August 2009 

Docket Nos.: CP09-161-000; PF08-23-000 

FERC EIS 0233D 

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 20426 

Cooperating Agency 

Department of Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas 3 

Bison Pipeline, LLC 

Bison Pipeline Project 

Docket No. CP09-161-000 

FERC/EIS-0233 D 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the natural gas pipeline 

facilities proposed by Bison Pipeline, L.L.C. (Bison) in the above-referenced docket. 

The Bison Pipeline Project facilities would be located in Wyoming, Montana, and North 

Dakota and have been designed to transport approximately 477 million cubic feet per day 

(MMcf/day) of natural gas. 

Bison proposes to construct, operate, and maintain 302.5 miles of new 30-inchdiameter interstate natural gas transmission pipeline, one compressor station, two meter 

stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/pig receiver facilities. The proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project would extend northeast from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, 

through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota. It would connect with 

the Northern Border pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 in 

Morton County, North Dakota. 

As the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for 

authorization to construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities, FERC is 

the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EIS. The EIS has been prepared in 

compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1500–1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a 

cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts associated with a proposal 

and is involved in the NEPA analysis. BLM is a cooperating agency because the Project 

would cross federal lands and resources for which the BLM has jurisdiction and special 

expertise with respect to environmental issues and impacts. BLM will use the EIS to 

meet its NEPA responsibilities in considering Bison’s application for a Right-of-Way 

Grant and Temporary Use Permit for the portion of the Project on federal land. 

This draft EIS has been prepared for public review and comment. The principal 

purposes in preparing this EIS were to: 
Docket No. CP09-161-000 

- 2 - 

• Identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment 

that would result from implementation of the proposed Project; 

• Facilitate public involvement in identifying any potentially significant 

environmental impacts; 

• Identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment; and 

• Identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize 

environmental impacts. 

Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes that 

construction and operation of the Bison Pipeline Project would result in some adverse 

environmental impacts. However, we believe that environmental impacts would be 

reduced to less than significant levels if the proposed Project is constructed and operated 

in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Bison’s proposed mitigation, and 

additional measures we recommend in this draft EIS. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or 

concerns about the Bison Pipeline Project. Your comments should focus on the potential 

environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen 

environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. 

To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important 

that the Commission receive your comments before October 12, 2009. 

For your convenience, there are four methods in which you can use to submit your 

comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket 

number CP09-161-000 with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic 

filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 

502-8258. or efiling@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your 

comments are properly recorded: 

1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick Comment 

feature, which is located on the Commission’s Internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link Documents and Filings. A Quick Comment 

is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a 

project; 

2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which 

is located on the Commission’s Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov under 

the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves preparing your submission 

in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on 

your computer’s hard drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New 

eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “Sign-up” or 
Docket No. CP09-161-000 

- 3 - 

“eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing your are making. A 

comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing;” 

3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by sending an original 

and two copies of your letter to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First St. NE; Room 1A 

Washington, DC 20426; 

label one copy of your comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 3, PJ-11.3 

and reference Docket No. CP09-161-000 on the original and both copies; and 

4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the FERC invites you to 

attend one of the public comment meetings the staff will conduct in the project 

area to receive comments on the draft EIS. All meetings will run from 6:00 

p.m. to 8:00 p.m., local time, and are scheduled as follows: 

Date Location 

September 21, 2009 Sacred Heart Parish Hall 

Sacred Heart Church 

208 Ash Avenue East 

Glen Ullin, ND 58631 

September 22, 2009 Bowman County Fairgrounds 

Four Seasons 

12 HWY 12 E, 

Bowman, ND 58623 

September 23, 2009 Powder River County District High School 

500 N Trautman 

Broadus, MT 59317 

September 24, 2009 American Legion 

200 Rockpile Blvd, 

Gillette, WY 82716 

Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral 

comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be prepared. 

After the 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. 

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 
Docket No. CP09-161-000 

- 4 - 

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

 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. 

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 BLM and is 

available for public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street NE, Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, WY 82003 

Buffalo Field Office 

1425 Fort Street 

Buffalo, WY 82834 

Montana State Office 

5001 Southgate Drive 

Billings, MT 59101 

Miles City Field Office 

111 Garryowen Road 

Miles City MT 59301 

North Dakota Field Office 

99 23rd Avenue West, Suite A 

Dickinson, ND 58601 

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

from the FERC’s Public Reference Room identified above. This draft EIS is also 

available for public viewing on the FERC’s Internet website at www.ferc.gov. In 

addition, copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; 

intervenors in the FERC’s proceeding; individuals who provided scoping comments; 

affected landowners and individuals who requested the draft EIS; and new landowners 

identified as being crossed by route alternatives either recommended by FERC staff or 

still under consideration. 

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

Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet website 

(http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the 

eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number,” excluding the last 

 

1

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

discussion on filing comments electronically. 
Docket No. CP09-161-000 

- 5 - 

three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP09-161), and follow the instructions. 

You may also search using the phrase “Bison Pipeline Project” in the “Text Search” field. 

For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, 

TTY (202) 502-8659, or at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. The eLibrary link on the 

FERC Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by 

the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. 

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that 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 register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose 

Secretary 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Bison Pipeline Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i 

LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................vii 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................viii 

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................xii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................ES-1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ ES-1

PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................. ES-1

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS ................................................................ ES-2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............................................... ES-2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................. ES-5

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. ES-6

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED....................................................................1-1

1.1.1 Project Purpose.............................................................................................1-1

1.1.2 Need for the Project......................................................................................1-2

1.1.2.1 Natural Gas Demand.................................................................1-2

1.1.2.2 Natural Gas Supply...................................................................1-3

1.1.2.3 Integrating Supply and Demand ...............................................1-5

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS ..............................................................1-5

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS............1-6

1.3.3 Federal Permits and Approvals ....................................................................1-6

1.3.3.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..................................1-6

1.3.3.2 U.S. Bureau of Land Management ...........................................1-7

1.3.3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................................1-7

1.3.3.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................1-7

1.3.4 Other Permits, Approvals, and Consultations ..............................................1-8

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT.............................................................1-12

1.4.5 Draft EIS Preparation .................................................................................1-12

1.4.5.1 FERC Environmental and Public Review Process .................1-12

1.4.5.2 Bison Public Outreach Program .............................................1-15

1.4.6 Issuance and Review of Draft EIS .............................................................1-16

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ...........................................................1-16

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES..................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities .........................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Compressor Station and Appurtenant Facilities...........................................2-1

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................2-5

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way .................................................................................2-6

2.2.1.1 Collocation with Existing and Planned Rights-of-Way............2-7

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ................................................................................2-9

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas.......................................................................................2-15

2.2.3.1 Extra Workspaces ...................................................................2-15

2.2.3.2 Pipe Storage, Rail, and Contractor Yards ...............................2-15

2.2.3.3 Access Roads ..........................................................................2-17

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.................................................................2-17

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures.................................................2-18

2.3.2 Special Construction Procedures................................................................2-23

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings..............................................................2-23

2.3.2.2 Equipment Bridges .................................................................2-31

2.3.2.3 Wetland Crossings ..................................................................2-34

2.3.2.4 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings ................................2-36

2.3.2.5 Agricultural Areas ..................................................................2-40

2.3.2.6 Residential Areas ....................................................................2-44

2.3.2.7 Rugged Topography ...............................................................2-44

2.3.3 Construction Procedures for Aboveground Facilities ................................2-44

2.3.4 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems.............................................2-46

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE ..................................2-46

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE 

MONITORING.................................................................................................2-47

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS....................2-48

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ...................................................2-49

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................3-1

3.1 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..................................................................3-2

3.1.1.1 Geology and Physiography.......................................................3-2

3.1.1.2 Mineral Resources ....................................................................3-8

3.1.1.3 Geologic Hazards....................................................................3-10

3.1.1.4 Paleontological Resources ......................................................3-13

3.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................................3-15

3.1.2.1 Construction Impacts ..............................................................3-15

3.1.2.2 Operation Impacts...................................................................3-16

3.2 SOILS ...............................................................................................................3-16

3.2.1 Existing Soil Resources..............................................................................3-16

3.2.1.1 Ecoregions ..............................................................................3-16

3.2.1.2 Soil Associations ....................................................................3-17

3.2.1.3 Soil Characteristics .................................................................3-18

3.2.1.4 Modifications to the FERC Plan Requested by Bison............3-25

3.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................................3-27

3.2.2.1 Construction Impacts ..............................................................3-27

3.2.2.2 Operation Impacts...................................................................3-31

3.3 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................3-31

3.3.1 Groundwater Resources .............................................................................3-31

3.3.1.1 Existing Environment .............................................................3-31

3.3.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation............................................3-35

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources............................................................................3-38

3.3.2.1 Existing Environment .............................................................3-38

3.3.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation............................................3-44

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

3.4 WETLANDS ....................................................................................................3-54

3.4.1 Existing Environment.................................................................................3-54

3.4.1.1 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands................................................3-56

3.4.1.2 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands ...........................................3-57

3.4.1.3 Palustrine Forested Wetlands..................................................3-57

3.4.1.4 Sensitive Wetland Resources..................................................3-57

3.4.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................................3-58

3.4.2.1 Construction Impacts ..............................................................3-58

3.4.2.2 Operation Impacts...................................................................3-60

3.4.2.3 Wetland Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ...............3-60

3.5 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION .....................................................................3-61

3.5.1 Existing Environment.................................................................................3-61

3.5.1.1 General Vegetation Types ......................................................3-61

3.5.1.2 Project-Specific Vegetation Composition ..............................3-63

3.5.1.3 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern.........................3-64

3.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Weeds..................................................3-64

3.5.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................................3-65

3.5.2.1 Construction Impacts ..............................................................3-65

3.5.2.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern.........................3-68

3.5.2.3 Noxious and Invasive Weeds..................................................3-68

3.5.2.4 Operation Impacts...................................................................3-69

3.6 FISH AND WILDLIFE ....................................................................................3-69

3.6.1 Fishery Resources ......................................................................................3-69

3.6.1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................3-69

3.6.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation............................................3-71

3.6.2 Wildlife Resources .....................................................................................3-76

3.6.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................3-76

3.6.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation............................................3-86

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-STATUS 

SPECIES...........................................................................................................3-94

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species...............................3-94

3.7.1.1 Greater Sage-Grouse...............................................................3-97

3.7.1.2 Piping Plover ........................................................................3-100

3.7.1.3 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo ..........................................................3-101

3.7.1.4 Whooping Crane...................................................................3-101

3.7.1.5 Interior Least Tern ................................................................3-102

3.7.1.6 Pallid Sturgeon......................................................................3-103

3.7.1.7 Gray Wolf .............................................................................3-103

3.7.1.8 White-Tailed Prairie Dog......................................................3-104

3.7.1.9 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog......................................................3-105

3.7.1.10 Black-Footed Ferret ..............................................................3-106

3.7.1.11 Blowout Penstemon ..............................................................3-106

3.7.1.12 Ute Ladies’-Tresses ..............................................................3-107

3.7.1.13 Dakota Skipper .....................................................................3-108

3.7.2 Special-Status Species..............................................................................3-109

3.7.2.1 Mountain Plover ...................................................................3-109

3.7.2.2 Burrowing Owl .....................................................................3-116

3.7.2.3 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat...................................................3-116

3.7.2.4 Swift Fox ..............................................................................3-117

3.7.2.5 Special-Status Species Conclusions......................................3-119

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

3.8 LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, 

AND VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................3-120

3.8.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................3-120

3.8.1.1 Environmental Setting ..........................................................3-120

3.8.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation..........................................3-127

3.8.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation for Specific 

Land Uses .............................................................................3-128

3.8.2 Recreational and Special Interest Areas...................................................3-131

3.8.2.1 Conservation Reserve Program Lands..................................3-131

3.8.2.2 Coal Fields and Mining.........................................................3-134

3.8.2.3 Railroads...............................................................................3-134

3.8.2.4 Scenic and Recreational Rivers ............................................3-134

3.8.2.5 Hunting Lands ......................................................................3-135

3.8.3 Visual Resources ......................................................................................3-136

3.8.3.1 Existing Viewshed ................................................................3-136

3.8.3.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation..........................................3-136

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................3-138

3.9.1 Results of Cultural Resources Surveys ....................................................3-138

3.9.1.1 Wyoming ..............................................................................3-139

3.9.1.2 Montana ................................................................................3-141

3.9.1.3 North Dakota ........................................................................3-143

3.9.2 Native American Consultation .................................................................3-144

3.9.2.1 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan............................................3-149

3.9.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................................3-149

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS.....................................................................................3-149

3.10.1 Population.................................................................................................3-150

3.10.2 Employment and Economics....................................................................3-153

3.10.3 Housing ....................................................................................................3-155

3.10.4 Public Services and Facilities...................................................................3-158

3.10.5 Transportation ..........................................................................................3-159

3.10.6 Property Values ........................................................................................3-160

3.10.7 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................3-161

3.10.7.1 Potential for Disproportionate and Adverse Impacts............3-161

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ........................................................................3-164

3.11.1 Air Quality................................................................................................3-164

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality..............................................................3-164

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements .....................................................3-165

3.11.1.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation..........................................3-173

3.11.2 Noise Quality............................................................................................3-175

3.11.2.1 Existing Environment ...........................................................3-175

3.11.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation..........................................3-176

3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY......................................................................3-179

3.12.1 Safety Standards.......................................................................................3-179

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data.............................................................................3-182

3.12.3 Impact on Public Safety ...........................................................................3-184

3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues......................................................3-187

3.12.4.1 Terrorism ..............................................................................3-187

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................3-188

3.13.1 Environmental Conditions within the Watersheds ...................................3-190

3.13.2 Potential Future Actions...........................................................................3-191

3.13.3 Nonjurisdictional Components of the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ..3-194

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

3.13.4 Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Operations ............................3-194

3.13.4.1 Gas Gathering Pipelines........................................................3-194

3.13.4.2 Keystone XL Pipeline...........................................................3-195

3.13.4.3 MIGC Pipeline......................................................................3-195

3.13.4.4 Northern Border Pipeline......................................................3-195

3.13.4.5 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline .......................................3-195

3.13.5 Conventional Oil/Gas and Coal-Bed Methane Development 

in the Region ............................................................................................3-195

3.13.6 Projects Not Related to Natural Gas.........................................................3-197

3.13.6.1 Wind Energy.........................................................................3-197

3.13.6.2 Transmission Lines and Generating Station .........................3-198

3.13.6.3 State and County Highway Development.............................3-199

3.13.6.4 Coal Extraction and Mining Operations ...............................3-199

3.13.7 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action.............................3-200

3.13.7.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies ...................................................3-200

3.13.7.2 Vegetation and Wildlife........................................................3-201

3.13.7.3 Land Use...............................................................................3-202

3.13.7.4 Air Quality............................................................................3-203

3.13.7.5 Noise.....................................................................................3-203

3.13.8 Conclusions ..............................................................................................3-203

4.0 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................4-1

4.1 NO ACTION AND POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES......................4-1

4.1.1 Other Non-Renewable Fuels ........................................................................4-2

4.1.2 Renewable Energy Sources..........................................................................4-3

4.1.3 Energy Conservation ....................................................................................4-4

4.1.4 Renewable Energy Combined with Energy Conservation ...........................4-5

4.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Alternative Energy Sources ...................................4-5

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................4-5

4.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives .........................................................4-6

4.2.1.1 Williston Basin System Alternative..........................................4-6

4.2.1.2 Cheyenne Plains System Alternative........................................4-8

4.2.1.3 Rockies Express System Alternative ......................................4-10

4.2.1.4 Trailblazer System Alternative ...............................................4-12

4.2.2 Planned Pipeline System Alternatives........................................................4-14

4.3 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES................................................................4-15

4.3.1 Direct Route Alternative ............................................................................4-15

4.3.2 Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative...................................................4-18

4.3.3 Grasslands Route Alternative.....................................................................4-21

4.3.4 Lower Grasslands Route Alternative .........................................................4-24

4.3.5 Carter County Route Alternative................................................................4-27

4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS....................................................................................4-30

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES..........................................4-30

4.5.1 Hettinger Compressor Station Site Alternatives.........................................4-31

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................5-1

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.................................5-1

5.1.1 Geology ........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Soils..............................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Water Resources...........................................................................................5-2

5.1.4 Wetlands.......................................................................................................5-3

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

vi

5.1.5 Vegetation ....................................................................................................5-3

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources...................................................................5-4

5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species ..................................5-5

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources....5-5

5.1.9 Socioeconomics............................................................................................5-6

5.1.10 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................5-6

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise...................................................................................5-7

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety ...................................................................................5-7

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................5-7

5.1.14 Alternatives ..................................................................................................5-8

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION.........................................5-9
LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A Distribution List 

APPENDIX B Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost 

APPENDIX C Applicant Provided Pipeline and Facility Maps 

APPENDIX D Pipe, Rail, and Contractor Yard Maps 

APPENDIX E List of Access Roads 

APPENDIX F Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance 

Plan (Bison’s Plan) 

APPENDIX G Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

APPENDIX H Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 

APPENDIX I Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 

APPENDIX J Blasting Plan 

APPENDIX K Hydrostatic Test Plan 

APPENDIX L Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan 

APPENDIX M Waterbody Table 

APPENDIX N Wetland Table 

APPENDIX O Agricultural Mitigation Plan 

APPENDIX P Short-Term Housing Plan 

APPENDIX Q Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

APPENDIX R Reclamation Plan 

APPENDIX S Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

APPENDIX T Water Resources Route Variation Summary 

APPENDIX U Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

APPENDIX V Literature Cited 

APPENDIX W List of Preparers 

vii
LIST OF TABLES 

Number Title Page

1.3.2-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project.........................................................................................1-8 

1.4.1-1 Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Public 

Scoping Process for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ...............................1-13 

2.1.1-1 Pipeline Crossing Lengths for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ..................2-3 

2.1.1-2 Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................2-3 

2.2-1 Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project......2-6 

2.2.1-1 Areas of Collocation along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................2-7 

2.3.2-1 Proposed Horizontal Bore Locations for the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project .................................................................................................2-39 

2.4-1 Estimated Average and peak Workforce Number per Spread for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................................................................2-47 

3.1.1-1 Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................3-3 

3.1.1-2 Geology and Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying Aboveground 

Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project..............................................3-5 

3.1.1-3 Mineral Resources Identified along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project..........3-8 

3.1.1-4 Seismic Hazards along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ...........................3-11 

3.1.1-5 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility of Areas Traversed by the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................................................................3-12 

3.1.1-6 Pierre Formation Shale with Slopes Greater Than 15 Percent in 

Areas Traversed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project................................3-12 

3.2.1-1 Summary of Soil Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project .................................................................................................3-19 

3.2.1-2 Topsoil Depths along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Route 

That Exceed 12 Inches......................................................................................3-23 

3.3.1-1 Potable Wells Located within 150 Feet of the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project Route ......................................................................................3-35 

3.3.2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project...........................3-39 

3.3.2-2 Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project .........3-42 

3.3.2-3 Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project..........3-43 

3.3.2-4 Summary of Proposed Revisions to FERC Procedures for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................................................................3-45 

3.3.2-5 Water Withdrawal Volumes for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project .............3-51 

3.5.1-1 Acreages of Vegetation Types Impacted by Permanent Aboveground 

Facilities, Yards, and Access Roads for the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project ...............................................................................................................3-62 

viii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Number Title Page

3.6.1-1 Common Fish Species Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Area ......................................................................................................3-70 

3.6.1-2 Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project.......................................................................................3-72 

3.6.2-1 Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area ..............................................................3-77 

3.6.2-2 Important Migratory Bird Species in the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Area ......................................................................................................3-82 

3.7.1-1 Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially 

Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area ...................................3-95 

3.7.1-2 Greater Sage-grouse Lek Buffer Zones Affected by Aboveground Facilities 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ...........................................................3-99 

3.7.1-3 Whooping Crane Potential Habitat along the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................3-102 

3.7.1-4 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Towns Crossed by the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................3-105 

3.7.1-5 Ute Ladies’-Tresses Potential Habitat along the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................3-108 

3.7.2-1 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project Area ......................................................................................3-110 

3.7.2-2 Swift Fox Potential Habitat along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ........3-118 

3.8.1-1 Land Use Types in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area .......................3-121 

3.8.1-2 Planned Residential and Commercial Developments within 0.25 Mile 

of the Construction Right-of-Way for the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project .............................................................................................................3-132 

3.8.2-1 Tracts Containing Conservation Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-133 

3.9.1-1 Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in Wyoming .............................................................3-140 

3.9.1-2 Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in Montana ...............................................................3-142 

3.9.1-3 Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in North Dakota .......................................................3-144 

3.9.2-1 Native American Consultation Contact List for the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................3-145 

3.10.1-1 Existing Population Conditions in the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-151 

ix
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Number Title Page

3.10.1-2 Estimated Population Change in the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-152 

3.10.2-1 Existing Income and Employment Conditions in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project ........................................................3-154 

3.10.2-2 County Revenue and Estimated Annual Taxes for the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................3-155 

3.10.3-1 Temporary Housing Units Within 50 Miles of Contractor Yards for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-156 

3.10.4-1 Existing Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-Time Equivalents 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project...............3-158 

3.10.5-1 Major Highway Road Crossings for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....3-160 

3.10.7-1 Existing Demographic Conditions in the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-162 

3.10.7-2 Poverty levels in Counties Bordering the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project....................................................................3-163 

3.11.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Area ....................................................................................................3-166 

33.11.1-2 Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations in the Region of the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project (2006–2008) ..............................................3-168 

3.11.1-3 Estimated Emissions for the Hettinger Compressor Station for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................3-170 

3.11.2-1 Noise-Sensitive Areas within 0.5 Mile of an HDD Location .........................3-177 

3.11.2-2 Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Hettinger Compressor 

Station at NSAs...............................................................................................3-178 

3.12.2-1 Significant Incidents by Cause from 1988 through 2008 for Onshore 

Natural Gas Transmission Systems ................................................................3-183 

3.12.2-2 Incidents Caused by External Corrosion and Level of Protection (1970 

through June 1984) .........................................................................................3-184 

3.12.3-1 Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission 

Systems in the United States...........................................................................3-185 

3.12.3-2 Fatalities by Sector for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Systems in the 

United States...................................................................................................3-185 

3.12.3-3 Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission 

ystems in the States Crossed by the Bison Project.........................................3-186 

3.12.3-4 Nationwide Accidental Deaths .......................................................................3-187 

3.13-1 Watersheds Traversed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project......................3-190 

3.13.2-1 Existing or Proposed Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact 

Environmental Resources in the Region of Influence for the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project.....................................................................................3-192 

x
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

xi

Number Title Page

3.13.5-1 Summary of Cumulative Land Disturbance Associated with Conventional 

Oil/Gas and Coal-Bed Methane Development in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project (2003 to 2013)................................3-197 

4.3.1-1 Comparison of the Direct Route Alternative and the Proposed Bison 

Pipeline Project Route ......................................................................................4-17 

4.3.2-1 Comparison of the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Route ............................................................4-20 

4.3.3-1 Comparison of the Grasslands Route Alternative and the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project Route ............................................................................4-23 

4.3.4-1 Comparison of the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Route ............................................................4-26 

4.3.5-1 Comparison of the Carter County Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Route ............................................................4-29 

4.5.1-1 Comparison of Hettinger Compressor Station Site Alternatives and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project.......................................................................4-31 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Title Page

2.1.1-1 General Location Map ........................................................................................2-2

2.2.1-1 Typical Proposed Pipeline Right-of-way............................................................2-8

2.2.1-2 Typical Collocation with a Foreign Pipeline ....................................................2-10

2.2.2-1 Typical Compressor Station Configuration ......................................................2-11

2.2.2-2 Typical Receipt Meter Station Site...................................................................2-12

2.2.2-3 Typical Delivery Meter Station Site .................................................................2-13

2.2.2-4 Typical Pig Launcher or Pig Receiver Site.......................................................2-14

2.2.2-5 Typical Mainline Valve Site .............................................................................2-16

2.3.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ..........................................................2-19

2.3.2-1 Typical Open-Cut Wet Waterbody Crossing....................................................2-24

2.3.2-2 Typical Open-Cut/Push-Pull Waterbody Crossing...........................................2-26

2.3.2-3 Typical Flume Waterbody Crossing .................................................................2-27

2.3.2-4 Typical Dam-and-Pump Waterbody Crossing..................................................2-28

2.3.2-5 Typical HDD Installation Process ....................................................................2-30

2.3.2-6 Typical Flume Bridge .......................................................................................2-32

2.3.2-7 Typical Span Bridge .........................................................................................2-33

2.3.2-8 Typical Open-Cut Without Matting Wetland Crossing ....................................2-35

2.3.2-9 Typical Open-Cut with Matting Wetland Crossing ..........................................2-37

2.3.2-10 Typical Open-Cut/Push-Pull Wetland Crossing ...............................................2-38

2.3.2-11 Typical Road Crossing......................................................................................2-41

2.3.2-12 Typical Railroad Crossing ................................................................................2-42

2.3.2-13 Typical Temporary Open-Cut Road Crossing Detour Detail ...........................2-43

2.3.2-14 Typical Two-Tone Construction Right-of-Way Cross Section ........................2-45

4.2.1-1 Williston Basin System Alternative....................................................................4-7

4.2.1-2 Cheyenne Plains System Alternative..................................................................4-9

4.2.1-3 Rockies Express System Alternative ................................................................4-11

4.2.1-4 Trailblazer System Alternative .........................................................................4-13

4.3.1-1 Direct Route Alternative...................................................................................4-16

4.3.2-1 Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative .........................................................4-19

4.3.3-1 Grasslands Route Alternative ...........................................................................4-22

4.3.5-1 Carter County Route Alternative ......................................................................4-28

4.5.1-1 Hettinger Compressor Station Site Alternatives ...............................................4-32

xii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADP Anticipated Discoveries Plan 

AFC American Fisheries Society 

AMP Agricultural Mitigation Plan 

AOE Annual Energy Outlook 

Applicant Bison Pipeline LLC 

AQCR air quality control region 

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana 

BA biological assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

BCC birds of conservation concern 

bcf billion cubic feet 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

bgs below ground surface 

Bison Bison Pipeline LLC 

Bison’s Plan Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

Bison’s Procedures Bison’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BRDB Biomass Research and Development Board 

Btu British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBNG coal-bed natural gas 

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

cf cubic feet 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGWA Controlled Ground Water Area 

cm

2 square centimeters 

CO carbon monoxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CPC Center for Plant Conservation 

CPS Cathodic Protection System 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

dBa decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern 

DMS delivery meter station 

DNRC Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

DW Defenders of Wildlife 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

Environ Environ International Corporation 

xiii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESD emergency shut down 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 

EWS extra workspace 

F Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

FSA Farm Services Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g/HP-hour gram(s) per horsepower-hour 

GHG greenhouse gas 

gpm gallons per minute 

GWPC Ground Water Protection Council 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence areas 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HDD Plan Horizontal Directional Drilling Plan 

hp horsepower 

HPRCC High Plains Regional Climate Center 

HUC hydrologic unit code 

kPa kilopascals 

kV Kilovolt 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LULC Land Use and Land Cover Data 

m3 cubic meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MBMG Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

μg Microgram 

mg Milligram 

MLV mainline valve 

MMBtu million Btu 

MMcf/day million cubic feet per day 

MP Milepost 

MRA Montana River Action 

MSG Montana State Government 

MT Montana 

MTDNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

MW Megawatt 

mya million years ago 

xiv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

MZ Management Zone 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAUS National Atlas of the United States 

NCSU North Carolina State University 

ND North Dakota 

NDDOH North Dakota Department of Health 

NDDOH-DAQ North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Air Quality 

NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

NDSWC North Dakota State Water Commission 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPL Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOA notice of availability 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Pathfinder Pipeline Project and Bison Pipeline Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public 

Scoping Meetings 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRM Northern Rocky Mountain 

NSA noise-sensitive area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWP Nationwide Permit 

O3 Ozone 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PDC Prairie Dog Coalition 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFYC potential fossil yield classification 

PFO palustrine forested 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

ppmvd parts per million by volume dry 

PRBGS Powder River Basin Geologic Structure 

proposed Project Bison Pipeline Project 

PSC Public Service Commission 

xv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xvi

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psi pounds per square inch 

psig per square inch gage 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 

RMP Resource Management Plans 

RMS receipt meter station 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

SDDOA South Dakota Department of Agriculture 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SI ICE spark ignition internal combustion engines 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SO3 sulfur trioxide 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic database 

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

tpy tons per year 

UDP Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS United State Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WBI Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WY Wyoming 

WYDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

WYSEO Wyoming State Engineers Office 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

On June 3, 2008, Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) filed a request with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) to implement its pre-filing review process for the Bison Pipeline Project. 

We1

 approved Bison’s request on June 4, 2008. On April 20, 2009, Bison 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 of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain an 

interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as 

the Bison Pipeline Project (Project). The staff of the Commission has prepared this draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

purpose of this document is to make public our analysis of the environmental impacts that would likely 

result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this EIS are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Input from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as a cooperating agency, was 

considered during the development of our conclusions and recommendations; however, BLM would 

present their own conclusions and recommendations in their Record of Decision (ROD), and would adopt 

this EIS per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the 

document, they conclude that their permitting requirements have been satisfied. 

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. Bison also has committed to funding a third-party Environmental Inspection 

contractor that FERC would manage, with a goal of documenting a high level of environmental 

compliance during construction. We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts based on information 

provided by Bison and data developed from field investigations; literature research; alternatives analysis; 

comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from public groups and individual citizens. 

However, we believe that environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels if the 

proposed Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Bison’s 

proposed mitigation, and additional measures we recommend in this draft EIS. We are therefore 

recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the 

Commission. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed Project is expected to transport up to approximately 477 million cubic feet per day 

(MMcf/day) of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets 

(primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois). Bison proposes to construct and operate: 

• Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline extending 

northeast from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and 

southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company’s 

pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 in Morton County, North 

Dakota; 

 

1

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office 

of Energy Projects. 

ES-1 
• One new compressor station totaling 4,700 horsepower of compression: the Hettinger 

Compressor Station located in Hettinger County, North Dakota; 

• Two new meter stations; 

• Twenty mainline valves; and 

• Three pig2

 launcher and pig receiver facilities. 

Dependent upon Commission approval, Bison proposes to complete construction and begin 

operating the proposed Project in November 2010. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

As part of our pre-filing review, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings for 

the Bison Project on September 30, 2008. The notice was published in the Federal Register and sent to 

affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and 

public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries; newspapers; and other interested parties. 

In response to our notice, public site visits, and public meetings held along the proposed pipeline route, 

we received numerous comments from landowners, concerned citizens, public officials, and government 

agencies regarding the proposed Project. These comments expressed concerns with the location of the 

proposed pipeline and the effects of the proposed Project on resources and land uses, including soils, 

waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, safety, air quality, noise 

quality, and state- and federally managed lands. 

This draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and mailed to 

various federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; newspapers and public 

libraries; television and radio stations; intervenors to FERC’s proceedings; landowners; and other 

interested parties (such as individuals and environmental groups who provided scoping comments or 

asked to remain on the mailing list). A formal notice indicating that the draft EIS is available for review 

and comment has been published in the Federal Register. The public has 45 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register to comment on the draft EIS. We will also hold public comment 

meetings along the proposed pipeline route at locations and dates specified in the cover letter to this EIS. 

Comments received during this period will be considered and addressed in the final EIS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to geology, soils, 

groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, threatened and endangered species, 

cultural resources, air and noise quality, and land use. 

The proposed Project would avoid areas of seismic activity and karst topography. Bison does not 

anticipate the need for blasting, but we have recommended that Bison file a site-specific blasting plan in 

order to minimize impacts, should blasting be required. Furthermore, Bison has not comprehensively 

identified specific areas of high susceptibility to slope failure along the proposed route. We have 

recommended that Bison identify such locations before the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Twenty-one significant paleontological sites were encountered during field surveys; two of which are 

currently recommended for avoidance. We have recommended that Bison agree to adhere to the 

mitigation measures identified in the paleontological report or as identified by BLM. 

 

2

 A “pig” is a mechanical device used to clean or inspect the pipeline. 

ES-2 
To minimize general construction-related affects to soils, Bison would implement the measures 

described in Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Bison’s Plan) 

(Appendix F); Bison’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Bison’s 

Procedures) (Appendix G); and Bison’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 

(Appendix H). These measures would control erosion and increase the potential success of revegetation 

efforts. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would temporarily affect 37 perennial streams; however it 

would not affect any sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, or springs, as these areas would not 

be crossed. With our recommendations, potential effects to sensitive waterbodies (including one state 

scenic river) would be largely avoided through implementation of dry crossing techniques. 

Although construction of the proposed Project would affect 165 wetland areas, they are almost 

exclusively emergent wetlands. No forested wetlands would be impacted by construction of the proposed 

Project and less than 0.1 acre of scrub-shrub wetland habitat would be affected. With strict adherence to 

its Procedures, BLM’s Reclamation Plan, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit requirements, 

impacts to wetlands would be minor. These impacts would be short term in emergent wetlands and short 

term to long term in scrub-shrub wetlands. 

The main vegetative communities that would be affected during construction are classified as 

open land (3,590.3 acres, 62 percent) and agricultural land (1,671.4 acres, or 29 percent). A total of 

41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed by the 

proposed Project, all of which would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Bison would restore all 

disturbed vegetated areas in accordance with its Plan (Appendix F) and Reclamation Plan (Appendix R) 

and would implement its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L) to minimize the spread 

of noxious and invasive weeds. Impacts to vegetation are expected to be short term to long term and 

minor. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect wildlife or 

aquatic habitats. Impacts on fisheries would be minimized through adherence with Bison’s Procedures, 

use of HDD and other dry crossing methods, and compliance with the terms of any applicable federal or 

state permits. The impact to wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed route could be temporary 

and short term, long term, or permanent based on the habitat type impacted. Wildlife habitats would be 

cleared but would be allowed to revegetate in most areas, resulting in a small loss of habitat. Some 

sensitive wildlife habitats would be affected by the proposed Project, but efforts have been made to 

minimize the effects and consultations are underway with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 

form a Migratory Bird Treaty Act Conservation Agreement to minimize impacts on migratory birds. 

Implementation of Bison’s Plan, Bison’s Procedures, and other proposed mitigation measures, such as 

timing restrictions and the use of buffer zones, would minimize the effects of the proposed Project on 

wildlife. 

Based on Bison’s consultation with the FWS and our review of existing records, 13 federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, or those that are candidates or petitioned for listing, are reported 

to potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Based on our review of these 13 species, we 

have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not affect pallid sturgeon 

and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, 

gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies’-tresses. The remaining species 

(greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed prairie dog, black-tailed prairie dog, and Dakota 

skipper) are proposed or candidate species. Given that suitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Dakota skipper, and white-tailed prairie dog would not be crossed by the proposed Project, the Project 

would not likely contribute to the listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ES-3 
(ESA). Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the 

proposed Project, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Therefore, should FWS determine that these 

species warrant listing under the ESA prior to construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 

consultation under the ESA would be required. We have requested that FWS consider this draft EIS as 

the BA for the proposed Project. 

In addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, or federal candidate species, 30 BLM- or 

state-identified special-status species could occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. We believe that, 

given the nature of the species occurrence and the measures that would be implemented as part of this 

proposed Project, impacts to special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in short and long term impacts 

on agricultural land, forests, and special use areas. Bison has worked to locate the proposed route along 

existing rights-of-way to the extent practical and is engaged in ongoing consultation with the appropriate 

land-managing agencies to minimize impacts to these areas. To minimize impacts on land uses, we have 

recommended that Bison continue to further evaluate the need for specific construction work areas as the 

route is being finalized, especially in areas where windbreaks are present. 

Visual resources along the proposed Project route would be affected by installation of certain 

aboveground facilities and through alteration of existing vegetative patterns associated with clearing of 

the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. To minimize visual impacts, Bison has located 

some of the proposed aboveground facilities in existing developed areas. The rural setting of the Project 

area and the existing vegetation or topography help to minimize visual impacts for the facilities that Bison 

was not able to locate in an existing developed area. 

The proposed Project would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income 

during construction and operation; however, these impacts would be relatively small. Due to the rural 

nature of the Project area and limited supply of temporary housing, Bison has drafted a Short-Term 

Housing Plan (Appendix P) and a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix Q) to 

minimize potential impacts on the temporary housing market and transportation infrastructure. Because 

the details of these plans were not sufficient to support the minimization of potential impacts, we have 

recommended that Bison finalize these plans in a manner that would sufficiently minimize potential 

impacts to the housing and transportation sectors in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Cultural resources surveys are 92.2 percent complete along the proposed pipeline route. Surveys 

along the remaining corridor and remaining uninventoried access roads and facility locations are currently 

being completed or are pending landowner permission to access the survey sites. Except for areas where 

access is not permitted, we anticipate that the outstanding surveys would be filed during fall 2009. Three 

sites considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be avoided 

by boring underneath, realigning the proposed pipeline, and narrowing the construction right-of-way. In 

addition, one prehistoric site considered to be eligible for listing in the NRHP would be crossed, but in an 

area that does not contribute to the site’s eligibility. One site of unknown age that has not been evaluated 

also would be avoided, and one historic site considered to be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP 

would be crossed, but in an area that does not contribute to the site’s eligibility. Consultation with the 

BLM, Indian tribes, and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) would be completed prior to 

initiating construction. 

Operation of the proposed Project would permanently affect both the air quality and noise 

environment near the Hettinger Compressor Station. However, we have determined that no significant 

impacts on air quality would be caused by emissions from the compressor station or from construction 

ES-4 
activities. Due to the rural setting and the results of noise impact analysis, it is expected that construction 

or operational noise would not be significant. 

To minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 

Project, Bison has developed and would implement several measures and plans, including but not limited 

to, the following: 

• Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) (Appendix F); 

• Bison’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) 

(Appendix G); 

• Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L); 

• A general Blasting Plan (Appendix J); 

• Agricultural Mitigation Plan (Appendix O); 

• Short-Term Housing Plan (Appendix P); 

• Reclamation Plan (Appendix R); 

• Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U); 

• Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix Q); 

• Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Appendix S); 

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan (Appendix H); and 

• Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Plan (Appendix I) that includes measures for the 

containment of inadvertent release of drilling mud. 

Detailed descriptions of environmental impacts, including a description of cumulative impacts, 

Bison’s proposed impact avoidance and mitigation measures, and our recommendations to further 

minimize and mitigate impacts are included in Sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of this draft EIS. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives were considered for the Bison Project. While 

the No Action or Postponed Action Alternatives would eliminate or delay the environmental impacts 

identified in this draft EIS, U.S. markets would be denied the Project objective of delivering up to 

477 MMcf/day of natural gas from supply regions in the Powder River Basin to meet the increasing 

demand in the Midwestern United States. By denying or delaying the Certificate for the Project, the 

production and delivery from existing wells located in the Powder River Basin may be delayed. This 

denial or delay might result in more expensive and less reliable natural gas supplies for the end users and 

greater reliance on alternative fossil fuels, such as coal or fuel oil, or both. 

A system alternative for the Bison Project would need to be able to transport large volumes of 

natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to markets in the Midwest. We are not aware of any 

existing pipeline systems with expansion plans that could meet the purpose and need of the Bison Project. 

Additionally, only one existing system is located in the general vicinity of the Bison Project, and it would 

require looping of its entire system length to provide the throughput capacity of the proposed Bison 

Project. The other existing systems we analyzed would require significantly more construction than the 

proposed Bison Project. Therefore, we concluded that the use of existing pipeline systems is not a viable 

alternative. 

ES-5 
ES-6 

We also evaluated five major route alternatives based on public and agency comments to 

determine whether impacts could be avoided or reduced to environmentally sensitive resources that would 

be affected by the Project. These included alternatives associated with the Grasslands Pipeline. We 

concluded that none of the major route alternatives would offer significant environmental advantages over 

the proposed Project route 

In addition, we evaluated route variations for minimizing impacts on wetland and waterbodies 

crossed by the Project route. The evaluation of these variations was based on site visits conducted by 

FERC, BLM, and the North Dakota Department of Health staff. Route variations were also evaluated 

based on landowner concerns and/or sensitive ecological resources. Each route variation considered was 

compared to the corresponding segment of the proposed Project route to determine whether potential 

environmental benefits would be afforded. Route variations that have been found to offer environmental 

advantages have been incorporated into the proposed Project. It is anticipated that minor alignment shifts 

would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate such site-specific 

circumstances, such as landowner concerns. 

CONCLUSION 

As part of our review, we developed measures that we believe would appropriately and 

reasonably avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. We recommend that these measures be attached as conditions to any 

authorization issued by the Commission. We conclude that, if the proposed Project is approved and is 

constructed and operated in accordance with Bison’s proposed minimization and mitigation measures and 

our recommended mitigation measures, the proposed facilities would result in some adverse 

environmental impacts. However, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the 

implementation of Bison’s proposed mitigation and the additional measures we recommend in the draft 

EIS. Our conclusions are supported by the following: 

• The proposed Project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 53.1 miles, or about 17.6 percent of the route; 

• The proposed route has been significantly influenced by agency recommendations to avoid 

sensitive wildlife habitats and vegetation types; 

• Bison has been responsive to landowner requests for minor route modifications and has 

adopted many of these into the route evaluated in this EIS; 

• Bison would implement its Plan and Procedures, as well as additional Project-specific plans, 

each of which would reduce and mitigate impacts to natural resources during construction 

and operation of the proposed Project; 

• All fisheries of special concern would be crossed by HDD or other dry methods based on 

Bison’s proposal and our recommendation; 

• Bison would complete all necessary surveys for sensitive species and cultural resources, and 

the appropriate consultations with the FWS, Indian, tribes, SHPOs, and ACHP, if required, 

would be complete before initiating construction; and 

• Bison would implement an environmental inspection and compliance monitoring program 

that would ensure compliance with all proposed mitigation measures and those required by 

the FERC Certificate and the BLM Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit, should 

they be granted. 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On April 20, 2009, Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison or Applicant) filed an Application with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) for the Bison Pipeline Project 

(proposed Project) under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the 

Commission’s guidelines. The Commission assigned the Application to Docket Number CP09-161-000 

and issued a notice of the Application in the Federal Register on May 7, 2009. 

FERC’s environmental staff prepared this draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for 

public review and comment to assess the potential environmental effects of construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). 

In mid 2008, TransCanada announced that one of its subsidiaries had purchased Bison Pipeline 

LLC from Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border). At that time, TransCanada planned to 

possibly build two pipeline systems: (1) the Bison Pipeline Project, which would extend from Campbell 

County, Wyoming to Morton County, North Dakota; and (2) the Pathfinder Pipeline Project, which would 

extend from Rio Blanco County, Colorado to Morton County, North Dakota via Campbell County, 

Wyoming. Bison submitted preliminary information to FERC for both projects. Due to a lack of shipper 

interest in the Pathfinder Pipeline Project, TransCanada postponed its efforts to obtain permits for that 

project. This EIS addresses only the proposed Bison Pipeline Project. 

Bison is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, own, operate, 

and maintain a natural gas transmission system in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. The proposed 

302.5-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would extend northeast from a point 

near Dead Horse (Campbell County), Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North 

Dakota. It would connect with Northern Border’s pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor 

Station #6 in Morton County, North Dakota. The Project would also include a 4,700-horsepower (hp) 

natural gas-fired compressor station in Hettinger County, North Dakota, mainline valves (MLVs), 

metering stations, and other associated facilities. The proposed Project has been designed to transport 

approximately 477 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/day) of natural gas. Section 2.0 provides additional 

information on the Project. 

The remainder of this introduction addresses the following: 

• Project Purpose and Need (Section 1.1); 

• Purpose and Scope of the EIS (Section 1.2); 

• Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory Requirements (Section 1.3); 

• Public Review and Comment (Section 1.4); and 

• Nonjurisdictional Facilities (Section 1.5). 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1.1 Project Purpose 

The purpose of the Project is to deliver approximately 477 MMcf/day of natural gas from the 

Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming to the Northern Border pipeline system, which would ship the 

gas to markets in the Midwestern United States (primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois). 

The Project is intended to provide a reliable and competitively priced supply of natural gas to meet future 

1-1
increases in demand in the Midwest market and to compensate for declining Canadian imports. Bison’s 

primary objectives include the following: 

• Provide producers in the Powder River Basin with additional pipeline capacity to access 

Midwest markets; 

• Replace the Midwest’s declining supply of Canadian natural gas by providing access to other 

reliable sources of natural gas; 

• Use the existing Northern Border pipeline system to the extent possible to minimize impacts 

associated with new pipeline construction; and 

• Provide an opportunity for future access to natural gas supply areas in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming through expansions or extensions of the proposed Project. 

Bison hopes to begin transporting natural gas in November 2010. 

1.1.2 Need for the Project 

1.1.2.1 Natural Gas Demand 

National Trends 

The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides detailed 

projections of energy supply and demand through 2030 in its Annual Energy Outlooks (AEOs). In its 

current projections (AEO2009), EIA projected that natural gas consumption in the United States will 

increase from 23.9 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2007 to 24.5 quadrillion Btu in 2030 based 

on its updated reference case. This amount is equivalent to an increase of 2.5 percent over the period, 

despite slight declines in the short term (EIA 2009a). The increase in natural gas consumption is 

projected to occur primarily from 2020 to 2030, when consumption is expected to increase from 22.1 to 

24.2 quadrillion Btu. Projections from other organizations, including the HIS Global Insight, Energy 

Ventures Analysis Inc., and Altos, also show steady increases in natural gas consumption (EIA 2009a). 

The AEO2009 reference case incorporates uncertainty about potential greenhouse gas regulations 

and policy changes, and their potential impacts on electric capacity planning decisions. It also has a 

higher projection for U.S. natural gas consumption relative to recent AEOs, reflecting an increase in 

demand for natural gas for electricity generation (EIA 2009a) consistent with a lower rate of adding coalfired capacity to the energy generation mix and more construction of new natural gas-fired power plants. 

Natural gas-fired plants are projected to account for 53 percent of new power plant construction from 

2007 to 2030 compared to 18 percent for coal. 

Midwest Market Trends 

EIA, which projects regional energy demands by census region, projected that natural gas 

consumption will increase in the Midwest market (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin). In the 

seven-state West North Central Region, which includes Iowa and Minnesota, natural gas consumption is 

projected to increase from 1.5 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 1.6 quadrillion Btu in 2030. In the five-state 

East North Central Region, which includes Wisconsin and Illinois, EIA projects natural gas consumption 

to increase less than 0.1 quadrillion Btu between 2007 and 2030. These increases are equivalent to 

11.9 and 1.2 percent increases for the West North Central and East North Central Regions, respectively 

(EIA 2009a). 

1-2
Factors leading to the projected increase in natural gas demand in Midwest markets include 

increases in commercial and industrial application, such as ethanol production, as well as new electric 

power generation. Industrial demand accounts for the majority of the projected increase in natural gas 

demand in the West North Central Region, increasing by about 33.9 percent from 2007 to 2030. In the 

East North Central Region, the projected demand for electric power shows the largest gain of any sector; 

it is projected to increase by 24.7 percent from 2007 to 2030 (EIA 2009a). 

The Midwest market accounted for 52.5 percent of the total U.S. ethanol production capacity as 

of March 2009 (Nebraska Energy Office 2009). Natural gas accounted for 70.5 percent of the total 

energy consumed (192 trillion Btu) at ethanol plants in 2007 (EIA 2009a). Both the total energy 

consumed by ethanol plants and the portion obtained from natural gas are projected to increase through 

2030; at that time, it is expected that natural gas will provide 596.3 trillion Btu to ethanol plants, 

equivalent to 83 percent of their total energy demand. Iowa has an ethanol production capacity of 

2,866 million gallons per year, the highest of any state. 

1.1.2.2 Natural Gas Supply 

National and Midwest Supply 

The United States obtains natural gas from both domestic production and foreign imports. EIA 

(2009a) reported that U.S. domestic natural gas production in 2007 was the equivalent of 19.8 quadrillion 

Btu and projected that by 2030 it will increase by 19.3 percent to 23.7 quadrillion Btu. 

There are several sources of domestic natural gas: conventional, unconventional (e.g., tight sand 

formation, shale formations, and coal-bed methane), and offshore sources. As total domestic production 

increases through 2030, the share of production from conventional sources will decline, and a larger 

portion of the gas will be from unconventional and offshore sources. Onshore unconventional natural gas 

production is expected to experience the largest growth through 2030, increasing from 47 percent of total 

domestic production in 2007 to 56 percent in 2030 (EIA 2009a). 

The domestic production from these sources is resulting in a shift in regional production rates, 

which is projected to continue in the future. The Gulf Coast, Midcontinent, and Rocky Mountain Regions 

contributed the majority of domestic supply in 2007. By 2030, onshore production from the Gulf Coast 

and Midcontinent Regions is expected to decline by 38 and 28 percent, respectively. The declines are 

expected to be offset by substantial increases in onshore production from the Rocky Mountain Region, as 

well as offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Natural gas production in the 

Rocky Mountain Region (which includes Wyoming) was 4.6 quadrillion Btu in 2007 and is projected to 

increase to 6.0 quadrillion Btu in 2030, when it will constitute 28.5 percent of all onshore production in 

the United States (EIA 2009b). 

Pipeline imports from Canada have an historically important role in meeting U.S. demand for 

natural gas, accounting for over 90 percent of all natural gas imports in 2008 (EIA 2009c). From 2000 to 

2008, imports from Canada leveled off at an average volume of 3,640 billion cubic feet (bcf) (EIA 

2009d). Further, conventional natural gas production from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin has 

been in decline, and Canadian unconventional production is not expected to be able to keep up with the 

growth of Canadian demand and maintain current export levels to the United States. As a result, EIA 

(2009a) has projected that imports to the United States will decline substantially through 2030 (EIA 

2009a), and the Canadian National Energy Board (2008) projected that Canadian natural gas exports 

would decrease to zero before that date. The AEO2009 reference case projects that, in 2030, U.S. 

domestic sources will provide more than 97 percent of U.S. natural gas consumed in the country, up from 

1-3
about 84 percent in 2007. Onshore domestic resources in the lower 48 states will play a dominant role in 

meeting that future demand (EIA 2009a). 

Portions of the Central Region natural gas pipeline network (which includes Iowa) and the 

Midwest Region natural gas pipeline network (which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois) 

constitute the Midwest market. The Midwest Region relies on pipeline connections to other regions to 

obtain sufficient supplies of gas because production in the region can meet only a small fraction of the 

regional demand for natural gas. The Midwest regional network has traditionally been supplied by areas 

such as Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (61 percent in the first quarter 2009), as well as pipeline imports 

from Canada. Canadian imports currently provide about 30 percent of the natural gas entering the 

Midwest Region pipeline network; Canadian imports into the Midwest Region increased substantially in 

the last decade to meet the demand (EIA 2009e). 

The proposed Project would provide natural gas to the Midwest market by connecting to the 

existing Northern Border pipeline system. Northern Border connects to the Central Region pipeline 

network, extending from the Saskatchewan/Montana border and connecting at Ventura, Iowa to the 

Northern Natural Gas Company—an extensive network serving Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (EIA 

2009e). Canadian pipeline deliveries to the Midwest market are primarily from the Western Canada 

Sedimentary Basin. As described previously, imports from Canada are expected to decline substantially, 

and other sources of natural gas will be needed to replace Canadian supplies in order to meet growing 

demand.

Powder River Basin Supply 

The Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming has become a major supplier of coal-bed 

methane, with 20 percent of the U.S. domestic production of coal-bed methane from that basin in 2006. 

Overall, coal-bed methane is an important source of natural gas; production of natural gas from this 

source increased by 61 percent from 1997 to 2007 (EIA 2009f). Unconventional sources are expected to 

be a dominant factor in meeting future demand for natural gas, and use of coal-bed methane is expected to 

increase by an additional 6.5 percent by 2030 (EIA 2009a). 

Wyoming was the second highest producer of natural gas in the United States in 2007 (EIA 

2009g), and the Powder River Basin accounted for about 98 percent of all coal-bed natural gas produced 

within the state (Wyoming Geological Survey 2009). Supply from the basin is expected to substantially 

increase in annual production into the future (PACE 2006, El Paso 2009). The basin is estimated to 

contain 11 percent of all U.S. natural gas recoverable resources (18.5 trillion cf), which includes only 

volumes potentially recoverable using existing and foreseen technologies (Potential Gas Committee 

2006); that amount greatly exceeds proved reserves elsewhere that are recoverable under existing 

economic and operating conditions (EIA 2007). By connecting to the Northern Border pipeline system, 

the proposed Project would increase the northbound supply of natural gas from the Powder River Basin to 

the Midwest markets. 

Currently, the Williston Basin Interstate (WBI) Grassland pipeline is the only northbound 

pipeline from the Powder River Basin; and it would require expansion to reach its full capacity of 

213 MMcf/day (Trading Markets 2008). This volume of gas is equivalent to less than 10 percent of the 

daily production forecasts for the basin (PACE 2006). The proposed Project would more than triple the 

existing northbound capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin. 

1-4
1.1.2.3 Integrating Supply and Demand 

Unconventional sources in the Rocky Mountain Region will play a critical role in meeting the 

growing future demand for natural gas in the United States. As noted, the Midwest market currently 

obtains a substantial portion of its natural gas supply from Canadian pipeline imports, and the region will 

require alternate sources in the future to compensate for the declining Canadian imports and to meet its 

growing demand for gas. That demand can be met by the proposed Project, which would supply natural 

gas from the growing domestic production in the Rocky Mountain Region including unconventional gas 

supplies. In addition, the Northern Border pipeline will have sufficient capacity for the gas provided by 

the proposed Project because that pipeline will experience declining gas volumes from Canada. By 

providing additional northbound supply from the Powder River Basin, the Project could also moderate 

future increases in natural gas prices and price volatility through increased volume and supply diversity. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS 

As the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to construct 

and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities, FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of 

this EIS. The EIS has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 1500–1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a cooperating 

agency in preparation of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 

respect to environmental impacts associated with a proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. BLM 

is a cooperating agency because the Project would cross federal lands and resources for which the BLM 

has jurisdiction and special expertise with respect to environmental issues and impacts. BLM will use the 

EIS to meet its NEPA responsibilities in considering Bison’s application for a Right-of-Way Grant and 

Temporary Use Permit for the portion of the Project on federal land. 

This draft EIS has been prepared for public review and comment. The principal purposes in 

preparing this EIS were to: 

• Identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that would result 

from implementation of the proposed Project; 

• Facilitate public involvement in identifying any potentially significant environmental 

impacts; 

• Identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the environment; and 

• Identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. 

The resources and issues assessed in this EIS include the following: 

• Alternatives; 

• Geology; 

• Soils; 

• Water resources; 

• Wetlands; 

1-5
• Terrestrial vegetation; 

• Fish and wildlife; 

• Threatened and endangered species; 

• Land use, recreation, and visual resources; 

• Socioeconomics; 

• Cultural resources; 

• Air and noise quality; 

• Reliability and safety; and 

• Cumulative impacts. 

This EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental 

consequences of the proposed Project, and compares the Project’s potential impacts to the potential 

impacts of alternatives. The EIS also presents our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. 

All stakeholders, including the public and federal, state, and local entities, are strongly 

encouraged to provide comments on this draft EIS for consideration by FERC prior to issuing a final EIS. 

After a final EIS is issued, the Commission will determine whether or not the proposed Project should be 

approved. A final approval will be granted only if, after a consideration of both environmental and nonenvironmental issues, the Commission determines that the Project is consistent with the public interest. 

The environmental impact assessment and mitigation development discussed in the EIS will be important 

factors in that final determination. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

1.3.3 Federal Permits and Approvals 

1.3.3.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

As the lead federal agency for proposed interstate natural gas projects, FERC is required to 

comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972 (CZMA), where applicable. For the proposed Project, neither the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor the 

CZMA are applicable. 

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 Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this document. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agency (such as, 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 [USC] Section 1536[a][2][1988]). FERC, 

or Bison 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 threatened or endangered species or their designated 

1-6
critical habitats occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. If, upon review of existing data or data 

provided by the Applicant, FERC determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the 

proposed Project, 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 or species, or that 

would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. FERC is requesting that FWS consider this EIS as 

the BA for the Bison Pipeline Project. Further information on construction of the Project and the 

potential impacts to federally listed species is presented in Sections 2.0 and 3.7 of this EIS. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires 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 FERC to afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. FERC has 

requested that Bison, as a non-federal party, assist in meeting FERC’s obligation under Section 106 by 

preparing the necessary information and analyses, as required by the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. 

1.3.3.2 U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

As described above, BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS. 

BLM has jurisdiction over lands that the proposed route crosses. Under Section 28, as amended in 

Section 185(f), of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, BLM has the authority to issue Right-of-Way Grants 

and Temporary Use Permits for all affected federal lands; those actions would be accomplished in 

accordance with 43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880, subsequent 2800 and 2880 Manuals, and 

Handbook 2801-1. Bison would need to obtain a Right-of-Way Grant and a Temporary Use Permit from 

BLM for crossing BLM-managed lands. 

1.3.3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Bison would be required to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated water quality certification (Section 401) to the 

jurisdiction of individual state agencies along the proposed route but may assume this authority if a state 

program is not functioning adequately, or at the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of 

pipelines that is point-source discharged into waterbodies requires a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 402) issued by each state with EPA oversight, which 

includes each of the states along the proposed route. 

Ambient air quality is protected by federal regulations under the CAA. These regulations include 

compliance under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and requirements for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). EPA has delegated the federal permitting process for the CAA to each 

of the states along the proposed route. Although applications are reviewed by both the states and EPA, 

the states would determine the need for NSPS or a PSD permit. Air quality and applicable regulations are 

discussed further in Section 3.11.1 of this EIS. 

1.3.3.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has responsibility for determining compliance with the 

regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the CWA. EPA also independently reviews Section 404 

wetland dredge-and-fill applications for the COE and has Section 404(c) veto power for wetland permits 

issued by the COE. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

1-7
waters of the United States. In addition to the CWA, the COE has responsibilities under Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

The COE may issue an individual permit or a nationwide permit (NWP) for natural gas pipelines 

that affect wetlands. An NWP is a type of general permit designed to authorize certain activities that have 

minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment and generally comply with the related laws cited in 

33 CFR 320.3. The COE has determined that the Project qualifies for an NWP 12 (Utilities). This NWP 

was evaluated for compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, including Subparts C through G. 

The COE determined that the discharges authorized by an NWP 12 comply with those guidelines with the 

inclusion of appropriate and practicable conditions, including mitigation, necessary to minimize adverse 

effects on affected aquatic ecosystems. Further discussion of wetlands affected by the Project is provided 

in Section 3.4. 

1.3.4 Other Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

Major permits, approvals, and consultations required for the proposed Project are identified in 

Table 1.3.2-1. In addition, Bison would need to obtain permits from counties and/or municipalities along 

the route (such as, permits for road, highway, and flood channel encroachment and crossings; and 

temporary use and occupancy permits). Bison would also need to obtain pipeline and utility crossing 

permits for all crossings of natural gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines. 

TABLE 1.3.2-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Status 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 

Application for Certificate filed 

April 20, 2009 

Right-of Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit 

under Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act 

Consultations initiated in May 

2008. Preliminary SF 299 

Plan of Development (POD) Draft POD submitted June 22, 

2009 

Consultation and concurrence for compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) 

Consultations in progress 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

Sensitive Species Consultation (BLM Manual 

Chapter 6840) 

Consultations in progress 

U.S. Department of Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) 

Consultations regarding compliance with Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); issue 

biological opinion

This draft EIS is intended to 

serve as the BA for the Project. 

U.S. Department of 

Defense, U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers (COE), 

Northwestern Division 

(Omaha District) 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) —

Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12 

Permit issued for Wyoming in 

July 2009. Final applications 

for Montana and North Dakota 

to be filed at the time the draft 

EIS is issued, as requested by 

COE 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior, FWS, Air Quality 

Branch 

Class 1 area air impact review Application to be filed in 2009 

1-8
TABLE 1.3.2-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Status 

DOT, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials 

Administration, Office of 

Pipeline Safety 

Review and approval of Integrity Management Plan 

(49 CFR Part 192) 

Plan to be filed prior to 

initiation of operation 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) 

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) 

Encroachment Permit for crossing federally funded 

highways 

Application to be filed prior to 

construction 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 

Region VIII 

Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality Certification Section 401 certification 

authority delegated to the 

states crossed by the Project 

(see below) 

Section 402 of the CWA, National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Section 402 permitting 

authority delegated to the 

states crossed by the Project 

(see below) 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Permit for Hettinger 

Compressor Station 

Air permit will be submitted to 

North Dakota for construction 

and operation of the Hettinger 

Compressor Station 

U.S. Department of 

Treasury, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms 

Treasury Department Order No. 120-1, Permit to 

Purchase Explosives for Blasting 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) 

Comment on effects to historic properties under 

Section 106 of the NHPA 

Has opportunity to comment 

on the undertaking, if 

necessary. 

Wyoming

Department of State Parks 

and Cultural Resources, 

SHPO 

Consultations and review for compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA 

Consultations in progress 

Department of 

Environmental Quality, 

Water Quality Division 

Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality Certification Covered during Nationwide 

Permit Pre-construction 

Notification package review 

Temporary Turbidity Increase Permit Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

General Permit for Temporary Discharge (discharge 

of hydrostatic test water and construction 

dewatering) 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for 

Construction Activities 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Engineer’s Office, 

Surface Water Division 

Permit to Appropriate Surface Waters and 

Temporary Use of Unappropriated Water (use of 

hydrostatic test water, horizontal directional drilling 

[HDD], dust control, and water use) 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

1-9
TABLE 1.3.2-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Status 

Wyoming (continued) 

State Natural Diversity 

Database 

Review Project for impacts to state-listed species Reviews in progress 

Office of State Lands and 

Investments (State Trust 

Lands) 

Permit for temporary access roads through public 

land; permit for pipeline construction 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Game and Fish 

Department 

Comment on effects to natural resources, 

threatened and endangered species 

Consultations in progress 

Montana 

State Historical Society, 

SHPO 

Consultations for compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA and compliance with Montana State 

Antiquities Act 

Consultations in progress 

Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Permit (hydrostatic test water discharge, 

construction dewatering, and discharge of 

stormwater during construction 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

318 Authorization (temporary turbidity in state water) Applications to be filed in the 

fall 2009 

Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality Certification Covered under Nationwide 

Permit process 

Department of Natural 

Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC)/Local 

Conservation Districts 

310 Permit for work in or near perennial streams Applications to be filed in the 

fall 2009 

DNRC, Water Resources 

Division 

Temporary Water Appropriation Permit (Beneficial 

Water Use Permit) for water use for hydrostatic 

testing or water use for dust control and HDDs 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

Floodplain Development Permit (meter stations) Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

DNRC Trust Land, 

Management Division 

Permit to obtain easement to cross state lands for 

permanent right-of-way, land use license for 

construction corridor, land use compliance 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Fish Wildlife and 

Parks Department, Wildlife 

Division 

Comment on effects to natural resources, 

threatened and endangered species 

Consultations in progress 

State Department of 

Transportation, Billings 

District 

Encroachment Permit for crossing or right-of-way 

encroachment of state highways 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

North Dakota 

State Historical Society, 

SHPO 

Consultations and review for compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA 

Consultations in progress 

1-10
TABLE 1.3.2-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Status 

North Dakota (continued) 

State Department of Health, 

Division of Water Quality 

Construction Storm Water Permit (NPDES General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with 

Construction Activity), including Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures Plan and Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

Hydrostatic Testing Permit; Temporary Dewatering 

Permit 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction. 

Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality Certification Covered under the Nationwide 

Permit process 

State Department of Health, 

Division of Air Quality 

Permit to Construct (potentially minor source 

depending on emissions) 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Water Commission Navigable Water Crossing Permit: Application for 

Authorization to Construct a Project within Islands 

and Beds of Navigable Streams and Waters 

(Sovereign Lands) 

To be filed during EIS process 

Temporary Water Use Permit: Temporary Water 

Permit 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Game and Fish 

Department 

Consultation on state threatened and endangered 

species and approval for construction on Game and 

Fish lands 

Consultations in progress 

State Land Department Permit for easement access, lease, or management 

agreement 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

Noxious Weed Cost Share Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

State Department of 

Transportation 

State and Highway Encroachment Permit (for 

pipeline and access roads that encroach on state 

highway rights-of-way) 

Application to be submitted 

prior to construction 

FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and local authorities; however, state 

and local agencies, through the application of state and local laws, may not prohibit or unreasonably delay 

the construction or operation of facilities approved by FERC. Any state or local permits issued with 

respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions of any authorization issued by 

FERC.1

 

 

1

 For example, see 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). 

1-11
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

1.4.5 Draft EIS Preparation 

1.4.5.1 FERC Environmental and Public Review Process 

On June 3, 2008, Bison filed a request with FERC to implement the Commission’s pre-filing 

process for the proposed Project. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement 

of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve issues before an 

application is filed with FERC. During the landowner notification process, Bison provided maps to each 

landowner of the proposed pipeline route across each one’s property, and sought out landowner 

comments regarding the routing of the pipeline. Bison continues to work with landowners to identify 

minimization and mitigation measures, such as adjusting the Project route through the adoption of route 

variations, to minimize impacts to properties. 

On June 4, 2008, FERC granted Bison’s request and established pre-filing Docket Number 

(PF08-23-000) to place information filed by Bison, information filed by stakeholders, and related 

documents issued by FERC into the public record. All of the information Bison filed with FERC prior to 

April 20, 2009, is in Docket Number PF08-23-000. Bison’s Application and all Project-related 

information filed on or after April 20, 2009, is in Docket Number CP-09-161-000. As a cooperating 

agency, BLM agreed to conduct its environmental reviews of the proposed Project in conjunction with the 

FERC pre-filing process. 

On September 30, 2008, FERC issued its Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Pathfinder Pipeline Project and Bison Pipeline Project, Request for 

Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice Of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was 

published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008. The NOI explained that FERC would be assessing 

potential environmental impacts and issues associated with both the proposed Pathfinder Pipeline Project 

and the proposed Bison Project. The NOI was sent to approximately 6,897 interested parties, including 

federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; tribes; conservation organizations; local libraries 

and newspapers; and property owners within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline routes. Issuance of the 

NOI opened the public scoping period and established a closing date of November 3, 2008, for receiving 

scoping comments. However, all relevant comments we2

 received prior to final production of the draft 

EIS were considered in the EIS. Approximately 40 comment letters were received in response to the 

NOI. 

During the pre-filing period, FERC and BLM conducted the following four public scoping 

meetings in the vicinity of the proposed Bison route to obtain comments on environmental issues for the 

proposed Project: 

• Gillette, Wyoming − October 13, 2008; 

• Broadus, Montana − October 14, 2008; 

• Bowman, North Dakota − October 15, 2008; and 

• Glen Ullin, North Dakota − October 16, 2008. 

 

2

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office 

of Energy Projects. 

1-12
These scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed 

Project and to provide comments on environmental issues to be addressed in this EIS. Transcripts of the 

scoping meetings have been entered into the Project docket. The transcripts of all the scoping meetings, 

as well as all written comments received as part of the scoping process, are part of the public record for 

the proposed Project and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov).3

FERC also conducted agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings to identify 

issues that should be addressed in this EIS. The meetings provided a forum for the exchange of 

information and supported FERC’s responsibility to coordinate all federal authorizations and associated 

environmental review for the Project. BLM and FERC conducted additional agency scoping meetings for 

the proposed Project at the following locations: 

• Casper, Wyoming − October 14, 2008; 

• Dickinson, North Dakota − November 13, 2008; and 

• Billings, Montana − November 14, 2008. 

Prior to issuance of the draft EIS to the public, FERC prepared an administrative draft EIS that 

was distributed to BLM, as a cooperating agency, for review and comment. These comments were 

considered and addressed in preparation of this draft EIS. 

Table 1.4.1-1 summarizes the major issues raised during the scoping process and the section of 

this EIS where these concerns are addressed. 

TABLE 1.4.1-1 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

Spacing and locations of shut-off valves 2.1.2, 2.2.2 

Collocation with exiting utilities 2.2.1 

Pipeline construction over difficult terrain 2.3.2.7 

Methods used to cross roads 2.3.2.4, 3.8 

Geology and Soils 

Protection of topsoil, prime farmland, and farmland of statewide importance 3.2.2.1 

Reduction of soil erosion 3.2.2.1 

Water Resources 

Impacts to groundwater, including well water and shallow aquifers 3.3.1.2 

Impacts to water quality due to crossings of perennial surface waters, including prairie 

streams, and associated riparian areas 

3.3.2.2 

 

3

 Using the “eLibrary link,” select “General Search” and enter the Project docket number excluding the last three 

digits (i.e., CP09-161) in the “Docket Number” field. Be sure to select an appropriate date range. 

1-13
TABLE 1.4.1-1 (continued) 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Water Resources (continued) 

Impacts associated with the release of hydrostatic test water 3.3.2.2 

Method used to cross the Heart River 3.3.2.2 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

Reclamation and revegetation in low reclamation potential soil 3.2.2.1, 3.5.2.1 

Impacts to riparian and deciduous woodland habitats 3.3.2.2, 3.5.2.2 

Protection of wetland vegetation and function 3.4.2 

Use of native shrubs and grasses for revegetation 3.5.2 

Replacement of vegetation on streambanks after construction 3.5.2 

Potential for spreading noxious and invasive plant species and the need for measures to 

control the spread of such species 

3.5.2.3 

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Impacts to fish and wildlife habitats 3.6.1.2, 3.6.2.2 

Potential for habitat fragmentation 3.6.2 

Impacts to animals during construction when attempting to use winter ranges or migration 

routes that cross the pipeline 

3.6.2 

Need for temporary wildlife crossing ramps over open trenches and escape ramps in open 

trenches 

3.6.2.4 

Potential impacts to state and federally protected species or their habitats, especially sagegrouse 3.7, 3.7.1.1 

Avoidance of prairie dog colonies 3.7.1 

Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

Impacts to affected property and land uses, including recreation, farming, ranching, and 

planned development 

3.8 

Impacts of increased traffic on major roadways and access roads 3.8.1, 3.10.5 

Compensation for use of right-of-way and access roads 3.8.1.3 

Easement negotiations and values and the eminent domain process 3.8.1.3 

Compatibility/potential conflicts with designated special use areas, including Conservation 

Reserve Program lands 

3.8.2.1 

Potential for lost access and income from mining/timbering on private land 3.8.2.2 

Impact of construction if occurring during hunting season 3.8.2.6 

Adherence to the general criteria of BLM’s visual resources management plan for 

aboveground facilities 

3.8.3 

Cultural Resources

Potential to affect cultural resources, including historic trails 3.9.2 

Potential impacts to unanticipated cultural discoveries 3.9.2 

1-14
TABLE 1.4.1-1 (continued) 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic impacts on local communities 3.10 

Loss of landowner income if construction occurs during hunting season 3.10.3 

Potential effect on property values 3.10.6 

Air Quality and Noise

Impacts from greenhouse gases 3.11.1.3 

Impacts on air quality, including dust impacts, during construction and the need for mitigation 

measures 

3.11.1.3 

Impacts from construction-related noise 3.11.2.3 

Noise impacts associated with the compressor station 3.11.2.3 

Reliability and Safety

Risk of a leak or an explosion and associated contamination 3.12 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts, including reasonably foreseeable development plans 3.13 

Cumulative effects on wildlife and crucial habitat 3.13.5.2 

Cumulative effect on climate change 3.13.5.4 

Alternatives

Assess alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations 4.0, 4.2, 4.3, 

4.5 

Increase use of alternative energy 4.1.2 

Consider using other pipeline systems to transport the gas to customers 4.2 

Use an alternative route that extends across flatter terrain and avoids rough country and 

forested areas in southeastern Montana 

4.3.5 

Incorporate private landowner input to alignment and construction methods / timing 4.4 

1.4.5.2 Bison Public Outreach Program 

Bison initiated a public outreach program in April 2008 when the Project was first announced. 

Since that time, Bison has provided information on the identification and resolutions of questions, issues, 

and concerns through press releases, e-mail, toll-free telephone numbers for general inquiries and 

landowner issues, one-on-one discussions between landowners and Bison’s land representatives, direct 

mailings to stakeholders, and information included on its website (http://www.bisonpipelinellc.com). As 

a part of its public outreach program, Bison provided information to the public at open houses held at the 

following locations: 

• Gillette, Wyoming − June 2, 2008; 

• Broadus, Montana − June 3, 2008; 

1-15
1-16

• Baker, Montana − June 4, 2008; 

• Bowman, North Dakota − June 10, 2008; 

• Mott, North Dakota − June 10, 2008; and 

• Gillette, Wyoming − June 21, 2008. 

1.4.6 Issuance and Review of Draft EIS 

This draft EIS was mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

presented in Appendix A for their review and comments. It was also submitted to EPA for issuing its 

formal public notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The public has 45 days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS in written comments and at 

the public comment meetings to be held in the Project area. The dates and locations of those public 

meetings are listed in the letter in the front of this draft EIS and in the NOA. All comments received on 

the draft EIS related to environmental issues will be addressed in the final EIS. 

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to authorize 

interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Occasionally, 

proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

These “nonjurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities (e.g., a power 

plant at the end of a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline), or they may be merely associated as minor, 

nonintegral components of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result 

of certification of the proposed facilities. 

Two potentially nonjurisdictional facilities have been identified in association with the Project: 

(1) a gas treatment and booster compression facility, and (2) 4 miles of underground three-phase, 

7,200-volt electric service transmission to the Hettinger Compressor Station. 

The gas treatment and booster compression facility is already under construction, is not 

dependent on the proposed Project, and would not require any modification as a result of construction of 

the proposed Project. Therefore, we have not evaluated the impacts of that facility in this EIS. 

Similarly, we determined that FERC’s control and responsibility is not sufficient to extend our 

environmental review to include the electrical transmission line for the following reasons: 

• There are no aspects of the nonjurisdictional facility that uniquely determine the location and 

configuration of the proposed Project; 

• None of the environmental review for the nonjurisdictional facility is within FERC’s 

jurisdiction; and 

• The extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility over the nonjurisdictional facility 

is minimal; the new electric line would be required to obtain permits and undergo an 

environmental review. 

These actions are independent of FERC’s decision of whether to approve the Project and do not 

warrant “federalizing” these facilities. 
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Bison proposes to construct, operate, and maintain 302.5 miles of new 30-inch-diameter interstate 

natural gas transmission pipeline, one compressor station, two meter stations, 20 MLVs, and three pig1

launcher/pig receiver facilities. The proposed Bison Pipeline Project would extend northeast from a point 

near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota. It would 

connect with the Northern Border pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 in 

Morton County, North Dakota. The Project’s design capacity is approximately 477 MMCf/day but could 

expand to a capacity of 1,000 MMCf/day, by adding one compressor station. However, at this time, this 

is not currently proposed. 

The general location of the proposed Project facilities is shown in Figure 2.1.1-1. Throughout 

this EIS, the locations of specific features along the proposed pipeline route, such as Project facilities and 

environmental resources, are identified by milepost (MP). Mileposting, as determined by Bison, was set 

on February 17, 2009 with MP 0.0 in Wyoming near Dead Horse. Afterward, the precise starting point of 

the Project was modified about 0.5 mile to the west due to discussions between Bison and the shippers. 

As a result, Bison chose to start the Project at approximately MP -0.5 (specifically, MP -0.47) and end the 

Project at MP 301.5 (specifically, MP 301.46) rather than updating mileposting along the entire route. 

Subsequent minor route variations have resulted in some discrepancies in the actual pipeline length 

between two milepost designations. Therefore, subtraction of the reported milepost beginning and ending 

values may not equal the reported pipeline lengths. Table 2.1.1-1 provides the location, MP, and length 

information for the pipeline facilities associated with the proposed Project. 

2.1.2 Compressor Station and Appurtenant Facilities 

As previously indicated, Bison proposes to construct and operate a 4,700-hp natural gas-fired 

compressor station, meter stations, MLVs, and pig launcher/pig receiver facilities. Table 2.1.1-2 provides 

location and MP information for the aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project. 

To increase the volume of natural gas transported through a pipeline, the gas is transported under 

pressure. The maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the proposed Project would be 

1,440 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Flow of natural gas through a pipeline causes friction, which 

results in a reduction of pressure. Compressor stations are used to increase the pressure and keep the flow 

of natural gas moving through the pipeline at an appropriate rate. 

 

1 A pig is a mechanical tool used to clean and/or inspect the interior of a pipeline. 

2-1
")

Montana

Wyoming

South Dakota

North Dakota

Carter

Campbell

Grant

Morton

Fallon

Stark

Powder River

Slope

Bowman

Hettinger

MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

Date: August 2009 Figure 2.1.1-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

GENERAL LOCATION MAP

 ̄

0 15 30 60

Miles

Legend

") Hettinger Compressor Station

Proposed Project Route

2-2
TABLE 2.1.1-1 

Pipeline Crossing Lengths for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Milepost a

State County Begin End 

Length 

(miles)b

Wyoming Campbell -0.5 79.2 79.7 

Montana Powder River 79.2 89.0 9.8 

Carter 89.0 169.4 80.5 

Fallon 169.4 175.8 6.4 

North Dakota Bowman 175.8 217.6 42.0 

Slope 217.6 237.7 20.2 

Hettinger 237.7 274.6 37.1 

Stark 274.6 282.2 7.6 

Grant 282.2 286.3 4.2 

Morton 286.3 301.5 15.2 

Total 302.5 

Notes: 

a

 Due to the incorporation of several minor route variations, subtraction of the reported 

milepost beginning and ending values may not equal the reported pipeline lengths; 

rounding may affect totals. 

b

 Rounding may affect totals. 

TABLE 2.1.1-2 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Type of Facility 

Facility ID Number or 

Name State County MP Acres Ownership 

Compressor 

station 

Hettinger Compressor 

Station (contains MLV257) 

ND Hettinger 257.2 20.0 Private 

Meter station Buffalo Receipt Meter 

Station (contains pig 

launcher, MLV -0.47) 

WY Campbell -0.5 1.2 Private 

Meter station Kurtz Delivery Meter 

Station (contains pig 

receiver, MLV-301) 

ND Morton 301.5 0.9 Private 

2-3
TABLE 2.1.1-2 (continued) 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Type of Facility 

Facility ID Number or 

Name State County MP Acres Ownership 

MLV MLV-012 WY Campbell 12.1 0.1 Private 

MLV-028 WY Campbell 27.6 0.1 Private 

MLV-045 WY Campbell 45.4 0.1 Private 

MLV-064 WY Campbell 64.5 0.1 Private 

MLV-079 MT Powder 

River 

79.2 0.1 Private 

MLV-088 MT Powder 

River 

87.7 0.1 Private 

MLV-107 MT Carter 106.6 0.1 Private 

MLV-123 MT Carter 124.0 0.1 Private 

MLV-142 MT Carter 141.6 0.1 BLM 

MLV-161 MT Carter 160.9 0.2 Private 

MLV-180 ND Bowman 179.9 0.1 BLM 

MLV-192 ND Bowman 192.1 0.1 Private 

MLV-212 ND Bowman 212.1 0.1 Private 

MLV-232 ND Slope 232.1 0.1 Private 

MLV-252 ND Hettinger 251.8 0.1 Private 

MLV-277 ND Stark 276.6 0.1 Private 

MLV-295 ND Morton 295.2 0.1 Private 

Notes: 

WY = Wyoming, MT = Montana, and ND = North Dakota 

MLV = Mainline valve 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

A single, natural gas-fired compressor station (the Hettinger Compressor Station) would be 

located in Hettinger County, North Dakota at MP 257.2. It would include one compressor building 

containing a natural gas-fired turbine compressor unit on a 20-acre parcel. Additional aboveground 

facilities would include gas and utility piping, a filter separator, relief/blowdown valves, a lube oil cooler, 

one mechanical skid, one control skid, a security system, a generator skid, an auxiliary power unit, pipe 

storage, and an MLV. Bison also would construct office/lunch room and warehouse buildings at the 

compressor station. Most natural gas piping at the facility would be installed below grade, and the 

perimeter of the compressor station would be fenced. Portions of the compressor station site would be 

paved, covered with gravel, or landscaped, depending on facility operations and maintenance 

requirements. 

Metering and flow control of natural gas between the Project pipeline and interconnects with 

existing natural gas pipelines would be accomplished via meter and regulation facilities provided at meter 

stations located at each proposed interconnect. Bison proposes one receipt meter station (RMS) at 

MP -0.5 (Buffalo RMS) and one delivery meter station (DMS) at MP 301.5 (Kurtz DMS). The meter 

2-4
stations would include a custody-transfer flow meter, gas scrubbers/strainers, a pressure regulator, 

isolation valves, a pig launcher at the Buffalo RMS and a pig receiver at the Kurtz DMS, and 

instrumentation and controls housed within a fenced and gated perimeter. Each of the proposed meter 

stations would require a parcel of land ranging from 0.9 to 1.2 acres. 

Twenty MLVs (block valves) would be installed on approximately 0.1-acre parcels along the 

proposed pipeline to enable portions of the pipeline to be shut down or isolated, if necessary, and provide 

for controlled venting during planned system blowdowns. One MLV also would contain a pig launcher 

and pig receiver (MLV-161 [MLV names are based on the approximate milepost of their location]). The 

MLVs would be installed in areas easily accessible to operating personnel and at intervals specified in 

DOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Each MLV assembly would consist of a below-ground 

valve with piping, with valve operators and bypass extending above ground. Line break detection 

systems capable of closing the valve upon sensing a significant drop in pressure potentially indicative of a 

pipeline rupture would be installed at each MLV site, and blowdown systems at each site would be 

designed to rapidly disperse any released gases. Security fencing and a lockable gate would surround the 

aboveground piping and valves at each MLV site. 

In addition to the pig launcher/pig receiver facilities installed at MLV-161, pig facilities also 

would be installed at the two meter stations located at approximately the Project origin and terminus. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

The land requirements of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 2.2-1. This summary 

identifies the construction and operational land requirements of the proposed pipeline, aboveground 

facilities, and extra work areas. Temporary land requirements for the proposed Project during 

construction would total approximately 5,830.9 acres. This includes the proposed pipeline construction 

right-of-way; construction areas for aboveground facilities; pipe storage, contractor, and rail yards; access 

roads; and extra workspaces (EWSs). Of this total, approximately 1,888.7 acres would be retained as 

permanent easements associated with operation of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities. 

Although land within the boundaries of the aboveground facilities would be converted to developed land, 

land within the permanent easement, as well as the 3,962.4 acres that were in the construction right-ofway but would not be retained as part of the permanent easement, would not be maintained and would be 

allowed to revert to its pre-construction vegetative state. If and when right-of-way mowing is required in 

specific areas, such as if trees grow immediately adjacent to pipeline and to a height at which the roots 

may be detrimental to pipeline integrity, FERC would be notified before such mowing took place. The 

land requirements of the proposed Project facilities are discussed further below, and additional 

information is provided in Section 3.8. 

2-5
TABLE 2.2-1 

Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Project Component 

Construction Footprint 

(acres) 

Operational Footprint 

(acres) 

Pipeline 4,336.4a 1,833.0b

Hettinger Compressor Stationc

(includes MLV-257) 

20.0 20.0 

Meter stations 

(includes pig launcher or pig receiver and 

MLV-0.47, MLV-301) 

2.1 2.1 

Mainline valves (MLVs)d 

(MLV-161 includes pig launcher/pig receiver) 

0.0d 0.0d

Extra workspaces (EWSs) 584.2 0.0 

Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 412.2 0.0 

Access roadse 476.0 33.6 

Total 5,830.9 1,888.7 

Notes: 

a

 Acreage for the pipeline reflects a 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way along the pipeline. Actual acreage will vary since 

the construction right-of-way within wetlands would be 75 feet wide and 10 feet of the proposed 120-foot-wide right-of-way 

would be used only if snow was present at the time of construction unless EWSs are proposed on either side of the right-ofway (in which case, the snow storage area would be included in the perimeter of the EWS). 

b

 Acreage for the pipeline reflects a 50-foot-wide permanent easement. Land within the permanent pipeline easement would 

be allowed to revegetate to pre-construction conditions. 

c

 The actual compressor station facility footprint would encompass approximately 10 acres. The area outside of these 10 acres 

would be restored in accordance with Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Appendix F) but 

may be used in the future. 

d

 Land requirements associated with these facilities would be minor (typically about 0.1 acre each) and contained entirely within 

other aboveground facilities or the permanent pipeline right-of-way, and are thus already included in the acreage estimates 

for those facilities. 

e

 There would be one access road for the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station. The portion of this access road located 

within the 20-acre parcel is accounted for within the compressor station. The portion (0.005 acre) of the access road not 

included in the 20-acre parcel is reflected in the access roads total acreage. 

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way 

As proposed by Bison, the construction right-of-way width along upland sections of the proposed 

pipeline would be installed using conventional, open-cut trenching techniques (see Section 2.3.1), and 

would be 120 feet for the proposed pipeline. The 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way would include 

10 feet on the construction side for temporary storage of any snow. This additional 10 feet would be used 

only if snow was present on the right-of-way at the time of construction unless Bison has proposed EWSs 

along both sides of the construction right-of-way. In these cases, the 10 feet reserved for snow storage 

would be included in the outer perimeter of the requested EWSs. The proposed construction right-of-way 

widths could be expanded to account for site-specific construction requirements, such as ensuring safe 

working conditions in areas of rugged terrain (see Section 2.3.2). In wetland areas, the typical 

construction right-of-way width would be reduced to 75 feet. 

2-6
Following construction, Bison would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation 

of the pipeline within the construction right-of-way and centered on the pipeline. Figure 2.2.1-1 

illustrates the typical construction and permanent pipeline right-of-way configuration proposed by Bison. 

Along some sections of the proposed Project route (for example, at some major waterbody, 

special use areas, roads, and/or railway crossings), pipeline installation would be accomplished via 

horizontal directional drill (HDD) or horizontal bores (see Section 2.3.2). HDDs require two pits, 

typically 250 feet by 200 feet, on either side of the feature to be crossed. In addition, an HDD requires a 

workspace approximately equivalent to the length of the pipe to be installed. Therefore, a 1,000-foot 

HDD would require a straight 1,000 feet of EWS for the pipe to be laid out; the EWS may or may not be 

located within the construction right-of-way for the adjacent segment of the pipeline. Horizontal bores 

also require two pits, typically 150 feet by 25 feet, on either side of the road or railroad to be crossed. 

2.2.1.1 Collocation with Existing and Planned Rights-of-Way 

The FERC regulations (18 CFR Section 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, 

enlargement, or extension of existing rights-of-way over developing a new right-of-way in order to reduce 

potential impacts on sensitive resources. In general, installation of new pipeline along existing rights-ofway that had been previously cleared (such as pipelines, powerlines, roads, or railroads) may be 

environmentally preferable to the development of new rights-of-way. Construction-related effects and 

cumulative impacts can normally be reduced by use of previously cleared rights-of-way; however, in 

congested or environmentally sensitive areas, it may be advantageous to deviate from an existing right-ofway. Additionally, collocation may be unfeasible in some areas due to a lack of or unsuitably oriented 

existing corridors, engineering and design considerations, or constructability issues. A portion of the 

proposed Project route would collocate with existing utility rights-of-way. As proposed, approximately 

53.1 miles or 17.6 percent, of the proposed Project would be adjacent to an existing utility corridor. The 

locations and lengths of the proposed Project route that would collocate with existing or planned utility 

corridors in each state are identified in Table 2.2.1-1. Alternative pipeline routes that would increase 

collocation opportunities or deviate from existing rights-of-way are considered in Section 4.0 of this EIS. 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Areas of Collocation along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State County Mileagea

Wyoming Campbell 41.3 

Montana Powder River 4.1 

Montana Carter 7.5 

North Dakota Morton 0.3 

Total 53.1 

Notes: 

a

 Rounding may affect totals. 

2-7
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Proposed P

2-8
In addition to the 53.1 miles of collocation, 9 miles of the proposed pipeline construction right-ofway would parallel existing pipeline corridors but would be separated by more than 25 feet. The 

proposed Project would be collocated with an existing WBI Pipeline Company right-of-way at 

14 separate locations in Wyoming and Montana, the Bighorn Gas Gathering Pipeline at two separate 

locations in Wyoming, the Belle Fourche Pipeline at three separate locations in Wyoming, the Fort Union 

Gas Gathering system at one location in Wyoming, and the Rowdy Pipeline at two separate locations in 

Wyoming. The proposed pipeline also would collocate with five roads and one overhead power line. In 

locations where EWSs are required, Bison indicates that they have requested permission from the owners 

of collocated pipelines to use parts of their right-of-way for EWS. According to Bison, Bighorn Gas 

Gathering LLC has given Bison permission to use 15 feet of its right-of-way for EWS, thereby reducing 

the space between the permanent rights-of-way to 10 feet. MDU Resources (the owner of the WBI 

pipeline) has not granted Bison permission to use its right-of-way although it has verbally stated that it 

would consider site-specific allowances of a 15-foot overlap in sensitive areas. Therefore, the gap 

between the WBI pipeline and the proposed Project would be 25 feet from the edge of each permanent 

right-of-way. Bison has reached tentative agreements with Rowdy Pipeline and Fort Union Gas 

Gathering to use 15 feet of their right-of-way for EWS, thereby reducing the space between the proposed 

permanent rights-of-way to 10 feet. However, since all agreements have not yet been finalized, the 

acreage tables do not reflect this potential overlap. Figure 2.2.1-2 illustrates the typical construction and 

permanent pipeline right-of-way configuration for portions of the proposed Project that would be 

collocated with existing utilities. 

Permanent Pipeline Right-of-Way Requirements 

Following construction, Bison would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation 

of the pipeline. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The land requirements for the proposed aboveground facilities would total 22.1 acres during 

construction and operation (Table 2.2-1). The proposed aboveground facilities include one new 

compressor station, two meter stations, 20 MLVs, and three pig launcher and/or pig receiver facilities. 

Drawings of typical compressor and meter stations (receipt and delivery) are provided as 

Figures 2.2.2-1, 2.2.2-2, and 2.2.2-3, respectively. 

The land requirements associated with those pig launcher/pig receiver facilities are accounted for 

and reported with those meter station facilities and MLV sites (Figure 2.2.2-4). 

2-9
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Collocation with a Foreign 

Pipeline

Figure 2.2.1-2

2-10
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Compressor 

2-11
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Receipt 

2-12
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Delivery 

2-13
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Pig Launc

2-14
Three of the MLVs would be located within the confines of the proposed Hettinger Compressor 

Station (MLV-257) and at two meter stations (MLV-0.47 and MLV-301) (Table 2.1.1-2). Thus, 

construction and operation of these MLVs would not result in additional land requirements beyond that 

noted for those aboveground facilities. The remaining MLV sites would typically be located on a 0.1-acre 

parcel within the limits of the permanent pipeline right-of-way (Figure 2.2.2-5). 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas 

2.2.3

2.2.3

.1 Extra Workspaces 

Additional construction areas, or EWSs, would be required for construction at road crossings, 

railroad crossings, crossings of existing pipelines and utilities, stringing truck turnaround areas, wetland 

crossings, HDD entrance and exit pits, bores, and open-cut waterbody crossings (Appendix B). These 

EWSs would be located adjacent to the construction right-of-way and could be used for such things as 

spoil storage, staging, equipment movement, material stockpiles, and pull string assembly associated with 

HDD installation. The proposed Project would require 2,152 EWSs totaling 584.2 acres, and the size of 

individual EWSs would range from less than 0.1 to 8.7 acres. All EWSs would be returned to their preconstruction condition and former usage following completion of construction activities. Additional 

information on EWS areas is provided in Section 3.8. 

.2 Pipe Storage, Rail, and Contractor Yards 

Bison has proposed the use of 20 off-site pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards: seven pipe 

storage yards, seven rail yards, one rail/pipe yard, two contractor yards, and three contractor/pipe yards. 

These yards would be constructed on primarily agricultural land (52 percent). Other land types impacted 

by the proposed yards would be open land (41 percent) and developed land (6 percent), and the remaining 

land (0.8 percent) is categorized as forested land or wetlands (Section 3.8). The size of the identified 

yards would range from 1.7 to 85.4 acres, and the total land requirements for these facilities would be 

approximately 412.2 acres. The general locations of the proposed yards are identified on the facility 

location maps included as Appendix C of this EIS. All proposed yards, unless already prepared for 

industrial use, would be stripped of topsoil, graded level, and graveled where required. Sub-soil berms 

may be constructed to support pipe and/or for drainage. Those yards already prepared for industrial use 

may require re-leveling and re-surfacing with gravel. Some areas may require fencing for safety and 

security. Erosion control measures such as silt fencing and straw bales may be used to filter runoff water. 

Upon completion of the proposed Project, the fencing, gravel, and erosion control measures would be 

removed; topsoil would be replaced; and the area would be revegetated according to Bison’s Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Bison’s Plan) (Appendix F). 

Additional pipe, rail, and contractor yards beyond those currently identified could be required 

during construction of the proposed Project. Prior to construction, Bison would be required to file a 

complete and updated list of all extra work areas, including pipe, rail, and contractor yards. 

2-15
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Main

2-16
2.2.3.3 Access Roads 

Bison would use existing roads to facilitate equipment and material access along the proposed 

Project route. As proposed, construction would require temporary use of 230 access roads for the Project 

(private roads, drives, lanes, and other roads), 22 of which would be used as permanent access roads 

(Appendix E). Project-related use of highways, maintained county roads, and other types of public 

roadways would typically not require improvements. However, Bison reports that approximately 40 of 

the existing access roads would require grading to widen the roads up to 20 feet, in order to allow for the 

turning radius of the larger vehicles. In addition, Bison has indicated that, although specific locations 

have not been identified at this time, some roads may need to be surfaced with gravel. Access roads 

requiring temporary widening would be reseeded and restored following construction, according to 

erosion control, revegetation, and restoration procedures outlined in Section 3.5 and in Bison’s Plan 

(Appendix F). Bison has stated that only BLM-approved materials would be used to improve access 

roads on BLM-managed lands. Bison proposes to construct 67 new access roads. Use of access roads 

and associated improvements during construction would temporarily affect approximately 476.0 acres, 

primarily classified as developed land. Following construction, all temporary access roads would revert 

to pre-construction uses based on landowner agreements. Additional information on access roads is 

provided in Section 3.8, and the facility location maps provided as Appendix C of this EIS depict the 

general locations of these roads. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

The proposed pipeline facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the DOT regulations under 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas 

by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, and other applicable federal and state regulations. 

Among other design standards, these regulations specify pipeline material selection; minimum design 

requirements; protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion; and qualification procedures 

for welders and operations personnel. More detailed safety information is provided in Section 3.12. In 

addition, Bison would comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR 380.15 and other 

applicable federal and state regulations. 

Bison has developed multiple Project-specific plans designed to avoid or minimize environmental 

impacts during construction. Bison proposes to implement Bison’s Plan and Bison’s Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Bison’s Procedures). Bison’s Plan and Procedures 

are consistent with the FERC guidance documents of the same name (the FERC Plan and Procedures) 

except for 12 modifications for the Plan and six modifications for the Procedures, which are discussed in 

Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of this EIS. The FERC Plan and Procedures are available for review on the 

FERC Internet website at www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines. The intent of Bison’s Plan is to 

identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas. 

The major aspects of Bison’s Plan are described in Section 3.2, and the complete plan is contained in 

Appendix F. The intent of Bison’s Procedures is to identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing 

the extent and duration of construction-related disturbance on wetlands and waterbodies. The major 

components of Bison’s Procedures are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, and the complete plan is 

contained in Appendix G. Bison would construct and operate the proposed Project in accordance with 

Bison’s Plan and Procedures. In addition, Bison would restore all BLM-managed lands in accordance 

with the BLM-approved Plan of Development (POD) for the Project. 

Bison has also developed a Project-specific Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control (SPCC) 

Plan, and a HDD Plan to minimize impacts due to Project construction. The SPCC Plan describes the 

management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and coolants that would be implemented 

during construction (Appendix H). The HDD Plan describes the procedures that would be implemented 

2-17
to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluid during HDD operations 

(Appendix I). Bison is developing an unanticipated discoveries plan to guide the treatment of any 

unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or human remains during construction (see Section 3.9). 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Prior to initiating construction-related activities, Bison 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 FERC, Bison may 

use the right of eminent domain granted to it under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain a right-of-way. 

Bison would still be required to compensate the landowners for the right-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 FERC 

issues a Certificate. Bison must proceed through the appropriate state court to condemn land for which it 

has received a Certificate from FERC. FERC does not take part in such proceedings. 

The majority of the proposed pipeline construction process would be accomplished using 

conventional open-cut methods, which typically include the steps described below. The proposed 

methods for accomplishing pipeline installation across waterbodies and wetlands, as well as other 

specialized construction procedures, are described in Section 2.3.2. 

Conventional overland installation of the pipeline is best represented as a moving assembly line 

with a construction spread (crew and equipment) proceeding along the construction right-of-way in a 

continuous operation, as depicted in Figure 2.3.1-1. Construction at any single point along the pipeline, 

from right-of-way surveying and clearing to backfill and finish grading, would last about 8 to 14 weeks 

(an average of about 12 weeks). The entire process would be coordinated in order to limit the time of 

active disturbance of an individual area, thereby limiting the potential for erosion and the loss of normal 

use. Bison indicates that construction of the pipeline would entail the simultaneous activity of three 

individual construction spreads along the proposed Project route. 

Right-of-Way Survey and Fence Crossings 

After right-of-way easements have been obtained, the pipeline centerline, construction right-ofway, and additional EWSs would be surveyed and staked. Bison would contact the appropriate state OneCall system to locate, identify, and flag existing underground utilities in order to prevent accidental 

damage during pipeline construction. Other sensitive resources, such as wetland boundaries, cultural 

resources, and any areas of protected species habitat, also would be marked. 

Where fences are encountered along the construction right-of-way, a fence crew would install 

temporary fences to confine livestock to existing areas off the right-of-way and to prohibit or otherwise 

control public access across the right-of-way. This work would include installing new posts to brace the 

areas on either side of the proposed cut to avoid damage to the existing fence or wall. Temporary gates 

would be installed, as necessary. 

2-18
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Pipeline Co

2-19
Clearing and Grading 

The construction right-of-way and EWS areas would be cleared and graded, where necessary, to 

provide a relatively level surface for trench-excavating equipment and the movement of other 

construction equipment, but natural drainage patterns would be preserved to the extent possible. Bison 

would mark snow storage areas so that these areas would not be cleared, unless part of the requested EWS 

areas. Brush, trees, roots, and other obstructions such as large rocks and stumps would be cleared from 

all construction work areas. Non-woody vegetation, such as crops and grasses, in areas where grading is 

not required would be mowed to avoid damage to root systems. Upon landowner/land manager request, 

Bison would cut timber to standard lengths, stack it at the edge of the right-of-way, or remove it, based on 

landowner agreements. According to Bison, there are no areas of merchantable timber along the 

proposed Project right-of-way. Tree stumps would be removed from the proposed construction right-ofway. Cleared woody debris would be chipped and left in place, burned, or otherwise disposed of 

according to local restrictions, regulatory requirements, and landowner agreements. Any burning would 

be conducted in a manner that would minimize fire hazard and prevent heat damage to surrounding 

vegetation. 

Wherever possible, the topsoil storage area would be mowed, but not graded, with the topsoil left 

in place. The stored topsoil would later be pulled back and spread over the construction right-of-way. 

Because the topsoil storage area would not be graded, existing brush stump protrusions could interfere 

with the topsoil pull-back activity, thus stranding some topsoil. Some of the rootstock would be 

preserved with sufficient topsoil to encourage re-growth. The mowed brush would be rolled into the 

topsoil pile and would be spread over the construction right-of-way during clean-up to limit soil erosion. 

With the exception of a 1.2-mile stretch of land in which Bison proposes to demonstrate the 

utility of brush-hogging, or leveling vegetation within the right-of-way without clearing and topsoil 

stripping, for large-diameter pipelines (see Section 3.5), Bison proposes to segregate topsoil for the full 

construction right-of-way, except for a 25-foot-wide space for storage of topsoil and a 10-foot-wide space 

for storage of snow. Typically, this topsoil segregation would be implemented over approximately 

85 feet of the construction right-of-way in all areas of the route, except for saturated wetlands where 

segregation is impractical. Topsoil would be removed to its actual depth, up to a maximum of 12 inches, 

and stockpiled separately from the subsoil excavated from the pipeline trench. Additional information on 

topsoil segregation is provided in Section 3.2. 

To contain disturbed soils in upland areas and minimize the potential for sediment loss to 

wetlands and waterbodies, temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately after initial 

disturbance of soils and would be maintained throughout construction. Erosion and sedimentation control 

devices would be installed in accordance with Bison’s Plan and Procedures and any federal, state, or 

county requirements for the control of storm water during construction. 

Trenching 

A trench would be excavated using wheel ditching machines and/or backhoes. Excavated 

materials would normally be stored on the non-working side of the trench, away from construction traffic 

and pipe assembly areas. Where the pipeline is collocated with existing pipelines, spoil would be placed 

on the same side of the trench as, but not directly over, the existing pipeline to prevent equipment from 

working over the in-service pipeline. Temporary trench breakers (or barriers) would be used to create 

segments within the open trench to reduce erosion and allow access across the trench. Trench breakers 

would typically consist of sandbags or polyurethane foam placed across the ditch. Trench dewatering 

may also be required along portions of the route. In addition, Bison would install escape ramps within the 

trench every 0.25 mile along game trails to facilitate the escape of any trapped animals in the trench. 

2-20
The pipeline would be buried below the ground surface to a depth that would meet or exceed 

DOT standards at 49 CFR 192.327. The actual installation depth of the pipeline would vary and would 

range from the minimum depth requirements to the depth required for safe crossing of a feature such as a 

road, highway, railroad, or waterbody. Bison proposes to install the proposed pipeline to a minimum 

depth of 2 feet in areas with rock cover; a minimum depth of 3 feet in hayfields, scrub-shrub, and open 

space lands; a minimum depth of 4 feet in plowed lands; and a minimum depth of 5 feet where the route 

crosses surface drains, diversions, grassed waterways, open ditches, and streams. At crossings of utilities 

or foreign pipelines, the proposed pipeline would be installed at a greater depth, so as to provide for a 

minimum clearance of 12 inches. The proposed pipeline would be installed to a minimum depth of 

30 inches under North Dakota state roads, 42 inches under Montana state roads, 120 inches under 

Wyoming state roads, 60 inches under county and private roads, and 120 inches under railroads. 

Areas of bedrock that might be encountered along the proposed Project route should be easily 

workable with standard construction equipment and techniques. However, Bison has identified 

approximately 0.3 mile of the proposed route that may require blasting (approximately between MP 72.4 

and MP 72.8). If blasting was required, such work would be accomplished in accordance with Bison’s 

Blasting Plan (Appendix J), as well as all other applicable regulations (see Section 3.1). 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

Sections of pipe would be delivered in straight sections. The straight sections of pipe would be 

temporarily placed or “strung” along the excavated pipeline trench, where they would be bent as 

necessary to follow the natural grade and direction changes of the right-of-way. Following stringing and 

bending, the ends of the pipeline would be carefully aligned and welded together. The welds would be 

visually inspected and tested to ensure structural integrity using non-destructive examination methods 

such as radiography (x-ray), gamma ray, or ultrasound. Those welds that do not meet established 

specifications would be repaired or replaced. 

A factory-applied, fusion-bonded epoxy external coating would cover and protect the delivered 

pipeline sections from corrosion. Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at all 

joints would be coated with material compatible with the factory-applied coating in preparation for 

installation. The coating on the remainder of the completed pipe section would be inspected for defects, 

and repairs would be made to any damaged areas prior to lowering the pipe into the trench. At locations 

with saturated soils, the pipeline would be coated with concrete, set-on weights, screw-type anchors, 

plate-type anchors, or pipe sacks to provide negative buoyancy, if required. 

Lowering-In and Backfilling 

Prior to lowering the pipeline, the trench would be cleaned of debris and foreign material, and 

dewatered as necessary. Trench dewatering, which would entail pumping accumulated groundwater or 

rainwater from the trench to stable upland areas, would be performed in accordance with applicable 

federal, state, and local permitting requirements, as well as Bison’s Procedures. In areas of rock, the 

bottom of the trench may be padded with sandbags or support pillows to protect the pipe coating. Topsoil 

would not be used as padding material. The pipeline would then be lowered into the trench by 

appropriately spaced, sideboom tractors working in unison to avoid buckling of the pipe. Trench breakers 

would be installed at regular intervals where appropriate to prevent subsurface erosion and flow of water 

between the trench and crossed waterbodies, wetlands, and near-surface groundwater. 

After the pipeline is lowered into the trench and adequately protected, previously excavated 

materials would be used to backfill the trench. Any excess excavated materials or materials deemed 

unsuitable for backfill would be evenly spread over the right-of-way or disposed of in accordance with 

2-21
applicable regulations and landowner requirements. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, the 

subsoil would be placed into the trench first and topped with the topsoil. Backfilling would occur to 

existing grade or higher to accommodate future soil settlement. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Once installation and backfilling are completed and before the Project begins operation, the 

pipeline would be hydrostatically pressure tested in accordance with DOT safety standards 

(49 CFR Part 192) to verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the MAOP. Hydrostatic 

testing consists of installing a hydrostatic test cap and manifold, filling the pipeline with water, 

pressurizing the pipeline to 125 percent of its MAOP, and maintaining that test pressure for a specified 

minimum period of time. Ultimately, the entire pipeline would be tested; typically, extended segments of 

pipeline would be tested individually. Any leaks or loss of pressure detected during the test would be 

repaired, and that segment of pipeline would be re-tested. 

Water used for hydrostatic testing would be obtained from surface water sources or from coal-bed 

methane operations, the feasibility of which is still under investigation by Bison. Bison would not use 

any biocides or other hydrostatic test water additives. After hydrostatic testing is completed, the test 

water would be pumped to the next segment of pipeline to be tested or would be discharged. Bison 

proposes that hydrostatic test water would be discharged to upland areas using energy dissipation devices 

to minimize erosion. Hydrostatic test water would be obtained and discharged in accordance with 

applicable regulations, as well as Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G) and Hydrostatic Test Plan 

(Appendix K). Additional information on hydrostatic testing is provided in Section 3.3. 

Cleanup and Restoration 

After completion of backfilling the trench, all remaining trash, debris, surplus materials, and 

temporary structures would be removed from the right-of-way and disposed of in accordance with 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All disturbed areas would be finish graded and restored as 

closely as possible to pre-construction contours. Permanent erosion control measures also would be 

installed during this phase in accordance with Bison’s Plan and Procedures. Topsoil previously 

segregated from the trench material in all agricultural and residential areas would be restored to the trench 

area. Subsoil in all cultivated areas and on BLM lands would be decompacted after backfilling and prior 

to replacing topsoil. If decompaction is necessary after topsoil has been replaced, Bison would use a tiller 

(or similar equipment) to loosen up compacted areas. 

Vegetation restoration would be accomplished according to Bison’s Plan and Procedures, and 

would begin within 30 days of final grading. After the soil is readied for planting or seeding in areas 

where Bison and landowners have negotiated agreements, Bison would reseed or replant according to 

those agreements. Bison expects to begin reseeding approximately 8 to 12 weeks following completion 

of construction. Additional information on restoration and revegetation procedures in wetland and upland 

areas is provided in Sections 3.4 and 3.5, respectively. Measures to limit the spread of noxious weeds can 

be found in Bison’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan in Appendix L. 

Disturbed pavement and other road surfaces along access roads would be restored to preconstruction or better conditions, unless otherwise specified by the property owner and approved by 

applicable regulatory agencies. Likewise, any private or public property damaged during construction, 

such as fences, gates, and driveways, would be restored to original or better condition, consistent with 

individual landowner agreements. 

2-22
Pipeline markers and/or warning signs would be installed along the pipeline centerline at 

specified intervals to identify the pipeline location, specify Bison as the operator of the pipeline, and 

provide telephone numbers for emergencies and inquiries. 

2.3.2 Special Construction Procedures 

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings 

Both FERC’s and Bison’s Procedures define a waterbody as 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. Installation of the proposed Project pipeline across rivers and streams would be accomplished 

in accordance with Bison’s Procedures and all applicable permits. Bison’s Procedures identify the 

baseline mitigation measures, from pre-construction planning through construction, restoration, and 

monitoring, for minimizing the extent and duration of Project-related disturbance to waterbodies. The 

waterbody crossing measures specified in Bison’s Procedures are based on industry standard practices. 

A total of 279 individual waterbody crossings would be required in association with the proposed 

Project (Appendix M). Bison has proposed the use of an open-cut wet crossing, an open-cut dry crossing 

method, or HDD construction techniques for all of these crossings. Bison has indicated that, except for 

those streams for which HDD is proposed, the actual method of waterbody crossing would be subject to 

change based on the site-specific conditions (water flow) encountered at the time of construction. If a 

waterbody is dry at the time of crossing, Bison would utilize conventional upland construction methods. 

However, any modification to the methods described in this EIS and Bison’s filings would require review 

and approval by FERC and possibly other agencies. Additional information on the proposed waterbody 

crossing procedures and potential environmental consequences is presented in Section 3.3. 

Open-Cut Crossings 

Currently, Bison proposes to use an open-cut wet crossing method at 244 waterbody crossings 

and an open-cut dry crossing method at 32 waterbodies. Bison is not currently proposing to use an opencut/push-pull crossing method; however, this method could be used based on flow conditions at the time 

of construction. As noted, any modification to the methods described in this EIS and Bison’s filings 

would require review and approval by FERC and possibly other agencies. 

Open-Cut Wet Crossing 

In general, an open-cut wet waterbody crossing is conducted using methods similar to 

conventional open-cut trenching methods used in upland areas. The open-cut wet construction method 

would involve excavation of the pipeline trench across the waterbody; installation of a prefabricated 

segment of pipeline; and backfilling of the trench with native material, with no effort to isolate flow, if 

any, from construction activities. Figure 2.3.2-1 illustrates a typical open-cut wet waterbody crossing. 

Excavation and backfilling of the trench would generally be accomplished using backhoes operating from 

one or both banks of the waterbody. All construction equipment would cross the waterbody using 

equipment bridges, if water was present. As described in Section 3.3, most waterbodies proposed for 

open-cut wet crossing methods are intermittent or ephemeral and it is anticipated they would be dry 

channels at the time of construction. 

2-23
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Open-Cut Wet Waterbody 

Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-1

2-24
Mitigation measures described in Bison’s Procedures would be implemented to minimize impacts 

to the aquatic environment during construction, especially if water was present in the channel. 

Construction would be scheduled so that the trench would be excavated immediately prior to pipelaying 

activities. The duration of construction across minor waterbodies would be limited to 24 hours for minor 

waterbodies (10 feet wide or less) and 48 hours for intermediate waterbodies (greater than 10 feet wide 

but less than or equal to 100 feet in width). In accordance with Bison’s Procedures, excavated spoil 

would be stockpiled in the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from the streambank or in approved 

additional work areas, and would be surrounded by sediment control devices to prevent sediment from 

returning to the waterbody. The waterbody banks would be returned to as near pre-construction 

conditions as possible within 24 hours of completing all open-cut wet crossings. 

As stated previously, Bison is not proposing to use an open-cut/push-pull crossing method; 

however, this method could be used based on flow conditions at the time of construction. Figure 2.3.2-2 

illustrates a typical open-cut/push pull crossing method. The open-cut/push pull method is similar to an 

open-cut wet crossing. The push-pull technique involves stringing and welding the pipeline from the 

streambank, and excavating and backfilling the trench using a backhoe or dragline. Flow within the 

waterbody is sufficient to float the prefabricated pipeline across the across the water-filled trench. After 

the pipeline is floated into place, the backhoe or dragline would lower the pipeline into place. 

Open-Cut Dry Crossings 

Bison proposes to use an open-cut dry crossing method (flume or dam-and-pump) at 

32 waterbody crossings. A flume crossing consists of temporarily directing the flow of water through one 

or more flume pipes placed over the area to be excavated. This procedure would allow trenching across 

the waterbody to be completed underneath the flume pipes without disruption of water flow. 

Figure 2.3.2-3 illustrates a typical flume waterbody crossing. Streamflow would be diverted through the 

flumes by constructing two bulkheads, using sand bags or plastic dams, to direct the streamflow through 

the flume pipes. Following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration of 

streambanks, the bulkheads and flume pipes would be removed. This crossing method generally 

minimizes downstream turbidity by allowing excavation of the pipeline trench under relatively dry 

conditions. 

Similar to the flume crossing method, the dam-and-pump method involves installing temporary 

dams upstream and downstream of the proposed waterbody crossing. The temporary dams would 

typically be constructed using sandbags and plastic sheeting. Following dam installation, appropriately 

sized pumps would be used to dewater and transport the streamflow around the construction work area 

and trench. Figure 2.3.2-4 illustrates a typical dam-and-pump waterbody crossing. Intake screens would 

be installed at the pump inlets to prevent or limit entrainment of aquatic life, and energy-dissipating 

devices would be installed at the pump discharge point to minimize erosion and streambed scour. Trench 

excavation and pipeline installation would then commence through the dewatered portion of the 

waterbody channel. Following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration 

of streambanks, the temporary dams would be removed, and flow through the construction work area 

would be restored. This method is generally only appropriate for those waterbody crossings where pumps 

can adequately transfer streamflow volumes around the work area and there are no concerns about 

sensitive species passage. 

2-25
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Open-Cut/Push-Pull Waterbody 

Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-2

2-26
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Flume Waterbody Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-3

2-27
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Dam-and-Pump Waterbody 

Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-4

2-28
Horizontal Directional Drill 

Figure 2.3.2-5 illustrates a typical HDD installation process. Bison proposes to use an HDD 

crossing method at three waterbody crossings: the Little Powder River at MP 72.2, the Little Missouri 

River at MP 182.7, and the Heart River at MP 282.1. The waterbodies that would be crossed using HDD 

techniques are described further in Section 3.3. Bison has identified five wetlands, associated with the 

waterbodies listed above, that also would be crossed via HDD (Appendix N). The wetlands that would be 

crossed using HDD techniques are described further in Section 3.4. 

HDD is a trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid direct impacts to sensitive 

resources, such as waterbodies and wetlands, by directionally drilling beneath them. HDD involves 

installation of the pipeline beneath the ground surface by pulling the pipeline through a pre-drilled bore 

hole. HDD installation is typically carried out in three stages: (1) directional drilling of a small-diameter 

pilot hole; (2) enlarging the pilot hole to a sufficient diameter to accommodate the pipeline; and 

(3) pulling the prefabricated pipeline, or pull string, into the enlarged bore hole. 

Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the pilot hole, a bentonite clay slurry (drilling 

mud) would be circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and 

stabilize the open hole. Bentonite is a mixture of 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. Water required to prepare the slurry of drilling mud would be appropriated from 

the waterbody in accordance with state and local permit stipulations. Additives may be mixed into the 

drilling mud to improve drilling conditions, but Bison has stated that it would not use any synthetic or 

potentially toxic drilling fluid additives. Drilling mud and slurry would be stored away from the 

waterbody in tanks, behind earthen berms, or by other methods that would prevent it from flowing off the 

work area. After the pipeline is installed, the mud would be disposed of according to applicable 

regulations. 

A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. HDD is not 

without risk; however, as inadvertent drilling fluid releases could result if the fluid escapes containment at 

pits that would be excavated at the HDD entrance and exit points or if a “frac-out” occurs. A frac-out 

occurs when drilling fluids escape the drill bore hole and are forced through the subsurface substrate to 

the ground surface. Frac-outs occur most often in highly permeable soils during the entrance and exit 

phases of the pilot hole drill, as this is when the greatest pressures are exerted on the bore walls in shallow 

soils. Drilling fluid pressures in the bore hole and drilling fluid pumping and return flow rates would be 

monitored to detect the potential occurrence of a frac-out. If survey and monitoring procedures indicate 

that a frac-out may have occurred, Bison would implement the corrective measures identified in its HDD 

Plan (Appendix I). In the event of a complete loss of drilling fluid circulation, which is potentially 

indicative of a frac-out, the HDD Plan specifies that the HDD operator would cease pumping of drilling 

fluids immediately, any surfaced drilling fluids would be contained, and clean-up procedures would 

commence. A discussion of the potential impacts of HDD on waterbodies and wetlands is provided in 

Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. 

2-29
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical HDD Installation Process

Figure 2.3.2-5

2-30
2.3.2.2 Equipment Bridges 

Bison would use one of three equipment bridge techniques to move construction equipment 

across waterbodies: flume bridge, span bridge, or site-specific bridge. The only construction equipment 

permitted to enter waterbodies would be the clearing and bridge installation crew, which would be 

allowed only one pass, and the work crew that specifically installs the pipeline in the trench for those 

waterbodies crossed by open-cut crossing methods. All other construction traffic would be required to 

use an equipment bridge if water were present in the channel. 

For all bridges, the natural streambank would be covered with geotextiles. Soil erosion and 

sediment control devices would be installed during bridge installation to prevent spoil and/or silt from 

entering the waterbody. Bridges would remain in place throughout construction. After the bridges are 

removed, all disturbed areas would be restored to pre-installation conditions. 

Upland construction techniques would be used and no bridging would be installed at shallow 

crossings that would be dry at the time of construction. The streambank would be graded to the historic 

flowline. A flume bridge or matting would be installed if water begins to flow. 

Flume Bridge 

A flume bridge involves using flume pipes to convey the flow of water across the trench 

(Figure 2.3.2-6). The number of flumes needed would depend on the potential flow of water at the time 

of construction. The flumes would be laid on the river bed and geotextiles and clean rock, purchased 

from a commercial source, would be cover the flumes up to the level of the streambank to provide a travel 

surface for construction equipment. 

Span Bridge 

A span bridge involves positioning a timber mat (spans less than 20 feet) or a rail car (spans less 

than 40 feet wide) across the waterbody (Figure 2.3.2-7). An intermediate support pipe, which would not 

impede water flow, may be required. Although minimal impacts to the streambank would be anticipated, 

some excavation of the streambank may be required to seat the bridge. Side rails would be installed to 

prevent sediment from entering the waterbody. In addition, any sediment that has accumulated on the 

bridge would be periodically removed. 

Site-Specific Bridge 

For wide and/or deep waterbody crossings, a specially designed bridge may be permitted and 

constructed, following review and approval by FERC and any other agency with regulatory authority over 

the use of such structures. None are currently proposed. 

2-31
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Flume Bridge

Figure 2.3.2-6

2-32
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Span Bridge

Figure 2.3.2-7

2-33
2.3.2.3 Wetland Crossings 

Construction of the proposed Project pipeline across wetlands would be conducted in accordance 

with applicable permits and Bison’s Procedures. Overall, the wetland crossing methods and mitigation 

measures identified in Bison’s Procedures are designed to minimize the extent and duration of 

construction-related disturbance within wetlands. The site-specific crossing procedures used to install the 

pipeline across wetlands would vary dependent on the level of soil stability and saturation encountered 

during construction. Installation of the pipeline across wetlands would be accomplished using one of four 

methods: open-cut without matting, open-cut with matting, open-cut/push-pull, and HDD. An additional 

12 wetlands would occur within the right-of-way but would not be crossed by the pipeline itself and 

therefore do not have a proposed crossing method. 

The construction right-of-way width through all wetland areas would be reduced to 75 feet, but 

Bison could request a variance for the use of a greater construction right-of-way width based on soils or 

site-specific conditions encountered at the time of construction. Within the right-of-way, woody 

vegetation would be cut off at ground level and removed from the wetlands leaving the root systems 

intact. Grading activities would be limited to that area directly over the trenchline, unless it was 

determined that safety-related construction constraints required grading the working side of the 

construction right-of-way. Temporary erosion control devices would be installed as necessary 

immediately after initial disturbance of wetlands or adjacent upland areas to prevent sediment flow into 

wetlands; the devices would be maintained until revegetation is complete. Trench breakers would be 

installed as necessary to maintain wetland hydrology. 

For all wetland crossings, the construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be limited 

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 right-of-way. If standing water or saturated soil 

conditions were present or if construction equipment caused ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil, 

construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be further limited to the use of low-groundpressure equipment or normal equipment operating from timber mats. 

Topsoil would be stripped from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 

12 inches in unsaturated soils and stockpiled separately from the subsoil (topsoil would not be segregated 

in saturated soils due to the logistical constraints on successful segregation and stockpiling). The 

segregated topsoil would be restored to its original location immediately following installation of the pipe 

and backfill of the trench. Materials such as timber mats placed in wetlands during construction would be 

removed during final cleanup, and the pre-construction contours of the wetland would be restored. Any 

required permanent erosion control measures would then be installed, and disturbed areas within the 

wetland would be temporarily stabilized by seeding with native, annual wetland grasses. 

The wetlands that would be affected by construction of the proposed Project are identified in 

Appendix N and described further in Section 3.4. Section 3.4 also provides further discussion of the 

wetland restoration and mitigation procedures that would be implemented by Bison. 

Open-Cut without Matting Crossing 

Figure 2.3.2-8 illustrates an open-cut without matting crossing. Bison proposes to use an opencut without matting crossing method at 127 wetland crossings. During crossings of unsaturated wetlands 

(those wetlands without standing water or saturated soils), construction would primarily be similar to the 

upland construction procedures described in Section 2.3.1, with the pipeline segment to be installed 

through the wetland assembled adjacent to the excavated trench. 

2-34
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Open-Cut Without Matting 

Wetland Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-8

2-35
Open-Cut with Matting Crossing 

Figure 2.3.2-9 illustrates an open-cut with matting crossing. Bison proposes to use an open-cut 

with matting crossing method at 21 wetland crossings. The open-cut with matting crossing method is 

identical to the open-cut without matting crossing method, except that the soils would be too wet 

(saturated) to support the construction equipment. Therefore, timber mats would be used to minimize 

impacts. Timber mats would be installed and removed one at a time by equipment that would remain on 

the timber mats during the construction process. 

Open-Cut/Push-Pull Crossing 

Figure 2.3.2-10 illustrates an open-cut/push-pull crossing. Bison is not proposing to use an opencut/push-pull crossing method; however, this method could be used based on field conditions at the time 

of construction. As stated previously, any modification to the methods described in this EIS and Bison’s 

filings would require review and approval by FERC and possibly other agencies. The open-cut/push-pull 

technique involves stringing and welding the pipeline from the edge of the wetland, and excavating and 

backfilling the trench using a backhoe or dragline. The prefabricated pipeline would be installed in the 

trench within the wetland by equipping it with buoys and pushing or pulling it across the water-filled 

trench. After the pipeline is floated into place, the floats are removed and the pipeline sinks into place. In 

addition, clean water may be pumped into the pipeline to ensure that it settles to the bottom of the trench. 

HDD Crossing 

Bison proposes to use an HDD crossing method at five wetlands (Figure 2.3.2-5). HDD methods 

for a wetland crossing would be similar to those for a waterbody crossing (Section 2.3.2.1). A successful 

HDD would result in little or no impact to the wetland being crossed. However, some areas may require 

the use of hand-laid electric-grid guide wires for guidance of the drill bit along the proposed route. In 

heavily vegetated areas with small trees and shrubs, a small pathway, approximately 2 to 3 feet wide, 

would be cut with hand tools in order to position the guide wires in a relatively straight line. As a result, 

this activity would result in minimal vegetation disturbance along the path of the HDD. The HDD Plan 

described in Section 2.3.2.1 and presented in Appendix I would also be implemented to minimize 

potential impacts of a frac-out in wetlands. 

2.3.2.4 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings 

The proposed pipeline route would cross numerous paved and unpaved roads, highways, and 

railroads along the proposed Project route. Construction across these features would be accomplished in 

accordance with Bison’s Plan and the requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. 

During roadway construction, Bison would incorporate any safety precautions required by federal, state, 

and local transportation agencies. 

Railroads, paved roads, and high-use gravel roads would be crossed via subsurface boring 

techniques where feasible (horizontal bore). Section 3.8 provides additional information on the proposed 

major road crossing locations. Horizontal bores are similar to HDDs in that they avoid direct surface 

impacts to sensitive resources by installing the pipeline beneath the feature. Horizontal bores are 

typically much shorter and are used to cross such features as roads or railroads. Bison proposes to 

conduct 24 horizontal bores to cross roadways and railroads (Table 2.3.2-1). 

2-36
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Open-Cut With Matting Wetland 

Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-9

2-37
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Open-Cut/Push-Pull Wetland 

Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-10

2-38
TABLE 2.3.2-1 

Proposed Horizontal Bore Locations for the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project 

State County Feature Crossed MP 

Approximate 

Length of Bore 

(Feet)a

Roadways

Wyoming Campbell Interstate 90 3.0 125 

Echeta Road 17.2 25 

U.S. Highway 14 40.6 145 

State Road 59 71.2 50 

Montana Carter U.S. Highway 212 104.7 20 

State Road 323 148.5 25 

Fallon State Highway 247 172.8 45 

North Dakota Bowman Big Gumbo Management 

Area Road 

179.9 25 

163rd Avenue 192.7 40 

Unnamed Road 194.5 85 

Rhame Road 198.6 35 

Griffin Road 205.4 35 

U.S. Highway 12 205.8 190b

Unnamed Road 205.8 b 

Farm to Market Road 211.9 145 

U.S. Highway 85 214.2 45 

Slope State Road 67 227.6 50 

Hettinger State Highway 22 240.9 20 

Unnamed Road 249.2 105 

Enchanted Highway (County 

Road 4531) 

257.3 35 

State Highway 8 269.8 140 

Morton State Road 49 295.1 50 

Railroads 

Wyoming Campbell Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railroad 

17.2 130 

North Dakota Bowman Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railroad 

205.8 75 

Notes: 

a

 Lengths were calculated by measuring the feature on the alignment sheets. Actual crossing 

length may differ slightly. 

b

 Due to close proximity between U.S. Highway 12 and the adjacent Unnamed Road, it is assumed 

that both will be crossed by the same horizontal bore. 

2-39
Horizontal bores would be accomplished by excavating pits on both sides of the feature to be 

crossed and boring a horizontal hole equivalent to the diameter of the pipe. The pipeline section would 

then be pushed through the bore hole. If additional pipeline sections are required, they would be welded 

to the first section of the pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore hole. 

Pipeline crossings of lightly traveled paved and unimproved rural dirt roads would typically be 

crossed via open-cut installation. In all instances, the pipeline would be installed to a minimum depth of 

2 feet in areas with rock cover and a minimum depth of at least 3 feet in all other areas (Figures 2.3.2-11 

and 2.3.2-12). Construction across these roads would result in temporary traffic disruptions. Bison 

would attempt to maintain at least one open lane of traffic. Where one lane of traffic cannot be 

maintained, Bison would establish a detour that utilizes the construction right-of-way (Figure 2.3.2-13). 

Little disruption of traffic would be expected on roads and railways that are bored. Open-cut 

pipeline crossings would require temporary closure of roads and implementation of detours, where 

feasible. In the absence of a reasonable detour, construction across the roadway would be staged to allow 

at least one lane of traffic to remain open except for the limited periods required for installing the 

pipeline. Efforts would be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak traffic periods. Attempts also 

would be made to avoid peak-traffic periods on all road construction. 

2.3.2.5 Agricultural Areas 

Agricultural areas along the proposed Project route include pasture areas used for livestock 

grazing, hayfields, and rotated croplands. In these areas, Bison would implement special procedures to 

minimize impacts to current agricultural uses, in accordance with Bison’s Plan (Appendix F) and the 

Agricultural Mitigation Plan (AMP) (Appendix O). Topsoil would be removed to its actual depth, up to a 

maximum of 12 inches, and stockpiled separately from the subsoil excavated from the pipeline trench. 

Typically, topsoil would be stripped from the working side, the trench, and a portion of the spoil storage 

(a width of approximately 85 feet of the construction right-of-way) (Figure 2.2.1-1), but landowners could 

request topsoil segregation across the full construction work area. During construction, the natural flow 

patterns of all fields would be maintained by providing breaks in topsoil and subsoil stockpiles. 

During cleanup and restoration, all disturbed areas would be finish-graded and restored as closely 

as possible to pre-construction contours. Topsoil previously segregated from the trench material in all 

agricultural and residential areas would be spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, and any 

stones or excess rock (larger than 3 inches in diameter) would be removed from at least the top 12 inches 

of soil. Subsoil would be decompacted in all cultivated areas and BLM lands prior to being covered with 

topsoil. If decompaction is necessary after topsoil has been replaced, Bison would use a tiller (or similar 

equipment) to loosen up compacted areas. 

Bison would work with property owners to identify locations of existing drainage structures and 

irrigation facilities that could be damaged during construction. Should any damage occur to these 

facilities, Bison would repair these systems, with the input of the property owners, to their preconstruction condition or better. Bison also would work with landowners prior to construction to 

establish compensation agreements for crop damages and for loss of growing time, as applicable. 

Additional information on special construction procedures that would be implemented in agricultural 

areas is provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

2-40
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Road Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-11

2-41
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Railroad Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-12

2-42 
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

Typical Temporary Open Cut Road 

Crossing Detour Detail

Figure 2.3.2-13

2-43
2.3.2

2.3.2

.6 Residential Areas 

Initially, Bison indicated that no residences were located within 50 feet of the proposed Project 

right-of-way. Bison has since found one residence within 50 feet of the initially proposed Project route 

and has routed the proposed pipeline around this residence. Additional information on specialized 

construction procedures that would be implemented in residential areas is provided in Section 3.8. 

.7 Rugged Topography 

Portions of the proposed Project would traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain that could 

require additional area to create level and safe workspaces. Two-tone construction is a common method 

of accomplishing pipeline construction in areas of side slopes. The two-tone construction technique 

involves cutting the uphill side of the construction right-of-way during grading. The material removed 

from the cut would be used to fill the downhill side of the construction right-of-way, to provide a safe and 

level surface from which to operate heavy equipment. The pipeline trench would then be excavated along 

the newly graded right-of-way at the appropriate depth beneath the original grade. Figure 2.3.2-14 

provides a typical cross section of the two-tone construction technique. 

The two-tone construction technique would likely require EWS areas to accommodate the 

additional volumes of fill material generated by this technique. Following pipeline installation and 

backfill of the trench, excavated material would be placed back in the cut and appropriately compacted to 

restore the approximate original contours. All disturbed areas would then be stabilized in accordance 

with Bison’s Plan. 

2.3.3 Construction Procedures for Aboveground Facilities 

The aboveground facilities would be constructed concurrent with pipeline installation, but 

construction would be conducted by special fabrication crews generally working separately from the 

pipeline construction spreads. 

Construction of the compressor station would involve clearing, grading, and compacting the sites 

to the surveyed elevations, where necessary, for placement of concrete foundations for buildings and to 

support skid-mounted equipment. Prefabricated segments of pipe, valves, fittings, and flanges would be 

shop- or site-welded and assembled at the compressor station site. The compressor units and other large 

equipment would be mounted on their respective foundations, and the compressor enclosures would be 

erected around them. Noise abatement measures (including use of sound-dampening equipment installed 

in the walls of the building) and emission control technology would be installed as needed to meet 

applicable federal, state, and local standards. Section 3.11 provides additional information on noise 

abatement and emission control technology. As necessary, electrical, domestic water and septic, and 

communications utilities would be installed. 

Facility piping, both above and below ground, would be installed and hydrostatically tested 

before being placed in service. Controls and safety devices such as the emergency shutdown system, 

relief valves, gas and fire detection facilities, and other protection and safety devices also would be 

checked and tested. Upon completion of construction, all disturbed areas associated with the 

aboveground facilities would be finish-graded and seeded or covered with gravel, as appropriate. All 

roads and parking areas would be graveled. Additionally, the compressor station site would be fenced for 

security and protection. 

2-44
Date: August 2009

Not to Scale BISON PIPEL

Typical Two-Tone Const

Se

2-45
Construction of meter stations, MLVs, and pig launcher/pig receiver facilities would generally be 

similar to that described for the compressor station, and would entail site clearing and grading, installation 

and erection of facilities, hydrostatic pressure testing, cleanup and stabilization, and installation of 

security fencing around the facilities. 

2.3.4 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems 

The proposed pipeline would be protected from corrosion by an impressed current cathodic 

protection system. As specified by DOT regulations, aboveground cathodic protection system test 

stations would be located at less than 1 mile intervals along the proposed route. A cathodic protection 

system test station typically consists of a 1- to 3-inch-diameter plastic pipe that contains a lead wire to a 

sacrificial anode and test wires connected to the pipe. The durable plastic pipe is either installed flush to 

the ground surface or is attached to a metal brace and extends about 2 to 3 feet above the ground surface. 

A testing terminal is located at the top of the pipe that can be accessed by operations personnel to measure 

the current and determine the potential for corrosion. All cathodic protection system facilities would be 

located within the permanent right-of-way, at MLVs, at meter stations, or within the Hettinger 

Compressor Station. The cathodic protection system test sites are often located adjacent to pipeline 

markers. Therefore, land impacts for the cathodic protection system test stations have been accounted for 

within the construction right-of-way, permanent right-of-way, and permanent workspace requirements for 

the other Project facilities. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE 

As currently proposed by Bison, construction would be initiated in May 2010 and completed to 

accommodate an in-service date of November 2010. Bison intends to use three construction spreads to 

construct the proposed Project. According to Bison, the approximate mileposts for each spread are: 

• Spread 1: MP -0.47 to MP 64; 

• Spread 2: MP 64 to MP 181; and 

• Spread 3: MP 181 to MP 301.46. 

According to Bison, with the exception of waterbodies as previously discussed, the length of time 

the trench would remain open during construction would range from 2 to 5 weeks. Construction at any 

single point along the proposed pipeline, from right-of-way clearing to backfill and final grading, would 

last about 8 to 14 weeks (with an average of about 12 weeks). However, construction may be longer at 

the proposed MLV sites and at hydrostatic test tie-in locations. 

Bison anticipates that construction of the proposed Project would require approximately 

1,750 workers at peak construction (Table 2.4-1) (also see Section 3.10). 

To alleviate housing impacts, Bison would provide bus services to transport pipeline construction 

crews from more distant areas where temporary housing is more readily available. In addition, Bison has 

developed a Short-Term Housing Plan (Appendix P) and a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

(Appendix Q) to mitigate potential impacts to the available housing stock and reduce traffic congestion 

within the proposed Project area. Both plans are discussed further in Section 3.10.3 and 3.10.5, 

respectively. 

2-46
TABLE 2.4-1 

Estimated Average and peak Workforce Number per Spread for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Construction 

Spreads Aprila May June July August September October November December 

Spread 1 15 50 50 75 550 550 550 450 125 

Spread 2 50 200 435 550 550 435 435 200 50 

Spread 3 50 200 435 550 550 435 435 200 50 

Hettinger 

Compressor 

Station 0 0 25 70 100 70 25 0 0 

Total 115 450 945 1,245 1,750 1,490 1,445 850 225 

Notes: 

a April workforce numbers would be for mobilization to the proposed Project area. Actual construction would not commence until 

May.

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING 

Bison has indicated that it would conduct environmental training for all company and 

construction contractor personnel prior to and during construction activities. Such training would focus 

on implementation of Bison’s Plan, Procedures, AMP, HDD Plan, and other plans, but also would address 

Project-specific permit requirements, company policy and commitments, any protection procedures and 

restrictions associated with cultural resources or sensitive species/habitats, and any other pertinent jobrelated information.

During Project construction, Environmental Inspectors would be responsible for monitoring and 

ensuring compliance with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate; the 

BLM Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit; conditions or requirements of other federal, state, 

or local permits or authorizations; and Bison’s plans. The Environmental Inspectors would have the 

authority to stop activities that violate the environmental conditions of these authorizations, state and 

federal environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements, and to order appropriate corrective 

actions if needed. Bison would be represented by at least one Environmental Inspector per construction 

spread, consistent with Bison’s Plan. Bison’s Plan also indicates that 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. If the Project was authorized, 

Bison would be required to develop and submit an Implementation Plan for FERC’s approval prior to 

construction. The absolute number and qualifications of the Environmental Inspector personnel proposed 

by Bison would be considered during our review of the Implementation Plan. 

During Project construction, Bison also would employ one Agricultural Inspector for each 

construction spread. The Agricultural Inspector would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring 

compliance with Bison’s AMP (Appendix O). 

In addition, Bison is prepared to fund a third-party Environmental Inspection contractor who 

would represent the Commission and BLM at each construction spread and would monitor compliance 

with Project mitigation measures and requirements throughout construction. The environmental monitors 

2-47
would provide continuous feedback on compliance issues to FERC, as well as to Bison’s personnel. 

Additionally, the environmental monitors would track and document the progress of construction through 

preparation and submittal of reports to our staff on a regular and timely basis. 

As outlined in Bison’s Reclamation Plan (Appendix R), Bison would employ a reclamation 

specialist following construction to ensure restoration of disturbed areas. According to Bison, the 

reclamation specialist would have experience in the proposed Project area and would be responsible for 

inspecting and approving the proposed Project area following clean-up activities. In addition, the 

reclamation specialist would be responsible for installation and maintenance of the revegetated 

community until stabilized and final performance standards were achieved. Bison has stated that they 

would consult with BLM to identify appropriate candidates for this position. 

Bison has established an Internet website (www.bisonpipelinellc.com), toll-free telephone 

number (1-877-807-9595), and email address (bison@transcanada.com) to provide potentially affected 

landowners and stakeholders with a venue for providing comments or requesting additional information 

about the proposed Project. The FERC staff is interested in ensuring that landowner issues are resolved 

in an effective and timely manner. Therefore, we encourage Bison to continue its commitment to 

maintain open communications with affected landowners and other stakeholders during and following 

construction through similar methods, should the Project ultimately be certificated. 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS 

The proposed Project pipeline and aboveground facilities would be designed, constructed, 

operated, and maintained to meet or exceed all safety standards set forth in industry and in the DOT’s 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas By Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards (49 CFR 

Part 192). These safety standards are discussed further in Section 3.12. 

The pipeline would be constructed of welded carbon steel that meets or exceeds industry 

standards, and would be covered with a protective epoxy coating to minimize rust and corrosion. To 

protect against damage from external forces, the proposed pipeline would be buried to a depth that would 

meet or exceed the DOT standards at 49 CFR 192.327 of at least 2 feet below the ground in areas with 

rock cover and a minimum depth of at least 3 feet in all other areas. All welds joining each section of 

pipe would be visually inspected and tested using non-destructive examination methods such as 

radiography (x-ray), gamma ray, or ultrasound to ensure the integrity of the welds. Prior to being placed 

in service, the pipeline would be hydrostatically pressure tested to verify its integrity and to ensure its 

ability to withstand the maximum designed operating pressure. A cathodic protection system would be 

installed to protect all underground and submerged pipeline facilities constructed of metallic materials 

from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. 

During operations, Bison 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 

and vehicle 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 pipe, and other conditions that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. The 

cathodic protection system also would be inspected periodically to ensure that it is functioning properly. 

In addition, pigs would regularly be sent through the pipeline to check for corrosion and irregularities in 

the pipe in accordance with DOT requirements. Bison would keep detailed records of all inspections and 

supplement the corrosion protection system as necessary to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. 

2-48
2-49

Routine operation and maintenance also would be performed at all aboveground facilities by 

qualified personnel. Safety equipment, such as pressure relief devices, fire detection and suppression 

systems, and gas detection systems, would be maintained throughout the life of each facility. MLVs 

would be inspected, serviced, and tested to ensure proper functioning. In addition to on-site operation and 

maintenance activities, the compressor station, meter stations, and MLVs would be linked to a central 

control system through a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that would monitor 

the pipeline system on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Activation of any safety systems or alarms would trigger 

SCADA to notify maintenance personnel to investigate and take proper corrective actions.

Bison would establish and maintain a liaison with the appropriate fire, police, and public officials. 

This program would identify the available resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency and assist in developing coordination responsibilities 

(Appendix S). 

Pipeline markers would be placed and maintained at line-of-sight intervals along the right-of-way 

and 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 Bison as the 

operator and display telephone numbers to call if any abnormal conditions are detected. 

Bison also would participate in appropriate One-Call systems. This program provides telephone 

numbers for excavation contractors to call prior to commencing any excavation activities. The One-Call 

operator would notify Bison of any planned excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline so that Bison could 

flag the location of the pipeline and assign staff to monitor activities, if required. 

Vegetation management is not proposed along the permanent right-of-way. If and when right-ofway mowing is required in specific areas, such as if trees grow immediately adjacent to pipeline and to a 

height at which the roots may be detrimental to pipeline integrity, FERC would be notified before such 

mowing took place. Vegetation management is discussed further in Section 3.5. 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Bison currently has no plans for future expansion of the facilities proposed. If additional demand 

for natural gas supplies requires future expansion, Bison would subsequently seek the appropriate 

authorizations from FERC and any federal, state, or local agencies. When and if an application is filed, 

the environmental impact of the new proposal would be examined at that time. 

Abandonment of the pipeline facilities would be subject to the approval of FERC under 

Section 7(b) of the NGA and would comply with DOT regulations and specific agreements or stipulations 

made for the pipeline right-of-way. An environmental review of any proposed abandonment would be 

conducted when the application is filed with FERC. 
3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational 

impacts, and proposed mitigation for each resource. The proposed Project area is located in the Great 

Plains Ecoregion, which is characterized by a semi-arid, continental climate with short, hot summers and 

long, cold winters (CEC 1997). The Great Plains are comprised of a broad expanse of prairie and steppe,

which lie between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River and include much of Wyoming, 

Montana, and North Dakota. Wyoming and Montana are part of the High Plains, which are arid and 

semi-arid regions generally characterized as receiving less than 20 inches of rain each year (HPRCC 

2009). Although North Dakota is considered part of the Midwest and not the High Plains, its annual 

rainfall is also generally less than 20 inches. The Project area can be characterized as primarily 

undeveloped land composed of grasslands, ponderosa pine, deciduous forest, cropland, and grazing area. 

The landscape in the Project area is largely rural with county-wide population densities ranging from less 

than 1 to 17 persons per square mile and small to medium-sized population centers still widely dispersed. 

The majority of impacts to environmental resources would take place during the construction 

period and would include those impacts from clearing operations within work area and an increased 

human presence. Operational impacts would be minimal and limited to the footprint of aboveground 

facilities and access roads. Bison does not intend to maintain the right-of-way after construction. If and 

when right-of-way mowing is required in specific areas of the permanent easement, such as if trees grow 

immediately adjacent to the pipeline and to a height at which the roots may be detrimental to pipeline 

integrity, FERC would be notified before such mowing takes place. 

Bison, as part of its proposal, agreed to implement certain measures to reduce impacts, and we 

evaluated the proposed mitigation measures to determine whether or not additional measures would be 

necessary to further reduce impact. Additional mitigation measures that we have identified appear as 

bulleted, boldface paragraphs in the text of the EIS. We will recommend to the Commission that these 

measures be included as specific conditions to the Certificate that may be issued to Bison for the proposed 

Project. 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: 

temporary, short term, long term, and permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during 

construction, with the resources returning to pre-construction conditions almost immediately afterward. 

Short term impacts would continue for approximately 3 years following construction. Impacts were 

considered long term if the resources would require more than 3 years to recover, but would be expected 

to recover during the life of the proposed Project. Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities 

that modify resources to the extent that they would not return to pre-construction conditions during the 

life of the proposed Project, such as with construction of the compressor station. We considered an 

impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of environmental impacts and the following 

assumptions: 

• Bison would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• The proposed facilities would be constructed as described in Section 2.0 of this EIS; and 

• Bison would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 
3-2

3.1 GEOLOGY 

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

The environmental setting of the proposed Project route is located within the unglaciated portion 

of the Missouri Plateau of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Missouri Plateau is characterized 

by a depositional environment of sediments eroded by ancient rivers and streams from the ancestral 

Rocky Mountains. The area experienced a regional rise in elevation that began approximately 50 million 

years ago (mya) and was further modified by the tributary system of the ancestral Missouri River that cut 

through the sediment formation, dividing the region (USGS 1980). 

3.1.1.1 Geology and Physiography 

Within the Missouri Plateau, geologic structures along the proposed Project route include the 

Powder River Basin Geologic Structure (PRBGS) and the Williston Basin (Sholes 1992). Other geologic 

features that would be crossed by the proposed Project include the Miles City Arch in Montana and the 

Cedar Creek Anticline in North Dakota. 

Powder River Basin Geologic Structure 

The PRBGS developed in the Paleocene and Eocene Epochs, 33 to 65 mya . The PRBGS was an 

active area of subsidence, receiving water and sediments from rivers in the region. The depositional 

environment of the basin was initially characterized by mostly sandy sediments and then later by mostly 

clay sediments. A geologic “formation” can be defined as a grouping of sedimentary rocks with similar 

properties, and can be further classified into groups, members, or units using other properties. Sediments 

deposited in the basin include sediments of the Fort Union Formation, of which approximately 49.7 miles 

would be crossed by the proposed Project, with clastic sediments from the Tongue River Member 

overlying finer clay sediments of the Lebo Shale Member. Subsidence of the basin and uplift of 

surrounding structures, including the Miles City Arch and Cedar Creek Anticline, and the depositional 

environment of the basin led to continued deposition of sediments and influenced peat accumulation. 

Williston Basin 

The Williston Basin developed in the Paleocene Epoch, 55 to 65 mya. The geomorphology of the 

area changed due to the rise of the Miles City Arch and Black Hills Uplift, in combination with a 

depression in sea level and regional subsidence (Peterson 1988). Sediments of the Williston Basin 

produced several formations including the Fort Union, Ludlow, Cannonball, Slope, Bullion, Sentinel 

Butte, and Golden Valley Formations (Sholes 1992). The region experienced various episodes of 

inconsistent subsidence, which contributed to the depositional environment of the basin. In summary, the 

proposed Project route crosses three states and encounters different stratigraphic units of both the PRBGS 

and the Williston Basin and geologic features including the Miles City Arch and Cedar Creek Anticline. 

A summary of the crossing length for each of the stratigraphic units is provided in Table 3.1.1-1. 

Approximately 93 miles of the proposed Project route would cross the Wasatch and Fort Union 

Formations of the PRBGS and Quaternary-aged (present to 2 mya) alluvium where the route crosses 

creek and river valleys. In Montana, the proposed Project route would cross Cretaceous-aged (65 to 

145 mya) sediments of the Hell Creek, Fox Hills, and Pierre shales, and Tertiary-aged (2 to 65 mya) 

sediments associated with the Fort Union Formation that contributed sediments to the PRBGS. In North 

Dakota, approximately 205 miles of the proposed Project route would also cross the Cretaceous-aged 

(65 to 145 mya) sediments from Hell Creek, Fox Hills, and Pierre shales; and Tertiary-aged (2 to 65 mya) 

sediments associated with the Ludlow, Slope, Bullion Creek, and Sentinel Butte Formations that make up 
3-3

the sediments of the Williston Basin. The Fox Hills depositional environment is marginal marine at the 

base and trends toward more estuarine at the top; and the Hell Creek Formation depositional environment 

is estuarine and terrestrial. A summary of geology encountered along the proposed Project is provided in 

Table 3.1.1-1.

TABLE 3.1.1-1 

Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Age 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Group/Formation/Type Description 

Quaternary (Present to 

1.8 million years ago 

[mya]) 

2.4 Alluvium and colluvium Deposits of Tertiary formations eroded from 

ancient rivers and streams. Relative relief 

200 to 400 feet. 

Quaternary (Present to 

1.8 mya) 

0.4 Creek bed Alluvium with a relative relief of 10 to 20 

feet. 

Eocene (33 to 56 mya) 43 Wasatch Formation Siltstone; medium to coarse grain, massive 

or cross-bedded sandstone interbedded 

with shale, carbonaceous shale, and coal. 

Rolling hills and open valleys with a relative 

relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Tertiary (PaleoceneEocene) (33 to 65 mya) 72.2 Sentinel Butte 

Formation 

Gray-brown silt, sand, clay, sandstone, and 

lignite. Rolling hills and open valleys with a 

relative relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Tertiary (PaleoceneEocene) (33 to 65 mya) 28.7 Bullion Creek Formation Yellow- to brown-colored silt, sand, clay, 

sandstone, and lignite. Rolling hills and 

open valleys with a relative relief of 200 to 

400 feet. 

Tertiary (PaleoceneEocene) (33 to 65 mya) 4.2 Slope Formation Grayish-brown and yellowish-brown silt, 

sand, clay, sandstone, and lignite. Rolling 

hills and open valleys with a relative relief 

of 200 to 400 feet. 

Tertiary (PaleoceneEocene) (33 to 65 mya) 3.4 Ludlow Formation Gray- to brown- and yellow- to browncolored silt, sand, clay, sandstone, and 

lignite. Rolling hills and open valleys with a 

relative relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Tertiary (PaleoceneEocene) (33 to 65 mya) 0.5 Golden Valley 

Formation 

Yellow- to brown-colored micaceous 

sandstone, sand, silt, and clay overlying 

white and/or yellow clay, silt, and sand. 

Rolling hills and open valleys with a relative 

relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Paleocene (55 to 65 

mya) 

49.7 Fort Union Formation 

[classified as Fort Union 

Group in North Dakota] 

Coarse clastic sediments of the Tongue 

River, Lebo and Tullock Members. Rolling 

hills and open valleys with a relative relief 

of 200 to 400 feet. 

Late Cretaceous (65 to 

100 mya) 

1.2 Lance Formation Interbedded medium to fine-grain 

sandstones with finer grain mudstones and 

silt stones. Rolling hills and open valleys 

with a relative relief of 200 to 400 feet. 
3-4

TABLE 3.1.1-1 (continued) 

Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Age 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Group/Formation/Type Description 

Late Cretaceous (65 to 

100 mya) 

7.1 Fox Hills Sandstone Light-colored sand stone and gray sandy 

shale containing marine fossils. Rolling 

hills and open valleys with a relative relief 

of 200 to 400 feet. 

Late Cretaceous (65 to 

100 mya) 

40.7 Hell Creek Formation Gray-colored sandstones and shales with 

interbedded lignites deposited as coastalplain sediments during a period of 

regression. Rolling hills and open valleys 

with a relative relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Cretaceous (65 to 145 

mya) 

48.9 Pierre Shale Gray, brownish-gray, and black fissle clay 

shale with calcareous and ferruginous 

concretions, sandstone, and sandy shale. 

Rolling hills and open valleys with a relative 

relief of 200 to 400 feet. 

Notes: 

 Relative relief indicates the range in relief of the referenced area. 

Sources: 

 Wyoming Geographic Information Center 2009 

 North Dakota Geologic Survey and North Dakota Department of Health 2009 

 National Geographic Society 2008 

 USGS 2009a 

Geology of Aboveground Facilities and Construction Yards 

The proposed Project would include aboveground facilities, which would be located along the 

proposed pipeline route. Aboveground facilities for the proposed Project would include a compressor 

station, meter stations, MLVs, and pig launchers/pig receivers. In addition, Bison has proposed the use of 

20 off-site pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards: specifically, including seven pipe storage yards, seven 

rail yards, one rail/pipe yard, two contractor yards, and three contractor/pipe yards. The geologic units, 

geologic resources, and potential geologic hazards underlying these proposed aboveground facilities are 

listed in Table 3.1.1-2. 
3-5

TABLE 3.1.1-2 

Geology and Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pip

Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying 

Aboveground Facilities 

Geologic 

Formation/Unita

Geologic Resources 

Coal Fieldsb Slope Susceptibilityb

Shales with 

< 15 % 

Slopesc Seismicityb Facility Type M

Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Compressor 

station 

2

Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 4-5 Meter station 

Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Meter station 3Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 Mainline valve 

(MLV) 

Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 MLV 

Fort Union, Tongue River Member 

Subbituminous – potentially mineable 

Low NA 2-3 MLV 

Alluvium and colluvium 

 Low NA 2-3 MLV 

Hell Creek Low NA 2-3 MLV Fort Union Lignite; other uses Low NA 2-3 MLV Pierre Formation High Pierre Shale 1-2 MLV 1Pierre Formation High Pierre Shale 1-2 MLV 1Fort Union Lignite; other uses Low NA 1-2 MLV 1Fort Union Lignite; other uses Low NA 1-2 MLV 1Pierre Formation High Pierre Shale 1-2 MLV 1Hell Creek Low NA 1-2 MLV 1Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 1-2 MLV 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 MLV 2
3-6

TABLE 3.1.1-2 (continued) 

Geology and Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pip

Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying 

Aboveground Facilities 

Geologic 

Formation/Unita

Geologic Resources 

Coal Fieldsb Slope Susceptibilityb

Shales with 

< 15 % 

Slopesc Seismicityb Facility Type M

Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 MLV 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 MLV 2Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 MLV 2Pierre Formation High Pierre Shale 1-2 Pipe yard Fox Hills Sandstone High Fox Hills 

Formation 

1-2 Pipe yard 

Pierre Formation High Pierre Shale 1-2 Pipe yard Alluvium High NA 1-2 Pipe yard Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable High NA 1-2 Pipe yard 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Pipe yard 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Pipe yard 2Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Pipe yard 3Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 Rail yard 

Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2Slope Formation Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2Slope Formation Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 1-2 Rail yard 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2Sentinel Butte Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 0-1 Rail yard 2
3-7

TABLE 3.1.1-2 (continued) 

Geology and Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Bison Pip

Potential Geologic Hazards Underlying 

Aboveground Facilities 

Geologic 

Formation/Unita

Geologic Resources 

Coal Fieldsb Slope Susceptibilityb

Shales with 

< 15 % 

Slopesc Seismicityb Facility Type M

Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 Rail yard/ pipe 

yard 

Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 1-2 Contractor yard 2Bullion Creek Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 1-2 Contractor yard 2Slope Formation Lignite – potentially mineable Moderate NA 1-2 Contractor yard 2Wasatch Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 Contractor/ pipe 

yard 

Fort Union Lignite; other uses Low NA 2-3 Contractor/ pipe 

yard 

Fort Union Subbituminous – potentially 

mineable 

Low NA 3-4 Contractor/ pipe 

yard 

Notes:  Geologic resources are coal fields identified as potentially mineable indicate that coal resources are known to occur in these formations, and that co

the future through stripping or underground mines. 

 NA = Not applicable  Slope susceptibility is characterized as the measurement of slope stability based on the angle or tilt of geologic materials, composition of materials, 

disturbance, loading of materials, rainfall, and seismic activity. 

 Shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock derived from clay that is susceptible to landslides.  Seismicity classifies the frequency, magnitude, and distribution of earthquakes. Sources: 

a Bluemle 1983, Case et al. 1998, USGS 1994, USGS 1998 b USGS 2009a c ESRI 2000 d Mileposts for pipe storage yards, contractor yards, and rail yards indicate the nearest milepost to the centerline. 
3-8

3.1.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Mineral resources, including coal fields, coal-bed methane, bentonite, scoria pits, and gravel pits 

along the proposed Project route were identified using the following resources: National Atlas of the 

United States (USGS 2009a), U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and information from 

various state agencies. As summarized in Table 3.1.1-3, approximately 281 miles of the proposed Project 

route would cross 12 coal fields and one bentonite clay area. 

TABLE 3.1.1-3 

Mineral Resources Identified along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Mineral Resource Notes Start 

MP 

End 

MP 

Distance 

from Right 

of Way (feet) 

Source 

Subbituminous coal Potentially 

mineable 

-0.5 63.8 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Gravel pit 51.5 -- 500 USGS 24K topographic maps 

Lignite coal/other 63.8 66.2 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Subbituminous coal Potentially 

mineable 

66.2 68.4 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Lignite coal/other 68.4 78. 6 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Bentonite clay 103.2 148.8 Crossed Bergantino and Cole 1981 

Lignite coal/other 148.8 175.1 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Lignite coal/other 185.7 192.4 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Lignite coal Potentially 

mineable 

192.4 301.5 Crossed USGS 2009b 

Lignite coal Strippable 202.2 203.4 Crossed Murphy 2001a 

Lignite coal Strippable 211.5 219.5 Crossed Murphy 2001a, Murphy 2005aa

Lignite coal Strippable 242.5 243.0 Crossed Murphy 2001b 

Lignite coal Strippable 243. 1 246.8 Crossed Murphy 2006ab

Lignite coal Strippable 295.0 295.4 Crossed Murphy 2001c 

Gravel pit 194.7 -- 2,000 USGS 24K Topographic Maps 

Gravel pit 198.7 -- 500 USGS 24K Topographic Maps 

Scoria pit 211.1 -- 1,300 USGS 24K Topographic Maps 

Gravel pit 212.4 -- 500 USGS 24K Topographic Maps 

Notes: 

MP = Milepost 

 -- = Indicates no ending milepost provided. 

Economic coal deposits indicated meet minimum criteria established by coal mining companies with surface mining operations 

in North Dakota. 

a

 Noted as an economic coal deposit from start MP 212.1 to end MP 217.6. 

b

 Noted as an economic coal deposit. 
3-9

Coal Fields 

Approximately 235 miles of the 302.5-mile-long proposed Project route would cross coal fields, 

of which 174.6 miles are categorized as potentially mineable and 13.8 miles are strippable (USGS 2009b) 

(Table 3.1.1-3). Coal resources identified along the proposed Project route include lignite, 

subbituminous, and bituminous grades. Lignite is a low-grade coal that is typically formed at shallow 

depths and is younger than bituminous coal. Bituminous coal is a higher grade, soft coal; and 

subbituminous coal has properties that range between lignite and bituminous. 

