{"operation":"document","citation":"09000064818c98aa","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment for Columbia Gas transmission, Line R-701 natural gas transmission pipeline located in Lawrence County, Ohio","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0345 August 2014 Columbia Gas Transmission Company 1700 MacCorkle Ave SE Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 Area - 3 Area - 2 Area - 1 Lawrence County Wayne County Prepared by ecology and environment, inc. Global Environmental Specialists... Burlington to Jackson PHMSA‐2008‐0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 conditions, will provide the least impact to environment, residents, surrounding land uses, operating requirements, and Columbia Gas’s existing customers.  Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reductions. This alternative...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98aa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98aa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98aa","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2008-0345-0015/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDRAFT\nPHMSA Special Permit Application\nEnvironmental Information Submittal\nEnvironmental Assessment\nSpecial Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0345\nAugust 2014\nColumbia Gas Transmission Company\n1700 MacCorkle Ave SE\nCharleston, West Virginia 25325-1273\nArea - 3\nArea - 2\nArea - 1\nLawrence\nCounty\nWayne\nCounty\nPrepared by\necology and environment, inc.\nGlobal Environmental Specialists\n02:1004044.0005.03/Columbia *EA Cover2.ai-8/22/14-GRA\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application\nEnvironmental Information Submittal\nEnvironmental Assessment\nSpecial Permit No: PHMSA-2008-0345\nAugust 2014\nPrepared for:\nCOLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY\n1700 MacCorkle Ave SE\nPO Box 1273\nCharleston, West Virginia 25325-1273\nPrepared by:\nECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.\n368 Pleasant View Drive\nLancaster, New York 14086\n©2014 Ecology and Environment, Inc.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nTable of Contents\nSection Page\nList of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii\nList of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..iii\nAcronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………………iv\n1.0 Background ................................................................................................................. 1\n2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 2\n3.0 4.0 5.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 3\nAffected Resources and Environmental Consequences ................................................. 4\n4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 4\n4.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 5\n4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6\n4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 6\n4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation .......................................................................................... 6\n4.4.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 7\n4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species ..................................................................... 7\n4.5 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 8\n4.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 8\n4.7 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 8\n4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 9\n4.9 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 10\n4.10 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................................ 11\n4.11 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 12\n4.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 12\n4.13 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 13\n4.14 Safety ................................................................................................................................ 13\n4.15 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 14\n4.16 Topography ....................................................................................................................... 14\n4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 15\n4.18 Floodplains ........................................................................................................................ 15\n4.19 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 15\nAlternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative ................... 16\n5.1 5.2 5.3 Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions ........................................................... 16\nAlternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reduction ................................ 17\nAlternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement ..................................... 18\n6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 18\nAppendices\nA Figures\nB Site Reconnaissance Report\nC Federal and State Protected Species\nii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nList of Tables\nTable Page\n1. Special Permit Segment Areas………………………………………………………………………….………………………2\n2. Nearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area…………………………………………….………………………..