US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM & MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SACAGAWEA PIPELINE MCKENZIE AND MOUNTRAIL COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA April 2016
Prepared for: Paradigm Midstream Services – ND, LLC
Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Environmental Resources and Missouri River Recovery Program Plan Formulation Section Planning Branch, CENWO-PM-AC 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SACAGAWEA PIPELINE-PARADIGM MIDSTREAM SERVICES-ND LLC GARRISON PROJECT, MCKENZIE and MOUNTRAIL COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA April 2016
Introduction: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations, an addendum to the Environmental Assessment (EA): Sacagawea Pipeline, incorporated by reference herein, has been prepared to evaluate the effects of Paradigm Midstream Service- ND, LLC (Paradigm) proposed oil and gas pipeline project that would horizontally directionally drill (HOD) beneath U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) managed land at the Garrison Project in McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota. Approximately 8,980 feet of the proposed pipeline system would pass underneath Lake Sakakawea via the installation of approximately 10,980 feet of welded steel pipeline.
Because the proposed pipeline will require an easement and the permission mandated by 33 U.S.C § 408 (Section 408) to cross beneath Lake Sakakawea and associated lands managed by the Corps, the Corps must first determine that the proposed pipeline would not be injurious to the public interest and would not impair the usefulness of the Garrison Project/Lake Sakakawea Project. As such, the Corps was identified as a cooperating agency for the proposed project, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acting as the lead federal agency for the activity that crosses Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Lands. However, the BIA signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!) on August 25, 2015 prior to the Corps completing its review of the BIA's document. The Corps appealed the BIA's FONS! in a letter dated September 22, 2015 on the basis that further analysis was needed to better understand impacts of the proposed activity relative to the Corps' authorities and management responsibilities. As a result, the Corps completed an addendum in close coordination with SWCA, the Environmental Consultants that authored the original EA for the BIA. This EA Addendum has been completed in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in Section 1506.5(a) and 1506.5(b) which allows an applicant to prepare an EA for a federal action. The Corps has independently evaluated and verified the information and analysis undertaken in the EA Addendum and takes full responsibility for the scope and content contained herein. The Corps will incorporate findings within this document as part of complying with environmental laws and as stipulations to issue a real estate easement to Paradigm for the proposed activity.
Project Summary: Paradigm proposes to construct 70 miles of two co-located 16-inch pipelines to transport crude oil and natural gas produced by Bakken Field wells from McKenzie County to rail and pipeline transmission locations in Mountrail County. The entire pipeline project would span privately owned lands, state trust lands, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation lands (Reservation) and Corps-regulated lands (e.g. federally regulated, fee surface, allotted and tribal lands). This Addendum assesses only those impacts relevant to the approximately 8,980 feet of the proposed pipeline system that would pass underneath Lake Sakakawea. Upon completion of construction , the pipeline would be commissioned and operated by Phillips 66.
Alternatives: Three action alternatives were considered in the BIA's EA in order to meet the purpose and need for the proposed pipeline project. One alternative was to string the pipeline underneath the Four Bears Bridge. This alternative was dismissed due to maintenance concerns and potential threat to human safety. Trenching the pipeline into the bottom of the lake was also discussed and eliminated because HOD is an environmentally safer method of making the crossing and is the method prescribed by the Corps in the Garrison Oil and Gas Management Plan. The remaining alternatives that were evaluated in detail include (1) the Applicant's Proposal to construct the pipeline project with interagency coordination and implement recommended mitigation measures (Preferred Alternative) and (2) the No Action Alternative.
Preferred Alternative: Implementation of the preferred alternative would allow for the transport of oil and natural gas from producing wells to markets. The route of the entire pipeline would originate in at the proposed Paradigm CDP Facility in McKenzie County 2.34 miles directly south of Keene, North Dakota and enters the Reservation from the west in the NE% Section 22, T151 N, R96W; then travels east approximately 5.85 miles within McKenzie County. The pipeline route then crosses under Lake Sakakawea and travels northeasterly across the Van Hook peninsula for approximately 18.19 miles, and exits the Reservation at a point east of Newtown in the NE% Section 10, T152N, R92W. The system would continue north then east across private lands terminating south west of Palermo, North Dakota. Under the preferred alternative, only minor and temporary surface disturbances such as foot traffic and laying of guide wire would occur on Corps-managed lands.
Trenching would occur along the length of the Sacagawea Pipeline Project in upland-classified areas with the exception of Corps-managed lands. The preferred alternative would install approximately 10,980 feet of welded steel pipeline no less than 100 feet under Corps-managed lands by HDD. The proposed project would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that meets applicable industry standards and regulatory requirements.
Summary of Environmental Impact: According to BIA's EA the preferred alternative would result in no adverse impacts to any federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has concurred with the Biological Assessment's finding that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect' the whooping crane (Grus americana), piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and it's critical habitat, interior least tern (Stema anti!larum) and pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus a/bus). See Appendix F of BIA's EA for USFWS concurrence. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703-712, 709 is omitted) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), impacts to migratory birds , bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) would be avoided by constructing the project outside of their breeding season.
The preferred alternative would result in no impacts to any properties listed, proposed for listing, eligible for listing or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A Class Ill inventory of the project area was conducted and as the lead federal agency, BIA reached a determination of "no historic properties affected' for the proposed Pipeline Project. Areas along the 70-mile long, 100-foot wide corridor would be temporarily disturbed by proposed construction activities. The impacts associated with the proposed project construction are short term and minor (i.e., noise, earth disturbance, vegetation removal, increased traffic, etc.). Of the three alternatives considered, the preferred alternative would be implemented because it can be reasonably constructed, meets the projects purpose and need, incorporates sound mitigation, does not impair the Garrison Project from meeting its authorized purposes (Section 408) and is consistent with the Corps' commitment to the protection of the nation's environment.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the preferred alternative as summarized in Section 1.2.2 of this EA Addendum would allow the Corps to issue the real estate easement to Paradigm, and is based on the impact analysis contained in the Addendum EA. The analysis shows that there will be no undue or unnecessary environmental impacts to the environment caused by construction, reclamation, operation and maintenance or abandonment of the pipeline while adhering to the plans of development (POD) and stipulations set forth under the real estate easement. Mitigation measures unique to Corps-managed lands derived from the Addendum EA are summarized in the Table below. All measures in this Table will be attached to the real estate easement and will be required to be adhered to in order to construct, operate and maintain the proposed project. Env1ronmenta . IP rotec fion M easures as Des1qn . F eatures Specific Prior to construction, all project personnel shall be trained on environmental permit Mitigation requirements and environmental specifications, including fuel handling and storage, Measures cultural resource protection methods, stream and wetland crossing requirements, (Construction) and sensitive species protection measures. Construction shall occur between August 151h and April 1st to avoid potential impacts to sensitive species. If construction is proposed outside of this schedule restriction, than the Corps shall be contacted as early as possible to allow for coordination with pertinent state and federal resource agencies. No waste or byproduct, fluids or solids, shall be discharged into waters managed by the Corps To avoid disturbance to the general public, fish and wildlife, mufflers shall be in place and operable on all machinery. Construction activities shall not occur during early morning or late evening hours. Dust shall be reduced by watering down dry dirt/scoria roads. To control aquatic nuisance species (ANS), equipment and boats must be washed to remove all vegetative matter and ANS prior to arrival at the construction site and after constructing through waterbody crossings (e.g., Lake Sakakawea), where water is evident. North Dakota Game and Fish should be given a minimum of a 72-hour notice to enable a biologist to inspect the equipment and boats. Specific The applicant must install remotely controlled double mainline valves on both sides Mitigation of Lake Sakakawea. In the event of a pipeline leak or rupture at the proposed Lake Measures Sakakawea crossing, Lake Sakakawea water permit holders would be notified (Operations & immediately as described in Paradigms Tactical Response Plan. Maintenance) The pipeline would be monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year from the Bartlesville Control Center, located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, using a sophisticated SCADA system. The applicant must follow the Spill, Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan to reduce the likelihood of an accidental release of hazardous fluids. The SPCC Plan as well as a Contingency Plan (emergency response/tactical response) would be provided to all construction crews and inspectors to inform preventative and reactive procedures for the management of hazardous materials within the Pipeline Project ROW. The applicant has committed to join the Sakakawea Area Spill Response Team, which provides access to adequate equipment for quick spill response. In addition to industry mandated spill response training, the applicant has committed to an additional full scale open water exercise and full scale winter/ice exercise that would be conducted at Lake Sakakawea at a minimum of once every five years. Stakeholders would also be invited to participate in these training exercises. Two internal trainings (desktop and equipment deployment) shall be held at Lake Sakakawea every year.
Coordination and Public Review: The preferred alternative has been designed in such a way as to incorporate specific mitigation measures (including impact avoidance and minimization) developed by the Corps in coordination with other resource agencies. As such, the preferred alternative would only have localized, minor and short-term impacts on Corps-managed lands and would not impact or interfere with the authorized project purposes. In addition, the proposed work is in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The Corps released a draft of the Addendum EA for public comment from December 1 to December 31, 2015 and received comments from the following agencies and stakeholders:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 • Friends of Lake Sakakawea . • North Dakota State Water Commission
These comments may be found in Appendix B, and responses to these comments are located in Appendix C of the Addendum EA.
Conclusion: After evaluating the anticipated environmental, economic and social effects of the preferred alternative, it is my determination that allowing a real estate easement for constructing portions of the proposed Sacagawea Pipeline Project beneath Corps-managed lands would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The preferred alternative has been coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies and there are no significant unresolved issues; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
6hn W. Henderson, P.E. olonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Legal Land Description for Proposed Action ...... 2 1.2 Alternatives ...... 3 2. Risk Analysis of Lake Sakakawea Crossing ...... 9 2.1 Third Party Damage ...... 9 2.2 External Corrosion ...... 9 2.3 Internal Corrosion ...... 9 2.4 Pipe Manufacturing Defects ...... 10 2.5 Construction Related Defects ...... 10 2.6 Incorrect Operations ...... 10 2.7 Equipment Failure ...... 10 2.8 Stress Corrosion Cracking ...... 11 2.9 Natural Forces...... 11 2.10 Consequences ...... 11 3. Relevant Corps’ Authorities and Processes (Federal Action)...... 11 3.1 Corps’ Civil Works Authorities ...... 11 3.2 Corps’ Regulatory Authorities...... 15 4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 16 4.1 Air Quality ...... 16 4.2 Water Resources ...... 16 4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 17 4.4 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 18 4.5 Cumulative Impacts ...... 18 5. Literature Cited ...... 22
List of Figures Figure 1. Approximate location of proposed pipeline crossing on Lake Sakakawea ...... 3 Figure 2. Oil and gas build out on the Bakken and Three Forks formations ...... 19 Figure 3. Nationwide gas and hazardous liquid pipelines ...... 20 Figure 4. Major crude oil, natural gas, refined and highly volatile liquids pipelines ...... 20
List of Appendices
Appendix A: HDD Cross Section Appendix B: Agency and Public Comments Appendix C: Response to Agency and Public Comments
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Paradigm Midstream Services – ND, LLC (Paradigm) is proposing to construct and operate an approximately 70-mile-long oil and gas pipeline system (Sacagawea Pipeline) in McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota. The purpose of the proposed project is to transport crude oil produced by Bakken Field wells from the south side of Lake Sakakawea to a collection point north of Lake Sakakawea. There is a need to move crude oil and natural gas from production wells to hubs where it can be collected and transported to market. The capacity of existing intrastate infrastructure to move crude oil from the production fields south of the Missouri River to the northern transportation hubs is less than 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) while the production of crude south of the Missouri River has conservatively been estimated to be approximately 400,000 bpd. In the absence of other viable transportation alternatives for the balance of daily production, which is estimated to be approximately 300,000 bpd, producers are limited to overland trucking of their crude to reach the desirable transfer points north of the Missouri River with access to a broader range of markets nationwide. The proposed pipeline would offer an additional capacity of up to 190,000 bpd to the region which is currently producing an estimated 400,000 bpd, but is constrained to less than 100,000 bpd of take away capacity offered by existing utility services.
This proposed project was the subject of an environmental assessment (EA) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). That EA addressed the installation and operation of the proposed pipeline, which would span privately owned lands, state trust lands, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Reservation) lands and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) managed lands. The Corps was identified as a cooperating agency for the proposed project. The intent was for BIA, the lead federal agency, to coordinate with the Corps on the NEPA document and design analysis. However, the BIA signed a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on August 25, 2015 prior to the Corps’ completion of review of the BIA’s document. The Corps appealed the BIA’s FONSI in a letter dated September 22, 2015. The Corps could not concur with the FONSI and subsequently determined to prepare this Addendum to the BIA’s EA to provide supplemental information relative to the Corps’ authorities and responsibilities under NEPA in order to assess impacts on resources under the jurisdiction of the Corps. The proposed pipeline crosses land managed by the Corps, and underneath Lake Sakakawea, a significant environmental resource. This proposed federal action requires the Corps to comply with NEPA in order to issue a real estate easement pursuant to 33 U.S.C § 408 which is necessary for the entire Sacagawea Pipeline proposed project to move forward. This document supplements the environmental analysis provided by the BIA and allows the Corps’ Omaha District Commander to sign a FONSI or determine a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 ii
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM
SACAGAWEA PIPELINE MCKENZIE AND MOUNTRAIL COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA April 2016
1. Introduction
Paradigm Midstream Services – ND, LLC (Paradigm) is proposing to construct the proposed Sacagawea oil and gas pipeline system in McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota. The purpose of the proposed project is to transport gas and crude oil produced by Bakken Field wells from the south side of Lake Sakakawea to a collection point north of the Lake Sakakawea/Garrison Project. The proposed project is a 70-mile-long pipeline for the transportation of crude oil and natural gas from McKenzie County to rail and pipeline transmission locations in Mountrail County. Approximately 8,980 feet of the proposed pipeline system would pass underneath Lake Sakakawea via the installation of approximately 10,980 feet of welded steel pipeline
This proposed project was the subject of an environmental assessment (EA) by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR § 1506.5(a) and 1506.5(b)) which allows NEPA documentation to be completed by a third party on behalf of a federal agency and in accordance with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1500-15-8) (see Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Sacagawea Pipeline, Paradigm Midstream Services - ND, LLC [August 25, 2015]). The BIA’s EA addressed the installation and operation of the pipeline, spanning privately owned lands, state trust lands, and Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Reservation) lands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) lands, and lands regulated by the Corps (e.g. federally regulated, fee surface, allotted, and tribal lands).