Bison communicated with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ), 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Public Service Commission (PSC) of North 

Dakota, and the BLM to identify mining operations. The BLM indicated that maps of coal operations and 

lease maps for all active mines are on record, but annual performance is not quantified (BLM 2009a). 

The PSC of North Dakota indicated that six active coal mines are located in counties north of the 

proposed Project; however, none are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed Project route. Using lignite 

deposit maps, strippable lignite mines were identified in Bowman, Hettinger, and Morton Counties in 

North Dakota (Murphy 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Areas of strippable lignite classified as economic coal 

deposits were identified using the minimum criteria established by coal mining companies that operate 

surface mines in North Dakota. This resulted in strippable coal areas being identified along less than 

10 miles of the proposed Project route (Murphy 2005a, 2005b, 2006a; Murphy et al. 2006b). According 

to Bison, USGS data indicate that no actively operated facilities for mineral resources are present within 

0.25 mile of the construction right-of-way (USGS 2009b). A rail yard located in Bowman County, North 

Dakota would be adjacent to a rail spur that services Gascoyne Mine, an active underground coal mine. 

Bison has worked with the BLM through the development of the proposed Project to avoid active mining 

operations and coal leases, as well as planned coal leases; Bison states that the proposed rail yard would 

not impact operations at the Gascoyne Mine. 

Coal-bed Methane 

Surface facilities for extracting coal-bed methane gas, a natural gas found in coal deposits, would 

not be crossed by the proposed Project. Bison would implement specialized construction techniques if 

reroutes caused underground facilities or pipelines associated with coal-bed methane to be crossed by the 

proposed Project. Specialized techniques may include research for land title records and other local and 

state records, the location of plastic pipelines through non-invasive and ground disturbance investigations, 

use of electronic geophysical equipment to locate objects in the subsurface, and excavation to verify the 

presence of the pipeline. Crossing methods of coal-bed methane gas pipelines would be similar to other 

identified utility lines as outlined in Section 2.3.1. 

Bentonite 

In Montana, mineable bentonite clay deposits are present in Cretaceous-aged (65 to 145 mya) 

formations between MP 103 and MP 149 (Bergantino and Cole 1981) as well as lignite and other use 

resources between MP 75 and MP 79, and between MP 148 and MP 175. 

Scoria & Gravel Pits 

A scoria pit and four gravel pits were identified on USGS topographic maps within 0.25 mile of 

the proposed right-of-way. A review of topographic maps indicates that the four gravel pits are not 

active; however, the scoria pit is actively mined approximately 1,300 feet from the proposed Project 

route. The scoria pit is a surface mine, but potential impacts are not expected due to the distance from the 

proposed pipeline route. For all areas containing mineral resources that would be crossed by the proposed 
3-10

Project, Bison would negotiate an easement agreement with the landowner for the loss of resources, in 

accordance with applicable state laws. Easement agreements for land managed by BLM that contains 

mineral resources would be negotiated with BLM in accordance with applicable federal laws. See 

Section 3.8.1.3 for further discussion on Project easements. 

3.1.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

“Geologic hazards” are defined “as natural geologic events that can damage human lives or 

human property” (USGS 2009a). The existence of geologic hazards, including volcanism, liquefaction, 

the presence of karst topography, seismicity, faulting, and landslide incidence and susceptibility along the 

proposed Project route were evaluated to identify any related potential hazards. Resources used to 

identify potential geologic hazards along the proposed Project route included aerial photographs, state 

geological survey records, and USGS resources. 

Volcanoes, Liquefaction, and Karst Topography 

Volcanoes are classified as openings of the earth’s crust, where magma or melted rock, ash, 

gases, and debris below the crust are brought to the surface in the form of an eruption. Volcanoes can be 

extinct, indicating that eruptions are no longer likely; dormant, indicating that an eruption may occur at 

some time, but is not imminent; or active indicating that eruptions can occur at any time. Soil 

liquefaction is defined as a physical process which can occur during an earthquake when “clay-free soil 

deposits (primarily sands and silts) temporarily lose strength and behave as viscous fluids, resulting in 

ground failure” (USGS 2009c). Bison did not identify active volcanoes or areas of potential soil 

liquefaction within the proposed Project area. 

Karst topography is created from the dissolution of soluble rocks in areas that primarily contain 

limestone and dolomite. Karst terrain and the associated potential for sinkholes can be problematic 

during pipeline construction and operation. The proposed Project would not traverse areas of karst 

topography, indicating that sinkhole formation along the proposed Project route would be unlikely (USGS 

2009a). 

Seismicity and Faulting 

Seismicity and faulting within the proposed Project area were evaluated using the USGS National 

Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, in which seismic hazards are ranked from 1 (the lowest) to 100 (the 

highest) (USGS 2009a). The highest seismic hazard rank along the proposed Project route is 5, indicating 

that seismic hazards along the proposed Project are relatively low. A review of geologic maps of active 

faults in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota indicate that the proposed Project would not cross any 

known active faults (Bluemle 1988, State of Wyoming Geological Survey 2009, Vuke et al. 2007). 

Table 3.1.1-4 provides the seismic hazards identified along the proposed Project. 
3-11

TABLE 3.1.1-4 

Seismic Hazards along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Start MP End MP Seismic Ranka

-0.5 9.8 4 – 5 

9.8 43.9 3 – 4 

43.9 89.6 2 – 3 

89.6 212.5 1 – 2 

212.5 301.5 0 – 1 

Note: 

 a Seismic hazards are ranked from 1 (the lowest risk) to 100 (the highest risk). 

Source: 

 USGS 2009a 

Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility 

Contributing factors to landslides and slope failures can include the angle or tilt of geologic 

materials, composition of materials, natural and man-made disturbance or loading of materials, rainfall, 

and seismic activity. “Landslide incidence” is characterized by USGS as the measurement of the 

frequency of landslides within a given area (USGS 2009a). “Susceptibility” is the measurement of slope 

stability, taking into account the contributing factors listed above to identify the probability of slope 

failure. The USGS ranks both the potential incidence of landslide and the susceptibility of slope failure as 

low (less than 1.5 percent), moderate (range of 1.5 to 15 percent), and high (greater than 15 percent). 

Within areas classified as high susceptibility, steep slopes or loose soils may be present along portions of 

the proposed Project area. Table 3.1.1-5 lists the USGS ranking of landslide incidence and susceptibility 

in the area of the proposed Project route, and indicates that the likelihood of a landslide along the 

proposed route is low. 

Approximately 126.7 miles of the proposed Project would cross areas with a low USGS 

susceptibility, 108 miles of the proposed Project route would cross areas with a moderate USGS 

susceptibility, and 67.3 miles would cross areas with a high USGS susceptibility. While a substantial 

portion of the proposed route would traverse areas with slopes greater than 15 percent, loose geologic 

material, or geologic material that would be more susceptible to landslides and slope failures, the specific 

route through those areas has been selected to avoid those conditions to the degree practical. Route 

selection generally avoided steep slopes, but also avoided following elevational contours across slopes. 

In a few limited instances, the proposed route crosses steep slopes including specific areas between 

MP 105 and MP 148 where the slope was greater than 15 percent and the surface or shallow subsurface 

substrate was identified as Pierre Shale. This shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock that is derived from 

clay and is susceptible to landslides due to its physical characteristics. These five shale areas are spread 

across approximately 43 miles in Montana and North Dakota, but the total crossing of this highly 

susceptible slope substrate condition would total approximately 0.5 mile (ESRI 2000) (Table 3.1.1-6). 

Other areas where steep slopes were identified include MP 95.9 to MP 96.4 and MP 107.8 to MP 107.9. 
3-12

TABLE 3.1.1-5 

Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility of Areas Traversed by the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Starting 

MP 

Ending 

MP 

Crossing Distance 

(miles) USGS-Ranked Incidence USGS-Ranked Susceptibility 

-0.5 89.4 89.9 Low (< 1.5 %) Low (< 1.5 %) 

89.4 147.3 57.9 Low (< 1.5 %) High (> 15 %) 

147.3 177.7 30.5 Low (< 1.5 %) Low (< 1.5 %) 

177.7 187.2 9.4 Low (< 1.5 %) High (> 15 %) 

187.2 193.5 6.3 Low (< 1.5 %) Low (< 1.5 %) 

193.5 301.5 108.0 Low (< 1.5 %) Moderate (1.5% to 15%) 

Notes: 

 MP = Milepost 

 % incidence is the percentage of landslides within a given area. 

Source: 

 USGS 2009a 

TABLE 3.1.1-6 

Pierre Formation Shale with Slopes Greater Than 15 Percent in Areas 

Traversed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Starting 

MP 

Ending 

MP 

Crossing 

Distance 

(miles) 

Percent Slope (%) Length (feet) 

96.3 96.4 0.1 18 370 

107.8 107.9 0.2 20 845 

178.9 179.0 0.1 21 528 

187.0 187.1 0.1 26 475 

187.3 187.4 0.1 17 370 

Source: 

 SRI 2000 

Landslides and slope failures can affect the environment through the loading of sediments and 

debris into waterbodies or covering vegetation. Areas such as riverbanks and areas with moderate and 

high susceptibility to landslides would be monitored prior to, during, and after construction to identify 

potential landslide hazards. Additionally, Bison would place sand bags or trench breakers across the 

trenches prior to backfilling to minimize the potential for slope failure from groundwater flowing down 

the slopes. 
3-13

Bison has currently not identified all areas where high landslide susceptibility exists specifically 

along the proposed route, nor have they identified specific crossing methods to minimize potential 

impacts associated with construction through these areas. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file identification of all 

locations along the proposed Project route that are highly susceptible to landslides due 

to slope and/or substrate conditions and site-specific mitigation to minimize potential 

impacts of Project construction and operation in those areas. 

3.1.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

The proposed Project would traverse geologic deposits from the Quaternary, Tertiary, and 

Cretaceous periods through Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. The proposed Project would traverse 

Cretaceous- and Tertiary-aged formations in Wyoming. Sediments of the Powder River and Williston 

Basins contain fossil assemblages of plants and animals, such as fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians. In Montana, the proposed Project would traverse Cretaceous (Fox Hills and Hell Creek) and 

Tertiary (Fort Union and Wasatch) formations in which fossil assemblages of flora, reptiles, and 

mammals indicative of tropical, swampy climates are abundant (University of Wyoming 2009). In North 

Dakota, the proposed Project would traverse the Cretaceous-aged Hell Creek and Fox Hills Formations, 

the Pierre Shale Formation, and the Tertiary-aged Bullion Creek and Sentinel Butte Formations. Fossil 

assemblages of the Pierre Shale Formation include dinosaurs, prehistoric reptiles, marine vertebrates such 

as sea turtles and other marine reptiles; fish; and marine invertebrates such as mollusks, bivalves, and 

ammonites. Terrestrial fossil assemblages for the Bullion Creek and Sentinel Butte Formations include 

trees, reptiles (crocodiles, alligators, turtles), mammals, freshwater vertebrates (fish), and invertebrates 

(mollusks). 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota require the protection of fossils encountered on stateowned land. To minimize impacts to sensitive paleontological resources during construction of the 

proposed Project, a Project-specific mitigation plan has been developed by Bison based on 

recommendations from pre-construction field surveys and paleontological assessments conducted by a 

BLM-permitted paleontologist (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] working on behalf of Bison), 

using the potential fossil yield classification (PFYC) system developed by the BLM. 

The SWCA-prepared paleontological assessment included a review of museum and agency 

records of fossil locations, geologic maps, and published scientific literature; and consultation with 

paleontologists and land managers familiar with the geologic units that would be traversed by the 

proposed Project. At the request of the BLM, Bison consulted with Dr. John Hoganson of the North 

Dakota Geological Survey to identify any sensitive paleontological areas along the proposed Project route 

in North Dakota. 

The PFYC system, developed by BLM, was used to evaluate paleontological sensitivity of each 

geologic unit that would be traversed by the proposed Project. The PFYC system classifies sensitivity on 

a scale of 1 to 5. Class 1 indicates geologic units with a very low probability of containing recognizable 

fossil remains. Class 2 indicates sedimentary units that are not likely to contain fossils of scientific 

significance or vertebrate fossils. Class 3 indicates sedimentary units with fossil contents that may vary 

in significance, occurrence, and abundance, and also indicates geologic units or features with unknown 

potential for significant fossil occurrence. Class 4 indicates geologic units with a high occurrence of 

significant fossils. Class 5 indicates geologic units that are highly fossiliferous, meaning they contain 

fossils. For the proposed Project, PFYC classes may be combined as 2/3, 3/5, or 4/5 for planning 

purposes to indicate that an area may have a combination of characteristics for Class 2, 3, 4, and 5. 
3-14

Paleontological field surveys were conducted based upon the PFYC system. Areas identified as 

moderate sensitivity (PFYC Class 3) were field spot-checked and areas classified as high to very high 

sensitivity (PFYC Class 4/5) were subject to a full field survey to assess the potential presence of 

paleontological resources. The paleontological field survey for the proposed Project route was completed 

by SWCA from April 16, 2009 through May 29, 2009 along the proposed pipeline corridor, within the 

footprint of aboveground facilities, and along access roads. Surveyed areas included privately owned 

land, BLM-managed land, and state-owned land in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. 

Approximately 106 miles of the proposed pipeline right-of-way and 12 miles of aboveground facilities 

and access roads identified for Project improvement were surveyed. All targeted areas were surveyed 

where access was granted. 

Field surveys on BLM-managed lands indicate that 12 fossil locations were identified in 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, of which seven are considered significant and five are considered 

non-significant. The five non-significant locations; two occur in Wyoming (BLM Buffalo), one in 

Montana (BLM Miles City) and two in North Dakota (BLM North Dakota); were recommended for 

paleontological clearance by SWCA. Of the seven significant locations, fossils were collected from five 

sites and two sites are recommended for avoidance. The five significant locations from which fossils 

were collected occur in Montana (2 locations) and North Dakota (3 locations). One site proposed for 

avoidance includes an assemblage of turtle, fish, and dinosaur bone fragments near the edge of the 

construction corridor in North Dakota. The assemblage suggests that other well-preserved fossils may be 

present in the subsurface. The second site that is proposed for avoidance is a well-preserved tree stump 

located near the edge of the construction corridor in Wyoming. If avoidance is not feasible, SWCA 

recommends an additional site visit and consultation with BLM. 

Field surveys of state-owned land indentified four fossil locations; of these, three were classified 

as non-significant and are recommended for immediate paleontological clearance. In Montana, a 

significant fossil location was identified across the pipeline corridor. The fossil location includes a large 

assemblage of dinosaur and turtle bone fragments. The presence of these fossils suggests that other wellpreserved fossils may be present in the subsurface. The fossils in this location have been documented but 

not removed due to current consultation by SWCA on behalf of Bison with the Montana SHPO. 

Field surveys conducted on privately owned lands indicate that 38 fossil locations were identified, 

of which 25 were classified as non-significant and recommended for immediate paleontological 

clearance. The remaining 13 fossil locations were classified as significant. No fossils were removed 

from privately owned lands. SWCA provided the landowner with a fossil locality description form. The 

forms provide the landowner with information related to the discovery of fossils on their land and three 

options that include: (1) collect fossils and donate to the appropriate museum for preservation; (2) collect 

fossils and return to the landowner; and (3) no collection of fossils, with the understanding that damage 

may occur during construction. Landowners requested that fossils be collected and returned to them for 

seven of the 13 locations, and fossils are not to be removed from the remaining locations prior to 

construction. 

SWCA recommends a complete surface clearance for the proposed Project upon completion of 

several tasks. These tasks include completing the field survey for areas identified as “sensitive resources” 

on BLM-managed lands or on privately owned land for which access has not yet been granted. Other 

tasks that are required prior to construction include negotiations with the Montana SHPO regarding the 

significant fossil location in Montana and the collection of fossils on privately owned land at seven of the 

significant fossil sites. 

SWCA also prepared a paleontological resources construction mitigation plan that outlines 

mitigation to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources and for unanticipated discoveries. As 
3-15

part of this plan, SWCA recommends continuous paleontological monitoring of PFYC Class 4/5 areas 

and continued spot checking of PFYC Class 3 areas. 

3.1.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

3.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

Pipeline Trenching 

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project include clearing, grading, backfilling, 

trenching, and blasting; these activities have the potential to affect geologic resources. Alteration of 

geologic units can affect the hydrology and local drainage patterns, erosion, slope failure, and local 

ecosystems. The proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with the Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards for the Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline under 49 CFR Part 192. No 

geologic hazards have been identified requiring special design or construction measures for the proposed 

Project. In order to limit impacts to geologic resources along the proposed Project, Bison would 

implement mitigation measures, including installation of trench breakers, slope breakers, and sediment 

barriers, and application of mulch as outlined in its Plan (Appendix F). 

Potential impacts to mineral sites (such as coal, bentonite, and gravel) and areas of 

paleontological resources would be largely avoided by pipeline routing and through negotiations with 

affected parties, as applicable. The largest potential for effects would be related to alteration of 

topography, especially in steep or moderately rugged terrain. These potential effects would be mitigated 

by restoring disturbed areas as closely as possible to pre-construction contours. Geologic hazards, such as 

landslides/slope failure would not likely cause a significant threat to construction or operation of the 

proposed facilities and would be minimized through the use of special construction techniques such as 

aligning the pipeline with a slope rather than parallel to it, restoration, and post-construction monitoring. 

Paleontological surveys identified 21 significant fossil sites. SWCA has recommended that at 

least two of these sites be avoided. A third site is currently undergoing consultation with Bison and the 

Montana SHPO, and its status has not yet been determined. Seven of the remaining sites are located on 

privately owned land and would require excavation of fossils and delivery to the landowners prior to 

construction. Since Bison has not committed to incorporating these measures, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file confirmation on whether it 

would adhere to the recommendations identified in the paleontological assessments to 

avoid and minimize impacts to paleontological resources, and identify potential 

environmental impacts associated with these measures including any adjustments in the 

proposed alignment to avoid any significant fossil sites identified in the surveys. If 

Bison would not adhere to the recommendations in the assessments, Bison should 

identify BLM-approved mitigation to avoid and minimize potential impacts to 

significant fossil sites. 

Blasting 

The depth to bedrock has been identified as shallow along the proposed Project route; however, 

the geologic formations in the subsurface include sandstones, siltstones, and shales, which are generally 

amenable to mechanical excavation and fracture. Tractor-mounted mechanical rippers or trenchers would 

likely be used to fracture bedrock for excavation. According to Bison, one section of the proposed 

Project alignment may contain hard bedrock that may require blasting—from approximately MP 72.5 to 

MP 72.8. If an area of bedrock is encountered along the proposed Project route that requires blasting for 
3-16

excavation, Bison’s blasting contractor would prepare a Contractor Blasting Plan and a site-specific 

blasting plan modeled after Bison’s Blasting Plan (Appendix J). 

Use of blasting would require a pre-blasting impact assessment to determine whether other 

excavation methods could be used to remove the materials and to assess potential impacts to nearby 

residential or other structures, aboveground and belowground utilities, roadways, waterbodies, and 

sensitive environments or habitats. The Contractor Blasting Plan would include all blasting procedures; 

health and safety requirements; and an engineer’s report, which would detail blasting charges and 

methods for specific locations. The site-specific blasting plan also would be prepared by the blasting 

contractor and would include measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. The site-specific blasting 

plan would include a safety plan, details regarding geologic structure, blast hole spacing and 

configuration of delay, blast charge weight, procedures for transport and storage of blasting materials, and 

other criteria as needed. Currently, Bison is not proposing to conduct any blasting, but its current blasting 

plan does not include any agency review or approval. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• In the event that blasting is warranted, Bison file for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP a completed Contractor Blasting Plan and site-specific blasting plan 

prior to implementing any blasting. The plans should also be provided to all other 

appropriate federal and state agencies for review. 

Summary of Potential Impacts of Construction 

The primary effect of Project construction on geologic resources would be disturbances to 

topographic features found along the proposed construction right-of-way. As described in Section 2.3.1, 

all areas disturbed during Project construction would be graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours during cleanup and restoration. Additionally, areas of seismic activity and karst 

topography would be avoided. Bison does not anticipate the need for blasting but would follow a sitespecific blasting plan to minimize impacts if blasting was warranted. Furthermore, Bison would request a 

route alteration to avoid a parallel alignment in areas of high susceptibility to slope failure. For these 

reasons, construction of the proposed Project would be unlikely to result in significant alterations of the 

topography or geologic resources of the proposed Project area. 

3.1.2.2 Operation Impacts 

Impacts of the proposed Project from post-construction operations are expected to be minimal. 

Permanent impacts from the proposed Project would include aboveground facilities, which include a 

compressor station, meter stations, MLVs, and pig launchers/pig receivers. Operations activities would 

potentially include repair or replacement of portions of the proposed Project including pipeline and 

equipment at the aboveground facilities; however, as no new ground would be excavated during 

operations of the proposed Project, no associated impacts would be expected associated with geologic 

hazards or to mineral or paleontological resources during operation of the proposed Project. 

3.2 SOILS 

3.2.1 Existing Soil Resources 

3.2.1.1 Ecoregions 

An “ecoregion” is defined as an area with a similar ecological setting and is categorized by EPA 

using many factors, including soils, vegetation, land use, geology, and climate. According to EPA, the 

proposed Project alignment would traverse the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion. The Northwestern 
3-17

Great Plains ecoregion topography is characterized by rolling hills and valleys with occasional buttes. 

The vegetation of the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion includes native grasslands, some of which has 

been converted to agricultural vegetation (such as, spring wheat and alfalfa). The geology of the area is 

typically shales and sandstones. The climate in the area is semi-arid, and agriculture in the area is limited 

due to inconsistent precipitation (EPA 2001).

3.2.1.2 Soil Associations 

Soils traversed by the proposed Project route were identified using the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) soil series maps based on the Soil Survey Geographic database 

(SSURGO). Soil series are established groups of soils that have similar soil chemistry and physical 

properties. 

Wyoming 

The proposed Project route in Wyoming crosses 90 soil map units that contain at least one soil 

series (NRCS 2006). A soil map unit identifies soils present in a particular area of land. The most 

common soil map units that would be encountered by the proposed Project in Wyoming are the Ucross 

and Deekay loams. The Ucross and Deekay loams are non-hydric soils that contain sediments derived 

from shales and sandstones. The Ucross loams are commonly located on uplands and ridges with slopes 

of 3 to 15 percent and are well drained. The restrictive layer of Ucross loams is between 20 and 40 inches 

where water movement is highest before encountering the restrictive root layer. Water movement is 

moderate between 40 and 60 inches below ground surface (bgs). The Deekay loams are located on 

alluvial fans and remnants on uplands with slopes of 0 to 6 percent. Water movement and availability in 

the restrictive layer are high, and water is not encountered above 60 inches bgs. The shrink-swell ratio for 

Ucross loams is moderate, while considered low for the Deekay loams. 

Montana 

The proposed Project within Montana would traverse 126 soil map units that contain at least one 

soil series (NRCS 2006). The most common soil map units that would be encountered by the proposed 

Project in Montana are the Neldore and Gerdrum clay loams. The Neldore and Gerdrum clay loams are 

well drained and non-hydric. Neldore clay loams are derived from clay sediments overlying semiconsolidated shales that occur on plains with slopes of 4 to 15 percent. The root restrictive layer of the 

Neldore clay loam is 10 to 20 inches bgs, where water movement is low. The Gerdrum clay loams 

developed in clayey alluvium and occur on alluvium fans and fluvial terraces with slopes of 0 to 

8 percent. The Gerdrum clay loams have a high shrink-swell potential and a restrictive root layer that is 

greater than 60 inches bgs, where water movement is low. 

North Dakota 

The proposed Project within North Dakota would traverse 230 soil map units that contain at least

one soil series (NRCS 2006). The most common soil map units encountered by the proposed Project in 

North Dakota are the Vebar and Belfield fine sandy loams. The Vebar and Belfield loams are well 

drained and non-hydric. Vebar loams are derived from sediments weathered from calcareous limestone 

and are located on upland hills with slopes of 2 to 25 percent. The root restrictive layer of Vebar loams is 

20 to 40 inches bgs, where water movement is high. Belfield loams developed in clayey alluvium 

weathered from sedimentary rocks and occur on flats of badlands with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Belfield 

loams have a high shrink-swell potential and a restrictive root layer from 7 to 45 inches bgs, where water 

movement is low. 
3-18

3.2.1.3 Soil Characteristics 

Several soil characteristics have the potential to affect, or be affected by, construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. These include topsoil; erosion potential; compaction potential; 

presence of stony or rocky soils; presence of shallow bedrock; drainage class; presence of hydric soils; 

revegetation potential; and prime farmland, cropland, and rangeland designations. Table 3.2.1-1 

summarizes areas along the proposed Project route affected by these soil characteristics. 

Topsoil 

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, typically has the highest concentration of organic 

materials, and generally has greater biological productivity than subsurface soils. The micro-organisms 

and other biological material typically found in topsoil provide necessary nutrients to vegetation. Topsoil 

also has the highest concentration of plant root and seeds. Topsoil preservation is important especially for 

natural vegetation and cropland and range or pasture lands, especially in areas where topsoil is limited in 

extent or depth. Bison would remove topsoil to a depth of 1 foot based on data obtained from the Soil 

Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) and segregate it from subsoil to avoid potential compaction and 

erosion during construction. 

Along the proposed Project route, topsoil depth is variable; some areas have little or no topsoil, 

and other areas have a layer of topsoil over 1 foot deep. Table 3.2.1-2 identifies locations along the 

proposed route where topsoil is greater than 1 foot deep. 

Erosion Potential 

Erosion is the wearing away of soils caused by exposure to water, wind, ice, or other geologic 

forces. Many factors influence the extent to which soil is eroded, such as soil structure, drainage 

characteristics, texture, slope, climate, and vegetation. The erosion potential across the proposed Project 

route was evaluated based on the occurrence of soils that are highly susceptible to wind or water erosion. 

Soils highly susceptible to wind are characterized by properties including texture, soil content, aggregate 

stability, and the proportion of organic materials. Soils susceptible to erosion from water are classified by 

variables including slope class. Soils that are categorized as having slopes greater than 9 percent are 

considered highly susceptible to erosion from water. Approximately 4.5 percent (13.5 miles) of the soils 

that would be crossed by the proposed Project route are classified as highly erodible to water and 

6.7 percent (20.3 miles) of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed Project are classified as highly 

erodible to wind. 

Compaction Potential 

Soils identified as compaction prone are characterized as clay loams or finer grain size 

classifications designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). A drainage class of somewhat 

poor to very poor is also considered in characterizing compaction-prone soils. The proposed Project route 

traverses approximately 1.6 miles of land classified as compaction-prone soils with 0.3 mile in Wyoming 

and 1.3 miles in North Dakota. The proposed Project would not traverse any compaction-prone soils in 

Montana. The extent of soil compaction can be dependent on the proportion of moisture in the soil. Soils 

that are wet or have high water content may be more prone to compaction associated with construction 

activities. 
3-19

TABLE 3.2.1-1 

Summary of Soil Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Location Extent Soil Conditions 

Project 

Component State County MPa

Area 

(acres) 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Compaction 

Prone 

Shallowtobedrock Hydric Soils 

Re

P

Pipeline WY Campbell NA NA 4.1 5.2 0.4 19.7 0.4 Pipeline MT Powder River NA NA 0.6 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 Pipeline MT Carter NA NA 3.1 1.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 Pipeline MT Fallon NA NA 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 Pipeline ND Bowman NA NA 5.9 3.8 0.1 30.1 0.3 Pipeline ND Slope NA NA 1.6 0.3 0.3 16.1 1.8 Pipeline ND Hettinger NA NA 5.7 0.9 0.6 25.9 0.9 Pipeline ND Stark NA NA 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.3 0.0 Pipeline ND Grant NA NA 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 Pipeline ND Morton NA NA 1.2 1.2 0.1 14.1 0.1 Hettinger Compressor Station (contains MLV-257) 

ND Hettinger 257.2 20.0 No No No Yes No 

Buffalo Receipt Meter Station (contains launcher, MLV- (-0.47) 

WY Campbell -0.5 1.2 No No No Yes No 

Kurtz Delivery Meter Station (contains launcher, MLV301) 

ND Morton 301.4 0.9 No No No Yes No 

MLV-012 WY Campbell 12.1 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-028 WY Campbell 27.6 0.1 No No No Yes No 
3-20

TABLE 3.2.1-1 (continued) 

Summary of Soil Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Location Extent Soil Conditions 

Project 

Component State County MPa

Area 

(acres) 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Compaction 

Prone 

Shallowtobedrock Hydric Soils 

Re

P

MLV-045 WY Campbell 45.4 0.1 No No No No No MLV-064 WY Campbell 64.5 0.1 No No No No No MLV-079 MT Powder River 79.2 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-088 MT Powder River 87.7 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-107 MT Carter 106.6 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-123 MT Carter 123.3 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-142 MT Carter 141.6 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-161 (contains launcher and receiver) 

MT Carter 160.9 0.14 No No No No No 

MLV-180 ND Bowman 179.9 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-192 ND Bowman 192.1 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-212 ND Bowman 212.1 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-232 ND Slope 232.1 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-252 ND Hettinger 251.8 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-277 ND Stark 276.6 0.1 No No No Yes No MLV-295 ND Morton 295.2 0.1 No No No Yes No Pipe Yards HWY 212 Alt 1 MT Carter 105.0 25.0 No No No Yes No Old Hammond MT Carter 106.2 2.2 No No No Yes No Old Hammond MT Carter 106.2 10.5 No No No Yes No HWY 323 MT Carter 146.5 33.5 No No No No No 
3-21

TABLE 3.2.1-1 (continued) 

Summary of Soil Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Location Extent Soil Conditions 

Project 

Component State County MPa

Area 

(acres) 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Compaction 

Prone 

Shallowtobedrock Hydric Soils 

Re

Pipe Yards (continued) HWY 12 Alt 1 ND Bowman 205.3 23.1 No No No Yes No HWY 22 Alt 2 ND Hettinger 241.0 43.9 No No No Yes No HWY 8 Alt 2 ND Hettinger 270.0 23.7 No No No Yes No Glen Ullin (Pipe Yard) 

ND Morton 301.5 9.8 No No No Yes No 

Rail Yards Echeta Rd WY Campbell 10.5 7.5 No No No Yes No Gascoyne ND Bowman 226.1 35.7 No No No No Yes Gascoyne ND Bowman 226.1 49.7 No No No No Yes Rhame ND Bowman 201.6 1.7 No No No Yes No Dickinson ND Stark 254.6 5.6 Yes No No Yes No Richardton ND Stark 283.6 2.60 Yes No No Yes No Eagles Nest ND Morton 296.1 6.0 No No Yes Yes Yes Glen Ullin (Rail Yard) 

ND Morton 298.6 5.4 No No No Yes No 

Rail Yard/Pipe Yard Gillette WY Campbell 9.1 9.7 No No No No No Contractor Yards Bowman-1 ND Bowman 214.3 24.8 No No No Yes No Bowman-3 ND Bowman 212.8 3.3 No No No No No Bowman-3 ND Bowman 212.8 15.0 No No No No No 
3-22

TABLE 3.2.1-1 (continued) 

Summary of Soil Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Location Extent Soil Conditions 

Project 

Component State County MPa

Area 

(acres) 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Compaction 

Prone 

Shallowtobedrock Hydric Soils 

Re

Contractor/Pipe Yards Echeta Rd Alt 2 WY Campbell 8.7 24.1 No No No No No HWY 59 WY Campbell 72.0 28.1 No No No No No US 14/16 & Recluse Rd 

WY Campbell 39.4 21.1 No No No No No 

Notes: MT = Montana ND = North Dakota WY = Wyoming a The milepost for the pipe yards, rail yards and contractor yards relate to the nearest milepost to the centerline.
3-23

TABLE 3.2.1-2 

Topsoil Depths along the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Route That Exceed 12 Inches 

Location 

Start MP End MP 

Topsoil 

Depth 

(inches) County State 

155.8 155.9 13.0 Carter Montana 

156.2 156.3 13.0 Carter Montana 

162.1 162.1 13.0 Carter Montana 

163.8 163.9 13.0 Carter Montana 

165.8 165.9 13.0 Carter Montana 

169.2 169.3 13.0 Carter Montana 

176.4 176.8 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

177.4 177.5 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

193.6 193.8 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

194.0 194.0 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

194.1 194.2 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

199.6 199.6 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

200.4 200.4 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

200.4 200.5 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

201.4 201.5 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

201.9 202.0 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

202.2 202.3 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

205.2 205.3 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

205.4 205.5 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

205.9 206.0 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

209.2 209.2 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

209.2 209.3 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

209.8 209.9 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

209.9 209.9 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

210.3 210.4 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

212.8 212.9 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

213.0 213.0 13.0 Bowman North Dakota 

225.9 225.9 16.9 Slope North Dakota 

229.4 229.4 16.9 Slope North Dakota 

230.1 230.2 16.9 Slope North Dakota 

235.4 235.4 16.9 Hettinger North Dakota 

253.4 253.5 13.0 Hettinger North Dakota 
3-24

TABLE 3.2.1-2 (continued) 

Topsoil Depths along the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Route That Exceed 12 Inches 

Location 

Start MP End MP 

Topsoil 

Depth 

(inches) County State 

254.1 254.1 13.0 Hettinger North Dakota 

258.5 258.5 13.0 Hettinger North Dakota 

259.1 259.2 13.0 Hettinger North Dakota 

263.4 263.5 13.0 Hettinger North Dakota 

Stony/Rocky and Shallow-to-Bedrock Soils 

Soils with textural classifications including stony, cobbly, gravelly, shale, slate, or droughty in 

any layer, or with stones larger than 3 inches in the surface layer in greater than 5 percent of the area, may 

be characterized as stony or rocky soil. The proposed Project would traverse approximately 0.3 percent 

(0.8 mile) of stony and rocky soil in Wyoming, 2.9 percent (8.7 miles) of stony and rocky soil in 

Montana, and 1.0 percent (3.1 miles) of stony and rocky soil in North Dakota. 

Soils with bedrock present within 60 inches (5 feet) of the soil surface are considered shallow to 

bedrock. Soils with shallow-to-bedrock classifications were identified using NRCS data (NRCS 2006). 

Approximately 66 percent (201 miles) of the proposed Project route traverses soil that is considered 

shallow to bedrock. Of all soil types crossed by the proposed Project route, shallow-to-bedrock soils 

would account for 19.8 percent (59.9 miles) in Wyoming, 14.8 percent (44.8 miles) in Montana, and 

32 percent (96.7 miles) in North Dakota—of all soil types crossed by the proposed Project route. 

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” (FR 1994). 

Soils that are artificially drained or protected from flooding (such as., by levees) are still considered 

hydric if the soil in its undisturbed state would meet the definition of a hydric soil. Hydric soils include 

very poorly, poorly, and somewhat poorly drained soils. Due to extended periods of saturation, hydric 

soils can be prone to compaction and rutting. In addition, high groundwater levels associated with hydric 

soils could create a buoyancy hazard for the proposed pipeline. Approximately 1 percent of the proposed 

Project would traverse hydric soils, with the majority occurring in North Dakota. 

Drainage Tiles and Irrigation Systems 

Drainage tiles and irrigation systems may be present in agricultural areas to drain excess water or 

provide water for crop production. Bison contacted NRCS offices in Wyoming, Montana, and North 

Dakota to identify the potential for encountering drainage tiles along the proposed Project route. Based 

on these consultations, Bison stated that use of drainage tiles along the proposed Project would not be 

likely. However, if drainage tiles or irrigation systems are encountered, Bison would repair any drainage 

tiles or irrigation systems impacted by construction as outlined in its Plan (Appendix F) and the AMP 

(Appendix O). 
3-25

Revegetation Potential 

Successful restoration and revegetation are important for maintaining soil productivity and 

protecting the underlying soil from potential damage, such as erosion. The revegetation potential of soils 

crossed by the proposed Project was evaluated based on the soil surface texture, slope, and drainage class. 

Soils that have a coarse surface texture (sandy loam or coarser) and are moderately well to excessively 

drained may prove to be difficult to revegetate because drier soils have less water to aid in seed 

germination and the eventual establishment of new vegetation. The coarse-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. In addition, steep slopes (greater than 

8 percent) along the proposed pipeline route may make the establishment of vegetation difficult. The 

clearing and grading of soils with poor revegetation potential could result in a lack of adequate vegetation 

following construction and restoration of the right-of-way, which could lead to increased erosion, a 

reduction in wildlife habitat, and adverse visual impacts. 

The proposed Project route would traverse approximately 39.7 percent (120 miles) of soil that is 

considered to have a low revegetation/reclamation potential. Of this total, soils with low 

revegetation/reclamation potential would account for 15.3 percent (46.2 miles) in Wyoming, 9.4 percent 

(28.5 miles) in Montana, and 15 percent (45.2 miles) in North Dakota—of all soil types crossed by the 

proposed Project route. 

Prime Farmland, Cropland, and Rangeland Soils 

The USDA defines prime farmland as “land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops” (USDA 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, built-up land, and open water cannot be 

designated as 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 growing season. Soils that do not meet the above criteria may be considered 

prime farmland if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., by draining or irrigating). 

Approximately 25.8 percent (78.1 miles) of the proposed Project route crosses prime farmland. 

In Wyoming, no prime farmland would be crossed. In Montana, 15.9 miles of prime farmland would be 

crossed. In North Dakota, 62.2 miles of prime farmland would be crossed. Cropland crossed by the 

proposed Project would include approximately 28.9 percent (87.3 miles) of the entire proposed route. 

The proposed Project route crosses approximately 3.6 miles of cropland in Wyoming, 12.9 miles in 

Montana, and 70.8 miles in North Dakota. The proposed Project route traverses approximately 

194.2 miles (64.2 percent of the total route) of land identified as rangeland, including 63.9 miles in 

Wyoming, 78.5 miles in Montana, and 51.9 miles in North Dakota. 

3.2.1.4 Modifications to the FERC Plan Requested by Bison 

Bison’s Plan is consistent with the FERC guidance documents of the same name (the FERC Plan) 

with the exception of several proposed modifications (Appendix F). The FERC Plan is available for 

review on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines. The applicable FERC 

Plan sections and the associated modifications proposed by Bison are described in Table 3.2.1-3. 
3-26

TABLE 3.2.1-3 

Summary of Proposed Revisions to the FERC Plan for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Applicable 

FERC Plan 

Section Explanation Bison’s Basis for Modification 

FERC 

Conclusion 

I.I.B.4 Added “riparian areas” to areas that will 

require flagging and will need to be 

verified by the Environmental Inspector. 

BLM request Approved 

I.V. A.2 Revised 75 feet to 120 feet for the 

maximum width of the Construction 

Right-of-Way. 

Resource Report 1; Appendix 1.T: 

Justification for Proposed 120-Foot 

Construction Right-of-Way 

Approved 

I.V. B.1 Revised text for topsoil segregation to 

the working side, the trench, and a 

portion of the spoil storage areas (85 

feet of construction right-of-way) with the 

exception of areas that would be used 

for snow or topsoil storage. 

To clarify that segregation would occur 

over all working areas except for snow 

and spoil storage. 

Approved 

I.V.F 3.(c).1 Removed text to mulch before seeding 

"10 days in residential areas" and 

changed 20 days to 60 days. 

Approximately 85 percent of the 

construction right-of-way is anticipated 

to meet the FERC guideline of 

20 days; however, specific areas will 

be required to be left open for 

hydrostatic testing and tie-in activities. 

Approved 

I.V.F.3.e Revised text regarding the use of wood 

chip mulch application to reflect BLM 

preference for no fertilizer, due to 

competition from weeds. 

BLM request Approved 

V.A.4 Added text "remove excess rock greater 

than 3 inches” to requirements for 

cleanup. 

Added greater than 3 inches in 

diameter due to the feasibility of 

removing rock less than this size. 

Approved 

V.C.1 Added language to address soil 

compaction testing on BLM-managed 

lands "Test topsoil and subsoil for 

compaction at regular intervals in 

agricultural, BLM-managed..." 

BLM request Approved 

V.C.2 Removed “paraplow or other” from text 

referencing. 

Removed reference text “paraplow or 

other” due to difficulty in finding this 

type of equipment. 

Approved 

V.D.3.d In the absence of written 

recommendations by local soil 

conservation authorities, reseeding will 

occur within 30 days of final grading. 

Changed 6 working days to 30. 

Approximately 85 percent of the 

construction right-of-way is anticipated 

to meet the FERC guideline of 

20 days; however, specific areas will 

be required to be left open for 

hydrostatic testing and tie-in activities. 

Approved 

VI Added a site-specific plan for areas of 

BLM-managed land where restoration 

for previous project has not been 

deemed successful. 

BLM request Approved 
3-27

TABLE 3.2.1-3 (continued) 

Summary of Proposed Revisions to the FERC Plan for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Applicable 

FERC Plan 

Section Explanation Bison’s Basis for Modification 

FERC 

Conclusion 

VIII.A.2 Added text for restoration on BLMmanaged lands. The Reclamation Plan 

will be used to define reclamation 

/revegetation success on BLMmanaged lands. 

Reclamation Plan to comply with BLM 

requests. 

Approved 

3.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

3.2.2.1 Construction Impacts 

Topsoil 

During construction, Bison proposes to handle and store topsoil and subsurface soil separately. 

Bison proposes to initially strip the existing topsoil (up to 12 inches deep) and stockpile it. Topsoil would 

be stripped across approximately 85 feet of the right-of-way, which would include the working side of the 

construction right-of-way, the trenchline, and a portion of the spoil storage area (that is, the entire 

construction right-of-way except that portion reserved for stockpiling topsoil and snow). Bison proposes 

to strip topsoil across an 85-foot area of the proposed construction right-of-way instead of stripping only 

over the trench to prevent impacts to topsoil from vehicle traffic, mixing of thin layers of topsoil with 

subsoil, erosion, and unanticipated transfer of weed seed from construction areas by construction 

equipment. After topsoil stockpiling, the subsurface soil in the trenchline would be excavated and 

stockpiled. The subsurface soil would be stockpiled separately from the topsoil. 

Following pipeline installation, the subsurface soil initially would be placed back into the trench, 

and the topsoil would be replaced on top of the backfilled subsurface soil. 

Bison’s Plan requires topsoil segregation in actively cultivated/rotated croplands and pastures, 

residential areas, hayfields, and other areas at the landowner’s or land manager’s request (Appendix F). 

Bison would reduce the width of the construction right-of-way in wetlands to 75 feet. In unsaturated 

wetlands, topsoil would be stripped across the 75-foot construction right-of-way, but topsoil would not be 

segregated in saturated wetlands due to logistical constraints (see Section 3.4). 

Bison has developed a draft Reclamation Plan (Appendix R) to address both BLM-managed lands 

and privately owned land. Bison would follow the guidance established by the Wyoming BLM for all 

BLM-managed lands and would develop a site-specific construction plan for any areas identified with 

sensitive resources. Bison proposes to conduct topsoil segregation in accordance with its Plan for the 

entire route for both private land and BLM-managed land. BLM has indicated that some aspects of 

Bison’s Plan may not be adequate to minimize erosion and ensure successful revegetation / reclamation 

on BLM lands. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Bison file a final Reclamation Plan that describes topsoil segregation locations, methods, 

and any additional mitigation to improve post-construction reclamation success, 

including those with low revegetation / reclamation potential prior to the end of the 

draft EIS comment period. 
3-28

With adherence to its Plan, the BLM Reclamation Plan, and our recommendation, any impacts to 

topsoil would be minor and short term. 

Erosion 

The majority of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route would have only 

slight erosion potential; however, some areas of highly erodible soils do occur along the proposed Project 

route. In general, the potential for soil erosion along the construction right-of-way would be more 

pronounced in areas of steep side slopes. 

Erosion control would follow all applicable federal and state guidance. If guidance is not 

available, erosion and sedimentation controls would be implemented in accordance with Bison’s Plan 

(Appendix F). Temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately after the initial soil 

disturbance. Slope breakers would be installed on slopes greater than 5 percent where the base of the 

slope is within 50 feet of a waterbody. Spacing of slope breakers would be modified dependent on the 

percent slope in an area. Bison would use FERC’s recommended spacing along most of the Project route 

and BLM recommended spacing on BLM-managed lands, as well as other erosion control measures 

during construction in all areas, as described in its Plan (Appendix F). Sediment barriers would be 

installed and maintained in sensitive areas to stop the flow of sediments or to prevent the accumulation of 

sediments. Sediment barriers may include silt fences, hay bales, sand bags, or other materials. Mulch 

consisting of weed-free hay or straw, erosion control fabrics, or other materials also would be applied to 

mitigate erosion. As required by its Plan, Bison would initiate vegetation restoration efforts within 

30 days of final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting; or mulch would be applied prior to 

seeding if final grading would not be completed within 60 days, in accordance with the Reclamation Plan 

(Appendix R). Although some short term increase in erosion in sloped areas may occur, these slopes 

would eventually be stabilized; and permanent erosion control devices would be installed to avoid long 

term erosion problems. Therefore, significant long term soil erosion impacts from construction of the 

proposed Project would not be expected. 

Compaction-Prone Soils 

Use of the construction right-of-way, EWSs, and access roads by heavy construction equipment 

could result in soil compaction. The degree of compaction would depend on the composition, grain size, 

density, and moisture content of the soils at the time of construction. As described in Bison’s Plan, 

measures such as restriction of vehicular traffic, reducing loads, use of lower ground-pressure equipment, 

and rescheduling certain activities would be implemented when soil moisture is high to limit compaction 

and rutting. Topsoil across an 85-foot area of the proposed construction right-of-way would be stripped 

to prevent impacts to topsoil from vehicle traffic and compaction by construction equipment. Subsoil that 

is compacted during construction activities would be decompacted in cultivated areas and BLM lands 

prior to replacing topsoil. In addition, Bison would employ deep tillage devices to break up compaction 

in agricultural fields following construction. Devices may include a paratill, or other devices or 

techniques as specified by the landowner. These measures would minimize any soil compaction resulting 

from construction of the proposed Project in agricultural areas; and significant or long term impacts to 

soil resources associated with compaction would not be anticipated. 

Stony and Rocky Soils 

Stony and rocky soils can damage agricultural equipment and reduce productivity. To minimize 

impacts from stony and rocky soils following construction, Bison would segregate topsoil from subsoil 

and refill the trenches with subsoil first and then cover the subsoil with topsoil. Soil used for backfilling 

the trenches that would come in direct contact with the pipeline would be segregated subsoil with stones 
3-29

greater than 3 inches in size removed. To remain consistent with the land adjacent to the proposed 

Project, Bison would remove rocks that are greater than 3 inches in size from hayfields and from rotated 

or actively cultivated cropland and pastures from at least the top 12 inches of soil. In residential areas or 

undisturbed land, Bison would remove excess rocks greater than 3 inches as needed to remain consistent 

with the surrounding land conditions. These measures would be implemented to ensure that the size, 

density, and distribution of rock in all construction work areas would be similar to (or less than) that in 

adjacent areas not affected by construction. Thus, significant impacts would not be anticipated related to 

stony and rocky soils. 

Shallow-to-Bedrock Soils 

Shallow-to-bedrock soils have been identified along approximately 201 miles of the proposed 

Project route, of which approximately 0.4 mile has been identified as having rock outcrops. Most of the 

bedrock formations along the proposed Project route consist of sandstones and shales, which would likely 

be removed using mechanical equipment rather than through blasting. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.1, 

Bison proposes mechanical measures, such as ripping, to remove any bedrock or rock outcrops; but 

blasting may be required if mechanical methods are not successful. To minimize impacts associated with 

blasting, Bison has developed a Blasting Plan (Appendix J) outlining blasting requirements. Bison would 

require its blasting contractor to develop a Contractor Blasting Plan and a site-specific blasting plan, in 

accordance with Bison’s Blasting Plan, to identify specific blasting methods and mitigation controls. If 

blasting was conducted, any rock fragments greater than 3 inches in diameter introduced into the topsoil 

would be removed as needed to maintain consistency with the surrounding land. Thus, impacts to 

shallow-to-bedrock soils would be minor and temporary. 

Drainage Tiles and Irrigation Systems 

Although not currently identified or expected along the proposed route, drainage tiles or irrigation 

systems may be present in areas with hydric soils to drain excess water or to deliver water in agricultural 

areas. In the event that damage to drainage tiles or irrigation systems are identified, Bison would repair or 

replace any drainage tiles or irrigation systems impacted by construction in accordance with its Plan 

(Appendix F) and it’s AMP (Appendix O). Although damage to drainage structures and patterns could 

result in minor short term impacts, the corrective procedures proposed by Bison would avoid or minimize 

any long term impacts. 

Hydric Soils 

Approximately 1 percent of the proposed Project would traverse hydric soils, with the majority 

occurring in North Dakota. Bison would attempt to avoid or minimize any long term impacts to hydric 

soils during the construction by restricting vehicular traffic or re-scheduling certain activities when 

moisture content is high. Additional information on potential impacts and appropriate mitigation for 

minimizing impacts to hydric soils and wetlands is provided in Section 3.4. 

Low Revegetation-Potential Soils 

In accordance with Bison’s Reclamation Plan (Appendix R), low revegetation soils would be 

seeded following the replacement of topsoil. The Reclamation Plan provides two ranges of optimal dates 

for seeding to occur: one in spring following snowmelt, and one in fall prior to heavy snowfall. Should 

the seeding not take place during the dates provided due to construction or weather delays, in accordance 

with its Plan (Appendix F), Bison would mulch the areas to prevent erosion and apply seeds after the soil 

moisture had reached acceptable levels. Disturbed land would be returned to the appropriate grade and 

reseeded with a variety of native plant species following disturbance. Additionally, reclamation areas on 
3-30

BLM-managed lands would be monitored to evaluate compliance with the procedures, as outlined in the 

Reclamation Plan. We have included a recommendation for Bison to provide a final BLM-approved 

Reclamation Plan, which may include soil treatment methods, methods to prevent weed invasions, 

maintenance methods, seeding methods and mixes, disturbance minimization measures, a baseline survey, 

and guidance for the testing of physical/chemical characteristics of soils. 

In accordance with Bison’s Plan, post-construction monitoring would be conducted to assess 

revegetation success. Revegetation would be considered successful if the density and cover of nonnuisance vegetation are similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In agricultural areas, 

revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields in areas affected by construction are similar to 

those in adjacent, undisturbed areas. If revegetation was not successful, additional monitoring and 

remedial action would be implemented as warranted; consequently, any impacts would be expected to be 

minor and short term. 

Prime Farmland, Cropland, and Rangeland Soils 

According to Bison, the proposed Project would not cause any permanent impacts to areas 

designated as prime farmland but would cause temporary impacts to three prime farmland areas. One rail 

yard and two contractor yards would be located on approximately 4 acres of prime farmland. These areas 

would revert to agricultural production the season after pipeline installation. The proposed Project route 

would traverse approximately 78.1 miles of prime farmland. In Wyoming, no prime farmland would be 

crossed. A total of 15.9 miles of prime farmland would be crossed in Montana, and 62.2 miles of prime 

farmland would be crossed in North Dakota. 

Aboveground facilities, including a compressor station, meter stations, MLV locations, and pig 

launcher/pig receiver locations, would result in approximately 22 acres of permanent impacts to soils 

along the proposed Project route. Three MLV sites and the Hettinger Compressor Station would be 

located on land identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. “Farmland of Statewide Importance” is 

classified as land with both the physical and chemical characteristics that allow for production of crops. 

As described above and in Section 3.8, impacts to topsoil, soil compaction, cropland, and crop 

productivity would be minimized through implementation of Bison’s Plan (Appendix F) and AMP 

(Appendix O). 

Accidental Releases 

Other potential impacts during construction could include the accidental release of petroleum 

hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials. During construction, Bison would implement mitigation 

measures 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 and cleaned up in 

accordance with its SPCC Plan (Appendix H). If required, all potentially contaminated materials would 

be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with appropriate federal, state, and local 

regulations. Additional information regarding potential impacts to water resources and wetlands from 

accidental releases can be found in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.4.2, respectively 

Conclusion Regarding Soil Resources 

To minimize impacts to soil resources from the proposed Project, Bison would implement 

mitigation controls for erosion, compaction, drainage tiles, and stony and rocky soils, as discussed in the 

preceding sections and outlined in its Plan (Appendix F) and AMP (Appendix O). These mitigation 

measures would be monitored through environmental inspections during construction and restoration. 
3-31

Environmental Inspectors would monitor construction and restoration activities to document that 

Bison was complying with its Plan. Potential impacts from construction and restoration along the 

proposed Project may include erosion, compaction of soils, damage to existing drainage tiles and 

irrigation systems, and the introduction of stones or rocks to the top 12 inches of topsoil. Environmental 

Inspectors would monitor and identify areas that appear to be susceptible to these impacts and implement 

appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or limit the potential affects. Mitigation measures that would 

be verified by Environmental Inspectors include the proper marking of areas to be cleared for 

construction; identification of any soil stabilization or erosion controls needed along the proposed Project 

route; and verifying the appropriate restoration of contours and topsoil, and that any soils imported for 

restoration purposes are free of noxious weeds and pests. Mitigation controls for erosion implemented by 

Bison would include installation of sediment barriers and slope breakers during construction, and 

application of mulch or other erosion control measures in areas that are susceptible to erosion during 

restoration. 

Maintenance of irrigation systems during construction and any necessary repairs after 

construction to irrigation systems or drainage tiles also would be conducted in accordance with Bison’s 

Plan. To minimize impacts to future drainage tiles and irrigation systems, Bison would contact 

landowners and local authorities to identify any locations for drainage tiles that may be installed within 

3 years following construction of the proposed Project. To minimize grazing disturbance, Bison would 

work with landowners, permittees, and appropriate agencies to develop grazing deferment plans in order 

to minimize potential grazing impacts during revegetation. 

Impacts to prime farmland, cropland, and rangeland soils resulting from construction of the 

proposed pipeline would be temporary since the proposed pipeline would be buried and disturbed areas 

within the temporary construction and permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to their preconstruction uses following restoration. 

3.2.2.2 Operation Impacts 

During operations, there would be no impacts to soil resources expected beyond periodic 

inspection of the right-of-way and use of permanent access roads to aboveground facilities. Any impacts 

to soil resources associated with standard operations would be minor and infrequent. Construction of 

aboveground facilities would permanently convert up to approximately 22 acres of the surface substrate 

from soils to gravel, concrete, and metal surfaces for the life of the proposed Project. 

Potential impacts from maintenance of the pipeline could include soil displacement, compaction, 

and erosion caused by machinery necessary to maintain or repair any portions of the proposed pipeline or 

aboveground facilities. To minimize impacts to soils from operation of the proposed Project, Bison 

would implement the measures in its Plan—as described for construction in the preceding sections—to 

mitigate impacts such as compaction and erosion. 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES 

3.3.1 Groundwater Resources 

3.3.1.1 Existing Environment 

In the proposed Project area, groundwater provides a significant source of drinking and domestic 

water and is used for agriculture, irrigation, and industry. In Wyoming, approximately 80 percent of the 

population utilizes groundwater for drinking and domestic water; in rural areas, nearly all of the 

population uses groundwater for drinking and domestic uses (GWPC 1999). More than 50 percent of 
3-32

Montana’s total population and 94 percent of its rural population uses groundwater as drinking and 

domestic water sources (MSG 2009). In North Dakota, 60 percent of the total population utilizes 

groundwater for drinking water, while 97 percent of the rural population uses groundwater for domestic 

drinking water (NDDOH 1997). 

Groundwater flow generally reflects surface topography. Although depth to groundwater is 

variable along the proposed pipeline route, groundwater can be found near the surface of the ground in 

some areas where proposed construction activities could impact groundwater. 

Most of the groundwater that would be crossed by the proposed Project route would be connected 

to the Northern Great Plains Aquifer System. This system has five major aquifers; however, only two of 

these major aquifers would be crossed by the proposed Project route: the lower Tertiary and upper 

Cretaceous aquifers. These two major aquifers are the shallowest aquifers in the Northern Great Plains 

Aquifer System. Minor aquifers that would be crossed by the proposed Project route may include 

aquifers of alluvial and glacial origin, as well as aquifers that are found in geological units composed of 

sandstone, unconsolidated sand and gravel, and “other rocks.” Additional information on aquifers 

occurring along the proposed Project route, including sole-source aquifers, aquifer protection areas, 

wellhead protection areas, and wells, is provided below.

Major Aquifers 

Lower Tertiary Aquifers 

Approximately 66 percent of the proposed Project pipeline route would cross lower Tertiary 

aquifers located in Campbell County, Wyoming; in Carter and Fallon Counties, Montana; and in 

Bowman, Slope, Hettinger, Grant, and Morton Counties, North Dakota. The proposed Hettinger 

Compressor Station also would be located within this aquifer area in Hettinger County, North Dakota. 

These aquifers are mostly comprised of sandstone beds with formations of variable permeability and 

thicknesses. The total thickness of lower Tertiary rocks can be as much as 10,000 feet; however, the 

cumulative thickness of these aquifers rarely exceeds 3,000 feet because not all rocks located in these 

aquifers are permeable. Permeability is directly related to the amount of interconnected pore spaces in the 

sandstone beds that make up the aquifers. Although lower Tertiary aquifers are not considered highly 

permeable due to their wide-reaching span, these aquifers are an important source of potable water in the 

vicinity of the proposed Project. Average well yields in lower Tertiary aquifers typically range from 1 to 

50 gallons per minute (gpm) in Montana and Wyoming, and from approximately 1 to 100 gpm in North 

Dakota. Wells are typically 300 to 900 feet deep but locally can reach 1,000 to 3,000 feet deep (USGS 

1996). 

Upper Cretaceous Aquifers 

Upper Cretaceous aquifers would be crossed by approximately 18 percent of the proposed 

pipeline route located in Campbell County, Wyoming; in Powder River, Carter, and Fallon Counties, 

Montana; and in Bowman County, North Dakota. Extending over a wide area and ranging in thickness 

from 300 to 3,400 feet, these aquifers are mostly comprised of consolidated sandstone beds that are 

interbedded with shale, siltstone, and occasional thin beds of coal. These aquifers provide limited potable 

water sources because much of the water has high sodium concentrations, although they can provide 

potable water in limited areas where sodium levels are not elevated. The relatively high sodium 

concentrations generally make the groundwater unsuitable for irrigation; however, it is utilized for 

domestic and livestock watering and serves as a water source for some small communities in southeastern 

Montana. The permeability of the upper Cretaceous aquifers is somewhat variable but generally is not as 

great as aquifers with younger rocks. Locally, these aquifers can yield an average of about 200 gpm in 
3-33

Montana, 300 gpm in North Dakota, and 1,000 gpm in areas of Wyoming. Wells are typically less than 

800 feet deep but can be as deep as 3,000 feet (USGS 1996). 

Minor Aquifers 

Other Rock Aquifers 

Other rock aquifers include large-to-small areas that are designated as a minor aquifer, not a 

principal aquifer, or a confining unit. Approximately 15 percent of the proposed pipeline route would 

cross minor aquifers categorized as “other rock” aquifers located in Carter County, Montana and in 

Bowman County, North Dakota. These aquifers are underlain by low-permeability deposits and rocks or 

unsaturated materials, or are aquifers that supply little water because they are of local extent, poorly 

permeable, or both. Sources of groundwater occur in bedrock fractures that have created spaces and have 

filled with water. Other rock aquifers could be a local bedrock aquifer or a confining unit. A local 

bedrock aquifer is a shallow source of groundwater that has collected in a highly-permeable substrate, 

such as sand, which generally recharges streams and rivers. A confining unit is an area where 

impermeable rock substrates cover or displace groundwater (USGS 2009d). 

Aquifers of Alluvial and Glacial Origin 

Only about 1 percent of the proposed pipeline route would cross aquifers of alluvial and glacial 

origin; these are located in Morton County, North Dakota. Alluvial aquifers are those that were deposited 

by a stream or other flowing waterbody on a streambed, on a floodplain, on a delta, or at the base of a 

mountain. Glacial aquifers are formations that were deposited by a glacier. These aquifers are typically 

unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers that consist of outwash, terrace, or ice-contact deposits; and they 

mostly occupy bedrock valleys or areas of ice marginal deposition. In particular locations, the valley 

deposits are buried beneath low-permeability till. Groundwater flow in glacial-deposit aquifers is 

primarily from local recharge areas near stream valley walls that discharge in the streams (USGS 2009e). 

The permeability of unconsolidated-deposit aquifers is variable, with average yields of wells ranging from 

1 to 1,000 gpm. Yields of wells completed in thick sequences of coarse sand and gravel, however, can 

exceed 3,500 gpm. Depths of wells completed in glacial outwash deposits generally are less than 

300 feet, wells completed in alluvium deposits along stream valleys are generally less than 100 feet deep, 

and wells completed in basin-fill deposits are as deep as 900 feet (USGS 1996). 

Sole-Source Aquifers 

EPA defines a sole-source aquifer or principal-source aquifer as one that supplies at least 

50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying an aquifer. EPA guidelines stipulate that 

such areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and 

economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water (EPA 2009). No solesource aquifers designated by EPA Region VIII would be crossed by the proposed Project route in 

Montana, Wyoming, or North Dakota. 

Aquifer Protection Areas 

State aquifer protection programs are in place in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota to 

protect aquifers that are considered sensitive. Sensitive aquifers are often defined as those with high 

permeability due to shallow depths of water or are those aquifers that are used as a source of domestic 

water. The WYDEQ Division of Water Quality assesses the vulnerability of aquifers within the state of 

Wyoming. The proposed Project route would cross three areas of high aquifer vulnerability within lower 
3-34

Tertiary aquifers in Wyoming. These areas are associated with the waterbody crossings at Olmstead 

Creek (MP 60.6), North Fork Olmstead Creek (MP 65.1), and the Little Powder River (MP 72.2). 

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) maintains a database 

of Controlled Ground Water Areas (CGWAs) for aquifers within Montana. No CGWAs would be 

crossed by the proposed Project route. 

In North Dakota, state-designated shallow aquifers are protected because they are susceptible to 

contamination from pollutants released at or near the surface of the ground. The proposed Project route 

would cross two state-designated shallow aquifers in North Dakota. The Heart River Aquifer would be 

crossed within lower Tertiary aquifers in Stark County in the vicinity of the Heart River at MP 282.1, and 

the Killdeer Aquifer would be crossed in Morton County at approximately MP 298.0. 

Wellhead Protection Areas 

“Wellhead protection areas” are generally defined as surface and subsurface areas surrounding a 

water well or wellfield that supply a public water system. These areas are regulated to protect the water 

supply that is drawn by that particular well. No wellhead protection areas have been identified within the 

proposed Project area. 

Water Supply Wells and Springs 

Based on agency consultations, field surveys, and desktop research, 48 private potable and nonpotable wells have been identified within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way. 

The identified uses of these wells include: stock, domestic, oil and gas, miscellaneous, and unknown. No 

public water supply wells or springs have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed Project 

route; however, based on this information, 11 private potable groundwater wells have been identified 

within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way (Table 3.3.1-1). Of the 11 wells, 

10 are located in Wyoming, one in North Dakota, and none in Montana. Bison has stated that they would 

continue to consult with landowners and perform right-of-way surveys to verify the occurrence and 

locations of all active wells and springs within 150 feet of the proposed Project route prior to 

construction. At this time, these surveys have not been completed; therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file completed surveys for all potable wells and springs 

identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and any site-specific 

measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate for potential impacts. 

Contaminated Groundwater 

According to Bison, available data from EPA, WYDEQ, MTDEQ, and the North Dakota 

Department of Health (NDDOH) indicate that no contaminated groundwater areas occur along the 

proposed Project route. 
3-35

TABLE 3.3.1-1 

Potable Wells Located within 150 Feet of the Proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project Routea

State/County Well Typeb Approximate 

Milepostc

Approximate 

Distance from 

Construction 

Right-of-Way 

(feet) 

Wyoming 

Campbell Stock 11.0 100 

Campbell Stock 13.5 25 

Campbell Stock 14.0 100 

Campbell Stock 14.5 123 

Campbell Stock 24.2 98 

Campbell Stock 37.0 70 

Campbell Stock 37.2 148 

Campbell Stock 37.2 140 

Campbell Stock 43.5 174 

Campbell Stock 75.2 45 

Montana 

None Identified - - - 

North Dakota 

Hettinger Stock 272.1 50 

Notes: 

 a Well locations are estimated by milepost for purposes of the proposed Project.

 b Well type of “Stock” denotes a potable water well. 

 c Desktop surveyed. 

Sources: 

 WYSEO 2004, NDSWC 2007, MBMG 2007, USGS 2008 

3.3.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Impacts 

Standard pipeline construction procedures that would be used by Bison, such as clearing and 

grading, trench excavation, dewatering, and fuel handling could affect groundwater resources, including 

aquifers and water supply wells. Clearing and grading activities would remove vegetation, which could 

affect overland water flow and infiltration rates. Trenching and soil stockpiling activities would 

temporarily alter overland flow, which could result in minor fluctuations in groundwater recharge and 

levels, and/or increased turbidity. In addition, heavy equipment used for construction could compact 

disturbed soils along the proposed construction right-of-way, reducing its ability to absorb water, thus 

slowing the rate of groundwater recharge and increasing surface runoff. In general, the potential for 

impacts to groundwater resources from construction and operation of the proposed Project depends on 
3-36

whether the proposed facilities would cause localized changes to existing groundwater flow and/or 

quality. 

Pipeline Construction 

Bison would limit groundwater impacts during construction by implementing the measures in its 

Plan and Procedures (Appendices F and G). As described in Section 2.3, Bison’s Procedures are 

consistent with FERC’s Procedures, which are intended to minimize general impacts to water resources 

including groundwater, surface water, and wetlands. Bison’s Procedures incorporate all the requirements 

of FERC Procedures as well as more stringent construction and restoration measures requested by BLM 

and other applicable agencies. The FERC Procedures are available for review on the FERC website at 

www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines. Additional information on the Bison and FERC 

Procedures is provided in Section 3.3.2.1. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require trenching to a depth of approximately 7 to 

10 feet bgs. In areas where the water table is near the ground surface, trench excavation could intersect 

the water table, requiring trench dewatering. Trench dewatering may result in localized, minor changes in 

the water table. Trench breakers would be installed along the trench to prevent water from migrating 

away from recharge areas. Upon completion of construction, Bison would restore the ground surface as 

closely as possible to pre-construction contours and revegetate the right-of-way. Successful restoration 

would re-establish overland flow of water and aquifer recharge patterns. Because pipeline construction at 

a given location would be completed within a short period, any potential impacts to groundwater would 

be temporary and water table elevations would be expected to quickly re-establish. 

As previously discussed, the proposed pipeline route would traverse five sensitive aquifers 

including four associated with streams (Olmstead Creek [MP 60.6], North Fork Olmstead Creek 

[MP 65.1], the Little Powder River [MP 72.2], and the Heart River [MP 282.1]), all located within lower 

Tertiary aquifers. Potential impacts to these sensitive aquifers would not be likely to occur during the 

crossing of Olmstead Creek or North Fork Olmstead Creek due to the relatively shallow trenching and 

excavation that would occur in these areas. The Little Power and Heart Rivers would be crossed by the 

HDD method. If a frac-out were to occur at either of these HDD locations, groundwater could be 

impacted by increased turbidity. However, increased turbidity would likely be temporary and would be 

expected to settle out quickly. Furthermore, frac-outs generally occur at shallow depths near drill entry 

and exit locations above the groundwater table. In the event of a frac-out, Bison would implement its 

HDD Plan (Appendix I) as described in Section 3.3.2.2. 

Potential impacts to potable water supply wells located within 150 feet of the proposed 

construction work areas could include localized decreases in groundwater recharge rates, decreases in 

well yields, decreases in water quality, interference with well integrity, or complete disruption of well 

functions. These impacts could result from trenching activities and/or heavy equipment traffic. Bison has 

agreed to perform pre- and post-construction monitoring for well yield and water quality for all potable 

wells located within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way (Table 3.3.1-1). Should the 

integrity of any water supply or potable well be impacted during construction, Bison would restore the 

yield and quality to pre-construction conditions. Furthermore, to avoid impacts to wells, Bison has stated 

that it would develop micro reroutes around all wells that would be located within 150 feet of the 

proposed Project work area, with the exception of access roads since subsurface disturbances would not 

occur during road use. At the time of construction, if a micro reroute is located outside of the 120-foot 

construction right-of-way, as identified in this EIS, Bison would be required to receive approval from 

FERC and the affected landowner(s) prior to commencing construction in the rerouted area. As 

previously discussed, we have recommended that right-of-way surveys and landowner consultations be 
3-37

completed to definitively determine the location of each well within 150 feet of the right-of-way and that 

site-specific mitigation measures be provided as applicable. 

Bison is not currently proposing to use blasting. However, approximately 0.3 mile of the 

proposed route has been identified as possibly requiring blasting (approximately between MP 72.5 and 

MP 72.8), which could impact groundwater sources. If mechanical fracturing and excavation is not 

successful at removing shallow bedrock, blasting would be accomplished in accordance with Bison’s 

Blasting Plan (Appendix J). If blasting was required, increased turbidity could occur at the sensitive 

aquifer located beneath the Little Powder River (MP 72.2); however, this impact would likely be 

temporary and rock particles and sedimentation would be expected to settle out quickly. No water supply 

wells have been reported within this area; the closest well is located at approximately MP 71.9 and is 

designated as unknown use. If any wells were identified, measures would be taken in accordance with 

Bison’s Blasting Plan to confirm that post-construction water quality and quantity were not impacted by 

construction, and a temporary potable water supply would be provided if there was an interruption. Due 

to the limited potential use of blasting and the distance of known water supply wells from potential 

blasting areas, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Construction of Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of the proposed aboveground facilities would require minimal subsurface work. 

However, the development of impervious surfaces and structures associated with the proposed 

aboveground facilities could result in alteration of localized infiltration/recharge rates, thus resulting in 

negligible effects to groundwater resources. Bison would limit impacts to water resources during 

construction of aboveground facilities by implementing the measures in its Plan (Appendix F). 

Inadvertent Releases 

Heavy equipment would use fuels, lubricants, and other potentially hazardous substances that, if 

spilled, could affect shallow groundwater and/or unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers. Potential 

contamination due to accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials associated with vehicle and 

equipment fueling and maintenance and storage of construction materials present the greatest potential 

threat to groundwater resources. Bison has developed an SPCC Plan (Appendix H) to address the 

measures that would be implemented to avoid or limit impacts of potential hazardous material spills 

during construction. The SPCC Plan specifies preventative measures such as spill training for 

construction personnel, regular inspection of construction equipment for leaks, replacement of 

deteriorating containers, and secondary containment systems around containers storing hazardous liquids. 

Bison’s SPCC Plan also restricts refueling and storage of potentially hazardous materials to upland areas 

located at least 150 feet from waterbodies or water supply wells and areas at least 500 feet from 

waterbodies on BLM-managed lands. Bison’s SPCC Plan meets and exceeds the measures in Bison’s 

Procedures that require a buffer of 100 feet between waterbodies and refueling activities. 

Operation Impacts 

The proposed pipeline would be a fixed below ground structure, coated in accordance with DOT 

standards, and hydrostatically tested prior to the commencement of operation to avoid initial leaks, and 

monitoring would be conducted in accordance with DOT requirements during operations to minimize 

potential impacts of corrosion and leaks. No proposed aboveground facilities would have operation 

activities below ground. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater resources would occur during operation of 

the proposed Project. 
3-38

Groundwater Conclusions 

No long term groundwater impacts would be anticipated from construction or operation of the 

proposed Project because disturbances would be temporary, erosion controls would be implemented, and 

natural ground contours would be restored. Implementation of Bison’s Plan and Procedures 

(Appendices F and G) would limit impacts from construction on groundwater resources. Temporary 

minor impacts could result during trenching activities in areas with shallow groundwater (depth less than 

10 feet bgs) that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. The greatest threat posed to groundwater 

resources would be a hazardous material spill or leak into groundwater supplies. FERC has reviewed 

Bison’s SPCC Plan (Appendix H) and believes that it adequately addresses strategies and methods to 

prevent or limit such contamination should a spill occur. No significant impacts to aquifers would be 

anticipated by the proposed Project given their depth and the relatively shallow nature of construction. 

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Existing Environment 

The proposed Project area is located in the Great Plains Ecoregion, which is characterized by a 

semi-arid, continental climate with short, hot summers and long, cold winters (CEC 1997). The Great 

Plains are comprised of a broad expanse of prairie and steppe1

 that lies between the Rocky Mountains and 

the Mississippi River and includes much of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Wyoming and 

Montana are part of the High Plains, which are arid and semi-arid regions generally characterized as 

receiving less than 20 inches of rain each year (HPRCC 2009). Although North Dakota is considered part 

of the midwest and not the High Plains, its annual rainfall is also generally less than 20 inches. 

The water supply in the vicinity of the proposed Project area is of particular concern, not only 

because of the arid climate but also because the area receives small unevenly distributed amounts of 

annual rainfall and therefore depends on the spring snowmelt as a water source. Streamflow data for 

waterbodies within or near the proposed Project area indicate that flow rates within a given waterbody 

vary dramatically over the course of a year. Generally, annual maximum flow rates in the region range 

from 13 to up to 55 times more than the annual minimum flow rates (2009f). Peak snowmelt flow 

generally occurs between late May and late June. The driest months in terms of streamflow and water 

availability in the proposed Project area are from late October or early November through January while 

the wettest months are from March through June (USGS 2009f). 

The proposed Project would cross two major basins within the Mississippi River Basin: the 

Yellowstone River Basin and the Missouri River Basin. Within these basins, 11 river watersheds drain 

runoff from surface areas to local waterbodies, wetlands, and/or groundwater aquifers. The watershed 

and associated stream systems within the states proposed to be crossed by the Project are extremely 

important because these systems are the distinguishing factor that separates the Great Plains from high 

desert. 

Within a watershed, the areas draining nearest to the surface waters can significantly affect the 

water quality of individual waterbodies. Therefore, sufficient riparian and wetland corridors are 

important filter features of a watershed. A detailed discussion of riparian corridors is provided below. 

Soil types are also important because they determine the permeability of the ground surface and the 

amount of runoff and associated soil erosion within a watershed. During construction, approximately 

194.3 acres of highly water-erodible soils would be impacted within the 11 watersheds crossed by the 

proposed pipeline. The majority (68 percent) of this area would be within three watersheds: the Upper 

 

1

 A vast semi-arid, grass-covered plain. 
3-39

Powder (39.3 acres), the Little Powder (54.1 acres), and the Upper Little Missouri (38.3 acres). 

A detailed discussion of soil types can be found in Section 3.2. The proposed pipeline also would cross 

approximately 1.9 miles of floodplains within the Little Powder, North Fork Grand, and Little Heart 

watersheds; however, no permanent aboveground facilities would be located within the floodplain that 

could obstruct flow. Table 3.3.2-1 provides the approximate location by milepost, descriptions of each 

river watershed, the presence of and impacts to highly water-erodible soils, and the presence of the 100-

year floodplain for the watersheds crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

TABLE 3.3.2-1 

Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Watershed 

Watershed 

Drainage Area 

(million acres) 

Approximate 

Milepost Crossing 

Rangea Highly Water-Erodible 

Soils Crossed (miles) 

Highly WaterErodible Soil 

Impacts (acres)b

Upper Powder 1.6 -0.5 – 32.0 

39.6 – 41.8 

2.7 

0.0 

39.3 

0.0 

Little Powder 1.3 32.0 – 39.6 

57.6 – 86.7a 

95.9 – 97.70 

0.6 

2.8 

0.3 

9.2 

41.0 

3.9 

Middle Powder 0.7 41.8 – 57.6 0.5 6.5 

Upper Little Missouri 2.2 86.7 – 95.9 

97.7 – 103.2 

175.3 – 200.5 

0.5 

0.0 

2.2 

7.0 

0.0 

31.3 

Boxelder 0.8 103.7 – 175.3 0.5 7.0 

North Fork Grand 0.8 200.5 – 208.4a 0.0 0.6 

Middle Little Missouri 1.4 208.4 – 214.8 0.5 7.6 

Clear 1.2 214.8 – 238.0 0.2 2.2 

Upper Cannonball 1.0 238.0 – 267.0 0.1 1.2 

 Hettinger Compressor 

Station 

(MP 257.2) 

0.0 0.0 

Upper Heart 1.1 267.0 – 289.0a 1.5 21.2 

Lower Heart 1.0 289.0 –301.5 1.1 16.3 

Total 13.5 194.3 

Notes: 

 a A portion of the 100-year floodplain is located within the watershed. 

 b Impacts are based on a 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Source: 

 NAUS 2006 

Construction of the proposed Project would require 279 waterbody crossings within the proposed 

Project area. Specifically, the proposed Project would cross 37 perennial, 161 intermittent, and 

81 ephemeral waterbodies as follows: 

• Wyoming: two perennial, 47 intermittent, and seven ephemeral waterbodies; 

• Montana: 15 perennial, 89 intermittent, and 54 ephemeral waterbodies; and 
3-40

• North Dakota: 20 perennial, 25 intermittent, and 20 ephemeral waterbodies. 

Of the 279 proposed Project waterbody crossings, 50 waterbodies would be crossed on BLMmanaged lands. Specifically, there would be seven waterbody crossings in Wyoming, 24 waterbody 

crossings in Montana, and 19 waterbody crossings in North Dakota on BLM-managed lands. Information 

on each waterbody crossed by the proposed Project, including its location, width, state waterbody 

classifications, and proposed crossing methods, is included in Appendix M. No surface waters are located 

within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the proposed aboveground facility sites. 

Perennial streams are defined as waterbodies that hold water continually throughout the year. 

Intermittent streams hold water during wet or seasonal portions of the year. Intermittent streams may be 

fed by numerous sources including groundwater, snowmelt, or precipitation, and do not flow 

continuously—typically ceasing during dry periods. Intermittent stream channels are well defined but 

lack the hydrological characteristics associated with perennial streams. Ephemeral streams or channels 

hold water only during and immediately after rain events or snowmelts. Ephemeral stream channels, also 

known as arroyo and drywash, are not always well defined and may lie above the water table at all times. 

In the arid and semi-arid western United States, certain ephemeral waters serve as transitional areas 

between uplands and jurisdictional waterbodies. They offer habitat for wildlife and aquatic species; 

support nutrient cycling; trap pollutants; filter the water; and significantly affect the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of downstream waters (EPA 2008). 

FERC classifies surface waters based on size: major waterbodies are greater than 100 feet wide, 

intermediate waterbodies are between 10 and 100 feet wide, and minor waterbodies are less than 10 feet 

wide. As identified in Appendix M, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota have assigned each surface 

waterbody a designated use, which characterizes the best intended uses of the waterbody. Construction of 

the proposed Project would require crossing 56 waterbodies in Wyoming. In Wyoming, classifications 

are used to designate waterbodies as supporting fish populations or drinking water supplies. Other 

designations include fish consumption, aquatic life other than fish, recreation, wildlife, industry, 

agriculture, and scenic values. No major waterbodies would be crossed in Wyoming by the proposed 

Project route. 

In Montana, 158 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project route. State 

classifications in Montana are used to maintain waterbodies as suitable for drinking water, culinary and/or 

food processing supplies, swimming, recreation, growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and 

associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers, agricultural and industrial water supply. No major 

waterbodies would be crossed in Montana by the proposed Project. 

In North Dakota, 65 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project route. Classifications 

in North Dakota are used to designate waterbodies as suitable to permit the propagation of life (fish and 

other aquatic biota); recreation; and beneficial uses such as irrigation, municipal water supplies, and stock 

watering. The proposed Project route would cross only one major sensitive waterbody, the Little 

Missouri River (MP 182.7), and two man-made stock ponds (MP 263.1 and MP 264.3) in North Dakota. 

Bison has agreed to prepare site-specific crossing plans for all major waterbodies. 

No waterbodies within the proposed Project area are known to have or are suspected of having 

sediments or waters with contaminants in concentrations, or persistent chemicals that pose an 

unacceptable risk to human health and/or the environment. 
3-41

Sensitive Waterbodies 

By reviewing various databases and consulting with relevant agencies, Bison identified 

26 sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. Three sensitive waterbodies 

(Boxelder Creek, Spring Creek, and Horse Creek) would be crossed more than one time for a total of 

30 crossings of the 26 sensitive waterbodies. Sensitive waterbodies include those streams designated as 

one or more of the following: state listed impaired waterbodies, waterbodies that are crossed less than 

3 miles upstream of a potable water intake structure, agency-identified waterbodies of concern, fisheries 

of concern, and/or state scenic waterbodies. 

Of the 26 sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project route, 10 are 

categorized as having impaired water quality by EPA, 19 have been identified as supporting fisheries of 

special concern, and five are considered state agency waterbodies of concern, including one state scenic 

river (several waterbodies would be crossed more than once and have multiple designations). No potable 

water intake sources have been identified within 3 miles downstream of any proposed waterbody 

crossing. Table 3.3.2-2 provides the sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project 

route, the approximate location by milepost, and sensitive designations of each waterbody. Additional 

information on fisheries of special concern is provided in Section 3.6.1. In addition, Table 3.3.2-3 

identifies the impaired waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project route. 

In Wyoming, two waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project are considered 

sensitive: Twenty Mile Creek at MP 24.5 (fisheries of special concern) and the Little Powder River at 

MP 72.2 (fisheries of special concern and impaired). In Montana, five sensitive waterbodies that would 

be crossed by the proposed Project are categorized as having fisheries of special concern, including Ranch 

Creek (MP 84.3), the East Fork of the Little Powder River (MP 96.6), Boxelder Creek (MP 102.7 and 

MP 114.3), Spring Creek (MP 116.6), and Horse Creek (MP 165.2). No agency waterbodies of concern 

were identified within the Project area in Wyoming or Montana. 

In North Dakota, 21 waterbodies are considered sensitive, primarily due to impaired water quality 

and fisheries of special concern. Five of these waterbodies are also considered waterbodies of special 

concern by NDDOH: the Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), Spring Creek (MP 193.3 and MP 204.8), 

Cedar Creek (MP 218.3), Cannonball River (MP 250.6), and the Heart River (MP 282.1). One of these, 

the Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), is also classified as a state scenic river and a fishery of concern. 

The Little Missouri River Commission administers the Little Missouri State Scenic River Act to provide 

adequate protection in order to maintain the scenic, historical, and recreational qualities of the Little 

Missouri River and its tributary streams (North Dakota Legislative Branch 2007). Scenic river 

designation is a cooperative venture among state and local government, citizen groups, and the local 

communities. Spring Creek (MP 193.3), Cannonball River, and Heart River are also classified as 

waterbodies with fisheries of special concern. 
3-42

TABLE 3.3.2-2 

Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Sensitive 

Waterbodies Milepost Flowa

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodb

Fisheries 

of Special 

Concern Impaired 

State 

Scenic 

River 

State 

Agency 

Waterbody 

of Concern 

Wyoming 

Twenty Mile Creek 24.5 I Open-cut wet X 

Little Powder River 72.2 P HDD X X 

Montana 

Ranch Creek 84.3 I Open-cut dry X 

East Fork Little 

Powder River 

96.6 I Open-cut dry X 

Unnamed tributary to 

Boxelder Creek 

102.7 I Open-cut wet X 

Boxelder Creek 114.3 P Open-cut dry X 

Spring Creek 116.6 P Open-cut dry X 

Horse Creek 165.2 P Open-cut dry X 

North Dakota 

Little Missouri River 182.7 P HDD X X X 

Seven Mile Creek 183.4 P Open-cut dry X 

Horse Creek 187.5 P Open-cut dry X 

Skull Creek 188.9 P Open-cut dry X 

Spring Creek 193.3 P Open-cut dry X X 

Spring Creek 204.8 I Open-cut wet X 

Cedar Creek 218.3 P Open-cut wet X X 

Unnamed tributary to 

Cedar Creek 

220.7 P Open-cut dry X 

Unnamed waterbody 221.2 P Open-cut dry X 

North Fork Cedar 

Creek 

222.7 I Open-cut wet X 

Unnamed tributary to 

Cedar Creek 

224.7 I Open-cut wet X 

Unnamed tributary to 

Cedar Creek 

226.6 I Open-cut wet X 

Unnamed waterbody 228.9 E Open-cut wet X 

North Cedar Creek 230.3 I Open-cut wet X 

Chanta Peta Creek 236.0 P Open-cut dry X 

Cannonball River 250.7 P Open-cut dry X X 

Hay Slough Creek 251.5 P Open-cut dry X 

Thirty Mile Creek 265.6 P Open-cut dry X X 
3-43

TABLE 3.3.2-2 (continued) 

Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Sensitive 

Waterbodies Milepost Flowa

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodb

Fisheries 

of Special 

Concern Impaired 

State 

Scenic 

River 

State 

Agency 

Waterbody 

of Concern 

North Dakota (continued) 

Buffalo Creek 274.4 P Open-cut dry X 

Heart River 282.1 P HDD X X 

Beaver Creek 286.49 P Open-cut dry X 

Heart Butte Creek 292.27 P Open-cut dry X 

Notes: 

 a P = Perennial; I = Intermittent, E = Ephemeral

 b HDD = horizontal directionally drilled 

TABLE 3.3.2-3 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

State/County Milepost Waterbody Name 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method Impairment Cause 

Wyoming 

Campbell 72.2 Little Powder River HDD Fecal coliform 

Montana 

None Affected 

North Dakota 

Slope 218.3 Cedar Creek Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 220.7 Unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek Open-cut dry Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 221.2 Unnamed waterbody Open-cut dry Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 222.7 North Fork Cedar Creek Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 224.7 Unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 226.6 Unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 228.9 Unnamed waterbody Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Slope 230.3 North Cedar Creek Open-cut wet Sedimentation/siltation 

Hettinger 265.6 Thirty Mile Creek Open-cut dry Fecal coliform 

Note: 

 HDD = Horizontally directionally drilled 

Source: 

 EPA 2002 
3-44

Riparian Areas 

Riparian corridors are vegetated communities (particularly with woody species) contiguous to 

and affected by surface and subsurface perennial and intermittent waterbodies. Riparian areas are often 

the transitional area between streams and upland features. The vegetation that comprises riparian 

corridors is important to stabilizing streambanks and reducing floodwater velocities, which can prevent or 

limit streambank erosion. Riparian areas are distinctly different from surrounding lands because of the 

unique soil and vegetation characteristics that are strongly influenced by the presence of water. Across 

the western Great Plains of North America, stands of plains cottonwood represent the principal natural 

forest and riparian areas in a largely treeless landscape (Scott et al. 2003). In the western United States, 

riparian areas comprise less than 1 percent of the land area, but they are among the most productive and 

valuable natural resources. Riparian and wetland areas adjacent to rivers and streams utilize nutrients and 

trap sediment from runoff to maintain or improve water quality (NRCS 1996, FWS 1997). 

The character of a riparian corridor is dependent on the condition of its watershed and watershed 

hydrology. In the Project area, these factors historically have been compromised by human activities. 

Important rivers within the Great Plains, such as the Missouri River, have been greatly altered by human 

activity, beginning with vegetation removal to improve navigation during the steamboat era. Clearing 

important floodplain forests for agriculture in the late 1880s and early 1900s permanently altered regional 

surface water flow. Construction of dam and reservoir systems since the early and mid 1900s has greatly 

reduced channel migration and virtually eliminated overbank flows. Before these types of flow regulators 

were built, spring and summer floods naturally caused lateral bank erosion and channel avulsions2

 that 

caused trees to fall into the channel at outside bends. At the same time, new stands of tree seedlings 

colonized bare alluvial landforms, including mid-channel and point bars, abandoned channels, and 

scoured floodplain surfaces (Angradi et al. 2004). 

Riparian areas provide an important habitat for species (including threatened and endangered 

species) and are commonly located within floodplains. Species distribution and abundance in riparian 

forests may be influenced by the ecological attributes of these habitats, such as the structural diversity of 

vegetation; the size, shape, and connectivity of forest patches; and the pattern and the composition of the 

surrounding landscape (Scott 2003). Historic information suggests that the Missouri River channel in 

Montana had an extensive floodplain forest, of which only isolated stands remain. In the highly regulated 

Missouri River basin, establishment of new riparian forest stands are greatly reduced because the river 

and its floodplain are now ecologically disconnected (Angradi et al. 2004). 

3.3.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Potential impacts to surface water would be primarily influenced by waterbody crossing methods 

and could be impacted by construction of aboveground facilities, water withdrawals and discharges, and 

inadvertent releases or spills. 

As mentioned in Section 3.3.1.2, Bison’s Procedures incorporate the requirements of FERC’s 

Procedures as well as more stringent requirements requested by BLM and other agencies. The applicable 

sections of the FERC Procedures and Bison’s associated revisions are described in Table 3.3.2-4. 

 

2

 A sudden cutting off of land by flood, currents, or change in the course of a waterbody. 
3-45

TABLE 3.3.2-4 

Summary of Proposed Revisions to FERC Procedures for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedure 

Section 

Resource 

Issue Explanation of Revision 

Conclusion 

and Approval 

Status 

V.B.6.d Waterbody 

crossings 

Bison proposes to provide a plan for how the Contractor shall 

dispose of all drill cuttings and drilling mud. This is an 

additional measure to the FERC Procedures to be included in 

each Bison HDD plan. 

Approved 

V.B.9 Waterbody 

crossings 

Bison proposes that the Contractor shall construct each major 

waterbody crossing in accordance with a site-specific plan, as 

shown in the construction drawings. This is an additional 

measure to the FERC Procedures for the crossing of major 

waterbodies. 

Approved 

V.C.6 Waterbody 

crossings 

Bison proposes to choose riparian species that are native to 

the location, similar to those that were located onsite prior to 

construction activities, or from a desired plant community that 

will allow native revegetation. On BLM-managed lands, only 

BLM recommended riparian seed mixtures will be utilized for 

this purpose. This is an additional measure to the FERC 

Procedures for the restoration of riparian corridors. 

Approved 

V.II.B.2 Hydrostatic 

testing 

Bison proposed to address the operation and refueling of 

pumps in the Project’s SPCC Plan for all pumps located within 

500 feet of any waterbody or wetland on BLM-managed lands. 

This is an additional general measure to the FERC 

Procedures for hydrostatic testing procedures. 

Approved 

Pipeline Construction Impacts 

Construction of the proposed pipeline could result in increased turbidity associated with proposed 

crossing methods, increased surface runoff and erosion, streambed scour, and inadvertent releases as well 

as impacts to sensitive waterbodies, riparian areas, and water quality impacts from water withdrawal. The 

extent of impacts would depend on the construction method used to cross each waterbody, the existing 

conditions at each crossing location, the duration of instream activities, and the proposed mitigation 

measures. 

Waterbody Crossings 

Installation of the proposed pipeline across waterbodies would be accomplished using one of 

three general methods: open-cut wet crossing, open-cut dry crossing, or HDD (see Section 2.3.2.1 for a 

description of crossing methods). As proposed, 244 waterbodies would be crossed by open-cut wet 

methods, 32 would be crossed by open-cut dry methods, and three would be crossed by the HDD method 

(Appendix M). BLM prefers and may require that certain waterbodies on their lands be crossed by opencut dry or HDD methods, including those that are perennial or sensitive at the time of construction. We 

have reviewed and generally accepted the proposed waterbody crossing methods proposed by Bison with 

the exception of the proposed open-cut wet crossings at three perennial waterbodies. We believe that all 

remaining perennial waterbodies, agency waterbodies of concern (as discussed below), and fisheries of 

special concern (as discussed in Section 3.6.1.2) be crossed by dry or open-cut dry methods to minimize 

impacts to the resources; therefore, we recommend that: 
3-46

• Prior to construction, Bison file revised construction plans and environmental 

alignment sheets to incorporate open-cut dry crossings (or more protective measures) to 

cross Twentymile Creek (MP 24.5), an unnamed tributary to Boxelder Creek 

(MP 102.7), Cabin Creek (MP 135.8), Dead Boy Creek (MP 138.0), Spring Creek 

(MP 204.8), and Cedar Creek (MP 218.3 and MP 220.0). 

In general, an open-cut wet waterbody crossing would be conducted using methods similar to 

conventional upland trenching. The open-cut dry crossing method (flume or dam-and-pump) would 

include diverting the water flow upstream of a crossing location so that the trench itself would be 

relatively dry during trenching, pipeline installation, and backfilling. HDD is a trenchless crossing 

method that may be used to avoid direct impacts to sensitive resources, such as some major waterbodies 

and associated wetlands, by directionally drilling beneath them. HDD installation would be used to cross 

three waterbodies. This method would install the pipeline beneath the ground surface by pulling the 

pipeline through a pre-drilled bore hole. Additional information on the proposed waterbody crossing 

procedures is provided in Section 2.3.2. 

Open-Cut Wet and Open-Cut Dry Crossings. All open-cut wet and open-cut dry crossings 

would cause some disturbance in the stream channel, resulting in turbidity and sedimentation. Typically, 

open-cut wet methods result in relatively greater turbidity if water is present because of the increase in 

construction activity within the wetted channel. It is anticipated that most channels would be dry where 

open-cut wet crossings are proposed. Open-cut dry methods result in turbidity during construction and 

the subsequent removal of the upstream and downstream earthen dams used to isolate the crossing 

location from streamflow, but little or no turbidity occurs during trenching activities because the crossing 

location would be relatively dry. Crossings of waterbodies using open-cut wet or open-cut dry methods 

would be completed within 24 hours (minor waterbodies) to 48 hours (intermediate waterbodies). 

Short term impacts to surface waters could result from suspension of sediments during instream 

construction. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, turbidity, bank 

composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would determine the density and downstream 

extent of sediment migration. Instream construction could dislodge and transport sediments and alter 

natural stream contours. Turbidity resulting from suspension of sediments during instream construction 

or erosion of streambanks could reduce light penetration thus reducing photosynthetic activity and 

dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column. To reduce potential turbidity during open-cut wet and opencut dry crossings, Bison would limit instream equipment to only the equipment necessary to complete a 

successful crossing. Equipment bridges would be utilized for passage of all other construction equipment. 

Bison also would require that waterbodies be crossed as quickly as practical within the windows specified 

in its Procedures. 

HDD Crossings. At three waterbody crossings, Bison intends to avoid instream disturbance by 

using HDD methods. The HDD method would be used to avoid disturbance within the stream channel by 

drilling underneath it, typically at least 20 feet beneath it depending on site-specific conditions (see 

Section 2.3.2). Specifically, Bison proposes to conduct three HDD crossings at the Little Powder River 

(MP 72.2), the Little Missouri (MP 182.7), and the Heart River (MP 282.1). For those waterbodies 

crossed by HDD, Bison would not conduct clearing along the right-of-way between the HDD entry and 

exit points during construction. All HDD entry and exit points would be located outside of any associated 

wetland or riparian areas. 

A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. However, 

impacts to surface waters could occur if drilling fluids are released during drilling, referred to as a “fracout.” Such releases typically occur in upland areas in the vicinity of the HDD entry or exit hole and/or in 

the vicinity of the associated HDD mud pits. If unfavorable ground conditions exist, frac-outs could 
3-47

travel along the drilling path and reach the sensitive resource that is intended to be avoided by the use of 

HDD. Bison has prepared an HDD Plan (Appendix I) to address the possibility of inadvertent releases. 

The drilling mud used for the proposed Project would be primarily water, with bentonite clay 

added to facilitate drill-hole stability. EPA does not list bentonite as a hazardous substance. Bentonite is 

also a naturally occurring clay in Wyoming. Bison would not introduce any toxic drilling additives to the 

drilling mud; thus, the bentonite would physically act like clay sediment and would not likely be 

detrimental to vegetation, fish, or wildlife in small quantities. Therefore, except for an inadvertent release 

of drilling fluids, the use of the HDD method would not result in any long term adverse impacts to water 

quality. 

As outlined in its HDD Plan (Appendix I), in the event of HDD failure, Bison would attempt to 

re-drill the crossing using a different location, change the drilling procedures, or employ an alternate 

crossing method approved by the Director of OEP. The feasibility of each proposed HDD would be 

evaluated based on site-specific geotechnical data collected at each of the proposed HDD sites. Bison 

will provide FERC with the feasibility studies upon completion. 

General Waterbody Crossing Impacts. In accordance with FERC’s Procedures, Bison’s 

Procedures define a “waterbody” as a stream, river, or drainage with perceptible flow at the time of 

crossing. Based on this definition, Bison has indicated that the actual method of waterbody crossing 

would be subject to change based on the presence of perceptible water flow at the time of construction, 

with the exception of perennial streams which by definition would have perceptible flow year round. If a 

waterbody is dry at the time of crossing, Bison would utilize conventional upland construction methods 

with adherence to additional proposed waterbody construction measures such as a reduced right-of-way, 

maintenance of the vegetated buffer, and duration of construction. Bison would cross “dry” waterbodies 

in accordance with its Procedures (typically within 24 hours for minor crossings) and would begin initial 

bank restoration within 48 hours from the start of the crossing. Bridge materials would be readily 

available to install should a rain event occur and perceptible flow become present. 

Bison proposes to use three construction spreads within the 11 watersheds crossed by the 

proposed Project. A detailed discussion on construction spreads can be found in Section 2.4. The 

proposed construction schedule would accommodate the seasonal constraints of agency required 

environmental timing restrictions, and most construction activities would take place during summer 

months. Construction during summer would likely result in less impact on the watersheds located within 

the proposed Project area due to the typically dry conditions, since the majority of the waterbodies would 

be intermittent or ephemeral and flows are typically lower in perennial streams during the summer 

months. To further reduce watershed impacts, Bison proposes to limit construction to no more than two 

flowing waterbody crossings within each watershed at the same time. Following construction, all 

streambanks and streambed contours would be restored, as close as practical, to pre-construction 

conditions. 

In addition to the mitigation measures discussed above, Bison would implement the following 

construction and mitigation procedures, as contained in its Procedures (Appendix G), to minimize the 

extent and duration of disturbances to waterbodies. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• Limiting clearing of vegetation between EWSs and the edges of waterbodies to preserve 

riparian vegetation; 

• Routing the proposed pipeline as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody as 

practical and minimizing the number of individual crossings where waterbodies meander or 

have multiple channels; 
3-48

• 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 waterbody; and 

• Requiring bank stabilization and re-establishment of riparian vegetation after construction. 

Erosion and Streambed Scour 

Clearing and grading of streambanks and riparian areas could increase surface runoff and make 

soil vulnerable to erosion. The use of heavy equipment for construction could compact near-surface soils, 

resulting in an increased runoff into surface waters. Increased runoff could transport additional sediment 

into the waterbody, resulting in increased turbidity levels and sedimentation rates in the receiving 

waterbody. To limit impacts, Bison would reduce the construction right-of-way, where construction and 

topographic conditions allow, to 75 feet at waterbodies with vegetated buffer areas. Grading would not 

occur within the buffer zone until trenching at a waterbody is ready to commence. For streams with no 

riparian corridor, the vegetated buffer zone would begin at the top of the streambank and would extend 

down the right-of-way for a width of 15 feet to the edge of the cleared right-of-way boundary. For 

streams with a riparian corridor, the buffer zone would begin at the top of the streambank and would 

extend through the riparian corridor, to a maximum distance of 50 feet from the water’s edge. Only a 

10-foot equipment travel path would be cleared in the buffer zone on either side of a waterbody, to permit 

safe equipment travel at the crossing. In accordance with its Procedures, Bison would install temporary 

erosion and sediment control measures across the entire width of the construction right-of-way after 

clearing and before ground disturbance to limit or avoid sedimentation of waterbodies. Furthermore, 

since the proposed Project area generally does not contain areas that are sufficiently vegetated to 

withstand erosive surface runoff velocities, slope breakers would be installed. Slope breakers would 

channel water off the construction right-of-way to adjacent vegetated areas or to pre-approved areas that 

would be protected with sufficient erosion control devices (such as geotextiles and/or silt fencing) to 

control erosion and sedimentation. 

Erosion could also be a potential hazard where streams are capable of exposing the proposed 

pipeline during operation as a result of channel migration, widening, and streambed scour. The principal 

hazard resulting from channel migration and streambed scour is complete or partial exposure of the 

proposed pipeline within the channel from streambed and streambank erosion, or within the floodplain 

from channel migration. Where bedrock is encountered at shallower depths than the estimated scour 

depth, the elevation of competent (solid) bedrock represents the limit of scour. The proposed Project 

would be designed to protect the integrity of the pipeline, which may include increasing the depth of 

cover in waterbodies to more than the 5-foot minimum (or 2 feet in consolidated rock) to prevent or limit 

the potential for long term scouring. At a minimum, all waterbody crossings would be designed to meet 

DOT standards (CFR 49 Part 192). In waterbodies with identified scouring potential, the proposed 

pipeline would be buried at depths such that scouring would not expose the top of the pipeline in a 

100-year flood. If bedrock is encountered during trenching at depths less than the required pipeline depth, 

the rock would be mechanically fractured and excavated in order to reach the required depth and install 

the proposed pipeline. Bison has agreed to complete an analysis of the proposed waterbody crossings to 

determine areas with scour and streambank migration (meandering) potential; however, the analysis has 

not been completed or filed for our review. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file its proposed scour and 

streambank meandering analysis report, including any reroutes, if required, to prevent 

or avoid potential streambank meandering due to construction. 
3-49

Inadvertent Releases 

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

could cause contamination of nearby waterbodies. If a spill were to occur, users immediately downstream 

could experience degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms also 

could result from such a spill. Bison would implement the measures provided in its SPCC Plan 

(Appendix H) to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of inadvertent spills. Proposed measures 

include the restriction of refueling and storage of potentially hazardous materials to upland areas located 

at least 150 feet from waterbodies or water supply wells, at a minimum of 500 feet from waterbodies on 

BLM-managed lands, and additional precautions for continuously operating pumps where specified 

setbacks cannot be maintained.

Sensitive Waterbodies 

As stated in Section 3.3.2.1, 26 waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project are 

considered sensitive for one or more reasons, as identified in Table 3.3.2-2. Ten of these waterbodies 

have been designated as impaired waters, 18 support fisheries of special concern, and five are considered 

state agency waterbodies of concern (many waterbodies would be crossed more than once and have more 

than one designation). Fisheries of special concern are discussed in Section 3.6.1; impaired waterbodies 

and waterbodies of special concern are discussed below. 

Of the 10 impaired waterbodies, one would be crossed using HDD methods: the Little Powder 

River (MP 72.2). Four would be crossed using open-cut dry methods, while the remaining five would be 

crossed via open-cut wet methods. The impaired waterbodies that would be crossed utilizing the open-cut 

wet method are all intermittent and ephemeral waters impaired by sedimentation/siltation; thus, no 

chemical pollutants are known to occur at these crossings. Furthermore, Bison proposes to cross these 

streams during the dry season; therefore, water may not be present at the time of crossing. As previously 

stated, Bison would use only the instream equipment necessary to complete a successful crossing and 

would cross these waterbodies as quickly as possible within the timing windows specified in its 

Procedures to limit instream disturbance and turbidity. 

Five waterbodies identified as state agency waterbodies of concern (by NDDOH) would be 

crossed. The Little Missouri River (MP 128.7) and the Heart River (MP 282.1) would be crossed via 

HDD, thereby minimizing impacts. Spring Creek would be crossed twice by two different crossing 

methods: open-cut dry at MP 193.3 and open-cut wet at MP 204.8. Cedar Creek (MP 218.3) would be 

crossed by an open-cut wet method, and the Cannonball River (MP 250.7) would be crossed by an opencut dry method. As discussed in Section 3.3.2.1, the Cannonball River is generally located in an area with 

steep slopes that may be hard to stabilize. Bison has made a route adjustment (see Appendix T) at the 

Cannonball River to cross at an area that would be less steep; however, the crossing area would not 

completely avoid the steep topography. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file a site-specific plan for the 

Cannonball River crossing (MP 250.7) that specifies measures to stabilize the steep 

streambanks. 

To further minimize impacts to agency waterbodies of concern that are currently proposed for 

open-cut wet methods, we have also recommended that Bison revise its construction plans and 

environmental alignment sheets to incorporate a dry or open-cut dry method to cross Spring Creek 

(MP 204.8) and Cedar Creek (MP 218.3), both agency waterbodies of concern. With implementation of 

these recommendations, impacts to waterbodies with fisheries of special concern and state agency 
3-50

waterbodies of concern including one state scenic waterbody, would be crossed via dry or open-cut dry 

methods to minimize impacts. 

Riparian Areas 

By reviewing aerials maps and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, and by performing field 

surveys, Bison identified 202 riparian corridors that would be crossed by the proposed Project. Of the 

identified riparian corridors, 105 areas are associated with wetlands and the remaining 97 are identified as 

non-wetland riparian corridors. Of the 97 non-wetland riparian corridors, 85 are comprised of mostly 

herbaceous and 12 area comprised of forested/scrub-shrub vegetation. Woody riparian areas are 

especially important due to the non-forested nature of the majority of the proposed Project area across 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Further discussion on riparian vegetation can be found in 

Section 3.5. 

Riparian areas would be crossed with the same construction method as proposed for the 

associated waterbody and/or wetland crossing. Through minor and micro re-routes along the originally 

proposed construction right-of-way and adherence to the measures in its Plan and Procedures, Bison 

would minimize riparian impacts (see our review in Appendix T). Wetland riparian corridor locations are 

provided in Appendix N, and wetland impact discussions can be found in Section 3.4. 

Water Withdrawal and Uses 

Bison proposes to withdraw water from six sources (including four rivers, one reservoir, and one 

water source that has yet to be determined) for purposes of hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and HDD 

drilling mud. Bison is investigating the feasibility of using coal-bed methane water for hydrostatic 

testing. The currently proposed sources and volumes of water that would be withdrawn are listed in 

Table 3.3.2-5. 

Hydrostatic Testing Bison would verify the integrity of its pipeline before placing it into service 

by conducting a series of hydrostatic tests. These tests involve filling the pipeline with water, 

pressurizing it, and then checking for pressure losses due to pipeline leakage. Preliminary sources of 

hydrostatic test water, as identified by Bison, would include the Little Powder River, the Little Missouri 

River, the Cannonball River, and the Heart River, as well as the Phillipi Reservoir (Table 3.3.2-5). Bison 

proposes to use approximately 55.4 million gallons of water to hydrostatically test the entire proposed 

pipeline. In accordance with its Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K), Bison has committed to filing a 

final list of hydrostatic test water sources and discharge locations. None of the waterbodies proposed for 

hydrostatic testing are known to contain federally listed threatened or endangered species; however, each 

of the four waterbodies are considered coldwater streams. In addition, the Little Powder River and the 

Cannonball River contain spawning habitat at the proposed crossing locations. Given the potential 

sensitivities associated with coldwater streams, we would like to assess alternative withdrawal sources, if 

available. At this time, Bison has not finalized its list of sources. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft comment period, Bison file a final list of all hydrostatic test 

water sources, discharge locations, and withdrawal volumes. For each proposed source, 

Bison should also identify an alternative hydrostatic test water source along with 

associated discharge locations and withdrawal volumes, and file a feasibility evaluation 

for reusing hydrostatic test water between pipeline segments, before discharge and for 

dust abatement use. 
3-51

TABLE 3.3.2-5 

Water Withdrawal Volumes for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State (Spread) 

Begin 

MP End MP 

Potential Source 

Water 

Average Daily 

Flow (cfs) a

Hydrostatic Testing 

Approx. Volume 

(million gallons)b

Dust 

Abatement 

Approx. 

Volume 

(million 

gallons) 

HDD 

Approx. Vo

(million gal

Wyoming (1) -0.5 72.0 Undeterminedc Undeterminedc Undeterminedc N/A N/A Wyoming (1) 72.0 114.0 Little Powder 

River 

5.2 4.9 8.0 0.3 

Montana (1/2) 114.0 183.0 Phillipi Reservoir Unknown 13.9 5.7 N/A North Dakota (2/3) 

183.0 251.0 Little Missouri 

River 

73.8 18.2 6.6 0.3 

North Dakota (3) 251.0 282.0 Cannonball 

River 

10.1 9.4 4.3 N/A 

North Dakota (3) 282.0 301.5 Heart River 26.9 9.4 4.0 0.3 Project totals 55.4 28.8 0.9 Notes:  HDD = Horizontal Directional Drill  NA = Information is not applicable 

a Historical flow rate between August and September. Data are based on U.S. Geological Survey streamflow data from Sites 6324970 (Little Pow

Missouri River), 6350000 (Cannonball River), and 6345780 (Heart River). Rounding may affect totals. 

b Hydrostatic test water would be discharged back to the hydrologic unit code (HUD) water is withdrawn from. 

 c Bison has not yet determined an appropriate source for this water withdrawal.
3-52

Water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing would be withdrawn between August and November 

2010, and Bison would obtain all appropriate permits and authorizations required prior to any withdrawal 

activities. If Bison determines that coal-bed methane water is a feasible source for hydrostatic testing, 

this water use and discharge would require different discharge permits than those of the proposed sources 

listed in Table 3.3.2-5. 

Dust Abatement. Due to the semi-arid nature of the proposed Project area, construction 

activities may disturb dry soils, creating fugitive dust that could be detrimental to air quality. Each state 

crossed by the proposed Project has developed measures or requirements to control fugitive dust that 

include, but are not limited to, water use for dust abatement. State regulations regarding fugitive dust 

control, or dust abatement, are discussed in Bison’s Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U). 

Bison proposes to use watering trucks to moisten soils along the proposed pipeline route. The 

water would be obtained from the sources listed in Table 3.3.2-5 after obtaining the necessary permits. 

Nine 80-barrel water trucks would be used between the three construction spreads; each truck would be 

expected to make 10 trips per day between the water source and the area in need of dust control. The total 

amount of water proposed to be used for purposes of dust abatement during construction would be 

approximately 28.8 million gallons. 

Aside from water use, alternative possibilities for dust abatement include the application of nontoxic chemical dust suppressant, the use of wind fences or berms, reduction of vehicle speed along 

unpaved roads, and covering all haul trucks to minimize the loss of materials. 

HDD Water Withdrawals. Bison has estimated that use of the HDD method to cross three 

waterbodies would require approximately 900,000 gallons of water to mix with the bentonite in order to 

make the drilling mud required for the drill. As noted, the three waterbodies proposed to be crossed by 

HDD include the Little Powder River (MP 72.2), the Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), and the Heart 

River (MP 282.1). If streamflow is not is not adequate to support water withdrawals for HDD drilling 

mud, Bison would transport water from an alternative source to each HDD location. Bison has indicated 

that final water withdrawal amounts and sources for HDD crossings would be determined prior to 

construction. 

Water Withdrawal and Discharge Potential Impacts and Mitigation. The withdrawal of 

large volumes of water for hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and HDD drilling mud from surface water 

sources could temporarily affect the recreational and biological uses of each the four waterbodies 

proposed for water withdrawals, if the diversions comprise a substantial proportion of the source’s total 

flow or volume. The diversion of large volumes of water from waterbodies could also result in temporary 

changes in habitat as well as changes in water temperature and DO levels. 

Bison would limit the potential effects of hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and water 

withdrawals for HDD drilling mud on surface water resources by adhering to the measures in its 

Procedures (Appendix G), Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K), and Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

(Appendix U). These measures include maintaining adequate flow rates (with no more than a 10-percent 

reduction in flow) to protect aquatic life and downstream uses, and screening intake hoses to prevent the 

entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Additional information on potential impacts to fisheries 

resources associated with water withdrawals and discharges is provided in Section 3.6.1. 

Bison would not add chemicals to the water during hydrostatic testing, and discharge operations 

would be monitored throughout operations to ensure compliance with permit requirements. Test water 

discharge would be conducted in vegetated upland areas of the proposed construction right-of-way within 

the same watershed (technically within the same hydrologic unit code [HUC] watershed) from which the 
3-53

water was originally withdrawn or as required by BLM on BLM lands. The discharge would be released 

in a controlled manner through an energy-dissipating device so that the rate of discharge flow would not 

cause erosion. 

Water withdrawal for the purposes of dust abatement and HDD water withdrawals would be from 

the same sources as those proposed for hydrostatic test water withdrawal. As such, the potential 

biological and recreational impacts to each of the waterbodies related to dust abatement and water 

withdrawals for HDD drilling mud would be essentially the same to those discussed for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Bison would limit potential impacts to waterbodies resulting from individual and cumulative 

water withdrawals by implementing its Procedures, which include, but are not limited to, the following 

measures: 

• Obtain and comply with all applicable water withdrawal and special-status stream permits, 

and proper notifications prior to construction; 

• Address the operation and fueling of any pumps located within 100 feet of waterbodies or 

wetlands (500 feet on BLM lands) in the proposed Project-specific SPCC Plan; 

• Maintain adequate flow rates in all source waterbodies to protect aquatic life and to provide 

for all downstream uses; and 

• Screen all hydrostatic test water withdrawal intakes to prevent entrainment of fish and aquatic 

organisms. 

Prior to construction, Bison would acquire all necessary permits and approvals from state 

agencies before withdrawing or discharging water. We believe adherence to the required permits and 

proper implementation of Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G), Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K), and 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U) would adequately minimize impacts to surface waters 

associated with water withdrawals and discharges. 

Aboveground Facilities Construction Impacts 

Construction of the proposed aboveground facilities and activities at the proposed pipe storage, 

rail, and contractor yards would not directly affect any waterbodies; and no aboveground facilities would 

be located within the 100-year floodplain. To minimize indirect impacts to waterbodies, Bison would 

implement the erosion control measures described in its Plan (Appendix F). These measures include 

using erosion controls (such as slope breakers, silt fencing, and mulch) during construction to control 

runoff, limiting the time of soil disturbance, and re-establishing contours and vegetative cover as soon as 

practical. Given these factors and protective measures, any effects to waterbodies associated with 

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would be negligible. 

Operations Impacts

The proposed pipeline would be placed below surface waters and the proposed aboveground 

facilities would not be located adjacent to any waterbodies. Therefore, impacts to surface waters would 

not occur during Project operation. 
3-54

Conclusion Regarding Surface Water Resources 

No long term impacts to water resources are anticipated as a result of construction or operation of 

the proposed Project. Potential short term construction impacts would be minimized or mitigated through 

implementation of Bison’s Plan and Procedures, and strict adherence to our recommendations and all 

applicable regulations and permit requirements. 

Most minor and intermediate streams would be crossed using open-cut wet methods, but they 

would typically be crossed in less than 48 hours and restored and stabilized quickly. It is expected that 

most of the stream channels would be dry at the time of construction. In regard to sensitive waterbodies, 

all but five of the 26 sensitive waterbodies would be crossed using an open-cut dry or HDD method, with 

adherence to our recommendations. The open-cut dry method isolates the construction work area from 

the water flow, thereby minimizing downstream turbidity. Three sensitive perennial streams would be 

crossed by HDD. Successful HDD installations would result in little or no impacts. In the event of a 

HDD frac-out, Bison would implement its HDD Plan. Adherence to Bison’s water withdrawal permits 

and associated plans would limit or avoid impacts to surface waters during water withdrawal and 

discharge activities. No surface waters are located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of 

the proposed aboveground facility sites. In addition, no EWSs are proposed to be located within 50 feet 

of a waterbody, and no waterbody crossings are expected to require blasting. Additionally, the potential 

for impacts to water quality resulting from accidental spills would be minimized by implementation of 

Bison’s SPCC Plan (Appendix H). 

Given the measures described above, we believe that potential impacts to surface water resources 

would be temporary to short term and minor during construction, and any long term impacts to water 

resources would be minor. 

3.4 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are 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 (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 

Wetlands in the Project area include marshes, wet meadows, riparian zones, and some forested 

floodplains. The proposed Project would be located in a semi-arid environment, where wetlands account 

for only a very small proportion of the landscape but provide many key functions. Among these are flood 

flow attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient retention, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge and 

discharge, recreation, and erosion control. 

Section 404 of the CWA established standards to evaluate and reduce total and Project net 

impacts to wetlands under the regulatory jurisdiction of the COE. These standards require avoidance of 

wetlands where possible and minimization of disturbance where impacts are unavoidable, to the degree 

practicable. Any unavoidable wetland impacts may require compensatory mitigation. All wetland 

crossings would be subject to review and approval by the Omaha District of the COE, whereby the 

proposed Project would be required to comply with the conditions of any permits issued by the COE, 

including the provisions of any required wetland compensatory mitigation. 

3.4.1 Existing Environment 

The Project area is located entirely within the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province of the 

Temperate Steppe Division, as delineated by Bailey (1995). The area hydrographically drains into the 

Missouri River Basin portion of the Mississippi River watershed. The region is characterized by low 

rainfall, cold and snowy winters, and low-humidity summers with periodic rainstorms (Knight 1994). In 
3-55

this environment, vegetation growth is constrained by water availability both annually during late summer 

and episodically during multi-year droughts. The overall landscape is predominantly vegetated by 

grasslands and sagebrush steppe (see Section 3.5). Wetlands in the Project area are found primarily in 

topographically low channels and meadows where the terrain is relatively flat and the soils include clay 

lenses that perch the water table (Knight 1994). 

The dry climate in the western United States has historically made pipeline right-of-way 

restoration of wetlands challenging. In a study of wetland recovery in post-construction pipeline rightsof-way, FERC found that over two-thirds of the wetlands studied in the region failed to satisfy the success 

criteria in the FERC Procedures following pipeline construction (FERC 2004). The primary criterion 

failing the wetland restoration requirement was that less than 80 percent of native species cover was 

present in disturbed wetlands. The cover requirement was not met in the Temperate Steppe ecoregion 

primarily because (a) clay soils supporting perched water tables were not restored, leading to a lowered 

water table; and (b) drought conditions and human disturbance limited vegetative success (FERC 2004). 

Although the FERC Procedures have been subsequently updated to improve post-construction wetland 

restoration methods and success criteria, regional dry/drought conditions and human disturbance continue 

to be primary obstacles to successful wetland vegetation recovery. 

Bison conducted an initial search of potential wetland areas along the proposed Project route, at 

aboveground facility sites, and in other construction work areas through review of available NWI maps 

and soil surveys. During 2008 and 2009, Bison conducted wetland field surveys to delineate wetland 

boundaries in accordance with the requirements of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual 

(Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the COE Manual for the Great 

Plains Region (COE 2008). Wetland boundaries were surveyed and the linear distance and acreage of 

impacts to wetlands along the proposed Project route were calculated by overlaying the proposed 

construction work areas on the surveyed wetland boundaries. The COE is responsible for approving 

wetland delineations, but field verification of Bison’s wetland delineations has not yet been completed. 

The location, wetland classification, crossing length, and affected acreage for each wetland that 

would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project are listed in Appendix N; a 

summary of the wetland types affected by the proposed Project is provided in Table 3.4.1-1. All wetlands 

would be restored to pre-construction elevations following pipeline installation. With the exception of 

one pipe yard, the proposed sites for the aboveground facilities and contractor, pipe, and rail yards were 

selected to avoid wetlands. A single pipe yard, Hwy 323, would include 0.8 acre of wetlands; however, 

the wetland areas within the proposed yard would be fenced off prior to yard use in order to avoid direct 

impacts to these wetland areas. At three locations, access roads would encroach on wetlands, resulting in 

less than 0.1 acre of temporary impacts. 

A total of 165 wetlands would be directly affected by the proposed Project, located in Wyoming 

(33 percent of the total number), Montana (19 percent), and North Dakota (48 percent). 

The FWS wetland classification system described by Cowardin et al. (1979) was used to classify 

all 165 wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed Project, based on the following categories. 

• Palustrine emergent (PEM); 

• Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS); and 

• Palustrine forested (PFO). 
3-56

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State Wetland 

Classificationa

Number of 

Wetlands 

Crossed

Length of 

Wetland Crossed 

(miles)

Wetland Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres)b

Wetland Area 

Affected by 

Operations 

(acres)c

PEM 55 0.6 5.4 3.5 

Wyoming PFO 0 0 0 0 

PSS 0 0 0 0 

Wyoming subtotal 55 0.6 5.4 3.5 

PEM 29 0.3 3.4 1.7 

PFO 0 0 0 0 

PSS 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Montana 

 

Montana subtotal 31 0.3 3.4 1.7 

PEM 79 0.8 7.5 4.9 

North Dakota PFO 0 0 0 0 

PSS 0 0 0 0 

North Dakota subtotal 79 0.8 7.5 4.9 

 Total PEM 163 1.7 16.2 10.1 

 Total PFO 0 0 0 0 

 Total PSS 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Project total 165 1.7 16.2 10.1 

Notes: 

a Wetland Types: 

 PEM = Palustrine emergent 

 PFO = Palustrine forested 

 PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub 

b Construction impacts include wetlands within the 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way, EWSs, and access roads. Although 

wetlands occur within one pipe yard (HWY 323), the wetlands would be roped off so that no impact would occur. 

c Wetland acreages affected by operations are those that are within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and does not 

represent a permanent impact to wetlands as Bison does not propose to maintain the right-of-way. 

It is recognized that many wetland areas can be characterized as mixtures of emergent, scrubshrub, and forested communities, but for the purposes of mapping and impact evaluation for the proposed 

Project, wetlands are designated into the three major categories identified above and discussed below. 

Three wetland crossings, including two wetlands in riparian corridors (riparian wetlands), would 

be crossed on BLM lands, for a total of 101.1 feet in length crossed. The temporary impact, as well as the 

operational footprint, would be approximately 0.1 acre each. The two riparian wetlands are located in 

Wyoming at MP 74.0 and in Montana at MP 121.8, and the third BLM wetland crossing would be in 

Montana at MP 124.3. 

3.4.1.1 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands 

PEM wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and 

lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wildlife use these areas for nesting and feeding, and in particular during 

migration. Common herbaceous plants in the PEM wetlands traversed by the proposed Project route 

include many sedges, spikerushes, rushes, bulrushes, cattails, and broadleaf arrowhead. 
3-57

3.4.1.2 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 

PSS wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). PSS wetlands supply an abundance of food and cover resources for mammals and 

birds, and provide necessary breeding habitat for many migratory bird species. 

PSS wetlands were found along the proposed Project route only in Montana. Field surveys 

revealed that the dominant vegetation in these wetlands primarily include the same tree saplings and 

shrub species found in nearby PFO wetlands. Common shrub species observed within the proposed 

Project route include narrowleaf willow, along with herbaceous species such as green bulrush, 

spikerushes, rushes, and prairie cordgrass. As indicated in Table 3.4.1-1, less than 0.1 acre of PSS 

wetland would be affected by construction of the Project. 

3.4.1.3 Palustrine Forested Wetlands 

PFO wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation that is at least 20 feet tall (Cowardin et al. 

1979). PFO wetlands provide a diverse assemblage of vegetation and an abundance of food and water 

sources for wildlife. Common tree species in the PFO wetlands observed in the Project area include 

eastern cottonwood, box elder, and diamondleaf willow, in addition to herbaceous species such as river 

bulrush, creeping spikerush, scouringrush horsetail, rushes, and prairie cordgrass. 

As indicated in Table 3.4.1-1, no PFO wetlands would be affected by construction of the Project. 

This is due to both the scarcity of the resource in the region and a focused effort by Bison and FERC staff 

to avoid and minimize impacts (see Section 3.4.2 and Appendices N and T). 

3.4.1.4 Sensitive Wetland Resources 

Sensitive wetland resources in the area could include rare wetlands (such as fens, springs, and 

seeps) and wetlands located within riparian corridors. Fens are wetlands with extremely high plant 

biodiversity that have a constant flow of groundwater. Seep and spring wetland areas are formed when 

fractures or fault zones allow water from deeper aquifers to discharge at the surface, resulting in relatively 

constant inflow and water temperature that can support unique species adapted to these conditions (EPA 

2009). Bison consulted with federal and state agencies in the Project area to identify rare wetlands, 

including fens, ephemeral springs, and seeps; none of these features were identified as being within the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way. Four springs were identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project but 

outside of the construction right-of-way. Bison also conducted field surveys along the proposed route to 

identify rare features and identified seven seeps, six of which would be within the right-of-way. Bison 

has not proposed additional mitigation to minimize impacts to these resources. 

Wetlands included in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) are those that are managed by NRCS 

and the landowner for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the original hydrology, native 

vegetation, and natural topography. The goal of the program is to restore and protect the functions and 

values of wetlands in the agricultural landscape. No WRP lands have been identified along the proposed 

Project route.

Riparian zones are areas along creeks and rivers with vegetation that is dependent on increased 

soil moisture and a higher water table. Although riparian zones account for less than 1 percent of the 

landscape, more than 80 percent of the native wildlife depends on and uses riparian areas at some point 

during the year (Knight 1994). Numerous riparian areas are within the proposed construction right-ofway, including 105 riparian wetlands totaling about 6.6 acres of temporary impacts and 1.0 acre within 

the permanent footprint. The majority of riparian wetlands are comprised of a narrow band of herbaceous 
3-58

vegetation associated with PEM wetlands, although one scrub-shrub wetland in Montana would be 

crossed twice by the pipeline construction corridor. During the pre-filing process, FERC staff and Bison 

reviewed and, in most cases, Bison adopted routing modifications to avoid or minimize impacts to 

riparian wetlands (see Appendix T). Each riparian wetland that would be crossed by the proposed Project 

is identified in Appendix N. 

3.4.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

3.4.2.1 Construction Impacts 

For projects where wetland impacts are proposed, the COE requires that all appropriate and 

practicable actions be taken to avoid and minimize those impacts, pursuant to its Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines. In the semi-arid environment of the Project area, where wetlands comprise a very small 

percentage of the overall landscape, wetland impacts are of heightened concern—especially if they are 

not restored appropriately following construction. As noted by FERC (2004), the successful restoration 

of wetlands in the Temperate Steppe Division may be problematic due to infrequent and episodic 

hydrologic inputs from precipitation and snowmelt. Further, restoration is often hindered by humancaused disturbance (such as grazing of livestock) because wetland areas typically present a more dense 

and succulent herbaceous community. 

All wetland crossings would be subject to review by the COE to ensure that wetland impacts are 

fully identified and that appropriate wetland restoration and mitigation measures are implemented. Bison 

also would comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that may be issued by the COE. 

Section 2.3.2 describes the specialized pipeline construction procedures that Bison would 

implement to limit impacts to wetlands, including use of timber mats, low pressure construction 

equipment, HDD crossing methods for some sensitive wetland crossings, and a reduction of the 

construction right-of-way width to 75 feet. Pipeline construction would result in temporary, short term 

and long term alterations of the vegetative cover in wetlands along the proposed construction right-ofway. Temporary impacts during construction activities have the potential to diminish the recreational and 

aesthetic value of wetlands through clearing, trenching, spoil placement, vehicle traffic, and related 

construction disturbances. Wetland functions such as erosion control, buffering and flood flow 

attenuation, sediment retention, and nutrient retention also could be affected by construction. These 

effects would typically be greatest during and immediately following construction. Clearing of wetland 

vegetation could result in both short and long term loss of wetland wildlife habitat and some wetland 

functions, with the duration of the impact varying by habitat type. PEM wetlands, which can regenerate 

relatively rapidly, would typically become re-established in one to three growing seasons, given normal 

hydrologic inputs. Impacts to PSS wetlands would be long term, where woody vegetation would become 

established in the short term but mature growth would require longer. The proposed Bison Project would 

not cause any loss of PFO wetlands. 

Excavation of the pipeline trench, installation of the pipe, and backfill of the trench could affect 

the long term rate and direction of water movement within wetlands. In addition, excavation activities 

could alter perched water tables by disturbing impermeable soil layers. This could adversely affect 

wetland hydrology and revegetation by creating soil conditions that are not conducive to water retention. 

Failure to properly segregate soils during construction could result in mixed soil layers, which could alter 

biological components of the wetland and affect the re-establishment of native wetland vegetation. 

Temporary stockpiling of soil and the movement of heavy machinery across wetlands also could lead to 

inadvertent compaction and furrowing of soils, which could alter natural hydrologic patterns, inhibit seed 

germination, damage root systems, and increase seedling mortality. Altered surface drainage patterns, 

stormwater runoff, runoff from the trench, accidental spills, and discharge of hydrostatic test water also 
3-59

could negatively affect water quality by increasing the potential for siltation and turbidity resulting from 

construction activities. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 165 wetland areas, resulting in a total of 

approximately 16.2 acres of temporary wetland disturbance during construction. These impacts would 

include less than 0.1 acre of PSS wetlands and 16.2 acres of PEM wetlands (Table 3.4.1-1). The PSS 

wetlands are entirely in Montana, while PEM wetlands are located in all three states crossed by the 

proposed Project. If hydrologic inputs are normal following construction and if anthropogenic impacts 

are limited, we would expect that impacts to PEM wetlands (which represent 99 percent of all wetland 

impacts associated with the Project) would be temporary or short term, as regeneration would occur 

relatively rapidly in these areas. PEM wetlands associated with the Little Powder River (MP 72.2), the 

Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), and the Heart River (MP 282.1) would be crossed by HDD methods 

and therefore would not be affected by pipeline construction (see Section 3.3.2.2 for more detail). 

The permanent footprint of the proposed Project would affect 10.1 acres of wetlands 

(Table 3.4.1-1). These impacts would include less than 0.1 acre of PSS wetlands and 10.1 acres of PEM 

wetlands. The 0.05 acre of PSS wetlands would be temporarily converted to PEM wetlands, but would be 

allowed to re-establish its shrubby vegetation as operational vegetative maintenance would not occur. It 

is expected that the 10.1 acres of PEM wetlands would fully recover and would incur no additional 

impacts during operations. 

Bison evaluated alternative routes that would avoid the use of access roads crossing wetland areas 

and were able to limit the use of access roads in wetlands to one in Montana (less than 0.1 acre) and two 

in North Dakota (less than 0.1 acre). The wetland areas would be bridged or matted to limit wetland 

impacts during construction, and disturbed areas would be restored following construction. 

To minimize impacts to wetlands during construction, Bison would leave existing root systems 

intact where possible; install erosion control devices to minimize sediment flow into the wetland; and use 

special seed mixes during restoration, as recommended by federal, state, and local agencies. Bison also 

would reduce the width of the construction right-of-way from 120 feet to 75 feet through wetlands. Bison 

would use the minimum construction equipment necessary within wetlands for clearing, trench 

excavation, pipe fabrication and installation, trench backfilling, and restoration activities. If standing 

water or saturated soil conditions were present, or if construction equipment caused ruts or mixing of the 

topsoil and subsoil, construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be further limited to the use 

of low-ground-pressure equipment or normal equipment operating from timber riprap or prefabricated 

equipment mats. Bison also would minimize impacts to wetlands by implementing the measures 

identified in its Procedures (Appendix G). As described in Section 2.3, Bison’s Procedures are consistent 

with FERC’s Procedures, which are intended to minimize general impacts to water resources including 

groundwater, surface water, and wetlands. Bison’s Procedures incorporate all the requirements of the 

FERC Procedures as well as more stringent construction and restoration measures recommended by 

agencies, such as revegetating disturbed areas with native species (and with BLM recommended seed 

mixes on BLM land), and maintaining a distance of 500 feet between hydrostatic testing pumps and 

wetlands on BLM land. Additional measures in Bison’s Procedures include, but are not limited to: 

• Clear marking of wetland boundaries and buffers in the field until construction is complete; 

• Conducting construction through wetlands during the dry season, to minimize water flow 

through exposed soils; 

• Stripping of topsoil from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 

12 inches in unsaturated soils and segregating this layer; 
3-60

• Limiting the amount of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open; 

• Using sediment barriers to prevent sediment flow into a wetland; 

• De-watering of trenches in a way that does not cause sedimentation in a wetland; 

• Using trench breakers to ensure maintenance of the original wetland hydrology; 

• Prohibiting the storage of hazardous materials and refueling within 100 feet of a wetland; and 

• Restoring pre-construction contours, implementing vegetative restoration, and implementing 

a monitoring plan. 

Perched wetlands may present challenges for successful restoration. While Bison has committed 

to developing appropriate methods to ensure that perched wetlands are restored following construction, it 

has not proposed any measures to maintain perched wetland functions. Therefore, in order to minimize 

impacts and promote restoration of the seep and perched wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed 

Project, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file documentation of consultation with BLM and COE to 

determine the appropriate mitigation measures that should be used to minimize 

potential impacts to seep wetlands, and file proposed measures to restore perched 

wetland functions following pipeline construction. 

3.4.2.2 Operation Impacts 

Following construction of the proposed Project, inspection and maintenance of the pipeline would 

be conducted regularly. Inspection would require use of a dirt two-track road through the upland areas, 

but Project access roads used during operations would not traverse wetlands. 

Bison does not propose to conduct any periodic mowing or clearing of the right-of-way during 

operation. Periodically, the pipeline inspection results could identify areas where re-coating or 

replacement of pipeline segments would be required under FERC maintenance policy. If maintenance 

was required in wetland areas, Bison would conduct appropriate wetland jurisdictional determinations and 

adhere to COE wetland permitting requirements in order to conduct the work in wetland areas. 

3.4.2.3 Wetland Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Bison has taken steps to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, including selective routing 

through evaluation of route alternatives, reduction of the nominal construction right-of-way width through 

wetlands from 120 to 75 feet, avoidance of clearing or mowing of the right-of-way during operation, and 

implementation of its Procedures. Bison would be required to provide restoration, but the COE has 

indicated that compensatory mitigation for PSS wetland impacts in Montana would not be required (COE 

2009). Bison adopted several route variations in order to avoid and minimize impacts to waterbodies and 

wetlands (Appendix T). Additionally, Bison’s proposed route would be collocated with or parallel to 

existing pipelines or utility rights-of-way to the extent practical, thereby reducing impacts to previously 

undisturbed wetlands. 

FERC staff reviewed Bison’s initial proposal and worked with Bison to develop a pipeline route 

and methods that would avoid and minimize long term wetland impacts. During Project development, the 

overall acreage of wetland impacts was reduced, and direct impacts to forested wetlands were completely 

avoided. FERC staff met with Bison in the field and reviewed many of the largest or most sensitive 

wetland crossings, and we provided suggestions regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts. In 
3-61

many areas, Bison re-routed the original pipeline route during development in order to avoid or minimize 

impacts to riparian wetlands. 

The COE is considering wetland impacts of the proposed Project under an NWP 12 (Utility Line 

Activities). Pre-construction notification is required by the COE for the proposed Project, and an 

application packet is requested by the COE as early as possible. Following review of a complete preconstruction package, the COE will issue a notice to Bison indicating whether the proposed Project may 

proceed. 

The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any jurisdictional wetland loss through 

conversion of wetlands to uplands. As of June 2009, and based on the near-completion of field surveys of 

wetland areas, the COE has determined that compensatory wetland mitigation would not be required. 

Post-construction wetland monitoring would be required for the first 3 years following 

construction. Wetland revegetation would 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 the success criteria are met in 3 years, 

monitoring would cease. However, if the success criteria are not met after 3 years, a remedial 

revegetation plan would be implemented to actively revegetate wetlands as required, and monitoring 

would continue. The revegetation efforts would continue until the success criteria are met. 

With strict adherence to its Procedures, BLM’s Reclamation Plan, COE permit requirements and 

our recommendations, impacts to wetlands would be minor. These impacts would be short term in 

emergent wetlands and short term to long term in scrub-shrub wetlands; no forested wetlands would be 

crossed by the proposed Project. 

3.5 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION 

3.5.1 Existing Environment 

Vegetative cover types were identified by Bison along the proposed Project route based on review 

of maps and aerial photography, field survey results, and the USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data 

(LULC) categories. The upland vegetative resources that would be impacted by the proposed Project are 

comprised predominantly of agricultural land and open land, which together account for 91 percent of the 

total vegetative cover (Table 3.5.1-1). The remaining 9 percent of the total acreage includes forested 

lands, developed lands, wetlands, and water. 

Vegetation occurring in wetland habitat types that would be crossed by the proposed Project is 

described in Section 3.4.1. Potential impacts to agricultural areas, as well as associated mitigation 

measures, are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

3.5.1.1 General Vegetation Types 

The Project area is located entirely within the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province of the 

Temperate Steppe Division, as delineated by Bailey (1995). The region is characterized by low rainfall, 

cold and snowy winters, and low-humidity summers with periodic rainstorms (Knight 1994). 
3-62

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Acreages of Vegetation Types Impacted by Permanent Aboveground Facilities, Yards, and Acce

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Projecta

Agricultural Land Wetlands Forested Upland Water Open Land Develop

Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. 

Pipeline rightof-way 1,314.1 (30%) 548.6 (30%) 15.4 (0%) 10.1 (1%) 44.6 (1%) 19.0 (1%) 6.1 (0%) 3.0 (0%) 2,883.3 (66%) 1,232.7 (67%) 72.9 (2%) Extra workspaces 

110.4 

(19%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

10.2 

(2%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

453.3 

(78%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

Contractor, pipe storage, and rail yards 

215.7 

(52%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.8 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

2.4 

(1%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

169.5 

(41%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

23.9 

(6%) 

Aboveground facilities 

20.0 

(90%) 

20.0 

(90%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

2.1 

(10%) 

2.1 

(10%) 

0.0 

(0%) 

Access roads 11.2 (2%) 0.2 (2%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 0.6 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 82.1 (17%) 3.5 (10%) 382.0 (80%) Total 1,671.4 (29%) 568.8 (30%) 16.2 (0%) 10.1 (1%) 57.8 (1%) 19.0 (1%) 6.1 (0%) 3.0 (0%) 3,590.3 (62%) 1,238.4 (66%) 489.1 (8%) Note: a All mainline valves and pig launcher/pig receivers would be contained within the right-of-way, meter stations, or the compressor station; the acreag

and not added to the total permanent facility impacts. Acreages notated as permanent would be within the permanent footprint of the Project but, w

facilities and access roads, would be allowed to revert to a pre-construction state
3-63 

In this environment, vegetation growth is constrained by water availability both annually during 

late summer and episodically during multi-year droughts. The southwestern portion of the Project area is 

characterized by sagebrush-grassland rangeland in Wyoming, which transitions to grassland and 

agricultural fields in North Dakota. The major vegetation types in the Project area are described below.

Open lands consist of non-forested, largely undeveloped lands, including grassland/rangeland, 

native grasslands, and terrestrial scrub-shrub areas. Grassland/rangeland consists of fields of grasses that 

are natural or maintained for livestock production. Common species observed during field surveys 

include smooth brome, cheatgrass, and wheat grasses. Native grasslands consist of natural plant 

communities where native grasses are dominant. Common species observed during field surveys include 

wheat grasses, wild ryes, and coneflower. Scrub-shrub areas are dominated by woody vegetation less 

than about 20 feet tall and are typically comprised of true shrubs, young trees, and small or stunted trees 

or shrubs. Common species observed during field surveys include sagebrush, cheatgrass, and 

greasewood. 

Agricultural areas include irrigated (center-pivot or flood) and non-irrigated alfalfa, corn, 

soybean, winter wheat, and other small grain fields. Montana typically grows wheat, barley, and sugar 

beets, as well as specialty crops. North Dakota’s major crops are wheat, wheat durum, barley, and 

planted hay; and Wyoming grows planted hay, barley, wheat, dry edible beans, and corn. 

Developed lands include areas of residences, roads, and industrial sites. Vegetation in these areas 

is typically turf grasses but may include weedy shrubs and forbs. 

As discussed in Section 3.4, wetlands are characterized by a prevalence of vegetation adapted to 

saturated soil conditions. Wetland vegetation may be predominantly herbaceous or emergent, scrubshrub, or forested. 

Upland forest land consists of tracts of wooded upland forest that are typically dominated by trees 

and shrubs. Common plants from field surveys include white cedar, junipers, and ponderosa pine. 

Forested lands also include windbreaks, which generally consist of a tree line between agricultural fields 

and farmstead shelter belts. 

3.5.1.2 Project-Specific Vegetation Composition 

The Project area can be categorized as pipeline right-of-way; EWSs; aboveground facilities; 

contractor, pipe storage, and rail yards; and access roads. 

The proposed pipeline right-of-way crosses open land (66 percent), agricultural land (30 percent), 

developed land (2 percent), forested upland (1 percent), and wetlands (less than 1 percent). 

EWSs would be located predominantly on open land (78 percent), but also agricultural land 

(19 percent), developed land (2 percent), and forested upland (2 percent) (Table 3.5.1-1). 

The permanent aboveground facilities that would be constructed for the proposed Project would 

be located on agricultural land (90 percent) and open land (10 percent) (Table 3.5.1-1). Because the 

MLVs would be located entirely within the permanent right-of-way, they are not included in the acreage 

calculations with the permanent facilities in this section. Permanent facilities would require 22.1 acres 

and would be located primarily in North Dakota (95 percent) and Wyoming (5 percent); no permanent 

facilities outside the right-of-way are proposed in Montana. 
3-64 

The contractor, pipe storage, and rail yards would be located primarily on agricultural land 

(52 percent), open land (41 percent), and developed land (6 percent). A small portion would be located in 

wetlands and forested uplands (1 percent). 

Both new and existing roads would be used to access construction areas, although some roads 

would require improvements before they could be used for construction (Appendix E). The majority of 

improvements would take place in developed areas (80 percent), although widening also would occur in 

open land (17 percent), agricultural lands (2 percent), and wetlands and forested uplands (combined 

impact of less than 0.1 percent). 

On BLM-managed land, the proposed Bison Project would require about 394.2 acres for 

temporary use and 164.7 acres for permanent use in the right-of-way. There would be 27.0 acres of 

temporary access road use and less than 0.1 acres of permanent access road use. There would be 

69.8 acres of EWS temporary use and no permanent use on BLM-administered lands. A total of 

491.0 acres of construction use and 164.8 acres of permanent use on BLM-administered lands is 

anticipated. These BLM lands are distributed across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. 

3.5.1.3 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern 

Two types of lands with an elevated level of terrestrial vegetative significance occur along the 

proposed Project route based on a review of maps, field survey results, other available information, and 

consultations with resource agencies. These areas include lands held in the Farm Services Agency’s 

(FSA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and riparian areas. The potential occurrence of threatened 

and endangered plant species are discussed in Section 3.7. Special management areas, including national 

wildlife refuges, are not present along the proposed Project route. 

Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

The FSA-administered CRP is a voluntary program that allows owners of agricultural land to 

conserve those lands through planting of grasses, trees, and other cover with financial assistance from the 

federal government. Typically, these areas retire erodible soils or otherwise sensitive agricultural lands 

from production for a period of from 10 to 15 years. To date, Bison has identified 41 CRP parcels that 

would be crossed by the proposed Project route in Campbell County, Wyoming; Carter County, Montana; 

and Bowman, Hettinger, Stark, Grant, and Morton Counties, North Dakota. The general locations of CRP 

lands have been identified, but the specific locations and exact acreages of CRP lands that would be 

encumbered by construction of the proposed Project are not publicly available. CRP lands are further 

discussed in Section 3.8. 

Riparian Habitats 

Riparian zones are areas along creeks and rivers with vegetation that is dependent on increased 

soil moisture and a higher water table. Although riparian zones account for less than 1 percent of the 

landscape, more than 80 percent of the native wildlife depends on and uses riparian areas at some point 

during the year (Knight 1994). The majority of riparian wetlands are associated with PEM and PSS 

wetlands, and include herbaceous and some woody vegetation. Each riparian wetland that would be 

crossed by the proposed Project route is identified in Appendix N. 

3.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to introduce noxious weeds to disturbed 

areas. Under the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000, a noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant 
3-65 

product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, 

or the environment.” Each state that would be crossed by the proposed Project maintains a list of 

regulated and prohibited noxious weed species. 

Bison conducted noxious weed surveys in summer and fall 2008 and in spring 2009. Local 

qualified biologists were contracted to identify a target list of 51 species, each of which is listed on 

applicable state or county noxious weed lists (Appendix L). As of June 2009, only five noxious weed 

species had been identified for management in the construction right-of-way, including Canada thistle 

(found state-wide in all three states), field bindweed (found at MP 156.8 in Montana), musk thistle (found 

at MP 231.9 in North Dakota), spotted knapweed (found at MP 237.5 and MP 237.6 in North Dakota), 

and leafy spurge (found at MP 282.0, MP 282.7, and MP 287.7 in North Dakota). 

3.5.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

The primary impacts of the proposed Project on vegetative cover types would be the clearing and 

removal of vegetation that occurs along the proposed route or aboveground facility sites during 

construction. The severity of impact would depend on the type of vegetation impacted, the size of the 

area cleared, the time required for vegetation to become re-established, and any subsequent maintenance 

practices in cleared areas. Following construction, all areas not encumbered by the permanent 

aboveground facilities or access roads would be restored and allowed to revert to their former use and 

vegetative cover. In general, the permanent right-of-way would not be maintained during operations; 

however, if and when right-of-way mowing is required in specific areas, such as if trees grow 

immediately adjacent to the pipeline and to a height at which the roots may be detrimental to pipeline 

integrity, FERC would be notified before such mowing takes place. 

3.5.2.1 Construction Impacts 

Most impacts to agricultural lands would be short term, as these areas are disturbed annually to 

produce crops and would typically return to their previous condition shortly following construction, 

cleanup, and restoration. Lands currently dominated by herbaceous growth may revegetate quickly or 

may require more than 1 year, depending on a number of factors. The most important of these is probably 

the resumption of normal hydrologic inputs (such as precipitation, streamflow, or groundwater discharge) 

following restoration of the right-of-way. While many of the factors affecting revegetation can be 

optimized for success, the resumption of normal hydrologic inputs is a necessary but uncertain one. 

Grazing and compaction by livestock also may slow revegetation of areas affected by the Project. 

Lands with scrub-shrub vegetation that would be cleared during construction would likely require 

3 to 10 years to regain their woody composition and may require decades to develop a mature seral stage 

(Knight 1994). Forested lands that are cleared would require decades to be restored. 

The cutting or removal of vegetation during construction could lead to increased soil erosion, an 

increase in invasive or exotic plant species, and a reduction in wildlife habitat. Clearing and construction 

activities along the proposed pipeline right-of-way and associated facilities also could result in soil 

compaction. Additionally, heavy machinery could damage riparian vegetation associated with 

waterbodies, whether the equipment is moving or parked for extended periods. 

In meetings during pre-filing, BLM introduced the potential for brush-hogging, or clearing 

vegetation while allowing root stocks to remain in place, for areas within the right-of-way that contain 

woody vegetation. The use of brush-hogging could eliminate or minimize the need for topsoil stripping. 

To determine the feasibility of using brush-hogging techniques along the proposed Project, Bison 
3-66 

consulted with BLM and construction contractors and determined that although the technique works well 

for small-diameter pipelines, top-soil stripping is preferred for large-diameter pipelines. Construction of 

large-diameter pipelines, such as the Bison pipeline, requires the passage of heavier equipment that could 

compact topsoil and damage the soil structure. Bison’s proposal to strip an 85-foot width of topsoil along 

the remainder of the proposed pipeline right-of-way would preserve this layer’s seed bank by removing 

the soils from ongoing construction traffic. Topsoil segregation of the 85-foot width of the construction 

right-of-way also would remove the need for topsoil decompaction, which would risk pulling up root 

balls and mixing the topsoil and subsoils. 

In evaluating the potential use of brush-hogging, Bison initially considered areas along the 

proposed Project based on the presence of low-gradient (0 to 5 percent), contiguous (greater than 1 mile), 

scrub-shrub habitat. Bison identified contiguous habitat as a significant criterion because attempting to 

use this clearing method in multiple discrete locations would require by-passing other active construction 

equipment within the right-of-way with the specialized equipment required for brush-hogging, resulting 

in construction delays and cost implications. Based on the results of Bison’s consultations and 

assessments regarding appropriate areas in which to implement this clearing method, we understand the 

limitations but recognize the utility of demonstrating the potential impacts or benefits of this clearing 

method as it pertains to reclamation success. Although not the preferred clearing method, Bison has 

proposed to demonstrate the utility, and reclamation potential, of brush-hogging on large-diameter 

pipelines along a 1.2-mile tract between MP 136.2 and MP 137.3. This land is contiguous scrub-shrub 

and is located in an area that would be accessible with the specialized equipment required for clearing. 

Impacts to forested areas would be long term as re-growth to pre-construction conditions could 

take decades. These impacts also would involve the most significant change in vegetative strata, 

appearance, and habitat, as mature trees would be replaced for a period of years by herbaceous plants, 

shrubby growth, or saplings. 

To minimize construction-related effects, Bison would implement its Plan, which is based largely 

on the FERC Plan with modifications as discussed in Section 3.2. The intent of Bison’s Plan is to identify 

baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas. 

Implementation of Bison’s Plan would aid in vegetative restoration. The major aspects of Bison’s Plan 

are described further in Section 3.2. Some of the restoration and best management practices identified in 

the Plan include the following: 

• Use of at least one Environmental Inspector per construction spread, who would ensure 

compliance with the Plan, Procedures, and other required conditions; 

• Segregation of topsoil from an 85-foot-wide corridor consisting of the trench, the working 

side of the construction right-of-way, and a portion of the spoil side of the construction rightof-way; 

• Installation of temporary erosion control measures, such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, 

and mulch; 

• Commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling and completion of restoration 

generally within 60 days; 

• Installation of permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers and slope breakers; 

• Revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of BLM, local soil conservation 

authority, other land management agencies, and the affected landowners; 

• Provision of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 
3-67 

• Post-construction monitoring, maintenance, and reporting results of revegetated areas. 

Bison would use reclamation specialists with local knowledge of appropriate reseeding species, 

seeding timing, soil-specific seed mixtures, and mulching to enhance the speed of vegetative recovery. 

Bison would continue to coordinate reclamation with local BLM and agency experts in order to stay 

apprised of specific information that would increase vegetative recovery. Seeding would be conducted 

8 to 12 weeks following construction of each spread, which would generally result in seeding in fall and 

winter. 

Impacts to vegetative cover types would occur in those areas affected by pipeline and 

aboveground facility construction. The acreages of vegetation types impacted are listed in Table 3.5.1-1. 

Pipeline Construction and Extra Workspaces 

The 302.5-mile proposed Bison pipeline would require 4,920.6 acres of construction right-of-way 

and EWSs, of which 1,833.0 acres would be within the permanent right-of-way (Table 3.5.1-1). The 

proposed pipeline construction right-of-way and EWSs would cross predominantly open land 

(3,336.6 acres) and agricultural land (1,424.5 acres). A total of 54.8 acres of forested uplands are in the 

proposed construction right-of-way and EWSs, of which 19.0 acres would be in the permanent right-ofway. The proposed Project also would pass through 83.2 acres of developed land, of which, 19.6 acres 

would be within the permanent right-of-way. There would be 15.4 acres of emergent wetlands located 

within the construction right-of-way and EWSs, and 10.1 acres in the permanent right-of-way (see 

Section 3.4). 

The construction right-of-way would be 120 feet wide, while the permanent right-of-way would 

be 50 feet wide. Note that 10 feet of the 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way in uplands would be 

reserved for snow storage; no snow storage areas would be used in wetlands, where the construction 

right-of-way would be necked-down to a 75-foot width. EWSs would be required at various locations 

where the construction right-of-way width is insufficient to support specialized construction (see 

Section 3.8 for more detail). 

Bison avoided and minimized some of the proposed impacts in the construction right-of-way and 

EWS by re-routing some locations out of forested areas based on recommendations from FERC staff. 

Bison’s Plan identifies additional minimization measures for limiting the acreage used during 

construction, providing erosion control, restoring and revegetating land as soon as practical following 

construction, and conducting post-construction monitoring until success criteria are met. 

Permanent Aboveground Facilities 

Bison proposes to construct permanent aboveground facilities that include one compressor 

station, two meter stations, 20 MLVs, and three pig launchers/pig receivers. Because the MLVs would be 

constructed within the permanent right-of-way, this acreage is not included in the permanent facility 

acreage. All facilities would be sited on agricultural land (20.0 acres) and open land (2.1 acres), totaling 

22.1 acres (Table 3.5.1-1). Vegetation within an aboveground facility site would be permanently 

converted to developed land; however, proposed facilities would be sited to avoid high-value vegetative 

types. 

Pipe Storage, Rail, and Contractor Yards 

The proposed Project would require seven pipe storage yards, seven rail yards, one rail and pipe 

yard, two contractor yards, and three contractor pipe yards totaling 412.2 acres to support construction 
3-68 

(Table 3.5.1-1). The majority of vegetative types that would be affected by these yards would be 

agricultural land (215.7 acres), open land (169.5 acres), and developed land (23.9 acres). Approximately 

2.4 acres of forested land would also be affected by yards, and although 0.8 acres of wetlands would be 

within one yard, it would be roped off so that no impacts to it would occur. 

The pipe storage and contractor yards were located to minimize impacts to special-status and 

forested vegetative types. These proposed temporary construction sites are located in areas adjacent to 

developed lands and access roads in order to limit disturbance to larger or undeveloped parcels, and to 

limit the need for additional access roads. Minimal disturbance to the soil would be required during use 

of these sites. All pipe storage and contractor yards would be revegetated following construction, in 

accordance with Bison’s Plan or the landowner’s requests. 

Access Roads 

Bison proposes to use 230 existing access roads covering 476.0 acres for construction of the 

pipeline, with improvements to some roads as necessary to support movement of larger vehicles and loads 

(Appendix E). Of the 230 access roads to be used, 163 would be existing roads and 67 would be newly 

constructed roads. During operations, 22 access roads would be used to access the permanent right-ofway and facilities. Access roads used during construction would predominantly cross developed lands 

(382.0 acres), although an additional 82.1 acres of open land, 11.2 acres of agricultural land, 0.6 acre of 

upland forest, and less than 0.1 acre of non-forested wetlands also would be required. The use of existing 

access roads, where available, is intended to minimize the extent of disturbance required during road 

improvement and use; any improvements would be conducted in accordance with Bison’s Plan and 

Procedures and any applicable state or local requirements. 

3.5.2.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern 

Forty-one parcels of CRP lands would be crossed by the proposed Project. The CRP lands would 

be reseeded with an NRCS-approved seed mixture in order to meet the USDA CRP contract 

requirements. No permanent impacts are anticipated on CRP lands because they would be fully restored. 

Numerous riparian areas are within the proposed construction right-of-way, including 

105 riparian wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed Project (Appendices N and T), but would be 

allowed to recover after construction had been completed. During construction at waterbody crossings, 

the riparian zone up to 50 feet from the top of bank of each side of a stream crossing would not be cleared 

until just prior to clearing, except for a 10-foot wide working area that would be cleared to facilitate 

equipment travel at the crossings. 

3.5.2.3 Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

Noxious and invasive weeds that are located within the construction area would be eradicated and 

replaced with appropriate native vegetation following construction. Areas that have been identified by 

land management agencies would be controlled for weed species. Bison would conduct reclamation of 

disturbed areas in accordance with its Plan (Appendix F) and the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control 

Plan (Appendix L), and they would follow the POD approved for use on BLM lands. 

Bison’s Environmental Inspectors would check vehicles arriving at work sites to determine that 

they are free of soil or debris capable of transporting seeds or other propagules. Following construction, 

Bison would monitor and treat occurrences of noxious and invasive weed infestations on disturbed lands 

for 3 years, or until self-sustaining native vegetation communities had been re-established. 
3-69 

3.5.2.4 Operation Impacts 

Inspection of the pipeline would be conducted regularly, and inspection would require use of a 

dirt two-track road through the upland areas along the length of the proposed Project. Inspection of the 

right-of-way would not require vegetative maintenance and operational maintenance is not proposed for 

the Project. 

Periodically, the pipeline inspection could identify areas where re-coating or replacement of 

pipeline segments would be required under FERC maintenance policy. At these locations, the pipeline 

would be excavated; each site excavated would be restored to grade and revegetated with native grasses in 

accordance with Bison’s Plan and the landowner’s preference for seed mixtures. 

3.6 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

3.6.1 Fishery Resources 

3.6.1.1 Environmental Setting 

There would be a total of 279 waterbody crossings along the proposed Project route. As 

described in Section 3.3.2.1 and Appendix M, the large majority of these waterbodies are either 

intermittent (58 percent) or ephemeral (29 percent), and thus would not support fisheries year-round. 

During Bison’s field surveys, a total of 45 waterbodies were reported to have fish present (there would be 

a total of 53 crossing of these waterbodies since some waterbodies would be crossed more than once). 

While fish were not observed in most waterbodies, some intermittent waterbodies could provide 

important spawning habitat for several fisheries. A total of 19 waterbodies along the proposed Project 

route have been identified as supporting fisheries of special concern. 

Waterbodies are classified by state designations as supporting coldwater, coolwater, or 

warmwater fisheries. Information on each waterbody identified as supporting fisheries crossed by the 

proposed Project, including its location, width, state waterbody classifications, and proposed crossing 

methods, is included in Appendix M. Table 3.6.1-1 lists common fish species likely found in the 

waterbodies that would be affected by the proposed Project. 