….15\nList of Figures (Appendix A)\nFigure\n1. Project Location\n2a. Area 1 Aerial Imagery\n2b. Area 2 Aerial Imagery\n2c. Area 3 Aerial Imagery\n3. Land Use/Land Cover\n4. Geology\n5. Recreational Opportunities\n6. SSURGO Soils\n7. Water Resources\n8. Cultural Resources\n9. Ecoregions\n10. Seismic Hazard\n11. Mineral Resources\niii\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA‐2008‐0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nColumbia Gas Columbia Gas Transmission Company\nDOT Department of Transportation\nEA Environmental Assessment\nEO Executive Order\nESA Endangered Species Act\nFEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency\nFERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nMAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure\nNEPA National Environmental Policy Act\nNGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum\nNRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service\nNRHP National Register of Historic Places\nNWI National Wetlands Inventory\nODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources\nOHPO Ohio Historic Preservation Office\nPHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPIR Potential Impact Radius\nROW Right‐Of‐Way\nSSA Sole Source Aquifer\nU.S.C. Unites States Code\nUSACE United States Army Corps of Engineers\nUSCB United States Census Bureau\nUSDA United States Department of Agriculture\nUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency\nUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service\nUSGS United States Geological Survey\niv\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n1.0 Background\nOn April 13, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) granted\nColumbia Gas Transmission Company (Columbia Gas) a special permit (PHMSA-2008-0345) to operate\nspecial permit segments of the Line R-701 natural gas transmission pipeline at the current maximum\nallowable operating pressure (MAOP), where a change in class locations occurred from Class 1 to Class\n3. The special permit allows Columbia Gas to continue to operate the three pipeline segments at their\nexisting MAOP without replacement subject to several stringent conditions. The Special Permit PHMSA-\n2008-0345 applies to three natural gas pipeline segments on the 24-inch Line R-701 pipeline operated\nby Columbia Gas located in Lawrence County, Ohio.\nThis Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Columbia Gas to assist PHMSA in preparation of\ntheir EA in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 – 4375, and the Council on\nEnvironmental Quality regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500-1508. NEPA requires\nthat federal agencies analyze a proposed federal action to determine whether the action will have a\nsignificant impact on the human environment.\nColumbia Gas understands that PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public\nsafety and the environment that could result from their decision to grant or deny the request. As part of\nthis analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences\nof a pipeline failure as compared to the status quo in the absence of the special permit. PHMSA may\ngrant the special permit request, grant the request with additional conditions, or deny the request.\nColumbia Gas developed this EA to assist PHMSA in determining the effects of the permit decision, if\nany, on the environment.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c) and 49 CFR § 190.341, Columbia Gas understands that PHMSA may only\ngrant special permit requests that are consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA will impose conditions in\nthe special permit if PHMSA concludes they are necessary for safety, environmental protection, or are\notherwise in the public interest. If PHMSA determines that a special permit would be inconsistent with\npipeline safety or is not justified, the application will be denied.\nProvided here is a summary of the three alternatives assessed in this EA. Section 5 provides detailed\ndescriptions of these alternatives and the results of implementation of each.\n• Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions (Preferred Alternative). This alternative\nincludes the PHMSA approval of a special permit (with conditions) that would allow Columbia\nGas to continue to operate the three pipeline segments at their current MAOP with conditions\nfor increased inspection and monitoring of the segments. This option, with the potential\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA‐2008‐0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nconditions, will provide the least impact to environment, residents, surrounding land uses,\noperating requirements, and Columbia Gas’s existing customers.\n Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reductions. This alternative includes\nPHMSA denying the special permit and would force Columbia Gas to reduce its MAOP through\nthe pipeline segments. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not allow Columbia Gas to meet its\ncontractual obligations with its current customers. This alternative is thought to be non‐viable\nand was therefore not considered.\n Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement. If PHMSA denies the special\npermit, Columbia Gas would have to replace these three segments of the pipeline so that the\ncurrent MAOP could be maintained and Columbia Gas could keep its contractual obligations.\nUnlike the other alternatives, implementing Alternative 3 would impact the environment,\nresidential landowners, scenic views, and county infrastructure. The replacements required in\nthis alternative would require additional financial costs, which would increase fees for Columbia\nGas’s existing customers.