Developments ...... 58 2.4.3 Public Land, Conservation Easements, Recreation, and Other Designated Areas 59 2.4.4 Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites ...... 61 2.4.5 Visual Resources ...... 61

2.5 Cultural Resources ...... 62 2.5.1 Consultation ...... 62 2.5.2 Cultural Resources Investigation ...... 62 2.5.3 Native American Consultations ...... 65 2.5.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plan ...... 66 2.5.5 General Impact and Mitigation ...... 66 2.6 Socioeconomics ...... 68 2.6.1 Population and Employment ...... 68 2.6.2 Housing ...... 69 2.6.3 Public Services ...... 69 2.6.4 Tax Revenues ...... 70 2.6.5 Transportation and Traffic ...... 71 2.6.6 Agriculture ...... 71 2.6.7 Environmental Justice ...... 71 2.7 Air Quality and Noise ...... 72 2.7.1 Air Quality ...... 72 2.7.2 Noise ...... 77 2.8 Reliability and Safety ...... 83 2.8.1 Safety Standards ...... 83 2.8.2 Pipeline Accident Data ...... 86 2.8.3 Impact on Public Safety...... 88 2.9 Cumulative Impacts ...... 90 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 91 3.1 No Action Alternative ...... 91 3.1.1 Energy Conservation ...... 92 3.1.2 Alternative Energy Sources ...... 92 3.2 System Alternatives ...... 92 3.3 Route Alternatives ...... 94 3.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS ...... 96 3.5 Aboveground Facility Alternatives ...... 98 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 100 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 105 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 113

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process ...... 3 Table 1.5.1-1 Proposed Pipeline Facilities ...... 4 Table 1.5.1-2 Adjacent Existing Facilities ...... 4 Table 1.5.2-1 Proposed Aboveground Facilities ...... 5 Table 1.7-1 Summary of Land Requirements ...... 8 Table 1.9-1 WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission Plans for the Project ...... 11 Table 1.12-1 Major Environmental Permits, Approvals, and Consultations ...... 21 Table 2.1.1-1 Shallow Bedrock Along the Proposed Pipeline Route ...... 22 Table 2.1.2-1 Acres of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Proposed Pipeline ...... 24 Table 2.1.2-2 Acres of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Spiritwood Compressor Station ...... 27 Table 2.2.1-1 Areas of the Pipeline Route Underlain by Alluvial and Glacial Aquifers ...... 29 Table 2.2.2-1 Locations of Additional Temporary Workspace Within 50 Feet of a Waterbody ..... 32 Table 2.2.3-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Easements Crossed by the Pipeline Route . 37 Table 2.2.3-3 Locations Where the Construction Right-of-Way is Greater Than 75 Feet in a Wetland ...... 38 Table 2.2.3-3 Locations of Additional Temporary Workspace Within 50 Feet of a Wetland ...... 38 Table 2.3.1-1 Vegetation Types Affected by the Projects ...... 41 Table 2.3.2-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Waterfowl Production Areas Within 1.0 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline ...... 45 Table 2.3.4-1 Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring within the Vicinity of the Projects ...... 51 Table 2.4.1-1 Land Uses Affected by the Projects ...... 56 Table 2.5.2-1 Class III Survey Results for the Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects ...... 63 Table 2.6.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Project Area ...... 69 Table 2.6.4-1 Estimated Annual Property Taxes Paid Through Direct Investment by County ...... 70 Table 2.7.1-1 Project-Related Construction Emissions ...... 76 Table 2.7.1-2 Operational Emissions ...... 77 Table 2.7.2-1 Noise Quality Analysis for Horizontal Directional Drill Crossing ...... 79 Table 2.7.2-2 Operational Noise Quality Analysis for the Spiritwood Compressor Station ...... 80 Table 2.7.2-3 Operational Noise Quality Analysis for the Meter Station at MP 0.0 ...... 80 Table 2.7.2-4 Operational Noise Impacts for Block Valves ...... 81 Table 2.7.2-5 Noise Quality Analysis for Blowdown Events ...... 82 Table 2.8.2-1 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Serious Incidents by Cause (1994–2013) ...... 86 Table 2.8.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1994–2013) ...... 87 Table 2.8.3-1 Injuries and Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines ...... 88 Table 2.8.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths ...... 89 Table 3.3-1 Comparison of Major Route Alternatives ...... 95 Table 3.4-1 Select Pre-Filing Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed Route ...... 97

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.5-1 Project Overview Map...... 4 Figure 1.5.2-1 Compressor Station Site Plot Plan ...... 5 Figure 1.9.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ...... 11 Figure 2.4.3-1 Grassland and Wetland Conservation Easements Crossed by the Projects ...... 59 Figure 2.7.2-1 Noise-sensitive Areas Associated with the HDD Crossing ...... 78 Figure 2.7.2-2 Noise-sensitive Areas Associated with the Compressor Station ...... 79 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in North Dakota ...... 93 Figure 3.3-1 Major Route Alternatives ...... 94 Figure 3.5-1 Compressor Station Site Alternative ...... 98 Figure 3.5-2 Alternative Locations Evaluated for Launcher/Receiver 3 ...... 99

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Facility Location Maps and Typical Pipeline Construction Right-of-Way Cross Sections Appendix B Additional Temporary Workspace and Access Road Tables Appendix C Waterbody and Wetland Crossing Tables Appendix D James River and Seven Mile Coulee HDD Site-specific Plan Appendix E Consultations with Indian Tribes

TECHNICAL ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE Area of Potential Effect Applicants WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., collectively ATWS additional temporary workspace Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CRP Conservation Reserve Program CWA Clean Water Act Dth/d dekatherms per day E. coli Escherichia coli EA environmental assessment EFH essential fish habitat EI Environmental Inspector EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FR Federal Register FSA Farm Service Agency FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS geographic information systems HCA high-consequence area HDD horizontal directional drill hp horsepower IPAC System Information, Planning and Conservation System MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MP Milepost NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NBPL Northern Border Pipeline NDDC North Dakota Century Code NDDH North Dakota Department of Health NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department NDOT North Dakota Department of Transportation NDSWC North Dakota State Water Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NGA Natural Gas Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review NWI National Wetlands Inventory OEP Office of Energy Projects PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Plan Upland Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Project or Projects Wind Ridge Pipeline Project and Spiritwood Compressor Station Project PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration Secretary Secretary of the Commission SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database TCP traditional cultural property THPO Historic Preservation Officer TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USGS U.S. Geological Survey WBI Transmission WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. WBI Wind Ridge WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC WHPA wellhead protection areas WPA Waterfowl Production Areas WRP Wetland Reserve Program

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to assess the environmental impacts of the natural gas facilities proposed by WBI Energy Wind Ridge Pipeline, LLC (WBI Wind Ridge) and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI Transmission) (also collectively referred to as the Applicants). We

2 prepared this EA in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Parts 1500-1508) and the Commission’s implementing regulations under 18 CFR 380.

On March XX, 2015, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission filed applications in Docket Nos. CP15-XXX-000 and CP15-XXX-000, respectively, under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the certificate procedures of Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) authorizing construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties, North Dakota and a compressor station in Stutsman County, North Dakota. These proposed facilities are referred to as the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project and Spiritwood Compressor Station Project (also collectively referred to as the Project or Projects) and are described in section 1.5. Prior to filing its applications, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission participated in the Commission’s pre-filing review process under Docket No. PF14-20-000.

Our principal purposes in preparing this EA are to:

 identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed action;

 assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or minimize adverse effects to the environment; and

 identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize environmental impacts.

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the NGA, and is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EA in compliance with the requirements of NEPA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are federal cooperating agencies that elected to assist us in preparing this EA because they have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts associated with WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s proposals. The roles of the USACE and FWS are described in section 1.3.

The major federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and consultations for the Project are presented in section 1.12.

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

WBI Wind Ridge’s stated purpose of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project is to provide for the transportation of natural gas from a new interconnection with Northern Border Pipeline Company (NBPL) in McIntosh County, North Dakota to a proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant near Spiritwood, North Dakota. The Project also would provide additional new firm transportation capacity to a new interconnect

2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects.

with WBI Transmission’s existing system. CHS, Inc. (CHS) plans to construct a nitrogen fertilizer plant at the end of the proposed pipeline in Stutsman County. Natural gas sourced from the proposed pipeline would be used as feedstock at the plant. Construction of the fertilizer plant is not subject to FERC jurisdiction (see section 1.6).

WBI Transmission’s stated purpose of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project is to meet additional demands of existing customers by providing approximately 35,000 equivalent dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of new firm transportation capacity to delivery locations in WBI Transmission’s existing system.

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The topics addressed in this EA include alternatives; geology; soils; groundwater; surface waters; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; special status species; land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. The EA describes the affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental consequences of both Projects, and compares their potential impact with that of various alternatives. The EA also presents our recommended mitigation measures.

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the Projects would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, short-term, long- term, and permanent. Temporary impact generally occurs during construction with the resource returning to preconstruction condition immediately after restoration or within a few months. Short-term impact could continue for up to 3 years following construction. Long-term impacts would last more than 3 years, but the affected resource would recover to preconstruction conditions. A permanent impact could occur as a result of any activity that modifies a resource to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction conditions during the life of the Projects, such as the construction of aboveground facilities. An impact would be considered significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment.

Wetlands within the Project area are regulated at the federal and state levels. The Omaha District of the USACE elected to cooperate in preparing this EA because it has jurisdictional authority pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 1344), which governs the discharge of dredged material or placement of fill into waters of the United States, and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403), which regulates any work or structures that potentially affect the navigable capacity of designated waterbodies.

As the lead federal agency for the Project, the FERC consulted with the FWS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to determine whether federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are found in the vicinity of the Projects, and to evaluate the proposed actions’ potential effects on those species or critical habitats. In addition, the proposed pipeline route would cross several private parcels subject to grassland and wetland conservation easements held by the FWS. The FWS elected to cooperate in preparing this EA because it has special expertise with respect to environmental impacts associated with the Applicant’s proposals.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On July 24, 2014, the Applicants requested approval to initiate our pre-filing review process for the Projects. The Commission approved the Applicants’ request on July 28, 2014, in Docket No. PF14- 20-000. We participated in three open houses, sponsored by the Applicants, during the week of September 8, 2014, to explain our environmental review process to interested stakeholders. The open houses were held in Wishek, Gackle, and Jamestown, North Dakota. On October 23, 2014, the

Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting (NOI). The NOI was published in the Federal Register 3 and was mailed to approximately 411 interested parties, including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; affected landowners; environmental and public interest groups; potentially interested Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers.

FERC environmental staff conducted public scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for agencies and the general public to learn more about the Projects and to participate in the environmental analysis by identifying issues to be addressed in the EA. The meetings were held in Jamestown, North Dakota on November 19, 2014 and Wishek, North Dakota on November 20, 2014. The transcripts of the public scoping meetings and all written scoping comments are part of the public record for the Projects and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov). 4

The relative and substantive environmental issues raised during the public scoping process are addressed in the relevant sections of this EA as indicated in table 1.4-1.

TABLE 1.4-1

Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process Issue EA Section(s) Water quality impacts and mitigation 2.2 Impacts on wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains 2.2 and 2.3 Contamination of natural springs 2.2 Impacts on fish and wildlife 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.4 Impacts on historic, scenic, and recreational values 2.4 and 2.5 Grassland and wetland conservation easements 2.4.3 Environmental justice 2.6 Air quality impacts 2.7.1 Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change 2.7.1 and 2.9

In addition, we participated in interagency meetings, conference calls, and site visits for the Projects to identify issues to be addressed in the EA. The meetings, conference calls, and site visits provided a forum for the exchange of information and supported the FERC’s responsibility to coordinate federal authorizations and associated environmental review of the Projects. Summaries of the meetings and calls were entered into the public record for the Projects, and are also available for viewing on the FERC’s eLibrary website (www.ferc.gov).

1.5 PROPOSED FACILITIES AND LOCATION

The Applicants propose to construct the following facilities in McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties, North Dakota:

 about 96.2 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;

 a new 1000 horsepower (hp) compressor station (Spiritwood Compressor Station) with 8- inch-diameter suction and discharge pipelines;

 two new meter stations;

3 See Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211, dated Friday, October 31, 2014, pages 64762–64764. 4 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the “Docket Number” field (i.e., PF14-20 and CP15-XX). Select an appropriate date range.

 eight block valve settings; and

 three pig 5 launcher and receiver facilities.

The maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for the pipeline would be [TBD] pounds per square inch gauge. The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would provide approximately [TBD] million cubic feet per day of natural gas transportation capacity. Figure 1.5-1 shows the general location of the Projects’ facilities. Detailed maps showing the pipeline route and aboveground facilities are provided in appendix A.

Insert Figure 1.5-1 Project Overview Map

1.5.1 Pipeline Facilities

WBI Wind Ridge proposes to construct about 96.2 miles of natural gas pipeline between the existing NBPL mainline near Zeeland, North Dakota, and a proposed meter station at the proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant near Spiritwood, North Dakota (see table 1.5.1-1).

TABLE 1.5.1-1

Proposed Pipeline Facilities Approximate Mileposts County Begin End Length (miles) McIntosh County 0.0 25.0 25.0 Logan County 25.0 51.8 26.8 LaMoure County 51.8 62.0 10.2 Stutsman County 62.0 96.2 34.2 Total 96.2

From its southern initiating point about 6.5 miles northeast of Zeeland in McIntosh County, the proposed pipeline would extend to the northeast for 22 miles where it crosses State Highway 13 about 5 miles east of Wishek. After crossing State Highway 13, the pipeline would extend northeast for another 40 miles crossing Logan and LaMoure Counties. The route crosses State Highway 46 about 11 miles east of Gackle in LaMoure County. Continuing to the northeast, the pipeline enters Stutsman County for 34 miles, crossing the James River and Interstate 94 just before reaching the pipeline terminus at the proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant southeast of Spiritwood in Stutsman County. About 5.8 miles (6 percent) of the route would parallel existing electric transmission and pipeline facilities (see table 1.5.1-2).

TABLE 1.5.1-2

Adjacent Existing Facilities Approximate Mileposts County Begin End Length (miles) 115 kV Electric Transmission Line 76.0 77.6 1.6 NuStar Pipeline 86.5 89.4 2.9 Existing WBI Pipeline 93.7 95.0 1.3 Total 5.8

5 A pipeline “pig” is a device to clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.

The proposed pipeline would cross about 94.7 miles (98.7 percent) of private lands. The remaining 1.3 miles (1.3 percent) would cross land managed by the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDOT) or county townships. Of the private lands crossed, about 25.5 miles (27 percent) are subject to conservation easements held by the FWS.

1.5.2 Aboveground Facilities

In addition to the new pipeline, the Projects would require construction of a new compressor station, meter stations at the southern and northern termini of the pipeline in McIntosh and Stutsman counties, block valves along the pipeline spaced at regular intervals, pig launcher and receiver facilities, and associated appurtenances. The aboveground facilities associated with the Projects are provided in table 1.5.2-1.

TABLE 1.5.2-1

Proposed Aboveground Facilities Approximate Facility Name Milepost County Spiritwood Compressor Station 94.3 Stutsman Meter Stations Tie-in with NBPL 0.0 McIntosh Nitrogen Fertilizer Plant 96.2 Stutsman Block Valves Block Valve 1 11.8 McIntosh Block Valve 2 22.1 McIntosh Block Valve 3 32.4 Logan Block Valve 4 44.1 Logan Block Valve 5 56.5 LaMoure Block Valve 6 65.9 Stutsman Block Valve 7 79.7 Stutsman Block Valve 8 86.5 Stutsman

Launcher/Receiver Site 0.0 McIntosh Launcher/Receiver Site TBD Logan Launcher/Receiver Site 96.2 Stutsman

WBI Transmission would construct a 1000 hp compressor station on a 10.0-acre parcel at milepost (MP) 94.3 of the pipeline route in Stutsman County, North Dakota. This 10-acre parcel is crossed by an existing pipeline owned and operated by WBI Transmission and would also be crossed by WBI Wind Ridge’s proposed pipeline. The location of the compressor station is depicted on figure 1.5-1. Figure 1.5.2-1 provides a site plot plan of the proposed facility. The Spiritwood Compressor Station would include one electric-driven compressor unit that would be housed within a new building. Appurtenant facilities would include an office/shop and transfer grid building. The compressor building will be approximately 40 feet wide by 50 feet long, with a roof peak to grade height of approximately 26.5 feet. The office/shop will be approximately 32 feet wide by 45 feet long, with sidewalls approximately 12 feet in height. The transfer building will be approximately 30 feet wide by 40 feet long, with sidewalls approximately 15 feet in height.

Insert Figure 1.5.2-1 Compressor Station Site Plot Plan

WBI Transmission proposes to access the compressor station via 35th Street S.E. by constructing a new permanent graveled access driveway that is 330 feet long by 20 feet wide. New electric lines would be installed by Ottertail Power Company (see section 1.6). In addition, WBI Transmission would install a domestic use water well within the fenceline of the facility near [insert location]. WBI Transmission would also install a septic system on site that is of comparable size to that required for a single-family home. The well and septic system would be used to supply water to and dispose of wastewater from the restroom facility in the auxiliary building.

NBPL proposes to construct and operate a meter station and valve at MP 0.0 of the pipeline route in McIntosh County. The meter station would measure about 416 by 208 feet (about 2 acres). WBI Wind Ridge would construct a pig launcher/receiver within the fenced site and would assume ownership of this meter station. WBI Wind Ridge also proposes to construct a meter station and pig launcher/receiver on a 100- by 80-foot site at the nitrogen fertilizer plant in Stutsman County. Both meter stations would contain control and utility buildings; a separator; a meter skid; a pipe rack; and a chain-link fence around the perimeter of each site.

In addition to the pig launchers/receivers that would be installed within the fenced meter station facilities, a third launcher/receiver facility would be located at MP [XX.X] in Logan County. This launcher/receiver would be located within the permanent pipeline right-of-way and would occupy a 30- by 60-foot fenced area.

WBI Wind Ridge also proposes to construct eight block valves along the pipeline at locations identified in table 1.5.2-1. The block valves at each location would be installed above ground with aboveground valve operators, risers, blowdown valves, and crossover piping connected on each side of the block valve. Construction of the block valves would be conducted within the temporary construction right-of-way. Following construction, the valve sites would be fenced and will occupy a 10- by 20-foot area within the permanent easement.

1.6 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under section 7 of the NGA, the Commission is required to consider, as part of its decision whether to approve facilities under Commission jurisdiction, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the FERC. These “nonjurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed project (e.g., a new or expanded power plant at the end of a pipeline that is not under the jurisdiction of the FERC) or they may be merely associated as a minor, non-integral component of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed and operated as part of the project. The jurisdictional facilities for the Projects include the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities described in section 1.5.

CHS plans to construct a nitrogen fertilizer plant at MP 96.2 within a 646-acre site in Stutsman County. Natural gas sourced from the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would be used as feedstock at the plant. Construction of the fertilizer plant is not subject to FERC jurisdiction.

The nitrogen fertilizer plant is part of a private construction project under state and local jurisdiction. No federal lands would be required for construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant. Therefore, no cumulative federal control or responsibility is associated with the non-jurisdictional facility.

Given the proximity of CHS’ proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant to WBI Wind Ridge’s proposed meter station and pig launcher/receiver, environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the nonjurisdictional facility are addressed in this EA.

[Note: This section will be revised and expanded pending receipt of a data request from WBI Wind Ridge to CHS, Inc. regarding their facility. Other nonjurisdictional facilities that will be discussed include the electric power sources for the compressor and meter stations when available. ]

1.7 LAND REQUIREMENTS

Table 1.7-1 identifies the estimated land requirements for the Projects. Construction of the Projects would affect a total of about [TBD] acres of land, including the pipeline facilities, additional temporary workspace (ATWS), staging areas, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Of the [TBD] acres, [TBD] acres would be retained for operation of the facilities. The remaining [TBD] acres would revert to prior uses.

1.7.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Following construction, a 50-foot wide permanent easement would be retained for pipeline operations; the remainder of the construction right-of-way would be restored to pre-existing conditions. In total, construction of the pipeline would require about 1,139.0 acres, of which about 564.6 acres would be retained as permanent easement. Appendix A provides typical pipeline construction right-of-way cross sections.

1.7.2 Additional Temporary Workspace

ATWS outside of the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way would be required for certain road and railroad crossings; points of inflection along the route; areas where special construction methods would be implemented (e.g., the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method); and areas where additional space is needed for storage of stripped topsoil. In total, use of ATWS during construction would affect approximately 100.1 acres, all of which would be restored to preconstruction condition. A list of ATWS areas is provided in table B-1 in appendix B.

1.7.3 Staging Areas

WBI Wind Ridge would require six staging areas for office trailers, parking, vehicle maintenance, and storage of pipe and equipment during construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project (see table 1.7- 1). Locations of the staging areas are depicted on the Project route maps provided in appendix A.

As shown in table 1.7-1, use of the staging areas would affect approximately 92.3 acres. Preparation of the staging areas would consist of topsoil segregation and minor grading and leveling. Once construction is complete, the land within the staging areas would be restored to preconstruction conditions. There would be no permanent impacts in these areas.

TABLE 1.7-1

Summary of Land Requirements a Land Affected During Land Affected During Facility County Construction (acres) Operation (acres)

PIPELINE FACILITIES Pipeline right-of-way b McIntosh 297.9 148.0 Logan 321.4 160.0 LaMoure 122.5 61.0 Stutsman 397.2 195.6 Subtotal 1,139.0 564.6 Additional temporary workspace areas McIntosh 24.9 0.0 Logan 21.3 0.0 LaMoure 8.2 0.0 Stutsman 45.7 0.0 Subtotal 100.1 0.0 Staging areas Staging Area 1, MP 0.0 McIntosh 10.0 0.0 Staging Area 2, MP 11.7 McIntosh 10.0 0.0 Staging Area 3, MP 29.4 Logan 6.0 0.0 Staging Area 4, MP 51.8 Logan 20.1 0.0 Staging Area 5, MP 74.3 Stutsman 16.1 0.0 Staging Area 6, MP 92.9 Stutsman 30.0 0.0 Subtotal 92.3 0.0 Other work areas Temporary access roads Multiple 51.8 0.0 Permanent access roads Multiple TBD TBD Subtotal PIPELINE FACILITIES TOTAL TBD TBD ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES Spiritwood Compressor Station Stutsman 10.0 10.0 Meter stations Tie-in with NBPL McIntosh 2.0 2.0 Nitrogen fertilizer plant c Stutsman TBD 0.2 Block valves d Block Valve 1 McIntosh 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 2 McIntosh 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 3 Logan 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 4 Logan 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 5 LaMoure 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 6 Stutsman 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 7 Stutsman 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 8 Stutsman 0.0 0.0

TABLE 1.7-1 (cont’d) Summary of Land Requirements a Land Affected During Land Affected During Facility County Construction (acres) Operation (acres) Pig launcher/receiver e McIntosh 0.0 0.0 Pig launcher/receiver e Logan 0.0 0.0 Pig launcher/receiver e Stutsman 0.0 0.0 ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES TOTAL TBD TBD PROJECT TOTAL TBD TBD ______a The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the sum of the addends. b Based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Operation acreage is based on a 50-foot-wide permanently maintained right-of-way in all areas. c The meter station would be constructed and operated within the area associated with the temporary and permanent pipeline right-of-way or company acquired property. d Each block valve would be constructed within the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and operated within the 50-foot- wide permanent easement. No additional land would be required for construction or operation of these facilities. e The pig launcher and pig receiver sites would be constructed and operated within the meter station sites at MPs 0.0 and 96.2 and within the permanent easement at MP [TBD].

1.7.4 Temporary and Permanent Access Roads

WBI Wind Ridge would use existing public and private access roads on a temporary basis to transport personnel, equipment, vehicles, and materials to the proposed Project work areas during construction. Standard-maintenance public roads would be used for access without modification or improvement. Some minimum maintenance public roads and private roads, however, would require improvement (such as grading, placement of gravel for stability, replacing or installing culverts, minor widening, and clearing of overhead vegetation, if present) to safely accommodate Project equipment and vehicles. A list of these roads is provided in table B-2 in appendix B and the locations of access roads are depicted on the Project route maps provided in appendix A. No new temporary access roads would need to be constructed for the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project.

Use of the temporary access roads would affect approximately 51.8 acres. If any of the temporary access roads are damaged by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, WBI Wind Ridge would restore the roads to pre-existing condition or better.

WBI Wind Ridge would construct 11 new permanent roads to provide access to the meter station at MP 96.2, the launcher/receiver at MP [TBD], and the block valves. Construction and use of the permanent access roads to the meter stations would affect approximately [TBD] acres. Construction and use of the permanent access roads to the launcher/receiver would affect approximately 0.034 acre. Construction and use of permanent access roads to the block valve sites collectively would affect about 0.28 acre of land.

1.7.5 Aboveground Facilities

The Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would impact 10.0 acres of land during construction and operation of the facility. Construction and operation of the meter station at the tie-in with NBPL and pig launcher/receiver at MP 0.0 would affect about 2.0 acres. This consists of a 416- by 208-foot area that would be fenced and maintained for operation of the facilities. In addition, a XX- by XX-foot area would be used to construct a permanent access road to the facility.

Construction and operation of the meter station and pig launcher/receiver at MP 96.2 would affect about [TBD] acres within the proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant site. This includes a 100- by 80-foot

(0.2 acre) area that would be fenced and maintained for operation of the meter station and pig launcher/receiver facility. The remainder consists of temporary workspace that would be [TBD] (with the exception of the permanent access road indicated above).

The third pig launcher/receiver would be constructed within the 100-foot-wide construction right- of-way for the pipeline and operated within the 50-foot-wide permanent easement. A 30- by 60-foot area (less than 0.1 acre) within the permanent pipeline easement would be fenced and maintained for this launcher/receiver. No additional land would be affected by construction or operation of this facility.

The block valves would be constructed within the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipeline and operated within the 50-foot-wide permanent easement; therefore, no additional land would be affected by construction or operation of these facilities. A 10- by 20-foot (less than 0.1 acre) area within the permanent pipeline easement would be fenced and maintained for each of the block valves.

1.8 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND WORKFORCE

WBI Wind Ridge plans to start construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project in July 2016 subject to the receipt of necessary permits and regulatory approvals and complete construction by December 2016. WBI Wind Ridge currently anticipates that construction of the proposed pipeline would be accomplished using two construction spreads with a peak temporary work force of about 400 people in total, including inspection crews. Once construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project is complete, WBI Wind Ridge anticipates hiring one new employee to assist in operation and maintenance of the new facilities.

WBI Transmission plans to start construction of the Spiritwood Compressor Station in April 2016 subject to the receipt of necessary permits and regulatory approvals. Construction of the compressor station would be completed by December 2016. WBI Transmission currently anticipates that construction of the proposed compressor station would require 18 workers. Local workers would be hired when practicable. Once construction of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project is complete, WBI Transmission does not anticipate hiring any new employees to assist in operation and maintenance of the new facilities.

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission propose to place the Projects in-service by January 2017.

1.9 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, tested, operated, and maintained in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Minimum Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards and 18 CFR Part 380, FERC’s Regulations Implementing NEPA (including section 380.15, Siting and Maintenance Requirements).

This section describes the construction procedures proposed by WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission for construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The Applicants would construct, restore, and maintain the Projects in accordance with the FERC’s Upland Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures). The Applicants have identified several alternative measures to the FERC Plan and Procedures (see section 2.X.X).

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission would implement provisions filed in Project-specific construction, restoration, and mitigation plans prepared for the Projects. These include the plans listed in

table 1.9-1. This table also provides a description and/or status of each plan. We have reviewed the Applicants’ construction, restoration, and mitigation plans, and find them [insert conclusion].

TABLE 1.9-1

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission Plans for the Projects Plan Name General Description Location(s)/Status a Aerial Alignment Sheets Aerial photograph-based drawings Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind depicting proposed construction and Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). operational workspace for the proposed Accession no. XX. pipeline Winter Stabilization Plan Measures to implement until final Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind restoration can be completed Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). Accession no. XX. Spill Prevention, Containment Measures to address inadvertent chemical Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind and Countermeasures (SPCC) and fuel spills Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). Plan Accession no. XX. Blasting Plan Measures to implement in the event that Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind blasting is necessary during trench Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). excavation Accession no. XX. Horizontal Directional Drill Measures to contain the inadvertent Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind Drilling Fluid Monitoring and releases of drilling mud for water bodies Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). Operations Plan that are crossed using HDD techniques Accession no. XX. Fugitive Dust Plan Measures to minimize and control the Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind generation of fugitive dust during Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). construction Accession no. XX Contaminated Soil Plan Measures to implement if contaminated Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind soils or other undocumented hazardous Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). materials are discovered during Accession no. XX. construction and/or maintenance of the pipeline and aboveground facilities Noxious Weeds Management Measures to avoid and control the Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind Plan establishment of invasive species in the Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). construction right-of-way Accession no. XX. Plan for Unanticipated State-specific measures that the Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind Discovery of Historic Properties Applicants would implement should Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). and Human Remains during previously unidentified cultural resources Accession no. XX. Construction be discovered during construction Plan for Unanticipated State-specific measures to be taken in Filed on March XX, 2015 as part of WBI Wind Discovery of Paleontological the event that paleontological resources Ridge’s FERC application (Volume XX). Resources during Construction are discovered during Project-related Accession no. XX. activities ______a These plans are too voluminous to include in this EA but can be viewed on the FERC website at http://www.ferc.gov. Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter CP15-XX in the “Docket Number” field. Be sure to select an appropriate date range. Direct access can be obtained by entering the Accession Number into the “Numbers” field of the “Advanced Search” option from the eLibrary menu.

1.9.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures

Construction of the proposed pipeline would follow industry-standard practices and procedures as described below. In a typical scenario, construction involves a series of discrete activities conducted in a linear sequence. These include survey and staking; clearing and grading; pipe stringing, bending, and welding; trenching; lowering-in and backfilling; hydrostatic testing; final tie-in; commissioning; and right-of-way cleanup and restoration. Figure 1.9.1-1 illustrates each of the steps in a typical construction scenario. A description of each step in the process is provided below.

Insert figure 1.9.1-1 – Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

Survey and Staking

Affected landowners would be notified before preconstruction survey and staking are conducted. After these notifications, WBI Wind Ridge’s survey contractor would stake the pipeline centerline and the limits of the construction right-of-way and ATWS areas. Additionally, the survey contractor would flag the location of approved access roads. Wetland boundaries and other environmentally sensitive areas also would be marked at this time. The survey contractor additionally would cut and brace fences along the right-of-way if necessary for preconstruction survey.

Clearing and Grading

Prior to beginning ground-disturbing activities, WBI Wind Ridge’s contractor would coordinate with the North Dakota One-Call system to have existing underground utilities (i.e., cables, conduits, and pipelines) identified and flagged. Once this process is complete, a clearing crew would clear the work area of vegetation and other obstacles, including trees (if necessary), stumps, logs, brush, and rocks. If tree removal is required, to the extent feasible, WBI Wind Ridge would minimize tree removal during construction. Cleared vegetation and stumps would be burned, chipped (except in wetlands), hauled offsite to a commercial disposal facility, or left in place at the request of the landowner. Burning would be conducted in accordance with state and local burning requirements or permits.

