UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C Docket No. CP07-8-000

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

GUARDIAN EXPANSION AND EXTENSION PROJECT

(April 13, 2007)

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and 

operation of the natural gas pipeline facilities (referred to as the G-II Project or Project) 

as proposed by Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (Guardian) in the above-referenced docket.

The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the G-II

Project, with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited 

adverse environmental impact. The draft EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposal, 

including system alternatives and pipeline route alternatives. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are 

federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. The State of Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources is also a cooperating agency. Cooperating agencies 

have jurisdiction by law or have special expertise with respect to any environmental 

impact involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis or similar type 

of environmental analysis. 

The purpose of the G-II Project is to provide the facilities necessary to provide 

about 537,200 decatherms per day of additional natural gas capacity to Guardian’s 

existing pipeline system. The proposed additional capacity would facilitate the transport 

of natural gas to customers within the state of Wisconsin and provide those customers 

with the necessary infrastructure to support growth and competition within the natural gas 

marketplace. Guardian proposes to have the project constructed and operational by 

November 2008.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Docket No. CP07-8-000 - 2 -

The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following natural gas pipeline facilities:

 83.6 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du 

Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

 25.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Brown and Outagamie 

Counties, Wisconsin;

 two new 39,000 horsepower (hp) electric motor driven compressor stations 

including the Sycamore Compressor Station located in the Sycamore Township in 

DeKalb County, Illinois and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station located in the 

Town of La Grange in Walworth County, Wisconsin;

 modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin 

and the construction of seven new meter stations in the Counties of Dodge, Fond 

du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin;

 two new pig launcher facilities including a 30-inch launcher within Guardian’s 

existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin; a 30-inch-diameter

receiver and 20-inch-diameter launcher within the proposed Fox Valley Meter 

Station in Brown County, Wisconsin; and a 20-inch-diameter receiver within the 

proposed West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie County Wisconsin; and

 six new mainline valves (MLV), four of which would occur along the 30-inchdiameter pipeline in the counties of Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Calumet, Wisconsin 

and two which would occur along the 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Brown and 

Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin.

Project construction would be initiated in the spring of 2008 and would be 

completed for a proposed in-service date in November 2008. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure 

consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we 

receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these 

instructions to ensure that your comments are received and properly recorded:

 Send an original and two copies of your comments to:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A

Washington, D.C. 20426

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Docket No. CP07-8-000 - 3 -

 Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, DG2E; and 

Reference Docket No. CP07-8-000 on the original and both copies.

 Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, D.C. on or 

before May 29, 2007.

Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing (“eFiling) of 

comments. Instructions on how to “eFile” can be found on the Commission’s web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the “Documents and Filings” link.

In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite you to attend the 

public comment meeting scheduled as follows:

May 15, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Radisson Hotel and Conference Center of Green Bay

2040 Airport Drive

Green Bay, WI US

Telephone: (920) 405-6404

May 16, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Bauer Ramada Plaza Hotel

1 North Main Street

Fond Du Lac, WI 54935

Telephone: (920) 923-3000

May 17, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Olympia Conference Center

1350 Royale Mile Road

Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Telephone: (262) 369-4969

The public comment meetings will be posted on the FERC’s calendar located at 

www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested parties and individuals are 

encouraged to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the 

meetings will be prepared. 

After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, 

and modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final EIS will be published and distributed 

by the FERC staff. The final EIS will contain the staff’s responses to timely comments 

received on the draft EIS.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Docket No. CP07-8-000 - 4 -

Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the 

commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the 

proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this 

proceeding based on this draft EIS. You must file your request to intervene as specified 

above.1 You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

distribution and public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Public Reference Room

888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A

Washington, D.C. 20426

(202) 502-8371

A limited number of hard copies and CD copies of the draft EIS are available from 

the Public Reference Room identified above. Copies of the draft EIS have been mailed 

to federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected 

landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS or provided comments during scoping; 

libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's 

Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website 

(www.ferc.gov).

To access information via the FERC website click on the “eLibrary” link then

click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in 

the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The 

“eLibrary” link provides access to the texts for formals documents issued by the 

Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, 

please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 

1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. 

In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which 

allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This 

can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically 

providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to 

 

1

Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. 

See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Docket No. CP07-8-000 - 5 -

the documents. To learn more about “eSubscription” and to sign up for this service 

please go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix A

 Draft EIS Distribution List

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
A-1 Draft EIS Distribution List 

APPENDIX A 

DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Government – Elected Officials

Assembly Speaker John Gard 

Representative Al Ott 

Representative Carol Owens 

Representative Daniel LeMahieu 

Representative Dave Ward 

Representative Frank Lasee 

Representative Jeff Fitzgerald 

Representative Joel Kleefisch, Wisconsin State 

Assembly 

Representative John Townsend 

Representative Phil Montgomery 

Representative Steve Kestell, Wisconsin State 

Assembly 

Representative Steve Nass 

Representative Terry McCormaick 

Representative Tom Nelson 

Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz 

Senator Alan Lasee 

Senator Carol Roessler 

Senator Glenn Gothman 

Senator Joe Leibham 

Senator Neal Kedzie 

Senator Rob Cowles 

Senator Scott Fitzgerald 

Speaker’s Staff, Ellen Nowak 

Staff to Representative Jeff Fitzgerald, Brian Pleva 

Staff Senate Majority Leader, John Murray 

André Jacque, Office of the Mayor of Green Bay 

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, 

Cultural Resources 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Laura 

Henley Dean, Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Air Force Real Property Agency, Vincent Leduc 

American Gas Association, Dave Parker, President 

Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, 

Attn: Mr. Paul E. Mason ACSIM 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Scott Doig 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, WI, Robert Jaeger 

Center for Disease Control 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Council on Environmental Quality, Dina Bear, General 

Counsel 

Council on Environmental Quality, Horst Greczmiel, 

Associate Director for NEPA Oversight 

Department of Commerce, Director, Ecology and 

Conservation, NOAA 

Department of Energy, Harvey Harmon, Director for 

Import/Export Activities 

Department of Energy, Office of Environ. Compliance 

Department of Energy, Robert Corbin, Manager, 

Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

Department of Energy, Steve Lerner, Office of Intergov. 

Affairs 

Department of Housing & Urban Development, HUDDirector of Environment 

Department of Justice, Land and Natural Resources 

Division 

Department of Labor, Office of Regulatory Economics 

Department of State, Office of Environment/Health 

Department of the Air Force, Office of Deputy 

Secretary, Environment, Safety & Occupational 

Health 

Department of the Interior, Director, Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Department of the Interior, Patricia E. Morrison, Deputy 

Assistant Secy. for Land and Minerals Management 

Department of the Interior, Walter Cruickshank, Deputy 

Director, Minerals Management Service 

Interstate Commerce Commission, Chief Energy and 

Environment 

Library of Congress, Exchange and Gift Division, 

Federal Documents Section 

National Park Service 

Office of Federal Activities, Director 

Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, Don L. Klima, Director, 

Office of Habitat Protection, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Karen Abrams, Marine Resource Habitat 

Specialist 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Chip 

Smith, Assistant for Environment, Tribal and 

Regulatory Affairs 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Attn: 

Robert Uhrich 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Attn: IRM 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Sonny White 

Pipe Line Contractors Assoc., J. Patrick Tielborg 

Rocky Mountain P/L Construction Assoc., J.D. 

Lormand, Exec. Director 

The Wilderness Society, Pete Morton, Ph.D., Resource 

Economist 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of 

Army Engineers 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WI, Rebecca Gruber 

U.S. Coast Guard, Capt. David Scott, Office of 

Operating and Environmental Standards 

U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, 

Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Environmental 

Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Sloan Rappoport, 

Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Camille Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Policies Team Leader 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Kimbra Davis, 

Community Assistance/Technical Services, Office of 

Pipeline Safety 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft EIS Distribution List A-2

U.S. Department of Transportation, Mike Schwarzkopf, 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety Eastern Region, Alex Dankanich 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Harold Winnie 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Karen Butler 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Research and Special Programs Admin. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Stacy Gerard, Associate Administrator, 

Research and Special Programs Admin. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Tom Fortner 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and 

Special Programs Admin., Office of Hazardous 

Materials Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Transportation/RSPA/OPS/E. 

Region, William H. Gute, Director, E. Region 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, IL, 

Virginia Laszewski 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, IL, 

Ken Westlake, Chief, NEPA Implementation Section 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IL, Catherine 

Garra 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, WI, Joel Trick 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

USDA Forest Service, Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System 

USDA Forest Service, Director of Lands 

USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Mgmt. Coordination 

USDA Forest Service, Office of Finance and 

Management 

State Agencies and Elected Officials

Governor James Doyle, State of Wisconsin 

Governor’s Campaign Manager, Rich Judge 

Governors Staff, Pat Henderson, State of Wisconsin 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Cathy Boies, 

Exec. Assistant to Mark Meyer 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Dan Ebert, 

Chairperson 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Dan Shooff, 

Exec. Assistant to Dan Ebert 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, David 

Sapper, Exec. Assistant to Robert Garvin 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Eric Callisto, 

Exec. Assistant to Dan Ebert 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Mark Meyer, 

Commissioner 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Robert 

Garvin, Commissioner 

Wisconsin Department of Administration, Sean Dilweg, 

Exec. Assistant to Steve Bablitch 

Wisconsin Department of Administration, Steve 

Bablitch, Secretary 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & 

Consumer Protection, Marty Henert, Exec. Assistant 

to Rod Nilsestuen 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & 

Consumer Protection, Rod Nilsestuen, Secretary 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & 

Consumer Protection, Peter Nauth, Agricultural 

Impact Analyst 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Amy 

Smith, Div. Admin. Enforcement & Science 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, David 

Siebert, Director-Office of Energy 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Mary 

Schlaefer, Executive Assistant 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Scott 

Hassett, Secretary 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Tribal 

Lands 

Local Governments

Brown County Board Adam Warpinski 

Brown County Board Bill Clancy 

Brown County Board Chair Norbert DeCleene 

Brown County Board Christopher Zabel 

Brown County Board Dave Kaster 

Brown County Board Joe Backman 

Brown County Board Joe Van Deurzen 

Brown County Board Mike Fleck 

Brown County Board Pat La Violette 

Brown County Board Patty Hoeft 

Brown County Board Paul Zeller 

Brown County Board Thomas De Wane 

Brown County Emergency Department, Cullen Peltier 

Brown County Executive Carol Kelso 

Brown County Planning Director Chuck Lamine 

Buchanan Town Chair Jerry Wallenfang 

Calumet County Administrator William Craig 

Calumet County Board Alice Connors 

Calumet County Board Chair Merlin Gentz 

Calumet County Board Duaine Stillman 

Calumet County Board James Lehrer 

Calumet County Board Jerome Koenig 

Calumet County Board Jerry Criter 

Calumet County Board Marilyn Schuh 

Calumet County Board Patrick Laughrin 

Calumet County Emergency Management Director 

Matthew Marmor 

Calumet County Planning Director Ken Pabich 

Calumet Economic Development Specialist Diana 

Schultz 

DeKalb County, Dennis Miller, Coordinator Emergency 

Services 

DeKalb County, Paul Miller, Planning Director 

DeKalb County, Raymond Bockman, Administrator 

DeKalb County, Roger Hopkins, Economic 

Development 

DeKalb County, Roger Steimel, County Board 

DeKalb County, Ruth Anne Tobias, Chairperson 

DeKalb County, Sharon Holmes, Clerk 

DeKalb County, Stephen Slack, County Board 

Dodge County, Allen Behl, Supervisor 

Dodge County, David Carpenter, Planning Director 

Dodge County, Gerald Adelmeyer, Supervisor 

Dodge County, Edwin Qualmann, Supervisor 

Dodge County, Harold Johnson, Supervisor 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
A-3 Draft EIS Distribution List 

Dodge County, Howard Kriewald, Supervisor 

Dodge County, Karen Gibson, Clerk 

Dodge County, Larry Bischoff, Supervisor 

Dodge County, Russell Kottke, Board Chair 

Dodge County, Thomas Schaefer, Supervisor 

Fond du Lac County Planning Dept., Sam Tobias, 

Planning Director 

Fond du Lac County, Allen Buechel, County Executive 

Fond du Lac County, Brenda Schneider, Supervisor 

Fond du Lac County, Brenna Garrison-Bruden, Board 

Chair 

Fond du Lac County, Ellen C. Sorensen, Director 

Administration 

Fond du Lac County, Ernst Clarenbach, Code 

Enforcement Officer 

Fond du Lac County, James Costello, Supervisor 

Fond du Lac County, John Birschbach, Supervisor 

Fond du Lac County, John Muentner, Supervisor 

Fond du Lac County, Joyce Buechel, Clerk 

Fond du Lac County, Tony Zelhofer, Emergency Govt 

Director 

Fox Cities Chamber Bill Welch 

Freedom Town Chair Gary Van Hoof 

Green Bay Chamber Paul Jadin 

Heart of the Valley Chamber Bobbie Beckman 

Jefferson County, Barbara Frank, Clerk 

Jefferson County, Bruce Haukom, Director-Planning 

Jefferson County, Gary Petre, County Administrator 

Jefferson County, Howard Widenhoeft, Supervisor 

Jefferson County, Joseph Nehmer, Emergency Mgt. 

Jefferson County, Randy Mitchell, Supervisor 

Jefferson County, Sharon Schmeling, Board 

Chairperson 

Kaukauna Town Chair Marvin Fox 

Outagame County Executive Toby Palzer 

Outagamie County Board Chair Clifford Sanderfoot 

Outagamie County Board Charles Kramer 

Outagamie County Board Diana Janssen 

Outagamie County Board Jim Steineke 

Outagamie County Board Ken J. Vanden Heuvel 

Outagamie County Board Mark McAndrews 

Outagamie County Board Mike Hopfensperger 

Outagamie County Board Norman Austin 

Outagamie County Board Stephen Ware 

Outagamie County Board Supervisor Richard Gosse 

Outagamie County Planning Director Michael Hendrick 

Town of Brothertown Clerk Leanne Karls 

Town of Brothertown Jeanold Puetz 

Town of Brothertown Planning Chair John Hau 

Town of Brothertown Supervisor Delmar Buechel 

Town of Buchanan Clerk John Derks 

Town of Buchanan Supervisor Brian Lynch 

Town of Buchanan Supervisor Greg Sprangers 

Town of Buchanan Supervisor Mike Krych 

Town of Buchanan Supervisor Tom Walsh 

Town of Byron, David Whitty, Supervisor 

Town of Byron, Francis Ferguson, Chair 

Town of Byron, Gloria Kelroy, Clerk 

Town of Byron, John A. St. Peter, Attorney 

Town of Byron, Lowell Boelk, Supervisor 

Town of Calumet, Allen Sattler, Chairman 

Town of Calumet, Dennis Lefeber, Supervisor 

Town of Calumet, Mary Casper, Clerk 

Town of Calumet, Wilfred Anhalt, Supervisor 

Town of Chilton Board Chair John Schawrz 

Town of Chilton Clerk Doug Koffarnus 

Town of Chilton Planning Chair Mark Schneider 

Town of Chilton Supervisor Andrew Pethan 

Town of Chilton Supervisor Tim Lau 

Town of Eden, Brenda Gosein, Clerk 

Town of Eden, Lee Fowler, Supervisor 

Town of Eden, Paul Tibbetts, Supervisor 

Town of Eden, Richard Guell, Chairman 

Town of Empire, James Pierquet, Chairman 

Town of Empire, John Meyst, Supervisor 

Town of Empire, Michael Morgan, Clerk 

Town of Empire, Norbert Kolell, Supervisor 

Town of Freedom Clerk Barbara Seegers 

Town of Freedom Supervisor Charles Kramer 

Town of Freedom Supervisor Lennert Abrahamson 

Town of Freedom Supervisor LeRoy Brockman 

Town of Freedom Supervisor Robert Schuh 

Town of Herman, Elroy Mittelstadt, Chair 

Town of Herman, Joel Christ, Supervisor 

Town of Herman, Roger Schmitt, Supervisor 

Town of Herman, Stephanie Justmann, Clerk 

Town of Holland Board Chair Jerome Wall 

Town of Holland Clerk Bill Clancy 

Town of Holland Planning Chair Vitas Vande Wettering 

Town of Holland Supervisor Dan Brick 

Town of Holland Supervisor Michael Geiger 

Town of Hubbard, Chairman Kenneth Schulz 

Town of Hustisford, David Nehls, Chair 

Town of Hustisford, Gene Gerth, Supervisor 

Town of Hustisford, Heidi Spern, Clerk 

Town of Hustisford, William Germer, Supervisor 

Town of Ixonia, Brian Derge, Supervisor 

Town of Ixonia, Carl Jaeger, Supervisor 

Town of Ixonia, Joseph Mallow, Supervisor 

Town of Ixonia, Mary Geszvain, Clerk 

Town of Ixonia, Perry Goetsch, Chairman 

Town of Ixonia, Peter Mark, Supervisor 

Town of Kaukauna Clerk Debra Vander Heiden 

Town of Kaukauna Supervisor Mike Van Asten 

Town of Kaukauna Supervisor Robert Vandeloo 

Town of LaGrange, Ann Lohrmann, Supervisor 

Town of LaGrange, Crystal Hoffmann, Clerk 

Town of LaGrange, Donald Sukala, Supervisor 

Town of LaGrange, Frank Taylor, Chairman 

Town of LaGrange, Jeff Schramm, Chairman 

Town of LaGrange, Richard Callaway, Supervisor 

Town of Lawrence Board Chair Thomas Perock 

Town of Lawrence Clerk Judy Benz 

Town of Lawrence Planning Chair John Klasen 

Town of Lawrence Supervisor Dale Warpinski 

Town of Lawrence Supervisor Kenneth Van de Hei 

Town of Lawrence Supervisor Randy Treml 

Town of Lawrence Supervisor Randy Vandenack 

Town of Lebanon, Dorothy Kuehl, Clerk 

Town of Lebanon, Leroy Tietz, Supervisor 

Town of Lebanon, Lohny Fredrick, Chair 

Town of Lebanon, Todd Wilson, Supervisor 

Town of Lomira, Edward Emmer, Supervisor 

Town of Lomira, Jeffrey Faber, Supervisor 

Town of Lomira, John A. St. Peter, Attorney 

Town of Lomira, Leon Schraufnagel, Chair 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft EIS Distribution List A-4

Town of Lomira. Mark Young, Clerk 

Town of Marshfield, Connie Pickart, Clerk 

Town of Marshfield, Earl Steffen, Chairman 

Town of Marshfield, Kenneth Kraus, Supervisor 

Town of Marshfield, Ralph Kraus, Supervisor 

Town of Oneida Board Chair Norman Austin 

Town of Oneida Clerk Mary Olson 

Town of Oneida Supervisor Louis Dorn 

Town of Oneida Supervisor Randall Robertson 

Town of Rockland Board Chair Dennis Cashman 

Town of Rockland Clerk Toni Carter 

Town of Rockland Planning Chair Bob Coenen 

Town of Rockland Supervisor Alice Daul 

Town of Rockland Supervisor Vicky Van Vonderen 

Town of Rubicon, Gerald Priesgen, Supervisor 

Town of Rubicon, Jeff Neu, Supervisor 

Town of Rubicon, Krista Becker, Clerk 

Town of Rubicon, Thomas Schaefer, Chair 

Town of Taycheedah, Brenda Schneider, Clerk 

Town of Taycheedah, James Bertram, Supervisor 

Town of Taycheedah, Jerome Guelig, Chairman 

Town of Taycheedah, John Alder, Supervisor 

Town of Taycheedah, Mike Wirtz, Supervisor 

Town of Taycheedah, Tim Simon, Supervisor 

Town of Theresa, Diane Steger, Clerk 

Town of Theresa, Frank Kuczkowski, Supervisor 

Town of Theresa, Paul Christian, Chair 

Town of Woodville Board Chair Daniel Thiel 

Town of Woodville Planning Chair Virginia Laughrin 

Town of Woodville Supervisor Corey Schmidt 

Town of Woodville Supervisor David Genslak 

Town of Wrightstown Board Chair William Verbeten 

Town of Wrightstown Clerk Faye Wierschke 

Town of Wrightstown Planning Chair Linda Clemedtson 

Town of Wrightstown Supervisor Donald Wegand 

Town of Wrightstown Supervisor Lyle Dequaine 

Village of Hobart Administrator Joe Helfenberger 

Village of Hobart Clerk Mary Smith 

Village of Hobart President & Planning Chair Rich 

Heidel 

Village of Hobart Trustee David Dillenburg 

Village of Hobart Trustee John Van Lanen 

Village of Hobart Trustee Phil Lehl 

Village of Hobart Trustee Tim Carpenter 

Village of Lomira, August Luedtke, President 

Village of Lomira, Brian Schluter, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Cal Voight, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Eugene Schroeder, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Jay Rawlins, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Jim Schneider, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Michael Born, Trustee 

Village of Lomira, Sue Sterr, Clerk 

Walworth County, Ann Lohrmann, Chairperson 

Walworth County, David Bretl, Administrator 

Walworth County, Kimberly Bushey, Clerk 

Walworth County, Neal Fraunenfelder, Planning 

Wrightstown Village Administrator Ben Hughes 

Wrightstown Village Clerk Jean Brandt 

Wrightstown Village President Stephen Johnson 

Wrightstown Village Trustee Al Christensen 

Wrightstown Village Trustee Dawn Aerts 

Wrightstown Village Trustee Scott Hand 

Wrightstown Village Trustee Todd Gauthier 

Agricultural Groups

Brown County Farm Bureau 

Calumet County Farm Bureau 

CouleeReg Organic Produce Pool 

Dodge County Farm Bureau 

Fond du Lac County Farm Bureau 

Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Services 

Midwest Organic Services Association 

National Farmers Org-WI 

Outagamie County Farm Bureau 

WI Agribusiness Council 

WI Confederation of Cooperatives 

WI Corn Growers Association 

WI Dairy Products Association, Inc. 

WI Farm Bureau 

WI Farmers Union 

WI Land & Water Conservation Association 

WI Soybean Association 

WI Woodland Owners Association 

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation 

Environmental Groups

Clean Water Action Council of NE WI Inc 

Clean Wisconsin 

Ducks Unlimited 

Fox Valley Sierra Group 

Izaak Walton League - A D Sutherland 

Izaak Walton League - So. Brown 

Izaak Walton League - Watertown 

Izaak Walton League - Brown County 

Izaak Walton League - Fox Valley 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Renew Wisconsin 

The Nature Conservancy 

Wisconsin Resource Protection Council 

Wisconsin Trout Unlimited 

Wisconsin Trout Unlimited, North East Region 

Wisconsin Wetlands Association 

Labor Unions

Allied Construction Employers Association, Ed Hayden 

Associated General Contractors of Greater Milwaukee 

& Milwaukee Builders Exchange, Michael Fabishak 

BA Operating Engineers Local 139, Shane Griesbach 

Big Step, Incorporated, Earl Buford 

Boilermakers Local # 107, James Garfield 

Boilermaker's Union, Local No. 107, Blane Tom 

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Wisconsin Valley Local 

#6, Vern McGivern 

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Wisconsin Locals #3, #9, 

& #11, Owen Jones 

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Wisconsin Locals #3, #9, 

& #11, Wynn Jones 

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Wisconsin Locals #3, #9, 

& #11, Randy Weytens 

Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union, Local No. 8, 

Fred Hultquist 

Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union, Local No. 8, 

Tim Ihlenfeld 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
A-5 Draft EIS Distribution List 

Central Wisconsin River Valley Building & Construction 

Trades Council, Vern McGivern 

Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters - North 

Region, Mark Scott 

Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters - North Region 

Kenosha Office, Rodger Zacharias 

Construction Labor Management Council of 

Southeastern Wisconsin, John Topp 

Dodge County Labor Council, Jim Gied 

Dodge County Labor Council, Gary Schultz 

Eau Claire Building & Construction Trades Council, 

Erich Anderson 

Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2150, Dan Sherman 

Electrical Workers Union, Local No. 494, Paul Welnak 

Electrical Workers Union, Local No. 494 Kettle Moraine 

Office, Jerome Keifenheim 

Electricians Local # 577, Greg Breaker 

Electricians Local #158, Jack Heyer 

Electricians Local #388, Ken Curry 

Fond du Lac County Labor Council, Charles Meyer 

Fox Valley Area Labor Council, Mark Westphal 

Green Bay Labor Council, Tony Vanderbloeman 

Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local 

# 127, Rick Van Roy 

Heat & Frost Insulators Union, Local No. 19, Frank 

Rodriquez 

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, 

Dennis Luciani 

International Union Painters & Allied Trades District 

Council # 7, John T. Jorgensen 

Ironworkers Local # 383, Gene Rustic 

Ironworkers Local # 383, Don Schrader 

Ironworkers Local # 383, Larry Springer 

Ironworkers Local # 383, Sam Wilcox 

Ironworkers Local # 512, Martin Wickoren 

Ironworkers Local # 512, Charles Witt 

Ironworkers Local # 8, James Jorgensen 

Ironworkers Local #8, Dan Cole 

Jefferson County Labor Council, Roger Culver 

La Crosse Building & Construction Trades Council, 

Steve Severson 

Laborers District Council, Pat Ervin 

Laborers District Council, Mike Ryan 

Laborers International Union of North America, Local 

No. 113, Richard Pusa 

Laborers Local # 268, Ben Grunseth 

Laborers Local # 330, Miles Mertens 

Laborers Local #113, John Schmitt 

Lakes Regional Labor Council, Bob Lutze 

Milwaukee Building & Construction Trades Council, Lyle 

Balistreri 

Northeast Wisconsin Building & Construction Trades 

Council, Gary Ruhl 

Northern Wisconsin Building & Construction Trades 

Council, Greg Sayles 

Northwest Side Community Development Corporation, 

Howard Snyder 

Operating Engineers Local # 139, Rod Bessett 

Operating Engineers Local # 139, Terry McGowan 

Operating Engineers Local # 139, Pat Nelson 

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International 

Union, Local 599, Terry Ullsperger 

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Local # 599, 

Tom Reiherzer 

Painter Union, Local No. 781. District Council No. 7, 

John Jorgensen 

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local # 400, Greg Choudoir 

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local # 400, Jeffrey Knaus 

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local # 434, John Duzy 

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #400, Mark Buss 

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #434, Terry Hayden 

Plumbers Union Local No. 75, Harry Kreuser 

Roofers Union Local No. 65, John Kubica 

Sheet Metal Workers Local # 18, Patrick Landgraf 

Sheet Metal Workers Local # 18, Nick Liesch 

Sheet Metal Workers Local # 18, Marc Norberg 

South Central Wisconsin Building & Construction 

Trades Council, Scott Vaughn 

Southeastern Wisconsin Building & Construction 

Trades Council, Tom Reiherzer 

Southern Wisconsin Building & Construction Trades 

Council, Tim Elliott 

Sprinkler Fitters Local Union # 669, Daniel Driebel 

Sprinkler Fitters Local Union # 669, Richard Hedtke 

Sprinkler Fitters Union, Local No. 183, Chris 

Schoenbeck 

Steamfitters Union, Local No. 601, Kevin LaMere 

Teamsters "General" Union Local No. 200, Darryl 

Connell 

Teamsters Local # 200 - Fond du Lac, Frank Ardellini 

Teamsters Local # 563 - Appleton, Reggie Konop 

Teamsters Local # 563 - Appleton, Robert Schlieve, Jr. 

Teamsters Local # 662 - Central Area, John Kaiser 

Teamsters Local # 75 - Green Bay, Steve Richards 

Teamsters Local # 75 - Green Bay, Mike Thoms 

Libraries

Chilton Public Library 

Fond du Lac City Library 

Irvin Young Library 

Juneau Public Library 

Oneida Community Library 

Watertown Public Library 

Wrightstown Library

Media

Around Town (Darboy Sherwood Shopper) 

Associated Press 

Business News, The 

Capitol News Service 

Chilton Times Journal 

De Pere Journal; The 

Energy Solutions 

Fond du Lac Reporter 

Gas Daily 

Green Bay Press-Gazette; The 

Kalihwisaks 

Lakeshore Chronicle 

Manitowoc Herald-Times-Reporter 

Marketplace 

Mayville News 

Milwaukee Business Journal 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft EIS Distribution List A-6

Natural Gas Intelligence 

Oshkosh Northwestern 

Post-Crescent 

Press, The 

Times-Press 

Times-Villager 

Watertown Daily Times 

WBAY-TV Channel 2 

WCUB AM - 980 

WDUZ, WQLH 

WEMI - EMI OF WISCONSIN 

WFRV-TV Channel 5 

WGBA-TV Channel 26 

WHBY, WAPL, WECB, WKSZ, WZOR, WSCO 

Wheeler News Service 

Wisconsin Public Radio, WHID, WPNE 

Wisconsin State Farmer 

Wisconsin State Journal 

Wispolitics 

WJOK AM - 1050 

WLUK-TV Channel 11 

WNCY, WIXX, WTAQ, WNFL, WLYD, WOZZ, WROE 

WOMT AM - 1240 

Wrightstown Post-Gazette 

WTMJ 

WTMJ-TV Channel 4 

Oneida Nation Elected Officials and Management 

Committee

Oneida Nation Chairman, Gerald Danforth 

Oneida Nation Communications Director, Bobbi 

Webster 

Oneida Nation Councilman, Edward Degado 

Oneida Nation Councilman, Paul Ninham 

Oneida Nation Councilman, Trish King 

Oneida Nation Councilman, Vince Dela Rosa 

Oneida Nation Councilwoman, Melinda Danforth 

Oneida Nation Cultural Resources, Corina Williams 

Oneida Nation Development Administration, Joyce 

LaCount 

Oneida Nation Division Director, 

Development/Engineering, Butch Rentmeester 

Oneida Nation DPW Director, Bruce Danforth 

Oneida Nation Eco-Services Director, Michael W. 

Finney 

Oneida Nation Land Management, Eleanora Smith 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Bill Gollnick 

Oneida Nation Planning Director, John Breuninger 

Oneida Nation Project Manager, Oneida Engineering 

Dept., Wayne Metoxen 

Oneida Nation Property Manager, DOLM Process 

Easements, Diane Wilson 

Oneida Nation Secretary, Patricia Ninham-Hoeft 

Oneida Nation Staff Attorney, Land Management, 

Rebecca M. Webster 

Oneida Nation Treasurer, Marcie Danforth 

Oneida Nation Utilities Manager, Scott Cottrell 

Oneida Nation Vice Chair, Kathy Hughes 

Oneida Nation Water Resources, Jim Snitgen 

Oneida Nation Zoning Department, Mike Casey 

Oneida Nation Zoning Department, Richard Le May 

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, c/o Pat Pelky 

Businesses

American Transmission Company (ATC) 

ANR Pipeline Company 

Blue Sky Wind Farm LLC & Green Field Wind 

DH Tarn LLC 

Eden Stone Company, Inc 

God Green Acres Ltd. 

Dan & Ken Goffard Bros Farm 

Goodfellows Rd & Gun Club, c/o Mike Morgan 

Guardian Pipeline, LLC 

GVD Enterprises 

Hass Grain Farms Inc. 

Hechimovich Theresa Acres LLC 

Holland Veal Inc., c/o Bernard Fassbender 

Hollandtown Investments, c/o Gregory H. Schuh 

Holsum, Inc c/o Ken Buelow 

J Dodge & M Lands, LLC 

Jafaco Holdings of Canada, Bob Wynum 

JDT LLC 

JJ Rubicon Rentals LLC 

Korth Farms Ltd. 

K-View Farm, Lyle Hundertmark 

Lakeside Foods Inc 

Leonard & Vi Landwehr Landwehr Veal Farms Inc. 

Lictenberg Bros. 

Claude Lisowe Farms Inc. c/o Allan Lisowe 

Meadowlark Dairy LLC 

Gilbert Moldenhauer & Sons 

New Horizons Dairy LLC 

Peebles Farms LLC 

Phoenix III LLC, Darryl Juason 

Prairie Rock Farms Inc. 

R M Transport Inc 

Rocky Road, LLC 

Rubicon Inc. 

Stellar Abodes LLC 

T & R Ottery, LLC 

Mike Tasch Farms 

Tessmann Farms Inc. 

Tinedale Farms 

Virgil Vande Hey, Meadowlark Dairy LLC 

Viola T Family LLC 

WE Energies, Jim Raabe 

Western Lime Corporation, Fred Nast 

Landowners and Other Interested Parties

Edward C Abbey 

Steve Acheson 

Ron Adelmeyer 

Alba Flat Trust 

Robert & Mellisa Ambrosius 

Robert J. Ambrosius 

L. Mickey Ambrosius Family LP 

Keith W & Judith M Atkinson 

Steven & Nancy Auchtung 

Eric M & Wendy J August 

Guy E. & Judith A. Baeten 

Kevin L & Mclynda R W Batterman 

John E Batterman 

Dean A & Lori A Bauer 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
A-7 Draft EIS Distribution List 

John T Baumhardt 

Ron Baus 

Jason & Diana Baus 

Ronald & Mary Baus Living Trust 

James & Joan Beck 

Stuart Becker 

Joan C & Daniel Becker 

David Becker 

Curtis & Christine Belanger 

Anthony F Bertram 

Edna L Bethke Trust, c/o William E & Deana B Bethke 

Russell P & Kathleen M Biel 

Jeffery R. Biese 

Robert & Nora Biese 

Marvin & Patricia Biese 

Clarence Bigelow Jr Life Estate 

Michael J Birschbach 

Lawrence & Eileen Birschbach, Hillside Acres 

Jonathon G & Michelle K Birschbach 

Randolph A Bodinger 

Judy A Boeck 

Ralph W & Rozanne L Bohrtz 

Boncher Doris Revocable Trust 

Gary R. & Eileen Bornemann 

Roger Bowers 

James & Mary Lou Bowker 

Rodney & Christine Breselow 

Susan J Brickham 

David W Bridgham & Jacqueline Ottson 

Mark R & Gretchen A Brumm 

Howard A & Shirley V Budewitz 

Jeffrey & Rick Budewitz & Thomas Schoenike 

Gerald E & Virginia M Buechel 

James R & Rebecca M Buege 

Buelow Farms Trust 

Jeffrey & Jodi Burg / Olig 

James M & Bonnie J Casper 

James G & Kimmy M Casserly 

Mark J Ceranski 

Wilmer A. Christian 

Theodore J / Wilmer A /Arlene K Christian 

William M & Romaine Conner 

Bill and Rose Cooper 

Salvatore A & Karen A Corrao 

Jerraine A & Rose Criter 

Terry J. Dabb 

Arnold & Janette Dais 

Lee Daun 

Lee Daun Limited Partnership 

Daun John & Carol Rev Living Trust 

Lee Daun Revocable Trust 

Jon C & Kimberly L Dees 

Betty A (Le) & Bruce K Degner 

Sharon A Del Ponte 

Ken Van Dettey 

Raymond L & Debra Diederich 

William R & Julie A Diederichs 

Paul D & Nancy C Diederichs 

Carol Dieterich 

Carol Ke & William H Dieterich Living Trust 

Ernest & Esther Ditter, Life Estate 

Raymond F & Ethel B Ditter 

Ronald & Jodi Ditter 

Dennis J & Janie M Dooley 

Thomas L Duley 

Phyllis Dunham Revocable Trust 

Gerald F & Evelyn Dunisch 

Glenice A & Rev Trust Edminster 

Greg Egtvedt 

David Ehrhardt 

Dick Eiting 

Jeff & Brenda Elsinger 

Lynn/Ian Erkander / Fulbright 

Edwin Faber 

Mark A Fagg 

Michael Farrell 

Steven Farrell 

Paul G & Judith Faust 

Edward H Feucht 

Norbert A & Louise E Feucht 

James J & Judith A Feyen 

Gordon Fhlug 

Otto E Fiedler 

Ervin & Janice Fiedler 

Wilfred S, Tasha M, Malcolm M, Susan M. Fink 

Roger D & Carol Fink 

Kenneth B. et ux Fisch 

Robert Fisch 

Shirley A Fischer 

Lisa J Fleischer 

Brian & Lana Frank 

Michael E & Jenny L Fredrich 

Lynn & Ian Fulbright 

Christopher L Gagnon 

Peter Gambsky 

James E Gantner 

Harold III & Julie C Garrison 

Steve A & Janice L Georgson 

Eugene J & Sharon L Gerlach 

Leo J. & Lillian C. Gerrits 

Robert Gerrits 

Donald & Donna Giese 

Loretta H/Larry C/Lloyd A/Loren E/ Karen L Giese & 

Linda L Semrau 

Stephen L, Kathleen A, and Leo A. Goebel 

James D & Mary Ann Goebel 

Troy R & Melissa L Gough 

Donna Mae Griesbach 

Dr. Daniel W & Dr. Marthina L Griffiths & Greer 

James Gruber 

Paul Gruber 

Philip Gruber 

Gruber Mark Et al 

Richard F & Terri L Grulke 

Fredrick R & Sandra L Grulke 

Mathew J Grulke 

George H & Geralyn Gsell 

Oscar A. & Francis G Guelig 

Francis Gueling 

Stephen R Gundrum 

Mark R & Kim M Gutschenritter 

Carl A Haese 

Darin Hagemeyer & Emma Rasmussen 

David J Halbach 

Robert R & Mary E Halbach 

Karen Halbach Thomas 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft EIS Distribution List A-8

Raymond B & Rae Nell Halbur 

Keith & Patricia Haldiman 

Joseph J & Diana Hanke, Jr. 

Eugene & Margaret Hansen 

Merlin M Hare 

Hass Grain Farms Inc. 

Henry W & Irene Hayes 

Robert & Diane Hechimovich 

Elroy G & Julitta Hegewald 

Roger G Hegewald 

Arno C & Jeanne / Jeffrey Heiling 

Harvey Heller 

Nancy E & David Henze 

Calvin C & Lucindia B Herrmann 

Steven D & Valerie J Heth 

Thomas C Hillebrand 

Terry Hock 

Richard & Germaine Hock 

Robert J Hoehnen 

Joseph N. Hoelzel 

Daniel E. and Sandy Hoelzel 

Lawrence C. & Nancy A. Holschuh 

Dean Holschuh 

Christopher / Arthur & Erna Hookstead Kleemann 

Paul C & LuAnn M Hudson 

Franklen C & Carol A Huebnertrust 

Kenneth L & John L Hundertmark 

Dennis Hundertmark 

Virgil W & Philrene Hundt 

Gary L & Katherine M Huss 

Charles H Huth 

Rodney C & Patricia J Huth 

Adam M Huth 

Lloyd F & Grace M Huth 

Thomas & Gaela Jackson 

Leon G & Donna J Jaeger 

Omar G & Georgianne Jaeger 

John E & Eileen H Jaeger 

Charles R & Jaime A Jaeger & Otto 

Martin F & Jeraldine V Jaeger 

Richard C & Bonita K Jaeger 

Jeffrey & Jodi Jaeger 

Harold Jaeke 

Steve J & Kim E Jansen 

Estate of Floyd Janssen, c/o Glen Smits 

Neale Jensen 

James R & Elsie Lou Jensen 

Robert C & Meredith L Jorgensen 

George L & Elizabeth Jost 

Connie Julka 

Roger N & Carol Just 

Rodney A Justman 

Bernice Kaiser 

Kenneth & Judy Karls 

Kevin J & Brian Kazmierzak 

Dean M & Marty M Kehl 

Anthony C.& Terri R. Kempen 

Phyllis Kempen 

KenJo Farms 

Anthony C.& Nicholas H. Kesler 

Robert A & Janel R King 

Harold L, Lynn C, Brett King 

Robert L Klatt 

Frank R & Celeste M Klaus 

Duwayne Klessig 

Roger P & Bernice E Klink 

Dean D & Jean M Kloehn 

Rita Knueppel 

Diane Koch 

Richard G Koehler 

Gregory G & Phyllis I Koerner 

Steven G & Kay E Kohlman 

Kenneth A & Nancy S Kolbe 

Daniel & Ann Konen 

Marie Kraus 

John N. Kraus 

Andrew J Kraus 

Joseph M & Eileen M Kraus Rev. Living Trust 

Robert J Krause 

Richard E Krueger 

Gerald Kuborn 

Percy W & Edna L Kuehl 

Jeffrey L & Christine M Kuehl 

Kuhn Romilda A Family Trust 

Thomas L Kulke 

James H / Barbara L / Nordien / Lorina Kulkee 

Eleanor Kwasny 

Ronald J & Barbara A Laabs 

Lamers Lyle J Revocable Trust 

David Landwehr 

Christopher Landwehr 

Gary J. Lau 

Dennis A & Janet C Lauersdorf 

Matthew R & Trudi E Lavey 

Larry L & Mary J Leemon 

Dennis R. LeFeber 

Mary Lefeber 

Kenneth R & Laurie A Lehmann 

Jesse R & Jennifer A. / Ruth Leitzke / Nehls 

Oliver C & Ethel A Leitzke Trust 

Dale & Sandra Lichtenberg 

Mark Lifke 

Roger Lindstrom 

Merlin C Lisowe 

Duane & Joan Lisowe 

Marvin Lisowe 

Clarence G & Delores M Listle 

J. Greg Little, Utility Manager, Town of Lawrence 

Morgan Long 

Walter J & Elaine V Lueder Jr 

Jon Lundgren 

Leonard C & Susan E Luterbach 

Jon H & Barbara A Lutgen 

Janella Mader 

James A II Mader 

Phillip S & Gail J Majerus 

Leonard A & Debra A Mallas 

David J & Terry A Mallette 

Edward Mathes, Mathes Dairy 

Mark R & Sherryl A Matusiewicz 

Myra Mauer 

Gregory E & Colleen V Maxey 

David H & Carol M May 

Thomas & Mary B Meicher 

Robert C. Meier 

Robert Meier 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
A-9 Draft EIS Distribution List 

John F & Ruth Meier 

John C & Betty L Meier 

Daniel K & Laurie J Meilahn 

Ophelia I Meinert 

Jerry Menne 

David Menozzi, East River Subdivision 

Keith Merten and Deb Steffen 

Lance M & Nancy L Mertens 

Brian Johnson, Michels Corp. 

Thomas L. Micke 

Dan Micke 

Janine and Joe Micke 

Norbert J. Micke 

Robert J & Laura L Miller 

Allan J & Lynn M Miller 

Thomas & Rita Mirsberger 

Larry Mirsberger 

Allen & Suzanne Moldenhauer 

Justin Monette 

Larry N & Constance L Mose 

Marvin H & Joanne L Muche 

Joann L Muchie 

John N Mueller 

Dean Mueller 

Mark J & Christina Mueller 

Ryan L Mueller 

Gordon H & Susan M Mueller 

David J & Cheryl A Mulder 

Tom Murphy 

Edward Mutz 

Ruth Nehls 

David L. & Dorothy A. Nett 

Eugene L. Neuburg, Neuburg Living Trust 

Eldine L Neumann 

Joe and Donna Nikodem 

Lorina A Nordien 

David F O'Brien 

Anthony S & Hope R O'Brien 

James Thomas & Babara A. O'Brien 

Sean & Candi O'Brien 

Ryan Oehlhof 

James E & Mary A Olson 

Claire R & Mary E O'Neill 

Robert J. Ottery, T & R Ottery, LLC 

Gary Pahl 

Darrell E & Jane F Pahl 

Brian D & Judy A Parker 

Kenneth & Eleanor Pastorius 

Harold W & Virginia K Pemble 

William G. Penterman 

Christopher T & Kristine L Peirick 

Persha Equipment Sales Inc. 

Sharon Petersen 

Carl and Ila Petersen 

Marylee Petersen & Ruth, Curtis & Dean Mueller 

Andrew R & Valeria E Pethan 

John D & Irene C Petrie 

Jeffery J & Tammy J Krug Pickart 

Kerry & Kathleen/MelvinW/Margaret A Pieper 

John L & Shirley R Pikart 

Kenneth W & Elizabeth J Pitzen 

Mark George Piwoni 

Frederick & Rosemary Popp 

Ludwig Porzky 

Roger W & Virginia G Pribnow 

Christine Rademacher 

Donald Rademacher 

Denis Rahn 

Dale Ravanelli 

Michael J Rechek & Kim L Repp 

Redtail Ridge Dairy 

Steven Reilly 

Wille Reinhard 

Joseph A & Heidi Retzer III 

Daniel A & Dawn R Reyburn 

Chuck & Mary Rhein 

Jack Richeson 

Paul D Riegleman 

Constance Riesterer 

Elaine M Rietz 

Rivers of Life Ministries Inc 

Randall / Jean Liv Trust Robertson 

Jon M & Sarah E Robertson 

David & Mary Ann Roecker 

Jason L Roehrig 

Douglas & Kathy Roffers 

Fred I Rohrer 

Mike Roznowski 

Joanne Ruebl 

Thomas A & Coy D Sabel 

Johnnie D & Dawn M Sabel 

Charles A & Jeannette A Sabel 

John D & Dawn M Sable 

Greg G Salaja 

Eunice E Sampson 

Robert F & Darlene R Sarauer 

James D Et ux Schaefer 

Jacqueline Schaefer Living Trust 

June H. Schaeuble 

Gregg & Jackie Schampers 

Steven J & Dawn M Scharf 

Greg Schaumberg 

John Schevers 

Barbara J Schevers 

Cory Schmecht 

Troy D & Melissa J Schmidt 

Chad R & Holly J Schmidt 

Gene W & Jean L Schmidt 

Brian Schmitz 

Wilfred Schmitz 

Adrian Schmitz 

David M Schmitz & Mary K Rowe 

Bryan E & Barbara J Schobat 

Michael, Jon & Richard Schoenike 

Armond W & Evelyn A Schreiber 

John Schreurs 

Aaron Schuette 

Beverly J Schuh 

Gerald & Agnes Schultz 

Allan and Joyce Schumacher 

Brian M & Laura E Schussman 

Glen R. Schwalbach 

Neil Schwefel 

Gary W & Donald W Schwefel 

Nancy Schwefel 

Ronald & Christine Schwenck 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft EIS Distribution List A-10

Milton George Scott Family Land Trust 

Melvin See 

Thomas A. Seiler 

Anna M Shirtz 

Wilmer A Jr. Siegwarth 

Robert H & Kathleen Simon Rev. Lv. Tr. 

Larry W Simons 

Gail M Simpson 

Cecil J & Christine Skenandore 

Al Slatter 

William F & Shirley A Smith 

William Smith 

Gary L & Judith L Smits 

Sohrweide Rich & Karen Rv Living Trust 

Ralph R & Enola Jane Staeven 

Richard & Darlene Stedl 

Alfred Steffes 

Diana E Steffes Revocable Trust 

Richard J & Diane M Steger 

Ronald W & Marlene H Steinbach 

Arthur A. Steinbach 

Ronald Steinhorst 

Joseph E & Nicole R Strachan 

Strong, Lois & USA Trust 

Larry Stubbs 

Anthony Tagliapietra 

David L Tennessen 

Nancy Tessmann & Kim Ignarski 

Dwayne R & Gail M Tetting 

Gary Tetzlaff 

Duane L & Lynda L Tetzlaff 

John L Tetzlaff Family Ltd Partnership 

Audrey Tetzlaff Greenslade 

Elaine Tetzlaff Krueger 

Lyle Thome 

Joseph L & Diane F Thome 

Barry E & Joann L Thompson 

Betty J Thomson 

Thomas E & Pamela A Timmel 

Gregory A & Betty J Tyczkowski 

Edward J & Carol J Ulatowski 

John D & Patrica R Unser Trust 

USA In Trust for Oneida Tribe c/o Pat Pelky 

USA In Trust For Strong Louis 

David G Uttech 

Floyd & Frances Uttech 

Robert J & Paula A Van Daalwyk 

Dan E Van De Hey 

Gerald & Lynette Van Den Heuvel 

Kurt R & Colleen L Van Der Elsen 

Christopher D Van Dyke 

Marguerite et.al. Van Hulst 

Van Lanen Family Trust 

Robert & Janice Van Rossum 

Neil J Vanboxtel 

Hilary H Vande Hey 

Wm & Dawn Vande Voort 

Raymond N & Shirley A Vanden Elzen 

Larry Vanden Heuvel 

Harold & Arleen Vanden Huevel Rev Lvg Trust 

David L Vanderheiden 

Vera B Lawton Trust 

Beverly Verch, Star Canning Company 

Benedict & Edna A Verhoven 

Grace E Vissers 

James R Vollmer 

Kristen Waas 

Marianne Wagner 

Lawrence R & Christine A Wagner 

Timothy & Laurie Wagner 

Dana J & Cara L Wagner / Burlingham Et al 

Raymond S & Mary Ellen Wagner Jr. 

Norman & Kathleen Waldschmidt 

Mark Weber 

David A & Diane R Weber 

Chris & Dawn Weiland 

Steven S & Jean C Weinshel 

Daniel Welhouse 

David R & Kathijo Weninger 

Joseph M & Bonnie S Weninger 

Robert J Weninger 

David A & Jaelene R Wentland 

Raymond P & Yvonne Werth Jr. 

Steven K Wessing 

Christopher A & Kendra J West 

West Green Bay Meter Station, c/o Pat Pelky 

Herbert Westphal 

Shawn Westphal 

Randall J & Victoria A Wieland 

Stephen D & Janet Wierschke 

Kenneth E. & Marilyn J Wierschke 

Donald C & Geraldine Wierschke 

State of Wisconsin Dept of Natural Res/RR 

Wisconsin Dept. of Administration 

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. 

Robert M Wissell 

Gerald L & Jean A Wockenfuss 

Rachel L Wolter & Anthony R Alvarez 

Daryl & Sue Ann Wuenne 

Kevin Wulff 

Brian M Youngbeck 

Leslie J Zielicke 

Elton A & Phyliss M Zuelke 

Thomas R & Lisa J Zurn 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Appendix B 

Facility Location Maps 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

 

 

 

 

 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix C

 Additional Temporary Work Spaces

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

Dimensions (ft.) 

Milepost Reason for Workspace No. of Workspaces Length x Width 

Land 

Affected 

During 

Construction 

20-inch-pipeline

Jefferson County

0.4 Gopher Hill Road 2 100x175 0.8 

0.6 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

2.1 County Highway CW 1 100x175 0.4 

5 1.8 

Dodge County 

2.1 County Highway CW 1 100x175 0.4 

2.4 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

3.1 Morningside Road 2 100x175 0.8 

4.1 County Highway O 1 100x275 0.6 

4.1 County Highway O 1 100x175 0.4 

5.1 Thrush Road 2 100x175 0.8 

5.4 Trib to Bake Creek 1 50x250 0.3 

5.4 Trib to Bake Creek 1 50x150 0.2 

5.5 Bluebird Road 2 100x175 0.8 

6.2 Smith Road & Union Pacific Railroad 2 100x175 0.8 

6.2 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

6.6 Cty Hwy MM & Trib to Baker Cr 2 100x175 0.8 

6.9 Trib to Baker Cr 2 50x250 0.6 

7.6 Baker Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

7.9 Davidson Road 2 100x175 0.8 

8.5 Poplar Grove Road 2 100x175 0.8 

8.6 Poplar Grove Road & Unnamed Stream 1 100x175 0.4 

8.6 Poplar Grove Road & Unnamed Stream 1 100x200 0.5 

9.2 Riverview & Pieper Roads 2 100x175 0.8 

9.7 Fox River HDD Exit 1 25x300 0.2 

9.7 Fox River HDD Exit 1 65x300 0.4 

10.2 Fox River HDD Entry 1 130x250 0.7 

10.6 Pike Road 2 100x175 0.8 

11.0 Trib to Rubicon River 2 50x250 0.6 

11.2 Pike Road 1 100x300 0.7 

11.3 Pike Road/Cty HWY EE 1 100x300 0.7 

11.3 Cty Hwy EE 1 100x175 0.4 

11.6 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

12.2 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

12.3 Rubicon River 1 50x250 0.3 

12.3 Rubicon River 1 100x250 0.6 

12.3 Rubicon River 1 50x125 0.1 

12.3 Rubicon River 1 125x160 0.5 

12.4 State Hwy 60 1 100x175 0.4 

12.4 State Hwy 60 1 50x200 0.2 

12.7 Lehman Road 2 100x175 0.8 

13.3 Oaklawn Road 2 100x175 0.8 

13.6 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x200 0.5 

14.5 Garfield Road 1 80x175 0.3 

14.5 Garfield Road 1 100x175 0.4 

15.2 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

15.5 State Hwy 67 2 100x175 0.8 

16.1 Woodland Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

16.2 Triple lift soil handling 1 25x422 0.2 

C-1

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

16.3 Triple lift soil handling 1 25x475 0.3 

16.9 W & S Railroad & Cty Hwy WS 1 50x200 0.3 

16.9 W & S Railroad & Cty Hwy WS 2 100x175 0.8 

17.4 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

17.7 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

17.9 Westfalls Creek & Cty Hwy AY 2 100x175 0.8 

18.1 Wildcat Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

18.8 Lentz Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

19.0 W Iowa Road 2 100x175 0.8 

19.2 Trib to Lentz Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

20.0 Rock Road 2 100x175 0.8 

21.0 State Hwy 33 2 100x175 0.8 

22.0 Cty Hwy AY 2 100x175 0.8 

22.2 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

22.7 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

23.3 Zion Church Road 2 100x175 0.8 

23.6 Trib to East Branch Rock River 2 50x250 0.6 

23.8 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

23.8 Racoon Road 2 100x175 0.8 

24.4 Allen Road 2 100x175 0.8 

25.3 Mc Arthur Road 1 100x175 0.4 

25.4 East Branch Rock River 1 50x335 0.4 

25.4 East Branch Rock River 1 50x300 0.3 

25.4 East Branch Rock River 1 100x250 0.6 

25.4 East Branch Rock River 1 100x300 0.7 

26.2 Trib to East Branch Rock River 1 50x250 0.3 

26.3 Cty Hwy AY 2 100x175 0.8 

26.4 State Hwy 28 & 67 2 100x175 0.8 

27.5 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

27.9 Cty Hwy TW 2 100x175 0.8 

28.3 N Bluemound Road 2 100x175 0.8 

28.4 Elm Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

29.4 N Bluemound Road 2 100x175 0.8 

30.0 Cty Hwy AY 2 100x175 0.8 

31.4 Cty Hwy H 2 100x175 0.8 

32.3 Kummel Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

32.3 Kummel Creek 1 100x250 0.6 

32.6 Cty Hwy HH 2 100x175 0.8 

33.1 Center Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

33.9 State Hwy 49 2 100x175 0.8 

34.7 Center Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

134 49.8 

Fond du Lac County 

35.6 State Hwy 175 2 100x175 0.8 

35.9 Cty Hwy Y & Wisconsin Central LTD Railroad 2 100x175 0.8 

35.9 Cty Hwy Y & Wisconsin Central LTD Railroad 2 50x250 0.6 

36.1 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

36.2 US Hwy 41 2 100x175 0.8 

37.3 Kelly Road 2 100x175 0.8 

37.8 West Branch Milwaukee River 1 50x155 0.2 

37.8 West Branch Milwaukee River 1 50x300 0.3 

37.8 West Branch Milwaukee River 1 100x300 0.7 

38.8 Cty Hwy F 2 100x175 0.8 

39.0 Cty Hwy K 2 100x175 0.8 

C-2

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

40.3 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

40.3 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x350 0.4 

40.4 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x350 0.4 

40.4 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

41.2 Cty Hwy B 2 100x175 0.8 

41.5 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x550 0.6 

41.7 Cty Hwy V 1 100x175 0.4 

41.7 Cty Hwy V 1 100x300 0.7 

41.8 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

41.9 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

42.0 FVW Railroad 2 100x175 0.8 

42.1 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

42.2 Triple Lift Soil Handling 1 25x580 0.3 

42.2 Triple Lift Soil Handling 1 25x475 0.3 

42.3 Cty Hwy UU 2 100x175 0.8 

42.4 Unnamed Stream 1 50x140 0.2 

42.4 Unnamed Stream 1 50x250 0.3 

42.6 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

42.6 Triple Lift Soil Handling 1 25x370 0.2 

42.7 US Hwy 45 2 100x175 0.8 

43.4 Birch Road 2 100x175 0.8 

44.4 Cty Hwy H 2 100x175 0.8 

44.7 Cty Hwy UU 2 100x175 0.8 

45.8 Cty Hwy T 2 100x175 0.8 

46.2 Wetland 1 50x425 0.5 

46.2 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

46.7 Taycheedah Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

47.1 Artesian Road 2 100x175 0.8 

47.2 Taycheedah Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

48.1 State Hwy 23 2 100x175 0.8 

48.6 Golf Course Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

49.5 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

49.8 Cody Road 2 100x175 0.8 

50.7 Ledge Road 2 100x175 0.8 

50.7 Ledge Road 1 50x250 0.3 

50.7 Ledge/Tower Road 1 50x310 0.4 

50.7 Tower Road 1 100x175 0.4 

50.7 Tower Road 1 50x250 0.3 

51.4 Sheboygan River 2 50x250 0.6 

51.8 State Hwy 149 2 100x175 0.8 

52.8 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

52.9 Konen Road 2 100x175 0.8 

53.5 Silica Road 2 100x175 0.8 

54.6 Cty Hwy W 2 100x175 0.8 

55.3 Cty Hwy Q 2 100x175 0.8 

55.9 Cypress Road(Gravel) 2 100x175 0.8 

56.4 Triple Lift Soil Handling 1 25x475 0.3 

56.4 Calmar Road & Manitowoc River 2 100x175 0.8 

56.4 Calmar Road & Manitowoc River 1 50x90 0.1 

56.4 Calmar Road & Manitowoc River 1 50x250 0.3 

56.9 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

57.4 Kiel Road 2 100x175 0.8 

57.5 Trib to Pipe Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

57.7 Pipe Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

C-3

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

58.4 Cty Hwy HH 2 100x175 0.8 

58.5 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

58.7 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

58.7 Unnamed Ditches 1 50x400 0.5 

58.8 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

59.0 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

59.4 County Hwy HHH 1 100x175 0.4 

 113 41.0 

Calumet County 

59.6 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

59.7 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

60.2 Banner Road 2 100x175 0.8 

60.3 Pond 1 50x190 0.2 

60.3 Pond 1 50x250 0.3 

60.5 Wetland/Trees 1 50x200 0.2 

60.7 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

60.9 Dick Road 2 100x175 0.8 

61.1 Cty Hwy C 2 100x175 0.8 

62.1 Wetland 2 50x250 0.6 

62.4 Cty Hwy H 2 100x175 0.8 

63.3 Stone Road 2 100x175 0.8 

63.9 W Jefferson Road 2 100x175 0.8 

64.5 N Townhall Road 2 100x175 0.8 

64.7 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

64.9 US Hwy 151 2 100x175 0.8 

65.0 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

65.4 Stony Brook Road 2 100x175 0.8 

66.4 Quinney Road 2 100x175 0.8 

66.8 Stony Brook Spring Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

66.8 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

67.0 Court Road 2 100x175 0.8 

67.5 Cty Hwy F 2 100x175 0.8 

68.0 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

68.4 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

69.1 Hickory Hills Road 2 100x175 0.8 

69.4 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

69.8 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

70.1 Cty Hwy E 2 100x175 0.8 

71.0 Killsnake River 1 50x250 0.3 

71.0 Killsnake River 1 50x140 0.2 

71.1 Killsnake Road 2 100x175 0.8 

72.0 Barn 1 50x250 0.3 

72.1 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

72.1 Custer Road 1 90x150 0.3 

72.1 Custer Road 1 100x175 0.4 

73.4 Fargo Springs Road 2 100x175 0.8 

73.8 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

74.7 Unnamed Ditch & State Hwy 114 2 100x175 0.8 

75.4 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

75.7 Crosstown Road 2 100x175 0.8 

76.1 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

76.7 Cty Hwy B 1 100x175 0.4 

76.7 Cty Hwy B 1 100x260 0.6 

76.8 Wetland 1 50x100 0.1 

C-4

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

76.8 Wisconsin Central LTD Railraod 1 100x175 0.4 

76.8 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

76.9 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

77.2 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

77.6 North Branch Manitowoc River 2 50x250 0.6 

77.9 Trib to North Branch Manitowoc Rive 2 50x250 0.6 

78.6 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

78.9 Cty Hwy BB 2 100x175 0.8 

79.8 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

80.1 ANR Pipeline Crossing 2 50x200 0.6 

80.1 US Hwy 10 2 100x175 0.8 

80.4 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

80.7 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

81.1 Schmidt Road 2 100x175 0.8 

81.6 Dundas Road 2 100x175 0.8 

81.8 Wetland 2 50x200 0.5 

82.1 Cty Hwy KK 1 100x175 0.4 

 106 35.3 

Outagamie County 

82.1 Cty Hwy KK 1 100x175 0.4 

82.4 Induction Bend 1 25x400 0.2 

2 0.6 

20-inch-pipeline 

Brown County 

82.7 Induction Bend 1 25x400 0.2 

82.9 Cty Hwy CE 2 100x175 0.8 

83.1 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

84.0 Induction Bend 1 25x400 0.2 

84.2 Crestview Road 2 100x175 0.8 

84.8 Cty Hwy D & Cty Hwy Z 2 100x175 0.8 

85.1 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

85.4 Plumb Creek 2 75x100 0.3 

86.1 Lamers Clancy Road 2 100x175 0.8 

86.4 Shanty Road 2 100x175 0.8 

87.2 Mill Road 2 100x175 0.8 

87.4 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

88.3 State Hwy 96 2 100x175 0.8 

88.5 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

88.8 Fair Road 2 100x175 0.8 

89.6 Elmro Road 2 100x175 0.8 

90.0 Mallard Road 2 100x175 0.8 

90.3 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

90.6 Meadowlark Road 2 100x175 0.8 

91.1 Partridge Road 2 100x175 0.8 

91.6 Wrightstown Road 2 100x175 0.8 

92.3 ANR Pipeline Crossing 2 50x100 0.2 

92.6 Cty Hwy ZZ 2 100x175 0.8 

92.9 Fox River HDD String Corridor 1 50x400 0.5 

93.0 Fox River HDD Exit 1 50x300 0.3 

93.0 Fox River HDD Exit 1 70x300 0.5 

93.3 Fox River HDD Entry 1 30x145 0.1 

93.3 Fox River HDD Entry 1 100x145 0.3 

93.3 Fox River HDD Entry 1 200x155 0.7 

93.5 Cty Hwy D 1 30x160 0.1 

C-5

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

93.5 Cty Hwy D 1 50x75 0.1 

93.5 Cty Hwy D 1 100x175 0.4 

93.8 S Whistling Wind Drive 1 100x175 0.4 

93.9 FRVR Railroad 1 100x125 0.3 

93.9 FRVR Railroad 1 100x175 0.4 

94.1 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

94.5 Lawrence Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

94.6 Ashwaubenon Creek 1 50x100 0.1 

94.6 Ashwaubenon Creek 1 50x250 0.3 

95.2 French Road - US Hwy 41 & Mid Valley Drive 2 100x175 0.8 

95.9 Cty Hwy F(Williams Grant Drive) 2 100x175 0.8 

96.3 Trib to Ashwaubenon Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

96.5 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.6 

97.1 Hemlock Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

97.9 Nathan Road 2 100x175 0.8 

98.4 Trib to Dutchman Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

98.6 Dutchman Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

98.9 Cty Hwy EE (Orlando Drive) 2 100x175 0.8 

99.2 S Overland Road 1 100x250 0.6 

99.2 S Overland Road 1 100x175 0.4 

99.4 Induction Bend 1 25x400 0.2 

99.7 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

100.0 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

100.5 Fernando Drive 2 50x175 0.4 

100.5 Fernando Drive 1 100x175 0.4 

101.1 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

101.4 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

101.6 Cty Hwy U 1 100x175 0.4 

 93 31.6 

Outagamie County, Wisconsin 

101.6 Cty Hwy U 1 100x175 0.4 

101.7 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

101.9 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

102.3 Cty Hwy E 2 100x175 0.8 

102.6 Duck Creek 2 50x250 0.6 

102.7 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

103.0 Oneida Warehouse Building 1 50x150 0.2 

103.1 Seminary Road 2 100x175 0.8 

103.2 Unnamed Stream 1 50x250 0.3 

103.3 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

103.4 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

103.5 Wetland 1 50x200 0.2 

103.8 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

103.9 Old Seymour Road 2 100x175 0.8 

104.4 State Hwy 54 1 100x175 0.4 

104.4 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

104.7 Equipment Turnaround Area 1 100x200 0.5 

104.9 Red Willow Parkway 1 100x100 0.2 

104.9 Red Willow Parkway 1 100x175 0.4 

104.3 Wetland/Barn 2 50x200 0.5 

105.6 Unnamed Ditch 2 50x250 0.6 

105.7 Olson Road & Pearl Street 2 100x175 0.8 

105.9 Induction Bend 1 25x400 0.2 

105.9 ANR Crossing 1 50x200 0.2 

C-6

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces

106.3 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x90 0.1 

106.3 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x160 0.2 

106.3 Unnamed Ditch 1 50x250 0.3 

107.3 ANR Crossing 1 50x200 0.2 

107.6 Olson & Cooper Roads 2 100x175 0.8 

107.8 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

108.3 Unnamed Stream 2 50x250 0.6 

109.1 Olson & Reformatory Roads 2 100x175 0.8 

109.5 South Branch Potter Creek 1 50x250 0.3 

109.5 South Branch Potter Creek 1 50x100 0.1 

109.5 South Branch Potter Creek 1 50x200 0.2 

109.8 Induction Bend - WPS Pipeline Crossing 1 50x200 0.2 

109.9 Olson Road 1 100x125 0.3 

109.9 Olson Road 1 100x175 0.4 

52 16.2 

Total 505 176.3 

Note: Some numbers may seem incorrect due to rounding. 

C-7

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix D

 Upland, Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
01/17/2003 VERSION

UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND

MAINTENANCE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY ............................................. 1

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION ................................ 2

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION ............................. 2

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ......... 2

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING ................................. 4

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS .............................. 4

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS .................... 4

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT .................................... 5

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS ..................... 5

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING .................................... 5

F. AGENCY COORDINATION .................................. 5

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ................. 5

IV. INSTALLATION .............................................. 6

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE ........................ 6

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION .................................. 7

C. DRAIN TILES .......................................... 7

D. IRRIGATION ........................................... 8

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS ..................... 8

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL ............................ 8

1. Temporary Slope Breakers ........................ 8

2. Sediment Barriers ............................... 9

3. Mulch .......................................... 10

V. RESTORATION .............................................. 11

A. CLEANUP ............................................. 11

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ................... 12

1. Trench Breakers ................................ 12

2. Permanent Slope Breakers ....................... 13

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION .......................... 13

D. REVEGETATION ........................................ 14

1. General ........................................ 14

2. Soil Additives ................................ 14

3. Seeding Requirements ........................... 14

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL ................................. 16

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ............................. 16

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ......................... 16

B. REPORTING ........................................... 17

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1 01/17/2003 VERSION

UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, 

AND MAINTENANCE PLAN (PLAN)

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of this Plan is to assist applicants by

identifying baseline mitigation measures for minimizing

erosion and enhancing revegetation. The project sponsors

should specify in their applications for a FERC

Certificate (Certificate) any individual measures in this

Plan they consider unnecessary, technically infeasible,

or unsuitable due to local conditions and to fully

describe any alternative measures they would use. 

Applicants should also explain how those alternative

measures would achieve a comparable level of mitigation.

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be

approved. Any such changes from the measures in this

Plan (or the applicant’s approved plan) will be approved

by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects

(Director), upon the applicant’s written request, if the

Director agrees that an alternative measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of this Plan is

infeasible or unworkable based on project-specific

conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another

Federal, state, or Native American land management

agency for the portion of the project on its land or

under its jurisdiction.

Any requirements in this Plan to file material with the

Secretary of the FERC (Secretary) do not apply to

projects undertaken under the provisions of the blanket

certificate program. This exemption does not apply to a

request for alternative measures.

Project-related impacts on wetland and waterbody systems

are addressed in the staff’s Wetland and Waterbody

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures).

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2 01/17/2003 VERSION

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION

1. At least one Environmental Inspector is required for

each construction spread during construction and

restoration (as defined by section V). The number

and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned

to each construction spread should be appropriate

for the length of the construction spread and the

number/significance of resources affected. 

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with

all other activity inspectors.

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to

stop activities that violate the environmental

conditions of the Certificate, state and Federal

environmental permit conditions, or landowner

requirements; and to order appropriate corrective

action.

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be

responsible for:

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this

Plan, the Procedures, the environmental conditions

of the Certificate authorization, the mitigation

measures proposed by the applicant (as approved

and/or modified by the Certificate), other

environmental permits and approvals, and

environmental requirements in landowner easement

agreements;

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective

actions, as necessary to bring an activity back into

compliance;

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction

work areas and locations of access roads are

properly marked before clearing;

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible

flagging marking the boundaries of sensitive

resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas with

special requirements along the construction work

area;

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3 01/17/2003 VERSION

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil

stabilization needs in all areas;

6. Ensuring that the location of dewatering structures

and slope breakers will not direct water into known

cultural resources sites or locations of sensitive

species;

7. Verifying that trench dewatering activities do not

result in the deposition of sand, silt, and/or

sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland

or waterbody. If such deposition is occurring, the

dewatering activity shall be stopped and the design

of the discharge shall be changed to prevent

reoccurrence;

8. Ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in

agricultural and residential areas to measure

compaction and determine the need for corrective

action;

9. Advising the Chief Construction Inspector when

conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable

to restrict construction activities to avoid

excessive rutting;

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil;

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural

or residential use have been certified as free of

noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise

approved by the landowner;

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that erosion

controls are properly installed, as necessary to

prevent sediment flow into wetlands, waterbodies,

sensitive areas, and onto roads;

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary

erosion control measures at least:

a. on a daily basis in areas of active

construction or equipment operation;

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction

or equipment operation; and

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall;

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4 01/17/2003 VERSION

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary

erosion control measures within 24 hours of

identification;

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental

conditions of the FERC certificate, and the

mitigation measures proposed by the project sponsor

in the application submitted to the FERC, and other

Federal or state environmental permits during active

construction and restoration; and

16. Identifying areas that should be given special

attention to ensure stabilization and restoration

after the construction phase.

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

The project sponsor shall do the following before

construction:

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS

1. Identify all construction work areas (e.g.,

construction right-of-way, extra work space areas,

pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow and

disposal areas, access roads, etc.) that would be

needed for safe construction. The project sponsor

must ensure that appropriate cultural resources and

biological surveys have been conducted.

2. Project sponsors are encouraged to consider

expanding any required cultural resources and

endangered species surveys in anticipation of the

need for activities outside of certificated work

areas.

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

1. Attempt to locate existing drain tiles and

irrigation systems.

2. Contact landowners and local soil conservation

authorities to determine the locations of future

drain tiles that are likely to be installed within 3

years of the authorized construction.

3. Develop procedures for constructing through draintiled areas, maintaining irrigation systems during

construction, and repairing drain tiles and

irrigation systems after construction.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5 01/17/2003 VERSION

4. Engage qualified drain tile specialists, as needed

to conduct or monitor repairs to drain tile systems

affected by construction. Use drain tile

specialists from the project area, if available.

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT

Develop grazing deferment plans with willing landowners,

grazing permittees, and land management agencies to

minimize grazing disturbance of revegetation efforts.

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway

crossings and access points during construction and

restoration.

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING

Determine methods and locations for the disposal of

construction debris (e.g., timber, slash, mats, garbage,

drilling fluids, excess rock, etc). Off-site disposal in

other than commercially operated disposal locations is

subject to compliance with all applicable survey,

landowner permission, and mitigation requirements.

F. AGENCY COORDINATION

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate

local, state, and Federal agencies as outlined in this

Plan and in the Certificate.

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil

conservation authorities or land management agencies

regarding permanent erosion control and revegetation

specifications. 

2. Develop specific procedures in coordination with the

appropriate agency to prevent the introduction or

spread of noxious weeds and soil pests resulting

from construction and restoration activities.

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

Make available on each construction spread the Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for compliance with

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National

Stormwater Program General Permit requirements.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
6 01/17/2003 VERSION

IV. INSTALLATION

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited

to the construction right-of-way, extra work space

areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and disposal

areas, access roads, and other areas approved in the

Certificate. Any project-related ground disturbing

activities outside these Certificated areas, except

those needed to comply with the Plan and Procedures

(e.g., slope breakers, energy-dissipating devices,

dewatering structures, drain tile system repairs)

will require prior Director approval. All

construction or restoration activities outside of

the Certificated areas are subject to all applicable

survey and mitigation requirements. 

2. The construction right-of-way width for a project

shall not exceed 75 feet or that described in the

FERC application unless otherwise modified by a

Certificate condition. However, in limited, nonwetland areas, this construction right-of-way width

may be expanded by up to 25 feet without Director

approval to accommodate full construction right-ofway topsoil segregation and to ensure safe

construction where topographic conditions (such as

side-slopes) or soil limitations require it. 

Twenty-five feet of extra construction right-of-way

width may also be used in limited, non-wetland or

non-forested areas for truck turn-arounds where no

reasonable alternative access exists.

Project use of these additional limited areas is

subject to landowner approval and compliance with

all applicable survey and mitigation requirements. 

When such additional areas are used, each one should

be identified and the need explained in the weekly

or biweekly construction reports to the FERC, if

required. The following material should be included

in the reports:

a. the location of each additional area by station

number and reference to a previously filed

alignment sheet, or updated alignment sheets

showing the additional areas;

b. identification of where the Commission's

records contain evidence that the additional

areas were previously surveyed; and

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
7 01/17/2003 VERSION

c. a statement that landowner approval has been

obtained and is available in project files.

Prior written approval of the Director is required

when the Certificated construction right-of-way

width would be expanded by more than 25 feet.

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency

specifically approves otherwise, prevent the mixing

of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from

either the full work area or from the trench and

subsoil storage area (ditch plus spoil side method)

in:

a. actively cultivated or rotated croplands and

pastures;

b. residential areas;

c. hayfields; and

d. other areas at the landowner's or land managing

agency’s request.

2. In residential areas importation of topsoil is an

acceptable alternative to topsoil segregation.

3. In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil),

segregate at least 12 inches of topsoil. In soils

with less than 12 inches of topsoil make every

effort to segregate the entire topsoil layer. 

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain

separation of salvaged topsoil and subsoil

throughout all construction activities. 

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the

pipe.

C. DRAIN TILES

1. Mark locations of drain tiles damaged during

construction.

2. Probe all drainage tile systems within the area of

disturbance to check for damage.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
8 01/17/2003 VERSION

3. Repair damaged drain tiles to their original or

better condition. Do not use filter-covered drain

tiles unless the local soil conservation authorities

and the landowner agree. Use qualified specialists

for testing and repairs.

4. For new pipelines in areas where drain tiles exist

or are planned, ensure that the depth of cover over

the pipeline is sufficient to avoid interference

with drain tile systems. For adjacent pipeline

loops in agricultural areas, install the new

pipeline with at least the same depth of cover as

the existing pipeline(s).

D. IRRIGATION

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless

shutoff is coordinated with affected parties.

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

1. Maintain safe and accessible conditions at all road

crossings and access points during construction. 

2. If crushed stone access pads are used in residential

or active agricultural areas, place the stone on

synthetic fabric to facilitate removal.

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL

Install temporary erosion controls immediately after

initial disturbance of the soil. Temporary erosion

controls must be properly maintained throughout

construction (on a daily basis) and reinstalled as

necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) until

replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration is

complete. 

1. Temporary Slope Breakers

a. Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce

runoff velocity and divert water off the

construction right-of-way. Temporary slope

breakers may be constructed of materials such

as soil, silt fence, staked hay or straw bales,

or sand bags.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
9 01/17/2003 VERSION

b. Install temporary slope breakers on all

disturbed areas, as necessary to avoid

excessive erosion. Temporary slope breakers

must be installed on slopes greater than 5

percent where the base of the slope is less

than 50 feet from waterbody, wetland, and road

crossings at the following spacing (closer

spacing should be used if necessary):

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300

>15 - 30 200

>30 100

c. Direct the outfall of each temporary slope

breaker to a stable, well vegetated area or

construct an energy-dissipating device at the

end of the slope breaker and off the

construction right-of-way.

d. Position the outfall of each temporary slope

breaker to prevent sediment discharge into

wetlands, waterbodies, or other sensitive

resources. 

2. Sediment Barriers

a. Sediment barriers are intended to stop the flow

of sediments and to prevent the deposition of

sediments into sensitive resources. They may

be constructed of materials such as silt fence,

staked hay or straw bales, compacted earth

(e.g., driveable berms across travelways), sand

bags, or other appropriate materials.

b. At a minimum, install and maintain temporary

sediment barriers across the entire

construction right-of-way at the base of slopes

greater than 5 percent where the base of the

slope is less than 50 feet from a waterbody,

wetland, or road crossing until revegetation is

successful as defined in this Plan. Leave

adequate room between the base of the slope and

the sediment barrier to accommodate ponding of

water and sediment deposition.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
10 01/17/2003 VERSION

c. Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to

and downslope of construction work areas,

install sediment barriers along the edge of

these areas, as necessary to prevent sediment

flow into the wetland or waterbody.

3. Mulch

a. Apply mulch on all slopes (except in actively

cultivated cropland) concurrent with or

immediately after seeding, where necessary to

stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind

and water erosion. Spread mulch uniformly over

the area to cover at least 75 percent of the

ground surface at a rate of 2 tons/acre of

straw or its equivalent, unless the local soil

conservation authority, landowner, or land

managing agency approves otherwise in writing.

b. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw or hay,

wood fiber hydromulch, erosion control fabric,

or some functional equivalent.

c. Mulch before seeding if:

(1) final grading and installation of

permanent erosion control measures will

not be completed in an area within 20 days

after the trench in that area is

backfilled (10 days in residential areas),

as required in section V.A.1; or

(2) construction or restoration activity is

interrupted for extended periods, such as

when seeding cannot be completed due to

seeding period restrictions.

d. If mulching before seeding, increase mulch

application on all slopes within 100 feet of

waterbodies and wetlands to a rate of 3

tons/acre of straw or equivalent.

e. If wood chips are used as mulch, do not use

more than 1 ton/acre and add the equivalent of

11 lbs/acre available nitrogen (at least 50

percent of which is slow release).

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
11 01/17/2003 VERSION

f. Ensure that mulch is adequately anchored to

minimize loss due to wind and water.

g. When anchoring with liquid mulch binders, use

rates recommended by the manufacturer. Do not

use liquid mulch binders within 100 feet of

wetlands or waterbodies. 

h. Install erosion control fabric on waterbody

banks at the time of final bank recontouring. 

Anchor the erosion control fabric with staples

or other appropriate devices.

V. RESTORATION

A. CLEANUP

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following

backfill operations. Complete final grading,

topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent

erosion control structures within 20 days after

backfilling the trench (10 days in residential

areas). If seasonal or other weather conditions

prevent compliance with these time frames, maintain

temporary erosion controls (temporary slope breakers

and sediment barriers) until conditions allow

completion of cleanup.

The project sponsor should file with the Secretary

for the review and written approval of the Director,

a winterization plan if construction will continue

into the winter season when conditions could delay

successful decompaction, topsoil replacement, or

seeding until the following spring. 

2. A travel lane may be left open temporarily to allow

access by construction traffic if the temporary

erosion control structures are installed (as

specified in section IV.F.) and inspected and

maintained (as specified in sections II.B.12 through

14). When access is no longer required, the travel

lane must be removed and the right-of-way restored.

3. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to

backfill the trench only to the top of the existing

bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned to the

trench should be considered construction debris,

unless approved for use as mulch or for some other

use on the construction work areas by the landowner

or land managing agency. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
12 01/17/2003 VERSION

4. Remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches

of soil in all actively cultivated or rotated

cropland and pastures, hayfields, and residential

areas, as well as other areas at the landowner's

request. The size, density, and distribution of

rock on the construction work area should be similar

to adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. 

The landowner may approve other provisions in

writing. 

5. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore preconstruction contours and leave the soil in the

proper condition for planting. 

6. Remove construction debris from all construction

work areas unless the landowner or land managing

agency approves otherwise.

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers when replaced by

permanent erosion control measures or when

revegetation is successful.

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES

1. Trench Breakers

a. Trench breakers are intended to slow the flow

of subsurface water along the trench. Trench

breakers may be constructed of materials such

as sand bags or polyurethane foam. Do not use

topsoil in trench breakers.

b. An engineer or similarly qualified professional

shall determine the need for and spacing of

trench breakers. Otherwise, trench breakers

shall be installed at the same spacing as and

upslope of permanent slope breakers. 

c. In agricultural fields and residential areas

where slope breakers are not typically

required, install trench breakers at the same

spacing as if permanent slope breakers were

required. 

d. At a minimum, install a trench breaker at the

base of slopes greater than 5 percent where the

base of the slope is less than 50 feet from a

waterbody or wetland and where needed to avoid

draining a waterbody or wetland.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
13 01/17/2003 VERSION

2. Permanent Slope Breakers

a. Permanent slope breakers are intended to reduce

runoff velocity, divert water off the

construction right-of-way, and prevent sediment

deposition into sensitive resources. Permanent

slope breakers may be constructed of materials

such as soil, sand bags, or some functional

equivalent.

b. Construct and maintain permanent slope breakers

in all areas, except cultivated areas and

lawns, using spacing recommendations obtained

from the local soil conservation authority or

land managing agency.

In the absence of written recommendations, use

the following spacing unless closer spacing is

necessary to avoid excessive erosion on the

construction right-of-way: 

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300

>15 - 30 200

>30 100

c. Construct slope breakers to divert surface flow

to a stable area without causing water to pool

or erode behind the breaker. In the absence of

a stable area, construct appropriate energydissipating devices at the end of the breaker.

d. Slope breakers may extend slightly (about 4

feet) beyond the edge of the construction

right-of-way to effectively drain water off the

disturbed area. Where slope breakers extend

beyond the edge of the construction right-ofway, they are subject to compliance with all

applicable survey requirements.

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION

1. Test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular

intervals in agricultural and residential areas

disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests

on the same soil type under similar moisture

conditions in undisturbed areas to approximate

preconstruction conditions. Use penetrometers or

other appropriate devices to conduct tests.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
14 01/17/2003 VERSION

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a

paraplow or other deep tillage implement. In areas

where topsoil has been segregated, plow the subsoil

before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Alternatively, make arrangements with the landowner

to plant and plow under a "green manure" crop, such

as alfalfa, to decrease soil bulk density and

improve soil structure. If subsequent construction

and cleanup activities result in further compaction,

conduct additional tilling.

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in

severely compacted residential areas.

D. REVEGETATION

1. General

a. The project sponsor is responsible for ensuring

successful revegetation of soils disturbed by

project-related activities, except as noted in

section V.D.1.b.

b. Restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and

specialized landscaping in accordance with the

landowner's request, or compensate the

landowner. Restoration work must be performed

by personnel familiar with local horticultural

and turf establishment practices. 

2. Soil Additives 

Fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance

with written recommendations obtained from the local

soil conservation authority, land management

agencies, or landowner. Incorporate recommended

soil pH modifier and fertilizer into the top 2

inches of soil as soon as possible after

application.

3. Seeding Requirements

a. Prepare a seedbed in disturbed areas to a depth

of 3 to 4 inches using appropriate equipment to

provide a firm seedbed. When hydroseeding,

scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging and

germination of seed.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
15 01/17/2003 VERSION

b. Seed disturbed areas in accordance with written

recommendations for seed mixes, rates, and

dates obtained from the local soil conservation

authority or as requested by the landowner or

land management agency. Seeding is not

required in actively cultivated croplands

unless requested by the landowner.

c. Perform seeding of permanent vegetation within

the recommended seeding dates. If seeding

cannot be done within those dates, use

appropriate temporary erosion control measures

discussed in section IV.F. and perform seeding

of permanent vegetation at the beginning of the

next recommended seeding season. Lawns may be

seeded on a schedule established with the

landowner.

d. In the absence of written recommendations from

the local soil conservation authorities, seed

all disturbed soils within 6 working days of

final grading, weather and soil conditions

permitting, subject to the specifications in

section V.D.3.a-c. 

e. Base seeding rates on Pure Live Seed. Use seed

within 12 months of seed testing.

f. Treat legume seed with an inoculant specific to

the species using the manufacturer’s

recommended rate of inoculant appropriate for

the seeding method (broadcast, drill, or

hydro).

g. In the absence of written recommendations from

the local soil conservation authorities,

landowner, or land managing agency to the

contrary, a seed drill equipped with a

cultipacker is preferred for seed application. 

Broadcast or hydroseeding can be used in lieu

of drilling at double the recommended seeding

rates. Where seed is broadcast, firm the

seedbed with a cultipacker or imprinter after

seeding. In rocky soils or where site

conditions may limit the effectiveness of this

equipment, other alternatives may be

appropriate (e.g., use of a chain drag) to

lightly cover seed after application, as

approved by the Environmental Inspector. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
16 01/17/2003 VERSION

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL

To each owner or manager of forested lands offer to install

and maintain measures to control unauthorized vehicle access

to the right-of-way. These measures may include:

A. Signs;

B. Fences with locking gates;

C. Slash and timber barriers, pipe barriers, or a line of

boulders across the right-of-way; and

D. Conifers or other appropriate trees or shrubs across the

right-of-way.

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas

after the first and second growing seasons to

determine the success of revegetation.

2. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas shall be

considered successful if upon visual survey the

density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation are

similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed

lands. In agricultural areas, revegetation shall be

considered successful if crop yields are similar to

adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field.

Continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is

successful.

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and

irrigation systems resulting from pipeline

construction in active agricultural areas until

restoration is successful.

4. Restoration shall be considered successful if the

right-of-way surface condition is similar to

adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is

removed (unless requested otherwise by the land

owner or land managing agency), revegetation is

successful, and proper drainage has been restored.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
17 01/17/2003 VERSION

5. Routine vegetation maintenance clearing shall not be

done more frequently than every 3 years. However, to

facilitate periodic corrosion and leak surveys, a

corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on

the pipeline may be maintained annually in a

herbaceous state. In no case shall routine

vegetation maintenance clearing occur between April

15 and August 1 of any year.

6. Efforts to control unauthorized off-road vehicle

use, in cooperation with the landowner, shall

continue throughout the life of the project.

Maintain signs, gates, and vehicle trails as

necessary. 

B. REPORTING

1. The project sponsor shall maintain records that

identify by milepost:

a. method of application, application rate, and

type of fertilizer, pH modifying agent, seed,

and mulch used;

b. acreage treated;

c. dates of backfilling and seeding;

d. names of landowners requesting special seeding

treatment and a description of the follow-up

actions; and

e. any problem areas and how they were addressed.

2. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary

quarterly activity reports documenting problems,

including those identified by the landowner, and

corrective actions taken for at least 2 years

following construction.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix E

 Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
01/17/2003 VERSION

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND

MITIGATION PROCEDURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY ............................................. 1

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING .................................... 2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS .................................. 3

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING .................................. 3

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS ....................................... 5

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS .................. 5

B. INSTALLATION ......................................... 6

1. Time Window for Construction .................... 6

2. Extra Work Areas ................................ 6

3. General Crossing Procedures ..................... 6

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control ................ 7

5. Equipment Bridges ............................... 7

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods ...................... 8

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies ................ 10

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies .......... 11

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies ................. 11

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control ......... 12

11. Trench Dewatering ............................. 12

C. RESTORATION ......................................... 13

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ....................... 14

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS ........................................ 14

A. GENERAL ............................................ 14

B. INSTALLATION ........................................ 16

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads .............. 16

2. Crossing Procedures ............................ 17

3. Temporary Sediment Control .................... 19

4. Trench Dewatering ............................. 19

C. RESTORATION ......................................... 20

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ....................... 21

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING ...................................... 22

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS ................. 22

B. GENERAL ............................................. 22

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE .............................. 22

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE ................ 23

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
01/17/2003 VERSION

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES

(PROCEDURES)

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of these Procedures is to assist applicants by

identifying baseline mitigation measures for minimizing

the extent and duration of project-related disturbance on

wetlands and waterbodies. The project sponsors should

specify in their applications for a FERC Certificate

(Certificate) any individual measures in these Procedures

they consider unnecessary, technically infeasible, or

unsuitable due to local conditions and to fully describe

any alternative measures they would use. Applicants

should also explain how those alternative measures would

achieve a comparable level of mitigation.

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be

approved. Any such changes from the measures in these

Procedures (or the applicant’s approved procedures) will

be approved by the Director of the Office of Energy

Projects (Director), upon the applicant’s written

request, if the Director agrees that an alternative

measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of these Procedures

is infeasible or unworkable based on projectspecific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another

Federal, state, or Native American land management

agency for the portion of the project on its land or

under its jurisdiction. 

Any requirements in these Procedures to file material

with the Secretary of the FERC (Secretary) do not apply

to projects undertaken under the provisions of the

blanket certificate program. This exemption does not

apply to a request for alternative measures.

Project-related impacts on non-wetland areas are

addressed in the staff’s Upland Erosion Control,

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan).

E-1

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2 01/17/2003 VERSION

B. DEFINITIONS

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial

stream, river, or drainage with perceptible flow at

the time of crossing, and other permanent

waterbodies such as ponds and lakes:

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less

than or equal to 10 feet wide at the water's

edge at the time of crossing;

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all

waterbodies greater than 10 feet wide but less

than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's

edge at the time of crossing; and

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies

greater than 100 feet wide at the water's edge

at the time of crossing.

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively

cultivated or rotated cropland and that satisfies

the requirements of the current Federal methodology

for identifying and delineating wetlands.

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information shall be filed with the

Secretary prior to the beginning of construction:

1. the hydrostatic testing information specified in

section VII.B.3. and a wetland delineation report as

described in section VI.A.1., if applicable; and

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting

would occur within each waterbody greater than 10

feet wide, or within any designated coldwater

fishery. The project sponsor shall revise the

schedule as necessary to provide FERC staff at least

14 days advance notice. Changes within this last

14-day period must provide for at least 48 hours

advance notice.

B. The following site-specific construction plans required

by these Procedures must be filed with the Secretary for

the review and written approval by the Director:

1. plans for extra work areas that would be closer than

50 feet from a waterbody or wetland;

E-2

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3 01/17/2003 VERSION

2. plans for major waterbody crossings;

3. plans for the use of a construction right-of-way

greater than 75 feet wide in wetlands; and

4. plans for horizontal directional drill (HDD)

"crossings" of wetlands or waterbodies.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of

the wetland and waterbody conditions in the project area

is required for each construction spread. The number and

experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each

construction spread should be appropriate for the length

of the construction spread and the number/significance of

resources affected. 

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are

outlined in the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and

Maintenance Plan (Plan).

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) prepared for compliance with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National

Stormwater Program General Permit requirements must be

available in the field on each construction spread. The

SWPPP shall contain Spill Prevention and Response

Procedures that meet the requirements of state and

Federal agencies.

1. It shall be the responsibility of the project

sponsor and its contractors to structure their

operations in a manner that reduces the risk of

spills or the accidental exposure of fuels or

hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. The

project sponsor and its contractors must, at a

minimum, ensure that:

a. all employees handling fuels and other

hazardous materials are properly trained;

b. all equipment is in good operating order and

inspected on a regular basis;

E-3

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4 01/17/2003 VERSION

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site

equipment travel only on approved access roads;

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled

at least 100 feet from a waterbody or in an

upland area at least 100 feet from a wetland

boundary. These activities can occur closer

only if the Environmental Inspector finds, in

advance, no reasonable alternative and the

project sponsor and its contractors have taken

appropriate steps (including secondary

containment structures) to prevent spills and

provide for prompt cleanup in the event of a

spill;

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals,

fuels, and lubricating oils, are not stored

within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or

designated municipal watershed area, unless the

location is designated for such use by an

appropriate governmental authority. This

applies to storage of these materials and does

not apply to normal operation or use of

equipment in these areas; and

f. concrete coating activities are not performed

within 100 feet of a wetland or waterbody

boundary, unless the location is an existing

industrial site designated for such use.

2. The project sponsor and its contractors must

structure their operations in a manner that provides

for the prompt and effective cleanup of spills of

fuel and other hazardous materials. At a minimum,

the project sponsor and its contractors must:

a. ensure that each construction crew (including

cleanup crews) has on hand sufficient supplies

of absorbent and barrier materials to allow the

rapid containment and recovery of spilled

materials and knows the procedure for reporting

spills; 

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand

sufficient tools and material to stop leaks;

E-4

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5 01/17/2003 VERSION

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers

for all local, state, and Federal agencies

(including, if necessary, the U. S. Coast Guard

and the National Response Center) that must be

notified of a spill; and

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in

cleaning up the spill, in excavating and

disposing of soils or other materials

contaminated by a spill, and in collecting and

disposing of waste generated during spill

cleanup.

B. AGENCY COORDINATION

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate

local, state, and Federal agencies as outlined in these

Procedures and in the Certificate.

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or

its delegated agency, for the appropriate wetland

and waterbody crossing permits.

2. Provide written notification to authorities

responsible for potable surface water supply intakes

located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at

least 1 week before beginning work in the waterbody,

or as otherwise specified by that authority.

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits

and obtain individual or generic section 401 water

quality certification or waiver.

4. Notify appropriate state authorities at least 48

hours before beginning trenching or blasting within

the waterbody, or as specified in state permits.

E-5

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
6 01/17/2003 VERSION

B. INSTALLATION

1. Time Window for Construction

Unless expressly permitted or further restricted by

the appropriate state agency in writing on a sitespecific basis, instream work, except that required

to install or remove equipment bridges, must occur

during the following time windows:

a. coldwater fisheries - June 1 through September

30; and

b. coolwater and warmwater fisheries - June 1

through November 30.

2. Extra Work Areas

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging

areas and additional spoil storage areas) at

least 50 feet away from water’s edge, except 

where the adjacent upland consists of actively

cultivated or rotated cropland or other

disturbed land.

b. The project sponsor shall file with the

Secretary for review and written approval by

the Director, a site-specific construction plan

for each extra work area with a less than 50-

foot setback from the water's edge, (except

where the adjacent upland consists of actively

cultivated or rotated cropland or other

disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation

of the conditions that will not permit a 50-

foot setback.

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work

areas and the edge of the waterbody to the

certificated construction right-of-way.

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the

minimum needed to construct the waterbody

crossing.

3. General Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with the COE, or its delegated agency,

permit terms and conditions.

E-6

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
7 01/17/2003 VERSION

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular

to the axis of the waterbody channel as

engineering and routing conditions permit.

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt

to maintain at least 15 feet of undisturbed

vegetation between the waterbody (and any

adjacent wetland) and the construction rightof-way. 

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple

channels, route the pipeline to minimize the

number of waterbody crossings.

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic

life, and prevent the interruption of existing

downstream uses.

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks,

refueling restrictions, etc.) must be clearly

marked in the field with signs and/or highly

visible flagging until construction-related

ground disturbing activities are complete. 