Coolwater and warmwater fisheries may be found in perennial waterbodies and in prairie streams 

within the proposed Project region. Prairie streams are usually intermittent waterbodies that are important 

sources of freshwater in the arid and semi-arid Great Plains. Most of the fish found in prairie streams are 

minnows such as the brook stickleback and goldeye. Species found in these waterbodies are adapted to 

muddy water and the flooding and drought cycles common to prairie ecosystems. These fish are not 

typically considered sport or commercial fish species; however, they are valuable components of the 

ecosystem and an important food source for sport fish such as the sauger, northern pike, and walleye 

(MRA 2009). All prairie streams with water present at the time of crossing would be considered cool 

warmwater streams. The proposed Project would cross seasonal prairie streams and prairie riparian areas 

in Montana that include Ranch Creek (MP 84.3), East Fork Little Powder River (MP 96.6), Spring Creek 

(MP 116.6), and Cabin Creek (MP 135.8). No prairie stream or riparian locations with sufficient habitats 

to support fisheries were identified in Wyoming. One prairie stream location is identified in North 

Dakota at MP 180.6 (identified as an “unnamed waterbody”). 
3-70 

No waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project contain or have the potential to contain species 

managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. As a result, no essential fish habitat, as defined by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, would be affected by the proposed 

Project. Three waterbodies containing fisheries are listed on state 303d lists as impaired waterbodies 

(Little Powder River [MP 72.2], North Fork Cedar Creek [MP 222.7], and Thirty Mile Creek [MP 65.6]); 

TABLE 3.6.1-1 

Common Fish Species Occurring in the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Classification 

Bass Micropterus spp. Warmwater 

Bullhead (catfish) Ameiurus spp. Warmwater 

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Warmwater 

Brown trout Salmo trutta morpha fario Coldwater 

Buffalo fish Ictiobus spp. Warmwater 

Burbot Lota lota Coldwater 

Carpsucker Carpoides spp. Warmwater 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Warmwater 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio Warmwater 

Crappie Pomoxis spp. Warmwater 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Warmwater 

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki Coldwater 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Warmwater 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Warmwater 

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Warmwater 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Coldwater 

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Coldwater 

Northern pike Esox lucius Coldwater 

Paddlefish Polydon spathula Warmwater 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Coldwater 

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Warmwater 

Sauger Sander canadensis Warmwater 

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Warmwater 

Stonecat Noturus flavus Warmwater 

Sunfish Lepomis spp. Warmwater 

Tiger muskellunge Esox masquinongy Coldwater 

Walleye Sander vitreus Cool-warmwater 

White bass Morone chrysops Warmwater 

White sucker Catostomus commersonii Warmwater 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens Cool-warmwater 
3-71 

however, none of the waterbodies along the proposed route are known to have contaminated soils or are 

listed on EPA’s CERCLIS database of Superfund Information Systems or the National Priority List. 

Fisheries of Special Concern 

Fisheries of special concern include those waterbodies containing exceptional recreational or 

commercial fisheries, specially designated streams or rivers, and waterbodies supporting special-status 

species and spawning habitat. Bison would conduct observations at water crossings for evidence of active 

spawning or nursery areas prior to crossing construction or water removal. Where active spawning or 

nursery areas are identified, water removal would be relocated to upstream or downstream locations. The 

proposed Project would consist of 21 crossings of 19 waterbodies with various fisheries of special 

concern (two crossings in Wyoming, six in Montana, and 13 in North Dakota), as provided in 

Table 3.6.1-2. All coldwater fish species occurring within streams in the Project area are considered 

species of concern and include burbot, mountain whitefish, muskellunge, northern pike, and trout. One 

federally endangered fish species, the pallid sturgeon, may occur in open waters in Morton County, North 

Dakota. Federally threatened and endangered species and BLM sensitive species are discussed in 

Section 3.7. No fish species are commercially harvested within the Project area. 

The Bison Pipeline Project would cross four waterbodies with spawning aggregations for species 

of special concern: the Little Powder River (MP 72.2) in Wyoming and Cannonball River (MP 250.7), 

Hay Slough (MP 251.5), and Thirty Mile Creek (MP 265.6) in North Dakota. Warmwater species that 

may potentially spawn in these waterbodies include black bullhead, bluegill, brook stickleback, buffalo 

fish, channel catfish, carp, crappie, flathead catfish, green sunfish, largemouth bass, pumpkinhead, 

quillback carpsucker, river carpsucker, rock bass, short-nose gar, stone cat, white bass, white sucker, 

yellow bullhead, and yellow perch. Coldwater species that may potentially spawn in these waterbodies 

include brook trout, burbot, brown trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, muskellunge, northern pike, 

and rainbow trout. Spawning seasons for warmwater species are variable and species-specific, but 

spawning generally occurs between April and August and peaks in the summer. Spawning periods for 

various coldwater species occur February through November, peak in the spring or fall, and are species 

specific. 

3.6.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Pipeline Construction Impacts 

Of the 279 waterbody crossings for the proposed Project, 53 crossings would be constructed 

across 45 waterbodies identified as supporting fisheries. Construction of the proposed Project across 

these waterbodies could result in impacts to fisheries resources because of disturbance in and adjacent to 

the waterbody resulting in turbidity and sedimentation, and alteration of substrate and vegetation. Water 

withdrawals from the waterbodies during construction also could impact fisheries. Potential spills of 

fuels or other hazardous materials could impact fisheries during construction and operation. 
3-72 

TABLE 3.6.1-2 

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Waterbody 

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)a

Water 

Width

(feet)b WaterbodyTypec

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd Species/Reason for Designatione

Wyoming 

Twentymile Creek 24.5 8.0 P Open-cut-wet CW 

Little Powder River 72.2 10.0 P HDD CW, SSS, SH 

Montana 

Ranch Creek 84.3 5.0 I Open-cut-dry SSS 

East Fork Little Powder 

River 96.6 1.0 I Open-cut-dry SSS 

Unnamed tributary to 

Boxelder Creek 102.7 3.0 I Open-cut-wet SSS 

Boxelder Creek 114.3 10.0 P Open-cut-dry CW, SSS 

Spring Creek 116.6 8.0 P Open-cut-dry SSS 

Horse Creek 165.2 12.0 P Open-cut-dry CW, SSS 

North Dakota 

Little Missouri River 182.7 179.7 P HDD CW, SSS 

Seven Mile Creek 183.4 4.0 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Horse Creek 187.5 6.0 P Open-cut-dry CW, SSS 

Skull Creek 188.9 10.0 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Spring Creek 193.3 4.6 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Chanta Peta Creek 236.0 20.0 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Cannonball River 250.7 25.0 P Open-cut-dry CW, SH 

Hay Slough Creek 251.5 37.4 P Open-cut-dry CW, SH 

Thirty Mile Creek 265.6 30.0 P Open-cut-dry CW, SSS, SH 

Buffalo Creek 274.4 6.0 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Heart River 282.1 48.2 P HDD CW, SSS 

Beaver Creek 286.5 5.0 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Heart Butte Creek 292.3 1.5 P Open-cut-dry CW 

Notes: 

a

 Mileposts (MPs) are based on a desktop analysis of the proposed pipeline route (may not match those found in waterbody 

reports). 

b

 Water widths were determined by Bison during field surveys. Widths have been rounded and may not match those found in 

waterbody reports. 

c P = Perennial; I = Intermittent 

d All waterbodies with fisheries of special concern that are less than 30 feet wide at the time of crossing and are proposed to be 

crossed by the open-cut dry method would be crossed by flume methods. If the dam-and-pump method is determined to be 

appropriate, detailed and site-specific crossing plans would be filed with the Director of OEP. 

e

 CW = Coldwater species, SH = Spawning habitat, SSS= Special-status species 
3-73 

Waterbody Crossing Methods 

The scope of impacts to fisheries would depend on the construction method used to cross each 

waterbody, the existing conditions at each crossing location, the duration of instream activities, the 

seasonal timing of instream construction, and the mitigation measures used. Bison would potentially use 

six specific types of waterbody crossing methods that fall into three general categories due to the similar 

nature of impacts, including open-cut wet (open-cut and open-cut/push-pull), open-cut dry (flume or damand-pump), or dry crossing methods (HDD or horizontal bore). Bison does not currently propose to use 

the open-cut/push-pull or horizontal boring method to cross any waterbodies. No waterbody crossings are 

expected to require blasting. Minor waterbodies (less than 10 feet wide) and intermediate waterbodies 

(10 to 100 feet wide) would be crossed in 24 or 48 hours, respectively. Major waterbody crossings 

(greater than 100 feet across) would require site-specific crossing plans. The proposed Project route 

would cross only one major sensitive waterbody, the Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), in North Dakota. 

Two additional major waterbodies (MP 263.1 and MP 264.3) are proposed to be crossed; however, these 

waterbodies are man-made open-water ponds that are used for cattle grazing purposes and Bison would 

prepare site-specific crossing plans for all major waterbodies. 

Open-Cut Wet and Open-Cut Dry Crossings. Open-cut crossing methods (wet and dry) would 

increase turbidity and sedimentation in the crossing vicinity to varying degrees, which could decrease DO 

and potentially suffocate fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae, if present. Turbidity and sedimentation 

could displace more mobile species and could potentially smother eggs and benthic macroinvertebrates, 

which could decrease prey availability for larger fish. Impacts also could occur from removal or 

disturbance of riparian vegetation that provides habitat cover for fish. All of these effects could degrade 

the quality of aquatic habitats, making limited stretches temporarily unsuitable for spawning and 

aggregation. Removal of rocks, large woody debris, and vegetation within and adjacent to a waterbody 

during construction could decrease the habitat value by reducing the structure available for 

macroinvertebrate attachment and fish aggregation. Maintaining large woody debris is important because 

of its influence on channel development, sediment trapping and storage, oxygenation, and species habitat 

(Bragg et al. 2000). Although Bison has agreed to replace large woody debris temporarily removed 

during construction, we believe that additional measures may be warranted to ensure that the habitat 

functions of the large woody debris in the waterbodies are restored. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file locations where large woody debris would be removed 

and replaced in waterbodies. 

Loss of riparian cover would reduce shading of the waterbody, thereby increasing the temperature 

of the water at that location. Removal of riparian vegetation would also increase the likelihood of 

streambank erosion and the subsequent sedimentation of waterbodies. In accordance with its Procedures, 

Bison would limit wetland riparian impacts by reducing the width of the construction right-of-way to 

75 feet in these areas. Through minor and micro re-routes along the originally proposed construction 

right-of-way, Bison has avoided or minimized impacts to fisheries associated with construction through 

riparian areas (Appendix T). 

During construction, properly installed and maintained sediment controls would prevent or 

minimize sedimentation of waterbodies from the adjacent construction right-of-way. Immediately 

following instream construction, temporary erosion controls (such as silt fencing and hay bales) would be 

installed to further minimize sedimentation until the streambanks are restored. Bank stabilization would 

be completed within 24 hours of completing instream construction. Erosion control fabric and other 

mitigation measures would be used to improve the probability of successful revegetation and bank 

stabilization within disturbed areas.
3-74 

The season in which construction takes place can influence the degree of impacts associated with 

instream activities and increased sedimentation. Construction during periods of sensitive fish activity 

(such as spawning and migration) could cause a greater impact to fish than construction during other 

periods. As stated in Bison’s Procedures, instream construction (including water withdrawals) within 

coolwater and warmwater fisheries must occur between June 1 and November 30, and within coldwater 

fisheries between June 1 and September 30, unless otherwise permitted or restricted by an applicable 

agency. Adherence to these timing restrictions would minimize impacts to the fisheries during typical 

spawning periods. 

The open-cut wet construction method would result in the most impacts to waterbodies. 

Although Bison proposes to use open-cut wet methods for a total of 244 waterbody crossings along the 

proposed Project route, only 22 of these crossings were identified with fisheries (see Appendix M). 

Turbidity and sedimentation would result from instream construction activity, including trenching, if 

water was present or when initially wetted after construction. Bison would restore the streambeds to as 

close to pre-construction contours as possible. It is anticipated that most of these channels would be dry 

at the time of construction. 

Open-cut dry methods (dam-and-pump or flume) would be used at 28 perennial and intermittent 

waterbody crossings identified as supporting fisheries. Both open-cut dry crossing methods would 

maintain water flow by directing flow around or over the trench. Temporary impacts from sedimentation 

and turbidity generally would be limited to periods of active construction of the dams, in order to allow 

trenching of a relatively dry ditch. Benthic macroinvertebrates located in an area where water is diverted 

could experience direct adverse impacts due to sediment disturbance and/or the lack of water during 

open-cut dry construction. Through the use of the flume method, mobile species would experience little 

to no impact because species would be diverted around the work area. The dam-and-pump method would 

cause slightly more impacts to fish in early lifestages and macroinvertebrates, if present, through 

entrainment and/or impingement from the use of screened pump intakes. Larger lifestages or species 

could generally avoid entrainment and would likely avoid the area of active construction. 

HDD Crossings. Bison proposes to use HDDs for crossing three perennial waterbodies: the 

Little Powder River (MP 72.2), Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), and Heart River (MP 282.1). 

Successful HDD crossings generally would avoid direct impacts to the aquatic habitats and fisheries. 

However, if a frac-out were to occur within a waterbody during HDD activities, localized increased 

turbidity and sedimentation could smother benthic macroinvertebrates and cause more mobile species to 

temporarily be displaced. As described in Section 3.3, frac-outs typically occur in upland areas in the 

vicinity of the HDD entry or exit hole. Consequently, a release of drilling mud would likely not occur 

under or directly adjacent to the waterbody being crossed and any impacts would be limited by 

implementation of Bison’s HDD Plan (Appendix I). 

Fisheries of Special Concern 

There are 19 waterbodies (21 waterbody crossings) with fisheries of special concern along the 

proposed Project route. Bison would conduct open-cut dry crossings at 16 perennial or intermittent 

waterbody crossings with fisheries of special concern; HDD methods would be used at an additional three 

crossings of perennial waterbodies. In addition to adhering to the construction crossing window of June 1 

through September 30 for coldwater fisheries, Bison would use clean rock or native cobbles for the upper 

1 foot of trench backfill in all waterbodies that contain coldwater fisheries, as specified in its Procedures. 

As previously discussed, open-cut dry crossings would limit impacts to the waterbody by 

reducing the amount of turbidity and sedimentation, and HDD generally would avoid impacts to the 

waterbody. Bison has agreed to cross all waterbodies with fisheries of special concern that are less than 
3-75 

30 feet wide at the time of crossing by the open-cut dry flume method. Waterbodies with fisheries of 

special concern that are greater than 30 feet are proposed to be crossed by the open-cut dry dam-andpump method. In accordance with its Procedures, Bison would be required to attain approval from FERC 

prior to conducting this method at any waterbody that has been identified with potential fisheries of 

special concern. 

Bison proposes to cross two waterbodies with fisheries of special concern using the open-cut wet 

method: Twentymile Creek (MP 24.5) and an unnamed tributary to Boxelder Creek (MP 102.7), both 

intermittent waterbodies. We believe that the open-cut dry method is appropriate for minimizing impacts 

to fisheries of special concern. Therefore, to further ensure the protection of fisheries of special concern, 

we have recommended in Section 3.3.2.2 that Bison revise its plans to cross Twentymile Creek and the 

unnamed tributary to Boxelder Creek using an open-cut dry method or a comparable method that provides 

a similar level of protection to fisheries of special concern. 

Water Withdrawal and Uses 

Water withdrawal from waterbodies for hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and drilling mud 

could entrain larval stages of fishes and macroinvertebrates and small fish species. The withdrawal of 

water has the potential to affect fisheries through entrainment and/or impingement, which could result in 

the direct loss of fish in early lifestages and macroinvertebrates that are typically prey for larger fish. 

Bison currently proposes to withdraw water from four waterbodies supporting coldwater fisheries (see 

Section 3.6.1.2 for withdrawal location details). We recommend in Section 3.3.2.2 that Bison submit to 

FERC a finalized list of all water withdrawal locations and volumes as well as potential alternative 

locations for water withdrawals. 

The intakes for these withdrawals would be screened to limit the entrainment of species in the 

water column and would be kept off the stream bottom to minimize the intake of benthic organisms. 

Impacts to fisheries from water withdrawals would be minimized by implementation of our 

recommendation and Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G), Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K), and 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U). Specifically, these plans would require that adequate 

streamflow rates are maintained in order to protect fisheries. Hydrostatic test manifolds would be located 

outside riparian areas to the extent practical. The hydrostatic test water would not be treated with any 

additives. 

After the integrity of the pipeline is established, the hydrostatic test water would be discharged. 

To limit impacts, Bison would discharge hydrostatic test water to upland areas through an energydissipating device to prevent erosion, streambed scour, suspension of sediments, and increased 

downstream flow. We believe that these measures would adequately minimize impacts to fisheries 

associated with water discharge. 

Inadvertent Releases 

Fuels and other hazardous materials could spill or leak from equipment working in or near 

streams. To limit the potential for spills, Bison has prepared a draft SPCC Plan (Appendix H), which 

specifies preventive measures to be implemented, such as training all personnel that handle fuel and 

hazardous materials, as well as regular equipment inspection and maintenance. Bison would only allow 

equipment refueling in areas located outside of a 100-foot buffer (500-foot buffer on BLM lands) between 

fueling activities and waterbodies. Any activities required in the restricted areas would be verified and 

approved by an Environmental Inspector. 
3-76 

Operation Impacts 

Bison does not propose to conduct maintenance along the permanent right-of-way unless 

requested by an agency or landowner. In the event that there was infrequent cutting of vegetation along 

specific streambanks, impacts to fisheries would be minor. No aboveground facilities would be located 

adjacent to waterbodies; thus, no operation impacts would occur from aboveground facility operations. 

Fishery Resources Conclusions 

Overall, construction impacts to fisheries would be temporary and minor due to the relatively 

small area in which each waterbody would be affected. Through use of the HDD and open-cut dry 

crossing methods, the limited use of open-cut wet crossings for waterbodies with fisheries, compliance 

with timing restriction windows, adherence to our recommendations, and implementation of Bison’s 

Procedures, we believe that impacts to fishery resources would be minimized during construction of the 

proposed Project. No significant impacts to fisheries resources would be anticipated as a result of Project 

operations. 

3.6.2 Wildlife Resources 

The Bison Project area is inhabited by a diversity of animal taxa, including large and small 

mammals, raptors, waterfowl, game birds, non-game birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Table 3.6.2-1). 

Specific information is also provided for resources of special significance that occur in the Project area, 

including raptors and migratory birds, and managed and sensitive wildlife areas that would be affected by 

the Project. Potential impacts to these wildlife resources are discussed in Section 3.6.2.2. 

3.6.2.1 Environmental Setting 

The upland and wetland wildlife habitats that occur in the proposed Project area include open 

water; agricultural lands; forested uplands; scrub-shrub uplands; scrub-shrub and herbaceous wetlands; 

developed lands; and open space. No forested wetlands would be directly affected by construction or 

operation of the Project. The predominant wildlife habitats in the proposed Project area are open space, 

agricultural land, and scrub-shrub. These habitats provide local wildlife with areas for foraging, cover, 

and breeding. Vegetative species within these habitat types are described in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.5.1. 

Table 3.6.2-1 lists common game and non-game species that occur within wildlife habitats crossed by the 

proposed Project route. 

From a wildlife perspective, open-water habitats within the Project area include perennial and 

ephemeral rivers and streams, lakes, and ponds. Perennial waterbodies flow year-round and provide 

foraging and breeding habitat for many bird, mammal, and amphibian species. Ephemeral waterbodies 

flow only during wet times, but they provide necessary breeding habitat for amphibians. They are also 

foraging and shelter areas for birds, mammals, and amphibians. Lakes and ponds are usually large areas 

without emergent vegetation. Open water areas provide foraging and breeding habitat for waterfowl and 

other water birds, and provide shoreline habitat for a variety of other animals. These habitats are crucial 

for many species dependent on an aquatic environment, such as waterfowl, wading birds, amphibians, 

beaver, and mink. Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project route are specifically discussed in 

Section 3.3.2, and fisheries resources in these waterbodies are discussed in Section 3.6.1. 
3-77 

TABLE 3.6.2-1 

Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Common Namec

Scientific 

Name 

Open 

Water 

Agricultural 

Landa

Forested 

Upland 

ScrubShrub 

Wetland 

Herbaceous 

Wetland 

Open 

Spaceb Developed 

Mammals 

Elk* Cervus 

elaphus 

X X X 

Mule deer* Odocoileus 

hemionus 

X X X 

White-tailed deer* Odocoileus 

virginianus 

X X X X X 

Pronghorn* Antilocapra 

americana 

X X 

Badger* Taxidea 

taxus 

X X 

Mink* Mustela 

vison 

X X X 

Porcupine Erethizon 

dorsatum 

 X X 

Striped skunk Mephitis 

mephitis 

 X X X 

Big brown bat Eptesicus 

fuscus 

X X X X 

Cottontail rabbit* Sylvilagus 

spp.

X X X 

Eastern fox 

squirrel 

Sciurus 

niger 

 X X 

Black bear* Ursus 

americanus 

X X X 

Mountain lion* Puma 

concolor 

X X X 

Birds 

Canada goose* Branta 

canadensis 

X 

Mallard* Anas 

platyrhynch

os 

X X X X X 

Northern pintail* Anas acuta X X 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter 

cooperii 

 X 

Northern harrier* Circus 

cyaneus 

 X X 

Osprey* Pandion 

haliaetus 

X 

Red-tailed hawk* Buteo 

jamaicensis 

 X X X 

Turkey vulture Cathartes 

aura 

 X X X X 

Merlin* Falco 

columbarius 

 X X X 
3-78 

TABLE 3.6.2-1 (continued) 

Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Common Namec

Scientific 

Name 

Open 

Water 

Agricultural 

Landa

Forested 

Upland 

ScrubShrub 

Wetland 

Herbaceous 

Wetland 

Open 

Spaceb Developed 

Birds (continued) 

Prairie falcon Falco 

mexicanus 

 X 

Great-horned owl* Bubo 

viginianus 

 X X 

Long-eared owl Asio otus X X 

Gray partridge* Perdix 

perdix 

 X X 

Greater sagegrouse 

Centrocercu

s 

urophasian

us 

 X X 

Ring-necked 

pheasant* 

Phasianus 

colchicus 

 X X 

Wild turkey* Meleagris 

gallopavo 

 X X X 

Lark bunting* Calamospiz

a 

melanocory

s 

 X X 

Lark sparrow* Chondestes 

grammacus 

 X X 

Magpie* Pica 

hudsonia 

X X X X 

Mourning dove* Zenaida 

macroura 

 X X 

Raven Corvus 

corax 

 X X X X 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Bullsnake Pituophis 

catenifer 

sayi 

X X 

Common garter 

snake 

Thamnophi

s sirtalis 

 X X X X 

Eastern racer Coluber 

constrictor 

 X X 

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus 

viridis 

 X X 

Painted turtle Chrysemys 

picta 

X 

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus 

graciosus 

 X 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma 

tigrinum 

X X 

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris 

maculata 

X X 
3-79 

TABLE 3.6.2-1 (continued) 

Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Common Namec

Scientific 

Name 

Open 

Water 

Agricultural 

Landa

Forested 

Upland 

ScrubShrub 

Wetland 

Herbaceous 

Wetland 

Open 

Spaceb Developed 

Reptiles and Amphibians (continued) 

Woodhouse’s 

toad 

Bufo 

woodhousii 

X X 

Notes: 

 a Includes cropland and windbreaks. 

 b Includes grassland, rangeland, native grassland, scrub-shrub habitat, and non-forested open lands such as existing 

developed rights-of-way. 

 c Asterisk (*) indicates species with significant recreational, aesthetic, or commercial value. 

Sources: 

 Consultations with WGFD, MFWP, Montana Field Guide (2009), NDGFD, and FWS. 

Agricultural lands within the Project area are composed of both cropland and windbreaks. 

Cropland in the area consists of irrigated and non-irrigated alfalfa, corn, soybeans, and winter wheat, 

which offer some foraging habitat for wildlife by providing waste grain and insects. Windbreaks are 

treelines between agricultural fields that supply cover for bird, mammal, and reptile species and often 

serve as a movement corridor for larger species. Although generally not as diverse as other habitat types, 

agricultural lands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species, particularly edge species and those 

adapted to croplands. 

Forested uplands are broadleaf, coniferous, or mixed upland forests. They provide both interior 

and edge habitats that often attract different species based on habitat preferences. Interior forested 

habitats are secluded, wetter, cooler, and more stable; whereas, edge habitats are hotter, drier, and 

experience more extreme environmental fluxes. These edge habitats, or exterior forests, are also more 

prone to disturbance, such as windblow, fires, and insect infestations. Upland forests, both interior and 

exterior, provide roosting, nesting, breeding, foraging, and cover habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, 

and reptiles. 

Open space consists of grasslands, rangelands, native grasslands, and scrub-shrub uplands. 

Grasslands and rangelands in the Project area are fields maintained for livestock grazing. These fields 

provide mostly foraging habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, and reptiles that inhabit open areas. 

Native grasslands have been drastically reduced nationwide due to development, agriculture, and invasive 

species (Noss et al. 1995). They contain a larger variety of plant species than cultivated grasslands and 

thus are valuable to a wider range of wildlife species. Native grassland habitat is rare within the Project 

area, but provides foraging, breeding, nesting, and cover habitat for mammal, bird, and reptile species. 

Species diversity is generally very high in native compared to cultivated grassland. Scrub-shrub uplands 

consist of short, woody vegetation, including sagebrush, greasewood, tree saplings, and stunted trees. 

They also contain areas of bunch grasses that are more open. This upland habitat is particularly important 

to sagebrush obligate species, such as the greater sage-grouse and sage sparrow. Scrub-shrub also 

provides foraging habitat for many mammals, raptors, and game birds. This habitat has been severely 

degraded by invasive plants, agriculture, energy development, and transportation infrastructure 

(Thompson 2007). 

Non-forested wetlands include scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands. Scrub-shrub wetlands 

contain similar habitat structure as scrub-shrub uplands, but are much wetter and contain different plant 
3-80 

species. Many of the tree, shrub, and plant species in scrub-shrub wetlands are hydrophytic, or able to 

withstand wet conditions. Scrub-shrub wetlands provide roosting, nesting, breeding, foraging, and cover 

habitat for mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Herbaceous, or emergent, wetlands have little tree 

or shrub cover with a greater amount of emergent vegetation than forested or scrub-shrub wetlands. 

Herbaceous wetlands provide cover, foraging, breeding, and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species, including mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. This habitat type also provides stopover 

sites for migratory birds to rest and forage and provides important breeding habitats for invertebrates. 

Many herbaceous wetlands contain pockets of upland habitat or open water habitat, allowing for great 

diversity of species within a small area. 

Developed land consists of residential, industrial, and other areas developed for human use. The 

Project area contains developed industrial areas and some lightly developed farming operations, but no 

heavily developed residential areas are located along the proposed Project right-of-way. Developed lands 

generally do not have diverse vegetative communities or provide substantial forage or cover for wildlife. 

They may be used by some wildlife species that are well adapted to human activity, such as white-tailed 

deer and eastern fox squirrels, but these areas are not considered to provide significant value as wildlife 

habitat. Some developed areas, however, can serve as roosting habitat for certain species of bats. Mines 

and abandoned buildings can be especially important hibernacula in areas where natural roosting sites, 

such as old-growth snags and caves, do not occur, have disappeared, or have been disturbed. 

Managed and Sensitive Wildlife Habitats 

Certain wildlife habitat types are classified as sensitive or are managed by BLM; Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; or North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. These habitats include big game migration routes, crucial winter range, raptor nests, greater 

sage-grouse leks, and sharp-tailed grouse leks. Greater sage-grouse populations are currently under 

review for listing under the ESA; therefore greater sage-grouse leks are discussed in Section 3.7. 

Migration Routes 

Migration is an important aspect of the life history of many species throughout the Project area, 

including birds and large mammals. Big game species are the most common mammalian migrants; they 

typically do not migrate long distances, but move seasonally between different habitat types for foraging 

purposes. Elk, pronghorn, and mule deer spend the summer in the mountains when food is readily 

available and the topography makes it easier to elude predators. They move down the mountains to 

sagebrush grasslands in winter once the snow in the mountains makes it difficult to find food. This 

seasonal movement creates wildlife corridors, which are reliable routes that provide crucial forage 

between summer and winter grounds. Most of the big game species in Montana and North Dakota do not 

migrate, but make short, local moves to increase their foraging potential throughout the year. Two 

pronghorn migration corridors have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed Project in 

Wyoming (Feeney et al. 2004); however, no migration corridors would be crossed by the proposed 

Project. 

Crucial Winter Ranges 

Crucial winter ranges include habitat used by mule deer, elk, and pronghorn during the winter 

months when other habitat is covered by large amounts of snow. This habitat usually consists of 

sagebrush or grassland that provides forage that cannot be found elsewhere in winter. These ranges are 

generally abandoned in summer as the animals move up in elevation to more desirable summer foraging 

grounds. Several crucial winter ranges would be crossed by the proposed Project, including four mule 

deer ranges, six pronghorn ranges, and two white-tailed deer ranges. 
3-81 

Raptor Nests 

Raptor nests can be constructed from many different materials and inhabited by different species 

from year to year, although many species return to the same nest in subsequent years. Nests are often 

built on cliffs, tall trees, or snags where the chicks will be safe from predators and where a wide view is 

provided over hunting grounds. Some species also will nest on artificial nest platforms, such as those 

constructed specifically for osprey. Most raptor nests are protected with a 0.5-mile construction buffer 

between February 1 and July 31; eagle nests are protected with a buffer of 0.5 mile year-round and 

1.0 mile while the nest is occupied, generally from February 1 to August 15. 

The proposed Project route crosses 100 raptor nest buffer zones, 38 of which are occupied. The 

occupied nests include one burrowing owl nest buffer zone, four ferruginous hawk nest buffer zones, 

17 great horned owl nest buffer zones, 13 red-tailed hawk buffer zones, one prairie falcon nest buffer 

zone, and two golden eagle nest buffer zones. 

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Leks 

Leks are portions of open area in a mosaic of scrub-shrub habitat where sharp-tailed grouse 

congregate to mate. Male sharp-tailed grouse converge on these areas in spring and strut to win as many 

mates as possible (NatureServe 2009a). The majority of females nest within approximately 0.6 mile from 

the lek in areas with dense vegetation and rear the young in the surrounding area. Some females, 

however, have nested more than 1 mile from the nearest lek (NatureServe 2009a). The species generally 

requires large areas of undisturbed contiguous habitat for breeding and raising young. Disturbance of 

these areas, regardless of the time of year, could affect the reproductive success of these species in the 

Project area. The birds also return to the same leks year after year. If leks are destroyed or disturbed, the 

reproductive success of certain populations of the birds could be severely impacted and the birds would 

sustain short term or long term effects (MFWP 2009a, NatureServe 2009a). The proposed Project route 

crosses six sharp-tailed grouse lek buffer zones. 

Raptors and Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States and Canada during the summer and 

migrate south to the United States, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for the winter 

season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Executive Order 

(EO) 13186, which serve to protect migratory birds from adverse impacts. The EO was enacted to ensure 

that the environmental analysis of federal actions by agencies within the Executive Branch evaluate the 

impacts of that action on migratory birds. It states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, 

priority habitat, and key risk factors. It also prohibits the taking of migratory birds without authorization 

from FWS. Destruction or disturbance of a migratory bird nest, or any eggs or young contained within, is 

also a violation of the MBTA. 

The Central Flyway and portions of the Mississippi Flyway pass through the states crossed by the 

pipeline and migratory birds pass through the Project area. No areas of special importance for bird 

conservation identified by FWS, Great Plains Joint Venture, Intermountain West Joint Venture, or the 

Audubon Society are known to occur within the Project area (TPWD 2007). Migratory birds of 

conservation concern and other important migratory birds that potentially occur in the Project area are 

listed in Table 3.6.2-2, along with their associated habitats. As many species of migratory birds are also 

considered sensitive by BLM and the affected states, sensitivity classifications are provided in 

Table 3.6.2-2. Federally listed migratory bird species are discussed in Section 3.7. 
3-82 

TABLE 3.6.2-2 

Important Migratory Bird Species in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Classification by 

Stateb

Common Name Scientific Name WYc

 MTd NDe

Additional 

Designationsf Preferred Habitatg

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis X X 

NSS4 S3 

 BLM-SS Mixed successional 

forest 

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii X X X 

S3B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Native prairie, 

grasslands 

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus X X 

leconteii 

X 

S3B II 

BCC; BLM-SS Wet meadows 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed X X 

sparrow 

Ammodramus nelsoni X 

S3B I 

BLM-SS Densely vegetated 

wetlands 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus X X X 

savannarum NSS4 S3B I 

BCC Mosaic of bare and 

vegetated 

grasslands 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli X X 

NSS4 S3B 

X BLM-SS Prairies and foothills 

containing 

sagebrush 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos X X X 

S3 II 

BCC; BLMSS; BGEPA Prairies and open 

woodlands near 

cliffs 

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii X X X 

S3B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Native prairie 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus X X 

NSS4 

X 

II 

BCC Open grasslands, 

plains, and 

agricultural areas 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia X X X 

NSS4 S3B II 

BCC; BLM-SS Open grasslands 

interspersed with 

bare areas 

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda X X 

NSS4 

X 

I 

BCC Mosaic of vegetated 

and bare dry 

grasslands 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X X X 

NSS3 S3B I 

BCC Wetlands with tall 

emergent vegetation 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis X X X 

NSS3 S3B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Open land and 

shrubland 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni X X 

NSS4 

X 

I 

BLM-SS Bottomland forests, 

grasslands, 

agricultural areas 

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii X X X 

NSS4 S3B III 

BCC; BLM-SS Shortgrass prairie 
3-83 

TABLE 3.6.2-2 (continued) 

Important Migratory Bird Species in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Classification by 

Stateb

Common Name Scientific Name WYc

 MTd NDe

Additional 

Designationsf Preferred Habitatg

Chestnut-collared X X X 

longspur 

Calcarius ornatus 

NSS4 S2B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Native prairie 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus X X 

americanus NSS2 S3B 

X Riparian drainages 

Piping plover Charadius melodus X X 

S2B II 

FT Open sandy areas 

and flats along 

rivers, lakes, ponds, 

and marshes 

Mountain plover Charadius montanus X X 

NSS4 S2B 

X BCC; BLM-SS Migrant; heavily 

grazed prairie 

Black tern Chlidonias niger X X X 

NSS3 S3B I 

BLM-SS Wetlands, marshes, 

prairie potholes, and 

small ponds 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis X X X 

S3B II 

BLM-SS Grasslands and 

savannahs 

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus X X 

erythropthalmus 

X 

S3B I 

BCC Thick forests near 

water 

Yellow rail Coturnicops X X 

noveboracensis 

X 

S3B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Sedge meadows 

and wetlands with 

significant water 

fluctuation 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus X X X 

II 

BCC Grasslands and 

prairies near cliffs 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus X X X 

NSS3 S3B III 

BCC; BLM-SS Lakes, rivers, and 

wet meadows 

Common loon Gavia immer X X 

NSS1 S3B 

X BLM-SS Large lakes with 

small islands 

Whooping crane Grus americana X X 

S1M III 

FE Croplands, 

marshes, edges of 

lakes, and 

reservoirs 

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus X 

cyanocephalus 

X 

S3 

 BCC Pinyon-juniper 

woodland and 

scrub-shrub 

Bald eagle Haliaetus X X X 

leucocephalus NSS2 S3 II 

BLM-SS; 

BGEPA 

Riparian and 

lacustrine habitats 
3-84 

TABLE 3.6.2-2 (continued) 

Important Migratory Bird Species in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Classification by 

Stateb

Common Name Scientific Name WYc

 MTd NDe

Additional 

Designationsf Preferred Habitatg

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus X X X 

S3B II 

BLM-SS Mixed shrub/brush 

with thorny 

vegetation 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus X X X 

pipixcan NSS3 S3B I 

BLM-SS Large prairie-marsh 

complexes 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa X X X 

I 

BCC; BLM-SS Native grassland 

and wetlands 

Red-headed X X 

woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

X 

S3B II 

BLM-SS Riparian forest and 

savannahs 

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis X X 

NSS3 S2B 

X BCC Bottomland forest 

and forest edges 

Long-billed curlew Numenius X X X 

americanus NSS3 S3B I 

BCC; BLM-SS Expansive 

grasslands 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes X X 

montanus NSS4 S3B 

X BLM-SS Sagebrush plains 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor X X X 

I 

BLM-SS Lakes, ponds, and 

flooded fields 

Black-backed X X 

woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus 

NSS4 S3 

X BLM-SS Boreal and montane 

coniferous forest 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi X X 

NSS3 S3B 

X BLM-SS Wetlands with 

emergent vegetation 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus X X X 

S3B I 

BCC Large bodies of 

open water, breed in 

shallow freshwater 

ponds and marshes 

Dickcissel Spiza americana X X 

NSS4 

X 

II 

BCC; BLM-SS Grasslands, 

meadows, 

savannah, and 

agricultural land 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri X X X 

NSS4 S3B III 

BCC; BLM-SS Sagebrush 

shrubland 

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum X X 

athalassos 

S1B II 

FE Sparsely vegetated 

sandy, gravelly, or 

silty beaches or 

sandbars in wide 

rivers or flats 
3-85 

TABLE 3.6.2-2 (continued) 

Important Migratory Bird Species in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Classification by 

Stateb

Common Name Scientific Name WYc

 MTd NDe

Additional 

Designationsf Preferred Habitatg

Willet Trainga semipalmata X X X 

I 

BLM-SS Prairies, grasslands, 

and wetlands with 

short grasses 

Notes: 

a

 List compiled from aggregate of lists provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) field offices, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks Department, and North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

b

 “X” denotes presence in the particular state; other notation indicates status of species in that state. 

c

 Wyoming status ranks. NSS1 – populations greatly restricted or declining, extirpation possible, or ongoing significant loss of 

habitat; NSS2 – populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent, ongoing significant 

loss of habitat; NSS3 – populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent, habitat 

restricted or vulnerable but no recent or ongoing significant loss, species likely sensitive to human disturbance; NSS4 – 

populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent, habitat not restricted, habitat vulnerable 

but no loss, species not sensitive to human disturbance. 

d Montana status ranks. S1B – at high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or 

habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state, refers to breeding population of species in 

Montana; S1M – at high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, making it 

highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state, species occurs in Montana only during migration; S2B – at risk 

because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or

extirpation in the state, refers to breeding population of species in Montana; S3 – potentially at risk because of limited and 

potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas; S3B – potentially at risk 

because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas, 

refers to breeding population of species in Montana. 

e

 North Dakota status ranks. I – species in greatest need of conservation; II – species in need of conservation but that have 

had support from other wildlife programs; III – species in moderate need of conservation but that are on the edge of their 

range in North Dakota. 

f

 Other federal status designations. BCC – FWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 17 – Badlands 

and Prairies; BLM-SS – BLM sensitive species; BGEPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FT – FWS threatened; FE – 

FWS endangered. 

g Habitat descriptions from NatureServe and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (NatureServe 2009b, TPWD 2008). 

Bald and Golden Eagles 

Both bald eagles and golden eagles occur in the Project area. The bald eagle was removed from 

the federal list of threatened and endangered species in June 2007 due to recovery and is no longer 

protected under the ESA. The species is currently protected under both the MBTA and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), both of which prohibit the direct or indirect take, possession, 

commerce, or disturbance of bald eagles or any of their parts, including eggs, nests, and feathers. In 

addition, bald eagles are special-status species in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. 

Golden eagles are ranked as special-status species in both Montana and North Dakota; they also 

occur in Wyoming, but are not listed as a special-status species in Wyoming. They are protected just as 

bald eagles are protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA. 
3-86 

Raptors and Other Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern 

Additional migratory birds of particular concern to BLM and the affected states include, but are 

not limited to, raptors other than eagles that inhabit the Project area, the burrowing owl, and the mountain 

plover. Other raptors of conservation concern could include red-tailed hawks, ferruginous hawks, 

Swainson’s hawks, prairie falcons, great-horned owls, northern harriers, and merlins. 

Raptor nests are considered sensitive wildlife habitat and are discussed above; nests in the general 

Project area are commonly located in tall trees or on cliffs. Some species, such as the red-tailed hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, and peregrine falcon, nest in developed areas, although most raptors are not as well 

adapted to human activity. 

The burrowing owl resides in all three states in the Project area, is a special-status species in all 

three states, and is a BLM-sensitive species. Burrowing owls have been recorded in the Project area; they 

are often associated with prairie dog towns, many of which are located along the Project route (specific 

locations of prairie dog towns can be found in Table 3.7.1-4). Nesting generally occurs from April 1 to 

August 15, coinciding with Project construction schedules. 

The mountain plover is an inhabitant of all three states affected by the proposed Project, is a 

special-status species in Wyoming and Montana, and is a BLM sensitive species. Mountain plovers, 

similar to burrowing owls, often nest in prairie dog towns. Nesting generally occurs between May 1 and 

June 30. 

3.6.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of the proposed Project, including the construction right-of-way, EWSs, 

aboveground facilities, pipe storage/contractor yards, and access roads, would temporarily disturb 

5,830.9 acres. Of this, construction would impact 3,590.3 acres of open space (including 1,272.9 acres of 

scrub-shrub lands), 1,671.4 acres of agricultural land, and 489.1 acres of developed land — along with 

small amounts of non-forested wetlands (16.2 acres), upland forested lands (57.8 acres), and open water 

(6.1 acres). 

The impact of the proposed Project on wildlife species and their habitats would vary depending 

on the life history of each species and the habitat present along the proposed pipeline route. During 

construction, more mobile species would be temporarily displaced from the construction right-of-way and 

surrounding areas to similar habitat nearby. Some wildlife displaced from the right-of-way would return 

to the newly disturbed area and adjacent, undisturbed habitats after completion of construction. Less 

mobile species, such as small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and nesting birds, may experience direct 

mortality or permanent displacement. Potential impacts to wildlife could result from clearing of 

vegetation; alteration of the landscape from scraping the ground, soil disturbance, and recontouring; 

blasting; deposition of trash and debris; use of chemicals and herbicides; conflicts with vehicles; human 

presence; activities associated with trenching; increased predation; and habitat fragmentation. 

Clearing of vegetation on the construction right-of-way and EWSs would reduce cover, foraging, 

breeding, and nesting habitat for some wildlife. The degree of impact would depend on the type of 

habitat affected and the rate at which the area recovers after disturbance from construction. The impact to 

species that commonly inhabit agricultural lands would be relatively minor and temporary because these 

areas are regularly disturbed and would be replanted during the growing season following pipeline 

installation. The effect on species that rely on open land habitats other than scrub-shrub would be 
3-87 

similarly affected as the habitat would be expected to recover within about one to three years following 

disturbance. Areas of scrub-shrub may be affected on a longer-term basis; sagebrush would require more 

time to recover following disturbance due to its slow growth rate and long lifespan (NRCS 2009). 

Additional information on the expected recovery time of vegetation is provided in Section 3.5.2. Scrubshrub habitat and the species that inhabit these areas, especially sagebrush obligate species, would incur 

long term impacts over 1,272.9 acres from construction of the proposed Project. The effect on forestdwelling and forested wetland-dwelling wildlife species would also be long term, as forested lands take 

decades to return to pre-construction conditions. The permanent footprint of the proposed Project in 

upland forest would be 19.0 acres. No impacts are expected for forested wetlands. All other forested 

areas impacted during construction would be allowed to re-establish following construction, but impacts 

to these areas would generally constitute a permanent impact, as the habitat may not fully re-establish 

during the life of the Project. The impacts to species using non-forested areas would be short term 

because herbaceous lands, riparian vegetation, and vegetated portions of developed lands would generally 

recover quickly if normal hydrologic conditions prevail following construction. Therefore, minimal 

impacts to wildlife are expected from the reduction of the vegetative communities. 

The alteration of the landscape through removal of vegetation, scraping of the ground, soil 

disturbance, and recontouring would reduce seed banks, would disturb soil-dwelling species, and could 

alter water flows over ground. The degree of impact would depend on the species. Soil-dwelling 

invertebrates would be impacted directly through movement of soil from one place to another, resulting in 

some mortality and displacement. This could reduce the forage potential for insectivores that inhabit the 

area. Other animals would be indirectly affected through the reduction in seed banks, resulting in longer 

recovery times for vegetation that could provide forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Recontouring the land 

could result in changes to overland water flow, resulting in some areas becoming wetter than normal and 

others drier. This could affect surface water supplies and change vegetative cover in areas, which could 

result in certain species avoiding areas they previously inhabited. These impacts, however, are expected 

to be minimal due to the temporary nature and limited extent of construction in the Project area. Bison 

would restore the construction right-of-way to pre-construction conditions; therefore, impacts would be 

temporary or short term. 

Blasting may be required along less than 2 percent of the pipeline route. Blasting impacts could 

include removal of adjacent habitat, direct mortality of wildlife, injury of wildlife in the vicinity of the 

blasts, noise disturbance, and dust and rock fragments thrown off by the blasts. These impacts would be 

minimized by implementation of Bison’s Blasting Plan (Appendix J), which discusses dust abatement, 

noise mitigation, and flyrock mitigation. 

Trash and debris could impact wildlife by enticing certain species to eat contaminated or 

dangerous items; providing a feeding area where animals come into close contact and can spread disease; 

or condensing animals into a small area, attracting predators. It also could impact wildlife by encouraging 

certain species to move into areas where humans are working, resulting in potential wildlife-human 

interaction and conflict. Bison indicated that wildlife-proof trash canisters would be used, if necessary, 

and were requested by the states to minimize impacts to wildlife from trash and debris. With the use of 

these canisters, impacts related to trash and debris are expected to be minimal and temporary. 

The use of chemicals and herbicides could directly impact wildlife through direct ingestion or 

ingestion of contaminated material. If chemicals or herbicides are stored near or placed in the same 

container as any material that would attract wildlife, certain species could potentially ingest the chemicals 

inadvertently. In addition, if certain plants are treated with herbicides or chemicals are spilled in an area, 

wildlife could eat contaminated plant material, resulting in potential illness or mortality. The impacts 

from chemicals or herbicides are expected to be minimal through adherence to Bison’s SPCC Plan 

(Appendix H), Bison’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L), and use of wildlife-proof 
3-88 

trash canisters for disposal of potentially contaminated items and containers. If individual animals do 

incur some impacts, the impacts would be temporary or short term for the population as a whole. 

Traffic on paved and unpaved roads during construction could cause an increase in wildlifevehicle collisions. Highly mobile species could experience an increase in direct mortality from increased 

vehicle traffic on new or improved roads during construction. Due to the short timeframe of construction, 

impacts to wildlife from increased vehicular traffic are expected to be minor. An increase in truck traffic 

also could become an issue during hunting season, as the increase could affect normal movement patterns 

of big game species and affect hunter success. To mitigate the effect of truck traffic on hunting, Bison 

would restrict large truck activities during the opening weekend of big game seasons in all three states 

affected by the proposed Project. Specifically, large truck activities would be limited to the hours 

between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to avoid prime hunting hours. The restriction would apply to county 

and secondary roads but would not be applied to state or interstate highways. 

In addition to direct impacts from blasting, noise, and trash disposal, wildlife could be affected by 

general human presence. Many species of wildlife tend to avoid areas where humans are and this could 

cause certain species to avoid migration corridors or migratory stopover areas, avoid nesting areas, or 

avoid certain habitats altogether and potentially become displaced. These impacts, however, are expected 

to be minimal and short term with adherence to timing restrictions for construction, construction buffers, 

and requirements in Bison’s Plan and Procedures regarding mitigation and habitat restoration. 

Trenching activities and the spoil piles generated during construction could create potential traps 

for wildlife species and barriers to movement for less mobile species. Wildlife could fall into trenches 

associated with the proposed Project; and spoil piles could create barriers to some less mobile species, 

such as small reptiles and amphibians. To minimize potential impacts, Bison would fill trenches within 

2 to 5 weeks of commencement of use and would install escape ramps every 0.25 mile along game trails 

to facilitate the escape of trapped animals. With implementation of Bison’s Plan and installation of 

escape ramps, impacts from open trenches and spoil piles are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Increased predation could occur during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline due to 

the removal of vegetation and increased line of sight over large areas. Many animals may also choose to 

use the right-of-way as a travel corridor, artificially concentrating individuals into a small area with high 

risk of predation. Although the potential for this impact exists, the proposed Project would not likely 

increase predation to the extent that populations would decline. 

Construction of the proposed Project would cause habitat fragmentation, especially in forested 

areas and scrub-shrub habitats. Fragmentation can alter the species composition in a given community 

because biophysical conditions near the edge can significantly differ from those found in the center of the 

area. As a result, edge species could recruit to the fragmented area, and species that occupy interior 

habitats could be displaced. The disturbance of these areas could create a long term impact to some 

species that require undisturbed, interior habitats, such as the sharp-tailed grouse. Other species that 

could be adversely affected by the long term or permanent conversion of forested and sagebrush habitat to 

other habitat types include certain migratory birds, discussed below, as well as various other birds, small 

mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Forested habitat comprises approximately 1 percent of the total 

Project area; therefore, it is unlikely that this forest is unfragmented. Impacts to forested habitat and the 

wildlife species that inhabit these areas are expected to be minimal due to the small percentage affected 

during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. 

Disturbance and fragmentation of scrub-shrub habitat could negatively impact certain species that 

require large tracts of habitat, especially for breeding and nesting. Disturbance and fragmentation of 

habitat could reduce pairing success and the number of available nesting areas; encourage the expansion 
3-89 

of non-native species; and inhibit migration, dispersal, foraging, and other movements of sagebrushobligate species. Fragmentation also could increase rates of nest predation, parasitism, or interspecific 

competition. Migration of birds and large mammals could be affected by fragmentation through the 

reduction of forage and cover and the provision of opportunities for noxious weeds to invade. If noxious 

weeds outcompete native vegetation, crucial habitat for breeding and foraging for many species, 

especially sagebrush-obligate species, could be reduced or eliminated. Impacts from noxious weeds are 

discussed in Section 3.5. Scrub-shrub areas would be allowed to revegetate in the right-of-way naturally 

and by reseeding, but may not be allowed to fully regenerate in areas with aboveground facilities or 

permanent access roads. These impacts would be mostly temporary with some short and long term 

effects. 

Riparian habitats are important components of the larger ecosystem, as the proposed Project 

occurs in a semi-arid landscape. These habitats provide shelter, foraging areas, breeding and nesting 

areas, and roosting areas for many species of birds, mammals (both large and small), reptiles, and 

amphibians. The structure and function of these riparian habitats are important to preserve, as most of the 

wildlife species in the area are somewhat, if not fully, dependent on the resources they provide. Potential 

impacts to wildlife from the removal of riparian habitat include temporary displacement of species to 

adjacent suitable habitat and alteration of migration routes by mammals and birds, especially waterfowl. 

Although broad-scale fragmentation does not generally occur in riparian habitats, fragmentation of a 

riparian zone during construction could impact the structure and function of the habitat as a whole and, 

therefore, affect certain wildlife species — especially those with small ranges such as some amphibian 

species (Krueper 2000). With implementation of Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G), which describes 

measures to minimize impacts to waterbodies and their associated riparian areas, these impacts are 

expected to be minor and short term. Riparian areas in the western United States are an important habitat 

for the majority of wildlife species; Bison made efforts to minimize impacts to these areas by routing 

around them as much as practical (Appendix T). Therefore, in addition to implementation of Bison’s 

Plan, these efforts would render most impacts temporary and short term. Specific impacts to riparian 

areas crossed by the proposed Project route are discussed in detail in Section 3.3. 

In addition to the habitat-specific impacts and mitigation measures discussed above, Congress 

charged each state and territory with developing a statewide wildlife conservation strategy, called a “State 

Wildlife Action Plan” or a “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy,” which identifies species and 

habitats of greatest conservation need and outlines the necessary actions to protect them. Each state’s 

State Wildlife Action Plan and the appropriate state coordinator would be consulted in order to minimize 

impacts to wildlife resources. Bison intends to comply with these plans and minimize impacts by 

following mitigation measures outlined in them. 

Operation Impacts 

Land within the permanent right-of-way, at aboveground facility locations, and certain access 

road locations would be permanently encumbered by the proposed Project. This would include 

1,238.4 acres of open lands (including 446.3 acres of scrub-shrub), 568.8 acres of agricultural land, and 

19.0 acres of forested lands — along with 10.1 acres of non-forested wetlands, 49.4 acres of developed 

lands, and 3.0 acres of open water. Of these acreages, the vast majority would be within the permanent 

right-of-way and would be allowed to revegetate following construction; however, a total of 20.2 acres of 

agricultural land, 5.6 acres of open land, and 29.8 acres of developed land would be permanently 

converted or maintained as developed land. The herbaceous vegetation would be expected to recover 

within about 3 years, aside from the areas where aboveground facilities and permanent access roads 

would be constructed. Woody shrubs and trees would take longer to recover following construction and, 

therefore, would experience longer-term effects. Waterbodies would not be permanently affected, but the 

3.0 acres shown to be impacted would be located within the permanent right-of-way. 
3-90 

Most of the proposed Project area is located in habitat types that would be expected to recover 

within approximately 3 years following disturbance, except for forested and scrub-shrub areas. 

Therefore, permanent displacement due to operation of the pipeline following revegetation is not expected 

to result in a major impact. Potential impacts to wildlife could result from human presence, increased 

predation, and habitat fragmentation. 

Approximately 446.3 acres of scrub-shrub habitat and the species that inhabit these areas, 

especially sagebrush obligate species, would occur within the footprint of the proposed Project. The 

permanent footprint in upland forest would be 19.0 acres, or approximately 1 percent of the total Project’s 

permanent footprint. No forested wetlands would be impacted. Since a minimal percentage of the Project 

area is forested, minimal impacts to wildlife are expected from reduction of forest cover during operation 

of the proposed Project. Species that inhabit scrub-shrub habitat may experience more displacement 

during operation of the proposed Project, as a greater percentage of the Project area is scrub-shrub habitat. 

Wildlife could also be affected by general human presence during operation of the proposed 

Project. Many species of wildlife tend to avoid areas where humans are and this could cause certain 

species to avoid migration corridors or migratory stopover areas, avoid nesting areas, or avoid certain 

habitats altogether and potentially become displaced. These impacts, however, are expected to be 

minimal after construction since monitoring will be accomplished by a minimal number of people and 

right-of-way maintenance is not expected. 

Increased predation could occur during operation of the proposed pipeline due to the removal of 

woody vegetation during construction and the resulting increased line of sight. Many animals may 

choose to use the right-of-way as a travel corridor, artificially concentrating individuals into a small area 

with high risk of predation. Although the potential for this impact exists, the proposed Project would not 

likely increase predation to the extent that populations would decline.

Specific Impacts 

Migration corridors and crucial winter ranges for big-game mammals and sharp-tailed grouse leks 

are sensitive or managed wildlife habitats identified within the Project area. In addition, surveys were 

conducted for several BLM-sensitive species including sharp-tailed grouse, bald and golden eagles, and 

other raptors. 

Migration Corridors 

Big-game migration corridors are important foraging areas and movement routes for big-game 

mammals as well as various other wildlife species that use game trails. No long-distance migration is 

undertaken by big-game species in Montana or North Dakota; but elk, pronghorn, and mule deer migrate 

from winter ranges to summer ranges in Wyoming. Two pronghorn migration corridors have been 

identified in the Project area through desktop analysis (Feeney et al. 2004); however, these two corridors 

would not be directly impacted by construction. Although the impacts to migration corridors are expected 

to be minimal, potential indirect impacts to wildlife could include noise disturbance, dust accumulation 

from various construction activities, and fragmentation of contiguous habitat, which could result in 

avoidance of parts of the migration corridor or movement that is slower than normal. If disturbance is 

extended over a long period, loss of knowledge of migratory routes could occur. This process usually 

occurs over generations as young animals fail to learn the migratory routes necessary to travel to the most 

productive winter and summer grounds (Heffelfinger et al. 2006). The loss of migration knowledge is not 

expected to occur, as most of the impacts would be temporary during construction and dissipate over time 

and the right-of-way width is relatively small and easily crossed, relative to the areas of undisturbed open 

space routinely crossed by big game in the region. 
3-91 

Policy Resolution 07-01, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in 

the West was approved by the Western Governors Association in February 2007. This resolution 

provides background on the importance of wildlife corridors and crucial habitat to both the ecological and 

economic health of western states. The resolution requests that the western states; federal agencies; state 

agencies; and other stakeholders, such as private industry and conservation groups, work together to 

identify important wildlife corridors and crucial habitat and to make recommendations for policy tools 

that would protect these habitats. Because no migration corridors would be crossed by the proposed 

Project, Bison would not need to participate in the resolution. 

Crucial Winter Ranges 

In total, 54.8 miles of crucial winter range would be crossed by the Project, including 30.1 miles 

of pronghorn winter range, 15.4 miles of mule deer winter range, and 9.4 miles of white-tailed deer winter 

range. Temporary construction impacts to crucial winter range would amount to approximately 

926.5 acres. Most construction activities are proposed from May to November, but some overlap of 

construction and winter range use could occur in early December if not prohibited by seasonal 

stipulations. To minimize potential effects on winter ranges, Bison would restrict construction in these 

areas between December 1 and March 31, when the habitat is in full use. In addition, construction 

activities at aboveground facilities and contractor yards would temporarily impact a total of 58.7 acres of 

crucial winter range. Only 0.2 acre of crucial winter range would be permanently affected by the 

proposed Project’s aboveground facilities. Therefore, impacts from construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would be minimal and temporary. 

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Leks 

To minimize potential disturbance in these important breeding areas, Bison would adhere to 

construction buffers and timing restrictions recommended by BLM and the state agencies. Sharp-tailed 

grouse leks would receive a buffer of 2.0 miles during construction between March 1 and June 15 to 

avoid the breeding season and a 0.25-mile no-surface-occupancy buffer year-round. Through desktop 

analysis and field surveys concluding in May 2009, Bison identified six sharp-tailed grouse lek buffer 

zones crossed by the Project. Three of these lek buffer zones would be affected by construction and 

operation of aboveground facilities. The six total sharp-tailed grouse leks occur between approximately 

MP 27.3 and MP 162.0 of the proposed Project route. In total, approximately 350 acres of sharp-tailed 

grouse lek buffer zones would experience temporary construction impacts outside the 0.25-mile nosurface occupancy buffer zone. Bison’s permanent right-of-way and aboveground facilities would 

occupy about 120 acres of the total acreage affected; however, Bison would reseed the right-of-way and 

allow it to revegetate. Once the right-of-way has been restored, it would likely offer suitable habitat. 

Bison previously routed the proposed pipeline to avoid crossing 2.0-mile lek buffer zones where possible, 

which minimized the number of buffer zones that would be affected by the proposed Project. Through 

implementation of Bison’s Plan, which discusses revegetation practices, as well as adherence to agencyrecommended timing stipulations and buffer zones, impacts to sharp-tailed grouse leks would be 

adequately minimized and temporary. 

Raptors and Migratory Birds 

The states affected by the proposed Project are located within both the Central and Mississippi 

Flyways; therefore, migratory birds would be impacted by the Project (TPWD 2007). Bald and golden 

eagles are of particular concern because they are protected by the BGEPA. Migratory birds that are 

threatened or endangered are discussed in Section 3.7. 
3-92 

Bald and Golden Eagles 

The potential for both bald and golden eagles to nest in the Project area exists; however, Bison 

has not identified any bald eagle nest buffer zones that would be crossed by the proposed Project. Bison 

identified two occupied golden eagle nesting sites through field surveys completed in May 2009. Bison 

intends to comply with seasonal restrictions and buffer zones associated with eagle nests. A buffer of 

0.5 mile would be adhered to during the entire construction period while a buffer of 1 mile would be 

followed from commencement of construction in May 2010 through August 2010, as this coincides with 

the nesting period. Additional pre-construction surveys would also take place if construction were to 

occur during the breeding season (May through August). Although no eagle nests have been identified 

through desktop analysis or field surveys near proposed HDD sites, use of the HDD method to cross 

waterbodies may cause noise disturbance to nesting eagles prior to when the eagles have fledged. If 

present, foraging eagles would be anticipated to return to the area once HDD construction has been 

completed. With the use of timing and buffer restrictions around nests that were stipulated to include the 

fledging period, limited and temporary disruption of nesting individuals is expected. No bald eagle or 

golden eagle winter roosts have been identified; however, should any be identified, Bison would 

implement a buffer of 1 mile around the winter roost site (from November through April) during 

construction. Additional pre-construction surveys would be conducted if construction were to take place 

during the winter roosting season, between October 1 and January 31. 

The proposed Project could temporarily affect aerial foraging and predatory activities if 

construction occurred near popular foraging areas, such as waterbodies or open areas heavily populated 

with small mammals. Disturbance could change foraging patterns or remove preferred perch trees. 

Individual eagles could find other suitable roosts in similar habitat surrounding the Project area if such 

similar habitat is available. Eagles would be expected to return to the Project area when construction 

activity has ceased, unless perch trees have been removed and foraging areas have been excessively 

disturbed. Given the linear nature of clearing associated with the proposed Project, we believe that these 

impacts would be a minor, temporary or short term disruption to foraging individuals. 

Raptors and Other Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern 

Bison expects to start construction of the Project during May 2010, which would overlap with the 

nesting seasons for many migratory birds. Construction during this time would cause direct and indirect 

impacts to the species that occur in the area, especially nesting birds. Direct effects would be caused by 

the loss or disturbance of nesting trees, nests, and young; unfledged birds would likely be lost as habitat is 

removed. Indirect effects would be associated with the noise created by construction, human activity in 

the area, and habitat fragmentation. Construction activities also could potentially disorient birds during 

migration or cause them to avoid a nesting area. Activities occurring adjacent to nesting individuals 

could result in nest abandonment, which would subsequently result in the mortality of eggs and young or 

premature fledging and ejection from the nest. Impacts to ground-nesting birds would include those 

discussed above, as well as direct mortality and nest loss by vegetation clearing and other construction 

activities on the ground. 

Specifically to minimize impact to nesting raptors, construction buffers would be adhered to 

between February 1 and August 1. Most raptors breed, nest, rear, and fledge their young in these months. 

Impacts to nesting raptors could include abandonment of nesting areas or sites and loss of eggs or young 

due to abandonment or agitation. Bison identified 100 raptor nests via field surveys completed in 

May 2009, 38 of which were occupied at the time of survey. Two of these nests were golden eagle nests 

and one was a burrowing owl. The rest included 13 red-tailed hawk nests, 17 great horned owl nests, four 

ferruginous hawk nests, one burrowing owl burrow, and one prairie falcon nest. Construction timing 

restrictions and buffer requirements around identified nest sites would be used to minimize impacts to the 
3-93 

nest sites. In Wyoming, a buffer of 0.5 mile would be used between February 1 and July 31; in Montana, 

a buffer of 0.5 mile would be used between March 1 and August 1; and in North Dakota, a buffer of 

0.5 mile would be used between March 15 and July 15 to mitigate impacts to nesting raptors. Due to 

these mitigation measures, impacts to nesting raptors are expected to be minor and temporary. If 

construction were to occur during the nesting period for raptors, additional nest surveys would be 

conducted to determine if any additional nests would be affected by construction of the proposed Project. 

Potential impacts to the burrowing owl and mountain plovers, both species of concern, are discussed in 

Section 3.7.2. 

Bison indicated that no clearing would occur between April 15 and August 1 to minimize 

disturbance during nesting periods, especially for ground-nesting birds. Although construction of the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way would benefit some edge species through creation and maintenance of 

edge habitat, other migratory bird species could be adversely affected, especially if nesting activities were 

disturbed by removal of vegetation or other construction activities. 

We note that EO 13186 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative impacts to 

migratory bird populations. The EO also requires a federal agency to identify where an unintentional 

“take” is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations. Effects on nonsensitive bird species (those that do not have significantly reduced populations) would not result in long 

term or significant population-level impacts given the stability of local populations, the abundance of 

available habitat outside the Project right-of-way, and the linear nature of the Project over a large 

geographic range. Potential impacts to tree-nesting species would be minor, given the limited amount of 

forested land crossed by the Project and collocation of the pipeline to the extent practical. Non-nesting 

individuals may be temporarily displaced by human activity, noise, and other construction activities but 

are expected to return to the disturbed area shortly after construction ceases. 

With implementation of Bison’s Plan and Procedures, and adherence to construction timing 

restrictions and buffer requirements around sensitive habitat types, Bison would largely minimize impacts 

to migratory bird species. However, Bison’s proposed construction schedule runs from May 2010 to 

November 2010, coinciding with migratory bird movement and nesting periods, and with the FWSrecommended timing restriction for migratory birds (March 1 and July 15). Bison has stated that it plans 

to develop an MBTA Conservation Agreement in consultation with FWS to outline the steps that would 

be followed in order to comply with the MBTA, as well as mitigation measures that would be used to 

minimize impacts to migratory birds. Bison indicated the Conservation Agreement consultation would 

begin following the biological surveys that are scheduled to be completed in summer 2009. Therefore, 

we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Bison file the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Conservation 

Agreement. 

Wildlife Resources Conclusions 

The proposed Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed route and 

these impacts could be temporary, short term, long term, or permanent. Specifically, wildlife could be 

displaced, injured, or killed by construction activities, but these impacts would be minor when assessed at 

a population level. Wildlife habitats would be cleared, but would be allowed to revegetate except at 

aboveground facility locations and at permanent access roads, which would result in a small permanent 

loss of habitat. Due to the linear nature of construction, the limited amount of forested land in the Project 

area, and the short construction timeframe, we believe that most of the impacts to wildlife in the area 

would be minimal and temporary or short term. With implementation of mitigation measures proposed 
3-94 

by Bison, our recommendations, and environmental compliance monitoring, we believe that the Project 

would not significantly impact wildlife or wildlife habitats. 

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat 

for any federally listed species. FERC, as lead agency in the review of the proposed Project, is required 

to consult with FWS to determine whether federally listed species, or their designated critical habitat, may 

occur in the Project area and to determine the proposed action’s potential effects on these species and 

critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed 

species or designated critical habitats, FERC must report its findings to the FWS in a BA. 

Bison, as the non-federal representative, conducted informal consultation with FWS field offices 

in Cheyenne, Wyoming; Billings, Montana; and Bismarck, North Dakota. In addition, Bison consulted 

with appropriate state agencies possessing expertise regarding sensitive species and reviewed threatened 

and endangered species-related database information. 

We have reviewed the information submitted by Bison, performed our own research, and 

consulted directly with FWS. Our analysis of the potential for Project-related impacts to federally listed 

species and their designated critical habitats is provided in this EIS. Bison has provided a preliminary, 

Applicant-prepared BA to FWS for comment; however, to comply with Section 7 of the ESA, we request 

that the FWS consider this draft EIS as our official BA for the proposed Project. Our proposed 

determination of effect for each species is provided in Table 3.7.1-1. Since ESA consultation with FWS 

is ongoing, we recommend that:

• Bison not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. the staff completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Bison has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) 

may begin. 

Based on Bison’s consultation with FWS and our review of existing records, 13 federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, or those that are candidates or petitioned for listing, are reported to 

potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. These species and their management status are 

listed in Table 3.7.1-1. The preferred habitats, potential for occurrence within the Project vicinity, and 

our assessment of potential Project effects to these 13 bird, fish, mammal, and plant species are discussed 

further below. 
3-95 

TABLE 3.7.1-1 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Species 

Federal 

Statusa State Statusb BLM Statusc

County 

(Portion of Potential 

Range Crossed by 

the Proposed Project) Determination 

Birds 

Greater sagegrouse 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

P WY/NSS2,

MT/S2, 

ND/II, 

SS Campbell, Carter, 

Fallon, Powder River, 

Bowman, Grant, 

Hettinger, Morton, Stark, 

Slope 

Not applicabled

Piping plover 

(Charadrius 

melodus) 

T ND/II -- Morton May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo

(Coccyzus 

americanus) 

C WY/NSS2,

MT/SC, 

-- Campbell Not applicabled

Whooping crane 

(Grus 

americana) 

E MT/S1, 

ND/III 

-- Bowman, Grant, 

Hettinger, Morton, Stark, 

Slope 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Interior least tern 

(Sterna 

antillarum 

athalassos) 

E ND/II -- Morton May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Fish 

Pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus 

albus) 

E ND/II -- Morton No effect 

Mammals 

Gray wolf 

(Cannis lupis) 

E/DL ND/III -- Bowman, Grant, 

Hettinger, Morton, Stark, 

Slope 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

White-tailed 

prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

leucurus) 

P WY/NSS4,

MT/S1, 

SS Campbell Not applicabled

Black-tailed 

prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus) 

P WY/NSS3,

MT/S3, 

ND/I, 

SS Campbell, Carter, 

Fallon, Powder River, 

Bowman, Grant, 

Hettinger, Morton, Stark, 

Slope 

Not applicabled

Black-footed 

ferret (Mustela 

nigripes) 

E MT/S1, 

ND/II, 

WY/NSS1 

-- Campbell, Carter May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 
3-96 

TABLE 3.7.1-1 (continued) 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Species 

Federal 

Statusa State 

Statusb BLM Statusc

County 

(Portion of Potential 

Range Crossed by 

the Proposed Project) Determination 

Plants 

Blowout 

penstemon 

(Penstemon 

haydenii) 

E WY/NSS1 -- Campbell May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Ute-ladies’-

tresses 

(Spiranthes 

diluvialis) 

T WY/NSS1 -- Campbell May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Dakota skipper 

(Hesperia 

dacotae) 

C -- -- -- Not applicabled

Notes: 

a Federal designation is provided for the populations within the affected states: 

 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P = Petitioned; C = Candidate; DL = Delisted 

b State designations: 

 Montana

 MT/S1 = Montana species at high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or 

habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. 

 MT/S2 = Montana species at risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, 

making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. 

 MT/S3 = Montana species potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or 

habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. 

 MT/S4 = Montana species that is uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range) and usually 

widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range but possibly cause for long term concern. 

 MT/S5 = Montana species that is common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). 

Not vulnerable in most of its range. 

 MT/SH = Montana species that is possibly extinct or extirpated. Species is known only from historical records but 

may nevertheless still be extant; additional surveys are needed. 

 North Dakota

 ND/I = North Dakota species in greatest need of conservation. 

 ND/II = North Dakota species in need of conservation but have had support from other wildlife programs. 

 ND/III = North Dakota species in moderate need of conservation but are on the edge of their range in the state. 

 Wyoming

 WY/NSS1 = Wyoming populations greatly restricted or declining, extirpation possible or ongoing; significant loss of 

habitat. 

 WY/NSS2 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; ongoing 

significant loss of habitat. 

 WY/NSS3 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; habitat 

restricted or vulnerable but no recent or ongoing significant loss; species likely sensitive to human disturbance. 

WY/NSS4 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; habitat 

not restricted, vulnerable but no loss; species not sensitive to human disturbance. 

c U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Designation: 

 SS = BLM Sensitive Species 

d Petitioned and candidate species are not protected by the Endangered Species Act and do not require official 

determinations. 
3-97 

3.7.1.1 Greater Sage-Grouse 

Although the greater sage-grouse population occurring in the proposed Project area is not 

federally listed nor a current candidate for listing, it has been petitioned for listing and is currently 

undergoing FWS review to determine whether the species warrants federal listing. The greater sagegrouse is also a BLM species of concern and is a species of concern in all states crossed by the Project. 

Greater sage-grouse depend on shrub-steppe habitats and are considered obligate users of several 

species of sagebrush. Species distribution is highly correlated with sagebrush habitat distribution, and the 

species is known to exhibit high fidelity toward breeding and nesting sites (FWS 2008a). Leks (areas 

chosen by the males for courtship displays during the breeding season) consist of areas with short grass, 

wind-blown bare ground, bare soil, and other low open sites. Leks can be up to 90 acres and host 

hundreds of males (FWS 2008a). Within the leks, males strut to attract females, or hens, using visual 

displays and vocalizations. Effective breeding sites consist of sagebrush with an understory of grasses 

and forbs, with vegetative diversity that provides an insect prey base, herbaceous forage, and cover for the 

hen (FWS 2008a). After mating, hens will leave the lek and travel up to 12.5 miles from lek sites to nest 

(Connelly et al. 2000). 

Nesting occurs in spring and early summer, and chicks hatch during summer. Effective nesting 

sites consist of sagebrush with an understory of grasses and forbs, with vegetative diversity that provides 

an insect prey base, herbaceous forage, and cover for the hen (FWS 2008a). Typical nests consist of six 

to 13 eggs, and nest success ranges from 15 to 86 percent (FWS 2008a). Chicks feed on forbs and 

insects, and require an adequate canopy for survival. 

Numerous leks occur in the general Project area, which is within Management Zone I (MZ-I) (the 

Great Plains Management Zone). Of the seven management zones identified by Stiver et al. (2006), MZ-I 

has the third highest relative abundance of leks and of males attending those leks (17 and 15 percent, 

respectively, of the total leks in all seven management zones). The primary threats to the greater sagegrouse include energy development, habitat fragmentation and conversion, invasive species, fire, and 

disease. Of these, the primary threats to the species within MZ-I include energy development, habitat 

conversion, and disease (FWS 2008a). 

A total of 516 leks within the Powder River Basin were studied to determine the impact of coalbed methane development (including related wells, roads, and facilities) on sage-grouse and lek 

attendance. The results of the study showed significantly lower populations in leks in areas where 

40 percent of the area within 2 miles had been developed versus those that were either adjacent to 

developed areas (10 to 40 percent development within 2 miles) or those outside of developed areas (less 

than 10 percent developed). In addition, each of the leks within the developed areas had fewer than 

20 males by the end of the study period. The study concluded that although population declines were 

seen in all three areas (within, adjacent to, and outside of developed areas) the males from leks within 

developed areas migrated to leks adjacent to developed areas, resulting in smaller population declines in 

leks adjacent to developed areas than those in leks outside areas of coal-bed methane development. 

Further, the entire sage-grouse population within the Powder River Basin was seen to decrease between 

1990 (when large-scale coal-bed methane development began) through 1995, followed by stable trends at 

a lower equilibrium between 1995 and 2005 (Naugle et al. 2006). 

Bison has worked with BLM to avoid leks during pipeline routing, as well as many of the buffer 

zones surrounding leks. Early in the routing process, BLM also stated that the proposed Project should be 

collocated with existing disturbance where possible, regardless of whether that collocation brings the 

pipeline route within a lek buffer zone. The buffer zones, as recommended by FWS, include a 3-mile 

area of no disturbance around leks between March 1 through June 30 (and a 0.6-mile no surface 
3-98 

occupancy year-round), and a 3-mile area around important winter habitat between November 15 and 

March 14. BLM has stated that all sagebrush habitat found between MP 109 and MP 142 can be 

considered winter range habitat; however, Bison proposes to complete construction within the winter 

range habitat between early May of 2010 and late October 2010, thereby avoiding impacts to winter range 

habitat during the timing restriction. Due to the abundance of leks in MZ-I, the proposed pipeline route 

would pass through 14 areas containing lek buffer zones, for a total of 114.3 miles. One of the three 

HDD locations (the Little Missouri River) would also be within a sage-grouse buffer zone. Of the areas 

that cross lek buffer zones, nine would be due to partial collocation of the proposed Project with existing 

disturbance, for a total of 28.5 miles of collocation through the areas. In addition, Bison conducted aerial 

surveys in spring 2009 to identify leks within two miles of the pipeline centerline; six active leks were 

identified within 0.6 to 1.9 miles of the centerline, including two in Wyoming, one in Montana, and two 

in southwestern North Dakota. Bison has stated that they would adhere to the FWS-recommended buffer 

zones and would not construct these portions of the pipeline between March 1 and June 30. 

In addition to the pipeline itself, 16 aboveground facilities would be located within the buffer 

zones, including the Buffalo Receipt Meter Station (which includes an MLV and a pig launcher), five 

pipe yards, one rail yard, and nine MLVs (Table 3.7.1-2). As with pipeline construction, the aboveground 

facilities would not be constructed between March 1 and June 30. In addition, no aboveground facilities 

would be placed within 0.6 miles of the active leks encountered during aerial surveys; therefore, the yearround 0.6-mile no surface occupancy buffer would also be adhered to. FWS has recommended that any 

compressor station be sited at least 3.1 miles from active leks due to the potential for produced noise to 

mask male vocalizations at nearby leks. As sage-grouse are restricted to the southwestern edge of North 

Dakota due to habitat availability, Bison has sited the Hettinger Compressor Station at least 3.1 miles 

away from any active lek (NDGFD 2005). 

The proposed Project would cross through extensive areas of sagebrush habitat, causing 

fragmentation in areas where no opportunity for collocation is available and habitat conversion of 

sagebrush to early successional scrub-shrub habitat in all areas where sagebrush would be crossed. 

Fragmentation of sagebrush habitat is considered by many experts to be the primary cause of sage-grouse 

population decline (FWS 2008a). Although no data are available regarding the minimum patch size 

required to support sage-grouse populations, studies have documented that fragmentation from oil and gas 

development negatively affect lek persistence and attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling 

annual survival rate, and female nest site choice (FWS 2008a, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 

2008, Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007). 

The majority of the construction right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate once construction 

has been completed; however, sagebrush is difficult to reclaim and in some cases, sage-grouse 

populations have not completely recovered or returned to areas, even after successful reclamation (Braun 

et al. 2002, Aldridge and Brigham 2003). 

Habitat clearing also allows for the invasion of noxious weeds, which degrades habitat quality 

and, in some cases, increases the susceptibility to fire. For example, cheatgrass—of which there are local 

infestations in MZ-I—can increase fire intervals in sagebrush. Restoration of sagebrush is very difficult 

as only 10 to 50 percent of vegetation treatments in sagebrush habitats with predominately annual grass 

understories were reported as successful (Carlson 2008). 
3-99 

TABLE 3.7.1-2 

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Buffer Zones Affected by Aboveground Facilities 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Milepost Facility Type 

Construction 

Footprint 

(acres)a

Permanent 

Footprint 

(acres)a

 Seasonal Stipulationb

Wyoming 

Campbell -0.47 Buffalo Receipt 

Meter Station 

(contains a pig 

launcher, MLV -0.47) 

1.2 1.2 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 8.7 Echeta Rd Alt 2 Pipe 

Yard 

24.1 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 10.5 Echeta Road Rail 

Yard 

7.3 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 12.1 MLV-012 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 27.6 MLV-028 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 39.4 US 14/16 & Recluse 

Rd Pipe Yard 

21.1 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

Campbell 45.4 MLV-045 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Montana 

Powder River 79.2 MLV-079 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 105.0 HWY 212 Alt 1 Pipe 

Yard 

25.0 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 106.2 Old Hammond Pipe 

Yard 

12.9 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 106.6 MLV-107 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 123.3 c MLV-123 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 141.6c MLV-141 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Carter 146.5 HWY 323 Pipe Yard 0.5 0.0 March 1 – June 30 

North Dakota 

Bowman 179.9 MLV-180 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Bowman 192.1 MLV-192 0.1 0.1 March 1 – June 30 

Notes: 

a

 Acres of impact represent the total acres within a buffer zone and not necessarily the total impact of the facility itself. 

b

 No work would be conducted at these facilities within this window. 

c

 Can be considered sage-grouse winter range habitat. 

Disease is another leading threat to the greater sage-grouse, with the West Nile virus being the 

most problematic due to high species susceptibility and ease of transmission (FWS 2008a). The proposed 

Project would not be expected to exacerbate the incidence of disease in sage-grouse populations. 

Bison would limit impacts to the greater sage-grouse through large-scale avoidance of leks and 

lek buffer zones, collocation within buffer zones where possible, and adherence to agency-recommended 

timing restrictions when passage through buffer zones is unavoidable. Bison also would limit impacts to 
3-100 

sage-grouse habitats from invasion by noxious weeds (and thereby potential fire impacts) through 

implementation of its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L). In addition, Bison would 

include Wyoming big sage in its seed mixes during reclamation efforts within Wyoming, as discussed in 

its Reclamation Plan (Appendix R). 

Although Bison would limit impacts to the greater sage-grouse, nearby leks, and sagebrush 

habitat through implementation of its Plan (Appendix F), Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan 

(Appendix L), Reclamation Plan (Appendix R), and implementation of our recommendations in this EIS, 

it is still likely that the species and their habitat would be affected by construction and operation of the 

proposed Project through habitat fragmentation, conversion, and degradation—as well as through 

presence of development in areas where sage-grouse are abundant, leading to potential lek avoidance and 

loss of suitable nesting habitat. Therefore, should the FWS review determine that the greater sage-grouse 

warrants listing under the ESA prior to construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 

consultation under the ESA would be required. 

3.7.1.2 Piping Plover 

The piping plover is federally listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed where it breeds 

and is federally listed as threatened in all other areas that it is known to occur. Piping plovers are 

migratory birds that breed in the northern United States and Canada during spring and summer, and spend 

fall and winter along the Gulf Coast (FWS 2001). Piping plovers are known to nest in three general areas 

in North America: the shores of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Coast, and the rivers and lakes of the Great 

Plains (FWS 2001). Critical habitat for the population in the Great Plains includes areas of northeast 

Montana and numerous counties in North Dakota; the closest critical habitat to the proposed Project is on 

the eastern border of Morton County, which would not be crossed by the proposed Project (FR 2002). 

North Dakota is the most important state in the Great Plains for nesting individuals; more than 

75 percent of piping plovers in North Dakota nest on prairie alkali lakes and wetlands, while the 

remaining birds use the Missouri River (FWS 2008b). Nesting in North Dakota occurs between April 15 

and August 30 on sandbars and sandy beaches with sparse vegetation along inland lakes, natural or 

dredged islands in rivers, gravel pits along rivers, and salt-encrusted bare areas on interior ponds and 

lakes (FWS 2001, 2009b). The primary threats to the piping plover include development of beach habitat, 

poor breeding success, damming of waterways, and human disturbance (FWS 2001, 2008b). 

The piping plover is not known to occur in Wyoming or in counties that would be crossed by the 

proposed Project in Montana (FWS 2009a, Atkinson and Dood 2006). The piping plover can occur 

statewide in North Dakota, where its primary habitat occurs adjacent to the Missouri River and in alkaline 

wetlands, as previously discussed (FWS 2008b, 2009b). If piping plovers were to occur in the vicinity of 

the proposed Project, they could be directly impacted through habitat disruption and indirectly impacted 

by increased human presence, noise, and temporary water depletions from hydrostatic testing, dust 

abatement, and HDDs. FWS has indicated that current and historic nesting locations of piping plovers 

would not likely be impacted by the proposed Project as they occur further to the east of the Project area 

in North Dakota (Aron 2009). In addition, Bison has stated that no suitable beach habitat or alkali 

wetlands have been encountered during surveys in North Dakota; however, if the species were 

encountered, Bison would discuss mitigation measures with FWS that include the potential use of timing 

windows during construction and the establishment of a buffer zone. 

Based on our recommendation, the limited range of the piping plover and the lack of suitable 

habitat within the Project area, as well as Bison’s commitments to return all water withdrawn to the 

source waterbody within 30 days and to implement timing windows if necessary, we believe that impacts 
3-101 

to the species would be adequately minimized and that the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect, the piping plover and would have no effect on its critical habitat. 

3.7.1.3 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 

The yellow-billed cuckoo is a federal candidate species that occurs in the western half of the 

continental United States; this population is classified as the Western U.S. Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) and includes birds found in Wyoming and Montana. Although the species may occur in North 

Dakota, individuals within North Dakota are not considered part of the Western U.S. DPS and are 

therefore not considered candidates for federal listing. The species is about 12 inches long, slender, and 

has a long tail. 

Within Wyoming, the cuckoo is found mainly along the eastern edge of the state, with a few 

scattered reports from elsewhere in the state. Only one occurrence has been documented within Campbell 

County, south of the proposed Project; however, surrounding counties have documented occurrences. 

The only areas that currently support the large cottonwood-riparian stands that are required by this species 

occur in isolated stands along the Bighorn, Powder, and North Platte Rivers (WGFD 2005). The yellowbilled cuckoo is an uncommon summer resident in Wyoming that generally occurs between late May to 

September (FWS 2008b, WGFD 2005). The species may occur in Montana in June and July; however, 

no nesting has been reported in the state, and little is known about migration patterns in the state (MFWP 

2009b). Current threats include the destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of wooded riparian 

habitats, as well as the general use of pesticides in or adjacent to riparian areas (FWS 2008b). 

Although the proposed Project does not cross any of the three waterbodies that support suitable 

habitat for the species, Bison would document any yellow-billed cuckoos during its surveys for migratory 

birds. As no suitable habitat would be crossed by the proposed Project and no occurrences are 

documented within the proposed Project area, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the yellow-billed cuckoo and would not contribute 

to its listing under the ESA. 

3.7.1.4 Whooping Crane 

The whooping crane, a federally listed endangered species, is a large migratory bird that 

historically occurred over much of the United States. The only migratory population, the Aransas-Wood 

Buffalo population, migrates from their breeding grounds in Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada to 

their winter grounds in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge along the Texas coast (FWS 2008b). 

Whooping cranes are monogamous and generally arrive at their breeding grounds in April. Their nests 

are constructed of bulrush and usually contain one to three eggs that are laid in late April or early May 

(FWS 2005a). Fall migration begins in September, and most birds arrive on the wintering grounds on the 

Texas Gulf Coast by October or November (FWS 2005a). The birds generally migrate during the day and 

will stop nightly to roost in shallow wetlands, using adjacent or nearby agricultural fields to feed during 

the day (FWS 2008b). No critical habitat has been designated for the whooping crane in states crossed by 

the proposed Project. 

The primary threats to the whooping crane historically were conversion of native prairie habitat to 

cropland and pastureland, hunting, and other human disturbances. Current threats include hurricanes or 

large oil spills on their wintering grounds at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas (FWS 2005a). 

FWS has also indicated that collisions with powerlines are a threat to the species in North America (FWS 

2008b); Bison would not construct powerlines as part of the proposed Project. 
3-102 

The proposed Project intersects the whooping crane migration corridor in North Dakota and 

whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota each spring (April 15 through May 15) and fall 

(September 15 through October 30) (FWS 2008b). Surveys conducted in 2008 indicated that eight areas 

of potential whooping crane roosting or foraging habitat occur along the proposed Project route. Each of 

these areas would be surveyed immediately prior to construction, should construction occur in those areas 

during the spring or fall migration periods (Table 3.7.1-3). If pre-construction surveys documented the 

presence of any whooping cranes within these areas, or in any area near the construction right-of-way, 

FWS would be contacted to determine the need for monitoring during construction. In addition, Bison’s 

Environmental Inspectors would suspend construction until released by FWS if whooping cranes are seen 

in proximity to the right-of-way where suitable habitat exists. Indirect impacts could be incurred through 

Bison’s water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and HDD purposes; however, this 

water would be returned to the source waterbody within 30 days of withdrawal and would not be likely to 

affect migrating birds. 

TABLE 3.7.1-3 

Whooping Crane Potential Habitat along the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Start Milepost End Milepost Feature 

North Dakota 

Hettinger 242.38 242.39 Emergent 

wetland 

Hettinger 242.38 242.38 Emergent 

wetland 

Hettinger 244.79 244.80 Emergent 

wetland 

Hettinger 244.80 244.80 Emergent 

wetland 

Hettinger 248.99 249.00 Emergent 

wetland 

Hettinger 255.56 255.58 Emergent 

wetland 

Grant 284.73 284.74 Emergent 

wetland 

Morton 292.30 292.31 Emergent 

wetland 

Since Bison has committed to conducting pre-construction surveys for the whooping crane in 

areas of potential habitat and implementing measures to protect any individuals encountered through 

consultation with FWS, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but 

is not likely to adversely affect, the whooping crane. 

3.7.1.5 Interior Least Tern 

The interior least tern is federally listed as an endangered species in the Project area in Montana 

and North Dakota. It historically inhabited many large river systems in the Midwestern United States. 

Interior least terns use the shallower areas of large rivers for catching their main prey, fish. Interior least 

terns prefer islands or sandbars along large rivers for their communal nesting sites (FWS 1992). 

Approximately 100 of the remaining 2,500 pairs of interior least terns come to North Dakota each year, 
3-103 

where they can be found nesting along the Missouri and Yellowstone River systems (FWS 2008b). The 

Project would be located approximately 40 miles away from the Missouri River habitat and more than 

100 miles away from Yellowstone River habitat in North Dakota. Peak nesting season is between midJune and mid-July (FWS 2008b). Nests consist of small indentions in the sand and usually contain two to 

three eggs, which hatch in approximately 24 days (FWS 2008c). The primary threats to the interior least 

tern include flooding of nesting areas through the creation of reservoirs and through channelization, 

overgrowth of sandbars, and human disturbance along sandbars (FWS 1992). No critical habitat has been 

designated for the least tern. 

In North Dakota, the least tern is found mainly on the Missouri River from Garrison Dam south to 

Lake Oahe, and on the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers upstream of Lake Sakakawea (FWS 2008c). 

Within Montana, least terns have been found in three areas: the eastern end of Fort Peck Reservoir along 

the Big Dry Arm, the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam, and the Yellowstone River below Miles City 

(MFWP 2009c). Interior least terns would not be likely to occur in the Project area based on this 

distribution as well as habitat surveys in 2008 and 2009 that did not observe potential habitat for this 

species along the Project route. However, FWS would be consulted if any occupied breeding territories 

or active nest sites were encountered and timing windows and buffer zones would be implemented as 

needed. If interior least terns were to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project, they could be 

indirectly impacted by increased human presence, noise, and temporary water depletions from hydrostatic 

testing, dust abatement, and HDDs. 

Based on the known occurrences of the interior least tern in Montana and North Dakota being 

outside of the proposed Project area, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the interior least tern. 

3.7.1.6 Pallid Sturgeon 

The pallid sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species occurring in isolated populations 

through the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and their tributaries (AFS 2008). Pallid sturgeons prefer 

large, turbid, and fast-flowing streams with sandy substrate where they can forage for minnows and 

aquatic insects (MFWP 2009d). Although the pallid sturgeon was once fairly common in the Missouri 

and Yellowstone Rivers of North Dakota, biologists believe that fewer than 250 wild fish still occur in the 

area. To aid recovery of the species, FWS, MFWP, and NDGFD have released 28,000 juveniles into the 

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers (FWS 2008b). Within North Dakota, pallid sturgeon are most 

commonly found in the upper Missouri River upstream of Lake Sakakawea, and in the Yellowstone River 

near the confluence of the two rivers (Hagen et al. 2005). The primary threats to the pallid sturgeon are 

altered flow regimes due to the damming and channelization of rivers and hybridization with the native 

shovelnose sturgeon (AFS 2008). No critical habitat has been designated for the pallid sturgeon. 

As the proposed Project would not cross waterbodies that are currently or were apparently used 

historically as pallid sturgeon habitat (FWS 2008b), we believe that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would have no effect on the pallid sturgeon. 

3.7.1.7 Gray Wolf 

The gray wolf is federally listed as endangered within Wyoming and North Dakota but was 

delisted in Montana, effective May 4, 2009. The population of gray wolves that occur in Wyoming and 

Montana is part of the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) DPS that occurs in Montana, Wyoming, and 

Idaho, as well as in parts of Washington and Oregon. As of 2008, there were 491 wolves, including 

22 breeding pairs that were reported in Wyoming, and 24 breeding pairs in Montana, thereby exceeding 

the minimum population recovery goal. 
3-104 

Effective May 4, 2009, the NRM DPS of gray wolves was delisted, with the exception of the 

Wyoming population, due to recovery and state regulatory oversight. The Wyoming population remains 

endangered, although considered recovered, as FWS believes that the population remains in danger of 

extinction due to inadequate state regulatory oversight. Although the majority of the NRM DPS has been 

delisted, the entire DPS is still regulated as a nonessential experimental population (FR 2009). In 

Wyoming, this nonessential status allows the take of wolves under certain circumstances, such as when 

wolves are actively killing, wounding, chasing, or molesting livestock or dogs, although each incidence 

would be investigated to verify the circumstances of the event (FWS 2008d). 

The gray wolf is an infrequent visitor in North Dakota and consultation with FWS has indicated 

that no known NRM DPS packs exist, or are likely to form, within the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Gray wolves occupy a variety of habitats and prey on big game animals such as deer, elk, and 

moose (DW 2009a). Wolves travel and live in packs of four to seven animals made up of alpha males 

and females, their pups, and subordinate young adults. The gray wolf generally breeds in January and 

February, and pups are born around 2 months later. Litter size varies from four to seven pups, and the 

pack rears the young until they reach about 10 months of age (DW 2009a). The primary threats to the 

gray wolf are loss of habitat and conflicts with man over livestock losses (DW 2009a). No critical habitat 

has been designated for the gray wolf in states that would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Due to the lack of known packs in the vicinity of the proposed Project, as well as the mobility of 

the species, no direct effects are expected from construction or operation of the proposed Project (FWS 

2008b, 2009c). Indirect effects may be incurred if population level impacts to the wolf’s prey species 

(big game) were to occur. As discussed in Section 3.6, no big game migration corridors would be crossed 

during construction, and timing buffers would be implemented with big game crucial ranges so that 

construction would not occur during essential use periods. Due to the lack of known occurrences of the 

gray wolf near the proposed Project and measures to avoid impacts to big game that would be 

implemented by Bison, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but 

is not likely to adversely affect, the gray wolf. 

3.7.1.8 White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The white-tailed prairie dog is a federally-petitioned species; FWS initiated a status review on 

May 6, 2008 to determine whether the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered. The species 

is found across Wyoming, western Colorado, the eastern portion of Utah, and a small portion of southern 

Montana at altitudes ranging between 5,000 and 10,000 feet in desert grasslands and shrub grasslands 

(FWS 2008e). All prairie dogs are social ground squirrels and occur only in North America. White-tailed 

prairie dogs eat green vegetation and are important in the ecology of high-grass prairies as a food source 

for other animals (PDC 2007a). The burrow systems within the prairie dog towns provide escape from 

predators, provide protection from weather, and serve as rearing sites (PDC 2007a). The primary threats 

to the white-tailed prairie dog include destruction of habitat and persecution by humans who consider 

them pests (PDC 2007a). 

The proposed pipeline route would cross through nine prairie dog towns, none of which are 

white-tailed prairie dog towns. As no white-tailed prairie dog towns would be crossed by the proposed 

Project, we believe that the proposed Project would have no effect on white-tailed prairie dogs and would 

not contribute to their listing under the ESA. 
3-105 

3.7.1.9 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The black-tailed prairie dog is a federally petitioned species; FWS initiated a status review on 

December 2, 2008 to determine whether the species warrants federal listing. The species is found in the 

Great Plains from southern Saskatchewan, Canada south to northern and western Texas and southern New 

Mexico and Arizona, into extreme northern Mexico—at altitudes below 5,000 feet in grasslands and 

shrub grasslands (FWS 2008f). Black-tailed prairie dogs are extremely social and live in large 

aggregations called “colonies.” These colonies are composed of cooperative family groups called 

“coteries” (PDC 2007b). The breeding season is February to early March, and the young are born 

underground 1 to 2 months after breeding takes place. Once the young emerge, communal nursing 

occurs, whereby juveniles are nursed by all members of the coterie rather than just the mother (PDC 

2007b). Black-tailed prairie dogs are herbivores; their diet consists of wheatgrass, buffalo grass, and 

rabbitbrush. According to the Prairie Dog Coalition (2007b), black-tailed prairie dogs are important to 

the ecology of the Plains because they are prey for numerous species; as many as 140 species are thought 

to be affected by the role of the black-tailed prairie dog in the ecology of North America. The primary 

threats to the black-tailed prairie dog are similar to those for the white-tailed prairie dog and include 

destruction of habitat and persecution by humans who consider them pests (PDC 2007b). 

Black-tailed prairie dogs are known to occur in all three states crossed by the proposed Project 

route (FWS 2008f). The proposed pipeline would cross through nine black-tailed prairie dog towns, 

seven of which were determined to be active during surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009, and two of 

which have yet to be surveyed due to lack of land access (Table 3.7.1-4). While prairie dogs generally 

favor disturbed areas, resulting in a potential benefit to the species after construction has been completed, 

construction activities could directly impact individuals (SDDOA 2009). Two of the active prairie dog 

towns are adjacent to existing access roads that are proposed for use (MP 20.7 and MP 56.4); as Bison 

would not improve these roads for use during construction of the proposed Project, impacts to the 

adjacent prairie dog towns would be limited to disturbance from increased human presence. Although 

Bison proposes to minimize the construction right-of-way through the remaining seven areas to 75 feet, it 

is likely that individuals would be lost or displaced during construction activities; therefore, should the 

FWS review determine that the black-tailed prairie dog warrants listing under the ESA prior to 

construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA would be required. 

TABLE 3.7.1-4 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Towns Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Start Milepost End Milepost Town Size 

(acres) Survey Results 

Wyoming 

Campbell 19.9 20.1 11.2 Active town 

Campbella 20.7 NA 5.7 Active town 

Campbell 23.9 24.1 36.3 Active town 

Campbell 24.7 24.8 26.5 Active town 

Campbell 44.0 44.2 51.8 Active town

Campbella 56.4 NA 1.5 Active town 

Campbell 65.1 65.6 340.5 No accessb

Campbell 67.4 67.5 81.1 No accessb
3-106 

TABLE 3.7.1-4 (continued) 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Towns Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Start Milepost End Milepost Town Size 

(acres) Survey Results 

Montana 

Fallon 153.5 153.7 11.7 Active town, two 

burrowing owls were 

also observed 

Notes: 

NA = Not applicable 

a

 Prairie dog towns that are crossed by proposed access roads.

a

 Surveys will be conducted when and if land access is granted. 

3.7.1.10 Black-Footed Ferret 

The black-footed ferret is a federally listed endangered species that is highly dependent on prairie 

dogs and their colonies. Black-footed ferrets are nocturnal and solitary; they feed almost exclusively on 

prairie dogs and use their burrows (FWS 1988). Black-footed ferrets once numbered in the tens of 

thousands, but widespread destruction of their habitat and exotic diseases in the 1900s brought them to 

the brink of extinction. Only 18 remained in 1986, and approximately 750 black-footed ferrets are in the 

wild today (DW 2009b). Their former range extended from Canada through the Great Plains into 

northern Mexico but in 2008, consisted of only 15 locations within their former range in Wyoming, South 

Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Kansas, as well as Chihuahua, Mexico (DW 2009b). 

Black-footed ferrets require large prairie dog colonies to survive, and some estimate that up to 20,000 

acres are needed for a healthy population of ferrets; however, black-tailed prairie dog towns or 

“complexes” (defined as two or more towns within less than 4.3 miles of each other) greater than 79 acres 

and white-tailed prairie dog towns or complexes greater than 200 acres could contain suitable habitat for 

black-footed ferrets (DW 2009b, FWS 2009d). The primary threat to the survival of the black-footed 

ferret is destruction of prairie dog towns and disease such as canine distemper (FWS 1988). No critical 

habitat has been designated for the black-footed ferret. 

Wild populations of the black-footed ferret are not known to exist outside of reintroduced 

populations in the western United States. Although the proposed Project would cross prairie dog towns 

and complexes of a suitable size for black-footed ferrets in Wyoming, those areas have been blockcleared by FWS and do not require species surveys. Only one black-tailed prairie dog town would be 

crossed in Montana, which is not large enough to support black-footed ferret use, and none would be 

crossed in North Dakota (Table 3.7.1-4). Natural Heritage Program data for Montana contains no 

historical records of black-footed ferrets occurring within 5 miles of the proposed Project route (MNHP 

2008). As prairie dog towns of suitable size that would be crossed by the proposed Project have been 

block-cleared by FWS, it is unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur within the proposed Project area. We 

believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the black-footed ferret. 

3.7.1.11 Blowout Penstemon 

The blowout penstemon is a federally listed endangered species that is adapted to blowouts 

(sparsely vegetated depressions in active sand dunes created by wind erosion) in the sandhills region of 
3-107 

west-central Nebraska and on the lower half of steep sandy slopes deposited at the base of granitic or 

sedimentary mountains or ridges in the northeastern Great Divide Basin in Wyoming (CPC 2008). The 

blowout penstemon is an early succession species pollinated primarily by bees, wasps, ants, beetles, 

butterflies, and flies. The 13 known sites in Nebraska and two populations in Wyoming contain a total of 

approximately 7,000 to 11,000 individuals (CPC 2008). Threats to blowout penstemon in Wyoming 

include habitat loss from reclamation of sand dune areas, sand mining, and off-road vehicle use (CPC 

2008). No critical habitat has been designated for the blowout penstemon. 

The plant’s current known range within Wyoming is in northwest Carbon County, a county not 

crossed by the proposed Project (FWS 2008b); however, at the request of BLM and FWS, Bison 

conducted surveys for the species during summer 2009 within a small sand blowout in Campbell County, 

Wyoming near MP 37.5. No blowout penstemons were encountered during surveys. Direct impacts to 

the blowout penstemon could occur should the plant be present in the construction right-of-way; however, 

no blowout penstemons were encountered during the survey. Indirect impacts could occur to any blowout 

penstemon that occurs near the proposed Project alignment through the potential spread of noxious 

weeds. 

As no known or historical habitat for the blowout penstemon occurs along the proposed route, the 

proposed Project is outside of the known range for the species, and Bison would implement its Noxious 

and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L), we believe that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the blowout penstemon. 

3.7.1.12 Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

The Ute ladies’-tresses, a federally listed threatened species, is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that 

occurs in southeastern Wyoming and southwestern Montana, as well as portions of Colorado, Utah, 

Idaho, Nebraska, and Washington (Fetig, Black, and Wolken 2005). There are four counties in Wyoming 

with known populations of Ute ladies’-tresses; however, these locations are all south of the Project area 

(Heidel 2007). In Montana, the species is known to occur in five counties, all of which are west of the 

proposed Project (Fetig, Black, and Wolken 2005). Ute ladies’-tresses have white or ivory flowers and 

bloom in July and August (FWS 2005b). The species is endemic to moist soils near wetland meadows, 

springs, lakes, and perennial streams where it colonizes early successional areas on sandbars or sandy 

edges (FWS 2008b). Primary threats to the Ute ladies’-tresses include habitat loss from urbanization and 

road construction, off-road vehicle use, grazing, and modification of moisture regimes (FWS 2005b). No 

critical habitat has been designated for the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Bison has agreed to conduct surveys within 10 wetland and riparian areas in Wyoming that 

potentially contain suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses (Table 3.7.1-5). Two years of survey data 

collected between July 15 and September 15 are required by FWS prior to construction through potential 

habitat in order to verify that no individual plants occur. Bison has committed to retaining a qualified 

botanist to conduct these surveys in 2009 and 2010 prior to construction. Any documented occurrence 

would be immediately reported to FWS, and FWS and BLM would be consulted in order to develop 

mitigation measures that would adequately minimize potential impacts to the species. If individuals were 

encountered, Bison would implement conservation measures that could include: reducing the right-of-way 

width where the species was encountered; salvaging and segregating topsoil in the area to preserve native 

seed stock for use in restoration efforts; restoring habitat with approved seed mixes; avoiding the 

population through reroutes around plants or boring under the plants; monitoring the populations for two 

years after construction to identify and remove exotic species that could hinder re-establishment; and seed 

collections to repopulate the right-of-way or create a nursery population. If required, additional 

conservation measures would be developed on a site-specific basis, in consultation with the FWS. 
3-108 

TABLE 3.7.1-5 

Ute Ladies’-Tresses Potential Habitat along the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Milepost Feature 

Wyoming 

Campbell 13.9 Montgomery Draw 

Campbell 16.7 Wild Horse Creek 

Campbell 24.5 Twentymile Creek 

Campbell 47.6 Perennial stream 

Campbell 50.6 Bitter Creek 

Campbell 55.23 Chalk Prong Creek 

Campbell 63.0 Olmstead Draw 

Campbell 64.0 Perennial stream 

Campbell 74.6 Perennial stream 

Campbell 75.2 Trail Creek 

In order to update the available data on the known occurrences of Ute ladies’-tresses for the final 

EIS, we recommend that: 

• Bison file the Ute ladies’-tresses survey data for the 2009 season prior to the end of the 

draft EIS comment period. 

With a commitment from Bison to complete two years of species surveys, consult with FWS as 

appropriate, and implement Bison's proposed mitigation measures if populations are encountered, we 

believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect the Ute ladies'-tresses. 

3.7.1.13 Dakota Skipper 

The Dakota skipper butterfly is a federal candidate species. The most significant remaining 

populations occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and 

southern Manitoba. Native prairies and prairie remnants are suitable habitat for the species and include 

low (wet) prairie dominated by bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas; and upland (dry) 

prairie on ridges and hillsides dominated by bluestem grasses, needlegrass, pale purple and upright 

coneflowers, and blanketflower (FWS 2008b). Threats to Dakota skipper habitat include burning, haying, 

grazing, pesticide use, and invasion by non-native plants, including exotic pasture grasses. All of these 

activities have the potential to increase prairie fragmentation. Increased prairie fragmentation isolates 

remaining populations, preventing the re-establishment of populations extirpated by burning, grazing, or 

other causes or reducing the genetic diversity that may be needed to adapt to environmental changes. 

Although the Dakota skipper is known to occur in North Dakota, it is not known to occur in the 

counties crossed by the proposed Project, or within Wyoming or Montana; therefore, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would have no effect on the Dakota skipper and would 

not contribute to its listing under the ESA. 
3-109 

3.7.2 Special-Status Species 

In addition to federally listed species, other special-status species may occur within the vicinity of 

the proposed Project. Special-status species include BLM- and state listed species of concern identified 

through consultations with BLM, WYGFD, MFWP, and NDGFD. These consultations determined that 

30 BLM- or state-identified special-status species could occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

These species are in addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, or federal candidate species 

discussed in Section 3.7.1, and the migratory birds discussed in Section 3.6. These special-status species, 

their status, and their preferred habitat are presented in Table 3.7.2-1. Additional discussion is provided 

for the mountain plover, burrowing owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and swift fox due to the known 

locations of potential habitat that would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

BLM classifies species as Sensitive Species (those species listed by a state in a category such as 

threatened or endangered, thereby implying potential endangerment or extinction; and those designated 

by each state director as sensitive). Each state has its own classification standards for special-status 

species. Wyoming classifies species as NSS1 (state populations greatly restricted or declining and in 

danger of extirpation, with ongoing habitat loss), NSS2 (state populations declining or restricted in 

numbers or distribution with ongoing loss of habitat, but extirpation is not imminent), NSS3 (state 

populations declining or restricted, and habitat is restricted or vulnerable), or NSS4 (state populations are 

declining or restricted, and habitat is vulnerable). Montana classifies special-status species as 

S1 (extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat and highly vulnerable to 

global extinction or state extirpation), S2 (very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or 

habitat and highly vulnerable to global extinction or state extirpation), S3 (limited and potentially 

declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat even though they may be abundant in some areas), 

S4 (uncommon but not rare, although it may be rare in parts of its range, and usually widespread), 

S5 (common, widespread, and abundant although it may be rare in parts of its range), and SH (possibly 

extinct or extirpated, only known from historical records, possibly extinct or extirpated but additional 

surveys are needed). North Dakota classifies species as Level I (those in greatest need of conservation), 

Level II (species in need of conservation but have support from other wildlife programs), or Level III 

(species in need of conservation but on the edge of their range in the state). 

3.7.2.1 Mountain Plover 

The mountain plover is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species, Wyoming NSS4, and Montana S2 

species that prefers heavily grazed shortgrass prairie and prairie dog towns (both white-tailed and blacktailed prairie dogs). Mountain plovers have been documented to use prairie dog towns between 7.4 and 

142.1 acres, as they provide greater horizontal visibility, a higher percentage of bare ground, more 

burrows for refuge, and a higher diversity of forbs than adjacent areas (MFWP 2009e). Mountain plovers 

migrate into the Project area in April and may stay as long as 5 months (MFWP 2009e). Mountain 

plovers lay their eggs, usually three, directly on the ground and incubate them for approximately 1 month. 

The primary threats to the mountain plover are adverse management of potential plover habitat, habitat 

conversion, and eradication of prairie dogs and their towns (MFWP 2009e). 
3-110

TABLE 3.7.2-1 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Species 

Wyoming 

Status 

Montana 

Status 

North 

Dakota 

Status BLM Status Habitat 

Birds Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) 

NSS4 S2 -- SS Migratory bird that breeds from Apri

Breeds in heavily grazed prairie, pre

prairie dog colonies. 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

NSS4 S3 II SS Migratory species that inhabits open 

with short vegetation and bare grouexclusively on burrowing mammals burrows for nest sites. 

Fish Yellow-stone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri)

NSS2 - -- SS Inhabits relatively clear, cold stream

lakes with occupied waters ranging 81 oF. Typically spawns in spring a

summer after flows have declined frseasonal peak and tends to select ssuitable gravel substrate. 

Mammals Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

NSS2 S2 -- SS Utilizes caves and abandoned mine

roosts and hibernacula. Roost sites associated with Douglas-fir and lodgforests, ponderosa pine woodlands, sagebrush scrub, and cottonwood b

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

NSS2 S2 -- SS Utilizes a wide range of habitats but 

found in rough, rocky, semi-arid and varying from ponderosa pine forest country and open desert. Roosts in forages over open forests and fields pine forests. 

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)

NSS2 -- -- SS Primarily inhabits coniferous woodla

forests while foraging over ponds, ristreams contained within. 
3-111

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Species 

Wyoming 

Status 

Montana 

Status 

North 

Dakota 

Status BLM Status Habitat 

Mammals (continued) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) 

NSS2 -- -- SS Primarily found at middle elevations 

3,500 to 6,270 feet in desert, grasslwoodland habitats. Roosts in cavescrevices, buildings, and other protecAlso uses those sites as nurseries. active April–September. During winhibernation may be periodically inte

Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami) 

-- S3 -- SS In Montana, have been captured mo

sagebrush-grassland habitats but alnative grasses and forbs, such as tisweet clover. 

Swift fox (Vulpes velox)

-- S3 II SS Found in short, mid, and mixed gras

gently rolling hills. Den sites are typon flat areas or along slopes or ridgprovide a good view. Dens are typicdominated by blue grama or buffalo 

Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hundsonius)

-- S2 -- SS In Montana, found in dense, tall and 

and forbs in marshy areas (sometimstanding water), riparian areas, woograssy upland slopes—although primrestricted to riparian sites. 

Plants Lead plant (Amorpha canescens)

NSS4 SH -- SS A shrub with few to several, erect or 

simple or sparingly branched stems 

1.0 to 2.6 feet high. Found in dry, wprairies throughout the Great Plainsfrom May through July. 

Porter's sagebrush (Artemisia porteri)

NSS2 -- -- SS Occurs in sparsely vegetated badlan

barren low shrub communities on asor clay substrates. 
3-112

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Species 

Wyoming 

Status 

Montana 

Status 

North 

Dakota 

Status BLM Status Habitat 

Plants (continued) Narrowleaf milkweed (Asclepias stemphylla)

-- S1 -- SS Sand soils of prairies and open pine 

Barr's milkvetch (Astragalus barrii)

-- S3 -- SS In southeastern Montana, is restricte

clay knobs, buttes, and barren hilltoPopulations are associated with the edaphic and environmental conditiobadlands areas, buttes, bluffs, clay sandstone, and open barren ground

William's wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)

NSS3 -- -- SS A tufted perennial herb that occurs o

south-or east-facing ridgetops and uwith exposed limestone outcrops or 6,000 to 8,300 feet. 

Schweinitz's flatsedge (Cyperus schweinitzii)

-- S2 -- SS Sparsely vegetated, sandy-soiled pr

grasslands on ridges and slopes, ofsandstone outcrops or on sandy blo

Visher's buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri)

-- S1 -- SS Most often found on the unvegetate

outwash at the base of slopes; on thunvegetated eroding edge of tablesterraces, and buttes; and on more leof soil exposed by wind or water erobarren, sedimentary rock outcrops. 

Narrow-leaf penstemon (Penstemon angustifolius)

-- S1 -- SS Grows in sandy-soiled, prairie grass

and slopes. Plants are often most asandy blowouts and other sparsely vareas. 
3-113

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Species 

Wyoming 

Status 

Montana 

Status 

North 

Dakota 

Status BLM Status Habitat 

Plants (continued) Plains phlox (Phlox andicola)

-- S2 -- SS Grows in sandy soils in grasslands a

ponderosa pine woodland, often asssparsely vegetated erosional blowousand below sandstone outcrops. 

Double bladder-pod (Physaria brassicoides)

-- S2 -- SS Occurs on sparsely vegetated, stee

south-facing slopes of highly dissecbreaklands and badlands. 

Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)

-- S1 -- SS Known to occur on one site in Carte

Montana and is relatively dominant to the Thompson Creek tributary of Missouri River in the riparian forest bentonitic shale ridges trending weseast-southeast and extending into W

Reptiles Spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera)

NSS4 S3 -- SS Primarily a riverine species, occupy

rivers and river impoundments, but alakes, ponds along rivers, pools alonstreams, bayous, irrigation canals, aUsually is found in areas with open banks, a soft bottom, and submergeother debris. 

Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)

NSS4 S3 II SS Occurs in backwaters along major r

smaller reservoirs, and in smaller stcreeks with permanent flowing wateor muddy bottoms. 

Western hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus)

-- S2 I SS Has been found in areas of sagebru

habitat and near pine savannah in gunderlain by sandy soil. 
3-114

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Species 

Wyoming 

Status 

Montana 

Status 

North 

Dakota 

Status BLM Status Habitat 

Milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum)

NSS2 S2 -- SS Has been reported in open areas of 

grassland habitat and ponderosa pinwith sandy soils most often in or nearocky outcrops and hillsides or badlasometimes within city limits. 

Greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)

NSS4 SC II SS Typically found in open areas along 

outcrops, canyon bottoms, or within sagebrush. 

Amphibians Great plains toad (Bufo cognatus)

NSS4 S2 -- SS Utilizes grasslands, sandhills, and a

areas below 6,000 feet in elevation. after rain storms in spring and summtemperature exceeds about 54oF. B

are restricted to relatively clear shalwhich include wallows, flooded fieldand marshes. Eggs are laid in April

Spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)

-- -- -- SS Found in lower elevations in ponds, 

small streams. 

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens)

NSS4 S1 -- SS Found in low-elevation and valley bo

spillway ponds, beaver ponds, stock lakes, creeks, pools in intermittent swarmwater springs, potholes, and mare laid in April. 

Plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)

NSS4 S3 I SS Usually found in areas with sandy/g

near permanent or temporary bodieFor much of the year, lives largely inburrows of its own construction or orodent borrows. Enters water only t
3-115

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Notes: a State/U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Designations 

 Wyoming

 NSS1= Wyoming populations greatly restricted or declining, extirpation possible or ongoing; significant loss of habitat. 

 NSS2 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; ongoing significant loss 

NSS3 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; habitat restricted or vulnrecent or ongoing significant loss; species likely sensitive to human disturbance. NSS4 = Wyoming populations declining or restricted in numbers or distribution, extirpation not imminent; habitat not restricted, vloss; species not sensitive to human disturbance. 

 Montana

 MT/S1 = Montana species at high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, ma

vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. 

 MT/S2 = Montana species at risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, making it vuln

extinction or extirpation in the state.

 MT/S3 = Montana species potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, and/or habitat, even th

abundant in some areas. 

 MT/S4 = Montana species that is uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range) and usually widespread. 

vulnerable in most of its range but possibly cause for long term concern.

 MT/S5 = Montana species that is common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnera

its range.

 MT/SH = Montana species that is possibly extinct or extirpated. Species is known only from historical records but may neverthel

extant; additional surveys are needed.

 North Dakota

 I = North Dakota Species in greatest need of conservation. 

 II = North Dakota Species in need of conservation but have had support from other wildlife programs.  III = North Dakota Species in moderate need of conservation but are on the edge of their range in the state. 

 SS = BLM Sensitive Species 
3-116

Due to the presence of suitable habitat in the form of prairie dog towns, Bison conducted surveys 

for this species in all prairie dog towns crossed by the proposed Project during summer 2009 

(Table 3.7.1-4). No signs of mountain plovers were observed in the seven surveyed prairie dog towns. 

Bison has not obtained land access to survey within the two remaining prairie dog towns; however, if any 

nests are found within these two areas after survey access has been obtained, Bison would minimize 

impacts to the species by avoiding the habitat during the nesting season. In addition, if any mountain 

plovers were observed during the nesting season (April 10 through July 10), Bison would survey the 

construction area for the presence of nests prior to construction. As the mountain plover is a migratory 

bird, impacts to the species also are discussed in Section 3.6.

3.7.2.2 Burrowing Owl 

The burrowing owl is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species, an NSS4 in Wyoming, an S3 in 

Montana, and a Level II North Dakota species. This small, diurnal owl lives in burrows that have been 

created by ground squirrels and prairie dogs. The current population is unknown although the last official 

estimate was less than 10,000 breeding pairs. Data suggest that the population is declining across their 

range, which extends from the Mississippi to the Pacific, as well as Florida. Mating occurs in early 

spring, and eggs hatch approximately 28 days later. The greatest threat to the burrowing owl is habitat 

destruction and degradation caused primarily by land development (DW 2009c). 

As with the mountain plover, suitable habitat for the burrowing owl is present in the form of 

prairie dog towns. Bison has conducted surveys for this species in seven of the nine prairie dog towns 

crossed by the proposed Project and encountered one pair of burrowing owls at approximately MP 156.7 

(Table 3.7.1-4). Bison has not obtained land access to survey within the two remaining prairie dog towns. 

In addition, the proposed pipeline would cross the nest buffer zone (0.25-mile radius from the nest site) of 

a known nest between MP 43.8 and MP 44.4, resulting in 7.4 acres of impact within the buffer zone 

during construction and 3.1 acres of the permanent footprint within the buffer zone. Bison would 

minimize impacts to the known locations of burrowing owl nests, and any nests encountered within the 

two remaining prairie dog towns when survey access has been obtained, by implementing a 0.25-mile 

construction buffer during the nesting season (April 15 through August 31). As the burrowing owl is a 

migratory bird, impacts to the species also are discussed in Section 3.6. 

3.7.2.3 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, listed as a BLM Sensitive Species, a Wyoming NSS4 species, and a 

Montana S2 species, utilizes caves and abandoned mines for hibernacula and maternity roosts, although 

the bats have also been known to use abandoned buildings. Habitats in the vicinity of roosts include 

Douglas fir and lodgepole pine forests, ponderosa pine woodlands, Utah juniper-sagebrush scrub, and 

cottonwood bottomland (MFWP 2009f). Townsend’s big-eared bats feed on various nocturnal flying 

insects but appear to specialize on small moths (Kunz and Martin 1982). Females gather in maternity 

roosts and have one pup during spring or summer. The pups are able to fly within three weeks of birth 

and are weaned from their mothers at six weeks of age (MFWP 2009f). Primary threats to Townsend’s 

big-eared bats include disturbance or destruction of hibernacula, closure of abandoned mines, and habitat 

conversion (MFWP 2009f). 

Impacts to bat species in the proposed Project area include removal of suitable habitat in the 

vicinity of roosts and disturbance of rocky outcrops with small caves. Potentially suitable habitat for 

Townsend’s big-eared bat was encountered in forested riparian areas at MP 151.8 and MP 157.8 in 

Montana. Bison will conduct acoustic surveys to assess the presence of the species in summer 2009. If 

Townsend’s big-eared bats, or any other bat species, are discovered, BLM and MFWP would be 

consulted to determine appropriate mitigation measures. 
3-117

3.7.2.4 Swift Fox 

The swift fox is a BLM Sensitive Species, a Montana S3 species, and a North Dakota Level II 

species that inhabits open plains and areas mixed with plains and agriculture. Suitable habitat has been 

described as extensive in size (preferably over 10,000 acres), containing short- or mixed-grass prairie and 

sparse, low-growing vegetation within flat to gently rolling terrain, and with greater than 50 percent of the 

area undisturbed by agriculture (NRCS 2005, MFWP 2009g). Eight million suitable acres were identified 

in Montana, although the species readily disperses, and it is believed that their current range could expand 

in the future (MFWP 2009g). The species has a variable diet that includes small mammals, insects, and 

berries; and they are known to store excess food in the snow during winter (MFWP 2009g). The swift 

fox is nocturnal and uses dens year-round; pup-rearing dens have numerous entrances whereas dens used 

for escape have only one opening (NRCS 2005). Breeding occurs in early winter, and pups are born in 

late winter or spring (MFWP 2009g). The primary threat to the species is habitat conversion or 

destruction and interspecies competition with coyotes (NRCS 2005, MFWP 2009g). 

Potential habitat, areas of arid open space, was encountered during initial surveys and were 

surveyed for the presence of the swift fox in summer 2009 (Table 3.7.2-2). In accordance with 

recommended survey methodologies, the survey team looked for and recorded any signs of swift foxes 

(individual sightings, scat, dens, and tracks) and their preferred prey (cottontails and white-tailed 

jackrabbits). Of the 14 areas of potential habitat, two tracts had potential fox dens, five tracts had 

evidence of prey species (including one area in which dens were encountered), five tracts had no signs of 

the swift fox or prey species, and three tracts were not surveyed due to lack of survey access 

(Table 3.7.2-2). As a result of these surveys, a potential natal den (inactive) was observed at MP 22.6 that 

had three den openings within 10 feet of each other. Bison would resurvey this location prior to 

construction and, if active, would observe a 0.25-mile buffer around the den until pups are weaned. An 

additional three burrows were encountered at MP 98.6, MP 99.2, and MP 99.3, each of which was 

determined to be inactive and although multiple openings were seen at one of these den sites (MP 99.2 

and MP 99.3), the distance between openings did not suggest the presence of a natal den. Bison does not 

propose to resurvey these potential den locations prior to construction as they are inactive and are likely 

not natal dens. When and if Bison is granted land access to the three unsurveyed tracts with potential 

habitat, surveys would be conducted, the results provided to FERC and BLM, and impacts to any active 

fox dens encountered would be minimized by implementing a 0.25-mile construction buffer around the 

dens between March 1 and August 31. 
3-118

TABLE 3.7.2-2 

Swift Fox Potential Habitat along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Start Milepost End Milepost Habitat Survey Results 

Wyoming 

Campbell 19.3 19.3 Sagebrush and crested 

wheatgrass 

No sightings of swift fox, 

prey species, or other signs.

Campbell 22.2 23.5 Sagebrush, crested 

wheatgrass, and western 

wheatgrass. Rolling terrain 

with several washes and hills. 

Possible inactive natal den 

at MP 22.63. Several 

coyote dens were also 

observed in the area.

Campbell 24.9 26.5 Sagebrush. Gullies and 

steep slopes with relatively 

thick sage. 

No sightings of swift fox, 

prey species, or other signs. 

Several potential coyote 

dens were observed.

Campbell 27.1 27.4 Sagebrush and junegrass. 

Area was comprised of gullies 

and moderate slopes with 

relatively thick sagebrush. 

No sightings or sign of swift 

fox, but several vole tracks 

and signs were observed. 

Campbell 32.9 33.1 Arid open space Land access has not been 

granted for surveys.

Campbell 37.4 37.6 Needle and thread and 

cheatgrass. Ground cover 

was approximately 60 

percent. Area was very sandy 

and moderately sloped. 

No sightings of swift fox, 

prey species, or other signs.

Campbell 39.2 39.4 Arid open space Land access has not been 

granted for surveys.

Campbell 51.3 51.4 Sagebrush and cheatgrass. 

Grasses were relatively 

sparse, and the landscape 

was rolling with several hills. 

No sightings of swift fox, but 

sage-grouse droppings 

were observed.

Campbell 62.5 63.2 Sagebrush and low 

unidentifiable pasture 

grasses. The site was 

steeply sloped, and the higher 

elevations were dominated by 

juniper and ponderosa pine. 

No sightings of swift fox, 

prey species, or other signs.

Campbell 73.8 79.3 Sagebrush and cheatgrass. 

Grasses were relatively 

sparse, and the landscape 

was rolling with some hills. 

No sightings or other sign of 

swift fox. Sign of prey 

species was observed, 

including jackrabbit scat 

and flushed sage-grouse 

and sharp-tailed grouse on 

separate occasions. 

Several coyote dens were 

also observed throughout 

this area.
3-119

TABLE 3.7.2-2 (continued) 

Swift Fox Potential Habitat along the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County Start Milepost End Milepost Habitat Survey Results 

Montana 

Carter 96.7 97.1 Arid open space Land access has not been 

granted for surveys. 

Carter 97.1 104.5 Dominant plant species were 

smooth brome and crested 

wheatgrass. This area was 

very open with little sage and 

heavy cattle use. Many cattle 

(50+) were observed on this 

tract. 

Several active rabbit 

burrows were observed, as 

well as a large jackrabbit. 

Three possible swift fox 

dens were encountered, all 

inactive. Several coyote 

dens, as well as red fox 

den, were also observed in 

the area. 

Carter 109.0 110.3 Sagebrush and cheatgrass. 

The area consisted of rolling 

hills with several mud flats 

connected with a creek. 

Several sage-grouse were 

flushed from areas of thick 

sage, and several signs of 

rabbit were observed 

including scat and 

skeletons. No swift fox or 

signs were observed. 

Carter 138.8 141.5 Sage brush. Grasses were 

relatively sparse, and the 

landscape was relatively flat. 

No sightings or other sign of 

swift fox or prey species. A 

coyote den was observed. 

3.7.2.5 Special-Status Species Conclusions 

Impacts to BLM and state listed sensitive species would typically be similar to those described 

for general wildlife and fish populations, as discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Terrestrial wildlife, such 

as mammals and reptiles, could be subject to mortality or displacement during clearing and could lose 

habitats along the right-of-way. Birds could be affected by loss of nesting or foraging habitat during 

clearing for the proposed Project, and they could be disturbed by human activity. Fish could be affected 

by open-cut trenching through stream habitats, along with the associated increases of turbidity and 

sediment load. 

The generalized impacts described above would largely be avoided or minimized through 

implementation of the measures that Bison has proposed and additional measures that we have 

recommended. These measures include collocation with existing disturbance where possible; 

implementation of Bison’s Plan (Appendix F), Procedures (Appendix G), HDD Plan (Appendix I), 

Reclamation Plan (Appendix R), and Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L). We 

believe that, given the nature of the species present and the measures that would be implemented as part 

of this proposed Project, impacts to special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 
3-120

3.8 LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

3.8.1 Land Use 

The Bison Pipeline Project would consist of 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

that would cross 10 counties in the states of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. The proposed 

Project also would include a compressor station, two meter stations, 20 MLV sites, and three pig 

launchers/pig receivers. This section discusses the land requirements for construction and operation of 

the proposed Project, the current use of those lands, and an evaluation of the impacts from construction 

and operation of the proposed Project on those lands. 

For the discussion that follows, impacts are classified as temporary, short term, long term, or 

permanent based on the expected time it would take them to recover to pre-construction conditions. 

Temporary impacts are defined as those impacts that would occur during the construction phase only. 

Short term impacts would extend beyond the timing of construction but not longer than a period of about 

3 years. Long term impacts require more than 3 years to recover but less than the expected lifetime of the 

Project. Permanent impacts would extend for the life of the Project or longer. 

3.8.1.1 Environmental Setting 

Six general land use types would be affected by the proposed Project: agricultural, wetland, 

forested land, water, open land, and developed. Table 3.8.1-1 summarizes the acreage of each land type 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. The definitions of each 

land use type are as follows: 

• Agricultural land – includes irrigated and non-irrigated lands used to grow crops, including 

hay; 

• Wetland – includes all emergent and scrub-shrub wetland areas; 

• Forested land – includes upland forest lands, forested wetlands, and windbreaks; 

• Water – includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, as well as open water areas; 

• Open land – includes non-forested open lands including existing utility rights-of-way, 

grassland/rangeland, grazing land, native grasslands and scrub-shrub areas3

; and 

• Developed land – includes all developed rights-of-way, such as those for roads, railroads, or 

utility corridors; developed industrial areas; and developed residential land. 

Construction of the proposed Project would impact a total of 5,830.9 acres. Approximately 

74.4 percent of this acreage would be utilized for the pipeline construction right-of-way. The remaining 

acreages impacted during construction would be associated with EWSs (10.0 percent); access roads 

(8.2 percent); pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards (7.1 percent); and aboveground facilities 

(0.4 percent). Following construction, lands within the right-of-way; EWS areas; pipe storage, contractor, 

and rail yards; and access roads would be allowed to revert to their original use and land use type. The 

 

 

3

 Scrub-shrub lands are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall, predominately sage brush with 

scattered true shrubs, young trees, and small or stunted trees or shrubs. 
3-121

TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Land Use Types in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Areaa

Agricultural Land Wetland Forested Land Water Open Land Deve

County / Type of 

Facility Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp

Campbell, Wyoming Pipeline right-of-way 53.7 22.3 5.4 3.5 13.5 6.1 0.3 0.2 1,011.6 439.2 48.3 Extra workspace 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.0 0.0 6.8 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.4 0.0 11.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 Access roads 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 2.6 219.6 County subtotal 83.4 22.3 5.4 3.5 18.5 6.1 0.3 0.2 1,308.5 443.0 285.7 Wyoming subtotal 83.4 22.3 5.4 3.5 18.5 6.1 0.3 0.2 1,308.5 443.0 285.7 Powder River, Montana Pipeline right-of-way 13.0 5.5 0.6 0.4 24.9 10.1 0.4 0.2 101.0 42.6 0.9 Extra workspace 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.3 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 0.6 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 18.4 County subtotal 15.0 5.5 0.6 0.4 29.5 10.1 0.4 0.2 122.2 42.6 19.5 Carter, Montana Pipeline right-of-way 158.0 65.8 2.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.6 992.1 417.9 10.9 Extra workspace 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 107.6 0.0 1.2 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

30.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.9 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.7 0.7 52.1 County subtotal 208.4 65.8 2.8 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.6 1,175.3 418.6 64.2 
3-122

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Land Use Types in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Agricultural Land Wetland Forested Land Water Open Land Deve

County / Type of 

Facility Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp

Fallon, Montana Pipeline right-of-way 40.5 16.9 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.4 21.6 0.3 Extra workspace 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.1 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 5.3 County subtotal 46.2 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.0 21.6 5.7 Montana subtotal 269.5 88.1 3.4 1.7 29.8 10.2 1.7 0.8 1,356.5 482.8 89.4 Bowman, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 243.9 101.4 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 349.2 149.4 3.8 Extra workspace 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.9 0.0 0.7 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

86.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.9 0.0 3.5 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 35.4 County subtotal 351.6 101.4 1.7 1.1 2.8 0.2 0.8 0.6 471.6 149.4 43.4 Slope, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 202.4 84.3 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 83.1 35.7 1.8 Extra workspace 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.3 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 14.6 County subtotal 216.4 84.4 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 97.2 35.7 16.6 
3-123

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Land Use Types in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Agricultural Land Wetland Forested Land Water Open Land Deve

County / Type of 

Facility Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp

Hettinger, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 397.0 165.6 2.6 1.7 1.1 0.4 3.0 1.2 128.2 54.4 4.0 Extra workspace 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.6 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

67.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 3.9 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.2 24.7 County subtotal 513.9 185.8 2.6 1.7 1.1 0.4 3.0 1.2 153.1 54.6 29.3 Stark, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 46.2 19.2 0.2 0.1 2.7 1.2 0.0 0.1 56.2 25.2 0.7 Extra workspace 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.1 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.8 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.6 County subtotal 49.5 19.2 0.2 0.1 3.8 1.2 0.0 0.1 65.0 25.2 11.1 Grant, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 49.6 21.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.9 0.2 Extra workspace 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access roads 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 County subtotal 59.6 21.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.4 2.9 1.1 
3-124

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Land Use Types in the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Agricultural Land Wetland Forested Land Water Open Land Deve

County / Type of 

Facility Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp

Morton, North Dakota Pipeline right-of-way 109.7 45.9 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 104.2 43.8 2.1 Extra workspace 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.3 Pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards 

9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 1.6 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 Access roads 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.6 County subtotal 127.4 45.9 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 128.0 44.7 12.6 North Dakota subtotal 1318.5 458.5 7.5 4.9 9.5 2.7 4.0 2.1 925.3 312.6 114.0 Facility Totals Pipeline right-of-way 1,314.1 548.6 15.4 10.1 44.6 19.0 6.1 3.0 2,883.3 1,232.7 72.9 Extra workspace 110.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 453.3 0.0 10.3 Pipe yards, rail yards, and contractor yards 

215.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 169.5 0.0 23.9 

Aboveground facilities 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.0 Access roads 11.2 0.2 <0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.1 3.5 382.0 Project total 1,671.4 568.8 16.2 10.1 57.8 19.0 6.1 3.0 3,590.3 1,238.4 489.1 Note: a All mainline valves and pig launcher/pig receivers would be contained within the right-of-way, meter stations, or the compressor station; the acreage

added to the total permanent facility impacts. Acreages notated as permanent would be within the permanent footprint of the Project but, with the ex

access roads, would be allowed to revert to a pre-construction state 
3-125

primary land use types impacted during construction would be open land (61.6 percent), agricultural land 

(28.7 percent), and developed land (8.4 percent). Forested land, wetland, and water would make up the 

remaining 1.4 percent of land types impacted during construction of the proposed Project4

. 

Operation of the proposed Project would permanently encumber 1,888.7 of the 5,830.9 acres 

impacted during construction. The easement along the permanent pipeline right-of-way would account 

for 1,833.0 acres or 97.1 percent of the acreage. The remaining 55.7 acres (2.9 percent) would be 

associated with aboveground facilities and access roads. The primary land use types that would be 

permanently encumbered would be open land (65.6 percent of the total pipeline route) and agricultural 

land (30.1 percent of the total pipeline route). Forested land, wetland, water, and developed land would 

make up the remaining 4.3 percent of land types associated with the permanent right-of-way and 

aboveground facilities. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Bison has generally proposed a construction right-of-way width of 120 feet, which would include 

50 feet of permanent right-of-way bordered by 60 feet of additional construction workspace in upland 

areas where installation would occur via conventional, open-cut techniques, as described in Section 2.3. 

The remaining 10 feet of the construction right-of-way would be utilized for snow storage for upland 

areas constructed during winter (Section 2.2.1). In wetland areas, the construction right-of-way would be 

reduced to 75 feet. No snow storage area would be required for wetland crossings. EWSs outside of the 

right-of-way totaling 584.2 acres also would be utilized along some portions of the construction right-ofway in order to provide additional area for specialized construction equipment and operations. As 

detailed in Section 2.2, these additional construction areas would be required for construction at road 

crossings, railroad crossings, crossings of existing pipelines and utilities, wetland and waterbody 

crossings, and other areas where specialized construction techniques would be used. A table of all of the 

EWSs needed for the proposed Project is provided in Appendix B. All EWSs would be located at least 

50 feet from waterbodies and wetlands. The vast majority of the 4,920.6 acres within the construction 

right-of-way and EWSs would be open land and agricultural land, accounting for about 67.8 percent and 

28.9 percent of its area, respectively. The number and size of EWSs are mainly dependent on the type of 

work occurring within the area and the terrain of the surrounding area. For these reasons, Bison has 

proposed a substantial number of EWSs, many of which exceed the more typical EWS dimensions. Upon 

review of the EWSs and Bison’s rationale for EWSs, it appears that the EWSs listed in Appendix B are 

justified. 

Following construction, Bison would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for the 

approximately 302.5 miles of the proposed pipeline route. Similar to the construction right-of-way and 

EWS, the vast majority of the permanent right-of-way would be associated with open land and 

agricultural land. Open land would account for 67.3 percent of the 1,833.2 acres of permanent right-ofway, and agricultural land would account for 29.9 percent; wetlands, forested land, water, and developed 

land would comprise the remaining 2.8 percent of the permanent right-of-way. Vegetation outside the 

permanent right-of-way would be allowed to revert back to pre-existing condition. In general, areas 

within the permanent right-of-way would also be allowed to revert back to pre-existing conditions, except 

where agencies or individual landowners request otherwise. 

As described in Section 2.2.1.1, approximately 53.1 miles (or 17.6 percent) of the length of the 

permanent right-of-way would be collocated with existing pipeline rights-of-way. Locations are 

considered collocated if the pipeline is within 25 feet of an existing pipeline right-of-way. An additional 

 

4

 Due to rounding, the percentages add up to 100.1 percent. 
3-126

9 miles of the proposed pipeline would be parallel to, but greater than 25 feet from, existing rights-ofway. 

Access Roads 

A total of 230 temporary access roads (private roads, drives, lanes, and other roads) totaling 

476.0 acres would be utilized during construction of the Project. Of the 230 access roads that would be 

used, 67 would be new access roads constructed by Bison as part of the proposed Project. These new 

access roads would impact a total of 68.8 acres, with the majority of the impacts occurring to land 

classified as developed. Modifications such as widening, grading, gravel, or culvert installation would be 

made to some of the existing access roads. Access roads requiring temporary widening would be 

reseeded and restored according to erosion control, revegetation, and restoration procedures outlined in 

Section 3.5 and in Bison’s Plan (Appendix F). Bison would acquire prior authorization for utilization of 

existing access roads on BLM-managed lands. Appendix E provides a listing of the access roads that 

would be used during construction. These roads are also depicted on the facility location maps provided 

in Appendix C of this EIS. 

A total of 22 access roads would be required for access to permanent aboveground facilities 

during operation of the proposed Project. The area of access roads associated with aboveground facilities 

would be 33.6 acres. 

Pipe Storage, Rail, and Contractor Yards 

The proposed Project would utilize 20 yard locations including seven pipe storage yards, seven 

rail yards, two contractor yards, one rail yard/pipe yard, and three contractor/pipe yards during 

construction. In total, pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards would temporarily impact 412.2 acres 

(Table 3.8.1-1). Of the acres utilized for yards, approximately 215.7 acres (52.3 percent) would be 

agricultural land, 169.5 acres (41.1 percent) would be open land, and 23.9 acres (5.8 percent) would be 

developed land. The remaining 3.2 acres (0.8 percent) includes 2.4 acres of forest land and 0.8 acre of 

wetlands. For additional details on wetland impacts, see Section 3.4. 

The general locations of these facilities are depicted in the Pipeline and Facility Maps provided as 

Appendix D of this EIS. All yards would be leased from willing landowners, and these areas would be 

allowed to return to their previous land types following the construction period. Upon review of the 

facility location maps, it appears that several of the pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards do not have 

direct access from local roadways, nor has Bison identified existing or new access roads associated with 

the proposed Project that would allow access to these yards. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file maps and updated tables 

that identify access roads for all applicable pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include construction and operation of new aboveground facilities at 

20 locations, including one compressor station, two meter stations, 20 MLVs, and three pig launchers/pig 

receivers. All MLVs would be located within the permanent right-of-way or within the confines of 

proposed meter stations and/or the compressor station. Similarly, the three pig launcher/pig receiver 

facilities would be located within the confines of two proposed meter stations or an MLV (specifically 

MLV 161) to minimize the conversion of lands required for operation of those facilities (see Section 2.1 

and Table 2.1-2). 
3-127

A total of 22.1 acres outside of the permanent right-of-way would be permanently impacted by 

construction of aboveground facilities, including 20.0 acres at the proposed compressor station 

(Table 3.8.1-1). Locations of the various aboveground facilities are depicted in maps provided in 

Appendix C. All of these 20.0 acres are currently maintained as agricultural land, and the two meter 

station sites would permanently encumber 2.1 acres of open land. All of the proposed MLVs would be 

located within the permanent right-of-way; therefore, the acres are reflected in the previous discussion of 

the proposed permanent right-of-way. Pig launchers/pig receivers would be installed within an MLV or 

at a meter station location. 

3.8.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Areas within the proposed Project area would be considered impacted when encumbrance by 

construction or operational activities or facilities results in the physical alteration of its defining 

vegetative community or its use (for example, when trees are cleared from forested lands, resulting in 

long-term or permanent conversion to open land). The magnitude and duration of these impacts would 

vary depending on the vegetative community, post-construction restoration methods, and postconstruction activities of the land use. 

A total of 5,830.9 acres would be temporarily impacted by construction of the proposed Project. 

The construction right-of-way would be cleared of trees, brush, and other obstructions such as large roots, 

stumps, and rocks. Surface areas disturbed during construction would be returned to their original 

condition to the extent practical, excluding those areas that would be permanently impacted by 

aboveground facilities and access roads, and forested areas within the permanent right-of-way, which may 

not become re-established during the life of the proposed Project due to long regeneration times. The 

time required for vegetation in temporarily impacted areas to return to their pre-construction condition 

would depend on the type of vegetation. Impacts from clearing in areas outside the permanent right-ofway would be short term in areas characterized by non-woody vegetation that regrows rapidly; impacts 

would be long term in forested land with slower growing woody vegetation. A detailed discussion of the 

proposed construction methods and post-construction restoration actions for the proposed Project that 

would dictate the magnitude of land use conversion and the rate of recovery can be found in Section 2.3. 

Vegetative maintenance of the permanent right-of-way is not proposed for the Project and 

forested areas cleared during construction would be allowed to re-establish; however, mature growth 

would not be expected during the life of the Project. If and when right-of-way mowing is required in 

specific areas, such as if trees grow immediately adjacent to the pipeline and to a height at which the roots 

may be detrimental to pipeline integrity, FERC would be notified before such mowing takes place. 

Additional discussion of general impacts and mitigation measures that would be implemented in forested 

areas is provided in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Section 2.0 also discusses measures to avoid and minimize 

effects to sensitive land use types through route selection, collocation, and minimization of construction 

right-of-way land requirements. 

Permanent land use conversion could occur to those lands within the permanent pipeline right-ofway where reversion to the pre-construction land use would not be compatible with operation of the 

proposed Project. Future land uses or activities that would not be allowed in the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way would include aboveground construction; below ground construction; and the growth, 

planting, or cultivation of trees. Allowable land uses generally permitted within the permanent right-ofway would include agriculture, including the use of farming equipment and the cultivation of row crops, 

pastureland, and grazing. Permanent changes to land cover also would be associated with the proposed 

aboveground facilities, as the acreage required for these facilities would be converted to a 

commercial/industrial land use for the life of the Project. Although these impacts would be permanent, 
3-128

lasting for at least the life of the Project, the overall impact would not be significant given the limited 

acreage involved. 

3.8.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation for Specific Land Uses 

The major land use type that would be impacted by the proposed Project would be open land, 

which includes grazing lands. Approximately 61.6 percent (3,590.3 acres) of the land impacted by 

construction of the proposed Project would be open land. The primary impact in open land due to 

construction would be to vegetative communities, as discussed in Section 3.5. Temporary impacts would 

result to open land within the construction and permanent rights-of-way as vegetative maintenance is not 

proposed for the Project. A total of 1,236.9 acres of open land would be within the footprint of the 

permanent right-of-way or aboveground facilities. 

During the scoping period for the proposed Project, we received comments expressing concern 

for potential Project-related effects on livestock and livestock grazing. Grazing lands crossed by the 

proposed Project route can be grouped into three ownership types: privately owned grazing land, BLMmanaged grazing lands, and state-owned grazing lands. Approximately 172.1 miles of privately owned 

grazing lands would be crossed along the proposed Project route. BLM-managed grazing lands are 

managed through grazing leases and grazing allotments. The proposed Project would cross 27.3 miles of 

BLM-managed grazing lands and 10.5 miles of state-owned grazing lands. Bison would contact all 

grazing leaseholders to identify ways to minimize impacts where avoidance is not feasible. 

During construction, the proposed Project could disrupt livestock grazing in some locations. 

Disruption of grazing due to access would typically be temporary to short term within a given area during 

construction, as construction progresses along the right-of-way. Bison would notify and coordinate with 

all grazing leaseholders and landowners prior to construction activities in order to identify potential 

concerns and reduce impacts on grazing activities. All fences crossed during construction would be 

braced and secured prior to cutting. Temporary gates would be used if construction were to result in 

damage to natural barriers used for livestock control. Bison would consider the use of temporary fences 

in sensitive areas but does not plan to use linear fencing along the entire construction right-of-way. 

Following construction and restoration, grazing activity could return to its pre-construction pattern. 

Construction of the proposed Project would initially impact 1,671.4 acres of agricultural land. 

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, stripping, and backfilling could potentially 

impact agricultural land through soil erosion, damage to irrigation systems, and degradation of the soil. 

Construction in agricultural areas would be conducted in accordance with Bison’s AMP (Appendix O). 

Concerns by landowners and agencies for agricultural land have been related to potential impacts 

to drain tiles, crop production, soil compaction, and topsoil segregation. Prior to construction of the 

pipeline, Bison would attempt to locate all existing drain tiles and potential locations of future tiles within 

agricultural land through coordination with landowners and local soil conservation authorities. Further, 

Bison would develop procedures for constructing through drain-tiled areas, managing irrigation systems 

during construction, and repairing drain tiles and irrigation systems after construction. Bison would 

repair damaged drain tiles to their original or better condition and ensure that the depth of cover is 

sufficient in existing or planned drain tile areas to avoid interference. Depth of cover over the pipeline 

would be a minimum of 3 feet in planted hay fields and open land; 4 feet in plowed areas; and 5 feet 

where the pipeline crosses surface drains, diversions, grassed waterways, open ditches, and streams. In 

areas where the proposed pipeline would be collocated with an existing pipeline, the Bison pipeline would 

be installed at least to the same depth of cover as the existing pipeline. 
3-129

As described in Bison’s Plan (Appendix F), Bison would prevent mixing topsoil with subsoil by 

stripping the topsoil and storing it separately from the subsoil storage area. After backfilling, Bison 

would plow the backfilled subsoil in agricultural areas and BLM lands with a deep tillage implement to 

decompact the soil. 

Agricultural uses within the permanent right-of-way could return to their pre-construction use 

during Project operations. Following construction of the pipeline, Bison would conduct follow-up 

inspections after the first and second growing seasons to determine the success of restoration efforts. In 

agricultural land, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields are similar to adjacent 

undisturbed portions of the same field. Bison would compensate landowners for any demonstrated losses 

to crop yields in accordance with the easements. Impacts from the proposed Project on agricultural land 

would be short term and minor given the expected return of crop yields to pre-construction levels within 

the permanent right-of-way. 

Access roads would experience traffic during construction activities. The degree of increases 

would be related to the timing and duration of construction traffic, as well as the specific access road 

location. Travel outside of public roads, designated access roads, the construction right-of-way, and 

EWSs would be prohibited. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 57.8 acres of forest land, 

including 52.6 acres of upland forest, and 5.2 acres of windbreaks. Impacts to forested land would 

include clearing of trees within the construction right-of-way and EWSs. During operation, the 

permanent footprint would contain approximately 19.0 acres of forested land. Although forest land 

within the right-of-way would be allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions, mature trees would 

take many years to re-establish, therefore resulting in long term or permanent impacts to these areas. 

Bison would attempt to avoid windbreaks where possible. In areas where windbreaks would be 

impacted, cutting would be minimized to the extent possible, and trees would be replanted in windbreaks 

following construction, if outside the permanent right-of-way. However, it may take many years before 

the trees regrow to the size of the trees that had been removed. This would represent a minor long term 

impact to windbreaks. To further minimize potential impacts, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file for review and written approval by the Director of OEP 

additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts to windbreaks on a site-specific 

basis through coordination with landowners. Additional mitigation measures that 

should be considered include reducing the width of the construction right-of-way, 

relocating extra workspaces and yards to open areas, and transplanting trees to an 

unaffected portion of the windbreak. 

The proposed pipeline would impact 16.2 acres of emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands during 

construction, of which approximately 10.1 acres of wetlands (less than 0.1 acre would be scrub-shrub) 

would be within the permanent right-of-way. No forested wetlands would be impacted by the proposed 

Project. In order to minimize impacts to wetland resources, the construction right-of-way through 

wetlands would be reduced to 75 feet. For a more in-depth discussion of wetland impacts and mitigation, 

refer to Section 3.4. 

Land Ownership and Easement Requirements 

Approximately 87.2 percent of the land that would be affected by construction of the Project is 

considered private land (5,083.9 acres). The remaining land impacted by the Project would be distributed 

among federal and state lands. Negotiated easements would be used to confer rights-of-way by a 
3-130

landowner to Bison, on either a permanent or temporary (usually for construction) basis. The easement 

would give Bison the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline within a permanent or 

temporary right-of-way. In return, Bison would compensate the landowner for use of the land. Typically, 

easement agreements between a company and landowner would specify compensation for loss of use 

during construction, loss of resources, and damage to the property, and would specify allowable uses for 

the permanent right-of-way after construction is completed. 

If an agreement during negotiations between Bison and a landowner cannot be reached and the 

Project is certificated, then Bison may utilize state eminent domain to acquire the needed easements. 

State laws define the prerequisites under which eminent domain may be used and define the eminent 

domain process for each state. FERC does not have any eminent domain authority. 

The total acreage of affected federal land is approximately 490.9 acres (across 27.3 miles), all of 

which consist of BLM-managed lands. The proposed Project would cross land within three BLM field 

offices: the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming, the Miles City Field Office in Montana, and the North 

Dakota Field Office in Dickinson, North Dakota. BLM creates land use plans known as Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs); each field office creates a specific RMP for its jurisdictional area. Each 

RMP contains information related to management of specific resources. The management strategies for 

these resources usually consist of a set of restrictions and conditions necessary to allow a specified land 

use in a particular area. Bison has been coordinating with BLM. Many of the RMPs have been 

considered and have directly affected the Project’s proposed route. If the Project is approved as proposed, 

BLM would be required to amend its various RMPs as needed to ensure consistency with the proposed 

Project 

Approximately 122.7 acres (across 6.7 miles) of Wyoming state lands would be impacted by 

construction of the proposed pipeline. Out of these acres impacted, 87.5 acres would be impacted by the 

construction right-of-way, 27.6 acres would be impacted due to access roads, and 7.5 acres would be 

impacted by EWSs. A total of 39.6 acres would be within the permanent right-of-way. 

Bison would impact approximately 105.3 acres (across 6.8 miles) of state lands in Montana. 

Approximately 97.4 acres would be impacted by the construction right-of-way, 6.0 acres would be 

impacted by access roads, and 1.8 acres would be impacted by EWSs. A total of 40.6 acres would be 

within the permanent right-of-way. 

Approximately 27.9 acres (across 1.8 miles) of State School Lands would be impacted by 

pipeline construction all within North Dakota. All State School lands are owned and managed by the 

North Dakota State Land Department. Approximately 17.8 acres would be in the construction right-ofway, 9.9 acres would be impacted by EWSs, and the remaining 0.3 acre would be impacted by access 

roads. A total of 10.5 acres would be located within the permanent right-of way. Prior to construction, 

Bison would contact the North Dakota State Land Department to obtain an easement agreement/permit 

for construction of the proposed Project. 

Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

During construction, residences near the right-of-way could experience temporary, minor impacts 

during construction associated with visual impacts, noise, and dust, as discussed in Sections 3.8.3 

and 3.11, respectively. In Bison’s Application to FERC, no residences were located within 50 feet of the 

construction right-of-way or EWSs. One residence was subsequently identified within the proposed rightof-way, and Bison agreed to reroute the pipeline around the residence. 
3-131

Five additional structures were confirmed to be within the right-of-way. To avoid impacts to 

these structures, Bison plans to implement minor route adjustments around these five structures, which 

are located at MP 14.7, MP 24.1, MP 25.4, MP 32.9, and MP 214.2. 

Bison has committed to continue to work with the landowners with respect to the structures, in 

order to determine whether any additional mitigation would be required. 

Table 3.8.1-2 lists planned residential and commercial developments within 0.25 mile of the 

construction right-of-way. Construction of the proposed Project would not directly impact these 

structures but could impact water supplies for residences at three locations near the right-of-way. Bison 

would coordinate with the landowners to allow the pipeline to cross under the water lines and would 

arrange for an alternate water supply for residents if access to the water supply would be temporarily 

restricted. Bison also would repair the water line and provide a temporary alternative water supply, if 

damage were to occur. 

The construction right-of-way would cross or be within 20 feet of a planned transmission line 

route at four locations and a proposed transmission line route at two locations (Table 3.8.1-2). Specific 

timing on the construction of these proposed lines is not currently available; thus, it is possible that the 

transmission lines could be constructed prior to the proposed Project. As such, Bison has stated it would 

perform a power line interference study for each crossing of a high-voltage line to determine whether 

mitigation measures are required, but has not committed to provide the report to FERC; therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file its proposed Power Line Interference Studies for 

crossings of high-voltage lines and identify all appropriate measures to minimize 

potential impacts associated with the power lines. 

3.8.2 Recreational and Special Interest Areas 

3.8.2.1 Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

The proposed Project would cross 41 tracts that contain lands currently enrolled in the CRP: 

three in Wyoming, seven in Montana, and 31 in North Dakota (Table 3.8.2-1). At this time, Bison has not 

been able to identify the specific locations of CRP lands within these tracts as this information is not 

publicly available. Such information would be obtained by Bison through individual landowner 

coordination. Further, the specific crossing methods and mitigation measures for these lands would be 

determined through the individual easement negotiations. As such, specific locations of the CRP tracts 

and information on the temporary acreage impacts are not reported in this EIS; however, the general 

locations of the tracts containing these lands are provided in Table 3.8.2-1. 
3-132

TABLE 3.8.1-2 

Planned Residential and Commercial Developments within 0.25 Mile of the 

Construction Right-of-Way for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Planned Action County, State Milepost Description 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Campbell County, 

Wyoming 

11.7 Crossing Basin Electric 

(Hughes Transmission 

Project) 230-kilovolt (kV) 

electric power line. May be 

built prior to construction of 

the proposed Project. 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Campbell County, 

Wyoming 

38.3 Crossing Basin Electric 

(Hughes Transmission 

Project) 230-kV electric power 

line. May be built prior to 

construction of the proposed 

Project. 

Water line construction Carter County, North 

Dakota 

88.9 Waterline from well to house 

planned in same location as 

pipeline. 

Water line construction Carter County, North 

Dakota 

89.0 Waterline from well to house 

planned in same location as 

pipeline. 

Water line construction Carter County, North 

Dakota 

91.7 Waterline from well to house 

planned in same location as 

pipeline. 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Bowman County, North 

Dakota 

199.6 Crossing with planned Basin 

Electric 230-kV line that could 

be built prior to construction of 

the proposed Project. 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Bowman County, North 

Dakota 

206.6 Within 0.25 mile of Basin 

Electric 230-kV line that could 

be built prior to construction of 

the proposed Project. 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Bowman County, North 

Dakota 

213.5 Within 0.25 mile of Basin 

Electric 230-kV line that could 

be built prior to construction of 

the proposed Project 

High-voltage electrical 

transmission line 

Slope County, North 

Dakota 

217.9 Crossing with planned Basin 

Electric 230-kV line that could 

be built prior to construction of 

the proposed Project. 

Landowners who participate in this program can receive annual rental payments to establish long 

term vegetation on eligible lands that are prone to erosion. The CRP protects millions of acres of topsoil 

from erosion and is designed to safeguard natural resources. The program encourages farmers to convert 

highly erodible agricultural land or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as 

tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers. Participants enroll in 

CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. Site-specific crossing plans would be developed by Bison and 

submitted to the CRP-managing agency for review and approval prior to construction. After construction, 

Bison would reseed the disturbed areas with an NRCS-approved seed mixture in order to uphold the 
3-133

landowner’s contract with the USDA. No permanent impacts are expected, as all lands would be allowed 

to revert to their pre-construction conditions. In the unlikely event that construction of the pipeline results 

in a particular tract becoming ineligible for continued enrollment, Bison would compensate the landowner 

accordingly. 

TABLE 3.8.2-1 

Tracts Containing Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Enter Milepost Exit Milepost County, State 

42.5 43.4 Campbell, Wyoming 

43.4 43.5 Campbell, Wyoming 

44.6 45.4 Campbell, Wyoming 

145.0 145.7 Carter, Montana 

146.6 146.9 Carter, Montana 

146.9 147.9 Carter, Montana 

147.9 148.3 Carter, Montana 

150.7 151.8 Carter, Montana 

155.1 155.5 Carter, Montana 

155.5 155.7 Carter, Montana 

188.1 188.2 Bowman, North Dakota 

188.2 188.8 Bowman, North Dakota 

188.8 189.3 Bowman, North Dakota 

189.3 189.3 Bowman, North Dakota 

198.2 198.6 Bowman, North Dakota 

199.6 200.6 Bowman, North Dakota 

200.6 200.7 Bowman, North Dakota 

202.1 202.2 Bowman, North Dakota 

202.2 202.6 Bowman, North Dakota 

208.4 208.8 Bowman, North Dakota 

237.7 237.7 Hettinger, North Dakota 

237.7 237.7 Hettinger, North Dakota 

253.4 254.0 Hettinger, North Dakota 

254.0 254.0 Hettinger, North Dakota 

261.2 261.7 Hettinger, North Dakota 

261.7 261.8 Hettinger, North Dakota 

261.8 262.1 Hettinger, North Dakota 

262.1 262.7 Hettinger, North Dakota 

262.7 263.0 Hettinger, North Dakota 

263.0 263.6 Hettinger, North Dakota 

263.8 264.1 Hettinger, North Dakota 
3-134

TABLE 3.8.2-1 (continued) 

Tracts Containing Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

Crossed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Enter Milepost Exit Milepost County, State 

264.1 264.1 Hettinger, North Dakota 

266.0 266.4 Hettinger, North Dakota 

275.3 275.6 Stark, North Dakota 

275.6 275.4 Stark, North Dakota 

276.4 276.6 Stark, North Dakota 

281.2 282.2 Stark, North Dakota 

282.2 282.2 Stark, North Dakota 

284.8 284.8 Grant, North Dakota 

284.8 285.3 Grant, North Dakota 

299.1 299.5 Morton, North Dakota 

3.8.2.2 Coal Fields and Mining 

The proposed Project would cross two coal fields a total of 13 times, four gravel pits, and one 

scoria pit. Current information indicates that the coal fields do not have any active surface mining 

operations within approximately 0.25 mile of the proposed route. Similarly, the gravel pits that would be 

within 0.25 mile of construction activities are not currently active. However, the scoria pit located at 

MP 211.1 is currently active. Additional discussion of these lands can be found in Section 3.1. The 

presence of the pipeline is not expected to preclude access to subsurface minerals, or surface mining 

activities except immediately along the Project right-of-way. Any areas of mineable minerals that would 

be influenced by the presence of the pipeline (either access to mining areas or potential interest in future 

surface mining proximal to the pipeline right-of-way) should be addressed between landowners and Bison 

during easement negotiations. 