\n2.0 Site Description\nThe Line R‐701 natural gas transmission pipeline originates near Burlington, Ohio, and terminates near\nMcArthur, Ohio. This special permit request involves three segments that are described and referred to\nas three areas along the pipeline in Lawrence County, Ohio. Table 1 details the locations of each. Figure\n1 (all figures are provided in Appendix A) shows the area locations, and Figures 2a through 2c provides\naerial imagery of each area.\nTable 1. Special Permit Segment Areas\nPipeline\nPipeline\nDiameter Description\nCounty,\nState\nLength\n(feet)\nBegin\nStation\nEnd\nStation MAOP\nArea 1\nLine R‐701 24‐inch Route 52 Lawrence,\nOhio 148 28+34 29+82 900\nArea 2\nLine R‐701 24‐inch Lewis Fork Road 1 Lawrence,\nOhio 544 133+06 138+50 900\nArea 3\nLine R‐701 24‐inch Lewis Fork Road 2 Lawrence,\nOhio 2,211 152+85 174+96 900\nArea 1 includes a 148‐foot segment of the Line R‐701 pipeline. This area is located adjacent to the\nnorthern limits of Burlington, Ohio, on the north side of U.S. Highway 52. The area is a maintained\nherbaceous right‐of‐way (ROW) within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and\ncommercial development. The topography of Area 1 slopes steeply to the southeast, with elevations\nranging from 597 to 680 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for mean sea level.\nAppendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 1.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nArea 2 includes a 544-foot segment of the Line R-701 pipeline. This area is located approximately 1.3\nmiles northeast of South Point, Ohio, and generally parallels Lewis Fork Road at an offset of generally\n100 feet. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of\nresidences, agriculture, and forested areas. The topography is relatively flat with a few gently rolling\nhills, with elevations ranging from 596 to 614 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B\nincludes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 2.\nArea 3 includes a 2,211-foot segment of the Line R-701 pipeline. This area is located approximately 1.5\nmiles northeast of South Point, Ohio, and generally parallels Lewis Fork Road at an offset of generally\n100 feet. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of\nresidences, agriculture, and forested areas. The topography is gently rolling with one steep hill located in\nthe center of Area 3, and elevations ranging from 615 to 725 feet above NGVD for mean sea level.\nAppendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 3.\nOn August 13, 2014, a field team consisting of two qualified biologists visited these areas to document\nenvironmental resources on or immediately adjacent to the areas. Appendix B contains the site\nreconnaissance report from this event. There are no schools, libraries, playgrounds, parks, theatres, or\nhospitals on, or immediately adjacent to, these three areas. Based on U.S. Census data (United States\nCensus Bureau [USCB] 2010), the population of Lawrence County was 62,450 in 2010 and the median\nhousehold income was $40,244.\n3.0 Purpose and Need\nThe purpose of this EA is to identify resources associated with the natural and human environment as\nthey relate to Areas 1, 2, and 3. This EA has been prepared to accompany a special permit petition to\nPHMSA for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) for Areas 1, 2, and 3, which experienced\nclass location changes from Class 1 to Class 3.\nCoverage of the identified areas under the special permit will allow the continued operation of the\nidentified segments of the pipeline at the existing MAOP without pipeline replacement and its\nassociated cost and impacts. The existing Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0345 contains numerous\nconditions to ensure and manage the operation, maintenance, design, and integrity threats for the\ncovered pipelines. The special permit imposes stringent conditions over, not only the special permit\nsegments (the areas identified in the permit where the class changes have occurred), but also an area\ncorresponding to 25 miles on each side of the special permit segments or the closest upstream or\ndownstream pig launcher/receiver. The aggressive assessment, review, and management of the length\nof pipeline covered under the special permit far outweighs the public safety benefit that would be\nobtained through the replacement of the relatively small areas of identified Class 3 pipeline. The actions\nspecified in these special permits will help ensure pipeline and public safety to a much larger area than\nwould be gained through pipe replacement.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nIn addition, replacement of the pipeline areas would involve the ground disturbance during excavation\nfor the installation of the new pipe and removal of the old pipe within the vicinity of the identified areas\nwith associated environmental and other impacts. Avoiding outages associated with Class 3 upgrades\nensures reliable gas transportation and delivery for customers and avoids the need for gas blow downs\nto the atmosphere.