# U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment for Columbia Gas transmission, Line R-701 natural gas transmission pipeline located in Lawrence County, Ohio - **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:** Not available - **effective on:** Not available - **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:** <<>> 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 02:1004044.0005.03/Columbia *EA Cover2.ai-8/22/14-GRA <<>> DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit No: PHMSA-2008-0345 August 2014 Prepared for: COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 1700 MacCorkle Ave SE PO Box 1273 Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 Prepared by: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, New York 14086 ©2014 Ecology and Environment, Inc. <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table of Contents Section Page List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..iii Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………………iv 1.0 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 2 3.0 4.0 5.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 3 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences ................................................. 4 4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 5 4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 6 4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation .......................................................................................... 6 4.4.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 7 4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species ..................................................................... 7 4.5 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 8 4.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 8 4.7 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 8 4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 9 4.9 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 10 4.10 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................................ 11 4.11 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 12 4.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 12 4.13 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 13 4.14 Safety ................................................................................................................................ 13 4.15 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 14 4.16 Topography ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 15 4.18 Floodplains ........................................................................................................................ 15 4.19 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 15 Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative ................... 16 5.1 5.2 5.3 Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions ........................................................... 16 Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reduction ................................ 17 Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement ..................................... 18 6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 18 Appendices A Figures B Site Reconnaissance Report C Federal and State Protected Species ii <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 List of Tables Table Page 1. Special Permit Segment Areas………………………………………………………………………….………………………2 2. Nearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area…………………………………………….………………………..….15 List of Figures (Appendix A) Figure 1. Project Location 2a. Area 1 Aerial Imagery 2b. Area 2 Aerial Imagery 2c. Area 3 Aerial Imagery 3. Land Use/Land Cover 4. Geology 5. Recreational Opportunities 6. SSURGO Soils 7. Water Resources 8. Cultural Resources 9. Ecoregions 10. Seismic Hazard 11. Mineral Resources iii <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA‐2008‐0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Acronyms and Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations Columbia Gas Columbia Gas Transmission Company DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources OHPO Ohio Historic Preservation Office PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PIR Potential Impact Radius ROW Right‐Of‐Way SSA Sole Source Aquifer U.S.C. Unites States Code USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCB United States Census Bureau USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey iv <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 1.0 Background On April 13, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) granted Columbia Gas Transmission Company (Columbia Gas) a special permit (PHMSA-2008-0345) to operate special permit segments of the Line R-701 natural gas transmission pipeline at the current maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), where a change in class locations occurred from Class 1 to Class 3. The special permit allows Columbia Gas to continue to operate the three pipeline segments at their existing MAOP without replacement subject to several stringent conditions. The Special Permit PHMSA- 2008-0345 applies to three natural gas pipeline segments on the 24-inch Line R-701 pipeline operated by Columbia Gas located in Lawrence County, Ohio. This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Columbia Gas to assist PHMSA in preparation of their EA in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 – 4375, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500-1508. NEPA requires that federal agencies analyze a proposed federal action to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. Columbia Gas understands that PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public safety and the environment that could result from their decision to grant or deny the request. As part of this analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences of a pipeline failure as compared to the status quo in the absence of the special permit. PHMSA may grant the special permit request, grant the request with additional conditions, or deny the request. Columbia Gas developed this EA to assist PHMSA in determining the effects of the permit decision, if any, on the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c) and 49 CFR § 190.341, Columbia Gas understands that PHMSA may only grant special permit requests that are consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA will impose conditions in the special permit if PHMSA concludes they are necessary for safety, environmental protection, or are otherwise in the public interest. If PHMSA determines that a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety or is not justified, the application will be denied. Provided here is a summary of the three alternatives assessed in this EA. Section 5 provides detailed descriptions of these alternatives and the results of implementation of each. • Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions (Preferred Alternative). This alternative includes the PHMSA approval of a special permit (with conditions) that would allow Columbia Gas to continue to operate the three pipeline segments at their current MAOP with conditions for increased inspection and monitoring of the segments. This option, with the potential 1 <<>> 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 includes PHMSA denying the special permit and would force Columbia Gas to reduce its MAOP through the pipeline segments. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not allow Columbia Gas to meet its contractual obligations with its current customers. This alternative is thought to be non‐viable and was therefore not considered.  Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement. If PHMSA denies the special permit, Columbia Gas would have to replace these three segments of the pipeline so that the current MAOP could be maintained and Columbia Gas could keep its contractual obligations. Unlike the other alternatives, implementing Alternative 3 would impact the environment, residential landowners, scenic views, and county infrastructure. The replacements required in this alternative would require additional financial costs, which would increase fees for Columbia Gas’s existing customers. 2.0 Site Description The Line R‐701 natural gas transmission pipeline originates near Burlington, Ohio, and terminates near McArthur, Ohio. This special permit request involves three segments that are described and referred to as three areas along the pipeline in Lawrence County, Ohio. Table 1 details the locations of each. Figure 1 (all figures are provided in Appendix A) shows the area locations, and Figures 2a through 2c provides aerial imagery of each area. Table 1. Special Permit Segment Areas Pipeline Pipeline Diameter Description County, State Length (feet) Begin Station End Station MAOP Area 1 Line R‐701 24‐inch Route 52 Lawrence, Ohio 148 28+34 29+82 900 Area 2 Line R‐701 24‐inch Lewis Fork Road 1 Lawrence, Ohio 544 133+06 138+50 900 Area 3 Line R‐701 24‐inch Lewis Fork Road 2 Lawrence, Ohio 2,211 152+85 174+96 900 Area 1 includes a 148‐foot segment of the Line R‐701 pipeline. This area is located adjacent to the northern limits of Burlington, Ohio, on the north side of U.S. Highway 52. The area is a maintained herbaceous right‐of‐way (ROW) within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and commercial development. The topography of Area 1 slopes steeply to the southeast, with elevations ranging from 597 to 680 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 1. 2 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Area 2 includes a 544-foot segment of the Line R-701 pipeline. This area is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of South Point, Ohio, and generally parallels Lewis Fork Road at an offset of generally 100 feet. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of residences, agriculture, and forested areas. The topography is relatively flat with a few gently rolling hills, with elevations ranging from 596 to 614 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 2. Area 3 includes a 2,211-foot segment of the Line R-701 pipeline. This area is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of South Point, Ohio, and generally parallels Lewis Fork Road at an offset of generally 100 feet. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of residences, agriculture, and forested areas. The topography is gently rolling with one steep hill located in the center of Area 3, and elevations ranging from 615 to 725 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 3. On August 13, 2014, a field team consisting of two qualified biologists visited these areas to document environmental resources on or immediately adjacent to the areas. Appendix B contains the site reconnaissance report from this event. There are no schools, libraries, playgrounds, parks, theatres, or hospitals on, or immediately adjacent to, these three areas. Based on U.S. Census data (United States Census Bureau [USCB] 2010), the population of Lawrence County was 62,450 in 2010 and the median household income was $40,244. 3.0 Purpose and Need The purpose of this EA is to identify resources associated with the natural and human environment as they relate to Areas 1, 2, and 3. This EA has been prepared to accompany a special permit petition to PHMSA for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) for Areas 1, 2, and 3, which experienced class location changes from Class 1 to Class 3. Coverage of the identified areas under the special permit will allow the continued operation of the identified segments of the pipeline at the existing MAOP without pipeline replacement and its associated cost and impacts. The existing Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0345 contains numerous conditions to ensure and manage the operation, maintenance, design, and integrity threats for the covered pipelines. The special permit imposes stringent conditions over, not only the special permit segments (the areas identified in the permit where the class changes have occurred), but also an area corresponding to 25 miles on each side of the special permit segments or the closest upstream or downstream pig launcher/receiver. The aggressive assessment, review, and management of the length of pipeline covered under the special permit far outweighs the public safety benefit that would be obtained through the replacement of the relatively small areas of identified Class 3 pipeline. The actions specified in these special permits will help ensure pipeline and public safety to a much larger area than would be gained through pipe replacement. 3 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 In addition, replacement of the pipeline areas would involve the ground disturbance during excavation for the installation of the new pipe and removal of the old pipe within the vicinity of the identified areas with associated environmental and other impacts. Avoiding outages associated with Class 3 upgrades ensures reliable gas transportation and delivery for customers and avoids the need for gas blow downs to the atmosphere. 