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control

a. All spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody

crossings, and upland spoil from major

waterbody crossings, must be placed in the

construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from

the water's edge or in additional extra work

areas as described in section V.B.2.

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of

spoil or heavily silt-laden water into any

waterbody.

5. Equipment Bridges

a. Only clearing equipment and equipment necessary

for installation of equipment bridges may cross

waterbodies prior to bridge installation. 

Limit the number of such crossings of each

waterbody to one per piece of clearing

equipment.

E-7

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
8 01/17/2003 VERSION

b. Construct equipment bridges to maintain

unrestricted flow and to prevent soil from

entering the waterbody. Examples of such

bridges include:

(1) equipment pads and culvert(s);

(2) equipment pads or railroad car bridges

without culverts;

(3) clean rock fill and culvert(s); and 

(4) flexi-float or portable bridges.

Additional options for equipment bridges may be

utilized that achieve the performance

objectives noted above. Do not use soil to

construct or stabilize equipment bridges.

c. Design and maintain each equipment bridge to

withstand and pass the highest flow expected to

occur while the bridge is in place. Align

culverts to prevent bank erosion or streambed

scour. If necessary, install energy

dissipating devices downstream of the culverts.

d. Design and maintain equipment bridges to

prevent soil from entering the waterbody.

e. Remove equipment bridges as soon as possible

after permanent seeding unless the COE, or its

delegated agency, authorizes it as a permanent

bridge.

f. If there will be more than 1 month between

final cleanup and the beginning of permanent

seeding and reasonable alternative access to

the right-of-way is available, remove equipment

bridges as soon as possible after final

cleanup.

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods

a. Unless approved otherwise by the appropriate

state agency, install the pipeline using one of

the dry-ditch methods outlined below for

crossings of waterbodies up to 30 feet wide (at

the water's edge at the time of construction)

that are state-designated as either coldwater

or significant coolwater or warmwater

fisheries.

E-8

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
9 01/17/2003 VERSION

b. Dam and Pump

(1) The dam-and-pump method may be used

without prior approval for crossings of

waterbodies where pumps can adequately

transfer streamflow volumes around the

work area, and there are no concerns about

sensitive species passage.

(2) Implementation of the dam-and-pump

crossing method must meet the following

performance criteria: 

(i) use sufficient pumps, including onsite backup pumps, to maintain

downstream flows;

 (ii) construct dams with materials that

prevent sediment and other pollutants

from entering the waterbody (e.g.,

sandbags or clean gravel with plastic

liner);

 (iii) screen pump intakes;

 (iv) prevent streambed scour at pump

discharge; and

(v) monitor the dam and pumps to ensure

proper operation throughout the

waterbody crossing.

c. Flume Crossing

The flume crossing method requires

implementation of the following steps:

(1) install flume pipe after blasting (if

necessary), but before any trenching;

(2) use sand bag or sand bag and plastic

sheeting diversion structure or equivalent

to develop an effective seal and to divert

stream flow through the flume pipe (some

modifications to the stream bottom may be

required in to achieve an effective seal);

(3) properly align flume pipe(s) to prevent

bank erosion and streambed scour; 

(4) do not remove flume pipe during trenching,

pipelaying, or backfilling activities, or

initial streambed restoration efforts; and

E-9

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
10 01/17/2003 VERSION

(5) remove all flume pipes and dams that are

not also part of the equipment bridge as

soon as final cleanup of the stream bed

and bank is complete.

d. Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

To the extent they were not provided as part of

the pre-certification process, for each

waterbody or wetland that would be crossed

using the HDD method, provide a plan that

includes:

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that

show the location of mud pits, pipe

assembly areas, and all areas to be

disturbed or cleared for construction;

(2) a description of how an inadvertent

release of drilling mud would be contained

and cleaned up; and

(3) a contingency plan for crossing the

waterbody or wetland in the event the

directional drill is unsuccessful and how

the abandoned drill hole would be sealed,

if necessary.

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies 

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, minor

waterbodies may be crossed using the open-cut

crossing method, with the following restrictions:

a. except for blasting and other rock breaking

measures, complete instream construction

activities (including trenching, pipe

installation, backfill, and restoration of the

streambed contours) within 24 hours. 

Streambanks and unconsolidated streambeds may

require additional restoration after this

period;

b. limit use of equipment operating in the

waterbody to that needed to construct the

crossing; and

E-10

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
11 01/17/2003 VERSION

c. equipment bridges are not required at minor

waterbodies that do not have a state-designated

fishery classification (e.g., agricultural or

intermittent drainage ditches). However, if an

equipment bridge is used it must be constructed

as described in section V.B.5.

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required,

intermediate waterbodies may be crossed using the

open-cut crossing method, with the following

restrictions:

a. complete instream construction activities (not

including blasting and other rock breaking

measures) within 48 hours, unless site-specific

conditions make completion within 48 hours

infeasible;

b. limit use of equipment operating in the

waterbody to that needed to construct the

crossing; and

c. all other construction equipment must cross on

an equipment bridge as specified in section

V.B.5.

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies

Before construction, the project sponsor shall file

with the Secretary for the review and written

approval by the Director a detailed, site-specific

construction plan and scaled drawings identifying

all areas to be disturbed by construction for each

major waterbody crossing (the scaled drawings are

not required for any offshore portions of pipeline

projects). This plan should be developed in

consultation with the appropriate state and Federal

agencies and should include extra work areas, spoil

storage areas, sediment control structures, etc., as

well as mitigation for navigational issues.

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final

placement of the erosion and sediment control

structures in the field to maximize effectiveness. 

E-11

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
12 01/17/2003 VERSION

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section

IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) immediately after initial

disturbance of the waterbody or adjacent upland. 

Sediment barriers must be properly maintained

throughout construction and reinstalled as necessary

(such as after backfilling of the trench) until

replaced by permanent erosion controls or

restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. 

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures are

addressed in more detail in the Plan; however, the

following specific measures must be implemented at

stream crossings:

a. install sediment barriers across the entire

construction right-of-way at all waterbody

crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow

of sediments into the waterbody. In the travel

lane, these may consist of removable sediment

barriers or driveable berms. Removable

sediment barriers can be removed during the

construction day, but must be re-installed

after construction has stopped for the day

and/or when heavy precipitation is imminent; 

b. where waterbodies are adjacent to the

construction right-of-way, install sediment

barriers along the edge of the construction

right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil and

sediment within the construction right-of-way;

and

c. use trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, as

necessary, to prevent diversion of water into

upland portions of the pipeline trench and to

keep any accumulated trench water out of the

waterbody.

11. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the

construction right-of-way) in a manner that does not

cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any waterbody. Remove the

dewatering structures as soon as possible after the

completion of dewatering activities.

E-12

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
13 01/17/2003 VERSION

C. RESTORATION

1. Use clean gravel or native cobbles for the upper 1

foot of trench backfill in all waterbodies that

contain coldwater fisheries.

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks

and install temporary sediment barriers within 24

hours of completing instream construction

activities. For dry-ditch crossings, complete

streambed and bank stabilization before returning

flow to the waterbody channel.

3. Return all waterbody banks to preconstruction

contours or to a stable angle of repose as approved

by the Environmental Inspector.

4. Application of riprap for bank stabilization must

comply with COE, or its delegated agency, permit

terms and conditions.

5. Unless otherwise specified by state permit, limit

the use of riprap to areas where flow conditions

preclude effective vegetative stabilization

techniques such as seeding and erosion control

fabric.

6. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with

conservation grasses and legumes or native plant

species, preferably woody species.

7. Install a permanent slope breaker across the

construction right-of-way at the base of slopes

greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet

from the waterbody, or as needed to prevent sediment

transport into the waterbody. In addition, install

sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan.

In some areas, with the approval of the

Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm may be

suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the

waterbody.

8. Sections V.C.3. through V.C.6. above also apply to

those perennial or intermittent streams not flowing

at the time of construction.

E-13

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
14 01/17/2003 VERSION

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies

to allow a riparian strip at least 25 feet wide, as

measured from the waterbody's mean high water mark,

to permanently revegetate with native plant species

across the entire construction right-of-way. 

However, to facilitate periodic pipeline

corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the

pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in

a herbaceous state. In addition, trees that are

located within 15 feet of the pipeline that are

greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and

removed from the permanent right-of-way.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100

feet of a waterbody except as allowed by the

appropriate land management or state agency.

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS

A. GENERAL 

1. The project sponsor shall conduct a wetland

delineation using the current Federal methodology

and file a wetland delineation report with the

Secretary before construction. This report shall

identify:

a. by milepost all wetlands that would be

affected;

b. the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

classification for each wetland; 

c. the crossing length of each wetland in feet;

and

d. the area of permanent and temporary disturbance

that would occur in each wetland by NWI

classification type.

The requirements outlined in this section do not

apply to wetlands in actively cultivated or rotated

cropland. Standard upland protective measures,

including workspace and topsoiling requirements,

apply to these agricultural wetlands. 

E-14

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
15 01/17/2003 VERSION

2. Route the pipeline to avoid wetland areas to the

maximum extent possible. If a wetland cannot be

avoided or crossed by following an existing rightof-way, route the new pipeline in a manner that

minimizes disturbance to wetlands. Where looping an

existing pipeline, overlap the existing pipeline

right-of-way with the new construction right-of-way. 

In addition, locate the loop line no more than 25

feet away from the existing pipeline unless sitespecific constraints would adversely affect the

stability of the existing pipeline.

3. Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to

75 feet or less. Prior written approval of the

Director is required where topographic conditions or

soil limitations require that the construction

right-of-way width within the boundaries of a

federally delineated wetland be expanded beyond 75

feet. Early in the planning process the project

sponsor is encouraged to identify site-specific

areas where existing soils lack adequate unconfined

compressive strength that would result in

excessively wide ditches and/or difficult to contain

spoil piles.

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers must be clearly

marked in the field with signs and/or highly visible

flagging until construction-related ground

disturbing activities are complete.

5. Implement the measures of sections V. and VI. in the

event a waterbody crossing is located within or

adjacent to a wetland crossing. If all measures of

sections V. and VI. cannot be met, the project

sponsor must file with the Secretary a site-specific

crossing plan for review and written approval by the

Director before construction. This crossing plan

shall address at a minimum:

a. spoil control;

b. equipment bridges;

c. restoration of waterbody banks and wetland

hydrology;

d. timing of the waterbody crossing;

E-15

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
16 01/17/2003 VERSION

e. method of crossing; and 

f. size and location of all extra work areas.

6. Do not locate aboveground facilities in any wetland,

except where the location of such facilities outside

of wetlands would prohibit compliance with U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging

areas and additional spoil storage areas) at

least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries,

except where the adjacent upland consists of

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or

other disturbed land.

b. The project sponsor shall file with the

Secretary for review and written approval by

the Director, a site-specific construction plan

for each extra work area with a less than 50-

foot setback from wetland boundaries (except

where adjacent upland consists of actively

cultivated or rotated cropland or other

disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation

of the conditions that will not permit a 50-

foot setback.

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work

areas and the edge of the wetland to the

certificated construction right-of-way.

d. The construction right-of-way may be used for

access when the wetland soil is firm enough to

avoid rutting or the construction right-of-way

has been appropriately stabilized to avoid

rutting (e.g., with timber riprap,

prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats).

E-16

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
17 01/17/2003 VERSION

In wetlands that cannot be appropriately

stabilized, all construction equipment other

than that needed to install the wetland

crossing shall use access roads located in

upland areas. Where access roads in upland

areas do not provide reasonable access, limit

all other construction equipment to one pass

through the wetland using the construction

right-of-way.

e. The only access roads, other than the

construction right-of-way, that can be used in

wetlands without Director approval, are those

existing roads that can be used with no

modification and no impact on the wetland.

2. Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with COE, or its delegated agency,

permit terms and conditions 

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless

the wetland is dry enough to adequately support

skids and pipe.

c. Use "push-pull" or "float" techniques to place

the pipe in the trench where water and other

site conditions allow.

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is

segregated and the trench is open.

e. Limit construction equipment operating in

wetland areas to that needed to clear the

construction right-of-way, dig the trench,

fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill

the trench, and restore the construction rightof-way.

f. Cut vegetation just aboveground level, leaving

existing root systems in place, and remove it

from the wetland for disposal.

E-17

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
18 01/17/2003 VERSION

g. Limit pulling of tree stumps and grading

activities to directly over the trenchline. Do

not grade or remove stumps or root systems from

the rest of the construction right-of-way in

wetlands unless the Chief Inspector and

Environmental Inspector determine that safetyrelated construction constraints require

grading or the removal of tree stumps from

under the working side of the construction

right-of-way.

h. Segregate the top 1 foot of topsoil from the

area disturbed by trenching, except in areas

where standing water is present or soils are

saturated or frozen. Immediately after

backfilling is complete, restore the segregated

topsoil to its original location. 

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the

wetland, tree stumps, or brush riprap to 

support equipment on the construction right-ofway.

j. If standing water or saturated soils are

present, or if construction equipment causes

ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil in

wetlands, use low-ground-weight construction

equipment, or operate normal equipment on

timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or

terra mats. 

k. Do not cut trees outside of the approved

construction work area to obtain timber for

riprap or equipment mats. 

l. Attempt to use no more than two layers of

timber riprap to support equipment on the

construction right-of-way.

m. Remove all project-related material used to

support equipment on the construction right-ofway upon completion of construction.

E-18

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
19 01/17/2003 VERSION

3. Temporary Sediment Control 

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section

IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) immediately after initial

disturbance of the wetland or adjacent upland. 

Sediment barriers must be properly maintained

throughout construction and reinstalled as necessary

(such as after backfilling of the trench). Except

as noted below in section VI.B.3.c., maintain

sediment barriers until replaced by permanent

erosion controls or restoration of adjacent upland

areas is complete. Temporary erosion and sediment

control measures are addressed in more detail in the

Plan.

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire

construction right-of-way at all wetland

crossings where necessary to prevent sediment

flow into the wetland. In the travel lane,

these may consist of removable sediment

barriers or driveable berms. Removable

sediment barriers can be removed during the

construction day, but must be re-installed

after construction has stopped for the day

and/or when heavy precipitation is imminent

b. Where wetlands are adjacent to the construction

right-of-way and the right-of-way slopes toward

the wetland, install sediment barriers along

the edge of the construction right-of-way as

necessary to prevent sediment flow into the

wetland.

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the

construction right-of-way as necessary to

contain spoil and sediment within the

construction right-of-way through wetlands. 

Remove these sediment barriers during right-ofway cleanup.

4. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the

construction right-of-way) in a manner that does not

cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any wetland. Remove the

dewatering structures as soon as possible after the

completion of dewatering activities.

E-19

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
20 01/17/2003 VERSION

C. RESTORATION

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland,

construct trench breakers and/or seal the trench

bottom as necessary to maintain the original wetland

hydrology.

2. For each wetland crossed, install a trench breaker

at the base of slopes near the boundary between the

wetland and adjacent upland areas. Install a

permanent slope breaker across the construction

right-of-way at the base of a slopes greater than 5

percent where the base of the slope is less than 50

feet from the wetland, or as needed to prevent

sediment transport into the wetland. In addition,

install sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan. 

In some areas, with the approval of the

Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm may be

suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the

wetland. 

3. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless

required in writing by the appropriate land

management or state agency.

4. Consult with the appropriate land management or

state agency to develop a project-specific wetland

restoration plan. The restoration plan should

include measures for re-establishing herbaceous

and/or woody species, controlling the invasion and

spread of undesirable exotic species (e.g., purple

loosestrife and phragmites), and monitoring the

success of the revegetation and weed control

efforts. Provide this plan to the FERC staff upon

request.

5. Until a project-specific wetland restoration plan is

developed and/or implemented, temporarily revegetate

the construction right-of-way with annual ryegrass

at a rate of 40 pounds/acre (unless standing water

is present).

6. Ensure that all disturbed areas successfully

revegetate with wetland herbaceous and/or woody

plant species.

E-20

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
21 01/17/2003 VERSION

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers located at the

boundary between wetland and adjacent upland areas

after upland revegetation and stabilization of

adjacent upland areas are judged to be successful as

specified in section VII.A.5. of the Plan. 

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Do not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full

width of the permanent right-of-way in wetlands. 

However, to facilitate periodic pipeline

corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the

pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in

a herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15

feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet

in height may be selectively cut and removed from

the permanent right-of-way.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100

feet of a wetland, except as allowed by the

appropriate land management agency or state agency.

3. Monitor and record the success of wetland

revegetation annually for the first 3 years after

construction or until wetland revegetation is

successful. At the end of 3 years after

construction, file a report with the Secretary

identifying the status of the wetland revegetation

efforts. Include the percent cover achieved and

problem areas (weed invasion issues, poor

revegetation, etc.). Continue to file a report

annually until wetland revegetation is successful. 

4. Wetland revegetation shall be considered successful

if the cover of herbaceous and/or woody species is

at least 80 percent of the type, density, and

distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland

areas that were not disturbed by construction. If

revegetation is not successful at the end of 3

years, develop and implement (in consultation with a

professional wetland ecologist) a remedial

revegetation plan to actively revegetate the

wetland. Continue revegetation efforts until

wetland revegetation is successful.

E-21

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
22 01/17/2003 VERSION

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as

required.

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) or state-issued discharge permits, as

required.

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use

specific sources at least 48 hours before testing

activities unless they waive this requirement in

writing.

B. GENERAL

1. Perform non-destructive testing of all pipeline

section welds or hydrotest the pipeline sections,

before installation under waterbodies or wetlands.

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100

feet of any waterbody or wetland, address the

operation and refueling of these pumps in the

project’s Spill Prevention and Response Procedures. 

3. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary

before construction a list identifying the location

of all waterbodies proposed for use as a hydrostatic

test water source or discharge location.

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of

fish.

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value

waters, waterbodies which provide habitat for

federally listed threatened or endangered species,

or waterbodies designated as public water supplies,

unless appropriate Federal, state, and/or local

permitting agencies grant written permission.

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic

life, provide for all waterbody uses, and provide

for downstream withdrawals of water by existing

users.

E-22

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
23 01/17/2003 VERSION

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands

and riparian areas to the maximum extent

practicable.

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation

device(s), and install sediment barriers, as

necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour,

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow.

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional

value waters, waterbodies which provide habitat for

federally listed threatened or endangered species,

or waterbodies designated as public water supplies,

unless appropriate Federal, state, and local

permitting agencies grant written permission.

E-23

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix F

 

Guardian’s Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
GUARDIAN PIPELINE EXPANSION AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan 

October 2006

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................2B-1 

2.0 PREVENTATIVE MEASURES......................................................................2B-1 

2.1 Training............................................................................................2B-1 

2.2 Release Response Equipment ..........................................................2B-2 

2.3 Equipment Inspection .......................................................................2B-2 

3.0 REGULATED MATERIALS STORAGE AND HANDLING ...............................2B-3 

3.1 Contractor Yards ..............................................................................2B-3 

3.2 Activities On the Construction Right-of-Way ......................................2B-5 

3.3 Restricted Refueling Areas ...............................................................2B-5 

3.4 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance.................................................2B-6 

4.0 SPILL RESPONSE......................................................................................2B-7 

4.1 Spill Coordinator...............................................................................2B-7 

4.2 Immediate Response ........................................................................2B-7 

4.3 Wetland or Waterbody Response ......................................................2B-8 

5.0 REPORTING ..............................................................................................2B-8 

6.0 NOTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................2B-9 

6.1 Federal and State Agencies .............................................................2B-9 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Typical Fuel, Lubricants, and Hazardous Materials......................................... 2B-4 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Response Team Contacts 

Attachment 2 Spill Report Form 

F-i 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension (Guardian or G-II) Project has prepared 

this Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (SPCC Plan) to be 

implemented during construction of the G-II Project in accordance with Section IV.A of 

Guardian’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) dated 

December August 20, 2006. This SPCC Plan outlines specific preventative measures and 

practices to reduce the likelihood of an accidental release of a hazardous or regulated liquid 

and, in the event such a release occurs, to expedite the response to and remediation of the 

release. 

This SPCC Plan restricts the location of fuel storage, fueling activities, and construction 

equipment maintenance along the construction right-of-way and provides procedures for these 

activities. Training and lines of communication to facilitate the prevention, response, 

containment, and cleanup of spills during construction activities are also described. 

All contractor and subcontractor personnel working on the Guardian pipeline right-of-way 

are responsible for implementation of the measures and procedures defined in this SPCC Plan. 

This Plan will be included in both the bid and the contract documents as contractual 

requirements and instructions to the contractor. 

2.0 PREVENTATIVE MEASURES 

Guardian will require that contractors minimize, to the extent practicable, the potential for 

and consequences of a spill during construction of the project facilities. Guardian will require 

contractors to comply with applicable environmental and safety laws and regulations, including 

compliance by all its subcontractors. The contractors will be required to maintain a copy of this 

Plan available onsite to all personnel and provide a copy to all subcontractors.

2.1 Training 

Guardian will require that all contractor employees involved with transporting or handling 

fueling equipment or maintaining construction equipment be required to complete spill training 

before they commence work on the right-of-way. Guardian will audit contractor compliance with 

F-1 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
this requirement. Spill training will also be required for contractor supervisory personnel prior to 

commencement of work on the right-of-way for each spread. These training sessions will be 

conducted by the construction contractor and a representative of Guardian and will provide 

information concerning pollution control laws; inform personnel concerning the proper operation 

and maintenance of fueling equipment; and inform personnel of spill prevention and response 

requirements. Measures, responsibilities, and provisions of this SPCC Plan and identification of 

response team individuals (attachment 1) will be incorporated into the training. 

Training of other workers will be provided through ongoing weekly safety meetings. 

Topics will include spill handling and personal responsibility for initiating and adhering to 

appropriate procedures. These weekly sessions will be held by the contractor as crew “tail gate” 

meetings. Guardian will audit the contractor compliance with this requirement and instruct the 

contractor to replace, after the first warning, foremen who do not hold such meetings. 

2.2 Release Response Equipment

The contractor shall supply each construction crew with a quantity of absorbent and 

barrier materials sufficient to contain and recover spills that could potentially occur from the 

equipment with the largest on-board volume of fuel and lubricant. These materials may include, 

but are not limited to, drip pans, buckets, absorbent pads, containment booms, straw bales, 

absorbent clay, sawdust, floor-drying agents, spill containment barriers, plastic sheeting, 

skimmer pumps, covered holding tanks, and fire extinguishers. 

The contractor shall make known to all construction personnel the yard and warehouse 

locations of spill response equipment and materials and have them readily accessible during 

construction. 

2.3 Equipment Inspection 

Prior to moving equipment onto the construction right-of-way, the contractor shall visually 

inspect each piece of equipment for cracks, excessive corrosion, or other flaws that may 

compromise the integrity of its fuel, hydraulic, or cooling systems. The contractor shall repair or 

replace leaking equipment immediately after a leak is detected. 

F-2 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 REGULATED MATERIALS STORAGE AND HANDLING 

3.1 Contractor Yards

Contractors shall store fuel, petroleum products, and hazardous materials at the yards in 

a manner designed to protect the environment. Storage shall be provided with secondary 

containment structures lined with an impervious material that provides a minimum containment 

volume equal to 150 percent of the volume of the largest storage vessel located in the yard. 

The contractor shall construct these containment structures such that in the event of a leak or 

spill, the liquid will be contained within the structures. If earthen containment dikes are used, 

they shall be constructed with slopes no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to limit erosion 

and provide structural stability. Containment areas shall not have drains. 

Bulk storage tanks shall not be placed in areas subject to periodic flooding or erosion. 

Accumulated rainwater may be removed if authorized by a Guardian Environmental Inspector 

(EI). If visual inspection indicates that no spillage has occurred in the containment structure and 

if approved by a Guardian EI, accumulated water may be drawn off and sprayed on the 

surrounding upland areas. If spillage has occurred in the structure, accumulated waste water 

shall be drawn off and pumped into a storage vessel for disposal. 

The contractor shall visually inspect aboveground bulk tanks frequently and whenever 

the tank is refilled. Drain valves on temporary storage tanks shall be locked to prevent 

accidental or unauthorized discharges from the tank. The contractor shall correct visible leaks 

in tanks as soon as possible. 

All fuel nozzles shall be equipped with functional automatic shut-off valves. Prior to 

departure of any fuel tank truck, all outlets on the vehicle shall be examined by the driver for 

leakage and tightened, adjusted, or replaced to prevent liquid leaking while in transit. 

Routine equipment maintenance of wheel-mounted vehicles, such as oil changes, shall 

be accomplished at the contractor yards or staging areas to the greatest extent practical. 

Routine maintenance of track-mounted equipment shall be conducted in a manner to gather oil 

and other discharges and remove them from the right-of-way to a suitable recycling or disposal 

site. 

Storage containers shall display labels that identify the contents of the container and 

whether the contents are hazardous. Copies of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all 

F-3 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
potentially hazardous materials will be provided and maintained by the contractor and be 

accessible to all contractor personnel. 

Table 1 summarizes typical vehicle and equipment fuels, lubricants, and hazardous 

materials stored or used during construction, and briefly describes the location, typical 

quantities, and usual methods of storage. Storage methods and quantities vary with length of 

construction spread, time of year, and type of terrain. The contractor shall provide, maintain, 

and make available the appropriate MSDS documents for each of these materials and those for 

any other hazardous or controlled materials utilized on the right-of-way or in the contractor yards 

at a location accessible to all contractor and Guardian employees. 

TABLE 1 

Typical Fuel, Lubricants, and Hazardous Materials

Fluid Uses Fluids Typical Quantity Per 

Location Method of Storage Storage Location

Fuels Diesel 5,000 – 10,000 Gallons Tanks or Tankers Contractor Yard 

Warehouse/fuel vehicle 

parking areas 

Gasoline 5,000 – 10,000 Gallons Tanks or Tankers, 

10-Gallon containers, 

Pick-up Tanks 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse/fuel vehicle 

parking areas 

Lubricants Engine Oil <100 Gallons Bulk Storage or Retail 

Packaging 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse 

Transmission/ 

Drive Train Oil 

<50 Gallons Retail Packaging on 

Service Trucks 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Hydraulic Oil <100 Gallons Bulk Storage or Retail 

Packaging 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Gear Oil <50 Gallons Retail Packaging on 

Service Trucks 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Lubricating 

Grease 

<25 Gallons Tubes stored in Paper 

Cases 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Miscellaneous/ 

Coolants, Hydraulic 

fluids 

Ethylene Glycol <100 Gallons Bulk Storage or Retail 

Packaging 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Propylene Glycol <100 Gallons Bulk Storage or Retail 

Packaging 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Power Steering 

Fluid 

<50 Gallons Retail Packaging on 

Service Trucks 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Brake Fluid < 50 Gallons Retail Packaging on 

Service Trucks 

Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Service 

Trucks 

Propane 25-100 Gallons Pressurized Tanks Contractor Yard 

Warehouse, Welding 

Trucks 

F-4 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.2 Activities on the Construction Right-of-Way 

The contractor shall undertake preventative measures to avoid environmental impacts 

from refueling and lubrication activities on the construction right-of-way. 

Refuelling and lubricating of construction equipment shall be restricted to upland areas 

at least 100 feet from the edge of any streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies; 200 

feet from private water supply wells; and 400 feet from public water supply wells, wherever 

possible. If refuelling cannot be avoided in these areas, refer to section 3.3 of this SPCC Plan. 

Wheeled and tracked construction equipment shall be moved to an upland area more than 100 

feet from streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies for refueling and at the end of each 

work day. Fuel and service truck drivers shall be responsible for spill prevention during fueling 

and service activities. 

Fuels and lubricants shall be stored in designated areas and in appropriate service 

vehicles. Storage sites for fuels, other petroleum products, chemicals, and hazardous materials 

including wastes shall be located in upland areas. To prevent these materials and other 

potential contaminants from reaching waterways, no hazardous substances shall be stored 

within 100 feet of streams and/or within 200 feet of private wells (400 feet for public wells). If 

fuel must be stored in these areas, refer to section 3.3 of this SPCC Plan. The contractor shall 

confirm with a Guardian EI the locations of areas where these activities are prohibited prior to 

construction crews entering that area with equipment. 

The contractor shall maintain a minimum of 20 pounds of suitable commercial absorbent 

and barrier materials at each contractor yard and on fuel and service trucks to allow rapid 

containment and recovery of a spill. Absorbent and barrier materials shall also be utilized to 

contain runoff from spill areas. Fuel trucks shall also be equipped with shovels and an 

assortment of hand tools to aid in the containment of a spill. 

Equipment shall not be washed in streams, wetlands, ditches, or other waterbodies. 

Equipment operators shall be responsible for prompt reporting and mitigation of any fuel or 

lubricant spills from equipment. 

3.3 Restricted Refueling Areas 

Restricted refuelling areas include areas where the buffer zone (100 feet from a wetland 

or waterbody, 200 and 400 feet from private and public water wells, respectively) cannot be 

F-5 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
maintained. Potential situations where plans may be approved by the EI to allow refuelling in 

restricted areas include extensive wetland crossings with limited right-of-way access, 

continuous construction at stream/river crossings, and the required placement and operation of 

stationary equipment such as dewatering pumps, generators, and boring/drilling equipment. 

The requirement for any refuelling and equipment service within restricted areas shall be 

verified and approved by a Guardian EI prior to initiating such activity. Within these areas, the 

previously described fuel handling and refuelling procedures and the following procedures shall 

also apply. 

Tracked Equipment 

In wetlands where no upland site is available for refueling, auxiliary fuel tanks may be 

mounted to equipment to minimize the need for refueling. 

Only a fuel truck with a maximum of 300 gallons of fuel may enter restricted areas to 

refuel construction equipment. Two trained personnel shall be present during refuelling to 

reduce the potential for spills or accidents. 

Stationary Equipment

Equipment such as non-portable, stationary pumps may be fitted with auxiliary tanks as 

appropriate. Such auxiliary tanks shall be placed within a secondary containment structure. 

Refuelling of dewatering pumps, generators, and other small, portable equipment shall be 

performed using approved containers with a maximum volume of 10 gallons. Fuel containers 

shall be stored in an upland area at least 100 feet from wetlands and waterbodies. 

3.4 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 

All routine vehicle and equipment maintenance on the right-of-way, involving fluid 

replacement, shall be conducted outside the boundary restrictions for wetlands, waterbodies, 

and water wells. Before lubricants are drained from the construction equipment, a suitable 

containment vessel and plastic sheeting shall be placed under the equipment to collect any 

spilled material. The contractor shall take necessary precautions to ensure that material that 

might accumulate on the liner does not spill on the ground surface. Vehicle maintenance 

wastes, including used oils and other fluids, shall be handled and managed by personnel trained 

in the procedures outlined in this plan. Vehicle maintenance wastes shall be stored and 

disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. Non routine 

F-6 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
repairs can be conducted within the buffer zone only on approval from a Guardian EI and only 

with adequate containment. 

4.0 SPILL RESPONSE 

In the event of a spill, the release shall be contained and remediated as soon as 

possible. The order of priorities after discovering a spill are to protect the safety of personnel 

and the public, minimize damage to the environment, and control costs associated with cleanup 

and remediation. 

4.1 Spill Coordinator 

The contractor for each spread shall appoint a Spill Coordinator who shall be responsible 

for the reporting of spills, coordinating contractor personnel for spill cleanup, subsequent site 

investigations, and associated incident reports. The Spill Coordinator shall report to the 

Guardian EI and may be removed from that role by Guardian at Guardian’s discretion. The Spill 

Coordinator along with the EI shall be responsible for determining the extent of the isolation 

area, referred to in Section 4.0 of this Plan. 

4.2 Immediate Response 

ALL SPILLS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, MUST BE REPORTED TO THE SPILL 

COORDINATOR AND/OR THE GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR

The person observing the incident shall take the following actions: 

1. Assess the safety of the situation (including the risk to the surrounding public). 

2. If safe to do so, make every effort to remove potential ignition sources and stop the 

source of the spill. 

3. Promptly notify the Spill Coordinator and/or the Guardian EI. Report your name, the spill 

location, and the extent of the incident. 

Upon learning of the spill, the Spill Coordinator shall implement the following measures: 

4. For an upland spill, if necessary, berms shall be constructed with available equipment to 

physically contain the spill. 

F-7 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5. Sorbent materials shall be applied to the spill area. Contaminated soils and vegetation 

shall be excavated and temporarily placed on and covered by plastic sheeting in a 

containment area a minimum of 100 feet away from any wetland or waterbody, until 

proper disposal is arranged. 

6. If a spill is beyond the scope of on-site equipment and personnel, an Emergency 

Response Contractor shall be secured to further contain and clean up the spill. 

4.3 Wetland or Waterbody Response 

Regardless of size, the following conditions apply if a spill occurs near or into a stream, 

wetland, or other waterbody: 

1. For spills in standing water, floating booms, skimmer pumps, and holding tanks shall be 

used as appropriate by the contractor to recover and contain released materials on the 

surface of the water. 

2. For a spill threatening a waterbody, berms and/or trenches shall be constructed to 

contain the spill before it reaches the waterbody. Deployment of booms, sorbent 

materials, and skimmers may be necessary if the spill reaches the water. The spilled 

product shall be collected and the affected area cleaned up in accordance with 

appropriate state or federal regulations. 

3. Contaminated soils in wetlands must be excavated, and placed on and covered by 

plastic sheeting in approved containment areas a minimum of 100 feet away from the 

wetland or waterbody. Contaminated soil shall be disposed of as soon as possible in 

accordance with appropriate state or federal regulations. 

5.0 REPORTING 

With assistance from a Guardian EI, the Spill Coordinator is responsible for the 

completion of the G-II Project Spill Report Form (attachment 2). Completion of this form will 

assist in the assessment of the spill and provide information necessary for agency notification. 

The form shall be completed and submitted to a Guardian representative within 24 hours of the 

occurrence. A Guardian representative will notify the appropriate agencies (see section 6.0). 

F-8 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
6.0 NOTIFICATIONS 

IN THE EVENT OF A RELEASE OF A REPORTABLE QUANTITY 

GUARDIAN OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES 

6.1 Federal and State Agencies 

National Response Center (Washington, D.C.) 

Phone: (800) 424-8802 (24 hours) 

Illinois Emergency Response Agency 

Phone: (800) 782-7860 (in state) 

Phone: (217) 782-7860 (out of state) 

 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Spill Response and Support 

Phone: (800) 943-0003 

F-9 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
GUARDIAN PIPELINE EXPANSION AND EXTENSION 

PROJECT 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Response Team Contacts 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Project 

Response Team Contacts 

(To Be Completed Prior to Construction)1/

Title/Position Phone/Pager Number(s)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SPILL COORDINATOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR 

AUTHORIZED ALTERNATE (Contact only if you are unable to 

reach the EI) 

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT 

CHIEF INSPECTOR 

OTHER GUARDIAN PIPELINE REPRESENTATIVES 

1

 

1

 Guardian will provide an updated SPCC Plan complete with Response Team Contacts prior to 

Construction in 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
GUARDIAN PIPELINE EXPANSION AND EXTENSION 

PROJECT 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Spill Report Form 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Project 

Spill Report Form 

Page 1 of 2

Date/time of spill: 

Date/time of spill discovery:

____________________________________________________________ 

Name and title of discoverer:

___________________________________________________________ 

Milepost/Legal Description:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Material spilled/Estimated volume:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Unique qualifier, if relevant, such as manufacturer:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Media in which the release exists: (circle: sand, silt, clay, upland, wetland, surface water, other): 

Topography and surface conditions of spill site:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Proximity to wetlands and surface waters (including ditches):

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Proximity to private or public water supply wells: 

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Directions from nearest community:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Weather conditions at the time of release:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Describe the causes and circumstances resulting in the spill: 

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________________ 

Describe the extent of observed contamination, both horizontal and vertical (i.e., spill-stained soil in a 5-

foot radius to a depth of 1 inch):

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________________ 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Project 

Spill Report Form 

Page 2 of 2 

Describe immediate spill control and/or cleanup methods used and implementation schedule:

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________________ 

Location of any excavated/stockpiled contaminated soil:

____________________________________________________________________________

________ 

Describe the extent of spill-related injuries and remaining risk to human health and environment:

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________________ 

Name, company, and telephone number of party causing spill (e.g., contractor):

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________________ 

Current status of cleanup actions:

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

________________ 

Name and company for the following: 

Construction Superintendent:

___________________________________________________________ 

Spill Coordinator:

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Environmental Inspector:

_______________________________________________________________ 

Chief Inspector (Guardian):

_____________________________________________________________ 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Landowner notified (if 

appropriate):______________________________________________________

Date:_________________

Form completed by:

___________________________________________________________________ Date: 

____________________

Government agency notified (to be completed by Guardian or Guardian’s 

Representative):________________________ 

Date: _________________________ 

Spill Coordinator must complete this form for any spill, regardless of size, and submit the form to 

the Guardian Representative and Environmental Inspector within 24 hrs of the occurrence. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix G 

Road and Railroad Crossings 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
G-1 Road and Railroad Crossings 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Road and Railroad Crossings

Pipeline Mileposta/ Road/Railroad Comments 

30-Inch Pipeline 

Jefferson County 

0.4 Gopher Hill Road 

2.1 County Highway CW 

Dodge County 

2.1 County Highway CW 

3.1 Morningside Road 

4.1 County Highway O 

5.1 Thrush Road 

5.5 Bluebird Road 

6.2 Smith Road 

6.2 Union Pacific Rail Road 

6.6 County Highway MM 

7.9 Davidson Road 

8.5 Poplar Grove Road 

9.2 Riverview & Pieper Roads 

10.0 Elmwood Road 

10.6 Pike Road 

11.2 Pike Road 

11.3 County Highway EE 

12.4 State Highway 60 

12.7 Lehman Road 

13.3 Oaklawn Road 

14.5 North Garfield Road 

15.5 State Highway 67 

16.9 Wisconsin & Southern Railroad 

16.9 County Highway WS 

17.9 County Highway AY 

19.0 West Iowa Road 

20.0 Rock Road 

21.0 State Highway 33 

22.0 County Highway AY 

23.3 Zion Church Road 

23.8 Racoon Road 

24.4 Allen Road 

25.3 Mc Arthur Road 

26.3 County Highway AY 

26.4 State Highway 28 and 67 

27.9 County Highway TW 

28.3 North Bluemound Road 

28.4 Elm Road 

29.4 North Bluemound Road 

30.0 County Highway AY 

31.5 County Highway H 

32.6 County Highway HH 

33.1 Center Drive 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
G-2 Road and Railroad Crossings 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Road and Railroad Crossings

Pipeline Mileposta/ Road/Railroad Comments 

33.9 State Highway 49 

34.8 Center Drive 

Fond du Lac County 

35.6 State Highway 175 

35.9 County Highway Y 

35.9 Canadian National Railway 

36.2 U.S. Highway 41 

37.4 Kelly Road 

38.8 County Highway F 

39.0 County Highway K 

41.2 County Highway B 

41.7 County Highway V 

42.1 Canadian National Railway 

42.3 County Highway UU/Lime Road 

42.7 U.S Highway 45 

43.4 Birch Road 

44.4 County Highway H 

44.7 County Highway UU 

45.8 County Highway T 

47.1 Artesian Road 

48.1 State Highway 23 

48.6 Golf Course Drive 

49.8 Cody Road 

50.7 Ledge Road 

50.7 Tower Road 

51.8 State Highway 149 

52.9 Konen Road 

53.5 Silica Road 

54.6 County Highway W 

55.3 County Highway Q 

55.9 Cypress Road This is a gravel road 

56.4 Calmar Road 

57.4 Kiel Road 

58.4 County Highway HH 

59.4 County Highway HHH 

Calumet County 

60.2 Banner Road 

60.9 Dick Road 

61.1 County Highway C 

62.4 County Highway H 

63.3 Stone Road 

63.9 West Jefferson Road 

64.5 North Townhall Road 

64.9 U.S. Highway 151 

65.4 Stony Brook Road 

66.4 Quinney Road 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
G-3 Road and Railroad Crossings 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Road and Railroad Crossings

Pipeline Mileposta/ Road/Railroad Comments 

67.0 Court Road 

67.5 County Highway F 

69.1 Hickory Hills Road 

70.1 County Highway E 

71.1 Killsnake Road 

72.1 Custer Road 

73.4 Faro Springs Road 

74.7 State Highway 114 

75.7 Crosstown Road 

76.7 County Highway B 

76.8 Canadian National Railway 

78.9 County Highway BB 

80.1 U.S. Highway 10 

81.1 Schmidt Road 

81.6 Dundas Road 

82.1 County Highway KK 

Outagamie County 

82.1 County Highway KK 

Brown County 

82.9 County Highway CE 

20-inch Pipeline 

Brown County 

84.2 Crestview Drive 

84.8 County Highway Z & D 

86.2 Lamers Clancy Road 

86.4 Shanty Road 

87.2 Mill Road 

88.3 State Highway 96 

88.8 Fair Road 

89.6 Elmro Road 

90.0 Mallard Road 

90.6 Meadowlark Road 

91.1 Partridge Road 

91.6 Wrightstown Road 

92.6 County Highway ZZ 

93.5 County Highway D 

93.8 South Whistling Drive 

93.9 Canadian National Railway 

94.5 Lawrence Drive 

95.2 French Road & U.S. 41 

95.2 U.S. 41 & Mid Valley Drive 

95.9 County Highway F 

97.9 Nathan Road 

98.9 County Highway EE 

99.2 South Overland Road 

100.9 Fernando Drive 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
G-4 Road and Railroad Crossings 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Road and Railroad Crossings

Pipeline Mileposta/ Road/Railroad Comments 

101.6 County Highway U 

Outagamie County 

101.6 County Highway U 

102.3 County Highway E 

103.1 Seminary Road 

103.9 Old Seymour Road 

104.4 State Highway 54 

104.9 Red Willow Parkway 

105.7 Pearl Street and Olson Road 

107.6 Olson and Cooper Roads 

109.1 Olson and Reformatory Roads 

109.9 Olson Road 

______________________________________ 

a/ Pipeline Milepost is listed as the location of the Road/Railroad crossing rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix H

 

Guardian’s Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or 

Contaminated Sites 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or 

Contaminated Sites 

If hazardous wastes or contamination at any area is encountered during 

construction, Guardian will immediately suspend work in the area of the suspected 

contamination and implement the following plan for determining the extent, nature, and 

disposition of suspected contamination: 

• Cease work in the vicinity of suspected contamination. 

• Cordon off or otherwise restrict access to the suspected area. 

• Notify the Guardian Environmental Inspector. 

• Notify the Guardian Environmental Manager and Construction Manager. 

• Notify the landowner(s) of the subjected parcel(s). 

• Contact a qualified consultant and/or testing laboratory to assist with the 

determination of the nature and extent of the contamination. 

• Devise a plan for additional site-specific investigations as necessary. 

• Conduct the necessary level of site-specific testing and/or laboratory 

analysis to determine extent and nature of contamination. 

• Notify all of the applicable environmental authorities as required by law 

including: 

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

 Division of Emergency Management 

 Phone: (800) 943-0003 (24 hours) 

• Devise a site-specific plan depending on the nature and extent of 

contamination encountered for supporting continuation of construction. 

This step may involve evaluating avoidance options, exposure 

minimization options or clean up options as necessary to support the 

construction of the proposed facilities. 

H-1 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
• Devise a strategy or plan for handling wastes in an appropriate manner 

including waste characterization, hauling, manifesting, and disposal 

necessary to support pipeline construction. 

• Devise a plan for site stabilization and backfilling. 

• Complete all required and necessary agency follow-ups and reporting. 

H-2 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix I 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline I-1

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Feature 

ID Waterbody Name b/

Water Quality 

Classification c/

Flow 

Regime d/

Approx. 

Water 

Width (ft) e/ Crossing Method 

0.6 000S1 Unnamed tributary to Rock 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

2.9 002S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

5.4 004S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Baker Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

6.9 006S2 Unnamed tributary to 

Baker Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

7.6 007S1 Baker Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

7.8 007S2 Unnamed tributary to 

Baker Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

7.9 008S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Baker Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

8.6 009S1 Unnamed tributary to Rock 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

9.2 009S2 Unnamed tributary to Rock 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

9.8 009S3 Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 120 HDD 

11.0 011S1 Unnamed tributary to Rock 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

12.3 012S1 Rubicon River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 40 Open Cut 

13.6 013S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

15.0 015S4 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

15.1 015S3 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

15.1 015S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

15.2 015S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Wildcat Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

16.1 016S1 Woodland Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

17.7 017S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Wildcat Creek Limited Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

17.9 017S2 Unnamed tributary to 

Wildcat Creek Limited Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

18.2 018S1 Wildcat Creek Limited Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

18.8 018S2 Lentz Creek Fish & Aquatic Life f/ PN < 10 Open Cut 

19.2 019S1 Unnamed tributary to Lentz 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

21.4 021S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut g/

22.2 022S1 Unnamed tributary to E. 

Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

22.7 022S3 Unnamed tributary to E. 

Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

22.8 022S2 Unnamed tributary to E. 

Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

23.5 023S1 Unnamed tributary to E. 

Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

25.4 025S1 E. Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 100 Open Cut 

26.2 026S1 Unnamed tributary to E. 

Branch Rock River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

30.8 030S1 Unnamed tributary to Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline I-2

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Feature 

ID Waterbody Name b/

Water Quality 

Classification c/

Flow 

Regime d/

Approx. 

Water 

Width (ft) e/

 Crossing Method 

Kummel Creek 

32.3 032S1 Kummel Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN 25 Open Cut 

37.8 037S1 W. Branch Milwaukee 

River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 30 Open Cut 

37.9 037S2 Unnamed tributary to W. 

Branch Milwaukee River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

39.1 039S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

39.1 039S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT Open Cut 

40.3 040S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

40.4 040S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

41.4 041S1 Unnamed Stream Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

41.8 041S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

42.4 042S1 Unnamed tributary to De 

Neveu Creek Limited Forage Fish PN < 10 Open Cut 

42.6 042S2 Unnamed tributary to De 

Neveu Creek Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

42.8 042S3 Unnamed tributary to De 

Neveu Creek Limited Forage Fish PN < 10 Open Cut 

44.6 044S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

46.0 046S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Taycheedah Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

46.7 046S2 Unnamed tributary to 

Taycheedah Creek Fish & Aquatic Life FX < 10 Open Cut 

47.2 047S1 Taycheedah Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

49.2 049S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

49.3 049S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

49.4 049S3 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

49.4 049S4 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

51.4 051S1 Sheboygan River Limited Forage Fish PN < 10 Open Cut 

52.8 052S1 Unnamed Stream Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

56.4 056S1 S. Branch Manitowoc River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 20 Open Cut 

57.7 057S2 Pipe Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

60.3 060P1 Unnamed Pond N/A N/A 75 Open Cut 

60.6 060S1 Unnamed tributary to S. 

Branch Manitowoc River Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

65.0 065S1 Unnamed tributary to S. 

Branch Manitowoc River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

66.2 066S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Stony Brook Fish and Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

66.8 066S2 Stony Brook Fish and Aquatic Life PN 20 Open Cut 

71.0 071S1 Killsnake River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 20 Open Cut 

72.1 072S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Killsnake River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

72.8 072S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Killsnake River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

73.1 073S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

73.4 073S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

73.9 073S3 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline I-3

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Feature 

ID Waterbody Name b/

Water Quality 

Classification c/

Flow 

Regime d/

Approx. 

Water 

Width (ft) e/

 Crossing Method 

74.3 074S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

74.7 074S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

74.8 074S3 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

75.4 075S1 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

76.2 075S1 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

76.8 076S2 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

77.6 077S1 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

77.9 077S2 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

78.9 078S1 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

78.9 078S2 Unnamed tributary to N. 

Branch Manitowoc River Limited Forage Fish IT < 10 Open Cut 

79.8 079S1 Kankapot Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

80.6 080S3 Unnamed tributary to Plum 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

80.9 080S1 Unnamed tributary to Plum 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

83.8 083S2 Unnamed tributary to Plum 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

85.1 085S1 Unnamed tributary to Plum 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

85.4 085S2 Plum Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

87.3 087S1 Unnamed tributary to East 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

87.4 087S2 Unnamed tributary to East 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

88.5 088S1 Unnamed tributary to East 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

90.3 090S1 Unnamed tributary to East 

River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

93.0 093S1 Fox River Fish & Aquatic Life PN 1100 HDD 

93.5 093S4 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

93.7 093S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

94.1 094S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Ashwaubenon Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

94.6 094S2 Ashwaubenon Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

96.3 096S2 Unnamed tributary to 

Ashwaubenon Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

97.1 097S1 Hemlock Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

98.4 098S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Dutchman Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

98.6 098S2 Dutchman Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN < 10 Open Cut 

99.7 099S1 Unnamed tributary to 

Dutchman Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

100.0 100S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline I-4

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Feature 

ID Waterbody Name b/

Water Quality 

Classification c/

Flow 

Regime d/

Approx. 

Water 

Width (ft) e/

 Crossing Method 

101.4 101S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

101.7 101S2 Unnamed tributary to Duck 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

101.9 101S3 Unnamed tributary to Duck 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

102.6 102S1 Duck Creek Fish & Aquatic Life PN 35 TBD h/

102.8 102S2 Unnamed tributary to Duck 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

103.2 103S1 Unnamed tributary to Duck 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

103.8 103S2 Unnamed tributary to Duck 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

105.6 105S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

106.3 106S2 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT Open Cut 

106.9 106S1 Unnamed Stream Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

107.8 108S1 Trout Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

108.3 108S2 Unnamed tributary to Trout 

Creek Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

109.5 109S1 S. Branch Suamico River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

109.8 109S2 Unnamed tributary to S. 

Branch Suamico River Fish & Aquatic Life IT < 10 Open Cut 

_____________________________________________ 

a/

 Based on USGS Mapping, the Wisconsin DNR 24k Hydrography layer (http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us), and Guardian’s field surveys 

to date. Italicized rows indicate areas where field investigations have not been completed due to a lack of access. 

b/

 Waterbody names are based on Wisconsin DNR 24k Hydrography layer naming conventions. 

c/

 Fish & Aquatic Life – The Default use designation that applies to surface waters when the WDNR has not completed a formal site 

visit of a stream segment. The default use designation is used to make decisions for issuing discharge permits unless an 

alternate use designation is specified in either Ch. NR 102 or Ch. NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The default use

designation is equivalent to a Warm Water Sport Fish Community classification. 

Warm Water Sport Fish Community – Surface waters assigned this use designation support a diverse community of game fish, 

forage fish, and other aquatic life that are not tolerant to organic pollution. Wastewater discharges to these waterways may not 

lower the dissolved oxygen content in the water to less than 5 mg/L. 

Limited Forage Fish Community – Surface waters assigned this use designation support a community of forage fish and other 

non-fish aquatic life that are moderately tolerant to organic pollution. Wastewater discharges to these waterways may not lower

the dissolved oxygen content in the water to less than 3 mg/L. 

Limited Aquatic Life Community – Surface waters assigned this use designation support a community of a small number of forage 

fish species and other non-fish aquatic life species that are very tolerant to organic pollution. Wastewater discharges to these 

waterways may not lower the dissolved oxygen content in the water to less than 1 mg/L. 

d/ Based on Wisconsin DNR 24k Hydrography layer designations and aerial photography interpretation and/or site visit for 

unmapped streams: 

IT = Intermittent 

PN = Perennial 

FX = Fluctuating 

e/ Estimated from 2005 and 2006 aerial photography. 

f/ Proposed as Limited Aquatic Life. 

g/ Blasting is likely necessary to install this crossing. 

h/ Guardian is continuing to consult with the Oneida Tribe regarding the crossing method for Duck Creek. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix J

Horizontal Direction Drill Contingency Plan for Inadvertent Release 

 of Drilling Fluid 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
J-1

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Resource Report 2 - Appendix 2D 

Contingency Plan for Inadvertent Release of Drilling Fluid During 

Horizontal Directional Drilled Waterbody Crossings 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This directional drill contingency plan provides specific procedures and steps to contain 

inadvertent releases of drilling mud for various waterbodies crossed using horizontal directional 

drilling techniques. While waterway crossings vary substantially in installation depth, current 

profile data indicates minimum depths of cover of over 30 feet. Pipe used for the crossing of the 

Rock River will be 30-inch O.D. x 0.500-inch wall, grade X-70. Pipe used for the crossing of the 

Fox River will be 20-inch O.D. x 0.375 inch wall, grade X-60. 

Elements of this plan include: 

• Monitoring and Sampling Procedures; 

• Notification Procedures; 

• Corrective Action and Cleanup; and 

• Abandonment. 

2.0 MONITORING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

The Environmental Inspector(s) and construction personnel will continuously monitor 

operations during drilling activities. Monitoring will include: 

• Inspection along the drill path, including monitoring the waterbody for evidence of a 

release. 

• Continuous examination of drilling fluid pressures and returns flows. 

• The drilling operator will provide information regarding drilling conditions to the 

Environmental lnspector(s) during the course of drilling activities. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
J-2

• In the case of an in-stream release, monitoring may include an inspection by boat to 

determine plume movement within the waterbody. 

• If an in-stream release occurs, the Environmental Inspector(s) will collect drilling fluid 

returns at the borehole entry location for future analysis, as required. 

• Monitoring will be documented by the Environmental Inspector(s). Guardian will keep 

photographs of release events on record.

3.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

If in the course of an inspection an inadvertent release is discovered, steps will be taken 

by construction personnel to contain the release as described below in the Corrective Action 

and Cleanup section (Section 4.0). Notification procedures of Guardian construction 

management personnel and regulatory agencies are detailed in this section. 

If monitoring indicates an in-stream release is occurring, the Environmental lnspector(s) 

will immediately notify Guardian’s construction management personnel. 

Guardian will notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as soon as 

possible by telephone and facsimile of an in-stream release event, detailing the nature of the 

release and corrective actions being taken. FERC will determine whether additional measures 

need to be implemented. If it is determined that the release can not be remedied without 

causing additional environmental impact, Guardian will request FERC to allow the drilling 

operations to continue. 

If a release occurs that may migrate downstream and affect water quality, downstream 

water users will be contacted by Guardian. The contacts and telephone numbers of 

downstream users will be assimilated prior to commencement of construction, and maintained 

on-site. 

4.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CLEANUP 

By monitoring drilling operations continuously, Guardian intends to correct problems 

before they occur. However, if a release does occur, the following measures will be 

implemented to stop or minimize the release and to clean it up: 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
J-3

• The drilling contractor will decide what modifications to make to the drilling technique or 

composition of drilling fluid (i.e., thickening of fluid by increasing bentonite content) to 

reduce or stop minor losses of drilling fluid. 

• If a minor bore path void is encountered during drilling, making a slight change in the 

direction of the bore path may avoid loss of circulation. 

• If the borehead becomes lodged resulting in loss of drilling pressure, the borehole may 

be sized by moving the borehead back and forth to dislodge the stuck materials. 

• If a release occurs within the waterbody, FERC will be contacted as soon as possible by 

Guardian. Guardian will inform FERC about any threat to public health and safety and 

explain whether or not the release can be corrected without incurring additional 

environmental impact. If necessary, drilling operations will be reduced or suspended to 

assess the extent of the release and to implement corrective actions. 

• If public health and safety are threatened, drilling fluid circulation pumps will be turned 

off. This measure will be taken as a last resort because of the potential for drill hole 

collapse resulting from loss of down-hole pressure. 

• If monitoring indicates that the intake water quality at downstream user locations is 

impacted to the extent that it is no longer suitable for treatment, alternative water 

sources (i.e., trucked or bottled water) will be provided to impacted users. 

Land Release: 

• If a land release is detected, the drilling crew will take immediate corrective action to 

contain the release and to prevent migration off-site. 

• The contractor will construct pits and berms around the release area to contain 

inadvertent releases. . 

• Any drilling mud released will be pumped by contractor personnel into a mud-processing 

unit for recycling of drilling fluid and separation of cuttings. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
J-4

• Additional berms will be constructed around the release areas as directed by the 

Environmental Inspector(s) to prevent release materials from flowing into the waterbody 

or wetlands. 

• Containment equipment including earth moving equipment, portable pumps, hand tools, 

sand, hay bales, silt fencing, and lumber will be readily available and stored at the 

drilling site. 

• If the amount of an on-land release does not allow practical collection, the affected area 

will be diluted with fresh water and allowed to dry. Steps will be taken (such as berm, silt 

fence and/or hay bale installation) to prevent silt-laden water from flowing into the 

waterbody. 

• If hand tools cannot contain a small on-land release, small collection sumps (less than 5 

cubic yards) may be constructed to pump the release material into the mud processing 

system. 

5.0 ABANDONMENT 

If corrective actions do not prevent or control releases from occurring into the waterbody, 

Guardian may opt to re-drill the hole along a different alignment or suspend the project 

altogether. In either case, the following procedures will be implemented to abandon the drill 

hole. 

• The method for sealing the abandoned drill hole is to pump thickened drilling fluid into 

the hole as the drill assembly is extracted, and using cement grout to make a cap. 

• Closer to the surface (within approximately 10 feet of the surface), a soil cap will be 

installed by filling with soil extracted during construction of the pit and berms. 

• The borehole entry location will be graded and seeded by the contractor to its original 

grade and condition after the drill hole has been abandoned. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix K 

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
K-1 Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Wetlands Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Wetland 

I.D. 

WWI 

Classification b/

NWI 

Classification c/

Survey 

Type d/

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (ft) e/

Acreage Affected 

During 

Construction f/

Acreage 

Affected 

During 

Operation g/

2.5 002W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 22 0.10 0.00 

3.1 003W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 906 2.62 0.00 

5.4 005W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 91 0.15 0.00 

6.3 006W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 1.00 0.00 

6.6 006W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 65 0.11 0.00 

9.8 009W1 T3Kw/E1K PFO1C/PEM1C FD 1330 2.50 h/ 0.00 h/

10.5 010W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 392 1.08 0.00 

10.8 010W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 0 0.07 0.00 

10.9 010W3 E1Kf PEM1Af FD 792 2.45 0.00 

11.5 011W2 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 134 0.38 0.00 

11.7 011W3 E1Kw PEM1C FD 540 1.51 0.00 

12.4 OS_W01 E1K PEM1E OS 33 0.38 0.00 

13.0 013W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 125 0.19 0.00 

15.1 015W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.02 0.00 

15.2 015W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 95 0.29 0.00 

15.4 015W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 33 0.09 0.00 

15.6 015W4 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.08 0.00 

16.0 016W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 64 0.15 0.00 

17.7 017W1 T3K/S3K PFO1Y/PSS1Y FD 424 0.66 0.30 

18.8 018W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 201 0.36 0.00 

21.9 021W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 150 0.38 0.00 

22.2 022W1 E4K PEM2C FD 53 0.12 0.00 

23.5 023W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 167 0.31 0.00 

23.9 023W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 136 0.23 0.00 

25.4 025W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 50 0.09 0.00 

27.9 027W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 68 0.09 0.00 

31.1 OS_W02 E1Kf PEM1Ef FD 1200 2.20 0.00 

32.3 032W1 E1K PEM1C FD 256 0.51 0.00 

37.8 037W1 E1K/T3K PEM1C/PFO1C FD 319 0.81 0.12 

38.5 OS_W19 E1Kg PEM1E OS 100 0.18 0.00 

38.9 OS_W03 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 500 0.86 0.00 

39.0 OS_W04 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 300 0.52 0.00 

40.2 040W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 1609 3.83 0.00 

41.7 041W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 67 0.12 0.00 

41.8 041W2 T1K/E1k PFO1Y/PEM1Y FD 453 0.71 0.20 

42.0 042W1 T3K PFO1Y FD 293 0.53 0.20 

42.5 042W2 E1K PEM1C FD 90 0.15 0.00 

45.9 045W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 366 0.61 0.00 

46.1 046W1 E1K/T3K PEM1C/PFO1C FD 98 0.17 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
K-2 Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Wetlands Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Wetland 

I.D. 

WWI 

Classification b/

NWI 

Classification c/

Survey 

Type d/

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (ft) e/

Acreage Affected 

During 

Construction f/

Acreage 

Affected 

During 

Operation g/

46.2 046W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 151 0.26 0.00 

46.6 046W3 E1K/S3K PEM1C/PSS1C FD 166 0.28 0.03 

49.4 049W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 1124 1.92 0.00 

51.4 051W1 E1K PEM1C FD 281 0.49 0.00 

56.9 056W1 E1Kf PEM1Cf FD 58 0.10 0.00 

57.6 057W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 76 0.11 0.00 

57.7 057W2 E1K PEM1C FD 130 0.17 0.00 

60.2 060W1 E1Kx PEM1Cx FD 166 0.28 0.00 

60.6 OS_W05 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 122 0.40 0.00 

64.5 OS_W06 E2Kf PEM1Ef OS 272 0.88 0.00 

64.9 064W1 T1K/E1K PFO1E/PEM1E/ FD 594 1.36 0.00 

66.7 OS_W07 T3/S3K PFO1E/PSS1E OS 501 1.03 0.28 

69.3 069W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 0 0.07 0.00 

69.7 069W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 1962 4.63 0.00 

70.1 070W1 E1Kf PEM1Af FD 308 1.13 0.00 

70.9 070W2 E1K PEM2C FD 231 0.40 0.00 

71.2 071W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.04 0.00 

71.3 071W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 39 0.07 0.00 

71.4 071W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.08 0.00 

71.7 OS_W08 E1K/S3K PEM1E/PSS1E OS 474 0.63 0.03 

72.0 072W1 E1K PEM1C FD 107 0.22 0.00 

72.3 072W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 136 0.13 0.00 

72.4 072W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 138 0.30 0.00 

72.5 072W5 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 65 0.19 0.00 

72.7 072W6 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.02 0.00 

73.3 073W1 E1Kf PEM1Cf FD 47 0.08 0.00 

73.4 073W2 E1Kf PEM1Ef FD 471 0.62 0.00 

73.6 073W3 T3K PFO1C FD 160 0.28 0.10 

73.7 073W4 T3K PFO1C FD 245 0.43 0.16 

73.9 073W5 T3K PFO1C FD 185 0.28 0.12 

74.5 074W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.02 0.00 

74.7 074W2 E1Kf PEM1Y FD 11 0.03 0.00 

76.7 076W2 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 226 0.79 0.00 

76.8 076W3 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 58 0.10 0.00 

77.1 077W1 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 0 0.12 0.00 

77.5 OS_W20 E1K PEM1B OS 350 0.60 0.00 

77.9 077W3 E1K PEM1C FD 288 0.69 0.00 

78.6 078W1 E1Kf/S3K PEM1Cf/PSS1C FD 1687 4.30 0.10 

78.9 078W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 347 0.57 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
K-3 Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Wetlands Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Wetland 

I.D. 

WWI 

Classification b/

NWI 

Classification c/

Survey 

Type d/

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (ft) e/

Acreage Affected 

During 

Construction f/

Acreage 

Affected 

During 

Operation g/

79.7 OS_W09 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 245 0.84 0.00 

80.3 080W1 T3K/E1K PFO1C/PEM1C FD 145 0.28 0.10 

80.4 080W2 T3K/E1K PFO1C/PEM1C FD 0 0.04 0.01 

80.6 080W4 T3K/E1K PFO1C/PEM1C FD 0 0.01 0.00 

80.6 080W5 T3K/E1K PFO1CPEM1C FD 24 0.01 0.01 

80.7 080W6 T3K/E1K PFO1C/PEM1C FD 0 0.01 0.00 

81.2 OS_W10 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 261 0.59 0.00 

81.8 081W1 T3K/E2K PFO1C/PSS1C FD 166 0.21 0.05 

82.3 082W1 E4Kf PEM2Cf FD 30 0.06 0.00 

82.9 082W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 48 0.33 0.00 

83.8 OS_W11 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 194 0.33 0.00 

83.9 OS_W12 S3K PSS1E OS 16 0.06 0.00 

85.4 085W1 E1K/T3K PEM1Y/PFO1Y FD 102 0.18 0.03 

85.5 085W2 E1K PEM1Y FD 139 0.21 0.00 

90.3 OS_W13 E1K PEM1E OS 33 0.06 0.00 

90.7 090W2 E1Kf PEM1Yf FD 21 0.04 0.00 

90.7 090W3 E4Kf PEM2Cf FD 0 0.07 0.00 

93.3 093W1 E4K PEM2C FD 25 0.10 0.00 

94.5 094W1 E1K PEM1C FD 144 0.31 0.00 

96.3 096W1 E1K PEM1C FD 59 0.10 0.00 

97.1 OS_W14 E1Kf PEM1Ef OS 30 0.07 0.00 

98.6 OS_W17 E1K PEM1Ef OS 55 0.09 0.00 

100.0 OS_W18 E1Kf PEM1Bf OS 176 0.41 0.00 

100.8 100W1 E1K PEM1Y FD 79 0.12 0.00 

101.1 101W1 E1Ka PEM1Y FD 179 0.25 0.00 

101.3 101W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.02 0.00 

101.7 101W3 T3Kw/S3Kw PFO1C/PSS1C FD 148 0.29 0.07 

101.9 101W4 T3K/S3K PFO1C/PSS1C FD 188 0.32 0.08 

102.5 102W1 T3Kw/S3Kw PFO1C/PSS1C FD 472 0.70 0.28 

102.6 102W2 S1K/E1K PSS1C/PEM1C FD 240 0.35 0.09 

103.2 OS_W21 E1K/S3K PEM1C/PSS1C OS 260 0.35 0.05 

104.6 104W1 E1Kx PEM1Ax FD 0 0.11 0.00 

104.7 104W2 E1Kx PEM1Yx FD 92 0.12 0.00 

104.9 104W3 T3K PFO1C FD 56 0.06 0.04 

105.2 105W1 E1Kx PEM1Yx FD 250 0.35 0.00 

106.3 106W1 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 29 0.08 0.00 

106.6 106W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 25 0.05 0.00 

106.7 106W4 E4Kf PEM1Af FD 99 0.13 0.00 

106.8 106W5 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.05 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
K-4 Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Wetlands Crossed by the Pipeline a/

Approx. 

Milepost 

Wetland 

I.D. 

WWI 

Classification b/

NWI 

Classification c/

Survey 

Type d/

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (ft) e/

Acreage Affected 

During 

Construction f/

Acreage 

Affected 

During 

Operation g/

107.0 106W6 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.01 0.00 

107.1 107W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 24 0.03 0.00 

107.2 107W5 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.03 0.00 

108.1 108W2 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.08 0.00 

108.1 108W3 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.05 0.00 

108.2 108W4 E4Kf PEM2Af FD 0 0.08 0.00 

109.4 109W1 S3K/E1K PSS1Y/PEM1Y FD 1054 1.58 0.07 

Pipeline Total 28,447 59.98 2.52 

__________________________________________ 

a/ Italicized rows indicate parcels where no access has been granted by landowners and field investigations have not yet been 

completed. Listed features in italicized rows (and designated with an “OS” ID) are inferences based on off-site analysis. 

b/ Types listed are those occurring within the 200-foot-wide field survey corridor based on the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory codes. 

For wetlands with multiple types, impacts may not occur to all types listed. 

E1K – Emergent/Wet Meadow, Persistent, Palustrine. 

E1Kf – Emergent/Wet Meadow, Persistent, Palustrine, Farmed. 

E1Kx – Emergent/Wet Meadow, Persistent, Palustrine, Excavated. 

E2K – Emergent/Wet Meadow, Narrow-Leaved Persistent, Palustrine. 

E4Kf – Emergent/Wet Meadow, Non-Persistent, Palustrine, Farmed. 

S3K – Scrub/Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Palustrine. 

S3K – Scrub/Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Palustrine, Floodplain. 

T3K – Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Palustrine. 

T3K – Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Palustrine, Floodplain. 

c/ Types listed are those occurring within the 200-foot-wide field survey corridor based on the National Wetland Inventory codes. 

For wetlands with multiple types, impacts may not occur to all types listed. 

PEM1B – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Saturated. 

PEM1Bf – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Saturated, Farmed. 

PEM1C – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded. 

PEM1Cx – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated. 

PEM1E – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated. 

PEM1Ef – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated, Farmed. 

PEM1Ex – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated, Excavated. 

PEM1H – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Permanently Flooded. 

PEM1Y – Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Saturated Semi-Permanent - Seasonal. 

PEM2Af – Palustrine, Emergent, Nonpersistent, Temporarily Flooded, Farmed. 

PEM2Ef – Palustrine, Emergent, Nonpersistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated, Farmed. 

PSS1B – Palustrine, Shrub-Scrub, Broad-Leaved, Saturated. 

PSS1C – Palustrine, Shrub-Scrub, Broad-Leaved, Seasonally Flooded. 

PSS1E – Palustrine, Shrub-Scrub, Broad-Leaved, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated. 

PFO1C – Palustrine Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. 

PFO1E – Palustrine Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated. 

d/ FD = Field Delineated, OS = Off Site Delineation. 

e/ Length of centerline crossing calculated from Guardian’s field surveys completed on parcels where access was granted and 

estimated from off-site analysis elsewhere, rounded to the nearest foot. Zeroes indicate wetlands not crossed by the project 

centerline. 

f/ Based on a 75-foot construction corridor through wetlands and standard construction widths in uplands and agricultural lands.

g/ Based on existing community type(s) within 15 feet of the project centerline. In wetlands, Guardian will maintain a ten-foot strip 

over the pipeline in an herbaceous condition. Trees greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet on either side of the pipeline 

centerline may also be cut in accordance with Guardian’s right-of-way maintenance Procedures. Values rounded to nearest 

hundredth of an acre. 

h/ Impacts on the forested portion of the wetland associated with the Rock River will be avoided by using the horizontal directional 

drill (HDD) technique. Impacts on a portion of the emergent component of this wetland will result from work space associated with 

the HDD. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix L 

Cultural Resource Consultations 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-1 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-1 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with the BIA-Midwest Regional Office 

Date Summary 

6/8/2006 Telephone call initiating consultation for the project and requesting ARPA application 

8/14/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the BIA requesting review of ARPA application 

8/14/2006 Letter from Guardian to BIA introducing the project and requesting review of the ARPA application 

8/15/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to BIA concerning the status of ARPA application review process 

8/16/2006 Fax from BIA to Guardian transmitting a copy of the ARPA permit 

8/24/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to BIA concerning the possible amendment of the ARPA permit 

8/29/2006 Letter from Guardian to BIA requesting an amendment to the ARPA permit 

8/30/2006 Fax from BIA to Guardian transmitting a copy of the amended ARPA permit 

9/14/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to BIA requesting clarification on reporting process under the ARPA 

permit 

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the BIA transmitting a copy of its survey report for the pipeline facilities 

1/30/2007 Telephone conversation from Bureau of Indian Affairs (Mr. James Myster) with Guardian's contractor 

(NRG) about the reporting process under ARPA. NRG discussed the deadlines for reports under the 

ARPA permit and explained that the schedule would not work given the direction by the Oneida THPO 

to include Phase II investigation results within the same report as the revised Phase I report. BIA 

indicated that while unusual, this would be acceptable. Guardian's contractor committed to sending two 

copies of the revised Phase I report (along with the Phase II information if that phase of work is 

performed) as soon as possible. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-2 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-2 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with the Oneida Nation

Date Summary 

3/11/2006 Meeting between Guardian and representatives of the Oneida Tribe to introduce the G-II Project 

3/22/2006 

Letter from Guardian to the THPO inviting the THPO to participate in FERC’s Pre-Filing Process and 

the Section 106 process 

4/4/2006 

Meeting Between Guardian and the Oneida Facilities Management Committee to introduce the G-II 

Project 

4/13/2006 

Letter from Guardian to the THPO providing FERC’s pre-filing docket number for the G-II Project and 

information on accessing project documents on FERC’s website. 

4/17/2006 

Meeting between Guardian and representatives of the Oneida Land Management Commission to 

discuss the G-II Project 

4/24/2006 

Telephone call from the THPO to Guardian regarding the status of a site file search for reservation 

lands and the Oneida Tribe’s Cultural Properties Survey Request Form 

4/24/2006 

E-mail from the THPO to Guardian transmitting a copy of the Cultural Properties Survey Request 

Form 

4/24/2006 Open House for landowners on the Oneida Reservation to discuss the project with Guardian 

5/12/2006 

E-mail from Guardian to the THPO transmitting the completed Cultural Properties Survey Request 

Form 

5/18/2006 Meeting between Guardian and the Oneida Staff to discuss the G-II Project 

5/30/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the THPO to request a project meeting 

5/31/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the THPO revising the previous request for a project meeting 

7/6/2006 

E-mail from Guardian to the THPO requesting a review of latest pipeline route on the Oneida 

Reservation; a set of topographic quadrangles with the propose route was provided 

7/10/2006 

Telephone message from the THPO to Guardian indicating that a review of identified cultural 

resources along the route was being completed and agreeing to a meeting to discuss the results 

7/10/2006 

Telephone message from Guardian to THPO suggesting a meeting date for review of cultural 

resources within reservation. 

7/10/2006 

Transmittal of a copy of the Revokable Limited Use Permit signed by the tribe which allows for survey 

of tribal lands by Guardian representatives. 

7/12/2006 

Telephone call from the THPO to Guardian regarding the status of a site file search and suggesting 

dates for a meeting 

7/18/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting to review the project 

7/25/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting to review the project 

7/26/2006 Telephone call from tribe to Guardian agreeing to host the meeting to review the project 

7/27/2006 

Meeting with Oneida and Stockbridge-Munsee THPOs to discuss sensitivity of cultural properties and 

the ARPA application 

7/28/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe transmitting a list of tribes consulted for the project 

7/31/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe transmitting updated topographic quadrangles of project 

8/7/2006 

E-mail from Guardian to tribe transmitting the draft ARPA application with a request for information on 

curation requirements 

8/10/2006 Telephone call from tribe to Guardian updating the progress of the ARPA application 

8/11/2006 Telephone call from tribe to Guardian updating information on curation requirements 

8/14/2006 

Telephone call from tribe to Guardian identifying the University of Illinois as temporary curation facility 

and the Oneida Nation Museum as permanent curation facility for recovered artifacts 

8/14/2006 Fax from tribe to Guardian providing approval for the ARPA application 

8/21/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of the approved ARPA permit 

8/24/2006 

Meeting between Guardian and THPO to review the survey areas and cultural resources in the 

vicinity 

8/25/2006 

Meeting between Guardian and tribe to review identified cultural resources along the route on Oneida 

lands 

8/25/2006 E-mail from Guardian to THPO requesting an amendment to the ARPA permit 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-3 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-2 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with the Oneida Nation

Date Summary 

8/28/2006 E-mail from THPO agreeing to amend the ARPA permit 

8/28/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the THPO to discuss reporting requirements for Oneida lands 

9/8/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the THPO inviting the THPO to monitor fieldwork 

9/12/2006 E-mail from Guardian to THPO defining reporting procedures for Oneida lands 

9/12/2006 E-mail from Guardian to THPO providing artifact inventory of recovered materials from Oneida lands 

9/14/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of the revised ARPA permit 

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey reports for the pipeline facilities 

1/2/2007 

E-mail from THPO to Guardian’s contractor (NRG) transmitting recommendations on final survey 

report for the Oneida Reservation 

1/2/2007 

E-mail from Guardian’s contractor (NRG) to the THPO requesting clarification on recommendations 

made on final survey report for the Oneida Reservation 

1/3/2007 

E-mail from THPO to Guardian’s contractor (NRG) providing clarifications on recommendations made 

on final survey report for the Oneida Reservation 

1/11/2007 

E-mail from Guardian’s contractor (NRG) to THPO requesting guidance on preparation of artifacts for 

curation at Oneida Nation Museum 

1/15/2007 

E-mail from THPO to Guardian’s contractor (NRG) indicating that guidance on preparation of artifacts 

for curation at Oneida Nation Museum will be provided when it becomes available. 

1/25/2007 

Letter from Guardian’s contractor (NRG) to THPO transmitting Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the 

Guardian II Project 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-4 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-3 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with Indian Tribes 

Tribe Date Request(s) 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

Kickapoo of Kansas Tribal 

Council 

6/12/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe: voicemail 

message 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; message with 

receptionist 

Kickapoo of Oklahoma 

Business Committee 

6/12/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; message with 

receptionist 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; message with 

receptionist 

5/31/2006 Telephone call from the tribe to Guardian requesting a fax copy of 

Guardian’s 3/23/06 consultation letter 

5/31/2006 Fax from Guardian to the tribe transmitting a second copy of the 

3/23/06 consultation letter 

6/14/2006 Phone call from the tribe to Guardian requesting that another copy of 

the initial letter be faxed and e-mailed. 

6/14/2006 E-mail and Fax from Guardian to the tribe transmitting a third copy of 

the 3/23/06 consultation letter 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of 

Texas 

7/25/2006 Fax from tribe to Guardian indicating they do not wish to participate in 

the consultation process 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

4/5/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian requesting notification if human 

remains are discovered 

Sac & Fox Nation of 

Mississippi in Iowa 

6/1/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian 

will notify the tribe if human remains are discovered 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

4/3/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian requesting notification if human 

remains are discovered 

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri 

in Kansas and Nebraska 

5/31/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian 

will notify the tribe if human remains are discovered 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe Sac & Fox Nation of 

Oklahoma 

5/24/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian deferring comment on the G-II 

Project to the Ho-Chunk Nation 

3/22/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

7/14/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe: Chairperson 

requested a copy be faxed to her for review 

7/14/2006 Fax from Guardian to the tribe providing a copy of the initial 

consultation letter 

Prairie Band Potawatomi 

Nation 

7/18/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian requesting notification if human 

remains are discovered 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-5 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-3 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with Indian Tribes 

Tribe Date Request(s) 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process. 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

7/14/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe. Director of 

museum requested a copy be sent to him for review. 

7/14/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe providing a copy of the initial 

consultation letter 

Forest County Potawatomi 

7/14/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian requesting notification if inadvertent 

discoveries are made. 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

7/14/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe. THPO indicated 

that they are interested in consulting on the project 

Bad River Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey 

reports for the pipeline facilities 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process. 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voice-mail 

message 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

7/14/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voice-mail 

message 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

3/29/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian requesting a copy of Guardian’s 

survey report 

4/13/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe providing information on FERC’s 

NEPA Pre-Filing Process 

5/11/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian requesting additional information on 

the APE for the pipeline 

5/16/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to the tribe providing additional 

information on the pipeline route and APE 

5/16/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe requesting additional information on 

the pipeline route and APE 

5/24/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe to verify the tribe’s continuing 

interest in the project 

Lac du Flambeau Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians 

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey 

reports for the pipeline facilities 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

5/31/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians 

7/18/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe Red Cliff Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians 

7/14/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-6 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-3 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with Indian Tribes 

Tribe Date Request(s) 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe Sokoagon Chippewa 

Community (Mole Lake) 

7/18/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process. 

5/31/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

St. Croix Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians 

7/18/2006 Follow-up telephone call from Guardian to the tribe; voicemail 

message 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

5/24/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian requesting a copy of Guardian’s 

survey report 

6/8/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian will send 

the tribe a copy of the survey report 

Ho-Chunk Nation 

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey 

reports for the pipeline facilities 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process. 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

5/24/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian requesting a copy of Guardian’s 

survey report 

6/1/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian will send 

the tribe a copy of the survey report 

7/14/2006 

Letter from Guardian to tribe updating the tribe on the pipeline route 

and inviting the tribe to attend a meeting with the Oneida and 

Stockbridge-Munsee 

7/18/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting 

to review the project 

7/18/2006 E-mail from tribe to Guardian agreeing to meeting for review of project 

7/25/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting 

to review the project 

7/25/2006 E-mail from tribe to Guardian indicating they were unable to attend a 

meeting to review the project, but wished to remain a consulting party 

Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wisconsin 

10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey 

reports for the pipeline facilities 

3/23/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

3/29/2006 Telephone call from the tribe to Guardian requesting additional 

information on the project 

3/31/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe providing additional information on 

the project 

5/24/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe to verify the tribe’s 

continuing interest in the project 

5/24/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian reiterating its interest in the project 

and requesting a teleconference to discuss the project 

6/9/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe requesting a 

teleconference to discuss the project. 

Stockbridge-Munsee Band of 

Mohican Indians 

6/12/2006 E-mail from the tribe to Guardian requesting a meeting rather than a 

teleconference to discuss the project. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
L-7 Cultural Resources Consultations 

TABLE L-3 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Consultations with Indian Tribes 

Tribe Date Request(s) 

6/26/2006 

Telephone call from the tribe to Guardian requesting additional 

information on the project and offering to schedule a meeting with the 

Menominee and Oneida to review the project. 

6/26/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian explaining the differences between 

the survey, construction, and permanent easement corridor widths 

7/6/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe requesting a review of latest pipeline 

route in Calumet and Outagamie Counties 

7/14/2006 Telephone call from Guardian to tribe about scheduling a meeting 

with the Menominee and Oneida to the review the project 

7/14/2006 

Copy of E-mail from Guardian to the tribe requesting a review of latest 

pipeline route in Calumet and Outagamie Counties; a set of 

topographic quadrangles showing the proposed route was also sent 

7/18/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting 

to review the project 

7/25/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in meeting 

to review the project 

7/25/2006 E-mail from tribe to Guardian agreeing to attend a meeting to review 

the project 

7/27/2006 Meeting with Oneida and Stockbridge-Munsee THPO to discuss 

sensitivity of cultural properties and the ARPA application 

7/28/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe transmitting a list of tribes consulted for 

the project 

7/31/2006 E-mail from Guardian to tribe transmitting updated topographic 

quadrangles of project 

8/8/2006 Call from Guardian to tribe inviting the tribe to participate in cultural 

resources survey in area of concern for the tribe. 

 10/9/2006 Letter from Guardian to the THPO transmitting a copy of its survey 

reports for the pipeline facilities 

4/7/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

5/1/2006 Letter from the tribe to Guardian expressing an interest in the project 

and requesting notification if human remains are discovered Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

5/31/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian will notify 

the tribe if human remains are discovered 

6/21/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

Hannahville Indian 

Community of Wisconsin 

Potawatomi Indians of 

Michigan 7/26/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

6/21/2006 Letter from Guardian to the tribe inviting the tribe to participate in 

FERC’s NEPA Pre-Filing Process and the Section 106 process 

7/26/2006 Follow-up e-mail from Guardian to the tribe 

8/15/2006 

E-mail from Tribe to Guardian requesting to be notified if human 

remains or other items falling under NAGPRA are identified during 

construction 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

8/15/2006 E-mail from Guardian to the tribe confirming that Guardian will notify 

the tribe if human remains are discovered 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix M 

References and Contacts 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-1 References and Contacts

APPENDIX M 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L. Hanson, and B. L. Bender. 1982. 

Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity on Rock in the 

Contiguous United States. Open-File Report 82-1033. United States Department of the 

Interior, United States Geological Survey. Washington, DC. 98 pp plus map. 

Alliant Energy. 2006. Cedar Ridge Wind Farm, Certificate of Authority Application, Before the 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Docket No. 6680-CE-171. PSC Ref#:60967. 

September 2006. 

Anderson, C., E. Epstein, W. Smith, and N. Merryfield. 2002. The Niagara Escarpment – 

Inventory Findings 1999-2001 and Considerations for Management. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, Natural Heritage 

Inventory Program. PUBL ER-801 2002. 

Bates, R. L. and J. A. Jackson. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms. Anchor Press / 

Doubleday, New York. 

Becker. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1st

edition. 1081 pp. 

Bradbury, K. 2006. E-mail communication on July 24 between Steven Holden, Natural 

Resource Group, Inc. and Kenneth Bradbury, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey. 

Bricker, D.M. 1977. Seismic Disturbances in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Geologic Survey Division. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Accessed October 19, 2006. Available online at 

http://www.lm.doe.gov/env_justice/pdf/justice.pdf. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997b. Considering Cumulative Effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. p. 131. 

Davies, W. E., J. H. Simpson, G. C. Ohlmacher, W. S. Kirk, and E. G. Newton. 1984. 

Engineering Aspects of Karst. United States Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006a. Annual Energy Outlook 2006, with 

Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) February 2006. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-2 References and Contacts 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006b. East North Central Regional Energy Profile. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1989. January 13, 1989 Order Affirming the 

Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision for the Mojave-Kern River-El Dorado 

Project. 

Firehouse Network. 2006. Represents number of fire departments and emergency services in 

each county. Accessed October 20, 2006. Available online at http://www.fire-ems.net. 

Fullerton, D. S., C. A. Bush, and J. N. Pennell. 2004. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in 

the Eastern and Central United States. United States Geological Survey Geological 

Investigation Series I-2789. 

Godt, J. W. 1997. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. United States 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-289. Available on the internet at: http://www. 

landslides.usgs.gov/learning education/nationalmap/index.php. 

Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of 

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 378 pp. 

Hometown Locator. 2006. Represents number of medical services in each county. Accessed 

October 20, 2006. Available online at http://www.hometownlocator.com/. 

Howard, K.A., J.M. Aaron, E.E. Brabb, H.D. Brock, H.D. Gower, S.J. Hunt, D.J. Milton, W.R. 

Muchlberger, J.R. Nakata, G. Plafker, D.C. Prowell, R.E. Wallace, and I.J. Witkind. 

1978. Preliminary Map of Young Faults in the United States as a Guide to Possible Fault 

Activity. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-916, 2 Sheets, 

Scales 1:7,500,000, 1:5,000,000. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2006. Communications between IDNR and 

Guardian (via NRG) regarding potential occurrences of state protected species and/or 

their habitats. E-mail dated 14 August, 2006. Written correspondence on 31 August, 

2006. 

Illinois Department of Employment Security. 2006. Unemployment Statistics. Accessed 

October 19, 2006. Available online at http://www.ides.state.il.us/. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Wisconsin’s Major Aquifers. In: Groundwater 

Resources and Educational Activities for Teaching. Iowa DNR: Des Moines, IA. 

Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable 

Incidents for Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 Through June 1984. 

NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Kettle Moraine Natural History Association. 2003. Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive. PUB-PR-269 

2003. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-3 References and Contacts 

Mudrey, M. G., Jr., B. A. Brown, and J. K. Greenberg. 1982. Bedrock Geologic Map of 

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey 

scale 1:1,000,000. 

National Atlas of the United States. 2006. Available online at http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/ 

Natlasstart.asp. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2005. Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. Data available online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html. 

Natural Resource Group, Inc. 2006. Letter report to Mr. Joel Trick, FWS Green Bay Ecological 

Services Field Office, New Franken, Wisconsin from Mr. Christopher M. Fuller, Natural 

Resource Group, Inc. regarding Guardian II Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project, 

Section 7 Endangered Species Act Consultation, dated December 15, 2006. 

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2006. Online Conservation Guide for Carex 

formosa. Available from: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9481. Website 

Accessed 9/07/2006. 

O’Rourke, T. D. and M.C. Palmer. 1996. Earthquake performance of gas transmission pipelines. 

Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 12, No. 3, p.493-527. 

Olcott, P.G. 1992. Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin. USGS Publication HA 730-J. USGS: Reston, VA. 

Perry, C.H., and G.J. Brand. 2006. Wisconsin’s Forest Resources, 2005. United States 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Resource Bulletin-NRS-2. November 

2006. 

Peters, R. M. 2006. E-mail communication on September 20 between Steven Holden, Natural 

Resource Group, Inc. and Roger Peters, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey. 

Piskin, K. 1975. Thickness of Glacial Drift in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 

490 scale 1:500,000. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (WPS). 2005. Forward Wind Project, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. PSC Ref#: 34146. May 2005. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (WPS). 2006. Strategic Energy Assessment Draft 

Report. Docket 5-ES-103. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 

Rich, A.C., D.S. Dobkin, and L.J. Niles. 1994. Defining Forest Fragmentation by Corridor 

Width: The Influence of Narrow Forest-dividing Corridors on Forest-nesting Birds in 

New Jersey. In: Conservation Biology 8(4): 1109-1121. 

Schmidt, J. W. 2006. E-mail correspondence July 21, 2006 between Geoffrey Parish 

(Hydrologist, Graef, Anhalt, and Schloemer Associates, Inc.) and James Schmidt (Water 

Resources Engineer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) regarding the presence 

of Exceptional or Outstanding Resource Waters along the proposed Guardian pipeline 

route. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-4 References and Contacts 

Stover, C.W., B.G. Reagor, and S.T. Algermissen. 1979. Seismicity Map of the State of Illinois. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Map MF-1143.U.S. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. Accessed October 19, 2006. Available online at 

http://censtats.census.gov/data/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. State and County American Fact Finder. Accessed on October 19, 

2006. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed October 19, 2006. 

Available online at http://quickfacts.census.gov/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. About Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics. 

Accessed October 23, 2006. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite 

to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Document 

550/9-74-004. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts on 

EPA Review of Federal Activities (2252A). (EPA 315-R-99-002). 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. National Water Summary 1984, Water-Supply Paper 

2325. Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1988. National Water Summary 1986—Hydrologic events, 

selected water-quality trends, and ground-water quality: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2325. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, National 

Seismic Hazard Maps. Available online at: http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq-men/html/ custom 

2002-06.html. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2003. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Brown County, Calumet and 

Manitowoc County, Dodge County, Fond Du Lac County, Jefferson County, Outagamie 

County, and Walworth County, Wisconsin and DeKalb County, Illinois. Available online 

at: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/. 

University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW Extension). 2006. Wisconsin Land Use Megatrends: 

Housing. University of Wisconsin System, Cooperative Extension of the University of 

Wisconsin-Extension, WI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1988. Habitat loss threatens two Midwestern plants. 

Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. XII, 1:1. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid, Platanthera leucophaea (Nuttall) Lindley. Fort Snelling, MN: Region 3, USFWS. 

62pp. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-5 References and Contacts 

Walworth County. 2001. A Land Use Plan for Walworth County: 2020. Adopted April 17, 2001 

and certain parts amended February 10, 2004. Accessed October 19, 2006. Available 

online at http://www.co.walworth.wi.us/Land%20Management/Website/images/Forms/ 

capr-252_lu_plan_walworth_cty_web.pdf. 

Weis, M. 2006. E-mail communication between B. Hahn of the Natural Resource Group, Inc. 

and M. Weis of Wisconsin’s Department of Commerce regarding hazardous wastes sites. 

August 18. 

Western Michigan University, Department of Geology. 1981. Hydrogeologic Atlas of Michigan. 

Western Michigan University Press, Kalamazoo, MI. 

Willman, H. B., Frye, J. C., Simon, J. A., Clegg, K. E., Swann, D. H., E. Atherton, C. Collinson, 

J. Lineback, and T. C. Buschbach. 1967. Geologic map of Illinois: Illinois State 

Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1993. Wisconsin Wetland Inventory 

Mapping for Outagamie County. Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Division, 

Madison, WI. www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/wetlands/documents/wwi_classification. pdf. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2000. Wisconsin Forests at the 

Millennium: As Assessment. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. November 

2000. 125 pp. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2002a. Wisconsin Trout Streams. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. PUB-FH-806 2002. July 19, 2002. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2002b. Natural Heritage Inventory 

Program, Bureau of Endangered Resources. The Niagara Escarpment, Inventory 

Findings 1999-2001 and Considerations for Management. PUBL-ER-801 202, Madison, 

Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2004a. Black Bear Fact Sheet: 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/ 

PUBL/wlnotebook/bear.html. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2004b. State of Wisconsin Guidelines 

for Designating Fish and Aquatic Life Uses for Wisconsin Surface Waters. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Watershed Management. Madison, 

Wisconsin. Publ-WT-807-04. December 2004. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2005. Bald Eagle Fact Sheet. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. Website: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ 

land/er/factsheets/birds/eagle.htm. Website accessed: 7/12/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006a. Wisconsin Hydrologic Units. 

Viewed at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/sidebar/whatis.htm. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-6 References and Contacts 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006b. Basin Reports. Viewed at: 

http://www. dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/stateofbasin.html. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006c. WDNR Contaminated Sites 

Databases. Viewed at: http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/brrts/databases.htm. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006d. Timber Wolf Distribution Map 

2006. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/land/ 

er/mammals/wolf/wolf_map.htm. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WNDR). 2006e. Outstanding or Exceptional 

Resource Waters (OERW). Available from http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/ 

orwerw/. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006f. Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Fact 

Sheet. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr.state. 

wi.us/org/land/er/herps/amphibians/ bcrickfrg.htm. Website accessed 9/07/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006g. Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ 

org/land/er/herps/turtles/blandings.htm. Webside accessed 9/07/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006h. Wood Turtle Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from: http://dnr.wi.gov.org/ 

land/er/factsheets/herps/wturtle.html. Website Accessed 9/07/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006i. Cerulean Warbler Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ 

org/land/er/factsheets/birds/Cerwar.htm. Web-site accessed 12/11/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006j. Red-shouldered Hawk Fact 

Sheet. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr. 

state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/birds/ Rshhwk.htm. Website accessed 12/11/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006k. Handsome Sedge Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr.

wi.gov.org/land/er/factsheets/plants/handsedg.html. Website Accessed 9/07/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006l. Yellow Gentian Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr. 

state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/plants/yelgent.htm. Accessed 12/11/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006m. Forked Aster Fact Sheet. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available from http://www.dnr. 

state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/plants/aster.htm. Accessed 12/11/2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006n. Niagara Escarpment Inventory, 

Overall Results. Available from http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ORG/LAND/ER/ 

publications/niagara/Results.asp. Accessed 1/08/2007. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
M-7 References and Contacts 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006o. Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive. 

Accessed November 6, 2006. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ 

land/parks/specific/kmscenicdrive/. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2007. Forestry, Sustaining Our Forests, 

Forest Planners Toolbox. Last modified August 31, 2006. URL: 

http://www.dnr.state.wi. us/org/land/Forestry/SmartForestry/toolbox/data_ tabdat.asp. 

Accessed on February 12, 2007. 

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2006. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Accessed October 19, 2006. Available online at http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/. 

Wisconsin Division of Energy. 2005. Wisconsin Energy Statistics 2005. Wisconsin Department 

of Administration, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Division of Energy. 2006. Preliminary Draft – Wisconsin Energy Statistics 2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Administration, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS) – University of Wisconsin 

Extension. 1983. Thickness of Unconsolidated Material in Wisconsin. 

