FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

 In Reply Refer To: 

 OEP/DG2E/Gas 2 

 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC 

 Docket No. CP07-208-000 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and operation of 

the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (Rockies Express) 

in the above-referenced docket. The Project facilities would be located in Wyoming, Nebraska, 

Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. 

This draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and Illinois Department of Agriculture are cooperating 

agencies for the development of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal 

and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 

The FERC staff concludes that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance 

with applicable laws and regulations, the Project sponsor’s proposed mitigation, and the staff’s 

additional mitigation recommendations, it would have mostly limited adverse environmental 

impacts and would be an environmentally acceptable action. 

As currently proposed, the Rockies Express (REX) East Project would consist of the 

construction and operation of approximately 639.1 miles of natural gas pipeline and a total of 

225,716 horsepower (hp) of new compression. The REX East Project would be part of the 

Rockies Express Pipeline System—a 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend 

from Colorado to Ohio. The Project pipeline would deliver up to 1.8 billion cubic feet per day of 

gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The Project would provide access to an additional 

16 inter- and intra-state natural gas pipelines at 20 interconnect points. Specifically, the draft 

EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the 

following natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Rockies Express: 

• 639.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
• Seven new compressor stations (Mexico Compressor Station in Audrain County, 

Missouri; Blue Mound Compressor Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge 

Compressor Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Compressor Station in 

Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Compressor Station in Muskingum County, 

Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand 

Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska; and 

• 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 13 locations 

along the proposed pipeline route and 42 mainline valves. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration 

prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the Commission receive your 

comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure 

that your comments are received and properly recorded: 

• Send an original and two copies of your comments to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street NE, Room 1A 

Washington, DC 20426 

• Reference Docket No. CP07-208-000. 

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2. 

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or 

before January 14, 2008. 

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments, 

interventions, or protests to this proceeding. See 18 Code of Federal Register (CFR) 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s Internet Website 

(http://www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User’s Guide. Before you can 

submit comments, you will need to create a free account, by clicking on “Sign-up” under “New 

User.” You will be asked to select the type of submission you are making. This type of 

submission is considered a “Comment on Filing.” Comments submitted electronically must 

be submitted by January 14, 2008. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
In lieu of sending written comments, you are invited to attend public comment meetings 

the FERC has scheduled as follows: 

January 7, 2008 6:00 pm to 10 pm 

Lanphier High School 

1300 N 11th Street 

Springfield, IL 62702 

(217) 525-3080 

Clark’s Hall Reception 

Area 

2155 E US Highway 36 

Rockville, IN 47872 

(765) 569-5794 

Zanesville High School 

1701 Blue Avenue 

 Zanesville, OH 43701 

(740) 588-4203 

January 8, 2008 6:00 pm to 10 pm 

Pittsfield High School 

201 E Higbee Street 

Pittsfield, IL 62363 

(217) 285-6888 

Greensburg Jr. High School 

505 E Central Ave 

Greensburg, IN 47240 

(812) 663-7523 

Teays Valley High School 

3887 St. Route 752 

Ashville, OH 43103 

(740) 983-3131 

January 9, 2008 6:00 pm to 10 pm 

Presser Hall 

900 South Jefferson Street 

Mexico, MO 

(573) 581-5592 

Greenwood Community 

High School 

615 W Smith Valley Road 

Greenwood, IN 46142 

(317) 889-4000 

Edgewood High School 

5005 Oxford State Rd 

Trenton, OH 45067 

(513) 867-7425 

Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral comments on 

the environmental impact described in the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meeting will be prepared. 

 After the comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and 

modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final EIS will be published and distributed by the 

FERC staff. The final EIS will contain the staff’s responses to timely comments received on the 

draft EIS. 

Comments will be considered by the Commission and cooperating agencies but will not 

serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to 

the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based 

on this draft EIS. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s 

decision. You must file your request to intervene as specified above.1

 You do not need 

intervenor status to have your comments considered.

 

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

on filing comments electronically. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

distribution and public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street NE, Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

A limited number of hardcopies and CD-ROMs of the draft EIS are available from the 

FERC’s Public Reference Room, identified above. This draft EIS is also available for public 

viewing on the FERC’s Internet website at www.ferc.gov. CD-ROM copies of the draft EIS 

have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and 

affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS or provided comments during 

scoping; libraries and newspapers in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. Hard copy 

versions of the draft EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them. 

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

External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Website (www.ferc.gov) using 

the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number (i.e. CP07-208). Be sure you have 

selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-

8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Website also provides access to the texts of formal 

documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. 

In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. Subscribing to this 

service can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically 

notifying you of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to the 

eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Website. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

 Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

REX EAST PROJECT DRAFT EIS 

Page 

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

LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................v 

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... ix 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................x 

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

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

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

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS.............................................................................1-3 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT .............................................................................1-4 

1.3.1 Public Review Process .........................................................................................1-4 

1.3.2 Summary of Scoping Comments and Responses .................................................1-6 

1.4 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES............................................................................1-8 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ..........................1-9

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 2-1

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

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

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities ........................................................................................2-2 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................2-4 

2.2.1 Areas Disturbed by Pipeline Construction ...........................................................2-4 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ........................................................................................2-7 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES .................................................................................2-9 

2.3.1 General Construction Procedures .........................................................................2-9 

2.3.2 Special Construction Procedures........................................................................2-16 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction ...................................................................2-21 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ....................................................................................2-22 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND 

POST-APPROVAL FOR ALTERNATIVE MEASURES .............................................2-22 

2.5.1 Environmental Inspection...................................................................................2-22 

2.5.2 Compliance Monitoring......................................................................................2-24 

2.5.3 Post-approval Process for Alternative Measures................................................2-24 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES................................................2-25 

2.6.1 Right-of-Way Monitoring and Maintenance ......................................................2-25 

2.6.2 Pipeline and Compressor Station Integrity.........................................................2-26 

2.7 FUTURE PIPELINE AND FACILITY PLANS AND ABANDONMENT...................2-26 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES........................................3-1

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................3-2

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................3-3

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ii 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................3-3

3.4.1 Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives ..............................................................3-4

3.4.2 Wabash River Alternative ..................................................................................3-12

3.4.3 Indianapolis North Alternatives .........................................................................3-14

3.4.4 Little Miami River Alternative...........................................................................3-18

3.4.5 Mowrey Alternative ...........................................................................................3-21

3.4.6 Deer Creek Lake State Park Alternative.............................................................3-23

3.4.7 Big Darby Creek Alternative..............................................................................3-25

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS ..................................................................................................3-28

3.5.1 McCarroll Route Variation (MP 291.0 to MP 291.3).........................................3-32

3.5.2 Rogers Route Variation (MPs 300.5 to 301.0) ...................................................3-33

3.5.3 Parker Route Variation (MP 318.1to MP 318.8)................................................3-34

3.5.4 Alverson Route Variation (MP 370.0 to MP 370.6)...........................................3-34

3.5.5 Yane Route Variation (MP 380.4 to MP 380.6).................................................3-35

3.5.6 Reynolds Route Variation (MP 381.5 to MP 382.7) ..........................................3-35

3.5.7 Morgan Route Variation (MP 384.1 to MP 385.0).............................................3-36

3.5.8 White Route Variation (MP 395.1 to MP 395.8) ...............................................3-36

3.5.9 Schulte and Oetzel Route Variation (MP 401.5 to MP 402.0) ...........................3-36

3.5.10 Minges and Schoenharl Route Variation (MP 405.1 to MP 405.9)....................3-37

3.5.11 Walther Route Variation (MP 413.7 to MP 414.8) ............................................3-37

3.5.12 Frye Route Variation (MP 452.7 to MP 453.8)..................................................3-38

3.5.13 Jones and Mowrey Route Variation (MP 458.1 to MP 458.9) ...........................3-38

3.5.14 Kile Variation (MP 477.1 to MP 477.5).............................................................3-39

3.5.15 Noll Route Variation (MP 555.4 to MP 557.3) ..................................................3-39

3.5.16 Shaffer Route Variations (MP 623.3 to MP 624.4)............................................3-41

3.5.17 Three Residence Variations (MPs 384.3, 384.4, 446.8).....................................3-41

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES...............................................3-42

3.6.1 Hamilton Compressor Station Site Alternative ..................................................3-42

3.6.2 Bainbridge Compressor Station Site Alternatives..............................................3-44

3.7 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................3-46 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................4-1 

4.1.1 Geologic Setting ...................................................................................................4-1 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources................................................................................................4-3 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards .................................................................................................4-6 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................4-12 

4.2 SOILS..............................................................................................................................4-14 

4.2.1 Soil Limitations ..................................................................................................4-14 

4.2.2 Spill/Contamination Prevention .........................................................................4-20 

4.2.3 Topsoil Segregation............................................................................................4-20 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES...................................................................................................4-22 

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources......................................................................................4-22 

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources....................................................................................4-27 

4.3.3 Impacts on Surface Water Resources .................................................................4-30 

4.3.4 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures .........................................4-32 

4.3.5 Sensitive or Unique Waterbodies .......................................................................4-33 

4.3.6 Hydrostatic Testing ............................................................................................4-39 

4.3.7 Wetlands.............................................................................................................4-41

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
iii 

4.4 VEGETATION................................................................................................................4-50 

4.4.1 General Vegetation Resources ...........................................................................4-52 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern ....................................................4-58 

4.4.3 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)...............................................................4-60 

4.4.4 Noxious Weeds...................................................................................................4-60 

4.5 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................4-62 

4.5.1 General Wildlife Resources................................................................................4-62 

4.5.2 General Wildlife Impacts ...................................................................................4-64 

4.5.3 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds....................................................................4-66 

4.5.4 Managed and Sensitive Wildlife Areas ..............................................................4-71 

4.6 FISHERIES .....................................................................................................................4-76 

4.6.1 Fisheries Resources ............................................................................................4-76 

4.6.2 Fisheries of Special Concern..............................................................................4-78 

4.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................................4-82 

4.7.1 Federally listed Species ......................................................................................4-84 

4.7.2 State-listed Species...........................................................................................4-103 

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................4-109 

4.8.1 General Land Use.............................................................................................4-109 

4.8.2 Agricultural Land .............................................................................................4-113 

4.8.3 Residential Land...............................................................................................4-120 

4.8.4 Planned Residential Developments ..................................................................4-126 

4.8.5 Recreation and Special Land Use Areas...........................................................4-127 

4.8.6 Visual Resources ..............................................................................................4-147 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS....................................................................................................4-151 

4.9.1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Project Area..................................4-151 

4.9.2 Employment .....................................................................................................4-154 

4.9.3 Housing ............................................................................................................4-155 

4.9.4 Public Services .................................................................................................4-157 

4.9.5 Transportation ..................................................................................................4-159 

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues ............................................................................4-160 

4.9.7 Property Values ................................................................................................4-162 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................4-164 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys ...............................................................................4-164 

4.10.2 Native American Consultations........................................................................4-171 

4.10.3 Comments from Other Interested Parties .........................................................4-173 

4.10.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plans.........................................................................4-174 

4.10.5 Impact and Mitigation ......................................................................................4-174 

4.10.6 Compliance with the NHPA.............................................................................4-175 

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE .......................................................................................4-176 

4.11.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................4-176

4.11.2 Noise.................................................................................................................4-192 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY ....................................................................................4-200 

4.12.1 Safety Standards ...............................................................................................4-200 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data.....................................................................................4-205 

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety....................................................................................4-207 

4.12.4 Terrorism..........................................................................................................4-209

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..........................................................................................4-210 

4.13.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................4-210 

4.13.2 Other Actions ...................................................................................................4-211 

4.13.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis...........................................................................4-217 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
iv 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 5-1 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................5-1 

5.1.1 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Geology ................................................................................................................5-2 

5.1.3 Soils......................................................................................................................5-3 

5.1.4 Water Resources...................................................................................................5-4 

5.1.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................5-6

5.1.6 Wildlife.................................................................................................................5-7 

5.1.7 Fisheries................................................................................................................5-7 

5.1.8 Special Status Species ..........................................................................................5-8 

5.1.9 Land Use and Visual Resources .........................................................................5-10 

5.1.10 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................5-11 

5.1.11 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................5-11 

5.1.12 Air Quality and Noise.........................................................................................5-12 

 5.1.13 Reliability and Safety............................................................. ....5-13 

5.1.14 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................5-13 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION .....................................................5-14 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
v 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Page

Appendix A Distribution List.................................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B Maps ..................................................................................................................B-1 

Appendix C Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Sections.................................................................C-1 

Appendix D Site-specific Construction Plans for Residences within 50 feet of the 

REX East Project ................................................................................................ D-1 

Appendix E Summary of REX Route Changes .......................................................................E-1 

Appendix F Mississippi River and Sny Levee HDD Crossing Construction Plan.................F-1 

Appendix G Waterbody and Wetland Tables.......................................................................... G-1 

Appendix H Preliminary Wild and Scenic Rivers Environmental Assessment ...................... H-1 

Appendix I Draft Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plans..........................................................I-1 

Appendix J FERC Route Variation Maps................................................................................J-1 

Appendix K References........................................................................................................... K-1 

Appendix L List of Preparers...................................................................................................L-1 

Appendix M Index .................................................................................................................M-1 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
vi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Title Page

1.3.1-1 List of Public Open Houses.................................................................................................1-5 

1.3.1-2 List of FERC Public Scoping Meetings ..............................................................................1-6 

1.3.2-1 Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process.................1-7 

1.4-1 Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations Likely Required To Be Obtained by the 

Nonjurisdictional Power Company if an Electric Transmission Line is Required 

for the Hamilton Compressor Station .................................................................................1-8 

1.5-1 Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required ..................................1-9 

2.1-1 REX East Pipeline Facilities ...............................................................................................2-1 

2.1-2 Proposed Aboveground Facilities .......................................................................................2-2

2.2-1 Land Requirements .............................................................................................................2-5 

2.2-2 Pipe Storage/Contractor Yards............................................................................................2-7 

2.2-3 Land Requirements for Aboveground Facilities .................................................................2-8 

2.3-1 Differences between the REX East Project’s Plan and the FERC’s Plan .........................2-10 

2.3-2 Differences between the REX East Project’s Project Procedures and the FERC’s 

Procedures.........................................................................................................................2-11 

3.4.1-1 Comparison of the Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives—Project Route, 

Clarksville Island Route Alternative, and Gosline Island Route Alternative 

(MPs 17.7 to 59.5).............................................................................................................3-10 

3.4.3-1 Comparison of the Indy North 1 and Indy North 2 Route Alternatives to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route (MP 274.5 to MP 444.0)...........................3-16 

3.4.4-1 Comparison of the Little Miami River Route Alternative to the Corresponding 

Segment of the Project Route (MPs 432.9 to 467.2)........................................................3-20 

3.4.5-1 Comparison of the Mowrey Route Alternative to the Corresponding Segment 

of the Project Route (MPs 446.0 to 466.2).......................................................................3-23 

3.4.6-1 Comparison of the Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route (MPs 496.9 to 502.6) ...............................3-25 

3.4.7-1 Comparison of the Big Darby Creek Route Alternative to the Corresponding 

Segment of the Project Route (MPs 494.1 to 533.9)........................................................3-27 

3.5.1-1 Summary of FERC Review of Landowner Comments for which No Feasible or 

Environmentally Preferable Route Variation was Identified ............................................3-29 

3.5.15-1 Comparison of the Noll Route Variations to the Corresponding Segment of the 

Project Route (MPs 555.4 to 557.3).................................................................................3-40 

3.7-1 Summary of Route Alternatives and Variations Analyzed in Detail ................................3-47 

4.1.1-1 Summary of Geologic Conditions Along Proposed Route .................................................4-2 

4.1.1-2 Shallow Bedrock Areas That Requires Blasting Along Proposed Pipeline Route..............4-2 

4.1.2-1 Summary of Known Mineral Resource Production Areas Within 1,500 Feet 

of Proposed Project .............................................................................................................4-3 

4.1.2-2 Abandoned Underground Mines Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route........................4-5 

4.1.3-1 Areas Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route with Moderate or High 

Susceptibility to Landslides ................................................................................................4-8

4.1.3-2 Location and Length of Potential Karst Terrain Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route... ...............................................................................................................4-10 

4.1.3-3 Waterbodies Crossed with Potential for Severe Scour......................................................4-11 

4.1.4-1 Potential Fossilferous Formations Crossed by the Project Route in Illinois.....................4-13 

4.2.1-1 Summary of Soil Limitations at Pipeline Facilities (by miles crossed) ...........................4-15 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
vii 

4.2.1-2 Summary of Soil Limitations at Aboveground Facilities..................................................4-16 

4.3.1-2 Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Construction Work Area...............................4-25 

4.3.2-1 Major River Basins and Watersheds Crossed by the REX East Project ..........................4-28 

4.3.6-1 Project Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing ......................................................4-39 

4.3.7-1 Descriptions of Wetland Types Crossed by the Project ...................................................4-42 

4.3.7-2 Wetlands Affected by the REX East Project.....................................................................4-42 

4.3.7-3 Sensitive and Significant Wetlands Affected by the REX East Project............................4-45 

4.4-1 EPA Ecoregions Crossed by the Project ...........................................................................4-50 

4.4.1-1 Vegetative Communities Occurring along the Proposed Project Route ..........................4-53 

4.4.2-1 Classified Forest Areas Crossed by REX East Project Pipeline in Indiana ......................4-59 

4.5.1-1 Representative Wildlife Species that Potentially Occur in the REX East 

Project Area.......................................................................................................................4-62 

4.5.3-1 Important Migratory Bird Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area ...............4-67 

4.6.2-1 Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project........................................................4-79 

4.7-1 Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Project Area.......................................................................................................................4-83 

4.7.1-1 Indiana Bat Survey Results ...............................................................................................4-85 

4.7.2-1 State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Project Area.....................................................................................................................4-104 

4.8.1-1 Summary of Land Uses Affected by Construction and 

Operation of the Project by State (in acres) ....................................................................4-110 

4.8.3-1 Residences Within 50 ft of Right-of-Way ......................................................................4-121 

4.8.4-1 Planned Developments Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route...................................4-127 

4.8.5-1 Recreation and Special Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route.................4-129 

4.8.6-1 Potential Visual Impacts Associated with Major Aboveground Facilities .....................4-148 

4.9.1-1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties Crossed 

by the Project ..................................................................................................................4-152 

4.9.2-1 Estimated Construction Workforce.................................................................................4-154 

4.9.3-1 Temporary Accommodations for Counties within the Project Area...............................4-155 

4.9.4-1 Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-time Equivalents within the 

Project Area.....................................................................................................................4-158 

4.9.6-1 Project Payroll and Sales Tax Revenues by State...........................................................4-161 

4.9.6-2 Estimated Annual Ad Valorem a/ Taxes (2009—2028) .................................................4-162 

4.10.1-1 Cultural Resources Surveys Status as of August 29, 2007..............................................4-164 

4.10.2-1 Tribal Consultations........................................................................................................4-172 

4.11.1-1 Proposed Compressor Stations........................................................................................4-176 

4.11.1-2 Representative Annual Average Meteorological Conditions at Compressor 

Station Sites.....................................................................................................................4-178 

4.11.1-3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................................................4-179 

4.11.1-4 Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations .........................................................4-181 

4.11.1-5 Source of Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations.........................................4-182 

4.11.1-6 Proposed Emissions for the Arlington Compressor Station............................................4-184 

4.11.1-7 Proposed Emissions for the Bertrand Compressor Station .............................................4-184 

4.11.1-8 Proposed Emissions for the Mexico Compressor Station ...............................................4-185 

4.11.1-9 Proposed Emissions for the Blue Mound Compressor Station .......................................4-185 

4.11.1-10 Proposed Emissions for the Bainbridge Compressor Station..........................................4-186 

4.11.1-11 Proposed Emissions for the Hamilton Compressor Station ............................................4-186 

4.11.1-12 Proposed Emissions for the Chandlersville Compressor Station ....................................4-186 

4.11.1-13 Total Emissions by Non-attainment Air Quality Control Regions during the Construction 

Phase of the REX East Project...................................................................4-189 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
viii 

4.11.1-14 Air Quality Modeling Impacts and Comparison to National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for the Six Natural-Gas Fired Compressor Stations....................4-192 

4.11.2-1 Project Locations with Predicted Horizontal Directional Drill Noise Impacts 

Greater than 55 DNL.......................................................................................................4-196

4.11.2-2 Project Estimated Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Areas Near the Proposed 

Compressor Stations .......................................................................................................4-198

4.12.1-1 Pipe Class Location by County .......................................................................................4-202 

4.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause .........................................................................4-206 

4.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970–1984)............................................................4-206 

4.12.2-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970–1984) ....................................................4-207 

4.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities—Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems ...........4-208 

4.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths........................................................................................4-208 

4.13.2-1 Other Projects and Activities Within the General Area of the Project............................4-211 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ix 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Title Page

1.0-1 Pipeline Location Map ........................................................................................................1-2 

2.3-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence in Uplands ........................................................2-12 

3.4.1-1 Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives.............................................................................3-5

3.4.1-2 Detail of REX East Project Crossing Location at the Mississippi River ............................3-6 

3.4.1-3 Detail of Clarksville Island Crossing Location at the Mississippi River ............................3-8 

3.4.1-4 Detail of Gosline Island Crossing Location at the Mississippi River .................................3-9 

3.4.2-1 Wabash River Route Alternative ......................................................................................3-13 

3.4.3-1 Indianapolis North Route Alternatives..............................................................................3-15

3.4.4-1 Little Miami River Route Alternative ...............................................................................3-19

3.4.5-1 Mowrey Route Alternative................................................................................................3-22 

3.4.6-1 Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative.................................................................3-24 

3.4.7-1 Big Darby Creek Route Alternative..................................................................................3-26

3.6.1-1 Hamilton Compressor Station...........................................................................................3-43 

3.6.2-1 Bainbridge Compressor Station ........................................................................................3-45

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
x 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AEP American Electric Power 

AI Agricultural inspector 

AIMP Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AQCR Air Quality Control Regions 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

BA Biological assessment 

BCC Birds of conservation concern 

bcf Billion cubic feet 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

CAA Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic foot per second 

CO carbon monoxide 

COA Conservation Opportunity Area 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA Decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DNL Day-night equivalent sound level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Dth/d Dekatherms per day 

ECMR Program Environmental Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Program 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

Entrega Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc. 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD Emergency Shut Down 

ESO Environmental Services Office 

EWPP-FP Emergency Watershed Protection – Floodplain Easement 

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
xi 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FTE Full Time Equivalents 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

gpm Gallons per minute 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HCA High consequence area 

HDD Horizontal directional drilling 

hp Horsepower 

I–69 Interstate 69 

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

ILDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

ILDOA Illinois Department of Agriculture 

ILDOT Illinois Department of Transportation 

ILEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

INDOA Indiana Department of Agriculture 

INDOT Indiana’s Department of Transportation 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

IURC Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission 

Kinder Morgan Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. 

kPa Kilopascal 

kW Kilowatt 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LNG Liquified Natural Gas 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP Maximum allowable operating pressure 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MDC Missouri Department of Conservation 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation 

Facilities 

MLV Mainline valve 

MMBtu/hr Million British thermal units per hour 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MODNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

MP Milepost 

MW Megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNSR Non-attainment New Source Review 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
xii 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise-sensitive areas 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 Ozone 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

OPSB Ohio Power Siting Board 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls 

PEPL Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

our Plan FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance 

 Plan 

PM10 Particulate matter with a particle size of 10 microns or less 

PM2.5 Particulate matter with a particle size of 2.5 microns or less 

ppm Parts per million 

our Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

 Procedures 

Project Rockies Express Eastern Phase Project 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

REX West Project Rockies Express Western Phase Project 

REX East Project Rockies Express Eastern Phase Project 

REX East Plan REX East Upland Construction Plan 

REX East Procedures REX East Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

Rockies Express Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC 

Rockies Express NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Rockies Express Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings 

RR Re-route 

Sempra Sempra Pipelines and Storage 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officers 

SIP State implementation plan 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan 

SR State road 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
xiii 

tcf Trillion cubic feet 

TETCO Texas Eastern Transmission Company 

TIME II Texas Eastern Incremental Market Expansion II 

tpy Tons per year 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

UMRSHNC Upper Mississippi River Sub-basin Hypoxia Nutrient Committee 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 

WPA Wellhead Protection Area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

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

this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the 

construction of facilities proposed by Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) in accordance 

with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This project is referred to as 

the Rockies Express East Project (the Project or the REX East Project). The purpose of this document is 

to inform the public, the FERC, and federal and state agencies about the potential environmental impacts 

of the Project and its alternatives, and to recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce 

significant adverse impacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), Illinois Department of Agriculture (ILDOA), and the National Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) are cooperating agencies and have participated in the development of this draft EIS. 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On June 13, 2006, we1

 approved a request by Rockies Express, a joint venture among Kinder 

Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Kinder Morgan), Sempra Pipelines and Storage (Sempra), and ConocoPhillips (an equity partner), to use the FERC’s Pre-filing review for this project. On April 30, 2007, 

Rockies Express filed an application with the FERC in Docket Number CP07-208-000 under Section 7 of 

the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. 

Rockies Express is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) for the REX 

East Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

As currently proposed, the REX East Project would consist of the construction and operation of 

approximately 639.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Ohio. Seven compressor stations, totaling 225,716 new horsepower (hp) of compression, and ancillary 

facilities are proposed in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wyoming. 

The purpose of the REX East Project is to provide natural gas transportation service for gas 

produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, 

Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The terminus of the REX East Project 

would be in Monroe County, Ohio. The Project pipeline would deliver up to 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) 

per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The Project would provide access to an additional 

16 inter- and intra-state natural gas pipelines at 20 interconnect points. These pipelines serve markets in 

the midwestern and eastern United States. The REX East Project would be part of the Rockies Express 

Pipeline System—a 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system extending from Colorado to Ohio. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

As part of the pre-filing process, the FERC staff worked with Rockies Express to develop a 

public outreach plan for issue identification and stakeholder participation. Rockies Express began 

implementing this outreach plan in June 2006 and sponsored 18 local, public, open houses to inform 

 

1

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

Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-2 

landowners, government officials, and the general public about the REX East Project and invite them to 

ask questions and express their Project-related comments and concerns. Two additional open houses 

were held in October 2006 to provide information on two route alternatives and an added compressor 

station. 

On August 16, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed REX East Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and 

Notice of Joint Public Scoping Meeting (Rockies Express NOI). The Rockies Express NOI was mailed to 

approximately 13,000 individuals and organizations including federal, state, and local agencies; elected 

officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and 

newspapers; other interested stakeholders; and affected landowners located along the pipeline route. 

FERC staff continued to receive and consider comments during the entire Pre-filing period and 

throughout the development of this draft EIS. FERC staff held nine public scoping meetings along the 

Project route to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the Project and comment on the 

scope of environmental issues to be included in the draft EIS. The public was also invited to attend site 

visits conducted by FERC staff, which took place on July 17-20, 2007 and August 6-10, 2007. 

Additionally, we initiated agency consultations to identify issues that should be addressed in the 

draft EIS. These consultations included interagency meetings on September 12 through September 14, 

2006 and interagency conference calls on April 3, 5, and 12 and May 10, 2006; and on May 10, June 14, 

July 24, September 18, and November 7, 2007. Participants in these meetings and calls included 

representatives of COE, FWS, NRCS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), National Park Service (NPS), Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

(IDEM), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR), State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs), Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), Indiana Department of Agriculture (INDOA), 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (OEPA), Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Farm Bureau, ILDOA, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources (MODNR), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), and Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Construction and operation of the Project would result in numerous impacts to the environment. 

We evaluated the impacts to geology, soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status 

species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, noise, and safety. We 

have proposed mitigation measures to minimize these impacts, and made recommendations to further 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts. We also considered the cumulative impacts of this 

Project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the area. Section 5.2 of this draft 

EIS contains a compilation of our recommended mitigation. 

Construction of the Project would disturb about 14,348.9 acres. After construction, 4,041.9 acres 

would be retained for the operation of the Project; this includes the permanent right-of-way, as well as 

aboveground facilities. 

In general, bedrock is buried so deeply by glacial deposits or soils that it would not be 

encountered during construction. Only about 13 percent of the proposed pipeline route and none of the 

aboveground facilities may require blasting. Mineral resources that may be affected by the Project 

include gas and oil, coal, sand and gravel, and stone. Construction of the Project may restrict the surface 

extraction of some of these mineral resources. Geologic hazards in the Project area include seismicity, 

landslides, subsidence, and flood/scour. The Project would be located in an area of relatively low seismic 

risk. The topography near the Mississippi River and in eastern Indiana and eastern Ohio makes the area 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-3 

more susceptible to landslides. The proposed construction techniques, along with erosion control and 

slope stabilization, would reduce the potential for landslides. Subsidence may occur in portions of the 

Project area due to the formation of sinkholes in karst areas or the collapse of coal mines. We have 

recommended preconstruction identification of these areas, plans for dealing with any identified issues, 

and long-term monitoring in these areas. Although flooding does not present a risk to buried pipelines, 

bank erosion and scour could expose sections of pipe or cause them to become unsupported. In areas 

with potential for severe scour, the pipeline would be buried at a greater depth. 

We believe that the implementation of Rockies Express’ proposed and our recommended 

mitigation would minimize the impact to mineral resources and the impact from geological hazards. 

The Project would disturb about 14,348.9 acres of land, 74 percent of which is classified as 

agricultural. Construction of the Project facilities would disturb soils, resulting in increased potential for 

erosion, compaction, mixing of topsoil, and the introduction rock into the soil. Rockies Express has 

proposed a number of mitigation measures, including Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plans (AIMPs) and 

an Upland Construction Plan, which would mitigate some of these concerns. We have recommended 

additional mitigation that would further reduce the impact on soils. 

Standard pipeline construction procedures could affect groundwater resources by altering 

overland water flow and infiltration rates. Because the recharge areas are much larger than the footprint 

of the Project, changes in groundwater recharge as a result of the Project should not be significant. 

However, Rockies Express would repair or replace any water supply wells damaged during construction. 

The potential for contamination from spills of diesel fuel and hydraulic fuels is also a concern. Rockies 

Express has provided a plan to reduce the potential for spills and to control and remove any spills that 

may occur. 

The REX East Project would cross 1,462 surface waterbodies: 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, 

and 672 ephemeral streams/rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Construction of 

the pipeline could result in modification of aquatic habitat, increased sedimentation and turbidity, 

decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, releases of chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, 

and introduction of chemical contaminants such as fuel and lubricants. Rockies Express has provided 

general mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on waterbodies. No long-term surface water impacts 

are anticipated as a result of constructing and operating the Project. The short-term or temporary impacts 

would be restricted to the construction through restoration phases of the Project. 

The Project would cross five waterbodies that are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

(NRI), two in Indiana and three in Ohio. Consultation on these five waterbodies is not yet complete. The 

Project would also cross two National Wild and Scenic Rivers, the Little Miami River and Big Darby 

Creek, both in Ohio. Both of these waterbodies would be crossed by horizontal directional drilling 

(HDD). If the HDD is successfully completed, no significant impact on these two waterbodies should 

occur. Additionally, we have recommended mitigation to help assure that there would be no significant 

impact. 

The Mississippi River would also be crossed by HDD. The drill would be set up on Blackburn 

Island. Because access to the drill site would be by water, dredging for a temporary dock would be 

required. Rockies Express has proposed to extend the drill to cross under the Sny Levee in Illinois. The 

Levee Board has expressed concerns about this construction method potentially destabilizing the levee. 

The Levee Board has requested that the pipeline cross over the top of the levee. We have recommended 

that Rockies Express provide further information so that we can complete our analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-4 

Fisheries in the REX East Project area are classified as warmwater fisheries. No essential fish 

habitat, as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, would be 

affected by the Project. Of the 1,462 waterbodies crossed, 51 contain fisheries of special concern. 

Twenty-eight of these waterbodies would by crossed by HDD to avoid impacts on the fisheries. We have 

recommended that any of the remaining streams with fisheries of special concern that are 30 feet wide or 

less be crossed using a dry ditch method (e.g., dam and pump or flume). A successful HDD would avoid 

impacts on fisheries, while a dry ditch crossing could result in less construction-related sedimentation and 

turbidity, thereby reducing impacts on the fisheries. Rockies Express would also implement erosion 

control and restoration measures that would reduce the impact on fisheries. 

The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance activities on wetlands 

would be the temporary and permanent alteration of wetland vegetation. Construction would disturb 

approximately 34.0 acres of emergent wetlands, 3.4 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands, and 29.2 acres of 

forested wetlands. Rockies Express has not completed about 61 percent of field delineations of the 

Project wetlands. The impact on the emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands would be temporary because the 

vegetation would be allowed to grow back. However, the clearing of forested wetlands, even for 

temporary work areas, would be at best a long-term or potentially permanent impact due to the growth 

rate of trees. In addition, about 10.2 acres would be permanently impacted by maintenance activities 

during the life of the Project. No wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of the 

Project. 

The HDD drill site for the Mississippi River would be on Blackburn Island, which includes a 

significant, forested wetland system. Approximately 5.5 acres of wetlands would be impacted by 

construction on the island, including the permanent conversion of 0.7 acre of forested wetland to 

herbaceous emergent wetland. 

Rockies Express would implement mitigation procedures to control erosion and restore the grade 

and hydrology in wetlands. We are recommending that Rockies Express replant trees in areas where 

forested wetlands would be cleared for temporary workspaces. We also recommended that Rockies 

Express prepare a wetland mitigation plan that would include reforestation of altered forested wetlands. 

The REX East pipeline route would cross 487.5 miles of agricultural and herbaceous open land 

and 144.7 miles of forested areas. Impacts from construction and operation (including maintenance 

mowing) of the Project on agricultural and open land would be temporary or short-term, while impacts to 

forested areas would be long-term to permanent. Rockies Express would implement erosion controls to 

contain disturbance to the work area. After construction Rockies Express would revegetate 

nonagricultural lands. 

The Project would affect Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands in Missouri and classified 

forests in Indiana. We have recommended that Rockies Express prepare plans that address the issues of 

constructing in these areas. The vegetation communities in Indiana include classified forests and wooded 

riparian corridors. 

Most mobile wildlife would leave the project area during construction. However, unfledged 

birds, young nonmobile animals, and slow moving animals may be killed during construction. After 

construction, depending on their habitat requirements, most wildlife would return. 

In areas where the Project does not parallel existing rights-of-way, forest fragmentation would 

result in loss of habitat to migratory birds. Rockies Express is currently consulting with FWS to reduce 

impacts to these forested areas; however, these consultations have not been finalized. The 

implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures, implementation of our recommendations, 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-5 

including an upland forest mitigation plan, and the development and implementation of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act Conservation Agreement would reduce impacts. 

Ten federally listed threatened or endangered species and three candidate species may occur in 

the Project area. The Project may adversely affect the federally endangered Indiana bat. The Indiana bat 

may occur in all of the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Because the Project is likely to 

adversely affect the Indiana bat, the FERC would request formal consultation with FWS and FWS would 

prepare a biological opinion. Our determination of effect is pending for the running buffalo clover 

because we are waiting for the results of further field surveys and consultations with FWS. The Project 

has been found not likely to adversely affect the remaining eight federally listed threatened or endangered 

species. 

Fifteen state-listed species could occur within the Project area. Of these, 14 would not likely be 

adversely impacted by the Project. A decision on the Project’s effect on the eastern hellbender is pending 

the results of further field surveys and consultations with ODNR. Impacts would be determined and any 

additional mitigation measures would be implemented for this species after surveys have been completed. 

The primary land use that would be crossed by the pipeline route is agricultural (462.1 miles or 

about 72 percent). Other land uses that would be crossed by the pipeline route include forest land (144.7 

miles or 23 percent), open land (25.0 miles or less than 4 percent), open water (1.6 miles or less than 

1 percent), and industrial/commercial land (4.0 miles or less than 1 percent). About 85 percent of the land 

that would be used for aboveground facilities is agricultural. During operation of the Project, the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground facilities would affect 2,944.2 acres of agricultural 

land. After construction, areas within the permanent right-of-way would generally be allowed to revert to 

preconstruction usage with certain restrictions, such as no permanent structures or trees would be allowed. 