\n4.0 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences\nThe following sections provide the potential affected resources and environmental consequences for\neach area in accordance with PHMSA’s Guidance for Special Permit Applications on Providing\nEnvironmental Information (PHMSA n.d.). These are as follows:\n• Aesthetics\n• Land Use\n• Agricultural Resources\n• Noise\n• Air Quality\n• Biological Resources\n• Climate Change\n• Cultural Resources\n• Environmental Justice\n• Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources\n• Hazardous Materials\n• Recreation\n• Safety\n• Socioeconomics\n• Topography\n• Transportation\n• Floodplains\n• Water Resources\n• Indian Trust Assets\n4.1 Aesthetics\nThe land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas was examined to determine aesthetics or\nvisual character within the vicinity of the areas in questions. The following subsections provide\nsummaries for each of the areas. Figure 3 shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of the three\nareas (USDA 2011).\nArea 1. Area 1 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape of deciduous forest for the\nentirety of the segment. Immediately east of the ROW and outside Area 1 is grassy space/commercial\ndevelopment with several buildings. The Ohio River Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 52) is approximately\n250 feet from the eastern edge of Area 1 (Figure 4).\nArea 2. Area 2 traverses from west to east along maintained herbaceous ROW (residential yard), Lewis\nFork Road, then a hay pasture, a driveway, and then again maintained herbaceous ROW (residential\nyard). The ROW is surrounded by deciduous forest. There are residences located adjacent to this area.\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nArea 3. Area 3 traverses from north to south along maintained herbaceous ROW through primarily\nhay/pasture and residential yards. There are residences located adjacent to this area. This segment of\nthe ROW is surrounded by deciduous forest.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to aesthetics. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative\n3 would result in a temporary, localized impact during the construction of the pipeline replacement. This\nwould be from the construction activities occurring within the three areas and any potential access\nroads or staging areas that would be needed as part of the replacement project. Once construction and\nrestoration is complete, these areas would return to their previous visual character for operation of the\npipeline.\n4.2 Agricultural Resources\nPrime farmland and farmland of statewide importance have been identified by the United States\nDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as areas of major\nimportance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. Prime farmland, as\ndefined by the NRCS, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for\nproducing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland soils have properties that are\nfavorable for the economy and produce the highest crop yields with minimal inputs of energy and other\neconomic resources (NRCS 2014). Farmland of statewide importance, as defined by the NRCS, is land, in\naddition to prime and unique farmland, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed,\nfiber, forage, and oil seed crops. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those\nthat are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and\nmanaged according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime\nfarmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may\ninclude tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law (USDA 2014).\nArea 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 1 is not underlain by prime farmland\nsoils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5 details the soils within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped\nby the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for\nagricultural purposes.\nArea 2. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), the entirety of Area 2 is underlain by prime\nfarmland soils. The prime farmland soils include the Kanawha silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes. Figure 5\ndetails the soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing\nROW within Area 2 does traverse both agricultural and residential areas.\nArea 3. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 3 is not underlain by prime farmland\nsoils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5 details the soils within the vicinity of Area 3 as mapped\nby the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for\nagricultural purposes.\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to agricultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed.\nAlternative 3 would result in temporary impacts to agricultural operations within Area 2 if the special\npermit is denied and a pipeline replacement is required. During construction, the ROW would not be\navailable for agriculture purposes. Following construction Columbia Gas would restore the ROW and\nreturn the soils so that the ROW could be once again utilized for agricultural purposes during operation\nof the pipeline.\n4.3 Air Quality\nLawrence County, Ohio, is not in a nonattainment area as designated by the United States\nEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA 2014). The county is designated as being in\nmaintenance status for particulate matter. The preferred alternative would involve no ground\ndisturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to air quality.