Download Download Keystone XL Project Applicant - Prepared Biological Assessment Final...
Prepared for: Keystone XL Project
Keystone XL Project Applicant - Prepared Biological Assessment Final
Acronyms and Abbreviations APLIC
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
AWBP
Aransas-Wood Buffalo National Park
BA
Biological Assessment
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BMP
Best Management Practice
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CMRP
Construction, Mitigation, and Reclamation Plan
CWS
Canadian Wildlife Service
DOS
Department of State
ERP
Emergency Response Plan
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FR
Federal Register
HDD
horizontal directional drill
Keystone
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP
km
kilometer
kV
kilovolt
MFWP
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
MALAA
May affect, likely to adversely affect
mi
miles
MLV
Main Line Valve
MOP
maximum operating pressure
MVa
million volt-amp
NA
Not Applicable
NGPC
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
NLAA
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
NRC
National Response Center i
May 2011
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
OCC
Operations Control Center
ODWC
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
ONHI
Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory
OPS
Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA
Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration
PMP
Pipeline Maintenance Program
Project
Keystone XL Project
ROW
right-of-way
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDGFP
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
SPCC
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
TBD
To Be Determined
TPWD
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TWAs
Temporary Work Areas
TXNDD
Texas Natural Diversity Database
US
United States
USDOT
United States Department of Transportation
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
ii
May 2011
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Section 7 Process ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Summary of Species Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..................................... 1-8 1.4.1 Louisiana Black Bear ......................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2 Red Wolf ............................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.4.3 Eskimo Curlew ................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.4 Red-cockaded Woodpecker .............................................................................................. 1-8 1.4.5 Topeka Shiner.................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.7 Houston Toad .................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.8 Green Sea Turtle ............................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.9 Hawksbill Sea Turtle .......................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.10 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle .................................................................................................. 1-9 1.4.11 Leatherback Sea Turtle ..................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.12 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ...................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.13 Ouachita Rock Pocketbook ............................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.14 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 1-10 2.0 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Project Description and Location ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Pipeline Construction Overview ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.3 Ancillary Facilities Summary ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.4 Land Requirements ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.5 Pipeline ROW .................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.6 Additional Temporary Workspace Areas (TWAs) .......................................................... 2-15 2.1.7 Pipe Stockpile Sites, Railroad Sidings, and Contractor Yards ....................................... 2-15 2.1.8 Construction Camps ........................................................................................................ 2-16 2.1.9 Access Roads .................................................................................................................. 2-17 2.1.10 Aboveground Facilities .................................................................................................... 2-17 2.1.11 Construction Procedures ................................................................................................. 2-21 2.1.12 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 2-38 2.2 References..................................................................................................................................... 2-41 3.0 Species Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Federally Endangered ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Black-footed Ferret: Endangered/Proposed – Experimental Populations ....................... 3-1 3.1.2 Interior Least Tern ............................................................................................................. 3-5 3.1.3 Whooping Crane .............................................................................................................. 3-12 iii
May 2011
3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8
Pallid Sturgeon................................................................................................................. 3-21 American Burying Beetle ................................................................................................. 3-24 Blowout Penstemon ......................................................................................................... 3-52 Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower ............................................................................................. 3-53 Texas Trailing Phlox ........................................................................................................ 3-56
3.2 Federally Threatened .................................................................................................................... 3-61 3.2.1 Mountain Plover ............................................................................................................... 3-61 3.2.2 Piping Plover .................................................................................................................... 3-64 3.2.3 Arkansas River Shiner ..................................................................................................... 3-71 3.2.4 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid....................................................................................... 3-75
List of Appendices After the report is complete, Right Click the following field and choose “Update Field” to generate a List of Appendices from the Custom Style “AppCov”. Appendix A
Construction Mitigation and Reclamation Plan
Appendix B
(Confidential): Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis
Appendix C
(Confidential): A Summary Report of the July 2008 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) and Least Tern (Sterna antilarum) Surveys for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project A Field survey for the Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) Along the Gulf Coast Segment of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project
Appendix D
(Confidential): Habitat Assessment for the Federally Endangered American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) along the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project Right-OfWay in Nebraska and South Dakota American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Survey and Habitat Assessment for the Keystone XL Project in Lamar County, Texas and Habitat Assessment for Oklahoma
Appendix E
(Confidential): Keystone Phase IV American Burying Beetle Habitat Map Book – South Dakota and Nebraska Keystone Phase III American Burying Beetle Habitat Map Book – Oklahoma and Lamar County, Texas
Appendix F
(Confidential): Keystone Phase IV American Burying Beetle ABB Rating Map Book – South Dakota and Nebraska
Appendix G
(Confidential): . A Field Survey for the Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower (Hymenoxys texana) along the Houston Lateral in Harris County, Texas Texas Trailing Phlox Assessment Phase III Phlox Soils Crossed by Mainline in Polk County, Texas Phase III Phlox Soils mapped in Hardin County, Texas Potential Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivalis subsp. texensis) Habitat Evaluation for the Keystone Pipeline Project, Gulf Coast Segment in Polk County, Texas
Appendix H
(Confidential): A Field Survey for Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platenthera praeclara) and the Small White Lady’s-Slipper (Cypripedium candidum) Along the Keystone XL Project in South Dakota and Nebraska
Appendix I
Supporting Meeting Summaries, Consultation Letters and Communications iv
May 2011
Appendix J
Letters of Section 7 Consultation Commitments from Power Providers
Appendix K
Pipeline Temperature Effects Study
v
May 2011
List of Tables After the report is complete, Right Click the following field and choose “Upda.te Field” to generate List of Tables. Table 1.3-1
Summary of Species Included in Analysis and Findings ........................................................ 1-7
Table 2.1-1
Project Facilities by State ......................................................................................................... 2-1
Table 2.1-2
Summary of Lands Affected ................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2.1-3
Locations and Acreage of Potential Pipe Stockpile Sites, Railroad Sidings, and Contractors Yards ....................................................................................................................................... 2-15
Table 2.1-4
Minimum Pipeline Cover ........................................................................................................ 2-24
Table 2.1-5
Potential Hydrostatic Test Water Sources along the Project Route ..................................... 2-26
Table 2.1-6
Waterbodies and Wetlands Crossed Using the Horizontal Directional Drilling Method....... 2-30
Table 2.1-7
Summary of Power Supply Requirements for Pump Stations and Tank Farm .................... 2-34
Table 3.1-1
Occurrence Surveys for the Interior Least Tern Along the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in 20081 ................................................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.1-2
Habitat and Occurrence Surveys for the Interior Least Tern Along the Gulf Coast Segment in 20091 ......................................................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.1-3
Wetlands Estimated Impact Summary by State for Proposed Electric Distribution Lines for the Keystone XL Project ............................................................................................................... 3-18
Table 3.1-4
Suitability Rating for American Burying Beetle Habitat crossed by the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Tripp County, South Dakota ...................................................... 3-29
Table 3.1-5
Estimated Temporary1 and Permanent2 Impact Areas for American Burying Beetle Habitat crossed by the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project South of Highway 18 in Tripp County, South Dakota ............................................................................................................ 3-31
Table 3.1-7
American Burying Beetle (ABB) Occurrence Scale Used for Nebraska Based on Survey Results (Hoback 2009, 2010) ................................................................................................ 3-48
Table 3.1-8
Estimated Temporary1 Impact Areas for the American Burying Beetle based on Estimated Occurrence for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska ............. 3-50
Table 3.1-9
Estimated Permanent1 Impact Areas for the American Burying Beetle based on Estimated Occurrence for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska ............. 3-51
Table 3.1-11 American Burying Beetle Estimated Occurrence along the Gulf Coast Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Oklahoma.......................................................................................................... 3-35 Table 3.1-12 Estimated Temporary1 and Permanent2 Impact Areas for American Burying Beetle Habitat Crossed by the Gulf Coast Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Oklahoma .................. 3-37 Table 3.1-13 Survey Results for American Burying Beetle (ABB) in Lamar County, Texas (Bauer and Abbott 2009, Hoback 2010) ............................................................................................................... 3-38 Table 3.1-13 Potential Suitable Habitat for the Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivaliss subsp. texensis) Crossed by the Gulf Coast Segment1 of the Keystone XL Project in Polk County, Texas ................ 3-58 Table 3.2-1
Results of the Piping Plover Nesting Surveys for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project ..................................................................................................................................... 3-66
vi
May 2011
List of Figures After the report is complete, Right Click the following field and choose “Upda.te Field” to generate List of Figures. Figure 2.1-1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.1-2 Project Overview (Montana)..................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2.1-3 Project Overview (South Dakota)............................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2.1-4 Project Overview (Nebraska) ................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.1-5 Project Overview (Kansas)....................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2.1-6 Project Overview (Oklahoma) .................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2.1-7 Project Overview (Texas) ......................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.1-8 Typical 110-foot Construction ROW (36-inch Pipeline) with Topsoil Removal Only over Trench Line.......................................................................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2.1-9 Typical 110-foot Construction ROW (36-inch Pipeline) Spoil Side Adjacent and Co-located to Existing Pipeline ..................................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2.1-10 Typical 110-foot Construction ROW (36-inch Pipeline Centerline Offset) Working Side Adjacent and Co-located to Existing Pipeline ....................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2.1-11 Typical Pump Station without Pigging Facilities .................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2.1-12 Typical Pump Station with Pigging Facilities ......................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2.1-13 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ............................................................................... 2-22 Figure 3.1-1 Central Flyway Whooping Crane Migration Corridor ............................................................ 3-17 Figure 3.1-2 Steele City Segment – Overall American Burying Beetle Habitat ........................................ 3-27 Figure 1.1-3
Descriptive Map of American Burying Beetle Presence in Nebraska .................................. 3-28
Figure 3.1-4 Gulf Coast Segment – Overall American Burying Beetle Habitat......................................... 3-36 Figure A
Trap Locations and American Burying Beetle Captures on the Project ROW in Nebraska ........ ................................................................................................................................................. 3-46
Figure B
Steele City Segment – Overall American Burying Beetle Rating ......................................... 3-49
vii
May 2011
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Section 7 Process
The United States (US) Department of State (DOS) is the lead federal agency for the evaluation of anticipated impacts of the proposed TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) Keystone XL Project (Project). Federal agencies, in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are required to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out would not adversely affect a federally listed species or species proposed for federal listing. A Biological Assessment (BA) is required under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), if listed species or their critical habitat may be present in the area affected by any aspect of the Project. An in-depth review was performed for the Project components (i.e., Project centerline right-of-way [ROW] and above ground facilities). An analysis of associated facilities, such as transmission lines, was less detailed.
1.2
Consultation History
Construction and operation of the Project may affect habitats and populations of species protected under the federal ESA and by individual state legislation. The DOS appointed Keystone and its subcontractors to act as its designated non-federal representatives for Section 7 Consultation. In April 2008, Keystone, on behalf of the DOS, initiated consultation with the USFWS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and state natural heritage programs and wildlife agencies to identify species and habitats of concern. No NMFS listed species were determined to be within the proposed Project area. After meeting with USFWS, BLM, and state agencies, lists of species and habitats potentially affected by the Project were compiled for further analysis. Keystone developed field survey protocols, target survey areas, and survey schedules using this information. Keystone developed these survey protocols, schedules, and target areas and began submitting them to appropriate agencies for review and comment in the spring of 2008. Agency review and approval of survey protocols began in 2008 and is ongoing. Keystone filed documentation of agency correspondence associated with the review and approval process with the DOS in November 2008, July 2009, June 2010, and November 2010. Biological field surveys within the Project footprint (e.g., pipeline ROW, pump stations, access roads, pipe yards, contractor yards, extra workspace, etc.) were initiated in spring 2008. These surveys were conducted along the centerline and an Environmental Report was filed with the DOS in November 2008. Additional surveys along the ROW have continued through spring 2009, to accommodate route alignment modifications, access permissions by private landowners, and additional agency requests for surveys. If necessary, additional species-specific field surveys would be conducted prior to construction, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. The following provides a summary of Keystone’s agency correspondence, species specific survey information, and continued consultation with the USFWS regarding coordination of biological surveys and determination of biological impacts for the Project:
April 2008, Multiple Agencies: Keystone sent initial consultation letters to the Steele City Segment (Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska) USFWS, BLM, state wildlife agencies, and state natural heritage programs to request their input on identifying prominent terrestrial and aquatic resource issues or concerns that may occur within or adjacent to the ROW, focusing on species that are either sensitive (e.g., federally listed), have high economic value (e.g., big game, waterfowl), or are considered important resources (e.g., raptors, fish). The consultation letters included state-specific special status species tables compiled from data received from each state, USFWS, and BLM with brief descriptions of species habitat, miles of potential habitat crossed by the Project, and approximate mileposts where potential habitat was identified along the ROW.
April 10, 2008, USFWS – Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Texas Field Office in Arlington, Texas. The goals of the meeting were to introduce the Project, discuss the list of species that may occur in the Project area, define the survey 1-1 May 2011
approach and discuss survey protocols for the Project, and discuss any agency concerns, issues, or questions.
April 16, 2008, USFWS – Tulsa, Oklahoma, Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Oklahoma Field Office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The goals of the meeting were to introduce the Project, discuss the list of species that may occur in the Project area, define the survey approach and discuss survey protocols for the Project, and discuss any agency concerns, issues, or questions.
April 29, 2008, USFWS – Clear Lake, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Texas Field Office in Houston, Texas. The goals of the meeting were to introduce the Project, discuss the list of species that may occur in the Project area, define the survey approach and discuss survey protocols for the Project, and discuss any agency concerns, issues, or questions.
May 5, 2008, USFWS / Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC): Keystone held an agency meeting at the NGPC office in Lincoln, Nebraska, to discuss issues pertaining to wildlife, special status species, and sensitive habitat that could potentially occur in the Project area. Attendees included representatives from USFWS and NGPC. The goal was to gather input on agency recommendations based on the information sent to them in April 2008 for species occurrence, habitat assessments, and future field surveys. Keystone incorporated comments from the meeting into survey protocol and best management practices (BMPs) documents for future agency verification.
May 8, 2008, USFWS / Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP): Keystone held an agency meeting at the MFWP office in Helena, Montana, to discuss issues pertaining to wildlife, special status species, and sensitive habitat that could potentially occur in the Project area. Attendees included representatives from USFWS and MFWP. The goal was to gather input on agency recommendations based on the information sent to them in April 2008 for species occurrence, habitat assessments, and future field surveys. Keystone incorporated comments from the meeting into survey protocol and BMPs documents for future agency verification. MFWP requested a follow-up meeting with additional technical staff from MFWP (Regions 6 and 7).
May 23, 2008, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): Project representatives met with the TPWD in Dickinson, Texas, at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area. The goals of the meeting were to introduce the Project, discuss the list of species that may occur in the Project area, define the survey approach and discuss survey protocols for the Project, and discuss any agency concerns, issues, or questions.
June 3, 2008, USFWS – Lufkin, Texas, Ecological Services East Texas Sub-office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Texas Field Sub-office in Lufkin, Texas. The primary purpose of this meeting was to meet with a USFWS biologist, who was not able to attend the previous meeting in Arlington, Texas, and specialized in reviews for potential habitat and distribution of the red-cockaded woodpecker and Louisiana pine snake, as well as public and private land issues.
June 10, 2008. USFWS / South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP): Keystone held an agency meeting with staff from USFWS and SDGFP at the SDGFP office in Pierre, South Dakota, to discuss issues pertaining to wildlife, special status species, and sensitive habitat that could potentially occur in the Project area. The goal was to gather input on agency recommendations based on the information sent to them in April 2008 for species occurrence, habitat assessments, and future field surveys. Keystone incorporated comments from the meeting into survey protocol and BMPs documents for future agency verification.
July 1, 2008, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC): Project representatives met with the ODWC in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The goals of the meeting were to introduce the Project, discuss the list of species that may occur in the Project area, define the survey approach and discuss survey protocols for the Project, and discuss any agency concerns, issues, or questions.
July 29, 2008, MFWP/BLM: Keystone held an agency meeting with staff from the BLM Glasgow Field Office and MFWP Region 6 and 7 at the MFWP office in Glasgow, Montana, to discuss issues 1-2
May 2011
pertaining to wildlife, special status species, and sensitive habitat that could potentially occur in the Project area. The goal was to gather input on agency recommendations based on the information sent to them in April 2008 for species occurrence, habitat assessments, and future field surveys. Keystone incorporated comments from the meeting into survey protocol and BMPs documents for future agency verification.
September 4, 2008, USFWS – Arlington, Clear Lake, and Lufkin, Texas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Field Offices: Keystone sent consultation letters to the USFWS describing the proposed threatened and endangered species biological survey program and the list of species for which species-specific surveys would occur. The consultation letters included a compact disc containing electronic files of the ROW. The consultation letters requested input on the species lists.
September 12, 2008, USFWS – Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone received a consultation letter from the USFWS regarding recommendations for the proposed list of threatened and endangered species-specific surveys, identified habitats that are a high priority of conservation, and provided recommendations for content of mitigation plan for fish and wildlife resources.
November 12, 2008, USFWS – Clear Lake, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone received a consultation letter from the USFWS regarding recommendations for the proposed list of threatened and endangered species-specific surveys, habitat descriptions and field evaluations, lighting at aboveground facilities, pipeline monitoring criteria, utility corridors, and identified other areas of concern.
December 3, 2008, USFWS – Tulsa, Oklahoma, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone received a consultation letter from the USFWS regarding recommendations for the proposed list of threatened and endangered species-specific surveys, habitats of special concern, and provided BMPs for projects affecting rivers, streams, and tributaries. USFWS requests formal consultation with DOS to address take of the American Burying Beetle.
January / February 2009, Multiple Agencies: Keystone sent the Steele City Segment (Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska) USFWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies a consultation package that included state-specific special status species survey protocol and BMPs documents for the species identified as potentially occurring during the 2008 meetings. A summary of the findings from the 2008 biological field surveys were included in the discussions.
January 6, 2009, USFWS – Clear Lake, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Texas Field Office in Houston, Texas. The goals of the meeting were to discuss updated project details and schedule, provide a status on the current environmental data gathering, discuss current list of species of concern, and discuss any unresolved concerns, issues, or questions.
January 14, 2009, USFWS – Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Texas Field Office in Arlington, Texas. The goals of the meeting were to discuss updated project details and schedule, provide a status on the current environmental data gathering, discuss current list of species of concern, and discuss any unresolved concerns, issues, or questions.
January 20, 2009, USFWS – Tulsa, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office: Project representatives met with the USFWS Oklahoma Field Office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The goals of the meeting were to discuss updated project details and schedule, provide a status on the current environmental data gathering, discuss current list of species of concern, and discuss any unresolved concerns, issues, or questions.
January 27, 2009. USFWS/SDGFP: Keystone held an agency meeting with staff from USFWS and SDGFP at the SDGFP office in Pierre, South Dakota, to discuss issues pertaining to special status species surveys. The goal of this meeting was to verify Keystone’s survey approach, BMPs, discuss required field surveys, and review the information that was sent to the USFWS in the January/ February consultation package. The USFWS and SDGFP provided additional recommendations to Keystone’s sensitive species mitigation approach to be updated prior to final agency concurrence. 1-3
May 2011
February 3, 2009, BLM/MFWP: Keystone held an agency meeting with staff from the BLM Glasgow Field Office and MFWP Regions 6 and 7 at the MFWP office in Glasgow, Montana, to discuss issues pertaining to special status species surveys. The goal of this meeting was to verify Keystone’s survey approach, BMPs, discuss required field surveys, and review the information that was sent to the USFWS in the January/February consultation package. The BLM and MFWP provided additional recommendations to Keystone’s sensitive species mitigation approach to be updated prior to final agency concurrence.
February 5, 2009, BLM: Keystone held a conference call in lieu of an agency meeting with staff from the BLM Glasgow, Malta, and Miles City field offices to discuss issues pertaining to special status species surveys. The goal of this meeting was to verify Keystone’s survey approach, BMPs, discuss required field surveys, and review the information that was sent to the USFWS in the January/ February consultation package. The BLM provided additional recommendations to Keystone’s sensitive species mitigation approach to be updated prior to final agency concurrence.
February 19, 2009, USFWS/NGPC: Keystone held an agency meeting with staff from USFWS and NGPC at the NGPC office in Lincoln, Nebraska, to discuss issues pertaining to special status species surveys. The goal of this meeting was to verify Keystone’s survey approach, BMPs, discuss required field surveys, and review the information that was sent to the USFWS in the January/February consultation package. The USFWS and NGPC provided additional recommendations to Keystone’s sensitive species mitigation approach to be updated prior to final agency concurrence.
April 3, 2009, USFWS – Clear Lake, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone sent e-mail correspondence to the USFWS Clear Lake, Texas Field Office regarding survey protocols for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. Comments and concurrence were received on the survey locations and methodology on April 7, 2009, and surveys were initiated following receipt of approval.
May 19, 2009, USFWS – Tulsa, Oklahoma, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone sent e-mail correspondence to the USFWS Tulsa, Oklahoma Field Office regarding survey protocols for the interior least tern. Comments and concurrence were received on the survey locations and methodology on June 17, 2009, and surveys were initiated following receipt of approval.
June 16, 2009, USFWS – Tulsa, Oklahoma, Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone held a conference call with staff from the Tulsa, Oklahoma, Ecological Services Field Office to discuss issues pertaining to the American burying beetle. The goal of this meeting was to determine the next steps in the consultation process for the American burying beetle and verify that the USFWS was receiving the information they required. The USFWS provided guidance for the information that should be included in the BA.
June 25, 2009, USFWS – Pierre, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office: Keystone called C. Besskin, USFWS Pierre, South Dakota Field Office regarding geotech activity clearance. The USFWS requests formal consultation with DOS to address take of the American burying beetle in South Dakota.
June 30, 2009, USFWS – Arlington, Clear Lake, and Lufkin, Texas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): Keystone sent consultation letters to the USFWS, ODWC, and TPWD in order to confirm the final list of species-specific surveys that were required for the Project, to summarize for the agencies the results of surveys that had been completed to date, and to confirm that any species not included in the summary are not likely to be adversely affected by the Project.
July 29, 2009, USFWS – Email from Angela Brown of USFWS to Kendra Bauer at the University of Texas: to acknowledge the review of the Lamar County, Texas survey on the American burying beetle (ABB), and acceptance of the survey results.
September 25, 2009, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): Keystone received a consultation letter from TPWD in response to the letter dated June 30, 2009 that provided recommendations to protect fish and wildlife resources and information on known occurrence of fish 1-4
May 2011
and wildlife resources near the Project area. TPWD also attached the April 13, 2009 letter that had been submitted to Elizabeth Orlando at the US DOS.
November 2, 2009, NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office: DOS received concurrence on sea turtle species occurrence and no effect to sea turtles as the Project would not cross estuarine or marine habitats.
January 15, 2010, USFWS, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, OK: Keystone called and sent e-mail to Tulsa office seeking concurrence on proposed survey windows for raptors/rookeries and bald eagles in 2010.
March 2, 2010, USFWS: Conference call with USFWS on T&E and MBTA Surveys: The goal of the call was to discuss helicopter survey windows for raptors/rookeries and bald eagles in 2010. The need for conducting additional pedestrian surveys for piping plovers was also discussed.
April 12, 2010, USFWS, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, OK: Keystone sent the proposed Interior Least Tern survey protocol to USFWS for concurrence on the approach and resumes of personnel scheduled to conduct the surveys.
May 4, 2010, USFWS, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, OK: Keystone received suggested edits to the Interior Least Tern survey protocol from USFWS. Edits were incorporated and the protocol document finalized.
May 5, 2010, USFWS, Lufkin Field Office, Lufkin, TX: Keystone contacted the Lufkin field office in regards to a landowner reported claim of Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) sighting on this property located in Polk County, Texas. The property in question would be affected by the proposed route and the issue was originally reported to the USACE Galveston District by the landowner. The USFWS Lufkin office recommended that Keystone contact the USFWS Clear Lake office to discuss further action needed.
May 19, 2010, USFWS, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office, Houston, TX: USFWS contacted Keystone and reported that USFWS personnel visited the property in Polk County where the potential RCW sighting occurred, USFWS reported that no RCWs or potential habitat was observed.
June 22, 2010, USFWS, Arlington Ecological Services Field Office, Arlington, TX: Keystone contacted USFWS to determine the steps necessary to modify a subcontractor’s (Dr. Wyatt Hobak) Endangered Species Permit to include Texas. The permit modification was necessary to support ABB surveys required in Lamar County, Texas.
September 3, 2010, Multiple Agencies: Meeting between USFWS, Keystone, DOS, and Cardno ENTRIX regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Formal Consultation for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.
September 16, 2010, USFWS, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office, Houston, TX: Keystone contacted USFWS regarding potential Texas Trailing Phlox habitat crossed by the project in Hardin and Polk Counties, Texas. USFWS provided a link to Habitat Prediction for Texas Trailing Phlox Using Landsat Thematic Mapper and Ancillary Biophysical Data (Schwelling et al 2000). USFWS requested that Keystone review this information and provided additional information pertaining to potential habitat crossed by the project.
October 12, 2010, Multiple Agencies: Continuation of meetings between USFWS, Keystone, Nebraska Game Fish and Parks, and Cardno ENTRIX regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle.
January 7, 2010, Multiple Agencies: Meeting between USFWS, Keystone, and Cardno ENTRIX (for DOS) to discuss USFWS comments on the preliminary Final Biological Assessment.
January 12, 2011, Multiple Agencies: Continuation of meetings between USFWS, Keystone, Nebraska Game Fish and Parks, and Cardno ENTRIX (for DOS) regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle. 1-5
May 2011
February 2, 2011, Multiple Agencies: Continuation of meetings between USFWS, Keystone, DOS, and Cardno ENTRIX (for DOS) regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle.
February 17, 2011, USFWS and DOS: Meeting between USFWS, DOS, and Cardno ENTRIX (for DOS) regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle.
March 24, 2011, USFWS, Keystone, DOS, NGPC: Continuation of meetings between USFWS, NGPC, Keystone XL and DOS regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle.
April 21, 2011, USFWS, Keystone, DOS: Continuation of meetings regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle. Discussion of potential impacts to wooded areas in Oklahoma.
April 21, 2011, Keystone, DOS: Continuation of meetings regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle. Discussion of monitoring and habitat restoration bonding.
April 27, 2011, USFWS, DOS: Continuation of meetings regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Section 7 Endangered Species Act Formal Consultation for the American Burying Beetle. Discussion between USFWS and DOS concerning monitoring and habitat restoration bonding.
Supporting meeting summaries, consultation letters, and communications are located in Appendix I. Based on the consultation with state agencies, BLM, and the USFWS throughout 2008 to 2011, Keystone was able to refine the proposed biological surveys and survey requirements for each species that may potentially be affected by the Project.
1.3
Analysis Summary
This analysis addresses 22 federally listed species that were identified by the USFWS and state wildlife agencies as potentially occurring in the Project area. No species proposed for listing were identified during consultations. Table 1.3-1 summarizes these species and the preliminary impact determinations based on: 1) correspondence with the USFWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies; 2) habitat requirements and the known distribution of these species within the Project area; and 3) habitat analyses and field surveys that were conducted for these species in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Potential impacts associated with electrical infrastructure required for the Project are based on the 2008, 2009, and 2010 biological surveys where available. The Rural Utilities Service, an agency within the US Department of Agriculture; and Western Area Power Administration, an agency of the US Department of Energy would consult with USFWS where potential impacts to federally protected species may occur under Section 7 of the ESA when final routing and construction procedures for electrical power lines have been determined. Although power providers are dealing directly with USFWS on Section 7 consultations potential impacts and conservation measures for distribution lines are presented within this Biological Assessment. Agreements received from power providers concerning their intent to consult with USFWS are included in Appendix J.
1-6
May 2011
Table 1.3-1
Summary of Species Included in Analysis and Findings
Common Name
Federal Status
Scientific Name
Detailed Analysis Included
Findings Summary1
Mammals Black-footed ferret
Mustela nigripes
Endangered/Proposed – Yes Experimental Populations
NLAA/NLAA
Louisiana black bear/ American black bear
Ursus americanus luteolus/ Ursus americanus
Threatened/ Threatened – Similarity of Appearance
No/No
No Effect/ No Effect
Red wolf
Canis rufus
Endangered
No
No Effect
Eskimo curlew
Numenius borealis
Endangered
No
No Effect
Interior least tern
Sterna antillarum
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus
Proposed Threatened
Yes
NLAA
Piping plover
Charadrius melodus
Threatened
Yes
NLAA
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
No
No Effect
Whooping crane
Grus americana
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Arkansas River shiner/ Designated Critical Habitat
Notropis girardi
Threatened
Yes
NLAA/ NLAM
Pallid sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus albus
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Topeka shiner
Notropis topeka
Endangered
No
No Effect
Bufo houstonensis
Endangered
No
No Effect
Green sea turtle
Chelonia mydas
Threatened
No
No Effect
Hawksbill sea turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata
Endangered
No
No Effect
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
Lepidochelys kempii
Endangered
No
No Effect
Leatherback sea turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
Endangered
No
No Effect
Loggerhead sea turtle
Caretta caretta
Threatened
No
No Effect
American burying beetle
Nicrophorus americanus
Endangered
Yes
MALAA
Ouachita rock pocketbook
Arkansia wheeleri
Endangered
No
No Effect
Blowout penstemon
Penstemon haydenii
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Texas prairie dawn-flower
Hymenoxys texana
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Texas trailing phlox
Phlox nivalis texensis
Endangered
Yes
NLAA
Threatened
Yes
NLAA
Birds
Fish
Amphibians Houston toad Reptiles
Invertebrates
Plants
Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara 1
NLAA – May affect, not likely to adversely affect. NLAM – Not likely to adversely modify. MALAA – May affect, likely to adversely affect.
1-7
May 2011
1.4
Summary of Species Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Thirteen federally listed species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Project area were evaluated during consultation, but were eliminated from detailed analysis based on further review of the location of the Project relative to the species' known distribution, habitat associations, or additional information provided by federal or state agencies.
1.4.1
Louisiana Black Bear
The Louisiana black bear is occasionally found in the Project area in eastern Texas. Habitat used by the Louisiana black bear typically includes large tracts of undisturbed bottomland hardwood forests, vegetation corridors for dispersal, and denning habitat in hollows or root wads of large trees. Currently, there is not a breeding population of the Louisiana black bear in Texas, although there are occasional movements, primarily of solitary juvenile males, from Louisiana into eastern Texas (Campbell 2003). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis due to the mobility of individuals that may migrate through the Project area, infrequent use of the Project area, no known den sites in the Project area, and additional information provided by the Texas USFWS Clear Lake Field Office (AECOM 2009b).
1.4.2
Red Wolf
The red wolf was once found throughout the southeastern United States; however; the USFWS declared red wolves to be extinct in the wild in 1980. Subsequently, two experimental populations were established in North Carolina and Tennessee. Currently, the population in North Carolina is the only one known to exist in the wild (USFWS 2007). Therefore, the red wolf was eliminated from detailed analysis.
1.4.3
Eskimo Curlew
The Eskimo curlew historically migrated through the Project area in Nebraska. “The last report for Nebraska was on 8 April 1926. A flock of eight birds was seen six kilometers (km) (four miles) east of Hastings (Swenk 1926:117)” (Gollop et al. 1986). Correspondence from the Nebraska USFWS and NGPC has determined that this species would not be impacted by the Project (AECOM 2009a). Therefore, the Eskimo curlew was eliminated from detailed analysis.
1.4.4
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in mature pine forests of east Texas. Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest and roost in clusters of trees containing and surrounding excavated cavity trees ideally with a grassy or herbaceous understory with little mid-story (Campbell 2003). In 2002, there were 342 known active redcockaded woodpecker clusters in east Texas, distributed within 15 counties of the Pineywoods Region of eastern Texas (Campbell 2003). The USFWS reviewed maps of the Project route in east Texas and confirmed that there were no known red-cockaded woodpecker clusters or potential suitable habitat within the proposed Project alignment. Additionally, during the 2008 and 2009 aerial surveys, the Project route was reviewed for suitable habitat and no areas of suitable red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habitat were identified. Therefore, the red-cockaded woodpecker was eliminated from detailed analysis.
1.4.5
Topeka Shiner
The Topeka shiner is listed as occurring in Butler County, Kansas (USFWS 2008a). One 10-acre pump station site is proposed for Butler County, Kansas, on the Cushing Extension of the Keystone Pipeline Project. The proposed pump-station site required for the Keystone XL Project is located within an agricultural field and suitable habitat does not exist for the Topeka shiner in or near this location. Therefore, the Topeka shiner was eliminated from detailed analysis. Consultation and mitigation of potential impacts to the Topeka shiner for the Cushing Extension Pipeline were completed by DOS for the Keystone Project (USFWS 2008b).
1-8
May 2011
1.4.7
Houston Toad
The Houston toad is associated with areas of deep sandy soils within pine or oak woodland or savannah with native bunchgrasses and forbs of east central Texas (Campbell 2003). It is often found in shallow, ephemeral pools, flooded fields, or wet areas associated with springs or seeps during breeding season (Campbell 2003). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis as the known distribution is outside of the Project area.
1.4.8
Green Sea Turtle
The green sea turtle may be found in the Gulf of Mexico off of the Texas coast and uses beaches along the mainland or on islands for nesting (NMFS and USFWS 1991). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis because marine and estuarine habitats are not crossed by the Project.
1.4.9
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
The hawksbill sea turtle may be found in the Gulf of Mexico off of the Texas coast and is known to nest on both mainland and insular beaches. In Texas, juvenile hawksbills are associated with stone jetties (NMFS and USFWS 1993). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis because marine and estuarine habitats are not crossed by the Project.
1.4.10 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle occurs off the Texas coast in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Nesting is primarily limited to beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico in Mexico; but may also occur on the Texas coast. Juveniles are known to frequent bays, coastal lagoon, and river mouths (USFWS and NMFS 1992). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis because marine and estuarine habitats are not crossed by the Project.
1.4.11 Leatherback Sea Turtle The leatherback sea turtle occurs off the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico and are believed to be the most pelagic of all sea turtles. Nesting generally occurs on high-energy beaches with deep, unobstructed access, which occurs most frequently along continental shorelines (NMFS and USFWS 1992). This species was eliminated from detailed analysis because marine and estuarine habitats are not crossed by the Project.
1.4.12 Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle may be found in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Texas where they nest primarily on barrier islands (NMFS and USFWS 2008). In the ocean, this sea turtle is found in the neritic and oceanic zones. This species was eliminated from detailed analysis because marine and estuarine habitats are not crossed by the Project.