Rockies Express has proposed to compensate landowners for reduced crop yields due to 

construction of pipeline facilities and use of the easement. Construction of the pipeline may affect the 

fertility of the agricultural fields for several years. We have recommended that Rockies Express develop 

and implement a five-year post-construction monitoring program to evaluate crop productivity in areas 

impacted by construction of the Project. Rockies Express has developed AIMPs for Illinois, Indiana, and 

Ohio for dealing with construction and restoration issues unique to agricultural areas. We have 

recommended that Rockies Express also prepare an AIMP for Missouri. Issues of concern identified in 

agricultural areas include drain tile repair, pipeline depth of cover, topsoil segregation, and working in 

wet fields; we have recommended mitigation for all of these issues. We believe that implementation of 

the mitigation measures discussed above would minimize or mitigate the potential impacts to agricultural 

land uses. 

There are 84 residences located within 50 feet of the proposed construction work areas including 

four that are on the permanent right-of-way. The construction impacts of the Project on residential land 

use, including noise, dust, and vehicle traffic, would be temporary. We have recommended site-specific 

mitigation to reduce impacts to all 84 residences. We have also included mitigation to repair or replace 

any septic systems damaged during construction. 

The Project would cross 31 special-interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic 

highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Impacts to these areas include 

clearing of vegetation, noise, dust, and the disruption of recreational uses. Operational impacts would be 

associated with permanent changes in vegetation associated with right-of-way maintenance and potential 

visual impacts associated with these features and aesthetics. In most cases, Rockies Express has not 

provided site-specific mitigation plans for the crossing of these areas; therefore, we have recommended 

that plans be prepared. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-6 

Rockies Express consulted with the Wyoming, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio 

SHPOs and performed cultural resource investigations for areas that would be affected by construction 

and operation of the Project. Surveys are outstanding and the consultation process for the Project is not 

yet complete. Therefore, we have recommended that construction not be authorized until the required 

studies have been completed and we have received the comments of the SHPO on such studies. 

To date, cultural resources survey in Missouri identified 88 archaeological sites and architectural 

resources. Thirty-five of these sites have been recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In Illinois, 397 archaeological sites and architectural 

resources were identified; 55 of these have been recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. In 

Indiana, 494 archaeological and architectural resources have been identified. To date, 37 were 

recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP and seven had pending determinations but 

are being treated as potentially eligible at this time. In Ohio, 469 archaeological and architectural 

resources have been identified. Of those, 69 are being treated as potentially eligible. In Nebraska, no 

cultural resources were identified at the compressor station site. One archaeology site was identified at 

the compressor station site in Wyoming; however, the site is not eligible for the NRHP. We have 

recommended that Rockies Express avoid all sites with the potential to contain human remains, and they 

are developing avoidance plans for five mound sites and three historic cemeteries. 

Rockies Express contacted 43 Native American Tribes with cultural links to the project area. In 

total, 22 tribes responded. Five tribes asked to participate in the consultation process, and 17 tribes asked 

to be notified if human remains were found. 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the Project. Most air emissions 

associated with the Project would result from the long-term operation of the compressor stations. REX 

East would comply with all applicable air permit requirements from the appropriate state agencies for 

these facilities. A screening analysis for each station indicates that the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) would not be exceeded at any location. For the non-attainment areas, construction 

emissions were compared with and were found to be less than the de minimis threshold levels for General 

Conformity. 

Rockies Express performed detailed noise assessments for each of the proposed HDD locations. 

In order to mitigate significant impacts due to HDD activity at several noise sensitive areas (NSAs), 

Rockies Express has committed to using a temporary noise barrier at least 16 feet high and to ensure any 

diesel engines associated with HDD activities would include an adequate exhaust muffler to reduce noise 

levels at the nearest NSAs. During operation of the REX East Project, potential noise impacts would be 

limited to the vicinity of the new compressor stations. All compressor stations would include design 

measures to minimize sound generation. The proposed compressor stations with noise mitigation 

measures implemented would comply with the FERC’s day-night sound level limit of 55 decibels on the 

A-weighted scale (dBA) at the nearest NSAs. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the REX East Project would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 and other applicable federal and state regulations. By 

designing and operating the Project in accordance with the applicable standards, the Project would not 

result in significant increased public safety risk. 

Detailed descriptions of the impacts of the project, Rockies Express’ proposed mitigation 

measures, and our measures to further avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts are presented in 

section 4.0 of this draft EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-7 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives were considered for the REX East Project. 

While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternatives would eliminate or minimize the environmental 

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

1.8 bcf of natural gas from supply regions in the West to meet the increasing demand in the midwestern 

and eastern United States. By denying or delaying the Certificate for the REX East Project, the 

production and delivery from existing wells located in the Rocky Mountain basins may be delayed. This 

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

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

A system alternative for the REX East Project would have to be able to transport large volumes of 

natural gas from the Rocky Mountain basins directly to markets in the Midwest and East. We are not 

aware of any existing pipeline systems that have expansion plans that could meet the purpose and need of 

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

alternative. 

We also evaluated nine major route alternatives based on public comments to determine if 

impacts could be avoided or reduced on environmentally sensitive resources that would be affected by the 

Project. These included alternatives to the Mississippi River crossing to avoid Blackburn Island, 

alternative routes placed to the north of Indianapolis, and alternative route crossings of the Little Miami 

River and Big Darby Creek. 

In addition we evaluated route variations for minimizing impacts at 18 different segments of the 

Project route. The evaluation of these variations was based on comment letters received from landowners 

or other stakeholders. Of the 18, we have recommended that 14 be incorporated into a revised Project 

route. The variations would increase the overall Project length by less than one mile. Because some of 

the recommended changes to the Project route were recently developed, we are seeking input from 

affected landowners before adopting these recommendations into the final EIS. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

We conclude that if the REX East Project were constructed and operated in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations, Rockies Express’ proposed mitigation, coupled with the additional 

mitigation recommendations presented in section 5.2 of this draft EIS, the Project would have mostly 

limited adverse environmental impact and would be an environmentally acceptable action. Although 

many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are: 

• Rockies Express collocation of the REX East pipeline: more than 59 percent would follow 

existing rights-of-way. 

• The Project would be consistent with or in conformance with federal resource management 

plans. 

• Rockies Express would implement resource- or activity-specific plans, procedures, and 

agreements to protect natural resources, avoid or limit environmental impacts, and promote 

restoration of all disturbed areas during construction and operation of the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
ES-8 

• Rockies Express would use Agricultural Inspectors knowledgeable in farming practices along 

the proposed route, who would provide input and guidance during construction in agricultural 

areas. 

• The use of the HDD method would avoid disturbances to a number of major and sensitive 

waterbodies along the route, including the Salt and Mississippi Rivers in Missouri; the Sny 

Canal and Illinois and Embarras Rivers in Illinois; the Wabash, Big Blue, and Whitewater 

Rivers in Indiana; and several waterbodies in Ohio, including the Big Darby Creek and Little 

Miami River. 

• The appropriate consultations with FWS, the SHPOs, and other affected land management 

agencies, and any appropriate compliance actions resulting from these consultations, would 

be completed before Rockies Express would be allowed to begin construction in any given 

area. 

• An environmental inspection and monitoring program would be implemented to ensure 

compliance with all mitigation measures, Certificate conditions, and other stipulations 

included in permits from other authorizing federal, state, and local agencies. 

We have developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the environmental impact that 

would otherwise result from construction of the various Project components. The additional studies or 

field investigations that we recommend typically would result in site-specific mitigation and further 

reduction of impact; therefore, we are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as 

conditions to any Certificate issued by the Commission. We believe that the recommended mitigation 

measures would reduce potential environmental impacts from Rockies Express’ proposed action to less 

than significant levels. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the 

construction of facilities proposed by Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) in accordance 

with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42. United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 4321 et seq.). This project is referred to as the REX East Project (or the Project). As currently 

proposed, the REX East Project would consist of the construction and operation of approximately 

639.1 miles of natural gas pipeline and a total of 225,716 horsepower (hp) of new compression. The REX 

East Project would be part of the Rockies Express Pipeline System—a 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline 

system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. Figure 1.0-1 presents an overview of the pipeline route 

proposed by Rockies Express. For more detailed location maps of the Project, see appendix B. A 

detailed discussion of the proposed REX East Project pipeline and facilities is presented in section 2 of 

this draft EIS. 

On April 30, 2007, Rockies Express, a joint venture among Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. 

(Kinder Morgan), Sempra Pipelines and Storage (Sempra), and Conoco-Phillips (an equity partner), filed 

an application with the FERC in Docket Number CP07-208-000 under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA), as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. Rockies Express is seeking 

a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) for its proposed REX East Project that 

would include the construction and operation of a pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and 

construction and operation of compression and ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Missouri, 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the REX East Project is to provide natural gas transportation service for gas 

produced in the Rocky Mountain gas region from the terminus of the Rockies Express Western Phase 

Project (REX West Project) in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern 

United States.1

 The terminus of the REX East Project would be in Monroe County, Ohio. The Project 

pipeline would deliver up to 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of gas to other interstate natural gas 

pipelines. The Project would provide access to an additional 16 inter- and intra-state natural gas pipeline 

systems at 20 interconnect points. These pipelines serve markets throughout the Midwest and eastern 

United States. 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas usage will represent 

about 22 percent of all energy consumption in the United States by 2025. Total gas consumption in the 

United States is expected to increase at an average rate of 1.1 percent per year. According to the EIA 

2006 predictions, 60 percent of the projected growth in domestic natural gas consumption through 2030 

will occur east of the Mississippi River, while the Rocky Mountains and Alaska will provide most of the 

natural gas. 

EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the United States will grow from 22.0 trillion 

cubic feet (tcf) per year in 2005 to 26.1 tcf by 2030 (EIA, 2007a). The growth in natural gas demand is 

being driven primarily by increased use of natural gas for electricity generation and industrial 

 

1 Gas from the Rocky Mountains would be transported from the Cheyenne Hub to Audrain County, Missouri by the 

REX West Pipeline. The REX West Pipeline was approved by the Commission in Docket Nos. CP06-354-000, 

CP06-401-000, and CP06-423-000 and is currently under construction. When completed, this pipeline will deliver 

gas from the Rocky Mountain region to Audrain County, Missouri. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-2 

Figure 1.0-1 

Pipeline Location Map 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-3

applications. The electric power sector, industry, and buildings account for roughly 90 percent of the 

demand for natural gas consumption (EIA, 2007a). 

The U.S. natural gas supply currently comes from three main sources: (1) domestic production; 

(2) pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico; and (3) imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Net 

pipeline imports of natural gas from Canada and Mexico are expected to decline in coming years. Total 

net imports of LNG to the United States are projected to increase from 0.6 tcf in 2005 to 4.5 tcf in 2030 

(EIA, 2007a). 

In 2006, net imports were about 15.7 percent of natural gas consumption in the United States 

(EIA, 2007b). Domestic production of natural gas will continue to account for the majority of total U.S. 

consumption, with onshore production expected to account for the bulk of that supply (EIA, 2007a). 

Onshore production of natural gas from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal bed 

methane) is expected to be a major contributor to that growth. The EIA predicts that unconventional 

natural gas production in the lower 48 states will account for about 50 percent of total domestic 

production by 2030 (EIA, 2006). 

The midwestern and eastern portions of the United States have experienced growth in traditional 

local distribution company deliveries, with the greatest increase in demand coming from gas-fired electric 

power generation plants. This increased market demand has continued without an associated increase in 

the availability of gas supplies, partly due to an inability to bring to market the increased gas production 

from the Rocky Mountain region. According to Rockies Express, the REX East Project would help to 

alleviate this constraint on gas distribution by increasing transportation capacity, thereby increasing gas 

supply in the United States and moderating gas prices. Without additional supply, gas costs could 

increase and available supplies could be stressed to meet current and future user demands. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications to construct and operate 

interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. Certificates are issued under Section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 

157 of the Commission’s regulations if the Commission determines that the project is required by public 

convenience and necessity. We2

 prepared this draft EIS in compliance with the requirements of NEPA 

and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR [Code 

of Federal Regulations] Parts 1500 – 1508) and the Commission’s Regulations for Implementing NEPA 

(18 CFR Part 380). 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Illinois 

Department of Agriculture (ILDOA), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are 

cooperating agencies and have participated in the development of this draft EIS. A cooperating agency 

has jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to environmental impacts involved with the 

proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 

Scope of the Environmental Review 

Our principal objectives in preparing this draft EIS are to: 

• Identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that would result 

from the implementation of the proposed actions; 

 

2

 “We,” “us,” and “our” collectively refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects, part of the 

Commission staff. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-4

• Describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed actions that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the environment; and 

• Identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize the 

environmental impacts. 

Our analysis in this draft EIS focuses on the facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction (i.e., 

the natural gas pipeline and compression facilities proposed for construction by Rockies Express), as well 

as the nonjurisdictional facilities that are integrally related to the development of the Project (i.e., electric 

transmission facilities—see section 1.4). 

The environmental topics addressed in this draft EIS include geology; soils; water resources; 

wetlands; vegetation; fisheries; wildlife; threatened, endangered, and other special status species; land use 

(including agricultural and residential impacts) and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; 

air quality; noise; reliability and safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives. The draft EIS describes the 

affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental consequences of the Project, and 

compares potential impacts of the REX East Project to those of alternatives. The draft EIS also presents 

our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. 

The Commission will consider the findings of the EIS as well as non-environmental issues in its 

review of these proposals to determine whether a Certificate should be issued for the REX East Project. 

A Certificate would be granted only if the FERC finds that the evidence produced on financing, rates, 

market demand, gas supply, existing facilities and service, environmental impacts, long-term feasibility, 

and other issues demonstrates that the Project is required by the public convenience and necessity. 

Environmental impact assessment and mitigation development are important factors in the overall public 

interest determination. 

On September 15, 1999, the FERC issued a Policy Statement (88 FERC 61,227; Docket No. PL 

99-3-000) to provide guidance on how it would evaluate proposals for certificating new construction. The 

Policy Statement established the criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project 

and whether such a project would serve the public interest. Further, the Policy Statement explains that in 

deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new natural gas transportation facilities, the 

FERC balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences of a project. In evaluating 

new pipeline construction, the goal of the criteria is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement 

of competitive transportation alternatives, possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing customers 

of an applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the 

environment, and the unneeded exercise of eminent domain. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

1.3.1 Public Review Process 

Pre-filing Review Process 

We initiated review of the REX East Project using the FERC’s pre-filing process. This 

environmental review process was developed to facilitate and encourage the early involvement by 

citizens, government entities, non-governmental organizations, the FERC staff, and other interested 

parties. We worked with Rockies Express during the pre-filing process to identify and resolve issues, 

where possible, prior to Rockies Express’ filing a formal application with the FERC. As part of this 

process, we assigned the REX East Project a pre-filing docket number (Docket No. PF06-30-000) to place 

information and comments into the public record generated by Rockies Express, the FERC, other 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-5

agencies, and citizens. Initial contacts were made with federal and state natural and cultural resource 

agencies and other stakeholders having an interest in the Project. These initial contacts included a brief 

description of the Project and a request for information regarding the applicable permitting or other 

regulatory review authority. After the filing of the second draft of the REX East Project resource reports, 

we established a monthly teleconference with federal and state resource agencies to discuss the Project 

and the environmental review process as well as other relevant issues. 

Open House Meetings 

As part of the pre-filing process, the FERC staff worked with Rockies Express to develop a 

public outreach plan for issue identification and stakeholder participation. Rockies Express began 

implementing this outreach plan in June 2006 by meeting with local and state officials, and other nongovernmental organizations to provide information about the Project and address any issues and concerns. 

Rockies Express sponsored 18 local, public open houses in June 2006 to inform landowners, government 

officials, and the general public about the REX East Project and invite them to ask questions and express 

their Project-related comments and concerns. Rockies Express mailed approximately 13,000 invitations 

to the open houses to affected landowners, nearby residents, public officials, and the media and placed 

notifications in 41 local newspapers. Two additional open houses were held in October 2006 to provide 

information on two route alternatives and an added compressor station that were incorporated into the 

route alignment after the completion of the June open houses. 

Table 1.3.1-1 provides a list of the public open houses held by Rockies Express. The FERC staff 

also participated in all of these open houses and provided information to the public regarding the 

environmental review process. 

Table 1.3.1-1 

List of Public Open Houses 

Meeting Date Meeting Locations 

June 19, 2006 Bowling Green, MO; Cambridge, OH 

June 20, 2006 Springfield, IL; Zanesville, OH 

June 21, 2006 Winchester, IL; Woodsfield, OH 

June 22, 2006 Decatur, IL; Ashville, OH 

June 23, 2006 Danville, IL; Lancaster, OH 

June 26, 2006 Tuscola, IL; Wilmington, OH 

June 27, 2006 Rockville, IL; Mason, OH 

June 28, 2006 Franklin, IN; Hamilton, OH 

June 29, 2006 Plainfield, IN; Greensburg, IN 

October 10, 2006 Bainbridge, IN 

October 11, 2006 Franklin, IN 

Public Scoping Period 

On August 16, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed REX East Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and 

Notice of Joint Public Scoping Meeting (Rockies Express NOI). The Rockies Express NOI was published 

in the Federal Register (FR) on August 22, 2006 (21 FR 48920 – 48923). The Rockies Express NOI was 

mailed to approximately 13,000 interested parties including federal, state, and local agencies; elected 

officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-6

newspapers; other interested stakeholders; and affected landowners located along the pipeline route. The 

issuance of the Rockies Express NOI established a closing date of September 29, 2006 for comments 

regarding the scope of the environmental review to be conducted. However, the FERC continued to 

receive and consider comments during the entire pre-filing period and during development of this draft 

EIS. 

The FERC also held nine public scoping meetings in September 2006 along the Project route to 

provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the Project and comment on environmental issues 

to be included in the draft EIS. Notice of the scoping meeting dates and locations appeared in the Rockies 

Express NOI dated August 16, 2006. Table 1.3.1-2 lists the locations and dates of the FERC scoping 

meetings. 

Table 1.3.1-2 

List of FERC Public Scoping Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Locations 

September 11, 2006 Mexico, MO; Greensburg, IN 

September 12, 2006 Springfield, IL; Greenwood, IN 

September 13, 2006 Pittsfield, IL; Trenton, OH 

September 14, 2006 Rockville, IN; Ashville, OH 

September 15, 2006 Zanesville, OH 

The public was also invited to attend two site visits, which took place on July 17-20, 2007 and 

August 6-10, 2007. 

On September 28, 2007 the FERC issued a letter stating that Rockies Express had revised the 

location of the Hamilton and Chandlersville Compressor Stations, the Clarington Meter Station, and 

portions of the pipeline, and that the scoping period for these relocated facilities would be extended 

through October 30, 2007. A copy of this letter was mailed directly to landowners added to the mailing 

list because of the newly relocated facilities. 

1.3.2 Summary of Scoping Comments and Responses 

Transcripts from the scoping meetings, along with all written comments, appear in the public 

record for the REX East Project and are available on the FERC Website at www.ferc.gov. A total of 

111 comments were provided by individuals at the scoping meetings. We received a total of 380 written 

comments from interested stakeholders, including COE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

National Park Service (NPS), state and local agencies, elected officials, organizations, affected 

landowners, and other interested parties (as of October 24, 2007). Table 1.3.2-1 lists the issues raised 

during the scoping period and where they are addressed in this draft EIS. 

Additionally, we initiated agency consultations to identify issues that should be addressed in the 

draft EIS. These consultations included interagency meetings on September 12 through September 14, 

2006 and interagency conference calls on April 3, 5, 12, May 10, 2006, and June 14, July 24, and 

September 18, 2007. Participants in these meetings and calls included representatives of COE, EPA, 

FWS, NRCS, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NPS, Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR), State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPO), Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), Indiana Department of Agriculture 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-7

Table 1.3.2-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

Issue Comment 

Section in EIS 

Where Issue/ 

Comment is 

Addressed 

Overall Project 

Comments 

Schedule, purpose, right-of-way width, availability of information, 

eminent domain 

2.0, 4.8 

Alternatives Variations to avoid specific features/resources, suggesting to use 

existing corridors and alternative energy, locate outside populous areas 

3.0 

Geology/Soils Drainage tiles, topsoil segregation, erosion, blasting, soil compaction, 

highly erodable soils, strip mine area in eastern Ohio, coal veins, depth 

of pipe, chemical properties of soils, rock removal, earthquakes/fault 

lines, rugged terrain, abandoned mines, landslides, diagonal cut across 

tiles, heat from pipes during operations 

4.1, 4.2 

Water Resources Floodplains, springs, ponds/lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, waterbody 

crossings, wells, aquifers, water contamination, wild/scenic/outstanding 

watersheds or rivers, water withdrawal/discharge from surface waters 

4.3 

Vegetation Invasive species, forests, prairies, Classified Forest Program in Indiana, 

decreased yield in agricultural products 

4.4 

Wetlands Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) or other conservation programs, loss 

of wetlands 

4.3 

Wildlife Resources Federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, wildlife 

management areas, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or other 

conservation programs 

4.5, 4.6, 4.7 

Land Use Easement/compensation, eminent domain, aesthetics, future use of 

right-of-way, proximity to homes/buildings, state and local parks, 

septic/utility systems, bisect/diagonal cut of property, interference with 

state/local projects (e.g., Hunter Lake), hinder development growth, 

recreational hunting, CRP or other conservation programs 

4.8 

Socioeconomics Property values, insurance costs, taxes 4.9 

Cultural Resources Native American artifacts, burial grounds, historical canals, 

underground railroad, cemeteries, historic buildings/properties/farms, 

unanticipated discoveries 

4.10 

Air Operation of compressor stations, temporary effects from construction, 

dust 

4.11.1 

Noise Operation of pipes and compressor stations, disruption of 

residences/livestock, temporary effects from construction 

2.0, 4.11.2 

Reliability/Safety Terrorism, maintenance, accidents, explosions, leaks, emergency 

response, proximity to homes/schools/quarry, depth of pipe, pressure, 

pipe thickness, grade of pipe, earthquake/lightning, farming operations 

on top of pipe 

4.12 

Mitigation Soil mitigation, agricultural impact mitigation plans, wetland mitigation All sections and 5.2 

(INDOA), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Farm Bureau, 

ILDOA, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MODNR), Missouri Department of Conservation 

(MDC), and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-8

1.4 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC considers, as part of its decision to authorize interstate 

natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. The facilities under the 

FERC’s jurisdiction for the REX East Project are described in detail in section 2.1. 

Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that are not under the FERC’s 

jurisdiction. Nonjurisdictional facilities may be integral to the need for such a proposed project or they 

may merely be associated as a minor, non-integral component of the jurisdictional facilities. 

Rockies Express has indicated that no nonjurisdictional facilities would be constructed in 

conjunction with the Project. However, it is our experience that compressor stations with electric-driven 

turbines normally require the construction of power lines and sometimes a substation. Since the Hamilton 

Compressor would have electric units, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary prior to the end of the comment period for the 

draft EIS, a description of the nonjurisdictional facilities needed for the operation of the 

Hamilton Compressor, maps showing the locations of those facilities, and a discussion of 

the environmental impacts associated with the construction of those facilities. If no 

nonjurisdictional facilities are required for the operation of the Hamilton Compressor 

Station, discuss how the power requirements would be met. 

Table 1.4-1 lists the permits that may be required for the construction of the nonjurisdictional 

facilities. 

Table 1.4-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations Likely Required To Be Obtained by the Nonjurisdictional Power 

Company if an Electric Transmission Line is Required for the Hamilton Compressor Station 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation 

FEDERAL 

US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 consultation 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 consultation 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide 12 Permit 

STATE 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Water Withdrawal Registration 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 Water Quality Permit 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency NPDES Construction Stormwater Discharge Authorization under general permit 

OHC00002 

Ohio Power Siting Board Letter of Notification for Transmission Line Tap 

LOCAL 

Butler County Soil and Water Conservation 

District 

SWP3 submittal 

Butler County Soil and Water Conservation 

District 

Earth Moving permit 

Butler County Burning permit 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-9

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

As the lead federal agency for the REX East Project, the FERC is required to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR) of 1968. These statutes have been taken into 

account in the preparation of this draft EIS. 

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project would be in accordance with all 

applicable federal, state, county, and local permits and approvals. Applicable permits, approvals, and 

consultations for the Project are summarized in table 1.5-1. Major permit and approval actions for the 

Project would include environmental reviews by the FERC for authorization under Section 3(a) and a 

Certificate under Section 7(c) of the NGA; by COE for a Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act/404 of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) Permit, dredge disposal approval, and right-of-way easement; by the EPA 

for authority under the CWA and the Clean Air Act (CAA); and by the NPS for approvals under the 

WSR. Several Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming state agencies have been 

delegated permitting responsibilities under the CWA and CAA, but with oversight by the appropriate 

federal agency. Rockies Express would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals required to 

implement the Project, regardless of whether they appear in table 1.5-1. 

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

FEDERAL 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity 

Pre-filing Process Request 

approved on June 13, 2006. 

FERC application filed April 

2007. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

Section 7 (a) Determination 

Consultations were initiated in 

July 2006 and are ongoing. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Columbia Field Office 

Marion Field Office 

Bloomington Field Office 

Reynoldsburg Field Office 

Grand Island Field Office 

Cheyenne Field Office 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

- St Louis District (Missouri and Illinois)

Clean Water Act 

Section 404 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 

Application filed August 14, 

2007. 

- Rock Island District Clean Water Act 

Section 404 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 

Application filed August 14, 

2007. 

- Louisville District (Illinois/Indiana) Clean Water Act 

Section 404 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 

Application filed (August 14, 

2007/September 18, 2007). 

- Huntington District a/ Clean Water Act 

Section 404 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 

Application filed September 5, 

2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-10

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Huntington District, Realty Division 

Easement to cross Federal lands 

Deer Creek Lake Project 

COE/ODNR-Parks Div./ODNRWildlife & Fish currently 

reviewing two possible routes 

across properties. Easement 

negotiations will commence 

when route finalized. 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Louisville District, Realty Division 

Easement to cross Federal lands 

Caesar Creek Lake Project 

COE/ODNR-Wildlife & Fish 

agree with current route 

proposal. Easement 

negotiations have not 

commenced. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Comment on the undertaking and 

its effect on historic properties 

Pending. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region V and VII b/

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

In conjunction with the appropriate 

state, review stormwater and 

hydrostatic test water discharge 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resource Conservation Service

Restoration 

Consultation 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

STATE 

Missouri 

Department of Conservation State-listed Endangered Species 

Review 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

State Historic Preservation Office Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Department of Natural Resources Clean Water Act 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification 

Application filed August 14, 

2007. 

Clean Air Act 

Construction Air Permit 

Operation Permit 

Application filed June 20, 2007. 

Notification of Hydrostatic Testing 

Under Permit By Rule 

Application to be submitted at 

least 30 days prior to discharge. 

NPDES General Permit for Land 

Disturbance Greater than 1 Acre 

(MO-R101000). 

NPDES permit requirements for 

stormwater discharges exempt 

per EPA Final Rule dated June 

12, 2006. Confirming permit is 

exempt per EPA final rule. 

Major Water Use Registration 

(Greater than 100,000 gpd or 

70 gpm) 

Application to be filed 2nd quarter 

2008. 

Department of Transportation Crossings of state-maintained 

roads and highways 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Missouri County Engineers (3 Total) Road crossings Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-11

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

Illinois 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources State-listed Endangered Species 

Review 

Consultation complete. See 

letter from the ILDNR dated 

March 19, 2007. 

Statewide Permit No. 8 – 

Underground Pipeline and Utility 

Crossings 

The Project meets the terms and 

conditions of Statewide Permit 

No. 8. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act 

401 Water Quality Certification 

Application filed August 14, 

2007. 

Clean Air Act 

Construction Air Permit 

Operation-Permit 

Application filed June 20, 2007. 

Reissued General NPDES Permit 

for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines 

and Tanks (ILG67) 

Application to be filed 4th quarter 

2007. 

General NPDES Permit For 

Stormwater Discharges From 

Construction Activities. Also 

authorizes the discharges of 

uncontaminated groundwater. 

NPDES permit requirements for 

stormwater discharges exempt 

per EPA Final Rule dated June 

12, 2006. 

Illinois Department of Agriculture Farmland Protection Policy Act (7, 

USC 4201 et sep.) consistency 

with state and local programs to 

protect farmland. 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Illinois Department of Transportation Crossings of state-maintained 

roads and highways 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Illinois’ County Engineers (9 Total) Road Crossings; Zoning 

(Administrative/BP, etc.); 

Floodplain-applicability 

determination pending 

Meetings regarding the Project 

route have been held. Permit 

applications would be filed Fall 

2007. 

Illinois Townships (30 Total) Right-of-way Use Permits – 

Township Road Crossings 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Indiana 

Department of Historic Preservation and 

Archeology 

Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Natural Heritage Data Center 

State-listed Endangered Species 

Review 

Consultation complete. See email from the INDNR dated July 

27, 2007. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawal 

Registration (>100,000 gallons per 

day) 

IC-14-25-7 

Registration to be filed within 3 

months after the project is 

completed. 

Temporary Construction 

Dewatering Report 

IC-14-25-7 

Report to be filed within 3 

months after the project is 

completed. 

 Flood Control Act Applications to be filed 4th

Quarter 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-12

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management 

Clean Water Act 

401 Water Quality Certification 

Application September 18, 2007. 

Clean Air Act 

Construction Air Permit 

Operation Permit 

Application filed June 20, 2007. 

Wastewater Discharge Associated 

with Hydrostatic Testing of 

Commercial Pipelines 

Application to be filed 4th Quarter 

2007. 

Rule 5 Permit – Stormwater 

Runoff Associated with Land 

Disturbing Activity 

NPDES permit requirements for 

stormwater discharges exempt 

per EPA Final Rule dated June 

12, 2006. Confirming permit is 

exempt per EPA final rule. 

Department of Transportation State maintained Highway & 

Route crossings 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Indiana – County Engineers (9 Total) Right-of-way Use Permit - Road 

Crossings 

Zoning 

Floodplain-applicability 

determination pending 

Drainage Crossings 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Ohio 

Ohio Historical Society Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources State listed Endangered Species 

Review 

Consultations have been initiated 

and are ongoing. 

Water Withdrawal Facility 

Registration (>100,000 gallons per 

day) 

Registration to be filed within 3 

months after the project is 

completed. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources – 

Parks Division 

Easement to cross Perry State 

Forest and Blue Rock State Forest 

Consultations have take place 

with ODNR – Easement 

negotiations have not 

commenced. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification 

Application filed September 5, 

2007. 

Clean Air Act 

Construction Air Permit 

Operation Permit 

Application to be filed 4th Quarter 

2007. 

General Permit for Discharges of 

Hydrostatic Test Water (NPDES 

Permit No. OHH000001) 

Application to be filed 4th Quarter 

2007. 

Authorization for Stormwater 

Discharges Associated with 

Construction Activity under the 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (OHC000002) 

NPDES permit requirements for 

stormwater discharges exempt 

per EPA Final Rule dated June 

12, 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-13

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

Ohio Department of Transportation 

(Districts – 5, 6, 8, 10, 11) 

Right-of-way Use Permit – 57 

State Roads – Two Interstates 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Ohio – County Engineers (13 Total) Right-of-way Use Permit - County 

Road Crossings 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Ohio - Townships Right-of-way Use Permits – 

Township Road Crossings 

Permit applications would be 

filed Fall 2007. 

Ohio City of Middletown Zoning Use Permit Hamilton Compressor Site – 

location currently zoned 

industrial (Conforms to current 

zoning). Negotiations have 

begun with City of Middletown. 

Ohio – Muskingum County Lot Split Chandlersville Compressor Site 

–Application submitted 10-04-07. 

Ohio – Counties / Townships Zoning / Special Use 

Requirements 

Verification of requirements 

ongoing. 

Ohio – County Flood Plain Administrator Flood Plain Permit Verification of requirements 

ongoing. 

Ohio – County Flood Plain Administrator Flood Plain Permit Verification of requirements 

ongoing. 

Nebraska 

Department of Historic Preservation and 

Archeology 

Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultation has been 

completed. 

Department of Environmental Quality Clean Air Act 

Construction Permit 

Operation Permit 

Application filed on June 20, 

2007. 

General NPDES Permit 

Authorizing Hydrostatic Test 

Discharges from Pipelines and 

Storage Tanks (NEG 672000) 

Application to be at least 10 days 

prior to discharge. 

General Permit Authorizing 

Dewatering Discharges 

Application to be at least 10 days 

prior to discharge. 

NPDES general Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges From 

Construction Sites (NER 100,000) 

NPDES permit requirements for 

stormwater discharges exempt 

per EPA Final Rule dated June 

12, 2006. Confirming exempt 

status with NEDEQ. 

Wyoming 

Department of Historic Preservation and 

Archeology 

Consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA 

Consultations have been 

completed. 

Department of Environmental Quality Clean Air Act 

Construction Permit 

Operation Permit 

Application filed on October 2, 

2007. 

General Permit to Discharge 

Stormwater Associated with Large 

Construction Activity Under the 

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (WYR10-0000) 

Application to be filed at least 30 

days prior to discharge. 

General Permit for Hydrostatic 

Discharges 

Application to be filed at 30 days 

prior to discharge. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-14

Table 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances Required 

Administering Agency Permit/Approval or Consultation Status 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department State-listed Endangered Species 

Review 

Consultations have been 

completed. 

____________________ 

a/ Approximately 17 miles of the Project is located within the Pittsburgh District; however, the Huntington District 

would include this segment in its permitting. 

b/ Although the Agency is allowed the opportunity to review the project, no official permit or authorization is issued. 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agency should not “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is 

determined...to be critical...” (16 U.S.C. § 1536(a) (2) (1988)). Thus, the FERC staff, or Rockies Express 

as a non-federal representative, is required to consult with FWS to determine whether any federally listed 

or proposed threatened or endangered species and/or their designated critical habitat occur in the vicinity 

of the Project. If, upon review of existing data, it is determined that these species or habitats may be 

affected by the Project, we are required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) to identify the nature and 

extent of adverse impact, and recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species, or would 

reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. If, however, the FERC staff determines that there is no 

impact by the Project, no further action is necessary under the ESA. Rockies Express, as a non-federal 

designated representative, is assisting in meeting the FERC’s obligations under Section 7 of the ESA. 

See section 4.7 of this draft EIS for the status of this review. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC to take into account the effects of our undertakings 

(including authorizations under Section 7 of the NGA) on historic properties, and afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. Historic properties include 

prehistoric or archeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or sites of traditional religious or 

cultural importance that are listed or may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). In accordance with the ACHP procedures for implementing Section 106, at 36 CFR 800, the 

FERC is required to consult with the appropriate SHPO regarding the NRHP eligibility of cultural 

resources and the potential effects of the proposed undertaking on NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible 

properties. Also, under the ACHP’s regulations, the FERC would consult with Indian tribes, local 

governments, land managing agencies, and other parties interested in the potential impacts the Project 

may have on historic properties. Rockies Express, as a non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in 

meeting our obligations under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information and analyses. See 

section 4.10 of this draft EIS for the status of this review. 

The WSR established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to protect those rivers and 

adjacent land with important scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other values as identified by 

Congress. Four federal land management agencies, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), NPS, FWS, 

and the U.S. Forest Service administer the act to protect rivers’ identified values, free-flowing condition, 

and associated water quality. Under Section 13(g) of this act, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 

of Agriculture, as appropriate, may grant easements and rights-of-way through, above, or under any 

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in accordance with laws applicable to the 

river-administering agency. Sections 7(a) and (b) of the Act prohibit the FERC from licensing a project 

that would “have a direct and adverse effect” on the values for which a river was included or proposed to 

be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The FERC, after a proponent files an 

application, consults with the river-administering agency. In the case of the REX East Project, the riverDocument Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
1-15

administering agency is NPS. If the river-administering agency determines that the project would be “on 

or directly affect” a designated wild and scenic river or congressionally authorized study river, the permit, 

license, or exemption may be dismissed without further processing. The FERC may license projects, after 

consultation with the river-administering agency, “below or above a wild, scenic, or recreational river” or 

a congressionally authorized study river that would not “invade the area or unreasonably diminish the 

scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values.” Rockies Express, as a non-federal party, is assisting the 

FERC by obtaining the necessary information and preparing analyses to identify whether the Project 

would have an effect on wild and scenic rivers or authorized study rivers. 