3.8.2.3 Railroads 

The proposed Project route would cross three railroad sites. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 

Railroad is an active railroad located in Wyoming at MP 17.2. The Burlington North Santa Fe Railroad is 

located in North Dakota at MP 205.8. The Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, located in 

Hettinger, North Dakota, is an abandoned railroad spur. This site was identified during 2008 surveys as a 

potential sensitive cultural resource. However, this site was re-visited in 2009, and Bison found that the 

landowner had converted the area to agricultural land. Given this land conversion, the area is no longer 

considered a cultural resource, as discussed in Section 3.9.1.1, and thus would be treated as agricultural 

lands as discussed in Section 3.8.1.3. The two remaining locations would be crossed via horizontal bore; 

therefore, operations of those active railroads would be unimpacted by construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. 

3.8.2.4 Scenic and Recreational Rivers 

The Little Missouri, Heart, and Cannonball Rivers in North Dakota would be crossed by the 

proposed Project route and each provides recreational fishing and canoeing opportunities. The Little 
3-135

Missouri River is the sole State Scenic River in North Dakota and is protected under the Little Missouri 

River State Scenic River Act. Visual impacts associated with scenic rivers are addressed in Section 3.8.3. 

The proposed crossing method is HDD for the Little Missouri and Heart Rivers, located at 

MP 182.7 and MP 282.1, respectively. The use of HDD would allow recreational fishing and canoeing 

activities to continue in the area of the crossings throughout the construction period. Potential temporary 

impacts would be associated with noise, air quality, and visual resources. Refer to Section 3.11 for 

additional discussion of air and noise quality. Visual resources are discussed in Section 3.8.3. Operation 

of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to recreational fishing or canoeing on the 

Little Missouri and Heart Rivers. 

Bison has proposed a dry crossing for the Cannonball River at MP 250.7. Open-cutting this 

waterbody would result in the crossing site being temporarily closed to canoeists and recreational 

fisherman during construction; therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Bison file for review and written approval by the Director of OEP 

a plan that describes measures to minimize potential impact to recreational use of the 

Cannonball River during construction. The plan should include measures such as the 

posting of warning signs regarding waterbody construction both upstream and 

downstream of the crossing site, and methods to provide safe portage for any boaters 

who wish to traverse the crossing area of the Cannonball River during construction for 

those who request help. 

Visual impacts at the Cannonball River crossing would be more substantial than at the Little 

Missouri or Heart River crossings because of the presence of construction activities within the river. Due 

to the temporary nature of construction activities, impacts to canoeing and recreational fishing would be 

minor. Following active construction, streamflow would be returned to pre-construction conditions, and 

canoeing and recreational fishing activity could resume. See Section 3.6.1 for additional discussion of 

fishery resources in the proposed Project area. 

3.8.2.5 Hunting Lands 

Most of the public and private land that would be crossed by the proposed Project could be used 

for hunting, depending on the hunting season, permitting, and conditions of the property. See 

Sections 3.10.3 and 3.10.6 for additional discussion of potential impacts to hunters and landowners of 

these lands, respectively. Impacts would occur to these areas during construction, including temporary 

closure of the construction area to hunting. In general, hunting is allowed on all public lands within 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Hunting is limited based on certain conditions, seasons, and 

permitting requirements. Hunting seasons vary by state and according to game species. 

The presence of construction activities could result in localized disruptions to big game species 

during the construction period, but any disruptions would be temporary as construction progresses along 

the right-of-way. Recreational and hunting clubs would be notified by letter concerning when and where 

their area of interest may be cleared for construction, and would be provided the information to contact a 

Bison representative with any questions. As discussed in Section 3.10.6, during easement negotiations 

with individual landowners, Bison would establish criteria that would be used to define and quantify 

impacts to hunting lands. This information would be used to determine compensation for verified lost 

hunting revenues. 

Hunting activity could return to its pre-construction patterns following construction, and Project 

operations would not result in significant impacts to hunting. Bison contacted the states crossed by the 
3-136

proposed Project to identify required or recommended safety precautions where construction activities 

would occur during hunting seasons. Construction workers would wear high-visibility clothing in 

compliance with requirements and recommendations provided by Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, 

and would coordinate with affected landowners to obtain permission for access during hunting seasons. 

3.8.3 Visual Resources 

Visual resources refer to the composite of those features that influence the visual appeal of an 

area for residents or visitors, including physical terrain, hydrological features, vegetation, and 

anthropogenic features. The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: 

(1) construction activity and equipment may temporarily alter the viewshed; (2) lingering impacts along 

the right-of-way from clearing during construction could alter existing vegetation patterns; and 

(3) aboveground facilities would represent permanent alterations to the viewshed. The significance of 

these visual impacts primarily would depend on the quality of the current viewshed, the degree of 

alteration of that view, the number of potential viewers, and the perspective of the viewer. 

3.8.3.1 Existing Viewshed 

Most of the proposed Project would extend through rural areas that consist of open and 

agricultural land with very few residences. Forested lands are uncommon within the Project area and thus 

would not generally provide vegetative screening. Most areas along the route provide long-range 

unobstructed views. Public viewpoints are present along some of the roadways in the Project area. 

Collocation of the Project route with existing rights-of-way (see Section 2.0) would limit the extent of 

new isolated right-of-way areas. 

3.8.3.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

Construction of the proposed Project could result in impacts to the viewshed due to the presence 

of construction activities, construction equipment, and modification or clearing of vegetation along the 

construction right-of-way. The degree of visual impacts would depend on the quality of the existing 

viewshed, the magnitude of the alteration, and the number of viewers potentially impacted. The 

temporary alteration to the views could be perceived as detrimental to some, while others may derive 

enjoyment from viewing construction activity. 

The presence of construction activities would result in temporary visual impacts during the 

construction period, but these results would be minor given the primarily rural nature of lands crossed, the 

limited number of viewers, and the short term presence of construction activities—which at any single 

point along the pipeline route would last about 8 to 14 weeks (an average of about 12 weeks). In addition, 

Bison has developed a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U) to minimize dust impacts due to 

construction activities. 

After construction is completed, vegetation within the right-of-way would be allowed to revert 

back to pre-existing conditions. 

To further reduce visual impacts related to the permanent pipeline corridor, Bison proposed a 

route that would be collocated with or parallel existing utility rights-of-way, where possible, thereby 

minimizing impacts to previously undisturbed vegetation. In these areas where the proposed pipeline 

would be collocated with existing rights-of-way, the visual impacts of the proposed Project would be 

minor because widening of the existing corridor would not significantly alter existing visual resources. 
3-137

The long term visual impacts resulting from views of the corridor in existing forested areas where the 

proposed route would not be collocated with existing rights-of-way generally would be limited to a 

relatively small number of individuals and/or brief observations afforded in areas where the corridor 

intersects roadways. As a result, we believe that the long term visual impact of the permanent pipeline 

corridor would be minor. 

The proposed route would cross one North Dakota State Scenic River at MP 182.7: the Little 

Missouri River. The river would be crossed using HDD, preventing direct impacts to the river. Work 

crews and construction activities may be visible to users of the river during pipeline construction; 

however, these impacts would be temporary and minor. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include construction and operation of one new compressor station, 

two meter stations, 20 MLVs, and three pig launcher/pig receiver facilities. Some of the aboveground 

facilities would be constructed in areas where existing viewsheds contain similar features or where views 

would be occluded by existing vegetation or topography. Further, most of the aboveground facilities 

would be constructed in areas away from residences and recreational areas, limiting the number of 

individuals who would view the facilities. Given the rural location of these sites and the collocation with 

existing utility rights-of-way in some areas, the aboveground facilities as a group would represent a minor 

visual alteration that would persist for the life of the Project. The potential site-specific visual impacts of 

each aboveground facility are described below. 

Compressor Station 

The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would be located on agricultural land at MP 257.1 in 

Hettinger County, North Dakota. The entire station would comprise approximately 20.0 acres. The 

compressor station would contain a number of components, including a compressor building, main gas 

piping, main gas filter/separator, fuel gas heater, numerous skids, blowdown valves, a security system, a 

warehouse building, chain-linked fence, an MLV, and pipe storage. 

The compressor station would be located in an area characterized by large agricultural fields, 

extending over southeastward-sloping, rolling hills for miles in every direction. The compressor station 

would be adjacent to the Enchanted Highway, thus it would be visible to motorists approaching the area. 

The nearest residence is 0.8 mile from the proposed compressor station site. Due to the rural location of 

the compressor station, it is anticipated that the presence of the station would not result in visual impacts 

to residents in the area. 

Meter Stations 

Meter stations would be constructed adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way at each of the proposed 

Project receipt and delivery points to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas received from 

or delivered to those systems. Each meter station would include meter and regulator equipment, flow 

pressure control equipment, and associated instrumentation and controls; all components would be housed 

within a fenced and gated perimeter. Bison has proposed the construction of two meter stations: the 

Buffalo Meter Station, which would affect approximately 1.2 acres; and the Kurtz Meter Station, which 

would affect approximately 0.9 acre. Both meter stations would be located on rural, private land. 

The Buffalo Receipt Meter Station (MP -0.47) would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming 

in an area away from residences and major roadways; the nearest residence would be approximately 

1.4 miles from the station. The site of the meter station is currently being prepared by Anadarko for 
3-138

installation of an amine plant scheduled to be completed in 2009. The Buffalo Meter Station would be 

installed within the developed boundaries of this plant. Since the meter station would be installed within 

an existing plant site and away from residential areas, it is not expected to cause impacts to the existing 

viewshed. 

The Kurtz Delivery Meter Station (MP 301.5) would be located adjacent to an existing 

compressor station. The nearest residence is 0.4 mile from the proposed meter station. While this meter 

station would be located adjacent to a roadway, the existing viewshed contains similar views; thus, 

impacts to visual receptors would be permanent but negligible. 

Pig Launcher/Receiver Facilities 

A pig launcher/pig receiver facility would be located at an MLV site at MP 161, a pig launcher 

would be located at the Buffalo Meter Station at MP -0.47, and a pig receiver would be located at the 

Kurtz Meter Station near the end of the pipeline route (MP 301.5). Given the location of two of these 

facilities at the meter stations, where anticipated impacts to the viewshed were found to be negligible, 

visual impacts associated with these pig launchers and pig receivers are expected to be permanent but 

negligible. The pig launcher/pig receiver facility at MP 161 would be located approximately 0.1 mile 

from Mill Iron Road and within the confines of MLV 161. The site is surrounded by scrub-shrub lands, 

and the nearest residence is located 0.8 mile from the proposed site. While the facility may be seen from 

the road, impacts would be expected to result in a negligible long term impact on the viewshed of users of 

the road. 

Mainline Valves 

Three of the MLVs would be located within the confines of the Hettinger Compressor Station, the 

Buffalo Meter Station, or the Kurtz Meter Station. A fourth MLV would be located at MP 161 along with 

a pig launcher/pig receiver facility. 

The remaining 16 MLVs would be located along the pipeline route at various locations. Most of 

the valves would be located within agricultural fields away from roads and residences. However, some of 

the MLV locations are located close to roadways and thus may be visible to motorists and nearby 

residents. Each of the potentially visible MLVs would appear as a small fenced area within an 

agricultural field or along an existing utility right-of-way. This could result in a long term effect on visual 

quality, and the significance of the impact would vary with the viewer. Although potentially visible to 

nearby residents, due to the small size of the MLV facilities, we do not believe that the visual impact 

would be significant at these locations. 

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires 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 on the undertaking. Bison, as a nonfederal party, is assisting FERC in meeting its obligation under Section 106 of the NHPA by conducting 

the field surveys and evaluations required by ACHP regulations in 36 CFR 800. 

3.9.1 Results of Cultural Resources Surveys 

Bison conducted initial cultural resources surveys during summer and fall 2008 and spring 2009 

for the proposed Project right-of-way, EWSs, aboveground facilities, access roads, and pipe storage, rail, 

and contractor yards within Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. 
3-139

Cultural resources surveys of the proposed pipeline route were conducted within a 300-foot-wide 

survey corridor in Montana and North Dakota. In Wyoming, archaeological surveys of the proposed 

pipeline route were conducted within a 300-foot-wide survey corridor for those areas where the proposed 

route would be collocated with an existing pipeline right-of-way and within a 340-foot-wide survey 

corridor for those areas where the proposed route would not be collocated with an existing pipeline rightof-way. The wider survey corridor for non-collocated areas was used at the request of BLM in Wyoming 

to allow for a 100-foot-wide buffer on either side of the construction right-of-way regardless of which 

side would be used as the working side during construction. BLM and the Wyoming SHPO subsequently 

agreed to allow no less than a 50-foot-wide buffer for those portions of the pipeline corridor in Wyoming 

that were inventoried prior to mid-April 2009. After mid-April 2009, archaeological surveys in Wyoming 

were conducted within a 500-foot-wide survey corridor for both collocated and non-collocated portions of 

the pipeline right-of-way. The switch to a wider corridor was made to accommodate the requisite 

100-foot-wide buffer after typical EWS dimensions had been taken into account as well as minor 

centerline route variations. 

Most proposed EWS is encompassed within the pipeline survey corridor in all three states. The 

survey corridor was expanded to include any EWS that would not be encompassed by the pipeline survey 

corridor (or where the pipeline corridor would not encompass the requisite buffer in Wyoming). A 

100-foot-wide corridor was surveyed for unimproved roads that Bison proposes to use for Project access 

as well as for roads that would be further improved. Survey is not required for paved or graveled access 

roads that would not be improved for the Project. Parcels for associated facilities were surveyed using 

100-foot-wide transect intervals. In consultation with appropriate agency and tribal representatives, Bison 

would consider visual or audible effects to historic properties on a case-by-case basis for previously 

recorded or known resources generally within 1 mile of the survey corridor. 

As of May 30, 2009, Bison had completed cultural resources surveys along approximately 

278.9 miles (92.2 percent) of the proposed Project pipeline route. The total includes 12.1 miles 

(4 percent) of the proposed pipeline route that has been surveyed since 1980 for other projects in 40-acre 

or greater parcels. The results of the previous inventories are incorporated into the inventory results for 

the Wyoming portion of the Project. On July 21, 2009, Bison filed with the Secretary technical reports 

necessary to allow us to assess the adequacy of the previous inventory coverage. The reports are under 

review by FERC. 

Bison has also completed cultural resources surveys at the proposed compressor station facility; 

at nine of the 20 potential pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards; and along 61 of 139 proposed access 

roads for which survey is required. Surveys are not required for 91 paved or graveled proposed access 

roads that would not be improved for the Project. Surveys still need to be conducted for 78 access roads, 

as well as the two meter station and pig launcher/pig receiver parcels that have not been surveyed. The 

proposed MLV locations are all encompassed within the proposed pipeline survey corridor or proposed 

meter station or compressor station areas. 

Cultural resources surveys remain to be completed primarily at areas for which landowner 

permission for access has not yet been obtained and for recently adopted route variations. Bison 

anticipates completing these surveys during the summer of 2009. Surveys in areas where permission for 

access have not been obtained, recently adopted route variations, and other EWSs would be completed as 

permission for access is obtained. 

3.9.1.1 Wyoming 

Fifty-four cultural resources were relocated or identified within the Wyoming portion of the 

proposed Project, including 18 archaeological sites (Stubbs 2009a) (Table 3.9.1-1). The other 36 cultural 
3-140

resources are isolated resources limited to one or a few prehistoric or historic artifacts each. Eleven 

archaeological sites were previously recorded and evaluated, one of which was re-evaluated for the 

proposed Project. Seven sites are newly identified and evaluated for the proposed Project. Fifteen of the 

18 sites are situated along the proposed pipeline survey corridor. The remaining three sites (48CA5291, 

48CA6977, and 48CA6978) are situated along access roads. All of the sites are within the area of 

proposed disturbance except Sites 48CA3732 and 48CA5291. One site (48CA5105) is on BLM land, one 

site (48CA5291) is on State of Wyoming land, and one site (48CA5938) is on Campbell County land. 

The other 15 sites are on private lands. 

TABLE 3.9.1-1 

Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in Wyoming 

Site No. Site Type Land Statusa Bison’s NRHP-Eligibility 

Assessmentb Proposed Management 

Recommendation

48CA265 Historic Private Eligible 

Contributing (Segment 1) 

Non-contributing (Segment 2) 

Avoid by boring beneath 

None 

48CA1577 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA3463 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA3726 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA3732 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA4439 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA5105 Prehistoric BLM Eligible (non-contributing) None 

48CA5291 Prehistoric State Not eligible None 

48CA5305 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA5376 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA5938 Historic County Not eligible None 

48CA6957 Historic and 

prehistoric 

Private Not eligible None 

48CA6974 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA6975 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA6977 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA6978 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

48CA6980 Historic Private Not eligible None 

48CA6981 Historic Private Not eligible None 

Notes: 

 a BLM = Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. 

 b NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. 
3-141

Nine sites are historic, eight sites are prehistoric (one of which contains an isolated historic 

artifact), and one site is both historic and prehistoric. The historic sites include a railroad, roads, 

homesteads, a stockherding trash scatter, and two sites with isolated historic features. The prehistoric 

sites all consist of lithic scatters with the exception of a single prehistoric campsite. 

Two sites previously have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The proposed pipeline intersects two segments of Site 48CA265 (the Chicago, Burlington and 

Quincy Railroad), which has been previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP based on its 

importance to regional history. For the proposed Project, Segment 1 of this site is recommended as 

possessing the qualities that contribute to the significance of the site. Bison would avoid the segment, 

which is an active railroad line, by boring beneath it. Segment 2 of this site is recommended not to 

possess the qualities that contribute to the significance of the site. However, it would also be avoided by 

boring because it is an active rail line as well. 

Site 48CA5105 is a prehistoric campsite that has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP 

based on its potential to yield data important for understanding the prehistory of the region. However, the 

portion of the site that would be impacted has been previously determined not to possess the qualities of 

the site that qualify the site as significant. It has also been heavily disturbed by prior oil and gas-related 

development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely affect the property. No specific 

management measures are proposed for the site. 

Site 48CA3726 is a prehistoric lithic scatter that was previously determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. Additional investigations conducted for the proposed Project indicate that the site possesses 

little data potential. Therefore, the site is now recommended as ineligible for listing in the NRHP. No 

specific management measures are proposed for the site. 

The other 15 sites and 36 isolated resources have been determined ineligible or are recommended 

as ineligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Bison has submitted the cultural resources survey report for Wyoming to the BLM Buffalo Field 

Office and the Wyoming SHPO for concurrence with the findings and recommendations for NRHP 

eligibility and treatment. The BLM Buffalo Field Office provided FERC with comments on the cultural 

resources investigations for the Wyoming portion of the Project. 

The Wyoming portion of the proposed Project would also intersect the routes of two linear 

historic properties that have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The proposed Project 

intersects two routes of a variant of the Sawyers Expedition (48CA1570) and the route of the Texas Trail 

(48CA1473). However, both properties are identified more as routes than as specific physical trails or 

road traces. No remnants are known for either property in northern Campbell County, Wyoming, where 

the proposed Project would be situated. No identifiable traces or locales associated with either property 

have been identified to date as a result of the cultural resources surveys conducted for Bison. 

3.9.1.2 Montana 

Sixty-two cultural resources were identified within the Montana portion of the proposed Project, 

including 23 archaeological sites (Stubbs 2009b) (Table 3.9.1-2). The other 39 cultural resources are 

isolated resources consisting of either one or two artifacts each. One archaeological site (24CT791) was 

previously recorded and evaluated. The other 22 sites are newly identified and evaluated for the proposed 

Project. Twenty sites are situated along the proposed pipeline corridor, including one site (24FA759) 

within an EWS, and the other three sites (24CT1519, 24PR2600, and 24PR2637) are along access roads. 
3-142

All of the sites are within the area of proposed disturbance except Sites 24CT1514, 24PR2600, and 

24PR2603. Two sites are on lands administered by BLM (24CT791 and 24CT1516), and one site is 

partly on State of Montana land (24CT1519). The other sites are on private lands. 

TABLE 3.9.1-2 

Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in Montana 

Site No. Site Type Land Statusa Bison’s NRHP-Eligibility 

Assessmentb

 

Proposed Management 

Recommendation 

24CT791 Historic BLM Not eligible None 

24CT1399 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1501 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1502 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1503 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24CT1504 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24CT1505 Prehistoric Private Eligible Avoid by realignment 

24CT1507 Prehistoric Private Eligible Avoid by right-of-way neckdown 

24CT1508 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24CT1511 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1513 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1514 Unknown Private Unevaluated Avoid by right-of-way neckdown 

24CT1515 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1516 Historic BLM Not eligible None 

24CT1518 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24CT1519 Historic Private/state Not eligible None 

24FA757 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24FA759 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24PR2600 Historic/modern Private Unevaluated Outside access road area of effect 

24PR2602 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24PR2603 Prehistoric Private Not eligible None 

24PR2604 Historic Private Not eligible None 

24PR2637 Historic Private Not eligible None 

Notes: 

 a BLM = Bureau of Land Management, Miles City Field Office. 

 b NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. 
3-143

Thirteen sites are historic (one of which contains an isolated prehistoric artifact), nine sites are 

prehistoric, and one is of unknown date. The historic sites included homesteads, roads, trash 

scatters/dumps (one with an associated cairn/rock pile), and a rock inscription. A pump house that may 

be historic or modern also was documented. The prehistoric sites are eight lithic scatters and one 

prehistoric campsite. A single isolated stone cairn of indeterminate date also was documented. Twentyeight isolated resources are prehistoric, and 11 isolated resources are historic. 

Two newly identified sites (24CT1505 and 24CT1507) are recommended as eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. Both are prehistoric sites considered eligible based on their potential to provide important 

information concerning the prehistory of the region. Bison plans to avoid Site 24CT1505 by realigning 

the pipeline route. Bison proposes to avoid Site 24CT1507 by necking down the construction right-ofway and installing protective fencing during pipeline construction. 

Bison has left two sites (24CT1514 and 24PR2600) unevaluated with regard to their eligibility for 

listing in the NRHP. Bison plans to avoid Site 24CT1514 (a cairn of undetermined date) by necking 

down the construction right-of-way and an adjacent EWS, in which case the proposed action would avoid 

the site by a distance of 80 feet, resulting in no effect to the property. Site 24PR2600 is situated 55 feet 

from an access road and would not be impacted by the proposed Project. 

The other 19 sites and the 39 isolated resources have been determined ineligible (24CT791) or are 

recommended as ineligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Bison has submitted the cultural resources survey report to the BLM Miles City Field Office, 

Montana SHPO, and the Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation for concurrence with 

the findings and recommendations for NRHP eligibility and treatment. The BLM Miles City Field Office 

provided FERC with comments for the Montana portion of the project on July 16, 2009. The Montana 

SHPO indicated in a letter dated June 23, 2009, that it is awaiting comments from FERC, BLM, and 

Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation prior to commenting. 

3.9.1.3 North Dakota 

Thirty-three cultural resources were identified within the North Dakota portion of the proposed 

Project, including 11 archaeological sites (Herbel et al. 2009) (Table 3.9.1-3). The other 22 cultural 

resources are isolated resources. One archaeological site (32BO119) was previously recorded and 

evaluated. Ten sites are newly identified and evaluated for the proposed Project. All 11 sites are on 

private lands. Ten sites are within the pipeline survey corridor, and one site is within an access road 

survey corridor. 

Eight sites are historic, and three sites are prehistoric. The historic sites are an abandoned 

railroad branch line, a coal mine, an abandoned state highway grade, two abandoned homesteads, and 

three artifact scatters/trash dumps. The prehistoric sites are sparse lithic scatters. The isolated resources 

consist of one or two prehistoric flaked stone artifacts each. 

One newly identified site (32SL171, the Ross homestead) is recommended as potentially eligible 

for listing in the NRHP based on its potential to provide important information concerning the settlement 

history of the region. However, the portion of the site within the pipeline survey corridor is 

recommended as not possessing the qualities that potentially contribute to the data potential or potential 

eligibility of the site. Based on that recommendation, the Project as proposed would have no adverse 

effect to the site. 
3-144

TABLE 3.9.1-3 

Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Area of Potential Effect in North Dakota 

Site No. Site Type Land Status 

Bison’s NRHP-Eligibility 

Assessmenta Proposed Management 

Recommendation 

32BO119 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32GT314 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32HT99 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32HT100 Prehistoric Private Not eligible SHPO recommends additional 

testing 

32HT169 Prehistoric Private Not eligible SHPO recommends additional 

testing 

32HT170 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32HT171 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32MO1079 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32MO1080 Historic Private Not eligible None 

32MO1141 Prehistoric Private Not eligible SHPO recommends additional 

testing 

32SL171 Historic Private Potentially eligible noncontributing portion None 

Note: 

 a NRHP = National Register of Historic Places 

Another newly identified site (32HT170, the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad) was 

initially recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP in July 2008 as a result of surveys for the 

proposed Project. However, when the site was revisited in April 2009, it had been graded and filled for 

agricultural use. It was subsequently re-evaluated as not eligible due to lack of integrity. The other nine 

sites and 22 isolated resources have been determined ineligible (32BO119) or are recommended as 

ineligible by Bison for listing in the NRHP. 

Bison has submitted the cultural resources survey report for North Dakota to the BLM North 

Dakota Field Office and the North Dakota SHPO for concurrence with the findings and recommendations 

for NRHP eligibility and treatment. The BLM North Dakota Field Office has deferred comment since no 

cultural resources that would be affected by the Bison Project have been identified to date on lands 

administered by BLM in North Dakota. The North Dakota SHPO requested additional testing at sites 

32HT169, 32HT100, and 32MO1141 in the absence of formal testing. 

3.9.2 Native American Consultation 

In June of 2008, Bison wrote to 48 Indian tribes that currently or historically used the proposed 

Project area to request their comments on the proposed Project (Table 3.9.2-1). Of the 48 tribes 

contacted, 32 were identified as having the greatest potential to be interested in the Project and were sent 

the Cultural Survey Protocol document. On September 30, 2008, FERC sent the NOI to the same 
3-145

48 Indian tribes. The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe responded that they had no concerns regarding the 

proposed Project. No other responses to the NOI have been received to date. 

TABLE 3.9.2-1 

Native American Consultation Contact List for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Native American Group Contacted Parties Comment 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 

Mr. Curley Youpee, 

THPO 

Interested in reviewing archaeological 

reports and participating in a Project 

meeting. 

Bois Forte Band of Chippewa 

Indians 

Ms. Rosemary Berens, 

THPO 

Has "no comment" on the project. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Ms. Donna Rae 

Petersen, THPO 

Interested in reviewing a GIS shape file of 

the alignment. 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of OK Ms. Lanette Gray, THPO Requested project materials to be re-sent. 

Chippewa-Cree Indians of the 

Rocky Boy's Reservation 

Mr. Alvin Windy Boy, 

THPO 

Interested in reviewing the maps and 

knowing where we are in the 

environmental assessment process. 

Comanche Nation Mr. Wallace Coffey, 

Chairman 

"No comment" on the project; however, if 

archaeological materials are uncovered 

during construction, it is requested that 

construction stop immediately and the tribe 

be notified. 

Confederate Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

Ms. Marcia Pablo, Tribal 

Preservation 

Department 

Has “no comment and no objections” to 

the Project. 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow 

Creek Reservation 

Mr. Brandon Sazue, 

Chairman 

Has not had the chance to review the 

Project materials; requested materials to 

be re-sent. 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the 

Wind River Reservation 

Mr. Chester Pingree, Oil 

and Gas Department 

Reviewing the project. 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of SD Mr. Joshua Weston, 

President 

No response. 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa 

Mr. LeRoy DeFoe, 

Cultural Preservation 

Officer 

Tribe has never been in the project area 

and has "no comment" on the Project. 

Fort Belknap Indian Community of 

the Fort Belknap Reservation 

Mr. John Allen, Tribal 

Chairman 

Has reviewed the information and is "okay 

and comfortable" with the Project; no 

comments or objections. 

Grand Portage Chippewa Mr. Todd LeGarde, 

Environmental Director 

Not interested in the Project because the 

proposed route does not extend through 

Minnesota. 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Mr. Jamie Eskwe, 

Cultural Preservation 

Authority 

Project materials to be re-sent. 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Ms. Gina M. Lemon, 

THPO 

Has no objection to the proposed Project; 

will be provided with Project updates. 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the 

Lower Brule Reservation 

Ms. Clair Green, Tribal 

Council 

Has reviewed the map; will review it again 

prior to responding. 
3-146

TABLE 3.9.2-1 (continued) 

Native American Consultation Contact List for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Native American Group Contacted Parties Comment 

Lower Sioux Indian Community Ms. Pamela Halverson, 

THPO 

Interested in reviewing topographic maps 

and attending Project meetings. 

Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara 

Nation Three Affiliated Tribes of the 

Fort Berthold Reservation 

Mr. Parry Brady, THPO, 

and Mr. Peter Coffey 

Interested in learning about the 

construction timeline, surveying, and 

reviewing archaeological reports; would 

like to participate in construction 

monitoring. 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians Ms. Natalie Weyaus, 

THPO 

Area of interest is in North Dakota; would 

like to participate in surveys, tribal 

monitoring during construction, reviewing 

the North Dakota Archaeological Report, 

and receiving a large-scale detailed map of 

the North Dakota portion of the route. 

Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind 

River Reservation 

Ms. Helen Knudson, 

Tribal Librarian 

No response at this time. Awaiting filling of 

THPO position. 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation 

Mr. Conrad Fisher, 

THPO 

Met with Bison on 4/15/09 on Northern 

Cheyenne Lands to discuss the project; 

interested in participating in cultural 

surveys and reviewing the cultural 

resources reports; would like an 

agreement that defines the roles and 

responsibilities of parties on the Project. 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone 

Nation 

Mr. Bruce Parry, 

Chairman 

Interested in Wyoming section of the 

Project. 

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine 

Ridge Reservation 

Ms. Theresa Tubles, 

President 

Reviewing a GIS shapefile of the Project. 

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Mr. Ansley Griffin, 

Treasurer to Mr. Amen 

Sheridan, Chairman 

Interested in consultation; would like to 

review archaeological reports and to be 

notified of any finds (especially bones); 

wants to be notified of upcoming meetings 

and development plans. 

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Ms. Misty Nuttle, THPO Has no comments or objections to the 

Project. 

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Mr. Douglas Rhodd, 

Chairman 

Reviewing the Project but believes that 

tribe is outside area of concern. 

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Mr. Gary Robinette, 

Chairman 

No comment at this time; however, would 

like to be notified if something is 

uncovered. 

Prairie Island Indian Community Mr. Mark Mulligan, Tribal 

Engineer 

“No comment" on the Project. 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians of Minnesota 

Ms. Katherine Beaulieu, 

Tribal Secretary 

Has no comment or objection to the 

Project; would like Bison to continue 

correspondence through the Rocky Boy 

Reservation THPO. 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of Indians Mr. Ben Rhodd, Project 

Consultant 

Will review the Project. 
3-147

TABLE 3.9.2-1 (continued) 

Native American Consultation Contact List for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Native American Group Contacted Parties Comment 

Santee Sioux Nation Mr. Roger Trudell, Tribal 

Chairman, and Mr. 

Robert Campbell, 

Assistant Chairman 

Has not reviewed the Project information. 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota 

Mr. Leonard Wabasha, 

Director of Cultural 

Resources 

No comment unless burial sites are found 

during construction; would like to continue 

to be updated on the progress of the 

Project. 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the 

Fort Hall Reservation 

Mr. Travis Stone, 

Chairman 

Has no comments or objections to the 

Project; requested that consultation 

continue with other tribes in the area. 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the 

Lake Traverse Reservation 

Ms. Dianne Desrosiers, 

THPO 

Prefers to consult with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission directly. 

Southern Ute Tribe Mr. Jerry Bruner, 

Chairman 

The tribe has no land there but is still in 

contact with local tribes; will call back. 

Spirit Lake Nation Mr. William Ambrose 

Littleghost , Cultural 

Advisor 

Has no comment on the Project; however, 

if burial sites or significant artifacts are 

found, contact Mr. Gerard Thompson, who 

will be replacing Mr. Littleghost. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Ms. Wast'e Win Young, 

THPO, 

Ms. Adrienne Swallow, 

Environmental Director 

Interested in learning about the survey 

procedures; Project materials have been 

sent. 

The Blackfeet Nation Mr. John Murray, THPO Interested in the Montana portion of the 

Project. 

The Crow Tribe of Indians of 

Montana 

Mr. Dale Old Horn, 

THPO 

Will review the report; wishes to have 

monitors present during construction. 

The Ho-Chunk Nation Mr. Bill Quackenbush, 

THPO 

Will review the project; wishes to receive 

Project updates. 

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Mr. Brian Brunelle, 

THPO 

May be six Minnesota Chippewa Bands 

interested in commenting; will provide 

contact information if any are interested. 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Mr. Brady Grant, THPO Interested in having a tribal monitor for 

construction activities. 

Upper Sioux Community of 

Minnesota 

Mr. Scott Larsen, 

Council Member at 

Large 

Interested in reviewing archaeological 

reports and participating as a tribal 

monitor. 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and 

Ouray Reservation 

Mr. Curtis Cesspooch, 

Chairperson 

Interested in development plans but no 

comments to date. 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Mr. Manuel Heart, THPO No response. 

White Earth Band of Minnesota 

Chippewa 

Mr. Mike Swan, Cultural 

Preservation Officer 

Does not have interest in projects outside 

of Minnesota. 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Mr. John Black Hawk, 

Chairman 

Mr. Mallory forwarded the Project materials 

to Mr. Black Hawk; awaiting response from 

Mr. Black Hawk. 
3-148

TABLE 3.9.2-1 (continued) 

Native American Consultation Contact List for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Native American Group Contacted Parties Comment 

Yankton Sioux Tribe of the Yankton 

Sioux Reservation 

Mr. Robert Cournoyer, 

Chairman 

No response. 

Note: 

 a THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Two responses were received as a result of Bison’s June 2008 mailings. The Lower Sioux 

Community of Morton, Minnesota contacted Bison by telephone to request consultation and to request the 

name of the federal contact for the proposed Project. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO) contacted Bison via facsimile stating that the THPO believes that adverse 

effects to properties will result from the proposed Project. At meetings held in April and June 2008 with 

Bison, the Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Tribes expressed interest in participating in the 

cultural survey process. 

In September and October 2008, Bison began placing follow-up telephone calls to all 48 tribes. 

Multiple calls to each tribe were made from October 2008 through June 2009. In January 2009, updated 

Project information was sent to those tribes that had requested it. This information was sent in various 

forms, including an updated formal letter with Project Fact Sheets and maps, emailed information, and 

telephone conversations. 

As of May 19, 2009, follow-up contact has been made with a tribal representative for 45 of the 

48 tribes initially notified. Fifteen tribes have expressed interest in further involvement in the process. 

Eight tribes have requested to review cultural resources reports, two tribes have requested to participate in 

cultural resources surveys, five tribes (or representatives thereof) have requested to participate in 

construction monitoring, six tribes have requested to be notified of unanticipated discoveries and/or 

burials, and two tribes have “expressed interest” in the cultural resources activities in their respective 

states. Several of these tribes have requested involvement in several of these aspects. 

In addition, several tribes have requested additional consultation of various types. The SissetonWahpeton Oyate Tribe asked to consult directly with FERC. FERC attempted to contact the tribe, but did 

not receive a response. FERC staff also attempted to contact the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, but has not 

received a response. FERC did contact the Assiboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation to discuss their concerns. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe asked to consult directly with Bison 

in a face-to-face meeting. A meeting was subsequently held between Bison and representatives of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe on April 15, 2009, to discuss the tribe’s involvement in the Project. The Red 

Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota requested that consultation continue through the THPO of 

the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Southern 

Ute Tribe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall indicated that they have contact with other tribes 

that might have an interest in the proposed Project. 

Seventeen tribes are reviewing updated materials but have not commented more specifically to 

date. Nine tribes have indicated that they have no comments and no objections. 

Three tribes have been notified but have not yet submitted a response nor been successfully 

contacted. 
3-149

3.9.2.1 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

Bison has prepared a plan in the event any unanticipated historic properties or human remains are 

encountered during construction. Bison has submitted the plan to the SHPOs and the BLM, which is 

under review. The BLM has requested revisions to the plan. 

3.9.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities could affect historic 

properties. Direct effects could include destruction or damage to all, or a portion of an archaeological 

site, or alteration or removal of a historic property. Indirect effects could include the introduction of 

visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that affect the setting or character of a historic property. If 

historic properties are identified which cannot be avoided, Bison would prepare treatment plans for 

review and approval by the appropriate parties, including the relevant SHPOs, land managing agencies, 

and the tribes. FERC would afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.6. Implementation of a treatment plan would only occur after certification of the proposed Project 

and FERC provides written notification to proceed. 

Bison has not completed cultural resources surveys along approximately 7.8 percent of the 

proposed Project route where access has been denied, at recently identified route variations, and for some 

Project features (such as, EWS, access roads). Bison recently filed documentation of previous surveys for 

an additional 12.1 miles (4 percent) of the proposed Project that is currently being reviewed. In addition, 

agency and SHPO reviews and tribal consultations are still ongoing. 

To ensure that required cultural resources studies and consultation are completed for all proposed 

Project components and FERC’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we 

recommend that:. 

• Bison not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of any staging, storage, 

or temporary work areas or new or to-be-improved access roads; until: 

a. Bison files with the Secretary cultural resource survey and evaluation reports, any 

necessary treatment plans, and the comments of the BLM, and North Dakota, 

Montana and Wyoming SHPOs on the reports and; 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports 

and plans, and notifies Bison in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be 

implemented and/or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any 

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.” 

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The proposed Project would consist of approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline extending northeastward from Dead Horse, Wyoming through southeastern Montana and 

southwestern North Dakota, as described in Section 2.0. The proposed Project route would traverse one 

county in Wyoming (Campbell), three counties in Montana (Powder River, Carter, and Fallon), and six 
3-150

counties in North Dakota (Bowman, Slope, Hettinger, Stark, Grant, and Morton). For the purposes of our 

socioeconomic analysis, these counties are defined as the “region of influence” for the proposed Project. 

Several socioeconomic effects could impact the region of influence during construction of the 

Project. These include alteration of population levels or local demographics, increased employment 

opportunities, increased demand for housing and public services, and an increase in government revenue 

associated with sales and payroll taxes. Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with operation of the 

proposed Project could include employment opportunities, ongoing local expenditures by the operating 

company, an increased tax base, and an increase in the demand for provision of public services. 

Consistent with EPA’s scoping comments on the Project and the CEQ request that federal 

agencies actively scrutinize several parameters associated with environmental justice (CEQ 1997), 

Section 3.10.7 contains an analysis of environmental justice. 

3.10.1 Population 

Table 3.10.1-1 summarizes population and selected demographic information for the states and 

counties that would be traversed by the proposed Project. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

estimated population in the region of influence in 2008 was 104,434, which has increased approximately 

7.1 percent since the 2000 census. However, eight of the 10 counties in the region of influence 

experienced population decreases ranging from 0.8 to 13.2 percent over this 8-year period. The 

population increases were in Campbell County, Wyoming and Morton County, North Dakota, which 

grew 23.1 and 3.8 percent, respectively. These growth rates were significantly higher than those of their 

respective states. Overall, the average change in the populations of the Montana and North Dakota 

counties in the region of influence were substantially lower than the overall population change for each 

respective state. 

Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 0.4 person per square mile in 

Carter County, Montana to a high of 16.9 persons per square mile in Stark County, North Dakota. Seven 

counties have population densities below that of their respective state, and three counties have densities of 

less than one person per square mile. These densities indicate that the population in the region of 

influence is rural. 

The number of residents within the region of influence would increase temporarily during 

construction, which Bison has proposed to occur between May and November 2010. Bison estimates that 

the peak construction workforce would be 1,750 workers, with 550 workers for each of three spreads plus 

100 workers for the Hettinger Compressor Station. The actual workforce along each spread would vary 

during the construction process. The estimated peak workforce would occur during the month of August 

(1,750 workers), with the bulk of the workforce spanning a two- to three-month period before and after 

August (with crews ranging from a low of 850 to a high of 1,490). It is expected that only a maximum of 

115 workers would be employed over the entire 7-month construction period. Additional 

inspection/construction management personnel required during pipeline and facility construction would 

include at least one Environmental Inspector and one Agricultural Inspector per spread, as necessary, with 

the potential for tribal monitors in areas of heightened significance to Native American tribes. 
3-151

TABLE 3.10.1-1 

Existing Population Conditions in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Projecta

 

State/County 

2008 Population 

Estimate 

Population 

Change since 

2000 (%) 

2000 Population 

Density (Persons/ 

sq. mile) 

Wyoming 532,668 7.9 5.1 

Campbell 41,473 23.1 7.0 

Montana 967,440 7.2 6.2 

Powder River 1,694 -8.8 0.6 

Carter 1,234 -9.3 0.4 

Fallon 2,716 -4.3 1.8 

North Dakota 641,481 -0.1 9.3 

Bowman 3,019 -6.9 2.8 

Slope 675 -12.0 0.6 

Hettinger 2,378 -12.4 2.4 

Stark 22,575 -0.3 16.9 

Grant 2,415 -15.0 1.7 

Morton 26,255 3.8 13.1 

Note: 

a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a) 

Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 0.4 person per square mile in 

Carter County, Montana to a high of 16.9 persons per square mile in Stark County, North Dakota. Seven 

counties have population densities below that of their respective state, and three counties have densities of 

less than one person per square mile. These densities indicate that the population in the region of 

influence is rural. 

The number of residents within the region of influence would increase temporarily during 

construction, which Bison has proposed to occur between May and November 2010. Bison estimates that 

the peak construction workforce would be 1,750 workers, with 550 workers for each of three spreads plus 

100 workers for the Hettinger Compressor Station. The actual workforce along each spread would vary 

during the construction process. The estimated peak workforce would occur during the month of August 

(1,750 workers), with the bulk of the workforce spanning a two- to three-month period before and after 

August (with crews ranging from a low of 850 to a high of 1,490). It is expected that only a maximum of 

115 workers would be employed over the entire 7-month construction period. Additional 

inspection/construction management personnel required during pipeline and facility construction would 

include at least one Environmental Inspector and one Agricultural Inspector per spread, as necessary, with 

the potential for tribal monitors in areas of heightened significance to Native American tribes. 

Approximately 95 percent (1,663 workers) of the workforce would be non-local. Bison has 

indicated that they do not anticipate family members accompanying non-local workers to the Project area 

due to the short duration of the construction phase. However, we feel that the potential exists for some 

family members of non-local workers to temporarily relocate, particularly the portion of non-local 

workers that would be employed over the entire construction period (approximately 109 of the 
3-152

115 workers). Thus, in this analysis, we assume that 0.8 family members would accompany each nonlocal worker who is employed over the entire 7-month construction period. This results in a more 

conservative analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the influx of non-local workers. 

Incorporating this assumption, total construction-related immigration to the region of influence would be 

approximately 1,750 persons (1,663 non-local workers and the 87 family members who would 

accompany them). 

Table 3.10.1-2 presents the estimated maximum construction-related immigration for each county 

within the region of influence. These estimates are based on the maximum anticipated workforce by 

spread (550 workers), the sequence of construction progress along the proposed route as discussed in 

Section 2.3.1, and the anticipated percent of non-local workforce as reported by Bison (95 percent). 

Maximum workforce estimates range from a low of 550 workers in counties where only one spread would 

be present to a high of 1,100 workers in counties where two spreads could coincide. 

TABLE 3.10.1-2 

Estimated Population Change in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County 

Maximum 

Potential 

Workforcea,b

Compressor 

Stations 

Workforcea

Total 

Workforce 

Non-Local 

Workforcea

Family 

Membersc 

Population 

Change 

(Number) 

Population 

Change 

(%) 

Wyoming 

Campbell 1,100 0 1,100 1,045 87 1,132 2.7 

Montana 

Powder River 550 0 550 523 87 610 36.0 

Carter 550 0 550 523 87 610 49.4 

Fallon 550 0 550 523 87 610 22.5 

North Dakota 

Bowman 1,100 0 1,100 1,045 87 1,132 37.5 

Slope 550 0 550 523 87 610 90.4 

Hettinger 550 100 650 618 87 705 29.6 

Stark 550 0 550 523 87 610 2.7 

Grant 550 0 550 523 87 610 25.3 

Morton 550 0 550 523 87 610 2.3 

Notes: 

 a Source: Bison (2009a). 

 b The maximum potential workforce numbers include workers required for the construction of all aboveground facilities 

except the Hettinger Compressor Station. 

 c We conservatively assume a maximum increase in population related to the in-migration of family members of 87 for 

each county due to the uncertainty of the distribution of the 109 non-local workers and their families. 

Based on the estimated maximum workforces presented in Table 3.10.1-2, population increases 

would range from 2.3 percent in Morton County, North Dakota to 90.4 percent in Slope, North Dakota. 

Within those extremes, only one county (Carter County, Montana) would experience population changes 

close to 50 percent. Construction in a given area would be temporary, and the number of workers present 

may vary depending on factors such as the length of the pipeline through a county, the nature of the work 

being done, and the time of year. Nevertheless, population changes from the proposed Project could 

represent a significant impact for many of the counties within the region of influence, depending on how 

and where services are provided to the workforce (such as housing, food, and transportation). 
3-153

During operation of the proposed Project, approximately three permanent full-time workers 

would be required. The addition of these full time workers would be a permanent but minor impact to the 

population. 

3.10.2 Employment and Economics 

The civilian labor force in the region of influence includes approximately 65,518 people. The 

main employment sectors in the affected counties are education, health, and social services; and 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. As shown in Table 3.10.2-1, seven counties have 

lower unemployment rates and nine counties have lower per capita income than that of their respective 

state. 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in hiring approximately 87 local workers from 

within the region of influence. This would represent a temporary and minor increase in employment 

opportunities during construction. 

Based on the projected workforce, Bison estimates that the construction payroll would be 

approximately $95.8 million. Portions of the construction payroll would be spent locally for the purchase 

of housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment during construction. While the exact amount would depend 

on the proportion of the workforce hired locally, the behavior of individual workers, and the duration of 

their stay, a portion of these expenditures would be subject to state and county sales tax in Wyoming. 

North Dakota and Montana do not have a sales tax. While the purchase of specialized construction 

materials and equipment would occur outside of the vicinity of the Project, non-specialized material such 

as fuel and basic supplies would be purchased locally. Bison estimates that approximately $1.3 million 

would be spent on local fuel purchases for the proposed Project. These expenditures would also be 

subject to state and county sales tax in Wyoming. These increases in sales tax revenues would represent a 

minor, short term increase in state revenues for Wyoming. 

Construction of the proposed Project may also result in temporary secondary impacts on 

employment. Local businesses, such as restaurants and hotels/motels, may add staff or increase work 

hours for existing staff to accommodate any increases in demand. These impacts would likely be greatest 

in areas where workers are being housed, and are discussed in Section 3.10.3. 

Overall, economic impacts due to construction of the Project may be beneficial at the local, 

county, and state level. However, these impacts would be limited to the duration of Project construction. 

During operation, the proposed Project would create three permanent positions. These positions 

would represent a negligible, permanent increase in employment during operation. 
3-154

TABLE 3.10.2-1 

Existing Income and Employment Conditions in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project a

State/County 

Per Capita 

Income for 

1999 (2007 

U.S. $) 

2007 

Population 

Below 

Poverty 

Level (%) 

Civilian 

Labor 

Forceb 

2008 

Unemployment

Rate (% of 

civilian labor 

force)b

 Major Industryc 

Wyoming $23,726 9.5 292,065 3.1 Education, health, and 

social services 

Campbell $24,878 5.9 27,097 2.0 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Montana $21,267 14.1 506,162 4.5 Education, health, and 

social services 

Powder 

River 

$19,035 13.9 938 3.1 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Carter $16,467 13.0 738 3.0 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Fallon $19,857 9.3 1,824 2.3 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining; 

education, health, and 

social servicesd

North 

Dakota

$22,034 8.3 369,672 3.2 Education, health, and 

social services 

Bowman $21,901 8.3 1,738 2.0 Education, health, and 

social services 

Slope $17,996 12.2 765 1.2 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Hettinger $19,288 12.5 1,122 3.5 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Stark $19,752 11.0 14,199 2.3 Education, health, and 

social services 

Grant $18,124 17.4 1,190 4.1 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

and hunting, and mining 

Morton $21,330 9.1 15,022 3.5 Education, health, and 

social services 

Notes: 

a

 Source: Unless otherwise noted, data are from State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a). 

b

 Source: U.S. Department of Labor (2008). 

c

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 

d

 Two industries are listed for Fallon County, Montana because each accounts for an equal share of employment. 

Operation of the proposed pipeline would also produce economic impacts to the region. 

Table 3.10.2-2 summarizes Bison’s estimate of the annual property taxes that would be payable to each 

county traversed by the proposed Project. On average, operations-related taxes would represent about 

16.3 percent of each county’s total revenues. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would provide a 

permanent increase in government revenues. The three full-time employees that would be required 

during operation of the proposed Project would provide a permanent, but negligible impact to the state, 
3-155

county, and local economy through contribution in various taxes and the purchases of goods and services 

locally. 

TABLE 3.10.2-2 

County Revenue and Estimated Annual Taxes for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County 

Property Tax 

Revenue 

(2007 U.S. $)a

Total County 

Revenue 

(2007 U.S. $)a

Estimated Annual Property 

Taxes for the Proposed 

Project (2007 U.S. $)b Change in County 

Revenue (%) 

Wyoming 

Campbell $274,008,906 $384,850,508 $1,147,113 0.3 

Montana 

Powder River $2,894,138 $5,245,288 $1,535,182 29.3 

Carter $1,376,899 $6,872,226 $6,875,937 100.1 

Fallon $5,084,626 $36,038,935 $389,856 1.1 

North Dakota 

Bowman $3,186,158 $12,959,795 $996,308 7.7 

Slope $1,150,701 $2,719,920 $264,236 9.7 

Hettinger $3,637,776 $5,128,194 $1,167,547 22.8 

Stark $20,552,576 $25,787,580 $241,507 0.9 

Grant $3,452,187 $6,378,484 $110,342 1.7 

Morton $10,081,189 $19,275,290 $526,067 2.7 

Total $325,425,156 $505,256,220 $13,254,095 2.6

Average $32,542,516 $50,525,622 $2,409,835 4.8 

Notes: 

a Source: Bison (2009b) 

b

 Source: Bison (2009a) 

3.10.3 Housing 

Table 3.10.3-1 reports selected housing statistics for cities within 50 miles of the proposed 

contractor yards5

. Within these cities, there are approximately 38 vacant rental units, as well as about 

2,612 campground and RV sites used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Approximately 

1,870 hotel or motel rooms supplement this potential housing stock. 

 

5

 These cities were selected since they are a reasonable commuting distance to the yards, which would serve as 

the rally point for construction crews to meet prior to the beginning of construction activities for the day. 
3-156

TABLE 3.10.3-1 

Temporary Housing Units Within 50 Miles of Contractor Yards 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

State/City or 

Town 

Number of 

Rental Units 

2000a 

Rental 

Vacancy 

Rate 

2000a 

Vacant 

Rental 

Unitsa Hotel/Motel 

Unitsb Campground/ RV Sitesb Total Units 

Wyoming 

Gillette 68 9.2% 6 1,224 1,886 3,116 

Moorcroft 6 9.2% <1 31 265 296 

Pine Haven 45 0.0% 0 0 24 24 

Clearmont 4 6.3% <1 31 0 31 

Hulett 5 30.0% 2 66 156 224 

Montana 

Broadus 18 27.7% 5 51 32 88 

Baker 8 28.0% 2 89 5 96 

South Dakota 

Buffalo 22 22.4% 5 20 0 25 

North Dakota

Golva 6 35.7% 2 0 5 7 

Marmarth 7 0.0% 0 20 3 23 

Bowman 19 17.9% 3 140 107 250 

Amidon 1 50.0% <1 4 9 13 

Belfield 5 20.6% 1 89 62 152 

Hettinger 21 17.5% 4 56 26 86 

New England 11 7.1% <1 12 10 22 

Regent 12 17.4% 2 18 20 40 

Mott 21 26.3% 6 19 2 27 

Total 279 38 1,870 2,612 4,520 

Notes: 

a Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000b). 

b

 Source: B and J’s RV Park (2009); Best Western (2009); Blair Hotel (2009); Cedar Ridge RV Park (2009); Cozy 

Motel (2009); HotelsTravel (2009); Hulett Motel (2009); Kampgrounds of America (KOA) (2009); Montana Office of 

Tourism (2009),Motel Pioneer (2009); North Dakota State Government (2009a&b); North Dakota Tourism Division 

(2009),Moorcourt Hotel (2009); Powder River Travel Plaza (2009); Rangeland Court Motel and RV Park (2009); 

Rimrock Lodge (2009); Roosevelt-Custer Regional Council (2007), State of Wyoming (2009); Tipperary Lodge Motel 

(2009); Wyoming Motel (2009). 

At its peak, construction of the proposed Project would require about 1,663 non-local workers, as 

described in Section 3.10.2. If each worker required his or her own housing unit, the non-local work 

force would occupy approximately 36.8 percent of the total temporary housing units in the towns within 

50 miles of the contractor yards. Due to the rural location of the proposed Project, housing availability 

could be limited especially at the northernmost portions of Spread 2 and locations along Spread 3. When 

contacted by Bison, eight of the counties crossed by the proposed Project raised concerns over their 
3-157

ability to absorb the construction workforce; Stark and Morton Counties were the exceptions. Temporary 

housing in most of these counties is generally limited and could be impacted by the influx of the 

workforce. 

In addition, counties raised concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed Project during 

the hunting season. Specifically, there were concerns that hunters would not travel to the area due to the 

presence of construction activities and the associated increased demand for temporary housing. The 

construction period would overlap with hunting seasons, but the potential magnitude of conflicts would 

depend on the timing and peak workforce pattern near popular hunting areas. The peak workforce would 

occur from August through October for Spread 1 and from July through August for Spreads 2 and 3, with 

the number of workers declining through December. The total Project-wide peak workforce would occur 

in August, prior to the start of the big game hunting season in September and the pheasant hunting season 

in October. Therefore, the potential for impacts would be greatest on big game hunters for which the 

season typically begins in September and persists into late November or early December. Bison states 

that the type of housing sought by hunters would be short term housing, such as hotels/motels and 

campgrounds, while construction crews would seek housing in more long term housing, such as 

apartments and RV parks. However, since the anticipated number of workers needed for construction 

would vary over time, there is potential for portions of both groups to demand the same types of 

accommodations. 

As part of its Application, Bison developed a Short-Term Housing Plan (Appendix P) and a 

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix Q) in an effort to mitigate potential impacts to 

the available housing stock and local roads the crews would travel within the region of influence. The 

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan proposed to provide bus services to transport pipeline 

construction crews from more distant areas where temporary housing is more readily available. 

Construction crews for Spreads 1 and 2 would be transported from Gillette, Wyoming; and construction 

crews for Spread 3 would be based out of Dickinson and Mandan, North Dakota. Each spread would 

have access to three buses that accommodate a maximum of 30 people each. Thus, 90 workers per 

spread, or a total of 270 workers, would be provided round-trip transportation to the work site each day. 

This is only a fraction of the estimated peak workforce of 550 workers per spread, or 1,750 across the 

entire Project route. Further, Bison has not provided any incentives, or mandated that construction crews 

must use the bus system. Additionally, commuting distances for construction crews suggested by the 

base accommodation areas identified in the Housing Plan (2009a) for portions of Spread 2 (Gillette, 

Wyoming) and Spread 3 (Mandan, North Dakota) may be considerably longer than 120 miles round trip. 

Since filing its Application, Bison has indicated that it is working to update both the Short-Term 

Housing and Traffic and Transportation Management Plans to include additional target areas to 

accommodate construction crews. However, at the time of publication of this EIS, we had not received 

the updated Plans and the preliminary details provided are not sufficient to address the two primary 

deficiencies identified above: 1) limited accommodations for workers in the region of influence due to 

the rural nature of the area and potential conflicts with hunters in the fall, and 2) unrealistic commute 

times for workers from accommodations to the pipeline construction site, particularly between MP 52 and 

MP 181. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison file its final Short-Term 

Housing and Traffic and Transportation Management Plans, which should include 

identification of additional target areas closer to the work sites, inclusion of additional 

buses to bring workers collectively to construction sites, and a detailed assessment of 

potential conflicts with the hunting community. 
3-158

During operation of the pipeline, permanent housing would be required for the three full-time 

employees. This would represent a permanent but negligible impact on housing within the region of 

influence. 

3.10.4 Public Services and Facilities 

Table 3.10.4-1 summarizes the number of full-time equivalent educational, medical, police, and 

fire protection employees in the counties traversed by the proposed Project. Based on the 2008 estimates 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2009b), these employees serve a population of about 102,977 people 

(Table 3.10.1-1). 

TABLE 3.10.4-1 

Existing Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-Time Equivalents in the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Projecta

State/County Education 

Health and 

Hospitals 

Police 

Protection 

Fire 

Protection 

Total Health, Fire,

and Police 

Wyoming 

Campbell 1,529 719 145 52 916 

Montana 

Powder 

River 52 1 8 0 9 

Carter 37 0 3 0 3 

Fallon 98 3 7 1 11 

North Dakota 

Bowman 107 0 7 0 7 

Slope 5 0 1 0 1 

Hettinger 71 0 4 0 4 

Stark 470 30 58 5 93 

Grant 55 0 4 0 4 

Morton 578 32 64 11 107 

Total 3,002 785 301 69 1,155 

Note: 

a

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2009b).

Demand for medical, police, and fire protection services would temporarily increase during 

construction of the proposed Project. Due to the temporary nature of the work, it is assumed that many of 

the workers would not relocate with school age children. Therefore, any impacts to the education sector 

are expected to be temporary and minor. 

Multiple construction activities may require the assistance of fire, police, or medical services. 

Local police may need to assist in maintaining traffic flow during construction at road crossings or would 

need to respond to emergencies associated with pipeline construction. Fire departments would be needed 

in case of fire or emergencies associated with pipeline construction. To minimize the potential for fire, 

Bison has developed a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Appendix S). Increased need for medical 

services would be mainly due to illness or injury of workforce personnel. 
3-159

Since the proposed Project would be constructed over three spreads and across multiple states and 

counties, it is anticipated that the increased demand of these services would be within the capacity of the 

existing departments. All of the impacted community services would receive advance notice of the 

construction schedule so they would be aware of the potential increase in demand. Bison will continue to 

work with local law enforcements, fire departments, and emergency medical services to coordinate an 

effective emergency response. Additional details on safety of the proposed Project can be found in 

Section 3.12. 

Operation of the pipeline would require the addition of three full-time permanent positions. The 

impacts to public services due to these positions would be negligible but permanent. 

3.10.5 Transportation 

The region of influence is predominately comprised of low-density rural areas. As such, existing 

transportation infrastructure in the area traversed by the proposed Project route includes mostly rural 

roads and highways. 

Bison has developed a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix Q) to minimize 

potential impacts. To reduce traffic congestion, numerous measures would be implemented, including: 

• Encouraging travel to and from the construction site during off-peak traffic hours; 

• Providing primary parking areas at contractor yards for employee’s personal vehicles; and 

• Providing buses for transporting workers to the work site from the contractor yard. 

In addition to these measures, and as discussed above, Bison would implement bus pick-up 

service for employees staying in hotels, motels, or campgrounds in Gillette, Wyoming; Dickinson, North 

Dakota; and Mandan, North Dakota. This would reduce the potential number of vehicles on the road due 

to the construction workforce. However, as discussed previously, crews would not be required to make 

use of the bus system, and Bison has not provided details on the portion of the workforce anticipated to 

use the system. 

Approximately 12 U.S./state highways and a U.S. interstate (Interstate 90) would be crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route (Table 3.10.5-1), as well as numerous lightly traveled paved and unpaved 

rural roads. Generally, major paved roads would be crossed by conventional bore techniques to prevent 

the need to close down lanes. The open-cut construction method would be used to cross minor or rarely 

traveled roads. Where appropriate, Bison would post caution signs on roads to inform motorists of 

construction and potential slow traffic conditions. Flaggers, warning signs, lights, and barriers would also 

be used during construction to ensure worker and public safety. Impacts due to construction across 

roadways are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Bison is currently evaluating construction methods at road crossings, as well as the need for 

temporary detours on a case-by-case basis through ongoing consultations with the appropriate county 

officials. In locations where open-cut crossings would be used, attempts would be made to maintain at 

least one lane of traffic. In locations where this would not be possible, roads could be closed for up to 

24 hours. Bison would institute detours through the construction right-of-way or EWSs as required by the 

county to permit the flow of traffic at open-cut crossing locations (see Figure 2.3.2-13.). In these cases, 

Bison reports that detours would generally be less than 150 feet and delays would be only a few minutes. 

Bison has committed to obtaining all appropriate permits prior to crossing any roads. These permits 

would be a direct result of consultation between Bison and the associated county or municipal agency, 
3-160

and thus would include specific guidance on detour routes, speed/load limits, and other use limitations, 

conditions, restrictions or requirements by the issuing agency. 

TABLE 3.10.5-1 

Major Highway Road Crossings for the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project 

Facility/Road Name County Milepost 

Interstate 90 Campbell 3.0 

Echeta Road Campbell 17.2 

U.S. Highway 14 Campbell 40.6 

State Road 59 Campbell 71.2 

U.S. Highway 212 Carter 104.7 

State Road 323 Carter 148.5 

State Highway 247 Fallon 172.8 

Big Gumbo Management Area Road Bowman 179.9 

163rd Avenue Bowman 192.7 

Unnamed road Bowman 194.5 

Rhame Road Bowman 198.6 

Griffin Road Bowman 205.4 

U.S. Highway 12 Bowman 205.8 

Unnamed road Bowman 205.8 

Farm to Market Road Bowman 211.9 

U.S. Highway 85 Bowman 214.3 

State Road 67 Slope 227.6 

State Highway 22 Hettinger 240.9 

Unnamed road Hettinger 249.2 

Enchanted Highway (County 

Road 4531) 

Hettinger 257.3 

State Highway 8 Hettinger 269.8 

State Road 49 Morton 295.1 

3.10.6 Property Values 

The potential impact of natural gas pipelines on the value of any land parcel depends on a number 

of factors, including the size of the property, the presence of other pipelines in the area, the current value 

of the parcel and its land use, and the value of other nearby properties. The compensation paid by Bison 

to landowners for the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements also depends on these factors. If 

properties crossed by the Project are for sale during or following construction, potential buyers may 

choose not to purchase the property if the presence of the Project would conflict with their intended use of 

the property. If the pipeline was constructed and a landowner felt that the presence of the pipeline 

reduced their property value, the landowner could appeal to the local property taxation agency and obtain 

a reassessment of their property value that incorporated the easement. If the property was re-appraised, 

the property owner would be responsible for all property taxes associated with the parcel. 
3-161

As described in Sections 3.5 and 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

result in a short term loss of croplands and agricultural productivity. After construction is complete, 

agricultural practices would be allowed to resume along the right-of-way. Bison would compensate 

landowners for any demonstrated losses or decreases in productivity due to construction of the Project. 

Landowners who lease their land for hunting may also be impacted during construction. During 

active construction, hunting may be limited or restricted. Bison has stated that landowners who lease 

their land for hunting would be compensated if construction of the Project significantly disrupts hunting 

activities on leased property. Significant disruptions would include construction or reclamation during 

the hunting season or other direct impacts to capacity of lands held under hunting leases. Compensation 

for lost hunting revenues would be negotiated between Bison and individual landowners. 

FERC often receives comments expressing concerns for the potential of insurance premium 

adjustments associated with the pipeline proximity. Insurance advisors consulted on other natural gas 

projects reviewed by FERC have indicated that pipeline infrastructure does not affect homeowner 

insurance rates (FERC 2008). As such, FERC believes that homeowners’ insurance rates are unlikely to 

change due to construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

3.10.7 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 on Environmental Justice recognizes the importance of using the NEPA process to 

identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, or activities on minority populations and low-income groups. The 

provisions of EO 12898 apply equally to Native American programs. Consistent with EO 12898, the 

CEQ has called on federal agencies to actively scrutinize the following issues with respect to 

environmental justice (CEQ 1997): 

• The racial and economic composition of affected communities; 

• Health-related issues that may amplify project effects on minority or low-income individuals; 

and 

• Public participation strategies, including community or tribal participation in the process. 

EPA provides guidance on determining whether there is a minority or low-income community to 

be addressed in a NEPA analysis. Minority population issues must be addressed when they comprise 

over 50 percent of an affected area or when the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

substantially greater than the minority percentage in the larger area of the general population. Lowincome populations are those that fall within the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

3.10.7.1 Potential for Disproportionate and Adverse Impacts 

To assess whether the minority population in the region of influence is substantially greater than 

the minority population in surrounding areas, we compared county-level demographics to the respective 

statewide proportions. Minority populations comprise less than 5 percent of the population in the region 

of influence (Table 3.10.7-1). These statistics indicate that a disproportionate effect on minority 

populations is unlikely. 
3-162

TABLE 3.10.7-1 

Existing Demographic Conditions in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Projecta

State/County 

White 

(2007) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(2007) 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

(2007) 

Otherb

(2007) 

Two or 

More Races 

(2007) 

Hispanic or 

Latino Origin 

(2007)c 

Population at or 

below Poverty 

Level (2007) 

Wyoming 94.1% 1.2% 2.5% 0.8% 1.4% 7.3% 9.5% 

Campbell 96.6% 0.5% 1.2% 0.6% 1.1% 4.8% 5.9% 

Montana 90.6% 0.6% 6.3% 0.8% 1.7% 2.8% 14.1% 

Powder 

River 

97.5% 0.0% 1.9% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 13.9% 

Carter 98.9% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 13.0% 

Fallon 98.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 9.3% 

North 

Dakota

91.6% 1.0% 5.4% 0.9% 1.2% 1.9% 8.3% 

Bowman 99.2% <0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 8.3% 

Slope 99.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 12.2% 

Hettinger 97.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 12.5% 

Stark 97.1% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 0.9% 1.5% 11.0% 

Grant 95.6% 0.0% 2.9% 0.3% 1.2% 0.8% 17.4% 

Morton 95.1% 0.3% 2.9% 0.5% 1.2% 0.9% 9.1% 

Notes: 

a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a). 

b Other includes "Asian persons" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander." 

c People who identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic or Latino should not be 

added to the race as percentage of population categories. 

Low-income populations are defined as those living below the established poverty level. The 

U.S. Census Bureau also reports the percentage of county populations with an income below the poverty 

level of $10,590 in 2007, as summarized in Table 3.10.7-1. In order to evaluate the potential for a lowincome population to be impacted disproportionately, we compared the poverty level rates for counties 

within the region of influence to those of their respective state levels, as well as to the poverty levels of 

the 19 counties that border the region of influence (Table 3.10.7-2). 

The poverty rate of four counties that would be crossed by the proposed Project is greater than 

their respective state average. These four counties are all in North Dakota: Slope County (12.3 percent), 

Hettinger County (12.5 percent), Stark County (11.0 percent), and Grant County (17.4 percent). 

Conversely, only two counties, Powder River (Montana) and Grant (North Dakota), have poverty level 

rates that are higher than the average (13.1 percent) of the 19 counties bordering the region of influence. 

Further, the poverty level rates of all 10 counties within the region of influence are well below those in 

Big Horn, Montana (26.4 percent); Rosebud, Montana (19.0 percent); and Sioux, North Dakota 

(32.7 percent). This indicates that poverty rates within the Project area are generally similar to or less 

than those in surrounding areas. However, given that the poverty rate of a few counties within the region 
3-163

of influence exceeds the state rate or the rate for the surrounding counties, we recognize that there is a 

minor potential for disproportionate impacts to low-income communities. 

TABLE 3.10.7-2 

Poverty levels in Counties Bordering the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project 

State/County 

Population at or below 

Poverty Level (2007)a

Wyoming 9.5% 

Johnson 8.0% 

Sheridan 8.6% 

Converse 9.4% 

Crook 7.5% 

Weston 8.8% 

Montana 14.1% 

Big Horn 26.4% 

Rosebud 19.0% 

Custer 14.3% 

Prairie 13.1% 

Wibaux 13.0% 

North Dakota 11.8% 

Golden Valley 14.1% 

Billings 11.4% 

Dunn 13.5% 

Mercer 7.7% 

Oliver 10.2% 

Burleigh 7.8% 

Emmons 14.0% 

Sioux 32.7% 

Adams 10.2% 

Average 13.1% 

Note: 

a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009a). 

Given the potential for disproportionate effects to low-income communities, we have considered 

whether potential Project-related effects would be adverse. As described above in this section, the 

proposed Project would result in negligible to minor effects on socioeconomic characteristics and 

economies within the region of influence; many of the Project-related socioeconomic effects, while 

minor, would generally be viewed as positive. As discussed throughout this EIS, any potentially negative 

environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would be minimized or mitigated, as 

applicable. Further, the proposed Project would be located largely in rural areas of low population 
3-164

density. While the economic composition of the counties traversed by the proposed Project route show 

some deviation from state-level statistics, as described above, there is no evidence that the proposed 

Project would cause a disproportionate share of adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any 

specific group. 

The primary health issue related to the proposed Project would be the risk associated with an 

unanticipated pipeline failure. Section 3.12 discusses the risks to public safety that would result from a 

pipeline failure and describes how applicable safety regulations and standards would minimize the 

potential for these risks. The routing of the proposed Project through rural, sparsely populated areas 

would further minimize the number of persons who would be at risk of injury due to a pipeline failure, 

and there is no evidence that such risks would be disproportionately borne by any racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group. 

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

3.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Although 

air emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by Bison, most air emissions associated with the proposed Project would 

result from the long term operation of the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station in Hettinger County, 

North Dakota. 

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

Existing Climate 

The proposed Project would be constructed in portions of Campbell County in Wyoming; Powder 

River, Carter, and Fallon Counties in Montana; and Bowman, Slope, Hettinger, Stark, Grant, and Morton 

Counties in North Dakota. These counties are characterized by a continental climate. Representative 

precipitation and temperature information for the proposed Project is available from existing monitoring 

stations near the beginning of the route near Dead Horse, Wyoming; at the middle of the route in 

Montana; and near the terminus of the route. Precipitation at Dead Horse Creek, Wyoming (Monitor No. 

482410) averages 11.4 inches annually (WRCC 2009). June is the wettest month at Dead Horse Creek, 

averaging 2.7 inches of precipitation; and February is the driest month, averaging 0.2 inch. The warmest 

month is July, with an average high temperature of 87.0 o

F and an average low temperature of 55.5 oF. 

January is the coldest month, with an average high temperature of 33.7 o

F and an average low temperature 

of 7.6 o

F. Precipitation in Ridgeway, Montana (Monitor No. 247034) averages 13.4 inches annually 

(WRCC 2009). June is the wettest month in Ridgeway, averaging 2.5 inches of precipitation; and January 

is the driest month, averaging 0.3 inch. The warmest month is July, with an average high temperature of 

85.8 o

F and an average low temperature of 56.1 oF. January is the coldest month, with an average high 

temperature of 29.3 o

F and an average low temperature of 4.2 oF. Precipitation in Amidon, North Dakota 

(Monitor No. 320209), located near the northern end of the proposed pipeline route, averages 15.4 inches 

annually (WRCC 2009). June is the wettest month in Amidon, averaging 3.5 inches of precipitation; and 

February is the driest month, averaging 0.3 inch. The warmest month is July, with an average high 

temperature of 83.9 o

F and an average low temperature of 55.9 oF. January is the coldest month, with an 

average high temperature of 25.9 o

F and an average low temperature of 4.6 oF. 
3-165

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

The CAA designates criteria pollutants for which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS have been set for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead. 

Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such 

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly; whereas, secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, 

including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

State air quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. Some individual state ambient air 

quality standards in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are more stringent than the NAAQS, as 

defined in 40 CFR 50; these standards are summarized in Table 3.11.1-1. 

Air quality control regions (AQCRs) are areas established for air quality planning purposes in 

which implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained. 

AQCRs were established by EPA and local agencies, in accordance with Section 107 of the CAA, as a 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through state implementation plans. The 

AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air 

quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or 

portion thereof, is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under 

three categories: “attainment” (areas in compliance with the NAAQS), “nonattainment” (areas not in 

compliance with the NAAQS), or “unclassified” (areas with insufficient data to make a determination 

concerning compliance). All of the counties in which the proposed Project would be located are 

designated as “attainment” or “unclassified” for all criteria pollutants. 

A network of ambient air quality monitoring stations has been established by EPA and state and 

local agencies to measure and track the background concentrations of criteria pollutants across the United 

States, and to assist in designation of nonattainment areas. To characterize the background air quality in 

the region surrounding the proposed Project area, data from air quality monitoring stations were obtained. 

A summary of the available regional background air quality concentrations is presented in Table 3.11.1-2. 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. amended in 1977 and 1990, and 40 CFR Parts 50 through 99 are 

the basic federal statutes governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially relevant 

to the proposed Project include the following: 

• New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

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

• Title V operating permits; and 

• General Conformity. 
3-166

TABLE 3.11.1-1 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

National AAQS 

Pollutant Time Frame Primary Secondary Wyoming AAQS 

24-hour 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter Annual N/A N/A 50 μg/m3 

Annual 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 24-hour 35 μg/m3 N/A 35 μg/m3 

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) N/A 60 μg/m3 

24-hour 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) N/A 260 μg/m3 

3-hour N/A 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) 1300 μg/m3 

Sulfur dioxide 

1-hour N/A N/A N/A 

8-hour 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m3) N/A 9 ppm 

Carbon monoxide 

1-hour 35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3) N/A 35 ppm 

Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm 100 μg/m3 

Nitrogen dioxide 

1-hour N/A N/A N/A 

8-hour 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm 

Ozone 

1-hour N/A N/A N/A 

Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 

Lead 

Monthly N/A N/A N/A 

Settled particulate matter 30-day N/A N/A N/A 

Annual N/A N/A 0.25 mg SO3/100 cm2/day 

Suspended sulfates 

30-day N/A N/A 0.50 mg SO3/100 cm2/day 
3-167

TABLE 3.11.1-1 (continued) 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Area 

Notes:  cm2 = square centimeters 

m3 = Cubic meter(s) 

mg = Milligram(s) N/A = Not applicable ppm = Part(s) per million SO3 = Sulfur trioxide 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota also have ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station wo

hydrogen sulfide. Wyoming has ambient air quality standards for fluorides. The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would not be a source of fl

Sources:  EPA 2009c, WYDEQ 2009, MDEQ 2009, NDDOH 2009 
3-168

TABLE 3.11.1-2 

Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations in the Region of the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project (2006–2008) 

PM10

(μg/m3

) PM2.5 (μg/m3

) SO2 (ppm) CO (ppm) 

NO2 

(ppm) 

Ozone 

(ppm) 

Lead 

(μg/m3) 

Year 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour 

3-

hour 

8-

hour 

1-

hour Annual 8-hour Quarterly 

Monitor No. 560050456 – South Campbell County, Wyoming 

2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.003 

(0) 

0.064 

(0) 

N/A 

2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.004 

(0) 

0.072 

(1) 

N/A 

2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.003 

(0) 

0.065 

(0) 

N/A 

Monitor No. 38650002 – Oliver County, North Dakota 

2008 N/A N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.008 

(0) 

0.031 

(0) 

N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.060 

(0) 

N/A 

2007 N/A N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.011 

(0) 

0.046 

(0) 

N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.059 

(0) 

N/A 

2006 N/A N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.007 

(0) 

0.029 

(0) 

N/A N/A 0.002 

(0) 

0.064 

(0) 

N/A 

Monitor No. 560050857 – Wyodak 4, Campbell County, Wyoming 

2008 N/A N/A N/A 0.004 

(0) 

0.025 

(0) 

0.053 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2007 N/A N/A N/A 0.003 

(0) 

0.020 

(0) 

0.048 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2006 N/A N/A N/A 0.003 

(0) 

0.028 

(0) 

0.050 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Monitor No. 560050899 – Triton Coal, Campbell County, Wyoming 

2008 N/A 7.09 (0) 30.9 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2007 N/A 5.34 (0) 13.9 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2006 N/A 5.16 (0) 11.8 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Monitor No. 380070002 – Billings County, North Dakota 

2008 N/A 4.42 (0) 11.0 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2007 N/A 4.96 (0) 12.5 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2006 N/A 4.76 (0) 17.8 

(0) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
3-169

TABLE 3.11.1-2 (continued) 

Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations in the Region of the Proposed 

Bison Pipeline Project (2006–2008) 

PM10

(μg/m3

) PM2.5 (μg/m3) SO2 (ppm) CO (ppm) 

NO2

(ppm) 

Ozone 

(ppm) 

Lead 

(μg/m3

) 

Year 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour 

3-

hour 

8-

hour 

1-

hour Annual 8-hour Quarterly 

Monitor No. 380530002 – McKenzie County, North Dakota 

2008 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2007 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2006 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Notes: 

 m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

N/A = Not available 

ppm = Parts per million 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of days the standard was exceeded. 

Source: 

 EPA 2009d 

New Source Review/ Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

NSR refers to the pre-construction permitting programs under Parts C and D of the CAA that 

must be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major modifications to existing 

major sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. This review may include a PSD review. The 

review process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing existing air quality to 

deteriorate beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations. For sources located in nonattainment areas, the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the 

pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. None of the proposed Project would be 

located in nonattainment areas. Consequently, NNSR would not be applicable to the proposed Project. 

The PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in an attainment area. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a 

“major source” as any source type belonging to a list of named source categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant. A major source under PSD 

can also be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit 

such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing major sources have 

lower emission thresholds, called “significant emission increases”; amounts over these thresholds trigger 

PSD review. The proposed Project would not include facilities or operations included on the list of 

named source categories to which the 100-tpy trigger applies. Also, the proposed Project would not 

include any existing major sources under the PSD program; therefore, the proposed Hettinger Compressor 

Station would be subject to the 250-tpy applicability threshold. 

The PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality (noting in particular whether the source would contribute to any violation of 

the NAAQS), and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) in order to minimize emissions. 
3-170

The PSD regulations contain restrictions on the degree of ambient air quality deterioration that would be 

allowed. These increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD review classification of the area. 

The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would not exceed emissions of 250 tpy of any 

criteria pollutant (see Table 3.11.1-3 and the discussion in Section 3.11.1.3). Therefore, PSD permitting 

would not be applicable to the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station. 

TABLE 3.11.1-3 

Estimated Emissions for the Hettinger Compressor Station 

for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project

Emission Source 

NOx

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

HAPs 

(tpy) 

Solar Centaur 40 turbine 25.9 27.4 7.9 2.7 2.7 1.1 0.21 

Blowdown stack 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Piping components (fugitives) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Emergency generator 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 

Boiler 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.03 

Total 27.9 29.8 8.6 2.8 2.8 1.2 0.32 

Notes: 

 HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants 

PSD also considers AQCR categories or classes. AQCRs are categorized as Class I, Class II, or 

Class III. Class I areas are designated specifically as pristine natural areas or areas of natural 

significance; these areas have the lowest increment of permissible deterioration, which essentially 

precludes development near these areas. Class III designations, intended for heavily industrialized zones, 

can be made only on request and must meet all requirements outlined in 40 CFR 51.166. The remainder 

of the United States is classified as Class II. Class II areas are designed to allow moderate, controlled 

growth. The proposed Project would be located in a Class II area. Based on an EPA policy established in 

a 1979 memo, the Federal Land Manager of a Class I area should be notified of any proposed PSD 

sources located within 100 kilometers (approximately 62 miles) of a Class I area. The nearest Class I area 

would be the Theodore Roosevelt National Park located in Billings County, North Dakota approximately 

72 kilometers (about 43 miles) northwest of the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station. The proposed 

Hettinger Compressor Station would not be a PSD major source and Class I modeling would not be 

required. If determined by the Federal Land Manager of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, special 

analysis may be required for any sources within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of any Class I area. 

The principle greenhouse gases are methane, carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and 

various fluorinated gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and are the primary drivers of the increase in 

global mean temperature, known as global warming. No fluorinated gases would be emitted by the 

Project so we need only look at N2O, methane and CO2. There are no federal regulations at this time 

limiting the emissions of CO2; however emissions of N2O are limited through limitations of NOx

emissions under NSPS and federal permits. 

Emissions of greenhouse gas are typically estimated as carbon equivalents, or carbon dioxide 

equivalents (CO2-eq). The greenhouse gases are ranked by their global warming potential (GWP). The 

GWP is a ratio relative to CO2 that is based on the properties of the greenhouse gases to absorb solar 

radiation as well as the residence time within the atmosphere (IPCC AR4 2007). Thus, CO2 has a GWP 

of 1, Methane has a GWP of approximately 21 and N2O has a GWP of approximately 310 (EPA, 2009e). 
3-171

The proposed Project would result in emissions of approximately 20,136 metric tons per year of CO2-eq. 

Although the greenhouse gas emissions appear large, the emissions are very small in comparison to the 

2007 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory (EPA 2009f) of 7.15 billion metric tons of CO2-eq. 

New Source Performance Standards 

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60 and incorporated by reference in the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations, Chapter 5, Section 2(a); Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 

17.8.302(1)(a); and the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules 33-15-12-01.1, establish requirements 

for new, modified, or reconstructed units in specific source categories. NSPS requirements include 

emission limits, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The following NSPS requirements were 

identified as potentially applicable to the specified sources at the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station. 

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels, lists affected emission sources as storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids. Regulatory 

applicability is dependent on the construction date, size, and vapor pressure of the storage vessel and its 

contents. Subpart Kb applies to new tanks, unless otherwise exempted, with a storage capacity between 

75 cubic meters (m3

) (19,813 gallons) and 151 m3 (39,890 gallons) that contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 15.0 kilopascals (kPa). 

Subpart Kb also applies to tanks with a storage capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3

 that contain 

VOCs with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa. The proposed Hettinger 

Compressor Station would be equipped with a 4,200-gallon (100-barrel) condensate tank, 500-gallon lube 

oil tank, 500-gallon used oil tank, and an oily water tank up to 10,000-gallon capacity—all of which are 

below the regulated capacity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb 

standards. 

Stationary combustion turbines with a heat input of 10 million Btu (MMBtu)/hour and larger 

installed after February 18, 2005, are covered by Subpart KKKK. The proposed Hettinger Compressor 

Station would have a turbine in the range of 10 to 50 MMBtu/hour. The standard imposes a limitation on 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) of 5.5 pounds per MW-hour or 100 ppm NOx at 15 percent oxygen in 

the turbine exhaust for turbines of this size. The standard also imposes a SO2 emission limit of 0.9 pound 

per MW-hour or the use of fuel that contains potential SO2 emissions of no more than 0.06 pound 

SO2/MMBtu. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable standards of the rule. 

On January 19, 2008, EPA issued final rules for an NSPS (Subpart JJJJ) for spark ignition 

internal combustion engines (SI ICE). Owner and operators of SI ICE emergency engines with a capacity 

greater than 25 horsepower manufactured after January 1, 2009, must meet new emission limits for NOx, 

CO, and VOC. The limitations on non-emergency use of such engines at 40 CFR 60.4243(d) must also 

be observed. 

The proposed Project would also be subject to applicable requirements of 40 CFR 60 Supbart A – 

General Requirements, which covers such administrative issues as notifications, performance testing, and 

monitoring. 

No other NSPSs would be applicable to the proposed Project. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates 
3-172

eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

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 with the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. MACT standards are intended to reduce emissions of air toxics or HAPs 

through installation of control equipment rather than enforcement of risk-based emission limits. The 

proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would emit less than 10 tpy of total HAPs, as shown in 

Table 3.11.1-3. Potential HAP emissions resulting from the proposed Project would be below the 10-tpy 

and 25-tpy thresholds; therefore, MACT would not be applicable at the proposed Hettinger Compressor 

Station. 

On January 18, 2008, final rules for the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT standard were published as 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ. Subpart ZZZZ applies to RICE at both 

major and area HAP sources. Because the emergency generator engines are subject to 40 CFR 60 

Subpart JJJJ, no further requirements from 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ apply per 40 CFR 63.6590(c). 

On September 13, 2004, rules were promulgated for an Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters MACT standard at 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD. Subpart DDDDD applies 

only to boilers and heaters at major HAP sources. Subpart DDDDD would not be applicable to the 

Project because the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would be an area HAP source. 

40 CFR 63 Subpart YYYY applies to turbines at major HAP sources. Subpart YYYY would not 

be applicable to the Project because the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station is not proposed to be a 

major HAP source. 

Title V Permitting 

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires sources of air emissions with 

criteria pollutant emissions that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain federal operating permits. 

These permits list all applicable air regulations and include a compliance demonstration for each 

applicable requirement. The major source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of NOx, SO2, CO, 

PM10, PM2.5, and VOC. Any source with the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of 

HAPs in aggregate is also a major source under Title V. The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station 

would not emit any pollutant at these applicability levels, as shown in Table 3.11.1-3. A Title V permit 

would not be required. 

General Conformity 

40CFR Parts 51 and 93 define the requirements for determining conformity of federal actions 

with federal or state implementation plans. A conformity analysis is required for each criteria pollutant 

where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a 

federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates specified in the applicable implementation plan. No 

portions of the proposed pipeline or any of the proposed aboveground facilities would be located in a 

nonattainment area; therefore, the general conformity requirements would not apply to the proposed 

Project. 
3-173

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota 

have state-specific air quality regulations. The WYDEQ manages air quality issues in Wyoming, the 

MDEQ manages air quality issues in Montana; and the North Dakota Department of Health, Division of 

Air Quality (NDDOH-DAQ) manages air quality issues in North Dakota. Subject to EPA oversight, these 

agencies manage the statewide air permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs. Operation of the 

proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would require authorization under NDDOH-DAQ’s air 

permitting program. 

3.11.1.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Emissions 

Construction of the proposed pipeline and access roads would generate air emissions during 

grading, trenching, backfilling, and operation of construction vehicles. The proposed Project would use 

existing roads to the extent possible; however, Bison has proposed to construct 67 new access roads. 

Some roads used for access may require improvements during construction by widening or adding drain 

pipes, gravel, or grading. Specific roadway improvement plans have not yet been developed. Some of 

the access roads used for construction would continue to be used during operation to provide access to the 

proposed pipeline for maintenance purposes. These activities could generate dust and particulate 

emissions from earth-moving activities and construction equipment engine exhaust. 

Construction of the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would be performed with mobile 

equipment similar to that typically used for pipeline and road construction. In addition to the proposed 

Hettinger Compressor Station, Bison would construct other aboveground facilities consisting of two 

meter and regulation stations and 20 valve or pig launching/pig receiving stations. 

Construction would be expected to cause a temporary impact to local ambient air quality as a 

result of fugitive dust and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Criteria pollutant 

emissions during operation of the fossil-fueled construction equipment would occur from combustion 

products resulting from the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, primarily NO2, CO, VOCs, PM10, PM2.5, 

small amounts of SO2, and small amounts of HAPs (such as formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylene) 

produced by the construction equipment engines. Construction emissions for the proposed Project are 

shown in Table 3.11.1-4. These construction emissions would occur over the anticipated 7-month 

duration of construction activity. Impacts from construction equipment would be temporary and would 

be expected to result in an insignificant impact on air quality. 

TABLE 3.11.1-4 

Construction Emissions for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Emission Source 

NOx

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

PM10

(tons) 

PM2.5

(tons) 

SOx

(tons) 

Construction equipment 132.9 76.8 14.2 12.2 12.2 0.1 

Commuter motor vehicles 5.0 28.3 2.1 0.4 0.4 <0.1 

Fugitive particulate 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.4 34.9 0.0 

Delivery motor vehicles 42.2 163.4 13.7 1.1 1.1 <0.1 

Total 180.1 268.5 30.0 249.1 48.6 0.1 
3-174

WYDEQ regulates the emissions of particulate matter arising from construction activities through 

its Air Quality Division Standards and Regulations Chapter 3, Section 2(f)(i)(A). The rule requires 

frequent watering or application of dust control chemicals to reduce fugitive dust. MDEQ regulates these 

types of fugitive dust emissions through the Montana Administrative Rules 17.8.308(3), which requires 

reasonable precautions to prevent airborne particulate matter at construction sites. The NDDOH-DAQ 

regulates fugitive dust from construction activities through the North Dakota Century Code 33-15-17-

03(2). Bison proposes to use proven construction practices, such as applying water to roadways, 

mulching bare areas, installing fencing to reduce wind velocity, and revegetating to control fugitive dust 

if fugitive dust becomes a problem (Appendix U). Water sprays have provided sufficient control to 

ensure protection of air quality during construction of projects similar to the proposed Project. 

Operation Emissions 

Bison proposes to install one Solar Centaur 40 gas turbine site rated at 4,588 hp, one natural gasfired backup generator engine rated at 526 hp, a 3.4-MMBtu/hour boiler, and a piping blowdown stack. 

Emissions from the turbine would be controlled with Solar’s SoLoNOx technology and the exclusive use 

of natural gas to reduce the formation of NOx in the exhaust gas. 

Bison prepared a SCREEN3 analysis of emissions for the proposed Hettinger Compressor 

Station. SCREEN3 is a screening-level dispersion model that is capable of considering one emission 

source. A conservative estimate of the impact of multiple emission sources can be performed by adding 

individual SCREEN3 results for multiple sources. While the multiple emissions points would be located 

at the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station, the result is conservative because all the emission points 

would not be collocated (that is, it would not be a single stack) within the compressor station site, and 

dispersion due to the spacing between emission sources would result in lower pollutant concentrations. In 

addition to the on-site emission sources, a background concentration obtained from representative 

ambient air monitoring stations is added to the results produced by SCREEN3. The total provides a 

conservative estimate of pollutant concentrations due to emissions from the proposed Project plus existing 

background pollutant levels. Table 3.11.1-5 presents the results of the SCREEN3 model plus background 

concentration. Total modeled results plus background concentration are less than the respective NAAQS 

for each pollutant and averaging period; therefore, no significant impacts would be expected. 

The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would include an emergency shut down (ESD or 

blowdown) system, pursuant to DOT requirements. Activation of the ESD system would vent the piping 

(expel the natural gas) to the atmosphere in case of an emergency. The ESD would be used only in the 

event of an emergency. Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed to relieve pressure when a 

unit is taken offline. Natural gas blowdowns would not be part of routine operation. 

Operation of the aboveground meter stations and block valves would not result in substantial air 

emissions under normal operating conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural gas, called 

“fugitive emissions,” occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites; because such 

emissions are very small, they are not regulated by permit or source-specific requirements. 
3-175

TABLE 3.11.1-5 

Hettinger Compressor Station SCREEN3 Analysis for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period 

Modeled Impact

For Comparison

(μg/m3

) 

Background

(μg/m3) 

Total 

(μg/m3) 

North Dakota AAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 32.5 3.8 36.3 100 100 

3-hour 32.2 119.6 151.8 NA 1300 

SO2 24-hour 9.4 28.6 38.0 260 365 

Annual 1.8 5.2 7.0 60 80 

1-hour 4,162 3,429 7,591 40,000 40,000 

CO 

8-hour 2,914 1,943 4,857 10,000 10,000 

24-hour 18.5 45 63.5 150 150 

PM10

Annual 3.7 11 14.7 50 NA 

24-hour 18.5 13.8 32.3 35 35 

PM2.5

Annual 3.7 4.7 8.4 15 15 

Notes 

μg = Microgram(s) 

m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

Source: 

 Background air quality data source: EPA 2009d. 

Use of the access roads for maintenance would generate occasional, minor, and short term 

increases in dust similar to that generated on other unpaved roads in the area. Use of these roads by 

maintenance and operation personnel would have a negligible effect on air quality; however, any 

residents near the road may experience short periods of elevated dust levels. 

Air Quality Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed Project would be expected to result in temporary minor impacts to 

air quality. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in long term minor impacts to 

air quality at the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station and other aboveground facilities. Periodic use of 

access roads during operations would result in infrequent and minor impacts associated with dust, and 

these impacts would be localized and temporary when they did occur. 

3.11.2 Noise Quality 

3.11.2.1 Existing Environment 

Noise quality can be affected both during construction and operation of pipeline projects. The 

magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day, 

throughout the week, and across seasons, in part due to changing weather conditions and the effects of 

seasonal vegetative cover. Two measures to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its 

known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). The 

Leq 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 with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale 
3-176

(dBA) added to nighttime sound levels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for people’s 

greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing 

is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of 

perception for noise change is considered to be 3 dBA; 6 dBA is clearly noticeable to the human ear, and 

10 dBA is perceived as a doubling of noise. Potential noise impacts to wildlife are discussed in 

Section 3.6.2. 

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document provides 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. EPA 

has determined that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity noise 

interference. FERC has adopted this criterion and used it to evaluate the potential noise impact from 

construction of the proposed Project and operation of the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station; noise 

impacts are determined to be acceptable if construction- or operations-related noise is below 55 dBA. 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota do not regulate noise at the state level. None of the 

counties crossed by the proposed Project in these states have existing regulations governing noise from 

construction or industrial activities. 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as noise-sensitive areas (NSAs). NSAs include 

residences, schools and daycare facilities, hospitals, long term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, 

and parks and recreational areas specifically known for their solitude and tranquility, such as wilderness 

areas. 

Potential noise during construction would be associated with general pipeline construction; 

specialized construction, such as HDD; and construction of aboveground facilities. In general, the 

proposed Project route traverses a rural area with a very low density of residences or other NSAs 

proximal to the route. The closest NSA to the HDD sites is approximately 2,000 feet from the HDD site 

(specifically, for the HDD crossing of the Heart River). The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station 

would be located 6 miles north of Regent in Hettinger County, North Dakota. The land surrounding the 

site consists primarily of rural farmland and some undeveloped rangeland. The closest NSA to the 

Hettinger Compressor Station site is approximately 3,500 feet from the site. 

3.11.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Construction of the proposed Project would be expected to be typical of other pipeline projects in 

terms of schedule, equipment used, and types of activities. Construction would increase sound levels in 

the vicinity of Project activities; and the sound levels would vary during the construction period, 

depending on the construction phase. Pipeline construction generally would proceed at rates ranging 

from several hundred feet to 1 mile per day. However, due to the assembly-line method of construction, 

construction activities in any one area along most of the proposed route could last several weeks on an 

intermittent basis. Construction of HDDs or the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would be 

concentrated at specific locations and may last for months. Construction equipment would be operated on 

an as-needed basis during those periods and would be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications to 

minimize noise impacts. 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be unaffected because most pipeline construction would 

take place only during daylight hours. The possible exceptions would be at the HDD sites (including 

some waterbodies and highways) and during hydrostatic testing and dewatering. There are three HDD 
3-177

crossing locations and the closest NSA to each is location ranges from approximately 2,000 feet (Heart 

River crossing) to over a half mile (Little Missouri River crossing). At HDD locations, drilling 

equipment may operate on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Hydrostatic testing and dewatering activities may 

also operate on a 24-hour-per-day basis. As indicated previously, a 3-dBA increase is considered 

noticeable, a 6-dBA increase is considered clearly noticeable, and a 10-dBA increase is considered 

significantly noticeable; however, if the overall noise produced by construction or operation is less than 

55 dBA, the increase is considered acceptable. 

Predicted sound levels at NSAs would not exceed 55 dBA at the HDD sites due to HDD 

operations. Predicted sound levels due to HDD activity at NSAs within 0.5 mile ranged from 49.2 to 

52.2 dBA at these sites, as shown in Table 3.11.2-1. The maximum sound level due to HDD activity at a 

nearby residence is 52.2 dBA at the Little Powder HDD site, below the sound criterion of 55 dBA Ldn. 

There were no residences within 0.5 mile of the HDD location for the Little Missouri River, and thus no 

sound level measurements were obtained for residences at this HDD location. The closest residence is 

0.8 mile from the Little Missouri River HDD location; it is expected that noise impacts at this location 

would be comparable or less than those for the other HDD locations. In addition, a 0.6-mile sage-grouse 

lek buffer would be within 50 feet of the Little Missouri River HDD location. As the sage-grouse is a 

candidate for federal listing under the ESA, it is discussed in Section 3.8. 

TABLE 3.11.2-1 

Noise-Sensitive Areas within 0.5 Mile of an HDD Location 

HDD Site 

Receptor-DistanceDirection 

Calculated Ldn

due to HDD 

Activity 

(dBA) 

Ambient 

Ldn (dBA) 

Ldn (dBA) 

of Ambient 

plus HDD 

Increase 

above 

Ambient 

(dB) 

Heart River HDD entry Residence – 2,000 feet W 49.2 57.8 58.3 0.6 

Little Powder River 

HDD entry 

Residence – 2,500 feet 

SW 

52.2 46.9 53.3 6.4 

Note: 

 HDD = Horizontal directional drilling. 

Operation Noise 

During operation of the proposed Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the vicinity 

of the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station. Principal noise sources would include the air inlet, 

exhaust, and casing of the turbine. Secondary noise sources would include yard piping and valves. Noise 

from the relief valves, blowdown stack, and emergency electrical generation equipment would be 

infrequent. 

Table 3.11.2-2 summarizes the existing and projected noise levels for the proposed Hettinger 

Compressor Station. The expected Ldn at NSA #1 near the Hettinger Compressor Station (NSA #1 is 

located 3,500 feet north of the proposed compressor station) would be 44.2 dBA due to sound generated 

by the equipment at the station. When combined with the existing ambient noise level, the Ldn would be 

about 53.8 dBA at NSA #1, as shown in Table 3.11.2-2. The expected Ldn at NSA #2, located 4,500 feet 

east-northeast of the proposed compressor station, would be 41.2 dBA due to sound generated by the 

equipment at the station. When combined with the existing ambient noise level, the Ldn would be about 

51.8 dBA at NSA #2. Predicted noise at NSA #1 and NSA #2 is below the FERC specification of 

55 dBA. Noise from blowdown events was estimated at 60 dBA at a distance of 300 feet from the 

blowdown vent using appropriate silencing. Blowdown noise at the NSA #1 was estimated at 39 dBA. 
3-178

As a result, there would not be a significant impact to the noise environment near the Hettinger 

Compressor Station. 

TABLE 3.11.2-2 

Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Hettinger Compressor Station at NSAs 

Measurement 

Location/NSA 

Distance/ Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Building (feet) 

Calculated 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a

Total 

Estimated 

Ldnb (dBA) 

Potential Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

NSA #1 / Residence 3,500 / N 53.3 44.2 53.8 0.5 

NSA #2 / Residence 4,500 / E-NE 51.4 41.2 51.8 0.4 

Notes: 

 dBA = A-weighted decibel scale. 

 Ldn = Day-night sound level. 

 NSA = Noise-sensitive area. 

a

 Estimated Project Ldn sound levels are from operation of existing and expansion station equipment, with noise control 

measures installed as recommended. 

 b Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient L

dn

/10) + 10 (Predicted L

dn

/10)). 

c

 Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of the existing and expansion station equipment. 

During operation of the proposed Project, the potential noise impacts from the pipeline itself 

would be limited to the vicinity of the new valve and meter stations. Principal noise sources would 

include gas flow through valves and metering equipment. Such gas flow noise is typically not noticeable 

more than a short distance from the equipment. The nearest NSA to a surface valve and meter station is 

located approximately 1,100 feet from MLV-161 at MP 160.87. Gas flow noise is expected to be 

undetectable at the NSA. Underground sections of the pipeline are not a significant source of noise. 

Minor long term noise impacts would be expected from operation of the proposed Hettinger 

Compressor Station during the life of the proposed Project and would not result in a significant effect on 

the noise environment. These minor impacts would result from the normal operation of equipment 

associated with the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station, as well as from blowdown events. 

To ensure that noise levels from operation of the compressor station would not adversely impact 

surrounding areas, we recommend that: 

• Bison file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the 

Hettinger Compressor Station in service. If the noise attributable to the operation of all 

of the equipment at the Hettinger Compressor Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 

dBA at any nearby (NSAs or noise-sensitive areas), Bison should file a report on what 

changes are needed and shall install the additional noise controls to meet the level 

within 1 year of the in-service date. Bison should confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days 

after it installs the additional noise controls. 
3-179

Noise Quality Conclusion 

With implementation of the measures proposed by Bison and our recommendations, impacts 

related to noise during construction would be minor and temporary to short term. During operation, noise 

would be negligible along the proposed Project route, except for the Hettinger Compressor Station, which 

would constitute a minor and long term noise impact. 

3.12 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 o

F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 and 15 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. 

3.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. The Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA’s) 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 that set the level of 

safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This 

work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) 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 act as 

partners, including Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, based on either 5(a) certifications or 

5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR Parts 190 to 199. Part 192 specifically 

addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993, between DOT and FERC, DOT has the exclusive authority to promulgate federal 

safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of FERC’s regulations 

require that an Applicant (1) 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 (2) 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 NGPSA. FERC 

accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety standards other than the DOT standards. 
3-180

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 also provides for referring complaints and 

inquiries made by state and local governments and the general public involving safety matters related to a 

pipeline under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines whether proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and 

practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 

49 CFR Part 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 (660 feet) 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 on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period. 

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 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. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (specifically, 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall 

thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of 

welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more 

populated areas. 

Bison developed preliminary class locations for the proposed Project based on the relationship of 

the proposed pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and manmade features and determined that the 

entire Project would be in Class 1. Bison would therefore comply with the requirements for Class 1 

areas. If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location for the pipeline, Bison would reduce the MAOP 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. 
3-181

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. That law requires that all gas transmission operators 

develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements described in 

Part 192.911 of the DOT regulations and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline 

segment. Specifically, the law established an integrity management program that applies to all high 

consequence areas (HCAs). As described below, 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 where a gas pipeline accident would cause 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 USC 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

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

• Current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius6

 is greater than 660 feet and 20 or 

more buildings are intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle7

; or 

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site8

. 

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

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• An identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs as required by 

49 CFR Part 192.911. 

The proposed Bison route does not extend through HCAs based on those definitions. Bison 

would re-evaluate the route for HCAs prior to construction. In addition, to maintain compliance with the 

pipeline classification and pipeline integrity management regulations in Part 192, Bison would continue 

to monitor for potential class location changes and HCAs throughout the life of the Project. Monitoring 

would include Bison’s aerial and ground inspections, review of aerial photography of the route, and 

surveillance during activities associated with operation. The pipeline integrity management rule for 

HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline for HCAs every seven years. 

 

6 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline 

in pounds per square inch (psi) multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 7

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

8

 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. 
3-182

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 Part 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 must include the following procedures: 

• 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; 

• Emergency shutdown of the 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 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. 

During construction, Bison would require its contractors to comply with the Bison Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan (Appendix S). Bison 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. 

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

OPS maintains a database of pipeline incident reports on the PHMSA website 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). Except where noted, information on 

natural gas pipeline incidents presented in this EIS is based on nationwide data available on the PHMSA 

site for the 21-year period from 1988 through 2008. 

As defined by 49 CFR 191.3, a natural gas pipeline incident is an event that involves the release 

of gas and meets any of the following criteria: 

• Results in a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; 

• Results in $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars; or 

• Is otherwise considered significant by the operator. 

Parts 192.5 and 192.15 require that operators report all of these incidents to PHMSA, and the 

PHMSA website categorizes any such incident as “significant.” The PHMSA database also includes 

“serious” incidents as a subset of significant incidents: a serious incident is one that results in a fatality or 

injury requiring in-patient hospitalization. 
3-183

Table 3.12.2-1 lists the significant incidents from 1988 through 2008 for onshore natural gas 

transmission pipelines by cause categories along with the percent of incidents by cause and the annual 

frequency by cause per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service for the reporting period (based on a total 

280,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines). 

TABLE 3.12.2-1 

Significant Incidents by Cause from 1988 through 2008 for 

Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Systemsa, b

Cause 

Number of 

Incidents 

Percent of Total 

Incidents 

Incidents per 

1,000 Miles of 

Pipelinec

Corrosion 162 19.2 0.5 

Excavation damage 204 24.1 0.7 

Human error 17 2.0 0.1 

Material failure 176 19.8 0.6 

Natural force damage 65 7.7 0.2 

Other outside force damage 26 3.1 0.1 

All other causes 204 24.1 0.7 

Totals 854 100.0 2.9 

Notes: 

a

 Data from PHMSA website accessed April 2009 (http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

b

 Significant incidents consist of incidents with a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; $50,000 or 

more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars; release of gas; or are otherwise considered significant by the 

operator. 

c

 Based on the a total of approximately 280,000 miles of miles of natural gas transmission lines in the United 

States as reported on the PHMSA website. 

The dominant single cause of incidents was excavation damage, which accounted for 24.1 percent 

of the incidents. A similar proportion of cause was the “all other causes” category, which includes 

damage by vehicles, fire, or explosion as the primary cause, rupture of a previously damaged pipe, and 

vandalism. 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 (such as 

oil pipelines and cable television) to provide pre-construction information to contractors or other 

maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. 

The pipelines included in the data set in Table 3.12.2-1 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 incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Although pipelines installed 

since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant and low level of incident frequency, pipelines installed before that 

time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion as 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 locations 

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; those pipelines have a higher rate of incident 
3-184

occurrence due to excavation damage and other outside forces than larger diameter pipelines. Smalldiameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth movements. 

Jones et al. (1986) compared reported incidents with the presence or absence of cathodic 

protection and protective coatings. The results of that study, summarized in Table 3.12.2-2, indicated that 

corrosion control was effective 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 reduced the rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially 

protected pipe. The data also indicate that cathodically protected pipe without a protective coating 

actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the retrofitting of 

cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 3.12.2-2 

Incidents Caused by External Corrosion and Level of Protection 

(1970 through June 1984)a

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 

Note: 

a

 Source: Jones et al. 1986. 

3.12.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The incident data summarized in Table 3.12.2-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes, with 

widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks; the 

remaining incidents were classified as ruptures, indicating more serious failures. 

OPS recently expanded its database to provide information on the number of incidents and 

fatalities from 1988 through 2008, as well as the number of industry fatalities and public fatalities for the 

period from 2003 through 2007. The average annual fatalities per year for the last 5 years, the last 

10 years, and for the 21-year reporting period are listed in Table 3.12.3-1. Table 3.12.3-2 presents the 

average annual fatalities that occurred for onshore natural gas transmission lines in the United States 

during that time period. 
3-185

TABLE 3.12.3-1 

Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore 

Natural Gas Transmission Systems in the United Statesa

 Annual Average 

Period Number of Incidents Fatalities 

5-year Average (2004 – 2008) 53.2 1.0 

10-year Average (1999 – 2008) 49.1 2.6 

21-year Average (1988 – 2008) 40.2 1.9 

Note: 

a

 Data from PHMSA website accessed April 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html); PHMSA reports 

the total transmission line distance in the United States is approximately 

280,000 miles. 

TABLE 3.12.3-2 

Fatalities by Sector for Onshore 

Natural Gas Transmission Systems in the United Statesa

Number of Fatalities 

Year Industry Public Total 

2003 1 0 1 

2004 0 0 0 

2005 0 0 0 

2006 2 1 3 

2007 1 1 2 

Total 4 2 6 

5-year Annual Average 0.8 0.4 1.2 

Note: 

a

 Data from PHMSA website accessed April 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html); PHMSA reports the total transmission 

line distance in the United States is approximately 280,000 miles. 

The average annual number of fatalities has been relatively consistent over the past 21 years, 

ranging from about 1 to 3 deaths per year. The annual 10- and 21-year averages are somewhat skewed 

due to the 15 deaths that occurred during a single incident in Carlsbad, New Mexico in 2000. 

The PHMSA database also includes incidents and total fatalities (public combined with 

employee) for each of the states crossed by the proposed Project for the period from 1998 through 2008. 

Table 3.12.3-3 presents the data on annual average number of incidents and fatalities for Wyoming, 

Montana, and North Dakota. As indicated in the table, the annual average fatality rates were lower than 

the nationwide rates; however, the length of transmission lines in each state is substantially less than the 

nationwide total. 
3-186

TABLE 3.12.3-3 

Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore 

Natural Gas Transmission Systems in the 

States Crossed by the Bison Projecta

 Annual Average 

State and Period Number of Incidents Fatalities 

Wyoming (6,750 miles of transmission line) 

5-year Average (2004 – 2008) 1.2 0.2 

11-year Average (1998 – 2008) 1.1 0.1 

Montana (5,303 miles of transmission line) 

5-year Average (2004 – 2008) 0.2 0 

11-year Average (1998 – 2008) 0.3 0 

North Dakota (2,273 miles of transmission line) 

5-year Average (2004 – 2008) 0.2 0 

11-year Average (1998 – 2008) 0.1 0 

Note: 

 a Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration website accessed 

April 2009 (http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

The nationwide totals of accidental deaths from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in Table 3.12.3-4 to provide a relative measure of the safety of natural gas transmission pipelines. 

However, direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, because individual 

exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average rates of public 

fatalities of 0.4 (PHMSA website) to 2.6 (Jones et al. 1986) per year is relatively small, considering the 

more than 280,000 miles of transmission 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, and earthquakes. 

The available data indicate that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of 

energy transportation. Based on approximately 280,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines in service 

and the worst-case average annual fatality rate of 2.6 deaths per year (see Table 3.12.3-1), the rate of 

public fatalities for the nationwide natural gas transmission lines in service is approximately 0.01 per year 

per 1,000 miles of pipeline. Using this rate, the proposed 301.9-mile-long Project might result in a public 

fatality every 330 years. Using the more recent PHMSA data for 2003 through 2008 (Table 3.12.3-2), 

there might be one public fatality every 2,300 years. This would represent a slight increase in risk to the 

nearby public. 
3-187

TABLE 3.12.3-4 

Nationwide Accidental Deathsa

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All accidents 117,809 

Motor vehicle 45,343 

Other transportation 3,098 

Falls 19,656 

Accidental discharge of firearms 789 

Drowning 3,582 

Poisoning 23,618 

Fires and burns 3,299 

Suffocation by ingested object 5,900 

Natural/Environmental 2,462 

Onshore natural gas transmission pipelines, all 

fatalities (1988 to 2008 annual average) b 1.9 

Onshore natural gas transmission lines, 

non-employees (2003 – 2007 annual average) b 0.4 

Natural gas transmission and gathering lines, 

non-employees (1970 to 1984 annual average) c 2.6 

Notes: 

 a Source: All data, unless otherwise noted, are for accidental deaths in 2005 from 

Kung et al. (2008). 

 b Source: Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration website 

accessed April 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

 c Source: Jones et al. 1986. 

3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues 

3.12.4.1 Terrorism 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under FERC’s jurisdiction. Increased security awareness has 

occurred throughout the industry and the nation. The Office of Homeland Security was established with 

the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive departments and agencies to detect, prepare for, 

prevent, and protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States. 

FERC, in cooperation with other federal agencies and industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts to 

protect the energy infrastructure, including the approximately 280,000 miles of interstate natural gas 

transmission pipelines. 

FERC, like other federal agencies, is faced with the dilemma of deciding how much information 

can be offered to the public while still providing a significant level of protection to energy facilities. 

FERC has taken measures to limit the distribution of information to the public regarding facility design to 

minimize the risk of sabotage. Facility design and location information has been removed from FERC’s 

website to ensure that sensitive information filed as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information is not 
3-188

readily available to the public (Docket No. RM06-23-000, issued October 30, 2007 and effective as of 

December 14, 2007). 

Safety and security are important considerations in any action undertaken by FERC. Since 

September 11, 2001, FERC has been involved with other federal agencies in developing a coordinated 

approach to protecting the energy facilities of the United States, and continues to coordinate with these 

agencies to address this issue. In addition, interstate natural gas companies are actively involved with 

several industry groups to chart how best to address security measures in the current environment. 

A Security Task Force has been created and is addressing ways to improve pipeline security practices, 

strengthen communication within the industry and the interface with government, and extend public 

outreach efforts. 

Due to the various motivations and abilities of terrorist organizations in conjunction with the 

extensive natural gas infrastructure within the United States, the likelihood of future acts of terrorism 

occurring at the Project site is unpredictable. Further, the Commission, in cooperation with other federal 

agencies, industry trade groups, and interstate natural gas companies, is working to improve pipeline 

security practices, strengthen communications within the industry, and extend public outreach in an 

ongoing effort to secure pipeline infrastructure. 

Despite the ongoing potential for terrorist acts along any of the nation’s natural gas infrastructure, 

the continuing need for the construction of these facilities is not eliminated. Given the continued need for 

natural gas conveyance and the unpredictable nature of terrorist attacks, the efforts of FERC, DOT, and 

the Office of Homeland Security to continually improve pipeline safety would minimize the risk of 

terrorist sabotage of the Project to the maximum extent practical, while still meeting the nation’s natural 

gas needs. 

Bison’s pipeline system would be inspected by air and on the ground in accordance with DOT 

surveillance requirements. Security measures at the aboveground facilities would include secure fencing, 

locked buildings, and security lighting. 

The attacks of September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators 

must consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. However, the 

likelihood of future attacks of terrorism or sabotage occurring along the Project, or at any of the myriad of 

natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States is unpredictable given the disparate 

motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to support the future 

natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished by the threat of any such future acts. Moreover, the 

unpredictable possibility of such acts does not support a finding that this particular project should not be 

constructed. The Commission is confident that with the options available in the detailed design of the 

proposed Project, including alignment, depth of cover, pipe thickness, and location of isolation valves, the 

proposed Project would be safely constructed and operated. 

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

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. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project are 

discussed in other sections of this EIS. 

The purpose of this analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would potentially 

result from implementation of the proposed Project using an approach consistent with the methodology 
3-189

set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ 1997, EPA 1999, CEQ 2005). Under these guidelines, inclusion of 

other potential future actions is based on identifying commonalities between the potential impacts that 

would result from the proposed Project and the impacts likely to be associated with those other potential 

future projects. A potential future action must meet the following three criteria to be included in the 

cumulative impacts analysis: 

• Impact a resource category potentially affected by the proposed Project; 

• Cause this impact within all, or part of, the region of influence; and 

• Cause this impact within all, or part of, the time span for the potential impact from the 

proposed Project. 

To understand the contribution of past actions to the potential cumulative effects, this analysis 

relies on current environmental conditions within the region of influence as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. This approach is: 

• Consistent with a July 24, 2005 interpretive memorandum written by the Council on 

Environmental Quality which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects 

analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the 

historical details of individual past actions;” 

• Less prone to omit important past impacts than would be an approach that identified and 

evaluated the impacts of individual past actions; and 

• A practical approach to describing conditions that have been impacted by innumerable past 

actions which may interact with one another and/or with other naturally occurring conditions. 

For the purposes of the cumulative impact analysis, the region of influence is defined as the 

11 watersheds traversed by the proposed Project (Table 3.13-1). Watersheds were selected as the unit of 

observation for this cumulative impact assessment for two primary reasons. First, the primary potentially 

cumulative impacts identified by the public and during consultation with area agencies were related to 

habitat fragmentation and its effects on wildlife and, habitat and wildlife do not generally relate to 

geopolitical boundaries, such as counties or census blocks, but they do relate to land topography and 

water resources. Second, the primary erosive forces in the Project area are wind and water. These forces 

determine the dispersal of soil within the Project area and are generally confined within large watershed 

boundaries. Given these factors watersheds were identified as the logical unit of observation. 
3-190

TABLE 3.13-1 

Watersheds Traversed by the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Watershed 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code Counties within Watershed 

Watershed 

Acreage 

Box Elder 10110202 Carter and Fallon, Montana; Bowman, North Dakota; 

Harding, South Dakota 

760,000 

Clear/Cedar 10130205 Adams, Bowman, Grant, Hettinger, Sioux, and Slope, 

North Dakota; Corson and Perkins, South Dakota 

1,160,000 

Little Powder 10090208 Carter and Powder River, Montana; Campbell and 

Crook, Wyoming 

1,300,000 

Lower Heart 10130203 Grant, Hettinger, Morton, and Oliver, North Dakota 1,040,000 

Middle Little Missouri 10110203 Fallon and Wibaux, Montana; Billings, Bowman, 

Golden Valley, McKenzie, and Slope, North Dakota 

1,400,000 

Middle Powder 10090207 Powder River, Montana; Campbell and Sheridan, 

Wyoming 

680,000 

North Fork Grand 10130301 Adams and Bowman, North Dakota; Harding and 

Perkins, South Dakota 

810,000 

Upper Cannonball 10130204 Adams, Grant, Hettinger, Slope, and Stark, North 

Dakota; Perkins, South Dakota 

1,030,000 

Upper Heart 10130202 Billings, Dunn, Grant, Hettinger, Morton, and Stark, 

North Dakota 

1,090,000 

Upper Little Missouri 10110201 Carter, Fallon, and Powder River, Montana; Bowman 

and Slope, North Dakota; Butte and Harding, South 

Dakota; Campbell and Crook, Wyoming 

2,200,000 

Upper Powder 10090202 Campbell, Converse, Johnson, Natrona, and 

Sheridan, Wyoming 

1,620,000 

Total 13,090,000 

3.13.1 Environmental Conditions within the Watersheds 

The region of influence can be characterized as primarily undeveloped land composed of 

grasslands, ponderosa pine, deciduous forest, cropland, sagebrush steppes, and riparian areas. Early in 

our nation’s history, these areas provided ideal habitat for large ungulates such as bison and elk and other 

wildlife such as sage-grouse (Bohne et al. 2007) whose habitat needs and or migratory patterns lend 

themselves to large, uninterrupted habitat complexes. 

The uninterrupted quality of the habitat began to change in the mid to late 1800s with the demise 

of the bison, the arrival of the U.S. Calvary, and the discovery of gold in the Black Hills, which brought 

prospectors and limited development. Shortly thereafter, habitat in the area began to be transformed by 

cattle ranching, agriculture, and the railways and enterprises required to support those activities (SHG 

2009). 

The area’s first boom began with the discovery of oil, gas, and coal. While the land was still 

largely undeveloped, regional oil and gas extraction began in the late 1800s with the development of the 

Shannon Oil Field, followed by development of the Salt Creek, Big Muddy, and Lance Creek Oil Fields 

in the first two decades of the 20th century (Jent 2007). These developments were concurrent with the 
3-191

discovery and subsequent extraction of large, easily accessible coal reserves that resulted in the clustering 

of development around widely dispersed geographic areas and the homesteading of some areas in 

between those clusters. 

The boom began to slow with the area’s first agricultural depression, which began in 1919 and 

persisted throughout the Great Depression and into World War II. 

Following World War II, the discovery of new oil reserves (the Big Belle Oil strike in 1955 and 

the Hi-lite discovery in 1967) and the arrival of the federal interstate highway system to the area brought 

another period of development (Wright Area Chamber of Commerce 2009) and the associated loss and 

fragmentation of habitat. This development continued with the discovery of additional oil fields and, in 

the 1970s, new interest in coal extraction. Throughout the post-World War II period, rivers were dammed 

for the purpose of flood control and agriculture took root in most areas where it could be supported by the 

soil and water resources. 

Today, the landscape in the region of influence is still largely rural with county-wide population 

densities ranging from less than 1 up to 17 persons per square mile and small to medium-sized population 

centers still widely dispersed. However, the continued development of coal-bed methane resources along 

the southern portion of the proposed route and the infrastructure necessary to support that development 

now occupy roughly 4 percent of habitat within the southern portion of the region of influence (BLM 

2005). Along the northern portion of the proposed route, agriculture now dominates the landscape in 

areas east of the Badlands. 

3.13.2 Potential Future Actions 

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 project 

completion, and only projects with either ongoing or reasonably foreseeable impacts are identified. 

Existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that would be expected to affect similar resources during 

periods similar to the proposed Project were considered 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 general 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) facilities that would be associated with construction of the proposed Project but that are not under 

FERC’s jurisdiction; (2) other natural gas and crude oil pipeline projects; and (3) unrelated projects that 

are either in place, under construction, or proposed in the region of influence (Table 3.13.2-1). 

More specifically, our analysis includes the electric service transmission associated with the 

proposed Hettinger Compressor Station; one proposed crude oil pipeline; several previously constructed 

natural gas pipeline projects; and the widely dispersed, ongoing coal-bed methane development. Other 

projects include two wind energy projects, two transmission line projects, and one electric generation 

project. In addition, we evaluated the area’s somewhat dispersed, ongoing coal extraction and mining 

operations. 
3-192

TABLE 3.13.2-1 

Existing or Proposed Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Project Description 

Existing or 

Proposed 

Watersheds within 

Region of Influence 

Nonjurisdictional Facilities Associated with Bison Pipeline Project 

Hettinger Compressor 

Station electric 

transmission lines 

Approximately 4 miles of 

three-phase underground 

electric service transmission 

will be required for this station 

Proposed Upper Cannonball 

Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Operations 

Bitter Creek Pipeline Intrastate gas gathering 

pipeline linking northeast 

Wyoming to the Wyoming 

interstate pipeline 

Existing Upper Powder 

Fort Union Gas 

Gathering Pipeline 

A 318-mile-long pipeline that 

transports coal-bed methane 

to several interstate natural 

gas pipelines 

Existing (expanded 

in 2007 and 2008) 

Upper Powder 

Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate Casper 

Division 

An intrastate gas gathering 

pipeline that links northeast 

Wyoming to the Wyoming 

interstate pipeline 

Existing Upper Powder 

MGTC Pipeline An intrastate pipeline that 

links northeast Wyoming to 

the Kinder Morgan Interstate 

Transmission Co. System 

Existing Upper Powder, Little Powder, and 

Upper Little Missouri 

Keystone XL Pipeline An approximately 1,980-milelong crude oil pipeline that 

would begin in Canada and 

run through Montana, South 

Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Texas, and 

Louisiana 

Proposed 

(construction 

planned for 2010 to 

2012) 

Box Elder and Upper Little 

Missouri 

MIGC Pipeline A 264-mile-long pipeline Existing Little Powder and Upper Powder 

Northern Border 

Pipeline 

A 1,249-mile-long pipeline 

including 17 compressor 

stations (one within Lower 

Heart Watershed) 

Existing Lower Heart 

Williston Basin 

Interstate Pipeline 

A 3,364-mile-long pipeline 

including 27 compressor 

stations (one within Upper 

Little Missouri Watershed); 

the Grasslands Pipeline 

Project was part of this 

system 

Existing 

(Grasslands 

Pipeline Project 

was constructed 

from 2003 to 2004) 

Upper Little Missouri, Box Elder, 

Little Powder, and Middle Powder 
3-193

TABLE 3.13.2-1 (continued) 

Existing or Proposed Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Project Description 

Existing or 

Proposed 

Watersheds within 

Region of Influence 

Wind Energy

Diamond Willow Wind 

Project 

19.5-megawatt (-MW) wind 

farm that consists of 13 

turbines; plans to expand to 

an energy capacity of 30 MW 

Existing 

(constructed in 

2008) 

Upper Little Missouri 

Cedar Hills Wind 

Project 

19.5-MW wind farm 

consisting of 13 turbines to be 

constructed in Rhame, North 

Dakota 

Proposed 

(construction 

planned for 2009–

2010) 

Upper Little Missouri 

Transmission Lines and Power Plants

Belfield-to-Rhame 

Transmission Project 

(Basin Electric) 

A proposed 74-mile 230-

kilovolt (-kV) electric 

transmission line and 

associated facilities extending 

from an existing Belfield 

substation to a proposed new 

substation south of Rhame, 

North Dakota, in Bowman 

County 

Proposed 

(construction 

planned for 2009) 

Upper Little Missouri, North Fork 

Grand, Middle Little Missouri, and 

Clear/Cedar 

Hughes Transmission 

Project 

A proposed 136-mile 230-kV 

electric transmission line 

connecting the Hughes 

substation to the Carr Draw 

substation and a new Tongue 

River substation to the 

existing Sheridan substation 

Proposed 

(construction 

planned for 2009) 

Crosses the proposed Bison 

pipeline within the Upper Powder 

Watershed 

Dry Fork Generating 

Station

A coal-based power plant with 

a generating capacity of 

385 MW 

Proposed 

(expected to be 

online in 2011) 

Little Powder 

The Powder/Tongue River Basin Water Plan and the Northeast Wyoming River Basins Water 

Plan were prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission as part of the statewide 

framework water plan. They include multiple water control projects, none of which have yet reached the 

planning stage. As such, they are not considered further in this EIS. 

The projects, to be considered in the cumulative impact analysis, were identified through 

comments, scoping, and independent research, as well as information provided by Bison. In addition, 

each state along the proposed Project route was contacted and asked to provide information related to any 

ongoing or upcoming transportation projects in the watersheds traversed by the proposed Bison Project. 

When available, we have identified the tentative construction schedules for identified projects that have 

not yet been constructed, but the actual construction schedules would depend on factors such as economic 

conditions, the availability of funds, and political considerations. 
3-194

In general, the potential impacts associated with these projects that may be cumulatively 

significant are related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife, land use, air quality, and 

noise. 

3.13.3 Nonjurisdictional Components of the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

As described in Section 1.5, nonjurisdictional facilities for the proposed Project would include the 

electric service transmission line to the Hettinger Compressor Station. This action would be subject to 

separate regulatory review and environmental permitting. 

Slope Electric has proposed construction of approximately 4 miles of three-phase underground 

electric service transmission from an existing overhead phase-three line that runs along Bomber Club 

Road to the Hettinger Compressor Station. 

The line would be constructed underground primarily through cropland within the county road 

easement for the Enchanted Highway. During construction, potentially significant cumulative impacts 

would be related to noise and air quality. No potentially cumulative impacts are associated with 

operations. 

3.13.4 Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Operations 

FERC reviewed existing and proposed natural gas pipeline projects to identify other pipelines in 

the region of influence. In addition to the proposed Keystone XL crude oil pipeline, there are several 

existing natural gas pipelines in the region of influence. The primary potentially cumulative impacts 

associated with existing natural gas pipeline operations are related to noise emanating from compressor 

stations and cumulative increases to the width of areas experiencing difficulties with ongoing right-ofway restoration. 

3.13.4.1 Gas Gathering Pipelines 

The region of influence contains multiple gas gathering pipelines that link the widely dispersed 

gas wells to the interstate gas pipeline system. These include the following: 

• The Bitter Creek Pipeline is an intrastate gas gathering pipeline that links northeast Wyoming 

to the Wyoming interstate pipeline. This pipeline is located in the Upper Powder Watershed, 

which is in the region of influence. 

• The Fort Union Gas Gathering Pipeline, which was expanded in 2007 and 2008, gathers coalbed methane from wells in northeastern Wyoming and delivers it to several interstate natural 

gas pipelines (Fort Union Gas Gathering 2007). The 318-mile-long system includes no 

compressor stations and traverses the Upper Powder Watershed in Campbell County, 

Wyoming, which is in the region of influence. 

• The Kinder Morgan Intrastate Casper Division Pipeline is an intrastate gas gathering pipeline 

that links northeast Wyoming to Kinder Morgan’s interstate pipeline in Wyoming. This 

pipeline is located in the Upper Powder Watershed, which is in the region of influence. 

• The MGTC is an intrastate pipeline that links the production fields in northeast Wyoming 

with the Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission Company system, which in turn, 

provides transportation southeastward into Nebraska. The MGTC has no associated 

compressor stations and crosses the Upper Powder, Little Powder, and Upper Little Missouri 

Watersheds in the region of influence. 
3-195

3.13.4.2 Keystone XL Pipeline 

The proposed Keystone XL project would be an approximately 1,980-mile-long crude oil pipeline 

that would begin in Canada and traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, 

and Louisiana. It would include 33 electric compressor stations in the United States. While the final 

locations of these stations have not been identified, it is likely that at least one would be sited in the 

region of influence. The U.S. Department of State is coordinating the review and permitting of the 

Keystone XL Pipeline because it would transport crude oil across the international border between 

Canada and the United States. If permitted, construction is expected to occur between 2010 and 2012 and 

would traverse the Box Elder and Upper Little Missouri Watersheds. 

3.13.4.3 MIGC Pipeline 

The MIGC system is a 264-mile-long FERC-regulated interstate pipeline operating within the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming. The MIGC system extends 150 miles across the Powder River Basin 

from north to south in Little Powder and Upper Powder Watersheds. The pipeline system runs parallel to 

the Fort Union Gas Gathering system, and does not have any compressor stations within the region of 

influence. 

3.13.4.4 Northern Border Pipeline 

The Northern Border pipeline system links gas reserves in Canada, Montana, and North Dakota to 

hubs in Iowa and Illinois (Rextag Strategies 2008a). Constructed in 1976 with major upgrades in 1992 

and 1999, the 1,249-mile-long system includes 17 compressor stations, one of which is in the region of 

influence. Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 is located at the tie-in between the proposed Bison 

Project and the existing Northern Border pipeline in the Lower Heart Watershed within Morton County, 

North Dakota. 

3.13.4.5 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

The Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline, which includes the Grasslands Pipeline constructed from 

2003 to 2004, is part of an operating system that gathers, stores, and transports natural gas in the states of 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Rextag Strategies 2008b). The proposed Bison 

Project route would cross the 3,364-mile-long Williston Pipeline multiple times in Bowman and Hettinger 

Counties, North Dakota. The Williston Pipeline includes 27 compressor stations; one of which is in the 

region of influence. This station, the Little Beaver Station, is in the Upper Little Missouri Watershed 

within Fallon County, Montana. 

3.13.5 Conventional Oil/Gas and Coal-Bed Methane Development in the Region 

Regional oil and gas development began in the late 1800s with the development of the Shannon 

Oil Field, followed by development of the Salt Creek, Big Muddy, and Lance Creek Oil Fields in the first 

two decades of the 20th century. During the Great Depression and World War II, development slowed 

dramatically. Improvements in exploration technology resulted in identification and development of 

additional shallow oil reserves following the war and into the 1950s. Advances in drilling technology 

resulted in the development of deeper oil reserves throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and into the early 1980s. 

As the supply of easily-accessed reserves in Wyoming decreased and the inflation-adjusted price of oil 

dropped worldwide following the 1970’s oil shock, regional oil and conventional gas development 

slowed. 
3-196

As conventional oil and gas development slowed, coal-bed methane development began to 

expand. This development occurred primarily in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, 

including the Little Powder, Middle Powder and Upper Powder Watersheds. The Williston Basin, which 

would be traversed by the proposed Project, contained no coal-bed methane production as of 2003, 

although the area was being prospected (Arthur et al. 2003), and limited (fewer than 100 wells) 

development is expected by 2018 (Environ 2007). 

By 2003, the 14,758 producing coal-bed methane wells in the Powder River Basin were shipping 

346 bcf of gas and creating 500 million barrels of produced water annually. Viewed cumulatively with 

oil and gas development activity, these wells impacted approximately 221,000 acres or approximately 

4 percent of wildlife habitat in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin (BLM 2005). 

Future oil/gas and coal-bed methane development is difficult to predict, as development activity 

is characterized as: 

• Sensitive to energy price fluctuations and the development of cost-reducing technology; 

• Conducted by multiple entities distributed over a broad geographic area; and 

• Rapidly permitted. 

However, BLM (2005) predicted there would be just over 25,000 coal-bed methane wells in the 

Powder River Basin by 2010, and Environ (2007) predicted that as many as 40,000 coal-bed methane 

wells could be developed by 2018 under a high development scenario. Given this level of development, 

the oil/gas and coal-bed methane footprint could increase to include between 7 and 11 percent of available 

wildlife habitat in the affected Wyoming watersheds (BLM 2005). If production water increases in 

proportion to the number of wells, over 1 billion barrels (about 42,000,000,000 gallons) of produced 

water could be generated annually. 

These predictions are generally consistent with the Grasslands Pipeline Project: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Grasslands EIS) (FERC 2003). The Grasslands EIS relied on three 

sources: an assessment of the cumulative impacts of proposed conventional and coal-bed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming (DOI 2003a); an assessment of the cumulative 

impacts of proposed conventional and coal-bed methane development in the Powder River Basin in 

Montana (DOI 2003b); and the Big Dry Resource Management Plan/EIS (BLM 1995), which was also 

for Montana. Each source forecasted the number of wells expected to be drilled over a specific period 

and the footprint associated with those wells (Table 3.13.5-1). The assumed footprints were 1.0 acre for 

an exploratory well and 3.25 acres for a producing well. It was further assumed that 10 percent of the gas 

wells and 71 percent of the conventional wells would be dry holes and would therefore not become 

producing wells. 
3-197

TABLE 3.13.5-1 

Summary of Cumulative Land Disturbance Associated with Conventional Oil/Gas and 

Coal-Bed Methane Development in the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project (2003 to 2013) 

Activity 

Wells to be 

Drilled 

(number) 

Construction 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Duration of 

Active 

Disturbance 

(years) 

Operation/ 

Production 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Total 

Operational 

Disturbance 

Wyoming coal-bed 

methane development 

39,367 119,085 10+ 70,861 71.8% 

Wyoming conventional 

oil/gas development 

3,200 5,288 10+ 1,856 1.9% 

Montana coal-bed 

methane development 

13,725 41,518 10+ 24,705 25.0% 

Montana conventional 

oil/gas developmenta 2,178 3,599 10+ 1,263 1.3% 

Total 58,470 169,490 -- 98,685 -- 

Note: 

a

 Includes projections for the Big Dry Resource Area (BLM 1995), which is not included in the EIS for Montana coal-bed 

methane development (DOI 2003b) 

The most recent estimate of potential coal-bed methane development is contained in the Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (Montana SEIS) (BLM 

2009b). That document considers a range of potential activity in the Montana portion of the Powder 

River Basin and the Billings Resource Management Planning Area. The analysis identified a range of 

potential development over the next 20 years that included up to an additional 26,000 wells in Montana 

and a cumulative disturbance of up to 88,170 acres. While the Montana SEIS covers a time period that 

only partially overlaps with the Grasslands EIS, the Montana SEIS projected rate of potential 

development is largely consistent with prior projections. 

In addition to the actual wells, coal-bed methane development would likely induce the 

construction of gas booster and treatment facilities. 

The primary potentially cumulative impacts related to conventional oil/gas and coal-bed methane 

resource development include construction-related impacts such as noise and wildlife disturbance. 

During operations, we would expect that the potential cumulative impacts would be associated with 

habitat fragmentation, viewshed degradation, noise, and air quality. 

3.13.6 Projects Not Related to Natural Gas 

3.13.6.1 Wind Energy 

In 2005, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM published a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that assessed the environmental, social, and economic impacts 

associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered land in 11 Western states, including 

Montana and Wyoming (DOI and BLM 2005). While the document does not evaluate site-specific 

issues, it does evaluate the potential impacts of wind energy development. These include potential direct 

impacts related to the use of geologic and water resources; creation or increase of geologic hazards or soil 
3-198

erosion; water quality degradation; localized generation of airborne dust; generation of noise; alteration or 

degradation of wildlife habitat or sensitive or unique habitat; interference with resident or migratory fish 

or wildlife species, including protected species; alteration or degradation of plant communities, including 

the occurrence of invasive vegetation; land use changes; alteration of visual resources; release of 

hazardous materials or wastes; increased traffic; increased human health and safety hazards; and 

destruction or loss of paleontological or cultural resources. 

A PEIS is also being developed to evaluate the impacts of wind energy to grassland and wetland 

easements in the western upper Great Plains Region, including North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana 

(WAPA and FWS 2009). This may address further issues of environmental concern related to wind 

energy development for the region of influence. 

Review of these PEISs and other documents suggests that the primary potentially cumulative 

impacts associated with the proposed Project are habitat degradation and viewshed degradation. Two 

recent or planned wind energy projects were identified in the region of influence. 

Diamond Willow Wind Project 

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. owns and operates the Diamond Willow Wind Facility in the Upper 

Little Missouri Watershed in Fallon County, Montana. The facility is approximately 25 miles northwest 

of the proposed Bison Project route. The wind farm, which came online in early 2008, includes 

13 1.5-MW wind turbines and is projected to produce about 70,000 MW per hour annually (MontanaDakota Utilities Co. 2008). In December 2008, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. announced plans to add 

seven wind turbines at the Diamond Willow Wind Facility to increase the total energy capacity of the 

facility to 30 MW (Scandinavian Oil-Gas Online 2008). 

Cedar Hills Wind Project 

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. has announced plans to develop a 19.5-MW wind generation 

facility on leased land near Rhame, North Dakota in Bowman County. This is located within the Upper 

Little Missouri Watershed. The 13-turbine project would be within 10 miles of the proposed Bison 

Project route and is scheduled to come online in late 2009 (Scandinavian Oil-Gas Online 2008, National 

Wind Watch 2009). 

3.13.6.2 Transmission Lines and Generating Station 

The region of influence includes multiple existing interstate and local electric transmission lines. 

In addition, we have identified two transmission lines and a generating station currently proposed or 

under construction in the region of influence. If the construction of these projects overlaps with the 

proposed Bison Project construction schedule, short term cumulative impacts associated with noise, dust, 

and general construction activity could occur. During operations, the primary potentially cumulative 

impacts associated with transmission lines include impacts to avian wildlife and viewshed degradation. 

The primary cumulative impacts associated with the generating station are related to air quality and noise. 

Belfield-to-Rhame Transmission Project 

This proposed 230-kV transmission line would extend 74 miles, connecting the existing Western 

substation near Belfield to a proposed substation near Rhame, and would potentially intersect the 

proposed Project in the Upper Little Missouri, North Fork Grand, Middle Little Missouri, and 

Clear/Cedar Watersheds within Slope and/or Bowman County, North Dakota. Basin Electric, the group 

applying for the permit, anticipates having the line operational by the end of 2009 (Basin Electric 2009a). 
3-199

Hughes Transmission Project 

This 230-kV transmission line will extend 136 miles, connecting the Hughes substation north of 

Rozet to the Carr Draw substation west of Gillette and a new Tongue River substation north of Sheridan 

to the existing Sheridan substation. The transmission line will intersect the proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project route in the Upper Powder Watershed within Campbell County, Wyoming. Construction began in 

2007 and will be completed in 2009 (Basin Electric 2009b). 

Dry Fork Generating Station 

Basin Electric is constructing the Dry Fork Generating Station in Gillette, Wyoming, which is 

located in the Little Powder Watershed within Campbell County, approximately 16 miles from the 

proposed Bison Project route. The coal-based power plant will have a net generation capacity of 385 MW 

and is expected to be online by 2011 (Basin Electric 2009c). 

3.13.6.3 State and County Highway Development 

The departments of transportation for each state were contacted and asked to provide information 

related to any ongoing or upcoming projects in the region of influence (Montana DOT 2009, North 

Dakota DOT 2009, WYDOT 2009a, WYDOT 2009b, South Dakota DOT 2009). Based on 

communication with the state departments of transportation, there were no projects identified in the 

region of influence that would potentially have significant environmental impacts. 

3.13.6.4 Coal Extraction and Mining Operations 

The Upper Western Coal Region includes portions of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. 

The majority of Wyoming’s active coal mining occurs in the Little Powder and Upper Powder 

Watersheds among three coal-beds: Wyodak, Big George, and Lake DeSmet. Due largely to the relative 

ease with which these beds are accessed, Wyoming’s primarily open pit mines have nearly doubled 

production since 1994. In 2008, over 466 million tons of coal was produced. That level of production 

makes Wyoming the largest producer of coal in the United States (Wyoming Mining Association 2009). 

Together, North Dakota and Montana produce approximately 75 million tons of coal annually. 

Montana, which ranks 5th among coal producing states, produced 43.4 million tons in 2007. The majority 

of this production came from two open pit mine sites, Spring Creek and Rosebud, both of which are 

located west of the region of influence (Montana Coal Council 2007). North Dakota, which ranks 10th

among coal-producing states, produced 29.6 million tons in 2007. The majority of this production came 

from open pit mines clustered in the central part of the state, north and east of the proposed Bison route. 

The proposed route would not traverse any active coal mining areas. However, the proposed 

route would cross four inactive gravel pits and one active scoria pit (discussed further in Sections 3.1 

and 3.8). 

Potentially cumulative impacts related to construction are limited due to the distance between the 

proposed Project route and the region’s active mining operations. During operations, the primary 

potentially cumulative impacts are associated with habitat fragmentation, viewshed degradation, and air 

quality. 
3-200

3.13.7 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Potential cumulative impacts are grouped by resource area in this section. The impacts that we 

view as most likely to be potentially significant when evaluated cumulatively are related to wetlands and 

waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife, land use, air quality, and noise. 

Except for the interstate natural gas pipeline projects described in this EIS, FERC has no 

authority over permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of the projects listed above. 

Federal, state, and local agencies may review these projects for environmental compliance with applicable 

regulations. The permitting process would seek to avoid or minimize significant impacts from these 

facilities to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife, land use, air quality, and noise. 

3.13.7.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in both short term and long term 

impacts to waterbodies and wetlands. The short term impacts, such as soil or sediment disturbance, 

would dissipate over a period of days or weeks, while longer-term impacts, such as re-growth of arboreal 

riparian vegetation within temporary construction rights-of-way, would persist for years. 

Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect a total of approximately 16.2 acres of 

wetlands; no forested wetland would be impacted. In general, this acreage would be allowed to return to 

its pre-construction state. Bison states that compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts would be 

provided through the purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits in the area of the proposed Project 

and/or construction of new wetlands, as directed by the COE. 

If approved and constructed, other reasonably foreseeable future projects would impact wetlands 

and may include the permanent loss or conversion of some existing wetlands. Such impacts 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 to wetlands and waterbodies 

would require appropriate mitigation, including no net loss of wetlands. 

Given the minor, geographically dispersed, and primarily short term impacts of the proposed 

Project on wetlands, coupled with mitigation requirements built into the COE permitting process for the 

other projects considered, any potential cumulative effects would be minor. 

Waterbodies 

Most perennial waterbodies affected by the Project would be crossed using open-cut dry or HDD 

methods to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the waterbodies. In addition, Bison would adhere to 

construction timing constraints during pipeline construction and develop site-specific waterbody crossing 

plans. Finally, Bison proposes to limit construction to no more than two flowing waterbody crossings 

within each watershed at a time. These measures, along with adherence to all federal and state 

regulations and permitting requirements, would minimize impacts to waterbodies. 

Because other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions would impact the same watersheds 

as the proposed Project, the potential for some cumulative impacts to waterbodies exists. It appears likely 

that the most significant impact from the other projects would be related to the ongoing and future 

discharge of process water associated with coal-bed methane development. If not properly managed, the 

discharge of process water can result in deleterious changes to both flow regimes and water quality. The 
3-201

extraction and disposal of process water associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal 

mining and coal-bed methane development has the potential to affect groundwater resources. However, 

that potential affect is not cumulative when considered in the context of the proposed Bison Project, as 

construction and operation of the proposed Project is not expected to affect the quantity or quality of 

surface water or groundwater resources, except temporarily during active construction. 

These temporary impacts could include runoff from construction areas; temporary and localized 

increases in turbidity; sedimentation associated with in-water construction; and withdrawal and discharge 

of surface waters for hydrostatic testing of pipeline segments, which would be conducted in accordance 

with all applicable state and federal requirements. As described in Section 3.3, these effects would be 

relatively minor and would be further minimized by implementation of Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G) 

and the recommendations included in this EIS. 

For these reasons, we believe that, while project development within the region of influence could 

represent a moderate cumulative impact on surface water and groundwater resources, any contribution of 

the proposed Project to cumulative impacts on those resources would be minor and temporary. 

3.13.7.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects could result 

in cumulative impacts to native vegetation and associated wildlife. These cumulative impacts would be 

most significant if (1) the projects were constructed at or near the same time and close to one another; and 

(2) if affected communities would not recover rapidly. 

Vegetation 

Construction of the proposed Project would primarily disturb open land (61.6 percent) and 

pasture or agricultural land (28.7 percent). Following construction, approximately 68 percent of the 

disturbed area would be outside of the permanent right-of-way and would revert to previous vegetation 

covers. Because most acreage would be open and agricultural in use it would recover to pre-construction 

conditions within a few years. To facilitate this recovery, actions would be taken to promptly plant or reseed disturbed areas with native vegetation and to reduce the potential for the introduction or spread of 

noxious and invasive plants. Impacts to forest and scrub-shrub vegetation would be long term due to 

construction and could continue for the life of the proposed Project. 

Past and present actions have resulted in substantial impacts to areas with native vegetation 

associated with rangeland and agriculture. In many areas, agricultural and grazing practices have altered 

native vegetation and water flow regimes. In addition, approximately 4 percent of the acreage in the 

Wyoming portion of the region of influence had been affected by oil and gas development as of 2003, and 

that impact is projected to increase to between 7 and 11 percent by 2018. While other foreseeable 

projects such as transmission lines and the generating station, listed in Table 3.13.2-1, are not likely to 

significantly impact forests or other native plant communities individually, historical actions associated 

with these projects represent a moderate impact to vegetation within the region of influence. However, 

we believe that the incremental effect to vegetation of the proposed Bison Project, which would impact 

less than 0.01 percent of the region of influence during construction and operation, would be minor. 

Wildlife 

Some wildlife may be affected by the cumulative loss of specific habitat types. Furthermore, 

some wildlife depend on contiguous tracts of undisturbed habitat to sustain migratory and reproduction 

cycles. The impacts of habitat fragmentation can be immediate and significant to these species. 
3-202

The extent and duration of habitat fragmentation and other cumulative impacts to wildlife habitat 

associated with construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects is 

reduced by siting projects, to the extent practical, along existing maintained rights-of-way and other 

disturbed areas. Approximately 17.6 percent, of the length of the proposed Project would be collocated 

with existing pipeline rights-of-way. An additional 9 miles would be parallel to, but greater than 25 feet 

from existing rights-of-way. In addition, Bison would implement mitigation measures outlined in its Plan 

(Appendix F), Procedures (Appendix G), and Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L) to 

encourage the re-growth of native vegetation, discourage the spread of exotic or noxious plant species, 

and reduce potential impacts to wildlife via loss of habitat or fragmentation. 

BLM and members of the public have expressed concerns about impacts to avian wildlife in 

general and to the sage-grouse in particular. Potential impacts may be associated with direct morality 

during construction, loss or degradation of sage brush habitat, noise-related disturbance, and habitat 

fragmentation. To reduce the potential for impacts, Bison has agreed to adhere to agency-recommended 

buffers to avoid impacts to sensitive sage-grouse habitat. Bison has also agreed to work within the 

construction timeframes recommended by BLM and FWS to protect sensitive resources. In addition, the 

proposed Project route does not cross any designated wildlife habitat or big game migration corridors. 

Forty potential federally and state listed sensitive species could be impacted by construction 

activities associated with the proposed Project. As described in Section 3.6, with implementation of our 

recommendations for mitigation to avoid and minimize impacts, we believe that the proposed Project 

would not significantly affect any federally or state listed species. However, if other reasonably 

foreseeable future projects were to impact the same habitats as the proposed Project route, cumulative 

impacts to these listed species could occur. Because protection of threatened, endangered, and other 

special-status species is part of the federal and state permitting processes, cumulative impacts to such 

species would be reduced or eliminated through conservation and mitigation measures identified during 

those relevant permitting processes. 

Consequently, we believe that past and present projects have resulted in a moderate cumulative 

effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat. However, we believe the incremental effect of the proposed Bison 

Project would be minor. 

3.13.7.3 Land Use 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

result in temporary and permanent changes to land use within the region of influence. The primary land 

use types impacted during construction are open land (61.6 percent), agricultural land (28.7 percent), and 

developed land (8.4 percent). The majority of the permanent right-of-way would be open land 

(66.2 percent) and agricultural land (30.4 percent). With the exception of lands within the footprint of the 

aboveground facilities, which would be permanently converted or maintained as developed lands, all 

disturbed areas would be allowed to revegetate as regular routine maintenance of the right-of-way is not 

proposed for the Project. 

Past and present actions have resulted in the conversion of natural areas into rangeland, 

agricultural, and developed applications. Approximately 4 percent of the acreage in the Wyoming portion 

of the region of influence had been affected by oil and gas development as of 2003, and that impact is 

projected to increase to between 7 and 11 percent by 2018. While much of this footprint has or will be 

allowed to revert to a natural cover type, these activities are viewed as a moderate cumulative impact to 

land use. However, we believe the incremental effect of the proposed Bison Project, which would affect 

less than 0.01 percent of the region of influence during construction or operation, would be minor. 
3-203

3.13.7.4 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Construction of these projects would temporarily impact air 

quality by generating emissions from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust from land 

clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads. While the 

wind and transmission projects would result in minimal air quality impacts during operation, the majority 

of air quality impacts stemming from compressor stations, mining, and the generating station would occur 

during operations. 

Because construction-related air emissions would be temporary and localized, they would not 

contribute significantly to cumulative long term air quality impacts. Air emissions from operations of the 

proposed Project and the other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions identified herein 

would be additive because all projects would be discharged into a shared air basin. Because the Hettinger 

Compressor Station would be powered by electric generators, on-site emissions would be limited. In 

addition, all counties in the region of influence are in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants, and 

each of the existing and proposed projects is or would be required to meet all applicable federal and state 

air quality standards. Construction emissions, including criteria emissions and greenhouse gas emissions 

(primarily CO2), would be localized, minor, and short term. There would be no direct emissions of the 

proposed Project during operations except infrequent operation of vehicles for right-of-way patrols and 

inspections. Indirect emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases would be negligible during 

operations, and would need to comply with current and future air permitting requirements designed to 

avoid significant cumulative impacts to air quality. For these reasons, we believe that potential 

cumulative impacts to air quality would be minor. 

3.13.7.5 Noise 

Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Project and those projects listed in 

Table 3.13.2-1 would occur during construction and operation. Because of the linear nature of the 

proposed Project, construction-related noise impacts would be of short duration in a given area. 

Furthermore, most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours. Potential noise-related 

impacts during operation of the proposed Project would primarily be limited to the vicinity of the 

associated compressor station. As described in Section 3.11.2, the estimated noise that would be 

generated by the compressor station would meet acceptable levels at the nearest NSA and special 

precautions have been taken to avoid the potential for noise impacts to sage-grouse. 

Noise emissions from compressor station operations may be additive with noise-generating 

elements of other existing or reasonably foreseeable future projects if they are located near a common 

NSA. However, the closest NSA is approximately 0.7 mile from the Hettinger Compressor Station, and 

we have included recommendations in Section 3.11.2 to minimize noise levels at the compressor station; 

therefore, we believe that cumulative impacts resulting from additional noise would be negligible during 

operation. 

3.13.8 Conclusions 

FERC considers a variety of factors when evaluating potential pipeline routes proposed by 

applicants. We have attempted to minimize the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Project 

through coordination with participating resource agencies and affected parties, consideration of route 

alternatives and variations (see Sections 4.3 and 4.4), and development of additional mitigation measures 

that we believe would appropriately reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. 
3-204

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor, and we 

have included a variety of recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Project. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project 

would be minimized by careful Project routing, development of site-specific plans with agency input, 

utilization of special construction techniques (such as HDD) to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources, construction and operation in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and 

implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, only a small incremental effect is 

anticipated after the impacts of the proposed Project are added to those of past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. 
4.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by NEPA, we have evaluated alternatives to the proposed Bison Pipeline Project to 

determine whether they would be technically and economically feasible, and environmentally preferable to 

the proposed action. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether there are reasonable 

alternatives that would result in less environmental impact than the Project as proposed while still meeting the 

Project’s objectives. Bison has indicated the following proposed Project objectives: 

• Provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin to meet 

increasing natural gas demand in the Midwest market (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin); 

• Replace the declining Canadian supply and satisfy the growing demand for natural gas primarily 

in the Midwest market; 

• Provide supply diversity and enhanced reliability, which would minimize the reliance on more 

costly energy sources to the Midwest market; 

• Efficiently meet the first three objectives with minimal pipeline construction and environmental 

impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border pipeline system; 

• Provide the ability for future expansion of the Project to access the Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming supply basins; and 

• Meet a November 2010 in-service date. 

The proposed action before the Commission is to consider the issuance of a Section 7 Certificate for a 

new natural gas pipeline and the associated aboveground facilities. 

FERC has three alternative courses of action in processing an application for a Certificate: (1) grant 

the Certificate with or without conditions; (2) deny the Certificate; or (3) postpone action pending further 

study. Alternatives for FERC action that are addressed in this section include the No Action or Postponed 

Action Alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility 

site alternatives. Identification of alternatives to the proposed Project incorporated public comments and 

input received from federal and state regulatory agencies. 

We used the following evaluation criteria to determine whether an alternative would be 

environmentally preferable: 

• Significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project; 

• Ability to meet the proposed Project objectives; and 

• Technical and economic feasibility and practicability. 

Bison participated in FERC’s pre-filing process during the preliminary design stage for the proposed 

Project (see Section 1.4). This process emphasizes identification of potential stakeholder issues early in the 

development of a project, as well as identification and evaluation of alternatives that may avoid or minimize 

these issues. As Bison conducted preliminary analysis of possible routes, it identified issues of concern; and 

multiple stakeholders provided Bison and FERC with comments as the route planning process progressed. 

4.1 NO ACTION AND POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Bison has indicated that the proposed Project would provide Powder River Basin producers additional 

access to Midwestern markets via the existing Northern Border pipeline system. The proposed Project would 

4-1 
help meet increasing market demands for a new source of natural gas that would result in supply diversity and 

enhanced reliability. Further, the proposed Project would provide natural gas producers in the Powder River 

Basin the ability to transport natural gas out of the region to consumer markets in the Midwest. 

As discussed in Section 1.1.2, nationwide consumption of natural gas is projected to increase by 

approximately 7 percent by 2030 (EIA 2009h). Much of this growth in demand is projected to occur with 

increased demand produced by electric generators (EIA 2009h). Onshore, domestic production of natural gas 

from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal-bed methane) is expected to be a major 

contributor to future domestic natural gas supplies. The Midwest has traditionally been supplied natural gas 

by areas such as Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (61 percent in the first quarter 2009), as well as pipeline 

imports from Canada. The proposed Project would supply up to 477 MMcf/day of natural gas from the 

Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets through an interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline 

system. The addition of incremental supply to the Northern Border pipeline system would help meet growing 

energy demands, enhance reliability, and result in supply diversification by providing access to domestic 

natural gas supplies. 

If FERC denies Bison’s Application, the short and long term environmental impacts identified in this 

EIS would not occur. If the Commission postpones action on the Application, the environmental impacts 

identified in this EIS would be delayed. If Bison decided not to pursue the Project, the impacts would not 

occur at all. However, if FERC were to select the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, the objectives 

of the proposed Project would not be met, and a new source of natural gas to markets that can be accessed 

through the existing Northern Border pipeline system would not be developed. 

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 

Alternative, it is likely that potential end users would make other arrangements to obtain natural gas service or 

make use of alternative fossil fuel energy sources (such as fuel oil or coal), other traditional long term fuel 

source alternatives (such as nuclear power or hydropower), and/or renewable energy sources (such as wind or 

solar 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. 

The following four alternative means of accomplishing the purpose of the Project were evaluated and 

are addressed below: 

• Use of other non-renewable fuels (Section 4.1.1); 

• Renewable energy sources (Section 4.1.2); 

• Energy conservation (Section 4.1.3); and 

• Renewable energy combined with energy conservation (Section 4.1.4). 

4.1.1 Other Non-Renewable Fuels 

Denying or postponing a decision on the proposed Project would eliminate the increase in natural gas 

availability in the targeted market regions intended to satisfy future demand. A likely consequence could be 

an increased reliance on fuel oil, coal, and other non-renewable fuel supply sources. EIA (2009h) reported 

that, between 2007 and 2030, primary energy production is likely to increase. (see Section 4.1.2). While fuel 

oil and coal may provide an alternative to natural gas, the environmental impacts associated with the 

extraction and increased consumption of oils would not be preferable to natural gas. Natural gas is the 

cleanest burning of the fossil fuels. Relative to natural gas, reliance on coal or fuel oil to power electric 

4-2 
generation would likely result in substantial increases in the emissions of pollutants, such as NOx, SO2, and

carbon dioxide, and associated reductions in air quality. In addition, increased reliance on other fossil fuels 

would result in secondary impacts associated with their production (such as oil drilling and coal mining); 

transportation via truck, rail cars, and/or pipelines; and crude oil refinement. 

Another traditional, non-renewable fuel source alternative to natural gas for electric generation is 

nuclear power. Several incentive and partnership programs aimed at promoting increased nuclear power 

generation infrastructure in the United States have recently been developed to promote fossil fuel alternatives 

for power generation (EIA 2009h, DOE 2008a). The Department of Energy (DOE) has implemented a loan 

guarantee program with the U.S. nuclear industry to license and construct new nuclear power plants 

throughout the country (DOE 2008a). Further, under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, several 

incentives for the development of new nuclear reactor facilities and improved technology are designed to 

promote the operation of new nuclear power systems (DOE 2009a). Currently, several nuclear reactors 

produce power within the Midwestern region (NRC 2009a), and two applications for additional reactors at 

existing facilities in Ohio and Missouri have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

2009b). No new nuclear reactors within the Project’s target market area have current applications pending 

(NRC 2009b). With projected new nuclear generating facilities and upgrades to existing nuclear 

infrastructure, nuclear power generation is expected to increase in the United States by approximately 

0.5 percent annually between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009h). Despite this projected growth in nuclear power 

generation, the EIA estimates that nuclear power will account for about 18 percent of total U.S. generating 

capacity by 2030 (EIA 2009h). Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost considerations, and public 

concerns make it unlikely that new nuclear power plants would be sited and developed to serve the targeted 

markets within a timeframe that would meet the objectives of the proposed Project. 