1.4.13 Ouachita Rock Pocketbook The Ouachita rock pocketbook has the potential to exist in the Red River system where it may be found in large mussel beds containing a diversity of species. These beds are generally found within medium-sized rivers with stable substrates of mud, sand, and gravel and backwater or slackwater area areas adjacent to the main channel (TPWD 2007). The Ouachita rock pocketbook was analyzed in the Environmental Report for the Project because the TPWD lists this species as potentially occurring in Lamar County, Texas. This mussel was reported to occur in Sanders Creek and Pine Creek, Lamar County, Texas in the early 1990s (USFWS 2004); however, the USFWS does not currently list this species as occurring in any of the counties crossed by the Project in Oklahoma or Texas (USFWS 2009). The Keystone XL Project crosses Sanders Creek upstream from Pat Mayse Lake in Lamar, County over 30 miles upstream from reported occurrences in this stream which were below this reservoir (USFWS 2004). The Project does not cross the Pine Creek drainage in Lamar County, and is located over 40 miles from the reported occurrence of the Ouachita rock pocketbook on this stream in Lamar County, Texas. Therefore, the Ouachita rock pocketbook was eliminated from detailed analysis. 1-9
May 2011
1.4.14 Literature Cited AECOM. 2009a. TransCanada – Keystone Xl Phase II Pipeline Meeting summary. J. Cochnar (USFWS), C. Grell (NGPC), R. Schneider (NGPC), M. Fritz (NGPC), and P. Lorenz (AECOM). February 19, 2009. AECOM. 2009b. Personal communication between E. Erfling (USFWS) and J. Castillo (AECOM). June 25, 2009. Campbell, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management. Internet website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml. Accessed August 12, 2008. Gollop, J. B., T. W. Barry, and E. H. Iversen. 1986. Eskimo curlew a vanishing species? Saskatchewan Natural History Society Special Publication No. 17. Regina, Saskatchewan. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Internet website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/curlew/index.htm (Version 16JUL97). Accessed September 23, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 52 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/911126c.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 65 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920406.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Serve, St. Petersburg, Florida. 52 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/931110.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/090116.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. Swenk, M. H. 1926. The Eskimo Curlew in Nebraska. Wilson Bulletin 38: 117-118. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2007. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species. Internet website: http://gis.tpwd.state.tx.us/TpwEndangeredSpecies/DesktopDefault.aspx. Accessed August 10, 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 40 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920929.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri Ortmann and Walker, 1912) Recovery Plan. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/040602.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Red Wolf (Canis rufus). 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Manteo, North Carolina. 58 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1155.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2009. 1-10
May 2011
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, Kansas Counties, December 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Kansas Field Office. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/countylists/kansas.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008b. Letter of concurrence under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the Proposed Keystone and Cushing Pipeline Project by TransCanada. March 7, 2008. Letter to Ms. Elizabeth Orlando, US Department of State from Michael Le Valley, Acting Nebraska Field Supervisor, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska. Internet website: http://www.entrix.com/keystone/project/concur.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered Species Program, Southwest Region, T&E Species Lists. Last updated January 9, 2009. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/. Accessed September 23, 2009.
1-11
May 2011
2.0
Proposed Action
2.1
Proposed Action
Keystone proposes to construct and operate a crude oil transmission system from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to destinations in the US. The Project would have the nominal capacity to deliver up to 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil. An overview map of the Project location is provided in Figure 2.1-1. Figures 2.1-2 to 2.1-7 are maps showing the more detailed pipeline route and aboveground facilities locations in each state. Pipeline aerial photo and U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map route sheets for the currently proposed Keystone XL Project, powerline routes, and site specific river Horizontal Directional Drilling crossing plans and are available on the U.S. Department of State’s Keystone XL Pipeline Project web site under Project Documents, Supplemental Filing (May 19, 2010) (Keystone 2010).
2.1.1
Project Description and Location
The Project would consist of three segments: the Steele City Segment, the Gulf Coast Segment, and the Houston Lateral. From north to south, the Steele City Segment extends from the U.S./Canada border near Morgan, Montana, southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast Segment extends from Cushing, Oklahoma, south to Nederland, in Jefferson County, Texas. The Houston Lateral extends from the Gulf Coast Segment in Liberty County, Texas, southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, Texas. In total, the Project would consist of approximately 1,711 miles of new, 36-inch diameter pipeline, with 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles in the US. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch diameter Keystone Cushing Extension segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project. Project facilities by State are summarized in Table 2.1-1. Table 2.1-1
Project Facilities by State
Segment/State
New Construction Pipeline Miles
Ancillary Facilities
Steele City Segment Montana
282.7
6 new pump stations, 14 main line valves (MLVs), 50 access roads
South Dakota
314.2
7 new pump stations, 9 MLVs, 18 access roads
Nebraska
254.7
5 new pump stations, 13 MLVs, 12 access roads
Keystone Cushing Extension Kansas
2 new pump stations and 1 access road
Gulf Coast Segment Oklahoma
155.7
4 new pump stations, 11 MLVs, 76 access roads, Cushing Tank Farm
Texas
328.1
6 new pump stations, 22 MLVs, 1 delivery sites, 157 access roads
Houston Lateral Texas – Houston Lateral Total
48.6
7 MLVs, 1 delivery site, 31 access roads
1383.9
2-1
May 2011
2.1.2
Pipeline Construction Overview
In the US, the Project is planned to be constructed as follows:
36-inch diameter Steele City Segment, approximately 852 miles in length, from the US/Canada Border at Morgan, Montana, to Steele City, Nebraska, which would be constructed with 10 mainline spreads, varying in length between approximately 80 and 94 miles each, in 2011 and 2012.
36-inch diameter Gulf Coast Segment, approximately 484 miles in length, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, in Jefferson County, Texas, which would be constructed with 6 mainline spreads, varying in lengths from 47 to 99 miles each, in 2011.
36-inch diameter Houston Lateral, approximately 49 miles in length, from Liberty County, Texas, to Moore Junction in Harris County, Texas, which would be constructed with one main spread, in 2012.
2.1.3
Ancillary Facilities Summary
In addition to the pipeline, Keystone proposes to install and operate aboveground facilities consisting of 30 new pump stations on the Steele City and Gulf Coast Segments, and two new pump stations on the Keystone Cushing Extension. Additionally, Keystone would install and operate two delivery facilities, 76 intermediate MLVs, and four densitometer facilities, all of which would be located within the permanent easement. Further, there would be check valves located within the intermediate MLVs downstream of major river crossings. Keystone also would install and operate a tank farm consisting of three tanks at Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition, two surge relief tanks would be installed and operated at the delivery point in Nederland within the existing tank farm. Metering would be installed and operated at the two delivery sites at Nederland and Moore Junction. Additional facilities such as power lines required for the pump stations, remotely operated valves, and densitometers would be installed and operated by local power providers and not by Keystone. A summary of impacts associated with the installation of the power lines is contained in Section 7 of the Environmental Report.
2.1.4
Land Requirements
Surface disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Project is summarized in Table 2.1-2. Approximately 24,134 acres of land would be disturbed during the construction of the proposed facilities. After construction, the temporary ROW would generally be restored and returned to its previous land use. After construction is complete, approximately 8,793 acres would be retained as permanent ROW. All disturbed acreage would be restored and returned to its previous aboveground land use after construction, except for approximately 292 acres of permanent ROW, which would not be restored but would serve to provide adequate space for aboveground facilities, including pump stations and valves, for the life of the pipeline. Impacts associated with the construction of two pump stations on the Keystone Cushing Extension include approximately 15 acres of land to be disturbed during construction. This acreage would be retained for permanent aboveground facilities. Almost all of the land affected by the construction and operation of the Project would be privately owned; BLM holds the majority of the publicly owned lands.
2.1.5
Pipeline ROW
The installation of the new 36-inch diameter pipeline would occur within a 110-foot-wide construction ROW, consisting of a 60-foot temporary construction ROW and a 50-foot permanent ROW. Figure 2.1-8 illustrates typical construction in areas not co-located with other ROWs. Figures 2.1-9 through 2.1-10 illustrate the typical construction ROW and equipment work locations in areas where the pipeline would be co-located with an existing linear feature. The construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet in certain areas, which could include some wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, and commercial/industrial areas. 2-2
May 2011
Fig. 2.1-1
Keystone XL Project
PS-09 PS-10
Fort Peck Indian Reservation
CANADIAN SEGMENT
NORTH DAKOTA
PS-11
PS-12
Lewis and Clark National Forest
MONTANA
Gallatin National Forest
PS-13
Little Missouri National Grassland
90
PS-15
Crow Indian Reservation
Standing Rock Indian Reservation PS-16
KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY SEGMENT
Yellowstone National Park
PS-17
25
SOUTH DAKOTA
PS-18
90
PS-20
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 25
MINNESOTA
PS-19
Thunder Basin National Grassland
Bridger National Forest
WISCO
Cheyenne River Indian Reservation
Black Hills National Forest
Wind River Indian Reservation
535
94
PS-14
94
Superior National Forest
Buffalo Gap National Grassland
90
IOWA
PS-21
WYOMING
PS-22
80
80
25
80
NEBRASKA
PS-23 80 PS-24 PS-25
76
Gunnison National Forest
Rio Grande National Forest San Juan National Forest
25
PS-27
70 35
KEYSTONE PIPELINE CUSHING EXTENSION
COLORADO
35
PS-29
44
Mark Twain National Forest
Osage Indian Reservation
OKLAHOMA
Santa Fe National Forest
40
40
ARKANS
PS - 32
Cushing Tank Farm
40
Gila National Forest
229
KANSAS
Navajo Indian Reservation Carson National Forest
25
MISSOURI
PS-26
70
Cibola National Forest
Ozark National Forest 40
PS - 33
44
Ouachita National Forest
PS - 34
NEW MEXICO
35
PS - 36 30
This map is an illustration of the Keystone XL Project as of March 26, 2010. 110 The route will continue to be refined based on consultation with stakeholders and engineering design. 10 Keystone XL Project
Keystone Cushing Extension
Transmission Lines
Pump Stations
Major Highways
Limited Access Streams and Rivers
Lakes
Federal Lands (Areas) Forest Service
KEYSTONE XL GULF COAST SEGMENT
PS - 35
TEXAS
27
White Sands Missile Range
Legend
35
29
White River National Forest
70
PS - 37
49
20
PS - 39
10 70
35
70 Miles
PS - 40
KEYSTONE XL HOUSTON LATERAL
Nederland Surge Relief Tank
45
PS - 41
Bureau of Land Management National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...)
LOUISIA LOUISI
PS - 38
Department of Defense
Fish and Wildlife Service
90
35
10
10 45
210
Fig. 2.1-2
Morgan
232 338
Gildford Beaver Creek Havre North Chinook 529 HerronHavre Saddle Butte
17
6
7 12
Azure Agency St. Pierre 432 Big Sandy
2
16
St. Marie
Fort Peck Indian Reservation
24
250
Nashua
24
117
Fort Peck
Frazer
Brockton
Poplar
Wolf Point13
16
2
405
327
80
MT
547 81 19
505
Hobson
Moore
191
Lewistown 238
200
Circle
200
Legend
US Census Populated Places 3 (areas) Lakes
Keystone XL Project Big 298Timber
Federal Lands (Areas)
10
Transmission Lines
Forest Service
New Pump Stations
Reed Point Major Highways Gallatin National Forest Limited Access Railroad
Department of Defense
Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service
Laurel National Park Service
Columbus
78
Absarokee
Park Bureau of IndianCity Affairs Bureau of Reclamation
3
90
47
Billings
Pryor
311
Forsyth
Custer
446
446
313
Crow Agency
St. Xavier
87
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation 1806 200
200
ND Beach
10
94
94 10
Belfield
10
10
8
Dickinson
16
Little Missouri National Grassland
336
Ismay
Fallon County
8
Killdeer
94
New England
Amidon Plevna
1804
Mandaree
85
Baker
21
Regent
494 322
Rhame
22
12
Scranton GascoyneReeder Bucyrus
247
22
59
Ekalaka
Harding County
79
Grand River National Grassland
323
20
31
Buffalo
10
79
Perkins County
21
21
67
Marmarth
47 90
Custer National Forest Lame Deer 4 Ashland Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation Busby Muddy 314
37
73
22
Fallon
PS-14
447
Colstrip 39
Lockwood
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...) 310
Joliet
Hysham
312 Ballantine Shepherd 87 Huntley
Crow Indian Reservation
12
59 94
23
Four Bears Village
23
16
Wibaux
PS-13
12
Musselshell
Palermo RossStanley
1806
Alexander ArnegardWatford City 68
202
7
This map is an illustration of the 12 Keystone XL ProjectRyegate as of March Lavina 26, 2010. The191 route will continue to be refined 371 based on consultation with stakeholders and engineering design. Broadview
Major Road
16
Terry
Camp Three Klein
50
Powers Lake
1804
261
253
12
Highway
Dawson County
Prairie County
PS-12
22
16
Knife River
254
Jordan
191
12
Kenmare
Tioga White Earth
Ray
1806
Fairview
244
Lewis and Clark National Forest
8
52
8
50
58
Fox Lake
Richey
McCone County
87 Winnett
40
58 58
PS-11
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Epping Springbrook Williston 85
Culbertson Bainville
Fort Peck Lake
Winifred
8
Bowbells 5
Wildrose
50
89
Larson
42
Grenora
201
191
5
Crosby Noonan
350
344
251
438
Valley County
Phillips County
Ambrose 42
Fortuna
Portal
40
Medicine Lake
PS-10
Lodge Pole Hays
236
Flaxville
537
Malta 364
11
5
Westby
Reserve
Saco
Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 66
248
Outlook 374
Antelope 243
8
85
511
242
Harlem
Fort Belknap Agency
240
87
PS-09
241
Keystone XL Project – Montana
248 Opheim 248
242
449
448
Canada
8
Hettinger 8 Haynes
Lemmon
75 20 Miles
20
PS-14
Fig. 2.1-3 7
Fallon County 322
12
67
Scranton
247
Harding County 31
323
MT
8
79
49
31
Selfridge Lemmon
12 McIntosh Standing Rock Indian Reservation
73
Buffalo
SD
Perkins Bison County
85
168
112
Hulett
212
111
14 113
Pine Haven
73
Newell Nisland
34
79
90
North Spearfish Spearfish 85 Whitewood 14 34
Sundance
85
34
PS-17
87
This map is an illustration of the Buffalo Gap Hot Springs Keystone XL Project as of March 26, 3852010. The route will continue to be refined 272 based on consultation Edgemont with stakeholders 71 and engineering design. 471
Transmission Lines
Forest Service
Department of Defense
18 273 Limited Access
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
18
Oglala
23
National Park Service
Highway
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclamation Van TassellHarrison
29
20
Batesland
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, 71DOT, DOP, TVA...)
Chadron 385
Merriman
87
20
Clinton 27 Hay Springs Rushville 87
250
61
20
NE
Onaka
Kilgore Crookston 97 16
83 83
Faulkton
47
183
44
Harrold
45
Highmore
Andover
BristolWebster WaubayOrtley Butler
Verdon 37
Crow Creek Indian Reservation
BradleyWallace Florence
St. Lawrence
212
Reliance
90 50
Chamberlain
Kimball 45
50
44
183 18
Tripp County
50
1806 1804 18061806
Gregory Burke
1806
Herrick
Keya Paha County
12
183
7
44
1806
Bonesteel Fairfax 11
Naper 12
Burton 137
Rock County
Hayti
Erwin Badger
Bancroft
Yale
25
Hetland
37
Oldham
Carthage Woonsocket
Ramona
ArtesianRoswellVilas
34
81 Letcher Canova Aurora Center Loomis Mitchell Spencer 37 90 Salem Fulton 38 Plankinton Alexandria 262 Canistota Stickney 42 Bridgewater Ethan Storla Dolton Dimock Milltown Marion New 50 Holland Corsica 44 Parkston Freeman Armour Delmont 37 Geddes Olivet Menno 281 50 Kaylor25 18 1804 Yankton Indian 50 Reservation Pickstown Wagner
Anoka 12 281
12
Holt County
Hazel
Willow Lake 28
Huron Cavour Iroquois 371
224
Wessington SpringsLane
22
Vienna
37
Virgil
139
Henry
Clark
Naples
Broadland
45
139
Garden City
Hitchcock
49
PS-21
Lily
20
Turton
Wessington Wolsey14
34
53
12
Roslyn Grenville
Tulare
Kennebec
New Witten
25
27
Groton
RedfieldFrankfort 281
26
44
10
Lake City 25 Lake Traverse Indian Reservation Claremont Eden Langford
Ashton
212
45
Veblen
Britton
Northville Brentford 281
45
Seneca
47
Antelope PS-20
83
Cresbard
27
10
WarnerStratford
Lower Brule Indian Reservation 34 Lower Brule Lyman Fort Thompson County 273
18
Spring Creek
Cody
47
47
Rosebud Indian Reservation Rosebud Two Strike
73
45
53
White River
Martin
47
83
63
12
Roscoe
Havana
Hecla
12 Aberdeen
45
Blunt
Vivian
83
Parmelee
61
2
PS-19
253
Cayuga Rutland
32
1
Westport Columbia
Wetonka
Pierre
90
Kyle
Wounded Knee 391
Belvidere
Okaton
45
Forman
11
11
Milnor
32
11
28
Jones County
63
90
Allen Porcupine Manderson-White Horse Creek
Pine 407Ridge
385
Fish and Wildlife Service
Quinn Cottonwood
Leola
Orient
26
1804 1806 14
Midland
Wanblee
Bureau of Land Management
Major 18 Highways
Railroad
240
US Census Populated Places (areas)
Federal Lands (Areas)
14
73
73
Buffalo Gap National Grassland Lakes
PS-18
90
239
Gwinner
Oakes
Frederick
Hosmer 47
Lebanon Gettysburg
1806
Interior44
Oelrichs
New Pump Stations
85 Major Road
90
Lowry
Long Lake
Hillsview
Java
Ellendale 281
Forbes
247
Agar
1804 1804
Fairburn
87
Pringle
Keystone XL Project
1804
Pennington County
Ashland Heights Box Elder Osage RapidCity Valley 16 Rapid 451 Colonial Pine Hills Green Valley Black Hills National Forest 85 Hill City 244 Keystone Newcastle 87 Hill View Heights 450 36Hermosa 385 40 16 79
89
83
34
190 79
130
Selby
1804
212 North Eagle Butte Eagle Butte
Haakon County
47
10
MonangoFullerton
11
Ashley 45
47
La Plant
83
90 79
385
116
Legend 270 Lance Creek
SD
Artas
Herreid
144
63
Sturgis90
585
116
Meade County
32
13
1
56
Venturia
Zeeland
Whitehorse
63
Dupree
Faith
212
24
Lake Oahe
Green Grass Cheyenne River Indian Reservation
212
Butte County
WY
Timber Lake
65
79
1806 Mobridge 1804
20
Isabel
11
Mound City 271
Little Eagle
20
73
PS-16
Bullhead
65
3
Hague
Pollock 1806 1804 1806
63
Wishek
Strasburg
Fort Yates
Morristown
Grand River 75 National Grassland
13
30
Keystone XL Project – South Dakota ND 24
6
3
Linton 83
Cannon Ball
Reeder Bucyrus Hettinger 8 22 Haynes
Custer National Forest Ekalaka
PS-15
22
Gross
Marty
20
46
50
50
10
LynchMonowiVerdel
12
14
50
Lesterville Utica 153 52 Tabor Yankton 52 314
Santee
121 20 Miles
Crofton Fordyce
121
Tripp County
Rosebud Indian Reservation
Fig.202.1-4
Keya Paha County
83
SD
Yankton Indian Reservation
18
83
183
59
Keystone XL Project – Nebraska 75
281
71
169
29
81
Holt 275 County
Rock County
Sioux City 129
934
20
520
20
75 77
PS-22
75
83
183
NE 30
Wheeler County
Garfield County
Boone County 281 Greeley County
PS-23
30
Keystone XL Project Transmission Lines New Pump Stations Major Highways
Limited Access Highway
Major Road Railroad
Omaha
81
6
US Census Populated Places (areas) Lakes
Federal Lands (Areas) Forest Service
Department of Defense
Bureau of Land Management Fish 83and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Reclaimation
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...)
Hamilton County
34
34
34
183
281
281
KS
59
34 34
275
71
75
77
6
77
Saline County
136 59
169
71 136
81
73
Jefferson County
159 59
Steele City
383 183
Bluffs
136
136
36
75 Council
80
34 Lincoln
PS-25
6
6
6
75 480
6
80
180
80
Fillmore County
34
680
IA
80
680
34
34
National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
77
York County 81
75
275 30
81
PS-24
80
Legend
75
Nance County
34
This map is an illustration of the 6 Keystone XL Project as of March 26, 2010. The route will continue 83 to be refined based on consultation with stakeholders 34 and engineering design. 283
59
275
Merrick County
83
30
77
275
81
PS-26
77
75
75
59
St. 59 29
73 159
7320
59
10
169
71
59 229
159
77
Washington County
MO
136
Joseph 169
20 Miles
29
6
Fig. 2.1-5 83
34
83
6
Fillmore County
Saline County
81 81
Jefferson County
136
83 283
40
81
Dickinson County
81
35
77
135
54
Federal Lands (Areas)
54
54
54
235
Wichita
54
Limited Access Highway
National Park Service
270
Bureau of Reclaimation
183
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...)
183
59
35 54 54
35
Olathe
35
169
City
70
470
Lee's Summit Overland Park
70
50
MO
35
169
71 69 71
59
169
71
400
400
71
75
400
69
400 400
59
69 169 75
Kay County
160
169
166
166
160
69 400400
77 Cowley County
177
City Independence 40
69 Kansas
59
77
81
OK81
435 Kansas 635
435
169
50
235
81
281
69
50 35 50
56 Butler County 400
35
160
69
435
40
56
PS-29
Department of Defense
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Major Road
35 35
Forest Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Lawrence
35
50
169
71
54
135 135
183
470 75
36
35
40
56
Bureau of Land Management
Major Highways
64 Railroad
Lakes
40 Topeka
335
Marion County
283
US Census Populated Places (areas)
77
81
50
New Pump Stations
70
36
Joseph
59
24
335
281
183
73
75
77
156
70
35
50 This map is an illustration of the 400 Keystone XL Project as of March 26, 2010. The route will continue to be refined 400 based on consultation with stakeholders and engineering design.
73
24
281
56
29
73
183
83
36St.
24
156
Transmission Lines
PS-27
70
183
160
75
229
59
40
Keystone XL Project 160
159
Clay County
70
Legend
71
29
77
281
KS
69
77
77
24
40
159
281
283
136 136
136
73
Washington County
36
83
59
Steele City
183
71
Keystone XL Project – Kansas
183
NE
75
136
Osage Indian Reservation
169
166
71 44
69
166 20
66
10
20 Miles
60
60
283
183
Fig. 2.1-6 160
283
KS
Cowley County
183
Keystone XL Project – Oklahoma
281
270
60
81
64
183
60
283
81
Black Kettle National Grassland 283
183 40
40
40
90
281
183
40
412
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Okfuskee County
62 40
240
270 Seminole County 270
62
62
Keystone XL Project Transmission Lines New Pump Stations
70
Major Highways
Limited Access Highway
Major Road Railroad
Lakes
70
70
Department of Defense 183
Bureau of Land Management
TX
Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclaimation
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...)
69
287
81
377 82
35
75
69
377
82
412
266
540
59
40
64
540
Fort Smith
75 271
71
271
67
71 AR 270
270
Ouachita National Forest 271
259
70
177
287 281
266
Coal County
377
Wichita Falls
17
Atoka County
199
70
371
64
PS - 35
277
62
Ozark National Forest
17
75
287
Forest Service
75
44
US 287 Census Populated 70Places (areas) Federal Lands (Areas)
Fayetteville
259
77
412
412
75 Pontotoc County
277
62
PS - 34
81
Lawton
412
59
62
Hughes 270 County 270
77
62
79
Broken Arrow
69
177
412
59 59
62
PS - 33
235
240
44
Cushing Tank Farm
177
77
40
75
377
Lincoln County
Edmond
62
71
412
412
Creek County
Norman
This map is an illustration of the Keystone XL Project as of March 15, 2010. The route will continue to be refined 287 on consultation with stakeholders based 287 and engineering design.
59
59
169
Tulsa
Cushing
35
183
62
60
Mark Twain National Forest
71
244
77
81
277
60
75
PS -32
Payne County
OK
270
MO 62
412
183
40
60 Osage Indian Reservation
177
60
60
60
60
44
169
Springfield
44
71
60
169
Noble County
64
412
44
166
166
77
60 281
166
71
44
Kay County
283
Legend
169
35
64
69
69
75
166
166
177
160
160
77
81
281
271
Bryan County
Fannin County
Lamar County 82
70
70
62
70 259 82
20
10
70
371
71
20 Miles
30
OK
287 Fig. 2.1-7 44
277
Wichita Falls
81
287
177
77
377
75
287
377
287
281
380
380
380
281 180
Denton
20
67
Fort Worth
20
35
20 287
67
35
67 35
PS - 36
380
287
77
77
30
190 183
190
Killeen
190
Temple
Legend Transmission Lines New Pump Stations
Mesquite
PS - 37
45h
80
259
79
220
290
Bureau of Land Management
281
Fish and Wildlife Service
Limited Access
National Park Service
35
Highway
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Major Road
35
Bureau of Reclaimation
Other Agencies (NASA, DOE, DOT, DOP, TVA...)
79
80
165 62
425
167
79
171
84
49
84
165
LA
69
84
MS 61
165
171
Angelina National Forest 96
167 190
PS - 40 45
61
190
59
190
Sam Houston National Forest
45
96
171
69 290
84
Homochitto National Forest
96
Bryan College Station
290
80
65
71
96 Sabine National Forest
PS - 39
Monroe
165
Kisatchie National Forest 167
287
Davy Crockett National Forest
20
167
287
190
290
64
71
171
290
Department of Defense
82
67
82
Bossier City
259
PS - 38
190
77
82
49
49
84
69
84
20 79
79
79
175
79
80
30
59
Tyler
45
Shreveport
Longview
175
45
259
Rock
Forest Service 35
Major Highways
Railroad
183
Federal Lands (Areas) Austin Lakes
49
82
65
US Census Populated Places (areas)
Keystone XL Project
290
82
59
190
This map is an illustration of the Keystone XL Project as of March 15, 2010. The route will continue to be refined based on consultation183with35stakeholders 281 and engineering design. 35 183Round
82
165
167
80
TX
Fort Hood 183
AR
67
635
84
84
190
79
49
59 71
425
165
75
84
61
82
287
183
70
67
45
377
Waco
Keystone XL Project – Texas 79
49
259
Dallas Arlington Grand Prairie
377
259
Garland
Irving
820
80
McKinney
Flower Mound Plano Lewisville 635 CarrolltonRichardson
287
371
71
371
377
81
62
69
35
81
82
PS - 35
81
77
259
70 271
75
82 35
271
70
69
290
The Woodlands
Beaumont 90
45
Houston 290
59 90
PS - 41 Baytown
10
69
Nederland Surge Relief Tank 10
10 90
90
10
90
210
10
165 165
90
90
Lafayette
Lake Charles
90
Nederland
Port Arthur
25
12.5
90
25 Miles
90
Table 2.1-2
Summary of Lands Affected Land Affected During 1 Construction (acres)
Land Affected During Operation2 (acres)
3,758.6
1,713.2
Additional Temporary Workspace Areas (TWAs)
327.8
0.0
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards
460.7
0.0
Construction Camps
182.5
0.0
50.1
50.1
266.5
21.7
5,046.3
1,785.0
4,178.9
1,904.0
Additional TWAs
309.3
0.0
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards
581.2
0.0
Construction Camps
160.2
0.0
59.4
59.4
144.8
9.1
5,433.7
1,972.5
3,384.8
1,543.8
Additional TWAs
349.5
0.0
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards
515.6
0.0
42.2
42.2
53.3
0.0
4,345.3
1,586.1
14,875.3
5,343.5
Facility Steele City Segment Montana Pipeline ROW 6
Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities Access Roads 3,5
Montana Subtotal South Dakota Pipeline ROW 6
Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities 7
Access Roads
3,5
South Dakota Subtotal Nebraska Pipeline ROW 6
Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities 7
Access Roads
3,5
Nebraska Subtotal
3,5
Steele City Subtotal
5
Keystone Cushing Extension Kansas
Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities 7
Access Roads
Kansas Subtotal
3,4,5 3,4, 5
Keystone Cushing Extension Subtotal
15.2
15.2
0.0
0.0
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
Gulf Coast Segment Oklahoma Pipeline ROW
2,033.5
943.8
Additional TWAs
179.1
0.0
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards
701.3
0.0
74.1
74.1
6
Tank Farm/Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities
2-13
May 2011
Table 2.1-2
Summary of Lands Affected Land Affected During 1 Construction (acres)
Facility Access Roads7 3, 5
Oklahoma Subtotal
Land Affected During Operation2 (acres)
118.6
15.1
3,106.6
1,033.1
4,198.8
1,988.9
332.6
0.0
519.6
0.0
51.1
51.1
333.6
48.1
5,435.8
2,088.1
652
294
32
5
62
19
751
313
9,293.4
3,434.2
24,133.9
8,792.8
Texas Pipeline ROW 6
Additional TWAs
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards 8
Pump Stations/Delivery Facilities 7
Access Roads
Texas Subtotal Houston Lateral Texas Lateral ROW 6
Additional TWAs
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Rail Sidings, and Contractor Yards 7
Access Roads
3
Houston Lateral Subtotal
3
Gulf Coast and Houston Lateral Subtotal 3,4, 5, 6
Project Total 1
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
Disturbance is based on a total of 110-foot-wide construction ROW, except in certain wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, and commercial/industrial areas where an 85-foot-wide construction ROW would be used, or in areas requiring extra width for workspace necessitated by site conditions. Disturbance also includes pipe stockpile sites, contractor yards, rail yards, and construction camps Operational acreage was estimated based on a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW in all areas. All pigging facilities would be located within either pump stations or delivery facility sites. Intermediate MLVs and densitometers would be constructed within the construction ROW and operated within the permanently maintained 50-foot-wide ROW. Other MLVs, check valves and block valves, and meters would be located within the area associated with a pump station, delivery site or permanent ROW. Consequently, the acres of disturbance for these aboveground facilities are captured within the Pipeline ROW and Pump Station/Delivery Facilities categories within the table. Discrepancies in total acreages are due to rounding. Disturbance associated with the Keystone Cushing Extension in this table is for the two new pump stations to be constructed for this project. For discussion of previously permitted disturbance associated with the construction of the Keystone Cushing Extension see TransCanada (2006). Includes disturbances associated with construction of the Steele City Segment, the Gulf Coast Segment, and the Houston Lateral. This total includes 125 acres associated with construction and operation of new pump stations along the Keystone Cushing Extension. Includes staging areas at approximately 5 acres. Access road temporary and permanent disturbance is based on 30-foot width; all non-public roads are conservatively estimated to require upgrades and maintenance during construction. Temporary access road acreages are summarized under the Land Affected During Construction column and permanent access road acreages are summarized under the Land Affected During Operation column. Keystone would install a 10,417 bbl surge tank and a sump tank at the terminus of the Gulf Coast Segment on existing, disturbed property.
2-14
May 2011
Thirty miles (4 percent) of the Steele City Segment would be located within approximately 300 feet of existing pipelines, utilities, or road ROWs. The remainder of the pipeline, 822 miles (96 percent), would be situated in new ROW. No new pipe would be constructed along the Keystone Cushing Extension as part of the Project. Three hundred and ninety-three miles (82 percent) of the Gulf Coast Segment would be located within approximately 300 feet of existing pipelines, utilities, or road ROWs. The remainder of the pipeline, 87 miles (18 percent), would be situated in new ROW. Twenty miles (41 percent) of the Houston Lateral would be located within approximately 300 feet of existing pipelines, utilities, or road ROWs. The remainder of the pipeline, 29 miles (59 percent), would be situated in new ROW.
2.1.6
Additional Temporary Workspace Areas (TWAs)
In addition to the typical construction ROW, Keystone has identified typical types of additional TWAs that would be required. These include areas requiring special construction techniques (e.g., river, wetland, and road/rail crossings; horizontal directional drill (HDD) entry and exit points; steep slopes; and rocky soils) and construction staging areas. These preliminary areas have been used to quantify impacts of covering about 1,530 acres for the Project. The location of additional TWAs would be adjusted as the Project continues to be refined. This would involve the adjustment of additional temporary workspace as necessary related to actual wetland and waterbody locations, side-hill cuts, and rough terrain. Keystone would adjust additional TWAs at the prescribed setback distance from wetland and waterbody features unless impractical and as determined on a site-specific basis.
2.1.7
Pipe Stockpile Sites, Railroad Sidings, and Contractor Yards
Extra workspace areas outside of the temporary construction ROW covering about 2,783 acres would be required during the construction of the Project to serve as pipe storage sites, railroad sidings, and contractor yards (Table 2.1-3). Pipe stockpile sites along the pipeline route have typically been identified in proximity to railroad sidings. To the extent practical, Keystone would use existing commercial/industrial sites or sites that previously were used for construction. Existing public or private roads would be used to access each yard. Both pipe stockpile sites and contractor yards would be used on a temporary basis and would be restored, as appropriate, upon completion of construction. Survey of pipe stockpile sites, railroad sidings, and contractor yards would be completed prior to construction.
Table 2.1-3
Locations and Acreage of Potential Pipe Stockpile Sites, Railroad Sidings, and Contractors Yards
State/Type of Yard
Counties
Combined Acreage1
Montana Contractor Yards (3) Railroad Siding (5)
2
Pipe Stockpile Sites (9)
Dawson, McCone, Valley
90.6
Valley, Fallon, Roosevelt, Dawson (2)
100.0
Phillips, Valley (2), McCone (2), Dawson (2), Fallon (2)
270.1
Harding, Meade, Haakon, Jones, Tripp
150.2
Butte, Pennington (2), Stanley, Hutchinson
100.0
Harding (3), Meade (2), Haakon (2), Jones (2), Tripp (2)
331.0
South Dakota Contractor Yards (5) Railroad Siding (5)
2
Pipe Stockpile Sites (11)
2-15
May 2011
Table 2.1-3
Locations and Acreage of Potential Pipe Stockpile Sites, Railroad Sidings, and Contractors Yards
State/Type of Yard
Counties
Combined Acreage1
Nebraska Contractor Yards (7) Railroad Siding (3)
2
Pipe Stockpile Sites (8)
Holt (2), Greeley, Merrick, York, Gage, Jefferson, Merrick, York, Jefferson
213.3 60
Keya Paha, Holt (2), Greeley, Nance, Hamilton, Fillmore, Jefferson
242.3
Kansas Contractor Yards
None
Pipe Stockpile Sites
None
Oklahoma Contractor Yards (3) Railroad Siding (1)
2
Hughes, Lincoln, Bryan
65.2
Pittsburg
9.2
Pipe Stockpile Sites (3)
Lincoln, Hughes, Bryan
258.1
Pipe Stockpile Sites/Railroad Siding (4)
Pottawatomie, Grady (2), Hughes
378.0
Contractor Yards (8)
Angelina, Nacogdoches, Cherokee, Liberty, Houston, Lamar, Titus, Rusk
141.4
Railroad Sidings (5)2
Titus, Angelina, Franklin, Hardin, Lamar
Pipe Stockpile Sites (5)
Orange, Jefferson, Polk (2), Lamar
Pipe Stockpile Sites/Railroad Siding (2)
Grayson/Fannin, Franklin/Titus
91.1
Pipe Stockpile Sites/Contractor Yards (2)
Angelina, Lamar
21.9
Texas
27.6 237.5
1
Land use of these sites is currently under evaluation. The final acreage may be reduced to avoid biological or cultural resources, if any are identified.