The BIA is the surface management agency for potentially affected tribal lands and individual allotments. The portion of the proposed action on tribal trust land requires approval by the BIA for the land use, construction, maintenance, operation, and final abandonment and reclamation of approximately 3.26 miles of the pipeline and associated access roads located on allotted lands within the boundary of the Reservation. The BIA determined that the proposed project is not a major construction activity, as defined in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 402.02. The portion of the proposed project crossing the Reservation would need approval from the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (MHA) Nation. Of the remaining length of the system, 21.99 miles would occur on Reservation fee lands; 2.82 miles would occur on North Dakota state trust lands; and 41.47 miles would occur on privately owned lands outside of the Reservation that are under the jurisdiction of the North Dakota Public Service Commission. At this time, potential connections and gathering lines associated with this trunk line are unknown and would require additional NEPA analysis at a later date.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 1
The BIA signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 25, 2015, indicating that, in the opinion of the BIA, the project would not have significant impacts on the human environment. The Corps appealed the BIA’s FONSI in a letter dated September 22, 2015. The Corps could not concur with the FONSI and subsequently determined to prepare this Addendum to the BIA’s EA to provide supplemental information relative to the Corps’ authorities and responsibilities under NEPA in order to assess impacts on resources under the jurisdiction of the Corps. The proposed pipeline crosses land managed by the Corps, and underneath Lake Sakakawea, a significant environmental resource. This proposed federal action requires the Corps to comply with NEPA. In addition, the Corps must issue a real estate easement pursuant to 33 U.S.C § 408 for this proposed project to move forward. This document supplements the environmental analysis provided by the BIA and allows the Corps’ Omaha District Commander to sign a FONSI or determine a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
This EA Addendum has been prepared in accordance with NEPA 33 CFR § 1506.5(a) and 1506.5(b), CEQ Regulations, Corps of Engineer Regulation ER 200-2-2 (33 CFR Part 230) and related environmental compliance requirements related to the Lake crossing, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Section 106). The Corps is responsible for review and decisions on the issuance of a realty permit, and authorization for the lake crossing pursuant to Sections 10 and 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
This EA Addendum analyzes potential impacts to elements in the natural and human environments that may not have been fully analyzed in BIA’s EA as well as for impacts relating to the Corps’ Section 408 authority for both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action as described in sections 2.1 and 2.2 in the BIA’s EA. Two additional alternatives were considered in the BIAs EA but dismissed from being thoroughly evaluated through the environmental consequences analysis for valid reasons, as described in section 2.2 in this Addendum. This Addendum also analyzes the potential for cumulative impacts and ultimately makes a determination as to the significance of any impacts, specifically as they relate to the crossing of Lake Sakakawea.
1.1 Legal Land Description for Proposed Action
Section 1.1 of the BIA’s EA provides the full list of townships, sections, and ranges the entire Sacagawea pipeline would cross. The portion of the pipeline which traverses Corps-managed land is approximately depicted below in Figure 1. The proposed pipeline would proceed from the west bank of Lake Sakakawea crossing under the river bed in Section 36, T151N, R94W in a northeasterly direction, and exit Corps-managed lands at a point in Section 36, T151N, R93W. The pipeline would continue north then east off of Corps-managed lands. No construction activities occur on surfaces of Corps-managed lands.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 2
Figure 1. Approximate location of proposed pipeline crossing on Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota
1.2 Alternatives
In the BIA EA, three action alternatives were initially discussed. Two of the three action alternatives were rejected due to lack of feasibility or potential to result in greater environmental impacts or impacts to human safety than the Proposed Action. One alternative was to string the pipeline underneath the Four Bears Bridge. This alternative was dismissed because of maintenance concerns involving bridge closure and threats to human safety. Trenching the pipeline through the bottom of the lake was also considered and eliminated because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a safer, more environmentally friendly method of making the crossing and is the preferred method prescribed to install pipeline as described in the Corps’ Garrison Oil and Gas Management Plan (GMP).
1.2.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative, as discussed in Section 2.1 of the BIA’s EA, addresses the issues that would remain without the project; specifically, the problem the industry, landowners, residents,
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 3
and the state are experiencing in relation to continued and possibly increasing truck and rail traffic and its associated effects. Under the No Action Alternative, the Corps would not make federal decisions that would allow the proposed project to traverse through Corps-managed lands. Oil would continue to be stored on production sites and hauled away by truck. Gas would continue to be flared at well production sites that would otherwise be serviced by the proposed pipeline. Also under the No Action Alternative, the potential for avoidance and minimization of pollution and other hazards, including the potential for catastrophic spills and explosions from train and truck transportation, may still occur.
1.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Please reference Section 2.2 of the BIA’s EA for a full project description. The Proposed Action as it relates to the crossing of Corps-managed lands includes an HDD bore under Lake Sakakawea which is part of the overall pipeline that would be constructed and operated in full compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and agency Best Management Practices (BMPs).
1.2.2.1 Construction Specifics
See Section 2.2.1 in the referenced EA for a complete discussion of construction methodology. The construction of the entire proposed system is estimated to temporarily impact a maximum area of 506 acres within the construction right-of-way (ROW), temporary workspace, and temporary access roads. Within Corps-managed lands, a maximum of 1.5 acres would be impacted from temporary access. No storage of construction materials would occur on Corps- managed lands.
1.2.2.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling
Horizontal directional drilling beneath Lake Sakakawea avoids or minimizes impacts to social, environmental and cultural resources. Under the Preferred Alternative, a pilot hole would be bored beneath a surface or near-surface asset in an arch from one surface hole to another. The pipe would be coated with industry standard fusion bonded epoxy in addition to an abrasion resistance coating and pulled through the hole. Drill fluid properties are typically checked four times per shift. Annular pressures are monitored constantly while drilling the pilot hole.
The proposed project would install approximately 8,980 feet of underneath Lake Sakakawea via the installation of approximately 10,980 feet of welded steel pipeline by HDD. The contractor would string and weld the pipe, and coat the field joints to make two complete pull strings of 16- inch pipe. Then, the pipe strings would be filled with water and an eight-hour hydrostatic test on all pipe strings would be performed prior to installation under the lakebed. The segment of the pipeline which crosses Corps-managed lands would be tested with a minimum pressure of 2,720 psig (pounds per square inch gauge) and a maximum pressure of 2,745 psig. Testing the segment of the pipe at these pressures will establish a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,830 psig for the portion that traverses Corps’-managed lands. This portion of the
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 4
pipeline would be designed to have a 1.25-times greater MAOP then the remaining 70-mile length of the Sacagawea pipeline which would have a MAOP of 1,440 psig. These tests would be documented with pressure and temperature charts, a hydro test log and dead weight testing equipment. The pipe would be placed on rollers and pulled through the HDD entry borehole beneath the lakebed. Pipelines would be located at a minimum of 100 feet below the lakebed, as shown in the cross-section drawing depicting approximate elevation and depth information for the proposed HDD in Appendix A of this document (It may be important to note that BIA’s EA stated in Section 2.2.2 that pipelines would be located 200 to 250 feet below the lakebed. This is inaccurate and has been clarified to a “minimum of 100 feet below the lakebed” by personal communication between Corps personnel and Paradigm). Once the first string has been installed, the second drill string would be welded, coated and x-rayed prior to being installed. The lake crossing would be inspected using a “pig” with a gauging plate to determine if any dents exist. Then, a combination Caliper Tool/Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Internal Inspection Tool would be pulled through the pipe to determine if there are any dents or gouges, and these dents would be assessed and measured. If any damage is detected, the level of damage would be evaluated based on the design criteria of the pipeline and Department of Transportation, Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 195. Results would determine if the operating pressure of the crossing requires lowering or abandoning the crossing.
During the installation of the pipeline via HDD, drilling fluid would be under great pressures when expended down-hole and it will flow the path of least resistance. In the drilled cavity, this path may be an existing fracture or fissure in the substrata, a high porosity streak, and/or a pocket of incompetent substrate material being penetrated. These paths could lead to surface and unplanned releases of drilling fluid (“frac out”). Phillips 66, the industry which will take ownership of the proposed pipeline upon completion of construction by Paradigm, has prepared a contingency plan for the inadvertent returns of drilling fluid to the surface. This contingency plan is required by the conditions of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH).
An application package for the proposed project to grant a real estate easement has been submitted to the Corps. This permanent easement would allow for the proposed pipeline to be located under the bed of Lake Sakakawea. A temporary right-of-entry would also be granted for construction activities that would allow for foot traffic and laying of guide wire. No surface construction activities would occur on Corps-managed lands. The directional drill start and end locations would be located on private lands as shown in Appendix A of the BIA’s EA. Temporary construction-related impacts anticipated to occur on Corps-managed land include foot traffic, stringing of guide wire, increase in noise pollution, area closures to recreationists and general human disturbance which would likely temporarily displace wildlife.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 5
1.2.2.3 Operations and Maintenance
As noted previously, upon completion of construction of the proposed Sacagawea pipeline by Paradigm, the project would be commissioned, operated and maintained by Phillips 66. All roads (private, county, state) and temporary roads to access the right of way (ROW) for the proposed pipeline system would be maintained in their current condition or would be improved. One newly constructed road is proposed that would access the valve on the east side of Lake Sakakawea. This road would be maintained for the life of the project by. If rutting does occur, roads would be fixed immediately. However, rutting would be avoided by abstaining from vehicle traffic use during saturated soil conditions.
Maintenance on the system would be limited to the permanent 50-foot ROW on the upland portions, and to the permitted corridor for the portion of the pipeline beneath Lake Sakakawea. Systems may need to be replaced if corrosion or leaking occurs. Should a leak occur, contaminated soil around the leak would be removed and remediated. All applicable regulations and BMPs would be implemented to eliminate and minimize both loss of product and environmental contamination.
1.2.2.4 Spill Prevention, Leak Detection and Spill Response Measures
The Bartlesville Control Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma would monitor pump suction and discharge pressures, various line pressures along the pipeline, and delivery pressures at delivery locations. Controllers would use the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system application known as "Ops Parameters" to set high and low pressure deviation brackets around pressure points to monitor for abnormal increases or decreases in pressure. These high and low pressure deviation brackets would generate an alarm to the Controller in the event of a sudden pressure increase or decrease on the pipeline. Controllers would follow procedure AOC- 0002 (Abnormal Operation Conditions – Pressure/Flow Deviation) for recognizing and responding to abnormal pressure or flow deviations. In the event a Controller observes a drop in pressure, they would shut down the pipeline and isolate/close all appropriate mainline, manifold, and tank valves if a leak was suspected.
The Controller would monitor for pressure and flow deviation as well as monitor for volume balance deviations in the SCADA application known as "Pipeline Monitoring" or simply, PLM, to alert them to any possible leak condition. In the event a leak is detected, the Controller would follow procedure WRK-0002 (Unconfirmed/Confirmed Leak Process) which instructs the Controller to shut down the pipeline and isolate/close all appropriate mainline, manifold, and tank valves if a leak was suspected. Local field responders would be dispatched to the potential leak location to provide on-site leak response management. The PLM application would be configured to detect a volume balance deviation between the input and outlet meters, and to compensate volume balance deviations against line pack calculations to improve leak detection accuracy and reliability. In the event a volume balance deviation is detected that exceeds alarm limit thresholds, an alarm would be generated to the Controller. The Controller would follow procedure GEN-0007 (General Operations Procedure – Pipeline Monitoring Leak Detection) for
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 6
recognizing and responding to potential leaks. To emphasize Phillips 66's "Think Leak" philosophy, all Controllers have been given and are expected to use their authority to shut down any pipeline system or segment suspected of having a leak.
As noted above, the proposed pipeline is designed with remotely actuated shut-off valves installed on either side of Lake Sakakawea to minimize the loss of product. These valves are also monitored and controlled 24/7 from the Bartlesville Control Center through a Real Time Transient Modeling Leak Detection System (RTTM LDS). This system provides class leak detection as it uses real time mathematical and statistical modeling to functionally estimate a given flow at any point in the pipeline and automatically fine-tunes flow data as the pipeline is in operation. Estimated time line for detection and shut-off in the event of a leak with a tuned RTTM LDS is as follows: a) Catastrophic Failure- within 5 minutes; b) 2% of nominal flow- within 60 minutes and 3) less than (<) 2% of nominal flow- within 12 hours.
Based on a worst case discharge (WCD) scenario specific to Lake Sakakawea, calculated by guidance in 49 CFR § 194.105, a largest possible release volume was determined specific to the segment of the pipeline that would cross Corps-managed lands. This calculation was based on environmental assumptions such as air temperature, wind direction/probability and wind speeds that were averaged from data over a one-year period derived from the nearest U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge. This information was extrapolated into a 24-hour model. The WCD, at the end of the 24-hour period, produced a surface oil slick attenuation distance, volume remaining in the water column, volume that would be ashore and the volume would evaporate within this timeframe. It is important to note, this WCD scenario is also calculated on the assumption that the pipeline is trenched verses HDD. Because the proposed pipeline would be installed at a minimum depth of 100 feet below the lakebed of Lake Sakakawea, there is a greater response time combined with the use of the automated SCADA system, potential for a WCD scenario is low.
Review and approval of the overall Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which encompasses the entire Paradigm Pipeline response strategies in the event of an oil spill, is the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) and will be reviewed and approved prior to commissioning the pipeline. Federal regulations 49 CFR 194 specify minimum requirements of such an ERP. For the proposed project, the Paradigm Pipeline ERP will be required to align with the content and directions identified in the Mid-Missouri Sub- Area Contingency Plan. A Tactical Response Plan (TRP) specific to a response strategy for Lake Sakakawea was provided by the applicant and includes specific response strategies and equipment for all affected water. As is true for the ERP, the TRP will also not be finalized until after construction and prior to commissioning of the pipeline. Within these response plans, Phillips 66 training exercise program would be consistent with the exercise requirements as outlined in the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines that were developed by the U.S. Coast Guard in conjunction with PHMSA and EPA. Training exercises include quarterly notification exercise, annual tabletop exercises to include a WCD scenario every three years, annual facility-owned equipment deployment exercises annual contractor exercises and unannounced exercises by government agencies. In addition to these
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 7
industry standard mandated exercise, the applicant has committed to becoming a member of the Sakakawea Area Spill Response Company (SASR). This industry cooperative maintains strategically staged all-season emergency response equipment that is available to all members in the event of a spill incident. SASR also coordinates joint industry response exercises, including winter/ice response that Phillips 66 will participate in. Through Phillips 66 and/or SASR resources, a full scale open water exercise and full scale winter/ice exercise would be conducted at Lake Sakakawea at a minimum of once every five years. Stakeholders would also be invited to participate in these training exercise. Another applicant-committed mitigation measure above industry standard includes holding two internal trainings (desktop and equipment deployment) at Lake Sakakawea every year. These additional applicant-committed mitigation measures have also been made a condition of approval in the Corps real estate easement.
Additionally, aerial patrols would be conducted at least every two weeks and as needed (i.e., post excessive precipitation, flooding, etc.). The crossing at Lake Sakakawea would be formally inspected at least every five years and after high water events. Block valves would be inspected twice per year. Cathodic protection readings (approximately every mile) would be recorded annually. Should cathodic protection readings be found to be out of compliance, necessary actions would immediately be taken to address and correct readings in order to bring them back up to compliance standards. Phillips 66 participates in the “one call” system and responds to all calls within proximity to pipelines they maintain. Phillips 66 will send personnel on site if there is third-party excavation within 25 feet of a Paradigm pipeline.
Potential pollution occurring as a result of construction activities, hydrostatic testing, and pipeline operations is a concern for the authorized purposes of Lake Sakakawea, including any effects to downstream resources on the Missouri River. Continuous monitoring of input and output volumes and pressures would detect leaks in the pipeline. Given the protective measures and BMPs referenced above, the potential for disturbance or adverse effects from construction, operation, and reclamation of the project is considered extremely small (see Section 2 for a full risk analysis discussion).