\nExisting conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary air impacts\ndue to the use of construction equipment and vehicles. No aboveground facilities such as compressor\nstations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement; therefore, no operational\nimpacts are anticipated for air quality.\n4.4 Biological Resources\nThe following subsections detail the biological resources associated with the Project. They are as\nfollows:\n• Land Cover/Vegetation;\n• Wildlife; and\n• Federal and State Protected Species.\n4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation\nBased on the site visit, vegetation at Area 1 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape\nconsisting of a mixture of shrubland and adjacent deciduous forest. Area 2 is a maintained herbaceous\nROW within a landscape consisting entirely of residential landscape and a small pasture. Area 3 is a\nmaintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting mostly of residential landscape with\nadjacent deciduous forest.\nOrnamental grasses such as Paspalum spp. dominate the herbaceous ROW within the residential areas.\nSpecies typically found in the deciduous forests include the following: boxelder (Acer negundo), red\nmaple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red oak\n(Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), eastern black walnut (Juglans\nnigra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), black locust (Robinia\npseudoacacia), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and staghorn sumac\n(Rhus typhina).\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nShrubland species typically consist of boxelder (Acer negundo), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),\nstaghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Alleghany blackberry (Rubus\nallegheniensis), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), wild grape (Vitus\nspp.), and multifora rose (Rosa multiflora).\n4.4.2 Wildlife\nTypical wildlife species in Lawrence County include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern\nwild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American woodcock\n(Scolopax minor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrins), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon\ncinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped\nskunk (Mephitis mephitis), and the eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). All species may be found\nalong all of the areas.\n4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species\nA review United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat data, USFWS\nEndangered Species County Lists, and state natural heritage inventories was conducted to determine\nthe federally and state protected species that could potentially occur along the project facilities. No\nUSFWS-designated critical habitat is crossed by the areas.\nThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), was designed to\nprevent the extinction of native and foreign species of wild flora and fauna. The ESA defines an\nendangered species as any animal or plant in danger of extinction and a threatened species as any plant\nor animal likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future. This act makes it illegal to harass, harm,\nor kill listed species and to possess, transport, buy, or sell the species or parts thereof in the course of an\ninterstate or foreign commercial activity. A permit authorizing any prohibited activity may be issued\nfollowing a formal consultation with the USFWS.\nThe Ohio Revised Code 1531.25 Protection of Species Threatened With Statewide Extinction provides\nthe Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, the legal authority over Ohio’s\nstate-listed threatened and endangered species.\nTable C-1 in Appendix C provides a summary of the federally listed species that could occur within the\nareas.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As\nsuch, there would be no impact to biological resources as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3,\nthe pipeline replacement would have temporary impacts on vegetation and land use in the area of the\nreplacement and any associated access roads or staging areas that could be required. In addition, under\nAlternative 3 there is the potential to impact the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis\nsodalis). Indiana bats utilize forested cover types in the summer for roosting habitat. If any trees greater\nthan 5-inch diameter breast height (dbh) would need to be removed the USFWS would likely require\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nIndiana bat surveys to determine if any trees to be removed are roosting trees for the Indiana bat. The\nconstruction of this pipeline replacement would likely be subject to seasonal restrictions in order to\nminimize impacts to this species. If this alternative was selected, further consultation with the USFWS\nwould be required.\n4.5 Climate Change\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to climate change. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For\nAlternative 3, no aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be\nrequired for a pipeline replacement and, therefore, it would not likely result in impacts to climate\nchange.\n4.6 Cultural Resources\nA preliminary assessment of structures listed by the National Park Service (National Register of Historic\nPlaces [NRHP] 2014) on the NRHP within the vicinity of Areas 1, 2, and 3 was conducted. No listed\nstructures are present at or near Areas 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 6).