2
Estimated size and location.
2.1.8
Construction Camps
Some portions of the Project in Montana and South Dakota lack adequate temporary housing, as further discussed in the Environmental Report. In these remote locations, the construction phase of the Project would require the installation of additional temporary housing for workers. It is currently anticipated that four temporary construction camps are needed, to be located in the general vicinity of Nashua, and Baker, Montana, and close to Union Center and Winner, South Dakota (Keystone 2010). Depending upon final construction spread configuration and construction schedule, additional or larger camps could be required. Each camp would be approximately 80 acres in size but would include about 30 acres for pipe and/or contractor yard space as well as the camp itself. These locations outside of the construction ROW covering about 320 acres would be permitted, constructed, and operated in compliance with applicable county, state, and federal regulations.
2-16
May 2011
2.1.9
Access Roads
The Project would use public and existing private roads to provide access to most of the construction ROW. Acreages of access roads are provided in Table 2.1-2. Paved roads are not likely to require improvement or maintenance prior to or during construction. Gravel roads and dirt roads may require maintenance during the construction period due to high use. Road improvements such as blading and filling would generally be restricted to the existing road footprint, widening of roads is also required in some areas. Private roads and any new temporary access roads would be used and maintained only with permission of the landowner or land management agency. Access pads would be placed within the construction ROW at crossings of public and private roads, requiring a total of about 37,860 cubic yards of gravel. There are approximately 1,590 such road crossings. There would be approximately 400 temporary access roads for construction, which would require approximately 28,579 cubic yards of gravel covering about 979 acres. There would be 50 permanent access roads to Project facilities, requiring approximately 242,970 cubic yards of gravel covering about 113 acres. Keystone proposes to construct short, permanent access roads from public roads to the proposed tank farm, pump stations, delivery facilities, and intermediate MLVs. The estimated acres of disturbance associated with the new proposed permanent access roads are listed in Table 2.1-1. Prior to construction, Keystone would finalize the location of new permanent access roads along with any temporary access roads. At a minimum, construction of new permanent access roads would require completion of cultural resources and biological surveys, along with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office and USFWS consultations and approvals. Other state and local permits also may be required prior to construction. In the future, maintenance of newly created access roads would be the responsibility of Keystone.
2.1.10 Aboveground Facilities The Project would require approximately 292 acres of land outside of the permanent ROW along the Project segments for aboveground facilities, including pump stations, delivery facilities, densitometer sites, intermediate MLVs, and the tank farm. Gravel would be used to stabilize the land for permanent facilities, including pump stations, valve sites, and permanent access roads. 2.1.10.1
Pump Stations
A total of 30 new pump stations, each situated on approximately 5- to 15-acre sites, would be constructed; 18 would be on the Steele City Segment, 10 on the Gulf Coast Segment, and 2 on the Keystone Cushing Extension in Kansas (Table 2.1-1). Each new pump station would consist of up to six pumps driven by electric motors, an electrical equipment shelter (EES), a variable frequency drive equipment shelter (VES), an electrical substation, one sump tank, a remotely operated MLV, a communication tower, a small maintenance building, and a parking area for station maintenance personnel. Stations would operate on locally purchased electric power and would be fully automated for unmanned operation. The pump stations would have an uninterruptable power supply or all communication and specific controls equipment in the case of a power failure. No backup generators at pump stations are planned and, therefore, no fuel storage tanks would be located at pump stations. Communication towers at pump stations would generally be approximately 33 feet in height. However, antenna height at select pump stations, as determined upon completion of a detailed engineering study, may be taller, but in no event would exceed a maximum height of 190 feet. Communication towers would be constructed without guy wires. The pipe entering and exiting the pump station sites would be located below grade. The pipe manifolding connected with the pump stations would be aboveground. Keystone would use down-lighting wherever possible to minimize impacts to wildlife and would install a security fence around the entire pump station site. Inspection and maintenance personnel would access the pump stations through a gate that would be locked when no one is at the pump station. Figures 2.1-11 and 2.1-12 show typical pump station configurations. Information related to power lines providing power to the pump stations is contained in Section 7 of the Environmental Report. 2-17
May 2011
2.1.10.2
Cushing Tank Farm
Keystone proposes to construct one tank farm on an approximate 74-acre site at Cushing, Oklahoma. The tank farm would consist of three 350,000-barrel tanks to be used operationally for the management of oil movement through the system, as well as four booster pumps, one sump tank, two ultrasonic meters, pig launchers and receivers, two electrical buildings, and parking for maintenance personnel. The tank farm would operate on locally purchased electricity and would be fully automated for unmanned operation. 2.1.10.3
Other Aboveground Facilities
Keystone proposes to install two delivery facilities along the Project route, one at Nederland and one at Moore Junction, Texas (Table 2.1-1). The delivery facilities would include pressure regulating, sampling, crude oil measurement equipment, a densitometer, a pig receiver, and one quality assurance building. Keystone proposes to construct 76 intermediate MLV sites along the new pipeline ROW. Intermediate MLVs would be sectionalizing block valves generally constructed within a fenced 40- by 50-foot site located on the permanent easement. Remotely operated intermediate MLVs would be located at major river crossings and upstream of sensitive waterbodies and at intermediate locations. Additional remotely operated MLVs would be located at pump stations, as described in Section 2.1.10.1. These remotely operated valves can be activated to shut down the pipeline in the event of an emergency to minimize environmental impacts in the unlikely event of a spill. The actual spacing intervals between the MLVs and intermediate MLVs would be based upon the location of the pump stations, waterbodies wider than 100 feet, sensitive environmental resources, and other hydraulic profile considerations. The Project would be designed to permit pigging of the entire length of the pipeline with minimal interruption of service. Pig launchers and/or receivers would be constructed and operated completely within the boundaries of the pump stations or delivery facilities. Launchers and receivers would allow pigging of the pipeline with high-resolution internal line inspection tools and maintenance cleaning pigs. 2.1.10.4
Nederland Surge Relief Tank
Two surge relief tanks would be required to operate up to 2 times per year at the end of the Gulf Coast Segment in Nederland. The tanks would be located within the existing facility, would have a capacity of approximately 10,417 barrels (437,514 gallons), and would only hold the oil for 2 days.
2-18
May 2011
2.1.11 Construction Procedures The proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated in accordance with all applicable requirements included in the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations at 49 CFR 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, other applicable federal and state regulations, and in accordance with the Project-specific special conditions recommended by Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) and agreed to by Keystone (see Sections 3.2.1 and 3.13.1, and Appendix U of the EIS). These regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent crude oil pipeline accidents. Among other design standards, 49 CFR 195 and the Project-specific special conditions specify pipeline material and qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. To manage construction impacts, Keystone would implement its Construction Mitigation and Reclamation Plan (CMRP) (Appendix A). This plan contains procedures that would be used throughout the Project avoid or minimize impacts. Subsections address specific environmental conditions. Procedures to restore impacts to the permanent ROW are described in the CMRP. The Project’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for harmful spills and leaks during construction. The plan describes spill prevention practices, emergency response procedures, emergency and personnel protection equipment, release notification procedures, and cleanup procedures. Keystone would use Environmental Inspectors on each construction spread. The Environmental Inspectors would review the Project activities daily for compliance with state, federal, and local regulatory requirements and would have the authority to stop specific tasks as approved by the Chief Inspector. The inspectors would also be able to order corrective action in the event that construction activities violat the provision of the CMRP, landowner requirements, or any applicable permit requirements. Mitigation and other measures contained in the Environmental Report would apply to the basic design and construction specifications applicable to lands disturbed by the Project. This approach would enable construction to proceed with a single set of specifications, irrespective of the ownership status (federal versus non-federal) of the land being crossed. On private lands, these requirements may be modified slightly to accommodate specific landowner requests or preferences or state-specific conditions. 2.1.11.1
General Pipeline Construction Procedures
Before starting construction at a specific site, engineering surveys of the ROW centerline and additional TWAs would be finalized and the acquisition of ROW easements and any necessary acquisitions of property in fee would be completed. Pipeline construction generally proceeds as a moving assembly line as shown in Figure 2.1-13 and summarized below. Keystone currently plans to construct the pipeline in 17 spreads. Standard pipeline construction is composed of specific activities, including survey and staking of the ROW, clearing and grading, pipe stringing, bending, trenching, welding, lowering in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup. In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, special construction techniques would be used where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used when constructing across rugged terrain, waterbodies, wetlands, paved roads, highways, and railroads (Section 2.1.11.2).
2-21
May 2011
Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence Figure 2.1-13
Normal construction activities would be conducted during daylight hours, with the following exceptions.
Completion of critical tie-ins on the ROW may occur after daylight hours. Completion requires tie-in welds, non destructive testing, and sufficient backfill to stabilize the ditch.
HDD operations may be conducted after daylight hours, if determined by the contractor to be necessary to complete a certain location. In some cases, that work may be required continuously until the work is completed; this may last one or more 24-hour days. Such operations may include drilling and pull-back operation, depending upon the site and weather conditions, permit requirements, schedule, crew availability, and other factors.
While not anticipated in typical operations, certain work may be required after the end of daylight hours due to weather conditions, for safety, or for other project requirements.
Survey and Staking Before construction begins at any given location, the limits of the approved work area (i.e., the construction ROW boundaries and any additional TWAs) would be marked and the location of approved access roads and existing utility lines would be flagged. Landowner fences would be braced and cut and temporary gates and fences would be installed to contain livestock, if present. Wetland boundaries and other environmentally sensitive areas also would be marked or fenced for protection at this time. Before the pipeline trench is excavated, a survey crew would stake the centerline of the proposed trench and any buried utilities along the ROW. Clearing and Grading A clearing crew would follow the fencing crew and would clear the work area of vegetation (including crops) and obstacles (e.g., trees, logs, brush, rocks). Standard agricultural implements would be used on agricultural lands and standard machinery used in timber clearing would be used in forested lands (Figure 2.1-13). The amount of top soil stripping would be determined in consultation with the landowner (based on agricultural use) and the NRCS. Full right-of-way stripping for forested lands would be avoided as practicable. Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fence or straw bales would be installed prior to or immediately after vegetation removal along slopes leading to wetlands and riparian areas. Grading would be conducted where necessary to provide a reasonably level work surface. Where the ground is relatively flat and does not require grading, rootstock would be left in the ground. More extensive grading would be required in steep side slopes or vertical areas and where necessary to safely construct the pipe along ROW. Trenching The trench would be excavated to a depth that provides sufficient cover over the pipeline after backfilling. Typically, the trench would be seven to eight feet deep and four to five feet wide in stable soils. In most areas, the USDOT requires a minimum of 30 inches of cover and as little as 18 inches in rocky areas. To reduce the risk of third party damage Keystone proposes to exceed the federal depth of cover requirements in most areas. In all areas, except areas of consolidated rock, the depth-of-cover for the pipeline would be a minimum of 48 inches (Table 2.1-4). In areas of consolidated rock, the minimum depth of cover would be 36 inches. Trenching may precede bending and welding or may follow based on several factors including soil characteristics, water table, presence of drain tiles, and weather conditions at the time of construction.
2-23
May 2011
Table 2.1-4
Minimum Pipeline Cover Normal Cover (inches)
Cover in Rock Excavation Areas (inches)
Most areas
48
36
All waterbodies
60
36
Dry creeks, ditches, drains, washes, gullies, etc.
60
36
Drainage ditches at public roads and railroads
60
48
Location
Generally, the crews on each construction spread are synchronized with the welding crews for efficiency. The amount of open trench is minimized to the extent possible. When rock or rocky formations are encountered, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers or rock trenchers would be used to fracture the rock prior to excavation. After the pipeline is padded, excavated rock would be used to backfill the trench to the top of the existing bedrock profile. In agricultural land, rocks that are exposed on the surface due to construction activity would be removed from the ROW prior to and after topsoil replacement to an equivalent quantity, size, and distribution of rocks as that on adjacent, undisturbed lands. Clearing of rocks may be carried out with a mechanical rock picker or by manual means, provided that preservation of topsoil is assured. Rock removed from the ROW would be hauled off the landowner’s premises or disposed of on the landowner’s premises at a location that is mutually acceptable to the landowner and to Keystone. Topsoil segregation would be based on site-specific circumstances and one of the following procedures would be implemented. Topsoil would be separated from subsoil only over the trench, over the trench and spoil side, or over the full width of ROW. Keystone may also conduct full ROW topsoil stripping in other areas where it is beneficial from a construction stand-point, or where required by landowners or land managers. When soil is removed from only the trench, topsoil would typically be piled on the near side of the trench and subsoil on the far side of the trench. This would allow for proper restoration of the soil during the backfilling process (see Figures 2.1-8 through 2.1-10). When soil is removed from both the trench and the spoil side, topsoil would typically be stored on the edge of the near side of the construction ROW and the subsoil on the spoil side of the trench. In areas where the ROW would be graded to provide a level working surface and where there is another need to separate topsoil from subsoil, topsoil would be removed from the entire area to be graded and stored separately from the subsoil. Topsoil would be piled such that the mixing of subsoil and topsoil would not occur. Gaps would be left between the spoil piles to prevent storm water runoff from backing up or flooding. Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding Prior to or following trenching, sections of externally coated pipe approximately 80 feet long (also referred to as “joints”) would be transported by truck over public roads and along authorized private access roads to the ROW and placed or “strung” along the ROW. After the pipe sections are strung along the trench and before joints are welded together, individual sections of the pipe would be bent to conform to the contours of the trench by a track-mounted, hydraulic pipe-bending machine. For larger bend angles, fabricated bends may be used. After the pipe sections are bent, the joints would be welded together into long strings and placed on temporary supports. During welding the pipeline joints would be lined up and held in position until securely joined. Keystone proposes to non-destructively inspect 100 percent of the welds using radiographic, ultrasonic, or other USDOT approved method. Welds that do not meet established specifications would be repaired or 2-24
May 2011
removed. Once the welds are approved, a protective epoxy coating would be applied to the welded joints. The pipeline would then be electronically inspected or “jeeped” for faults or holidays in the epoxy coating and visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. Damage to the coating would be repaired before the pipeline is lowered into the trench. In rangeland areas used for grazing, construction activities potentially can hinder the movement of livestock if the livestock cannot be relocated temporarily by the owner. Construction activities may also hinder the movement of wildlife. To minimize the impact on livestock and wildlife movements during construction, Keystone would leave hard plugs (short lengths of unexcavated trench) or install soft plugs (areas where the trench is excavated and replaced with minimal compaction) to allow livestock and wildlife to cross the trench safely. Soft plugs would be constructed with a ramp on each side to provide an avenue of escape for animals that may fall into the trench. Lowering In and Backfilling Before the pipeline is lowered into the trench, the trench would be inspected to be sure it is free of livestock or wildlife, as well as rock and other debris that could damage the pipe or its protective coating. In areas where water has accumulated, dewatering may be necessary to permit inspection of the bottom of the trench. Discharge of water from dewatering would be accomplished in accordance with applicable discharge permits. The pipeline then would be lowered into the trench. On sloped terrain, trench breakers (e.g., stacked sand bags or foam) would be installed in the trench at specified intervals to prevent subsurface water movement along the pipeline. The trench would then be backfilled using the excavated material. In rocky areas, the pipeline would be protected with an abrasion-resistant coating or rock shield (fabric or screen that is wrapped around the pipe to protect the pipe and its coating from damage by rocks, stones, and roots). Alternatively, the trench bottom would be filled with padding material (e.g., sand, soil, or gravel) to protect the pipeline. An estimated 85,000 cubic yards of padding material would be required. No topsoil would be used as padding material. Topsoil would be returned to its original horizon after subsoil is backfilled in the trench. Hydrostatic Testing The pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in sections of approximately 30 miles (with a maximum 50 miles) to ensure the system is capable of withstanding the operating pressure for which it is designed. This process involves isolating the pipe segment with test manifolds, filling the segment with water, pressurizing the segment to a pressure a minimum of 1.25 times the maximum operating pressure (MOP) at the high point elevation of each test section, and maintaining that pressure for a period of 8 hours. Fabricated assemblies may be tested prior to installation in the trench for a period of 4 hours. The hydrostatic test would be conducted in accordance with 49 CFR 195. Water for hydrostatic testing would generally be obtained from rivers, streams and municipal sources in close proximity to the pipeline and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Intakes would be screened to prevent entrainment of fish and intake and discharge locations would be determined with construction contractors. A preliminary list of potential hydrostatic test water sources is included in Table 2.1-5. Generally the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested after backfilling and all construction work that would directly affect the pipe is complete. If leaks are found, they would be repaired and the section of pipe retested until specifications are met. There are no chemicals added to the test water. The water is generally the same quality as the source water since there are no additives to the water. Water used for the testing would then be returned to the source or transferred to another pipe segment for subsequent hydrostatic testing. After hydrostatic testing, the water would be tested to ensure compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit requirements, treated if necessary, and discharged. The used hydrostatic test water would be discharged either to the source waterbody within the same water basin or to a suitable upland area near the test discharge. To reduce the velocity of the discharge to upland areas, energy dissipating devices would be employed. Energy dissipation devices that are consistent with Best Management Practice (BMP) protocols include:
2-25
May 2011
Splash Pup – a splash pup consists of a piece of large diameter pipe (usually over 20-inch outside diameter) of variable length with both ends partially blocked. The splash pup would be welded perpendicularly to the discharge pipe. As the discharge hits against the inside wall of the pup, the velocity would be rapidly reduced and the water allowed to flow out either end. A variation of the splash pup design, commonly called a diffuser, has capped ends and many holes punched in the pup to diffuse the energy.
Splash Plate – The splash plate is a quarter section of 36-inch pipe welded to a flat plate and attached to the end of a 6-inch-diameter discharge pipe. The velocity would be reduced by directing the discharge stream into the air as it exits the pipe. This device would also be effective for most overland discharge.
Plastic Liner – In areas where highly erodible soils exist or in any low flow drainage channel, it is a common practice to use layers of construction fabric to line the receiving channel for a short distance. A small load of rocks may be used to keep the fabric in place during the discharge. Additional methods, such as the use of plastic sheeting or other material to prevent scour would be used as necessary to prevent excessive sedimentation during dewatering.
Straw Bale Dewatering Structure – Straw bale dewatering structures are designed to dissipate and remove sediment from the water being discharged. Straw bale structures could be used alone for onland discharge of hydrostatic test water or in combination with other energy dissipating devices for high volume discharges. Dewatering filter bags may be used as alternatives to straw bale dewatering structures.
Hydrostatic test water would not be discharged 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, or local permitting agencies grant written permission. To avoid impacts from introduced species, no inter-basin transfers (discharge) of hydrostatic test water would occur without specific permitting approval to discharge into an alternative water basin. Discharge lines would be securely supported and tied down at the discharge end to prevent whipping during discharge. Hydrostatic testing is discussed further in Section 4.2.4.1 of the Environmental Report and in the CMRP (Appendix A). Table 2.1-5 Potential Hydrostatic Test Water Sources along the Project Route County
Approximate Milepost
Maximum Water Withdrawal (million gallons)
Waterbody Name
Steele City Segment – Montana Phillips
25.4
Frenchman Creek
4.6
Valley/McCone
89.2 to 89.3
Missouri River
11.4
McCone
147.0
Redwater River
8.0
Dawson
196.4
Yellowstone River
11.6
Fallon
281.5
Boxelder Creek
7.4
Steele City Segment – South Dakot Butte
356.9
North Fork Moreau River
7.4
Pennington
426.1
Cheyenne River
11.4
Lyman/Tripp
537.1
White River
6.5
Steele City Segment – Nebraska Keya Paha/Rock
615.4 to 651.6
Niobrara River
12.4
Wheeler
697.3
Cedar River
12.0
York
789.6
West Fork Big Blue River
11.7
2-26
May 2011
Table 2.1-5 Potential Hydrostatic Test Water Sources along the Project Route County
Approximate Milepost
Maximum Water Withdrawal (million gallons)
Waterbody Name
Gulf Coast Segment – Oklahoma Creek
22.2
Deep Fork River
6.6
Okfuskee/ Seminole
38.6
North Canadian River
0.3
Hughes
70.4
Little River
21.6
Hughes
74.1
South Canadian River
0.6
Atoka
126.9
Clear Boggy Creek
18.0
Gulf Coast Segment – Oklahoma/Texas Border (single crossing) Bryan/Fannin
155.7 to 155.8
Red River
9.3
Gulf Coast Segment – Texas Lamar/Delta
190.8
North Sulphur River
13.0
Delta/Hopkins
201.7 to 201.8
South Sulphur River
0.4
Upshur/Smith
263.5
Sabine River
17.0
Rusk
313.3
East Fork Angelina River 4
8.6
Nacogdoches/ Cherokee
334.2
Angelina River
17.4
Angelina/Polk
368.6
Neches River
22.1
Hardin
449.0
Pine Island Bayou
0.2
Jefferson
473.8
Hillebrandt Bayou
0.3
Liberty
22.8
Trinity River
10.6
Harris
43.3
San Jacinto River
1.8
Houston Lateral – Texas
Pipe Geometry Inspection The pipeline would be inspected prior to final tie-ins using an electronic caliper (geometry) pig to ensure the pipeline does not have any dents, bulging, or ovality that might be detrimental to the operation of the pipeline. Final Tie-ins Following successful hydrostatic testing, test manifolds would be removed and the final pipeline tie-in welds would be made and inspected. Commissioning After the final tie-ins are complete and inspected, the pipeline would be cleaned and dewatered. Commissioning involves verifying that equipment has been installed properly and is working, that controls and communications systems are functional, and that the pipeline is ready for service. In the final step, the pipeline would be prepared for service by filling the line with crude oil. Cleanup and Restoration During cleanup, construction debris on the ROW would be disposed of and work areas would be final graded. Preconstruction contours would be restored as closely as possible. Segregated topsoil would be spread over 2-27
May 2011
the surface of the ROW and permanent erosion controls would be installed. After backfilling, final cleanup would begin as soon as weather and site conditions permit. Every reasonable effort would be made to complete final cleanup (including final grading and installation of erosion control devices) within approximately 20 days after backfilling the trench (approximately 10 days in residential areas), subject to weather and seasonal constraints. Construction debris would be cleaned up and taken to an appropriate disposal facility. After permanent erosion control devices are installed and final grading complete, all disturbed work areas except annually cultivated fields would be seeded as soon as possible. Seeding is intended to stabilize the soil, revegetate areas disturbed by construction, and restore native vegetation. Timing of the reseeding efforts would depend upon weather and soil conditions and would be subject to the prescribed rates and seed mixes specified by the landowner, land management agency, or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations. On agricultural lands, seeding would be conducted only as agreed upon with the landowner. Keystone would restore and replace fences where they occur. Keystone would also restrict access to the permanent easement using gates, boulders, or other barriers to minimize unauthorized access by all-terrain vehicles in wooded areas or other previously unfenced areas if requested by the landowner. Pipeline markers would be installed at road and railroad crossings and other locations (as required by 49 CFR 195) to show the location of the pipeline. Markers would identify the owner of the pipeline and convey emergency contact information. Special markers providing information and guidance to aerial patrol pilots also would be installed. The ROW would be inspected after the first growing season to determine the success of revegetation and noxious weed control. Eroded areas would be repaired and areas that were unsuccessfully re-established would be revegetated by Keystone or Keystone would compensate the landowner for reseeding. The CMRP (Appendix A) provides information on revegetation and weed control procedures that Keystone would incorporate into the Project. 2.1.11.2
Non-Standard Construction Procedures
In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, special construction techniques would be used where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used when crossing roads, highways and railroads; steep terrain; unstable soils; waterbodies; wetlands; and residential and commercial areas. These special techniques are described below. Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings Construction across paved roads, highways, and railroads would be in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate road and railroad crossing permits and approvals. In general, all major paved roads, all primary gravel roads, highways, and railroads would be crossed by boring beneath the road or railroad. Boring requires the excavation of a pit on each side of the feature, the placement of boring equipment in the pit, and boring a hole under the road at least equal to the diameter of the pipe. Once the hole is bored, a prefabricated pipe section would be pulled through the borehole. For long crossings, sections can be welded onto the pipe string just before being pulled through the borehole. Each boring would be expected to take 1 to 2 days for most roads and railroads and 10 days for long crossings such as interstate or four-lane highways. Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be crossed using the open-cut method where permitted by local authorities or private owners. Most open-cut road crossings can be finished and the road resurfaced in 1 or 2 days. Pipeline, Utility, and Other Buried Feature Crossings Keystone and its pipeline contractors would comply with DOT regulations, utility agreements, and industry best management practices with respect to utility crossing and separation specifications. One-call notification would be made for all utility crossings so respective utilities are identified accordingly.
2-28
May 2011
Unless otherwise specified in a crossing agreement, the contractor would excavate to allow installation of the pipeline across the existing utility with a minimum clearance of 12 inches. The clearance would be filled with sandbags or suitable fill material to maintain the clearance. Backfill of the crossing would be compacted in lifts to ensure continuous support of the existing utility. For some crossings, the owner of the utility may require the facility to be excavated and exposed by their own employees prior to the Keystone contractor getting to the location. In those cases, Keystone would work with owners to complete work to the satisfaction of the owner. Where the owner of the utility does not require pre-excavation, generally, the pipeline contractor would locate and expose the utility before conducting machine excavation. Steep Terrain Additional grading may be required in areas where the proposed pipeline route would cross steep slopes. Steep slopes often need to be graded down to a gentler slope for safe operation of construction equipment and to accommodate pipe-bending limitations. In such areas, the slopes would be excavated prior to pipeline installation and reconstructed to a stable condition. In areas where the pipeline route crosses laterally along the side of a slope, cut and fill grading may be required to obtain a safe, flat work terrace. Topsoil would be stripped from the entire ROW and stockpiled prior to cut and fill grading on steep terrain. Generally on steep slopes, soil from the high side of the ROW would be excavated and moved to the low side of the ROW to create a safe and level work terrace. After the pipeline is installed, the soil from the low side of the ROW would be returned to the high side and the slope’s contour would be restored as near as practicable to preconstruction condition. Topsoil from the stockpile would be spread over the surface, erosion control features installed, and seeding implemented. In steep terrain, temporary sediment barriers such as silt fence and straw bales would be installed during clearing to prevent the movement of disturbed soil into wetland, waterbody, or other environmentally sensitive areas. Temporary slope breakers consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the ROW during grading and permanent slope breakers would be installed during cleanup. Following construction, seed would be applied to steep slopes and the ROW would be mulched with hay or non-brittle straw or covered with erosion control fabric. Sediment barriers would be maintained across the ROW until permanent vegetation is established. Additional temporary workspace may be required for storage of graded material and/or topsoil during construction. Unstable Soils Construction in unstable soils, such as those within the sand hills region of South Dakota and Nebraska, would be in accordance with measures outlined in the CMRP (Appendix A). Construction in these areas could require extended TWAs; potential disturbance associated with these areas would be included in supplemental filings when these areas are identified. Special construction and mitigation techniques would be applied to areas with high potential for landslides, erosion-prone locations, and blowouts. To facilitate reclamation, Keystone could implement measures such as the use of photodegradable mats and livestock controls. Waterbody Crossings - Perennial Approximately 317 perennial waterbodies would be crossed one or more times during the construction of the Project. Perennial waterbodies would be crossed using one of four techniques: the open-cut wet method (the preferred method), dry flume method, dry dam-and-pump method, or HDD. Each method is described below. In the final design phase of the Project, waterbody crossings would be assessed by qualified personnel with respect to the potential for channel aggradation or degradation and lateral channel migration. The level of assessment for each crossing would vary based on the professional judgment of the qualified design personnel. The pipeline would be installed as necessary to address any hazards identified by the assessment. The pipeline would be installed at the design crossing depth for at least 15 feet beyond the design lateral migration zone, as determined by qualified personnel. The design of the crossings also would include the specification of appropriate stabilization and restoration measures. The actual crossing method employed at a 2-29 May 2011
perennial stream would depend on permit conditions from USACE and other relevant regulatory agencies, as well as additional conditions that may be imposed by landowners or land managers at the crossing location. The preferred crossing method would be to use the open-cut crossing method. The open-cut method involves trenching through the waterbody while water continues to flow through the construction work area. Pipe segments for the crossing would be fabricated adjacent to the waterbody. Generally, backhoes operating from one or both banks would excavate the trench within the streambed. In wider rivers, in-stream operation of equipment may be necessary. Hard or soft trench plugs would be placed to prevent the flow of water into the upland portions of the trench. Trench spoil excavated from the streambed generally would be placed at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge unless stream width is great enough to require placement in the stream bed. Sediment barriers would be installed where necessary to control sediment and to prevent excavated spoil from entering the water. After the trench is dug, the prefabricated pipeline segment would be carried, pushed, or pulled across the waterbody and positioned in the trench. When crossing saturated wetlands with flowing waterbodies using the open-cut method, the pipe coating would be covered with reinforced concrete or concrete weights to provide negative buoyancy. The need for weighted pipe would be determined by detailed design and site conditions at the time of construction. The trench would then be backfilled with native material or with imported material if required by applicable permits. Following backfilling, the banks would be restored and stabilized. The Project would utilize dry flume or dry dam-and-pump methods where technically feasible on environmentally sensitive waterbodies as warranted by resource-specific sensitivities. The flume crossing method involves diverting the flow of water across the trenching area through one or more flume pipes placed in the waterbody. The dam-and-pump method is similar to the flume method except that pumps and hoses would be used instead of flumes to move water around the construction work area. In both methods, trenching, pipe installation, and backfilling are done while water flow is maintained for all but a short reach of the waterbody at the actual crossing. Once backfilling is completed, the stream banks restored and stabilized and the flume or pump hoses are removed. Keystone plans to use the HDD method of construction for 38 waterbody and 1 wetland crossings (Table 2.16) on the Project. The HDD method involves drilling a pilot hole under the waterbody and banks, then enlarging the hole through successive reamings until the hole is large enough to accommodate a prefabricated segment of pipe. Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, slurry consisting mainly of water and bentonite clay would be circulated to power and lubricate the drilling tools, remove drill cuttings, and provide stability to the drilled holes. Pipe sections long enough to span the entire crossing would be staged and welded along the construction work area on the opposite side of the waterbody and then pulled through the drilled hole. Ideally, use of the HDD method results in no impact on the banks, bed, or water quality of the waterbody being crossed. Table 2.1-6
Waterbodies and Wetlands Crossed Using the Horizontal Directional Drilling Method Waterbody
Number of Crossings
Approximate Milepost(s)
Milk River
1
82.9
Missouri River
1
89.2
Yellowstone River
1
196.4
Little Missouri River
1
292.1
Cheyenne River
1
426.1
White River
1
537.2
Niobrara River
1
615.5
Cedar River
1
697.3
Steele City Segment
2-30
May 2011
Table 2.1-6
Waterbodies and Wetlands Crossed Using the Horizontal Directional Drilling Method Waterbody
Number of Crossings
Approximate Milepost(s)
Loup River
1
740.7
Platte River
1
756.3
Deep Fork
1
22.2
North Canadian River
1
38.6
Little River
1
70.4
[South] Canadian River
1
74.1
Fronterhouse Creek
1
122.6
Clear Boggy Creek
1
127.1
Red River
1
155.7
Bois D’Arc Creek
1
162.0
North Sulphur River
1
190.8
[South] Sulphur River
1
201.8
White Oak Creek
1
212.8
Big Cyprus Creek
1
228.4
Private Lake
1
254.8
Big Sandy Creek
1
256.9
Sabine River
1
263.5
East Fork of Angelina River
1
313.3
Angelina River
1
334.2
Neches River and Fiberboard Lake
1
368.6
Menard Creek
1
416.3
Pine Island Bayou
1
448.9
Lower Neches Valley Canal Authority
1
461.8
Lower Neches Valley Canal Authority
1
462.5
Willow Marsh Bayou
1
469.9
Railroad, I-10, and Canal
1
471.0
Hillebrandt Bayou
1
473.8
Turkey Creek Marsh
1
17.7
Trinity River
1
22.8
Cedar Bayou
1
35.6
San Jacinto River
1
43.3
Gulf Coast Segment
Houston Lateral
2-31
May 2011
Waterbodies considered for directional drill include commercially navigable waterbodies, waterbodies wider than 100 feet, waterbodies with terrain features that prohibit open crossing methods, waterbodies adjacent to features such as roads, railroads that would complicate construction by an open crossing method, and sensitive environmental resource areas that could be avoided by HDD. Approximately 564 intermittent waterbodies would be crossed by the Project. In the event these intermittent waterbodies are dry or have non-moving water at the time of crossing, Keystone proposes to use conventional upland cross-country construction techniques. If an intermittent waterbody is flowing when crossed, Keystone would install the pipeline using the open-cut wet crossing method discussed previously. When crossing waterbodies, Keystone would adhere to the guidelines outlined in Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A) and the requirements of its waterbody crossing permits. Additional TWAs would be required on both sides of all conventionally crossed waterbodies to stage construction, fabricate the pipeline, and store materials. These workspaces would be located at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. Before construction, temporary bridges (e.g., clean fill over culverts, timber mats supported by flumes, railcar flatbeds, flexi-float apparatus) would be installed across all perennial waterbodies to allow construction equipment to cross. Construction equipment would be required to use the bridges, except the clearing crew, which would be allowed one pass through the waterbodies before the bridges are installed. During clearing, sediment barriers such as silt fence and staked straw bales would be installed and maintained on drainages across the ROW adjacent to waterbodies and within additional TWAs to minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Silt fence and straw bales located across the working side of the ROW would be removed during the day when vehicle traffic is present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms could be installed and maintained across the ROW in lieu of a silt fence or straw bales. In general, equipment refueling and lubricating at waterbodies would take place in upland areas that are 100 feet or more from the water. When circumstances dictate that equipment refueling and lubricating would be necessary in or near waterbodies, Keystone would follow its SPCC Plan to address the handling of fuel and other hazardous materials. After the pipeline is installed beneath the waterbody, restoration would begin. Waterbody banks would be restored to preconstruction contours or to a stable configuration. Appropriate erosion control measures such as rock riprap, gabion baskets (rock enclosed in wire bins), log walls, vegetated geogrids, or willow cuttings would be installed as necessary on steep banks in accordance with permit requirements. More stable banks would be seeded with native grasses and mulched or covered with erosion control fabric. Waterbody banks would be temporarily stabilized within 24 hours of completing in-stream construction. Sediment barriers, such as silt fences, straw bales or drivable berms would be maintained across the ROW at all waterbody approaches until permanent vegetation is established. Temporary equipment bridges would be removed following construction. Wetland Crossings Data from wetland delineation field surveys, aerial photography, and National Wetland Inventory mapping were used to identify wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline. Pipeline construction across wetlands would be similar to typical conventional upland cross-country construction procedures, with several modifications where necessary to reduce the potential for pipeline construction to affect wetland hydrology and soil structure. The wetland crossing method used would depend largely on the stability of the soils at the time of construction. If wetland soils are not excessively saturated at the time of construction and can support construction equipment without equipment mats, construction would occur in a manner similar to conventional upland cross-country construction techniques. Topsoil would be segregated over the trench line. In most saturated soils, topsoil segregation would not be possible. Additional TWAs would be required on both sides of particularly wide saturated wetlands to stage construction, fabricate the pipeline, and store materials. These 2-32
May 2011
additional TWAs would be located in upland areas a minimum of 10 feet from the wetland edge. More information is located in the Site-Specific Waterbody Crossing Plans located in the Environmental Report. Construction equipment working in saturated wetlands would be limited to that area essential for clearing the ROW, excavating the trench, fabricating and installing the pipeline, backfilling the trench, and restoring the ROW. In areas where there is no reasonable access to the ROW except through wetlands, non-essential equipment would be allowed to travel through wetlands only if the ground is firm enough or has been stabilized to avoid rutting. Clearing of vegetation in wetlands would be limited to trees and shrubs, which would be cut flush with the surface of the ground and removed from the wetland. To avoid excessive disruption of wetland soils and the native seed and rootstock within the wetland soils, stump removal, grading, topsoil segregation, and excavation would be limited to the area immediately over the trench line to the maximum extent practicable. Trench width would be that required to provide an even safe work area which depends upon topography, soil moisture content, and groundwater levels. Severe topography may require additional disturbance to create an even safe work area. More saturated soils usually require a wider trench in order to maintain a safe ditch and to avoid unstable trench walls. During clearing, sediment barriers, such as silt fence and staked straw bales, would be installed and maintained on down slopes adjacent to saturated wetlands and within additional TWAs as necessary to minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Where wetland soils are saturated or inundated, the pipeline can be installed using the push-pull technique. The push-pull technique involves stringing and welding the pipeline outside of the wetland and excavating and backfilling the trench using a backhoe supported by equipment mats or timber riprap. The prefabricated pipeline is installed in the wetland by equipping it with floats 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. Most pipe installed in saturated wetlands would be coated with concrete or installed with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. Final locations requiring weighted pipe for negative buoyancy would be determined by detailed design and site conditions at the time of construction. Because little or no grading would occur in wetlands, restoration of contours would be accomplished during backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary to prevent the subsurface drainage of water from wetlands. Where topsoil has been segregated from subsoil, the subsoil would be backfilled first followed by the topsoil. Topsoil would be replaced to the original ground level leaving no crown over the trench line. In some areas where wetlands overlie rocky soil, the pipe would be padded with rock-free soil or sand before backfilling with native bedrock and soil. Equipment mats, timber riprap, gravel fill, geotextile fabric, and straw mats would be removed from wetlands following backfilling except in the travel lane to allow continued, but controlled, access through the wetland until the completion of construction. Upon the completion of construction, these materials would be removed. Where wetlands are located at the base of slopes, permanent slope breakers would be constructed across the ROW in upland areas adjacent to the wetland boundary. Temporary sediment barriers would be installed where necessary until revegetation of adjacent upland areas is successful. Once revegetation is successful, sediment barriers would be removed from the ROW and disposed of properly. In wetlands where no standing water is present, the construction ROW would be seeded in accordance with the recommendations of the local soil conservation authorities or land management agency. Fences and Grazing Fences would be crossed or paralleled by the construction ROW. Before cutting any fence for pipeline construction, each fence would be braced and secured to prevent the slacking of the fence. To prevent the passage of livestock the opening in the fence would be closed temporarily when construction crews leave the area. If gaps in natural barriers used for livestock control are created by pipeline construction, the gaps would be fenced according to the landowner’s requirements. All existing improvements, such as fences, gates, irrigation ditches, cattle guards, and reservoirs would be maintained during construction and repaired to preconstruction conditions or better upon completion of construction activities. 2-33
May 2011
2.1.11.3
Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures
Construction activities at each of the new pump stations would follow a standard sequence of activities: clearing and grading, installing foundations for the electrical building and support buildings, and erecting the structures to support the pumps and/or associated facilities. A block valve is installed in the mainline with two side block valves; one to the suction piping of the pumps and one from the discharge piping of the pumps. Construction activities and the storage of building materials would be confined to the pump station construction sites. Figures 2.1-11 and 2.1-12 illustrate typical plot plans for pump stations. The sites for the pump stations would be cleared of vegetation and graded as necessary to create a level surface for the movement of construction vehicles and to prepare the area for the building foundations. Foundations would be constructed for the pumps and buildings and soil would be stripped from the construction footprint. Each pump station would include one electrical equipment shelter (EES), and a variable frequency drive equipment shelter (VES). The EES would include electrical systems, communication, and control equipment. The VES would house VFD equipment. The crude oil piping, both aboveground and below ground, would be installed and pressure tested using methods similar to those used for the main pipeline. After testing is successfully completed, the piping would be tied into the main pipeline. Piping installed below grade would be coated for corrosion protection prior to backfilling. In addition, all below grade facilities would be protected by a cathodic protection system. Before being put into service, pumps, controls, and safety devices would be checked and tested to ensure proper system operation and activation of safety mechanisms. The site for the Cushing tank farm would be co-located with Pump Station 32 at Cushing, Oklahoma. The tank farm site would be cleared and graded to create a level work surface for the tanks. The welded steel tank structures with internal floating roofs would be installed inside an impervious bermed area, which would act as secondary containment. The piping in the tank farm area would be both above and below ground. The tanks and associated piping would be isolated electrically from the pipeline and protected by their own cathodic protection system. The electrical and control system for the tanks and associated piping would share the facilities required for the pump station. After successful hydrostatic testing of the tanks and associated piping and commissioning of the control system, the tanks would be connected with the pipeline system. Each tank would have a separate water screen and fire suppression system supplied by a fire water supply pond located on the site. In addition to this pond, a separate larger pond would be installed to manage storm water and mitigate any potential contamination from the site. Each pump station and the tank farm would require electricity, which would be obtained from local utilities. Table 2.1-7 summarizes new power and distribution line requirements. After the completion of startup and testing, the pump station sites and the tank farm would be final graded. A permanent security fence would be installed around each pump station site and the tank farm. Table 2.1-7 Pump Station No.