4.0 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences The following sections provide the potential affected resources and environmental consequences for each area in accordance with PHMSA’s Guidance for Special Permit Applications on Providing Environmental Information (PHMSA n.d.). These are as follows: • Aesthetics • Land Use • Agricultural Resources • Noise • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Climate Change • Cultural Resources • Environmental Justice • Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources • Hazardous Materials • Recreation • Safety • Socioeconomics • Topography • Transportation • Floodplains • Water Resources • Indian Trust Assets 4.1 Aesthetics The land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas was examined to determine aesthetics or visual character within the vicinity of the areas in questions. The following subsections provide summaries for each of the areas. Figure 3 shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of the three areas (USDA 2011). Area 1. Area 1 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape of deciduous forest for the entirety of the segment. Immediately east of the ROW and outside Area 1 is grassy space/commercial development with several buildings. The Ohio River Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 52) is approximately 250 feet from the eastern edge of Area 1 (Figure 4). Area 2. Area 2 traverses from west to east along maintained herbaceous ROW (residential yard), Lewis Fork Road, then a hay pasture, a driveway, and then again maintained herbaceous ROW (residential yard). The ROW is surrounded by deciduous forest. There are residences located adjacent to this area. 4 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Area 3. Area 3 traverses from north to south along maintained herbaceous ROW through primarily hay/pasture and residential yards. There are residences located adjacent to this area. This segment of the ROW is surrounded by deciduous forest. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to aesthetics. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative 3 would result in a temporary, localized impact during the construction of the pipeline replacement. This would be from the construction activities occurring within the three areas and any potential access roads or staging areas that would be needed as part of the replacement project. Once construction and restoration is complete, these areas would return to their previous visual character for operation of the pipeline. 4.2 Agricultural Resources Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance have been identified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as areas of major importance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. Prime farmland, as defined by the NRCS, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland soils have properties that are favorable for the economy and produce the highest crop yields with minimal inputs of energy and other economic resources (NRCS 2014). Farmland of statewide importance, as defined by the NRCS, is land, in addition to prime and unique farmland, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law (USDA 2014). Area 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 1 is not underlain by prime farmland soils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5 details the soils within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. Area 2. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), the entirety of Area 2 is underlain by prime farmland soils. The prime farmland soils include the Kanawha silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes. Figure 5 details the soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW within Area 2 does traverse both agricultural and residential areas. Area 3. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 3 is not underlain by prime farmland soils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5 details the soils within the vicinity of Area 3 as mapped by the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. 5 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to agricultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative 3 would result in temporary impacts to agricultural operations within Area 2 if the special permit is denied and a pipeline replacement is required. During construction, the ROW would not be available for agriculture purposes. Following construction Columbia Gas would restore the ROW and return the soils so that the ROW could be once again utilized for agricultural purposes during operation of the pipeline. 4.3 Air Quality Lawrence County, Ohio, is not in a nonattainment area as designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA 2014). The county is designated as being in maintenance status for particulate matter. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to air quality. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary air impacts due to the use of construction equipment and vehicles. No aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement; therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated for air quality. 4.4 Biological Resources The following subsections detail the biological resources associated with the Project. They are as follows: • Land Cover/Vegetation; • Wildlife; and • Federal and State Protected Species. 4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation Based on the site visit, vegetation at Area 1 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of shrubland and adjacent deciduous forest. Area 2 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting entirely of residential landscape and a small pasture. Area 3 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting mostly of residential landscape with adjacent deciduous forest. Ornamental grasses such as Paspalum spp. dominate the herbaceous ROW within the residential areas. Species typically found in the deciduous forests include the following: boxelder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina). 6 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Shrubland species typically consist of boxelder (Acer negundo), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Alleghany blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), wild grape (Vitus spp.), and multifora rose (Rosa multiflora). 4.4.2 Wildlife Typical wildlife species in Lawrence County include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrins), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and the eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). All species may be found along all of the areas. 