FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
In Reply Refer To:
OEP/DG2E/Gas 4
Northern Natural Gas Company
Cedar Station Upgrade Project
Docket No. PF15-32-000
§ 375.308(z)
April 5, 2016
Michael T. Loeffler
Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs
Northern Natural Gas Company
P.O. Box 3330
Omaha, NE 68103-0330
Re:
Comments on Draft Resource Reports
Dear Mr. Loeffler:
The enclosure contains the comments of the FERC staff on Northern Natural Gas
Company’s (Northern) draft environmental resource reports for the planned Cedar Station
Upgrade Project. The comments ask for clarifications of discrepancies and identify
missing information that we believe necessary to begin substantive preparation of an
environmental assessment for the project. To facilitate review of the revised resource
reports, Northern should include a matrix that identifies the specific locations in the
resource reports (i.e., section and page number) where the information requested in these
comments may be found.
When filing documents and maps, be sure to prepare separate volumes, as outlined
on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/filing-guide/fileceii.asp. Any plot plans showing equipment or piping details or other Critical Energy
Infrastructure Information should be filed as non-public and labeled “Contains Critical
Energy Infrastructure Information – Do Not Release” (18 CFR §388.112). Cultural
resources material containing location, character, or ownership information should be
marked “Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release” and should be filed
separately from the remaining information, which should be marked “Public.”
-2-
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at
202-502-8312.
Sincerely,
David Hanobic
Environmental Project Manager
Office of Energy Projects
Enclosure
cc:
Public File, Docket No. PF15-32-000
ENCLOSURE
Comments on Northern Natural Gas Company’s
Cedar Station Upgrade Project
Draft Environmental Resource Reports
Resource Report 1
1.
Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) indicates, if needed to access
inadvertent returns, a 25-foot-wide travel lane between the horizontal directional
drills (HDD) would be determined by the environmental inspector within the 50foot-wide permanent easement. Indicate where each 25-foot-wide travel lane
would be within the permanent easement or account for possible impacts along the
whole 50-foot-wide easement. The acreages of each travel lane should be
included in the pipeline construction work area acreages provided in the tables
throughout the resource reports (RR).
2.
Provide the planned locations of the pig launcher and receiver. Include a general
diagram of these aboveground facilities.
3.
Indicate what percentage (and acreage) of Northern’s planned project would
overlap with Northern’s existing maintained right-of-way (and therefore, require
no new easement).
4.
If additional temporary work space would not be set back at least 50 feet from
wetlands or waterbodies, provide site-specific justifications for the reduced buffer.
5.
Indicate how and why the acreage for the temporary construction work areas
required for construction of the pipeline is less than the acreage required for
operation of the project.
6.
Northern indicates the location of the road approaches may shift in order to gain
access to the designated workspace during construction. Indicate that this shift
would be within surveyed areas and designated workspace that are accounted for
within the RRs.
7.
Provide the results/conclusions of any geotechnical investigations or soil testing
conducted for the HDDs. Include the soil/geological information in the crosssectional diagrams. If geotechnical investigations are incomplete, indicate when
they would be completed. This should include a description of any subsurface
conditions that were identified as a result of the geotechnical investigations that
may increase the risk of HDD complications (e.g., unplanned inadvertent returns,
drill hole collapse, contamination) and a description of the measures that would be
implemented to minimize these risks, if present.
-1-
8.
Indicate if any additives are proposed to be included with the bentonite for the
HDDs. Provide a description of how Northern intends to dispose of HDD fluids.
Resource Report 2
1.
Describe the testing proposed for pre- and post-construction well assessments, if
conducted.
2.
Confirm if during construction Northern damages a well and repair is not
practicable, that it would provide another permanent source of water.
3.
Include a discussion of possible impacts from inadvertent returns to water
resources and uplands, and measures that Northern would implement to stop,
contain, and clean-up any returns.
4.
Indicate the anticipated sources and amount of water required for the HDDs. If
utilizing surface waters, indicate any measures Northern would adopt to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate impacts on aquatic resources (provide a cross reference to
RR 3 if needed).
5.
Provide a discussion on the potential impacts to shoreland and/or floodplain, as
necessitated by Northern obtaining a shoreland/floodplain alteration permit from
the Dakota County Building and Zoning Department.
6.
Section 2.2.6 states the project would not have temporary or permanent impacts on
any surface waterbodies, yet table 10.3-1 in RR 10 indicates that five waterbodies
would be crossed by the planned route. Clarify this discrepancy. Waterbodies
crossed by HDD should still be listed in RR 2.
7.
Table 2.3-1 - add a column to identify the planned crossing method of each
wetland. Also indicate which wetlands are defined as “ponds,” as noted in Section
2.2.
8.