Following clearing, the construction right-of-way and ATWS would be graded where necessary to provide a level work surface to allow safe passage of construction equipment and emergency vehicles. Topsoil would be segregated in accordance with the FERC Plan and Procedures. If the ground is relatively flat and does not require topsoil segregation or grading, rootstock would be left in the ground to facilitate restoration of the right-of-way. In areas disturbed by grading, and as required by the FERC Plan and Procedures, temporary erosion and sediment controls would be installed within the right-of-way to minimize erosion. These erosion and sediment controls would be inspected and maintained throughout the construction and restoration phases of the Project, as appropriate, and as required by the FERC Plan and Procedures.

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding

Individual joints of pipe would be trucked to the construction right-of-way and strung along the trenchline in a single, continuous line. Individual sections of pipe would be bent, where necessary, to allow for a uniform fit with the contours at the bottom of the trench and horizontal points of inflection. Typically, a track-mounted, hydraulic pipe-bending machine would tailor the shape of the pipe to conform to the contours of the terrain. After the pipe sections are bent, they would be welded together into long sections and placed on temporary supports. Welding would be conducted in compliance with Title 49 CFR Part 192 and American Petroleum Institute Standard 1104 Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities. Completed welds would be visually and radiographically inspected, and all pipe welds would be coated in accordance with required specifications. The coating would be inspected for defects, and repaired, if necessary, prior to lowering the pipe into the trench.

Trenching

Trenching, which involves excavating a ditch for the pipeline, would be conducted with rotary trenching machines, track-mounted backhoes, or other similar equipment. Trench spoil would be deposited adjacent to the trench within the construction right-of-way, and adjacent to the topsoil pile. The trench would be excavated to a depth that provides sufficient cover over the pipeline after backfilling. Typically, the trench would be excavated to a depth of about 6 feet to allow for a normal depth of cover of 4 feet over the pipeline, or any appurtenances, after construction. Additional cover would be provided at road crossings and railroad crossings for a minimum depth of cover of 5 feet, and at waterbody crossings

for a minimum depth of cover of 5 to 10 feet. The bottom width of the trench would be sufficient to accommodate the pipeline. The width at the top of the trench would vary to allow the side slopes to be adapted to local conditions at the time of construction. If trench dewatering is required within or off of the construction right-of-way, it would be conducted in a manner that would not cause erosion or result in silt-laden water flowing into any waterbody or wetland.

Lowering-in and Backfilling

Prior to lowering-in, the trench would be inspected to ensure it is free of rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or its protective coating. It also would be checked for wildlife that may be trapped at the bottom of the trench. The pipe would then be lifted from the temporary supports and lowered into the trench using side-boom tractors. As necessary, trench breakers (stacked sand bags or foam) would be installed in the trench around the pipe in steeply sloped areas to prevent movement of subsurface water along the pipeline. After lowering-in, the trench would be backfilled with previously excavated materials using bladed equipment or backhoes. If the excavated material is rocky, the pipeline will be protected with a rock shield or covered with more suitable fill. Clean fill may be obtained by removing rock from the excavated spoil or by importation of suitable fill material. Topsoil will not be used to pad the pipe.

Hydrostatic Testing

After backfilling, the entire pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in sections to ensure that the system is free from leaks and would provide the required margin of safety at operating pressures. Individual sections of pipeline to be tested would be determined by terrain conditions. Internal test pressures and durations would be in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 192 and applicable permit conditions. If leaks are found, the defect would be repaired, and the section of pipe retested until all required specifications are met. The water used for testing would be discharged back to the source or to well vegetated upland areas in accordance the Plan, Procedures, and applicable permit conditions. Additional information on hydrostatic testing is provided in section 2.2.

Final Tie-in and Commissioning

After hydrostatic testing, the final pipeline tie-in would be completed and commissioning would commence. Commissioning involves activities to verify that equipment is properly installed and working, controls and communications systems are functional, and the pipeline is ready for service. The pipeline would be cleaned, dried, and inspected using in-line inspection tools (pigs) to detect anomalies in the pipe that may have been introduced during construction, and prepared for service by purging the line of air and loading the line with natural gas.

Cleanup and Restoration

Final cleanup would begin after backfilling and as soon as weather and site conditions permit. Every reasonable effort would be made to complete final cleanup (including final grading and installation of permanent erosion control devices) within timeframes required by permits, in accordance with landowner requests, or as required by the FERC Plan and Procedures.

During clean-up, construction debris would be collected and taken to a disposal facility. Preconstruction contours would be restored to pre-existing conditions as closely as possible. Segregated topsoil would be spread over the surface of the right-of-way and permanent erosion controls would be installed. Revegetation measures would be implemented in accordance with the FERC Plan and Procedures.

Markers showing the location of the pipeline would be installed at fence and road crossings to identify WBI Wind Ridge as the owner of the pipeline and convey emergency information in accordance with applicable government regulations, including USDOT safety requirements.

1.9.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures

In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, WBI Wind Ridge would use special construction techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used when constructing across waterbodies; wetlands; roads and railroads; agricultural areas; side slopes; and when blasting through rock (if necessary). Each of these specialized measures is described below.

The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project does not cross residential areas nor is any construction work area located within 50 feet of a residence.

Waterbody Crossings

For waterbodies that are not proposed to be crossed using the HDD method, WBI Wind Ridge would use a wet open cut method if no flow is present at the time of the crossing and would use the flume or dam-and-pump methods when flow is present. In each case and for each method, WBI Wind Ridge would adhere to measures specified in the Procedures as well as any additional requirements that may be specified in federal or state waterbody crossing permits.

WBI Wind Ridge would install temporary equipment bridges to reduce the potential for turbidity and sedimentation resulting from construction equipment and vehicular traffic crossing waterbodies. Equipment bridges would be designed to accommodate normal to high stream flow and would be maintained to prevent restriction of flow during the period of time the bridge is in place. Equipment bridges would be maintained throughout construction and removed, in accordance with the Procedures, once construction is complete.

A complete list of the waterbodies along the pipeline route, and the construction method proposed for each crossing, is provided in table C-1 in appendix C.

Crossing Methods

Crossings of flowing waterbodies would be accomplished using the HDD, flume, or dam-and- pump methods. Waterbodies with no perceptible flow at the time of construction would be crossed using the wet open cut method. Spoil excavated from the trench would be placed on the bank above the high water mark for use as backfill. A prefabricated segment of pipeline would then be placed into the trench using side-boom tractors. Concrete coating or set-on weights would be utilized, as necessary, to provide negative buoyancy for the pipeline. Once the trench is backfilled, the banks would be restored as near as practicable to preconstruction contours and stabilized. Stabilization measures would include seeding, installation of erosion control blankets, or installation of riprap materials, as appropriate. Excavated material not required for backfill would be removed and disposed of at upland disposal sites.

Throughout the construction process, WBI Wind Ridge would follow the Procedures to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality. Construction activities would be scheduled so that the trench is not excavated across the waterbody until immediately prior to pipe laying activities. The duration of in- stream construction activities (excluding blasting, if required) would be limited to 24 hours across minor waterbodies (those 10 feet in width or less) and 48 hours across intermediate waterbodies (those between 10 and 100 feet in width). Excavated spoil would be stockpiled at least 10 feet from the edge of the waterbody, and appropriate erosion control devices would be installed in the field.

Horizontal Directional Drill Method

The HDD method is a process that allows for trenchless construction across an area by drilling a hole below the depth of a conventional lay, and then pulling a prefabricated section of pipe through the hole. The method is sometimes used to avoid direct impacts on sensitive environmental features or areas that otherwise present difficulties for standard pipeline construction. HDD is proposed for the James River and Seven Mile Coulee at about MP 87.0. A site-specific crossing plan for this HDD is provided in appendix D.

For HDD crossings, one method to steer the drill head is to hand-lay electric-grid guide wires along the pipeline centerline to create an electromagnetic sensor grid that would help the operator control the drill head. In thickly vegetated areas, a small pathway approximately 2 to 3 feet wide may be cut using hand tools to lay the electric-grid guide wires resulting in minimal ground and vegetation disturbance. No large trees would be cut as part of this process. Other steering techniques may be employed, pending the selection of HDD contractors.

To begin each crossing, a drill rig would be placed on the entry side of the HDD and a small pilot hole would be drilled along a predetermined path beneath the waterbody. Electromagnetic sensors located on the tip of the drill bit would allow the operator to follow the sensor grid along the prescribed path. Once the pilot hole is completed, the sensor grid would be removed and the hole would be enlarged through a process called reaming. A reaming tool would be installed at the end of the drill string on the exit side of the pilot hole, and then drawn back to the drill rig to enlarge the hole. Several passes with progressively larger reaming tools may be required to enlarge the hole to a sufficient diameter to accommodate the pipeline. During this process, drilling fluid, or mud, consisting of in-situ material and water (and possibly bentonite clay) would be circulated through the hole to remove drill cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole. Once the reaming process is complete, a prefabricated segment of pipe would be attached to the drill string on the exit side of the crossing, and pulled back through the hole toward the drill rig. The pipe segment would be hydrostatically tested prior to its installation, and once installed, connected on either side of the crossing to adjoining sections of pipe. The pipe segment would be hydrostatically tested a second time with the remainder of the pipeline system.

Although the HDD method typically avoids impacts on water quality by precluding disturbance of the waterbody bed and banks, an unintended release of drilling mud (referred to as an inadvertent return) could occur if drilling fluids escape the drill hole and are forced through the subsurface substrate to the ground surface. In order to minimize potential impacts of inadvertent releases of drilling fluids, WBI Wind Ridge would implement the measures identified in its Horizontal Directional Drill Drilling Fluid Monitoring and Operations Plan. This plan describes procedures to be used to monitor, contain, and clean up any potential releases of drilling fluid. It also identifies contingency measures to be implemented in the event that an HDD is unsuccessful.

To date, WBI Wind Ridge has not provided a contingency plan that incorporates another location or another construction methodology for this HDD crossing. Therefore, if an HDD in its proposed location proves unsuccessful, WBI Wind Ridge would be required to identify a new location for the crossing or new methodology, and request approval for the new location or methodology with all applicable agencies (see section 2.2.2).

Flume Method

The flume method consists of installing temporary dams upstream and downstream of a proposed crossing and temporarily directing water flows through one or more flume pipes placed over the area to be excavated. This method allows for trenching activities to occur under relatively dry conditions beneath the flume pipes, avoiding disruption to water flow.

Dam-and-Pump Method

The dam-and-pump method consists of installing temporary dams upstream and downstream of a proposed crossing. The dams are typically constructed of sandbags and plastic sheeting. Following installation of the dams, pumps are used to dewater the excavation area and to transport stream flow around the construction work area.

Open Cut Method

The open cut method consists of excavating the pipeline trench across the waterbody, installation of the pipeline, and backfilling of the trench. Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished using excavation equipment working from the banks of the waterbody. A section of pipe long enough to span the entire crossing would be fabricated on one bank and either pulled across the bottom to the opposite bank, floated across the stream, or carried into place and submerged into the trench. The trench would then be backfilled and the bottom of the watercourse and banks restored and stabilized. Sediment barriers would be installed to prevent spoil and sediment-laden water from entering the waterbody from adjacent upland areas.

Wetland Crossings

Construction across wetlands would be conducted in accordance with the FERC Procedures, site- specific modifications to the Procedures requested by WBI Wind Ridge and approved by the FERC, and any additional requirements specified in federal or state water crossing permits. Typical methods for construction across wetlands are described below. A list of wetland crossings along the pipeline route is provided in table C-2 in appendix C.

Wetland boundaries would be delineated and marked in the field prior to construction activities. Temporary erosion control devices would be installed as necessary after initial disturbance of wetlands or adjacent upland areas to prevent sediment flow into wetlands. These devices would be maintained until revegetation of wetlands is complete. Trench plugs would be installed as necessary to maintain wetland hydrology. Construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be limited to that needed to clear the right-of-way, dig the trench, install the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the right-of-way.

In nonsaturated wetlands the top 12 inches of topsoil would be stripped from the area directly over the trenchline and stockpiled separately from the subsoil. The segregated topsoil would be restored to its original location following installation of the pipe and backfilling of the trench in accordance with the Procedures. Materials such as timber mats placed in wetlands during construction would be removed during rough grading and final clean-up, and the preconstruction contours of the wetland would be restored. Permanent erosion control measures would then be installed in accordance with the Procedures, and disturbed areas within wetlands would be temporarily stabilized with a cover species such as annual ryegrass as soon as weather conditions permit. Wetland areas would then be allowed to return to preconstruction conditions using the original seed stock contained in the conserved topsoil layer.

The specific crossing procedures used to install the pipeline across wetlands would depend on the level of soil stability and saturation encountered during construction. Construction across unsaturated wetlands that can support the weight of equipment would be conducted in a manner similar to the upland construction procedures described above. In areas that are proposed for conventional open trench construction, but where soil conditions may not support the weight of equipment, timber mats would be used to minimize disturbance to wetland hydrology and maintain soil structure.

The pull method of construction may be used in inundated or saturated conditions where wetland soils and hydrology cannot support conventional pipe laying equipment, or in areas that have significant quantities of water that would allow for the pipe to be floated through the open ditch. With this method,

construction and excavation equipment would work from temporary work surfaces and a prefabricated pipeline segment would be pulled or floated into position, or carried into place, then sunk with buoyancy control devices and placed in the trench.

Road and Railroad Crossings

Construction across paved roads, highways, unpaved county roads, and railroads would be conducted in accordance with the Plan and requirements identified in road and railroad crossing permits or approvals. Most paved roads, highways, county gravel roads, and railroads will be crossed using standard bore techniques and HDD. Typically, there is little or no disruption to traffic at road, highway, or railroad crossings during boring or HDD operations.

Two-tracks, trails, and driveways, as well as roads in areas with a high water table, would be crossed using the open-cut method and then restored to preconstruction condition. Most open-cut road crossings would be completed and the road restored in a few days.

Crossings of roads and railroads would be uncased unless a casing is required by the appropriate regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the crossing. For all road and railroad crossings, the pipeline has been designed in accordance with USDOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 192, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ code (B31.8) for gas transmission and distribution piping systems, and the American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended Practice 1102 for steel pipelines crossing railroads and highways. Uncased crossings are preferred over cased crossings due to the increased potential for problems with installation, the cathodic protection system, and corrosion on cased crossings.

Agricultural Areas

In active croplands, pastures, rangeland, or hayfields, topsoil would be stripped and segregated in accordance with the Plan. Topsoil typically would be stripped over the trench plus spoil storage area. Following pipeline installation, the subsoil would be returned to the ditch and the topsoil replaced in the area from which it was stripped. As necessary, the working side of the right-of-way would be de- compacted prior to final grading and restoration.

Where livestock fences (including electric fences) need to be cut to access the construction right- of-way, WBI Wind Ridge would brace and secure the fencing prior to construction, and would repair the fences to preconstruction condition or better during the restoration phase of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. Further, WBI Wind Ridge would work with landowners either to remove livestock to alternate fields during construction or maintain adequate fencing in grazing areas. If cattle are present during construction, WBI Wind Ridge would install temporary fencing around the right-of-way in areas where the pipe trench is left open overnight. WBI Wind Ridge additionally would negotiate with landowners regarding a potential grazing deferment to allow vegetation to establish within the right-of-way after construction is complete.

To date, no drainage or irrigation facilities have been identified along the proposed pipeline route as a result of landowner consultations or field surveys. If any such facilities are discovered and disturbed during construction, WBI Wind Ridge would restore them to preconstruction condition or better through the disturbed area.

Side Slopes

Although the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would not require construction in rugged terrain (e.g., in mountains or canyons), portions of the pipeline would cross areas of steep side slope or rolling terrain that may require the use of cut-and-fill grading to provide for safe working conditions. In these areas, grading activities would cut down the upslope side of the construction right-of-way. Material from the

cutting would be used to fill the downslope side of the construction right-of-way to create a safe and level surface for travel lanes and equipment operation. Additional temporary right-of-way may be required on steep side slopes to allow for passage of construction equipment and emergency vehicles. The trench would be excavated from the newly graded right-of-way. Following pipeline installation and backfilling, the excavated material would be placed back on the area of the cut and compacted to restore the surface of the right-of-way to original contours. Stabilization of the surface would be conducted in accordance with the Plan.

In areas of steep side slope or rolling terrain, temporary sediment barriers such as silt fences and straw bales would be installed to prevent the movement of disturbed soil off the right-of-way. Temporary slope breakers consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the right-of-way during construction in accordance with the Plan. Permanent slope breakers would be installed during final cleanup or as soon as weather conditions permit. Following construction, restoration would be completed in accordance with the Plan.

Blasting

WBI Wind Ridge does not expect that blasting would be required during construction; however, if shallow bedrock or boulders are encountered that cannot be removed by conventional methods, blasting may be necessary. In these cases, WBI Wind Ridge would conduct blasting in accordance with pertinent regulations and its Blasting Plan (see section 2.1.1).

Strict safety precautions would be adhered to if blasting is required to clear the right-of-way and fracture the ditch. Extreme care would be exercised to avoid damage to underground structures, cables, conduits, pipelines, and underground watercourses or springs. WBI Wind Ridge would provide adequate notice to adjacent landowners or tenants in advance of blasting to protect property or livestock. Blasting activity would be performed during daylight hours and in compliance with federal, state, and local codes and ordinances, the manufacturers’ prescribed safety procedures, and standard industry practices.

Winter Stabilization

WBI Wind Ridge expects that construction of the pipeline would be completed by December 2016. In lieu of performing final clean-up and restoration before winter frozen conditions set in, WBI would implement measures to temporarily stabilize the right-of-way and other disturbed areas in accordance with its Winter Stabilization Plan. These measures and procedures include how the areas would be monitored until weather and soil conditions are favorable to conduct final clean-up and restoration. WBI Wind Ridge would provide notice of the winter stabilization and monitoring activities the appropriate landowners and agencies.

1.9.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures

1.9.3.1 Spiritwood Compressor Station

Construction of the proposed compressor station would include a standard sequence of events. Construction would begin with clearing and grading of the sites to establish level grades for the facilities and establishment of erosion controls similar to what was described for the pipeline facilities. Subsequent construction activities would include preparing foundations, installing underground piping, erecting and installing buildings, installing aboveground piping and equipment, testing the piping, testing the control equipment, cleaning up the work area, and graveling access roads and parking areas. WBI Transmission proposes to perform the final grading and landscaping of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project site after the completion of the construction activities and the start-up and testing of the new compressor unit, or as soon thereafter as weather and other conditions permit. A permanent security fence, which is anticipated to be about [TBD] feet high, would be installed around the compressor station site. The

driveway, parking areas, and portions of the meter and other piping runs will be covered with 3 to 4 inches of gravel to help control unwanted vegetation. Other areas within the fence not occupied by the buildings or other aboveground facilities will be restored to lawn or other landscaping. In addition, shrubs and trees will be planted along portions of the site to provide visual screening of the facility. Safety and control devices would be installed and tested prior to operation.

1.9.3.2 Meter Station and Pig Launcher/Receiver

Construction of the proposed meter station and pig launcher/receiver facilities would begin with clearing and grading of the sites to establish level grades for the facilities. Subsequent construction activities would include preparing foundations, installing underground piping, erecting and installing buildings, installing aboveground piping and equipment, testing the piping, testing the control equipment, cleaning up the work area, and graveling access roads and parking areas. Once construction is complete, areas within the fence line but outside the new facilities would be covered with gravel or maintained in an herbaceous state. Each station site would be fenced for security. Safety and control devices would be installed and tested prior to operation.

1.9.3.3 Block Valves

Construction of block valves would include grading, installing the underground assembly, testing the control equipment, cleaning up the work area, and graveling the site area. Block valve construction would be concurrent with the construction of the pipeline, with installation of the block valves after hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. At each site, the disturbed area would be stabilized with gravel within a fenced enclosure and by seeding with appropriate species outside the fence.

1.10 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The Applicants state that they would minimize environmental impacts by complying with applicable permits and approvals, as well as the Plan, Procedures, and other environmental plans or requirements described in this EA. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission would train company and contractor personnel to familiarize them with environmental plans and other conditions, and provide Environmental Inspectors (EI) to monitor compliance during construction. WBI Wind Ridge would assign two EIs per spread to the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, with additional inspectors as necessary, to monitor environmental compliance. WBI Transmission, in coordination with WBI Wind Ridge, would assign one EI to the Spiritwood Compressor Station. Prior to construction, WBI Wind Ridge would conduct environmental training for company and contractor supervisory personnel. The training program would focus on the FERC Plan and Procedures; Project-specific Certificate and permit conditions; and Project-specific construction, restoration, and mitigation plans. In addition, the Applicants would provide large-group training sessions before each work crew begins construction. Periodic follow-up training for groups of newly assigned personnel would be provided as necessary by the EIs.

The Applicants EIs would have peer status with other inspectors and would report directly to the chief inspector. The EIs’ responsibilities would be as specified in the Plan, and would include, but not be limited to, the following:

 monitoring the contractor’s compliance with environmental measures required by the Certificate; other permits or approvals; the FERC Plan and Procedures; and all other construction, restoration, and mitigation plans;

 taking corrective actions, including issuing stop-activity orders;

 documenting compliance with environmental requirements; and

 preparing status reports for submittal to the Commission’s environmental staff. The EIs will also act as liaisons between WBI Wind Ridge/WBI Transmission and representatives of environmental regulatory agencies that may visit the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project/Spiritwood Compressor Station Project during construction.

[Note: Need to discuss with FERC whether they will require a third-party construction compliance monitoring program for the Projects.]

1.11 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission would operate and maintain the new pipeline and aboveground facilities in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements, including the minimum federal safety standards identified in Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline, Title 49 CFR Part 192. Operation and maintenance of the facilities would be performed by or at the direction of WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission.

The pipeline would be inspected periodically on foot or by vehicle as required by applicable regulatory requirements to identify potential concerns that may affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. Pipeline markers and signs would be inspected and maintained or replaced, as necessary, to ensure that pipeline locations are clearly identified. Field personnel would advise the appropriate operations personnel of new construction along or near the pipeline system. Line patrol of highway and railroad crossings would be completed as required by the USDOT. Block valves would also be inspected on an annual basis. If pipeline patrols or vegetation maintenance identify areas on the right-of-way where erosion is occurring, WBI Wind Ridge would repair existing erosion control devices or install additional devices as necessary to stabilize the area and prevent future erosion.

In order to maintain accessibility of the right-of-way and to accommodate pipeline integrity surveys, vegetation along the pipeline right-of-way would be cleared periodically, and as necessary, in accordance with the FERC Plan and Procedures (except in areas crossed by HDD where vegetation maintenance will not be conducted). Active cropland would be allowed to revert to preconstruction use for the full width of the right-of-way. In non-cultivated uplands, the entire 50-foot-wide permanent easement would be maintained in an herbaceous state. In wetlands, the Procedures allow for a 10-foot- wide corridor centered over the pipeline to be permanently maintained in an herbaceous state, and trees greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet of the pipeline may be cut and removed from the right-of- way. Where necessary and when required, WBI Wind Ridge typically would use mechanical mowing or cutting along its right-of-way for normal vegetation maintenance.

The aboveground facilities would be inspected periodically as required by applicable regulatory requirements to identify potential concerns that may affect the safety and operation of the facility. The inspection activities would include calibration, inspection, and scheduled and routine maintenance. Operational testing will be performed on safety equipment to ensure proper functioning, and problems will be corrected.

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission would adhere to the operations and maintenance procedures described in the FERC Plan and Procedures, subject to any modifications approved by the FERC, in the vicinity of waterbodies, wetlands, and upland areas. Further, operation and maintenance procedures, including record keeping, would be performed in accordance with USDOT requirements.

1.12 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND CONSULTATIONS

Table 1.12-1 lists the major federal state, and local environmental permits, approvals, and consultations required to construct and operate the Projects, along with the status of each permit or approval.

TABLE 1.12-1

Major Environmental Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Submittal Date Approval Date Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation (Anticipated) (Anticipated) Federal Federal Energy Regulatory Certificate of Public Convenience and (March 2015) (November 2015) Commission Necessity under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit for the discharge of dredge or fill (March 2015) (September 2015) – Omaha District material into waters of the U.S. under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and for activities affecting navigable waters under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultations for impacts on federally listed September 2014 (March 2015) – Region 6 – North Dakota threatened and endangered species and Field Office critical habitat under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Request for Compatibility Determination to (March 2015) (September 2015) – Region 6 – Kulm and Chase cross wetland and grassland conservation Lake Wetland Management easements held by the U.S. Fish and Districts Wildlife Service, if required U.S. Department of Consultations regarding erosion and December 2014 (February 2015) Agriculture, Natural sedimentation controls and seed mixes, , Resources Conservation and Wetland Reserve Program Service – North Dakota U.S. Department of Consultation for impacts on lands enrolled in (February 2015) (April 2015) Agriculture, Farm Service the Conservation Reserve Program Agency Advisory Council on Historic Consultation under section 106 of the -- -- Preservation National Historic Preservation Act if the Projects would affect historic properties North Dakota North Dakota Department of General Permit for Construction Stormwater (May 2016) (June 2016) Health, Division of Water Discharge under the National Pollution Quality Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Construction Dewatering (May 2016) (June 2016) and Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Water Quality Certificate under section 401 (March 2015) (September 2015) of the Clean Water Act North Dakota State Water Navigable Water Crossing Permit under (March 2015) (May 2015) Commission North Dakota Century Code Chapter 61-33 (Sovereign Lands) and conditional Water appropriation permit for withdrawals (May 2016) (June 2016) associated with drilling mud North Dakota Department of Consultation for impacts on state species of October 2014 (February 2015) Game and Fish conservation concern North Dakota Parks and Consultation under the North Dakota October 2014 (March 2015) Recreation Department Natural Heritage Program State Historical Society of Consultation for impacts on historic May 2014 (January 2016) North Dakota properties under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

2.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY

2.1.1 Geology

The proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects are located within two major physiographic provinces, the Drift Prairie and the Missouri Coteau in south-central North Dakota. Both the Missouri Coteau and the Drift Prairie are part of an area known as the Prairie Pothole Region due to the high density of wetlands created by the glacial land features. Elevations along the proposed pipeline route range from a low of 1,366 feet above sea level near MP 87.0 to a high of 2,205 feet above sea level near MP 9.0. Elevations within the Spiritwood Compressor Station range from 1,475 feet to 1,485 feet above sea level.

The Project area is underlain by Precambrian basement rock at depths exceeding 2,000 feet in the entire Project area with depth to bedrock increasing westward along the pipeline (Anderson, 2012; Bluemle, 1988). The Precambrian basement rock is overlain by sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic age. The Project area is primarily underlain by Pierre Formation bedrock and to a lesser extent, Fox Hills Formation bedrock (Bluemle, 1988). The bedrock of the area dips in a westerly direction. The bedrock units are overlain by glacial deposits in areas where they are not exposed in small, localized outcrops (Bluemle, 1977). The western part of the Project area in Logan and McIntosh Counties includes both Fox Hills and Pierre shale, whereas LaMoure and Stutsman Counties are entirely Pierre shale (North Dakota Geographic Information Systems, 2014). The surficial geology of the Project area consists primarily of glacial drift of Late Wisconsin age or later (Winters, 1963).

Table 2.1.1-1 lists the locations where the pipeline route crosses shallow bedrock, all of which are located in McIntosh County. Based on an analysis of county soils data, only 1.1 miles of the proposed pipeline route crosses areas with bedrock at depths of less than 60 inches (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2013a, 2013b). These areas all occur in McIntosh County and consist of the Amor, Reeder, Regent, and Vebar series soils, which are shallow, well-drained, moderately permeable soils.

TABLE 2.1.1-1

Shallow Bedrock Along the Proposed Pipeline Route a Approximate Approximate Crossing Depth to Bedrock Bedrock Milepost Start Milepost End Length (Feet) (inches) Type b 8.6 8.9 1,200 20 to 40 Soft 9.0 9.3 1,147 10 to 40 Soft 9.4 9.8 1,390 10 to 40 Soft 10.0 10.1 565 20 to 40 Soft 10.5 10.6 396 20 to 40 Soft 11.3 11.4 185 20 to 40 Soft 12.8 13.0 721 20 to 40 Soft 13.1 13.1 283 20 to 40 Soft Project Total 5,887 ______a Based on soil mapping units that contain bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface as identified by the USDA – Natural Resource Conservation Service. b Soft = Rippable with standard construction equipment; would not likely require blasting.

Because of the soft texture of this bedrock, WBI Wind Ridge does not expect that blasting would be required during construction; however, if shallow bedrock or boulders are encountered that cannot be removed by conventional methods, blasting may be necessary. In these cases, WBI Wind Ridge would conduct blasting in accordance with pertinent regulations and its Blasting Plan.

While oil and gas resources are abundant in the state, no oil or gas wells occur in the counties crossed by the Projects (North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, 2014). There are no oil or gas wells located within 0.25 mile of the proposed Projects’ facilities. Sand and gravel is the third largest mineral industry in the state after oil and gas and lignite (Murphy, 2014). Two counties within the Project area, Stutsman and LaMoure, are producing areas of construction sand and gravel (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2013); however, no active sand and gravel operations would be affected by the Projects.

The risk of seismic-related events in or near the Project area is very low. Probabilistic hazard maps for the area indicate a 2 percent probability of experiencing an earthquake with an effective peak ground acceleration of between 2 to 4 percent gravity in a 50-year period (2,475-year return period) (USGS, 2014). Additionally, there are no Quaternary faults or Quaternary fault areas mapped within North Dakota (USGS, 2015). Due to the low risk of a significant earthquake, or other rapid loading event, there is a corresponding low risk of a soil liquefaction hazard in the Project area.

There are no karst features, recent subsidence events, or high risk subsidence areas mapped in or near the Project area (National Map, 2015). Therefore, there is little risk to the pipeline or aboveground facilities from ground subsidence.

The Project area is located entirely within a region of low incidence for landslides. In general, the physiographic provinces affected by the Projects are unlikely to experience landslides due to the low relief (Radbruch-Hall et al., 1982).

We have reviewed WBI Wind Ridge’s Blasting Plan and find it acceptable. We further conclude that impacts on geological resources would not occur or would be adequately minimized and, therefore, are not significant. Furthermore, we do not anticipate any geologic hazard impacts on the Project facilities.

2.1.2 Soils

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission identified and assessed soil characteristics in the Project area using the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO; USDA, 2013a), which is a digital version of the original county soil surveys developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for use with geographic information systems (GIS).

2.1.2.1 Pipeline Facilities

Table 2.1.2-1 provides a summary of the significant soil characteristics that would be crossed by pipeline facilities in each county. Individual soil characteristics and the mitigation measures that would be employed for each characteristic are discussed separately below.

The USDA defines prime farmland as “land that is best suited to food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops” (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). This designation includes cultivated land, pasture, woodland, or other lands (excluding urban land and open water) that are either used for food or fiber crops or are available for these uses. Prime farmland typically contains few or no rocks, is permeable to water and air, is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and is not subject to frequent, prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that do not meet the above criteria may be

considered prime farmland if a limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., saturated soils that are mitigated through artificial drainage). In addition, soils that do not meet all of the requirements to be considered prime farmland may be considered soils of statewide importance if they are capable of producing a high yield of crops when treated or managed according to accepted farming methods.