4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species A review United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat data, USFWS Endangered Species County Lists, and state natural heritage inventories was conducted to determine the federally and state protected species that could potentially occur along the project facilities. No USFWS-designated critical habitat is crossed by the areas. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), was designed to prevent the extinction of native and foreign species of wild flora and fauna. The ESA defines an endangered species as any animal or plant in danger of extinction and a threatened species as any plant or animal likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future. This act makes it illegal to harass, harm, or kill listed species and to possess, transport, buy, or sell the species or parts thereof in the course of an interstate or foreign commercial activity. A permit authorizing any prohibited activity may be issued following a formal consultation with the USFWS. The Ohio Revised Code 1531.25 Protection of Species Threatened With Statewide Extinction provides the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, the legal authority over Ohio’s state-listed threatened and endangered species. Table C-1 in Appendix C provides a summary of the federally listed species that could occur within the areas. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to biological resources as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3, the pipeline replacement would have temporary impacts on vegetation and land use in the area of the replacement and any associated access roads or staging areas that could be required. In addition, under Alternative 3 there is the potential to impact the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Indiana bats utilize forested cover types in the summer for roosting habitat. If any trees greater than 5-inch diameter breast height (dbh) would need to be removed the USFWS would likely require 7 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Indiana bat surveys to determine if any trees to be removed are roosting trees for the Indiana bat. The construction of this pipeline replacement would likely be subject to seasonal restrictions in order to minimize impacts to this species. If this alternative was selected, further consultation with the USFWS would be required. 4.5 Climate Change The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to climate change. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, no aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement and, therefore, it would not likely result in impacts to climate change. 4.6 Cultural Resources A preliminary assessment of structures listed by the National Park Service (National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] 2014) on the NRHP within the vicinity of Areas 1, 2, and 3 was conducted. No listed structures are present at or near Areas 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 6). Columbia Gas maintains a Coordination Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Ohio Historical Preservation Office (OHPO). This agreement allows Columbia Gas to conduct minor activities in the existing and previously disturbed pipeline ROW without further consultation with the OHPO regarding cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Columbia Gas provides a summary of activities and projects carried out during the preceding year under this agreement. The summary is due each year by January 31. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to cultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, Columbia Gas would need to consult with the OHPO to determine if any potential work spaces for the pipeline replacement would be sited in areas not previously disturbed by the construction of the original pipeline. If so cultural resource surveys would likely be required to determine if there are any resources present and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures if they are present. 4.7 Environmental Justice Areas 1, 2, and 3 are in U.S. Census Track 511, Group Block 5. The percent minority population near Areas 1, 2, and 3 is 4.1 percent. The population of Lawrence County was 62,450 in 2010 and the median household income was $40,244. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to the adjacent communities. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3 the construction of the pipeline replacement would be a short term event and would not be expected to impact adjacent communities. 8 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources According to the USEPA (USEPA 2012), Areas 1 and 3, and the southeastern half of Area 2 are in the Monongahela Transition Zone (70b) of the Western Allegheny Plateau (Ecoregion 70). Ecoregion 70 is mostly unglaciated, with 200 to 750 feet of local relief. Elevation is as high as 2,000 feet. The region is a dissected plateau composed of horizontally bedded sedimentary rock. The natural vegetation is Appalachian Oak Forest and Mixed Mesophytic Forest (primarily in the south). The Monongahela Transition Zone (70b) is one of three Level IV ecoregions within Ecoregion 70. It is made up of unglaciated hills, knobs, and ridges that are underlain by interbedded limestone, shale, sandstone, and coal of the Monongahela Group. Primary vegetation is Mixed Mesophytic Forest (Woods et al. 1999). Figure 7 depicts these ecoregions. The northwestern half of Area 2 falls within the Ohio/Kentucky Carboniferous Plateau (70f) of the Western Allegheny Plateau. This area is a mosaic of woodland, pastureland, and cropland with mixed deciduous-evergreen forests characterized by oaks and pines (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2013). Historically, this area of Ohio has a low potential for seismic activity. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Seismic Map (USGS 2008), there is a 2 percent probability in a 50-year period that an earthquake would occur near Areas 1, 2, and 3 at an intensity that exceeds V on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. An earthquake of this intensity would be felt by nearly everyone; many people would be awakened if it occurred at night. Windows and dishes would break, unstable objects would be overturned, and pendulum clocks may stop (USGS 2013). Figure 8 illustrates the USGS Seismic Map. According to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (USGS 2011), Areas 1, 2 and 3 are underlain primarily by siltstone and secondarily by shale formed during the Pennsylvanian geologic period. Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Areas 1, 2, and 3 (USDA 2011). Area 1. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 1 may be underlain by Steinsburg- Shelocta association (SsF), very steep. The SsF are well-drained soils on shoulder slopes and side slopes on uplands. The Steinsburg soil is moderately deep and is on the upper side and the shoulder of slopes. The Shelocta soil is deep and is found on the mid and lower side of slopes (USDA 1998). Figure 5 shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there is one mineral resource (sand and gravel) within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 1. Area 2. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 2 may be underlain by Kanawha silt loam (KaB), 2 to 6 percent slopes. KaB is a deep, well-drained, generally sloping soil on fans along valley walls and terrace remnants at the heads of narrow stream valleys (USDA 1998). This soil is also 9 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 designated as prime farmland. Figure 5 shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 2. Area 3. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014) shows that Area 3 may be underlain Kanawha silt loam (KaC), 6 to 12 percent slopes. KaC is a deep, well-drained, strongly sloping soil on fans located along valley walls and at the head of narrow stream valleys. Figure 5 shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 3. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to the geology, soils, or mineral resources in the area. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary impacts to geology and soils during construction associated with the replacement of the pipeline. Soils with the potential for steep slopes, high erosion factors, or prime farmlands would require mitigation or special soil & erosion plans. No impacts are anticipated on mineral resources as part of this alternative. Once construction is complete the ROW would be restored to preexisting conditions and permanent impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources are not expected. 4.9 Hazardous Materials Construction and maintenance of the natural gas pipelines require the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, explosives, and herbicides. By definition, hazardous materials (substances and wastes) have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment if spilled or accidentally released, depending on their quantity, concentration, or chemical composition. When stored, used, transported, and disposed of properly as described below, the risks associated with these materials can be reduced and eliminated. The following descriptions provide examples of potential activities that may require hazardous materials management: • Refueling and Servicing. Construction vehicles (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) and equipment (pumps, generators, etc.) generally will be fueled and serviced in designated upland areas at least 100 feet from wetlands or waterbodies. Any hazardous waste materials resulting from refueling and servicing activities are containerized and disposed of properly. • Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Loading and transporting fuels and other hazardous materials will meet the minimum requirements established by the USDOT and other pertinent regulations. Prior to transporting hazardous materials, appropriate shipping papers shall be 10 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 completed. Vehicle drivers are trained to properly respond to and report spills, leakage, and/or accidents involving hazardous materials. All hazardous materials used for the Project will be properly containerized and labeled at all times, including during transportation. Smaller containers will be used on site to transport needed amounts of hazardous materials to a specific location. Transfer of materials from large to small containers will be accomplished using appropriate equipment including pumps, hoses, and safety equipment. These smaller (“service”) containers will also be clearly labeled. Special provisions would apply to the transportation of explosives. • Storage of Hazardous Materials. Materials will be stored only in designated material yards to be identified prior to the initiation of construction. Material yards will be located at least 100 feet away from wetlands, waterbodies, and sensitive areas and shall be able to contain the single largest quantity/unit stored at any one time, plus 10 percent. Cleanup materials, including absorbent spill pads and plastic bags, will also be stored in these areas. Hazardous materials will not be stored in areas subject to flooding or inundation. • Container Labeling. Labeling requirements for any container (including tanks) used on site to store accumulated hazardous wastes will comply with proper labeling as required in 22 CFR Section 66262.34(f). Hazardous wastes will be collected regularly and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and practices. Hazardous and universal wastes typically include used oil, used oil filters, used gasoline containers, spent batteries, and other items. The preferred alternative would not involve any construction activities or the need for storage of any hazardous materials; as such, there is no potential for a release of hazardous materials and there would be would be no impact. For Alternative 3, Columbia Gas would need to replace each segment of pipeline. Hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and Columbia Gas would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan in case there is a release. This plan would outline measures taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate releases and would include any emergency contact information. By implementing this plan and these measures, Alternative 3 is anticipated to have no impacts from hazardous materials during the construction or operational phase of the project. 4.10 Indian Trust Assets According to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010), there are no federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal reservations in Ohio. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to Indian Trust Assets or federally recognized Tribal Reservations. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative 3 would have temporary land impacts but as there are no currently identified Indian Trust Assets or federally-recognized Tribal Reservations in the three areas, no impacts are anticipated. 11 <<>> Burlington to Jackson PHMSA-2008-0345 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.11 Land Use The land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas were ex - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 92080