Section 2.3.1 states that two wetlands are near approximate milepost 1.3 and
would be crossed using the open-cut method; however, only one wetland is
located near this milepost, as indicated in table 2.3-1 and in the section 2.3.2
discussions. Additionally, table 2.3-1 shows a number of wetlands (all types)
would be impacted during construction. Clarify these inconsistencies in the
information presented.
-2-
9.
Section 2.3.2 indicates that travel lanes would not be installed within PFO
wetlands for the purpose of responding to an unexpected inadvertent release of
drilling mud between the entry and exit point; however, table 2.3-1 does not
indicate any PFOs would be crossed by the project. Would travel lanes be
installed for other types of wetlands crossed by the project, as indicated in table
2.3-1?
Resource Report 3
1.
If hydrostatic test water sources include surface waters, describe the fisheries
present, indicate what impacts on fisheries might occur, and what steps Northern
would take to minimize impacts.
2.
Describe the measures Northern would implement to minimize impacts on wildlife
in the project area.
3.
Provide a discussion on noise impacts on wildlife during horizontal directional
drilling. Include a characterization of the existing noise environment.
4.
Table 3.2-1 indicates that 0.15 acre of wetland would be impacted by the activities
at the aboveground facilities. Confirm if this wetland impact is temporary or
permanent. If permanent, indicate how this is consistent with FERC staff’s
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures requirements
that aboveground facilities should only be located within a wetland in order to
comply with U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration regulations.
5.
Identify and describe the migratory bird species of special concern and their
habitats known to occur in the project area. Provide the following information:
a.
b.
c.
6.
an evaluation of the short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts on these
species of special concern by construction and operation of the planned
facilities. The evaluation should include the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the project;
project-specific conservation measures and best management practices,
developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
to protect migratory birds and their habitats and to avoid or minimize take;
and
documentation of consultation with the FWS regarding project-related
impacts on migratory bird species of special concern.
If a clearance or concurrence from the FWS is not received prior to filing an
application, provide a biological assessment.
-3-
7.
Provide records of consultations with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MNDNR) in regard to state-listed species that may be present.
Provide the survey results, and any measures developed to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts. Indicate if MNDNR has indicated that the 0.25 mile buffer is
adequate should surveys find nesting species under the MNDNR jurisdiction.
8.
Indicate which invasive and noxious species were surveyed for. Include records
of consultation (as necessary) and any measures developed to minimize the
colonization and spread of these species in areas disturbed by construction.
Include buckthorn in this discussion.
9.
Although existing access roads would be utilized in areas identified as sensitive by
the Natural Heritage Information System, provide more justification how utilizing
existing access roads would not result in impacts to these sensitive areas. If
feasible, provide the Natural Heritage Information System as Privileged and
Confidential information in the final application.
Resource Report 4
NOTE REGARDING QUESTIONS 3, 7, AND 8:
All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and
ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any
relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.”
1.
Provide the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) comments on
the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Cedar Station Upgrade Project in
Dakota County, Minnesota report (survey report).
2.
Provide any previously unfiled correspondence with the Native American tribes
contacted. Ensure that any tribe requesting project information or the survey
report receives them, and provide the transmittal letter(s) and any resulting
comments.
3.
Provide the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Report to the FERC and the
SHPO. Provide any resulting SHPO comments. Confirm that the three TCPs
would be avoided and fenced.
4.
The survey report notes the Christ Lutheran Church Cemetery is located “within
the current Survey Area” (p.5-22) and recommends avoidance of this resource
(p.6-1). Confirm avoidance of the cemetery and note this in section 4.2.2 of RR 4.
-4-
5.
Provide the avoidance information for sites 21DK0103, 21DK0104, DK-RSC-073
(railroad), and the Christ Lutheran Church Cemetery to the SHPO. File any
resulting comments.
6.
In section 4.3, specify the typical width of the survey corridor.
7.
Project alignment sheet P3-1 depicts an archaeological site not reported in the
survey report. Please explain this and identify this resource. In addition, label the
archaeological sites depicted on the alignment sheets with the site number.
8.
The following comments pertain to the survey report (appendix 4A). Please
address the comments and provide the revised text and mapping to the FERC and
SHPO.
a.
Page 1-1 indicates four previously recorded archaeological sites are located
within the survey area. Page 5-1 indicates three sites are located within the
survey area. Please clarify this.
b.
On figure 3-1, the legend indicates the “Project Study Area” (i.e., a 1-mile
radius, as defined on p.MS-1) is depicted on the figure, however, the actual
survey area is depicted on the figure. Correct the legend.
c.
Identify the typical survey corridor width in section 4.4.
d.
In sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, indicate the site is located within the boundaries
of the “Survey Area” (as done in section 5.1.1).
e.