\nColumbia Gas maintains a Coordination Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Ohio\nHistorical Preservation Office (OHPO). This agreement allows Columbia Gas to conduct minor activities\nin the existing and previously disturbed pipeline ROW without further consultation with the OHPO\nregarding cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Columbia Gas provides a summary of\nactivities and projects carried out during the preceding year under this agreement. The summary is due\neach year by January 31.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As\nsuch, there would be no impact to cultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For\nAlternative 3, Columbia Gas would need to consult with the OHPO to determine if any potential work\nspaces for the pipeline replacement would be sited in areas not previously disturbed by the construction\nof the original pipeline. If so cultural resource surveys would likely be required to determine if there are\nany resources present and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures if they are present.\n4.7 Environmental Justice\nAreas 1, 2, and 3 are in U.S. Census Track 511, Group Block 5. The percent minority population near\nAreas 1, 2, and 3 is 4.1 percent. The population of Lawrence County was 62,450 in 2010 and the median\nhousehold income was $40,244.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to the adjacent communities. Existing conditions would remain\nundisturbed. For Alternative 3 the construction of the pipeline replacement would be a short term event\nand would not be expected to impact adjacent communities.\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources\nAccording to the USEPA (USEPA 2012), Areas 1 and 3, and the southeastern half of Area 2 are in the\nMonongahela Transition Zone (70b) of the Western Allegheny Plateau (Ecoregion 70). Ecoregion 70 is\nmostly unglaciated, with 200 to 750 feet of local relief. Elevation is as high as 2,000 feet. The region is a\ndissected plateau composed of horizontally bedded sedimentary rock. The natural vegetation is\nAppalachian Oak Forest and Mixed Mesophytic Forest (primarily in the south). The Monongahela\nTransition Zone (70b) is one of three Level IV ecoregions within Ecoregion 70. It is made up of\nunglaciated hills, knobs, and ridges that are underlain by interbedded limestone, shale, sandstone, and\ncoal of the Monongahela Group. Primary vegetation is Mixed Mesophytic Forest (Woods et al. 1999).\nFigure 7 depicts these ecoregions.\nThe northwestern half of Area 2 falls within the Ohio/Kentucky Carboniferous Plateau (70f) of the\nWestern Allegheny Plateau. This area is a mosaic of woodland, pastureland, and cropland with mixed\ndeciduous-evergreen forests characterized by oaks and pines (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife\nResources 2013).\nHistorically, this area of Ohio has a low potential for seismic activity. According to the United States\nGeological Survey (USGS) Seismic Map (USGS 2008), there is a 2 percent probability in a 50-year period\nthat an earthquake would occur near Areas 1, 2, and 3 at an intensity that exceeds V on the Modified\nMercalli Intensity Scale. An earthquake of this intensity would be felt by nearly everyone; many people\nwould be awakened if it occurred at night. Windows and dishes would break, unstable objects would be\noverturned, and pendulum clocks may stop (USGS 2013). Figure 8 illustrates the USGS Seismic Map.\nAccording to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (USGS 2011), Areas 1, 2 and 3 are\nunderlain primarily by siltstone and secondarily by shale formed during the Pennsylvanian geologic\nperiod. Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Areas 1, 2, and 3 (USDA 2011).\nArea 1. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 1 may be underlain by Steinsburg-\nShelocta association (SsF), very steep. The SsF are well-drained soils on shoulder slopes and side slopes\non uplands. The Steinsburg soil is moderately deep and is on the upper side and the shoulder of slopes.\nThe Shelocta soil is deep and is found on the mid and lower side of slopes (USDA 1998). Figure 5 shows\nthe soils within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS.\nAccording to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there is one mineral resource (sand\nand gravel) within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the\nUSGS nearest to Area 1.\nArea 2. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 2 may be underlain by Kanawha silt\nloam (KaB), 2 to 6 percent slopes. KaB is a deep, well-drained, generally sloping soil on fans along valley\nwalls and terrace remnants at the heads of narrow stream valleys (USDA 1998). This soil is also\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\ndesignated as prime farmland. Figure 5 shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the\nNRCS.\nAccording to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources\nwithin a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest\nto Area 2.\nArea 3. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 3 may be underlain Kanawha silt loam\n(KaC), 6 to 12 percent slopes. KaC is a deep, well-drained, strongly sloping soil on fans located along\nvalley walls and at the head of narrow stream valleys. Figure 5 shows the soils within the vicinity of Area\n2 as mapped by the NRCS.