Orders issued by the FERC state that Rockies Express should cooperate with state and local 

agencies. Any state or local permits issued with respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with 

the conditions of any Certificate the FERC may issue. Although the FERC encourages cooperation 

between interstate pipelines and local authorities, this does not mean that state and local agencies may 

prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC. Any 

non-federal permits or approvals with requirements that conflict with the FERC’s Certificate, or that do 

not permit Rockies Express to meet their obligations under the FERC’s Order, would be preempted by the 

Certificate; however, the Commission may require Rockies Express to comply with conflicting 

requirements of a state or local permit or approval if the agencies agree on how to proceed. Permits or 

approvals required by state or local regulatory authorities that are not in conflict with the Certificate are 

not subject to federal preemption. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

The REX East Project would involve construction and operation of both pipeline and 

aboveground facilities. The environmental analysis presented in this draft EIS evaluates the facilities 

proposed by Rockies Express as detailed below. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Table 2.1-1 presents a listing of the pipeline facilities Rockies Express proposes. The REX East 

Project would comprise approximately 639.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline. The pipeline 

would begin at the proposed Mexico Compressor Station in Audrain County, Missouri (milepost [MP] 

0.0), proceed eastward through Illinois and Indiana, and terminate at the proposed interconnect with the 

pipeline facilities that Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion East Ohio, and Texas Eastern 

Transmission Company (TETCO) operate at the Clarington Hub in Monroe County, Ohio (MP 639.1). 

Rockies Express is also proposing to construct laterals and interconnects in order to deliver gas to 

the customers. The lengths of the laterals and interconnects are included in table 2.1-1. 

Table 2.1-1 

REX East Pipeline Facilities 

Facility and Location 

(State) 

Diameter 

(inches) a/ 

Length 

(miles) b/ 

MPs 

c/ 

Missouri 

Mainline 42 43.1 0.0 – 43.1 

Subtotal 43.1 

Illinois 

Mainline 42 195.1 43.1 – 238.2 

Lateral and 2 Interconnects: Natural Gas Pipeline Company 

and Illinois Power Company d/ 

42 0.2 Near 178.7 

Lateral and Interconnect: Trunkline Gas Company 42 <0.1 Near 195.3 

Lateral and Interconnect: Midwestern Gas Transmission 

Company 

42 0.2 Near 231.5 

Subtotal 195.5 

Indiana 

Mainline 42 166.5 238.2 – 404.7 

Lateral and Interconnect: Panhandle Eastern Pipeline 

Company 

42 <0.1 Near 274.5 

Lateral and Interconnect: Citizen Gas and Coke Utility 42 0.2 Near 305.9 

Lateral and Interconnect: Indiana Gas Company 42 <0.1 Near 316.4 

Lateral and Interconnect: ANR Pipeline Company 42 <0.1 Near 342.3 

Subtotal 166.7 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-2

Table 2.1-1 

REX East Pipeline Facilities 

Facility and Location 

(State) 

Diameter 

(inches) a/ 

Length 

(miles) b/ 

MPs 

c/ 

Ohio 

Mainline 42 234.4 404.7 – 639.1 

Lateral and Interconnect: AK Steel Company 42 0.3 Near 443.1 

Lateral and 6 Interconnects: Lebanon Hub: includes 

Columbia Gas, Dominion Transmission, Texas Eastern 

Transmission, Texas Gas Transmission, and Vectren 

42 1.8 Near 444.0 

Lateral: Columbia Gas Transmission Company 42 <0.1 Near 539.8 

Lateral and Interconnect: Tennessee Gas Company 42 0.7 Near 592.4 

Lateral and Interconnect: Dominion Transmission, Inc. 42 <0.1 Near 612.0 

Lateral and 2 Interconnects: Clarington Hub: includes 

Dominion Transmission, Dominion East, and Texas Eastern 

Transmission Company 

42 0.4 Near 634.1 

Subtotal 237.6 

Project Total 642.9 

____________________ 

a/ Diameter of the lateral is 42 inches, the diameter of the interconnect is unknown 

b/ Length includes the length of all laterals and interconnects at this location 

c/ Distance between mileposts does not necessarily equal a mile due to topography and changes in the route. 

d/ A lateral is a pipeline which connects the REX East pipeline to the meter station. An Interconnect is a pipeline which connects 

the meter station to the third-party pipeline. 

Rockies Express’ proposed route is shown on figure 1.0-1 in section 1.1 of this draft EIS. 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Table 2.1-2 presents a list of the aboveground facilities proposed. These facilities are further 

described below. 

Table 2.1-2 

Proposed Aboveground Facilities 

Facility Horsepower (hp) MP a/ Location 

(County, State) 

Compressor Stations 

Arlington Compressor Station 19,794 237.0 b/ Carbon, WY 

Bertrand Compressor Station 34,210 286.8 c/ Phelps, NE 

Mexico Compressor Station 41,000 0.0 Audrain, MO 

Blue Mound Compressor Station 35,174 144.1 Christian, IL 

Bainbridge Compressor Station 41,000 277.3 Putnam, IN 

Hamilton Compressor Station 35,000 435.6 Butler, OH 

Chandlersville Compressor Station 19,538 575.0 Muskingum, OH 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-3

Table 2.1-2 

Proposed Aboveground Facilities 

Facility Horsepower (hp) MP a/ Location 

(County, State) 

Meter Stations 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America – 178.7 Moultrie, IL 

Illinois Power Company – 178.7 Moultrie, IL 

Trunkline Gas Company – 195.3 Douglas, IL 

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company – 231.5 Edgar, IL 

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company – 274.5 Putnam, IN 

Citizen Gas and Coke Utility – 305.9 Morgan, IN 

Indiana Gas Company – 316.4 Morgan, IN 

ANR Pipeline Company – 342.3 Shelby, IN 

AK Steel Company – 435.6 Butler, OH 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation – 444.0 Warren, OH 

Dominion Transmission, Inc. – 444.0 Warren, OH 

Texas Eastern Transmission Company – 444.0 Warren, OH 

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC – 444.0 Warren, OH 

Vectren Company – 444.0 Warren, OH 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation – 539.8 Fairfield, OH 

Tennessee Gas Company – 592.4 Muskingum, OH 

Dominion Transmission, Inc _ 612.0 Noble, OH 

Dominion Transmission, Inc. – 639.1 Monroe, OH 

Dominion East Ohio – 639.1 Monroe, OH 

Texas Eastern Transmission Company – 639.1 Monroe, OH 

____________________ 

a/ Distance between mileposts does not necessarily equal a mile due to topography and changes in the route. 

b/ Milepost represents distance along the REX West route. 

c/ Milepost represents distance along the REX Entrega route. 

Rockies Express proposes to construct seven new compressor stations as part of the REX East 

Project. Five would be constructed along the route of the proposed pipeline: 

• The Mexico Compressor Station, at MP 0.0 in Audrain County, Missouri would provide 

41,000 hp of compression using two gas turbines. 

• The Blue Mound Compressor Station, at MP 144.1 in Christian County, Illinois would 

provide 35,174 hp of compression using five gas reciprocating units. 

• The Bainbridge Compressor Station, at MP 277.3 in Putnam County, Indiana would provide 

41,000 hp of compression using two gas turbines. 

• The Hamilton Compressor Station, at MP 435.6 in Butler County, Ohio would provide 

35,000 hp of compression using two electric-driven centrifugal units. 

• The Chandlersville Compressor Station, at MP 575.0 in Muskingum County, Ohio would 

provide 19,538 hp of compression using three gas reciprocating units. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-4

The sixth compressor station would be located along the route of the Rockies Express Pipeline – 

Entrega Project (Docket No. CP06-354-000). The Arlington Compressor Station, at MP 237.0 in Carbon 

County, Wyoming would provide 19,794 hp of compression using three gas reciprocating units. The site 

on which the compressor station would be located has been certificated for the installation of a pig1

launcher/receiver under Docket No. CP04-413-000. 

The seventh compressor station would be located along the route of the Rockies Express Pipeline 

– Western Phase Project (Docket No. CP04-413-000). The Bertrand Compressor Station, at MP 286.8 in 

Phelps County, Nebraska, would provide 34,210 hp of compression using five gas reciprocating units. 

Each compressor station would consist of a compressor building, a utility building (including 

control room, utility room, and storage/shop room), valves, and piping. 

Rockies Express would construct 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline 

facilities at 13 locations along the proposed pipeline route. Rockies Express would also install 42 

mainline valves (MLV) along the route, five of which would be located within compressor station sites, 

one within the Clarington Hub, and the remaining 36 within the construction right-of-way (but not the 

operations right-of-way). Rockies Express has attempted to position its aboveground facilities 

(compressor stations, meter stations, and MLVs) adjacent to roads, wherever possible, to attempt to 

reduce disruption to land uses, and to facilitate access. 

In order to enable periodic cleaning and inspection of the REX East pipeline by pigging, Rockies 

Express would construct facilities for the periodic attachment of portable pig launchers and/or receivers to 

the pipeline at the five compressor stations along the route of the proposed pipeline. A facility to 

accommodate a portable pig launcher would be installed at the Mexico Compressor Station; a facility to 

accommodate a portable pig receiver would be installed at the Chandlersville Compressor Station; and 

one of each such facilities would be installed at the Blue Mound, Bainbridge, and Hamilton Compressor 

Stations. (Pigs, pig launchers, and pig receivers would be transported by truck and trailer and attached 

and operated as needed.) 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Rockies Express has stated that up to 14,377.3 acres would be required during the Project 

construction phase. After construction, 4,072.6 acres would be retained for Project operation. Land 

requirements are summarized in table 2.2-1. 

The location of new access roads and existing roads to be modified are provided online in the Elibrary (FERC eLibrary, 2007i) and the associated impacts are discussed in section 4. 

2.2.1 Areas Disturbed by Pipeline Construction 

Rights-of-Way 

During construction, Rockies Express proposes to use a 125-foot-wide temporary construction 

right-of-way in upland areas and a 100-foot-wide temporary construction right-of-way in wetland areas. 

Maps of the proposed route are provided in appendix B. Rockies Express proposes a wider than normal 

 

1

 A pig is a mechanical cleaning and inspection device that passes through the interior of a pipeline from a launcher 

attached to the pipeline at one location to a receiver attached to the pipeline at another location. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-5

Table 2.2-1 

Land Requirements 

Project Component Construction 

(acres) 

Operations 

(acres) 

Pipeline 

Mainline right-of-way 9,715.6 3,905.9 

(Access Roads) 188 a/ 188 a/ 

Laterals and interconnects 32.4 19.4 

Additional temporary workspace 4,181.1 0.0 

Pipe storage/contractor yards 303.1 0.0 

Subtotal 14,232.2 3,925.3 

Aboveground Facilities 

Facilities 145.1 b/ 147.3 b/ 

Project Total 14,377.3 4,072.6 

____________________ 

a/ Area is included in the Mainline right-of-way. 

b/ Includes compressor stations, meter stations (and access roads to them), valves, and pig launcher and receiver facilities. 

construction right-of-way because of the large pipeline (42-inch-diameter) and the larger equipment that 

would be used during construction. Rockies Express proposes to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent rightof-way during pipeline operation. 

The pipeline would be adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way for about 377.1 miles, 

approximately 59 percent of its length. When paralleling existing pipelines other than Panhandle Eastern, 

Rockies Express would use part of the existing pipeline’s permanent right-of-way for storage, reducing 

the amount of new disturbance. When paralleling Panhandle Eastern pipeline, Rockies Express would not 

use any of the existing right-of-way for storage. We believe that this is unnecessary and would result in 

disturbing more land than is required to build the pipeline. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express revise its construction plans in order to overlap, for spoil storage 

purposes, 15 feet of the existing Panhandle Eastern permanent right-of-way, and 

incorporate these revisions to its pre-construction planning, and revising the REX East 

right-of-way configurations as necessary. Rockies Express should file the revised rightof-way configurations with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period.

In addition, Rockies Express would offset its pipeline within the proposed permanent right-ofway so that it would be 10 feet from the outer edge and 40 feet from the edge nearest Panhandle Eastern’s 

permanent right-of-way. This results in a 65-foot-wide unused space between the two pipelines. When 

paralleling other pipelines, Rockies Express would center its pipeline within the proposed permanent 

right-of-way, resulting in the proposed pipeline being placed 50 feet from the existing pipeline. The 

purpose of the permanent right-of-way is to provide a buffer between the pipeline and third-party 

activities. Placing the pipeline near the edge of the permanent right-of-way would allow encroachment 

within 10 feet of the pipeline. In addition, although we are not aware of any future plans to place 

additional pipelines in this area, in order to avoid future issues with pipeline placement and the width of 

construction and permanent rights-of-way. Therefore, we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-6

• Rockies Express revise its construction plans to center the pipeline within the 

permanent right-of-way in areas where it is presently shown within 10 feet of the edge of 

the permanent right-of-way, and incorporate these revisions to its pre-construction 

planning, revising the REX East right-of-way configurations as necessary. Rockies 

Express should file the revised right-of-way configurations with the Secretary prior to 

the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Additional Temporary Workspace 

Temporary workspace would be required at various locations along the construction right-of-way, 

such as at the beginning of each construction spread (crew and equipment) for mobilizing construction 

equipment; for stringing truck turnaround areas; where the proposed pipeline crosses over an adjacent 

pipeline; where the pipeline crosses under buried features (e.g., foreign pipelines, utility lines); at road 

crossings, railroads, wetlands, and waterbodies; in residential areas; and at directionally drilled crossings. 

Additional temporary workspace also would be required in areas with side slopes to create level and safe 

work areas. The total acreage of additional temporary workspace would be 4,181.1 acres. In general, we 

do not believe that Rockies Express has filed sufficient site-specific information to justify the number and 

size of its extra workspaces. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) the proposed 

use and site-specific justification for the size of each of its proposed extra temporary 

workspaces. 

Further, Rockies Express has requested 35-foot-wide temporary workspaces in areas where 

topsoil would be segregated. We do not believe that this is justified. We believe that the proposed 

construction right-of-way width of 125 feet is sufficient to store segregated topsoil. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express store topsoil within the 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Rockies Express should file with the Secretary prior to the start of construction a 

revised right-of-way configuration, that does not include continuous 35-foot-wide 

temporary workspaces, and should file revised tables indicating acreage of area 

disturbed. 

Access Roads 

Rockies Express would use 56 existing public and private roads and construct 62 new roads to 

gain access to the pipeline right-of-way (during construction and operation of the Project) and pipe 

storage and contractor yards (during construction). The Project would require a total of 121 access roads 

(FERC eLibrary, 2007i). 

Rockies Express has not indicated how many of these 62 new access roads would be required 

during the operation of the Project and which would be removed after construction and restoration. 

Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary a list of the new access roads that would be needed during the operation of the 

Project, indicating the purpose of each. In addition, Rockies Express should describe 

how the temporary access roads would be removed and restored after construction. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-7

Rockies Express should justify leaving in place any new access road not needed for the 

operation of the Project. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Rockies Express has identified 11 potential areas for pipe storage and contractor staging during 

construction of Project facilities: one in Missouri, two in Illinois, two in Indiana, and six in Ohio. The 11 

sites are existing commercial/industrial sites or sites previously used for construction. Pipe 

storage/contractor yards would be used on a temporary basis, for the storage of pipe joints and stationing 

of construction equipment, and would be restored when construction is completed. The area required for 

pipe storage and contractor yards would be 303.1 acres in the construction phase. 

Table 2.2-2 gives the acreage and location for each temporary pipe storage/contractor yard. Maps 

of the temporary pipe storage/contractor yards are included in appendix B. 

Table 2.2-2 

Pipe Storage/Contractor Yards

Name of Yard Size 

(acres) Township, Range, Section Location (County, State) 

Bowling Green 35 T-53-N, R-3-W, Sec. 27 Pike, MO 

Springfield 35 T-13-N, R-5-W, Sec. 9 Sangamon, IL 

Metcalf 35 T-16-N, R-13-W, Sec. 34 Edgar, IL 

Green Castle 32 T-14-N, R-4-W, Sec. 4 Putnam. IN 

Franklin 31 T-11-N, R-5-E, Sec. 21 Johnson, IN 

Middletown 18 T-2-E, R-4-N, Sec. 8 Butler, OH 

Hamilton 19 T-2-E, R-2-N, Sec. 29 Butler, OH 

Jeffersonville 20 Virginia Military District Fayette, OH 

Pickaway 35 T-11-N, R-21-W, Sec. 31 Pickaway, OH 

Lancaster 14 T-15-N, R-19-W, Sec. 27 Fairfield, OH 

Guernsey 29 T-2-N, R-2-W, Sec. 0 Guernsey, OH 

Total 303 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Table 2.2-3 provides the land requirements for the seven compressor station sites and 

13 meterstation locations (for 20 meter stations in total) during the construction and operations phases. 

Land requirements for the construction phase total 145.1 acres (110.6 acres for the compressor station 

sites and 34.5 acres for the meter station sites). Land requirements total 147.3 acres for the operations 

phase (110.6 acres for the compressor station sites, 34.5 acres for the meter station sites, and 2.2 acres for 

the MLVs). These land requirement values include the area to be disturbed by access roads to the 

aboveground facilities. 

Each of the 36 MLVs that would not be within the fence line of a proposed compressor or meter 

station site would be installed in a 50-foot-wide by 50-foot-wide (0.06-acre) fenced-in area, which would 

be within the construction pipeline right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-8

Table 2.2-3 

Land Requirements for Aboveground Facilities 

Facility Location 

(County, State) 

Temporary 

Construction 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operation 

(acres) 

Compressor Stations a/ 

Arlington Compressor Station Carbon, WY 15.0 15.0 

Bertrand Compressor Station Phelps, NE 17.7 17.7 

Mexico Compressor Station Audrain, MO 12.7 12.7 

Blue Mound Compressor Station Christian, IL 12.9 12.9 

Bainbridge Compressor Station Putnam, IN 20.8 20.8 

Hamilton Compressor Station Butler, OH 11.9 11.9 

Chandlersville Compressor Station Muskingum, OH 19.6 19.6 

Subtotal 110.6 110.6 

Meter Stations a/ 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America and Illinois 

Power Company 

Moultrie, IL 5.6 5.6 

Trunkline Gas Company Douglas, IL 2.6 2.6 

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company Edgar, IL 1.2 1.2 

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Putnam, IN 1.3 1.3 

Citizen Gas and Coke Utility Morgan, IN 1.2 1.2 

Indiana Gas Company Morgan, IN 1.8 1.8 

ANR Pipeline Company Shelby, IN 1.8 1.8 

AK Steel Butler, OH 2.1 2.1 

Vectren, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, Dominion 

Transmission, Inc., Texas Eastern Transmission 

Company, and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 

Warren, OH 6.7 6.7 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Fairfield, OH 1.3 1.3 

Tennessee Gas Muskingum, OH 1.2 1.2 

Dominion Transmission, Inc Noble, OH 2.3 2.3 

Dominion Transmission, Dominion East Ohio, and Texas 

Eastern Transmission Company 

Monroe, OH 5.4 5.4 

Subtotal 34.5 34.5 

Mainline Block Valves b/ 

Subtotal 0.0 c/ 2.2 

Total 145.1 147.3 

____________________ 

a/ Includes area to be disturbed by permanent access roads. 

b/ Includes only the 36 mainline block valves, which would be located outside of the fenced area at proposed compressor stations

or meter stations. Block valves located within the fence line of other aboveground facilities are counted with those aboveground 

facilities. 

c/ Areas disturbed during construction are accounted for in the acreage disturbed by the construction pipeline right-of-way. 

Permanent components of the pig launcher and pig receiver facilities would be located entirely 

within compressor station sites, and so their land requirements are included in those of the compressor 

stations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-9

Rockies Express has attempted to locate aboveground facilities adjacent to roads, wherever 

possible, to reduce disruption to land uses and to facilitate pipeline operations and maintenance. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

The proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance 

with 49 CFR Part 192 “Transportation of Natural Gas and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal 

Safety Standards,” 18 CFR Part 380.15 “Guidelines to be followed by Natural Gas Pipeline Companies in 

the Planning, Clearing, and Maintenance of Rights-of-Way and the Construction of Aboveground 

Facilities,” and other applicable federal and state regulations. Rockies Express has submitted its own 

Upland Construction Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Procedures), which are based on the FERC’s Plan and Procedures, with certain proposed modifications 

that Rockies Express believes appropriate to the Project (FERC eLibrary, 2007a,b). A summary of the 

proposed modifications to the FERC Plan and Procedures is provided in tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. Our Plan 

and Procedures can be accessed at the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/

guidelines.asp). 

We have reviewed the differences between the FERC’s Plan and Procedures and the REX East 

Project Plan and Procedures. We do not agree with all of the alternative mitigation proposed by Rockies 

Express. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express revise its Plan and Procedures to be consistent with tables 2.3-1 and 

2.3-2 of the draft EIS. Rockies Express should file its revised Plan and Procedures with 

the Secretary prior to the start of construction. 

2.3.1 General Construction Procedures 

In upland areas, Rockies Express would use conventional overland construction techniques. 

Construction would follow a set of sequential operations shown on figure 2.3-1. The construction spread 

would proceed along the pipeline right-of-way in one continuous operation; construction at any single 

point along the pipeline, from initial surveying and clearing to backfilling and finish grading, would 

typically last approximately 8 to 12 weeks. The entire process would be coordinated to minimize the total 

time that a given tract of land is disturbed, exposed to erosion, and temporarily unavailable for normal 

use. Rockies Express anticipates seven construction spreads for the Project. 

The REX East Procedures require that a site-specific explanation be filed for Commission review 

and approval for each extra workspace that is within 50 feet of a waterbody or wetland. Rockies Express 

has identified over 100 extra workspaces that would be within 50 feet of waterbodies or wetlands but has 

provided no site-specific justification. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP a site-specific justification for each extra workspace that is within 50 feet of a 

wetland or waterbody prior to the start of construction.

Staking the Construction Right-of-Way 

The initial step in preparing the right-of-way for construction would be to stake the outside limits 

of the construction right-of-way, the centerline of the proposed pipeline trench, and additional temporary 

workspaces. Sensitive areas to be avoided would be flagged, as appropriate, and wetland boundaries 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-10

Table 2.3-1 

Differences between the REX East Project’s Plan and the FERC’s Plan 

Section 

Number 

of 

FERC 

Plan Alternative Mitigation Accepted Reason 

I.A Addition of Agricultural Impact Mitigation 

Plan 

Yes Adds additional mitigation for construction in 

agricultural areas. 

III.A.2 Wording change to state that Rockies 

Express has already expanded and will 

continue to expand the required cultural 

resources and endangered species 

surveys 

Yes Adds a more stringent requirement. 

III.C Addition of “as necessary and practical” to 

the requirement to defer grazing 

Yes Rockies Express would nonetheless have to 

continue to monitor and maintain the 

disturbed construction area for revegetation 

and/or erosion problems resulting from 

construction. 

III.G Addition of “...where appropriate” to the 

requirement to make available the 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for 

each construction spread 

No The Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan 

must be made available for each construction 

spread. 

IV.A.2 Change of construction right-of-way width 

from 100 feet to 125 feet 

Yes Larger construction equipment necessitates 

wider right-of-way. See section 2.2.1 for 

conditions of approval, however. 

IV.B.1.d Included Conservation Reserve Program 

land among the lands where topsoil 

segregation must be performed 

Yes Adds a more stringent requirement. 

IV.E.2 Added the adjective “suitable” to qualify 

the fabric to be used to support crushedstone access pads 

No Suitable has not been defined. 

IV.F.1.a Added sediment logs to the list of 

acceptable slope breakers 

Yes Sediment logs may be better on certain 

slopes. 

V.D.3.g Removed the word “imprinter” and inserted 

the word “roller” 

Yes An imprinter may be used. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-11

Table 2.3-2 

Differences between the REX East Project’s Project Procedures 

and the FERC’s Procedures 

Section 

Number Alternative Mitigation Accepted Reason 

I.A Addition of Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan Yes Adds additional mitigation for 

construction in agricultural areas. 

I.B.1.a, 

b, c 

Replacement of “...at the time of crossing...” with 

“...at the time of construction...” 

Yes Adds a more stringent requirement. 

II.B.3 Removal of requirement to limit construction rightof-way width to 75 feet unless specific 

construction plans are filed 

No The FERC recommends that Rockies 

Express use a 75-foot-wide right-ofway for wetlands. See section 2.3.2. 

IV.A.1.D Addition (to the requirements on parking and 

refueling) of the requirement that no refueling 

occur within 200 feet of a private well nor within 

400 feet of a municipal well 

Yes Adds a more stringent requirement. 

V.B.7 

and 

V.B.8 

Allow pipe segments to be welded and strung 

above and across a waterbody prior to installation 

(in order to expedite installation) 

No Welding materials may fall into the 

waterbody. There is no indication how 

high above the waterbody the pipe 

would be strung. 

VI.A.3 Widening the limit on right-of-way width from 75 

feet to 100 feet 

No The FERC recommends that Rockies 

Express use a 75-foot-wide right-ofway for wetlands. See section 2.3.2. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-12 

Figure 2.3-1 

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence in Uplands 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-13

would be clearly marked using readily identifiable flagging and/or temporary signage. Before 

construction, Rockies Express would contact One-Call systems for the various states so that facility 

owners can identify and flag buried utilities to prevent accidental damage during pipeline construction. 

Clearing and Grading 

The construction work area would be cleared of trees, large rocks, brush, and roots. Trees would 

be removed only when necessary for construction purposes. Timber and other vegetative debris would be 

chipped for use as erosion-control mulch, burned, cut and stacked along the right-of-way, or otherwise 

disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations and landowner requirements. 

However, we believe more information is required on how material would be disposed of; therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP, a bulk material disposal plan for excess rock, 

trees, brush, and other construction debris. 

In areas containing livestock, Rockies Express would coordinate with landowners on disposal or 

removal of shrub and tree waste that might harm livestock. Burning would be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes fire hazards and prevents heat damage to surrounding vegetation. As recommended in section 

4.7.1, burning should not take place within 500 feet of Indiana bat habitat. 

Fences would be cut and braced along the right-of-way, and temporary gates would be installed to 

provide right-of-way access. The construction area would then be graded (i.e., leveled) to enable 

construction equipment to operate. Segregated topsoil would be placed along the right-of-way in a 

manner that would not impede access, material transport, and pipe assembly. Sufficient space would be 

left between separate piles of topsoil and subsoil stored on the same side of the right-of-way so that the 

subsoil can be returned without disturbing the topsoil pile. 

Temporary erosion control measures, such as sediment barriers (silt fencing, staked straw bales) 

and temporary slope breakers, would be installed during clearing and grading. After installation, the 

barriers would be regularly inspected and maintained until construction is complete or permanent erosion 

control measures are installed to replace them. 

Trenching 

Rockies Express would typically use a rotary ditching machine to excavate trenches. Where 

rotary ditching is not possible, track-mounted excavators and backhoes or other similar equipment would 

be used. Rock substrates could be excavated using rippers or hammers. Any required blasting would be 

consistent with Rockies Express’ Blasting Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007c) and with all applicable laws and 

company standards (see section 2.3.2). In agricultural or residential areas, subsoil and rock would be 

stockpiled separately from topsoil. For safety and to minimize sloughing of topsoil into the ditch, the 

trench sides would be sloped in accordance with the stability of the soils present. Typically, the trench 

would be excavated to a depth sufficient to provide a minimum of three feet of cover over the pipeline. In 

consolidated rock areas at least two feet of cover would be provided. 

Stringing 

Individual sections of pipe would be 40 to 60 feet long and protected with a fusion-bonded, 

factory-applied epoxy coating. The beveled ends would be left uncoated to facilitate welding. Pipe joints 

would be shipped to strategically located storage yards, where they would be loaded onto stringing trucks. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-14

The stringing trucks would travel along the right-of-way and lay the individual pipe sections on 

temporary supports (skids) along the working side of the trench in preparation for subsequent bending, 

line-up, welding, joint coating, lowering-in, backfill, and inspection activities. The amount of pipe 

required for waterbody crossings would typically be stockpiled in temporary work areas on one or both 

banks of the waterbody. 

Pipe Bending 

A hydraulic pipe-bending machine would be used to bend straight pipe joints to enable the 

pipeline to conform to ground contours and directional changes. Some factory-bent pipe might be used at 

certain Project locations (e.g., at waterbody crossings). 

Pipe Line-up and Welding 

Following stringing and bending, the pipe joints would be aligned and welded together using 

multiple passes to achieve a full penetration weld. Rockies Express intends to use automatic welding. 

Welders would be qualified according to, and welding procedures would comply with, applicable 

American National Standards Institute, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American 

Petroleum Institute (API), including API 1104 - Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, and Title 49 

CFR Part 192 (Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Safety Standards). 

Radiographic Inspection and Weld Repair 

To ensure that the assembled pipe meets or exceeds design strength requirements, the welds 

would be visually inspected by a qualified inspector and non-destructively examined by means of 

radiographic (X-ray) or other approved test methods, in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 192, API 

1104, and ASME standards. Defective welds would be repaired or removed, in which case the new weld 

would be installed and tested. 

Coating Field Welds, Inspection and Repair 

Following welding, the construction field welds and pipe joint ends would be coated in the field 

with an approved material compatible with the factory-applied pipeline coating. The pipeline coating 

would be inspected for defects, and any damaged areas repaired, before the pipe is lowered into the 

trench. 

Pipe Lowering 

Before the pipe is lowered into the trench using track-mounted side booms and/or backhoes, the 

trench would be inspected to ensure that its size is correct and that all foreign material has been removed. 

In rocky areas, either the bottom of the trench would be padded or the pipe would be lowered onto 

sandbag or foam pipe supports (“pillows”). A protective wrap (rock jacket) might be used to protect the 

pipeline coating from any sharp rocks located on the trench bottom. 

If necessary during the lowering process, trench dewatering would be accomplished in a manner 

designed to prevent heavily silt-laden water from flowing into wetlands or waterbodies, as described in 

the Rockies Express Plan and Procedures. When dewatering trenches in agricultural and wetland areas, 

Rockies Express would minimize erosion and/or crop damage by controlling discharge rates, dewatering 

to filter bags, and discharging to existing canals or ditches. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-15

Padding and Backfilling 

After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the trench would be backfilled. Backfill material 

generally would consist of the material excavated from the trench. Previously excavated subsoil would be 

pushed back into the trench first by means of bladed equipment or backhoes. Padding or a protective 

coating would be used to prevent damage to the pipe coating from rocky trench spoil. Padding typically 

would consist of trench subsoil spoil that has been screened to remove rocks, which would be disposed of 

in accordance with Rockies Express’ Plan, or other approved suitable material (e.g., soil, sand) that would 

be brought to the site. Topsoil would not be used for padding. After backfilling, a small crown of 

material might be left to account for any future soil settling. 

Trench breakers would be installed around the pipeline in the trench as needed to minimize the 

potential for subsurface water flow around the pipe. Trench breakers also would be installed at the base 

of slopes adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands. 

Hydrostatic Testing and Final Tie-in 

To verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the maximum allowable operating 

pressure (MAOP), the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested before it is put into service. Pipeline test 

segments would be capped and filled with water. The pipe test section would then be pressurized and 

hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT regulations. Loss of pressure that cannot be attributed to 

specific factors such as temperature changes would be investigated. Detected leaks would be repaired and 

the test section retested. 

Hydrostatic test water would be obtained in compliance with state regulations and existing water 

rights. Rockies Express would minimize the potential effects of hydrostatic testing on surface water 

resources by placing a screen on intake hoses to minimize entrainment and entrapment of fish. 

Topography and the availability of test water would determine the length of each segment to be tested. 

Table 4.3.6-1 lists the preliminary supply and discharge locations and the estimated volumes of the water 

that would be used for the hydrostatic testing 

Upon completion of the testing, the water would either be pumped to the next segment for testing 

or else discharged. Transfer of test water between basins would not be permitted unless previously 

authorized. Test water would be discharged through energy dissipating devices (e.g., hay bale filters, 

sediment bags) in accordance with the requirements of a NPDES hydrostatic discharge permit. Test water 

would contact only new pipe and no chemicals would be added. Once a segment of pipe has been 

successfully tested and dried, the test cap and manifold would be removed and the pipe tied in to the 

remainder of the pipeline. 

Both our Procedures and those of Rockies Express require information on hydrostatic test water 

to be filed before construction (i.e., source or discharge locations, screening of intake structures, 

maintaining downstream flows). To fully evaluate any issues associated with hydrostatic test water 

withdrawal and discharge, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express develop a Hydrostatic Testing Plan that includes, but is not limited to, 

the following information: 

a. The screen size proposed for use on intake hoses to prevent entrainment of fish; and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-16

b. Documentation that appropriate federal and state agencies have been consulted 

regarding the establishment of water withdrawal rates to ensure the withdrawals 

would have minimal impact on flows, fisheries, and downstream water users. 

This Hydrostatic Testing Plan should be filed with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of the OEP, prior to the start of construction. 

Additional recommendations for the Hydrostatic Testing Plan to mitigate impacts to mussels are 

described in section 4.7.1. 

Clean-up and Restoration 

Clean-up operations, including final grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent 

erosion-control structures would begin following backfill operations. We have recommended that 

Rockies Express file a bulk material disposal plan. If seasonal or other weather conditions, including wet 

soil conditions, prevent compliance with these time frames, Rockies Express would maintain temporary 

erosion controls (temporary slope breakers and sediment barriers) until conditions allow completion of 

cleanup activities. 

Construction debris would be removed from the right-of-way and disposed of in accordance with 

applicable regulations. Rockies Express would grade the construction right-of-way to restore preconstruction contours and leave the soil in proper condition for planting. In areas where Rockies Express 

places topsoil on its travel lane, the topsoil would be pulled back onto the construction right-of-way when 

establishing the original contours. Decompaction would be completed as necessary in accordance with 

the Rockies Express’ Plan, recommendations of the National Resource Conservation Service or other 

agricultural agencies, and landowner requirements. Such decompaction would include any necessary at 

the contractor/pipe yards and on temporary access roads the Project uses. Permanent erosion- and 

sediment-control measures, including diversion terraces, would be restored or installed, and any required 

reseeding or other forms of revegetation would be completed. Private and public property, such as 

fences, gates, driveways, and roads the pipeline construction disturbs, would be restored to original or 

better condition. 

2.3.2 Special Construction Procedures 

Rockies Express would use various special construction procedures for the crossing of roads and 

railroads, wetlands, waterbodies, residential areas, agricultural areas, commercial and industrial areas, 

steeply sloping areas, areas of shallow bedrock, and foreign pipelines. These procedures are described 

below. 

Road and Rail Crossings 

Construction of pipelines across major paved highways, railroads, and unpaved roads where 

traffic cannot be interrupted would be accomplished by boring under the roadbed. Most smaller, unpaved 

roads and drives would be crossed by open trenching and then restored to the pre-construction or better 

condition. If a road being crossed by the open-cut method requires extensive construction time, 

provisions would be made for detours or other measures to permit traffic flow during construction. 

Rockies Express would work with landowners to determine the least disruptive method to cross privately 

owned roads. Rockies Express would repair all road damage caused by construction of the pipeline. The 

pipelines would be buried to the depth required by applicable road crossing permits/approvals and would 

be designed to withstand anticipated external loadings. Railroad crossings would be installed (typically 

using a bore) in accordance with the requirements of the railroad. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-17

Wetland Crossings 

Wetlands would be crossed following the methods outlined in Rockies Express’ Procedures. 

These wetland construction methods are briefly outlined below. 