In section 5.2 (p.5-4), clarify whether the “single artifact” mentioned is the
artifact that originally defined the site in 2006. In addition, since no precontact artifacts were identified in the surveyed area, clarify whether site
21DK0077 was considered “not relocated.”
f.
In section 5.2 (p.5-5), since no artifacts or features were identified in the
surveyed area, clarify whether site 21DK0086 was considered “not
relocated.”
g.
On figure 5-8, the planned pipeline and existing A-line are shown in the
legend, but not depicted on the figure. Revise the figure or the legend.
h.
Section 5.2.2.3.7 recommends site 21DK0104 as not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places under criteria a, b, or d. However,
section 5.2.2.3.9 recommends additional research to determine whether the
site qualifies under criteria a and/or b. Please clarify the apparent
discrepancy. In addition, if the site’s eligibility is undetermined pending
additional research, avoidance should be recommended (as for site
21DK0103).
i.
In sections 5.3 and 5.4, provide map figures identifying the locations of the
railroad and cemetery in relation to the project area. Also provide
discussions of potential impacts and recommendations for further work or
avoidance.
j.
What is the relevance of section 5.5? Are these parklands and fields being
considered as historic properties? Please clarify.
-5-
k.
l.
m.
n.
9.
In section 6.0 (p.6-1, paragraph 2), clarify the discussion for site 21DK0104
in light of comment “h” above.
In section 6.0 (p.6-1, paragraph 4) change “cannot be avoided” to “is not
feasible”.
Clarify if the two “avoided” areas mentioned on page 6-2 are the “Current
Residential Development” depicted on the mapping. If so, reference the
appropriate appendix G and H map figures since this is the first mention of
these un-surveyed areas. Note these un-surveyed areas in section 4.4
Add mileposts to the mapping in appendices A through I. Add the current
planned centerline to the mapping in appendices G through J. Label the
sites on G-4 and G-5. Depict/label DK-RSC-073 (railroad) and the Christ
Lutheran Church Cemetery on the mapping in appendices E through H.
In the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (appendix 4D) update the FERC contacts
to: Laurie Boros, (202) 502-8046, Rm. 61-37, laurie.boros@ferc.gov, and David
Hanobic, (202) 502-8312, Rm 62-49, david.hanobic@ferc.gov. In section III.7(b),
and III.7(c), insert “ the FERC,” after “Northern,”. In section IV.7(c)(vi), IV.8(d),
and IV.8(g), insert “the FERC,” after SHPO,”. Provide the revised plan.
Resource Report 5
1.
As referenced in section 5.5.1, provide the citation of the source or sources of the
studies that show that workers spend between 25 and 30 percent of their income
locally.
Resource Report 7
1.
Identify and describe by milepost any hazardous waste sites crossed or within 0.5
mile of the planned project. Describe what actions Northern would take if
hazardous wastes from any of the known sites are encountered during
construction. Further, identify what steps Northern would take if unanticipated
hazardous wastes are encountered during construction.
Resource Report 8
1.
In table 8.4-1, provide a column that indicates how far from the edge of the
construction workspace each building is. Provide landowner concurrence where
residences are within 10 feet of the construction workspace.
2.
Identify what type of crop/agricultural use would be impacted by the planned
project. Describe how Northern would deal with reduced crop yield in the years
following construction (if encountered).
-6-
3.
With respect to table 8.3-1, on alignment sheet drawings P3-1 through P3-17, the
easement crossing numerous properties is identified as “blanket” and no
permanent easement is shown on the alignment sheets for this parcel (e.g., parcel
DA-004 on sheet P3-1). Provide an explanation of what the term “blanket”
means, and how the acreage of land affected by construction and operation of the
pipeline was calculated for parcels where a “blanket” easement is indicated.
4.
Provide a discussion of any masterplan(s) that exist for Lebanon Hills Regional
Park. Indicate when the park was created and when Northern’s existing line was
installed. Detail the status of Northern’s consultations with the City of Eagan
Parks and Recreation Department concerning the planned crossing of the park.
5.
Specify what measures Northern would implement to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate possible impacts on Lebanon Hills Regional Park, and all other public
areas listed in table 8.5-1 to ensure that if possible, access is maintained and
recreational activities (e.g., sort activities, hiking, biking) or other special uses can
continue. If access would not be maintained during construction, indicate what
measures would be taken to alert the public (e.g., signage, notices, detours).
6.
Provide a discussion of cumulative impacts from the planned project and other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on Lebanon Hills Regional Park.
7.
Describe the general measures that would be used to avoid or minimize
construction impacts in residential areas and the mitigation measures to be used
for residences within 50 feet of the construction work area. Include measures to
minimize impacts on mature trees in residential areas and on swimming pools
adjacent to the construction workspace from fugitive dust.
8.