1.2.2.5 Reclamation
See Section 2.2.4 in the BIA’s EA for the full discussion on interim and final reclamation. Specific measures for interim reclamation and crossing methods within wetlands and streams are provided in Appendix D of the BIA EA.
Final reclamation would occur when the pipelines are decommissioned. It is environmentally and economically unfeasible to excavate and remove the decommissioned pipelines. Instead, the pipeline would be purged with water of any production product remaining in the lines and then abandoned in place by filling with an inert material, such as bentonite grout, to prevent surface subsidence in case the pipe collapses over time.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 8
2. Risk Analysis of Lake Sakakawea Crossing
While an oil spill is considered unlikely and a high precaution to minimize the chances has been taken, it is still considered a low risk/high consequence event. A risk analysis conducted by Phillips 66 addressed nine industry-recognized pipeline integrity threat categories in combination with public and environmental impact that could occur in the event of a release into Lake Sakakawea. These threat categories include the following: 1) third-party damage, 2) external corrosion, 3) internal corrosion, 4) pipe manufacturing defects, 5) construction related defects 6) incorrect operations, 7) equipment failure, 8) stress corrosion cracking and 9) natural forces.
Phillips 66 derived the following analysis risk process from the W. Kent Muhlbauer Relative Index Methodology (2004), in accordance with 49 CFR 195.452 “Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Area”, API RP 1160 “Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines”, and ASME B31.8S “Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines”.
2.1 Third Party Damage
Pipeline failure due to third party damage is ranked low for the portion that crosses Lake Sakakawea as the pipeline would be located 100 feet below the banks and lakebed. The only third party damage that would threaten this portion of the pipeline would be another HDD in the same location of the Sacagawea Pipeline. Due to tracking technological advances such as sub- meter accuracy, a permanent and accurate record of the proposed pipeline would be documented so no such possibility of another pipeline being placed via HDD in the same location would occur.
2.2 External Corrosion
Pipeline failure for the portion of the proposed project that crosses Lake Sakakawea is classified as low. The potential is ranked low due to the high performance external coating system that is being used (heavy epoxy-concrete abrasion resistant layer over fusion bonded epoxy) and deep well cathodic protection. This portion of the pipeline is constructed with a thicker wall pipe compared to segments of the pipeline in upland-classified areas. A conservative corrosion growth rate was determined to take 70 years before a through-wall metal loss could occur. Because in-line inspection metal loss detection tools run every five years, external corrosion activity would be detected and mitigated prior to it becoming an integrity threat.
2.3 Internal Corrosion
Pipeline failure due to the internal corrosion threat for the portion of the proposed project that would cross Lake Sakakawea is ranked low. Causes of internal corrosion would be due to accumulation of water and solids in low spots of the pipeline. However, Phillips 66 internal corrosion mitigation program for the entire Sacagawea pipeline include chemical analysis of the crude product stream, pipeline operations (maintenance of minimum flow rates that keep entrained water and solids moving through the system), a maintenance pigging program, a heavy
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 9
wall pipe design and in-line inspection performed every five years. The potential does exist, but successful implementation and continual monitoring of the effectiveness of the above programs will mitigate the risk. As with the external corrosion threat, the internal corrosion would be detected and mitigated prior to it becoming an integrity threat.
2.4 Pipe Manufacturing Defects
Pipeline failure due to manufacturing defects is considered low for the portion of the pipeline that crosses Lake Sakakawea. Upon completion of construction and prior to the commissioning of the pipeline, the segment of the pipeline crossing Corps-managed lands would be hydrostatically strength-tested for eight hours at a minimum of 2,720 psig and a maximum of 2,745 psig which would establish a MAOP 1.25 times greater than the MAOP of the pipeline that does not cross beneath Lake Sakakawea (see Section 1.2.2.2). Should any strength-related defects be found in the pipe as a result of the hydrostatic test, this segment of the pipeline would have to be over-pressured by more than two-times to have a potential effect on those defects. An over-pressure event of this magnitude is not likely with the equipment installed.
2.5 Construction Related Defects
Pipeline failure for the segment that crosses under Lake Sakakawea due to construction related defects is categorized as low. All pipe joints would be welded by qualified welders and the required 100% girth weld radiography would provide a two-dimensional grayscale image of the weld. After construction and prior to commissioning of the pipeline, the hydrostatic testing described above in Section 1.2.2.2 would be performed. After the drill string is installed and prior to the line being put into service, an in-line inspection tool would be ran to identify an injurious mechanical damage that may have gone undetected during construction.
2.6 Incorrect Operations
Pipeline failure due to incorrect operations (e.g. overpressure event caused by human error) is ranked low for the section of the pipeline that crosses Lake Sakakawea. This section of the Paradigm pipeline has a design factor nearly 2.5-times greater than the maximum allowable operating pressure (1400 psig) of the pipeline. In addition, the system is controlled and monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by experienced controllers in the control center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The system is designed with instruments and pressure relief systems to minimize the opportunity for overpressure.
2.7 Equipment Failure
Pipeline failure due to equipment failure for the section of the pipeline that crosses Lake Sakakawea is categorized as low. The only equipment located in this section of the pipeline are the shut-off valves on either side of Lake Sakakawea which are remotely operated. These valves are secured in a perimeter fence.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 10
2.8 Stress Corrosion Cracking
The potential for pipeline failure due to stress corrosion cracking for the portion of the pipe that crosses Lake Sakakawea is ranked as low because this section will operate at a low stress and is externally coated with a fusion bond epoxy coating.
2.9 Natural Forces
The potential for pipeline failure due to natural forces is ranked low for the segment of the pipeline that crosses Lake Sakakawea. The National Pipeline Mapping System, maintained by PHMSA, rates this geographic location for natural hazards as the following: Hurricane- Low; Earthquake- Low; Flood- High and; Landslide-High. As this section of the pipeline would be below Lake Sakakawea approximately 100 feet, erosion of cover/ exposure of the pipeline to debris during flood conditions is highly unlikely. In addition, landslide/ creep of the pipeline is highly unlikely as the pipe is at a depth below that which would be affected by land movement.
2.10 Consequences
In the event that a pipeline failure occurs and product is released into Lake Sakakawea, the worst case consequence scenario is ranked high because several drinking water intake High Consequence Areas (HCAs) and multiple ecologically sensitive HCAs could be impacted. To minimize the impact of a release (e.g. size and spread) the pipeline will continuously be monitored by a RTTM LDS, which is considered to be the best available technology; motor operated isolation and/or check valves are installed on either side of Lake Sakakawea which can be actuated to close as soon as a leak is detected; and a PHMSA-approved TRP will be in place.
3. Relevant Corps’ Authorities and Processes (Federal Action)
3.1 Corps’ Civil Works Authorities
Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 408) expressly prohibits the public from taking possession of, using for any purpose, building upon, altering, defacing, destroying, moving, injuring or “in any manner whatsoever” impairing the usefulness of a levee or other work (e.g. Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Project) built by the United States for the purpose of navigation or flood control without prior approval from the Secretary of the Army on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. A decision on a Section 408 request is a federal action, and therefore subject to NEPA and other environmental compliance requirements. The requestor is responsible for providing all information that the Omaha District identifies as necessary to satisfy all applicable federal laws, executive orders, regulations, policies and ordinances. NEPA and other analysis completed to comply with other environmental statues should be commensurate with the scale and potential effects of the activity that could potentially alter navigation, flood control, or any of the other congressionally-authorized purposes. The BIA EA did not consider Section 408 review and this EA Addendum serves as the necessary
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 11
documentation and analysis to determine if there are any effects to the authorized purposes of the Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Project.
3.1.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project on Congressionally-authorized Purposes of the Garrison Project
The Corps manages the six mainstem dams and reservoirs on the Missouri River, to include Lake Sakakawea, as well as the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) in order to support eight congressionally-authorized purposes of the 1944 Flood Control Act. These congressionally-authorized purposes are 1) Flood Risk Management, 2) Navigation, 3) Hydropower, 4) Irrigation, 5) Water Supply, 6) Water Quality, 7) Recreation, and 8) Fish and Wildlife. No one authorized purpose is more important than any other and all must be equally considered. Impacts may occur during construction activities, operation and maintenance during the lifetime of the project, or in the unlikely event of an oil spill. While an oil spill is considered unlikely and a high precaution to minimize the chances has been taken, it is still considered a low risk/high consequence event (see Section 2).
It is not anticipated that any impacts would occur, beneficial or detrimental, to the flood risk management, navigation or the hydropower authorized purposes under the proposed project as no construction activities would induce floodplain development (see Appendix B), occur on surface waters or Corps-managed lands. There is potential for the water supply, irrigation, water quality, recreation and fish and wildlife authorized purposes to be impacted by the proposed project, as discussed below.
3.1.1.1 Water Supply
No impacts to water supply are anticipated to occur during the construction or operation and maintenance of the proposed project. During installation of the proposed pipeline via HDD, there is potential for an inadvertent release of drilling fluids. As noted previously, drilling fluid would be under great pressures when expended down-hole, it will flow the path of least resistance. In the drilled cavity, this path may be an existing fracture or fissure in the substrata, a high porosity streak, and/or a pocket of incompetent substrate material being penetrated. These paths could lead to surface and unplanned releases of drilling fluid. Drilling fluid utilized for the HDD process is a mixture of water and bentonite clay (approximately 15-20 pounds of bentonite per 100 gallons of water). Bentonite is considered a naturally occurring, non-toxic inert substance that meets the NSF/ANSI-60 Drinking Water Additive Standards and is frequently used for drilling potable water wells. In the event of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid into the proposed project area of Lake Sakakawea, impacts include a temporary increase in local turbidity until the mixture dissipates with the current or settles out. However, during the drilling process, preventative action includes personnel closely monitor the fluid returns into the drill entry pit, inspection of hose connections daily for leaks and wear and continuous observation of fluid levels and flows. Impacts to water supply from an inadvertent release of drilling fluids are considered low risk and temporary in nature. Phillips 66 has prepared a contingency plan for the inadvertent returns of drilling fluid to the surface. This contingency plan is required by the
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 12
conditions of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which has been approved by the EPA and the NDDOH.
An oil spill is considered a low risk/high consequence event (see Section 2). However, should a failure occur to the pipeline, there is potential that crude oil and/or natural gas could contaminate the lake and/or upland areas surrounding the lake, which could pose a threat to water supplied to users of lake water which would cause long-term and detrimental impacts to water supply within the localized and downstream areas. An irrigation water supply intake is located within the area identified as potentially impacted should a WCD occur. As noted above in Section 1.2.2.4, a WCD scenario was calculated based on criteria outlined in 49 CFR § 194.105. According to the WCD specific to Lake Sakakawea, there is potential for such an event to negatively impact a municipal water intake. However, given the pipeline location in bedrock deep under the lakebed, combined with the use of a SCADA monitoring system, the potential for contamination of the water supply provided by Lake Sakakawea is low.
3.1.1.2 Irrigation
Impacts to irrigation are anticipated to be similar to impacts to water supply. See discussion above in Section 3.1.1.1.
3.1.1.3 Water Quality
No impacts to water quality during construction activities are anticipated. Entry and exit bore holes are being drilled off of Corps-managed lands and no surface disturbance to Corps-managed lands would occur. Additionally, no impacts to water quality are anticipated during operation and maintenance activities.
As noted above, in Section 3.1.1.1, there is a low potential for an inadvertent return of drilling fluids during installation of the proposed pipeline. Phillips 66 has prepared a contingency plan in response to an inadvertent release. Additionally, the mixture utilized, composed of bentonite clay, is considered a naturally occurring, non-toxic inert substance that meets the NSF/ANSI-60 Drinking Water Additive Standards and is frequently used for drilling potable water wells. Impacts from an inadvertent surface release include localized and temporary turbidity increases until the mixture dissipates with the current or settles out of the water column. Therefore, impacts to water quality are considered low and negligible.
While an oil spill is considered unlikely, it is considered a low risk/high consequence event (see Section 2). Adverse effects to water quality include potential contamination to surface waters as well as groundwater. However, the pipeline would be monitored and managed, as described in the project description. Given the depth of the proposed pipeline beneath the lake bed, the underlying bedrock in which the project would be embedded, and the safety measures used during the drilling, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the project, the risk of any material reaching the lake itself is low. Therefore, no reasonably foreseeable impacts to
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 13
water quality are anticipated. The Corps’ Omaha District Water Quality Team is responsible for coordinating compliance with guidance and requirements set forth in ER 1110-2-8154 “Water Quality and Environmental Management for Corps Civil Works Projects” for Lake Sakakawea. The Corps’ Water Quality Team concurs with a no significant impact likely determination (see Appendix B).
3.1.1.4 Recreation
During construction activities, recreation would be temporarily impacted as the areas near the proposed project site would be closed down to the public. During the operation of the pipeline, no impacts to recreation would be anticipated.
In the unlikely event of an oil spill, long-term and major impacts to recreation could occur in the localized area. The area would be closed to the public during clean-up efforts while intrinsic and aesthetic features of the area may also likely be negatively impacted after the area re-opens to the public.
3.1.1.5 Fish and Wildlife
Lake Sakakawea contains one of the state’s highest-value fisheries, and, including adjoining upland areas, provides habitat and other critical life requirements for numerous migratory and upland game birds, as well as many species of game and non-game mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and the ecosystem that sustains them.
In general, impacts to fish and wildlife during construction activities would occur in a localized vicinity of the entry and exit bore holes due to the disturbance from the drilling process, traffic and human presence. This would cause temporary displacement and it is anticipated upon completion of construction activities, fish and wildlife would return to the area. All construction activities would be completed outside of the migratory bird breeding season (between February 1 and July 15). No surface disturbance would occur on Corps-managed lands. A third-party biologist will be on-site to ensure compliance with applicant-committed measures.
Operation and maintenance activities are anticipated to have long-term, minor impacts to fish and wildlife. Increased human presence as a result of regular safety checks and surveys (as outlined in Section 1.2.2.3) could potentially disturb wildlife. Increased noise from aerial surveys could also cause localized disturbances. An oil spill is considered low risk/high consequence, and in the event of such an occurrence, impacts to fish and wildlife could be long- term and detrimental. Accidental releases of oil, drilling and production wastes, and processing wastes may expose wildlife and their habitats to contaminants that may adversely affect growth, reproduction, and survival. Accidental releases may result in the deposition of oil or oil residues on shoreline or wetland nesting and resting habitats of some birds, as well as habitats utilized by some birds for feeding (such as beaches used by shorebirds). Accidental releases may also result in the deposition of oil or oil residues in fish spawning habitats, as well as habitats utilized by juvenile and adult fish for feeding; such releases may affect fish and their habitats not only in the
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 14
vicinity of the release but also in other areas where currents may transport the released materials. Oil that is not readily cleaned up may form deposits on bottom sediments, thus affecting the survival, growth, and reproduction of bottom-dwelling fauna and aquatic vegetation, and thus, the habitat quality for some fish.