4.1.2 Renewable Energy Sources 

Renewal energy sources are another long term fuel source alternative to natural gas, including 

hydropower and other renewable energy sources (such as wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy). 

 Renewable energy projects will likely play an increasingly prominent role in meeting the U.S. energy 

demands in the coming years. Although efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower facilities are expected to 

produce incremental additions of power in the coming years, it is unlikely that new or significant sources of 

hydropower would be a reliable alternative to the proposed Project; and non-tidal hydropower electricity 

generation is expected to remain steady (approximately 3 percent of all energy production) through 2030 

(EIA 2009h). 

Federal, state, and local incentives and continuing research will likely contribute to an increase in the 

availability and cost effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, and 

solar. Several federal policies and energy initiatives and incentives (such as the renewable energy production 

tax credits, clean renewable energy bonds, the Renewable Energy Production Initiative, and the EPAct of 

2005) provide tax incentives, loans, and grants to promote the advancement of solar, wind, biomass, and other 

renewable energy production (NCSU 2009). Further, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009, $16.8 billion has been directed to the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for 

use in renewable energy and conservation programs and initiatives (DOE 2009b). In addition, local utility 

rebate and loan programs, in conjunction with numerous state and local tax incentives and research initiatives, 

have increased the availability and cost effectiveness of renewable power for local consumers (NCSU 2009). 

While these programs will promote consumption of and increase the cost effectiveness of renewable 

energy sources, the EIA indicates that this increase in the use of renewable energy sources will be primarily 

driven by state renewable portfolio standards for electricity and federal renewable fuel standard programs for 

transportation fuels. Several Midwestern states, including Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, have 

implemented renewable portfolio standards (DOE 2008b). Non-hydropower renewable energy sources are 

4-3 
projected to meet approximately 33 percent of the growth in total electricity generation between 2009 and 

2030 (EIA 2009h). The consumption of all renewable energy sources are projected to increase by 3.3 percent 

each year through 2030 (EIA 2009h). 

Several renewable energy programs have been proposed for the Midwestern region. Existing wind 

farms in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin have resulted in the annual production of 2,791 megawatts 

(MW), 1,753 MW, 991 MW, and 449 MW of wind power, respectively (DOE 2009c). Bison reports that 

several wind farms are proposed or operating in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Xcel Energy is 

proposing an additional wind facility that would generate an additional 201 MW in addition to the 10,000-

acre wind farm it is currently operating near Dexter, Minnesota. EcoEnergy has a 67-turbine wind farm in 

Illinois that is scheduled for completion in 2009. Wisconsin Power and Light has plans to develop, own, and 

operate two new wind facilities that would generate an additional 268 MW annually. Lastly, the Pioneer 

Prairie Projects in northern Iowa would result in an addition of 300 MW of wind generation. Nationally, the 

use of wind power in the electric power generating sectors is projected to increase by 4 percent annually 

between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009h). 

Biomass energy production (including biofuels, waste, and wood-derived fuels) now accounts for 

37 percent of all non-hydropower renewable resource energy production (EIA 2009h). The production and 

consumption of biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) drive a large portion of this production. The 

Renewable Fuel Standards that was passed under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires 

the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022 (BRDB 2008). Further, DOE announced a 

$1 billion partnership with industry to research, develop, and implement advanced biofuel production by 

2012. Multiple biofuel production plants currently operate within the Midwest. For example, the six ethanol 

fuel plants currently operating in Illinois are producing approximately 800 million gallons per year. 

Nationally, biomass consumption is projected to increase by 4.4 percent per year between 2007 and 2030, 

resulting in biomass energy accounting for approximately 53 percent of the non-hydropower renewable 

resources energy production by 2030 (EIA 2009h). 

Solar energy production accounted for approximately 1 percent of all non-hydropower renewable 

energy production in the United States in 2007 (EIA 2009h). In general, solar energy production remains too 

costly for large-scale, grid-connected applications; but small-scale and customer applications are anticipated 

to increase (EIA 2009h). The cost-effectiveness of solar energy production is further impacted in 

northern/colder areas such as the upper Midwest. However, several cities within the Project’s targeted 

markets, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, participate in DOE’s Solar America Cities Partnership (DOE 2009d). Through the Solar America 

Cities Partnership, DOE provides technical and financial support to cities so they can pursue citywide solar 

energy programs. Due to programs such as the Solar America Cities Partnership, solar energy production is 

projected to increase to approximately 5 percent of the non-hydropower renewable energy production by 2030 

(EIA 2009h). 

The percentage of electricity generated from hydropower and non-hydropower renewable energy 

sources is projected to increase from approximately 6.7 percent in 2007 to about 12.6 percent of total energy 

use through 2030 (EIA 2009h). Despite the current and future promotion of renewable energy use, as 

described above, increases in renewable energy supplies are not expected to provide comparable generation 

capability as the proposed Project to the target market and cannot be fully implemented on the same timeline. 

4.1.3 Energy Conservation 

Energy conservation could help alleviate some of the nation’s growing demand for energy and, 

therefore, offset the need for increased natural gas supplies. However, projections indicate that energy 

demand, primarily for natural gas, will continue to outpace programs designed to stimulate energy 

4-4 
conservation. Due to increased energy efficiency, energy use per capita will decrease between 2007 and 2030 

(EIA 2009h). Despite this per capita decrease, overall energy demand in the United States will increase as 

population increases, with total energy consumption estimated to increase by 11 percent between 2007 and 

2030 (EIA 2009h). Under the State Energy Program that is administered by DOE and required under Section 

123 of the EPAct of 2005, state energy programs are required to develop an energy conservation plan to 

participate in the State Energy Program. Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin have developed energy 

conservation plans for their states. The energy conservation goals under the state conservation plans are 

0.2 MMcf for Minnesota, 0.3 MMcf for Iowa, 0.2 MMcf for Illinois, and 0.2 MMcf for Wisconsin. Although 

conservation under the state energy plans and other energy conservation measures will be important elements 

in addressing future energy demands, they would not be able to meet more than a small fraction of that 

demand within the foreseeable future. Thus, energy conservation would not preclude the need for natural gas 

infrastructure projects like that proposed by Bison. 

4.1.4 Renewable Energy Combined with Energy Conservation 

As noted above, use of either renewable energy sources or energy conservation would individually 

reduce energy demands in the region by only a small amount. We have concluded that conservation 

combined with renewable energy would reduce the need for natural gas, but it is clear that, under existing 

conditions, conservation combined with renewable energy sources could not replace the contributions of the 

Project to energy markets. The gains achieved collectively through better management, increased efficiency, 

and renewable energy use could only moderate, not reverse, the projected increases in gas consumption for 

the region. 

4.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Alternative Energy Sources 

Considered both individually and in combination, specific alternative energy sources or conservation 

measures would not meet the projected energy needs of the target markets. The alternative energy source 

alternatives considered in our evaluation could reduce some environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed Project but could not individually or cumulatively meet the projected future energy needs of the 

targeted Midwestern markets. Further, alternative non-renewable energy sources, such as fuel oil and coal, 

could potentially meet the projected energy needs of the target markets, but this would be accomplished via 

methods that would result in greater environmental impact relative to the proposed Project. In light of the 

preceding analysis, we do not recommend the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative. 

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, modified, 

or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. Implementation of a 

system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or a part of the proposed Project, although some 

modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to satisfy the Project 

objectives. These modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts that may be less than, 

similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The 

purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the environmental impacts 

associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project could be avoided or reduced by using 

another pipeline system, while still meeting the objectives of the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives includes an examination of existing and proposed natural gas 

systems that currently or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and considers 

whether those systems would meet the proposed Project’s objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. Section 4.2.1 includes a discussion of existing overland natural gas 

4-5 
pipeline systems, and Section 4.2.2 includes a discussion of proposed pipeline systems that extend from the 

general Project area to target markets. 

4.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives 

Only one existing pipeline system, which is operated by WBI, is located within the vicinity of the 

proposed Project. Although not located within the immediate Project area, three additional pipeline systems 

currently convey natural gas from the western United States to the Midwestern region, and could potentially 

transport additional natural gas capacity from the Project origin to the Project’s target markets. Use of 

existing pipeline systems would entail either the use of existing pipeline infrastructure or modification 

(expansion) of these existing systems to meet the proposed Project objectives. Typically, expansion of system 

infrastructure would include the addition of compression and/or looping1

 of existing pipeline. Figures 4.2.1-1 

through 4.2.1-4 depict the location of the existing pipeline system alternatives in relation to the proposed 

Project route. 

Further, because the existing pipeline systems described in Sections 4.2.1.2 through 4.2.1.4 do not 

currently tie into the proposed Project origin or to the target market, the use of additional systems or new 

pipeline would be required to meet the Project’s objectives. Each of these three existing pipelines are located 

outside of the general Project area and would require the expansion of other pipeline systems beyond the 

current system alternative configuration. The Fort Union Gas Gathering system (Fort Union) and the 

Wyoming Interstate Company’s Medicine Bow Lateral (Medicine Bow Lateral) could theoretically be used to 

transport the source gas in the western Project area, and Northern Natural Gas Company’s system (Northern 

Natural) could theoretically be used to connect the eastern portion of the system alternatives to the Project’s 

target markets. Bison has indicated that Fort Union, Medicine Bow Lateral, and Northern Natural are at or 

near full capacity. Therefore, all of these existing system alternatives would require looping of these 

connecting systems. Fort Union would require looping over approximately 104.4 miles, and the Medicine 

Bow Lateral would require looping of about 155.0 miles of pipeline to connect the Project origin with the 

Cheyenne Hub from which the system alternatives would commence. Depending on the terminus of the 

system alternatives discussed in Sections 4.2.1.2 through 4.2.1.4, between 272.6 and 503.8 miles of the 

Northern Natural system would require looping. Additional information on the distance of Northern Natural 

looping required for these system alternatives is discussed below. 

4.2.1.1 Williston Basin System Alternative 

WBI operates the Grasslands pipeline, an interstate natural gas pipeline system that connects the 

Powder River Basin with the Northern Border pipeline system via a pipeline that crosses Wyoming, Montana, 

and North Dakota. On July 1, 2008, WBI announced plans to expand the Grasslands pipeline, with a target 

in-service date of August 2009; however, the Project has not yet started construction and the completion date 

is uncertain. The 16-inch-diameter Grasslands pipeline currently has a capacity of 138 MMcf/day and would 

be increased to 213 MMcf/day under the expansion. Under the Williston Basin System Alternative, 

approximately 253 miles of the existing WBI pipeline system would be used in existing or modified form to 

transport the proposed Project’s natural gas volumes from Campbell County, Wyoming, to Dunn County, 

North Dakota, which is the WBI interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline (Figure 4.2.1-1). Because 

the WBI pipeline system does not extend to the Dead Horse origin for the Proposed Project, approximately 

27.2 miles of new pipeline construction would be required under this system alternative. Adoption of the 

Williston Basin System Alternative would preclude the need for construction of the proposed Project 

extending from Dead Horse, Wyoming to an interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline system in North 

Dakota. 

 

1

 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually built adjacent to another pipeline and is connected to it at both ends. 

4-6 
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.2.1-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

WILLISTON BASIN SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

0 25 50 100

Miles

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Williston Basin Sytem Alternative

Northern Border Pipeline

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Carter

Bowman

Fallon

Slope Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Powder River

NOTE: Existing pipeline systems depicted in the figure represent their approximate location.

MT ND

SD

WY

4-7
Use of existing WBI pipeline infrastructure to convey the natural gas quantities associated with the 

proposed Project would require several system modifications. Bison has indicated that the WBI pipeline 

system currently operates at full capacity. As described above, WBI has proposed an expansion of the system 

to increase capacity. Despite the planned expansion of the WBI pipeline system, upon completion of the 

expansion, Bison has indicated that the pipeline system still would be operating at near full capacity. To meet 

the additional capacity needs that would be required under this system alternative, Bison indicates that the 

entire WBI pipeline system (approximately 315 miles) would need to be looped. Looping of the existing 

pipeline would result in similar environmental impacts as construction of a new pipeline that would be 

collocated with the WBI pipeline system. Further, the Williston Basin System Alternative would involve 

construction through the Little Missouri National Grasslands, which would require a federal right-of-way 

agreement. Obtaining a federal right-of-way agreement to cross the National Grasslands, if possible, could 

result in a Project delay, which would result in the Project potentially not meeting the transportation 

agreements with the committed shippers. 

The Williston Basin System Alternative would require looping along its entire length and a new 

lateral that would extend to the Project origin. While a majority of this looping would be collocated with an 

existing right-of-way, the uncertainty associated with obtaining a federal right-of-way agreement, which 

could result in this system alternative not being completed in sufficient time for Bison to meet contractual 

commitments with its shippers, makes it unlikely that this system alternative would meet the Project’s 

objectives. Because the Williston Basin System Alternative would not meet the Project’s objectives, we have 

eliminated it from further consideration. Major route alternatives associated with the National Grasslands 

route are discussed in Section 4.3. 

4.2.1.2 Cheyenne Plains System Alternative 

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company (Cheyenne Plains) operates the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline 

Project, which transports up to 730 MMcf/day of natural gas via a 380-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

that extends from the Cheyenne Hub, in Weld County, Colorado, to an interconnect in Greensburg, Kansas. 

The Cheyenne Plains System Alternative would use approximately 380 miles of the Cheyenne Plains pipeline 

in its proposed or modified form to transport natural gas quantities associated with the proposed Project 

between the Cheyenne Hub and Greensburg, Kansas (Figure 4.2.1-2). Further, a connection would be 

required to the Project’s origin and to the Project’s markets via additional pipeline systems or new pipe. 

Adoption of the Cheyenne Plains System Alternative would preclude the need for construction of the 

proposed Project extending from Dead Horse, Wyoming to an interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline 

system in North Dakota. 

According to Bison, the Cheyenne Plains pipeline system would not have sufficient available capacity 

to transport the proposed Project’s volume of 477 MMcf/day of natural gas. It would be necessary to 

significantly expand or modify the Cheyenne Plains pipeline system to meet the proposed Project’s 

objectives. Specifically, the addition of sufficient capacity to the Cheyenne Plains pipeline system would 

require looping of the entire approximately 380-mile pipeline length between the Cheyenne Hub and 

Greensburg, Kansas. Although it is likely that much of the new pipeline looping would be collocated with the 

existing Cheyenne Plains right-of-way, construction of this length of pipeline looping would encumber 

approximately 5,527 acres2

. This system alternative route would require crossing sensitive environmental 

features including wetlands and surface waters. Looping of the Cheyenne Plains pipeline system would 

encumber an additional 1,137 acres for construction than the proposed Project. Further, Bison estimates that 

 

2

 The acreage estimates for these system alternatives assume a construction right-of-way width of 120 feet. 

4-8 
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.2.1-2

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

CHEYENNE PLAINS SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

0 100 200 400

Miles

Cheyenne Plains System Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Cheyenne Plains System Alternative

NOTE: Existing pipeline systems depicted in the figure represent their approximate location.

Only those portions of existing pipeline systems that are relevant to the system alternative

are depicted.

Proposed Project

Northern Border Pipeline

Ventura, Iowa

Cheyenne Hub

Northern Natural Pipeline

Fort Union Gas Gathering System

&

Medicine Bow Lateral

WY

SD

NE

CO KS

TX OK AR

MO

IA

MN WI

IL UT

AZ NM

ID

MT

ND

MS

IN

MI

AL

TN

KY

4-9
adoption of the Cheyenne Plains System Alternative also would require adding 59,000 hp of new 

compression. Thus, the potential Plains System Alternative also would require adding 59,000 hp of new 

compression. Thus, the potential environmental impacts associated with this portion of the Cheyenne Plains 

System Alternative alone would be greater than those associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed Project pipeline. 

Additionally, adoption of the Cheyenne Plains System Alternative would require connection of the 

Cheyenne Plains pipeline system to the Powder River Basin, and also to the Project’s Midwestern markets. 

Natural gas infrastructure would still be required between Dead Horse and the Cheyenne Hub and from the 

Cheyenne Plains terminus in Greenburg, Kansas, to the Project’s market interconnect in Ventura, Iowa. This 

infrastructure could include construction of new pipeline, expansion or modification of existing pipeline 

systems, or some combination thereof. Each of these combinations would result in its own set of 

corresponding environmental impacts. The use of a combination of existing pipeline systems (Fort Union, 

Medicine Bow Lateral, and Northern Natural) would require 763 miles of additional looping, which would 

encumber approximately 11,098 acres of land. This area would result in additional environmental impacts 

beyond those reported above in association with looping the Cheyenne Plains System Alternative. Further, 

under this system alternative, an additional 42,800 hp of additional compression, beyond the compression 

required on the Cheyenne Plains system, would be required on Northern Natural if portions of that system 

were looped. 

It is estimated that environmental impacts associated with the Cheyenne Plains System Alternative 

and the associated looping of other existing pipeline systems and/or construction of new pipelines to connect 

the system alternative with the Project’s origin and the targeted market would result in greater impacts than 

those associated with the proposed Project. Therefore, we do not consider the Cheyenne Plains System 

Alternative to be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project, and we have eliminated it from further 

consideration. 

4.2.1.3 Rockies Express System Alternative 

Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (Rockies Express) operates the Rockies Express-West pipeline, which 

transports up to 1,500 MMcf/day of natural gas via a 713-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending 

from the Cheyenne Hub to Audrain County, Missouri. The Rockies Express System Alternative would use an 

approximately 432-mile long portion of the Rockies Express-West pipeline in its proposed or modified form 

to transport natural gas quantities associated with the proposed Project between the Cheyenne Hub and the 

Rockies Express’ Northern Natural interconnect in Gage County, Nebraska (Figure 4.2.1-3). This system 

alternative would require connections to the Project’s origin and to the Project’s target markets via additional 

pipeline systems or new pipe. Adoption of this system alternative would preclude the need for construction of 

the proposed Project. 

According to Bison, it would be necessary to significantly expand or modify the Rockies Express 

pipeline system to meet the proposed Project’s objectives. Specifically, the addition of sufficient capacity to 

the Rockies Express pipeline system would require looping of the approximately 432-mile-long pipeline 

between the Cheyenne Hub and Gage County, Nebraska. Compared to the proposed Project, this would result 

in construction of an additional 130 miles of pipeline. Although it is likely that much of the new pipeline 

looping would be collocated with the existing Rockies Express right-of-way, construction of this length of 

pipeline looping would encumber approximately 1,893 acres of additional land than the acreage that would be 

encumbered for construction of the proposed Project. Further, Bison estimates that adoption of the Rockies 

Express System Alternative also would require adding 104,000 hp of compression on the existing system. 

Thus, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Rockies Express System Alternative would 

likely be greater than those associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project pipeline. 

4-10
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.2.1-3

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

ROCKIES EXPRESS SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

0 120 240 480

Miles

Rockies Express System Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Rockies Express System Alternative

NOTE: Existing pipeline systems depicted in the figure represent their approximate location.

Only those portions of existing pipeline systems that are relevant to the system alternative

are depicted.

Proposed Project

Northern Border Pipeline

Ventura, Iowa

Cheyenne Hub

Northern Natural Pipeline

Fort Union Gas Gathering System

&

Medicine Bow Lateral

WY

SD

NE

CO KS

TX OK AR

MO

IA

MN

WI

IL

UT

AZ NM

ID

MT ND

MS

IN

MI

AL

TN

KY

4-11
Additionally, adoption of the Rockies Express System Alternative would require connection of the 

Rockies Express pipeline system to the Powder River Basin, and also to the Project’s Midwestern markets. 

Specifically, natural gas infrastructure would still be required between Dead Horse and the Cheyenne Hub 

and from the Rockies Express’ Northern Natural interconnect to the Project’s market interconnect in Ventura, 

Iowa. This infrastructure could include construction of new pipeline, expansion or modification of existing 

pipeline systems, or some combination thereof. If additional existing pipeline systems were modified under 

this system alternative, Bison has indicated that about 104.4 miles of Fort Union and 155 miles of the 

Medicine Bow Lateral would require looping. On the eastern portion of the system alternative, Northern 

Natural would require looping of approximately 289.3 miles of pipeline. In total, the use of a combination of 

these existing pipeline systems would require adding approximately 549 miles of looping. Based on the 

construction right-of-way proposed by Bison, this combination would encumber approximately 7,981 acres of 

land, which would result in additional environmental impacts beyond those reported above in association with 

looping the Rockies Express System Alternative. 

Environmental impacts associated with the Rockies Express System Alternative and the associated 

looping of other existing pipeline systems and/or construction of new pipelines to connect the system 

alternative with the Project’s origin and to the targeted market would result in greater impacts than those 

associated with the proposed Project. For these reasons, we do not consider the Rockies Express System 

Alternative to provide environmental benefits superior to the proposed Project, and we have eliminated it 

from further consideration. 

4.2.1.4 Trailblazer System Alternative 

Kinder Morgan, Inc (Kinder Morgan) operates the Trailblazer pipeline, which transports up to 

522 MMcf/day of natural gas via a 436-mile-long pipeline that extends from the Cheyenne Hub in 

northeastern Colorado, to Gage County, Nebraska. The Trailblazer System Alternative would use the entire 

length of the Trailblazer pipeline in its proposed or modified form to transport natural gas quantities 

associated with the proposed Project between Colorado and Nebraska (Figure 4.2.1-4). This system 

alternative would require connections to the Project’s origin and to the Project’s target markets via additional 

pipeline systems or new pipe. No portion of the proposed Project would be constructed under this system 

alternative. 

Bison has indicated that the Trailblazer pipeline system is subscribed near or at full capacity. Therefore, 

under the Trailblazer System Alternative, the entire Trailblazer pipeline system would require looping and 

additional compression to transport the quantities of natural gas associated with the proposed Project. Under 

the Trailblazer System Alternative, 463 miles of new pipeline looping would be constructed, which would 

require adding approximately 88,000 hp of compression on the existing system. Despite being largely 

collocated with the existing right-of-way, the looping of the 436-mile-long Trailblazer system would result in 

a greater environmental impact than construction of the proposed Project. 

Additionally, adoption of the Trailblazer System Alternative would require connection of the 

Trailblazer pipeline system to the Powder River Basin and to the Project’s Midwestern markets. Specifically, 

natural gas infrastructure would be required between Dead Horse and the Cheyenne Hub and from the 

Trailblazer pipeline terminus in Gage County, Nebraska, to the Project’s market interconnect in Ventura, 

Iowa. This infrastructure could include construction of new pipeline, expansion or modification of existing 

pipeline systems, or some combination thereof. 

4-12
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.2.1-4

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

TRAILBLAZER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

0 112.5 225 450

Miles

Trailblazer System Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Trailblazer System Alternative

NOTE: Existing pipeline systems depicted in the figure represent their approximate location.

Only those portions of existing pipeline systems that are relevant to the system alternative

are depicted.

Proposed Project

Northern Border Pipeline

Ventura, Iowa

Cheyenne Hub

Northern Natural Pipeline

Fort Union Gas Gathering System

&

Medicine Bow Lateral

WY

SD

NE

KS CO

OK AR

MO

IA

MN

WI

IL UT

NM AZ

ID

MT ND

MS

IN

MI

AL

TN

KY

TX

4-13
If existing infrastructure were used, the western portion of this system alternative would require the 

use of Fort Union and the Medicine Bow Lateral to transport natural gas from Dead Horse, Wyoming, to the 

Cheyenne Hub, where it would tie into the Trailblazer pipeline system. On the eastern portion of the 

Trailblazer System Alternative area, approximately 272.6 miles of the Northern Natural pipeline would be 

used. Bison has indicated that each of these existing systems is currently at or near capacity; consequently, 

each would require looping in their entirety. The use of these systems would result in its own set of 

corresponding environmental impacts. Use of a combination of these existing pipeline systems would require 

adding 532.0 miles of looping. This would encumber an additional 7,738 acres, which would result in 

additional environmental impacts beyond that reported above in association with looping the Trailblazer 

System Alternative. Further, to accommodate increased capacity on Northern Natural, adding 28,900 hp of 

compression would be required under this system alternative. 

It is estimated that environmental impacts associated with the Trailblazer System Alternative and the 

associated looping of almost 1,000 miles along other existing pipeline systems and/or construction of new 

pipelines to connect the system alternative with the Project’s origin and the targeted market would result in 

greater impacts than those associated with the proposed Project. For these reasons, we do not consider that 

the Trailblazer System Alternative would provide environmental benefits superior to the proposed Project, 

and we have eliminated it from further consideration. 

4.2.2 Planned Pipeline System Alternatives 

The planned Chicago Express Pipeline Project (Chicago Express) and Rockies Alliance Pipeline 

Project (Rockies Alliance) are new pipeline projects that have been publicly identified to convey gas from the 

general Project area to the Chicago markets. The use of these pipeline systems, alone or in combination with 

other systems and/or new construction, were evaluated as system alternatives to the proposed Project. As 

with existing pipeline system alternatives, use of new and planned pipeline systems would entail either the use 

of new pipeline infrastructure or expansion of planned infrastructure to meet the proposed Project objectives. 

Kinder Morgan has indicated that the Chicago Express would transport up to 1,200 MMcf/day of 

natural gas via a 776-mile-long pipeline extending from Colorado to the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 

America’s (NGPL’s) pipeline system in Iowa. While this project would serve the Midwestern market, it 

would be over twice as long as the proposed Bison Project, thus impacting over twice as much land, assuming 

comparable rights-of-way for both projects. Chicago Express was initially scheduled to enter FERC pre-filing 

in December 2008. As of July 2009, Chicago Express has not yet entered the pre-filing process or submitted 

a FERC application. Because a FERC application has not been filed, we do not anticipate that Chicago 

Express would be constructed in time to meet the proposed Project’s shipper agreements; therefore, we have 

eliminated this system alternative from further consideration. 

The Rockies Alliance would be a joint venture between Alliance Pipeline and Questar Pipeline. As 

planned, this pipeline system would deliver approximately 1,300 MMcf/day, with the option to expand 

capacity to 1,800 MMcf/day, of natural gas from Wamsutter, Wyoming, to Joliet, Illinois. Rockies Alliance 

would be an 875-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline system. This project would serve the Midwestern market 

and would impact almost three times as much acreage as the proposed Bison Project assuming comparable 

rights-of-way for both projects. According to the Rockies Alliance website, Alliance and Questar Pipeline 

Companies project that the Rockies Alliance Project would enter FERC pre-filing in 2009 and construction 

would commence in 2012. With a 2012 construction completion date, Rockies Alliance would not be 

completed in sufficient time for Bison to meet contractual commitments with their shippers. Because Rockies 

Alliance would not meet the Project’s objectives, we have eliminated it from further consideration. 

4-14
4.3 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

We considered major route alternatives to determine whether these alternatives would avoid or reduce 

impacts to environmentally sensitive resources that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline and in 

response to suggestions by the public. The origin and delivery points of a major route alternative are 

generally the same as for the corresponding portion of a proposed pipeline. However, the alternatives would 

follow routes significantly different from the proposed pipeline. Major route alternatives would not modify or 

make use of other existing or new pipeline systems. 

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, power lines, 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. Likewise, long term or 

permanent environmental impacts can normally be reduced by avoiding the creation of new rights-of-way 

through undisturbed areas. 

We received comments from the public and federal and state resource agencies during the Project 

scoping comment period requesting the evaluation of various route alternatives. Based on input provided to 

us by the general public and federal and state resource agencies, and based on our review of the proposed 

Project, we identified and evaluated five major route alternatives: Direct Route Alternative (Section 4.3.1), 

Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative (Section 4.3.2), Grasslands Route Alternative (Section 4.3.3), Lower 

Grasslands Route Alternative (Section 4.3.4), and Carter County Route Alternative (Section 4.3.5). 

4.3.1 Direct Route Alternative 

We evaluated the Direct Route Alternative as it was identified by Bison. The Direct Route 

Alternative would route the Project alignment northeast from the Project origin (MP -0.47) through 

Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota, to resume the Project alignment at MP 261.9 in 

Hettinger County, North Dakota (Figure 4.3.1-1). This route alternative would result in a more direct 

alignment between the Buffalo Receipt Meter Station and the interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline, 

and was evaluated to determine whether the decreased length associated with this route alternative would be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed Project alignment. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Direct Route Alternative are compared in Table 4.3.1-1. 

Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS topographic 

maps, NWI maps, USGS land cover land use data, National Atlas data, and information obtained through 

consultation with resource agencies. 

The Direct Route Alternative would be approximately 25.4 miles shorter (8 percent) than the 

proposed Project route. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would encumber an additional 

359 acres and 150 acres of land, respectively, compared to the Direct Route Alternative. While the Direct 

Route Alternative would encumber less land for construction and operation compared to the proposed Project, 

the Direct Route Alternative would require increased greenfield construction (99.6 percent of its length) 

compared to the proposed Project (83.0 percent of its length). Compared to the Direct Route Alternative, the 

proposed Project would cross fewer forested lands. Further, the additional developed lands crossed by the 

Direct Route Alternative may result in additional landowners who would be impacted along the alignment. 

Compared to the Direct Route Alternative, the proposed Project would cross fewer perennial waterbodies, 

4-15
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.3.1-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

DIRECT ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 25 50 100

Miles

Direct Route Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Direct Route Alternative

Little Missouri National Grasslands

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Carter

Bowman

Fallon

Slope

Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Montana

Wyoming

MP -0.5

MP 261.9

North 

Dakota

Powder River

South 

Dakota

ND

SD

MT

WY

Proposed Project &

Direct Route Alternative

Proposed Project

4-16
ponds, and potential cultural resources sites. The proposed Project alignment crosses closer to more raptor 

nests and sage-grouse leks than the Direct Route Alternative. Bison has been working with federal and state 

wildlife agencies and has agreed to maintain stipulated timing and buffer restrictions between these sensitive 

resource areas and the Project route to minimize impacts to these biological resources. 

TABLE 4.3.1-1 

Comparison of the Direct Route Alternative and the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Routea, b 

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Direct Route 

Alternative 

Total length (miles) 302.5 277.1 

Compression requirements (horsepower) 4,700 3,843

Construction impacts (acres) 4,390.5 4,031.3 

Permanent impacts (acres) 1,829.4 1,679.7 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 51.4 1.1 

Perennial stream crossings (number) 16 23 

303(d)-listed waterbodies (number) 5 3 

Ponds (number) 3 19 

Wetlandsc (approximate miles of wetlands per mile of 

route variation) 

0.008 

(<50 feet per mile) 

0.005 

(<50 feet per mile) 

Developed landd (miles) 0.6 1.2 

Forested lande (miles) 1.1 11.9 

State land (miles) 15.2 9.3 

Federal land (miles) 26.8 8.0 

Potential cultural resources sitesf (number) 6 60 

Potential paleontological resources sites (miles) 0.0 3.6 

Karst terrain (miles) 0.0 17.1 

Sage-grouse leks within 0.6 mile (number) 2 8 

Sage-grouse leks within 3 miles (number) 47 32 

Raptor nests within 0.5 mile (Montana only; number) 5 0 

Raptor nests within 0.75 mile (Wyoming only; number) 68 13 

Notes: 

a

 Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, values shown may differ from actual values provided 

elsewhere in this document. 

b

 Comparisons are based on the total length of the Project and the Direct Route Alternative between MP -0.47 and MP 301.46. 

 Portions of the Project and the route alternative would overlap between MP 261.9 and MP 301.46. 

c Wetlands are calculated as a ratio of the number of wetland miles impacted by the proportion of the route variation that 

contains NWI data. 

d

 Developed lands consist of those lands classified as low- and medium-intensity developed land by the National Land Cover 

Database. 

e Forested lands consist of deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest as classified in the National Land Cover Database. 

f

 Eligible or potentially eligible sites. 

4-17
While the Direct Route Alternative would be shorter than the proposed Project alignment resulting in 

corresponding reductions in Project construction and operational land requirements, we believe that this 

benefit would be offset by the increased greenfield construction that would be associated with the Direct 

Route Alternative. Further, the proposed Project alignment would reduce forested and developed land 

impacts, waterbody crossings, and the crossing of potential cultural sites compared to the route alternative. 

While the Direct Route Alternative would present some environmental benefits, such as increased distances 

from sensitive biological resources, these benefits balanced with the potential increased impacts associated 

with the route alternative do not result in a clear overall environmental benefit. Given the lack of a clear and 

significant environmental benefit and the potential to impact increased numbers of landowners associated 

with the Direct Route Alternative, we have eliminated this route alternative from further consideration. 

4.3.2 Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative 

We evaluated the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative as it was identified by Bison. The 

Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative would be partially collocated with the Grasslands pipeline alignment 

between Campbell County, Wyoming, and Fallon County, Montana. The route alternative would be 

collocated with the Grasslands pipeline traveling northeast and then north from the Project origin (MP -0.47), 

and would then continue north to Fallon County, Montana (Figure 4.3.2-1). The route alternative would then 

travel along the southern boundary of the National Grasslands and then east, before crossing the proposed 

Project alignment at approximately MP 208.5. The Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative would then 

travel southeast and then northeast to rejoin the Project alignment at MP 261.9 in Hettinger County, North 

Dakota. This route alternative was assessed to evaluate increased collocation opportunities. 

Approximately 46.8 percent of the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative would be collocated with 

existing rights-of-way, which would offset the additional impacts associated with its greater length. Bison has 

indicated that WBI, the owner of the Grasslands pipeline, with which a large portion of this route alternative 

would be collocated, has denied Bison’s request for an overlap of the Project’s temporary workspace with the 

existing right-of-way along a large portion of the route alternative that would be collocated. WBI has 

tentatively agreed to consider allowing Bison the use of 15 feet of their existing right-of-way for temporary 

workspace in sensitive areas. For a majority of the route alternative’s length, WBI would not permit overlap, 

which would result in a 25-foot wide gap between the route alternative’s permanent right-of-way and the 

existing right-of-way, which would reduce some of the advantages associated with the route alternative’s 

increased collocation. 

While the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative would result in additional collocation 

opportunities, the route alternative would cross 353 additional potentially eligible cultural sites and 

substantially more perennial waterbodies and ponds, compared to the proposed Project alignment 

(Table 4.3.2-1). Further, the route alternative would result in an increased impact to forested and developed 

lands. Because the route alternative would cross more developed land compared to the proposed Project 

alignment, the route alternative could result in impacts to increased numbers of landowners that would be 

associated with developed properties. Further, Bison has indicated that this route alternative would cross 

approximately 14.5 miles of geological hazards, which would include karst terrain. The proposed Project 

alignment would not cross any areas containing karst terrain. Crossing these geologic hazard areas under this 

route alternative could result in difficult construction and the need for additional blasting and disposal of the 

associated rock. Further, Bison has indicated that the risk of subsidence would be increased in areas 

containing karst geologic features along the route variation. 

4-18
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.3.2-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

GRASSLANDS AVOIDANCE ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 20 40 80

Miles

Grasslands Avoidance

Route Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative

Little Missouri National Grasslands

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Bowman

Fallon

Slope

Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Montana

Wyoming

MP -0.5

MP 261.9

North 

Dakota

Powder River Carter

SD

MT

WY

ND

Proposed Project &

Grasslands Avoidance

Route Alternative

Proposed Project

4-19
TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Comparison of the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Routea, b

Evaluation Criterion Proposed Project 

Route 

Grasslands Avoidance 

Route Alternative 

Total length (miles) 302.5 323.4 

Compression requirements (horsepower) 4,700 5,432 

Construction impacts (acres) 4,390.5 4,704.2 

Permanent impacts (acres) 1,829.4 1,960.0 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 51.4 151.2 

Perennial stream crossings (number) 16 37 

303(d)-listed waterbodies (number) 5 3 

Ponds (number) 3 12 

Wetlandsc (approximate miles of wetland per mile of 

route variation) 

0.008 

(<50 feet per mile) 

0.008 

(<50 feet per mile) 

Developed landd (miles) 0.6 1.9 

Forested lande (miles) 1.1 6.9 

State land (miles) 15.2 16.0 

Federal land (miles) 26.8 39.0 

Potential cultural resources sitesf (number) 6 359 

Potential paleontological resources sites (miles) 0.0 7.6 

Karst terrain (miles) 0.0 14.5 

Sage-grouse leks within 0.6 mile (number) 2 20 

Sage-grouse leks within 3 miles (number) 47 68 

Raptor nests within 0.5 mile (Montana only; number) 5 5 

Raptor nests within 0.75 mile (Wyoming only; number) 68 13 

Notes: 

a

 Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, values shown may differ from actual values provided 

elsewhere in this document. 

b Comparisons are based on the total length of the Project and the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative between MP -0.47 

and MP 301.46. Portions of the Project and the route alternative would overlap between MP 261.9 and MP 301.46. 

c

 Wetlands are calculated as a ratio of the number of wetland miles impacted by the proportion of the route variation that 

contains NWI data. 

d Developed lands consist of those lands classified as low- and medium-intensity developed land by the National Land Cover 

Database. 

e Forested lands consist of deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest as classified in the National Land Cover Database. 

f Eligible or potentially eligible sites.

While the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative would afford increased collocation opportunities 

that would partially offset the impacts associated with the additional pipeline length, the route alternative 

would result in increased impacts to ecological and cultural resources. Further, the increased crossing of 

developed lands could result in transference of impacts to an increased number of landowners. We attempt to 

balance environmental and landowner impacts to the maximum extent practical. Due to the increased number 

of landowners potentially impacted and the increased cultural and ecological impacts under this alternative, 

4-20
we do not believe that the overall environmental benefit associated with increased collocation outweighs the 

additional impacts. Therefore, we have eliminated the Grasslands Avoidance Route Alternative from further 

consideration. 

4.3.3 Grasslands Route Alternative 

We evaluated the Grasslands Route Alternative in response to agency suggestions. The Grasslands 

Route Alternative would be collocated with the existing Grasslands pipeline, operated by WBI, through 

Wyoming, Montana, and portions of North Dakota prior to traveling east to the proposed interconnect site 

with the existing Northern Border pipeline in Morton County, North Dakota (Figure 4.3.3-1). 

The Grasslands Route Alternative would be 29.3 miles longer and encumber an additional 181.6 acres 

of land for operation compared to the proposed Project alignment (Table 4.3.3-1). This route alternative 

would be collocated with existing rights-of-way for over 81 percent of its length, while approximately 

17 percent of the of the proposed Project route would be collocated with existing rights-of-way. As described 

above, Bison has indicated that WBI, owner of the Grasslands pipeline with which a large portion of this 

route alternative would be collocated, has denied Bison’s request for an overlap of the Project’s temporary 

workspace with the existing right-of-way, except, potentially, in those areas containing sensitive resources. 

This lack of overlap over a majority of the route alternative’s length would result in a 25-foot-wide gap 

between the route alternative’s permanent right-of-way and the existing right-of-way, reducing some of the 

advantages associated with the route alternative’s increased collocation. 

Compared to the proposed Project, the route alternative would cross additional waterbodies, forested 

lands, developed lands, and significantly more potential cultural sites. Further, Bison has indicated that this 

route alternative would cross approximately 14 miles of karst terrain, which could result in difficult 

construction that may require increased blasting and would have a greater risk of pipeline subsidence. The 

proposed Project alignment would not cross any karst terrain. This route alternative would cross the Little 

Missouri National Grasslands, which is administered by USFS. Although WBI obtained a right-of-way grant 

authorizing the Grasslands pipeline to cross the Little Missouri National Grasslands, there is no guarantee that 

federal agencies would authorize construction of an additional pipeline through this area, as would be 

required under this route alternative. Due to uncertainties associated with additional federal authorizations 

that would be needed to cross the Little Missouri National Grasslands, this route alternative may not be 

completed in sufficient time for Bison to meet contractual commitments with their shippers. Lastly, the 

additional pipeline length associated with the route alternative would require approximately 1,050 hp of 

additional compression. 

While the Grasslands Route Alternative would result in increased collocation opportunities compared 

to the proposed Project, this route alternative would result in increased impacts to sensitive ecological and 

cultural resources and would cross areas with geologic hazards. Further, this route alternative would 

introduce additional approval uncertainty associated with obtaining a right-of-way grant, which could result in 

Project delays. For these reasons, we have determined that the Grasslands Route Alternative would not be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed Project alignment and the route alternative would potentially not 

meet the Project completion timeline. Therefore, we have eliminated the Grasslands Route Alternative from 

further consideration. 

4-21
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.3.3-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

GRASSLANDS ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 20 40 80

Miles

Grasslands Route Alternative

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Grasslands Route Alternative

Little Missouri National Grasslands

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Bowman

Fallon

Slope

Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Montana

Wyoming

North 

Dakota

Powder River Carter

SD

MT

WY

ND

Proposed Project

4-22
TABLE 4.3.3-1 

Comparison of the Grasslands Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Routea, b

Evaluation Criterion Proposed Project 

Route 

Grasslands Route 

Alternative 

Total length (miles) 302.5 331.8 

Compression requirements (horsepower) 4,700 5,750 

Construction impacts (acres) 4,390.5 4,826.5 

Permanent impacts (acres) 1,829.4 2,011.0 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 51.4 268.1 

Perennial stream crossings (number) 16 33 

303(d)-listed waterbodies (number) 5 3 

Ponds (number) 3 3 

Wetlandsc (approximate miles of wetland per mile of 

route variation) 

0.008 

(<50 feet per mile) 

0.006 

(<50 feet per mile) 

Developed landd (miles) 0.6 1.3 

Forested lande (miles) 1.1 9.8 

State land (miles) 15.2 21.0 

Federal land (miles) 26.8 50.5 

Potential cultural resources sitesf (number) 6 113 

Potential paleontological resources sites (miles) 0.0 7.4 

Karst terrain (miles) 0.0 14.1 

Sage-grouse leks within 0.6 mile (number) 2 17 

Sage-grouse leks within 3 miles (number) 47 53 

Raptor nests within 0.5 mile (Montana only; number) 5 6 

Raptor nests within 0.75 mile (Wyoming only; number) 68 13 

Notes: 

a

 Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, values shown may differ from actual values provided 

elsewhere in this document. 

b

 Comparisons are based on the total length of the Project and the Grasslands Route Alternative between MP -0.47 and 

MP 301.46. Portions of the Project and the route alternative would overlap between MP 261.9 and MP 301.46. 

c

 Wetlands are calculated as a ratio of the number of wetland miles impacted by the proportion of the route variation that 

contains NWI data. 

d

 Developed lands consist of those lands classified as low- and medium-intensity developed land by the National Land Cover 

Database. 

e

 Forested lands consist of deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest as classified in the National Land Cover Database. 

f

 Eligible or potentially eligible sites.

4-23
4.3.4 Lower Grasslands Route Alternative 

The Lower Grasslands Route Alternative was developed in response to an agency suggestion. The 

route alternative would diverge from the proposed Project alignment between MP -0.47 and MP 125.8 in 

Campbell and Crook Counties, Wyoming, and in Carter County, Montana (Figure 4.3.4-1). From Dead 

Horse, Wyoming (MP -0.47), the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative would travel east and then north along 

WBI’s Grasslands pipeline until resuming the proposed Project alignment in Carter County, Montana. 

The Lower Grasslands Route Alternative would be approximately 4.7 miles shorter and would 

encumber 25.9 fewer acres of land for operation compared to the proposed Project alignment (Table 4.3.4-1). 

 With incorporation of this route alternative, the overall project route would be collocated with existing rightsof-way for over 20 percent of its length, while approximately 17 percent of the proposed Project route would 

be collocated with existing rights-of-way. As discussed above, Bison has indicated that WBI has denied 

Bison’s request for an overlap of the Project’s temporary workspace with the existing right-of-way, except, 

potentially, in sensitive areas. Therefore, we do not expect that a majority of the route alternative’s collocated 

length would result in an overlap of rights-of-way, which would result in a 25-foot-wide gap between the 

route alternative’s permanent right-of-way and the existing right-of-way. This potential gap between rightsof-way would reduce some of the advantages associated with the route alternative’s increased collocation. 

Relative to the proposed Project, the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative would cross slightly less forested 

and developed lands and a slightly lower proportion of wetlands. The route alternative would impact more 

waterbodies and ponds, and would cross significantly more potential cultural sites and paleontological 

resources. 

While the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative would afford increased collocation opportunities and a 

slightly shorter alignment, the lack of overlap between the Grasslands pipeline right-of-way and the proposed 

Project would partially offset this benefit. Further, the construction difficulties associated with the karst 

terrain may result in increased impacts to waterbodies and sensitive resources due to the increased use of 

blasting. Further, the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative could result in increased cultural and 

paleontological resource impacts. For these reasons, we have concluded that the Lower Grasslands Route 

Alternative would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project alignment and have therefore 

eliminated it from further consideration. 

4-24
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.3.4-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

LOWER GRASSLANDS ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 20 40 80

Miles

Lower Grasslands 

Route Alternative

MP 125.3

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Lower Grasslands Route Alternative

Little Missouri National Grasslands

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Bowman

Fallon

Slope Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Montana

Wyoming

North 

Dakota

Powder River

Carter

MP -0.5

SD

MT

WY

ND

Proposed Project &

Lower Grasslands 

Route Alternative

Proposed Project

4-25
TABLE 4.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Routea, b

Evaluation Criterion Proposed Project 

Route 

Lower Grasslands Route 

Alternative 

Total length (miles) 302.5 297.8 

Compression requirements (horsepower) 4,700 4,545 

Construction impacts (acres) 4390.5 4328.5 

Permanent impacts (acres) 1829.4 1803.5 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 51.4 60.0 

Perennial stream crossings (number) 16 21 

303(d)-listed waterbodies (number) 5 3 

Ponds (number) 3 10 

Wetlandsc (approximate miles of wetland per mile of 

route variation) 

0.008 

(<50 feet per mile) 

0.007 

(<50 feet per mile) 

Developed landd (miles) 0.6 0.5 

Forested lande (miles) 1.1 1.0 

State land (miles) 15.2 12.9 

Federal land (miles) 26.8 34.6 

Potential cultural resources sitesf (number) 6 189 

Potential paleontological resources sites (miles) 0.0 11.8 

Karst terrain (miles) 0.0 14.1 

Sage-grouse leks within 0.6 mile (number) 2 11 

Sage-grouse leks within 3 miles (number) 47 49 

Raptor nests within 0.5 mile (Montana only; number) 5 5 

Raptor nests within 0.75 mile (Wyoming only; number) 68 13 

Notes: 

a

 Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, values shown may differ from actual values provided 

elsewhere in this document. 

b

 Comparisons are based on the total length of the Project and the Lower Grasslands Route Alternative between MP -0.47 and 

MP 301.46. Portions of the Project and the route alternative would overlap between MP 125.8 and MP 301.46. 

c

 Wetlands are calculated as a ratio of the number of wetland miles impacted by the proportion of the route variation that 

contains NWI data. 

d

 Developed lands consist of those lands classified as low- and medium-intensity developed land by the National Land Cover 

Database. 

e

 Forested lands consist of deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest as classified in the National Land Cover Database. 

f

 Eligible or potentially eligible sites.

4-26
4.3.5 Carter County Route Alternative 

The Carter County Route Alternative was evaluated in response to a public suggestion that the Project 

be placed adjacent to existing rights-of-way in Carter County, Montana. The route alternative would deviate 

from the proposed Project at MP 95.9, travel adjacent to the Grasslands pipeline, the Belle Fourche pipeline, 

and then an existing power line and roadway easement, until resuming the proposed Project alignment at 

MP 125.3 (Figure 4.3.5-1). For comparison purposes, we have evaluated the alternative against the 

comparable segment of the proposed route, rather than compare the entire routes. 

Compared to the corresponding Project segment, the Carter County Route Alternative would be 

approximately 3.5 miles longer, which would result in increased land requirements (Table 4.3.5-1). Both the 

proposed Project and the route alternative would be collocated for an extended length, but a slightly increased 

proportion of the length of the proposed Project alignment would be collocated with existing rights-of-way. 

The Carter County Route Alternative would cross areas containing increased numbers of sage-grouse leks. 

Further, the Carter County Route Alternative would cross karst geologic hazard areas, which would result in 

difficulties in construction and may require blasting. After Project construction, the risk of subsidence would 

be increased in those portions of the route alternative crossing karst geologic areas. Neither the Project 

alignment nor the route alternative would cross waterbodies or forested lands. Both Project alignment and the 

route alternative would cross an equal quantity of developed lands. 

The Carter County Route Alternative would be slightly longer, and would cross increased geologic 

hazard areas. Therefore, we have concluded that the Carter County Route Alternative is not clearly 

environmentally preferable and have eliminated it from further consideration. 

4-27
DATE: August 2009 Figure 4.3.5-1

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

CARTER COUNTY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 20 40 80

Miles

Carter County

Route Alternative

MP 125.3

Legend

Proposed Project Route

Carter County Route Alternative

Little Missouri National Grasslands

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Wyoming

Campbell

Bowman

Fallon

Slope

Hettinger

Stark

Grant

Morton

Montana

Wyoming

North 

Dakota

Powder River

Carter

MP 95.9

SD

MT

WY

ND

4-28
TABLE 4.3.5-1 

Comparison of the Carter County Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project Routea, b

Evaluation Criterion Proposed Project 

Route 

Carter County Route 

Alternative 

Total length (miles) 29.5 33.0 

Compression requirements (horsepower) NA NA 

Construction impacts (acres) 428.6 480.1 

Permanent impacts (acres) 178.5 200.0 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 21.6 21.2 

Perennial stream crossings (number) 0 0 

303(d)-listed waterbodies (number) 0 0 

Ponds (number) 0 0 

Wetlands (miles) NA NA 

Developed landc (miles) 0.1 0.1 

Forested landd (miles) 0.0 0.0 

State land (miles) 2.2 3.3 

Federal land (miles) 6.8 9.7 

Potential cultural resources sitese (number) NA NA 

Potential paleontological resources sites (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Karst terrain (miles) 0.0 11.7 

Sage-grouse Leks within 0.6 mile (number) 0 2 

Sage-grouse Leks within 3 miles (number) 7 18 

Raptor nests within 0.5 mile (Montana only; 

number) 

4 5 

Raptor nests within 0.75 mile (Wyoming only; 

number) 

0 0 

Notes: 

NA = Information not available 

a

 Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, values shown may differ from actual values 

provided elsewhere in this document. 

b

 Comparisons are based on the total length of the Project between MP 95.9 and MP 125.3 and the Carter County 

Route Alternative. 

c

 Developed lands consist of those lands classified as low- and medium-intensity developed land by the National Land 

Cover Database. 

d

 Forested lands consist of deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest as classified in the National Land Cover Database. 

e

 Eligible or potentially eligible sites. 

4-29
4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations differ from system or major route alternatives in that they are identified to resolve or 

reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources such as cultural resources sites, wetlands, 

recreational lands, residences, and terrain conditions. While route variations may be a few miles in length, 

most are relatively short and in proximity to the proposed route. Because route variations are identified in 

response to specific local concerns, they are often the result of landowner comments. A variety of factors are 

considered in identifying and evaluating route variations, including length, land requirements, and potential 

for reducing or minimizing impacts to natural resources. 

As part of its Project development and route selection process, Bison identified 110 minor route 

variations to the originally planned route that have been incorporated into the proposed Project route, as filed 

with FERC. After filing its Application, Bison has adopted an additional 35 route variations. These minor 

variations were developed based on discussions with landowners, resource stewards, and Project engineers to 

avoid or minimize impacts to natural or cultural resources, reduce or eliminate engineering and 

constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential and 

agricultural land uses. Included in these adopted route variations is a BLM-recommended route variation that 

would avoid existing coal mine lease areas and an additional BLM-recommended route variation that would 

improve the reclamation potential near the Little Missouri River. We have evaluated each of these minor 

route variations and considered their associated environmental consequences as part of our environmental 

analysis of the proposed Project provided in Section 3.0. Further, in addition to these route variations adopted 

by Bison, FERC evaluated and recommended waterbody and wetland crossing alternatives to minimize 

impacts to these resources. Appendix T includes a discussion of FERC-recommended route variations and 

those proposed by Bison that were adopted to minimize impacts to water resources, including riparian buffers, 

waterbodies, and wetlands. 

FERC has encouraged Bison to work with landowners during the pre-filing and post-application 

periods to minimize landowner impacts and FERC continues to encourage that the Applicant work to meet 

landowner’s needs while still meeting Project objectives. In an effort to meet landowner needs, Bison is 

currently working with landowners to identify minimization and mitigation measures, such as adjusting the 

Project route through the adoption of route variations, to minimize impacts to properties. Bison is currently 

working with multiple landowners to minimize Project-related aesthetic and agricultural impacts. 

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the new aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. Our evaluation 

involved inspection of aerial photography and mapping, as well as site visits along the proposed Project 

corridor. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include one new compressor station, two meter 

stations, and 20 MLVs (three of the MLVs would be located at the compressor station and meter station 

locations). 

Because the location of the meter stations would be linked to the location of the associated natural gas 

receipt and interconnect points at the Project origin and terminus, the search for alternatives was constrained 

to sites located adjacent to the intersection of the proposed Project route and the planned and existing pipeline 

facility locations. Similarly, the locations of MLVs would be linked to the location of the proposed Project 

pipeline. The proposed locations of MLVs along the proposed Project route were largely determined based 

on DOT safety regulations that specify the maximum distance between sectionalizing block valves and 

require that these facilities be located in readily accessible areas. Additionally, we did not identify any 

alternative sites for the proposed meter stations or MLV facilities that would offer a significant environmental 

advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

4-30
As with the other proposed aboveground facilities, the compressor station location would be 

constrained to sites near the proposed pipeline route as described below. 

4.5.1 Hettinger Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

The proposed compressor station site along the proposed pipeline route was largely dictated based on 

engineering and economic design standards. The proposed location of the Hettinger Compressor Station is 

identified in Section 2.1 of this EIS. As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed 

compressor stations would result in the permanent conversion of 20.0 acres of agricultural land to an 

industrial land use for the life of the proposed Project. We have determined that operation of this facility 

would not result in significant air quality degradation or noise impacts to any nearby residents, given the 

measures proposed by Bison and our recommendation (see Section 3.11). 

In addition to the proposed compressor station site at MP 257.0, we evaluated two alternative sites for 

the Hettinger Compressor Station (MP 257.1 and MP 256.0) (see Figure 4.5.1-1). Project noise and air 

emission impacts, and plans to minimize and mitigate those impacts, are discussed in Section 3.11. As shown 

in Table 4.5.1-1, the proposed compressor site and the two alternative sites are similar in land use, the number 

of NSAs within 0.25 mile, and the quantity of prime farmland that would be encumbered. One NSA would 

be located within 0.5 mile of the Alternative Site #2, while no NSAs would be located within 0.5 mile of the 

proposed compressor site and Alternative Site #1. The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station site and the 

Alternative Site #2 would primarily encumber open land, agricultural land, and minor quantities of developed 

land, while Alternative Site #1 would occupy only agricultural lands. Because conditions at each of these site 

alternatives are similar, the availability of these parcels for purchase would be the limiting factor in site 

selection. Bison has approached the landowners regarding purchase of these sites and have found the 

landowners of all of the potential sites to be amenable to purchase or lease. Similar conditions exist at all 

potential compressor station sites, and all of the associated landowners are amenable to purchase or lease; 

therefore, the use of Alternative Sites #1 and #2 would not result in an environmental benefit over the 

proposed compressor site. Because there is not a clear environmental benefit associated with Alternative Sites 

#1 and #2, we have eliminated these sites from further consideration. 

TABLE 4.5.1-1 

Comparison of Hettinger Compressor Station Site Alternatives and the 

Proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

Evaluation Criterion Proposed Project 

Site 

Alternative Site 

#1 

Alternative Site 

#2 

Construction impacts (acres) 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Permanent impacts (acres) 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Prime farmland (acres) 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.25 mile 

(number) 

0 0 0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.5 mile 

(number) 

0 0 1 

Land availability Available Available Available 

Land uses Agriculture, open, 

developed 

Agriculture Agriculture, open, 

developed 

4-31
Figure 4.5.1-1

0 0.25 0.5

Mile

Proposed Hettinger

Compressor Station Site

Legend

Proposed Compressor Station Site

Alternative Compressor Station Site

Hettinger Compressor Station

Alternative Site #2

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT

HETTINGER COMPRESSOR STATION

SITE ALTERNATIVES

DATE: August 2009

Hettinger Compressor Station

Alternative Site #1

MP 258

MP 257

MP 256

MP 259

Hettinger

Stark

Slope

4-32
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Bison Pipeline Project 

would result in some adverse environmental impacts based on information provided by Bison and data 

developed from field investigations; literature research; alternatives analysis; comments from federal, 

state, and local agencies; and input from public groups and individual citizens. The conclusions and 

recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC environmental staff. Input from BLM, 

as a cooperating agency, was considered during the development of our conclusions and 

recommendations; however, BLM would present their own conclusions and recommendations in their 

Record of Decision (ROD), and would adopt this EIS per 40 CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review 

of the document, they conclude that their permitting requirements have been satisfied. 

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. Bison also has committed to funding a third-party Environmental Inspection 

contractor that FERC would manage, with a goal of documenting a high level of environmental 

compliance during construction. We believe that environmental impacts would be reduced to less than 

significant levels if the proposed Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations, Bison’s proposed mitigation, and additional measures we recommend in this draft EIS. 

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 proposed Project would cause minimal impact on geological 

resources. The primary geological effect of proposed Project construction would be disturbances to the 

existing topography along the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way, but all areas disturbed during 

pipeline construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction 

contours during cleanup and restoration. Additionally, areas of seismic activity and karst topography 

would be avoided. Bison does not anticipate the need for blasting but would follow a site-specific 

blasting plan in order to minimize impacts, should blasting be required. Furthermore, Bison has not 

comprehensively identified specific areas of high susceptibility to slope failure. We have recommended 

that Bison identify such locations before the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Paleontological field surveys for the proposed Project were conducted for BLM-managed land, 

state-owned land, and privately owned land along the proposed pipeline corridor, within the footprint of 

aboveground facilities, and along access roads. These surveys identified 33 non-significant and 

21 significant fossil locations. The non-significant locations were recommended for immediate 

paleontological clearance. Of the 21 significant sites, two sites are recommended for avoidance, five sites 

have had the fossils collected, seven sites would have fossils collected prior to construction, six sites are 

pending decisions by the landowners, and the remaining site is being considered by the Montana SHPO. 

As Bison has not committed to adhere to the findings and recommendations of the paleontological survey 

report, we have recommended that Bison agree to the paleontological recommendations or identify BLMapproved mitigation to avoid and minimize potential impacts to significant paleontological resources. 

5-1
5.1.2 Soils 

The proposed Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions. More than 60 percent 

of the lands that would be crossed by the proposed Project are classified as rangeland. Construction 

activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, could 

adversely affect soil resources by causing erosion, compaction, and the loss of soil productivity and 

fertility by mixing of topsoil and subsurface soil horizons and changing drainage patterns. However, 

Bison would implement the mitigation measures contained in its Plan (Appendix F) and Reclamation Plan 

(Appendix R) to control erosion, enhance successful revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse 

impacts to soil resources. Specifically, potential soil impacts would be mitigated through measures such 

as topsoil stripping, compaction treatment, and monitoring of revegetation to ensure that density and 

cover of non-nuisance vegetation were similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. 

Additionally, Bison would implement an SPCC Plan (Appendix H) during construction and operation 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 and cleaned up in an 

appropriate manner. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect groundwater 

resources, including potable water wells and shallow aquifers, and would not affect any sole-source 

aquifers, wellhead protection areas, or springs, as these areas would not be crossed. Potential impacts to 

groundwater resources would be avoided or minimized by implementing the measures described in 

Bison’s Plan, Procedures, and SPCC Plan (Appendices F, G, and H). 

The proposed Project would cross 37 perennial streams, 161 intermittent streams, and 

81 ephemeral waterbodies. As proposed, most waterbody crossings would be accomplished using opencut wet methods. Potential effects to sensitive waterbodies would be largely avoided through 

implementation of open-cut dry crossing or HDD installation techniques, based on Bison’s proposed 

methods and our recommendations to incorporate these crossing methods at various waterbodies 

including Twentymile Creek (MP 24.5), an unnamed tributary to Boxelder Creek (MP 102.7), Cabin 

Creek (MP 135.8), Spring Creek (MP 204.8), Cedar Creek (MP 218.3 and MP 218.3), and the Cannonball 

River (MP 250.7). With the implementation of our recommendations, all waterbodies of agency concern, 

and waterbodies containing fisheries of special concern, including one state scenic waterbody, would be 

crossed via open-cut dry or HDD crossing methods. All waterbody crossings would also be 

accomplished in accordance with Bison’s Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal and state 

permits that may be granted. 

Bison proposes to withdraw water from four rivers and one reservoir for purposes of hydrostatic 

testing, dust abatement, and HDD crossings. However, the exact sources and volumes of water needed 

for the proposed Project have not been finalized at this time. Bison would not use biocides, chemical dewatering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals (hydrostatic testing, 

dust abatement, or HDDs), as outlined in Bison’s Procedures and Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendices G 

and K). In addition, Bison would obtain appropriate NPDES discharge permits prior to conducting 

hydrostatic testing; would sample all discharge test water according to the permit to determine its 

suitability; and would implement treatment measures, if needed, prior to upland discharge. In addition, 

we have included a recommendation that Bison finalize the exact sources and volumes of water needed, 

and evaluate the feasibility of reusing water for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. Accidental spills 

during construction and operations would be prevented or adequately minimized through implementation 

of Bison’s Procedures and SPCC Plan (Appendices G and H). Additionally, Bison’s HDD Plan 

5-2
(Appendix I) describes the procedures that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up 

any inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during HDD operations. 

5.1.4 Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 165 wetland areas resulting in approximately 

16.2 acres of temporary disturbance to emergent wetlands during construction. The proposed Project 

would also impact less than 0.1 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands. No forested wetlands would be impacted 

by the proposed Project. With the exception of one pipe storage yard, the proposed sites for the 

aboveground facilities and contractor, pipe storage, and rail yards were selected to avoid wetlands. A 

single pipe storage yard would include 0.8 acre of wetlands; however, the wetland area within the 

proposed yard would be fenced off prior to yard use in order to avoid direct impacts to this wetland area. 

Bison consulted with federal and state agencies in the Project area to identify rare wetlands, 

including fens, ephemeral springs, and seeps. The agencies consulted were unaware of any of these rare 

wetlands along the proposed Project route; however, Bison identified six seep wetlands within the rightof-way during field surveys. We have recommended that Bison consult with BLM and the COE to 

determine appropriate mitigation measures for impacts to these wetlands. In addition, we have requested, 

and Bison subsequently adopted, several route variations in order to avoid and minimize impacts to 

waterbodies and wetlands—resulting in a reduction to the overall acreage of wetlands impacted. 

Bison would avoid and minimize wetland impacts by reducing the construction right-of-way 

width through wetlands to 75 feet. Following construction, all affected wetlands would be allowed to 

revert to pre-construction conditions as no vegetative clearing would occur within the right-of-way during 

operations. Impacts to emergent wetlands would be minor overall, as regeneration to pre-construction 

condition would be expected within one to three growing seasons. Although regeneration of scrub-shrub 

wetlands would take longer, this constitutes a minor impact because less than 0.1 acre of scrub-shrub 

wetland habitat would be impacted. The COE is considering wetland impacts of the proposed Project 

under an NWP 12 and would not require compensatory mitigation for the small amount of wetlands that 

would be impacted by the proposed Project. 

With adherence to Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G), Bison’s Reclamation Plan (Appendix R), 

and COE permit requirements, impacts to wetlands would be minor. These impacts would be short term 

in emergent wetlands and short term to long term in scrub-shrub wetlands. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

The main vegetative communities that would be affected by construction of the proposed Project 

are open lands (3,590.3 acres, 62 percent) and agricultural land (1,671.4 acres, or 29 percent); the 

remaining 9 percent would be comprised of developed land (489.1 acres, 8 percent), forested upland 

(57.8 acres, 1 percent), and wetlands (16.2 acres, less than 1 percent). Forty-one parcels of CRP lands 

would be crossed by the proposed Project. No permanent impacts are anticipated on CRP lands because 

they would be fully restored and re-seeded with an NRCS-approved seed mixture. Numerous riparian 

areas are within the proposed construction right-of-way, including 105 riparian wetlands that would be 

crossed by the proposed Project, each of which would be allowed to recover after construction. During 

noxious weed surveys conducted for the proposed Project, five noxious weed species were encountered 

within the right-of-way. The spread of these weeds would be controlled by implementation of Bison’s 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix L). 

Bison would restore all disturbed areas in accordance with its Plan and Procedures (Appendices F 

and G) and the specific recommendations of BLM, NRCS, and state and local agencies. Affected 

5-3
agricultural and open lands would typically revegetate relatively quickly, but impacts to upland forest 

would be long term, perhaps taking decades to recover. Impacts to forested areas contained within the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way also would represent a more substantial permanent change in vegetative 

strata. Impacts to forested areas would be minimized by largely routing the proposed Project along 

existing rights-of-way and through other previously disturbed areas, such as agricultural and open lands, 

where possible. Given the measures in Bison’s Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan (Appendices F, 

G, and R), effects to upland vegetation would be effectively minimized. 

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

The waterbodies that would be traversed by the proposed Project provide habitat for a variety of 

aquatic species, including warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishes. Potential impacts to fisheries and 

aquatic habitats could include sedimentation and turbidity, loss of cover, introduction of pollutants into 

the aquatic environment, potential blockage of fish migrations, interruptions of spawning, and 

entrainment or loss of streamflow during hydrostatic testing. All waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished in accordance with Bison’s Procedures (Appendix G) and the terms of any applicable 

federal or state permits that may be granted. Direct impacts would be avoided by the use of HDD 

installation at three waterbody crossings, and aquatic habitat impacts at other crossing locations would be 

largely temporary, as crossings would be completed in less than 48 hours in most instances. Intake 

screening to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate streamflow rates to protect aquatic 

life during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would further minimize Project-related impacts to aquatic 

habitats generally resulting in minor and temporary impacts to fisheries resources. 

The wetlands and upland vegetation communities crossed by the proposed Project route support 

habitats that provide cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians. The proposed Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed 

route; these impacts could be temporary, short term, long term, or permanent. Specifically, wildlife could 

be displaced, injured, or killed by construction activities; but these impacts would be minor when 

assessed at a population level. Habitat fragmentation could cause displacement of certain species; but due 

to the small amount of forested habitat that would be crossed, impacts from fragmentation are expected to 

be minimal. 

Bison gathered existing information on the general location of sensitive wildlife resources and 

habitats, and conducted field surveys to verify the specific location of sensitive resources such as sharptailed grouse leks, raptor nests, big game migration routes, and big game crucial winter ranges. The 

Project was routed to largely avoid sensitive wildlife habitats, but would cross numerous buffer zones for 

sensitive habitats. Where the pipeline Project activities would cross within buffer zones, Bison would 

comply with seasonal stipulations specific for the resource (avoiding activity between February 1 and 

July 31 in buffer zones around active raptor nests; avoiding crucial winter ranges for pronghorn, mule 

deer, and white-tailed deer when occupied during December 1 through March 31; and avoiding grouse 

leks during the breeding season per timing set by the state agency). In addition, Bison is currently 

consulting with FWS to form a MBTA Conservation Agreement to minimize impacts to migratory birds. 

Due to the linear nature of construction, the limited amount of forested land in the Project area, 

and the short construction timeframe, we believe that most of the impacts on wildlife in the area would be 

temporary or short term. With the use of Bison’s Plan (Appendix F), Procedures (Appendix G), and other 

proposed mitigation measures, the effects of the proposed Project on wildlife would be minimized. 

5-4
5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species 

Based on Bison’s consultation with FWS and our review of existing records, 13 federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, or species that are candidates or petitioned for listing, are reported to 

potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Based on our review of the 13 federally listed 

species, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not affect 

pallid sturgeon and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, piping plover, whooping crane, 

interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies’-tresses. The 

remaining species (greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed prairie dog, black-tailed prairie 

dog, and Dakota skipper) are proposed or candidate species. Given that suitable habitat for the yellowbilled cuckoo, Dakota skipper, and white-tailed prairie dog would not be crossed by the proposed Project, 

the Project would not likely contribute to the listing of these species under the ESA. Known habitat for 

the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the proposed Project, and 

individuals could be impacted or lost. Therefore, should FWS determine that these species warrant listing 

under the ESA prior to construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA 

would be required. We have requested that FWS consider this draft EIS as the BA for the proposed 

Project. 

In addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, and federal candidate species, 30 BLM- or 

state-identified special-status species could occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. We believe 

that, given the nature of the species occurrence and the measures that would be implemented as part of the 

proposed Project, impacts to special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources 

As proposed, construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 5,830.9 acres of 

land, including 4,336.4 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way; 584.2 acres for EWSs; 

412.2 acres for pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards; 22.1 acres for aboveground facilities; and 

476.0 acres for access roads. Bison has worked to locate the proposed route along existing rights-of-way 

to the extent practical, in addition to ongoing consultation with the appropriate land-managing agencies, 

to minimize impacts to these areas. To minimize impacts on land uses, we have recommended that Bison 

continue to further evaluate the need for specific construction work areas as the route is being finalized, 

especially in areas where windbreaks are present. Following construction, all affected areas outside the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground facility sites would be restored and allowed to revert to 

pre-construction conditions and uses. During operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads would encumber approximately 

1,888.7 acres. Bison would retain the easement for a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way along the 

approximately 302.5 miles of the proposed Project route. Bison would not maintain or mow the 

permanent right-of-way unless required by agencies or landowners. If and when right-of-way mowing is 

required in specific areas, such as if trees grow immediately adjacent to the pipeline and to a height at 

which the roots may be detrimental to pipeline integrity, FERC would be notified before such mowing 

takes place. 

Bison would mitigate any unavoidable impacts to structures located within construction work 

areas per the terms of the agreements negotiated during the easement acquisition process. Only one 

residential structure was found to be located within 50 feet of proposed Project construction work areas, 

and Bison has rerouted the pipeline to avoid this residence. 

The proposed route and associated construction activities would cross or be within 20 feet of a 

planned transmission line route at four locations and a proposed transmission line route at two locations. 

5-5
Bison has committed to perform and we have recommended that it file a power line interference study for 

each crossing of a high-voltage line to determine whether mitigation measures are required. 

The proposed Project would potentially affect several recreation and special interest areas, 

including BLM-managed lands, CRP lands administered by the USDA, coal fields and mining sites, two 

railroads, one North Dakota State Scenic River, and various tracts of hunting lands. To minimize impacts 

to these areas, Bison proposes to cross several resources using special construction methods. Bison 

would consult with the managing agencies to identify appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, 

as appropriate. 

Visual resources along the proposed Project route would be affected by the installation of certain 

aboveground facilities and through the alteration of existing vegetative patterns associated with clearing 

of the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. In order to minimize visual impacts, Bison has 

proposed to locate some aboveground facilities in existing developed areas. The rural setting of the 

Project area and the existing vegetation or topography help to minimize visual impacts for those facilities 

that Bison was not able to locate in an existing developed area. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

The proposed Project would provide a positive impact on local revenue and employment during 

construction as well as annual revenue generated through taxes on the pipeline during operation. During 

construction, adverse impacts would be created by the influx of workers in the rural Project area that has a 

limited housing supply or transportation infrastructure to support such an increase. Additionally, 

construction of the proposed Project would increase the demand for public services such as medical, 

police, and fire protection. While these 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 particular area, Bison has provided drafts of its Short-Term Housing Plan and Traffic and 

Transportation Management Plan (Appendices P and Q) to limit potential impacts to the temporary 

housing market and transportation infrastructure. We have recommended that Bison finalize these plans 

in a manner that will adequately minimize potential adverse impacts to the housing and transportation 

sectors affected by the Project. There is no evidence that the proposed Project would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

communities. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Bison has conducted cultural resources surveys and prepared associated technical reports 

covering approximately 92.2 percent (278.9 miles) of the proposed Project route. This total includes 

12.1 miles (4 percent) of the proposed pipeline route that has previously been surveyed (all in Wyoming 

and surveyed since 1980). Bison also has completed cultural resources surveys at the proposed 

compressor station facility; at nine of the 20 proposed pipe storage, contractor, and rail yards; and along 

61 of 139 proposed Project access roads for which survey is required. Neither meter station has yet been 

surveyed. We anticipate that the outstanding surveys would be filed during the fall of 2009, not including 

areas where access is denied. Bison contacted 48 Native American groups regarding the proposed 

Project. Although some requested additional consultation or information, none have expressed opposition 

to the proposed Project. 

In total, the existing surveys have identified 52 archaeological sites and 97 isolated resources. 

The sites include 20 prehistoric sites, 30 historic sites, and one site that has both prehistoric and historic 

components. One site of undetermined time age also was identified. Four sites are currently considered 

eligible for listing in the NRHP, and one site is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

5-6
Three sites that are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP would be avoided. The Chicago, 

Burlington & Quincy Railroad would be avoided by boring underneath the railroad. Two prehistoric sites 

would be avoided by realigning the proposed pipeline and by narrowing the construction right-of-way, 

respectively. In addition, one prehistoric site considered eligible for listing in the NRHP would be 

crossed, but in an area that does not contribute to its eligibility. One site of unknown age that has not 

been evaluated also would be avoided, and one historic site considered potentially eligible for listing in 

the NRHP would be crossed, but in an area that would not contribute to the site’s eligibility. 

The cultural resources survey reports for the surveyed portions of the Project have been submitted 

to BLM and the applicable SHPOs for review, but the reviews have not been completed and reports for 

areas that remain to be surveyed will be submitted at a later date. To ensure that all our responsibilities 

under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we have recommended that Bison defer construction until 

surveys and evaluations of areas not previously accessed are completed, all survey reports and any 

necessary treatment plans have been reviewed by appropriate parties, and we provide written notification 

to proceed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would include emissions 

from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. 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. The proposed Hettinger Compressor Station would emit air pollutants from the 

combustion of natural gas to drive the compressor unit and in association with the periodic operation of 

auxiliary generators. All of the air emissions associated with operation of the compressor station would 

meet federal and state ambient air quality standards. 

Due to the rural nature of the pipeline route and compressor station site, it is expected that there 

would be no significant noise impacts to people living or residing in the vicinity of the Project. Bison 

monitored existing sound levels and predicted the expected noise levels associated with the most noise 

intensive construction (HDD sites and the Hettinger Compressor Station) and operations (Hettinger 

Compressor Station) of the proposed Project using standard methods. The analysis found that noise 

levels at NSAs within 0.5 mile of the sites would be below the 55 dBA noise criterion. If the proposed 

Project is approved and constructed, we have recommended that Bison measure actual noise levels 

associated with the single compressor station (Hettinger Compressor Station) to confirm that noise levels 

are below 55 dBA at the nearest NSA, or implement the necessary mitigation to ensure that it is. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed all DOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, Bison also would 

initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The proposed 

Project would result in only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts 

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These projects include 

other oil and natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines in the Project area, nonjurisdictional 

facilities associated with the proposed Project, and unrelated projects in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline route. We considered the region of influence for the cumulative impact analysis to be the 

11 watersheds traversed by the proposed Project. The environmental impacts associated with these 

5-7
projects that would be most likely to be cumulatively significant are related to wetlands and waterbodies, 

vegetation and wildlife (including federally and state listed endangered and threatened species), land use, 

air quality, and noise. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor overall, 

and we have included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Bison Project, as summarized in Section 5.2. Similarly, each of the other 

projects considered in our cumulative impacts analysis has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to 

sensitive environmental resources. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant impacts to sensitive 

resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to avoidance or 

minimization of cumulative impacts. Consequently, only a small incremental cumulative effect would be 

anticipated after the impacts of the proposed Project are added to those of past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable projects. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative would eliminate or delay the short 

and long term environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project 

would not be met, and Bison would not be able to provide a new source of natural gas to markets that can 

be accessed through the proposed Project. We also evaluated the use of alternative energy sources and 

the potential effects of energy conservation, but these measures would not satisfy the need for the 

proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing or proposed 

natural gas pipeline systems could meet the proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. While only one existing pipeline system (Grasslands Pipeline) 

traverses the same general geographic area as the proposed Bison Project, it would not meet the capacity 

requirements of the proposed Bison Project without substantial system upgrades, such as new or increased 

compression and new pipeline looping, or construction of additional pipelines to extend existing systems 

to the proposed Bison Project origin. Similarly, it is anticipated that construction and operational impacts 

associated with other system alternatives involving existing/proposed pipelines in the region (Cheyenne 

Plains, Rockies Express, Trailblazer, Chicago Express, and Rockies Alliance) would be greater than those 

of the proposed Project due to the amount of looping and new construction required to connect the 

systems to the Project origin and terminus. Consequently, no system alternatives are considered available 

that are environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 

We evaluated five major route alternatives to the proposed Project route. Because none of these 

would offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed Project route, we eliminated them 

from further consideration. Lastly, we considered route variations to resolve or reduce construction 

impacts to localized, specific resources. During the pre-filing process, Bison identified 110 minor route 

variations to the initially planned route that have been incorporated into the currently proposed Project 

route. After filing its Application, Bison adopted an additional 35 route variations. These minor 

variations were developed based on discussions with landowners, resource stewards, and Project 

engineers to avoid or minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, reduce or eliminate engineering 

and constructability concerns, and avoid or minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential and 

agricultural land uses. Included in these adopted route variations is a BLM-recommended route variation 

that would avoid existing coal mine lease areas. In addition to these route variations adopted by Bison, 

we evaluated and recommended waterbody and wetland crossing alternatives to minimize impacts to 

5-8
these resources. It also is anticipated that minor alignment shifts would be made prior to and during 

construction to accommodate such site-specific circumstances as landowner concerns. 

We also evaluated alternative locations for the proposed aboveground facilities to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. We did 

not identify any alternative sites for the proposed meter stations or MLV assemblies that would offer a 

significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites. Although no significant environmental 

consequences were identified in association with the proposed Hettinger Compressor Station site, we did 

evaluate potential alternative sites. None of the alternative sites evaluated was considered to be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission authorizes the Bison Pipeline Project, we recommend that the following 

measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We believe that these measures 

would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. In the following section, “file” means to file with the Secretary at FERC. Certain 

recommendations listed below request that Bison provide information to assist us in the development of 

the final EIS. Such recommendations that are satisfied by Bison prior to issuance of the final EIS would 

no longer need to be included as recommended conditions in any Certificate, if issued. 

1. Bison shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

Application and supplemental filings (including responses to staff data requests), and as identified 

in the EIS, unless modified by the Commission’s Order. Bison must: 

a. Request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing; 

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: 

a. Modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. 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 avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental 

impact resulting from project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Bison shall file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior 

company official, that all company personnel, Environmental Inspectors, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the Environmental Inspector’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 locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, Bison shall file 

5-9
any revised detailed survey alignment map/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station 

positions for all facilities approved by the Commission’s Order. All requests for modifications of 

environmental conditions of the Commission’s Order or site-specific clearances must be written 

and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

Bison’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under Section 7(h) of the NGA in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Commission’s Order must be consistent with these 

authorized facilities and locations. Bison’s right of eminent domain granted under Section 7(h) of 

the NGA does not authorize Bison 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. Bison shall file 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 previous filings. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly 

requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the 

Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations recommended herein, extra workspace 

allowed by Bison’s Plan, or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that 

do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility changes 

resulting from: 

a. Implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. Implementation of mitigation measures for endangered, threatened, or special concern 

species; 

c. Recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. Agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, Bison shall 

file an Implementation Plan, for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP. Bison 

must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. How Bison will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its Application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests) 

identified in the EIS, and as required by the Order; 

b. How Bison 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; 

5-10
c. The number of Environmental Inspectors assigned per spread and aboveground facility 

site, and how Bison will ensure that sufficient personnel are available to implement the 

environmental mitigation; 

d. Company personnel, including Environmental Inspectors and contractors, who will 

receive copies of the appropriate materials; 

e. The location of the environmental compliance training Bison 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(s); 

f. The company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Bison’s organization 

responsible for compliance; 

g. The procedures (including use of contract penalties) Bison will follow if noncompliance 

occurs; and 

h. For each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Bison shall employ a team of one or more Environmental Inspectors, or as may be established by 

the Director of OEP, per construction spread. The Environmental Inspectors shall be: 

a. Responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. Responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. Empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. A full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. Responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies; and 

f. Responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Bison shall file updated status reports on a 

weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these 

status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. An update on Bison’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations; 

5-11
b. The construction status of each spread, work planned for the following reporting period, 

and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally 

sensitive areas; 

c. A listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by 

the Environmental Inspectors 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); 

d. A description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

e. The effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

f. A description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

g. Copies of any correspondence received by Bison from other federal, state, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance and Bison’s response. 

9. Bison shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure that remains 

active for at least 3 years following the completion of Project construction. 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, Bison shall mail the environmental complaint resolution 

procedure to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In the letter to affected landowners, Bison shall: 

i. Provide a local contact that the landowners shall call first with their concerns; the 

letter shall indicate how soon to expect a response; 

ii. Instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they shall call 

Bison’s Hotline; the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a response; and 

iii. Instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Bison’s Hotline, they shall contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline at (888) 

889-8030. 

b. In addition, Bison shall include in its weekly status report a table that contains the 

following information for each problem/concern: 

i. The identity of the caller and the date of the call; 

ii. The identification number from the certificated alignment sheet(s) of the affected 

property and appropriate location by milepost; 

iii. A description of the problem/concern; and 

iv. An explanation of how and when the problem was resolved or will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

10. Bison must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing service 

of the Project. Such authorization will be granted only following a determination that 

rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas of project-related disturbance are 

proceeding satisfactorily. 

5-12
11. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Bison shall file an affirmative 

statement, 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 the Certificate conditions with which Bison has complied or will comply. 

The 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. 

12. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file identification of all locations 

along the proposed Project route that are highly susceptible to landslides due to slope and/or 

substrate conditions and site-specific mitigation to minimize potential impacts of Project 

construction and operation in those areas. (Section 3.1.1.3)

13. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file confirmation on whether it 

would adhere to the recommendations identified in the paleontological assessments to avoid and 

minimize impacts to paleontological resources, and identify potential environmental impacts 

associated with these measures including any adjustments in the proposed alignment to avoid any 

significant fossil sites identified in the surveys. If Bison would not adhere to the 

recommendations in the assessments, Bison shall identify BLM-approved mitigation to avoid and 

minimize potential impacts to significant fossil sites. (Section 3.1.2.1)

14. In the event that blasting is warranted, Bison shall file for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP a completed Contractor Blasting Plan and site-specific blasting plan prior to 

implementing any blasting. The plans shall also be provided to all other appropriate federal and 

state agencies for review. (Section 3.1.2.1)

15. Bison shall file a final Reclamation Plan that describes topsoil segregation locations, methods, 

and any additional mitigation to improve post-construction reclamation success, including those 

with low revegetation / reclamation potential prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period. (Section 3.2.2.1)

16. Prior to construction, Bison shall file completed surveys for all potable wells and springs 

identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and any site-specific 

measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate for potential impacts. (Section 3.3.1.1)

17. Prior to construction, Bison shall file revised construction plans and environmental alignment 

sheets to incorporate open-cut dry crossings (or more protective measures) to cross Twentymile 

Creek (MP 24.5), an unnamed tributary to Boxelder Creek (MP 102.7), Cabin Creek (MP 135.8), 

Dead Boy Creek (MP 138.0), Spring Creek (MP 204.8), and Cedar Creek (MP 218.3 and MP 

220.0). (Section 3.3.2.2)

18. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file its proposed scour and 

streambank meandering analysis report, including any reroutes, if required, to prevent or avoid 

potential streambank meandering due to construction. (Section 3.3.2.2) 

19. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file a site-specific plan for the 

Cannonball River crossing (MP 250.7) that specifies measures to stabilize the steep streambanks. 

(Section 3.3.2.2)

5-13
20. Prior to the end of the draft comment period, Bison shall file a final list of all hydrostatic test 

water sources, discharge locations, and withdrawal volumes. For each proposed source, Bison 

shall also identify an alternative hydrostatic test water source along with associated discharge 

locations and withdrawal volumes, and file a feasibility evaluation for reusing hydrostatic test 

water between pipeline segments, before discharge and for dust abatement use. (Section 3.3.2.2)

21. Prior to construction, Bison shall file documentation of consultation with BLM and COE to 

determine the appropriate mitigation measures that should be used to minimize potential impacts 

to seep wetlands, and file proposed measures to restore perched wetland functions following 

pipeline construction. (Section 3.4.2.1)

22. Prior to construction, Bison shall file locations where large woody debris would be removed 

and replaced in waterbodies. (Section 3.6.1.2)

23. Prior to construction, Bison shall file the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Conservation Agreement. 

(Section 3.6.2.2)

24. Bison shall not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. the staff completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Bison has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) may 

begin. (Section 3.7.1) 

25. Bison shall file the Ute ladies’-tresses survey data for the 2009 season prior to the end of the 

draft EIS comment period. (Section 3.7.1.12)

26. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file maps and updated tables that 

identify access roads for all applicable pipe storage, rail, and contractor yards. (Section 3.8.1.1)

27. Prior to construction, Bison shall file for review and written approval by the Director of OEP 

additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts to windbreaks on a site-specific basis through 

coordination with landowners. Additional mitigation measures that shall be considered include 

reducing the width of the construction right-of-way, relocating extra workspaces and yards to 

open areas, and transplanting trees to an unaffected portion of the windbreak. (Section 3.8.1.3) 

28. Prior to construction, Bison shall file its proposed Power Line Interference Studies for crossings 

of high-voltage lines and identify all appropriate measures to minimize potential impacts 

associated with the power lines. (Section 3.8.1.3)

29. Prior to construction, Bison shall file for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a 

plan that describes measures to minimize potential impact to recreational use of the Cannonball 

River during construction. The plan shall include measures such as the posting of warning signs 

regarding waterbody construction both upstream and downstream of the crossing site, and 

methods to provide safe portage for any boaters who wish to traverse the crossing area of the 

Cannonball River during construction for those who request help. (Section 3.8.2.4)

5-14
5-15

30. Bison shall not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including archaeological 

data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of any staging, storage, or temporary work areas 

or new or to-be-improved access roads; until: 

a. Bison files with the Secretary cultural resource survey and evaluation reports, any 

necessary treatment plans, and the comments of the BLM, and North Dakota, Montana 

and Wyoming SHPOs on the reports and; 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports and 

plans, and notifies Bison in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be implemented 

and/or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership information 

about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly labeled in 

bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.” 

(Section 3.9.3)

31. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Bison shall file its final Short-Term 

Housing and Traffic and Transportation Management Plans, which shall include identification of 

additional target areas closer to the work sites, inclusion of additional buses to bring workers 

collectively to construction sites, and a detailed assessment of potential conflicts with the hunting 

community. (Section 3.10.3)

32. Bison shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the Hettinger 

Compressor Station in service. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at 

the Hettinger Compressor Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby (NSAs or 

noise-sensitive areas), Bison shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install the 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Bison shall 

confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 3.11.2.2)
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-1

Federal Government Agencies

Adv. Council on Historic Preservation 

Director Cultural Resources 

Air Force Real Property Agency 

Jeffrey Blevins 

American Gas Association 

President 

Bureau of Reclamation – Great Plains Region 

Regional Office 

 Michael J. Ryan, Regional Director 

Dakotas Area Office 

 Dennis E. Breitzman, Area Manager 

Montana Area Office 

 Dan Jewell, Area Manager 

Wyoming Area Office 

 John Lawson, Area Manager 

Center for Disease Control 

Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

Council on Environmental Quality 

General Counsel 

Director for NEPA Oversight 

Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

 T. A. Bragg 

 Nancy Curriden 

 Chris Hockett 

 H. R. Johnson 

 Vern Koehler 

 Gary Morrison 

 Jeffrey Werner 

 Steve Williams 

 Ashland Ranger District 

 Scott J. Studiner 

 Beartooth Ranger District 

 Rand Herzberg 

 Big Horn Canyon Recreation Area 

 Bob Byrne 

 Custer National Forest 

 Liz McFarland 

 Mike Paterni 

 Director of Lands 

 Ecosystem Management Coordination 

 Medora Ranger District 

 Ron Jablonski 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-2

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

 Musselshell Ranger District 

 Bill Fortune 

 National Forest System 

 Deputy Chief 

 Northern Region - Montana 

 Tom Tidwell, Regional Forester 

 Sioux Ranger District 

 Gary Foley 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

 Forest Berg 

 Wilford Birdinground, Crow Agency 

 J.R. Flores, North Dakota State Conservationist 

 Robert Mitchell 

 Xavier Montoya, Wyoming State Conservationist 

 Jeremy Not Afraid 

 David Pratt 

 Ken Scalzone 

 Rocklin Schwagler 

 Corey Swenson 

 Shad Weber 

 Dave White, Montana State Conservationist 

 Conservation Districts 

 Carter County 

 Wayne Yost, District Conservationist 

 Custer 

 Dawson County 

 Fallon County 

 Ann Fischer, District Conservationist 

 Garfield County 

 B.G. Fitzgerald 

 Little Beaver 

 McCone County 

 Prairie County 

 Powder River County 

 Carol Hilliard, District Conservationist 

 Richland County 

 Rosebud County 

 Doug McRae 

 David Davenport 

 Tami Kimball 

 Wibaux 

National Environmental Coordinator 

 Saratoga Service Center 

Office of Finance and Management 

Department of Commerce 

Office of the Secretary 

 Senior Policy Advisor 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-3

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

Department of Defense 

Department of the Air Force 

 Office of Deputy Secretary - Environment, Safety & Occupational Health 

Department of the Army 

 Operations Division (DAIM-ODO) 

 Ravin Howell, ACSIM Operations Directorate 

 Tribal and Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

 Army (Civil Works) 

 Assistant for Environment 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Installations and Environment 

 Robert Uhrich 

Office - Asst. Secy of the Navy Installations and Environment 

 Tom Egeland 

Department of Energy 

Director for Import/Export Activities 

Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Office of Intergov Affairs 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Art Compton 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Director of Environment 

Department of Justice 

Land & Natural Resources Division 

Department of Labor 

Office of Regulatory Economics 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

Don Kendall 

Department of Natural Resources Council 

Walter Rolf 

Department of State 

Office of Environment / Health 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Rick Stefanic 

 Northern Cheyenne Agency 

 Marge Eagleman 

Bureau of Land Management 

 Mike Jensen 

 Berry Phelps 

 Don Simpson 

 Buffalo Field Office 

 Chris Hanson, Field Manager 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-4

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

 Miles City Field Office 

 Dalice Landers, Realty Specialist 

 Elaine Raper, Field Manager 

 Pam Wall, Realty Specialist 

 North Dakota Field Office 

 Lonnie Bagley, Field Manager 

 Resource Advisory Council 

 Betty Aye 

 Jack Bailey 

 Howard Boggess 

 Jamie Byrne 

 Norris E. Cole 

 John Gibsen 

 Charles Hauptmann 

 Arthur Hayes, Jr. 

 Robert Lubbers 

 David Smith 

 Marty Ulrich 

 Kent Williams 

 White River Field Office 

 Mark Rogers 

 Washington Office 

 Div of Recreation & Visitor Services (WO-250) 

 Patrick Wilkinson 

Environmental Policy & Compliance 

 Director 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Tim Miller 

 Jane Roybal 

 Allyn J. Sapa, State Supervison, Fish & Wildlife Enhancement 

 Anne Timberman 

 Mountain Prairie Billings Field Suboffice 

 Lou Hannebury, Biologist 

Mountain Prairie Region 

 Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor 

 Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor 

 Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor 

Land and Minerals Management 

 Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Minerals Management Service 

 Deputy Director 

Solicitors Office 

 John Chaffin 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-5

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Policies Team Leader 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

P/L & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

 Community Assistance / Technical Services 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Daniel Horgan 

 Larry Svoboda 

Office of Federal Activities 

 Susan E. Bromm, Acting Director 

Region 8 Montana Operations Office 

 Julie Dal Soglio 

 John Wardell, Director 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

Chief Energy & Environment 

Library of Congress 

Exchange and Gift Div. - Federal Documents Section 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NEPA Coordinator - Program Planning and Integration 

National Marine Fisheries Service – Office fo Habitat Protection 

 Marine Resources Habitat Specialist 

Pipeline Contractors Association 

Rocky Mountain P/L Constr. Assoc. 

Executive Director 

The Wilderness Society 

Resource Economist 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Fort Peck Project Office 

 John Dagget, Project Manager 

 Darin McMurry, Lake Manager 

Omaha District (MT) 

 Shannon Johnson, Regulatory Branch 

 Cathy Juhas, Regulatory Branch 

Omaha District ND Regulatory Office 

 William (Bill) May, Regulatory Project Manager 

United States Coast Guard 

Office of Operating and Environmental Standards 

Department of Homeland Security 

 Admiral 

U.S. Geological Survey 

John Kilpatrick 

Peter Wright 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-6

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

U.S. National Park Service 

Noel Poe, Superintendent 

Federal Respresentatives and Senators

Montana 

Congressman Dennis Rehberg 

Senator Max Baucus 

Senator Jon Tester 

North Dakota 

Congressman Earl Pomeroy 

Senator Kent Conrad 

Senator Byron Dorgan ND 

Wyoming 

Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis 

Senator John Barrasso 

Senator Michael Enzi 

State Representatives and Senators

Montana 

 Senator Keith Bales 

Representative Deborah Kottel 

North Dakota 

 Senator Bill Bowman 

Senator Randel Christmann 

Senator Layton Freborg 

Senator Joan Heckaman 

Senator Jerry Klein 

Senator Aaron Krauter 

Senator Joe Miller 

Senator George Nodland 

Senator Dave Oehlke 

Senator Curtis Olafson 

Senator Ryan Taylor 

Representative Chuck Damschen 

Representative Duane DeKrey 

Representative Jeff Delzer 

Representative David Drovdal 

Representative Rodney Froelich 

Representative Brenda Heller 

Representative Curt Hofstad 

Representative Dennis Johnson 

Representative Keith Kempenich 

Representative James Kerzman 

Representative Robert Kilichowski 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-7

State Representatives and Senators (continued)

North Dakota (continued) 

Representative Joyce Kingsbury 

Representative Gary Kreidt 

Representative Shirley Meyer 

Representative David Monson 

Representative Jon Nelson 

Representative Mike Schatz 

Representative Arlo Schmidt 

Representative Benjamin Vig 

Representative Don Vigesaa 

Representative Robin Weisz 

Representative Dwight Wrangham 

Wyoming 

 Senator Eli Bebout 

Senator Stan Cooper 

Senator John Hastert 

Senator John Hines 

Senator Marty Martin 

Senator John Schiffer 

Senator Charles Scott 

Senator Bill Vasey 

Senator Michael Von Flatern 

Representative Joseph Barbuto 

Representative Kathy Davison 

Representative Allen Jaggi 

Representative Owen Peterson 

Representative Lisa Shepperson 

Representative Sue Wallis 

Representative Thomas Lubnau, 31st District 

Representative Bernadine Craft, House District #17 

Representative Frank Philp, House District #34 

Representative Bob Brechtel, House District #38 

Representative Stan Blake, House District #39 

Representative William "Jeb" Steward, House District #47 

Representative Bill Thompson, House District #60 

State Government Agencies

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment - Water Quality Control Division 

 John Hranac 

Montana 

Big Horn Conservation District 

 Jerry Lunde 

 Thomas J. Zelka 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-8

State Government Agencies (continued)

Montana (continued) 

 Govenor of Montana, Planning Task Force 

 Montana Association of Conservation Districts 

 Steve Hedstrom, President 

 Montana Department of Agriculture 

 Monatana Department of Environmental Quality 

 Air Resources Management Bureau 

 Dave Klemp, Bureau Chief 

 Director's Office, MEPA office 

 Greg Hallsten, EIS Coordinator 

 Kathy Johnson, Env Impact Specialist 

 Permitting and Compliance Division 

 Judy Hanson, Acting Administrator 

 Public Water Supply and Subdivisions-Alterations to Public Water Supply 

 Jon Dilliard, Bureau Chief 

 Water Protection Bureau 

 Bonnie Lovelace, Bureau Chief 

 Water Quality Discharge Permits Section 

 Brian Heckenberger, Environmental Science Specialist 

 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

 Bud Clinch 

 Bob Harrington 

 Scott Kaiser 

 Jim Kalitowski 

 Warren Kellogg 

 Eastern Land Office 

 Rick Strohmyer 

 Grazing Districts 

 East Custer Cooperative State Grazing District 

 Marj Anderson 

 Prairie County Grazing District 

 Sandra Brown 

 Red Buttes State Grazing District 

 Shelley Mackay 

 Williams Coulee State Grazing District 

 Annette Carrell 

 Minnesota Management Bureau 

 Monte Mason 

 Trust Land Management Division 

 Marc Aberg, Eastern Land Office Lands Program Manager 

 Lisa Axline, Real Estate ROW Specialist 

 Water Resources Division 

 Laurence Siroky, Floodplain Management, Water Operations 

 Bureau Chief 

 James P. Domino 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-9

State Government Agencies (continued)

Montana (continued) 

 Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services - Public Health and 

 Safety 

 Jane Smile, Director 

 Montana Department of Transportation 

 Mary Gayle Padmos 

 Director's Office 

 Jim Lynch, Director 

 State and Highway Encroachment Permits 

 Ron Cebuhar, Utility Engineering Specialist 

 Carla Haas, Right-of-way 

 Montana Energy & Telecommunications Interim Committee - Legislative 

 Services Division 

 Mary Vandenbosch 

 Montana Environmental Quality Council 

 William Crismor, Chair 

 Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department 

 Bruce Auchly 

 Dwayne Andrews 

 Scott Hemmer 

 Brad Schmitz 

 Don Skaar 

 T.O. Smith 

 Fisheries Division 

 Kenneth McDonald, Management Bureau Chief 

 Bryce Christensen, Regional Supervisor, Region 7 (Miles City) 

 Wildlife Division 

 Caryn Amacher, Operations Bureau Chief 

 Montana Parks Association 

 Paul Hickman 

 Mike Penfold 

 Montana Public Service Commission 

 Gail Gutsche, Commissioner 

 Greg Jergeson, Commissioner 

 Brad Molnar, Commissioner 

 Ken Toole, Commissioner 

 John Vincent, Commissioner 

 Montana Secretary State 

 Brad Johnson 

 Montana State Auditor 

 John Morrison 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-10

State Government Agencies (continued)

Montana (continued) 

 Montana Weed Control Association-Noxious Weed Management 

 Carter County 

 Nico Cantalupo, Extension Agent 

 Fallon County 

 Dale Butori, Extension Agent 

 Powder River 

 Delbert Riter, Extension Agent 

 State Historic Preservation Office-NRHP 

 Mark Baumler, State Historic Preservation Officer 

 Stan Wilmoth, State Archaeologist 

 State of Montana, Office of the Governor 

 Brian D. Schweitzer, Governor 

North Dakota 

 North Dakota Department of Health - Environmental Health Section, 

 Air Quality 

 Terry O'Clair, Director Air Quality 

 Water Quality 

 Dennis Fewless, Director Water Quality 

 Marty Haroldson, Environmental Scientist-Permits Program 

 Randy Kowalski, Storm Water Program Coordinator 

 North Dakota Department of Transportation 

 Francis Ziegler, Director 

 North Dakota Forest Service 

 Larry A. Kotchman, North Dakota State Forester 

 Mike Santucci 

 North Dakota Natural Heritage Program 

 North Dakota Parks And Recreation 

 North Dakota Public Service Commission 

 Tony Clark, Commissioner 

 Kevin Cramer, Commissioner 

 Brian Kalk, Commissioner 

 North Dakota Soil Conservation Commission 

 North Dakota State Game and Fish Department 

 Paul Schadewald, Chief of the Administrative Services 

 North Dakota State Land Department 

 Gary Preszler, Land Commissioner 

 North Dakota State Historical Society 

 North Dakota State Water Commission 

 Dale Frink, State Engineer 

 North Dakota Wildlife Federation 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-11

State Government Agencies (continued)

North Dakota(continued) 

 State Historical Society of North Dakota - State Historic Preservation Office 

 Paul Picha, Chief Archaeologist 

 Fern E. Swenson, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and Division 

 Director 

 State of North Dakota, Office of the Governor 

 John Hoeven, Governor 

Wyoming 

 Office of State Land and Investments 

 Lynn Boomgaarden 

 Office of Wyoming State Archaeologist 

 David Eckles 

 State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor 

 Dave Freudenthal, Governor 

 State of Wyoming/DEQ/Water Quality 

 John F. Wagner 

 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

 Jon Deutscher 

 Bill Locke 

 Air Quality Division 

 David Finley, Administrator 

 Water Quality Division 

 Barb Sahl, WPDES Storm Water Program Coordinator 

 David Waterstreet, Supervisor 

 Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation 

 Office 

 Mary Hopkins, SHPO Interim Director 

 Wyoming Department of Transportation 

 John Cox, Director 

 Wildlife Habitat Protection 

 Vern Stelter 

 Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. 

 John Emmerich 

 David Hunt, Lands Supervisor 

 Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

 Susan Child, Deputy Director 

 Tina Vigil, Lands Management Technician 

 Wyoming Public Service Commission 

 Kathleen Lewis, Commissioner 

 Alan Minier, Commissioner 

 Steve Oxley, Commissioner 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-12

State Government Agencies (continued)

Wyoming (continued) 

 Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Surface Water Division 

 John Barnes, Surface Water Administrator 

Local Government

Colorado 

 Garfield County 

 Randy Russell, Planning Office 

 Moffat County 

 Ed Winters, Land Use Board 

Montana 

 Big Horn County 

 John Doyle, Commissioner 

 John Young, Planning Board 

 Carter County 

 Pamela J. Castleberry, Clerk & Recorder 

 Jim Courtney, Commissioner Chairman 

 Marilyn Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce, Treasurer 

 Bill Loehding, Commissioner 

 Steve Rosencranz, Commissioner Vice 

 Carter County and Fallon County 

 Albert R. Batterman, Attorney 

 City of Sidney 

 Gerald Navratil 

 Custer County 

 Daniels County 

 Dawson County 

 Fallon County 

 Dennis Afrank, Commissioner 

 Kit Anderson, Planner 

 Deb Ranum, Commissioner Chairperson 

 Donald Rieger, Commissioner 

 Mike Rinaldi, Environmental Health, Fallon County Sanitarian 

 Brenda Wood, Clerk and Recorder 

 Garfield County 

 McCone County 

 Connie Eissinger, Commissioner 

 Miles City 

 Tom McKerlick, Area Economic Development, Executive Director 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-13

Local Government (continued)

Montana (continued) 

 Powder River County 

 Chamber of Commerce 

 Don McDowell, Commissioner 

 Les Thompson, Commissioner 

 Ray Traub, Commissioner 

 Prairie County 

 Bill Leach 

 Richland County 

 Roosevelt County 

 Rosebud County 

 Amy Adler, Weed Department 

 Stephen J. Hutton & Todd Yeager, Extension Agent 

 Daniel Watson, Commissioner 

 Sheridan County Planning 

 Doug Smith, Planning 

 Wibaux County 

 County Planning Board 

North Dakota 

 Bowman Area Chamber of Commerce 

 Josh Lindstrom, President 

 Bowman County 

 Pine Abrahamson, Commissioner 

 Bill Bowman, Commissioner 

 Rick Braaten, Commissioner 

 Lynn Brackel, Commissioner 

 Nici Meyer-Clarkson, State's Attorney 

 Kenneth Steiner, Commissioner Chairman 

 Dickson Area Chamber of Commerce 

 LaRue Roth, Executive Director 

 Grant County 

 Keith Payne, Commissioner 

 Dave Reineke, Road Superintendent 

 Donald Roth, Commissioner 

 Joyce Stern, Recorder 

 Daniel Stewart, Commissioner Chairman 

 James Vukelic, State's Attorney 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-14

Local Government (continued)

North Dakota (continued) 

 Hettinger Area Chamber of Commerce 

 Community Promotions Office, Chamber of Commerce 

 Ron Friedt, Commissioner 

 Thomas Geerts, Commissioner 

 James Gion, State's Attorney 

 Sylvia Gion, Clerk of Court 

 John Plaggemeyer, Commissioner 

 Roy Speiner, County Auditor 

 Morton County 

 Mark Bitz, Commissioner 

 Jim Boehm, Commissioner 

 Bruce Strinden, Commissioner 

 Richard Tokach, Commissioner Chairman 

 Paul Trauger, Auditor 

 Charles Morman, Highway Superintendent 

 Carrole Schaner, County Recorder 

 Andy Zachmeier, Commissioner 

 Slope County 

 Nici Meyer-Clarkson, State's Attorney 

 Scott Ouradnik, Commissioner 

 Marguerite Schatz, Clerk of Court 

 Michael Sonsalla, Commissioner 

 Mike Teske, Commissioner Chairman 

 Stark County 

 Pete Auntz, Commissioner 

 Carlotta Ehlis, Southwest District Health Unit 

 Jay Elkin, Commissioner 

 Al Heiser, Highway Department, Road Superintendent 

 Tom Henning, State's Attorney 

 Russ Hoff, Commissioner 

 Duane Wolf, Commissioner Chairman 

 Ken Zander, Commissioner 

Wyoming 

 Campbell County 

 Dan Coolidge, County Commissioner, Chairman 

 Roy Edwards, County Commissioner 

 Steve Hughes, County Commissioner 

 Christopher Knapp, County Commissioner 

 Amir Sancher, County Commissioner 

 Susan Saunders, County Clerk 

 Jeani Stone, County Attorney 

 Nancy Radcliff, District Court Clerk 

 Casper Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 

 Marlyn Black 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-15

Local Government (continued)

Wyoming (continued) 

 Douglas Fire Department 

 Goshen County 

 Steve Brill, Weed & Pest District 

 Johnson County 

 Smokey Wildeman, Commissioner 

 Natrona County 

 Brian Connely, Weed & Pest District 

 Sheridan County 

 Terry Cram, Commissioner 

Libraries

Colorado 

 BLM Library 

 EPA Region 8 Library Serials 

Washington, DC 

 USDOI, Natural Resources Library 

Montana 

 Big Horn County Library 

 Henry Malley Memorial Library 

 Montana Tech Library 

 State Library 

Utah 

 Merrill-Cazier Library 

Wyoming 

 Carbon County Public Library 

 College Library, WWCC 

 Fremont County Library 

 Hay Library 

 Little Snake River Valley Library 

 Riverton Branch Library 

 Rock Springs Library 

 Sweetwater County Library System 

 University of Wyoming Libraries 

 White Mountain Library 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-16

Libraries (continued)

Wyoming (continued) 

 Wyoming State Library 

Media

Agri News 

Associated Press 

 Mary Bohrer 

Billings Gazette 

 Clair Johnson 

Casper Tribune 

 Dustin Bleizeffer 

Lee State Bureau 

 Erin Billings 

Miles City Star 

 John Halbert 

Montana Tech Library 

 Carol Rhoads 

National Public Land News 

Ranger Review 

 Cindy Mullet 

Sheridan County News 

 Joe Nistler 

Steamboat Pilot And Today 

 Susan Cunningham 

Stillwater Co News 

 Roseanna Lohof 

Yellowstone Public Radio 

 Jackie Yamanaka 

Native American Tribes

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation 

 Curley Youpee, Cultural Resources Department 

Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indians 

 Rosemary Berens, THPO 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Paige Baker, Fort Berthold Agency 

 Robert Demery, Standing Rock Agency 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

 Greg Bourland 

 Donna Rae Petersen, THPO 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-17

Native American Tribes (continued)

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

 Gordon L. Yellowman, Sr., 

Chippewa-Cree Indians - Rocky Boy's Reservation 

 Alvin Windy Boy 

 Joan Mitchell 

Comanche Nation 

 Wallace Coffey, Chairman 

Confederate Salish & Kootenai - Flathead Reservation 

 Marcia Pablo, Tribal Pres Department 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe - Crow Creek Reservation 

 Kitty Wells, Chairman 

Crow Tribe 

 Clifford Birdinground, Crow Tribal Council 

 Clara Bull Tail, Crow Office of Recreation Natural Resources 

 Wales Bulltail 

 Latonna Old Elk, Crow Tribal Contracts Office 

 Neta Old Elk 

 Wanda Medicine Horse 

 Theresa Johnson 

 Tim McCleary, Archaeologist 

 Debbie Pretty Paint 

 George Reed, Jr., Crow Cultural Commission 

 Sue Riley 

 David Small, Crow Tribal EPA 

Devils Lake Sioux Tribal Council 

 Peter Belgarde, Jr., Chairperson 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

 Ivan Posey 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation 

 Chester Pingree, Oil and Gas 

Elk River Law Office Crow Tribe 

 Steve Kelly 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota 

 Joshua Weston, President 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

 Leroy Defold, Cultural Preservation Officer 

Ft Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation 

 Julia Doney 

Ft. Peck Tribes 

 Fred Bighorn 

 Mervyn Shields, Tribal Minerals 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-18

Native American Tribes (continued)

Grand Portage Chippewa 

 Todd LeGarde, Environmental Director 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Dewey Tsonetokoy, Historic Preservation 

Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 

 Gina M. Lemon, THPO 

Little Big Horn College 

 Mardell Plainfeather 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe - Lower Brule Reservation 

 Clare Green, Chair, Tribal Council 

 Michael Jandreau 

Lower Sioux Indian Community 

 Pamela Halverson, THPO 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation - Three Affliated Tribes of Ft Berthold Reservation 

 Parry Brady, THPO 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians 

 Natalie Weyaus, THPO 

Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation 

 JoAnn White, THPO 

Northern Arapahoe Tribe 

 Anthony Addison 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

 Conrad Fisher, THPO 

 Joe Littlecoyote 

 Steve Oddan 

 Doug Oellermann 

 Ernie Robinson, Tribal Council 

 Florence Running Wolf, Tribal Council 

 Jason Whiteman 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation 

 Bruce Parry, Chairman 

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation 

 Roberta Joyce Whiting 

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska 

 Amen Sheridan, Chairman 

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

 Misty Nuttle, THPO 

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

 Douglas Rhodd, Chairman 

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska 

 Larry Wright, Jr., Chairman 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-19

Native American Tribes (continued)

Prairie Island Indian Community 

 Mark Mulligan, Tribal Engineer 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota 

 Katherine Beaulieu, Tribal Secretary 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

 William Kindle 

 Ben Rhodd, Project Consultant 

Santee Sioux Nation 

 Roger Trudell, Tribal Chairman 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Communty of Minnesota 

 Stanley Crooks 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation 

 Alonzo Coby, Chairman, Business Council 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate - Lake Traverse Reservation 

 Diane Desrosiers 

Southern Ute Tribe 

 Clement J. Frost, Chairman 

Spirit Lake Nation 

 William Ambrose Littleghost, Cultural Advisor 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

 Tim Mentz 

 Jesse Taken Alive, Tribal Council Chairperson 

 Wast'e Win Young, Standing Director 

The Blackfeet Nation 

 John Murray, THPO 

The Ho-Chunk Nation 

 Larry Garvin, THPO 

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

 Brian Bruenelle, THPO 

Three Affiliated Tribes 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

 Brady Grant, THPO 

 Richard Lafromboise, Chairperson 

Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota 

 Scott Larson 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation 

 Curtis Cesspooch, Chairperson 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

 Manuel Heart 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-20

Native American Tribes (continued)

White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa 

 Mike Swan, Cultural Preservation Officer 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

 John Blackhawk, Chairman 

Yankton Sioux Tribe - Yankton Sioux Reservation 

 Robert Cournoyer 

Organizations and Individuals

Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

 Lesley Wischmann 

Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 

 Susan Chandler 

Amalgamted Exploration, Inc. 

 Christian Murer 

American Wind Energy Association 

Arneson Law Offices, PLLC 

 Ron Arneson 

ARP EUT Inc. 

Aztec Archaeolgical Consultants 

 John D. Cater 

Benny R. Middleton Trust 

Berwick Resources 

 Keith Berwick 

BIA Lame Deer, Montana 

 Kathy Killsnight 

Bill Barrett Corporation 

 Paul McElvery 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. 

 Tracy Kaness 

Brown & Caldwell 

 Jeffrey S. Johnson, PhD. 

Casper Creek Ranch Inc / Ehrlich I, Inc. 

 Bob Ehrlich 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

 John Graham 

CH2M Hill Trigon 

 Trent Miller 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-21

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Citizen for Resource Development 

 John Lane 

Co Wilderness Network 

 Luke Schafer 

Coleman Oil and Gas Inc. 

 Bob Vergnani 

Colorado Wild Horse And Burro Coalition 

 Toni H. Moore 

Community of St. Mary 

 Sr Dorcas Baker 

Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. 

 Charles M. Niquette 

CWC Outdoor Education 

 Brea Holland 

Dakota Resource Council 

 Cindy Klein 

Dakota Resource Council 

 Mark Trechock 

Dakota Resource Council 

Devon Energy 

 Nick Agopian 

DHS Drilling Company 

Diamond Ring Ranch 

 Lee Martinez 

Ducks Unlimited 

 Paul Bultsma 

Duffy Peet 

 Sandy Kindt 

Duncan Ranches, LLC 

 Hugh Duncan 

E3 Consulting 

 Andy Hixson 

El Paso Energy Corporation 

 Chuck Begin 

Elenburg Exploration Inc 

 Gary Elenburg 

Emerald Operating Company 

 Mike Perry 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-22

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Englert Land Company LLC 

 Jon Englert 

Environmental Consultant 

 Deborah Kreis 

Erickson Living Rev. Trust 

 Muriel Getz 

Evergreen Operating Corp. 

Exxon Company USA 

Fancher Oil Company 

Ferris Mountain Ranch Inc. 

 Gary Raymond 

Field Rep for Senator Enzi 

 Sandy Tinsley 

Forerunner Corp. 

 Douglas Williams 

Forest Oil Corporation 

Gemini I 

 Ron Pelham 

Granite Seed Company 

 Bill Agnew 

Grant Geophysical 

Gravelpit Ranch 

 Tom Jones 

Guernsey Stone 

 Niles Veal 

Hardrock Oil Company 

Harris Creek Grazing Company 

Heart Bent Arrow, Inc. 

 Elmer Beaver 

High Plains Power Inc. 

 Charles Ward, Jr. 

Holland & Hart LLP 

 Dessa M. Reimer 

Horse Creek Conservation 

 Ron Buchhammer 

Hubbard Cattle Co. 

 E Amory Hubbard 

 Matthew Hubbard 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-23

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Humane Society of the U.S,. SW Regional Office 

 Dennis White 

Hunt Oil Company 

Infinity Oil & Gas of Wyoming 

IPC, Ltd. 

 Jean Berryman 

Julander Energy Company 

 Fred Julander 

KCS Mountain Resources Inc. 

Keith's Pumping Service 

Knight Technologies Inc. 

 Craig Knight 

Lake Fork Resources, LLC 

Law Office 

 Lauri Provencher 

Luther Appraisal Services 

Marton Ranch, Inc. 

Maxim Drilling & Exporation Incorporated 

Max's Pharmacy 

 Max Makich 

Meadow Creek Ranch 

 Buck Allemand 

Miles City Star 

 Tracey Lagva 

Mills Livestock Co. 

 William A. Mills 

Milwaukee Bicycle Collective 

 Daniel Merry 

 Shea Schachameyer 

Minerals Diversified Services 

 Mary Bluemle 

Mitten Ranch & Livestock Co. 

 W Ben Iturrian 

Monographs Acquisition Service, Colorado State University Libraries 

 Judith A. Smith 

Montana Dakota Utilities Co. 

 Barbara Macioroski 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-24

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Montana Farmers Union 

 Chris Christiaens 

Montana Petroleum Assoc 

 Dave Galt 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

 Ti Hays 

Natl Pony Express Trail Assoc 

 Les Bennington 

Nearburg Producing Company 

North Platte River Valley L.P. 

North Wind, Inc. 

 Kimberley Kearney 

Novicki Construction 

 Val Novicki 

NRCE 

 Laura Woodard 

O&G Environmental Consulting, LLC 

 Patty Pipas 

Obrien Energy Resources Corporation 

Ocean Energy, Inc. 

Oregon-California Trails Assoc 

 Fern & Fred Linton 

Oregon-California Trails Assoc 

 Donald Hartley 

 Tom McCutcheon 

 Bill and Gail Robinson 

 David Welch 

Page One of Wyoming Inc. 

Pathfinder Back County Horsemen of America 

 Edward J. Birgenheier 

Paulette Nesheim 

 Ray Millikin 

Permits West Inc 

 Brian Wood 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

 Bruce Hinchey 

Petroleum Geologist 

 Daniel Bakker 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-25

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Petroleum Incorporated 

Pine Mountain Ranch 

 Charles Putman 

Pogo Producing Company 

Politics, Law & Justice Department - Univ of WI 

 Dr. Giancarlo Panagia 

Portage Environmental Inc 

 Gary Engineer 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

 Jill Morrison 

Powder River County Sheriff 

 John Blain 

Presidio Exploration Inc 

Preston Reynolds Co Inc 

Qualtiy Services Inc 

 Lance Rom 

R&M Feterl Prop & Feterl Trust 

 Ronald Feterl 

Rawhide Western Inc. 

Richardson Operating Company 

Rim Oil Operating Production 

RT Communications, Inc. 

 Jim Jackson 

Safari Club International 

 Terry Cacek 

Samedan Oil Corporation 

 

SDSBT 

 Linda Cooper 

Senior Project Manager--SWCA 

 Joseph J. Fluder III 

Shell WindEnergy Inc. 

 Jonathan F. Burke 

Skyline Resources, Inc. 

Slawson Exploration Co Inc 

SNS Outfitters & Guide Service 

 Sy Gilliland 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-26

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

St. Mary Land & Exploration 

 Luke Studer 

Stone Energy Corporation 

 S. Stephen Bowling, Esq 

Surface Transportation Board 

Table Mountain LLC 

The Citizen Telegram 

The Land Trust Alliance 

The Prospective Investment & Trading 

The RETEC Group 

 Greg Somermeyer 

The Spur Ranch Co. 

 Robert B. Kayser 

The Wilderness Society 

 Fran Hunt 

 Suzanne Jones 

Tom Brown, Inc. 

 David Petrie 

Tranquility Ranch LLC 

 Richard T. Walker 

Umetco Minerals Corporation 

Union Pacific Resources 

 Dave Petrie 

Vintage Petroleum Inc. 

Westech Environmental Services 

 Dean Culwell 

Western Area Power Administration 

 Carey Ashton 

Western Governors Association 

 Paul Orbuch 

Western Land Services, Inc. 

 Jim Welch 

Western Nuclear Inc 

Western Range & Water, LLC 

 Eric Felbeck 

Western Telecomm 

Wildlife Management Institute 

 Bob Byrne 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-27

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Wildlife Mgmt Institute 

 Steve Williams 

Williams Ranch, LLC 

 Darryl Olson 

WWC Engineering 

 Shawn Higley 

Wyodak Resources Development Corporation 

Wyoming Fly Fishing Guide Service 

 Greg Mueller 

Wyoming Representative, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 

 Melinda Harm Benson 

Wyoming Trails Program 

 Brad Hill 

Mark Alexander 

Allan E. Altner 

Paul Anderson 

Chuck Andrus 

Sheldon Aptekar 

Walter Archer 

Bill Barton 

Tom Beachman 

Mel Binstock 

Thomas Blake 

Jerry Brekhus 

Kevin E Briggs 

Andrew Burnham 

Brian Butterick 

Nancy Carringer 

Kate M. Castleman 

Jerry and Norma Cathey 

Cynthia Clayworth 

Joella Corder 

Franklin L & Rose Marie Counts 

Barry Crago 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-28

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Evelyn Cummings 

Harold Cundy 

T Cunningham 

Nancy Curriden 

Dave Dagenhart 

Vivika Deviney 

David Doubet 

Linda Drozdyk 

Paul Dumond 

Nancy Eldridge 

Carl Etzel 

Vivian Fahlgren 

Craig Feese 

James Fischer 

Thomas R Foertsch 

Norma Jean George 

Julie Glenn 

Fred Goebel 

Russell D. Gordy 

Russ Greenwood 

Nellie Grosz 

Susan Guio 

Tommy A Hannigan 

Max D & Naomi Hardy 

Helen Higby 

Jim Hinesley 

John Hitt 

F. Earline Hittel 

William & Sherolyn Hollingsworth 

Gordon Horst 

Olivia Hudis 

Phil Hughes 

Brian And Susan Hunter 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-29

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Sonia Huttner-Perekovic 

Phyllis Inloes 

Dan L. And L. Lorene Jackson 

Alexis Skriloff James 

Betty Jamison 

Harlan and Carla Jirges 

William W. Johnstone 

Charles Jonaitis 

Ceph C. Jones 

Sue Juintunen 

Bryan Kary 

Diana Kaye 

Anna Mae Keenan 

Peter Kugler 

Jerry Kuntz 

Joseph Kurkowski 

John L. Lancaster 

Dennis P. Law 

Thomas J. & Sherry Ann Leman 

Michael Letendre 

Gary Lyons 

David Mackenzie 

Troy Madsen 

Rev. Marlena Mallner 

Martha Manke 

Ruth F Mankin 

James Mantz 

O Markle 

Albert Marra, Jr. 

Earl Martin 

Steve Martinson 

David Martoccia 

Robert D. Maxwell 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-30

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Ryan J May 

Charles McCarthy 

Dan McCormack 

Matthew McGuire 

Francis McInnis 

Kevin Metz 

Shirley Meyer 

Barbara Michelman 

John J. And Jo Ann Milne 

Irene Moffett 

Robert Molthen 

Tye S. Moore 

Adrienne Morse 

Blair Newman 

Thomas J. Noonan 

Cynthia Ogburn 

Michaela Oldfield 

David Orbe 

Linda Ostendorf 

Michael H. Palmer 

Tim Paschke 

Greg & Marjorie Pope 

Olga Potapova 

Grace Rea 

Brook And Kristin L. Redd 

Richard Redland 

Wade H. Reeves 

William D Reeves 

Alan Reishus 

Gloria Rico 

Carly Risher 

Merl Rissler 

William Roney 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-31

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Michael H. Rood 

Samantha Rosa-Re 

William Rothwell 

Ralph Rucker 

Kim Rudnick 

Keith Seifert 

Michael J. Shaaf 

Norm & Irene Shorb 

Robert Simpson 

Barton Smith 

Roger and Grace Smith 

Diana Smythe 

Glenn & Laurie Southwick 

Ruth Spano 

Marwin Stafford 

Donald & Robyn Staiger 

Wayne Steinberg 

Zane Stiffler 

Mark A Storzer 

Marilynn Szydlowski 

Suzanne Tate 

Melvin M. & Guadalupe Thidemann 

William Thoren 

Norman Thornton 

Anthony Three Fingers 

E.J. Tillman 

Bret & Candy L. Van Rensselaer 

Wendy Vandergrift 

Jordan Veatch-Goffi 

Doris Vician 

Hal Vosen 

Kristen Walker and Clarke Roberts 

Katharine Clark Roberts 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-32

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

William Watt 

Jon Watts 

Jill Webb 

Sandy Weiss 

Christine Welch-Galvan 

Laurine Welnick 

Anne Julie White 

Sheila Wimer 

Lisa Wimett 

Ralph Woolsey 

Kate Zirpolo 

Landowners

Geraldine Anderson 

Adele & Dorie Barbe, Family Trust 

Robert Berge, 

Carl & Violet Bittenbinder 

David Bleth, Craig Horst 

Sheldon & Robert Bohnhoff 

Ralph E. Brownfield, Brownfield Ranch Inc 

Randy & Gail K Bulkey 

Sonny Burfiend, Hoblit Ranch LLC 

Thomas & Linda Carman 

Doug & Susan Cox, U Bar C Ranch 

Billy E Davis Jr. & Grace Jane Peltier 

Ted Dilse 

Bruce & Lori Dinstel, W Butte Ranch 

Robert W Engstrom 

James A & Nancy H Espy 

Janet K Evans 

Doris E Fischer 

Kerry & Tricia Fitterer 

William & Luella Friedt Trust 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-33

Landowners (continued)

Brian L & Henry HC Fries 

Douglas A & Kerry Gardner 

Leslie P & Sylvia D Gion 

JP Grundhauser Trust 

Dennis & Arlette Gunsch 

William C Hansen Residuary Trust, c/o Veronica Hansen & American State Bank 

 Trustees 

Mike Haupt, State of North Dakota Acting Through the Board of University and School Lands 

Oscar Heinle 

Roy & Florence Heinle 

John & Bernadette Hendrickson 

Walter Hermes 

Pamela D & Donald C Hestekin 

Delano & Margret Ann Hladky 

Sarah Holecek 

Craig M & Vicky Horst 

Peter & Elsie Jacobs 

William Jones 

Donald & Mary Josephine Joslyn 

JoAnn Jung, William J Jung Trust 

Neal H & Ila J Kelner 

Clinton Krause 

Duane R & Doris E Liffrig 

Dee Lillicrap 

Marnee, Wimett & Lisa G Lolley 

Albert, Dale, Duane Luithle 

Anna Luithle 

Jean Luithle 

Lenard & Mary Ann Luithle 

James E & Lavonne C Lutz 

Joseph Machtemes 

Joseph C Maycock 

Mitchel M & Dixie Lea Maycock Trusts 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-34

Landowners (continued)

Francis H & Delila Mayer 

Lee & Carol Mayer Trustees 

Tim & Carla Meuchel 

Tilman Moe, Jr. 

Bruce & Nancy S Morman 

Lyle Narnum 

Robert J & Carole Nies 

Donald Nixon 

Northern Border Pipeline Co. 

Sherman & Marilyn Oakland 

Richard L & Constance Oedekoven, Oedekoven Family Living Trust 

Robert & Connie R Osendorf 

Timothy M. & Alecia J. Perry, 

Carol V Peterson 

Ralph Reed 

Victor A Richards 

Steven R & Janelle M Rieger 

Becky Roloff, Executrix of Elizabeth 

John R & Wilma Rusley, et al 

Dennis & Willa Rustan 

Allen Sayler 

Donald Schantz 

Kevin M & Charlotte Schantz, 

Clara Schatz 

Ernest L & Nancy L Schober 

Sidney T. Sharp, Sharp Ranch 

Dale & Douglas Soderstrom 

Donald Ray & Kathleen C Spellman Trusts 

Donald W & Ronald R Staiger 

Howard C & Alice M Steiner 

Yang Sun, Yang Sun Trust 

Ronald D & Debbie E Talcott 

Laverne Teske 
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-35

Landowners (continued)

S. Thomas Throne, Throne Ranch Company 

Lois Tollefsrud 

Chris H & Chris E Tomford 

Grace Voss, Voss Surface Trust 

Clarence Walth 

Bank of the West 

S Bar Properties LLC 
APPENDIX B 

LISTING OF EXTRA WORKSPACE BY MILEPOST 
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

WY Campbell -0.47 0.36 125' X 125' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.36

-0.43 0.42 368' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & P.I.) 0.20 0.22

-0.38 0.42 300' X 60' EXTRA WORKSPACE (PULLSTRING) 0.42

-0.36 1.47

1250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS)

0.20 1.27

-0.22 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35

-0.16 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.01 0.46

-0.13 1.35

1.35 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & STAGING AREA)

1.35

0.33 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.390.79 0.64 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.64

0.90 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.171.19 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.261.26 0.14 125' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.141.40 0.93 800' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.02 0.91

1.60 0.63

500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.63

2.40 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.362.53 0.30 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.28

2.71 0.14 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.142.78 0.08 70' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.082.82 1.00 350' X 125' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA) 1.002.88 0.40 0.39 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.402.98 0.14 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.143.01 0.13 84' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.133.05 1.61 350' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK 

TURNAROUND)

1.61

3.51 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.383.54 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.02

4.04 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.04

4.22 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.44

4.99 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.295.00 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.01 0.05

5.97 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.02

7.00 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.04

7.43 0.50 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.507.49 0.09 185' X 20' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.097.53 0.44 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.44

WY Campbell 7.75 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.23

8.01 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.198.07 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & GULLY CROSSING) 0.01 0.25

8.37 0.31 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.318.43 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.198.72 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.08 0.21

8.88 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

9.05 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.29

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

B-1
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

9.22 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.299.42 1.09

900' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.05 1.04

9.83 0.66 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.02 0.64

9.97 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.19

10.19 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

10.51 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

10.77 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.01 0.40

11.13 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

11.36 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.35

11.44 0.12 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.01 0.11

11.47 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.17

11.65 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.25

11.78 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.3811.87 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1712.14 0.69 400' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING ACCESS FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING)

0.05 0.41 0.23

12.37 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.29

13.07 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.03 0.40

13.68 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35

13.81 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35

13.89 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.23

13.99 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.41

14.12 0.42 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS) 0.04 0.38

14.21 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.17

14.33 0.72 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.72

14.44 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.17

14.69 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.12 0.37

14.80 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.17

14.93 1.09 950' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, SIDE SLOPE, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS)

0.03 1.06

15.06 0.15

80' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, GULLY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA)

0.15

WY Campbell 15.19 1.07

795' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, GULLY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA)

1.07

15.52 0.57 1000' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.57

15.64 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.35

15.71 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

15.79 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.06 0.29

15.92 0.86 750' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE & FABRICATION AREA) 0.04 0.26 0.56

16.13 0.64 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA) 0.64

16.50 0.70 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.06 0.64

16.54 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.09 0.06

16.78 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

16.81 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.49

16.85 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

B-2
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

16.90 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0916.91 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0916.97 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.10

16.98 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.10

17.15 1.81 1.82 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA, & 

STAGING AREA)

1.81

17.16 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.2017.21 0.05 94' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & RAILROAD CROSSING) 0.05

17.21 0.17 100' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & RAILROAD CROSSING) 0.17

17.28 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK 

TURNAROUND)

0.60 0.13 0.19

17.32 0.56 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., & FABRICATION AREA) 0.5617.32 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.20 0.02 0.0217.38 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1217.39 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1717.46 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1217.46 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.16 0.0117.90 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1217.90 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1718.03 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0918.03 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0918.09 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0918.09 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0918.21 0.61 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.03 0.58

18.24 0.10 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1018.43 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1218.43 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1718.52 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0618.54 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

WY Campbell 18.59 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.06 0.14

18.62 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.05 0.15

18.83 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1118.84 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3619.11 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

19.24 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.23 

19.25 0.54 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.54 

19.41 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.05 0.24

19.44 0.71 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.10 0.61

19.59 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0919.61 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0919.72 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.07 0.22

19.87 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0919.87 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0919.94 0.26

215' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., ACCESS & FABRICATION) AREA

0.26

19.98 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION) AREA 0.1720.13 0.24 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.24

B-3
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

20.15 0.85 700' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.83

20.25 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0620.28 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1120.30 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0720.37 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

20.40 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

20.50 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1220.50 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.3620.60 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1220.63 0.80 700' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.8020.67 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1220.85 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.3520.86 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.00 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE 

SLOPE)

0.43

21.01 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.2121.08 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD 

CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.11

21.09 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD 

CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.02 0.19 0.02

21.21 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

21.32 1.10 950' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 1.1021.39 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.48 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.01 0.09 0.02

WY Campbell 21.53 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

21.53 1.10 950' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 1.1021.57 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.63 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.72 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1221.78 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.04 0.0821.90 3.36 2900' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE, ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.15 1.10 2.11

21.95 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.07 0.07

22.13 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.08 0.19

22.26 0.55 950' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.55

22.38 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

22.39 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 0.34 

22.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.55 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.60 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.62 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

22.96 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.43 

22.97 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.29 

23.11 0.46 800' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & P.I.) 0.46 

B-4
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

23.23 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.04 0.28 

23.25 0.69 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.05 0.64 

23.31 0.27 470' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.27 

23.34 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

23.47 0.48 850' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, & P.I.) 0.48 

23.53 1.46 1.46 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, P.I., ROAD CROSSING, 

ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA)

0.08 1.38

23.68 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.05 0.09

23.83 0.48 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.4823.85 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.2324.16 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.44

24.18 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.22

24.42 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS)

0.35

24.43 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1224.53 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1524.53 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1824.60 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.1724.62 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA) 0.03 0.43

WY Campbell 24.88 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.20 

24.89 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.41 

25.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

25.13 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

25.18 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

25.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

25.24 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

25.59 6.19 3620' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, SIDE SLOPE & P.I.) 6.19 

25.84 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

25.93 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.12 

25.96 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.12 

26.07 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

26.09 0.51 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS) 0.02 0.49 

26.14 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13 

26.30 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.28 

26.31 0.35 600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.34 

26.43 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.02 0.22 

26.49 1.27 1100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.23 1.04 

26.65 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23 26.66 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23 26.80 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.15 26.80 0.52 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.52 26.91 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.24 26.92 0.25 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.25 27.02 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.05 0.27 

27.13 3.35 1930' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & 

SIDE SLOPE)

0.25 3.10

27.31 0.38 650' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.07 0.31 

B-5
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

27.36 0.56 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.56 

27.50 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3527.60 0.43 250' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.01 0.42

27.66 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.01 0.11 0

27.71 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 027.86 2.59 1465' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.93 1.56 028.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0928.08 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0928.22 3.02 1755' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 2.22 0.8028.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

28.43 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0928.54 1.69 885' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS, FABRICATION AREA, SIDE SLOPE, WATERBODY 

CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING)

1.69

WY Campbell 28.60 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 0.10

28.69 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.26 0.1229.06 6.33 3720' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS, FABRICATION AREA, SIDE SLOPE, WATERBODY 

CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING)

0.14 6.19

29.10 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.01 0.11

29.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08 0

29.47 0.30

100' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE)

0.30

29.47 0.24 410' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.24

29.57 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

29.70 3.16

1800' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE)

3.16

29.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.00 0.42 714' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FOREIGN 

LINE CROSSING)

0.06 0.36

30.00 0.45 775' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.06 0.39

30.11 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.60 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.62 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.69 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

30.83 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.06 0.14 

30.85 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.07 0.13 

30.94 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

30.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

31.00 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

31.01 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

31.40 3.94 2250' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.08 3.86 

31.61 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

31.66 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.03 0.06 

31.75 2.02 1175' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.12 1.90 

31.85 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

31.91 0.14 225' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.14 

B-6
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

31.92 0.63 365' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.63 

31.98 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

32.06 1.40 800' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 1.40

32.18 0.23

400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.05 0.18

32.19 0.23

400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.04 0.19

32.40 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

32.41 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

WY Campbell 32.46 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

32.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

32.59 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

32.59 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

33.01 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.04 0.13 

33.01 0.89 1550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & SIDE SLOPE) 0.12 0.04 0.73 

33.18 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.38

33.20 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

33.30 0.42 725' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.42

33.38 0.13 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.13

33.39 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.39

33.47 0.40 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.05 0.3533.99 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1733.99 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

34.13 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1234.13 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1734.44 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.01 0.11 

34.44 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

34.49 1.00 1.00 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.00

34.51 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

34.54 1.00 1.00 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 0.89 0.11 

34.55 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10 

34.71 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26 

34.87 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.20

34.89 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

34.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

34.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

36.16 0.43

750' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & P.I.)

0.04 0.01 0.33 0.05

36.16 0.90 775' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.18 0.01 0.71

37.00 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

37.00 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

37.09 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20

37.09 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.14 0.1237.77 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.05 0.01 0.0837.77 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.05 0.01 0.08

B-7
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

37.90 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11 0.1237.91 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1738.01 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

WY Campbell 38.01 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

38.43 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.02 0.17 0.24

38.46 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.01 0.07 0.06

39.13 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3539.13 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1239.65 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.07 0.02 0.2039.87 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1739.87 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1240.21 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.03 0.09

40.21 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.05 0.36

40.49 0.44 0.44 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 0.23 0.21

40.52 0.50 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.05 0.45

40.60 1.36

1.36 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

1.36

40.60 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.1241.33 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.02 0.15

41.34 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.07 0.10

41.54 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1741.54 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1241.65 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1241.66 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1741.81 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1241.81 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1741.88 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1241.88 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1742.09 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1242.09 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1742.32 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1242.34 0.35 600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3542.37 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1242.46 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1242.46 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.05 0.12

42.61 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.13 0.01

42.63 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.21 0.02

42.92 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.2942.93 0.57 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.5743.18 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1143.26 1.35 1185' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I., 

WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.09 1.26

43.50 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.36 

43.88 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35 

WY Campbell 44.07 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.47 

44.23 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.17 

B-8
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

44.35 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35 

44.56 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.02 0.02 

44.93 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.17 0.0144.93 0.76 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.74 0.0245.28 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.3245.31 0.41 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.4145.38 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.2545.42 0.31 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY 

CROSSING)

0.31

45.44 0.18 140' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY 

CROSSING)

0.18

45.56 0.92 800' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, FABRICATION AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

WATERBODY CROSSING)

0.07 0.85

45.56 0.43 750' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.02 0.41

46.03 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

46.04 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

46.18 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

46.20 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.24

46.26 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

46.27 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

46.49 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.39

46.51 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

47.05 0.70 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.68

47.05 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

47.45 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.03 0.26

47.46 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.01 0.08

47.51 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

47.52 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

47.58 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.09

47.59 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.23

47.64 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

47.66 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

47.78 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.47

47.80 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.26

47.90 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17

47.92 0.70 575' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING P.I. & ACCESS) 0.01 0.69

48.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09

48.21 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09

48.26 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09

WY Campbell 48.27 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09

48.49 0.74 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.03 0.71

48.52 0.88 750' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.11 0.77

48.63 0.33 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.33

48.65 0.27 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.27

48.78 0.16 275' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.03 0.05 0.08

B-9
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

48.79 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.05 0.02 0.07

48.85 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0948.86 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0948.95 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

48.97 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.01 0.13

49.49 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.2349.50 0.53 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.5349.71 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.2949.72 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.2949.94 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.06 0.11 0.12

50.28 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.03 0.38

50.31 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.01 0.25

50.48 1.84 1050' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING, P.I., WATERBODY 

CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

1.84

50.54 0.49 850' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

WETLAND CROSSING)

0.49

50.66 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

50.77 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

50.93 4.85 2850' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, P.I., SIDE 

SLOPE FABRICATION AREA, ACCESS & GULLY CROSSING)

0.02 4.83

51.18 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

51.24 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

51.38 2.87 1665' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, SIDE SLOPE, FABRICATION AREA & 

GULLY CROSSING)

2.87

51.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

51.60 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

51.81 4.25 2485' X 75' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, SIDE SLOPE, FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS)

0.03 4.22

52.08 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.03 0.17

52.15 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

52.16 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

52.29 0.33 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.33

52.32 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.11 0

52.36 0.98 0.98 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

0.98

52.41 0.53 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.53

52.61 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.39

WY Campbell 52.67 0.15 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.15

52.78 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.47

52.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

53.04 0.51 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.03 0.32 0.16

53.06 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

53.24 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.1753.24 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0953.30 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0953.31 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0953.44 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0953.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09

B-10
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

53.52 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0953.57 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.2453.58 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1254.70 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1754.70 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1255.20 0.32 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.02 0.02 0.28 

55.21 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.01 0.08 

55.28 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11 

55.29 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

55.37 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

55.38 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

55.71 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

55.73 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

55.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

55.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.09 

55.91 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1255.91 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1756.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0956.21 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0956.25 0.30 255' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.30

56.26 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.0656.35 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1856.36 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.2656.47 0.45 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.01 0.44

56.47 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1056.61 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1156.67 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1157.42 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.3857.63 0.23 185' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.23

WY Campbell 57.68 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.18

57.97 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3558.10 0.34 600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.09 0

58.30 0.11 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.07 058.35 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.03 0.32

58.38 0.11 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 0.09

58.42 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.03 0.16 0

58.56 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 0.18 0

58.64 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.3458.66 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.1558.77 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.2358.81 0.46 800' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.36 058.85 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1258.99 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1259.00 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36 059.05 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.10 0

B-11
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

59.05 0.21 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 059.15 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.05 059.18 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0

59.19 0.72 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0

59.23 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0

59.37 0.32 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3259.40 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.2159.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0659.45 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0659.45 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0659.56 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.0959.65 1.29 1100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 1.01 060.15 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.4660.50 0.72 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.72

60.64 0.41

350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, P.I. & ACCESS)

0.41

61.10 0.50 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.01 0.49

61.23 0.27 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.05 0.22

61.33 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3561.53 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3762.20 0.88 750' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.58 062.49 2.30 2000' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.08 2

62.92 0.87 750' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND 

CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA)

0.14 0.73

62.92 0.31 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07 0.24 

WY Campbell 63.03 0.07 70' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.07 

63.10 0.11 300' X 15' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.11 

63.23 0.28 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.2863.44 0.63 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.6363.72 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1763.81 0.60 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & ACCESS)

0.03 0.57

63.85 0.19 315' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.02 0.17

63.89 0.14 110' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.03 0.11

63.92 0.11 0.11 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.10 0.01

64.04 0.27 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.2764.27 0.59 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.5964.32 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.0964.37 0.60 0.60 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.18 0.42

64.44 0.13 110' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.1364.51 2.46 2.46 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA, 

STAGING AREA & SPREAD BREAK)

2.46

64.73 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26

64.95 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.3565.06 0.57 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND 

CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.57

65.77 0.58 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.58

B-12
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

66.07 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.2966.25 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1766.31 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1766.43 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1766.49 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1966.94 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1967.01 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1767.08 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.2967.31 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.4767.57 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.4667.68 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1767.74 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1767.80 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1867.86 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1768.15 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.3568.22 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1768.57 2.04 3563' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 2.0468.92 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1769.02 0.26 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.26

WY Campbell 69.07 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.17

69.13 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3569.26 0.63 1099' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.6369.40 0.59 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.5969.56 0.39 250' X 60' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.3969.67 0.55 950' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.01 0.54

70.22 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1770.28 0.07 150' X 20' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.0770.87 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.2570.99 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1871.14 1.37 1.37 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

0.11 1.26

71.24 1.14 1.14 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.1471.93 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1171.98 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.2472.02 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND & P.I.) 0.9272.06 1.15 250' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 1.15

72.45 1.15 250' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 1.15 

72.49 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92 

72.67 1.93

1637' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & SIDE SLOPE)

1.93

73.03 0.79 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.79 73.36 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.11

73.40 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.11

73.54 0.40 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.04 0.36

73.76 0.21 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.21 

73.84 0.21 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.04 0.17 

B-13
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

73.95 0.70 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.70 

74.09 0.68

550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.14 0.54

74.49 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.4774.60 0.09 80' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0974.66 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.24 

74.82 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35 

75.22 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.2075.30 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1775.77 1.78 1550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 1.78 

75.93 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.9275.97 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1876.36 4.13 8700' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 4.13 

76.89 1.64 1425' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 1.6477.19 1.49 1300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 1.49

WY Campbell 77.52 1.78 1550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 1.78 

77.76 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3577.80 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.9278.29 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.3478.42 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1178.48 0.12 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1278.57 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1178.62 0.13 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1379.14 0.13 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.1379.22 0.61

250' X 100' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, & FABRICATION AREA)

0.61

234.39 Total Acres - Campbell County, WY 7.61 0.13 6.67 125.85 89.14 4

MT Powder River 79.27 0.12 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.12

79.32 0.32 280' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.3279.45 0.47

350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.26 0.06 0.15

79.84 0.62 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, & P.I.) 0.03 0.33 0

80.00 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0

80.04 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0

80.13 0.06 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0

80.18 0.61 525' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.32 0

80.28 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1980.69 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1780.78 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.17 81.90 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.14 0.01 0.14 

82.14 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.14 0.02 0.1382.42 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

82.45 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1082.56 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1282.57 0.41 0.41 ACRES ODD SHAPE' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING 

& P.I.)

0.41

82.72 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD 

CROSSING, & ACCESS)

0.03 0.26

B-14
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

82.73 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD 

CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.)

0.03 0.26

82.86 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & P.I.)

0.26

82.92 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1282.98 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0983.02 0.22 325' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.2283.05 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0983.11 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0983.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

MT Powder River 83.48 0.19 200' X 35' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.19

83.59 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.13 083.59 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1283.88 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1783.88 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1284.00 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.06 084.01 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.05 084.16 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18 084.17 0.92 800' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & P.I.)

0.54 0

84.26 0.07 125' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0784.33 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.05 0.1884.36 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15 0.1484.38 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1784.64 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3684.65 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1284.82 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.13 084.82 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.01 0.03 0.17 0.13 085.14 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.14 085.18 0.44 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.30 085.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0

85.30 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0

85.35 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0

85.35 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0

85.42 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0

85.92 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0

85.93 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0

86.16 1.29 2250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.31 0

86.41 0.03

50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE)

0

86.47 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE) 0.09 0

86.54 0.11 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11

86.56 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3586.73 0.12 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1286.78 0.12 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1287.01 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

87.07 0.14 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.14

B-15
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

87.13 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1187.70 1.97 2.0 ACRES ODD SHAPE EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.97

87.79 1.47 1.37 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.4787.88 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

MT Powder River 87.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

88.06 0.65 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, & P.I.) 0.6588.08 0.19 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.1988.27 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1288.27 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1788.37 0.19

325' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.01 0.18

88.39 0.19

325' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.01 0.18

88.46 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0688.48 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0688.55 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1288.55 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3688.75 0.11 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.1188.80 0.64 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.64

21.39 Total Acres - Powder River County, MT 1.40 0.25 15.39 0.27 4

MT Carter 88.99 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.20

89.60 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3589.65 0.25 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.2589.66 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.01 0.14

89.71 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.0989.73 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.01 0.09

89.96 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.1889.98 0.42 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.4290.02 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.05 0.01

90.04 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.2990.15 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1590.27 0.08 20' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.03 0.05

90.34 0.53 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.5390.51 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3691.03 0.22 0.22 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 0.13

91.04 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

91.10 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.21

91.15 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.0991.17 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.0991.32 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0691.33 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0691.37 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0691.37 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0691.51 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.0991.52 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.1891.55 0.11 190' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.01 0.10

B-16
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

MT Carter 91.60 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.49

92.64 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.1892.67 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.01 0.16

92.79 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

92.88 0.37

300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, P.I., ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.03 0.25 0.09

93.42 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35

93.84 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & P.I.)

0.35

93.94 0.12 80' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1294.01 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1894.10 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3594.76 0.21 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.2194.84 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1795.18 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1795.25 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.1895.34 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.9295.40 0.71 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.10 0.61

95.41 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & P.I.) 0.02 0.07

95.93 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35 

96.05 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.35

96.24 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.3596.49 0.19 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1996.54 0.09 75' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0996.59 0.17 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1797.08 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.2397.16 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.0997.16 0.55

460' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.55

97.23 0.65 195' X 145' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.65 

97.28 0.18 315' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.18 97.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 97.39 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 97.47 0.52 900' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.52 97.56 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

97.63 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

97.70 0.46 800' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.46 97.77 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 97.81 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 97.85 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.26 97.90 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 97.95 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

MT Carter 97.99 0.40 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.40 

98.04 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 98.10 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 98.17 0.50

875' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING)

0.50

B-17
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

98.24 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

98.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.33 0.30 525' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.3098.37 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.41 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.47 0.43 750' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.4398.56 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.59 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.61 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0698.72 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0998.72 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0998.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.0998.80 0.43

350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.02 0.41

98.93 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0998.94 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1798.99 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1799.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0999.41 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.1199.45 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0699.45 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.0699.73 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.2199.73 0.75 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.7599.78 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.06

100.34 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.03

100.42 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03 0.06

100.43 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.17

100.48 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.02 0.07

100.50 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.19

100.61 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.01 0.05

100.88 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.04

100.89 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

100.93 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.01 0.05

100.93 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

101.11 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.20

101.14 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.01 0.05

MT Carter 101.17 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

101.21 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.02 0.04

101.41 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.06

101.50 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

101.77 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.06

101.82 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

101.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09

102.24 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

102.24 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

102.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

B-18
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

102.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

102.63 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

102.64 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

102.69 0.05 80' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

102.69 0.10 175' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.10

102.73 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

102.75 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

102.95 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

102.95 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

103.30 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.38 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.55 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.56 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.60 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.61 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

103.81 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

103.82 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

103.87 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

103.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

104.08 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

104.09 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

104.33 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

104.35 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

104.39 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

104.39 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

104.64 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

104.65 1.35 1.3 ACRES ODD SHAPE EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.35

104.70 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

MT Carter 104.73 1.12 1.1 ACRES ODD SHAPE EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.12

105.57 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

105.58 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

105.65 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.25

105.68 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

105.75 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.41

105.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.09

105.94 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

105.94 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

106.02 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

106.04 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

106.07 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

106.08 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

106.53 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA) 0.01 0.42

106.54 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.29

B-19
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

106.68 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

106.68 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

107.73 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

107.74 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

107.92 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.23

107.92 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.29

108.00 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.23

108.02 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.23

108.30 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

108.47 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.23

108.49 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

108.53 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

108.57 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

108.65 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

108.65 0.57 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.57

108.75 0.27 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.27

108.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

108.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

108.86 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

109.35 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

109.36 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

109.46 0.60 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.60

109.47 0.48 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE & P.I.) 0.48

109.69 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

109.69 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

MT Carter 109.74 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

109.75 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

110.23 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.07

110.27 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

110.32 0.40 330' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & P.I.)

0.40

110.35 0.15 240' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING, P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.15

110.41 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

110.43 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.01 0.08

110.67 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

110.69 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.19 0.02

110.75 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

110.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

110.86 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

110.88 0.09 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

110.94 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.20

110.99 0.24 385' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.24

111.04 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

111.09 0.27 225' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.08 0.19

111.10 0.11 175' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.11

B-20
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

111.20 0.22

380' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.22

111.22 0.35

600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.35

111.29 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.18

111.30 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

111.54 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.18

111.58 0.03 50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03

111.68 0.48 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.48

111.69 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15

111.97 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

111.98 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.01 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.02 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.16 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

112.16 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

112.51 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

112.54 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.54 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.58 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

112.59 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

MT Carter 113.20 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

113.21 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

113.25 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

113.25 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

113.80 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

113.80 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

114.14 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.14

114.16 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

114.18 0.64 0.64 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND, WATERBODY CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA)

0.64

114.22 0.14 225' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.14

114.23 0.40 340' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.40

114.31 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.12

114.33 0.03 50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03

114.38 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.18

114.39 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12

114.41 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P..I. & TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

114.51 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.17

114.52 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

114.57 0.17 290' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.17

114.77 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.23

114.79 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.06 0.01 0.22114.87 0.24 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20 0.04

114.90 0.86 0.86 ACRE ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, P.I., 

FABRICATION AREA & STAGING AREA)

0.86

115.12 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

B-21
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

115.12 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING,) 0.06

115.17 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING,) 0.06

115.17 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

115.42 0.21 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.03 0.18

115.47 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20

115.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

115.56 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

116.01 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

116.01 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

116.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

116.30 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

116.44 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.23

116.44 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.32

116.56 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA, ACCESS & P.I.)

0.02 0.34

MT Carter 116.57 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (PI.I, WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

116.70 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.34 

116.71 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.18

116.89 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.08 0.02 0.16 0.03 

118.09 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.35 

118.10 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12 

118.18 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17 

118.19 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17 

118.26 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

118.27 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

118.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

118.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

118.54 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

118.54 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.02 0.41118.69 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26118.98 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

118.99 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

119.16 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12

119.17 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.36

119.23 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.06

119.27 0.56 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.56

119.28 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

119.89 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

119.90 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

119.94 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

119.94 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

120.30 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29 

121.61 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07 

121.63 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.29 

121.70 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

121.74 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20 

B-22
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

121.82 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

122.39 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07 

122.40 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23 

122.49 0.30 520' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.30 

122.49 0.40 330' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.40 

122.57 0.05 75' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.05 

122.61 0.07 65' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07 

122.66 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11 

122.67 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.24 

MT Carter 123.23 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.20

123.23 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.14

123.29 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

P.I.)