Summary of Power Supply Requirements for Pump Stations and Tank Farm Milepost (0 at US border)
Transformer Size (MVa)1
Utility Supply (kV)2
Estimated Power Line Lengths (miles)
Power Provider
Steele City Segment Montana PS-09
1.2
20/27/33
115
61.8
Big Flat Electric Cooperative
PS-10
49.5
20/27/33
115
49.1
NorVal Electric Cooperative
PS-11
98.4
20/27/33
230
0.2
NorVal Electric Cooperative
PS-12
149.1
20/27/33
115
3.2
McCone Electric Cooperative
2-34
May 2011
Table 2.1-7 Pump Station No.
Summary of Power Supply Requirements for Pump Stations and Tank Farm Milepost (0 at US border)
Transformer Size (MVa)1
Utility Supply (kV)2
Estimated Power Line Lengths (miles)
Power Provider
PS-13
199.6
20/27/33
115
15.2
Tongue River Electric Cooperative
PS-14
237.1
20/27/33
115
6.3
Montana-Dakota Utilities Company
PS-15
285.7
20/27/33
115
24.5
Grand Electric Cooperative
PS-16
333.7
20/27/33
115
40.1
Grand Electric Cooperative
PS-17
387.4
20/27/33
115
10.9
Grand Electric Cooperative
PS-18
440.2
20/27/33
115
25.9
West Central Electric Cooperative
PS-19
496.1
20/27/33
115
20.4
West Central Electric Cooperative
PS-20
546.7
20/27/33
115
17.2
Rosebud Electric Cooperative
PS-21
591.9
20/27/33
115
20.1
Rosebud Electric Cooperative
PS-22
642.4
20/27/33
115
24.0
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) & Niobrara Valley Electric
PS-23
694.5
20/27/33
115
36.0
NPPD & Loup valleys Rural PPD
PS-24
751.7
20/27/33
115
9.0
NPPD & Southern Power District
PS-25
800.5
20/27/33
69
0.1
NPPD & Perennial PPD
PS-26
851.3
20/27/33
115
0.5
NPPD & Norris PPD
South Dakota
Nebraska
Keystone Cushing Extension Kansas PS-27
49.0
20/27/33
115
4.6
Clay Center Public Utility
PS-29
144.5
20/27/33
115
8.9
Westar Energy
17/22/28
138
6.9
OGE Energy Corporation
138
0.3
Western Farmers & Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative
Gulf Coast Segment Oklahoma PS-32
0.0
PS-33
49.0 20/27/33
PS-34
95.4
20/27/33
138
5.5
People’s Electric Cooperative
PS-35
147.4
20/27/33
138
0.0
Western Farmers & Southeastern Electric Cooperative
PS-36
194.5
20/27/33
138
7.4
Lamar Electric Cooperative
PS-37
238.6
20/27/33
138
0.1
Wood County Electric Cooperative
PS-38
284.0
20/27/33
138
0.6
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
Texas
2-35
May 2011
Table 2.1-7 Pump Station No.
Summary of Power Supply Requirements for Pump Stations and Tank Farm Milepost (0 at US border)
Transformer Size (MVa)1
Utility Supply (kV)2
Estimated Power Line Lengths (miles)
Power Provider
PS-39
338.1
20/27/33
138
9.1
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
PS-40
380.5
20/27/33
138
0.3
Sam Houston Electric Cooperative
PS-41
435.2
20/27/33
240
0.4
Sam Houston Electric Cooperative
1
MVa – Mega Volt amperes.
2
kV – kilovolt.
Note: Mileposting for each segment of the Project start at 0.0 at the northernmost point of each segment and increase in the direction of oil flow.
Where delivery and pigging facilities are co-located with a pump station or the tank farm, the delivery and pigging facilities would be located entirely within the facility. Construction activities would include clearing, grading, trenching, installing piping, erecting buildings, fencing the facilities, cleaning up, and restoring the area. The delivery facilities would operate on locally provided power (Table 2.1-7). Intermediate MLV construction would be carried out concurrently with the construction of the pipeline. Wherever practical, intermediate MLVs would be located near public roads to allow year-round access. If necessary, permanent access roads or approaches would be constructed to each fenced MLV site. Construction Workforce and Schedule Workforce Keystone proposes to begin construction of the Gulf Coast Segment in 2011, the Steele City Segment in 2011 and 2012, and the Houston Lateral in 2012 or 2013. The Project is planned to be placed into service in phases. The Gulf Coast Segment is planned to be in-service in late 2011 and the Steele City Segment and Houston Lateral are planned to be in service in 2012. Construction of new pump stations along the Keystone Cushing Extension would coincide with construction of the Gulf Coast Segment. Keystone anticipates a peak work force of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 construction personnel. Construction personnel would consist of Keystone employees, contractor employees, construction inspection staff, and environmental inspection staff. Keystone is planning to build the Project in 17 construction spreads. The spread breakdowns and corresponding base of operations for construction spreads are shown in Table 2.1-7. The construction schedule may affect the final spread configuration which may result in the need for additional but shorter spreads. Construction activity would occur simultaneously on spreads within each phased segment of the Project. Table 2.1-7 Construction Spreads Associated with the Project Spread Number
Location
Approximate Length of Construction Spread (miles)
Base(s) for Construction1
Steele City Segment Spread 1
MP 0 to 64
64
Hinsdale, Montana; and Glasgow, Montana
Spread 2
MP 64 to 164
100
Glasgow, Montana; and Circle, Montana
Spread 3
MP 164 to 273
109
Glendive, Montana; and Baker, Montana
Spread 4
MP 273 to 345
72
Buffalo, South Dakota
Spread 5
MP 345 to 448
104
Faith, South Dakota; and Union Center, South Dakota
2-36
May 2011
Table 2.1-7 Construction Spreads Associated with the Project Location
Approximate Length of Construction Spread (miles)
Spread 6
MP 448 to 513
65
Spread 7
MP 513 to 616
103
Spread 8
MP 161 to 679
63
Spread 9
MP 679 to 789
109
Spread 10
MP 789 to 852
63
Spread Number
Base(s) for Construction
1
Phillip, South Dakota Murdo, South Dakota; and Winner, South Dakota Fairfax, Nebraska; Stuart, Nebraska; and O’Neill, Nebraska Greeley, Nebraska; and Central City, Nebraska York, Nebraska; Beatrice, Nebraska; and Fairbury, Nebraska
Gulf Coast Segment Spread 1
MP 0 to 95
95
Holdenville, Oklahoma
Spread 2
MP 95 to 185
90
Paris, Texas
Spread 3
MP 185 to 285
100
Mt. Pleasant, Texas
Spread 4
MP 285 to 371
86
Henderson, Texas; Nacogdoches, Texas; Crochett, Texas; and Jacksonville, Texas
Spread 5
MP 371 to 435
64
Lufkin, Texas
Spread 6
MP 435 to 484
49
Sour Lake, Texas
MP 0 to 49
49
Sour Lake, Texas; Liberty, Texas; and Dayton, Texas
Houston Lateral Spread 7 1
Base(s) of construction for Spreads 1-8 may use construction camps. Camps would be situated in the area between spread breaks for Spreads 1 and 2, for Spreads 3 and 4, for Spreads 5 and 6, and for Spreads 7 and 8.
Note: Mileposting for each segment of the Project is started at 0 at the northernmost point of the segment, and increases in the direction of oil flow.
It is anticipated that 500 to 600 construction and inspection personnel would be required, associated with each spread, except for the Houston Lateral, which would require approximately 250 workers. Each spread would require 6 to 8 months to complete. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in 18 to 24 months. Tank farm construction would involve approximately 30 to 40 construction personnel over a period of 15 to 18 months concurrent with mainline construction. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in 18 to 24 months. Keystone, through its construction contractors and subcontractors, would attempt to hire temporary construction staff from the local population. Provided qualified personnel are available, approximately 10 to 15 percent (50 to 100 people per spread) may be hired from the local work force for each spread. This may not be possible in more rural areas. Schedule As an industry rule-of-thumb, cross-country construction progresses at a rate of approximately 20 completed miles per calendar month per spread, which could be used for scheduling purposes. Based on experience, the construction schedule may be estimated as follows:
2-3 weeks (14-21 calendar days) of work on the ROW prior to the start of production welding. These activities include clearing, grading, stringing, and trenching. 2-37
May 2011
Production welding, based on an average of 1.25 miles per working day and a 6-day work week (7 calendar days), would be completed at 7.5 miles per week, on average.
7 weeks (49 calendar days) of work after completion of production welding. These activities include non-destructive testing, field joint coating, lowering-in, tie-ins, backfill, ROW clean-up and restoration, hydrostatic testing, reseeding, and other ROW reclamation work.
Using this as a basis for determining the duration of construction activities on the ROW yields the time requirements shown below for various spread lengths (Table 2.1-8). Construction in areas with greater congestion, higher population, industrial areas, or areas requiring other special construction procedures, may result in a slower rate of progress. Table 2.1-8 Spread Length
Resulting Cross-Country Construction Times Based on Estimates of Schedule Pre-welding
Welding Time
Post-welding and Clean-up
Duration
80 miles
21 days
75 days
49 days
145 days (21 weeks)
90 miles
21 days
84 days
49 days
154 days (22 weeks)
100 miles
21 days
94 days
49 days
164 days (24 weeks)
120 miles
21 days
112 days
49 days
182 days (26 weeks)
In addition, about 1 month for contractor mobilization before the work is started and 1 month after the work is finished for contractor demobilization should be factored into the overall construction schedule. 2.1.11.4
Future Plans and Abandonment
The Project is expected to operate for approximately 50 years. No plans for abandonment of these facilities have been identified at this time. If abandonment of any facility is proposed in the future, abandonment would be implemented in accordance with then-applicable federal and state permits, approvals, codes, and regulations.
2.1.12 Operation and Maintenance The Project’s facilities would be maintained in accordance with 49 CFR 194, 49 CFR 195, the Project-specific special conditions recommended by PHMSA and agreed to by Keystone, and other applicable federal and state regulations. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline system in most cases would be accomplished by Keystone personnel. It is estimated that the permanent operational pipeline workforce would comprise about 20 U.S. employees. An annual Pipeline Maintenance Program (PMP) would be implemented by Keystone to ensure the integrity of the pipeline. The PMP would include valve maintenance, periodic inline inspections, and cathodic protection readings underpinned by a company-wide goal to ensure facilities are reliable and in service. Data collected in each year of the program would be fed back into the decision-making process for the development of the following year's program. In addition, the pipeline would be monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year from the oil control center using leak detection systems and supervisory control and data acquisition. During operations, Keystone would have a Project-specific Emergency Response Plan (ERP) in place to manage a variety of events. 2.1.12.1
Normal Operations and Routine Maintenance
The pipeline would be inspected periodically via aerial and ground surveillance as operating conditions permit, at a frequency consistent with 49 CFR 195 and the Project-specific special conditions. These surveillance activities would provide information on possible encroachments and nearby construction activities, erosion, 2-38
May 2011
exposed pipe, and other potential concerns that may affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. Evidence of population changes would be monitored and High Consequence Areas identified as necessary. Intermediate MLVs and MLVs would be inspected twice annually and the results documented. In order to maintain accessibility of the permanent easement and to accommodate pipeline integrity surveys, woody vegetation along the pipeline permanent easement would be periodically cleared. Cultivated crops would be allowed to grow in the permanent easement. Trees would be removed from the permanent easement. Keystone would use mechanical mowing or cutting along its permanent easement for normal vegetation maintenance. Trees along the paths of areas where the pipe was installed via HDDs would only be cleared as required on a site specific basis. The ROW would be monitored to identify any areas where soil productivity has been degraded as a result of pipeline construction and reclamation measures would be implemented to rectify any such concerns. Applicable reclamation measures are outlined in the CMRP (Appendix A). Multiple overlapping and redundant systems would be implemented, including Quality Assurance program for pipe manufacture and pipe coating, fusion-bonded epoxy coating, cathodic protection, non-destructive testing of 100 percent of the girth welds, hydrostatic testing to 125 percent of the MOP, periodic internal cleaning and high-resolution in-line inspection, depth of cover exceeding federal standards, periodic aerial surveillance, public awareness program, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, and a Operations Control Center (OCC) (with complete redundant backup) providing monitoring of the pipeline every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. SCADA facilities would be located at all pump stations remotely operated and delivery facilities. The pipeline SCADA system would allow the control center to perform the following functions:
Remote reading of automated MLV positions;
Remote starting and stopping at pump stations;
Remote reading of tank levels;
Remote closing and opening of automated MLVs;
Remote reading of line pressure and temperature at all automated intermediate valve sites, at all pump stations, and at delivery metering facilities; and
Remote reading of delivery flow and total flow.
The Project would have an OCC manned by an experienced and highly trained crew 24 hours per day every day of the year. A fully redundant backup OCC would be constructed and available as needed. Real time information communication systems, including backup systems, would provide up-to-date information from the pump stations to the OCC plus the ability to contact field personnel. The OCC would have highly sophisticated pipeline monitoring systems and multiple leak detection systems as discussed in Section 2.1.11.2. 2.1.12.2
Abnormal Operations
The preparation of manuals and procedures for responding to abnormal operations would comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, including 49 CFR Section 195.402. Section 195.402(a) requires a pipeline operator to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Section 195.402(d) (Abnormal Operation) requires the manual to include procedures to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded.
2-39
May 2011
SCADA and Leak Detection Keystone proposes to utilize a SCADA system to remotely monitor and control the pipeline system. Highlights of Keystone's SCADA system would include:
Redundant fully functional backup system available for service at all times;
Automatic features installed as integral components within the SCADA system to ensure operation within prescribed pressure limits;
Additional automatic features installed at the local pump station level would also be utilized to provide pipeline pressure protection in the event communications with the SCADA host are interrupted; and
Pipeline is monitored every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
Keystone also would have a number of complimentary leak detection methods and systems available within the OCC. These methods and systems are overlapping in nature and progress in leak detection thresholds. The leak detection methods are as follows:
Remote monitoring performed by the OCC Operator, which consists primarily of monitoring pressure and flow data received from pump stations and valve sites fed back to the OCC by the Keystone SCADA system. Remote monitoring is typically able to detect leaks down to approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of pipeline flow rate.
Software based volume balance systems that monitor receipt and delivery volumes. These systems are typically able to detect leaks down to approximately 5 percent of pipeline flow rate.
Computational Pipeline Monitoring or model based leak detection systems that break the pipeline system into smaller segments and monitor each of these segments on a mass balance basis. These systems are typically capable of detecting leaks down to a level approximately 1.5 percent to 2 percent of pipeline flow rate.
Computer based, non real time, accumulated gain/loss volume trending to assist in identifying low rate or seepage releases below the 1.5 to 2 percent by volume detection thresholds.
Direct observation methods, which include aerial patrols, ground patrols and public and landowner awareness programs that are designed to encourage and facilitate the reporting of suspected leaks and events that may suggest a threat to the integrity of the pipeline.
Emergency Response Procedures A Project-specific Emergency Response Procedure (ERP) would be prepared for the system, which would be submitted to and approved by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) prior to operation. A comprehensive ERP for the first Keystone Pipeline Project has been reviewed has been reviewed and approved by PHMSA. That ERP would be used as the basis for preparation of an ERP specific to the Project, incorporating adjustments to reflect project-specific factors. At that time, Keystone would submit the Keystone XL ERP to PHMSA for approval prior to commencing operations. The National Response Center (NRC) would be notified immediately in the event of a release of crude oil that: 1) violates water quality standards; 2) creates a sheen on water; or 3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines (40 CFR 112). In addition to the NRC, timely notifications would also be made to other agencies, including the appropriate local emergency planning committee, sheriff’s department, the appropriate state agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and affected landowners. Keystone must provide immediate notification of all reportable incidents in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195, and shall notify the appropriate PHMSA regional office within 24 hours of any non-reportable leaks occurring on the pipeline. Under the National Contingency Plan, the USEPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring on land and in inland waters. The USEPA would evaluate the size and nature of a spill, its potential hazards, 2-40 May 2011
the resources needed to contain and clean it up, and the ability of the responsible party or local authorities to handle the incident. The USEPA would monitor all activities to ensure that the spill is being contained and cleaned up appropriately. All spills meeting legally defined criteria (see criteria above per 40 CFR 112) must be monitored by the USEPA, even though most spills are small and cleaned up by the responsible party. In the unlikely event of a large spill, Keystone and its contractors would be responsible for recovery and cleanup. The usual role of local emergency responders is to notify community members, direct people away from the hazard area, and address potential impacts to the community such as temporary road closings. A fire associated with a spill is relatively rare. According to historical data (PHMSA 2008), only about 4 percent of reportable liquid spills are ignited. In the event of a fire, local emergency responders would execute the roles listed above and firefighters would take actions to prevent the crude oil fire from spreading to residential areas. Local emergency responders typically are trained and able to execute the roles described above without any additional training or specialized equipment. Keystone also would work with emergency response agencies to provide pipeline awareness education and other support. Remediation Corrective remedial actions would be dictated by federal regulations and enforced by the USEPA, in some situations the US Coast Guard, OPS, and the appropriate state agencies. Required remedial actions may range from the excavation and removal of contaminated soil to allowing the contaminated soil to recover through natural environmental fate processes (e.g., evaporation, biodegradation). Decisions concerning remedial methods and extent of the cleanup would account for state-mandated remedial cleanup levels, potential effects to sensitive receptors, volume and extent of the contamination, potential violation of water quality standards, and the magnitude of adverse impacts caused by remedial activities. In the event of a spill, several federal regulations define the notification requirements and response actions, including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300), the Clean Water Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. At the most fundamental level, these interlocking programs mandate notification and initiation of response actions in a timeframe and on a scale commensurate with the threats posed. The appropriate remedial measures would be implemented to meet federal and state standards designed to ensure protection of human health and environmental quality.
2.2
References
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2008. PHMSA Pipeline Incident Statistics. Website: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/PSI.html. Keystone (TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP). 2008. Keystone XL Project Environmental Report (ER). November 2008. Document No. 10623-006. Submitted to the U.S. Department of State and the Bureau of land Management by Keystone. Available online at: http://www.keystonepipelinexl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open Keystone. 2009. Supplemental Filing to ER. July 6, 2009. Document No.: 10623-006. Submitted to U.S. Department of State and Bureau of Land Management by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. Available online at: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open Keystone. 2010. Supplemental Filing to ER. May 19, 2010. Document No.: 10623-006. Submitted to U.S. Department of State and Bureau of Land Management by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. Available online at: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open TransCanada. 2006. Keystone Pipeline Project Environmental Report, updated November 15, 2006.
2-41
May 2011
3.0
Species Evaluation
3.1
Federally Endangered
3.1.1
Black-footed Ferret: Endangered/Proposed – Experimental Populations 3.1.1.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668aa(c)). Listing for the black-footed ferret was revised under the Endangered Species Act on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Designated non-essential experimental populations were reintroduced to sites in Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, and Colorado between 1991 and 2003; and other nondesignated reintroductions have occurred in South Dakota, Arizona, Kansas, Montana and Mexico between 2001 and 2008 (USFWS 2008a). Members of non-essential experimental populations located outside national wildlife refuge or national park lands are protected as proposed species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and as threatened species where they occur on national wildlife refuges or national parks (Section 10(j)). Members of reintroduced populations within the species historic range that have not been designated as experimental populations are protected as endangered. Historically, the range of the black-footed ferret coincided closely with that of the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. gunnisoni), and white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus) throughout the intermountain and prairie grasslands extending from Canada to Mexico (USFWS 2008a). The black-footed ferret was considered extinct by the middle of the last century until it was documented in South Dakota in August 1964 (Fortenbery 1972; Hillman 1968; Henderson et al. 1969; Linder et al. 1972) and again in 1981 near Meeteetse, Wyoming (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; USFWS 1988). However, the South Dakota population subsequently disappeared and the Wyoming population declined to only a few remaining individuals. The remaining animals in the wild were captured and provided the basis for the ongoing captive breeding program (USFWS 1988). No wild populations of black-footed ferrets have been found since the capture of the last black-footed ferret in Meeteetse, Wyoming and the captive black-footed ferret population is the primary species population. There are currently 18 reintroduced populations in Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico and Mexico (USFWS 2008a). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Black-footed ferrets are primarily nocturnal, solitary carnivores that depend on prairie dogs (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Over 90 percent of the black-footed ferret’s diet is comprised of prairie dogs, and ferrets use prairie dog burrows as their sole source of shelter (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Black-footed ferrets typically breed from March to May (USFWS 1988). The gestation period ranges from 41 to 45 days, with as many as 5 young born in late May and early June. The kits remain underground until late June or early July; upon emerging, they may accompany the female during nocturnal foraging. Male ferrets are not active in rearing the young and live a solitary life except during the breeding season. Ferrets are most commonly observed in late summer or early fall (Hillman and Carpenter 1980). The black-footed ferret’s close association with prairie dogs was an important factor in its decline (USFWS 2008a). Reasons for decline include habitat loss from conversion of native prairie to agriculture, poisoning of prairie dog towns, and habitat modification due to disease (USFWS 2008a). 3.1.1.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
The Steele City Segment of the Project crosses the historic range of the black-footed ferret in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska and the Cushing Extension crosses historic range in Kansas. Black-footed ferrets are not known to exist outside of reintroduced populations in the western US. Eleven reintroductions of black-footed ferrets have occurred in Montana, South Dakota, and Kansas all outside of the Project ROW 3-1
May 2011
(USFWS 2008a). Natural Heritage Program Data for Montana and South Dakota (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2008; SDGFP 2008) contains no historical records of black-footed ferrets within 5 miles of the proposed ROW. During the meeting with Keystone representatives on May 5, 2008, the USFWS Grand Island Ecological Services Field Office indicated that ferrets do not occur within the Project area in Nebraska and Project impacts would be negligible. According to the USFWS Pierre Ecological Services Field Office, black-tailed prairie dog towns in the entire state of South Dakota are block-cleared, meaning the towns no longer contain any wild free-ranging black-footed ferrets and activities within these areas that result in the removal of the black-tailed prairie dogs and/or their habitat would no longer be required to meet the Service’s survey guidelines for black-footed ferrets or undergo consultations under Section 7 of the ESA (AECOM 2008). Since the black-footed ferret is dependent on prairie dogs, the assessment of potential impacts to experimental populations was focused on black-tailed prairie dog colonies and complexes that would be affected by construction of the Project. The proposed route does not occur within the known ranges of the Gunnison’s prairie dog or white-tailed prairie dog (NatureServe 2009). Aerial and pedestrian field surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010 along the entire Steele City Segment of the route to identify prairie dog towns crossed by the construction ROW in Montana. One active prairie dog town was identified near Milepost (MP) 65.6 in Valley County, Montana, 570 feet from the route. During a meeting with Keystone representatives on February 3, 2009, both the BLM and MFWP indicated that existing data (e.g., activity status, size, and density) was available and could be provided for the town located in Valley County. The 14 prairie dog towns found in South Dakota and Nebraska do not require mitigative measures or additional consultation under the ESA because any black-footed ferrets potentially associated with these prairie dog towns are reintroduced and designated as non-essential experimental populations (AECOM 2008, USFWS 2008b). All prairie dog towns within the Project ROW are unsuitable for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret, and there are no currently existing black-footed ferret populations within the ROW (USFWS 2011). 3.1.1.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Direct impacts to black-footed ferrets as a result of construction would include increased habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and the potential mortality in the event that ferrets are present within the construction area. Indirect impacts would include disturbance and displacement due to increased noise and human presence during construction; reduced habitat availability due to destruction or disturbance of cover habitat in prairie dog towns, and reduced prey availability due to mortality or reduced reproduction of black-tailed prairie dogs. One active black-tailed prairie dog colony was identified as being crossed by the ROW in Montana (AECOM 2009); this colony is too small to support black-footed ferrets (USFWS 2011). Operations Routine operation of the Project is not expected to affect black-footed ferrets or their habitat. Following construction, maintenance activities (e.g., vegetation management) along the ROW would not preclude the re-establishment of short-grass vegetation within both the temporary and permanent ROW. Normal pipeline operations would have negligible effects on the black-footed ferret. Direct impacts could include mortalities due to exposure to vehicles and human disturbance during ground surveillance that happens annually, but are unlikely due to the nocturnal activity of the black-footed ferret. Indirect impacts during aerial and ground surveillance could result from increased noise and human presence could cause short-term displacement,
3-2
May 2011
but are unlikely due to the nocturnal activity of the black-footed ferret and short duration of the aerial reconnaissance once every 2 weeks. According to the Keystone XL Project Pipeline Temperature Effects Study, the pipeline does have some effect on surrounding soil temperatures, primarily at pipeline depth. Surficial soil temperatures relevant to vegetation are impacted mainly by climate with negligible effect attributed to the operating pipeline. This is because the most the incremental temperature, in the summer months, is found within 24 inches of the pipeline that has a minimum of 4 feet of cover over the top of the pipeline. Adverse effects to black-footed ferrets resulting from a crude oil spill from the pipeline are highly improbable due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of a spill coinciding with the presence of black-footed ferrets, and 3) the low probability of a ferret contacting the spilled product (see Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). Power Lines and Substations Power line routes associated with the Project are likely to attract raptors, known to be predators of the blackfooted ferret and their primary prey – prairie dogs. The proposed locations of transmission line routes in Montana would be analyzed for any active prairie dog towns. Protection measures could then be implemented by electrical service providers to minimize raptor perching in accordance with the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 1996). Electrical power line providers are responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or authorizations from federal, state, and local governments to construct new power lines necessary to operate the Keystone XL Project. Keystone would inform electrical power providers of the requirements for ESA consultations with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Keystone XL Project to prevent impacts to black-footed ferrets. 3.1.1.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No reasonably foreseeable future, state, local, or private actions have been identified within the action area for the proposed Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.1.5
Conservation Measures
In Nebraska and South Dakota, black-footed ferret surveys are no longer recommended in prairie dog towns. To prevent potential direct or indirect impacts to the black-footed ferret from construction in Montana, Keystone has committed to:
Provide USFWS with the results of Montana prairie dog town surveys, and would continue to coordinate with the Montana USFWS to determine the need for black-footed ferret surveys at the identified colony, in accordance with the USFWS’ Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1989). No black-footed ferret surveys would be required as this prairie dog colony was determined to be too small to support reintroduced black-footed ferrets.
Workers would not be allowed to keep domestic pets in construction camps and/or worksites;
Workers would be made aware of how canine distemper and sylvatic plague diseases are spread (domestic pets and fleas);
Workers would not be allowed to feed wildlife; and,
Concentrations of dead and/or apparently diseased animals (prairie dogs, ground squirrels, others) would be reported to the appropriate state and federal agencies. 3-3
May 2011
3.1.1.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been identified for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the black-footed ferret. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” wild or reintroduced non-experimental populations of the endangered black-footed ferret. This determination is based on agency provided information, the lack of potential for occurrence of wild populations of black-footed ferrets within the Project area, and Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended conservation measures. 3.1.1.7
Literature Cited
AECOM. 2009. TransCanada – Keystone XL Phase II Pipeline Meeting Summary: Attachment. Summary Report of the Findings for Sensitive Species and Their Associated Habitat During the 2008 Biological Field Surveys Along the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project in Montana. February 5, 2009. AECOM. 2008. Personal communication between C. Bessken (USFWS) and P. Lorenz (AECOM). June 11, 2008. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines. The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1967. Endangered Species - 1967. Federal Register 32(48):4001. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp. Fortenbery, D. K. 1972. Characteristics of the Black-Footed Ferret. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Resource Publication 109. 8 pp. Henderson, F. R., P. F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. The Black-Footed Ferret in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. Technical Bulletin No. 4:137. Hillman, C. N. 1968. Life History and Ecology of the Black-Footed Ferret. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 28 pp. Hillman, C. N. and J. W. Carpenter. 1980. Breeding Biology and Behavior of Captive Black-Footed Ferrets. International Zoo Yearbook 23:186191. Linder, R. L., R. B. Dahlgren, and C. N. Hillman. 1972. Black-Footed Ferret Prairie Dog Interrelationships. Reprint from Symposium on Rare and Endangered Wildlife of the Southwestern United States. Albuquerque, New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 37 pp. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Email response to data request from M. Miller,(MNHP) to P. Lorenz, (AECOM). July 1, 2008.