During clearing, sediment barriers (such as silt fencing and staked straw bales) would be installed 

and maintained adjacent to all wetlands and within additional temporary workspace areas as necessary to 

minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the full width of 

rights-of-way and extra workspaces at the base of slopes that are adjacent to wetland boundaries. The 

pipeline construction method used in the wetland would depend largely on the soil stability at the time of 

construction. Where wetlands are saturated and the trench fills with water, the pipeline segment would be 

assembled in an upland area and installed using the push-pull or float method. Where wetland soils are 

sufficiently stable to support the pipe, the pipeline segment would be assembled in the wetland using a 

conventional construction technique. The time that the excavated ditch is kept open would be minimized, 

as practicable, to minimize the effect on wetland soils. For wetlands located in actively cultivated or 

rotated cropland, construction techniques would be similar to those used in conventional upland crosscountry construction. 

The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the wetland soil is firm enough to 

support equipment or the construction right-of-way has been appropriately stabilized (e.g., with timber 

riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats). In wetlands that cannot be appropriately stabilized, 

all construction equipment, other than that needed to install the wetland crossing, would use access roads 

located in upland areas. In areas where no reasonable access exists, construction equipment would be 

permitted to cross through the wetland once using the construction right-of-way. The top one foot of 

topsoil would be segregated from the trench area, except where standing water is present or soils are 

saturated or frozen. Segregated topsoil would be immediately restored to its original location after 

backfilling is complete. 

Restoration of wetland contours to pre-construction levels would be accomplished during 

backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary to prevent the 

subsurface drainage of water from the wetland. Rockies Express would monitor and record the success of 

wetland revegetation annually for the first three years after construction or until wetland revegetation is 

successful. Additional information on wetland crossings is presented in section 4.3.7 of this draft EIS. 

We do not dictate which construction methods an applicant or contractor should use when 

constructing through wetlands. Instead, we apply a performance-based standard designed to ensure 

impacts on wetlands are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Some standard performancebased measures are qualitative and vary in applicability and are subject to wetland type and other sitespecific factors. In general, minimizing impacts on wetlands requires foregoing standard uplandconstruction methods when in wetlands. It is incumbent upon the applicant to develop a construction plan 

that meets these performance standards to minimize wetland impacts. 

Rockies Express proposes to typically utilize 100 feet of temporary construction right-of-way in 

jurisdictional wetlands. Rockies Express is requesting an additional 15 feet (for a total of 40 feet) on the 

spoil side to accommodate the deeper pipeline ditch and amount of spoil temporarily sidecast due to the 

fact that a larger diameter pipeline (42-inch) would be installed. Rockies Express anticipates that the 

large equipment necessary for the installation of the proposed 42-inch diameter pipeline would require the 

typical 50 feet plus 10 additional feet (60 feet total) of workspace on the access side of the right-of-way. 

Rockies Express would use only the area needed at each crossing. We disagree. Experience with 

construction of other 42-inch diameter pipelines has shown us that they can be constructed using a 75-foot 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-18

wide construction right-of-way. Using this smaller construction right-of-way would reduce disturbance in 

wetlands by 40 percent. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express revise its Procedures to use a 75-foot wide construction right-of-way 

for wetlands. Rockies Express should incorporate these revisions in its pre-construction 

planning, revising the REX East construction alignment sheets, as necessary, to 

accommodate the revised work areas. For wetlands that Rockies Express believes 

would require a right-of-way width greater than 75 feet, Rockies Express should file 

with the Secretary, site-specific justification in its implementation plan for the Project 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, prior to the start of 

construction. 

Waterbody Crossings 

Conventional Open-cut Waterbody Crossings 

Rockies Express proposes the open-cut crossing method for most minor waterbody crossings. As 

proposed, these crossings would involve excavation of the pipeline trench across the waterbody, 

installation of the pipeline, and backfilling of the trench with no effort to isolate flow from construction 

activities. Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished using backhoes or other 

excavation equipment working from the banks of the waterbody. Trench spoil would be stored at least 10 

feet from the banks (topographic conditions permitting). A section of pipe long enough to span the entire 

crossing would be fabricated on one bank and either pulled across the bottom to the opposite bank, floated 

across the stream, or carried into place and submerged into the trench. The trench would then be 

backfilled and the bottom of the watercourse and banks restored and stabilized. Sediment barriers, such 

as silt fencing, staked straw bales, or trench plugs would be installed to prevent spoil and sediment-laden 

water from entering the waterbody from adjacent upland areas. 

Dry Waterbody Crossings 

According to Rockies Express’ Procedures, a “dry-ditch” crossing method would be used for 

some minor and intermediate waterbodies. 

A flumed crossing involves installation of a temporary dam and a flume pipe to divert the entire 

stream flow over the construction area and allow for trenching of the crossing in dry or nearly dry 

conditions. Dams would be constructed of sand bags alone, sand bags with plastic sheeting, inflatable 

bladders, or similar materials to direct the flow into the flume pipe. Spoil removed during the trenching 

would be stored at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge (topographic conditions permitting). A 

section of pipe long enough to span the entire crossing would be fabricated on one bank and slipped under 

the flume pipe to the opposite bank. The trench would be backfilled and the bottom of the watercourse 

and banks restored and stabilized before the flume pipe and dams are removed. Sediment barriers, such 

as silt fencing, staked straw bales, or trench plugs would be installed to prevent spoil and sediment-laden 

water from entering the waterbody from adjacent upland areas. 

The dam-and-pump dry-ditch crossing method would involve damming the stream with sandbags 

or equivalent materials on both sides of the construction work area and pumping the stream flow around 

the construction zone. Excavation of the trench, installation of the pipeline, and restoration would be 

similar to that described above for the flumed crossing.

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-19

Horizontal Directional Drilling 

A horizontal directional drill (HDD) is a trenchless installation process by which a pipeline is 

installed beneath obstacles or sensitive areas. The primary advantage to HDD is that there is minimal 

disturbance of the ground surface between the entry and exit points of the HDD. The length of pipeline 

that can be installed by HDD depends on factors such as access to the entry and exit points, subsurface 

conditions (geology), and pipe diameter. 

An HDD is a multi-stage process that consists of establishing a small-diameter pilot hole along a 

crossing profile, followed by enlargement of the pilot hole (reaming) to accommodate pullback of the 

pipeline. The pilot hole is drilled using rotation cutting and/or jetting with a jetting assembly attached to 

the drill pipe. The cutting action of the drill head is remotely operated to control its orientation and 

direction. Bentonite drilling fluid (bentonite, a non-toxic, naturally occurring sedimentary clay, is 

composed of weathered and aged volcanic ash) is delivered to the cutting head through the drill string to 

provide the hydraulic cutting action, lubricate the drill bit, help stabilize the hole and remove cutting spoil 

as the drilling fluid was returned to the entry point. Drilling fluid would also be used during the reaming 

process to remove cutting spoil. The position of the drill string is electronically monitored and directional 

corrections made as necessary to ensure that the drill string maintained the desired alignment. 

Enlarging the pilot hole is accomplished incrementally by multiple reaming passes, depending on 

the pipeline diameter and subsurface geology, to increase the hole diameter. Upon successful completion 

of the reaming operation, a cylinder-shaped swab is pulled through the hole to ensure the integrity of the 

completed hole and prepare for pullback of the pipe. The pre-assembled, hydrostatically tested section of 

pipeline would then be pulled into the completed hole. 

Both our Procedures and those of Rockies Express require site-specific HDD plans for wetland or 

waterbody crossings to be filed with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP. To 

fully evaluate issues associated with the temporary storage and proper disposal of cutting spoil and 

drilling fluids, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express include in each of its site-specific HDD plans an estimate of the volume 

and a description of the method of disposal of cutting spoil and drilling fluid, prior to 

the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Rockies Express proposes to use HDD to cross the following 30 waterbodies: 

• In Missouri: Salt River (MP 42.5), Tributary to Salt River (MP 42.7); 

• In both Missouri and Illinois: Mississippi River (MP 43.2); 

• In Illinois: Open Water Area (MP 43.4), Sny Canal (MP 47.3), Illinois River (MP 71.2), 

Embarras River (MP 202.9); 

• In Indiana: Wabash River (MP 246.9), White Lick Creek (MP 312.4), two tributaries to 

White Lick Creek (MP 312.5), Open Water Area (MP 312.5), Big Blue River (MP 340.8), 

Whitewater River (MP 393.1); and 

• In Ohio: Four Mile Creek (MP 421.6), Seven Mile Creek (422.7), Great Miami River (MP 

430.7), Miami & Erie Canal (MP 430.8), Tributary to Great Miami River (MP 430.8 & MP 

430.9), Tributary to Newman Run (MP 451.2), Little Miami River (MP 451.3), Caesar Creek 

(MP 459.6), Deer Creek (MP 499.6), Tributary to Big Darby (MP 509.1), Big Darby Creek 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-20

(MP 509.2), Scioto River (MP 514.6), Walnut Creek (MP 515.9), Ohio & Erie Canal (MP 

516.0), Hocking Valley Canal (MP 534.0), and Muskingum River (MP 577.2). 

Residential Areas 

Where residences are within 50 feet of the construction work area, Rockies Express would use 

alternative construction methods and conduct various activities to mitigate impact to residences. For 

locations of these residences see section 4.8. Such activities would include notifying the landowner 

before construction and arranging work hours to accommodate landowners’ needs. Dust minimization 

techniques would be used onsite, and all litter and debris would be removed daily from the construction 

work area. During construction, the edge of the work area would be fenced for safety purposes to a 

distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence. Mature trees and landscaping would be preserved to 

the extent possible, while ensuring the safe operation of construction equipment. Site-specific 

construction drawings showing the temporary and permanent rights-of-way and noting special 

construction techniques would be prepared for all residential structures within 50 feet of the construction 

area (see appendix D).

Where residences are less than 25 feet from the construction work area, the pipe section would be 

welded and inspected, and welds would be coated before trench excavation begins. The trench would not 

be excavated until the pipe is ready for installation and would be backfilled immediately after pipe 

installation. Every effort would be made to excavate the trench, lower the pipeline, make tie-ins, and 

backfill the trench in one day. Immediately after backfilling the trench, all lawn areas and landscaping 

within the construction work area would be restored.

Agricultural Areas 

Rockies Express proposes to use a Project-specific Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AIMP) 

in conjunction with the Rockies Express Plan and Procedures in agricultural areas. For further discussion 

of the AIMP see section 4.8. This plan is attached as appendix I and describes the following: 

• Provision of agricultural inspectors (AI) during and after Project construction; 

• Segregation of up to 16 inches of topsoil; 

• Minimum covering of 36 inches for the pipeline; 

• Repair of any drainage systems damaged during pipeline construction; 

• Compensation for any crop damages resulting from construction activities; and 

• Negotiation with livestock farmers regarding the exclusion of livestock from the right-ofway. 

Commercial and Industrial Areas 

Impacts on commercial and industrial areas would be limited to the construction and postconstruction restoration periods when construction activities could inconvenience business owners, 

employees, and customers. Rockies Express would maintain close coordination with business owners to 

maintain access to businesses, decrease construction duration, and generally minimize constructionrelated disruptions. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-21

Steep Slopes 

In areas where the Project pipeline would cross steep slopes, additional grading may be required 

to enable the accommodation and use of pipeline construction equipment. The slopes would be cut and 

spoils stored temporarily in adjacent additional temporary extra workspace. Temporary sediment barriers 

and slope breakers such as silt fencing and staked straw bales would be installed during clearing to 

prevent disturbed soil from moving off the right-of-way. Temporary slope breakers consisting of 

mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the right-of-way during grading. After the 

pipeline is installed, the slopes would be reconstructed to their pre-construction contours and permanent 

slope breakers would be installed. Seed would be applied to steep slopes and the right-of-way would be 

mulched or covered with erosion-control fabric. Sediment barriers would be maintained across the rightof-way until permanent vegetation is established. 

Areas of Shallow Bedrock 

Rockies Express anticipates that limited blasting could prove necessary in areas where shallow 

bedrock or boulders are encountered that cannot be removed using an excavator with a bulldozer or a hoeram. 

Approximately 1,200.8 acres of the soils that would be affected by construction contain bedrock 

within 60 inches of the surface. Around half of this bedrock is soft and/or weathered and likely would not 

require blasting during construction. The softer bedrock could be removed by conventional excavation 

with an excavator, ripping with a bulldozer followed by trackhoe excavation, or hammering with a 

trackhoe-attached device (hoe-ram) followed by excavation. The presence of hard bedrock could 

necessitate blasting or other special construction techniques. 

If blasting proves necessary, the strict safety precautions specified in the Rockies Express 

Blasting Plan would be followed. Blasting mats or soil cover would be used as necessary to prevent the 

scattering of loose rock. Rock resulting from blasting activities would be hauled off the right-of-way and 

disposed of properly. In some cases, blast rock would be used placed back into the trench up to the top of 

the undisturbed surround rock. Care would be exercised to avoid damage to underground structures, 

cables, conduits, pipelines, and underground watercourses or springs. Rockies Express would provide 

advance notice of blasting to adjacent landowners or tenants to protect property or livestock. Blasting 

activity would be performed only during daylight hours. 

Foreign Pipeline Crossings 

Crossings of foreign pipelines would be installed at the depth necessary to meet normal soil cover 

and separation requirements. Temporary extra workspace would be required to accommodate the 

increased excavation depths and, for safety reasons, to avoid placing the spoil or construction equipment 

over the existing pipelines. 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction 

Typical construction activities associated with compressor stations are summarized below. 

General construction activities and storage of construction materials and equipment would be confined to 

areas within the approved compressor station construction sites. Debris and waste generated from 

construction would be disposed of appropriately. 

Installation of the meter stations and MLVs would meet the same standards and requirements 

established for the compressor stations and pipeline construction. Valves would be installed within the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-22

permanent pipeline right-of-way and proposed compressor stations, and would require no additional 

space.

Foundations 

Excavation would be performed as necessary to accommodate the reinforced concrete 

foundations required for the new compressor units. Forms would be set, rebar installed, and the concrete 

poured and cured in accordance with applicable standards. Concrete pours would be randomly sampled 

to verify compliance with minimum strength requirements. Backfill would be compacted in place, and 

excess soil would be used elsewhere or distributed around the site. 

Equipment 

The compression equipment typically would be shipped to the site by truck and stored onsite. 

The compressors would be offloaded and, when ready for installation, positioned on the foundation, 

leveled, grouted, and secured. 

Piping 

All pipe connections associated with the new compressors that are not flanged or screwed would 

be welded. All welders and welding procedures would be qualified in accordance with API Standards. 

All welds in gas piping systems would be x-rayed (or verified by another nondestructive testing method) 

to ensure compliance with code requirements. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

All components in high-pressure natural gas service would be hydrostatically tested prior to being 

placed into service. Also, before being placed in service, all controls; safety equipment and systems; 

including emergency shutdown; relief valves; gas and fire detection; engine overspeed; and vibration 

would be checked or tested.

Launchers and Receivers 

All pig launchers and receivers would be located on the compressor stations sites and would 

require no additional land for construction. The installation of the pig launchers and receivers would 

meet the same standards and requirements established for the compressor station and pipeline 

construction.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Rockies Express proposes to begin construction of Project facilities in May 2008 and expects that 

all facilities would be placed into service by December 2008, except for the Arlington and Chandlersville 

Compressor Stations, which would be placed into service by June 2009. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND POSTAPPROVAL FOR ALTERNATIVE MEASURES 

2.5.1 Environmental Inspection 

Under the NGA, the FERC may impose conditions on any Certificate it grants for the REX East 

Project. These conditions could include additional requirements and mitigation measures recommended 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-23

in this draft EIS to minimize the environmental impacts that would result from Project construction and 

operation. 

Rockies Express would assign Environmental Inspectors (EIs) to each construction spread during 

construction. The EI responsibilities are outlined in section II of the Rockies Express Plan and 

Procedures are summarized below. Rockies Express would also augment its inspection program by using 

third-party agency environmental monitors (see section 2.5.2 below). 

Rockies Express would construct its facilities using seven construction spreads that would range 

in length from 61.5 to 79.7 miles. To adequately inspect all construction and mitigation activities over a 

50-mile segment of right-of-way and perform the other duties outlined above, Rockies Express has agreed 

to employ a team of EIs (i.e., two or more) on each construction spread. The EIs:

• Would monitor and ensure compliance with all mitigation measures required by the 

Commission’s Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing documents; 

• Would be responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract and any other authorizing 

document; 

• Would have authority to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of 

the Commission’s Order and any other authorizing document; 

• Would hold full-time positions, separate from all other inspector positions; 

• Would document compliance with the environmental conditions of the Commission’s Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements other federal, state, or local 

agencies impose; 

• May oversee cultural resource monitors and/or biological monitors that may be required to 

monitor and evaluate construction impacts on resources as specified in this draft EIS; 

• Would be responsible for maintaining status reports that would be available to agencies for 

review; 

• Would report to the Rockies Express’ Chief Inspector, but have independent status; and 

• Would have stop-activity authority if a noncompliance issue requires corrective action. 

In addition, Rockies Express would retain a qualified AI on each construction spread that crosses 

agricultural land. The AI position would be separate and in addition to the EI positions, and would 

include many of the same duties. The AI would inspect on-site construction and restoration efforts in 

agricultural areas and would be knowledgeable of midwestern agricultural practices, such as terracing, 

pivot irrigation, and drain tile repair. The AI would report directly to the lead EI. Inspectors from the 

FERC would conduct field inspections during construction. Other federal and state agencies also may 

oversee or monitor inspection to the extent determined necessary by the individual agency. 

After construction is completed, the FERC would continue to oversee inspection and monitoring. 

If any of the proposed monitoring timeframes are determined to be inadequate to assess the success of 

restoration, Rockies Express would be required to extend post-construction monitoring programs. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-24

We believe that environmental compliance must start with every person who sets foot on the 

worksite. Although Rockies Express has previously indicated that all contractors and company personnel 

who work on the Project would receive environmental training, in a July 25, 2007 filing, Rockies Express 

stated that because it would use the same contractors to construct the REX East Project that had 

previously worked on the REX West Project it would avoid the need to retrain personnel. We disagree, 

even though there are some similarities between the projects there are also major differences. Our 

standard mitigation measure in section 5.2 of the draft EIS requires all personnel to be trained for this 

project. 

2.5.2 Compliance Monitoring 

Rockies Express has agreed to fund a third-party environmental monitoring program for the 

FERC. We believe that the third-party independent Environmental Compliance Monitoring and 

Reporting Program (ECMR Program) provides several benefits, both to agencies and to Rockies Express. 

The overall objective of an ECMR Program is threefold: (1) to assess environmental compliance during 

construction so that a high level of environmental compliance is achieved throughout the project, (2) to 

assist the FERC’s staff in screening and processing variance requests during construction, and (3) to 

create and maintain a database of daily reports documenting compliance and instances of noncompliance. 

In order to fully evaluate any issues associated with environmental compliance monitoring, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP a draft third-party environmental monitoring program and obtain proposals 

from potential contractors to provide monitoring services, and file the program and 

proposals with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP at 

least 60 days prior to the anticipated start of pipeline construction. The monitoring 

program should include: 

a. The employment by the contractor of one to two full-time on-site monitors per 

construction spread; 

b. The employment by the contractor of a full-time compliance manager to direct and 

coordinate with the monitors, manage the reporting systems, and provide technical 

support to the FERC staff; 

c. A systematic strategy for the review and approval by the contract compliance 

manager and monitors of variances to certain construction activities as may be 

required by Rockies Express based on site-specific conditions; 

d. The development of an internet website for posting daily or weekly inspection 

reports submitted by both the third-party monitors and Rockies Express’ EIs; and 

e. A discussion of how the monitoring program can incorporate and/or be coordinated 

with the monitoring or reporting that may be required by other Federal and state 

agencies. 

2.5.3 Post-approval Process for Alternative Measures 

Surface disturbance locations and acreages identified in this draft EIS and through our 

recommendations are anticipated to be sufficient for construction and operation (including maintenance) 

of the REX East Project and all ancillary improvements. However, route alignments and other project 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-25

refinements often continue past the project review phase and into the construction phase. As a result, 

work area locations and disturbed acreages described in this draft EIS may require refinement after 

project approval. These changes frequently involve minor route realignments or shifting approved extra 

workspace, adding new temporary workspace, and adding access roads to work areas and associated 

temporary workspace areas. This section describes the procedure used for assessing impacts on 

workspace areas outside those evaluated in this draft EIS and the procedure for obtaining OEP approval 

for their use. 

Analyses in this draft EIS cover more area than would be required for the proposed facilities. 

When an extra workspace is shifted along the right-of-way or additional workspace is requested, they 

would typically be within the previously surveyed area. Such requests would be analyzed using a 

variance process. 

The request for new or additional temporary workspace locations and a copy of the survey results 

would be documented and forwarded to the FERC in the form of a “variance request.” The FERC would 

then take the lead on reviewing the request and deciding whether to approve it. Typically no further 

agency consultation is required if the request is within previously surveyed areas. At the conclusion of 

the Project, as-built drawings would be provided to the FERC. 

The procedures for assessing impact on workspace areas outside those evaluated in this draft EIS 

and for approving their use are similar. Additional inventory and evaluation would be performed to 

ensure that impact on biological, cultural, and other resources would be avoided or minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable and that landowner approval has been obtained. After any additional 

consultations are completed, the new workspace location and survey results would be documented and 

forwarded to the FERC in the form of a variance request, which would be evaluated in the manner 

described above. Appropriate agency consultations and approvals would be conducted and obtained prior 

to approval of the variance. At the conclusion of the project, as-built drawings would be provided to the 

FERC. 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 

Operational activities on the pipeline would be limited to maintenance of the right-of-way and 

inspection, repair, and cleaning of the pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by pipeline 

personnel would assist in identification of the following conditions: soil erosion that may expose the pipe, 

surface visual clues that may indicate a leak in the line, conditions of the vegetative cover and erosion 

control measures, unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way, excavation activities in the vicinity of 

the right-of-way, and other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require preventative 

maintenance or repairs. The pipeline cathodic protection system also would be monitored and inspected 

by pipeline personnel periodically to ensure proper and adequate corrosion protection. Appropriate 

corrective action to conditions observed during inspection would be taken as necessary.

2.6.1 Right-of-Way Monitoring and Maintenance 

To maintain accessibility of the right-of-way and to accommodate pipeline integrity surveys, 

vegetation on the permanent right-of-way (50 feet wide) would be maintained by mowing, cutting, and 

trimming in all areas except for active agricultural areas (including rangeland and pasture), Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) areas, and wetlands. The right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate; however, 

large brush and trees would be periodically removed as described in Rockies Express’ Plan and 

Procedures. Trees or deep-rooted shrubs could damage the pipeline’s protective coating, obscure periodic 

surveillance and inspection, or interfere with potential repairs and thus would not be allowed to grow 

within 10 feet in uplands (15 feet in wetlands) of either side of the pipeline. Such vegetation maintenance 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-26

normally would not be required in agricultural or grazing areas. The pipeline facilities would be clearly 

marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, and other key points. Efforts would 

be made to minimize the number of markers located in actively cultivated fields, particularly those where 

pivot irrigation is used. Wherever possible, markers would be placed at fence lines or field margins. The 

markers would clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a telephone number and address 

where a company representative can be reached in the event of an emergency or prior to any third-party 

excavation in the area of the pipeline. Rockies Express would participate in all One-Call systems.

2.6.2 Pipeline and Compressor Station Integrity 

Rockies Express’ pipeline facilities would be operated and maintained in accordance with the 

federal safety standards of 49 CFR 192. Operation and maintenance of the REX East Project facilities 

would be performed by or at the direction of Rockies Express. The pipeline would be inspected 

periodically from the air and on foot as operating conditions permit, but no less frequently than as 

required by 49 CFR 192. These surveillance activities would provide information on possible 

encroachments and nearby construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and other potential concerns that 

may affect pipeline safety and operation. Evidence of population changes would be monitored and class 

locations changed as necessary. Rockies Express also would inspect MLVs annually and document the 

results. 

Compressor station crews would operate and maintain the station equipment. Station personnel 

would perform routine checks of the facilities, including calibration of equipment and instrumentation, 

inspection of critical components, and scheduled and routine maintenance of equipment. Safety 

equipment, such as pressure relief, fire detection, and gas detection systems would be tested periodically 

for proper operation. Rockies Express would take corrective action for any identified problem. 

The compressor stations would be equipped with combustible gas and fire detection alarm 

systems, and with an emergency shutdown system. The compressor stations also would be equipped with 

relief valves or pressure protection devices to protect the station piping from overpressure if station or 

unit control systems fail. A telemetry system would notify operations personnel locally and at the gas 

control headquarters of the activation of safety systems and alarms that would in turn dispatch 

maintenance personnel to investigate and take proper corrective actions. 

2.7 FUTURE PIPELINE AND FACILITY PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

At the time of the publication of this draft EIS, public information was available on several 

potential pipeline projects that may connect to the REX East pipeline, if built. This following discussion 

of possible future projects is not meant to be exhaustive, but represents an indication of publicly 

expressed interests by the companies indicated below. None of these projects have yet initiated pre-filing 

with the FERC. Any plans for these additional pipelines would require a separate environmental review 

and a separate authorization from the Commission. 

Williams Inc.2

 held an “open season” from September 26 to October 29 to obtain shipper interest 

in a proposed interstate pipeline, the “Rockies Connector Pipeline,” that would extend approximately 250 

miles from Williams’ Transco Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania to connect to the eastern 

terminus of the REX East pipeline. In November 2007, Williams reported that the open season 

demonstrated significant interest in the project, which would transport approximately 688,000 dekatherms 

per day (Dth/d). Williams’ planned in-service date for this project is November 2010. 

 

2 www.williams.com/newsroom

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-27

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of El Paso Corporation, has proposed the 

Northeast Passage Project.3

 This proposed 36-inch pipeline would stretch 471 miles from Clarington, 

Ohio to Pleasant Valley, New York. Although not explicitly stated by the company, the fact that the 

proposed pipeline would start in Clarington, Ohio, suggests that a link with the REX East terminus is 

likely. El Paso has stated that it plans to pre-file for the project in March 2008, and follow with an 

official certificate application to the FERC in August or September, 2008. The company hopes to receive 

project approval in August 2009, and to bring the pipeline expansion into service in November 2011. 

In August 2007, Dominion announced that it had secured firm, long-term commitments from 

Rockies Express to receive gas from the REX East pipeline in Ohio and deliver it to points in the 

Northeast or Mid-Atlantic regions. This proposed pipeline project is called Dominion Hub 1. A report on 

Dominion’s website4

 states that Dominion intends to initiate the filing process with the FERC in 

December 2007, and begin firm service by the end of 2009. 

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation is currently evaluating a project to transport additional 

volumes of gas through its existing system by developing additional new routes from its west side system 

(including Rockies Express) to eastern points including Leidy, Ellisburg, Independence, and the 

Millennium Pipeline. At the time of publication of this draft EIS, this project does not have a name, 

proposed route, or timeline. 

Spectra Energy has proposed a project called the Northern Bridge that would transport up to 

500 million cubic feet of natural gas per day from Clarington, Ohio to Oakford, Pennsylvania.5

 Spectra 

also states that Northern Bridge would offer strategic interconnections with all transmission pipelines and 

several storage markets along its path. Spectra has indicated that this project would probably consist of 

11 miles of replacement pipeline and additional compression at two existing compressor stations all in 

Pennsylvania. Spectra held an open season for the pipeline in September 2007. The pipeline is expected 

to begin operations in late 2009. Spectra plans to file with the FERC in late 2008 or early 2009. 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc, has proposed the Highland Trails Pipeline, which would 

connect the Fayetteville Shale gas supplies in Arkansas with the Rockies Express pipeline in Audrain 

County, Missouri.6

 No details as to the exact location of the proposed link in Audrain County are 

available. The company held a non-binding open season for the pipeline in June and July, 2007. If the 

company determines that there is sufficient interesting in the project, it could hold a binding open season, 

and, based on the level of interest, may proceed by filing an application with the FERC. A proposed 

project timeline is currently not available. 

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Sempra Energy, the Rockies Express partners, have 

proposed a 375-mile extension of the REX East pipeline from its terminus in Clarington, Ohio, to 

Princeton, New Jersey.7

 In October 2007, the companies issued a non-binding open season, soliciting 

bids from interested customers for contract terms of 10 years or more. Rockies Express has proposed an 

in-service date of January 2011. No indications of a timeline for pre-filing with the FERC have been 

given for this proposed project. 

 

3 http://www.elpaso.com/northeastpassage/presentation.shtm

4 http://www.dom.com/news/gas2007/pr0816.jsp 5 http://www.spectraenergy.com/news/releases/2007/0906-01.asp

6 http://www.sscgp.com/News/NonBindingOpenSeason.htm

7 http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/20071029i539DOWJONESDJONLINE000592_

FORTUNE5.htm

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
2-28

Rockies Express projects a minimum 50-year useful life for the Project. Regardless of the 

duration of operation of the Project, abandonment of any Project facilities would be subject to applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-1 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

In accordance with NEPA and the FERC policy, we identified and evaluated a range of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed action to determine if they would be environmentally preferable. 

These alternatives include the No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system 

alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Our 

analysis is based on our review of publicly available information such as aerial photographs and United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, input provided by the public and state, local, and 

federal agencies, information filed by Rockies Express, and site visits. We considered alternatives 

identified by landowners, resource agencies, and other stakeholders during the public scoping period. 

The evaluation criteria for selecting potentially environmentally preferable alternatives are: 

• technical feasibility and practicality; 

• clear environmental advantages over the REX East Project; and 

• ability to meet the Project objective of delivering up to 1.8 bcf per day of Rocky Mountain 

natural gas from the terminus of REX West in Audrain County, Missouri to customers 

located in the midwestern and eastern United States. 

Recognizing that not all conceivable alternatives are technically feasible and practical is 

important. Our analysis had to consider existing technologies and logistics in determining whether an 

alternative was feasible and practical. 

In reviewing an alternative, we first determined whether it would meet the stated Project 

objectives. Next, we analyzed the potential impacts associated with the alternative to generate a 

comparison of the alternative to the REX East proposal. Those alternatives that met the Project 

objectives, appeared to be the most reasonable technically, and appeared to have similar or lower levels of 

environmental impact were reviewed in detail. The results of our analysis are presented below. 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The FERC can take one of the following three actions in processing applications under Section 7 

of the NGA: (1) deny the requested authorization (i.e., the No Action Alternative); (2) postpone action 

pending further filings or study (i.e., the Postponed Action Alternative); or (3) grant the Certificate with 

or without conditions (i.e., the proposed action). 

According to the EIA’s 2006 predictions, 60 percent of the projected growth in domestic natural 

gas consumption through 2030 will occur east of the Mississippi River, while the Rocky Mountains and 

Alaska will provide most of the increase in domestic production (EIA, 2006a). Thus, satisfying the 

increasing gas demand in the eastern United States from these domestic sources would require additional 

east-west pipeline capacity. 

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to 

predict what actions might be taken by policymakers or end users in response to the No Action or 

Postponed Action Alternatives, it is likely that potential end users would: (1) attempt to make other 

arrangements to obtain natural gas; (2) use alternative fossil-fuel energy sources (such as fuel oil or coal) 

and other traditional long-term fuel source alternatives (such as nuclear power or hydroelectric power); 

and/or (3) use renewable energy sources, such as wind power. It is also possible that energy conservation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-2 

practices could be used to offset the demand for natural gas in markets that would be supplied by the 

Project. 

Each of these alternative approaches to meeting the energy needs of the target market would 

result in some level of environmental impacts. Considered both individually and in combination, specific 

energy alternatives or conservation measures could either: (1) not provide the projected energy needs of 

the regional markets; (2) satisfy the Project objectives by providing the projected regional energy 

demands with equal or less environmental impact; or (3) provide the required amount of energy but result 

in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the Project if implemented with our 

recommended mitigation measures. 

If the FERC denies the proposal, the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in this 

draft EIS would not occur. If the FERC postpones action on the application, the environmental impacts 

would be delayed; or—if the applicant decided not to pursue the Project—the impacts would not occur at 

all. If the FERC selects the No Action Alternative, Rockies Express would not be able to deliver up to 

1.8 bcf per day of Rocky Mountain natural gas from the Mexico Compressor Station in Audrain County, 

Missouri to the high-demand markets in the midwestern and eastern United States, and the objectives of 

the Project would not be met. 

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES 

In evaluating energy alternatives to the Project, we considered the use of renewable energy 

sources, energy conservation, and renewable energy combined with energy conservation. Energy 

conservation strategies or renewable energy alternatives, such as wind, hydropower, municipal solid 

waste, solar, and wood and other biomass, are projected to have an increasing role in the country’s energy 

needs. State regulators and the federal government are promoting energy conservation programs, aimed 

primarily at residential and commercial markets, through broad-based efficiency programs, demand side 

management, and integrated resource planning initiatives. These programs rely on economic tests of 

avoided energy costs to determine which designs and technologies should be implemented. If the 

proposed Project were not constructed, less natural gas entering the market would result in slightly higher 

gas prices, which in turn would improve the economics of conservation, as well as the attractiveness of 

other less costly but more polluting fuels. Such effects would be small in the markets the Project would 

serve. 

Green energy programs have been around for many years. In general, public participation rates 

do not demonstrate a willingness to pay what are typically from $5 to $20 monthly fees to substitute 

green energy for energy generated via fossil-fuel combustion or nuclear reaction. According to the 

Department of Energy (DOE, 2006), customer participation rates have exceeded 6.5 percent in only two 

of the more than 500 green energy programs, and typical participation rates are below 1 percent. While 

energy conservation strategies or renewable energy alternatives will have an increasing role in meeting 

the country’s energy needs, a DOE study determined that, over the next 20 years, the available mix of 

alternative energy sources would not replace the demand for natural gas (EIA, 2006a). The combined use 

of renewable energy and energy conservation programs as an alternative to the Project could help reduce 

the need for natural gas, but they are not sufficiently available—physically or commercially—in the 

market region to be a viable substitute for the Project. 

Even if efficiency gains, conservation efforts, and use of renewable resources increased, it is not 

evident that a reduction in natural gas consumption would follow. These gains would likely be used to 

facilitate the reduced use of other fuels that have greater associated environmental costs. Collectively, the 

gains achieved through better management, increased efficiency, and renewable energy use would reduce 

the energy demands by only a small fraction of the total projected energy demand in the foreseeable 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-3 

future. Thus, energy alternatives would not be able to satisfy the Project objective to bring 1.8 bcf of 

natural gas, or its energy equivalent, to the target markets. 

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to a proposed action that would make use of other existing, 

modified, or proposed transmission systems to meet the Project’s stated objectives. A system alternative 

would make the construction in all or part of the Project unnecessary. Some modifications or additions to 

another pipeline system may be required to increase its capacity and reach the Project’s intended 

customers, or another entirely new system may need to be constructed. The impact of a system 

alternative could be less than, similar to, or greater than that associated with the Project. 

Producers of natural gas in the Rocky Mountains have made precedent agreements with Rockies 

Express to deliver 1.8 bcf of their natural gas from the Mexico Compressor Station to 17 gas distributors 

along the route. These gas distributors interconnect with the REX East Project in 12 locations spread 

across Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Three additional distributors have expressed interest in building 

additional capacity from their pipelines in Clarington, Ohio to points farther east. Figure 1.0-1 in chapter 

1 shows the locations of Rockies Express’ customers along the pipeline route. We reviewed the locations 

of the Rockies Express gas distributors in relation to existing natural gas systems. Given that the focus of 

the REX East Project is to service these customers and reach eastern markets, a desirable system 

alternative should deliver natural gas to these distributors while limiting construction of new 

infrastructure, and subsequent environmental impacts. In general, this requires that the interstate pipeline 

be proximal to its delivery points so that extensive distribution pipelines are unnecessary. 