Riparian areas or dry washes are often used as refuge by big game animals, and may result in disproportionate exposure to contamination. Releases from wells and pipelines around or under Lake Sakakawea may affect wildlife and their habitats not only in the vicinity of the release but also in other areas where currents may transport the released materials. Exposure to the released materials may result in acute or chronic toxic effects, reducing survival, growth, and reproduction. Local or regional population-level effects may result if, following ingestion of contaminated food or incidental ingestion of contaminated media (sediments or soil), reproduction is affected (e.g., reduced egg production and increased malformations of embryos). Oil on feathers or fur is often ingested during preening, resulting in illness. Oil on fur and feathers may also affect waterproofing or heat retention, subjecting the animal to hypothermia and often mortality. Oil that is not subsequently removed may remain on or in the habitats for extended periods of time, resulting in chronic exposure of some biota through direct contact and uptake or through the food chain. Depending on the magnitude of the release, the speed with which the release is contained, the effectiveness of the cleanup, the location of the release or spill, and the species and life stage (egg, young, or adult) exposed, exposure to a spill or release could result in local or regional population-level effects.
However, given the pipeline location in bedrock deep under the lakebed, combined with the use of a SCADA monitoring system, the potential for negative impacts to fish and wildlife is extremely small. No significant impacts to fisheries or wildlife of Lake Sakakawea and/or the upstream and downstream reaches of the Missouri River are anticipated.
3.2 Corps’ Regulatory Authorities
Additionally, the Corps’ Regulatory Program has been charged with implementing Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403), which prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. Section 10 provides that the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States requires a permit issued by the Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. Compliance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act is required for the passage of the proposed pipeline under Lake Sakakawea.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344) the Corps regulates discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. This permitting authority applies to all waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. There are two basic types of Section 404 permits: Individual and General Permits (e.g. Nationwide Permits [NWP]). The Corps can issue a NWP to authorize activities that have minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Any fill in Waters of the United States meets the conditions
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 15
contained within a NWP 12 and would be used by the Corps’ Regulatory Program to authorize these crossings.
4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The following resources were analyzed in the BIA’s EA and are hereby incorporated by reference: air quality, public health and safety, water resources, wetland/riparian habitat, threatened and endangered species, soils, vegetation and invasive species, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental justice. Additional information relevant to previously discussed resource categories is provided in the sections below.
4.1 Air Quality
In section 3.2 of the BIA’s EA, the historical and current information from the EPA from 2007 to 2014 was used to analyze the project and accurately present the data on air quality. Although the air quality monitoring stations in North Dakota are not within the impact analysis area of the pipeline, these stations do provide coverage that is applicable to this analysis, given that those stations are in closest proximity to the impact analysis area.
The nearest air quality monitoring station is located in Dunn Center, North Dakota (http://airnow.gov/). The Air Quality Index is a scale for monitoring daily air quality using a scale divided into six categories that specifies levels between Good (0-50) to Hazardous (301- 500). The most current air quality data from the Dunn Center monitoring station show a number of 25, which reflects a “good” quality of air in the area. “Good” is considered satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk to human health.
4.2 Water Resources
In sections 3.3 and 3.6 of the BIA’s EA, surface water resources such as streams, watersheds and drainage basins through which the pipeline passes are identified.
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, states must identify surface waters that do not meet EPA-approved water quality standards. These affected waters must be placed on a 303(d) list which requires these waters have a total maximum daily load (TMDL) developed. A TMDL is based on the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards set forth and on an allocation of that pollutant amount among various sources. According to the EPA, the most recent waterbody report for Lake Sakakawea lists the reservoir on the 303(d) list for methylmercury. As a result, the North Dakota Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory for Lake Sakakawea. Sources of methylmercury contamination in fish from Lake Sakakawea, as other lakes in North Dakota, remain largely unknown, and likely come from a combination of natural and anthropogenic sources. Mercury is the only contaminant identified within Lake Sakakawea that has resulted with impairment and site-specific consumption advisories. This impairment status still is in need of a TMDL; however, it is targeted for additional monitoring during the next two to four years. The
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 16
Southwest Water Pipeline and the cities of Garrison, Parshall, Pick City, and Riverdale, are currently supplied by Lake Sakakawea, which is assessed as a fully supporting water supply use. For each human health contaminant, greater than 50 percent of the samples had concentrations lower than the maximum allowable water quality standard, and there are no drinking water complaints on record. It is unlikely that the proposed project would increase mercury levels or cause additional impairments within Lake Sakakawea.
As noted above in Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3, the largest potential impact to water resources would occur in the event of an oil spill. A WCD scenario was calculated specific to an event at Lake Sakakawea, as described in Section 1.2.2.4. This WCD was calculated in accordance with 49 CFR § 194.105 which is based on the assumption that the pipeline is trenched along the lakebed. However, the proposed project would install the pipeline under the lakebed at a minimum of 100 feet deep through HDD. This significantly minimizes the risk to water resources as response time to a leak in a pipeline is increased. Additionally, the use of automated SCADA systems and the ability to remotely operate emergency shut-off valves further reduces the likelihood of product reaching surface waters in Lake Sakakawea.
BMPs will be utilized for all ground-disturbing activities as required by the CWA. Testing and evaluations of the installed pipeline under Lake Sakakawea would occur before full service would verify the pipeline is free of damage and is fully operational. These tests and evaluations will occur off of Corps-managed lands.
4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
A Biological Assessment prepared pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in connection with the BIA’s action was received by the USFWS on February 13, 2015, with addendums received May 28 and August 4, 2015, and supporting clarification documents received August 7, 2015. The USFWS concurred with the “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for the whooping crane (Grus Americana), interior least tern (Sternula antillarum), piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its critical habitat, and the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (see Appendix F of the original EA for the USFWS letter of concurrence relative to effects to federally-listed threatened and endangered species).
The BIA’s biological assessment also made “no effect” determinations for the gray wolf (Canis lupus), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), rufa red knot (Calidris canutus), Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). There is no requirement for action agencies to receive USFWS concurrence for “no effect” determinations. Thus the “no effect” determinations remain with the lead agency, the BIA.
Timing and line-of-sight (LOS) restrictions would be employed during the interior least tern and piping plover nesting period (April 1 to August 31) and no construction would occur within 0.5 miles LOS as outlined in BIA’s Biological Assessment. Additionally, LOS restrictions for the whooping crane would also be utilized during construction activities. Should a whooping crane be sighted within one mile of the construction area, all activities would cease and USFWS would
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 17
be notified. The requirements under Section 7 were met with the BIA’s effect determinations and concurrence from the USFWS; therefore additional analysis for the Corps’ action is not required.
4.4 Mitigation and Monitoring
Avoidance of impacts to resources and the human environment is employed where practically feasible. Furthermore, BMPs are utilized to mitigate impacts that cannot be avoided. Such BMPs include utilizing existing infrastructure and roads where possible, minimizing top soil removal, avoiding tree removal, employing sediment and erosion control measures, using HDD under wetlands crossing over 500 feet, practicing dust abatement and several others. For a full list of applicant-committed BMPs which would be utilized for the entire pipeline project, not just for Corps-managed lands, refer to Section 3.12. of the BIA’s EA.
Additionally, several spill response measures have been integrated into the proposed project, as required and regulated by PHMSA. Should an oil spill occur, Garrison Project personnel would be notified.
4.5 Cumulative Impacts
The combined incremental effects of human activity are referred to as cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508.7). While these incremental impacts may be insignificant on their own, accumulated over time and from various sources, they can result in serious degradation to the environment. The cumulative impact analysis must consider past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. In 1921, a geologist working with the U.S. Geological Survey published a notice outlining his belief that the Williston Basin would someday produce oil and natural gas as a result of survey work conducted near the Cannonball River in southwest North Dakota. Over the next 30 years, bore holes were drilled, but yielded little to no oil. Thomas Leach, a petroleum geologist formed a partnership with Standard Oil and a 10,281-foot deep test hole was drilled in 1937. No oil was found and Standard Oil pulled out of North Dakota, while Leach continued to search for oil and leased out mineral rights on thousands of acres. After World War II, Leach formed a new partnership with Amerada Hess and in April 1951, 11,000 feet below the surface, oil was found. The Williston Basin exploded with oil and gas exploration and recovery activities. By November 1952, the Williston Basin oil field produced its one millionth barrel of oil (State Historical Society of North Dakota, 2016). The oil and gas industry ebbed and flowed in this area with boom years occurring in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s.
Past actions within, and adjacent to the study area include these numerous oil and gas development and transportation projects and accompaniments such as transmission lines, drill pads, wells, pipelines and maintenance facilities.
Present actions within, and adjacent to the study area involve an increase of development to the Bakken and Three Fork shale formations. This is primarily due to technological advances known as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) which have made resources more recoverable. Lateral
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 18
wells can reach up to 3 miles underground and millions of gallons of produced water are forced down under immense pressure to fracture shale formations and recover crude oil. Figure 2 below pictorially indicates the prevalence of the oil and gas activities surrounding Lake Sakakawea. According to the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s (NDIC) most current Annual Report, the Bakken and Three Forks formations hosted 9,516 oil production wells of the total 11,902 production wells as of 2014 (NDIC, 2014).
Figure 2. Oil and gas build out on the Bakken and Three Forks formations. Red lines are wells and white lines are lateral wells. Data obtained from the North Dakota Industrial Commission.
In order to transport this mass commodity, a series of pipeline networks have been constructed within the nation (Figure 3). The United States has more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines, 55,000 miles of which are crude oil trunk lines (8” to 24” in diameter) that connect regional markets (PHMSA, 2013).
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 19
Figure 3. Nationwide gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Derived from the National Pipeline Mapping System, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.
North Dakota and the proposed project area fall within Region 6 (Figure 4). While comparatively few major pipeline’s exist within the immediate proposed project area, compared to other regions of the United States, it is reasonable to anticipate the increased recovery of oil and gas in the Bakken and Three Forks formations will continue to induce construction of new pipelines in the localized area for the foreseeable future.
Figure 4. Major crude oil (orange), natural gas (green), refined (purple) and highly volatile liquids (blue) pipelines within Region 6. Derived from American Energy Mapping 2013.
While applicant-committed measures and the use of BMPs will assist in minimizing impacts to federal trust resources and the human environment, it is still important to discuss incremental actions and their culminating impacts to the environment from a holistic approach. BMPs above and beyond the North Dakota Industrial Commission requirements are implemented on Corps-
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 20
managed lands. Examples of such BMPs include no surface occupancy, no open pits; closed loop systems, interim reclamation plans, groundwater monitoring plans, no groundwater wells, visual resource protection measures, construction restrictions, no flare pits and several more. The Corps utilizes these enhanced BMPs, as outlined in the GMP, in addition to industry standard in order to minimize the potential of cumulative impacts on Corps-managed lands.
While the proposed project incrementally has little impact to overall cumulative impacts, it is possible that this project could slightly improve localized air emissions. Utilization of a pipeline to transport oil and gas verses truck or rail transmission would decrease emissions and dust from occurring. In addition, the proposed pipeline would transport not just crude oil, but natural gas that, in some cases, would otherwise be “flared” for disposal. By reducing flaring in the region, it would incrementally reduce overall emissions such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. Furthermore, as a result in the reduction of truck traffic, the proposed pipeline itself may have minor, positive cumulative impacts on public health and safety. Fatal or injurious vehicle accidents have increased in the region as a result of the oil and gas industry and concomitant activities. Due to oil production, 17 of the 53 North Dakota counties are experiencing unprecedented growth in population, licensed drivers, vehicles registered and vehicle miles of travel, which is projected to continue climbing (NDDOT, 2014).
Cumulative effects of the proposed project to water resources include potential impacts to water quality, irrigation and municipal water supply. In the unlikely event of a spill, long-term and detrimental cumulative effects could occur to water resources. As described previously in Section 1.2.2.4, a WCD scenario was calculated for a pipeline break at Lake Sakakawea. A TRP specific to a response strategy for Lake Sakakawea was provided by the applicant and includes specific response strategies and equipment for all affected water. Given the advances in pipeline construction, leak detection systems, emergency response and technology, the event of a spill incident is greatly reduced. Implementation of notification systems and shutdown procedures, as regulated by PHMSA, would decrease the potential of an incidental spill to impact water resources.
Cumulative effects associated with the pipeline to native wildlife and vegetation are anticipated in the form of disruption during construction and the operation and maintenance activities, habitat fragmentation, decreased net primary production (food production) and an increase in opportunistic, invasive vegetation. Consistent and constant human disturbance to the overall area has incremental direct and indirect cumulative effects. While the segment of the proposed pipeline that will cross beneath Corps-managed lands will be installed through HDD methods and no surface disturbance will occur on Corps-managed lands, the unlikely event of an incidental spill would have long-term and devastating impacts on wildlife and vegetation. As stated previously, the likelihood of a pipeline leak or complete failure is unlikely (low risk) as a result of leak detection systems, automated shut-off valves, advance construction methods and response strategies, however, cumulative impacts must be noted due to high consequence. Long- term impacts to localized, affected populations and communities of species would impact survival, growth, reproductive success as well as vegetative re-establishment and biodiversity.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 21
After the proposed project is constructed, it is not anticipated impacts would occur to Corps- managed lands in a cumulative manner. As noted previously, an incidental spill is unlikely. Therefore, it has been determined that as a result of the proposed project, it would have insignificant cumulative impacts considered with other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within the area.
5. Literature Cited
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). American Energy Mapping (AEM). 2013. National Pipeline Mapping System. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/GovOfficial.aspx. Accessed March 8, 2016.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2015. Environmental Assessment: Sacagawea Pipeline. Paradigm Midstream Services- ND LLC. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants.
Muhlbauer, W.K. 2004. Pipeline Risk Management Manual Ideas, Techniques and Resources: Third Edition. Elesvier, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts. ISBN: 0-7506-7579-9.
North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2014. North Dakota Highway Safety Plan: Federal Fiscal Year 2015.
North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC). 2014. Oil in North Dakota, 2014 Production Statistics. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/statisticsvw.asp. Accessed March 7, 2016.
State Historical Society of North Dakota. 2016. North Dakota Studies. History of Oil Extraction. http://ndstudies.gov/gr8/content/unit-iv-modern-north-dakota-1921-present/lesson-1-changing- landscapes/topic-5-energy/section-3-oil. Accessed March 7, 2015.