\nAccording to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources\nwithin a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest\nto Area 3.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to the geology, soils, or mineral resources in the area. Existing\nconditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary impacts to geology\nand soils during construction associated with the replacement of the pipeline. Soils with the potential\nfor steep slopes, high erosion factors, or prime farmlands would require mitigation or special soil &\nerosion plans. No impacts are anticipated on mineral resources as part of this alternative. Once\nconstruction is complete the ROW would be restored to preexisting conditions and permanent impacts\nto geology, soils, or mineral resources are not expected.\n4.9 Hazardous Materials\nConstruction and maintenance of the natural gas pipelines require the use of certain potentially\nhazardous materials such as fuels, oils, explosives, and herbicides. By definition, hazardous materials\n(substances and wastes) have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the\nenvironment if spilled or accidentally released, depending on their quantity, concentration, or chemical\ncomposition. When stored, used, transported, and disposed of properly as described below, the risks\nassociated with these materials can be reduced and eliminated. The following descriptions provide\nexamples of potential activities that may require hazardous materials management:\n• Refueling and Servicing. Construction vehicles (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) and equipment (pumps,\ngenerators, etc.) generally will be fueled and serviced in designated upland areas at least 100\nfeet from wetlands or waterbodies. Any hazardous waste materials resulting from refueling and\nservicing activities are containerized and disposed of properly.\n• Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Loading and transporting fuels and other hazardous\nmaterials will meet the minimum requirements established by the USDOT and other pertinent\nregulations. Prior to transporting hazardous materials, appropriate shipping papers shall be\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\ncompleted. Vehicle drivers are trained to properly respond to and report spills, leakage, and/or\naccidents involving hazardous materials. All hazardous materials used for the Project will be\nproperly containerized and labeled at all times, including during transportation. Smaller\ncontainers will be used on site to transport needed amounts of hazardous materials to a specific\nlocation. Transfer of materials from large to small containers will be accomplished using\nappropriate equipment including pumps, hoses, and safety equipment. These smaller (“service”)\ncontainers will also be clearly labeled. Special provisions would apply to the transportation of\nexplosives.\n• Storage of Hazardous Materials. Materials will be stored only in designated material yards to be\nidentified prior to the initiation of construction. Material yards will be located at least 100 feet\naway from wetlands, waterbodies, and sensitive areas and shall be able to contain the single\nlargest quantity/unit stored at any one time, plus 10 percent. Cleanup materials, including\nabsorbent spill pads and plastic bags, will also be stored in these areas. Hazardous materials will\nnot be stored in areas subject to flooding or inundation.\n• Container Labeling. Labeling requirements for any container (including tanks) used on site to\nstore accumulated hazardous wastes will comply with proper labeling as required in 22 CFR\nSection 66262.34(f).\nHazardous wastes will be collected regularly and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and\npractices. Hazardous and universal wastes typically include used oil, used oil filters, used gasoline\ncontainers, spent batteries, and other items.\nThe preferred alternative would not involve any construction activities or the need for storage of any\nhazardous materials; as such, there is no potential for a release of hazardous materials and there would\nbe would be no impact. For Alternative 3, Columbia Gas would need to replace each segment of\npipeline. Hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and\nColumbia Gas would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan in case there is a\nrelease. This plan would outline measures taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate releases and would\ninclude any emergency contact information. By implementing this plan and these measures, Alternative\n3 is anticipated to have no impacts from hazardous materials during the construction or operational\nphase of the project.\n4.10 Indian Trust Assets\nAccording to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010), there are no federally\nrecognized Indian tribes or tribal reservations in Ohio.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to Indian Trust Assets or federally recognized Tribal Reservations.\nExisting conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative 3 would have temporary land impacts but as\nthere are no currently identified Indian Trust Assets or federally-recognized Tribal Reservations in the\nthree areas, no impacts are anticipated.\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nBurlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.11 Land Use\nThe land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas were ex","truncated":true,"body_characters":92080}