We reviewed existing natural gas systems and identified a system alternative that would utilize 

the existing Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (PEPL) system. The REX East Project would begin 

at the terminus of REX West in Audrain County, Missouri. The PEPL system also connects with REX 

West at that point. PEPL potentially could be used to transport gas eastward as far as the Indianapolis 

area. In eastern Missouri, PEPL has a capacity of about 1.4 bcf per day and is currently operating at a 

load capacity factor of about 85 percent. Thus, PEPL only has additional capacity available for 

approximately 0.2 bcf per day and this system alone does not have the capacity to handle the 1.8 bcf per 

day that the REX East Project proposes to transport. Integrating the REX East Project with PEPL would 

require creating a parallel pipeline, which offers no clear advantage over the proposed action. That is, 

construction of a loop on the PEPL system would generate similar environmental impacts as would 

construction of the proposed pipeline. Additionally, the PEPL system terminates near the Indianapolis 

area. The majority of the Rockies Express customers (Rockies Express has 17 distributors) are located 

east of Lebanon in Ohio and would not receive gas under this alternative. We, therefore, do not consider 

PEPL a viable system alternative. 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

In developing the Project route, Rockies Express considered route alternatives to address 

environmental and constructability issues. Rockies Express first developed a base pipeline route based on 

maximizing collocation with existing pipeline rights-of-way as a first step toward minimizing 

environmental impacts. To identify routing and siting constraints, Rockies Express reviewed publicly 

available information—including USGS topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, 

and aerial photographs taken in 2005—and completed field surveys. 

Once potential constraints such as sensitive resources and population centers had been identified, 

Rockies Express devised route modifications to the base pipeline route and incorporated certain 

modifications to create the preliminary pipeline route. Rockies Express then used the preliminary 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-4 

pipeline route to consult with federal and state regulatory and review agencies, farm bureaus, elected 

officials, landowners, and other stakeholders during open-house and Project introductory meetings in June 

and October 2006. As a result of these consultations and further on-the-ground civil and environmental 

surveys, Rockies Express considered additional route modifications to minimize environmental impacts 

or to avoid route constraints. The route modifications that Rockies Express considered before filing the 

application with the FERC on April 30, 2007 are described in appendix E, table E-1. 

In response to stakeholder concerns, Rockies Express adopted another alternative route into the 

Project route that is evaluated in this draft EIS. This is a re-route around Barnesville Reservoir in 

Belmont County, Ohio. The Village of Barnesville, U.S. Senator George Voinivich, U.S. Congressman 

Charles Wilson, and various citizens expressed concern over the possible contamination and damage that 

pipeline construction or rupture could cause to the water supply. The re-route addresses these concerns 

by avoiding Barnesville Reservoir and crossing Slope Creek, a tributary, 0.7 mile south (downstream) of 

the Reservoir. At this time, surveys have not been completed along the Barnesville variation and no 

comments have been received identifying a concern with the current Project route. Therefore, we have 

not considered additional variations around the reservoir at this time. Should such environmental 

concerns arise during the comment period for this draft EIS, other variations would be considered and 

discussed in the final EIS. Based on the information currently available, the impacts of this incorporated 

variation are evaluated in this draft EIS. 

We independently reviewed the Project route to determine whether impacts could be avoided or 

reduced on environmentally sensitive resources, while maintaining the proposed locations of meter 

stations. Meter stations are placed at interconnects between the REX East Project and distribution 

pipelines. For our review, we used the proposed meter station locations so that distribution pipelines 

would not need to be increased in length to interconnect with the Project. We reviewed the pipeline 

segments between meter stations to determine whether the need to create new rights-of-way could be 

minimized by routing pipelines adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way. No major modifications to the 

Project route were recommended based on this review. 

We also received comments from agencies, communities, landowners, and other stakeholders 

requesting a review of changes to the Project route. This review resulted in the definition and evaluation 

of nine major route alternatives and numerous route variations. The major route alternatives, evaluated in 

turn in the following subsections, follow different alignments for a significant length of the Project route, 

have been raised by communities or groups of multiple landowners, and/or are considered for the purpose 

of avoiding or reducing impacts to significant features. The route variations, evaluated in section 3.5, are 

relatively short deviations from the Project route that would potentially avoid or reduce Project impacts 

on specific localized resources, such as individual residences or site-specific environmental conditions. 

3.4.1 Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives 

Rockies Express has proposed to cross the Mississippi River at the confluence of the Salt River 

(MP 42.5) and the Mississippi River (MP 43.2) using two HDDs from Blackburn Island, as shown in 

figures 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2. Blackburn Island is located between the two rivers and is part of the Upper 

Mississippi Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) owned by the COE, leased to FWS, and managed by 

the MDC. This operation would require clearing 5.4 acres of forested wetlands on Blackburn Island for 

the HDD site, staging area, and access road. Rockies Express also would dredge approximately 4,500 

cubic yards from the Mississippi River on the east side of Blackburn Island to enable barge access to the 

island. The HDD to the west would pass underneath the Salt River, and the HDD to the east would pass 

underneath the Mississippi River and would go under the Sny District Levee. Underneath the Mississippi 

and Salt Rivers, a minimum of 40 feet separation between the river bottom and the Project 

 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-5

Figure 3.4.1-1 

Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-6

Figure 3.4.1-2 

Detail of REX East Project Crossing Location at the Mississippi River

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-7

pipeline alignment would be maintained. The HDD profile would also be engineered to maintain a 

minimum of 75 feet separation between the bottom of the levee and the REX East Project pipeline 

alignment. This depth would be maintained for an additional 300 feet landward from the toe of the levee, 

per COE requirements (Manual EM 1110-2-1913 and WES CPAR-GL-98-01). In addition, Rockies 

Express has developed an HDD construction plan, which fully describes safeguards to minimize the risk 

of an inadvertent release of drilling fluids (frac-out) and maximize the protection of the Sny District 

Levee. This plan includes settlement monitoring of the Sny Levee during construction and for two years 

construction. However, to ensure the reliability and safety of the pipeline and Sny Levee, we have 

recommended that Rockies Express conduct levee settlement monitoring every six months for a period of 

five years after Project construction (see section 4.12). 

FWS, COE, state agencies, and Sny Levee District have expressed concerns regarding the 

proposed location of the Mississippi River crossing at Blackburn Island. FWS, COE, and state agencies 

expressed concern over the loss of forested habitat on Blackburn Island. The Sny Levee District raised 

concerns about the potential structural impacts on the Sny Levee from the HDD passing under the levee. 

The Sny Levee District expressed an interest in having the HDD terminate on the river side (west side) of 

the levee and then having the pipeline cross up and over the levee. Rockies Express is currently 

conducting geotechnical studies to determine the technical feasibility of this construction approach. 

We evaluated two major route alternatives in response to these concerns (see figure 3.4.1-1). 

First, Rockies Express proposed a route alternative that would cross the Mississippi River at Clarksville 

Island, which is approximately 12 miles southeast of the Project route. This alternative would use 

Clarksville Island to cross the Mississippi River and is referred to as the Clarksville Island Route 

Alternative. Second, during our field visit in August 2007, the COE suggested an alternative crossing that 

was received from a landowner. The second route would cross the Mississippi River approximately 4 

miles southeast of the Project route at Gosline Island. We independently analyzed this alternative, which 

is referred to as the Gosline Island Route Alternative. 

The Clarksville Island Route Alternative (figure 3.4.1-3) would deviate from the REX East 

Project route at MP 17.7 and proceed eastward for 3.6 miles where it would intersect with the Illinois 

Central Gulf Railroad. The alternative would follow the railroad for 9.8 miles. It would then pass south 

of Bowling Green, Missouri for about a mile until it adjoins an electricity transmission line corridor, 

which it would parallel for 10.2 miles. From there, the alternative would continue eastward for 8.4 miles, 

crossing agricultural and forested land until it reaches the Mississippi River. Crossing the Mississippi 

River in this area would involve crossing Clarksville Island, three river channels, and the Sny Levee on 

the eastern bank. After crossing the river, the route alternative would run through open farmland and 

forested areas for 10.6 miles until it rejoins the Project route at MP 59.5. 

The Gosline Island Route Alternative (figure 3.4.1-4) would deviate from the REX East Project 

route just before MP 38, heading southeast and proceeding approximately 4.3 miles alongside an 

electricity transmission line corridor before crossing Route 54 west of Louisiana, Missouri. It would 

continue along the transmission line corridor for 2 miles to State Highway D and proceed east toward the 

Mississippi River. Approximately 1 mile before passing Route 79, the route would deviate from the 

transmission line corridor, turn north and then northeast across the Mississippi River and Gosline Island. 

After crossing the Mississippi River, the route would cross the Sny Levee and pass through 2.3 miles of 

the Great River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Delair Division, which is part of the Mark Twain NWR 

complex, owned and managed by FWS. It would continue along mostly agricultural land in a northeast 

direction until it rejoins the Project route near MP 47. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-8

Figure 3.4.1-3 

Detail of Clarksville Island Crossing Location at the Mississippi River 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-9

Figure 3.4.1-4 

Detail of Gosline Island Crossing Location at the Mississippi River

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-10

The Delair Division was purchased with funds from the sale of migratory waterfowl stamps. The 

division lies completely within the 52-mile long Sny Agricultural Levee District and is separated from the 

river by the Sny Levee. When originally acquired, the area was almost entirely cropland. Of the 440 

acres currently set aside for farming, 90 acres are left idle each year to provide habitat for grassland birds. 

The remaining 350 acres are cooperatively farmed annually—with corn, soybeans, and winter wheat—to 

provide supplemental food for waterfowl. Semi-permanent and permanent waterbodies make up 

480 acres of Delair, providing feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and many other wetland bird 

species. Water level management, mowing, and discing, are used to create diverse vegetative habitat 

within the wetland units. FWS has commented that any proposed pipeline crossing of the refuge would 

require a greater level of environmental impact assessment before FWS could grant approval for such a 

crossing. 

Table 3.4.1-1 presents a general environmental comparison of the Project route, the Clarksville 

Island Route Alternative, and the Gosline Island Route Alternative between MPs 17.7 to 59.5. Based on 

these factors, neither the Clarksville Island Route Alternative nor the Gosline Island Route Alternative 

would result in a clear environmental advantage over the proposed route. The Project route crosses 

slightly fewer wetlands, waterbodies, and forested land than do the alternatives. The Gosline Island 

Route Alternative is collocated with 6.7 miles of existing powerline rights-of-way and would disturb 

fewer cultivated lands and protected lands than would the Project route. Protected lands include FWS 

NWR and State COAs. The Gosline Island Route Alternative also provides the shortest HDD crossing of 

the river. The Clarksville Island Route Alternative is 3.1 miles longer than the others and follows existing 

rights-of-ways for 20.0 miles (44.4 percent). It would affect a comparable number of wetlands, 

waterbodies, and forested land as the Project route. 

Table 3.4.1-1 

Comparison of the Mississippi River Crossing Alternatives—Project Route, Clarksville Island Route 

Alternative, and Gosline Island Route Alternative 

(MPs 17.7 to 59.5) 

Environmental 

Factor Unit 

Project

Route 

Mississippi 

River—

Clarksville 

Island Route

Alternative 

Mississippi

River—

Gosline 

Island Route

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 41.9 45.0 41.9 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing 

Right-of-Way (percent) 

miles 25.4 

(60.6) 

20.0 

(44.4) 

32.1 

(76.8) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles 0.9 1.2 1.9 FWS (2007f) 

Waterbody Crossings no. 11 11 13 ESRI (2005a;b) 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 32.9 33.2 25.8 USGS (2001) 

Forest Land Crossed miles 6.6 9.4 11.8 USGS (2001) 

Commercial Land Crossed miles <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 USGS (2001) 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 2 a/ 4 a/ 0 a/ Rockies Express, Aerial 

Photography 

Minimum Length of HDDs (west 

side; east side) 

feet 4,000;

4,700 

3,800; 

2,900 

3,200; 

3,500 

Rockies Express; Estimated 

Data 

Protected Land b/ miles 9.1 0.0 2.3 FWS (2007f); Rockies 

Express 

_________________ 

a/ Houses could not be counted along 9 miles of the routes due to poor resolution of available imagery. 

b/ Protected land includes FWS National Wildlife Refuge and State Conservation Opportunity Areas. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-11

The Sny Levee would be crossed by each route alternative. Regardless of the route, Rockies 

Express would follow the same COE requirements and perform all construction in accordance with an 

approved HDD construction and contingency plan as described above for the REX East Project route. 

The width of the Mississippi River and geotechnical conditions require the river to be crossed with two 

HDDs from an island within the river. The different crossing locations affect the length of each drill and 

the types of landcover that would be affected by the drill installation. To address the concerns of the Sny 

Levee District, the HDD should maximize the depth below the levee at the crossing point and the distance 

between the levee and the HDD exit point. At the Blackburn Island crossing, the river is 1,800 feet wide 

and the exit is located approximately 500 feet from the levee. The exit point would be placed in a field. 

The field is 2,200 feet wide and lies between the levee and a small stream, which would allow the exit 

point to be adjusted based on geotechnical requirements for the drill and would provide room for the 

pipeline pull string. 

Along the Gosline Island Route Alternative, the Mississippi River is narrower and the island is 

located closer to the west bank of the river. The shorter HDD length reduces the risk of encountering a 

problem with drill installation. The HDD would cross 1,200 feet of river and the exit would be located in 

a crop field managed by FWS. This field would allow for adjustment of the HDD exit point location to 

optimize the setback from the levee and other factors such as the location of the pipeline pull string. Our 

review indicates that a setback from the levee of between 650 and 850 feet would be possible. At 

Clarksville Island, the main river channel lies to the east. Toward the Sny Levee, the HDD would cross 

two small channels and forested wetlands at an approximate length of 3,000 feet from the center of the 

island to the levee. The HDD exit point would be approximately 800 to 1,000 feet from the levee and 

would be placed in a forested wetland that extends 3,700 feet from the levee. The pull string would be 

placed within the cleared pipeline right-of-way that continues to the northeast in order to minimize 

impacts to the forested area. 

The Sny Levee District has commented that they would prefer the pipeline to go up and over the 

levee along the Project route. The Blackburn Island route has 0.2 mile of forested wetlands along the 

bank of the river where an HDD exit could be set up. The Gosline Island and Clarksville Island Route 

Alternatives have less than 100 feet of land along the bank, which is insufficient to support an HDD exit. 

The Sny Levee District has not had the opportunity, at this time, to provide comments on the alternative 

crossing locations or construction methods that may be used in these locations. We further discuss the 

option of crossing over the levee in section 4.8.5 and recommend that Rockies Express provide a 

geotechnical report and site-specific crossing plan for the construction of the pipeline over the levee. 

Flooding during installation of an HDD could cause additional impacts to the islands and surface 

water quality. Additional discussion on this issue is included in section 4.1.3. The elevation on Blackburn 

Island is similar to the elevations on both Gosline and Clarksville Islands and we would expect similar 

flood potentials at all three locations. 

Most of the wetlands on each island (Blackburn, Gosline, and Clarksville) along the Project or 

alternate routes are forested wetlands. The construction area on each island would encompass 

approximately 5.4 acres and would clear forested wetlands on all of the islands. Based on aerial 

photography, Blackburn Island and Clarksville Island appear to have mature forests while the vegetation 

at the center of Gosline Island appears to be either at an earlier stage of maturity or at least partially 

comprise herbaceous or shrubby communities. Table 3.4.1-1 shows that the Clarksville Island Route 

Alternative would affect approximately 0.3 more linear mile of wetlands than the Project route, and the 

Gosline Island Route Alternative would affect approximately one more linear mile of wetlands than the 

Project route. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-12

The 4,500 cubic yards of dredging required for the Project route is assumed to be necessary at 

both Gosline and Clarksville Islands. At Gosline and Clarksville Islands, any dredging would have to 

avoid the existing riprap and bendway weirs associated with the maintained navigation channel in the 

Mississippi River. No such structures are located in the immediate vicinity of the Blackburn Island 

crossing. 

The segment of the Mississippi River that contains each route alternative is located within the 

Mississippi Flyway, a major route for migrating waterfowl. Each island (Blackburn, Gosline, and 

Clarksville) that would be used as an HDD drill site is used by migratory birds. Blackburn Island is part 

of the Upper Mississippi COA and located adjacent to the Ted Shanks State Conservation Area. The area 

is generally known as the Ted Shanks Alluvial Complex and is recognized as an Important Bird Area by 

the National Audubon Society and BirdLife International (Jensen, 2007). Gosline Island is adjacent to the 

Great River NWR, which is part of the Mark Twain NWR complex, and the pipeline along this route 

would pass through the refuge. Clarksville Island was transferred from the Nature Conservancy to a nonprofit organization, the Elizabeth Elliot Foundation, in 1982 and has remained in its natural state. 

Surveys for protected species along the REX East Project route, including Indiana bat surveys and mussel 

surveys, found no Indiana bats or mussels on or adjacent to Blackburn Island. Information is not 

currently available for protected species at Gosline Island or Clarksville Island and surveys for the 

Indiana bat, mussels, and decurrent false aster (a flowering plant) would have to be conducted to 

document their presence or absence. Information available from the Great River NWR documents that 

bald eagles and a pair of barn owls (an Illinois state endangered bird) have nested on the refuge. 

We are continuing our consultations with the Sny Levee District, COE, FWS, and other review 

agencies to understand the potential impacts and concerns associated with each crossing location. At this 

time, our analysis shows there is no clear environmental advantage of the alternative routes compared to 

the Project route. Therefore, we have no reason at this time to recommend an alternative route be adopted 

by Rockies Express. Further discussion of the construction method to cross the Sny Levee can be found 

in section 4.8.5. 

3.4.2 Wabash River Alternative 

Rockies Express originally considered a route that would cross land encumbered under an NRCS 

Emergency Watershed Protection – Floodplain Easement (EWPP-FP) located on the west side of the 

Wabash River near the Town of Highland in Vermillion County, Indiana. According to NRCS policy, 

proposed infrastructure projects must avoid EWPP-FP easements because the agency does not have the 

authority to modify easement terms. Therefore, the original route was not feasible. 

Rockies Express developed a route alternative and incorporated it into the Project route. As 

shown in figure 3.4.2-1, the Project route would turn northeast from the original route around MP 242.9, 

cross Little Raccoon Creek at MP 245.2, and cross the Wabash River at MP 247.8 at a location that is 

approximately 1.6 miles north of the Wabash River crossing location that was originally considered. This 

crossing location would be well outside of the boundaries of the NRCS protected land. 

We examined this Project route in a site visit and evaluated the possibility of another alternative 

following an existing Panhandle pipeline right-of-way. However, we determined that this alternative is 

not feasible because it would also cross the land protected by the NRCS floodplain easement. Also, based 

on our field observations, following the existing pipeline right-of-way would not be preferable because 

there are residences currently abutting the right-of-way in some segments and there would be limited 

space to install another pipeline. Therefore, we did not identify an environmentally preferable alternative 

to the Project route crossing of the Wabash River. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-13 

Figure 3.4.2-1 

Wabash River Route Alternative

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-14

3.4.3 Indianapolis North Alternatives 

Numerous residents in the counties south of Indianapolis have requested that the FERC and 

Rockies Express consider an alternate route that follows the existing pipeline corridors that PEPL and 

Texas Eastern Transmission Company use north of Indianapolis. These residents are concerned that the 

Project route would cause soil erosion due to construction in unstable soils and rolling terrain, damage 

field drainage tiles, remove valuable habitat for various wildlife including the endangered Indiana bat, and 

reduce the value of farm property in an area that is expected to develop in the near future. In response to 

these comments, we identified two specific route alternatives that would extend north of Indianapolis: 

Indy North 1 and Indy North 2. We asked Rockies Express to provide an analysis of Indy North 1, and 

based on those results, we developed and analyzed another variation, called Indy North 2. Figure 3.4.3-1 

shows these major route alternatives in relation to the Project route. 

The Indy North 1 Route Alternative would deviate from the Project route at MP 279.4. It would 

follow an existing PEPL corridor northeast, veer around Zionsville on the northwest side of Indianapolis, 

and then cross Little Eagle Creek. After that crossing, the alternative route would continue northeast 

following the existing PEPL corridor until reaching Westfield. It would then turn southeast, pass between 

Noblesville and Fishers, cross Fall Creek, and continue southeast until rejoining the Project route at MP 

376.0. The southeastern half of the Indy North 1 Route Alternative is not collocated along an existing 

corridor. 

The Indy North 2 Route Alternative would approximate a route recommended by many 

commentors. It would turn northeast from the Project route at MP 274.5 and follow an existing PEPL 

corridor through Putnam and Hendricks Counties on the western side of Indianapolis. Just south of 

Zionsville, the alternative route would turn more north-northeast, continuing to follow the existing 

pipeline corridor to the point where it intersects a TETCO corridor in Grant County south of Marion. It 

would then turn and follow the TETCO corridor southeast, skirt the eastern edge of Muncie, and continue 

southeast until rejoining the Project route at MP 444.0. The entire Indy North 2 Route Alternative is 

collocated with existing pipeline corridors. 

Table 3.4.3-1 provides an environmental comparison of the Project route and the Indy North 1 

and Indy North 2 Route Alternatives. As shown, Indy North 2 is the longest of the three, approximately 

31.5 miles longer than the Project route and 22.6 miles longer than Indy North 1. However, Indy North 2 

would be adjacent to an existing right-of-way for 100 percent of its length, compared to 6.0 percent for 

the Project route and 27.7 percent for Indy North 1. All three routes cross very few wetlands, with Indy 

North 2 crossing the least (0.90 mile) and Indy North 1 crossing the most (1.8 miles). Indy North 2 also 

crosses the fewest waterbodies at 64, compared to 77 waterbodies crossed by the Project route and 86 

waterbodies crossed by Indy North 1. In terms of land uses and land covers, Indy North 2 would cross 

almost twice as much cultivated land as the other two routes and about half as much forest as the other 

two routes (the Project route and Indy North 1 are comparable in terms of their cultivated land and forest 

crossings). All three routes cross very little commercial land and are comparable from that standpoint. 

The three routes are distinguished in terms of their proximity to existing residences. Based on a 

review of available NRCS datasets, Indy North 2 would cross 19.0 miles of residential land compared to 

10.9 miles for Indy North 1 and 3.8 miles for the Project route. Recognizing that these data are current 

only through 2001, we evaluated the potential impacts on residences more thoroughly by conducting site 

visits and by examining recent aerial photography. Our site visits found that much of the existing 

pipeline corridors for Indy North 1 and Indy North 2 would abut dense housing developments. In many 

places, there is insufficient room to install another pipeline without significantly disrupting these existing 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-15

Figure 3.4.3-1 

Indianapolis North Route Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-16 

Table 3.4.3-1 

Comparison of the Indy North 1 and Indy North 2 Route Alternatives 

to the Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MP 274.5 to MP 444.0) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project

Route 

Indy North 1

Route 

Alternative 

Indy North 2

Route 

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 161.7 170.6 193.2 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing 

Right-of-Way (percent) 

miles 9.7 

(6.0) 

47.3 

(27.7) 

193.2 

(100.0) 

DOE Unpublished Data 

(2005) 

Wetlands Crossed miles 1.6 1.8 0.9 FWS, 2007f 

Waterbody Crossings no. 77 86 64 ESRI (2005a;b) 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 90.0 96.7 164.7 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 11.3 10.5 5.5 USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land miles <0.1 1.3 0.8 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 11 462 >231 a/ Rockies Express, Google 

Earth (2007) 

_______________

a/ Houses could not be counted along 47.1 miles of the Indy North 2 Route Alternative due to poor resolution of available imagery. 

developments. This finding is corroborated by our review of aerial photographs, which indicates that 

Indy North 1 and Indy North 2 would have more than 2311

 and 456 residences, respectively, within 50 

feet of construction work areas; whereas the Project route would have 5 residences within 50 feet of 

construction work areas. 

As noted previously, residents and other stakeholders raised four main concerns about the Project 

route. First, they expressed concern that the Project route would cause soil erosion due to construction in 

unstable soils and rolling terrain. Based on a review of soil classification data available from NRCS, 

approximately 24 percent of the soils crossed by the Project route between MPs 274.5 and 444.0 are 

considered highly water erodible and 0.5 percent are considered highly wind erodible. The soils to the 

north of Indianapolis are slightly less water erodible (22 percent highly erodible for Indy North 1 and 14 

percent highly erodible for Indy North 2), but are the same as the Project route in terms of wind 

erodibility. With respect to the issue of rolling terrain, our analysis of the topography along the three 

routes indicates that the terrain is slightly more undulating to the south of Indianapolis and flattens out as 

the routes move north, with Indy North 2 having the largest fraction of its length across relatively flat 

stretches.2

 However, we do not believe that these minor differences in erodibility and topography create a 

clear environmental advantage for either of the northern alternatives relative to the Project route. Erosion 

control measures, as specified in the Rockies Express Plan and Procedures, would be employed during 

construction and would minimize the erosion of soils. 

 

1

 Aerial photography for approximately 47.1 miles (24.4 percent) of Indy North 2 are low resolution and are too 

blurry to allow a reasonably accurate house count. The additional number of residences within 50 feet of the 

construction work area in these stretches is unknown. 

2

 To evaluate rolling terrain, we examined variability in elevation across 1-mile segments for the entire lengths of 

the three alternative routes. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-17 

Second, residents expressed concerns that the Project route south of Indianapolis would damage 

their field drainage tiles. All three routes would cross substantial stretches of cropland as shown in table 

3.4.3-1. Regardless of the pipeline route, impacts to agricultural resources would be minimized and fields 

would be restored to pre-construction function. Rockies Express has developed an AIMP (see appendix I) 

for dealing with construction and restoration issues unique to agricultural areas. The purpose of the 

AIMP is to help protect, conserve, and restore agricultural lands that may be affected by construction 

and/or operation of the Project pipeline. Rockies Express would follow the policies outlined in the AIMP 

for all activities occurring on privately owned farmland. Further, to ensure that fields with drain tiles can 

be fully restored, we are recommending that Rockies Express bury the pipeline at a minimum depth of 

five feet where the pipeline would cross agricultural fields with prime soils unless otherwise negotiated 

with landowners (see section 4.8.2). 

Third, residents expressed concern that the Project route south of Indianapolis would remove 

valuable habitat for various wildlife including the endangered Indiana bat. More habitat areas would be 

affected along the Indy North alternatives, because of their greater lengths, but these impacts are similar 

to those that would be experienced along the Project route. The majority of all three routes cross 

agricultural and residential land. Species that commonly inhabit agricultural land are accustomed to 

habitat disturbance from farming activities and could temporarily use adjacent agricultural land until the 

area is restored. A portion of all three routes would cross forest land, although the Project route would 

cross the most (11.3 miles), Indy North 1 would cross almost as much as the Project route (10.5 miles), 

and Indy North 2 would cross the least (5.5 miles). Forest lands cleared by the pipeline construction may 

require more than 30 years to return to preconstruction conditions and would be prevented from reestablishing on the permanent right-of-way during operation of the pipeline. Forested areas also have the 

potential to be Indiana bat habitat. Surveys of the Project route in Pike County, Indiana found one male 

and one female Indiana bat within the Project right-of-way. Surveys would have to be conducted to 

determine the presence of Indiana bats in the forests that would be crossed by the route alternatives north 

of Indianapolis. Tree removal and pipeline construction methods would be done in accordance with FWS 

consultations and guidelines in all areas where Indiana bats are found to avoid or minimize serious 

impacts. 

Fourth, residents expressed concern that the route south of Indianapolis would reduce the value of 

farm property in an area that is expected to develop in the near future. The only development currently 

planned along the Project route is the Disney Residential Development at MP 297.5. Although this 

development was platted in 1978, construction has not yet begun. We do not believe the Project route 

would significantly affect this development, because the total pipeline length across the development 

would be only 0.5 mile and because Rockies Express has sited its pipeline route along the property 

boundaries to minimize disturbance. Based on our current research, any other new developments near the 

Project route are only speculative at this time. The Indy North 1 and Indy North 2 would avoid the 

Disney Residential Development. However, we contacted planning staff in each of the counties that 

would be crossed by the alternatives and discovered that there are a number of planned developments 

along those routes as well. For example, Indy North 1 would be in the vicinity of two approved new 

developments in Boone County, Indiana; a recently approved development in Fishers in Hamilton 

County, Indiana; and a proposed new development in Hancock County, Indiana. Indy North 2 would 

come near land recently rezoned for development in Marion County, Indiana; 21 pending and approved 

residential subdivisions in Hamilton County, Indiana; and a new single family residential subdivision in 

Middletown in Warren County, Ohio. Based on these findings, we believe that either of the northern 

route alternatives would encounter as much or more planned developments, and would face the same 

issue as the Project route regarding speculative developments and associated land values. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-18 

In addition, neither of the Indianapolis North alternatives could connect to Rockies Express’ three 

customers located south of Indianapolis without long laterals causing additional environmental impact. In 

particular, Rockies Express has made commitments to deliver natural gas to Citizen Gas and Coke Utility 

and Indiana Gas in Morgan County, Indiana and ANR Pipeline Company in Shelby County, Indiana. To 

meet the needs of these customers with a route north of Indianapolis, Rockies Express would have to 

build lateral pipelines to interconnect these pipeline systems. These laterals would increase the areas that 

would be affected by crossing at least an additional 25 miles of land. These laterals could run north to 

south through the suburban and urban areas of Indianapolis, but would likely run south of the city from 

west to east affecting many of the same areas in Putnam, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson, and Shelby 

Counties. 

Based on the above analysis neither of the alternative routes provides a clear environmental 

advantage over the Project. While the northern route alternatives would be adjacent to existing rights-ofway for greater lengths than the Project route to the south, there exists numerous locations where there is 

little or no room to install the pipeline without encroaching on much larger numbers of existing 

residences. Because the other environmental concerns raised by commentors and analyzed above do not 

differ significantly across the three alternatives, the alternative routes do not provide a clear 

environmental advantage. 

3.4.4 Little Miami River Alternative 

The REX East Project would cross the Little Miami River at MP 451.3 in Warren County, Ohio. 

Rockies Express proposes to use HDD at the crossing. The river is a designated Wild and Scenic River 

protected under the Wild and Scenic River Act administered by NPS and is listed in the Ohio State Scenic 

Rivers Program as an Outstanding State Water. The OEPA also has designated the river as an exceptional 

warmwater fisheries habitat. The river extends south approximately 100 miles from Clark County, Ohio 

to the Ohio River. At the REX East crossing, the Little Miami is designated scenic and recreational, and 

recognized for the following outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs): Aquatic and Terrestrial Floral and 

Fauna, Historic and Archaeological, Geologic, Scenic, and Recreational attributes. This designation 

extends 66 miles from the upper portions of the river near Yellow Springs, Ohio and John Bryan State 

Park to approximately 22.5 miles south of the proposed crossing. The remainder of the river south to the 

Ohio River is designated recreational. 

We asked Rockies Express to evaluate a route alternative that would avoid or minimize crossing 

the designated portion of the river. One alternative that was identified would be routed to the north to 

avoid all designated segments, but would cross the densely populated suburbs of Dayton, Ohio and 

therefore was not considered further. A second alternative that was identified would cross the Little 

Miami River at a river segment that is designated for its recreational value but not its scenic value. We 

evaluated this second alternative, called the Little Miami River Route Alternative, in more detail. 

Figure 3.4.4-1 shows the Little Miami River Route Alternative in relation to the Project route. 

The alternative would deviate from the Rockies Express’ Project route at MP 432.9, follow a transmission 

line to the southeast and south for about 15.2 miles, and cross the Little Miami River at a point where it 

parallels an existing transmission line crossing. The alternative route would then continue to the east and 

northeast following the transmission line. At MP 22.5, the route alternative would stop tracking the 

transmission line. At MP 25.2, the alternative would join Penn Central Railroad, continuing until MP 

27.2, where it would meet State Route 22. At MP 28.5, the alternative would continue across open farm 

lands for 9 miles. At that point, it would run adjacent to Interstate 71 for 7 miles. Near Interchange 50, 

the route alternative would turn north and rejoin the REX East Project route at MP 467.2. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-19 

Figure 3.4.4-1 

Little Miami River Route Alternative

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-20 

Table 3.4.4-1 provides an environmental comparison of the Project route and the Little Miami 

River Alternative. As shown, the alternative is 12.3 miles longer than the Project route and would follow 

existing corridors for 68.5 percent of its length, compared to 92.7 percent for the Project route. Compared 

to the Project route, the route alternative would cross 10 more waterbodies, 5.5 more miles of cultivated 

land, 3.7 more miles of forest, and 0.8 more mile of commercial land. The Project route and route 

alternative would cross a roughly equivalent amount of wetlands. The two routes are also distinguished 

in terms of their proximity to existing residences. There are substantially more residences within 50 feet 

of the construction work area for the route alternative (see table 3.4.4-1). 

Table 3.4.4-1 

Comparison of the Little Miami River Route Alternative to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MPs 432.9 to 467.2) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project

Route 

Little Miami 

River Route 

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 34.3 46.6 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing Right-ofWay (percent) 

miles 31.8 

(92.7) 

31.9 

(68.5) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles 0.15 0.17 FWS, 2007f 

Waterbody Crossings no. 21 31 ESRI, 2005a;b 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 30.0 35.5 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 3.9 7.6 USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land Crossed miles 0.1 0.9 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 6 77 Rockies Express 

Based on the comparison of factors other than the river designation, the REX East Project route 

would result in fewer environmental impacts. The Project route minimizes the total land area affected by 

the project and maximizes the use of existing rights-of-way. 

The chief potential advantage of the route alternative would be the crossing within an area 

designated recreational rather than scenic and recreational. However, at the proposed crossing, Rockies 

Express plans to use HDD to cross the Little Miami River, which would preserve the water quality and 

integrity of the riverbanks. In addition, Rockies Express would not clear any large trees between the 

entrance and exit point of the drilling, which would protect the scenic properties of the river. A 

geotechnical study of the crossing found soil and bedrock materials suitable for successful HDD 

installation. Because of the impacts other types of construction methods would have on the protected 

resources, any other construction method across the Little Miami River would not be acceptable as part of 

a contingency plan in case of an HDD failure. Therefore, in order to protect the river if the HDD is 

unsuccessful, we recommended in section 4.3.4 that Rockies Express develop a contingency plan utilizing 

the alternative route and crossing location evaluated here. We further recommend Rockies Express not 

construct in the Project segment between MP 432.9 to MP 467.2 until the HDD has been successfully 

installed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-21 

3.4.5 Mowrey Alternative 

Dean and Nancy Mowrey submitted comments asking us to evaluate a route alternative in Warren 

and Clinton Counties, Ohio that would reroute the pipeline south of Caesar Creek Lake to follow the 

existing Dominion Transmission, Inc. pipeline corridor. The Mowreys have expressed various concerns 

about the environmental impacts of a new pipeline right-of-way through their community. They point out 

that the Project route would affect forests, waterbodies, wetlands, endangered species habitat, and 

historically significant property. 

The 19.6-mile route alternative identified by the Mowreys would deviate from the Project route at 

MP 446.0 and follow the existing pipeline right-of-way southeast from the Project route. It would follow 

this existing pipeline right-of-way for nearly the entire length of the alternative. As shown in figure 

3.4.5-1, from MP 446.0 the route alternative would run to the southeast for approximately 2.5 miles 

before crossing U.S. Route 42. It would continue to the southeast through a large forested area for 

approximately 1.5 miles and then turn to the east to cross the Little Miami River between North 

Waynesville Road and Corwin Road. The alternative would continue following the existing right-of-way 

east for approximately 3.0 miles before crossing into Caesar Creek State Park just south of Caesar Creek 

Lake. It would then turn to the northeast through Caesar Creek State Park for 2.6 miles. After departing 

the park, the route alternative would continue to the northeast across State Route 73 through forested and 

agricultural areas for approximately 6.0 miles before rejoining the Project route near MP 466.2. 

Table 3.4.5-1 provides a comparison of the environmental impacts of the Project route and the 

Mowrey Route Alternative. The Mowrey Route Alternative would be 0.6 mile shorter, would affect two 

fewer wetlands, and would follow an existing right-of-way for 98 percent of its length. It would also 

cross five additional waterbodies, 2.8 additional miles of forested land, and 2.3 additional miles within 

Caesar Creek State Park, and would come within 50 feet of 3 additional residences. However, in order to 

minimize the impacts to these additional residences, additional minor route variations could be made to 

offset the route variation further away from these residences. 

Along the Project route, Rockies Express would cross the Little Miami River by HDD from one 

agricultural field to another. This would eliminate the need to clear trees and would preserve the scenic 

quality of this designated Wild and Scenic River. The crossing at the Mowrey Route Alternative has 

extensive riparian forest on either side of the river. On the west side of the river, Rockies Express would 

have to clear forest to set up the HDD. 