0.36

123.32 0.69 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I., & FABRICATION AREA) 0.69 

123.38 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

123.47 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

123.47 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

123.73 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, & FABRICATION AREA) 0.19 

123.76 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

123.80 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

123.81 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

124.04 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

124.04 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

124.26 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND 

CROSSING)

0.35

124.26 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.12 

124.36 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.35 

124.37 0.06 75' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.06 

124.55 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

124.55 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

124.77 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.06 0.23 124.82 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.06 0.23 124.84 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92 

125.34 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

125.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

125.39 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

125.40 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

127.11 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.01 0.28 127.44 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

127.44 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

127.63 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

127.63 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

128.19 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

128.20 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.18

128.27 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

128.32 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

128.33 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

B-23
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

128.41 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

128.41 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

128.77 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

128.77 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

MT Carter 128.81 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

128.82 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

129.09 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

129.13 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

129.17 0.69 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.69

129.22 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

129.29 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20

129.39 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

129.41 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

129.44 0.90 195' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.90

129.66 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

129.66 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

129.81 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23 0.03

129.86 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

129.91 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

129.93 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

130.25 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

130.26 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

130.30 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

130.32 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

130.46 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.04 0.02

130.49 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.04 0.02

130.57 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

130.58 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

131.24 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

131.25 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23

131.62 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23 

131.64 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.23 

132.00 1.04 1.0 ACRE ODD SHAPE EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.04 

132.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

132.05 1.04 1.0 ACRE ODD SHAPE EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.04 

132.06 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

133.07 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

133.08 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23 

133.14 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

133.15 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

133.57 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29 

133.70 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

133.70 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

133.74 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

MT Carter 133.74 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

B-24
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

134.59 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

134.63 0.19 325' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.19 

134.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09 

134.90 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, P.I., & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.37 

134.97 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.36 

135.05 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

135.06 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

135.24 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

135.26 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

135.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.02 0.04

135.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

135.68 0.90 200' X 195' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA) 0.90

135.72 0.24 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND 

CROSSING)

0.24

135.78 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.14

135.88 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & GULLY 

CROSSING)

0.01 0.25

135.88 0.27 475' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & GULLY 

CROSSING)

0.27

135.96 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.01 0.05

135.96 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.02 0.04

135.99 0.91 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.91

136.10 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

136.11 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

136.18 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12

136.21 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, & P.I.) 0.26

136.43 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

136.44 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

136.49 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

136.50 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

136.97 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.00 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.03 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.05 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.13 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.14 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.18 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.20 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.30 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.35 0.22 380' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.22 

MT Carter 137.41 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

137.55 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.09 0.20 

138.41 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92 

138.46 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34 

138.53 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

B-25
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

138.57 0.04 75' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.04 

138.58 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09 

138.62 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

138.65 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09 

138.65 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92 

138.94 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

138.94 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

138.98 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

138.99 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

140.18 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34 

140.20 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

140.26 0.08 140' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08 

140.34 0.21 360' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.21 

140.40 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11 

140.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

141.60 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.24 

141.60 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING) 0.29 

141.64 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

141.65 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

141.79 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

141.79 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11 

141.83 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

141.83 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

142.06 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06 

142.06 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA & GULLY CROSSING) 0.11 

142.12 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.12 

142.13 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.36 

142.25 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

142.25 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

142.52 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26 143.01 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

143.02 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36 

143.21 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14 

143.22 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14 

MT Carter 143.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

143.31 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36 

143.77 0.79 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, GULLY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.64 0.02 0.13 

143.79 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.12

143.86 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

143.89 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

144.20 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

144.24 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

144.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

144.33 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

144.34 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

B-26
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

144.37 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

145.25 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

145.25 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

145.50 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

145.50 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

145.64 0.48

400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING)

0.14 0.04 0.08 0.22

145.64 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12

145.71 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

145.77 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.02 0.18

145.78 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 0.10

145.87 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14

145.90 0.72 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.70146.60 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

146.60 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

146.69 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23

146.69 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23

147.27 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

147.29 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

147.36 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

147.39 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

147.84 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.14 0.03 0.12

147.92 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

147.92 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

148.28 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.03 0.09

148.28 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.06 0.11

148.45 1.59 1.59 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.58 0.01

148.48 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

148.56 1.13 1.13 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 0.98 0.15

MT Carter 148.57 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

149.12 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

149.15 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

149.23 0.08 135' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

149.25 0.05 90' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

149.30 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

149.31 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

149.53 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

149.53 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.06 0.06

149.67 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

149.69 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

149.87 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

149.87 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

150.49 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.26 0.03

150.71 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

150.72 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

B-27
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

150.75 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

150.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

151.62 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

151.64 0.60 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.60

151.69 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

151.74 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

151.76 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

151.98 0.42 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.02 0.40

152.02 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.05 0.18

152.07 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.10 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.52 0.05 90' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.53 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.56 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.58 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

152.88 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.15 0.03

152.91 0.54 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.54

153.00 0.28 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.28

153.00 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

153.08 0.25 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.25

153.10 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

153.44 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

153.44 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

153.52 0.40 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.40

MT Carter 153.52 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.23

153.71 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

153.73 0.40 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.40

153.79 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

153.79 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

153.85 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.17

153.85 0.15 270' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.15

153.91 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

153.91 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

154.07 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.05 0.24

154.15 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.37

154.19 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

154.22 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

154.24 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

154.29 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

154.29 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.16 0.01

154.47 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

154.47 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.08

154.53 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

154.54 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.04 0.04

154.63 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.49

B-28
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

154.65 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.08 0.10

154.71 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

154.73 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

154.89 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

154.90 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

155.24 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

155.24 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

155.28 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

155.28 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

155.54 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07

155.55 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.46

155.62 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

155.67 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

155.67 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

156.35 0.43

350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA)

0.10 0.03 0.30

156.39 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

156.43 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.01 0.04156.44 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.04 0.01

157.16 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

MT Carter 157.16 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

157.20 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03 0.02

157.20 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.01 0.04

157.44 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

157.45 0.31 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.31

157.50 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15

157.51 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12

157.69 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.05 0.04

157.71 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.36

157.80 0.35 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.35

157.83 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

157.88 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

157.88 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

159.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

159.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

159.24 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.09

159.24 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12

159.65 1.26 1100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE & FABRICATION AREA) 1.26

159.66 0.60 1050' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 0.60

160.38 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

160.38 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.29

160.43 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

160.46 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

160.81 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23

160.82 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08

B-29
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

160.87 1.33 1.33 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

0.34 0.99

160.88 0.40 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.40

161.01 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.29

161.02 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

161.08 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

161.09 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

161.67 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27

161.86 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

161.86 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

162.08 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

162.09 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

162.26 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

162.26 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

162.48 0.33 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.33

MT Carter 162.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

162.58 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.23 

162.61 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.08 

163.16 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.46 

163.16 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.46 

163.93 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

164.17 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

164.18 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

164.48 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.20

164.51 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

164.56 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

164.57 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

164.66 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.20

164.67 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.08

164.74 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.14

164.79 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.18

164.81 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

165.09 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

165.13 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.26

165.16 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

165.27 0.48 825' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.48

165.29 0.41 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.41

165.40 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.40 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

165.43 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

165.46 0.04 75' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.04

165.48 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.52 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.53 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.66 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.73 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

B-30
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

165.76 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

165.78 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

166.25 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

166.26 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

166.50 0.72 650' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.72

166.53 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

166.70 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

166.74 0.81 700' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.07 0.74

166.77 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11 0.01

MT Carter 167.69 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

167.72 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

167.74 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

167.78 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

168.65 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.46

168.68 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03 0.02

168.75 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.24

168.80 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07

127.59 Total Acres - Carter County, MT 18.78 1.24 61.27 46.30

MT Fallon 169.72 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23

169.74 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

169.79 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07

169.81 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

170.26 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12

170.28 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

170.32 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

170.35 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND & P.I.) 0.92

170.35 0.22 375' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.22

170.38 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.06

170.44 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07

170.48 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

170.51 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.06

170.58 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

170.58 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

170.69 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

170.72 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

170.76 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

171.56 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

171.57 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

171.61 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

171.61 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

172.14 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

172.17 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

172.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

172.27 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.23

172.28 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

B-31
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

172.36 0.59 500' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.59

172.38 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

172.46 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

172.46 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

MT Fallon 172.71 1.55 1.56 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.55

172.78 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

172.82 0.75 0.75 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 0.75

172.84 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

173.38 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.18

173.39 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

173.43 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.02 0.03

173.44 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.02 0.03

173.78 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.24

173.79 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

173.84 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

173.86 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

173.95 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.24

173.98 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

174.05 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.14

174.13 0.38 650' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.38

174.21 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

174.24 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

174.31 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

174.32 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

174.78 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

174.79 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

174.82 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

174.83 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

175.07 0.54 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS & P.I.) 0.06 0.48175.09 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.02 0.10175.50 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

175.69 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.08 0.04

175.69 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 0.05

10.83 Total Acres - Fallon County, MT 4.99 0.08 2.60 3.16

ND Bowman 175.89 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

175.89 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

176.00 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.24

176.10 0.55 950' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.55

176.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

176.26 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

176.26 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

176.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

176.37 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

176.40 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

ND Bowman 176.43 0.10 175' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.10

B-32
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

176.46 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

176.47 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

176.77 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14

176.78 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14

176.90 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.35 

176.91 0.07 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07

176.98 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

176.98 0.20 170' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.20

177.05 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

177.09 0.22 190' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.22

177.18 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

177.20 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

177.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

177.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

177.83 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17 

177.84 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12 

178.14 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.12 178.14 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.12 178.29 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

178.34 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

178.41 0.10 170' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.10 

178.42 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.20 

178.49 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

178.50 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

178.70 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

178.70 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

178.82 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

178.83 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

178.88 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

178.88 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

179.00 0.34 600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.34 

179.02 0.65 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.65 

179.11 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.04 0.22 

179.12 0.07 200' X 15' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.07 

179.27 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14 

179.27 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14 

179.53 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17 

179.54 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

179.58 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

ND Bowman 179.59 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

179.87 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.25 

179.89 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.30 

179.93 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

179.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

180.30 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

B-33
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

180.31 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

180.35 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

180.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

180.42 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17 

180.42 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

180.52 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09 

180.57 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11 

180.64 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.30 

180.69 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.10 

181.10 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.29 

181.21 1.40 300' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA, STAGING AREA & 

SPREAD BREAK)

1.40

181.28 1.38 300' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA, STAGING AREA & 

SPREAD BREAK)

1.38

181.31 0.23 175' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23 

181.38 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.43 

181.41 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.37 

181.49 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

181.49 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.18 

181.57 0.41 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.41 

181.58 0.16 275' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.16 

181.65 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

181.66 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

181.69 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

181.69 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 

181.81 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

181.81 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

181.86 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

181.86 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05 

182.15 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

182.16 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

182.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

182.21 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

182.31 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36 

182.32 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

ND Bowman 182.49 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92 

182.53 1.15 250' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 0.28 0.87 

182.87 1.15 250' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 1.15 

182.91 0.09 0.09 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 

182.94 1.22 1.22 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 1.22 

182.96 0.25 0.25 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 

183.04 2.19 1590' X 60' EXTRA WORKSPACE (PULL STRING) 2.19 

183.22 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.10 0.02 

183.23 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.23 0.14 

183.31 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.30

183.33 0.96 0.96 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.96

B-34
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

183.34 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

183.39 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.29

183.42 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

184.08 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.16 0.10

184.08 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & GULLY CROSSING) 0.16 0.10

184.17 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.05

184.24 0.43 725' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & GULLY CROSSING) 0.43

184.26 0.79 700' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, ACCESS & P.I.) 0.11 0.05 0.63

184.99 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.05 0.01 0.08

185.00 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.12

185.35 0.61 1050' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.61

185.39 0.75 1300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.75

185.48 0.39 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.39

185.57 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

185.57 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

185.83 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

185.83 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.31 0.05

186.18 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.39

186.20 0.17 350' X 20' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

187.23 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.38

187.25 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.25

187.38 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

187.39 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

187.50 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

187.52 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.17

187.56 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

187.58 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

187.64 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.14 0.12

ND Bowman 188.46 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.12 0.02

188.47 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.13 0.01

188.66 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.20

188.69 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.20

188.79 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.25

188.84 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.20

188.91 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

188.91 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

189.08 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.03 0.26

189.09 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.01 0.13189.15 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

189.17 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

189.50 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

189.51 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

189.63 1.07 925' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE & WATERBODY CROSSING) 1.07

B-35
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

189.64 0.91 775' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE, WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.91

189.76 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

189.76 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

190.05 1.00 850' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & SIDE SLOPE) 1.00

190.06 1.17 1000' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., SIDE SLOPE & FABRICATION AREA) 1.17

190.24 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.25190.31 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23

190.31 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

190.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

190.38 0.10 170' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.10

190.43 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

190.44 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

190.62 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

190.63 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

190.67 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

190.69 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

190.88 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

190.88 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

190.97 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

190.98 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

191.02 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

191.04 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

191.10 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

191.11 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

ND Bowman 191.14 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

191.18 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.15 

191.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06 

191.27 0.11 185' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11 

191.38 0.50 850' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.50 

191.45 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.49 

191.54 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37 

191.55 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

192.08 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.21 0.02

192.12 0.92

800' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.64 0.03 0.13 0.12

192.15 0.40 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.30 0.10

192.47 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07 0.10

192.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

192.54 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

192.54 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

192.65 1.10 1.10 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.10

192.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

192.72 1.10 1.10 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.10

192.73 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

192.79 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

B-36
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

192.80 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

193.21 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

193.22 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

193.25 0.18 115' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.18

193.32 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

193.33 0.04 70' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.04

193.35 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

193.74 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.04 0.01 0.09

193.75 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.04 0.01 0.09

194.11 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

194.11 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.26

194.33 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

194.33 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

194.41 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

194.42 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

194.48 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.24

194.48 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

194.55 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.21

194.57 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.37

ND Bowman 195.17 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

195.18 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

196.23 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.27 0.02

196.46 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

196.46 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

196.75 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

196.77 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

196.81 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

196.86 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.14

196.90 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

196.94 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

197.24 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.08 0.01 0.08 

197.26 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.08 0.01 0.08 

197.42 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29 

197.62 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

197.62 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

197.69 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

197.69 0.20 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.20

197.78 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

197.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

198.04 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

198.05 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

198.51 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.29

198.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

198.58 0.07 0.07 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, 

WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.07

B-37
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

198.61 0.26 445' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND 

CROSSING)

0.26

198.69 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

198.70 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

198.98 0.31 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.31

199.00 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

199.06 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.08

199.08 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

199.22 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14

199.25 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.14

199.57 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

200.65 0.67 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I.) 0.67

200.65 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.21

200.72 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

200.74 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

ND Bowman 201.36 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

201.37 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

201.45 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

201.46 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

201.60 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

201.60 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

201.88 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

201.97 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

202.03 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

202.08 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.02 0.27202.57 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

202.59 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

202.65 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

202.65 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

203.16 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.02 0.23

203.39 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.02 0.21203.41 0.35 600' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.02 0.33204.17 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

204.18 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

204.22 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

204.22 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

204.51 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

204.51 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.10 0.07

204.67 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

204.68 0.40 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.40

204.78 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.32

204.79 0.23 185' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.23

204.87 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

204.88 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

205.06 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.16 0.13

B-38
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

205.24 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

205.24 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

205.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

205.39 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

205.42 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

205.44 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

205.54 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.12

205.55 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

205.63 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

205.63 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17

ND Bowman 205.70 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.19

205.72 1.48 1.48 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA, TRUCK 

TURNAROUND, & STAGING AREA)

1.48

205.77 0.11 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.11

205.80 0.37

0.37 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING)

0.37

205.85 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.06 0.23

205.86 1.21 1.21 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (RAILROAD CROSSING, TRUCK TURNAROUND, 

FABRICATION AREA & P.I.)

0.22 0.99

206.22 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

206.22 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

206.27 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

206.27 0.05 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.05

206.37 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

206.38 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

206.72 0.49

400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.46 0.03

206.73 0.09 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

206.80 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15

206.83 0.19 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.19

207.61 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

207.62 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

207.72 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.16 0.03 0.10

208.26 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

208.26 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.17

208.34 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

208.35 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

208.76 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

208.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

208.82 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

208.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

210.42 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

210.50 0.40 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.33 0.07

210.59 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

210.78 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

210.78 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

210.97 0.18 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.18

B-39
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

210.98 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

211.03 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15

211.04 0.42 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.42

211.30 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

211.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

ND Bowman 211.81 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

211.86 0.34 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

211.89 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

211.94 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

212.02 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 0.03

212.02 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.07 0.10

212.11 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.30

212.16 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

212.17 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

213.75 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.36

213.75 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

213.82 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

213.86 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.10

214.16 0.92

500' X 80' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & STAGING AREA)

0.92

214.19 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

214.25 0.37 200' X 80' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 0.37

214.26 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.15

214.28 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.25

214.63 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

214.64 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.37

214.68 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

214.73 0.56 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.56

214.75 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

215.32 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.26 0.03

216.29 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

216.45 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

216.45 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 0.08

217.54 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

79.53 Total Acres - Bowman County, ND 19.97 0.66 36.77 22.13

ND Slope 217.55 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.04 0.05 

217.63 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17 

217.68 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11 

217.83 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36 

217.84 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 

218.17 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.09 0.03

218.18 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37

218.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

218.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

218.31 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

B-40
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

ND Slope 218.32 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

218.71 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

218.71 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

218.99 0.48

400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.48

219.02 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.15

219.11 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.11

219.11 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.23

219.60 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS) 0.24 0.13

219.61 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

219.68 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

219.69 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

220.22 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26

220.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

220.38 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

220.41 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

220.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

220.69 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.32 0.02

220.70 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.07 0.02

220.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

220.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

220.96 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

220.96 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

221.13 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.34

221.17 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

221.22 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

221.24 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

221.35 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

221.86 0.31 0.31 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.31

221.94 0.55 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.55

221.98 0.26 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.26

222.12 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11

222.12 1.28 1.28 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, ACCESS, P.I., FABRICATION 

AREA & STAGING AREA)

0.44 0.84

222.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

222.38 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

222.45 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23

222.45 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.32

222.60 0.48 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.47 0.01

222.61 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.19 0.07

222.75 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23

ND Slope 222.75 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.17

222.84 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

222.94 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

222.94 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

224.49 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26

B-41
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

224.63 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

224.65 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

224.68 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

224.69 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

225.41 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.23 0.06

225.49 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

225.50 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

225.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

225.54 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

226.57 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.02 0.47

226.59 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.10

226.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

226.68 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

226.93 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

227.00 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

227.58 1.57 1.57 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.57

227.61 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

227.68 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

227.68 1.14 1.14 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA)

1.14

228.22 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.22 0.07

228.72 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.09 0.02 0.18

228.87 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

228.87 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

228.99 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

229.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

229.79 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

229.81 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

229.86 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.18

229.86 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.12

230.27 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

230.27 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.37

230.36 0.19 310' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ROAD 

CROSSING)

0.19

230.36 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.14

ND Slope 230.41 0.27 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.27

230.45 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

230.48 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

231.00 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

232.08 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

232.10 0.65 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA) 0.65

232.14 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.46

232.43 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

233.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

233.21 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

B-42
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

233.24 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

233.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

233.80 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

233.80 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATI0N AREA) 0.18 0.11

233.91 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.06 0.03

233.92 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

234.77 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

234.77 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

235.01 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

235.02 0.31 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.31

235.16 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

235.18 0.32 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA) 0.32

235.24 0.22 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.22

235.26 0.27 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.27

235.93 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

235.94 0.40 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.40

236.03 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

236.03 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

236.53 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.04 0.23

24.13 Total Acres - Slope County, ND 13.01 0.26 9.46 1.40

ND Hettinger 237.64 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

238.71 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

238.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

238.89 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.17

238.96 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.01 0.08

238.96 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

239.76 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

239.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

239.80 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

239.82 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

ND Hettinger 240.21 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

240.26 0.34 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

240.28 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

240.33 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

240.86 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

240.89 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

240.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

241.71 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

241.71 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

242.22 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

242.22 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

242.33 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.04 0.08

242.34 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.09 0.26

242.42 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.23

242.42 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.15

B-43
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

242.53 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11 0.25

242.53 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

242.72 0.29 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

243.06 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

243.07 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

243.11 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

243.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

244.18 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

244.76 0.14 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.14

244.76 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.29

244.83 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

245.13 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

245.18 0.28 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.28

245.21 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09 0.01

245.23 0.04 50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.04

245.28 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.05 0.05

246.08 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

246.09 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

246.35 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11 0.01

246.36 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ACCESS) 0.35 0.04

246.61 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

246.61 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

247.39 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.25

247.41 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

247.45 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

ND Hettinger 247.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

247.73 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

247.79 0.19 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.19

247.81 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

247.87 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

248.51 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.25 0.04

248.91 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

248.95 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.30

248.97 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

249.01 0.03 50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.03

249.03 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11

249.12 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

249.13 1.02 1.02 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I. & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.88 0.09 0.05

249.29 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.17

249.41 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.38

249.42 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I,) 0.18

250.05 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I,) 0.12

250.05 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I,) 0.17

250.23 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.03 0.26 

B-44
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

250.50 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

250.50 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

250.58 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12

250.58 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.25 0.04

250.65 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, & P.I.) 0.18

250.67 0.25 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.09 0.01 0.15

250.87 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.14 0.01 0.14

251.40 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.37

251.44 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

251.51 0.08 125' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08

251.53 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.43

251.57 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

251.61 0.03 50' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.03

251.77 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ACCESS & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.34

251.77 0.35 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA, WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY 

CROSSING)

0.33 0.02

251.89 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

251.89 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

252.80 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.36

252.83 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

ND Hettinger 252.87 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.15

252.87 0.08

0.08 ACREs ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING)

0.08

253.94 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.02 0.27254.23 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

254.24 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

254.54 0.46 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.46

254.55 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18

254.90 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

254.90 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

255.09 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

255.10 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

255.14 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

255.15 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

255.28 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

255.33 0.16 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.16

255.35 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

255.41 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

255.50 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.10

255.52 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

255.61 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

255.63 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

256.21 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.27 0.02

257.25 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.30

257.33 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

B-45
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

257.33 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.30

257.41 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

257.41 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

257.71 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.15

257.71 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

257.77 0.26

200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.26

257.83 0.18 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.18

257.92 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07 0.02

257.96 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

258.02 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

258.02 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

258.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

258.31 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

258.50 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.26 0.03

259.59 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.26 0.03

ND Hettinger 260.50 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

260.55 0.47 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.47

260.59 0.16 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING) 0.16

260.67 0.49 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.49

261.18 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

261.18 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

261.29 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

261.30 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

261.36 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

261.76 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.12 0.03

261.77 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.15

261.83 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

261.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

262.08 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.06 0.06 0.13 

262.39 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

262.40 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23

262.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

262.49 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

262.83 0.25 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.25

262.86 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

262.92 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

262.93 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.08 0.01

263.06 0.64 550' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.64

263.06 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.26

263.19 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09 0.09

263.21 0.26 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09 0.17

263.30 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

263.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

263.53 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

263.53 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

B-46
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

264.09 0.29 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.26 0.03

264.25 0.69 600' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.19 0.50

264.29 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.11

264.43 0.20 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.20

264.48 0.12 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12

265.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

265.13 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08 0.01

265.20 0.29 500' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.29

265.20 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.23

265.51 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

ND Hettinger 265.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

265.59 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

265.59 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

265.72 0.29 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.28 0.01

265.74 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.07 0.02

265.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

265.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

266.24 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

266.26 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

266.99 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

267.04 0.34 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

267.08 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

267.14 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

267.85 0.26 450' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.26

267.85 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.23

267.92 0.08 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.08

267.98 0.32 550' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.32

268.00 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

268.39 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

268.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

268.45 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

268.49 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (GULLY CROSSING) 0.06

268.86 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

268.86 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

269.22 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

269.25 0.13 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.13

269.26 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

269.30 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

269.75 1.69 1.69 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (STAGING AREA, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

1.69

269.80 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

269.86 1.08 1.08 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (STAGING AREA, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

1.08

269.88 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

270.86 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.06 0.11

270.86 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.17 0.17

B-47
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

270.98 0.07 100' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ROAD 

CROSSING)

0.07

271.00 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING, ROAD 

CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA)

0.01 0.23

271.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

271.07 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.07 0.02

ND Hettinger 271.99 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.08 0.02 0.19

272.12 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

272.12 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

272.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.03 0.06

272.26 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

272.80 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.21 0.02 0.06

273.14 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

273.16 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

273.19 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

273.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

273.78 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.14 0.01 0.14

274.39 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.34

274.49 0.25 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.25

274.54 0.51 900' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.51

42.66 Total Acres - Hettinger County, ND 25.45 0.59 16.52 0.06 

ND Stark 274.60 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

275.24 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

275.36 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

275.37 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

275.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

275.42 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

276.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

276.19 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

276.24 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

276.25 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06

276.38 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

276.39 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

276.42 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

276.44 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

276.54 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

276.58 0.28 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.28

276.60 0.39 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.39

276.65 0.28 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.28

277.13 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.12 0.17

277.30 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

277.30 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

277.60 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.61 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.69 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.10

B-48
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

ND Stark 277.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.78 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

277.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

278.57 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

278.58 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

278.63 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

278.64 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

279.04 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

279.09 0.16 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.16

279.12 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

279.19 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

279.30 0.37

300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS)

0.02 0.35

279.32 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.01 0.08279.37 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

279.38 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

279.65 0.27 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.03 0.24279.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

279.71 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

279.72 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.04 0.05

279.82 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17

279.82 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

280.81 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

280.83 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

280.86 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

280.87 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

281.22 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29

281.53 1.38 1200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (SIDE SLOPE) 0.13 0.13 1

281.82 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

281.82 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

281.90 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND) 0.92

281.95 1.15 250' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 1.15

10.48 Total Acres - Stark County, ND 2.39 0.06 6.91 1

ND Grant 282.39 1.15 200' X 200' EXTRA WORKSPACE (HDD SITE) 1.15

282.42 0.08 125' X 25' EXTRA WORK SPACE (P.I.) 0.08

282.46 0.27 0.27 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORK SPACE (ACCESS) 0.27

282.46 1.45 1.44 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORK SPACE (TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I. & ACCESS) 1.45

282.51 0.17 100' X 50' EXTRA WORK SPACE (ACCESS) 0.07 0.10

282.55 3.72 2700' X 60' EXTRA WORK SPACE (PULL STRING) 1.11 2.61

282.63 0.17 300' X 50' EXTRA WORK SPACE (P.I.) 0.17

ND Grant 282.64 0.27 450' X 25' EXTRA WORK SPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.27

282.68 0.55 450' X 50' EXTRA WORK SPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.54 0

282.77 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORK SPACE (P.I.) 0.09

282.78 0.38 300' X 50' EXTRA WORK SPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & P.I.) 0.38

282.89 0.92 200' X 200' EXTRA WORK SPACE (TURNAROUND) 0.92

B-49
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

283.57 0.43 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.43

283.58 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & ROAD CROSSING) 0.24

283.63 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

283.65 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

284.30 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

284.33 0.40 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.40

284.37 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

284.41 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10

284.67 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

284.67 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34

284.79 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

284.79 0.49 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & ACCESS) 0.47 0.02

285.89 0.15 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.15

285.91 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

285.96 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

285.96 1.55 1.55 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA) 1.55

13.66 Total Acres - Grant County, ND 9.53 0.02 4.10 0

ND Morton 286.42 0.16 250' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.16

286.43 0.42 350' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA)

0.42

286.52 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

286.53 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09

286.83 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36

286.83 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12

287.03 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.23 0.06

287.21 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18287.27 0.24 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.24

287.52 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12287.52 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17287.61 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12 0.05

287.62 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.06 0.05

287.69 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17287.69 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.11288.14 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09288.15 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09288.19 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09288.20 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09288.87 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.29290.28 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

ND Morton 290.29 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

290.33 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09290.34 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09290.92 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12290.92 0.18 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.18291.34 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10291.36 0.32 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.32291.42 0.52 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & P.I.) 0.51 0.01

291.47 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09291.48 0.17 150' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.01 0.16291.96 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.16 0.20

291.96 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12292.22 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.37292.25 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.09

B-50
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

292.31 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.36292.32 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.10 0.02292.55 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12292.55 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17292.73 0.56 450' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS, WETLAND CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & FABR 0.14 0.05 0.37

292.76 0.23 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.23292.92 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.17292.93 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.12293.47 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.24 0.05294.04 0.55 950' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.55294.05 0.52 900' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.52294.39 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12294.39 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17295.03 0.47 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.47295.06 0.10 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.10295.17 0.56 0.56 ACRES ODD SHAPED EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.56

295.17 0.59 480' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.59295.22 0.04 65' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.04

295.23 0.12 98' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.12

295.31 0.24 400' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I.) 0.24295.31 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, & P.I.) 0.11 0.35295.46 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06295.47 0.23 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.23295.54 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06295.55 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06295.98 0.34 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.34296.02 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09296.13 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09296.14 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WETLAND CROSSING) 0.11296.63 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17296.63 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12296.75 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06296.75 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06296.79 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06296.81 0.06 100' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING) 0.06296.90 0.29 200' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ACCESS) 0.04 0.25297.78 0.30 250' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.30297.81 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09297.88 0.21 350' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.21297.88 0.55 460' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA) 0.55297.95 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.08 0.01

ND Morton 297.96 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING) 0.09

299.08 0.36 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.36299.09 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12299.60 0.46 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, WETLAND CROSSING & FABRICATION 0.46299.70 0.40 700' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.29 0.11299.83 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.04 0.07

299.84 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.02 0.07

300.00 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09300.01 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09300.07 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09300.07 0.09 150' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & WETLAND CROSSING) 0.09300.29 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12300.30 0.37 300' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.37300.83 0.17 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.17300.83 0.12 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (P.I.) 0.12300.98 0.34 300' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA)

0.34

301.01 0.11 200' X 25' EXTRA WORKSPACE (WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING) 0.11

301.10 0.50 400' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA) 0.48 0.02

301.43 0.38 280' X 50' EXTRA WORKSPACE (FABRICATION AREA) 0.38

B-51
State County MP Total Acres Purpose/Justification Crop DIND DROW Grass-land

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

APPENDIX B

Listing of Extra Workspace by Milepost

19.53 Total Acres - Morton County, ND 7.29 0.32 10.77 1.15

Crop DIND DROW Grassland

Scrubshrub Upland Forest 

Total EWS Acres - WY 7.61 0.13 6.67 125.85 89.14 4Total EWS Acres - MT 25.17 1.57 79.26 49.73 4Total EWS Acres - ND 77.64 1.91 84.53 24.74 1Total Project EWS Acres 110.42 0.13 10.15 289.64 163.61 10Total EWS Acres - BLM Land 0.12 1.33 42.56 25.45 0Total EWS Acres - State of WY Lands 1.14 0.81 14.62 8.81 2Total EWS Acres - State of MT Lands 0.86 0.08 2.07 3.03Total EWS Acres - State of ND School Lands 0.20 0.05 7.03 2.61

584.19

Total Acreage

234.39159.81189.99

9.896.04

27.6069.72

B-52
APPENDIX C 

APPLICANT PROVIDED PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS 
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

"J

#CM-17

#C

M

-1 5

#CM-16

#CM-18

1

Buffalo Receipt Meter Station (contains launcher, MLV-(-0.4

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-20

V

#CM-18

#CM-1 9

2

3

4

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

#CM-22-1

#CM-82

#CM-22-2

V

V

V

5

6

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-70

#CM-71

#CM-24

#CM-69

#CM-67

7

8

9

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

#C #CM-72 M-24

#CM-24-2

#CM-73

# CM-24-3#CM-76

#CM-2 5-

1

#CM-75

# CM-74

10

11

12

MLV-012

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-26-1

#CM-25-2

#CM-25

#CM-26

#CM-25-1

#C

M

-2 5-2-1

13

14

15

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

#CM-25
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-28

#CM-26

#CM-27-1

#CM-79

#CM-27

16

17

18

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-30-2-1

#CM-30-1-3

#CM-30-1-1

#CM-30-1-2

#C

M

-30

#CM-30-1

#CM-30-2

#CM-29-1

19

20

21

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#CM-32-5

#CM-31-2

#CM-30-2-1

#C M-32

#CM-31

#CM-32-1

#CM-3 1

-

1

#CM-32-3

#C M-30

#CM

-32

-2

#C M-31-1-1

22

23

24

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

#CM-32
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#CM-33

#CM-80

#CM-32-4

#CM-32-2-2

#CM-32-2-3-1

V

#CM-34-2

#CM-32-2

#CM-34

#CM-32-2-3

#CM-32-2-1

25

27

28

MLV-028

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

#C

M-34

# CM-34-1

#CM-81 29

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

#CM-35-1-2

#CM-35-1-3

V

#CM-35-

1

#CM-35-1-1 # CM-3 5-1-4

31

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

#CM-35
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

#CM-36

#

# C M-35-2 CM

-

34 

#C M-35-1 32

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-37-1

35

36

37

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-40

#CM-38-1

V

#CM-82

#CM-

#CM-39

38

39

40

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

# CM-42

#CM-41

#C M-65

41

42

43

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

##CM-44 #CM-44-01 V

#CM-43

# CM-45-1

#

#C M-45

CM-43-01

44

45

46

MLV-045

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-50-1

#CM-48

#CM-45-1

# C M-46-

1

#CM-50

#CM-4 7

#C M-46 47

48

49

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#CM-52-2

# C M-51-1

#CM-51

#CM-52

50

51

52

53

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#C M-54

54

55

56

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CM-55

58

59

60

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

# #CM-59

#CM-58

#CM-57

#CM-56

#CM-59

#CM-64

V

V

62

63

64

65

MLV-064

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#CM-66

67

68

69

70

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#C M-61

#CM-62

72

73

74

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#PR-06 V #PR-0 1

#PR 

-0 1

76

77

78

79

MLV-079

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#PR-02-1

#P R-0 #PR-03 2

#PR-02-2

#PR-02-3

81

82

83

84

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#PR-07

V

#

PR-04

#PR0

5

86

87

88

89

MLV-088

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

90

91

92

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!. !.

!.97

94 95

96

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

# C A-02

98

99

100

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

#CA-24

V

101

102

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

104

105

106

MLV-107

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#CA-04

#CA-04-1

#CA-03 107

108

109

110

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CA-05

111

112

113

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

114

115

116

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

C

A

-

0

9

#CA-09-1

118

119

120

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

#CA-11

V

121

122

123

MLV-123

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

124

125

126

127

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

#CA-12
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.128

129

130

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CA-12-2

#CA-12-1

131

132

133

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.134

135

136

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

#CA-12-3

138

139

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

#CA-13

V

#CA-14

#CA-14-1

#CA-12-3

141

142

143

MLV-142

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

!.

!.

#CA-12-3

139
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#CA-15

#CA-25

144

145

146

147

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CA-16

#CA-17

148

149

150

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#CA19

151

152

153

154

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CA-20

155

156

157

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

158

159

160

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#CA-22

V

#CA-21

161

162

163

164

MLV-161

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#CA-23

165

166

167

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.168

169

170

171

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#FA-01

172

173

174

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#FA-02

#FA-02-1

#FA-02-2

175

176

177

178

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

#FA-02
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#

#BO-27

V #BO-02

179

180

181

MLV-180

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#BO

V

#BO-04

#BO-04

-

1

183 184

185

186

187

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#BO-10

#BO-09

#BO-07

#BO-08 189

190

191

192

MLV-192

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#BO-14-1

#B

#BO-13

#BO-11

194

195

196

197

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#BO-16

#BO-15

199

200

201

202

203

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#BO-21 #BO-20

#BO-18

#BO-22

206

207

208

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#BO-23

V

210

211

212

213

MLV-212

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!. #BO-25

#BO-24 215

216

217

218

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#SL-01

#SL-13

#SL-15

#

S

L

-

1

4

220

221

222

223

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#SL-03

#SL-12

#SL-05

#SL-04

225

226

227

228

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#SL-08-1

#SL-

#SL-07

08

230

231

232

233

MLV-232

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#SL-11

#SL-10

235

236

237

238

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#HE-02

240

241

242

243

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#HE-04

#HE

05

245

246

247

248

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#HE-06-1 #HE-05-1

#HE-15

#HE-0

6

250

251

252

253

MLV-252

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

!.

#HE-15

250 #HE-05-1
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#HE-19

257

Hettinger Compressor Station (contains MLV-257)

#HE-17

#HE-0

7

255

256

258

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#HE-09

#HE-08

#HE-16

V

260

261

262

263

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

!.

!.

#HE-18

264

265
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. #HE-18 265

266

267

268

2

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#HE-12

270

271

272

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#ST-01

V

#ST-06 #HE-14

#ST-02

274

275

276

MLV-277

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

!.

!.

#ST-06

#HE-14

274

275
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#ST-03

#ST-05

#GR-01

-1

279

280

281

282

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

#GR-01

284

285

286

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#MO-01

288

289

290

291

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet

!.

!.

#MO-02-1

#MO-03

293
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

!.

#

#MO-04

V

#MO-05

#MO-03

294

295

296

297

MLV-295

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
MT

WY

SD

NE

ND

!.

!.

!.

298

299

300

Kurtz Delivery Meter Station (contains rece

Date: August 2009

BISON PIPEL

Pipeline and 

Legend

Proposed Project Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access Road

 ̄

0 1,800 3,600 900

Feet
APPENDIX D 

PIPE, RAIL, AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS 
Echeta Rd Alt 2 (24.1 acres)

Contractor/Pipe YardCampbell County, WY

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
Gillette (9.7 acres)

Pipe/Rail YardCampbell County, WY

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Echeta Rd (7.5 acres)

Rail YardCampbell County, WY

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
!.

!.

US 14/16 & Recluse Rd (21.1 acres)Contractor/Pipe YardCampbell County, WY

#CM-38

#CM-39

39

40

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
!.

!.

HWY 59 (28.1 acres)Contractor/Pipe YardCampbell County, WY

71

72

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
!.

!.

!.

HWY 212 Alt 1 (25.0 acres)Pipe YardCarter County, MT

104

105

106

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

k Pipe, Rail, and 

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
!.

Old Hammond (12.7 acres)Pipe YardCarter County, MT

#CA-03

106

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

k Pipe, Rail, and 

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
!.

!.

HWY 323 (33.5 acres)Pipe YardCarter County, MT

#CA-15

#CA-25

146

147

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND

Location Map
Rhame (1.7 acres)

Rail YardBowman County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

MT k

WY

SD

ND Location Map
!.

!.

!.

HWY 12 Alt 1 (23.1 acres)Pipe YardBowman County, MT

#BO-18

204

205

206

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

MT k

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Bowman-3 (18.4 acres)

Contractor YardBowman County, ND

Bowman-1 (24.8 acres)Contractor YardBowman County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

MT kk

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Gascoyne (85.4 acres)

Rail YardBowman County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
!.

!.

!. HWY 22 Alt 2 (43.9 acres)

Pipe YardHettinger County, ND

240

241

2

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

MT k

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Dickinson (5.6 acres)

Rail YardStark County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
!.

!.

HWY 8 Alt 2 (23.7 acres)Pipe YardHettinger County, ND

269

270

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Richardton (2.6 acres)

Rail YardStark County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Eagles Nest (6.0 acres)

Rail YardMorton County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
Glen Ullin (5.4 acres)Rail YardMorton County, ND

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
!.

!.

"J#

Glen Ullin (9.8 acres)Pipe YardMorton County, ND

300

301

Kurtz Delivery Meter Station (contains receiver, MLV-3

MLV-301

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 1,000

Feet

Legend

Proposed Route

!. Project Milepost

Compressor Station

"J Meter Station

# Mainline Valve

Access RoadYard

 ̄

Date: August 2009 

BISON PIPEL

Pipe, Rail, and 

k

MT

WY

SD

ND Location Map
APPENDIX E 

LIST OF ACCESS ROADS 
Access Road MP

Permanent / 

Temp

Road 

Length 

(feet) Crop

Developed 

Industrial

Developed 

Residential

Developed 

ROW Open Waterc Grass-land

Emergent 

Wetland Perennial

Scrubshrub Upland Forest Wind- break

Temporary

Impact 

Total

Current 

Landuse

Current 

Condition

Planned 

Improvements Comments 

#CM-15 -0.47 Permanent 2,560.72 0.10 1.08 1.18 L-1 C-5 & C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R

#CM-16 0.76 Temporary 2,254.65 0.49 0.55 1.04 L-1 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD NEW AERIAL 

#CM-17 1.32 Temporary 3,022.63 1.02 0.37 1.39 L-1 C-6 

#CM-18 1.62 Temporary 3,770.21 0.38 0.02 1.33 1.73 L-1, 4 C-6 #CM-19 2.50 Temporary 3,418.53 1.16 0.20 0.21 1.57 L-1 C-6 #CM-20 4.23 Temporary 18.51 0.01 0.01 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R

#CM-83 6.19 Temporary 22.14 0.01 0.01 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-22-1 6.74 Temporary 22.09 0.01 0.01 L-1 C-3 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-22-2 6.79 Temporary 22.09 0.01 0.01 L-1 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-67 8.05 Temporary 1,036.27 0.41 0.07 0.48 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-69 8.88 Temporary 1,245.17 0.01 0.52 0.05 0.58 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-70 9.37 Temporary 1,767.90 0.67 0.15 0.82 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-71 9.48 Temporary 1,062.69 0.43 0.06 0.49 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-72 9.80 Temporary 2,146.57 0.69 0.30 0.99 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-73 9.80 Temporary 2,745.62 1.08 0.18 1.26 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-74 10.18 Temporary 988.89 0.10 0.34 0.02 0.46 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-75 10.51 Temporary 1,359.11 0.58 0.05 0.63 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-24 10.78 Permanent 15,897.76 6.44 0.86 7.30 L-1, 4 C-3

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-76 11.47 Temporary 2,077.93 0.92 0.04 0.96 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-24-3 11.66 Temporary 3,255.15 1.25 0.04 0.18 1.47 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-24-2 12.13 Permanent 10,807.21 4.83 0.05 4.88 L-1, 4 C-3 I-2, 3, 4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-25-1 12.15 Temporary 5,865.89 0.01 2.63 0.06 2.70 L-1, 4 C-4 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD #CM-25 13.05 Temporary 32,120.91 0.04 14.54 0.04 0.14 14.76 L-1, 4 C-3 

#CM-25-2 13.06 Temporary 2,787.02 1.23 0.05 1.28 L-1, 4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-25-2-1 14.12 Temporary 6,756.69 0.02 3.02 0.07 3.11 L-1, 4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD #CM-26 14.71 Temporary 15,940.28 0.20 6.33 0.01 0.79 7.33 L-4 C-4 

#CM-26-1 14.91 Temporary 1,142.11 0.03 0.42 0.08 0.53 L-1, 4 C-5 

#CM-27-1 16.18 Temporary 5,131.71 1.94 0.42 2.36 L-1 C-3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R

#CM-27 16.98 Temporary 1,342.62 0.58 0.04 0.62 L-1 C-3

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-77 17.26 Temporary 298.80 0.13 0.01 0.14 L-4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R

#CM-78 17.26 Temporary 479.06 0.21 0.02 0.23 L-4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-79 17.76 Temporary 2,108.04 0.59 0.38 0.97 L-4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R#CM-28 18.16 Temporary 551.47 0.18 0.08 0.26 L-1, 4 C-5

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-29-1 19.14 Temporary 1,835.45 0.58 0.10 0.16 0.84 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR R

#CM-30-1 19.72 Temporary 7,277.76 2.81 0.50 0.03 3.34 L-1, 4 C-4 

#CM-30-1-3 19.96 Temporary 826.49 0.14 0.24 0.38 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-30-1-1 20.09 Temporary 489.09 0.16 0.07 0.23 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD #CM-30-1-2 20.37 Temporary 1,843.92 0.83 0.01 0.01 0.85 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-30-2 21.06 Temporary 2,628.73 1.20 0.01 1.21 L-1, 4 C-4 

#CM-30-2-1 21.94 Temporary 4,185.70 1.89 0.04 1.93 L-1, 4 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-31-2 22.02 Temporary 578.69 0.03 0.22 0.02 0.27 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-31-1 22.13 Temporary 8,174.69 3.39 0.03 0.34 3.76 L-1, 4 C-3 MEETS ROW AT 2 PLACES 

#CM-30 22.15 Temporary 16,613.09 7.52 0.02 0.09 7.63 L-1, 4 C-3 

#CM-31 22.16 Temporary 14,600.37 6.35 0.08 0.28 6.71 L-1, 4 C-3 #CM-32-1 23.22 Temporary 6,179.52 2.84 2.84 L-1, 4 C-4 

#CM-31-1-1 23.26 Temporary 2,015.39 0.93 0.93 L-1, 4 C-4 #CM-32 23.69 Temporary 26,093.58 0.01 11.74 0.04 0.20 11.99 L-1, 4 C-4 

#CM-32-5 24.10 Temporary 1,233.00 0.56 0.01 0.57 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-32-3 24.66 Temporary 3,374.06 1.52 0.03 1.55 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD #CM-32-4 25.85 Temporary 267.70 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.13 L-1, 4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-32-2 25.92 Temporary 9,763.47 4.32 0.02 0.15 4.49 L-1, 4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD NEW AERIAL 

#CM-32-2-1 26.11 Temporary 841.76 0.36 0.03 0.39 L-1, 4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD NEW AERIAL 

#CM-80 26.33 Temporary 184.93 0.04 0.05 0.09 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-32-2-2 26.44 Temporary 2,249.10 0.89 0.02 0.13 1.04 L-1, 4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD NEW AERIAL 

#CM-32-2-3-1 26.57 Temporary 59.52 0.03 0.03 L-1, 4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-32-2-3 27.04 Temporary 3,049.05 1.39 0.01 0.01 1.41 L-1, 4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-33 27.27 Temporary 1,871.37 0.01 0.83 0.02 0.01 0.87 L-1, 4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD ROUTE 

#CM-34 27.34 Permanent 28,563.96 0.01 12.51 0.17 0.43 13.12 L-1, 4 C-4 I-3, 4 

#CM-34-2 27.61 Permanent 262.49 0.04 0.04 L-1, 4 C-4 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-81 28.96 Temporary 919.34 0.32 0.11 0.43 L-1, 4 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 

#CM-34-1 29.12 Temporary 9,707.65 0.01 4.33 0.12 4.46 L-1, 4 C-4 

#CM-35 31.21 Temporary 37,607.02 0.03 16.26 0.01 0.97 17.27 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 

#CM-36 31.21 Temporary 16,889.69 0.01 7.48 0.27 7.76 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 

#CM-35-1-3 31.69 Temporary 270.26 0.09 0.04 0.13 L-1, 4 C-4 OR C-5 

#CM-35-1-2 31.73 Temporary 575.66 0.25 0.01 0.26 L-1, 4 C-4 OR C-5 

Appendix E1

Proposed Bison Access Roads 

Temporary Land Use Acreage Impactsb

Campbell County, WY

E-1
Access Road MP

Permanent / 

Temp

Road 

Length 

(feet) Crop

Developed 

Industrial

Developed 

Residential

Developed 

ROW Open Waterc Grass-land

Emergent 

Wetland Perennial

Scrubshrub Upland Forest Wind- break

Temporary

Impact 

Total

Current 

Landuse

Current 

Condition

Planned 

Improvements Comments Private BLM State

State 

School

Land Owner Acreagesb

Appendix E1

Proposed Bison Access Roads 

Temporary Land Use Acreage Impactsb

#CM-35-1-1 31.83 Temporary 2,552.01 1.14 0.04 1.18 L-1, 4 C-4 OR C-5 1.18

#CM-35-1 32.17 Temporary 5,315.70 2.32 0.13 2.45 L-1, 4 C-4 OR C-5 1.14 1.31

#CM-35-2 32.18 Temporary 11,528.12 0.08 4.37 0.85 5.30 L-1, 4 C-4 OR C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 5.30

#CM-35-1-4 32.98 Temporary 7,719.72 3.54 0.01 3.55 L-1, 4 C-4 3.29 0.26

#CM-37 34.69 Temporary 957.51 0.30 0.14 0.44 L-1 C-4 0.44

#CM-37-1 36.11 Temporary 8,392.06 0.22 3.51 0.13 3.86 L-1 C-3 NEW ACCESS ROAD 3.86

#CM-82 37.77 Temporary 4,880.42 0.18 1.29 0.78 2.25 L-1 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 2.25

#CM-38 38.42 Temporary 3,685.04 0.95 0.75 1.70 L-1, 4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 1.70

#CM-38-1 38.44 Temporary 116.78 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.06 L-1,4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.06

#CM-39 39.65 Temporary 3,105.46 0.02 0.99 0.26 0.16 1.43 L-1,4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 1.43

#CM-40 40.20 Temporary 189.47 0.09 0.09 L-1,4 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.09

#CM-41 41.32 Temporary 8,483.62 0.01 2.69 1.17 0.03 3.90 L-1 C-3 OR C-4 3.90

#CM-42 42.65 Temporary 11,773.78 0.05 5.34 0.02 5.41 L-2 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD BASED ON NEW AERIAL 5.41

#CM-65 43.15 Temporary 11,007.69 0.05 4.93 0.07 0.01 5.06 L-2,4 C-4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 5.06

#CM-43 44.56 Temporary 6,207.76 0.15 2.45 0.26 2.86 L-2 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD BASED ON NEW AERIAL 2.86

#CM-43-01 44.91 Temporary 2,316.71 0.25 0.82 1.07 L-2 C-5 OR C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 1.07

#CM-44-01a 45.42 Permanent 145.33 0.02a 0.05a 0.07a L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.07a

#CM-44 45.52 Temporary 559.87 0.26 0.26 L-1,4 C-5 OR C-6 0.26

#CM-45 46.03 Temporary 4,410.95 2.00 0.03 2.03 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 2.03

#CM-45-1 47.02 Temporary 5,353.96 2.39 0.08 2.47 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 2.47#CM-46 47.45 Temporary 14,904.29 5.13 1.72 6.85 L-1 C-5 6.85

#CM-46-1 47.47 Temporary 9,261.06 3.75 0.01 0.50 4.26 L-1 C-5 4.26

#CM-47 47.97 Temporary 5,711.06 0.01 2.55 0.07 2.63 L-1,4 C-4 2.63#CM-48 48.48 Temporary 487.27 0.18 0.05 0.23 L-1,4 C-4 0.23

#CM-50-1 48.95 Temporary 1,052.84 0.43 0.06 0.49 L-1,4 C-3 0.49

#CM-50 48.97 Temporary 5,056.85 2.25 0.05 0.03 2.33 L-1,4 C-3 2.33#CM-51-1 49.94 Temporary 9,101.62 4.07 0.12 4.19 L-1,4 C-3 4.19#CM-51 51.00 Temporary 5,165.80 2.13 0.25 2.38 L-1 C-6 2.38#CM-52 51.93 Temporary 1,415.10 0.43 0.23 0.66 L-1,4 C-4 OR C-5 0.66

#CM-52-2 53.01 Temporary 361.52 0.14 0.03 0.17 L-1 C-3 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.17

#CM-54 56.44 Temporary 9,000.90 3.90 0.04 0.20 4.14 L-1 C-5 OR C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 4.14

#CM-54-1 56.45 Temporary 6,139.01 2.71 0.04 0.08 2.83 L-1 C-5 OR C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 2.83

#CM-55 60.63 Temporary 726.02 0.26 0.08 0.34 L-1 C-6 0.34

#CM-56 62.96 Temporary 448.03 0.21 0.21 L-1 C-3 OR C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.08 0.13

#CM-57 63.23 Temporary 138.36 0.02 0.05 0.07 L-1 C-6 0.07

#CM-58 63.84 Temporary 163.75 0.03 0.05 0.08 L-1 C-5

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.08

#CM-64 64.25 Temporary 29.29 0.02 0.02 L-1 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.02

#CM-63a 64.48 Permanent 110.78 0.02a 0.04a 0.06a L-1 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.06a

#CM-59 64.73 Temporary 585.48 0.26 0.02 0.28 L-1 C-5 0.28

#CM-60 66.07 Temporary 5,131.36 2.20 0.16 2.36 L-1 C-6 2.36

#CM-66 67.09 Temporary 6,605.85 2.93 0.07 0.04 3.04 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 3.04

#CM-61 73.54 Temporary 2,341.12 0.73 0.03 0.32 1.08 L-1 C-6 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD 0.88 0.20

#CM-62 74.05 Temporary 721.80 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.34 L-1 C-6 0.09 0.25

0.97 0.57 219.04 5.38 16.90 242.86 221.33 13.99 7.54

#PR-06a 79.23 Permanent 120.53 0.01a 0.05a 0.06a L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.06a

#PR-01 79.41 Temporary 1,207.13 0.54 0.02 0.56 L-2 C-4 OR C-5 0.56

#PR-01-1 79.82 Temporary 2,304.69 0.02 0.97 0.08 1.07 L-2 C-5 MEETS ROW AT 2 PLACES 0.37 0.70

#PR-02 81.90 Temporary 9,317.82 0.51 3.53 0.21 0.03 4.28 L-2 C-5 4.28#PR-02-1 82.12 Temporary 991.25 0.04 0.31 0.11 0.46 L-2 C-5 0.46

#PR-02-2 82.77 Temporary 9,765.55 3.62 0.87 4.49 L-1 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 4.49

#PR-02-3 83.48 Temporary 6,499.84 0.97 2.01 0.01 2.99 L-2 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 2.99

#PR-03 84.76 Temporary 13,059.40 4.81 1.17 0.02 6.00 L-1 C-4

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 6.00

#PR-03-02 85.17 Temporary 382.92 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.18 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.18

#PR-03-01 85.42 Temporary 4,915.35 1.42 0.29 0.55 2.26 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 2.26#PR-04 87.02 Temporary 2,876.38 0.70 0.62 1.32 L-1 C-6 1.32

#PR-07a 87.69 Permanent 93.49 0.02a 0.03a 0.05a L-1 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.05a

#PR-05 88.37 Temporary 3,205.05 1.45 0.03 1.48 L-1 C-4 1.48

0.57 18.38 5.52 0.01 0.03 0.58 25.09 24.39 0.70

#CA-01 92.86 Temporary 1,081.62 0.41 0.09 0.50 L-2 C-5

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.50

Powder River County, MTCarter County, MT

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Powder Powder River County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Campbell County Land Ownership Total Acreage Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Campbell 

E-2
Access Road MP

Permanent / 

Temp

Road 

Length 

(feet) Crop

Developed 

Industrial

Developed 

Residential

Developed 

ROW Open Waterc Grass-land

Emergent 

Wetland Perennial

Scrubshrub Upland Forest Wind- break

Temporary

Impact 

Total

Current 

Landuse

Current 

Condition

Planned 

Improvements Comments Private BLM State

State 

School

Land Owner Acreagesb

Appendix E1

Proposed Bison Access Roads 

Temporary Land Use Acreage Impactsb

#CA-02 98.82 Temporary 3,281.83 0.11 1.11 0.29 1.51 L-1 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 1.51

#CA-24 101.51 Temporary 29.55 0.01 0.01 0.02 L-1 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.02

#CA-03 106.54 Permanent 4,731.35 1.43 0.68 2.11 L-1 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 2.11#CA-04 108.32 Temporary 12,378.63 0.54 0.01 4.36 0.78 5.69 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 5.69

#CA-04-1 108.65 Temporary 9,742.46 3.60 0.02 0.86 4.48 L-1 C-4 OR C-5 4.48

#CA-05 111.07 Temporary 4,423.77 0.13 0.95 0.01 0.94 2.03 L-2 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 2.03

#CA-07 116.56 Temporary 386.00 0.09 0.09 0.18 L-1, 2 C-5 OR C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.18

#CA-07-1 116.58 Temporary 68.51 0.02 0.02 0.04 L-1, 2 C-5 OR C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR RE-ROUTE 0.04

#CA-08 116.89 Temporary 457.51 0.18 0.04 0.22 L-2 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.22

#CA-09 118.52 Temporary 4,211.58 1.74 0.20 1.94 L-1 C-6 1.94

#CA-09-1 118.69 Temporary 1,219.20 0.47 0.10 0.57 L-1 C-6 0.57#CA-10 120.30 Temporary 11,268.58 4.97 0.12 0.09 5.18 L-1 C-6 I-2, 3 4.24 0.94

#CA-11a 123.28 Permanent 93.72 0.05a 0.05a L-1 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.05a

#CA-12 127.12 Temporary 26,920.10 11.84 0.53 12.37 L-1 C-6 I-2, 3 12.21 0.16

#CA-12-1 133.57 Temporary 13,900.58 0.84 5.49 0.06 6.39 L-1 C-6 3.49 2.90#CA-12-2 133.57 Temporary 14,090.37 0.86 5.52 0.09 6.47 L-1 C-6 I-2, 3 2.28 4.19#CA-12-3 137.55 Temporary 36,423.79 0.08 0.03 16.61 16.72 L-1 C-6 14.73 1.99

#CA-13a 141.61 Permanent 113.57 0.01a 0.05a 0.06a L-1 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.06a

#CA-14 142.52 Temporary 7,683.73 3.34 0.19 3.53 L-1 C-6 2.07 1.46

#CA-14-1 143.72 Temporary 5,571.79 2.43 0.14 2.57 L-1 C-6 2.41 0.16#CA-15 145.65 Temporary 13,169.02 0.02 4.44 1.59 6.05 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 6.05

#CA-25 145.93 Temporary 1,521.59 0.54 0.17 0.71 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.71

#CA-16 147.84 Temporary 2,872.41 0.01 1.16 0.16 1.33 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 1.33

#CA-17 150.50 Temporary 1,178.42 0.05 0.49 0.54 L-2 C-5 I-2, 3 0.54#CA-19 154.06 Temporary 3,481.71 1.09 0.52 1.61 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 1.61#CA-20 156.35 Temporary 5,547.06 0.17 2.38 2.55 L-2 C-4 OR C-5 I-2, 3 2.55#CA-22a 160.86 Permanent 110.08 0.06a 0.06a L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.06a

#CA-21 161.67 Temporary 2,961.26 1.34 0.03 1.37 L-2 C-4 1.37

#CA-23 166.47 Temporary 4,728.92 1.89 0.29 2.18 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 NEW ACCESS ROAD 2.18

1.03 0.01 52.06 0.03 15.25 20.48 88.86 76.84 10.18 1.84

#FA-01 172.34 Temporary 1,375.71 0.08 0.56 0.64 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 0.64#FA-02 175.04 Temporary 9,528.78 0.09 3.60 0.69 4.38 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 4.38

#FA-02-2 175.08 Temporary 2,122.75 0.18 0.22 0.58 0.98 L-2 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 0.98

#FA-02-1 175.46 Temporary 3,814.28 0.41 0.81 0.28 0.25 1.75 L-2 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 1.75

0.67 0.09 5.19 1.55 0.25 7.75 7.75

#BO-01 178.14 Temporary 12,608.20 0.03 5.23 0.54 5.80 L-1 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 5.61 0.19

#BO-02 179.12 Temporary 4,222.47 0.08 1.66 0.01 0.20 1.95 L-4 C-4 0.01 1.94

#BO-27a 179.89 Permanent 95.60 0.01a 0.04a 0.05a L-4 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.05a

#BO-04-1 184.33 Temporary 5,623.67 0.01 2.53 0.05 2.59 L-1, 3 C-6 MEETS ROW AT 2 PLACES 2.59

#BO-04 185.00 Temporary 2,910.01 1.26 0.07 0.01 1.34 L-3 C-6 1.34#BO-26 187.20 Temporary 35.80 0.02 0.02 L-4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.02

#BO-05 187.64 Temporary 1,472.80 0.65 0.03 0.68 L-4 C-5 0.68

#BO-07 188.47 Temporary 1,960.43 0.89 0.02 0.91 L-4 C-5 0.91#BO-08 189.10 Temporary 1,642.85 0.74 0.02 0.76 L-1 C-5 0.76#BO-09 190.24 Temporary 1,957.11 0.91 0.91 L-1 C-5 I-2, 3, 4 0.91#BO-10 192.12 Permanent 3,453.73 1.53 0.01 1.54 L-4 C-4 1.54#BO-11 193.75 Temporary 2,357.46 1.05 0.04 1.09 L-1 C-5 1.09#BO-13 196.23 Temporary 2,617.71 0.31 0.90 1.21 L-3 C-6

ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD FOR REROUTE 1.21

#BO-14 197.27 Temporary 5,930.59 0.06 2.66 0.01 2.73 L-2 C-4 2.73#BO-14-1 197.42 Temporary 512.12 0.16 0.08 0.24 L-2 C-6 0.04 0.20

#BO-15 199.57 Temporary 1,250.08 0.58 0.58 L-3 C-6 0.58

#BO-16 202.07 Temporary 4,953.76 1.96 0.32 2.28 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 2.28#BO-17 203.16 Temporary 7,348.48 0.09 2.82 0.47 3.38 L-2 C-6 3.38#BO-18 205.06 Temporary 1,295.77 0.10 0.45 0.05 0.60 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.60#BO-20 206.70 Temporary 7,888.22 0.23 3.28 0.11 3.62 L-2 C-6 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD 3.62

#BO-21 206.72 Temporary 10,148.09 0.19 3.92 0.55 4.66 L-2 C-6 4.66

#BO-22 207.72 Temporary 1,136.16 0.01 0.52 0.53 L-2 C-6 0.53

#BO-23a 212.13 Permanent 73.68 0.01a 0.03a 0.04a L-2, 3 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD 0.04a

#BO-24 215.31 Temporary 1,025.97 0.48 0.48 L-2, 3 C-6 0.48

#BO-25 216.29 Temporary 2,528.58 0.06 1.11 1.17 L-3 C-6 1.17

1.06 0.11 35.31 1.79 0.80 39.07 36.74 2.13 0.20

Fallon County, MTBowman County, ND

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Carter 

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Fallon 

Bowman County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Carter County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Fallon County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Bowman 

Slope County, ND

E-3
Access Road MP

Permanent / 

Temp

Road 

Length 

(feet) Crop

Developed 

Industrial

Developed 

Residential

Developed 

ROW Open Waterc Grass-land

Emergent 

Wetland Perennial

Scrubshrub Upland Forest Wind- break

Temporary

Impact 

Total

Current 

Landuse

Current 

Condition

Planned 

Improvements Comments Private BLM State

State 

School

Land Owner Acreagesb

Appendix E1

Proposed Bison Access Roads 

Temporary Land Use Acreage Impactsb

#SL-01 219.58 Temporary 2,369.52 0.01 1.08 1.09 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 1.09

#SL-13 220.23 Temporary 3,532.55 1.25 0.37 1.62 L-2 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 1.62

#SL-14 221.35 Temporary 854.45 0.29 0.11 0.40 L-2 C-5 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.40

#SL-15 222.84 Temporary 1,373.51 0.01 0.63 0.64 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.64

#SL-03 224.49 Temporary 3,791.05 1.74 0.01 1.75 L-1 C-6 1.75

#SL-04 225.43 Temporary 417.22 0.05 0.15 0.20 L-1 C-6 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD 0.20

#SL-05 226.55 Temporary 1,803.08 0.06 0.78 0.84 L-1 C-6 0.84

#SL-12 228.16 Temporary 2,480.41 0.26 0.88 1.14 L-2 C-6 1.14#SL-06 228.24 Temporary 7,627.32 0.22 3.29 3.51 L-2 C-6 3.51#SL-06-1 228.72 Temporary 917.19 0.01 0.41 0.01 0.43 L-2 C-6 0.43

#SL-07 231.00 Temporary 1,525.96 0.71 0.71 L-2 C-6 0.71

#SL-08 232.12 Permanent 4,827.94 0.09 2.03 2.12 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 2.12

#SL-08-1 232.38 Temporary 1,502.40 0.32 0.37 0.69 L-2 C-6 0.69

#SL-10 236.53 Temporary 2,877.47 1.16 0.17 1.33 L-2 C-6 1.33#SL-11 237.64 Temporary 5,057.92 0.05 2.19 0.09 2.33 L-2 C-6 2.33

1.00 14.55 2.62 0.63 18.80 18.80

#HE-01 238.70 Temporary 7,145.53 0.10 2.94 0.25 3.29 L-2 C-6 3.29

#HE-02 242.72 Temporary 1,755.99 0.19 0.52 0.10 0.81 L-2 C-6 0.81#HE-03 244.17 Temporary 3,064.06 0.10 1.31 1.41 L-2 C-5 1.41#HE-04 246.37 Temporary 2,680.65 0.12 1.12 1.24 L-2 C-5 1.24#HE-05 248.51 Temporary 1,358.31 0.63 0.63 L-2 C-6 0.63#HE-15 250.24 Temporary 12,874.63 0.20 5.51 0.21 5.92 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 5.86 0.06

#HE-05-1 250.86 Temporary 5,775.91 0.26 0.09 2.31 2.66 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 2.66

#HE-06-1 251.74 Temporary 7,795.73 1.66 1.12 0.80 3.58 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 3.58#HE-06 251.76 Permanent 2,787.96 0.04 0.95 0.22 0.02 1.23 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD 1.23

#HE-06-2 253.94 Temporary 12,673.03 0.01 1.67 4.15 5.83 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 5.83

#HE-07 256.20 Temporary 1,567.60 0.15 0.58 0.73 L-2 C-6 0.73

#HE-19 257.19 Permanent 240.26 0.10 0.02 0.12 L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.12

#HE-17 258.04 Temporary 3,309.82 0.16 1.35 0.02 1.53 L-2 C-4 & C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 1.53

#HE-08 259.60 Temporary 1,957.58 0.28 0.62 0.90 L-2 C-6 0.90

#HE-16 260.68 Temporary 113.47 0.06 0.06 L-2 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.06

#HE-09 262.03 Temporary 949.09 0.42 0.02 0.44 L-2 C-6 0.44

#HE-18 264.10 Temporary 7,136.67 0.38 2.81 0.04 0.05 3.28 L-2 C-6 3.28

#HE-12 271.99 Temporary 2,944.47 1.20 0.16 1.36 L-2 C-6 1.36#HE-13 272.81 Temporary 1,619.42 0.09 0.66 0.75 L-2 C-6 0.75#HE-14 273.78 Temporary 2,694.82 0.02 1.19 0.02 0.01 1.24 L-2 C-6 1.24

3.92 24.71 8.30 0.02 0.05 0.01 37.01 36.95 0.06

#ST-06 275.23 Temporary 7,349.76 0.73 1.32 1.33 3.38 L-2 C-6 3.38#ST-01a 276.61 Permanent 91.76 0.04a 0.01a 0.05a L-3 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.05a

#ST-02 277.13 Temporary 1,384.64 0.56 0.08 0.64 L-2 C-6 0.64

#ST-03 279.32 Temporary 336.97 0.13 0.03 0.16 L-2 C-6 0.16

#ST-05 281.21 Temporary 1,735.11 0.20 0.59 0.01 0.80 L-2 C-6 0.80

0.93 2.60 1.45 4.98 4.98

#GR-01-1 282.50 Temporary 1,602.92 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.74 L-2 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.74#GR-01 284.81 Temporary 1,154.67 0.07 0.47 0.54 L-2 C-6 0.54

0.39 0.79 0.10 1.28 1.28

#MO-06 287.03 Temporary 985.59 0.01 0.45 0.46 L-2 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.46

#MO-01 288.85 Temporary 3,266.99 0.27 1.19 0.04 1.50 L-2 C-6 ADJUSTED ACCESS ROAD 1.50

#MO-02 292.68 Temporary 5,582.70 0.05 2.52 2.57 L-1, 2 C-6 2.57

#MO-02-1 292.71 Temporary 4,737.46 0.17 2.01 2.18 L-1, 2 C-6 2.18#MO-03 293.47 Temporary 2,402.29 0.08 1.03 1.11 L-2 C-6 1.11#MO-04a 295.19 Permanent 53.65 0.03a 0.03a L-2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 0.03a

#MO-05 296.90 Temporary 5,206.21 0.07 1.37 0.96 2.40 L-1, 2 C-6 I-2, 3, 4 2.40

#MO-07 301.43 Permanent 68.93 0.01 0.03 0.04 L-4 C-6 NEW ACCESS ROAD 0.04

0.65 8.58 1.03 10.26 10.260.97 0.57 219.04 5.38 16.90 242.86 221.33 13.99 7.54

2.27 0.09 0.01 75.63 0.03 22.32 0.01 20.76 0.58 121.70 108.98 10.88 1.84

7.95 0.11 86.54 15.29 0.02 1.48 0.01 111.40 109.01 2.13 0.26

11.19 0.77 0.01 381.21 0.03 42.99 0.03 39.14 0.58 0.01 475.96 439.32 27.00 9.38 0.26

c No perennial waterbodies would be crossed by access roads.a These Access Roads are completely contained within the Permenent ROW and therefore their impact acreages are not included in the temporary landuse totals. b These acreages do not include portions of the access roads that are contained in the Temporary and Permanent ROW's. An additional 0.93 acres is accounted for in the Permanent ROW and an additional 0.14 acres is accounted for in the Temporary ROW.

Grand Total Grand Total Land Ownership Acreage

Stark County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Grant County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Hettinger County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Morton County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Slope County Land Ownership Total Acreage

Wyoming Land Ownership Total Acreage

Montana Land Ownership Total Acreage

North Dakota Land Ownership Total Acreage Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in North 

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Hettinger 

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Stark 

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Grant 

Stark County, NDGrant County, NDMorton County, ND

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Morton 

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Wyoming

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Montana

Total Acreage Impacts for Access Roads in Slope 

Hettinger County, ND

E-4
APPENDIX F 

BISON’S UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 

(BISON’S PLAN)
AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 

Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, 

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

(Bison’s Plan) 
AECOM Environment 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

This document is based on FERC Document 01/17/2003 version which has been adopted for use in 

its entirety by Bison with the exception of the modifications identified in the following table. 

Revisions to FERC Document: Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, And Maintenance Plan 

Found In: Information Rationale 

II B 4 

Added “riparian areas” to areas in which will 

require flagging BLM request 

IV.A.2 Changed 75 feet to 120 feet 

Rational as provided in Appendix 1.T in 

Resource Report No. 1: Justification for 

Proposed 120-foot Construction ROW 

IV.B.1 

Revised text to working side, the trench and a 

portion of the spoil storage areas 

(approximately 85 feet of the Construction 

ROW); except for the areas that will be used for 

topsoil or snow storage, Consistent with the Project construction plan 

IV.F.3.c.(1) 

Changed 20 days to 60 days and removed "(10 

days in residential areas)" 

This is based on specific areas that will be 

required to be left open for hydrostatic testing 

and tie-in activities. It is anticipated that 85% 

of the Construction ROW will be able to meet 

the FERC guideline of 20 days. 

IV.F.3.e 

Revised to reflect BLM preference for no 

fertilizer “BLM does not recommend fertilizer 

due to enhanced competition from weeds.” BLM request. 

V.A.1 

Changed 20 days to 60 days and removed "(10 

days in residential areas)" 

This is based on specific areas that will be 

required to be left open for hydrostatic testing 

and tie-in activities. It is anticipated that 85% 

of the Construction ROW will be able to meet 

the FERC guideline of 20 days. 

V.A.4 

 Added “remove excess rock greater than 3 

inches in diameter...” Consistent with the Project construction plan 

V.C.1 

Added language to address soil compaction 

testing on BLM-managed lands “Test topsoil 

and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals 

in agricultural, BLM-managed” BLM request 

V.C.2 Removed “paraplow or other” 

Paraplow was removed due to difficulty in 

trying to find this equipment. 

V.D.3.d Changed 6 working days to 30 

This is based on specific areas that will be 

required to be left open for hydrostatic testing 

and tie-in activities. It is anticipated that 85% 

of the Construction ROW will be able to meet 

the FERC guideline of 6 days. 

VI 

Added a site-specific plan for areas where 

previous projects’ restoration has not been 

deemed successful. BLM Request 

VIII.A.2 

Added language to address restoration on BLMmanaged lands On BLM-managed lands, the 

requirements of the Reclamation Plan 

(Appendix 7.H in Resource Report No. 7) will 

be used to help define reclamation 

(revegetation) success. 

Refer the reader to the Reclamation Plan to 

comply with BLM requests 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 i April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 ii

Contents 

I. Applicability .................................................................................................................................................1

II. Supervision and Inspection ...........................................................................................................................1

A. Environmental Inspection ....................................................................................................................1

B. Responsibilities of Environmental Inspectors ......................................................................................2

III. Preconstruction Planning ..............................................................................................................................3

A. Construction Work Areas...................................................................................................................3

B. Drain Tile and Irrigation Systems ......................................................................................................3

C. Grazing Deferment.............................................................................................................................3

D. Road Crossing and Access Points ......................................................................................................4

E. Disposal Planning...............................................................................................................................5

F. Agency Coordination .........................................................................................................................5

G. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan................................................................................................5

IV. Installation ....................................................................................................................................................5

A. Approved Areas of Disturbance .........................................................................................................5

B. Topsoil Segregation............................................................................................................................6

C. Drain Tiles..........................................................................................................................................6

D. Irrigation.............................................................................................................................................7

E. Road Crossings and Access Points.....................................................................................................7

F. Temporary Erosion Control................................................................................................................7

V. Restoration....................................................................................................................................................9

A. Cleanup ..............................................................................................................................................9

B. Permanent Erosion Control Devices...................................................................................................9

C. Soil Compaction Mitigation .............................................................................................................10

D. Revegetation.....................................................................................................................................11

VI. Site Specific Plans.......................................................................................................................................12

VII. Off-Road Vehicle Control...........................................................................................................................13

VIII. Post-Construction Activities .......................................................................................................................13

A. Monitoring and Maintenance ...........................................................................................................13

B. Reporting..........................................................................................................................................13

References .............................................................................................................................................................14
AECOM Environment 

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). 

II. Supervision and Inspection 

A. Environmental Inspection 

1. At least one Environmental Inspector (EI) is required for each construction spread 

during construction and restoration (as defined in section V). The number and 

experience of EIs assigned to each construction spread should be appropriate for the 

length of the construction spread and the number/significance of resources affected. 

2. EIs shall have peer status with all other activity inspectors. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

3. EIs 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 EI(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, riparian areas, wetlands, or areas with 

special requirements along the construction work area; 

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 of 

topsoil; 

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: 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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; 

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, fuel and maintenance areas, etc.) that would be needed for safe construction. 

The project sponsor must ensure that appropriate cultural resources and biological 

surveys have been conducted; and 

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 three years of the 

authorized construction; 

3. Develop procedures for constructing through drain-tiled areas, maintaining 

irrigation systems during construction, and repairing drain tiles and irrigation 

systems after construction; and 

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 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Develop grazing deferment plans with willing landowners, grazing permittees, and land 

management agencies to minimize grazing disturbance of revegetation efforts. 

D. Road Crossing and Access Points 

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and access points 

during construction and restoration. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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. 

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 120 feet or that 

described in the FERC application unless otherwise modified by a Certificate 

condition. However, in limited, non-wetland areas, this construction right-of-way 

width may be expanded by up to 25 feet without Director approval to accommodate 

full construction right-of-way 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. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 5 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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 

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 the working 

side, the trench and a portion of the spoil storage areas (approximately 85 feet 

of the Construction ROW); except for the areas that will be used for topsoil or 

snow storage, 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 No.: 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 7

3. Repair damaged drain tiles to their original or better condition. Do not use filtercovered 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 

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed immediately after 

initial disturbance of the soil, properly maintained throughout construction (on a daily 

basis), and reinstalled as necessary until replaced by permanent erosion control 

structures or restoration of the construction right-of-way 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. 

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. 
AECOM Environment 

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 or 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. 

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 60 days after the trench in that area is 

backfilled, 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. BLM does 

not recommend fertilizer due to enhanced competition from weeds. 

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. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 8 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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 60 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. 

4. Remove excess rock greater than 3 inches in diameter 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 landowners request. The size, 

density, and distribution of rock remaining 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 pre-construction 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 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 9 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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 where 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. 

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 energy-dissipating 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-of way, 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, BLMmanaged and residential areas disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 10 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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. 

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a 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. 

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 30 working days of final grading, 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 11 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

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 roller 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 EI. 

VI. Site Specific Plans 

In recent discussions with BLM reclamation specialists (AECOM 2009), no specific 

sites have been identified on the project for site-specific soil reclamation plans. 

However, BLM staff have provided general guidance for areas designated Low 

Reclamation Potential (LRP), which was primarily based on soil survey data obtained 

from Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database information. The Reclamation 

Plan (Appendix 7.H of Resource Report No. 7) contains locations of LRP areas by 

milepost and provides methods for reclamation in these areas based on soil 

characteristics. 

For any area of sensitive resources on BLM land, especially those where reclamation 

by previous pipeline projects have not been deemed successful, the Project sponsor 

shall prepare a site-specific construction plan. The plan shall include: 

A. A description of construction techniques to be used; and 

B. A dimensioned site plan that shows, as a minimum: 

1. the location of the area of concern in relation to the Project; 

2. the edge of the new permanent construction right-of-way; and 

3. other nearby topographical features including landscaping, trees, structures, 

roads, parking areas, or ditches/streams, etc. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 12 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

VII. 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. 

VIII. 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. On BLM-managed lands, the requirements of the Reclamation 

Plan (Appendix 7.H in Resource Report No. 7) will be used to help define 

reclamation (revegetation) success. 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. 

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 an 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 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 13 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 14

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. 

References 

AECOM, 2009, Meeting Minutes, Discussion of BLM Soils Reclamation, BLM, Casper Field Office, 

January 27, 2009. 
APPENDIX G 

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES 

(BISON’S PROCEDURES) 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures 

(Bison’s Procedures) 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 
 AECOM Environment 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

(Bison’s Procedures) 

CONTENTS 

I. Applicability .......................................................................................................................................................2

II. Preconstruction Filing.........................................................................................................................................3

III. Environmental Inspectors ...................................................................................................................................3

IV. Preconstruction Planning ....................................................................................................................................3

V. Waterbody Crossings..........................................................................................................................................5

VI. Wetland Crossing..............................................................................................................................................11

VII. Hydrostatic Testing...........................................................................................................................................16

TABLES 

Table 2.A -1 – Revisions to FERC Document: Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures .....1

Document No. 06786-024-3383 i April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures 

This document is based on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) January 17, 

2003 version of the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, which has 

been adopted for use in its entirety by Bison with modifications identified in Table 2.A-1: 

Table 2.A -1 – Revisions to FERC Document: Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Section Description of Modifications 

IV.A.1.g. Inserted after (f.) a sub-section (g), specifying that chemical storage and refueling operations will 

occur no less than 500 feet from waterbodies and wetlands when on Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)-managed lands. 

V.B.6.d.(4) Inserted as (4). Discussion of methods for disposing of drilling mud and cuttings at a place. 

V.B.9 Added within (9), language indicating that the contractor will construct waterbody crossings as 

shown in construction drawings. 

.V.C.6 Use of BLM recommended seed mixtures and native species on BLM-managed land 

VI. C. 6 Use of BLM recommended seed mixtures and native species on BLM-managed land 

VII.B.2 Inserted language specifying that pump is restricted within 500 feet of waterbodies and wetlands 

when on BLM-managed lands. 

The modifications identified above are highlighted with bolded text in the body of this report. 

This document, with the FERC-approved modifications listed, will be known as Bison’s 

Procedures.

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 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 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). 

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. 

c. "Major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide at the 

water's edge at the time of crossing. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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; 

2. Plans for major waterbody crossings; 

3. Plans for the use of a Construction Right-of-Way (ROW) 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 (EI) having knowledge of the wetland and 

waterbody conditions in the Project area is required for each construction spread. The 

number and experience of EIs assigned to each construction spread should be 

appropriate for the length of the construction spread and the number/significance of 

resources affected. 

B. The EI's responsibilities are outlined in Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation 

and Maintenance Plan (Bison’s Plan). 

IV. Preconstruction Planning 

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for compliance 

with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA’s) 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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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; 

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 EI 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; and 

g. all chemical storage, equipment overnight parking and/or fueling, and 

concrete coating activities will occur at least 500 feet from a waterbody or 

wetland when on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands. 

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 sufficient tools and materials on-hand to 

stop leaks; 

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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 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 one 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. 

B. Installation 

1. Time Window for Construction 

Unless expressly permitted or further restricted by the appropriate state agency in 

writing on a site-specific basis, in-stream 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 (EWS) (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 ROW. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 5 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 USACE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and conditions. 

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 ROW. 

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 ROW at 

least 10 feet from the waterbody 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. 

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 culvert(s); 

(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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 USACE, or its delegated agency, authorizes it as a permanent bridge. 

f. If there will be more than one month between final cleanup and the beginning of 

permanent seeding and reasonable alternative access to the Construction ROW 

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 statedesignated as either coldwater or significant coolwater or warmwater fisheries. 

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 on-site 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 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 7 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

flume pipe (some modifications to the stream bottom may be required in 

order 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 

(5) Remove all flume pipes and dams that are also not 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; 

(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; and 

(4) A plan for how the Contractor shall dispose of all drill cuttings and 

drilling mud. With the permission of the landowner, drill fluid and 

cuttings will be spread over the subsoil layer in the Construction ROW, 

covered with topsoil and reseeded. Ideally, the drill waste will be 

backfilled into the bore pit and covered by the subsoil, which will then 

be recontoured prior to topsoil replacement. Samples of the spent fluid 

will be acquired and analyzed for contamination prior to disposal. 

Otherwise, waste will be collected, transported and disposed of off-site 

at an approved location. 

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 

c. Equipment bridges are not required at minor waterbodies that do not have a 

state-designated fishery classification (e.g., agricultural or intermittent drainage 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 8 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

ditches). If an equipment bridge is used, however, 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 EI may adjust the final placement of the erosion and sediment control 

structures in the field to maximize effectiveness. 

The Contractor shall construct each major waterbody crossing in accordance 

with a site-specific plan as shown in the construction drawings. The 

Contractor shall complete in-stream construction activities as expediently as 

practicable.

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 ROW at all waterbody 

crossings, where necessary, to prevent the flow of sediment into the waterbody. 

In the travel land, these may consist of removable sediment barriers or drivable 

berms. These removable sediment barriers may be removed during the 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 9 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 ROW, install sediment 

barriers along the edge of the Construction ROW, as necessary, to contain spoil 

and sediment within the Construction ROW; 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 ROW) in a manner that does 

not cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into any 

waterbody. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the 

completion of dewatering activities. 

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 in-stream construction activities. For dryditch 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 EI. 

4. Application of riprap for bank stabilization must comply with USACE, 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. Species will be chosen that are native to 

the location, similar to those that were located on-site prior to construction 

activities, or from a desired plant community that will allow the site to make 

progress toward its potential. On Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-

managed lands, only BLM-recommended seed mixtures will be utilized for this 

purpose. 

7. Install a permanent slope breaker across the Construction ROW 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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 10 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

In some areas, with the approval of the EI, 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. 

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 

ROW. 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 ROW. 

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 Crossing 

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. 

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 ROW, route the new 

pipeline in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wetlands. Where looping an 

existing pipeline, overlap the existing pipeline ROW with the new construction 

ROW. In addition, locate the loop line no more than 25 feet away from the existing 

pipeline unless site-specific constraints would adversely affect the stability of the 

existing pipeline. 

3. Limit the width of the Construction ROW to 75 feet or less. Prior written approval 

of the Director is required where topographic conditions or soil limitations require 

that the Construction ROW width within the boundaries of a federally delineated 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 11 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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. 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 United States 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 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 ROW. 

d. The Construction ROW may be used for access when the wetland soil is firm 

enough to avoid rutting or the Construction ROW has been appropriately 

stabilized to avoid rutting (e.g., with timber riprap, prefabricated equipment 

mats, or terra mats). 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 12 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

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 ROW. 

e. Other than the Construction ROW, the only access roads that may 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 USACE, 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 ROW, dig the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill 

the trench, and restore the Construction ROW. 

f. Cut vegetation just aboveground level, leaving existing root systems in place, 

and remove it from the wetland for disposal. 

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 ROW in wetlands unless the Chief Inspector and EI determine that 

safety-related construction constraints require grading or the removal of tree 

stumps from under the working side of the Construction ROW. 

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 ROW. 

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-groundweight 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 ROW. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 13 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

m. Remove all project-related material used to support equipment on the 

Construction ROW upon completion of construction. 

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 ROW at all wetland 

crossing where necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland. In the 

travel lane, these may consist of removable sediment barriers or drivable 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 ROW and the Construction 

ROW slopes toward the wetland, install sediment barriers along the edge of the 

Construction ROW, as necessary, to prevent sediment flow into the wetland. 

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the Construction ROW, as necessary, 

to contain spoil and sediment within the Construction ROW through wetlands. 

Remove these sediment barriers during ROW cleanup. 

4. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the Construction ROW) in a manner that does 

not cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into any 

wetland. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the completion 

of dewatering activities. 

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 ROW at the base of 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 EI, 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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 14 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

4. Consult with the appropriate land management or state agency to develop a projectspecific 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 ROW 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 that are native to the location, similar to those that 

were located on-site prior to construction activities, or from a desired plant 

community that will allow the site to make progress toward its potential. On 

BLM-managed lands, only BLM-recommended seed mixtures will be utilized 

for this purpose. 

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 ROW 

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 

ROW. 

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. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 15 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 16 April 2009 

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 stateissued 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, or within 500 feet of any waterbody or wetland on BLM-managed 

lands, address the operation and refueling of these pumps in the Project’s Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. 

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. 

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 sediment, 

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. 
APPENDIX H 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC 

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) 

NOTE: THIS SPCC PLAN WILL BE UPDATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL 

PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFORMATION 

AECOM Environment 

April 2009 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Bulk Storage Containers and Oil-containing Units...................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Nearby Navigable Waters that Could be Impacted .................................................................... 1-2

2.0 Planning and Prevention........................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities........................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Spill Coordinator ............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.2 Environmental Inspector ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1.3 Authorized Personnel..................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.4 Construction Superintendent ......................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.5 Construction Personnel.................................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.6 Bison Representative ..................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2 Training......................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Equipment .................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Inspections, Tests and Records .................................................................................................. 2-5

2.5 Security......................................................................................................................................... 2-5

3.0 Storage and Handling of Fuels/Hazardous Liquids .............................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Typical Fuels, Lubricants, and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Storage of Fuel and Hazardous Liquids - General ..................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Mobile Refuelers .......................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Security......................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.5 Refueling ...................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.6 Refueling and Fuel Storage near Wetlands, Waterbodies, and Rural Residences................... 3-2

4.0 Initial Spill Management......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Immediate Response................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Mobilization................................................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 Spill Notification Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Notification Volumes .................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Spill Report Form ......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Agency Notification ...................................................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 Spill Containment and Cleanup ............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Spill Control and Cleanup - Upland Areas .................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Spill Control and Cleanup - Wetlands and Waterbodies ............................................................ 6-1

7.0 Storage and Disposal of Contaminated Materials................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 Spill History............................................................................................................................................. 8-1

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 i April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 ii April 2009 

TABLES 

Table 3.1-1- Typical Petroleum Storage and Handling Volumes on a Construction Spread ........................ 3-1

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Emergency Response Contractors Disposal and Treatment Facilities

Appendix B Spill Report Forms

Appendix C Inspection Form
AECOM Environment 

CERTIFICATION 

Professional Engineer Certification* 

As a Registered Professional Engineer, I hereby certify that I or my agent have visited and examined the 

facility, and being familiar with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 112, attest that 

this Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan has been prepared in consideration of 

industry standards, is in accordance with good engineering practice that conforms to Part 112, and is adequate 

for the facility. Procedures for required inspections and testing have been established in this SPCC Plan. 

_____________________________________________ 

Name of Registered Professional Engineer (SEAL) 

_____________________________________________ 

Signature of Registered Professional Engineer 

Date:_____________________ Registration Number:______________________ State: ______________ 

*If the Bison Pipeline Project site has less than 10,000 gallons in aggregate aboveground oil storage 

capacity and meets the oil discharge history criteria (40 CFR Part 112.3), Bison Pipeline LLC may selfcertify the SPCC Plan (40 CFR Part 112.6(b)) 

Management Commitment 

It is the intent of Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) to implement the procedures outlined in this SPCC Plan and to 

take the necessary steps to minimize the potential for releases to navigable waters of the United States. A 

copy of this Plan shall be maintained at the facility at all times, or the nearest field office, and will be made 

available to the Regional Administrator for on-site review during normal working hours. 

Name of Management Person: ___________________________________________________________ 

Title: ________________________________________________Date: ____________________________ 

Signature: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 iii April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

SPCC Plan Cross Reference Table 

SPCC Rule Description of Section Found In: 

§ 112.7 General requirements for SPCC Plans for all 

facilities and all oil types Section 1.0 

§ 112.7(a) 

General requirements; discussion of facility's 

conformance with rule requirements; deviations 

from Plan requirements; facility characteristics 

that must be described in the Plan; spill reporting 

information in the Plan; emergency procedures 

Sections 1.0-4.0, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.0 

§ 112.7(b) Fault analysis Table 3.1-1 

§ 112.7(c) Secondary containment Section 1.2 

§ 112.7(d) Contingency planning Section 3.0 

§ 112.7(e) Inspections, tests, and records Section 2.4 

§ 112.7(f) Employee training and discharge prevention 

procedures Section 2.2 and Table 3.1-1 

§ 112.7(g) Security (excluding oil production facilities) Section 2.5 

§ 112.7(h) Loading/unloading (excluding offshore facilities) Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 

§ 112.7(i) Brittle fracture evaluation requirements N/A 

§ 112.7(j) Conformance with state requirements Sections 1.0 and 5.1 

§112.8 / 

§112.12 

Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding 

production facilities) Sections 1.0-4.0, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.0 

§112.8(a) / 

§112.12(a) General and specific requirements Sections 1.0, 2.1, 4.0, and 5.0 

§112.8(b) / 

§112.12(b) Facility drainage SWPPP and attachments (Resource Report No. 2, Appendix 2.D) 

§112.8(c) / 

§112.12(c) Bulk storage containers Section 1.2 

§112.8(d) / 

§112.12(d) 

Facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility 

process 

N/A 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 iv 
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

This SPCC Plan describes planning, prevention, and control measures to minimize impacts resulting from spills 

of fuels, petroleum products, or other regulated substances as a result of pipeline construction. These 

measures will be implemented by the contractor (unless otherwise indicated) during Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) 

pipeline construction projects. This SPCC Plan was developed in conjunction with the Bison Pipeline Project’s 

(the Project’s) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). 

The following sections contain the SPCC Plan for the Project. The Plan follows the requirements set forth in 40 

CFR Part 112.7. 

The Plan describes the following: 

 Site description and history; 

 Spill history and reporting requirements; 

 Description of oil-containing units; 

 Description of containment structures; 

 Site drainage; 

 Bulk storage; 

 Transfer operations; 

 Loading/unloading rack procedures; 

 Inspections; 

 Facility security measures; and 

 Personnel training. 

As provided by 40 CFR Part 112.1, a SPCC Plan is required for all non-transportation-related facilities: 

 That have the capacity to store petroleum materials in excess of 1,320 gallons aboveground; and/or 

 Where the facility’s underground storage capacity of petroleum materials is greater than 42,000 gallons, 

excluding from the calculation the capacity of tanks covered by 40 CFR Parts 280 or 281. 

If a facility meets any one or both of the above criteria, it is subject to SPCC regulations if, due to its location, the 

facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil, either directly or indirectly, into or upon the navigable 

waters of the United States (U.S.). 

“Navigable waters” are described in 40 CFR Part 112 as the "waters of the United States." The regulation lists 

the many kinds of waters covered under this term including all surface waters that are currently used, were used 

in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce. Tributaries have been determined to 

include intermittent streams, drainage ditches, and storm sewer systems which eventually feed a river, lake, or 

wetland which could be adversely affected by a release of chemicals and petroleum. 

“Oil,” as described in 40 CFR Part 112.2, is oil of any kind or in any form including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or 

greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or 

kernels; and other oils and greases including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or 

oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 1-1 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 1-2 

Montana describes oil as any refined petroleum product such as gasoline, diesel, asphalt, road oil, kerosene, 

fuel oil, and derivatives of mineral, animal, or vegetable oil. 

North Dakota’s definition of oil can be defined as in 40 CFR Part 112.2. In addition, the North Dakota General 

Water Quality Standards (North Dakota GWQS) describe minimum conditions to all waters of the state (except 

for Class II ground waters) as follows: All waters of the state shall be: a) free from oil, or other discharges in 

sufficient amounts to be deleterious or unsightly; and b) free from oil or grease residue attributable to 

wastewater, which causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining 

shorelines or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the 

adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters. 

Wyoming describes oils in Chapter IV of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations (WWQRR) as 

insoluble or partially soluble oil of any kind including, but not limited to, crude or fuel oil, lubricating oil, oily 

sludge, asphalt, crude oil condensate, gasoline, aviation fuel, kerosene, diesel motor fuels, road oil, waste oil, oil 

mixed with federally defined non-hazardous wastes, and derivatives of mineral, animal or vegetable oils. 

Since the Project’s aboveground oil storage capacity potentially exceeds 1,320 gallons and since a discharge of 

oil could either directly or indirectly reach the navigable waters of the U.S., a SPCC Plan is required for the 

Project. 

1.1 Bulk Storage Containers and Oil-containing Units 

Refer to Table 3.1-1 for a description of typical oil-containing units, quantities, and other pertinent information 

relating to these items. There are no field-constructed aboveground containers, buried oil transfer piping, 

aboveground oil piping, or secondary containment structures at the Project site. Refer to Project alignment 

sheets for locations of the oil-filled equipment and/or oil-containing units. 

1.2 Nearby Navigable Waters that Could be Impacted 

Navigable waters of the U.S. are defined as “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or 

are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to interstate transport or 

foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 329). As defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Project 

area does not cross any navigable waters within the Omaha District (Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). 
AECOM Environment 

2.0 Planning and Prevention 

This section requires Bison’s contractors to implement proper planning and preventative measures to minimize 

the likelihood of spills, and to quickly and successfully clean up a spill, should one occur. This section also 

discusses minimum standards for handling and storing regulated substances and for cleaning up spills. 

Potential sources of construction-related spills include storage tank leaks, machinery and equipment failure, 

and fuel handling and transfer accidents. The contractor will be responsible for implementing, at a minimum, 

the planning and prevention measures that follow. 

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities 

2.1.1 Spill Coordinator 

 A Spill Coordinator shall be designated by the contractor, subject to approval by Bison; 

 The Spill Coordinator shall mobilize on-site personnel, equipment, and materials for containment and/or 

cleanup commensurate with the extent of the spill; 

 The Spill Coordinator shall assist the Emergency Response Contractor (Appendix A) and monitor 

containment procedures to ensure that the actions are consistent with the requirements of this SPCC 

Plan; 

 The Spill Coordinator and/or Bison Representative, in consultation with appropriate agencies, shall 

determine when it is necessary to evacuate spill sites to safeguard human health; 

 The Spill Coordinator shall notify the Environmental Inspector (EI) immediately of any spill; and 

 The Spill Coordinator will assist the EI in completion of a Spill Report Form (Appendix B). 

2.1.2 Environmental Inspector 

 The EI will monitor the contractor's compliance with the provisions of this SPCC Plan; 

 The EI, with assistance from the Spill Coordinator, is responsible for completing a Spill Report Form 

(Appendix B) within 24 hours of the occurrence of a spill, regardless of the size of the spill; and 

 The EI will monitor the Project and complete the weekly SPCC Inspection Checklist (Appendix C). 

2.1.3 Authorized Personnel 

 Authorized Personnel are representatives of the contractor who are designated to handle fuel, lubricants 

or other regulated substances; and 

 Authorized Personnel shall be familiar with the requirements of the SPCC Plan and the consequences of 

non-compliance. 

2.1.4 Construction Superintendent 

 The contractor's Construction Superintendent or representative must immediately notify the Bison 

Representative and the EI of any spill of a petroleum product or hazardous liquid, regardless of volume. 

2.1.5 Construction Personnel 

 Construction Personnel are representatives of the contractor involved with installation of the pipeline; and 

 Construction Personnel shall notify the crew foreman or Spill Coordinator immediately of any spill of a 

petroleum product or hazardous liquid, regardless of volume. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2-3
AECOM Environment 

2.1.6 Bison Representative 

 Bison will promptly report spills to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies as required. 

Listed below are the 24-hour hotlines available for reporting spills with federal and state agencies. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region VIII, serving Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations: (303) 293-1788 

The Montana 24-hour spill hotline is (406) 841-3911 or Montana Water Protection Bureau (406) 444-3080. 

The North Dakota hazardous materials emergency assistance and spill reporting 24-hour hotline is: (800) 472-

2121 or the Department of Health: (701) 328-5210. Non-emergency spills can be reported via the on-line 

Environmental Incident Form: http://www.ndhealth.gov/ehs/eir/eirform.htm

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) Emergency Response Coordinator 24-hour 

hotline number for reporting spills is: (307) 777-7781 

Bison may also be required to notify and report spills and discharges (undesirable events as described in 

Section 5.1) to the field office of the Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office (BLM WSO). 

Undesirable events are subject to Notice to Lessee (NTL - 3A) and must be reported as soon as practical but 

in writing within 24-hours to the BLM WSO by calling primary contact, Travis Bargsten: (307) 775-6203, backup Rob Coleman: (307) 775-6193 or via fax: (303) 775-6203. 

Bison will coordinate with these agencies regarding contacting additional local parties or agencies: 

 The Bison Representative will immediately notify the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center (1-800-

424-8802) of spills, regardless of size, that enter lakes, streams, or other standing or flowing waters; and 

 The Bison Representative and/or the Spill Coordinator, in consultation with appropriate agencies, will 

determine when spill sites will be evacuated, as necessary, to safeguard human health. 

Refer to the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) for additional roles and responsibilities for the Project. A PIP 

will be made prior to construction based on permit and Certificate conditions. 

2.2 Training 

The contractor shall train all employees handling fuels and other regulated substances to follow and comply 

with this SPCC Plan. The Construction Superintendent and Bison Representative will be accountable for oil 

spill prevention at the Project. 

2.3 Equipment 

 The contractor must maintain spill kits containing a sufficient quantity of absorbent and barrier materials to 

adequately contain and recover foreseeable spills. These kits may include, but are not limited to 

absorbent pads, straw bales, absorbent clay, sawdust, floor-drying agents, spill containment barriers, 

plastic sheeting, skimmer pumps and holding tanks; 

 Suitable plastic lining materials shall also be available for placement below and on top of temporarilystored contaminated soils and materials; 

 All fuel and service vehicles shall carry materials adequate to control foreseeable spills. Such material 

may include, but not be limited to, absorbent pads, commercial absorbent material, plastic bags with ties, 

and a shovel; 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2-4
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2-5

 The Spill Coordinator shall make known to Authorized Personnel, Construction Personnel, the EI, and the 

Bison Representative the locations of spill control equipment and materials and have them readily 

accessible during construction activity; 

 Construction equipment that can be moved on an existing roadway shall be removed from wetlands and 

parked a minimum of 150 feet away from streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies at the end of 

each workday. In large wetlands where no upland site is available for refueling, auxiliary fuel tanks on 

construction equipment are recommended; 

 All fuel nozzles shall be equipped with functional automatic shut-offs; and 

 Fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site construction equipment shall travel only on approved access roads; 

2.4 Inspections, Tests and Records 

 The contractor shall perform a pre-construction inspection and test of all equipment to ensure that it is in 

good condition; 

 During construction, the contractor shall regularly inspect hoses, pipes, valves, and tanks to ensure 

equipment is free of leaks; 

 The levels of oil in oil-containing units are checked on a daily basis; and 

 Records of inspections and corrective actions shall be maintained with this SPCC Plan as Appendix C. 

2.5 Security 

 The contractor's Construction Superintendent or representative check and secure by locking or capping all 

oil-containing equipment at the end of the work day to help prevent discharges caused by vandalism. 

 If construction occurs during hours of darkness, sufficient lighting will assist in the discovery of discharges. 
AECOM Environment 

3.0 Storage and Handling of Fuels/Hazardous Liquids 

3.1 Typical Fuels, Lubricants, and Hazardous Materials 

Table 3.1-1 identifies fuels, lubricants, and coolants generally present on pipeline construction spreads as well 

as typical total volumes, storage and handling methods. 

Table 3.1-1- Typical Petroleum Storage and Handling Volumes on a Construction Spread 

Oil-Containing Fluids 

Storage 

Capacity 

(gallons) 

Storage 

Container 

Description 

Failsafe Controls in 

Place During Transfer 

(i.e. Level Gauges, Drip 

Pans, Containment 

Curbing) 

Discharge Prediction/ 

Anticipated Runoff 

Direction 

Diesel 

Kerosene 

Fuels 

Gasoline 

See Topo map for 

potential spill direction. 

Engine Oil 

Transmission 

/Drive Train Oil 

Hydraulic Oil 

Gear Oil 

Lubricants 

Lubricating 

Grease 

See Topo map for spill 

direction. 

TABLE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 

3.2 Storage of Fuel and Hazardous Liquids - General 

The contractor shall follow proper storage practices for fuels and hazardous liquids including, but not limited to, 

the following: 

 Fuel storage shall occur only at contractor yards or at other locations approved by Bison. Storage tanks 

and containers must conform to all applicable industry codes. Fuels, lubricants, waste oil, and any other 

regulated substances shall be stored in aboveground tanks only. There are no field constructed 

aboveground tanks at the Project; 

 Tools and materials to stop the flow of leaking tanks and pipes shall be kept on-site. Such equipment 

must include, but not be limited to, plugs of various sizes, a hammer, assorted sizes of metal screws with 

rubber washers, a screwdriver, and plastic tape; 

 All bulk fuel loading into the mobile refueler will be conducted off-site. There are no tank and truck loading 

or unloading racks at the Project site; 

 A suitable secondary containment structure must be utilized at each fuel storage site. These structures 

must be lined with suitable plastic sheeting; provide a minimum containment volume equal to 150 percent 

of the volume of the largest storage vessel; and provide at least 1 foot of freeboard. If earthen 

containment dikes are used, they shall be constructed with slopes no steeper than three-to-one (horizontal 

to vertical) to limit erosion and provide structural stability; 

 Secondary containment areas must have locked drains. Precipitation may be drawn off as necessary. If 

visual inspection indicates that no spillage has occurred in the secondary containment structure, 

accumulated water may be drawn off and sprayed on the surrounding upland areas. If spillage has 

occurred in the structure, accumulated waste shall be drawn off and pumped into drum storage for 

disposal; and 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 3-1
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 3-2

 Vehicle maintenance wastes, including used oils and other fluids, shall be handled and managed by 

personnel trained in the procedures outlined in this SPCC Plan. Vehicle maintenance wastes will be 

stored and disposed of in accordance with Section 6.0 of this SPCC Plan. 

3.3 Mobile Refuelers 

Bison will use a mobile refueler to fuel construction equipment on the Project. All bulk fuel loading into the 

mobile refueler will be conducted off-site. Procedures for refueling are included in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 below. 

3.4 Security 

Oil storage at the Project site will be secured by steel fencing, and the entrance gate shall be locked when the 

facility is unattended (contractor yard). Drain valves are locked in closed position when in “non-operating” or 

“standby” status. The contractor yard shall use area lights to illuminate storage areas. 

3.5 Refueling 

Fuels shall be dispensed by Authorized Personnel only. Refueling will be conducted a minimum of 150 feet 

away from streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies. On BLM lands, refueling operations will occur 

at a minimum of 500 feet from streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies. All fueling vehicles shall 

carry materials adequate to control foreseeable spills. Such material may include, but not be limited to, 

absorbent pads, commercial absorbent material, plastic bags with ties, and a shovel. A spill bucket will be 

used under valve and hose connections. Adequate lighting will be provided for refueling after dark.

3.6 Refueling and Fuel Storage near Wetlands, Waterbodies, and Rural 

Residences 

The storage of petroleum products and refueling and lubricating operations must take place in upland areas 

that are more than 150 feet from wetlands, streams, waterbodies (including drainage ditches), and water 

supply wells. On BLM lands, fuel storage will be located at a minimum of 500 feet from streams, wetlands, 

ditches, and other waterbodies. In addition, the contractor must store hazardous materials, chemicals, fuel, 

and lubricating oils and perform concrete coating activities outside these areas. These materials are typically 

stored in contractor storage yards. Auxiliary fuel tanks solidly attached to construction equipment or pumps 

are not considered storage facilities and are acceptable. 

In certain instances, refueling or minor quantities of fuel storage may be unavoidable due to site-specific 

conditions or unique construction requirements (e.g., continuously operating pumps). The EI must approve 

these locations for use in advance. In addition to those practices described above, the following precautions 

will be taken when refueling within 150 feet of streams, wetlands, or waterbodies or 150 feet of water wells: 

 Adequate amounts of absorbent materials and containment booms must be kept on hand by each 

construction crew to enable the rapid containment and cleanup of any spill which may occur; 

 If fuel must be stored within wetlands or near streams for refueling of continuously operating pumps, 

secondary containment must be provided; and 

 Secondary containment structures must be lined with suitable plastic sheeting, provide a containment 

volume of at least 150 percent of the storage vessel, and allow for at least 1 foot of freeboard. 

Procedures regarding excavation and disposal of contaminated soil material from wetlands or near 

waterbodies are described in Section 7.0 of this SPCC Plan.
AECOM Environment 

4.0 Initial Spill Management 

4.1 Immediate Response 

Immediately upon learning of any fuel, oil, hazardous material, or other regulated substance spill, or upon 

learning of conditions that will lead to an imminent spill, the person discovering the situation shall: 

 Initiate actions to contain the fluid that has spilled or is about to spill, and initiate action to eliminate the 

source of the spill to the maximum extent that is safely possible and dispose of the release product 

accordingly; and 

 Notify the Spill Coordinator and provide him/her with the following information: 

 Location and cause of the spill; 

 The type and amount of material that has spilled; and 

 Whether the spill has reached or is likely to reach any surface water. 

Upon learning of a spill or a potential spill, the Spill Coordinator shall: 

 Assess the situation and determine the need for further action; 

 Direct subsequent activities and/or further assign responsibilities to other personnel; and 

 Notify the EI. 

4.2 Mobilization 

 The Spill Coordinator shall mobilize on-site personnel, equipment, and materials for containment and/or 

cleanup commensurate with the extent of the spill; 

 If a spill is greater than the state notification volume (see Section 5.1), the Spill Coordinator shall notify the 

Bison Representative; otherwise the Bison Representative will be notified by a copy of the Spill Report; 

 If the Spill Coordinator feels that a spill is beyond the scope of on-site equipment and personnel, he/she 

shall immediately notify the Construction Superintendent that an emergency response contractor is 

needed to contain and/or clean up the spill. Appendix A of this SPCC Plan contains a list of potential 

emergency response contractors; and 

 The Spill Coordinator shall assist the emergency response contractor and monitor containment 

procedures to ensure that the actions are consistent with the requirements of this SPCC Plan. 

.

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 4-1
AECOM Environment 

5.0 Spill Notification Responsibilities 

5.1 Notification Volumes 

The contractor's Construction Superintendent or representative must notify the Bison Representative and the 

EI immediately of any spill of a petroleum product or hazardous liquid, regardless of volume. 

Reportable volumes can be described differently across different agencies. The federal-specific reportable 

spill quantities are described as follows. 

USEPA

Per the USEPA, the contractor or Bison Representative is subject to the reporting requirements of the 

Discharge of Oil regulation if there is a discharge of a harmful quantity of oil to U.S. navigable waters, adjoining 

shorelines, or the contiguous zone which may affect natural resources under exclusive U.S. authority. In 

general, “harmful quantities” are described by the USEPA as any quantities that may be harmful to public 

health or the environment and include volumes that: violate applicable state or federal water quality standards; 

cause a film or "sheen" upon, or discoloration of, the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines; or cause a 

sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. 

BLM WSO

Per the BLM WSO, the Bison Representative or EI must orally report and complete the Report of Undesirable 

Event form (Appendix B) for a major undesirable (Class I) event. A Class I event is defined as any spill 

venting or fire regardless of the volume involved which occurs in a sensitive area (e.g., parks, recreation sites, 

wildlife refuges, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and urban or suburban areas; discharges greater than 100 barrels 

of liquid, venting greater than 500 million cubic feet [MMcf] of gas); fires consuming the previous volumes; 

each accident which involves a fatal injury; and any loss of control of a well (blowout). The reporting of a Class 

I event must be completed as soon as practical, but within 24-hours.

Per the BLM WSO, the Bison Representative or EI must complete the Report of Undesirable Event form 

(Appendix B) for an other-than-major undesirable (Class II) event. Class II events are defined as discharges 

greater than 10 barrels but less than 100 barrels of fluids, venting greater than 50 MMcf gas but less than 500 

MMcf gas in non-sensitive areas, fire which consumes volumes in the ranges previously specified, and each 

accident which involves a major or life threatening injury. The reporting of a Class II event does not need to be 

reported orally within 24 hours but the written report as required for a Class I event must be provided.

State-specific reportable spill quantities are described as follows. 

Wyoming 

Pursuant to Chapter 4 of the WWQRR, the following oil spills/releases are reportable to the WYDEQ: 

 Releases of "oil" and "hazardous substances" which enter waters of the state; 

 Releases that are determined to be a threat to enter waters of the state and are: a) considered a 

"hazardous substance"; or b) an amount greater than either 10 barrels of any combination of crude oil/ 

petroleum condensate/produced water or 25 gallons of refined crude oil products; and 

 Suspected releases from aboveground or underground storage tanks that are regulated by Chapter 17 of 

the WWQRR. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5-1 
AECOM Environment 

Non-reportable spill events are still required to be addressed immediately by containing, removing, and 

disposing of the released product according to WYDEQ regulations. 

Montana 

Montana reportable spills are fuel spills that reach state waters or are greater than 25 gallons. “State waters” 

are defined as surface waters, ditch waters with return, and ground waters (see Administrative Rules of 

Montana Chapter 56, Subchapter 5, Rule 17.56.505 – Reporting and Cleanup of Spills and Overfills). 

North Dakota

North Dakota reportable spills are oil spills which will not impact waters of the state, but exceed 10 gallons; 

spills which threaten or are in a position to threaten waters of the state, such as surface and ground water; 

spills which cause immediate danger to human health and safety or cause harm or threaten wildlife or aquatic 

life; and releases in excess of reportable quantities under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR 

Part 110.10 and CFR Part 117.21) or Section 102 of CERCLA (see 40 CFR Part 302.4). 

In addition, any spill or discharge of waste which may cause pollution of waters of the state must be reported 

immediately (North Dakota Administrative Code 33-16-02.1-11, Paragraph 4, bottom of Page 22). The 

contractor or Bison Representative must notify the North Dakota Health Department of a spill or discharge as 

soon as possible. 

5.2 Spill Report Form 

The EI shall complete a Spill Report Form (Appendix B) for each release of a regulated substance, regardless 

of volume. The Spill Report Form must be submitted to the Bison Representative within 24 hours of the 

occurrence of a spill. To complete the Spill Report Form, the Spill Coordinator shall compile the following 

information: 

 A legal description of the spill location, pipeline milepost (MP), and specific directions from the nearest 

community; 

 The time and date of the spill (if known), and the time and date the spill was discovered; 

 The type and estimated volume of spilled material, and the material manufacturer's name; 

 The media in which the spill exists (e.g., soil, water, etc.); 

 The topography and surface conditions of the spill site; 

 Proximity of surface waters; 

 Weather conditions; 

 Name, company, address, and telephone number of the Construction Superintendent, Spill Coordinator, 

Bison Representative, and the person who reported the spill; 

 The cause of the spill; 

 Immediate containment and/or cleanup actions taken; and 

 Current status of cleanup actions. 

Follow-up written reports, associated laboratory analyses, and other documentation may also be required 

separately on a case-specific basis and are the responsibility of the contractor. 

5.3 Agency Notification 

The EI or contractor shall call the Bison emergency center at [TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO 

CONSTRUCTION]

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5-2 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5-3 

The contractor is ultimately responsible for reporting his/her spills and complying with all relative local, state, 

and federal environmental regulations. State-specific notification requirements are as follows: 

Wyoming 

In Wyoming, if a release of oil or hazardous substances enters waters of the state, the contractor or Bison 

Representative must notify the WYDEQ 24-hour hotline number for reporting spills at: (307) 777-7781. 

Montana

In Montana, reportable oil spills are fuel spills that reach state waters, or that are greater than 25 gallons. The 

contractor or Bison Representative must notify the Montana spill hotline (406-841-3911) or the Water 

Protection Bureau (406-444-3080). 

North Dakota

In North Dakota, any spill or discharge of waste which may cause pollution of waters of the state must be 

reported immediately. The contractor or Bison Representative must notify as soon as possible, the North 

Dakota Health Department (701-328-5210) or North Dakota’s hazardous materials emergency assistance and 

spill reporting hotline (800-472-2121). Non-emergency spills may be reported via the on-line Environmental 

Incident Form: http://www.ndhealth.gov/ehs/eir/eirform.htm

Federal notification requirements are as follows: 

USEPA REGION VIII 

USEPA Region VIII (serving Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal 

Nations) spill report hotline: 800-227-8914 or 303-293-1788 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER

National Response Center (NRC): 800-424-8802 

The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for 

reporting all oil, chemical, and other discharges into the environment anywhere in the U.S. and its territories. 
AECOM Environment 

6.0 Spill Containment and Cleanup 

In the event of a spill, the contractor will abide by applicable federal, state, and local regulations with respect to 

cleaning up the spill. All cleanup and other construction-related spill activities must be completed, and costs 

assumed, by the contractor. Specific control and cleanup measures for both upland and wetland/waterbody 

spills are described below. 

6.1 Spill Control and Cleanup - Upland Areas 

 If a spill should occur during refueling operations, STOP the operation until the spill can be controlled and 

the situation corrected; 

 Spill sources must be identified and contained immediately; 

 For large spills on land, the spill must be contained and pumped immediately into tank trucks. The 

contractor or, if necessary, an emergency response contractor, shall excavate contaminated soil. 

Appendix A of this SPCC Plan lists potential emergency response contractors; 

 Spilled material and contaminated soil must be treated and/or disposed of in accordance with applicable 

federal, state, and local requirements; 

 Smaller spills on land shall be cleaned up with absorbent materials. Contaminated soil or other materials 

associated with these releases shall also be collected and disposed of in accordance with applicable 

regulations; 

 Flowing spills must be contained and/or absorbed before reaching surface waters or wetlands; 

 Absorbent material(s) shall be placed over spills to minimize spreading and to reduce its penetration into 

the soil; and 

 The Spill Coordinator and/or Bison Representative, in consultation with appropriate agencies, determine 

when spill sites will be evacuated, as necessary, to safeguard human health. Evacuation parameters shall 

include consideration for the potential of fire, explosion, and hazardous gases. 

6.2 Spill Control and Cleanup - Wetlands and Waterbodies 

In addition to the measures described previously in this SPCC Plan, the following conditions shall apply if a 

spill (regardless of size) occurs near or into a stream, wetland, or other waterbody: 

 If a spill should occur during refueling operations, STOP the operation until the spill can be controlled and 

the situation corrected; 

 For spills into streams, lakes, or other waterbodies containing standing or flowing water, regardless of size, 

the Bison Representative must promptly notify the National Response Center (800-424-8802); 

 For spills in standing water, floating booms, skimmer pumps, and holding tanks shall be on-hand and used 

by the contractor to recover and contain released materials on the surface of the water; 

 If necessary, for large spills in waterbodies, an emergency response contractor must be secured to further 

contain and clean up the spill. A list of potential emergency response contractors is included in Appendix 

A of this SPCC Plan; and 

 Contaminated soils in wetlands must be excavated and placed on, and covered by, plastic sheeting in 

bermed areas a minimum of 150 feet away from the wetland. Dispose of contaminated soil as soon as 

possible in accordance with Section 7.0 of this SPCC Plan. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 6-1 
AECOM Environment 

7.0 Storage and Disposal of Contaminated Materials 

 Appendix A of this SPCC Plan lists potential treatment and disposal facilities for contaminated materials, 

petroleum products, and other construction-related wastes; 

 All contaminated soils, absorbent materials, and other wastes shall be stored and disposed of by the 

contractor in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations; 

 Only licensed carriers may be used to transport contaminated material from the site to a disposal facility; 

and 

 If it is necessary to temporarily store excavated soils on site, these materials shall be: a) contained in 

plastic bags; or b) placed on, and covered by, plastic sheeting, and the storage area bermed to prevent 

and contain runoff. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 7-1 
AECOM Environment 

8.0 Spill History 

As of the production date of this document, there have been no spill episodes involving significant quantities of 

oil and/or other petroleum products which have impacted navigable waters of the U.S. from or at the Project. 

If minor spillage of oil occurs, Bison or its contractors will collect the spilled material and dispose of it, as well 

as any spent absorbent material in accordance with applicable regulations. 

.

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 8-1 
AECOM Environment 

Appendix A 

Emergency Response Contractors 

Disposal and Treatment Facilities 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Emergency Response Contractors: Disposal and Treatment Facilities 

The contractor must dispose of all wastes according to applicable federal, state and local requirements. A 

listing of potential emergency spill response contractors and waste disposal facilities is provided below. This 

list was developed from statewide databases. This list represents firms operating at the time the database 

was produced. The contractor is responsible for verifying if an emergency response contractor or facility is 

currently operating under appropriate permits or licenses. The contractor is also responsible for ensuring 

wastes are disposed of properly. 

Wyoming - Spill Response Contractors 

Asphalt Refinishing Services, Inc. 

Al Schultz 

41 Sunset Rim 

Cody, WY 82414 

(307) 587-4450 

(307) 587-3921 (Cell Phone) 

LMH Environmental, Inc. 

Shawn Taggart 

P.O. Box 57 

Fairview, WY 83119 

(307) 886-0884 

(877) 971-2727 

Montana - Spill Response Contractors 

Franz Construction, Inc. 

Sidney, MT 59270 

(406) 482-4760 

Olympus Technical Services, Inc. 

Helena, MT 59601 

(406) 443-3087 

Fax: (406) 443-0232 

Olympus Technical Services, Inc. 

Billings, MT 59102 

(406) 245-3554 

Fax: (406) 245-3555 

West Central Environmental Consultants (WCEC) 

Missoula, MT 59801 

(406) 549-8487 

(800) 422 8356 

Fax: (406) 549-8490 

Montana - Disposal Facilities

Beartooth Environmental, Inc. 

5635 Silver Saddle Dr 

Shepherd, MT 59079-4434 

Scott Jorgenson 

(406) 855-0321 

Big Sky Industrial, Inc. 

179 Cerise Rd 

Billings, MT 59101-7332 

(406) 256-4949 

Emerald Recycling Helena 

2222 Boulder Ave 

Helena, MT 59601-3201 

Jim Munnell 

(206) 832-3000 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Montana - Disposal Facilities

Emerald Recycling Missoula 

900 Phillip St 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Jim Munnell 

(206) 832-3000 

Environmental Restoration LLC 

551 Hwy 2 W 

Libby, MT 59923 

Vince Parker 

(406) 293-2082 

Jim Phillips Contracting, Inc. 

2056 Meadowlark Lane 

Big Arm, MT 59910-9106 

James W. Phillips 

(406) 849-5636 

Jordan Contracting, Inc. 

P.O. Box 668 

Anaconda, MT 59711-0668 

Joe Jordon 

(406) 563-8276 

Montana Rail Link, Inc. 

P.O. Box 16390 

Missoula, MT 59808-6390 

Dennis Meyer 

(406) 523-1454 

Montana Ready Mix, Ltd. 

209 E Cedar St 

Bozeman, MT 59715-2446 

Greg Poncelet 

(406) 586-1234 

Mountain States Environmental Service 

P.O. Box 50445 

Billings, MT 59105-0445 

Brad Fimrite 

(406) 248-4777 

Prince, Inc. 

P.O. Box 440 

Forsyth, MT 59327-0440 

Bonnie Prince 

(406) 346-2137 

PSC Industrial Outsourcing LP 

1401 S 32nd St W 

Billings, MT 59102-6737 

Bill Hanley 

(406) 252-1999 

Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractor, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1279 

Great Falls, MT 59403-1279 

Joe Aline 

(406) 727-3537 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 

BNSF Railway Company 

235 Main St 

Havre, MT 59501-3523 

Michael J. Perrodin 

(406) 265-0483 

North Dakota - Spill Response Contractors

Bob’s Oilfield Service, Inc. 

Belfield, ND 58622 

(701) 575-4666

Gem Star Assoc, Inc. 

West Fargo, ND 58078 

(800) 456-3305 

(701) 277-0600 

Fax: (701) 277-0601 

High Plains Consortium, Inc. 

Bismarck, ND 58504 

(701) 255-6080 

Fax: (701) 250-9177 

Hexom Earth Construction 

Williston, ND 58801 

(701) 774-8511 

Fax: (701) 774-2015 

Keitu Engineers & Consultants, Inc. 

Mandan, ND 58554 

(701) 667-1800 

Fax: (701) 667-1802 

North Dakota - Disposal Facilities 

Safety Kleen Systems, Inc. 

1537 1st Ave S 

Fargo, ND 58103-1501 

Mori Sorenson 

(515) 266-0319 
AECOM Environment 

Appendix B 

Spill Report Forms

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Bison Pipeline LLC 

Construction Spill Report Form 

Date of spill: ___________________________Date of spill discovery:____________________________ 

Time of spill: ___________________________Time of spill discovery: ___________________________ 

Name and title of discoverer: ____________________________________________________________ 

Type of material spilled and manufacturer's name: _____________________________________________ 

Legal description of spill location: 

Directions from nearest community: _________________________________________________________ 

Estimated volume of spill: ________________________________________________________________ 

Weather conditions: _____________________________________________________________________ 

Topography and surface conditions of spill site: _______________________________________________ 

Spill medium (pavement, sandy soil, water, etc.):_______________________________________________ 

Proximity of spill to surface waters: _________________________________________________________ 

Did the spill reach a waterbody? ________Yes ________No 

If so, was a sheen present? ________Yes ________No 

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): _______________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Current status of cleanup actions: __________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Name/Company/Address/Phone Number for the following: 

Construction Superintendent: _____________________________________________________________ 

Spill Coordinator: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Bison Representative: ___________________________________________________________________

 

Person Who Reported the Spill: ___________________________________________________________ 

Environmental Inspector: _________________________________________________________________ 

Form completed by: __________________________________________ Date: ____________________ 

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

Representative within 24 hours of the occurrence. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

RR2 Appendix 2.C INSERT, Appendix B - Montana Spill Form.pdf 

RR2 Appendix 2.C INSERT, Appendix B - North Dakota Spill Form.pdf 

RR2 Appendix 2.C INSERT, Appendix B - Wyoming Spill Form.pdf 

RR2 Appendix 2C INSERT, Appendix B - Wyoming BLM Report of Undesirable Event Form.pdf 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Appendix C 

Inspection Form

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

SPCC INSPECTION CHECKLIST 

(complete weekly) 

Date:__________________________________________________ 

Inspector Name and Title: _________________________________ 

X - Satisfactory 

N/A - Not Applicable 

0 - Repair or Attention Required 

C - Comment under Remarks/Recommendations 

Dikes 

Any noticeable oil sheen on runoff 

Containment area drain valves closed and locked 

No visible oil sheen in containment area 

No standing water in containment area 

Dike structurally sound 

Tanks/Totes 

Tanks/totes in good condition (i.e., free of rust, corrosion, dents) 

Bolts, rivets, or seams not damaged 

Tank/tote foundation intact 

Level gauges working properly 

Vents not obstructed 

Tank/tote and ground surface checked for signs of leakage 

Mobile Refueler 

Warning signs posted 

No leaks in hose 

Drip pans not overflowing 

Containment curbing intact 

Security 

Contractor yard gates locked after hours 

Tanks/totes locked when not in use 

Starter controls for pumps locked when not in use 

Adequate lighting 

Fence and gate intact 

Training 

Training records for all contractors accounted for (monthly check) 

Spill prevention briefing held (monthly check) 

Spill Kits 

Spill kit inventory replenishment 

Remarks/Recommendations: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 April 2009 




COMPLAINT/SPILL REPORT

MONTANA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

(INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK) 

PLEASE FILL OUT AS COMPLETELY 

AS POSSIBLE

Complaint Report? Y N Spill Report? Y N 

Method of Receipt: Phone Mail Field Other ____ 

 Report Completed By: Bureau/Program: 

 Report Date: Time: Phone: 

COMPLAINANT 

INFORMATION Name: Phone: 

Address: Zip: Reply Requested? Y__ N__ 

Other Agencies Contacted By Complainant: Anonymity Requested? Y __ N__

REPORTING INFORMATION Responsible Party (person or company): 

 Mailing Address: Zip:

 Contact Person: Phone: 

 Complaint/Spill Location: Incident County: 

 Facility ID: 

 Driving Directions: 

 Detailed Site Location: T: R: Section: Sec. Lat: Long: GIS: __________ 

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT Date observed: Duration of activity: __________________ 

 Describe Complaint: 

 

 Impact to: Soil____ Water ____ Air ____ Other ____ Water Body Name: 

 Type and Amount of Pollutant: 

 MCA/ARM Violation Citation: 

INITIAL ACTIONS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION USE ONLY Complaint/Violation ID#: 

 Complaint Type: Assign: Status: Referred: 

FITS Site Name: Incident Site Name: 
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COMPLAINT/SPILL REPORT FORM

All Divisions within DEQ will utilize this form to collect accurate and consistent information regarding complaints and spills,

and submit the completed report to the Complaint Management Section of the Enforcement Division. The uniform report form 

was created in an effort to provide better public service and track spills and complaints directed to the Department of Environmental 

Quality. It is also being made available for use by other agencies, local health departments, and concerned citizens. 

This form may be completed in either electronic format or hardcopy. The blank forms may be retrieved from the DEQ share directory: 

...Complaint.doc (electronic fill-in version) or Complaint Hardcopy.doc (hardcopy). The hard copy version of the complaint form is 

available for out-of-house users via the Internet by accessing DEQ s home page. All completed reports are to be sent directly to: 

DEQ-Enforcement Division, Complaint Management Section, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620-0901 Attn: Ed 

Coleman. If returning completed forms through Outlook or the Internet send to: ecoleman@mt.gov . 

Please make every effort to fill out the form as completely as possible. You will note that this form is intended to be utilized for 

both complaints and spills. Please make sure that you check whether you are preparing the report as a response to a complaint or a 

spill. 

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION: The Department will respect those requesting anonymity by keeping complainant names 

confidential. Please get a name and phone number in case further information is needed to provide a thorough investigation. In order 

to prevent duplication of efforts, try to find out what other agencies have been contacted by the complainant or caller. 

REPORTING INFORMATION: Please try to gather sufficient information so that the responsible party can be contacted. If this 

is not possible, be especially diligent in reporting an accurate location of the complaint/spill. Include any landmarks, mile marker, 

and/or directions necessary to visit the site. Although a detailed legal description may not always be obtained in the initial contact, 

please try to record the information if available. 

DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT/SPILL: Obviously, the information reported in this section is critical to the Department s 

understanding of the situation toward a satisfactory resolution. Please be concise and detailed. Although such items as Type and 

Amount of Pollutant , Area Impacted , Cleanup Procedures are more pertinent to spill reporting, they can be used for complaint 

reporting. If additional space is required, please use the open space below, or attach additional paper when submitting hard copy. If 

the incident you are reporting has an MCA or ARM citation pertinent to your Division/Bureau, please make sure to record the cite(s). 

SUGGESTED ACTION/ACTION TAKEN: Often times a complaint/spill may be resolved by a simple phone call, or by discussion 

with other DEQ staff who may already be familiar with the situation. This section is to be used to record efforts made to either close 

the complaint or action taken toward satisfactory closure. The Complaints Management Section of the Enforcement Division will 

serve as the clearinghouse to validate, track, request follow up from DEQ staff (if necessary), and document the status of each 

individual complaint or spill. 

Report Continued:

Rev. 02/11/05 Document2
COORD & CONTROL

APPENDIX E-D1.3

06/2003

PAGE 1 OF 3

WRITTEN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT FOLLOW-UP REPORT

State Incident Number:_______________ Date of this report:_________________

Name of Facility:_____________________________________________________

Location of Incident: __________________________________________________

Contact Person:______________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________

Phone: (_____) _______________(Work) (_____) _______________ (Home)

Incident Notification

Date ____________ Time _________ Date ___________ Time _________

Was incident reported to the National Response Center? ______ Date: _________

IDENTITY OF SUBSTANCE:

Trade name: _______________________________________________________

Chemical name: _____________________________ CAS #_________________

Is this substance on the "EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE (EHS)" List?

Yes ____ No ____ Do Not Know ____

* SEE PAGE 3 FOR AVAILABLE RESPONSES

 * Type of incident? ___________________________________________________

 * Type of release?___________________________________________________

 * What was the extent of the release? ___________________________________

 * What medium was affected by this release (air/water/soil)?__________________

 What quantity was released? (In pounds)?_______________________________

 Fatalities [Yes, No, Unknown] How many?_______________________________

 Injuries [Yes, No, Unknown] How many?________________________________
COORD & CONTROL

APPENDIX E-D1.3

06/2003

PAGE 2 OF 3

PROVIDE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT AND ACTIONS:

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

RETURN TO: 

North Dakota Division of Emergency Management

React Officer

P.O. Box 5511

Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5511

Or can be faxed to: 701-328-8181

RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT
COORD & CONTROL

APPENDIX E-D1.3

06/2003

PAGE 3 OF 3

AVAILABLE RESPONSES FOR

WRITTEN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT FOLLOW-UP REPORT

INCIDENT TYPES RELEASE TYPES

CODE VALUE CODE VALUE

01 Passenger road transportation 01 Spill

02 Freight road transport vehicle 02 Fire

03 Rail transport vehicle 03 Explosion

04 Water transport vehicle 04 Equipment Failure

05 Air transport vehicle 05 Other (Explain)

06 Heavy industrial and agriculture 06 Unknown

equipment

07 Special transport vehicle

08 Pipeline

09 Other transportation types

10 Fixed facility

RELEASE EXTENT

CODE VALUE

00 Extent of release undetermined

01 Confined to equipment/vehicle of origin

02 Confined to room of origin

03 Confined to floor of origin

04 Confined to structure of origin

05 Confined to fixed property of origin

06 Confined to general property of origin

07 Released beyond property of origin

08 No release

09 Extent of release not classified above

RELEASE MEDIUM

CODE VALUE

00 Medium undetermined

01 Air

02 Water

03 Ground

04 Water and ground

05 Air and ground

06 Water and air

07 Air, water and ground

08 Not released

09 Medium not classified above 
APPENDIX I 

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC 

Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 
AECOM Environment 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Proposed HDDs for the Project................................................................................................................1

3.0 HDD Technique ..........................................................................................................................................2

3.1 Pilot Hole Installation Process.............................................................................................................4

3.2 Reaming and Swabbing Processes....................................................................................................4

3.3 Pullback Process .................................................................................................................................5

4.0 Inadvertent Release Contingency Plan...................................................................................................5

4.1 Potential Modes of HDD Failure..........................................................................................................6

4.1.1 Failure Modes during Pilot Hole Installation Process...........................................................6

4.1.2 Failure Modes during Reaming and Swabbing Processes ..................................................6

4.1.3 Failure Modes during Pullback Process ...............................................................................7

4.2 HDD Failure Mitigation ........................................................................................................................7

4.2.1 Mitigation during Pilot Hole Installation Process...................................................................7

4.2.2 Mitigation during Reaming and Swabbing Processes..........................................................7

4.2.3 Mitigation during Pullback Process .......................................................................................8

4.3 Frac-Out Failure and Mitigation...........................................................................................................8

4.3.1 Frac-out Definition .................................................................................................................8

4.3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts from Frac-outs .................................................................8

4.3.3 Frac-out Prevention ...............................................................................................................9

4.3.4 HDD Monitoring for Frac-outs .............................................................................................10

4.3.5 Initial Response to a Frac-out .............................................................................................12

4.3.6 Containment and Removal..................................................................................................12

4.3.7 Impacts Assessment ...........................................................................................................15

4.4 Containment Equipment and Cleanup..............................................................................................15

5.0 HDD Failure Contingency Plan ..............................................................................................................16

5.1 Criteria for Pilot Hole Failure .............................................................................................................17

5.2 Criteria for Reaming and Swabbing Failure......................................................................................17

5.3 Criteria for Pullback Failure...............................................................................................................18

APPENDICES

Attachment 1 Site-Specific Plans for the Little Powder River, Little Missouri River and Heart River 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 i
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

Bison will conduct horizontal directional drilling (HDD) operations during the construction of the 

Bison Pipeline Project (Project) in compliance with applicable environmental guidelines set forth in 

Bison’s Project-Specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Bison’s 

Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Bison’s Procedures) (see 

Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7; and Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2). Bison’s Plan 

and Procedures are consistent with the FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan and FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures; 

however, Bison’s Plan and Procedures contain will contain FERC approved variances and any 

applicable state and federal regulations concerning HDD operations. 

2.0 Proposed HDDs for the Project 

At this time, Bison is proposing to use the HDD crossing method for the following waterbodies: 

Little Powder River (MP 72.25); Little Missouri River (MP 182.68); and Heart River (MP 282.14). 

Little Powder River 

Site-specific diagrams of the proposed HDD crossing (WB-CM-4) for the Little Powder River are 

provided as Attachment 1of this plan. These diagrams illustrate the proposed drill path, extra 

workspace and the topographic profile at the crossing. A geotechnical bore hole investigation will be 

conducted to determine technical feasibility. If feasible, the bore hole data will be used to prepare a 

site specific drilling procedure. 

In the event that the HDD crossing is not feasible or is not successful after two attempts, the crossing 

will be analyzed to determine if the flow rates are low enough and active channel widths are narrow 

enough for a flume and dam crossing method (WB-CM-2). If these conditions do not exist, then an 

open-cut crossing method (WB-CM-1) will be implemented. 

In the unlikely event that the HDD is not successful, Bison will consult with the appropriate 

regulating agencies in order to obtain proper permits and approvals for the contingency crossing 

methods.

Little Missouri River 

Site-specific diagrams of the proposed HDD crossing (WB-CM-4) for the Little Missouri River are 

provided as Attachment 2 of this plan. These diagrams illustrate the proposed drill path, extra 

workspace and the topographic profile at the crossing. A geotechnical bore hole investigation will be 

conducted to determine technical feasibility. If feasible, the bore hole data will be used to prepare a 

site specific drilling procedure. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 1
AECOM Environment 

In the event that the HDD crossing is not feasible or is not successful after two attempts, the crossing 

will be analyzed to determine if the flow rates are low enough and active channel widths are narrow 

enough for a flume and dam crossing method (WB-CM-2). If these conditions do not exist, then an 

open-cut crossing method (WB-CM-3) will be implemented. 

In the unlikely event that the HDD is not successful, Bison will consult with the appropriate 

regulating agencies in order to obtain proper permits and approvals for the contingency crossing 

methods.

Heart River 

Site-specific diagrams of the proposed HDD crossing (WB-CM-4) for the Heart River are provided 

as Attachment 3 of this plan. These diagrams illustrate the proposed drill path, extra workspace and 

the topographic profile at the crossing. A geotechnical bore hole investigation will be conducted to 

determine technical feasibility. If feasible, the bore hole data will be used to prepare a site specific 

drilling procedure. 

In the event that the HDD crossing is not feasible or is not successful after two attempts, the crossing 

will be analyzed to determine if the flow rates are low enough and active channel widths are narrow 

enough for a flume and dam crossing method (WB-CM-2). If these conditions do not exist, then an 

open-cut crossing method (WB-CM-1) will be implemented. 

In the unlikely event that the HDD is not successful, Bison will consult with the appropriate 

regulating agencies in order to obtain proper permits and approvals for the contingency crossing 

methods. 

3.0 HDD Technique 

The use of HDD to install pipeline waterbody crossings has advantages and disadvantages. On the 

positive side, when done successfully, HDD greatly reduces disturbance to the waterbody banks and 

channel. In addition, water quality in the waterbody itself is also maintained throughout the 

construction phase (provided that there aren’t any frac outs). HDD crossings can pose integrity 

concerns to the pipeline operator; visual leak detection is not possible, the pipe is inaccessible for 

repair and there may be corrosion due to undetected pipe coating damage. Finally, the installation of 

the pipe using HDD is not a sure thing; in the event of failure, the pipe would need to installed by 

conventional (i.e. open cut) methods. 

The components of a horizontal drilling rig used for pipeline construction are similar to those of an 

oil well drilling rig with the major exception being that a horizontal drilling rig is equipped with an 

inclined ramp as opposed to a vertical mast. HDD pilot hole operations are not unlike those involved 

in drilling a directional oil well. Drill pipe and downhole tools are generally interchangeable and 

drilling fluid is used throughout; because of these similarities, the process is generally referred to as 

drilling as opposed to boring. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2
AECOM Environment 

Both the entry side and the exit side of the drill path require the mobilization and use of heavy 

equipment. Typically the process does not allow for the grading of the river banks so additional 

access road usage will be necessary for the drilling process; an HDD spread mobilization will require 

approximately 15 tractor trailer loads. In addition all of the various mainline construction crews will 

be required to move around and each piece of construction equipment will have to exit the ROW on a 

specially designed (low bed) trailer and re-enter the ROW at the downstream side of the river. 

The HDD operation commences with the clearing and topsoil stripping of the work and extra work 

space is required. The areas required include those specified for the entry and exit holes 

(approximately 1.15 acres each); truck turnarounds (approximately 0.92 acres each); and if necessary 

a pipe setup area (approximately 2.2 acres). The total impacted area is estimated between 4 to 6 

acres. Due to the nature of the process the area will be muddy and significantly rutted during the 

drilling and pipe installation. 

Prior to spotting equipment at the launch end of the HDD, a minimum 1500 cubic foot pit is 

excavated and a lateral thrust reaction block will need to be installed immediately behind the entry 

point. This foundation’s purpose is to provide lateral support to the rig while it pulls back the 

product pipeline. Generally, it consists of a series or pair of large H-Beam piles, with a concrete or 

steel cap for the rig to bear against during the pullback. 

HDD procedures use a drilling fluid (also referred to as drilling mud) made up of bentonite and 

water. Bentonite is a naturally occurring, non-toxic, inert, fine clay material, which is frequently 

used for drilling potable water wells. The drilling fluid has several main uses; 

 Lubricating, cooling and cleaning the cutting head, 

 Stabilization of the hole against collapse and minimizing fluid loss, 

 Transportation of cuttings back to a collection tank/pit, 

 Reducing the friction factor between the drill pipe and the walls of the hole, 

 Transmission of power to the downhole drill motor, and 

 Hydraulic cutting power for soft soils with the use of high velocity jets. 

The HDD process requires the preparation of the drilling fluid in order to commence. The need for 

drilling fluid production and replacement can consume a significant amount of water (300 to 800 

gal/min) and resultant disposal concerns. 

This plan describes the actions to be taken in the event that the installation of one or more of the 

HDDs proposed for the Project should fail or result in an inadvertent release of drilling fluid during 

construction. This Plan addresses the causes of failure, steps to prevent failures, remedial efforts that 

would apply to all HDDs in the event of a failure, and site-specific remedial actions to account for 

varying conditions along the pipeline route. In addition, the prevention of and responses to frac-outs 

of drilling mud, which can ultimately lead to an HDD failure, are discussed in detail. 

There are three major processes associated with the HDD installation of a pipeline: installation of a 

pilot hole; incremental reaming of the pilot hole followed by swabbing the borehole; and pipe 

pullback. This section discusses each of these steps. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 3
AECOM Environment 

3.1 Pilot Hole Installation Process 

The pilot hole is drilled along a predetermined alignment in which the entry and exit points are 

located using traditional survey methods. The drill path is monitored by an electronics package 

housed in the non-rotating pilot drill string near the cutting head. Where practical, a TruTracker® 

(or equivalent) electronic guidance system is used to survey the location of the drill path. A wire coil 

on the surface creates a magnetic field that is detected by the electronic housing. Data from the 

electronic housing is evaluated by the HDD Operator and adjustments are made to the drill pathway. 

The exact alignment is surveyed on foot by a survey team of 2-3 people. Small amounts of 

vegetation (i.e. tree branches and vines) may be disturbed and/or removed within a 10-foot swath 

during the survey process in order to obtain a line of sight for the surveyors. If required, a biologist 

will walk in front of the survey team to assess the potential for active nests or other wildlife issues. 

No trees greater than three inches in diameter will be removed. 

Initially, the pilot hole, generally a 9-7/8-inch diameter bore, is installed beneath the proposed 

crossing using a jetting assembly in non-consolidated sediments or a downhole displacement mud 

motor connected to a tri-cone rotary bit in consolidated sediments. Drilling fluid, pumped through 

the annulus of the drill stem, performs multiple functions in this process. It aids the mud motor or 

jetting assembly in cutting the soil, lubricates the drill stem, suspends and carries the drilled cuttings 

to the surface and forms a wall cake on the interior of the borehole to maintain the integrity of the 

borehole. 

Installation of the pilot hole is closely monitored to provide data necessary to complete the crossing. 

These data, including the expected penetration rate and geotechnical strata confirmation, are used by 

the HDD Operator to plan the reaming process. 

3.2 Reaming and Swabbing Processes 

Beginning at the exit point of the crossing, a reamer is attached to the drill stem and pulled through 

the pilot hole back to the entry point. For each section of drill stem removed from the entry point of 

the crossing, a section of drill stem is attached to the reamer and successive sections of drill stem at 

the exit point. This newly attached drill stem is used to guide the equipment during the return pass of 

the reamer from the entry side back to the exit side of the crossing. Several passes of a 24-inch 

reamer may be used to initially enlarge the pilot hole from 9-7/8 inches to 24 inches. Once 

completed, incrementally larger reamers are passed through the borehole until the pilot hole has been 

enlarged to the final diameter appropriate for insertion of the pipe. 

The HDD borehole is then swabbed to clean out remaining soil cuttings and prepare the borehole for 

the pipe. A swab is constructed by welding caps onto a section of pipe the same diameter as that to 

be installed in the borehole. The swab is connected to the drill stem and the drilling rig pulls the 

swab through the borehole. For each section of drill stem removed at the entry side of the crossing, a 

section of drill stem is attached to the swab and successive sections of drill stem at the exit side. 

Depending on the borehole, more than one swab may be required to clean the borehole. At 

completion, the swab will be removed from the exit side of the crossing so that the drill stem can be 

attached to the prefabricated 30-inch pipe laid out at the exit side of the borehole. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 4
AECOM Environment 

3.3 Pullback Process 

After the reaming and swabbing processes have enlarged the borehole to a diameter sufficiently large 

enough to allow the insertion of the prefabricated pipe, a reinforced pullhead is attached to the 

leading end of the pre-fabricated pipe segment in preparation for the pullback process. The pullhead 

is connected by way of a swivel head to the drill stem at the exit side of the crossing. Using the 

drilling rig, the pipe is pulled through the borehole to the entry side of the crossing. Since the airfilled pipe will float in the drilling fluids, a calculated volume of water is added to the pipe sufficient 

to maintain a near-neutral buoyancy while pulling the pipe. 

4.0 Inadvertent Release Contingency Plan 

The Inadvertent Release Contingency Plan for drilling mud (bentonite) during the HDD operations 

describes in detail the preventive measures to be taken and how mitigation measures for inadvertent 

returns will be implemented. An inadvertent release occurs when the drilling fluid seeps through the 

borehole into fractures in the surrounding soil and follows a path of least resistance to the surface. 

When this happens the drill rig operator will notice a loss of mud pressure and/or reduction in return 

volumes known as lost circulation. The movement of the drill fluid may occur in any direction. It 

may flow outward parallel to the ground surface never reaching the surface. The release of drilling 

fluids into surface waters or at the ground surface is known as a frac-out. The surveyed HDD path is 

accessed throughout the drilling operation to monitor the alignment for frac-outs. The primary 

concern for the execution of the HDD operations is to reduce the risk of HDD failure and risk of fracouts and assure successful mitigation measures are implemented. An Inadvertent Release 

Contingency Plan is a key component to executing a successful HDD. 

The pipeline construction contractor will develop site-specific mitigation measures for inadvertent 

release once the final pipeline design is available. Site-specific measures include how the drilling 

lubricant will be contained and cleaned up in the event of a return in sensitive areas along the HDD 

pipeline segment. 

The four distinct phases of the HDD process, including pilot hole installation, reaming and swabbing, 

pullback, and clean-up, are described in Section 2. Of the problems that may occur, integrity of the 

hole, inadvertent returns (frac-out), and the pipe becoming lodged during pull back are of the greatest 

concern. Potential modes of HDD failure are described in more detail below. 

Site-specific protection measures will focus on prevention of inadvertent returns of drilling mud into 

sensitive areas. These measures will include the following: 

 Obtaining site-specific geotechnical data along the alignment 

 Monitoring the location of the drill head with a guidance system 

 Monitoring the pressure of drilling fluids at all times 

 Altering drilling procedures in sensitive habitat areas 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5
AECOM Environment 

4.1 Potential Modes of HDD Failure 

The potential for failure exists during each process described in Section 2. These modes of failure 

are detailed in the following discussions. In addition, loss of drilling fluids or frac-out can occur, 

typically during the pilot hole installation process. Failures due to frac-outs and procedures to handle 

frac-outs are described in Section 3.3. 

4.1.1 Failure Modes during Pilot Hole Installation Process 

The equipment associated with the pilot hole installation process is subject to a large amount of 

stress. If the equipment has not been maintained appropriately, the equipment could break. While 

HDD surface equipment is easily accessed for repair, the equipment is very specialized. Equipment 

that fails down hole must be retrieved in order to be repaired or to continue installation of the pilot 

hole. 

During the pilot hole installation, the borehole can collapse on the drill stem pipe if sufficient 

bentonite cake is not maintained on the walls of the hole, or if stratum containing highly fractured 

rock, glacial till, noncohesive material, or cobbles is encountered. If the pilot hole collapses, the 

torque required to rotate or advance the drill pipe increases due to additional friction from the 

collapsed material. This increased friction can prevent advancement of the drill pipe in the borehole. 

Usage of additional torque and tension in an attempt to free the equipment can shear or twist the drill 

pipe into pieces. Multiple changes in strata or excessively long drill lengths contribute to the 

probability of this type of failure. 

During pilot hole installation, the horizontal position of the hole is located using TruTracker® (or 

equal). When the HDD is below a water body or wetland area that does not allow positioning of the 

surface cable necessary to operate the TruTracker® system, the pilot hole may deviate from the 

designed path. The potential for this failure mode increases during long drill lengths. In addition, 

metal objects located near the pilot hole pathway can interfere with the magnetic field generated by 

the surface cables resulting in inaccurate TruTracker® locations. 

4.1.2 Failure Modes during Reaming and Swabbing Processes 

Caving of the borehole can be a result of insufficient bentonite cake on the walls. This failure type is 

exacerbated during the reaming process. During each pass, a large volume of drilling fluid is jetted 

through the reamer. In nonconsolidated soils, the jetting energy can carve out caverns causing the 

hole to become unstable and cave. The caved material may prevent recirculation of the drilling fluids 

causing a build up of cuttings in the base of the hole. 

In addition to the problem of the caved material obstructing the borehole, both soil collapsed from the 

borehole and cuttings built up due to poor recirculation of drilling fluids increase the friction on the 

drill pipe. The increased friction could increase the potential for pipe failure by shearing or twisting 

into pieces and consequently for the equipment to become lost in the hole. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 6
AECOM Environment 

4.1.3 Failure Modes during Pullback Process 

Failure during the pullback process is identified by pipe refusal in either direction. This may be due 

to an insufficiently reamed or swabbed borehole, caving due to lack of adequate bentonite cake on 

the walls, increased friction on the pipe wall due to positive or negative buoyancy, increased friction 

on the wall of the pipe due to an excessively long run, or deterioration of the borehole due to a time 

lag while the pipe lays idle. 

4.2 HDD Failure Mitigation 

Generally, the modes of failure identified in Section 3.1 can be avoided or mitigated prior to 

complete failure of the HDD technique. 

4.2.1 Mitigation during Pilot Hole Installation Process 

Bison will implement procedures to avoid failure well before commencement of construction. A 

drilling contractor will be identified with experience in HDD installations in similar geology and of 

similar design to the Project. Proper selection and maintenance of equipment will minimize the 

potential for equipment failure during the drilling process. 

The drilling fluid characteristics will be monitored to minimize the potential for caving due to 

insufficient mud cake on the borehole wall. Cuttings will be monitored to ensure that circulation has 

not failed. If the HDD Operator identifies increased stress on the drilling equipment due to poor 

cuttings return or partial collapse of the pilot hole, he can adjust the drilling fluid properties or 

decrease the drilling rate to allow the drilling fluid more time to penetrate the borehole wall and to 

transport the cuttings from the annulus to the surface. In the event that a decrease in drilling fluid or 

cutting return is noted, the HDD Operator can also partially pull out of the boring to ream out the 

pilot hole and flush the collected cuttings before they completely plug the borehole. These 

preventive methods minimize stress on the drilling equipment and decrease the potential for 

equipment failure. 

If the pilot hole deviates from the designed pathway, the HDD Operator can correct the pilot hole 

prior to returning to the surface or if the deviation is significant, he can pull back, grouting the 

abandoned section of the pilot hole with bentonite, correct the pathway and re-drill that section of the 

pilot hole so that the pilot hole exits at the correct location. 

4.2.2 Mitigation during Reaming and Swabbing Processes 

During the pilot hole installation, the HDD Operator will monitor soil cuttings, rate of advancement, 

and torque on the drill bit to help identify the characteristics of the underlying strata. Referring to 

this information, he can adjust pump pressure as he reams the pilot hole to minimize the potential for 

caving due to high jetting pressure while also adjusting the rate of advancement to maximize the 

opportunity for the cuttings to exit the borehole. However, if caving does occur, the HDD Operator 

will remove the reamer and re-attach the drill bit to re-drill the pilot hole. The reaming process can 

be re-started adjusting for the location of the cave-in as needed. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 7
AECOM Environment 

4.2.3 Mitigation during Pullback Process 

Equipment selection is again very important in the pullback process. The drilling rig must have 

sufficient power to not only pull the weight of the longest section of pipeline through the borehole 

but to overcome potential resistance associated with minor cave-ins during the pullback process. 

Bison will ensure that the pipe is prefabricated, tested, and ready to be pulled at the completion of the 

swabbing process. This will decrease the potential for lag time and decrease the likelihood of caving 

associated with extended lag time. 

Knowing the density of the drilling fluids and the weight of the pipe, the volume of water needed to 

maintain near neutral buoyancy will be calculated and gradually added to the pipe as it enters the 

borehole. The HDD Operator will monitor the drilling equipment for an increase in tension that 

signifies increased friction on the pipe and possible imminent refusal. At that time, pulling is halted 

and the buoyancy is adjusted or, if necessary, the pipeline can be removed and the borehole reamed 

and swabbed. 

If the pipeline does become stuck during the pullback process, the HDD Operator can attach an air 

hammer to the end of the pipeline segment and either hammer the pipeline past the obstruction and 

through the borehole or hammer the pipeline back towards the exit side, freeing the pipe from the 

obstruction allowing the drilling rig to again move the pipeline. 

4.3 Frac-Out Failure and Mitigation 

This section establishes the procedures for preventing, monitoring, and responding to frac-outs of 

drilling fluids that may occur during the HDDs. The intent of this section is to set forth a plan of the 

actions to be taken, under various conditions and for various sizes of frac-outs, should frac-outs 

occur. There are duplications between the mitigation methods described in Section 3.2 and in this 

section; however, since frac-out occurrences are relatively common during HDD, the duplications 

were permitted in order to make this section as complete as possible. 

It has been documented that frac-outs occur most frequently within 200 feet of either the entry or exit 

hole, with a depth of cover of less than 40 feet. The likelihood of inadvertent return decreases as the 

depth of the pipe increases. 

4.3.1 Frac-out Definition 

For the purposes of this procedure, a “frac-out” shall be defined as the unintentional or inadvertent 

loss of drilling fluids from the HDD borehole to the ground surface, other than at the borehole entry 

or exit points. Loss of drilling fluids to the subsurface geological formation may result in an apparent 

reduction in the return of fluids and cuttings, but will not be considered a frac-out under this plan 

unless drilling fluids are observed in surface waters or at the ground surface. 

4.3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts from Frac-outs 

Frac-outs to Water 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 8
AECOM Environment 

Drilling fluids released from an HDD frac-out directly into a surface water body at the mud line will 

be dissipated by the natural currents or blended with the existing solids, primarily clay, suspended in 

the water column. The solids in the drilling fluids are also primarily clay. If an underwater frac-out 

is located in the existing turbid conditions, containment and recovery of the drilling fluids would be 

impractical due to mixing with the surface water. Frac-outs under water are a greater impediment to 

the successful completion of an HDD, due to lost circulation, than they are a significant impact on the 

environment. In the event of a frac-out, the HDD Contractor will employ measures described herein 

to regain proper circulation in order to complete the borehole, which in turn should reduce or 

eliminate the frac-out to surface water. As directed by Bison in consultation with the regulatory 

agency representative, containment may be attempted if sensitive resources, such as oyster beds or 

marsh, are threatened and conditions permit. 

Frac-outs to Wetlands 

Due to the low concentration (less than 5 percent) of solids in the drilling fluids, and the natural 

tendency of the fluid to seek a uniform elevation equal to the water level in a wetland, a measurable 

or permanent increase in any ground surface elevation is not likely. If the drilling fluid has a 

particularly high viscosity and the water is low, a temporary rise might be visible, but this will 

quickly dissipate. On the other hand, the settlement of fines, if of sufficient volume, in a wetland 

may cover existing vegetation or affect surface hydrology. Efforts by the HDD Contractor to contain 

and recover frac-out fluids in wetlands will also cause disturbance of the marsh surface and 

vegetation by equipment and personnel, and depending upon its location, such disturbance could 

offset the benefit gained in removing the released fluids. Because it is difficult to predict the net 

effect of a frac-out and attempts to recover the fluids, any frac-outs to wetlands must be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis and an appropriate level of response mounted as described herein. 

Frac-outs to Uplands 

Environmental impacts will be limited to possible surface runoff of fines into adjacent surface waters. 

Typically the upland crossings are readily accessible by conventional construction equipment, so the 

HDD Contractor will perform containment and recovery of drilling fluids. 

4.3.3 Frac-out Prevention 

The first and most effective step in limiting the potential environmental impacts of HDD frac-outs is 

to prevent frac-outs from occurring in the first place. This can be accomplished in the conservative 

design of the HDD profile, as well as by observing preventative procedures during the actual HDD 

crossing. 

Design 

Precautionary measures incorporated into the design of the proposed HDDs to minimize the 

possibility of frac-outs, include: 

Depth of Cover 

The proposed depth of cover will be maintained at a minimum of 20 feet (and in most cases, 

significantly more) below waterbodies and wetlands, except in the initial and final 100 feet (+/-) 

where the borings enter and exit the ground. Since the possibility of a frac-out may increase as depth 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 9
AECOM Environment 

of cover decreases, the initial and terminal 100-foot sections of each HDD will be located in upland 

areas, and have been purposely kept out of wetland areas, where possible. 

Construction 

To minimize the risk of HDD failure and/or inadvertent release, and be best prepared to handle them 

should they occur, the HDD contractor may work certain HDD operations 24 hours a day using two 

(2) shifts with each shift working 12 hours per day. This gives the contractor the greatest chance of 

maintaining the integrity of the hole and successfully pulling the pipe into place while minimizing the 

risks of drill string seizing, hole collapse, or inadvertent returns. The HDD Contractor will employ 

reasonable measures during drilling activities to prevent or minimize the occurrence of frac-outs, 

including as a minimum: 

On-site Mud Engineer 

A full-time, qualified, mud engineer will be on site. The On-site Mud Engineer will continuously 

monitor the drilling fluid circulation and returns, and ensure that the fluids handling equipment is 

operating within expected and optimum parameters (i.e. pressures, flow rates, etc.) for the soils 

conditions observed. 

The On-site Mud Engineer will continuously monitor returned cuttings for soils type, and will 

modify the drilling fluid properties (i.e. viscosity, density, etc.) with appropriate additives as he 

deems necessary to account for changes in soil conditions. 

Controlled Drill Head Advance 

Where possible at the beginning of a drill, the drill head will be initially advanced with minimum 

drilling fluid pressure to minimize frac-outs in the relatively shallow depths. 

The HDD Operator will advance the drill head at a pace that permits soils cuttings sufficient time to 

be flushed from the borehole by the drilling fluids. This prevents plugging and thereby maintains 

down-hole pressures at an acceptable level. The maximum rate of advance will be set, and 

periodically adjusted, by the HDD Operator, based on consultation with the On-site Mud Engineer, 

and as subsurface conditions change. If plugging occurs (i.e. return flow is diminished relative to 

fluid pumping rate), the rate of advance will be reduced, stopped, or reversed, as appropriate, until 

the plug has been cleared. 

Minimum Pump Pressure 

Drilling fluid pump pressure will be maintained at no more than the minimum necessary to maintain 

good circulation and to keep the borehole clear of cuttings. In the event a reduction in circulation is 

observed, at the discretion of the On-site Mud Engineer, adjustments to drilling fluid properties (i.e., 

density, viscosity, etc.), rate of drill head advance, and reaming diameter will be considered before 

pump pressure is increased. 

4.3.4 HDD Monitoring for Frac-outs 

A monitor will be on site 24 hours per day during drilling activities to search for observable “fracout” conditions and will focus closest in the area where the drill-bit is currently located. Floodlights 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 10
AECOM Environment 

will be utilized during night-time drilling operations to provide the lighting necessary to monitor for 

inadvertent returns. In addition, the drill rig operator monitors for any decrease in pressure readings 

on the drilling equipment. If decreased pressure readings are observed, the drilling mud may be 

escaping into the soil layer or through fractures in the soil. If a leak of drilling mud is identified, all 

drilling work will stop, including the recycling of drilling mud/lubricant. The pressure of water/soil 

above the pipe will keep any excess mud from escaping through the fracture. The amount of drilling 

mud that could be lost to the environment in the event of an inadvertent return depends on the size of 

the fracture and amount of head pressure. Because there will be a monitor searching for surfacing 

mud on site at all times in the sensitive areas, the amount of escaping mud will be kept to a 

minimum. 

Ground Surface Inspection 

The HDD Operator shall assign one person to visually inspect the ground surface in uplands and 

wetlands along the progress of the HDD for indications of escaping drilling fluids. Inspections shall 

be made relative to the rate of advance of the drill head, but an inspection pass shall be made at least 

once every hour while pumping drilling fluids. Any indications of a frac-out shall be reported 

immediately to the HDD Operator. If operating parameters (i.e., fluctuations in fluid pressure or 

returns) indicate the possibility of a frac-out, the surface inspection shall become continuous 

(daylight only) until the location of the suspected frac-out is found, the drill is completed, or 

measures to remedy the frac-out using additives or other operational adjustments have been 

successful. Daylight continuous monitoring will supplement the monitoring of operating parameters. 

Reasonable efforts will be made to locate the point of frac-out, if possible, in order to assess 

environmental damage, if any. 

Inspections on uplands may be made on foot or from an appropriate vehicle. Site-specific wetland 

inspection methods shall be reviewed and approved by the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector, 

following consultation with the regulatory agency representative, if present. 

Surface Water Inspection 

The HDD Operator shall assign an individual to visually inspect the waterbodies under which the 

HDD is crossing for turbidity plumes that might indicate a frac-out is occurring. Inspection passes 

shall be made at least once every hour while pumping. Any indication of a frac-out shall be reported 

immediately to the HDD Operator. If operating parameters indicate the possibility of a frac-out 

under water, the water inspection shall become continuous (daylight only) until the location of the 

suspected frac-out is found, the drill is completed, or measures to remedy the frac-out using additives 

or other operations adjustments have been successful. 

Special Safety Considerations 

Monitoring in water or wetlands at night or in fog will require special safety precautions and 

equipment considerations, including portable lights of sufficient power to effectively monitor the 

area. No continuous nighttime monitoring will be allowed. Monitoring in water or wetlands will be 

discontinued whenever conditions render the activity unsafe. At such time, the HDD Operator will 

determine, subject to Bison approval, if drilling can safely continue while monitoring for frac-outs 

based solely on pump pressure and drilling fluids returns. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 11
AECOM Environment 

Notifications 

Upon first indication of a frac-out, the HDD Operator shall notify the On-site Bison Environmental 

Inspector. Upon confirmation of a frac-out, the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will notify 

the appropriate regulatory agencies (if to a wetland) and the land agent shall notify the affected 

landowner(s). 

4.3.5 Initial Response to a Frac-out 

The HDD Contractor’s initial response to a potential frac-out shall be as described below. 

 Upon first indication of a potential frac-out, the HDD Operator shall reduce drilling fluid 

circulating pressure, continue rotation of the drill string, and continue to advance the drill head in 

an attempt to stop or substantially reduce the frac-out rate. 

 If the frac-out is initially or subsequently confirmed by an observed release of fluids to the 

surface or an observed turbidity plume in water, the HDD Operator will attempt to advance the 

drill head past the known point of the frac-out. 

 If the release of drilling fluids continues unabated at a rate that threatens to expand to more than 

0.1 acres of wetland habitat, or at a rate otherwise deemed excessive by the On-site Bison 

Environmental Monitor (in consultation with the regulatory agency representative, if present), or 

completion of the drill is in jeopardy due to failure to remove cuttings from the borehole, 

advancement of the drill will be temporarily suspended. 

 The Drill Operator may continue to rotate the drill string in the borehole and circulate fluids at a 

pressure that does not result in continued fluid release at the frac-out point, in order to keep the 

borehole open. 

 If the frac-out is to a wetland, the HDD Operator shall request that the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector proceed to the analysis for containment and recovery described in 

Section 3.3.6.2 below, before continuing with the drill. 

 If the frac-out is to uplands, the HDD Operator may continue advancing the drill, provided the 

released fluids are contained and removed (as described in Section 3.3.6.3 below), and after 

confirmation that cuttings are being returned at a sufficient rate to ensure successful completion 

of the borehole. 

 The HDD Operator may also continue to advance the drill if the release is to open water, the 

release does not obstruct a navigation channel, or accumulate in wetlands and the cuttings are 

being returned at a sufficient rate to ensure successful completion of the borehole. If, however, 

the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector (in consultation with the regulatory agency 

representative, if present) deems the resulting turbidity plume to be excessive, the HDD Operator 

shall temporarily suspend drilling until necessary corrective measures are successfully 

implemented. 