TABLE 2.1.2-1 [Numbers to be populated when final project footprint is determined] Acres of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Proposed Pipeline a, b, c

Total Acres Prime Hydric Compaction Highly Erodible Revegetation Stony/ Shallow to County in County Farmland d Soils d Prone e Water f Wind g Concerns h Rocky i Bedrock j McIntosh [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] Logan [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] LaMoure [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] Stutsman [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] Pipeline Total [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] ______a The area affected includes the permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary pipeline right-of-way, and ATWS. The soils data in the table does not include areas of open water. b The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. c The values in each row do not add up to the total acreage for each county because soils may occur in more than one characteristic class or may not occur in any class listed in the table. d As designated by the NRCS. Prime farmland does not include those soils that are considered prime if artificial drainage is implemented due to the lack of drain tile use in the Project area. e Includes soils in somewhat poor to very poor drainage classes with surface textures of sandy clay loam and finer. f Land in capability subclasses 4E through 8E and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. g Soils with a Wind Erodibility Group classification of 1 or 2. Only a single map unit with Wind Erodibility Group 2 designation is crossed by the route. h Soils with a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser and are moderately well to excessively drained and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. i This group includes soils with a cobbley, stony, bouldery, shaly, very gravelly, or extremely gravelly modifier to the textural class of the surface layer, has a surface layer that contains greater than 5 percent by weight stones larger than 3 inches, and/or contains a layer in the subsoil meeting one of the preceding criteria. j Soils identified as containing bedrock at a depth of 5 feet or less from the surface, all of which is paralithic and rippable with standard construction equipment.

About [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are considered prime farmland. An additional [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed would be considered prime farmland if drained; however, these soils were not included under the prime farmland designation due to the limited use of artificial drainage in the Project area. An additional [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are considered farmland of statewide importance.

During construction, topsoil and subsoil would be disturbed as a result of topsoil removal, grading, trench excavation, and by heavy equipment moving along the right-of-way. The potential mixing of topsoil or surface soil with the subsoil from these activities could result in a loss of soil productivity. To prevent mixing of the soil horizons or incorporation of additional rock into the topsoil, topsoil segregation would be performed in non-saturated wetlands, agricultural lands, grasslands, and in other areas requested by the landowner. Topsoil would be removed and segregated in accordance with the Plan and Procedures, as appropriate. Implementation of proper topsoil segregation would help ensure post-construction revegetation success, thereby minimizing loss of crop productivity and the potential for long-term problems with erosion. Impacts on prime farmland soils resulting from construction and operation of the pipeline would be temporary and short term. The pipeline would be buried and the disturbed soils within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would revert to preconstruction uses.

Approximately [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed by the pipeline facilities are classified as hydric soils. Due to extended periods of saturation, hydric soils can be prone to compaction

and rutting. In addition, high groundwater levels associated with hydric soils could create a buoyancy hazard for the pipeline. WBI Wind Ridge would minimize rutting of hydric soils by using construction mats where hydric soils cannot support equipment and by employing low-ground-weight equipment in accordance with the Procedures. Special construction methods such as concrete coating of pipe or other weighting methods would be used to overcome buoyancy hazards during installation and operation of the pipeline.

Approximately [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed by the pipeline are prone to compaction. WBI Wind Ridge would minimize compaction and rutting impacts by implementing measures outlined in the Plan and Procedures (e.g., use of construction mats, employing low-ground- weight equipment, restricting construction activities in areas with unfavorable conditions, and decompaction during restoration). In addition, EIs would recommend restricting construction activities in areas with unfavorable conditions (e.g., saturated soils) to further reduce compaction and rutting. Compaction impacts would be mitigated through the use of deep tillage operations during restoration using a paraplow or similar implement. In areas where topsoil segregation occurs, plowing to alleviate subsoil compaction would be conducted before replacement of the topsoil.

Only [TBD] percent of the soils that would be affected by the pipeline are considered highly wind erodible. Therefore, significant impacts from wind erosion are not anticipated as a result of the Project. About [TBD] percent of the soils along the proposed pipeline route are considered susceptible to erosion by water. To minimize or avoid potential impacts due to soil erosion and sedimentation, WBI Wind Ridge would implement the appropriate measures identified in the Plan and Procedures for construction activities, including utilizing erosion and sedimentation control devices. Temporary erosion controls (silt fences, straw bales, or straw logs) would be installed, where appropriate, during clearing to prevent the movement of disturbed soils off the right-of-way or other work areas. As necessary, trench breakers (stacked sand bags or foam) would be installed in the trench around the pipe to prevent movement of subsurface water along the pipeline. Additionally, temporary slope breakers consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the right-of-way in areas required by the Plan and Procedures. Temporary slope breakers would be installed during clearing and grading activities. Permanent slope breakers would be installed during cleanup or as soon as weather conditions permit. Sedimentation and erosion control devices would be inspected on a regular basis by WBI Wind Ridge’s EIs as specified in the Plan and Procedures. Wind erosion of topsoil storage piles may also be a concern during construction. WBI Wind Ridge would minimize dry topsoil from eroding by installing mulch or tackifier over the piles or by implementing other methods of topsoil conservation as necessary.

About [TBD] percent of the soils that would be crossed by the pipeline are considered to have revegetation concerns. Successful restoration and revegetation is important for maintaining agricultural productivity and to protect the underlying soil from potential damage, such as erosion. In accordance with the Plan, WBI Wind Ridge would apply soil amendments in areas with poor revegetation potential in order to create a favorable environment for the reestablishment of vegetation. WBI Wind Ridge has consulted with the NRCS to obtain recommendations for seed mixtures to be used in non-cropland areas during right-of-way restoration.

Construction through soils with shallow bedrock could result in the incorporation of bedrock fragments into surface soils. However, only [TBD] percent of the proposed pipeline route, all in McIntosh County, would cross soils that contain shallow bedrock (i.e., bedrock within 60 inches of the surface). This bedrock is soft and would likely be rippable using standard construction equipment (see section 2.1.1 for more information regarding bedrock in the Project area). Where bedrock is encountered, WBI Wind Ridge would take necessary precautions to minimize the mixing of excavated bedrock with backfill, and would replace rock in the trench to a level that is not higher than the original bedrock profile.

In accordance with the Plan, WBI Wind Ridge would minimize the introduction of subsoil rocks/stones into agricultural topsoil by segregating and replacing topsoil in agricultural areas. WBI Wind Ridge would also remove excess rock/stone from surface soils disturbed by construction such that the size, density, and distribution of rock on the construction right-of-way would be similar to adjacent areas off the right-of-way.

To date, WBI Wind Ridge has not identified any irrigation systems along the proposed pipeline route. Should any systems be affected during construction, however, WBI Wind Ridge would restore/repair any damaged systems in accordance with the Plan.

No areas of known soil contamination have been identified within 0.25 mile of the pipeline facilities (see section 2.4.4). However, unknown sites could be encountered along the pipeline route during construction. If contaminated soils are encountered, WBI Wind Ridge would implement measures identified in its Contaminated Soil Plan. This plan describes measures for containing and characterizing contaminated media, notifying the landowner and appropriate regulatory agencies of the contamination, and responding to the contaminated media.

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment could also adversely affect soils. The effects of contamination are typically minor because of the low frequency and small volumes of spills and leaks. WBI Wind Ridge and its contractor would implement the Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) to prevent and contain, if necessary, accidental spills of any material that may contaminate soils, and to ensure that inadvertent spills are contained, cleaned up, and disposed of in an appropriate manner.

Based on the information discussed above and with implementation of the Plan and Procedures and WBI Wind Ridge’s Project plans, no significant impacts on soil resources would occur as a result of the pipeline facilities.

2.1.2.2 Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the proposed Spiritwood Compressor Station would affect about 10.0 acres. Table 2.1.2-2 provides a summary of the significant soil characteristics that would be located within the Project footprint. Of the soils affected by the Project, all 10 acres are classified as prime farmland in the SSURGO database.

Construction and operation of the proposed meter stations would permanently convert about [TBD] acres of agricultural land into commercial/industrial land. Construction and operation of the eight block valves would occur within the permanent pipeline easement and impacts are incorporated into the pipeline facilities section. In total, the eight block valves would cause a permanent conversion of less than 0.1 acre of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Each of these facilities would be fenced and retained for Project operations.

Although most of the aboveground facilities would be constructed in agricultural land, only a portion of the soils [describe which soils here once meter station locations are finalized] at the meter stations are classified as prime farmland in the SSURGO database. [Describe remaining soil characteristics here; hydric, compaction prone.]

[Need to include a conclusion once soil information at the other sites is know.]

TABLE 2.1.2-2

Acres of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Spiritwood Compressor Station a, b,

Soil Map Unit Prime Hydric Compaction Highly Erodible Revegetation Stony/ Shallow to Symbol Total Acres Farmland c Soils c Prone d Water e Wind f Concerns g Rocky h Bedrock i G143A 5.7 Y N N N N N N N G144B 4.3 Y N N N N N N N Project total 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ______a The area affected includes the entire footprint of the compressor station site. The soils data in the table do not include areas of open water. b The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. c As designated by the NRCS. Prime farmland does not include those soils that are considered prime if artificial drainage is implemented due to the lack of drain tile use in the Project area. d Includes soils in somewhat poor to very poor drainage classes with surface textures of sandy clay loam and finer. e Land in capability subclasses 4E through 8E and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. f Soils with a Wind Erodibility Group classification of 1 or 2. Only a single map unit with Wind Erodibility Group 2 designation is crossed by the route. g Soils with a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser and are moderately well to excessively drained and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. h This group includes soils with a cobbley, stony, bouldery, shaly, very gravelly, or extremely gravelly modifier to the textural class of the surface layer, have a surface layer that contains greater than 5 percent by weight stones larger than 3 inches, and/or contains a layer in the subsoil meeting one of the preceding criteria. i Soils identified as containing bedrock at a depth of 5 feet or less from the surface, all of which is paralithic and rippable with standard construction equipment.

2.1.2.3 Ancillary Facilities WBI Wind Ridge anticipates the need for about 92.3 acres of agricultural and open land for use as six staging areas. Of the soils within these facilities, approximately [TBD] acres are classified as prime farmland. Impacts on soils at these sites would be minimized by the implementation of the measures specified in the Plan and SPCC Plan. Eleven permanent access roads have been identified that would be constructed to provide access to the meter stations, launcher/receiver, and block valves. These roads would affect about [TBD] acre of agricultural land. [TBD] acres of soils affected by the permanent access roads are considered prime farmland. No significant impacts on soils are expected as a result of these facilities, given the implementation of the Applicants’ Plan, Procedures, and SPCC Plan. 2.1.3 Paleontology Paleontological resources on land owned by the State of North Dakota and its political subdivisions are protected and managed under Chapters 54-17.3 and 43-04 of the North Dakota Century and Administrative Codes, respectively. The only North Dakota state lands affected by the Projects would be state highway rights-of-way crossed by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project and each of those crossings would be constructed using the HDD method or other bore method to reduce surface impacts. Century Code Chapter 54-17.3-05 requires the reporting of all Quaternary paleontological finds, which potentially or actually contain cultural resources, to the State Historical Society of North Dakota in addition to the State Geologist (State of North Dakota, 2011). If paleontological resources are discovered during construction of the Projects, they would be treated in accordance with the Applicants’ Plan for Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources during Construction. We have reviewed this plan and find it [insert conclusion.]

2.2 WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS

2.2.1 Groundwater

2.2.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources

The Project area is underlain by bedrock aquifers composed primarily of sandstone, shale, and other sedimentary rocks. These aquifers are highly variable in horizontal extent and thickness, which make them less reliable than the overlying localized alluvial and glacial aquifers for groundwater development within the state (Huxel and Petri, 1965; Paulson, 1983). The proposed pipeline route overlies non-principal bedrock aquifers due to the underlying crystalline rock with minimal permeability (Bluemle, 1988; USGS, 2003, 2014a). Based on data from oil wells in this unit, this bedrock aquifer has water with high salinity and, therefore, is limited in use (Paulson, 1983).

Overlying the highly saline Paleozoic bedrock aquifer are several layers of sandstone and shale including the Fox Hills Aquifer, Pierre Shale, and the Dakota Aquifer within North Dakota (Klausing, 1981, 1983). The proposed pipeline route overlies the Pierre Shale and Dakota Aquifers. The Fox Hills Aquifer occurs to a lesser extent in the Project area and primarily occurs west of the southwest portion of the pipeline route (Bluemle, 1988). The Fox Hills Aquifer overlies the Pierre Shale and Dakota Aquifers, and provides the area with significant water (Bluemle, 1988; Paulson, 1983). However, the Fox Hills Aquifer generally lacks high water quality due to salinity limiting the water use (Paulson, 1983). The Pierre Shale only provides small quantities of water in areas where fractures are present within the upper layer. These fractures create water storage pockets and yields water to wells in the Project area ranging from 5 gallons per minute to 50 gallons per minute (Armstrong, 1980; Klausing, 1981, 1983). The Dakota Aquifer provides the area with significant water; however, the water quality is generally poor due to high salinity (Paulson, 1983).

The youngest layer above the bedrock aquifer systems are localized alluvial and glacial aquifers comprised predominantly of sand, gravel, and shale (Bluemle, 1977). Table 2.2.1-1 lists significant aquifers and unnamed unconsolidated alluvial and glacial aquifers crossed by the proposed pipeline route. The pipeline would cross a total of 18 aquifers. Along portions of the route, the USGS and North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) identified aquifers overlap, which is noted in table 2.2.1-1. No alluvial and glacial aquifers would be crossed by the proposed pipeline within LaMoure County. The Spiritwood Compressor Station would be located atop the Spiritwood-Barnes aquifer.

These alluvial and glacial aquifers provide a substantial amount of groundwater within the Project area compared to the non-principal bedrock aquifers and often have higher water quality (NDSWC, 2005; Paulson, 1983). Water quality in the alluvial and glacial aquifers is generally less mineralized than in the underlying bedrock aquifers. Generally, these upper aquifers are suitable for irrigation, but there are local exceptions based on water quality, crop, and soil type (Paulson, 1983).

In addition to NDSWC’s identified aquifer areas, potable and domestic use water is obtainable in some places from unnamed unconsolidated aquifers (Paulson, 1983). These sand and gravel aquifers generally have a high hydraulic conductivity due to high porosity and are primarily unconfined aquifers (USGS, 2014b). Well yields from these unconsolidated aquifers are generally less than 10 gallons per minute; however, these aquifers occur in sufficient quantities to produce adequate yields for domestic needs for many farmsteads in the area (Paulson, 1983). These local aquifers are a significant source of water for farmers and other water users in the Project area (Bluemle, 1988; Paulson, 1983).

TABLE 2.2.1-1

Areas of the Pipeline Route Underlain by Alluvial and Glacial Aquifers Approximate Approximate Miles County Aquifer Name a Start Milepost End Milepost Crossed McIntosh Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 0.0 1.0 1.0 McIntosh Zeeland c, d 0.7 2.4 1.7 McIntosh Zeeland c 3.8 4.6 0.8 McIntosh Unnamed Unconsolidated b 11.5 13.4 1.9 McIntosh Unnamed Unconsolidated b 15.0 15.4 0.4 McIntosh Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 15.6 23.3 7.7 McIntosh Wishek c, d 18.3 21.2 3.2 Logan Hillsburg c, d 30.6 33.3 2.7 Logan Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 32.1 32.2 0.1 Logan Unnamed Unconsolidated b 50.0 51.2 1.1 Stutsman Sydney c 70.4 71.8 1.4 Stutsman Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 82.4 84.3 1.9 Stutsman Homer c, d 82.6 84.5 1.9 Stutsman Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 86.3 88.7 2.4 Stutsman Jamestown c, d 86.5 87.5 1.0 Stutsman Seven Mile Coulee c, d 87.5 87.6 0.1 Stutsman Unnamed Unconsolidated b, d 90.3 96.3 6.0 Stutsman Spiritwood-Stutsman c, d 90.8 90.9 0.1 Stutsman Spiritwood-Barnes c, d 90.9 96.3 5.35 ______a Significant aquifers are in italics. b Source: USGS, 2003. c Source: NDSWC, 2014. d Overlap in milepost range of glacial aquifer data between USGS and NDSWC.

2.2.1.2 Designated Sole Source Aquifers

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Sole or Principal Source Aquifers as those aquifers that supply at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. There are currently no designated sole source aquifers in North Dakota (EPA, 2014a).

2.2.1.3 Public and Private Water Supply Wells

Groundwater is effectively the sole source of all water used by farms, families, and residents of small communities having no public water distribution system (NDSWC, 2005). The Applicants determined that no wellhead protection areas (WHPA) are crossed by the Projects and no WHPAs are located within 0.25 mile of the construction workspace (North Dakota Department of Health [NDDH], 2014a; NDSWC, 2014). Therefore, no public water supply wells are located within 150 feet of the pipeline or compressor station construction work areas.

The Applicants queried the NDSWC well permit database and online map system and determined three drill logs for domestic and stock beneficial uses exist adjacent to the proposed pipeline route and one access road location in Logan and Stutsman Counties (NDSWC, 2014). No private or public wells were found within 150 feet of the Spiritwood Compressor Station site. One domestic well is located about 54 feet southeast of MP 71.7. This well is for domestic water use. Review of 2014 aerial photographs of the area suggest the data point may be misplaced as the well is located in an active crop field, about 1103 feet north of the farmstead. The second well, located about 272 feet northwest of MP 30.9 has a beneficial use for stock water. The third drill log identified a domestic/stock well near Access

Road 25. The well is located approximately 135 feet east of the road. Based on review of 2014 aerial photographs this well may be mislocated or has been decommissioned, because the NDSWC database currently has the well located within an active wheat field (NDSWC, 2014).

To further identify private water supply wells and springs located within 150 feet of the construction work areas, WBI Wind Ridge interviewed landowners in addition to conducting civil and environmental field surveys. [TBD] landowners indicated that a water supply well or spring may be located within 150 feet of the construction corridor on tracts crossed by the pipeline. Additionally, [TBD] wells or springs were identified along the proposed pipeline route as a result of WBI Wind Ridge’s surveys. During scoping we received comments from a landowner regarding the potential presence of springs on their property and the possibility the pipeline could impact the springs. [NOTE: WBI is working with this landowner to resolve this question and will provide additional discussion in the final draft EA.]

2.2.1.4 Rural Water Projects

The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project footprint would cross existing and proposed rural water systems within the South Central Regional Water District, and the Project may cross existing or future water infrastructure projects within the Southeast Water Users District – West, and the Stutsman Rural Water District (NDDH, 2013). There are no existing rural water projects or planned rural water projects within the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project area (Stutsman Rural Water District, 2015). Prior to construction, the Applicants would verify with the three crossed districts regarding the crossing locations of any existing or planned water system infrastructure.

2.2.1.5 Contaminated Groundwater

No areas of known groundwater contamination have been identified within 0.25 mile of the pipeline facilities (see section 2.4.4). On-site septic systems are the primary form of waste water treatment in rural North Dakota; however, it is unlikely that septic systems would be affected by the Projects. The Applicants preferentially routed the pipeline facilities and compressor station to avoid residences, thereby avoiding potential impacts on farm and ranch septic systems. The closest residences to the route occur near MP 81.8, where the proposed pipeline would be about 250 feet east of a farmstead and residence located on the west side of 87th Avenue S.E.; and one at MP 93.8, where the proposed pipeline would be located about 250 feet south and southeast of a farmstead located on the north side of 35th Street S.E.. In both of these locations, construction activity would not impact active septic systems.

Based on a 2014 review of recent aerial photographs and field surveys, the Applicants did not identify any livestock feedlots, municipal landfills, or sewage lagoons within 0.5 mile of the Projects’ construction workspace.

2.2.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation

The Applicants are currently assessing the need for groundwater withdrawals in association with construction and operation of the proposed Projects, including hydrostatic test water. The potential for impacts on groundwater resulting from construction and operation of the proposed facilities is a function of the degree to which the proposed facilities would cause localized changes to existing groundwater flow paths. Permanent effects could also occur on groundwater recharge as a result of the development of impervious surfaces and structures at the proposed aboveground facility sites. However, such effects are unlikely for the Projects given the relatively small area of the pipeline trench, construction right-of-way, and aboveground facility sites relative to the total potential recharge area.

Construction of the proposed pipeline would generally require a trench excavation of about 6 feet (or deeper at crossings of some roads, utilities, foreign pipelines, and waterbodies). Dewatering of the pipeline trench would be necessary if shallow groundwater is encountered within the excavation zone. The water pumped from the excavation would be discharged in accordance with the Procedures. No adverse impacts on groundwater, water wells, or aquifers are anticipated as a result of the excavation for the pipeline trench. The potential impact of dewatering would be minimized by discharging the pumped water to well-vegetated areas or properly constructed temporary retention structures that would promote infiltration and minimize or eliminate runoff. WBI Wind Ridge would install trench breakers at specified intervals in accordance with the Plan and Procedures, and in areas determined by WBI Wind Ridge and its EIs, to reduce the potential for the trench to act as a preferential groundwater flow path. WBI Wind Ridge would implement the measures identified in the Plan, as appropriate, with regard to testing and mitigation, where necessary, for compacted soils. Construction and operation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project is not expected to have an impact on groundwater quantity or quality.

The Applicants’ SPCC Plan contains specific construction measures to protect groundwater resources, soils, and wetlands from spills of fuels, oils, and other hazardous fluids. The SPCC Plan contains measures for refueling, storage, handling, containment, and cleanup of fuels, oils, and other hazardous fluids. No areas containing contaminated groundwater or hazardous waste sites have been identified along the proposed pipeline route or aboveground facility sites. If contaminated soils are encountered, the Applicants would implement measures identified in their Contaminated Soil Plan. This plan describes measures for containing and characterizing contaminated media, notifying the landowner and appropriate regulatory agencies of the contamination, and responding to the contaminated media.

One domestic well would be located within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline corridor and a second well would be located within 150 feet of an access road. The well located near the access road may be located in a different area than described in the NDSWC’s well permit database or may be decommissioned because the current location is an active wheat field. [TBD] water supply wells or springs were identified within the proposed construction corridor as a result of landowner interviews and the Applicants’ civil and environmental field surveys. In the event that an active well is identified within construction work areas and must be taken out of service, the Applicants would provide an alternate water source or negotiate a mitigation plan with the landowner to offset any adverse impacts. In addition, for any active wells within 150 feet of construction work areas, the Applicants would conduct pre- and post- construction water quality and yield testing and/or sampling to verify that construction of the Projects does not permanently impact water wells. The Applicants would obtain landowner or municipality permission prior to testing and would analyze any damaged well or water supply system and perform the necessary repairs and/or modifications to return it to its former capacity as determined by the testing and/or sampling. In the event that a private well or water supply system is damaged beyond repair due to construction-related activities, the Applicants would provide for a temporary water source and replace the well as necessary. The Applicants also would file, within 1 year of the completion of construction, a report identifying all potable water supply systems damaged by construction and how they were repaired. With these measures, we conclude that any potential impacts on groundwater resources would be temporary and insignificant.

No blasting activities are anticipated during construction of the proposed Projects; therefore, no adverse effects due to blasting on water wells, springs, and wetlands are expected.

2.2.2 Surface Water

Based on review of USGS mapping, aerial photography, and field investigations conducted on properties where permission to survey was granted in 2014, the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would cross a total of 28 waterbodies, consisting of 6 perennial streams, 15 intermittent streams, 2 ephemeral streams,

and 5 ponds. Information on each of the waterbodies crossed by the Project, including name, water quality classification, flow regime, crossing width, and crossing method, is provided in table C-1 in appendix C. Based on review of aerial photography and field surveys, no waterbodies are present at the staging areas or access roads. No waterbodies were identified by the 2014 field surveys within or immediately adjacent to the Spiritwood Compressor Station site.

The proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would cross 19 Class III streams, 1 Class II stream (Beaver Creek), and 1 Class IA stream (the James River) (NDDH, 2001). Cottonwood Creek also is a Class II waterbody that is crossed by the proposed Project route; however, the 2014 field surveys determined the area at the crossing location to lack bed and banks and exhibited wetland characteristics. Cottonwood Creek and Beaver Creek are tributaries to the James River. Additionally, the Project would cross five Class 4 unnamed ponds. The Project would not cross any designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers or state-designated high quality or outstanding natural resource waters (Wild and Scenic Rivers Council, 2014).

The Project crosses three waterbodies, the James River, Seven Mile Coulee, and Beaver Creek, which are listed on North Dakota’s 2012 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). The James River segment crossed by the Project is designated as listed from the confluence with Pipestem Creek (west of downtown Jamestown) to its confluence with Seven Mile Coulee, fully supporting its designated use of recreation, but is threatened due to Escherichia coli (E. coli). Due to the potential for impairment, this river segment is considered a high priority for TMDLs (NDDH, 2012). Seven Mile Coulee is not supporting its designated use of recreation due to E. coli. Due to the potential for impairment, the Seven Mile Coulee and all tributaries in eastern Stutsman County are considered a low priority for TMDLs. The listed Beaver Creek segment crossed by the Project is listed from the confluence with Buffalo Creek to its confluence with the James River, fully supporting its designated use of recreation, but is threatened due to E. coli. Due to the potential for impairment, this river segment is considered a low priority for TMDLs (NDDH, 2012).

The Project would not cross any Category 3 waterbodies designated as Outstanding State Resource Waters. According to water permits on file with the NDSWC and general mapped areas of surface water intake locations within the four counties crossed by the pipeline, there are no potable surface water intakes within 3 miles downstream of the pipeline route (NDSWC, 2014; NDDH, 2014c). Additionally, there are no mapped critical habitats for federally listed species along waterbodies where they are crossed by the proposed Project. By following the Procedures, the Project is not expected to result in any permanent changes to water quality or the water quality classifications of the waterbodies crossed.

2.2.2.1 Requested Site-specific Modifications from the FERC’s Procedures

The FERC’s Procedures stipulate that all ATWS should be located at least 50 feet from waterbodies except where an alternative measure has been requested by WBI Wind Ridge and approved by the FERC. WBI Wind Ridge identified certain areas where they believe site-specific conditions do not allow for a 50-foot setback of ATWS from waterbodies. Table 2.2.2-1 identifies the locations and the reasons why WBI Wind Ridge believes the ATWS is justified. Based on our review, [insert conclusion].

TABLE 2.2.2-1

Locations of Additional Temporary Workspace Within 50 Feet of a Waterbody Reference Description Modification Justification Site-Specific Modifications [Note: To be provided in a later draft of the EA]

2.2.2.2 Hydrostatic Testing

The pipeline would be hydrostatically tested to verify its integrity. WBI Wind Ridge currently anticipates that construction of the proposed pipeline would be completed in December 2016. The pipeline would be hydrostatically tested as soon as possible following construction prior to winter conditions. Hydrostatic testing would be performed with only water and no additional additives would be required. Approximately [TBD] gallons of water would be obtained from a number of natural surface water sources in accordance with state regulations and the required permits. WBI would not obtain hydrostatic test water from the James River or Seven Mile Coulee. Test water for the HDD string at the James River would be obtained from municipal sources.

The water would be pumped into the pipeline or section of pipeline pushing a foam pig to ensure a positive displacement of air. The pipeline or segments would then be pressurized to at least 110 percent of the maximum operating pressure, and maintained at that pressure for a minimum of 8 hours. If any leaks are detected during the 8-hour test period, the line would be dewatered, the leaks would be repaired, and the test section would be refilled and re-pressurized until 49 CFR Part 192 specifications are met. After successfully testing each section, the pipeline would be dewatered or cascaded into the next section of the pipeline. Following hydrostatic testing, the pipeline would be dried by pushing a foam pig with compressed air through the test section.

Pipe sections to be installed using the HDD method would be hydrostatically tested prior to the pullback operation and then again following pull back. Approximately [TBD] gallons of water would be required for the HDD crossing of the James River and Seven Mile Coulee (MPs 87.0 to 87.2). The water would be reused to hydrostatically test subsequent HDD and bore crossings, as needed. WBI Wind Ridge’s SPCC Plan identifies measures to be implemented in the unlikely event of a leak of hydraulic fluids, solvents, or hazardous fluids during the hydrostatic testing process.

The compressor station piping would be hydrostatically tested with water in accordance with USDOT 49 CFR Part 192 requirements to ensure its integrity for the intended service and operating pressures. Test pressure would be obtained by adding water to the test section with a high-pressure pump. Water would be sourced and discharged according to applicable permits and authorizations. Any hydrostatic test water that is used would be obtained from off-site sources and delivered to the site in tanker trucks. Approximately [TBD] gallons of water would be required for the testing, all of which would be obtained from municipal sources.

2.2.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation

With the exception of the James River and Seven Mile Coulee (which would be crossed using the HDD crossing method), all waterbodies would be crossed using a dry crossing method if there is perceptible flow at the time of crossing. Pipeline construction has the potential to result in temporary impacts such as increased sedimentation, turbidity, and decreased dissolved oxygen concentration due to construction activities within or near flowing surface waters. Earthwork and foundation development for the Spiritwood Compressor Station would involve intentional compaction of the soils. Additionally, temporary storage of building materials and construction equipment traffic would contribute to near- surface compaction across portions of the compressor station site. Releases of chemical and nutrient pollutants from excavated sediments also are possible. To minimize these impacts, the Applicants would implement measures to limit the effects of clearing and grading, in-stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling operations on aquatic habitats. Construction in mid-summer to fall months would minimize impacts on waterbodies because construction would occur outside of the wet (spring and summer) seasons in south-central North Dakota.

To minimize adverse impacts at stream crossings, WBI Wind Ridge would install the pipeline in accordance with the Plan and Procedures. Construction activities at waterbody crossings would also comply with other federal and state regulations and permit requirements. In almost all cases, these impacts are limited to the period of in-stream construction, and conditions return to normal shortly after stream restoration activities are completed. Upon completion of construction, WBI Wind Ridge would install permanent erosion control measures at stream crossing locations to provide long-term protection of water quality. WBI Wind Ridge would also use material excavated from the pipeline trench to backfill the trench once the pipe is installed to avoid introduction of foreign substances into waterbodies.

In-stream construction would generally be completed within 24 to 48 hours at each stream crossing. During construction, the open trench may accumulate water, either from the seepage of groundwater or from precipitation. In accordance with the Procedures, and when necessary, trench water would be removed and filtered to remove sediment. To minimize sedimentation during construction across minor or intermediate waterbodies, trench spoil would be placed at least 10 feet from the top of the bank, unless such placement is impractical due to topography. Silt fences and/or straw bales would be placed around the spoil piles to prevent spoil from flowing into the waterbody. Once the pipe is placed in the trench, the excavated material would be promptly replaced, and the stream banks and streambed would be restored as close as possible to their preconstruction contours. During final restoration, stream banks and riparian areas would be revegetated using appropriate seed mixes to further stabilize the banks.

WBI Wind Ridge would use the HDD method to install the pipeline beneath the James River and Seven Mile Coulee. A site-specific plan for the crossing is provided in appendix D. WBI Wind Ridge conducted an evaluation of the geological and geotechnical conditions of the proposed HDD alignment at the James River and Seven Mile Coulee. [Note: Need to include a summary of the evaluation and its conclusions.]

Use of the HDD method would avoid direct impacts on the bed and banks of these waterbodies; however, a temporary, localized increase in turbidity could occur in the event of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid to the waterbody (i.e., an inadvertent return). To minimize potential impacts of inadvertent releases of drilling fluid, WBI Wind Ridge would implement the measures identified in its HDD Drilling Fluid Monitoring and Operations Plan. In the event of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid to surface waters, WBI Wind Ridge would contain the release to the extent practical. Where feasible, underwater releases would be collected using pumps. In wetlands, the drilling fluid would be contained using hand- placed barriers (e.g., hay bales, sand bags) and collected using pumps. If the amount of any drilling fluid release within a waterbody or wetland exceeds that which could be practically contained and collected, drilling operations would be suspended until the release is controlled. In the event that an HDD cannot be completed, WBI Wind Ridge would implement a contingency plan for the crossing, such as abandoning the drill hole, drilling along a new path, or utilizing an alternate crossing method subject to agency review and any required permits or approvals.