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 22
Appendix A HDD Cross Section
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM
Sacagawea Pipeline McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota
April 2016
Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016
1------HDRIZONTAL IJRILLCD LCNGTH • 11, :z: TRU£ LF:NGTH = I 1, 225' 129'------1 I .... ! I HU'ilSEii WllEM.llE' ,~~ ,,_,Nt:ll llfILIDI IUf1H 111..1rMMD11" ,,_,Nt:ll a & iQ z~ mtllllli• ~! _c- tl..Dt:llTllM '..:ifLiD:k""Wi"''· a= ~ 11!9 e ~ ~o.. ---- .... ;~~ zO ::::_:::- ··---·- ~ ~Id Dl'lllTl/I ALTlr ~T 0 tl..Dt:llTllN• fL I liat~ l ~Q z o=~ • ~~~ llRIUEIJ ll1l/1H EXISTllG l1NE11K Dll'Tll8 MMJMl!I /IL16NNENT l'-INt:H 4 .a PIP0..111£ f'll'll.IM' la DllSTINS TMllM ~a= :c Pll'fl.INE. I I ...,.c MITE• PRDPERTY DllrtElS, EASD:DIT, MDI T£1tlPIJRARY $ llDRltSPACC IJ£TAILS CNI 11£ FOUND ill At..IGNJENT SHaT NU#llERS Il-13 IN ATTACHHDIT F" DF" TH£ ~ 0~ APPLICANT'S TECHNICN.. stPPLDENT IJDCUHCNT. I a. :If 5; ~ Cl ~ I ai ; .... PLAN i5 t; ... ~- SCALD 1 • =500' ulll!: ~ :I ~ £NTR'I POINT • 10' P. C. 10' SAG 1IDID P. T. 10' SAG 1IOID P. C. 10' SAG 1IDID P. T. 10' SAG 1l£NJJ EXIT POINT W 10' = Q - 0+00. DO, 2271. 46 31.,. .. 43. 1707. "' ~93. 02, 1646. 72 79.,.5g, 00, 16"6. 72 95.,.53, 60, 1707. "' 111•29.• OS., 2161• 61 z - N 319i?rl0. 77., £ 1433'127.• 32 IMDIUS • 4, 000' IMDIUS • 4, 000' N 3173'3. OJ, E l 444S'3. 29 ~ !!:! o1oo 25+00 50+00 75+00 100+00 i 5~ ! Cl Cl ~ 2600 ~ !!) D ~ ~ c ~ I a. z 'lllSTING lilWIE' P1111'1111£D :If :If • ., &a.$ ~ c ~ ~ iii 2400 ·~ DRILL i~ JOINT i .. =I ID 111.. ~ CIAY, ~ ...... i ~ 2200 !~ 2200 13 ...... 8 c -~W@.... ,. 30 CL'4Y ~40 Y - 330 :;...-" :;;..-" I ...... ~ ~... ' ...... S1J /~ '/ALTl11NATINfI LA'f1:RS OF CIML.. ~ 2000 ....,.., .....u 2000 I .... v ...... 60 ~ ~ lS ~ ...... 70 - El#A1C M4ml' ,,.. • ~ Q ...... -- AS-1"~tvOIYl3 ~ ...... - - fV" ~ ~ ------...... ~ 90 ' "---- ~ 2'J!' ...... ~ l800 ~ 1800 r•uu· / ~ -. !'-.... I z ~ 110 ~ 7.....-'...... " I ...... 120 1301 140 150 1st 170 180 200 210 220 230 24l 250 260 / I:! ...... ,.., IQ I - - - - ''°- - - - ... z l600 - NDTE:t PLACEHDIT DF' HDRIZDNTAL JJRILLING RIG ------' ------1600 NlMl1£R 1 CHICHCLS A1lAS SfO) I/ILL BC AT THE -- -- £NTR'I
o+oo 25+oo so+oo 75+oo • -200 i:.Il• PILOT 111f £ TQLFJIANr£$ PROFILE ~ ft THC PILOT HDLE SHALL B£ IJRILLCD Ta TIE Ta.ERANCES LISTEJJ B£LDll. SCALEr J••SOO' HDRizaNT/4L -100 ... Tt1f11llWHIC SURVEY NDJU 1•=200' VERTICAL -~ HDl/£1/ER, IN ALL CASC~ RIGHT-IJF'-llAY RUTRICTIONS AND CDNaRN F1JR nl - $ DRILLED PATH CN'TflY/EXIT PD/HT l. G£DTCCHNICAL .DATA PRDVIJJ£D .BY .BARR £NGIN££RING, 1. H'IDRDGRAPHIC SURVE:'I DATii PRDVID£JJ .BY UINTAH ADJACENT FACILITICS SHALL TAKE PR£C£1£NC£ DV£R THCSE Tl11..£RAll«S. ::c: I ii IJU.UTH, HN. RCFER Ta TH£ f'Rfl.£T DRllFT LOGS FT1R CNGINCCRING & LAND SURVE:'l/NG CU£LS>. • lf HDR£ DCTAILCD SUBSURFACE INF11RHATIDN. I, CNTRY PDINT1 l5 FEET FDRllARD AND l5 FEET BACK FRDH THC IJESIGNDJ ~ I CNTRY POINT1 UP TD 2 F'ECT RIGHT DR LCF"T OF" TH£ Da/GNED ALIGNH£NT. 2. NDRTHINGS ltN1J EASTINGS AR£ IN U. S. SIRVCY nET PRLUQ;TlQN CE llNWR6RQUND FAt;lL lTlE'S joliii 0 @ BORING LDCllTIDN 2. 7'H£ LETTER "N' TD TH£ LEF'T DF' A SPLIT SPDDN R£FrR£NCED TD A PARADIGH 11£ST£RN NORTH IMl
o+oo zs+oo so+oo 75+(]() 100+00 • -200 i:.tl• PROFILE ~ ~ THE PILOT HDI..£ SHALL B£ IJRILLED TD THE TUL£RANCU LISTDJ l1£LDll. SCALEt 1•=500' HDRIZCJNTllL -100 .!:::: ... ljEIJTEQINICN, NQ1F$ 1 • =200' V£RT /CAL HDl/£1/ER, IN ALL CAS£~ RIGHT-IJF'-flAY RESTltlCTIONS AND CDNaRN F1JR ell -i'! 6) IJRILLED PATH ENTRY/£XIT POINT l. GCCITECHNICAL 11.4TA PRDVIJJ£D BY BARR £NGINE£RING, 1. HY/JltDGRAPHIC SURVFY MT/II PltDVIDED BY UINTAH ADJACENT FACILIT1£S SHALL TAK£ PR£C£1£NC£ DV£R THE:~ Tl11..£1W1«$. ::c: I DULUTH, #N. R£FFR TD TH£ PRDJreT DRllFT LDfiS FDR CNGINE£RING & LAND SURVE:YING CU£LS>, • 1' HORE IETAILED SUBSURFACE INFOR1'1ATIDN. 1. ENTRY POINT1 JS FEET FDRllARD AND JS FEET BACK FRDH TH£ 11£SIGNDJ ~ I lifllll'CffiCCN I ftifflp ENTRY POINT1 UP TD 2 F'£ET RIGHT DR LEF"T OF" THE Da/GNED ALIGNH£NT. - e. NORTHINGS llN1J CASTINGS AR£ IN U. S. SURVEY F'EET PIUTTCCTTON l£ IJNOCR@lOllJll CACTI rrccs joliii 0 1111RING LOCATION 2. THE LETTCR "N" TD THE LEFT OF" A SPLIT SPOON R£F£RENCED TD A PARl4DIGH f/EST£RN NORTH DAKOTA Cl SAHPI...£ INDICATES THAT NO li\'llVEL liAS DllSCRVED IN ZDN£ NAD 19831 F:STAllLISHED BY UELS 2. EXIT PDINTi UP TD 15 F'£ET SHl1RT DR 15 FrET LONG RELATIVE TD THE ..a 1JF:SIGN£D £XIT PDINTJ UP TD 2 FffT RIGHT DR LUT OF" TH£ 11£SIGNDJ CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIERTAl Appendix B Agency and Public Comments ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM Sacagawea Pipeline McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota April 2016 Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 www.epa.gov/region08 DEC 23 2015 Ref: 8EPR-N U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District CENWO-PM-AC Attn: Rebecca Podkowka 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102-4901 Re: Sacagawea Pipeline System Environmental Assessment Addendum Dear Ms. Podkowka: Thank you for the opportunity to review the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Environmental Assessment (EA) Addendum regarding the proposal from Paradigm Midstream Services (Paradigm) for the Sacagawea Pipeline System in North Dakota. We have reviewed the EA Addendum and other online information as posted on December 10, 2015, and we provide these comments in an effort to ensure that the project's potential environmental impacts are adequately analyzed, disclosed and minimized or avoided. Our comments are provided for your consideration pursuant to our responsibilities and authority under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Because Lake Sakakawea supplies drinking water and recreational opportunities to the communities in and near the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR), we believe that additional mitigation measures may assist you in supporting a FONSI by providing added assurance that this high value resource is adequately protected from the project's potential impacts. We note that the USACE's EA Addendum incorporates by reference the Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA) August 2015 EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) regarding the Sacagawea Pipeline System. In a February 11, 2015 scoping letter to the BIA, the EPA requested the opportunity to review the BIA's Draft EA and Draft FONSI when they became available (see Enclosure). Unfortunately, we were not afforded that opportunity. Given that the USACE's decision is specific to the issuance of a realty permit and authorization of the Lake Sakakawea crossing, we have focused our review and recommendations on that portion of the proposed project. Background The EA Addendum analyzes the environmental impacts of a proposal by Paradigm Midstream Services ND, LLC (Paradigm) to construct a 70-mile long oil and natural gas pipeline system and associated access roads in McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota. In addition to crossing under approximately 7,500 feet ofUSACE-managed submerged lands, the proposed pipeline would cross private, state, and FBIR fee lands (approximately 41.5, 3.0, and 22.0 miles, respectively) and 3.26 miles of allotted lands within the FBIR boundary. It is our understanding that the 3.26 miles of the pipeline proposed for crossing the FBIR allotted lands were the subject of the BIA's August 2015 FONSL The USACE's EA Addendum is intended to support its decision for the approximately 7,500 feet of the proposed pipeline system that requires USACE approval to pass underneath Lake Sakakawea. The proposed project consists of constructing two co-located 16-inch diameter welded steel pipelines - one for crude oil and one for natural gas. The portions of the proposed system on uplands would be installed by trenching to an average buried depth of approximately 6 feet. Horizontal directional drilling will be used for installation of the pipeline system in areas where necessary to reduce environmental impacts, e.g., Lake Sakakawea and other waterways, roads, and wooded draws. Two separate directionally drilled holes 200-250 feet beneath Lake Sakakawea are proposed to allow installation of the pipeline system. Automated mainline block valves are proposed on each side of the Lake Sakakawea crossing and would be remotely monitored 24 hours/day. The valves can also be operated manually. In addition, a mechanical check valve will be installed on the east side of the lake crossing to prevent backflow of product. Surface Water Resources and Emergency Response and Spill Prevention Measures Section 3.3.1 Surface Water Affected Environment We recommend that the EA Addendum consider potential impacts to impaired water bodies within and/or downstream of the project area. Specifically, we recommend including the waterbody segment identification number, impairment status, and cause of the impairment according to North Dakota's most recent Integrated Report (2014), along with a link to North Dakota's report. If the project has the potential to contribute pollutants related to an existing impairment, then it will be important to collaborate with the North Dakota Department of Health to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with their requirements and to prevent any worsening of the impairment. Potential Impacts Contaminants from surface events such as spills and pipeline leaks have the potential to enter and impact surface water resources if these events occur in close proximity to water bodies. While we recognize that Paradigm proposes to use horizontal directional drilling for the Lake Sakakawea crossing as a protective measure, we also note that the proposed pipeline crossing traverses rugged and remote topography on both sides of the Lake Sakakawea crossing. Spills in such locations are difficult to remediate, and impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be significant. The EPA recommends that Paradigm consider construction of a double-walled pipeline through sensitive ravines and ecosystems. A double-walled pipeline would provide secondary containment in the event of a product leak. We also recommend that consideration be given to mitigation measures in these sensitive areas, such as installation of additional automated mainline valves or other appropriate measures to minimize releases. Although the EA Addendum describes the risk of a spill as low, the proximity of the pipeline to drinking water sources 2 and sensitive ecosystems makes it prudent that pipelines crossing Lake Sakakawea include the current state-of-the-art precautions and preventative measures to protect these resources. The EA Addendum notes that any spill would be handled through implementation of a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan to minimize potential impacts to any surface waters. However, the details of the plan are not provided. Below we reiterate the recommendations we provided to the BIA in our February 2015 scoping letter for this project. In addition, based on lessons learned from recent spills into the Yellowstone River in Montana, we have recommendations for additional measures that are important for consideration in the Paradigm proposal. Emergency Preparedness Measures: The EA Addendum notes that Paradigm proposes to utilize the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor for abnormal pressures in the pipeline. We recommend that the NEPA analysis describe the size of leak that can be detected by SCADA, the time that would be required for detection and shutoff of the pipeline, and the size of a spill that could occur during that time period. It may be appropriate to require routine physical inspections in sensitive surface water and groundwater areas to augment the ability of the SCADA system to identify small volume leaks. For the sections of the pipeline in close proximity to sensitive water resources, we recommend consideration be given to the numerous alternative systems that are available with more accurate rapid detection abilities than SCAD A and establishment of a network of sentinel or monitoring wells along the pipeline, especially in sensitive areas with hydrologic connection to Lake Sakakawea. If you haven't already done so, it may be useful to consult on this NEPA analysis with the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. We can provide contact information if that would be helpful. Although the EA Addendum notes that there is minimal risk of an oil spill associated with this project, our experience in spill response indicates that a break or leak in product pipelines can result in significant impacts to water resources. Despite the BIA's and USACE's expectation of a low probability of a significant spill reaching the lake, the proposed pipeline location of only four miles above the Mandaree drinking water intake would allow for a very short notice if a discharge occurs. We recommend that Paradigm adequately plan, prepare and train for such an event and that the EA Addendum include a requirement to work with the local water districts on spill response strategies and equipment specific to the drinking water intakes in and near the project (e.g., surface water intakes for Mandaree, Four Bears, Twin Buttes, White Shield and Parshall). Further, we recommend the NEPA analysis describe additional mitigation measures regarding emergency preparedness to reduce the impacts in the event of a spill. Useful measures include the following: • Emergency response plan that addresses oil spill response (including a cold weather/ice cover response) and identifies the appropriate agencies/organizations and responsible staff to contact in the event of an emergency response; • Procedures for rapid notification to PWS systems (e.g., New Town PWS, which is hydrologically connected to Lake Sakakawea, and Lake Sakakawea PWS systems) and domestic well owners; 3 • Pre-positioned response assets, including equipment to address oil spills; and • Spill drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment. In responding to both the January 2015 Bridger Poplar Pipeline and the July 2011 Exxon Silvertip Pipeline spill incidents, we learned that depth of cover surveys on a trenched pipeline during or immediately after significant hydrological events would be beneficial. We recognize that depth of cover surveys would not be applicable to Paradigm's proposed Lake Sakakawea crossing due to the use of horizontal directional drilling to bore well below the lake bottom; however, such surveys may be appropriate for water body crossings that will not use this drilling technique. For this project, surveys could be triggered by a historically high river stage or the observation of ice damming at the location of the pipeline crossing. We recommend that the EA Addendum assess and discuss the potential for scour and consider the inclusion of on-going depth of cover surveys associated with hydrological events. In responding to the 2015 Bridger Poplar Pipeline spill, we noted that the prolonged oil/water contact and lack of evaporative loss due to ice cover caused a much larger than expected concentration of dissolved-phase organics making it to the subsurface intake at the water treatment plant. This is likely a unique situation to Bakken crude released into an iced-over waterbody. Therefore, we recommend that EA Addendum note that a winter response on ice for a spill scenario involving Bakken crude actually can be more difficult than a "typical" ice response. In addition, we recommend that Paradigm include planning for winter response scenarios in their oil spill contingency plans, including measures to ensure that staff are adequately trained for a potential winter response and that an oil spill response organization with winter response capabilities has been identified. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the EA Addendum for the Sacagawea Pipeline System. If further explanation of our comments is desired, please contact me at (303) 312-6704, or your staff may contact Amy Platt at (303) 312-6449 or by email at [email protected]. We request the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft FONSI when available. Sincerely, ~ild~yM_ Philip S. Strobel Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Enclosure cc: Mark Herman, BIA 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 802,02-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 www .epa.gov/region08 FEB 11 2015 Ref: 8EPR-N Mark Herman, Bureau of Indian Affairs c/o Boe Gregson, Office Director SW CA Environmental Consultants 116 North 4th Street, Suite 200 Bismarck, ND 58501 Re: Scoping Comments for Sacagawea Pipeline System Dear Mark: Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding the Sacagawea Pipeline System. We have reviewed the information provided in the January 12, 2015 notice to interested parties, and we provide these comments in an effort to ensure that the project's potential environmental impacts are adequately analyzed, disclosed and minimized or avoided. Our comments are provided for your consideration pursuant to our responsibilities and authority under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. If the BIA finds that this project poses a substantial risk to drinking water supplies and other resources of Lake Sakakawea, the EPA would recommend that the BIA consider completing a full environmental impact statement (EIS). Because Lake Sakakawea supplies drinking water and recreation to tribal communities, any impacts from spills to this lake may disproportionately affect environmental justice (EJ) communities. An EIS process would typically include additional opportunities for public input and consideration of a broader range of alternatives. We recommend that this document identify and evaluate an alternative that would reduce or avoid disproportionate impacts to EJ communities. If the EA route is pursued, then we request the opportunity to review the Draft EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) when they are available. Background The NEPA analysis will analyze the environmental impacts of a proposal by Paradigm Midstream Services-ND, LLC (Paradigm) to construct a 60-mile long oil and natural gas pipeline system consisting of two co-located 16-inch diameter welded steel pipelines and associated temporary access roads. Approximately 25 miles of this Sacagawea Pipeline would be located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR) and would impact approximately 280 acres there. The proposal includes construction Within a 100-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) with an average buried depth of six feet. Along its total length, the Sacagawea Pipeline would cross privately owned lands, state trust lands, FBIR lands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) lands in North Dakota. The pipeline corridor would begin at Paradigm's proposed Central Delivery Point Facility approximately two miles south of Keene, travel east and enter the FBIR, then cross under Lake Sakakawea and travel northeasterly across the Van Hook peninsula before exiting the FBIR east of New Town. The pipeline would then continue north and tie into Paradigm's proposed Palermo Pipeline approximately three miles south of Stanley. Based on a review of the preliminary information available for the Sacagawea Pipeline, we recommend including information in the NEPA analysis to ensure a complete analysis of whether significant impacts to public health or the environment could result from the proposed project. Specifically, key issues to address include the following: (1) environmental justice; (2) groundwater and surface water resources; (3) emergency preparedness; (4) air resources; and (5) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. (1) Environmental Justice Analysis As you are aware, Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," applies to federal agencies that conduct activities that substantially affect human health or the environment. Consistent with this executive order and the CEQ guidance on Environmental Justice under NEPA (available along with other EJ resources at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/nepaej/index.html), the EPA recommends the NEPA analysis include the following: • Identification of any minority, low-income and tribal communities within the geographic scope of the impact area, including the sources of data and a description of the methodology and criteria utilized. The EPA recommends comparing census block group percentages (if available, or, at a minimum, census tract data) for below poverty and minority populations with the state average or other appropriate reference population. If a block group percentage is greater than 50% or meaningfully greater than the reference population, then we recommend performing a detailed assessment of environmental justice and other socioeconomic concerns for any environmental justice communities, to the extent information is available, including: o A discussion of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project on the health of these communities, including air quality and water quality and impacts. Health risks to environmental justice communities from the proposed pipeline may include potential oil spill risks and air emissions from the refining process. o An evaluation of the socio-economic impacts to the local communities, including the potential for any additional loading placed on local communities' abilities to provide necessary public services and amenities. o A determination of whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including cumulative impacts, on the identified communities. • Mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce any disproportionate adverse impacts. We recommend involving the affected communities in developing the measures. The EPA recognizes the need for early involvement of the local communities, and supports the meaningful participation of community representatives in the NEPA process. 2 (2) Groundwater and Surface Water Resources Existing Conditions We recommend that the NEPA analysis describe existing surface water and groundwater resources within the project area with the following information: • A map and summary discussion of groundwater and surface water resources in the project area. • Identification of water uses within the project area, including: o All source water protection areas (i.e., Drinking Water Source Protection Zones designated ,by the State of North Dakota; Municipal Watersheds). o Surface water and groundwater use, including the location and source identification of agricultural, domestic and public water supply wells, springs, or surface water intakes within one mile of the proposed pipeline. • Baseline data on the condition and quality of surface water resources, and where appropriate and possible, reasons why these resources have been impacted, including: o Lists of any Clean Water Act (CWA) impaired or threatened waterbody segments within or downstream of the project area, including the designated uses of the water bodies and the specific pollutants of concern. o Inventories and maps of existing wetlands and other waters within the project area, including wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA and wetlands that are determined to be non-jurisdictional. Where project impacts are likely, include acreages and channel lengths, habitat types, values, and functions of these waters. • Baseline data on groundwater resources, with particular emphasis on the following: o Major aquifers in the project area; o Location and extent of the groundwater recharge areas; and o Location of shallow and sensitive aquifers that may be susceptible to contamination from surface activities. Clean Water Act Waters ofthe United States Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), including wetlands, is regulated under CWA Section 404. This permit program is administered jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the EPA. Please consult with the Corps to ensure that the environmental review meets the requirements of both NEPA and CWA Section 404. Should a general permit/ nationwide permit be made available to the project proponent, please be aware of special conditions for these permits that protect wetlands and other special aquatic sites in the proposed ROW. The Corps can assist with the determination of both non-jurisdictional waters and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. potentially impacted by this project. As noted above, we recommend that the NEPA analysis include a map that identifies all waters, including waters of the U.S. (e.g., streams, wetlands) within the project area. We also recommend identification and disclosure of which waters, including waters of the U.S., may be directly and indirectly impacted by pipeline construction activities such as those that may result from lowering groundwater adjacent to wetlands due to ditch construction or drainage from 3 porous pipeline bedding materials. In addition, we recommend including an estimate of the potential impacted acreage of wetlands and linear feet of stream, as well as the types of wetlands and streams (e.g., year round flows, ephemeral and intermittent). We recommend avoidance, minimization and mitigation of all wetland impacts as directed under Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands. For impacts to aquatic resources, including wetlands, we recommend that mitigation be consistent with the 2008 Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses to Aquatic Resources. At a minimum, we recommend the NEPA analysis include a conceptual mitigation plan for potentially impacted waters. The scope of this plan will depend on the extent of both direct and indirect unavoidable impacts. We also recommend the NEPA analysis identify potential mitigation sites as close to the impacted area as possible, preferably within the effected sub-watershed. To support a FONSI and ensure that wetlands are adequately protected, it may be necessary to consider exclusion of construction activities in areas where wetlands or riparian areas would be adversely impacted. The use of functional replacement-based mitigation i.s often preferred to an acre-to-acre replacement approach since it ensures that the specific wetland functions are replaced in an ecosystem. Because replacement wetlands may have lower functions and values, acre-to-acre replacement may result in a net loss of wetland functions. In order to identify wetland functions and values, we recommend a functional assessment or comparable method (e.g., the Summit Wetland Assessment Method) be conducted if functional replacement-based mitigation is necessary for this project. Avoidance o[Surface Water Qualitv Impacts Including Potential Impacts to Lake Sakakawea The proposed pipeline system would cross under Lake Sakakawea, an important drinking water resource. The required trenching of the pipeline into the lake bottom would create the potential for water quality impacts. Suspended sediments can pose a risk for public drinking water filtration systems. In addition, there would be the potential for a pipeline leak or spill to impact water quality in the lake. Therefore, we recommend that the NEPA analysis include information on the existing water quality of Lake Sakakawea, drinking water intake locations, and water quality protection measures necessary to support a FONSI. We recommend that such protection measures include required best management practices to prevent sediment impacts during construction, use of enhanced leak detection methods in areas where the pipeline system would be in close proximity to sensitive water resources, and ~iting of shutoff valves where they will best protect water quality in the lake in the case of a leak or spill. We recommend that the NEPA analysis consider potential impacts to impaired water bodies within and/or downstream of the planning area. For example, Lake Sakakawea, which is located both within and outside the boundaries of the FBIR, has been identified as impaired for methy 1 mercury. We recommend coordinating with our Ecosystems Protection Program and the North Dakota Department of Health if there are identified potential impacts to impaired water bodies (in order to avoid causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards). We can provide contact information if that would be helpful. Where a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) exists for impaired waters in the area of potential impacts, pollutant loads should comply with the TMDL allocations for point and nonpoint sources. Where TMDL analyses for impaired water bodies within, or downstream of, the planning area 4 still need to be developed, we recommend that proposed activities in the drainages of CWA impaired or threatened water bodies be either carefully managed to prevent any worsening of the impairment or avoided altogether where such impacts cannot be prevented. It is unclear from preliminary information what method(s) are being contemplated for waterbody crossings associated with the project. We recommend that impacts to surface water bodies be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable during waterbody crossings. Where feasible, we recommend the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD). for the pipeline routing under all water crossings and their associated floodplains and wetlands. We also recommend including an HDD contingency plan in the NEPA analysis to address potential modes of failure and mitigation measures for each phase of the drilling process. If open-cut waterbody crossings are proposed, we recommend that mitigation measures be used to stabilize and return stream banks to preconstruction contours and that waterbody crossing areas be graded and re-vegetated immediately following construction. We support an overall goal to return construction sites to natural, preconstruction conditions. · In addition, we recommend providing a detailed analysis of methods that will be required to reduce suspension of sediment in the lake waters, such as turbidity curtains. A detailed description of a turbidity monitoring plan, including monitoring locations and the turbidity level that would trigger a stop in construction, is essential. We also recommend that the NEPA analysis describe specific measures that Paradigm will undertake to prevent and detect leaks and spills, such as strategic placement of valves along the pipeline route, installation of leak detection equipment, increased frequency of inspections, and establishment of a network of sentinel or monitoring wells along the pipeline, especially in sensitive areas with hydrologic connection to Lake Sakakawea. It will be important to specify the pipeline inspection methods and frequency that will be required. for the segment below Lake Sakakawea. It will also be important for the document to identify the maximum volume of oil or gas that could be spilled to Lake Sakakawea given the proposed leak detection and valve design. If you haven't already done so, it may be useful to consult on this NEPA analysis with the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. We can provide contact information if that would be helpful. Protection ofGroundwater Quality Based on preliminary information, it appears that the pipeline system may cross surficial aquifers, including New Town and White Shield, as it traverses the FBIR. These surficial aquifers are shallow and unconfined buried valley aquifers that are used as a source of drinking, stock or irrigation water. The New Town aquifer supports a public water supply (PWS) system. It appears that the proposed pipeline also may cross within close proximity to groundwater wells for public drinking water supplies, including known domestic groundwater wells. Because a potential spill or leak from the proposed pipeline would pose a serious risk to drinking water users in these sensitive groundwater areas, we recommend that the NEPA analysis provide information on the leak detection and shutoff capabilities of the pipeline system 5 that will be required to protect groundwater drinking water resources and support a FONSI. We recommend that shutoff valves be located where they can best protect these shallow groundwater resources. (3) Emergency Preparedness Measures It is our understanding that the majority Of oil and gas operators on the FBIR use the supervisory control and data· acquisition (SCAD A) system, which allows for rapid detection of issues such as loss of pressure in a pipeline. We assume the Sacagawea Pipeline Project will utilize this technology. We recommend that the NEPA analysis describe the size of leak that can be detected by SCAD A, the time that would be required for detection and shutoff of the pipeline, and the size of a spill that could occur during that time period. It may be appropriate to require routine physical inspections in sensitive surface water and groundwater areas to augment the ability of the SCADA system to identify small volume leaks. For the sections of the pipeline in close proximity to sensitive water resources, we recommend consideration be given to the numerous alternative systems that are available with more accurate rapid detection abilities than SCADA. Further, we recommend the NEPA analysis describe additional mitigation measures regarding emergency preparedness to reduce the impacts in the event of a spill. Useful measures include the following: • Emergency response plan that addresses submerged oil, as well as floating oil, including a cold weather/ice cover response; • Procedures for rapid notification to PWS systems (e.g., New Town and Lake Sakakawea PWS systems) and domestic well owners; • Pre-positioned response assets, including equipment that can address submerged oil; and • Spill drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment to address floating and submerged oil. · (4) Air Resources It is important that the NEPA analysis disclose current air quality conditions in the project area as well as potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. We recommend that the NEPA analysis include a description of emission sources and an emissions inventory of direct, indirect and cumulative emissions associated with the proposed pipeline system. It would be appropriate for the emissions inventory to include direct emissions generated during construction, operation and reclamation of the project and for the document to describe indirect emissions associated with oil and natural gas production and processing. If emissions are substantial, then a logical next step would be to quantitatively evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed pipeline system on the following: • Each of the criteria pollutants and their appropriate National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), i.e., ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead; 6 • Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment comparison at Class I and sensitive Class II Areas; • Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), i.e., acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, n-hexane, toluene, xylene, and any other compounds that the BIA identifies as potential HAPs associated with the proposed project; and • Air Quality Related Values, including visibility, in Class I and sensitive Class II areas. It also may be appropriate for the NEPA analysis to qualitatively assess the impacts outlined above along with referencing any cumulative impacts predicted in the BIA's air quality analysis currently being prepared as part of its Programmatic EA for Oil and Gas Development on FBIR. We are available to discuss these options for analysis if that would be helpful. If adverse air impacts are predicted, we recommend that the BIA identify mitigation measures (including control measures and design features) it would apply. We recommend that the NEPA analysis describe the selected methods for protecting air resources and the regulatory mechanisms the BIA will use to ensure their implementation, where possible. The EPA recommends the NEPA analysis include a plan for addressing dust control given the often dry and windy conditions in the project area. We suggest the plan include dusfsuppression methods and the level of required or anticipated control, inspection schedules, and documentation and accountability processes. Given the challenges with reclamation in the project area, we recommend reducing surface disturbance to effectively reduce fugitive dust. (5) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change We recommend that climate change issues be analyzed corisistent with CEQ's December 2014 revised draft guidance for Federal agencies' consideration of GHG emissions and climate change impacts when conducting environmental reviews under NEPA. Accordingly, we recommend the NEPA analysis include an estimate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project, qualitatively describe relevant' climate change impacts, and analyze reasonable alternatives and/or practicable mitigation measures to reduce project-related GHG emissions. More specifically, we suggest the following approach: • Estimate the anticipated GHG emissions associated with the Sacagawea Pipeline Project. In addition to emissions associated with construction, operation and reclamation activities for the. proposed project, we recommend calculating reasonably foreseeable upstream and downstream emissions to the extent those activities have a reasonably close causal relationship to the project. We also note that leaks associated with natural gas gathering and transmission line infrastructure and operations are known sources of fugitive methane emissions (e.g., compressors, pneumatic devices, valves, pigging operations and other maintenance activities). Thus, we recommend that potential sources of fugitive methane emissions be discussed, and that those emissions be included in the GHG emissions estimate, where possible. While not addressed in the draft guidance, it may also be useful to estimate GHG emissions in C02- 7 equivalent terms and translate the amount into equivalencies that are more easily understood by the public (see, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html). · • Include a summary discussion of ongoing and projected regional climate change impacts relevant to the project, based on U.S. Global Change Research Program assessments, to assist with identification of potential project impacts that may be exacerbated by climate change and to inform consideration of measures to adapt to climate change impacts. • The estimated level of GHG emissions from the project and its alternatives can serve as a reasonable proxy for assessing the potential effects of the proposed action on climate change. It may also be useful to address consistency of estimated GHG emissions with any existing relevant Regional, Tribal or State climate change plans or goals. • Assess and identify measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with the project, including alternatives and/or potential requirements to mitigate emissions. Such measures could include consideration of renewable energy resources to address energy needs for compressor stations and other facilities. We recommend that the BIA identify and implement reasonable measures to reduce GHG emissions, including fugitive methane emissions. A comparison of alternatives based on GHG emissions and any potential mitigation measures to reduce such emissions, would be useful to the decision maker and the public. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments for the Sacagawea Pipeline System. If further explanation of our comments is desired, please contact me at (303) 312-6704, or your staff may contact Amy Platt at (303) 312-6449 or by email at [email protected]. Again, if it is determined that an EA is the appropriate level of analysis for this project, we look forward to the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EA and Draft FONSI when available. Sincerely, Philip S. Strobel Acting Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program Offi~e of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation cc: Marilyn Bercier, BIA 8 F\'--/~ No~!~s!?c~!!,>~~u ~!p~~-~~~~R~D~!!1!!!;~~ion -----; ~ 701 -328-2750 • TDD 701-328-2750 • FAX 701 -328-3696 • I NTERNEUttpi/,~ . cd . g°' December 30, 2015 US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District CENWO-PM-AC Attn: Rebecca Podkowka 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102 Dear Ms. Podkowka: Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft "Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment Addendum. November 20, 2015" document involving the construction ofa proposed.oil and gas pipeline in McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, including Lake Sakakawea, ND. North Dakota State Water Commission (SWC) and Office of the State Engineer (OSE) staff have reviewed the aforementioned document and the following comments are provided: • Comment: The proposed method of installing the Sacagawea Pipeline by directional drilling the pipeline over 200 feet below Lake Sakakawea is a preferred method. This greatly reduces the risk of endangering one of North Dakota's most important resources, the Missouri River. However, specifics that are referenced such as the geologic study and a pipeline profile could not be found w ithin the Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment Addendum or the referenced Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment (EA). • Section 1.2.2.2 Directional Drilling, "Pipelines would be located 200 to 250 feet below the lake bed, as shown in the project maps in Appendix A." Comment: The drawings within Appendix A do not include any elevation or depth information. Please include a profile of the pipe for the portion of the pipeline crossing beneath Lake Sakakawea. • Section 1.2.2.2 Directional Drilling, "The geologic study that was completed for this project is included in the original EA." Comment: The EA's Appendix B, "Lake Sakakawea Crossing Permit and Geological Study", was included in the version of the EA obtained by the link provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers. • Comment: As determined by FEMA, there may be floodplains identified on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) where this proposed project is to take place. Areas designated to be within a Special Flood Hazard Area (all Zone As), must have a permit issued from the local permitting authority, before any work may begin. FIRMs may be viewed at ww~v. 1:risc/emag_oy. In addition, for your information, OSE staff is currently processing the Sovereign Land Permit that is required for the project. Once again, thank you for providing the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft "Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment Addendum, November 20, 2015". Linda Weispfenning Water Resource Planner LW:dm/1570 JACK DALRYMPLE, GOVERNOR TODD SANDO, P.E. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY AND STATE ENGINEER Dec. 18, 2015 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District CENWO-PM-AC Attention: Rebecca Podkowka 1616 Capitol Ave. Omaha, NE 68102 Email transmission to: [email protected] To whom it may concern: The Friends of Lake Sakakawea is a stakeholder organization representing cities, counties, organizations, businesses, cabin owners, recreational users and fishermen in North Dakota. We have concerns about the pipeline that crosses under Lake Sakakawea and travels northeasterly across Van Hook peninsula for about 18 miles. The proposed project would install approximately 10,980 feet of welded steel pipeline under Lake Sakakawea by horizontal directional drilling. Approximately 7,482 feet would occur under USACE-managed submerged lands, including 1,498 feet of the historic Missouri River channel. Pipelines would be located 200 to 250 feet below the lakebed. Although we are supportive of efforts to move oil safely and efficiently from the Bakken, we are concerned about these EA findings: * Potential pollution occurring as a result of construction activities, hydrostatic testing, and pipeline operations is a concern for the Lake Sakakawea ecosystem including downstream Missouri River. Continuous monitoring of input and output volumes and pressures would detect leaks in the pipeline. Although the report states that the potential for disturbance or adverse effects from construction, operation and reclamation are considered extremely small, we believe that one spill is one too many. We encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require the engineers to pay particular heed to sediment and the impact to water quality. Although we know these professionals will be required to follow provisions of the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act, we are wary about the impact to water quality during construction. Page 2 Friends of Lake Sakakawea We are also concerned about the spill response time and detection means for spills. Although the report states that there are expected to be minimal impacts to the environment, a pipeline break and spill under the lake may not be detected for days or weeks with catastrophic results. An iced-over lake can complicate detection even further as we learned from the January 2015 Yellowstone spill when 50,000 gallons were detected and hat massive cleanup effort began. If the project is approved, we recommend that PSC or COE require shut-off valves on either side of the lake. And that these valves can be remotely operated for a quick shut off. There should also be shut off valves placed at regular intervals that can be remotely operated. We request that pipelines come with state-of-the-art detection systems and upgrades in those systems every five years as technology improves. We also ask for logical response means with adequate equipment for quicker cleanup. Cleanup crews and equipment 70 miles or more away from the pipeline are not satisfactory. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Jill Denning Gackle Secretary cc via email: Todd Lindquist, Casey Buechler DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT 1616 CAPITOL AVENUE OMAHA NE 68102-4901 CENWO-ED-HA 11 February 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR CENW0-00-TN SUBJECT: Water Quality Team Review of the Environmental Assessment for the Sacagawea Pipeline. 1. The Omaha District Water Quality Team (WQ) is responsible for coordinating compliance with the guidance and requirements set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Engineering Regulation - ER 1110-2-8154, "Water Quality and Environmental Management for Corps Civil Works Projects". The guiding principles taken from ER 1110- 2-8154 serve as the basis for surface water quality management activities in the Omaha District. WQ has reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Sacagawea Pipeline and concurs with the finding of no significant impacts. Additional documentation supporting ER 1110-2-8154 is provided in the comments below. 2. The Corps' water quality management authority is founded on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1948 and its amendments including the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. The FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) strongly affirm the Federal interest in water quality. Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, dated 13-0ctober-1978, requires compliance by Federal facilities and activities with applicable pollution control standards in the same manner as any non-Federal entity. 3. The ultimate responsibility to control water quantity and quality at all Corps projects rests with the Corps. 4. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact Mr. John Hargrave at (402) 995-2347. Digitally signed by HARGRAVE JOHN GR HARGRAVE.JOHN.GREGORY.1252815585 • • ON: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, EGORY.1252815585 cn=HARGRAVE.JOHN.GREGORY.1252815585 Date: 2016.02.11 11 :50:52 -06'00' John Hargrave Limnologist Omaha District Water Control and Water Quality Section Hydrologic Engineering Branch Engineering Division DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT 1616 CAPITOL AVENUE OMAHA NE 68102-4901 CENWO-ED-HB 12 February 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR CENW0-00-TN (Cossette) SUBJECT: Executive Order 11988 and NWDR 1110-2-5 Compliance Memo for the proposed paradigm oil and gas pipeline construction in Central North Dakota, below Lake Sakakawea 1. The Omaha District Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section (FRFM) is responsible for coordinating compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). FRFM reviewed the proposed project paradigm and has found it to be in compliance with EO 11988. Executive Order 11988 is applicable to all planning, design, and construction civil works projects, activities under the operation and maintenance program, and to real estate program (ER 1165-2-26). Specific to alteration of civil works projects EO 11988 compliance is identified in EC1165-2-216 in Section 7.c.(3).ix.(e) and Section 7.c.(4)(b).ii · 2. The project would consist of the installation of approximately 10,980 feet of three co located welded steel pipelines under Lake Sakakawea by horizontal direction drilling (HOD) . Approximately 7,482 feet of the pipeline would occur under USAGE-managed submerged lands. Pipelines would be located 200 to 250 feet below the Sakakawea lakebed. The direction drill start and end locations would be located on private lands. Shut off valves for the pipeline are located outside of the reservoir pool. The purpose of the proposed pipeline is to provide oil and gas transportation. 3. The following comments are outlined using the review criteria identified in ER 1165-2-26: a. Determine if the proposed action is in the base floodplain: The proposed crossing area is below the Lake Sakakawea reservoir, upstream of the Garrison Dam. The pipeline will be below the 100-yr pool (1854.5 ft. above mean sea level) as identified by NWDR 1110-2-5. b. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to the action or to location of the action: The proposed project will have to cross the Missouri river at some point to make the connection from start to finish. Therefore, this project is functionally dependent on its location in the floodplain . c. Advise the general public in the affected area and obtain their views and comments: The project environmental assessment was made available for public comment in accordance with the NEPA process. Printed one Recyded Paper CENWO-ED-HB MEMORANDUM FOR CENWO-OD-TN (Cossette) d. Identify beneficial and adverse impacts due to the action: Due to the use of HDD drilling, the project would not alter the ground surface elevations in the 100-yr pool. As such, it will not have adverse impacts on hydraulic conveyance or reservoir storage (NWDR1110-2-5 section 5.b.). With regards to concerns related to the transport of hazardous materials (NWDR 1110-2-5 section 5.d(2)), risk management techniques including shutoff valves and placement sufficiently below grade have been proposed and are being reviewed. The proposed land use is consistent with NWDR1110-2-5 section 5.c. e. Identify the potential for the project to induce development in the base floodplain: The project is not expected to have any impact on development potential as it does not impact zoning and does not change building restrictions. f. Determine viable methods to minimize any adverse impacts: No adverse impacts have been identified for the proposed project. The project is functionally dependent on its location within the floodplain. 4. The comments herein pertain only to flood risk and floodplain management concerns. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Brennan Beam at (402) 995- 2317 or myself at (402) 995-2326. TONY D. KRAUSE, P.E., CFM Chief, Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section Hydrologic Engineering Branch Engineering Division 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT 1616 CAPITOL AVENUE OMAHA NE 68102-4901 CENWO-ED-HA 11 February 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR CENW0-00-TN SUBJECT: Water Quality Team Review of the Environmental Assessment for the Sacagawea Pipeline. 1. The Omaha District Water Quality Team (WQ) is responsible for coordinating compliance with the guidance and requirements set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Engineering Regulation - ER 1110-2-8154, "Water Quality and Environmental Management for Corps Civil Works Projects". The guiding principles taken from ER 1110- 2-8154 serve as the basis for surface water quality management activities in the Omaha District. WQ has reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Sacagawea Pipeline and concurs with the finding of no significant impacts. Additional documentation supporting ER 1110-2-8154 is provided in the comments below. 2. The Corps' water quality management authority is founded on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1948 and its amendments including the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. The FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) strongly affirm the Federal interest in water quality. Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, dated 13-0ctober-1978, requires compliance by Federal facilities and activities with applicable pollution control standards in the same manner as any non-Federal entity. 3. The ultimate responsibility to control water quantity and quality at all Corps projects rests with the Corps. 4. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact Mr. John Hargrave at (402) 995-2347. Digitally signed by HARGRAVE JOHN GR HARGRAVE.JOHN.GREGORY.1252815585 • • ON: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, EGORY.1252815585 cn=HARGRAVE.JOHN.GREGORY.1252815585 Date: 2016.02.11 11 :50:52 -06'00' John Hargrave Limnologist Omaha District Water Control and Water Quality Section Hydrologic Engineering Branch Engineering Division Appendix C Response to Agency and Public Comments ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM Sacagawea Pipeline McKenzie and Mountrail Counties, North Dakota April 2016 Addendum Environmental Assessment Sacagawea Pipeline April 2016 Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section The proposed method of installing the Sacagawea Pipeline by directional Appendix B of the referenced Environmental Assessment (BIA's drilling the pipeline over 200 feet below Lake Sakakawea is a preferred Environmental Assessment: Sacagawea Pipeline, Paradigm Midstream method. This greatly reduces the risk of endangering one of North Services-ND, August 2015) contains the Geologic Study for the proposed North Dakota Dakota's most important resources the Missouri River. However specifics pipeline route. State Water NA that are referenced such as the geologic study and a pipeline profile could Commission not be found within the Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment Addendum or the referenced Sacagawea Pipeline Environmental Assessment The drawings within Appendix A do not include any elevation or depth Drawing Included in Appendix B North Dakota Section 1.2.2.2 information. Please include a profile of the pipe for the portion of the State Water Directional pipeline crossing beneath Lake Sakakawea. Commission Drilling As determined by FEMA, there may be floodplains identified on a Flood The proposed crossing area is within the 100-yr floodplain as identified by Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) where this proposed project is to take place. NWDR 1110-2-5. As such it requires EO11988 compliance, the Omaha North Dakota All Zone A's must have a permit issued from the local permitting authority District and applicants have engaged in EO11988 compliance reviews using the State Water NA criteria identified in ER1165-2-26 and criteria in NWDR 1110-2-5. The Commission applicant is also required to coordinate with local floodplain permitting offices to identify and conduct necessary permitting activities. Potential pollution occurring as a result of construction activities, Noted; Section 1.2.2.3.1 discusses the multiple means that would be used to hydrostatic testing, and pipeline operations is a concern for the Lake detect a leak in the proposed pipeline. The primary leak detection system Sakakawea ecosystem including downstream Missouri River. Continuous would be the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Pipeline Friends of Lake NA monitoring of input and output volumes would detect leaks in the pipeline Management (PLM) application. Other means of leak detection would be Sakakawea SCADA deviation alarms (pressure and flow deviation alarms), visual ROW inspection (routine aerial patrol) and public awareness programs for third-party reporting. We encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require the engineers Section 3.4.2 notes the use of BMPs and control measures to be implemented to pay particular heed to sediment and the impact to water quality. both during and following construction activities. Construction sites will be Although we know these professionals will be required to follow the inspected as required to comply with the NPDES program as administered by Friends of Lake provisions of the of the Clean Water Act and NEPA, we are wary about the EPA. More details regarding protective measures to control sedimentation NA Sakakawea the impact to water quality during construction can be found in the Sacagawea Pipeline Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, Omaha District, Water Quality has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Addendum and provided concurrence with findings (see Appendix B). Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section We are also concerned about the spill response time and detection means The pipeline is designed with remotely actuated shut off valves (including a for spills. downstream check valve) installed on either side of the lake to minimize loss of product. These valves can be actuated by a controller in our Bartlesville, OK control center which is monitoring the line conditions 24/7 through a Real Time Transient Modeling Leak Detection System (RTTM LDS). An RTTM LDS Friends of Lake system will provide best in class leak detection as it uses real time mathematical NA Sakakawea and statistical modeling to functionally estimate a given flow at any point in the pipeline and automatically fine tunes flow data as the pipeline is in operation. Estimated time line for detection and shut off with tuned RTTM: a) Catastrophic failure – within 5 minutes b) 2% of nominal flow - within 60 minutes c) <2% of nominal flow - within 12 hours Although the report states that there are expected to be minimal impacts to Any chemical or oil spill in any type of geological feature is of the utmost the environment, a pipeline break and spill under the lake may not be importance to working interest owners. Failure mechanism of January 2015 detected for days or weeks with catastrophic results. An iced-over lake Yellowstone River is incongruent to that of what could potentially happen with can complicate detection even further as we learned from the January the pipeline under Lake Sakakawea. The river failure (Bridger Pipeline, LLC- 2015 Yellowstone spill when 50,000 gallons were detected and that Yellowstone River-1.17.15) occurred where a pipeline was exposed in the river Friends of Lake NA massive cleanup effort began due to dredging and upon the failure crude oil was immediately discharged to Sakakawea flowing water/ice thus reducing containment span of control. In this instance, a crude oil pipeline will be installed 100' below the bed of Lake Sakakawea. If a failure occurred on the pipeline below the lake, containment efforts would not be impeded by high velocity flowing water as the product would be contained within a manageable area even if under an ice cap. If the project is approved, we recommend that Paradigm or the Corps of Per U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Friends of Lake Engineers require shut-off valves on either side of the lake. And that these Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requirements , remotely activated NA Sakakawea valves can be remotely operated for a quick shut off. There should also be river protection valves (emergency shut-off valves) are to be installed on either shut off valves placed at regular intervals that can be remotely operated side of Lake Sakakawea We request that pipelines come with state-of-the-art detection systems and Pipeline will be equipped with Real Time Transient Modeling Leak Detection upgrades in those systems every five years as technology improves. We System (RTTM LDS). An RTTM LDS system will provide best in class leak also ask for logical response means with adequate equipment for quicker detection as it uses real time mathematical and statistical modeling to cleanup. Cleanup crews and equipment 70 miles or more away from the functionally estimate a given flow at any point in the pipeline and automatically pipeline are not satisfactory fine tunes flow data as the pipeline is in operation. Friends of Lake NA Contracted Oil Spill Response Organization will respond per regulatory Sakakawea guidelines, approved response plan and direction of incident command. P66 initial response equipment and personal are staged at our Keene and Palermo facilities as well as 24/7 USCG Certified OSRO equipment/personnel in Williston, Arnegard, Tioga and Alexander ND. OSRO's include ice response capabilities. Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section We recommend the EA Addendum consider potential impacts to impaired Noted; Section 4.2 Water Resources in the EA Addendum was added to include Section 4.0 water bodies within and/or downstream of the project area. Specifically, information regarding the impairment status of Lake Sakakawea. Reference Affected we recommend including the waterbody segment identification number, http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=ND- Environmental Environment impairment status and cause of impairment according to North Dakota's 10110101-021-L_00&p_cycle=2014&p_report_type= for the Reporting Year Protection and Integrated Report (2014), along with a link to North Dakota's Report. If 2014 Agency- Region Environmental the project has potential to contribute to pollutants related to an existing 8 Consequences impairment, then it will be important to collaborate with NDDH to ensure of Addendum that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with their EA requirements and to prevent worsening of impairment Contaminants from surface events such as spills and pipeline leaks have Double-walled construction requires that the pipe carrying the crude oil (the the potential to enter and impact surface water resources if these events "carrier pipe") be encased inside a larger pipe. This type of construction occur in close proximity to waterbodies. While we recognize that actually negates the cathodic protection system placed on the pipeline. The Paradigm proposes to use horizontal directional drilling for the Lake cathodic protection relies on the carrier pipe to be in direct contact with the soil. Sakakawea crossing as a protective measure, we also note that the The soil is the medium that allows the protective current to be applied to the proposed pipeline crossing traverses rugged and remote topography on buried steel pipeline. Without direct contact with the soil, the carrier pipe Environmental NA (Section both sides of the Lake Sakakawea crossing. Spills in such locations are cannot be cathodically protected with the planned cathodic protection system. Protection 3.3.1 of BIA's difficult to remediate and impacts to aquatic ecosystems could be Furthermore, there is no truly effective way to prevent the entrance of water or Agency- Region original EA) significant. The EPA recommends that Paradigm consider construction of other conductive material from entering the space between the carrier pipe and 8 a double walled pipeline through sensitive ravines and ecosystems. A the larger pipe. The presence of water or other conductive material inside the double walled pipeline would provide secondary containment in the event larger pipe in direct contact with the carrier pipe will create the potential for a of a product leak. local corrosion cell that cannot be mitigated with the cathodic protection system, thus increasing the potential for a leak in the carrier pipe. Ineffective cathodic protection is encountered as the annulus between the casing pipe shields the carrier pipe from the protective current. We also recommend that consideration be given to mitigation measures in The pipeline is designed with remotely actuated shut off valves (including a these sensitive areas, such as installation of additional automated mainline downstream check valve) installed on either side of the lake to minimize loss of valves or other appropriate measures to minimize releases. Although the product in compliance with 49 CFR 195.260 (which requires that a valve be EA Addendum describes the risk of a spill as low, the proximity of the installed on each side of a reservoir holding water for human consumption). pipeline to drink water sources and sensitive ecosystems makes it prudent These valves can be actuated by a controller in our Bartlesville, OK control Environmental that pipelines crossing Lake Sakakawea include the current state-of-the-art center which is monitoring the line conditions 24/7 through a Real Time Protection NA precautions and preventative measures to protect these resources Transient Modeling Leak Detection System (RTTM LDS). An RTTM LDS Agency- Region system will provide best in class leak detection as it uses real time mathematical 8 and statistical modeling to functionally estimate a given flow at any point in the pipeline and automatically fine tunes flow data as the pipeline is in operation. The elevation of the mainline valve on the west side of Lake Sakakawea is 2366.41. The elevation of the mainline valve on the east side of Lake Sakakawea is 2158.25. Environmental The EA Addendum notes that any spill would be handled through The Corps would not review a SPCC Plan as no above-ground facilities or Protection implementation of a spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan to equipment would be located on Corps-managed lands throughout the NA Agency- Region minimize potential impacts to any surface waters. However the details of construction of the Preferred Alternative 8 the plan are not provided. Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section The EA Addendum notes that Paradigm proposes to utilize the SCADA The pipeline is designed with remotely actuated shut off valves (including a system to monitor for abnormal pressures in the pipeline. We recommend downstream check valve) installed on either side of the lake to minimize loss of that the NEPA analysis describe the size of leak that can be detected by product. These valves can be actuated by a controller in our Bartlesville, OK SCADA, the time that would be required for detection and shutoff of the control center which is monitoring the line conditions 24/7. pipeline and the size of a spill that could occur during that time period. Estimated time line for detection and shut off with tuned RTTM: a) Catastrophic failure, 100% of nominal flow - detected within 5 minutes b) 2% of nominal flow - detected within 60 minutes c) <2% of nominal flow - detected within 12 hours Environmental Assumptions and commentary: Protection EA Addendum 1.) Approximate worst case release volume ~5000 bbls Agency- Region Section 1.2.2.3 2.) Failure occurs on pipeline at max piping depth below Lake Sakakawea. 8 3.) Leakage rate through whichever failure mechanism (catastrophic or non) will remain constant throughout valve actuation, 5 minutes typical. In actuality, the leakage rate would decrease as the valve approached 100% closed. 4.) After pumps are de-energized and MLVs are 0% open, regardless of pipe vacuum or lake bed hydrostatic pressure, for leakage volume calculation assume pipeline volume will drain completely to lake. However, in the absence of mechanical pumping energy, it is unlikely that the pipeline will completely drain to the lake due to hydrostatic equalization of the water and lower density crude oil. For the sections of the pipeline in close proximity to sensitive water Sacagawea leak detection systems will meet or exceed those standards outlined resources, we recommend consideration be given to the numerous in US 49 CFR 195.134 and Section 42 of API 1130 which set forth USDOT alternative systems that are available with more accurate rapid detection guidelines for Computational Pipeline Monitoring. In addition, all pipeline abilities than SCADA and establishment of a network of sentinel or control room operators will be trained to meet or exceed USDOT requirements monitoring wells along the pipeline, especially in sensitive areas with as stated in US 49 CFR 195.446. hydrologic connection to Lake Sakakawea. Environmental The pipeline is designed with remotely actuated shut off valves (including a Protection NA downstream check valve) installed on either side of the lake to minimize loss of Agency- Region product. These valves can be actuated by a controller in our Bartlesville, OK 8 control center which is monitoring the line conditions 24/7 through a Real Time Transient Modeling Leak Detection System (RTTM LDS). An RTTM LDS system will provide best in class leak detection as it uses real time mathematical and statistical modeling to functionally estimate a given flow at any point in the pipeline and automatically fine tunes flow data as the pipeline is in operation. This operational process has a demonstrated track record of success. Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section Although the EA Addendum notes that there is minimal risk of an oil spill The Sacagawea Spill Response Plan will include response strategies and associated with this project, our experience in spill response indicates that equipment for all hyrologically affected drinking water intakes/wells. Review a break or leak in product pipelines can result in significant impacts to and approval of specific content of an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is the water resources. Despite the BIA's and USACE's expectation of a low responsibility and jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety probability of a significant spill reaching the lake, the proposed pipeline Administration (PHMSA) Federal regulations (49 CFR 194) specify the location of only four miles above the Mandaree drinking water intake minimum requirements of an ERP. The ERP will be required to align with the would allow for a very short notice if discharge occurs. We recommend content and directions identified in the Mid-Missouri Sub-Area Contingency that Paradigm adequately plan, prepare and train for such an event and Plan. PHMSA must review and approve the ERP before a pipeline is that the EA Addendum include a requirement to work with the local water commissioned and begins operation. Environmental districts on spill response strategies and equipment specific to the drinking Protection water intake in and near the project (e.g. surface water intakes for Section 1.2.2.3.1 outlines response strategies. Phillips 66, in addition to NA Agency- Region Mandaree, Four Bears, Twin Buttes, White Shield and Parshall) guidelines developed by the U.S. Coast Guard, PHMSA and EPA, has also 8 committed to doing additional training above industry standard. This includes the applicant joining the Sakakawea Area Spill Response company (SASR) which is an industry cooperative that maintains strategically staged all-season emergency response equipment and is made available to all members in the event of a spill incident. Additionally, the applicant has committed to conducting a full scale open water exercise and a full scale winter/ice exercise that will be conducted at Lake Sakakawea once every five years. Two internal trainings (a desktop and equipment deployed) response exercise will be held at Lake Sakakawea every year. These applicant-committed mitigation measures have been made conditions of approval in the Corps’ real estate easement. Further we recommend the NEPA analysis describe additional mitigation Contracted OSRO’s will at a minimum respond per regulatory guidelines to measures regarding emergency preparedness to reduce the impacts in the address spills including cold weather response. Response procedures including event of a spill. Useful measures include the following: 1) Emergency internal and external notifications are included in response plan and annual Response Plan that address oil spill response (including a cold weather/ice notification drills will be exercised. All hydrologically affected wells/intakes cover response) and identifies the appropriate agencies/organizations and will be included in external notifications. Spill drills and exercises will take responsible staff to contact in the event of an emergency response; 2) place in accordance with PREP guidelines which all of our plans follow. Procedures for rapid notification to PDW systems (New Town PWS Contracted Oil Spill Response Organization will respond per regulatory which is hydrologically connected to Lake Sakakawea, and Lake guidelines, approved response plan and direction of incident command. P66 Sakakawea PWS systems) and domestic well owners; 3) Pre-positioned initial response equipment and personal are staged at our Keene and Palermo response assets, including equipment to address oil spills and; 4) Spill facilities as well as 24/7 USCG Certified OSRO equipment/personnel in drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment Williston, Arnegard, Tioga and Alexander ND. OSRO's include ice response Environmental capabilities. Protection NA Agency- Region Section 1.2.2.3.1 outlines response strategies. Phillips 66, in addition to 8 guidelines developed by the U.S. Coast Guard, PHMSA and EPA, has also committed to doing additional training above industry standard. This includes the applicant joining the Sakakawea Area Spill Response company (SASR) which is an industry cooperative that maintains strategically staged all-season emergency response equipment and is made available to all members in the event of a spill incident. Additionally, the applicant has committed to conducting a full scale open water exercise and a full scale winter/ice exercise that will be conducted at Lake Sakakawea once every five years. Two internal trainings (a desktop and equipment deployed) response exercise will be held at Lake Sakakawea every year. These applicant-committed mitigation measures have been made conditions of approval in the Corps’ real estate easement. Agency/ Addendum Comment Response Organization EA Section In responding to both the January 2015 Bridger Poplar Pipeline and the The Bridger Poplar Pipeline and Exxon Silvertip Pipeline are both pipelines July 2011 Exxon Silvertip Pipeline spill incidents, we learned that the dredged into the bottom of a body of water. Sacagawea Pipeline will be depth of cover surveys on a trenched pipeline during or immediately after installed using Horizontal Directional Drilling and installed at a minimum significant hydrological events would be beneficial. We recognize that depth of 100' below the lake bed. Therefore, there is no technical reason for a depth of cover surveys would not be applicable to Paradigm's proposed scour analysis to be completed as no part of the lake bed will be disturbed Environmental Lake Sakakawea crossing due to the use of HDD to bore well below the during the installation of the pipeline nor will the pipeline be exposed to the Protection NA lake bottom; however, such surveys may be appropriate for water body body of water once installation is complete. Agency- Region crossings that will not use this drilling technique. For this project, surveys 8 could be triggered by a historically high river stage or the observation of ice damming at the location of the pipeline crossing. We recommend that the EA Addendum assess and discuss the potential for scour and consider the inclusion of on-going depth of cover surveys associated with hydrological events In responding to the 2015 Bridger Poplar Pipeline spill, we noted that the Training and exercises are conducted in accordance with PREP guidelines and prolonged oil/water contact and lack of evaporative loss due to ice cover will include cold weather scenarios as recommended. Contracted OSRO’s will caused a much larger than expected concentration of dissolved-phase respond per regulatory guidelines to address spills including cold weather organics making it to the subsurface intake at the water treatment plant. response and potential ice capped lake. Our response procedures including This is likely a unique situation to Bakken crude released into an iced- internal and external notifications are included in our response plan and annual Environmental over waterbody. Therefore, we recommend that the EA Addendum be notification drills are exercised. All hydrologically affect wells/intakes will be Protection revised to clarify that a winter response on ice for a spill scenario included in external notifications. Contracted Oil Spill Response Organization NA Agency- Region involving Bakken crude actually can be more difficult than a "typical" ice will respond per regulatory guidelines, approved response plan and direction of 8 response. In addition, we recommend that Paradigm include planning for incident command. P66 initial response equipment and personal are staged at winter response scenarios in their oil spill contingency plans, including our Keene and Palermo facilities as well as 24/7 USCG Certified OSRO measures to ensure that staff is adequately trained for a potential winter equipment/personnel in Williston, Arnegard, Tioga and Alexander ND. response and that an oil spill response organization with winter response OSRO's include ice response capabilities. capabilities has been identified.