Indicate the feasibility of minimizing tree clearing on the following tracts where it
appears mature trees might provide privacy:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
DA-019A;
DA-020;
DA-024;
DA-025;
DA-027;
DA-046/DA-047-P;
DA-059;
Parcel north of DA-060;
DA-078;
DA-084;
DA-092;
DA-097; and
any other properties where mature trees provide privacy screening.
-7-
9.
Confirm in RR 1 or 8 that Northern would install safety fencing in areas around
equipment, such as that used for HDDs, to help minimize and warn people of
possible danger in these areas, especially in recreational areas.
10.
Confirm that table 8.1-2 correctly categorizes the land affected by project staging
areas. For example, Staging Area SA-0.1 is listed in the table as open land, but the
aerial photo appears to show the parcel as being in agricultural use.
11.
Provide an update of Northern’s communications with city and county officials
regarding planned developments. Provide each planned development’s location
relative to each planned project facility (e.g., distance and direction from the
pipeline), a brief description of the planned development, and, if known, the
anticipated construction timing.
12.
Rectify the discrepancy between table 8.1-2, which identifies about 1.35 acres of
staging area as being in agricultural use, while table 8.1-3 lists a total of 13.22
acres of staging area being agricultural land.
13.
Provide a description of and the need for any electrical grounding systems and
identify associated construction (location and installation method) and operational
requirements.
14.
In table 8.1-4, include the purpose and/or justification, acreage, and land use type
impacted for each extra temporary workspace.
15.
In table 8.4-1, describe what is meant by “outbuilding”.
16.
Ensure that the reroute near milepost 4.2 is incorporated into all appropriate tables,
including those that list extra temporary workspace.
Resource Report 9
1.
For each HDD or direct pipe installation entry provide the following:
a.
identify the nearest noise sensitive areas (NSA) within 0.5 mile;
b.
the estimated number of days of drilling required for each location, and
whether drilling would be done 24 hours per day;
c.
a topographic map showing the distance and direction of the nearest NSAs;
d.
the existing Ldn at the nearest NSAs. Existing sound levels must also be
reported as the daytime noise levels (Ld) and nighttime noise levels (Ln);
e.
list the time of day, duration of measurements, weather conditions, wind
speed and direction, and other noise sources present during the ambient
noise surveys;
f.
the estimated Ldn attributable to the drilling activities at the NSAs; and
g.
a description of any noise mitigation, other than relocation, which Northern
-8-
would implement during drilling activities to reduce noise impacts at the
NSAs below 55 dBA Ldn, or 10 dB over background if ambient levels are
above 55 dBA Ldn.
Resource Report 10
1.
Provide justification for the statement that energy conservation measures
would not be able to offset the demand for the 215 megawatts of generating
capacity that would be supported by the gas supply.
2.
Explain exactly how the additional compression alternative would impede
gas deliveries to other Northern customers, create operational concerns, and
possibly cause system interruptions in reliability.
3.
Provide additional discussion of why an extended road closure would be
necessary as part of the Diffley Road crossing and why Northern could not
maintain some access by utilizing different construction methods.
4.
In the alternatives analysis, Northern identifies that the planned route would
cross waterbodies, however, RR 2 does not identify any waterbody
crossings. Rectify this inconsistency. If Northern would HDD waterbody
crossings, the alternative analysis should indicate how many crossings
would be feasible for an accurate comparison of impacts on waterbodies for
each route.
5.
Where appropriate, include a column in the alternative tables for the
approximate percentage of the route that could be constructed via HDD.
6.
Provide an environmental and engineering anlysis of the alternative routes
described below that avoid or minimize impacts on Lebanon Hills Regional
Park.
a.
b.
c.
A route that deviates to the north from Northern’s existing A-Line
corridor at approximate milepost 0.5, then follows S. Robert Trail
north towards Cliff Road, and then follows Cliff Road west.
A route that initially follows McAndrews Road that completely
avoids Lebanon Hills Regional Park.
A route that initially follows McAndrews Road that turn norths and
follows Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
The analysis should include the following information so that a quantitative
comparison can be made with Northern’s planned route in this area:
(1)
the length of pipeline (miles);
-9-
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
the acreage of both the permanent and construction rights-of-way;
the size and location of any non-typical work areas required;
the number of residences within 50 feet of the edge of the
construction right-of-way;
the number of waterbodies and wetlands crossed, and the length of
each crossing;
the acres of agricultural land affected;
the acres of forest cleared;
the miles of right-of-way that would be parallel or adjacent to;
existing rights-of-way (or percentage that could overlap); and
an estimated amount of the project that could be constructed via
HDD.
Northern may supplement its response with other information that may be relevant
to the analysis of the alternative and/or with suggested modifications to the routes
that would result in fewer environmental impacts.
- 10 -