3-4
May 2011
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 2009. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2008. Email response (2 e-mails) to data request from D. Backlund (SDGFP) to P. Lorenz (AECOM). South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. July 9, 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Denver, Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. April 1989. 10 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008a. Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Field Office, Pierre, South Dakota. 38 pp. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008b. Meeting notes. Fish, Wildlife and Sensitive species potentially occurring along the project route in Nebraska. Correspondence between J. Cochnar (USFWS, Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office) and P. Lorenz (ENSR). May 5, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008c. Meeting notes. Fish, Wildlife and sensitive species potentially occurring along the project route in Montana. Correspondence between L. Hanebury (USFWS, Billings sub-office ecological field services) and P. Lorenz, C. Barnes (ENSR). May 8, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Personal Communication. Martha Tacha, USFWS, Grand Island, and John Carlson, BLM, Glasgow, Montana. January 6, 2011.
3.1.2
Interior Least Tern 3.1.2.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The interior population of the least tern (previously Sterna antillarum, now Sternula antillarum) was listed as endangered on May 28, 1985 (50 FR 21784-21792). Historically, the breeding range of this population extended from Texas to Montana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. It included the Rio Grande, Red, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Ohio river systems. It winters along the Gulf Coast, the coast of Caribbean Islands, the eastern coast of Central America, and northern South America. The interior least tern continues to breed in most of the historic river systems, although its distribution generally is restricted to less altered river segments (USFWS 1990). No critical habitat has been designated for this population. Interior least terns spend 4 to 5 months at their breeding sites. They arrive at breeding areas from late April to early June. Nesting areas of interior least terns include sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars within a wide, unobstructed river channel or salt flats along lake shorelines (Nelson 1998; USFWS 1990). Nesting locations are usually well above the water's edge, because nesting is typically initiated during high river flows, when much of the bars and shorelines are flooded. The extent of available nesting area depends on water levels and the resulting amount of exposed bar and shoreline habitat. The interior least tern also nests on artificial habitats such as sand and gravel pits next to large river systems and dredge islands (Campbell 2003; USFWS 1990). Least terns are considered colonial nesters; colonies generally consist of up to 20 nests. However, colonies with up to 75 nests have been recorded on the Mississippi River. Most least tern nesting areas on the rivers crossed by the Project would be limited to a few nesting pairs. Least terns nest on the ground in a simple
3-5
May 2011
unlined scrape, typically on sites that are sandy and relatively free of vegetation. Usually two to three eggs are laid by late May (USFWS 1990), or early June. Both the male and female share incubation duty, which generally lasts from 20 to 25 days. Fledging occurs within 3 weeks after hatching. Departure from colonies varies but is usually complete by early September (USFWS 1990). The interior least tern is piscivorous, feeding in shallow waters of rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to small fish, terns also may feed on crustaceans, insects, mollusks, and annelids. On the Great Plains, fish are the primary diet of this species (Nelson 1998; USFWS 1990). Although terns nesting at sand and gravel pits or other artificial habitats may travel up to 2 miles to forage (USFWS 1990), terns usually feed close to their nesting sites. Feeding behavior involves hovering and diving over standing or flowing water. Alteration and destruction of riverine habitats, primarily as a result of changes in channel characteristics due to channelization, irrigation, and construction of reservoirs and pools, is a threat to the long-term survival of this species. These types of disturbances may eliminate nesting sites, disrupt nesting interior least terns, or may result in sandbars that are unsuitable for nesting due to vegetation encroachment or frequent inundation. The regulation of river flow regimes using dams may also eliminate nesting sites or disrupt nesting interior least terns. Historically, summer flow periods were fairly predictable and consisted of a high flow in May and June and a decline in flow for the remainder of the summer. This decline in flow levels allowed interior least terns to nest as water levels dropped and sandbars became available. The current human regulation of river flow regimes using dams may result in high flow periods extending into the normal nesting period or occurring after nesting has begun, thus flooding active nest sites (USFWS 1990). 3.1.2.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Steele City Segment Montana. According to the USFWS Billings Ecological Services Field Office (AECOM 2008a) and the MFWP (AECOM 2009a), the Yellowstone River crossing in Dawson County, Montana has historically supported, and currently supports, breeding populations of interior least terns. South Dakota. During a meeting with Keystone representatives on June 10, 2008, SDGFP indicated that the Cheyenne River crossing on the border of Meade, Pennington, and Haakon counties has historically supported, or currently supports, breeding populations of interior least terns (AECOM 2008c). Nebraska. According to the USFWS Grand Island Ecological Services Field Office, the distribution of interior least terns along the Project in Nebraska includes the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers (AECOM 2008b). The Project would cross the Platte River at the border between Merrick and Hamilton counties and sandbars and sand/gravel pits associated with this segment of the river are known to still support breeding populations of least tern. The Loup River in Nance County and the Niobrara River on the border of Keya Paha and Rock counties contain sandbars and also continue to support breeding least terns. In addition to breeding on riverine sandbars and at sand and gravel mining operations and foraging in rivers and associated wetlands, interior least terns migrate through the Great Plains during both spring and fall. Surveys for suitable habitat and the occurrence of interior least tern nests were conducted at the crossings of the Cheyenne, Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in July of 2008. The full report can be found in Appendix C. Table 3.1-1 summarizes the results of the surveys at these locations in 2008. Surveys were not conducted at the Yellowstone River in Montana in 2008 due to high water levels and lack of landowner permission. However, wetland and waterbody surveys conducted later in 2008 documented suitable habitat at the crossing.
3-6
May 2011
Table 3.1-1
State
Occurrence Surveys for the Interior Least Tern Along the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in 20081 County
Survey Location
Survey Corridor
Survey Date
Survey Results
Comments
Montana
Dawson
Yellowstone River
At crossing
2008
Incomplete
Suitable habitat present at crossing location.
South Dakota
Meade / Pennington / Haakon
Cheyenne River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
July 23, 2008
No least terns observed.
Good bank and poor island nesting habitat, suitable foraging habitat at crossing location.
Nebraska
Keya Paha / Rock
Niobrara River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
July 22, 2008
No least terns observed.
Good bank and island nesting habitat, suitable foraging habitat at crossing location.
Nebraska
Merrick / Hamilton
Platte River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
July 22, 2008
No least terns observed.
Good nesting and foraging habitat at crossing location.
Nebraska
Nance
Loup River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
July 21, 2008
No least terns observed.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat at crossing location.
1
Survey report prepared November 2008 – A Summary Report of the July 2008 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) and Least Tern (Sterna antilarum) Surveys for the Keystone XL Project (Appendix C).
Gulf Coast Segment Oklahoma. The interior least tern is known to use reaches of the North Canadian River, South Canadian River, and Red River (USFWS 2008). Table 3.1-2 provides a summary of locations where field surveys would be conducted in 2009. The Project would cross the North Canadian River in Seminole County, the South Canadian River in Hughes County, and the Red River in Bryan County. A review of data from the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory (ONHI) found that the only tracked occurrences of the least tern within 10 miles of the Project area in Oklahoma occurred along the South Canadian River. The closest recorded occurrence was 0.5 mile to the east of the Project area. In addition to breeding on riverine sandbars and at sand and gravel mining operations and foraging in rivers and associated wetlands, interior least terns migrate through the Great Plains during both spring and fall. Texas. The interior least tern also is known to use reaches of the Red River in Texas. The Project would cross the Red River in Fannin County. The interior least tern also is listed as occurring in Delta, Hopkins, and Wood counties, which are crossed by the Project area. There are limited known occurrences of the least tern in these counties and all of the known occurrences are outside of the Project area. In Delta and Hopkins counties, the least tern is known to nest along Cooper Lake, which is approximately 7 miles west of the Project area. In Wood County, there is a known sighting of a foraging least tern at Lake Fork, which is approximately 18 miles west of the Project area (AECOM 2009b). A desktop review of the proposed alignment though Delta, Hopkins, Lamar, and Wood Counties in Texas was completed to determine whether rivers crossed by the Project could provide suitable habitat for interior least terns. No water crossings were of suitable size or habitat to support least terns in Franklin, Wood or Lamar Counties. The North Sulphur River in Delta County and the South Sulphur River in Hopkins County, however may contain habitat suitable for interior least terns. The North Sulphur River near the Project crossing has a few sand bars; but it appears that the river dries or stops flowing during the year which may preclude least terns from nesting. The South Sulphur River in Hopkins County has a few small bars upstream and downstream from the crossing, but habitat along the river is heavily forested and the river banks are steep. Available habitats in both the North Sulphur River and the South Sulphur River are considered to be of insufficient size and quality to provide suitable nesting habitat for interior least terns. There is no indication that the least tern
3-7
May 2011
uses the Project area in Texas outside of Fannin County. In Texas, the interior least tern only has the potential to nest in the Project area in Fannin County. Table 3.1-2
Habitat and Occurrence Surveys for the Interior Least Tern Along the Gulf Coast Segment in 20091 Survey Location
Survey Corridor
State
County
Oklahoma
Seminole
North Canadian River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
June 24, 2009; June 29, 2010
No least terns observed in 2009; no least terns observed in 2010
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat at crossing location
Oklahoma
Hughes
South Canadian River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
June 23, 2009; June 30, 2010
No least terns observed in 2009; 3 least terns observed foraging 2010
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat at crossing location
Oklahoma / Texas
Bryan / Fannin
Red River
0.25-mile each side of centerline
June 25, 2009; July 1, 2010
Least terns observed in 2009; 11 least terns observed foraging in 2010
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat at crossing location
1
Survey Date
Survey Results
Comments
Survey report prepared September 2009 – A Field Survey for the Interior Least Tern (Sterna antilarum athalassos) Along the Gulf Coast Segment of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project; Survey report prepared August 2010 – A Field Survey for the Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) Along the Gulf Coast Segment of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Appendix C).
3.1.2.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction The primary construction-related impacts would be disturbance and potential exposure to small fuel spills and leaks from construction machinery. The chance of construction-related spills within least tern habitat is minimal. According to Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A), hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils would not be stored, staged, or transferred (other than possible refueling) within 100 feet of any waterbody, wetland, storm drain, drop inlet, or high consequence area. Construction and reclamation activities would be conducted to allow for prompt and effective cleanup of spills of fuel and other hazardous materials. Each construction crew and cleanup crew would have on hand sufficient tools and materials to stop leaks including supplies of absorbent and barrier materials that would allow for rapid containment and recovery of spilled materials. Refueling and lubrication of construction equipment would generally be restricted to upland areas at least 100 feet away from streams and wetlands. Where this is not possible, the equipment would be fueled by designated personnel with special training in refueling, spill containment, and cleanup. Keystone would mark and maintain a 100 foot area from these river crossings, except that a 300 foot area would be marked and maintained from the South Canadian River, free from hazardous materials, fuel storage, and vehicle fuel transfers. These buffers would be maintained during construction except for when fueling and refueling the water pump near the river edge that is required for the HDD crossing and hydrostatic test water withdrawal. Water pump fueling would be completed by trained personnel and would use secondary containment. If interior least tern or piping plovers are found at these crossings, then Keystone would adhere to the 0.25 mile buffer of no construction activity until young have fledged. For the Steele City Segment, no interior least terns were observed during the 2008 surveys. Additionally, Keystone has committed to conducting surveys if construction activities occur within the breeding season prior to the activities. For the Gulf Coast Segment, interior least terns were observed foraging at the Red River and the South Canadian River but were not present at the North Canadian River. Currently, construction activities, including the HDD crossings of the North Canadian, South Canadian, and Red Rivers are scheduled to occur from November 1, 2011 to April 15, 2012, which is outside of the timeframe when least terns are 3-8
May 2011
present at these river crossings. In addition, although there is no indication that interior least terns use either the North Sulphur River or the South Sulphur River in Texas; these two rivers would be crossed using HDD. Any potential small fuel spills or drilling fluid spills during HDD would be promptly contained and cleaned up and would be unlikely to affect this species. Steele City Segment The interior least tern is known to nest within or near the Project at the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in Nebraska, the Cheyenne River in South Dakota, and the Yellowstone River in Montana. No direct impacts to least tern breeding habitat would be anticipated at these locations, since pipeline placement across the rivers would be completed by the HDD method. Minimal hand clearing of vegetation and limited human access would be required within the riparian areas of these rivers in order to use the Tru-Tracker cable (clearing would be limited to a 3 foot maximum hand cleared path) that is associated with the drilling equipment and in order for equipment to access these rivers to potentially withdraw water for the Project’s HDD and hydrostatic tests. Indirect impacts could result from increased noise and human presence at work site locations if breeding terns are located within 0.25 mile of the Project. Prior to construction-related activities that would occur within 0.25 mile from nesting terns, Keystone proposes to conduct presence/absence surveys just prior to beginning construction-related activities to identify active nest sites, in coordination with the USFWS. If active nest sites are identified, the USFWS would be notified and appropriate protection measures would be implemented on a site-specific basis in coordination with the USFWS. Impacts to the interior least tern from temporary water reductions during hydrostatic testing in the lower Platte River Basin would be avoided, based on Keystone’s plan to withdrawn the volume needed at a rate less than 10 percent of the baseline daily flow and to return water back to its source within a 30-day period. The one time water use for hydrostatic testing, low volume of water used for testing (compared to daily flows in the river basin), and the return of the water to the river source would not impact least tern nesting habitat. Gulf Coast Segment The interior least tern is known to use reaches of the North Canadian River, South Canadian River, and Red River. No direct impacts to least tern breeding habitat would be anticipated at these locations, since pipeline placement across the rivers would be completed by the HDD method. Minimal hand clearing of vegetation and limited human access would be required within the riparian areas of these rivers in order to use the TruTracker cable that is associated with the drilling equipment and in order to access these rivers to potentially withdraw water for the Project’s HDD and hydrostatic tests. As described above vegetation clearing would be completed by hand using machete or other power hand tools and would be limited to a maximum width of 3 feet. Hydrostatic test water withdrawal for the South Canadian River would occur from an existing access point. Currently, construction activities in the vicinity of the North Canadian River, South Canadian River, and Red River are anticipated to be completed prior to the end of April. Although least terns may begin arriving at breeding sites in late April, egg laying begins in late May (USFWS 1990).Construction activities are anticipated to be complete prior to the nesting period in the Project area. Therefore, construction would not be likely to impact nesting least terns. In the event construction-related activities occur after April 15 at these waterbodies, Keystone would conduct presence/absence surveys to identify occupied breeding territories and/or active nest sites, in coordination with the USFWS to avoid impacts to this species. If occupied breeding territories and/or active nest sites are identified, the USFWS would be notified and appropriate protection measures would be implemented on a site-specific basis in coordination with the USFWS. These measures should limit any impacts to this species resulting from construction activities, increased noise and human presence at work site locations.
3-9
May 2011
Operations Similar constraints and/or mitigation measures mentioned above may apply to any pipeline maintenance activities. The major rivers that contain interior least tern habitat would be crossed using the HDD method. It is highly unlikely that a leak in the pipeline would occur coincident with these locations, and when least terns were present. In the event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate greater than 20 feet of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. Additionally, these major river crossings are subject to an intensive integrity management program stipulated by the USDOT (Integrity Management Rule, 49 CFR 195) and require heavier wall pipe be used for the HDD method. Further, if a significant spill event were to occur, federal and state laws would require clean up. Direct contact with a crude oil spill could result in adverse effects to interior least terns due to oiling of plumage, ingestion of crude oil from contaminated plumage and prey, and transfer of crude oil to eggs and young. While these exposure routes have the potential to cause adverse effects to individuals, the probability of adverse effects to interior least terns are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, and 2) the low probability of the spill coinciding with the presence of least tern individuals. (See Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis, for further information regarding impacts to wildlife from a potential spill event.) Aerial surveillance would be conducted 26 times per year, or no greater than once every 3 weeks and the aircraft passes by an area quickly at an altitude of about 1,000 feet during those aerial patrols. Indirect impacts during aerial and ground surveillance are unlikely to disturb nesting terns in the Steele City Segment and during migration periods at stopover locations for the Gulf Coast Segment. According to Keystone’s Pipeline Temperature Effects Study, the pipeline would have some effect on surrounding soil temperatures, primarily at pipeline depth. There is limited information on the effects of pipeline temperatures in relation to surface water and wildlife. Because the pipeline is buried greater than 20 feet below the river bottom using the HDD method, temperature dissipation effects would be negligible. Power Lines and Substations The construction of a new electrical power line segment across the Yellowstone River in Montana and the Platte River in Nebraska would incrementally increase the collision and predation potential for foraging and nesting interior least terns in the Project area. Construction of these power line segments during the breeding season would also potentially disturb nesting and brood-rearing birds. Based on the 2008 habitat and occurrence surveys for this species at the Platte River crossing, breeding habitat quality within line of sight of the Project centerline was considered to be of good quality. Additionally, correspondence with MFWP (AECOM 2008a) and results of the 2008 biological surveys to delineate wetlands and waterbodies identified good quality breeding habitat at the Yellowstone River crossing. Protection measures could then be implemented by electrical service providers to minimize or prevent construction disturbance, collision risk, and predation risk to foraging interior least terns at the Platte River and Yellowstone River crossings with the use of standard measures as outlined in Mitigating Bird Collision with Power Lines (APLIC 1994). Electrical power line providers are responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or authorizations from federal, state, and local governments to construct new power lines necessary to operate the Keystone XL Project. Commitments from electrical power providers to comply with the requirements for ESA consultations with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Keystone XL Project to prevent impacts to foraging least terns are included in Appendix J. Conservation measures applicable to power lines are presented below.
3-10
May 2011
3.1.2.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.2.5
Conservation Measures
The following conservation measures, based on agency consultation, would apply if construction-related activities, including HDD and hydrostatic testing, were to occur during the interior least tern breeding season:
For the Gulf Coast Segment, pre-construction surveys would occur within 0.25 mile from suitable breeding habitat at the North Canadian River and South Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Red River at the Oklahoma/Texas border, prior to any construction-related activities occurring at these rivers after April 15.
For the Steele City Segment, pre-construction surveys would occur within 0.25 mile from suitable breeding habitat at the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in Nebraska; the Cheyenne River in South Dakota; or the Yellowstone River in Montana during the breeding season (May 1 to August 15 inclusive) to ensure that there are no nesting pairs within 0.25 miles of the construction area. Daily surveys for nesting terns should be conducted during the nesting season when construction activities occur within 0.25 miles of potential nesting habitat.
Construction would not be permitted within 0.25 mile from an occupied nest site during the breeding season or until the fledglings have left the nesting area.
Conservation measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to breeding and foraging interior least terns from new power lines will vary depending on the circumstances, but may include the following measures.
Marking of new power lines with bird flight diverters (preferably Swan Spiral diverters or Firefly diverters) within ¼ mile of interior least tern nesting sites on river systems or commercial sandpit areas.
If construction of power lines occurs during the interior least tern breeding season, surveys of potential riverine or sand pit interior least tern nesting areas within ¼ mile of new power lines and within 2 weeks of construction to determine presence of nesting interior least terns. If nesting terns are present, construction would cease until all tern chicks fledge from the site.
For the Steele City Segment, distribution lines supplying power to Pump Station 23 and Pump Station 24 should be marked with bird deflectors where they cross rivers and within a quarter mile of each side and between rivers and sand and gravel mining areas to reduce potential injury or mortality to interior least terns. 3.1.2.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the interior least tern. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” interior least terns. This determination is based on Keystone’s plan to HDD the North Canadian River, South Canadian River, Red River, Platte River, Loup
3-11
May 2011
River, Niobrara River, Cheyenne River, Yellowstone River, North Sulphur River and South Sulphur River; and Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended conservation measures identified by the USFWS. Although it is possible that a spill event could result in an adverse affect on this species, the probability of adverse effects to interior least terns are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the likelihood that most spills would be very small in size, and 3) the very low probability of the spill coinciding with both the location and presence of individual least terns. In the unlikely event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in same cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. As a result, no direct or indirect impacts would be likely to result from Project operation. 3.1.2.7
Literature Cited
AECOM 2008a. TransCanada Keystone XL Project - USFWS/MFWP Meeting Notes. Helena, Montana. May 8, 2008. AECOM 2008b. TransCanada Keystone XL Project - USFWS/SDGFP Meeting Notes. Lincoln, Nebraska. May 5, 2008. AECOM 2008c. TransCanada Keystone XL Project - USFWS/SDGFP Meeting Notes. Pierre, South Dakota. June 10, 2008. AECOM. 2009a. Personal communication between A. Dood (MFWP) and P. Lorenz (AECOM). March 12 and 13, 2009. AECOM 2009b. Personal communication between O. Bocanegra (USFWS) and D. Endriss (AECOM). April 28, 2009. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collision with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electrical Institute. Washington, D.C. Campbell, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life Histories and Management. Revised and approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Wildlife Division, Austin, Texas. 127 pp. Internet website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml. Accessed August 12, 2008. Federal Register. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Interior Population of Least Tern to be Endangered. Final Rule. Federal Register 50(102):21784-21792. Nelson, D. L. 1998. Least Tern In: Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. H. E. Kingery (ed.) Published by Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership; co-published by Colorado Division of Wildlife. pp. 192-193. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Recovery Plan for the Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). US Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, Minnesota. 90 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Tulsa, Ecological Services Field Office. Letter dated December 3, 2008.
3.1.3
Whooping Crane 3.1.3.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). Whooping cranes occur only in North America and the total wild population was estimated at 338 birds in 2006 (Canadian Wildlife Service [CWS] and USFWS 2007). This estimate includes the 215 birds in the only 3-12
May 2011
self-sustaining Aransas-Wood Buffalo National Park Population (AWBP) that winters in coastal marshes in Texas and migrates to Canada to nest in Wood Buffalo National Park and adjacent areas as well as the 123 captive-raised birds that have been released in Florida and the eastern US in an effort to establish a nonmigratory population in Florida and a migratory population between Florida and Wisconsin (CWS and USFWS 2007). The last remaining bird in the Rocky Mountain reintroduced population died in the spring of 2002 (CWS and USFWS 2007). The overall decline of the whooping crane has been attributed to habitat loss, direct disturbance and hunting by humans, predation, disease, and collisions with manmade features (CWS and USFWS 2005). During spring and fall migration, the AWBP population moves through the central Great Plains including portions of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Birds from the AWBP population depart from their wintering grounds in Texas from late March through May 1. Fall migration typically begins in mid-September with most birds arriving on wintering grounds between late October and mid-November (CWS and USFWS 2005). Whooping cranes use a variety of habitats during migration (Howe 1987; Lingle 1987; Lingle et al. 1991; Johns et al. 1997). The whooping crane is most closely associated with river bottoms, marshes, potholes, prairie grasslands, and croplands (CWS and USFWS 2005). Whooping cranes generally use seasonally or semi-permanently flooded palustrine wetlands, broad river channels, and shallow portions of reservoirs for roosting and various cropland and emergent wetlands for feeding (Austin and Richert 2001; Johns et al. 1997). They generally feed on small grains (including a number of cultivated crops), aquatic plants, insects, crustaceans, and small vertebrates (Oklahoma State University 1993). Cranes roost on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels that are isolated from human disturbance (Armbruster 1990). Critical habitat for migrating birds has been designated in four states (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas) crossed by the Project (43 FR 20938-942, CWS and USFWS 2005). However, no critical habitat would be crossed by the Project. 3.1.3.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Steele City Segment The whooping crane occurs as a migrant only throughout the Steele City Segment of the Project. The majority of the Project route in South Dakota and Nebraska is located within the primary migration pathway of whooping cranes through the central Great Plains (CWS and USFWS 2005). The Project in Montana is west of the primary migration pathway. However, individual birds can be found outside the primary movement corridor and could possibly occur within the Project area in Montana during spring and fall migration. Possible areas used by whooping cranes during migration would include major river systems and their associated wetlands, as well as palustrine wetlands and shallow areas of reservoirs and other lacustrine wetlands. Whooping cranes have been observed on isolated shallow paulstrine wetlands in the Nebraska Sand Hills which may be affected by the Project. During a meeting with Keystone representatives on February 3, 2009, the MFWP identified the Yellowstone River as a potential stop-over site for whooping cranes (AECOM 2009). Additional correspondence with SDGFP indicates the White and Cheyenne rivers contain suitable stop-over habitat although it is very unlikely that whooping cranes would be present at these crossings (AECOM 2008a). According to the USFWS Grand Island Ecological Services Field Office and the NGPC, major river systems used by whooping cranes in Nebraska include the Platte, Loup, Republican, Cedar, and Niobrara rivers (USFWS 2008). All but the Republican River is crossed by the Project. Designated Critical Habitat along the Platte River in Nebraska occurs several miles west of the Project (CWS and USFWS 2005). Gulf Coast Segment and Houston Lateral The Project in Oklahoma and Texas is generally east of the primary migration pathway of the whooping crane through the central Great Plains (CWS and USFWS 2007). During a meeting with representatives 3-13
May 2011
from Keystone on July 1, 2008, the ODWC confirmed that they did not have any records of whooping crane migration stopovers within the Project area in Oklahoma (AECOM 2008b). Additionally, no records of the whooping crane using the Project area for migration stopovers were found during reviews of species occurrence data from the ONHI or the Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD). However, the figure of this species’ primary migration pathway in CWS and USFWS (2007) depicts two sightings of a whooping crane in eastern Oklahoma. The Tulsa Ecological Services Field Office recommended the identification of suitable habitat for migration stopovers by the whooping crane. Suitable habitat for migration stopovers by this species includes shallow emergent wetlands or riverine habitats that are within 1 km (0.6 mile) of a suitable feeding site. 3.1.3.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction The primary construction-related impacts would be disturbance and potential exposure to small fuel spills and leaks from construction machinery. The chance for construction-related spills within whooping crane roosting and foraging habitat is minimal. According to Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A), “The Contractor shall not store hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, or perform concrete coating within 100 feet of any waterbody. The Contractor shall not refuel construction equipment within 100 feet of any waterbody. If the Contractor must refuel construction equipment within 100 feet of a waterbody, it must be done in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 3 of the CMRP. All equipment maintenance and repairs would be performed in upland locations at least 100 feet from waterbodies and wetlands. All equipment parked overnight shall be at least 100 feet from a watercourse or wetland, if possible. Equipment shall not be washed in streams or wetlands.” The potential magnitude of spill effects varies with multiple factors, the most significant of which include the amount of material released, the size of the spill dispersal area, the type of spills, the species assemblage present, climate, and the spill response tactics employed. No direct impacts to the whooping crane are anticipated from the construction of the Project along the Steele City Segment or the Gulf Coast Segment/Houston Lateral. Suitable roosting and/or foraging habitats occur within the Project area at major river crossings including the Yellowstone River, Cheyenne River, White River, Niobrara River, Cedar River, Loup River, Platte River, North Canadian River, South Canadian River, and Red River. Habitats at these rivers would be crossed by HDD, so potential habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation would be negligible. Minimal hand clearing of vegetation and limited human access would be required within the riparian areas of these rivers in order to use the HDD electronic guidance system (Tru-Tracker cable) that is associated with the drilling equipment and in order to access these rivers to potentially withdraw water for the Project’s HDD and hydrostatic tests. Any vegetation disturbance adjacent to suitable riverine habitat would be allowed to completely revegetate following construction. Based on the current migration pathway of this species, potential occurrence within or near the Project area could occur but would be extremely rare and would be limited to a few individuals or small groups of migrant birds (CWS and USFWS 2007). Indirect impacts could result from migrating individuals being disturbed and displaced due to noise and human presence during construction, if construction were to occur during spring or fall migrations. An estimated 577 miles of the 1,384 miles pipeline route lies within the whooping crane migration corridor based on whooping crane sightings (USFWS 2010). Of the pipeline route within this migration corridor an estimated 105 miles occurs within the center of the corridor where the majority (75 percent) of sightings have been documented (USFWS 2010). Any potential construction-related disturbance during the migration period would be most likely to occur within this 105 mile segment through Jones, Lyman, and Tripp Counties in South Dakota; and Keya Paha County in Nebraska. Because Keystone proposes to use a small volume of water in comparison to the daily flow rate of the stream, and would return that water to the same source after hydrotesting if taken from the Platte River Basin—with no additives or chemicals added, water use is unlikely to affect the amount of roosting or foraging habitat along the rivers used by whooping cranes. Indirect impacts to the whooping crane from
3-14
May 2011
temporary water reductions during hydrostatic testing in the lower Platte River Basin would be considered negligible, based on Keystone’s plan to return water back to its source within a 30-day period and the volume needed would be withdrawn at a rate less than 10 percent of the baseline daily flow. Operations Normal operation of the pipeline would not be expected to affect the whooping crane or habitats used during migration. Pipeline surveillance would involve routine low-level aerial over flights 26 times per year or no less than every 3 weeks and/or ground based inspections once per year. Over flights during migration periods would have the potential to disturb migrant whooping cranes. Most over flights would normally be during late-morning or mid-day at an altitude of about 1,000 feet, although over flights could occur at any time of day, and would be unlikely to disturb roosting or foraging cranes. Maintenance inspections that would require external examination of the pipeline would be unlikely to coincide with crane roosting or foraging habitats, but would have the potential to disturb migrant cranes. Roosting habitats at rivers crossed by the HDD method would typically have 20 feet or more of overburden between the pipeline and river bottom. Therefore, heat dissipated from the pipeline would not affect riverine roosting habitats. Direct contact with a crude oil spill could result in adverse effects to whooping cranes due to oiling of plumage and ingestion of crude oil from contaminated plumage and prey. While these exposure risks have the potential to cause adverse effects to individuals, the probability of adverse effects to whooping cranes are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of the spill coinciding with the presence of migrating whooping cranes or migration habitats, and 3) the low probability of a whooping crane contacting the spilled product (see Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). In the unlikely event of a pipeline leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate this significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk of crude oil reaching the river and thereby reducing the potential for whooping crane exposure. Additionally, the major river crossings are subject to an intensive integrity management program stipulated by the USDOT (Integrity Management Rule, 49 CFR Part 195). Further, if a significant spill event were to occur, federal and state laws would require clean up. Power Lines and Substations Power lines associated with the Project are collision hazards to migrant whooping cranes. The construction of new electrical power line segments, especially those across riverine roosting habitats (Platte River in Nebraska), wetland roosting habitats, or between roosting habitat and nearby foraging habitat including wetlands and grain fields would incrementally increase the collision hazard for migrating whooping cranes because a portion the Project area is located within the primary migration corridor for this species. A total of 1.6 miles of emergent wetlands and 4.2 miles of riverine/open water habitats would be crossed by distribution lines to pump stations within states where power distribution lines for pump stations are within the whooping crane migration corridor (Table 3.1-3). The Platte River crossing is within the primary migration corridor for whooping cranes, but the Yellowstone River crossing is on the extreme western edge. Based on preliminary transmission line routes, a total of 9.8 miles of wetland and water would be crossed by transmission lines to pump stations (TransCanada 2009). An analysis of suitable migration stop-over habitat (e.g., large waterbodies, wetlands, and associated agricultural fields) in relation to these preliminary routes for associated transmission lines identified 74 locations within the primary migration corridor where new transmission lines could potentially increase collision hazards for migrating whooping cranes. Distribution lines for 9 pump stations fall within the 75 percent or 95 percent whooping crane migration corridors (Figure 3.1-1, USFWS 2010) including:
PS-18 Haakon County, South Dakota (95% corridor)
PS-19 Haakon County, South Dakota (95% corridor)
PS-20 Tripp County, South Dakota (75% corridor) 3-15
May 2011
PS-21 Gregory/Tripp County, South Dakota (75% corridor)
PS-22 Holt County, Nebraska (95% corridor)
PS-23 Valley County, Nebraska (95% corridor)
PS-24 Merrick/Hamilton County, Nebraska (95% corridor)
PS-25 York/Fillmore Counties, Nebraska (95% corridor)
PS-29 Butler County, Kansas (95% corridor)
3-16
May 2011
C CA AN NA AD DA A
PS-09
( !
NORTH D A K O TA
PS-10
( !
PS-11
( !
PS-12
( ! M O N TA N A
PS-13
( !
Bismarck ! (
PS-14
§ ¦ ¨ 94
M I N N E S O TA
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 94
( PS-15!
WISCONSIN
PS-16
PROPOSED KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY SEGMENT
( !
! (
PS-17
SOUTH D A K O TA
( !
PS-18
( !
! (
Pierre
PS-19
( !
St. Paul
( PS-20 !
! (
§ ¦ ¨ 90
PS-21
WYOMING
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 25
PS-22
Des Moines ! (
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 80
PS-24
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 80
( PS-25!
§ ¦ ¨ 35
Lincoln ! (
(PS-26 !
§ ¦ ¨ 76
Denver ! (
380
PS-23
NEBRASKA Cheyenne ! (
§ ¦ ¨
IOWA
( !
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 70
COLORADO
KANSAS
§ ¦ ¨ 25
EXISTING KEYSTONE CUSHING EXTENSION
MISSOURI
PS-27
Topeka ! (
§ ¦ ¨ 70
Jefferson City ! (
§ ¦ ¨ 35
(PS-29 !
§ ¦ ¨ 44
OKLAHOMA
! (
PROPOSED CUSHING TANK FARM
Santa Fe
PS-32
( ! " )
( Oklahoma City!
(PS-33 !
§ ¦ ¨ 40
NEW MEXICO
ARKANSAS
Little Rock ! (
PS-34
§ ¦ ¨ 35
( !
PS-35
( !
§ ¦ ¨ 27
( PS-36!
PROPOSED KEYSTONE XL GULF COAST SEGMENT
§ ¦ ¨ 30
(PS-37 !
§ ¦ ¨ 20
( !
Proposed Pump Stations (PS)
" )
Proposed Cushing Tank Farm
(PS-38 !
§ ¦ ¨ 35E
TEXAS
§ ¦ ¨ 45
( !
PS-39
Proposed Keystone XL Project
( !
§ ¦ ¨
Existing Keystone Cushing Extension
10
Austin ! (
Whooping Crane Migration Corridor 95% (170 mile Corridor)
§ ¦ ¨ 35
PROPOSED KEYSTONE XL HOUSTON LATERAL
75% (60 mile Corridor)
25 50
µ
100 Miles
PS-41
( !
49
LOUISIANA
! (
§ ¦ ¨ 10
Gulf of Mexico
Data Sources: Federal Lands, Basemap - ESRI; Whooping Crane Central Flyway Migration Corridor – Current to 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Grand Island, Nebraska.