Construction activities could also result in spills of fuels or other contaminants near or in wetlands or waterbodies; however, implementation of the Applicants’ SPCC Plan would significantly reduce the potential for inadvertent release of contaminants due to spills near or in waterbodies in the Project area. The Projects’ SPCC Plan describes measures that the Applicants’ personnel and contractors

would implement to prevent and, if necessary control, any inadvertent spill of fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other hazardous materials that could affect water quality.

Additional measures to minimize the impacts of open-cut construction at stream crossings would include the following:

 locating workspace at least 50 feet away from the waterbody (except as indicated in section 2.2.2.1); and

 storing chemicals and lubricating, washing, or refueling equipment in designated areas greater than 100 feet from work areas at stream crossings.

With the implementation of our Plan and Procedures, and the Applicants’ SPCC Plan, and HDD Drilling Fluid Monitoring and Operations Plan as well as compliance with the conditions of USACE crossing permits, we conclude that impacts on surface water resources would be temporary and minor.

Operation of the new pipeline and aboveground facilities is not expected to result in any impacts on surface water use or quality unless maintenance activities involving pipe excavation and/or repair are required in proximity to streams. In such a case, the impacts and mitigation would be similar to those previously described for pipeline construction activities.

2.2.3 Wetlands

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands can be a source of substantial biodiversity and serve a variety of functions that include providing wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and flood control; and naturally improving water quality.

2.2.3.1 Existing Wetland Resources

WBI Wind Ridge conducted field surveys during the 2014 field season on properties where survey permission was approved by the landowner to identify and delineate wetlands within the proposed pipeline construction corridor and other work areas. In total, the field surveys examined approximately 95 percent of the proposed pipeline route as well as the meter station at MP 0.0, staging areas, and access roads. Wetlands potentially present on those portions of the pipeline right-of-way where survey has not been completed were identified using digital data from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). WBI Transmission conducted field surveys to identify and delineate wetlands within the proposed Spiritwood Compressor Station construction area. Based on the field surveys and NWI data, the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would impact 200 wetlands encompassing a combined 37.3 acres. In total, approximately 16,042 linear feet of wetlands would be crossed by the pipeline centerline. The wetland classifications, milepost locations, crossing lengths, and acreage of wetland that would be impacted by construction and operation of the Project are provided in table C-2 in appendix C. There is one small (less than 0.2 acre) cultivated palustrine emergent wetland basin located in the southeast portion of the Spiritwood Compressor Station site.

2.2.3.2 Wetland Reserve Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Easements

Based on consultations with the NRCS, WBI Wind Ridge interviewed landowners to confirm if any crossed lands are enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). Based on field surveys and interviews with landowners, no parcels under the WRP would be affected by the Projects.

A number of private parcels in the vicinity of the proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline Project route are subject to wetland easements obtained by the FWS under regulations described at 16 USC 668dd(c). The easements define permanent agreements between the FWS and all present and future landowners to protect wetland basins within the easements in perpetuity. WBI Wind Ridge incorporated several route variations into the proposed route to avoid or minimize crossings of wetland easements; however, some wetland easements could not be avoided. The proposed Spiritwood Compressor Station Project site does not occur within any FWS wetland easements.

The FWS advised WBI Wind Ridge that its interests in wetland easements are limited to individual wetland basins as opposed to the entire area within the easements. Ground-disturbing activities that affect protected wetland basins within easements are prohibited without prior approval of the FWS. Such activities are subject to review by FWS staff to determine if they are appropriate and compatible with the objectives of the easement program, and require a special use permit/right-of-way grant if they are found to be compatible. Ground-disturbing activities that do not affect protected wetland basins within easements are not subject to review by the FWS.

Based on field surveys, the proposed pipeline corridor crosses 41 delineated wetlands within 52wetland easements (see table 2.2.3-1). WBI Wind Ridge would submit a request for compatibility determination for these crossings to the FWS. Additionally, WBI Wind Ridge would continue to coordinate with the FWS to minimize wetland impacts within the easements. [Note: Need to add details as they become available.]

2.2.3.3 Requested Site-specific Modifications from the FERC’s Procedures

The Procedures stipulate that the construction right-of-way width in wetlands be limited to 75 feet and that all ATWS should be located at least 50 feet from wetlands except where an alternative measure has been requested by WBI Wind Ridge and approved by the FERC. The Applicants identified a number of areas where they believe a 75-foot right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate wetland construction and a wider right-of-way is necessary. Table 2.2.3-2 lists the locations where the Applicants have requested a wider construction right-of-way and the site-specific rationale for the request. Based on our review of the requests for a wider construction right-of-way, we have determined that [insert conclusion]. The Applicants also identified locations where they believe site-specific conditions do not allow a 50-foot setback of ATWS from wetlands. Table 2.2.3-3 lists the locations where the Applicants have requested less than a 50-foot setback from a wetland and the site-specific rationale for the requested modification from our Procedures. Based on our review, we have determined that [insert conclusion].

TABLE 2.2.3-1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Easements Crossed by the Pipeline Route Starting Milepost Ending Milepost Length of Easement Number of Delineated Wetlands Within an Easement Within an Easement Crossing (miles) a Crossed Within the Easement 0.0 1.1 0.2 b 0 1.8 2.4 0.5 0 2.4 2.9 0.5 0 2.9 4.2 0.2 b 0 4.6 5.3 0.7 2 5.3 5.6 0.3 1 5.6 6.1 0.5 0 6.1 6.5 0.5 0 6.5 6.9 0.4 0 12.3 12.6 0.3 1 19.8 19.9 0.1 1 21.0 22.0 1.1 1 22.0 22.7 0.6 0 23.8 24.3 0.5 2 24.8 24.8 <0.1 0 25.0 25.5 0.5 b 0 25.5 25.8 0.3 0 27.0 27.8 0.8 0 27.8 28.0 0.2 0 28.0 29.4 1.4 1 29.7 29.8 0.1 0 29.8 30.4 0.6 4 30.4 30.7 0.3 0 30.7 31.5 0.9 0 31.5 31.7 0.2 1 33.8 34.0 0.2 0 34.9 35.2 0.4 2 35.2 35.5 0.2 0 36.1 36.1 0.1 0 36.1 36.8 0.6 1 36.8 37.3 0.5 1 37.7 38.3 0.6 0 38.3 38.8 0.5 1 38.8 39.4 0.6 1 41.1 41.3 0.2 0 43.3 44.1 0.8 1 44.1 44.4 0.3 1 44.7 45.2 0.5 1 45.2 45.9 0.8 3 55.0 56.0 1.0 1 56.0 56.1 0.1 0 58.1 58.2 0.0 0 58.2 58.8 0.6 2 58.8 59.3 0.5 0 59.6 60.2 0.6 0 63.8 64.0 0.2 0 69.2 69.4 0.3 0 73.2 73.9 0.7 0

TABLE 2.2.3-1

TABLE 2.2.3-2

Locations Where the Construction Right-of-Way is Greater Than 75 Feet in a Wetland Facility, Crossing Width Wetland ID Milepost (>75-foot Right-of-Way) Justification a [Note: To be provided in a later draft of the EA.]

TABLE 2.2.3-3

Locations of Additional Temporary Workspace Within 50 Feet of a Wetland Reference Description Modification ATWS Justification [Note: To be provided in a later draft of the EA.]

2.2.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation

WBI Wind Ridge would construct wetland crossings in accordance with the Procedures and any measures that may be identified in state and USACE crossing permits. All of the wetlands that would be impacted by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project are palustrine emergent wetlands. Of the 200 wetlands within the construction right-of-way, only 122 are crossed by the proposed centerline. Construction impacts in wetlands typically would be limited to a 75-foot-wide corridor in accordance with the Procedures. In most instances, ATWS areas have been sited at least 50 feet from wetlands. Proposed site-specific modifications to the Procedures are identified in section 2.2.3.3. No wetlands would be permanently converted to upland as a result of construction or operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. Construction and operation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station site would result in permanent impacts on a small, isolated, non-jurisdictional, and cultivated wetland.

Pipeline construction would result in both short- and medium-term alterations of the vegetative cover in wetlands along the proposed right-of-way. In the short term, construction activities have the potential to diminish the recreational and aesthetic value of wetlands through clearing, trenching, spoil placement, vehicle traffic, and related construction disturbances. Wetland functions such as erosion control, buffering and flood flow attenuation, sediment retention, and nutrient retention would also be affected by construction. These effects typically would be greatest during and immediately following construction through the short term. In emergent wetlands, the impact of construction on vegetation is anticipated to be relatively short term and minor, because the herbaceous vegetation is expected to regenerate within two to three growing seasons.

WBI Wind Ridge would stabilize the working side of the construction right-of-way with temporary work surfaces of timber mats or travel pads in saturated wetlands where soils are unable to support equipment and safely excavate the trench. Trench spoil excavated in wetlands, in most cases, would be stored in the construction corridor adjacent to where it was excavated. In areas where excavated trench spoil may flow into undisturbed areas of the wetland, silt fence, straw bales, or other appropriate sedimentation control devices would be installed at the edges of the construction right-of-way to prevent sediment migration. During construction, erosion controls would be placed where necessary along the pipeline right-of-way and surrounding extra work areas to minimize impacts on adjacent unfarmed wetlands (as specified in the Procedures). Erosion and sedimentation barriers would be installed and maintained throughout the construction period to prevent disturbed soils and sediment from migrating into adjacent undisturbed wetland areas. During trench-dewatering activities, trench water would be removed and filtered to remove sediments.

Following pipeline installation, the trench would be backfilled with the excavated material and, to the maximum extent practicable, restored to preconstruction contours. WBI Wind Ridge would replace segregated topsoil at the time of construction. Replacing the wetland soil and restoring preconstruction hydrology should promote the rapid re-establishment of wetland vegetation. Following construction, WBI Wind Ridge would conduct follow-up monitoring to ensure that unfarmed wetland plant communities have been successfully revegetated.

In unfarmed wetlands that are unsaturated at the time of construction, WBI Wind Ridge would segregate topsoil from the trenchline in order to protect its integrity and help preserve the seed bank. Segregating the topsoil should preserve the potential for natural revegetation of the right-of-way to its preconstruction plant community. In accordance with the Procedures, WBI Wind Ridge would construct the pipeline across farmed wetlands using the same methods as adjacent farmed uplands. Most seasonally saturated, farmed wetlands are used for crop production and topsoil would be segregated in the same manner as topsoil in upland agricultural lands. Pipe stringing and fabrication would generally occur within the farmed wetland adjacent to the trench, or adjacent to the farmed wetland in a designated ATWS.

Inadvertent spills of fluids used during construction, such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents, may contaminate wetland soils and vegetation. To minimize the potential for spills, and any impacts from such spills, the Applicants would implement the measures identified in the SPCC Plan for the Projects.

Grading, geotechnical foundation work, and staging of material and equipment for constructing the Spiritwood Compressor Station would result in permanent impacts on the small, cultivated wetland at the Project site. This isolated, nonjurisdictional (for USACE purposes) basin is currently subject to annual disturbance by agricultural tillage activities and, therefore, impacts would not be significant.

2.3 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND FISHERIES

This section of the EA provides information regarding fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation that may exist within the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area and/or the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project area. This information was developed through literature reviews, consultation with agency personnel, and field surveys. In addition, this section describes the impact these Projects could have on vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries resources and any proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.

2.3.1 Vegetation

Both Projects lie entirely within the Great Plains region of North Dakota, a broad expanse of relatively flat land that was dominated by native prairie prior to its settlement. This region is characterized by flat fluvial terraces, low rolling prairies, and coulees (USGS, 2006). Vegetation cover types in the Project area are reflective of historical and current agricultural and pastoral land use practices in the area.

Most of the land crossed by the proposed pipeline is composed of agricultural land (primarily cropland) or open land (non-native and native grassland and emergent wetlands). Developed land, which consists of existing roads, railroads, and utility lines, encompasses about 1 percent of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. Limited vegetation communities, such as grasses or other maintained cover, are found in developed lands; therefore, developed lands are not discussed in this section. Table 2.3.1-1 summarizes the vegetation and cover types that would be affected by construction and operation of the Projects. Wetlands are discussed in section 2.2.3.

The Spiritwood Compressor Station is comprised of 10.0 acres of agricultural land (cropland planted with soybeans). Within the 10.0 acres of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project area, 0.2 acre is considered emergent farmed wetland. Table 2.3.1-1 summarizes the vegetation types associated with the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project.

The dominant vegetation type crossed by the Projects is agricultural land, which includes permanent or rotated croplands and working areas of farms. Much of the Project area is used for growing corn, wheat, or soy beans. The entire Spiritwood Compressor Station site is comprised of agricultural land.

Grasslands are also found within the Project area. Vegetation found in the non-native grassland areas consists of planted non-native grasses, including smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) as well as clovers such as alfalfa (Medicago spp. and Melilotus spp.). Non- native forbs, like Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and bindweed (Convolvulos arvensis), also are common throughout the area. Non-native grassland appears to have been tilled in the past, but currently these areas are used for grazing, wildlife habitat, or hay production. [TBD] acres of land within the construction workspace is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which allows for payment to farmers to convert previously farmed lands to grasslands for wildlife habitat. The CRP is discussed further below in sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.4.3.5.

WBI Wind Ridge documented locations of grasslands in the Project area during biological field surveys. Native prairie was distinguished from other grassland on the basis of species diversity as well as an absence of indicators of previous agricultural activities, such as tillage patterns in soils, or rock piles along the margins of fields. The proposed pipeline would cross grasslands at 31 locations with a total crossing length of about 22.2 miles; no native prairie was documented during surveys along the proposed right-of-way.

There are no grasslands within the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project.

Table 2.3.1-1

Vegetation Types Affected by the Projects a Agricultural Land b Open Land c Non-Native Native| Cropland Grassland d Grassland e Total Facilities Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Pipeline facilities Pipeline right-of-way TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Additional temporary workspace TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Staging areas TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Permanent access roads TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Aboveground facilities Spiritwood compressor station TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Meter stations TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Block valves f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pig launchers and receivers f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TOTAL TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD ______a The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the sum of the addends. b Construction impacts for agricultural lands are based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipeline and area of impact for ATWS, staging areas, permanent access roads, and aboveground facilities. No long-term impacts on agricultural lands crossed by the pipeline are anticipated because temporary workspaces and the permanent right-of-way in these areas would be restored to preconstruction condition and revert to preconstruction uses. c Pipeline construction impacts for open lands are based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in uplands and a 75- foot-wide construction right-of-way in wetlands and at waterbodies as well as the area of impact for ATWS, staging areas, and aboveground facilities. No long-term impacts on non-native grasslands crossed by the pipeline are anticipated because temporary workspaces and the permanent right-of-way in these areas would be restored to preconstruction condition and are expected to recover within one to two growing seasons following restoration of the Projects. Impacts on native grasslands are considered long term because these areas could take 5 years or more to recover. The long-term impacts shown for native grasslands are inclusive of all disturbed areas even though only a 50-foot-wide permanent easement would be retained for pipeline operation. d The construction impact for non-native grassland excludes [TBD] acres that would be crossed using the HDD method; no impacts on these [TBD] acres are anticipated. e The construction and long-term impact for native grasslands excludes [TBD] acres that would be crossed using the HDD method; no impacts on these [TBD] acres are anticipated. f Impacts associated with pig launchers/receivers and block valves are included in the pipeline right-of-way.

2.3.1.1 Unique, Sensitive, and Protected Vegetation Communities

The CRP is a voluntary program that provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands. The program is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), with the USDA providing technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning, and practice implementation.

The CRP reduces soil erosion, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources by encouraging conversion of highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers. By establishing such vegetation cover, the CRP can create habitat for a variety of wildlife species, potentially including the species in the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area.

WBI Wind Ridge is in the process of identifying the locations of CRP land along the pipeline route. CRP lands affected by construction would be reseeded with appropriate seed mixes identified by the FSA. [Note: Will add cross reference to land use section once details on CRP lands crossed are available.]

There are no unique, sensitive, or protected vegetation communities within the Spiritwood Compressor Station. The land affected by the Spiritwood Compressor Station is not enrolled in the CRP.

2.3.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants

According to regulations in North Dakota law (North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 4.1-47-01), noxious weeds are defined as any “plant propagated by either seed or vegetative parts and determined to be injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land or other property” as determined by sections of NDCC: 4.-47-05; 4.1-47-10; or 4.1-47-21. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has established and implemented a statewide network to manage noxious weeds. Under these regulations, “each person shall do all things necessary and proper to control the spread of noxious weeds and no person may distribute, sell, or offer for sale” noxious weeds.

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has a list of noxious weeds that includes: absinth wormwood, Canada thistle, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, musk thistle, purple loosestrife, Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, yellow toadflax, Dalmatian toadflax, and saltcedar (North Dakota Department of Agriculture, 2011). These eleven noxious weeds are recognized and regulated by all cities and counties in North Dakota. In addition, in Logan County, black henbane is listed as a noxious weed.

During the biological surveys for the Projects, WBI Wind Ridge noted the presence of state- and county-listed noxious weed species within a 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipeline centerline within grassland areas. Based on the field surveys, WBI Wind Ridge has documented six locations of noxious weed species along the proposed pipeline route. Two state-listed noxious weed species (absinthe wormwood and toadflax) were identified within the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. No county-listed weed species were identified during field surveys.

WBI Transmission did not note the presence of noxious weed species within the Spiritwood Compressor Station site.

2.3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation

Pipeline Facilities

The primary impact on vegetation during construction of the pipeline would result from the required clearing and grading of the temporary and permanent construction right-of-way. Following construction, a 50-foot-wide permanent easement would be maintained as cropland or other pre-existing vegetation communities. The remaining temporary workspace along the construction right-of-way and any ATWS areas would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. Implementation of the measures specified in the Plan and Procedures would minimize Project-related impacts on affected vegetation communities.

The amount of time it would take for vegetation in disturbed areas to recover would vary by vegetation type. While areas with trees (shelter belts and wind breaks) comprise less than 1 percent of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area, these areas would be impacted to a greater extent than other vegetation types. This is due to the long-term conversion of wooded habitats to earlier successional stages in the temporary right-of-way, and the permanent conversion to scrub-shrub and/or non-woody herbaceous species in the permanent, maintained easement. Agricultural land and most open lands (e.g., non-native grassland, emergent wetlands) are expected to revert to preconstruction condition relatively quickly, generally within 1 or 2 years following construction. However, native grasslands may take considerably longer to restore.

Following construction, WBI Wind Ridge would revegetate disturbed non-agricultural upland areas within the right-of-way and ATWS in accordance with the Plan, using seed mixes recommended by the NRCS, landowners, or other appropriate agencies. In areas where final grade and clean-up is completed during active construction, WBI Wind Ridge would comply with the timelines for seeding identified in the Plan (weather and soil conditions permitting) or as recommended by the NRCS or FSA (subject to approval by landowners). In areas where final grade and clean-up is delayed due to frozen soil conditions, WBI Wind Ridge would seed in the following spring or summer. WBI Wind Ridge would use suitable seed mixes that would be sown to provide protection against soil erosion. Timely restoration of the construction right-of-way, reseeding with the appropriate seed mixes, and the use of effective erosion control measures would minimize the duration of vegetation disturbance.

Construction impacts on wetland vegetation would be minimized by the implementation of the measures specified in the Procedures and as discussed in section 2.2.3. In addition, the use of the HDD construction method for the James River and Seven Mile Coulee (see section 2.2.2) would avoid impacts on two adjacent wetlands in areas encompassed within the drill path.

Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction of the pipeline could create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native plant and noxious weed species. Construction equipment traveling from weed- and invasive plant-infested areas into weed-free areas along the construction corridor could disperse invasive plant and noxious weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of undesirable vegetation in previously weed-free areas.

WBI Wind Ridge has developed a Noxious Weed Management Plan and would implement the measures described in it to prevent and control the introduction or spread of noxious weeds during construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. The measures contained in this plan are designed to identify areas supporting noxious weeds prior to construction; prevent the introduction and spread of weeds from construction equipment moving along the right-of-way; and contain weed seeds and propagules by preventing segregated topsoil from being spread to adjacent areas or along the construction right-of-way. We have reviewed this plan and find it [insert conclusion].

Following construction, shrubs (if present prior to construction) would be allowed to grow within the temporary construction right-of-way and ATWS areas. In the permanent right-of-way, however, a 10- foot-wide area over the pipeline may be maintained in an herbaceous state if needed to facilitate pipeline inspection. Vegetation maintenance activities on the rest of the permanent right-of-way would be conducted no more than every 3 years and would require the removal of woody vegetation along the right-of-way (except in areas crossed by HDD where vegetation maintenance would not be conducted). However, WBI Wind Ridge anticipates that the need for routine vegetation maintenance along the proposed pipeline route would be infrequent due to the predominantly open and agricultural vegetation types.

We conclude that vegetation impacts from construction and operation of the pipeline facilities would be minimized to the extent possible by implementation of the Plan and Procedures and Noxious Weed Management Plan and would not be significant.

Aboveground Facilities

During construction and operation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station, 10.0 acres of currently cultivated soybean cropland would be permanently converted to developed land. The Spiritwood Compressor Station could create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native plant and noxious weed species. During operation, WBI Transmission would seed and landscape portions of the site not occupied by station buildings, other aboveground appurtenances, and the station access road.

This would include planting trees and shrubs along the fence line of the facility. As a result, the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds.

[Note: Permanent impacts associated with meter stations, mainline valves, and pig launchers/receivers would be discussed once the final project footprint is established and this acreage is known.]

2.3.2 Wildlife

2.3.2.1 Existing Wildlife

The Projects would affect two major vegetation classes comprising many distinct cover types as well as a small amount of developed land and some open water. The vegetation classes and their associated habitats include: agricultural land (primarily cropland) and open land (native and non-native grasslands). These vegetation classes provide food, protective cover, and young-rearing habitat for wildlife. Developed land in the Project area includes roads, railroads, and utility corridors. While these areas may be used by wildlife for foraging, most of the wildlife that occurs within developed land is transient. Open water provides a unique range of habitat for wildlife species located in the Project area. The Projects would not cross any Wildlife Management Areas or waterfowl production areas.

Agricultural land comprises about 60 percent [update percentage once ATWS and facility workspace are finalized] of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area and the entirety of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project. Despite the conversion of native vegetation to cropland in these areas, many game and non-game wildlife species inhabit the grassy and wooded edges of farmland and adjacent riparian and wetland habitat. Agricultural areas bordered by shrubland or hedgerows tend to have greater species diversity due to the proximity of a variety of foraging, nesting, roosting, and cover habitats.

In general, monocultures in cultivated cropland provide poor quality wildlife habitat in both of the Project areas. While these areas tend to support relatively low wildlife diversity, croplands may provide a food source for opportunistic species such as deer, ring-necked pheasant, and migrating waterfowl. In addition, land modified by agriculture but left fallow can serve as surrogate habitat for bird species typically found in grasslands (NRCS, 1999).

Open land comprises about 39 percent [update percentage once final ATWS and facility workspace are finalized] of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. There is no open land within the Spiritwood Compressor Station site. Open areas, which include non-forested areas such as grassland, shrubland, and emergent wetlands, provide wildlife with a variety of protective cover and forage food sources such as seed, foliage, roots, and insects. Game animals that inhabit open land include mule deer, antelope, gray partridge, and white-tailed jackrabbit. Non-game grassland mammals include coyote, badger, ground squirrel, and several types of voles and mice. In addition, several reptiles and amphibians inhabit grasslands such as the bullsnake, plains garter snake, prairie rattlesnake, short-horned lizard, Great Plains toad, and plains spadefoot toad. Many of these species are prey animals for raptors that may be found in grasslands such as red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and prairie falcon. Mixed-grass prairie is also important breeding habitat for sharp-tailed grouse.

Several neotropical migratory songbirds prefer to nest in open herbaceous vegetation including the western meadowlark, chestnut-collared longspur, grasshopper sparrow, and lark bunting. The low- lying vegetation in grasslands provides necessary habitat structure for protection from predators and brood-rearing activities. Grasslands provide a variety of forage food sources to migrating songbirds such as insects and other invertebrates, fruits, and native grass seeds.

Emergent wetlands associated with the Projects are included in the open land category. The proposed pipeline route is within the Northern Great Plains ecoregion of the Upper Midwest that is characterized by the presence of palustrine emergent wetlands of glacial origin commonly referred to as prairie potholes (USGS, 2006). These depressional wetlands represent some of the most productive wetland habitat for waterfowl in North America (Euliss et al., 1999). They also are ideal breeding locations for a variety of reptile and amphibian species, such as the western painted turtle and northern leopard frog due to the lack of fish and other predators, and they provide year-round habitat for muskrats. Many herbaceous wetlands abut upland and/or open water habitats that support a great diversity of wildlife within a small area.

Emergent wetlands contained within open land are ideal feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl including the snow goose, northern pintail, gadwall, blue-winged teal, and other birds typically found near water such as the sandhill crane (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 2010). These wetlands offer protection from predators and food sources such as plant seeds, aquatic plants, and invertebrates. Abundant invertebrate populations provide a protein rich diet for egg-laying hens. In the spring, depressional wetlands are important breeding habitat often used as pairing ponds by ducks such as the mallard, blue-winged teal, and Northern pintail.

Developed land, which includes roads, railroads, and utility corridors, comprises less than 1 percent of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. There is no developed land within the Spiritwood Compressor Station site. These areas generally provide poor habitat for wildlife. Typical wildlife species that may be found in developed land include squirrels, mice, skunks, raccoons, and mourning doves. Many species found in developed areas are considered opportunistic species that inhabit a number of the other habitat types found along the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. These species have adapted to developed areas.

Open water comprises less than 1 percent of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. No open water is present within the Spiritwood Compressor Station site. In addition to fish, a number of mammal species, waterfowl, and a variety of reptiles and amphibians utilize open water habitat. Some mammal and bird species are dependent on aquatic habitats for food and cover, while other species, such as the raccoon, are less restricted, but prefer to be close to water.

2.3.2.2 Significant Wildlife Habitats

Seven FWS Waterfowl Production Areas occur within 1.0 mile of the proposed pipeline route (see table 2.3.2-1). These areas provide loafing and breeding habitat for waterfowl. No direct impacts on these areas would result from construction or operation of the proposed facilities.

TABLE 2.3.2-1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Waterfowl Production Areas Within 1.0 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline Production Distance to Pipeline Area Name Size (acres) Nearest Milepost Centerline (feet) Brinkman 1245 24.4 2,730 Lehr 67 25.2 3,907 Schmidt 146 45.8 4,192 Muonia 280 46.6 644 Henne 37 53.8 3152 North Henne 23 54.0 4261 Barr 282 57.1 1151

2.3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation

Pipeline Facilities

Construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would require the use of a temporary construction right-of-way, and operation of the pipeline would require retention of a permanent easement. Until vegetation has become re-established, construction activities would reduce feeding, nesting, and cover habitat components, especially during clearing of the right-of-way. The extent and duration of impacts would vary depending on the species present in each affected habitat type and their individual life histories. Mobile species may be temporarily disturbed or displaced from portions of their habitats, and mortality of individuals of less mobile species, such as some small mammals, reptiles, or amphibians, may occur. Indirect wildlife impacts associated with construction noise and increased human activity would be temporary and could include abandoned reproductive efforts, displacement, and avoidance of work areas. Both direct and indirect impacts on wildlife along the proposed pipeline route and in other work areas would generally be of short duration and limited to the period of construction activities.

Effects on most non-forested upland habitat disturbed by construction would be temporary, and these areas are expected to recover quickly once construction is completed. Similarly, Wind Ridge Pipeline Project-related impacts on emergent wetland habitats would be relatively short term. The temporary effects on these habitats should have little or no significant impact on their importance to wildlife, and no changes to wildlife populations are anticipated.

The FWS expressed concern about impacts on native prairie habitats due to the longer recovery time for these habitats. A private landowner reported that there was potential for native prairie to occur on their property in Logan County. WBI Wind Ridge recorded grassland characteristics during biological field surveys and did not find intact native prairie in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. WBI Wind Ridge would further consult with this landowner to ensure appropriate restoration and revegetation occurs on the property.

Following construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, temporary workspace, including ATWS, as well as most areas within the permanent pipeline easement would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions and cover types. In order to maintain accessibility of the right-of-way and to accommodate pipeline integrity surveys, however, vegetation along the pipeline right-of-way may be cleared periodically in accordance with the Plan and Procedures (except in areas crossed by HDD where vegetation maintenance would not be conducted). Active cropland would be allowed to revert to preconstruction use for the full width of the right-of-way. In non-cultivated uplands, the entire 50-foot- wide permanent easement would be allowed to return to an herbaceous state. In wetlands, the Procedures allow for a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline to be permanently maintained in an herbaceous state if shrubs or other woody vegetation begins to encroach on the pipeline right-of-way. No maintenance would likely need to occur in wetlands that are seasonally or permanently flooded. Given the predominance of agricultural and open land along the proposed pipeline route, WBI Wind Ridge anticipates that the need for routine vegetation maintenance would be infrequent and limited to specific locations such as areas around pipeline markers and road crossings.

For the reasons indicated above, and with implementation of the measures in the Plan and Procedures, no significant impacts on wildlife would occur as a result of the Project.

Aboveground Facilities

Construction and operation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would result in the permanent conversion of an existing soybean field to a developed use, which would result in permanent impacts on wildlife species and their existing habitat. However, because of the abundance of agricultural

area surrounding the site, the impacts would not be significant. In addition, minimal impacts on wildlife species and their habitats would result from construction and operation of the mainline block valves and pig launchers/receivers associated with the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. Each 10- by -20-foot fenced mainline block valve would total much less than 0.1 acre of permanent loss of habitat in the Project area, which would be negligible to wildlife populations. Each 30- by 60-foot fenced pig launcher/receiver facility would total less than 0.1 acre of permanent loss of habitat in the Project area, which would be negligible to wildlife populations.

2.3.2.4 Migratory Birds

Most native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 16 USC Sections 703-711 (16 USC 703-711). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Executive Order 13186 (66 Federal Register [FR] 3853) directs federal agencies to identify where unintentional take is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations and to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration with the FWS. Executive Order 13186 was issued, in part, to ensure that environmental analyses of federal actions assess the impacts of these actions/plans on migratory birds. It also states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors and it prohibits the take of any migratory bird without authorization from the FWS.

A variety of migratory bird species may occur seasonally in the Project area. Both Projects would be within the Central Flyway for waterfowl (Kruse, 2011). Many species of migratory birds such as ducks, geese, doves, and pigeons, as well as sandhill and whooping cranes and tundra swans, use the flyway during spring and fall migration between the Gulf of Mexico and central Canada (Kruse, 2011). All of these species use open land and wetland areas and could be sensitive to Project-related construction activities.

Although some emergent wetlands and small wooded windrows would be crossed by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, the predominant vegetation communities consist of agricultural and open land. These communities are used by migratory birds for nesting and during other life stages. Potential impacts on nesting migratory bird species include habitat fragmentation; loss of wooded habitat; temporary removal of vegetation in grasslands, which could cause nesting species to relocate to other suitable habitat; and noise generated during construction, which could disturb nesting birds, if present.

Take of, or direct impacts on, migratory birds are not expected due to the planned late-summer and fall construction schedule for the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. Construction activities for the pipeline (July through December 2016) overlap the end of the nesting season and the fall migration period for most migratory birds. WBI Wind Ridge is anticipating mowing the right-of-way prior to the start of the nesting season to limit the potential for migratory birds to establish nests in the construction area. Depending on the timing of this activity, WBI Wind Ridge would employ bird monitors ahead of the mowing crew to prevent impacts on nesting birds as a result of mowing. During operations, regular maintenance of vegetation on the permanent right-of-way would be conducted in accordance with the Plan and Procedures.