Woodward, D. 1997. “Hydrology tools for wetland determination.” Engineering Chapter 19, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Appendix N 

List of Preparers 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
N-1 List of Preparers

APPENDIX N 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Kopka, Robert J. – Project Manager, Geology, Soils, Vegetation, Water Resources, 

Wetlands, Land Use, Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Soil Science, 1990, Cornell University 

 B.S., Agronomy, 1987, Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture 

Hanobic, David – Special Status Species 

B.S., Biology, 2003, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania 

Friedman, Paul – Cultural Resources 

 M.A. History, 1980, University of California at Santa Barbara 

 B.A., Anthropology and History, 1976, University of California at Santa Barbara 

Tomasi, Eric – Air Quality and Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Aerospace Engineering, 1994, Boston University 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Ghiloni, Jennifer – Tetra Tech EC Project Manager – Executive Summary, Introduction, 

Description of Proposed Action, Water Resources, Aquatic Resources, Conclusions 

and Recommendations 

 MBA, Specialization in Environmental Management, 2006, University of Massachusetts 

B.S., Marine Fisheries Science, 1999, University of Rhode Island 

Magrane, April – Tetra Tech EC – Soils and Sediments 

 B.A., Biology, 1995, Russell Sage College 

 Graduate Studies in Ecology and Conservation, 1997, State University of New York 

 Graduate Studies in Aquatic and Forest Resources, 2000-2004, University of Washington 

Scott, John G. – Tetra Tech EC – Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Science, 1995, Pennsylvania State University 

 B.S., Natural Resources Management, 1983, Cornell University 

Allen, Boyd – Geologic Resources 

 MS, Earth Sciences, 1983, University of New Hampshire 

 BA, Geology, 1975, Colby College 

Hannon, Keith – Wetlands, Wildlife 

 M.A., Energy and Environmental Analysis, 2005, Boston University 

 B.S., Environmental Geosciences, 2000, Boston College 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
List of Preparers N-2

Micucci, Stephanie – Vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species 

 M.S., Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, 2000, The Ohio State University 

 B.S., Zoology, 1995, The Ohio State University 

Brooks, Shaun – Land Use, Recreation, Visual Resources, Socioeconomics, Transportation 

 MEP, Environmental Planning, 2004, Arizona State University 

 B.S., Forest Recreation Resources, 2001, Oregon State University 

Marshall, Sydne – Cultural Resources 

 Ph.D., Anthropology, 1981, Columbia University 

 M.Phil. (Master of Philosophy), 1975, Anthropology, Columbia University 

 M.A., Anthropology, 1974, Columbia University 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1972, The American University 

Guertin, Ted – Air Quality 

 M.S., Atmospheric Science, 1989, University of New York at Albany 

 B.S., Atmospheric Science, 1986, University of New York at Albany 

Adams, Tom – Noise 

 M.S., Physics, 1973, Valdosta State University 

 B.S., Physics, 1971, Valdosta State University 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

 In Reply Refer To:

 OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 1 

 Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. 

 Docket No. CP07-8-000 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has 

prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and operation of 

the natural gas pipeline facilities (referred to as the G-II Project or Project) as proposed by 

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (Guardian) in the above-referenced docket. 

The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the G-II Project, with appropriate 

mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The 

draft EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives and pipeline route 

alternatives. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are federal 

cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. The State of Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources is also a cooperating agency. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law 

or have special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved with the proposal 

and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 

The purpose of the G-II Project is to provide the facilities necessary to provide about 

537,200 decatherms per day of additional natural gas capacity to Guardian’s existing pipeline 

system. The proposed additional capacity would facilitate the transport of natural gas to 

customers within the state of Wisconsin and provide those customers with the necessary 

infrastructure to support growth and competition within the natural gas marketplace. Guardian 

proposes to have the project constructed and operational by November 2008. 

The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following natural gas pipeline facilities: 

• 83.6 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• 25.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin; 

• two new 39,000 horsepower (hp) electric motor driven compressor stations including the 

Sycamore Compressor Station located in the Sycamore Township in DeKalb County, 

Illinois and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station located in the Town of La Grange in 

Walworth County, Wisconsin; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
- 2 -

• modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin and the 

construction of seven new meter stations in the Counties of Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• two new pig launcher facilities including a 30-inch launcher within Guardian’s existing 

Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin; a 30-inch receiver and 20-inchdiameter launcher within the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station in Brown County, 

Wisconsin; and a 20-inch-diameter receiver within the proposed West Green Bay Meter 

Station in Outagamie County Wisconsin; and 

• six new mainline valves (MLV), four of which would occur along the 30-inch-diameter 

pipeline in the counties of Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Calumet, Wisconsin and two which 

would occur along the 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin. 

Project construction would be initiated in the spring of 2008 and would be completed for 

a proposed in-service date in November 2008. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration 

prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments 

before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your 

comments are received and properly recorded:

• Send an original and two copies of your comments to: 

Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, DG2E; and 

Reference Docket No. CP07-8-000 on the original and both copies. 

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, D.C. on or before 

May 29, 2007. 

Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing (“eFiling) of 

comments. Instructions on how to “eFile” can be found on the Commission’s web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the “Documents and Filings” link. 

 

In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public 

comment meeting scheduled as follows: 

May 15, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Radisson Hotel and Conference Center of Green Bay 

2040 Airport Drive 

Green Bay, WI US 

Telephone: (920) 405-6404 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
- 3 -

May 16, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Bauer Ramada Plaza Hotel 

1 North Main Street 

Fond Du Lac, WI 54935 

Telephone: (920) 923-3000 

May 17, 2007, 7:00 p.m.(CST)

Olympia Conference Center 

1350 Royale Mile Road 

Oconomowoc, WI 53066 

Telephone: (262) 369-4969 

The public comment meetings will be posted on the FERC’s calendar located at 

www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested parties and individuals are encouraged 

to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be 

prepared. 

After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and 

modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final EIS will be published and distributed by the 

FERC staff. The final EIS will contain the staff’s responses to timely comments received on the 

draft EIS. 

Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the 

commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding 

must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS. 

You must file your request to intervene as specified above.1

 You do not need intervenor status 

to have your comments considered.

The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

distribution and public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

A limited number of hard copies and CD copies of the draft EIS are available from the 

Public Reference Room identified above. Copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to federal, 

state, and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected landowners who 

requested a copy of the draft EIS or provided comments during scoping; libraries; newspapers; 

and parties to this proceeding. 

 

1

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

on filing comments electronically. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
- 4 -

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of 

External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov). 

To access information via the FERC website click on the “eLibrary” link then click on 

“General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket 

Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The “eLibrary” link 

provides access to the texts for formals documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, 

notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, please contact FERC Online Support 

at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-

8659. 

In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the 

amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with 

notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. To learn 

more about “eSubscription” and to sign up for this service please go to 

www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Phillis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the staff of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to fulfill the Commission’s 

requirements as outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

The purpose of this document is to make public our assessment of the environmental impacts 

that would likely occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Guardian 

Expansion and Extension Project (G-II Project or Project) and to request comments on our 

assessment. 

This document has been prepared in coordination with numerous federal and state agencies 

including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On April 7, 2006, we1

 approved the Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.’s (Guardian) request to use the 

Commission’s Pre-Filing Review Process for the proposed G-II Project. The purpose of our prefiling review is to work in partnership with the project sponsor, other federal and state agencies, 

as well as concerned citizens and non-governmental organizations, to identify and address 

project-related issues prior to the filing of an application with the Commission for a Certificate 

of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate). 

On October 13, 2006 Guardian filed an application with the Commission pursuant to 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for a 

Certificate to construct, operate, and maintain an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated 

ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the G-II Project. We have prepared 

our analysis based on this application and subsequent filings by Guardian including responses to 

environmental information requests. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

In response to a request for proposal (RFP) developed by three Wisconsin local distribution 

companies (LDCs) including We Energies, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS), Guardian proposes to establish infrastructure 

necessary to provide additional firm natural gas pipeline capacity that would allow for 

the delivery of natural gas to various points in Wisconsin by an in-service date of by 

November 1, 2008. The proposed Project would add additional compression along Guardian’s 

existing pipeline system in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin and extend its existing pipeline 

facilities from its current terminus in the Town of Ixonia in Jefferson County, Wisconsin 

northward to a new terminus west of Green Bay in the Town of Oneida in Outagamie County, 

Wisconsin. The expansion of this system would provide approximately 537.2 million cubic feet 

per day (MMcfd) of natural gas transportation capacity to both eastern Wisconsin and 

northeastern Illinois. Of this amount, 100 MMcfd would be delivered to points along Guardian’s 

 

1

 “We”, “us” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of 

Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Executive Summary ES-2

existing pipeline system with the remaining 437.2 MMcfd to be delivered to new delivery points 

along Guardian’s proposed pipeline route to be owned and operated by WPS and We Energies. 

The proposed G-II Project would consist of: 

• 83.6 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• 25.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin; 

• two new 39,000 horsepower (hp) electric-motor-driven compressor stations including the 

Sycamore Compressor Station located in the Sycamore Township in DeKalb County, 

Illinois and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station located in the Town of La Grange in 

Walworth County, Wisconsin; 

• modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin and the 

construction of seven new meter stations in the Counties of Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• new pig launcher/receiver facilities within Guardian’s existing Ixonia Meter Station in 

Jefferson County, Wisconsin, within the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station in Brown 

County, Wisconsin, and West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie County, 

Wisconsin; and 

• six new mainline valves (MLVs), four of which would occur along the 30-inch-diameter 

pipeline in the counties of Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Calumet, Wisconsin, and two which 

would occur along the 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin. 

Guardian proposes to complete construction and begin operation of the proposed Project in 

October 2008. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

As described previously, Guardian used the Commission’s Pre-Filing Review Process prior to 

filing an application with the Commission for a Certificate to construct and operate the proposed 

Project. As part of our pre-filing review we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Guardian Expansion/Extension Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI) 

on May 19, 2006. 

In response to our notices and four public scoping meetings held along the proposed project 

route, we received numerous written and verbal comments from landowners, concerned citizens, 

public officials, and government agencies representing the public. These comments expressed 

concerns with impacts on land uses (e.g., farming and organic farming), wetlands and 

waterbodies; water quality; vegetation and wildlife; threatened and endangered species; air and 

noise quality; future development; property values; tribal lands and cultural resources; the overall 

project purpose and need; environmental justice; safety; and potential alternatives to the 

proposed route and planned facilities. 

In addition to comments provided by the general public, we also consulted with several federal 

and state agencies. Consultations included several interagency meetings were held to discuss the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
ES-3 Executive Summary

proposed action, the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Project, and possible 

mitigation measures to minimize project-related impacts. 

Comments filed with the Commission have been placed in the Commission’s administrative 

record for the proposed Project and are available for review by the public. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in several impacts on the 

environment. Soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic 

resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and air and noise quality would 

all be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project; however, because the 

proposed construction activities are temporary in nature, most of the resulting impacts on these 

resources including vegetation removal, disturbed soils, increased erosion potential and 

associated turbidity in streams, habitat alteration, and wildlife impacts would also be temporary. 

Additionally, construction activities would result in long-term impacts on upland forests and 

forested wetlands. Operation of the proposed Project and maintenance of the permanent right-ofway would preclude certain uses of maintained lands for the life of the project. 

The most significant impacts resulting from construction and operation of this proposed Project 

would be the temporary impacts on wetlands and the long-term impacts on forested wetlands and 

upland forests. Specifically, construction activities would result in temporary impacts on 

wetlands including the alteration of wetland soil, hydrology, and vegetation. Long-term impacts 

would occur on forested wetlands because several acres would be cleared during construction, 

converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, and maintained in those states on the 

permanent right-of-way during operation. Upland forests would also be cleared during 

construction, converted to non-forested uplands, and maintained in that state on the permanent 

right-of-way during operation. 

Detailed descriptions of these impacts, our recommendations to further avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate these impacts, impacts on other resources, and a description of cumulative impacts are 

described in section 4.0. 

MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

In order to minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the 

proposed Project, Guardian would implement several measures and plans including, but not 

limited to the following: 

• Our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Guardian’s Plan); 

• Our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Guardian’s 

Procedures); 

• Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; 

• Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan; 

• Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Sediment; 

• Plan for the Containment of Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud During Horizontal 

Directional Drilled Wetland and Waterbody Crossings; and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Executive Summary ES-4

• Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties, Human Remains or Potential 

Paleontological Evidence during Construction. 

In addition to the implementation of these measures and plans, we have recommended that 

Guardian implement certain measures to further reduce impacts on environmental resources. 

Guardian would also be required to obtain several federal, state, and local permits and 

authorizations that could further reduce environmental impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. Specifically, Guardian would comply with the requirements 

of the COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and WDNR. 

A detailed description of Guardian’s proposed minimization and mitigation measures, as well as 

our recommendations for additional mitigation are included in section 4.0. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We have evaluated the no action alternative, the postponed action alternative, alternative energy 

sources, the potential effects of energy conservation, system alternatives, route alternatives, route 

variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives to determine whether they would be 

technically and economically feasible and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. In 

this analysis, we also considered the potential impacts on environmental resources and land uses 

and evaluated alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts on environmental resources 

such as wetlands, waterbodies, and land use. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on our review of Guardian’s proposal, we conclude that the construction and operation of 

the proposed Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts. However, these 

impacts would be effectively avoided, minimized, and mitigated by Guardian’s proposed 

construction, restoration, and mitigation measures as well as our recommendations. In support of 

this conclusion we offer the following: 

• The proposed Project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 33.5 miles, or about 30.6 percent of the proposed route; 

• Guardian would implement site-specific wetland mitigation strategies as required by the 

COE and WDNR to minimize impacts on sensitive wetland habitats (including forested 

wetlands); 

• Guardian would implement our Plan and Procedures, which would minimize and mitigate 

impacts on natural resources during construction and operation of the Project; 

• Guardian would implement an environmental and agricultural inspection monitoring 

program that would ensure compliance with all recommended mitigation measures; and 

• Guardian would develop and implement an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AMP), 

which would minimize impacts on agricultural lands and ensure implementation of the 

measures in the AMP. These measures were developed in consultation with the 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) (e.g., 

minimum 4-foot depth of cover over the pipeline, 110-foot right-of-way for construction 

of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline and an 80-foot right-of-way for construction of a 20-inchdiameter pipeline in agricultural land, use of third-party agricultural monitors, etc.). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

GUARDIAN EXPANSION AND 

EXTENSION PROJECT

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. Docket No. CP07-8-000 

FERC/EIS – 0212D 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cooperating Agencies 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 20426 

 

 

 

April 2007 

 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
 FERC/EIS-0212D Draft Environmental Impact Statement GUARDIAN EXPANSION AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. 

CP07-8-000 

April 

2007 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-1 1.0 – Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared 

this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public review and comment to assess the 

potential environmental effects that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the 

proposed natural gas transmission facilities that would both expand and extend the capacity of 

the existing Guardian pipeline system within the states of Illinois and Wisconsin (collectively 

referred to as the Guardian Expansion and Extension Project, G-II Project, or Project). 

Comments received in response to this draft EIS will be addressed in a final EIS, which will be 

used by the FERC in its decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize the 

Project. 

On October 13, 2006, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (hereafter referred to as Guardian)1

 filed an 

application with the FERC, in Docket No. CP07-8, under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA), as amended, and parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. The application 

was noticed in the Federal Register (FR) on October 30, 2006. 

In Docket No. CP07-8, Guardian requests Commission authorization to add additional 

compression along Guardian’s existing pipeline system in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin 

and to extend its existing pipeline facilities from its current terminus in the Town of Ixonia in 

Jefferson County, Wisconsin northward to a new terminus west of Green Bay in the Town of 

Oneida in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. The expansion of this system would provide 

approximately 537.2 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of natural gas transportation capacity to 

both eastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois. Of this amount, 100 MMcfd would be 

delivered to points along Guardian’s existing pipeline system with the remaining 437.2 MMcfd 

to be delivered to new delivery points along Guardian’s proposed pipeline route. The proposed 

G-II Project would consist of: 

• 83.6 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• 25.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin; 

• two new 39,000 horsepower (hp) electric-motor-driven compressor stations, including the 

Sycamore Compressor Station located in the Sycamore Township in DeKalb County, 

Illinois and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station located in the Town of La Grange in 

Walworth County, Wisconsin; 

• modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin and the 

construction of seven new meter stations in Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and 

Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin; 

• new pig launcher/receiver facilities within Guardian’s existing Ixonia Meter Station in 

Jefferson County, Wisconsin; within the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station in Brown 

County, Wisconsin; and West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie County, 

Wisconsin; and 

 

1

 Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C is owned by the limited partnership company, ONEOK Partners, L.P., based in Omaha, 

Nebraska and operated by the limited liability company, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C, headquartered in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-2

• six new mainline valves (MLVs), four of which would occur along the 30-inch-diameter 

pipeline in Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin, and two which would 

occur along the 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Brown and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin. 

Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the proposed facilities. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

Guardian states that the G-II Project was conceived in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) 

issued on November 17, 2004 by three Wisconsin local distribution companies (LDCs) including 

We Energies, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 

(WPS). The RFP was developed by the LDCs for the purpose of establishing the infrastructure 

necessary to provide additional firm natural gas pipeline capacity that would allow for the 

delivery of natural gas to various points in Wisconsin by an in-service date of November 1, 2008. 

On February 3, 2006, negotiations between Guardian and the LDCs resulted in the execution of a 

Precedent Agreement between Guardian, WPS, and two We Energies entities (Wisconsin Gas, 

L.L.C. and Wisconsin Electric Power Company), which led to the establishment of the G-II 

Project. Under this agreement, the specific purpose of the G-II Project is to: 

• provide an increase of 537.2 MMcfd of physical pipeline capacity to better serve 

customers both within the eastern portion of Wisconsin and points along Guardian’s 

existing pipeline route in northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin; and 

• contribute to the diversification of the state of Wisconsin’s natural gas providers by 

providing a competitive supply of natural gas to Wisconsin’s LDCs and their utility 

customers. 

The Project is approximately 93 percent subscribed by the three LDCs with a primary term of 

15 years to meet the projected demands within their service territories. 

1.1.1 Projected Domestic Demand for Natural Gas 

Energy demand in the United States has been growing and continues to increase steadily. The 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Energy 

Outlook 2006 Overview estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will 

increase from 99.7 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) per year in 2004 to 127.0 quadrillion 

Btu per year in 2025, representing an annualized increase of 1.2 percent (EIA, 2006a). Although 

this energy will be obtained from a variety of sources (e.g., coal, petroleum, hydropower, and 

other renewable sources), natural gas usage is expected to represent about 22 percent of all 

energy consumption in the United States by 2025. To maintain pace with growing energy 

demands, the EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the United States will grow from 

22.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year in 2004 to 27.0 Tcf by 2025, an increase of more than 

20 percent. The growth in natural gas demand is being driven primarily by increased use of 

natural gas for electricity generation and industrial applications, which together account for 

62 percent of the projected demand growth from 2004 to 2025 (EIA, 2006a). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-3 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-1 General Project Location Map 

Figure 1-1 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

General Project Location Map 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-4

The United States natural gas supply currently comes from three main sources: domestic 

production, pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico, and imports of liquefied natural gas 

(LNG). Net pipeline imports of natural gas from Canada and Mexico are expected to decline in 

coming years, and although LNG represents an increasingly important source of natural gas, 

LNG imports are only expected to account for about 15 percent of total United States natural gas 

consumption by 2025. Domestic production of natural gas will continue to account for the 

majority of total United States consumption, with onshore production expected to account for the 

bulk of that supply, growing to 14.7 Tcf by 2025 (EIA, 2006a). Onshore production of natural 

gas from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal bed methane) is expected to 

be a major contributor to that growth. The EIA (2006a) projects that unconventional natural gas 

production in the lower 48 states will account for about 45 percent of total domestic production 

by 2030. 

1.1.2 Projected Regional and Local Demand for Natural Gas 

Within the East-North Central Region of the United States (including the states of Wisconsin, 

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan) the EIA estimates that energy consumption is on the rise. 

Total energy consumption in this region is estimated to increase from 16.268 quadrillion Btu in 

2003 to about 20.238 quadrillion Btu in 2025 (EIA 2006b). During this same time period, the 

total consumption of natural gas in this region is also expected to rise from 3.730 quadrillion Btu 

in 2005 to 5.047 quadrillion Btu in 2025, representing a 1.4 percent per year increase over the 

next 22 years (EIA, 2006b). 

Within the state of Wisconsin, 23 percent of the state’s energy consumption is supported by 

natural gas, which is lower than the use of coal and petroleum at 30 and 29 percent, respectively 

(WDOE, 2006). Renewable energy is also being used throughout the state but accounts for only 

a small percentage of the energy consumed. In 2004, renewable energy (the majority coming 

from wood heating) only accounted for 7 percent of residential energy use (UW Extension, 

2006). 

Total residential energy use in the state of Wisconsin constitutes the single biggest energy cost 

for most Wisconsin homes, consisting of 42 percent of the total energy cost for the average home 

(UW Extension, 2006). Energy use by this sector is also on the rise, tracking closely with the 

state’s increase in population. Between 1970 and 2004, both energy consumption and population 

increased by about 27 percent (UW Extension, 2006). 

Natural gas is used in the state primarily for residential heating and cooking, commercial and 

industrial applications, and electricity generation. Over the last 15 years, the state-wide 

consumption of natural gas has increased by more than 25 percent and now totals nearly 

400 billion cubic feet (Bcf) annually (WDOE, 2005; 2006). During this same time period, the 

number of residential and commercial/industrial gas customers in Wisconsin has grown by 

approximately 40 and 43 percent, respectively (WDOE, 2005). Currently, over two-thirds of all 

Wisconsin households use natural gas, as well as more than 151,000 businesses (WDOE, 2006). 

In 2005 alone, gas utilities in Wisconsin added about 28,746 new customers due to new 

construction and conversion to natural gas from other fuels such as oil and liquefied petroleum 

gas (LPG) (WDOE, 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-5 1.0 – Introduction

In the eastern portion of Wisconsin, the ability to meet the growing demand for natural gas is 

currently constrained due to the lack of existing pipeline capacity. In addition, the eastern 

Wisconsin market, north of Milwaukee, is currently served by a single interstate natural gas 

pipeline company. As a result, consumers have not been able to benefit from competition and 

expanded choices of supply. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) in their Draft 

2005 Strategic Energy Assessment Report indicates that the lack of sufficient natural gas 

supplies in the state is one of the key factors contributing to the recent and significant increases 

in the price of natural gas within Wisconsin (PSC, 2006). 

The Port Washington Generation Station, a 1,090-megawatt (MW) natural-gas-fueled power 

generator facility located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, would replace a former coal-fueled station. 

The Port Washington Generator Station is located in the G-II Project area. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The FERC is also the lead federal agency 

responsible for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and the 

FERC’s regulations for implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). The FERC will use this EIS in its 

review of Guardian’s application to determine whether to authorize the G-II Project. The 

Commission will consider the environmental issues, including our21

recommended mitigation 

measures, as well as non-environmental issues. Final authorization will be granted only if the 

Commission finds that the proposed G-II Project is in the public interest. The environmental 

impacts and mitigation measures discussed in this EIS are important factors in this final 

determination. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) are the cooperating federal and state agencies for the 

development of this EIS. A cooperating federal or state agency has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to environmental impacts involved with the proposal and is involved in the 

NEPA analysis. 

This document is a draft EIS that has been prepared for public review and comment. A final EIS 

will be prepared subsequently to respond to comments received on this draft EIS. The 

distribution list for this draft EIS is provided in appendix A to this EIS. Our principal purposes 

in preparing this EIS are to: 

• identify and assess potential impacts on the human environment that would result from 

the implementation of the proposed action; 

• identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the human environment; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental 

impacts; and 

 

2

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

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-6

• facilitate public involvement in identifying significant environmental impacts. 

Our analysis in this EIS focuses on facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction (i.e., the 

109.5 miles of pipeline and associated aboveground facilities proposed by Guardian). Nine 

nonjurisdictional facility projects would also be constructed in association with the G-II Project, 

which are discussed further in sections 1.5 and 2.9. 

The topics addressed in this EIS include alternatives; geology; soils and sediments; water use and 

quality; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; threatened, endangered, and special 

status species; land use, recreation, and visual resources; socioeconomics; transportation and 

traffic; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. 

This EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental 

consequences of the proposed G-II Project, and compares the project’s potential impacts to those 

of other alternatives. This EIS also presents our conclusions and recommended mitigation 

measures. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

As the lead federal agency for the G-II Project, the FERC is required to comply with Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966. Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this document. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by 

any federal agency (e.g., FERC) should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of habitat of such species which is determined...to be critical...” (16 United States Code 

Section 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The FERC, or Guardian as a non-federal party, is required to consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine whether any federally listed or 

proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat occur in the 

vicinity of the proposed Project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by the 

Applicant, the FERC determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the proposed 

Project, the FERC is required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) to identify the nature and 

extent of adverse impact, and to recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or 

species, or that would reduce potential impacts on acceptable levels. If, however, the FERC 

determines that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their 

designated critical habitat would be affected by the proposed Project, no further action is 

necessary under the ESA. See section 4.6 of this EIS for the status of this review. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended in 1992, requires the FERC to take into account the 

effects of its undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP), including prehistoric or historic sites, and districts, buildings, structures, 

objects, or properties of traditional religious or cultural importance. The NHPA also requires the 

FERC to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to 

comment. In accordance with the ACHP’s regulations for implementing Section 106, found at 

36 CFR 800, the FERC is using the services of the applicant, Guardian, and its consultants to 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-7 1.0 – Introduction

prepare information, analyses, and recommendations to assist in meeting our obligations to 

comply with the NHPA. As the lead federal agency for this project, the FERC will address 

compliance with the NHPA jointly for all federal cooperating agencies in this EIS. See section 

4.10 for the status of this review. 

Other Permits, Approvals, and Consultations

At the federal level, required permits and approval authority outside of FERC’s jurisdiction 

include compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbor Act, and the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). Several Wisconsin and Illinois state agencies have delegated responsibilities 

under the CWA and the CAA. 

Major permits, approvals, and consultations required for the G-II Project are identified in 

table 1.3-1. The FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and local 

authorities, but this does not mean that state and local agencies, through applications of state and 

local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities 

approved by the FERC. Any state or local permits issued with respect to jurisdictional facilities 

must be consistent with the conditions of any authorization issued by the FERC.32 

TABLE 1.3-1 

 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the G-II Project

Agency Permits/Approvals/Consultations Anticipated Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

FEDERAL 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Guardian filed an application on 

October 13, 2006 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species section 7 Consultation Consultations have been initiated and 

are ongoing 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – 

St. Paul District (Wisconsin) 

Section 404 Permit, Section 10 Permit Anticipate filing application in the spring 

of 2007 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Section 106 NHPA Pending—opportunity to comment if 

any historic property would be 

adversely affected 

Wisconsin Coastal Management 

Program 

Coastal Zone Consistency Review Anticipated filing spring of 2007 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Section 401 Permit Anticipated filing spring of 2007 

STATE – ILLINOIS 

Illinois EPA, Division of Water 

Pollution Control 

Storm Water Discharge – General NPDES Permit Anticipate filing application in 4th 

quarter 2007 or 1st quarter 2008 

 Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal – General Anticipate filing application in 4th 

quarter 2007 or 1st quarter 2008 

Illinois EPA, Division of Water 

Pollution Control 

Hydrostatic Discharge – General NPDES Permit Anticipate filing application in 4th 

quarter 2007 or 1st quarter 2008 

Illinois DNR, Division of Natural 

Resources Review and 

Coordination 

Natural Heritage Inventory Consultations were completed in 

August 2006 

 

3

 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service 

Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2n Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC 61,091 

(1990) and 59 FERC 61,094 (1992). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-8

TABLE 1.3-1 

 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the G-II Project

Agency Permits/Approvals/Consultations Anticipated Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources 

State Endangered Species Consultation Consultations were completed in 

August 2006 

Illinois State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) 

Section 106 NHPA Guardian initiated consultations with the 

Illinois SHPO on March 3, 2006. SHPO 

provided comments on September 5, 

2006. 

STATE – WISCONSIN 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

Chapter 30 permit for grading near and dredging 

and placing structures in and across public waters; 

Joint application with COE 404 Permit 

Anticipate filing application in spring of 

2007 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Joint 

Application with COE 

Anticipate filing application in spring of 

2007 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

Endangered Species Review Consultations have been initiated and 

are ongoing 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

Construction site erosion control and stormwater 

runoff, trench dewatering, and hydrostatic 

discharge – General Permit to Discharge under 

Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(WPDES) 

Anticipate filing application in 4th 

quarter 2007 or 1st quarter 2008 

Wisconsin SHPO Section 106 NHPA Guardian provided first draft of a 

cultural resources survey report to the 

Wisconsin SHPO on October 9, 2006. 

SHPO commented on November 9, 

2006. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On May 19, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Guardian Expansion/Extension Project, Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was sent to about 

600 interested parties including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; 

conservation organizations; local libraries and newspapers; and property owners within 0.5 mile 

of the compressor stations, within 50 feet of the proposed construction rights-of-way or crossed 

by the proposed pipeline. Issuance of the NOI opened the public comment period and 

established a closing date of June 23, 2006, for receiving written comments. In total, 80 letters 

were received in response to the NOI. 

On June 12, 13, and 14, 2006, the FERC and WDNR conducted a series of joint public scoping 

meetings in Green Bay, Fond du Lac, and Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, respectively, to provide an 

opportunity for the general public to learn more about the proposed G-II Project and to provide 

comments on environmental issues to be addressed in this EIS. A total of 27 people spoke at the 

meetings (including 18 at the Green Bay, 5 at the Fond du Lac, and 4 at the Oconomowoc 

meetings) and their comments were recorded both in support of and against the Project. 

The transcripts of all scoping meetings, as well as all written comments received before and after 

the scoping meetings are part of the public record for the proposed Project and are available for 

viewing on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov). During the pre-filing and scoping 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-9 1.0 – Introduction

periods for the proposed Project, we received a total of 124 comment letters from federal and 

state resource agencies and the general public, including members of local unions, businesses, 

colleges, and hospitals. Issues identified during scoping include impacts on land uses (e.g., 

farming and organic farming), wetlands, and waterbodies; water quality; vegetation and wildlife; 

threatened and endangered species; air and noise quality; future development; property values; 

tribal lands and cultural resources; the overall project purpose and need; environmental justice; 

safety; and potential alternatives to the proposed route and planned facilities. These issues and 

concerns identified by commentors during the public scoping process for the proposed Project 

are summarized in table 1.4-1, which also identifies the EIS section in which these issues are 

discussed. 

In addition to the public notice and scoping process discussed above, the FERC staff conducted 

agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings to identify issues that should be 

addressed in this EIS. This included an interagency meeting in Madison, Wisconsin on 

June 13, 2006 to discuss the Project and the environmental review process with other key federal 

and state agencies. These agencies included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

WDNR, PSC, and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

(DATCP). 

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

1.5.1 Background 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC considers all relevant factors bearing on the public 

convenience and necessity as part of a decision to approve jurisdictional facilities. The 

jurisdictional facilities for the G-II Project include the proposed new natural gas pipeline and its 

associated aboveground facilities. Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that 

do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. However, as part of FERC’s decision to 

certificate jurisdictional facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity 

must be considered. As such, the FERC may need to consider the environmental impact of 

related “nonjurisdictional” facilities that would be constructed for the purpose of delivering, 

receiving, or using the proposed gas volumes. Integrally related nonjurisdictional facilities could 

include major power facilities, such as cogeneration plants, as well as less significant facilities, 

such as lateral pipeline connections and electrical transmission lines to compressor stations and 

associated substations. 

There are nonjurisdictional facility projects related to the proposed G-II Project, including six 

intrastate natural gas pipeline laterals (pipeline laterals) and associated facilities that would 

interconnect with the new G-II pipeline at various locations in Wisconsin, one new electric 

power tie-in transmission line, and two transformer/substations to supply power to Guardian’s 

existing and new compressor stations in Sycamore, Illinois and LaGrange, Wisconsin 

(table 1.5-1). The pipeline laterals would be constructed and operated by the WPS and We 

Energies. The electrical power tie-in transmission line would be constructed, owned, and 

operated by the Commonwealth Edison Power Company (ComEd) and We Energies. These 

facilities are discussed in further detail in section 2.9. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-10

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process for the Proposed G-II Project

Issues/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

 Project purpose and need 1.1, 2.0, 

Maintenance procedures to be implemented during operation, including vegetation management and 

inspections 2.6 

 Potential damage to existing utilities, including water lines and irrigation systems 2.3 

Geology and Soils 

Impacts on soils, including compation, drainage, possible contamination, soil layer mixing and erosion potential 

following construction, and associated mitigation such as topsoil segregation 4.1, 4.2 

 Impacts on prime farmland soils 4.1, 4.2 

Water Resources 

 Use of HDD at major water crossings 4.3 

Impacts on waterbodies (rivers and streams), particularly those which are associated with crossings of major 

or state-designated scenic rivers; spills and contamination 4.3 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

 Impacts on native vegetation and forested habitats, including forest fragmentation, and rare plant communities 4.4 

Avoidance and minimization of impacts on sensitive habitats, including wetlands, bottomland, hardwoods, 

riparian habitats, native prairies and rangelands during construction and maintenance activities; mitigation for 

Project-related effects 4.4 

Wetland information including delineation, inventory, hydrological, ecological, soils, topographical and 

biological information 4.4 

 Impacts of invasive plant species 4.4 

Fish and Wildlife Resources 

Impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, including water temperature due to loss of riparian shading and impacts on 

spawning habitat 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 

 Potential impacts on colonial, nesting waterbirds or migratory bird species 4.5, 4.6 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

 Potential impacts on state and federally protected species 4.6 

Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas and Visual Resources 

Impacts on affected property including agriculture (drainage tiles), silviculture activities, gardening, and 

property access 4.7, 5.1 

 Proximity of pipeline to occupied structures 4.7, 5.1 

 Reduced property access during construction activitites 4.7, 5.1 

 Compatibility/potential conflicts with designated special use areas, including organic farming 4.7, 5.1 

 Impacts of aboveground facilities on visual resources 3.0, 4.7 

 Impacts of vegetation removal on visual resources 4.7, 5.1 

 Allowable uses/restrictions associated with future development along the permanent right-of-way 4.7, 5.1 

 Use of eminent domain 2.3 

Air Quality and Noise 

 Potential air emissison impacts from compressor stations during operation 4.11 

 Potential noise impacts from compressor stations during operation 4.11 

Cultural Resources 

 Identification, evaluation, and protection of potentially affected cultural resources 4.1 

Socioeconomics 

 Loss of timber production values for affected silvicultural operations 4.8 

 Potential effect on property values 4.8 

 Employment and economics (local and regional) 4.8 

 Impacts on development potential of property, including plans in progress and intents to develop 4.8 

 General economic effects to agricultural operations and livestock 4.8 

Reliability and Safety 

 Public safety; risk of leak, explosion or catastrophic event 4.12 

Cumulative Impacts 

 Cumulative impacts of similar proposed project pipelines 4.13 

Alternatives 

Analysis of alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations, including alternative compressor 

station sites 3.0 

Use of existing utility rights-of-way, section lines, property lines, existing roadways or abandoned 

railroad/recreation trails for the proposed pipeline route 3.0 

 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1-11 1.0 – Introduction

TABLE 1.5-1 

Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facility Projects for the G-II Project

Facility Projects Description 

We Energies – Hartford/West Bend 

Project 

A 14-mile two-segment (Hartford Segment 1 and West Bend Segment 2) 12-inchdiameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated within the counties of Dodge 

and Washington, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II 

pipeline at the proposed Rubicon Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the 

construction and operation of the Hartford/West Bend Gate Station, two 12-inch valves, 

and a new regulator station. 

We Energies – Fox Valley Project A 12.8-mile four-segment pipeline lateral comprised of 20-inch-diameter (Segment 1), 8-

inch-diameter (Segment 2), 16-inch-diameter (Segment 3), and 12-inch-diameter 

(Segment 4) lateral to be constructed and operated within the counties of Brown and 

Outagamie, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at 

the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the 

construction and operation of the Fox Valley Gate Station, Kaukauna Regulator Station, 

Kimberly Regulator Station, WPPI Delivery Point Customer Metering Facility, Appleton 

Regulator/Metering Station, and the Kaukauna and Little Chute Valve Assembly. 

WPS Sheboygan Project A 31.0-mile 14- and 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated 

within the counties of Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral 

would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed Sheboygan Meter Station. A 

2.07-mile 16-inch-diameter distribution pipeline would also be constructed and operated 

in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Additional facilities would include the construction and 

operation of odorization and pigging facilities, the New West Sheboygan Regulator 

Station, and the New Plymouth Regulator Station. Modifications would also be made to 

the existing Sheboygan ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station and the Plymouth ANR 

Meter/WPS Regulator Station. 

WPS Chilton Project A 1.75-mile 4-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated in Calumet 

County, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the 

proposed Chilton Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the construction and 

operation of odorization, pigging, and valve facilities and the New Chilton Regulator 

Station. Modifications would also be made to the existing Chilton ANR Meter/WPS 

Regulator Station and distribution system connection facilities. 

WPS Denmark Project A 14.25-mile 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated in Brown 

County, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the 

proposed Denmark Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the construction 

and operation of odorization and pigging facilities and modifications would be made to 

the existing Denmark ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station. 

WPS Southwest Green Bay Project A 8.25-mile 12- and 20-inch-diameter pipeline lateral that would be constructed and 

operated in Brown County, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the 

G-II pipeline at the proposed Southwest Green Bay Meter Station. Additional facilities 

would include the construction and operation of odorization, pigging, and valve facilities 

and the Southwest Green Bay Regulator Station. Modification would also be made to 

the existing ANR Green Bay Meter/WPS Broadway Regulator Station. 

WPS West Green Bay Project Facilities and modifications would include the construction and operation of flow control 

and odorization facilities, and modifications to the existing ANR West Green Bay Meter 

Station. 

ATC Project Facilities would consist of the construction and operation of the Bluff Creek 

Transformer/Substation in Walworth County, Wisconsin. The transformer/substation 

would be constructed and operated wholly within the boundaries of the proposed Bluff 

Creek Compressor Station. 

ComEd Project Facilities would include the construction and operation of 2.5 miles of the new Sycamore 

Compressor Station Power Line and the Sycamore Transformer/Substation in DeKalb 

County, Illinois. The transformer/substation will be constructed and operated wholly 

within the boundaries of the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
1.0 – Introduction 1-12

The FERC has adopted a four-factor procedure to determine the appropriate scope of its 

environmental review when project-related nonjurisdictional facilities are involved. These 

factors are: 

• whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

• whether there are aspects of the nonjurisctional facilities in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity that affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity; 

• the extent to which the entire project would be within FERC jurisdiction; and 

• the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 

1.5.2 Conclusions 

After applying the four-factor test, we conclude that: 

• the FERC’s control and responsibility is not sufficient to extend its environmental review 

to include the associated nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals by We Energies and WPS; 

• environmental review of the nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals are already being 

conducted by the Wisconsin PSC and WDNR and it would be duplicative to include an 

environmental review of those facilities in this EIS; and 

• the powerlines that would be constructed by American Transmission Company, LLC 

(ATC) and ComEd to Guardian’s compressor stations are addressed in this EIS. 

These conclusions notwithstanding, the environmental effects of the nonjurisdictional facilities 

associated with the proposed G-II Project are addressed in the cumulative impacts analysis 

section 4.13.2. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-1 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The proposed action before the FERC is to consider 

issuing to Guardian a Section 7 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to 

construct, own, operate, and maintain a new interstate natural gas pipeline and associated 

ancillary facilities. 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

Guardian proposes to expand the delivery capacity of its existing pipeline by constructing two 

new compressor stations along its current pipeline facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin. In 

addition, Guardian proposes to extend its pipeline facilities by constructing 109.5 miles of new 

pipeline consisting of 30-inch and 20-inch-diameter pipeline from its current pipeline terminus in 

Ixonia, Wisconsin to a new terminus west of Green Bay in Oneida, Wisconsin. Additional 

facilities would include modification to one existing meter station, seven new meter stations, six 

MLVs, and two sets of launcher/receiver facilities in the counties of Walworth, Jefferson, 

Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie, Wisconsin and De Kalb County, Illinois. 

A general location plan is shown on figure 1-1. Detailed pipeline route and facility maps are 

included in appendix B. 

The following section describes the proposed pipeline facilities, land requirements, construction 

procedures and schedule, environmental compliance and inspection monitoring, operation and 

maintenance procedures, safety controls, and nonjurisdictional facilities. 

2.1.1 Pipeline 

The natural gas pipeline proposed by Guardian would consist of approximately 83.6 miles of 

30-inch-diameter pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie 

Counties, Wisconsin and 25.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Brown and Outagamie 

Counties, Wisconsin. This pipeline would be capable of transporting about 537.2 MMcfds of 

natural gas. Of this amount, Guardian would transport 100 MMcfds of natural gas to points 

along its existing pipeline and 437.2 MMcfd of natural gas to Wisconsin intrastate markets, via 

seven new delivery points/interconnects (see table 2.1.1-1). 

TABLE 2.1.1-1 

Proposed Delivery Points/Interconnects and Meter Station Locations

Delivery Point/Interconnection Pipeline Milepost a/ 

We Energies Hartford/West Bend 13.3 

We Energies Fox Valley 83.7 

WPS Sheboygan 43.9 

WPS Chilton 66.4 

WPS Denmark 91.6 

WPS Southwest Green Bay 93.9 

WPS West Green Bay 109.9 b/ 

a/ Milepost location from which a lateral pipeline to the delivery point/interconnect would leave the G-II pipeline. 

b/ The discrepancy between the length of the pipeline (109.5 miles) and the mileposting system is the result of route 

modifications that were adopted by Guardian after the mileposting system for the Project was established. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-2

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

2.1.2.1 Compressor Stations 

The aboveground facilities proposed by Guardian include two new 39,000-hp electric-motordriven, compressor stations—the Sycamore Compressor Station located within the Sycamore 

Township in DeKalb County, Illinois, and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station located within the 

Town of LaGrange in Walworth County, Wisconsin. Each compressor station facility would 

include: 

• a compressor building (approximately 70 feet by 60 feet, housing one 39,000-hp 

compressor, variable speed hydraulic drive, and electric motor); 

• gas coolers; 

• an electrical substation; 

• an auxiliary building (approximately 140 feet by 40 feet); 

• an emergency generator; 

• foundations, pipe supports, and landscaping that includes fencing and crushed stone 

ground cover; 

• a permanent access road; and 

• a 30-inch launcher/receiver setting and suction and discharge piping. 

Suction and discharge piping would also be constructed in support of each new compressor 

station. This piping would be constructed entirely within the property that Guardian plans to 

acquire for each new compressor station and Guardian’s existing pipeline right-of-way. 

2.1.2.2 Meter Stations 

Guardian would modify its existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin and 

construct seven new meter stations at each of the delivery points/interconnects along the 

proposed pipeline route in Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin. Detailed maps of the pipeline route and meter station locations are provided in 

appendix B. 

2.1.2.3 Launcher/Receiver Facilities 

In addition to the 30-inch launcher/receiver setting and suction and discharge piping that would 

be constructed at the compressor stations, Guardian would also construct new 30-inch and 

20-inch-diameter launcher/receiver facilities at three of the proposed meter station sites. The 

30-inch-diameter launcher would be constructed within Guardian’s existing Ixonia Meter Station 

in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. The new 30-inch-diameter receiver would be constructed 

within the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station in Brown County, Wisconsin. The Fox Valley 

Meter Station would also house the new 20-inch launcher facility. The new 20-inch receiver 

facility would be constructed within the proposed West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie 

County, Wisconsin at the northern terminus of the new pipeline. 

2.1.2.4 Mainline Valves 

Guardian would install six new MLVs. Four of these MLVs would be installed along the 

30-inch-diameter pipeline at mileposts (MPs) 19.0, 38.8, 45.8, and 64.6 in Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin, respectively. The two remaining MLVs would be installed 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-3 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

along the 20-inch-diameter pipeline at MPs 93.9 and 104.9 in Brown and Outagamie Counties, 

Wisconsin. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Construction of Guardian’s proposed pipeline and related facilities would disturb about 1,587.2 

acres of land. Of this total, about 1,323.1 acres would be disturbed by the pipeline construction 

rights-of-way, 176.3 acres would be disturbed by additional temporary workspace, 12.2 acres 

would be disturbed by access roads, and 27.6 acres would be disturbed by contractor and pipe 

yards. Construction of the aboveground facilities would affect about 48.0 acres. 

Operation of the new facilities would require about 702.8 acres of the 1,578.2 acres used for 

construction. Of this total, 664.2 acres would be for the permanent pipeline right-of-way and 

38.6 acres would be for the operation of aboveground facilities and permanent access roads. The 

remaining 884.4 acres would be restored to its preconstruction condition or allowed to revert to 

its former use. 

Table 2.2-1 summarizes the land requirements for the proposed facilities. Additional 

information regarding land requirements of the proposed project facilities is included below and 

in section 4.7.1. 

TABLE 2.2-1 

Summary of Land Requirements for Proposed Facilities

Facility Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

Pipeline 

 Pipeline Right-of-Way 

 30-inch-diameter Pipeline 1,078.2 a/ 507.7 

 20-Inch-diameter Pipeline 244.9 156.5 

 Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces 176.3 0.0 

 Contractor Pipe Yard 27.6 0.0 b/ 

 Access Roads b/ 12.2 0.0 

Subtotal 1,539.2 664.2 

Aboveground Facilities 

 Sycamore Compressor Station 22.5 12.5 

 Bluff Creek Compressor Station 20.7 20.0 

 Rubicon Meter Station 0.7 0.5 

 Sheboygan Meter Station 0.7 1.1 c/ 

 Chilton Meter Station 0.6 0.6 

 Fox Valley Meter Station 1.4 1.8 c/ 

 Denmark Meter Station 0.7 0.5 

 Southwest Green Bay Meter Station 0.7 1.1 c/ 

 West Green Bay Meter Station c/ 0.7 0.5 

Subtotal 48.0 38.6 

Total 1,587.2 702.8 

a/ Includes nominal 110- and 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the main pipeline and laterals and a 75-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way in wetlands and forested lands, respectively. 

b/ Guardian will permanently retain three of the access roads that are used for construction to operate the Sheboygan, Fox 

Valley, and Southwest Green Bay Meter Stations. The acreage permanently impacted by these roads is included as part of the 

land affected by the operation of these meter stations. 

c/ Acreage affected by operation includes a permanent access road outside the fence line of these meter stations. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-4

2.2.1 Pipeline 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require acquisition of both temporary and 

permanent right-of-way easements. Guardian proposes to install the 30-inch-diameter pipeline 

using a 110-foot-wide construction right-of-way (consisting of 50 feet of permanent easement 

and 60 feet of temporary workspace). It proposes to install the proposed 20-inch-diameter 

pipeline using an 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way (consisting of 50 feet of permanent 

easement and 30 feet of temporary workspace). In wetlands and forested uplands, Guardian 

would reduce the width of the construction right-of-way for the 30-inch- and 20-inch-diameter 

pipelines to 75 feet (consisting of 50 feet of permanent easement and 25 feet of temporary 

workspace). Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, and 2.2-3 show typical right-of-way cross-sections for the 

proposed pipeline. 

The FERC regulations (18 CFR, Section 380.15[d][1]) encourage the use, enlargement, or 

extension of existing rights-of-way over developing a new right-of-way in order to reduce 

potential impacts on potentially sensitive resources. In general, installation of new pipeline 

along existing, cleared rights-of-way (e.g., pipeline, powerline, road, or railroad) may be 

environmentally preferable to construction along new rights-of-way to reduce forest 

fragmentation and to at least partially overlap previously disturbed and currently maintained 

rights-of-way. Approximately 33.5 miles (30.6 percent) of Guardian’s proposed construction 

right-of-way would be located adjacent to or within existing rights-of-way. A summary of the 

location of adjacent existing rights-of-way in relation to the proposed pipeline facilities is 

presented in table 2.2.1-1. Where the pipeline would be directly adjacent to an existing utility, 

the new pipeline would be offset about 35 to 50 feet from the existing utility. Figures 2.2-4, 

2.2-5, 2.2-6, and 2.2-7 show typical right-of-way cross-sections for the proposed pipeline when 

located adjacent to an existing utility. 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Locations Where the Proposed G-II Pipeline Would be Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way a/

Facility/County Mileposts Length 

(mi.) Existing Right-of-Way Relationship of Proposed Pipeline 

to Existing Rights-of-Way 

30-inch-diameter pipeline 

Dodge County 0.4 – 0.9 0.5 Fox Road East 

 5.1 – 5.5 0.4 Bluebird Road East 

Fond du Lac County 56.3 – 59.5 3.2 ATC West 

Calumet County 59.5 – 60.5 1.0 ATC West 

 61.6 – 62.9 1.3 ATC North 

 65.0 – 66.3 1.4 ATC West 

 66.5 – 67.4 0.9 ATC East 

 67.6 – 77.3 9.7 ATC East 

 78.9 – 79.1 0.3 ATC North 

 79.1 – 80.0 0.9 ANR Pipeline West 

 80.0 – 82.4 2.4 ANR Pipeline East 

20-inch-diameter pipeline

Brown County 93.4 – 96.3 2.8 ATC Southwest 

 96.7 – 96.9 0.2 South Overland Road East 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-5 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Locations Where the Proposed G-II Pipeline Would be Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way a/

Facility/County Mileposts Length 

(mi.) Existing Right-of-Way Relationship of Proposed Pipeline 

to Existing Rights-of-Way 

Outagamie County 100.9 – 102.7 0.7 ATC West 

Outagamie County 102.0 – 104.4 1.7 ANR Pipeline East 

 104.4 – 104.7 0.3 State Highway 54 North 

 105.0 – 105.7 0.7 Olson Road North 

 105.7 – 105.9 0.2 Pearl Street North 

 105.9 – 107.3 1.4 ANR Pipeline West 

 107.4 – 107.6 0.1 Cooper Road South 

 107.6 – 109.1 1.5 Olson Road East 

 109.1 – 109.9 0.8 Olson Road West 

Total 33.5 (30.6%)

a/ At this time, Guardian does not know the width of parallel rights-of-way or the amount of overlap that may be available. 

Guardian does not expect this information will be available until after discussions with the owners of adjacent rights-of-way 

have taken place. 

Note: The length and total length may differ slightly from the measured distance between mileposts due to rounding. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The land requirements for each of the proposed aboveground facilities are listed in table 2.2-1 

and discussed in further detail below. 

2.2.2.1 Compressor Stations 

Construction of the Sycamore Compressor Station and associated permanent access road would 

disturb approximately 22.5 acres. Approximately 12.5 acres would be fenced, covered with 

gravel, and permanently retained to operate the facility. 

Construction of the Bluff Creek Compressor Station and associated access road would disturb 

approximately 20 acres. All 20 acres of land would be fenced, covered with gravel, and 

permanently retained to operate the facility. 

2.2.2.2 Meter Stations 

The proposed modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station would be confined to the 

existing 3.0-acre meter station property. Construction of each of the new meter stations would 

disturb between 0.6 and 1.4 acres of land (see table 2.2-1). About 0.5 acre of land (130 feet by 

170 feet) would be permanently retained to operate five of the seven new meter stations 

including the Rubicon, Sheboygan, Denmark, Southwest Green Bay, and West Green Bay Meter 

Stations. The Chilton Meter Station would permanently occupy about 0.6 acre of land (160 feet 

by 170 feet). The Fox Valley Meter Station would permanently occupy about 1.2 acres (225 feet 

by 225 feet) of land. Additional acreage for permanent access roads would be required at the 

Sheboygan (0.6 acre), Fox Valley (0.6 acre), and Southwest Green Bay Meter Stations (0.6 acre). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-6

Figure 2.2-1 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (30-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-1 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (30-inch Pipeline) 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-7 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Figure 2.2-2 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (20-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-2 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (20-inch Pipeline) 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-8

Figure 2.2-3 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section in Forested Uplands and Wetland Areas 

Figure 2.2-3 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section in Forested Uplands and Wetland Areas 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-9 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Figure 2.2-4 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing Power Line 

(30-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-4 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section 

Adjacent to an Existing Power Line (30-inch Pipeline) 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-10

Figure 2.2-5 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing Power Line 

(20-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-5 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section 

Adjacent to an Existing Power Line (20-inch Pipeline) 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-11 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Figure 2.2-6 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing Pipeline 

(30-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-6 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section 

Adjacent to an Existing Pipeline (30-inch Pipeline)

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-12

Figure 2.2-7 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing Pipeline 

(20-inch-diameter Pipeline) 

Figure 2.2-7 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section 

Adjacent to an Existing Pipeline (20-inch Pipeline) 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-13 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.2.2.3 Launcher/Receiver Facilities 

No additional land would be disturbed or permanently retained for the construction and operation 

of the new launchers or receiver facilities. Each launcher and/or receiver would be located 

within the existing meter station in Ixonia, Wisconsin and the proposed meter stations of Fox 

Valley and West Green Bay. 

2.2.2.4 Mainline Valves 

Construction of each MLV would disturb approximately 0.1 acre of extra temporary workspace 

outside of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way. 

No new permanent right-of-way outside of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would be 

required for the valves; however, an area of about 0.03 acre (50 feet by 30 feet) would be fenced 

and covered with gravel at each valve site within Guardian’s new permanent easement at each of 

the six MLV locations. 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas 

2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Work Areas 

In addition to the typical 110- and 80-foot-wide construction rights-of-way, additional temporary 

workspaces would be required to facilitate construction at road, railroad, wetland, and waterbody 

crossings; in areas with steep side slopes; in agricultural areas for three-lift soil handling; topsoil 

segregation; for installation of cathodic protection; for truck turnarounds; at valve sites; at 

hydrostatic test water withdrawal pump locations; at tie-ins; at points of intersection, and at 

foreign pipeline crossings. Additional temporary workspace would also be required whenever 

special construction techniques, such as horizontal borings, would be utilized. Except as 

otherwise requested, or where topographic or other factors impose setback constraints, temporary 

extra workspaces would be set back 50 feet from the edges of waterbodies and wetlands (see 

sections 4.3.2.2 and 4.4.1.3 for a list of requested deviations from the 50-foot setback 

requirement). 

Additional temporary workspace of varying dimensions would be required at about 505 locations 

throughout the proposed pipeline route, primarily at crossings of existing utilities, roads, 

waterbodies, and wetlands (see appendix C). 

2.2.3.2 Access Roads and Contractor Yard 

Guardian has identified 24 access roads that it would use for construction and operation of its 

proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities. Of this amount, 16 are existing roads and 8 roads 

would be newly constructed and/or extensions of existing roads. Of the 8 newly constructed 

roads, only 3 would be retained for permanent access (see table 2.2.3.2-1). 

Road improvements would take place within the existing road footprints and no wetland or 

waterbodies would be affected due to road improvements. A total of about 12.2 acres would be 

required for the access roads used during construction. Of this amount, 1.8 acres would be 

retained for permanent access. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-14

TABLE 2.2.3.2-1 

Access Roads Associated with the G-II Project

Milepost Road Name/ 

Destination 

New/ 

Existing 

Permanent/ 

Temporary Acres Affected 

0.7 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.0 

9.7 G-II Access Road New Temporary 0.1 

22.7 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.1 

16.6 G-II Access Road (Extension to Private Drive) New Temporary 0.2 

16.6 Field Road Existing Temporary 0.2 

21.0 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.2 

21.1 G-II Access Road (Extension to Private Drive) Existing Temporary 0.1 

21.1 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.6 

25.5 G-II Access Road New Temporary 0.1 

27.1 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.3 

30.5 Field Road Existing Temporary 0.8 

36.3 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.6 

38.5 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.4 

40.0 Field Road Existing Temporary 1.7 

43.8 G-II Access Road New Permanent 0.6 

45.1 Field Road Existing Temporary 0.3 

50.2 Field Road Existing Temporary 1.3 

72.9 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.7 

77.7 Private Drive Existing Temporary 1.1 

77.7 G-II Access Road (Extension to Private Drive) New Temporary 0.2 

83.7 G-II Access Road to the Fox Valley Meter Station New Permanent 0.6 

87.7 Private Drive Existing Temporary 0.8 

93.9 G-II Access Road New Permanent 0.6 

102.3 Field Road Existing Temporary 0.6 

 Total 12.2 

Guardian has identified one potential contractor and pipe yard location for use during the Project. 

This yard will be located in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin on land zoned for industrial use, but 

currently in use for agriculture (see figure 2.2-8). This yard is about 27.6 acres and would only 

be used temporarily during construction of the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 2-15 

Figure 2.2-8 Guardian Expansion and Extension Project 

Fond du Lac Pipe/Contractor Yard 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-16

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

This section describes the general construction procedures proposed by Guardian for 

construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Section 4.0 of this EIS contains more 

detailed discussions of proposed construction and restoration procedures, as well as additional 

measures that we are recommending to mitigate environmental impacts. 

The proposed pipeline facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CFR 192, 

Transportation of Natural or Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. 

Among other items, these regulations specify material selection, design criteria, corrosion 

protection, and qualification for welders and operation personnel. In addition, Guardian would 

comply with the Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR 380.15, regarding the siting and 

maintenance of pipeline rights-of-way. The Project would also adhere to the federal standards 

that are intended to adequately protect the public by preventing or mitigating natural gas pipeline 

failures or accidents, and ensure safe operation of the facilities. 

Guardian would construct the project facilities in accordance with our Upland, Erosion Control, 

Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures (Procedures). The Plan and Procedures are a set of construction and 

mitigation measures that were developed in collaboration with other federal and state agencies 

and the natural gas pipeline industry to minimize the potential environmental impact of the 

construction of pipeline projects in general. It is our position that the proper implementation of 

our Plan and Procedures would adequately minimize construction-related impacts on soil, 

waterbodies, and wetlands in general. Our Plan and Procedures have been included as 

appendices D and E. 

Guardian has requested to use an 80- to a 110-foot-wide nominal construction right-of-way. The 

construction rights-of-way that have been proposed are the result of consultations between 

Guardian and the DATCP. The DATCP has specifically requested that Guardian achieve a 

minimum of 4 feet of cover over the pipeline in agricultural areas. This depth of burial is deeper 

than that required by the DOT; however, the DATCP believes, and we agree, that the additional 

cover would minimize interference to agricultural drainage tiles, and other agricultural 

operations. As a result of the greater depth of burial, pipeline trenching would result in 

additional spoil and would therefore require additional construction right-of-way space to 

facilitate spoil storage and minimize mixing of topsoil with subsoil during construction. 

Guardian has agreed to use a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in the majority of wetlands 

crossed by the G-II pipeline; however, in farmed wetlands Guardian proposes to use an 80- to a 

110-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Guardian would also be required to develop a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures 

Plan (SPCC Plan) to be implemented during construction of the facilities. The SPCC Plan must 

address potential spills of fuel, lubricants, and other hazardous materials and describe spill 

prevention practices, spill handling and emergency notification procedures, and training 

requirements. A general SPCC Plan has been provided as appendix F. This SPCC Plan will be 

updated with site-specific information and filed with the Secretary prior to construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-17 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.3.1 Pipeline and Associated Aboveground Facilities 

2.3.1.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Prior to initiating construction-related activities, Guardian would secure right-of-way easements 

from private landowners and managers of public lands whose properties would be crossed by the 

pipeline route. All owners, tenants, and lessees of private land, and lessees and managers of 

public lands along the right-of-way would be notified in advance of construction activities that 

could affect their property, business, or operations. If the necessary land rights or easements 

could not be obtained through good faith negotiations with landowners, and the proposed Project 

has been certificated by the FERC, Guardian may use the right of eminent domain granted to it 

under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain a right-of-way. Guardian would still be required to 

compensate the landowners for the rights-of-way, as well as for any damages incurred during 

construction. However, the level of compensation would be determined by the court according 

to state laws that set forth the procedures for the use of eminent domain once the FERC issues a 

Certificate. Guardian must proceed through the appropriate state or federal court to condemn 

land for which it has received a Certificate from the FERC. The FERC does not take part in such 

proceedings. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline facilities would incorporate conventional overland 

construction techniques for large diameter pipelines. The construction of the proposed pipeline 

would follow a set of sequential operations, unique to the pipeline industry, as shown on 

figure 2.3-1 and as further described below. In the typical pipeline construction scenario, the 

construction spread (crew) proceeds along the pipeline right-of-way in one continuous operation. 

As the spread moves along, construction at any single point along the pipeline, from initial 

surveying and clearing to backfilling and finish grading, is expected to last approximately 6 to 

10 weeks. The entire process would be coordinated in such a manner as to minimize the total 

time a tract of land is disturbed and therefore exposed to erosion, and temporarily precluded from 

normal use. 

Survey and Staking 

Affected landowners would be notified prior to the commencement of preconstruction survey 

and staking activities. After these notifications, a crew would survey and stake the outside limits 

of the right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces, as well as the centerline of the 

pipeline, drainages, highway and railroad crossings, and access roads. The exterior boundary of 

these areas would be maintained throughout the construction period. Existing utility lines (e.g., 

cables, conduits, and pipelines) would be located and marked with flags, stakes, or other devices 

to prevent accidental damage during pipeline construction. 

Erosion and Sediment Control 

Temporary soil erosion and sedimentation control measures would be installed along the rightof-way, access roads, and additional temporary extra workspace in accordance with the standard 

requirements for pipeline construction and operation in our Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-18

Figure 2.3-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 

Figure 2.3-1 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project 

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-19

Clearing and Grading 

Following the installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, the construction 

right-of-way and additional temporary work spaces would be cleared and graded as necessary. 

Large obstacles, such as trees, rocks, brush, and logs, would be removed. Timber would be 

removed only when necessary for construction purposes. Timber and other vegetative debris 

may be chipped for use as erosion-control mulch or otherwise disposed of in accordance with 

applicable local regulations and landowner requirements. If permitted, burning would be 

conducted in such a manner as to minimize fire hazard and prevent heat damage to surrounding 

vegetation. Fences would be cut and braced along the right-of-way and temporary gates would 

be installed as necessary to control livestock and limit public access. The right-of-way would 

then be graded where necessary to create a reasonably level working surface to allow safe 

passage of equipment. Temporary bridges and culverts would be established for creek and 

drainage ditch crossings. In agricultural and residential areas, conserved topsoil would be 

stockpiled, usually along one side of the right-of-way, allowing the other side to be used for 

access, material transport, and pipe assembly. 

Trenching 

Trench excavation is necessary to bury the pipeline underground. The trench would be 

excavated with a rotary trenching machine, a track-mounted backhoe, or similar equipment. 

Blasting may be required to excavate the trench in some locations where rock substrates are 

encountered at depths that interfere with conventional excavation or rock-trenching methods (see 

section 4.4.1). In agricultural and residential areas, subsoil would be stockpiled separately from 

topsoil. Typically, the bottom of the trench would be excavated at least 12 inches wider than the 

diameter of the pipe (i.e., 42 inches for a 30-inch-diameter pipe). The sides of the trench may be 

sloped for safety. The width of the top of the trench would vary depending on the soils being 

crossed. At tie-in locations, the top of the trench is expected to be between about 12 to 15 feet 

across. The width of the trench in unstable soils could be even wider. The trench would be 

excavated to a sufficient depth to generally allow a minimum of 4 feet of soil cover between the 

top of the pipe and the final land surface after backfilling. Areas containing shallow bedrock 

may have less than 4 feet of cover. At least 4 feet of cover would typically be used at waterbody 

crossings. Excavated soils would be stockpiled along the right-of-way, typically on the side of 

the trench away from the construction traffic (the “spoil side”) and pipe assembly area. 

Pipe Stringing 

Steel pipe for the pipeline would be procured in nominal 40-foot, 60-foot, and 80-foot lengths or 

joints, protected with an epoxy coating applied at the factory (the beveled ends would be left 

uncoated for welding), and shipped to the contractor/pipe storage yards. The individual joints 

would be transported to the right-of-way by truck and placed along the excavated trench in a 

single, continuous line, easily accessible to the construction personnel on the working side of the 

trench, opposite the spoil side. This would allow the subsequent lineup and welding operations 

to proceed efficiently. At waterbody crossings, the amount of pipe that would be required to 

span the waterbody typically would be stockpiled in temporary work areas on one or both banks 

of the waterbody. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-20

Pipe Bending 

The pipe would be delivered to the project site in straight sections. Generally, some bending of 

the pipe would be required to allow the pipeline to follow natural grade changes and direction 

changes of the right-of-way. Selected joints would be field bent by track-mounted hydraulic 

bending machines as necessary prior to line-up and welding. For larger horizontal changes of 

direction, manufactured induction bends may be used. 

Pipe Assembly and Welding 

Following stringing and bending, the joints of pipe would be placed on temporary supports 

adjacent to the trench. The ends would be carefully aligned and welded together using multiple 

passes for a full penetration weld. Only qualified welders according to applicable American 

National Standards Institute, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and American 

Petroleum Institute (API) Standards would be permitted to perform the welding. 

X-Ray and Weld Repair 

To ensure that the assembled pipe would meet the design strength requirements, the welds would 

be visually inspected and non-destructively tested using radiographic (x-ray) or another approved 

test method, in accordance with API Standards. Welds displaying inclusions (void spaces) or 

other defects would be repaired or cut out (removed) and a new weld would be installed and 

retested. 

Coating Field Welds, Inspection, and Repair 

Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the joints would be epoxy coated. 

Prior to lowering the pipe into the trench, the coating on the pipe section would be inspected. 

Any damaged areas that are identified would be repaired. 

Pipe Lowering 

The completed section of pipe would be lifted off the temporary supports and lowered into the 

trench by side-boom tractors or in some cases other equipment. Before lowering the pipe, the 

trench would be inspected to ensure that it is free of debris that could damage the pipe or the 

coating. In addition, the pipe and trench would be inspected to ensure that the pipe and trench 

configurations are compatible. 

Padding and Backfilling 

After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the trench would be backfilled. Previously excavated 

spoil would be pushed back into the trench using bladed equipment or backhoes. Where the 

trench spoil contains materials that could damage the pipe or coating, clean fill or protective 

materials would be placed around the pipe prior to backfilling. Following backfilling, a small 

crown of soil may be left to account for any future settling that might occur. 

Hydrostatic Test and Final Tie-In 

Following backfilling of the trench, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested to ensure it is 

capable of operating at the design pressure. The new pipeline would be hydrostatically tested 

prior to being placed into service. The hydrostatic test water for the pipeline facilities would be 

pumped through screened intakes from waterbodies located along or near the pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-21 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Hydrostatic test water for the compressor stations would be obtained from municipal sources or 

from wells Guardian proposes to install at each compressor station. The water in the pipe would 

be pressurized and held for a minimum of 8 hours. Any loss of pressure that cannot be attributed 

to other factors, such as temperature changes, would be investigated. Leaks that are detected 

would be repaired. Upon completion of the testing, the water would generally be discharged 

back to the source through an energy-dissipating device, or where that is not practical, water 

would be discharged to an upland area that is well vegetated, or other location using a filter bag 

or other energy dissipating device. If necessary, hydrostatic test water would be discharged 

through a filtration system to remove any sediment or other pollutants pursuant to applicable 

permit requirements. Hydrostatic test water obtained from municipal sources or from Guardian’s 

own wells would be discharged to an upland are that is well vegetated, or other location using a 

filter bag or other energy dissipating device. 

Hydrostatic test water would generally be in contact with new pipe. No chemicals would be 

added to the testing water. Once a segment of pipe has been successfully tested and dried, the 

test cap and manifold would be removed, and the pipe would be connected to the remainder of 

the pipeline. Hydrostatic testing is further addressed in section 4.3.2.4. 

Cleanup and Restoration 

After the pipeline has been installed and the trench has been backfilled, the areas disturbed by 

construction would be graded as necessary. Construction debris would be disposed of properly 

and land contours would be restored to conform to adjacent areas. In agricultural and residential 

areas, compacted subsoil would be decompacted, and the segregated topsoil would be returned as 

nearly as possible to its original horizon. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures 

would be installed at this time. Private and public property, such as fences, gates, driveways, 

and roads, disturbed by pipeline construction would be restored in accordance with the standard 

requirements in our Plan and Guardian’s project-specific Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan 

(AMP). The AMP is being developed in consultation with the DATCP and will be included in 

the final EIS. 

2.3.1.2 Special Pipeline Construction Techniques 

Road and Railroad Crossings 

Construction of the pipeline across major paved roadways and railways where traffic cannot be 

interrupted would be accomplished by conventional boring techniques. Roads and railroads that 

would be crossed using this methodology are listed in appendix G. Smaller, unpaved roads and 

drives would be crossed by open trenching. If an open-cut road requires extensive construction 

time, provisions would be made for detours, or other measures would be implemented to permit 

traffic flow during construction. The top of the pipeline would be installed to a depth of at least 

4 feet below the bottom of the road ditches (see figure 2.3-2) and would be designed to withstand 

anticipated external loading. Casings would be installed where required by permitting 

authorities. Following installation of the pipeline, the trench would be backfilled and the road 

surface would be restored. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-22

Figure 2.3-2 Typical 20-inch-diameter and 30-inch-diameter Pipeline Road Bored Crossing 

Figure 2.3-2 

Guardian Expansion and Extension Project

Typical 20-inch and 30-inch Pipeline Road Bored Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-23 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Wetland Crossings 

Crossings of jurisdictional wetlands would be conducted in accordance with our Procedures. 

Our Procedures regarding the crossing of wetlands have been included as appendix E. 

Waterbody Crossings 

Crossings of waterbodies would be conducted in accordance with our Procedures. 

Installation of the pipeline across waterbodies would be accomplished using either a “wet” or 

“dry” construction technique. A “wet” or open-cut crossing involves trenching and installing the 

pipeline without isolating the construction work area from stream flow. The objective of this 

method is to complete the crossing as quickly as practicable to minimize the duration of impacts 

on aquatic resources. A “dry” crossing involves isolating the construction zone from the stream 

flow by directing water flow through a flume pipe (flume crossing), by damming the flow and 

pumping the water around the construction area (dam and pump crossing), or by directionally 

drilling and installing the pipeline beneath the waterbody (horizontal directional drilling [HDD]). 

The primary objectives of these methods are to minimize siltation of the waterbody and allow for 

a more extended construction period. 

Residential Areas 

Where residences are located in proximity to the construction right-of-way, Guardian would 

reduce construction workspace, if necessary, to minimize inconvenience to property owners. If 

construction requires the removal of private property features, such as gates or fences, the 

landowner or tenant would be notified prior to the action. Following completion of major 

construction, the property would be restored as requested by the landowner in accordance with 

Guardian’s easement agreements, insofar as the landowner’s requirements are compatible with 

existing regulations and with Guardian’s standards regarding right-of-way restoration and 

maintenance. 

Agricultural Areas 

Guardian estimates that about 92 percent of the pipeline construction route is agricultural land. 

Guardian would cross these agricultural lands in accordance with the standard requirements for 

pipeline construction in our Plan and Guardian’s project-specific AMP currently under 

development. Guardian would conserve topsoil in all actively cultivated and rotated cropland, 

improved pasture, non-saturated wetlands, and residential areas. A maximum of 12 inches of 

topsoil would be segregated in these areas; in other areas topsoil would be segregated at the 

specific request of the landowner or land management agency. The topsoil and subsoil would be 

stored in separate windrows on the construction right-of-way and would not be allowed to mix. 

Where topsoil is less than 12 inches deep, the actual depth of the topsoil would be removed and 

segregated. The depth of the trench would be sufficiently deep to allow for at least 4 feet of 

cover on top of the pipe. Soil fertility and other characteristics are further discussed in section 

4.2. Agricultural areas crossed by the project are identified in section 4.7 along with proposed 

mitigation measures. 

Certified Organic Farms 

The proposed pipeline would cross one certified organic farm and the pipeline centerline could 

come within 50 feet of a second certified organic farm. To minimize impacts on certified 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-24

organic farms, Guardian would implement site-specific construction techniques based on a best 

management practice (BMP) for organic agricultural land to be incorporated in Guardian’s AMP. 

Guardian’s BMP for organic agricultural land would identify mitigation measures that apply 

specifically to farms that are Certified Organic or farms that are in active transition to become 

Certified Organic, and will address the unique management and certification requirements of 

these operations. Guardian recognizes that organic agricultural land is a unique feature of the 

landscape and will treat this land with the same level of care as other sensitive environmental 

features. 

As part of their BMP, Guardian would request a copy of the Organic System Plan for the farm 

and will work with each producer (landowner or tenant) to develop a site-specific plan to cross 

the farm in a manner that would minimize the risk of losing certification. Standard protocols 

Guardian could implement in these areas include: 

• segregating topsoil and subsoil; 

• avoiding the application of any prohibited substances; 

• restricting equipment refueling and maintenance activities; 

• inspecting equipment for leaks before entering the property; 

• restricting parking of equipment on the property; 

• implementing other practices as indicated by the individual producer’s Organic System 

Plan; and 

• monitoring of construction and restoration procedures using appropriately trained 

monitors or inspectors. 

Commercial and Industrial Areas 

Impacts on commercial and industrial areas generally would be limited to the construction 

period. Guardian would maintain close coordination with business owners to maintain access, 

decrease construction duration, and generally attempt to minimize impacts. Commercial and 

industrial areas crossed by the pipeline, as well as proposed measures to mitigate impacts on 

those areas, are identified in section 4.7. 

Blasting 

Soil survey information indicates that shallow bedrock would be crossed by portions of the 

pipeline route (see section 4.1.1 for further details on blasting). Some of this shallow bedrock is 

hard and may require blasting. In these areas, care would be taken to prevent damage to above 

and underground structures (e.g., buildings, cables, conduits, and pipelines) or to springs, water 

wells, or other water sources. Blasting mats or soil cover would be used as necessary to prevent 

the scattering of loose rock. Blasting would be conducted during daylight hours and would not 

begin until occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business, and farms have 

been notified. This is further discussed in geology or soils in sections 4.1 and 4.2. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-25 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.3.1.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures 

Aboveground facilities that would be constructed as part of the Project include compressor 

stations, meter stations, MLVs, and launcher and receiver facilities. Construction activities and 

storage of construction materials and equipment would be confined to the approved construction 

area at the compressor station site or other approved work areas (e.g., contractor/pipe yards). 

Debris and wastes generated from construction would be disposed of appropriately. Disturbed 

surface areas would be restored in a timely manner. 

Construction of the compressor and meter stations would involve clearing and grading, where 

necessary. Foundations would be poured; piping, valves, fittings, and flanges assembled on-site; 

equipment mounted on the foundations; and auxiliary buildings erected. Lastly, access roads and 

parking lots would be paved, a permanent perimeter fence would be installed surrounding the 

facilities, and landscaping would be completed. 

Components in high-pressure natural gas service would be hydrostatically tested before being 

placed in service. Before being placed in service, controls and safety equipment and systems 

would be checked and tested. Hydrostatic testing would follow applicable federal, state, and 

local requirements. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Guardian is under contract for a project in-service date of November 1, 2008. It should take a 

total of about 7 months to construct the entire Project. The first part of this process would be the 

construction of the compressor stations, which would begin in late March of 2008. Construction 

of the pipeline and other associated facilities would be scheduled to begin in May of 2008. 

Construction of the pipeline and compressor station facilities is expected to be completed in 

September of 2008. Construction of the meter stations is expected to be completed in October of 

2008. Some preparatory construction and mitigation work may occur prior to and after these 

dates. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING 

Prior to construction, Guardian would develop and implement a project-specific environmental 

compliance program. This program would define the roles and responsibilities of various 

construction and inspection personnel and would identify the organization, reporting structure, 

and lines of communication related to environmental compliance. The environmental 

compliance and monitoring requirements would include the standard requirements for pipeline 

construction and operation in our Plan and Procedures, and would also incorporate compliance 

and monitoring requirements from the federal, state, and local permits obtained for the Project. 

Guardian would also develop various project-specific environmental training modules. The most 

intensive training would be provided to Guardian’s environmental inspectors before they begin 

their inspection duties. Appropriately tailored environmental training would also be provided to 

other onsite contractor and construction management personnel. Guardian would maintain 

training records to verify that each individual has received the required training before he or she 

engages in construction activities. It is anticipated that the focus of the environmental training 

would be on erosion and spill control, wetland and waterbody mitigation and restoration 

procedures, agricultural mitigation and restoration procedures, and our site-specific requirements 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-26

for other sensitive areas, our Plan and Procedures, Guardian’s AMP, Certificate, or permit 

conditions. 

Guardian would prepare environmental compliance handbooks and other documents, such as 

construction alignment sheets prior to construction, which will be provided to its environmental 

inspectors and other key individuals. The environmental compliance handbooks would include 

copies of permits and other relevant mitigation plans and measures committed to by Guardian or 

required by Guardian’s permits. Anticipated mitigation documents in the handbook would 

include Guardian’s AMP and BMPs, Unanticipated Finds Plans, a project-specific SPCC Plan, 

and our Plan and Procedures. 

During construction, Guardian would employ full-time environmental inspectors, including an 

agricultural inspector, to monitor construction activities and document environmental 

compliance. The environmental inspectors would interact directly with the construction 

contractor’s environmental staff and would prepare daily inspection reports that would be 

distributed to the contractor personnel and Guardian’s construction management team at the end 

of each day. Guardian would also fund a third-party Agricultural Monitor (AM) for the Project. 

The activities of the AM will be directed by the DATCP. The AM will serve in an auditing role, 

working closely with Guardian’s agricultural inspectors to verify that construction activities on 

agricultural land are in compliance with Guardian’s AMP. 

To ensure that restoration in agricultural lands is satisfactorily completed, we recommend that: 

• Guardian provide copies of the third-party monitoring reports to FERC staff.

The environmental and agricultural inspection effort would be supported by a compliance 

management team led by an Environmental Compliance Manager (ECM). The ECM will be 

responsible for managing and coordinating the overall environmental and agricultural inspection 

efforts and would visit the construction site on a regular basis to maintain quality control and 

independently assess the level of compliance that is being achieved. 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Guardian would operate and maintain the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities in 

compliance with DOT regulations provided in 49 CFR 192, the Commission’s guidance in 

18 CFR 380.15, and maintenance provisions required by the FERC and identified in our Plan and 

Procedures. Operation and maintenance considerations for pipeline facilities are further 

described in the following section. 

2.6.1 Pipeline 

During operations, Guardian would conduct regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way in 

accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. The patrol program would include 

periodic aerial, vehicle, and/or foot patrols of the pipeline facilities. These patrols would be 

conducted to survey surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for evidence 

of leaks, unauthorized excavation activities, erosion and wash-out areas, areas of sparse 

vegetation, damage to permanent erosion control devices, exposed pipeline, and other conditions 

that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. Additional gas leak detection surveys 

would be performed using leak detection instruments in more densely populated areas and at 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-27 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

public road crossings. Routing inspection of the cathodic protection system would also be 

conducted along the pipeline to ensure that it is functioning properly and to identify and correct 

potential problems with the system. 

In-line inspection of the pipeline would be performed periodically using “smart pigs,” which are 

computerized electro-mechanical devices that travel inside the pipe checking for deformities, 

pipe-wall metal loss caused by corrosion, or other factors that could impact the integrity of the 

pipeline. If potential problems are identified, repairs would be made to the affected pipe. 

Guardian would keep detailed records of all inspections and supplement the corrosion protection 

system, as necessary, to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. Pipeline markers would be 

placed and maintained along the right-of-way at roadway crossings, railroad crossings, and other 

highly visible places to alert those contemplating working in the vicinity of the location of the 

buried pipeline. The markers would identify Guardian as the operator, include safety warnings, 

and display telephone numbers to call if any abnormal conditions are detected. 

Guardian would also participate in the Diggers Hotline one-call system in Wisconsin and the 

Joint Utility Locating Information for Excavators (JULIE) one-call system in Illinois. These 

systems provide contractors, highway workers, farmers, and anyone digging along a pipeline 

right-of-way with the ability to call a telephone number to have underground facilities located 

prior to excavation activities. Guardian would review and respond appropriately to any requests 

to locate its pipeline that are issued from a one-call center. In the normal course of operations, 

Guardian would also devote time to educate the public that they must first notify the pipeline 

company before digging or operating heavy equipment along the pipeline route. Guardian would 

also send “call-before-you-dig” notices to property owners along the right-of-way. 

Vegetation management procedures during operation would also be performed in accordance 

with our Plan and Procedures and would include regular mowing, cutting, and trimming along 

most of the 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way outside of agricultural and residential 

areas. Routine vegetative maintenance clearing would not be performed more frequently than 

every 3 years, unless requested and/or approved by appropriate state and local agencies. 

However, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the pipeline could be maintained 

annually in an herbaceous state, as required to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak detection 

surveys. Guardian would not use herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of a wetland or 

waterbody unless approved in appropriate permits. Vegetation management and wetland 

maintenance is discussed further in section 4.4. 

2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Routine operation and maintenance would also be performed at all aboveground facilities by 

qualified Guardian personnel. Personnel would perform routine checks of the compressor station 

facilities, including calibration of equipment and instrumentation, inspection of critical 

components, and scheduled and routine maintenance of equipment and grounds. Corrective 

actions would be taken as necessary if problems are identified. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-28

2.7 SAFETY CONTROLS 

2.7.1 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems 

During construction of the proposed facilities, Guardian would install a cathodic protection 

system to prevent or minimize corrosion of the buried pipeline and aboveground facilities. The 

cathodic protection system impresses a low-voltage current on the pipeline to offset natural soil 

and groundwater corrosion potential. The condition of the pipe coating and the effectiveness of 

the cathodic protection system would be monitored during regularly scheduled cathodic 

protection surveys in accordance with federal standards and regulations. Cathodic protection 

surveys usually require walking the pipeline right-of-way with monitoring instruments. Repairs 

to the pipe, the pipe coating, or the cathodic protection system would be made as appropriate. 

2.7.2 Emergency Response Procedures 

The proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities must be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. 

The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural 

gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, 

minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion. Part 192 also prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining 

pipeline facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. 

Under Section 192.615, each pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that 

includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements 

of the plan include procedures for: 

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, 

and natural disasters; 

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; 

• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards; and 

• conducting emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service. 

Part 192 also requires that each operator must establish and maintain a liaison with appropriate 

fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization 

that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The 

operator must also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, 

government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline 

emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. 

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

The G-II Project involves new construction and upgrades to existing facilities; as such, the 

Project will not require the abandonment of pipeline or aboveground facilities. Guardian has no 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-29 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

foreseeable plans for future expansion or abandonment of the project facilities described in this 

EIS, but if market conditions change such that an expansion or abandonment is justified, 

Guardian will seek the appropriate authorizations from the FERC and comply with all applicable 

requirements. At the end of the useful life of the pipeline and aboveground appurtenances, 

Guardian will obtain the necessary permission to abandon its facilities. 

2.9 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

There are nine nonjurisdictional facility projects related to this Project: (1) We Energies 

Hartford/West Bend Project; (2) We Energies Fox Valley Project; (3) WPS Sheboygan Project; 

(4) WPS Chilton Project; (5) WPS Denmark Project; (6) WPS Southwest Green Bay Project; 

(7) WPS Green Bay Project; (8) ComEd Sycamore Power Line, Transformer/Substation Project; 

and (9) ATC Bluff Creek Transformer/Substation Project. Figure 2.9-1 depicts the location of 

the nonjurisdictional facilities in relation to the proposed G-II mainline pipeline. 

Permits and approvals for each of the projects would be obtained by We Energies, WPS, ComEd, 

and ATC as necessary. On March 9, 2007, the Wisconsin PSC issued an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the We Energies and WPS nonjurisdictional facilities. The COE will also 

be reviewing permit applications for certain nonjurisdictional facilities under the CWA. 

Information from the Wisconsin PSC EA, including information filed by Guardian for the 

nonjurisdictional facilities, are summarized below. The complete EA is available on the 

Wisconsin PSC website at http://psc.wi.gov under the following three docket numbers: 5-CG103, 6650-CG-220, or 66-CG-160. 

2.9.1 Description of the Proposed Nonjurisdictional Facilities 

2.9.1.1 We Energies Hartford/West Bend Project 

We Energies would construct and operate a 14-mile two-segment (Hartford and West Bend 

Segments) 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the 

proposed Rubicon Meter Station in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Segment 1, the Hartford 

Segment of the proposed pipeline lateral, would be located within the Counties of Dodge and 

Washington, Wisconsin and consist of about 10.2 miles of pipe. Segment 2, the West Bend 

Segment of the proposed pipeline lateral would be located within Washington County, 

Wisconsin and consist of about 4.1 miles of pipe. One hundred percent of Segment 2 would be 

collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

Within the footprint of the proposed Rubicon Meter Station, We Energies would also construct 

and operate a new gate station, the Hartford/West Bend Gate Station. Additional facilities would 

include two 12-inch-diameter valves in both Dodge and Washington County and a new regulator 

station in Washington County, Wisconsin. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-30

Figure 2.9.1 Location of the Nonjurisdictional Facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-31 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.9.1.2 We Energies Fox Valley Project 

We Energies would construct and operate a 12.8-mile pipeline lateral within the Counties of 

Brown and Outagamie, Wisconsin to interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed Fox 

Valley Meter Station in Brown County. The pipeline lateral would be comprised of the 

following four segments: 

• 4.3 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipe within Brown and Outagamie County, Wisconsin of 

which 61 percent would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way; 

• 1.2 miles of 8-inch-diameter pipe within Outagamie County, Wisconsin of which 95 

percent would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way; 

• 4.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipe within Outagamie County, Wisconsin of which 85 

percent would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way; and 

• 2.6 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipe within Outagamie County, Wisconsin of which 53 

percent would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

Within the footprint of the proposed Fox Valley Meter Station, We Energies would also 

construct and operate a new gate station, the Fox Valley Gate Station. Additional facilities 

would include the construction and operation of two regulator stations (the Kaukauna and 

Kimberly Regulator Stations), the WPPI Delivery Point Customer Metering Facility, the 

Appleton Regulator/ Metering Station, and two valve assemblies (the Kaukauna and Little Chute 

Valve Assemblies) in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. 

2.9.1.3 WPS Sheboygan Project 

WPS would construct and operate a 31.0-mile 14-inch- and 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral 

within the Counties of Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, Wisconsin to interconnect with the G-II 

pipeline at the proposed Sheboygan Meter Station in Fond du Lac County. Approximately 99 

percent of the pipeline lateral would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

WPS would also construct a 2.07-mile 16-inch-diameter distribution pipeline in Sheboygan 

County, of which 100 percent would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

The Sheboygan Project would also include the construction and operation of odorization and 

pigging facilities within the footprint of the proposed Sheboygan Meter Station. Additional 

facilities would include the construction and operation of the New West Sheboygan and New 

Plymouth Regulator Stations in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. WPS would also make 

modifications to the existing Sheboygan ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station and the Plymouth 

ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station located in Sheboygan County. 

2.9.1.4 WPS Chilton Project 

WPS would construct and operate a 1.7-mile, 4-inch-diameter pipeline lateral within Calumet 

County, Wisconsin to interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed Chilton Meter Station. 

One hundred percent of the pipeline lateral would be collocated within or adjacent to existing 

rights-of-way. Additional facilities would include the construction and operation of odorization, 

pigging, and valve facilities within the footprint of the proposed Chilton Meter Station, as well as 

a new regulator station in Calumet County, Wisconsin. WPS would also make modifications to 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-32

the existing Chilton ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station, and distribution system connection 

facilities located in Calumet County. 

2.9.1.5 WPS Denmark Project 

WPS would construct and operate a 14.25-mile, 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral within Brown 

County, Wisconsin to interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed Denmark Meter Station 

in Brown County, Wisconsin. One hundred percent of the pipeline lateral would be collocated 

within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

Within the footprint of the proposed Denmark Meter Station, WPS would construct and operate 

new odorization and pigging facilities. WPS would also make modifications to the existing 

Denmark ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station located in Brown County. 

2.9.1.6 WPS Southwest Green Bay Project 

WPS would construct and operate a 8.25-mile 12-inch- and 20-inch-diameter pipeline lateral 

within Brown County, Wisconsin to interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed 

Southwest Green Bay Meter Station. Approximately 83.4 percent of the pipeline lateral would 

be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. WPS would also construct a 6.57-

mile 20-inch-diameter distribution pipeline in Brown County, of which 88.5 percent would be 

collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. 

The Southwest Green Bay Project would also include the construction and operation of 

odorization, pigging, and valve facilities within the footprint of the proposed Southwest Green 

Bay Meter Station, as well as one new regulator station (the Southwest Green Bay Regulator 

Station) in Brown County. WPS would also make modifications to the existing ANR Green Bay 

Meter/WPS Broadway Regulator Station located in Brown County. 

2.9.1.7 WPS West Green Bay Project 

In Outagamie County, Wisconsin, WPS would construct and operate a new a flow control 

facility and odorization facility that would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed 

West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. WPS would also make 

modifications to the existing West Green Bay Meter Station also located in Outagamie County, 

Wisconsin. 

2.9.1.8 ATC Bluff Creek Transformer/Substation Project 

Construction and operation of the Bluff Creek Compressor Station in Walworth County, 

Wisconsin would require electrical service to the site. Electrical service would be provided by 

an existing 138-kilovolt (kV) ATC overhead electrical transmission line that crosses the 

northeast corner of the proposed Bluff Creek Compressor Station site. No new transmission line 

structures would be required to interconnect with the ATC electrical line at this location. 

However, a new transformer/substation would be required to reduce the electrical voltage from 

138 kV to a voltage suitable for the loads at the compressor station. The transformer/substation 

would be divided into two sections. One section would be owned and operated by ATC. This 

section will provide ATC the ability to isolate the transmission line upstream of the compressor 

station. The other section of the substation will be owned and operated by Guardian and will 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-33 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

contain the equipment necessary for reducing the voltage for distribution to the compressor 

station. The transformer/substation would be constructed and operated wholly within the 

boundaries of the proposed Bluff Creek Compressor Station. 

2.9.1.9 ComEd Sycamore Power Line, Transformer/Substation 

Construction and operation of the Sycamore Compressor Station in DeKalb County, Illinois 

would require electrical service to the site. Electrical service would be provided by a new 

2.5-mile-long, overhead electrical transmission line that would interconnect with an existing 

138-kV transmission system located about 2.5 miles west of the proposed compressor station 

property near Sycamore, Illinois. Construction of the new overhead electrical transmission 

system would require the use of a new power line easement and the installation of 30 new tower 

structures. Construction of the new power line would disturb approximately 45 acres. About 

45 acres of new permanent easement would be required to operate the power line. A new 

transformer/substation would also be required to reduce the electrical voltage from 138 kV to a 

voltage suitable for the loads at the compressor station. The transformer/substation would be 

divided into two sections. One section would be owned and operated by ComEd. This section 

would provide ComEd the ability to isolate the transmission line upstream of the compressor 

station. The other section of the substation will be owned and operated by Guardian and would 

contain the equipment necessary for reducing the voltage for distribution to the compressor 

station. The transformer/substation would be constructed and operated wholly within the 

boundaries of the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

2.9.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts 

The Wisconsin PSC, with input from the WDNR, developed an EA in accordance with Wis. Stat. 

§ 1.11. The EA analyzed the environmental effects of the six nonjurisdictional pipelines laterals 

and associated facilities including the We Energies Hartford/West Bend Project; We Energies 

Fox Valley Project; WPS Sheboygan Project; WPS Chilton Project; WPS Denmark Project; 

WPS Southwest Green Bay Project; and WPS Green Bay Project. A summary of the 

environmental impacts and mitigation measures, as presented in the Wisconsin PSC EA, is 

included in the following sections. The complete EA is available on the Wisconsin PSC website 

at http://psc.wi.gov under the following three docket numbers: 5-CG-103, 6650-CG-220, or 

66-CG-160. Environmental effects of the nonjurisdictional facilities are also discussed in section 

4.13.2. 

2.9.2.1 Water and Water Resources 

A total of about 90 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed pipeline lateral projects. The 

majority of these waterbodies are intermittent streams, with no flowing water during portions of 

the year. Sixteen of these waterbodies are named rivers including the East River, Mullet River, 

Onion River, Sheboygan River, and the Fox River. 

During construction, the Wisconsin PSC had determined that intermittent waterways would only 

be crossed during times of no flow. In streams where flowing water is present, impacts would be 

limited to the period of construction and would be dependent on the time, duration, and method 

of pipeline installation. Construction methods such as boring, dam and pump or flume would 

likely result in only temporary and minor impacts on the waterbodies crossed. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-34

Some in-stream and shoreline cover that provides cover for fish may be altered or removed at the 

proposed stream crossings. Some fish, including trout, have spawning runs in the spring, 

summer, or fall that could be interrupted due to construction activities that could block or 

discourage fish from passing through the construction area. Increased sedimentation and 

turbidity could reduce survival of eggs and emerging fry and degrade spawning habitats. 

After the pipeline laterals are installed, stream beds and banks would be restored, as near as 

practicable, to preconstruction conditions. Disturbed soils adjacent to the waterways would be 

stabilized and reseeded with approved seed mixes. 

2.9.2.2 Vegetation 

Wetlands 

The extent of impact to wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline lateral projects would be 

dependent on the type of wetland affected, the existing quality of the wetland, the time of year, 

and the construction methods. Four general wetland types are found within the project areas 

associated with the pipeline laterals including wet meadows, shrub/scrub wetlands, forested 

wetlands, and emergent wetlands (shallow and deep marsh). While open-cut trenching is 

proposed to be used in many of the wetlands, boring methods may be used to install the pipelines 

beneath some emergent and wet meadow wetlands. 

Pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance activities would result in the temporary 

removal of wetland vegetation. In wet meadow/emergent wetlands, the impact of construction 

would be temporary, because herbaceous vegetation regenerates within one or two seasons. In 

forested and shrub-dominated wetlands, the impact would be longer due to the longer recovery 

period for these vegetation types. Ongoing vegetation management on the portion of the 

operational rights-of-way would permanently restrict regeneration of tree and shrub cover. 

Clearing of wetland vegetation would temporarily, or in some cases, permanently, remove or 

alter wetland habitat. 

Pipeline trench excavation would be a major disturbance to wetland habitat; however, 

construction activities could also impact wetlands adjacent to the construction right-of-way. 

Impacts on wetlands would include compaction, and rutting of wetland soils could result from 

the temporary stockpiling of soil and the movement of heavy machinery; the temporary 

alteration of surface drainage patterns and hydrology; and the potential for the trench to act as a 

drainage channel. Increased siltation in adjacent wetland areas could also result from trenching 

activities. In addition, disturbances to the wetland could temporarily affect its capacity to control 

erosion and flooding. Reed canary grass, an aggressive invasive plant species, currently 

dominates some of the wetlands along the proposed rights-of-way; it is likely this plant species 

would retain its dominance when revegetation occurs after construction is complete. 

To minimize both the temporary and permanent adverse effects of construction on the wetland 

habitats to be crossed by the proposed pipeline laterals WPS and We Energies would employ 

best management practices, schedule construction during the period when soils are frozen and 

vegetation is dormant, utilize ice roads or timber matting, and install appropriate erosion control 

measures such as trench breakers. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-35 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Several wetlands in the proposed project areas qualify as Areas of Special Natural Resource 

Interest, as defined by Wisconsin Administrative Code § NR 103.04, because of unique features 

they possess or their location in relation to a state or federal resource area. Most, if not all, of 

these wetland communities would be protected by boring the pipelines beneath them or 

constructing under stable soil conditions. 