PS-40
§ ¦ ¨
Figure 3.1-1
KEYSTONE XL PROJECT
Central Flyway Whooping Crane Migration Corridor
Table 3.1-3
Wetlands Estimated Impact Summary by State for Proposed Electric Distribution Lines for the Keystone XL Project Length of Wetlands Crossed (miles)
Wetland Area Affected during Construction 1 (acres)
Wetland Area Affected by Operations 1 (acres)
Palustrine Emergent wetlands
1.3
4.1
3.1
Palustrine Forested wetlands
0.1
0.2
0.7
Palustrine Shrub-scrub wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
Riverine/open water
2.9
9.4
7.0
4.2
13.7
10.7
Palustrine Emergent wetlands
0.3
0.8
0.6
Palustrine Forested wetlands
0.5
1.6
6.0
Palustrine Shrub-scrub wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
Riverine/open water
1.1
3.7
2.7
Nebraska total
1.9
6.1
9.3
Emergent wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
Forested wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
Shrub-scrub wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
Riverine/open water
0.2
0.6
0.4
Kansas total
0.2
0.6
0.4
Vegetation Community Classification
Steele City Segment South Dakota
South Dakota total
Nebraska
Cushing Extension Kansas
Sources: Keystone 2010a: note state totals also include distribution lines outside of the whooping crane migration corridor. 1
Temporary disturbance areas include structure pads, access roads, pulling and tension area, turn around areas, and staging areas. Permanent disturbance areas include forested areas within 80 or 150 foot right-of-way, around pole structures, and crossed by operational access roads. Some power lines have not been surveyed and data presented is from aerial photointerpretation.
Protection measures that could be implemented by electrical service providers to minimize or prevent collision risk to migrating whooping cranes include the use of standard measures as outlined in Mitigating Bird Collision with Power Lines (APLIC 1994). Electrical power line providers are responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or authorizations from federal, state, and local governments to construct new power lines necessary to operate the Keystone XL Project. Keystone would advise electrical power providers of their ESA consultation requirements with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Project to prevent impacts to whooping cranes.
3-18
May 2011
3.1.3.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.3.5
Conservation Measures
The following conservation measures, based on agency consultation, would apply if pipeline constructionrelated activities were to occur in close proximity to migrating whooping cranes:
During spring and fall whooping crane migration periods Environmental Monitors would complete a brief survey of any wetland or riverine habitat areas potentially used by whooping cranes in the morning and afternoon before starting equipment; if whooping cranes are sighted the Environmental Monitor would contact the USFWS and equipment start would be delayed until whooping cranes leave the area by mid-morning. USFWS would notify Keystone if whooping cranes are within the construction area through information gathered from the whooping crane tracking program. Note that if whooping cranes land within an area where an HDD crossing is already in progress or where construction is active – this activity would be allowed to continue.
The following conservation measures would apply to power distribution lines to pump stations within the whooping crane migration route:
Avoid overhead power line construction within 5.0 miles of designated critical habitat and documented high use areas (locations may be obtained from local USFWS, Ecological Services field office).
To the extent practicable, bury all new power lines, especially those within 1.0 mile of potentially suitable migration stopover habitat.
If it is not economically or technically feasible to bury line, implement the following conservation measures:
Within the 95-percent migration corridor: mark new lines within 1.0 miles of potentially suitable habitat and an equal amount of existing line within 1.0 mile of potentially suitable habitat within the identified migration corridors (at a minimum within the 75-percent corridor, preferably within the 95percent corridor, Figure 3.1-1).
Outside the 95-percent migration corridor: mark new lines within 1.0 mile of potentially suitable habitat at the discretion of the local ES field office, based on the biological needs of the whooping crane.
Develop a compliance monitoring plan: provide written confirmation that the power lines have been marked and that the markers are maintained in working condition. 3.1.3.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat The Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the whooping crane. The area of designated critical habitat for the whooping crane in Nebraska is upstream from the Platte River crossing, and other critical habitat areas are well outside of the Project area. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” whooping cranes. This determination is based on the rarity of the species, its status as a migrant through the Project area, and Keystone’s commitment to
3-19
May 2011
follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS and power provider’s commitments to complete Section 7 consultation for new distribution lines to the pump stations (Appendix J). As a result, no direct impacts are expected to result from construction. Indirect impacts from disturbance of migrating whooping cranes during Project construction and hydrostatic testing are expected to be negligible. This determination is based on Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended conservation measures identified by the USFWS. Although it is possible that a large spill event could result in an adverse effect on this species and its migration habitat, the probability of adverse effects to whooping cranes are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of the spill coinciding with the presence of whooping cranes or migration habitats, and 3) the low probability of a whooping crane contacting the spilled product. 3.1.3.7
Literature Cited
AECOM. 2008a. Personal communication between D. Backlund (SDGFP) and P. Lorenz (AECOM). July 9, 2008. AECOM 2008b. TransCanada Keystone XL Project - ODWC Meeting Summary. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. July 1, 2008. AECOM 2009. TransCanada Keystone XL Project - USFWS/MFWP Meeting Summary. Glasgow, Montana. February 3, 2009. Armbruster, M. J. 1990. Characterization of habitat used by whooping cranes during migration. Biological Report 90(4):1-16. Austin, J. E. and A. L. Richert. 2001. A Comprehensive Review of the Observational and Site Evaluation Data of Migrant Whooping Cranes in the United States, 1943-99. US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota, and State Museum, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 157 pp. Internet website http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2003/wcdata/ wcdata/.htm. (Version 01JUL03). Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collision with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electrical Institute. Washington, D.C. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Draft International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane. Ottawa: RENEW and USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 196 pp. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 162 pp. Federal Register. 1967. Endangered Species List-1967. Federal Register 32:4001. Federal Register. 1978. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Whooping Crane. Federal Register 43:20938-20942. Howe, M. A. 1987. Habitat Use by Migrating Whooping Cranes in the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Corridor. Pages 303-311, In: J. C. Lewis and J. W. Ziewitz, eds. Proc. 1985 Crane Workshop. Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust and USFWS, Grand Island, Nebraska. Johns, B. W., E. J. Woodsworth, and E. A. Driver. 1997. Habitat Use by Migrant Whooping Cranes in Saskatchewan. Proceedings North American Crane Workshop 7:123-131. 3-20
May 2011
Lingle, G. R. 1987. Status of Whooping Crane Migration Habitat Within the Great Plains of North America. Pages 331-340 In: J. C. Lewis and J. Zewitz, eds. Proc. 1985. Crane Workshop. Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust and USFWS, Grand Island, Nebraska. Lingle, G. R., G. A. Wingfield, and J. W. Ziewitz. 1991. The Migration Ecology of Whooping Cranes in Nebraska, U.S.A. Pages 395-401 In: J. Harris, ed. Proc. 1987 International Crane Workshop, International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin. Oklahoma State University. 1993. Oklahoma’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Forestry Extension Report #6. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University. 43 pp. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (TransCanada). 2009. TransCanada Keystone XL Project Environmental Report. Revised July 6, 2009. Document No.: 10623-006. Submitted to US Department of State and Bureau of Land Management by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. USFWS – Ecological Services, Nebraska Field Office. Letter dated October 8, 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Region 6 Guidance for Minimizing Effects from Power Line Projects Within the Whooping Crane Migration Corridor. February 4, 2010. Assistant Regional director, Ecological Services, Region 6, Mountain Prairie Region, Denver, Colorado.
3.1.4
Pallid Sturgeon 3.1.4.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) was listed as endangered on September 6, 1990 (55 FR 36641). This species is native to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and is adapted to habitat conditions in these large rivers prior to river modifications. Preferred habitat is described as large, free-flowing rivers with warm water, turbid habitat with a diverse mix of physical habitats that were in a constant state of change (USFWS 1993). Pallid sturgeon are adapted for living close to the bottom of large, shallow, silty rivers with sand and gravel bars. Adults and larger juveniles feed primarily on fish while smaller juveniles feed primarily on the larvae of aquatic insects (Wilson 2004). Macrohabitat environments required by pallid sturgeon are formed by floodplains, backwaters, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, and main channel waters within the large river ecosystem. Prior to dam development along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, these features were in a constant state of change. With the introduction of dams and bank stabilization, areas of former river habitat have been covered by lakes, water velocity has increased in remaining river sections making deep stretches of clear water, and water temperatures have significantly decreased. All of these factors are believed to have contributed to the decline in pallid sturgeon populations (USFWS 1993). The pallid sturgeon has never been common since it was first described in 1905, and catch records and recovery and research efforts since that time have indicated a steady decline in this species (Wilson 2004). The historic range of this fish formerly included the Mississippi River (below its confluence with the Missouri River), the Missouri River, and the very lower reaches of the Platte, Kansas, and Yellowstone rivers near their confluence with the Missouri or Mississippi (USFWS 1993). According to the USFWS pallid sturgeon recovery plan (USFWS 1993), since 1980, reports of most frequent occurrence are from the Missouri River between the Marias River and Ft. Peck Reservoir in Montana; between Ft. Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea (near Williston, North Dakota); within the lower 113 km (70 miles) of the Yellowstone River to downstream of Fallon, Montana; in the headwaters of Lake Sharpe in South Dakota; and from the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte River near Plattsmouth, Nebraska. Although widely distributed, pallid sturgeon remains one of the rarest fish in the Missouri and Mississippi river basins.
3-21
May 2011
Critical habitat has not been designated for the pallid sturgeon, but sections of rivers relatively unchanged by dam construction and operation that maintain large, turbid, free-flowing river characteristics are important in maintaining residual populations of this species. 3.1.4.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
The potential for this species to occur within the Project area exists along the Steele City Segment at the crossing of the Missouri River below Ft. Peck Dam and the crossing of the Yellowstone River downstream of Fallon, Montana. Pallid sturgeon also occur in the lower Platte River downstream from the proposed Project crossing. 3.1.4.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Suitable habitat within the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers would be crossed by HDD, therefore no direct impacts to pallid sturgeon habitat are expected to occur as a result of Project construction (USFWS 2008). Although pallid sturgeon may be present at the crossings of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, these river crossings would be crossed using the HDD method, and there would be no direct effect on potential river bottom habitat for pallid sturgeon. At streams and rivers crossed by the HDD method, a pump and hose would be placed in the waterbody to provide water to the HDD operation. The intake end of this pump would be screened using an appropriate mesh size to prevent entrainment or entrapment of larval fish or other aquatic organisms. The withdrawal rates for the pumps would be designed to reduce the potential for entrainment or entrapment of aquatic species. Many of the HDD installations would take place early in the construction period, potentially during the pallid sturgeon spawning period. However, the combination of effective screening and controlled water withdrawal rates would reduce the potential to impact the species. The Missouri, Yellowstone, and Platte rivers have been identified as water sources to be used for hydrostatically testing the pipeline. During this testing process, a pump would be placed in or adjacent to the river for the duration of the water intake and filling period. The intake end of the pump would be screened to prevent entrainment of larval fish or debris. All water pump intake screens would be periodically checked for entrainment of fish. Should a sturgeon become entrained, Keystone would immediately contact the USFWS to determine if additional protection measures would be required. Care would be taken during the discharge to prevent erosion or scouring of the waterbody bed and banks. Platte River basin water depletions in Nebraska may affect pallid sturgeon habitats by reducing the amount of water available for this species in the lower Platte River. Impacts to the pallid sturgeon from temporary water reductions during hydrostatic testing in the lower Platte River Basin would be avoided, based on Keystone’s plan to withdraw the volume needed at a rate less than 10 percent of the baseline daily flow and to return water back to its source within a 30-day period. Operations Routine pipeline operations are not expected to affect the pallid sturgeon. Pump Station 11 is near the Missouri River and would have one incandescent light above the station door of the electrical building that is unlikely to have an effect on the river at night. The Missouri, Yellowstone and Platte rivers would be crossed by HDD. In the highly unlikely event that a leak occurs in the pipeline, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. Additionally, these major rivers also are subject to an intensive integrity management program stipulated by the USDOT (Integrity Management Rule, 49 CFR 195). Further, if a significant spill event were to occur, federal and state laws would require clean up.
3-22
May 2011
In the unlikely event of a spill that would enter a river, exposure to crude could result in adverse toxicological effects to pallid sturgeon. However, the probability of adverse effects to pallid sturgeon are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of a spill in a river reach where pallid sturgeon are present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a river with pallid sturgeon in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects (See Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). 3.1.4.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.4.5
Conservation Measures
The Project proposes to implement HDD under the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. The intake end of the pump would be screened to prevent entrainment of larval fish or debris. The intake screens would be periodically checked for entrainment of fish. Should a sturgeon become entrained, Keystone would immediately contact the USFWS to determine if additional protection measures would be required. Water used for hydrostatic testing is not chemically treated and would be returned to the source. 3.1.4.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for the pallid sturgeon. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the pallid sturgeon. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the pallid sturgeon. This determination is based on Keystone’s plan to HDD the Missouri, Yellowstone, and Platte rivers and Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS. Although it is possible that a spill event could result in an adverse affect on this species, the probability of such an event would be unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) low probability of a spill in a river reach where pallid sturgeon are present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a major river with pallid sturgeon in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects. In the unlikely event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. As a result, no direct or indirect impacts would result from construction. 3.1.4.7
Literature Cited
Federal Register. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status of Pallid Sturgeon. Final Rule. Federal Register 55(173):36641-36647. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan. USFWS, Bismarck, North Dakota. 55 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Meeting Notes. Fish, wildlife and sensitive species potentially occurring along the project route in Montana. Correspondence between L. Hanebury (USFWS) and P. Lorenz, C. Barnes (ENSR). May 8, 2008.
3-23
May 2011
Wilson, R. 2004. Pallid sturgeon recovery update. Issue No.14:1-25. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/ moriver/Pallid%20Sturgeon%20Activities.htm.
3.1.5
American Burying Beetle 3.1.5.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) was federally-listed as endangered on July 13, 1989 (54 FR 29652). The American burying beetle has historically been recorded in 35 states in the eastern and central US. Populations declined from the 1920s to the 1960s and the American burying beetle is currently only found at the peripheries of its former range. In 1983 the American burying beetle was included as an endangered species in the Invertebrate Red Book published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ENSR 2008). The American burying beetle is the largest carrion-feeding insect in North America reaching a length of about 4 cm and a weight of up to 3 grams. Like other carrion beetles, American burying beetles search the environment for fresh carcasses which they use for feeding and rearing of offspring. Because carrion is a typically limited resource, the discovery of a carcass often occurs within 2 days, but has been reported to occur as quickly as 35 minutes post death (Milne and Milne 1976).
Photo credit: Doug Backlund
Considering the broad geographic range formerly occupied by the American burying beetle, it is unlikely that vegetation or soil type were historically limiting. Unlike other burying beetles, no strong correlation with vegetation or soil type seems to exist (Creighton et al. 1993, Jurzenski et al. in press). American burying beetles appear to decline in response to habitat fragmentation and increases in row crop agriculture (Trumbo 2002, Bishop et al. 2002). There are no comprehensive life history studies that provide information on exactly where beetles overwinter (depth in soil, whether frozen or unfrozen locations used) or the exact cues for American burying beetle emergence from the ground (soil temperature, soil moisture, combinations, other). Based on their historical wide ranging distribution and occurrence in northern states where soil temperatures decline to below freezing during winter; Dr. Wyatt Hoback, who has studied the American burying beetle for more than 10 years, considers that American burying beetles likely have adapted an overwinter survival strategy that requires either freezing or cooling to very near freezing that slows metabolism to a point that fat reserves are sufficient to last overwinter until emergence in late May or early June (Hoback, W. pers. comm.). American burying beetles have been recently collected from three South Dakota counties: Todd, Tripp, and Gregory (Backlund and Marrone 1997). Surveys in 2005 revealed that the beetles are concentrated in Tripp County where the population is estimated to be approximately 1,000 individual American burying beetles in an area of approximately 220 square kilometers (54,363 acres) in southern Tripp County (Backlund et al.
3-24
May 2011
2008). The best habitat for the beetles in South Dakota is similar to that of the northern Nebraska population and consists of wet meadows in sandy soils with scattered cottonwoods (Appendix D). Habitats in Nebraska where these beetles have recently been found consist of grassland prairie, forest edge, and scrubland. Within the remaining range for the American burying beetle in Nebraska, there is a large population (>500 individuals) in the southern loess canyons (Bedick et al. 1999; Peyton 2003) and another large population in the sandhills of northern Nebraska and southern South Dakota (Jurzenski et al. in press). In 2002, the American burying beetle was found for the first time in nine new counties using limited trapping in prime habitat consisting of sub-irrigated wet meadows with mature trees and few visible impacts from row agriculture. Additional sampling between 2002 and the present has increased the known distribution of American burying beetle in Nebraska. Even though large areas within Nebraska remain unsampled for remnant populations, increased sampling efforts have led to re-discoveries. For example in 2006, a small population of American burying beetles was re-discovered in Custer County. In 2010, the American burying beetle was discovered in two additional Nebraska counties (Valley and Hooker). Capture records in the last 10 years indicate the American burying beetle persists in 17 of 93 Nebraska counties with the highest numbers occurring in the northern sandhills. The Keystone route passes through five Nebraska counties with confirmed presence of American burying beetles between MP 597 and MP 695: Keya Paha, Rock, Holt, Wheeler, and Garfield. In Oklahoma, the American burying beetle has been captured via baited pitfall traps in a variety of habitats including grasslands, grazed pastures, bottomland forest, riparian zones, and oak-hickory forest (USFWS 2005). An extensive population of American burying beetles is concentrated in the eastern half of Oklahoma where it is found in both grazed areas and forested regions. Since 1989, American burying beetles have been found in 21 Oklahoma counties (USFWS 2008a) and are suspected to occur in eight additional counties. The Keystone XL path passes through four counties with confirmed presence of American burying beetles (Bryan, Atoka, Coal, and Hughes) and three counties with unconfirmed presence (Creek, Okfuskee, and Seminole) (USFWS 2010). American burying beetles were re-discovered in Texas in 2003 at Camp Maxey in Lamar County (Godwin and Minich, 2005). Previously only a single museum specimen existed from Texas and it is considered dubious. Presently, American burying beetles are known from only Lamar County at camp Maxey and presumably connect with populations in extreme southern Oklahoma. Recent trapping surveys by K. Bauer in Lamar County in 2008-2010, as part of a Ph.D. dissertation study, have been unsuccessful in trapping American burying beetles and Bauer believes the beetle to be extirpated from Texas. In addition, surveys conducted by K. Bauer in 2009 and W. Hoback in 2010 on the pipeline ROW and did not detect any American burying beetles in Lamar County. The primary causes of decline of the American burying beetle are thought to be (1) pesticide use; and (2) habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, which correspond to a decrease in availability of suitable carrion (Bedick et al. 1999, Jurzenski et al. in press). Developed land and land that has been converted for agricultural, grazing, and other uses, often favors scavenging mammal and bird species that compete with carrion beetles for carrion resources. Additionally, these types of habitat alterations have generally led to declines in ground nesting birds, which probably historically provided a large portion of the carrion available to this species. Fire suppression in prairie habitats allows the encroachment of woody plant species, particularly the eastern red cedar, which is thought to degrade habitat for burying beetles by limiting their ability to forage for carrion. The red-imported fire ant, which has extended its range in the southeastern and south central US and is most numerous in open, disturbed habitats, has also been identified as a cause of the decline of this species (USFWS 2008a).
3-25
May 2011
3.1.5.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Steele City Segment The Project would result in construction of approximately 500 miles of pipeline through South Dakota and Nebraska. Windshield surveys of habitat suitability along the pipeline ROW for South Dakota and Nebraska were conducted by Hoback in 2008 and habitat was rated based on the Nebraska habitat rating system that reflects the potential for American burying beetle occurrence based on general habitat characteristics (Figure 3.1-2). This habitat model was developed based on presence of American burying beetle from previous studies in Nebraska and a windshield survey to categorize suitable habitat based on land use. The model has been tested in 2010 and is being further refined in 2011 by placing traps in areas identified as likely to be occupied by American burying beetles (Jurzenski and Hoback, umpublished). Based on model predictions, American burying beetle were discovered in two new counties in 2010 and for the Sand Hills population, the model based on moisture and land use appears to generally describe American burying beetle occurrence. A descriptive map with 5 mile buffers placed around trap data from previous studies (1995 to present in Nebraska) shows occurrence of American burying beetle in the northern Nebraska Sand Hills and the southern Nebraska loess hills (Figure 3.1-3, Jurzenski and Hoback 2010).
3-26
May 2011
Haakon
Jones
South Dakota
Lyman
Tripp
Keya Paha
Rock
Holt
Garfield
Wheeler
Boone
Nebraska
Greeley Nance
Merrick
Hamilton
PREPARED BY: TROW ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC.
Habitat Rating 1
1300 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida , USA 32308 Phone: 1-850-385-5441 Fax: 1-850-385-5523
4
STEELE CITY SEGMENT ABB HABITAT OVERVIEW MAP
Jefferson
5
SCALE 1 : 1,399,300
REVISION: 0
Saline
3
KEYSTONE XL PROJECT
DATE: 11/8/10
Fillmore
2
DWG: XL-00-P-9128-OV-02
York
5 10
20
30
40 Miles
Figure 3.1-3
Descriptive Map of American Burying Beetle Presence in Nebraska (Jurzenski and Hoback 2010)
The habitat rating system was developed in northern Nebraska. This rating system was used for the Project ROW in Nebraska and South Dakota. The Project ROW in Oklahoma and Texas was also evaluated using this rating system and desktop surveys based on high resolution satellite photography. The entire Project ROW and off ROW work areas such as construction yards, construction camps, pump stations, and pipe yards were rated using this system. The following habitat rating criteria were used in Nebraska and were also used for habitat designations in Oklahoma and South Dakota: 5. Prime: Undeveloped wet meadows with some trees (especially cottonwoods [Populus deltoides]) or forest areas visible. Water sources are available including the presence of a river, stream or sub irrigated soils (water is close to the surface as a result of shallow aquifer). Cropland is not visible within the mile segment or is at a distance greater than 2.0 miles. 4. Good: Native grassland species (tall or mixed grass prairie) with forbs. Low wetland meadows that are grazed by cattle or used for haying. Trees (usually cottonwoods) present. Sources of water are within a mile, but the area has either some cropland or sources of light pollution including yard lights, or houses within a mile. 3. Fair: Grassland with exotic species such as brome grass (Bromus spp.). Soil moisture content is lower than for prime or good habitat. Row crop agriculture is located within one mile. 2. Marginal: Potential habitat restricted to one side of the pipeline ROW, with row crop agriculture on one side or dry, sandy, upland areas with exposed soil and scattered dry adapted plant such as yucca (Yucca spp.). 1. Poor. Both sides of the pipeline ROW with row crop agriculture or habitat with the potential for large amounts of light pollution and disturbance associated with town or city edge.
3-28
May 2011
In South Dakota, American burying beetles are known to occur south of State Highway 18 (Meeting Summary, October 12, 2010) at about MP 563 in the southern half of Tripp County (Backlund et al. 2008). The Project ROW passes through about 34 miles of habitat where American burying beetles are likely to occur (prime and good habitats). Within the area of likely occurrence, 25 miles are rated prime habitat and 9 miles are rated good habitat (Table 3.1-4). Remaining habitat north of Highway 18 at about MP 563 is fair to marginal and is outside the known range of American burying beetles.
Table 3.1-4
Pipeline Mile 536 537
Prime (5)
Suitability Rating for American Burying Beetle Habitat crossed by the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Tripp County, South Dakota Good (4)
Fair (3)
Marginal (2)
Poor (1)
Unknown (0)
X
Notes Northwest Corner & White River
X
538
Pahapesto Buttes X
539
Pahapesto Buttes X
Agricultural (Ag) Land
540
X
Hills with Creek Drainage
541
X
Hills with Creek Drainage
542
X
Hills with Creek Drainage
543
X
Hills with Creek Drainage
544
X
10 miles north of Witten & Ag Land
545
X
Ag Land
546
X
Ag Land
547
X
Ag Land and 266th Street
548
X
Ag Land and Alfalfa
549
X
Ag Land, Alfalfa and Range and 268th St.
550
X
Ag Land
551
X
Ag Land with Small Wetland and 270th St.
552
X
Ag Land, Alfalfa and Range
553
X
Ag Land
554
X
Ag Land
555
X
Ag Land, 6 miles east of Witten and 310th Avenue
556
X
Ag Land and Some Range
557
X
Range Land, Small Wetland, Hollow Creek
558
X
Range Land, Alfalfa and Ag Land
559
X
Mostly Ag Land, Some Alfalfa, Hwy 18/183/44
560
X
Ag Land and Creek Bottoms
561
X
Ag Land and Creek Bottoms
562
X
Ag Land and Creek Bottoms
3-29
May 2011
Table 3.1-4
Pipeline Mile
Suitability Rating for American Burying Beetle Habitat crossed by the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Tripp County, South Dakota
Prime (5)
Good (4)
563
Fair (3)
Marginal (2)
Poor (1)
Unknown (0)
X
Notes Ag Land and Dogear Creek; Highway 18
564
X
Mud Creek, Dogear Creek
565
X
Mud Creek
566
X
3 miles South of Winner
567
X
Grassland Transition Zone
568
X
Grassland Transition Zone
569
X
Soil Composition Changes to Sandy Loam
570
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
571
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
572
X
4 miles West of Colome
573
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
574
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
575
X
289th St. and 321st Avenue
576
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
577
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
578
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
579
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
580
X
7 miles S of Colome
581
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
582
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
583
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
584
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
585
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
586
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows
587
X
Lute Creek
588
X
4 miles east of Paxton and Lute Creek
589
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows and Hills
590
X
Sub-irrigated Meadows and Hills
591
X
Hill Country, Upland Drier
592
X
Hill Country, Range and Drier
593
X
Hill Country, Some Sand and Blowouts
594
X
Buffalo Creek with Oak Scrub
595
X
SE Corner and Buffalo Creek with Oak Scrub
3-30
May 2011
The Project ROW would affect approximately 5,434 acres during construction in South Dakota of which 11% (620 acres) have potential for occurrence of the American burying beetle (Table 3.1-5). American burying beetles would be most likely to occur in prime and good habitats, of which the Project would affect a total of about 401 acres during construction, 308 acres have prime habitat, and 93 acres have good habitat (Table 3.1-5). American burying beetles are unlikely but could potentially occur in marginal and fair habitats in 127 acres (Table 3.1-5). American burying beetles would not be expected to occur in poor habitats 0 acres (Table 3.1-5). American burying beetles are not expected to occur in the remaining 90% (4,909 acres) of the Project construction area in South Dakota north of Highway 18. Thermal modeling, discussed below, indicates that operation of the pipeline would have thermal effects in an area above the pipeline in the northern portions of the American burying beetle’s range and that thermal effects may include an area out to 11 feet on either side of the pipeline (22 foot wide area). This estimated 22 foot wide area would experience potential permanent thermal effects which would result in this area remaining above freezing during portions of the American burying beetle over wintering period which could affect overwintering beetles by increasing their metabolic demand and reducing survival and productivity (Table 3.1-5). The area stabilized by gravel platforms for the above-ground facilities would result in an estimated 33 acres of permanent impact to prime and good habitats that would also be likely to support American burying beetles (Table 3.1-5).
Estimated Temporary1 and Permanent2 Impact Areas for American Burying Beetle Habitat crossed by the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project South of Highway 18 in Tripp County, South Dakota
Table 3.1-5
Habitat Value Poor (1)
Marginal (2)
Fair (3)
Good (4)
Prime (5)
County Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
0.00
30.00
1.20
94.13
8.01
92.90
24.89
307.94
0.00
0.00
1.20
3.21
8.01
25.58
24.89
66.37
TEMPORARY IMPACTS Tripp
0.00
0.00
PERMANENT IMPACTS Tripp
0.00
0.00
1
Temporary impacts are associated with temporary construction workspace. An additional estimated temporary impact to 4.74 acres of fair habitat would occur due to construction of temporary access roads. 2 Permanent impacts are associated with placement of permanent above-ground facilities (i.e. pump stations) and the 22 foot thermal buffer. Note: miles are the same for both temporary and permanent impacts as both are calculated using the proposed pipeline centerline.
New populations of American burying beetle are still being discovered in Nebraska therefore sampling with baited pitfall traps was used to assess American burying beetle occurrence along the entire pipeline ROW. Where possible, at least four pitfall traps were set per county in the best available habitat. During sampling, control traps located in areas of known American burying beetle occurrence were also monitored. A total of 323 American burying beetles were caught near the Project ROW during sampling in Nebraska (Appendix 1). American burying beetles occurred in five Nebraska counties crossed by the Project: Keya Paha, Rock, Holt, Garfield, and Wheeler. The number of beetles caught per trap night during 2009 and 2010 surveys was used as a relative measure of population density in Nebraska (Appendix 1).
3-31
May 2011
Transport of oil through the pipeline creates heat that is dissipated through the soil to the ground surface. A TQUEST geothermal model (Appendix K) was used to predict soil temperature changes at the ground surface and at various depths and distances from the center of the pipeline. Combined with general assumptions about American burying beetle life history, it’s possible to estimate whether adverse impacts to the American burying beetle would likely result from the rise in soil temperatures caused by operation of the pipeline. In northern areas of the American burying beetle range, in Nebraska and South Dakota, soil temperatures decline to below freezing during the winter when the beetles are underground. According to Dr. W. Wyatt Hoback, who has studied the American burying beetle for more than 10 years, the beetles in northern parts of their range likely have adapted a survival strategy that requires cooling to or very near freezing to slow metabolism such that fat reserves are sufficient to last until emergence in late May or early June. Whether American burying beetle would suffer mortality from starvation if they were prohibited from freezing is not known, but substantial decreases in length of time soil temperatures are below freezing would likely cause the beetles to use too much fat energy during the winter months when they are subterranean. In addition, warming of the soil from the pipeline may also cue the subterranean American burying beetle to emerge prematurely, i.e., prior to late May or early June, when midnight air temperatures typically reach about 60 °F. This may result in American burying beetles above ground without the ability to feed appropriately, or to use more energy resources to re-bury themselves in the soil, assuming temperatures permit such activity. A complicating factor in evaluating thermal impacts to overwintering American burying beetle is that the impacts vary with depth in the soil, and there are disparities in available information regarding the depth at which ABB overwinter in the soil. Although Schnell et al. (2008) noted in field experiments in Arkansas that American burying beetles overwintered at a depth of 20 cm (approximately 8 inches), most information refers to depth of carcass burial associated with reproduction. These reproductive chambers depths are described as “several inches” by Ratcliffe (1996, p. 46), or up to 60 cm underground (approximately 24 inches) (Wilson and Fudge 1984, Pukowski 1933, and Hinton 1981; as cited in Scott 1998). The American burying beetle is the largest carrion beetle in North America (Ratcliffe 1996), and Eggert and Sakaluk (2000) found that larger beetles buried carcasses deeper in the soil. For this analysis of potential thermal impacts temperature changes (compared to background) at depths of 6 inches, 12 inches, and 24 inches; and at various distances from the pipeline center line and within two soil types at different water saturation were evaluated (Table 3.1-6). The analysis was completed using a pipeline heat dissipation model to predict underground temperature changes resulting from pipeline operation (Appendix K). The temperature model predicts that background temperatures (i.e., temperatures 80 feet from the pipeline center line) would remain frozen during the winter at a depth of 24 inches within all but the driest of the two types of soils SH1 and SH4 (Table 3.1-6). In the three sandy soils prevalent in the Sand Hills (i.e., SH4, SH5, and SH6), background temperatures at 12 inches depth equaled or fell below 32.0 °F during seven or eight, two-week time periods during the winter. However, at 11 feet from the pipeline centerline (22-footwide sub-corridor), soil remained frozen during four and six two-week time periods (i.e., in SH5 and SH6), and did not freeze during the winter in SH4 soils (Table 3.1-6). Modeling predicted a reduction in the incidence of frozen soils from 25% (twice) to 100% (twice) at a depth of 12 inches and 11 feet from the pipeline centerline. The estimated total duration of unfrozen soils would likely be sufficient to adversely affect American burying beetles overwintering within 11 feet from the pipeline centerline, based on the twoweek time period summaries (Appendix K). Uncertainties and assumptions are associated with both the heat dissipation model and the biological requirements of the American burying beetle, however temperature shifts above background levels substantial enough to influence habitat out to 11 feet from the pipeline (i.e., a 22-foot sub-corridor) were determined to make habitat unsuitable for American burying beetle overwintering. Some level of thermal effects may extend beyond the 22-foot sub-corridor, however,
3-32
May 2011
distinct and measureable differences that are likely biologically significant for American burying beetles can be identified out to 11 feet from the pipeline centerline based on the available model (Appendix K). Table 3.1-6. Incidence of modeled soil temperatures at freezing or below with varying distance from the pipeline centerline at varying depthsa Silty Loam Soil
Sandy Soil
Distance from Center Line
SH1 5% Moisture Content
SH2 18% Moisture Content
SH3 37% Moisture Content
SH4 5% Moisture Content
SH5 14% Moisture Content
SH6 28% Moisture Content
80 ft (back ground)
8-9-6-0b
8-8-7-3
9-8-8-2
8-8-7-0
8-8-7-4
9-8-8-5
11 ft.
8-7-0-0
8-8-5-0
9-7-6-0
8-5-0-0
8-7-4-0
9-7-6-0
7 ft.
8-5-0-0
8-6-0-0
7-6-0-0
7-3-0-0
7-5-0-0
7-6-0-0
3 ft.
8-2-0-0
6-0-0-0
5-0-0-0
6-0-0-0
4-0-0-0
4-0-0-0
a b
Freezing or below considered ≤ 32 °F Incidence of temperatures ≤ 32 ºF. are described in a W-X-Y-Z format, where: W is the incidence of freezing at the ground surface, X is the incidence of freezing at a depth of 6 inches, Y is the incidence of freezing at 12 inches, and Z is the incidence at 24 inches deep.
Temperature output is modeled at 2-week intervals. Differences in incidence of frozen soil between background (80 feet) and at 11 feet from the center of the pipeline (i.e., a 22-foot sub-corridor) are shown in red.
Along the 102 miles of the Project ROW in northern Nebraska where American burying beetles are expected to occur based on the trapping data in Appendix 1, 8.1
3-48
May 2011
South Dakota
Keya Paha
Rock
Holt
Wheeler
Garfield
Boone Greeley
Nebraska Nance
Merrick
Hamilton
York
Fillmore PREPARED BY: TROW ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC.
ABB Rating 0
1300 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida , USA 32308 Phone: 1-850-385-5441 Fax: 1-850-385-5523
1 2
KEYSTONE XL PROJECT
3
STEELE CITY SEGMENT - NE ABB RATING OVERVIEW MAP
DWG: XL-00-P-9128-OV-01 REVISION: 0
Jefferson
4
SCALE 1 : 900,350
DATE: 11/8/10
Saline
4.5
9
18
27
36 Miles
Table C
Estimated Temporary1 Impact Areas for the American Burying Beetle based on Estimated Occurrence for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska American Burying Beetle Rating Absent (0)
Low (1)
Moderate (2)
High (3)
Very High (4)
2
No Rating
County Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Keya Paha
2.160
28.939
13.564
206.948
3.001
39.852
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rock
0.000
0.000
0.435
7.669
9.021
120.219
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Holt
5.002
64.349
9.001
148.953
14.670
283.950
3.001
38.304
12.999
171.747
0.000
30.000
Garfield
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.465
180.275
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wheeler
7.350
123.442
4.002
65.975
6.840
127.882
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Greeley
23.944
394.656
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Boone
3.406
43.348
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Nance
17.133
255.378
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Merrick
15.455
233.951
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hamilton
6.667
118.336
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
York
29.531
417.325
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fillmore
14.675
221.573
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Saline
16.840
222.084
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Jefferson
25.570
397.852
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Gage
0.000
30.731
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Totals
167.733
2,551.964
27.002
429.545
43.997
752.178
3.001
38.304
12.999
171.747
0.000
30.000
3-50
Miles
1 2
Temporary impacts are associated with temporary construction workspace. ABB surveys were not conducted if the habitat was rated poor (1) or marginal (2) through desktop reviews.
May 2011
Table D
Estimated Permanent1 Impact Areas for the American Burying Beetle based on Estimated Occurrence for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska American Burying Beetle Rating Absent (0)
Low (1)
Moderate (2)
High (3)
Very High (4)
County Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Miles
Acres
Keya Paha
2.160
1.833
13.564
11.508
3.001
2.546
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rock
0.000
0.000
0.435
0.369
9.021
7.653
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Holt
5.002
4.244
9.001
7.637
14.670
22.847
3.001
2.546
12.999
11.029
Garfield
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.465
8.879
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wheeler
7.350
16.589
4.002
3.395
6.840
5.803
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Greeley
23.944
20.316
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Boone
3.406
2.890
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Nance
17.133
14.536
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Merrick
15.455
20.924
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hamilton
6.667
5.657
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
York
29.531
25.056
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fillmore
14.675
20.503
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Saline
16.840
14.288
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Jefferson
25.570
27.302
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total
167.733
174.138
27.002
31.788
43.997
38.849
3.001
2.546
12.999
11.029
3-51
Miles
1
Permanent impacts are associated with placement of permanent above-ground facilities (i.e., pump stations) and the 7 foot thermal buffer.
May 2011
3.1.6
Blowout Penstemon 3.1.6.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The blowout penstemon is a federally listed endangered plant and state-listed in Nebraska as endangered. The blowout penstemon is a short-lived perennial plant that frequently occurs in large, multi-stemmed clumps with both flower and vegetative stems that are commonly up to 1 foot tall. This plant is a pioneer that grows in shifting sand in blowouts in the Sand Hills region in Nebraska. Blowouts are round or conical eroded areas, formed in the sand when prevailing northwesterly winds scoop out the sides of dunes when vegetative cover is removed or disturbed. The blowout penstemon does not persist after other grasses begin to invade the blowout. It flowers from mid May to late June; the flowers are tubular, 1-2 inches in length and milky blue to lavender (NatureServe 2010; Stubbendieck et al. 1997). Threats to this plant include: elimination of prairie fires, improved range management practices, intensive livestock grazing, off-road vehicle traffic (USFWS 1992). 3.1.6.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Blowout penstemons are found in the Sand Hills region of northcentral Nebraska. Currently 32 blowout penstemon populations (10 native sites and 22 introduced sites) occur in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska (Stubbendieck 2008) including plantings in Rock County, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast Segment would cross Rock County, Nebraska through the northeast corner of the county to the east of known occurrence. The blowout penstemon is not likely to occur within the Project area in Rock County, Nebraska as the known occurrences are well west of the Project area. No presence/absence surveys were recommended for this plant because no construction or related activities and impacts would occur in blowout penstemon habitat (i.e., active blowouts). 3.1.6.3
Impact Evaluation
Project construction could result in loss of habitat, altered habitat suitability, and introduction or spread of competing exotic invasive plants. The blowout penstemon is a pioneering species which may be displaced by invasive plants. Power Lines and Substations No powerlines are proposed to cross habitats in Rock County, Nebraska, therefore there would be no impact of powerlines to the blowout penstemon. 3.1.6.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future federal, state, or local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.6.5
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures for the blowout penstemon would include:
Avoid construction through active blowout areas.
Salvaging and segregating topsoil appropriately where populations have been identified to preserve native seed sources in the soil for use in re-vegetation efforts in the ROW.
3-52
May 2011
3.1.6.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the blowout penstemon. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the blowout penstemon. This determination is based on review of the current known population data that indicate that the plant is not present within the Project area and because Keystone would avoid any impacts to active, open sand blowouts for a number of reasons unrelated to the endangered blowout penstemon. Keystone has commitment to follow recommended conservation measures that would be provided by the USFWS if occurrences are identified. 3.1.6.7
Literature Cited
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: November 8, 2010 ). Stubbendieck, J., J.A. Lamphere, and J.B. Fitzgerald. 1997. Nebraska's Threatened and Endangered Species: Blowout Penstemon. NebraskaLand Magazine brochure series. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska. General Information available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2EX. Accessed December 29, 2010. Stubbendieck, J. 2008. Section 2.3.1.2 Distribution, abundance, and population trends. Excerpt from Blowout Penstemon status review for Sandhills, Nebraska. Provided by Martha Tacha, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 40 pp. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920717.pdf. Accessed December 2010.
3.1.7
Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower 3.1.7.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The Texas prairie dawn-flower (Hymenoxys texana) was federally listed as endangered on March 13, 1986 (51 FR 8681). It also is listed as endangered in the state of Texas. The first recorded specimen collections were in 1889 and 1890 in Harris County, Texas, near the town of Hockley. No further sightings or specimen collections were recorded until 1981, when James Kessler rediscovered the flower north of Cypress, Texas. In the interim 90 years, the species was thought to be extinct. Since 1981, 21 populations have been found west of Houston in Harris and Fort Bend counties, Texas. Additional populations have been found more recently on the northeast and southeast sides of Houston, as well as one population in Trinity County (Brown et al. 2007). This species is found in small sparsely vegetated areas of fine-sandy compacted soil in seasonally wet depressions or saline swales. The bare spots are often associated with pimple (mima) mounds, but the species also can occur in areas where mima mounds have been leveled in the past. Other bare spots occupied by this species occur where soils have been severely disturbed in the past. These areas include abandoned rice fields, vacant or mowed lots, pastures, grasslands, open land, and existing ROWs. The bare spots are usually wet to moist during the cool months of winter and early spring, but they dry out to almost desert-like conditions during the hot summer. The Texas prairie dawn-flower escapes the desiccating summer conditions by completing their life cycles in the moist months of early spring (USFWS 1989).
3-53
May 2011
Habitat destruction, primarily due to housing development and road construction in the Houston area, is the most serious threat to the long-term survival of this species. Disturbance of soils that eliminate the soil horizon are thought to be a severe threat to the species. The human population of Harris County is increasing rapidly, at an estimated 15.7 percent from 2000 to 2007 (US Census Bureau 2009). Such an influx of new residents creates a need for expansion and development into areas in which the Texas prairie dawn-flower is known to occur, especially in the areas west and northwest of Houston in Harris and Fort Bend counties. 3.1.7.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
The only county that is crossed by the Project in which the Texas prairie dawn-flower is currently found in is Harris County, which is crossed by the Houston Lateral. The known populations in Harris County occur on the west, northwest, northeast, and southeast sides of Houston (USFWS 1989, 2009). The known populations on the west and northwest sides of Houston occur primarily in the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, as well as other privately- and publically-owned property. These populations are found approximately 30 miles west of the western terminus of the Houston Lateral. The more recently located populations of the Texas prairie dawnflower on the northeast and southeast sides of Houston occur as close as 15 miles from the ROW; however, there are no known historical occurrences in the ROW. The environmental survey area in Harris County was reviewed for suitable habitat for this species based on a desktop review and publicly available data. Soil data (Soil Survey Geographic [SSURGO]) database was downloaded from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS Soil Data Mart and land use information was interpreted from aerial imagery and desktop review (NRCS 2009). Soil map units described as fine-sandy soils, such as fine sandy loams, very fine sandy loams, loams, loamy fine sand, sand, or loamy prairie soils were included as areas of suitable habitat for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. Soil map units that were not included as suitable habitat for this species included clays and clay loams. Land use types that were considered areas of suitable habitat for this species include open areas, such as open land, pastures, grasslands, existing ROWs, and vacant or mowed lots. Surveys were planned for areas within the 300-foot survey corridor where both suitable soil and land use types are present for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. The identified survey areas were transversed on foot in the spring of 2009 to document the presence/absences of the Texas prairie dawn-flower within the 300-foot survey corridor where access was granted. Surveyors focused on areas of prime habitat, including sparsely vegetated areas and flat areas surrounding mima mounds, if present. A total of 139.6 acres of land within the environmental survey area was identified as potential habitat for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. On April 15, 2009, 55.8 acres (40 percent) were surveyed for the presence or absence of the Texas prairie dawn-flower. No Texas prairie dawn-flowers were located within the surveyed area (Appendix G). Landowner permission to access the remaining 83.8 acres has not been obtained. The 55.8 acres, initially identified as potentially containing suitable habitat, were found to contain low to no suitable habitat for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. The soils in these areas were loamy (Addicks loam, Bernard-Edna complex, or Verland silty clay loam) with a high clay component. The land use of the areas surveyed were either pastures that were frequently disturbed by cattle grazing or tall grasses. 3.1.7.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Based on preliminary surveys, the Texas prairie dawn-flower has not been observed in the ROW. Project construction including vegetation clearing and grading could result in loss of habitat, altered habitat suitability, and introduction or spread of competing exotic invasive plants. The Texas prairie dawn-flower is a pioneering species which may be displaced by invasive plants. Prevention of the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds are addressed in Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A). Operation Normal routine operations are not likely to affect the Texas prairie dawn-flower. Control of exotic invasive plants are addressed in Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A). In the unlikely event of a spill adverse effects to the 3-54
May 2011
Texas prairie dawn-flower are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of a spill in suitable habitat for the Texas prairie dawn-flower, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching habitat where the plant is present (See Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). According to Keystone’s Pipeline Temperature Effects Study: pipeline heat may influence spring growth and production (Appendix K – Pipeline Temperature Effects Study). Positive effects of elevated soil temperature on plant emergence and production have been documented. Negative effects of elevated soil temperature on plant physiology have not been documented at the temperatures that would be generated by the pipeline. The limited number of studies that have been completed on the heat effects of pipelines on vegetation indicate neutral to positive effects. Accordingly, Keystone does not anticipate any significant overall effect to vegetation associated with heat generated by the operating pipeline. The pipeline does have some effect on surrounding soil temperatures, primarily at pipeline depth. Surficial soil temperatures relevant to vegetation are impacted mainly by climate with negligible effect attributed to the operating pipeline. Therefore, there would be no affects of heat dissipation from the pipeline for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. Power Lines and Substations No power lines are proposed to cross habitats in Harris County Texas, therefore there would be no impact of power lines to the Texas prairie dawn-flower. 3.1.7.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future federal, state, or local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.7.5
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures for identified populations could include:
Complete presence/absence surveys during the blooming period in accordance with the previously agreed to protocol. These surveys will be conducted prior to construction within areas previously identified as potentially suitable habitat that were not surveyed because access has been denied. Submit survey results to the USFWS for review.
In the event that the Texas prairie dawn-flower is identified during the surveys, Keystone will coordinate with the USFWS and develop a plan that will avoid impacts to this species through route deviations or alternative construction methods. 3.1.7.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the Texas prairie dawn-flower. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Texas prairie dawn-flower. This determination is based on survey data within identified suitable habitat where access was allowed that indicate that the species is not present within the surveyed suitable habitats for the Project construction area and Keystone’s
3-55
May 2011
commitment to follow the conservation measures outlined previously that will result in the avoidance of Projectrelated impacts to the Texas prairie dawn-flower. 3.1.7.7
Literature Cited
Brown, L. E., E. L. Keith, D. J. Rosen, and J. Liggio. 2007. Notes on the flora of Texas with additions and other significant records. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1(2):1255-1264. Federal Register. 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Hymenoxys texana. Final Rule. Federal Register 51(49):8681-8683. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (TransCanada). 2009. TransCanada Keystone XL Project Environmental Report. Revised July 6, 2009. Document No.: 10623-006. Submitted to U.S. Department of State and Bureau of Land Management by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. US Census Bureau. 2009. U.S Census Bureau Data Finders. Internet website: http://www.census.gov. Accessed April 27, 2009. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Harris County, Texas (TX201). Internet websites: http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html. Accessed April 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Hymenoxys texana Recovery Plan. USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 53 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/900413a.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Rare Plants East Texas, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/clearlakees/PDF/TexasPrairieDawn.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2009.
3.1.8
Texas Trailing Phlox 3.1.8.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The Texas trailing phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) was federally listed as endangered on September 30, 1991 (56 FR 49636). It also is listed as endangered in the state of Texas. The first recorded specimen was collected in 1931 in Hardin County, Texas. The Texas trailing phlox is known only from Texas. Historically, the Texas trailing phlox was known from 17 locations in Hardin, Tyler, and Polk counties in east Texas. Currently there are only two known small scattered populations on private property and on a highway right-of-way (USFWS 1994). The Texas trailing phlox is an evergreen perennial herb or shrub that grows on sandy soils in fire-maintained open pine woodlands (USFWS 1994). There are two known populations of this species in southeast Texas, one in Tyler County and one in northeastern Hardin County. Habitat destruction, primarily due to housing development, pipeline and road construction, fire suppression, and conversion to pine plantations, is the most serious threat to the long-term survival of this plant (USFWS 1994). 3.1.8.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
The Texas trailing phlox requires deep sandy to sandy-loam soils (specifically Pinetucky fine sandy loam, Doucette fine sandy loam and Pinetucky and Conroe soils) in open, grassy areas of long-leaf pine savannah or mixed pine/hardwood forest composed of a relatively open canopy and understory, which is typically maintained by periodic burning.
3-56
May 2011
The Gulf Coast Segment of the Project crosses portions of Hardin and Polk Counties. Potential occurrence of populations of the Texas trailing phlox were investigated through a literature review (Warnock, 1993; Schwelling et al. 2000); and a review of the USFWS and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s websites; supplemented with project-specific habitat assessments (desktop assessment and biological field survey) of the proposed construction corridor. Because the Texas trailing phlox requires specific soil types in conjunction with specific vegetation cover, Keystone contacted Stephen Schwelling of Texas Parks and Wildlife (co-author of the Texas trailing phlox habitat prediction study) in order to obtain a list of the soil series used in his predictive habitat model (Schwelling et al. 2000). Locations where soil series (NRCS 2009) suitable for supporting Texas trailing phlox were crossed by the Project were identified and each location was then evaluated for the presence/absence of preferred vegetation cover. Preferred vegetation cover consists of pine savannah (long leaf, loblolly or slash) or mixed pine/hardwood forest with open canopies or under stories. Assessment of vegetation cover was based on 2009 high-resolution aerial imagery collected for the project, and data collected during field surveys. No soils suitable for supporting Texas trailing phlox are crossed by the Project in Hardin County. A total of 27 locations covering 13.35 miles with soils suitable for supporting Texas trailing phlox would be crossed by the Project in Polk County. Assessment of the vegetation cover at each of these locations is listed in Table 3.1-5. None of the 27 locations with suitable soils crossed by the Project were found to also contain preferred vegetation cover (Table 3.1-13).
3-57
May 2011
Table 3.1-6
Potential Suitable Habitat for the Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivaliss subsp. texensis) Crossed by the Gulf Coast Segment1 of the Keystone XL Project in Polk County, Texas
Approx. MP Begin
Approx MP End
3-58 May 2011
Crossing Length (mile)
NRCS Soil Symbol
387.01
389.32
2.31
PfB
390.85
390.99
0.14
PfB
392.52
392.94
0.42
PfB
394.37
394.41
0.04
PfB
394.61
394.70
0.08
PfB
394.70
394.90
0.21
PGB
394.90
395.71
0.81
PfB
396.27
397.09
0.81
PfB
397.39
397.45
0.06
PfB
398.94
399.53
0.59
PfB
399.74
399.89
0.15
PfB
400.11
400.42
0.32
PfB
400.52
400.61
0.09
PfB
400.77
401.13
0.36
PfB
401.13
401.20
0.07
DoB
401.20
401.30
0.10
PfB
401.30
401.39
0.10
DoB
401.67
402.45
0.78
PfB
402.73
403.05
0.33
PfB
NRCS Soil Name Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky and Conroe soils, graded Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Doucette loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Doucette loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Pinetucky fine sandy loam,
Acres in Construction Footprint
Suitable Vegetation Cover
31.92
No
1.87
No
5.53
No
0.56
No
1.47
No
2.66
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
10.85
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
11.49
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
0.65
No
Area consists of mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover and a mix pine/hardwood forested wetland
7.85
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
2.02
No
Area consists of pine plantation
4.88
No
Area consists of pine plantation, mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover
1.75
No
Area consists of open field/pasture
5.15
No
Area consists of open field/pasture
0.95
No
Area consists of young pine plantation, open field
1.18
No
Area consists of young pine plantation, open field
1.38
No
Area consists of young pine plantation, open field
10.55
No
Area consists of pine plantation, mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover
4.36
No
Area consists of mixed pine/hardwood with dense
Aerial Imagery Vegetation Cover Review Comments Area consists of young pine plantations, clear cuts, small forested areas with dense canopy Area consists of young pine plantation, mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover Area consists of mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover Area consists of young pine plantation, mixed pine/hardwood with dense canopy cover Area consists of young pine plantation, and is intersected by FM 942
Table 3.1-6
Approx. MP Begin
Potential Suitable Habitat for the Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivaliss subsp. texensis) Crossed by the Gulf Coast Segment1 of the Keystone XL Project in Polk County, Texas
Approx MP End
Crossing Length (mile)
NRCS Soil Symbol
NRCS Soil Name
Acres in Construction Footprint
Suitable Vegetation Cover
1 to 5 percent slopes
Aerial Imagery Vegetation Cover Review Comments canopy cover
3-59
405.27
405.70
0.43
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
5.69
No
405.93
406.09
0.16
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
2.74
No
406.40
406.53
0.13
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
1.67
No
407.04
408.98
1.94
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
408.98
409.02
0.03
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
409.02
409.25
0.23
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
No 29.79
No
Area consists of clear cut pine plantation, young pine plantation, open field Area consists of pine plantation, and small mixed pine/hardwood component with dense canopy cover Area consists of pine plantation and a mixed pine/hardwood wetland with dense canopy cover Area consists of mixed pine/hardwood wetland with a dense understory, clear cut pine plantation, young pine plantation, open field Area consists of pine plantation, a forested wetland, and is intersected by an existing utility corridor
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
409.34
411.15
1.81
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
24.78
No
Area consists of pine plantation, three emergent wetlands, a small mixed pine/hardwood component with dense canopy cover, clear cut area, and is intersected by an existing utility corridor.
411.23
411.31
0.09
PfB
Pinetucky fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
0.90
No
Area consists of young pine plantation
1
Based on the March 2010 Centerline.
May 2011
A pedestrian field survey of covering a 300 foot wide corridor over the proposed centerline, access roads, and auxiliary sites was completed on March 14 to 17, 2011 during the Texas trailing phlox March through May blooming period. The survey covered all but 0.95 miles of the centerline; which was evaluated from surrounding access points for vegetation cover (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2011). No individual or populations of Texas trailing phlox or its suitable habitat were identified in the survey area. No extant stands or individuals of post oak, bluejack oak, or long-leaf pine, species that are commonly associated with trailing phlox habitat, were found. Most of the surveyed areas were under silviculture for loblolly pine in various stages of harvest rotation. Plantation forest floors consisted of dense shrubs, vines, and a thick layer of leaf litter rendering these areas unsuitable for Texas trailing phlox growth and persistence (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2011). 3.1.8.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Based on the habitat evaluation and pedestrian survey presented above, no Texas trailing phlox populations or habitats suitable for Texas trailing phlox occurs within the Project ROW, access roads or ancillary facilities in Polk County, Texas. Keystone conducted surveys in the areas where Pinetucky and Doucette soils are crossed by the project and no suitable habitats or Texas trailing phlox were found. However, should this species be identified during surveys of inaccessible tracts or new tracts from re-routes, Keystone would implement the conservation measures outlined in Section 3.1.8.5. Operation Normal routine operations would not affect Texas trailing phlox. Based on the presence of this species in mowed highway easements, it is anticipated that the maintained pipeline corridor could provide additional habitat for this species. Power Lines and Substations No power lines are proposed in Hardin County, Texas. One power line would supply Pump Station 40 in Polk County, Texas. The locations for this power line and pump station are outside of soils suitable for supporting Texas trailing phlox and in addition the line is co-located with an existing pipeline ROW and a road. No Texas trailing phlox are likely to occur within the route for this power line; therefore impacts of power lines to the Texas trailing phlox are unlikely. 3.1.8.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future federal, state, or local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.1.8.5
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures for the Texas trailing phlox could include:
Complete presence/absence surveys where access was not previously granted, during the blooming period, prior to construction within areas mapped as Pinetucky and Doucette soils and submit survey results to the USFWS for review.
In the event that Texas trailing phlox is identified during these follow-up surveys of inaccessible tracts, Keystone will coordinate with the USFWS.
3-60
May 2011
3.1.8.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the Texas trailing phlox. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Texas trailing phlox. This determination is based on the results of a survey that did not find either suitable habitat or Texas trailing phlox within areas with suitable soil types in Polk County within a 300-foot wide area centered on the proposed Project centerline, access roads, and ancillary facilities and Keystone’s commitment to follow the conservation measures outlined previously in the event that the Texas trailing phlox is identified during Project construction. 3.1.8.7
Literature Cited
Federal Register. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List the Plant Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis (Texas Trailing Phlox) as Endangered. Final Rule. Federal Register 56(189): 49636-49639. Schwelling, S.R.; Showalter, P.S.; Singhurst, J.R.; German, C.D. 2000. Habitat prediction for Texas trailing phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) using Landsat Thematic Mapper and ancillary biophysical data. [online]. http://cswgcinnew/dm/Phlox/p120.html. Accessed 2003. SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2011. Potential Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivalis subsp. Texensis) Habitat Evaluation for the Keystone Pipeline Project, Gulf Coast Segment in Polk county, TX. Prepared for Trow Engineering Consultants, Inc. by SWCA Environmental Consultants.34 pp. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Hardin County, Texas (TX199) and Polk and San Jacinto Counties, Texas (TX617). Internet websites: http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html. Accessed October 2010. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Texas trailing phlox recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 42 pp. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/950328a.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2009. Warnock, Michael J. (1993). Project No. 42: Inventory of the Texas Trailing Phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) with Emphasis on Management Concerns. Texas Grant No.: E-1-5. Draft Report to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pages.
3.2
Federally Threatened
3.2.1
Mountain Plover 3.2.1.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The mountain plover was proposed for federally listing as threatened in June 2010 (75 FR 37353) and is listed as a state-threatened species in Nebraska. Mountain plover is a species of concern in Montana and Oklahoma. Critical habitat has not been identified for this species. The mountain plover is a small (8 inch) uncommon terrestrial shorebird found in xeric shrublands, shortgrass prairies, and other sparsely vegetated plains, including agricultural fields of the western Great Plains (Andres and Stone 2009). Within grasslands, mountain plovers are often associated with areas disturbed by burrowing rodents such as prairie dogs, native herbivores, or domestic livestock (USFWS 2010). Mountain plovers breed 3-61
May 2011
from northern Montana south to Arizona, primarily in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; although small numbers breed in western Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma (Andres and Stone 2009). Mountain plover populations have declined at a rate of about 3 percent per year over the last 30 years and over the last 150 years changes in land use and in grassland herbivore communities have altered their abundance, habitat use, and distribution (Andres and Stone 2009). They generally arrive at northern nesting areas in Montana during April and may remain until September and depart in mid to late July for wintering areas in California, Arizona, and southwestern Texas. The mountain plover is commonly associated with prairie dog towns in some areas; primary habitat used in Montana includes heavily grazed, short-grass prairie (MFWP 2005). Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and prairie junegrass (Koeleria [cristata] macrantha) dominate the vegetation where the largest mountain plover populations occur in Phillips and Blaine counties, Montana (MFWP 2005). Nests are on the ground in shallow depressions that may be lined with plant material and/or next to dried cattle dung. Mountain plover productivity appears to be influences by drought cycles, with productivity and survival increasing during drought periods (Andres and Stone 2009). Little is known about mountain plover migration stopover habitats (Andres and Stone 2009). Black-tailed prairie dog colonies provide important nesting habitat throughout their range (Andres and Stone 2009). Threats to the mountain plover include historical and current conversion of native short-grass prairie to agricultural, urban, suburban or energy development or to mixedgrass prairie by seeding with taller grasses; historical conversion of grasslands in winter habitats; historically reduced abundance and distribution of prairie dog towns; mechanical cultivation, planting, and weed control operations on fallow or short-stature fields– wheat, corn, sorghum, millet, and sunflowers – that destroys nests (67 FR 72396; Andres and Stone 2009). 3.2.1.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Steele City Segment Montana. The proposed Project would cross habitats that may support nesting mountain plovers such as prairie dog towns or ground-squirrel burrows, and flat barren areas that are underlain with bentonite in Valley County. Most mountain plover nesting in Montana is concentrated south of the Project in southern Phillips and Valley counties (Childers and Dinsmore 2008, Andres and Stone 2009) and no recent nesting activity (within the past 20 years) appears to have occurred near the proposed Project route in Montana (MTNHP and MFWP 2010). Additional habitats suitable for the mountain plover that would not be affected by the Project include gravel benches, ridges and alluvial fans that are heavily grazed in Golden Valley, Musselshell, Meagher, Judith Basin, Fergus, Wheatland, Yellowstone, Rosebud, Big Horn, Carter, and Treasure counties (Smith 2010). South Dakota. The proposed Project would cross prairie dog towns and potentially short-grass prairie habitats that may support nesting mountain plovers in South Dakota. However, large prairie dog colonies in southwestern South Dakota appear to be unoccupied by mountain plovers and the estimated current breeding distribution of mountain plovers does not include South Dakota (Andres and Stone 2009). 3.2.1.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Construction through prairie dog towns or other suitable nesting habitats in Montana could affect nesting mountain plovers if they are present and if construction occurs during the nesting season. Nests, eggs, and young could be lost during construction. Disturbance could lead to nest abandonment resulting in loss of eggs or young. In Montana, mountain plover surveys are recommended within identified prairie dog towns and in the bentonite fields of Valley County during the April 10 to July 10 breeding season. Mountain plover are not expected to occur in the Project area in South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma or Texas. Mountain plovers occur west of the Project area during nesting, migration or winter in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas (Andres and Stone 2009).
3-62
May 2011
Power Lines and Substations The construction of electrical distribution lines to Pump Stations in Montana would cross 25.0 miles of cropland and 105.5 miles of grassland/rangeland that may provide nesting and foraging habitat for mountain plovers. The power distribution line to Pump Station 9 would cross 14.3 miles of the Glaciated Prairie Sage-steppe Important Bird Area (IBA). This IBA encompasses an extensive expanse of largely unbroken sage brush shrub-steppe and prairie grassland and supports nesting mountain plovers (Montana Audubon 2008). The power distribution line to Pump Station 10 would cross 2.1 miles of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge IBA which also supports nesting mountain plovers (Montana Audubon 2008). Both power distribution lines appear to cross through areas historically used (observed 20 or more years ago) by low densities (1 to 7 observations) of breeding mountain plovers (MTNHP and MFWP 2010). Construction of these power distribution lines would not likely increase the collision hazards for mountain plovers as they normally fly low (Andres and Stone 2009), but the distribution lines and poles could increase nest and juvenile predation hazards for breeding mountain plovers by providing vantage perches for raptors and ravens. Construction of the power distribution lines during the breeding season could also potentially disturb nesting and brood-rearing birds. Keystone would not construct or operate these electrical distribution lines, but would inform electrical power providers of the requirements for ESA consultations with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Project to prevent impacts to nesting mountain plovers. 3.2.1.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.2.1.5
Conservation Measures
Steele City Segment To avoid impacts to mountain plovers, Keystone would implement the following measures:
To minimize destruction of nests and disturbance of breeding mountain plovers; no construction, reclamation, or other ground disturbing activities will occur from April 10 to July 10 unless surveys consistent with the Plover Guidelines or other methods approved by the USFWS find that no plovers are nesting in the area. Potential mountain plover habitat must be surveyed three times between April 10 and July 10, with each survey separated by at least 14 days. The earlier date will facilitate detection of early-breeding plovers;
If a nest is identified, construction activities within 0.25 mile of the nest would be delayed for 37 days (typical fledging duration) or until fledging, whichever is sooner; and
If a brood of flightless chicks is identified, construction activities would be delayed for at least seven days or until fledging, whichever is sooner. 3.2.1.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been designated for the mountain plover. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the mountain plover.
3-63
May 2011
Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the mountain plover. This determination is based on Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended conservation measures identified by the MFWP and USFWS; and power providers commitment to consult with and follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS. Although it is possible that a spill event could result in an adverse affect on this species, the probability of such an event would be unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) low probability of a spill in a river reach where and when mountain plovers are present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a major river in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects. In the unlikely event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. 3.2.1.7
Literature Cited
Andres, B.A., and K.L. Stone. 2009. Conservation Plan for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus), Version 1.0. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. Childers, T.M. and S.J. Dinsmore. 2008. Density and abundance of mountain plovers in northeastern Montana. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(4):700-707. MFWP (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2005. Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana. 658 pp. Montana Audubon. 2008. Important Bird Areas. Helena, MT. Available online at: . Accessed on November 18, 2010. MTNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks). 2010. Mountain Plover – Charadrius montanus. Montana Field Guide. Available on line at http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNB03100.aspx. Accessed December 21, 2010. Smith, T.O. 2010. Comments on Keystone XL DEIS. Correspondence from T.O. Smith, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks on June 14, 2010 to Tom Ring, Montana Department of Environmental Quality. USFWS. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status and Special Regulation for the Mountain Plover. Federal Register 67(234):72396-72407. USFWS. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened. Federal Register 75(124):37353-37358.
3.2.2
Piping Plover 3.2.2.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The piping plover (Chardrius melodus) was listed as endangered and threatened December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726). Piping plover on the Great Lakes were listed as endangered, while the remaining Atlantic and Northern Great Plains populations were listed as threatened. Migrating and wintering populations of piping plover also were classified as threatened. Populations of piping plover within the Project area are considered to belong to the threatened Northern Great Plains population. The final rule designating critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover (67 FR 57638) within and along river segments bounding Nebraska has been vacated by the USFWS. The Project crosses designated critical habitat in McCone County, Montana where the pipeline crosses the Missouri River; and Haakan and Lyman Counties in
3-64
May 2011
South Dakota where primary constituent elements of critical habitat are present. Primary constituent elements of critical habitat include: on prairie alkali lakes and wetlands 1) shallow, seasonally to permanently flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, salt-encrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly salt flats; 2) springs and fens along edges of alkali lakes and wetlands; and 3) adjacent uplands 200 feet above the high water mark of the alkali lake or wetland; on rivers 1) sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river; and on reservoirs 1) sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the water bodies (67 FR 57638). Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers has been designated on the barrier islands outside of Galveston Bay, Texas (74 FR 23475), which is outside of the Project area. Historically, piping plover bred across three geographic regions: 1) US and Canadian Northern Great Plains from Alberta to Manitoba south to Nebraska, 2) Great Lakes beaches, and 3) Atlantic coastal beaches from Newfoundland to North Carolina. Wintering areas are not well known, although wintering birds have been most often seen along the Gulf of Mexico, southern US Atlantic coastal beaches from North Carolina to Florida, eastern Mexico, and scattered Caribbean Islands (Haig 1986; USFWS 1988). The piping plover’s current breeding range is similar except that breeding populations in the Great Lakes have almost disappeared (Haig and Plissner 1993). Piping plover begin arriving on breeding grounds in mid-April, and most birds have arrived in the Northern Great Plains and initiate breeding behavior by mid-May (USFWS 1994). Populations that nest on the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara, and other rivers use beaches and dry barren sandbars in wide, open channel beds. Nesting habitat of inland populations consists of sparsely vegetated shorelines around small alkali lakes, large reservoir beaches, river islands and adjacent sandpits, and shorelines associated with industrial ponds (Haig and Plissner 1993). Vegetation cover is usually 25 percent or less (USFWS 1994). The piping plover would feed by probing the sand and mud for insects, small crustaceans, and other invertebrates in or near shallow water. This species feeds by alternating running and pausing to search for prey (Bent 1929). Nests consist of shallow scrapes in the sand with the nest cup often lined with small pebbles or shell fragments. The nest is typically far from cover. Nesting piping plover have been found in least tern nesting colonies at a number of sites on Great Plains river sandbars and sand pits (USFWS 1994). Egg laying commences by the second or third week in May. The female generally chooses from several nest sites the male has constructed. Complete clutches contain three to four cryptically colored eggs (USFWS 1994). Incubation is shared by the male and female and averages 26 days. Incubation begins only after the last egg is laid and eggs typically hatch on the same day. Brooding duties also are shared by the male and female. Broods remain in nesting territories until they mature unless they are disturbed. Fledging takes approximately 21 to 35 days (USFWS 1994). If a nest fails or is destroyed, adults may re-nest up to four times (USFWS 1987). Breeding adults begin leaving nesting grounds as early as mid-July with the majority gone by the end of August (Wiens 1986, as cited in USFWS 1994). Threats to piping plover nesting habitat include reservoirs, channelization of rivers, and modifications of river flows that have eliminated hundreds of kilometers of nesting habitat along Northern Great Plains’ rivers (USFWS 1994). Eggs and young are vulnerable to predation and human disturbance, including recreational activities and off-road vehicle use. Human-caused disturbance to wintering habitats is also a threat to the continued existence of this species. Motorized and pedestrian recreational activities, shoreline stabilization projects, navigation projects, and development can degrade and eliminate suitable wintering habitat for this species. 3.2.2.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
Steele City Segment Presence of breeding piping plovers along the Steele City Segment of the Project is restricted to Montana and Nebraska. During a meeting with Keystone representatives on June 10, 2008, SDGFP stated that breeding 3-65
May 2011
piping plovers are not located within the Project area. Potential breeding habitat within the Project area for the piping plover is restricted to sandy beaches and sandbars along the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in Nebraska and alkali wetlands in Valley County, Montana. According to the USFWS Billing Ecological Services Field Office, individual transient piping plovers may be observed along the Yellowstone River but there are no breeding records within the Project area (AECOM 2009). Montana. Birds breeding in Valley County, Montana are found to breed on alkali lakes and wetlands (Atkinson et al. 2006; 67 FR 57638). Wetland and waterbody surveys conducted between May and November 2008 did not identify any suitable alkali wetlands for nesting piping plovers along the entire route in Valley County. Additional consultation with the USFWS Billing Ecological Services Field Office (AECOM 2009) indicates that historic surveys have failed to identify nesting piping plover within the Project area. Therefore, surveys are not recommended for the piping plover in Montana. Nebraska. Birds breeding in Nebraska are found nesting on sandbars and at commercial sand pits and forage in wet sand on sandbars and mud flats in rivers and associated wetlands along three rivers crossed by the Project: Niobrara, Loup, and Platte rivers. Piping plovers migrate through Nebraska during both the spring and fall. These crossings were historically identified as critical habitat for the piping plover. Personal communication with the USFWS Grand Island, Nebraska Field Office in 2008 and 2009 indicated that designated critical habitat has been vacated in Nebraska and is no longer legally recognized as such (USFWS 2008). Crossings of the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers were surveyed by Keystone in July 2008 to confirm presence or absence of suitable breeding habitat and breeding piping plovers. The full report can be found in Appendix C. One individual foraging plover was identified at the Niobrara River crossing. No nesting piping plovers were identified within line-of-sight of the ROW crossing of the Platte or Loup rivers. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the results of the occurrence surveys that were conducted at in Nebraska in 2008. Surveys would be repeated at these locations prior to construction to ensure that no nests have been built within 0.25 mile of the ROW or any areas affected by construction activities. Table 3.2-1 Results of the Piping Plover Nesting Surveys for the Steele City Segment of the Keystone XL Project State
County
Nebraska
Merrick/Hamilton
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nance
Keya Paha/Rock
River Platte River
Loup River
Niobrara River
Survey Location
Habitat Assessment
North Bank
Good habitat; sandy beach with sparse vegetation
Island
Poor habitat; dense vegetation
South Bank
Poor habitat; vegetation to bank edge
North Bank
Poor habitat; vegetation to bank edge
Island
Excellent habitat; mudflats with sparse vegetation
South Bank
Good habitat; sandy shoreline with patches of sparse vegetation
Island
Excellent habitat; sandbar with sparse vegetation
North Bank
Poor habitat; vegetation to bank edge
Gulf Coast Segment Piping plovers may be present throughout the Project area in Oklahoma and Texas when migrating to and from northern breeding grounds. The migration periods for the piping plover in Oklahoma and Texas are late February through mid-May and mid-July through September (66 FR 36038). The Tulsa Ecological Services
3-66
May 2011
Field Office recommended the identification of suitable habitat for migration stopovers by piping plovers. Areas of suitable habitat include sandy shorelines of lakes and rivers (Campbell 2003). Along the Gulf Coast Segment, these types of areas include the North Canadian River and South Canadian River in Oklahoma; the Red River at the Oklahoma/Texas state line; and the Bois D’Arc Creek, North Sulphur and Neches rivers in Texas. Along the Houston Lateral, these types of areas include the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers. Keystone worked with the USFWS to confirm that the only areas of concern were the North Canadian, South Canadian, and Red rivers for suitable habitat for migration stop-overs. Critical habitat for the piping plover has been designated in Texas; however, no critical habitat would be crossed by the Project in Texas. 3.2.2.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction The primary construction-related impacts would be disturbance and potential exposure to small fuel spills and leaks from construction machinery. The chance of construction-related spills during construction within piping plover habitat is minimal. According to Keystone’s CMRP (Appendix A), “The Contractor shall not store hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, or perform concrete coating within 100 feet of any waterbody. The Contractor shall not refuel construction equipment within 100 feet of any waterbody. If the Contractor must refuel construction equipment within 100 feet of a waterbody, it must be done in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 3 of the CMRP. All equipment maintenance and repairs would be performed in upland locations at least 100 feet from waterbodies and wetlands. All equipment parked overnight shall be at least 100 feet from a watercourse or wetland, if possible. Equipment shall not be washed in streams or wetlands.” All river crossings that provide suitable nesting habitat for the piping plover (Yellowstone, Cheyenne, Niobrara, Loup, and Platte, North Canadian, South Canadian, and Red Rivers) and migration stopover habitat in Oklahoma and Texas would be crossed using HDD, which poses a small risk of frac-out, or spills of drilling fluids. Drilling fluid spills are rare and are contained by the best management practices that are described within the HDD Contingency Plans required for drilling crossings. Most leaks of HDD drilling mud occur near the entry and exit locations for the drill and are quickly contained and cleaned up. Steele City Segment As indicated, the piping plover is known to nest within or near the Project at the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in Nebraska and Valley County alkali wetlands in Montana. No direct impacts to the piping plover or its breeding habitat would be anticipated at the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers since pipeline placement across the rivers would be completed using the HDD method. Additionally, based on consultation with the USFWS, no impacts are anticipated along the Project route in Montana (AECOM 2009). Indirect impacts could result from increased noise and human presence at work site locations if breeding plover are located within 0.25 mile of the Project. Prior to construction-related activities, including HDD and hydrostatic testing that would occur within 0.25 mile from potential breeding habitat, Keystone proposes to conduct presence/absence surveys up to 2 weeks prior to construction-related activities to identify active nest sites, in coordination with the USFWS. If occupied breeding territories and/or active nest sites are identified, the USFWS would be notified and appropriate protection measures would be implemented on a site-specific basis in coordination with the USFWS. Impacts to piping plovers from temporary water reductions during hydrostatic testing in the lower Platte River Basin would be avoided, based on Keystone’s plan to withdraw the volume of water needed at a rate less than 10 percent of the baseline daily flow and to return water back to its source within a 30-day period. Gulf Coast Segment No direct impacts to the piping plover or piping plover migration habitats are anticipated from the construction and operation of the Project in Oklahoma and Texas. The major rivers that contain suitable habitat for 3-67
May 2011
migration stopovers of the piping plover in Oklahoma and Texas would be crossed by HDD; and piping plover occurrence within or near the Project would likely be limited to individual or small flocks of migrant birds. Indirect impacts could result from migrating individuals being flushed from the Project area during construction-related activities. Since piping plovers are highly mobile, it is anticipated that individuals would move to other suitable resting and foraging habitats within the Project region. If this species happened to land in close proximity to the construction ROW during construction, its presence would be documented. Based on the linear nature of the Project and mobility of migrating individuals, potential impacts from encountering and flushing a migrating piping plover from the Project area would be negligible. Habitat loss from construction would be negligible since the major river crossings would be crossed using the HDD method and any disturbance adjacent to suitable riverine habitat would be allowed to completely revegetate following construction. Operations There are no known occurrences of piping plovers nesting within the Project area; therefore, indirect impacts during aerial and ground surveillance is unlikely to disturb nesting plovers in the Steele City Segment and during migration periods at stopover locations for the Gulf Coast Segment. However, aerial surveillance is conducted 26 times per year at intervals no greater than 3 weeks and the aircraft passes by an area quickly at an altitude of about 1,000 feet during those aerial patrols. A spill resulting from a leak in the pipeline is unlikely to affect the piping plover. The major rivers that contain suitable habitat for migration stopovers of the piping plover in Oklahoma and Texas and breeding habitat in Nebraska would be crossed by HDD. In the unlikely event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and thereby reducing the potential for piping plover exposure. Additionally, Some of the major rivers crossed by the Project which provide nesting or migration habitat for the piping plover are within or in close proximity to USDOT-designated High Consequence Areas and are subject to an intensive integrity management program stipulated by the USDOT (Integrity Management Rule, 49 CFR 195). Further, if a significant spill event were to occur, federal and state laws would require clean up. Direct contact with a crude oil spill could result in adverse effects to piping plovers due to oiling of plumage, ingestion of crude oil from contaminated plumage and prey, and transfer of crude oil to eggs and young. While these exposure routes have the potential to cause adverse effects to individuals, the probability of adverse effects to piping plovers are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of the spill coinciding with the presence of piping plover individuals, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a major river in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects (see Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). The magnitude of spill effects varies with multiple factors, the most significant of which include the amount of material released, the size of the spill dispersal area, the type of spills, the species assemblage present, climate, and the spill response tactics employed. Lighting is not expected to affect the piping plover since only one bulb would be used at each pump station above the entry door, none of which are located closer than 5 miles to a river with suitable habitat. Communication towers would be below the height that requires lighting by the FAA, and below the height where guy wires would be required for tower stability. All river crossings that provide suitable nesting habitat or migration stopover habitats would be crossed using HDD. There is limited information on the effects of pipeline temperatures in relation to surface water and wildlife. Because the depth of the pipeline is buried greater than 20 feet below the river bottom using the HDD construction method, temperature effects should be negligible. According to Keystone’s Pipeline Temperature Effects Study (TransCanada 2009), the pipeline does have some effect on surrounding soil temperatures, but the burial depth under rivers crossed using HDD would avoid any temperature effects on potentially used habitats.
3-68
May 2011
Power Lines and Substations The construction of about 426 miles of new power lines to support the Project would add to the incremental collision mortality of migrant piping plovers, especially where these power lines are located near migration staging, nesting, or foraging habitats. Piping plovers are susceptible to collisions with power lines. Construction of new power line segments across nesting and foraging habitats, including rivers, gravel pits, alkali lakes, lake shorelines would also potentially increase predation from raptors by creating perches. The construction of a new electrical power line segment across the Platte River in Nebraska would incrementally increase the collision potential for foraging piping plovers in the Project area. Based on the 2008 habitat and occurrence surveys for this species at the Platte River crossing, breeding habitat quality within line of sight of the Project centerline was considered to be of good quality. Protection measures could then be implemented by electrical service providers to minimize or prevent collision risk to foraging interior piping plovers at the Platte River crossing with the use of standard measures as outlined in Mitigating Bird Collision with Power Lines (APLIC 1994). Electrical power line providers would be responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or authorizations from federal, state, and local governments. Keystone has advised electrical power providers of their ESA consultation requirement with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure component of the Project to prevent impacts to migrating, nesting, or foraging piping plovers. Commitments from electrical power providers to comply with the requirements for ESA consultations with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Keystone XL Project to prevent impacts to nesting and foraging piping plovers are included in Appendix J. Conservation measures applicable to power lines are presented below. 3.2.2.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.2.2.5
Conservation Measures
Steele City Segment The following conservation measures would apply if construction-related activities, including HDD and hydrostatic testing, were to occur during the piping plover breeding season within suitable habitat:
If construction were to occur during the plover breeding season (April 15 through August 15), Keystone would conduct pre-construction surveys within 0.25 mile from suitable breeding habitat at the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers in Nebraska to ensure that there are no nesting pairs within 0.25 miles of the construction area. Daily surveys for nesting terns should be conducted when construction activities occur within 0.25 miles of potential nesting habitat during the nesting season.
If occupied piping plover nests are found, then construction within 0.25 miles of the nest would be suspended until the fledglings have left the nest area.
Gulf Coast Segment The following conservation measures, based on agency consultation would apply if construction-related activities, including HDD and hydrostatic tests, were to occur during the migration periods of the piping plover:
The USFWS has recommended that if this species happens to land in close proximity to the construction ROW during construction, its presence would be documented.
3-69
May 2011
Power Lines and Substations – All Segments The following conservation measure would apply to power distribution lines to pump stations which cross rivers with good breeding habitat (and within a quarter mile of each side) and between rivers and sand and gravel mining areas to reduce current and future potential for injury or mortality to piping plovers:
Distribution lines supplying power to pump stations should be marked with bird deflectors where they cross rivers and within a quarter mile of each side and between rivers and sand and gravel mining areas to reduce potential injury or mortality to piping plovers.
Additional conservation measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to piping plovers from new power lines will vary depending on the circumstances, but may also include the following measures.
Re-routing of power lines to avoid construction within ½ mile of piping plover nesting areas in alkali wetlands in Montana.
Marking of new power lines with bird flight diverters (preferably Swan Spiral diverters or Firefly diverters) within ¼ mile of piping plover nesting sites on river systems and commercial sandpit areas.
If construction of power lines occurs during the piping plover breeding season, surveys of potential riverine or sand pit piping plover nesting areas within ¼ mile of new power lines and within 2 weeks of construction to determine presence of nesting piping plovers. If nesting piping plovers are present, construction would cease until all tern chicks fledge from the site. 3.2.2.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat designated for the Northern Great Plains population of the piping plover has been vacated by the USFWS. Critical habitat is not currently designated for this population. Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers on the barrier islands outside of Galveston Bay, Texas (74 FR 23475) are outside of the Project area. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the piping plover. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the piping plover. This determination is based on Keystone’s construction plan to HDD the Platte, Loup, and Niobrara rivers, consultation with the USFWS, Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS, and power providers commitment to consult with and follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS. Although it is possible that a spill event could result in an adverse affect on this species, the probability of such an event would be unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) low probability of a spill in a river reach where and when piping plovers are present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a major river in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects. In the unlikely event of a leak, the crude oil would need to penetrate a significant amount of overburden before reaching the river, thereby reducing the risk in some cases of crude oil reaching the river and the potential for exposure. 3.2.2.7
Literature Cited
AECOM. 2009. Personal communication between L. Hanebury (USFWS) and P. Lorenz (AECOM). April 16, 2009. Atkinson, S. J. and A. R. Dood. 2006. Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, Montana. 78 pp.
3-70
May 2011
Bent, A. C. 1929. Life Histories of North American Shorebirds (Part II). US National Museum Bulletin 146. Washington, D.C. Campbell, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management. Internet website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml. Accessed August 12, 2008. Federal Register. 2009. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. May 19, 2009. Federal Register 74:23475-23600. Federal Register. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover. September 11, 2002. Final Rule. Federal Register 67(176):57638-57717. Federal Register. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determinations of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. July 10, 2001. Final Rule. Federal Register 66(132):36038-36086. Federal Register. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for Piping Plover. Final Rule. Federal Register 50:50726-50734. Haig, S. M. 1986. Piping Plover Species Distribution. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Information System Workbook I. Haig, S. M. and J. H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and abundance of piping plover: results and implications of the 1991 census. Condor 95:145-156. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (TransCanada). 2009. TransCanada Keystone XL Project Environmental Report. Revised July 6, 2009. Document No.: 10623-006. Submitted to U.S. Department of State and Bureau of Land Management by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Recovery plan for piping plover breeding n the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 160 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Atlantic coast piping plover recovery plan. USFWS, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 245 pp. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plover, Charadrius melodus, breeding n the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States. June 28, 1994. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 85 pp. + appendices. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Meeting Notes. Fish, Wildlife and Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring along the Project Route in Nebraska. Correspondence between J. Cochnar (USFWS) and P. Lorenz (ENSR). May 5, 2008. Wiens, T. P. 1986. Nest-site tenacity and mate retention in the piping plover. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota, Duluth. 34 pp.
3.2.3
Arkansas River Shiner 3.2.3.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) was listed as threatened on November 23, 1998 (63 FR 64771). This listing was based on habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or depletions due to
3-71
May 2011
diversion of surface water and groundwater pumping, construction impoundments, and water quality degradation. Competition with the Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi) in the Cimarron River also has contributed to reduced distribution and abundance of Arkansas River shiner. Critical habitat has been designated for the Arkansas River shiner in the Cimarron River in Kansas and Oklahoma and the South Canadian River in Oklahoma (70 FR 59807). The Arkansas River shiner inhabits the main channels of wide, shallow, sandy bottomed rivers and larger streams in the Arkansas River basin (Gilbert 1980). Adults usually are not usually found in quiet pools or backwaters (63 FR 64771). Studies by Polivka and Matthews (1997) in the South Canadian River indicated that this species used a broad range of microhabitat features. Microhabitat types such as bank, island, sand ridges, backwaters, midchannel, and pools were analyzed separately for abundance at all sampling locations. Bank habitat, islands, and sand ridges supported greater numbers of Arkansas River shiners than the other types. Sand was the predominant type of substrate in these microhabitats. Seasonally, adults selected bank and backwater areas in the winter and remained in islands and sand ridges during the fall, spring, and summer. In contrast, juveniles exhibited their highest numbers in backwaters; however, they also were abundant in bank and sand ridge habitats. The spawning period for the Arkansas River shiner occurs from June 1 through August 15 (NatureServe 2009). Spawning consists of pelagic, non-adhesive eggs that are broadcast and drift with the current during high flow periods. Hatching occurs within 1 or 2 days, with larvae capable of swimming within 3 or 4 days (63 FR 64771). Larvae seek out backwater pools and quiet water at the mouth of tributaries where food is more abundant (Moore 1944). 3.2.3.2
Potential Presence in the Project Area
Historically, the Arkansas River shiner inhabited the Arkansas, Cimarron, North Canadian, and South Canadian rivers in Oklahoma (63 FR 64771). The abundance of this species declined markedly after 1964. The Project crosses designated critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner on the South Canadian River in Hughes County. The reach of critical habitat on the South Canadian River begins at State Highway 54 in Thomas, Oklahoma, and continues downstream to Indian Nation Turnpike northwest of McAlester, Oklahoma (70 FR 59807). The Arkansas River shiner is known to occur in the South Canadian River and has the potential to occur in the North Canadian River. Surveys for the Arkansas River shiner were not recommended in Oklahoma as the South Canadian River and North Canadian River are proposed to be crossed via HDD. 3.2.3.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction The Project would cross both the North Canadian and South Canadian rivers in Oklahoma using the HDD method. As recommended by the USFWS, a buffer of 300 feet from bank full width would be maintained on each side of these rivers. Minimal hand clearing of vegetation within a maximum 3-foot wide path would be required within this 300-foot zone in order to allow limited human access to place the Tru-Tracker cable that is associated with the drilling equipment. Keystone would use existing roads or easements within the 300-foot buffers, which would not require additional vegetation clearing, in order to place the water pumps and intake structures for the water withdrawals. The HDD entry and exit locations are outside the 300-foot buffer, some temporary workspaces, consisting of the existing roads and easements that would be used to access the rivers to place the pumps and intake structures, would be within the 300-foot buffer. The crossings of these rivers would be in compliance with the HDD Plan. Consequently, no direct impacts to this species habitat are likely to occur from construction. HDD poses a small risk of frac-out, or spills of drilling fluids. Drilling fluid spills are rare and are contained by the best management practices that are described within the HDD Contingency Plans required for drilling crossings. Most leaks of HDD drilling mud occur near the entry and exit locations for the drill and are quickly contained and cleaned up. The HDDs of the North and South Canadian rivers would require the placement of a pump and hose within each waterbody to obtain water to the HDD operations. Keystone would withdraw approximately 270,000 gallons from the North Canadian River and 625,000 gallons from the South Canadian River for this purpose
3-72
May 2011
(note values listed in Table 2.1-5 are rounded to the nearest tenth of a million gallon). The intake end of the pump would be screened using a structure designed to prevent entrainment or entrapment of larval fish or other aquatic organisms. The structure would be constructed using 18 x 18 mesh, or the equivalent, and sized to achieve a 0.36 feet per second (fps) approach velocity. The withdrawal rates for the pumps would be controlled and would have a maximum withdrawal rate of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm), thus reducing the potential for entrainment or entrapment of aquatic species. The water withdrawals would take place in conjunction with the HDD operations and the combination of effective screening and water withdrawal rates would prevent direct impacts to the species. Each HDD is anticipated to take 30 days to complete. Once the pipeline is filled with water and pressure testing is completed, the water would be returned to the same drainage where it was originally withdrawn. Care would be taken during the discharge to prevent erosion or scouring of the waterbody bed and banks. Currently, water withdrawals for the HDD of the North and South Canadian Rivers and the hydrostatic test of these sections of pipe are scheduled to occur between November 1, 2011 and April 13, 2012, which is prior to the Arkansas River shiner’s spawning period (May 15 to August 15). Therefore, it is not expected that eggs or newly emerged Arkansas River shiner larvae would be present in the rivers during water withdrawal activities. Keystone would not withdraw water from either the North or South Canadian rivers if there is no flow at the time of the HDD operation. Operations Routine pipeline operations are not expected to affect Arkansas River shiner. There would be no maintenance of vegetation within the designated critical habitat area along the South Canadian River, or within riparian habitats along the North Canadian River. The area of the South Canadian River at and downstream of the Project’s crossing location are within USDOT-designated High Consequence Areas and are subject to an intensive integrity management program stipulated by the USDOT (Integrity Management Rule, 49 CFR 195) and would be crossed using the HDD method. Consequently, the risk of a spill in these areas would be extremely unlikely, and this minimizes potential impacts to this species. Further, if a significant spill event were to occur, federal and state laws would require clean up. The North Canadian River and the South Canadian River and critical habitat associated with this river would be crossed using the HDD method. Therefore, the pipeline would be at a minimum of 20 feet below the surface for both rivers and throughout the critical habitat area. There is no potential for heat dissipated from the pipeline to affect the habitat at these river crossings. In the unlikely event of a spill that would enter a river, exposure to crude oil could result in adverse toxicological effects to Arkansas River shiner. However, the probability of adverse effects to Arkansas River shiner are unlikely due to: 1) the extremely low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of a spill in a river reach where the Arkansas River shiner or critical habitat is present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a waterbody in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects (see Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). 3.2.3.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future federal, state, or local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species.
3-73
May 2011
3.2.3.5
Conservation Measures
The following conservation measures would apply to minimize impacts to the Arkansas River shiner if an HDD measure is not used at the North Canadian and South Canadian river crossings:
Non-HDD construction activities in the river and any water withdrawals from the river would be prohibited during the spawning period (May 15 through August 15) at the North Canadian and South Canadian river crossings unless a plan is developed in consultation with the USFWS that would minimize impacts to this species.
Water would not be withdrawn if there is no flow in either the North or South Canadian rivers at the time of the HDD operation.
The water intakes for the North and South Canadian River withdrawals would be screened to prevent entrainment or entrapment of larval fish or other organisms.
Vegetation clearing for installation of the Tru-tracker wire for the HDD crossings would be limited to hand clearing using machete or hand power tools of a path no wider than 3 feet within the critical habitat area along the South Canadian River and the habitat along the North Canadian River.
If the HDD crossing is unsuccessful and a different crossing method is required, the USFWS would be consulted to determine the measures that would be implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to this species. These measures could include salvage and relocation efforts in consultation with the USFWS.
Erosion control measures would be implemented as described in the CMRP (Appendix A). Erosion and sediment controls would be monitored daily during construction to ensure effectiveness, particularly after storm events, and only the most effective techniques would be used. 3.2.3.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat The Project “is not likely to adversely modify” designated critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner at the South Canadian River crossing. Effect on the Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Arkansas River shiner. This determination is based on Keystone’s plan to HDD the South Canadian and North Canadian rivers, Keystone’s commitment to only remove a minimal amount of vegetation at these rivers, and Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended mitigation measures of the USFWS. As a result no direct or indirect impacts are likely to result from construction and operation of the Project. Although it is possible that a spill event could result in an adverse affect on this species, the probability of such an event would be unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of a spill in a river reach where Arkansas River shiners are present, and 3) the low probability of the spill reaching a major river in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects. The major rivers that contain Arkansas River shiner habitat would be crossed using the HDD method. 3.2.3.7
Literature Cited
Federal Register. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) as Threatened. Final Rule. Federal Register 63(225):64771-64799.
3-74
May 2011
Federal Register. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner (Notorpis girardi); Final Rule. Federal Register 70(197): 59808-59846. Gilbert, C. R. 1980. Notropis girardi Hubbs and Ortenburger Arkansas River Shiner. In: Lee, D. S.; C. R. Gilbert; H. Hocutt; R. E. Jenkins; D. E. McCallister; and J. R. Staufer. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey Publication No. 1980-12, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 854 pp. Moore, G. A. 1944. Note on the Early Life History of Notropis girardi. Copeia 1944: 209-214. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed April 20, 2009. Polivka, K. M. and W. J. Matthews. 1997. Habitat Requirements of the Arkansas River Shiner, Notropis girardi; August 1, 1994 - August 7, 1997. Final Report, Federal Aid Project No. E-33, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 13 pp.
3.2.4
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid 3.2.4.1
Natural History and Habitat Association
The western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) was listed as federally threatened on September 28, 1989 (54 FR 39857). This plant is an erect, stout herbaceous perennial that occurred throughout the tallgrass prairies of southern Canada and the central US west of the Mississippi River (USFWS 1996; Sieg and King 1995). A 60 percent decline from documented historic levels is attributed to the conversion of much of the tallgrass prairie to agricultural land (USFWS 1996). The western prairie fringed orchid is presently known to occur in 6 states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota) and Manitoba, Canada; and appears to be extirpated from South Dakota and Oklahoma (USGS 2006; USFWS 1996). Most remaining populations are found in North Dakota and Minnesota, with about 3 percent of the populations found in the southern portion of this plants historic range (USFWS 1996). Pollination appears to be dependent on a specific group of moths: hawkmoths (Sphingidae) (Phillips 2003; Sieg and King 1995; Sheviak and Bowles 1986). This relationship has been difficult to document (Phillips 2003). The long nectar spur of western prairie fringed orchid, the longest of any orchid in North America, requires its pollinators to have long enough tongues and widely spaced eyes to allow them to harvest the pollen (Phillips 2003). Based on historic documents, hawkmoths that may be possible pollinators include Eumorpha acemon, Hyles lineata, Sphinx drupiferatum, S. kalmiae, Catacola sp., ceratomia undulosa, and Hyles galli (USFWS 1996). While western prairie fringed orchid are pollinator-specific, the hawksmoths have other nectar sources (Phillips 2003; USFWS 1996). It is theorized that a lack of suitable pollinators could contribute to the observed low pollination rates which may affect the long-term survival of the western prairie fringed orchid (Phillips 2003). The western prairie fringed orchid is most commonly found in moist, undisturbed mesic to wet calcareous prairies, sedge meadows and mesic swales (Phillips 2003; Sieg 1997; USFWS 1996). Populations of western prairie fringed orchids vary dramatically between wet and dry years, with increases in wet years, and decreases in dry years (Sieg and Wolken 1999). Soil moisture appears to be the most significant factor in the survival of individual orchids and the number of orchids flowering in a given year (USFWS 2007; Phillips 2003; Sieg 1997; Sieg and King 1995). Even though periodic fires and bison grazing were common in the historic ranges of western prairie fringed orchid (Sieg and Bjugstad 1994), it is unclear how these disturbances affected the species (USGS 2006).
3-75
May 2011
The spread of invasive plants into prairie swales have had a negative effect on western prairie fringed orchid populations (Sieg 1997; USFWS 2007). Invasive plants which may displace the western prairie fringed orchid through competition include: leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (Sieg 1997; USFWS 2007). Other threats to the long-term survival of western prairie fringed orchid include the use of herbicides, heavy livestock grazing, early haying, habitat fragmentation, river channelization, siltation, and road and bridge construction (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2007; USGS 2006). 3.2.4.2
Potential Presence in Project Area
The western prairie fringed orchid is found in South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma (NatureServe 2009). Known distribution of the species includes the entire Project area in Nebraska and south of Highway 18 in Tripp County in South Dakota (AECOM 2008; NGPC 2009). The Project is near known populations in Holt, Greeley, and Wheeler counties in Nebraska (USFWS 2009). Populations in South Dakota are possibly extirpated (NatureServe 2009), but factors that indicate the species could still be present include: 1) incomplete surveys in areas of suitable habitat crossed by the Project route on private lands, and 2) erratic flowering patterns with long dormancies that make detection difficult (Phillips 2003). Surveys to assess habitat suitability and occurrence of the western prairie fringed orchid were completed during June 2009 (Appendix H). A total of 74 sites over 95 miles of habitat were selected for surveys in Tripp County, South Dakota and throughout Nebraska based on input from federal and state agencies. Of these 74 sites, 60 were evaluated and 18 sites were determined to have high quality habitat with one western prairie fringed orchid documented in the survey corridor outside of the construction ROW at MP 662 in Holt County, Nebraska. A total of 144.73 acres of potentially suitable habitats have been surveyed for presence of the western prairie fringed-orchid. One western prairie fringed orchid has been found in a 9.25 acre wetland area that lies outside of the construction ROW; that would not be effected by construction or operation of the pipeline. Additional surveys would be completed within the Project area in suitable habitats where access has not been permitted. 3.2.4.3
Impact Evaluation
Construction Construction of the pipeline could potentially disturb western prairie fringed orchid communities when vegetation is cleared and graded. Construction of permanent ancillary facilities also could displace plant communities for the lifetime of the Project. Revegetation of the pipeline could introduce or expand invasive species, especially leafy spurge, Kentucky bluegrass, and Canada thistle into the Project area, potentially contributing to the decline of western prairie fringed orchid. Keystone has developed weed and vegetation monitoring plans to prevent the spread of invasive species as a consequence of Project construction and operation. These plans are discussed in Sections 2.13 and 4.16 of the CMRP, respectively, and would be updated prior to construction. Impacts to the western prairie fringed orchid or suitable habitats for this plant from temporary water reductions during hydrostatic testing in the lower Platte River Basin would be avoided, based on Keystone’s plan to withdraw the volume of water needed at a rate less than 10 percent of the baseline daily flow and to return water back to its source within a 30-day period and the small volume of water to be used in comparison to total basin water flow. Operations Operation of the Project is not expected to result in impacts to the western prairie fringed orchid. Clearing of trees/shrubs in the ROW would be required for operational monitoring, but since this species inhabits open, native prairie, no tree or shrub clearing would occur within suitable habitat. If herbicides must be used for noxious weed control, application would be conducted by spot spraying. Populations of western prairie fringed orchid would be identified and no herbicides would be used at those locations.
3-76
May 2011
Direct contact with a crude oil spill could result in adverse toxicological effects to western prairie fringed orchid. While these exposure routes have the potential to cause adverse effects, the probability of adverse effects to western prairie fringed orchid are unlikely due to: 1) the low probability of a spill, 2) the low probability of the spill coinciding with western prairie fringed orchid populations, and 3) the low probability of a spill reaching occupied habitats in sufficient amounts to cause toxic effects (see Appendix B, Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis). According to Keystone’s Pipeline Temperature Effects Study (Appendix K): pipeline heat may influence spring growth and production. Positive effects of elevated soil temperature on plant emergence and production have been documented. Negative effects of elevated soil temperature on plant physiology have not been documented at the temperatures that would be generated by the pipeline. The limited number of studies that have been completed on the heat effects of pipelines on vegetation indicate neutral to positive effects. Accordingly, Keystone does not anticipate any significant overall effect to vegetation associated with heat generated by the operating pipeline. Surficial soil temperatures relevant to vegetation are impacted mainly by climate with negligible effect attributed to the operating pipeline. Therefore, there would be no affects of heat dissipation from the pipeline for the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid. Power Lines and Substations The construction of new electrical power line segments could impact the western prairie fringed orchid if power line ROWs were to disturb potential habitat for this species. Protection measures that could be implemented by electrical service providers to prevent impacts to this species would be the same as described below under Conservation Measures. Electrical power line providers would be responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or authorizations from federal, state, and local governments. Keystone would advise electrical power providers of their ESA consultation requirement with the USFWS for the electrical infrastructure components constructed for the Keystone XL Project to prevent impacts to the western prairie fringed orchid. 3.2.4.4
Cumulative Impacts
A review to identify non-federal projects or activities in the vicinity of the Project was completed by searching publicly available sources, internet news announcements, permit application filings, and agency provided information. No future state, or local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Project area have been identified for the Project. Pipeline projects evaluated for cumulative impacts within the EIS would all require one or more federal permits and would each be evaluated for potential impacts on listed species. 3.2.4.5
Conservation Measures
Conservation measure for identified populations could include:
Complete presence/absence surveys prior to construction within areas identified with potentially suitable habitat where access has been denied. Submit survey results to the USFWS for review.
Reducing the width of the construction ROW in areas where populations have been identified, to the extent possible.
Salvaging and segregating topsoil appropriately where populations have been identified to preserve native seed sources in the soil for use in re-vegetation efforts in the ROW.
Restoring habitat by using an approved seed mix provided by the NRCS or appropriate state agency.
Monitor restoration of construction-related impacts to the 18 wetland habitats identified as suitable for the western prairie fringed orchid consistent with USACE guidelines which indicate monitoring for a five-year period for successful re-establishment of wetland vegetation. If habitats that were previously suitable for the western prairie fringed orchid are not successfully restored, then Keystone would provide compensatory mitigation which may include purchase of a conservation easement.
3-77
May 2011
Collecting seed to repopulate the ROW or an appropriate offsite location, or for creation of a nursery population if viable natural populations have not established themselves where they were found in preconstruction surveys.
Final conservation measures would be based on the quantity and quality of the western prairie fringed orchid population presence and would be refined based on further consultation with the USFWS. 3.2.4.6
Determination
Effect on Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Therefore, the Project would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the western prairie fringed orchid. Effect on Species The Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the western prairie fringed orchid. This determination is based on the routes proximity to the extant western prairie fringed orchid range, the presence of an identified and avoided population, the existence of suitable habitat within the Project area, Keystone’s commitment to follow recommended avoidance and conservation measures of the USFWS, and power providers commitments to complete Section 7 consultation and follow recommended avoidance and conservation measures of the USFWS. 3.2.4.7
Literature Cited
AECOM. 2008. Personal communication between C. Bessken (USFWS) and P. Lorenz (AECOM). June 11, 2009. Federal Register. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Eastern and Western Prairie Fringed Orchids. Final Rule. Federal Register 54(187):39857-39863. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid A Threatened Midwestern Prairie Plant. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Internet website: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ natural_resources/ets/fringed_orchid.pdf. Accessed April 2007. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed November 6, 2009). Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC). 2009. Nebraska Natural Heritage Program. Range Maps for Threatened and Endangered Species. NGPC. February 25, 2009. Phillips, L. 2003. Pollination of Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Platanthera praeclara: Implications for Restoration and Management. Restoration and Reclamation Review Student On-Line Journal (Hort 5015/5071). University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota (USA) Department of Horticultural Science. Internet website: http://hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015/rrr.htm. Sheviak, C. J. and M. L. Bowles. 1986. The prairie fringed orchids: a pollinator-isolated species pair. Rhodora 88:267-290. Sieg, C. H. 1997. The mysteries of a prairie orchid. Endangered Species Bulletin. XXII(4): 12-13. Sieg, C. H. and A. J. Bjugstad. 1994. Five years of following the western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) on the Sheyenne National Grassland, North Dakota. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; and Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy. Proceedings of the 3-78
May 2011
Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Department of Parks and Recreation: 141-146. Sieg, C. H. and P. M. Wolken. 1999. Dynamics of a threatened orchid in flooded wetlands. In: Springer, Joseph T. ed. The central Nebraska loess hills prairie: Proceedings of the sixteenth North American Prairie Conference, 16:193-201. Sieg, C. H. and R. M. King. 1995. Influence of Environmental Factors and Preliminary Demographic Analyses of a Threatened Orchid, Platanthera praeclara. American Midland Naturalist 134:307-323. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/ plants/index.html#westorchid. Accessed May 12, 2009. _____. 2007. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/ ORCHID.HTM. Accessed April 2007. _____. 1996. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan (Platanthera praeclara). USFWS. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Vi + 101 pp. US Geologic Service (USGS). 2006. North Dakota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Internet website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/endanger/platprae.htm. Accessed April 2007
3-79
May 2011