 The On-site Mud Engineer shall record all parameters being tracked at the time of frac-out, 

including fluid circulating pressure, fluid mixture composition, fluid viscosity, location and depth 

of the drill head, location of the frac-out, rate of drill advance, and time of day. The HDD 

Operator shall keep a running log of all activities associated with the attempts to control the fracout. 

4.3.6 Containment and Removal 

Containment and removal of drilling fluid releases to the surface from a frac-out shall be performed 

where practical and where there will be a net benefit in the reduction of total environmental impacts. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 12
AECOM Environment 

To Surface Waters 

Containment and removal of drilling fluids released to surface waters as a result of a frac-out is 

generally impractical and ineffective because of dilution in the water column, and dispersion due to 

currents. If, however, the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector (in consultation with the regulatory 

agency representative, if present) considers the resulting plume excessive, or the plume may directly 

and negatively impact sensitive resources or an adjacent wetland, the HDD Operator shall implement 

the following containment measures. 

 Depending upon the depth of water and surface conditions, floating silt booms, anchored in place, 

shall be placed over the location of the frac-out. The purpose of the containment is to confine the 

suspended solids until some observable degree of settlement can occur. Removal of the diluted 

drilling fluids is not anticipated, unless dictated by unusual circumstances, and subject to Bison 

approval. 

 The containment shall remain in place until the frac-out stops, and settlement renders the 

turbidity inside the containment similar to the adjacent waters based on visual inspection (Secchi 

disk), or the threat to the sensitive resource has passed. 

In Wetlands 

Containment and removal of released drilling fluids from a frac-out to wetlands shall be performed 

when there is a net benefit in the reduction of impacts, as determined by the following actions. 

 Upon confirmation of a frac-out in wetlands, the HDD Operator shall assist the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector in measuring the area directly affected by the released drilling fluids. 

The area affected may be estimated from a distance, if access to the affected area for 

measurement would result in additional unacceptable negative impacts. 

 The On-site Bison Environmental Inspector (a qualified wetlands biologist) will characterize the 

type of impact (e.g., temporary, permanent, vegetation only, change in surface hydrology) caused 

by the released fluids. The On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will seek concurrence from 

the regulatory agency representative, if present. 

 The HDD Operator and the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector shall jointly estimate the 

additional area, if any, likely to be affected if the drilling were to proceed and the drilling fluids 

were not contained and removed. 

 In consultation with the HDD Operator, the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will estimate 

and characterize the additional impacts to wetlands likely to occur as a result of accessing the 

affected area for containment and removal of the drilling fluids. 

 The On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will estimate any reduction in impacts that might be 

achieved if the released fluids were removed. 

 The total actual impacts, plus the estimated impacts from continuation of an uncontained release, 

shall be compared to the total actual impacts, plus the estimated impacts from accessing the area 

for containment and removal, less the estimated reduction in impacts as a result of recovery of the 

fluids. When making this comparison, some consideration and judgment should be given to the 

types of impacts, and value of the resources affected, if dissimilar. The action resulting in the 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 13
AECOM Environment 

least total impacts will generally be selected, unless there are mitigating circumstances, or as 

otherwise instructed by the regulatory agency representative, if present. 

 If the decision is to forgo containment and proceed with the drill, the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector will continue to observe the location of the frac-out. If the impacts 

continue to increase, the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will periodically repeat the 

comparison described above, until such time as containment and removal are justified, or the drill 

is complete. 

 In the event of excessive and uncontrolled discharges of drilling fluids to wetlands, Bison and the 

HDD Operator shall determine a course of action. The frac-out shall be successfully plugged 

through adjustments in mud mixture or drilling techniques, or the released fluids shall be 

contained and recovered from the wetlands with minimal and acceptable levels of impact. 

[NOTE: No containment or recovery activities will be allowed in the wetlands without agency 

approval.] If this cannot be achieved, the borehole shall be abandoned. 

 Prior to commencement of any HDD, the HDD Operator shall ensure that appropriate equipment 

is available at each HDD location to contain and recover drilling fluid flow from frac-outs into 

wetlands. 

 If it is determined (as described above) that the released drilling fluid is to be contained and 

recovered, the HDD Operator shall direct the placement of the equipment at the obvious point or 

points of frac-out and transfer the contained fluids to a frac tank for reuse or disposal. 

 All access to the wetland shall be done in such a manner as to cause the least impacts to the 

wetland vegetation and surface hydrology, and only with agency approval. Because of sitespecific variables, such as distance from open water, surface hydrologic conditions, and 

vegetation cover, the selection of the most appropriate access method (e.g., using shallow draft 

boats or on foot) must be made on a case-by-case basis, subject to approval by the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector. The least number of personnel and equipment necessary to accomplish 

the task safely and in a timely manner shall be deployed into the wetland as described above. 

 Following containment and removal, the HDD Operator shall continue to monitor this location 

for additional releases, and the remainder of the drill for new frac-outs, as the drill progresses. 

 Whether or not containment and recovery is performed, all impacts to wetlands from frac-outs 

will be measured, assessed, and recorded by the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector, with 

assistance from the HDD Operator, for determination of any mitigation or restoration measures 

that may be necessary, as described below. 

 Upon completion of the boring, the HDD Operator shall ensure that all containment and recovery 

equipment, tools, supplies, materials, wastes, and debris are removed from the wetland. 

On Uplands 

 The HDD Operator shall utilize, as necessary, the appropriate combination of sand bags, hay 

bales, silt fence, pumps, hoses, and frac tanks that will most effectively contain and remove 

drilling fluids from upland areas. The HDD Superintendent shall make the determination of the 

equipment and materials to be used, with approval of the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 14
AECOM Environment 

 The HDD Operator shall instruct the recovery crew to pump the contained and recovered fluids to 

frac tanks on site for reuse, if the On-site Mud Engineer determines the fluids are reusable. 

Otherwise, the fluids will be transported off site for disposal. 

 Bison will obtain landowner permission prior to accessing any upland sites for fluids containment 

and removal operations, except in an emergency where inaction would pose an imminent threat to 

human health, sensitive environment, or property. 

4.3.7 Impacts Assessment 

Whether or not the drilling fluids have been successfully contained and removed, the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector will fully characterize the environmental impacts from any release of 

drilling fluids following completion of the HDD, including the extent of the plume, the area affected 

by any recovery efforts, the type of wetland and vegetation impacted, changes to wetland elevation 

and hydrology, and whether the impacts are permanent or temporary. The On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector will seek concurrence of his assessment with the regulatory agency 

representative, if present. A report of the assessment will be provided to the regulatory agency 

representative for determination of any further action. 

4.4 Containment Equipment and Cleanup 

Containment Procedures are described in Section 3.3.6 above. Sand bags, silt fencing, hay bails, 

earthen berms, vacuum pumps, and/or other materials determined necessary by the construction 

contractor and Environmental Inspector will be staged on-site before drilling begins. All work will 

stop immediately if a leak is observed or detected by the pressure readings, and remedial actions 

would be implemented. The drill alignment will be verified. Containment equipment will be used to 

surround and contain the drilling mud if appropriate. A mobile vacuum pump or vacuum truck will 

be used to pump the drilling mud from the contained area and it will be disposed of or recycled to the 

drill rig return pit. The vacuum truck will remain on upland habitat within the construction ROW or 

on an existing road and extend a hose to the containment area. 

Once the area is cleaned up it will be restored if necessary. Like species, i.e. shrub or understory 

species already growing in the corridor will be seeded or planted depending on the size and location. 

Per Bison’s Plan and Procedures, Environmental Inspection staff will help ensure compliance with 

this plan for the inadvertent release of drilling mud. The on-site inspection staff will monitor HDD 

operations on a daily basis for construction and environmentally-related problems. Also, the 

Environmental Inspector or designate will inspect drilling operations at waterbody crossings, as 

described in Section 3.3.4. Prior to the commencement of a HDD, the contractor will install 

containment structures at the entrance and exit points to the drill. 

 In the event an inadvertent release of drilling mud occurs, Bison’s contractor(s) will follow initial 

response to frac-out procedures described in Section 3.3.5 and containment and removal 

procedures in described in Section 3.3.6. 

Upon completion of drilling activity; including the removal of drilling mud resulting from an 

inadvertent release, if any; the containment structures will be removed and any regrading and/or 

seeding and mulching of the containment area will be completed as required. With the permission of 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 15
AECOM Environment 

the landowner, drill fluid and cuttings will be spread over the subsoil layer in the Construction ROW, 

covered with topsoil and reseeded. Ideally, the drill waste will be backfilled into the bore pit and 

covered by the subsoil, which will then be recontoured prior to topsoil replacement. Samples of the 

spent fluid will be acquired and analyzed for contamination prior to disposal. Otherwise, waste will 

be collected, transported and disposed of off-site at an approved location. The site will be restored in 

accordance with the Reclamation Plan (see Appendix 7.H in Resource Report No. 7). 

5.0 HDD Failure Contingency Plan 

In the event an inadvertent release of drilling mud exceeds that which can be contained and 

controlled either because of volume or rate and therefore will result in an adverse environmental 

impact, HDD activities will cease. Additionally, in the event an HDD fails or cannot be completed 

due to site conditions, geological constraints or technical and engineering issues, Bison’s 

contractor(s) will implement one or more of the following procedures: 

 Attempt to regain returns by tripping the drill pipe and downhole tools back toward the direction 

of flow until returns through the drilled hole return to the entry/exit pit. Attempt to correct the 

bentonite properties, if necessary, and start drilling back in the same hole to see if the seepage 

continues. By swabbing the tool through the hole, this may remove any build up of cuttings that 

created the inadvertent release. 

 Depending on the current stage of the installation, the contractor(s) may choose to plug the hole 

near the fracture with heavyweight material (i.e. sawdust, nut shells, bentonite pellets, or other 

commercially available non-toxic products). If the inadvertent release of drilling mud occurs 

while drilling the pilot hole, the contractor may choose to back out of the hole a predetermined 

distance and drill out of the original hole. The contractor(s) will wait for an appropriate period of 

time to allow for the material used to become effective before attempting to resume HDD 

activities. 

 If the fracture cannot be plugged and the original drill path cannot be utilized the old hole will be 

abandoned. The contractor(s) will remove the drill pipe from the existing drill hole to a point 

where a new drill path can be attempted by drilling out of the existing hole and creating a new 

hole. Bentonite and cuttings will be pumped down the old hole and the top five feet will be 

sealed with grout. The drilling rig may be moved to a new location after it has been verified that 

the new location meets applicable project permits and approvals. If the new location does not 

meet applicable approvals, construction using the HDD method will cease until a new installation 

plan is developed and appropriate and applicable permits are obtained. 

In the event the mitigation methods identified in Section 3 are implemented with unsatisfactory 

results, Bison will employ the following criteria to determine if the HDD method has failed and 

should be abandoned. If there are no alternative locations that will satisfy or meet the Project’s 

needs, the crossing will be constructed using an alternate method after all necessary permits and 

approvals have been received. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 16
AECOM Environment 

5.1 Criteria for Pilot Hole Failure 

Generally, breakdown of the HDD equipment is not considered to be acceptable criteria for an HDD 

failure. If surface HDD equipment, such as the HDD rig, breaks, it is the responsibility of the HDD 

Contractor to repair the equipment within 7 days. If the HDD Contractor can not repair the 

equipment within that time period, a second HDD Contractor may be identified and the HDD 

crossing will continue. 

If, according to the HDD Operator, subsurface conditions are such that additional attempts at 

completing the HDD crossing would likely result in continued equipment failure, and, in the HDD 

Operator’s option, the HDD method will not be successful, Bison and the agency will discuss the 

possibility of abandoning the HDD method. 

If drilling equipment breaks in the boring and cannot be retrieved, the HDD Operator will attempt to 

drill around the downhole equipment. If the HDD Operator cannot advance the pilot hole, the HDD 

equipment will be moved to the second, immediately adjacent, HDD location, if available, and the 

HDD Operator will attempt to re-drill the pilot hole. If a second HDD location is not available, the 

HDD as designed will have failed, and Bison will advance to the alternative crossing method. 

If, after adjusting the drilling fluids, the initial pilot hole collapses on the downhole equipment or 

there is a frac-out that meets conditions of failure identified in Section 3.3, the HDD Operator and the 

On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will determine if the pilot hole can be redesigned to utilize a 

different subsurface strata and attempt a second installation of the pilot hole at the original HDD 

location. 

If the pilot hole can be redesigned but not installed at the original HDD location or if the pilot hole 

can not be redesigned, the HDD equipment will be moved to the second adjacent location, if 

available, and a pilot hole installation attempt will be completed at the second, adjacent HDD 

location. If the attempt fails at the second HDD location or a second adjacent HDD location is not 

available, Bison may consider the HDD, as designed, a failure. 

Failure of the pilot hole installation due to deviation from the designed pathway is not anticipated. If 

the pilot hole deviates from the designed pathway, the HDD operator will back out of the borehole, 

grout the incorrect pathway and re-drill the pilot hole, correcting for the pathway deviation as needed. 

Once HDD has been determined to have failed, the HDD Contractor will demobilize its equipment 

from the site after approval from Bison and the crossing will be completed using an approved 

alternative method. 

5.2 Criteria for Reaming and Swabbing Failure 

If, following the collapse of the opened borehole or due to stresses on the equipment, the reamer 

equipment fails and part or the entire reamer is lost downhole, the HDD Contractor will be allowed 7 

working days to attempt to retrieve the equipment from the hole and then return to the HDD crossing 

installation. If the HDD Contractor cannot retrieve the lost equipment, this is an unsuccessful 

attempt at opening the completed pilot hole due to equipment failure. If possible, a new pilot hole 

will be redesigned and installed at the first HDD location or if available, installed at the second 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 17
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 18

adjacent HDD location. If neither of these two options can be implemented, the HDD may be 

considered a failure due to equipment failure. 

If the borehole collapses during the reaming process and the reaming equipment is retrieved, the pilot 

hole will be re-drilled at the original location and the pilot hole opening re-attempted. If, there is a 

second unsuccessful attempt at opening the pilot hole, the HDD Operator and the On-site Bison 

Environmental Inspector will determine if the pilot hole can be redesigned and installed at the 

original location. If not, the HDD equipment will be moved to the second adjacent HDD location, if 

available, and the HDD Operator will attempt pilot hole installation and conditioning. If there are 

two unsuccessful attempts at opening the pilot hole at the second HDD location, HDD may be 

considered a failure. If there is not a third adjacent HDD location, the HDD as designed may be 

considered a failure. 

Once the HDD is determined to have failed, the HDD Contractor will demobilize its equipment from 

the site after approval from Bison and the crossing will be completed using the alternative method. 

5.3 Criteria for Pullback Failure 

If during the pull back process the pipe becomes stuck in the borehole, the HDD Operator will 

attempt to remove the pipe. If the pipe can be removed, the hole will be reconditioned and a second 

attempt to pullback the pipe will be completed. If during the second attempt to pullback the pipe, the 

pipe again becomes stuck, the HDD Operator will attempt to remove the pipe. If the pipe can be 

removed, the HDD Operator and the On-site Bison Environmental Inspector will determine if a third 

attempt at the original location is warranted or if a new pilot hole should be drilled and opened at the 

second adjacent HDD location, if available. If the third attempt to pull the pipe at the original 

location fails, the HDD equipment will be moved to the second adjacent HDD location, if available 

and a new pilot hole will be installed and opened. If a second HDD location is not available, the 

HDD may be considered a failure. 

If the crossing is moved to the second HDD location, three attempts to pullback the pipe, in which 

the pipe becomes stuck but can be retrieved, will be completed before the HDD may be considered a 

failure. If a second location is not available, then the HDD may be considered a failure. 

If during the pullback process the pipe becomes stuck and cannot be retrieved from the borehole, the 

pipe will be abandoned in place. If a second HDD location is available, a new pilot hole will be 

installed and conditioned. A maximum of three attempts at the second location to pullback the pipe 

will be completed before HDD may be considered a failure. If a second location is not available, 

then HDD may be considered a failure. 

Once HDD has been determined to have failed, the HDD Contractor will demobilize its equipment 

from the site after approval from Bison and the crossing will be completed using an approved 

alternative method.
AECOM Environment 

Attachment A 

Site-Specific Plans for Proposed HDD Crossings 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-015 – Little Powder River (Topograhpic Map) 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-012 – Little Powder River (Aerial Photograph) 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-017 – Little Missouri River (Topographic Map) 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-004 – Little Missouri River (Aerial Photograph) 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-026 – Heart River (Topographic Map) 

Figure A7054-28-03-BI-03-011 – Heart River (Aerial Photograph) 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

24K USGS IMAGERY
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

AERIAL IMAGERY
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

24K USGS IMAGERY
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

AERIAL IMAGERY
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE 1"=200'

24K USGS IMAGERY
PROFILE VIEW

HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 200'

VERT. SCALE: 1" = 50'

PLAN VIEW

HORZ. SCALE 1"=200'

AERIAL IMAGERY
APPENDIX J 

BLASTING PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Project Blasting Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 
 AECOM Environment 

PROJECT BLASTING PLAN 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................................1

3.0 Pre-Blasting Impact Assessment.........................................................................................................................1

3.1 Blasting Abatement..................................................................................................................................1

3.2 Potential Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................2

4.0 Blasting Procedures and Requirements ..............................................................................................................2

4.1 Contractor’s Blasting Plan .......................................................................................................................2

4.2 Site-Specific Blasting Plans .....................................................................................................................3

4.3 General Blasting Procedures....................................................................................................................5

4.4 Explosive Types.......................................................................................................................................6

4.5 Vibration Monitoring ...............................................................................................................................6

4.6 In-Stream Blasting ...................................................................................................................................8

5.0 Post-Blast Activities ...........................................................................................................................................8

6.0 Lightning Hazards ..............................................................................................................................................8

7.0 Environmental Concerns.....................................................................................................................................9

8.0 References ........................................................................................................................................................10

FIGURES

Figure 4.5-1 - Blasting Vibration Limit Criteria ...........................................................................................7 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 i April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

The Bison Pipeline Project (Project) will involve installation of approximately 302 miles of and 30- 

inch outside diameter (OD) natural gas pipeline and facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North 

Dakota. Pipe installation will typically require trenching to a minimum depth of 7 feet below 

existing grade. Preliminary data review has identified several areas along the alignment where 

bedrock may be encountered at less than 5 feet below ground surface and rock removal techniques 

would be needed. Rock outcrops were identified between MP 72.45 and 72.80 this is based on 

visual observation during Project reconnaissance. Conventional techniques will be used first, but 

in the event it becomes necessary to use blasting techniques to remove rock within the trench, all 

blasting and blasting-related activities will be performed in accordance with the guidelines 

presented in this Project Blasting Plan (Blasting Plan). Specific areas where blasting may be 

required will be determined during construction. 

2.0 Purpose 

This Blasting Plan is intended to serve as an overall guidance document for all blasting on the 

Project; however, the blasting contractor will be responsible for generating an overall Contractor 

Blasting Plan (CBP) and a written Site-Specific Blasting Plan (SSBP) for each individual area 

where blasting activities will take place. Requirements and procedures may vary from one blasting 

work area to the next due to state or local requirements. 

If blasting is required, Bison Pipeline LLC’s (Bison’s) contractor will perform pre-blasting 

investigations and will implement blasting techniques in accordance with local, state, and federal 

regulations and the 2006 International Fire Code. The contractor performing the rock blasting will 

be responsible for obtaining blasting permits and providing the required notification prior to 

blasting activities. 

3.0 Pre-Blasting Impact Assessment 

3.1 Blasting Abatement 

If feasible and practicable, depending on rock characteristics, alternative bedrock trenching 

techniques such as ripping and cutting, hydraulic hoe-ramming, rock trenching equipment or nonexplosive demolition agents will be used. If blasting is deemed necessary, efforts will be made to 

avoid or minimize the following potential adverse impacts: ground vibration, air blast overpressure, 

generation of fly rock, generation of dust, generation of noxious gases, and chemical residue in the 

subsurface. Methods to prevent these adverse impacts include the design of the actual 

loads/charges, configuration, delays and the use of blast mats, where necessary. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

3.2 Potential Impact Assessment 

Prior to initiating blasting operations, and as part of preparation of a CBP and SSBP, the contractor 

will assess the potential impacts from the proposed blasting operations on nearby residential or 

other structures, aboveground and below ground utilities, roadways, treed areas, waterbodies, and 

other sensitive environments or habitats. If federal, state, local, or Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulations dictate minimum distances for assessing or protecting from 

blasting impacts, these distance thresholds will be followed. If no such regulations exist, the 

impacts will be assessed and monitored as set forth in the CBP and SSBP. 

Pre-blast condition surveys will be performed on all structures within a prescribed distance from 

the blast zone. These surveys will include videotape or photographic documentation of structure 

conditions, and will include any observable cracks in foundation or structure walls, conditions of 

window glass, and other features as appropriate. 

In addition, the locations of private or public water supply wells and springs within 150 feet of 

potential blasting sites will be identified and documented. Information regarding the well 

construction (e.g., well depth, casing type/diameter/depth, water depth, water-bearing formations 

and well yield) will be obtained and reviewed, if available. Well yield will be verified by Bison 

personnel before and after blasting activities to assure that no appreciable change has occurred as a 

result of blasting. 

4.0 Blasting Procedures and Requirements 

The CBP providing general specifications for all blasting activities, including safety procedures, 

must be submitted for Bison approval. In addition to meeting applicable state and local 

requirements, the contractor will provide the SSBP describing detailed blasting specifications to 

Bison for review. No blasting will be performed without prior approval of Bison. 

4.1 Contractor’s Blasting Plan 

A qualified blasting engineer or consultant will oversee the preparation of the CBP, which will 

include blasting procedures and an engineering report showing recommended blasting charges and 

methods to be used at specific locations. The CBP will be approved by Bison or its consultant 

prior to any blasting activity. The CBP will include, but not be limited to, procedures for: 

 Storage, handling, transportation, loading, and firing of explosives; 

 Communication with authorities and landowners; 

 Pre- and post-blast inspections; 

 Mitigation controls for flyrock, noise reduction, and misfires; 

 Safety procedures (e.g., fire prevention, signs and flagmen, and warning signals); 

 Mitigation of environmental impacts; and 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

 Disposal of waste blast material. 

Procedures specified in the CBP will recognize that blasting may be required adjacent to existing 

overhead or underground utilities, roadways or trails, environmentally sensitive areas, farmland, or 

areas with potential geologic hazards. The CBP will also include: 

 The names of blasting professionals along with copies of licenses and a statement of 

qualifications summarizing the experience of each professional; 

 The names and credentials of all monitoring personnel; 

 Typical blasting design criteria: 

o Description of blast products and their justification for selection; 

o Delay type and interval; 

o Maximum charge per hole and per delay; 

o Method for initiating explosives; 

o Stemming material and tamping method; and 

o Hole diameter and pattern; 

 A schedule identifying when blasting would occur within a water body greater than 10 feet 

wide, or within a designated coldwater fishery; 

 A description of vibration monitoring equipment, including manufacturer and specifications; 

 Copies of all required federal, state, and local permits; 

 Magazine types and locations for storage of explosives and detonating caps; 

 Test shot forms; and 

 Blasting log forms. 

4.2 Site-Specific Blasting Plans 

All blasting-related activities will be performed in accordance with an SSBP (prepared by the 

blasting contractor) and will include measures for avoiding, abating, or minimizing potential 

impacts at a unique location. The following is a list of minimum requirements that must be 

satisfied by the SSBP. It is possible that additional, specific local requirements not listed herein 

may be required. 

 Prior to blasting, the contractor will provide 48 hours advance notice to all applicable and 

potentially-affected parties, including adjacent property owners, local municipalities, and other 

parties as may be required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Certificate 

conditions, project permits, or applicable regulations. Locations of structures, utilities, wells, 

or wetlands within a minimum of 150 feet of the blasting location(s) (or other distance as may 

be required by regulations) will be inventoried and assessed; 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

 Controlled blasting techniques will be designed specifically to impact only near-surface 

materials (i.e., limited in intensity to fracture only shallow rock) to facilitate construction. 

Ditch blocks will be used during trench blasting; 

 The SSBP will contain a Safety Plan that will include, at a minimum: 

o Measures that will be taken to execute the work in a manner that minimizes potential for 

injury to project personnel, the public-at-large, and adjacent/nearby properties. This 

could include the use of blast mats if there is the potential for fly rock to damage nearby 

structures, etc. Blasting will be kept at a minimum distance of 200 feet from any 

aboveground or belowground structure, and all personnel will be cleared within 1,000 feet 

of the blasting area; 

o Contact information for all project managerial and emergency personnel, including the 

local fire department, and any others as may be required by applicable permits; 

o Procedures to follow in the event of injury or other emergency; 

o Procedures for establishing sentries as needed to prevent access to the blast zone(s) by 

unauthorized personnel. Sentries will be deployed on all pathways (blocked access roads, 

closed roads, etc.) to the blasting area; 

o Procedures for fire safety in accordance with a Fire Prevention and Safety Plan, including 

restrictions on blasting in periods of high fire danger;

o Procedures for explosive materials handling, storage, and use; 

o Proper safeguards for personnel in the event of a misfire until the misfire can be reblasted or safely removed; 

o Communication protocol between vehicles and office facilities, including cease-use 

restrictions during blasting activities; 

o Personal protective equipment and tool restrictions to avoid sparking around explosives; 

and 

o Measures to be implemented for prevention and suppression of wildfires; 

 The SSBP also will contain details regarding, but not limited to: 

o Primary rock type and geologic structures (e.g., competence, massive or fractured); 

o Blast hole spacing, blast charge weight, delay type or configuration, and other design 

aspects to be used to minimize impact as depicted in the Blasting Procedures below; 

o Explosive material cut-sheets, including chemical content of the materials and potential 

by-products; 

o Provisions for a system of signage and warning signals to warn of impending blasting 

activities and access limitations; 

o Methodology (blasting mats or pads) for containing fly-rock, dust, fumes, and noise; 

o Proposed vibration monitoring locations; 

o Provisions for a monitored test blast to assess the effects of the blasting as proposed and 

the potential need for modifications to the blast methodologies; 

o Proposed hours of drilling and blasting operations; 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

o Loaded blast holes will not be left unattended; 

o Blast holes will not be left loaded overnight; 

o Specific procedures for the transportation and storage of explosives and blasting 

materials; and 

o Other criteria as appropriate. 

Magazines used for storage of explosives must be located on properties permitted for use during 

the Project if explosives are stored on-site. Explosives will not be stored on state or federal 

property without written permission from the agency affected by the storage. Magazine locations 

will be in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Magazines will be located in 

accordance with the 175th anniversary edition of the Blasters Handbook and ATF P5400-7 

Explosives Law and Regulations (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) where no regulations 

apply. 

4.3 General Blasting Procedures 

The CBP will set forth procedures that will include, at a minimum, five test shots not exceeding 20 

feet in length that are monitored with three channel seismographs. The contractor will use the data 

from the test shots to establish standard shot in terms of pounds of explosives per delay. 

Production shot procedures and delays will be identical to test shot procedures and delays. Each 

major change in geology, change in explosive manufacturer, or change in explosive grade as 

determined by Bison will require new test shots. 

In order to provide material suitable for use as backfill after the pipe has been installed, the drilling 

pattern will be designed to achieve smaller rock fragmentation (maximum 1 foot in diameter). All 

proposed drilling patterns will be submitted to Bison for approval. The following action items 

represent minimum requirements and are intended to only provide a general order to the blasting 

procedure: 

 A health and safety tailgate meeting will be held prior to any blasting activities, and all 

personnel involved with any task associated with the blasting will attend. All safety rules and 

signaling will be covered during the meeting; 

 Warning signs will be placed around the blasting area; 

 Lightning detectors will be set up in the blasting area; 

 All drilled holes will be accurately measured for both depth and location; 

 Seismic equipment will be set up to measure velocities near the pipeline and any structures 

200 feet or less from the blast; 

 Distances to any nearby structure (aboveground or belowground) suspected of being 200 feet or 

less from the blast will be measured; 

 The blasting affected zone will be cleared; 

 Sound the warning signal; 

 Sound the blast signal; 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 5 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

 Detonate the blast; 

 Inspectors will inspect any aboveground or belowground facilities for damage after the blaster 

has checked for misfires and given the “ALL CLEAR” signal; and 

 Complete the Blasting Log. 

4.4 Explosive Types 

Some explosives and detonators can have adverse impact on the subsurface in the form of 

environmentally-harmful residue in soil, bedrock or groundwater. Examples are: 

 Explosives that contain perchlorate compounds; and, 

 Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO). If ANFO detonation is not oxygen-balanced, it can 

result in incomplete detonation and nitrate residue can remain. In addition, ANFO produces 

significant quantities of gas during the explosive process, which in some circumstances can 

increase the risk of flyrock. 

Accordingly, to avoid potential adverse impacts, special trenching-type explosives which are 

designed specifically for trench blasting and do not contain perchlorates or ANFO will be required 

for use on the project. 

4.5 Vibration Monitoring 

As specified in the SSBP, blast vibration and airblast overpressure monitoring will be performed 

and reported for each round by an experienced, qualified firm. Appropriate documentation will be 

maintained and available for review by applicable agencies in accordance with the SSBP. 

Unless otherwise approved, ground vibrations at adjacent and nearby structures will be kept below 

the safe limits recommended by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM RI 8507, 1980), which are 

provided on Figure 4.5-1. These limits are based on the frequency and the peak particle velocity 

of the blast vibrations, and are generally-accepted limits for preventing cosmetic damage to 

residential structures. These limits may vary in accordance with state-specific or local regulations 

or codes. 

Unless otherwise approved, air blast overpressures will normally be kept below a limit of 133 

decibels (dB) (Peak Impulsive), or 0.013 pounds per square inch (psi), which is the limit 

recommended by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to prevent damage to windows and minimize 

annoyance (Figure 4.5-1). The maximum peak particle velocity allowed will take into 

consideration protection of the stability of natural slopes, and to minimize environmental impacts 

to wells, springs, waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, and habitat. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 7 April 2009 

Figure 4.5-1 - Blasting Vibration Limit Criteria 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM RI 8507, 1980)
 AECOM Environment 

4.6 In-Stream Blasting 

To date, there is no evidence of a requirement to implement a SSBP in a flowing stream bed. If 

rock is encountered, conventional excavation and hammer techniques will be used first. If these 

techniques are not successful then, in addition to the requirements identified in this document, the 

Contractor will incorporate the following measures when conducting blasting in streams. 

 Blasting equipment will not be allowed to ford or drive into any waterbody at any time. All 

work will be conducted from equipment positioned on the bridge or banks. 

 For dam and pump crossings, blasting will only occur after installing dams upstream and 

downstream of the trench (blast) area. 

 For flume crossings, flume pipes can be installed after blasting but prior to trenching. 

 If required by regulating agencies, a series of scare charges will be detonated immediately prior 

to trench blasting to disperse fish from the blast area. 

 If required by regulating agencies, pre- and post-detonation monitoring will be conducted to 

determine the extent, if any, of fish mortality. 

 Any fly-rock in streams will be collected immediately and disposed of at an approved disposal 

site. 

 Time allowed for completion of the crossing of a waterbody does not include blasting 

activities. 

5.0 Post-Blast Activities 

Upon completion of blasting in a given work area, the following post-blast activities will be 

implemented: 

 Notifications of work completion will be made to the agencies or parties as required by the 

applicable permit and as specified in the SSBP; 

 Post-blast surveys will be completed of those structures, if any, for which a pre-blast survey 

was performed; 

 Documentation of the vibration monitoring, and pre- and post-blast survey results will be 

provided to applicable agencies as required by permit and as specified in the SSBP; and 

 Other permit-specified post-blast requirements, as necessary. 

6.0 Lightning Hazards 

Lightning strikes pose a serious risk of accidental detonation when thunderstorms or electrical 

storms are in the vicinity of a blasting site and there are loaded holes on-site. All loading and 

blasting activities will cease immediately, and personnel will seek shelter a safe distance from the 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 8 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

work area. All explosive materials and initiation systems are susceptible to initiation by lightning. 

If the Environmental Inspector (EI) determines that such a hazard exists, work will be discontinued 

for all operations and workers will retreat to a pre-determined safe zone away from the loaded 

holes when an approaching storm front is within 5 miles. Work will continue only after the nearest 

lightning activity is at least 5 miles beyond the blasting area. Bison will have on-site approved 

lightning detectors that are capable of measuring the degree of electrical activity associated with an 

approaching storm, and the distance to the storm front from the instrument located on the 

Construction Right-of-Way (ROW). 

7.0 Environmental Concerns 

The CBP will outline procedures to identify and address environmental concerns along the 

Construction ROW, including site-specific requirements. An environmental review and checklist 

will be included in the CBP, which will address the following: 

 Prior to blasting, the EI will survey the proposed blasting zone to ensure that areas with 

threatened or endangered species have been identified; 

 Special procedures to minimize disturbance (e.g., noise, air blast effects) of environmentally 

sensitive areas such as streams, wetlands, and special habitats, and to mitigate the effects of 

blasting; 

 Procedures to protect special status species or prevent the deterioration of existing habitat. 

Implementation of mitigation measures where blasting is required to excavate the trench and 

Endangered Species Act-listed wildlife species have a known presence or where survey data do 

not support a probable absence within 1 mile of the blasting site; 

 Compliance with site-specific requirements described in Resource Report No. 2 – Water Use 

and Quality when blasting near or within streams, including mitigation procedures to minimize 

the effect on aquatic ecosystems; 

 Implementation of a dust control plan for drilling operations; 

 Evaluation of the effect of blasting operations on ambient air quality; 

 Acceptable noise levels and guidelines for limiting shot size and frequency of blasting to 

control noise levels; 

 Prevention of unstable geological conditions that may result from blasting operations such as 

landslides, mudslides, or ground failure, which could result in hazards to people or property; 

 Protection of water supply wells, springs, and seeps; and 

 Special procedures that will need to be implemented if in-water blasting is required for the 

Project, including the use of air bubble curtains or other protective equipment. 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 9 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Document No.: 06786-024-3383 10 April 2009 

8.0 References 

Du Pont Company 1980. Blaster’s Handbook – 175th Anniversary Edition, Explosives Products 

Division. 

Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (no date). ATF Explosives Laws and 

Regulations. ATF P5400.7, Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms. 

Siskind, D.E. Stagg, M.S., etal 1980. United States Bureau of Mines Report of Investigators 8507: 

‘Structural response and damage produced by ground vibration from surface mine blasting’. 
APPENDIX K 

HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Hydrostatic Test Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Hydrostatic Test Plan 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Hydrostatic Testing.............................................................................................................................................1

2.1 Test Water Source and Discharge ............................................................................................................1

2.2 Mainline Test Procedures.........................................................................................................................4

2.3 Additional Minor Test Sections................................................................................................................5

2.4 Pipeline Water Discharge Procedures ......................................................................................................5

2.5 Hydrostatic Test Leak Contingency Plan .................................................................................................6

TABLES 

Table 2.1-1 - Potential Sources of Hydrostatic Test Water for the Project....................................................................2 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 i
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 1

1.0 Introduction 

This Hydrostatic Test Plan provides an overview of the methods and guidelines for conducting 

hydrostatic testing operations for Bison Pipeline LLC’s (Bison’s) Bison Pipeline Project (the 

Project). Once the pipeline is constructed, in order to ensure that it is capable of safely operating 

at the design pressure and in compliance with United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation 

(DOT) regulations, Bison must pressure-test the pipeline in accordance with Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 192 requirements. The contractor is required to comply with the 

environmental requirements of this Plan and all federal and state permits and approvals, 

including the Project’s Biological Assessment. Special requirements associated with hydrostatic 

test water withdrawals to protect sensitive species and habitats are included below. 

Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Bison’s Plan, Appendix 

7.D in Resource Report No. 7) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures (Bison’s Procedures, Appendix 2.A of Resource Report No. 2) provides additional 

mitigation measures and erosion and sediment control methods that will be implemented during 

construction to minimize potential impacts during construction, hydrostatic testing, and 

reclamation of the Project. 

Prior to hydrostatic test operations along the Project, this Hydrostatic Test Plan will be updated 

and finalized subsequent to the completion of pipeline design and engineering in consultation 

with the selected construction contractor and interested local regulatory agencies. 

2.0 Hydrostatic Testing 

2.1 Test Water Source and Discharge 

Water Source and Discharge Locations 

Bison plans to withdraw water from a number of surface water sources along the Project route to 

hydrostatically test the pipeline in sections following construction. The water sources currently 

identified as potential sources for hydrostatic test water along the Project are described in Table 

2.1-1 below. Bison expects hydrostatic testing operations to occur, and water to be withdrawn from 

the sources listed below, from August to November of the year 2010, as required by the Project 

construction schedule for each construction spread. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2

Table 2.1-1 - Potential Sources of Hydrostatic Test Water for the Project 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 02/17/2009 

Spread 

Start 

Milepost 

(MP) 

Possible Source 

Waters 

Source 

Waters 

Location 

(County, 

State) 

Average 

Historic Daily

Flow Rate, 

August 

through 

September 

(cfs)a

Max. Water 

Volume 

(gallons)b

Withdrawal 

Watershed 

(HUC) 

Disposal 

Watershed 

(HUC) 

Spread 1 -0.47 TBD [(Coalbed 

Methane (CBM) 

Waters] c

Campbell, 

WY 

Unavailable TBD Upper Powder 

(10090202) 

Upper Powder 

(10090202) 

Spread 1 72.25 Little Powder 

River 

Campbell, 

WY 

5.24 4,620,000 Little Powder 

(10090208) 

Little Powder 

(10090208) 

Spread 1; 

Spread 2 

114.00 Phillipi Reservoir Carter, 

MT 

Unavailable 13,860,000 Box Elder 

(10110202) 

Box Elder 

(10110202) 

Spread 2; 

Spread 3 

182.68 Little Missouri 

River 

Bowman, 

ND 

73.79 18,480,000 Upper Little 

Missouri 

(10110201) 

Upper Little 

Missouri 

(10110201) 

Spread 3 250.68 Cannonball River Hettinger, 

ND 

10.10 9,240,000 Upper 

Cannonball 

(10130204) 

Upper 

Cannonball 

(10130204) 

Spread 3 282.14 Heart River Stark, ND 26.87 9,240,000 Upper Heart 

(10130202) 

Upper Heart 

(10130202) 

a

Historic flow rate data are based upon USGS streamflow data. Please refer to Table 2.4-2 of Resource Report No. 2 for 

additional information on the USGS sites cited, as well as historic daily means for these waters. “cfs”=Cubic feet per second 

b

Sufficient water will be withdrawn from these sources to fill one or more test sections of approximately 20 miles (5.8 million 

gallons). Water from the same source may be pushed along the pipeline to test additional sections, as described in this 

Hydrostatic Test Plan. Withdrawal rates will be less than or equal to 10 percent of the existing flow rate within each waterbody at 

the time of withdrawal. Detailed historic flow rate data are presented in Table 2.4-2 of Resource Report No. 2. c

The use of CBM water for the purposes of hydrostatic testing as part of the Project is contingent upon quality, quantity, and 

discharge requirements specific to the CBM sources that may be used. At this time, Bison does not intend to use CBM water for 

dust control purposes.

Bison will obtain all appropriate permits and authorizations for water withdrawals. Water 

withdrawn from a source will be returned to the same watershed at the completion of testing 

operations. In addition, a discharge permit will be obtained prior to discharge of hydrostatic test 

water, as required by each state. 

Due to insufficient quantities of available surface or ground water in the southern portion of the 

Project, Bison is investigating the potential use of coalbed methane (CBM) water for hydrostatic 

testing purposes. Bison’s preference is to utilize the primary stream and reservoir sources presented 

in Table 2.K-1; CBM waters will be used if sufficient quantities of water from the identified stream 

and reservoir sources cannot be permitted. If utilized, separate general CBM discharge permits may 

be required by the each state, which will include any limitations that may apply related to the quality 

and character of the CBM water (e.g., total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, total residual 

chlorine, pH, oil, grease). 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 3

General Procedures 

Approximately 15 hydrostatic test sections are expected to be utilized across the Project. Bison 

intends for each test section to be approximately 20 miles in length. However, in areas of 

significant topographic relief, the length of the test section will be limited by the additive pressure 

resulting from the elevation variations within the test section. 

Each test section will require approximately three to five million gallons of water, depending on the 

length of the test section. Water will be reused across several test sections within each construction 

spread, such that a total of approximately 30 to 40 million gallons is expected to be needed for the 

purpose of hydrostatic testing across the entire Project. To reuse water across test sections, the 

water will be cascaded to subsequent test sections by means of piping connections. Each test event 

will last approximately 7 days, including the fill, temperature stabilization, pressure test, and 

discharge of water. Depending upon the construction schedule and the timing of hydrostatic test 

progress along successive test sections within each construction spread, hydrostatic test water may 

be stored within a test section for up to 30 days. 

During hydrostatic test water withdrawals, the Contractor will maintain adequate flow rates in the 

waterbody, with no more than a ten percent reduction in flow rate, in order to protect aquatic life 

and provide for downstream uses in compliance with regulatory and permit requirements. In the 

event that primary test water sources do not contain adequate flow rates to support the 

hydrostatic test water withdrawal without affecting downstream uses and resources, alternative 

water sources will be used. In some cases, the alternative water source(s) may replace more than 

one primary water source. 

In waterbodies that support sensitive species, Bison will avoid withdrawal of hydrostatic test 

water unless specific approval is obtained in advance from the appropriate regulatory or resource 

agency(ies). Small withdrawals associated with hydrostatic pre-testing of pull sections at 

horizontal directional drills may be necessary from such waterbodies. In these cases, the 

withdrawal rates will be minor, and the pump intakes will be screened with fine mesh to avoid 

entrainment or impingement of fish or debris. 

In areas where zebra mussels are known to occur, all equipment used during the hydrostatic test 

withdrawal and discharge will be thoroughly cleaned before being used at subsequent hydrostatic 

test locations to prevent the transfer of zebra mussels or veligers to new locations.
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 4

2.2 Mainline Test Procedures 

In order to obtain water from a surface waterbody, a fill pump will be placed at the waterbody’s 

edge and connected to a hydrostatic test fill line (steel pipe or hose) placed along the ground and 

attached to the hydrostatic test header. If there is not an adequate depression in the river bottom, 

it may be necessary to dig a small sump to allow the pump intake to be fully submerged, if 

allowed by the appropriate permitting agency. The intake of the pump will be screened to 

prevent entrainment of debris and fish. The fill pump engine will be placed in a plastic-lined 

bermed or metal containment area to prevent spills or leaks from reaching the ground or the 

waterbody and will be refueled by hand using small (e.g., 5 gallon) containers. The fill pumps 

will be continuously monitored during operation. 

Water withdrawal rates will be monitored to avoid significant impacts to streamflow or 

downstream water users and resources. The screen around the intake will be fabricated to 

provide an adequate surface area of fine-meshed screen to reduce the approach velocity to 

prevent impingement or entrainment of small fish. Bison will regularly inspect the water intake 

screen for entrained fish and will contact the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

immediately if federally listed aquatic species (e.g., fish or mussels) are found impinged on the 

screen. 

Water withdrawn for hydrostatic testing will be in the pipeline for fewer than 30 days before being 

discharged back to, or within the same watershed as, the location where it was withdrawn. 

Additional protective measures that will be implemented during hydrostatic test water filling and 

discharge operations include the following: 

 Bison will obtain water samples for analysis from each source before filling the pipeline; 

 Staging/work areas for filling the pipeline with water will be located a minimum of 100 feet 

from the waterbody or wetland boundary if topographic conditions permit. The Contractor will 

install temporary sediment filter devices adjacent to all streams to prevent sediments from 

leaving the construction site; 

 The intake hose and screen will be kept off the bottom of the waterbody; 

 Refueling of construction equipment will be conducted a minimum distance of 100 feet from the 

stream or a wetland (or a minimum distance of 500 feet from the stream or wetland on BLM 

lands); and 

 Pumps used for hydrostatic testing within 100 feet of any waterbody or wetland will be 

operated and refueled within secondary containment as detailed in the Project’s Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. 

The exact start and end points of each hydrostatic test section along the Project are not known at 

this time. The test section start and end locations, as well as the sequence in which sections of 

the Project will be tested, will be decided upon based on a number of factors, including: 

 Changes in elevation along the Project, which may occur over a relatively short distances in 

some locations; 

 Water availability during the time required (expected September to November, 2010); and 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5

 Availability of physical space (i.e., extra workspace [EWS]) for equipment set-up and 

operation to the ends of the test sections. 

Bison is currently analyzing the Project with these factors in mind. This hydrostatic test plan 

will be updated prior to testing of the pipeline based upon Project design, engineering, and 

feasibility. 

2.3 Additional Minor Test Sections 

Selected river crossing pipe sections may be specified to be pre-tested for a minimum of 1 hour. 

Water for pre-testing of a river crossing section may be hauled or taken from the respective river 

if it is an approved water withdrawal source. Intakes for the small test sections will be screened 

with fine mesh, and the intake rate/volume will be low to prevent entrainment of fish or debris on 

the screen. Since the volume of water utilized in these pre-test sections of pipeline will be 

relatively small, the water will be discharged overland along the Construction Right-of-Way and 

allowed to soak into the ground, as allowed by the appropriate regulatory agency and in 

accordance with Bison’s Plan and Procedures. Erosion and sediment control measures will be 

installed to prevent sedimentation from the discharge. 

2.4 Pipeline Water Discharge Procedures 

At this time, Bison plans to discharge hydrostatic test waters from construction spread 1 at 

approximate MP 0; from construction spread 2 at approximate MP 90 and approximate MP 130; 

and from construction spread 3 at approximate MPs 199, 220, 265, and 302. Discharge 

operations are planned to take place from late September 2010 to November 2010, and will be 

dependent upon the construction schedule of each spread of the Project. 

Prior to the completion of hydrostatic testing along the Project, Bison will obtain any and all 

discharge permits that may be required by local regulatory agencies. Upon completion of 

hydrostatic testing, the hydrostatic test water will sampled, tested and treated or filtered as 

necessary to reduce pollutant levels or remove suspended particles from the water, per applicable 

discharge permit requirements. If required, additional water quality testing will be conducted 

throughout discharge operations in accordance with permit conditions. 

After satisfactory sampling test results are confirmed, the water will be returned to the same 8-

digit, 4th-level HUC watershed from which it was originally withdrawn. Hydrostatic test water 

will be discharged in a controlled manner, through an energy dissipater (e.g., welded steel 

baffling device) within the existing Construction ROW. The rate of discharge flow will be 

controlled to prevent rilling, or the formation of small gullies. Additional practices, such as the 

use of plastic sheeting or other material to prevent scour, will be used as necessary to prevent 

excessive erosion during dewatering in accordance with Bison’s Plan and Procedures. 

If overland flow is likely to occur at the point of discharge, the pathway of the water will be 

armored. This armoring will be removed, along with the energy dissipation structure, after 

discharge is completed. Overland flow will be dissipated at upland discharge locations. In 

upland locations, discharge rates will be reduced to meet the infiltration rate of the site. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 6

The pipeline is constructed of all new materials, and no chemicals will be added to the 

hydrostatic test water. Therefore, Bison does not anticipate that water quality standards will be 

compromised as a result of hydrostatic test events. Typically, hydrostatic test water can pick up 

some iron oxide (rust) from the new pipe that may give the discharge water a reddish color, 

however, Bison’s use of the internal epoxy coating will virtually eliminate this potential for the 

Project. 

The discharge operations will be monitored throughout to ensure compliance with Project permit 

requirements. 

2.5 Hydrostatic Test Leak Contingency Plan 

A major pipeline leak of water during hydrostatic test operations is unlikely, due to inspections 

of the pipe throughout the construction process and prior hydrostatic testing that occurs as part of 

the pipe manufacturing process. Bison expects that, if any test section were to fail during 

hydrostatic testing, the water leak that would result would be minor, rather than a catastrophic 

failure of the pipe. Once the pipe is installed in flat areas within the Construction ROW, any 

discharges due to leaks would be minimal and due only to the volume of water added to the line 

fill needed reach test pressure (i.e if the line goes to zero pressure, the water will remain in the 

pipe with no leakage.) The worst case would occur on steep terrain with a major leak at the 

bottom of a hill. In that case, the length of the test section to the top of the next hill will drain 

out of the pipe. 

Where personnel safety considerations permit, erosion control measures such as temporary 

diffusers would be placed to reduce overland flow velocity and resulting erosion to the maximum 

extent possible. As part of the repair process, all erosion damages would be repaired. 
APPENDIX L 

NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control 

Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
 AECOM Environment 

Noxious And Invasive Weed Control Plan 

CONTENTS 

1.0 General Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Preconstruction Survey and Control ...................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 General Pipeline Construction Procedures............................................................................................................. 3

4.0 Monitoring and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................. 4

TABLES 

Table 2.0-1 Noxious and Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area .................................................... 2

Document No. 06786-024-3383 i April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

1.0 General Approach 

Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are defined as non-native, undesirable native, or introduced 

species that are able to outcompete desired native species and thereby decrease overall species 

diversity. Noxious weeds often invade and persist in areas after disturbance. Noxious weeds are 

addressed by Executive Order 13112, which was set into Federal law on February 3, 1999. Under 

Executive Order 13112, the Federal government is required to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species, provide for their control, and minimize their impacts. The order further specifies that the 

federal government shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species unless it has been determined that the benefits of such 

actions would outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species after all prudent and feasible 

measures to minimize risk of harm are taken in conjunction with the actions. 

There are three key elements to Bison Pipeline LLC’s (Bison) noxious and invasive weed control 

program for the Bison Pipeline Project (Project). First, Bison will determine the location of 

significant populations of pre-existing problem plant species on the Construction Right-of-Way 

(ROW) and extra work space (EWS) prior to construction. Second, appropriate measures will be 

taken to minimize the spread of known weed populations located on the Construction ROW and 

EWS and new populations found in the focused preconstruction survey. Third, practicably treatable 

occurrences of noxious and invasive weeds on the Construction ROW and EWS will be treated for a 

period of 3 years or until the re-establishment of self-sustaining native vegetation communities meet 

pre-disturbance parameters for cover, production, and diversity, as measured at adjacent undisturbed 

areas.” 

2.0 PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND 

CONTROL 

Noxious weed surveys will be conducted on the Construction ROW and extra workspace. Species 

sought are those currently listed as undesirably invasive by federal, state, and local officials (Table 

2.0-1). Known weed populations located on the Construction ROW and EWS (discovered and 

recorded during the 2008 and 2009 environmental studies) and new populations found in the focused 

preconstruction survey will be mapped and will be treated with appropriate measures to prevent their 

spread. Table 3.2-3 in Resource Report No. 3 references currently known locations along the 

Construction ROW and EWS. 

Bison will submit to the BLM a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) prior to any spraying on BLMmanaged lands. In accordance with BLM’s requirements, the applicator will be BLM approved and 

certified by the applicable state agency..

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Table 2.0-1 Noxious and Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 

WY Noxious 

Weed List 

MT Noxious 

Weed List 

Carter County, 

MT 

Fallon County, 

MT 

ND Noxious 

Weed List 

Bowman 

County, ND 

Grant County, 

ND 

Slope County, 

ND 

Stark County, 

ND 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica X 

Perennial ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya X 

Common burdock Arctium minus X X X 

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium X 

Wild oats Avena fatua X 

Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana X 

cheatgrass Bromus tectorum X X X X 

Hoary cress Cardaria draba X X X X X 

Hoary cress, whitetop Cardaria pubescens X 

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides X 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans X X 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa X X X 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa X X X 

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens X X X 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis X X 

Blue mustard Chorispora tenalla X 

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum X X 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X X 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis X X X 

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris 

Dodder Cuscuta sp. X 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale X X X X 

Tansymustard Descurania pinnata X 

Russian olive Eleagnus angustifolia X 

Quackgrass Elymus repens X 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula X X X 

Skeletonleaf bursage Franseria discolor X 

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota X 

Baby’s breath Gypsophila paniculata X X 

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus X 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger X X 

Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum X X X 

Dyer's woad Isaits tictoria X 

Poverty weed Iva axillaris X 

Blue lettuce Lactuca pulchella X 

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X 

Broad-leaved Dalmatian Linaria dalmatica X X X 

Narrow-leaved Dalmatian Linaria genistifolia 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X X X 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X X 

Wild proso millet Panicum millaceum X 

Buckhorn Plantain Plantago lanceolata X 

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta X 

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis X 

Marsh sowthistle Sonchus palustris X 

Swainsonpea Sphaerophysa salsula X 

Saltcedar Tamarix parviflora X X 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Table 2.0-1 Noxious and Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 

WY Noxious 

Weed List 

MT Noxious 

Weed List 

Carter County, 

Fallon County, 

MT MT 

ND Noxious 

Weed List 

Bowman 

County, ND 

Grant County, 

ND 

Slope County, 

Stark County, 

ND ND 

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima X X 

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare X X 

Puncturevine Tribulus terristris X 

X's denote listed by the authority in that column 

Sources: WY Dept of Agriculture, MT Dept of Agriculture, ND Dept of Agriculture

3.0 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Contractors will be required to ensure that vehicles arrive at the work site clean and weed free. 

Bison’s Environmental Inspectors (EI) will inspect each vehicle to determine that it is free of soil and 

debris capable of transporting seeds or other propagules. 

In areas with existing noxious weed infestations, vegetation, soils and trench spoil material will be 

stockpiled as part of the topsoil segregation process. Excess spoil may be spread evenly across the 

Construction ROW or utilized in other ditch areas where additional fill is needed. 

Bison will not treat areas on known weed infestations prior to construction, because Bison does not 

believe it should be responsible for eliminating weeds that have already invaded an area. In areas 

with existing noxious weed infestations, vegetation, soils and trench spoil material will be stockpiled 

as part of the topsoil segregation process and will be retuned to the original soil horizons to the extent 

possible. Management of spoil in this manner, along with washing of vehicles, will prevent the 

spread of weeds. Construction activity will typically take place in an area of the Construction ROW 

that has been cleared of topsoil, such that the use of construction equipment on the Construction 

ROW should not contribute to the spread of noxious and invasive weeds. Once topsoil has been 

stripped and after it has been replaced, construction equipment traveling from areas of weed 

infestations will be cleaned within cleaning stations: i.e., soil encrusted vehicles with high pressure 

water, light coatings of dust with compressed air. 

Additionally, reseeding with fast growing native vegetation and post construction treatments will 

help reduce the chance of noxious weed spread. Construction equipment traveling from areas of 

weed infestations will be cleaned within cleaning stations: soil encrusted vehicles with high pressure 

water, light coatings of dust with compressed air. 

Construction equipment traveling from areas of weed infestations will be cleaned within cleaning 

stations: soil encrusted vehicles with high pressure water, light coatings of dust with compressed air. 

All cleaning stations will be located on the Construction ROW or EWS at locations identified by the 

EI. If required, some cleaning stations may be located elsewhere on the Construction ROW at the 

request of landowners/land managers, but these have not yet been identified. Removed soils will be 

spread on the Construction ROW subsoil layer or below within the infested area. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Reclamation of disturbed areas will follow immediately after construction as described in Bison’s 

Plan in Appendix 7.D and any site-specific Reclamation Plans in Appendix 7.H in Resource Report 

No. 7 to prevent establishment of invasive species which may be present in nearby areas. Materials 

used for erosion control and reclamation will be obtained from state-cleared sources free of noxious 

weeds. 

4.0 Monitoring and Maintenance 

Once construction and installation is complete, Bison will monitor for and treat occurrences of 

noxious and invasive weed infestations on the Construction ROW and EWS for a period of 3 years or 

until the re-establishment of self-sustaining native vegetation communities meet pre-disturbance 

parameters for cover, production and diversity, as measured at adjacent undisturbed areas. Where 

pre-construction surveys show heavy weed infestations or in areas where weed infestations are 

located outside of the Construction ROW and EWS, complete eradication of noxious and non-native 

invasive weeds may not be feasible. Target species are those identified in Table 2.0-1. 

Noxious and invasive weed monitoring will be concurrent with the site-specific Reclamation Plan 

monitoring. Monitoring will commence the year following completion of construction and thereafter 

will occur every year for a period of three years or until the re-establishment of self-sustaining native 

vegetation communities meet pre-disturbance parameters for cover, production and diversity, as 

measured at adjacent undisturbed areas. Monitoring data collected will include: noxious weed 

species, location, extent of infestation, results of previous control measures implemented, and 

recommendations for further control, if needed. Bison will consult with local weed districts and land 

management agencies to determine the most appropriate control measures. 

Bison will share the results of the annual monitoring program with local regulatory agencies and 

other adjacent pipeline operators to facilitate effective treatment of identified noxious weed 

populations. Sharing of information will help ensure that control efforts of all operators are focused 

on problem areas. It will also help ensure that treatment efforts are balanced and coordinated so that 

overuse of control measures such as herbicides are avoided. 

To prevent potential impacts associated with improper herbicide application or accidental spills, 

Bison will use locally certified applicators and develop specific herbicide application, handling, and 

cleanup guidelines. All herbicides used will biodegrade quickly and will not be persistent in the 

ecosystem and should not pose a risk to wildlife in the Project area. Bison may provide funds for 

county or agency personnel to provide weed control services under cooperative agreements. 

Applications will follow USEPA label guidelines and be performed in accordance with federal, state 

and local laws and regulations. 

In general the guidelines to be implemented could include: 

 Implement control measures for noxious and invasive plants before seed maturation. 

 Suspend herbicide application when: 

o Wind velocities exceed 6 mph for the application of liquid materials and 15 mph for the 

application of granular materials; 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
 AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5

o Ice covers the target vegetation; or 

o Precipitation is occurring or imminent. 

 Transporting to the construction site a reasonable quantity of material to treat the expected and 

unanticipated weed populations; 

 Transporting herbicides in approved containers that are inspected daily for leaks; 

 Mixing of chemical controls will be performed at least 500 feet from wetlands, waterbodies, or 

other known sensitive biological resources (e.g., localities supporting threatened or endangered 

species); 

 Preclude use of herbicides within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies unless specifically 

authorized by an appropriate regulatory agency. 

 Material safety data sheets (MSDS) and spill kits will be carried in any vehicle transporting or 

applying herbicide; and. 

 Schedule weed control efforts to occur before seed maturation/development. 
APPENDIX M 

WATERBODIES CROSSED BY THE BISON PIPELINE PROJECT 
M-1

TABLE M1 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline WYOMING Campbell Pipeline 0.88 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_100 Unnamed Trib To North Prong 

Dead Horse Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 1.25 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_099 Unnamed Waterbody INT 3Campbell Pipeline 1.28 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_099 Unnamed Waterbody INT 3Campbell Pipeline 1.30 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_099 Unnamed Waterbody INT 3Campbell Pipeline 1.50 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_099 Unnamed Waterbody INT 3Campbell Pipeline 2.77 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_098 Unnamed Waterbody INT 3Campbell Pipeline 7.57 2.00 Unknown ENSR_S_619 Unnamed Trib To Kingsbury 

Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 7.64 2.00 Unknown ENSR_S_619 Unnamed Trib To Kingsbury 

Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 9.89 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_620 Unnamed Trib To Sand Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 13.94 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_086 Montgomery Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 16.87 35.00 50.00 S5ICM003 Wild Horse Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 18.06 3.00 7.00 S6BCM001 Barker Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 18.55 0.00 30.00 S6BCM002 Mooney Draw EPH 3Campbell Pipeline 19.91 0.00 20.00 S6BCM011 Unnamed Trib To Wild Horse 

Creek 

EPH 3

Campbell Pipeline 21.06 1.00 12.00 S6BCM012 Rough Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 24.46 9.00 13.00 S6BCM009 Twentymile Creek INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 28.41 6.00 Unknown ENSR_S_076 Truman Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 29.52 8.00 Unknown ENSR_S_075 Unnamed Trib To Middle Prong 

Wild Horse Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 29.91 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_074 Long Draw INT 3
M-2

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) WYOMING (continued)Campbell Pipeline 30.09 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_073 Middle Prong Wild Horse Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 30.65 6.00 Unknown ENSR_S_072 Unnamed Trib To Middle Prong 

Wild Horse Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 32.43 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_071 Gibbon Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 34.92 8.00 Unknown ENSR_S_070 Horse Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 45.46 5.00 5.00 S5ICM001 Unnamed Waterbody INTi NCampbell Pipeline 46.21 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_581 Lynde Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 46.24 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_581 Lynde Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 47.49 0.00 Unknown ENSR_S_582 Sa Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 47.62 1.00 100.00 S1DCM004 Trib Of Sa Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 47.85 4.00 6.00 S5ICM002 Unnamed Trib To Sa Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 50.64 2.00 10.00 S1DCM002 Bitter Creek INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 51.55 0.00 90.00 S1DCM001 Unnamed Trib To Bitter Creek INTi NCampbell Pipeline 52.71 6.00 100.00 S4ICM002 Unnamed Trib To East Fork 

Bitter Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 52.72 6.00 100.00 S4ICM002 Unnamed Trib To East Fork 

Bitter Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 53.28 0.00 70.00 S4ICM003 East Fork Bitter Creek EPH 3Campbell Pipeline 55.24 12.00 45.00 S4ICM004 Chalk Prong PERj 3Campbell Pipeline 56.29 2.00 15.00 S4ICM005 Armstrong Prong Bitter Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 60.59 0.00 7.00 S2BCM002 Olmstead Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 62.30 0.50 1.50 S6BCM005 Unnamed Trib To Olmstead 

Creek 

EPH 3
M-3

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) WYOMING (continued)Campbell Pipeline 62.98 5.00 8.00 S2BCM003 Olmstead Draw INT 3Campbell Pipeline 62.99 5.00 8.00 S2BCM003 Olmstead Draw INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 63.00 5.00 8.00 S2BCM003 Olmstead Draw INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 63.00 5.00 8.00 S2BCM003 Olmstead Draw INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 63.00 5.00 8.00 S2BCM003 Olmstead Draw INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 63.75 1.50 3.00 S6BCM004 Cookstove Prong Olmstead 

Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 65.11 6.00 Unknown ENSR_S_056 North Fork Olmstead Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 66.99 8.00 Unknown ENSR_S_055 Unnamed Trib To Olmstead 

Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 67.70 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_054 Unnamed Trib To Olmstead 

Creek 

INT 3

Campbell Pipeline 69.47 3.00 4.00 S5ICM006 North Fork Olmstead Creek EPH 3Campbell Pipeline 72.24 25.00 40.00 S6BCM007 Little Powder River PERj 2Campbell Pipeline 72.84 0.00 4.00 S6BCM008 Unnamed Trib To Little Powder 

River 

EPH 3

Campbell Pipeline 74.01 1.00 30.00 S4ICM006 Dry Trail Creek INT 3Campbell Pipeline 74.53 1.00 15.00 S6BCM013 Trail Creek INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 74.59 1.00 15.00 S6BCM013 Trail Creek INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 74.62 1.00 15.00 S6BCM013 Trail Creek INTj 3Campbell Pipeline 75.27 0.00 20.00 S4ICM008 Unnamed Trib To Trail Creek EPH 3
M-4

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA Powder River Pipeline 79.36 0.00 15.00 S8BPR003 Prairie Dog Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 80.02 0.00 25.00 S4IPR051 Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 80.24 0.00 50.00 S8BPR002 Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 80.72 0.00 40.00 S8BPR001 Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 82.65 4.00 9.00 S3HPR001 Trib Of Ranch Creek INT CPowder River Pipeline 82.95 0.00 8.00 S4CPR005 Trib Of Ranch Creek INT CPowder River Pipeline 83.07 0.00 6.00 S3HPR003 Trib Of Ranch Creek INT CPowder River Pipeline 84.26 10.00 25.00 S8BPR004 Ranch Creek INTj CPowder River Pipeline 84.29 10.00 25.00 S8BPR004 Ranch Creek INTj CPowder River Pipeline 85.32 1.00 9.00 S8BPR005 Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 85.32 1.00 9.00 S8BPR005 Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 85.32 1.00 9.00 S8BPR005A Unnamed Trib To Ranch Creek EPH Powder River Pipeline 86.38 2.00 6.00 S9APR009 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Powder River Pipeline 86.76 2.00 6.00 S9APR007 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Powder River Pipeline 87.12 6.00 8.00 S9APR006 Unnamed Waterbody INT CPowder River Pipeline 87.91 20.00 40.00 S9APR005 Unnamed Waterbody INTi CPowder River Pipeline 87.94 20.00 40.00 S9APR005 Unnamed Waterbody INTi CCarter Pipeline 87.97 20.00 25.00 S9APR004 Unnamed Trib To Thompson 

Creek 

PERj C

Carter Pipeline 87.99 6.00 9.00 S9APR003 Unnamed Trib To Thompson 

Creek 

EPH 
M-5

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 88.43 8.00 25.00 S9APR002 Unnamed Trib To Thompson 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 90.26 5.00 Unknown ENSR_S_282 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 91.35 5.00 Unknown ENSR_S_281 North Thompson Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 93.91 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_394 Coal Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 93.92 7.00 Unknown ENSR_S_394 Coal Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 96.53 4.00 Unknown ENSR_S_396 Trib Of East Fork Little Powder 

River 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 96.56 1.00 Unknown ENSR_S_395 East Fork Little Powder River INTj CCarter Pipeline 97.11 5.00 10.00 S7CCA001 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 97.33 2.00 8.00 S7CCA002 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 97.37 3.00 5.00 S7CCA003 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 97.58 2.00 4.00 S9ACA002 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 97.79 2.00 6.00 S9ACA003 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 97.91 2.00 6.00 S9ACA004 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 98.08 3.00 30.00 S7CCA004 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 98.26 10.00 15.00 S7CCA005 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 98.39 3.00 6.00 S7CCA006 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 98.58 6.00 8.00 S7CCA007 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 98.75 3.00 15.00 S7CCA008 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 98.96 3.00 18.00 S7CCA009 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 99.43 2.00 6.00 S7CCA010 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 100.45 5.00 40.00 S9ACA014 Unnamed Waterbody EPH 
M-6

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 100.90 23.00 30.00 S9ACA013 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 101.15 20.00 25.00 S9ACA012 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 102.27 4.00 6.00 S9ACA010 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 102.66 3.00 15.00 S9ACA009 Boxelder Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 102.71 1.00 2.00 S9ACA008 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 103.35 3.00 3.00 S9ACA007 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 103.59 2.00 3.50 S9ACA006 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 103.85 6.00 25.00 S9ACA005 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 104.36 6.00 8.00 S3HCA003 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 105.70 0.00 10.00 S4FCA001 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 105.71 0.00 10.00 S4FCA001 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 105.71 0.00 10.00 S4FCA001A Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 107.95 0.00 12.00 S1BCA025 Big Groat Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 107.96 0.00 12.00 S1BCA025 Big Groat Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 108.51 4.00 8.00 S1BCA024 Little Groat Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 109.71 1.50 4.00 S2ACA014 Unnamed Waterbody INT C
M-7

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 109.73 1.50 4.00 S2ACA014 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 110.38 2.00 20.00 S9ACA015A Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPHj 

Carter Pipeline 110.39 2.00 20.00 S9ACA015 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPHj 

Carter Pipeline 110.75 25.00 25.00 S9ACA016 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INTj C

Carter Pipeline 110.90 10.00 10.00 S9ACA017 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INTj C

Carter Pipeline 111.06 10.00 10.00 S9ACA018 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INTj C

Carter Pipeline 111.13 50.00 50.00 S9ACA019 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

PERi j C

Carter Pipeline 111.25 50.00 50.00 S9ACA020 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

PERi j C

Carter Pipeline 111.62 0.00 25.00 S4FCA002 Steep Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 111.63 0.00 30.00 S4FCA003 Trib Of Steep Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 114.28 20.00 30.00 S4ICA059 Boxelder Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 114.31 20.00 30.00 S4ICA059 Boxelder Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 114.35 0.00 3.00 S4ICA060 Boxelder Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 114.54 2.00 18.00 S4ICA056 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 116.60 0.00 10.00 S4ICA064 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 116.62 15.00 20.00 S4ICA063 Spring Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 118.13 0.00 15.00 S4FCA006 Hay Creek INT C
M-8

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 119.20 0.00 0.00 S7CCA004M Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 121.66 2.00 3.50 S2ACA020 Middle Fork Whitetail Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 121.68 1.00 6.00 S2ACA021 Middle Fork Whitetail Creek INTj CCarter Pipeline 122.43 0.00 5.00 S2ACA019 North Fork Whitetail Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 122.44 1.00 18.00 S2ACA018 North Fork Whitetail Creek INTj CCarter Pipeline 122.55 3.50 4.00 S2ACA017 Unnamed Trib To Whitetail 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 122.58 0.00 5.00 S2ACA016 Unnamed Trib To Whitetail 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 122.60 0.00 5.00 S2ACA016 Unnamed Trib To Whitetail 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 122.62 0.00 5.00 S2ACA016 Unnamed Trib To Whitetail 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 122.63 0.00 5.00 S2ACA016 Unnamed Trib To Whitetail 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 123.78 0.00 6.00 S2ACA024 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 124.30 0.00 5.00 S4FCA007 Muskrat Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 128.29 0.00 5.00 S4FCA008 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 129.24 0.00 12.00 S1BCA023 Corral Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 129.26 0.00 12.00 S1BCA023 Corral Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 129.89 0.00 8.00 S1BCA022 Ikey Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 133.10 0.00 6.00 S4FCA015 Mccarty Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 133.12 0.00 6.00 S4FCA015 Mccarty Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 133.72 0.00 3.00 S4FCA014 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 135.02 0.00 15.00 S4FCA013 Unnamed Waterbody INT C
M-9

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 135.04 0.00 15.00 S4FCA013 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 135.28 0.00 8.00 S4FCA012 Unnamed Trib To Cabin Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 135.83 15.00 16.00 S4FCA011 Cabin Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 136.14 20.00 30.00 S3HCA002 Unnamed Trib To Cabin Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 136.46 8.00 10.00 S3HCA001 Unnamed Trib To Cabin Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 136.46 8.00 10.00 S3HCA001A Unnamed Trib To Cabin Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 138.56 4.00 9.00 S4CCA006 Trib Of Dead Boy Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 138.60 12.00 15.00 S4CCA005 Dead Boy Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 138.96 0.00 4.00 S4CCA004 Unnamed Trib To Dead Boy 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 140.23 4.00 6.00 S4CCA003 Trib Of North Fork Dead Boy 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Pipeline 140.30 0.00 9.00 S4CCA002 North Fork Dead Boy Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 140.38 0.00 9.00 S4CCA002 North Fork Dead Boy Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 141.81 0.00 9.00 S4CCA001 Keltner Draw EPH Carter Pipeline 144.28 10.00 15.00 S2ACA006 Buffalo Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 145.69 2.00 4.00 S4ICA058 Short Draw EPH Carter Pipeline 147.32 3.00 10.00 S2ACA005 Big Ramme Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 149.20 0.00 8.00 S2ACA004 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 149.22 0.00 8.00 S2ACA004 Unnamed Waterbody INT CCarter Pipeline 149.28 0.00 8.00 S2ACA003 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 151.71 6.00 15.00 S9ACA021 Little Ramme Creek PERj CCarter Pipeline 153.81 0.00 15.00 S1BCA021 Trib Of Boxelder Creek EPH 
M-10

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Pipeline 154.21 0.00 35.00 S1BCA020 Trib Of Boxelder Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 154.69 3.00 6.00 S9ACA022 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

EPH 

Carter Pipeline 155.59 0.00 30.00 S1BCA018 Harmon Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 155.65 0.00 2.00 S1BCA017 Trib Of Harmon Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 156.41 0.00 15.00 S1BCA016 Trib Of Boxelder Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 157.18 0.00 8.00 S1BCA015 Trib Of Corral Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 157.74 12.00 25.00 S8BCA020 Corral Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 157.86 0.00 18.00 S1BCA013 Trib Of Corral Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 161.05 10.00 30.00 S1BCA012 Coal Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 164.54 6.00 15.00 S8BCA019 Unnamed Trib To Horse Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 165.19 12.00 25.00 S8BCA018 Horse Creek PERj Carter Pipeline 165.37 4.00 15.00 S8BCA017 Flasted Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 165.50 12.00 25.00 S8BCA016 Unnamed Trib To Horse Creek EPH Carter Pipeline 165.71 2.00 7.00 S8BCA015 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 165.74 2.00 7.00 S8BCA015 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Carter Pipeline 168.71 0.00 8.00 S1BCA007 South Fork Coal Bank Creek INT CCarter Pipeline 168.74 0.00 10.00 S1BCA006 South Fork Coal Bank Creek INT CFallon Pipeline 169.76 0.00 10.00 S1BFA005 Trib Of North Fork Of Coal 

Bank Creek 

EPH 

Fallon Pipeline 170.30 0.00 15.00 S1BFA004 North Fork Of Coal Bank Creek INT CFallon Pipeline 173.81 0.00 6.00 S1BFA001 Soda Creek INT C
M-11

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued)Fallon Pipeline 174.01 0.00 8.00 S1BFA002 Trib Of Soda Creek INT CFallon Pipeline 174.13 0.00 10.00 S1BFA003 Trib Of Soda Creek INT CFallon Pipeline 174.20 0.00 10.00 S1BFA003 Trib Of Soda Creek INT CFallon Pipeline 174.81 0.00 10.00 S4IFA061 Unnamed Waterbody EPH NORTH DAKOTA Bowman Pipeline 176.39 0.00 15.00 S4IBO012 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 176.95 2.00 45.00 S4IBO014 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 177.07 2.00 4.00 S4IBO015 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 177.14 2.00 40.00 S4IBO016 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 177.80 3.00 7.00 S6BBO011 Unnamed Trib To Little Missouri 

River 

PERj 

Bowman Pipeline 178.32 0.00 2.00 S6BBO014 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 178.37 0.00 2.00 S6BBO014 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 178.38 0.00 10.00 S6BBO013 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 178.47 0.00 4.00 S6BBO015 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 178.84 4.00 4.00 S4IBO019 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 179.08 3.00 4.00 S4IBO020 Unnamed Trib To Little Missouri 

River 

INT 

Bowman Pipeline 179.56 1.00 10.00 S4IBO021 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 180.33 1.00 20.00 S4IBO022 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 180.61 0.00 2.00 S6BBO016 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 181.18 0.00 10.00 S4IBO025 Unnamed Trib To Little Missouri 

River 

INT 
M-12

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued)Bowman Pipeline 181.33 2.00 25.00 S4IBO026 Unnamed Trib To Little Missouri 

River 

INT 

Bowman Pipeline 181.53 0.00 30.00 S4IBO027 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 181.84 0.00 30.00 S4IBO028 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 182.17 0.00 8.00 S4IBO029 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 182.68 150.00 250.00 S6BBO010 Little Missouri River PERj Bowman Pipeline 183.36 4.00 8.00 S1ABO002 Seven Mile Creek PERj Bowman Pipeline 187.54 6.00 10.00 S1ABO003A Horse Creek PERj Bowman Pipeline 188.89 10.00 14.00 S1ABO004 Skull Creek PERj Bowman Pipeline 189.52 1.00 30.00 S6BBO009 Unnamed Trib To Skull Creek EPH Bowman Pipeline 189.73 0.00 3.00 S6BBO008 Unnamed Trib To Skull Creek EPH Bowman Pipeline 190.65 0.00 4.00 S4IBO038 Bog Creek EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.00 0.00 3.00 S4IBO040 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.12 0.00 5.00 S6BBO007 Unnamed Trib To Bog Creek EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.22 0.00 5.00 S6BBO006 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.25 0.00 10.00 S6BBO005 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.29 0.00 10.00 S6BBO005 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 191.38 0.00 10.00 S6BBO005 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Bowman Pipeline 193.30 4.00 10.00 S6BBO003 Spring Creek PERj Bowman Pipeline 194.38 6.00 7.00 S6BBO004A Unnamed Trib To Spring Creek INT Bowman Pipeline 194.39 6.00 7.00 S6BBO004 Unnamed Trib To Spring Creek INT Bowman Pipeline 196.83 1.00 Unknown ENSR_S_266 Unnamed Waterbody INT 
M-13

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued)Bowman Pipeline 196.89 1.00 Unknown ENSR_S_266 Unnamed Waterbody INT Bowman Pipeline 198.66 6.00 20.00 S5ABO003 Trib Of Coyote Creek EPH Bowman Pipeline 199.03 30.00 50.00 S6BBO002 Coyote Creek INT Bowman Pipeline 204.84 15.00 35.00 S6BBO001 Spring Creek INT Bowman Pipeline 206.77 0.00 25.00 S5IBO002 Unnamed Trib To Spring Creek EPH Slope Pipeline 208.30 58.14 0.00 S5ABO001 Unnamed Waterbody INTi Slope Pipeline 208.80 6.00 6.00 S5IBO003 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Slope Pipeline 208.81 6.00 6.00 S5IBO004 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Slope Pipeline 218.28 5.00 6.00 S5ISL001 Cedar Creek PERj Slope Pipeline 220.73 5.00 5.00 S5ISL002 Unnamed Trib To Cedar Creek PERj Slope Pipeline 221.19 4.00 6.00 S5ISL004 Unnamed Waterbody PERj Slope Pipeline 222.67 35.00 45.00 S4ISL066 North Fork Cedar Creek INTj Slope Pipeline 224.66 1.00 6.00 S6BSL001 Unnamed Trib To Cedar Creek INT Slope Pipeline 226.64 8.00 15.00 S6BSL002 Unnamed Trib To Cedar Creek INT Slope Pipeline 228.90 0.00 12.00 S5ASL004 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Slope Pipeline 230.32 0.00 6.00 S5ASL003 North Cedar Creek INT Slope Pipeline 236.00 20.00 20.00 S5ASL001 Chanta Peta Creek PERj Hettinger Pipeline 242.37 3.00 25.00 S6BHE001 Coal Bank Creek PERj Hettinger Pipeline 244.80 10.00 15.00 S5AHE005 Coal Bank Creek INT Hettinger Pipeline 249.00 15.00 25.00 S5AHE004 Coal Bank Creek INT Hettinger Pipeline 250.61 16.00 35.00 S4IHE067 Cannonball River PERj Hettinger Pipeline 251.47 5.00 5.00 S4ISL036 Hay Slough Creek PERj 
M-14

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued)Hettinger Pipeline 251.60 10.00 10.00 S5IHE001 Hay Slough Creek INT Hettinger Pipeline 263.12 200.00 200.00 S4IHE034 Unnamed Waterbody INTi Hettinger Pipeline 264.32 400.00 400.00 S4IHE035 Unnamed Waterbody PERi j Hettinger Pipeline 264.42 400.00 400.00 S4IHE035 Unnamed Waterbody PERi j Hettinger Pipeline 265.55 30.00 45.00 S3AHE003 Thirty Mile Creek PER j Hettinger Pipeline 270.94 0.00 10.00 S1AHE002 Beaver Creek EPH Hettinger Pipeline 272.16 80.00 100.00 S6BHE003 Unnamed Trib To Beaver Creek PERi j Hettinger Pipeline 274.43 6.00 10.00 S3AHE001 Buffalo Creek PERj Stark Pipeline 275.40 0.00 8.00 S1AST001 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Stark Pipeline 276.21 0.00 3.00 S1AST002 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Stark Pipeline 277.64 0.00 3.00 S1AST003 Unnamed Waterbody INT Stark Pipeline 277.81 0.00 2.00 S1AST004 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Stark Pipeline 279.35 3.00 4.00 S1AST005 Unnamed Waterbody INT Stark Pipeline 282.14 20.00 100.00 S6BST006 Heart River PER Grant Pipeline 282.73 6.00 50.00 S4IGR068 Peters Creek PERj Grant Pipeline 286.49 5.00 12.00 S1AMO001 Beaver Creek PERj Morton Pipeline 292.27 3.00 30.00 S4IMO069 Heart Butte Creek PERj Morton Pipeline 292.81 8.00 10.00 S5IMO001 Unnamed Trib To Heart Butte 

Creek 

INT 

Morton Pipeline 292.83 8.00 10.00 S5IMO001 Unnamed Trib To Heart Butte 

Creek 

INT 

Morton Pipeline 295.24 6.00 10.00 S6BMO001 Tavis Creek INT Morton Pipeline 295.51 0.00 15.00 S1AMO003 Tavis Creek EPH 
M-15

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued)Morton Pipeline 296.78 5.00 10.00 S1AMO004 Unnamed Trib To Travis Creek INT Morton Pipeline 296.79 5.00 10.00 S1AMO004 Unnamed Trib To Travis Creek INT Morton Pipeline 299.67 12.00 Unknown ENSR_S_601 Spring Valley Creek INT Morton Pipeline 299.77 12.00 Unknown ENSR_S_601 Spring Valley Creek INT Morton Pipeline 300.04 5.00 Unknown ENSR_S_602 Unnamed Trib To Spring Valley 

Creek 

INT 

Morton Pipeline 301.05 0.00 8.00 S4IMO037 Unnamed Waterbody EPH Facilities bMONTANA Carter Pipe Yard 

(HWY 323) 

146.51 2.00 20.00 S4ICA057 Unnamed Waterbody EPH N

Access Roads kWYOMING Campbell Access Road 

#CM-29-1 

19.14 0.00 18.00 S5ICM007 Wild Horse Creek EPH 3

 Access Road 

#CM-32-3 

24.66 4.00 10.00 S6BCM010 Twentymile Creek INT 3

Campbell Access Road 

#CM-62 

74.05 1.00 30.00 S4ICM006 Dry Trail Creek INT 3

MONTANA Powder River Access Road 

#PR-02-3 

83.48 1.00 8.00 S4IPR050 Ranch Creek INT C

Carter Access Road 

#CA-04 

108.32 2.00 30.00 S4ICA048 Boxelder Creek INT C
M-16

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta

County 

Project 

Component MPb

Water 

Width/ 

Crossing 

Distance 

(feet) c

Channel 

Width (feet)d Waterbody I.D.e Waterbody Name Typef State 

Class-i

Access Roads k (continued) MONTANA (continued)Carter Access Road 

#CA-04-1 

108.65 5.00 8.00 S4ICA052 Groat Creek INT C

Carter Access Road 

#CA-04-1 

108.65 15.00 30.00 S4ICA053 Unnamed Trib To Little Groat 

Creek 

EPH C

Carter Access Road 

#CA-05 

111.07 20.00 25.00 S4ICA054 Boxelder Creek INT C

Carter Access Road 

#CA-05 

111.07 10.00 10.00 S9ACA018 Unnamed Trib To Boxelder 

Creek 

INT C

Carter Access Road 

#CA-07 

116.56 0.00 10.00 S4ICA064 Unnamed Waterbody EPH E

Carter Access Road 

#CA-25 

145.93 5.00 8.00 S4ICA038 Short Draw EPH E

NORTH DAKOTAND Access Road 

#MO-02-1 

292.71 35.00 45.00 S4IMO043 Unnamed Trib To Heart Butte 

Creek 

INTi 
M-17

TABLE M1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Bison Pipeline Projecta 

Notes: a The features listed within this table represent all waterbody features that occur within the proposed Project area, including those that may be cross

and those that are partially or wholly enclosed within the Project's temporary workspaces, pie yards, or access roads.

b Mileposts (MP) are based on a desktop analysis of the proposed Project. MPs may not match those found in the Wetland and Waterbody Report. 

listed at multiple MPs are crossed by the Project more than once by the Project. 

c Water width based upon width of water observed within the channel at the time of field or desktop survey analysis. Water width values of "0.00" ind

observed within the channel at the time of the survey. 

d Channel width based upon biological field survey data, and is not available for desktop-identified features. Channel width is equivalent to "Top-of-B

estimates of each waterbody feature. 

e Feature IDs correspond to Wetland and Waterbody Reports. Those that include “ENSR” in the initial identifier were identified in a desktop review u

topographic maps, and NWI records, and actual conditions have not been observed and would be delineated at a later date. All waterbodies withofield delineated. 

f Water type: INT = Intermittent; PER = Perennial; EPH = Ephemeral. 

g State Water Quality Classifications: 

2AB = Wyoming waters known to support game fish populations or spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally and all their perennial tributarie

where a game fishery and drinking water use is otherwise attainable. Class 2AB waters include all permanent and seasonal game fisheries “coldwater” or “warmwater” depending on the predominance of cold water or warm water species present. All Class 2AB waters are designfisheries unless identified as a warm water fishery by a “ww” notation in the “Wyoming Surface Water Classification List.” Unless it is shown 

presumed to have sufficient water quality and quantity to support drinking water supplies and are protected for that use. Class 2AB waters nongame fisheries, fish consumption, aquatic life other than fish, recreation, wildlife, industry, agriculture, and scenic value uses. 

3B = Wyoming tributary waters including adjacent wetlands that are not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies and where th

Class 3B waters are intermittent and ephemeral streams with sufficient hydrology to normally support and sustain communities of aquatic lif

amphibians, or other flora and fauna which inhabit waters of the state at some stage or their life cycles. In general, Class 3B waters are ch

wetland occurrences or impoundments within or adjacent to the stream channel over its entire length. Such characteristics are a primary inClass 3V waters. 

C-3 = Montana waters classified C-3 are to be maintained suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation, and growth and propagation of non-salm

aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers. The quality of these waters is naturally marginal for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes

water supply. Degradation which will impact established beneficial uses will not be allowed. 

E-1 = Montana waters classified E-1 are to be maintained suitable for agricultural purposes, secondary contact recreation, and wildlife. III = North Dakota required that the quality of this class of waters shall be suitable for industrial and agricultural uses, i.e., cooling, washing, irrigat

These streams all have low average flows and, generally, prolonged periods of no flow, and are of marginal or seasonal value for immersiobiota. The quality of the water must be maintained to protect recreation, fish, and aquatic biota. The physical and chemical criteria shall be following exceptions: sulfate (total) - maximum limit of 750 mg/l (milligrams per liter). 

h "Open-Cut Wet" = Wet Crossing (water width less than 50 feet), involves open cutting of the trench without diversion of water that might be flowing. 

to most waterbodies that are expected to be dry at the time of construction;  "Open-Cut Dry" = Dry Crossing, involves diverting any flowing water in the waterbody around the crossing work area via dam-and-pump or flum

 "HDD" = Horizontal Directional Drill. 

i Waterbody is classified as a natural or man-made open-water for land use purposes. 

j Waterbody identified with fisheries. 

k Waterbodies along these proposed access roads would be crossed using bridging or matting techniques to minimize impacts to these features.
APPENDIX N 

WETLANDS CROSSED BY THE BISON PIPELINE PROJECT 
N-1

TABLE N1 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline WYOMING Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_4162* PEM 0.88 41.12 0.08 0.05 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_4159* PEM 1.49 60.12 0.10 0.07 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_8504* PEM 9.89 15.11 0.00 0.00 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6114* PEM 13.92 108.60 0.19 0.12 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM004* PEM 16.87 29.45 0.06 0.04 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM004* PEM 16.88 1.47 0.00 0.00 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM004* PEM 16.88 3.30 0.01 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM002* PEM 18.06 37.00 0.06 0.04 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM009* PEM 21.05 3.66 0.01 0.00 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM007* PEM 24.46 21.16 0.05 0.03 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM008 PEM 26.85 14.06 0.02 0.02 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6131 PEM 28.04 56.04 0.11 0.07 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6132* PEM 28.39 57.36 0.10 0.06 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6133* PEM 29.41 73.32 0.12 0.08 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6133* PEM 29.52 46.36 0.07 0.05 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6134* PEM 29.91 23.85 0.04 0.03 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6135* PEM 30.08 56.34 0.10 0.06 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6136* PEM 30.64 40.46 0.07 0.04 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6137 PEM 30.97 34.35 0.06 0.04 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6138 PEM 31.63 9.57 0.02 0.01 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6139 PEM 31.87 10.88 0.02 0.02 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6139 PEM 31.96 13.83 0.03 0.02 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6140* PEM 32.43 40.10 0.07 0.05 
N-2

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) WYOMING (continued) Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_8089* PEM 37.03 45.88 0.09 0.06 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_8090 PEM 37.95 48.79 0.12 0.07 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_8090 PEM 37.98 26.87 0.04 0.03 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM001 PEM 42.98 841.46 1.45 0.97 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM002 PEM 43.38 426.08 0.73 0.49 Campbell Pipeline W1DCM002* PEM 46.21 51.37 0.01 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W1DCM002* PEM 46.24 10.67 0.02 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W1DCM003* PEM 47.61 47.69 0.08 0.05 Campbell Pipeline W5ICM003* PEM 47.85 4.94 0.01 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W1DCM001* PEM 50.63 11.71 0.02 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W4ICM003* PEM 52.70 114.66 0.21 0.13 Campbell Pipeline W4ICM004* PEM 55.23 12.57 0.02 0.01 Campbell Pipeline W4ICM004* PEM 55.24 3.79 0.01 0.00 Campbell Pipeline W2BCM002* PEM 60.59 20.46 0.03 0.02 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6179 PEM 64.41 20.11 0.05 0.03 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6180* PEM 65.10 76.44 0.11 0.09 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6180* PEM 65.18 38.95 0.07 0.04 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6182 PEM 65.42 61.48 0.09 0.07 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6181 PEM 65.70 82.45 0.14 0.09 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6183 PEM 66.27 38.98 0.07 0.04 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6184 PEM 66.45 35.44 0.06 0.04 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6185* PEM 66.99 12.51 0.03 0.01 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6186* PEM 67.70 45.19 0.08 0.05 
N-3

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) WYOMING (continued) Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6187 PEM 67.83 56.93 0.10 0.06 Campbell Pipeline ENSR_W_6188 PEM 68.19 43.25 0.07 0.05 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM006* PEM 72.24 7.73 0.00 0.01m Campbell Pipeline W6BCM006* PEM 72.25 8.30 0.00 0.01m Campbell Pipeline W6BCM010* PEM 74.00 15.84 0.02 0.02 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM011* PEM 74.53 30.67 0.07 0.03 Campbell Pipeline W6BCM011* PEM 74.61 47.28 0.17 0.13 Campbell Pipeline W1DCM014 PEM 78.29 36.06 0.00 0.00 Powder River Pipeline W8BPR001* PEM 79.36 29.96 0.03 0.03 Powder River Pipeline W7CPR001* PEM 82.61 175.59 0.29 0.20 Powder River Pipeline W4CPR004* PEM 82.94 62.50 0.13 0.08 Powder River Pipeline W8BPR002* PEM 84.28 55.40 0.08 0.06 Powder River Pipeline W8BPR002* PEM 84.30 31.48 0.05 0.03 Powder River Pipeline W9APR001 PEM 86.43 15.85 0.00 0.00 Powder River Pipeline ENSR_W_8030 PEM 92.82 36.05 0.06 0.04 MONTANA Carter Pipeline ENSR_W_8031* PEM 93.88 220.87 0.39 0.25 Carter Pipeline ENSR_W_8032* PEM 93.98 96.54 0.16 0.11 Carter Pipeline ENSR_W_8033 PEM 94.81 54.97 0.09 0.06 Carter Pipeline ENSR_W_8034 PEM 95.20 38.33 0.07 0.04 Carter Pipeline W7CCA002* PEM 98.75 17.09 0.01 0.01 Carter Pipeline W1BCA008* PEM 108.51 8.29 0.00 0.00 Carter Pipeline W2ACA026 PEM 108.81 56.82 0.09 0.06 Carter Pipeline W2ACA018* PEM 114.54 11.75 0.02 0.01 
N-4

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) MONTANA (continued) Carter Pipeline W2ACA014 PEM 115.51 22.93 0.04 0.03 Carter Pipeline W8BCA005* PEM 116.62 128.54 0.23 0.14 Carter Pipeline W8BCA005* PEM 116.62 16.32 0.02 0.02 Carter Pipeline W8BCA005* PEM 116.62 5.24 0.00 0.00 Carter Pipeline W8BCA005* PEM 116.65 20.78 0.00 0.00 Carter Pipeline W2ACA033 PEM 121.78 11.41 0.00 0.00 Carter Pipeline W4FCA002* PEM 124.29 73.84 0.12 0.09 Carter Pipeline W1BCA007 PEM 129.33 167.78 0.28 0.19 Carter Pipeline W2ACA008* PEM 135.83 7.59 0.02 0.01 Carter Pipeline W3HCA001* PEM 136.13 19.57 0.04 0.03 Carter Pipeline W3HCA001* PEM 136.15 49.51 0.08 0.05 Carter Pipeline W2ACA003* PSS 144.28 11.94 0.00 0.00 Carter Pipeline W2ACA003* PSS 144.28 45.27 0.08 0.05 Carter Pipeline W2ACA001 PEM 146.63 55.38 0.10 0.06 Carter Pipeline W8BCA010* PEM 157.75 47.95 0.07 0.06 Fallon Pipeline W1BFA003 PEM 170.72 50.19 0.02 0.00 NORTH DAKOTA Bowman Pipeline W6BBO010* PEM 177.80 12.57 0.02 0.01 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO009* PEM 182.72 88.72 0.00 0.10m Bowman Pipeline W1ABO002* PEM 183.36 12.29 0.03 0.02 Bowman Pipeline W1ABO004 PEM 185.53 30.03 0.04 0.03 Bowman Pipeline W1ABO004 PEM 185.54 52.41 0.09 0.06 Bowman Pipeline W1ABO005* PEM 187.53 43.34 0.07 0.05 
N-5

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued) Bowman Pipeline W1ABO006* PEM 188.88 13.13 0.02 0.01 Bowman Pipeline W1ABO006* PEM 188.89 4.76 0.01 0.01 Bowman Pipeline W1ABO007 PEM 189.12 44.11 0.06 0.05 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO008 PEM 190.34 22.59 0.04 0.03 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO007 PEM 192.51 9.09 0.02 0.01 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO005* PEM 193.29 10.76 0.03 0.02 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO006* PEM 194.36 170.65 0.27 0.18 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO004 PEM 197.73 30.52 0.06 0.04 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO004A PEM 197.75 16.86 0.00 0.00 Bowman Pipeline W5ABO009* PEM 198.66 68.21 0.13 0.07 Bowman Pipeline W5ABO007 PEM 201.40 41.17 0.09 0.05 Bowman Pipeline W5ABO006 PEM 202.00 69.04 0.12 0.08 Bowman Pipeline W5ABO005 PEM 202.61 77.57 0.12 0.09 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO003 PEM 204.76 10.87 0.00 0.00 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO002* PEM 204.84 32.17 0.06 0.04 Bowman Pipeline W6BBO002* PEM 204.84 19.81 0.04 0.02 Bowman Pipeline W5ABO002* PEM 208.31 47.74 0.26 0.15 Bowman Pipeline W4IBO024 PEM 213.80 40.89 0.07 0.05 Slope Pipeline W5ASL014 PEM 217.59 34.26 0.15 0.07 Slope Pipeline W5ISL001* PEM 218.28 16.88 0.03 0.02 Slope Pipeline W5ASL011 PEM 219.06 100.34 0.18 0.11 Slope Pipeline W5ASL010 PEM 219.64 60.04 0.11 0.07 Slope Pipeline W5ISL003* PEM 221.19 13.99 0.03 0.02 
N-6

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued) Slope Pipeline W4ISL025* PEM 222.66 17.66 0.03 0.02 Slope Pipeline W4ISL025* PEM 222.69 7.42 0.01 0.01 Slope Pipeline W5ISL004 PEM 222.70 34.05 0.01 0.00 Slope Pipeline W5ASL008* PEM 226.63 63.70 0.13 0.08 Slope Pipeline W5ASL007 PEM 226.96 44.11 0.01 0.00 Slope Pipeline W5ASL005* PEM 228.90 3.89 0.02 0.01 Slope Pipeline W5ASL003* PEM 230.31 38.21 0.06 0.04 Slope Pipeline W4ISL011 PEM 233.84 157.78 0.29 0.19 Slope Pipeline W4ISL011 PEM 233.89 32.29 0.01 0.00 Slope Pipeline W5ASL001* PEM 235.96 89.42 0.12 0.09 Slope Pipeline W5ASL001* PEM 235.99 25.61 0.05 0.03 Slope Pipeline W5ASL001* PEM 236.00 12.01 0.02 0.01 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE015 PEM 238.91 113.47 0.18 0.13 Hettinger Pipeline W6BHE001* PEM 242.37 37.45 0.06 0.04 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE011* PEM 244.79 11.64 0.02 0.01 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE011* PEM 244.80 6.84 0.01 0.01 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE010* PEM 248.99 3.53 0.01 0.00 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE010* PEM 249.00 14.01 0.02 0.02 Hettinger Pipeline W4ISL013* PEM 251.47 49.57 0.11 0.06 Hettinger Pipeline W5IHE002* PEM 251.59 7.23 0.01 0.01 Hettinger Pipeline W5IHE002* PEM 251.59 1.79 0.00 0.00 Hettinger Pipeline W5IHE002* PEM 251.60 14.25 0.03 0.02 Hettinger Pipeline W5IHE003 PEM 251.62 126.23 0.20 0.13 
N-7

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued) Hettinger Pipeline W5IHE001 PEM 251.68 170.67 0.31 0.20 Hettinger Pipeline W5AHE003 PEM 255.56 138.16 0.21 0.16 Hettinger Pipeline W4IHE026 PEM 257.79 42.22 0.10 0.05 Hettinger Pipeline W4IHE026 PEM 257.86 278.27 0.51 0.32 Hettinger Pipeline W3AHE007 PEM 262.42 167.76 0.29 0.19 Hettinger Pipeline W3AHE006 PEM 262.88 110.05 0.19 0.13 Hettinger Pipeline W3AHE003 PEM 265.76 22.07 0.05 0.03 Hettinger Pipeline W1AHE001* PEM 270.94 59.85 0.18 0.14 Hettinger Pipeline W3AHE001* PEM 274.43 52.32 0.09 0.07 Stark Pipeline W1AST001* PEM 277.64 36.19 0.08 0.05 Stark Pipeline W1AST002* PEM 277.80 22.22 0.04 0.03 Stark Pipeline W1AST003* PEM 279.35 22.48 0.04 0.03 Stark Pipeline W6BST001* PEM 282.14 30.82 0.00 0.04m Stark Pipeline W6BST002* PEM 282.15 10.12 0.00 0.01m Grant Pipeline W1AGR002* PEM 282.72 32.03 0.05 0.04 Stark Pipeline W1AGR003 PEM 284.69 22.86 0.02 0.02 Stark Pipeline W1AGR003 PEM 284.73 30.98 0.21 0.16 Morton Pipeline W1AMO001* PEM 286.49 33.46 0.05 0.04 Morton Pipeline W1AMO005* PEM 292.81 2.35 0.00 0.00 Morton Pipeline W1AMO005* PEM 292.83 314.46 0.60 0.44 Morton Pipeline W1AMO006 PEM 296.05 105.77 0.20 0.12 Morton Pipeline W1AMO006A PEM 296.10 26.87 0.07 0.03 Morton Pipeline ENSR_W_8120* PEM 299.64 197.51 0.20 0.08 
N-8

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

County 

Project 

Component Wetland I.D.a, c, m

Wetland 

Classification 

(NWI)d MP (from)b Crossing Length e (feet) 

Acreage 

Affected: 

Temp. f

Acreage 

Affected: 

Perm.g

A

A

Pipeline (continued) NORTH DAKOTA (continued) Morton Pipeline ENSR_W_8120* PEM 299.77 51.00 0.00 0.00 Morton Pipeline ENSR_W_8120* PEM 299.78 191.08 0.27 0.18 Morton Pipeline ENSR_W_8120* PEM 299.78 15.13 0.04 0.02 Morton Pipeline ENSR_W_8121* PEM 300.03 90.89 0.14 0.10 FacilitieshMONTANACarter Pipe Yard 

(HWY 323) 

W4ICA021 PEM 146.51 N/A 0.21 0.00 

Carter Pipe Yard 

(HWY 323) 

W4ICA020 PEM 146.51 N/A 0.57 0.00 

Access Roads kMONTANAPowder River Access 

Road #PR02-3 

W4IPR017 PEM 83.48 18.30 0.01 0.00 

NORTH DAKOTAHettinger Access 

Road #HE06 

W6BHE003 PEM 251.76 44.53 0.02 0.00 

Morton Access 

Road #MO02-1 

W4IMO016 PEM 292.71 57.47 0.00 0.00 
N-9

TABLE N1 (continued) 

Wetlands Crossed by the Project 

Notes: a The features listed within this table represent all wetland features that occur within the proposed Project area, including those that may be crossed 

those that are partially or wholly enclosed within the Project's temporary workspaces, pipe yards, or access roads. 

b Mileposts (MP) are based on a desktop analysis of the proposed Project. MPs may not match those found in the Wetland and Waterbody Report. 

at multiple MPs are crossed by the Project more than once 

c Feature IDs correspond to Wetland and Waterbody Reports. Those that include “ENSR” in the ID were identified in a desktop review using aerial p

maps, and NWI records; actual conditions have not been observed and would be delineated at a later date. All wetlands without this identifier have 

d PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland. 

e Crossing lengths of the features were obtained based on the length of the feature along the centerline. Crossing lengths for features not along the 

the greatest length parallel to the centerline within the Construction Right-of-Way (ROW). 

f Temporary acreage impacts represent the disturbance expected within the 120' Construction ROW, which includes Permanent ROW impacts, and 

acreages expected to be impacted at each crossing. Additionally, temporary acreage impacts reflect a 75' neckdown of the Construction ROW thro

g Permanent Impact Acreages were calculated along the 50-foot Permanent ROW. After construction, PEM and PSS wetlands would be allowed to 

conditions. 

h At this time no impacts to wetlands are anticipated within EWS or from those Project facilities and Project access roads that are not explicitly identif

column. If a wetland or waterbody is found to exist within the footprint of a proposed facility or yard, that feature would be fenced off and avoided thProject. Therefore, no impacts are expected to result from Project facilities or yards. Acreages provided within this table for such features represethat would be fenced, and do not represent either temporary or permanent impacts to such features. 

i " Open-Cut Wet" = This method would be used in dry wetlands where soils are stable enough to support equipment without sinking (e.g., mineral h

have previously been disturbed and can support equipment; a reduced Construction ROW width and overland construction techniques would be us

conditions are stable;  "Open-Cut Dry" = These methods would be used in wetlands where the soils are too wet (e.g., permanently or semi-permanently saturated and/mainline construction equipment; a reduced Construction ROW width and timber mats (to support equipment) would be used to minimize impacts; 

 "HDD" = This method would be used in wetlands with standing water (permanently or semi-permanently flooded) where it is necessary a trench

j Wetland crossing methods would be determined prior to the start of construction and would be based upon the saturation present at each wetland. 

for HDD crossings would not likely incur aboveground impacts; temporary and permanent impact values for such features are provided within this 

impacted). 

k Wetlands or waterbodies along proposed access roads would be crossed using bridging or matting techniques in order to minimize impacts to thes

within this table for such features represent the acreage of the feature that will be crossed in this manner, and do not represent either temporary or 

features. 

l Acreage for these features are located within the 50-foot Permanent ROW for the easement Bison would acquire. However, these locations would 

no permanent or temporary impacts are anticipated.

m Wetlands that are identified with an asterisk (*) are riparian wetlands. 
APPENDIX O 

AGRICULTURAL MITIGATION PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Agricultural Mitigation Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 

i 
AECOM Environment 

THE BISON PIPELINE PROJECT 

APPENDIX 7.I 

AGRICULTURAL MITIGATION PLAN 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Related Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Agricultural Inspector......................................................................................................................................... 2 

3.0 General Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

4.0 Construction Standards and Policies .................................................................................................................. 4 

4.1 Pipeline Depth ......................................................................................................................................... 4 

4.2 Topsoil Segregation................................................................................................................................. 4 

4.3 Rock Removal ......................................................................................................................................... 4 

4.4 Repair of Damaged Drain Tile Lines....................................................................................................... 5 

4.5 Interference with Irrigation Systems........................................................................................................ 5 

4.6 Damages to Private Property ................................................................................................................... 5 

4.7 Crop Compensation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 5 

4.8 Conservation Reserve Program Lands..................................................................................................... 5 

4.9 Wet Weather Construction Practices ....................................................................................................... 6 

5.0 Definitions.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 

ATTACHMENT 

Attachment 1 - Crop and Damages Compensation Plan 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 ii
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

The following pipeline construction and mitigation standards recommended to help preserve the 

integrity of any Agricultural land that is impacted by pipeline construction, referred to as Bison’s 

Agricultural Mitigation Plan (AMP). This AMP was prepared to address agricultural concerns 

regarding pipeline construction across Agricultural lands in parts of Campbell County, WY; 

Powder River, Carter and Fallon Counties, MT; and Bowman, Slope, Hettinger, Stark, Grant and 

Morton Counties, ND. 

The below prescribed construction standards and policies are applicable to construction activities 

occurring partially or wholly on privately-owned Agricultural land. These standards and policies 

are not intended to apply to construction activities occurring entirely on public right-of-way, 

railroad right-of-way, publicly-owned land, BLM-managed land, or privately-owned land that is 

not Agricultural land. 

1.1 Related Plans 

A number of other plans associated with the Bison provide supporting or additional information 

regarding specific requirements, conditions or proposed activities in this AMP. These plans 

include: 

 Bison’s Plan - Appendix 7.D, Resource Report No.7; 

 Bison’s Procedures - Appendix 2.A, Resource Report No.2; 

 Reclamation Plan - Appendix 7.H, Resource Report No.7; and 

 Noxious and Invasive Weed Plan - Appendix 3.B, Resource Report No. 3.

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 1
AECOM Environment 

2.0 Agricultural Inspector 

Bison shall retain qualified Agricultural Inspectors (AI) on each work phase of the Project. This 

shall include the initial construction plan development, the construction, the initial restoration, and 

the post-construction monitoring and follow-up restoration. The AI shall act to assure that the 

provisions set forth in this document or in any separate agreement, will be adhered to in good faith 

by Bison and by the pipeline installation contractor, and that all agreements protect the resources of 

both the Landowner and Bison. 

The AI shall assist with the collection and analyzing of site-specific agricultural information 

gathered for the construction plan development by Bison. This information shall be obtained 

through field review as well as direct contact with affected Landowners, local County Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), Agricultural Extension Agents, and others. The AI shall 

maintain contact with the appropriate on-site Project inspectors throughout the construction phase. 

The AI also shall maintain contact with the affected Landowners in conjunction with Bison’s land 

representatives, as well as local SWCD personnel concerning farm resources and management 

matters pertinent to the agricultural operations and the site-specific implementation of the 

construction plan. Bison shall provide a courtesy copy of information to the appropriate local 

SWCD at any time a request for a construction plan modification is submitted. 

Bison will employ AIs that are at a minimum thoroughly familiar with the following: 

 Bison’s Plan; 

 Bison’s Procedures; 

 Bison’s Reclamation Plan; 

 Bison’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Plan; 

 Other Bison Plans, as appropriate; and 

 Pipeline construction sequences and process. 

Additionally, the AI will: 

 Be trained in all aspects of soil and water conservation; 

 Be familiar with farm operation; 

 Have good oral and written communication skills; and 

 Have the ability to work closely with the Landowners and project proponent/sponsor. 

Bison will employ a minimum of one AI per construction spread.

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 2
AECOM Environment 

3.0 General Requirements 

Unless an easement specifically provides to the contrary, the actions specified in the pipeline 

standard and construction specifications attached to this Plan will be implemented in accordance 

with the conditions listed below: 

1. All actions are subject to change by Landowners, provided such changes are negotiated in 

advance of construction and acceptable to Bison, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), and any permitting agency. To satisfy FERC requirements, any modifications to an 

action must provide an equal or greater level of environmental protection than the original 

action and may need the approval of FERC before they can be implemented. 

2. Bison may negotiate with Landowners to carry out the actions that Landowners wish to 

perform themselves, but shall not compensate the Landowner for any measures carried out 

themselves until final inspection has been approved by Bison and, at a minimum, any measure 

carried out by a Landowner has followed guidelines set forth in Bison’s AMP. 

3. Bison shall implement the actions contained in this AMP to the extent that they do not conflict 

with the requirements of any applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations and other 

permits and approvals that are obtained by Bison for the Project. 

4. Each action contained in this AMP shall be implemented to the extent that such action is not 

determined to be unenforceable by reason of the actions approved by, or other requirements, of 

the FERC Certificate issued for the Project. 

5. Crop compensation will be calculated using procedures in Attachment 1 of this document.

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 3
AECOM Environment 

4.0 Construction Standards and Policies 

4.1 Pipeline Depth 

The pipeline will be buried to meet or exceed the DOT standards at 49 CFR 192.327. Except for 

aboveground piping at facilities, such as mainline valves (MLVs), and meter stations, the pipeline 

will be buried with: 

 A minimum of 4 feet of top cover where it crosses lands that have been plowed; 

 A minimum of 3 feet of top cover where it crosses planted hay fields, scrub/shrub and open 

space lands; and 

 A minimum of 5 feet of cover over the top of the pipeline where it crosses surface drains, 

diversions, grassed waterways, open ditches, and streams. 

Notwithstanding the above, in those areas where either of the following is encountered at the 

graded surface (i) rock in its natural formation, or (ii) a continuous strata of gravel exceeding 200 

feet in length; the minimum depth of cover will be 2 feet. 

4.2 Topsoil Segregation 

A. Actual depth of topsoil, not to exceed 12 inches, will be stripped from the working side, the 

trench, and a portion of the spoil storage area (a total width of approximately 85 feet of the 

Construction ROW). 

B. The topsoil and subsoil will be stockpiled separately in a manner that minimizes mixing. 

C. In backfilling the trench, the stockpiled subsoil material will be placed back into the trench 

first. 

D. Segregated topsoil will not be used for padding the pipe. 

4.3 Rock Removal 

A. 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. 

B. Remove excess rock greater than 3 inches in diameter from at least the top 12 inches of soil in 

all actively cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, hayfields, and residential areas. The 

size, density, and distribution of rock remaining after cleanup on the construction work area 

should be similar to adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. The Landowner may approve 

other provisions in writing. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 4
AECOM Environment 

4.4 Repair of Damaged Drain Tile Lines 

A. Mark locations of drain tiles damaged during construction. 

B. Probe all drainage tile systems within the area of disturbance to check for damage. 

C. 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. 

D. 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). 

4.5 Interference with Irrigation Systems 

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with affected parties.

4.6 Damages to Private Property 

Bison will compensate Landowners for damages to private property caused by Bison during 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline. 

4.7 Crop Compensation Plan 

Landowners will be compensated for crop losses associated with the pipeline construction in 

accordance with the procedures found in Appendix A to this AMP. 

4.8 Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

A. For Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land impacts in North Dakota, Bison will prepare a 

letter to the state Farm Services Agency (FSA) office that provides general details about the 

Project and requests permission to construct within the CRP lands. In addition, Bison will 

contact each Landowner individually to secure appropriate permission to construct on their 

land. The North Dakota State FSA Office will supply an authorization letter, along with 

conditions of authorization, to Bison, the Landowner and the local county FSA office. In 

accordance with the conditions of authorization, Bison will negotiate with the Landowner to 

reestablish any disturbed areas to the pre-existing cover, using a seed mix provided by the FSA. 

B. For CRP land impacts in Montana, Bison will request that the Landowners/producers file a 

written request with the County FSA Office for permission to construct within the CRP land. 

Once the request is approved by the FSA County Committee, the FSA will provide 

authorization to construct to the Landowners/producers, with a stipulation that the Landowner 

is responsible for reestablishing the required cover. In accordance with the terms of the CRP 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 6

agreement, Bison will negotiate with the Landowner to reestablish any disturbed areas to the 

pre-existing cover, using a seed mix approved by the FSA. 

C. For CRP land impacts in Wyoming, Bison will request that the Landowners/producers file a 

written request with the County FSA Office for permission to construct within the CRP land. 

Once the request is approved by the County FSA Committee, the FSA will provide 

authorization to construct to the Landowners/producers, with a stipulation that the Landowner 

is responsible for reestablishing the required cover. In accordance with the terms of the CRP 

agreement, Bison will negotiate with the Landowner to reestablish any disturbed areas to the 

pre-existing cover, using a seed mix approved by the FSA. 

4.9 Wet Weather Construction Practices 

Wet soil conditions are generally indicated by one or more of the following observations: 

1. Qualitative (visual) observation of soil plasticity; 

2. Ponded water; 

3. Deep ruts (4-8 inches) and/or mixing of topsoil and subsoil. 

During periods of wet soil conditions, the AI will determine if it is feasible to reroute construction 

traffic around the wet soils, utilize lighter equipment or otherwise sufficiently mitigate the effects 

of construction/restoration efforts and equipment on the wet soils. If none of these measures can 

be implemented, the AI will recommend to the Environmental Inspector (EI) to institute a wet 

weather shutdown. During a wet weather shutdown in the specific area of concern, the area of wet 

soil will be completely avoided. No construction or restoration activities will be allowed until 

approved by the AI. 
AECOM Environment 

5.0 Definitions 

Agricultural Land: Cultivated Cropland. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Lands: CRP lands are typically cropland or marginal 

pastureland that have been removed from agricultural production and converted to native grasses, 

trees, or other vegetation, for conservation purposes. Program participants receive financial 

incentives from the USDA to enroll voluntarily in the CRP for contracts of 10 to 15 years. The 

CRP program is managed by the FSA. 

Cropland: Land used for growing row crops, small grains, or planted hay; includes land which 

was formerly used as cropland, but is currently in a government set-aside program. 

Drain Tile: Any artificial subsurface drainage system including; clay and concrete tile, vitrified 

sewer tile, corrugated plastic tubing, and stone drains. 

Landowner: Person(s) holding legal title to property on the pipeline route from whom Bison is 

seeking, or has obtained, a temporary or permanent easement, or any person(s) legally authorized 

by a Landowner to make decisions regarding the mitigation or restoration of agricultural impacts to 

such Landowner’s property. 

Non-Agricultural Land: Any land that is not “Agricultural Land” as defined above. 

Pipeline: The pipeline and its related appurtenances described in Bison’s application to the FERC 

for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. 

Tenant: Any person lawfully residing on or in possession of the land. 

Topsoil: The upper most part of the soil commonly referred to as the plow layer, the A layer, or 

the A horizon, or its equivalent in uncultivated soils. It is the surface layer of the soil that has the 

darkest color or the highest content of organic matter (as identified in the USDA County Soil 

Survey and verified with samples.)

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 7
Attachment 1 

Crop Compensation Plan 

April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Crop Compensation Plan 

Pre-construction Inspection

Prior to any construction, Bison or its agent together with the Landowner, the Landowner’s 

designate and/or the Tenant will examine each affected property to inventory crops, livestock, 

fences, irrigation systems, drain tiles, etc. Construction damage settlements will be negotiated on 

an individual basis with each Landowner and/or Tenant for damages to their property resulting 

from the pipeline construction activities. These damages include payment for crop losses (present 

and future), pasture loss or replacement, livestock loss or harm, loss of trees and general restoration 

of lands. Post-construction claims for damages or crop deficiencies will be assessed on an 

individual basis by Bison or their agents and will be evaluated in a timely manner following 

notification of such damages or deficiencies from the Landowner and/or Tenant. 

Cultivated Lands

Crop damage for cultivated lands will be based on a 3-year program which includes the year of 

construction, where Landowners will be offered a compensation amount calculated by multiplying 

the total surface area by dollar/acre (comprised of a dollar/ acre for crop damage and a dollar /acre 

for inconvenience). The Landowner can farm the land during the three year period, harvest, and 

sell or use the crops at his/her discretion. Trees and deep-rooted shrubs or vines may be restricted 

within ten feet either side of the pipeline. Landowners will be compensated for crop losses over 

any such restricted area. After the 3-year period has concluded, Bison will continue to work with 

the Landowner for the life of the pipeline. 

Native Rangeland 

Crop damage for native rangeland will be based on a 5-year program which includes the year of 

construction, where Landowners will be offered a compensation amount calculated by multiplying 

the total surface area by dollar/acre. Where Bison and the Owner can agree to the estimated native 

rangeland damages for a 5-year period, Bison and the Owner will sign a full and final release. The 

Landowner can farm the land during the 5-year period, harvest, and sell or use the crops at his/her 

discretion. Trees and deep-rooted shrubs or vines may be restricted within ten feet either side of 

the pipeline. Landowners will be compensated for crop losses over any such restricted area. After 

the 5-year period has concluded, the Company will continue to work with the Landowner for the 

life of the pipeline. 

 Farm improvements such as fences, drain tiles, irrigation systems and related structures that are 

damaged as a result of construction activities will be replaced or restored to the pre-construction 

condition as nearly as possible, or to better condition. In some cases, where Bison and the 

Landowner, Landowner’s designate and/or Tenant agree, Bison may provide compensation for 

construction–related damage to farm improvements in lieu of repair or restoration. 

Identification of Crop Deficiency /Restoration Problems 

The identification of crop deficiencies after the prepaid five year period, or issues with restoration 

of the ROW at any time, are at the discretion of the Landowner, who may inform Bison of the 

restoration issues they feel need to be addressed. This process will not involve a third-party 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 9
AECOM Environment 

assessment of the crops during the five year post-construction period. Restoration issues reported 

by the Landowner, such as possible drain tile malfunction or excessive compaction resulting from 

the pipeline construction, will be inspected and remedied as soon as reasonably possible. To insure 

that the effectiveness of restoration on a parcel is understood and adequately addressed, Bison will 

respond promptly to Landowner inquiries. These inquiries may be directed to Bison at a number to 

be provided prior to construction. 

After the five year period, Landowner may write or fax the regional Bison office to request 

inspection of crops 30 days prior to harvest. A new request must be made each year the Landowner 

wants an inspection after the five year period. These requests for crop deficiency inspections 

should be mailed to: 

Attention Land Representative: Bison Pipeline LLC, 13710 FNB Parkway, Omaha, NE 68154-8500 

After receipt of the request, Bison will make an appointment with the Landowner to make the field 

inspection. Bison will assign individual(s) from its response team to meet on-site with the 

Landowner. The response team may consist of operations personnel, a right-of-way representative, 

and environmental specialists. Other soil or crop specialists may be used when required to provide 

diagnostic testing or advice on additional restoration measures. 

Based on the results of the on-site meeting, Bison and the Landowner will agree to mitigation 

measures to improve crop productivity or right-of-way conditions. These measures may include, 

but are not limited to, an application of soil enhancers, additional decompaction through ripping, 

surface re-grading, drain tile repair, or other appropriate activities, based on observations of the 

crop and field conditions, and agreement between Bison and the Landowner. Restoration plans and 

scheduling treatment will be formalized in writing. 

If there is a good probability that the observed problem will be corrected by continued farming 

operations, no diagnostic tests will be performed. In some cases, however, Bison and the 

Landowner may agree to use diagnostic tests to determine the difference between off ROWyields 

and on ROW yields. The method of determining crop yield will be mutually decided by Bison and 

the Landowner, but could include: 

 Harvesting a measured area with a machine (combine, chopper or baler) when the crops are 

ready for harvest. Harvesting of both on ROW and off ROW adjoining crops will be conducted 

to allow for comparisons; and 

 Using the procedures described in the current version of the USDA – Farm Service Agency 

Handbook on Crop Appraisals for the State and County Offices (5-CP), or similarly acceptable 

procedures that have been reviewed by the Company. If performed, diagnostic test results and 

recommendations will be provided to the Landowner for consideration as to the mitigation 

measures that may be implemented to resolve the problem. If the Landowner and the Company 

are unable to agree upon the mitigation measures to be employed to improve crop productivity 

of the field, the Company will consult with a local soil conservation authority for a 

recommendation of a mitigation measure. 

Proven deficiency claims will be paid until the yields reach 90 percent of the documented average 

for the adjoining off ROW yields. If all mitigation measures have been exhausted and the yield is 

still not at 90 percent, Bison will negotiate with the Landowner a one time compensation for all 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 10
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 11

future crop losses with a release signed by the Landowner. If Bison and the Landowner are unable 

to reach a mutually agreed upon settlement for all future crop losses, Bison and the Landowner 

agree to have damages ascertained and determined by three disinterested persons, one of whom 

will be appointed by the Landowner, one of whom will be appointed by Bison, and one of whom 

will be appointed by the two aforementioned persons. The disinterested persons shall base their 

analysis on the formulas and criteria set forth herein, and the agreed upon award of any two of the 

three disinterested persons shall be final and conclusive. 
APPENDIX P 

SHORT-TERM HOUSING PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Short-Term Housing Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Short-Term Housing Plan 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 General Housing Conditions ....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Impact On Housing......................................................................................................................2

1.3 Housing Impact Mitigation ......................................................................................................................4

1.4 References................................................................................................................................................5

TABLES 

Table 1.1-1 - Housing Inventory for the Project............................................................................................................2 

Table 1.2-1 - Estimated Average and Peak Workforce per Spread of the Project.........................................................3 

Table 1.2-2 - Available Short-Term Accommodations .................................................................................................4 

Document 06786-024-3383 April 2009 i
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

The purpose of this Short-Term Housing Plan (Housing Plan) is to mitigate, supplement, and 

outline measures that may be taken by Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) to ensure the supply of 

sufficient short-term accommodations for Bison Pipeline Project (Project) employees, while also 

alleviating potential negative impacts to the housing markets of affected counties and 

communities. 

1.1 General Housing Conditions 

The housing supply within the Project area is summarized in Table 1.1-1. Housing availability 

is a function of the regional housing stock, recent economic and population growth, the inventory 

of short-term accommodations (e.g., recreational vehicle (RV) parks, and hotel/motel rooms), 

and demand for housing from other sources. 

The number and availability of rental housing units as well as RV parks and hotel/ motel rooms 

is a key indicator of housing availability to meet short-term needs. Campbell County, WY has 

significantly more short-term accommodations than many of the affected counties along the 

Project route in Montana and North Dakota, as measured by existing hotel/motel rooms, 

available rental units, and RV sites. While segments of the Project area in North Dakota have 

very limited housing resources, other areas of the Project in North Dakota, near the Interstate 94 

(I-94) corridor, have a much more abundant housing supply. 

A number of counties across the Project area have seen a significant influx of workers within the 

past few years as the oil and gas industry has increased local operations. Affected cities and 

communities have responded to the increase in workers by building additional hotels and motels. 

More housing units have been added to the market as well, although some markets remain tight 

and rental rates have increased. The most recent data for available rental units is from 2000; 

therefore speculation of the current supply of available rental housing units can only be based on 

anecdotal data. 

Document 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Table 1.1-1 - Housing Inventory for the Project 

State/County 

Total 

Units 

2000 a

Vacant 

Housing 

Units 

2000 a

No. of 

Rental 

Units 

2000 a

Available 

Rental Units 

2000 a

% 

Vacant 

Rental 

Units 

2000 a

Hotel/Motel 

Rooms b

Campgrounds 

RV Sites b

WY 

Campbell 13,288 1,081 3,536 319 9.0 1,300 1,837 

Average 13,288 1,081 3,536 319 9.0 1,300 1,837 

MT 

Powder River 1,007 270 222 29 13.1 56 32 

Carter 811 268 149 12 8.1 11 35 

Fallon 1,410 270 333 75 22.5 74 5 

Average 1,076 269 235 39 15.0 47 24 

ND 

Bowman 1,596 238 331 51 15.4 151 91 

Slope 451 138 44 3 6.8 0 5 

Hettinger 1,419 267 223 34 15.2 54 32 

Stark 9,722 790 2,981 326 10.9 860 141 

Grant 1,722 527 286 39 13.6 36 23 

Morton 10,587 698 2,616 192 7.3 314 133 

Average 4,250 443 1,080 108 12.0 236 71 

Sources: 

a

U.S. Census Bureau 2000 

b

Wyoming 2008; Montana 2008; North Dakota 2008. 

Vacancy rates for recreational and seasonal units are not available, because the vacancy rates are constantly changing due to the 

nature of the housing. 

1.2 Project Impact On Housing 

A number of the affected counties are less able than other counties to accommodate an influx of 

short-term temporary workers that the Project will bring. A series of phone calls placed to the 

commissioners of the affected counties from November 12, 2008 through November 17, 2008, 

revealed that various counties are concerned about their ability to absorb Project workers into 

their community. Summaries of these correspondences can be found in Appendix 1.A.1 in 

Resource Report No. 1. Some of these counties, such as Powder River and Fallon Counties, MT, 

and Bowman County, ND, currently are coming to terms with a short-term growing population 

brought about largely by energy infrastructure expansion. Furthermore, since the construction 

schedule overlaps a portion of the hunting season, Project workers will compete with hunters, as 

well as tourists, for lodging resources. 

As noted in Table 1.2-1, the Project will employ an average workforce of 435 construction 

workers for at least five months. Peak workforce is expected to be 550 Project employees, per 

spread. The time period for which the average workforce will be employed is from June to 

November. The workforce will begin and end at an average of 50 workers as construction 

activity ramps up and winds down in the spring and fall, respectively, with the exception being 

Spread 1, which will have 125 workers as construction winds down in December. Table 1.2-1

shows the sum total available rental units, hotel/motel rooms, and RV sites in the affected 

counties, as well as neighboring counties that potentially may be indirectly affected. These 

Document 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

counties include Johnson County, WY and Burleigh County, ND. A comparison of Tables 1.2-1

and 1.2-2 provides an improved look at the local community’s ability to meet Project lodging 

demands. 

Table 1.2-1 - Estimated Average and Peak Workforce per Spread of the Project 

Construction 

Spreads April May June July August September October November December

Spread 1 15 50 50 75 550 550 550 450 125

Spread 2 50 200 435 550 550 435 435 200 50

Spread 3 50 200 435 550 550 435 435 200 50

CS 25 70 100 70 25 

Total 115 450 945 1245 1750 1490 1445 850 225 

County commissioners in Campbell County, WY indicated their community absorbed 1,500 to 

2,000 workers from current projects without significant impact. Additionally, the 

Commissioners anticipated the current projects would be winding down by the time the Project 

construction ramps up in spring of 2010. As mentioned previously, Johnson County, WY is not 

directly affected by the Project, but it is in close proximity to the southern most portion of the 

Project area. With approximately 1,057 short-term accommodations, this county may be able to 

provide spillover lodging for Project workers who cannot find lodging in Campbell County, WY. 

Short-term accommodations are in limited supply in the middle of the Project area, notably the 

Montana counties of Powder River, Carter, and Fallon, as well as Bowman, Slope, and Hettinger 

Counties, ND. It is unlikely that many Project employees will find lodging in these counties. 

Workers more likely will commute from more distant areas when construction takes place in 

these counties. 

A more abundant supply of short-term housing is located in the North Dakota counties of Stark, 

Morton, and Burleigh, where lodging can be found in the cities of Dickinson, Mandan, and 

Bismarck, as well as other communities along the I-94 corridor. It is anticipated that most 

workers will stay in the communities along the I-94 corridor and commute to the counties of 

Bowman, Slope, and Hettinger, where a very small amount of short-term housing exists. County 

commissioners in Stark and Morton counties were confident in their community’s abilities to 

house the projected workforce. 

The consideration of impacts to the availability of housing in the Project area must include 

potential conflicts with recreational hunters, as well as tourists, in the Project area. The peak 

labor force for the Project is not planned to overlap hunting seasons to any great extent. As 

noted in Table 1.2-1 peak labor force participation is expected to occur in the months of July and 

August for Spreads 2 and 3, and August through October on Spread 1. Big game hunting for 

most of the affected states begins in September and persists into late November or December. 

Additionally, pheasant hunting in all 3 states starts in October and ends in late December or early 

January. More detailed information on hunting season time frames can be found in Appendix 

8.D of Resource Report No. 8. Hunters generally obtain reservations months in advance for their 

camping or housing, and typically are short-term users of recreational sites, lessening the 

chances of interference from Project personnel. Pipeline workers generally seek longer-term 

housing such as RV Parks and apartments and, therefore, typically are in need of a different type 

of housing from that normally sought by hunters and tourists, such as hotel rooms or national 

Document 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

forest campgrounds. As mentioned above, because many recreational sites have term limits, they 

are not considered ideal sites for construction workers to use, but often are preferred by hunters 

and tourists alike. Also, hunters often stay in a short-term type accommodation before 

embarking to a remote camping site and once again when the remote hunting experience is over. 

For these short-term lodging needs, hunters could stay in some of the larger cities where 

accommodations are more plentiful. 

Table 1.2-2 - Available Short-Term Accommodations 

State/County Total Available Rental Units, Hotel/Motel Rooms, and 

Campground/RV sites a, b

WY 

Campbell 3,456

MT 

Powder River 117

Carter 58

Fallon 154

ND 

Bowman 293

Slope 5

Hettinger 120

Stark 1,327

Grant 98

Morton 415

Burleigh 2,900

Sources: 

a

U.S. Census Bureau 2000 

b

Wyoming 2008; Montana 2008; North Dakota 2008

1.3 Housing Impact Mitigation 

Housing has been noted as a significant concern from many of the counties affected by the 

Project. In some counties, where housing supplies already are affected by current infrastructure 

development, the Project faces a challenge to find short-term housing, while not severely 

stressing the current housing market. 

In order to alleviate housing impacts, as well as to ensure viable housing for Project employees, 

Bison will provide bus service to transport pipeline construction crews from more distant areas 

where temporary housing is more readily available. Three 30 passenger busses will be utilized 

per spread. These buses will transport construction crews from lodging in Gillette, WY to areas 

along Spreads 1 and 2, and from Dickinson and Mandan, ND to Spread 3. 

This is a necessary step if the existing housing infrastructure is to provide for the needs of the 

community and Project. Bison will work with local governments and RV park owners to 

mitigate and avoid potential impacts, as well as to procure the necessary local permits, if needed. 

Document 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document 06786-024-3383 April 2009 5

As the construction start date approaches, housing markets may change. The industries driving 

the current flow of short-term workers may slow activities, lessening the onslaught of personnel 

stressing the resources of affected counties and towns. Additionally, more hotels and short-term 

lodging sites may be built, providing additional accommodation options for Project employees. 

Therefore, in light of the Project plan to bus personnel from more populated areas, and after 

analyzing the existing housing markets and taking into account future lodging options which 

may come online, it is expected that housing Project employees should not be a significant 

burden on local lodging accommodations. 

1.4 References 

Montana 2008. Places to Stay. http://www.visitmt.com/tripplanner/campandlodge/. Reviewed 

July 21, 2008. 

North Dakota 2008. Where to Stay. https://www.ndtourism.com/wherestay/accommodations/. 

Reviewed July 21, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State & County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. 

Reviewed July 15, 2008. 

Wyoming 2008. Places to Stay. http://www.wyomingtourism.org/cms/d/places_to_stay.php. 

Reviewed July 21, 2008. 
APPENDIX Q 

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 
AECOM Environment 

Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 General Requirements ..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Temporary Access Roads.........................................................................................................................1

1.3 Permanent Access Roads..........................................................................................................................2

1.4 Public Road Use.......................................................................................................................................2

1.5 Road Crossings.........................................................................................................................................6

1.6 Special Roadway Requirements...............................................................................................................6

1.7 Removal of Obstructions..........................................................................................................................8

1.8 References ................................................................................................................................................8

TABLES 

Table 1.4-1 - Current Conditions of Transportation Infrastructure................................................................................4

Document 06786-024-3383 April 2009 i
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

The purpose of this Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Traffic Plan) is to mitigate, 

supplement, and further outline measures required of Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) for equipment 

access to and from the Construction right-of-way (ROW) during the construction of the Bison 

Pipeline Project (Project) facilities across all affected lands. This plan will address traffic concerns 

that may affect local communities and their associated roads and highways. Additionally, this plan 

is intended to provide limited guidance dust control measures and information on how Bison would 

maintain roads during and after construction. 

1.1 General Requirements 

On all affected lands, the design for pipeline construction and for upgrades to existing access roads 

required for the Project will include implementing proper drainage measures, minimizing soil 

erosion, and preserving topsoil. A full list of access roads and improvements has been provided in 

Appendix 8.B in Resource Report No. 8. The Project does not anticipate constructing new access 

roads and no new road routes have been identified at this time. Bison anticipates that many 

Project-related dirt or gravel access roads may initially, or at some time during the Project, require 

improvements from their present condition. Permits required to install pipeline beneath existing 

public roads and to transport equipment on those roads will be obtained prior to construction. Wet 

and poorly drained roads will not be used if deep rutting could occur, unless necessary 

improvements or usage is approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Authorized 

Officer's Representative when on federal land, or the landowner when on private land. 

1.2 Temporary Access Roads 

As detailed in Section 1.4.5 the Project intends to use access roads on a temporary basis to 

transport personnel, equipment (including high clearance vehicles and heavy trucks), and materials 

to the Project work areas. Several access roads will experience incremental increases in traffic 

during the course of construction, depending upon the time of day and location of active 

construction spreads. These access roads include federal and state highways, county roads, private 

roads, and roads on BLM-managed lands. 

Access on federal land will be used only where approved by the BLM and access on private land 

will be used only where permission has been granted by the landowner. Travel outside the 

designated Construction ROW, extra temporary workspaces (EWS), pipe yards, rail yards, or 

contractor yards, will be prohibited. 

Access roads will be maintained in good condition in cooperation with the property owner. On all 

existing access roads, Bison will attempt to limit grading to the original disturbed area where there 

is evidence that the roads have been previously graded. However, to accommodate passing of 

equipment and the large turning radius of stringing trucks, the access roads may need to be 

widened up to 20 feet in isolated locations. Bison will perform cultural and biological studies on 

all access roads to accommodate road grading and maintenance and to account for other impacts. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Stringing trucks and other heavy trucks may track outside of the existing footprint on two-track 

roads. Grading of two-track roads, if necessary, will be limited to one 16-foot dozer blade-width, 

plus the associated berms. Additional width will be required to remove the berms and restore the 

road. Two-track roads will be restored to their original footprint at the time of clean-up (unless 

otherwise requested by the landowner). The additional-width areas will be reseeded to enhance 

restoration. It is assumed that some road maintenance will be required to maintain the majority of 

the dirt roads, especially in the event that rain occurs and travel over the roads deteriorates their 

conditions. 

The Project is not expected to require new access roads. On BLM-managed lands, temporary use 

of an existing access road will require prior authorization from the BLM’s Authorized Officer. As 

will be done for all other temporary access roads, once construction is complete and the access 

road is no longer required for construction purposes, the Project will restore the road to its original 

condition, including restoration of contours and reseeding of the area of disturbance outside of the 

original road. Following restoration activities on federal land, the road will be barricaded to 

prevent its use for any future entry and/or access to the land, if necessary. The barricading will 

remain in place until it is determined that restoration has been successful. 

Erosion control, revegetation, and restoration measures outlined in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in 

Resource Report No. 7) will be applied to disturbed areas associated with improvements to existing 

access roads. Roads used to access the Construction ROW will be restored to pre-construction 

conditions, or improvements (i.e., grading and filling of potholes) will be made in accordance with 

this Traffic Plan and agreements with private landowners or the BLM. Borrow material needed to 

improve access roads on federal land will be obtained only from areas approved by the BLM. 

Borrow materials sourced from within an authorized road may be used elsewhere within that same 

road. 

Access roads will be marked with staking, flagging, and/or signs placed at the road entrances. 

Only vehicles that are required for clearing, removal of obstructions, and leveling will be allowed 

to travel on off-road access routes. Travel on off-road access routes will be prohibited when 

weather conditions are such that ruts in excess of 6 inches are likely. 

For all access roads, Bison plans to use the full existing road right-of-way, including both the road 

center for passage and the road shoulders for temporary pull-off and passing. Environmental 

surveys will be completed for the full road right-of-way to accommodate this planned use. 

1.3 Permanent Access Roads 

No new permanent access roads are being proposed for the Project. The Project will obtain 

approval from the appropriate agencies and landowners if any new permanent access roads are 

needed. The locations of such roads, if needed, will be contingent on demonstration that no 

sensitive biological or cultural resources will be affected. 

1.4 Public Road Use 

Contractor yards and pipe yards will be used on a temporary basis to support construction 

activities. Contractor yards and pipe yards will be used to stage construction, store materials, park 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

equipment, and set up temporary construction offices. In most cases, with the appropriate 

approvals from the state Department of Transportation (DOT), BLM, and/or county highway 

departments, existing public highways will be used to transport construction equipment to the 

contractor yards and pipe yards. These roads also will be used by construction workers to access 

the job sites. Construction personnel will consist of Bison employees, contractor employees, 

construction inspection staff, and environmental inspection staff. The majority of these workers 

will commute to the Construction ROW and/or appropriate yards early in the morning and return in 

the evening during non-peak traffic hours. 

Major highways that will be traveled to reach the proposed access roads and various contractor 

yards and pipe yards are described below: 

Wyoming 

 Interstate 90 (I-90) will experience greater traffic flow as equipment and construction personnel 

travel from Gillette; 

 US Highway 14/16, northbound, will experience an increase in equipment and construction 

personnel traveling from Gillette; and 

 State Route 59 will experience an increase in equipment and construction personnel traveling 

from Gillette. 

Montana 

 US Highway 212 will experience increased traffic as equipment and construction personnel 

travel to and from the I-90 corridor; and 

 State Routes 7, 277, and 323 will experience a significant increase in both construction 

equipment and personnel traveling to and from Baker. 

North Dakota 

 US Highway 12 will experience an increase in traffic as personnel travel from Baker and 

Bowman; 

 US Highway 85 will experience increased traffic to and from Bowman, as well as to and from 

the Interstate 94 corridor; 

 State Route 49 will see significant increases in traffic levels as personnel and construction 

equipment travel south from I-94; and 

 Interstate 94 (I-94) likely will see an increase in eastbound and westbound traffic related to 

both construction equipment and personnel even though it is not intersected by the Project. 

As previously noted, impacted roads range from graveled county-maintained rural roads to fourlane divided interstate highways. Table 1.4-1 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count, as 

well as the corresponding Level of Service (LOS), where available, for a portion of the impacted 

transportation infrastructure. Calls placed to the Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota 

Departments of Transportation confirmed that, with the exception of I-94, LOS classifications are 

not available for the impacted US highways and state routes (Appendix 1.A.1 in Resource Report 

No. 1). However, all state and county departments that were contacted indicated that due to the 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

rural nature of the impacted highways and the low ADT counts, LOS classifications of “A” would 

be appropriate, indicating a free flow of traffic. 

County roads departments were contacted in an attempt to obtain ADT counts and LOS 

classifications for rural county roads that would be impacted by the Project. With the exception of 

two county roads in Campbell County, Wyoming, and two county roads in Bowman and Morton 

Counties in North Dakota, firm data were not available for the county roads that could be impacted. 

Per conversations with the county road departments, many of the county roads were assumed to 

have ADT counts near 50, with the majority of that being comprised of light local traffic. In some 

cases, ADT rises to approximately 75-100 during the spring and fall harvest season. ADT counts 

for affected US highways range from 600 to 2,245. Affected state routes exhibited a significant 

range in ADT counts, from 52 to 575. 

Table 1.4-1 - Current Conditions of Transportation Infrastructure 

State Average Daily Traffic Count a, b Level of Service c

Wyoming 

Interstate 90 2500 LOS A 

Middle Prong RD RD 75 45 LOS A 

US Highway 14 780 LOS A 

Greenough RD 39 53 LOS A 

State Road 59 480 LOS A 

Montana 

US Highway 212 2245 LOS A 

State Road 277 52 LOS A 

State Road323 305 LOS A 

North Dakota 

158th AV SW 500 LOS A 

US Highway 12 600 LOS A 

US Highway 85 1750 LOS A 

State Road 67 110 LOS A 

State Road 22 575 LOS A 

State Road 8 500 LOS A 

County Road 138 36 LOS A 

State Road 49 114 LOS A 

Sources: 

a Correspondence with state Departments of Transportation and County Roads Departments can be found 

in Appendix 1.A.1 of Resource Report No. 1;

b MT Department of Transportation 2009; ND Department of Transportation 2009;

c There are no official LOS classifications for any of the impacted highways, with the exception of I-94; 

however, counties and state departments of transportation assumed all the affected highways would be a 

LOS A based upon ADT counts and the rural nature of the roads. 

Experienced construction personnel contacted responsible road authorities and local landowners in 

order to choose potential access roads that were capable of handling the predicted Project traffic 

loads. There is a considerable amount of oilfield development in the Project area which indicates 

that many of the roads are capable of handling similar loads. Furthermore, North Dakota has 

designated farm roads on a grid system which are designed to handle farm traffic with similar load 

requirements to that expected from pipeline construction. Bison anticipates that some existing 

minor private roads may not be capable of handling heavy loads. Bison has planned for the 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

majority of the larger loads to avoid these roads. Additionally, Bison construction representatives 

have conducted a specific bridge review, determining that most are capable of handling 40 ton 

loads. To date only one bridge has been found to have a load limit which is lower than that 

required by the Project. Subsequently, the stringing plan was modified to prevent loaded pipe 

trucks from using the bridge. The pipeline construction contractor will be required to make any 

necessary upgrades to bridges such as redecking, cribbing, temporary covering with steel plates or 

spanning with an additional structure, to permit access without damaging existing structures. 

Cities likely to experience an increase in traffic from both personnel and equipment transportation 

are Buffalo and Gillette, WY, Broadus and Baker, MT, and Bowman and Dickinson, ND. In order 

to reduce traffic congestion, as well as roadside parking hazards, which could result from 

construction activities, Bison will implement the following measures: 

 Encourage travel to and from the construction site during off-peak traffic hours (peak traffic 

hours on main highways will be between 5:30 and 7:30 a.m. and between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m); 

 Require or provide driver training for all Project personnel; 

 Provide incentives for Project personnel to exercise safe driving habits when commuting to 

and from the construction area to minimize the potential for accidents; 

 Provide incentives for Project personnel to obey all traffic laws and rules; 

 Provide primary parking areas at contractor yards for employee personal vehicles; and 

 Provide buses for transporting workers to the work site from the contractor yard. 

Construction employees working on Spread 1 and Spread 2 likely will be housed in Gillette, 

Wyoming, and bussed to the job site and back (120 miles round trip). Construction workers 

working on Spread 3 likely will work out of Dickinson, North Dakota and be bussed 150 miles 

round trip. It is anticipated that each spread will utilize three 30-passenger busses to transport 

employees from the city to each construction spread. Assuming an average miles per gallon of 7 

for a diesel bus, it is estimated that for a five month period the Project will consume approximately 

3,507 gallons of diesel fuel bussing construction personnel to the Construction ROW. Overall 

Project spending on fuel will be approximately $1,277,599. 

Overall, the number and frequency of construction vehicle trips on major highways will be low on 

any particular roadway at any one time, because construction will move sequentially along the 

Construction ROW and will be in any given area for only a short time. Trips by vehicles that will 

visit the Construction ROW on a regular basis (e.g., pickup trucks, crew bus) will be distributed 

along the length of the pipeline route as the pipe string is installed and construction activity 

progresses to different parts of the Construction ROW. Bison will work with local law 

enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services to coordinate access for effective 

emergency response. 

Minimal traffic on existing roads is anticipated to be associated with the operation and maintenance 

of the new pipeline. Bison currently estimates that only three permanent employees will be moved 

to the Project area for operation and maintenance of the pipeline (even if this estimate is inaccurate 

by 100 percent, the number still will be very small). Because so few personnel will be brought into 

the area for this purpose, normal monitoring and other activities would not increase local traffic 

above normal levels. Larger maintenance activities, involving bringing contract workers into a 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 5 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

specific area for some limited period of time, could affect local traffic for a short period of time, 

but such impacts would be temporary. 

1.5 Road Crossings 

Major paved roads generally will be crossed by boring or drilling underneath the road, where 

feasible. Little or no disruption of traffic will result at road crossings that will be bored or drilled. 

The open-cut construction method will be used across minor or rarely traveled paved or graveled 

roads and unimproved rural dirt roads. Bison will attempt to maintain at least one lane of traffic 

open for detours around construction and will use plating over the open portion of the trench or use 

other suitable methods to allow traffic to cross the ditch when open-cutting a road. However, in a 

worst-case scenario, this construction method may require the road to be closed for up to 24 hours. 

In these instances, Bison will develop an alternative means of allowing traffic to continue (e.g., 

detour). 

Where appropriate, Bison will require the construction contractor(s) to post caution signs on roads, 

to alert motorists of pipeline construction and warn them of potential slow traffic conditions. 

Traffic control measures, such as flaggers, warning signs, lights, and barriers, will be used during 

construction to ensure worker and public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. The 

construction contractor will use flagmen on paved roads during equipment crossings to ensure safe 

passage. When necessary, law enforcement will assist in escorting significant construction 

vehicles to and from the worksite. Tracked heavy equipment will cross paved roads on used tires 

or other materials to prevent damage to the road’s surface. Mud, soil, and debris will be removed 

from paved roads immediately after equipment has crossed. 

1.6 Special Roadway Requirements 

Right-of-Way 

Construction workers, rubber tired vehicles, and heavy equipment will be restricted to operating 

within the approved Construction ROW and EWS. Cross-country vehicular travel by construction 

and maintenance crews will be prohibited.

Ditches and Waterways 

Where culverts are required to improve an access road at a stream crossing, such culverts will be of 

adequate size to accommodate storm runoff, as required by federal, state, or county road permits, 

and of sufficient strength to support construction and maintenance equipment. 

Occasionally, improvements will include the construction of ditches adjacent to the access roads. 

Where ditches are installed, provisions will be made to manage the accumulated water by using 

one of the following methods: 

 Water will be directed under or across the roadway by means of culverts. Such structures will 

be designed and installed so that erosion will not occur on the outlet slope; and 

 If any spring is encountered during improvements, the water will be piped outside of the road 

ROW. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Culverts and ditches associated with permanent access roadways will be maintained as follows: 

 The upper and lower ends, as well as the inside of the pipe, will be thoroughly cleaned to 

provide an unobstructed flow through the pipe; 

 Any loose material on the backslope adjacent to the entrance of culverts will be removed; 

 All roadway ditches, lead-offs from culverts or out sections, and lead-in ditches will be cleaned 

of any material that could obstruct the flow; and 

 The work will be accomplished so that reasonable conformance to previous line, grade, and 

cross-section will be achieved. 

Rangeland 

As needed in rangeland, permanent cattle guards or steel gates may be installed across access roads 

to: 

 Avoid safety hazards; 

 Replace a permanent existing cattle guard when it is damaged or destroyed by construction 

activities; 

 Fulfill the BLM Authorized Officer’s requirements; and 

 Allow access by heavy equipment where needed. 

Bison's construction contractor will determine if existing cattle guards can support trucks and other 

equipment prior to crossing the guards. The construction contractor will be responsible for either 

strengthening the cattle guard or using another access route. Existing cattle guards will be cleaned 

and maintained so they remain effective. The use of temporary cattle guards, if required, will be 

coordinated with the appropriate BLM office or landowner. 

Residential Areas 

No residences are located near the Construction ROW (within 100 feet of the centerline). 

However, should the pipeline be rerouted near a residential area, Bison will take special care to 

minimize traffic disruption and to control noise and dust generation to the extent practicable. The 

following measures will be implemented to minimize construction impacts where residents are 

located near the Construction ROW: 

 Bison will notify landowners prior to the start of construction adjacent to a residence; 

 In areas where the Construction ROW is within 100 feet of a residence, Bison will install 

exclusion fencing at the construction work area boundaries to keep construction equipment, 

materials, and spoil in the Construction ROW and minimize the potential for unauthorized 

access; 

 Where necessary, Bison will maintain traffic flow and emergency vehicle access on roadways 

with traffic control personnel or detour signs; 

 Bison will backfill and restore residential area roads as soon as possible and at the end of the 

construction day will plate sections of trench left open across roads near residences; and 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 7 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 8

 Bison will inspect road surfaces periodically near residences and, if necessary, clean street 

surfaces and wet exposed soil to prevent generation of fugitive dust. 

Dust Control 

Dust control measures will be applied as frequently as is necessary in response to landowner 

requests and/or construction requirements. The most effective means of dust control is the frequent 

use of water from watering trucks to moisten exposed soils along the Construction ROW. 

Additionally, wind fences, berms, or other covering material, such as gravel or textiles, will be 

used to cover areas of disturbance. More on information on dust control can be found in the 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan, Appendix 2.K in Resource Report No. 2. 

1.7 Removal of Obstructions 

Obstructions affecting access roads will be cleared, as follows: 

 Removal of trees, limbs, brush, and other obstructions will be limited to those obstructing the 

driver’s sight distance or to those lower than 14 feet of vertical clearance above the roadway; 

 Limbing will be accomplished by use of pruning saws, power saws, nippers, bow saws, or 

crosscuts. Limbs will be pruned flush with the trunk of the tree, except for portions of 

overhanging limbs. Use of axes for limbing will be prohibited. Material removed will be 

deposited in an approved location; and 

 Cattle guards crossed by construction vehicles and personnel will be cleaned of all material to a 

depth of two feet below the grids prior to the start of construction and again after the 

completion of construction activity on that section of pipeline. Any cattle guard damaged by 

the construction contractor will be replaced with a guard of equal or better quality. 

1.8 References 

Montana Department of Transportation. 2007. Rural Traffic Flow Map. 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/datastats/trafcount/2007_traffic_flow_map.pdf. 

Reviewed February 5, 2009. 

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 2006. Traffic Volume Map. 

http://www.dot.nd.gov/road-map/pdf/traffic/trafficstate_2006.pdf. Reviewed February 5, 

2009. 
APPENDIX R 

RECLAMATION PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC 

Reclamation Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 i 

BISON PIPELINE PROJECT 

APPENDIX 7.H 

RECLAMATION PLAN 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Reclamation Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Practical Field Application of the Reclamation Plan..................................................................................... 3

2.0 Existing Soil Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 Responsible Parties .................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Financial Legal Responsibility ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Environmental Inspector................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Construction Contractor.................................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 Reclamation Specialist.................................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Other Materials ............................................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Schedule ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 Procedures in LRP Areas........................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Contractor Education ...................................................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Construction Minimization and Site Preparation........................................................................................... 9

5.2.1 Topsoil Salvage and Stockpiling...................................................................................................... 9

5.2.2 Construction Waste........................................................................................................................ 11

5.2.3 Pollutants 11

5.2.4 Protection of All Survey Monuments............................................................................................. 11

5.2.5 Wetland and Waterbody Crossings............................................................................................... 12

5.2.6 Weeds 12

5.3 Soil Reclamation........................................................................................................................................... 12

5.3.1 Soil Decompaction......................................................................................................................... 12

5.3.2 Soil Preparation and Pitting.......................................................................................................... 12

5.4 General Soil Erosion Control (all areas except LRP due to Highly Water and Wind Erodible Soils)....... 13

5.4.1 Temporary Slope Breakers............................................................................................................ 13

5.4.2 Sediment Barriers.......................................................................................................................... 13

5.4.3 Mulch 13

5.5 Soil Mounding .............................................................................................................................................. 14

5.6 Soil Management and Reseeding Lands ...................................................................................................... 14

5.6.1 Water Erosion Susceptible Soils.................................................................................................... 14

5.6.2 Wind Erosion Susceptible Soils..................................................................................................... 15

5.6.3 Droughty Soils ............................................................................................................................... 16
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 ii 

5.6.4 Salt Affected Soils .......................................................................................................................... 17

5.6.5 Sodium Affected Soils..................................................................................................................... 18

5.6.6 Shallow Soils19

5.6.7 Miscellaneous Components........................................................................................................... 19

5.6.8 Seed Quality and Seeding Methods............................................................................................... 20

6.0 Procedures in Agricultural Areas............................................................................................................................. 20

7.0 Procedures for All Other Areas (i.e., Not Otherwise Designated as Agricultural Lands or LRP Areas).............. 21

7.1 Contractor Education .................................................................................................................................... 21

7.2 Construction Minimization and Site Preparation......................................................................................... 21

7.2.1 Topsoil Stripping............................................................................................................................ 21

7.2.2 Construction Waste, Pollutants, and Protection of All Survey Monuments................................. 22

7.2.3 Weeds, Weed and Thatch Removal, and Herbicide Treatment Guidelines.................................. 22

7.3 Soil Reclamation........................................................................................................................................... 22

7.4 Soil Erosion Control ..................................................................................................................................... 22

7.5 Soil Mounding .............................................................................................................................................. 22

7.6 Reseeding...................................................................................................................................................... 22

7.6.1 Seedbed Preparation and Timing.................................................................................................. 22

7.6.2 Seed Recommendations and Planting Methods............................................................................ 22

8.0 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

8.1 Weed Control................................................................................................................................................ 24

8.2 Pest Control................................................................................................................................................... 24

8.3 Site Maintenance........................................................................................................................................... 24

8.4 Pruning and Leaf Litter Removal................................................................................................................. 25

8.5 Fertilizer ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

8.6 Erosion Control............................................................................................................................................. 25

9.0 Remedial Measures.................................................................................................................................................. 25

10.0 Performance and Monitoring................................................................................................................................... 26

10.1 Performance Standards ................................................................................................................................. 26

10.2 Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 26

10.2.1 Combined Method.......................................................................................................................... 26

10.2.2 Aerial Survey27

11.0 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 27
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 iii 

TABLES 

Table 1.0-1 - Low Reclamation Potential Factors................................................................................................................ 1

Table 5.2-1 - Deep Topsoil Along the Bison Project ......................................................................................................... 10

Table 5.6-1 - Wind and Water Erosion Susceptible Soil Reseeding Mixture ................................................................... 15

Table 5.6-2 - Suggested Droughty Soil Reseeding Mixtures............................................................................................. 16

Table 5.6-3 - Suggested Saline/Sodic Soil Reseeding Mixtures........................................................................................ 17

Table 5.6-4 - Salt and Sodium Affected Soil Classification .............................................................................................. 19

Table 5.6-5 - Suggested Shallow Soil Reseeding Mixtures ............................................................................................... 19

Table 7.6-1 - NRCS Suggested CRP and Private Rangeland Reseeding Mixtures........................................................... 23

FIGURES 

Figure 2.0-1 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in the BLM Buffalo, WY FO ................................................................... 5

Figure 2.0-2 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in the BLM Miles City, MT FO ............................................................... 6

Figure 2.0-3 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in North Dakota......................................................................................... 7

ATTACHMENT 1

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project................................................................................................................ 30

Table 2 - Wyoming LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity ................................................................................................... 36

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity ..................................................................................................... 37

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity ............................................................................................. 43 

Table 5 - Wyoming Miscellaneous Areas .......................................................................................................................... 51 

Table 6 - Montana Miscellaneous Areas ............................................................................................................................ 53 

Table 7 - North Dakota Miscellaneous Areas..................................................................................................................... 54 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 

1.0 Introduction 

This Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan) provides both broad concepts and specific directions for 

short-term stabilization and long-term reclamation for soil and vegetation disturbed by construction 

activities associated with the Bison Pipeline Project (Project). The Reclamation Plan, which details 

post-construction soil reclamation and re-vegetation measures, will be applied Project-wide on all 

lands, including privately-owned lands, State lands, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). 

The Reclamation Plan differentiates the methods which will be utilized on special land types, 

including areas designated with Low Reclamation Potential (LRP) and cultivated cropland 

(Agricultural). This Reclamation Plan was developed through consultation with landowners and 

agency resource managers (e.g., BLM technical specialists), review of BLM Land Use Plan 

guidance, and review of existing best management practice construction documents, including Bison 

Pipeline LLC’s (Bison’s) Bison’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

(Bison’s Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Bison’s 

Procedures) (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7 and Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2, 

respectively). Reclamation guidance is also provided in the Reclamation Plan for areas not 

specifically designated as LRP or Agricultural lands. These areas, which are found on all 

landownership types include areas such as rangeland and grassland; scrub-shrub areas; windbreaks; 

emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested wetlands; ephemeral, intermittent, perennial, and seasonal 

streams; and upland forests. 

This Reclamation Plan is structured to specifically address LRP areas which occur on both BLMmanaged lands and private land. The Reclamation Plan also specifically addresses mitigation 

measures for Agricultural areas which occur on private lands along the Project route. Due to the 

difficult nature of reclamation on LRP lands, all LRP lands will be treated according to their specific 

unique limitations, independent of land ownership. 

LRP areas have been identified by the BLM Buffalo, Wyoming, Field Office (FO); Miles City, 

Montana, FO; and North Dakota FO, primarily by using soil survey data obtained from Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) database and criteria that identify soils with low reclamation potential based 

on the factors described in Table 1.0-1. These areas are located on both public and private lands. 

Table 1.0-1 - Low Reclamation Potential Factors

Properties Severe Rating Limiting Feature 

Kw x Slope RV > 7 Water Erosion 

Wind Erodibility Index (Surface Layer) 134, 160, 180, 220, 250, 310 Wind Erosion 

Available Water Capacity (0 TO 40 in) < 2 Droughtiness 

EC RV (Surface 7 in) (MMHOS/CM) > 16 Salt Content 

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (Surface 7 in) > 13 Sodium Content 

Rooting Depth (inches) < 10 Rooting Depth 

Miscellaneous Component Miscellaneous Component Kind Vegetation Not Supported 

Agricultural crops produced in Wyoming may include planted hay, barley, wheat, dry edible beans, 

and corn. Montana’s crops may include wheat, barley, sugar beets, and specialty crops. North 

Dakota’s major crops may include wheat, wheat durum, barley, and planted hay. A list of 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 

Agricultural areas crossed by the Project is included in Table 1 in Attachment 1. All Agricultural 

crop areas are situated on private lands. 

In general, the Reclamation Plan includes the following components and concepts: 

 A baseline survey of existing vegetation in the LRP areas; 

 Guidance for soil testing of Agricultural soils to understand the physical and chemical 

characteristics; 

 Construction disturbance minimization measures; 

 Site preparation; 

 Soil treatment methods; 

 Seeding methods and seed mixes; 

 Development of methods for preventing weed invasion; 

 Maintenance methods, including a contingency plan for weed treatment if new weeds are 

introduced; and 

 Preparation of adaptive management contingencies. 