Forests 

About 20 acres of forest would be affected by construction of the proposed pipeline lateral 

projects. Construction in these areas would result in the clearing of trees in the construction 

rights-of-way. The removal of the tree cover would substantially change the plant and animal 

communities in the areas cleared. The impacts associated with the clearing of forested land may 

include temporary increases in soil erosion and runoff, increased soil temperatures, soil mixing 

and soil compaction, and possible root damage and increased wind throw of trees adjacent to 

newly cleared areas. Clearing may allow early successional species to become established along 

the edge of the newly cleared construction and operational rights-of-way and the overall 

disturbance could enhance the spread of aggressive non-native species. Such effects, however, 

would vary in their severity, depending on the ecological conditions at the site. 

A portion of the Sheboygan lateral would pass through the Kettle Moraine State Forest–Northern 

Unit; however, the proposed pipeline route through the State Forest would lie within an already 

cleared right-of-way of an existing 345-kV electric transmission line. As a result, additional tree 

clearing would not be necessary in this area. In addition, discussions with the staff of the Kettle 

Moraine State Forest indicated that the construction of the proposed Sheboygan pipeline lateral 

project would not result in any significant impacts on the use or management of the Forest. 

Construction activities would, however, cross the Ice Age Trail, as well as other recreational 

trails within the State forest and would likely result in the temporary closure of these trails during 

the construction period. 

As proposed, the construction and operation of the pipeline laterals would not result in the 

clearing of extensive individual wooded areas. The amount of tree clearing needed in any 

specific wooded area is consistent with the highly fragmented and developed nature of the 

landscape in the pipeline lateral project areas. 

2.9.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The region of Wisconsin in which the proposed pipeline lateral projects would be constructed is 

dominated by agriculture and, therefore, does not support many threatened, endangered or rare 

species or communities. Many occurrences of these types of species or communities are 

associated with waterbodies or consist of species that do not have large area habitat requirements 

(e.g., insects and snails). Although unlikely, construction of the proposed pipeline lateral 

projects could affect rare fish, mussels, birds, turtles, and reptiles. 

Rare fish and mussel species occurring in waterways crossed by the proposed pipelines would be 

protected by using boring methods to install the pipelines. Blanding’s turtle and the wood turtle, 

which may be present at several locations, would be protected by performing construction 

outside of the turtles’ active season or the use of exclusion fencing to keep turtles out of 

construction zones. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-36

With respect to rare birds, such as the bald eagle, northern harrier, and dicksissel, additional 

surveys would be conducted to ensure that these birds are not nesting within the construction 

rights-of-way or within a critical distance of construction activities. If active nests are located in 

these areas, the timing of construction would be adjusted to avoid disturbance to nesting 

activities. 

The Butler’s garter snake may also be present at two locations along the proposed pipeline lateral 

rights-of-way. Because of the size and quality of the suitable habitat for the snake, no special 

conservation measures would be required and the sites would be covered under a broad 

Incidental Take Authorization. 

2.9.2.4 Land Use 

The Hartford/West Bend, Sheboygan, Chilton, and Denmark laterals are located in areas where 

the major land use is agriculture, with scattered low-density residential areas. A portion of the 

Sheboygan lateral would cross through lands of the Kettle Moraine State Forest. Otherwise, 

forested lands along these four pipeline laterals are few and scattered. 

The Fox Valley and Southwest Green Bay laterals both extend from agricultural lands into 

actively expanding urban areas. Residential and commercial development are the dominant land 

uses as these routes enter urban areas. Only small, forest resources are present along these two 

project routes. 

Construction of large pipelines in agricultural lands can damage or reduce the suitability of lands 

for agricultural uses. Substantial concerns included soil compaction, mixing of soil layers, 

disrupting drainage patterns, and increasing the density of rocks near the surface of the soil. 

These actions could result in reduced crop productivity or damage to farm equipment. 

Improper construction activities could disrupt natural drainage or damage existing surface and 

subsurface drainage systems. Underground drainage tiles could be cut during trenching and 

shallow tiles outside of the trench area could be damaged or displaced by heavy equipment, 

particularly where soil grading or topsoil stripping has reduced the depth of soil between the 

drainage tiles and construction equipment. Inadequate compaction of trench backfill could cause 

subsidence of soil over the pipeline, altering field drainage, and causing water to pond, thereby 

delaying planting or killing crops. Disruption of surface and subsurface drainage systems could 

also cause temporary crop losses adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Both We Energies and WPS have proposed practices to be used when constructing the proposed 

pipeline laterals through agricultural lands. These construction practices are based on experience 

with past pipeline projects and include practices to address all of the major concerns noted 

above. Implementing the proposed agricultural construction practices should greatly reduce or 

eliminate the major concerns associated with construction through farmlands. 

In areas dominated by residential and/or commercial land uses, construction activities associated 

with the proposed pipelines lateral projects could result in locally increased dust and particulate 

emissions, noise and vibrations, and minor traffic disruptions. These adverse effects, however, 

would be temporary and relatively minor. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
2-37 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

2.9.2.5 Cultural Resources 

Site file searches of the Chilton, Denmark, and Southwest Green Bay pipeline lateral projects did 

not identify any cultural resources in the proposed project areas. However, literature reviews and 

site file searches resulted in the identification of several possible sites of cultural significance in 

the vicinity of the Hartford/West Bend, Fox Valley, and Sheboygan project sites including the 

following: 

• two previously recorded archaeological sites and a Euro-American era historic cemetery 

in the vicinity of the proposed Hartford/West Bend facilities; 

• two Native American village sites in the general vicinity of Segment 4 of the proposed 

Fox Valley Project, north of the Fox River; and 

• a historic Euro-American era cemetery, the Empire Cemetery, adjacent to the proposed 

Sheboygan Lateral and a potential non-recorded archaeological site located in the vicinity 

of Mullet Lake. 

We Energies has committed to having a professional cultural resource consultant conduct a 

Phase I survey of the Hartford/West Bend and Fox River Valley project areas to determine if 

these cultural resources would be affected by the proposed projects. 

In the area of Mullet Lake, WPS has already conducted a Phase I archaeological survey, which 

has confirmed the potential for archaeological resources in this area. WPS has committed to 

conduct Phase II investigations in this area, and either avoid any significant archaeological sites, 

or develop a treatment plan for those sites that would be adversely affected by their project. 

In regard to cultural resources, the COE would be responsible for ensuring compliance with 

section 106 of the NHPA, as part of its permitting process under section 404 of the CWA for 

these proposed pipeline laterals and project facilities. 

2.9.3 Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facilities 

Under the NEPA, the Commission has the responsibility to attempt to review infrastructure 

facilities that are associated with, and a necessary part of, a jurisdictional project. Our review of 

the nonjurisdictional facilities and Wisconsin PSC EA, as described above, indicates that 

construction would not have an adverse impact on the environment. As previously stated, the 

applicable federal and state permits would be obtained by We Energies, WPS, ComEd, 

Guardian, and ATC as necessary. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-1 3.0 – Alternatives 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

In considering Guardian’s applications, the FERC will review both the environmental and nonenvironmental record in deciding whether it is in the public convenience and necessity to issue 

any authorization for the Project. The EIS addresses alternatives to the proposed actions before 

the FERC. The proposed action before the FERC is to consider issuing to Guardian a Section 7 

Certificate for a new natural gas pipeline. 

In accordance with NEPA and FERC policy, a number of alternatives to the G-II Project have 

been evaluated to determine if any are reasonable and environmentally preferable to the 

proposed actions. Alternatives described in the following sections include the no action 

alternative, system alternatives, and major and minor route alternatives, variations, and 

modifications. 

The evaluation criteria for selecting potentially reasonable and environmentally preferable 

alternatives include whether they: 

• are technically and economically feasible and practical; 

• offer significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project or segments of it; 

and 

• meet the project objectives of increasing the physical pipeline capacity serving Wisconsin 

and expand access to a competitive supply of natural gas for the benefit of the LDCs’ 

utility customers in Wisconsin. 

With respect to the first criteria, it is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives 

are technically and economically practical and feasible. Some alternatives may be impracticable 

because the sites are unavailable and/or incapable of being implemented after taking into 

consideration costs, existing technologies, constraints of existing system capacities, and logistics 

in light of the overall project objectives. In conducting a reasonable analysis, it is also important 

to consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed action and to focus 

the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce impacts and/or offer a significant 

environmental advantage. 

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered until it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or would 

result in significantly greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated. Those 

alternatives that appeared to be the most reasonable with less than or similar levels of 

environmental impact are reviewed below. 

3.1 No Action or Postponed Action Alternative 

The Commission has three courses of action in processing an application. It may: (1) deny the 

proposal; (2) postpone action pending further study; or (3) authorize the proposal with or without 

conditions. 

If the Commission denies the proposal (effectively selecting the no action alternative), the shortand long-term environmental impacts identified in section 4.0 of this EIS would not occur. If the 

Commission postpones action on the application, the environmental impacts identified in 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-2

section 4.0 would be delayed, or if the applicant decided not to pursue the Project, the impacts 

would not occur. 

If the Commission selects the no action alternative, the objectives of the proposed Project would 

not be met and Guardian would not be able to provide an expansion of pipeline capacity or a 

competitive supply of natural gas for the benefit of Wisconsin natural gas consumers. 

To understand the potential effects of the no action or postponed action alternative, it is 

important to understand the source and use of natural gas in Wisconsin. Over the last 15 years, 

the state-wide consumption of natural gas has increased by more than 25 percent and now totals 

nearly 400 billion cubic feet annually (WDOE, 2005; WDOE, 2006). During this same period, 

the number of residential and commercial/industrial gas customers in Wisconsin has grown by 

approximately 40 and 43 percent, respectively (WDOE, 2005). 

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to 

predict what actions might be taken by policymakers or end users in response to the no action or 

postponed action alternatives, it is likely that potential end users would make other arrangements 

to obtain natural gas service (e.g., natural gas from another project), or make use of alternative 

fossil-fuel energy sources (e.g., fuel oil or coal), other traditional long-term fuel source 

alternatives (e.g., nuclear power or hydropower), and/or renewable energy sources, such as wind 

power, to compensate for the reduced availability of natural gas that would be supplied by the 

proposed Project. It is also possible that energy conservation practices would be used to offset 

the demand for natural gas in the markets that would be supplied by the proposed Project. 

Denying or postponing a decision on the proposed Project would result in reduced natural gas 

availability in the targeted market regions. Such shortages would in turn lead to an increased 

reliance on fuel oil and other non-renewable fuel supply sources for power generating facilities. 

However, because petroleum product consumption is also projected to increase (EIA, 2006a), it 

is unlikely that fuel oil would provide a readily available or cost-effective alternative to natural 

gas. Further, natural gas is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels. Relative to natural gas, 

reliance on coal or fuel oil to power electric generation would likely result in greatly increased 

emissions of pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide, 

and associated reductions in air quality. In addition, increased reliance on other fossil fuels 

would also result in secondary impacts associated with their production (e.g., coal mining and oil 

drilling), transportation (e.g., oil tankers, rail cars, and pipelines), and refinement. The use of 

fossil fuels like coal also results in higher emission of pollutants such as mercury into both the 

atmosphere and surrounding environment through deposition. In addition, unlike natural gas, 

other fuels result in spent fuel wastes (e.g., coal ash and nuclear waste) that require disposal 

and/or long-term management. 

Other long-term fuel source alternatives to natural gas include nuclear power, hydropower, and 

the development of renewable energy sources. Although there has recently been renewed 

interest in nuclear power production, growth in nuclear generating capacity is expected to 

account for about 10 percent of total United States generating capacity by 2019, and is expected 

to remain at that level through 2030 (EIA, 2006a). Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost 

considerations, and public concerns make it unlikely that new nuclear power plants would be 

sited and developed to serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project within a timeframe 

that would meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The EIA (2006a) does not anticipate that 

any new nuclear power plants will begin operation before 2014. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-3 3.0 – Alternatives 

Renewable energy projects and energy conservation measures would likely play an increasingly 

prominent role in meeting the United States’ energy demands in the coming years. Though 

efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower facilities are expected to produce incremental 

additions of power production in the coming years, it is unlikely that new and/or significant 

sources of hydropower would be permitted and brought online as reliable, energy source 

alternatives to the proposed Project. Federal, state, and local initiatives would likely contribute 

to an increase in the availability and cost-effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy 

sources such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and biomass. However, the percentage of 

electricity generated from non-hydropower renewable energy sources at the national level is only 

projected to increase to 3.2 percent by 2025 (EIA, 2006a), which would offset only a small part 

of the projected national energy demands. 

In light of the preceding analysis, we do not recommend the no action or the postponed action 

alternative. 

3.2 System Alternatives 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of other existing, 

modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. 

A system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed Project, 

although some modifications or additions to other existing pipeline systems may be required to 

increase their capacity. These modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts 

that may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction of the 

proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine 

whether or not potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed facilities would be avoided or reduced by using another pipeline system while still 

meeting the objectives of the proposed Project. 

The analysis below examines the existing and proposed natural gas systems that currently serve 

or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and considers whether 

those systems would meet the proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. Specifically, the system alternatives considered in our 

analysis include: 

• expansion of existing overland natural gas pipeline systems (Existing Pipeline System 

Alternatives); and 

• construction of other natural gas pipeline systems (New Pipeline System Alternatives). 

3.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives 

Five existing pipeline systems operated by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America (NGPL), Viking Gas Transmission Company (VGTC), Northern 

Natural Gas Company (NNG), and Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company (GLGT) occur in 

the general geographic area of the proposed Project. Using these systems or a combination of 

these systems as an alternative to the G-II Project are discussed in further detail below. Figure 

3.2-1 depicts the location of these alternative pipelines in relation to the proposed G-II pipeline 

route. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-4

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 

ANR currently operates a pipeline system within the state of Wisconsin, including pipelines near 

the proposed G-II Project. ANR could be capable of providing the same or similar transportation 

capacity as the proposed Project; however, as ANR has historically and currently dominates 

much of the natural gas transmission market in eastern Wisconsin, doing so would not fulfill one 

of the objectives of the proposed Project, that of providing access to a competitive supply of 

natural gas for the benefit of the Wisconsin local distribution companies’ utility customers. 

For the ANR system to meet the energy market demands it would more than likely require the 

addition of compressor and meter stations, pig launcher/receiver facilities and beyond that, 

possible looping of the existing system, with a similar or greater environmental impact than the 

proposed G-II Project. 

Several stakeholders have suggested that collocating the proposed G-II pipeline with the existing 

ANR Pipeline Route in eastern Wisconsin would decrease environmental impacts. To the extent 

possible, Guardian has collocated the proposed pipeline within existing utility rights-of-way (see 

section 2.2.1); however, to collocate the G-II pipeline solely within the ANR right-of-way from 

its proposed starting point at Guardian’s existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, 

Wisconsin would require the construction of over 30 miles of additional pipeline eastward 

towards the ANR system. Collocating the G-II pipeline with the ANR system would likely result 

in greater impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and forest lands (see figure 3.2-2). In addition, the 

G-II pipeline has been strategically placed outside of the ANR pipeline corridor within 

Outagamie County, Wisconsin to address the concerns of the Oneida Nation on Reservation 

lands. 

For the reasons discussed above, both the expansion of the ANR Pipeline System and/or 

collocation adjacent to its existing right-of-way corridor in eastern Wisconsin are not considered 

to be an environmentally preferable alternative to the proposed G-II Project and, therefore, the 

alternative has been eliminated from further consideration. 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (NGPL) 

The NGPL system extends across Iowa and northern Illinois into the Chicago area. A portion of 

the system also extends northward to the Illinois/Wisconsin state line. To transport the volumes 

proposed by Guardian to eastern Wisconsin, NGPL would likely need to construct over 

240 miles of new pipeline. It is likely that NGPL would also need to expand its existing system 

through looping and/or new compression. The required extension and expansion would result in 

a much larger project than the G-II Project and, as such, NGPL’s system is not a viable system 

alternative and has been eliminated from further consideration. 

Viking Gas Transmission Company (VGTC) 

The existing VGTC system extends southeast from the Canadian border near Noyes, Minnesota, 

through the northern regions of Minnesota and Wisconsin, to an interconnection with ANR near 

Marshfield, Wisconsin, over 100 miles west of Green Bay. VGTC receives western Canadian 

gas from TransCanada Pipeline at the United States-Canada International Border and does not 

have direct access to the eastern Wisconsin markets. VGTC also does not have direct access to 

the diversity of supply and upstream service providers at the Chicago Hub. Access to the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-5 3.0 – Alternatives 

Figure 3.2-1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-6

Figure 3.2-2 Existing ANR Pipeline System and Proposed G-II Pipeline Route 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-7 3.0 – Alternatives 

Chicago Hub is a major benefit of the G-II Project. Without such access, a pipeline company 

cannot provide the same diversity of supply and access to upstream service providers as the 

G-II Project. To access Guardian’s customers and proposed delivery points in eastern Wisconsin 

would likely require VGTC to construct more than 200 miles of new pipeline. In order to 

provide direct access to the same diversity of supply as the G-II Project, this new pipeline would 

also have to extend another 140 miles or so to the Chicago Hub in Illinois. In total, this new 

pipeline would be over 300 miles long. It is likely that VGTC would also have to expand its 

existing system through significant looping and/or new compression. The required extension 

and expansion would result in a much larger project than the G-II Project and, as such, VGTC’s 

system is not a viable system alternative and has been eliminated from further consideration. 

Northern Natural Gas Company (NNG) 

NNG’s existing system extends from the supply basins of the southwestern United States to 

western Wisconsin. The closest large diameter NNG pipeline to the market to be served by the 

G-II Project terminates near Bluff Creek, Wisconsin. NNG does not have direct access to the 

eastern Wisconsin markets or the Chicago Hub. To access Guardian’s customers and delivery 

points in eastern Wisconsin would likely require NNG to construct about 140 miles of new 

pipeline. Additionally, NNG would need to construct another 100 miles or so of new pipeline to 

connect NNG’s existing system to the Chicago Hub. It is also likely that additional looping or 

compression would be required on NNG’s existing pipeline system to transport the volumes 

proposed by Guardian. The required extension and expansion would result in a much larger 

project than the G-II Project and, as such, NNG’s system is not a viable system alternative and 

has been eliminated from further consideration. 

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company (GLGT) 

The GLGT system consists of several large diameter pipelines that extend across northern 

Wisconsin from Superior to Hurley. At its closest point, this system is over 100 miles north of 

Green Bay. To serve the eastern Wisconsin market area, GLGT would need to construct over 

200 miles of new pipeline from northern Wisconsin across the eastern half of the state. In order 

to provide direct access to the same diversity of supply as the G-II Project, this new pipeline 

would also have to extend another 140 miles or so to the Chicago Hub in Illinois. In total, this 

new pipeline would be over 300 miles long. It is likely that additional looping or compression 

would also be required on GLGT’ existing pipeline system to transport the volumes proposed by 

Guardian. The required extension and expansion would result in a much larger project than the 

G-II Project and, as such, the GLGT system is not a viable system alternative and has been 

eliminated from further consideration. 

Existing System Combinations 

While it would be possible to achieve the desired capacity that the proposed Project would 

deliver through looping and additional compression of existing lines, the third project criterion—

expansion of access to competitive supplies and services for the benefit of Wisconsin’s utility 

customers—would remain unmet. 

The most obvious system combination would be an interconnect between the GLGT and ANR 

pipeline systems. It is likely that a combination of the GLGT and ANR pipeline systems could 

transport the volumes proposed by Guardian to eastern Wisconsin with additional looping and/or 

compression (via GLGTs’ system to its interconnect with ANR’s pipeline system near Crystal 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-8

Lake, Michigan, and then via ANR’s system). However, the combination of these two systems 

would require no less construction and associated environmental impacts than the proposed 

Project. 

Furthermore, the complexity of negotiations between joint project sponsors would inevitably 

delay a joint proposal, putting it on a slower timeline than the G-II Project, such that the new 

joint facilities would begin operations significantly after the time the marketplace desires the 

new capacity to be available. For these reasons, a combination of existing systems has been 

eliminated from further consideration. 

3.3 Pipeline and Aboveground Facility Alternatives 

3.3.1 Initial Siting 

During its initial siting process Guardian evaluated three potential pipeline routes. The three 

routes considered include the Eastern Route, the Western Route, and the Central Route (see 

figure 3.3-1). These preliminary routes were evaluated with the intent to avoid or minimize 

potential impacts on environmentally sensitive resources and stakeholders. Table 3.3.1-1 

contains a summary of the preliminary pipeline route options. Each is discussed in further detail 

below. 

TABLE 3.3.1-1 

Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project 

Summary of Preliminary Pipeline Routes

Environmental Factor Units Eastern Route Western Route Central Route 

Route Length (mi.) 124.2 111.2 103.5 

Total Wetlands Crossed (mi.) 2.1 2.9 3.0 

Forested Wetlands (mi.) 1.8 2.0 2.1 

Waterbody Crossings (no.) 95 97 84 

Perennial Waterbody Crossings (no.) 29 23 24 

Forest Land Crossed a/ (mi.) 11.4 9.9 8.3 

Agricultural Land Crossed (mi.) 110.9 90.2 94.0 

Open Land Crossed (mi.) 1.0 b/ 4.4 1.0 b/ 

Commercial/Industrial Land Crossed (mi.) 0.1 c/ 3.2 0.1 c/ 

Residential Land Crossed (mi.) 0.4 2.8 0.1 

Open Water Crossed (mi.) 0.2 0.5 0.1 

a/ Forest Land Crossed includes all Forested Wetland Crossed. 

b/ The Eastern Route crosses 19 feet more Open Land than the Central Route. 

c/ The Eastern Route crosses 34 feet more Commercial/Industrial Land than the Central Route. 

Western Route 

The Western Route was identified by Guardian in its application as one of the initial routes to be 

studied. This alternative was identified because it crosses fewer perennial waterbodies than 

either the Central Route or the Eastern Route. A comparison of the relevant environmental 

characteristics of the Western Route Alternative with the Eastern and Central Route Alternatives 

is included in table 3.3.1-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-9 3.0 – Alternatives 

Figure 3.3-1 Initial Pipeline Routes Considered 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-10

The Western Route Alternative would be shorter than the Eastern Route by 13.0 miles 

(118.2 fewer acres of construction disturbance) but longer than the Central Route by 7.7 miles 

(70.0 more acres of construction disturbance). The disadvantages of this alternative include 

higher impacts on forested wetlands, waterbodies and open water, open lands, commercial or 

industrial lands, and residential lands. For these reasons, Guardian did not select the Western 

Route. We agree that the Western Route is not the better alternative due to the greater 

environmental impacts. 

Eastern Route 

The Eastern Route was identified by Guardian in its application as one of the initial routes 

studied. This alternative was identified because it crosses fewer forested wetlands and fewer 

total wetlands than either the Central or Western Route Alternatives. A comparison of the 

relevant environmental characteristics of the Eastern Route with the Western and Central Route 

is included in table 3.3.1-1. 

The Eastern Route is the longest of the three initial routes considered at a total length of 124.2 

miles, with 1,129.1 acres of land disturbance, 118.2 acres more than the second longest route 

alternative (Western Route). In addition to the general environmental impacts of constructing 

and maintaining a longer pipeline, the disadvantages of this initial route were numerous, 

including more impacts on perennial waterbodies, forested lands, and agricultural lands. For 

these reasons Guardian did not select the Eastern Route. We agree that the Eastern Route is not 

the better alternative due to the greater environmental impacts. 

Central Route 

The third major route considered by Guardian was called the Central Route. This route 

proceeded generally north, northeast from Ixonia toward Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. From the 

Fond du Lac area, the pipeline route continues in a northeasterly direction toward Chilton, 

Wisconsin. From Chilton, the route proceeds generally north to the terminus of the Project at the 

West Green Bay Meter Station. The Central Route is the shortest of the studied routes, at 103.5 

miles overall, with an estimated construction disturbance area of 940.0 acres, 70.0 acres less than 

the Western Route. 

When it was identified, the Central Route was the most direct route between Guardian’s existing 

pipeline terminus in Ixonia, Wisconsin and the final proposed delivery point west of Green Bay, 

Wisconsin. Guardian’s engineering and economic analysis of the Central Route indicated that it 

was the most economically feasible. In addition, because it was the most direct route between 

Ixonia and Green Bay, it minimized the amount of land that would be disturbed, and reduced the 

crossing of residential areas, waterbodies, forested lands, open lands, commercial/industrial 

lands, and open water. It also avoided sensitive areas such as the extensive wetland areas within 

the Rock River floodplain. For these reasons, Guardian selected the Central Route as the 

Preliminary Route and we agree that this route has the least potential for environmental impact. 

3.3.2 Preliminary Route 

After the initial selection of the Central Route as the Preliminary Route, Guardian began the 

iterative process of conducting environmental evaluations and stakeholder outreach. As a result, 

numerous modifications were made to the Preliminary Route. These initial modifications were 

in response to environmental, stakeholder, and engineering concerns including the following: 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-11 3.0 – Alternatives 

• avoidance of major wetland complexes including forested wetlands; 

• minimization of impacts on residential areas, planned developments, and incompatible 

zoning; 

• minimization of perennial waterbody crossings; 

• avoidance of national parks, state parks, forest, and scenic areas, specifically the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail and Kettle Moraine State Forest; and 

• establishment of the most appropriate area for major waterbody crossing (greater than 

100 feet), specifically the Fox, Rubicon, and Rock Rivers. 

As a result of this initial siting process of the preliminary route, Guardian re-evaluated the 

proposed project area and established an alternative route (see figure 1-1 in section 1.0) as the 

Proposed Route, which was filed with the Commission on October 13, 2006. 

3.3.3 Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Route alternatives, within the context of the proposed Project, were identified to determine if 

impacts could be avoided or reduced on environmentally sensitive resources, such as population 

centers, scenic areas, and wildlife and natural habitat management areas that would be crossed by 

the proposed route. While the origin and delivery points of route alternatives are generally the 

same as for the corresponding segment of a proposed pipeline route, the alternatives could follow 

significantly different alignments. 

FERC regulations (18 CFR 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, enlargement, or 

extension of existing rights-of-way to reduce potential impacts on sensitive resources. 

Installation of new pipeline along existing, cleared rights-of-way (such as pipelines, powerlines, 

roads, and railroads) may be environmentally preferable to construction along new rights-ofway, and construction effects and cumulative impacts can normally be reduced by use of 

previously cleared and maintained rights-of-way. Long-term or permanent environmental 

impacts can be reduced by avoiding the creation of new rights-of-way through undisturbed areas. 

We evaluated various route alternatives to determine if the alternatives would avoid or reduce 

impacts on environmentally sensitive resources that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline, 

as well as in response to suggestions by landowners and the public. Each of these major route 

alternatives is discussed further below. 

Weber Alternatives A and B 

Beginning at MP 1.2 and ending at MP 2.6, Guardian identified two potential routes, Weber 

Alternative A and Weber Alternative B. 

As shown on figure 3.3-2, Weber Alternative A begins at approximately MP 1.2 and crosses 

County Highway CW slightly east of the entrance to the Summer Hill Subdivision. From there 

the variation continues northward, passing to the east of the Summer Hill Subdivision, until it 

returns to the proposed G-II Pipeline Route near MP 2.6. Weber Alternative B begins at 

approximately MP 1.2 and tracks generally north for approximately 1.1 miles close to a ridgelike hill just south of the Jefferson/Dodge County line, the route then turns northeast for an 

additional 0.2 mile and rejoins with the proposed G-II Pipeline Route at MP 2.6. A comparison 

of the relevant environmental characteristics of these two alternatives is included in table 3.3.3-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-12 

Figure 3.3-2 Weber Alternatives A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-13 3.0 – Alternatives 

TABLE 3.3.3-1 

Comparison of Weber Alternatives A and B 

Environmental Factor Weber Alternative A 

(Proposed Route) 

Weber Alternative B 

Total Length (miles) 1.2 1.2 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.2 1.2 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 16.0 15.1 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.2 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 0.0 1.8 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 5 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing utility 

or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

As shown in table 3.3.3-1 the two Alternatives are virtually identical; however, Alternative A 

would avoid impacts on approximately 0.2 acre of wetland. In addition, Alternative A would 

satisfy a landowner’s request to site the pipeline along the eastern side of his property to avoid an 

area he plans to use as a future home site. The only disadvantage of Weber Alternative A is that 

it would cross one more landowner than Alternative B. 

After reviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with these two alternatives, we 

believe that the environmental benefits of Weber Alternative A, including less impacts to 

wetlands and the avoidance of one less landowner, outweigh its limited disadvantages as well as 

the minor advantages of Alternative B. Therefore, we prefer that Weber Alternative A be 

incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Neuberg Alternatives A and B 

Beginning at MP 16.4 and ending at MP 17.7, Guardian identified two potential routes, Neuberg 

Alternative A and Neuberg Alternative B. 

As shown on figure 3.3-3, the Neuburg Alternative A begins at approximately MP 16.4 and 

proceeds generally northeast for approximately 0.5 mile, crossing the W&S Railroad and County 

Highway WS. It then proceeds generally north for another 0.8 mile, crossing County Highway S 

and paralleling a Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) mapped emergent wetland for several 

thousand feet before returning to the Proposed Route at approximately MP 17.7. Neuburg 

Alternative B also begins at about MP 16.4 and tracks northeast for approximately 1.1 miles 

crossing the W&S Railroad and then reconnecting with the proposed G-II Pipeline Route at MP 

17.7. A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of these two alternatives is 

included in table 3.3.3-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-14 

Figure 3.3-3 Neuburg Alternatives A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-15 3.0 – Alternatives 

TABLE 3.3.3-2 

Comparison of Neuberg Alternatives A and B

Environmental Factor Neuberg Alternative A 

(Proposed Route) 

Neuberg Alternative B 

Total Length (miles) 1.3 1.3 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.3 1.3 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 17.3 17.3 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.0 0.0 c/ 

Construction Disturbance to Wetlands (acres) b/ 0.0 0.0 c/ 

Roads Crossed (number) 1 2 

Landowners Crossed (number) 3 4 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

A comparison of Neuburg Alternative A and B reveals that the two routes are similar in many 

respects. Neither route crosses any mapped or delineated wetlands or forested lands. The 

primary differences between Neuburg Alternative A and B is that Alternative A addresses 

landowner concerns by reducing the potential impact on a future planned development and by 

avoiding two septic systems. Alternative A also crosses one less landowner and one less road. 

After reviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with these two alternatives, we 

believe that the environmental benefits of Neuburg Alternative A, including the crossing of one 

less road and one less landowner, outweigh the advantages of Alternative B. Therefore, we 

prefer that Neuburg Alternative A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by 

Guardian. 

Byron Alternatives A and B 

Beginning at MP 35.5 and ending at MP 37.8, Guardian identified two potential routes, Byron 

Alternative A and Byron Alternative B. 

As shown on figure 3.3-4, Byron Alternative A begins on the west side of State Highway 175 at 

approximately MP 35.5 and proceeds east for approximately 0.8 mile, crossing the Wisconsin 

Central Railroad and U.S. Highway 41. Approximately 0.2 mile east of U.S. Highway 41, the 

route turns and proceeds generally northeast for 1.6 miles until it rejoins the Proposed Route at 

approximately MP 37.7. Byron Alternative B also begins at MP 35.5 and proceeds northeast for 

approximately 0.6 mile crossing the Wisconsin Central Railroad and then turning east over U.S. 

Highway 41 for an additional 0.3 mile. Alternative B then tracks northeast for another 1.3 mile 

before it once again returns to the Proposed Route at MP 37.7. A comparison of the relevant 

environmental characteristics of these two alternatives is included in table 3.3.3-3. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-16 

Figure 3.3-4 Byron Alternatives A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-17 3.0 – Alternatives 

TABLE 3.3.3-3 

Comparison of Byron Alternatives A and B

Environmental Factor Byron Alternative A 

(Proposed Route) 

Byron Alternative B 

Total Length (miles) 2.3 2.4 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 2.3 2.4 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 30.7 32.0 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Forest Land Crossed (feet) <0.1 <0.1 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.0 0.0 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 0.0 0.0 c/ 

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 2.2 2.3 

Landowners Crossed (number) 7 6 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and forest lands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

As shown in table 3.3.3-3, environmental impacts associated with Byron Alternatives A and B 

are substantially the same, with Alternative A only crossing about 25 feet more forest land and 

affecting only one more landowner. However, discussions with stakeholders in the Town of 

Byron indicated that Byron Alternative B could potentially conflict with planned development in 

the Town of Byron at MPs 35.5 through 36.2, and a permitted future gravel pit located at 

approximately MPs 36.3 through 36.5. Byron Alternative A avoids these potential impacts by 

proceeding east from State Highway 175 and passing to the north of a wetland complex bordered 

by U.S. Highway 41 and the railroad. 

After reviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with these two alternatives, we 

believe that the environmental benefits associated with Byron Alternative A, including its 

reduced area of construction disturbance and length of new right-of-way, as well as its ability to 

minimize impacts on the planned development area and avoid a permitted gravel pit outweigh its 

minor disadvantages and the advantages of Byron Alternative B. Therefore, we prefer that 

Byron Alternative A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Lomira Alternatives A, B, and C 

Guardian evaluated three potential routes for the G-II pipeline to traverse northeastern Dodge 

County between MPs 21.8 and 38.8, including Lomira Alternatives A, B, and C. 

As shown on figure 3.3-5, Lomira Alternative A would begin at MP 21.8 and track northeast for 

just under 1 mile then turn north for an additional 4.8 miles. The route would then turn northeast 

for another 5.7 miles where it would rejoin with the Proposed Route at MP 33.8. In general, 

Lomira Alternative A would pass about 2 miles to the west of the Village of Theresa and about 

2.5 miles to the west of the Village of Lomira. Lomira Alternative B travels in a northnortheasterly route similar to Alternative A; however, Lomira Alternative B would pass about 

1.5 miles to the west of Theresa, and less than 1 mile to the west of Lomira. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Pages 3-18 – 3-20 

Figure 3.3-5 Lomira Alternatives A, B, and C 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-21 3.0 – Alternatives 

Lomira Alternative C would also follow a similar north-northeasterly path as Alternatives A and 

B; however, Alternative C would pass about 1 mile to the west of the Towns of Theresa and 

Lomira. A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of Lomira Alternatives A, 

B, and C is included in table 3.3.3-4. 

TABLE 3.3.3-4 

Comparison of Lomira Alternatives A, B, and C

Environmental Factor a/ 

Lomira 

Alternative A 

(Proposed Route) 

Lomira 

Alternative B 

Lomira 

Alternative C 

Total Length (miles) 16.1 15.2 15.5 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 16.1 15.2 15.5 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 214.2 199.6 201.2 

Total Waterbodies Crossed (number) 8 9 14 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 1 1 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) <0.1 c/ 0.5 c/ 0.7 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ <1 c/ 4.5 c/ 6.4 c/ 

Landowners Crossed (number) 52 58 59 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing utility 

or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

As indicated in table 3.3.3-4, the Lomira Alternative A is 0.9 mile longer and would require 14.6 

acres of additional disturbance during construction than the shortest Lomira Alternative (Lomira 

Alternative B). However, Lomira Alternative A has numerous advantages over Alternatives B 

and C. Specifically, Lomira Alternative A crosses 2,625 feet less wetland and 650 feet less 

forest land than Alternative B, and 3,525 feet less wetland and 2,700 feet less forest land than 

Alternative C, thereby substantially reducing the amount of potential wetlands and forest lands 

crossed by the Proposed Pipeline. Lomira Alternative A would also cross the fewest number of 

streams and would provide a better location to cross both Kummel Creek and the West Branch of 

the Milwaukee River. Unlike Alternative C, this alternative would also avoid a second crossing 

of the West Branch of the Milwaukee River. Additionally, Alternative A would avoid a tree 

nursery that would be crossed by Alternative B. 

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the proposed pipeline would interfere with the 

properties that have been designated for high density residential, commercial, or industrial 

development within the Villages of Lomira and Brownsville, Wisconsin. Based on a review of 

the Dodge County Planning and Development maps, Lomira Alternative A would avoid the 

future planned residential development in the Village of Lomira and would not likely interfere 

with the future development within the Village of Brownsville, which appears to be planned 

primarily on the northwest side of town. 

Stakeholders also expressed concern over the G-II Proposed Pipeline’s potential impact on 

proposed wind farm projects. Two of the proposed Lomira Alternatives (Alternatives A and B) 

would cross the site of the Forward Wind Energy Center (Forward Energy) Project. However, as 

currently planned, all three alternatives would avoid locations of the proposed wind turbines. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-22

Guardian has also indicated that through proper consultation and siting, the two facility 

structures would be able to collocate. 

After reviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with these three alternatives, we 

believe that Lomira Alternative A is environmentally preferable to either Alternative B or C in 

terms of minimizing impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, forest lands and landowners. Therefore, 

we prefer that Lomira Alternative A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by 

Guardian. 

Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B, and C 

Guardian evaluated three options for the G-II pipeline to utilize the existing Fox River State 

Recreational Trail (Fox River Trail) corridor, including Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Fox River Trail Alternatives A and B would pass to the northwest of the Village of Forest 

Junction and then directly through the Village of Greenleaf. To clarify, Fox River Trail 

Alternatives A and B follow the same geographical path, but Alternative A runs adjacent to the 

existing Fox River Trail (except in a few locations where construction width requirements would 

require that the pipeline be placed within the trail itself), whereas Alternative B places the 

pipeline within the trail itself for a much longer distance, 1.5 miles and 10.4 miles, respectively. 

Because the two alternatives follow the same geographical route, they will be discussed here 

simultaneously. 

Fox River Trail Alternatives A and B would begin at MP 78.5 where it would deviate from the 

Proposed Route and travel northeast for 1.1 miles to meet the Fox River Trail. Both alternatives 

would follow the Fox River Trail to the north-northeast for about 11.5 miles, at which point they 

would turn abruptly to the west and proceed for 2.1 miles to rejoin the Proposed Route at MP 

84.0, just before crossing the Fox River (see figure 3.3-6). Fox River Trail Alternative C would 

run about 0.25 mile to the northwest of the Village of Holland, and then between the Villages of 

Wrightstown and Greenleaf, proceeding to the north-northeast until MP 84.0, ending at the 

southeast bank of the Fox River. A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of 

the Fox River Trail Alternatives is included in table 3.3.3-5. 

TABLE 3.3.3-5 

Comparison of Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B and C

Environmental Factor a/ Fox River Trail 

Alternative A 

Fox River Trail 

Alternative B 

Fox River Trail 

Alternative C 

(Proposed Route) 

Total Length (miles) 17.3 17.3 13.6 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 15.2 15.2 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 2.1 2.1 13.6 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 191.5 116.0 140.5 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.2 0.2 0.0 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 1.8 0.7 0.0 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing utility 

or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ The acreage calculations are based on standard right-of-way widths (110 or 80 feet) for the portions of each alternative that is 

not within the Fox River Trail. For portions of each route that is within the trail, a 30-foot right-of-way was utilized (even during 

wetland and forestland crossings). Alternative A is only within the trail for 1.4 miles (through Greenleaf), and Alternative B is 

within the trail for 11.0 miles. Additionally, this variation spans the Fox Valley Meter Station, therefore, some portions of each 

route’s standard construction is 110 feet and 80 feet in width, respectively. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Pages 3-23 – 3-25 

Figure 3.3-6 Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B, and C 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-26

Fox River Trail Alternatives A and B would be 3.7 miles longer than Fox River Trail Alternative 

C. Fox River Trail Alternative A would result in an additional 75 and 51.1 acres of disturbance 

than Alternatives B and C. The primary advantages of Fox River Alternatives A and B are that 

they would make significant use of an existing right-of-way, would affect fewer landowners, and 

would cross fewer properties in a diagonal pattern, which is opposed by local landowners. The 

primary disadvantage of these alternatives is the physical constraint of the trail (26 to 30 feet 

wide) for pipeline construction. Additional disadvantages are that more waterbodies, forest land, 

and open land would have to be crossed. 

Given the physical constraints associated with the construction within the Fox River Trail as well 

as the additional environmental impacts on waterbodies, forest lands, and open lands associated 

with Fox River Trail Alternatives A and B, we believe that Alternative C is the environmentally 

preferable alternative. Therefore, we prefer that Fox River Trail Alternative C be incorporated as 

part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

3.3.3.1 Pipeline Route Variations 

Route variations differ from system alternatives or route alternatives in that they reduce impact 

on specific localized resource issues, including individual residences or other structures, 

wetlands or infrastructure, such as roadways. 

Commission regulations (18 CFR 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, 

enlargement, or extension of existing rights-of-way to reduce potential impacts on sensitive 

resources. Installation of new pipeline along existing, cleared rights-of-way (such as pipelines, 

powerlines, roads, and railroads) may be environmentally preferable to construction along new 

rights-of-way, and construction effects and cumulative impacts can normally be reduced by use 

of previously cleared rights-of-way. Long-term or permanent environmental impacts can be 

reduced by avoiding the creation of new rights-of-way through undisturbed areas. 

Rock River South Variations A and B 

Between MPs 7.5 and 9.1 Guardian evaluated two potential route variations, Rock River South 

Variations A and B. Beginning at MP 7.5, Rock River South Variation A would travel in a 

relatively straight line towards the northeast for 1.6 miles, passing through the manmade wetland 

mitigation site and rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 9.1 (see figure 3.3-7). Rock River South 

Variation B would travel in a slightly more northeasterly direction for approximately 1.4 miles 

and then turn north for an additional 0.6 mile to rejoin with the Proposed Route. A comparison 

of the relevant environmental characteristics of Rock River South Variations A and B is included 

in table 3.3.3.1-1. 

Rock River South Variations A and B would be about the same length overall, and would require 

a similar area of disturbance during construction. The advantage of Rock River South Variation 

A is that it would reduce impacts on the wetland mitigation area, which is composed of a 

manmade pond and emergent wetland fringe. In addition, an active quarry located near Rock 

River South Variation B would be avoided by utilizing Variation A. For these reasons, the 

environmental advantages of Rock River South Variation A outweigh the disadvantages; 

therefore, we believe that the Rock River South Variation A is the environmentally preferable 

variation and accept it as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-27 

Figure 3.3-7 Rock River South Variation 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-28

TABLE 3.3.3.1-1 

Comparison of Rock River South Variations A and B

Environmental Factor 

Rock River South 

Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Rock River South 

Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 1.7 1.6 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0 0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.7 1.6 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 22.7 21.3 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 1 1 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0 0 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 0 0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 9 7 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Woodland Creek Variations A and B 

Guardian evaluated two potential routes between MP 12.4 and 16.7, including Woodland Creek 

Variations A and B. Beginning at MP 12.4, Woodland Creek Variation B would travel towards 

the northeast for about 1.6 miles, at which point it would turn sharply to the north and travel an 

additional 2.7 miles, rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 16.7 (see figure 3.3-8). Woodland 

Creek Variation A follows a slightly more direct path, heading generally northeast from MP 12.4 

to 16.7. A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of the Woodland Creek 

Variations is included in table 3.3.3.1-2. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-2 

Comparison of the Woodland Creek Variations A and B

Environmental Factor 

Woodland Creek 

Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Woodland Creek 

Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 4.1 4.2 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 4.1 4.2 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 54.2 54.7 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.1 0.3 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 0.9 2.7 c/ 

Agricultural Lands Crossed (miles) 4.1 3.9 

Landowners Crossed (number) 11 17 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-29 

Figure 3.3-8 Woodland Creek Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-30

As shown in table 3.3.3.1-2, the two route variations are similar in many respects. However, 

Woodland Creek Variation A is slightly shorter, avoids forested wetlands, and crosses two-thirds 

less total wetland and slightly less forest land than Variation B. The variation also reduces the 

number of affected landowners and avoids an archaeological site. 

Another aspect of Woodland Creek Variations A and B is that they would also determine the 

location of the Rubicon Meter Station site (see figure 3.3-8). Because the meter station sites are 

situated along mutually exclusive routes (i.e., it is not possible to select the variation with the 

original meter station site), we have evaluated them in the context of the pipeline route 

comparison rather than in the analysis of aboveground facility alternatives in section 3.3.4. 

Table 3.3.3.1-3 compares the relevant environmental characteristics of Woodland Creek 

Variations A and B with respect to the potential locations of the Rubicon Meter Station. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-3 

Comparison of the Two Rubicon Meter Station Alternatives Along Woodland 

Creek Variations A and B

Factor Unit Rubicon Meter Station –

Alternative A 

Rubicon Meter Station –

Alternative B 

County (n/a) Dodge Dodge 

Permanent Area a/ (acres) 0.5 0.5 

Elevation b/ (feet) 935 900-910 

Topography c/ (n/a) Flat Moderately Sloped 

Visibility (n/a) Residence and Oaklawn Road Butler Road 

Site Access (n/a) Oaklawn Road Butler Road 

Vegetation (type) Crop Crop 

Land Use (type) Agriculture Agriculture 

Streams (no.) 0 0 

Wetlands (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Nearest Residence (feet) 100 700 

Prime Farmland d/ (acres) 0.5 0.0 

a/ Permanent Area is defined as the total area permanently impacted by construction. 

b/ Calculated from USGS topographic mapping. 

c/ Topography: Flat 0 to 2 percent slope; Gently Sloping 2 to 5 percent slope; Moderately Sloping 5 to 10 percent slope; Steeply 

Sloping 10 percent or greater slope. 

d/ Based on SSURGO data. 

Table 3.3.3.1-3 shows that the proposed Rubicon Meter Station locations along Woodland Creek 

Variations A and B are very similar regarding most environmental factors. However, Woodland 

Creek Variation A would provide a more suitable location for the Rubicon Meter Station based 

on the flatter slope and reduced impacts of a new access road, which would be required to access 

the meter station. 

After reviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with the two pipeline variations 

and meter station locations, we believe that environmental benefits associated with Woodland 

Creek Variation A, including its reduced impacts to wetlands, forested wetlands, forested lands, 

and landowners, outweigh those of Variation B. Therefore, we prefer that Woodland Creek 

Variation A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-31 3.0 – Alternatives 

Brothers 4 Variations A and B 

Guardian evaluated two potential routes for the G-II pipeline to traverse the agricultural fields 

between MPs 45.0 and 46.1. Beginning at MP 45.0, Brothers 4 Variation B would travel straight 

in a north-northeasterly directions for about 1.1 miles, rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 46.1 

(see figure 3.3-9). In contrast, Brothers 4 Variation A would travel north-northeast for 

approximately 0.6 mile, and then would turn north for approximately 0.3 mile before rejoining 

the Proposed Route at MP 46.1. A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of 

Brothers 4 Variations A and B is included in table 3.3.3.1-4. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-4 

Comparison of Brothers 4 Variations A and B

Environmental Factor Brothers 4 Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Brothers 4 Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 1.1 1.0 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0 0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.1 1.0 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 13.9 13.0 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 0 0 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 900 400 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 1.5 0.7 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 4 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

As indicated in table 3.3.3.1-4, the Brothers 4 Variations A and B are similar in most respects 

(e.g., they cross the same type of land uses, affect the same number of landowners, etc.). The 

primary differences between the routes are that Variation A is approximately 0.1 mile longer and 

avoids crossing through the center of agricultural fields. The disadvantage to this route, 

however, is that Variation A would increase the crossing of mostly emergent wetlands by about 

500 feet. 

We believe the ability of Brothers 4 Variation A to avoid crossing through the center of 

agricultural fields, outweigh its minor impact to the emergent wetland. Therefore, we prefer that 

Brothers Variation A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Hass Variation 

In order to avoid crossing a farmer’s extensive drain tile system in a field to the south of County 

Highway Q, Guardian evaluated two potential routes for the G-II pipeline to traverse the 

agricultural fields between MPs 54.9 and 56.3. Beginning at MP 54.9, Hass Variation B would 

deviate from the Proposed Route and travel straight towards the north-northeast for about 1.4 

miles, rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 56.3 (see figure 3.3-10). Hass Variation A would 

head northwards at MP 54.9 until it crossed County Highway Q, then it would turn to the northnortheast to rejoin the Proposed Route at MP 56.3. A comparison of the relevant environmental 

characteristics of the Hass Variations is included in table 3.3.3.1-5. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-32 

Figure 3.3-9 Brothers 4 Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-33 

Figure 3.3-10 Hass Variations A and 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by email at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-34

TABLE 3.3.3.1-5 

Comparison of Hass Variations A and B

Environmental Factor Hass Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Hass Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 1.4 1.4 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 0 0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 0 0 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 18.7 18.7 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 0 0 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0 0 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 0 0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 5 5 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Overall, Hass Variation A would be about the same length as Variation B and would require a 

similar area of disturbance during construction. The advantage of Hass Variation A is that it 

avoids cutting diagonally across a drainage tiled field and would not complicate the siting of We 

Energies’ proposed substation in this area. In addition, Hass Variation A avoids the proposed 

substation site for We Energies’ Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm Project. Hass Variation B has 

no substantial environmental benefits that could negate those of Hass Variation A. 

Because the Hass Variation A avoids impacts to both a drainage tiled field and the siting of the 

We Energies proposed substation area, we believe that Variation A is the environmentally 

preferable variation and prefer the variation be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as 

filed by Guardian. 

Johnsburg Variations A and B 

Prompted by public input, Guardian evaluated the potential for the G-II pipeline to utilize an 

existing power line and ANR corridors, resulting in two potential route variations between 

MPs 56.3 and 67.4. Beginning at MP 56.3, Johnsburg Variation B would travel towards the 

north-northeast for several miles and then turn towards the north after crossing Highway 151. 

Variation B would then trend to the north and rejoin the Proposed Route on the northeastern side 

of Stony Brook, at MP 67.4 (see figure 3.3-11). Johnsburg Variation A starts at MP 56.3 and 

travels north, then turns northeast for its duration, rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 67.4. A 

comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of Johnsburg Variations A and B is 

included in table 3.3.3.1-6. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Pages 3-35 – 3-38 

Figure 3.3-11 Johnsburg Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-39 3.0 – Alternatives 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-6 

Comparison of the Johnsburg Variations A and B

Environmental Factor 

Johnsburg 

Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Johnsburg 

Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 11.1 10.5 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 8.9 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 2.2 10.5 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 144.2 138.3 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.9 0.4 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 8.2 3.6 c/ 

Landowners Crossed (number) 39 32 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 110 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

The Johnsburg Variation B would be about 0.6 mile shorter and would require about 5.9 fewer 

acres of disturbance during construction than Johnsburg Variation A. The advantage of 

Johnsburg Variation B is that it would cross fewer waterbodies and less wetlands, forest lands, 

and open lands. The primary disadvantage of this variation is that it would require the creation 

of all new rights-of-way, which is locally unpopular and would require more land disturbance. 

Given the ability of Johnsburg Variation A to utilize an existing right-of-way and minimize the 

creation of new rights-of-way in response to local public concerns, we believe that Variation A is 

the environmentally preferred alternative and accept the variation as part of the Proposed Route 

as filed by Guardian. 

ANR Corridor Variations A and B 

Prompted by public input, Guardian evaluated the potential for the G-II Pipeline to utilize the 

existing nearby ANR corridor, resulting in two potential route variations for the Proposed Route 

between MPs 78.5 and 84.0. Beginning at MP 78.5, ANR Corridor Variation A would travel to 

the northeast for approximately 1.0 mile before turning to the north and traveling an additional 

4.3 miles, including two right-angle jogs to the east. ANR Corridor Variation B would also 

begin at MP 78.5 and trend north-northeast for about 5.5 miles. Variation B would then rejoin 

the Proposed Route to the north of the Village of Holland, at MP 84.0 (see figure 3.3-12). A 

comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of ANR Corridor Variations A and B is 

included in table 3.3.3.1-7. 

As indicated in table 3.3.3.1-7, ANR Corridor Variation B would be 0.6 mile shorter and would 

require 12.8 fewer acres of additional disturbance during construction than ANR Corridor 

Variation A. The advantage of this ANR Variation A is that it would collocate the pipeline with 

an existing right-of-way, eliminating the need for a new greenfield corridor. Additionally, ANR 

Corridor Variation A would affect three fewer landowners. However, it would also cross more 

wetlands, forest lands, and agricultural lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Pages 3-40 – 3-41 

Figure 3.3-12 ANR Corridor Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-42

TABLE 3.3.3.1-7 

Comparison of ANR Corridor Variations A and B

Environmental Factor 

ANR Corridor 

Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

ANR Corridor 

Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 5.5 4.9 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 3.9 0.0 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.6 4.9 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 70.1 57.3 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 0.4 <0.1 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 3.6 0.8 c/ 

Forestland Crossed (miles) 0.3 0.1 

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 4.9 4.6 

Landowners Crossed (number) 16 19 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and forest lands and 110 feet in uplands south of the Fox 

Valley Meter Station at MP 83.65 and 80 feet north of the Fox Valley Meter Station. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Another consequence of ANR Corridor Variation A is that it would relocate the Fox Valley 

Meter Station site about 0.6 mile to the northeast of the Town of Holland (see figure 3.3-12). 

ANR Corridor Variation B places the Fox Valley Meter Station just south of the community of 

Dundas, near MP 81.4. Because the meter station sites are situated along mutually exclusive 

routes (i.e., it is not possible to select the variation with the original meter station site), we have 

evaluated them in the context of the pipeline route comparison rather than in the analysis of 

aboveground facility alternatives in section 3.3.4. Table 3.3.3.1-8 compares the relevant 

environmental characteristics of the ANR Corridor Variation locations of the Fox Valley Meter 

Station. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-8 

Comparison of the Fox Valley Meter Station Sites Along ANR Corridor Variations A and B

Factor Unit 

Fox Valley Meter Station – 

ANR Corridor Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Fox Valley Meter Station – 

ANR Corridor Variation B 

County (n/a) Brown Calumet 

Permanent Area a/ (acres) 1.2 1.2 

Elevation b/ (feet) 780 825-830 

Topography c/ (n/a) Gently to Moderately Sloping Gently Sloping 

Visibility (n/a) Natural screening from nearest residence 

and Crestview Road (to the north), partially 

visible from Outagamie Road (to the west) 

Visible from Dundas Road (to the 

north) and surrounding residences 

Site Access (n/a) Outagamie Road Dundas Road 

Vegetation (type) Crop Crop 

Land Use (type) Agricultural Agricultural 

Streams (no.) 0 0 

Wetlands (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Nearest Residence (ft.) 500 1,100 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-43 3.0 – Alternatives 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-8 

Comparison of the Fox Valley Meter Station Sites Along ANR Corridor Variations A and B

Factor Unit 

Fox Valley Meter Station – 

ANR Corridor Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Fox Valley Meter Station – 

ANR Corridor Variation B 

Prime Farmland d/ (acres) 0.7 e/ 1.2 f/ 

a/ Permanent Area is defined as the total area permanently impacted by construction. 

b/ Calculated from USGS topographic mapping. 

c/ Topography: Flat 0 to 2 percent slope; Gently Sloping 2 to 5 percent slope; Moderately Sloping 5 to 10 percent slope; Steeply 

Sloping 10 percent or greater slope. 

d/ Based on SSURGO data. 

e/ Prime only if drained. 

f/ 0.6 acre of the 1.2 acres is Prime only if drained. 

Table 3.3.3.1-8 shows that location of the Fox Valley Meter Station along ANR Corridor 

Variations A and B are very similar regarding most environmental factors. The main difference 

between the two is visibility. The ANR Corridor Variation A site would provide natural 

screening in the form of an upland forested area. The ANR Corridor Variation B site would be 

located in an area that is already visually impacted by an existing transmission line; however, 

this site would be over twice the distance from the nearest residence. Based on this analysis, the 

meter station location is not a significant factor in the overall pipeline route evaluation. For 

these reasons, paired with the benefit of a pipeline route that requires no greenfield disturbance, 

we believe that the ANR Corridor Variation A is the environmentally preferable alternative. 

Therefore, we accept ANR Corridor Variation A and the corresponding Fox Valley Meter 

Station as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Oneida Variations A and B 

Prompted by meetings with the Oneida Nation, Guardian evaluated two potential routes for the 

G-II pipeline to pass through the Oneida Reservation between MPs 96.8 and 110.4 in order to 

reduce impacts on residences and properties. Oneida Variation B begins at MP 96.8 and would 

follow either a power line corridor or ANR’s pipeline corridor. The only area where Variation A 

would not follow the existing utility rights-of-way is in the vicinity of Dutchman’s Creek and 

Geneva Drive, where it would leave the power line corridor to avoid several houses and to 

minimize the crossing of a large forested wetland area south of County Highway U (see figure 

3.3-13). Oneida Variation A was established in consultation with Oneida Nation representatives. 

This variation would generally follow the same route as Variation B; however, it would deviate 

in four locations (see figure 3.3-13). A comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics 

of Oneida Variations A and B is included in table 3.3.3.1-9. 

As indicated in table 3.3.3.1-9, Oneida Variation A would be 2.1 miles shorter and would require 

20.4 fewer acres of disturbance during construction than Oneida Variation B. Further 

advantages of Variation A is that it would require two fewer road crossings and require less 

crossing of agricultural and open lands. The primary disadvantage of Oneida Variation A is that 

it would require the creation of 0.6 mile of new right-of-way and would impact 11 additional 

landowners. Furthermore, it would use less favorable stream crossing locations. 

Given the disadvantages associated with Oneida Variation A and the fact that Oneida Variation 

B, although longer, was developed with the direct input of the representatives of the Oneida 

Nation and generally achieves the primary objectives of the tribal representatives who worked 

with Guardian for this purpose, we concur and believe that the advantages of Oneida Variation B 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Pages 3-44 – 3-47 

Figure 3.3-13 Oneida Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-48

outweigh the disadvantages and is the environmentally preferable variation. Therefore, we 

prefer that Oneida Variation B be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by 

Guardian. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-9 

Comparison of Oneida Variations A and B

Environmental Factor Oneida Variation A Oneida Variation B 

(Proposed Route) 

Total Length (miles) 11.7 13.8 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 10.0 9.4 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 1.7 4.4 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 112.4 132.8 

Roads Crossed (number) 12 14 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) 1.3 1.1 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ 11.8 10.0 c/ 

Forest Land Crossed (miles) 1.4 1.0 

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 7.4 8.0 

Open Land Crossed (miles) 2.9 4.8 

Landowners crossed (number) 35 24 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and forest lands and 80 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Beginning at MP 102.7 and ending at MP 104.2, Guardian has identified two pipeline route 

options in order to utilize an existing right-of-way and move MLV 6 away from existing 

residences and structures. Beginning at MP 102.7 Vissers Variation A would collocate the 

proposed G-II pipeline with an existing pipeline right-of-way for approximately 1.3 miles, 

rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 104.2 (see figure 3.3-14). Vissers Variation B would follow 

a transmission line northwest starting at MP 102.7 for approximately 0.75 mile and then turn 

directly north for an additional 0.9 mile before rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 104.2. A 

comparison of the relevant environmental characteristics of Vissers Variations A and B is 

included in table 3.3.3.1-10. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-10 

Comparison of Vissers Variations A and B 

Environmental Factor Vissers Variation A 

(Proposed Route) 

Vissers Variation B 

Total Length (miles) 1.4 1.5 

Length Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-way (miles) 1.4 0.8 

Length of New Right-of-way (miles) a/ 0.0 0.7 

Construction Disturbance – Total (acres) b/ 13.6 14.5 

Major Waterbodies (>100 feet) Crossed (number) 0 0 

Length of Wetland Crossed (feet) <0.1 0.1 c/ 

Construction Disturbance – Wetlands (acres) b/ <1 <1 c/ 

Landowners Crossed (number) 5 6 

a/ For the purpose of this analysis, new right-of-way is pipeline right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to an existing 

utility or road easement or right-of-way. 

b/ Based on construction right-of-way width of 75 feet in wetlands and 80 feet in uplands. 

c/ Estimated from WWI mapping. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-49 

Figure 3.3-14 Vissers Variations A and B 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-50

As indicated in table 3.3.3.1-10, Vissers Variation A decreases the length of the pipeline by 

approximately 0.1 mile and increases the length of the route that is adjacent to existing right-ofway by about 0.6 mile. It also reduces wetland crossings by approximately 380 feet by reducing 

the crossing length of wetlands associated with Oneida Creek, and would also avoid two isolated 

farmed wetlands. In addition, the variation avoids one less landowner. For these reasons, we 

believe that Vissers Variation A is the environmentally preferable route. Therefore, we prefer 

that Vissers Variation A be incorporated as part of the Proposed Route as filed by Guardian. 

Minor Variations 

Following the submittal of Guardian’s application, Guardian evaluated and adopted a number of 

other minor variations. Except as noted below, these minor variations do not affect any new 

landowners and do not increase the impact on any known sensitive resources such as waterbodies 

or wetlands. Table 3.3.3.1-11 lists the locations and reasons why each of these minor variations 

was adopted. 

TABLE 3.3.3.1-11 

Minor Variations Incorporated by Guardian into the Proposed Route

Variation County Mileposts Approximate 

Length (mi) Reason for Variation 

MV-Y Dodge 10.7-11.0 0.3 This minor variation moves the alignment up to 140 feet northwest 

of the Proposed Route to avoid crossing approximately 180 feet of 

mapped emergent wetland. The variation adds approximately 40 

feet to the overall length of the route and further refines MV-E. 

MV-Z Dodge 14.2-15.2 1.0 This minor variation shifts the alignment up to 250 feet west of the 

Proposed Route to avoid impacts on a drain tile system. The 

variation adds approximately 51 feet to the overall length of the 

route. 

MV-AA Dodge 18.9-19.3 0.4 This minor variation proceeds north from approximately MP 18.9 for 

approximately 1,475 feet, crossing the unnamed tributary to Lentz 

Creek approximately 360 feet west of the Proposed Route. The 

variation then proceeds northeast for approximately 800 feet before 

returning to the Proposed Route. The variation avoids crossing 42 

feet of mapped wetland and avoids the clearing of woody 

vegetation associated with the wetland. The variation adds 

approximately 50 feet to the overall length of the route and further 

refines MV-J. 

MV-AB Fond du Lac 38.3-38.8 0.5 This minor variation was initiated at the request of a landowner to 

avoid impacts on two large oak trees on his property. The variation 

shifts the alignment approximately 250 feet to the east, adds 

approximately 65 feet to the overall length of the route, but 

decreases the crossing length of a wooded area by approximately 

100 feet and avoids the two trees of concern. 

MV-AC Calumet 76.0-76.3 0.3 This minor variation moves the alignment of the pipeline 

approximately 100 feet to the east, and avoids approximately 140 

feet of scrub / shrub wetland. The minor variation adds 

approximately 35 feet to the total length and further refines MV-S. 

MV-AD Calumet 77.3-77.8 0.5 This minor variation collocates the route with an ATC power line (up 

to 425 feet west of the Proposed Route) for an additional 1,200 feet 

and decreases wetland crossing by approximately 75 feet. The 

variation adds approximately 130 feet to the overall length of the 

route. 

MV-AE Outagamie 82.2–82.4 0.2 This minor variation continues north adjacent to the ANR pipeline 

for an additional 1,000 feet before turning east and rejoining the 

Proposed Route near MP 82.4. The variation adds approximately 

110 feet to the overall length of the route. 

MV-AF Brown 90.6-93.0 2.4 This minor variation minimizes impacts on a proposed subdivision 

by aligning the route within the proposed roads of the subdivision. 

The variation does not increase the overall length of the route and 

is within 150 feet east or west of the Proposed Route. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-51 3.0 – Alternatives 

3.3.3.2 Landowner Modifications 

Baus Modification 

A landowner between MP 49.0 and 50.0 of the Proposed Route raised a number of agricultural 

concerns, especially erosion, stones in agricultural soils, and drain tiles. Other concerns included 

impacts on fences, forest land, wetlands, and the economic impact of the pipeline on their land 

and farming operation. The property encompasses approximately 45 acres south of Cody Road. 

The Proposed Route would cross about 1,200 feet of the property between MPs 49.6 and 49.9. 

Construction of the G-II Pipeline as proposed would temporarily impact about 3.0 acres of 

agricultural land. There are no residences or structures, wetlands, or known drain tiles in this 

area. The only trees that would be cut on the property are located in a narrow hedge row that 

borders the southern property line. A little less than half of the soils that would be affected on 

the property are listed as stony or highly erodible. The permanent easement would encompass 

about 1.4 acres, but would not preclude future farming operations. In addition, Guardian has 

proposed an AMP that would help mitigate potential impacts. 

To address potential landowner concerns that might avoid the property, as well as measures that 

would minimize potential impacts, a route modification to the west was developed (see Baus 

Modification A on Figure 3.3-15). Baus Modification A would depart from the Proposed Route 

at MP 49.0 and travel in a north-northwesterly direction for approximately 0.57 mile. The 

modification would follow an existing tree line and property boundary quarter-section section 

line to Cody Road. The Proposed Route modification would then turn southeast along Cody 

Road whereby the pipeline would reconnect with the Proposed Route at about MP 49.85 (see 

Figure 3.3-15). 

Potential disadvantages associated with the proposed Baus Modification is that the route would 

increase the pipeline length by approximately 0.1 mile, affect more acres of agricultural land, 

and have the potential to impact existing agricultural drainage tiles, although the modification 

would be located mostly along the edges of agricultural fields. This modification would also be 

about 200 feet from a residence near where the pipeline would intersect Cody Road. 

Despite these disadvantages, more information and further analysis is necessary to determine 

whether Baus Modification A is environmentally preferable to the Proposed Route. We will 

finalize our review upon completion of a field investigation and further study of the 

modification. We will present our findings in the final EIS. 

Tetzlaff Modification 

Landowners between MPs 91.3 and 92.8 have expressed concern about the effect of the pipeline 

location on property value and future development. Following Guardian’s filing on October 13, 

2006, the Applicant evaluated and incorporated a minor route variation to address the concerns 

of the landowners along this portion of the proposed pipeline route (see table 3.3.3.1-11 and 

figure 3.3-16). This route variation was filed with the FERC in a supplemental filing on 

December 14, 2006. Upon our request, Guardian evaluated an additional route modification 

between MPs 90.8 and MP 92.8 (Tetzlaff Modification). This modification would begin at about 

MP 90.7 and proceed northward along property lines to the intersection of Meadowlark Road 

and Tetzlaff Road. The variation crosses through the intersection and proceeds north adjacent to 

Tetzlaff Road for approximately 1.5 miles, crossing County Highway ZZ. Directly north of 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-52 

Figure 3.3-15 Baus Modification A 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-53

Figure 3.3-16 Tetzlaff Modification 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-54 3.0 – Alternatives 

County Highway ZZ, the variation turns east following County Highway ZZ until it returns to 

the proposed route at approximately MP 92.6 (see figure 3.3-16). 

As proposed, the Tetzlaff Modification is environmentally similar to the proposed route in most 

respects (e.g., both routes cross the same types of land uses and neither route crosses any 

identified wetlands or waterbodies). The primary advantage of the modification is it increases 

the length of the route adjacent to existing rights-of-way by approximately 1.7 miles. However, 

while the Tetzlaff Modification would increase collocation with existing rights-of-way, it poses a 

number of disadvantages. The modification would cross three new landowners, two more than 

the proposed route. The modification would also increase the overall length of the pipeline by 

approximately 600 feet, thus increasing overall impacts and costs. In addition, the modification 

is located within 100 feet of three existing structures (two of which are residences, including one 

of the Tetzlaff family residences), and within 150 feet of an additional three structures. Further, 

the proposed Tetzlaff Modification would impact more potential home lots than the proposed 

route, because it is not collocated with as many proposed subdivision roads as the proposed 

route. Lastly, the modification would necessitate relocating the Denmark Meter Station and 

would increase the length of WPS’s interconnecting pipeline by about 800 feet. 

Based upon the above analysis, the Tetzlaff Modification does not offer any significant 

environmental advantages over the proposed route and it has several disadvantages, including 

additional environmental impacts. Therefore, we believe the proposed modification is not a 

viable alternative to the proposed route and has been eliminated from further consideration. 

VanRossum Modification 

Landowners between MPs 89.0 and 91.5 have expressed a desire for Guardian to site its pipeline 

along existing rights-of-way and property boundaries. In response to landowner concerns, 

Guardian evaluated a potential route modification (VanRossum Modification) between MPs 89.0 

and MP 91.5. 

Beginning at about MP 89.1, the VanRossum Modification would proceed north following 

property boundary quarter-section lines for approximately 1.2 miles. At Meadowlark Road, the 

modification would turn and proceed east paralleling Meadowlark Road for approximately 0.7 

mile, returning to the proposed route near MP 90.5 (see figure 3.3-17). 

The primary advantage of the VanRossum Modification is that it would collocate the pipeline 

with an existing right-of-way for about 0.68 mile. The modification would also avoid a small 

farmed wetland (OS-W10) associated with the tributary to the East River near MP 90.3 of the 

proposed route. However, while the VanRossum Modification is similar with respect to some 

environmental factors (both routes cross the same types of land uses; both routes require a 

crossing of an unnamed tributary to the East River—albeit at different locations), the variation 

has a number of disadvantages relative to Guardian’s proposed route. The variation adds 

approximately 2,360 feet to the overall length of the pipeline, which would result in greater 

overall impacts and cost. The modification would also affect three new landowners; one more 

landowner than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Additionally, the modification 

would affect a significant area of drain tile located north and south of Mallard Road (see figure 

3.3-17). The modification would also place the pipeline within 100 feet of an existing structure 

and within 150 feet of five additional structures (including one residence). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-55 

Figure 3.3-17 Van Rossum Modification 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-56 3.0 – Alternatives 

Based upon the above analysis, the advantages of the VanRossum Modification do not outweigh 

the disadvantages. Therefore, we believe the proposed modification is not a viable alternative to 

the proposed route and has been eliminated from further consideration. 

3.3.4 Aboveground Facility Site Alternatives 

Guardian proposes to construct two new compressor stations, seven new meter stations, six 

MLVs, and two sets of launcher/receiver stations as part of the proposed Project. We have 

evaluated the proposed locations of the aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. All of 

the proposed aboveground facilities are necessary to meet the purpose and need of the G-II 

Project. 

The search for alternatives focused on sites that would require a minimum of environmental 

impact, choosing agricultural lands over woodlands or streams and wetlands. Whenever 

possible, Guardian selected meter station sites that collocated with existing or proposed We 

Energies and WPS facilities. The locations of meter and compressor stations would be linked to 

the location of the proposed Project (with the exception of the Sycamore Compressor Station, 

which would be situated along Guardian’s existing pipeline in northeastern Illinois). 

Meter Stations 

As explained previously, the Rubicon and Fox Valley Meter Stations are discussed with their 

associated alternative or variation routes, because the two features must be collocated. The 

remaining proposed meter stations and their alternatives are discussed here. 

Sheboygan Meter Station 

The original meter station site is located at MP 45.3; the alternative meter station site is at 

MP 43.9 (see figure 3.3-18). The proposed and alternative sites are both located on 0.5 acre of 

private, prime farmland of different owners, at average elevations of about 1,105 feet and 1,155 

feet, respectively, with gently sloping topography. No wetland, biological, or cultural resources 

would be affected on either site. Both sites would require access roads of comparable lengths 

and neither site would require any significant length of new transmission line to be constructed. 

The differences between the two sites are minor. The nearest residence is 700 feet from the 

original site and 750 feet from the alternative site; therefore, noise impacts would be similar. 

Both sites would be visible from homes on County Highway UU and the alternative site would 

be visible from Grandview Road 0.25 mile to the east. 

Because the original Sheboygan Meter Station site offers no clear environmental advantages, and 

because the alternative site would be collocated with another proposed facility, we recommend 

use of the Proposed Sheboygan Meter Station at MP 43.8. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-57 

Figure 3.3-18 Sheboygan Meter Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-58

Chilton Meter Station 

The original Chilton Meter Station site is located on the north side of Quinney Road at MP 66.5, 

and the alternative Chilton Meter Station site is located on the south side of Quinney Road at MP 

66.4 (see figure 3.3-19). The proposed and alternative sites are both located on 0.6 acre of 

private, prime farmland of different owners, each at an elevation of about 980 feet, with gently 

sloping topography. No wetland, biological, or cultural resources would be affected on either 

site. Both sites are visible only from Quinney Road, which could also provide a permanent 

access road to either site. Neither site would require any significant length of new transmission 

line to be constructed. 

The differences between the two sites are minor. The nearest residence is 1,000 feet from the 

original site and 900 feet from the alternative site, creating similar noise impacts. 

Because the original and alternative Chilton Meter Station sites are nearly identical in 

environmental respects, and because the alternative site would be WPS’s preferred transmission 

tie-in location, we recommend use of the Proposed Chilton Meter Station at MP 66.4. 

Denmark Meter Station 

Both Denmark Meter Station sites are located at MP 91.6; the original site is on the north side of 

Wrightstown Road while the alternative location is directly across the street on the south side of 

Wrightstown Road (see figure 3.3-20). The original and alternative sites are both located on 0.5 

acre of private, prime farmland, but the alternative site would collocate the meter station with 

WPS’s proposed pipeline lateral interconnection. No wetland, biological, or cultural resources 

would be affected on either site. Both sites are visible from a residence off Wrightstown and 

Tetzlaff Roads, and no new access roads or significant length of transmission line would be 

required for either site. 

The differences between the two sites are minor. The nearest residence is 100 feet from the 

original site and 150 feet from the alternative site, creating similar noise and visual impacts. 

Because the original and alternative Denmark Meter Station sites are nearly identical in 

environmental respects, and because the alternative site would collocate the meter station with 

WPS’s proposed interconnecting pipeline, we recommend use of the Denmark Meter Station on 

the south side of Wrightstown Road as proposed. 

Southwest Green Bay Meter Station 

Guardian collocated the Southwest Green Bay Meter Station with a proposed WPS 

interconnecting pipeline tie-in with minimal environmental impact, and therefore did not explore 

an alternative site. We were not able to identify an environmentally preferable alternative for 

this location. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-59 

Figure 3.3-19 Chilton Meter Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-60 

Figure 3.3-20 Denmark Meter Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3-61 3.0 – Alternatives 

West Green Bay Meter Station 

The original West Green Bay Meter Station site is located at MP 109.8, and the alternative meter 

station site is at MP 109.9 (see figure 3.3-21). The proposed and alternative sites are both 

located on 0.5 acre of agricultural land, each at about 760 feet in elevation, ranging from flat to 

gently sloping to moderately sloping topography. No wetland, biological or cultural resources 

would be affected on either site and no new access roads or significant length of transmission 

line would be required for either site.

Neither site would require new access roads. The primary difference between the two sites is the 

extent of visual screening. The nearest residence is 600 feet from the original site and 1,000 feet 

from the alternative site, and both sites would be visible from County Highway VV and Olson 

Road. While situated adjacent to an existing aboveground facility, the proposed site is highly 

visible from the highway, unlike the alternative site, which is situated near a forested area that 

provides some visual screening. 

In addition, the proposed site would require an additional 0.5 mile to be added to the total 

pipeline length as well as any associated environmental impacts. Because the original West 

Green Bay Meter Station site offers no environmental advantages over the alternative site and in 

fact would create a greater environmental impact due to the additional pipeline length, we 

recommend use of the West Green Bay Meter Station as proposed. 

Compressor Stations 

Sycamore Compressor Station 

As part of the proposed Project, Guardian would need to add two compressor stations to the 

already existing Guardian pipeline system in order to maintain pipeline pressure. The southern 

station would be the Sycamore Compressor Station. Guardian identified two sites for the 

proposed Sycamore Compressor Station (see figure 3.3-22). Given their adjacent proximity to 

each other, both sites are similar in most respects. Both sites are located on 12.5 acres of private 

land at an elevation of about 900 feet with mostly flat topography. No wetland, biological or 

cultural resources would be affected on either site. The land is regarded as prime farmland due 

to the soil type and drainage, and is planted with standard row crops of corn and soybeans in 

most years. Both sites would occupy more than 5 acres of prime farmland; however, because all 

of the soils in the project area constitute prime farmland soils, we were unable to identify entirely 

non-prime farmland alternative locations. Because of design requirements, the compressor 

station needs to be in this general location. The nearest residence is approximately 825 feet west 

of the proposed compressor station location, creating low stationary visibility impacts, but both 

sites are plainly visible from Story Road. 

The differences between the two sites are minor. While the proposed site is 1,320 feet from the 

nearest sensitive noise receptor, the alternative site is 1,050 feet from the same receptor. The 

proposed site contains one intermittent stream, while the alternative site has no streams, but 

slightly more variation in topography. And finally, the length of the new power line required to 

link the compressor station with the existing 138 kV transmission line at Lloyd Road to the west 

varies by 0.1 mile, 2.6 miles for the proposed site and 2.7 miles for the alternative site. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-62 

Figure 3.3-21 West Green Bay Meter Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-63 

Figure 3.3-22 Sycamore Compressor Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
3.0 – Alternatives 3-64

Both sites are very similar in most respects, but the slightly shorter length of the transmission 

line and the greater distance from the receptor make the location of the Sycamore Compressor 

Station the preferable location. 

Bluff Creek Compressor Station 

As part of the proposed Project, Guardian would need to add a compressor station to the existing 

Guardian pipeline system in order to maintain pipeline pressure. The northern station would be 

the Bluff Creek Compressor Station. Guardian identified one alternative site for the proposed 

Bluff Creek Compressor Station (see figure 3.3-23). Both sites considered for the Bluff Creek 

Compressor Station are located on 20.0-acre parcels of land, the proposed site is held by a 

farming operation, and the alternative site is owned by Guardian. No streams or other wetland, 

biological, or cultural resources would be affected on either site. The Kettle Moraine State 

Forest would suffer no impacts from the Bluff Creek Compressor Station. 

There are several differences between the two sites. The proposed site has only three residences 

within 2,000 feet of it and is 1,160 feet from the nearest sensitive noise receptor, whereas the 

alternative site is 840 feet from its nearest sensitive noise receptor and has 19 residences within 

2,000 feet of it. The proposed site would require no new transmission line to power the 

compressor station, as an existing transmission line, whereas the alternative site would require 

the construction of a new transmission line to access the nearest existing power line, which is 

located 0.8 mile to the southwest of the site. Both sites contain prime agriculture land due to the 

soil type and drainage; however, the proposed site contains 20 acres and the alternative site has 

12 acres. Both sites would occupy more than 5 acres of prime farmland; however, because all of 

the soils in the project area constitute prime farmland soils, we were unable to identify entirely 

non-prime farmland alternative locations. Because of design requirements, the compressor 

station needs to be in this general location. While visibility from residences is expected to be 

low, both sites are visible by people in transit via Kettle Moraine Drive, McCabe Road, and 

County Highway O for the proposed site, and from Highway 12, as well as the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail for the alternative site. 

Possibly the biggest difference between the two sites occurs from topography and the 

environmental impacts that would stem from the preparation of the land for the compressor 

station (i.e., grading). The proposed site is flat (0 to 2 percent slope) whereas the alternative site 

has some steeply sloping area (greater than 10 percent slope). The soils on this steeper land 

would be more prone to erosion if disturbed, which could lead to additional cumulative 

environmental impacts after project completion. 

Because of the disadvantages of the alternative site, we recommend the original site for the 

location of the Bluff Creek Compressor Station as proposed. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE GUARDIAN EXPANSION 

AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-8-000 

Page 3-65 

Figure 3.3-23 Bluff Creek Compressor Station Alternative 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-1 4.1 – Geologic Resources 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed G-II Project would 

vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, 

short-term, long-term, and permanent. Temporary impact generally occurs during construction 

with the resource returning to preconstruction condition almost immediately afterward. Shortterm impact could continue for up to 3 years following construction. Impact was considered 

long-term if the resource would require more than 3 years to recover. A permanent impact could 

occur as a result of any activity that modifies a resource to the extent that it would not return to 

preconstruction conditions during the life of the project, such as the construction of the 

aboveground facilities. We considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a 

substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational impact, 

and proposed mitigation for each resource. Guardian, as part of its proposal, agreed to 

implement certain measures to reduce impact. We evaluated Guardian’s proposed mitigation to 

determine whether additional measures are necessary to reduce impact. These additional 

measures appear as bold-type paragraphs in the text. We will recommend that these measures be 

included as specific conditions to authorizations that the Commission may issue to Guardian. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the following 

assumptions: 

• Guardian would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.0; and 

• Guardian would implement the mitigation measures included in the application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

4.1.1 Geological Setting 

The G-II Project would cross the Great Lakes section of the Central Lowland physiographic 

province. Topographic relief is typically low with gentle rolling hills and low-gradient drainage. 

Glacial features, such as drumlins (elongated hills oriented in the direction of glacial movement), 

moraines (ridge-like deposits) and kettle holes with lakes and ponds cover the majority of the 

pipeline route. Surficial deposits along the pipeline route consist primarily of products of the 

Wisconsinian Glaciation, including clayey, loamy, and sandy till; glacial lake deposits; outwash 

sand and gravel; and windblown soil and sand deposits. Table 4.1.1-1 provides a summary of 

the surficial geology along the proposed pipeline route. Elevations along the proposed pipeline 

route range from 590 to 1,159 feet above mean sea level (msl). Topography in the project area 

range from flat to steep, but approximately 88 percent of the proposed pipeline route crosses 

soils with slopes of 5 percent or less. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.1 – Geologic Resources 4-2

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Surficial Geology Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Milepost 

Beginning Ending 

Length 

(Miles) Description 

0.0 1.2 1.2 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

1.2 7.1 5.9 Sand and gravel–Outwash deposits 

7.1 20.9 13.8 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

20.9 22.1 1.2 Loamy till–End-moraine deposits 

22.1 56.4 34.3 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

56.4 56.9 0.5 Clayey till–End-moraine deposits 

56.9 59.1 2.2 Clayey till–Ground-moraine deposits 

59.1 61.4 2.3 Clayey till–End-moraine deposits 

61.4 67.5 6.2 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

67.5 68.5 1.0 Loamy till–End-moraine deposits 

68.5 70.0 1.5 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

70.0 70.8 0.9 Loamy till–End-moraine deposits 

70.8 75.7 4.8 Clayey till–Ground-moraine deposits 

75.7 78.9 3.2 Sand and gravel–Outwash deposits 

78.9 81.4 2.5 Clayey till–Ground-moraine deposits 

81.4 105.1 23.7 Clay and silt–Lacustrine deposits 

105.1 109.9 4.8 Loamy till–Ground-moraine deposits 

Source: Fullerton et al., 2004. 

The bedrock underlying Guardian’s proposed route consists of Silurian and Ordovician age 

limestone and dolomite, shale, and sandstone formations (Mudrey et al., 1982). Table 4.1.1-2 

provides a summary of the bedrock geology along the proposed pipeline route. Depth to bedrock 

is generally greater than 10 feet, and the overlying glacial deposits typically range from 0 to 

200 feet thick. There are several areas where depth to bedrock would be within 10 feet of the 

ground surface. 

Ordovician-aged bedrock includes the Maquoketa Formation (which consists of shale, dolomitic 

shale, and dolomite) and the Sinnipee Group (which includes the Galena, Decorah, and 

Platteville Formations and consists of dolomite with some limestone and shale). The Silurian 

unit includes the Cayugan, Niagaran, and Alexandrian series and consists of dolomite (Mudrey et 

al., 1982). The edge of the Silurian rocks is characterized by the Niagara Escarpment, the 

sloping face of a 650-mile-long sickle-shaped bedrock ridge curving westward from south of 

Rochester, New York, across southeast Canada, and then southward around the western side of 

Lake Michigan to southeastern Wisconsin (Anderson et al., 2002). 

The escarpment is typically covered by up to several hundred feet of unconsolidated glacial 

sediment along its length with isolated vertical and horizontal bedrock outcrops (Anderson et al., 

2002). The escarpment underlies four of the counties crossed by the pipeline route including 

Brown, Dodge, Calumet, and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin. However, the pipeline does not 

cross any vertical or horizontal exposures of bedrock associated with the escarpment. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-3 4.1 – Geologic Resources 

TABLE 4.1.1-2 

Bedrock Geology Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Milepost 

Beginning Ending 

Length 

(Miles) Map Unit Name Period 

0.0 1.3 1.3 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

1.3 12.7 11.4 Sinnipee Group Ordovician 

12.7 19.2 6.5 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

19.2 21.5 2.3 Silurian, undivided Silurian 

21.5 27.0 5.5 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

27.0 41.4 14.4 Silurian, undivided Silurian 

41.4 43.1 1.7 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

43.1 56.4 13.3 Silurian, undivided Silurian 

56.4 60.5 4.1 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

60.5 75.9 15.4 Silurian, undivided Silurian 

75.9 83.6 7.6 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

83.6 83.6 0.0 Sinnipee Group Ordovician 

83.6 86.9 3.3 Maquoketa Formation Ordovician 

86.9 109.9 23.0 Sinnipee Group Ordovician 

Source: Mudrey et al., 1982. 

In addition to the pipeline, Guardian proposes to construct and operate two compressor stations, 

the Bluff Creek Compressor Station in Walworth County, Wisconsin, and the Sycamore 

Compressor Station in DeKalb County, Illinois. Surficial geology at the proposed compressor 

station sites consists of loamy till-end moraine deposits (Fullerton et al., 2004) and varies 

between 100 to 200 feet thick in these locations (WGNHS, 1983; Piskin, 1975). Bedrock 

geology at the Bluff Creek Compressor Station consists of the Sinnipee Group (Mudrey et al., 

1982) and bedrock at the Sycamore Compressor Station consists of the Maquoketa Formation 

(Willman, et al., 1967). All other aboveground facilities associated with the proposed pipeline 

would be located immediately adjacent to the pipeline and would be underlain by the same 

geologic resources described above for the pipeline facilities. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

defines shallow bedrock as bedrock occurring in the upper 60 inches of the soil profile (USDA, 

2003). The presence of shallow bedrock indicates areas where blasting may be required during 

construction of the proposed Project. Less than 2 percent (1.9 miles) of the proposed pipeline 

route crosses areas that meet this definition based on a review of county soils data (USDA, 

2003). The majority of this bedrock is considered hard and may require blasting or other special 

construction techniques during installation of the proposed pipeline. The location of shallow 

bedrock by MP is listed in table 4.1.1-3. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.1 – Geologic Resources 4-4

TABLE 4.1.1-3 

Shallow Bedrock Along the Proposed Pipeline Route a/

Milepost Pipeline Segment/County Beginning Ending 

Crossing Length 

(feet) 

Depth to Bedrock 

(inches) Bedrock Type b/ 

30-inch-diameter pipeline 

21.2 21.4 1,220 24 Hard 

29.2 29.3 909 30 Hard 

29.4 29.6 908 30 Hard 

29.7 29.8 429 30 Hard 

29.8 29.8 304 24 Hard 

29.8 30.2 1,824 30 Hard 

30.2 30.2 202 30 Hard 

30.2 30.3 384 30 Hard 

30.3 30.4 180 30 Hard 

30.4 30.4 181 30 Hard 

Dodge 

31.9 32.2 1,354 30 Hard 

35.3 35.5 405 30 Hard 

35.5 35.5 105 30 Hard 

41.5 41.6 256 30 Hard 

41.6 41.7 634 30 Hard 

Fond du Lac 

41.7 41.8 111 30 Hard 

20-inch-diameter pipeline 

Brown 84.5 84.5 315 15 Hard 

93.1 93.1 84 30 Hard 

Total 9,805 

a/ Based on soil mapping units that contain bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface as identified by the USDA-Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

b/ Hard = Potentially requires blasting; Soft = Rippable with standard construction equipment, would not likely require blasting. 

When consolidated rock is encountered during construction, Guardian’s preferred procedure 

would be to fracture and excavate the bedrock using standard construction equipment. However, 

if crystalline bedrock is encountered that is not easily removed by conventional excavation 

methods, blasting techniques would be utilized in compliance with state and federal regulations 

governing the use of explosives. Only the minimum explosive charge necessary to fracture 

bedrock and keep shot-rock from leaving the construction right-of-way would be utilized. The 

contractor would conduct pre-blasting evaluations of the rock, as needed, to develop specific 

blasting operations and monitoring plans to limit stresses on existing pipelines, nearby domestic 

structures, water supply wells, or electrical transmission tower footings that are located near the 

project area. Blasting would be conducted during daylight hours and would not begin until 

occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business, and farms have been 

notified. To ensure safety and minimize the potential impacts from blasting, we recommend: 

• Guardian shall file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of 

the OEP prior to construction a blasting plan detailing the procedures to be used 

during blasting to prevent the introduction of blast rock into agricultural lands. 

Disposal of rock and rock debris from blasting would be in areas approved by the individual 

landowners or land management agency in accordance with regulatory requirements (see our 

Plan in appendix D). Should Guardian have to dispose of excess rock outside of the right-ofDocument Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-5 4.1 – Geologic Resources 

way, an approved landfill or alternative upland area would be utilized and the appropriate 

permits and clearances obtained. 

Review of the proposed pipeline route indicates that an unnamed, intermittent stream located at 

MP 21.4 is underlain by shallow bedrock and would likely require blasting during installation of 

the crossing. A concern was also raised by the Oneida Nation about potential blasting in the 

vicinity of Duck Creek (MP 102.6). Guardian performed initial field surveys and does not 

anticipate encountering shallow bedrock within trench depth in this area. Additional 

geotechnical investigations at Duck Creek are to be conducted by Guardian in the spring of 2007 

to assist in the design of the creek crossing. 

The primary effect of pipeline construction on geology would consist of disturbances to the 

existing topography along the construction right-of-way. All areas disturbed during pipeline 

construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction 

contours during cleanup and restoration. As indicated above, a limited amount of blasting is 

anticipated along the pipeline, but geologic conditions at the proposed compressor stations and 

remaining aboveground facility sites are not expected to require blasting, special equipment, or 

techniques. For these reasons, construction and operation of the proposed Project would be 

unlikely to result in significant alterations of the topography or geological resources of the 

proposed project area. 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Mineral resources in Wisconsin include clay, sand, gravel, crushed and dimension stone, 

limestone, dolomite, copper, zinc, and peat. Sand and gravel and dimensioned stone such as 

dolomite are the primary exploitable mineral resources and are widely distributed in the vicinity 

of the Project. Metallic minerals that are mined or have economic potential in the vicinity of the 

Project include copper, gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Underground mining does not occur in the 

project area. WDNR noted that iron deposits associated with the Niagara dolomite were mined, 

at Neda in Dodge County, Wisconsin approximately 1 mile west of MP 19.0. However, the 

referenced mine has been abandoned for nearly 70 years and no impacts on this mine are 

anticipated from construction or operation of the proposed pipeline. 

Table 4.1.2-1 indicates the mineral resources identified by Guardian within 2,000 feet of the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way including five quarries and one sand and gravel pit. No mines, 

quarries, or sand/gravel pits would be crossed directly by the pipeline. There is one inactive sand 

and/or gravel pit adjacent to the right-of-way near MP 52.9. The Hanke Quarry (MP 21.0) is the 

closest active quarry operation. Guardian has continued to consult with the operator, but has not 

received any detailed information regarding current or future operations. Guardian’s review of 

recent aerial photography suggests that further expansion east towards the pipeline route is not 

possible relative to existing property boundaries. 

The eastern boundary of the Eden Stone Company is crossed near MP 41.8. While this part of 

the property is not actively mined, ongoing operations, including blasting, occur about 500 feet 

west of the proposed pipeline route. The quarry typically uses low-yield charges to fracture and 

remove rock. In consultations with the mine owner, Guardian learned that the eastern edge of 

the property will be used for long-term storage of mine spoil. The landowner has indicated the 

spoil pile could be as thick as 25 feet above land surface, but would be graded such that the 

thinnest part of the pile would be located over the proposed pipeline. Guardian is continuing to 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.1 – Geologic Resources 4-6

TABLE 4.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources within 2,000 feet of the Proposed Pipeline Route

Pipeline Segment/County Milepost Operation Distance and Direction 

from Right-of-Way 

30-inch-diameter pipeline 

Dodge 8.2 Quarry 2,000 feet Northwest 

Dodge 21.0 Quarry 400 feet West 

Dodge 29.5 Quarry 1,800 feet West 

Fond du Lac 41.8 Quarry 500 feet North 

20-inch-diameter pipeline 

Brown 98.6 Quarry 1,500 feet West 

Outagamie 101.3 Sand/Gravel Pit 1,200 feet West 

consult with the mine operator. Placement of the quarry spoil over the pipeline in this area 

would affect maintenance and visual inspection activities but in-line tools (pigs), similar to those 

used on HDD crossings, could be used to monitor the condition of the pipe. 

The Michels Construction Company operates the Western Lime Quarry, located adjacent to the 

Eden Stone Quarry. Rock from this area is used as construction aggregate. Current activities are 

greater than 2,000 feet from the proposed route; however, approximately 60,000 tons of rock are 

removed from the quarry per month and future operations are expected to expand close to the 

proposed pipeline route. The proposed Project would not interfere with future quarry operations 

because setback requirements (property line and residential land use) prohibit mining operations 

from approaching the proposed pipeline routing. The mine operator also stated that all required 

blasting is done by a subcontractor and that they understood that Guardian has established 

conditions and restrictions for blasting in the vicinity of the pipeline. 

As part of the right-of-way procurement process, Guardian would negotiate with the affected 

landowners/operators to obtain an easement agreement that governs mining activities in the 

immediate vicinity of the permanent pipeline right-of-way and/or establishes an adequate buffer 

zone between active mining areas and the proposed pipeline. Compensation for any losses or 

limitations on mining operations (current or future expansion) would be addressed during those 

easement negotiations. 

4.1.3 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, as well as 

the impressions left in rock or other materials as indirect evidence of the forms and activities of 

such organisms. No sensitive paleontological sites were identified along the proposed route. 

Pleistocene-age vertebrate fossils such as mastodon and mammoth have been discovered in the 

general area of the proposed route in Wisconsin; however, these finds are very rare. Any 

vertebrate fossils in the project area would most likely be found in peat deposits. 

The Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS) did not identify any specific 

significant paleontological resources within 3 miles of the proposed pipeline route that need 

protection. Specifically, there are no designated or protected paleontological resources along the 

pipeline route. In addition, any bedrock that may be trenched through is sufficiently duplicated 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-7 4.1 – Geologic Resources 

in areas adjacent to the right-of-way that no significant impacts on paleontological resources 

would result from the loss of bedrock in the trench (Peters, 2006). 

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards are defined by the American Geological Institute (Bates and Jackson, 1984) as 

“geologic conditions or phenomena that present a risk or are a potential danger to life and 

property, either naturally occurring or man-made.” Geologic hazards potentially occurring in the 

vicinity of the proposed project area include seismicity and faulting, soil liquefaction, slope 

failures/landslides, and ground subsidence. Hazards such as volcanism are not relevant to the 

proposed project area and are excluded from consideration here. 

4.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faulting 

Hazards associated with seismicity and faulting include ground shaking, surface rupture of faults, 

and offset along normal, reverse, or strike-slip faults. These are especially hazardous to linear, 

rigid structures, such as pipelines, in which the ground is not moving the same distance or 

direction. 

In the project area, the potential for geologic hazards associated with seismicity, including active 

faulting, ground shaking and soil liquefaction, is considered very low. The pipeline route lies 

within areas with low seismic risk. In this zone, the horizontal acceleration in rock would be no 

greater than 6 percent gravity acceleration, with a 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in 

50 years (Algermissen et al., 1982). The expected range of earthquake intensity corresponds to 

intensities V and VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMIS). Earthquakes with 

intensities of V and VI on the MMIS are felt by all, move furniture and other large objects, and 

can result in minimal to moderate structural damage (Western Michigan University, 1981; 

Bricker, 1977; and Stover et al., 1979). Based on the Seismic Source Zones Map provided in 

Algermissen et al. (1982), the majority of the project area would likely experience about six 

intensity V earthquakes every 100 years (maximum Richter magnitude of 6.1). No faults active 

in the last 10,000 years have been documented across any section of the project area (Howard et 

al., 1978; National Atlas of the United States, 2006; USGS, 2006b). In summary, historically 

recorded seismicity in the area traversed by the proposed Project has not been significant. 

Consequently, the potential for seismicity and faulting does not represent a significant risk to the 

proposed Project. While minor earthquake intensity, frequency, and duration of impacts cannot 

be quantified, maintained pipelines using modern arc-welding techniques have performed well in 

seismically active areas of the United States, including California (O’Rourke and Palmer, 1996). 

Only large, abrupt ground displacements have caused serious impacts on pipeline facilities. 

Because of the very limited potential for large, seismically induced ground movements in the 

project area (Algermissen et al., 1982), there is very little risk of earthquake-related impacts on 

the pipeline and other project facilities. 

4.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction from severe ground shaking causes cohesionless soil to lose strength. Soil 

liquefaction can result in surface settlement where the ground surface is flat, or in soil flow/slope 

instability (lateral movement) where the ground surface is sloped. Although water-saturated 

soils subject to liquefaction may exist in isolated areas along the pipeline route, the potential for 

liquefaction is small because high intensity earthquakes are unlikely in the project area and the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.1 – Geologic Resources 4-8

FERC-defined seismic threshold, based on USGS Open File Report 82-1033 (Algermissen et 

al.,1982), is not met anywhere in the project area. Further, the linear extent and ductile nature of 

pipelines generally make them less susceptible than other structures to the effects of soil 

liquefaction. Existing building codes and standards applicable to the proposed project facilities 

should adequately address the low potential for soil liquefaction. The same seismic information 

also applies to the planned compressor stations. Furthermore, neither of the proposed 

compressor station sites are in areas underlain by Holocene deposits. Therefore, soil liquefaction 

is not a significant hazard in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

4.1.4.3 Subsidence 

Ground subsidence is a lowering of the land-surface elevation that results from changes that take 

place underground. Common causes of land subsidence include dissolution of limestone in areas 

of karst terrain; collapse of underground mines; and pumping of water, oil, and gas from 

underground reservoirs. There is no active underground mining or pumping of oil and gas from 

underground reserves along the pipeline route. Consequently, subsidence due to underground 

mining or resource extraction is not likely to impact the proposed pipeline. Karst terrain is 

discussed separately in section 4.1.4.4 below. 

4.1.4.4 Karst Terrain 

Karst terrain develops in areas that are underlain by carbonate rocks and evaporites. Weathering 

and erosion produce a high degree of rock solubility in karst topography. Characteristic 

landforms such as sinkholes and caves are formed from the dissolution of the rock. The potential 

for karst is greatest where surficial deposits are less than 30 feet thick and the underlying 

carbonate rocks occur at depths at or just above the water table. In some areas, karst features are 

known to exist at depths as great as 100 feet below ground surface. A large portion of the 

proposed pipeline route is located in an area that is considered to have the potential for karst 

features (Davies et al., 1984; National Atlas of the United States, 2006). Guardian contacted 

WGNHS to inquire about the development/presence of karst features in the vicinity of the 

pipeline route. WGNHS staff stated that there is a potential for karst features along the proposed 

route in areas with shallow carbonate bedrock (portions of Brown, Calumet, and Outagamie 

Counties). The staff did not identify any karst features along the proposed route and stated that 

sinkholes and collapse features were rare in the vicinity of the project area (Bradbury, 2006). 

Based on the above, karst features are assumed to be minimal along the pipeline route and 

beneath the compressor stations. 

Even though the Project would not be considered susceptible to karst features and underground 

subsidence impacts (as discussed previously in section 4.1.4.3), the proposed project facilities 

would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the federal safety standards set forth in 

49 CFR Part 192. This would ensure integrity of the project facilities and minimize the potential 

for any pipe failures due to ground subsidence. Additionally, Guardian would conduct regular 

patrols of the pipeline right-of-way during operations to identify conditions, including any areas 

of ground subsidence that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. Adherence to 

these standards and procedures would minimize the potential for any risk to the proposed Project 

posed by ground subsidence. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-9 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

4.1.4.5 Landslides 

Other ground failures can include landslides, debris flows, and rock falls. Slides, flows, and falls 

are not anticipated to be of concern to the proposed Project because these phenomena are mainly 

associated with steep slopes. Topography along the proposed Project is characterized as flat to 

gently sloping and rolling hills and much of the proposed project area is in a low landslide 

incidence area (Godt, 1997). There are several portions of the proposed pipeline route in 

Calumet and Fond du Lac Counties located in a moderate incidence area (Godt, 1997). Portions 

of the low incidence areas crossed, mostly in Outagamie and Brown Counties, Wisconsin, are 

considered to be moderately susceptible to landslides. Guardian analyzed the SSURGO digital 

soil survey data and found that the majority (96 percent) of the soils crossed in Brown and 

Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin have slopes less than or equal to 5 percent and are therefore less 

susceptible to landslides. Overall, 88 percent of the pipeline route crosses soils with slopes of 5 

percent or less (USDA, 2003). In general, landslide potential would be limited to small isolated 

slumps, earthflows, and soil creep in areas of steeper slopes and stream and river banks. 

The proposed compressor and meter station sites are in generally flat areas where slope failure is 

not expected. Slope failures and landslides would represent a potential hazard along portions of 

the proposed project route that would traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain. Cutting 

along slopes, the weight of construction equipment, and unusually high precipitation would 

increase the potential for slope failures along these areas. However, construction of the pipeline 

would be accomplished in accordance with the requirement in our Plan, which includes measures 

to control runoff and erosion that would minimize the potential for slope failures. 

4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS 

4.2.1 Soil Composition 

Soil characteristics along the pipeline route and at aboveground facilities were identified and 

assessed using the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO; USDA, 2003a) and the Soil 

Surveys of Brown County (USDA, 1974), Calumet and Manitowoc Counties (USDA, 1980a), 

Dodge County (USDA, 1980b), Fond du Lac County (USDA, 1973), Jefferson County (USDA, 

1979), Outagamie County (USDA, 1978b), and Walworth County (USDA, 1971), Wisconsin and 

DeKalb County (USDA, 2003b), Illinois. Additional information about the soils was obtained 

from Official Soil Series Descriptions (Soil Survey Staff, 2004). The mapping scales in the 

project area range from 1:15,840 to 1:20,000, with a minimum delineation size of 2.5 to 4.0 acres 

(USDA, 1995). 

The proposed project facilities would be located in two Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs): 

the Northeastern Wisconsin Drift Plain and Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois Drift Plain 

(MLRAs 95A and 95B, respectively). MLRAs are primarily used as farmland for hay and feedgrain production, dairy cattle and other livestock, canning crops, fruit crops, and other specialty 

crops (USDA, 1978a). 

The Northeastern Wisconsin Drift Plain is characterized by nearly level to rolling till plains, 

nearly level outwash plains and lacustrine basins, low hills, and ridges. Elevations throughout 

this MLRA range from 650 to 1,300 feet above msl. Soils are moderately deep to deep, medium 

to fine textured, with mixed mineralogy. Till plains are generally comprised of well drained and 

moderately well drained, nearly level to sloping soils of the Kewaunee, Hortonville, Theresa, and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4-10

Hocheim series. Also found on the till plains are soils of the Manawa and Symco series, which 

are characterized as somewhat poorly drained on nearly level to sloping terrain. In the north, 

moderately deep to deep, medium textured and moderately coarse textured soils, with a frigid 

temperature regime and mixed mineralogy are dominant. Well drained and moderately well 

drained, gently undulating to sloping soils are present, as well as somewhat poorly drained, 

gently undulating to sloping soils on till plains. Clayey and silty drift occupy wet areas at lower 

elevations. Soils that formed as the result of organic residue from plants are in the deeper 

depressions (USDA, 1978a). 

The Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois Drift Plain is characterized by a glaciated plain 

with belts of morainic hills and ridges, nearly level outwash terraces, and drumlins. Elevations 

throughout this MLRA range from 650 to 1,000 feet above msl. The dominant soils are 

moderately deep to deep, medium textured, with mixed mineralogy. Moderately well drained 

and well drained soils are present on nearly level to sloping relief as well as moderately deep, 

medium-textured soils. Medium-textured material is found in the lowlands, and silty sediments 

are found on floodplains (USDA, 1978a). 

4.2.2 Soil Limitations 

Several soil characteristics have the potential to affect or be affected by construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. Soil limitations to be considered include erosion potential, 

prime farmland, hydric soils, revegetation potential, compaction potential, stony soils, and 

contaminated soils. Soil limitations throughout the proposed project area are summarized in 

table 4.2.2-1 and discussed below. 

4.2.2.1 Prime Farmland 

The USDA defines prime farmland as “land that is best suited to food, feed, fiber, and oilseed 

crops” (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). This designation includes cultivated land, pasture, 

woodland, or other lands that are either used for food or fiber crops or are available for these 

uses. Urbanized land and open water are excluded from prime farmland. Prime farmland 

typically contains few or no rocks, is permeable to water and air, is not excessively erodible or 

saturated with water for long periods, and is not subject to frequent, prolonged flooding during 

the growing season. Soils that do not meet the above criteria may be considered prime farmland 

if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., artificial drainage). 

Project construction would disturb a total of 1,212.3 acres of prime or potentially prime 

farmland, including 1,151 acres of pipeline right-of-way, 1.4 acres of access road, 27.3 acres 

for the pipe storage/contractor yard, and 32.5 acres for the compressor stations. Of the 

1,212.3 acres, 33.9 acres of prime or potentially prime farmland (compressor station and access 

road) would be permanently disturbed and 1,178.4 acres would be temporarily disturbed. 

Potential adverse effects include interference with agricultural drainage, loss of soil through 

erosion, mixing of topsoil and subsoil (thus reducing soil fertility), and compaction. These 

effects would result primarily from trench excavation and backfilling, and vehicular traffic along 

the construction right-of-way. 

Guardian would minimize and mitigate potential effects to prime farmlands by implementing the 

standard requirements for pipeline construction in our Plan, as well as Guardian’s AMP and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-11 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

TABLE 4.2.2-1 

Acreage of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/

Highly Erodible Pipeline 

Segment/County 

Total 

Acres in 

County 

Prime 

Farmland b/ 

Hydric 

Soils b/ 

Compact. 

Prone c/ Water d/ Wind e/ 

Reveg. 

Concerns f/ 

Stony/ 

Rocky g/

Shallow to 

Bedrock h/

30-inch-diameter pipeline 

Jefferson 28.0 18.4 9.5 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Dodge 439.2 333.3 114.6 173.7 44.1 0.1 4.8 13.6 19.9 

Fond du Lac 329.0 263.0 67.3 96.5 13.6 0.0 0.0 14.9 3.8 

Calumet 300.7 282.6 42.4 122.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 41.4 0.0 

Outagamie 3.9 3.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Brown 16.0 16.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

20-inch-diameter pipeline 

Brown 168.5 160.9 9.3 32.0 5.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.7 

Outagamie 79.5 73.4 20.9 46.8 1.4 0.1 2.9 34.3 0.0 

Pipeline Total 1364.8 1151.5 264.0 495.0 64.6 0.5 9.7 104.2 24.5 

a/ Acreage is based on a 110-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 30-inch-diameter pipe and a 80-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way for the 20-inch-diameter pipe. The area affected does not include access roads, additional temporary workspace, or 

open water, and does not account for reductions in the width of the right-of-way that Guardian would implement in wetlands and 

upland forest areas. Values within a row do not add up to the total listed in the total column because soils may occur in more than 

one characteristic class or may not occur in any class listed in the table. 

b/ As designated by the NRCS prime farmland includes those soils that are considered prime if a limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., 

artificial drainage). 

c/ Includes soils in somewhat poor to very poor drainage classes with surface textures of sandy clay loam and finer. 

d/ Includes soils designated as highly erodible land (HEL) by the NRCS. 

e/ Soil with a wind erodibility group (WEG) classification of two or less that are considered HEL or potentially highly erodible land 

(PHEL). No soils with a WEG classification of 1 are crossed by the pipeline route. None of the soils with a WEG classification of 2 

were considered HEL and only three map units were considered PHEL. 

f/ Soils with a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser and are moderately well to excessively drained. 

g/ Soils with a cobbly, stony, bouldery, shaly, very gravelly, or extremely gravelly modifier to the textural class of the surface layer 

and/or have a surface layer that contains greater than 5 percent by weight stones larger than 3 inches. 

h/ Soils identified as containing bedrock at a depth of 5 feet or less from the surface. 

associated BMPs. These practices have been developed in consultation with the Wisconsin 

DATCP. 

Interference with agricultural drainage, both surface and subsurface, would be minimized or 

avoided by grading contours to pre-existing conditions during restoration. Additionally, any 

damage to drain tiles would be repaired under consultation with landowners and local drain tile 

specialists, as needed. Guardian has not identified any irrigation systems along the proposed 

pipeline route. However, should any irrigation systems be affected during construction, 

Guardian will restore/repair all damaged irrigation systems in accordance with the standard 

requirements in our Plan. Construction and restoration procedures that would minimize or 

mitigate the effects of compaction and erosion are discussed in sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3, 

respectively. To prevent mixing of the soil horizons or incorporation of additional rock into the 

topsoil, Guardian would perform full right-of-way topsoil stripping in agricultural lands. The 

topsoil would be segregated from subsoil and would be replaced in the proper order during 

backfilling and final grading. Implementation of proper topsoil segregation would help ensure 

post-construction revegetation success, thereby minimizing loss of crop productivity and the 

potential for long-term erosion problems. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4-12

Along some portions of the proposed pipeline route (i.e., Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties), 

Guardian expects to encounter soils with medium to fine-textured surface layers underlain by 

gravelly and cobbly coarse-textured outwash. Trench excavation through these soils could result 

in additional impacts on crop productivity following construction. To maintain the water holding 

capacity of the crop-rooting zone over the trench area, Guardian would use three-lift soil 

handling procedures. Guardian is in consultation with DATCP to develop a BMP that addresses 

three-lift soil handling. Details of this BMP are included in Guardian’s AMP (currently under 

development). 

Guardian conducted a preliminary assessment of soil map units along the proposed pipeline route 

using the SSURGO database to determine the presence and extent of potential three-lift soils. 

Table 4.2.2.1-1 lists by mile post the areas at risk for potential mixing of fine-textured upper 

subsoil layers with underlying gravelly or cobbly lower subsoil during excavation of the trench. 

Based on Guardian’s analysis, less than 1 percent (0.5 mile) of the proposed route would 

potentially require three-lift soil handling. The majority of these soils (79 percent) is considered 

prime farmland, or prime farmland if artificially drained. Guardian would obtain sufficient work 

space in these areas for placement of the upper subsoil layer pile and the lower, coarser textured 

materials. To facilitate three-lift soil handling, Guardian would be required to increase the rightof-way by 25 feet in site-specific locations (see table 4.2.2.1-1). The 25-foot increase in right-ofway width in these areas would result in an additional 1.6 acres of temporary impact. 

TABLE 4.2.2.1-1 

Potential Three-Lift Soil Areas Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Milepost County Beginning Ending 

Crossing Length 

(feet) 

Dodge 16.1 16.2 439 

16.2 16.3 475 

42.1 42.2 581 

42.2 42.3 475 

42.6 42.6 369 

56.4 56.4 114 

56.4 56.4 266 

Fond du Lac 

56.5 56.5 121 

Two organic farms are located in the vicinity of the Project. The first is located between MPs 

73.1 and 73.4 and would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. The second organic farm is 

located approximately 50 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline between MPs 22.8 and MP 

23.3. Potential impacts on organic farms include soil contamination and loss of fertility. Soil 

National Organic Program standards require that farms that are certified organic (or in the 

certification process) not be exposed to chemicals found in pesticides, fertilizers, or petroleum 

products. Pipeline construction could potentially expose these farms to these prohibited 

substances by way of water runoff from adjacent property, soil erosion from adjacent property, 

construction vehicles transporting soil from other properties, or leaks/spills from construction 

vehicles. Soil fertility on organic farms relies upon a healthy soil structure that develops 

naturally over time. Restoration of a healthy organic soil profile can take several years to 

achieve preconstruction conditions. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-13 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Guardian recognizes that organic agricultural land is a unique feature of the landscape and will 

treat this land with the same level of care as other sensitive environmental features. To minimize 

adverse effects on certified organic farm soils, Guardian would implement site-specific 

construction techniques based on a BMP for organic agricultural land to be incorporated in 

Guardian’s AMP. Guardian’s BMP for organic agricultural land will identify mitigation 

measures that apply specifically to farms that are Certified Organic or farms that are in active 

transition to become Certified Organic, and will address the unique management and 

certification requirements of these operations. As part of this BMP, Guardian will request a copy 

of the Organic System Plan for the farms and will work with each producer to develop a sitespecific plan to cross the farm in a manner that would minimize the risk of losing certification. 

4.2.2.2 Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as “soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or 

ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 

part” (Federal Register, July 13, 1994). Soils that are artificially drained or protected from 

flooding (e.g., by levees) are still considered hydric if the soil in its undisturbed state would meet 

the definition of a hydric soil. Generally, hydric soils are those soils that are poorly and very 

poorly drained. 

Project construction would disturb a total of 272.0 acres of hydric soils, including 263.7 acres of 

pipeline right-of-way, 1.6 acres of access road, 1.7 acres for the contractor yard, and 5.0 acres for 

the compressor stations. Of the 272.0 acres of hydric soils, the 5.0 acres of disturbance 

associated with the Sycamore Compression Station would be permanent. 

Because of the extended periods of saturation, hydric soils can be prone to compaction and 

rutting as discussed below. In addition, high groundwater levels associated with hydric soils 

could create a buoyancy hazard for the pipeline. Guardian would minimize rutting of hydric 

soils by using construction mats where hydric soils cannot support equipment and/or by 

employing low-ground-weight equipment according to our Procedures. Special construction 

methods such as concrete coating of pipe and other weighting methods would be used to 

overcome buoyancy hazards during operation of the pipeline. 

Approximately 29.8 acres (2 percent) of the proposed pipeline route consists of organic mucks, 

also known as Histosols (see table 4.2.2.2-1). These soils, commonly found in wetlands, formed 

from water-logged decomposing plant remains and may be saturated for several months out of 

the year. The majority (72 percent) of the organic soils crossed by the proposed route are located 

in active cropland and pasture land. Organic soils pose additional problems during construction 

and operation due to their poor bearing capacity and low specific gravity. Special crossing 

techniques, detailed in our Procedures, would be implemented to minimize impacts on these 

soils. Buoyancy problems resulting from the low specific gravity and high water tables would be 

mitigated using the same techniques discussed above. 

4.2.2.3 Compaction Potential 

Soil compaction potential is determined by particle texture and moisture content. Fine-textured 

soils with poor internal drainage that are moist or saturated during construction are the most 

susceptible to compaction and rutting. Compaction-prone soils were identified by querying the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4-14

TABLE 4.2.2.2-1 

Organic Soils Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Milepost County Beginning Ending 

Acres 

6.5 7.0 6.5 

10.8 10.8 0.5 

11.0 11.1 1.8 

11.8 11.9 0.5 

14.9 15.1 2.3 

Dodge 

15.2 15.2 0.6 

38.3 38.3 0.3 

38.9 38.9 0.8 

39.0 39.1 1.9 

40.3 40.4 1.7 

40.4 40.6 2.3 

49.3 49.6 4.7 

51.5 51.5 0.6 

52.3 52.4 0.8 

52.9 52.9 0.4 

56.7 56.7 0.4 

Fond du Lac 

56.9 57.0 0.5 

70.0 70.1 1.4 

70.1 70.2 0.4 

73.4 73.4 0.7 

Calumet 

78.6 78.7 0.7 

Project Total 29.8 

SSURGO database for component soil series that have both: 1) a surface texture of sandy clay 

loam or finer; and 2) a drainage class of somewhat poorly drained through very poorly drained. 

Project construction would disturb a total of 519.0 acres of compaction-prone soils, including 

495.0 acres of pipeline right-of-way, 3.2 acres of access road, 9.7 acres for the pipe 

storage/contractor yard, and 11.1 acres at the Sycamore Compressor Station. Of the 519.0 acres 

of compaction-prone soils, 11.1 acres of disturbance associated with the Sycamore Compressor 

Station would be permanent. 

Soil compaction modifies the structure and reduces the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of 

soils. Construction equipment traveling over wet soils could disrupt the soil structure, reduce 

pore space, increase runoff potential, and cause rutting. As a result, soil productivity and plant 

growth rates may be reduced, soils may be made more susceptible to erosion, and natural 

drainage may be altered. 

As described in our Plan and Procedures, and Guardian’s AMP, measures such as restricting 

vehicular traffic, reducing loads, employing lower ground-pressure equipment, and rescheduling 

certain activities may be used when soil moisture is high to avoid and minimize compaction and 

rutting. In agricultural, residential, and wetland areas, topsoil would be segregated from other 

materials excavated from the trench and placed in piles that would generally be opposite the 

working side of the trench. Therefore, heavy equipment would not travel on the piles, and 

compaction of excavated topsoils would be minimized. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-15 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Because of construction-related activities, some topsoil and subsoil located along the working 

side of the construction right-of-way would be compacted. Additionally, construction activities 

may be restricted as recommended by the on-site environmental inspector during unfavorable 

conditions (e.g., wet weather) to further reduce compaction and rutting. Compaction would also 

be mitigated through the use of deep tilling during restoration activities using a paraplow or 

similar implement. In areas where topsoil segregation occurs, plowing to alleviate subsoil 

compaction would be conducted before replacement of the topsoil. 

These measures would ensure that any soil compaction resulting from construction along the 

right-of-way, temporary access roads, and at the contractor yards would be only temporary, and 

thus significant or long-term impacts on soil resources associated with compaction are not 

anticipated. 

4.2.2.4 Erosion Potential 

Soil susceptibility to erosion, by wind or by water, is a function of variables such as soil type, 

topography, vegetation, and climate. Soil erodibility was determined using NRCS 

classifications. The NRCS identified areas of highly erodible land (HEL) and potentially highly 

erodible land (PHEL). PHEL consists of soils that may be highly erodible based on the slope 

class of the mapping unit, but cannot be identified as highly erodible without field 

determinations of the length of the slope class that is crossed. For example, a soil map unit may 

have a slope class of 2 to 5 percent; if most of the map unit crossed actually has a slope of 2 

percent, the soils would most likely not be highly erodible. However, if most of the map unit 

being crossed had actual slopes of 5 percent, the soils would most likely be considered highly 

erodible. 

Though the majority of soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline have only slight 

erosion potential, some areas of highly erodible soils do occur along the proposed project route. 

Approximately 0.5 acre of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are 

considered HEL or PHEL by wind. Approximately 64.6 acres (5 percent) of the soils along the 

proposed pipeline route are designated as HEL by water, as well as 1 acre of soils along the 

proposed access roads. An additional 681.0 acres (50 percent) of the soils along the proposed 

route are considered PHEL by water. 

Because of the importance of slope in assessing erosion hazards, a separate query was developed 

to evaluate the slope of soils along the right-of-way (see table 4.2.2.4-1). Based on review of 

SSURGO data, approximately 88 percent of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline have a 

slope of less than or equal to 5 percent; therefore, severe erosion is not anticipated across most of 

the proposed project route due to the relatively flat topography. 

Several phases of pipeline construction, including vegetation and pavement clearing/removing, 

grading, topsoil segregation, open trenching and backfilling, destabilize the soil material and 

make it susceptible to water and wind erosion. Soils are most susceptible to erosion after 

vegetation is removed, and before re-establishment of a vegetative cover after the pipeline is 

installed. Soil erosion would also result from off-road vehicle traffic on the right-of-way 

following construction.

To minimize or avoid potential impacts due to soil erosion and sedimentation, Guardian would 

utilize several techniques and devices such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, trench breakers, 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4-16

construction timing, revegetation, and mulching at locations identified in our Plan and the BMPs 

associated with Guardian’s AMP. Temporary erosion controls, including interceptor diversions 

and sediment filter devices (e.g., hay bales and silt fences), would be installed following initial 

ground disturbance. As required, temporary trench breakers would be installed following ditch 

excavation. Temporary erosion control devices would be inspected on a daily basis in areas of 

active construction; on a weekly basis in areas with no construction; and within 24 hours of each 

rainfall event of 0.5 inch or greater to ensure proper functioning. 

TABLE 4.2.2.4-1 

Topsoil Depths and Slope Classes Along the Proposed Pipeline Route a/

Topsoil Depth b/ (inches) Slope Class c/ (%) 

0-6 >6-12 >12-18 >18 0-5 >5-8 >8-15 >15-30 >30 Pipeline Segment/ 

County 

Total 

Acres in 

County Acres 

30-inch-diameter Pipeline 

Jefferson 28.0 0.0 17.3 1.2 9.5 18.4 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 

Dodge 439.2 111.2 208.5 95.9 23.5 354.4 0.0 79.7 4.9 0.0 

Fond du Lac 329.0 51.2 271.4 6.4 0.0 278.8 0.0 43.9 6.3 0.0 

Calumet 300.7 221.7 59.1 20.0 0.0 288.4 0.0 11.8 0.5 0.0 

Outagamie 3.9 2.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Brown 16.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

20-inch-diameter Pipeline 

Brown 168.5 156.6 9.2 0.6 2.1 161.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 0.0 

Outagamie 79.5 51.1 28.3 0.0 0.0 76.4 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.0 

Pipeline Total 1364.8 610.5 594.9 124.1 35.2 1197.3 0.0 149.1 18.3 0.0 

a/ Acreage is based on a 110-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 30-inch-diameter pipeline and a 80-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way for the 20-inch-diameter pipeline and does not include access roads, temporary extra workspace, or areas of open 

water, and does not account for reduced right-of-way widths at wetlands and forested areas. 

b/ Topsoil includes all surface horizons with 2 percent or more organic matter content. 

c/ Slopes are grouped by the averages of high and low slope ranges provided in the SSURGO database for each component soil 

series. For example, a component soil with 6 to 12 percent slopes has an average slope of 9 percent and would be placed in the 

>8 to 15 percent slope category. 

4.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential 

Revegetation potential is a rating of the ability of a soil to support revegetation efforts following 

construction-related disturbance. Some soils crossed by the proposed project were identified as 

having a poor revegetation potential based on the surface texture and drainage class. The 

drainage class of a soil is the range of its relative wetness under natural conditions. Six classes 

of drainage, ranging from poorly drained to excessively drained, are used to describe the relative 

wetness of a soil (NRCS, 1994). Droughty soils which have a coarse surface texture and are 

moderately well to excessively drained may prove to be difficult to revegetate. Droughty soils 

along the proposed route were identified by querying the SSURGO database for component soil 

series that have: (1) a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser, and (2) are moderately well to 

excessively drained. The drier soils have less water to aid in the germination and eventual 

establishment of new vegetation. The coarser textured soils also have a lower water holding 

capacity following precipitation, which could result in moisture deficiencies in the root zone and 

create unfavorable conditions for many plants. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-17 4.2 – Soils and Sediments 

Project construction would temporarily disturb a total of 10.0 acres of soils that have poor 

revegetation potential, including 9.7 acres (less than 1 percent) of pipeline right-of-way and 

0.3 acre along the access roads. 

Revegetation potential may be inhibited by soil erosion, loss of soil productivity through soil 

compaction, damage to soil structure, loss of soil fertility, damage to drainage systems, and 

unsuitable seed selection, methods, or planting conditions. To avoid or minimize these 

conditions, Guardian would return the construction right-of-way and extra work areas to 

preconstruction contours to the extent feasible; control erosion by implementing the standard 

requirements in our Plan; segregate and de-compact soils and spread topsoil on the right-of-way 

during final cleanup; repair any damaged drainage systems; place soil nutrients and lime in 

upland areas; and seed all disturbed areas. Guardian has consulted with the NRCS and area soil 

conservation districts to obtain recommendations for seed mixtures to be used during right-ofway restoration. 

Guardian would be responsible for successful revegetation of all disturbed areas, and would 

follow the standard requirements for restoration, as included in our Plan, to ensure all mitigation 

is sufficient. In accordance with FERC requirements, revegetation would be considered 

successful if the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation were similar in density and cover 

to adjacent undisturbed lands. If vegetation cover and density were not similar or there were 

excessive noxious weeds after two full growing seasons, a professional agronomist would 

determine the need for additional restoration measurements. In agricultural areas, Guardian 

would monitor crop yields to ensure that those yields in areas affected by construction were 

similar to adjacent, undisturbed areas. 

Heavy equipment traffic and trenching along the construction right-of-way could damage 

existing drainage systems or affect existing drainage patterns, thereby affecting revegetation 

potential. Effects on drainage and irrigation systems are discussed in section 4.2.2.1. 

4.2.2.6 Depth to Bedrock and Stony/Rocky Soils 

The presence of shallow bedrock is often used as an indicator of the potential for introductions of 

rock to surface layers of soils. Locations where shallow bedrock was identified are discussed in 

section 4.1. Soils with significant quantities of stones in the surface were identified by querying 

the SSURGO database for component soil series that have either: (1) a cobbly, stony, bouldery, 

shaly, very gravelly, or extremely gravelly modifier to the textural class of the surface layer; or 

(2) have a surface layer that contains greater than 5 percent (weight basis) stones larger than 

3 inches. 

Project construction would temporarily disturb a total of 104.7 acres of stony or rocky soils, 

including 104.4 acres (approximately 8 percent) of pipeline right-of-way and 0.3 acre along the 

access roads. 

Introducing stones or rocks to surface soil layers may reduce soil moisture-holding capacity, 

resulting in a reduction of soil productivity. Additionally, some agricultural equipment may be 

damaged by contact with large rocks and stones. Rock fragments and stones may be introduced 

to the surface layer during grading, trenching, and backfilling. 

The introduction of subsoil rocks/stones into agricultural topsoil would be minimized by 

segregating topsoil from trench spoil and replacing topsoil in agricultural areas after cleanup. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.2 – Soils and Sediments 4-18

This practice would prevent subsoil rocks from being brought to the surface and incorporated 

with topsoil. To the extent possible, Guardian would remove excess rock/stone greater than 4 

inches in size from the top 12 inches of disturbed soils in cultivated and rotated croplands, 

hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and at the landowner’s request in other areas. Guardian 

would also remove excess rock/stone from surface soils disturbed by construction such that the 

size, density, and distribution of rock on the construction right-of-way would be similar to 

adjacent non-right-of-way areas. Guardian would not necessarily remove rocks from backfilled 

areas if the rocks/stones in the backfill are consistent with pre-construction conditions. If 

bedrock is encountered, Guardian would take necessary precautions to minimize the mixing of 

excavated bedrock with backfill and would replace rock in the trench to a level that is not higher 

than the original bedrock profile (blasting is discussed in section 4.1). Thus, no significant 

impacts are anticipated as a result of pipeline construction through areas of shallow bedrock. 

4.2.2.7 Topsoil Depth 

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil and contains organic matter, microorganisms, moisture, 

nutrients, and a seed bank essential to support plant growth. Topsoil depths along the proposed 

pipeline route were quantified by examining the organic matter content of the surface horizons. 

Near-surface soils with 2 percent or more organic matter were considered topsoil. Topsoil 

thicknesses were then assigned to one of four classes: 0 to 6 inches, greater than (>) 6 to 

12 inches, >12 to 18 inches, >18 inches. As shown in table 4.2.2.4-1, about 45 percent of the 

soils that would be crossed have 6 inches of topsoil or less. Another 43 percent of the soils 

crossed have between 6 and 12 inches of topsoil. Only about 12 percent of the soils crossed have 

greater than 12 inches of topsoil. Guardian would avoid impacts on topsoil by implementing the 

standard requirements for topsoil segregation in our Plan. 

4.2.2.8 Contaminated Soils 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment 

could adversely affect soils. Several databases were reviewed for information regarding 

potential soil and groundwater contamination within or near the project area (see section 4.3.1). 

The proposed pipeline route would cross one site on the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL), 

the Fox River. Guardian proposes to cross the Fox River using the HDD technique (see section 

4.3.2.4 for more information about this crossing). Use of this crossing method should prevent 

interaction with any contaminated sediments within the river. Another eight sites within 0.5 mile 

of the pipeline were identified from information maintained by the WDNR. Most of these sites 

have been remediated and closed. One site with petroleum-contaminated soils is still undergoing 

remediation. This site is located about 0.4 mile southeast of the pipeline route, and would not 

likely present a problem for construction. 

Review of the NPL indicates there are no contaminated sites located within 0.5 mile of the pipe 

storage/contractor yard. However, a review of the WDNR’s Remediation and Redevelopment 

Program identified two Environmental Repair Program (ERP) sites on an adjacent property to 

the north of the pipe storage/contractor yard (Charter Steel). These sites have been closed since 

2003 and Guardian’s use of the pipe/contractor yard would not be affected by this adjacent 

property. No contaminated sites were identified within 0.5 mile of the proposed compressor 

stations, access roads, or other aboveground facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-19 4.3 – Water Resources 

Other potential impacts during construction would include accidental spills or leaks of fuels, 

lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment; accidental release of petroleum 

hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials; and/or the discovery of contaminated soils during 

trench excavation and grading activities. Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, 

and coolant from construction equipment could adversely affect soils. The effects of 

contamination are typically minor because of the low frequency and volumes of spills and leaks. 

Guardian’s SPCC Plan specifies cleanup procedures in the event of soil contamination from 

spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, coolants, or solvents. Guardian and its contractors would use 

the SPCC Plan to prevent and contain, if necessary, accidental spills of any material that may 

contaminate soils, and to ensure that inadvertent spills of fuels, lubricants, or solvents are 

contained, cleaned up, and disposed of in an appropriate manner. We believe the use of the 

SPCC Plan would minimize spills and the impact if a spill were to occur. 

To mitigate for the discovery of contaminated soils during construction activities, Guardian has 

developed an Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Soils (see 

appendix H). 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater 

4.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Conditions 

Groundwater basins tend to follow the outlines of surface water drainage in most areas. The 

proposed G-II pipeline would begin in the Mississippi River drainage and enter the Lake 

Michigan drainage near the Dodge County-Fond du Lac County line. The portion of the route 

within the Mississippi River drainage lies in the Upper Rock Watershed Management Unit 

(WMU). Within the Lake Michigan drainage, the route would cross portions of the Upper Fox, 

Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Lower Fox WMUs, before terminating just inside the Green Bay 

WMU at the northeast corner of Outagamie County (WDNR, 2006a). 

Except for the Green Bay urban area, the areas that would be crossed by the G-II Project use 

groundwater for all purposes. In rural areas, which include most of the G-II route, private 

groundwater wells supply all of the drinking water (USGS, 1986, 1988). Groundwater resources 

along the G-II route come from three aquifers: the surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer, the 

Silurian-Devonian bedrock aquifer, and the Cambrian-Ordovician bedrock aquifer (Iowa 

DNR, 1989). 

Additional information on the aquifer systems that occur along the proposed project route, as 

well as sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, public and private supply wells and 

springs, and contaminated groundwater is presented below. 

Surficial Aquifer System 

The surficial aquifer system is the uppermost and most widespread aquifer in the project area. 

It is derived from material deposited during multiple advances of continental glaciers from the 

north, which picked up soil and rock material during advances and redistributed these materials 

on the eroded land surface as water- and/or ice-laid deposits during retreats (Olcott, 1992). 

Though most important regionally, the surficial aquifer system is the least used of the three 

aquifer systems within the project area, because most of the route crosses deposits of glacial-lake 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-20

sediments and ground-moraine deposits of unsorted and unstratified till that are far less 

permeable than glaciofluvial (meltwater stream) deposits. The G-II route only crosses 

substantial surficial deposits of permeable sand and gravel in small areas of northern Jefferson 

County and Dodge County, Wisconsin and just northwest of the Fox River (Olcott, 1992). 

Where they occur, the more productive surficial aquifers range from 50 to 300 feet in thickness 

and can produce 200 to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) on average. 

Silurian-Devonian Bedrock Aquifer 

The Silurian-Devonian1 aquifer consists mostly of dolomite and limestone in which fracture 

permeability has been increased by solution and extensive karst development. The aquifer 

follows the bedrock surface throughout most of the counties of eastern Wisconsin and runs from 

Door County to the Wisconsin-Illinois border. It consists of Niagara dolomite underlain by 

Maquoketa shale, a less permeable layer that partly isolates this system from deeper layers. The 

average thickness of the carbonate rocks that compose most of the Silurian-Devonian aquifer is 

300 to 400 feet (Olcott, 1992). 

In Wisconsin, the Silurian-Devonian aquifer is recharged by water percolating through the 

variable thickness of the overlying surficial aquifer system and commonly yields from 100 to 

about 500 gpm to wells, depending on the thickness of the aquifer and the number of fractures 

the well intercepts. In such areas, permeability has been enhanced by solution openings, and 

water circulates readily through the aquifer. The water in these areas has a variety of dissolved 

ions, and contains dissolved solids in concentrations of less than 500 milligrams per liter (Olcott, 

1992). Along the Niagara Escarpment from Door County until Dodge County, much of the 

Niagara formation is exposed, forming a generally distinct bluff line. Numerous springs occur at 

the base of the bluff. 

The Maquoketa shale layer beneath the Silurian-Devonian aquifer is composed of clay and stone 

that does not transmit water easily (an aquaclude). Therefore, it is not a major water source, but 

rather a division between the eastern dolomite aquifer and the sandstone and dolomite layers that 

form the uppermost bedrock aquifer to the west (Iowa DNR, 1989). 

Cambrian-Ordovician Bedrock Aquifer 

The Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system is a 300- to 400-foot-thick multi-aquifer system 

consisting of an upper sandstone unit of Ordovician age (St. Peter Sandstone), a middle dolomite 

unit of Ordovician age (Prairie du Chien Group), and a lower sandstone unit of Cambrian age 

(Jordan Formation). These units are separated by leaky confining layers and capped by the 

Maquoketa shale formation (where it exists). In the project area, the Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer system lies below the Silurian-Devonian aquifer east of a line winding from western 

Waukesha County north to Fond du Lac then northeast to De Pere. West of this line, the 

Silurian-Devonian formation is largely absent (except for a few outliers far to the west, such as 

Blue Mounds), and the Cambrian-Ordovician formation is found under the surficial glacial 

deposits (Olcott, 1992). 

Sole Source Aquifers and Wellhead Protection Areas 

The EPA defines sole or principal source aquifers as those that supply at least 50 percent of the 

drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. These areas can have no alternative 

 

1

 The Devonian-age rocks do not occur under the pipeline corridor. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-21 4.3 – Water Resources 

drinking water source(s), which could physically, legally, and/or economically be supplied to 

those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water. There are no sole source aquifers located 

within or adjacent to the G-II Project area (EPA, 2006). 

The EPA defines wellhead protection areas as those surface or subsurface areas surrounding a 

water well or well field that supplies a public water system (EPA, 1987). Guardian contacted the 

WDNR Groundwater Section to identify any municipal wells or wellhead protection areas 

designated pursuant to NR 811.16(5) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code that may exist in the 

vicinity of the pipeline or associated facilities. The WDNR indicated that there are no municipal 

wells or wellhead protection areas within 250 feet of the pipeline or associated facilities.

Public and Private Supply Wells and Springs 

Guardian consulted the WDNR to identify the location of known public water supply wells and 

springs within 150 feet of the proposed construction work space. The WDNR found that no 

public water supply wells occurred within 150 feet of the proposed construction work space. 

To identify private water supply wells and springs located within 150 feet of the construction 

area, Guardian interviewed landowners during its right-of-way activities. Three private wells 

and three springs are located within 150 feet of the proposed construction work spaces (see 

table 4.3.1.1-1). 

TABLE 4.3.1.1-1 

List of Private Wells and Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the Construction Right-of-Way

Approximate 

Pipeline MP County, State Approximate 

Distance (ft) Direction Type 

39.9 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 100 West Well 

41.7 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0 NA Spring 

51.1 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 100 West Spring 

66.2 Calumet, Wisconsin 150 East Spring 

67.5 Calumet, Wisconsin 120 West Well 

93.8 Outagamie, Wisconsin 70 West Well 

In the unlikely event that construction activities adversely affect a water supply, Guardian would 

make the necessary repairs and/or replacements to restore the water supply system to its preconstruction capacity by re-working the existing well or installing a comparable replacement. In 

the interim, Guardian would provide a temporary source of water, such as contracting with a 

local water supply firm to deliver potable water. 

Contaminated Groundwater 

Guardian evaluated the documented occurrence of, and potential for, contaminated groundwater 

along the proposed pipeline route (e.g., Leaking Underground Storage Tank [LUST] sites, and 

closed or open ERP sites) by examining information available from the WDNR Remediation and 

Redevelopment Internet site (WDNR, 2006c). Eight contaminated sites were identified within 

0.5 mile of the pipeline route (table 4.3.1.1-2). 

Based on consultations with the State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce, the open ERP 

site, located 0.36 mile to the southeast of the proposed pipeline route at MP 41.8, once contained 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-22

aboveground petroleum storage tanks and now exhibits low-level soil contamination but no 

groundwater contamination. 

TABLE 4.3.1.1-2 

List of Contaminated Sites Located Within 0.5 Mile of the Construction Right-of-Way

Approximate 

Pipeline MP County, State Approximate Distance 

(miles) Direction Type 

41.7 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.21 Southeast Remediated ERP Sites 

41.7 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.46 Southeast Remediated ERP Sites 

41.8 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.23 Southeast Remediated LUST Site 

41.8 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.36 Southeast ERP Sites 

46.0 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.37 West Remediated LUST 

54.0 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 0.48 Southeast Remediated LUST 

95.3 Outagamie, Wisconsin 0.17 Southwest Remediated LUST 

101.7 Outagamie, Wisconsin 0.41 Northeast Remediated LUST 

4.3.1.2 General Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation 

Project-related construction and operational activities could affect groundwater resources; 

however, most potential impacts are avoided or minimized by the use of both standard and 

specialized construction techniques. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in further 

detail in the following sections. 

Construction 

Shallow and perched aquifers could sustain minor impacts from changes in overland water flow 

and recharge due to clearing and grading of the project rights-of-way. In forested areas, water 

infiltration, which is normally enhanced by vegetation, would be reduced until vegetation is reestablished. The permanent cleared area would have less vegetation layers to reduce the energy 

of falling water, and retain it to allow it to percolate. In addition, permanent effects would also 

occur to groundwater recharge as a result of the development of impervious surfaces and 

structures at the proposed aboveground facility sites and/or near-surface soil compaction caused 

by heavy construction vehicles, which could reduce the soil’s ability to absorb water. These 

impacts would be minor and temporary, and because they affect a very small portion of each 

aquifer’s total recharge area, they would not significantly affect groundwater resources. 

The pipeline trench could also alter the quantity of groundwater that flows to specific points of 

discharge, such as a well or spring, by altering shallow groundwater flow paths. A disturbed 

linear corridor may have higher transmissivity (ease of groundwater movement) than the intact 

soil layers. Altered flow paths can result in changes to the quality of groundwater at specific 

locations by exposing the groundwater to different soil constituents or contaminants. These 

impacts would most likely occur in shallow and perched aquifers. The proposed pipeline would 

not, however, change the regional flow paths because these are determined by larger-scale 

geologic features that form the hydrogeologic setting. Also, deeper aquifers that are 

hydrologically connected to the surficial aquifer would not be directly affected by trenching and 

construction activities because of their depth below the pipeline trench. Based upon these 

factors, the proposed Project is not expected to affect regional groundwater discharge conditions 

or quality. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-23 4.3 – Water Resources 

Construction of the pipeline generally requires excavating a 6- to 8-foot-deep trench. 

Dewatering may be necessary where the trench encounters shallow groundwater within the 

excavation zone. Localized lowering of groundwater due to dewatering is likely, and would 

affect a small area along the route, and be of short duration. The water pumped from the 

excavation would be discharged in accordance with FERC-approved Procedures, and subject to 

applicable discharge regulations. The potential impact of dewatering would be minimized by 

discharging the pumped water to well-vegetated upland areas, or into hay bale structures or filter 

bags if vegetation is insufficient, or where water is discharged to wetland areas to promote 

infiltration and minimize or eliminate runoff. Dewatering could temporarily depress 

groundwater levels right along the trench. However, because trenching typically proceeds at a 

relatively rapid rate, the depressed water table around the trench would be expected to recover 

rapidly once dewatering ends, and the trench is backfilled. Therefore, this activity is most likely 

to only temporarily affect flow patterns in nearby springs and shallow wells. 

Occasionally, secondary changes in the physical condition of the aquifer due to pumping and 

“rerouting” may cause longer-lasting disruptions. These cannot be predicted because they are so 

site-specific. Guardian’s plans to re-supply well users would apply to the extent that those 

impacts occur; however, impacts on natural systems such as springs may require other responses. 

Material placed to backfill the pipeline trench is generally more permeable than the surrounding 

soil and rock units, and the trench would provide an easier pathway for groundwater flow in 

areas where it intersects the water table. Thus, the pipeline trench would potentially alter the 

existing groundwater flow patterns within shallow saturated zones. In general, however, most 

wells located along the pipeline take water from deeper formations whose flow paths would not 

be affected by the trench. Additionally, Guardian would install trench breakers at specified 

intervals, as specified in our Plan and Procedures, to reduce the potential for the trench to act as 

an easier groundwater flow path, and no long-term impacts on the water table or groundwater 

movement patterns would be anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. Conversely, if 

construction and operation of heavy machinery compact soils along the proposed project route, 

water infiltration and recharge of aquifers along the trench or right-of-way would be reduced. 

However, Guardian would implement the measures identified in our Plan, which includes 

testing, and as applicable, mitigation for compacted soils (see section 4.2.2.3). 

Blasting could cause temporary changes in water levels and turbidity may affect groundwater 

quality; however, the use of controlled blasting techniques should mitigate impacts of blasting. 

Guardian’s analysis of county soils data determined that about 2 percent (1.9 miles) of the 

pipeline route would cross areas with bedrock at depths of less than 60 inches that may require 

blasting to construct portions of the pipeline facilities. These areas are reported to be located in 

northeastern Dodge, central Fond du Lac, and isolated parts of Brown Counties, Wisconsin. 

Eight contaminated sites have been identified within 0.5 mile of the proposed pipeline route 

including five LUST sites and three ERP sites (see table 4.3.1.1-2). Of these areas, all but one 

(an ERP site) have been remediated and closed by the WDNR. None of these sites involved 

contaminated groundwater and, therefore, do not pose a risk to groundwater resources. Thus, 

excavating near these areas should not result in adverse impacts on groundwater quality in the 

project area. The active ERP site is located about 0.36 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline 

route and separated from the route by a low area containing two streams. Given the distance 

from the proposed route, the absence of groundwater contamination, and the site’s assumed 

hydraulic separation from the route, it is reasonable to conclude that this site would not be 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-24

disturbed during construction activities and therefore poses no risk to groundwater resources in 

the area. 

It is possible that unknown contaminated sites could be encountered along the pipeline route 

during construction. If contaminated soils or water are discovered, Guardian would notify the 

landowner(s) and, if required, the appropriate regulatory agencies. Guardian would also follow 

the procedures outlined in its plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or 

Contaminated Soils (see appendix H to this EIS). 

The greatest potential for impacts on groundwater would be an accidental release of a hazardous 

substance, such as fuel, lubricant, or coolant, during construction or operation. Spills or leaks of 

hazardous liquids could contaminate groundwater, making it unsafe to use, and adversely affect 

the health of its users. These impacts can be avoided or minimized by confining refueling and 

storage facilities to locations less likely to allow spills to spread, and by requiring their 

immediate cleanup. Guardian has agreed to prohibit refueling or the storage of fuel or other 

hazardous liquids within 200 feet of private drinking-water wells or springs, and within 400 feet 

of public or community drinking-water wells or springs. Guardian will also have to implement 

Spill Prevention and Response Procedures that meet state and federal requirements. Guardian 

will also develop an SPCC Plan to implement during construction of the facilities. This SPCC 

Plan would address potential spills of fuel, lubricants, and other hazardous materials and outline 

spill prevention practices, spill handling and emergency notification procedures, and training 

requirements. It also prescribes mitigation measures, including containment and cleanup, to 

minimize potential impacts should a spill occur. These measures should minimize or eliminate 

the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater resources. 

Operation 

Operation of the G-II Project would not be expected to result in impacts on groundwater, unless 

maintenance activities involving pipe excavation and repair are required. For maintenance 

activities, Guardian would employ protective measures substantially the same as those used 

during construction. As a result, any impacts from maintenance would be short-term in nature 

and similar to those discussed above for the initial pipeline construction. 

4.3.1.3 Site-Specific Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction 

Sole source aquifers and wellhead protection areas do not occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project and would therefore not be affected by the proposed construction and operation activities. 

During construction, Environmental Inspectors would monitor the construction work areas for 

any previously unidentified wells, springs, and seeps. If any such features are encountered 

during construction, Guardian would treat them as waterbodies and avoid or minimize effects by 

implementing the measures identified in our Plan and Procedures. 

As indicated previously, blasting is not likely to occur along most of the route. However, if any 

blasting is required, it could adversely affect wells located within 150 feet of the proposed 

construction right-of-way. Effects could include decreased yields and/or water quality (i.e., 

increased turbidity or odor), interference with well operation, or disruption of well function. 

Guardian has consulted with the WDNR, and has not identified public water supply wells within 

150 feet of the construction right-of-way. Private water supply wells have been identified within 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-25 4.3 – Water Resources 

150 feet of the construction right-of-way, but none are located in areas of shallow bedrock. 

Therefore, no impacts on public or private drinking water wells due to blasting are anticipated. 

However, if any blasting is required within 150 feet of a water well, Guardian would use 

controlled blasting techniques to minimize the potential for impacts on water supply wells. 

Additionally, Guardian would conduct pre- and post-construction well testing to ensure there 

would be no loss of productivity and quality. Guardian would also conduct all blasting in 

accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, permits, and authorizations. 

Operation 

There are no known sole source aquifers and wellhead protection areas in the vicinity of the 

project area; therefore, operation of the G-II Project would not result in impacts on these 

features. 

4.3.2 Surface Water 

4.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources 

Guardian identified water bodies crossed by the proposed Project, including rivers, streams, and 

ponds using USGS topographic maps, WDNR hydrographic geographic information system 

(GIS) data layers, aerial photography, and through field surveys of about 90 percent of the 

proposed project route, where survey permission was granted. The proposed Project would cross 

111 surface waterbodies, including 29 perennial streams, 80 intermittent streams, 1 fluctuating 

stream, and 1 constructed pond. A list of the waterbodies crossed by the route is included as 

appendix I and shows the location by waterbody name, MP, type, crossing width, water quality 

classification, flow regime, and proposed crossing method. 

Guardian completed field surveys at all of the proposed aboveground facility sites, which 

showed that no waterbodies occur at these locations. Consistent with our Procedures, Guardian 

has proposed that all extra workspace areas would be located at least 50 feet away from 

waterbodies except in three locations (Baker Creek [MP 7.6], west branch of the Milwaukee 

River [MP 37.9], and an unnamed tributary to the south branch of the Manitowoc River [MP 

65.0]), where Guardian would require additional temporary workspace within 50 feet of the 

waterbody (see section 4.3.2.2 for further details). 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

Sensitive waterbodies include those that are designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers; are 

state-designated high quality or outstanding natural resource waters; provide habitat for 

threatened and/or endangered species or critical habitat; have potable surface water intakes 

located within 3.0 miles downstream of the pipeline crossing; and/or do not currently support 

designated uses. 

None of the waterbodies crossed are designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(NPS, 2005). Based on review of WDNR surface water data (WDNR, 2006a) and consultations 

with WDNR water resources staff (Schmidt, 2006), Guardian concluded that none of the streams 

that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are designated as either high quality or 

outstanding natural resource waters. 

Guardian searched for surface water intake areas within 3 miles downstream of the proposed 

Project using records provided by the WDNR. This showed that no surface water intakes for 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-26

public water supply systems occur within 3 miles downstream of any of the proposed surface 

water crossings. 

Seven water body segments that would be crossed by the pipeline are included on the list of 

impaired waterbodies under Section 303(d) of the CWA, or have concerns resulting from 

contaminated sediments. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify waters that are 

not attaining their designated use(s) and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which 

represent the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still 

meet its designated use(s). The seven waterbodies include the Rock River, Kummel Creek, 

Kankapot Creek, Plum Creek, Fox River, Duck Creek, and Trout Creek. The two listed 

pollutants common to all seven streams are mercury (from atmospheric deposition) and 

sediments (elevated suspended solids concentrations from non-point sources such as agricultural 

runoff). Duck Creek and Trout Creek are also listed as containing excessive levels of total 

phosphorus (also likely to be from agricultural sources). The Fox River is listed as containing 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated sediments in addition to mercury and elevated 

suspended sediments. 

Watershed Protection Areas 

The proposed pipeline would cross one WDNR-owned conservation easement located at 

MP 57.7 along Pipe Creek. This non-point source easement is intended to provide a vegetative 

buffer to prevent agricultural runoff from entering a priority watershed. A portion of the 

easement consists of upland buffer covered with herbaceous vegetation and a few scattered 

shrubs. The remainder coincides with the emergent wetland located adjacent to Pipe Creek. 

About 0.61 acre of the easement would be temporarily impacted by construction of the 

G-II Project. 

Flood Plains 

Based upon a review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard 

designation maps conducted by Guardian, none of the aboveground facilities were found to be 

located within 1,000 feet of a designated flood plain. 

4.3.2.2 General Surface Water Impacts and Mitigation 

Guardian’s proposed methods for pipeline installation across each identified waterbody are listed 

in appendix I. Waterbody crossings would be installed using open cut-wet trench methods, dry 

crossing methods, or HDD methods, as described below. With the exception of the crossing of 

the East Branch of the Rock River (MP 25.4), which is proposed using the open cut method, 

Guardian has proposed to cross waterbodies that contain perceptible flow at the time of crossing 

using a dry crossing method such as a flume or dam and pump. Crossings of waterbodies with 

low flow or no flow would use the open cut method. Based on field surveys conducted by 

Guardian, Guardian anticipates that most of the waterbodies would be crossed during a low-flow 

period using the open cut method. Two crossings would be implemented using HDD. The 

stream crossing method for one stream, Duck Creek, has yet to be determined. 

General impacts on waterbodies, including sensitive waterbodies and watershed protection areas, 

that could result from pipeline construction, accidental spills, and construction of aboveground 

facilities, as well as operational impacts, are discussed in more detail below. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-27 4.3 – Water Resources 

Construction 

Construction of the G-II pipeline could impact surface waters in a variety of ways. Clearing and 

grading of stream banks, in-water trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could alter 

aquatic habitat, increase sedimentation and turbidity, decrease dissolved oxygen levels, increase 

stream warming, release chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, and accidentally 

release chemical contaminants such as fuels and lubricants. 

The primary impacts at the waterbody crossings would result from suspension of sediments 

during an open cut crossing of a flowing waterbody. The extent of the impact would depend on 

sediment loads, stream velocity, and sediment particle size distribution at the time of 

construction. These factors would determine the density, downstream extent, and persistence of 

the sediment plume. The presence of more fine materials, such as sand and silt, increases the 

likelihood of elevated turbidity and suspended sediments. Coarser materials such as pebble, 

gravel, and cobble do not contribute to this impact. In general, impacts on the in-stream aquatic 

life (biota) and the habitat value of the waterbody would be temporary and short-term during 

construction. After the completion of in-stream work, backfilling, restoration, and recruitment of 

aquatic biota from upstream sources would allow these resources to return to preconstruction 

conditions within a few years. 

Increased turbidity can reduce light penetration into the water, which reduces photosynthetic 

activity and levels of dissolved oxygen in the water column. This is generally more of a problem 

in standing waters than flowing waters. Organic materials suspended in the water can further 

reduce dissolved oxygen by increasing the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Resuspension 

of sediments can also introduce contaminants, metals, and nutrients bound to the sediments into 

the water column. Contaminated soils could also be encountered during construction activities 

along the proposed construction right-of-way or extra work areas. If this happened during 

construction, Guardian would implement procedures to identify and properly manage the 

contamination. 

Removing vegetation from riparian areas would increase surface runoff and erosion from the 

pipeline corridor. Guardian would use temporary and permanent sediment controls (e.g., silt 

fence and slope breakers), as outlined in our Procedures, to minimize this impact by directing 

surface runoff to well-vegetated areas along the sides of the construction right-of-way. Removal 

of riparian vegetation at water body crossings, and loss of associated shading, would increase 

water temperatures; however, this impact is not expected to be significant in most cases because 

of the limited amount of streambank canopy that would be cleared relative to the existing 

riparian vegetation. Following construction, trees and shrubs would also be allowed to reestablish themselves on waterbody banks except for a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the 

pipeline. 

To minimize impacts during construction, Guardian has adopted our Procedures for construction 

related to waterbody crossings. The Procedures are designed to minimize impacts associated 

with waterbody crossings. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• obtaining all necessary permits from the COE and state agencies prior to construction and 

notifying applicable state agencies at least 48 hours before commencing instream 

trenching; 

• using environmental inspectors during construction; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-28

• routing the proposed pipeline as close to perpendicular to the waterbody as practicable 

and minimizing the number of individual crossings where water bodies meander or have 

multiple channels; 

• limiting the use of equipment within the water body to that necessary to construct the 

crossing, and utilizing equipment bridges for other construction equipment; 

• placing spoil at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge with installation of sediment 

barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or silt-laden water to the water body; 

• locating all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at 

least 50 feet away from the water's edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land; 

• completing all instream construction activity, including stabilization and re-contouring of 

banks, within 24 hours for minor waterbody crossings and 48 hours for intermediate 

waterbody crossings; 

• using temporary erosion and sediment control measures such as sediment barriers and 

trench plugs; and 

• implementing restoration activities including preconstruction bank contours, installation 

of slope breakers, and revegetation of disturbed riparian areas. 

Guardian has identified three of its proposed additional temporary workspaces (ATWS) that it 

believes must be located within 50 feet of the water’s edge in site-specific locations. These sites 

are near MP 7.6, where the pipeline is proposed to cross Baker’s Creek; near MP 37.9, where the 

pipeline is proposed to cross the West Branch of the Milwaukee River; and at MP 65.0 where the 

pipeline would cross an unnamed tributary to the south branch of the Manitowoc River. We 

have reviewed these locations and have determined that the requests are acceptable due to the 

constraints of the surrounding habitats (i.e., forest, wetland and riparian habitat). 

To further minimize impacts Guardian has planned construction during the summer months 

(summer 2008), which according to long-term USGS gauging records in and near the project 

area, is typically a low-flow period. Guardian’s construction contractor would monitor weather 

conditions prior to the installation of stream crossings, and may, if necessary, delay installation 

of a crossing if construction is scheduled to occur following a rainfall event substantial enough to 

create a high-flow condition. As stated above, Guardian would employ a dry crossing technique 

in streams that contain perceptible flow at the time of the crossing. 

Blasting can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms. Guardian has identified one area 

associated with an unnamed intermittent stream, located at MP 21.4, that is underlain by shallow 

bedrock and is likely to require blasting to excavate the trench and install the crossing section. 

To minimize impacts on this stream, Guardian would conduct this crossing during a period of 

low or no flow. A concern was raised by the Oneida Nation about potential blasting in the 

vicinity of Duck Creek (MP 102.6). Guardian performed initial field surveys and does not 

anticipate encountering shallow bedrock within trench depth in this area. Additional 

geotechnical investigations at Duck Creek are planned during spring of 2007 to assist in the 

design of that creek crossing. We recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-29 4.3 – Water Resources 

• Guardian should file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of 

OEP prior to construction the final plan for the crossing of Duck Creek with 

records of consultation with the Oneida Nation. 

Other areas that could require blasting may be identified during Guardian’s geotechnical 

investigations. In general, where blasting is required, preparation of the rock for blasting (e.g., 

drilling shot holes) causes enough disturbance to displace most mobile aquatic organisms from 

the immediate vicinity of the blast. To further reduce the potential for impacts on aquatic 

organisms, Guardian would use techniques such as scare charges or banging on a submerged 

piece of pipe before the blast to displace mobile aquatic organisms before the blast is conducted. 

Immediately following blasting, Guardian would remove shot rock that impedes stream flow. 

Guardian would also conduct all blasting in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and 

local laws, permits, and authorizations. 

Aboveground facilities such as compressor stations, meter and regulator stations, and mainline 

valves would be located in upland areas away from waterbodies. Guardian would implement the 

measures included in our Plan to prevent or minimize erosion in upland areas, thereby limiting 

impacts on waterbodies. Some of the mitigation measures identified in the Plan include 

installing erosion controls (e.g., slope breakers, silt fencing, and mulch) during construction to 

control runoff, reducing the duration of soil disturbance, and re-establishing contours and 

vegetative cover as soon as practicable (see section 4.4.2). 

Given these factors and protective measures, any effects to waterbodies associated with 

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities should be effectively 

minimized. 

Accidental Spills and Releases 

To minimize potential impacts associated with accidental spills and releases, Guardian would use 

its SPCC Plan prepared under Docket No. CP00-36-000 (with appropriate updates). The SPCC 

Plan describes measures that Guardian personnel and contractors would implement to prevent 

and, if necessary, control any inadvertent spill of fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other hazardous 

materials that could affect water quality. A copy of the SPCC Plan is included as appendix F to 

this EIS. This SPCC Plan would be updated with site-specific information prior to the initiation 

of construction activities. 

Guardian has also adopted our standard measures regarding spill prevention, containment, and 

minimization near waterbodies. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• managing operations to reduce the risk of accidental spills or exposure of fuels or other 

hazardous materials into the environment; 

• conducting proper training of employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials; 

• conducting regular inspection of all equipment to ensure it is in good operating order; 

• ensuring hazardous materials are stored and equipment refueled at least 100 feet from any 

waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from any wetland; 

• prohibiting concrete-coating activities within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-30

• ensuring that provisions are made for the necessary tools, equipment, and supplies to be 

on hand to contain and recover spilled materials at the job site; and 

• ensuring prompt reporting of any spills to the appropriate agencies. 

When refueling activities must be conducted within 100 feet of a waterbody, Guardian would 

employ monitors to supervise refueling activities and take additional precautions such as spill kit 

readiness and containment for pumps. 

Given the adoption of the measures outlined in our Procedures and these additional measures, the 

risk of accidental spills or other introductions of hazardous materials to waterbodies would be 

effectively minimized. 

Operation 

Operation of the G-II Project would not impact any surface waters, unless maintenance activities 

involving pipe excavation and repair are required in or near streams or wetlands. For 

maintenance activities, Guardian would employ essentially the same protective measures used 

during construction. As a result, any impacts from maintenance would be short-term and similar 

to those discussed above for initial construction. 

4.3.2.3 Site-Specific Surface Water Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

There are no waterbodies designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area nor 

are any of the streams along the proposed route designated as either high quality or outstanding 

natural resource waters. Further, there are no surface water intakes for public water supply 

systems within 3 miles of any of the proposed surface water crossing locations. Therefore, no 

impacts on specially designated areas are anticipated. 

Guardian proposes to cross the Fox River in a location that is known to be used by the bald 

eagle, a federal-listed and state species of concern. Guardian has consulted the resource agencies 

regarding this crossing to minimize impacts on this protected species. The potential impacts and 

proposed mitigation measures associated with this crossing are discussed in the following section 

on HDD. 

Guardian proposes to cross seven waterbody segments that have been listed as impaired 

waterbodies under Section 303(d) of the CWA and/or contain contaminated sediments. 

Contaminants in all seven streams are the result of atmospheric deposition and non-point sources 

such as agricultural runoff. Six of these streams would be crossed using the open-cut method, 

and the Fox River would be crossed using the HDD method (see the section on HDD below). 

Installation activities are not likely to affect water quality in regard to the pre-existing 

contamination of these streams; however, it could result in short-term, local increases in 

suspended sediment levels as discussed in section 4.3.2.1. 

There are three water body crossings that are 100 feet or more in length, including the Fox River 

(1,100 feet), the Rock River (120 feet), and the East Branch of the Rock River (100 feet). As 

indicated above, Guardian proposes to cross the Fox River using the HDD method. Guardian 

also proposes to use this method to cross the Rock River (see section on HDD below). Guardian 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-31 4.3 – Water Resources 

proposes to cross the East Branch of the Rock River using the open-cut wet trench method. 

Protective measures for crossing the Rock, East Branch of the Rock, and Fox Rivers would 

follow the guidelines established in our Procedures. Accordingly, for these major waterbody 

crossings Guardian would file with the Secretary site-specific detailed construction plans for 

review and approval by the Director of the OEP. Guardian has also developed a Horizontal 

Directional Drill Contingency Plan (see appendix J) to address potential impacts associated with 

an inadvertent release of drilling fluid while conducting HDD crossings (see section on HDD 

below). 

Watershed Protection Areas 

Guardian proposes to cross one WDNR-owned conservation easement located at MP 57.7 along 

Pipe Creek that would temporarily disturb about 0.61 acre of the easement. The proposed route 

through Pipe Creek would be collocated with an existing ATC electric power line. To minimize 

impacts on the easement, Pipe Creek and associated wetlands, Guardian would reduce its 

construction right-of-way width to 75-feet through the easement. Additional temporary work 

space (totaling about 0.6 acre) would be located just outside the easement in active agricultural 

land to facilitate crossing the easement and stream. 

Guardian would construct the pipeline on either side of the easement using conventional pipeline 

construction techniques for agricultural lands in accordance with our Plan and Guardian’s AMP. 

In wetland areas and near the Creek, Guardian would employ the measures outlined in our 

Procedures with minor site-specific variation to minimize impacts on both the easement and the 

wetland (see sections 4.3.2.2 and 4.4.1.3). During construction, erosion and sedimentation 

control measures would be used to temporarily replace the functions of the easement buffer 

within the construction right-of-way and to ensure that soil would not migrate off construction 

areas and into Pipe Creek. 

Following construction, Guardian would restore the construction right-of-way within agricultural 

land in accordance with the standard requirements in our Plan and Procedures to stabilize the 

right-of-way and prevent soil erosion and sedimentation into the wetlands and stream within the 

easement. The current easement consists of a combination of old field successional plant 

species, two areas of reed canary grass-dominated emergent wetland, and an area currently in 

alfalfa production. Guardian would revegetate the easement with an appropriate seed mix, based 

on recommendations received from the WDNR, if different from our Plan and Procedures. 

Guardian would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of the pipeline, which 

would not eliminate the WDNR easement, but would limit construction of structures over the 

pipeline and preclude the planting of trees within Guardian’s easement. Guardian would also 

conduct periodic vegetation clearing along the permanent easement to facilitate pipeline safety 

inspections. Guardian would cooperate with the WDNR in managing the corridor to protect the 

resources associated with Pipe Creek, as intended by the state’s conservation easement. 

Given the construction, operation, and maintenance measures to be employed by Guardian at 

Pipe Creek and the fact that this portion of the easement is already subject to routine vegetation 

maintenance as part of the existing ACT power line operations, we do not believe the 

conservation easement would be adversely affected by the Project. Guardian would, however, 

continue consultations with the WDNR regarding any additional requirements associated with 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project within the easement.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.3 – Water Resources 4-32

Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings 

Guardian proposes to use HDD to install the pipeline across two waterbodies, the Rock River at 

MP 9.8 and the Fox River at MP 93.0. The Fox River is the only waterbody that would be 

crossed that has contaminated sediments (see section 4.3.2.1). 

HDD is a trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid direct impacts on sensitive 

resources, such as water bodies, by directionally drilling beneath them. A successful HDD 

would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. The feasibility of each 

proposed HDD would be evaluated based on site-specific geotechnical data collected at each of 

the proposed HDD sites. The results of those geotechnical analyses would be provided to the 

FERC for review prior to construction. In the event of HDD failure, Guardian would have to 

report the failure and take steps to minimize any leakage of drilling fluids or other adverse 

impacts. 

Should the proposed HDD crossing of the Rock River fail, Guardian proposes to install the 

crossing using a dry-crossing method. The crossing would be located to the southeast of the 

HDD crossing. Detailed plans for the alternative crossing are expected to be prepared in the first 

quarter of 2007. 

If the proposed HDD crossing of the Fox River fails, Guardian would attempt an alternative 

alignment within 100 feet on either side of the proposed HDD alignment with follow-up attempts 

to install an HDD crossing. 

Guardian would only employ alternative crossing techniques if the planned HDD crossings of 

the Fox and/or Rock Rivers are unsuccessful. We recommend that: 

• In the event the planned HDD crossing of the Fox and/or Rock Rivers fail, Guardian 

should develop final alternative crossing plans in consultation with the COE, EPA, 

and WDNR. The final alternative crossing plans should be filed with the Secretary 

for review and for written approval from the Director of the OEP prior to 

conducting any such alternative crossing. 

A successful HDD is a preferred method for crossing sensitive habitats because it eliminates 

stream bottom disruption and subsequent impacts. With the HDD method, drilling fluid, 

primarily consisting of fresh water and bentonite, is pumped into the borehole, and serves to 

lubricate the drill bit, maintain the borehole, and remove cuttings. At the drill entry or exit holes, 

drilling fluid normally returns to the surface pits and is collected for reuse after cleaning. The 

pits also hold the drilling fluid far from the water’s edge to prevent it from entering the water. 

However, HDD methods are not without risk, because inadvertent drilling fluid releases could 

result if the drilling fluid escapes containment at the pits or if a “frac-out” occurs. A frac-out 

occurs when drilling fluids migrate unpredictably to the surface through fractures, fissures, or 

other conduits in the underlying rock or unconsolidated sediments. A frac-out would cause 

turbidity and sedimentation with the impacts described previously. As suspended materials settle 

out of the water column, sedimentation would partially or entirely cover the waterbody substrate 

and any sessile benthic organisms. Temporary displacement of fish species and their prey items, 

as well as the potential for the smothering or burying of prey items, and the clogging of fishes’ 

gills could also occur. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-33 4.3 – Water Resources 

To minimize the potential impacts from frac-outs, Guardian has prepared an HDD Contingency 

Plan for Inadvertent Releases of Drilling Fluid (HDD Contingency Plan) (see appendix J). The 

HDD Contingency Plan describes standard drill monitoring and sampling procedures, clean-up 

practices such as the use of straw bales, silt fencing, or turbidity curtains to contain the mud and 

cuttings, followed by mechanically or manually removing the drilling mud. The HDD 

Contingency Plan also addresses procedures to contain and clean up inadvertent releases of 

drilling mud into waterbodies. 

If a frac-out occurred in the Fox or Rock River, Guardian would work with its HDD contractor to 

minimize the volume of drilling fluid released, and implement additional measures to prevent 

further releases of drilling fluids while it worked to complete the HDD crossing. HDD drilling 

fluid consists of water and bentonite, which is a mixture of mainly inert and non-toxic clays and 

rock particles consisting of about 85 percent montmorillonite clay, 10 percent quartz and 

feldspars, and 5 percent accessory materials, such as calcite and gypsum. The release of these 

materials should not pollute the river waters or sediments, although it may temporarily increase 

turbidity. 

Contaminated Sites 

The Fox River is the only waterbody with known contaminated sediments that would be crossed. 

Crossing this waterbody using the HDD method should make adverse effects resulting from 

resuspension of contaminants unlikely. 

Operation 

Operation of the G-II Project would not cause impacts on any surface waters, unless maintenance 

activities involving pipe excavation and repair in or near streams or wetlands are required. For 

maintenance activities, Guardian would employ protective measures substantially the same as 

those used during construction. As a result, any impacts derived from maintenance would be 

short-term in nature and similar to those discussed above for the initial pipeline construction. 

4.3.2.4 Hydrostatic Testing 

Before being placed into service, the proposed pipeline and compressor stations would be 

hydrostatically tested to DOT standards, as listed in 49 CFR 192, to ensure structural integrity. 

Guardian proposes to hydrostatically test the pipeline and pipeline lateral using water from rivers 

and streams along the proposed pipeline route. Test water would be withdrawn through a 

screened intake to prevent fish entrainment, used for testing, and then discharged back to the 

waterbodies from which it was withdrawn, or to well-vegetated upland areas. Discharges of 

hydrostatic test water would comply with permit conditions and follow the guidelines outlined in 

our Procedures. In agricultural lands, discharges would follow measures described in Guardian’s 

AMP. 

Guardian would also use diffusers to minimize the potential for stream scour from water 

discharged into waterbodies, sediment control devices, and other energy dissipating devices to 

prevent erosion from discharges that do not go directly back into waterbodies. Guardian would 

not add chemicals to the water or otherwise treat it for use. Therefore, the chemistry of the water 

discharged following testing should not differ from the chemistry of the source water. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-34

Guardian anticipates hydrostatically testing the pipeline in 16 segments and minimizing water 

withdrawals by cascading water between segments to reuse as much water as possible. 

However, Guardian cannot provide a specific water volume estimate until its final Hydrostatic 

Testing Plan is completed. Assuming that no water would be reused during testing and that new 

water withdrawals are made for each segment provides a conservative estimate. In this case, 

Guardian would need about 17.9 million gallons of water. The actual amount should be 

substantially less. 

Hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would be conducted as follows: 

• MP 0.0 to MP 16.05—Four test sections using about 3.0 million gallons from the Rock 

River. The discharge points for each of these sections are unknown at this time because a 

hydrostatic test plan has not been finalized. 

• MP 16.05 to MP 83.65—Five test sections using about 12.6 million gallons from the East 

Branch of the Rock River. It is likely that most of this water would not be discharged 

back into the river, but rather at upland locations and other approved waterbodies along 

the pipeline route, which are capable of receiving such large volumes of water. 

• MP 83.65 to MP 109.88—Seven test sections using about 2.3 million gallons from the 

Fox River. Guardian intends to obtain all the water required for the 20-inch-diameter 

pipeline section from the Fox River, and also discharge the water from this work into the 

Fox River. 

Hydrostatic testing of the compressor station facilities would use water obtained from municipal 

sources or from wells that Guardian proposes to install at each compressor station. Guardian 

anticipates using 98,500 gallons of water for hydrostatic testing of the Sycamore Compressor 

Station and 103,000 gallons for the Bluff Creek Compressor Station. Discharge of hydrostatic 

test water at each of the compressor stations would be conducted in accordance with the standard 

requirements outlined in our Procedures and Guardian’s AMP, as appropriate. 

Guardian would comply with any permit conditions necessary for the use of municipal water 

sources, as well as follow the guidelines regarding the use and discharge of hydrostatic test 

waters pursuant to the requirements of the General Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). 

4.4 VEGETATION 

4.4.1 Wetlands 

The COE defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or 

groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas 

(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands perform a number of valuable functions. Among 

these are flood flow attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient retention, provision of wildlife 

habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, recreation, and erosion control. 

Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 established standards to minimize impacts on wetlands under 

the regulatory jurisdiction of the COE. These standards require avoidance of wetlands, where 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-35 4.4 – Vegetation 

possible, and minimization of disturbance where impacts are unavoidable, to the degree 

practicable. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated, and any remaining impacts may 

require compensatory mitigation. All wetland crossings would be subject to review and approval 

by the St. Paul District of the COE and the WDNR. Guardian would comply with the conditions 

of the permits issued by the COE and WDNR, including the provisions of any required wetland 

compensatory mitigation. 

4.4.1.1 Existing Wetland Resources 

Guardian conducted wetland investigations in areas along the proposed pipeline route where 

landowners had granted access, as well as at the proposed aboveground facility sites (compressor 

stations, meter stations, and mainline valves), and at all extra work areas (extra workspaces, 

access roads, and pipe storage/contractor yard) through review of available NRCS, National 

Wetland Inventory (NWI), and WWI maps and soil surveys. From June 2006 through 

September 2006, Guardian conducted wetland field surveys to delineate wetland boundaries in 

accordance with the requirements of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual 

(Environmental Laboratory, 1987), the NRCS approach for evaluating remote sensing data 

(Woodward, 1997), and the WWI. The properties investigated contained 90 percent of the areas 

identified in the off-site evaluation as potential wetlands. Wetlands along the Guardian pipeline 

were classified using the FWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) and the WWI 

classification system (WDNR, 1993). Guardian will continue to evaluate wetland impacts along 

the proposed route in response to stakeholder concerns. Additional wetland information will be 

provided to the FERC and other relevant agencies as necessary. All additional information will 

also be included in the final EIS. 

Based on the off-site analysis and field investigations, the pipeline route would cross a total 

of 124 wetlands. Table 4.4.1.1-1 identifies the NWI classification, length of crossing, and 

temporary and long-term impacts on the wetlands crossed by the G-II pipeline. A listing of the 

wetlands crossed by milepost is also provided in appendix K. 

Palustrine (freshwater) wetlands are nontidally influenced freshwater wetlands that are generally 

dominated by persistent emergents, emergent mosses, lichens, scrub-shrubs, or trees. They are 

found in all water regimes, except subtidal and irregularly exposed systems. Emergent wetlands 

consist of erect, rooted, herbaceous wetland plants that generally persist for most of the growing 

season. Scrub-shrub wetlands include areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall 

and are vegetated with true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted 

because of environmental conditions. Forested wetlands contain woody vegetation that is 20 feet 

or taller. 

As indicated above, the pipeline would affect palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested 

wetlands. Representative palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub wetland plant species found 

within the pipeline right-of-way include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattails 

(Typha angustifolia), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), corn (Zea mais), jewelweed 

(Impatiens capensis), sandbar willow (Salix interior), umbrella sedge (Cyprus eragrostis), rough 

barnyard grass (Echinochloa muricata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), northern waterplantain (Alisma triviale), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), 

common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), quack grass (Agropyron repens), black ash 

(Fraxinus nigra), common sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), eastern cottonwood (Populous 

deltoids), and black willow (Salix nigra). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-36

TABLE 4.4.1.1-1 

Wetlands Affected by the G-II Pipeline Project a/

Facility NWI Classification b/ Length of Crossing 

(feet) 

Temporary 

Construction Impact 

(acres) c/ 

Long-term 

Operational Impact 

(acres) d/ 

G-II Pipeline Forested 

PFO 939 1.58 0.62 

PEM/PFO 519 1.16 0.15 

PFO/PSS 1,899 3.21 1.06 

PFO/PEM 2,546 4.89 /e/ 0.32 /e/ 

 Subtotal 5,903 10.84 2.15 

Non-forested 

PEM 8,044 16.52 0 

PEM - farmed 9,962 25.39 0 

PSS 16 0.06 0 

PEM/PSS 2,587 5.56 0.21 

PSS/PEM 1,294 1.93 0.16 

 Subtotal 21,903 49.46 0.37 

 Project Total 27,806 60.3 2.52 

a/ There are no wetland impacts associated with any of the permanent or temporary aboveground facilities including meter stations, 

compressor stations, pipe storage areas, contractor yards, and access roads. 

b/ NWI Classification: 

PEM = Palustrine Emergent 

PSS = Palustrine Scrub-shrub 

PFO = Palustrine Forested 

c/ Temporary construction impact is based on a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

d/ A permanent impact due to pipeline operation would include 30 feet of forested wetland that would be permanently converted 

either to scrub-shrub or emergent cover types, or 10 feet of scrub-shrub wetland that would be permanently converted to emergent 

cover type. A permanent impact indicates the amount of forest that would be within new permanent right-of-way and permanently 

converted to scrub-shrub or emergent cover types. Scrub-shrub and emergent cover types would be allowed to revert to their 

original conditions. 

e/ Pipeline segment, at MP 9.8, is crossed using the HDD technique. Impacts on the forested portion of the wetland (2.5 acres)

associated with the Rock River would be avoided by using HDD. 

Representative forested wetland plant species found along the pipeline right-of-way include 

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

box elder (Acer negundo), black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and quaking aspen (Populous 

tremuloides) with an herbaceous and scrub-shrub understory that contains many of the species 

described above. 

Guardian’s off-site analysis and field investigations did not identify wetlands associated with the 

temporary or permanent facilities necessary for construction or operation of the Project. This 

includes compressor stations, meter stations, pipe storage/contractor yard, and access roads. 

4.4.1.2 General Construction and Operational Impacts 

Construction and operation may affect the three parameters that define a wetland: vegetation, 

soils, and hydrology. During construction, the removal of vegetation (trees, shrubs, and 

herbaceous plants) would occur within the construction right-of-way. After pipeline 

construction, the trench would be backfilled and restored to the maximum extent possible to preconstruction contours, and both wetland substrate and hydrology would be restored as well, 

followed by the restoration of vegetation through natural successional processes. Forested and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-37 4.4 – Vegetation 

scrub-shrub wetlands would regenerate at much slower rates than emergent wetlands. 

Regeneration rates of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would be dependent on site-specific 

conditions, but generally could be measured in tens of years for the vegetation structure to return 

to a pre-construction state. A permanent 10-foot-wide corridor over the pipeline would be 

maintained in an herbaceous state. Trees greater than 15 feet high, and within 15 feet of the 

pipeline center (totaling 30 feet across), may be selectively cut in accordance with our 

Procedures for right-of-way maintenance. 

The primary impact of G-II pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance on wetlands 

would be the temporary alteration of wetland vegetation. There were no wetlands identified 

within the temporary or permanent rights-of-way associated with any of the proposed 

aboveground facilities. The aboveground facilities include compressor stations, meter stations, 

pipe storage/contractor yard, and access roads. Along the proposed pipeline route, 

approximately 5.23 miles of wetlands would be crossed (see table 4.4.1.1-1). Construction of the 

pipeline would affect about 60.3 acres of wetlands, based on a 75-foot-wide construction 

corridor in wetland areas. Of this amount, about 10.87 acres (18 percent) of the total wetland 

acres within the construction corridor are forested wetlands and 10.76 acres (17.8 percent) are 

scrub-shrub wetlands. About 2.5 acres of forested wetland clearing would be avoided by the use 

of HDD to cross the Rock River. 

Following construction, a total of 2.52 acres of wetlands would be retained for operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline. Of this amount, 2.15 acres (85.3 percent) of previously forested 

wetlands would be maintained as emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands as a result of routine 

vegetation clearing along the pipeline. An additional 0.37 acre (14.7 percent) of emergent and 

scrub-shrub wetlands would be affected by routine vegetation maintenance. The acreages of 

each wetland affected and the amount of forested wetland clearing that would be required for the 

pipeline are listed in appendix K. 

4.4.1.3 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

To minimize impacts on wetlands during construction, Guardian would implement the 

construction measures in our Procedures. These measures include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet in all wetlands; 

• limit the amount of equipment and extra workspace in and adjacent to wetlands; 

• in saturated wetlands where soils are unstable, use temporary work surfaces, such as 

timber mats or travel pads within wetlands to prevent soil compaction; 

• limit the amount of grading in wetlands; 

• segregate topsoil over the trench line when passing through unsaturated wetlands; 

• restore wetland contours; 

• install silt fencing and/or hay bales at the edges of the construction right-of-way in 

wetlands to prevent trench spoil from flowing into undisturbed areas; 

• if the pipeline trench contains water, leave trench plugs in the trench where the trench 

enters and exits a wetland, until the trench is dewatered, which would be immediately 

before the pipe is installed; 

• install permanent trench breakers, when necessary, where the trench enters and exits 

wetlands to maintain the hydrologic integrity of the wetland; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-38

• locate ATWS areas at a minimum of 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, except where 

the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed 

land; 

• implement Guardian’s SPCC Plan (see appendix F) to minimize the potential for spills, 

and any impacts from spills, because inadvertent spills of fluids used during construction, 

such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents, could contaminate wetland soils and vegetation; 

and 

• conduct follow-up monitoring to ensure each wetland becomes re-established successfully 

in accordance with Guardian’s standard conditions and/or in accordance with protocols 

specified by the applicable permitting agencies. 

Additionally, in farmed wetlands Guardian would construct the pipeline using standard upland 

methods. Most seasonally saturated farmed wetlands are used for crop production and topsoil 

would be segregated in the same manner as topsoil in upland agricultural lands. Pipe stringing 

and fabrication may occur within the farmed wetland adjacent to the trench, or adjacent to the 

farmed wetland in a designated ATWS. 

In wetlands that are unsaturated at the time of construction, Guardian would also segregate 

topsoil from the trench line in order to protect its integrity and help preserve the seed bank. 

Segregating the topsoil should preserve the potential for natural revegetation of the right-of-way 

to its pre-construction plant community. 

Guardian proposes to locate 29 ATWS closer than 50 feet of wetlands, in site-specific locations 

(see table 4.4.1.3-1 for list of all ATWS variances requested along the pipeline route in wetland 

areas and their justifications). We have reviewed these locations and have determined that the 

requests are acceptable. 

Guardian proposes to use the HDD technique at the Rock River (MP 9.8). This technique would 

avoid impacts on a forested wetland, but impacts on the emergent component of the wetland (2.5 

acres) are expected. 

Jurisdictional wetland crossings would require pre-construction authorization from the WDNR 

and the COE. Guardian would coordinate with the WDNR and COE throughout the permitting 

processes to further refine crossing plans if necessary. Guardian would also coordinate with the 

Sovereign Oneida Nation of Wisconsin (Oneida Nation) for wetland permits/authorization, as 

appropriate. Guardian will also coordinate with the EPA regarding Section 401 permitting 

requirements on Oneida Nation Reservation lands. Guardian intends to submit its Section 404 

permit application to the COE St. Paul District in the spring of 2007. Once the COE has 

reviewed the application and verified the wetland impacts, a jurisdictional determination for 

wetland impacts for the Project would be issued. Guardian would file a complete wetland 

delineation report before starting any construction in wetland areas. 

Following construction and restoration to all the impacted wetlands, a wetland monitoring 

program would be conducted by Guardian in accordance with our Procedures, and/or in 

accordance with protocols specified by the applicable permitting agencies. We believe that this 

post-construction monitoring will facilitate the re-establishment of natural wetland communities, 

wherever possible, and would minimize the extent, magnitude, and duration of construction 

impacts. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-39 4.4 – Vegetation 

TABLE 4.4.1.3-1 

Additional Temporary Work Spaces Within 50 Feet of Wetlands

Facility 

MP 

Wetland 

Identification Reason/Justification 

2.1 002W1 Road crossing at County Highway CW, space limitations presented by configuration of the road and 

forested land. 

12.3 011W3 Rubicon River and wetland crossing, constraints associated with surrounding wetland, riparian, and 

forestland habitat. 

12.4 a/ 011W3 Road crossing at State Highway 60 and wetland crossing, space limitations presented by configuration 

of road, forested land, and wetland habitat. 

16.1 016W1 Woodland Creek and wetland crossing, constraints associated with surrounding wetland, riparian, and 

forestland habitat. 

32.3 b/ 032W1 Kummel Creek crossing, constraints associated with adjacent riparian habitat. 

37.9 c/ 037W1 West Branch of the Milwaukee River crossing, constraints associated with surrounding wetland, 

riparian, and forestland habitat. 

64.7 064W1 Unnamed creek crossing, space limitations associated with the surrounding habitat. 

64.8 064W1 Unnamed creek crossing, space limitations associated with the surrounding habitat. 

65.0 064W1 Unnamed ditch crossing, space limitations associated with the surrounding habitat. 

69.8 069W2 Wetland crossing, constraints associated with surrounding wetland habitat. 

70.1 069W2 Wetland crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding wetland habitat. 

72.0 072W1 Unnamed ditch crossing, space limitations associated with the surrounding habitat. 

73.4 073W2 Road crossing at Fargo Springs Road, space limitations associated with the surrounding habitat. 

77.6 d/ 077W2 North Branch of the Manitowoc River crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding riparian 

habitat. 

93.3 e/ 093W1 Fox River HDD Entry Site, constraints associated with the surrounding riparian habitat. 

94.6 094W2 Ashwaubenon Creek crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding riparian habitat. 

100.5 100W1 Road crossing at Fernando Drive, space limitations presented by configuration of the road. 

101.9 101W4 Unnamed stream crossing, space limitations presented by configuration of road and steep topography 

and constraints associated with surrounding riparian habitat. 

102.6 f/ 101W4 Duck Creek crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding habitat. 

105.3 105W1 Wetland crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding wetland habitat. 

107.8 g/ 107W8 Unnamed stream crossing, constraints associated with the surrounding riparian and forestland habitat. 

_______________________ 

a/ Construction activities at MP 12.4 would require that three ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

b/ Construction activities at MP 32.3 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

c/ Construction activities at MP 37.9 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

d/ Construction activities at MP 77.6 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

e/ Construction activities at MP 93.3 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

f/ Construction activities at MP 102.6 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

g/ Construction activities at MP 107.8 would require that two ATWS be located within 50 feet of a wetland. Refer to appendix C for 

further details. 

Guardian is currently in discussions with the WDNR and COE regarding mitigation for wetland 

impacts and the extent of function and value analysis that may be necessary to develop a 

mitigation plan. Based on these discussions, Guardian anticipates being required to mitigate for 

the permanent impacts on forested wetlands and plans to file with the Secretary of the 

Commission a copy of its wetland mitigation plan once available. 

4.4.2 Upland Vegetation 

Historically, the dominant vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed G-II pipeline route consisted 

of southern broadleaf forests in the southern portion of the state and northern mixed forests in the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-40

northern half of the state. These two forest regions are separated by an area referred to as the 

Tension Zone. Forested areas within the Tension Zone consist of plant species that are found in 

both the northern and southern forests (WDNR, 2000). Currently, the vegetative cover types 

found along the G-II pipeline route reflect the intensive historical tree-clearing and agricultural 

activities and present-day agricultural practices in this part of the upper Midwest (WDNR, 2000). 

In recent years, residential and commercial developments have also become more widespread in 

the region. The southern broadleaf forest and northern mixed forest along the pipeline route 

have virtually been eliminated by conversion to cropland or other agricultural purposes. A few 

narrow strips and/or tracts of forested land may still be found along the proposed right-of-way, 

primarily on ridges and slopes; along property lines, roads and railroads; along streams, rivers 

and lakes; and in some wetland areas. Despite the loss of forest cover within the Tension Zone, 

the amount of forested lands in Wisconsin increased by 4.5 percent between 1983 and 2004 

(table 4.4.2-1) (WDNR, 2006), and as of 2005, 16.1 million acres of forests were identified 

(Perry and Brand, 2006). 

TABLE 4.4.2-1 

Forested Land Use in the Project Area

 Wisconsin Proposed Project 

Locale 

Total 

Forested 

Acreage 

1983 

Total 

Forested 

Acreage 

1996 

Total 

Forested 

Acreage 

2004 

Change 

Since 1983 

Percent of 

Project that 

Crosses 

Forest 

Construction 

Impacts (ac) 

to Forested 

Lands a/

Operation 

Impacts (ac) 

to Forested 

Lands a/

Wisconsin 15,351,300 15,963,026 16,037,233 4.5% 

Brown 49,100 46,914 52,896 7.7% 0.4% 4.3 2.7 

Calamet 25,100 17,618 27,807 10.8% 1.8% 19.1 12.0 

Dodge 27,800 39,713 22,879 -17.7% 1.3% 13.8 8.7 

Fond du Lac 35,100 33,194 29,705 -15.4% 0.6% 6.4 4.0 

Jefferson 29,300 47,335 46,069 57.2% 0.3% 3.2 2.0 

Outagamie 70,700 67,284 54,023 -23.6% 0.4% 4.3 2.7 

Project Totals 4.8% 51.0 32.1 

a/ Forested lands include upland and wetland forests. 

Source: WDNR, 2006 

4.4.2.1 Existing Vegetation Resources 

Vegetative communities along the proposed G-II pipeline route were determined through review 

of aerial photography and field observation during wetland and waterbody surveys. The upland 

vegetative communities crossed by the proposed pipeline route and located at the proposed 

aboveground facilities consist of three primary types including agriculture, forest lands, and 

developed lands; the remaining vegetation types include non-forested wetlands and forested 

wetlands. 

Agricultural areas include row crops (mainly corn, soybeans, and wheat), as well as hay and 

alfalfa fields, pasturelands, fallow fields, and uncultivated grasslands. Wooded areas along the 

pipeline route primarily consist of floodplain forests, wooded hedgerows, and small to medium 

tracts of upland forest, with hardwood tree species dominating both the southern broadleaf and 

northern mixed forest regions. Developed lands consist of maintained lawns and other lands 

associated with residential and commercial/industrial developments. The upland vegetative 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-41 4.4 – Vegetation 

cover types crossed by the proposed Project, as well as a listing of representative species, are 

described in table 4.4.2.1-1. Vegetation occurring in wetland habitat types that would be crossed 

by the proposed Project is discussed in section 4.4.1.1, and potential project effects on 

agricultural areas are discussed in section 4.7. 

TABLE 4.4.2.1-1 

Upland Vegetation Cover Types Occurring Along the Proposed G-II Pipeline

Vegetation 

Cover Type General Description Common Species 

Agricultural Row crops, small grains, alfalfa hay, 

uncultivated grasslands, idle and old 

fields and pastures. 

Crops – Corn, soybeans, wheat, hay, alfalfa, small grains. 

Uncultivated lands – smooth brome, timothy grass, red clover, 

Canada thistle, quackgrass, reed canary grass, goldenrods, 

milkweeds, fescues, blackberry, raspberry, honeysuckle, dogwoods, 

and willows. 

Old fields – smooth brome, birdsfoot-trefoil, goldenrods, chicory, 

ragweed, wild carrot, and asters. Common woody shrub and young 

tree species include black raspberry, dogwoods, honeysuckle, 

sumacs, boxelder, mulberry, and silver maple. Scattered mature 

white oak or black oak are common in southern Wisconsin, while 

scattered red oak, pines and maples are common tree species in 

northern Wisconsin. 

Pasture – foxtails, orchard grass, brome grasses, legumes. 

Upland Forest Small to medium tracts of hardwood 

tree species of the southern broadleaf 

and northern mixed forest regions. 

Canopy species include American basswood, bur oak, and red oak; 

understory consists of Morrow’s honeysuckle, black raspberry, and 

northern prickley ash; vines include Virginia creeper and poison ivy. 

Developed 

Land 

Lawns and planted landscaping 

species associated with residential 

and commercial/industrial 

developments. 

Lawn – Kentucky bluegrass, red fescue, and perennial rye. 

Landscaped areas – planted tree and shrub species such as green 

and blue spruce, white cedar, ash, juniper, taxus, potentilla, spirea, 

and lilac. 

4.4.2.2 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Vegetative Resources of Cultural Significance to the Oneida Nation 

The Oneida Nation identified several vegetative species that have cultural significance, including 

wild bergamot, black ash, northern white cedar, and sweet flag. During wetland surveys, sweet 

flag and black ash were observed on tribal property within a wetland just north of Duck Creek 

(MP 10.8); the affected wetland area measured 0.10 acre. No other occurrences of these four 

species were identified on tribal lands in areas surveyed. 

Unique, Sensitive and Protected Vegetation Communities 

The Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) did not identify any protected vegetative 

communities in the general vicinity of the G-II Pipeline. However, the proposed pipeline route 

would be located in proximity to a unique geologic feature known as the Niagara Escarpment 

(see section 4.7.5). 

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Consultations with the FWS and WDNR identified a number of invasive plant species that could 

potentially occur in wetlands along the proposed G-II pipeline route. These species include 

purple loosestrife, common reed, reed canary grass, glossy buckthorn, and common buckthorn. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-42

According to invasive plant species regulations at Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 23.22, invasive 

species are defined as non-indigenous species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Under this statutory scheme, the 

WDNR has established and implemented a statewide management program for the control of 

invasive species in the state. Nuisance weeds such as purple loosestrife, or hybrids thereof, and 

multiflora rose are regulated under Chapter 23.235 of the Wisconsin statutes. This regulation 

prohibits the sale, distribution, or cultivation of these species. Noxious weed regulations occur at 

Wisconsin Statute 66.0407 and define noxious weeds as Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and field 

bindweed, and any other weed a governing body of a municipality or county board declares to be 

noxious within its respective jurisdiction. 

Based on consultations with townships, counties, and municipalities along the proposed pipeline 

route, it was determined that no township or county lists additional noxious weed species beyond 

those that are deemed noxious or invasive under the regulations described above. These 

consultations also indicated that in the absence of local, township, or county ordinances, the 

control and management of noxious weeds and invasive plants defaults to the state regulations 

described above. 

Within Illinois, noxious weed laws occur at 8 Illinois Administrative Code 220 and Illinois 

Compiled Statutes, Chapter 50, Part 100/1 et seq. The governing body of each county is the 

Control Authority, and it is the duty of the Control Authority to carry out the duties and 

responsibilities set forth in these regulations. The Control Authority is responsible for enforcing 

the state regulations, as well as developing a program for the control and eradication of noxious 

weeds within its county boundaries. 

Within DeKalb County, Illinois the Department of Environmental Health handles noxious weeds 

and other invasive plant species on a “complaint basis” only within the county. Because of the 

absence of local and/or county ordinances, DeKalb County defers to the state regulations 

identified above. 

4.4.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The primary impact of the proposed Project on vegetative cover types would be the clearing and 

removal of vegetation that occurs along the proposed route or at the aboveground facility sites 

during construction. The duration and severity of these impacts depend on the type and amount 

of vegetation that would be affected, the rate at which the vegetation would regenerate after 

construction, and the frequency of vegetation maintenance that would be conducted during 

operation of the proposed project facilities. 

Most impacts would be short-term, such as temporary loss of plants on the construction right-ofway and other work areas from the cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation. 

Because the Project proposes to actively revegetate disturbed areas (except those covered by 

active row cropping), annual and perennial herbaceous species would be expected to rapidly reestablish on or colonize the construction right-of-way. Thus, it is anticipated that herbaceous 

vegetative cover would typically return to areas disturbed by construction within one growing 

season after restoration is completed. 

Clearing of forest and/or woodland vegetation within the construction right-of-way would result 

in long-term environmental change. As indicated in table 4.4.2-1, forest cover as a whole 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-43 4.4 – Vegetation 

increased in Wisconsin from 1983 to 2004; however, individual counties experienced gains or 

losses of forest cover (WDNR, 2006) during that time. Clearing would result in increased soil 

erosion, elevated soil temperatures, and permanent or temporary loss and alteration of wildlife 

habitat. Clearing would also affect existing forest vegetation growing along the edges of the 

cleared areas. By exposing some edge trees to elevated levels of sunlight and wind, evaporation 

rates and the probability of wind throws would increase. Because of the increased light levels 

penetrating the previously shaded interior, shade intolerant species will be able to grow, resulting 

in a change in species composition of the newly created forest edge. The proposed clearing 

would also temporarily reduce local competition for available soil moisture and light and may 

allow some early successional species to become established and persist on the edge of newly 

cleared areas adjacent to the right-of-way. 

To minimize construction-related effects, Guardian would implement the standard measures for 

pipeline construction in our Plan. The intent of the measures in our Plan is to identify baseline 

mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas. 

Implementation of these measures would aid vegetative restoration and prevent or minimize 

sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands. Some of the restoration and BMPs 

identified in our Plan include the following: 

• use of at least one environmental inspector per construction spread, who will ensure 

compliance with our Plan and Procedures, and other required conditions; 

• segregation of topsoil; 

• installation of temporary erosion control measures such as slope breakers, sediment 

barriers, and mulch; 

• commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling, and completion of restoration 

within 20 days; 

• installation of permanent erosion control devices such as trench breakers and slope 

breakers; 

• testing and mitigation for soil compaction; 

• revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of the local soil conservation 

authority, other land management agencies, or the affected owner; 

• provision of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 

• post-construction monitoring and maintenance of revegetated areas. 

In the absence of other specific requirements, Guardian would employ industry standards and 

proven technology to revegetate disturbed areas as recommended in our Plan and Procedures. 

Timely restoration of the construction right-of-way and reseeding with an appropriate seed mix 

would minimize the duration of vegetative disturbance. 

To maximize the revegetation potential, Guardian would implement general and, where 

necessary, site-specific restoration measures which include: 

• preservation of topsoil, native seed sources, and root stock; 

• preparation of an adequate seedbed, including decompaction; 

• use of seed mixes compatible with the native vegetation community and soil conditions; 

• careful monitoring of the seeding rate; and 

• mulching high erosion potential areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.4 – Vegetation 4-44

4.4.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Guardian’s proposed pipeline installation, access roads, and extra work spaces would affect a 

total area of 1,589.2 acres of upland vegetation during construction and 701.4 acres during 

operation (see table 4.4.2.4-1). Approximately 1,465.5 acres of agricultural lands would be 

affected during construction, and 629.1 acres would be affected during operation of the proposed 

Project. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect 65.9 and 35.8 acres, 

respectively, of open lands. Approximately 51.0 acres of forested lands would be affected by 

construction and 32.1 acres would be affected by operation of the proposed Project. Of the 

remaining vegetated uplands, about 6.8 and 4.4 acres of developed land would be affected by 

construction and operation, respectively. As discussed, most areas would be revegetated in one 

growing season, but impacts on forest and areas associated with aboveground facilities would 

result in permanent loss or conversion of vegetation community types. 

In order to minimize the extent of disturbance on woody vegetation, Guardian has proposed to 

locate the proposed pipeline primarily in open land and agricultural areas where woody 

vegetation is not present. Additionally, to the extent practicable, the pipeline route would be 

located adjacent to existing pipeline and utility corridors to reduce the amount of woody 

vegetation that would need to be cleared for construction. To further reduce impacts on forested 

areas, Guardian would limit the width of the construction corridor to 75 feet in upland forest 

areas. Routine vegetation maintenance following construction would be performed in 

accordance with our Plan. Of the 51.0 acres of forested lands that would be affected by 

construction of the proposed Pipeline, 18.9 acres would be allowed to revegetate to preconstruction conditions, and the remaining 32.1 acres would be permanently converted to nonforested lands. 

TABLE 4.4.2.4-1 

Acres of Upland Vegetation Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed G-II Project a/

Facility Agriculture Open Land c/ Forest d/ Developed 

Land e/ 

 Con.a/ Op.b/ Con.a/ Op.b/ Con.a/ Op.b/ Con.a/ Op.b/

Pipeline Totals f/ 1,263.9 629.1 54.5 35.8 47.9 32.1 6.8 4.4 

Additional Temporary 

Workspace Areas Total 

161.8 0.0 11.4 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipe Storage and Contractor 

Yard Totals 

27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Access Road Totals g/ 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Project Totals 1,465.5 629.1 65.9 35.8 51.0 32.1 6.8 4.4 

a/ Con. = Construction. Op. = Operation. Based on a 110-foot construction right-of-way for the 30-inch pipeline and an 80-

foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 20-inch pipeline except for a 75-foot right-of-way in wetlands and upland forests. 

Does not include developed, commercial land, open water, or other areas that do not exhibit vegetative characteristics. 

Does not include aboveground facilities. 

b/ No permanent impacts will occur as part of pipeline construction as vegetation will be allowed to revert to pre-construction

conditions with the exception of areas required for permanent aboveground facilities; forested areas will be maintained in 

accordance with our Plan and Procedures. 

c/ Open Land includes non-forested wetlands, emergent marshes, scrub-shrub wetlands, and other non-agricultural open 

land. 

d/ Values indicate impacts on non-agricultural upland and wetland forest types. 

e/ Residential, Industrial and Commercial land uses. 

f/ Pipeline Totals include Aboveground Facilities which would affect 48.0 acres and 38.6 acres of agricultural lands, 

respectively. 

g/ Operation-related impacts from access roads are listed in section 2.2.3.2 in table 2.2.3.2-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-45 4.4 – Vegetation 

The forest patches along the proposed G-II pipeline route are relatively small and generally not 

large enough to support many forest-interior bird species. The majority of forested land along 

the G-II pipeline route consists of small- to medium-sized woodlots, hedgerows, and floodplain 

forests, most of which are not connected to larger forested areas and are well dispersed along the 

G-II pipeline route. Guardian routed the pipeline, to the maximum extent practicable, to avoid 

forested areas and collocated with existing utility and road corridors to further reduce impacts on 

forested lands. The four largest areas of forest land crossed by the pipeline route include: 

• the Rock River floodplain (MP 9.8); 

• an area along a power line corridor (MP 74); 

• along an existing ANR pipeline corridor (MP 80.5); and 

• Plum Creek corridor (MP 85.4). 

Impacts on the forested floodplain along the Rock River would be avoided by using HDD 

technology to cross this area. Impacts on the remaining forested areas would be minimized 

because the pipeline would be adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way where it would cross 

the forested areas at MPs 74.0 and 80.5, and would cross Plum Creek at its narrowest location. 

Although Guardian does not plan to replace trees removed from upland areas during 

construction, Guardian would compensate landowners for the loss of merchantable timber. 

Following construction, non-cropland disturbed by construction would be revegetated with 

appropriate seed mixes, and/or stabilized with temporary cover and allowed to revert naturally to 

pre-construction conditions. It is anticipated that trees removed from the temporary right-of-way 

would rapidly re-establish through natural regeneration. 

The construction of Guardian’s proposed aboveground facilities would involve the removal of 

48.0 acres of non-forested vegetation (agricultural fields, row crops, and pasture vegetation), 

resulting in the permanent loss of 38.6 acres of vegetative communities. No forested areas 

would be permanently replaced by aboveground facilities. The compressor station sites, meter 

stations, and MLVs would be fenced and converted to graveled and/or paved areas, or buildings, 

thereby permanently displacing the existing vegetative cover. Impacts on vegetation from 

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities are summarized in 

table 4.4.2.4-1. 

Guardian proposes to use 24 access roads. A total of 12.2 acres of agricultural lands would be 

affected by construction of access roads (see table 4.4.2.4-1). Of this total, about 1.8 acres would 

be retained as permanent access roads (this acreage of converted land from permanent access 

roads has been included in the impact for the associated aboveground facility). 

4.4.2.5 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Unique, Sensitive, and Protected Vegetation Communities 

The NHI did not identify any protected vegetative communities that occur in the general vicinity 

of the G-II pipeline. In addition, field investigations conducted by Guardian and consultations 

with the WDNR and FWS indicate that the construction and operation of the Project would not 

affect the unique vegetation communities known to be associated with the Niagara Escarpment. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-46

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction could create optimal conditions for 

the establishment of invasive, non-native plant and noxious weed species. Construction 

equipment traveling from weed- and invasive plant-infested areas into weed-free areas could 

disperse invasive plant and noxious weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of 

undesirable vegetation in previously weed-free areas. 

Guardian has included the potential invasive wetland plants in its plant species lists during 

wetland delineations. The presence and relative abundance of these plants has been recorded and 

would be used to assess the potential for spreading these invasive plants from wetlands 

containing a high abundance of invasive species to wetlands with low abundance or no invasive 

plant species. In addition, Guardian is consulting with the NRCS to determine whether upland 

weed species, other than those listed in Wisconsin state statutes, should be included in 

Guardian’s weed management planning. 

Guardian would prepare a Noxious Weed Management Plan that incorporates details regarding 

known occurrences of noxious weeds along the proposed pipeline alignment, current treatment 

of known noxious weed areas, and mitigation measures that Guardian would implement to 

minimize the spread and establishment of noxious weed species. Guardian would file its 

Noxious Weed Management Plan with the FERC prior to construction. 

In Illinois, the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive plants as a result of construction of 

the Sycamore Compressor Station is unlikely because the compressor station would be built in a 

single location and would not involve the movement of construction vehicles from one location 

to another along a construction right-of-way, which could potentially spread noxious weeds and 

invasive plants to non-infested areas. 

4.5 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.5.1 Wildlife 

There are several general habitat types affected by the G-II pipeline, including agricultural land, 

open land, forested land, open water, and developed areas. The following subsections describe 

each of these habitat types and the potential effects of the Project on the associated terrestrial 

wildlife species. Sensitive wildlife habitats and wildlife management areas and wildlife 

resources of cultural significance to the Oneida Nation are also described. Table 4.5.1-1 lists the 

representative species along the pipeline route by habitat type. 

Agricultural Land 

The majority of the proposed pipeline route would cross agricultural land and pasture/rangeland 

(approximately 89 percent). These habitats have generally been significantly altered from their 

original vegetation community structures and replaced with crop production and livestock 

grazing. Typically, large croplands tend to support relatively low wildlife diversity. Croplands 

do, however, play an important role in providing cover and a source of food for a variety of game 

species such as white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, and migrating waterfowl such as ducks 

and geese (see table 4.5.1-1). Other species, generally those that are tolerant of disturbances, and 

habitat generalists are also common in these landscapes, which supply some of their life 

requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-47 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

TABLE 4.5.1-1 

Representative Wildlife Species within Existing Vegetation Types a/

Habitat Type Representative Species Habitat Type Representative Species 

Agricultural Land Deer mouse (Peromyscus manicula) 

Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) 

Woodchuck (Marmota monax) 

Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) 

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) 

Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 

Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 

Coyote (Canis latrans) 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) 

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) 

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) 

Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) 

Snow goose (Chen caerulescens) 

Open 

Water/Aquatic 

Habitats 

Great blue heron (Ardia herodias) 

Common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) 

Great egret (Ardea alba) 

Mink (Mustela vison) 

Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine) 

Green frog (Rana clamitans) 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

Green heron (Butorides virescens) 

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) 

Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) 

Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola) 

Non-forested 

Wetland/ 

Open Land 

Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago) 

Sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) 

Mink (Mustela vison) 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Green frog (Rana clamitans) 

Sora (Porzana carolina) 

Common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) 

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Forested 

Wetlands/ 

Floodplain 

Forests 

Wood duck (Aix sponsa) 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

River otter (Lutra canadensis) 

Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) 

Barred owl (Strix varia) 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Mink (Mustela vison) 

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) 

Southern 

Broadleaf Forest 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

American toad (Bufo americanus) 

Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) 

Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis 

sirtalis) 

Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 

Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

Developed Land Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 

Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 

European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 

American robin (Turdus migratorius) 

Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine) 

Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

Northern Mixed 

Forests 

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

Black bear (Ursus americanus) 

American beaver (Castor canadensis) 

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) 

Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus) 

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 

Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 

Black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla) 

 

a/ Sources: WDNR, 2000; Kurta, 1995; Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas, 2002 

Other open areas such as uncultivated grasslands, pasture, hayfields, and old fields support a 

greater diversity of herbaceous and low-growing woody vegetation, which offers more suitable 

habitat for wildlife. These open areas can sustain populations of small mammals, including mice 

and meadow vole; larger herbivorous mammals including deer, woodchuck, and eastern 

cottontail rabbit; several larger omnivorous and carnivorous mammals such as raccoon, Virginia 

opossum, striped skunk, and red fox; as well as a variety of birds, including American goldfinch, 

European starling, eastern meadowlark, dickcissel, red-winged blackbird, and various sparrow 

species (both native and introduced). Open areas, both cultivated and uncultivated, that are 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-48

bordered by woodland habitat or that contain fence or hedge rows, tend to have a greater species 

diversity because these provide cover, food sources, and other features, which provide foraging, 

nesting, and roosting opportunities. 

Open Land 

Open lands include non-agricultural open and scrub-shrub fields and wetlands, emergent 

wetlands, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands. Approximately 5.3 percent of the 

pipeline route crosses non-forested wetland habitats (emergent and scrub-shrub). For a detailed 

description and discussion of wetlands, see section 4.4.1. Non-forested wetlands and marshes 

are associated with perennial and intermittent streams and isolated, depressional, and often 

perched wetlands that are seasonally flooded. These wetland areas may provide more abundant 

plant seeds and invertebrates that make them attractive feeding and resting areas for migrating 

waterfowl and shorebirds. In the spring, when seasonal flooding occurs, depressional wetlands 

are used as pairing ponds by ducks, and provide an abundant food source of invertebrates for 

egg-laying hens. In addition, the lack of fish and other predators in seasonally flooded areas 

improves breeding success for a variety of reptile and amphibian species (Harding, 1997). Nonforested wetlands also support a diversity of herbaceous and low growing woody vegetation, 

well suited to provide habitat for species such as common snipe, sedge wren, white-tailed deer, 

eastern cottontail, mink, and waterfowl. Marshes, which are characterized by emergent aquatic 

plants growing in permanent to seasonal shallow water, attract waterfowl, shorebirds, rails, and 

wading birds, as well as reptiles and amphibians. These birds use marshes for breeding and 

feeding. Raptors, such as the northern harrier, also favor marshes when searching for prey. 

Forested Land 

Approximately 4.8 percent of the pipeline would cross forested habitat, which include uplands 

and forested wetlands. Upland forests along the pipeline route include both southern broadleaf 

and northern mixed forests. The nuts from trees such as oaks and hickories provide food for 

deer, turkeys, mice, and squirrels. Berries from understory shrubs and woody vines may also 

provide an important source of food for wildlife. Secondary canopy shrubs and saplings, brush 

piles, and fallen logs provide cover for various small to medium-sized mammals. Large standing 

dead trees with cavities and peeling bark provide nesting or roosting sites for a variety of birds, 

bats, and mammal species, as well as foraging opportunities for birds such as woodpeckers, 

brown creepers, and nuthatches. Forested areas provide important habitat for warblers and other 

migrating and nesting neo-tropical migrant songbirds. 

Forested wetland areas are typically dominated by mature lowland deciduous hardwood species 

and, generally, they are associated with ancient lake basins, glacial melt water features (such as 

kettles), and former river channels and oxbow lakes. Wooded swamps and forested wetlands 

retain storm and floodwaters and provide important wildlife habitat for many species including 

game mammals and birds, furbearing animals, neo-tropical migrant songbirds, ruffed grouse, 

wood duck, barred owl, as well as reptiles and amphibians. Floodplain forest wetlands can 

support wildlife species that may not typically be found in adjacent wooded upland habitat, 

although some species use both wetland and upland habitats at different times of the year. They 

provide nesting/denning spaces, food, cover, and water for a variety of wildlife including deer, 

furbearing mammals, songbirds, herons, owls, reptiles, and amphibians. Several native songbird 

species, such as the yellow warbler and wood thrush, prefer swamp wetlands and floodplain 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-49 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

forests. Typically, floodplain forests also have a greater seasonal diversity of plant and animal 

species because they serve as migration corridors for many wildlife species. 

Open Water 

Open water habitats include streams, rivers, and ponds. Only a small portion of the pipeline 

route (0.2 percent) would cross open water habitats. Some mammal and bird species are 

dependent on open water habitats for food and cover including beaver, muskrat, egrets, and 

herons, as are fish, amphibians, and some reptiles, as well as invertebrates. 

Developed Land 

Developed lands, which include residential, commercial, and industrial areas, are not considered 

high quality habitat for wildlife. However, they do provide supplemental habitat for many 

adaptable species, such as Canada geese, depending on their management. Approximately 

0.7 percent of the land that would be crossed by the pipeline is classified as developed land. 

Typical wildlife species found in developed lands are summarized on table 4.5.1-1. Many of 

these animals are adaptable, opportunistic species, which may inhabit many of the other habitat 

types described, but have thrived in developed lands. 

Sensitive Wildlife Habitats and Wildlife Management Areas 

No designated sensitive wildlife habitats or designated Wildlife Management Areas would be 

crossed by the proposed G-II pipeline route. However, the proposed G-II pipeline route is near 

the Niagara Escarpment, a unique geologic feature that provides habitat for a number of wildlife 

and plant species (see additional discussion in section 4.7.5.1). 

Wildlife Resources of Cultural Significance to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin 

The Oneida Nation regards the black bear and the wolf as wildlife species that have strong 

cultural significance. The black bear has been reported within the Oneida Reservation, and there 

are unconfirmed sightings of the wolf. 

4.5.1.1 Potential Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Resources 

The impact on wildlife and wildlife habitats resulting from construction of the proposed Project 

would vary depending on the location, time of year, and type of construction. The particular 

species present within the project area during the time of construction would also contribute to 

the expected project impacts. In general, impacts on terrestrial wildlife would be short-term and 

minimal because most terrestrial species would be able to temporarily relocate to similar habitats 

adjacent to the project right-of-way during construction. Some of the smaller, less mobile 

species, such as small mammals, amphibians and reptiles, would be killed by clearing, grading, 

and trenching activities. 

A potential long-term impact on wildlife results from the clearing of forest vegetation. 

Approximately 51.0 acres of forested land (3.3 percent) would be affected during construction. 

A total of 32.1 acres (2.0 percent) would be retained as permanent right-of-way following 

construction. The remaining 18.9 acres of forest within the right-of-way would be allowed to 

revegetate, and is likely to eventually return to its preconstruction forest composition (which may 

be accelerated by active management). Guardian has routed the pipeline to avoid or minimize 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-50

clearing existing forested areas by following forest edges or previously cleared rights-of-way to 

the maximum extent practicable. In addition, Guardian would limit its construction workspace 

in upland and wetland forest areas to 75 feet. 

Forest clearing in riparian areas may favor the establishment of scrub-shrub swamp, marsh, and 

open land habitats that would otherwise be forested. Because riparian areas tend to be more 

dynamic and variable due to seasonal flooding, channel shifts, and beaver activity, the effect of 

tree clearing on wildlife would likely be less than in a more stable ecosystem. Tree clearing in 

these riparian areas within the right-of-way may affect wildlife diversity by creating and 

maintaining a different type of non-cultivated vegetative community (i.e., marsh and scrub-shrub 

habitats) that may support other wildlife species in a landscape that is dominated by cultivated 

row crops. However, this could still reduce the overall quality of the landscape by reducing the 

total amount of woodland habitat available, and reducing the quality of the remaining habitat by 

increasing the amount of edge. In addition, clearing of forested land in riparian areas may reduce 

or cut off wildlife corridors that provide a link to neighboring forests. Many wildlife species use 

riparian habitats for food and cover as they move from location to location, and clearing of these 

areas may cause wildlife to abandon them in order to locate to undisturbed areas. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project is not likely to significantly affect the black 

bear or timber wolf within the Oneida Reservation. The black bear requires large tracts of 

forested land with suitable vegetation, cover, and denning trees for breeding. The pipeline does 

not cross any large expanses of forested land on this land, but rather is sited, to the extent 

practicable, through non-forested areas and along power lines and roads with existing cleared 

rights-of-way, thus reducing the amount of tree clearing necessary to install the pipeline. Any 

black bear present in the project area, are likely to avoid the construction site when operations 

are proceeding. Black bears are most common in the northern forests of Wisconsin and only 

occasionally found along the proposed pipeline route through the Oneida Reservation (WDNR, 

2004a). Guardian anticipates that construction of the pipeline through the Oneida Reservation 

would occur no earlier than May, but potentially as late as August. This would be after the 

winter denning period and the birth of black bear cubs (late January or early February). 

Sightings of black bears in southern Wisconsin are typically of sub-adults that have been forced 

out of the breeding territories in the northern forests in search of new habitat (WDNR, 2004a). 

Bears that occur in the project area during the summer months would be expected to move north 

to breed and because of the increasing level of other human activity along the northern portion of 

the pipeline route, black bears have been pushed northward into less developed regions of the 

state (WDNR, 2004a). 

According to the WDNR’s Timber Wolf Distribution Map, known wolf pack territories are 

generally found only in the extreme northern areas of Wisconsin, and a small area of northcentral Wisconsin (WDNR, 2006d). Both of these areas are far away from the pipeline route 

within the Oneida Reservation. Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would not 

affect the timber wolf packs because of this distance. Guardian reported no sightings of black 

bear or timber wolf during its 2006 field surveys within the Oneida Nation lands. Guardian 

would report any sightings of these species on the Oneida Nation lands during future field 

surveys, and if necessary, consult with the Oneida Nation in order to minimize any potential 

impacts on this wildlife species of cultural significance. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-51 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Avian Resources 

The clearing of forest habitat for the pipeline right-of-way may contribute to forest 

fragmentation. Forest fragmentation has been shown to reduce neotropical migrant bird use of 

forests adjacent to corridors 50 to 75 feet in width (Rich et al., 1994). However, much of the 

woodland habitat in the project area, however, has already been fragmented by agriculture, 

existing utility corridors, and other developments. Very few species occurring in the project area 

prefer large tracts of unbroken forests. Nearly all of them are well adapted to edge or open 

habitats; therefore, although right-of-way clearing would have a long-term impact on forest 

vegetation, the effect on wildlife would be incremental and is not expected to be significant in 

most locations along the route. 

Construction of the pipeline would occur during the nesting season of some migratory birds, 

which may have an impact on nesting success during the period of construction and restoration. 

A list of the more common migratory bird species that may potentially nest in forested or 

grassland habitats along the pipeline route are summarized in table 4.5.1.1-1. 

TABLE 4.5.1.1-1 

Subset of Migratory Nesting Bird Species that Could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Project

Species Scientific Name Species Scientific Name 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Great Egret Ardea alba Gray Catbird Dumatella carolinensis 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Cerulean Warbler Dendroica caerulea 

Sora Porzana carolina Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Easter Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceous Indigo Bunting Passerina cyaneus 

House Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-52

The potential impacts on nesting migratory birds include forest fragmentation, which could lead 

to the loss of forest habitat and opening the way to edge species such as nest parasites; temporary 

removal of vegetation in grassland habitats, which could cause grassland nesting bird species to 

relocate to other suitable habitat; and the noise and vibrations during construction that may 

disturb nesting birds. Guardian proposes to use HDD to cross the riparian floodplain habitats of 

the Rock River at MP 9.8 and the Fox River at MP 93.0. The use of this method would reduce 

the possible impacts on nesting birds, by avoiding the need to cut down trees that may be used by 

forest-dwelling species for nesting; however, the noise of construction can still be a potential 

impact on nesting birds when using this method. Woody vegetation on the west side of the Fox 

River had recently been cleared, most likely for power-line right-of-way maintenance in late 

2006. Grasslands affected by construction would generally be restored to pre-construction 

conditions following construction. 

Project construction, specifically the clearing of vegetation, could impact approximately 

1,587.2 acres of land classified as agricultural, open land, forested land, developed land, and 

open water. During operation of the Project, approximately 664.2 acres of these land classes 

would be affected (for a more detailed analysis of land use classifications, see section 4.7). 

These impacts affect habitat suitable for use by migratory birds protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and 

conventions for the protection of migratory birds, and makes taking, killing, or possessing 

migratory birds unlawful. In order to minimize impacts on migratory birds during operation of 

the Project, in accordance with our Plan, Guardian would not conduct routine vegetation 

maintenance more frequently than once every 3 years (with the exception of a 10-foot-wide 

corridor centered over the pipeline that may be maintained annually if necessary), and that 

routine vegetation maintenance would not occur between April 15 and August 1 of any year. 

Aboveground Facilities 

There are no anticipated pipeline-related impacts on wildlife from the construction of the 

Sycamore Compressor Station in DeKalb County, Illinois. Construction of the Bluff Creek 

Compressor Station in Wisconsin is expected to have minimal impacts on wildlife. A relatively 

small amount of land would be converted from agricultural to industrial land use at these 

facilities; approximate impacts for these compressor stations are 12.5 acres and 20 acres, 

respectively. Both compressor station sites are in active agricultural fields, with very little 

habitat quality. The two compressor station sites are surrounded by large (1 square mile or 

more) areas of similar agricultural habitat. Existing wildlife can readily move to other, nearby 

locations with suitable similar habitat during construction. Neither of the proposed compressor 

station sites have been designated as sensitive wildlife habitats by the WDNR or the Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Guardian received concurrence of “no effect” from 

the FWS, Rock Island, Illinois District as well as from the IDNR regarding the proposed 

Sycamore Compressor Station location. There are no occurrences of listed species from the NHI 

database at the Bluff Creek Compressor Station in Wisconsin. Based on these factors, 

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would result in minimal 

impact to wildlife. In addition, there are seven other aboveground facilities, with construction 

impacts ranging from 0.6 to 1.4 acres and operation impacts ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 acres. All of 

these aboveground facilities are sited in areas of agricultural land use. Construction and 

operation of these aboveground facilities would also result in minimal impact to wildlife. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-53 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

4.5.2 Aquatic Resources 

4.5.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources 

The proposed G-II Project would cross 111 waterbodies, including 29 perennial streams, 

80 intermittent streams, one fluctuating stream, and one pond. Appendix I to this EIS identifies 

the waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project, as well as their width, location along the 

proposed route, state waterbody classification, and proposed crossing method. Waterbodies 

crossed by the proposed Project are discussed in more detail in section 4.3.2. 

The majority of the perennial waterbodies crossed by the G-II Project provide habitat for a 

variety of warm water fish communities composed of sport fish, rough fish, and forage minnows. 

One waterbody, Stony Brook (MP 66.8), provides habitat for a coldwater trout community. 

Table 4.5.2.1-1 provides a list of commonly occurring fish species in the streams along the 

proposed project route. 

TABLE 4.5.2.1-1 

Representative Fish Species in Warm Water and Cold Water Fisheries Along the G-II Pipeline Route

Sport Fish Rough Fish Forage Minnows 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Black Crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus 

Bowfin Amia calva Brassy Minnow Hybognathus 

hankinsoni 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Johnny Darter Etheostoma 

nigrum 

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Carp Cyprinus carpio Stoneroller Campostoma 

anomalum 

Orange spotted 

sunfish 

Lepomis humilis Longnose Gar Lepisosteus 

osseus 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdii 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus White Sucker Catostomus 

commersoni 

Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella 

spiloptera 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum Brook Stickleback Culaea 

inconstans 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus 

salmoides 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 

Northern Pike Esox lucius 

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Source: Becker, 1983 

Waterbodies in the project area are classified into one of the following fishery types (WDNR, 

2004b): 

• Cold Water Communities (CW): includes surface waters capable of supporting a 

community of cold water fish and other aquatic life or serving as a spawning area for cold 

water fish species. For management purposes, cold water communities are further 

assigned to one of three classes (WDNR, 2002a; 2004b): 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-54

- Class I—Waters having sufficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of wild 

trout, at or near carrying capacity. These streams require no stocking of hatchery 

trout; 

- Class II—Waters having some natural trout reproduction but not enough to utilize 

available food and space. Stocking is required to maintain a desirable sport fishery; 

and 

- Class III—Waters that are marginal trout habitat with no natural reproduction 

occurring. These streams require annual stocking of trout to provide trout fishing. 

• Warm Water Sport Fish Communities (WWSF): includes surface waters capable of 

supporting a community of warm water sport fish or serving as a spawning area for warm 

water sport fish. 

• Warm Water Forage Fish Communities (WWFF): includes surface waters capable of 

supporting an abundant diverse community of forage fish and other aquatic life. 

• Limited Forage Fish Communities (LFF): includes surface waters of limited capacity 

because of low flow, naturally poor water quality, or poor habitat. These surface waters 

are capable of supporting only a limited community of forage fish and aquatic life. 

• Limited Aquatic Life (LAL): includes surface waters severely limited because of very 

low or intermittent flow and naturally poor water quality or poor habitat. These surface 

waters are capable of supporting only a limited community of aquatic life. 

• Fish and Aquatic Life (FAL): this is a default use designation that applies to surface 

waters when the WDNR has not completed a formal site visit of a stream segment. This 

designation is equivalent to a WWSF Community classification. Surface waters assigned 

this use designation support a diverse community of game fish, forage fish, and other 

aquatic life that are not tolerant of organic pollution. 

Of the 111 waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline, 94 streams are classified as FAL (of 

which one is proposed to be classified as LAL); 12 are classified as LFF; three are classified as 

LAL; and one stream (Stony Brook) is classified as Class III CW trout. The remaining unnamed 

artificial pond crossed by the proposed pipeline (MP 60.3) is unclassified by the WDNR. 

Review of the Wisconsin NHI database identified only one rare fish species with recorded 

occurrence in any of the waterbodies crossed by the G-II Project. This occurrence record was for 

the redside dace in Trout Creek in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, with the date of last 

observance in 1975. Guardian proposes to cross Trout Creek near MP 107.8 and parallel the 

creek between MP 107.3 and 107.4 for just over 500 feet. This area of Trout Creek consists of 

an intermittent drainage filled with cattail and reed canary grass, bordered by active cropland and 

is separated from the surrounding agricultural land by a narrow herbaceous buffer strip 

dominated by annual weeds. At the time of Guardian’s 2006 field surveys there was no flow in 

the channel. 

In the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route are three unnamed ponds (MP 41.2, MP 41.8 and 

MP 105.3). Each of these ponds is a privately owned, man-made waterbody that are not 

managed by, nor have, a WDNR fisheries classification. These ponds would not be crossed by 

the pipeline, but could be affected by the construction right-of-way. An additional unnamed 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-55 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

pond serving as a wastewater treatment pond, is located near MP 42.0, approximately 100 feet 

east of the G-II pipeline. This pond is on an adjacent property not crossed by the pipeline 

alignment, and would therefore not be affected by construction or operation of the G-II pipeline. 

Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters 

Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters (OERW) are defined by the WDNR as waters of 

the highest water quality and fisheries in the state and are therefore deserving of special 

protection (WDNR, 2006e). None of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project are 

designated as OERW (WDNR, 2006e). While Jefferson, Fond du Lac, and Outagamie Counties 

contain OERWs, none of the OERW streams within these counties are within 1 mile of the 

proposed pipeline route, nor would any of the tributaries to these waterbodies be crossed by the 

G-II Project. 

4.5.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction 

Guardian’s proposed construction method for crossing each waterbody is listed in appendix I. 

Depending on the construction method used, direct impacts on aquatic habitats and species 

would either be avoided (e.g., through HDD) or would be confined to localized areas. 

Application of the WDNR’s permitting standards for waterbody crossings would ensure that the 

impacts were adequately evaluated and controlled. Waterbody crossings would be implemented 

using “wet” or “dry” construction techniques, as described in section 2.3.1.2. As proposed, 107 

of the proposed 111 waterbody crossings would be achieved using open-cut methods; two would 

be achieved using HDD, and one is still to be determined. Other dry crossing techniques, 

including flume or dam and pump, would be conducted as required by state permits at sitespecific locations. 

Generally, impacts from open-cut crossings would affect aquatic life such as plankton, aquatic 

vegetation, amphibians, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. Impacts on water quality and associated 

aquatic habitats would include sedimentation, turbidity, altered water temperatures, dissolved 

oxygen levels, and introduction of contaminants; all of which can affect the ability of aquatic life 

to survive and reproduce. Impacts would also include the physical disturbance or destruction of 

instream cover due to trenching and removal of riparian vegetation. Construction activities could 

also block fish migrations, interrupt spawning activities, and entrain fish or reduce stream flows 

during withdrawals for hydrostatic testing. These potential impacts are discussed below in more 

detail. 

Pipeline construction using the dry crossing, dam and pump, or flume techniques would also 

produce in-stream disturbances; however, downstream flow of water would not be interrupted 

and the release of sediment to the waterbody would be generally less and of shorter duration than 

with the wet-trench open-cut crossing method. 

Sedimentation and Turbidity 

Pipeline construction using the wet-trench open-cut method would result in sedimentation and 

turbidity in surface waters and aquatic habitats through clearing and grading of stream banks, instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling of the in-stream trench. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-56

Turbidity resulting from suspension of sediments during in-stream construction or erosion of 

cleared right-of-way areas would reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production 

(resulting in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen), increase invertebrate drift, reduce fish 

feeding for brief periods, and affect the benthic community. Benthic macroinvertebrates, which 

typically provide a key food source for fish, would also be removed with the trenched material, 

and/or become buried under accumulated sediments, along with fish-nesting sites containing 

eggs or larvae (if disturbance occurs during periods when eggs or larvae are present) as a result 

of increased turbidity from construction activities. Removal of vegetation from riparian areas 

could also cause an increase in surface runoff and soil erosion. 

Turbidity from in-stream trenching and backfilling activities could also affect fish by obstructing 

their gills and inhibiting their sight. Such impacts could disrupt feeding patterns and/or 

spawning activities. Sedimentation may also affect survival of fish eggs and juveniles, as well as 

benthic community diversity and health, spawning habitat, and the ability of fish and other 

aquatic wildlife to see and capture prey. Organic materials suspended in the water can further 

reduce dissolved oxygen by increasing the biochemical oxygen demand. Reduced levels of 

dissolved oxygen can result in stress, displacement, and mortality to aquatic organisms, 

particularly during periods of low flows or high water temperatures. 

Guardian has agreed to implement the standard requirements for pipeline construction in our 

Plan and Procedures. To contain disturbed soils in upland areas and minimize the potential for 

sediment loss to waterbodies, temporary and permanent sediment controls (e.g., silt fence and 

slope breakers) would be used to direct surface runoff to well-vegetated areas along the sides of 

the construction right-of-way. Guardian has also stated its intent to construct during the summer 

months, a typically low-flow period in the project area to further minimize impacts. The rapid 

pace of construction (typically less than 24 hours for minor streams and less than 48 hours for 

intermittent streams) would reduce the impacts of sedimentation and turbidity on aquatic life. 

Overall, the impact to aquatic species in any particular waterbody, and at any specific crossing, 

resulting from construction of the proposed Project would be minor, localized, and short-term, 

because most of the habitat in each waterbody would remain undisturbed. Additionally, 

occasional turbid conditions are common in many of the waterbodies in this region, mainly due 

to land use conditions. 

Loss of Cover 

Overhanging vegetation in riparian and adjacent wetland areas, undercut banks, logs, and other 

streamside features provide cover for fish. These types of cover and in-stream habitats would be 

disturbed by clearing and open-cut trenching during construction, resulting in decreased shading, 

increased water temperatures, and displacement of fish from disturbed areas. Long-term 

streamside clearing would be limited to a 30-foot-wide corridor centered on the pipeline, a 

portion of which (20 feet) would be allowed to re-establish to shrubby vegetation that would 

provide some shade. The remaining 10-foot-wide strip, centered over the pipeline, would be 

maintained as herbaceous vegetation. Given the limited amount of streambank canopy that 

would be cleared relative to the existing riparian vegetation and total length of stream reach to be 

affected, potential impacts on water temperature would be minor. 

Introduction of Water Pollutants 

Introduction of pollutants into waterbodies and aquatic habitats could occur through disturbance 

of contaminated soils or sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent releases of drilling fluids 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-57 4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

during HDD operations. Pollutants could affect fishes and other aquatic life through acute or 

chronic toxicity, and sub-lethal effects that could affect reproduction, growth, and recruitment. 

As noted above, herbicides or pesticides would not be used within 100 feet of any waterbody. 

Pollutants can also be released during discharge of hydrostatic test waters. However, Guardian 

has stated that biocides and other potentially toxic hydrostatic test water additives would not be 

used during hydrostatic testing. The proposed HDD drilling fluid would consist of water and 

bentonite, which is a mixture of non-toxic clays and rock particles which, if released in small 

quantities, is unlikely to be detrimental to fisheries or water quality. However, the release of 

large quantities into a waterbody could result in adverse impacts on fisheries. To minimize the 

potential impacts on fisheries and water quality, Guardian has prepared an HDD Contingency 

Plan for Inadvertent Releases of Drilling Fluid (see appendix J). The plan describes standard 

drill monitoring and sampling procedures; clean-up practices such as the use of straw bales, silt 

fencing, or turbidity curtains to contain the mud and cuttings; followed by mechanical or manual 

removal of the drilling mud. The plan also addresses procedures to contain and clean up 

inadvertent releases of drilling mud into waterbodies. 

Operation of heavy equipment or other vehicles in and near surface waterbodies could also 

introduce chemical contaminants, such as fuels and lubricants, or result in accidental spills 

during construction. Guardian has adopted our recommendations regarding spill prevention, 

containment, and minimization into their Procedures for construction in waterbodies and 

wetlands. Guardian has also developed an SPCC Plan for the Project (see appendices E and F). 

Given these measures, the risk of accidental spills or the introduction of other hazardous 

materials to waterbodies, and their effects on aquatic life would be effectively minimized. 

Entrainment and Reduction of Flows during Hydrostatic Testing 

Hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would be conducted using water withdrawn from selected 

source waterbodies in the vicinity of the Project (see section 4.3.2.4). However, hydrostatic 

testing of the compressor stations would be conducted using groundwater wells or municipal 

sources and therefore would not affect adjacent aquatic resources. Entrainment of fish and other 

aquatic organisms would occur during withdrawals of hydrostatic test water from the selected 

source waterbodies. These waterbodies include the Rock River, the East Branch of the Rock 

River, and the Fox River. Guardian would prevent or adequately limit impacts from hydrostatic 

testing by implementing the requirements for hydrostatic testing in our Procedures. No 

chemicals would be added to the test water and water would be discharged back to the 

waterbodies from which water was withdrawn, or to well-vegetated upland areas. Guardian 

would use diffusers to minimize the potential for stream scour from water discharged into 

waterbodies, or use filter bags and other energy-dissipating devices to prevent erosion in upland 

areas and other locations. Guardian would also regulate the timing, rate, and volume of 

hydrostatic test water withdrawals to ensure a stable and sufficient downstream flow within the 

waterbodies from which hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn. 

4.5.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Guardian proposes to use HDD to cross two waterbodies, the Fox and the Rock River. As 

described in section 4.3.2.3, a pipeline crossing by HDD would avoid stream bottom disruption 

and subsequent impacts on aquatic habitats along that portion of the pipeline route. However, 

HDD methods are not without risk, because inadvertent drilling fluid releases could result if the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.5 – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 4-58

drilling fluid escapes containment at pits or tanks at the HDD entrance and exit points, or if a 

“frac-out” occurs. A frac-out occurs when drilling fluids migrate unpredictably to the surface 

through fractures, fissures, or other conduits in the underlying rock or unconsolidated sediments. 

Typically, frac-outs are more likely to occur closer to entry and exit points where the hole is 

closer to the surface. During HDD operations, a frac-out would cause turbidity and 

sedimentation. If a frac-out were to occur in a waterbody, potential impacts from increased 

turbidity would include decreased water quality and compromised aquatic habitat integrity. As 

suspended materials settle out of the water column, sedimentation would partially or entirely 

cover the waterbody substrate and any sessile, benthic organisms. Temporary displacement of 

fish species and their prey items, as well as the potential for the smothering or burying of prey 

items, and the clogging of fish gills could also occur. 

To minimize the potential impacts from frac-outs, Guardian has prepared an HDD Contingency 

Plan (see appendix J). The plan describes standard drill monitoring and sampling procedures, 

clean-up practices such as the use of straw bales, silt fencing, or turbidity curtains to contain the 

mud and cuttings, followed by mechanical or manual means to remove the drilling mud. The 

plan also addresses procedures to contain and cleanup inadvertent releases of drilling mud into 

waterbodies. 

Guardian has not yet completed its geotechnical investigation of the proposed HDD locations at 

the Rock and Fox Rivers, and cannot fully assess the potential for frac-outs in these locations at 

this time. Geotechnical investigations are scheduled to occur in the spring of 2007. This 

information will be filed with the Secretary prior to construction. 

Guardian proposes to cross Trout Creek near MP 107.8 and parallel the creek between MP 107.3 

and 107.4 for just over 500 feet. As mentioned earlier, a rare fish species, the redside dace, is 

recorded as occurring in this creek. In order to minimize the impacts on Trout Creek and any 

potential impacts on the redside dace, Guardian would offset the construction right-of-way in this 

area to maintain this 15-foot buffer and would employ appropriate erosion control measures to 

avoid sedimentation from construction activities. Following construction, this area would be 

restored to preconstruction conditions. Assuming successful implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures and the general lack of suitable habitat in this portion of Trout Creek to 

support redside dace, the WDNR do not anticipate any adverse impacts on Trout Creek or the 

redside dace from the construction of the Project. 

Construction of the proposed Project could affect three ponds located at MPs 41.2, 41.8, and 

105.3 along the pipeline route. In accordance with our Procedures, Guardian would offset its 

construction right-of-way to maintain a minimum of 15 feet of vegetative cover between the 

ponds and the construction right-of-way. It would also employ appropriate erosion control 

measures to minimize potential sedimentation impacts on these waterbodies. Given these 

proposed mitigation measures, we do not anticipate any impacts on the ponds from construction 

activities. 

Operation 

Operation of the G-II Project would not have a permanent impact on fishery resources. The 

pipeline would be buried below the bed of waterbodies, and the bed and banks of the streams 

would be stabilized and restored. If maintenance activities were required, Guardian would 

employ protective measures substantially the same as those used during construction. As a 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-59

result, any impacts derived from maintenance would be short-term in nature and similar to those 

discussed above for the initial pipeline construction. 

4.6 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. For the purposes of this EIS, included in this 

category are species federally listed as endangered or threatened, or are considered as candidates 

for such listing by the FWS, and those species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or 

designated as a state species of concern. 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the lead agency (in this case, the FERC) in 

coordination with the FWS must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out does 

not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, or 

result in the adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. 

For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed species or 

designated critical habitats, the federal agency must prepare a biological assessment (BA) for 

those species that may be affected. The action agency must submit its BA to the FWS and, if it 

is determined that the action may adversely affect a listed species, the federal agency must 

submit a request for formal consultation to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. In response, the 

FWS would issue a biological opinion as to whether or not the federal action would likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. 

Our analysis of the G-II Project resulted in a determination that the Project does not have a 

potential to affect listed species. The FWS concurred both formally and informally with this 

finding prior to the issuance of the draft EIS; therefore, consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

is complete. 

Our analysis of special status plant and wildlife species originally focused on those species that 

were identified as potentially occurring in the Project area, as derived from species lists, agency 

consultations, and references. Our subsequent evaluation of potential impacts of the G-II Project 

indicated that some of these species are highly unlikely to occur in the Project area or would 

otherwise not be affected by the Applicant’s proposed action. These species have been identified 

in table 4.6-1 and will not be discussed further in this EIS. 

TABLE 4.6-1 

Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Eliminated from Further Consideration for the G-II Project

Species Federal 

Status a/ 

State Status 

b/ 

Reason for Elimination from 

Further Consideration b/ Determination 

Federally Listed Species

Whooping crane 

(Grus Americana) 

Experimental 

Population 

 Indicated by FWS in June 22, 2006 letter 

that species is not likely to be found in the 

proposed Project area. 

No Effect 

Eastern massasauga 

(Sistrurus catenatus 

catenatus) 

F – C WI - E Indicated by FWS in June 22, 2006 letter 

that species is not likely to be found in the 

proposed Project area. 

No Effect 

Karner blue butterfly 

(Lycaeides Melissa 

samuelis)

F – E WI - SC Indicated by FWS in June 22, 2006 letter 

that species is not likely to be found in the 

proposed Project area. 

No Effect 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-60

TABLE 4.6-1 

Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Eliminated from Further Consideration for the G-II Project

Species Federal 

Status a/ 

State Status 

b/ 

Reason for Elimination from 

Further Consideration b/ Determination 

Dwarf lake iris 

(Iris lacustris) 

F – T WI - T Indicated by FWS in June 22, 2006 letter 

that species is not likely to be found in the 

proposed Project area. 

No Effect 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

F – E WI - SC Suitable habitat not present within 

proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

No Effect 

Prairie bush clover 

(Lespedeza leptostachya) 

F – T WI - E Suitable habitat not present within 

proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

No Effect 

Eastern prairie fringed 

orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea) 

F – T IL - T Suitable habitat not present within 

proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

No Effect 

Small white lady’s-slipper 

(Cypripedium candidum) 

-- WI - T Suitable habitat not present within 1 mile of 

the proposed pipeline facilities. 

No Effect 

Prairie parsley 

(Polytaenia nuttallii) 

-- WI - T Suitable habitat not present within 1 mile of 

the proposed pipeline facilities. 

No Effect 

Northern Yellow Lady’sSlipper 

(Cypripedium parviflorum

var. makasir) 

-- WI - SC Suitable habitat not present within 1 mile of 

the proposed pipeline facilities. 

No Effect 

A land snail 

(Catinella gelida) 

-- WI - SC/N Project does not cross suitable habitats 

(i.e., rock outcroppings or ledges). 

No Effect 

Honey Vertigo 

(Vertigo tridentata) 

-- WI - SC/N Project does not cross suitable habitats 

(i.e., rock outcroppings or ledges). 

No Effect 

Thin-Lip Vallonia 

(Vallonia perspectiva) 

-- WI - SC/N Project does not cross suitable habitats 

(i.e., rock outcroppings or ledges). 

No Effect 

Side-Swimmer 

(Crangonyx gracilis) 

-- WI - SC/N Rivers and streams crossed by Project do 

not exhibit preferred habitat characteristics. 

No Effect 

Redside Dace 

(Clinostomus elongatus) 

-- WI - SC/N Rivers and streams crossed by Project do 

not exhibit preferred habitat characteristics. 

No Effect 

Two-Spotted Skipper 

(Euphyes bimacula) 

-- WI - SC/N Preferred habitats may occur within Project 

area; however, this species has a limited 

distribution and no known occurrences 

exist from counties crossed by the Project. 

No Effect 

ILLINOIS-LISTED SPECIES

Slippershell 

(Alasmidonta viridis) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

sand or fine gravel in shallow water or small 

streams). 

No Effect 

Wooly Milkweed 

(Asclepias lanuginosa) 

-- IL - E Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

native oak and sand prairies, oak barrens, 

or rocky soils). 

No Effect 

Gravel Chub 

(Erimystax x-punctatus) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

deep, swift waters of medium- to largesized rivers over a pea-gravel bottom). 

No Effect 

Iowa Darter 

(Etheostoma exile) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

slow-moving waters of medium to small 

lakes, bog ponds, streams, or cool, slow 

rivers that tend to have clear to moderately 

turbid waters). 

No Effect 

Loggerhead Shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

edge habitat such as hedgerows in 

agricultural areas and along roadsides). 

No Effect 

Red-berried Elder 

(Sambucus racemosa ssp. 

pubens) 

-- IL - E Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

upland forests, swamps, or cool drainages). 

No Effect 

Dog Violet 

(Viola conspersa) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

moist woods, damp fields, or swamps). 

No Effect 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-61

TABLE 4.6-1 

Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Eliminated from Further Consideration for the G-II Project

Species Federal 

Status a/ 

State Status 

b/ 

Reason for Elimination from 

Further Consideration b/ Determination 

Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

moist soil wetlands or wet prairies). 

No Effect 

Indiana Bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

-- IL - E Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

cool and humid caves, mines, and tunnels); 

woodlands, floodplains, or riparian forests. 

No Effect 

Prairie Bush Clover 

(Lespedeza leptostachya) 

-- IL - T Project does not cross suitable habitat (i.e., 

moist native prairies and thin soil at margins 

of rocks or loamy soil). 

No Effect 

a/ F = Federal, E = Endangered species, T = Threatened species, C = Candidate species 

b/ WI = Wisconsin, E = Endangered species, T = Threatened species, SC = special concern species, IL = Illinois, SC/N = no laws

regulating use, possession, or harvesting 

4.6.1 Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species 

After reviewing information about the proposed route (sent by Guardian in a letter to the FWS 

Ecological Services Branch in Green Bay, Wisconsin on June 1, 2006), the FWS concluded that 

two federally listed species potentially occur in the project area, including the bald eagle and the 

eastern prairie fringed orchid. In its written response on July 1, 2006, the FWS identified records 

of bald eagle nests within about 0.5 mile of the proposed Fox River crossing location, and the 

eastern prairie fringed orchid was identified in the vicinity of the proposed G-II pipeline route in 

Jefferson County, Wisconsin (table 4.6.1-1). These species are discussed in further detail below. 

TABLE 4.6.1-1 

Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project

Species Federal Status 

a/ 

State Status b/ Notes 

Federally Listed Species 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

F – T WI – T Two nests identified within 0.5 mile of the Fox 

River crossing. 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea) 

F – T WI – E This species may be found in moist soil wetlands 

and wet prairies. 

Wisconsin-Listed Species 

Blanchard’s cricket frog 

(Acris crepitans blanchardi) 

-- WI – E Historically, the range of this species in Wisconsin 

is limited to the southern half of the state. Mud 

flats and stream banks with abundant, low 

emergent vegetation are preferred habitats. Also 

inhabit marshes, fens, and wet prairies near 

permanent and flowing water. 

Foamflower 

(Tiarella cordifolia) 

 WI – E Rich deciduous woods. 

Blanding’s Turtle 

(Emydoidea blandingii) 

-- WI – T Found throughout the state, except the extreme 

north-central. Concentrated in the vast marshes 

along the Wisconsin River. Primarily inhabit 

marshes and the shallow bays of lakes, but also 

utilize shallow, slow-moving rivers and streams. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-62

TABLE 4.6.1-1 

Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project

Species Federal Status 

a/ 

State Status b/ Notes 

Wood turtle 

(Clemmys insculpta) 

-- WI – T Primarily found along the Black, Wisconsin, St. 

Croix, Brule, and Baraboo Rivers. Forage in 

deciduous forests and open meadows adjacent to 

these rivers during the summer. Some individuals 

may inhabit rivers year-round. 

Handsome sedge 

(Carex Formosa) 

-- WI – T Difficult to identify in the field. Only two known 

sites in Wisconsin. This specie range in Wisconsin 

includes Door, Brown, Milwaukee, Outagamie, and 

Ozaukee Counties. 

Cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulea) 

-- WI – T Found in mature mesic deciduous woodlands; 

prefers forest tracts > 40 acres in size. Uncommon 

to rare migrant and summer resident. 

Red-shouldered hawk 

(Buteo lineatus) 

-- WI – T Suitable habitat in Wisconsin found in 

unfragmented mature floodplain forests along 

major rivers. 

Yellow gentian 

(Gentiana alba) 

-- WI – T Found in mesic prairie, dry mesic prairie, or oak 

openings. Found in Brown, Calumet, Dodge, Fond 

du Lac, Jefferson, and Outagamie Counties, 

among others. 

Forked aster 

(Aster furcatus) 

-- WI – T Prefers dry to mesic hardwoods on streamsides or 

slopes with dolomite near the surface. 

Great egret 

(Ardea alba) 

 WI – T Open, muddy or marshy edges of permanent 

ponds, lakes, bogs, floodplain ponds, and slowmoving streams and rivers. 

Northern harrier 

(Circus cyaneus) 

-- WI – SC/M Marshes, wet meadows, sloughs, swamps, open 

fields. Requires open country for hunting. Nests 

on the ground, typically in tall grasses or under 

shrubs near wetlands. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus) 

-- WI – SC/M Open woodlands with clearing and a dense shrub 

layer, including abandoned farmland, old fruit 

orchards, successional shrubland and dense 

thickets, often along water. 

Black-throated blue warbler 

(Dendroica caerulescens) 

-- WI – SC/M Interior understory of deciduous and mixed 

woodland, second growth, partially cleared forest. 

Nests in small trees, saplings, or shrubs in dense 

undergrowth within 1 meter of the ground. 

Prothonotary warbler 

(Protonotaria citrea) 

-- WI – SC/M Secondary cavity nester, preferring areas with 

stagnant or slow-moving water, especially those 

that only flood intermittently, such as swamps, 

ponds, wet forested bottomlands, flooded river 

valleys, and streams with willows. 

Western meadowlark 

(Sturnella neglecta) 

-- WI – SC/M Open country, including native grasslands, 

pastures, agricultural fields, roadsides, and desert 

grassland. Prefers high forb and grass cover, low 

to moderate litter cover, and little or no woody 

cover. 

a/ F = Federal, T = Threatened species 

b/ WI = Wisconsin, E = Endangered species, T = Threatened species, SC = Special concern species, SC/M = fully protected by 

federal and state laws under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

In a letter dated June 22, 2006 to the FWS, Green Bay Field Office, Guardian requested 

additional information about listed species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the two 

alternative compressor station sites in Walworth County, Wisconsin. The FWS indicated that no 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-63

federally listed species would be affected at either of these alternative compressor station sites 

(FWS, 2006). 

Guardian consulted with FWS, Rock Island, Illinois, Ecological Services Field Office regarding 

threatened and endangered species that could occur within or near the proposed compressor 

station in De Kalb County, Illinois. Only one species, the eastern prairie fringed orchid, was 

identified by FWS from within the Illinois portion of the Project, as listed in table 4.6-1. 

The two species identified as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route 

are discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

The bald eagle is found only in North America where they historically inhabited the entire 

continent wherever there were adequate nest sites and an abundant supply of fish. However, due 

to human activities, bald eagle populations have declined dramatically throughout most of the 

species’ range. Small numbers of eagles currently nest in many regions of North America, with 

the largest breeding populations being found in Canada and Alaska. In Wisconsin, bald eagles 

nest primarily along the shores of inland lakes and rivers in the northern-third of the state 

(WDNR, 2005). 

Bald eagle distribution varies seasonally. Individuals that breed in the northern part of the 

species’ range will migrate south in the winter as northern waters freeze. They will often 

congregate and share communal roosting and feeding grounds. In Wisconsin, bald eagles are 

suspected to move south where there is open water, generally concentrating along the Mississippi 

and Lower Wisconsin Rivers (WDNR, 2005). During the breeding season, eagles establish and 

defend territories, with mated pairs generally returning to the same breeding territory each year. 

Preferred breeding habitat in Wisconsin consists of suitable nesting sites (large trees) located 

near waters with an adequate supply of fish (WDNR, 2005). Bald eagles also require isolated 

areas, where they are less likely to be disturbed by human activities. In February or March, 

eagles that breed in Wisconsin begin building a nest or repairing one they occupied the previous 

year, generally in a tall tree, such as a live white pine (WDNR, 2005). 

Until the 1800s, bald eagles bred throughout the state of Wisconsin, but as the state was settled, 

eagle populations began to decline due to factors such as habitat disturbance and destruction and 

shooting (WDNR, 2005). With the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 and the 

Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1940, it became illegal to shoot bald eagles. By 1950, eagles no 

longer were found in the southern two-thirds of the state. Eagle populations remained stable in 

northern Wisconsin until the 1950s, when the use of pesticides such as DDT became common, 

which reduced the viability of eagle eggs (WDNR, 2005). 

In 1972, the bald eagle was placed on the Wisconsin Endangered Species List and the federal 

government banned the use of DDT. However, bald eagle populations were slow to recover with 

a gradual increase from 82 breeding pairs in 1970 to 414 breeding pairs in 1991 (WDNR, 2005). 

More recently, the number of bald eagle breeding pairs within Wisconsin was estimated at 880, 

994, and 1,020 occupied breeding territories in 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively (WDNR, 

2005). Similarly, the bald eagle was placed on the Federal Endangered Species List in 1973. 

However, because Wisconsin’s eagle population is higher and more stable than that of most 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-64

other states, the federal government listed Wisconsin’s eagles as threatened, rather than 

endangered in 1978 (WDNR, 2005). 

The Project could affect breeding bald eagles if nest trees are removed, if trees used for roosting 

near feeding areas are removed, or if construction occurs near an active nest when eagles are 

breeding and/or rearing their young. Reduced reproductive success and nest abandonment could 

also occur as a result of project activities. 

The FWS noted two recorded bald eagle nesting locations near the proposed G-II pipeline route 

in the Fox River Valley. Because it is not known whether these nests represent two breeding 

pairs, or if the nests are alternative nest sites for one breeding pair, the FWS recommended 

conducting pre-construction surveys to determine whether there are any new nesting sites closer 

to the pipeline crossing of the Fox River. If additional nest sites are identified, the FWS advised 

Guardian to plan construction activities to avoid adversely affecting the species. Specifically, in 

Wisconsin no construction activities should occur within 300 feet of an active nest, but the FWS 

recommended considering a more conservative distance of 0.25 mile. If any bald eagle nest is 

found within 0.25 mile of the project corridor, the FWS recommended that Guardian schedule 

construction to avoid the most critical, moderately critical, and low critical periods (generally 

February 1 to July 1, or when the chicks leave the nest) as described in the Northern States Bald 

Eagle Recovery Plan (FWS Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team, 1983). Should 

Guardian be unable to comply with these recommendations, the FWS would require further 

consultation with Guardian. 

On December 15, 2006, Guardian sent a letter to the Green Bay Ecological Services Field Office 

of the FWS stating that they believe the Project would have “no effect” on the bald eagle. 

Guardian made this determination based on the following factors: both nests being located 

farther than 0.25 mile from the proposed route, which is the buffer area described in the Northern 

States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan; and construction occurring in mid- to late-May, which is well 

into the nesting cycle, and therefore would not cause any eagles to abandon their nests. Guardian 

also stated that pre-construction surveys would not be warranted because the corridor is beyond 

the 0.25-mile buffer zone; bald eagles would not be likely to construct a nest closer to the 

proposed pipeline alignment; and because construction would take place during a period when 

nest disturbance or abandonment is highly unlikely.

The FWS responded in a letter dated January 3, 2007 stating they concurred with Guardian’s 

determination. Based on this letter, the construction time period, and the fact that construction 

would take place outside of the 0.25-mile buffer zone, we believe the project would have no 

effect on the bald eagle. 

Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 

The eastern prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened species limited to fewer than 60 sites 

located within Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. This species is 

generally found in areas with moist soils in mesic to wet, unplowed tallgrass prairies and wet 

prairies, but has also been found in old fields, roadside ditches, bogs, fens, and sedge meadows. 

Although the greatest threat to this orchid is habitat loss, this species is also threatened by 

conversion of its habitat to cropland, competition with invasive plants and noxious weeds, filling 

of wetlands, intensive hay mowing, fire suppression, and overgrazing (FWS, 1988; 1999). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-65

The FWS recommended that Guardian screen the project corridor for suitable habitat for this 

species, which includes moist soil wetlands and wet prairies, and then conduct surveys for the 

species within any identified suitable habitat prior to construction. Guardian has been 

conducting this screening for the eastern prairie fringed orchid during its wetland delineation 

field surveys. No suitable habitat for this species has been identified. If suitable habitat or 

individuals of the species are identified during construction, Guardian would consult with the 

FWS, and would implement any measures recommended by the FWS to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate potential impacts on the eastern prairie fringed orchid. 

Based on review of aerial photography, topographic mapping, and habitat requirements, 

Guardian determined, and the FWS concurred (FWS, 2006b), that suitable habitat was not 

present within or adjacent to the proposed compressor station in De Kalb County, Illinois and, 

therefore, construction at the proposed compressor station site would not affect the eastern 

fringed prairie orchid. 

In an e-mail from the FWS on March 8, 2007, the FWS indicated that no suitable habitat was 

present in the project corridor in Jefferson County and that they believe the determination that 

the eastern prairie fringed orchid would not be affected by the project is appropriate. 

Based on the lack of suitable habitat and informal consultation with the FWS, we conclude that 

the Project would have no effect on the eastern prairie fringed orchid. 

4.6.2 State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species 

4.6.2.1 Wisconsin 

To investigate the presence of state-listed species in the vicinity of the project area, Guardian 

used the Wisconsin NHI data obtained through a license agreement with the WDNR’s Bureau of 

Endangered Resources. Guardian generated data regarding known occurrences of individual 

species using a 2-mile-wide buffer. The 2-mile-wide buffer was used because: (1) the NHI 

database is incomplete, especially in areas dominated by private lands; and (2) if reroutes were 

made during project development these areas would already have been considered. 

Guardian also consulted directly with the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources to develop a 

list of potential special status species that could be affected by the proposed Project. This 

screening entailed a three-phase analysis of (1) identifying species listed in the NHI database; (2) 

conducting a habitat assessment to determine what additional species could reasonably occur 

along the proposed pipeline but had not yet been observed during field surveys; and (2) 

compiling a site-specific Threatened and Endangered Species Work Plan and Habitat 

Assessment (TES Work Plan) to determine survey locations for the species identified in earlier 

phases. 

Results of the investigations produced 12 listed species occurrences, of which two are also 

federally listed. An additional five species are designated as species of special concern (see 

table 4.6.1-1). 

State species of special concern are those for which a problem of abundance or distribution is 

suspected, but not yet proven. The main purpose of this classification is to focus attention on 

certain species before they become threatened or endangered. Guardian has identified five 

species of special concern that may occur in the proposed project area. Within Wisconsin, 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-66

regulations regarding special concern species afford a range of classifications, varying from full 

protection to no protection. The current categories for special concern species and their 

respective level of protection are as follows: 

1. SC/P – fully protected; 

2. SC/H – take regulated by establishment of open/closed seasons; 

3. SC/F – federally protected as endangered or threatened, but not so designated by WDNR; 

4. SC/M – fully protected by federal and state laws under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

and 

5. SC/N – no laws regulating use, possession, or harvesting. 

Because of the lack of protection afforded to these five special concern species, they are not 

described further in this EIS. However, Guardian is continuing its consultation with the WDNR 

to identify appropriate survey requirements and, if necessary, measures to avoid and/or minimize 

potential impacts on state-listed special concern species. 

Wisconsin state-listed species are discussed in the following paragraphs. The bald eagle and 

eastern prairie fringed orchid are discussed in section 4.6.1. 

Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) 

The Blanchard’s cricket frog has been listed as a state-endangered species since 1982. Its 

historical range was limited to the southern half of the state (WDNR, 2006f). Cricket frogs 

require fairly permanent water in open country and prefer open mud flats and stream banks with 

abundant, low emergent vegetation (WDNR, 2006f). They inhabit marshes, fens, and low 

prairies near permanent or flowing water (WDNR, 1997; 2006f). In the Great Lakes region, 

populations have declined sharply and are currently restricted to small, localized populations. 

Loss of wetland habitat, as well as poor water quality due to contamination from pesticides, 

fertilizers, highway salts, and other pollutants have reduced the number of frogs in this region 

(WNDR, 2006f). 

The proposed Project could result in mortality and reduced habitat quality for this species if areas 

they occupy are disturbed during construction. Guardian has agreed to conduct searches for 

Blanchard’s cricket frog and its habitat in 2007. If suitable habitat or presence of this species is 

verified, Guardian should consult with WDNR to develop appropriate mitigation measures, such 

as timing restrictions, to avoid impacts on this species and its habitat. 

Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 

The Blanding’s turtle has been listed as a state-threatened species since 1979. It may be found 

throughout the state, with the exception of the extreme north-central counties, as well as in 

suitable habitat throughout much of the Great Lakes region (WDNR, 2006g). This species is 

generally found in marshes and the shallow bays of lakes, but may also be found in shallow, 

weedy waters of slow-moving rivers, streams, and some northern bogs (WDNR, 2006g). This 

species may also inhabit rivers, where they concentrate their activities in backwaters, 

embayments, and sloughs, but they are considered only transient in portions of streams with 

more than a sluggish current (Harding, 1997). Primarily limited to aquatic habitats, this species 

hibernates underwater from late October or early November until late March or early April. 

Blanding’s turtles may be found in terrestrial habitats during the spring and, to a lesser extent, in 

fall when adults travel to find mates or suitable nest sites (WDNR, 2006g). During the nesting 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-67

season (primarily June), female turtles may travel more than 0.5 mile from water to find open, 

sunny spots with moist but well-drained sandy or loamy soils to dig their nests (WDNR, 2006g). 

Road-kill mortality associated with construction of roads that separate aquatic habitats and 

available upland nesting sites has greatly reduced local turtle populations. This species has also 

been eliminated from many places through the destruction and degradation of wetland and 

adjacent upland habitats (WDNR, 2006g). 

The proposed Project could result in mortality and reduced habitat quality for this species if areas 

they occupy are disturbed during construction. Guardian has agreed to conduct surveys for this 

species during 2007. Guardian will continue its consultation with the WDNR regarding survey 

requirements and measures to avoid impacts on this species if suitable habitat is identified during 

surveys. Avoidance measures generally include timing restriction or installation of exclusion 

fencing. 

Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) 

The wood turtle has been listed as a state-threatened species since 1975 and was once found 

throughout all but the southwestern-most portion of Wisconsin (WDNR, 2006h). Currently, only 

small, scattered populations exist in isolated habitats. This species is a semi-aquatic turtle that 

inhabits rivers and streams mainly along the Black, Wisconsin, St. Croix, Brule, and Baraboo 

Rivers (WDNR, 2006h). From April to November, this species is active by day, and are 

omnivorous feeding on insects, mussels, carrion, berries, dandelions, and other succulent herbs. 

During the fall, wood turtles inhabit stream banks and hibernate over winter in large community 

burrows. Wood turtles mate in spring and fall and females dig nests in June on communal gravel 

sites along stream banks or railroad beds. Eggs are laid in June and hatch in September (WDNR, 

2006h). Water pollution, irrigation, and forest erosion are the primary causes for loss of suitable 

habitat for this species. 

The proposed Project could result in mortality and reduced habitat quality for this species if areas 

they occupy are disturbed during construction. Guardian will continue its consultation with the 

WDNR regarding survey requirements and measures to avoid impacts on this species if suitable 

habitat is identified during surveys. Avoidance measures generally include timing restrictions or 

installation of exclusion fencing. 

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) 

The cerulean warbler is a state-threatened bird found in mature mesic deciduous woodlands, 

including maple, basswood, and especially oak in both uplands and lowlands or floodplain 

forests. Often found near small canopy openings in large continuous forest tracts, they prefer 

medium and large tracts over small tracts (less than 40 acres). Within the state, this species is 

considered an uncommon migrant in the south and central areas, a rare migrant in the north, an 

uncommon summer resident in the south and central areas, and rare summer resident in the north 

(WDNR, 2006i). 

Project clearing may directly affect nesting cerulean warblers or may disturb breeding or nesting 

birds adjacent to the pipeline route. Although this species may be present in forested areas 

within or adjacent to the pipeline route; it is less likely to nest there because most of the affected 

forested patches are smaller than its preferred habitats. Guardian has agreed to conduct breeding 

bird surveys for the cerulean warbler; if identified within the proposed Project area, Guardian 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-68

would consult with WDNR regarding appropriate mitigation that would reduce impacts on this 

species. 

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

The red-shouldered hawk is a state-threatened species. Its preferred breeding habitat includes 

bottomland hardwoods, mesic deciduous or mixed deciduous-conifer forests, and wooded 

margins of marshes. They prefer to nest in oaks, pines, and other large trees, 20 to 70 feet high 

in a closed canopy. Nest building may begin as early as March. Suitable habitat in Wisconsin 

has been found in unfragmented, mature floodplain forests along major rivers, including the 

Mississippi River, St. Croix River north to St. Croix Falls, the Chippewa River to Chippewa 

Falls, the Wisconsin River to Wausau, and the Wolf River to Shawano (WDNR, 2006i). 

Project clearing may directly affect nesting red-shouldered hawks or may disturb breeding or 

nesting birds adjacent to the pipeline route. Although this species may be present in forested 

areas within or adjacent to the pipeline route, it is less likely to nest there because most of the 

affected forested patches is small. Guardian has agreed to conduct nest searches and raptor callresponse surveys for the red-shouldered hawk as part of its TES Work Plan. 

Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa) 

The handsome sedge is a state-threatened species that is primarily found in forests, forest edges, 

road sides, and less frequently in open meadows (NYNHP, 2006). This species may be found in 

soils ranging from fairly dry to moderately wet, and may be found adjacent to areas of fairly wet 

soils. This species also occurs where there is limestone bedrock or calcareous soils. It occurs 

from New England to Southern Ontario, and North Dakota to New Jersey, a range that includes 

Wisconsin (NYNHP, 2006). Within Wisconsin, it has been recorded in Jefferson, Outagamie, 

and Brown Counties along the route (WDNR, 2006k). The handsome sedge is often associated 

with canopy species such as red and sugar maples, hickory, and white ash, as well as understory 

species such as cinnamon fern and other Carex species. Threats to this species include 

residential development, invasive and noxious weeds, and logging activities that have changed 

the hydrology of suitable habitat. 

Guardian has agreed to conduct surveys for this species during 2007 as part of its TES Work 

Plan. 

Yellow Gentian (Gentiana alba) 

The yellow gentian is a state-threatened plant that is found in clay soils in wooded ravines, thin 

soil and sand fields, dry woods, open woodlands and edges, ridges and bluffs, wet sandy prairies, 

railroad rights-of-way, and roadside ditches. These communities are often classified as mesic 

prairie, dry mesic prairie, or oak openings. Yellow gentian has been found in Brown, Calumet, 

Dodge, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, Outagamie, Rock, Walworth, and Waukesha Counties along the 

route. It flowers from late August through early October (WDNR, 2006l). 

Guardian conducted surveys for the yellow gentian and did not find individuals within the 

proposed Project area; therefore, this species is unlikely to be affected by the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.6 – Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other Special Status Species 

4-69

Forked Aster (Aster furcatus) 

The forked aster is a state-threatened species. It prefers dry to mesic hardwoods, and is often 

found on streamsides or slopes with dolomite near the surface. Blooming occurs from early 

August to mid-October. The optimum identification period is from mid-August to late 

September (WDNR, 2006m). Guardian conducted surveys for the forked aster and did not find 

individuals within the proposed Project area; therefore, this species is unlikely to be affected by 

the proposed Project. 

4.6.2.2 Illinois 

Review of the IDNR online information identified seven species in DeKalb County, including 

slippershell, wooly milkweek, gravel chub, Iowa darter, loggerhead shrike, red-berried elder, dog 

violet, eastern prairie fringed orchid, prairie bush clover, and Indiana bat, that could potentially 

occur in or near the proposed compressor station; however, further communication from IDNR 

(2006) indicated no records of state-protected species or their habitats, or specially designated 

lands (preserves, natural areas, etc.) within the proposed Project area. Therefore, we determined 

that the Project would not affect these species. 

4.6.3 Conclusions on Threatened and Endangered Species 

We have determined that with the implementation of Guardian’s proposed construction and 

mitigation measures, the project would have no effect on federally listed species. Habitat 

availability is believed to be the primary limiting factor for some threatened, endangered, and 

special-status species. The distribution and abundance of threatened, endangered, and specialstatus species is limited; therefore, any impact on these species may affect the size or viability of 

the existing populations. Those species with habitat that could potentially occur in the project 

area such as the Blanchard’s cricket frog, wood turtle, Blanding’s turtle, and rare plant species 

could experience reduced habitat quality or mortality (e.g., crushing or trapping) if areas they 

occupy are disturbed during construction. Other species such as cerulean warbler, redshouldered hawk, and other bird species could experience nest failure or loss of nesting and 

breeding habitats if areas they occupy are disturbed during construction. 

During operation of the proposed Project, routine vegetation maintenance has the potential to 

affect threatened and endangered species. Where vegetation maintenance would be required, 

impacts on these species using the right-of-way would be minimized by limiting vegetation 

maintenance to no more than once every 3 years and by employing seasonal mowing restrictions, 

typically between April 15 and August 1 of any year. 

Guardian has completed initial consultations with the WDNR to identify the specific state-listed 

species and/or species of special concern that should be included in the threatened and 

endangered species surveys for the G-II Project. Guardian is also working with the WDNR to 

identify measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts on these species if suitable habitat 

is identified during surveys. Because Guardian has yet to complete surveys for state-listed 

species, we recommend that: 

• If a state-protected species or its habitat are found within the proposed construction 

right-of-way or construction work areas, Guardian should consult with WDNR 

regarding survey methodology, and develop mitigation plans, if necessary, to avoid 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-70

or minimize impacts to that species. Guardian should file the results of any statethreatened and endangered species surveys (including survey methodology) and 

mitigation plans with the Secretary prior to construction. 

4.7 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Several potential land use effects may result from construction and operation of the G-II Project. 

Many of these potential impacts are related to construction and include disturbance of existing 

land uses within construction work areas along the rights-of-way, creation of new permanent 

rights-of-way for operation and maintenance of the facilities, and short-term disruption to land 

uses, primarily agricultural land. Recreational and visual impacts could occur because of 

operation of the aboveground facilities associated with the Project. 

A discussion of the effects of the Project on land use, residences and structures, recreation and 

special interest areas, visual resources, and hazardous waste sites is provided below. 

4.7.1 Land Use 

The land use/land cover types crossed by the proposed pipeline route and located at the proposed 

aboveground facility sites are comprised of six primary cover types: agricultural, open land, 

forest land, open water, commercial/industrial, and residential. Impacts associated with each 

land use are discussed in further detail below. Residential lands are discussed in further detail in 

section 4.7.4. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect a total of about 1,587.2 acres of land: 

1,323.1 acres for the pipelines; 48.0 acres for the aboveground facilities (including the seven 

meter stations, associated mainline valves, and launcher receiver facilities); 12.2 acres for access 

roads; 176.3 acres for additional temporary workspace; and 27.6 acres for a pipe 

storage/contractor yard. Operation of the Project would affect about 702.8 acres of land, of 

which 38.6 acres would be permanently converted for operation of the aboveground facilities, 

and the remaining 664.2 acres would be permanently converted to maintain the pipeline. 

Table 4.7.1-1 summarizes the acres of each land use category that would be affected by both the 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

The majority of land that would be crossed by the proposed Project would be agricultural land 

(97.6 miles or 89.0 percent). Of the remaining land uses 5.8 miles or 5.3 percent of open land, 

5.3 miles or 4.8 percent of forest land, 0.3 mile or 0.3 percent of commercial/industrial land, 

0.2 mile or 0.2 percent of open water, and 0.2 mile or 0.2 percent of residential land would be 

affected (see table 4.7.1-2). 

Guardian proposes to use a 110-foot-wide construction right-of-way to fabricate and install the 

30-inch-diameter pipeline and an 80-foot wide construction right-of-way to fabricate and install 

the 20-inch-diameter pipeline. In non-farmed wetlands and upland forested areas, the 

construction right-of-way would be reduced to 75 feet wide for both the 30- and 20-inchdiameter pipelines. The construction right-of-way would comprise 1,323.1 acres for the pipeline. 

Following construction, a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be maintained for 

operation of the respective pipeline (664.2 acres for the pipeline). 

Guardian would obtain easements from the landowners in order to construct the pipeline. An 

easement would be used to convey both temporary (for construction) and permanent (for 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-71 4.7 – Land Use, Recr

TABLE 4.7.1-1 

 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project 

Agricultural 

Land d/ 

Open 

Land e/ 

Forest 

Land f/ 

Open 

Water g/ 

Commercial/ 

Facility Industrial h/ R

Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. C

30-inch-diameter pipeline a/ 994.4 452.0 40.2 26.3 39.8 26.7 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 320-inch-diameter pipeline b/ 221.5 138.5 14.3 9.5 8.1 5.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 

Subtotal Pipeline 1,215.9 590.5 54.5 35.8 47.9 32.1 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 4

Sycamore Compressor Station 22.5 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bluff Creek Compressor Station 20 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ixonia Meter Station c/ 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Rubicon Meter Station 0.7 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sheboygan Meter Station 0.7 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chilton Meter Station 0.6 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Fox Valley Meter Station 1.4 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Denmark Meter Station 0.7 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Southwest Green Bay Meter Station 0.7 1.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- West Green Bay Meter Station 0.7 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 48 38.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Contractor Yards 27.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Additional Temporary Workspace 161.8 0 11.4 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 Access Roads 12.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Project Total 1,465.5 629.1 65.9 35.8 51.0 32.1 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 4

a/ Includes nominal 110- and 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way, respectively, and a 50-foot-wide operation right-of-way. 

b/ Includes nominal 80- and 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipeline, respectively, and a 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way. 

c/ The Ixonia Meter Station would be located in Guardian’s existing pipeline facilities; all new construction would occur within the fence line. 

d/ Agricultural – actively cultivated uplands, farmed wetlands, hay fields, pastures, tree farms, orchards, and nurseries. Also includes fence lines, windbreaks, 

e/ Open – non-agricultural open and scrub-shrub fields and wetlands, emergent wetlands, fallow croplands, and CRP and Conservation Reserve Enhanceme

f/ Forest – non-agricultural wooded uplands and wetlands. 

g/ Open Water – surface water crossings greater than 100 feet. 

h/ Com./Ind. – existing and planned commercial and industrial developments including retail stores, office buildings, manufacturing plants, utility stations, rock 

includes existing access roads, railroad crossings, and road crossings greater than 50 feet wide with four or more lanes. i/ Residential – existing and planned rural, suburban, and urban residential developments. 

Notes: The totals of some columns differ slightly from the sum of each row in the column due to rounding.  Open Water and Commercial/Industrial Land would be crossed using either HDD technique or by conventional road bore, which would not generate su

construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-72

TABLE 4.7.1-2 

Land Uses Crossed by Pipeline Facilities (in miles)

Agricultural a/ Open b/ Forest c/ Open Water d/ Com./Ind. e/ Reside

Facility/County (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) 

30-inch-diameter pipeline

Jefferson County 1.7 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dodge County 30.4 27.7 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Fond du Lac County 22.0 20.1 1.5 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Calumet County 19.0 17.3 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Outagamie County 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown County 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 

20-inch-diameter pipeline 

Brown County 15.7 14.3 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Outagamie County 7.2 6.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Total 97.6 89.0 5.8 5.3 5.3 4.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 

a/ Agricultural – actively cultivated uplands, farmed wetlands, hay fields, pastures, tree farms, orchards, and nurseries. Also includes fence lines, windbrea

b/ Open – non-agricultural open and scrub-shrub fields and wetlands, emergent wetlands, fallow croplands, and CRP and CREP lands. 

c/ Forest – non-agricultural wooded uplands and wetlands. 

d/ Open Water – surface water crossings greater than 100 feet. 

e/ Com./Ind. – existing and planned commercial and industrial developments including retail stores, office buildings, manufacturing plants, utility stations, ro

includes existing access roads, railroad crossings, and road crossings greater than 50 feet wide with four or more lanes. f/ Residential – existing and planned rural, suburban, and urban residential developments. 

Note: The totals of some columns differ slightly from the sum of each row in the column due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-73 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources

operation) rights-of-way to Guardian. The easement would give Guardian the right to construct, 

operate, and maintain the pipeline, and establish a permanent right-of-way. In return, Guardian 

would compensate the landowner for use of the land. The easement agreement between the 

company and the landowner typically specifies compensation for the loss of use during 

construction, loss of nonrenewable or other resources, and allowable uses and restrictions on the 

permanent right-of-way after construction. These restrictions can include prohibition of 

construction of aboveground structures, including house additions, garages, patios, pools, or any 

other object not easily removable; roads or driveways over the pipeline; or the planting and 

cultivating of trees or orchards within the permanent easement. The areas used as temporary 

construction right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces would be allowed to revert to 

pre-construction uses with no restrictions. 

The acquisition of an easement is a negotiable process that would be carried out between 

Guardian and individual landowners. If the necessary land cannot be obtained through good 

faith negotiations with property owners and the Project has been certificated by the Commission, 

Guardian may use the right of eminent domain granted under Section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act 

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 71A) to obtain easements. Guardian would still 

be required to compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and damages incurred during 

construction; however, according to state or federal law a court would determine the level of 

compensation. 

4.7.1.1 Agricultural Land 

Agricultural land in the project area consists of actively cultivated croplands, hay fields, and 

pastures, including intervening fence lines, windbreaks, and shelterbelts. The proposed pipeline 

would cross 97.6 miles of agricultural land and would disturb a total of 1,465.5 acres of 

agricultural land during construction of the pipeline, aboveground facilities, and associated 

ancillary facilities. Of this total, the agricultural land required for the construction of the Bluff 

Creek and Sycamore Compressor Stations (46.4 acres) is considered prime farmland. Several 

alternative compressor station locations were evaluated to minimize impacts on prime farmland 

and are discussed in further detail in section 3.3.4. Additional information regarding prime 

farmland soils can be found in section 4.2. 

Most cultivated areas in Wisconsin are used to grow corn, soybeans, or wheat. Other crops 

include hay, sorghum, oats, rye, and specialty crops including sweet corn, green beans, peas, 

carrots, potatoes, horseradish, mint, cranberries, pumpkins, apples, and nursery products (USDA, 

1999). Corn, soybeans, wheat, and other row crops are grown in the project area, including hay 

and alfalfa. No special crops or orchards were identified along the pipeline route that would 

require unique construction techniques. Guardian will continue to actively consult with 

landowners affected by the proposed Project to identify any specialty crops along the route. 

Guardian’s proposed route would cross one certified organic farm (Midlakes Organic Farm) 

between MP 73.1 and MP 73.4 in Calumet County. The center of the proposed pipeline would 

pass within 50 feet of a second certified organic farm (operated by Mr. Arthur Steinbach) located 

in Dodge County between MP 22.8 and MP 23.3. Guardian received several comments about 

crossing certified organic farming operations. Regulation of organic farming was authorized in 

1990 under the Organic Foods Production Act. After a 12-year comment and discussion period 

the National Organic Program (NOP) was fully implemented on October 21, 2002. Pipeline 

construction-related concerns of certified organic farmers and farmers transitioning from 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-74

conventional to a certified organic operation would include maintaining certification, ensuring 

that impacts on the current certified organic crop within the affected field(s) (but outside of the 

construction right-of-way) are minimized, receiving adequate compensation, and proper 

restoration of the soil to be consistent with organic farming principles. 

Guardian also received a comment from the owner of a private nursery business along the 

proposed pipeline route. This landowner was concerned that the pipeline and permanent 

easement restrictions would preclude the future planting of nursery stock. During further route 

refinements, Guardian adopted a route variation that would place the pipeline approximately 

0.25 mile west of this area to avoid the nursery. 

Guardian has consulted with each town and county along the proposed route to identify both 

lands enrolled in the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) and lands enrolled in 

the Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program (FPP) that would be crossed by the Project. 

Based on the results of Guardian’s inquiries, the Project would not cross any FRPP areas. Some 

of the lands crossed would be enrolled in the FPP. However, the existence of the pipeline would 

not prevent either the county or individual landowners from participating in the FPP or receiving 

state income tax credits for the preservation of their land under this program. 

A total of 629.1 acres of agricultural land would be retained as permanent right-of-way following 

construction to facilitate pipeline monitoring and maintenance and for aboveground facilities. Of 

this total, about 36.4 acres of prime farmland would be permanently converted to 

commercial/industrial land use to support the two compressor stations, meter stations, and six 

MLV locations. In all other areas along the pipeline route, agricultural land use would not be 

affected during operation because routine brushing and clearing would not be required in 

agricultural areas and the land would return to routine farming uses once construction was 

completed. 

4.7.1.2 Open Land 

The Project would cross 5.8 miles of open land and would disturb approximately 65.9 acres of 

open land during construction of the pipeline. Open land is defined as non-agricultural, open and 

scrub-shrub uplands and wetlands, emergent wetlands, fallow croplands, and CRP and 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) lands. Within the project area, open land 

occurs most commonly as narrow strips at waterbodies, floodplains, roads, and railroad 

crossings. 

Guardian consulted with the USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA) in each county, the agricultural 

land manager for the Oneida Nation, and landowners to obtain information regarding lands 

enrolled in the CRP that could be crossed by the Project. The FSA in each county indicated that 

the Wisconsin State FSA Office reviewed Guardian’s request and determined that the CRP land 

information is protected by the Freedom of Information Act, exemption 6, 5 United States Code 

552(b) (6), because the disclosure of the requested information would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of the personal privacy of any contract holders. However, during landowner 

negotiations Guardian determined that the Project would cross nine parcels that contain CRP 

easements. Guardian will continue to coordinate with these landowners to identify the exact 

location of these areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-75 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

Guardian consulted with the Land and Water Conservation Department (LWCD) in each county, 

the agricultural land manager for the Oneida Nation, and landowners to obtain information 

regarding lands enrolled in the CREP that could be crossed by the Project. As of October 2006, 

Guardian received responses from four of the six county LWCDs (Jefferson, Calumet, Fond du 

Lac, and Brown Counties, Wisconsin). Responses indicated that the Project would not cross any 

CREP lands in these counties. Guardian would file with the FERC Secretary copies of all future 

correspondence regarding CREP lands received from the remaining three county LWCDs. 

Guardian consulted with the NRCS in each county, the agricultural land manager for the Oneida 

Nation, and landowners to obtain information regarding lands enrolled in the Wetland Reserve 

Program (WRP) that could be crossed by the Project. Based on responses as of October 2006, 

Guardian determined that the Project would not cross any WRP areas. 

Guardian identified a WDNR conservation easement at MP 57.7 near Pipe Creek. The purpose 

of this non-point source easement would be to provide a vegetative buffer to minimize impacts 

from agricultural runoff to a priority watershed. About 0.61 acre of the easement would be 

temporarily affected by construction of the Project. A detailed discussion of the construction and 

operation impacts associated with the crossing of this conservation easement and the proposed 

mitigation measures are provided in section 4.3.2.3. 

In all open lands, Guardian would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of the 

pipeline and to facilitate pipeline monitoring and maintenance. About 35.8 acres of open land 

would be retained as permanent right-of-way for this purpose. The remaining 30.1 acres of land 

used during construction would be allowed to revert to its preconstruction condition. 

4.7.1.3 Forest Land 

Forest land consists of non-agricultural wooded uplands and wetlands. Forest areas crossed by 

the Project would be dominated by riparian, oak-hickory, and maple-basswood communities. 

The Project would cross about 5.3 miles of forest land and approximately 51.0 acres of forest 

land would be affected during construction. A total of 32.1 acres would be retained as 

permanent right-of-way following construction. The remaining 18.9 acres would be allowed to 

revert to its preconstruction condition. 

4.7.1.4 Open Water 

Open water consists of surface water crossings (e.g., rivers, lakes, and ponds) greater than 

100 feet wide. The Project would cross about 0.2 mile of open water at the Rock and Fox 

Rivers. Because these areas would be crossed utilizing the HDD crossing technique, no areas 

classified as open water would be affected during construction. A total of 1.4 acres would be 

retained as permanent right-of-way following construction. 

Operation of the pipeline would not affect open waters because routine brushing and clearing 

would not occur in these areas. 

None of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project are listed on the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory or are classified as National Wild and Scenic Rivers or Wisconsin Exceptional 

Resource Waters. However, a portion of the pipeline and the three meter stations to be located in 

Brown County, Wisconsin (including the Fox Valley, Denmark, and Southwest Green Bay Meter 

Stations) would be located within a coastal zone management area. Guardian will be required to 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-76

obtain a federal consistency determination for this portion of its pipeline and the meter stations 

located in Brown County. No other project facilities in Wisconsin or Illinois are located in 

designated coastal zone management areas and therefore would not be subject to Coastal Zone 

Consistency review. 

4.7.1.5 Commercial/Industrial Land 

Commercial and industrial land includes existing commercial and industrial developments 

including retail stores, office buildings, manufacturing plants, utility stations, rock quarries, and 

landfills. Railroad crossings and road crossings greater than 50 feet wide with four or more lanes 

were included as commercial and industrial land uses; new access roads and smaller road 

crossings were included as part of their surrounding land use. 

The Project would cross about 0.3 mile of commercial and industrial land, including three active 

quarries. All of the commercial and industrial land crossed would consist of railroads or fourlane divided highways. Guardian proposes to bore these crossings; therefore, no 

commercial/industrial land would be affected during construction. 

The presence of commercial and industrial buildings within 50 feet of the proposed Project was 

also considered. There are no commercial or industrial buildings within 50 feet of the 

construction work area and, therefore, would not result in impacts during construction and 

operation of the pipeline. 

Prior to construction, a total of 2.0 acres would be retained as permanent right-of-way. 

Commercial/industrial land use would not be affected during operation because routine brushing 

and clearing would not be required in commercial/industrial areas. 

4.7.2 General Land Use Impacts and Mitigation 

The general impacts on land cover associated with construction of the proposed Project would be 

a function of the construction methods employed, the restoration actions implemented once 

construction has been completed, and the nature of the land cover type affected. Section 2.0 

provides a detailed discussion of the proposed construction methods and post-construction 

restoration. 

Permanent land cover changes would occur to those lands contained within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way where reversion to the preconstruction cover type would not be compatible 

with operation of the proposed project facilities. Land uses not allowed in the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way would include aboveground construction, below ground construction, and 

the growth, planting, or cultivation of trees. Forest land cover would therefore be precluded 

from the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Allowable land uses generally permitted within the 

permanent right-of-way would include row crops and pastureland. Permanent changes would 

also be associated with the proposed aboveground facilities and those access roads maintained 

during operations, because acreage required for these facilities would be converted to a 

commercial/industrial cover type for the life of the Project. Although these impacts would be 

permanent, lasting for the life of the Project, the overall impact would not be significant given 

the limited acreage involved. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-77 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

4.7.3 Site-Specific Land Use Impacts and Mitigation 

4.7.3.1 Agricultural Land 

Construction could affect the productivity of agricultural land in the construction and permanent 

rights-of-way. Most cultivated areas would be taken out of production for one season, whereas 

hay and alfalfa fields, and pastures may take an additional year or two to return to previous 

production levels. To minimize potential effects, Guardian would compensate landowners for 

crop loss and other damages, and would take steps to minimize the loss of future crop 

production. Guardian has also agreed to employ a third-party AM for the Project to monitor all 

construction activities in the agricultural lands (see section 2.5 for further details). 

Croplands and FPP land, except those within the operational areas of aboveground facilities, 

would return to agricultural use after construction. According to the requirements in our Plan 

and Guardian’s AMP, restoration of the right-of-way would be monitored after construction to 

determine whether the crops have returned to expected productivity. After the monitoring 

period, landowners who believe they have a pipeline-related crop deficiency would be requested 

to notify Guardian prior to harvest for individual crop inspections and evaluations. Information 

regarding the potential causes of future loss of crop production and mitigation measures to 

minimize such losses is discussed in our Plan and section 4.2. 

Additional construction effects would include inconveniences to some farmers whose pastures 

are used for livestock grazing, resulting from the removal of livestock fences in the construction 

work area. Guardian identified five livestock farms and one horse farm where grazing was 

occurring on the proposed pipeline route during the summer of 2006 and all of the fences were of 

a temporary nature (i.e., single-strand electric barbed wire). To minimize impacts, Guardian 

would arrange with landowners or tenants to relocate livestock away from the right-of-way 

during construction in accordance with our Plan and Guardian’s AMP. If relocation of livestock 

were not possible, temporary fencing would be installed. These fences would typically remain in 

place until vegetation is re-established. Where livestock would be grazed on adjacent lands, 

Guardian would consult with the landowner prior to construction regarding how and where 

temporary fences should be installed to maintain appropriate access to pastures. Additionally, 

Guardian’s contractors would be responsible to close any gates to pastures after working hours. 

Permanent fences that are removed during construction would be repaired to their 

preconstruction condition or better. 

In agricultural areas, the pipeline trench would be excavated to a sufficient depth to generally 

allow a minimum of 4 feet of soil cover between the top of the pipeline and the final land surface 

after backfilling. One exception to this would be in areas containing shallow bedrock, which 

may have less than 4 feet of cover (e.g., 24 inches in consolidated rock). At least 4 feet of cover 

would be achieved at waterbodies, railroads, and road crossings. 

Generally, Guardian would remove excess rock from the full construction right-of-way, either 

manually or using a mechanical rock picker, until the size and distribution of rocks on the rightof-way corresponds to rock in the adjacent areas that would not be disturbed by construction. 

Topsoil would be segregated from the entire construction right-of-way on agricultural land. 

Topsoil and subsoil removed from the pipeline trench would be stored separately during 

construction and would not be allowed to mix. Following construction, subsoil would be 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-78

returned to the trench and topsoil would be returned to those areas from where it was removed. 

See section 4.2 for further discussion of topsoil management during construction. 

Guardian would work with landowners to identify drain tile systems in advance of construction 

and would mark the locations of any tile broken during pipeline trenching operations. Guardian 

would implement temporary tile line repairs to maintain the functionality of tile drainage systems 

during construction. Before the trench would be backfilled, Guardian would ensure that 

permanent tile repairs have been implemented. Guardian has also committed to have a qualified 

tile contractor conduct all tile repairs. Following completion of construction and restoration, 

Guardian would work with landowners to repair or correct tile drainage problems as long as the 

damage was directly caused by construction of the pipeline. 

To minimize impacts on the Midlakes Organic Farm and other certified organic farms, Guardian 

would implement site-specific construction techniques as described in section 2.3.1.2. These 

construction practices would be based on Guardian’s BMPs for organic agricultural land as 

defined in its AMP. To support its BMPs, Guardian would request a copy of the Organic System 

Plan for the farm and would work with the producer to develop a site-specific plan to cross the 

farm in a manner that would minimize the risk of losing certification. 

At the Steinbach organic farm property located between MP 22.8 and MP 23.3, the construction 

workspace would be located within about 15 feet from the edge of the property boundary. 

Standard procedures for organic farmers outlined in the NOP require the installation and 

maintenance of a buffer between the crop production portion of a certified organic field and 

neighboring, non-organic land uses. Because the Project would not cross the Steinbach Farm, 

Guardian would not be able to review the Organic System Plan for the farm because Organic 

System Plans are proprietary documents. As a result, the actual width of the buffer between the 

organic production area and the adjacent property boundary would not be known. Guardian 

would install erosion and sedimentation control devices along the edge of the workspace 

consistent with the standard requirements for pipeline construction in our Plan, and would ensure 

that construction personnel and materials (including soil and stormwater runoff from the adjacent 

property) would not penetrate the buffer. Guardian’s upland construction techniques are not 

appreciably different from the tillage, planting, and other standard farming practices conducted 

by the farm operation bordering the Steinbach Farm. As such, we believe the existing buffer 

would be adequate to protect the certified organic status of the Steinbach property. 

There is no evidence to suggest that the presence of a pipeline would prohibit landowners from 

applying for organic certification of their lands in the future. However, if the presence of the 

pipeline were to prohibit organic certification of a landowner’s property, it is likely the 

prohibition would be limited to the 50-foot permanent easement plus an additional buffer zone 

on either side of the easement. 

4.7.3.2 Open Land 

Construction impacts on open land would be minor and short-term. The preconstruction 

herbaceous and shrub communities would become re-established within one or two growing 

seasons after construction. To minimize impacts, Guardian would work with landowners, the 

FSA, and DATCP to reseed any CRP lands crossed by the Project with appropriate seed mixes to 

ensure continued eligibility for enrollment in the CRP program. Open land uses, including CRP, 

would continue in the permanent right-of-way after construction.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-79 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

4.7.3.3 Forest Land 

The primary effect of construction on forest areas would be the removal of trees and shrubs from 

the construction work area. In addition, approximately 1.6 acres of forested land would be 

temporarily disturbed for the purpose of additional temporary workspaces. The impacts 

associated with temporary additional workspaces are the result of site-specific constraints at 

road, wetland, and/or waterbody crossings (specifically at MPs 12.3, 93.3, 102.6 and 102.7) that 

would inhibit construction engineering and equipment maneuverability requirements. 

Following construction, trees and shrubs would be allowed to regenerate in the areas not retained 

as permanent right-of-way, and the permanent right-of-way would be maintained in accordance 

with the standard requirements for pipeline operation in our Plan and Procedures. The rate of 

forest regrowth would depend on the type of vegetation cleared and the fertility of the soils. 

Early successional species would begin colonizing the right-of-way within a few years of 

construction, followed by the establishment of later successional species. Additionally, to 

minimize impacts on affected forest land, Guardian would limit the width of the construction 

right-of-way to 75 feet in forest areas. 

The creation of new forest fragments would be minimized in the project area to the extent 

possible by avoiding large forest areas and sharing existing utility corridors where feasible. The 

majority of forest land that would be crossed, particularly on the Oneida Reservation, would be 

located along the existing ATC right-of-way. By collocating within this right-of-way, potential 

construction impacts on forest land have been decreased by approximately 0.4 acre (35 foot 

overlap for a distance of approximately 500 feet) and operational impacts have been decreased 

by approximately 0.3 acre (25 foot overlap for a distance of approximately 500 feet). The only 

areas of new forest clearing would be located between MP 104.7 and MP 104.9 (0.2 mile). 

A more detailed discussion of the impacts of forest fragmentation on vegetation and wildlife is 

provided in section 4.5.1. 

4.7.3.4 Open Water 

The Rock River and Fox River are the only two surface waters in the project area that meet the 

criteria of open water and may be affected during construction of the Project. To minimize 

impacts, Guardian proposes to cross the Rock and Fox Rivers using the HDD crossing technique, 

which would avoid direct impacts on the water, beds, and banks of these rivers. Guardian 

proposes to cross the other streams and creeks using an open-cut method. Contingency open-cut 

construction plans would be prepared for each HDD if the crossings prove unsuccessful. The 

effects of construction on surface waters are discussed further in section 4.3. 

4.7.3.5 Commercial/Industrial Land 

Guardian proposes to bore both paved roads and all operating railroads, which would avoid most 

direct impacts on the road or the vehicles using the roads or railways. However, motorists may 

encounter slow moving vehicles and road closures during construction. Unpaved roads would be 

crossed either by boring or by using the open-cut method. The open-cut method could 

temporarily disrupt road traffic. If necessary, to minimize traffic delays at roads that are opencut, Guardian would establish detours before excavating the roadbed. If no reasonable detours 

were feasible, at least one traffic lane of the road would be maintained open, except for brief 

periods when road closure would be essential to lay the pipeline. Guardian would minimize the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-80

duration of open-cut crossings and, in most cases, would complete these road crossings in one 

day or less. Prior to closing roads, Guardian would notify law enforcement agencies and would 

arrange a road closure schedule with any residents or businesses within the immediate area, 

which may be affected by the closure. Driveways would be kept open by horizontally boring the 

drive or by placing steel plates across the trench during construction. 

Short-term construction impacts would occur as a result of heavy equipment tracking soil and 

mud onto roadways. To minimize impacts, Guardian would monitor roads crossed by 

construction. If excess soil or mud were tracked onto roadways, it would be removed as soon as 

practicable and placed back in the construction work area. Sediment barriers would be installed 

at the base of slopes adjacent to roads to prevent sediment from the construction right-of-way 

from being washed onto roads during rain events. Guardian proposes to cross paved roads on a 

combination of rubber mats, tires, and/or plywood sheets to minimize impacts. Guardian would 

also coordinate with the appropriate transportation authority regarding the need for road repair 

following construction. 

As indicated in section 4.1.2, there are three quarries located within 0.25 mile of the pipeline 

route. The pipeline would cross the closest of these quarries, Eden Stone Company, at MP 42. 

Information on the effects of blasting operations from surrounding quarries and mitigation 

measures to minimize such effects are also discussed in section 4.1.2. 

4.7.4 Existing and Planned Residences and Structures 

4.7.4.1 Existing Residences and Structures 

Residential land consists of existing rural, suburban, and urban residential developments. The 

proposed Project would cross 0.4 mile of residential land, and 4.8 acres of residential land would 

be affected by construction. 

Two residences, two barns, and one warehouse would be located within 50 feet of the pipeline 

construction work area. Table 4.7.4.1-1 lists these residences and structures by MP and indicates 

the distance of each from the proposed construction work area. 

In residential areas, the two most significant impacts associated with construction and operation 

of the pipeline is disturbance during construction and encumbrance of property for future uses 

(e.g., the limitation on future permanent structures within the permanent pipeline right-of-way). 

Residences within 50 feet of construction work areas are considered to be the most likely to 

experience the effects of pipeline construction. Temporary construction impacts on residential 

areas could include inconvenience caused by noise and dust generated by construction equipment 

(see sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2 for further details); trenching through roads or driveways; ground 

disturbance of lawns; removal of landscaping or natural vegetative screening; potential damage 

to existing septic systems or wells; and removal of aboveground structures, such as sheds or 

trailers, from within the right-of-way. For residences and other structures located within 50 feet 

of the construction work area, Guardian would prepare site-specific construction mitigation plans 

to minimize disruption and maintain access to these areas. Guardian would file these plans with 

the Commission Secretary prior to construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-81 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

TABLE 4.7.4.1-1 

Structures Within 50 Feet of the Proposed Construction Work Areas of the Proposed 

G-II Pipeline Project

Facility/ County Milepost Feature Distance from Edge of 

Construction Work Area 

30-inch-diameter pipeline 

Fond du Lac County 41.7 House 40 feet 

Calumet County 71.9 Barn 24 feet 

20-inch-diameter pipeline 

Brown County 93.8 House 13 feet 

Outagamie County 103.0 Warehouse 20 feet 

Outagamie County 105.3 Barn 6 feet 

Following construction, approximately 2.4 acres of the 4.8 acres of residential land affected by 

construction would be retained as permanent right-of-way. The remaining 2.4 acres of 

residential land affected during construction would be restored to preconstruction conditions and 

existing use. In general, residential land use would not be affected during operation because 

typical routine vegetation maintenance would not be conducted in residential areas. The 

establishment of permanent structures or trees, however, on the permanent right-of-way would 

be prohibited. To ensure pipeline safety, Guardian would work with landowners and developers 

to develop encroachment agreements to allow roads and utilities to cross the right-of-way. 

Guardian routinely participates in the planning of developments to accommodate the developer’s 

needs while protecting pipeline safety. To further ensure safety, we recommend that: 

• For all residences within 50 feet of the construction work area Guardian should: 

a. leave mature trees and landscaping within the edge of the construction work 

area, unless necessary for safe operation; 

b. restore all lawn areas and landscaping within the construction work area 

consistent with the requirements of our Plan immediately after backfilling the 

trench; and 

c. fence the edge of the construction work area adjacent to the residence for a 

distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence to ensure that construction 

equipment and materials including the spoil pile remain within the construction 

work area. 

• For all residences closer than 25 feet of the construction work area Guardian 

should file a site-specific plan which includes: 

a. a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced pipeline 

separation, centerline adjustments, use of stove-pipe or drag-section techniques, 

working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, etc.), and include a site 

plan that shows: 

(1) the location of the residence in relation to the new pipeline and, where 

appropriate, the existing pipelines; 

(2) the edge of the construction work area; 

(3) the edge of the new permanent right-of-way; and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-82

(4) other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies. 

b. a description of how Guardian will ensure that the trench is not excavated until 

the pipe is ready for installation and that the trench is backfilled immediately 

after installation. 

4.7.4.2 Planned Residences and Structures 

Four planned developments are currently proposed along the pipeline route. In addition, the 

pipeline route would cross or come within 0.25 mile of two planned wind farms (Forward Wind 

Energy Center project and Blue Sky Green Field Wind project) at MPs 31.5 to 35.9 and MPs 

59.4 to 55.3, respectively, and more than 0.5 mile from a third proposed wind farm (Cedar Ridge 

Project). However, due to the Project’s distance from the Cedar Ridge Project no impacts are 

anticipated. The pipeline would also come within 0.25 mile or cross one dairy operation under 

construction at MP 72.9, and a sewer expansion project in the Town of Holland. 

Guardian has identified four subdivision plats (Brookside Estates Second Addition, Carpenter’s 

Crossing, Fox River Meadows First Addition, and Holland Heights II) that were proposed over 

the past 3 to 4 years and located near the proposed pipeline route in Brown County, Wisconsin. 

All four of these subdivisions have been completed and have been avoided by the pipeline and 

therefore would have no adverse effects on these existing developments. 

Guardian has received comments indicating that the pipeline route would traverse areas that have 

the potential for development in the future or were identified in Smart Growth Plans as possible 

building areas. However, as of October 2006, there have been no specific plans or plats 

proposed for development in these areas. In the event plans to develop these areas are proposed 

and/or realized prior to construction of the Project, Guardian would consult with the appropriate 

individuals and organizations to minimize potential impacts, as necessary. 

In September 2004, Forward Energy L.L.C. (Forward) submitted its application for a Certificate 

of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to the PSC pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 

§196.491(3) and Chapter PSC 111, Wisconsin Administrative Code for authorization to 

construct the proposed Forward Wind Energy Center project. The proposed project would be 

situated within approximately 32,400 acres of predominantly agricultural land near Brownsville, 

Wisconsin, in the towns of Oakfield, Byron, Leroy, and Lomira in southern Fond du Lac and 

northern Dodge Counties. The project proposal included 150 potential wind turbine tower 

locations. Forward would use up to 135 wind turbine locations for construction of the project. 

Based on a project semi-annual progress report, dated March 3, 2006, Forward is obtaining 

required permits and approvals. Construction of the wind farm is anticipated to begin after 

Forward completes the final turbine and collection system layout, resolves outstanding issues 

pursuant to the CPCN Order, and receives all of the necessary permits or approvals. The 

anticipated in-service date of the proposed project is expected within 8 to 12 months after the 

commencement of construction. 

On March 17, 2006, We Energies filed a CPCN with the PSC pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 

§196.491(3) and Chapter PSC 111, Wisconsin Administrative Code, for authorization to 

construct the Blue Sky Green Field Wind project. The proposed project would be located in an 

area covering 10,600 acres in the Towns of Calumet and Mansfield in Fond du Lac County, 

Wisconsin. The proposed project would use 88 wind turbines and associated auxiliary facilities, 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-83 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

with a total capacity of up to 203 MW of electric generation. We Energies is obtaining required 

permits and approvals and commercial operation is anticipated to begin in 2008 or 2009. 

Construction-related impacts associated with these two wind farms would occur if both projects 

are constructed simultaneously, or if the pipeline were constructed before the wind farms are in 

operation. Based on preliminary maps of the Forward Wind Energy Center project, the proposed 

pipeline would cross within 100 feet of the preliminary location of turbine 101 and within 

300 feet of the preliminary locations of turbines 107, 109, and 110. Based on preliminary maps 

of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind project, the closest proposed turbine would be located about 

400 feet from the proposed Project. Additionally, the Project would, in some cases, cross 

underground collection system cable lines associated with both projects. Based on both wind 

energy applications to the PSC, Guardian understands that not all of the turbine sites would be 

developed. Additionally, Guardian should be able to route the pipeline around individual 

turbines and install the pipeline beneath cable lines for the underground collection system if 

necessary. If either of these planned wind projects go to construction, Guardian would 

coordinate with both wind energy companies to identify any conflicts that may arise to minimize 

potential impacts. If any conflicts were identified, Guardian would work with both companies to 

minimize potential impacts, as necessary. No operational impacts are anticipated. 

A large dairy operation is under construction at MP 72.9 in Calumet County, Wisconsin. The 

proposed pipeline would be constructed along an existing ATC power line corridor through the 

planned dairy operation. By following the ATC corridor, Guardian would be able to install the 

pipeline 15 feet inside the power line easement. This increases the degree of overlap between 

Guardian’s permanent easement and the power line easement, placing all but 10 feet of 

Guardian’s permanent easement inside the power line corridor. Guardian has and would 

continue to coordinate with the developer to minimize impacts on the proposed development and 

ensure safe construction and operation of the development and the proposed pipeline. No 

construction or operation impacts are anticipated in regards to the proposed dairy operation. 

Members of the Town of Holland have expressed concern regarding the potential of the proposed 

pipeline crossing a planned municipal sewer expansion. Guardian has requested information 

from the Planning Chair, the Board Chair, and the Holland Sanitation District. As of October 

2006, Guardian has not received a response to these inquiries. Guardian will continue to 

coordinate with the Town of Holland to determine the potential impact of the proposed pipeline 

on the sewer expansion. 

4.7.5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas 

Three special interest areas have been identified along the proposed pipeline route. The pipeline 

route would cross or come within 0.25 mile of the Niagara Escarpment (MPs 18 to 93), the 

Oneida Nation Reservation (MPs 96.5 to 109.9), and the Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive. No other 

recreation or special interest areas such as developed recreational facilities, parks, forests, 

wildlife management areas, wilderness areas, trails, or registered natural landmarks have been 

identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

4.7.5.1 Niagara Escarpment 

The Niagara Escarpment underlies four of the counties that are crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route: Brown, Dodge, Calumet, and Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. From MPs 18 to 93, the pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-84

would traverse 75 miles of public and private land along the Niagara Escarpment in these 

counties. 

The Niagara Escarpment is a 650-mile-long sickle-shaped bedrock ridge that runs south of 

Rochester, New York, across portions of southeastern Canada, and southward around the 

western side of Lake Michigan to southeastern Wisconsin. During the last half of the nineteenth 

century, much of the pre-settlement forest was cut and much of the land was cleared for 

agriculture, especially fruit orchards. Farming along the escarpment was difficult due to the 

shallow soils and steep slopes, and settlement patterns were affected by the bedrock-controlled 

topography. At one time the dolomite bedrock was used for foundation material and/or burned 

to produce lime. Today, a number of counties along the escarpment operate or privately own 

quarries that supply crushed stone primarily for road base, concrete aggregate, and riprap 

(WDNR, 2002b). The shoreline near the escarpment has also been extensively developed near 

the Cities of Green Bay, Fond du Lac, and Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin including many areas 

between these cities. 

In recent years, the Niagara Escarpment has emerged as a statewide critical natural resource area 

due to its geology and other ecological characteristics that support rare plants and animals 

threatened by growing development pressures. As such, the escarpment has become a priority 

study area for the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources, as well as other regional and state 

agencies and private conservation organizations in Wisconsin. It was also identified as a priority 

area for conservation and recreation in the state’s Land Legacy Report published in 2006. 

The WDNR NHI Program, Bureau of Endangered Resources, conducted a study from 1999 to 

2001 to collect and compile information about the biodiversity of the Niagara Escarpment and to 

identify elements of biodiversity that are most closely related with the escarpment (Anderson et 

al., 2002; WDNR, 2006n). This WDNR study identified several classes of rare threatened and 

endangered wildlife and plant species within Brown, Dodge, Calumet, and Fond du Lac 

Counties, Wisconsin. As proposed, the G-II Pipeline does not directly cross any vertical 

exposure or rock outcroppings associated with the escarpment, but rather the route parallels the 

escarpment from southwest to northeast. Field investigations conducted by Guardian and 

consultations with the WDNR and FWS indicate that the construction and operation of the 

Project would not affect the unique species known to be associated with the Niagara Escarpment. 

4.7.5.2 Oneida Nation of Indians of Wisconsin 

The Oneida Nation is a member of the Iroquois Confederacy, indigenous to central New York 

State. The Oneida Nation is a federally recognized Indian Nation of 14,533 members, one-third 

of whom live on or near the 65,000-acre semi-rural reservation. The Oneida Nation was 

established by the Oneida Treaty of 1838 (7 Stat. 566, Feb. 3, 1838). The Oneida Nation is 

located southwest of the City of Green Bay and west of the Fox River. It straddles the boundary 

between Brown and Outagamie Counties and includes all or portions of the City of Green Bay, 

Villages of Ashwaubenon and Howard, and the Towns of Hobart, Oneida, and Pittsfield. The 

Oneida tribal members own nearly 22 percent of the total land acreage within the Oneida 

Reservation. This percentage is expected to increase as the Oneida Nation continues to 

implement a policy of reacquiring title to all land within the boundaries of the reservation set by 

the 1838 Treaty (EPA, 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-85 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

From MPs 96.5 to 109.9, the proposed pipeline would traverse 13.4 miles of the Oneida Nation 

Reservation in Brown and Outagamie Counties, Wisconsin. Approximately 157.7 acres of tribal 

land would be affected by construction and 75.8 acres would be retained as a permanent pipeline 

right-of-way and for operation of aboveground facilities. Guardian would use conventional 

upland and wetland construction techniques, in accordance with our Plan and Procedures and 

Guardian’s AMP, to construct the pipeline across the reservation, and, therefore, project impacts 

would be similar to those along the remainder of the pipeline route. Guardian met with 

representatives of the Oneida Nation on March 11, 2006, April 4, 2006, April 17, 2006, 

May 18, 2006, and June 2, 2006 to discuss the Project. As a result of these meetings, Guardian 

revised its proposed route based on discussions with Oneida officials. Guardian will continue 

discussions with the Oneida Nation regarding routing, environmental impacts, and other issues of 

concern as needed. Coordination and consultation with the Oneida Nation would effectively 

help minimize impacts on Oneida Nation lands in the project area. 

4.7.5.3 Kettle Moraine Drive 

At MP 110.2, the Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be located along Kettle Moraine Drive, 

which is part of the Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive in Walworth County, Wisconsin. The portion 

of the scenic drive along Kettle Moraine Drive is 2.8 miles long and is located outside of the 

Kettle Moraine State Forest in an area that is surrounded by agricultural land. The Kettle 

Moraine Scenic Drive is a 115-mile-long scenic byway developed under the direction of the 

Kettle Moraine State Forest. A number of interesting historic and geologic features can be 

observed along this scenic roadway, including the Sylvanus Wade House, Lapham Peak, kames, 

eskers, drumlins, kettles, and interlobate moraine (WDNR, 2006o). This drive traverses six 

counties in Wisconsin, running from the Whitewater Lake Region in Walworth County north to 

Broughton Sheboygan Marsh Park and Wildlife Area in Sheboygan County. 

The closest point of interest along the drive, The Heart Prairie Glacial Outwash Plain, would be 

located approximately 0.5 mile to the east of the Bluff Creek Compressor Station. This outwash 

plain was formed when glacial meltwater deposited large amounts of sand and gravel across this 

area. No remnants of this prairie are known to exist and the area is now agricultural land (Kettle 

Moraine Natural History Association, 2003). The Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be 

visible to motorists traveling along the drive for approximately 0.8 mile (0.7 percent) of the total 

length of the drive. A more detailed assessment of the potential visual impacts of the compressor 

station on motorists traveling along the scenic drive is located in section 4.7.6. 

4.7.6 Visual Resources 

Visual resources refer to the composite of basic terrain, geologic features, hydrologic features, 

vegetative patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal an area may have 

for residents or visitors. The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: 

(1) construction activity and equipment may temporarily alter viewscapes; (2) vegetation 

clearing for the pipeline construction right-of-way and routine right-of-way maintenance would 

alter existing vegetation patterns; and (3) aboveground facilities would represent permanent 

alterations to the viewscape. The significance of these visual impacts would be primarily 

dependent upon the quality of the current viewshed, the degree of alteration of that view, the 

number of potential viewers, and the perspective of the viewer. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-86

4.7.6.1 Current Viewshed 

The degree of visual impact that may result from the proposed Project is typically determined by 

considering the general character of the existing landscape and the visually prominent features of 

the proposed facilities. The proposed pipeline would be constructed primarily on rural 

agricultural land, interspersed with forested areas, open land, human development, and open 

water. The most prominent visual feature of the proposed Project would be its aboveground 

facilities, two compressor stations, and seven meter stations. 

4.7.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

No designated scenic features would be crossed by the proposed Project. Public viewing 

opportunities occur primarily where the Project would intersect streams, roads, developments, 

and special interest areas. Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline may affect visual 

resources by altering the terrain and vegetation patterns during construction or right-of-way 

maintenance and from the presence of new aboveground facilities. The landscape setting along 

the proposed pipeline route is generally rolling topography and irregular plains featuring 

morainal areas and outwash and drumlin fields. Impacts on visual resources due to the pipeline 

would be primarily temporary and short-term, occurring during construction. During 

construction, the cleared and graded right-of-way, as well as the construction equipment could be 

visible from any surrounding residences and local roads. The clearing and grading would result 

in color changes to the landscape, and the construction equipment would create tracks, compress 

vegetation, and expose soils. Because the terrain over much of the project area is gently rolling, 

views of the construction activities may extend for some distance. Following construction, the 

right-of-way would be restored to pre-existing conditions and the farmers would be allowed to 

grow crops over the pipeline on agricultural lands. Construction work areas would normally be 

difficult to distinguish from surrounding areas. Therefore, no long-term visual impacts would 

result from construction and operation of the pipeline in non-forested areas (95.2 percent of the 

project route). 

Clearing of forested areas (3.2 percent of the project route) would produce longer-term impacts. 

Clearing of trees within the construction right-of-way (51.0 acres) would convert existing 

forested areas to open areas and would result in a visually conspicuous corridor. Over time, trees 

and shrubs would regenerate outside of the permanently maintained right-of-way of 18.9 acres 

and the effects of clearing would become less obvious. Operational impacts on existing land 

uses would be limited to forested areas where periodic routine brushing and clearing would be 

conducted on the permanent right-of-way in accordance with our Plan and Procedures. 

Guardian would minimize impacts associated with creating a new pipeline right-of-way and 

clearing forest areas by installing 33.5 miles (30.6 percent) of the pipeline parallel to existing 

rights-of-way. Where the pipeline parallels another right-of-way, the effects of construction 

would be less significant because no new lines or forms would be introduced to the landscape. 

Guardian would further reduce impacts on forest areas by limiting the width of the construction 

right-of-way to 75 feet in forested uplands and to the maximum extent possible in wetlands. 

Guardian proposes to install several aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline, 

including two compressor stations (including aboveground piping, buildings, perimeter fencing, 

and pavement); seven meter stations (including regulators, launchers, and receiver facilities); and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-87 4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual

six MLV sites. Because some of the facilities would be collocated, aboveground facilities would 

be constructed at nine separate locations along the pipeline. 

The aboveground facilities would be the most visible features constructed as part of the Project 

and would result in long-term visual impacts on the landscape. The degree of impact depends on 

several factors, including the existing landscape, number of viewpoints from which to observe 

the structures, the type of viewers who would view the structures, and the remoteness of the 

location. Of the new facilities, the compressor stations would be the largest and most visually 

intrusive. Construction of the meter stations, receiver and launcher facility, and MLVs would 

have visual impacts, but these facilities would be significantly smaller in size and less intrusive 

than the compressor stations. All aboveground facilities would be constructed in rural 

agricultural areas, with relatively few potential viewers. 

As proposed, the aboveground facilities would be located on private land surrounded by a 

combination of agricultural and residential land uses. The landscape along the proposed pipeline 

route and the location of each compressor station and metering station would be dominated by 

agricultural land use with some residential areas ranging from 150 to 825 feet near the 

compressor stations. Sensitive visual resources, including residential subdivisions and adjacent 

roads, were identified in the vicinity of these aboveground facilities. 

The Sycamore Compressor Station located at MP 57.5 would be visible from nearby residences 

and motorists traveling along Story Road. This facility would be constructed on agricultural land 

surrounded by a combination of agricultural and residential land uses. A series of outbuildings 

would be located about 250 feet south of the property line, and the nearest residence would be 

825 feet west of the property. A site-specific screening plan has not yet been finalized by 

Guardian for the Sycamore Compressor Station site; however, to minimize the visual impact of 

the facility, Guardian has indicated it would enclose the compressor equipment in a building that 

would be similar in appearance to a modern farm building. Guardian would also consider 

vegetative screening that would, over time, create an appearance that is more typical of 

farmstead sites in the vicinity. Guardian is also committed to appropriately maintaining the 

grounds of the compressor station (e.g., mowing and maintenance of any trees and/or shrubbery) 

to ensure both safety and the “kept” appearance of the overall site. Although the architecture and 

grounds of the site would help the facility blend in with the surrounding landscape, it would 

introduce a new structure to the existing setting. However, by implementing Guardian’s 

proposed screening methods, the visual impact of the aboveground facility would not have a 

significant effect on the aesthetics of the landscape along the proposed pipeline route. 

The Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be located at MP 110.9 and would be visible from 

nearby residences and motorists traveling along Kettle Moraine Drive, McCabe Road, and 

County Road O. This facility would be constructed on agricultural land surrounded by a 

combination of agricultural and residential land uses. The nearest residence would be 150 feet 

north of the property. The section of Kettle Moraine Road near the compressor facility is part of 

the Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive. The compressor station would be visible to travelers on this 

road for about 0.8 mile (0.7 percent) of the total length of the 115-mile route. The closest point 

of interest along the drive, The Heart Prairie Glacial Outwash Plain, would be located 

approximately 0.5 mile east of the compressor station facility. No remnants of this prairie are 

known to exist and the area is now agricultural land (Kettle Moraine Natural History 

Association, 2003). In addition, the stretch of the Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive viewshed that 

would be affected by the presence of the compressor station has already been altered by views of 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.7 – Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 4-88

agricultural fields. To date, a site-specific screening plan has not yet been finalized by Guardian 

for the Bluff Creek Compressor Station; however, as described above Guardian would enclose 

the compressor equipment in a building that would be similar in appearance to a modern farm 

building, consider vegetative screening, and properly maintain the grounds associated with the 

site to ensure visual impacts are minimized. As such, the visual impact of the proposed 

compressor station would not have a significant effect on the aesthetics of the landscape along 

the proposed pipeline route. 

The Rubicon, Sheboygan, Chilton, Fox Valley, Denmark, Southwest Green Bay, and West Green 

Bay meter stations would be constructed in agricultural fields at MPs 13.3, 43.9, 66.4, 83.7, 91.6, 

93.9, and 109.9, respectively. Three of the proposed seven meter stations (Rubicon, Denmark, 

and Southwest Green Bay meter stations), would be located within 350 feet of existing 

residences. The six MLVs and the proposed launcher/receiver facilities would be located either 

within the compressor station sites, some of the meter station properties, or along the permanent 

right-of-way. MLVs within the permanent right-of-way would be located in agricultural or open 

areas. Given their location in agricultural fields, these facilities would be conspicuous in the 

landscape. If required by local zoning regulations, Guardian would propose to use a variety of 

additional visual screening options to obstruct the view of the meter stations and MLVs, 

including fences, and/or trees. 

4.7.7 Hazardous Waste Sites 

Guardian conducted a search of available environmental database records within 0.25 mile of the 

pipeline route. The G-II Project crosses one site on the EPA’s NPL, the Fox River, which 

contains sediments contaminated with PCBs. Guardian would install the pipeline beneath the 

Fox River using the HDD technique, and therefore does not anticipate any impacts on the 

contaminated sediments, or impacts on the pipeline from interactions with PCB-contaminated 

sediment. 

Additionally, both closed and open LUST and ERP sites were identified within 0.5 mile of the 

Project. These sites would be located at the following MPs along the pipeline route: 

• MP 41.7, 0.21 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 41.7, 0.46 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 41.8, 0.23 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 41.8, 0.36 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 46.0, 0.37 mile west of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 54.0, 0.48 mile southeast of the proposed pipeline; 

• MP 95.3, 0.17 mile southwest of the proposed pipeline; and 

• MP 101.7, 0.41 mile northeast of the proposed pipeline. 

Of the sites identified six are closed LUST sites, one is a closed ERP site, and one is an open ERP 

site. The open ERP site contains petroleum-contaminated soils and is located 0.36 mile southeast 

of the proposed pipeline route at MP 41.8 in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Based on 

consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, this site is a former bulk storage 

facility that once contained numerous aboveground petroleum storage tanks that have since been 

removed. The facility has low-level soil contamination but no groundwater contamination. 

However, because the site is located approximately 0.36 mile from the proposed pipeline, it is not 

likely that contaminated soils or water would be encountered during construction (Weis, 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-89 4.8 – Socioeconomics

Guardian would implement the procedures outlined in its plan for the Unanticipated Discovery 

of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Soils should contaminated soils be encountered along the 

pipeline construction right-of-way. In addition, Guardian has developed a SPCC Plan that would 

describe spill prevention practices, spill handling, and emergency notification procedures, and 

training requirements. Implementation of its Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or 

Contaminated Soils Plan would address steps that would be taken should soil contamination be 

encountered, and includes cleanup procedures and reporting guidelines. Using the measures 

detailed in this plan would minimize spread of contaminated soils. 

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Several potential socioeconomic effects may result from construction and operation of the G-II 

Project. Many of these potential impacts are related to construction and include the number of 

local and non-local construction workers who would work on the Project, their income and local 

expenditures, and their impact on population, public services, and temporary housing during 

construction. The proposed Project may also have construction and operation impacts on 

property values and crop values. Potential economic benefits associated with operation of the 

Project include increased property tax revenue and increased job opportunities and income. 

A discussion of the effects of the Project on local population (including environmental justice), 

economy and employment, housing, public services, and property values is provided below. 

4.8.1 Population 

Table 4.8.1-1 provides a summary of selected population and socioeconomic statistics for the 

state of Illinois and DeKalb County, and Wisconsin and its associated counties: Brown, 

Calumet, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, Outagamie, and Walworth. Both states and all 

associated counties had population increases ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent between 2000 

and 2005. The 2005 population density in DeKalb County, Illinois and Dodge County, 

Wisconsin continued to be lower than their respective state densities. The remaining counties in 

Wisconsin were higher than the state population density (102 persons per square mile), ranging 

from 137 to 452 persons per square mile. 

Project area population impacts are expected to be temporary and relatively minor. The total 

population change would equal the total number of non-local construction workers, plus any 

family members accompanying them. The Project would be located near small communities and 

the Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Chicago metropolitan areas. It is assumed that workers could 

find housing in these communities. As discussed further in section 4.8.2, Guardian expects to 

employ between 36 to 46 percent of its workers from the local area. Therefore, the estimated 

number of people who would temporarily relocate to the area during construction would not 

constitute a major impact on the local population. Once completed, operation of the proposed 

pipeline would require approximately eight full-time positions, three of which would be existing 

Guardian employees. This small staff could be comprised of existing residents or non-local 

personnel, but would not have a significant impact on the local population. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.8 – Socioeconomics 4-90

TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project

Population 

Population 

Density 

(person/ 

sq. mi.) 

Per 

Capita 

Income 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

Unemployment

Rate 

State/ County 

2000 

Census 

2005 

Estimate 

Percent

Change 2005 2002 2000 2006 

Illinois 12,419,293 12,763,371 2.8% 229.6 $33,404 6,208,597 4.7% 

DeKalb County 88,969 97,665 9.8% 150.6 $26,208 48,878 3.7% 

Wisconsin 5,363,675 5,536,201 3.2% 101.9 $29,923 2,869,236 4.2% 

Brown County 226,778 238,987 5.4% 451.8 $31,095 125,304 4.1% 

Calumet County 40,631 44,137 8.6% 137.9 $30,050 22,747 3.6% 

Dodge County 85,897 88,103 2.6% 99.8 $25,684 44,684 5.0% 

Fond du Lac County 97,296 99,337 2.1% 137.4 $29,487 53,683 4.7% 

Jefferson County 74,021 79,328 4.7% 142.4 $28,805 41,555 3.6% 

Outagamie County 160,971 171,006 6.2% 267.2 $29,850 88,426 4.9% 

Walworth County 93,759 99,844 8.5% 179.9 $27,364 51,861 3.6% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 2006; Illinois 

Department of Employment Security, 2006. 

4.8.1.1 Environmental Justice 

United States Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 CFR 7629, 16 February 1994) directs 

federal agencies to “make...achieving environmental justice part of its mission” and to identify 

and address “...disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.” This section 

identifies any minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed 

Project. 

Minority Populations 

Minority populations are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, Blacks or African Americans, 

American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders. 

Minority populations for 2004 are identified in table 4.8.1.1-1. The CEQ identifies these groups 

as minority populations when either (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 

50 percent, or (2) the minority population percentage in the affected area is meaningfully greater 

than the minority population percentage in the general population or appropriate unit of 

geographical analysis (CEQ, 1997a). 

The two largest minority groups reported in DeKalb County, Illinois in 2004 were Black or 

African American persons (15 percent) and persons of Hispanic or Latino origin (14 percent). 

DeKalb County had the highest proportion of total minority groups (16 percent), but is less than 

the state average of 34 percent (table 4.8.1.1-1). Brown (5 percent), Jefferson (5 percent), and 

Walworth (8 percent) Counties have a higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino persons than the 

Wisconsin state average of 4 percent. Brown and Outagamie Counties have a higher proportion 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-91 4.8 – Socioeconomics 

of Native Americans (3 and 2 percent, respectively) than the Wisconsin state average of 

1 percent, presumably because the Oneida Nation’s Reservation is located in both counties. 

TABLE 4.8.1.1-1 

2004 Minority Populations for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project

State/ County White 

Percent 

Minority 

Composition a/ 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native 

Black or 

African 

American 

Asian 

Native Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific Islander 

Illinois 66.2% 33.5% 14.0% 0.3% 15.1% 4.0% 0.1% 

DeKalb County 83.6% 15.7% 7.9% 0.3% 4.9% 2.5% 0.1% 

Wisconsin 86.2% 13.0% 4.3% 0.9% 5.9% 1.9% 0.0% 

Brown County 87.6% 11.7% 5.2% 2.5% 1.6% 2.4% 0.0% 

Calumet County 94.8% 4.6% 1.9% 0.4% 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 

Dodge County 93.3% 6.5% 2.9% 0.4% 2.8% 0.4% 0.0% 

Fond du Lac County 94.4% 5.1% 2.7% 0.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 

Jefferson County 93.1% 6.6% 5.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 

Outagamie County 92.2% 7.1% 2.3% 1.6% 0.7% 2.5% 0.0% 

Walworth County 89.8% 9.9% 8.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 

a/ Totals may not add to Percent Minority because of reporting classifications and/or the value is greater than zero but less than 

one-half unit of measurement.

Calumet and Outagamie Counties have a higher proportion of Asian persons (2 and 3 percent, 

respectively) than the Wisconsin state average of less than 2 percent. 

As shown in table 4.8.1.1-1, the proposed Project is not expected to create disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or environmental effects on the minority population. Because 

none of the counties crossed by the Project have higher total percentages of minorities than the 

state that they are located, the potential adverse impacts that may be associated with the proposed 

Project would not disproportionately affect minorities. In addition, local communities would 

benefit from the payroll salaries paid to construction workers and the state sales tax on materials 

purchased within each county’s jurisdiction. Although these benefits would be short-term, they 

may provide significant revenues to the affected counties. 

Low Income Populations 

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, low-income neighborhoods 

are those where more than 50 percent of the population has an income less than 50 percent of the 

median per capita income for the whole community. Low-income populations for 2003 are 

illustrated in table 4.8.1.1-2. 

Low-income populations are defined by environmental justice guidance by using the statistical 

poverty threshold of the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2003, the poverty-weighted average threshold 

for a family of four was $18,810 and $9,393 for an unrelated individual (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2006). The national poverty level was over 12 percent. To be classified meaningfully greater, 

CEQ recommends a formula describing the environmental justice low-income threshold as being 

10 percent above the national rate (or 22.5 percent) as applied to local poverty rates (CEQ, 

1997a). As shown in table 4.8.1.1-2, the proposed Project is not expected to create 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.8 – Socioeconomics 4-92

disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on the low-income 

population. 

TABLE 4.8.1.1-2 

2003 Low-Income Populations for the Proposed 

G-II Pipeline Project

Jurisdiction Percent Below Poverty Level 

United States 12.5% 

State of Illinois 11.4% 

DeKalb County 9.3% 

State of Wisconsin 8.9% 

Brown County 8.0% 

Calumet County 4.8% 

Dodge County 6.7% 

Fond du Lac County 6.9% 

Jefferson County 5.7% 

Outagamie County 5.6% 

Walworth County 8.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 

4.8.2 Economy and Employment 

The G-II Project will establish a second interstate natural gas pipeline serving eastern Wisconsin, 

which will benefit consumers through increased competition and increased reliability in gas 

transportation services to the region. Additionally, the construction of the Project would provide 

employment opportunities, as well as contribute to local community businesses and provide 

additional service opportunities. Currently, Guardian has received 88 comment letters from local 

unions, businesses, colleges, universities, and hospitals indicating their support for the proposed 

Project. 

Educational services, health care, and social assistance; manufacturing; and retail trade are the 

largest economic sectors in both states and the project area. The 2002 per capita income in 

Brown ($31,095) and Calumet ($30,050) Counties were slightly more than the 2002 Wisconsin 

per capita income. The per capita income in all other counties was lower than Illinois’ average 

of $33,404 and Wisconsin’s average of $29,923. The 2006 unemployment rate in Dodge 

(5 percent), Fond du Lac (4.7 percent), and Outagamie (4.9 percent) Counties was higher than 

the Wisconsin average of 4.2 percent. The unemployment rate in all other counties was lower 

than the state averages (table 4.8.1-1). 

Construction of the proposed 109.5-mile, 30-inch and 20-inch-diameter pipeline and associated 

aboveground facilities would be performed using a single spread over a 7-month timeframe 

(likely March through October 2008). During construction of the pipeline, Guardian estimated it 

would employ approximately 294 to 364 construction workers and an additional 47 inspectors 

(341 and 411 workers total), with a peak of 420 to 520 workers. Of this number, up to 

approximately 420 to 520 workers would construct the pipeline and associated meter stations in 

Wisconsin; up to 80 construction workers would build the Sycamore Compressor Station in 

DeKalb, Illinois; and up to 80 workers would construct the Bluff Creek Compressor Station in 

Walworth County, Wisconsin. It is estimated that 30 inspectors would be employed during 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-93 4.8 – Socioeconomics 

construction of the pipeline and associated meter stations in Wisconsin, and 7 inspectors would 

be employed during construction of each compressor station in Illinois and Wisconsin. 

Guardian expects to employ local construction workers where the local workforce possesses the 

required skills, and hire workers who reside within a reasonable distance from the Project. 

Based on previous construction experience, Guardian anticipates that local hires would account 

for approximately 136 (36 percent) to 173 (46 percent) workers for the pipeline and associated 

meter stations, and up to 40 workers for the construction of each compressor station (50 percent 

each). All inspectors are estimated to be non-local because of the specialized knowledge 

required for the position. Additional construction personnel hired from outside of the project 

area would include highly skilled mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and control 

tradesmen who would temporarily relocate to site. 

During the proposed 7-month construction period, Guardian estimates that the total project 

payroll would amount to about $3 to $4 million in Illinois and $18 to $20 million in Wisconsin. 

During this period, some portion of the construction payroll would be spent locally for the 

purchase of housing, food, gasoline, entertainment, and luxury items. The dollar amount would 

depend on the number of construction workers in a given area and the duration of their stay. 

Sales tax would be paid on any construction materials as well as any goods and services 

purchased with payroll monies. Guardian estimates that about $600,000 to $700,000 would be 

spent on materials and services during construction of the Project in Illinois; $2.5 to $2.7 million 

would be spent on materials and services during construction of the Project in Wisconsin. Direct 

payroll and materials expenditures would have a positive impact on local economies and would 

stimulate indirect expenditures within the project area. 

During operation of the Project, Guardian expects to employ up to eight full-time positions, three 

of which would be existing Guardian employees. The salary range for each employee would be 

between $30,000 and $60,000 annually and estimated state taxes would be $2,000 to $4,000 per 

employee. The employees are not anticipated to significantly affect existing housing supplies, or 

local government expenditures for public services or facilities. 

Indirect sales, jobs, and salaries would be created in new or existing businesses and organizations 

such as construction companies, parts and equipment suppliers, and other businesses that supply 

goods and services to the facility during construction and operation. In addition, jobs and 

salaries would be created in establishments that would supply goods and services to the Project’s 

employees and their families, such as restaurants, retail stores, grocery stores, and banks. 

In Wisconsin, natural gas transmission lines are centrally assessed for property taxes, meaning 

they are appraised by the state. Property taxes on pipelines are paid directly to the state and the 

revenue goes into the State General Fund. Currently, local taxing authorities do not receive 

property taxes directly from the pipelines in Wisconsin. Property taxes are estimated at $2 to $3 

million per year for the facilities constructed in the G-II Project. 

In Illinois, generally natural gas pipeline machinery and equipment are exempt from property 

taxes. Local taxing authorities only tax land and improvements (real estate). Taxes are paid to 

the county treasurer or collector and are estimated to be $15,000 to $50,000 per year for the 

facilities constructed in the G-II Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.8 – Socioeconomics 4-94

4.8.3 Housing 

Housing statistics are presented in table 4.8.3-1. The median value of owner-occupied units in 

DeKalb County is $5,100 more than the Illinois’ median value of $130,800. The median value 

of owner-occupied units in Brown, Jefferson, and Walworth Counties are between $3,900 and 

$16,200 more than Wisconsin’s median value of $112,200. Walworth County had a higher 

percentage of vacant housing units (21 percent) than Wisconsin (10 percent) at 9,261 units. The 

relatively large number of units in Walworth County suggests that the total number of people 

may significantly increase during portions of the year, particularly in the summer months 

(Walworth County, 2001). 

TABLE 4.8.3-1 

2000 Housing Characteristics for the Proposed 

G-II Pipeline Project

State/ County 

Total 

Housing 

Units 

Vacant 

Housing 

Units 

Seasonal, 

Recreational, or 

Occasional Use 

Median Value, 

Owner-Occupied 

Units 

Median 

Contract 

Monthly 

Rent 

Vacancy 

Rate 

Illinois 4,885,615 293,836 29,712 $130,800 $605 6.0% 

DeKalb County 32,988 1,314 111 $135,900 $577 4.0% 

Wisconsin 2,321,144 236,600 142,313 $112,200 $540 10.2% 

Brown County 90,199 2,904 414 $116,100 $520 3.2% 

Calumet County 15,758 848 287 $109,300 $491 5.4% 

Dodge County 33,672 2,255 815 $105,800 $528 6.7% 

Fond du Lac County 39,271 2,340 573 $101,100 $500 6.0% 

Jefferson County 30,092 1,887 784 $123,800 $564 6.3% 

Outagamie County 62,614 2,084 237 $106,000 $534 3.3% 

Walworth County 43,783 9,261 7,458 $128,400 $588 21.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 

Temporary housing is available in the form of daily, weekly, and monthly rentals in numerous 

motels, hotels, campgrounds, and RV parks located within commuting distance of the Project. 

Because the Project is located near small communities and the Milwaukee, Green Bay, and 

Chicago metropolitan areas, it is assumed that workers could find nearby housing in each county. 

In 2000, all counties had a combined vacant housing unit rate of 22,893. Of the total combined 

county vacant housing units, 10,679 seasonal, recreational, and occasional use housing units 

were available (table 4.8.3-1). 

On average, approximately 36 to 46 percent of the construction workers would come from within 

the project area and would not require temporary housing. The remaining 54 to 64 percent of the 

workers for the pipeline would require temporary housing in the project vicinity during 

construction. The average number of non-local workers for the pipeline would be 203 to 240 in 

any given month, and possibly 254 to 301 at peak construction. Assuming double occupancy, 

these workers would require an average of 127 to 150 hotel and/or motel rooms or other housing 

units per month. This number could be lower because some workers may provide their own 

housing units (e.g., travel trailers or campers). 

Based on the information above, there is an adequate supply of local housing and temporary 

accommodations in all counties for the expected project demand. In addition, nearly half of the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-95 4.8 – Socioeconomics 

employees are expected to be hired locally and therefore already have housing, which would 

reduce the overall demand from the project workforce. Because the proposed Project is 

scheduled to be constructed during summer months, this could coincide with other demands for 

housing and temporary accommodations from tourism and other unrelated construction projects. 

Because the demand (in both number and time) from these other users could be influenced by 

factors such as weather and economic conditions, such demand would be unpredictable. At 

present, it is reasonable to assume that the facilities available near the project area would be able 

to accommodate the expected workforce. Eight permanent employees, three of whom would be 

existing Guardian employees, would be anticipated for operation of the pipeline and associated 

facilities, but this number is minor; therefore, no long-term major impacts on local housing are 

anticipated. 

4.8.4 Public Services 

Table 4.8.4-1 provides additional information about the existing infrastructure, revenues, and 

communities within 1 mile of the pipeline facilities. The project area has well-developed 

infrastructure to provide health, police, fire, emergency, and social services near the project site. 

Public health infrastructure in the eight-county project area includes 30 hospitals, 

90 sheriff/police departments, and 121 fire/emergency departments. Police, ambulance, fire, and 

hazardous materials services are provided by county and/or municipal jurisdictions, as well as 

volunteer organizations, and private hospitals. 

There are many communities within 1 mile of the pipeline facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin and 

some of these communities are located in the metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Green Bay, and 

Chicago (table 4.8.4-1). Most of these communities support government and public services 

such as police protection, fire protection, and medical services. 

The eight-county project area includes a combined total of 30 hospitals, where two hospitals in 

DeKalb County are located in the nearby community of Sycamore. Other nearby communities 

along the proposed Project do not have hospitals, but these facilities are located between 5 and 

30 miles from the nearby communities. The project area includes a combined total of 90 sheriff 

and police departments. Each county has a sheriff’s department, and both communities in 

DeKalb County (Sycamore and Genoa) have local police departments. Sheriff departments in 

the other communities range from 8 to 25 miles away. The project area includes a combined 

total of 121 fire and emergency departments. Most nearby communities have local fire 

departments with volunteer firefighters. 

Project demands on local agencies during construction could include increased enforcement 

activities associated with issuing permits for vehicle load and width limits, local police assistance 

during construction to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical services to treat any injuries 

resulting from construction accidents. There are adequate providers of professional and 

commercial services near the project area in the nearby communities, capable of meeting the 

needs of the project workforce. Because the non-local workforce would be small relative to the 

current population of the area, the Project would not have a significant impact on local 

infrastructure and public services. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.8 – Socioeconomics 4-96

TABLE 4.8.4-1 

Public Services for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project

State/County Medical 

Services 

Sheriff/Police 

Departments 

Fire/Ambulance 

Departments 

County Tax 

Levy 

(millions) 

Communities within 1 Mile of the 

Pipeline Facilities 

Illinois 

DeKalb County 4 15 11 $15 Sycamore and Genoa 

Wisconsin 

Brown County 5 8 19 $71 Holland, Wrightstown, and Little 

Rapids 

Calumet County 1 4 9 $13 Jericho, St. John, and Dundas 

Dodge County 6 13 23 $110 Lebanon, Woodland, Iron Ridge, 

Knowles, Nasbro, Brownsville, and 

Lomira 

Fond du Lac County 3 7 17 $29 Byron, Eden, Marblehead, St. Peter, 

Malone, Johnsburg, and Garnet 

Jefferson County 4 9 12 $23 None 

Outagamie County 5 13 19 $50 Oneida 

Walworth County 2 21 11 $49 None 

Total 30 90 121 $360 -- 

Sources: Hometown Locator, 2006; Firehouse Network, 2006. 

Personnel associated with operating and maintaining the pipeline typically would reside in 

communities near the permanent facilities (i.e., Sycamore and Bluff Creek compressor stations, 

Chilton meter station). These employees are not anticipated to significantly affect local 

government expenditures for public services or facilities. 

4.8.5 Property Values 

The proposed pipeline may have an impact on the property values of the surrounding area. This 

valuation would depend on many factors, including the size of the parcel, the values of adjacent 

properties, the presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. 

The majority of land use crossed by the pipeline route is agricultural. 

Guardian would acquire an easement for both temporary (construction) and permanent 

(operational) rights-of-way. This easement would give Guardian the right to construct, operate, 

and maintain the pipeline, and establish a permanent right-of-way. Guardian would purchase 

outright any land that would be permanently occupied by a major aboveground facility (e.g., 

compressor stations, meter stations). Land required for smaller aboveground appurtenances, 

such as the MLV sites, would be acquired by easement. 

Landowners would be compensated for agricultural-related losses according to agreements 

negotiated between each landowner and Guardian. Property value guidelines would be 

determined by a professional experienced in Wisconsin valuation and Guardian would offer the 

landowners fair compensation for the temporary and permanent rights-of-way, and any damages 

due to crop or other loss. The easement would detail the allowable uses and restricted uses of the 

permanent right-of-way. If an easement cannot be negotiated with the landowner and the Project 

becomes certificated, the easement may be acquired by eminent domain proceedings. In this 

case, Guardian would compensate the property owner, but the courts would determine the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-97 4.9 – Transportation and Traffic

amount of compensation. Guardian would make every effort to negotiate in good faith to 

minimize the need to use the eminent domain process. 

Guardian’s proposed route would cross one certified organic farm. If construction activities 

were to result in decertification, this would be limited to the right-of-way and additional buffer 

areas, but the remainder of the field would retain its certification. Decertification of the right-ofway would temporarily reduce the amount of organic production available for the local market, 

but Guardian anticipates that the reduction would be relatively small in relation to the total 

organic production in the area, and that other organic producers in the area could make up any 

deficit. Guardian would implement measures to minimize the potential for construction 

activities to result in loss of organic certification. In the event that a portion of an organic farm 

loses its certification as a result of pipeline construction, there would be a reduction of income 

from the affected areas. In addition, the presence of a strip of non-certified land through an 

otherwise certified field could interfere with some field operations. These losses would have to 

be determined on a case-by-case basis, but Guardian would fully compensate the organic 

producer for the income loss to the extent due to construction of the pipeline. In most cases, 

Guardian anticipates the area could be recertified within a period of 3 years. 

Property taxes are generally based on the actual use of the land. Construction of the pipeline 

would not change the general use of the land, but would preclude construction of aboveground 

structures on the permanent right-of-way. If a landowner feels that the presence of a pipeline 

easement reduces the value of his or her land, resulting in an overpayment of property taxes, he 

or she may appeal the issue of the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local 

property tax agency. This issue is beyond the scope of this EIS. 

4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 

Several potential transportation effects may result from construction of the G-II Project. These 

potential impacts are short-term and include daily commuting of the construction workforce to 

the work site and pipeline right-of-way, the movement of construction equipment and material to 

and from the work areas, and construction of the pipeline across roads. 

A discussion of the effects of the Project on transportation and traffic is provided below, 

including mitigation measures. 

4.9.1 Existing Transportation, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 

The local road and highway system in the project area is well developed, consisting of U.S. 

highways, state highways, county highways, and local streets. The pipeline would cross 

approximately 5 U.S. highways, 11 state highways, 113 county highways, as well as other paved 

and unpaved roads in Wisconsin. 

Two railway systems, the Wisconsin and Southern Railroad Company (WSOR) and the 

Canadian National Railway (CN), also operate in the project area. The pipeline would cross the 

WSOR once at MP 16.9 and the CN four times at MPs 35.9, 42.1, 78.6, and 93.9. 

To avoid or minimize direct impacts on roads and railways or the vehicles using the roads or 

railways, Guardian proposes to bore paved roads and all operating railroads. However, motorists 

may encounter slow moving vehicles and road closures during construction. Unpaved roads 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.9 – Transportation and Traffic 4-98

would be crossed either by boring or by using the open-cut method. The open-cut method could 

temporarily disrupt road traffic. 

To maintain safe conditions, Guardian would direct its construction contractors to comply with 

applicable vehicle weight and width restrictions, and to remove soil that is left on the road 

surface by the crossing of construction equipment. In addition, when it is necessary for 

equipment to move across paved roads, mats or other appropriate measures would be used to 

prevent damage to the road surface. 

4.9.2 Traffic, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 

Construction of the pipeline and associated facilities would increase traffic on local roadways for 

the delivery of equipment and materials, and for construction worker transportation. These roads 

are primarily two-lane local roads that cross mostly rural agricultural land. Guardian would use 

172 existing public roads and 15 existing private roads, as well as 8 new access roads 

(5 temporary and 3 permanent) related to support construction and/or operation of its proposed 

pipeline and aboveground facilities. 

Travelers would experience some minor inconveniences for local traffic on lightly traveled and 

unimproved county roads that would be crossed by the pipeline using the open-cut method. To 

minimize traffic delays at roads that are open-cut, Guardian would establish detours before 

excavating the roadbed. In the absence of reasonable detours, construction across the roadway 

would be staged to allow at least one lane of traffic to remain open, except for brief periods when 

road closure is essential to lay the pipeline. Guardian would minimize the duration of open-cut 

crossings and, in most cases, would complete these road crossings in one day or less. Efforts 

would be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak traffic periods. 

The movement of construction equipment and materials from the pipe storage/contractor yard to 

the construction work area would also result in an additional short-term impact on the 

transportation network. Guardian estimates that about 58 heavy truck deliveries and 286 general 

truck deliveries would occur per day to the project site. This level of traffic would occur 

throughout the day. In general, these delivery trucks would be distributed along the length of the 

construction spread, which would tend to reduce the impact on traffic at any one location. As 

such, the Project should not add significantly to road congestion. 

Construction workers commuting to the project area are expected to add an average of between 

341 and 411 vehicle trips per day (to and from the work site). This level of traffic would remain 

fairly constant throughout the construction period, and would typically occur at early morning 

hours and evening hours. Road congestion caused by construction workers commuting to work 

would be significant only if each of the several hundred workers used a personal vehicle to travel 

to the work site, and if most of this travel took place during peak traffic hours. Pipeline 

construction work, however, is generally scheduled to take advantage of daylight hours so that 

most workers commute to and from the sites in off-peak hours. Construction workers would 

typically leave a number of personal vehicles at the pipe storage/contractor yard and share rides 

to the construction right-of-way with other workers, thereby reducing overall traffic. 

Furthermore, workers would be distributed along the length of the construction spread, which 

tends to reduce the impact on traffic at any one location. Given these reasons, the Project should 

not add significantly to road congestion. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-99 4.10 – Cultural Resources

Detours or obstructions in traffic flow due to the large vehicles or construction of pipeline road 

crossings may require short-term assistance from local police in limited instances. Projectrelated demands on local police workloads are not expected to be significant. 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of Certificates) on any properties listed in, or eligible for 

listing in, the NRHP and to provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment. Guardian, as a nonfederal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligation under Section 106 by conducting 

the field surveys and evaluations required by ACHP regulations in 36 CFR 800. 

The FERC is responsible for consulting with the appropriate SHPO prior to making 

determinations of NRHP eligibility and project effects. In addition, the views of other consulting 

parties and interested Indian tribes will be considered if any historic properties or sites of 

religious or cultural importance to a tribe would be adversely affected by the Project. 

4.10.1 Results of Cultural Resource Surveys 

4.10.1.1 Wisconsin 

Guardian had a contractor (Public Service Archaeology Program of the University of Illinois 

[PSAP]) conduct cultural resources surveys for the Project. The surveys covered about 7.6 miles 

of the pipeline route on lands managed by the Oneida Nation and about 84.4 miles along the 

pipeline route outside of the reservation. An additional 2.3 miles of route alternatives have been 

partially surveyed. About 23.0 miles of pipeline route have not been surveyed due to lack of 

access. The width of the survey corridors inspected varied from 200 to 400 feet to cover ATWSs 

at stream and road crossings. In addition, surveys were conducted at 18 proposed access road 

locations, the proposed Fond du Lac County pipe storage/contractor yard, and the proposed Bluff 

Creek Compressor Station location. 

Within the Oneida Reservation, PSAP identified five previously unknown archaeological sites. 

Elsewhere along the proposed pipeline route, PSAP identified five previously unknown 

archaeological sites and relocated one previously recorded archaeological site. Of the 11 sites 

identified during PSAP’s surveys, nine were recommended as being not eligible for nomination 

to the NRHP, requiring no further work. 

Only two sites (47DO657 and AOS8) were unevaluated or recommended as potentially eligible 

to the NRHP. Site 47DO657, a multicomponent prehistoric site, had been previously recorded, 

and was relocated just west of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way. Although PSAP 

recommended site 47DO657 as potentially eligible for the NRHP, it should not be affected by 

the Project because Guardian has filed a reroute that would avoid the site. Site AOS8, a 

multicomponent prehistoric and historic archaeological site, was also recommended as 

potentially eligible for the NRHP. However, because AOS8 appears to be within the proposed 

pipeline construction right-of-way, PSAP recommended that additional research be conducted at 

this site (Walz et al., 2006a and 2006b). The pipeline route may cross a portion of another 

previously reported prehistoric site, 47BR146. This area was not accessible by PSAP for survey 

and has not been evaluated for project impact or NRHP eligibility. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4-100

Guardian submitted copies of the survey reports to the Wisconsin SHPO and interested Indian 

tribes on October 9, 2006. In a letter dated November 9, 2006, the SHPO accepted PSAP’s 

report of its summer 2006 cultural resources survey, and agreed with the report’s 

recommendations that sites 47BR451, 47CT217, 47DO709, 47DO710, and 47DO711 are not 

eligible for the NRHP, and require no further work. While the SHPO also agreed that site 

47DO657 qualified for the NRHP, it would be outside the construction right-of-way and not 

affected by the Project. We concur that for the parcels surveyed in 2006, the PSAP report did 

not identify any historic properties outside of the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin that would be 

adversely affected. 

4.10.1.2 Illinois 

Guardian’s search of site files maintained by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency did not 

identify any cultural resources within 1 mile of the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station. 

Guardian initiated consultation with the Illinois SHPO through a letter dated March 23, 2006. 

By letter dated September 5, 2006, the SHPO concurred with Guardian’s recommendation that 

no survey is necessary at the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station, because the undertaking at 

that location is not likely to affect historic properties. We agree that no additional investigations 

are necessary at the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station because it is not likely that historic 

properties would be found or would be adversely affected at that location. 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

Guardian filed draft Unanticipated Discoveries Plans to handle cultural resources or human 

remains encountered during construction of the proposed Project. Unfortunately, these draft 

plans were formulated for the original Guardian Project in 1999, and are considered by staff to 

be out-of-date. We requested that Guardian provide updated state-specific plans, developed in 

consultation with the SHPOs and interested tribes, that adhere to Section III of OEP’s 

“Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources Investigations for Pipeline Projects” (December 

2002 version). 

Guardian provided a revised Unanticipated Discovery Plan to the Illinois SHPO on November 3, 

2006. In a letter dated November 16, 2006, the Illinois SHPO accepted that revised plan. Both 

the revised plan and correspondence with the SHPOs were filed with the FERC on February 1, 

2007. A copy of the revised plan for Wisconsin was provided to the Oneida Nation on January 

25, 2007. The revised Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Wisconsin was appended to PSAP’s 

survey report that the Wisconsin SHPO accepted on November 9, 2006. We agree with the 

Illinois and Wisconsin SHPOs that the revised discovery plans are acceptable. 

4.10.3 Native American Consultations 

Guardian, or its consultants, contacted 22 Indian tribes regarding its proposed Project. The tribes 

contacted include the Oneida Nation, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Ho-Chunk Nation, Lac Courte Oreilles Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, Sokoagon Chippewa Community, St. Croix Chippewa Tribe of Wisconsin, 

Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians, Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska, Sac and Fox Nation of Mississippi in Iowa, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Winnebago 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-101 4.10 – Cultural Resources

Tribe of Nebraska, Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, Kickapoo 

Tribe of Oklahoma, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Citizen Potawatomi, and the 

Hannahville Indian Community. 

4.10.3.1 Consultations with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Guardian consulted with the BIA-Midwest Regional Office about the 13.9-mile portion of the 

Project (MP 96.5 to MP 110.4) that is proposed to be built across land managed by the 

Oneida Nation. A summary of Guardian’s consultation with the BIA is contained within 

appendix L, table 1-L, to this EIS. Guardian applied for an Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act (ARPA) Permit to conduct cultural resources investigations on Oneida Nation lands. On 

August 14, 2006, the permit was reviewed by Corinna Williams, Oneida Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO), approved by the tribe, and on August 16, 2006, it was executed by 

the BIA. On August 28, 2006, the THPO approved survey of a minor proposed route variation 

on Oneida Nation lands and an amendment to the ARPA permit was executed by the BIA on 

August 30, 2006. In a telephone conservation with Guardian’s consultant, a representative of the 

BIA confirmed that they had received a copy of PSAP’s 2006 survey report, and had no specific 

comments.

4.10.3.2 Consultations with the Oneida Nation 

Appendix L, table 2-L, summarizes consultations between Guardian and their consultants and 

representatives of the Oneida Nation about the proposed Project. At a meeting with Oneida 

Nation representatives on March 1, 2006, Guardian was informed that Duck Creek is considered 

by the tribe to be a sensitive natural and cultural resource. In correspondence on August 14, 

2006, the Oneida THPO indicated that there are five previously recorded prehistoric 

archaeological sites, four historic sites, and four culturally sensitive areas located within 1 mile 

of the proposed Project on Oneida Nation lands. In approving the BIA-issued ARPA permits 

discussed in section 4.10.3.1, the tribe gave permission for Guardian to perform cultural 

resources surveys within the Oneida Reservation, and to temporarily store collected artifacts at 

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until the Oneida Nation Museum becomes 

available for permanent curation. 

On August 25, 2006, the Oneida THPO and the PSAP field director visited four newly 

discovered sites and examined associated artifact assemblages. By e-mail to Guardian’s 

consultant on January 3, 2007, the Oneida THPO recommended Phase II testing at sites AOS8 

and AOS9, and additional background research for sites AOS7 and AOS10. The THPO 

suggested that these additional data be included in a revised Phase I report along with the 

Unanticipated Discoveries Plan. In a January 15, 2007 e-mail, the THPO approved the curation 

plans drafted by PSAP for collections to be returned to the Oneida Nation. The THPO will 

provide these to the PSAP once they are available. 

4.10.3.3 Consultations with Other Interested Indian Tribes 

Consultations with interested Indian tribes, other than the Oneida Nation, are summarized in 

appendix L, table 3-L. The Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska, Sac and 

Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians, Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Sac and 

Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Ho-Chunk Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Kickapoo 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.10 – Cultural Resources 4-102

Traditional Tribe of Texas, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, 

Forest County Potawatomi Community, and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation responded to 

Guardian’s consultation request letters sent to them in March 2006 or to follow-up 

correspondence, e-mails from Guardian’s consultants, and telephone calls. 

As a result of Guardian’s contact program, the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska, Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians, Ho-Chunk Nation, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Citizen 

Potawatomi Nation, Forest County Potawatomi, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Menominee Indian 

Tribe of Wisconsin, and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation requested that they be notified if burial 

sites or other cultural resources are discovered. 

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians indicated to Guardian that its 

THPO would be available to conduct archival research to identify cultural, archaeological, and 

historical resources. Likewise, the Ho-Chunk Nation Heritage Preservation Office indicated that 

it could assist in the identification of cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, and that 

tribal records may include sites significant to the Ho-Chunk Nation that may not be listed in 

SHPO databases. However, no information has been provided by the Ho-Chunk Nation in 

response to PSAP’s request for information about culturally significant sites or locations that 

may be affected by the Project. 

The THPO of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians indicated that it has 

information on archaeological sites, burial mounds and cemeteries, and traditional cultural 

properties from oral and written traditions from tribal members. The THPO for the StockbridgeMunsee Band of Mohican Indians participated in a meeting held on July 27, 2006, with Guardian 

and its cultural resources consultant, and the Oneida THPO. In a August 8, 2006 conversation 

with PSAP, the THPO for the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians stated that she no 

longer had concerns about the Project’s potential impact on cultural or religious sites of 

importance to the tribe because of the Project’s distance away from Lake Winnebago. 

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians requested copies of the 

archaeological survey reports, and indicated that the tribe should be consulted by the FERC in 

the event that a historic property would be adversely affected by the Project. Copies of cultural 

resources survey reports were also requested by the Ho-Chunk Nation. Guardian documented 

that it sent copies of the survey reports to the Oneida Nation, Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Lac de Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 

Ho-Chunk Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Stockbridge-Munsee Band of 

Mohican Indians on October 9, 2006. 

4.10.4 Compliance with NHPA 

We have fulfilled our responsibilities with regards to section 101(d)(6) of the NHPA, 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(2), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Guardian, as our non-federal 

representative, contacted Indian tribes that may attach religious or cultural significance to sites in 

the project area. The Oneida Nation indicated concerns about potential impacts on Duck Creek 

and on bears and wolves. Elsewhere in this EIS we address how Guardian would avoid, reduce, 

or mitigate impacts on those animal species. The Oneida Nation has also expressed concern for 

two vegetative species of cultural significance, sweet flag and black ash, identified within the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-103 4.10 – Cultural Resources

proposed construction right-of-way during wetland surveys on the Reservation. To ensure 

impacts on these culturally significant plant species are minimized, we recommend that: 

• Guardian should file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of 

OEP compensatory mitigation plans or plans to minimize impacts on sweet flag and 

black ash on the Oneida Reservation near Duck Creek during construction and 

operation of the pipeline developed in consultation with the Oneida Nation prior to 

construction. The plans should include records of consultation with the Oneida 

Nation. 

No other Indian tribes have identified traditional cultural properties that may be adversely 

affected by this project, nor have any specific sites of religious or cultural importance to Indian 

tribes within the area of potential effect been identified by Guardian’s cultural resources 

consultants, or the SHPOs. 

We have not yet completed the process for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA. About 23 

miles of pipeline route has not yet been surveyed for cultural resources because of lack of access. 

These parcels cannot be surveyed until after the Project is authorized or Guardian obtains access 

to the tracts. Guardian indicated that it would conduct additional investigations for sites within 

the Oneida Reservation in the spring of 2007. 

We cannot make determinations about NRHP eligibility or project effects until the additional 

data have been provided. If any historic property would be adversely affected, the FERC would 

consult with the appropriate parties, including the SHPO and interested Indian tribes, to resolve 

adverse effects, and would request if the ACHP would like to participate in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.6(a)(1). Guardian would be required to produce site-specific treatment plans for the 

mitigation of adverse effects at historic properties that cannot be avoided, to be reviewed and 

approved by the appropriate parties. These treatment plans would then be included as part of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the FERC, SHPO, Oneida Nation (if the affected 

historic property is on Oneida Nation-managed land), other interested Indian tribes, and the 

ACHP (if it chooses to participate). Once an MOA is executed, Guardian would implement the 

specified treatment measures, after the Commission issues an Order authorizing the Project. The 

FERC would ensure that treatment is carried out according to the terms of the MOA before 

construction is allowed in any given area where a historic property would be affected. 

To ensure that the FERC's responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are 

met, we recommend that: 

• Guardian defer construction and use of facilities, including staging, storage, and 

temporary work areas and new or to be improved access roads until: 

a. Guardian files with the Secretary all additional required cultural resource 

inventory and evaluation reports, and necessary avoidance or treatment plans; 

b. Guardian files copies of comments from the Wisconsin SHPO and interested 

Indian tribes on all reports and plans; 

d. the ACHP has been provided an opportunity to comment if any historic 

properties would be adversely affected; and 

e. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies 

Guardian in writing that it may proceed with treatment or construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-104

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any 

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.”

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

4.11.1.1 Regional Climate 

The climate in the project area is predominantly continental results in with some modification by 

the influence of Lake Michigan. The area is characterized by cold, snowy winters and warm 

summers. The moderating effect of Lake Michigan results in temperatures that are somewhat 

higher during cold weather conditions and lower during warm weather conditions, when 

compared with temperatures of areas at similar latitudes. Annual average temperatures range 

from approximately 49°F, for the southern portion of the project area, to approximately 44°F for 

the northern portion of the project area. The long-term mean annual precipitation ranges from 

about 28 to 39 inches, and thunderstorms are a typical summer phenomenon. Average annual 

wind speeds range from approximately 10.3 miles per hour (mph) in the southern portion of the 

project area to approximately 9.8 mph in the northern portion of the project area. 

4.11.1.2 Existing Air Quality 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status 

Ambient air quality is protected by federal and state regulations. The EPA has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants for the purpose of 

protecting human health (primary standards) and welfare (secondary standards). The NAAQS 

set limits for ambient (outdoor) levels of the following criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The NAAQS are codified in 40 CFR 50 and summarized in 

table 4.11.1.2-1. The EPA used results of clinical and epidemiological studies to establish the 

primary NAAQS to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The secondary NAAQS protect public welfare, including 

protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

The WDNR and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) have adopted the NAAQS as 

the ambient air quality standards for their states. 

Air Quality Monitoring and Existing Air Quality 

The WDNR and IEPA maintain an extensive network of air quality monitors located throughout 

their states for a variety of purposes. Air quality monitoring data were reviewed to characterize 

the background air quality for criteria pollutants in the project area. Data were reviewed for 

monitoring stations located in Dodge County, Wisconsin and Winnebago County, Illinois. If 

data were unavailable from these counties, data were reviewed from Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin. The maximum background concentrations for all monitoring data reviewed are also 

presented in table 4.11.1.2-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-105 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

The entire United States has been classified by the EPA as being in “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “un-classified” with respect to ambient air quality standards. The EPA has 

designated all parts of the G-II Project area as in attainment for all criteria pollutants. 

TABLE 4.11.1.2-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Ambient Background Concentrations

Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS 

(μg/m3

) 

Ambient Background 

(μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual a/ 80 (0.030 ppm) NA 

 24-Hour b/, d/ 365 (0.14 ppm) 0.012 ppm 

 3-Hour c/, d/ 1,300 (0.5 ppm) 0.003 ppm 

PM10 Annual a/, e/ 50 21 

 24-Hour b/, d/ 150 55 

PM2.5 Annual a/, f/ 15 16 

 24-Hour b/, g/ 65 47 

CO 8-Hour b/, d/ 10,000 (9 ppm) 4.5 ppm 

 1-Hour b/, d/ 40,000 (35 ppm) 9.5 ppm 

Ozone 8-Hour c/, h/ 157 (0.08 ppm) 0.082 ppm i/ 

 1-Hour b/ 235 (0.12 ppm) 0.098 ppm 

NO2 Annual a/ 100 (0.05 ppm) 0.017 ppm 

Lead Quarter a/ 1.5 

a/ Arithmetic mean. 

b/ Block average. 

c/ Rolling average. 

d/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

e/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area 

must not exceed 50 μg/m3

. 

f/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 

g/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented 

monitor within an area must not exceed 65 μg/m3

. 

h/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

i/ Due to rounding, the background ozone concentration of 0.082 ppm complies with the 8-hour standard. 

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter. 

ppm = parts per million. 

4.11.1.3 Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality 

The proposed G-II Project would generate air pollutant emissions through both short-term 

construction activities and long-term operation of the stationary emission units at the compressor 

stations. Emissions from all phases of construction and operation of the emission units would be 

subject to applicable state and federal air regulations. The compressors would be electric motordriven; therefore, the only long-term source of air pollutants would be the emergency diesel-fuelfired backup generators. However, because these emergency generators would be limited to 

500 hours per year, potential emissions are also limited. The significant equipment to be located 

at the compressor stations are as follows: 

Bluff Creek Compressor Station 

• one 39,000 hp electric-motor-driven compressor; and 

• one 350 hp diesel-fired emergency backup generator. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-106

Sycamore Compressor Station 

• one 39,000 hp electric-motor-driven compressor; and 

• one 350 hp diesel-fired emergency backup generator. 

The CAA of 1970, 42 United States Code 7401 et seq., as amended in 1977 and 1990, and 

40 CFR 50-99 are the basic federal statutes and regulations governing air pollution in the United 

States. We have reviewed the following federal requirements to determine their applicability to 

the proposed G-II Project. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially applicable to the 

Project include: 

• New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

• New Source Performance Standards; 

• Title V Operating Permit; 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

• Maximum Achievable Control Technology; 

• General Conformity; and 

• State Regulations. 

New Source Review (NSR)

Separate procedures have been established for federal pre-construction review of certain large 

proposed projects in either attainment areas or non-attainment areas. The federal preconstruction review for new or modified sources located in attainment areas is Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). The review process is intended to prevent the new source from 

degrading existing air quality below acceptable levels. The federal pre-construction review for 

new or modified major sources located in non-attainment areas is commonly called NonAttainment New Source Review (NNSR). NNSR only applies to new sources of these pollutants 

or their precursors within areas that are classified as non-attainment. A new facility can undergo 

both PSD and NNSR review, depending on the emissions of various pollutants and the 

attainment status of the area. The entire G-II Project area is classified as attainment for all 

criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project area is not subject to NNSR permitting. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

One of the factors considered in the PSD permit review is potential impacts on protected Class I 

airsheds located throughout the country. Class I areas are specifically designated as pristine 

wilderness areas. The G-II Project would not be located in a Class I area, nor would it be located 

within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of a Class I area; therefore, a full Class I analysis would not be 

required to be included in the permit application. The closest Class I areas to the G-II Project is 

Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin, which is approximately 250 miles northwest of the proposed Bluff 

Creek Compressor Station. Therefore, the Federal Class I Area requirements do not apply to this 

Project. 

“Major sources” that produce a significant emissions increase are reviewed for compliance with 

the PSD regulations. PSD review for major stationary sources includes an assessment of the 

existing air quality; the use of analytic dispersion models to demonstrate compliance with the 

NAAQS and applicable PSD increments; a demonstration that control of emissions through use 

of best available control technology (BACT) has been applied to the subject emission sources; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-107 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

and an assessment of the impact of new emissions on the environmental resources such as soils 

and vegetation. 

The emission threshold for “major stationary sources” varies under PSD according to the type of 

facility. As defined by 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i), a facility is considered major under PSD if it 

emits or has the potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any criteria pollutant or 

100 tpy for specified source categories. There are no processes at any of the proposed project 

facilities that are included as a specified source category; therefore, the PSD threshold for the 

proposed facilities is 250 tpy. As shown in table 4.11.1.3-1, potential annual emissions from the 

proposed G-II Project would not exceed the 250 tpy threshold for any criteria pollutant and 

would not be considered a “major stationary source.” Therefore, the proposed Project would not 

be subject to PSD permitting requirements. 

TABLE 4.11.1.3-1 

 Potential Emissions for Proposed G-II Compressor Stations (in tons per year) a/ 

Emission Source NO2

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

PM10/PM2.5

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

Pb 

(tpy) 

Bluff Creek Compressor Station - 

Emergency Generator 

1.0 0.3 0.2 0.04 0.04 Negligible 

Sycamore Compressor Station - 

Emergency Generator 

1.0 0.3 0.2 0.04 0.04 Negligible 

a/ Potential emissions based on 500 hours per year operation of the emergency generators. 

New Source Performance Standards

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), codified at 40 CFR 60, establish emission limits 

and associated requirements for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for specific emission 

source categories. NSPS apply to new, modified, or reconstructed sources. The federal NSPS 

have been incorporated into Wisconsin (Administrative Code NR440) and Illinois (Title 35, 

Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter e, Part 230) state regulations. The following NSPS 

requirements were identified as potentially applicable to the specified sources at the facility. 

Subpart IIII of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, applies to stationary compression ignition (i.e., dieselfueled) internal combustion engines that were ordered after July 11, 2005 and manufactured after 

April 1, 2006. The proposed emergency generators at the Bluff Creek and Sycamore 

Compressor Stations would be subject to Subpart IIII regulations. Guardian would purchase 

emergency generators from a manufacturer certifying that the generators meet model year 2007 

emission limits. Guardian would also comply with requirements applicable to owners and 

operators of emergency generators. These requirements include: 

• operating each generator only during 1) emergencies, and 2) up to 100 hours per year for 

maintenance and readiness checks; 

• installing a non-resettable hour meter on each generator; 

• maintaining records of operating time; 

• operating and maintaining the generators according to manufacturer instructions and 

approved procedures; and 

• meeting low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements that become effective on October 1, 2007 

and on October 1, 2010. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-108

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After 

July 23, 1984, applies to storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters 

(m3) (19,813 gallons) that is used to store volatile organic liquids (VOL). This subpart does not 

apply to storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3 storing a liquid with a 

maximum true vapor pressure less than 3.5 kilopascals (kPa) or with a capacity greater than or 

equal to 75 m3

 but less than 151 m3 storing a liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure less 

than 15.0 kPa. Therefore, Subpart Kb potentially could be applicable. However, because the 

storage tanks at the Bluff Creek and Sycamore Compressor Stations will be 1,000 gallons in 

capacity or less, Subpart Kb does not apply. 

Subpart GG of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines, 

applies to stationary gas turbines that have a heat input at peak load equal to or greater than 10 

MMBtu/hr. The compressors at the Bluff Creek and Sycamore Compressor Stations are electric 

motor-driven and, therefore, are not subject to Subpart GG. 

Subpart LLL of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for Onshore Natural Gas 

Processing: SO2, applies to onshore facilities that process natural gas: each sweetening unit, and 

each sweetening unit followed by a sulfur recovery unit. A sweetening unit is defined as a 

process device that separates the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2) contents from 

the sour natural gas stream. The Project will not install equipment to remove H2S or CO2 from 

the gas; therefore, Subpart LLL does not apply. 

Title V Operating Permit

The Title V Operating Permit Program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires major sources of air 

pollutant emissions and certain affected non-major sources to obtain a federal operating permit. 

Authority to issue Title V operating permits has been delegated by EPA to the states 

of Wisconsin and Illinois. The major source emissions thresholds for determining the need for a 

Title V operating permit are 100 tpy of any regulated air pollutant, 10 tpy of any individual 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy for all HAPs. As shown in table 4.11.1.3-1, potential 

emissions from the proposed G-II Project are below the major source emissions thresholds. 

Therefore, a Title V Operating Permit is not required for either compressor station. 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), codified in 40 CFR 

Parts 61 and 63, regulate HAP emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates only eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, 

benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl 

chloride). Natural gas transmission, compression, and storage do not fall under one of the source 

categories regulated by Part 61; therefore, the requirements of Part 61 are not applicable. 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, 

regulates HAP emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories 

that emit HAPs. Part 63 defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to 

emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. Emissions of HAPs from the 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-109 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

proposed Project would not exceed the associated major source thresholds; therefore, no MACT 

standards apply to the proposed facility. 

General Conformity

A conformity determination must be conducted by the lead federal agency if a federal action 

would generate emission that would exceed the conformity threshold levels (de minimis) of the 

pollutant(s) for which an air basin is in non-attainment. According to Section 176(c)(1) of the 

CAA (40 CFR 51.853), a federal agency cannot approve or support any activity that does not 

conform to an approved State Implementation Plan. Conforming activities or actions should not, 

through additional air pollutant emissions, cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS 

in any area; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or delay 

timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions. Emissions from sources 

subject to NSR or PSD requirements are exempt and are deemed to have conformed. The 

requirements for a conformity determination are listed in 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93, and 

became effective March 15, 1994. Because the project area is classified as in attainment for all 

criteria pollutants, a General Conformity Determination is not required. 

Portions of the laterals are within EPA nonattainment areas. We Engergies’ Hartford-West Bend 

pipeline is located in Dodge and Washington Counties and its Fox Valley pipeline routes are 

located in Brown, Calumet and Outagamie Counties. Washington County, Wisconsin is within 

the Milwaukee-Racine Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas and is designated as 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The Governor of Wisconsin has petitioned EPA 

for ozone attainment redesignation of Washington County. At this time, however, Washington 

County is considered a nonattainment area for ozone with regards to General Conformity and 

must be evaluated as such if it is a “Federal Project.” The laterals are nonjuristictional facilities 

and FERC does not have approval authority over the laterals. In addition, the laterals, being a 

total of 10 to 12 miles, should not have emission increases in excess of the conformity 

thresholds; therefore, a General Conformity Determination is not required. 

Applicable State Air Quality Requirements

The proposed Bluff Creek and Sycamore Compressor Stations would be classified as stationary 

air emission sources under both Wisconsin and Illinois regulations. They incorporate the federal 

program requirements listed in 40 CFR 50-99 and establish permit review procedures for all 

facilities that can emit pollutants to the ambient air. Any new facility is required to obtain an air 

quality permit prior to initiating construction. Facilities can trigger additional review by EPA if 

emissions exceed the major source thresholds listed in 40 CFR Section 52.21(b)(1)(i). However, 

because the compressors would be electric motor-driven, the only source of air pollutants would 

be the emergency backup generators, and the compressor stations would be exempt from most 

state air quality regulations. 

Potentially applicable Wisconsin air quality regulations are found in the following Chapters of 

the WDNR air pollution control rules: 

• NR 406 – Construction Permit. A construction permit is required for stationary sources 

that are not otherwise exempted and whose maximum potential allowable emissions 

exceed specified thresholds given in NR 406.04(2)(b-f). The Bluff Creek Compressor 

Station’s maximum potential allowable emissions are below the specified thresholds. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-110

• NR 407 – State Non-part 70 Operating Permit. The Bluff Creek Compressor Station 

would not be subject to a non-part 70 operating permit because the maximum potential 

emissions would be below the emissions threshold. 

• NR 415.03 – Control of Particulate Emissions. Particulate emissions from both the 

construction and operation of Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be controlled in a 

manner that meets the regulatory requirements of this regulation. 

• NR 415.04 – Fugitive Dust. The Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be required to 

take precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Dust-prevention 

measures may include sprinkling work areas with water and/or reducing the maximum 

travel speed of vehicles on non-paved surfaces. 

• NR 417.03 – Control of Sulfur Emissions. The operation of the emergency generators 

would emit sulfur compound emissions. Because of the low emissions of sulfur, the 

Bluff Creek Compressor Station would comply with this requirement. 

• NR 419.03 – Control of Organic Compound Emissions. Although the Bluff Creek 

Compressor Station is not subject to specific volatile organic compound (VOC) emission 

limits, it must limit VOC emissions from transfer operations. The Bluff Creek 

Compressor Station would comply with requirements in NR 419.03(2). The facility 

would use good operating practices and take reasonable precautions to prevent spills and 

emissions of organic compounds, such as VOC emissions from diesel fuel transfers for 

use in the backup generator. 

• NR 428.03 – Control of Nitrogen Compound Emissions. The operation of the emergency 

generators would emit nitrogen compound emissions. Because of the low emissions of 

nitrogen compounds, Bluff Creek Compressor Station would comply with this 

requirement. 

• NR 431.05 – Control of Visible Emissions. Visible emissions of shade or density greater 

than Ringlemann Chart 1 or 20 percent opacity are prohibited with certain exceptions. 

The Bluff Creek Compressor Station would comply with all visible emissions limits. 

• NR 445.09 – Control of Hazardous Pollutants. This regulation limits the emissions of 

hazardous pollutants. The diesel generator at Bluff Creek Compressor Station would be 

exempt due to its use as an emergency generator. 

The potentially applicable Illinois air quality regulations are found in Title 35 of the Illinois 

Administrative Code (IAC), Subtitle B, Chapter 1 in the following sections: 

• Section 201.141 – Prohibition of Air Pollution. This rule prohibits the discharge or 

emission of any contaminant that 1) would cause air pollution in Illinois, 2) violate the 

provisions of Chapter 1, or 3) prevent the attainment or maintenance of any ambient air 

quality standard. 

• Section 201.146 – Permits and General Provisions. The Sycamore Compressor Station 

would be exempt from both construction and operating permit requirements. Stationary 

internal combustion engines less than 1,500 hp and organic liquid storage of less than 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-111 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

10,000 gallons are exempt. The emergency generator would be 349 hp and the diesel 

storage tank is 1,000 gallons. 

• Section 212.123 – Visible Emissions Limitations for All Other Emission Units. This rule 

prohibits the emission of smoke or other particulates with an opacity greater than 

30 percent. The generators at Sycamore Compressor Station would comply with this 

limit. 

• Section 212.301 – Fugitive Particulate Matter. This rule prohibits the emission of 

fugitive particulate matter from any process, including any material handling or storage 

activity that is visible by an observer looking generally toward the zenith at a point 

beyond the property line of the source. The Sycamore Compressor Station would comply 

with this rule. Dust-prevention measures may include sprinkling work areas with water 

and/or reducing the maximum travel speed of vehicles on non-paved surfaces. 

• Section 212.206 – Emission Units Using Liquid Fuel Exclusively. This rule prohibits 

particulate matter emissions in any 1-hour period that exceed 0.15 kg of particulate 

matter per MW-hr of actual heat input from any fuel combustion emission unit using 

liquid fuel exclusively (0.10 lbs/MMbtu). The emergency generator at Sycamore 

Compressor Station would not emit particulate matter at a rate that exceeds the limit. 

• Section 214.122 – New Fuel Combustion Emission Sources. This rule prohibits the 

emission of sulfur dioxide in any 1-hour period from any new fuel combustion source 

with actual heat input smaller than, or equal to, 73.2 MW (250 MMbtu/hr), in excess of 

0.46 kg of sulfur dioxide per MW-hr of actual heat input when distillate fuel oil is burned 

(0.3 lbs/MMbtu/hr). 

4.11.1.4 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the G-II Project would result in two types of air pollutant 

emissions: 1) those related to the construction of the Project, and 2) those related to the 

operation of the compressor stations. Construction emissions would only be generated during 

the estimated 7-month construction period. Operational emissions from the compressor stations 

would be long-term and result from the operation of the emergency generators that would be 

located at the compressor stations. 

There are no nearby Wilderness Areas or National Parks classified as Class I areas. This fact, 

combined with the low level of emissions from the compressor stations, means that there would 

be no impacts on any Class I areas. 

The primary emissions during construction activities would be particulate matter in the form of 

dust generated by mechanical disturbance of soil by construction equipment. On cultivated land, 

the generation of dust by construction equipment would be comparable to that generated by farm 

equipment. The emissions from construction vehicles and equipment should have an 

insignificant impact on the air quality of the region, because this equipment must meet current 

EPA standards for mobile sources. During construction, dust emissions would be minor and of 

short duration. As pipeline construction proceeds, equipment movement and site preparation 

would generate dust. However, because construction in a single location would only occur for a 

short time, the impact of these emissions at any single location would be minor. Emissions from 

construction are not expected to cause or significantly contribute to a violation of an ambient air 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-112

quality standard because the construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis 

primarily during daylight hours only. 

Estimated emissions for criteria pollutants and HAPs have been calculated for the construction of 

both compressor facilities. As shown in table 4.11.1.4-1, emissions from construction would not 

cause or significantly contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard because the 

construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours only. 

Guardian will also implement dust control measures, as needed, to minimize dust generated 

during certain construction activities such as excavation, grading, and use of access roads. These 

measures may include spraying the work areas with water and/or reducing the maximum travel 

speed of vehicles on non-paved surfaces. 

TABLE 4.11.1.4-1 

 Compressor Station Construction Emissions a/ 

Compressor Station NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Total HAPs 

Bluff Creek 2.5 0.2 4.8 0.14 6.4 1.2 0.03 

Sycamore 3.3 0.35 5.9 0.14 6.38 1.2 0.04 

a/ During the estimated 7-month construction timeline. 

Because the compressors would be electric motor-driven, the only source of air pollutants during 

operation of the compressor stations would be the diesel fuel-fired emergency backup generators. 

However, because these emergency generators would be limited to 500 hours per year, potential 

emissions from these units would also be limited. As shown in table 4.11.1.3-1, maximum 

potential annual emissions for these units are well below major source emission thresholds. 

With these controls and the low level of emissions, there would be no significant permanent 

impacts on air quality in the region. 

4.11.2 Noise 

Noise would affect the local environment during both the construction and operation of the 

proposed G-II Project. At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental 

noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and throughout the week. This variation 

is caused in part by changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover. 

Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise 

to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)) and the day-night 

sound level (Ldn). The Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy 

as the time-varying sound of interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq(24) with 

10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) added to the nighttime sound levels between the 

hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the greater sensitivity of people to sound during the 

nighttime hours. 

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA, 1974). This publication 

evaluates the effects of environmental noise with respect to health and safety. The document 

provides information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient 

noise standards. The EPA has determined that in order to protect the public from activity 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-113 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

interference and annoyance outdoors in residential areas, noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 

55 dBA. The FERC has adopted this criterion for new compression and associated pipeline 

facilities. An Ldn of 55 dBA is equivalent to a continuous noise level of 48.6 dBA for facilities 

that operate at a constant level of noise. 

The State of Illinois noise regulations (Title 35: Environmental Protection; Subtitle H: Noise; 

Chapter I: Pollution Control Board; Part 901: Sound Emission Standards and Limitations for 

Property Line-Noise-Sources) limit sound levels from industrial facilities to Noise Sensitive 

Areas (NSAs). The regulations are set forth in terms of octave-band limits and are equivalent to 

the A-weighted values of Leq 61 dBA during daytime hours, and Leq 51 dBA at night for the level 

of noise allowed at a residential area from an industrial source. These limits translate to an Ldn

of 61 dBA, which is less restrictive than the FERC Ldn noise limit of 55 dBA. 

Wisconsin does not have any pertinent noise regulations regarding the proposed compressor 

station. The state regulates noise from recreational vehicles (e.g., water craft or all-terrain 

vehicles), but does not impose NSA property-line noise limits for new facilities. 

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels 

The nearest NSA to the proposed Sycamore Compressor Station is an isolated single-family 

residence located about 1,380 feet northwest of the acoustic center of the station off Story Road 

(MP 58.0). The intervening area is relatively flat with no trees or other obstructions. There are a 

total of 16 isolated rural residences within a 1-mile radius of the proposed compressor station 

site. 

The site of the proposed Bluff Creek Compressor Station is in a similarly remote rural area with 

only 17 residences within a 1-mile radius. The nearest NSA is 1,160 feet north of the acoustic 

center of the station (MP 110.0). This area is also relatively flat with no trees or other 

obstructions between the NSA and the station. 

There are no fixed sources of noise near either of the proposed compressor station sites. Farming 

activities and traffic on local roads are the only regular sources of man-made noise. 

Consequently, the ambient noise level was assumed to be an Ldn of 45 dBA (38.6 dBA Leq) at the 

NSAs at both sites in accordance with guidance provided by the EPA for rural areas 

(EPA, 1974). An ambient noise survey was not conducted. 

4.11.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

During construction of the G-II Pipeline, neighbors in the vicinity of the construction right-ofway would hear construction noise. Traffic and farm machinery are the primary sources of 

ambient noise. Pipeline construction would proceed at rates of from several hundred feet to 

1 mile per day. However, due to the assembly line nature of construction, activities in any area 

could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent basis. 

Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis. Exact noise levels cannot be 

determined; however, estimates of noise levels as a function of the distance of the receptor from 

the equipment can be made. Assuming the operation of a piece of equipment results in a typical 

noise level of 88 dBA at 50 feet, the noise impact of that equipment would be 82 dBA at 

100 feet, 76 dBA at 200 feet and 70 dBA at 400 feet from the equipment. Noise would diminish 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.11 – Air Quality and Noise 4-114

rapidly as the distance from the noise source increases. While individual receptors in the 

immediate vicinity would experience an increase in noise, the effect would be temporary and 

local. 

Normally, there would be no nighttime noise from construction because most construction would 

be limited to daytime hours. A typical exception is HDD operations, which are typically 

sometimes 24-hour per day operations requiring up to 2 weeks for completion. 

Guardian is proposing to use the HDD method at two locations, the Rock River crossing near 

MP 10.3 and the Fox River crossing near MP 93.3. The equipment would be set up at locations 

relatively close to NSAs (760 feet at Rock River and 540 feet at Fox River). Guardian estimates 

that it would take 5 weeks to complete the Rock River crossing and 3 weeks to complete the Fox 

River crossing. However, Guardian is proposing to limit HDD activities to six 10-hour shifts per 

week with activities shutdown at night. The only nighttime construction would occur during the 

HDD pull-back, when the drill rig could operate 24 hours a day. However, this is a shortduration activity lasting only a few days. Although guardian has proposed only drilling during 

daytime hours, this is very atypical for HDD operations. Typical HDD operations must operate 

on a continuous 24 hour basis to ensure that the drill hole does not collapse, or drill binding 

occurs. 

Guardian has conducted a modeling analysis of the noise and determined that the impact from 

the HDD drilling would be below 55 dBA at the closest NSA to the entry hole. Guardian did not 

perform a modeling analysis of the noise from the exit hole. While noise typically is lower at the 

exit locations, this effect can be nullified by NSAs close to the exit location. In table 4.11.2.3-1, 

Guardian estimated that the maximum noise increase at the NSA is 7.6 decibels. While 3 

decibels is the threshold of the human noise change perceptibility, 6 decibels is clearly 

noticeable, and 10 decibels is a significant increase to a human listener. 

TABLE 4.11.2.2-1 

Estimated Noise at NSAs due to HDD Operations

HDD Location Existing Ambient 

(Ldn, dBA) 

HDD Noise a/ 

(Ldn, dBA) 

Total Noise 

(Ldn, dBA) 

Noise Increase at 

Closest NSA 

Rock River 45 b/ 46.9 49.1 4.1 

Fox River 45 b/ 51.8 52.6 7.6 

a/ Determined via the Power Acoustics, Inc. SPM9613 noise modeling software. 

b/ Estimate of rural noise, EPA 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisites to Protect Public Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Guardian has stated that it would implement temporary noise mitigation measures if the 55 dBA 

Ldn level is exceeded, or if the noise becomes an issue at either location. Erecting a barrier using 

hay bales is one approach suggested by Guardian. Such a barrier could potentially be more 

effective than a commercially available product because of the thickness and sound-absorptive 

characteristics of hay bales. They may also be readily available in rural areas at very low cost. 

Construction of the two compressor stations would occur over a period of about 7 months. The 

highest levels of noise would occur during the foundation preparation and concrete pouring 

where levels of about 85 dBA at 50 feet would be expected from earth-moving equipment and 

trucks. The noise would be very noticeable at the nearest NSAs, but it would not produce 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-115 4.11 – Air Quality and Noise

significant permanent impacts because the impacts would be limited to the 7-month timeframe 

and construction of activity would occur only during the day. 

Operational Noise 

The proposed equipment at the two compressor stations would be identical and the 

corresponding predicted sound levels are the same at 64 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. 

This low level would be achieved through the use of electrically driven compressors instead of 

combustion-turbine-driven compressors. The compressors and electric motors would be 

enclosed in acoustically designed buildings. The outside sources of noise would include the 

compressor building ventilators, gas aftercoolers, and aboveground gas piping. The gas 

aftercoolers would be specified to produce a noise level of no more than 61 dBA at 50 feet. The 

aboveground piping would be insulated to significantly reduce noise. Expected levels at the 

NSAs were calculated from the total 64 dBA level at 50 feet using geometric spreading of the 

sound wave only, providing a conservative result. The results of the analysis are presented in 

table 4.11.2.2-2. 

TABLE 4.11.2.2-2 

Noise Impact Analysis at the Nearest Noise Sensitive Areas

Compressor 

Station 

NSA Distance 

and Direction from 

Acoustic Center 

Estimated 

Ambient Ldn for 

Rural Areas 

 (dBA) 

Calculated Ldn

of Compressor 

Station 

 (dBA) 

Estimated 

Total Ldn 

 (dBA) 

Potential Noise 

Increase 

 (dBA) 

Sycamore NSA 1 1,380 feet Northwest 45 42.0 46.8 1.8 

Bluff Creek NSA 1 1,160 feet North 45 43.1 47.2 2.2 

The calculated operational noise levels of both stations are less than the estimated ambient level 

Ldn of 45 dBA. The addition of the two compressor stations to the existing environment would 

raise the ambient noise levels by an estimated 1.8 dBA at the Sycamore Station and 2.2 dBA at 

the Bluff Creek Station. An increase of 3 dBA is generally considered to be the smallest increase 

that is perceptible. In addition, the predicted station Ldn levels of 42.0 and 43.1 dBA are 

significantly below the 55 dBA level required by the FERC. Thus, noise from operation of the 

Sycamore and Bluff Creek Compressor Stations should not create a significant noise impact at 

the nearest NSAs. However, should noise reach 55 dBA, considering the rural nature of the area 

and the estimated noise level of 45 dBA, there could be a significant increase in noise at the 

nearest NSAs. Expected levels at the more distant NSAs would be even lower. To ensure that 

there would be no excessive impacts on noise quality at the nearest NSAs as a result of 

compressor station operations, we recommend that:

• Guardian should make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from 

the compressor stations are not exceeded at NSAs and file noise surveys showing 

this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the compressor stations in 

service. If the noise attributable to the operation of compressor stations exceeds 

55 dBA Ldn at an NSA, Guardian should file a report on what changes are needed 

and should install additional noise controls to meet the level within one year of the 

in-service date. Guardian should confirm compliance with these requirements by 

filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs 

the additional noise controls. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.12 – Reliability and Safety 4-116

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a 

major pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed 

in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000°F and is flammable at concentrations between 

5.0 percent and 15.0 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. 

However, a flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition 

source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

4.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, United States Code Chapter 601. 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline 

Safety (OPS), administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of 

natural gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other 

approaches to risk management that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, 

maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written 

as performance standards, which set the level of safety to be attained and allow the pipeline 

operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. PHMSA ensures that people and the 

environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This work is shared with state 

agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas 

Pipeline Safety Act provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for 

intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while Section 5(b) permits a 

state agency that does not qualify under Section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and 

monitoring functions. A state may also act as DOT’s agent to inspect interstate facilities within 

its boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the 

states have either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 of 

49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

(Memorandum) dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the 

exclusive authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural 

gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC’s regulations require that an applicant certify that it 

will design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a 

certificate is requested in accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and 

inspection, or shall certify that it has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety 

standards by the DOT in accordance with Section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. 

The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety standards other than 

the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential safety 

problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert DOT. The Memorandum 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-117 4.12 – Reliability and Safety

also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the 

general public involving safety matters related to pipeline under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and 

practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the G-II Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the 

public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material 

selection and qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, 

and atmospheric corrosion. 

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location 

unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile 

length of pipeline. The four area classifications are defined as follows: 

Class 1 Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people during normal use. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline 

design, testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be 

installed with a minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in 

consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and 

railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in 

consolidated rock. Guardian proposes to meet or exceed these requirements and install the 

proposed pipeline with 48 inches of cover in soils and 24 inches or more in consolidated rock 

along the entire route. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, streams, and harbors must have 

a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil or 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe 

wall thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable 

operating pressure, inspection and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak 

surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated areas. Guardian is currently 

evaluating the class location information along the proposed pipeline route. The information will 

be provided in a supplemental filing once the evaluation is complete. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location above the existing design for the pipeline, Guardian would reduce the maximum 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.12 – Reliability and Safety 4-118

allowable operating pressure or replace the segment with pipe of sufficient grade and wall 

thickness, if required to comply with the DOT code of regulations for the new class location. 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the nation’s pipeline safety laws. The pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, 

and signed into law by the President in December 2002. Since December 17, 2004, gas 

transmission operators are required to develop and follow a written integrity management 

program that contains all the elements described in Section 192.911 and addresses the risks on 

each covered transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, the law establishes an integrity 

management program which applies to all high consequence areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 FR 

69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as they relate to the different class zones, 

potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as defined in Section 192.903 of 

the DOT regulations. 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002 to May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29903) that defines 

HCAs as locations where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their 

property, and requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an 

accident. This definition satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 United States Code 

60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline 

facility in a high-density population area. 

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

• current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius21is greater than 660 feet and 

there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact 

circle;32or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site.43

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

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within the HCAs. The DOT 

regulations specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at Section 192.911. The 

HCAs are determined based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby 

structures and identified sites. The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires 

inspection of the entire pipeline in HCAs every 7 years. 

 

2

 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the maximum allowable 

operating pressure of the pipeline in psi multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 

3

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

4

 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in 

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

in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or 

would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-119 4.12 – Reliability and Safety

Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Guardian has 

stated that it will operate and maintain the proposed pipeline in a manner that meets or exceeds 

the requirements of Part 192. Guardian operators would establish public awareness and damage 

prevention programs and would perform regular pipeline patrols, leak surveys, pipeline marking 

and other surveillance activities to promote pipeline safety. The staff would be fully trained in 

pipeline operations, maintenance, and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures. 

The pipeline would be patrolled and inspected by aircraft and on the ground on a periodic basis. 

These inspections would identify conditions indicative of pipeline leaks, evidence of pipeline 

damage or deterioration, damage to erosion controls, loss of cover, third-party activities, or 

conditions that may currently or in the future affect pipeline integrity, safety, or operation of the 

pipeline. The pipeline system fully participates in the Wisconsin’s Diggers Hotline one-call 

system that provides contractors, highway workers, farmers, and anyone digging along a pipeline 

right-of way with the ability to call a single number to have all underground utilities located prior 

to excavation activities. 

Under Section 192.615, each pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that 

includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements 

of the plan include procedures for: 

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, 

and natural disasters; 

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• implementing emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service; 

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; and 

• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that 

may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The 

operator must also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, 

government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline 

emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. Guardian would provide the appropriate 

training to local emergency service personnel before the pipeline is placed in service. No 

additional specialized local fire protection equipment would be required to handle pipeline 

emergencies. 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR 191 has required all operators of transmission and gathering 

systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a report on form F7100.2 

within 20 days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.12 – Reliability and Safety 4-120

• required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

• caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

• required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above 

criteria. 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data 

collected. Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of 

more than $50,000, injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by 

the operator. Table 4.12.2-1 presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as 

well as more recent incident data for 1986 through 2005, recognizing the difference in reporting 

requirements. The 14.5-year period from 1970 through June 1984, which provides a larger 

universe of data and more basic report information than subsequent years, has been subject to 

detailed analysis, as discussed in the following sections.54

TABLE 4.12.2-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause

Incidents per 1,000 Miles of Pipeline (percentage) Cause 

1970-1984 1986-2005 

Outside Force 0.70 (53.8) 0.10 (38.5) 

Corrosion 0.22 (16.9) 0.06 (23.1) 

Construction or Material Defect 0.27 (20.8) 0.04 (15.4) 

Other 0.11 (8.5) 0.06 (23.1) 

Total 1.30 0.26 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 

300,000 total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service 

incidents, defined as failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant 

over this period with no clear upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test 

failures were reported. Correction of test failures removed defects from the pipeline before 

operation (Jones et al., 1986). 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 4.12.2-1 provides a percentage distribution of the causal 

factors as well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service. 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents. 

Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as 

bulldozers and backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; 

weather effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 4.12.2-2 

 

5

 Jones, D.J., G.S. Kramer, D.N. Gideon, and R.J. Eiber, 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural 

Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 Through June 1984." NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research 

Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-121 4.12 – Reliability and Safety

shows that human error in equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of 

outside forces incidents. Since April 1982, operators have been required to participate in “One 

Call” public utility programs in populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities 

in the vicinity of pipelines. The “One Call” program is a service used by public utilities and 

some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) to provide 

preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground 

location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2005 data (as shown on table 4.12.2-1) 

show that the portion of incidents caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent. 

TABLE 4.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)

Cause Percent 

Equipment Operated by Outside Party 67.1 

Equipment Operated by or for Operator 7.3 

Earth Movement 13.3 

Weather 10.8 

Other 1.5 

The pipelines included in the dataset in table 4.12.2-2 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, 

and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be 

expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines 

installed before that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older 

pipelines have a higher frequency of corrosion incidents because corrosion is a time-dependent 

process. Further, new pipe generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to 

reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines 

contain a disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of 

outside forces incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by 

mechanical equipment or earth movements. 

Table 4.12.2-3 clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the 

incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The use of both an external protective coating 

and a cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly 

reduces the rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe. The data show 

that bare, cathodically protected pipe actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. 

This anomaly reflects the retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 4.12.2-3 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 Miles per Year 

None-bare Pipe 0.42 

Cathodic Protection Only 0.97 

Coated Only 0.40 

Coated and Cathodic Protection 0.11 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.12 – Reliability and Safety 4-122

4.12.3 Impacts on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in table 4.12.2-1 include pipeline failures of all 

magnitudes with widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were 

classified as leaks, and the remaining third classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 4.12.3-1 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission 

and gathering lines from 1970 to 2005. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been 

separated into employees and non-employees to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the 

general public. Of the total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per 

year over this period. The simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not 

differentiate between employees and non-employees. However, the data show that the total 

annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting 

two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a 

total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

TABLE 4.12.3-1 

Annual Average Fatalities—Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems a/, b/

Year Employees Non-employees Total 

1970-June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984-2005 c/ - - 3.6 

1984-2005 c/ - - 2.8 d/ 

a/ 1970 through June 1984 - American Gas Association, 1986. 

b/ DOT Hazardous Materials Information System. 

c/ Employee/non-employee breakdown not available after June 1984. 

d/ Without 18 offshore fatalities occurring in 1989 – 11 fatalities resulted from a fishing vessel striking an offshore pipeline and 

seven fatalities resulted from explosion on an offshore production platform. 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various man-made and natural hazards are 

listed in table 4.12.3-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of 

natural gas pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made 

cautiously, however, because individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all 

categories. Nevertheless, the average 2.6 public fatalities per year is relatively small considering 

the more than 300,000 miles of transmission and gathering lines in service nationwide. 

Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of magnitude (100 times) lower than 

the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in service, the rate of public fatalities for 

the nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles 

of pipeline. Using this rate, the G-II Project might result in a public fatality every 913 years. 

This would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-123 4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 

TABLE 4.12.3-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a/

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All Accidents 90,523 

Motor Vehicles 43,649 

Falls 14,985 

Poisoning 9,510 

Fires and Burns 3,791 

Drowning 3,488 

Suffocation by Ingested Object 3,206 

Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, etc. (1984-93 average) 181 

All Liquid and Gas Pipelines (1986-2003 average) b/ 22 

Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines, Non-employees Only 

(1970-84 average) c/ 

 2.6 

a/ All data, unless otherwise noted, reflects 1996 statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 118th Edition.” 

b/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, www.ops.dot.gov/stats. 

c/ American Gas Association, 1986. 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In accordance with NEPA and FERC policy, we considered the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed G-II Project and other projects in the general project area. Cumulative impacts 

represent the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a given period of time. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed 

Project are discussed in other sections of this EIS. 

The purpose of this cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts 

that would potentially result from implementation of the proposed Project. This cumulative 

impact analysis generally follows the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ, 1997b; 

EPA, 1999). Under these guidelines, inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on 

identifying commonalities of impacts from other projects to potential impacts that would result 

from the proposed Project. An action must meet the following three criteria to be included in the 

cumulative impacts analysis: 

• impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project; 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed project area; and 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the time span for the potential impact from the 

proposed Project. 

For the purposes of this cumulative impact analysis, we considered the project area to be the 

counties traversed by the proposed Project. 

The actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis may vary from the proposed Project in 

nature, magnitude, and duration. These actions are included based on the likelihood of 

completion, and only projects with either ongoing impacts or that are “reasonably foreseeable” 

future actions were evaluated. Existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that would be expected 

to affect similar resources during similar time periods as the proposed Project were considered 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 4-124

further. The anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and these other actions are 

discussed below, as well as any pertinent mitigation actions. The anticipated cumulative impacts 

were based on NEPA documentation, agency and public input, and best professional judgment. 

We identified three types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would 

potentially result in a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These are: 

(1) other natural gas pipeline projects; (2) facilities that would be associated with construction of 

the proposed Project but that are not under the FERC’s jurisdiction; and (3) unrelated projects 

that are either in place, are under construction in the vicinity of the proposed Project, or are 

proposed (table 4.13-1). 

TABLE 4.13-1 

 Existing or Planned Projects that Could Result in Cumulative Impact 

on Environmental Resources in the G-II Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date 

Counties 

Natural Gas Pipelines 

G-II Project 109.5 miles of 30-inch and 20-inch-diameter 

pipeline, two new 39,000 hp electric motor-driven 

compressor stations, aboveground 

appurtenances. 

2008 Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du 

Lac, Calumet, Brown, 

Outagamie, and Walworth, 

WI; DeKalb, IL. 

Guardian Pipeline Project 150 miles of 36-inch, 30-inch, 24-inch, and 16-

inch-diameter pipeline, one 22,000 natural-gasdriven compressor station, aboveground 

appurtenances. 

2002-2003 Walworth, WI; DeKalb, IL. a/ 

Nonjurisdictional Facilities 

We Energies – Hartford/ 

West Bend Project 

14.1 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and 

appurtenant aboveground facilities. 

2008 Dodge and Washington, WI. 

We Energies-Fox Valley 

Project 

12.8 miles of 20-inch, 16-inch, 12-inch, and 8-

inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant 

aboveground facilities. 

2008 Brown and Outagamie, WI. 

WPS Sheboygan Project 33.0 miles of 16-inch, 14-inch, and 12-inchdiameter pipeline and appurtenant aboveground 

facilities. 

2008 Fond du Lac and 

Sheboygan, WI. 

WPS Chilton Project 1.7 miles of 4-inch-diameter pipeline and 

appurtenant aboveground facilities. 

2008 Calumet, WI. 

WPS Denmark Project 14.2 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and 

appurtenant aboveground facilities. 

2008 Brown, WI. 

WPS SW Green Bay Project 8.0 miles of 20-inch and 12-inch-diameter pipeline 

and appurtenant aboveground facilities. 

2008 Brown, WI. 

WPS West Green Bay 

Project 

Flow control and odorization facilities and 

regulator station modifications. 

2008 Outagamie, WI. 

ComEd Sycamore Power 

Line and Substation 

2.5 miles of 138 kV electric transmission line and 

transformer/substation. 

2008 DeKalb, IL. 

ATC Bluff Creek Substation Transformer/substation. 2008 Walworth, WI. 

Unrelated Projects 

Forward Wind Energy 

Center 

About 133 wind energy turbines, access roads, 

and electrical gathering and transmission 

facilities. 

2007 Dodge and Fond du Lac, 

WI. 

Green Field Blue Sky Wind 

Energy Project 

Up to about 88 wind energy turbines, access 

roads, and electrical gathering and transmission 

facilities. 

2007 - 2009 Fond du Lac, WI. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-125 4.13 – Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1 

 Existing or Planned Projects that Could Result in Cumulative Impact 

on Environmental Resources in the G-II Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date 

Counties 

Holsum Elm Dairy New 6,060-animal dairy operation. 2006 - 2007 Calumet, WI. 

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm About 41 wind energy turbines, access roads, and 

electrical gathering and transmission facilities. 

2007 - 2008 Fond du Lac, WI. 

a/ For purpose of this cumulative impacts analysis, only those counties that are shared with the G-II Project area are included for 

the original Guardian Pipeline. 

The identified projects consist of one existing and one proposed natural gas transmission 

pipeline, seven nonjurisdictional pipeline projects that would extend from the proposed G-II 

Project and two nonjurisdictional electric utility projects required for the two proposed new 

compressor stations, and four unrelated projects. We identified these projects through scoping 

and independent research, as well as information provided by Guardian and the PSC. While we 

did not specifically contact each county, community, or other entity regarding new projects or 

plans for expansion, we did request information on other projects in the NOI. We have identified 

the tentative construction schedules of these projects, as available, but the actual construction 

schedules would depend on factors such as issuance of permits, economic conditions, the 

availability of funds, and political considerations. 

The potential impacts associated with these projects that are most likely to be cumulative are 

related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife (including federally and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, and noise. 

4.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

One other major natural gas pipeline project has been constructed recently in the same general 

area as the proposed G-II Project. 

Guardian Pipeline Project (Phase I) 

The Guardian Pipeline was reviewed and approved by the FERC in 2002 and was constructed in 

2002 and 2003. The Guardian Pipeline includes about 150 miles of 36-inch, 30-inch, 24-inch, 

and 16-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline from Joliet, Illinois to Ixonia, Wisconsin; 

one compressor station in Joliet, Illinois; and seven meter stations. The Guardian Pipeline is 

located in seven counties in Illinois and Wisconsin, of which three would also include portions of 

the proposed G-II Project. Facilities located in the same counties include 24.1 miles of the 

existing Guardian Pipeline and 2.1 miles of the proposed G-II Project pipeline in Jefferson 

County, Wisconsin; 35.5 miles of the existing Guardian Pipeline and the G-II Project’s proposed 

Sycamore Compressor Station in DeKalb County, Illinois; and 34.3 miles of the existing 

Guardian Pipeline (including a pipeline lateral) and the G-II Project’s proposed Bluff Creek 

Compressor Station in Walworth County, Wisconsin. 

The FERC (1989) concluded that the general impact of building more than one pipeline would 

be primarily additive, and the cumulative impact may be calculated by adding together the 

impact of each individual project. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 4-126

4.13.2 Nonjurisdictional Facilities 

As described in section 1.5, nonjurisdictional facilities for the G-II Project would include seven 

intrastate natural gas pipeline laterals and associated appurtenances, and two electric utility 

projects associated with the two proposed new compressor stations, as described below. 

We Energies – Hartford/West Bend Project 

A 14.3-mile two-segment (Hartford Segment 1 and West Bend Segment 2) 12-inch-diameter 

pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated within the counties of Dodge and Washington, 

Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed 

Rubicon Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the construction and operation of the 

Hartford/West Bend Gate Station, two 12-inch-diameter valves, and a new regulator station. 

We Energies – Fox Valley Project 

A 12.8-mile four-segment pipeline lateral comprised of 20-inch-diameter (Segment 1), 8-inchdiameter (Segment 2), 16-inch-diameter (Segment 3), and 12-inch-diameter (Segment 4) lateral 

to be constructed and operated within the counties of Brown and Outagamie, Wisconsin. The 

pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed Fox Valley Meter 

Station. Additional facilities would include the construction and operation of the Fox Valley 

Gate Station, Kaukauna Regulator Station, Kimberly Regulator Station, WPPI Delivery Point 

Customer Metering Facility, Appleton Regulator/Metering Station, and the Kaukauna and Little 

Chute Valve Assembly. 

WPS Sheboygan Project 

A 31.0-mile 14-inch and 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated within 

the counties of Fond du Lac and Sheboygan. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the GII pipeline at the proposed Sheboygan Meter Station. A 2.07-mile 16-inch-diameter distribution 

pipeline would also be constructed and operated in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Additional facilities 

would include the construction and operation of odorization and pigging facilities, the New West 

Sheboygan Regulator Station, and the New Plymouth Regulator Station. Modifications would 

also be made to the existing Sheboygan ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station and the Plymouth 

ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station. 

WPS Chilton Project 

A 1.7-mile 4-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated in Calumet County, 

Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed 

Chilton Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the construction and operation of 

odorization, pigging, and valve facilities and the New Chilton Regulator Station. Modifications 

would also be made to the existing Chilton ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station and distribution 

system connection facilities. 

WPS Denmark Project 

A 14.2-mile 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to be constructed and operated in Brown County, 

Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the proposed 

Denmark Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the construction and operation of 

odorization and pigging facilities and modifications would be made to the existing Denmark 

ANR Meter/WPS Regulator Station. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-127 4.13 – Cumulative Impacts

WPS Southwest Green Bay Project 

A 1.4-mile 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral that would be constructed and operated in Brown 

County, Wisconsin. The pipeline lateral would interconnect with the G-II pipeline at the 

proposed Southwest Green Bay Meter Station. Additional facilities would include the 

construction and operation of odorization, pigging, and valve facilities and the Southwest Green 

Bay Regulator Station. Modification would also be made to the existing ANR Green Bay 

Meter/WPS Broadway Regulator Station. 

WPS West Green Bay Project 

Facilities and modifications would include the construction and operation of flow control and 

odorization facilities, and modifications to the West Green Bay Regulator Station. 

ATC Bluff Creek Substation 

Facilities would consist of the construction and operation of the Bluff Creek 

Transformer/Substation in Walworth County, Wisconsin. 

ComEd Sycamore Power Line and Substation 

Facilities would include the construction and operation of 2.5 miles of new Sycamore 

Compressor Station Power Line and the Sycamore Transformer/Substation in DeKalb County, 

Illinois. 

4.13.3 Unrelated Projects 

Forward Wind Energy Center 

The Forward Wind Energy Center is proposed by Forward Energy LLC, and would be situated 

within approximately 32,400 acres of predominantly agricultural land near Brownsville, 

Wisconsin, within the Towns of Oakfield, Byron, Leroy, and Lomira in southern Fond du Lac 

and northern Dodge Counties (WPS, 2005). The project would include about 133 wind turbines. 

Forward Energy received project approval from the PSC in July 2005, and is currently in the 

process of obtaining required remaining permits and approvals. Construction of the wind farm 

would begin after Forward Energy completes the final turbine and collection system layout and 

receives all of the necessary permits or approvals. The project would be in-service an estimated 

8 to 12 months after the start of construction. 

Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 

The Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project is proposed by We Energies, and would be located 

within an area covering about 10,600 acres in the Towns of Calumet and Marshfield in Fond du 

Lac County, Wisconsin. The project would include 88 wind turbines and associated auxiliary 

facilities, with a total capacity of up to 203 MW of electric generation. The wind farm would be 

connected to an existing 345-kV electric transmission line that traverses the project area via a 

new substation called the Cypress Substation. The PSC issued a final decision approving the 

project on February 1, 2007. We Energies hopes to begin commercial operation in 2008 or 2009. 

Holsum Elm Dairy 

Holsum Elm Dairy is currently constructing a new large farm dairy operation with a capacity for 

6,060 animals in the Town of Chilton, in Calumet County, at MP 72.9 of the G-II Pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 4-128

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm 

The Cedar Ridge Wind Farm is proposed by Alliant Energy, and would consist of about 41 wind 

turbines spread across about 7,800 acres in the Townships of Eden and Empire in Fond du Lac 

County (Alliant Energy, 2006). The project has been under development since 2004. 

Preliminary permits, including zoning, land use agreements, and environmental studies have 

been completed, with some permitting and engineering ongoing. Wisconsin Power and Light 

hopes to receive the PSC’s rulings on the applications in early 2007; in which case, construction 

would occur during 2007 and 2008. 

4.13.4 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Potential cumulative impacts are grouped by resource area in this section. The most likely 

cumulative impacts would be to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife, land use, and 

air quality and noise. 

Except for the Guardian Project (Phase 1), the FERC has no authority over the permitting, 

licensing, funding, construction, or operation of the projects included in our analysis. Federal, 

state, and local agencies must review these projects for compliance with requirements for 

construction of facilities at sites or places where a governmental license or permit may be 

required. The expansion or construction of intrastate pipelines would require state or federal 

permits and approvals to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA; Sections 401, 402, and 

404 of the CWA; and the CAA. Where appropriate, environmental conditions designed to 

minimize or avoid impacts would be attached to the necessary permits and approvals. 

4.13.4.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Construction and operation of the proposed G-II Project would result in both short-term and 

long-term impacts on waterbodies and wetlands. The short-term impacts such as soil or 

sediment disturbance would dissipate over a period of weeks, while longer-term impacts, such as 

regrowth of forested wetlands within the temporary construction rights-of-way, would persist for 

months or years. The primary impacts on wetlands and waterbodies during operation of the 

proposed pipeline would be associated with routine right-of-way maintenance. All maintenance 

activities would comply with applicable federal regulations, but would continue throughout the 

life of the proposed Project. 

If approved and constructed, the G-II Project and other past and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects would affect wetlands, and would include the permanent loss or conversion of some 

existing wetlands. Construction of the Wisconsin portion of the original Guardian pipeline 

affected about 33 acres of wetlands. Construction of the proposed nonjurisdictional pipeline 

laterals would affect about 28 acres of wetlands. Available information for the other projects 

(see table 4.13-1) indicates these projects would affect about 5 acres of wetlands. Elements of 

these projects that have the potential to affect wetlands and waterbodies would be subject to 

review and approval under Section 404 of the CWA, as administered by the COE, as well as 

state and local wetland regulations. Any permanent or long-term impacts on wetlands and 

waterbodies would require appropriate mitigation. Construction of the G-II Project would affect 

about 64 acres of wetlands, including about 11 acres of forested wetland. Section 4.4.1 discusses 

project- or site-specific mitigation measures for this impact. Further, discharges to wetlands and 

other surface waters associated with construction and operation would require review, approval, 

and mitigation (if necessary) under the state’s stormwater discharge programs. During operation 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-129 4.13 – Cumulative Impacts

of the Project, about 2 acres of previously forested wetland would be maintained as scrub-shrub 

or emergent wetland as a result of vegetation maintenance on the pipeline right-of-way. 

Construction of the G-II Project would result in 113 waterbody crossings. As described in 

section 4.3.2.3, Guardian proposes to use HDD techniques to cross two waterbodies. The use of 

HDD would avoid direct impacts on waterbodies and minimize impacts on riparian vegetation at 

those crossings. Though impacts on surface waters could occur during HDD crossings, either 

through an inadvertent release of drilling fluids (frac-out) or through accidental fuel and 

chemical spills, the likelihood and potential damage associated with such events would be 

greatly reduced by the implementation of HDD and SPCC Plans. 

Because most of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 are located within the same major watersheds 

crossed by the G-II Project, and because some of these projects would likely involve direct and 

indirect waterbody impacts, the G-II Project and other past and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects would result in some cumulative impacts on waterbodies. The original Guardian 

pipeline included 19 waterbody crossings in Walworth County. The proposed nonjurisdictional 

pipeline laterals would involve 54 waterbody crossings. Available information for the other 

projects listed in table 4.13-1 indicates these projects would involve about 60 waterbody 

crossings, mostly by access roads and buried electrical cables associated with the wind energy 

projects. Because the G-II Project would not involve construction of permanent diversions or 

dams, impacts on surface water quality from this project would be temporary. These temporary 

impacts would include runoff from construction areas, temporary and localized increases in 

turbidity and sedimentation associated with in-water construction, and withdrawal and discharge 

of surface waters for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. As described in section 4.3.2.2, these 

effects would be relatively minor and would be further minimized with the implementation of 

our Procedures. 

We believe the cumulative impacts of the G-II Project and the projects listed in table 4.13-1 on 

wetlands and waterbodies would not be significant. 

4.13.4.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

have a cumulative impact on vegetation and associated wildlife. These cumulative impacts 

would be most significant if 1) the projects were constructed at or near the same time and within 

proximity of one another, and 2) the affected vegetative communities would take a long time to 

recover. The G-II Project, if approved, would impact approximately 52 acres of forest habitat, 

71 acres of open land, and 1,460 acres of agricultural habitats. Construction of the Wisconsin 

portion of the original Guardian pipeline resulted in clearing about 30 acres of forest habitat, 75 

acres of open land, and 714 acres of agricultural habitat. Of this, about 20 acres of land that was 

forested prior to construction is maintained as non-forest habitat within the operational pipeline 

right-of-way. Construction of the proposed nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals would impact 

about 20 acres of forested habitat, 286 acres of open land, and 558 acres of agricultural habitat. 

Available information for the other projects listed in table 4.13-1 indicates these projects would 

impact about 42 acres of forested habitat and about 360 acres of agricultural habitat. These 

impacts would likely have a cumulative effect on vegetation and wildlife when considered in 

conjunction with the G-II Project. 

Cumulative impacts such as lost acreage of forestland within a region are additive. Further, 

many wildlife species depend on mature contiguous tracts of forest to sustain their migratory and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 4-130

reproduction cycles. These species include dozens of migratory songbirds and terrestrial 

mammals that are not migratory, but that require large tracts of forest to support their home 

ranges. The impacts of fragmentation of forest habitat on some of these species can be 

immediate. 

The extent and duration of habitat fragmentation and other cumulative impacts on wildlife 

habitat associated with construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable 

future projects would be minimized by siting these projects to the greatest extent practicable 

through existing maintained rights-of-way and other disturbed areas. About 32.4 miles (29.6 

percent) of Guardian’s proposed route would be adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way, which 

would minimize impacts on previously undisturbed vegetation. Additionally, approximately 94 

percent of the proposed pipeline route would traverse agricultural and open lands that would 

typically experience rapid revegetation, and where fragmentation of forest habitat would not 

occur. About 57 miles (66 percent) of the route of the proposed nonjurisdictional pipeline 

laterals would be adjacent to existing utility corridors. 

Two federally listed threatened species, and eleven state-listed endangered, threatened, or special 

concern species could be potentially affected by construction of the G-II Project. The two 

federally listed species were not known to occur in the vicinity of the Wisconsin portion of the 

original Guardian pipeline. As described in section 4.6.1, we believe that the proposed Project 

would not affect, or would not be likely to adversely affect any federally listed species. Habitat 

for some state-listed species (Blanchard’s cricket frog, wood turtle, Blanding’s turtle, and 

handsome sedge) could potentially occur along the proposed pipeline, and these species could 

potentially be affected by pipeline construction and operation. Guardian is continuing 

consultations with the WDNR to identify the specific state-listed species and/or species of 

special concern that should be included in the species surveys for the G-II Project. Guardian is 

also working with the WDNR to identify measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts 

on this species if suitable habitat is identified during surveys. A number of listed species 

potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals; however, 

based on review of potentially affected habitats, We Energies and WPS report that none of these 

species would likely be affected by construction and operation of the laterals. 

The wind energy projects could potentially affect several protected species of birds and bats as a 

result of potential impact from turbine blades during operation. Because this potential impact is 

specific to operation of the wind turbines, no cumulative impact on these species would be 

expected from the G-II Project and the wind energy projects. 

4.13.4.3 Land Use 

Construction of the G-II Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in 

temporary and permanent changes in land use within the project area. The G-II Project would 

affect about 1,586 acres of land during construction. While impacts on most land uses would be 

temporary in nature, occurring only during construction, operation of the Project would result in 

long-term impacts during operation to about 33 acres of forest land. 

Construction of the Wisconsin portion of the original Guardian pipeline affected about 825 acres 

of land, of which about 356 acres are maintained in a herbaceous condition within the 

operational right-of-way, including about 20 acres of land that was forested prior to construction. 

Construction of the nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals would affect about 997 acres of land, of 

which about 490 acres would be maintained in a herbaceous condition within the operational 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4-131 4.13 – Cumulative Impacts

right-of-way following construction, including about 20 acres of land that is currently forested. 

Available and estimated information on the other projects listed in table 4.13-1 indicates that 

about 2,565 acres would be affected during construction, and about 265 acres would be 

permanently affected during operation, primarily agricultural lands. Land use impacts associated 

with those projects would likely have a cumulative effect when considered in conjunction with 

the G-II Project. 

4.13.4.4 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the G-II Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Construction of these projects would temporarily affect 

air quality by 1) generating emissions from operation of fossil-fueled construction equipment, 

and 2) fugitive dust from land clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic 

on paved and unpaved roads. Some impacts would occur during operation as well. The existing 

Guardian pipeline generates ongoing air emissions from operation of the Joliet Compressor 

Station. Air emissions that would be generated from operation of the dairy farm in Calumet 

County are unknown. The G-II Project, as well as the three planned wind projects would not 

generate air emissions during operation. None of the proposed nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals 

or electric utility projects would include compressor stations or other facilities that would 

produce emissions during operation. 

Because construction-related air emissions would be temporary and localized in nature, they 

would be unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts. 

Operation of the proposed Project and the wind energy projects listed in table 4.13-1 could 

reduce air emissions by providing a competitively priced source of energy that could replace the 

dirtier forms of energy that are currently being used. Natural gas is a relatively clean and 

efficient form of energy compared to other fossil fuels. By burning natural gas rather than other 

fossil fuels such as coal and fuel oil, it could be possible to reduce the emissions of regulated 

pollutants (e.g., mercury, NOX, SO2, and PM10) or unregulated greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2). 

Similarly, energy generated by the wind energy projects and the replacement of the coal-powered 

electric generation plant with a gas-fired electric generation plant could replace energy currently 

generated by coal-fueled plants. As such, it is possible that the G-II Project and the regional 

wind energy projects could cumulatively improve air quality in the region. 

4.13.4.5 Noise 

Potential noise impacts associated with the G-II Project and those projects listed in table 4.13-1 

would occur during construction and operation. Because of the linear nature of the G-II Project 

and the nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals, construction-related noise impacts for these projects 

would be of short duration in a given area. Some noise impacts would occur during construction 

of the three wind power projects, but these impacts would also be of short duration in any 

particular location, occurring during installation of tower foundations, towers, and electrical 

interconnects. Most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, so constructionrelated noise impacts would not occur at night for the most part. Potential noise-related impacts 

during operation of the G-II Project and the other pipeline projects listed in table 4.13-1 would 

primarily be limited to the vicinity of the associated compressor stations. As described in 

section 4.11, the estimated noise that would be generated by the proposed Sycamore and Bluff 

Creek Compressor Stations would meet acceptable levels at the nearest NSA. Noise would also 

be generated from each turbine within the three wind energy projects, as well as from the new 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
4.13 – Cumulative Impacts 4-132

dairy operation. During operation, turbines within the wind energy projects would generate up to 

about 50 dBA of noise within the zone immediately surrounding each turbine depending on wind 

speed, with noise decreasing with distance from the turbines. 

Noise emissions from compressor station operations may be additive with noise-generating 

elements of other reasonably foreseeable future projects if they are located near a common NSA. 

However, no other compressor station, or other noise-generating source for the identified 

projects would be located within 1 mile of the G-II Project’s proposed Sycamore or Bluff Creek 

Compressor Stations. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed Project and other 

projects in the region on the noise environment would be negligible. 

4.13.5 Conclusions on Cumulative Impact 

If the G-II Project were approved by the Commission and the project proceeded to construction, 

several other projects could also be constructed within the same general area and same general 

time span. Additionally, the type of project, construction methods, and impacts would be 

similar. Though the nonjurisdictional projects identified in our analysis would also be 

constructed within a similar time span using similar construction methods, any potential 

contribution to cumulative impacts of the proposed Project would be negligible due to the small 

scope of those projects. The unrelated projects identified in our cumulative impact analysis 

would be of a different nature than the proposed Project, but would affect similar resources. 

Each of these unrelated projects would result in temporary and minor effects during construction, 

but each project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on the human environment and 

to wetlands, waterbodies, protected and special status species, and other sensitive resources. 

Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts on sensitive resources resulting from these projects 

would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to the avoidance or minimization of cumulative 

impacts. We therefore consider that the potential cumulative impacts of the two pipeline projects 

under our review have been or would be minimized. 

Because natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient form of energy compared to other fossil 

fuels such as coal and fuel oil, burning natural gas rather than other fossil fuels may reduce 

emissions of regulated pollutants or unregulated greenhouse gases. Similarly, energy generated 

by the wind energy projects could replace energy currently generated by fossil fuel plants and 

result in less emissions. As such, it is possible that the G-II Project and the regional wind energy 

projects could cumulatively improve air quality in the region. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor, and we 

have included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the Project. The environmental impacts associated with the G-II Project would 

be minimized by project routing, avoidance, and utilization of HDD techniques to avoid and 

minimize impacts on some sensitive resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation 

measures. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the 

proposed Project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-1 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed G-II Project would result in 

limited adverse environmental impacts and would be an environmentally acceptable action based 

on information provided by Guardian and data developed from information requests; field 

investigations; literature research; alternatives analysis; comments from federal, state, and local 

agencies; and input from public groups and individual citizens and the mitigation measures 

recommended below. 

As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures that we believe would 

appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. We believe that environmental impacts would be minimized 

if the proposed Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations, Guardian’s proposed mitigation, and our additional mitigation measures. We are, 

therefore, recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any 

authorization issued by the Commission. A summary of the anticipated project impacts and our 

conclusions is provided below by resource area. 

5.1.1 Geology 

Construction and operation of the Project would have minimal impact on geological resources. 

There would be a disturbance to the existing topography along the construction right-of-way; 

however, Guardian would restore topographic contours to the extent practicable to 

preconstruction conditions following installation of the pipeline. 

A limited amount of blasting is anticipated along the pipeline and geologic conditions at the 

proposed compressor stations and remaining aboveground facility sites would not require 

blasting, special equipment, or techniques. Impacts to residences, wells, and structures during 

blasting would be avoided or minimized through Guardian’s establishment of site-specific 

blasting procedures that would be filed with the Secretary for approval by the Director of 

FERC’s OEP prior to construction. 

There are several quarry operations adjacent to the right-of-way. Guardian would avoid impacts 

on these operations by negotiating with the affected landowners/operators to obtain easement 

agreements that govern mining activities in the immediate area of the pipeline. 

The Project would be located in an area of low seismic risk. Site-specific analysis conducted for 

the Project revealed that due to low level of ground motion predicted at the site, earthquake 

hazards were not considered a controlling factor in facility design. A low risk of seismic activity 

and faulting effects can be reasonably anticipated for the project area. 

5.1.2 Soils and Sediments 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline route and associated aboveground facilities 

would affect soil characteristics including prime farmland, certified organic farmland, hydric 

soils, stony/rocky soils, compaction potential, erosion potential (via wind and water), 

revegetation potential, topsoil depth, and soil contamination. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-2

The Project would be constructed and operated in accordance with our Plan. Implementation of 

these measures would minimize potential adverse effects due to erosion, compaction, horizon 

mixing, revegetation potential, and soil contamination. In addition, Guardian would develop 

specific BMPs as part of their AMP in consultation with the DATCP to minimize or mitigate 

adverse effects on agricultural land. The AMP would also address construction procedures in the 

vicinity of Certified Organic farms. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Groundwater

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with the 

standard requirements for pipeline construction and operation in our Plan. The proposed Project 

would avoid impacts on sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, drinking water wells, 

and springs. The Project would also not cross any known areas associated with contaminated 

groundwater. 

Other potential impacts on groundwater resources would be avoided or minimized by the 

implementation of our standard recommendations and requirements as included in our Plan, 

Guardian’s SPCC Plan, Guardian’s commitment to repair or replace wells damaged by 

construction, and our recommendation that Guardian file information concerning any private or 

domestic water wells damaged and repaired as a result of blasting. 

Surface Water

The proposed Project would cross 29 perennial streams, 80 intermittent streams, one fluctuating 

stream, and one pond. As proposed, the majority of the waterbodies crossings would be 

accomplished using open-cut methods during periods of low flow. HDD installation techniques 

would be used to accomplish pipeline installation across two waterbodies (the Rock River and 

the Fox River). Waterbody crossings would be accomplished in accordance with our Procedures 

and the terms of any applicable federal or state permits that may be granted. 

Accidental spills during construction and operation would be prevented or adequately minimized 

through implementation of our Procedures and Guardian’s SPCC Plan. Additionally, Guardian’s 

HDD Contingency Plan describes the procedures that would be implemented to monitor for, 

contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during HDD operations. 

Guardian has proposed to use surface waters for hydrostatic testing of the proposed pipeline, 

although municipal water supplies may be used as test water sources for the compressor stations. 

Guardian would also avoid or adequately minimize potential effects to waterbodies resulting 

from hydrostatic testing by implementing our Plan and by avoiding the use of potentially toxic 

test water additives. 

5.1.4 Vegetation 

Wetland Vegetation

Construction of the proposed G-II Project would affect about 60.3 acres of wetland areas and 

result in a total of 2.52 acres of permanent wetland disturbance, including approximately 

2.15 acres of forested wetlands and approximately 0.37 acre of palustrine, scrub-shrub or 

emergent wetlands. No wetlands would be affected by the proposed aboveground facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-3 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Guardian would avoid and minimize wetland impacts by reducing the construction right-of-way 

width through wetlands to 75 feet. Guardian specified 29 locations where site-specific 

constraints require that the additional temporary workspace be located within 50 feet of the 

wetland boundary. Guardian would coordinate with the WDNR and the COE, prior to 

construction, to receive additional authorization for any jurisdictional wetland crossings. 

Guardian would also coordinate with the Oneida Nation for wetland permits and authorizations, 

as appropriate, on lands under jurisdiction of the Oneida Nation. Guardian intends to submit 

their Section 404 permit application in the spring of 2007. 

Affected wetlands located outside the maintained portion of the permanent pipeline right-of-way 

would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. Impacts on emergent and scrub-shrub 

wetlands would be minor overall as regeneration to preconstruction condition would occur 

rapidly in these areas, and maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would not result 

in a permanent conversion of emergent wetlands. Impacts on forested wetlands would be either 

permanent or long-term due to the slow regeneration time of forested areas. Guardian would 

also develop and conduct a wetland monitoring and forested wetland mitigation plan in 

coordination with WDNR and the COE. 

Upland Vegetation

The primary impact of the proposed Project on vegetation would be the clearing and removal of 

vegetation during construction. The upland vegetative community types most affected by the 

construction of the proposed pipeline, workspaces, and the associated above ground facilities are 

agricultural lands. Approximately 92.1 percent of the upland vegetative communities affected by 

the Project are agricultural lands, 2.6 percent are forested uplands, 1.0 percent are nonagricultural open lands, and 0.3 percent are developed lands. The remaining vegetative 

communities affected are forested wetlands (0.7 percent) and non-forested wetlands 

(3.3 percent). Guardian’s proposed aboveground facilities would involve the removal of 

48.0 acres of non-forested agricultural vegetation (including agricultural fields, row crops, and 

pasture land), with a permanent impact of 38.6 acres during project operation. Guardian 

proposes to construct 24 access roads for use during construction of the Project, 3 of which 

would be kept and used during operation of the Project. A total of 12.2 acres of agricultural 

lands would be affected by construction of the access roads, 1.8 acres of which would be 

permanently impacted along the 3 permanent access roads. 

Most impacts on vegetation would be short-term and temporary. Guardian would implement our 

Plan to minimize erosion and enhance revegetation in upland areas, as well as follow the specific 

recommendations of local agencies. To further minimize impacts on previously undisturbed 

vegetation and forested lands, where possible Guardian has routed the pipeline to avoid forested 

lands, follow forest edges or previously cleared rights-of-ways, or has sited the pipeline to follow 

existing utility and road corridors. 

With the use of Guardian’s proposed measures and our recommendations for construction and 

restoration, the effects to upland vegetation would be effectively minimized. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-4

5.1.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Wildlife

The wetlands and upland vegetation communities crossed by the proposed pipeline route support 

habitats that provide cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species including birds, mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians. Physical disturbance, displacement, and clearing of herbaceous upland 

and wetland habitats would affect wildlife at or near the time of construction, but such effects 

would be largely temporary as most terrestrial wildlife would relocate and many habitats would 

generally recover quickly following construction. In addition, the majority of the land 

(89 percent) affected by the pipeline is agricultural. Habitats associated with agricultural areas 

have already been significantly altered from their original vegetative communities, and typically 

support a low diversity of wildlife. Some wildlife, such as small mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles, would have a higher than normal mortality rate during construction, as they would have 

less ability to relocate during clearing, grading, and trenching activities. 

A potential long-term impact to wildlife is associated with the clearing of forest habitat. Along 

the propose route, upland and wetland forested habitats would be affected most substantially, 

with a long-term conversion of wooded areas to successional stages in the temporary 

construction right-of-way and a permanent conversion to scrub-shrub or herbaceous habitats 

within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. About 51 acres (3.3 percent) of forested land would 

be affected during construction, of which 19.6 acres would be permanently converted to nonforest habitat (e.g., low shrub or grassland habitats) for the life of the Project along the 

permanent right-of-way. To minimize impacts on previously undisturbed vegetation and wildlife 

habitats, where possible, Guardian has routed the pipeline to avoid forested lands, followed 

forest edges or previously cleared rights-of-ways, or has located the pipeline within existing 

utility rights-of-way. 

Guardian would further minimize impacts on wildlife habitats through implementation of our 

Plan and Procedures. In addition, to minimize impacts on migratory birds during operation of 

the pipeline, routine vegetation maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way would be performed no 

more frequently than every three years and would not take place between April 15 and August 1 

of any year to avoid impacts on nesting birds. 

Proposed aboveground facilities would be located in agricultural fields, therefore impacts on 

wildlife during construction and operation of these facilities would be minimal. We do not 

expect wildlife to be significantly impacted by the Project. 

Aquatic Resources

The waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project provide habitat for a variety of 

aquatic species, including warm water fishes and a coldwater trout community. Potential 

impacts on fisheries and aquatic habitats would include sedimentation and turbidity, loss of 

cover, introduction of pollutants into the aquatic environment, potential blockage of fish 

migrations and interruptions of spawning, and entrainment or loss of stream flow during 

construction and hydrostatic testing. As described above, all waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished in accordance with our Procedures. At three locations site-specific constraints 

require that the additional temporary workspaces be located within 50 feet of the water’s edge. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-5 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Waterbody crossings would also be accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of 

any applicable federal or state permits that may be granted. 

Aquatic habitat impacts at crossing locations would be largely temporary, as crossings would be 

completed in less than 48 hours in most instances. Additionally, intake screening to limit 

entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate stream flow rates to protect aquatic life 

during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would further ensure that any project-related impacts 

on aquatic habitats would be minor and temporary. Direct impacts on aquatic resources would 

also be avoided by the use of HDD at the two major waterbodies, the Fox and the Rock Rivers. 

5.1.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species 

Two federally protected species were identified as potentially occurring within the proposed G-II 

Project area. Based on our review of known occurrences of the two federal species within the 

project area, we have determined that the Project would have no effect on these species. 

Twelve State of Wisconsin protected species and five Wisconsin species of special concern were 

identified as potentially occurring within the proposed G-II Project area. Guardian has 

conducted habitat screening to identify appropriate habitats for focused searches for protected 

species to take place during 2007 prior to construction. If habitat or species presence is verified 

during these investigations, Guardian has agreed to consult with appropriate federal and state 

agencies to develop mitigation strategies that reduce impacts on those species. We are 

recommending that Guardian file the results of its state-listed threatened, endangered, and special 

status species surveys with the Secretary in addition to developing mitigation strategies that 

reduce impacts on those species. Based on our analysis of habitat that would be affected by the 

Project, along with the implementation of our recommendation, and Guardian’s commitment to 

develop measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts on these species if suitable habitat is 

identified, we have determined that the Project would not adversely affect these state-listed 

species. 

5.1.7 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Construction of the Guardian II Pipeline Project would affect a total of about 1,587.2 acres of 

land: 1,323.1 acres for the pipelines, 48 acres for the aboveground facilities (including the seven 

meter stations, associated mainline valves, and launcher receiver facilities); 12.2 acres for access 

roads; 176.3 acres for additional temporary workspace; and 27.6 acres for a pipe storage and 

contractor yard. Operation of the Project would affect about 702.8 acres of land, of which 

38.6 acres would be permanently converted for operation of the aboveground facilities, and the 

remaining 664.2 acres would be within the permanent operational right-of-way. 

The proposed Project would cross 0.4 mile of residential land, and 4.8 acres of residential land 

would be affected by construction. Two residences, two barns, and one warehouse would be 

located within 50 feet of the pipeline construction work area. Temporary construction impacts 

on residential areas could include inconvenience caused by noise and dust generated by 

construction equipment; trenching through roads or driveways; ground disturbance of lawns; 

removal of landscaping or natural vegetative screening; potential damage to existing septic 

systems or wells; and removal of aboveground structures, such as sheds or trailers, from within 

the right-of-way. Following construction approximately 2.4 acres of the 4.8 acres of residential 

land affected by construction would be retained as permanent right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-6

To minimize disruption to residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way and ensure 

public safety, we have recommended that Guardian leave mature trees and landscaping along the 

edge of the construction work area, restore lawns and landscaping according to our Plan 

immediately after backfilling, and fence the edge of the construction right-of-way for a distance 

of 100 feet on either side of a residence. For those residences within 25 feet of the construction 

right-of-way we have recommended that Guardian develop site-specific plans. In general, 

residential land use would not be affected during operation, because typical routine vegetation 

maintenance would not be conducted in residential areas. 

Three special interest areas have been identified along the proposed pipeline route. The pipeline 

route would cross the Niagara Escarpment and the Oneida Nation Reservation (MPs 96.5 to 

109.9). The proposed Bluff Creek Compressor Station site in Walworth County, Wisconsin 

would be located along Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive. No other recreation or special interest 

areas such as developed recreational facilities, parks, forests, wildlife management areas, 

wilderness areas, trails, or registered natural landmarks have been identified in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project. 

The Niagara Escarpment would not be affected by the construction or operation of the Project, 

because the pipeline does not cross any vertical exposure or rock outcroppings associated with 

the Escarpment. Impacts to Duck Creek would be minimized by our recommendation that 

Guardian file a final crossing plan for review and approval by the Director of OEP that includes 

records of consultation with the Oneida Nation as well as mitigation plans or plans to minimize 

impacts to nearby sweet flag and black ash. Guardian has also agreed to minimize the potential 

impacts to the Kettle Moraine Scenic Drive by enclosing aboveground facilities in buildings that 

are similar in appearance to those of the surrounding landscape. Guardian is also committed to 

appropriately maintaining the grounds of its aboveground facilities (e.g., mowing and 

maintenance of any trees and/or shrubbery) to ensure both safety and the “kept” appearance of 

the overall site. Given our recommendation to develop a final crossing plan for Duck Creek in 

consultation with the Oneida Nation and Guardian’s plans to construct buildings similar to those 

of the surrounding landscape and properly maintain aboveground facilities, impacts to special 

interest areas would be minor. 

Impacts on visual resources due to the pipeline would be primarily temporary and short-term, 

occurring during construction. During construction, the cleared and graded right-of-way, as well 

as the construction equipment could be visible from any surrounding residences and local roads. 

The clearing and grading would result in color changes to the landscape, and the construction 

equipment would create tracks, compress vegetation, and expose soils. Because the terrain over 

much of the project area is gently rolling, views of the construction activities may extend for 

some distance. Following construction, the right-of-way would be restored to preexisting 

conditions and the farmers would be allowed to grow crops over the pipeline on agricultural 

lands. Within one or two years construction work areas would normally be difficult to 

distinguish from surrounding areas. Therefore, no long-term visual impacts would result from 

construction and operation of the pipeline in non-forested areas. Guardian would also develop 

site-specific screening plans for each of the proposed compressor stations. 

5.1.8 Socioeconomics 

Construction of the proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on local 

populations, housing, employment, community services, or local commerce. Any adverse 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-7 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

impacts would be highly localized and temporary due to the relatively short construction period 

and the rapid rate at which construction crews would pass through any one area. 

Construction of the proposed Project would require a maximum of 420 to 520 workers during the 

7-month construction period (March 2008 to October 2008). This number would temporarily 

increase demand for public services such as medical, police, and fire protection, but these effects 

would be offset by increased tax revenues to local governments. The proposed Project would 

have positive impacts on local spending, employment, and tax income during construction and 

operation. There is no evidence that the proposed Project would have a disproportionate share of 

adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group. 

5.1.9 Transportation and Traffic 

Construction of the proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on local 

transportation and traffic. Any adverse impacts would be highly localized and temporary due to 

the relatively short construction period and the rapid rate at which construction crews would pass 

through any one area during construction of the pipeline. Construction of the compressor 

stations would have the longest construction times in any single location. Because of the rural 

nature of the area, construction of the compressor stations would only have minor impacts on 

transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the compressor stations. 

Construction workers commuting to the project area are expected to add an average of 

approximately 341 to 411 vehicle trips per day. At the peak of construction, a maximum of 

420 to 520 construction worker vehicle trips are expected. An additional 344 trucks would make 

deliveries each day all along the pipeline route. This level of traffic would remain fairly constant 

throughout the construction period; however, pipeline construction work is generally scheduled 

to take advantage of daylight hours so that most workers commute to and from the sites in offpeak hours. Detours or obstructions in traffic flow due to the large vehicles or construction of 

pipeline road crossings may result in short-term interruptions in local traffic. To minimize 

impacts on local traffic Guardian would notify affected towns and counties prior to construction. 

In addition, when it is necessary for equipment to move across paved roads, mats or other 

appropriate measures would be used to prevent damage to the road surface. Guardian 

contractors would also comply with applicable vehicle weight and width restrictions, and to 

remove soil that is left on the road surface by the crossing of construction equipment. Additional 

traffic control and safety measures may also be required as conditions of state, county, or local 

road crossing permits. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Guardian’s contractor has surveyed about 7.6 miles along the pipeline route on lands managed 

by the Oneida Nation and about 84.4 miles along the pipeline route outside of the reservation. 

There remains about 17.5 miles of pipeline route to be surveyed. Of 11 archaeological sites 

recorded within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), 2 sites were recommended as potentially 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Guardian has developed a reroute 

that would avoid site 47DO657 while further investigations are recommended at site AOS8 to 

determine if it may be eligible to the NRHP. 

Guardian is working with the Oneida Nation to possibly identify an acceptable crossing of Duck 

Creek, an area considered a sensitive natural and cultural resource. The Oneida Nation indicated 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-8

concerns about the potential impacts on Duck Creek and on sweet flag and black ash in the 

vicinity of Duck Creek. We have recommended that Guardian consult the Oneida Nation to 

develop a final crossing plan for Duck Creek, which would include mitigation plans or plans to 

minimize impacts to sweet flag and black ash. Guardian has also consulted with other interested 

Indian tribes about the Project and potential presence of culturally sensitive areas within the 

APE. No additional specific areas have been identified as culturally sensitive. 

The Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has commented that the Project may 

proceed in Illinois and has not noted any specific project effects. The Wisconsin SHPO has 

reviewed the initial Phase I report of archaeological survey and will review and comment on 

subsequent submittals for the Project as they become available. 

To ensure compliance with the NHPA, we have recommended that Guardian defer construction 

until all cultural resource surveys, evaluation reports, and necessary avoidance or treatment plans 

are filed with the Secretary; copies of comments from the Wisconsin SHPO and interested Indian 

tribes on all reports and plans have been provided; and the ACHP has been given an opportunity 

to comment if any historic properties would be adversely affected. 

Guardian has developed updated Unanticipated Discoveries Plans that it proposes to implement 

during project construction. The plan for Illinois was accepted by the SHPO. The Wisconsin 

SHPO has not specifically commented on the plan for Wisconsin. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air Quality

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would include emissions 

from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. However, such air quality impacts 

would generally be temporary and localized and are not expected to cause or contribute to a 

violation of applicable air quality standards. Because the compressors at the proposed Bluff 

Creek and Sycamore Compressor Stations would be electrically driven, the only source of air 

contaminants would be the diesel-fuel-fired emergency backup generators. Operation of these 

emergency generators would be limited to 500 hours per year, and air emissions associated with 

operation of these emergency generators would meet all federal or state air quality requirements.

Noise

Local traffic and farming activities are the primary sources of existing noise in the rural areas 

where the pipeline would be located. Noise from operation of the electric-powered Bluff Creek 

and Sycamore compressor stations should not create a significant noise impact at the nearest 

Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs) to each station. During construction of the Guardian II Pipeline, 

neighbors in the vicinity of the construction right-of-way would hear the daytime construction 

activities, but there would be no nighttime construction except during a few days at the Rock 

River and Fox River crossings where the HDD technique would be used. Predicted noise levels 

due to operation of the two compressor stations and construction of the two river crossings using 

the HDD technique would not exceed the day-night sound level (Ldn) limit of 55 decibels on the 

A-weighted scale (dBA). 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-9 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 

49, United States Code Chapter 601. The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 

of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 192 of 49 CFR specifically addresses 

natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the G-II Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the 

public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. Because the G-II Project would 

be built according to DOT standards, we do not believe it would be a threat to public safety, and 

no specific mitigation is recommended. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts 

The original Guardian Pipeline (G-I) consisting of 150 miles of pipeline was approved by FERC 

in 2002 and was constructed in 2002 and 2003 from Joliet, Illinois to Ixonia, Wisconsin. If the 

G-II Project was approved by the Commission and constructed, it would extend northward from 

Ixonia where the previous project had ended, and the two compressor stations would be 

constructed along the previously constructed pipeline. 

If the G-II Project was approved by the Commission and the Project proceeded to construction, 

several other projects could also be constructed within the same general area and same general 

time span. Additionally, the type of project, construction methods, and impacts would be 

similar. Though the nonjurisdictional We Energies and WPS lateral projects identified in our 

analysis would also be constructed within a similar time span using similar construction 

methods, any potential contribution to cumulative impacts of the proposed Project would be 

negligible due to the small scope of those projects. Also, the ComEd Sycamore Power Line and 

Transformer/Substation and the ATC Bluff Creek Transformer/Substation would be constructed 

to bring electric power to Guardian’s compressor stations. The transformer/substations would be 

built within the footprint of the compressor stations, thereby minimizing additional impact. The 

2.5-mile, 138 kV ComEd Power Line to the Sycamore Compressor Station would be constructed 

within a new power line easement disturbing 45 acres. The unrelated projects, which include the 

Forward Wind Energy Center, Green Field Blue Sky Wind Energy, Holsum Elm Dairy, and 

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm projects, identified in our cumulative impact analysis would be of a 

different nature than the proposed Project, but would affect similar resources. Each of these 

unrelated projects would result in temporary and minor effects during construction, but each 

project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on the human environment and to 

wetlands, waterbodies, protected and special status species, and other sensitive resources. 

Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts on sensitive resources resulting from these projects 

would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to the avoidance or minimization of cumulative 

impacts. We therefore consider that the potential cumulative impacts of the previous G-I and the 

proposed G-II Projects under our review have been or would be minimized. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor, and we 

have included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the Project. The environmental impacts associated with the G-II Project would 

be minimized by careful project routing, utilization of HDD techniques to avoid and minimize 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-10

impacts on some sensitive resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. 

Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed 

Project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

The EIS addresses alternatives to the proposed actions before the FERC. The proposed action 

before the FERC is to consider issuing to Guardian a Section 7 Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity for a new natural gas pipeline. Section 3.0 of the EIS clearly describes the criteria 

for alternative selection. 

We considered the alternatives of no action or postponed action, pipeline system alternatives and 

route alternatives. While the no action or postponed action alternatives would eliminate or 

postpone the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project 

would not be met. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of the use of existing pipeline 

systems. None of the existing facilities has the ability to add the capacity proposed in this 

Project. We also analyzed and evaluated five pipeline route alternatives, 15 route variations 

(including eight minor variations), and four modifications. Our alternatives analysis included the 

evaluation of five meter station location alternatives and two compressor station location 

alternatives. None were considered to be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 

Based upon this alternatives analysis, we have determined that the proposed G-II Project, as 

modified by our recommended mitigation, is the preferred alternative that can meet the project 

objectives. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission issues their authorization for the proposed Project, we recommend that the 

Commission’s Order (Order) include the following measures as conditions to the Order section. 

We believe these measures would further mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

1. Guardian shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in 

its application, supplemental filings (including responses to staff information requests), 

and as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), unless modified by the 

Order. Guardian must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with 

the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary); 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that 

modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to 

ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of 

the Project. This authority shall allow: 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-11 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary 

(including stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the 

environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from Project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Guardian shall file an affirmative statement with the 

Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, 

environmental inspectors (EIs), and contractor personnel will be informed of the EI’s 

authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental 

mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with 

construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility location shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets, and shall include all of the staff's recommended facility locations. As 

soon as they are available, and prior to the start of construction, Guardian shall file 

with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not 

smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All 

requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific 

clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these alignment 

maps/sheets. 

Guardian’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under Natural Gas Act (NGA) 

Section 7(h) in any condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent 

with these authorized facilities and locations. Guardian’s right of eminent domain 

granted under NGA Section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural 

gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to 

transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Guardian shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or 

facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other 

areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings 

with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in 

writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, and documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources 

or federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any 

other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be 

clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in 

writing by the Director of OEP prior to construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations required herein or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requirements, which do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility 

location changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-12

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or would affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of this certificate and prior to construction, 

Guardian shall file an initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP describing how Guardian would implement the 

mitigation measures required by the Order. Guardian must file revisions to the plan as 

schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Guardian will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and 

construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite 

construction and inspection personnel; 

b. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that 

sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

d. what training and instructions Guardian will give to all personnel involved with 

construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the Project progresses 

and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the 

training session; 

e. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Guardian's organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Guardian will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) 

chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Guardian shall employ one or more EIs per construction spread. The EIs shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigative measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract and any other authorizing 

document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies; and 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-13 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Guardian shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all 

construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete for each phase of 

the Project. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and 

state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. the current construction status of each spread, work planned for the following 

reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally sensitive areas; 

b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by 

the EI(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the 

Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies); 

c. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance 

with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; 

and 

f. copies of any correspondence received by Guardian from other federal, state or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Guardian's response. 

9. Guardian must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before 

commencing service for each phase of the Project. Such authorization will only be 

granted following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by 

the Project are proceeding satisfactorily. 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Guardian shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, 

and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the certificate conditions Guardian has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project 

where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously 

identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

11. Guardian shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. 

The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying 

and resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of 

the Project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to construction, Guardian shall 

mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by 

the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Guardian shall: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-14

(2) instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Guardian’s Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Guardian’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline 

at (888) 889-8030, or hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Guardian shall include in its weekly status report a copy of a table that 

contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected 

property and approximate location by MP; 

(3) the description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

12. To ensure that restoration in agricultural lands is satisfactorily completed, Guardian shall 

provide copies of the third-party monitoring reports to FERC staff. 

13. To minimize the potential introduction of rock into agricultural land from blasting, 

Guardian shall file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of the OEP 

prior to construction a blasting plan detailing the procedures to be used during blasting 

to prevent the introduction of blast rock into agricultural lands. 

14. Guardian shall file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP 

prior to construction the final plan for the crossing of Duck Creek with records of 

consultation with the Oneida Nation. 

15. Guardian shall file with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP 

compensatory mitigation plans or plans to minimize impacts on sweet flag and black ash 

on the Oneida Reservation near Duck Creek during construction and operation of the 

pipeline developed in consultation with the Oneida Nation prior to construction. The 

plans shall include records of consultation with the Oneida Nation. 

16. In the event the planned HDD crossing of the Fox and/or Rock Rivers fail, Guardian shall 

develop final alternative crossing plans in consultation with the COE, EPA, and WDNR. 

The final alternative crossing plans shall be filed with the Secretary for review and for 

written approval from the Director of the OEP prior to conducting any such alternative 

crossing. 

17. If a state-protected species or its habitat are found within the proposed construction rightof-way or construction work areas, Guardian shall consult with WDNR regarding survey 

methodology, and develop mitigation plans, if necessary, to avoid or minimize impacts to 

that species. Guardian shall file the results of any state-threatened and endangered 

species surveys (including survey methodology) and mitigation plans with the Secretary 

prior to construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5-15 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

18. For all residences within 50 feet of the construction work area Guardian should: 

a. leave mature trees and landscaping within the edge of the construction work area, 

unless necessary for safe operation; 

b. restore all lawn areas and landscaping within the construction work area consistent 

with the requirements of our Plan immediately after backfilling the trench; and 

c. fence the edge of the construction work area adjacent to the residence for a distance 

of 100 feet on either side of the residence to ensure that construction equipment and 

materials, including the spoil pile, remain within the construction work area. 

For all residences closer than 25 feet of the construction work area Guardian shall file a 

site-specific plan that includes: 

a. a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced pipeline 

separation, centerline adjustments, use of stove-pipe or drag-section techniques, 

working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, etc.), and a site plan that 

shows: 

(1) the location of the residence in relation to the new pipeline and, where 

appropriate, the existing pipelines; 

(2) the edge of the construction work area; 

(3) the edge of the new permanent right-of-way; and 

(4) other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies. 

b. a description of how Guardian would ensure that the trench is not excavated until the 

pipe is ready for installation and that the trench is backfilled immediately after 

installation. 

19. To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing 

regulations are met, Guardian shall defer construction of facilities, including the use of 

staging, storage, and temporary work areas, and new or to be improved access roads 

until: 

a. Guardian files with the Secretary all additional required cultural resource inventory 

and evaluation reports, and necessary avoidance or treatment plans; 

b. Guardian files copies of comments from the Wisconsin SHPO and interested Indian 

tribes on all reports and plans; 

c. the ACHP has been provided an opportunity to comment if any historic properties 

would be adversely affected; and 

d. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies Guardian 

in writing that it may proceed with treatment or construction. 

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant 

pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.” 

20. To ensure that there will be no excessive impacts to noise quality at the nearest NSAs as 

a result of compressor station operations, Guardian shall make all reasonable efforts to 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-16

ensure its predicted noise levels from the compressor stations are not exceeded at NSAs 

and file noise surveys showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

placing the compressor stations in service. If the noise attributable to the operation of 

compressor stations exceeds 55 dBA Ldn at an NSA, Guardian shall file a report on what 

changes are needed and shall install additional noise controls to meet the level within 

1 year of the in-service date. Guardian shall confirm compliance with these requirements 

by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs 

the additional noise controls. 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
i Table of Contents

GUARDIAN EXPANSION AND EXTENSION PROJECT 

DRAFT EIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................ES-1 

PROJECT BACKGROUND .........................................................................................ES-1 

PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................................................ES-1 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS .................................................................ES-2 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...................................................................................ES-3 

MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................ES-3 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...............................................................................ES-4 

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................ES-4 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. vi 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii 

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................x 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................... 1-2 

1.1.1 Projected Domestic Demand for Natural Gas..........................................1-2 

1.1.2 Projected Regional and Local Demand for Natural Gas..........................1-4 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .. 1-5 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS............. 1-6 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT................................................................ 1-8 

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES .............................................................. 1-9 

1.5.1 Background.............................................................................................. 1-9 

1.5.2 Conclusions............................................................................................1-12 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION...................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Pipeline .................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities............................................................................2-2 

2.1.2.1 Compressor Stations .................................................................2-2 

2.1.2.2 Meter Stations ...........................................................................2-2 

2.1.2.3 Launcher/Receiver Facilities ....................................................2-2 

2.1.2.4 Mainline Valves........................................................................2-2 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS................................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.1 Pipeline .................................................................................................... 2-4 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities............................................................................2-5 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Table of Contents ii 

2.2.2.1 Compressor Stations .................................................................2-5 

2.2.2.2 Meter Stations ...........................................................................2-5 

2.2.2.3 Launcher/Receiver Facilities ..................................................2-13 

2.2.2.4 Mainline Valves......................................................................2-13 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas ..................................................................................2-13 

2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Work Areas ........................................2-13 

2.2.3.2 Access Roads and Contractor Yard ........................................2-13 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.................................................................. 2-16 

2.3.1 Pipeline and Associated Aboveground Facilities ..................................2-17 

2.3.1.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures .............................2-17 

2.3.1.2 Special Pipeline Construction Techniques..............................2-21 

2.3.1.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures.....................2-25 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE....................................................................... 2-25 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING ......................... 2-25 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................................................. 2-26 

2.6.1 Pipeline .................................................................................................. 2-26 

2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities..........................................................................2-27 

2.7 SAFETY CONTROLS ...................................................................................... 2-28 

2.7.1 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems ........................................2-28 

2.7.2 Emergency Response Procedures ..........................................................2-28 

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT .................................................... 2-28 

2.9 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ............................................................ 2-29 

2.9.1 Description of the Proposed Nonjurisdictional Facilities ......................2-29 

2.9.1.1 We Energies Hartford/West Bend Project .............................. 2-29 

2.9.1.2 We Energies Fox Valley Project............................................. 2-31 

2.9.1.3 WPS Sheboygan Project ......................................................... 2-31 

2.9.1.4 WPS Chilton Project............................................................... 2-31 

2.9.1.5 WPS Denmark Project ............................................................ 2-32 

2.9.1.6 WPS Southwest Green Bay Project ........................................2-32 

2.9.1.7 WPS West Green Bay Project................................................. 2-32 

2.9.1.8 ATC Bluff Creek Transformer/Substation Project ................. 2-32 

2.9.1.9 ComEd Sycamore Power Line, Transformer/Substation........2-33 

2.9.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts .....................................................2-33 

2.9.2.1 Water and Water Resources....................................................2-33 

2.9.2.2 Vegetation............................................................................... 2-34 

2.9.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................2-35 

2.9.2.4 Land Use ................................................................................. 2-36 

2.9.2.5 Cultural Resources..................................................................2-37 

2.9.3 Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facilities............................................... 2-37 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................ 3-1 

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES............................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives.....................................................3-3 

3.3 PIPELINE AND ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES ................ 3-8 

3.3.1 Initial Siting .............................................................................................3-8 

3.3.2 Preliminary Route ..................................................................................3-10 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
iii Table of Contents

3.3.3 Pipeline Route Alternatives ...................................................................3-11 

3.3.3.1 Pipeline Route Variations .......................................................3-26 

3.3.3.2 Landowner Modifications....................................................... 3-51 

3.3.4 Aboveground Facility Site Alternatives................................................. 3-56 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.1 Geological Setting....................................................................................4-1 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................4-5 

4.1.3 Paleontological Resources ....................................................................... 4-6 

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards.....................................................................................4-7 

4.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faulting.............................................................4-7 

4.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction.......................................................................4-7 

4.1.4.3 Subsidence ................................................................................4-8 

4.1.4.4 Karst Terrain .............................................................................4-8 

4.1.4.5 Landslides ................................................................................. 4-9 

4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS ................................................................................. 4-9 

4.2.1 Soil Composition .....................................................................................4-9 

4.2.2 Soil Limitations......................................................................................4-10 

4.2.2.1 Prime Farmland.......................................................................4-10 

4.2.2.2 Hydric Soils ............................................................................4-13 

4.2.2.3 Compaction Potential..............................................................4-13 

4.2.2.4 Erosion Potential..................................................................... 4-15 

4.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential ............................................................ 4-16 

4.2.2.6 Depth to Bedrock and Stony/Rocky Soils ..............................4-17 

4.2.2.7 Topsoil Depth.......................................................................... 4-18 

4.2.2.8 Contaminated Soils .................................................................4-18 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 4-19 

4.3.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 4-19 

4.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Conditions...........................................4-19 

4.3.1.2 General Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation .......................4-22 

4.3.1.3 Site-Specific Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation ...............4-24 

4.3.2 Surface Water.........................................................................................4-25 

4.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources..........................................4-25 

4.3.2.2 General Surface Water Impacts and Mitigation......................4-26 

4.3.2.3 Site-Specific Surface Water Impacts and Mitigation..............4-30 

4.3.2.4 Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................4-33 

4.4 VEGETATION.................................................................................................. 4-34 

4.4.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................ 4-34 

4.4.1.1 Existing Wetland Resources ...................................................4-35 

4.4.1.2 General Construction and Operational Impacts......................4-36 

4.4.1.3 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures..................4-37 

4.4.2 Upland Vegetation .................................................................................4-39 

4.4.2.1 Existing Vegetation Resources ...............................................4-40 

4.4.2.2 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value ..........4-41 

4.4.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation.............................................. 4-42 

4.4.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation......................................4-44 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Table of Contents iv 

4.4.2.5 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value..........4-45 

4.5 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES.................................................... 4-46 

4.5.1 Wildlife ..................................................................................................4-46 

4.5.1.1 Potential Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...............4-49 

4.5.2 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................4-53 

4.5.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources .................................................... 4-53 

4.5.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation.............................................. 4-55 

4.5.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation......................................4-57 

4.6 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES............................................................................................................ 4-59 

4.6.1 Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species ......4-61 

4.6.2 State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species....................................4-65 

4.6.2.1 Wisconsin................................................................................4-65 

4.6.2.2 Illinois .....................................................................................4-69 

4.6.3 Conclusions on Threatened and Endangered Species............................ 4-69 

4.7 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES .......................... 4-70 

4.7.1 Land Use ................................................................................................ 4-70 

4.7.1.1 Agricultural Land.................................................................... 4-73 

4.7.1.2 Open Land............................................................................... 4-74 

4.7.1.3 Forest Land .............................................................................4-75 

4.7.1.4 Open Water .............................................................................4-75 

4.7.1.5 Commercial/Industrial Land ...................................................4-76 

4.7.2 General Land Use Impacts and Mitigation ............................................4-76 

4.7.3 Site-Specific Land Use Impacts and Mitigation ....................................4-77 

4.7.3.1 Agricultural Land.................................................................... 4-77 

4.7.3.2 Open Land............................................................................... 4-78 

4.7.3.3 Forest Land .............................................................................4-79 

4.7.3.4 Open Water .............................................................................4-79 

4.7.3.5 Commercial/Industrial Land ...................................................4-79 

4.7.4 Existing and Planned Residences and Structures................................... 4-80 

4.7.4.1 Existing Residences and Structures ........................................4-80 

4.7.4.2 Planned Residences and Structures.........................................4-82 

4.7.5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas ................................................... 4-83 

4.7.5.1 Niagara Escarpment................................................................4-83 

4.7.5.2 Oneida Nation of Indians of Wisconsin..................................4-84 

4.7.5.3 Kettle Moraine Drive ..............................................................4-85 

4.7.6 Visual Resources....................................................................................4-85 

4.7.6.1 Current Viewshed ................................................................... 4-86 

4.7.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................4-86 

4.7.7 Hazardous Waste Sites...........................................................................4-88 

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS........................................................................................ 4-89 

4.8.1 Population ..............................................................................................4-89 

4.8.1.1 Environmental Justice.............................................................4-90 

4.8.2 Economy and Employment....................................................................4-92 

4.8.3 Housing.................................................................................................. 4-94 

4.8.4 Public Services....................................................................................... 4-95 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
v Table of Contents

4.8.5 Property Values...................................................................................... 4-96 

4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC............................................................. 4-97 

4.9.1 Existing Transportation, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures................. 4-97 

4.9.2 Traffic, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures............................................ 4-98 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 4-99 

4.10.1 Results of Cultural Resource Surveys....................................................4-99 

4.10.1.1 Wisconsin................................................................................ 4-99 

4.10.1.2 Illinois ...................................................................................4-100 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan ...........................................................4-100 

4.10.3 Native American Consultations ........................................................... 4-100 

4.10.3.1 Consultations with the Bureau of Indian Affairs .................. 4-101 

4.10.3.2 Consultations with the Oneida Nation .................................. 4-101 

4.10.3.3 Consultations with Other Interested Indian Tribes ............... 4-101 

4.10.4 Compliance with NHPA ...................................................................... 4-102 

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ......................................................................... 4-104 

4.11.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 4-104 

4.11.1.1 Regional Climate .................................................................. 4-104 

4.11.1.2 Existing Air Quality..............................................................4-104 

4.11.1.3 Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality.............................4-105 

4.11.1.4 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation...................................... 4-111 

4.11.2 Noise .................................................................................................... 4-112 

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels ...........................................................4-113 

4.11.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation............................................ 4-113 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY....................................................................... 4-116 

4.12.1 Safety Standards................................................................................... 4-116 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data ........................................................................4-119 

4.12.3 Impacts on Public Safety ..................................................................... 4-122 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................. 4-123 

4.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects ....................................................4-125 

4.13.2 Nonjurisdictional Facilities.................................................................. 4-126 

4.13.3 Unrelated Projects................................................................................ 4-127 

4.13.4 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action........................4-128 

4.13.4.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies ................................................... 4-128 

4.13.4.2 Vegetation and Wildlife........................................................ 4-129 

4.13.4.3 Land Use ............................................................................... 4-130 

4.13.4.4 Air Quality ............................................................................ 4-131 

4.13.4.5 Noise ..................................................................................... 4-131 

4.13.5 Conclusions on Cumulative Impact..................................................... 4-132 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 5-1

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................. 5-1 

5.1.1 Geology.................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Soils and Sediments ................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1.3 Water Resources ...................................................................................... 5-2 

5.1.4 Vegetation................................................................................................ 5-2 

5.1.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources .............................................................. 5-4 

5.1.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species.................... 5-5 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Table of Contents vi 

5.1.7 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources ..........................................5-5 

5.1.8 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................... 5-6 

5.1.9 Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................... 5-7 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources...................................................................................5-7 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise ..............................................................................5-8 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety............................................................................... 5-9 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................5-9 

5.1.14 Alternatives............................................................................................ 5-10 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION........................................ 5-10 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Draft EIS Distribution List 

Appendix B Facility Location Maps 

Appendix C Additional Temporary Workspaces 

Appendix D Guardian’s Upland, Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

Appendix E Guardian’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Appendix F Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan 

Appendix G Road and Railroad Crossings 

Appendix H Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Soils 

Appendix I Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Appendix J Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan for Inadvertent Releases of 

Drilling Fluid 

Appendix K Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Appendix L Cultural Resources Consultations 

Appendix M References and Contacts 

Appendix N List of Preparers 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
vii Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1 General Project Location Map ...................................................................1-3 

Figure 2.2-1 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (30-inch-diameter 

Pipeline) .....................................................................................................2-6 

Figure 2.2-2 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section (20-inch-diameter 

Pipeline) .....................................................................................................2-7 

Figure 2.2-3 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section in Forested Uplands and Wetland 

Areas...........................................................................................................2-8 

Figure 2.2-4 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing 

Power Line (30-inch-diameter Pipeline) ....................................................2-9 

Figure 2.2-5 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing 

Power Line (20-inch-diameter Pipeline) ..................................................2-10 

Figure 2.2-6 Typical 110-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing 

Pipeline (30-inch-diameter Pipeline) .......................................................2-11 

Figure 2.2-7 Typical 80-foot Right-of-Way Cross Section Adjacent to an Existing 

Pipeline (20-inch-diameter Pipeline) .......................................................2-12 

Figure 2.2-8 Fond du Lac Pipe/Contractors Yard.........................................................2-15 

Figure 2.3-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence..................................................2-18 

Figure 2.3-2 Typical 20-inch-diameter and 30-inch-diameter Pipeline Road Bored 

Crossing....................................................................................................2-22 

Figure 2.9.1 Location of the Nonjurisdictional Facilities.............................................2-30 

Figure 3.2-1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives .......................................................3-5 

Figure 3.2-2 Existing ANR Pipeline System and Proposed G-II Pipeline Route ...........3-6 

Figure 3.3-1 Initial Pipeline Routes Considered.............................................................3-9 

Figure 3.3-2 Weber Alternatives A and B ....................................................................3-12 

Figure 3.3-3 Neuberg Alternatives A and B .................................................................3-14 

Figure 3.3-4 Byron Alternatives A and B .....................................................................3-16 

Figure 3.3-5 Lomira Alternatives A, B and C...............................................................3-18 

Figure 3.3-6 Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B and C .................................................3-23 

Figure 3.3-7 Rock River South Variation A and B.......................................................3-27 

Figure 3.3-8 Woodland Creek Variations A and B.......................................................3-29 

Figure 3.3-9 Brothers 4 Variation A and B...................................................................3-32 

Figure 3.3-10 Hass Variations A and B ..........................................................................3-33 

Figure 3.3-11 Johnsburg Variation A and B ...................................................................3-35 

Figure 3.3-12 ANR Corridor Variation A and B ............................................................3-40 

Figure 3.3-13 Oneida Variation A and B........................................................................3-44 

Figure 3.3-14 Vissers Variations A and B ......................................................................3-49 

Figure 3.3-15 Baus Modification A ................................................................................3-52 

Figure 3.3-16 Tetzlaff Modification ...............................................................................3-53 

Figure 3.3-17 Van Rossum Modification .......................................................................3-55 

Figure 3.3-18 Sheboygan Meter Station Alternatives.....................................................3-57 

Figure 3.3-19 Chilton Meter Station Alternatives ..........................................................3-59 

Figure 3.3-20 Denmark Meter Station Alternatives........................................................3-60 

Figure 3.3-21 West Green Bay Meter Station Alternatives ............................................3-62 

Figure 3.3-22 Sycamore Compressor Station Alternatives.............................................3-63 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Table of Contents viii

Figure 3.3-23 Bluff Creek Compressor Station Alternatives..........................................3-65 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.3-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the G-II Project............1-7 

Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping 

Process for the Proposed G-II Project ......................................................1-10 

Table 1.5-1 Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facility Projects for the G-II Project ......1-11 

Table 2.1.1-1 Proposed Delivery Points/Interconnects and Meter Station Locations......2-1 

Table 2.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements for Proposed Facilities ..........................2-3 

Table 2.2.1-1 Locations Where the Proposed G-II Pipeline Would be Adjacent to 

Existing Rights-of-Way .............................................................................2-4 

Table 2.2.3.2-1 Access Roads Associated with the G-II Project.......................................2-14 

Table 3.3.1-1 Guardian Pipeline Expansion and Extension Project Summary of 

Preliminary Pipeline Routes.......................................................................3-8 

Table 3.3.3-1 Comparison of Weber Alternatives A and B ...........................................3-13 

Table 3.3.3-2 Comparison of Neuberg Alternatives A and B ........................................3-15 

Table 3.3.3-3 Comparison of Byron Alternatives A and B ............................................3-17 

Table 3.3.3-4 Comparison of Lomira Alternatives A, B, and C.....................................3-21 

Table 3.3.3-5 Comparison of Fox River Trail Alternatives A, B and C.........................3-22 

Table 3.3.3.1-1 Comparison of Rock River South Variations A and B ............................3-28 

Table 3.3.3.1-2 Comparison of the Woodland Creek Variations A and B........................3-28 

Table 3.3.3.1-3 Comparison of the Two Rubicon Meter Station Alternatives Along 

Woodland Creek Variations A and B.......................................................3-30 

Table 3.3.3.1-4 Comparison of Brothers 4 Variations A and B ........................................3-31 

Table 3.3.3.1-5 Comparison of Hass Variations A and B .................................................3-34 

Table 3.3.3.1-6 Comparison of the Johnsburg Variations A and B...................................3-39 

Table 3.3.3.1-7 Comparison of ANR Corridor Variations A and B..................................3-42 

Table 3.3.3.1-8 Comparison of the Fox Valley Meter Station Sites Along ANR 

Corridor Variations A and B ....................................................................3-42 

Table 3.3.3.1-9 Comparison of Oneida Variations A and B .............................................3-48 

Table 3.3.3.1-10 Comparison of Vissers Variations A and B .............................................3-48 

Table 3.3.3.1-11 Minor Variations Incorporated by Guardian into the Proposed Route ....3-50 

Table 4.1.1-1 Surficial Geology Along the Proposed Pipeline Route..............................4-2 

Table 4.1.1-2 Bedrock Geology Along the Proposed Pipeline Route ..............................4-3 

Table 4.1.1-3 Shallow Bedrock Along the Proposed Pipeline Route ..............................4-4 

Table 4.1.2-1 Mineral Resources within 2,000 feet of the Proposed Pipeline Route.......4-6 

Table 4.2.2-1 Acreage of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Proposed Pipeline 

Route .......................................................................................................4-11 

Table 4.2.2.1-1 Potential Three-Lift Soil Areas Along the Proposed Pipeline Route.......4-12 

Table 4.2.2.2-1 Organic Soils Along the Proposed Pipeline Route...................................4-14 

Table 4.2.2.4-1 Topsoil Depths and Slope Classes Along the Proposed Pipeline Route .4-16 

Table 4.3.1.1-1 List of Private Wells and Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the 

Construction Right-of-Way......................................................................4-21 

Table 4.3.1.1-2 List of Contaminated Sites Located Within 0.5 Mile of the 

Construction Right-of-Way......................................................................4-22 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
ix Table of Contents

Table 4.4.1.1-1 Wetlands Affected by the G-II Pipeline Project ......................................4-36 

Table 4.4.1.3-1 Additional Temporary Work Spaces Within 50 Feet of Wetlands ..........4-39 

Table 4.4.2-1 Forested Land Use in the Project Area.....................................................4-40 

Table 4.4.2.1-1 Upland Vegetation Cover Types Occurring Along the Proposed G-II 

Pipeline.....................................................................................................4-41 

Table 4.4.2.4-1 Acres of Upland Vegetation Types Affected by Construction and 

Operation of the Proposed G-II Project ...................................................4-44 

Table 4.5.1-1 Representative Wildlife Species within Existing Vegetation Types .......4-47 

Table 4.5.1.1-1 Subset of Migratory Nesting Bird Species that Could Potentially be 

Affected by the Proposed Project.............................................................4-51 

Table 4.5.2.1-1 Representative Fish Species in Warm Water and Cold Water Fisheries 

Along the G-II Pipeline Route .................................................................4-53 

Table 4.6-1 Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

Eliminated from Further Consideration for the G-II Project....................4-59 

Table 4.6.1-1 Federal and State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project.................4-61 

Table 4.7.1-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed 

G-II Pipeline Project.................................................................................4-71 

Table 4.7.1-2 Land Uses Crossed by Pipeline Facilities (in miles)................................4-72 

Table 4.7.4.1-1 Structures Within 50 Feet of the Proposed Construction Work Areas of 

the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project...........................................................4-81 

Table 4.8.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Proposed GII Pipeline Project.....................................................................................4-90 

Table 4.8.1.1-1 2004 Minority Populations for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project .........4-91 

Table 4.8.1.1-2 2003 Low-Income Populations for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project...4-92 

Table 4.8.3-1 2000 Housing Characteristics for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project.....4-94 

Table 4.8.4-1 Public Services for the Proposed G-II Pipeline Project ...........................4-96 

Table 4.11.1.2-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Ambient Background 

Concentrations........................................................................................4-105 

Table 4.11.1.3-1 Potential Emissions for Proposed G-II Compressor Stations (in tons per 

year) .......................................................................................................4-107 

Table 4.11.1.4-1 Compressor Station Construction Emissions ........................................4-112 

Table 4.11.2.2-1 Estimated Noise at NSAs due to HDD Operations ................................4-114 

Table 4.11.2.2-2 Noise Impact Analysis at the Nearest Noise Sensitive Areas ................4-115 

Table 4.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause ................................................4-120 

Table 4.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984) ...................................4-121 

Table 4.12.2-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)............................4-121 

Table 4.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities—Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering 

Systems ..................................................................................................4-122 

Table 4.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths ..............................................................4-123 

Table 4.13-1 Existing or Planned Projects that Could Result in Cumulative Impact 

on Environmental Resources in the G-II Project Area...........................4-124 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Acronyms and Abbreviations x 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AM Agricultural Monitor 

AMP Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan 

ANR ANR Pipeline Company 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

API American Petroleum Institute 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ATC American Transmission Company, LLC 

ATWS additional temporary workspace 

BA biological assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcf billion cubic feet 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BMP best management practice 

BOD biochemical oxygen demand 

Btu British thermal units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CN Canadian National Railway 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ComEd Commonwealth Edison Power Company 

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CW Cold Water Communities 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DATCP Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

ECM Environmental Compliance Manager 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Environmental Repair Program 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
xi Acronyms and Abbreviations

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAL Fish and Aquatic Life 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Forward Forward Energy L.L.C. 

Fox River Trail Fox River State Recreational Trail 

FPP Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program 

FR Federal Register 

FRPP Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-II Project or Project Guardian Expansion and Extension Project 

GIS geographic information system 

gpm gallons per minute 

GLGT Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company 

Guardian Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drilling 

HDD Contingency Plan HDD Contingency Plan for Inadvertent Releases of Drilling Fluid 

HEL highly erodible land 

hp horsepower 

IAC Illinois Administrative Code 

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

JULIE Joint Utility Locating Information for Excavators 

kPa kilopascals 

kV kilovolt 

LAL Limited Aquatic Life 

LDCs local distribution companies 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LFF Limited Forage Fish Communities 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LPG liquefied petroleum gas 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

LWCD Land and Water Conservation Department 

m3 cubic meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation 

Facilities 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Acronyms and Abbreviations xii

MLV mainline valve 

MMcfd million cubic feet per day 

MMIS Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MP milepost 

mph miles per hour 

msl mean sea level 

MW megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAPs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPL Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America 

NHI Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNSR Non-Attainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOP National Organic Program 

NNG Northern Natural Gas Company 

NOx nitrogen oxide 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

O3 ozone 

OEP FERC’s Office of Energy Projects 

OERW Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters 

Oneida Nation Sovereign Oneida Nation of Wisconsin 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

Order Commission’s Order 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PFO Palustrine Forested 

PHEL potentially highly erodible land 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Plan Upland, Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

PM10 particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
xiii Acronyms and Abbreviations

ppm parts per million 

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

PSAP Public Service Archaeology Program of the University of Illinois 

PSC Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psi pounds per square inch 

PSS Palustrine Scrub-shrub 

RFP Request for Proposals 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

TES threatened and endangered species 

TES Work Plan Threatened and Endangered Species Work Plan and Habitat Assessment 

THPO Oneida Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TMDLs total maximum daily loads 

tpy tons per year 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VGTC Viking Gas Transmission Company 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VOL volatile organic liquids 

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

WEG wind erodibility group 

WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 

WMU Watershed Management Unit 

WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

WPS Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSOR Wisconsin and Southern Railroad Company 

WWFF Warm Water Forage Fish Communities 

WWI Wisconsin Wetland Inventory 

WWSF Warm Water Sport Fish Communities 

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007
Document Content(s)

Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF................................................1

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF....................................6

Table_of_Contents.PDF....................................................17

Executive_Summary.PDF....................................................18

Section_1_Introduction.PDF...............................................26

Section_2_Description_of_the_Proposed_Action.PDF ........................45

Section_3_Alternatives.PDF...............................................70

Section_4_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ....................................89

Section_5_Conclusions-Recommendations.PDF ...............................94

Appendix_A_Distribution_List.PDF.........................................97

Appendix_B_Facility_Location_Maps.PDF...................................102

Appendix_C_Add'l_Temporary_Workspaces.PDF ..............................107

Appendix_D_UECRM_Plan.PDF...............................................112

Appendix_E_WWCM_Plan.PDF................................................120

Appendix_F_SPCC_Plan.PDF................................................128

Appendix_G_Road_Railroad_Crossings.PDF..................................132

Appendix_H_Unanticipated_Discovery.PDF..................................136

Appendix_I_Waterbodies_Crossed.PDF......................................140

Appendix_J_HDDC_Plan_Inadvertent_Releases.PDF...........................142

Appendix_K_Wetlands_Crossed.PDF.........................................154

Appendix_L_Cultural_Resources_Consultations.PDF.........................191

Appendix_M_References_and_Contacts.PDF..................................245

Appendix_N_List_of_Preparers.PDF........................................377

18008420.DOC............................................................393

Document Accession #: 20070413-4001 Filed Date: 04/13/2007