The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would result in direct impacts on migratory bird habitat. However, based on the relatively limited extent of the proposed disturbance within the broader landscape, and with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and restoration measures, no substantial changes in habitat availability or suitability are anticipated as a result of the Project. As such, the construction and operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would not be expected to result in adverse permanent or cumulative impacts on migratory birds.

The predominant vegetation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project area consists of soybeans. This community is not likely to be used by migratory birds for nesting or during other life stages other than foraging. Take of, or direct impacts on, migratory birds are not expected because of the vegetation type. The planned construction schedule for the Spiritwood Compressor Station would range from mid-April to late December 2016. Although the start of construction for the compressor station site would coincide with much of the nesting season, the area surrounding the site consists of cultivated cropland for nearly 2 miles in all directions. This land use and vegetation type limits the potential for nesting birds to utilize the area surrounding the Project site.

[Note: Need to include FWS conclusions once received. If FWS feedback is not received by the time of the application, a recommendation will be added to require any updated consultations with the FWS, including any additional avoidance or mitigation measures, to be provided prior to construction.]

2.3.2.5 Bald and Golden Eagles

In addition to protections under the MBTA, bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagle or their body parts, nests, chicks, or eggs, which includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing. The term ‘disturb’ is defined as “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.” If a proposed project or action would occur in areas where nesting, feeding, or roosting eagles occur, then project proponents may need to take additional conservation measures to achieve compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

There are no cliffs, large trees, or other potential nest structures near the Project area. In addition, no eagle nests were identified during the 2014 field surveys. If an eagle nest is identified near the Project area, the Applicants would implement the measures described in the FWS’ 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007) to avoid and minimize impacts on nesting eagles.

2.3.3 Fisheries

2.3.3.1 Existing Fisheries

The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would cross 28 waterbodies, consisting of 6 perennial waterbodies, 15 intermittent waterbodies, 2 ephemeral waterbodies, and 5 ponds. There are no waterbodies within the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project area; therefore, there is no potential for fisheries. None of the waterbodies crossed by the pipeline contain or have the potential to contain species managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, nor do they support essential fish habitat (EFH) as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996). Therefore, no EFH would be affected by the Projects.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD) website was reviewed to determine which of the waterbodies along the proposed pipeline route have the potential to support coldwater or warmwater fish communities, and whether any of the waterbodies support commercial fisheries. The NDGFD website stated that there currently is no commercial fishing taking place in southeast North Dakota. The James River is the only waterbody associated with the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project that is

classified as suitable for the propagation and/or protection of fish species and may be considered a fishery of special concern. The James River may potentially support cool to coldwater recreational fish species such as walleye, northern pike, and yellow perch.

No significant spawning aggregations for commercial and recreational fisheries have been identified in any of the waterbodies crossed by the pipeline. In addition, according to the water quality standards for North Dakota, there are no waterbodies crossed that are listed as Outstanding State Resource Waters (NDDH, 2001).

The most common mussel species likely to occur in the waterbodies crossed by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project are the giant floater (Anodonta grandis), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and white heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata). No federally listed mussel species have been identified in the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. Invasive species such as the zebra mussel are only known to occur within the Red River Valley Basin in the southeast portion of the state; therefore, the species’ known range is outside of the Project area

2.3.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation

Use of the HDD construction method at the James River and Seven Mile Coulee would minimize impacts on fisheries and other aquatic life at these waterbodies because the banks and beds would remain undisturbed. The method also would minimize impacts on grassland habitat because vegetation clearing would not be required between the HDD entry and exit points during the construction or operation phases of the Project. WBI Wind Ridge would implement the measures described in its Horizontal Directional Drill Drilling Fluid Monitoring and Operations Plan to minimize any potential impacts on waterbodies resulting from an inadvertent release of drilling fluid during the HDD process.

Other waterbodies with perceptible flow at the time of construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would be crossed using a dry crossing method (i.e., flume or dam and pump). Waterbodies with no perceptible flow at the time of construction would be crossed using the wet open cut method. The majority of these waterbodies would not contain fish. However, in streams with fish, most effects of the open-cut crossing method would be localized and of short duration and would not have a significant impact on resident fish populations. In-stream construction activities typically take place in less than 24 hours for minor streams and less than 48 hours for intermediate streams. The rapid pace of construction along with the other measures identified in the Plan or Procedures would reduce the impacts of sedimentation and turbidity on aquatic life. Additionally, it is expected that individual fish, where present, would temporarily relocate upstream or downstream of the crossing locations to avoid the most turbid water.

Implementation of the measures specified in WBI Wind Ridge’s SPCC Plan would minimize potential impacts on aquatic resources due to inadvertent releases of fuel or mechanical fluids. As specified in the SPCC Plan, hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils would not be stored, nor would concrete coating activities be performed, within 100 feet of stream banks. In most cases, refueling or hydraulic fluid servicing of construction equipment would not be conducted within 100 feet of stream banks. If the equipment cannot be reasonably moved beyond 100 feet of the stream banks, refueling or hydraulic servicing may be conducted under the supervision of WBI Wind Ridge’s EIs in accordance with the SPCC Plan.

Entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms during withdrawals of hydrostatic test water is sometimes a concern during pipeline construction projects. However, as indicated above, the majority of the waterbodies crossed by the Project do not contain fish. Additionally, WBI Wind Ridge indicated no

hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn from the James River or Seven Mile Coulee; therefore, entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms is not expected to occur.

With the implementation of the construction and mitigation measures described above, impacts on fisheries and other aquatic life are expected to be minor, localized, and limited to the construction period. No long-term or population-level impacts on fisheries or aquatic life would occur. Additionally, no long-term effects on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, benthic invertebrates, or fish communities are expected to occur due to construction or operation of the pipeline or aboveground facilities.

2.3.4 Special Status Species

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are:

 species federally listed as endangered or threatened, species considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or species petitioned for listing under the ESA; and

 species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or otherwise designated as a state protected species.

With the assistance of the Applicants acting as our non-federal representative, we informally consulted with the FWS, and coordinated with North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department to assess impacts on special status species. We have evaluated the potential for the Projects to affect federally listed threatened and endangered species as well as candidate species and designated critical habitat as based on a review of the FWS Information, Planning and Conservation (IPAC) System. We also consulted with the North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory, which is maintained by the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, to identify previously recorded occurrences of species within 1 mile of the Projects. These consultations resulted in the identification of [TBD] special status species that might occur in the Project area as described below.

[Note: Need to update this section when correspondence with the FWS is received. If consultation is not complete in time for the EA, a recommendation will be added saying that construction cannot begin until that consultation is complete.]

2.3.4.1 Federally Listed Species

In accordance with section 7 of the ESA, the lead federal agency (in this case, the FERC) in coordination with the FWS, must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. The lead federal agency must prepare a biological assessment for actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitat. As the lead federal agency authorizing the Projects, the FERC is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are found in the vicinity of the Projects, and to evaluate the proposed action’s potential effects on those species or critical habitats. We also evaluated impacts on any federal candidate species with the potential to occur in the Project area. Six federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate, and special concern species have the potential to occur within the Project area. A summary of these federally listed species is provided in table 2.3.4-1.

TABLE 2.3.4-1

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring within the Vicinity of the Projects

Common Scientific County Effects Taxa Name Name Status LaMoure Logan McIntosh Stutsman Determination Bird Interior Charadrius Threatened X X X piping plover melodus Bird Sprague's Anthus Candidate X X X X pipit spragueii Bird Whooping Grus Endangered X X X X crane americana Bird Rufa red Calidris Threatened X X X knot canutus rufa Mammal Northern Myotis Proposed X X X X long-eared septentrionalis bat Insect Dakota Hesperia Threatened X skipper dacotae

Interior Piping Plover The interior piping plover is a federally listed threatened species. In North Dakota, the majority of piping plovers nest on prairie alkali lakes, while others select the free-flowing stretch of the Missouri River. Piping plovers also use barren river sandbars typically along the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. A majority of the natural lakes used by plovers in North Dakota are alkaline in nature and have salt- encrusted, white beaches. Piping plovers have been found to use beaches that are 30 to 120 feet wide. Vegetative cover at nesting sites is generally less than 25 percent. Piping plovers arrive in the Project area in April for mating and nesting and migrate south in August. Construction of the Spiritwood Compressor Station is anticipated to occur from mid-April to late December; and would overlap with the Plover’s spring and fall migration periods. Construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline is anticipated to last from July to late December; which would overlap the end of the piping plover breeding and nesting season. It is possible that nesting birds would be present during construction of both Projects. The Applicants attempted to determine whether suitable nesting habitat was present during wetland and waterbody surveys. Heavy flooding and a high water table greatly reduced the potential for suitable piping plover nesting habitat to occur in the Project area. In addition, the Applicants utilized an alternative desktop aerial image review to identify potentially suitable habitat. Alkali flats are visible in aerial images as white (salt) beaches around waterbodies. The Applicants determined that the current conditions of high water have flooded any historical alkali flats and there are no alkali flats currently present within the Project area. Based on the results of the habitat screening and field observations, we find that the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, piping plovers. Additionally, we find that the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would have no effect on piping plovers. Whooping Crane The whooping crane is a federally listed endangered species. Whooping cranes spend approximately 3 months annually in migration and can travel up to 400 miles per day at altitudes between 1,000 and 6,000 feet above the ground (FWS, 2009). Along their migration route they use a variety of feeding and roosting habitats, including croplands, freshwater wetlands with shallow (about 18 inches or less) areas, and submerged sandbars in wide, unobstructed river channels isolated from human disturbance (Austin and Richert, 2001; Lewis, 1995). River profiles at nocturnal roost sites within critical habitat for the whooping crane along the Platte River in Nebraska determined that whooping cranes select roost sites in river channels wider than 492 feet (Faanes et al., 1992). Most (75 percent) wetlands for

roosting were less than 10 acres and within 0.62 mile of a suitable feeding site (Lewis, 1995; FWS, 1994). Family groups selected more heavily vegetated wetlands than did nonfamilies, although heavily vegetated wetlands are typically not used because such vegetation can create visual obstructions (Lewis, 1995). Visual obstructions like tall vegetation, buildings, and topography, are generally avoided by whooping cranes within 100 meters of a roost site (The Watershed Institute, 2012). During migration, their diet consists of plant tubers, waste grains, amphibians, reptiles, and insects (Lewis, 1995). Construction of the compressor station would begin in mid-April and end in December 2016, overlapping the spring and fall migration of the whopping crane. Pipeline construction would begin in July and end in December 2016 which overlaps the fall migration of the species. Whooping cranes that may occur in the vicinity of the Projects would likely be individual migrants. Given the abundance of both wetlands and croplands in the Project vicinity, migrant cranes would be able to find suitable feeding and roosting areas away from the Project during the temporary disturbance from construction and post- construction restoration. Project EIs would be trained in whooping crane identification prior to the start of construction. In the event that individual cranes are observed within 1 mile of the Project area during construction, construction would cease until they vacate the area, at which time construction would continue. Therefore, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, we find that the Projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the whooping crane or its habitat. Rufa Red Knot The rufa red knot is a federally listed threatened species. Rufa red knots make one of the longest distance migrations traveling up to 19,000 miles annually. Rufa red knots tend to use coastline habitat during migration; however, small numbers are reported annually across the interior United States during spring and fall migration. The species has been documented across the Northern Plains during their spring migration. Northbound stopover locations along the central flyway have occurred across the Midwest United States, including North Dakota, and a majority stopover in parts of Canada including Saskatchewan and Alberta (78 FR 60023; FWS, 2013). Stopovers are time-constrained and require areas that are rich in easily digested food to achieve adequate weight gain. In North America, rufa red knots are commonly found along sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, shallow coastal impoundments and lagoons, and peat banks. There is little information about stopover habitat used by rufa red knots in the interior United States. Given their specialized molluscivore diet, it can be assumed they would use shallow wetlands, lake margins, and riverine habitats within North Dakota for foraging and/or roosting areas (FWS, 2013). Construction of the compressor station would begin in mid-April and end in December 2016, overlapping the spring and fall migration of the rufa red knot. Pipeline construction would begin in July and end in December 2016 which overlaps the fall migration of the rufa red knot. Rufa red knots in the Project area would be individual migrants only. Following restoration, the right-of-way would be returned to preconstruction condition in open lands and wetlands. Therefore, we find that the Projects would have no effect on the rufa red knot or its habitat. Dakota Skipper The Dakota skipper is a federally listed threatened species. Dakota skippers are obligate residents of undisturbed prairie habitat with a relatively high diversity of native species. They inhabit two types of grassland habitat; wet-mesic tallgrass prairie dominated by bluestem grasses and dry-mesic mixed grass prairie dominated by mixed bluestem and needle grasses. Both habitat types contain an abundance of flowering plants and alkaline soils. In dry mixed-grass prairie, Dakota skippers can be found along ridges and hillsides (Cochrane and Delphey, 2002; Vaughan and Shepherd, 2005).

Dakota skippers complete one generation per year. Females lay eggs on a range of broadleaf plants and grasses, which hatch after incubating for 7 to 20 days. Little bluestem has been shown to be selected for both egg laying and as a food source for larvae. Nectar sources for adults vary regionally and include purple coneflower (Echinacea sp.), harebell, white prairie clover (Dalea candida), fleabane (Erigeron sp.), blanketflowers (Gaillardia sp.), black-eyed Susans (Rudbeckia sp.), and evening primrose (yellow sundrops, Calypphus serrulatus) (Cochrane and Delphey, 2002; Vaughan and Shepherd, 2005). The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project construction right-of-way would cross 15.1 acres of potentially suitable Dakota skipper habitat in Stutsman County. However, these areas are dominated by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass making them marginal habitats at best. Vegetation and soil would be stripped along the right-of-way. The temporary removal of soil and vegetation and the use of the right-of- way by heavy equipment may impact any larvae or pupae that may occur within the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project area. The removal of vegetation along the right-of-way could temporarily eliminate some nectar sources and egg-laying structures that the Dakota skipper may use until the impacted areas have been restored with a native restoration seed mix if required. Some of the vegetation proposed to be removed are non-native, invasive species that can degrade adjacent native mixed prairie habitat. Populations of weeds would be controlled as outlined in section 2.3.1. Therefore, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Dakota skipper. The Spiritwood Compressor Station Project is entirely contained within annually disturbed agricultural cropland. This vegetation type is not suitable for any life stage of the Dakota Skipper. Therefore, the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would not affect this species. 2.3.4.2 Federal Candidate and Proposed Species Sprague’s Pipit Sprague’s pipit is currently listed as a candidate species for federal listing. Spring and fall migration occurs throughout the central Great Plains from the third week of April to mid-May where breeding pairs quickly form. Fall migration occurs from late September through early November (Hagen et al., 2005; Jones, 2010). In North Dakota, male breeding territories are located in elevated areas with short grass and relatively low sedge and forb densities (Robbins, 1998) and were negatively impacted by increasing tall shrub (greater than 1 meter) and brush (less than 1 meter), and cover and increasing litter depth greater than 12 centimeters (Grant et al., 2004). They seldom breed in cultivated lands, and are uncommon on non-native planted pasturelands (Jones, 2010). Sprague’s pipits are likely influenced by the size of grassland patches (they require at least 190 hectares [469 acres]) and avoid edges between grasslands and other habitat features (75 FR 56028; Hagen et al., 2005). They had a 50 percent probability of occurring on patches greater than or equal to 144.0 hectares (358.3 acres) and were absent from grassland patches less than 28.9 hectares (71.6 acres; Davis, 2004). They are reported to stay up to 350 meters (1,148 feet) away from features such as roads, oil wells, and wind turbines and generally avoid non-grassland features such as croplands, trails, woody vegetation, and wetlands (75 FR 56028). The breeding territory is also used for nesting and feeding. Sprague’s pipits build ground nests in grasslands primarily dominated by native grasses of intermediate height and density, with little bare ground and few shrubs. Sprague’s pipits forage alone throughout the day in all seasons by walking or running while gleaning food from the ground surface and vegetation. During the breeding season, their diet is primarily comprised of arthropods with a small amount of vegetative matter (Jones, 2010). WBI Wind Ridge documented the presence of grassland that may be suitable Sprague’s pipit foraging habitat as part of its environmental field surveys. However, there were no areas identified as Sprague’s pipit nesting habitat. The Spiritwood Compressor Station site would be located in actively cultivated cropland. This land use is continuous for at least 2 miles in all directions surrounding the site. No suitable habitat for Sprague’s pipit was identified in the Spiritwood Compressor Station site.

Therefore, we conclude that the Projects would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing of the Sprague’s pipit. Northern Long-eared Bat The northern long-eared bat is currently proposed for federal listing as an endangered species. The northern long-eared bat overwinters in hibernacula that consist generally of large caves and abandoned mines. Their winter hibernacula locations generally have a relatively constant, cooler temperature, and high humidity with minimal air currents. Within the hibernacula, northern long-eared bats typically roost in small crevices or cracks on cave or mine walls or ceilings. There are no known hibernacula within North Dakota; however, there has been limited survey effort in the state. Estimated northern long-eared bat hibernation season in North Dakota is from October 1 through May 15. Migration between winter hibernacula and summer habitat occurs from mid-March to mid-May with bats returning to hibernacula from mid-August to mid-October; specific dates in North Dakota are currently unavailable. Northern long-eared bats are not considered long-distance migrants, they typically travel 40 to 50 miles (FWS, 2014; 78 FR 61046). In North Dakota, northern long-eared bats summer maternity season is typically from April 1 through September 30. During the summer, the northern long-eared bat uses a variety of habitat for roosting, foraging, and travel including forested/wooded habitats and some adjacent and interspersed non- forested habitats such as emergent wetlands, edges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Northern long-eared bats have been observed roosting in manmade structures, such as buildings, barns, park pavilions, sheds, cabins, and bat houses. Northern long-eared bats have shown a preference for mature forests and for contiguous tracts of forest cover when foraging (FWS, 2014; 78 FR 61046). The construction schedule for the compressor station is anticipated to start in mid-April 2016 and end in December 2016. The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project is anticipated to begin construction in July 2016 and end in December 2016. Both construction periods overlap the active season of the northern long-eared bat. Although bats could potentially roost in shelter belts and small patches of trees, there are no forested habitats in the vicinity of the Projects. In addition, there are no known caves or bat hibernacula within 50 miles of the Projects. Therefore, we have concluded that the Projects would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long-eared bat. 2.3.4.3 State Species of Concern While North Dakota does not have a state endangered species program, it does track data regarding species identified as species of concern and other significant ecological communities. [Note: Results of the North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory search and consultation with the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department are pending. This section will be updated once they are received.] Impacts on the species of concern would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures in the Plan and Procedures. These measures are designed to:

 decrease potential for erosion;  restore preconstruction contours;  increase the potential for successful revegetation of the right-of-way;  minimize impacts on native grassland habitat; and  prevent or control the spread of noxious weeds. Given the nature of the habitats crossed and the measures that would be implemented as part of the Projects, impacts on state species of concern would be minimal.

2.4 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES

2.4.1 Land Use

Construction of the proposed facilities would affect about [TBD] acres of land. Land affected includes the pipeline construction right-of-way, ATWS, staging areas, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Following construction, about [TBD] acres, including the temporary construction right-of-way, ATWS, staging areas, and temporary access roads, would be restored to preconstruction conditions and uses. The remaining [TBD] acres, including [TBD] acres for the permanent pipeline easement, [TBD] acres for permanent access roads, 10.0 acres for the compressor station, and [TBD] acres for the meter stations, would be retained for operation of the Projects. Land use types that would be affected by the Projects include agricultural land, open land, developed land, and open water. Table 2.4.1-1 summarizes the acreage of each land use type that would be affected by construction and operation of the Projects’ facilities.

Land use impacts associated with the Projects would include the disturbance of existing land uses during construction as well as retention of a permanent pipeline easement, permanent access roads, and aboveground facility sites during operation of the facilities. For the pipeline facilities, WBI Wind Ridge proposes to use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. The construction right-of-way typically would consist of a 70-foot-wide working side and a 30-foot-wide spoil side. ATWS areas have also been identified throughout the Project area in variable sizes and configurations (see table B-1 in appendix B). Following construction, a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be retained for pipeline operations; the remainder of the construction right-of-way would be restored to preconstruction conditions. Of the 96.2 miles of pipeline, about 5.8 miles (6 percent) would be located adjacent to existing linear utility corridors (i.e., existing pipeline and electric transmission line rights-of-way). The remainder of the pipeline route would be greenfield.

2.4.1.1 Agricultural Land

The majority of the land affected by the Projects would be agricultural land. Agricultural land in the Project area consists of actively cultivated fields, working areas within farms, and areas of planted hay and pasture. Construction of the Projects would affect about [TBD] acres of agricultural land, of which [TBD] acres would be within the permanent pipeline easement, aboveground facility sites, or permanent access roads. Construction impacts on agricultural land would include removal of vegetation, disturbance to soils, and disruption of crops. These impacts would be temporary and short term, and would be minimized by the implementation of the Plan and Procedures. Following construction, agricultural lands would be restored to preconstruction conditions and uses, except at the aboveground facility sites and permanent access roads, which would be permanently converted to developed land. Although about [TBD] acres of agricultural land would be within the permanent pipeline easement, these areas would revert to their preconstruction conditions and uses, except within the fenced areas at block valve and pig launcher/receiver sites.

No irrigation or drainage structures have been identified in the proposed Project area to date. However, should any systems be affected during construction, WBI Wind Ridge would restore/repair any damaged systems to preconstruction condition in accordance with the Plan or landowner agreements.

TABLE 2.4.1-1

Land Uses Affected by the Projects (in acres) Agricultural Open Land Developed Open Water Total Facility Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. PIPELINE FACILITIES Pipeline right-of-way McIntosh County TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Logan County TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD LaMoure County TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Stutsman County TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Additional temporary workspaces McIntosh County TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 Logan County TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 LaMoure County TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 Stutsman County TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 Subtotal TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0 TBD 0.0

56 Staging areas Staging Area 1 (MP 0.0, McIntosh County) 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Staging Area 2 (MP 11.6, McIntosh County) 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Staging Area 3 (MP 30.4, Logan County) 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 Staging Area 4 (MP 51.7, Logan County) 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 Staging Area 5 (MP 74.1, Stutsman County) 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 Staging Area 6 (MP 92.9, Stutsman County) 20.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Subtotal 82.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.3 0.0 Other work areas Temporary access roads TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Permanent access roads TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Pipeline Facilities Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES Spiritwood Compressor Station (MP 94.3, Stutsman County) 9.8 9.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 Meter station – tie-in with NBPL (MP 0.0, McIntosh County) b 2.0 TBD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 TBD Meter station – nitrogen fertilizer plant (MP 96.2, Stutsman TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 0.2 County) c

TABLE 2.4.1-1 (cont’d)

Land Uses Affected by the Projects (in acres) Agricultural Open Land Developed Open Water Total Facility Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Block valves d Block Valve 1 (MP 11.8, McIntosh County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 2 (MP 22.1, McIntosh County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 3 (MP 32.4, Logan County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 4 (MP 44.1, Logan County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 5 (MP 56.5, LaMoure County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 6 (MP 65.9, Stutsman County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 7 (MP 79.7, Stutsman County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block Valve 8 (MP 86.5, Stutsman County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pig launchers and receivers e Pig launcher/receiver (MP 0.0, McIntosh County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pig launcher/receiver (MP TBD) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pig launcher/receiver (MP 96.2, Stutsman County) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

57 Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Aboveground Facilities Subtotal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD PROJECT TOTAL TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD ______a The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the sum of the addends in all cases. b NBPL would construct and operate the meter station. WBI Wind Ridge would retain ownership of the meter station. The construction of this facility would be authorized under NBPL’s [TBD] authority. c The meter station would be constructed and operated within the area associated with the temporary and permanent pipeline right-of-way or company-acquired property. d Each 10- by 20-foot block valve would be constructed within the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and operated within the 50-foot-wide permanent easement. No additional land would be required for construction or operation of these facilities. e The pig launcher and pig receiver sites would be constructed and operated within the meter station sites at MPs 0.0 and 96.2 and within the permanent easement at [MP TBD].

2.4.1.2 Open Land Open land would be the second most prevalent land use affected by the Projects. Open land in the Project area consists of non-forested areas such as grassland, shrubland, and barren land. Construction of the Projects would affect about [TBD] acres of open land, of which [TBD] acres would be within the permanent pipeline easement, aboveground facility sites, or permanent access roads. Construction impacts on open land would include removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils. These impacts would be temporary and short term, and would be minimized by the implementation of the Plan and Procedures. Following construction, open lands would be restored to preconstruction conditions, except at the aboveground facility sites and permanent access roads, which would be permanently converted to developed land. Although about [TBD] acres of open land would be located within the permanent pipeline easement, these areas would revert to their preconstruction conditions and uses, except within the fenced areas at block valve and pig launcher/receiver sites. 2.4.1.3 Developed Land Developed land in the Project area primarily consists of existing roads, railroads, and utility lines crossed by the pipeline right-of-way as well as Project access roads. Construction of the Projects would affect about [TBD] acres of developed land, of which [TBD] acres would be within the permanent pipeline easement. The Projects would have minimal impacts on these lands because highways, railroads, and most paved roads would be crossed by the HDD method. Gravel roads would be crossed either by the road bore or open-cut method. Two-tracks, trails, and driveways, as well as roads in areas with a high water table, would be crossed by the open-cut method. Roads crossed by the open-cut method would be restored to preconstruction conditions within a few days following the completion of construction. Further, WBI Wind Ridge states that it would implement traffic control measures to minimize impacts on major roadways during construction and to assist with transportation of construction equipment and materials to and from the construction right-of-way (see section 2.6). 2.4.1.4 Open Water Open water in the Project area consists of standing surface water, including ponds. Construction of the Projects would affect about [TBD] acres of open water, of which [TBD] acres would be within the permanent pipeline easement. Because the pipeline would be installed underground, no permanent impacts on open water would result from construction or operation of the Projects. WBI Wind Ridge would cross waterbodies and wetlands using methods described in section 1.9. Impacts on water resources are discussed in section 2.2. 2.4.2 Existing Residences and Planned Developments In routing the pipeline, WBI Wind Ridge states that it attempted to maintain a minimum 800-foot offset between the pipeline route and residences wherever feasible. As a result, there are no residences within 50 feet of the construction corridor or other work areas. The closest residences to the route occur near MP 81.8, where the proposed pipeline would be about 250 feet east of a farmstead and residence located on the west side of 87th Avenue S.E.; and one at MP 93.8, where the proposed pipeline would be located about 250 feet south and southeast of a farmstead located on the north side of 35th Street S.E. The Projects would not affect any residential areas. The Applicants consulted with [Note: county consultations pending] to obtain information on any planned future developments (i.e., permitted or proposed residential or commercial developments) in the vicinity of the Projects. There are no planned developments within 0.25 mile of the proposed Projects.

2.4.3 Public Land, Conservation Easements, Recreation, and Other Designated Areas 2.4.3.1 Public Land All lands within the proposed aboveground facility sites and staging areas, and the majority of the lands crossed by the proposed pipeline route (about [TBD] percent), are privately owned. The remaining [TBD] percent of the proposed pipeline route crosses public land managed by the NDOT or county townships. There are no federal lands crossed by the Projects. However, about 25.5 miles (26.5 percent) of the private lands affected by the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project are subject to conservation easements held by the FWS. These conservation easements are discussed below. 2.4.3.2 Grassland Conservation Easements The proposed pipeline route would cross one private parcel that is subject to a grassland conservation easement held by the FWS. Grassland conservation easements define permanent agreements between the FWS and all present and future landowners to keep the land in native or restored grassland. Most grassland easements are large tracts of open grassland with high wetland densities and native prairie, or soils that are likely to be converted to cropland unless protected (FWS, 2011). Ground- disturbing activities within grassland easements are prohibited without prior approval of the FWS. Such activities are subject to review by FWS staff to determine if they are appropriate and compatible with the objectives of the easement program, and require a special use permit/right-of-way grant if they are found to be compatible. WBI Wind Ridge identified and incorporated several route variations into the proposed pipeline route to avoid all but one grassland easement (see section 3.0). The proposed route would cross about 0.7 mile of grassland easement between MPs 24.3 and 25.0 in McIntosh County (see figure 2.4.3-1). WBI Wind Ridge was unable to identify a reroute to avoid this easement due to competing routing constraints in the area. [Note: Brief description of those competing constraints to be added.] WBI Wind Ridge submitted a request to the FWS for a compatibility determination for this crossing on [XXX], 2015. Impacts on grassland vegetation are discussed in section 2.3.1. Insert Figure 2.4.3-1 Grassland and Wetland Conservation Easements Crossed by the Projects 2.4.3.3 Wetland Conservation Easements A number of private parcels crossed by the proposed pipeline route are subject to wetland conservation easements held by the FWS (see figure 2.4.3-2). These easements define permanent agreements between the FWS and all present and future landowners to protect wetland basins within the easements in perpetuity. WBI Wind Ridge identified and incorporated several route variations into the proposed pipeline route to avoid or minimize crossings of wetland easements (see section 3.0); however, some easements could not be avoided. The proposed route would cross a total of about 24.8 miles of wetland conservation easements (see table 2.2.3-1). WBI Wind Ridge submitted a request to the FWS for compatibility determinations for these crossings on [XXX], 2015. A more detailed discussion of wetland conservation easements is provided in section 2.2.3.