1.1 Reclamation Plan 

This Reclamation Plan is intended to be consistent with the BLM program objectives. Neither the 

BLM Miles City nor the North Dakota field offices have a specific reclamation policy; however, the 

BLM Wyoming State Office has developed Wyoming Reclamation Policy (Appendix 7.G in 

Resource Report No. 7). The BLM Miles City FO and the North Dakota FO have adopted the 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy for this Project. This policy requires that in any area of sensitive 

resources on BLM-managed land, especially those where reclamation by previous pipeline projects 

have not been deemed successful, a site-specific construction plan will be prepared. Some LRP areas 

were derived from the SSURGO Database. Consultation with the BLM has yielded general guidance 

on LRP areas but no specific LRP sites for consideration; therefore, specific site plans are not 

provided at this time. Should a LRP area be identified at a later date, Bison will develop and submit 

a site-specific plan. Alternatively, Bison has directed the development of this Reclamation Plan to 

address reclamation Project-wide. 

Where Bison is collocating with other pipeline existing right-of-way, the site conditions such as, soil 

limitations and revegetation status, are not known on those locations. 

The primary goal for reclamation is to stabilize disturbed areas as soon as practical after construction. 

Reclamation also will provide the necessary conditions to achieve the long term goal of ecosystem 

reclamation by leaving the landscape in a safe and stable state and by meeting post-construction 

resource objectives prescribed in the Wyoming Reclamation Policy. This Reclamation Plan provides 

the concepts to address the complex nature and environmental challenges identified by the BLM and 

the reclamation potential for the LRP areas. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 

1.2 Practical Field Application of the Reclamation 

Plan 

The reclamation procedures for LRP lands described herein are specific to particular soil limitations. 

The actual reclamation procedures may deviate from the prescribed methods in areas where the 

mapped soil types do not reflect actual field conditions. This will primarily relate to areas where the 

LRP is based on slope, and actual field conditions indicate the slope to be significantly less than the 

mapped slope. Areas mapped as saline or sodic soils also may be modified based on field conditions. 

The EI will be consulted in areas where mapped soils do not appear to reflect actual field conditions. 

Additional adjustments to the application of this Reclamation Plan on non-LRP lands may occur as 

well. Non-LRP lands, although less difficult to reclaim, are interspersed with LRP lands and spatial 

configurations would make differing management of non-LRP areas on BLM-managed and privately 

held land impractical. A practical approach during the application of this Reclamation Plan may be 

to treat all lands with the “higher” LRP reclamation standard (i.e., apply LRP rules on lands that are 

not classified as either LRP or Agricultural lands). The application of the Reclamation Plan will be at 

the discretion of Bison as long as the application in practice meets or exceeds the requirements of the 

Reclamation Plan. 

2.0 Existing Soil Conditions 

The Project crosses land under various land ownership and management including private lands, 

State lands, and lands managed by the BLM. Across the Project route, soil conditions range from 

sandy to clayey to areas of rock outcrop. Low precipitation levels characterize much of the 

Wyoming and Montana portions of the Project route Soils with thicker surface layers are observed in 

Agricultural areas mostly in North Dakota. 

The Project crosses soils with a variety of potential limitations, including water erodibility, wind 

erodibility, available water capacity, high salt content, high sodium content, low precipitation, 

shallow rooting depth, and miscellaneous components that do not support vegetation. Figures 2.0-1, 

2.0-2, and 2.0-3 illustrate these soil limitations in each state. Larger scale topographic map series that 

show the Project in more detail are provided in Appendix 1.E in Resource Report No. 1. Although 

additional LRP areas are located proximal to the Project route, only those LRP areas (in their 

entirety) that are intersected by the Project route are illustrated on these figures. 

Fine textured or loose, sandy soils in dry climates with little vegetation and windy conditions tend to 

be highly susceptible to wind erosion. Wind erosion occurs as soil particles are moved by suspension 

of very fine dirt and dust particles, saltation where windborne particles are moved short distances and 

impact other particles, and creep where larger particles move across the ground surface (National Soil 

Erosion Research Laboratory, 2009). Much of the soil on the Project may be susceptible to wind 

erosion. 

Water erosion occurs when water detaches and moves soil particles. Water erosion occurs by rain 

splash, sheet erosion, rill erosion and gully erosion (Ritter, 2006). Slope steepness can also influence 

susceptibility to water erosion. Soil erosion due to water is a limitation for many of the soils on the 

Project. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 

Droughtiness is a characteristic of soils that are located along the Project as well. Droughty soils 

have low available water capacity, and therefore have a limited ability to support plant growth. 

Generally, soils with sandy or gravelly textures can be droughty. 

Saline soils, soils with high salt content in the upper seven inches of the profile, may have a limited 

ability to support plant growth due to limitations in soil water uptake and specific ion toxicity. Water 

movement through the soils concentrates the salts in lower areas of the landscape and, at high 

concentrations, can prevent growth of almost all plant species (Millar, 2003). A limited number of 

soils on the Project are considered saline soils. 

Sodic soils are characterized by their high Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). Soils with a high SAR 

have a large amount of sodium present in comparison to the concentrations of calcium and 

magnesium. The high concentration of sodium causes a loss of soil structure which allows for clay 

particles to move downward in the soil profile and form clay pans (Millar, 2003). A limited number 

of soils on the Project are considered sodic soils. 

Shallow soils have limiting layers within a short distance of the soil surface. Miscellaneous 

component areas may include gravel pits, open water areas, badland and other areas that are generally 

not vegetated. Revegetation in shallow soils and these miscellaneous areas can be difficult because 

of the limited availability of growth media. 

According to BLM, previous pipeline projects have had issues with maintaining soil stability, 

erosion, weed infestations, and problems with poor revegetation. The provisions of this Reclamation 

Plan are intended to address BLM’s concerns in this area. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 5 April 2009 

Figure 2.0-1 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in the BLM Buffalo, WY FO 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 

Figure 2.0-2 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in the BLM Miles City, MT FO 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 7 

Figure 2.0-3 - LRP Areas on the Bison Project in North Dakota BLM FO 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 8 

3.0 Responsible Parties 

3.1 Financial Legal Responsibility 

Bison will be responsible for performing reclamation on the areas disturbed by the Project and will 

be financially responsible for performing all aspects described within this Reclamation Plan. Bison is 

also financially responsible for implementing reclamation measures contained in Bison’s Plan, 

Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7. 

3.2 Environmental Inspector 

The Environmental Inspector (EI) is one of Bison’s representatives in the field and will be 

responsible for monitoring the reclamation of the impacts according to the guidelines set forth in this 

Reclamation Plan. The duties of the EI will include overseeing all aspects of work performed by the 

reclamation specialist (see below). In addition, the EI will have the responsibility of documenting 

and reporting the progress of the developing plant communities to the BLM as well as making 

recommendations necessary to achieve the performance standards. 

3.3 Construction Contractor 

The construction contractor will be responsible for all earth moving activities including salvaging the 

topsoil and subsoil, installing the pipeline, replacing the subsoil and topsoil consistent with 

preconstruction contours, creating erosion preventative berms and water bars, in accordance with

Bison’s Plan, Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7. 

3.4 Reclamation Specialist 

A reclamation specialist will be employed following construction of the Project to ensure restoration 

of areas disturbed by construction activities in accordance with the Reclamation Plan. This specialist 

will be responsible for inspecting and approving the site following clean-up activities by the 

construction contractor, and the installation and maintenance of the plant community reclamation 

until the stabilized and final performance standards are achieved. It is recognized that reclamation 

starts during the clean up process during construction and continues into operations. 

Bison will make an effort to utilize a reclamation specialist with reclamation experience in the 

Project area and will be experienced with all aspects of the habitat reclamation and is thoroughly 

familiar with the reclamation, including equipment and materials being utilized or installed and the 

best methods for their installation and application. In addition, the reclamation specialist will be 

familiar with all species listed within the seed mixture specifications listed in the subsequent 

paragraphs and the noxious and invasive weeds listed in Appendix 3.B in Resource Report No. 3. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 9 

3.5 Other Materials 

All other reclamation materials not specifically described herein, but required to complete this 

Project, will be provided by the reclamation specialist and are subject to the approval of the EI. 

4.0 Schedule 

The schedule for the reclamation steps will follow the prescriptive procedures outlined in Bison’s 

Plan and Procedures. As a construction guideline, the reclamation areas will be seeded following the 

replacement of topsoil. Under optimal conditions, seeding will take place between March 1 and May 

31 (after snow melt and before summer dry conditions) or between September 15 and November 30, 

in the fall (prior to the first heavy snowfall). Ideally, seeding will take place within 30 days of trench 

backfill and rough grading. If seeding is not completed during the timeframes mentioned above, or if 

weather conditions result in levels of soil moisture too dry to support the proposed seed mixes, the 

areas will be mulched to prevent soil erosion and will be seeded after soil moisture levels are more 

acceptable per Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7). The long-term weather 

forecast will be closely monitored to assist with seeding decisions. 

5.0 Procedures in LRP Areas 

5.1 Contractor Education 

Prior to commencing work, the EI will develop a contractor education program to familiarize the 

contractors and associated workers with the environmentally sensitive issues and reasons for 

minimizing their impacts. In addition, this program will review construction minimization measures 

that will help minimize the amount of reclamation needed. EI will certify that contractors working 

on the site have received this training. 

5.2 Construction Minimization and Site Preparation 

The construction contractor will be responsible for minimizing the impact of the constructionrelated disturbance and thereby minimizing the amount of effort to reclaim the site. In order to 

minimize the impact by construction activities, Bison will clearly mark the limits of the 

Construction Right-of-Way (ROW) and access corridors. Signs will be used to help direct traffic 

onto designated access roads and staging areas. Environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands 

or rare plant populations will be identified and delineated for avoidance. Additional construction 

minimization activities are described below. 

5.2.1 Topsoil Salvage and Stockpiling 

Topsoil will be salvaged from the working side, over the trench, and over a portion of the spoil 

storage portion of the Construction ROW (a total width of 85 feet). The topsoil and subsoil will be 

stockpiled separately in a manner that minimizes mixing. Segregated topsoil will not be used for 

padding the pipe. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 10 

Topsoil is generally the top layer of soil containing the highest concentration of organic material and 

microorganisms (O/A soil horizons). Topsoil is especially valuable because it contains native seeds 

and soil stabilizing microorganisms such as mycorrhizal fungi, cryptogrammic crust spores, nitrogen 

fixing bacteria, soil algae, lichen, native seeds, and the best locally available growing medium for the 

native plants. In some areas traversed by the Project, topsoil is relatively thin (only 2 to 4 inches) and 

must be protected and salvaged to the maximum extent practical. Maintaining the topsoil separate 

from the subsoil is important and maximizes the likelihood of reclamation success. To the maximum 

extent practical, topsoil will be salvaged, stockpiled, and protected from degradation. Topsoil is live 

material and will be protected from loss, heating, compaction, etc. Long-term storage of topsoil can 

kill the beneficial live material in the soil. Topsoil will be segregated from subsoils so that the 

subsoil can be replaced in the trench first. The actual depth of topsoil, not to exceed 12 inches, will 

be stripped from the portion of the Construction ROW as described above. Table 5.2-1 lists areas, 

by milepost, with topsoil depth greater than 12 inches. 

Table 5.2-1 - Deep Topsoil Along the Bison Project 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Map Unit Name 

Topsoil 

Depth 

(inches) County State 

155.76 155.87 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

156.23 156.26 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

162.05 162.10 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

163.80 163.87 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

165.83 165.91 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

169.23 169.31 Chinook sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 12.99 Carter MT 

176.43 176.79 Ekalaka-Desart fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

177.38 177.52 Ekalaka-Desart fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

193.66 193.75 Ekalaka-Desart fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

193.95 193.98 Ekalaka-Desart fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

194.06 194.19 Ekalaka-Desart fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

199.55 199.60 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

200.36 200.41 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

200.42 200.47 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

201.39 201.45 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

201.87 202.02 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

202.16 202.27 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

205.21 205.31 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

205.35 205.45 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

205.90 205.96 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

209.15 209.20 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

209.24 209.27 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

209.81 209.85 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

209.90 209.92 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

210.33 210.43 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

212.82 212.89 Arnegard loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

212.95 212.98 Arnegard loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 12.99 Bowman ND 

225.88 225.92 Grassna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.93 Slope ND 

229.36 229.39 Grassna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.93 Slope ND 

230.11 230.18 Grassna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.93 Slope ND 

235.37 235.39 Grassna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.93 Slope ND 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 11 

Table 5.2-1 - Deep Topsoil Along the Bison Project 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Map Unit Name 

Topsoil 

Depth 

(inches) County State 

253.42 253.53 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Hettinger ND 

254.10 254.12 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Hettinger ND 

258.53 258.54 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Hettinger ND 

259.13 259.23 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Hettinger ND 

263.38 263.54 Arnegard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.99 Hettinger ND 

Special measures will be taken to minimize the loss of topsoil due to water and wind erosion. 

Erosion control mulch, native cover crop, or other suitable methods (e.g., fences) will be utilized to 

stabilize stockpiled topsoil against wind and water erosion. Topsoil will not be stored through more 

than one growing season. 

In the portion of the Construction ROW where no topsoil stripping is proposed, efforts will be made 

to keep the soil integrity intact and minimize mixing of soil horizons. These efforts may include: 

load-spreading stability measures for heavy machinery (to reduce rutting and indentations), wetweather shutdowns (to reduce rutting and soil compaction), and reduced skidding. 

5.2.2 Construction Waste 

During the course of construction and reclamation all waste material, including construction and 

industrial materials, and refuse will be properly disposed. Refuse and recycling containers will be 

placed throughout the Project site where construction is occurring, including equipment yards and 

staging areas. All refuse will be legally disposed off site, and receptacles will be emptied 

regularly. Refuse will be contained to prevent creating an attractive nuisance for wildlife. 

5.2.3 Pollutants 

Potential pollutants associated with pipeline construction, including oils, anti-freeze, solvents, 

pipeline adhesives or additives, and other chemicals, will be confined to the appropriate uses, and 

appropriately stored, maintained and disposed. Any detected leaks or spills will be cleaned up and 

reported immediately in compliance with on-site safety and environmental protocols specified in the 

Project Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (Appendix 2.C in Resource 

Report No. 2). 

5.2.4 Protection of All Survey Monuments 

Construction and reclamation activities will protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference 

monuments, and bearing trees, etc. from disturbance. If these monuments are damaged, a registered 

land surveyor will reestablish or restore the monuments in accordance with state land survey 

requirements. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 12 

5.2.5 Wetland and Waterbody Crossings 

Special care will be taken when crossing any riparian or wetland areas or drainage crossings (i.e., any 

ephemeral, seasonal, intermittent, or perennial stream channel) to minimize detrimental impacts to 

the extent practical. All construction work within wetlands and waterbodies will be completed in 

accordance with Bison’s Plan and Procedures (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7 and 

Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2, respectively). 

5.2.6 Weeds 

Between the periods of the first overland travel by Project personnel through Project reclamation, 

care will be taken to avoid the introduction of known exotic or invasive weeds or pathogens as 

specified in the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix 3.B in Resource Report No. 3). 

Wash stations will be established in accordance with the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan. 

See Section 8.1 below for further detail on weed control. 

5.3 Soil Reclamation 

5.3.1 Soil Decompaction 

Heavy vehicle traffic and staging material may affect the soil structure and micro pores, thereby 

hindering water infiltration, air exchange, and root penetration. Although the micro pores cannot be 

recreated, the larger voids in the soil can, which will help expedite the weathering of the compacted 

soil pedons and improve water infiltration and water holding capacity. Areas of compaction, as 

determined by the EI, will be decompacted as outlined below: 

 On gentle to moderate slopes, soil compaction will be alleviated by tilling the subsoil prior to 

respreading the topsoil. 

 On steep slopes no decompaction will occur or only surface scarifying will be performed, as 

appropriate. 

Tilling will occur along the slope contours and not up and down the slope, which would create soil 

rills and exacerbate soil erosion. 

5.3.2 Soil Preparation and Pitting 

Soil re-spreading will be performed by wide track D-6 dozer or equivalent over the areas along the 

contours. The tracks leave a dimpling effect that in addition to soil decompaction procedures will 

produce a slightly roughened surface, that matches the pre-construction topography. This roughened 

surface provides desirable micro-topography, including depressions, mounds, boulders, and woody 

debris, which provides a better substrate for seed application and growth. In cases where the soil 

surface must be smoothed, it will be completed in a fashion that will minimize compaction. In areas 

with steep slopes, seed application will be completed using broadcast/hydroseeding methods. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 13 

5.4 General Soil Erosion Control (all areas except LRP 

due to Highly Water and Wind Erodible Soils) 

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed immediately after initial 

disturbance of the soil as specified in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7), 

maintained throughout construction (on a daily basis) and reinstalled per Bison’s Plan until replaced 

by permanent erosion control structures or restoration of the areas disturbed by the Project is 

complete. Specifications and configurations for erosion and sediment control measures may be 

modified by Bison as necessary to suit the actual site conditions.

5.4.1 Temporary Slope Breakers 

Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity and divert water off the area 

disturbed by the Project. Temporary slope breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, silt 

fence, straw bales, or sand bags, and will be installed on all disturbed areas, as necessary to avoid 

excessive erosion in accordance with Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7). 

Temporary slope breakers will be installed on all disturbed areas as necessary to avoid excessive 

erosion. Temporary slope breakers will be installed on slopes greater than 5 percent where the base 

of the slope is less than 50 feet from waterbody and wetland and/or crossings at the following spacing 

(closer spacing can be used if necessary): 

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5-15 300

>15-30 200

>30 100

5.4.2 Sediment Barriers 

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, straw 

bales, compacted earth (e.g., drivable berms across travelways), sand bags, or other appropriate 

materials. At a minimum, temporary sediment barriers will be installed and maintain across the 

entire Construction ROW at the base of slopes greater than five percent where the base of the slope is 

less than 50 feet from a waterbody or wetland until revegetation is successful as defined in Bison’s 

Procedures (Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2). Adequate space will be left between the base 

of the slope and the sediment barrier to accommodate ponding of water and sediment deposition. 

Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to and downslope of construction work areas, sediment 

barriers will be installed along the edge of these areas, in accordance with Bison’s Procedures 

(Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2), to prevent sediment flow into the wetland or waterbody. 

5.4.3 Mulch 

Mulch will be applied 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. Mulch will be uniformly spread over the area to cover at least 75 percent of the ground 

surface at a rate of two tons/acre of straw or its equivalent, unless the local NRCS, landowner, or 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 14 

BLM approves otherwise in writing. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw, wood fiber hydromulch, 

erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent. 

The mulch will be placed prior to seeding if the final grading and installation of permanent erosion 

control measures will not be completed in an area within 60 days after the trench in that area is 

backfilled and rough grading occurs as a result of the interruption of construction or restoration 

activity for extended periods or when seeding cannot be completed due to seeding period restrictions. 

When mulching occurs before seeding, the mulch application on all slopes within 100 feet of 

waterbodies and wetlands will be increased to a rate of three tons/acre of straw or equivalent. Mulch 

will be adequately anchored to minimize loss due to wind and water. If mulch anchoring is 

accomplished with liquid mulch binders, the rates recommended by the manufacturer will be used. 

The EI will determine where these measures would be implemented. Liquid mulch binders will not 

be used within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies; mechanical anchoring such as straw or coconut 

wattles, jute netting, and erosion control mats will be used. 

5.5 Soil Mounding 

As discussed by Bison and BLM soil reclamation specialists at the BLM soil reclamation meeting at 

the Casper Field Office (AECOM, 2009), backfilled soil will be mounded over the trench after 

construction is completed. This will consist of up to a 6-inch gradual feathered rise over the trench 

which decreases to meet existing grade on both sides of the disturbed area. This is a typical postconstruction procedure to allow for settlement in the trench area. 

5.6 Soil Management and Reseeding Lands 

The listing of soils by milepost with this and all other LRP limitation as discussed in Section 5.6.1, 

through 5.6.7 is provided in Attachment 1, Tables 2, 3, and 4.

5.6.1 Water Erosion Susceptible Soils 

Soils designated as LRP due to susceptibility to water erosion are determined based on their Kw 

factor (an erodibility factor developed by NRCS) and the average slope of the soil. General soil 

erosion measures have been provided in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7). 

Soils in LRP areas may be more susceptible to water erosion than soils in non-LRP areas, but 

construction practices on LRP areas will also affect the potential for soil loss due to water. The small 

area of actual soil disturbance in LRP areas will help to reduce the potential for soil erosion, and will 

necessitate the following soil erosion control methods. 

The construction contractor will implement general erosion control measures such as silt fences, 

water bars, straw or coconut wattles, and erosion mats to prevent the loss of sediment during and 

immediately following construction. The erosion control measures will minimize the movement of 

sediment across the site, onto adjacent land, and into drainages. The arid climate results in dry soils, 

and heavy, short-duration storms tend to lead to transport of soils through the natural erosion process, 

especially on steep and rugged terrain. Bare soil following topsoil replacement is highly susceptible 

to water erosion. Soil will be vegetatively stabilized through seeding and the application of mulch. 

However, physical stabilization methods through the use of non-vegetative erosion control measures 

(i.e., silt fence, sandbags, straw or coconut wattles, jute netting, erosion mats, etc.) are to be used on 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 15 

the graded areas following construction until the plant community can become established. Erosion 

control measures such as coconut wattles slow water velocity and provide a short-term water 

reservoir, absorbing water for slow release into the soil for adjacent plants. 

The EI will be responsible for coordinating all erosion control efforts required following Project 

construction. If straw wattles are used for erosion control, only the “seed-free” variety will be used. 

Because the reclamation specialist is responsible for success of the restored plant community, it is to 

the reclamation specialist’s advantage to use as many preventive erosion control measures as 

necessary to prevent erosion damage. This will include slowing the velocity and dispersing 

concentrated water that is entering and exiting the reclamation site. All erosion control measures will 

be installed along slope contours in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Installing 

erosion control devices along the Project edge does not necessarily prevent erosion unless it occurs 

along a slope contour. All erosion control measures will be approved by the EI prior to purchase and 

installation. 

Temporary slope breakers will be constructed to reduce runoff velocity and divert water off of the 

excavated areas into well vegetated areas, rock/gravel aprons or silt fence. Slope breakers will be 

placed at regular intervals with spacing depending upon slope gradient to prevent excessive water 

from gaining enough velocity to cause rilling and erosion. In steeper areas and in areas leading up to 

steeper areas, slope breakers will be placed at closer intervals (see Section 5.4 above). 

Seeding mixes for highly water erodible soils provided by the BLM are listed below in Table 5.6-1. 

Seeding application rates will be based on BLM, Farm Services Agency (FSA) or Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations, as appropriate. 

Table 5.6-1 - Wind and Water Erosion Susceptible Soil Reseeding Mixture 

Wyoming Montana North Dakota

Grasses Grasses Grasses 

Needle-and-thread grass Bluebunch Wheatgrass Green Needlegrass 

Indian ricegrass Green Needlegrass Big Bluestem

Bluebunch wheatgrass Western Wheatgrass Switchgrass 

Western wheatgrass Thickspike Wheatgrass Sideoats Grama 

Bottlebrush squirreltail Slender Wheatgrass Canada Wildrye 

Prairie junegrass Little Bluestem Prairie Sandreed

Slender wheatgrass 

Forbs Forbs Forbs

Western yarrow Maximillian Sunflower Native legume/forb/shrub

Scarlet globemallow Purple Prairie Clover

American vetch American Vetch

Sulpher flower buckwheat Lewis Flax

Daisy fleabane 

Prairie aster

Lewis flax 

5.6.2 Wind Erosion Susceptible Soils 

Highly wind erodible soils are designated as LRP areas, and are so classified due to their high wind 

erodibility index (an erodibility factor developed by NRCS). General soil erosion measures have 

been provided in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7). Soils in LRP areas may be 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 16 

more susceptible to wind erosion than soils in non-LRP areas, but construction practices on LRP 

areas will also affect the potential for soil loss due to wind. Minimizing the area of soil disturbance 

in LRP areas will help to reduce the potential for soil erosion. 

The construction or reclamation specialist will implement general erosion control measures as 

specified in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7) and Bison’s Procedures 

(Appendix 2.A in Resource Report 2), which will minimize the movement of sediment off site. The 

bare soil following grading is highly susceptible to water erosion. Erosion control measures, such as 

weed free mulch, may be utilized to protect the soil surface and reduce soil moisture loss for plant 

reestablishment. 

Seeding mixes for highly wind erodible soils provided by the BLM are listed above in Table 5.6-1. 

Seeding application rates will be based on BLM, Farm Services Agency (FSA) or Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations, as appropriate. 

5.6.3 Droughty Soils 

Droughty soils are designated as LRP areas because they have low available water capacity within 40 

inches of the soil surface. These soils, which typically have sandy or gravelly textures, lack 

sufficient water holding capacity to sustain most types of vegetation during periods of low 

precipitation. All LRP areas so designated will be seeded to drought tolerant species. These areas 

will also be mulched after soil replacement to preserve moisture. The seeding mixes for droughty 

soils are included below in Table 5.6-2. Seeding application rates will be based on BLM, Farm 

Services Agency (FSA) or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations, as 

appropriate.

Table 5.6-2 - Suggested Droughty Soil Reseeding Mixtures 

Wyoming Montana North Dakota 

Grasses Grasses Grasses

Needle-and-thread grass Bluebunch wheat grass Needle-and-thread grass

Indian ricegrass Western wheat grass Little bluestem

Bluebunch wheatgrass Needle-and-thread grass Blue gamma 

Western wheatgrass Little bluestem

Bottlebrush squirreltail Creeping juniper

Prairie junegrass 

Slender wheatgrass 

Forbs 

Western yarrow 

Scarlet globemallow 

American vetch 

Sulpher flower buckwheat 

Daisy fleabane 

Prairie aster 

Lewis flax 

Shrubs 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

Winterfat 

Fourwing saltbush 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 17 

5.6.4 Salt Affected Soils 

Salt-affected or saline soils occur in areas where salts are transported by groundwater to other 

positions on the landscape and concentrated at the ground surface. The water moved to the surface 

evaporates and the salts are concentrated in the surface soil layers. Saline soils are gauged by a 

measure of electrical conductivity in the upper 7 inches of the soil. Where soils are determined to 

have an electrical conductivity of greater than or equal to16 mmhos/cm in the surface 7 inches of the 

soil, they are considered to be severely salt affected and LRP areas due to salt content. At this salt 

concentration water uptake by plants can be limited due to osmotic affect, specific ion toxicity can 

occur, and soil structure and permeability can be disrupted. 

Field soil tests will be conducted in all areas mapped as saline soils. Tests will be concentrated in 

areas likely to contain saline soils, such as low areas, areas where white crusty material is observable 

on the soil surface or where plants under salt stress are observed. The EI will test these areas, and 

delineate those using GPS. Final locations of saline soils will be provided to the reclamation 

specialist or construction contractor, depending on who is overseeing reclamation activities. 

Saline soils are difficult to reclaim, but some reclamation methods are available. The primary 

methods of reclamation on saline soils are application of organic matter and planting salt tolerant 

species. Organic matter such as straw, rotted hay or crop residue will be applied; application rates 

will be coordinated with BLM. Planting of salt-tolerant forage species will assist in reclamation over 

time, as well. Table 5.6-3 below provides a list of salt-tolerant species provided by the BLM and by 

Montana Cooperative Extension (Montana State University, 2009). These species will be planted at 

rates determined by consultation with the BLM, Farm Services Agency (FSA) or Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations, as appropriate.

Table 5.6-3 - Suggested Saline/Sodic Soil Reseeding Mixtures 

Wyoming Saline Lowlands Montana Saline Lowlands North Dakota Saline Lowlands 

Grasses Grasses Grasses

Alkali sacaton NewHy wheat grass Beardless wildrye 

Western wheat grass Tall wheat grass Slender wheat grass 

Bottlebrush squirreltail Alti wild rye Western wheat grass 

Indian rice grass Slender wheat grass 

Bluebunch wheat grass Western wheat grass 

Prairie junegrass Russian wild rye 

Slender wheat grass 

Forbs Forbs 

Western yarrow Alsike Clover 

Scarlet globemallow 

American vetch 

Sulpher flower buckwheat 

Daisy fleabane 

Prairie aster 

Lewis flax 

Shrubs Shrubs 

Wyoming big sagebrush Fourwing Gardner Saltbush 

Winterfat 

Gardner’s saltbush 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 18 

5.6.5 Sodium Affected Soils 

Sodium-affected or sodic soils are low in total salts (as measured by electro-conductivity) and high in 

exchangeable sodium (measured by SAR). The BLM has determined that soils designated LRP areas 

for sodium content have an SAR value in the surface 7 inches of greater than or equal to 13. Soils 

high in sodium have dense clayey layers within 18 inches of the soil surface. These soils are very 

hard when dry, have a high pH, and are nearly impervious to roots, water, and air. The classification 

of salt-and sodium-affected soils is summarized below in Table 5.6-4. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 19 

Table 5.6-4 - Salt and Sodium Affected Soil Classification 

Classification Electrical 

Conductivity 

(mmhos/cm) 

Sodium Adsorption 

Ratio (SAR) 

pH 

Saline >4.0 <13 <8.5 

Sodic <4.0 >13 >8.5 

Saline-Sodic >4.0 >13 <8.5 

Field soil tests will be conducted in all areas mapped as sodic soils. Tests will be concentrated in 

areas likely to contain sodic soils, such as low nearly level areas with dark surface layers, or white 

surface layers, or where plants under salt stress are observed. The EI will test these areas as needed, 

and delineate them using aerial photography interpretation or GPS. 

Sodic soils are difficult to reclaim, but progress toward reclamation can be made by adding chemical 

amendments, organic matter, or deep tillage. The EI will determine where amendments are 

necessary and the quantities that are required. Gypsum (CaSO4) will be applied after soil disturbance 

in rates based on general recommendations from the BLM and using data from the field soil tests. 

Salt tolerant species described by state (Table 6.4-3) will also be planted at rates determined by 

consultation with the BLM, Farm Services Agency (FSA) or Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) recommendations, as appropriate. 

5.6.6 Shallow Soils 

The BLM has indicated that soils determined to be LRP areas due to shallow soils have rooting depth 

limitations within 10 inches of the soil surface. These soils are generally shallow to bedrock or other 

material that is impenetrable to plant roots. In these areas, extra care must be taken to salvage any 

available soil material and to replace it after construction. These areas will also be mulched after soil 

replacement to preserve moisture. The seeding mix used in these areas is included in Table 5.6-5 

below. 

Table 5.6-5 - Suggested Shallow Soil Reseeding Mixtures 

Wyoming Montana North Dakota 

Grasses Grasses Grasses

Green needlegrass Bluebunch wheat grass Needle-and-thread 

Western wheat grass Western wheat grass Little bluestem 

Bluebunch wheat grass Needle-and-thread Blue gamma 

Needle-and-thread Little bluestem 

Prairie sandreed Creeping juniper 

5.6.7 Miscellaneous Components 

LRP areas, so designated by meeting the miscellaneous components criteria, consist of soil map units 

of areas such as open water features, gravel pits, rock or shale outcrops, riverwash areas or badland. 

Miscellaneous areas will be confirmed by the EI. These areas will typically not be vegetated, and 

revegetation will not be practical. Miscellaneous areas will be restored to preconstruction conditions 

to the extent practical. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 20 

5.6.8 Seed Quality and Seeding Methods 

Plant Species and Seeding Time 

The post-construction plant species composition and structure will aim to reflect the current 

conditions prior to disturbance. Diversity of plant species has ecological benefits to plants as well as 

to the soils and wildlife in the area. The proposed seed mixes will be sourced locally when practical 

and installed during the appropriate growing season. A diverse community of plant species with no 

one species making up more than 30 percent of the seed mix will be used unless the conditions 

warrant a higher level. Native vegetation generally requires five to ten years in this environment to 

establishment into self–sustaining ecosystem. Ideally, seeding will occur in the fall prior to the first 

heavy snowfall; however, construction timing may make this impractical. Fall seeding minimizes the 

length of time that seed sits on the ground before germinating when it is susceptible to loss from 

birds, rodents, and wind and water erosion. The winter temperatures and moisture help to prime the 

seed and initiate germination as temperatures warm and snow melts. The sooner in the year the 

seedlings have a chance to germinate, the more likely they will survive the hot summer months. 

Early spring seeding will also result in successful yet potentially reduced germination. 

Quality of Available Seed 

To the maximum extent practical, Bison will purchase certified seed from the local area with similar 

microclimate and genetics. Adverse weather conditions may reduce the amount of available seed. 

Bison will coordinate in advance with seed companies/collectors in the Project area to procure the 

most suitable seed. 

Seed Installation 

The vegetation on the disturbed sites will be reestablished through seeding efforts. Broadcast seeding 

is the preferred method of seed placement in all areas. The BLM has requested that seed be 

broadcast, rolled, and pitted on BLM-managed lands to ensure good seed-soil contact and to provide 

micro-topography advantageous for plant growth. Other seeding methods may be used upon 

concurrence with the BLM under appropriate conditions. 

6.0 Procedures in Agricultural Areas 

The Agricultural Mitigation Plan (Appendix 7.I in Resource Report No. 7) contains Project 

construction standards and policies to be implemented to help minimize the impact of the Project 

activities on any Agricultural land that is impacted by the Project. 

At the discretion of the EI and after consultation with the landowner, soil testing may be conducted in 

selected areas in Agricultural lands where reclamation could benefit from fertilizer or other soil 

amendments. These tests will be conducted prior to, during or after construction on an as-needed 

basis. If soil samples are collected, they need to be collected at the soil surface, at 6 inches, and 18 

inches in depth, and analysis will include the following: 

 pH and electroconductivity (salinity) measurement; 

 Measurement of sodicity (Sodium Adsorption Ratio); 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 21 

 Saturation extract: nitrate, chloride, sulfate, sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, soluble 

phosphate and boron; 

 Estimate of soil texture and soil organic matter; and 

 Presence of lime. 

7.0 Procedures for All Other Areas (i.e., Not 

Otherwise Designated as Agricultural Lands 

or LRP Areas) 

In general, non-LRP lands are lands that are not Agricultural and are not classified as LRP. The nonLRP Lands classification includes such features as windbreaks, emergent, scrub/shrub and forested 

wetlands, ephemeral, intermittent, perennial and seasonal streams, upland forests, rangeland and 

grassland, and scrub-shrub areas. These features are described in Section 3.2.1 in Resource Report 

No. 3. 

7.1 Contractor Education 

Contractor education will be consistent with that described in Section 5.1 above. 

7.2 Construction Minimization and Site Preparation 

Construction minimization will be consistent with that described in Section 5.2 above. Additional 

construction minimization activities are described below. 

7.2.1 Topsoil Stripping 

Unless a landowner specifically approves otherwise, the mixing of topsoil with subsoil will be 

minimized by stripping topsoil from the working and spoil storage portion of the Construction ROW 

(a total width of 85 feet) in areas addressed in this section. To the maximum extent practical, topsoil 

will be salvaged, stockpiled, and protected from degradation in all areas addressed by this section of 

the Reclamation Plan. Topsoil is live material and, to the extent practical, will be protected from 

loss, heating, compaction, etc. Long-term storage of topsoil can kill the beneficial live material in the 

soil. Topsoil will be segregated from subsoil so that the horizons can be replaced in the same order 

removed. Segregated topsoil will not be used for padding the pipe. 

In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil), 12 inches of topsoil will be segregated. Table 6.2-1

lists areas, by MP, with topsoil thicknesses greater than 12 inches. In soils with less than 12 inches of 

topsoil, the entire topsoil layer will be segregated. 

Soil salvage will be consistent with that described in Section 5.2.1 above. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 22 

7.2.2 Construction Waste, Pollutants, and Protection of All Survey 

Monuments 

Construction waste and pollutant handling, and protection of survey monuments will be consistent 

with that described in Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 above. 

7.2.3 Weeds, Weed and Thatch Removal, and Herbicide Treatment 

Guidelines 

See Section 8.1 for further detail on weed control. 

7.3 Soil Reclamation 

Soil decompaction will be consistent with that described in Section 5.3.1 above. 

7.4 Soil Erosion Control 

Soil Erosion Control will be consistent with that described in Section 5.4 above. 

7.5 Soil Mounding 

Soil mounding will be consistent with that described in Section 5.5 above. 

7.6 Reseeding 

7.6.1 Seedbed Preparation and Timing 

Appropriate equipment will be used to prepare a firm seedbed to a depth of 3 to 4 inches in disturbed 

areas. If hydroseeding is used, the seedbed will be scarified to facilitate lodging and germination of 

seed. Disturbed areas will be seeded in accordance with written recommendations for seed mixes, 

rates, and dates obtained from the local NRCS or the request of the landowner. Seeding is not 

required in cultivated croplands unless requested by the landowner. 

Seeding of permanent vegetation and non-cropland will be performed within the recommended 

seeding dates. If seeding cannot be done within those dates, appropriate temporary erosion corrosion 

measures (discussed in Section 5.4 above) will be used, and seeding permanent vegetation will occur 

at the beginning of the next recommended seeding season. In the absence of written 

recommendations from the local NCRS, seed all disturbed soils within 6 days of final grading 

(replacement of topsoil), weather and soil conditions permitting. 

7.6.2 Seed Recommendations and Planting Methods 

Seeding rates will be based on Pure Live Seed. Seed will be used within 12 months of initial 

viability testing. Legume seed will be treated with an inoculant specific to the species using the 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 23 

manufacturer’s recommended rate of inoculant appropriate for the seeding method (broadcast, aerial, 

drill, or hydro). 

Broadcast, aerial or hydroseeding can be used in lieu of drilling at double the recommended seeding 

rates. Where seed is broadcast, the seedbed will be lightly compacted with a roller or other suitable 

equipment 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 EI. The following seed mixes listed under Table 7.6-1 may be used 

in their respective states at seeding rates specified by the NRCS of each state. The FSA office in 

North Dakota has provided a seed mixture for grass/legume cover to be used for re-establishing 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields. Similar seed mixture criteria have not yet been 

provided by the FSA offices in Wyoming and Montana. 

Table 7.6-1 - NRCS Suggested CRP and Private Rangeland Reseeding Mixtures 

Wyoming Montana North Dakota 

Grasses Grasses Grasses (for CRP lands)

Western wheatgrass Indian Ricegrass Intermediate wheatgrass (50% or 4.3 PLS/ac) 

Indian ricegrass Bluebunch Wheatgrass Slender wheatgrass (20% or 1.0 PLS/ac) 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Green Needlegrass Alfalfa (20% or 1.1 PLS.AC) 

Bottlebrush squirreltail Western Wheatgrass Sweetclover (10% or .3 PLS/ac) 

Green needlegrass Thickspike Wheatgrass 

Prairie junegrass Slender Wheatgrass 

Slender wheatgrass Little Bluestem 

Forbs Forbs Forbs/Shrubs 

Western yarrow Lewis Flax Maximilian Sunflower 

Scarlet globemallow Maximillian Sunflower Native legume/forb/shrub 

American vetch Purple Prairie Clover 

Sulpher flower buckwheat American Vetch 

Daisy fleabane Scarlet Globemallow 

Prairie aster 

Lewis flax 

Shrubs 

WY big sagebrush 

Winterfat 

Gardner’s saltbush 

8.0 Maintenance 

Maintenance of the reclamation areas will be in accordance with the Reclamation Plan until the 

performance standards specified in Section 10.1 are achieved. Normal maintenance will include 

weed control and the consideration of measures necessary to mitigate the impact of herbivores on 

LRP areas requiring extraordinary reclamation methods to assist with revegetation. Maintenance 

activities also will comply with Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7) and Bison’s 

Procedures (Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2). 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 24 

The newly installed plant community must be maintained regularly to ensure its successful 

establishment. At the end of the first year, an inspection of the reclamation areas will be conducted 

by the EI. 

8.1 Weed Control 

Predisturbance Planning and Site Preparation

As described in Appendix 3.B in Resource Report No. 3, noxious weed surveys will be conducted on 

the Construction ROW and extra workspace. Species sought are those currently listed as undesirably 

invasive by federal, state, and local officials (Table 3.0-1 in Resource Report No. 3). Known weed 

populations located on the Construction ROW and extra workspace (discovered and recorded during 

the 2008 and 2009 environmental studies) and new populations found in the focused preconstruction 

survey will be mapped and appropriate measures will be taken to minimize their spread. Measures 

may include physical removal, spot spraying with approved herbicides (as described below), 

mechanical treatment, or covering with growth preventing materials (e.g., black plastic tarps). 

The extent of cheatgrass infestation throughout the Project area makes treatment of every affected 

area infeasible. Construction equipment will be cleaned in accordance with the Noxious and 

Invasive Weed Control Plan. Isolated infestations of cheatgrass will be controlled on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Reclamation 

Weeds targeted for removal and weed treatment will be in accordance with the Noxious and Invasive 

Weed Control Plan (Appendix 3.B in Resource Report No. 3) or other land management agency or 

landowner agreement. Special care will be taken to prevent damage to native plants. 

Occurrences of noxious and invasive weeds will be treated for a period of 3 years or until the reestablishment of self-sustaining native vegetation communities meet pre-disturbance parameters for 

cover, production, and diversity, as measured at adjacent undisturbed areas. Because weed treatment 

will be limited to the Construction ROW and extra workspace, in areas where pre-construction 

surveys show heavy weed infestations or in areas where weed infestations are located outside of the 

Construction ROW and extra workspace, complete eradication of noxious and non-native invasive 

weeds may not be feasible. 

8.2 Pest Control 

Insect damage control will be accomplished using only those methods approved by the EI. Any 

insect infestation will be treated as necessary to protect the health and establishment of the plant 

community, per the recommendation of the EI. 

8.3 Site Maintenance 

All planted and seeded areas will be kept free of all non-vegetative debris and trash, to the extent 

practical. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 25 

8.4 Pruning and Leaf Litter Removal 

No pruning or leaf litter removal will take place within the reclamation area since the goal is to create 

a naturally occurring habitat. Therefore, all dead branches will be left on the shrubs and trees, and all 

leaf litter and fallen branches will be left in place and not cleared away from the plantings. 

8.5 Fertilizer 

No fertilizers will be used on the reclamation area during the maintenance period, unless directed by 

the EI, or as specifically directed by the landowner on private lands. This is especially important in 

LRP areas. Many native plants are adapted to grow in low nutrient soil and often times the addition 

of fertilizer can result in increased weed growth. Fertilizers may be used on Agricultural portions of 

the Project at appropriate rates for crops. 

8.6 Erosion Control 

Temporary erosion control devices will be installed and maintained throughout the Project 

construction period. If damaged, devices will be repaired as soon as practical upon identification. As 

described in Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in Resource Report No. 7) and Bison’s Procedures 

(Appendix 2.A in Resource Report No. 2), permanent erosion control devices will be constructed as 

appropriate for long-term use. 

9.0 Remedial Measures 

The purpose of the remedial measures is to remedy unsuccessful reclamation efforts, as indicated by 

non-native species or low native plant cover. The EI will ensure all performance standards are met 

for the Project. The EI will perform periodic inspections of the Project and communicate to the 

reclamation specialist any need for remedial measures. Remedial measures as identified in the 

monitoring report or field memorandums include weed eradication, replacement of dead or diseased 

plants, or reseeding as necessary to meet the performance standards. Such actions will be taken 

promptly upon the identification of problems, and will be implemented as often as necessary to meet 

the performance standards. When appropriate, the responsibilities of the EI with regard to 

reclamation efforts will be transferred to the Bison operating personnel. 

Adaptive management actions will be used to initiate or accelerate the recovery of the ecosystem in 

light of unforeseen circumstances as appropriate. Weed management, grazing enclosures, or other 

measures, such as special management for wildlife, visual, cultural, recreational, or range 

considerations, may be utilized based on monitoring observations and analysis of reporting in 

accordance with an approved monitoring protocol. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 26 

10.0 Performance and Monitoring 

10.1 Performance Standards 

The Project will be considered completed when the performance standards outlined below are 

achieved. These performance standards are derived from BLM guidance and Bison’s Plan. 

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, reclamation will be considered successful if crop yields are similar to 

adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. If baseline survey shows weedy conditions to be preconstruction, the EI will consult with regulatory authorities regarding the final performance 

standards. Soils determined to be LRP areas due to being mapped as miscellaneous components, 

such as badlands, will not have performance standards applied; generally these areas are not capable 

of supporting vegetation. 

Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fence and waddles will be removed and properly 

disposed once these performance standards have been attained. Any sediment that has accumulated 

behind silt fences will be evenly spread around a well-vegetated area, at least 100 feet from any 

wetland or waterbody. Straw bales may be broken up and spread evenly over the Permanent ROW. 

10.2 Monitoring and Reporting 

10.2.1 Combined Method 

Monitoring is the orderly and quantitative collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to 

evaluate progress toward meeting management objectives. Monitoring will begin with predisturbance surveys performed by the construction contractor before disturbance takes place. 

Monitoring of the Project will be conducted once per year; the construction contractor will perform 

this monitoring until construction is completed, and Bison will utilize a biologist or botanist to 

perform this monitoring after construction is completed. The contractor education program listed 

above will be put in place as a mechanism for all Project personnel to be trained and encouraged to 

report weed infestations, soil erosion, waste materials, and any other circumstances not in accordance 

with this Reclamation Plan to the EI during construction. 

Based on discussions with BLM staff (AECOM, 2009) monitoring on BLM land will be performed 

using an aerial survey method with limited ground verification. This method will rely on a 

combination of both aerial surveys (described below) and limited ground based verification surveys. . 

The ground based verification surveys will verify percent cover of non-nuisance vegetation and note 

cover of noxious and invasive vegetation. Photos will be taken at each location and submitted with 

the monitoring report. Aerial surveys and image analysis will be conducted over the entire 302 miles 

of the Project, and ground based verification surveys will be established in disturbed areas for each of 

the LRP classification areas in each BLM field office region. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 27 

Monitoring is a tool that leads to adaptive management and can identify problems in the early stages 

so that they can be addressed while cost-effective measures are still available. The analysis of 

collected data will indicate what areas and plant communities are more complicated or take longer to 

restore. Native vegetation generally requires 5-10 years for establishment to the point that it is self 

sustaining. Monitoring and reporting will address the optimum production of vegetation, control of 

undesirable species, conservation of water, control of erosion, and special management needs (e.g., 

wildlife habitat, visual, cultural, recreation, range or other management objectives). The process of 

monitoring, evaluating, documenting/reporting, and implementing will be repeated until the 

performance standards contained within this Reclamation Plan and Bison’s Plan (Appendix 7.D in 

Resource Report No. 7) are achieved. A disturbed area has recovered when it contains sufficient 

biotic and abiotic resources to continue its development and interactions without further assistance or 

subsidy. The area will demonstrate resilience to normal ranges of environmental stress and 

disturbance. An annual report will be submitted to the FERC and BLM for compliance with this 

reclamation plan. This monitoring plan provides for a mechanism for industry to show due diligence 

and may preclude enforcement actions by documenting the amount of effort applied to reclamation. 

The monitoring plan is designed primarily as a tracking system and feedback loop to ensure that 

treatments used in reclamation are accomplishing desired goals and objectives. This data may also 

be used by the BLM or FERC to track other disturbances not caused by the Project and, therefore the 

reclamation of which is not be the responsibility of Bison. The areas disturbed by the Project will be 

monitored for plant survival and percent cover by native and non-native species. The chosen 

methodologies incorporate simple procedures that ensure accuracy and efficiency after a short 

training period. 

Monitoring reports will be submitted to FERC and the BLM, and will address the reclamation of the 

areas disturbed by the Project, including methods used to assess the progress of the developing plant 

community and photographic documentation. In the reports, Bison’s representative will provide 

conclusions regarding the success or failure of reclamation, including specific evidence supporting 

the conclusions reached. The reports will be submitted annually following the respective monitoring 

year. If reclamation efforts have met the performance standards discussed in Section 10.1 by the 

third year of annual monitoring, the areas in which performance standards are met will no longer 

need to be monitored. 

10.2.2 Aerial Survey 

The entire alignment will be flown and data collected using the very large scale aerial (VLSA) survey 

technique described below. The first VLSA survey will be conducted during the growing season 

prior to the beginning of construction to provide baseline data of the areas disturbed by the Project. 

During the 3 years of monitoring events, transect location information will be incorporated into the 

VLSA survey to allow for field verification of the VLSA. If reclamation efforts have met the 

performance standards discussed in Section 10.1 by the third year of annual monitoring, the areas in 

which performance standards are met will no longer need to be monitored. 

11.0 References 

AECOM, 2009, Meeting Minutes, Discussion of BLM Soil Reclamation, BLM, Casper Field Office, 

January 27, 2009. 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 28 

Millar, J., 2003. Managing Salt Affected Soils, Downloaded from 

http://www.sdnotill.com/Newsletters/2003_Salt_Soils.pdf on 2/16/09. 

MT State University, 2009. Frequently Asked Questions, Saline or Sodic Water and Soils, 

downloaded from http://waterquality.MT.edu/docs/methane/saline-sodic_faq.shtml on 

2/20/09. 

National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (2009). Wind Erosion. Downloaded from 

http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/weppmain/overview/wndersn.html on 2/16/09. 

Ritter, Michael E. The Physical Environment: an Introduction to Physical Geography. 2006. 

Downloaded from. http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/title_page.html 

on 2/16/09.
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 29 

Attachment 1 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 30 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

17.35 17.58 0.23 Campbell Wyoming 

17.61 17.71 0.10 Campbell Wyoming 

35.12 35.55 0.43 Campbell Wyoming 

35.72 36.12 0.40 Campbell Wyoming 

37.76 37.90 0.14 Campbell Wyoming 

39.41 39.65 0.24 Campbell Wyoming 

39.70 39.88 0.18 Campbell Wyoming 

39.95 40.20 0.25 Campbell Wyoming 

41.81 42.00 0.19 Campbell Wyoming 

42.44 42.45 0.01 Campbell Wyoming 

42.49 42.61 0.12 Campbell Wyoming 

44.43 44.55 0.12 Campbell Wyoming 

44.77 44.91 0.14 Campbell Wyoming 

44.91 45.39 0.48 Campbell Wyoming 

53.29 53.41 0.12 Campbell Wyoming 

72.01 72.10 0.09 Campbell Wyoming 

78.42 78.46 0.04 Campbell Wyoming 

78.49 78.78 0.29 Campbell Wyoming 

79.43 79.65 0.22 Powder River Montana 

81.90 82.12 0.22 Powder River Montana 

82.12 82.15 0.03 Powder River Montana 

84.35 84.70 0.35 Powder River Montana 

104.70 105.27 0.57 Carter Montana 

107.37 107.43 0.06 Carter Montana 

110.45 110.76 0.31 Carter Montana 

110.80 111.06 0.26 Carter Montana 

114.02 114.26 0.24 Carter Montana 

114.85 115.39 0.54 Carter Montana 

129.72 129.85 0.13 Carter Montana 

129.91 130.48 0.57 Carter Montana 

130.56 130.80 0.24 Carter Montana 

135.29 135.64 0.35 Carter Montana 

144.48 145.09 0.61 Carter Montana 

145.13 145.17 0.04 Carter Montana 

145.17 145.60 0.43 Carter Montana 

147.53 147.59 0.06 Carter Montana 

147.62 147.73 0.11 Carter Montana 

148.39 148.49 0.10 Carter Montana 

148.55 148.94 0.39 Carter Montana 

149.54 149.60 0.06 Carter Montana 

150.26 150.49 0.23 Carter Montana 

152.66 152.95 0.29 Carter Montana 

153.03 153.35 0.32 Carter Montana 

154.09 154.18 0.09 Carter Montana 

154.26 154.48 0.22 Carter Montana 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 31 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

154.53 154.67 0.14 Carter Montana 

156.26 156.34 0.08 Carter Montana 

157.48 157.71 0.23 Carter Montana 

159.94 160.78 0.84 Carter Montana 

160.79 160.83 0.04 Carter Montana 

161.76 162.05 0.29 Carter Montana 

162.08 162.09 0.01 Carter Montana 

166.78 167.47 0.69 Carter Montana 

167.88 167.99 0.11 Carter Montana 

168.08 168.69 0.61 Carter Montana 

168.85 168.94 0.09 Carter Montana 

169.43 169.44 0.01 Carter Montana 

169.44 169.66 0.22 Fallon Montana 

171.28 171.92 0.64 Fallon Montana 

172.00 172.78 0.78 Fallon Montana 

172.82 173.22 0.40 Fallon Montana 

173.44 173.61 0.17 Fallon Montana 

173.61 173.73 0.12 Fallon Montana 

175.11 175.38 0.27 Fallon Montana 

175.56 175.70 0.14 Fallon Montana 

183.74 183.75 0.01 Bowman North Dakota 

183.76 183.99 0.23 Bowman North Dakota 

184.06 184.12 0.06 Bowman North Dakota 

184.32 184.98 0.66 Bowman North Dakota 

185.84 186.52 0.68 Bowman North Dakota 

187.81 187.93 0.12 Bowman North Dakota 

192.18 192.28 0.10 Bowman North Dakota 

192.29 192.47 0.18 Bowman North Dakota 

195.59 197.24 1.65 Bowman North Dakota 

197.44 197.72 0.28 Bowman North Dakota 

197.75 198.03 0.28 Bowman North Dakota 

198.20 198.23 0.03 Bowman North Dakota 

198.25 198.55 0.30 Bowman North Dakota 

199.50 199.57 0.07 Bowman North Dakota 

199.57 199.75 0.18 Bowman North Dakota 

200.70 200.99 0.29 Bowman North Dakota 

202.63 203.38 0.75 Bowman North Dakota 

203.91 204.20 0.29 Bowman North Dakota 

205.06 205.40 0.34 Bowman North Dakota 

205.88 206.07 0.19 Bowman North Dakota 

206.30 206.70 0.40 Bowman North Dakota 

206.71 207.73 1.02 Bowman North Dakota 

208.80 209.62 0.82 Bowman North Dakota 

209.90 210.99 1.09 Bowman North Dakota 

211.01 211.58 0.57 Bowman North Dakota 

211.59 211.85 0.26 Bowman North Dakota 

211.90 212.14 0.24 Bowman North Dakota 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 32 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

212.15 212.67 0.52 Bowman North Dakota 

213.98 214.28 0.30 Bowman North Dakota 

214.31 214.60 0.29 Bowman North Dakota 

214.61 215.32 0.71 Bowman North Dakota 

215.40 215.55 0.15 Bowman North Dakota 

215.84 215.88 0.04 Bowman North Dakota 

215.98 216.11 0.13 Bowman North Dakota 

216.21 216.27 0.06 Bowman North Dakota 

216.35 216.41 0.06 Bowman North Dakota 

216.53 217.34 0.81 Bowman North Dakota 

217.34 217.55 0.21 Bowman North Dakota 

218.28 218.30 0.02 Slope North Dakota 

219.16 219.24 0.08 Slope North Dakota 

219.40 219.59 0.19 Slope North Dakota 

220.24 220.53 0.29 Slope North Dakota 

220.55 220.58 0.03 Slope North Dakota 

220.85 220.92 0.07 Slope North Dakota 

221.96 222.39 0.43 Slope North Dakota 

222.41 222.65 0.24 Slope North Dakota 

222.92 223.44 0.52 Slope North Dakota 

223.45 223.73 0.28 Slope North Dakota 

224.67 225.35 0.68 Slope North Dakota 

225.36 225.51 0.15 Slope North Dakota 

225.52 226.56 1.04 Slope North Dakota 

226.57 226.63 0.06 Slope North Dakota 

226.64 226.94 0.30 Slope North Dakota 

227.27 227.62 0.35 Slope North Dakota 

227.66 228.17 0.51 Slope North Dakota 

228.19 228.72 0.53 Slope North Dakota 

229.27 229.82 0.55 Slope North Dakota 

229.83 230.27 0.44 Slope North Dakota 

230.33 230.42 0.09 Slope North Dakota 

230.43 230.96 0.53 Slope North Dakota 

230.97 231.01 0.04 Slope North Dakota 

231.02 232.14 1.12 Slope North Dakota 

232.15 232.38 0.23 Slope North Dakota 

232.42 233.23 0.81 Slope North Dakota 

233.23 233.76 0.53 Slope North Dakota 

233.90 234.47 0.57 Slope North Dakota 

234.50 234.61 0.11 Slope North Dakota 

234.64 235.16 0.52 Slope North Dakota 

235.19 235.20 0.01 Slope North Dakota 

235.21 235.39 0.18 Slope North Dakota 

235.52 235.82 0.30 Slope North Dakota 

236.06 236.30 0.24 Slope North Dakota 

236.54 237.34 0.80 Slope North Dakota 

237.69 238.71 1.02 Hettinger North Dakota 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 33 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

239.05 239.79 0.74 Hettinger North Dakota 

239.79 239.90 0.11 Hettinger North Dakota 

239.93 240.26 0.33 Hettinger North Dakota 

240.27 240.91 0.64 Hettinger North Dakota 

240.92 241.65 0.73 Hettinger North Dakota 

241.65 242.30 0.65 Hettinger North Dakota 

242.55 243.09 0.54 Hettinger North Dakota 

243.10 244.18 1.08 Hettinger North Dakota 

244.19 244.47 0.28 Hettinger North Dakota 

245.21 246.36 1.15 Hettinger North Dakota 

246.37 247.42 1.05 Hettinger North Dakota 

247.45 247.78 0.33 Hettinger North Dakota 

247.81 248.52 0.71 Hettinger North Dakota 

248.53 248.99 0.46 Hettinger North Dakota 

249.00 249.18 0.18 Hettinger North Dakota 

249.71 250.16 0.45 Hettinger North Dakota 

250.55 250.64 0.09 Hettinger North Dakota 

250.86 251.21 0.35 Hettinger North Dakota 

251.74 252.83 1.09 Hettinger North Dakota 

252.86 252.90 0.04 Hettinger North Dakota 

252.93 253.30 0.37 Hettinger North Dakota 

253.31 253.37 0.06 Hettinger North Dakota 

253.37 253.41 0.04 Hettinger North Dakota 

254.13 254.42 0.29 Hettinger North Dakota 

254.46 255.11 0.65 Hettinger North Dakota 

255.12 255.34 0.22 Hettinger North Dakota 

255.37 255.56 0.19 Hettinger North Dakota 

255.58 256.20 0.62 Hettinger North Dakota 

256.22 256.69 0.47 Hettinger North Dakota 

256.70 256.74 0.04 Hettinger North Dakota 

256.75 257.28 0.53 Hettinger North Dakota 

257.33 257.69 0.36 Hettinger North Dakota 

257.97 258.03 0.06 Hettinger North Dakota 

258.04 258.50 0.46 Hettinger North Dakota 

258.51 258.87 0.36 Hettinger North Dakota 

259.11 259.59 0.48 Hettinger North Dakota 

259.60 259.95 0.35 Hettinger North Dakota 

259.98 260.56 0.58 Hettinger North Dakota 

260.57 260.68 0.11 Hettinger North Dakota 

260.69 261.32 0.63 Hettinger North Dakota 

261.33 261.80 0.47 Hettinger North Dakota 

261.81 262.04 0.23 Hettinger North Dakota 

262.51 262.76 0.25 Hettinger North Dakota 

262.91 262.96 0.05 Hettinger North Dakota 

263.21 263.80 0.59 Hettinger North Dakota 

263.82 264.09 0.27 Hettinger North Dakota 

264.10 264.23 0.13 Hettinger North Dakota 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 34 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

264.45 265.15 0.70 Hettinger North Dakota 

265.15 265.42 0.27 Hettinger North Dakota 

265.42 265.55 0.13 Hettinger North Dakota 

265.57 265.74 0.17 Hettinger North Dakota 

266.01 266.13 0.12 Hettinger North Dakota 

266.16 267.06 0.90 Hettinger North Dakota 

267.08 267.46 0.38 Hettinger North Dakota 

267.52 268.63 1.11 Hettinger North Dakota 

268.63 269.25 0.62 Hettinger North Dakota 

269.28 269.83 0.55 Hettinger North Dakota 

269.84 270.14 0.30 Hettinger North Dakota 

270.15 270.21 0.06 Hettinger North Dakota 

270.21 270.29 0.08 Hettinger North Dakota 

270.30 270.37 0.07 Hettinger North Dakota 

270.38 270.85 0.47 Hettinger North Dakota 

271.06 271.36 0.30 Hettinger North Dakota 

271.37 271.45 0.08 Hettinger North Dakota 

271.46 271.99 0.53 Hettinger North Dakota 

272.26 272.54 0.28 Hettinger North Dakota 

272.65 272.76 0.11 Hettinger North Dakota 

272.77 273.17 0.40 Hettinger North Dakota 

273.17 273.78 0.61 Hettinger North Dakota 

274.11 274.12 0.01 Hettinger North Dakota 

274.74 275.25 0.51 Stark North Dakota 

276.59 277.14 0.55 Stark North Dakota 

277.19 277.54 0.35 Stark North Dakota 

278.07 278.60 0.53 Stark North Dakota 

279.69 279.96 0.27 Stark North Dakota 

280.26 280.84 0.58 Stark North Dakota 

280.84 281.23 0.39 Stark North Dakota 

282.25 282.45 0.20 Grant North Dakota 

282.57 282.68 0.11 Grant North Dakota 

283.16 283.62 0.46 Grant North Dakota 

283.62 284.35 0.73 Grant North Dakota 

284.36 284.67 0.31 Grant North Dakota 

284.78 284.81 0.03 Grant North Dakota 

284.81 285.93 1.12 Grant North Dakota 

285.93 286.30 0.37 Grant North Dakota 

286.58 287.04 0.46 Morton North Dakota 

287.05 287.17 0.12 Morton North Dakota 

287.25 287.61 0.36 Morton North Dakota 

287.95 288.18 0.23 Morton North Dakota 

288.72 290.31 1.59 Morton North Dakota 

290.35 290.85 0.50 Morton North Dakota 

291.09 291.40 0.31 Morton North Dakota 

291.42 292.17 0.75 Morton North Dakota 

292.34 292.68 0.34 Morton North Dakota 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 35 

Table 1 - Agricultural Areas Crossed by Project

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Crossing Length (Miles) County State 

293.00 293.44 0.44 Morton North Dakota 

293.45 293.88 0.43 Morton North Dakota 

294.56 294.73 0.17 Morton North Dakota 

295.53 295.80 0.27 Morton North Dakota 

297.02 297.57 0.55 Morton North Dakota 

297.94 297.97 0.03 Morton North Dakota 

298.04 298.12 0.08 Morton North Dakota 

298.32 298.40 0.08 Morton North Dakota 

298.42 298.45 0.03 Morton North Dakota 

298.54 298.90 0.36 Morton North Dakota 

299.06 299.21 0.15 Morton North Dakota 

299.54 299.67 0.13 Morton North Dakota 

299.85 300.03 0.18 Morton North Dakota 

300.05 300.12 0.07 Morton North Dakota 

301.08 301.41 0.33 Morton North Dakota 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 36 

Table 2 - Wyoming LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

9.87 9.94 Ustic Torriorthents, gullied Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

11.36 11.46 Ustic Torriorthents, gullied Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

11.51 11.55 Ustic Torriorthents, gullied Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

11.81 11.89 Ustic Torriorthents, gullied Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

11.89 12.00 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

12.20 12.37 Keeline-Tullock loamy sands, 6 to 30 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion, Droughtiness 

12.37 12.47 Keeline-Tullock loamy sands, 6 to 30 % slopes Wind Erosion, Droughtiness 

12.54 12.92 Keeline-Tullock loamy sands, 6 to 30 % slopes Wind Erosion, Droughtiness 

13.03 13.17 Keeline-Tullock loamy sands, 6 to 30 % slopes Wind Erosion, Droughtiness 

14.68 14.73 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

14.79 14.82 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

14.89 15.01 Wibaux-Shingle-Taluce complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

15.11 15.20 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

15.22 15.69 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

15.69 15.83 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

15.90 15.98 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

16.06 16.11 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

16.99 17.12 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

17.58 17.68 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

28.65 28.70 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

28.77 28.97 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

29.04 29.31 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

30.40 30.48 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

30.76 30.81 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

30.86 30.89 Samday-Shingle-Badland complex, 10 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

31.22 31.31 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

31.53 31.63 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

31.76 31.93 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

32.01 32.07 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

32.09 32.13 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

32.16 32.33 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

32.56 32.68 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

32.82 33.06 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

41.08 41.20 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

41.57 41.71 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

42.03 42.09 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

42.25 42.38 Ironbutte-Fairburn-Mittenbutte complex, 6 to 40 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness 

50.88 51.03 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

51.37 51.44 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

51.80 51.90 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

51.92 51.96 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

52.09 52.09 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

53.09 53.17 Fairburn-Mittenbutte-Badland complex, 3 to 60 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtiness, Sodium Content 

68.95 68.97 Badland-Lismas complex, 15 to 75 % slopes Droughtiness 

69.28 69.36 Badland-Lismas complex, 15 to 75 % slopes Droughtiness 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 37 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

80.69 80.82 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

81.03 81.07 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

81.17 81.24 Elso-Ocean lake association, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

81.60 81.75 Elso-Ocean lake association, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

82.91 83.00 Terrace escarpments Water Erosion 

83.07 83.14 Terrace escarpments Water Erosion 

83.14 83.18 Arvada-Bone complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

83.61 83.83 Elso-Ocean lake association, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

84.69 84.85 Elso-Ocean lake association, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

84.85 85.10 Cabba association, 15 to 50 % slopes Water Erosion 

85.23 85.26 Cabba association, 15 to 50 % slopes Water Erosion 

85.30 86.47 Cabba association, 15 to 50 % slopes Water Erosion 

88.24 88.33 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

88.37 88.38 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

88.43 88.52 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

88.57 88.63 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

88.75 88.82 Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

89.38 89.57 Yawdim-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

93.89 94.13 Cabbart-Rock outcrop-Delpoint complex, 15 to 50 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

96.08 96.35 Yawdim-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

96.35 96.46 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

96.46 98.63 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

102.17 102.32 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

102.32 102.59 Bickerdyke clay, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

102.59 104.46 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

104.46 104.92 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

106.85 107.05 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

107.05 107.09 Neldore-Volborg clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

107.16 107.38 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

107.71 107.83 Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 50 % slopes Droughtiness 

107.94 108.01 Harlake silty clay, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

108.15 108.41 Moyerson silty clay loam, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

108.47 108.54 Harlake silty clay, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

108.54 108.77 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

108.77 108.88 Rock outcrop-Moyerson complex, 15 to 50 % slopes Droughtiness 

108.88 108.90 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

109.32 109.36 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

109.36 109.46 Rock outcrop-Moyerson complex, 15 to 50 % slopes Droughtiness 

109.46 109.54 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

109.70 109.75 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

109.87 109.97 Moyerson silty clay loam, 15 to 35 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

109.97 110.17 Moyerson silty clay loam, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

110.17 110.21 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

110.21 110.46 Moyerson silty clay loam, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

110.46 110.76 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 38 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

110.76 110.80 Harlake silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

110.80 111.44 Creed-Gerdrum complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

111.44 111.63 Harlake silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

112.81 112.85 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

112.85 112.99 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

113.21 113.27 Creed-Gerdrum complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

113.71 113.91 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

113.91 114.12 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.12 114.18 Creed-Gerdrum complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.18 114.24 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.24 114.38 Harlake silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.38 114.54 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.54 114.68 Vanda-Marvan complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

114.87 114.95 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

115.47 115.61 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

115.65 115.67 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

116.28 116.43 Moyerson silty clay loam, 15 to 35 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

116.43 116.53 Vanda-Marvan complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

116.57 116.82 Vanda-Marvan complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

116.82 117.41 Creed loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

117.41 117.50 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

117.57 117.71 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

117.71 117.79 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

118.10 118.35 Archin-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

118.35 118.43 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

118.43 118.59 Alona silt loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

118.59 118.74 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

118.74 119.01 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

119.01 119.28 Moyerson-Orinoco silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

119.28 119.75 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

119.82 119.94 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

119.94 119.99 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

119.99 120.04 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

120.04 120.10 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

120.10 120.35 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

120.35 120.55 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

120.55 120.57 Vanda-Marvan complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

120.85 121.03 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

121.03 121.12 Bickerdyke clay, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

121.12 121.36 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

121.36 121.60 Orinoco silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

121.60 121.98 Vanda-Marvan complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

121.98 122.05 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

122.22 122.26 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

122.40 122.70 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

123.08 123.17 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

123.41 123.51 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 39 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

123.57 123.80 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

123.80 123.80 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

123.80 123.89 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

123.89 124.08 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

124.40 124.57 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

124.57 124.59 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

124.59 124.64 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

124.64 124.68 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

124.68 124.77 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

124.77 124.84 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

124.84 125.08 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

125.10 125.21 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

125.27 125.41 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

125.41 125.57 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

125.86 125.94 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

125.94 126.08 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

126.08 126.20 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

126.20 126.58 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

126.58 126.60 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

126.86 126.90 Bickerdyke clay, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

127.37 128.75 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

128.75 128.80 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

128.80 129.20 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

129.66 129.74 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

130.38 130.50 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

130.50 130.58 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

130.79 131.09 Orinoco-Yawdim silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

131.09 131.30 Zatoville silty clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

131.30 131.50 Moyerson-Orinoco silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

131.50 131.69 Moyerson silty clay loam, 15 to 35 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

131.69 131.79 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

131.79 131.87 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

131.87 132.61 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

132.61 133.60 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

133.60 133.81 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

133.81 134.53 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

134.53 134.68 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

134.68 135.08 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

135.08 135.23 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.23 135.34 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.34 135.45 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.45 135.50 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.50 135.74 Bickerdyke clay, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.74 135.84 Harlake silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.84 135.97 Bickerdyke clay, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

135.97 136.35 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

136.35 136.42 Bickerdyke clay, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 40 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

136.42 136.60 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

136.60 136.91 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

136.91 137.14 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

137.14 137.38 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

137.38 137.58 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

137.58 137.70 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

137.70 138.28 Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

138.28 138.62 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

138.62 138.72 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

138.72 138.77 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

138.77 138.83 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

138.83 139.25 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

139.25 139.46 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

139.46 139.66 Moyerson-Orinoco silty clay loams, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

139.66 139.85 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

139.85 139.91 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

139.91 139.97 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

139.97 140.02 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

140.02 140.16 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

140.16 140.44 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

140.64 140.91 Arsite clay, 0 to 8 % slopes Droughtiness 

141.11 141.32 Arsite clay, 0 to 8 % slopes Droughtiness 

141.32 141.89 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

142.08 142.29 Neldore clay, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

142.66 142.75 Vanda-Marvan complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

142.96 143.19 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

143.27 143.90 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

143.90 144.12 Creed loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

144.44 144.81 Creed loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

144.81 144.95 Vanda silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

144.95 145.10 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

145.10 145.34 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

145.34 145.56 Gerdrum clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

146.22 146.34 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

146.34 146.38 Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

146.57 146.59 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

146.59 146.66 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

146.66 146.67 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

147.34 147.38 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

148.98 149.04 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.04 149.07 Archin-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.07 149.15 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.40 149.44 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.44 149.53 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.53 149.57 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.57 149.70 Gerdrum clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

149.70 149.83 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 41 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

149.83 149.87 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

150.44 150.55 Creed loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

150.83 150.88 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

151.24 151.31 Creed loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

151.44 151.50 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

151.56 151.64 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

151.70 152.04 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

152.04 152.11 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

153.42 153.56 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

153.62 153.70 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

153.70 154.13 Absher-Gerdrum complex, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

154.13 154.19 Harlake silty clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

154.19 154.19 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

154.41 154.79 Gerdrum clay loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

154.79 154.89 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

155.21 155.33 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

155.33 155.43 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

155.52 155.62 Havre loam, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

155.62 155.76 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

155.87 156.23 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

156.26 156.52 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

156.52 156.77 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

156.77 156.84 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

156.84 157.01 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.01 157.07 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.07 157.27 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.27 157.44 Cabbart silt loam, 4 to 15 % slopes Droughtiness 

157.44 157.67 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.70 157.80 Havre loam, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.80 157.81 Archin-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.81 157.88 Havre loam, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

157.88 158.04 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

158.04 158.13 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

158.40 158.50 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

158.50 158.54 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

158.54 158.63 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

158.86 158.99 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

159.19 159.30 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

159.41 159.58 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

159.58 159.78 Kirby-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 % slopes Droughtiness, Water Erosion 

160.44 160.49 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

160.61 160.67 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

160.67 160.86 Archin-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

161.21 161.36 Archin-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

161.36 161.66 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

161.93 161.96 Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 % slopes Droughtiness 

162.40 162.51 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 42 

Table 3 - Montana LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

163.15 163.38 Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 % slopes Droughtiness 

164.23 164.26 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

164.26 164.56 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

164.75 164.85 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

165.10 165.43 Glendive sandy loam, saline, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

166.10 166.32 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

166.56 166.69 Badland Rooting Depth, Droughtiness 

168.01 168.07 Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 % slopes Droughtiness 

168.11 168.21 Creed-Gerdrum complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

168.21 168.31 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

168.31 168.40 Creed-Gerdrum complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

168.40 168.60 Creed-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

168.60 168.67 Creed loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

168.67 168.81 Glendive sandy loam, saline, 0 to 4 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

169.72 169.80 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

169.84 169.90 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

169.96 170.01 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

170.01 170.14 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

170.14 170.21 Gerdrum-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

170.21 170.35 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

170.43 170.55 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

170.62 170.70 Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

170.70 170.75 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

170.84 170.86 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

170.98 171.28 Archin-Absher complex, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

171.55 171.65 Archin loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

171.93 172.01 Archin loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

172.53 172.63 Archin loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

173.85 173.95 Zeona-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

174.12 174.20 Archin loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

174.26 174.50 Archin loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Sodium Adsorption 

174.75 174.82 Badland Rooting Depth, Droughtiness 

175.79 175.82 Zeona-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 43 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

175.82 175.99 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

175.99 176.17 Blown-Out land-Ladner-Ekalaka complex, 0 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

176.17 176.30 Ekalaka-Zeona-Ladner loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

176.30 176.39 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

176.39 176.43 Fleak-Rhame complex, 3 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

176.79 176.96 Blown-Out land-Ladner-Ekalaka complex, 0 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

176.96 177.09 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

177.09 177.16 Alluvial land, strongly saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Salt Content 

177.16 177.25 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

177.25 177.29 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

177.29 177.38 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

177.52 177.58 Fleak-Rhame complex, 3 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

177.58 177.71 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

177.71 177.82 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

177.82 177.85 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

177.85 177.90 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

178.78 178.88 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

179.04 179.10 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

180.61 180.67 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

181.15 181.35 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

181.50 181.55 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

182.48 182.55 Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content 

182.68 182.70 Water 

182.82 182.85 Havre loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion 

182.96 183.14 Havre loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion 

183.14 183.20 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

183.26 183.33 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

183.33 183.38 Hanly loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

183.38 183.77 Havre loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion 

183.77 183.96 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

184.03 184.05 Fleak-Rhame complex, 3 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

184.06 184.12 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

184.12 184.23 Cabbart complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

184.23 184.44 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

184.71 184.81 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

185.38 185.46 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

185.46 185.56 Cabbart complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

185.69 185.73 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

186.03 186.08 Cabbart complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

186.97 187.03 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

187.26 187.32 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

187.32 187.42 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

187.54 187.74 Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

188.17 188.23 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

188.51 188.74 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 44 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

188.74 188.81 Fleak rocky complex, 15 to 50 % slopes Wind Erosion 

188.93 189.03 Ekalaka-Zeona-Ladner loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

189.03 189.24 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

189.24 189.32 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

189.32 189.42 Fleak rocky complex, 15 to 50 % slopes Wind Erosion 

189.52 189.58 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

189.58 189.68 Fleak-Rhame complex, 3 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

189.68 189.96 Sham soils and gullied land, 2 to 9 % slopes Water Erosion 

189.96 190.01 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

190.01 190.08 Chinook fine sandy loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

190.08 190.08 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

190.08 190.21 Chinook fine sandy loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

190.30 190.37 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

190.37 190.44 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

190.44 190.51 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

190.51 190.67 Sham soils and gullied land, 2 to 9 % slopes Water Erosion 

190.67 190.90 Badland, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

190.90 190.98 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

190.98 191.03 Sham soils and gullied land, 2 to 9 % slopes Water Erosion 

191.03 191.11 Zeona loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

191.28 191.29 Barren badland, 9 to 150 % slopes Water Erosion 

191.48 191.55 Barren badland, 9 to 150 % slopes Water Erosion 

191.55 191.60 Fleak-Rhame complex, 3 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

191.60 191.72 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

191.91 192.05 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

192.13 192.17 Cabbart complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

192.26 192.30 Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 % slopes Wind Erosion 

192.49 192.52 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

192.52 192.66 Rhoades complex, terrace, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

192.71 193.01 Rhoades complex, terrace, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

193.25 193.31 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 6 % slopes Droughtyness 

193.32 193.33 Rhoades complex, terrace, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

193.88 193.95 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

193.98 194.06 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

194.19 194.43 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

194.43 194.48 Marmarth-Rhame fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

194.53 194.57 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

194.64 194.69 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

194.84 194.86 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

194.92 194.99 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

195.03 195.06 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

197.13 197.18 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

197.73 197.75 Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

197.75 197.79 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

198.03 198.12 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

198.15 198.20 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

198.58 198.65 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 45 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

198.65 198.68 Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

198.79 198.85 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

198.92 198.97 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

199.01 199.06 Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

199.41 199.46 Flasher complex, 15 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

199.46 199.51 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

199.51 199.55 Flasher complex, 15 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

199.55 199.55 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

199.96 200.00 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

200.04 200.06 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.00 201.07 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.07 201.14 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.14 201.21 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.29 201.39 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.45 201.52 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.52 201.67 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

201.77 201.83 Wabek complex, 6 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

202.02 202.11 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

202.59 202.62 Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

204.48 204.72 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

204.72 204.86 Rhoades complex, terrace, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

204.86 204.93 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

204.93 204.98 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

205.01 205.03 Rhoades complex, terrace, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

205.15 205.21 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

205.55 205.59 Alluvial land, strongly saline, 0 to 2 % slopes Salt Content 

206.25 206.28 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

207.81 207.82 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

207.83 207.84 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

207.87 207.95 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.12 208.12 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.18 208.29 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.29 208.31 Water 

208.31 208.33 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.43 208.50 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.58 208.66 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.77 208.85 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

208.89 208.92 Rhoades-Absher complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

209.20 209.24 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

209.27 209.32 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

209.63 209.68 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

209.74 209.80 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

209.99 210.06 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

210.43 210.49 McKenzie and Heil silty clays, 0 to 1 % slopes Rooting Depth 

210.52 210.55 McKenzie and Heil silty clays, 0 to 1 % slopes Rooting Depth 

212.13 212.26 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

212.40 212.53 Rhoades-Absher complex, 2 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 46 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

212.56 212.82 Telfer loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

212.89 212.95 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

212.98 213.06 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

213.09 213.12 Flasher-Vebar complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

213.26 213.32 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

213.33 213.57 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

213.63 213.64 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

213.64 213.77 Cabba-Wayden-Shale outcrop complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

213.77 213.80 Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

213.80 213.91 Cabba-Wayden-Shale outcrop complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

214.13 214.13 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

214.17 214.22 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

215.84 215.97 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

216.42 216.53 Cabba complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Water Erosion 

217.62 217.72 Rhoades-Belfield complex, 2 to 9 % slopes Rooting Depth 

217.82 217.87 Rhoades-Belfield complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 

217.87 217.90 Rhoades-Belfield complex, 2 to 9 % slopes Rooting Depth 

217.94 217.98 Cabba-Badland complex, 9 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

218.21 218.34 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

218.34 218.38 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

218.38 218.40 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

218.40 218.43 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

218.56 218.60 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

218.60 218.76 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

218.76 218.90 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

218.90 219.03 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

219.03 219.08 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

219.08 219.12 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

219.16 219.40 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

219.47 219.58 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

219.63 219.67 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

219.70 219.82 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.17 220.20 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.21 220.25 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.35 220.45 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.45 220.48 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.76 220.81 Daglum fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

220.81 220.81 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

221.11 221.27 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

221.41 221.57 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

221.60 221.66 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

222.43 222.47 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

222.47 222.52 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

222.52 222.63 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

222.63 222.71 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

222.71 222.74 Daglum fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

222.74 222.81 Rhoades-Belfield complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Rooting Depth 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 47 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

223.84 224.06 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

224.06 224.11 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

224.23 224.28 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

224.28 224.37 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

224.42 224.58 Ekalaka soils, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

224.62 224.69 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

226.58 226.65 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

226.65 226.72 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

226.83 226.86 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

226.87 226.96 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

226.98 227.05 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

228.78 228.89 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

228.89 228.98 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

228.98 229.02 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

229.02 229.09 Harriet complex, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

230.28 230.35 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

230.40 230.43 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

231.64 231.72 Heil and McKenzie soils, 0 to 1 % slopes Rooting Depth 

233.32 233.43 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

233.73 233.79 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

233.83 233.87 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

234.30 234.47 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

234.50 234.56 Lefor-Vebar fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

234.65 235.16 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

235.27 235.29 Telfer-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

235.29 235.37 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

235.79 235.94 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

235.94 236.03 Korchea and Havre soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

236.10 236.13 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

236.15 236.19 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

236.33 236.47 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

236.56 236.58 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

236.61 236.65 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

236.66 236.67 Vebar-Tally fine sandy loams, 3 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

237.59 237.66 Rhoades complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

242.34 242.42 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

242.46 242.47 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

244.10 244.24 Heil silt loam, 0 to 1 % slopes Rooting Depth 

245.40 245.44 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

246.72 246.76 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

249.21 249.38 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

249.76 249.82 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

250.17 250.20 Lihen loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

250.22 250.37 Lihen loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

250.64 250.73 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

251.22 251.26 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

251.42 251.48 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 48 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

251.56 251.64 Cabba-Chama silt loams, 15 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

252.21 252.28 Lihen loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

252.28 252.34 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

252.34 252.44 Beisigl-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

252.44 252.64 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

252.78 252.82 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

253.14 253.20 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

253.30 253.31 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

253.62 253.81 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

253.87 254.00 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

254.49 254.54 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

254.58 254.70 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

254.74 254.82 Lihen loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

254.82 254.88 Beisigl-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

254.88 255.04 Lihen loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

255.68 255.75 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

257.01 257.10 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

257.70 257.80 Harriet loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

258.18 258.35 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

258.66 258.74 Beisigl-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

258.88 259.05 Flasher-Beisigl-Parshall complex, 6 to 70 % slopes, extremely stony Wind Erosion 

259.05 259.13 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

259.23 259.27 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

259.67 259.75 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

260.67 260.81 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

261.02 261.26 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

261.57 261.76 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

262.41 262.47 Harriet loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

262.47 262.49 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

262.70 262.76 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

262.76 262.81 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

262.84 262.92 Harriet loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

262.97 263.01 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

263.01 263.02 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

263.02 263.11 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

263.11 263.17 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

263.32 263.38 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

263.83 263.94 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

264.49 264.63 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

264.69 264.75 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

264.75 264.85 Vebar-Flasher complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

265.54 265.58 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

265.75 265.81 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

265.81 265.86 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

266.60 266.66 Heil silt loam, 0 to 1 % slopes Rooting Depth 

266.71 266.82 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

267.89 267.95 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 49 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

269.99 270.09 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

270.18 270.21 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

270.81 270.86 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

270.86 270.99 Straw-Daglum complex, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

272.16 272.20 Water 

272.24 272.27 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

272.58 272.63 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

273.22 273.28 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

273.74 273.78 Vebar-Flasher fine sandy loams, 3 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

273.78 273.85 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

274.02 274.10 Manning-Schaller-Wabek complex, 6 to 25 % slopes Wind Erosion 

274.12 274.35 Manning-Schaller-Wabek complex, 6 to 25 % slopes Wind Erosion 

274.44 274.46 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

274.47 274.49 Amor-Cabba loams, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

275.38 275.43 Straw-Daglum complex, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

276.20 276.24 Straw-Daglum complex, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

277.16 277.24 Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

277.60 277.71 Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

277.78 277.96 Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

278.64 278.71 Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

278.95 279.31 Cabba-Amor loams, 15 to 50 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

279.34 279.36 Straw-Daglum complex, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

280.90 280.98 Cabba-Badland outcrop complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

281.44 281.64 Cabba-Badland outcrop complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Wind Erosion 

281.79 281.81 Velva fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion 

282.02 282.12 Velva fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion 

282.12 282.16 Banks-Trembles fine sandy loams, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

282.16 282.17 Badland outcrop-Cabba complex, 9 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Rooting Depth 

282.17 282.25 Badland outcrop-Cabba complex, 9 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Rooting Depth 

282.49 282.56 Cabba loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

282.56 282.66 Amor loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

282.66 282.77 Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Wind Erosion, Droughtyness 

282.85 283.06 Cabba loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Water Erosion 

283.09 283.28 Amor loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

283.28 283.33 Vebar fine sandy loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

283.33 283.51 Amor loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

284.20 284.22 Amor loam, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

286.39 286.44 Wabek-Cabba-Shambo complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

286.44 286.53 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

286.53 286.80 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

286.87 286.92 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

286.92 286.98 Vebar-Flasher complex, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

286.98 287.26 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

287.57 287.62 Wabek-Cabba-Shambo complex, 6 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

287.62 287.72 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

288.43 288.50 Rhoades-Slickspots-Daglum complex, 0 to 9 % slopes Rooting Depth 

288.97 289.10 Beisigl-Lihen loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 50 

Table 4 - North Dakota LRP Areas and Erosion Specificity 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009 

From MP To MP Map Unit Name Limiting Feature 

289.16 289.21 Lihen-parshall complex, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

289.21 289.32 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

289.40 289.50 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

289.83 290.01 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

290.01 290.05 Vebar-Flasher complex, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.06 291.41 Vebar-Flasher complex, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.41 291.48 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.48 291.50 Flasher-Vebar-Parshall complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.50 291.56 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.56 291.70 Flasher-Vebar-Parshall complex, 9 to 35 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.70 291.91 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.91 291.96 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

291.96 292.04 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

292.04 292.07 Vebar-Flasher complex, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

292.11 292.15 Vebar-Flasher complex, 6 to 9 % slopes Wind Erosion 

292.25 292.33 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

292.33 292.38 Cabba-Chama-Arnegard complex, 15 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

292.78 292.84 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

293.92 294.09 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

294.36 294.55 Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6 to 30 % slopes Rooting Depth 

295.23 295.30 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

295.49 295.54 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

295.82 296.04 Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6 to 30 % slopes Rooting Depth 

296.04 296.12 Harriet silt loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Sodium Content, Rooting Depth 

296.15 296.27 Vebar-Flasher-Tally complex, 9 to 15 % slopes Wind Erosion 

296.27 296.32 Cabba-Chama-Arnegard complex, 15 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

296.42 296.48 Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6 to 30 % slopes Rooting Depth 

296.69 296.75 Cabba-Chama-Arnegard complex, 15 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion 

296.75 296.80 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

296.92 297.13 Dogtooth-Janesburg silt loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

297.64 297.72 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

297.77 297.87 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

298.00 298.05 Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6 to 30 % slopes Rooting Depth 

298.12 298.32 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

298.32 298.40 Dogtooth-Janesburg silt loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

298.40 298.51 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

298.84 298.92 Vebar-Parshall fine sandy loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Wind Erosion 

299.77 299.84 Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 % slopes Droughtyness 

300.09 300.20 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

300.26 300.36 Dogtooth-Janesburg silt loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

300.36 300.47 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

300.53 300.61 Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 % slopes Water Erosion, Droughtyness 

300.61 300.80 Dogtooth-Janesburg silt loams, 0 to 6 % slopes Rooting Depth 

300.87 301.10 Dogtooth-Janesburg-Cabba complex, 6 to 30 % slopes Rooting Depth 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 51 

Miscellaneous Areas 

Due to the scale of soils mapping, many miscellaneous areas occur as minor inclusions on the 

landscape, to the map units listed. For this reason, the listing of miscellaneous components is general 

in nature, and only intended to provide guidance on where these areas may occur. 

Table 5 - Wyoming Miscellaneous Areas

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From MP To MP Component Map Unit Name 

-0.31 0.00 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

0.00 0.33 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

0.40 0.41 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

0.68 0.76 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

1.14 1.22 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

1.22 1.42 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

1.46 1.78 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

9.19 9.40 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

9.45 9.53 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

11.13 11.34 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

13.33 13.34 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

13.34 13.57 Badland Oldwolf-Fairburn loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

13.57 13.58 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

13.58 13.83 Badland Oldwolf-Fairburn loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

13.83 13.99 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

14.18 14.34 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

14.73 14.79 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

14.82 14.89 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

15.01 15.11 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

15.20 15.22 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

15.69 15.69 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

15.83 15.90 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

15.98 16.06 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

16.11 16.65 Rock outcrop Theedle-Kishona-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

18.65 19.11 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

19.43 19.69 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

20.09 20.15 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

20.29 20.37 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

20.47 20.70 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

20.82 20.90 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.06 21.10 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.13 21.20 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.28 21.38 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.62 21.70 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.81 21.89 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

21.99 22.24 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

22.45 22.47 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

23.03 23.07 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

23.20 23.29 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

23.41 23.71 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

23.78 23.84 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

24.15 24.35 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

24.75 25.03 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

25.19 25.26 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

25.36 25.47 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

25.55 25.63 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

25.64 25.70 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 52 

Table 5 - Wyoming Miscellaneous Areas

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From MP To MP Component Map Unit Name 

25.85 25.99 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

26.03 26.23 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

26.27 26.35 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

26.56 26.73 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

26.77 26.77 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

27.01 27.06 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

27.16 27.33 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

27.40 27.50 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

28.10 28.20 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

28.23 28.31 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

29.40 29.45 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

29.60 29.76 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

30.04 30.05 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

30.57 30.76 Badland Theedle-Shingle loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 

30.97 31.22 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

31.31 31.53 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

31.63 31.76 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

31.93 32.01 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

32.41 32.56 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

32.68 32.82 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

33.13 33.29 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

33.46 33.54 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

33.62 33.69 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

33.83 33.88 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

36.14 36.25 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

36.37 36.59 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

36.80 36.93 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

38.63 38.93 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

39.14 39.19 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

45.25 45.38 Badland Oldwolf-Fairburn loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

45.96 46.06 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

46.23 46.31 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

46.51 46.60 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

46.68 46.79 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

47.17 47.32 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

47.53 47.70 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

47.81 47.97 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

47.97 48.04 Badland Cromack-Samsil clay loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

48.04 48.46 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

48.70 48.96 Badland Cromack-Samsil clay loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

49.35 49.39 Badland Oldwolf-Fairburn loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

49.39 49.74 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

52.27 52.38 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, wooded, 6 to 50 percent slopes 

52.81 52.88 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

56.01 56.08 Badland Lismas-Sabatka-Xema complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

62.08 62.65 Badland Cabbart-Yawdim-Badland complex, 6 to 45 percent slopes 

63.82 63.85 Badland Cabbart-Yawdim-Badland complex, 6 to 45 percent slopes 

65.72 65.92 Badland Oldwolf-Fairburn loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

68.39 68.43 Badland Cabbart-Volborg-Badland complex, wooded, 3 to 60 percent slopes 

68.43 68.95 Badland Lismas-Sabatka-Xema complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

68.97 69.28 Badland Lismas-Sabatka-Xema complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

69.36 69.44 Badland Lismas-Sabatka-Xema complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

70.71 70.80 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 53 

Table 5 - Wyoming Miscellaneous Areas

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From MP To MP Component Map Unit Name 

70.83 71.30 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

71.67 71.78 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

72.40 73.32 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

73.40 73.43 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

75.85 76.00 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

76.36 76.61 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

76.61 76.72 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

76.72 76.98 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

77.34 77.51 Badland Fairburn-Samsil-Badland complex, 10 to 45 percent slopes 

Table 6 - Montana Miscellaneous Areas 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Component Map Unit Name 

80.20 80.61 Badland Ucross-Fairburn loams, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

80.69 80.82 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

81.03 81.07 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

84.85 85.10 Rock outcrop Cabba association, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

85.23 85.26 Rock outcrop Cabba association, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

85.30 86.47 Rock outcrop Cabba association, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

88.24 88.33 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

88.37 88.38 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

88.43 88.52 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

88.57 88.63 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

88.75 88.82 Rock outcrop Elso silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

89.38 89.57 Rock outcrop Yawdim-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

93.89 94.13 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Rock outcrop-Delpoint complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

95.96 96.08 Rock outcrop Broadus-Ridge-Reeder complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

96.08 96.35 Rock outcrop Yawdim-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

96.35 96.46 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

96.46 98.63 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

104.46 104.92 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

107.05 107.09 Rock outcrop Neldore-Volborg clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

107.16 107.38 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

107.71 107.83 Rock outcrop Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 50 percent slopes 

108.77 108.88 Rock outcrop Rock outcrop-Moyerson complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

108.88 108.90 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

109.32 109.36 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

109.36 109.46 Rock outcrop Rock outcrop-Moyerson complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

119.28 119.75 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

119.94 119.99 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

120.04 120.10 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

123.41 123.51 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

123.57 123.80 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

123.80 123.80 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

123.80 123.89 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

123.89 124.08 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

124.40 124.57 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

124.59 124.64 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

124.68 124.77 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

124.84 125.08 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 54 

Table 6 - Montana Miscellaneous Areas 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Component Map Unit Name 

125.41 125.57 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

131.87 132.61 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

132.61 133.60 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

133.60 133.81 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 

133.81 134.53 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

134.68 135.08 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

136.60 136.91 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

137.14 137.38 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

137.58 137.70 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

137.70 138.28 Rock outcrop Neldore-Bascovy clays, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

146.34 146.38 Rock outcrop Neldore-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

157.27 157.44 Rock outcrop Cabbart silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

158.99 159.03 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

159.12 159.19 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

159.58 159.78 Rock outcrop Kirby-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes 

161.93 161.96 Rock outcrop Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

162.10 162.17 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

162.27 162.40 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

162.68 163.00 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

163.15 163.38 Rock outcrop Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

163.66 163.75 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

163.94 164.03 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

166.56 166.69 Badland Badland 

168.01 168.07 Rock outcrop Kirby-Cabbart complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

168.94 169.02 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

169.05 169.10 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

169.31 169.41 Rock outcrop Busby-Blacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 

169.72 169.80 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

170.21 170.35 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

170.43 170.55 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

170.62 170.70 Rock outcrop Yamacall-Cabbart loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

173.85 173.95 Rock outcrop Zeona-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

174.75 174.82 Badland Badland 

175.79 175.82 Rock outcrop Zeona-Blacksheep-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 

Table 7 - North Dakota Miscellaneous Areas 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Component Map Unit Name 

175.99 176.17 Blown-out land Blown-Out land-Ladner-Ekalaka complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 

176.17 176.30 Blown-out land Ekalaka-Zeona-Ladner loamy fine sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes 

176.79 176.96 Blown-out land Blown-Out land-Ladner-Ekalaka complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 

177.09 177.16 Alluvial land Alluvial land, strongly saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

177.16 177.25 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

177.29 177.38 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

177.58 177.71 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

177.71 177.82 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

177.82 177.85 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

177.90 178.37 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

178.37 178.52 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 55 

Table 7 - North Dakota Miscellaneous Areas 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Component Map Unit Name 

178.52 178.58 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

178.58 178.66 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

178.66 178.78 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

178.78 178.88 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

178.88 178.98 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

178.98 179.04 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

179.04 179.10 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

179.10 179.26 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

179.26 179.55 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

179.55 179.83 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

179.83 179.85 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

179.85 179.88 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

179.88 180.11 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

180.11 180.13 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

180.13 180.29 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

180.29 180.33 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

180.33 180.46 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

180.46 180.61 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

180.61 180.67 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

180.67 180.90 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

180.90 180.94 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

180.94 181.15 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

181.15 181.35 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

181.35 181.50 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

181.50 181.55 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

181.55 181.58 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

181.58 181.86 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

181.86 182.24 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 9 percent slopes 

182.24 182.48 Rock outcrop Dilts and Lisam clays, 3 to 25 percent slopes 

182.48 182.55 Alluvial land Alluvial land, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

182.68 182.70 Water Water 

183.33 183.38 Riverwash Hanly loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 

185.38 185.46 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

185.69 185.73 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

186.97 187.03 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

187.32 187.42 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

187.54 187.74 Rock outcrop Cabbart-Yawdim-Shale outcrop complex, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

188.74 188.81 Rock outcrop Fleak rocky complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

189.03 189.24 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

189.24 189.32 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

189.32 189.42 Rock outcrop Fleak rocky complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

189.52 189.58 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

189.96 190.01 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

190.08 190.08 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

190.30 190.37 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

190.44 190.51 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

190.67 190.90 Badland Badland, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

191.28 191.29 Badland Barren badland, 9 to 150 percent slopes 

191.48 191.55 Badland Barren badland, 9 to 150 percent slopes 

192.26 192.30 Rock outcrop Fleak-Tusler complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

199.24 199.41 Rock outcrop Watrous loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 April 2009 56 

Table 7 - North Dakota Miscellaneous Areas 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 2/17/2009

From 

MP 

To 

MP Component Map Unit Name 

199.41 199.46 Rock outcrop Flasher complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

199.51 199.55 Rock outcrop Flasher complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

202.59 202.62 Gullied land Korchea and Straw soils, channeled, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

205.55 205.59 Alluvial land Alluvial land, strongly saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

208.29 208.31 Water Water 

213.64 213.77 Shale outcrop Cabba-Wayden-Shale outcrop complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

213.80 213.91 Shale outcrop Cabba-Wayden-Shale outcrop complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

217.82 217.87 Slickspots Rhoades-Belfield complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

217.94 217.98 Badland Cabba-Badland complex, 9 to 70 percent slopes 

220.51 220.55 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

220.58 220.66 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

223.73 223.81 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

224.11 224.23 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

235.23 235.27 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

236.13 236.15 Rock outcrop Flasher soils, 3 to 15 percent slopes 

272.16 272.20 Water Water 

277.16 277.24 Rock outcrop Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

277.60 277.71 Rock outcrop Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

277.78 277.96 Rock outcrop Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

278.64 278.71 Rock outcrop Cabba-Chama-Cherry silt loams, 3 to 70 percent slopes 

278.95 279.31 Rock outcrop Cabba-Amor loams, 15 to 50 percent slopes 

280.90 280.98 Badland Cabba-Badland outcrop complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

281.44 281.64 Badland Cabba-Badland outcrop complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

282.16 282.17 Badland Badland outcrop-Cabba complex, 9 to 70 percent slopes 

282.17 282.25 Badland Badland outcrop-Cabba complex, 9 to 70 percent slopes 

282.66 282.77 Channel Straw loam, channeled, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

286.44 286.53 Channel Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

287.62 287.72 Channel Straw and Velva soils, channeled, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

291.48 291.50 Rock outcrop Flasher-Vebar-Parshall complex, 9 to 35 percent slopes 

291.56 291.70 Rock outcrop Flasher-Vebar-Parshall complex, 9 to 35 percent slopes 

293.92 294.09 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

297.64 297.72 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

297.77 297.87 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

298.12 298.32 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

298.40 298.51 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

300.09 300.20 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

300.36 300.47 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 

300.53 300.61 Rock outcrop Brandenburg-Cabba-Savage complex, 6 to 70 percent slopes 
APPENDIX S 

FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

(Fire Plan) 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

(Fire Plan)

CONTENTS 

1.0 Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Responsibilities and Standard Procedures................................................................................................1

2.0 Fire Equipment Requirements ............................................................................................................................2

2.1 Equipment Requirements .........................................................................................................................2

3.0 Fire Notification Procedures ...............................................................................................................................2

4.0 Fire Precautions During Construction.................................................................................................................3

4.1 Blasting ....................................................................................................................................................3

4.2 Refueling and Fuel Storage Areas............................................................................................................3

4.3 Restricted Operations...............................................................................................................................3

4.4 Smoking Ban............................................................................................................................................4

5.0 Extreme Fire Prevention Measures.....................................................................................................................4

6.0 Training...............................................................................................................................................................4

7.0 Fire Compliance Monitoring...............................................................................................................................4

TABLES 

Table 3.0-1 - Bison Representatives to be notified in the event of a fire.......................................................................3 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 ii April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Purpose and Objective 

This Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Fire Plan) was prepared to outline the 

responsibilities of Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) for prevention and suppression of fires and to 

define minimum fire prevention and suppression measures that will be used during construction. 

The minimum requirements provided in this Fire Plan will be included in all construction 

contracts, and prior to construction, contractors will be required to develop a fire control plan 

specific to the Bison Pipeline Project (Project) that details fire control procedures, roles and 

responsibilities, and staffing. The contractor’s plan will meet or exceed the requirements 

outlined in this Fire Plan and will provide a list of potential water sources with sufficient 

quantities of water. The contractors plan will be submitted to Bison with construction bid 

documents. 

1.1 Responsibilities and Standard Procedures 

All Project personnel and representatives will be responsible for conducting Project activities in 

a manner that reduces or eliminates potential fire dangers and comply with this Fire Plan and all 

applicable rules, regulations, laws, and ordinances. Environmental Inspectors (EIs) and Project 

personnel will be assigned appropriate levels of fire safety responsibilities. 

The following procedures will be implemented, as appropriate by this team of fire safety 

personnel: 

 Providing initial response support (i.e., initiating and implementing all fire control 

activities) in the event of a fire in the Project area and supervising fire suppression 

activities until relieved by professional fire suppression crews; no actions that may 

endanger employee safety will be taken (Project personnel will not attempt to suppress fires 

that cannot be safely contained); 

 Immediately reporting wildfires observed outside of the Project area to the nearest fire 

dispatch office; 

 Notify persons identified in Table 3.0-1 in case of a fire during construction; 

 Conducting fire inspections and taking corrective action when observing or having been 

notified that fire protection measures have not been properly installed or maintained; 

 Stopping site specific construction activities that pose a fire hazard until appropriate 

remedial measures have been implemented; 

 Directing the construction contractor to increase the level of fire monitoring, install 

additional fire prevention equipment, or stop activity, as necessary, if extreme fire danger is 

present; 

 Coordinating with federal and state fire management personnel during periods of high or 

severe fire conditions to ensure that permit stipulations are being met and appropriate 

preventive measures are in place during all construction related activities; and 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

 Restricting activities during conditions of high fire danger as directed by the applicable 

agencies. 

2.0 Fire Equipment Requirements 

The Project will develop a list of all fire prevention and control equipment required for use 

during Project activities. The Project will inspect all fire prevention and control equipment and 

construction equipment prior to the start of construction. The Project will conduct weekly 

inspections of all fire equipment during construction. Equipment that does not comply with fire 

safety requirements of this Fire Plan or any other applicable plans and regulations will be 

replaced or upgraded to compliant condition immediately. 

2.1 Equipment Requirements 

The contractor will provide equipment to handle any possible fire emergency. This equipment 

shall include, but not be limited to, water trucks, portable water pumps, chemical fire 

extinguishers, hand tools (e.g., shovels, axes, chain saws, etc.), and equipment adequate for the 

construction of fire breaks, when required. In addition, the contractor will supply and maintain 

in working order an adequate supply of fire extinguishers for each crew that is engaged in work 

involving increased fire hazard, such as welding, cutting, grinding and burning of brush or 

vegetative debris (if approved by the landowner or land management agency). 

Potential sources of water include those identified in Table 2.1-1 of Appendix 2.K in Resource 

Report No. 2. In the event of a fire, source waters for fire suppression will be determined by the 

appropriate fire control agencies. 

3.0 Fire Notification Procedures 

In the event of a fire, notification will be made to the appropriate federal, state, or local fire 

dispatch personnel. Upon notification from the appropriate federal, state or local fire dispatch 

personnel, team personnel will follow the instructions of the dispatch personnel. 

Federal, state, and local fire control agencies contact information will be compiled before 

construction of the Project. Table 3.0-1 will list the Project personnel to be notified in the event 

of a fire and will be completed and provided to all federal, state and local fire control agencies 

prior to construction. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Table 3.0-1 - Bison Representatives to be notified in the event of a fire 

Title Contact Telephone (Day) Telephone (Night) 

4.0 Fire Precautions During Construction 

Fire precautions during construction include the use of Project personnel, procedures during and 

after blasting, procedures for re-fueling and fuel storage, and establishment of restricted 

operations if needed. 

4.1 Blasting 

Blasting may be required during installation of the pipeline. Blasting-related operations will be 

conducted by or under the direct and constant supervision of experienced personnel legally 

licensed and certified to perform such activity in the jurisdiction where the blasting occurs. 

Blasting-related operations, including obtaining, transporting, storing, handling, loading, 

detonating, and disposing of blasting material, as well as drilling, and ground-motion monitoring, 

will comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, permit conditions, and the 

construction contract. During blasting activities and post blast, special attention will be given to 

detecting and suppressing fires that may result. 

4.2 Refueling and Fuel Storage Areas 

Fuel storage areas will be cleared of all extraneous flammable materials. All discarded oil, oil 

filters, oily rags, or other potentially flammable wastes will be disposed of in an approved 

sanitary landfill. Only approved and properly labeled and maintained containers will be used to 

store or transport flammable liquids. 

4.3 Restricted Operations 

The contractor will comply with all fire restrictions at the direction of the Project personnel. 

Restrictions may be imposed due to extreme fire danger and may include stopping specific 

construction activities at a given time and location. A list of precautions that will be taken 

during a fire restriction is provided in Section 6.0. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 

4.4 Smoking Ban 

Smoking will be prohibited around areas with flammable products. 

5.0 Extreme Fire Prevention Measures 

In the event of extreme fire conditions, fire closures may be imposed by a regulatory agency. As 

a result, certain Project construction activities may be suspended. The Project will be 

responsible for obtaining all restrictive and shut-down measures from the responsible agency and 

relaying the information to affected crews. 

6.0 Training 

Prior to the start of construction activities, Bison will conduct comprehensive environmental, 

health and safety training for all personnel and representatives will participate in construction 

activities or who will be out in the Project area for inspection or other purposes. All personnel 

will be required to participate in this training before entering the Project area. Additional fire 

prevention and suppression training may be conducted periodically, as necessary (e.g., following 

a fire event or a violation of the Fire Plan procedures). 

7.0 Fire Compliance Monitoring 

The Project personnel will conduct daily fire compliance monitoring of the Project area. Federal, 

state, and local fire control agencies may perform random inspections in areas under their 

jurisdiction to check for compliance with this Fire Plan. A report of the inspection will be 

completed and submitted to the appropriate Project personnel and fire control agencies. The 

report will provide details on appropriate actions observed, as well as actions that are violations 

of the Fire Plan. Recommendations for remedial action will be made to correct violations of the 

Fire Plan. 
APPENDIX T 

WATER RESOURCES ROUTE VARIATION SUMMARY 
APPENDIX T 

Water Resources Route Variation Summary 

T-1

SUMMARY OF ADOPTED ROUTE VARIATIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO 

RIPARIAN VEGETATION, WATERBODIES, AND WETLANDS 

As discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, riparian corridors and their associated waterbodies and 

wetlands provide multiple ecological functions within the proposed Project area. Riparian corridors are 

vegetated communities (particularly with woody species) that are contiguous to and affected by surface 

and subsurface perennial and intermittent waterbodies and often serve as the transitional area between 

streams and uplands. The vegetation that comprises riparian corridors is important to the stabilization of 

streambanks and for reducing floodwater velocities, which can prevent or limit streambank erosion, in 

addition to providing valuable wildlife habitat. Riparian areas are distinctly different from surrounding 

lands because of the unique soil and vegetation characteristics that are strongly influenced by the presence 

of water. In the western United States, riparian areas comprise less than 1 percent of the land area, but 

they are among the most productive and valuable natural resources. Although riparian zones account for 

less than 1 percent of the landscape, more than 80 percent of the native wildlife depends on and uses 

riparian areas at some point during the year. Numerous riparian areas, including riparian wetlands, are 

within the proposed construction right-of-way. The majority of riparian wetlands are comprised of a 

narrow band of herbaceous vegetation associated with PEM wetlands, although some scrub-shrub and 

forested riparian wetlands are present. 

Based on input from FERC via data requests, site visits, and application review, during the 

Project development stage, Bison adopted multiple route variations that avoided wetlands that were 

delineated within the Project right-of-way. Typically, during the initial Project planning, wetlands that 

extended outside of the Project area (such as riparian wetlands) were not targeted for route variations. 

Because wetlands and riparian vegetation that are associated with waterbodies largely occur in a linear 

pattern concurrent with waterbodies, these features typically could not be avoided entirely. With further 

FERC input, Bison evaluated several additional route variations that would minimize impacts to these 

largely unavoidable features by adopting route variations that would minimize the number of waterbody 

crossings, and the associated riparian crossings. 

Further, FERC determined that specific waterbodies and their associated riparian areas warranted 

field review based on the proposed crossing angles and/or the amount of wetland or riparian impacts that 

were associated with specific waterbody crossings. Between May 4th and 7th, 2009, FERC, joined by the 

BLM and NDDOH, met with Bison in the field and reviewed many of the largest or most sensitive 

riparian waterbody and wetland crossings, and we provided suggestions regarding avoidance and 

minimization of impacts. In many areas, Bison re-routed the original Project route during Project 

development in order to avoid or minimize impacts to riparian areas, waterbodies, and wetlands. As a 

result of the review of these waterbodies and the associated riparian areas, Bison adopted nine route 

variations to lessen impacts to environmental resources. Further, as discussed in Section 4.4, as a result 

of the FERC site visits, Bison is currently evaluating the relocation of HDD workspace and the associated 

alignment to increase the likelihood of a successful HDD at the Heart River. 

Table T.1-1 provides a consolidated table of those route variations that were identified by FERC 

in the field to minimize impacts to these resources. Also, this table contains a summary of those route 

variations proposed and adopted by Bison to minimize the number of waterbody crossings (and the 

associated riparian areas), wetlands, and other water resources. Overall, throughout the pre-filing period 

and after filing their application, Bison has adopted ten route variations that were proposed by the FERC 

during site visits and 37 additional route variations that have been proposed by Bison that would 

minimize impacts to water and/or riparian resources. Further, Bison proposes to cross the Little Powder 

River (MP 72.2), Little Missouri River (MP 182.7), and the Heart River (MP 282.1) via HDD in response 

to agency requests and to minimize surface impacts to waterbodies and their associated riparian areas. 
APPENDIX T 

Water Resources Route Variation Summary

T-2

TABLE T.1-1 

Adopted Route Variations to Minimize Impacts to Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Waterbodies 

Milepost (MP) Sensitive Resource Avoidance and/or Minimization 

FERC-Recommended Route Variations 

MP 73.9 – 74.0 Dry Trail Creek Perpendicular waterbody crossing adopted to 

minimize multiple waterbody crossings and to 

reduce riparian impacts. 

MP 74.5 – 74.7 Trail Creek Alignment collocated with existing right-of-way to 

result in only a single crossing of the waterbody. 

MP 82.5 – 84.3 Tributary to Ranch Creek 

(multiple) 

Different crossing location to reduce riparian 

wetland crossing length and to eliminate impacts to 

riparian trees. 

MP 116.5 – 116.8 Spring Creek Different crossing location to minimize riparian 

wetland crossing length. 

MP 157.5 – 157.8 Corral Creek Riparian trees would be avoided by altered 

crossing location. 

MP 218.8 – 218.8 Cedar Creek Alignment crosses the waterbody at a narrower 

location and avoids riparian wetland impacts. 

MP 222.5 – 222.9 North Fork Cedar Creek Route adjusted to a cross waterbody at a more 

narrow location and to minimize high-quality wildlife 

habitat. 

MP 250.5 – 251.0 Cannonball River Alignment adjusted to cross where adjacent 

topography is less steep. FERC has 

recommended the development of a site-specific 

plan to stabilize the steep banks. 

MP 281.3 – 282.4 Heart River HDD alignment being considered for adjustment to 

increase the likelihood of a successful HDD to 

minimize impacts to the Heart River and associated 

wetlands and riparian vegetation. 

MP 282.6 – 282.8 Peters Creek Impacts to riparian trees would be minimized. 

Bison- Proposed Route Variations 

MP 26.8 – 27.0 Wetland and Natural Springs Avoid wetland crossing and natural spring. 

MP 27.4 – 27.7 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 50.2 – 50.5 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 58.6 – 58.6 Waterbody Increase distance of Project from waterbody. 

MP 58.6 – 59.6 Wetland and Natural Springs Avoid wetland crossing and natural spring. 

MP 52.3 – 55.9 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 105.6 – 105.9 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 111.4 – 112.2 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 114.5 – 114.9 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 118.1 – 118.5 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 119.0 – 119.3 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 123.2 – 123.5 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 124.0 – 124.6 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 
APPENDIX T 

Water Resources Route Variation Summary 

T-3

TABLE T.1-1 (continued) 

Adopted Route Variations to Minimize Impacts to Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Waterbodies 

Milepost (MP) Sensitive Resource Avoidance and/or Minimization 

Bison- Proposed Route Variations (continued) 

MP 127.4 – 128.4 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 136.0 – 137.0 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 145.5 – 145.8 Wetland Avoid wetlands crossings. 

MP 149.5 – 149.9 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 152.8 – 153.1 Pond Avoid small pond. 

MP 170.4 – 170.6 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 174.3 – 175.7 Wetland and Natural Springs Avoid wetland crossing and natural spring. 

MP 175.9 – 176.1 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 175.9 – 176.3 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 181.1 – 181.4a Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations and 

to increase likelihood of reclamation success. 

MP 197.0 – 198.1 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 205.5 – 205.6 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 214.2 – 242.2 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 217.8 – 218.8 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 242.2 – 242.5 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 249.1 – 250.1 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 251.0 – 253.4 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 261.2 – 261.4 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 263.0 – 263.3 Waterbody Avoid waterbody crossing. 

MP 266.2 – 268.9 Waterbody Avoid crossing waterbody in multiple locations. 

MP 267.8 – 268.0 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 274.51 – 274.6 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

MP 287.5 – 287.8 Wetland Avoid wetland crossing. 

Notes: 

a

 Bison has adopted two route variations in this location based on continuing agency input to minimize impacts to the Little 

Missouri River. 
APPENDIX U 

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN 
Prepared for: 

Bison Pipeline LLC

Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

AECOM, Inc. 

April 2009 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 
AECOM Environment 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Regulatory Requirements....................................................................................................................................1

2.1 Wyoming..................................................................................................................................................1

2.2 Montana....................................................................................................................................................1

2.3 North Dakota............................................................................................................................................2

3.0 Fugitive Dust Sources .........................................................................................................................................3

4.0 Best Practical Methods of Fugitive Dust Control ...............................................................................................3

5.0 Responsible Party................................................................................................................................................6

6.0 Project Contact for Landowners..........................................................................................................................7

7.0 General Contractors ............................................................................................................................................7

TABLES 

Table 4.0-1 - Proposed Water Sources for Dust Abatement Purposes...........................................................................5

Document No. 06786.024.3383 i April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

1.0 Introduction 

The Bison Pipeline Project (the Project) will include approximately 302 miles of new pipeline in 

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. This Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Plan) provides 

procedures to minimize fugitive dust during periods of construction. This Plan will be followed 

during the construction phase of the Project, which is expected to last from May through October 

of 2010. The dust control methods described herein will be applied as frequently as is necessary in 

response to landowner requests, safety concerns, and/or construction requirements. 

2.0 Regulatory Requirements 

Bison proposes to utilize the fugitive dust control measures described in this plan in accordance 

with the regulatory requirements described below, by state. 

2.1 Wyoming 

Within the state of Wyoming sources are required to control fugitive dust emissions according to 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) Air Quality Division’s (AQD’s) 

Standards and Regulations Chapter 3, Section 2 Paragraph (f). 

For fugitive dust resulting from construction activities, the following control measures are 

approved by the WYDEQ AQD Division Administrator and considered appropriate for minimizing 

fugitive dust within Wyoming: 

 Frequent watering and/or chemical stabilization when engaged in clearing or leveling of land, 

earthmoving, excavation, or movement of trucks or construction equipment over access haul 

roads or cleared land. 

 Prompt removal of material tracked onto paved streets by water or other means. 

For fugitive dust resulting from the handling and transportation of materials, the following control 

measures are approved by the WYDEQ AQD Division Administrator and considered appropriate 

for minimizing fugitive dust within Wyoming: 

 Application of asphalt, oil, water or suitable chemicals on unpaved roads, material stockpiles 

and other surfaces which can give rise to airborne dusts when engaged in handling or hauling 

materials (including soil). 

 When transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dust, open bodied trucks shall be 

covered when in motion. 

2.2 Montana 

The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Title 17‚ Chapter 8‚ Subchapter 3‚ Rule 8 - 

Particulate Matter‚ Airborne provides that reasonable precautions to control emissions of airborne 

particulate matter must be taken into consideration when engaged in the production, handling, 

transportation, or storage of any material (including soils); when using any street, road, or parking 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 1 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

lot; and as part of construction or demolition projects. In such instances, fugitive dust control 

methods must be implemented such that airborne particulate matter from any source shall not 

exhibit opacity of 20 percent or greater averaged over six consecutive minutes. 

2.3 North Dakota 

Fugitive dust emissions are regulated under North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Title 33‚ 

Article 15‚ Chapter 17. This regulation dictates that, “No person shall cause or permit fugitive 

[dust] emissions from any source whatsoever, including a building, its appurtenances, or a road, to 

be used, constructed, altered, repaired, or demolished; or activities such as loading, unloading, 

storing, handling, or transporting of materials without taking reasonable precautions to prevent 

such emissions from causing air pollution as defined in NDAC Section 33-15-01-04.” 

According to North Dakota regulations, reasonable abatement measures for the control of fugitive 

dust emissions on unpaved roads or parking areas include frequent watering, the use of dust 

palliatives, detouring, paving, road closure, speed control, and other means such as surface 

treatment with penetration chemicals (e.g., ligninsulfonates, oil, water, cutbacks). 

According to North Dakota regulations, reasonable abatement measures for the control of fugitive 

dust emissions resulting from demolition or earth-moving activities include: 

 Wetting down the construction area, including prewatering; 

 Landscaping and replanting with native vegetation; 

 Covering, shielding or enclosing the area; 

 Paving the area, temporarily or permanently; 

 Treating the area with the use of dust palliatives and chemical stabilization; 

 Detouring around the area; 

 Restricting the speed of vehicles on sites; 

 Preventing the deposit of dirt and mud on improved streets and roads; 

 Minimizing topsoil disturbance and initiating reclamation activities as soon as possible; 

 Sequential blasting whenever or wherever feasible to reduce the amounts of particulate matter 

released; 

 Surface compaction and sealing; 

 Washing or wetting down, treating, or covering hauling equipment when necessary to minimize 

the amount of dust becoming airborne in transit and loading; and 

 Treating or containing stockpiled materials to prevent blowing. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 2 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

3.0 Fugitive Dust Sources 

Fugitive dust could be generated directly from pipeline installation and aboveground facility 

construction. The following construction activities have been identified as having the potential for 

generating fugitive dust: 

 vehicle and motorized equipment movement on paved and unpaved access roads; 

 vegetation removal; 

 clearing and grading; 

 topsoil removal; 

 cutting and filling; 

 trenching; 

 backfilling; 

 blasting; 

 track-outs onto roads; 

 bulk material loading, hauling and unloading; 

 use of material storage piles; and 

 use of parking, staging, and storage areas. 

It is the responsibility of the Project contractor(s) and the designated environmental inspector(s) to 

ensure all sources of dust generation are identified. 

4.0 Best Practical Methods of Fugitive Dust 

Control 

Existing highways, frontage roads, and secondary roads will be used for access to the Construction 

Right-of-Way (ROW). Paved access roads will be kept free of mud and soil that may track onto 

the road surface from the Construction ROW through the use of gravel access pads and similar 

devices. If soil is transported onto a public road surface or other paved area, including parking lots, 

by construction equipment and vehicles, it will be removed as soon as practical from the road by 

shoveling or sweeping, and will be transported back to a designated sediment control disposal area 

within the Construction ROW. Road washing, if necessary, will only be allowed after the soil has 

been scraped from the paved road surface. Abatement measures for fugitive dust will be required 

on the Construction ROW or access roads in accordance with the requirements of the respective 

states, as described in Section 2.0 above. In addition, dust control measures will also be 

implemented as appropriate in response to any landowner concerns that may arise. 

The most effective means of dust control is the frequent use of water from watering trucks to 

moisten exposed soils along the Project. Water for fugitive dust control purposes will be obtained 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 3 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 4 April 2009 

as necessary through permits or purchase contracts with owners of valid existing water rights. 

These approvals will be acquired prior to construction. Withdrawal rates will be less than or equal 

to 10 percent of the existing flow rate within each waterbody at the time of withdrawal in order to 

protect aquatic life and provide for downstream water uses in compliance with regulatory and 

permit requirements. Current proposed sources of water for dust abatement are in Table 4.0-1

below.
Table 4.0-1 - Proposed Water Sources for Dust Abatement Purposes 

Data contained within this table are based on the REV L centerline shapefile issued on 02/17/2009 

Project Section 

(MP start to MP end) 

Source 

MP Possible Source Waters

Source Waters 

Location 

(County, State)

Average Historic 

Daily Flow Rate, 

August/ 

September (cfs) b

Water Use 

Volume 

(gallons) c

Withdrawal Watershed 

(HUC) 

MP (-0.47) to 86.57 72.00 Little Powder River Campbell, WY 5.24 8,301,328Little Powder (10090208) LMP 86.57 to 143.22 114.00 Phillipi Reservoir Carter, MT Unavailable 5,402,444Boxelder (10110202) BMP 143.22 to 199.86 183.00 Little Missouri River Bowman, ND 73.79 5,402,444 Upper Little Missouri 

(10110201) 

U(1

MP 199.86 to 258.38 251.00 Cannonball River Hettinger, ND 10.10 5,580,792 Upper Cannonball 

(10130204) 

U(1

MP 258.38 to 301.50 282.00 Heart River Stark, ND 26.87 4,112,992 Upper Heart (10130202) Ua Water source information is relevant to water intended for use for hydrostatic testing purposes in addition to fugitive dust control. See Resource Report No. 2, Appendix 2.H 

information specific to hydrostatic testing purposes. b cfs = “Cubic Feet per Second.” Historic flow rate data are based upon USGS streamflow data. Refer to Table 2.4-2 of Resource Report No. 2 for additional information on 

historic daily means for these waters.c Withdrawal rates will be less than or equal to 10 percent of the existing flow rate within each waterbody at the time of withdrawal. Detailed historic flow rate data is present

Report No. 2. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 5 
AECOM Environment 

As shown in Table 2.J-1, Bison proposes to withdraw water at five locations for use in controlling 

fugitive dust. Water will be transported from the source to the Construction ROW or access roads 

along the Project by way of nine 80-barrel water trucks divided among the three construction 

spreads. Bison estimates that each water truck will make ten trips per day, and therefore each truck 

will transport a total of 33,600 gallons per day. Based upon these estimations, total water usage for 

the Project for dust control purposes is projected to be approximately 302,400 gallons per day. 

Assuming 100 days of dust abatement within the time period of construction from May to October, 

a total of 30,240,000 gallons would be used for dust abatement for the entire project. 

Other practical methods of fugitive dust control that may be used during construction on the ROW 

include: 

 Application of water and/or a non-toxic chemical dust suppressant, alone or in combination 

with mulches. Potential chemical dust suppressants for the Project will be applied were 

permitted and may include: 

o Vital Bon-Matt CDS 300; 

o Vital Bon-Matt P47; 

o Vital Bon-Matt P51; and 

o EnviroLogic® 500. 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for the above-listed potential non-toxic chemical dust 

suppressants are provided as part of Appendix 1.R, Resource Report No. 1; 

 Use of wind fences, berms, or other covering material, such as gravel or textiles; 

 Watering or using a non-toxic chemical suppressant on unpaved roads in the construction area 

that pass within 0.25 mile of inhabited dwellings; 

 Reduction of vehicle speed along unpaved roads; 

 Covering or otherwise constraining and maintaining all haul truck loads to minimize spillage 

and loss of materials; and 

 Washing, wetting down, or covering all equipment prior to transit. 

Note that chemical dust suppressants will not be used on BLM-managed lands crossed by the 

Project, unless explicitly authorized by the BLM. 

5.0 Responsible Party 

Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison) or their designated contractor will be responsible for all dust control in 

the Project area during the construction phase of the Project (7 days a week, including weekends 

and holidays). Bison or their representative will have a copy of this Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

available on-site at all times. Problem areas or potential problem areas that are identified during 

construction must be controlled as soon as possible after being brought to the attention of the 

Project team. 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 6 April 2009 
AECOM Environment 

Document No. 06786-024-3383 7 April 2009 

6.0 Project Contact for Landowners 

Prior to construction, landowners will be provided with the local construction office phone number 

to facilitate communication with the Project team. A landowner complaint resolution process will 

be used to quickly and effectively remedy any issues that may arise. 

7.0 General Contractors 

The general contractors will be chosen in the spring of 2009, and their contact information will be 

incorporated into this plan when available. The contractors chosen for the Project will implement 

the dust control measures specified in this plan, while the Environmental Inspector (EI) will be 

primarily responsible for monitoring and enforcing the implementation of needed dust control 

measures as well as ensuring that dust control is effective and proper documentation is maintained. 

All construction site personnel will be educated on the measures outlined in this plan. 

Field inspection for dust control will occur daily during the construction phase of the Project. 

Bison contractors and EIs will be responsible for recording the following information on a daily 

basis for the purpose of fugitive dust monitoring and control: 

 Weather conditions (temperature, wind speed, and direction); 

 Number of water trucks in use; 

 Instances where fugitive dust was of such a concentration that abatement measures were 

implemented; 

 Condition of project soils (crusted, damp, or unstable); 

 Presence of tracked-out fugitive dust and when it was cleaned; and 

 Overall status of dust control compliance. 

The environmental inspector’s daily report will include this information and will be made available 

for review by interested local agency representatives upon request. 
APPENDIX V 

LITERATURE CITED 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-1 

Aldridge, C. L. and M. S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence to persistence: a habitat-based approach for 

endangered greater sage grouse. Ecological Applications 17: 508-526. 

Aldridge, C. L. and R. M. Brigham. 2003. Distribution, status and abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse, 

Centrocercus urophasianus, in Canada. Can. FieldNat. 117: 25–34. 

American Fisheries Society, Montana Chapter (AFS). 2008. Pallid Sturgeon. Available at 

http://www.fisheries.org/units/AFSmontana/PallidSturgeon.html

Angradi, T. R., E. W. Schweiger, D. W. Bolgrien, P. Ismert, and T. Selle. 2004. Bank Stabilization, 

Riparian Land Use and the Distribution of Large Woody Debris in a Regulated Reach of the 

Upper Missouri River, North Dakota, USA. River Res. Applic. 20:829-846. 

Aron, Carol. 2009. Personal communication between Carol Aron (U.S. FWS, North Dakota Field 

Office) and Jennifer Slate (ENTRIX, Inc.) regarding the location of piping plovers in North 

Dakota. 

Arthur, D., B. Langhus, and V. Rawn-Schatzinger. 2003. Coalbed Natural Gas Resources and Produced 

Water Management. GasTIPS. Summer 2003. Available at 

http://media.godashboard.com/gti/4ReportsPubs/4_7GasTips/Summer03/CoalbedMethProducedWtrMgmt.pdf. 

Atkinson, S. J. and A. R. Dood. 2006. Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT. 78 pp. 

B and J’s RV Park. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of campsites at RV 

park. 

Bailey, Robert G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. Rev. and expanded 

(1st ed. 1980). (Misc. Publ. No. 1391 [rev.].) Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 108 pp. 

with separate map at 1:7,500,000. 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric). 2009a. Western North Dakota Transmission Projects. 

Available at 

http://www.basinelectric.com/Energy_Resources/New_Projects/Western_ND_Transmission/inde

x.html. 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric). 2009b. Hughes Transmission Project. Available at 

http://www.basinelectric.com/Energy_Resources/New_Projects/Hughes_Transmission_Project/in

dex.html. 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric). 2009c. Dry Fork Station. Available atat 

http://www.basinelectric.com/Energy_Resources/New_Projects/Dry_Fork_Station/index.html. 

Bergantino, R. N. and G. A. Cole. 1981. Montana Atlas 1-C: Mineral Resources Map of the Ekalaka 

1°x 2° Quadrangle, Southeastern Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. 

Best Western. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of rooms at motel. 

Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB). 2008. National Biofuels Action Plan. Available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/nbap.pdf. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-2 

Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison). 2009a. Application to construct and operation the Bison Pipeline Project. 

Sent to FERC on April 17, 2009. 

Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison). 2009b. Supplemental Environmental Information – June Update. Sent to 

FERC on June 18, 2009. 

Blair Hotels. 2009. Ranch at Ucross Wyoming. http://www.blairhotels.com/rau/index.html

Bluemle, J. P. 1983. Geologic and Topographic Bedrock Map of North Dakota, North Dakota 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 25, 1:670,000 scale. 

Bluemle, J. P. 1988. NDGS Miscellaneous Map 28, Generalized Bedrock Geologic Map of North 

Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey. 

Bohne, J., Rinkes, T., and S. Kilpatrick. 2007. Sage-grouse habitat management guidelines for Wyoming. 

Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/FinalHabitatMgmtGuidelines-07-24-07.pdf. 

Bragg, Don C., Jeffrey L. Kershner, and David W. Roberts. 2000. Modeling Large Woody Debris 

Recruitment for Small Streams of the Central Rocky Mountains. (Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR55.) Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 36 pp. 

Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas development in Western North 

America: Effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage-grouse. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 67. 19 pp. 

Carlson, J. 2008. Email exchange with Jay K. Carlson, Roseburg District Manager Project Manager 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Roseburg, OR. 

(September 29, 2008). 

Case, J. C., C. S. Arneson, and L. L. Hallbe. 1998. Wyoming Surficial Geology: Spatial Data and 

Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Cedar Ridge RV Park. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of campsites at 

park. 

Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). 2008. Blowout Penstemon. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3241.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 1997. Ecological Regions of North America: 

Toward a Common Perspective. Available at 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/na/CEC_NAeco.pdf. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. The 1997 Annual Report of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. Available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/reports/1997/index.html. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-3 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. Available at 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_DOCUMENT&contentId

=19138&noc=T. 

Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Cozy Motel. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of rooms at motel. 

Defenders of Wildlife (DW). 2009a. Gray Wolf. Available at 

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php.

Defenders of Wildlife (DW). 2009b. Black-footed Ferret. Available at 

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/black-footed_ferret.php.

Defenders of Wildlife (DW). 2009c. Burrowing Owl. Available at 

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/burrowing_owl.php.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Habitat Selection and Energy Development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 187–195. 

El Paso, Ruby Pipeline (El Paso). 2009. Presentation to Wyoming Pipeline Authority, February 17. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. U.S. Coal-Bed Methane: Past, Present, and Future. 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/cbmusa2.pdf. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009b. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 

2009, Updated Reference Case with ARRA. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/stimulus/regionalarra.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009c. U.S. Natural Gas Imports by County. Available at 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009d. Natural Gas Navigator: Annual U.S. Natural Gas 

Pipeline Imports from Canada. Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9102cn2a.htm. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009e. Natural Gas Pipelines in the Midwest Region. 

Available at 

www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/midwest.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009f. Natural Gas Navigator: Annual U.S. Coal-bed 

Methane Production. Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngr52nus_1a.htm. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009g. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids 

Reserves Report. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-4 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009h. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 

2030. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/chapters.html. 

Environ International Corporation (Environ). 2007. Final Report: Wrap Area Source Emissions 

Inventory Projections and Control Strategy Evaluation: Phase II. Prepared for Western 

Governor’s Association. September 2007. Available at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/OilGas/2007-

10_Phase_II_O&G_Final)Report(v10-07%20rev.s).pdf. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (Technical Report 

Y-87-1.) U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc (ESRI). 2000. North American Digital Elevation Model 

(Grid). 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commision (FERC). 2003. Grasslands Pipeline Project: Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. FERC/EIS-154F. Docket No. CP02-037-000. May 2003. Washington, DC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Research of Wetland Construction and 

Mitigation Activities for Certificated Section 7(c) Pipeline Projects. Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2008. Mid Continent Express Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Docket No. CP08-6.). Washington, DC. 

Federal Register (FR). 1994. Available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi

Federal Register (FR). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Northern Great Plains Breeding Population of the Piping Plover. Vol. 67, 

No. 176. September 11, 2002. 

Federal Register (FR). 2009. Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment delisting. 

Vol. 74, No. 62. April 2, 2009. 

Feeney, D., G. Beauvais, R. Coupal, S. Lanning, S. Lieske, N. Nibbelink, and K. Nordyke. 2004. Big 

Game Migration Corridors in Wyoming. University of Wyoming. Available at 

http://ces.uwyo.edu/pubs/B1155.pdf. 

Fetig, W., R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of the Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Central Utah 

Water Conservancy District. 

Fort Union Gas Gathering, L.L.C. 2007. Press Release – Fort Union Gas Gathering, L.L.C. January 20, 

2007. Available at http://www.fortuniongg.com/Press_Releases/FUGG_Expansion2007.pdf. 

Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). 1999. Wyoming Ground Water Conditions. Available at 

http://www.gwpc.org/e-library/documents/state_fact_sheets/wyoming.pdf. 

Hagen, Sandra K., Patrick T. Isakson, and Steve R. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Bismarck, ND. 454 pp. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-5 

Heffelfinger, J. R., C. Brewer, C. H. Alcalà-Galvàn, B. Hale, D. L. Weybright, B. F. Wakeling, 

L. H. Carpenter, and N. L. Dodd. 2006. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Southwest Deserts 

Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group. Available at 

http://wildlife.state.nm.us/conservation/habitat_handbook/documents/SWMDHabitatGuidelines_

3.pdf. 

Heidel, B. 2007. Survey of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) in eastern Wyoming, 2005-06. 

Prepared for Bureau of Land Management and the Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest/Thunder 

Basin National Grassland. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

Herbel, B., S. Dampf, T. Ahlman, T.W. Greiser, K. Baumler, and D. Strohmaier. 2009. Class III Cultural 

Resource Inventory for the North Dakota Portion of the Proposed Bison Pipeline Project, 

Bowman, Slope, Hettinger, Stark, Grant, and Morton Counties, North Dakota. HRA Gray & 

Pape, LLC, Missoula, Montana. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC). 2009. Current Climate Summary Maps. Available at 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/index.php. 

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural 

gas field development in western Wyoming. Ph.D thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

WY. 215 pp. 

HotelsTravel. 2009. Hotel Information. Available at http://www.hotelstravel.com. 

Hulett Motel. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of rooms and cabins at 

motel. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4). 2007. Working Group I – AR4 Report. 

Available at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Jent, B. K. 2007. Oil Discovery in Wyoming. Available at http://ezinearticles.com/?Oil-Discovery-inWyoming&id=872704. 

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. 

Kampgrounds of America (KOA). 2009. Personal communication from Brian Pierce, ENTRIX on July 

21 concerning number of campsites at park. 

Knight, D. H. 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming Landscapes. Yale University. 

Krueper, D. J. 2000. Conservation priorities in naturally fragmented and human altered riparian habitats 

of the arid west. In R. Bonney, D. N. Pachley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles (eds.). Strategies for 

bird conservation: the Partners in Flight planning process 88–90. (USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-16.) 

Kung, Hsiang-Ching, D.L. Hoyert, J. Xu, and S.L. Murphy. 2008. Deaths: Final Data for 2005. CDC 

National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 56, No. 10. April 24. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-6 

Kunz, T. H. and R. A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. American Society of Mammalogy, 

Mammalian Species No. 175. 6 pp. 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG). 2007. Montana Groundwater Information Center 

Water Well Data. Available at http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/shape/gwicwells.zip. 

Montana Coal Council. 2007. U.S. Coal Reserves and Surface Mines. Available at 

http://montanacoalcouncil.com/index.html. 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2009. Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 

17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/dir/legal/Chapters/CH08-02.pdf. 

Montana Department of Transportation (Montana DOT). 2009. Personal cCommunication with Tom 

Martin, Environmental Services Bureau Chief. May 14, 2009. 

Montana Field Guide. 2009. Available at http://fieldguide.mt.gov. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2009a. Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi. Montana Field 

Guide. Available at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNLC13034.aspx. Accessed June 24, 

2009. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009b. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. Available at 

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNRB02020.aspx. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009c. Least Tern. Available at 

http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/tande/leasttern.html. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009d. Pallid Sturgeon. Available at 

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AFCAA02010.aspx. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009e. Mountain Plover. Available at 

http://fwp.mt.gov/fieldguide/detail_ABNNB03100.aspx. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009f. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. Available at 

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC08010.aspx. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2009g. Swift Fox. Available at 

http://fwp.mt.gov/fieldguide/detail_AMAJA03030.aspx. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2008. Email Delivery of information from Martin Miller, 

Montana Natural Heritage Program to Kenny Ruzicka, AECOM. August 1, 2008. 

Montana Office of Tourism. 2009. Montana Official State Travel Site. Available at 

http://www.visitmt.com/. 

Montana River Action (MRA). 2009. Prairie Streams In Eastern Montana. Available at 

http://www.montanariveraction.org/prairie.streams.html. Accessed May 2009. 

Montana State Government (MSG). 2009. Ground Water Information. Available at 

http://nris.mt.gov/WIS/mtgwres.asp. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-7 

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. 2008. North Dakota – Conservation – Environment. Available at 

http://www.montana-dakota.com/NorthDakota/Conservation/Pages/Environment.aspx. 

Moorcourt Motel. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of rooms at motel. 

Motel Pioneer. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of rooms at motel. 

Murphy, E. C. 2001a. Strippable Lignite Deposits, Bowman County, North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey. 

Murphy, E. C. 2001b. Strippable Lignite Deposits, Hettinger County, North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey. 

Murphy, E. C. 2001c. Strippable Lignite Deposits, Morton County, North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey. 

Murphy, E. C. 2005a. Lignite Reserves, Bowman 100K Sheet, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological 

Survey. 

Murphy, E. C. 2005b. Lignite Reserves, Dickinson 100K Sheet, North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey. 

Murphy, E. C. 2006a. Lignite Reserves, Mott 100K Sheet, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological 

Survey. 

Murphy, E. C., N. W. Kruger, G. E. Goven, Q. L. Vandal, K C. Jacobs, and M. L. Gutenkunst. 2006b. 

Lignite Resources of North Dakota: North Dakota Geological Survey Report of Investigation 

No. 105, 31 p. 

National Atlas of the United States (NAUS). 2006. 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries, 

Version 2.4 (map). Available at 

http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater. 

National Energy Board. 2008. Recent Developments and Outlook for Canada’s Natural Gas. Presented 

at the FERC State of the Natural Gas Infrastructure Conference, November 21, 2008. Available 

at http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rpblctn/spchsndprsnttn/2008/sttntrlgsnfrstrctr/sttntrlgsnfrstrctreng.html. 

National Geographic Society. 2008. USA Topographic Maps. Available at 

http://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/services. 

National Wind Watch, Inc. 2009. Wind Farm Near Rhame Gets O.K. from PSC. March 26, 2009. 

Available at http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/03/26/wind-farm-near-rhame-gets-ok-frompsc/. 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Riparian Areas Environmental Uniqueness, 

Functions, and Values. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/pubs/ib11text.html. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox), Fish and Wildlife 

Management Habitat Leaflet No. 33. Available online at: 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/GrasslandSpecies/SwiftFoxConservationTeam.htm. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-8 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. RCS Soil Data Mart. U.S. Soil Series Maps 

(SSURGO) Data for Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Available at 

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GatewayHome.html. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Artemisia tridentate Nutt. Plant Profile. 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ARTR2. 

NatureServe. 2009a. Centrocercus Urophasianus. NatureServe Explorer. Available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_report.wmt&l

oadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehensive.wmt&summ

aryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=105314&paging=home&save=true&startIndex=1&nextSta

rtIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=105314&offPageSelectedElType=species&offPa

geYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutton&selectedIndexes=105314. 

NatureServe. 2009b. NatureServe Explorer. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

Naugle, D., D. Walker, and K. Doherty. 2006. Sage-grouse population response to coal-bed natural gas 

development in the Powder River Basin: Interim progress report on region-wide lek-count 

analyses. University of Montana. 

Nebraska Energy Office. 2009. Ethanol Facilities Nameplate and Production Capacity Ranked by State. 

Available at http://www.neo.ne.gov//statshtml/121.htm. 

North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2009. Federal Policies Incentives for Renewable Energy. 

Available at http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?state=us&re=1&EE=0. 

North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH). 1997. North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for 

Groundwater Monitoring. Available at http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/gw/pubs/gwt.htm. 

North Dakota Department of Health, Air Quality Division (NDDOH). 2009. Air Pollution Control 

Rules, Article 33-15-02. Available at 

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/33-15-02.pdf. 

North Dakota Department of Transportation (North Dakota DOT). 2009. Personal cCommunication with 

Sheri Lares, Engineering and Environmental Section Leader. May 15, 2009. 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). 2005. Greater Sage Grouse Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies. Available at http://gf.nd.gov/conservation/sage-grouse-plan.html. 

North Dakota Geologic Survey and North Dakota Department of Health. 2009. Available at 

http://www.web.apps.state.nd.us/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsf. 

North Dakota Legislative Branch. 2007. North Dakota Century Code. Chapter 61-29. 

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t61c29.pdf. 

North Dakota State Government. 2009a. Find a Room. North Dakota Department of Tourism. 

http://www.ndtourism.com/wherestay/accommodations/

North Dakota State Government. 2009b. North Dakota Tourism Hotel Search Engine. North Dakota 

Department of Tourism. http://northdakota-bookdirect.com
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-9 

North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC). 2007. Ground and Surface Water Data. Available at 

http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/gw/sourcewater.htm. 

North Dakota Tourism Division. 2009. Where to Stay. Available at http://www.ndtourism.com. 

Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A 

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Biological Service. (Biological Report 28.) Washington, DC. 58 pp. 

Noss, R. F., E.eT. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A 

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Biological Service. (Biological Report 28.) Washington, DC. 58 pp. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Map of the United States Showing Locations of 

Operating Nuclear Power Reactors. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Reactors. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html. 

PACE Global Energy Services (PACE). 2006. Powder River Basin Coal Bed Methane Development 

2006 Gas Production Forecast. Presented to Wyoming Pipeline Authority Quarterly Meeting, 

October 24. 

Peterson, J.A., 1988, Geologic summary and hydrocarbon plays, Williston Basin Province. Available at 

http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov31/text/prov31.pdf

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) Accessed April 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

Potential Gas Committee. 2006. Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States, Report of the 

Potential Gas Committee. December 31. As referenced in Energy Information Administration. 

2007. U.S. Coal-Bed Methane: Past, Present, and Future. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/cbmusa2.pdf. 

Powder River Travel Plaza. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of rooms at 

hotel. 

Prairie Dog Coalition (PDC). 2007a. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Available at 

http://www.prairiedogcoalition.org/pd-black-tailed-prairie-dog.php. 

Prairie Dog Coalition (PDC). 2007b. White-Tailed Prairie Dog. Available at 

http://www.prairiedogcoalition.org/pd-white-tailed-prairie-dog.php. 

Rangeland Court Motel and RV Park. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of 

rooms at motel and number of campsites at RV park. 

Rextag Strategies Corp. 2008a. Northern Border Pipeline Map and System Information. Available at 

http://www.rextagstrategies.com/Pipelines/northernborder.php. 

Rextag Strategies Corp. 2008b. Williston Basin Pipeline Map and System Information. Available at 

http://www.rextagstrategies.com/Pipelines/willistonbasin.php. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-10

Rimrock Lodge. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of rooms at motel. 

Roosevelt-Custer Regional Council. 2007. Databases provided by Roosevelt-Custer Regional CouncilExcel Format – 2007 Data. Available at 

http://www.dickinsonnd.com/strom_center/databases.asp. 

Scandinavian Oil-Gas Online. 2008. MDU Resources plans for new wind project, wind expansion. 

December 19, 2008. Available at http://www.scandoil.com/moxiebm2/alternative_energy/wind/mdu-resources-plans-for-new-wind-project-wind-expa.shtml. 

Scott, M. L., S. K. Skagen, and M. F. Merigliano. 2003. Relating geomorphic change and grazing to 

avian communities in riparian forests. Conservation Biology 17(1): 284-2. 

SHG. 2009. Chronological History of Montana. Available at http://www.shgresources.com/mt/timeline/ 

Sholes, M. A. 1992. Special Publication 102: Coal Geology of Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and 

Geology. 

South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDOA). 2009. Prairie Dog Management in South Dakota. 

Available at http://www.state.sd.us/doa/das/pd_mngt.htm#intro. 

South Dakota Department of Transportation (South Dakota DOT). 2009. Personal communication with 

Tom Lehmkuhl, Office of Project Development. July 14, 2009. 

State of Wyoming Geological Survey. 2009. Wyoming Active Faults. Available at 

http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/surficial /Hazmaps/Active_Faults.jpg. 

State of Wyoming. 2009. Keyhole State Park. Wyoming Department of State Parks, Historic Sites & 

Trails. http://wyoparks.state.wy.us/Site/SiteInfo.asp?siteID=10

Stiver, S., A. Apa, J. Bohne, S. Bunnell, P. Deibert, S. Gardner, M. Hilliard, C. McCarthy, and 

M. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage-grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Unpublished 

report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Stubbs, D. 2009a. A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of the Wyoming Portion of the Bison Pipeline 

Project in Campbell County, Wyoming. ACR Report No. 428. ACR Consultants, Inc., Sheridan, 

Wyoming. 

Stubbs, D. 2009b. A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of the Wyoming Portion of the Bison Pipeline 

Project, in Fallon, Carter, and Powder River Counties, Montana. ACR Report No. 397. ACR 

Consultants, Inc., Sheridan, Wyoming. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2009. Paleontological Assessment Technical Report: 

Bison Pipeline Project; North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2007. Migratory Flyways of North America. Available 

at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/birding/migration/flyways/central/. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2008. Wildlife Fact Sheets. Available at 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-11

Thompson, J. 2007. Sagebrush in western North America: habitats and species in jeopardy. Science 

Findings. La Grande, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service. 

Tipperary Lodge Motel. 2009. Personal communication on July 21 concerning number of rooms at 

motel. 

Trading Markets. 2008. MDU Resources Pipeline Subsidiary to Expand Grasslands Pipeline. Available 

at http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stockpercent20News/1851595/. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, eds. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and 

C. V. Noble. (ERDC/EL TR-08-12.) Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2009. Personal communication on June 3, between Shae Birkey 

(AECOM) and Shannon Johnson (COE) regarding compensatory mitigation requirements. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1995. Big Dry Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. Miles City District Office, Big Dry Resource Area. February 1995. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Powder River Basin Coal Review. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009a. GeoCommunicator – Mining Claims. Available at 

http://www/geocommunicator.gov/blmMap/Map.jsp?MAP=SM. Accessed November 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009b. Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide 

Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans October 2008. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/eis/mt/milescity_seis/fseis/contents.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) – Sample Data, DP-3. Profile of 

Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) – DP-1. Profile of General 

Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. State & County QuickFacts. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. 

Reviewed March 25, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. Local Government Employment and Payroll: March 2007. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesloc07dl.html. Reviewed on May 22, 2009 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1993. Soils. Available at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. DOE Announces Loan Guarantee Applications for Nuclear 

Power Plant Construction. Available at http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/press/100208.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards. Available at 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-12

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009a. Energy Policy Act of 2005: New Plant Incentives within the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). Available at 

http://www.ne.doe.gov/energyPolicyAct2005/neEPACt2a.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009b. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Available at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/recovery/.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009c. Currently Installed Wind Capacity Map. Available at 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp#current. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009d. Solar America Cities. Available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america_cities.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. The Economics of Power River Basin Coal-bed Methane 

Development. Available at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/coalbed_methane/PRB_Coal-bed_Methane_Development.html. 

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 2003a. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. January 2003. 

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 2003a. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. January. 

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 2003b. Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement 

and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans. 

January. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLMAdministered Lands in the Western United States. (FES 05-11.) Available at 

http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2008. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/lau/#data. Reviewed July 15, 2008. 

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. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient 

Criteria. Lakes and Reservoirs of Nutrient Ecoregion IV. Office of Water. December 2001. 

(EPA-822-B-01-099.) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. EPA – Waters Data Downloads: Watershed 

Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. “2002 Section 303(d) Listed Waters – Point, 

Line & Area Features.” Available at http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. 

Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-13

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. 

Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=SSA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Wetlands in Region 8. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/wetlands/wetr8.html#ss. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. 40 CFR 50. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/40cfr.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. Monitor Values Report - Criteria Air Pollutants. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Table of Global Warming Potential for 

Greenhouse Gases. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#G 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. 2007 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

Report. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport07.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1988. Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/880808.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. Interior Least Tern. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/lestern.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. A System for Mapping Riparian Areas in the Western 

United States. National Wetland Inventory Department. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Piping Plover. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/pipingplover/pipingpl.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Whooping Crane. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WhoopingCrane/whoopingcrane-fact-2001.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/plants/uteladiestress/SPDI_Status%20review_Fertig

2005.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Status Update. October 31, 

2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. Scoping comments for the Bison Pipeline Project. 

November 4, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008c. Interior Least Tern. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/least_tern.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008d. Endangered Species Act Protections Reinstated for 

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=4D021B4F-DAD8-E191-

9C0E0BE9C9D8E881. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-14

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008e. White-Tailed Prairie Dog. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wtprairiedog/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008f. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/btprairiedog/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a. Consultation letter for the Bison Pipeline Project. July 8, 

2009. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009b. Piping Plover. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009c. Communication between Ed Bangs (FWS) and Kenny 

Ruzicka (Bison) regarding the presence of gray wolf packs in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

February 23, 2009.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009d. Black-Footed Ferret. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. The Geologic Story of the Great Plains. (Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1493.) Available at 

http://library.ndsu.edu/exhibits/text/greatplains/text.html. Accessed May 2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. Bedrock Geology of Wyoming: USGS, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. Ground Water Atlas Of The United States Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (HA 730-I). Available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/I-text1.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Geology of Montana. Available at 

http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/shpe/geology55zip. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. USGS Water-Data Site Information for the Nation. Available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/si. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009a. National Atlas of the United States. Available at 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp. Accessed May 2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009b. Mineral Resources online Spatial Data. Available at 

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/. Accessed May 2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009c. Science Topics-Geologic Processes. Available at 

http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=661 Accessed July 2009. 

U.S.Geological Survey (USGS). 2009d. Aquifer Basics: Other rocks (minor aquifer, not a principal 

aquifer, or confining unit). Available at 

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/other_rocks.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009e. Aquifer Basics: Unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sand and 

gravel aquifers. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/uncon.html. 
APPENDIX V 

Literature Cited

V-15

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009f. National Water Information System. Monthly Surface Water 

Data. Available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw. 

University of Wyoming. 2009. General Description of the Collection of Fossil Vertebrates. Available at 

http://paleo.gg.uwyo.edu/Collection_Summary.html. Accessed May 2009. 

Vuke, S. M. et al. 2001. Open File Report MBMG 432: Geologic Map of Broadus 30’ x 60’ 

Quadrangle, Eastern Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. 

Vuke, S. M. et al. 2007. Geologic Map of Montana Information Booklet – Geologic Map 62. Montana 

Bureau of Mines and Geology. 

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, K. E. Doherty, and T. E. Cornish. 2007. West Nile virus and greater sagegrouse: estimating infection rate in a wild bird population. Avian Diseases 51: 691-696. 

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. 

Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Information Center. Available at 

http://plainswindeis.anl.gov/index.cfm. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. 

Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. 

Wright Area Chamber of Commerce. 2009. Powder River Basin History. Available at 

http://www.wrightareachamber.org/powder_river_basin_history.htm. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental, Air Quality Division (WYDEQ). 2009. Standards and 

Regulations, Chapter 2. Available at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/stnd/Chapter2_2-3-05FINAL_CLEAN.doc

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). 2009a. Personal Communication with Timothy 

Stark, Environmental Services Engineer. May 20, 2009. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). 2009b. Personal communication with Kathy 

Wenger, Environmental Services Engineer. June 11, 2009. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

Website. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/index.asp. 

Wyoming Geographic Information Center. 2009. Available at 

http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/24k/bedgeol.htm. 

Wyoming Geological Survey. 2009. WSGS Coal-bed Natural Gas (CBNG) Group. Available at 

http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/coal-bed/. 

Wyoming Mining Association. 2009. Wyoming Coal. Available at http://www.wmaminelife.com/coal/coalfrm/coalfrm1.htm.

Wyoming Motel. 2009. Personal communication on July 22 concerning number of rooms and campsites 

at motel. 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WYSEO). 2004. SEO_wells. Available at 

ftp://seoftp.wyo.gov/wells/wells0.6.zip. 
APPENDIX W 

LIST OF PREPARERS 
APPENDIX W 

List of Preparers 

W-1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Martin, James – Project Manager, Alternatives, Water Resources; Fisheries, Wetlands, Threatened 

and Endangered Species, Wildlife, Vegetation 

M.S., Environmental Science, Indiana University, 1990 

M.P.A., Indiana University, 1990 

B.S., Biology, Indiana University, 1987 

Brown, Charles – Deputy Project Manager, Land Use

Senior Program Analyst, B.A., Business Administration 

Armbruster, Ellen – Cultural Resources

M.A., Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1986 

B.A., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1979 

Baum, Elaine – Threatened and Endangered Species

M.P.A., Florida State, 2006 

B.S., Environmental Policy and Planning, Virginia Tech, 2004 

Cefalu, Janine - Socioeconomics

B.A., International Relations, San Francisco State University, 1996 

M.E.S., Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College, 2005 

Harris, Kara – Geology; Soils 

M.P.A., Environmental Science and Policy, Columbia University, 2006 

B.S., Environmental Science, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, 2003 

Tomasi, Eric – Air Quality and Noise 

B.S. Aerospace Engineering, Boston University, 1994 

Wachholder, Joanne – Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species, Wildlife, Vegetation 

M.S., Crop and Soil Sciences – Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University, 1997 

B.S., Environmental Biology, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, 1994 

ENTRIX, Inc.

Kicklighter, Wayne – Project Manager 

M.S. Ecology-Fisheries, San Diego State University, 1990 

B.S. Biology, Memphis State University, 1987 

Slate, Jennifer– Deputy Project Manager; Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Marine Biology, Texas A&M University – Galveston, 2004 

Allen, Anne – Water Resources, Fish & Wildlife 

B.S., Business Administration, Minor Philosophy, University of Florida, 2001 

Camponelli, Kim – Land Use

M.S., Environmental Science, Towson University, 2006 

B.S., Biology, McDaniel College, 2004 
APPENDIX W 

List of Preparers 

W-2

DiSanto, Lavinia – Physical Resources Task Lead, Project Description 

B.A., Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, 1999 

Grange, Katey – Alternatives

M.E.M., Environmental Management, Duke University, 2006 

B.S., Fisheries and Aquatic Science, University of Washington, 2003 

Harford, Amanda – Fish and Wildlife 

M.S., Environmental Management, Duke University, 2008 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 2004 

Kling, Craig – Biological Resources Lead

M.S., Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1980 

B.A., Zoology/Wildlife Biology, North Dakota State University, 1973 

Lawrence, Deron – Vegetation, Wetlands

MA., Philosophy, St. Louis University, 2001 

M.S., Ecology, Idaho State University, 1991 

B.S., Ecology, Idaho State University, 1988 

Loveday, H. Trevor – Project Scope Task Lead

M.S., Aquatic Biology, Stephen F. Austin University, 1995 

B.B.A., Finance, Baylor University, 1990 

McNees, Lance – Cultural Resources

M.A., Philosophy, University of Utah, 1987 

B.A., Philosophy, University of Utah, 1983 

Parish, Amy – Cumulative Impacts

M.S., Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Delaware, 2008 

B.S., Animal Science, Minor in Food and Agribusiness Management, University of Delaware, 

2005 

Staeger, William –Introduction, Reliability and Safety

M.S., Oregon State University, 1974 

B.A., Lafayette College, 1967 

Stapler, Ryan – Socioeconomics

M.S., Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, 2006 

B.S., Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, 2005 

Todd, Bridget – Geology, Soils

B.S., Geology, Sam Houston State University, 2005 

Wakefield, Jeffery –Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Economics, University of Delaware, 2001 

M.A., Environmental Economics, University of Delaware, 1998 

M.S., Marine Biology and Biochemistry, University of Delaware, 1996 

B.S. Biology, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1994 
APPENDIX W 

List of Preparers 

W-3

Ward, Jennifer – Social Sciences Task Lead

M.S., Resource Economics and Policy (Environmental), University of Maine, Anticipated 2009 

B.A., Mathematics, University of North Carolina – Ashville, 2001 

Willoughby, Craig – Air Quality and Noise 

B.S., Mining Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1980 

Layton, Jackie- Editor 

A.A.S., Architectural Engineering, Delaware Technical and Community College, 1992 

Lynn, Joan (Egret, Inc.)- Editor 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Routing Code PJ 11.3 Washington, DC 20426 Official Business Penalty for Private Use 
 Bison Pipeline Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement