[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59292-59299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22241]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4849]


Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary 
Environmental Assessment: Express Pipeline in Montana and Wyoming

AGENCY: Department of State, Office of International Energy and 
Commodities Policy.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to Express 
Pipeline LLC (``Express'') to authorize it to construct, connect, 
operate and maintain six new pump stations for an existing 24-inch 
outer diameter pipeline to convey crude petroleum from Hardisty, 
Alberta in Canada, to Casper, Wyoming. The Department of State (the 
``Department'') issued a Presidential Permit on August 30, 1996 to 
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the 24-inch-diameter buried 
steel pipeline that is currently capable of transporting 172,000 bpd of 
petroleum from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming. On behalf 
of Express, Westech Environmental Services of Helena, Montana, prepared 
a draft environmental assessment (``EA'') for the proposed action under 
the guidance and supervision of the Department. The Department placed a 
notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 33691 (June 16, 2004)) regarding 
the availability for inspection of the Express permit application and 
the draft environmental assessment, and initiating a 30-day public 
comment period. No public comments were submitted on the draft 
environmental assessment.
    Numerous Federal and State agencies independently reviewed the 
Express Permit application and the draft environmental assessment. They 
include: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 
Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Department of 
Energy.
    Comments received from the Federal and State agencies were either 
responded to directly, or addressed directly by incorporation into the 
analysis contained in the draft environmental assessment. In addition 
to inclusion in the analyses of impacts and risks, Federal and State 
agency comments were used to develop measures to be undertaken by 
Express to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental 
impacts, which were included as commitments by Express and its operator 
Terasen Pipelines, Inc., in the EA and are to be included in the permit 
to be issued.
    The summary environmental assessment, comments submitted by the 
Federal and State agencies, responses to those comments, and the draft 
environmental assessment, as amended, together constitute the Final 
Environmental Assessment of the proposed action.

Introduction

    The Express Pipeline is a 24-inch-diameter buried steel pipeline 
currently capable of transporting approximately 172,000 bpd of 
petroleum from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming. The U.S. 
portion of the Express Pipeline was authorized by a Presidential Permit 
issued by the Department on August 30, 1996 which permitted the 
operation of five pump stations, several mainline valves and other 
pipeline related facilities on the basis of an environmental impact 
statement that is an annex to this environmental assessment. The 
Express Pipeline was constructed in the fall and winter of 1996-1997, 
and became operational in early 1997.
    The 1996 Presidential Permit was issued to Express Pipeline 
partnership, a Delaware partnership. On August 1, 2001, Express 
Pipeline partnership filed a certificate of conversion to a limited 
liability company with the Delaware Secretary of State, thereby 
automatically converting to a domestic limited liability company, 
Express Pipeline LLC. On January 9, 2003, Encana Corporation of British 
Columbia sold Express Pipeline LLC to a consortium comprised of 
Terasen, Inc., of British Columbia, the Ontario Municipal Employees 
Retirement System and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board, each 
holding an equal one-third interest. Terasen Pipelines (USA) Inc., 
(``Terasen'') operates and maintains the existing system on behalf of 
Express Pipeline LLC.
    Express Pipeline LLC (``Express'') owns the portion of the Express 
Pipeline system from the Canada/U.S. border to Casper, Wyoming. Express 
is now applying for a Presidential Permit from the U.S. Department of 
State to construct, operate and maintain six additional pump stations 
on the Express Pipeline in Montana and Wyoming and to transfer the 
existing Presidential Permit from Express Pipeline partnership to 
Express (the ``Proposed Action''). This expansion of the capacity of 
the Express Pipeline in the United States would enable Express to 
respond to the market demand of Rocky Mountain and Midwest refiners for

[[Page 59293]]

increased access to a wider diversity and additional supply of Canadian 
petroleum.
    Subsequent engineering and operational analysis demonstrated that, 
in conjunction with the Proposed Action, two new 150,000 barrel storage 
tanks would be needed at the existing Casper Station Tank Farm located 
in Casper, Wyoming to accommodate the additional volumes of petroleum. 
The Casper Station Tank Farm is owned by Platte Pipe Line Company 
(``Platte''), an affiliate of Express. Because, according to Express, 
these storage tanks would be located beyond the terminus of the Express 
Pipeline system (i.e., they would be part of the Platte Pipeline 
system), they were not included within the scope of Express' proposal 
for which it seeks a Presidential Permit from the Department. After 
thoroughly considering all factors, the Department has concluded that 
the two additional storage tanks at the Casper Station Tank Farm are 
not within the scope of the Proposed Action and therefore will not be 
subject to the Presidential Permit, once issued. The environmental 
consequences of construction, operation and maintenance of the two 
storage tanks are evaluated in conjunction with the Proposed Action, 
however.

Purpose and Need

    The Express Pipeline was constructed to meet the requirements of 
refiners in the U.S., particularly in the Rocky Mountain and Midwest 
regions, by providing new sources of Canadian petroleum to numerous 
markets including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and 
Illinois. The Express Pipeline system is consistently operating at or 
near its maximum capacity in its current configuration. Market demand 
for additional Canadian petroleum supplies continues to grow. The 
Express Pipeline cannot meet the increased demand in its current 
configuration. The construction of additional pump stations along the 
existing, permitted Express Pipeline right-of-way (``ROW''), along with 
construction of two new storage tanks at the Casper Station Tank Farm, 
would result in the expansion of capacity necessary to enable Express 
Pipeline to transport additional petroleum to these markets. Without 
greater supply diversity and reliability of access to additional 
supply, the potential that the consumer will enjoy the availability of 
more competitively priced refined products could be substantially 
reduced and the refiners' ability to comply with more rigorous refined 
product specifications could be hindered.

Project Background

    The increased demand for Canadian petroleum was anticipated at the 
time the Express Pipeline was originally proposed in 1993. The entire 
Express Pipeline system from Hardisty, Alberta to Casper, Wyoming was 
originally designed for an ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 
barrels per day (``bpd''), depending on the characteristics of the 
petroleum being transported. Accordingly, the original design of the 
Express Pipeline system called for 11 pump stations to be located in 
the United States.
    Although the Express Pipeline system was designed for an ultimate 
capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, it was originally constructed to 
transport approximately 172,000 bpd, in response to the anticipated 
market demand in 1996. Consequently, only five of the 11 pump stations 
planned for location in the U.S. were needed when the pipeline was 
constructed.
    Mainline valves were installed at the locations of the six 
remaining pump stations in order to allow the future addition of the 
remaining pump stations without requiring substantial alteration or 
reconstruction of the pipeline itself.
    To maintain the hydraulic efficiency of the pipeline system as 
currently designed, the remaining six pump stations in the U.S. would 
need to be placed at the locations originally planned. Three of the six 
new pump stations will be located on public land administered by the 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (``BLM''). 
The BLM evaluated the environmental consequences of constructing and 
operating pipeline facilities in the Express Crude Oil Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement. Since environmental conditions at the 
three BLM-administered sites have not materially changed from those 
reflected in the DEIS, BLM issued a ``Notice to Proceed'' with 
construction of these pump stations on October 14, 2003.
    The three pump stations on non-federal land would all be 
constructed within the certified 500-foot-wide Express Pipeline 
corridor. Express owns or has obtained easements on the land at these 
three proposed pump stations. The general discussion of impacts and 
mitigation measures for the pump stations on non-federal land set forth 
below would also be relevant to the pump stations on Federal land.

Description of Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Analysis

    Three action alternatives were considered but eliminated from 
further analysis for the reasons discussed below.
(1) Looping the Express Pipeline
    ``Looping'' allows an existing pipeline system to expand its 
capacity by constructing a second, generally parallel pipeline 
alongside the existing pipeline. Looping is utilized when the existing 
pipeline does not have the potential capacity to transport additional 
petroleum. The two pipelines could be located in the same ROW, although 
they would be offset far enough so that construction activities on the 
second pipeline would not disturb the existing pipeline. The two 
pipelines may share certain facilities, such as an operations center.
    Looping is a major construction activity that has the potential for 
environmental impacts equal to those encountered during construction of 
the original pipeline. For example, if the Express Pipeline was looped 
only along the U.S. portion of the pipeline, approximately 515 miles of 
new pipeline along with pump stations, mainline valves and other 
facilities would have to be constructed. The pipeline would have to 
cross 137 named perennial, intermittent or ephemeral rivers and 
streams, as well as 354 named or unnamed drainages, irrigations canals 
or ditches. There could be potential impacts to land use activities 
along the pipeline, to wildlife and fisheries habitat (including 
endangered or threatened species), to soils and cultural resources, as 
well as socioeconomic burdens on the existing infrastructure, such as 
temporary housing and road systems. Looping would require a minimum of 
two years to design the new pipeline and facilities, conduct a thorough 
environmental impact analysis, obtain construction easements and other 
permits, acquire the pipe and other materials, hire pipeline 
contractors, construct the pipeline and rehabilitate disturbed areas 
after construction.
    In the case of the Express Pipeline, looping would not be necessary 
because the Express Pipeline system was conceived and designed for an 
ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, assuming 18 pump 
stations in Canada and the U.S. In other words, the Express Pipeline 
system could be expanded simply by adding nine pump stations (three in 
Canada and six in the U.S.) at sites where mainline valves were placed

[[Page 59294]]

during construction of the original pipeline. The potential 
environmental impacts associated with constructing an entire pipeline 
would be avoided, and additional petroleum supplies could reach U.S. 
refiners within a few months, rather than a minimum of two years. 
Consequently, looping was eliminated as a possible alternative from 
further analysis.
(2) A New Pipeline on an Alternative Route
    The Express Pipeline system transports petroleum from Hardisty, 
Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming, crossing the Canada/U.S. border 
near the Port of Wild Horse. As part of the pre-construction 
environmental impact analysis for the Express Pipeline, the Express 
Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluated three 
alternative points of entry into the U.S.: one located approximately 
120 miles west of Wild Horse, and the other two located approximately 
65 and 120 miles east of Wild Horse respectively. The Express Crude Oil 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement concluded that these alternative 
routes would add additional length and cost to the Express Pipeline 
system without providing any environmental or engineering benefits.
    These same three entry points are still potentially available for 
an alternative pipeline route. However, use of any of these entry 
points would require construction of a new pipeline on the Canada 
portion of the Express Pipeline system as well as a new pipeline on the 
U.S. portion (in effect, construction of an entirely new Express 
Pipeline system). Any such pipeline system would be longer than the 
existing pipeline, would require substantial engineering and 
environmental study and design in both Canada and the U.S. that would 
delay construction of the project for several years, and (as stated in 
the Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement) would not 
provide any environmental or engineering benefits on the U.S. portion 
of the project. In addition, as discussed previously, a new pipeline 
would not be necessary to obtain the additional petroleum supplies for 
U.S. refiners, since the existing Express Pipeline system could provide 
those supplies by the simple addition of nine pump stations (three in 
Canada and six in the U.S.). Therefore, a new pipeline on an 
alternative route was also eliminated as an alternative from further 
analysis.
(3) Alternative Pump Station Locations
    The original Express Pipeline was designed for an ultimate capacity 
of approximately 280,000 bpd, which would require a total of 18 pump 
stations in Canada and the U.S. The location of each of the 18 pump 
stations was selected when the Express Pipeline was originally designed 
to minimize environmental impact and maximize both the capacity and 
efficiency of the system. To achieve the initial capacity of 
approximately 172,000 bpd, nine of the 18 pump stations were 
constructed in 1996, four pump stations in Canada and five pump 
stations in the United States. To maintain the hydraulic efficiency of 
the pipeline system as it was originally designed, the remaining nine 
pump stations (three in Canada, six in the U.S.) must be placed at the 
intervals as originally planned.
    The proposed pump station sites addressed in the Proposed Action 
were selected not only for their hydraulic efficiency but to minimize 
environmental impacts. The pump stations locations were deliberately 
selected to avoid impacts to the following land uses:

<bullet> National Wilderness Area
<bullet> National Primitive Area
<bullet> Designated or Undesignated Roadless Areas Greater Than 5,000 
Acres
<bullet> National Wild and Scenic Rivers (``WSR'')
<bullet> Rivers Under Study for the WSR System
<bullet> National Wildlife Refuges or Ranges
<bullet> National or State Recreation Areas
<bullet> National Trails
<bullet> National Historic Landmarks/National Register Historic 
Districts or Sites
<bullet> State Historic Preservation Office (``SHPO'') Historic 
Districts or Sites
<bullet> Designated Habitat for Federally Listed, Proposed or Candidate 
Endangered or Threatened Species
<bullet> Habitats Occupied Seasonally by Federally Listed, Proposed or 
Candidate Endangered or Threatened Species
<bullet> Habitats Critical to Species of Special Interest or Concern
<bullet> Unique Habitats or Natural Areas
<bullet> Wetlands
<bullet> Federal or State Waterfowl Production Areas
<bullet> Areas With High Waterfowl Density
<bullet> State Game Ranges and Game Management Areas
<bullet> Big Game Winter Ranges
<bullet> Big Game Summer Security Areas
<bullet> Grouse Leks or Severe Winter Concentration Areas
<bullet> Bird Nesting Colonies
<bullet> Riparian Forests
<bullet> Conservation Easements
<bullet> Sites Funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund or Urban 
Park and Recreation Recovery Programs
<bullet> Water Bodies Larger Than 20 Acres
<bullet> Municipal Watersheds
<bullet> Surface Supplies of Potable Waters
<bullet> Active Faults Showing Evidence of Post-Micoene Movement
<bullet> Rugged Topography With Slopes Greater Than 15%
<bullet> Erodible Soils, Areas with Severe Reclamation Constraints
<bullet> Undeveloped Natural Features
<bullet> Avalanche Chutes
<bullet> Permitted Surface Mining Areas
<bullet> Geological Formations with High Probability of Paleontological 
Resources
<bullet> Sites of Religious or Heritage Significance to Native 
Americans
<bullet> Schools or Future School Sites
<bullet> Agricultural Experiment Stations
<bullet> Prime or Unique Farmland and Orchards
<bullet> Scenic Overlooks and Scenic Highways
<bullet> Areas of Conflict with Published Visual Management Plans
<bullet> Limited Access Areas

    Because of the placement of the existing pump stations, any change 
in the locations of the proposed pump stations would interfere with the 
hydraulics and performance of the entire pipeline system. Changing the 
locations of the proposed pump stations would not provide any 
engineering or environmental benefits. Consequently, use of alternative 
pump station locations were eliminated as an alternative from further 
analysis.
    In sum, there do not appear to be any alternatives other than the 
Proposed Action and a No Action alternative. The design of the pump 
stations as described in the Proposed Action represents the most 
efficient use of the available site lands and minimizes environmental 
impacts associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the 
pump stations. Other alternatives that would increase pipeline capacity 
are less desirable from an environmental standpoint. Putting the six 
pump stations at new locations would entail much more invasive 
construction than that required at the locations already identified and 
moving the pipeline would be even more environmentally disruptive. 
Accordingly, there are no other alternatives that would meet the 
requirements of the Proposed Action and therefore this EA considers 
only the Proposed Action and a No Action alternative.

Proposed Action

    The physical design of the pump station facilities would be similar 
to the originally constructed stations, although the footprint of the 
new pump stations would be smaller than that of the

[[Page 59295]]

existing pump stations. Each proposed pump station would require about 
5.74 acres of land during construction, while the post-construction 
area of each pump station would be about 1.24 acres. Each site has 
previously been entirely or partially disturbed by agricultural 
activities and the construction of the Express Pipeline.
    The stations would be constructed adjacent to existing mainline 
valves, in fenced and graveled station yards. Electrical supply lines 
and substations would provide the power required for the pump stations 
and would be permitted, constructed and maintained by local electrical 
utility companies.
    Each pump station would have two 5,000 horsepower electric motor-
driven pumps located above ground on concrete pads, and coated at the 
factory with protective paint to prevent corrosion. Each pump would 
have a pump seal. Additional equipment at each station would include 
piping, a double-walled sump tank, electrical controls, process 
instrumentation, data collection and communication equipment. An 
electrical building would be constructed at each pump station to house 
electrical equipment including switchgear, motor controls and 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (``SCADA'') equipment. Each of 
the proposed pump stations would be equipped with a SCADA system to 
control and monitor the station. A satellite dish would be installed to 
maintain the communication link with the Edmonton Control Center. 
Collected data would be relayed to the Control Center in Edmonton, 
Alberta where Control Center Operators monitor the status of the 
stations and pipeline. The Edmonton Control Center is a 24-hour staffed 
facility, and has full control of all the station equipment including 
the capability to start and stop station pumps, and close and open 
station valves.
    Express and Terasen have agreed to test each pump station 
hydrostatically to ensure system integrity prior to operation. The pump 
stations would be maintained and operated in accordance with the 
standards set forth in the General Operations Management Plan that are 
applicable to the existing stations. All manuals, including the 
Express/Platte Emergency Response Plan (``ERP'') required by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (``U.S. DOT''), would be updated to 
reflect the addition of these proposed stations.
    In addition, the storage tanks would be constructed at the Casper 
Station Tank Farm. Other possible locations outside the Casper Tank 
Farm boundary would reduce the efficiency of the transfer of petroleum 
from the Express Pipeline system to the Platte Pipeline system because 
it would lengthen the distance to the refineries as well as increase 
costs and opportunities for system failure. In addition, locating the 
storage tanks within the Casper Tank Farm, which has been disturbed by 
past and on-going activities with the existing tanks, would minimize 
potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the 
tanks while allowing quick response from Terasen personnel and 
equipment in the event of an emergency.
    The project facilities would consist of two 150,000-barrel storage 
tanks, leak detection system, spill-containment dikes, impervious 
liners, piping, control valves, manifold piping and site lighting. 
Electrical service would be provided by an extension from the 
distribution center in Platte's station yard, or from an adjacent 
transmission line. Other facilities such as an access road, control and 
quality assurance buildings and satellite dish are already in place in 
the Casper Station Tank Farm. A secure 6-foot chain link fence 
surrounds the entire complex.
    Like the pump stations, Express and Terasen have agreed to 
hydrostatically test the storage tank facilities prior to operation to 
ensure system integrity. According to Express and Terasen, the new 
storage tanks would be operated in accordance with appropriate manuals 
and procedures for the Casper Station Tank Farm. Further they state 
that all manuals, including the Express/Platte ERP required by the U.S. 
DOT, would be updated to reflect the addition of these additional 
storage tanks.

No Action Alternative

    The No Action Alternative would mean that the additional pump 
stations and storage tanks would not be constructed. There would be no 
additional environmental impacts under the No Action alternative. 
However, there would be no beneficial economic effects because the 
pipeline capacity would remain unchanged.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Proposed Action

    Construction and normal operation of the Proposed Action would have 
beneficial economic impacts. Temporary socioeconomic benefits would 
flow to the local economy during the construction period and would 
result in a temporary increase in local personal income. Local motels, 
restaurants, retail outlets and recreation providers would be the 
primary recipients of these benefits.
    Over the long-term, the state of Montana and respective counties 
would receive additional tax benefits as a result of the ad valorem tax 
that would be assessed on the three proposed stations on private land. 
It is estimated that the ad valorem tax would be approximately $225,000 
per station per year.
    The construction of the proposed pump stations would increase the 
throughput capacity of the Express Pipeline, increasing the pipeline's 
ability to deliver high quality Canadian petroleum to refiners in PADD 
II and PADD IV including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and 
Illinois. This would enable these refiners to access additional 
quantities of specialized petroleum, enhancing their ability to meet 
increasingly stringent refined product quality requirements. The 
Proposed Action would also provide the refiners access to an increased 
number of potential suppliers, and potentially longer-term supply 
sources at tolls that would be competitive with alternative routes.
    Based on the draft environmental assessment prepared by Westech 
Environmental Services on behalf of Express, normal operation of the 
Proposed Action would have no significant adverse impacts on climate, 
air quality noise, geology, wetlands and riparian areas, navigable 
waters, floodplains, plant species of special concern/sensitive 
communities, noxious weeds, threatened or endangered species, land use, 
transportation, socioeconomics, population and housing, recreation, and 
cultural and paleontological resources. This document lays out the 
minimal impacts that have been identified in the environmental 
assessment.
    Water Resources: There may be short-term impacts from construction 
of the Proposed Action to water resources as a result of runoff and 
sedimentation during construction or hydrostatic testing. Express and 
Terasen have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate 
impacts to surface water for the proposed pump stations:
    <bullet> During construction, drainage control structures (ditches, 
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to 
transport surface runoff from the affected area but prevent discharge 
to drainages or areas outside the 5.74-acre site.
    <bullet> A detailed hydrostatic test plan would be prepared before 
mechanical construction of the pump stations would begin.

[[Page 59296]]

    <bullet> Any necessary permits or approvals would be obtained prior 
to hydrostatic testing.
    Soil: There could be impacts to soil resources during the 
construction phase as a result of salvage and storage, clearing and 
grading, compaction, and wind or water erosion. Express and Terasen 
have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate impacts to 
upland soil resources for pump stations:
    <bullet> During construction, drainage control structures (ditches, 
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to 
transport surface runoff off the affected area but to prevent discharge 
to drainages or areas outside the 5.74-acre site.
    <bullet> With the potential exception of the proposed Faulkners 
Coulee pump station, salvaged topsoil would be spread to blend with the 
landforms on undisturbed portions of the site.
    <bullet> At the proposed Faulkners Coulee pump station, it may be 
necessary to retain a small topsoil stockpile for the life of the 
project, due to the active cultivation of portions of the site that 
would make it difficult to maintain (and eventually salvage) a uniform 
soil depth. Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, the topsoil 
would be seeded in the first appropriate season with ``Sodar'' 
streambank wheatgrass.
    Vegetation: Because soils would be disturbed, there could be 
impacts to upland vegetation as a result of construction of the 
Proposed Action. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the 
following measures to mitigate any impacts to vegetation resources for 
the Proposed Action:
    <bullet> After construction is completed, temporary workspace and 
other portions of the affected area where long-term disturbance is not 
required would be rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading and 
revegetation mixtures recommended in the applicable discussion for each 
pump station in the EA.
    <bullet> Ultimate reclamation of the three pump stations would be 
addressed in the abandonment plan.
    <bullet> Noxious weeds at each station would be monitored and 
controlled.
    Wildlife and Fisheries: Similarly, there could be impacts to 
wildlife and fisheries from surface runoff, as a result of surface 
disturbance during construction, and from normal operation of the 
Proposed Action. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the 
following measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife and fisheries from 
the Proposed Action:
    <bullet> Implement the surface runoff control mitigation measures 
recommended above to reduce the potential for surface runoff and 
sedimentation to reach drainages.
    <bullet> Any transmission line poles erected on the site would 
provide raptor protection in accordance with Suggested Practices for 
Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 1996 (APLIC 
1996).
    Visual Resources: The Proposed Action could impair or detract from 
the scenery surrounding the pipeline as a result of vegetation removal, 
grading and site development, the presence of construction workers and 
equipment, and the long-term presence of small buildings, the pumps and 
other facilities. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the 
following measures to mitigate impacts to visual resources from the 
Proposed Action:
    <bullet> Facilities would be painted similar to the paint scheme 
used at the existing pump stations.
    <bullet> As soon as practicable after construction, temporary 
workspace that is not needed for the life of the project would be 
revegetated.
    Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations, provides that each Federal agency must identify and 
address, as appropriate, effects of its activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations. The Proposed Action would be 
located in rural areas of comparatively low population density. No 
residences are located less than 0.25 mile from any proposed pump 
station. There are no population centers at or proximal to the Proposed 
Action, and none are proposed for development. Consequently, it is not 
anticipated that the Proposed Action would have any significant adverse 
human health or environmental effects on any minority or low-income 
populations.
    Historical and Cultural Resources: Pre-construction field surveys 
for cultural and paleontological resources along the 500-foot-wide 
permitted Express Pipeline route discovered no such resources at any of 
the Proposed Action locations. No historic, archaeological, 
architectural and/or traditional cultural properties on or eligible for 
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places were found. No 
paleontological resources were documented. The proposed pump station 
sites are comprised of land that is or has been cultivated, and no 
undisturbed surface cultural or paleontological resources would be 
expected at any of the sites. In addition, all proposed pump station 
sites were previously affected by construction of the Express Pipeline. 
Because no cultural or paleontological resources are known to be 
present at any of the proposed pump stations, there would be no known 
significant impacts from construction and operation of the proposed 
pump stations on these resources. Any cultural or paleontological 
resources found during the construction of the proposed pump stations 
would be addressed in accordance with protocols established for the 
existing Express Pipeline.
    Pipeline Safety and Reliability: The potential for an operational 
petroleum release from the Express Pipeline throughout its life would 
be very low. Because the pipeline and its facilities were designed for 
the ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, it was constructed 
to accommodate the change in pressure profile that would be needed to 
transport that capacity, which is the Proposed Action. The SCADA system 
and its accompanying leak detection system were also designed for the 
ultimate capacity of about 280,000 bpd. Consequently, the addition of 
the six pump stations covered by this Proposed Action would not require 
any material changes in the overall design, engineering, or operational 
procedures currently employed by the Express Pipeline. None of the 
proposed additional pump stations is located in a ``High Consequence 
Area'' as defined by 49 CFR 195.450. Therefore the addition of the 
Proposed Action to the Express Pipeline system would not result in an 
increase in the pipeline integrity-related potential for an accidental 
petroleum release, compared to the existing conditions.
    The potential for a petroleum release during normal operations 
would be driven by the age of the pipeline rather than its operating 
capacity. The Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
presented a risk analysis for petroleum release in or near riverbeds, 
based on pipeline industry statistics. That analysis concluded that, 
over a potential 25-year life of the project, two releases of 50 
barrels or less and one release of over 50 barrels could statistically 
occur. If the life of the project were extended an additional 25 years 
(i.e., a total of 50 years), there would be a statistical potential for 
nine more releases of less than 50 barrels and two releases of over 50 
barrels. Since the Express Pipeline was placed in service in 1997, 
there has been only one release that occurred in 2003 when a backhoe 
excavating at a block valve hit a valve fitting. The entire release 
(approximately 70 barrels) was contained on site.

[[Page 59297]]

    The statistical potential for a major release (i.e., greater than 
500 barrels) during the first 25 years of the Express Pipeline was 
calculated to be 0.31, and 0.62 during the second 25 years. This 
release potential would not be expected to change regardless of the 
operating capacity of the pipeline, because the maximum release in the 
event of a major rupture is comprised of the volume lost before the 
leak is recognized and the valves are closed, plus the volume that 
drains down due to topography. The volume lost prior to shut down is 
related to the amount of flow (i.e., 280,000 bpd vs. 172,000 bpd), but 
this is small in relation to the amount of peak drain down, which is 
generally not affected by throughput (i.e., amount of flow).
    For example, a 15-minute recognition and shut down time of a major 
rupture of the Express Pipeline at 280,000 bpd (release volumes were 
calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 194.105(b)(1)), would result in a 
volume release of 2,917 barrels, which could be up to 1,125 barrels 
greater than would be expected under the current capacity.
    In comparison, drain down volumes following shut down would vary as 
a function of topography, rather than throughput, and so would not be 
significantly increased by the Proposed Action (as compared to current 
capacity). Peak drain down volumes for the Express Pipeline would be in 
the order of 30,000 to 50,000 barrels, far greater than the volume lost 
as a result of the increased flow in the pipeline system.
    Terasen has an Integrity Management Program, developed as a result 
of the requirements of 49 CFR 195.452. When constructed, the Express 
Pipeline employed ``state-of-the-art'' technology, including the most 
recent SCADA and leak detection systems.
    The sensitivity of leak detection is a function of the uncertainty 
in the flow rate of fluid entering and delivered from the pipeline 
system, and the uncertainty in the line pack within the pipeline. These 
uncertainties are dependent on a number of parameters including 
instrumentation accuracy and repeatability, fluid properties and SCADA 
system characteristics. The proposed Action would not fundamentally 
change the type or level of instrumentation, the fluids being 
transported or the SCADA system. Therefore the leak detection system 
would continue to operate at the same sensitivity, as a percentage of 
flow rate, at the ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd as it 
does at the current rate of 172,000 bpd.
    Upon regulatory approval of the Proposed Action, as required by the 
U.S. DOT, Terasen would update the Express/Platte ERP to consider the 
worst-case scenario based on the throughput under the Proposed Action. 
Although the worst-case scenario would not likely represent a ``real 
world'' occurrence, Terasen's response planning is based on this 
scenario. For example, additional manpower and spill response equipment 
might be needed as a result of these calculations; if so, Terasen would 
obtain these resources through local contractors and the Montana-
Wyoming Spill Cooperative.
    As discussed in the Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement, in the event of a release anywhere on the Express Pipeline, 
the magnitude and duration of environmental damage would be influenced 
by a number of factors. The kind, magnitude and duration of these 
effects would not be expected to materially change under the Proposed 
Action, although the released volume could be greater in some locations 
and smaller in others.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation (``DOT'') regulates all 
aspects of pipeline design, construction, operations, maintenance and 
emergency and spill response. Pipeline safety regulations are designed 
to protect the public, environmentally sensitive areas, cultural 
resources and economic resources. Emergency and spill response planning 
regulations require the identification of environmentally important 
areas, and require that operators have response capabilities in place 
to minimize a pipeline release and the impact of such a release on the 
environment, the public and other resources.
    In the event of a release, the Federal regulatory programs define 
the notification requirements and required response actions. These 
programs include: The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP: 40 CFR part 300); the Clean Water Act; the Oil 
Pollution Act; and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act. 
U.S. DOT NEPA regulations allow for coordinated implementation of these 
federal requirements. The U.S. DOT requires Terasen to develop, 
maintain and update an approved ERP. The ERP defines notification and 
initiation of response actions in a timeframe and on a scale 
appropriate to the extent of the release. The ERP establishes a 
required endpoint for response actions, that being the mitigation of 
any unacceptable threat to human health or the environment. The ERP 
includes a mechanism for providing compensation for short- or long-term 
damages to any natural resources and for restoration costs. The 
cumulative result of these regulatory constraints is that the adverse 
impacts of a release will be temporary and that baseline conditions 
will be restored.
    In summary, although the throughput of the Express Pipeline system 
would be greater under the Proposed Action than under the currently 
certificated capacity, the kind, magnitude, duration and result of 
environmental impacts are not expected to be significant under the 
Proposed Action because:
    (1) The range of these impacts was identified and discussed in the 
Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement and would not be 
expected to change as a result of the Proposed Action;
    (2) The Express Pipeline was designed and constructed to operate at 
the volumes contemplated by the Proposed Action, and can safely 
accommodate these volumes;
    (3) The petroleum release detection system currently in place on 
the Express Pipeline would continue to work at the same efficiency as 
at the current certificated volume, and continues to be ``state-of-the-
art'' technology; and
    (4) Procedures for design, construction, operation and maintenance 
of the Express and Platte Pipeline systems are covered by a variety of 
Federal regulations under the oversight of the U.S.DOT. The ERP 
required by the U.S. DOT mandates the mechanisms of Terasen's response 
to a petroleum release and would be updated to reflect the pipeline 
capacities under the Proposed Action.
    Accidental release of petroleum at any of the proposed pump 
stations would not affect most environmental disciplines. The 
disciplines most likely to be affected would be surface water, 
groundwater, wildlife and fish. The following measures are proposed to 
minimize the potential impacts as a result of a petroleum spill:
    <bullet> Sump tanks will be constructed to incorporate a double 
wall with integrity monitoring instrumentation, to enable Terasen to 
know of any leak in either sump tank wall.
    <bullet> In accordance with U.S. DOT requirements, Terasen has 
developed an ERP that is updated as necessary. In accordance with the 
ERP, sufficient petroleum spill response equipment and other resources, 
such as contractors and equipment, are provided to respond to any 
emergency along the Express pipeline within a specified timeframe. 
Therefore response times in the event of major petroleum spill at any 
of the

[[Page 59298]]

action alternative sites would be approximately two hours.
    <bullet> In the event of a petroleum release, Terasen is committed 
to remediating impacted areas so that vegetation can be reestablished. 
Implementing the ERP and reestablishing vegetation will remediate 
impacts to surface water, groundwater, fish and wildlife.
    As noted above, implementation of the Proposed Action would require 
the construction and normal operation of the two storage tanks at the 
Casper Station Tank Farm. Construction and operation of the storage 
tanks would contribute to the local and State (Wyoming) economic 
benefits described above.
    Based on the draft environmental assessment prepared by Westech 
Environmental Services on behalf of Express, construction and normal 
operation of the storage tanks would have no significant adverse 
environmental impacts on climate, air quality noise, geology, wetlands 
and riparian areas, navigable waters, floodplains, plant species of 
special concern/sensitive communities, noxious weeds, threatened or 
endangered species, land use, transportation, socioeconomics, 
population and housing, recreation, and cultural and paleontological 
resources, given that they are additions to an existing tank farm.
    Construction and operation of the storage tanks could affect 
surface water as a result of runoff and sedimentation during 
construction or hydrostatic testing. Express and Terasen have agreed to 
undertake the following measures to mitigate impacts to surface water 
from the two storage tanks:
    <bullet> During construction, drainage control structures (ditches, 
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to 
transport surface runoff from the affected area but prevent discharge 
to drainages or areas outside the Casper Station Tank Farm.
    <bullet> Terasen would prepare a detailed hydrostatic test plan 
before mechanical construction of the storage tanks and piping would 
begin.
    <bullet> Terasen would obtain any necessary permits or approvals 
prior to hydrostatic testing.
    Groundwater at the Casper Station Tank Farm consists of shallow, 
fractured aquifers that could be affected by construction of the 
proposed storage tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake 
the following measures to mitigate impacts to groundwater at the 
storage tank site:
    <bullet> An impervious liner would be installed beneath the storage 
tanks and berm.
    <bullet> A leak detection system would be installed below the 
tanks.
    There could be impacts to soil resources at the Casper Station Tank 
Farm as a result of salvage and storage, clearing and grading, 
compaction, and wind or water erosion. Express and Terasen have agreed 
to undertake the following measures to mitigate any such impacts to 
upland soil resources:
    <bullet> During construction, drainage control structures (ditches, 
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to 
transport surface runoff off the affected area but to prevent discharge 
outside the Casper Station Tank Farm.
    <bullet> After construction, any remaining subsoil would be spread 
onto the 2-4 acres used for temporary workspace, and the salvaged 
topsoil would be placed over the subsoil. The topsoil would be seeded 
with ``Ephraim'' crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Sodar 
streambank wheatgrass (Agropyron riparium) at a rate of eight pounds 
each pure live seed (PLS) per acre if applied by drill seeding, and 16 
pounds each PLS per acre if applied by broadcast seeding. These two 
perennial cultivars were selected because they are drought-tolerant, 
readily available, relatively low growing, and have a rhizomatous 
growth habit that would readily cover and stabilize topsoil. This 
vegetative cover would reduce fire hazards and maintenance concerns.
    <bullet> Ultimate reclamation of the proposed storage tank site 
would be addressed in the abandonment plan to be submitted to the DOT 
Office of Pipeline Safety at least one year prior to abandonment.
    Because soils would be disturbed, there could be impacts to upland 
vegetation as a result of construction and normal operation of the 
storage tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the 
following measures to mitigate impacts to vegetation resources:
    <bullet> After construction is completed, temporary workspace and 
other portions of the affected area where long-term disturbance is not 
required would be rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading and 
revegetation mixtures recommended above.
    <bullet> Ultimate reclamation of the site would be addressed in the 
abandonment plan.
    <bullet> Noxious weeds would be monitored and controlled.
    Similarly, there could be impacts from construction and operation 
of the storage tanks to wildlife and fisheries. Express and Terasen 
have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate these 
impacts:
    <bullet> Terasen would implement the surface runoff control 
mitigation measures recommended above to reduce the potential for 
surface runoff and sedimentation to reach drainages.
    <bullet> Wildlife habitat would be considered in the abandonment 
plan.
    <bullet> Terasen would prepare a detailed hydrostatic test plan 
before mechanical construction of the storage tanks and piping would 
begin.
    <bullet> Terasen would obtain any necessary permits or approvals 
prior to hydrostatic testing.
    Because the storage tanks would be constructed in the existing 
Casper Station Tank Farm, they would not detract from the visual 
impression of the site or surrounding area. However, Express and 
Terasen have agreed to undertake the following measures to minimize 
impacts to visual resources from the two storage tanks:
    <bullet> Facilities would be painted similar to the paint scheme 
used at the existing Casper Station Tank Farm.
    <bullet> As soon as practicable after construction, temporary work 
space that is not needed for the life of the project would be 
revegetated.

No Action Alternative

    If no action were taken, there would be no environmental impacts 
from the Proposed Action or associated facilities. Any environmental 
impacts currently occurring at these sites would continue to occur.
    Under the No Action Alternative, economic benefits to the U.S. from 
additional petroleum supplies via the Express Pipeline would not be 
realized. Economic benefits to the States of Montana and Wyoming from 
additional taxes, and construction and operation benefits to local 
power providers and communities, would not materialize.
    If the Express Pipeline were not expanded, three potential 
scenarios would be reasonably foreseeable:
    (1) Existing pipelines other than Express would expand by looping 
or building entirely new pipelines;
    (2) Some smaller refineries could be forced to reduce throughput or 
close if they were unable to access specialized petroleum and maintain 
the quality of their petroleum via transportation on a batch pipeline 
system such as Express; and
    (3) A refined products pipeline could be built that would serve the 
Rocky Mountain region thereby causing the closure of smaller refineries 
because of competing lower-priced refined products from larger 
refineries.
    Under the first scenario, the market responses to the Express 
Pipeline's inability to deliver additional petroleum

[[Page 59299]]

supplies could encourage other pipelines to expand their systems. While 
no information is available at this time about the location or time 
frames of any such projects, expansion of these systems could result in 
more extensive environmental impacts than the Proposed Action because 
they would require the construction of additional pipelines, while the 
Proposed Action would not. Specific impacts from these other projects 
would be speculative, but would have to be identified and analyzed 
during the regulatory process for these other projects.
    Under the second scenario, one or more Rocky Mountain refineries 
could close. These refineries are currently evaluating their ability to 
comply with new environmental requirements. To comply they must either 
invest in facility upgrades or obtain a source of higher quality 
petroleum that enables them to comply without major capital investment. 
The Proposed Action would expand access to a wide variety of high 
quality petroleum supply that complies with the new environmental 
objectives. The Express Pipeline also transports petroleum on a batched 
basis, which meets the smaller refiners' need for specialized 
petroleum. It is possible that one or more of these refineries could 
close under the No Action alternative.
    Under the third scenario, an entirely new refined product pipeline 
could be constructed from Canada to the United States. The construction 
of an entirely new pipeline would likely result in more extensive 
environmental impacts than the installation of additional pump stations 
on the existing Express Pipeline. The specific impacts would be 
speculative and would have to be identified and evaluated during the 
regulatory process for these other projects.

Cummulative Effects

    Cumulative effects are the impacts on the environment that result 
from an incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other 
past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Examples of such 
actions would include the past construction and operation of the 
Express Pipeline; other pipelines proposed for construction near the 
Express Pipeline; upgrades of existing highways in the vicinity of the 
proposed pump stations; and construction or upgrades of transmission 
lines in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations.
    The Express Pipeline was constructed in 1996 and has been in 
operation since 1997. The Express Pipeline has provided positive 
economic benefits to local communities, local power providers, the 
States of Montana and Wyoming through ad valorem taxes, and improved 
petroleum supply to Montana refiners. Environmental impacts from 
construction of the pipeline have been largely mitigated, and there 
have been no major operational problems with the pipeline.
    No other petroleum pipelines are known to be proposed for 
construction in the vicinity of the Express Pipeline. No substantial 
upgrades (i.e., not including normal maintenance and resurface 
operations, which are short-term activities) are scheduled for any of 
the public highways in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations for 
the next two years. Thus there would be no conflicts with the Proposed 
Action in terms of use of temporary housing or short-term population 
increases. It is assumed that environmental impacts of any new highway 
construction projects would be addressed by separate analysis 
documents.
    There are no known proposals to construct or upgrade electric 
transmission lines in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations, 
except for the transmission lines that would directly supply the 
proposed pump stations. It is assumed that environmental impacts of any 
transmission line projects would be addressed by separate analysis 
documents. If it assumed that the transmission lines that would supply 
electrical power to the proposed pump stations were constructed in the 
same time frame as the proposed pump stations, there could be increased 
short-term socioeconomic benefits to the States of Montana and Wyoming, 
as well as counties and local communities, but there could also be 
shortages of temporary housing for construction workers, depending on 
the number of workers employed for transmission line construction, and 
the season of construction.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

    Construction of the Proposed Action would result in some short-term 
direct and indirect unavoidable impacts. Temporary impacts to wildlife 
and visual resources during construction could not be avoided. Soil and 
vegetation would be removed, and agricultural productivity would be 
lost, on a maximum of 1.24 acres at each proposed pump station over the 
life of the project, but restored per the mitigation measures described 
here-in. All such impacts would be mitigated as described above.

Conclusion

    On the basis of the Final Environmental Assessment submitted by the 
sponsor, the Department's independent review of that assessment, 
information developed during the review of the application and 
Environmental Assessment, comments received by the Department from 
Federal and State agencies, and measures that Express and Terasen are 
prepared to undertake to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse 
environmental impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a 
Presidential Permit authorizing construction and operation of the 
proposed Express Pipeline capacity increase would not have a 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the 
United States. Accordingly, a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
adopted and an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.
    The Final Environmental Assessment addressing this action is 
incorporated by reference and is on file and may be reviewed by 
interested parties at the Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Room 
3535, Washington, DC 20520 (Attn: Mr. Pedro Erviti, Tel. 202-647-1291).

    Dated: September 24, 2004.
Stephen J. Gallogly,
Director, Office of Energy & Commodity Policy, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-22241 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P