2.4.3.4 Wetland Reserve Program The WRP was a voluntary program that offered landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property (NRCS, 2015). The NRCS provided technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts through the WRP. The goal of NRCS was to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. The Agricultural Act of 2014 establishes the Agricultural Conservation

Easement Program. It repeals WRP but does not affect the validity or terms of any WRP contract, agreement, or easement entered into prior to the date of enactment on February 7, 2014 (NRCS, 2015). As discussed in section 2.2.3.2, WBI Wind Ridge interviewed landowners to confirm if any crossed lands are enrolled in the WRP. Based on field surveys and interviews with landowners, no parcels under the WRP would be affected by the Projects. 2.4.3.5 Conservation Reserve Program The CRP is a voluntary program administered in North Dakota by the FSA within the USDA, which allows owners of agricultural tracts to conserve environmentally sensitive lands with financial assistance from the federal government. [Note: Add detail on CRP lands crossed, when available.] Construction across CRP lands (including topsoil segregation) would be conducted in accordance with the Plan and Procedures, as appropriate. WBI Wind Ridge would restore CRP lands using seed mixes consistent with CRP contract requirements. WBI Wind Ridge states that compensation for impacts on CRP lands would be addressed during easement negotiations with landowners. Additionally, WBI Wind Ridge states that it would consult with the FSA and the landowner to determine if Project construction would affect the CRP status of the land. 2.4.3.6 Recreation and Other Designated Areas The Applicants reviewed a variety of digital datasets and maps to identify recreation and special interest areas crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the Projects (Conservation Biology Institute, 2012; National Park Service, 2009; National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2014; North Dakota Department of Game and Fish, 2012 and 2013; North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, 2014a, 2014b, and 2014c; Recreation.gov, 2014; USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2014; USGS, 2013, 2014). Based on this review, the proposed Projects would not be located within 0.25 mile of any of the following:  national or state forests;  wild and scenic rivers;  national wildlife refuges;  national wilderness preservation system lands;  state nature preserves;  state recreation areas or trails;  state game management areas;  registered natural landmarks;  national or state scenic byways;  Indian reservation lands;  Native American religious sites or traditional cultural properties (to the extent that they are known to the public);  state, county, or local parks; or  campgrounds. However, the proposed pipeline would pass within 0.25 mile of two Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA). WPAs are federal lands managed by the FWS to provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife (FWS, 2012). WPAs are common in the Project region, and two WPAs are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline route passes within about 0.1 mile of a WPA near MP 46.5 in Logan County, and within about 0.2 mile of a WPA near MP 57.1 in LaMoure County. In each case, construction activities may be visible or audible to wildlife at, or visitors to, the WPAs, but these impacts

would be minor and of short duration as construction proceeds through these areas. Furthermore, the construction corridor in the vicinity of each WPA would be restored to preconstruction condition in accordance with the Plan and Procedures. Consequently, no long-term impacts are anticipated in the vicinity of these WPAs. Impacts on wildlife are further discussed in section 2.3.2. Construction of the Projects may have an impact on outdoor recreation activities (such as hunting) as a result of traffic and noise associated with construction activities; however, these impacts would be local, short term, and temporary as construction proceeds through any given area. Further, opportunities to engage in outdoor recreation activities would be available in surrounding areas. 2.4.4 Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites The Applicants reviewed the EPA’s Envirofacts website (EPA, 2014a) as well as an EPA data set for hazardous sites (EPA, 2014b) in an effort to identify hazardous waste sites, landfills, or other sites with the potential for soil or groundwater contamination within 0.25 mile of the Projects. No sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline route, ATWS areas, access roads, or aboveground facilities. However, one site, the Spiritwood Station coal-fired power plant, is located about 0.1 mile from the northern end of Staging Area 6. Spiritwood Station is a new facility that became fully operational on November 1, 2014 (Electric Light and Power, 2014). During its construction in 2011, Spiritwood Station reported to the EPA under the Toxics Release Inventory program for storage and offsite disposal of lead compounds. No toxic releases to the environment were reported, and no reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory has occurred since 2011. Therefore, it is unlikely that affected soil or groundwater would be encountered during use of Staging Area 6. The Applicants also reviewed data available from the NDDH’s Underground Storage Tank Program in an effort to identify underground storage tanks and leaking underground storage tanks within 0.25 mile of the pipeline route (NDDH, 2014). No underground storage tanks or leaking underground storage tanks were identified as a result of this search. It is possible that additional, unknown sites could be encountered in the Project area during construction. If any contaminated soils or groundwater are encountered, the Applicants would implement the measures specified in their Contaminated Soil Plan, and would notify the landowner and, if required, the appropriate regulatory agency, of the discovery. 2.4.5 Visual Resources The Projects would affect primarily undeveloped rural or agricultural lands. There are few residences in the immediate vicinity of the Projects, and the Projects would not cross any designated scenic areas. Most visual and aesthetic impacts would be limited to the period of active construction as a result of operating equipment, personnel, and disturbed soil. After the completion of construction, the landscape would be re-contoured to as near preconstruction conditions as practical and revegetated in accordance with the Plan and Procedures. WBI Wind Ridge states that the portions of the pipeline route crossing agricultural and open lands would return to preconstruction conditions within one to five growing seasons. Visual impacts from the construction of aboveground facilities would be permanent but not significant. The compressor station, meter stations, block valves, and pig launcher/receivers would be built in rural, undeveloped areas on agricultural or open lands. No residences are located in the immediate vicinity of these facilities and they are not expected to be visible from residences or public areas with the possible exception of travelers passing on nearby roads. Further, the Applicants state that they would implement visual mitigation measures at the compressor station that would include installation of trees and shrubs along the fence line.

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission, as non-federal parties, are assisting us in meeting our obligations under section 106 of the NHPA and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and recommendations, as authorized by 36 CFR Part 800 2(a)(3). 2.5.1 Consultation We sent copies of our NOI for the Projects to a wide range of stakeholders, including the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and federally recognized Indian tribes (tribes) that may have an interest in the Project areas. The NOI contained a paragraph about section 106 of the NHPA, and stated that we use the notice to initiate consultations with the SHPO, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested tribes, and the public on the Projects’ potential effects on historic properties. In addition to the FERC’s notification process, the Applicants separately contacted the SHPO and tribes that might attach cultural or religious significance to cultural resources in the Project areas. Consultation with tribes is discussed in section 2.5.3. The Applicants sent the SHPO an introductory Project letter on May 1, 2014 and met with the SHPO on May 14, 2014 to discuss methodologies for a Class III survey of the Project areas. A copy of the Class I literature review report and a research design for a Class III survey was sent to the SHPO on June 16, 2014. In a reply letter dated June 18, 2014, the SHPO concurred with the Class I report and research design for the Class III survey. The SHPO participated in an interagency meeting on September 10, 2014. On [TBD], a copy of the Class III survey report was sent to the SHPO for review and comment. 2.5.2 Cultural Resources Investigation 2.5.2.1 Archaeological and Aboveground Resources Survey The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Projects is defined as the 100-foot-wide construction corridor in addition to ATWS areas, aboveground facility sites, staging areas, and access roads. A Class I literature search was completed at the State Archives of the State Historical Society of North Dakota to identify previously recorded cultural resources identified generally within a 2-mile-wide buffer centered on the pipeline centerline for the Projects. The Applicants gathered the data on entire sections adjacent to the proposed corridor rather than clipping the review to a 2-mile-wide buffer. The site files search identified 72 previously recorded cultural resources, consisting of 45 archaeological, historic archaeological, and architectural sites, and 27 site leads or isolated finds within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline corridor, aboveground facility sites, staging areas, and access roads. The Class III survey examined a 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipeline centerline. The Class III survey was also conducted along a 50-foot-wide corridor for access roads. For the aboveground facilities and staging areas not located within the 300-foot-wide corridor, the surveyed area coincided with the extent of the construction-related activities. The survey methodology consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance along the entire proposed route augmented by shovel testing. In addition to the Class III cultural resources inventory, a geomorphological investigation to evaluate the potential for deeply buried archaeological resources was completed for the proposed pipeline.

Indirect effects on historic properties would be primarily visual in nature. For new or modified aboveground facilities, an APE of [TBD] acres/miles was surveyed to identify any historic properties within the viewshed of the proposed Spiritwood Compressor Station. The Applicants surveyed 92.2 miles (96 percent) of the APE between June and October 2014. In addition to the proposed pipeline corridor, the proposed NBPL meter station, 35 access roads, and six staging areas were surveyed. The Class III cultural resources inventory of the pipeline route, aboveground facilities, staging areas, and access roads resulted in the identification of 34 cultural resource sites along the proposed pipeline route. Of these, 9 consist of archaeological sites, 21 consist of isolated archaeological finds, and 4 consist of architectural/built sites (see table 2.5.2-1). The Class III inventory of the compressor station did not result in the identification of cultural resource sites. No cemeteries were identified within the APE as a result of the survey.

TABLE 2.5.2-1

Class III Survey Results for the Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects Recommended Recommended Site No. Temporal Period Resource Type NRHP Evaluation Future Action 32LM268 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Eligible Avoided, no further work 32LM269 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32LM128 Historic Railroad roadway Eligible Pending 32LMx187 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LMx188 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LMx189 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LO98 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32LO99 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32LO100 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32LO97 Historic Structures Not Eligible No further work 32LO102 Historic Foundation a Not Eligible No further work 32LOx56 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LOx57 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LOx58 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32LOx59 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MT354 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32MT74 Historic Railroad roadway Potentially eligible Pending 32MTx76 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx77 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx78 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx71 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx72 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx79 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32MTx75 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SN790 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32SN791 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not eligible No further work 32SN716 Historic Railroad roadway Eligible Avoided, no further work 32SNx261 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx260 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx263 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx267 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx268 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx269 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work 32SNx270 Prehistoric Isolated find Not eligible No further work ______a Site 32LO102 also contains stone circles; however, these features are located outside of the APE.

The archaeological resources identified within the APE have been recommended by WBI Wind Ridge for the following actions:

 8 archaeological sites, 1 architectural/built resources, and 21 isolated finds – not eligible for listing in the NRHP and requiring no further work;

 1 archaeological site – potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP but avoided by reroute and requiring no additional work.

The architectural/built resources identified within the APE consist of 3 historic railroads that were previously recorded. These 3 railroads were previously determined to be eligible (consensus determination) for listing on the NRHP: site 32SN716 is an active railroad; site 32LM128 is abandoned railroad grade; and site 32MT74 is crossed twice with one segment consisting of abandoned grade and the other segment consisting of an active railroad.

Site 32SN716 is a newly recorded segment of the active railroad. The site will by avoided by boring/HDD and no additional work is recommended.

Site 32LM128 consists of the newly recorded segment of abandoned grade; the rails and ties were previously removed from the roadbed. WBI Wind Ridge would open cut the roadbed during pipeline construction. The original contours would be restored as nearly as practical to preconstruction conditions. WBI Wind Ridge would also use the abandoned grade as a construction access road. WBI Wind Ridge does not anticipate the need for any improvements to the railroad grade for Project access. WBI Wind Ridge would implement protective measures as needed for Project access (e.g., use of light duty, rubber- tired trucks only, limited trips, no grading of the roadbed, etc.).

Site 32MT74 is a newly recorded segment of abandoned roadbed that would be avoided by boring/HDD. WBI Wind Ridge would use the abandoned railroad grade as a construction access road. WBI Wind Ridge does not anticipate the need for any improvements to the railroad grade for Project access. WBI Wind Ridge would implement protective measures as needed for Project access (e.g., use of light duty, rubber-tired trucks only, limited trips, no grading of the roadbed, etc.). The active segment of site 32LM74 will by avoided by boring/HDD and no additional work is recommended.

The SHPO filed comments and concurred with these recommendations in a letter dated [TBD].

Approximately 4.0 miles (4.2 percent) of the proposed pipeline route were not examined due to lack of survey permission from the landowners or as a result of route variations identified after the conclusion of the 2014 field season. Additionally, one staging area was reconfigured after the conclusion of the 2014 field season and requires survey. WBI Wind Ridge has stated that the remainder of the proposed pipeline route and these additional work areas would be surveyed for cultural resource sites in the spring of 2015.

2.5.2.2 Tribal Survey

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe recommended that a field survey of the Projects be conducted utilizing tribal specialists who would be able to identify sites of importance and concern to the tribe (see section 2.5.3). The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal contractor, Mokoche Wowapi, examined a 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipeline centerline. The traditional cultural property (TCP) survey was also conducted along a 50-foot-wide corridor for access roads. For the aboveground facilities and staging areas not located within the 300-foot-wide corridor, the surveyed area coincided with the extent of the

construction-related activities. The survey methodology consisted of an intensive TCP survey to identify areas or historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Oceti Sakowin Tribes.

The field survey began on November 6, 2014; however, the survey was halted for the winter due to weather conditions on November 9, 2014. Approximately 39.1 miles of the proposed pipeline route were surveyed as well as the proposed compressor station, and two staging areas. Preliminary survey results are pending. Approximately 57.1 miles (59 percent) of the proposed pipeline route were not examined. It is anticipated that the tribal survey will resume in May 2015.

2.5.3 Native American Consultations

In addition to the FERC’s consultation program, the Applicants contacted 15 federally recognized tribes:

 Northern Cheyenne Tribe;  Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation;  Standing Rock Sioux Tribe;  Spirit Lake Tribe;  Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians;  Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation;  Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation;  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;  Crow Creek Sioux Tribe;  Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe;  Lower Brule Sioux Tribe;  Oglala Sioux Tribe;  Rosebud Sioux Tribe;  Santee Sioux Nation; and  Yankton Sioux Tribe.

On May 1, 2014, introductory letters were sent to each of the 15 tribes requesting their comments about the Projects and their assistance in the identification of TCPs that may be affected. The status of responses from the tribes is summarized in table E-1 in appendix E. On May 1, 2014, the Applicants also sent an introductory letter to the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission. No response was received from the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission.

The Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe stated that they had no objections to the Projects; however, the tribe requested that they be contacted in the event that any human skeletal remains are uncovered during construction.

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians noted that a site of traditional importance is located near the Projects. The tribe also stated that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, in coordination with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, would like to conduct a survey of portions of the Project in order to identify resources of concern to the two tribes. To date, the tribes have not responded to telephone calls.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requested additional copies of the introductory Project letter. The Applicants emailed copies of these letters to the tribe on June 20, 2014. To date, no comments have been received from the Rosebud Sioux.

The Spirit Lake Tribe indicated that they may want to meet with the Applicants, the FERC, and other potentially affected tribes to discuss areas of concern to the Spirit Lake Tribe or possibly have a cultural monitor walk the length of the Project area to identify areas of tribal concern.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe requested that all tribes that have ancestral lands crossed by the Projects be notified.

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe noted that they would like the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Projects.

WBI Wind Ridge received an email from the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The tribe requested that WBI Wind Ridge contact the tribe to discuss the completion of a TCP survey of the Project areas, as well as their participation in construction monitoring.

The Santee Sioux Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) indicated by letter that his office would like to be kept informed as the Projects progress. On November 10, 2014, the Applicants contacted the THPO to follow up on his October 22, 2014, letter. The THPO stated that the tribe was interested in the Project areas and requested an opportunity to survey in order to identify burials.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe commented in a letter to WBI Wind Ridge dated May 27, 2014. The tribe recommended that a field survey of the Projects be conducted utilizing tribal specialists who would be able to identify sites of importance and concern to the tribe. The Applicants retained the tribe’s cultural resources contractor to conduct a tribal field survey (see section 2.5.2.2).

The Applicants attempted to follow-up on WBI Wind Ridge’s introductory Project letter with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe; however, attempts to reach these tribes were unsuccessful.

2.5.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plan

WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission developed a Plan for Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties or Human Remains, during Construction. The plan establishes procedures to be implemented in the event that previously unreported historic properties or human remains are found during construction of the Projects. We requested minor revisions to the plan. The Applicants provided a revised plan, which we found acceptable. A copy of the revised plan was provided to the SHPO on January 7, 2015.

2.5.5 General Impact and Mitigation

Construction and operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project could affect historic properties. Direct effects could include destruction or damage to all, or a portion of, an archaeological site, or alteration or removal of a historic property. Indirect effects could include the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that affect the setting or character of a historic property.

Compliance with section 106 of the NHPA has not been completed for the Projects. Cultural resources surveys of portions of the Projects and consultation with the SHPO and other parties has not been completed. If FERC, in consultation with the SHPO, determines that the sites are eligible and cannot be avoided, the Applicants would be required to prepare a treatment plan, in consultation with the appropriate parties, to mitigate adverse effects. The FERC would afford the ACHP an opportunity to

comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6. Implementation of a treatment plan would occur only after Certification of the Project and receipt of written notification to proceed from the FERC.

To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are met, we recommend that:

 WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission should not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission file with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary):

i. reports of results of additional cultural resources surveys, including tribal surveys;

ii. site-specific avoidance and/or treatment plan(s), as required; and

iii. comments on the cultural resources reports and plans from the North Dakota SHPO.

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be adversely affected; and

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) approves the cultural resources reports and plans, and notifies WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission in writing that avoidance and/or treatment measures (including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or construction may proceed.

All materials filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.”

2.6 SOCIOECONOMICS

Construction and operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline and Spiritwood Compressor Station Projects could impact socioeconomic resources in the area. Some of these potential effects are related to the number of construction workers that would work on the Projects and their impact on population, public services, and temporary housing during construction. Other effects associated with the Project include increased traffic, property tax revenue, increased job opportunities, and increased income associated with local construction employment.

2.6.1 Population and Employment

Table 2.6.1-1 provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic conditions for affected communities in the Project area. Construction of the Projects would temporarily increase the population in the general Project area. The construction activities for the Projects would occur between April and December 2016. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission propose to place the Projects in service by January 2017.

The unemployment rate for North Dakota is 2.8 percent, well below the national unemployment rate of 5.9 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). The difference in the unemployment rates for the counties affected by the Projects relative to the statewide average is small, ranging between 0.2 to 0.5 percent.

The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would result in a temporary increase in employment in the counties crossed by the pipeline. Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would be accomplished using two construction spread(s) with a peak temporary workforce of approximately 400 people. Of these, about 20 workers would be local residents (5 percent) and 380 workers (95 percent) would temporarily relocate to the Project area from April through December 2016. Following construction, WBI Wind Ridge expects that one permanent employee would be required to assist with operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities.

WBI Transmission anticipates the maximum workforce for construction of the proposed compressor station would be approximately 18 people. Of these, 2 workers (10 percent) would be local residents, and 16 workers (90 percent) would temporarily relocate to the Project area from April through December 2016. Following construction, WBI Transmission expects that no new permanent employees would be required to assist with operation and maintenance of the compressor station.

Construction of the Projects would result in a temporary increase in the population of the area. It is estimated that about 396 workers would be non-local skilled labor that would reside in the area during the period of construction and then move out once construction is complete. Due to the relatively short duration and transient nature of construction, we anticipate that most non-local workers would not be accompanied by their families. Based on the county populations affected by the Projects, the additional people that might temporarily relocate to the area would not result in a significant change. The influx of non-local workers would be temporary and limited to the period of construction. Hiring local or regional workers for construction would have minimal impact on the overall unemployment rates for the region due to the short-term workforce needs, the relatively large area over which the local/regional workers would be deployed, and the already low unemployment rates in the counties affected by the Projects. Consequently, there would be no short- or long-term significant impacts on population resulting from the Projects.

TABLE 2.6.1-1

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Project Area Population Per Capita Density b Income Rental Civilian Unemploy State/County (people/ (U.S. Vacancy Labor -ment Township Population a sq. mile) Dollars) c Rate a Force d Rate e Major Industry d North Dakota 723,393 9.7 54,871 5.9 377,491 2.8 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; agriculture; educational; health; and social services McIntosh 2,754 2.9 53,780 18.7 1,348 3.0 Agriculture, forestry, County fishing/hunting, educational, health, and social services Logan 1,946 2.0 69,317 12.7 899 3.0 Agriculture, forestry, County fishing/hunting, educational, health, and social services LaMoure 4,166 3.6 69,317 9.2 2,260 2.3 Agriculture, forestry, County fishing/hunting, educational, health, and social services Stutsman 21,120 9.5 49,929 6.0 11,428 2.9 Educational, health, County and social services Spiritwood 62 1.7 33,896 0.0 47 0.0 Educational, health, Township and social services ______a U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Population Estimates. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. b U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. Table DP 04 – 2008–2012 Selected Housing Characteristics. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. c U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Regional Economic Accounts. BEA’s Regional Factsheets – Per Capita Personal Income. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm. d U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. Table DP 03 – 2008–2012 Selected Economic Characteristics. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. e U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014b. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. May 2010–June 2011. County Data – Labor Force Data by County. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/lau/.

2.6.2 Housing

Housing statistics for the counties affected by the Projects are presented in table 2.6.1-1. Temporary housing availability varies geographically within the counties and communities near the proposed facilities and is available in the form of daily, weekly, and monthly rentals in motels, hotels, and apartments. Due to the short-term construction duration for both Projects and available housing, the temporary influx of work is not expected to result in competitive pressure for housing.

2.6.3 Public Services

A wide range of public services and facilities are offered in the counties crossed by the Projects, including hospitals, full-service law enforcement, and paid and volunteer fire departments. Each county in the socioeconomic impact area has its own sheriff’s department and numerous fire departments. Temporary impacts on public services could include the need for localized police assistance to control traffic flow during construction activities. Also, construction-related injuries could occur as a result of unanticipated accidents or emergencies. In the event of a construction accident, the Applicants could require police, fire, and medical services, depending on the type of emergency. The anticipated demand for police, fire, and medical services is not expected to exceed the existing capability of the infrastructure in the Project area to provide them, because these services are expected to be used only in emergencies.

These emergency services are located in reasonable proximity to the Project area. Numerous educational facilities are located in the vicinity of the Project area, particularly near Jamestown, a larger population center. Due to the relatively short duration and transient nature of construction, however, WBI Energy anticipates that most non-local workers would not be accompanied by their families. Therefore, local schools are not expected to be affected by the temporary influx of non-local workers. 2.6.4 Tax Revenues WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission provided estimates for the local expenditures and the payroll, ancillary spending, and tax revenues that would be paid in conjunction with the Projects. The analysis shows that the Projects would result in short-term, beneficial impacts associated with increased payroll, and the purchase of local materials and services. The Projects would also have long-term, beneficial impacts associated with increased tax revenue for the counties affected by the Projects. Construction of the Projects would result in short-term, beneficial impacts in terms of increased payroll and local material purchases. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission anticipate that the total payroll for construction of the projects would be about [$ TBD], including $600,000 for the compressor station and [$ TBD] for the pipeline. Because about 90 to 95 percent of the workers are expected to be non-local workers who would temporarily relocate to the vicinity of the Projects, a substantial portion of the payroll would be spent with local vendors and businesses, resulting in increased state and local sales tax revenues. Payroll taxes would also be collected from the workers employed on the Projects in accordance with federal, state, and local tax rates. Construction of the Projects would also result in increased state and local sales tax revenues associated with the purchase of construction materials. While most of the construction materials would be purchased from national vendors, approximately [$ TBD] of common supplies (e.g., stone and concrete, automotive supplies) would be purchased, as available, from vendors locally. Sales taxes would be paid on all construction materials. Along with the payroll earnings spent locally, these expenditures are expected to produce benefits to the local, regional, and state economies. The Projects would also result in long-term, beneficial impacts associated with increased tax revenue for the counties affected by the facilities. During operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, WBI Wind Ridge would be required to pay property taxes to the counties that host the pipeline and related facilities. The counties would receive property taxes based on the taxable assessment values attributable to the pipeline and facilities in each county. The same would be true for WBI Transmission’s Spiritwood Compressor Station Project and Stutsman County. The estimated annual property tax liability for the Projects, based on estimated costs, assessment practices, and current tax rates, is [$ TBD]. Table 2.6.4-1 provides the estimated property taxes that would be generated from operation of the Projects.

TABLE 2.6.4-1

Estimated Annual Property Taxes Paid Through Direct Investment by County County a Estimated Property Taxes McIntosh County TBD Logan County TBD LaMoure County TBD Stutsman County TBD Total TBD ______a All counties listed are in North Dakota.

2.6.5 Transportation and Traffic

The local road and highway system in the vicinity of the Projects consists of interstate highways, U.S. highways, state highways, county roads, and private roads. Most local public roads in the vicinity of the Projects are paved or gravel roads. The sparsely populated agricultural areas crossed by the majority of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project and the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project do not experience high traffic volumes. Construction of the Projects could result in minor, temporary impacts along some roads and highways due to the movement and delivery of equipment, materials, and workers. Access roads are discussed in greater detail in section 1.7.4.

Construction of the Projects would require installation of pipeline across existing public roadways utilizing the methods described in section 1.9. Road crossing permits would be obtained from applicable state and local agencies and would dictate the day-to-day construction activities at road crossings. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission have committed to consult with local law enforcement and safety officials to minimize impacts on traffic and roadways. Where local, private roadways would be affected, WBI Transmission and WBI Wind Ridge would coordinate with landowners and lessees of properties to mitigate potential impacts on those roads. No significant impacts on traffic or transportation systems would occur as a result of the Projects.

2.6.6 Agriculture

Project construction and operation would result in a total disturbance of approximately [TBD] acres of agricultural land and permanent disturbance of approximately [TBD] acres (see section 2.4). WBI Wind Ridge would negotiate just compensation for loss of crop production with each affected landowner, and would conduct post-construction monitoring of crossed agricultural lands to identify areas that may require additional restoration in accordance with the Plan and Procedures. The 10-acre site for the Spiritwood Compressor Station would be permanently removed from agricultural production as the site would be purchased and owned by WBI Transmission. Therefore, construction and operation of the Projects is not expected to result in long-term impacts on affected agricultural landowners.

2.6.7 Environmental Justice

The EPA requested that we identify any environmental justice communities in the Project area. A review determined that the racial characteristics of the populations residing in McIntosh (3.1 percent), Logan (1.4 percent), LaMoure (1.2 percent), and Stutsman Counties (5.4 percent) are reported as primarily non-minority. No minority populations are reported in Spiritwood Township. The minority populations in all four counties are low and not greater than the general population of the state, which is 11.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2014), the poverty level for North Dakota is 12.1 percent. Spiritwood Township has no reported individuals below the poverty level. Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties had lower percentages of individuals below the poverty level than the state average with 10.7, 8.9, and 10.5 percent, respectively. McIntosh County had a higher percentage of individuals below the poverty line than the state average; however, the difference is not meaningful (0.1 of 1 percent difference). The populations of Spiritwood Township, and McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties are not considered to be disproportionately low income or potential environmental justice communities.

Information about the Projects has been readily available to the public and no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low-income communities have been identified.

2.7 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

2.7.1 Air Quality

Federal and state air quality standards are designed to protect human health and welfare. The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The NAAQS were set at levels the EPA believes are necessary to protect human health (primary standards) and welfare (secondary standards).

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) occur in the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The primary GHGs produced by fossil fuel combustion are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions of GHGs are typically expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), where the potential of each GHG’s contribution to heating in the atmosphere over a given period of time is expressed as a multiple of the heating potential of CO2e, or its global warming potential. The global warming potential of CO2 is 1.

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) are areas for which implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards would be achieved and maintained. AQCRs are defined by the EPA and state agencies in accordance with the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA). If measured ambient air pollutant concentrations for a subject area remain below the NAAQS criteria, the area is considered to be in attainment with the NAAQS. Conversely, areas that currently exceed the NAAQS are considered to be in non-attainment. If an area that was previously considered to be in non-attainment demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS it is considered to be a maintenance area.

2.7.1.1 Local Climate

North Dakota's location at the geographic center of North America results in a typical continental climate. Primarily because of location, the climate of the state is characterized by large annual, daily, and day-to-day temperature changes; light to moderate precipitation, which tends to be irregular in time and coverage; low relative humidity; plentiful sunshine; and nearly continuous air movement (USGS, 2013).

The climate in the Project area is typical of the northwestern continental interior of the United States: summers are hot, winters are cold, and rainfall is sparse with periods of drought. The average annual temperature in Ashley, North Dakota is 42.2 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF). The average minimum temperature is -1.3 ºF (January), and the average maximum temperature is 84.0 ºF (July). Annual average precipitation is 18.3 inches of water, with an annual average snowfall of 27.6 inches (NOAA, 2000). Annual average wind speed is between 10.8 miles per hour (mph) measured in Bismarck, North Dakota, and 12.9 mph measured in Fargo, North Dakota, with wind speeds being their highest in late winter and early spring, and lowest in summer (USGS, 2013).

2.7.1.2 Existing Air Quality

The EPA maintains a list of attainment/nonattainment designations for all six criteria pollutants (EPA, 2011). McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties, North Dakota are currently designated as attainment with the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants.

2.7.1.3 Regulatory Applicability

The CAA of 1970, as amended in 1977 and 1990, is the basic federal statute governing air quality. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially applicable to construction and operation of the Projects are:

 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR);

 Federal Class I Area Protection;

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);

 Title V Operating Permits;

 State Regulations; and

 Conformity of General Federal Actions.

The following is a brief description of these regulations and their requirements.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Non-Attainment New Source Review

The CAA requires any new major stationary source of air pollution, or existing source proposing major modification, to obtain an air pollution permit before commencing construction. Preconstruction permits for major sources or modifications in an attainment area are issued under the PSD regulations, whereas preconstruction permits for sources in a nonattainment area are issued under the NNSR program. The entire program, including both PSD and NNSR permitting, is referred to as the New Source Review (NSR) program. The Projects are located in an area designated as being in attainment and would therefore be subject to PSD, but neither Project would include the installation of any new major sources of air emissions, therefore PSD permitting is not required.

Federal Class I Area Protection

The United States Congress designated certain lands as Mandatory Federal Class I areas in 1977. Class I areas were designated because the air quality was considered a special feature of the area (e.g., in national parks or wilderness areas). These Class I areas, as well as any other areas that have been re- designated Class I since 1977, are given special protection under the PSD program. This program establishes air pollution increment increases that are allowed by new or modified air emission sources. If the new source is a major PSD source and is near a Class I area, the source is required to determine its impacts on the Class I area. The source also is required to notify the appropriate federal land manager for the nearby Class I area. There are two Class I areas in North Dakota: Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the Lost Wood Wilderness. Both are located more than 150 miles west of the Projects.

Neither Project would be considered a major PSD source; therefore, emissions associated with

Project-related facilities are not expected to impact any Class I areas.

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60, established pollutant emissions limits and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for various emissions sources based on source type and size. The NSPS apply to new, modified, or reconstructed sources. There would be no stationary combustion units associated with the Projects; therefore, there are no applicable NSPSs.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

The NESHAPs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emissions. Part 61, which was promulgated prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments (CAAA), regulates only eight types of hazardous substances: asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride. The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. This part, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories of non-major (area) sources that emit HAPs. Part 63 defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate.

During construction of both Projects, it is anticipated that negligible amounts of HAPs would be emitted through the use of diesel and gasoline fired construction equipment and vehicles; however, NESHAPs are not applicable to construction emissions.

There would be no NESHAPs applicable to the Projects.

Title V Operating Permits

Title V of the CAA requires states to establish an air operating permit program. The requirements of Title V are outlined in 40 CFR 70, and the permits required by these regulations are often referred to as Part 70 permits. North Dakota has promulgated these requirements under North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 33-15-14-06 "Title V Permit to Operate."

If a facility’s potential to emit exceeds the criteria pollutant or HAP thresholds, the facility is considered a major source. The major source threshold level for an air emission source is 100 tons per year (tpy) for criteria pollutants. The major source HAP thresholds for a source are 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of all HAPs in aggregate. There would be no stationary sources of emissions associated with the Projects that would be considered major sources for either criteria pollutants or HAPS. Therefore, a Title V permit would not be required for either Project.

State Regulations

North Dakota air emissions are regulated by the NDDH under NDAC 33-15. Listed below are the applicable air quality regulations from the NDAC that apply to the Projects.

NDAC 33-15-02 establishes ambient air quality standards that are identical to the NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, with the exception of a state standard for hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Emissions of H2S associated with the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project would be extremely small and would only occur during infrequent blowdown of pipeline sections for maintenance. Similarly, emissions of H2S associated with the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would be extremely small and would only occur during infrequent blowdown of the compressor station for maintenance.

NDAC 33-15-05 addresses emission requirements of particulate matter from industrial processes. Emissions of particulate matter during operation of the Projects would not exceed any of the emission limitations set forth in NDAC 33-15-05 Table 3.

NDAC 33-15-07 addresses emission requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). WBI Wind Ridge would comply with the applicable requirements of NDAC 33-15-07-01 for VOC emissions associated with the operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project. WBI Transmission would comply with the applicable requirements of NDAC 33-15-07-01 for VOC emissions associated with the operation of the Spiritwood Compressor Station, which include equipping compressors that handle VOC material with properly maintained seals designed for their specific product service and operating conditions.

NDAC 33-15-17 restricts fugitive emissions from any source, including emissions of particulates (dust) and various gaseous emissions including those subject to an ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, an odorous substance, or those subject to the restrictions of a visible air contaminant. The Applicants would comply with the applicable requirements of this regulation during construction and operation of the Projects. Information regarding specific techniques for the control of fugitive dust during construction is provided in section 2.7.1.4.

There are no applicable regulations that would require the Projects to obtain any sort of air quality permit from NDDH; however, it is required that a complete air quality application be submitted to NDDH for the Spiritwood Compressor Station so that a formal determination can be made regarding whether an air quality permit will be necessary. NDAC 33-15-14-02.13 states that NDDH may exempt “Sources or alterations to a source which are of minor significance as determined by the department” from the requirement to obtain an air quality permit for the source. A complete air quality permit application for the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project has been submitted, and the NDDH acknowledged that a permit is not required (NDDH, 2015). [Note: Need to add a reference to this letter once it is received.]

Conformity of General Federal Actions

A conformity analysis must be conducted by the lead federal agency if a federal action would generate emissions that would exceed the conformity threshold levels (de minimis) of the pollutant(s) for which an air basin is in nonattainment. According to section 176(c)(1) of the CAA (40 CFR section 51.853), a federal agency cannot approve or support activity that does not conform to an approved State Implementation Plan. As stated previously, the Project area is designated as attainment for the NAAQS; consequently, a general conformity determination is not required.

2.7.1.4 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Emissions

Construction activities associated with the Projects would generate potential air pollutant emissions of PM10/PM2.5, NOX, CO, SO2, VOC, and GHG emissions. These emissions: 1) would be temporary and of limited duration; 2) would occur only as a result of construction activities; and 3) would not significantly increase ambient air pollutant concentrations. Potential impacts would be mitigated and minimized as described below.

Construction activities that produce air emissions include: operation of diesel- or gasoline-fired construction equipment, and fugitive dust emissions generated from excavation and vehicle traffic on unpaved or disturbed access and construction land surfaces. Table 2.7.1-1 lists the anticipated amount of emissions by pollutant for construction activities associated with the Projects. Construction of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project is expected to take 6 months, commencing in July 2016. Construction of the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project is expected to take 8.5 months, commencing in April 2016.

TABLE 2.7.1-1

Project-Related Construction Emissions (tons per construction duration) Criteria Pollutants GHG a

Project/Facilities PM10 PM2.5 NOX CO SO2 VOC CO2e Wind Ridge Pipeline TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Project emissions Spiritwood Compressor 20.4 4.2 34.5 8.0 2.8 2.9 1,597 Station Project emissions Total Construction TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Emissions ______a Metric tons per year Acronyms:

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter SO2 sulfur dioxide

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter VOC volatile organic compound

NOx nitrogen oxides GHG greenhouse gases

CO carbon monoxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

The values in table 2.7.1-1 are considered conservative because they do not account for any emission reduction measures. To minimize emissions, contractors and employees would be encouraged to minimize vehicle and equipment idling time to the extent practical during construction activities. Exhaust emissions from diesel- and gasoline-fueled construction equipment and vehicle engines would also be minimized by federal design standards imposed at the time of manufacture of the vehicles and would comply with EPA mobile and nonroad emission regulations (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 89). Emissions would also be controlled by purchasing commercial gasoline and diesel fuel products whose specifications are controlled by federal and state air pollution control regulations applicable to fuel suppliers and distributors. In addition, dust suppression techniques may be utilized as necessary, in accordance with the Applicants’ Fugitive Dust Control Plan. We have reviewed the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and find it [insert conclusion.]

Operational Emissions

Sources of emissions during operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project include equipment leaks (fugitives) and maintenance activities. Operational emissions associated with the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would consist of fugitive emissions associated with compressor components such as valves, connectors, pressure relief devices, flanges, pumps, and compressor seals. Estimated emissions associated with the electric-powered compressor station are listed below in table 2.7.1-2.

TABLE 2.7.1-2

Operational Emissions (tons per year) Criteria Pollutants GHG a

Project/Facilities PM10 PM2.5 NOX CO SO2 VOC CO2e Wind Ridge Pipeline Project Fugitives (meter station) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Pig launcher/receiver TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD MP 0.0 (meter station) Pig launcher/receiver TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD MP TBD Pig launcher/receiver TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD MP 96.2 (meter station) Spiritwood Compressor Station Project Emissions Compressor blowdown TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD events Fugitive emissions TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total Emissions TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD ______a Metric tons per year Acronyms:

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter SO2 sulfur dioxide

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter VOC volatile organic compound

NOx nitrogen oxides GHG greenhouse gases

CO carbon monoxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

2.7.2 Noise

At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and throughout the week. Variation is caused by changing weather conditions, the effects of seasonal vegetative cover, and human activities. Two measures used by federal agencies for the time-varying quality of environmental noise known to affect people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)) and the day-night equivalent sound level (Ldn). The Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of concern, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq(24) with 10 decibels of the A-weighted scale (dBA) added to nighttime sound levels between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to account for people’s greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. The human ear’s threshold of perception for noise change is 3 decibels.

Construction of the proposed Projects would result in temporary and intermittent increases in environmental noise. Neighbors in the vicinity of construction areas could hear noise, particularly at locations where the HDD construction method would be implemented.

2.7.2.1 Noise Regulations

In 1974, the EPA published its document entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin on Safety (EPA, 1974). This publication evaluated the effects of environmental noise with respect to health and safety. As set forth in that publication, the EPA has determined that noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA, which is the level that protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity interference. This noise level has been useful for state and federal agencies to establish noise limitations for various noise sources. A 55 dBA Ldn noise level equates to a Leq of 48.6 dBA (i.e., a facility that does not exceed a continuous noise impact of 48.6 dBA would not exceed 55 dBA Ldn). In addition, this document also describes rural or other non- urban areas, such as the area where the Projects would be located, to have an existing outdoor ambient

noise level (Ldn) between 35-50 dB. EPA further describes agricultural cropland to have an outdoor ambient noise level of 44 dBA (EPA, 1978). Due to the surrounding landscape of the Projects being dominated by agricultural activities, it is assumed that existing outdoor ambient noise levels would be 44 dBA.

In addition to the EPA publication, facilities associated with the Spiritwood Compressor Station Project must comply with our noise regulations for interstate pipelines. These regulations state the following:

1. The noise attributable to any new compressor station, compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade or update of an existing station, must not exceed a day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise sensitive area (NSA) such as schools, hospitals, or residences; and

2. New compressor stations or modifications of existing stations shall not result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any NSA (18 CFR § 380.12(k)(4)(v)).

North Dakota regulates noise using public nuisance laws, but does not impose property-line noise limits for new facilities.

2.7.2.2 Noise Impacts and Mitigation

Construction

Construction noise is highly variable. Construction equipment operates intermittently, and the type of equipment in use at a given location at any point in time changes with the construction phase. The sound level impacts on NSAs along the pipeline right-of-way and at the compressor station site due to construction activities would depend on the type of equipment used, the duration of use for each piece of equipment, the number of construction vehicles and machines used simultaneously, and the distance between the sound source and receptor. Nighttime noise due to construction is not anticipated because construction is planned during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. Because of the temporary nature of construction activities, no long-term noise effects are anticipated from construction of the proposed Projects.

Horizontal Directional Drill

WBI Wind Ridge proposes to use the HDD method at one location for two waterbody crossings on the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project, the James River and Seven Mile Coulee located at about MP 87.0. The area surrounding the James River HDD operations is primarily agricultural. Two residential NSAs are located within 0.5 mile of the site. The first NSA is within approximately 0.24 mile of HDD operations and the second is within approximately 0.45 mile of HDD operations (see figure 2.7.2-1). The results of the noise assessments, including the distance and direction of the nearest NSAs from the HDD sites, and the predicted noise resulting from each HDD operation both with and without noise mitigation measures, are summarized in table 2.7.2-1.

Insert Figure 2.7.2-1 Noise-sensitive Areas Associated with the HDD Crossing

TABLE 2.7.2-1 [Note: Calculations to be included when HDD information is available.] Noise Quality Analysis for Horizontal Directional Drill Crossing Unmitigated Estimated HDD Mitigated HDD Distance Ldn of HDD Operations Ldn Operations Ldn Potential Noise and Direction Ambient Ldn Operations Plus Ambient Plus Ambient Increase Above Sensitive Areas of NSA (dBA) (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Ambient (dB) James River HDD NSA 1 – exit side 1,267 feet 44a TBD TBD TBD TBD southeast NSA 2 – exit side 2,376 feet 44a TBD TBD TBD TBD southeast ______a Ambient noise levels assumed to be the level described by EPA for agricultural crop land (EPA, 1978). Acronyms: dB decibels dBA decibels of the A-weighted scale

Leq equivalent sound level

Ldn day-night equivalent sound level

If noise mitigation is required, an onsite evaluation of equipment noise would be completed to further identify the predominant noise sources. Based on this evaluation, additional noise mitigation measures would be implemented, which may include: reconfiguring equipment locations to take advantage of natural and artificial noise barriers; use of residential grade silencers or mufflers on engines; use of gear boxes and other mechanical noise dampening blankets; and, if necessary, temporary relocation of adjacent residents during the HDD operations. [Note: Will update based on results in table 2.7.2-1.]

Operation

The new compressor station would generate noise on a continuous basis (i.e., 24 hours per day) once operating. Some noise would also be generated by the operation of the meter stations, pig launcher/receivers, and block valves. The noise impact associated with the operation of these aboveground facilities would be limited to the vicinity of the facilities. The specific operational noise sources associated with these facilities and their estimated impact at the nearest NSAs are described below.

Compressor Station

The Spiritwood Compressor Station Project would be located near MP 94.3 of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project east of the intersection of 35th Street SE and 94th Avenue SE in Stutsman County. The significant noise-producing equipment at the compressor station would include the compressor drive motor, compressor frame, gas and oil coolers, and aboveground piping. There are two residential NSAs located within 0.5 mile of the compressor station. The distance and direction of the NSAs from the compressor station are shown on figure 2.7.2-2 and listed in table 2.7.2-2.

Insert Figure 2.7.2-2 Noise-sensitive Areas Associated with the Compressor Station

Predicted noise levels due to operations at the compressor station were estimated at the nearest NSAs based on the equipment, noise mitigation measures, and existing outdoor ambient noise levels. The results of this analysis are summarized in table 2.7.2-2.

TABLE 2.7.2-2

Operational Noise Quality Analysis for the Spiritwood Compressor Station

Estimated Ldn of Station Ldn Plus Potential Increase Closest Noise Distance and Direction Ambient Ldn Station Ambient Ldn Above Ambient Sensitive Area (NSA) of NSA (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dB) a NSA 1 (house) 2,485 feet southwest 44 29.1 44.2 0.2 a NSA 2 (house) 1,547 feet southeast 44 34.1 44.6 0.6 ______a Ambient noise levels assumed to be the level described by EPA for agricultural crop land (EPA, 1974). Acronyms: dB decibels dBA decibels of the A-weighted scale

Leq equivalent sound level

Ldn day-night equivalent sound level

The noise from operation of the compressor station would result in impacts on the local ambient sound environment.

Periodically, compressor station blowdown events would occur lasting no more than 5 minutes. The sound levels associated with high pressure gas venting are a function of initial blowdown pressure, the diameter and type of blowdown valve, and the diameter and arrangement of the downstream vent piping. Blowdown sound levels are loudest at the beginning of the blowdown event and they decrease as the blowdown pressure decreases.

Meter Stations and Pig Launcher/Receivers

WBI Wind Ridge would construct a meter station and pig launcher/receiver at the proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant (MP 96.2), would own the meter station at MP 0.0, and would construct pig launchers/receivers at MPs 0.0 and [TBD]. One NSA, a residence, is located within 0.5 mile of the meter station and pig/launcher site located at MP 0.0 in McIntosh County. A noise analysis was conducted to determine any noise impacts on this NSA, the results of which are summarized in table 2.7.2-3. The area surrounding the site is primarily agricultural. No additional NSAs were identified within 0.5 mile of the other meter stations or pig launchers/receivers.

TABLE 2.7.2-3 [Note: Noise calculations to be inserted when available.] Operational Noise Quality Analysis for the Meter Station at MP 0.0

Distance and Estimated Ldn Station Ldn Potential Increase Closest Noise Direction of Ambient of Station Plus Ambient Above Ambient Sensitive Area (NSA) NSA Ldn (dBA) (dBA) Ldn (dBA) (dB) a NSA 1 (house) 2,481 feet 44 TBD TBD TBD southwest ______a Ambient noise levels assumed to be the level described by EPA for agricultural crop land (EPA, 1974). Acronyms: dB decibels dBA decibels of the A-weighted scale

Leq equivalent sound level

Ldn day-night equivalent sound level

Block Valves

WBI Wind Ridge would construct eight block valves along the pipeline. NSAs within 0.5 mile of each block valve have been identified, with the nearest NSA to each block valve listed in table 2.7.2-4. Normal operation of the Wind Ridge Pipeline Project is not expected to affect noise levels at NSAs in the vicinity of these sites.

TABLE 2.7.2-4

Operational Noise Impacts for Block Valves Facility Approximate Surrounding Distance and Direction Name Milepost Area Closest NSA of NSA Block Valve 1 11.8 Agricultural land None Not applicable Block Valve 2 22.1 Roads and Residence Approximately 0.25 mile northwest agricultural land Block Valve 3 32.4 Agricultural land Residence Approximately 0.25 mile northwest Block Valve 4 44.1 Agricultural land None Nota applicable Block Valve 5 56.5 Agricultural land Residence Approximately 0.25 mile southeast Block Valve 6 65.9 Agricultural land None Not applicable Block Valve 7 79.7 Agricultural land Residences Two residences are located approximately 0.30 mile from the site, one west and one east Block Valve 8 86.5 Agricultural land and James River Approximately 0.34 mile east railway

Blowdowns at Block Valves

Very rare blowdown events of varying duration also may occur at block valves during emergencies or scheduled maintenance activities. Typically, scheduled maintenance blowdowns are much quieter and shorter due to a reduction of pressure in the line. Emergency and maintenance blowdown events are extremely loud, resulting in noticeable noise impacts above existing ambient noise levels at nearby NSAs.

Predicted noise levels due to blowdown events were estimated at the nearest NSAs based on the proposed and baseline sound level measurements using hemispherical attenuation calculations. The results of this analysis are summarized in table 2.7.2-5. While the blowdowns will result in noise impacts on NSAs, these impacts will be infrequent and of short duration.

Summary

We have reviewed the noise analyses for the compressor station, meter stations, and block valves and agree that, if properly implemented, these noise control measures would ensure that noise attributable to the Projects would be less than 55 dBA Ldn at nearby NSAs during operation. However, to ensure noise levels from the Spiritwood Compressor Station are not significant, we recommend that:

 WBI Transmission file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the authorized unit at the Spiritwood Compressor Station in service. If a full load condition noise survey of the entire station is not possible, WBI Transmission should instead file an interim survey at the maximum possible horsepower load and file the full load survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at the Spiritwood Compressor Station under interim or full horsepower load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, WBI Transmission should file a report on what changes are

needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. WBI Transmission should confirm compliance with the Ldn of 55 dBA requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

TABLE 2.7.2-5 [Note: Calculations to be included when information about the block valves is available.] Noise Quality Analysis for Blowdown Events

Estimated Ldn of Project Facility and Distance and Ambient Ldn Facility Blowdown Facility Ldn Plus Potential Increase Closest NSA(s) Direction of NSA (dBA) Event (dBA) Ambient Ldn (dBA) Above Ambient (dB) Block Valve 3, MP 32.4 NSA 1 (house) 1,292 feet northwest 44 a TBD TBD TBD Block Valve 5, MP 56.5 NSA 1 (house) 1,627 feet southeast 44 a TBD TBD TBD Block Valve 7, MP 79.7 NSA 1 (house) 1,599 feet southeast 44 a TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 (house) 1,576 feet northwest 44 a TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 (house) 1,804 feet northwest 44 a TBD TBD TBD Block Valve 8, MP 86.5 NSA 1 (house) 2,393 feet northeast 44 a TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 (house) 2,323 feet southwest 44 a TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 (house) 2,604 feet southwest 44 a TBD TBD TBD NSA 4 (James 1,795 feet northeast 44 a TBD TBD TBD River) ______a Ambient noise levels assumed to be the level described by EPA for agricultural crop land (EPA, 1978). Acronyms: dB decibels dBA decibels of the A-weighted scale

Leq equivalent sound level

Ldn day-night equivalent sound level

2.8 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some incremental risk to the public due to the potential for accidental release of natural gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major pipeline rupture.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death.

Methane has an auto-ignition temperature of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is flammable at concentrations between 5.0 and 15.0 percent in air. An unconfined mixture of methane and air is not explosive; however, it may ignite and burn if there is an ignition source. A flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air.

2.8.1 Safety Standards

The USDOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under 49 USC 601. The USDOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management that ensures safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level.

The USDOT provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards. A state may also act as USDOT's agent to inspect interstate facilities within its boundaries; however, the USDOT is responsible for enforcement actions. North Dakota does not have delegated authority to inspect interstate pipeline facilities. [Need to confirm.]

The USDOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR 190–199. Part 192 specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) dated January 15, 1993, between the USDOT and the FERC, the USDOT has the exclusive authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC's regulations require that an applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate is requested in accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection. Alternatively, an applicant must certify that it has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the USDOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert USDOT. The Memorandum also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the general public involving safety matters related to pipelines under the Commission's jurisdiction.

The FERC also participates as a member of the USDOT's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable.

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the Projects must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the USDOT’s Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. The USDOT specifies material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion.

The USDOT also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile length of pipeline. The four area classifications are defined below:

 Class 1: location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy;

 Class 2: location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy;

 Class 3: location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period; and

 Class 4: location where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent.

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, testing, and operation. For instance, pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock.

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated areas. Preliminary class locations for the proposed pipeline route have been developed based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and manmade features. The Wind Ridge Pipeline Project in its entirety would fall under a Class 1 designation. If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way results in a change in class location for the pipeline, WBI Wind Ridge would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required, to comply with the USDOT requirements for the new class location.

The USDOT Pipeline Safety Regulations require operators to develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements described in 49 CFR 192.911 and address the risks on each transmission pipeline segment. The rule establishes an integrity management program that applies to all high-consequence areas (HCA).

The USDOT has published rules that define HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property and requires an integrity management program to

minimize the potential for an accident. This definition satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate for USDOT to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area.

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes:

 current Class 3 and 4 locations;

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius 1 is greater than 660 feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle 2; or

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site.

An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is:

 occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period;

 a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or

 a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate.

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains:

 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or

 an identified site.

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs along its pipeline, it must apply the elements of its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The USDOT regulations specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at section 192.911. The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the pipeline HCAs every 7 years. WBI Wind Ridge has not identified any HCAs along the proposed pipeline route.

The USDOT prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Each pipeline operator is required to establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards of a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures for:

 receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and natural disasters;

 establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and coordinating emergency response;

1 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of: the MAOP of the pipeline in pounds per square inch gauge multiplied by the square of the pipeline diameter in inches. 2 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius.

 implementing emergency system shutdown and safe restoration of service;

 making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; and

 protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential hazards.

The USDOT requires that each operator establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. WBI Wind Ridge would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before the pipeline is placed in service.

2.8.2 Pipeline Accident Data

The USDOT requires all operators of natural gas transmission pipelines to notify the USDOT of any significant incident and to submit a report within 20 days. Significant incidents are defined as any leaks that:

 cause a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; or  involve property damage of more than $50,000 (1984 dollars). 3

During the 20-year period from 1994 through 2013, a total of 1,237 significant incidents were reported on the more than 300,000 total miles of natural gas transmission pipelines nationwide. Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary factors that caused the failures. Table 2.8.2-1 provides a distribution of the causal factors as well as the number of each incident by cause.

TABLE 2.8.2-1

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Serious Incidents by Cause (1994–2013) a Cause No. of Incidents Percentage Corrosion 292 23.6 Excavation b 211 17.0 Pipeline material, weld or equipment failure 304 24.6 Natural force damage 142 11.5 Outside force c 74 6.0 Incorrect operation 33 2.7 All other causes d 181 14.6 TOTAL 1,237 – ______a All data gathered from PHMSA Serious incident files, March 25, 2014. Available online at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ comm/reports/safety/. b Includes third-party damage. c Fire, explosion, vehicle damage, previous damage, intentional damage. d Miscellaneous causes or unknown causes.

3 $50,000 in 1984 dollars is about $115,000 as of March 2014 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, 2014)

The dominant causes of pipeline incidents are corrosion and pipeline material, weld, or equipment failure, constituting 48.2 percent of all significant incidents. The pipelines included in the data set in table 2.8.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a specific segment of pipeline.

The frequency of significant incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Older pipelines have a higher frequency of corrosion incidents and material failure, since corrosion and pipeline stress/strain is a time-dependent process. However, the use of both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system, 4 required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the corrosion rate compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe.

Outside force, excavation, and natural forces are the cause in 34.5 percent of significant pipeline incidents. These result from:

 the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes;  earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards;  weather effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and  willful damage.

Table 2.8.2-2 provides a breakdown of outside force incidents by cause.

TABLE 2.8.2-2

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1994–2013) a Cause No. of Incidents Percent of all Incidents Third-party excavation damage 176 14.2 Operator excavation damage 25 2.0 Unspecified equipment damage/previous damage 10 0.8 Heavy rain/floods 72 5.8 Earth movement 35 2.8 Lightning/temperature/high winds 21 1.7 Natural force (other) 14 1.1 Vehicle (not engaged with excavation) 45 3.6 Fire/explosion 8 0.6 Previous mechanical damage 5 0.4 Fishing or maritime activity 7 0.6 Intentional damage 1 0.1 Electrical arcing from other equipment/facility 1 0.1 Unspecified/other outside force 7 0.6 TOTAL 427 - ______a Excavation, Outside Force, and Natural Force from table 2.8.2-1.

4 Cathodic protection is a technique to reduce corrosion (rust) of the natural gas pipeline through the use of an induced current or a sacrificial anode (like zinc) that corrodes at a faster rate to reduce corrosion.

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a disproportionate number of smaller-diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside forces incidents. Small-diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth movement.

Since 1982, operators have been required to participate in "One Call" public utility programs in populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The "One Call" program is a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts.

2.8.3 Impact on Public Safety

The service incidents data summarized in table 2.8.2-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes with widely varying consequences.

Table 2.8.3-1 presents the average annual injuries and fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission lines for the 5-year period between 2009 and 2013. The majority of fatalities from pipelines are due to local distribution pipelines not regulated by FERC. These are natural gas pipelines that distribute natural gas to homes and businesses after transportation through interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. In general, these distribution lines are smaller-diameter pipes and/or plastic pipes that are more susceptible to damage. Local distribution systems do not have large rights-of-way or the pipeline markers common to the FERC-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines.

TABLE 2.8.3-1

Injuries and Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines Injuries Fatalities Year Employees Public Employees Public 2009 4 7 0 0 2010 a 10 51 2 8 2011 1 0 0 0 2012 3 4 0 0 2013 0 2 0 0 ______a All of the public injuries and fatalities in 2010 were due to the Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline rupture and fire in San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010.

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various anthropogenic and natural hazards are listed in table 2.8.3-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas transmission pipelines. However, direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously because individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. The data nonetheless indicate a low risk of death due to incidents involving natural gas transmission pipelines compared to the other categories. Furthermore, the fatality rate is much lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, or floods.

The available data show that natural gas transmission pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy transportation. From 1994 to 2013, there were an average of 62 significant incidents, 10 injuries, and 2 fatalities per year. The number of significant incidents over the more than 303,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines indicates the risk is low for an incident at any given location. The operation of the Projects would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public.

TABLE 2.8.3-2

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a Annual Number Type of Accident of Deaths All accidents 117,809 Motor vehicle 45,343 Poisoning 23,618 Falls 19,656 Injury at work 5,113 Drowning 3,582 Fire, smoke inhalation, burns 3,197 Floods b 89 Lightning b 52 Tornado b 74 Natural gas distribution lines c 14 Natural gas transmission pipelines c 2 ______a All data, unless otherwise noted, reflects 2005 statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 (129th Edition) Washington, DC, 2009. Available online at http://www.census.gov/statab. b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. 2014. Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services, 30-year average (1983-2012). Updated July 3, 2014. Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ om/hazstats.shtml. c PHMSA significant incident files, 20-year average, March 25, 2014. Available online at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ comm/reports/safety/.

2.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

[Note to FERC: The cumulative impacts analysis is still in development and will be provided in a subsequent version of the EA.]

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with NEPA and Commission policy, we evaluated alternatives to the Projects to determine whether they would be reasonable and environmentally preferable to the proposed actions. These alternatives included the no-action alternative, energy alternatives, system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and aboveground facility site alternatives.

The evaluation criteria used for developing and reviewing alternatives were:

 technical and economic feasibility and practicality;

 significant environmental advantage over the proposed actions; and

 ability to meet the Projects’ stated objectives (i.e. providing pipeline capacity for the transportation of natural gas supplies to a proposed nitrogen fertilizer plant and to additional natural gas demand at delivery points on WBI Transmission’s existing natural gas transmission system).

Each alternative was considered until it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or that the alternative would result in environmental impacts that would be greater than those of the proposed Projects and that could not be readily mitigated.

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative is the absence of the construction of the Projects. By not constructing the Projects, the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not occur. However, if the Projects were not built, WBI Wind Ridge would be unable to provide the transportation capacity requested by its customer, CHS, and the nitrogen fertilizer that would be produced from the plant proposed by CHS would not be generated. In addition, the new firm transportation capacity required to deliver the additional gas volumes requested by WBI Transmission’s existing customers would not be met. Therefore, the objectives of the Projects would not be met and the benefits of the Projects would not be realized.

Under the no-action alternative, other natural gas transmission companies might propose to construct similar, new facilities to meet the demand for the contracted volumes of gas to supply the fertilizer plant and WBI Transmission’s existing customers. Such actions would likely result in impacts similar to or greater than the proposed Projects, and might not meet the Projects’ objectives within the proposed timeframe. Alternatively, the regional demand for nitrogen fertilizer could continue to be met through importation from foreign and other domestic sources. However, continuing to meet regional demand for nitrogen fertilizer through importation would leave North Dakota and other regional farmers subject to global supply chain challenges. Total nitrogen fertilizer demand in North Dakota was 1,000,000 tons in 2011. Currently the state has the capacity to produce 400,000 tons of nitrogen fertilizer annually; the balance must be imported from other regions of the United States or foreign sources. The proposed CHS fertilizer plant is expected to produce about 1,650,000 tons of saleable nitrogen fertilizer materials per year. When combined with the existing in-state capacity, total production would exceed 2,000,000 tons per year. Having this additional local domestic supply of nitrogen fertilizer would create a more reliable supply for farmers in the region.

Therefore, the no-action alternative would constrain the local and regional economic benefits that would be provided by the proposed fertilizer plant. Additionally, the no-action alternative would deny WBI Transmission’s existing customers the firm transportation service they have requested. Both of

these effects of the no-action alternative could cause other natural gas transmission companies to propose similar, new facilities to meet the demand for the contracted volumes of gas to supply the fertilizer plant and WBI Transmission’s existing customers. These actions would likely result in environmental impacts similar to or greater than those associated with the proposed Projects and might not meet the Projects’ objectives in the proposed timeframe. As a result, [insert conclusion].

3.1.1 Energy Conservation

The use of energy conservation measures is not an option to meet the proposed fertilizer plant’s demand for natural gas as an industrial feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer production. As such, energy conservation is not a reasonable alternative to the portion of the gas transported by the Projects that would provide natural gas as an industrial feedstock for the fertilizer plant.

Energy conservation could reduce a portion of the demand for energy that would be met by the portion of the gas transported by the Projects that would provide additional capacity to WBI Transmission’s customers. However, while energy conservation could alleviate some of the demands in the Project area, it is unlikely that these measures would offset the need for new energy supplies. In addition, the conservation measures that could replace the need for natural gas supplied by the Projects could not be implemented on the same timeline as the Projects. Therefore, [insert conclusion].

3.1.2 Alternative Energy Sources

The use of alternative energy sources is not an option to meet the proposed fertilizer plant’s demand for natural gas as an industrial feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer production. Therefore, alternative energy sources are not a reasonable alternative to the portion of the proposed Projects that would supply natural gas as industrial feedstock to the fertilizer plant.

The use of alternative energy sources is an option to meet some of the energy demand related to the portion of the Projects that would provide additional capacity to WBI Transmission’s customers. However, although the use of alternative energy sources, such as oil, coal, nuclear, and renewables, is an option to meet some demands for energy, each of these sources would require construction of new generation and/or transmission facilities, and would likely require a greater operational footprint and associated permanent environmental impacts when compared to the Projects. Also, end users anticipating an increased gas supply would likely need new or additional equipment in order to facilitate use of alternative energy sources. Additionally, domestic natural gas supplies comprise the most readily available, conventional fuel for use in residential, commercial, and industrial markets, and natural gas provides environmental advantages over other fossil fuels with regard to air quality. For all these reasons, [insert conclusion].

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

System alternatives would make use of other existing, modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the objectives of the Projects. Implementation of a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the Projects, although some modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required. These modifications or additions could result in environmental impacts that are less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of the Projects. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Projects could be avoided or reduced by using another pipeline system, while still meeting the objectives of the Projects.

North Dakota has a broad network of high-pressure, high-volume, natural gas pipelines operating throughout the state (see figure 3.2-1). Of these, only three existing systems potentially could meet the objectives of the Projects: WBI Transmission’s pipeline system, Alliance Pipeline’s pipeline system, and NBPL’s pipeline system. The proposed Projects would make use of NBPL’s system, transporting gas from NBPL’s existing pipeline to the proposed fertilizer plant and to WBI Transmission’s existing customers via WBI Wind Ridge’s proposed pipeline. Potential system alternatives utilizing WBI Transmission’s existing system and Alliance Pipeline’s system, rather than NBPL’s system, are discussed below. We are not aware of any new proposed pipeline systems in south central North Dakota that could meet the objectives of the Projects.

Insert Figure 3.2-1 Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in North Dakota

WBI Transmission’s existing pipeline system encompasses over 3,800 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline and 350 miles of gathering line in North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana (WBI Transmission, 2014). We evaluated a system alternative that would provide natural gas to the proposed fertilizer plant by upgrading WBI Transmission’s existing Bismarck to Mapleton line and constructing additional greenfield pipeline between the NBPL system and Bismarck. This segment of WBI Transmission’s existing system is located about 1 mile south of the proposed fertilizer plant, which could be reached by a short lateral of the same length. However, this alternative would require construction of additional new pipeline as well as expanded and new compression to provide the volume and delivery pressure required by the proposed fertilizer plant. Specifically, the following upgrades would be required to implement this system alternative:  construction of about 200 miles of 16-inch-diameter greenfield pipeline;  construction of about 75 miles of 16-inch diameter pipeline that would parallel the NBPL system;  construction of about 6 miles of 12-inch-diameter greenfield pipeline;  construction of about 8,000 hp of compression (including additional hp at WBI Transmission’s existing Manning Compressor Station and construction of a new compressor station near the midpoint of the pipeline loops); and,  construction of various other appurtenant facilities (block valves, a meter station at the delivery point at the proposed fertilizer plant, launcher/receiver facilities, and new permanent access roads). The WBI Transmission system alternative would therefore require nearly three times the pipeline facilities required by the proposed Project, with resulting environmental impacts. The additional compression needed for the pipeline facilities would also result in long-term air quality impacts. For these reasons, [insert conclusion]. We evaluated a second system alternative that would make use of the Alliance Pipeline. The Alliance Pipeline is an 886-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline system extending from the U.S.-Canada border to Joliet, Illinois (Alliance Pipeline, 2014). This system alternative would require about 21 miles of 12-inch-diameter greenfield pipeline from an interconnection along the Alliance Pipeline system near Valley City, North Dakota to the proposed fertilizer plant at Spiritwood. This alternative would be shorter than the proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline route; however, Alliance Pipeline transports rich gas, a mixture of methane and natural gas liquids (NGLs). To deliver the gas quality required for feedstock for the proposed fertilizer plant (i.e., removal of the majority of NGLs), an additional cryogenic gas treatment facility would have to be constructed at the receipt point from the Alliance Pipeline system. The gas treatment plant would remove the NGLs to provide natural gas with a higher content of methane. The

NGLs removed by the treatment plant would be re-injected into the Alliance Pipeline system. The gas treatment plant would increase the environmental impact and cost of the project. Operation of the 90 million cubic foot per day gas treatment plant would result in increased air emissions, utilization of water resources, and require substantial electric power inputs as well as construction of new electric transmission facilities to provide the power. In addition, the treatment plant would add an additional mechanical process to the gas process stream, which if unreliable, would affect the proposed fertilizer plant’s operations. The initial capital cost estimate for the cryogenic gas treatment facility was nearly 3- times the cost of the pipeline facilities required for this alternative, making the alternative economically unfeasible. For all of these reasons, [insert conclusion]. Because the purpose of the Spiritwood Compressor Station is to provide additional transportation capacity to delivery locations in WBI Transmission’s existing system, system alternatives are not applicable to this portion of the Projects. 3.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Major route alternatives are identified to determine if these alternatives could avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources, such as large population centers, scenic areas, wildlife and natural habitat management areas, etc., that would be affected by the proposed pipeline. The origin and delivery points of a major route alternative are generally the same as for the corresponding segment of a proposed pipeline. However, the alternatives could follow routes significantly different from the proposed pipeline. Route alternatives would not modify or make use of an existing pipeline system as would a system alternative. In addition to the proposed route, we evaluated three major route alternatives for the proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline (see figure 3.3-1). The selection of alternatives assumed a take-off point along the NBPL pipeline somewhere between Compressor Station No. 8 in McIntosh County North Dakota and Compressor Station No. 9 in Edmunds County, South Dakota, and a terminus at the proposed fertilizer plant in Stutsman County, North Dakota. Table 3.3-1 provides comparative information pertinent to the routes. Some of the constraints and features considered in our analysis are avoided by all of the route alternatives, and therefore are not pertinent to a comparative assessment of the routes. Specifically, none of the routes cross state or local parks, high consequence areas (population areas), wild and scenic rivers, sites listed in the NRHP, or soils with near-surface hard bedrock. A description of each major route alternative is provided below. Insert Figure 3.3-1 Major Route Alternatives Route Alternative 1 would begin at a point along the NBPL pipeline about 4.6 miles southeast of Compressor Station No. 8 in McIntosh County, North Dakota and extend northeastward for about 85 miles across McIntosh, Logan, LaMoure, and Stutsman Counties to the proposed fertilizer plant at Spiritwood. The location of the take-off point for this route alternative was based on a pipeline design that would allow free flow of the gas from the NBPL system to the proposed fertilizer plant, thereby avoiding the need to build a new compressor station. As shown in table 3.3-1, Route Alternative 1 would cross about 5.9 miles less cultivated cropland, 2.4 miles less hay/pastureland, and 0.9 mile less herbaceous land uses than the proposed route. Route Alternative 1 would also cross 5.7 fewer miles of prime farmland than the proposed route. However, Route Alternative 1 would cross 5 more intermittent streams, 3.6 miles more emergent wetland, and 0.1 mile more freshwater pond than the proposed route. Therefore, on balance, Route Alternative 1 would cross more sensitive resources than the proposed route. As a result, [insert conclusion].

TABLE 3.3-1

Comparison of Major Route Alternatives a, b Environmental Features Unit Proposed Route Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Length miles 96.2 85.0 89.0 92.2 Land Use Ownership and Uses Land Ownership c Federal Lands miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 State Lands miles 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.7 Private Lands miles 96.2 85.0 88.7 87.3 Land Use/Land Cover d Cultivated Crops miles 42.8 36.9 35.4 42.2 Deciduous Forest miles 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Developed (Low to Medium Intensity) miles 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 Developed Open Space miles 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.4 Hay/Pasture miles 13.4 11.0 13.5 19.9 Herbaceous miles 34.8 33.9 36.4 26.4 Roads e Primary U.S. or State Highway number 2 2 2 2 Secondary State or County Highway number 8 7 8 10 Other/Local Road number 101 88 91 74 Railroads f number 4 4 4 4 Existing Pipelines g number 1 1 2 2 Biological Resources/ Constraints Streams/Rivers h Intermittent number 30 35 38 104 Perennial number 2 2 2 1 Navigable Waters i number 1 1 1 1 Impaired Waters j number 4 2 2 10 Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory) k Freshwater Emergent miles 2.2 5.8 6.6 3.4 Freshwater Forested miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Freshwater Pond miles 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Critical Habitat l Piping Plover miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Soils Properties m Bedrock within 5 feet of the Soil Surface n Soft Bedrock miles 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.1 Highly Wind Erodible o miles 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.0 Highly Water Erodible p miles 30.8 27.8 29.5 9.6 Prime Farmland q miles 25.7 20.0 22.3 40.7 ______a Data in this table are not consistent with data presented in other sections of the EA for the proposed route. To facilitate an accurate comparison of all major route alternatives, and to ensure consistency in data sets, national data layer sets were used to prepare this table. Data provided elsewhere in this EA for the proposed route are based on field surveys. b The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. c Calculated from a Conservation Biology Institute database (2012). d Calculated from a Land Use/Land Cover database from the USGS (2011). e Calculated from an ESRI database (2005). f Calculated from an ESRI database (2002). g Calculated from a Hart Energy Company (REXTAG) database (2014). h Calculated from the National Hydrography Dataset from the USGS (2010).

TABLE 3.3-1 (cont’d)

Comparison of Major Route Alternatives a, b Environmental Features Unit Proposed Route Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 i Based on a list of navigable waters for the USACE - Omaha District, accessed from the district website, May 2014 and discussions with District staff. j Calculated from EPA database (2010). k Calculated from NWI data from the FWS. l Calculated from a FWS database (2014). m Based on analysis of the NRCS’s SSURGO database. n Includes soils that have bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface. Soft refers to paralithic (weathered) bedrock that will not likely require blasting during construction. o Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1 and 2. p Includes land in capability subclasses IVe through VIIe and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. q As designated by the NRCS; includes those soils that are considered prime if a limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., saturated soils mitigated through artificial drainage).

Route Alternative 2 would begin at the same take-off point along the NBPL pipeline as Route Alternative 1 and extend northeastward for about 89 miles to the proposed fertilizer plant at Spiritwood. Route Alternative 2 would follow the same general path as Route Alternative 1, but would be 4 miles longer as a result of route adjustments incorporated to avoid a number of physical routing constraints.

As shown in table 3.3-1, Route Alternative 2 would cross 7.4 miles less cultivated cropland than the proposed route, but would cross 1.6 miles more herbaceous land and 0.1 mile more hay/pastureland than the proposed route. Route Alternative 2 would also cross 3.4 miles less prime farmland than the proposed route. However, Route Alternative 2 would cross about 0.3 mile of state land, compared with no state land along the proposed route. Route Alternative 2 would also cross 8 more intermittent streams and 4.4 miles more emergent wetland than the proposed route. Due to the additional impacts on water resources associated with Route Alternative 2, [insert conclusion].

Route Alternative 3 would begin at a point along the NBPL pipeline system in McPherson County, South Dakota, about 17 miles northwest of Compressor Station No. 9. It would extend generally northward for about 92 miles to the proposed fertilizer plant at Spiritwood. This route alternative was initially identified because it generally avoided the high density wetland areas of the Missouri Coteau.

Route Alternative 3 would cross about 0.6 mile less cultivated cropland and 8.4 miles less herbaceous land than the proposed route, but would cross 6.5 miles more hay/pastureland than the proposed route. Additionally, Route Alternative 3 would cross 15 miles more prime farmland than the proposed route, and would cross 4.7 miles of state land compared with no state land along the proposed route. Route Alternative 3 would also cross 74 more intermittent streams, 1.2 miles more emergent wetland, and 0.1 mile more freshwater pond compared to the proposed route. Further, because of the starting point of Route Alternative 3, about 17 miles northwest of NBPL Compressor Station No. 9, the receipt pressure from NBPL would not be sufficient to allow free flow of gas to the proposed fertilizer plant. Unlike the proposed route, for Route Alternative 3 to be implemented a new compressor station would need to be constructed near the take-off point in South Dakota. For all of these reasons, [insert conclusion].

3.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS

Route variations differ from system or route alternatives in that they are identified to reduce impacts of a short segment of pipeline on specific resource issues such as residences, businesses, cultural resources, including properties of cultural and religious significance to tribes, and sensitive biological resources. Additionally, route variations may be examined to avoid conflicts with other projects or in response to scoping comments. Because route variations are considered in response to a specific,

localized issue, they may not always clearly display an environmental advantage other than to reduce impacts on the localized issue. As a result of environmental field surveys, consultations with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders, and detailed engineering design, WBI Wind Ridge identified several route variations during the pre-filing process to avoid sensitive environmental features (see table 3.4-1) or to address engineering or other concerns. All of the route variations that were identified by WBI Wind Ridge during the pre- filing phase have been incorporated into the proposed action by WBI Wind Ridge and are analyzed as part of the proposed action throughout this EA.

TABLE 3.4-1

Select Pre-filing Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed Route Route Approximate Variation(s) Mileposts Description 1 16.0 to 17.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid a FWS grassland conservation easement. 2 17.4 to 18.4 A route variation was adopted to avoid a FWS grassland conservation easement. 3 23.0 to 31.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid a number of FWS grassland conservation easements. 4 49.3 to 50.8 A route variation was adopted to avoid a FWS grassland conservation easement. 5 55.0 to 56.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid a number of FWS grassland conservation easements. 6 17.5 to 19.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid a number of FWS wetland conservation easements. 7 26.5 to 27.8 A route variation was adopted to avoid a FWS wetland conservation easement. 8 37.1 to 38.2 A route variation was adopted to avoid wetland basins within a FWS wetland conservation easement. 9 0.0 to 1.3 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 10 1.7 to 2.1 A route variation was adopted to avoid potential historic properties. 11 6.1 to 7.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid wetland basins within a FWS wetland conservation easement. 12 15.0 to 15.6 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 13 21.0 to 21.7 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 14 44.8 to 45.2 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 15 54.5 to 56.1 A route variation was adopted to avoid wetland basins within a FWS wetland conservation easement. 16 62.9 to 63.5 A route variation was adopted to reduce wetland impacts not associated with a FWS wetland conservation easement. 17 69.8 to 71.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid impacts on a scrub-shrub wetland not associated with a FWS wetland conservation easement, and to avoid impacts on trees in a wind break. 18 74.5 to 76.1 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 19 87.7 to 88.0 A route variation was adopted to avoid a potential historic property. 20 41.1 to 41.7 A route variation was adopted to avoid a wetland basin within a FWS wetland conservation easement and to avoid wetland impacts not associated with a FWS wetland conservation easement. 21 33.3 to 34.1 A route variation was adopted to avoid wetland impacts not associated with a FWS wetland conservation easement.

Private lands subject to conservation easements held by the FWS were identified as key routing constraints in the Project area. The easements define permanent agreements between the FWS and all present and future landowners to protect wetland or grassland resources in perpetuity. The FWS provided WBI Wind Ridge with map data for conservation easements within a broad area extending about 10 miles on either side of the preliminary route of March 31, 2014. WBI Wind Ridge incorporated this information into its development of route variations. Given the density of the wetland conservation easements in this area, it was not feasible to avoid all of the wetland easements. To the extent practicable, WBI Wind Ridge was able to avoid wetland basins within the wetland easements crossed by the proposed route. However, WBI Wind Ridge has identified and adopted a number of route variations to avoid all but one existing FWS grassland easement, which the FWS identified as its key concern.

We have reviewed the information filed by WBI Wind Ridge on these route variations and deviations and our analysis of the proposed route in section 2.0 of this EA includes these variations as part of the proposed action. Based on this review, [insert conclusion]. 3.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES

WBI Transmission states that the location of the proposed Spiritwood Compressor Station site was determined primarily by its proximity of potential sites to both WBI Transmission’s existing pipeline and WBI Wind Ridge’s proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline. WBI Transmission further narrowed the range of possible site locations by identifying available properties (i.e., property that is owned by WBI Transmission or could be acquired from a willing seller at a commercially reasonable price) that are already disturbed by agricultural use, are large enough to construct and operate the proposed compressor station, and have minimal elevation change within the property. One alternative to the proposed compressor station site was identified using these criteria. We analyzed and compared the alternative site to the proposed site based on an assessment of potential impacts on environmental resources.

The alternative compressor station site would be located about 1.1 miles west of the proposed site, on the south side of 35th Street S.E (see figure 3.5-1). Like the proposed site, the alternative site would be 10.0 acres in size, would consist entirely of agricultural land, and would be accessed by a new graveled access driveway from 35th Street S.E. Also like the proposed site, one farmed emergent wetland would be located within the alternative site, and would be permanently filled for operation of the Project. The farmed emergent wetland that would be located within the alternative site is about 0.1 acre in size, as compared to about 0.2 acre for the wetland within the proposed site.

Insert Figure 3.5-1 Compressor Station Site Alternative

Like the proposed site, the alternative site would be crossed by WBI Wind Ridge’s proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline; however, unlike the proposed site, it would not be crossed by WBI Transmission’s existing pipeline. WBI Transmission’s existing pipeline would be located about 650 feet north of the boundary of the alternative site, on the opposite side of 35th Street S.E. Therefore, construction of the compressor station on the alternative site would require the installation of suction and discharge piping outside the fenceline of the compressor station site, traversing the 650 feet to WBI Transmission’s existing pipeline. Installation of this piping would require additional permanent easements, and would require a crossing of 35th Street S.E. by bore. Additionally, because the existing pipeline would not cross the alternative site, the valve settings to connect the suction and discharge piping to the existing pipeline would be installed at a site separate from the compressor station property. Therefore, despite impacting about 0.1 acre less farmed emergent wetland, the alternative compressor station site would result in greater land impacts than the proposed site overall. Therefore, [insert conclusion].

Additional aboveground facilities required for the proposed Wind Ridge Pipeline would consist of two meter stations and three launcher/receiver facilities along the pipeline. The meter stations would be located at the gas receipt point with the NBPL pipeline and at the gas delivery point adjacent to the proposed fertilizer plant. The location of these two facilities was determined by the location of the receipt and delivery points. WBI Wind Ridge considered alternative locations for the gas receipt point along the NBPL system southeast of Compressor Station No. 8. WBI Wind Ridge states that the proposed location for the gas receipt point was chosen based on pipeline design and hydraulics, and represents a balance between sufficient delivery pressure from the NBPL system to allow free flow of gas to the delivery point at the proposed fertilizer plant, and constructing additional pipeline if a receipt point closer to Compressor Station No. 8 was chosen. We [insert conclusion]. The launcher/receiver assemblies at the gas receipt point and the delivery point would be built as part of the meter station facilities; therefore no alternative locations were evaluated for these facilities. The third launcher/receiver facility would be located at about

the midpoint of the proposed route [the exact site for this facility is still being determined]. WBI Wind Ridge sited this facility to avoid FWS conservation easements, non-easement wetlands, cultural resources, high quality grasslands, and to meet WBI Wind Ridge’s operational safety requirements. The site needed to be located close to a public road for access during operation, to minimize the need to construct a long permanent road to access the facility. Figure 3.5-2 shows the alternative locations evaluated for the facility.

Insert Figure 3.5-2 Alternative Locations Evaluated for Launcher/Receiver 3

[Note to FERC: Figure 3.5-2 is still in development and will be provided in a subsequent version of this section.]

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the analysis in this EA, we have determined that if WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission construct and operate the proposed facilities in accordance with its applications, supplements, and staff’s recommended mitigation measures below, approval of the Projects would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The staff recommends that the Commission Order contain a finding of no significant impact and that the following mitigation measures be included as conditions of any Certificate the Commission may issue. 1. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its respective applications and supplements (including responses to staff data requests) and as identified in the EA, unless modified by the Order. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission must: a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with the Secretary; b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental protection than the original measure; and d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the Projects. This authority shall allow: a. the modification of conditions of the Order; and b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting from Project construction and operation. 3. Prior to any construction, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor personnel will be informed of the EIs’ authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EA, as supplemented by filed alignment sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or site- specific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA section 7(h) in any condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized facilities and locations. WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s right of

100

eminent domain granted under NGA section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas facilities to accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 5. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the FERC Plan and/or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location changes resulting from: a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation measures; c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect sensitive environmental areas. 6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the authorization and before construction begins, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file an Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: a. how WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its applications and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), identified in the EA, and required by the Order; b. how WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and inspection personnel; c. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the companies will ensure that sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the appropriate material;

101

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the Projects progress and personnel change); f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s organization having responsibility for compliance; g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission will follow if noncompliance occurs; and h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), and dates for: i. the completion of all required surveys and reports; ii. the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel; iii. the start of construction; and iv. the start and completion of restoration. 7. WBI Wind Ridge shall employ at least one EI per construction spread. The EIs shall be: a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing documents; b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document; c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the Order, and any other authorizing document; d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies; and f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: a. an update on WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations; b. the construction status of each spread, work planned for the following reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally- sensitive areas; c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies);

102

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance, and their cost; e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and g. copies of any correspondence received by WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission from other federal, state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and WBI Wind Ridge’s and WBI Transmission’s response. 9. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to construction, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the project.

a. In its letter to affected landowners, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall:

i. provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; ii. instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they should call WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission's Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a response; and iii. instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response from WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission's Hotline, they should contact the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division Helpline at 877-337-2237 or at [email protected].

b. In addition, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall include in its (weekly/biweekly/monthly) status report a copy of a table that contains the following information for each problem/concern:

i. the identity of the caller and date of the call; ii. the location by milepost and identification number from the authorized alignment sheet(s) of the affected property; iii. a description of the problem/concern; and iv. an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or why it has not been resolved.

10. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence construction of any Project facilities, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file with the Secretary documentation that it has received all applicable authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof). 11. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing the Projects into service. Such authorization will only be granted

103

following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas affected by the Projects are proceeding satisfactorily. 12. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official: a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or b. identifying which of the conditions in the Order WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission have complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Projects where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 13. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission shall not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until: a. WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission file with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary): i. reports of results of additional cultural resources surveys, including tribal surveys; ii. site-specific avoidance and/or treatment plan(s), as required; and iii. comments on the cultural resources reports and plans from the North Dakota SHPO. b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be adversely affected; and c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resources reports and plans, and notifies WBI Wind Ridge and WBI Transmission in writing that avoidance and/or treatment measures (including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or construction may proceed. All materials filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.” (Section 2.5.5)

14. WBI Transmission shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the authorized unit at the Spiritwood Compressor Station in service. If a full load condition noise survey of the entire station is not possible, WBI Transmission shall instead file an interim survey at the maximum possible horsepower load and file the full load survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at the Spiritwood Compressor Station under interim or full horsepower load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, WBI Transmission shall file a report on what changes are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. WBI Transmission shall confirm compliance with the Ldn of 55 dBA requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 2.7.2.2) [Note: Insert other project-specific recommendations once other sections are done.]

104

5.0 REFERENCES

[Note: This section is still being developed and will be provided with a subsequent draft.]

Section 2.1

Anderson, Fred J. 2012. Generalized Geologic Cross-Section in Southeastern North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey Geologic Investigations No. 152. Available online at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/Publication_List/pdf/geoinv/GI_152.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Bluemle, John P. 1977. Surface Geology of North Dakota. North Dakota Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Map 18. Available online at http://www.ndsu.edu/nd_geology/ nd_maps/nd_map4.jpg. Accessed October 2014.

Bluemle, John P. 1988. Generalized Bedrock Geologic Map of North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 28. Available online at http://www.ndsu.edu/nd_geology/ nd_maps/nd_map2.jpg. Accessed October 2014.

Murphy, Ed. 2014. Mineral Resources of North Dakota: Sand and Gravel. North Dakota Geological Survey. Available online at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/mineral/nd_sandnew.asp. Accessed October 2014.

National Map. 2015. The National Map Viewer. Available online at http://viewer. nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed January 2015.

North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. 2014. Oil and Gas Division – Oil and Gas GIS Shapefiles. Available online at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/OaGIMS/viewer.htm. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota Geographic Information Systems. 2014. North Dakota Hub Explorer. Available online at http://www.nd.gov/gis/apps/HubExplorer/#extent=-11686926.16734,5413134.40984,- 10547097.20155,6374406.47755&basemap=Map.

Radbruch-Hall, Dorothy H., Roger B. Colton, William E. Davies, Ivo Lucchitta, Betty A. Skipp, and David J. Varnes. 1982. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1183/pp1183.html #introduction. Accessed October 2014.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agricultural Handbook 18. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

State of North Dakota. 2014. 2014 North Dakota Century Code. Available online at: http://www.legis.nd.gov/general-information/north-dakota-century-code. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013a. Soil Data Mart, Tabular Data. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013b. SSURGO Metadata. Available online at http://datagateway .nrcs.usda.gov/.

105

U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Seismic Hazard Map. Available online at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/north_dakota/hazards.php. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. 2009 Minerals Yearbook North Dakota. Available online at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2009/myb2-2009-nd.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Earthquake Hazard Program Quaternary Fault Web Mapping Application. Available online at http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php. Accessed January 2015.

Winters, Harold A. 1963. Geology and Ground Water Resources of Stutsman County. North Dakota Geologic Survey Bulletin 41. Available online at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/ outofprint/Bulletins/Bulletin%2041.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Section 2.2

Armstrong, C.A. 1980. Ground-Water Resources of Dickey and La Moure Counties, North Dakota. County Ground Studies 28 – Part III, Bulletin 70 – Part III. Available online at http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB-213/DickeyLamoure_Part_3.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Bluemle, John P. 1988. Generalized Bedrock Geologic Map of North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 28. Available online at http://www.ndsu.edu/ nd_geology/nd_maps/nd_map2.jpg. Accessed October 2014.

Huxel, C.J. and L.R. Petri. 1965. County Ground Water Studies 2, Geology and Ground Water Resources of Stutsman County Part III Groundwater Water and Its Chemical Quality. North Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 41. Available online at http://www.swc.state.nd.us/ 4dlink9/4dcgi/getsubcontentpdf/pb-351/stutsman_part_3.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Klausing, R.L. 1981. Ground-Water Resources of McIntosh County, North Dakota, County Ground Water Studies 30-Part III (Bulletin 73). Available online at http://www.swc.nd.gov/ 4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB-283/McIntosh_Part_3.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Klausing, R.L. 1983. Ground-Water Resources of Logan County, North Dakota Studies 34 – Part III. Available online at http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB- 271/Logan_Part_3.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2001. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. NDAC Chapter 33-16-02.1. Available online at http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/33-16-02.1.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2012. North Dakota 2012 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads. Available online at http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/sw/Z7_Publications/IntegratedReports/Final _2012_IntegratedReport_20121029.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

106

North Dakota Department of Health. 2013. North Dakota Regional Water Systems. Available online at http://www.ndrw.org/image/cache/MRI_11x17_map_Feb_2013.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2014a. North Dakota Source Water Protection Program. Available online at http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/gw/sourcewater.htm. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2014c. North Dakota Surface Water Dependent Public Water Systems. Available online at http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/gw/MapSW-PWS.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

North Dakota State Water Commission. 2005. Water in North Dakota – A Reference Guide. North Dakota State Water Commission. Bismarck, ND.

North Dakota State Water Commission. 2014a. MapService. Available online at http://mapservice. swc.nd.gov/. Accessed October 2014.

Paulson, Q.F. 1983. Guide to North Dakota’s Ground-Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 2236. United States Government Printing Office. Denver, CO. Available online at http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubCategoryPDF/167/GroundWaterResources.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

Stutsman Rural Water District. 2015. Telephone communication between K. Smith (Stutsman Rural Water District) and K. Moran (Natural Resource Group, LLC) on January 15, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Region 8 Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Program. Available online at http://www2.epa.gov/region8/sole-source-aquifer-program. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Principal Aquifers of the 48 Conterminous United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Geological Survey. Madison, WI.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014a. Aquifer Basics: “Other Rocks.” Available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/other_rocks.html. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014b. Aquifer Basics: “Unconsolidated and Semiconsolidated sand and Gravel Aquifers.” Available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/uncon.html. Accessed October 2014.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. 2014. Designated Wild & Scenic Rivers. Available online at http://www.rivers.gov/north-dakota.php. Accessed October 2014.

Section 2.3

Austin, J.E. and A.L. Richert. 2001. A Comprehensive Review of the Observational and Site Evaluation Data of Migrant Whooping Cranes in the United States, 1943 -99. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/ wcdata/index.htm. Accessed January 2015.

107

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

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area Sensitivity in Grassland Passerines: Effects of Patch Size, Patch Shape, and Vegetation Structure on Bird Abundance and Occurrence in Southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130-1145. Available online at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232679229_Area_Sensitivity_in_Grassland_Passerines_ Effects_of_Patch_Size_Patch_Shape_And_Vegetation_Structure_on_Bird_Abundance_and_Occ urrence_In_Southern_Saskatchewan. Accessed January 2015.

Euliss, N.H., D.M. Mushet, and D.A. Wrubleski. 1999. Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region: Invertebrate Species Composition, Ecology, and Management. Pages 471-514 in D. P. Batzer, R. B. Rader and S. A. Wissinger, eds. Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North America: Ecology and Management, Chapter 21. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Faanes, C.A., D.H. Johnson, and G.R. Lingle. 1992. Characteristics of Whooping Crane Roost Sites in the Platte River. Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 6:90-94. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. Available online at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=nacwgproc. Accessed January 2015.

Federal Register. 2010. 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.

Federal Register. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Federal Register 78(189): 60023-60098.

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

Grant, T.S., E. Madden, and G.B. Berkey. 2004. Tree and Shrub Invasion in Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie: Implications for Breeding Grassland Birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807-818.

Hagen, S.K., P.T. Isakson, and S.R. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Bismarck, North Dakota. 454 pp.

Jones, S.L. 2010. Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/birds/spraguespipit/SpraguesJS2010r4.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

Kruse, K.L., compiler. 2011. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/Flyways/Central/CFHIPdatabook20 11.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

108

Lewis, J.C. 1995. Whooping Crane (Grus americana), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/153/articles/ migration?searchterm=Grus%20americana. Accessed January 2015.

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2011. North Dakota Noxious Weed Program. Available online at http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/noxious-weeds. Accessed January 2015.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC). 2010. Wetlands of North Dakota. Available online at http://nd.water.usgs.gov/wetlands/index.html. Accessed January 2015.

Robbins, M.B. 1998. Display Behavior of Male Sprague’s Pipits. Wilson Bulletin 110:435-438. Available online at https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v110n03/p0435- p0438.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

The Watershed Institute. 2012. Potentially Suitable Habitat Assessment for the Whooping Crane (Grus Americana). The Watershed Institute, Inc. Topeka, Kansas.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Wildlife Habitat Management Institute and Wildlife Habitat Council. 1999. Grassland Birds. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_009930.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Recovery Plans/WhoopingCrane.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdfs%5CNationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Whooping Cranes and wind Development – An Issue Paper. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/te_species/wind%20power/whooping%2 0crane%20and%20wind%20development%20fws%20issue%20paper%20- %20final%20%20april%202009.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Available online at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/ 20130923_REKN_PL_Supplement02_Ecology%20Abundance_Final.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. January 2014. USFWS Regions 2,3,4,5,&6. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html. Accessed January 2015.

109

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Ecoregions of North and South Dakota. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/nodak.htm. Accessed January 2015.

Vaughan, D.M., and M.D. Shepherd. 2005. Species Profile: Hesperia dacotae. In Shepherd, M.D., D.M. Vaughan, and S.H. Black (eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available online http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hesperia_dacotae.pdf. Accessed January 2015.

Section 2.4

Conservation Biology Institute. 2012. Protected Areas Database of the U.S. Available online at http://consbio.org/products/projects/pad-us-cbi-edition. Accessed December 2014.

Electric Light and Power. 2014. Spiritwood Station Coal Plant Producing Electricity, Steam. Available online at http://www.elp.com/articles/2014/11/spiritwood-station-coal-plant-producing-electricity -steam.html. Accessed January 2015.

National Park Service. 2009. National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Available online at http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/docs/NNLRegistry.pdf. Accessed December 2014.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2014. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: North Dakota. Available online at http://www.rivers.gov/north-dakota.php. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Department of Game and Fish. 2012. Wildlife Management Area Guide. Available online at http://gf.nd.gov/hunting/wildlife-management-areas/wma-listing. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Department of Game and Fish. 2013. Waterfowl Production Areas. Available online at https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/waterfowl-production-areas. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2014. Underground Storage Tank Program. Available online at http://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/UndergroundStorageTankProgram. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2014a. State Parks, Recreation Areas, and Nature Preserves. Available online at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/parks/parksmenu.html. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2014b. State Trails. Available online at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/activities/state.html. Accessed December 2014.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2014c. State Byways and Backways. Available online at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/byways/byways.html. Accessed December 2014.

Recreation.gov. 2014. Find Parks, Forests Campgrounds. Available online at http://www.recreation.gov/ unifSearch.do. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Wetlands Reserve Program. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ programs/easements/wetlands/. Accessed January 2015.

110

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2014. America’s Byways: North Dakota. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/ND. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. Envirofacts. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ enviro/index.html. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Geospatial Data Download Service. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Grassland Easements. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/longlake/grassland%20easements.htm. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Waterfowl Production Areas: Perpetual Prairie Potholes. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/wpa.html. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. Website for Natural Areas of North Dakota. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/natareas/map.htm. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Map Layer: National Wilderness Preservation System of the United States. Available online at http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/wildrnp.html. Accessed December 2014.

Section 2.6

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. Table DP 04 – 2008–2012 Selected Housing Characteristics. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. Table DP 03 – 2008–2012 Selected Economic Characteristics. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Population Estimates. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates 2008- 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Regional Economic Accounts. BEA’s Regional Factsheets – Per Capita Personal Income. Available online at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014a. Economy at a Glance, North Dakota. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.nd.htm. Accessed October 2014.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014b. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. May 2010–June 2011. County Data – Labor Force Data by County. Available online at: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. Accessed October 2014.

111

Section 2.7

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Climatography of the United States, No. 20, 1971-2000. USDOC, NOAA, Ashley ND Station. Available online at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/550/9-74-004. 242 pp. Available online at: http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm#impulse%20noise%20and%20some%20ot her%20special%20noises.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ ZyPDF.cgi/20012HG5.PDF?Dockey=20012HG5.PDF.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Green Book website. OAQPS RTP North Dakota. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/oindex.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. Climate of North Dakota. Available online at: http://www. npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/climate/climatic.htm. Accessed October 2014.

Section 2.8

Bureau of Labor, Consumer Price Index. 2014. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. CPI Inflation Calculator. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. 2014. Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services. Weather Fatalities, 30-year average (1983-2012). Updated July 3, 2014. Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml.

Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration. 2014. PHMSA Serious incident files, March 25, 2014. Available online at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 (129th Edition). U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC, 2009. Available online at http://www.census.gov/statab.

Section 3

Alliance Pipeline. 2014. Available online at: http://alliancepipeline.com. Accessed January 2015.

WBI Energy Transmission. Available online at: http://www.wbienergy.com/wbienergy/transmission. Accessed January 2015.

112

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

[Note: This section is still being developed and will be provided with a subsequent draft.]

113