The environmental analysis of the alternatives shows a trade-off of environmental impacts. 

While the Mowrey Alternative would cross more waterbodies and forested land, as well as more land 

within Caesar Creek State Park, it would be collocated with an existing right-of-way and affect previously 

disturbed areas. The Mowrey Alternative crossing of the Little Miami River may also clear forest along 

the west side of this Wild and Scenic River. Further revision of the Mowrey Route Alternative, however, 

may reduce these impacts. For example, an agricultural field suitable for an HDD site on the west bank 

of the Little Miami River is located approximately 500 feet south of the existing right-of-way followed by 

the Mowrey Route Alternative. In addition, the existing right-of-way crosses an agricultural field 

approximately 1,600 feet from the east bank of the river. An HDD site could be located in this field 

without the need to clear any forest. If the HDD crossing was extended into this agricultural field, forest 

land cleared would be reduced by approximately 0.9 acres, assuming a standard HDD workspace size. 

We will continue to investigate the environmental impacts and determine if further route adjustments 

along the Mowrey Route Alternative could reduce environmental impacts. However, at this time, we do 

not have a compelling environmental reason to recommend the incorporation of this route alternative into 

the REX East Project. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-22 

Figure 3.4.5-1 

Mowrey Route Alternative 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-23 

Table 3.4.5-1 

Comparison of the Mowrey Route Alternative to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MPs 446.0 to 466.2) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project

Route 

Mowrey 

Route 

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 20.2 19.6 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing Right-of-Way 

(percent) 

miles 5.6 

(27.7) 

19.3 

(98.4) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles <0.1 <0.1 FWS, 2007f 

Waterbody Crossings no. 12 17 ESRI, 2005a;b 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 15.6 12.1 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 3.5 6.3 USGS, 2001 

Residential Land Crossed miles 0.0 <0.1 USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land Crossed miles 0.0 0.0 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of Construction 

Work Area 

no. 13 5 Alignment Sheets and Aerial 

Photography 

Parkland Crossed miles 0.3 2.6 Aerial Photography 

3.4.6 Deer Creek Lake State Park Alternative 

The Project route would cross Deer Creek Lake State Park in Pickaway County, Ohio between 

MP 499.9 and MP 500.8. The Huntington District of COE manages the park. In correspondence with 

Rockies Express, COE has requested that Rockies Express consider an alternative route that would follow 

the existing TETCO easement across the park. 

As shown in figure 3.4.6-1, the 5.2 mile route alternative, called the Deer Creek Lake State Park 

Route Alternative, would deviate from the Project route at MP 496.9 and rejoin the Project route at MP 

502.6. From MP 496.9, the Deer Creek State Park Route Alternative would cross agricultural land for 

approximately 1.7 miles before intersecting the state park. Inside the park, the route alternative would 

cross 1.1 miles of forested land, 0.2 mile of open water in Deer Creek Lake, and an existing campground. 

The alternative route would exit the park and continue east-northeast across Deer Creek Road and 

Yankeetown Pike for approximately 1.2 miles before rejoining the Project route near MP 502.6. 

As shown in table 3.4.6-1, the environmental impacts of the route alternative and the Project route 

would be very similar. The route alternative would require crossing one additional waterbody, 0.2 mile of 

open water on Deer Creek Lake, and 0.5 mile of additional forested land. It is slightly shorter, impacts 

less cultivated land, and avoids creating a new right-of-way through Deer Creek Lake State Park by 

collocating with the existing TETCO pipeline corridor. The route alternative would be 100% collocated 

with existing rights-of-way while none of the Project route would be collocated. Although Rockies 

Express did not identify a crossing method for Deer Creek Lake, we believe that an HDD crossing is 

appropriate because it would avoid aquatic and forested areas near the Lake. For example, an HDD of 

approximately 1,700 feet in length could eliminate an acre or more of forested impacts on the eastern 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-24 

Figure 3.4.6-1 

Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-25 

Table 3.4.6-1 

Comparison of the Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MPs 496.9 to 502.6) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project

Route 

Deer Creek

Lake State

Park Route

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 5.5 5.2 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing Right-of-Way 

(percent) 

miles 0.0 

(0) 

5.2 

(100) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles <0.1 0.1 FWS, 2007f 

Waterbody Crossings no. 5 6 ERSI, 2005a;b 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 4.3 3.1 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 1.2 1.7 a/ USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land Crossed miles 0.0 0.0 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 0 0 Alignment Sheets and Aerial 

Photography 

_______________ 

a/ Impacts to forested habitat may be reduced through the use of an HDD at Deer Creek Lake. 

shore of the lake. Correspondence from COE to Rockies Express indicates COE would prefer to the 

Project be routed along the existing right-of-way. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative from MP 496.9 to MP 502.6, as depicted 

in figure 3.4.6-1. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets (including incorporation of an HDD crossing of Deer Creek Lake) and updated 

land use and resource tables.

3.4.7 Big Darby Creek Alternative 

The REX East Project would cross Big Darby Creek at MP 507.6 in Pickaway County, Ohio. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross the creek using HDD. Big Darby Creek is approximately 86 miles 

long and crosses through Union, Madison, Franklin, and Pickaway Counties in Ohio. The NPS has 

designated Big Darby Creek as a Wild and Scenic River with the designation of scenic. The creek is 

recognized for its “outstandingly remarkable values” for wildlife (protected fish and mussels) and scenic 

qualities. 

To avoid impacts to Big Darby Creek, we evaluated the shortest route alternative that would 

eliminate the need to cross the Creek. That alternative, shown in figure 3.4.7-1, would run south of the 

Project route and cross the Scioto River south of its confluence with Big Darby Creek. The alternative 

would start by heading east and then southeast from MP 494.1 of the REX East Project route paralleling 

Bloomingburg New Holland Road for 4.4 miles. It would then run north of the town of New Holland 

where it would join and run adjacent to the Penn Central right-of-way for 14.5 miles, except for small 

deviations to avoid the town of Atlanta and the hamlets of Woodlyn and Kinderhook. The route 

alternative would cross the Scioto River, continue east though agricultural areas and sparse residential 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-26 

Figure 3.4.7-1 

Big Darby Creek Route Alternative

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-27 

development south of Circleville, Ohio, and then turn northeast. Near Stoutsville, Ohio, the alternative 

would follow an abandoned railroad for 4.6 miles. West of the town of Amanda, it would run adjacent to 

State Route 22 for 2.6 miles. The alternative would then leave the road and head to the northeast for 

6.3 miles, where it would rejoin the Project route at MP 533.9. 

Table 3.4.7-1 provides an environmental comparison of the Big Darby Creek Route Alternative 

and the Project route. The Project route would be 5.8 miles shorter than the alternative. The additional 

length of the alternative crosses cultivated and commercial land. The alternative maximizes length along 

existing rights-of-way and crosses one less waterbody. It also avoids 0.1 mile of forested land crossed 

and almost 0.1 mile of residential land crossed. 

Table 3.4.7-1 

Comparison of the Big Darby Creek Route Alternative to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MPs 494.1 to 533.9) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project 

Route 

Big Darby 

Creek Route 

Alternative Source 

Total Length miles 40.1 45.9 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing Right-of-Way 

(percent) 

miles 17.7 

(44.1) 

25.0 

(54.0) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles 0.2 a/ <0.1 a/ FWS, 2007f; USGS, 2001 

Waterbody Crossings no. 32 31 ESRI, 2005a,b 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 37.1 42.2 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 2.5 2.4 USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land Crossed miles <0.1 0.2 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 5 5 Rockies Express 

_________________ 

a/ NWI maps were not digitally available for 25.5 miles of the Project route and 36.6 miles of the Big Darby Creek Route 

Alternative. Instead, National Landcover data were used to estimate wetland impacts where NWI maps were not available. 

Although the route alternative is longer, it would avoid Big Darby Creek. However, Rockies 

Express proposes to cross Big Darby Creek by HDD. A successful HDD would not disturb the banks, 

vegetation, or water quality of the creek, and would protect the scenic values of the river. A geotechnical 

study for the HDD stated that the soils and rock in the area are generally considered suitable for an HDD. 

However, the study points out that cobbles and boulder size materials may be encountered within an 

unstratified layer of materials found above the limestone bedrock. The boulder/cobble zone may be 

problematic during drilling operations. Generally, other construction methods would be used in case of a 

failure of the HDD operation. Alternative construction methods would cause permanent impacts to the 

scenic resources of Big Darby Creek and would not be acceptable as a contingency plan. 

Based on the analysis presented above, we conclude the REX East Project route is 

environmentally preferable provided that an HDD crossing of Big Darby Creek is successful. Due to the 

protected status of the creek, we recommend in section 4.3.4 that Rockies Express use the alternative 

route and crossing location analyzed here if a successful HDD can not be completed. We further 

recommend that Rockies Express not construct in the Project segment between MP 494.1 to MP 533.9 

until the HDD has been successfully installed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-28 

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations are short deviations less than 5 miles long from the Project route that would 

potentially avoid or reduce Project impacts on specific localized resources, such as individual residences 

or site-specific environmental conditions. Since Rockies Express filed its application on April 30, 2007, 

three categories of potential route variations have been considered during our review of the Project: 

(1) route variations that Rockies Express has already incorporated into the Project route 

evaluated in section 4 of this draft EIS; 

(2) route variations that have been requested by landowners, but a reasonable and feasible 

variation could not be identified for evaluation; and 

(3) route variations that have been requested by landowners where reasonable and feasible 

variations could be identified for evaluation. 

After filing its application, Rockies Express filed two supplements making a total of 135 minor 

changes to the Project route alignment in response to comments from resource agencies and landowners, 

and in response to more detailed engineering studies. These include 57 route variations in a supplement 

filed on July 9, 2007 and 78 route variations in a supplement filed on July 23, 2007. The 78 route 

variations addressed in the July 23 filing are summarized in appendix E, table E-2. All 135 of these 

variations were made to achieve better construction conditions, address site-specific constraints, or 

minimize impacts to a specific environmental feature or residence. All 135 of these variations have been 

incorporated into the Project route evaluated in this draft EIS and are not described individually beyond 

the information provided in table E-2. 

In some cases, feasible route variations to avoid a resource of concern stated by a landowner are 

not necessary to protect the resource of concern. For example, we have observed on previous pipeline 

projects that impacts to endangered species habitat such as the Indiana bat, cultural resources, and field 

drainage tiles can be effectively mitigated. We address these landowner concerns by including 

recommendations that require Rockies Express to complete all necessary threatened and endangered 

species and cultural resource surveys and consultations, and to evaluate appropriate route variations or 

other measures to avoid impacts to those species or features, prior to construction (see sections 4.7 and 

4.10). We include another recommendation for pipeline construction in the event karst terrain is 

discovered (see section 4.1). We do not believe additional alternatives analyses or recommendations are 

needed to address landowner concerns about field drainage tiles, because we conclude that Rockies 

Express’ AIMP would be adequate to protect, conserve, and restore agricultural lands that may be 

affected by construction and operation of the Project pipeline (see section 4.8 and appendix I). 

In other cases, a feasible route variation could not be identified that would avoid or minimize 

impacts to the resource of concern. Table 3.5-1 summarizes comments received for which no feasible 

variation could be identified. The resource issues raised in these comments are addressed in section 4 by 

conditions and mitigation measures that will minimize or protect the resource of concern. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-29 

Table 3.5-1 

Summary of FERC Review of Landowner Comments for Which No Feasible or Environmentally Preferable 

Route Variation Was Identified 

Landowner 

Last Name 

Approximate 

Milepost Summary of Comments Summary of FERC Review 

Maguire 66 The proposed pipeline location has 

maximized the potential impact on 

her home and surrounding land. 

Ms. Maguire is generally opposed 

to the pipeline going through her 

property. 

The Project route closely parallels an existing 

pipeline right-of-way across the Maguire 

property. Moving the Project route away from 

this existing right-of-way would result in 

additional environmental impacts. 

Oster 78 The Oster property is a small family 

farm in Scott Co, IL. Ms. Oster is 

generally opposed to the pipeline 

going through her property. 

The Project route closely parallels an existing 

pipeline right-of-way across the Oster property. 

Moving the Project route away from this 

existing right-of-way would result in additional 

environmental impacts. 

Burtle 116 Mr. Burtle cites concerns about 

drainage tiles and pipeline depth of 

cover. There are two existing 

pipeline rights-of-way on his 

property and he states that a third 

pipeline would shut down his 

farming operations. 

The Project route would be located on the 

north side of the existing pipeline right-of-way 

through Mr. Burtle’s property. Construction of 

the pipeline would result only in temporary 

impacts to his farming operations and a reroute 

would not result in any environmental 

advantages to the existing route. 

Bearden 164 Mr. Bearden did not identify any 

specific environmental concerns in 

his comment; however, he notes 

that his property has had 159 years 

of continuous farming on 80 acres. 

Because no specific environmental concerns 

were identified in the comment and the Project 

route would cross agricultural lands which 

would only be temporarily impacted, no reroute 

was considered. 

Jacobs 312 Ms. Jacobs objects to the Project 

route cutting across her property. 

She cites soil disruption, drainage 

issues, a natural spring, wildlife, 

and future development as potential 

issues, and suggests rerouting the 

pipeline along Pennington Rd. 

Moving the pipeline route so that it would 

parallel Pennington road would impact other 

property owners. As the pipeline crosses 

through predominantly agricultural land, there 

would not be any environmental advantage to 

rerouting the pipeline. 

Marley 321 Mr. Marley is generally opposed to 

the pipeline on his property and 

cites concerns about impacts on the 

property's abundant wildlife and 

other environmental features such 

as tree stands, creeks, and cliffs. 

The pipeline is routed through the southern 

portion of the Marley property. The pipeline, as 

currently routed, minimizes the potential 

impacts, though it does pass through a small 

stand of trees. 

Ballard 331 The Ballards object to the pipeline 

crossing through Indiana Classified 

Forest on their property. 

A minor pipeline route variation would not 

adequately avoid enough forest to warrant a 

reroute. 

Shobe 362 The Shobes state that 25 acres of 

their land are enrolled in a 

government Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP). 

A minor pipeline route variation would not 

avoid these forested areas on or near this 

property; therefore a reroute was not 

considered. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-30 

Table 3.5-1 

Summary of FERC Review of Landowner Comments for Which No Feasible or Environmentally Preferable 

Route Variation Was Identified 

Landowner 

Last Name 

Approximate 

Milepost Summary of Comments Summary of FERC Review 

Hudnall 377 The Hudnalls object to the pipeline 

through their property and cite 

numerous environmental resources 

(e.g., water supply, archeological 

sites, etc.) that would be impacted 

by the pipeline. 

The portion of Indiana where the Hudnall’s 

property is located is dominated by hilly 

topography and intermittent areas of forest and 

agriculture. The current route through their 

property would only pass through a small 

portion of forested area and wouldn’t adversely 

impact the water supply. A reroute to avoid 

these resources on the Hudnall’s property 

wouldn’t result in any environmental benefits. 

Bane 386 Mr. Bane is concerned about loss of 

property value and destruction of 

trees on his property. He proposes 

that the pipeline follow existing 

rights-of-way to the north. He also 

notes that eminent domain must be 

used to acquire an easement on his 

property. 

A minor pipeline route variation would not 

avoid these forested areas on or near this 

property; therefore a reroute was not 

considered. The closest of the existing rightsof-way mentioned in Mr. Bane’s letter would be 

1.0 mile north of his property. Although a 

reroute along this powerline right-of-way would 

avoid the impacts on Mr. Bane’s property, it 

would affect new landowners and would not 

offer any environmental advantages to the 

proposed route. 

Lecher 386 The Lechers have specific concerns 

about flooding and the future 

exposure of the pipeline due to 

erosion in the area of Walnut 

Creek. 

Based on the results of Rockies Express’ 

analyses of potential for pipeline exposure in 

this area, we concluded that the potential for 

erosion and subsequent pipeline exposure in 

this area was low; therefore, we did not identify 

a pipeline reroute. 

Davis 388 The Davis’ expressed concerns 

about the Project’s impacts on 

aesthetics, future use of, and 

forested areas on their property. 

Route variations are being considered in 

conjunction with potential route variations 

considered on the Issacs property at MP 389. 

A route variation to minimize the impacts to the 

forested area may be feasible. 

Issacs 389 The Issacs’ expressed concern that 

the pipeline route would be located 

within 50 feet of their residence and 

suggested a possible reroute to the 

south of their property. 

 The Project route was found to be 

approximately 140 feet south of the Issacs’ 

residence. We are collecting additional 

information and are considering potential route 

variations. 

Orschell 394 Mr. Orschell cites impacts to 

features such as wetlands, water 

wells, wildlife, historical cemeteries, 

Indian artifacts, and Princeton 

windblown sand areas. He 

recommends a pipeline reroute to 

collocate the pipeline with the 

existing TETCO pipeline corridor 

near Indianapolis. 

The proposed pipeline route cuts across an 

agricultural field and does not appear to 

directly impact the resources identified in the 

comment. Consequently, a route variation was 

not evaluated. The Indy North 2 Route 

Alternative discussed above follows the 

TETCO pipeline corridor. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-31 

Table 3.5-1 

Summary of FERC Review of Landowner Comments for Which No Feasible or Environmentally Preferable 

Route Variation Was Identified 

Landowner 

Last Name 

Approximate 

Milepost Summary of Comments Summary of FERC Review 

Knau 419 William and Mary Lou Knau 

expressed concern about the 

creation of a new pipeline 

easement on their property and 

requested that the pipeline 

easement stay within the nearby 

existing Duke Energy easement. 

The Duke Energy easement is bordered on the 

south by a stream which would prevent a 

reroute. Along Gardner Road, which runs 

perpendicular to the Project route, numerous 

houses are found close together that would 

prevent the pipeline from being rerouted to the 

north or south away from the Duke Energy 

easement. 

Thorman 447 Mr. Thorman is a developer and 

expressed concerns about 

proximity of the pipeline to a 

proposed housing development. 

Mr. Thorman’s property is divided into northern 

and southern parcels by two existing pipeline 

rights-of-way. The Project route would be 

collocated with one of these pipeline routes 

and therefore would minimize additional 

impacts. 

Vonderhaar 447 The Vonderhaars are concerned 

about future development 

desirability of their lot. 

Project route cannot be adjusted to the north or 

south due to existing residential development. 

Consequently, a preferable route variation 

could not be identified. 

Stout 451 The Stouts note that their property 

is highly desirable as a future 

scenic residential property. The 

Project route will diminish the value 

of the land; therefore, Rockies 

Express should utilize the existing 

TETCO pipeline easement or build 

along south side of the easement. 

The only proposed route variation which could 

be considered was to extend the HDD crossing 

under the Little Miami River to beyond the 

Stout’s property. However, this variation was 

deemed unfeasible due to hilly terrain on the 

property. However, the Mowrey Alternative 

(section 3.4.5), if accepted, would avoid the 

property entirely. 

Messerly 452 The Messerlys are concerned about 

a historic barn on and the future 

value of their property. 

The barn would not be affected by the Project 

route. The Project route is located near the 

edge of the property boundary and should not 

limit future development. The Mowrey 

Alternative (section 3.4.5), if accepted, would 

avoid the property entirely. 

Rowe 460 Mr. Rowe objects to the pipeline 

running through his property and 

cites income lost from disruption to 

his horse farm; the depth of pipeline 

not allowing for future horse fences; 

loss of property utility; and 

environmental impacts including 

removal of hardwoods. 

The current pipeline route minimizes impacts to 

forests on Mr. Rowe’s and nearby properties. 

Pipeline construction would only cause 

temporary impacts to his horse farming 

activities. The Mowrey Alternative (section 

3.4.5), if accepted, would avoid the property 

entirely. 

Miller 495 Mr. Miller states his land is enrolled 

in farm protection programs and is 

concerned about impact to fields, 

wildlife habitat, and aquifers. 

The AIMP should minimize impacts to fields 

and agricultural production. The Project route 

is located entirely on agricultural land. A route 

variation would not avoid the resources of 

concern. Additionally, the route is located 

along the property edge. 

Hartley 574 Mr. Hartley is concerned that the 

proposed pipeline route cuts 

through his property at an angle. He 

is generally opposed to the pipeline 

crossing through his property. 

The pipeline route follows an existing right-ofway through a small portion of Mr. Hartley’s 

wooded property. Because it is following an 

existing right-of-way, the impacts are 

minimized; therefore, a reroute is not 

environmentally preferable. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-32 

Table 3.5-1 

Summary of FERC Review of Landowner Comments for Which No Feasible or Environmentally Preferable 

Route Variation Was Identified 

Landowner 

Last Name 

Approximate 

Milepost Summary of Comments Summary of FERC Review 

Tysinger 577 The Tysingers are concerned about 

impacts to a water well, crops, and 

five operating oil wells. 

Construction of the pipeline would only 

temporarily impact their farming operation. 

Water or oil wells were not identified in field 

surveys. 

Costello 597 The Costellos object to the pipeline 

crossing through their property and 

cite proximity to their residence and 

intersection with power lines. They 

suggest a more southerly route. 

The Project route would pass through the 

northern portion of the Costello’s property and 

would be a sufficient distance (600 feet) from 

their residence. The pipeline would not 

intersect the powerline on their property. 

Moving the right-of-way to the south would 

impact heavily forested areas and adjacent 

property owners who are not already affected. 

Therefore, a reroute is not environmentally 

preferable. 

Stillion 600 The Stillions cite concerns about 

diminishing value of their land, the 

potential for future development, 

impacts to cattle, and impacts to 

water supply. 

The Project route follows an existing pipeline 

right-of-way through their property. Any 

reroute to the north or south would result in a 

greater impact to adjacent landowners and 

additional impacts to forested areas. Therefore, 

a reroute is not environmentally preferable. 

Potts 607 Landowners own and operate 

White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve 

on property. They are concerned 

about the pipeline’s impact on 

premier deer hunting sites and want 

the pipeline moved to the north side 

of existing transmission lines. 

The Potts property is addressed in detail in the 

section 4.8.5 under the special land use and 

recreation section. The FERC has 

recommended Rockies Express to coordinate 

with the Potts to determine the best time for 

construction on their property in order to lessen 

effects on business and revenue at White Oak 

Exotic Hunting Preserve. 

The following route variations were evaluated in more detail after conducting a preliminary 

review of their environmental impacts and technical feasibility. In total, we received 18 landowner 

comments for which we could identify a potentially feasible route variation. Each of these variations are 

discussed in separate sections below and shown in the maps in appendix J. Some of the route variations 

have been recommended as changes to the Project route. As these variations were recently developed, we 

are seeking input from affected landowners before adopting these recommendations into the final EIS. 

3.5.1 McCarroll Route Variation (MP 291.0 to MP 291.3) 

Landowner David McCarroll in Hendricks County, Indiana wrote to us with concerns about the 

effect pipeline construction would have to the forested area on his farm that contains wetlands, a stream, 

and the endangered Indiana bat. Mr. McCarroll has denied Rockies Express survey access, but hired 

Keramida Environmental, Inc. to conduct a bat survey. Mist nets were monitored for five hours on two 

nights in June 2007. Ten bats were netted including six lactating female Indiana bats. 

We reviewed the alignment to determine if an alternative route could be developed to avoid the 

forested area. The route would approach the forested area of Mr. McCarroll’s property from the 

northwest and cross 0.12 mile of the forest at a narrow edge of the forested area. The forest extends to the 

east and north widening to nearly 0.25 mile. The west side of the forested area is cleared for residential 

development within 0.10 mile of the Project route. Upon reviewing the area in the field and on aerial 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-33 

photography, an alternative route that would avoid the forested area was not found. A shift to the 

northeast would increase the length of forest crossed and a shift to the southwest would encroach upon 

houses (see figure J-1 in appendix J). 

In section 4.7, we have recommended that Rockies Express consult with FWS on tree clearing 

where bats are observed in order to minimize impacts on Indiana bats and their habitat. In addition, 

surveys have not been completed to confirm that the Project route would cross a stream or wetlands on 

the McCarroll property. Should these features be encountered, Rockies Express would follow its 

Procedures to minimize impacts to waterbodies and wetland areas. 

While reviewing the property in the field, however, we identified a route variation to minimize 

land use impacts to the farmed area located southeast of the forested parcel. The variation is 

approximately 0.40 mile long; slightly longer than the 0.30-mile corresponding segment of the Project 

route. Instead of crossing the field diagonally to the southeast, the variation would follow the forest/field 

edge for 0.19 mile, turn south along the line between two crop fields, and return to the REX East Project 

route to cross the road. Both the variation and Project route would cross agricultural land. The route 

variation is preferred because it would cross along the edges of fields that would minimize disruption to 

agricultural activities. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the McCarroll property from MP 291.0 to MP 291.3, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-1. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.2 Rogers Route Variation (MPs 300.5 to 301.0) 

Century 21 Realty Group submitted written comments on behalf of landowners Otis and Louise 

Rogers of Hendricks County, Indiana, stating the property is actively for sale for residential development. 

They are concerned that the REX East Project would have a negative effect on the value of the property 

and ability to develop the property. South State Road 39 forms the eastern boundary of the property. The 

Project route would cross diagonally through the property from the northwest to southeast. Currently, the 

Project route would affect agricultural land. We identified a variation that would lessen the diagonal 

bisection of the property and allow a larger continuous parcel for residential development. 

The variation would deviate from the Project route at MP 300.5 and head south along the western 

boundary of the property for 0.1 mile. It would then turn to the southeast and then east to avoid forested 

areas to the south and reconnect with the Project route at MP 301.0 before crossing South State Road 39. 

The variation is less than 0.1 mile longer than the half mile segment along the Project route. The route 

variation appears to avoid one of the two small wetland areas crossed by the Project, although fieldwork 

has not been completed to confirm this. The variation also crosses entirely through an agricultural field. 

The variation would add 22 acres to the portion of property to the north of the Project route for residential 

development. This larger parcel is located directly across from a golf course. Therefore, we recommend 

that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Rogers property from MP 300.5 to MP 301.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-2. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-34 

3.5.3 Parker Route Variation (MP 318.1to MP 318.8) 

Landowner Dan Parker submitted written comments expressing concern that the REX East 

Project route would cross at an angle through his farm and cut it in half. The Project route would cross 

six of Mr. Parker’s parcels in Morgan County, Indiana at an angle for a total of 0.75 mile. Although an 

alternative route that follows property lines would be slightly longer, it would alleviate potential impacts 

to Mr. Parker’s farming operation. 

As shown in appendix J, figure J-3, the route variation we evaluated would follow the tree line 

towards a barn on the property that is off Big Bend Road. It would then turn directly south passing on the 

property line between parcels IN-MN-19.001 and IN-MN-20.001. It would continue south crossing Big 

Bend Road and between two crop fields not owned by Mr. Parker. Approximately 0.21 mile from the 

road crossing, the route variation would turn east to follow on the inside of a tree line on the adjacent 

property. The variation would rejoin the Project route before crossing County Road 950 East. The route 

variation would be 0.74 mile long compared to 0.69 mile on the Project route. Both routes would cross 

agricultural land. Although the route variation is slightly longer, it is preferable because it would 

minimize land use issues when compared to the Project route. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Parker properties from MPs 318.1 to 318.8, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-3. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.4 Alverson Route Variation (MP 370.0 to MP 370.6) 

Decatur County, Indiana landowner, Bernice Alverson, submitted a written comment expressing 

concern that the pipeline would disturb Native American relics, a wooded area, and field drainage tiles. 

Ms. Alverson suggests the pipeline be re-routed to follow existing rights-of-way. We first reviewed the 

Project route to see if existing rights-of-way could be utilized, but none were identified within a mile of 

the property. Our analysis of a major route alternative to use existing rights-of-way north of Indianapolis 

to avoid Decatur County is presented above in section 3.4.3. The Project route crosses the Alverson’s 

properties from MPs 370.0 to 371.0. Approximately 0.15 mile of the route is forested while the 

remainder is agricultural. We identified a route variation that would avoid the forested area. 

The route variation avoids the forested area by diverting south from the Project route at MP 370.0 

and continuing along the southern boundary of the property before heading north to avoid structures and 

rejoin the Project route at MP 370.6. It is approximately 0.1 mile longer than the Project route. The 

Alverson’s have denied survey access on their property, so we are unable to verify if there are Native 

American artifacts of significance on their property. However, the route variation reduces the risk of 

encountering significant artifacts by affecting routinely disturbed agricultural land rather than the 

relatively undisturbed forested property. Impacts to field drainage tiles and other concerns related to 

agricultural productivity are addressed in section 4.8.2. The route variation would avoid the wooded area 

of the Alverson’s property; therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Alverson properties from MPs 370.0 to 370.6, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-4. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-35 

3.5.5 Yane Route Variation (MP 380.4 to MP 380.6) 

Monica and Gary Yane, of Franklin County, Indiana, provided written comments against the 

route of the pipeline on their property. They suggested that the pipeline be routed along an existing rightof-way. In section 3.4.3, we evaluate a major route alternative that would avoid Franklin County by 

following existing pipeline rights-of-way north of Indianapolis. These alternatives are not 

environmentally preferable. Therefore, we identified a route variation that would minimize the impacts 

on the Yane property. 

Figure J-5 in appendix J shows that the route alternative would start at MP 380.4 to continue in a 

southeast direction and rejoin the Project route at MP 380.6. The Project route makes a wide-angle turn 

in the cleared area of the Yane property. Both the Project route and route variation would cross 0.1 mile 

of forested property. The route alternative, however, would eliminate the turn on the property and is 

slightly shorter than the Project route. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Yane property from MPs 380.4 to 380.6, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-5. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets 

and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.6 Reynolds Route Variation (MP 381.5 to MP 382.7) 

In response to comments received from landowner Daron Reynolds that the Project route would 

cross karst features and would impact the Indiana bat on his property; we evaluated two possible route 

variations to mitigate these potential impacts. Both route variations would depart from the Project route 

at approximately MP 381.5. They would both roughly parallel the Project route for approximately 0.3 

mile until approaching Salt Creek, where they would split. The southern route variation would parallel 

Bullfork Road east across the creek and would then turn slightly to the northeast before rejoining the 

Project route near MP 382.7. The northern route variation would cross Salt Creek approximately 0.2 mile 

north of Bullfork Road and would run east along an existing telephone line right-of-way and then 

northeast before rejoining the Project route near MP 382.7. 

To evaluate the engineering feasibility and environmental impacts of these route variations, we 

examined each of the Reynolds Route Variations in the field. Based on these field observations, it was 

determined that the Project route through the Reynolds property would be preferable to the Reynolds 

Route Variations. Both the southern and northern route variations would require constructing the pipeline 

across steep banks of the Salt Creek floodplain and along the bank of a stream that feeds into Salt Creek. 

Although the Project route would also cross Salt Creek, it would cross in a location characterized by 

shallower grade banks. Additionally, it would not require construction along the stream that feeds into 

Salt Creek. Neither of the route variations would offer an environmental advantage over the Project 

route. All three would pass through the same approximate amount of forested and agricultural land. 

Consequently, we are not recommending a route variation. In response to landowner concerns 

about karst features, we recommend in section 4.1 that in the event karst features are discovered during 

construction, Rockies Express stop work to develop route variations or mitigation measures to avoid 

potential damage to the pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-36 

3.5.7 Morgan Route Variation (MP 383.1 to MP 384.0) 

Landowner Carolyn Morgan of Franklin County expressed concern over the project impacts to 

soil, water, and Indiana bat habitat on her property. The Project route crosses forested and agricultural 

fields on her property. We identified a route variation that would follow an existing powerline right-ofway to minimize further fragmentation of forested land. 

As shown in appendix J, figure J-6, the route variation would deviate from the Project route at 

MP 383.1 on the Freas’ property to continue following a powerline right-of-way to the northeast. It 

would follow the powerline for 0.8 mile to the eastern edge of the Morgan’s property. It would then turn 

southeast to cross State Road 229 and rejoin the Project route at MP 384.0 as it continues in a 

southeasterly direction. The route variation and Project route would both cross the same four waterbodies 

and associated riparian forested areas. The route variation would minimize impacts to the forested areas 

by collocating the pipeline with the existing right-of-way to reduce fragmentation. This is particularly 

important on the Morgan’s property where the Project route would separate a 2-acre parcel between the 

two rights-of-way. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Morgan property from MPs 383.1 to 384.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-6. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.8 White Route Variation (MP 395.1 to MP 395.8) 

Laura White of Franklin County, Indiana wrote in opposition to the REX Project crossing her 

property. The REX East Project would cross agricultural fields, two waterbodies, and a driveway on her 

property, as shown in appendix J, figure J-7. It also makes two turns on her property that increase the 

total impacted area. We found a variation that would minimize the crossing length by 0.1 mile. The route 

variation would cross agricultural fields, one waterbody, and a driveway on her property. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the White property from MPs 395.1 to 395.8, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-7. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets 

and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.9 Schulte and Oetzel Route Variation (MP 401.5 to MP 402.0) 

David Oetzel and Harry and Barbara Shulte are neighbors in Franklin County, Indiana and wrote 

to ask that the pipeline be moved to the southern edge of their property. They expressed concerns for the 

aesthetics and future use of their land, as well as their neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Caruso. We identified a 

route variation that would follow the southern edge of the property boundaries and increase the distance 

of the Project to residences. 

The Project route would bisect 6 parcels of land between MPs 401.5 and 402.0, and the centerline 

would encroach within approximately 31 feet of the residence at MP 401.7 (see table 4.8.3-1). The 

Project route would cross agricultural areas and maintained grass yards. As shown in appendix J, figure 

J-8, the route variation would turn south from MP 401.5 along the edge of an agricultural field on Mr. 

Oetzel’s property for 0.1 mile and then turn east along the south boundary of the field. It would dip 

further south on to Glen Strohmeier’s property and across a residential driveway. It would then cross 

Donald Stirn’s property and cross Johnson Fork Road. The route variation would continue east along the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-37 

southern edge of the properties owned by the Shultes and Mr. Oetzel. It would cross Sharptown Road 

and rejoin the Project route at MP 402.0. The route variation would maintain at least 100 feet from all 

residences in the area. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate the route variation for 

the Schulte and Oetzel properties located between MPs 401.5 and 402.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-8. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express should 

consult and coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new landowner 

information. 

3.5.10 Minges and Schoenharl Route Variation (MP 405.1 to MP 405.9) 

Landowners Paul and Muriel Schoenharl and Leo Minges of Butler County, Ohio provided 

written comments on the Project route and the potential impacts to forested areas, waterbodies, and 

wildlife habitat on their property. We reviewed the Project route and found that it would fragment two 

forested areas greater than 20 acres connected to other large forested patches nearby. FWS has expressed 

concern about forest fragmentation and impacts to migratory birds near these MPs (see section 4.5). We 

found a route variation that would avoid fragmenting these forests and follow the existing TETCO 

pipeline. 

The route variation would deviate from the Project route at MP 405.1 by heading due south and 

then east along the edge of a forested area for 0.3 mile. It would then head southeast across an 

agricultural field to join the TETCO pipeline. The route variation would then cross briefly into James and 

Lisa Diersing’s property before crossing into Mark and Jody Stenger’s property to follow this existing 

right-of-way for 0.16 mile through the second forested patch. The route variation would then cross 

another field before rejoining the Project route across California Road at MP 405.9. The route variation 

would cross one waterbody and no wetlands while the Project route would cross five waterbodies and one 

wetland. The route variation is about 0.15 mile longer than the Project route, but avoids environmentally 

sensitive areas. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate the route variation for 

the Schoenharl and Minges properties located between MP 405.1 and MP 405.9, as 

depicted in appendix J, figure J-9. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary 

updated alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express 

should consult and coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new 

landowner information. 

3.5.11 Walther Route Variation (MP 413.7 to MP 414.8) 

In response to comments received from landowner Hilda Walther that the Project route would 

cause undue impact to her farming operations and was rerouted onto her property instead of following the 

existing Texas Eastern pipeline right-of-way, we evaluated two possible route variations to mitigate these 

potential impacts. Both Walther route variations would depart from the Project route at approximately 

MP 413.7 and would parallel the Project route for approximately 0.25 mile. After crossing U.S. Route 

27, both route variations would head east for approximately 0.25 mile before turning to the north. 

Walther Route Variation A would head to the north for 0.50 mile and across Minton Road before 

rejoining the Project route at approximately MP 414.7. Walther Route Variation B would head to the 

north for 0.15 mile and would then turn to the northwest and parallel an existing power line right-of-way 

for 0.20 mile. The variation would then turn to the north and follow the existing power line right-of-way 

across Minton Road before rejoining the Project route near MP 414.8. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-38 

Our review indicates that the Walther Route Variations would not result in an environmental 

advantage relative to the Project route. Both route variations would require constructing the pipeline 

through forested areas, whereas the Project route would be constructed primarily through agricultural 

land. Walther Route Variation B also would require constructing the pipeline near an existing cemetery. 

Additionally, based on a field review of the Texas Eastern pipeline right-of-way, it was determined that 

the original reroute onto the Walther property was unavoidable because there would not be sufficient 

space along the Texas Eastern pipeline right-of-way to construct the pipeline. In the years following 

installation of the Texas Eastern pipeline, a small neighborhood was constructed along the right-of-way 

making it infeasible to construct an additional pipeline within the right-of-way. 

Based on our review and field observations, we find the Project route preferable to the route 

variations identified near the Walther property. 

3.5.12 Frye Route Variation (MP 452.7 to MP 453.8) 

We received a comment letter from an attorney for landowners Don and Richard Frye in Warren 

County, Ohio. The Frye’s are concerned about the Project’s impact to the water quality and quantity of 

ground and surface water that service their homes and farms. Rockies Express did not identify a well or 

spring along the Project route in this area. However, the Project crosses three waterbodies and the 

Wellhead Protection Area (WPA) for the Village of Waynesville, Ohio at MP 453.5. We identified a 

route variation that would avoid crossing these waterbodies. 

The Project route would cross through agricultural fields and would impact four waterbodies. 

The Project route is collocated with the TETCO pipelines. The route variation would turn south from the 

Project route at MP 452.7 to join a powerline right-of-way. It follows the powerline right-of-way for 1.0 

mile until it joins the Project route at MP 453.8. Based on a review of aerial photography, the route 

variation does not appear to cross any waterbodies. The route variation reduces impacts to water on the 

property, but may increase impacts to the WPA. However, the potential impacts and risk of spills into the 

WPA would be minimized by adhering to Rockies Plan and Procedures and SPCC Plan, as described in 

section 4.3. Section 4.3.1 recommends that Rockies Express file the distance of each WPA and document 

consultations with applicable agencies. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary documentation of consultations of the Project route and the route variation 

from MPs 452.7 to 453.8, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-10, with the Village of 

Waynesville, Ohio Waste and Water Division of the Utilities Department, and other 

applicable agencies regarding construction in the WPA. 

3.5.13 Jones and Mowrey Route Variation (MP 458.1 to MP 458.9) 

Landowners Daniel Jones and Dean and Nancy Mowrey of Warren County, Ohio submitted 

comments expressing concerns about the construction of the pipeline through their properties. The 

Mowrey’s, whose property is immediately to the southwest of the Jones property, expressed concerns 

about the impacts to riparian and forested areas (section 3.4.5 evaluates a route alternative suggested by 

the Mowreys). Mr. Jones expressed concerns about Indiana bat habitat and the impacts to a maple syrup 

operation on his property. To minimize these impacts, we identified a route variation that would follow 

the Jones and Mowrey property boundaries. 

As shown in appendix J, figure J-11, the route variation would deviate from the Project route at 

MP 458.1. It would follow the northwestern boundary of the Mowrey property through a forested area 

for 0.13 mile and then turn to the east and continue through the forested area for another 0.12 mile. It 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-39 

would then depart the forested area and continue to the southeast through an agricultural area along the 

boundary with the Jones property for 0.5 mile. At Compton Road it would turn sharply to the northeast 

and parallel the road through an agricultural area for 0.30 mile before rejoining the Project route at MP 

458.9. Both the Project route and the route alternative would be constructed primarily through 

agricultural and forested areas. The Project route would be constructed through 0.3 mile of forested area 

and the route variation would be constructed through 0.2 mile of forested area. Although these 

differences are relatively minor, the route variation would avoid all of the forested area on the Jones 

property and thus avoid his maple syrup operation and potential Indiana bat habitat. The impacts on the 

Mowrey property from the route variation would be the same as those from the Project route, but the 

route variation would be located along the property boundary rather than cutting across it. Therefore, we

recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Mowrey and Jones properties located between MPs 458.1 and 

458.9, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-11. Rockies Express should file with the 

Secretary updated alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.14 Kile Variation (MP 477.1 to MP 477.5) 

In comments submitted during the scoping period, landowners David and Ronald Kile expressed 

concern about the siting of the Project pipeline route in the immediate vicinity of their homestead. 

Specifically, the Project pipeline would be constructed within an area that currently supports barns and 

bins used in their farming operations. The Project route is collocated with multiple TETCO pipelines and 

is located between their home and a metering station for the TETCO pipeline. In response to their 

comment, we developed a route variation that would remain on the Kile property, but would avoid the 

areas of concern. 

The route variation is 0.44 mile, only 0.04 mile longer than the corresponding Project route. The 

variation would deviate from the TETCO easement approximately 0.20 mile from County Road 14 and 

turn to the north to parallel the road for 0.20 mile. The variation then turns southeast for 0.20 mile to 

cross County Road 14 and rejoin the Project route. The Project route crosses agricultural and residential 

land, while the variation is located completely on agricultural land. Because the landowner has requested 

a minor field realignment on the property, and our review indicates that the Kile Route Variation would 

not result in additional impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or other landowners, we recommend 

that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Kile property from MPs 477.1 to 477.5, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-12. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets 

and updated land use and resource tables. 

3.5.15 Noll Route Variation (MP 555.4 to MP 557.3) 

In comments submitted during the scoping period, landowner David Noll expressed concerns 

about the routing of the Project pipeline across his property. As shown in figure J-13 in appendix J, the 

Project route between Ohio Route 383 and Buckeye Valley Road would primarily follow the existing 

TETCO pipeline right-of-way. This right-of-way, while on Mr. Noll’s and several nearby landowners’ 

property, crosses through several forested areas that contain steep slopes, wetland areas, and sites where 

surveys found artifacts used by Native Americans. Mr. Noll expressed concerns that construction along 

the Project route would adversely affect these areas as well as impact the septic system and leach field 

that serves his house. Mr. Noll also expressed concerns that the Project route would temporarily disrupt 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-40 

his cattle-farming operation during construction by impeding livestock access to food and water. We 

evaluated two possible route variations in response to these concerns. 

Along with his comments, Mr. Noll provided a route variation to minimize the impact to these 

resources. This route variation, called Noll Route Variation A, as shown in figure J-13 in appendix J, 

would deviate from the Project route to the south at about MP 555.4 and parallel the south side of 

Township Road 121 NE through John Clouse’s property, Deborah Noll’s property, and Edward Noll’s 

property. The route variation would continue to the east until crossing State Route 13 and into 

Christopher and Margaret Noll’s property. It would then turn to the northeast and rejoin the Project route 

at about MP 557.3. The route variation would require crossing four previously unaffected parcels of land 

south of the Project route. In total, Noll Route Variation A would cross property owned by five currently 

unaffected landowners and Mr. Noll’s property; the corresponding segment of the Project route would 

cross property owned by six landowners. 

In response to the comments submitted by Mr. Noll, we developed a second route variation (see 

figure J-13 in appendix J) that would remain on Mr. Noll’s property, but would avoid impacting the area 

containing Mr. Noll’s septic system and leach field, as well as one forested area. This variation, called 

Noll Route Variation B, would begin at MP 555.4 and would follow the Project route until crossing State 

Road 13. Near MP 556.3, it would depart from the Project route and cross over the existing TETCO 

pipeline in a northeasterly direction. It would continue in this direction until passing a stand of trees in 

the northeast corner of Mr. Noll’s property and turning east and then southeast to cross over the TETCO 

pipeline and rejoin the Project route near MP 557.3. Although this route variation would avoid one 

forested area and Mr. Noll’s septic system and leach field, it would not avoid the impacts to all of the 

forested and wetland areas mentioned in Mr. Noll’s letter. 

Table 3.5.15-1 provides a comparison of the significant environmental characteristics of the Noll 

Route Variations and the corresponding segment of the Project route. Noll Route Variation A would be 

0.17 mile longer, would cross 0.30 fewer acres of forested lands, would cross two fewer waterbodies, and 

would cross 0.04 fewer mile of wetlands than the corresponding segment of the Project route. 

Table 3.5.15-1 

Comparison of the Noll Route Variations to the 

Corresponding Segment of the Project Route 

(MPs 555.4 to 557.3) 

Environmental Factor Unit 

Project 

Route 

Noll Route 

Variation A 

Noll Route 

Variation B a/ Source 

Total Length miles 1.86 2.03 1.91 Digital Route 

Length Adjacent to Existing Right-of-Way 

(percent) 

miles 1.52 

(82.0) 

0.00 

(0.0) 

0.64 

(33.5) 

Digital Route 

Wetlands Crossed miles 0.04 0.00 0.00 FWS, 2007f 

Waterbody Crossings no. 4 2 4 ESRI, 2005a;b 

Cultivated Lands Crossed miles 1.5 1.97 1.71 USGS, 2001 

Forest Land Crossed miles 0.36 0.06 0.20 USGS, 2001 

Commercial Land Crossed miles 0.00 0.00 0.00 USGS, 2001 

Residences Within 50 Feet of 

Construction Work Area 

no. 0 0 0 Aerial imagery 

_________________ 

a/ Noll Route Variation B includes portions that are in common with the Project route to allow for comparison with Noll Route 

Variation A. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-41 

Additionally, although Noll Route Variation A would not parallel the existing TETCO pipeline right-ofway, it would parallel Township Road 121 NE for approximately 0.5 mile. 

Our review indicates that Noll Route Variation A provides some environmental advantages (e.g., 

less forested lands, waterbodies, and wetlands) over the corresponding segment of the Project route and 

Noll Route Variation B, although is not collocated with existing rights-of-way. Both Noll Route 

Variations A and B would avoid impacts to the septic system near Mr. Noll’s house Noll Route Variation 

A, however, would be preferable because it would impact fewer waterbodies and forested areas. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

Noll Route Variation A, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-13. Rockies Express should 

file with the Secretary revised alignment sheets and updated land use and resource 

tables. Rockies Express should consult and coordinate with any newly affected 

landowners and file new landowner information. 

3.5.16 Shaffer Route Variations (MP 623.3 to MP 624.4) 

Landowner Donna Shaffer (Steele) of Belmont County, Ohio expressed concern about the impact 

of pipeline construction on forested areas within her property and the safety of pipeline construction. Her 

property is situated in an area defined by rolling topography that she indicates is susceptible to landslides. 

She is concerned that pipeline construction through her property would increase the likelihood of 

landslides due to vegetation removal on the hills. To avoid these impacts, we identified a route variation 

that would be south of the Project route and would avoid the forested and hilly areas of concern. 

As shown in appendix J, figure J-14, the route variation would deviate from the Project route at 

MP 623.3. It would head to the south across Johnson-Ridge Road and then turn to the southeast through 

an agricultural field approximately 0.05 mile south of Johnson-Ridge Road. It would continue through 

this agricultural field for approximately 0.4 mile while paralleling the edge of a forested area and crossing 

into Richard Miller’s property. It would then turn to the east and cross through a small forested area and 

head across Rock River Road. It would continue to the east into David and Emma Yoder’s property 

while paralleling Johnson-Ridge Road through a partially forested area for 0.4 mile before crossing 

Somerton Highway and rejoining the Project route at MP 624.4. Both the Project route and route 

variation would be constructed primarily through agricultural and forested areas. The Project route would 

require construction through 0.5 mile of forested area; the route variation would require construction 

through 0.2 mile of forested area. Additionally, the route variation would avoid the hilly topography 

mentioned in Ms. Shaffer’s letter. Because the route variation would impact less forested area and avoid 

the steep topography on Ms. Shaffer’s land, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variation for the Shaffer property from MPs 623.3 to 624.4, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-14. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express should 

consult and coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new landowner 

information. 

3.5.17 Three Residence Variations (MPs 384.3, 384.4, 446.8) 

The REX East Project route would pass in very close proximity to three residences at MP 384.3, 

MP 384.4, and MP 446.8. Near MP 384, the Project route would cross Stacey Road and travel in a 

straight line through two houses and small forested patches. This route could be shifted to the south onto 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-42 

cultivated fields without further environmental impacts. At MP 446.8, the Project route would run 

between two houses. The route could be shifted to the north or the south of these houses. The shortest 

alignment we identified to the north was 0.3 mile long and on aerial photography crossed through two 

rows of trees. Shifting the alignment to the south would be slightly longer, 0.36 mile, but could avoid the 

removal of trees. This would be the environmentally preferred alignment. 

At all three houses, variations exist that would avoid the houses by more than 100 feet and would 

not increase environmental impacts. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express incorporate into the Project route the 

route variations at MPs 384.3, 384.4, and 446.8, as depicted in appendix J, figures J-15 

and J-16. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets and 

updated land use and resource tables. 

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES 

We considered alternative aboveground site locations for compressor and meter stations to avoid 

or minimize impacts to forested land, wetlands, and waterbodies, and to locate the facility as far as 

practicable from noise-sensitive areas (NSAs). The location of aboveground facilities should also 

consider the presence of suitable access roads and the location of ancillary facilities, such as electric 

distribution lines. For most of the compressor and meter stations, the Project compressor and meter 

station sites are on agricultural land, far from NSAs and residential developments, and would not 

adversely affect sensitive environmental resources as discussed in section 4. 

In filings dated September 17, 2007 and September 28, 2007, Rockies Express changed the 

locations of the following aboveground facilities: (1) the Bainbridge Compressor Station near MP 279.8 

in Putnam County, Indiana; (2) the Hamilton Compressor Station near MP 435.6 in Butler County, Ohio; 

(3) the Chandlersville Compressor Station near MP 575.0 in Muskingham County, Ohio; and (4) the 

Clarington Meter Station at MP 640.1 in Monroe County, Ohio. Each of these changes involved minor 

relocations of the aboveground facility locations, along with corresponding minor changes to the pipeline 

routes. None of the changes were made for environmental reasons. All of the changes have been 

incorporated into the proposed action evaluated in this draft EIS. 

Of the seven compressor stations proposed for the project, we received landowner comments on 

two locations: the Hamilton and Bainbridge Compressor Stations. For the other five sites, we did not 

receive any landowner comments or identify any significant issues which would require further 

evaluation of alternative locations. The change to the Hamilton Compressor Station site is discussed 

further below in order to address landowner comments that we received on the original proposed location. 

The change to Bainbridge Compressor Station site is also discussed below, as are two alternative 

locations for the site added in response to landowner concerns about potential noise impacts from 

operation of the station. 

3.6.1 Hamilton Compressor Station Site Alternative 

We conducted further evaluation of the Hamilton Compressor Station based on concerns 

regarding the previous location relative to residential development. As shown in figure 3.6.1-1, the 

Hamilton Compressor Station was moved approximately 1.0 mile to the northeast to a location next to an 

existing railroad spur and industrial site. The nearest residences would be 0.5 mile away. In contrast, the 

original location would have been in a residential area located 0.25 mile from the nearest residence. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-43 

Figure 3.6.1-1 

Hamilton Compressor Station 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-44 

As discussed further in section 4.11.2, operation of the Hamilton Compressor Station at the new 

location would increase existing noise levels at NSAs by less than 1 dBA. This increase would not result 

in a significant noise impact. 

With regard to other environmental factors, the newly proposed compressor station site would 

encompass approximately 13.4 acres, of which approximately 12.3 acres are agricultural and 1.1 acres are 

forested. The original location would have encompassed approximately 15.2 acres of agricultural, 

forested, and developed land. The new location does not have any known sensitive areas within 0.5 mile 

and based on field observations, the site is sufficiently set back from the nearest road and would be 

shielded by an existing stand of trees. The new location is in an area of flat topography that would 

require few changes to land contours to accommodate construction. The original location would have 

been located in a hilly area that would have required more significant grading and topographic changes to 

accommodate the station and related access. Re-routing the pipeline to access the new location would 

affect four landowners and cross 0.1 mile of wetlands, but would follow existing right-of-way for 73 

percent of its length and would cross one waterbody as compared to the original route, which would have 

followed existing right-of-way for 21 percent of its length, crossed four waterbodies, affected three 

landowners, and crossed no wetlands. 

Based on these findings, we accept the new location for the Hamilton Compressor Station and 

recognize advantages over the originally proposed location. 

3.6.2 Bainbridge Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

We conducted additional analysis of the Bainbridge Compressor Station sites based on landowner 

concerns about the proximity of the proposed locations to NSAs (which include houses). We analyzed 

the original location proposed by Rockies Express near MP 279.8, the new location proposed by Rockies 

Express near MP 277.3. Based on comments received on the newly proposed location, we analyzed two 

alternative locations: one approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the new proposed location near MP 276 

and a second approximately 3 miles east of the original proposed location near MP 282.6. Of the four 

locations, only the original location would not be located along the current Project route. It would be 

located less than 0.10 mile south of the current Project route. The other three locations would not require 

any reroute of the pipeline in order to construct the compressor station. 

As shown in figure 3.6.2-1, the original proposed location near MP 279.8 would have been 

located in a relatively flat, predominantly agricultural area that would have been partially shielded from 

the surrounding community by a forested area to the south and east of the proposed site. The new 

proposed location near MP 277.3 would also be located within a relatively flat, agricultural area, but 

would not be shielded by any nearby forested areas. The alternative location near MP 276 would be 

located in a setting similar to the new proposed location. It would be located in a relatively flat, 

agricultural area that would be largely unshielded from the surrounding community. Although both this 

alternative location and the new proposed location would have the potential to affect the local viewshed, 

the implementation of mitigation measures, such as planting trees for visual and noise screening would 

minimize the impacts. The alternative location near MP 282.6 would be located in an agricultural and 

forested area that would be shielded partially in most directions by an existing forested area. This 

alternative location is the only site that may require clearing of forested area; approximately 2.6 acres 

would be located within the project site boundary. 

The major distinction between the four sites would be their proximity to NSAs. The original 

proposed location would have been located approximately 1,100 feet from one NSA and 1,700-1,800 feet 

from an additional four NSAs. The new proposed location would be within 900 to 1,300 feet of four 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-45 

Figure 3.6.2-1 

Bainbridge Compressor Station

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-46 

NSAs and within 2,200 to 2,800 feet of an additional six NSAs. The alternative location near MP 276 

would be within 1,460 feet of two NSAs; 1,980 feet of a third NSA; and 3,220 feet of a fourth NSA. The 

alternative location near MP 282.6 would be approximately 1,000 feet from one NSA; 1,300 to 1,600 feet 

from four NSAs; and 1,900 to 2,100 feet from six NSAs. However, we would expect that the impacts to 

these NSAs would be lessened by the forested area that lies in between the proposed site and all of the 

NSAs. As discussed in more detail in section 4.11.2, operations of the Bainbridge Compressor Station at 

the proposed new location are expected to comply with the FERC noise limit at each of these NSAs. 

The four locations would differ in their required access road lengths and locations. All four 

access roads would be constructed through agricultural areas. The original location would require a 0.04 

mile permanent access road from the compressor station to North Washington Street. The new proposed 

location would require that a 0.1-mile permanent road be built from the compressor station to North 

County Road 25W. The alternative location near MP 276 would require that a new permanent road 

approximately 0.5-mile in length be built from the compressor station to U.S. Highway 36. The 

alternative location near MP 282.6 would require a 0.5-mile permanent access road to County Road 600 

East. Although the access roads for each location would vary in length, the impacts associated with 

traffic increases would be negligible. Therefore, we do not believe this difference in access roads 

significantly favors one location over the other. 

The four potential locations for the Bainbridge compressor station require further analysis in 

order to determine the most environmentally preferable site. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express provide a revised list 

of landowners within 0.5 mile and updated resource analyses for the two alternative 

compressor sites at MP 276 and 282.9 for the Bainbridge Compressor Station, as 

depicted in figure 3.6.2-1. The information provided should be consistent with the 

requirements for compressor stations, as outlined in the FERC’s Minimum Filing 

Requirements for Environmental Reports (18 CFR 380.12). 

3.7 CONCLUSIONS 

Table 3.7-1 summarizes all of the route variations and route alternatives that were identified and 

analyzed in detail. We identified 26 route alternatives or variations to consider in detail. Of those, we 

recommend 14 to be incorporated into the Project route. These route alternatives and variations were 

recommended to further avoid or minimize impacts to important environmental resources or minimize 

impacts to landowners. Together the route variations would add less than 0.8 mile to the Project length. 

A full discussion of each variation and alternative can be found above in sections 3.4 and 3.5. Because 

some of the recommended changes to the Project route were recently developed, we are seeking input 

from affected landowners before adopting these recommendations into the final EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-47 

Table 3.7-1 

Summary of Route Alternatives and Variations Analyzed in Detail 

Route Variation/ 

Alternative Milepost County, State Summary 

Change 

in 

Length 

(miles) Recommend? 

Clarksville Island 

Route Alternative 

(Mississippi River) 

(section 3.4.1) 

(figure 3.4.1-1) 

17.7 to 59.5 Ralls, Pike, 

Missouri; 

Calhoun, Pike, 

Illinois 

This alternative was not shown to 

offer a clean environmental 

advantage over the Project route. 

+ 3.1 No 

Gosline Island Route 

Alternative 

(Mississippi River) 

(section 3.4.1) 

(figure 3.4.1-1) 

38.0 to 47.0 Pike, Missouri; 

Pike, Illinois 

This alternative was not shown to 

offer a clear environmental 

advantage over the Project route. 

0 No 

Indy North 1 Route 

Alternative 

(section 3.4.3) 

(figure 3.4.3-1) 

279.4 to 376.0 Putnam, Hendricks, 

Boone, Hamilton, 

Hancock, Rush, and 

Decatur, Indiana 

This route alternative would not 

result in a clear environmental 

advantage and would require 

construction within 50 feet of 456 

residences. 

+ 8.9 No 

Indy North 2 Route 

Alternative 

(section 3.4.3) 

(figure 3.4.3-1) 

274.5 to 444.0 Putnam, Hendricks, 

Marion, Hamilton, 

Delaware, and 

Randolph, Indiana; 

Darke, Preble, 

Montgomery, and 

Warren, Ohio 

This route alternative would not 

result in a clear environmental 

advantage and would require 

construction within 50 feet of more 

than 231 residences. 

+ 31.5 No 

McCarroll Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.1) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-1) 

291.0 to 291.3 Hendricks, Indiana We determined that no route 

variation could avoid the forested 

area; however, a route variation to 

minimize the impacts to farmed 

lands was analyzed. This route 

variation would follow the edge of 

the farmed area rather than 

crossing it diagonally. 

+ 0.1 Yes 

Rogers Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.2) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-2) 

300.5 to 301.0 Hendricks, Indiana We identified a route variation that 

would avoid bisecting the property 

diagonally and allow for a larger 

continuous parcel for residential 

development. 

+ < 0.1 Yes 

Parker Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.3) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-3) 

318.1 to 318.8 Morgan, Indiana We identified a route variation that 

would predominantly follow the 

boundaries of Mr. Parker’s fields. 

+ < 0.1 Yes 

Alverson Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.4) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-4) 

370.0 to 370.6 Decatur, Indiana We identified a route variation that 

should minimize the risk of 

encountering artifacts by 

constructing the pipeline within 

routinely disturbed agricultural 

areas and avoiding the relatively 

undisturbed forested areas. 

+ 0.1 Yes 

Yane Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.5) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-5) 

380.4 to 380.6 Franklin, Indiana We evaluated a route variation 

that would cross slightly less land 

on their property than the Project 

route. 

- < 0.1 Yes 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-48 

Table 3.7-1 

Summary of Route Alternatives and Variations Analyzed in Detail 

Route Variation/ 

Alternative Milepost County, State Summary 

Change 

in 

Length 

(miles) Recommend? 

Reynolds Route 

Variations 

(section 3.5.6) 

381.5 to 382.7 Franklin, Indiana We evaluated two possible route 

variations in the field that would 

potentially avoid impacts. 

However, neither route variation 

would offer an environmental 

advantage over the Project route. 

0 No 

Morgan Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.7) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-6) 

384.1 to 385.0 Franklin, Indiana We evaluated a route variation 

that would follow an existing 

powerline right-of-way and 

minimize further fragmentation of 

forested land on the property. 

+ < 0.1 Yes 

White Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.8) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-7) 

395.1 to 395.8 Franklin, Indiana We evaluated a route variation 

that would shorten the distance 

across her property by 0.1 mile 

and avoid crossing one 

waterbody. 

- 0.1 Yes 

Schulte and Oetzel 

Route Variation 

(section 3.5.9) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-8) 

401.5 to 402.0 Franklin, Indiana We developed a route variation 

that would follow the southern 

edge of their properties and 

increase the distance of the 

Project to residences 

+ 0.1 Yes 

Minges and 

Schoenharl Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.10) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-9) 

405.1 to 405.9 Butler, Ohio We analyzed a route variation that 

would avoid forest fragmentation 

by following the existing TETCO 

pipeline easement. 

+ 0.2 Yes 

Walther Route 

Variation A 

(section 3.5.11) 

413.7 to 414.7 Butler, Ohio We evaluated a potential route 

variation on the property that 

would follow the property 

boundary instead of crossing 

diagonally. The route variation 

would require construction 

through forested areas and would 

therefore not be environmentally 

preferable. 

+ 0.2 No 

Walther Route 

Variation B 

(section 3.5.11) 

413.7 to 414.8 Butler, Ohio We evaluated a potential route 

variation on the property that 

would follow the property 

boundary instead of crossing 

diagonally. The route variation 

would require construction 

through forested areas and would 

therefore not be environmentally 

preferable. 

+ 0.1 No 

Little Miami River 

Alternative 

(section 3.4.4) 

(figure 3.4.4-1) 

432.9 to 467.2 Butler, Warren, and 

Clinton, Ohio 

We analyzed a route alternative 

that would cross the river only 

where it is designated for its 

recreational, but not scenic, value. 

Our analysis indicated that the 

Project route would result in fewer 

environmental impacts than the 

route alternative. 

+ 12.3 No 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-49 

Table 3.7-1 

Summary of Route Alternatives and Variations Analyzed in Detail 

Route Variation/ 

Alternative Milepost County, State Summary 

Change 

in 

Length 

(miles) Recommend? 

Mowrey Alternative 

(section 3.4.5) 

(figure 3.4.5-1) 

446.0 to 466.2 Warren and Clinton, 

Ohio 

The Mowrey alternative would be 

collocated with an existing rightof-way for most of its route, and 

affect previously disturbed areas. 

However, it would cross more 

waterbodies, forested land, and 

park lands that the existing rightof-way. 

- 0.6 No 

Frye Route Variation 

(section 3.5.12) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-10) 

452.7 to 453.8 Warren, Ohio The route variation would 

minimize the concerns on the Frye 

property, but crosses a Wellhead 

Protection Area (WPA). 

Additional information is required 

before a decision can be reached. 

+ 0.3 Not at this time 

Jones and Mowrey 

Route Variation 

(section 3.5.13) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-11) 

458.1 to 458.9 Warren, Ohio We evaluated a route variation 

that would follow the Jones and 

Mowrey property boundaries. The 

route variation would avoid all 

forested areas on the Jones 

property and minimize impacts on 

the to Mowrey property by 

following the property boundary. 

+ 0.2 Yes 

Kile Route Variation 

(section 3.5.14) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-12) 

477.1 to 477.5 Fayette, Ohio We developed a route variation 

that would avoid an area of 

concern without adding additional 

impacts to sensitive environmental 

areas or other landowners. 

+ < 0.1 Yes 

Deer Creek Lake 

State Park 

Alternative 

(section 3.4.6) 

(figure 3.4.6-1) 

496.9 to 502.6 Fayette and 

Pickaway, Ohio 

The environmental impacts of the 

route alternative and the Project 

route would be very similar. The 

COE has indicated that they 

would prefer the route alternative 

because it follows an existing 

right-of-way through the park. 

- 0.3 Yes 

Big Darby Creek 

Alternative 

(section 3.4.7) 

(figure 3.4.7-1) 

494.1 to 533.9 Fayette, Pickaway, 

and Fairfield, Ohio 

We evaluated a route alternative 

that would eliminate the need to 

cross the creek. The alternative is 

longer and Rockies Express 

would cross Big Darby Creek by 

HDD. If an HDD can be 

completed, the Project route is 

preferred. 

+ 5.8 No 

Noll Route 

Variation A 

(section 3.5.15) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-13) 

555.4 to 557.3 Perry, Ohio We evaluated a route variation 

that would minimize the length of 

the pipeline route that crosses 

through waterbodies and forested 

areas. Additionally, it would avoid 

impacts to farming operations and 

the septic system. 

+ 0.2 Yes 

Noll Route 

Variation B 

(section 3.5.15) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-13) 

555.4 to 557.3 Perry, Ohio This route variation would not 

avoid the impacts to all of the 

forested and wetland areas 

mentioned in Mr. Noll’s 

comments. 

+ < 0.1 No 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
3-50 

Table 3.7-1 

Summary of Route Alternatives and Variations Analyzed in Detail 

Route Variation/ 

Alternative Milepost County, State Summary 

Change 

in 

Length 

(miles) Recommend? 

Shaffer Route 

Variation 

(section 3.5.16) 

(appendix J, 

figure J-14) 

623.3 to 624.4 Belmont, Ohio We identified a route variation that 

would avoid the forested and hilly 

areas of concern. Specifically, the 

route variation would require 

construction through 0.3 fewer 

mile of forested area. 

+ < 0.1 Yes 

Three Residence 

Variations 

(section 3.5.17) 

(appendix J, 

figures J-15 and 

J-16) 

384.3, 384.4, 

446.8 

Franklin, Indiana 

Warren, Ohio 

We identified three minor route 

variations to move the alignment 

to a distance of greater than 100 

feet from each affected house. 

+ <0.1 Yes 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the Project would vary in duration 

and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, short-term, long-term, and 

permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction with the resource returning to preconstruction conditions almost immediately afterward. Short-term impacts would continue for up to three 

years following construction. Impacts were considered long-term if resources would require more than 

three years to recover. Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities that modify resources to 

the extent that they would not return to pre-construction conditions during the life of the Project, such as 

impact to vegetation as a result of the construction and operations of an aboveground facility. We 

considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical 

environment. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational 

impacts, and proposed mitigation for each resource. Rockies Express, as part of its proposal, agreed to 

implement certain measures to reduce impacts, and we evaluated the proposed mitigation measures and in 

some cases identified additional mitigation measures which we believe would further reduce impacts. 

These additional mitigation measures that we have identified appear as bulleted, boldface paragraphs in 

the text. We recommend these measures be included as specific conditions to any Certificate that the 

Commission may issue to Rockies Express for the Project. 

Conclusions in this draft EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the 

following assumptions: 

• Rockies Express would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• The facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.1 of this draft EIS; and 

• Rockies Express would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

This section of the draft EIS is organized by environmental resource. The scope of our analysis 

includes the construction and operation of the Project facilities. This draft EIS also includes a discussion 

of natural gas pipeline reliability and safety (see section 4.12) and the cumulative impacts of the Project 

with other projects in the area (see section 4.13). 

4.1 GEOLOGY 

4.1.1 Geologic Setting 

The REX East Project would be located within five main physiographic regions: 

• Central Lowlands (Dissected Till Plains): Missouri 

• Central Lowlands (Till Plains): Illinois, Indiana, and western Ohio 

• Appalachian Plateau (Glaciated and Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau): eastern Ohio 

• Wyoming Basin: Wyoming 

• Great Plains (High Plains): Nebraska 

Much of the Project would be located in areas where the land has been shaped by multiple glacial 

events. Elevations along the proposed pipeline route would range from 424 feet above mean sea level in 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-2 

Illinois to 1,332 feet above mean sea level in Ohio. Most of the pipeline route would be relatively flat in 

Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. Generally, steeper slopes would occur in Ohio, especially in the eastern 

portion of the state. Geologic conditions along the REX East pipeline route are summarized in table 

4.1.1-1. 

Table 4.1.1-1 

Summary of Geologic Conditions Along Proposed Route a/ 

Milepost 

Range Description of Bedrock Formations Crossed 

0 to 339 Pennsylvanian and Mississippian limestone, shale, siltstone, and sandstone 

339 to 377 Silurian and Devonian limestone and dolomite 

377 to 462 Ordovician limestone and dolomite 

462 to 547 Mississippian and Silurian limestone, shale, and dolomite 

547 to 639 Pennsylvanian and Permian limestone, shale, sandstone, including coal-bearing formations 

____________________ 

a/ National Atlas of the United States, 2007

In most areas bedrock is buried so deeply by glacial deposits and/or soils that it would not be 

encountered during construction. Approximately 13 percent of the proposed pipeline route would cross 

areas where bedrock may be encountered during trenching. Table 4.1.1-2 identifies general locations 

where shallow bedrock may be encountered. Depending upon the type of rock, Rockies Express would 

use either rippers or blasting to break up bedrock encountered during construction. If blasting is required, 

Rockies Express would implement its Blasting Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007c). The Blasting Plan outlines 

the procedures and safety measures that Rockies Express would adhere to while implementing blasting 

activities along the pipeline right-of-way during construction. Blasting would only be used where other 

methods of trenching are not feasible. Site-specific blasting plans would be prepared for each area where 

blasting would occur. These site-specific plans would outline the procedures to be used for notification of 

nearby property owners, safety precautions, methods for storing, handling, transporting, loading and 

detonating explosives, and monitoring the effects of explosions. No blasting would be necessary in 

constructing the aboveground facilities. 

Table 4.1.1-2 

Shallow Bedrock Areas That Requires Blasting Along Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County 

Areas requiring 

blasting 

(miles) 

Areas which may 

require blasting 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

MISSOURI 

Pike 0.1 0.1 0.2 

ILLINOIS 

Pike 0.1 0.0 0.1 

INDIANA 

Vermillion 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Morgan 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 

Decatur 0.4 0.0 0.4 

Franklin 0.0 4.2 4.2 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-3 

Table 4.1.1-2 

Shallow Bedrock Areas That Requires Blasting Along Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County 

Areas requiring 

blasting 

(miles) 

Areas which may 

require blasting 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

OHIO 

Butler 0.0 9.8 9.8 

Warren 0.1 2.3 2.4 

Clinton 0.1 0.0 0.1 

Fairfield 1.0 0.1 1.1 

Perry 5.8 2.9 8.7 

Muskingum 9.8 12.1 21.9 

Guernsey 3.8 10.3 14.1 

Noble 1.1 2.9 4.0 

Belmont 14.9 1.2 16.1 

Monroe 4.1 1.4 5.5 

Project Total 41.3 47.4 88.7 

____________________ 

a/ Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 2003. 

Based on the overall geologic conditions present in the Project area, we conclude that 

construction of the REX East Project would not significantly alter the geologic and physiographic 

conditions. 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

The construction and operation of REX East facilities near or over mineral resources could 

impact the present and future extraction of those resources. The types of potentially exploitable mineral 

resources identified in the REX East Project area are oil and gas, coal, crushed stone, cement, lead, lime, 

salt, soda ash, clay, and Grade–A helium. 

Table 4.1.2-1 identifies the known mineral resource production areas within 1,500 feet of the 

proposed pipeline route. No mining or mineral resource production areas were identified within 1,500 

feet of any of the proposed aboveground facilities. No production of cement, lead, lime, salt, soda ash, 

clay, or Grade–A helium is known to occur within 1,500 feet of the Project. 

Table 4.1.2-1 

Summary of Known Mineral Resource Production Areas Within 1,500 Feet of Proposed Project 

State/County Milepost 

Area Where 

Resource is 

Found 

Distance (in feet) and 

Direction from Centerline 

ILLINOIS 

Pike 59.9 Quarry 1,300 – Southeast 

70.6 Gravel Pit 1,250 – South 

Douglas 199.9 Quarry 500 – North 

INDIANA 

310.0 Sand/Gravel Pit 575 – West 

315.2 Sand/Gravel Pit 900 – Northeast 

Morgan 

315.4 Sand/Gravel Pit 500 – West 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-4 

Table 4.1.2-1 

Summary of Known Mineral Resource Production Areas Within 1,500 Feet of Proposed Project 

State/County Milepost 

Area Where 

Resource is 

Found 

Distance (in feet) and 

Direction from Centerline 

OHIO 

424.9 Gravel Pit 450 – Southwest 

430.6 Sand/Gravel Pit 1,000 – North 

435.0 Sand/Gravel Pit 215 – North 

Butler 

473.0 Sand/Gravel Pit 1,500 – North 

Sand, gravel, and crushed stone 

No active sand and gravel pit or quarries would be crossed by the Project. The construction of 

the Project would not prevent the operation of the existing pits/quarries in the area. Construction of the 

Project may limit future exploitation of these resources, but only in the immediate vicinity of the Project. 

We note that in areas where the REX East pipeline would parallel existing rights-of-way; those rights-ofway already prohibit or limit the exploitation of these mineral resources. 

A landowner in Waldron, Indiana expressed concern that blasting at a nearby quarry could 

damage the pipeline. The nearest quarry to the proposed pipeline in this area appears to be about 3,500 

feet away. As discussed in section 4.1.3, the pipeline is designed to withstand some amount of earth 

movement. We do not believe that blasting at a quarry more than 0.5 mile from the pipeline would affect 

the integrity of the pipeline. 

Oil and gas 

The pipeline route is within 500 feet of 101 active oil and gas wells. These wells were identified 

in Christian County, Illinois (5); Parke (2), Shelby (2), and Decatur (9) Counties, Indiana; and Fairfield 

(3), Perry (20), Muskingum (40), Guernsey (13), Noble (2), Belmont (3), and Monroe (2) Counties, Ohio. 

Seven of these wells appear to be within the pipeline construction right-of-way (at MPs 555.0, 

573.8, 599.0, 606.6, 627.1, 635.4, and 635.4). Grading and trenching activities could damage well heads 

or gathering lines, creating a potential safety hazard to workers and interrupting oil and gas production 

until appropriate repairs are made. Blasting operations could also damage nearby oil and gas wells. 

Rockies Express has indicated that it would contact the owners of the wells within the construction work 

area prior to construction, would modify its workspace to attempt to avoid these wells, and would require 

equipment to remain 10 feet from aboveground well equipment. Although, this would partially mitigate 

impacts to the wells, Rockies Express has not provided a plan for monitoring these wells during 

construction or protecting the integrity of the well and casing. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a site-specific protection plan for oil or 

gas wells within the construction work area, both active and abandoned. These plans 

should include details on how the wells would be protected and monitored during 

construction. Rockies Express should also discuss how it would determine if any 

damage attributable to construction activities occurred to the aboveground 

equipment, casing, or plug (for abandoned wells). The plans should also discuss how 

any damage would be mitigated. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-5 

By avoiding and/or protecting existing oil and gas production facilities, we believe the Project 

would not interfere with current oil and gas production in the proposed Project area. Additionally, 

because oil and gas are generally produced from depths of more than 1,000 feet, construction of the 

pipeline is not expected to affect future oil or gas production in the area because the proposed pipeline 

would only be at maximum depths of 10 feet from the ground surface. 

Coal 

Coal deposits are located in the vicinity of the REX East Project. The pipeline and facilities 

would be located in three coal-producing regions—the Interior, Appalachian, and Western regions. Coal 

is produced in the Project area through surface strip mining and underground operations; however, no 

active coal mines or coal bed methane production areas were identified in the locations crossed by the 

REX East Project facilities. The pipeline route would cross abandoned underground coal mines in 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (see table 4.1.2-2). The main concern with crossing abandoned underground 

coal mines is the potential for subsidence which could affect the integrity of the pipeline. Subsidence 

associated with coal mining is discussed in section 4.1.3. 

Table 4.1.2-2 

Abandoned Underground Mines Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) Type of Mining 

ILLINOIS 

Sangamon 117.5 119.0 1.4 Room and Pillar 

119.0 119.0 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

Douglas 208.2 208.3 0.1 Room and Pillar 

208.7 211.9 3.2 Room and Pillar 

INDIANA 

Warren 246.4 246.7 0.3 Room and Pillar 

OHIO 

561.2 561.2 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

561.4 561.4 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

561.5 561.6 0.1 Room and Pillar 

561.6 561.7 0.1 Room and Pillar 

562.5 562.6 0.1 Room and Pillar 

563.7 563.8 0.1 Room and Pillar 

563.9 564.0 0.1 Room and Pillar 

564.1 564.3 0.2 Room and Pillar 

564.3 564.6 0.3 Room and Pillar 

Perry 

564.7 565.1 0.4 Room and Pillar 

567.0 567.1 0.1 Room and Pillar 

567.1 567.1 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

567.2 567.4 0.2 Room and Pillar 

567.4 567.5 0.1 Room and Pillar 

567.6 568.2 0.6 Room and Pillar 

570.8 571.1 0.3 Room and Pillar 

571.5 571.6 0.1 Room and Pillar 

Muskingum 

571.6 571.7 0.1 Room and Pillar 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-6 

Table 4.1.2-2 

Abandoned Underground Mines Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) Type of Mining 

595.3 596.0 0.7 Room and Pillar 

596.0 596.2 0.2 Room and Pillar 

596.2 596.3 0.1 Room and Pillar 

596.3 596.5 0.2 Room and Pillar 

596.5 596.5 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

597.6 597.7 0.1 Room and Pillar 

597.9 598.0 0.1 Room and Pillar 

598.8 599.2 0.4 Room and Pillar 

600.4 600.8 0.4 Room and Pillar 

600.8 600.8 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

601.0 601.1 0.1 Room and Pillar 

601.1 601.1 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

601.1 601.9 0.8 Room and Pillar 

601.9 602.4 0.5 Room and Pillar 

602.4 602.7 0.3 Room and Pillar 

602.7 603.6 0.9 Room and Pillar 

603.9 604.4 0.5 Room and Pillar 

605.9 606.1 0.2 Room and Pillar 

Guernsey 

606.2 606.2 <0.1 Room and Pillar 

Belmont 629.6 629.8 0.2 Room and Pillar, Longwall 

629.8 631.1 1.3 Room and Pillar, Longwall 

Monroe 633.8 633.9 0.1 Room and Pillar 

634.3 639.1 4.8 Room and Pillar 

____________________ 

a/ Source: Stiff, 1997; Crowell, et al., 2006 

All surface mining sites within 1,500 feet of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities are 

rock quarries or sand and gravel pits. These are important non-fuel mineral resources in the project states, 

but are also fairly common, and the REX East Project facilities are not located near any critical deposits. 

Construction of the Project could prohibit or limit the mineral resource deposits located under or near the 

proposed pipeline or aboveground facilities from being recovered by surface mining. However, in many 

areas the proposed pipeline follows existing rights-of-way which would already limit the extraction of 

these resources. 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

Potential geologic hazards identified in the REX East Project area are seismicity (earthquakes and 

faults), landslides, subsidence, and flooding/scour. Each of these hazards is discussed below. 

Seismicity 

Seismic hazards include earthquakes, ground faulting, and secondary effects such as liquefaction 

and related slope failures. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated, non-cohesive soils typically 

having uniform grain size temporarily lose their strength when subjected to intense ground shaking, often 

resulting in sloughing or landslides. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-7 

The REX East Project route crosses an area of relatively low seismic risk. No active faults were 

identified in the vicinity of the REX East Project, although features indicative of Quaternary faulting are 

present in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana where the Project is proposed. 

Most seismic activity in the region is generally linked to the New Madrid fault zone located to the 

south of the pipeline route. Between December 1811 and February 1812, three of the most powerful 

earthquakes in United States history originated in this area, reaching a Modified Mercalli intensity of up 

to XII. Since that time numerous intensity V or greater earthquakes have been reported in Missouri, 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The project would not cross the seismically active portion of the New Madrid 

fault zone. The area in which the probability of a seismic event is highest is located well to the south of 

the Project area, along the adjoining boundaries of Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Based on the 

Seismic Source Zones Map provided in Algermissen et al. (1982), the majority of the Project area 

(including Nebraska) could experience about three to six Modified Mercalli intensity V earthquakes every 

100 years (maximum Richter magnitude of 6.1). Portions of the project in Indiana and western Ohio 

could experience between 11 and 15 Modified Mercalli intensity V earthquakes every 100 years. 

The Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is located in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. 

This zone is capable of producing seismic activity. On June 18, 2002, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake 

occurred near Evansville, Indiana, in an area that is part of the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. The Project 

is located to the north of this seismic zone, but the pipeline route would cross an area in the Wabash 

Valley region identified as containing liquefaction features. However, no historical earthquakes in this 

area have been strong enough to cause liquefaction. These features are likely the result of prehistoric 

events in the Holocene and late Pleistocene epochs (Obermeir and Crone, 1994). 

Although the intensity, frequency, and duration of impacts resulting from the potential hazard of 

minor earthquakes are difficult to quantify, all REX East Project facilities would be designed and 

constructed in accordance with 49 CFR Parts 192 and 193. These specifications ensure that pipeline 

facilities are designed and constructed in a manner that provides adequate protection from washouts, 

floods, unstable soils, landslides, or other hazards that may cause the pipeline facilities to move or sustain 

abnormal loads. Pipeline installation techniques, especially padding and use of rock-free backfill, 

effectively protect the pipeline from minor earth movements. Furthermore, the ductility of modern 

pipelines gives further assurance that minor earth movements would have little impact on the REX East 

Project pipeline. 

The REX East Project would be constructed using arc-welding techniques. O’Rourke and Palmer 

(1996) evaluated the seismic performance of gas transmission pipelines in southern California using 

arc-welding as a construction method. Based on their findings, electric arc-welded pipelines constructed 

after World War II, and properly maintained, have never experienced a break or leak as a result of a 

southern California earthquake. O’Rourke and Palmer also concluded that electric arc-welded pipelines 

in good repair are the most resistant type of piping and are generally highly resistant to traveling groundwave effects and moderate amounts of permanent deformation. Therefore, we do not expect seismic 

hazards to pose a significant risk to the proposed pipeline facilities. 

Landslides 

A landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. Several 

factors contribute to slope failures and subsequent landslides, including the degree of slope or tilt of 

geologic materials, the composition of the materials, the amount of manmade disturbance of the materials, 

proximity to seismic activity, and the amount of rainfall exposure. Generally, flat areas were selected for 

the location of the proposed compressor and meter sites; therefore, slope failure is not expected at 

aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and subsequent landslides represent a potential 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-8 

hazard along portions of the Project route that would traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain. 

Factors that would increase the potential for slope failures along slopes and rolling terrain include cutting 

along slopes, the weight of construction equipment, and unusually high precipitation. 

The portions of the Project area located in Audrain, Ralls, and Pike Counties, Missouri and 

Hendricks and Morgan Counties, Indiana have recorded areas of moderate susceptibility/low incidence of 

previous landslides. Portions of the pipeline route would encounter recorded areas of high susceptibility/

low incidence in Pike County, Missouri; Pike County, Illinois; Franklin County, Indiana; and Perry, 

Muskingum, and Guernsey Counties, Ohio. Portions of the route would encounter recorded areas of high 

susceptibility/moderate incidence in Guernsey, Noble, and Belmont Counties, Ohio. Lastly, isolated 

areas of the pipeline route would encounter recorded areas of high susceptibility/high incidence in 

Belmont and Monroe Counties, Ohio. Approximately 27.5 percent of the total REX East pipeline route 

(based on length) is located in areas of moderate to high landslide susceptibility. Table 4.1.3-1 identifies 

areas along the right-of-way that are susceptible to landslides. 

Table 4.1.3-1 

Areas Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route with Moderate or High Susceptibility to Landslides a/ 

State/County 

Begin 

Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) Susceptibility Incidence 

Missouri 

Audrain 7.8 15.8 8.0 Moderate Low 

Ralls 15.8 19.8 4.0 Moderate Low 

Pike 19.8 36.4 16.6 Moderate Low 

36.4 43.0 6.6 High Low 

Illinois 

Pike 43.0 69.7 26.7 High Low 

Indiana 

Hendricks 291.0 301.1 10.1 Moderate Low 

301.1 304.3 3.2 Moderate Low 

Morgan 304.3 306.6 2.3 Moderate Low 

Franklin 379.6 396.8 17.2 High Low 

Ohio 

Perry 557.9 566.3 8.4 High Low 

Muskingum 566.3 577.4 11.1 High Low 

577.4 591.7 14.3 High Low 

591.7 591.8 0.1 High Low 

591.8 594.7 2.9 High Moderate 

594.7 602.8 8.1 High Low 

Guernsey 

602.8 611.3 8.5 High Moderate 

Noble 611.3 618.0 6.7 High Moderate 

Belmont 618.0 618.1 0.1 High Moderate 

618.1 633.8 15.7 High High 

Monroe 633.8 639.1 5.3 High High 

____________________ 

a/ Source: Godt, 1997 

Construction of the pipeline would be accomplished in accordance with Rockies Express’ Plan 

and Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007a,b), which includes measures to control runoff and erosion that 

would minimize the potential for slope failures. If feasible, Rockies Express would bury the pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-9 

below potential landslide depth to reduce landslide susceptibility. Additionally, Rockies Express would 

implement drainage controls including slope and ditch breakers to reduce the potential for slope failures. 

Pipeline construction on steep slopes could initiate localized slope movement. However, we 

believe that modern construction techniques along with the implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan and 

Procedures would reduce the potential for construction-related activities to trigger landslides or other 

slope instability. 

Along with the design measures to mitigate for minor earth movements (as set forth by 49 CFR 

Part 192), the orientation of the pipeline along the long axis of a slope face would minimize the overall 

energy to which a segment of pipe would be exposed during a landslide event. Should a landslide occur, 

sections of the pipe could become exposed and thus would require subsequent reburial. None of the 

aboveground facilities would be located in an area with recorded landslides or on steep slopes. 

Subsidence 

Subsidence can range from small localized areas of collapse to broad, regional lowering of the 

ground surface. It can be associated with areas of karst terrain, past underground mining, earthquakeinduced liquefaction, and withdrawal of fluids such as groundwater and petroleum. Subsidence related to 

withdrawal of groundwater or petroleum is generally not a concern in the REX East Project area. 

Karst terrain refers to areas characterized by dissolution of rocks such as limestone, dolomite, 

gypsum, and salt, resulting in sinkholes (closed depressions), pinnacled bedrock, caves/caverns, and 

underground drainage systems. The tendency for and rate of solubility of rock formations is variable and 

is believed to be affected by rock mineralogy as well as local structural features, such as jointing, bedding 

characteristics, and differences in groundwater chemistry. 

Approximately 23 percent of the pipeline route crossed by the Project has the potential for karst 

features from 10 to 200 feet below the ground surface. Table 4.1.3-2 identifies areas of the proposed 

pipeline route that would cross potential karst terrain. These sections may be susceptible to subsidence 

caused by dissolution and sinkhole activity that can occur in karst terrain. But, as most pipeline 

construction would not occur at depths greater than 10 feet from the surface, and Rockies Express 

identified no karst-related features during its survey of the proposed right-of-way, no impacts attributable 

to surficial karst features are expected. However, not all areas of the right-of-way have been surveyed for 

karst features, and one landowner has expressed concern that karst features may be present on the pipeline 

route. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for the identification of karst 

features and mitigation for crossing any such features identified during construction. 

This plan should also indicate how areas with these features would be monitored 

during the life of the Project and what steps would be taken if the area were to 

destabilize in the future. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-10 

Table 4.1.3-2 

Location and Length of Potential Karst Terrain Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/

State/County Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) 

Missouri 

Pike 25.4 42.7 17.3 

Missouri Subtotal 17.3 

Illinois

Pike 54.5 71.2 16.7 

Scott 71.2 83.5 12.3 

Illinois Subtotal 29.0 

Indiana 

Putnam 268.1 281.6 13.5 

Shelby 343.3 358.7 15.4 

Decatur 358.7 376.9 18.2 

Franklin 376.9 397.9 21.0 

Indiana Subtotal 68.1 

Ohio 

Clinton 464.3 473.7 9.4 

Greene 473.7 476.5 2.8 

Fayette 476.5 499.8 23.3 

Pickaway 499.8 500.7 0.9 

Ohio Subtotal 36.4 

Project Total 150.8 

____________________ 

a/ National Atlas of the United States, 2007 

It is possible, but unlikely that an HDD operation may intercept a solution void in a karst area, 

depend on the size of the void this could result in the loss of drilling mud and/or the failure of the drill. 

Rockies Express has not indicated what it would do if a solution void was intercepted during an HDD, 

therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a contingency plan for HDDs in the 

karst areas identified on table 4.1.3-2. This plan should include pre-construction 

identification of the potential for subsurface karst features and identify what Rockies 

Express would do if a solution void is intercepted to limit the amount of mud lost and 

successfully complete the drill. 

Subsidence can also occur due to the collapse of underground mines. The two forms of 

subsidence associated with underground mining are pit and sag. Subsidence due to pits can range from 6- 

to 8-feet deep with a diameter from 2 to 40 feet. Subsidence due to sags may be several feet deep and 

cover several acres. The locations of abandoned underground mines along the Project route are listed in 

table 4.1.2-2. Analysis of the effects of coal mine subsidence on the REX East Project pipeline indicate 

that for areas in relatively gentile terrain, the pipeline should be capable of accommodating vertical and 

horizontal ground displacements associated with coal mine subsidence. In areas susceptible to coal mine 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-11 

subsidence with steeper terrain, bends in the pipeline, or elevated pipeline operating temperature, the 

chances of damage to the pipeline are greater. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for monitoring areas where the pipeline 

would cross underground mines that includes the steps that would be taken if the area 

were to destabilize in the future. The monitoring should continue for the life of the 

Project. 

None of the aboveground facilities are located in areas considered to be affected by subsidence 

due to either karst features or past underground mining, with the exception of the Dominion 

Transmission, Dominion East, and TETCO meter stations, which are located on an abandoned 

underground mine area at MP 639.1. However, there is no indication of ongoing subsidence in this area. 

Flooding/Scour 

Seasonal and flash flooding hazards are a potential concern where the pipeline route crosses 

major streams and small watersheds. Although flooding itself does not present a risk to buried pipelines, 

bank erosion and/or scour could expose or cause sections of pipe to become unsupported. 

In flood or scour-prone areas, the REX East Project pipeline would be buried at greater depths 

(greater than 5 feet) to minimize scour potential. Rockies Express identified three areas with the potential 

for severe scour, all within Indiana (see table 4.1.3-3). Aboveground facilities are generally located in 

upland areas and would not be susceptible to severe scouring. 

Flooding may be an issue during the construction of the Mississippi River crossing. The pipeline 

would be installed under the Mississippi River by HDD. The drilling operation would involve two 

separate HDDs, one for the Salt River and one for the Mississippi River. These two drills would take 

several months to complete. The drilling equipment would be set up on Blackburn Island which is prone 

to flooding. The only access to the drilling site would be by boat. Flooding during the drill operation 

could result in hazardous material (such as diesel and hydraulic fluid) spilling into the river and 

equipment used for the drilling operation (such as barges, tanks, and drilling equipment) could float away 

in the flood waters. Rockies Express has indicated that it does not plan to construct this crossing during 

the time of year flooding is most likely (April 1 to July 15). Rockies Express has also indicated that it 

would monitor river levels during construction. If a flood is predicted, the drilling operations would be 

halted and to the extent possible equipment would be removed from the island with priority given to 

diesel fuel storage tanks and diesel powered equipment. We believe that Rockies Express has not 

provided sufficient information on how it would deal with flooding during construction of the Mississippi 

River crossing. Other issues which have not been addressed include: how would equipment/materials 

left on the island be secured, would the temporary dock (barge) be left in place, how would 

equipment/materials left behind be protected from floating debris, would timber cut on the island 

Table 4.1.3-3 

Waterbodies Crossed with Potential for Severe Scour 

County/State Milepost Waterbody 

Parke, IN 250.7 Leatherwood Creek 

Putnam, IN 269.9 Raccoon Creek 

Johnson, IN 337.9 Sugar Creek 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-12 

(potential floating debris) be left there. Because Rockies Express has not provided sufficient detail, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a High Water Contingency Plan for the 

construction of the Mississippi River crossing. This plan should be developed in 

consultation with the COE. 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

Many geologic formations have the potential to contain paleontological resources; however, those 

containing vertebrate fossils are generally considered to be most scientifically significant because 

vertebrate fossils are rarer than invertebrate or plant fossils. Potential impacts in fossil localities during 

construction could include direct impacts (such as damage to or destruction of fossils resulting from 

excavation activities) and indirect impacts (such as erosion of fossil beds resulting from slope regrading, 

clearing of vegetation, and unauthorized collection of significant fossils by construction personnel or the 

public). 

Rockies Express consulted with MODNR, Division of Geology and Land Survey; the Illinois 

State Geological Survey; the Illinois State Museum; the Indiana Geological Survey; and the ODNR, 

Division of Geological Survey staff to identify areas along the pipeline route with potentially sensitive 

paleontological resources. Only the Illinois State Museum identified potential paleontological resources 

of concern along the Project route. In a letter dated February 13, 2007 to Rockies Express, the Illinois 

State Museum identified areas in Illinois where the Project route crosses potential fossil assemblages (see 

table 4.1.4-1). The Illinois State Museum identified members of the Glasford formation that had 

previously been found to contain isolated fossiliferous material and the Wedron and Equality Formations 

that have previously been found to contain significant fossiliferous material, including large mammals. 

However, the Illinois State Museum did not provide recommendations for any specific actions to be taken 

regarding potential fossils in these units. Additionally, the ODNR in a letter dated March 6, 2007, 

identified the Waynesville and Liberty Formations in the interval between MP 446.6 through 462.5 as 

having the potential to contain Ohio’s official fossil, the Isotelus trilobite. However, the ODNR stated no 

precaution with regard to excavating a specimen is necessary. 

Rockies Express contractors and staff would be instructed to be aware of the possibility of 

encountering paleontological material when pipeline or aboveground facility construction was taking 

place in the above-mentioned areas. Rockies Express has indicated that if any significant paleontological 

material is encountered, the EI would contact the appropriate agency and request further investigation. 

Construction would halt until a site determination is made. However, Rockies Express has not indicated 

how or who would determine if the paleontological material was significant. Therefore, we recommend 

that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for the identification of paleontological 

material found during construction. Rockies Express should also provide criteria for 

the determination of significance. 

Because of this stop-work contingency, and because pipeline construction would disturb a 

relatively small area of a relatively low-fossil-density formations, construction impacts to paleontological 

resources are considered minimal. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-13 

Table 4.1.4-1 

Potential Fossilferous Formations Crossed by the Project Route in Illinois 

County Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) Formation – Member 

Pike 65.3 70.4 5.1 Glasford – Kellerville 

Scott 75.0 86.3 11.3 Glasford – Vandalia 

86.3 94.7 8.4 Glasford – Vandalia 

95.1 105.1 10.0 Glasford – Vandalia 

105.1 106.0 0.9 Glasford – Hagarstown 

Morgan 

106.0 106.4 0.4 Glasford – Vandalia 

106.4 120.4 14.0 Glasford – Vandalia 

121.3 125.6 4.3 Glasford – Vandalia 

Sangamon 

126.3 131.7 5.4 Glasford – Vandalia 

Christian 132.2 132.6 0.4 Glasford – Vandalia 

133.2 134.8 1.6 Glasford – Vandalia 

Sangamon 134.8 135.4 0.6 Glasford – Vandalia 

Christian 135.4 141.9 6.5 Glasford – Vandalia 

141.9 151.1 9.2 Glasford – Radnor 

151.1 154.0 2.9 Glasford – Radnor 

154.6 160.3 5.7 Wedron – Piatt 

160.3 164.6 4.3 Wedron – Piatt 

164.6 165.0 0.4 Wedron – Fairgrange 

165.0 169.4 4.4 Wedron – Piatt 

Macon 

169.4 172.1 2.7 Wedron – Piatt 

Moultrie 172.1 172.9 0.8 Wedron – Piatt 

172.9 187.5 14.6 Wedron – Piatt 

187.5 188.0 0.5 Wedron – Piatt 

188.4 192.6 4.2 Wedron – Piatt 

193.2 195.2 2.0 Wedron – Batestown 

195.2 201.1 5.9 Wedron – Batestown 

201.1 202.4 1.3 Equality – Dolton 

202.4 202.5 0.1 Wedron – Batestown 

203.1 204.7 1.6 Equality – Dolton 

204.7 205.3 0.6 Wedron – Batestown 

205.3 212.4 7.1 Equality – Carmi 

212.4 213.4 1.0 Equality – Carmi 

Douglas 

213.4 214.7 1.3 Wedron – Batestown 

214.7 228.0 13.3 Wedron – Batestown 

229.1 232.6 3.5 Wedron – Batestown 

233.8 234.9 1.1 Wedron – Batestown 

235.4 236.3 0.9 Wedron – Batestown 

Edgar 

237.1 238.1 1.0 Wedron – Batestown 

Normal operation of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would not disturb paleontological 

resources. Although maintenance activities would result in surface disturbance, such disturbance would 

typically occur in areas previously disturbed by construction. Therefore, operational impacts to 

paleontological resources are considered negligible. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-14

4.2 SOILS 

Information regarding the soil types present in the Project area and their characteristics was 

obtained using the NRCS in the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. STATSGO is an electronic 

database maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. The soil 

characteristics/limitations that are evaluated are the potential for erosion by wind and water, shallow 

bedrock, prime farmland designation, compaction, and the percentage of stones/rocks, droughty soil, and 

hydric soil present. 

Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, heavy 

equipment traffic, and restoration along the construction right-of-way may result in adverse impacts on 

soil resources. Clearing removes protective vegetative cover and exposes soil to the effects of wind, sun, 

and precipitation, which could potentially increase soil erosion and the transport of sediment to sensitive 

areas. Grading and equipment traffic can compact soil, reducing porosity and percolation rates, which 

could result in increased runoff potential. In addition, grading can result in the mixing of topsoil with 

subsoil, which could result in long-term reduction of agricultural productivity and introduce subsurface 

rocks to the soil surface. Trench excavation and backfilling could also lead to the mixing of topsoil and 

subsoil, introduction of excavated rocks from the fracturing of bedrock, and introduction of rock and/or 

gravel into the soil surface. This could result in future increases in operation labor, decreases in 

agricultural productivity, and potential damage to agricultural field equipment. Soil contamination from 

equipment spills and/or leakage of fuels, lubricants, and coolants could also impact soils. Rockies 

Express has developed three plans, the Upland Construction Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007a), the Wetland 

and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007b), and the AIMP 

(appendix I) for Illinois to identify baseline mitigation procedures for minimizing impacts on soils and 

enhancing revegetation1

. Further discussion of the AIMPs and their proposed mitigation measures for 

agricultural areas can be found in section 4.8.2 of this draft EIS. 

4.2.1 Soil Limitations 

Table 4.2.1-1 summarizes the soil limitations that could be encountered by the proposed pipeline 

route and table 4.2.1-2 summarizes the soil limitations associated with the proposed aboveground 

facilities.2

 Impacts associated with construction and operation of aboveground facilities would be similar 

to those described above for pipeline limitations; however, impacts at aboveground facilities would be 

permanent. Because land used for construction of the aboveground facilities would be permanently 

converted to industrial use, mitigation measures implemented at the aboveground facilities are limited to 

erosion and sediment control measures. 

Erosion Potential 

Erosion is a natural process in which surface soils are worn away, typically by wind or water. 

Factors that influence the erosion potential of soil include gradation (distribution of soil particles), 

vegetative cover, length and percentage of slope, rainfall, and wind intensity. Soils on steep, long slopes 

are much more susceptible to water erosion than soils on shallow, short slopes because the steeper slopes 

accelerate the flow of surface runoff. 

 

1

 At this time, Rockies Express has not provided an AIMP for Missouri, even though agricultural land is crossed in 

the state. This issue is discussed further in section 4.8.2. 

2

 Specific soil characteristics and limitations along the Project length by milepost can be found online at FERC’s 

eLibrary (2007k). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-15

Table 4.2.1-1 

Summary of Soil Limitations at Pipeline Facilities (by miles crossed) a/ 

County 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible b/ 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible c/ 

Prime 

Farmland d/ Hydric e/ 

Compaction

Prone f/ 

Stony 

Rocky g/ 

Shallow 

Bedrock h/ Droughty i/ 

MISSOURI 

Audrain 0.7 0.0 13.5 7.0 6.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 

Ralls 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pike 9.3 0.0 8.3 3.8 3.3 5.2 4.5 0.0 

ILLINOIS 

Pike 5.1 0.0 16.8 6.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Scott 3.7 0.0 9.0 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Morgan 3.8 0.0 14.4 4.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sangamon 1.9 0.0 22.8 7.9 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Christian 1.0 0.0 15.7 5.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Macon 1.5 0.0 18.3 4.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Moultrie 0.2 0.0 14.7 5.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Douglas 0.4 0.0 26.1 10.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Edgar 0.6 0.0 22.8 8.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

INDIANA 

Vermillion 2.3 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Parke 5.5 0.1 14.3 3.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Putnam 5.5 0.0 11.9 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.3 

Hendricks 3.1 0.3 14.6 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 

Morgan 1.2 0.5 11.5 3.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 

Johnson 2.1 0.8 17.0 4.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Shelby 2.4 0.8 16.7 6.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.6 

Decatur 3.8 0.1 13.6 3.0 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 

Franklin 16.1 0.2 10.6 1.3 0.7 5.3 7.5 0.3 

OHIO 

Butler 8.6 0.0 22.6 4.3 3.2 0.0 1.5 0.2 

Warren 6.1 0.0 16.5 2.2 1.7 0.0 1.3 0.2 

Clinton 2.8 0.0 11.4 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 

Greene 0.2 0.0 2.8 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Fayette 2.2 0.0 20.9 8.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pickaway 5.1 0.3 19.0 6.1 5.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield 7.8 0.0 16.4 2.5 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.0 

Perry 14.8 0.0 2.3 0.9 0.1 3.8 7.2 0.0 

Muskingum 19.5 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.5 5.6 14.2 0.0 

Guernsey 15.9 0.0 1.7 1.4 0.5 2.5 14.5 0.0 

Noble 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 5.5 0.0 

Belmont 14.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 14.4 0.0 

Monroe 5.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 

Total 179.1 3.1 419.3 124.8 84.1 29.7 80.9 3.7 

Percent of 

Total j/ 28.0 0.5 65.6 19.5 13.2 4.7 12.7 0.6 

____________________ 

a/ Values may be overestimated due to rounding as all values <0.1 were counted as 0.1 

b/ Includes map unit having average slope class of 9 percent or more and designated as land capability subclasses 4E through 8E by NRCS 

c/ Includes map unit designated as wind erodibility group 1 or 2 by NRCS 

d/ Includes map unit designated as prime farmland by NRCS 

e/ Includes map unit designated as hydric by NRCS 

f/ Includes map unit having sandy clay loam texture or finer in drainage classes categorized as somewhat poor, poor, or very poor 

g/ Includes map unit meeting criteria for stony-rocky soils 

h/ Includes map unit having bedrock within 60 inches of soil surface 

i/ Includes map unit meeting criteria for droughty soils 

j/ Percentages sum to greater than 100 because some areas are characterized by more than one soil limitation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-16

Table 4.2.1-2 

Summary of Soil Limitations at Aboveground Facilities 

Facility 

(County) 

Total

Acres

Highly 

Erodible a/ 

Prime 

Farmland b/ Hydric c/

MISSOURI 

Mexico Compressor Station (Audrain) 12.7 No Yes No 

ILLINOIS 

Blue Mound Compressor Station (Christian) 12.9 Yes Yes No 

NGPL Meter Station (Moultrie) >5.9 No Yes Yes 

Trunkline Meter Station (Douglas) 2.6 No Yes Yes 

MGT Meter Station (Edgar) 1.3 No Yes Yes 

INDIANA 

PEPL Meter Station (Putnam) 1.3 Yes Yes No 

Bainbridge Compressor Station (Putnam) 20.0 No Yes Yes 

Citizen Gas Meter Station (Morgan) 1.2 No Yes Yes 

IGC Meter Station (Morgan) 1.9 No Yes No 

ANR Meter Station (Shelby) 2.0 Yes Yes No 

OHIO 

Hamilton Compressor Station (Butler) 14.3 Yes Yes No 

Dominion/TETCO/TG/Vectren/CGE Meter Station (Warren) 6.7 Yes Yes No 

CGTC Meter Station (Fairfield) 1.3 Yes Yes No 

Chandlersville Compressor Station (Muskingum) 12.3 No Yes Yes 

TG Meter Station (Muskingum) 1.3 Yes No No 

DT/DEG/TETCO Meter Station (Monroe) 5.4 Yes No No 

WYOMING 

Arlington Compressor Station 15.0 Yes No No 

NEBRASKA 

Bertrand Compressor Station (Phelps) 17.7 No Yes Yes 

____________________

a/ Includes map unit designated by NRCS as highly erodible land 

b/ Includes map unit designated by NRCS as prime farmland 

c/ Includes map unit designated by NRCS as hydric 

As presented in table 4.2.1-1, approximately 28 percent of the soils crossed by the REX East 

pipeline route are highly susceptible to water erosion and 0.5 percent of the soils are most susceptible to 

wind erosion. Clearing, grading, and equipment movement could accelerate the erosion process. Without 

adequate protection, this could result in topsoil loss, reduced soil fertility, and discharge of sediment into 

sensitive areas. The sloping banks of ravines, waterbodies, and soil storage piles would be most 

susceptible to water erosion. 

The Plan would be used during construction in upland areas. The Procedures would be followed 

in wetland areas and waterbody crossings and includes measures to protect soils in those areas. The Plan 

and Procedures are designed to control erosion and sedimentation during construction. These include use 

of temporary and permanent breakers on slopes. Temporary sediment barriers or slope breakers, such as 

straw bales or silt fences would be installed at the base of slopes adjacent to waterbodies, in wetlands, on 

roadways, and along the edge of the right-of-way. This would prevent sediment from flowing off the 

right-of-way. Permanent trench breakers, such as sacks of soil or sand, polyurethane foam, or bentonite 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-17

clay, would be installed around the pipe in the trench prior to filling to mitigate subsurface channeling of 

water where applicable. The measures implemented would be monitored by Rockies Express’ EIs to 

ensure control of erosion. Temporary sediment barriers would be evaluated daily and maintained 

(reinstalled as necessary) until areas disturbed by construction are stabilized and successful revegetation 

is accomplished. Active revegetation using seed mixtures recommended by the NRCS and landowners 

would be used as necessary to further stabilize soils to prevent erosion. Rockies Express would also 

temporarily employ the use of water trucks, as needed, to reduce wind erosion and road dust associated 

with construction activities. 

Rockies Express would also implement waterbody crossing methods as outlined in its Plan and 

Procedures to minimize potential impacts of soil erosion from water and sedimentation near waterbodies. 

For example, spoil from waterbody crossings would be maintained in the construction right-of-way at 

least 10 feet from the water’s edge or in an additional workspace. Sediment barriers would be installed 

and properly maintained to prevent flow of sediment into the waterbody and to contain spoil and sediment 

within the construction right-of-way. In addition, trench plugs would be used as necessary to prevent 

diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline trench, and all waterbody banks would be returned 

to a stable condition. Where trench dewatering is required, Rockies Express would pump water from the 

trench into vegetated upland areas to prevent soil erosion in areas disturbed by construction. Filtering and 

discharge dissipation devices would be used as appropriate to ensure that trench dewatering activities do 

not cause erosion or result in heavily silt-laden discharge water. 

During the restoration in nonagricultural areas, Rockies Express would condition the right-of-way 

by preparing a seedbed and applying soil amendments at rates previously agreed upon by the landowner, 

land management agency, or soil conservation authority. 

Rockies Express has detailed several ways it would construct and monitor its pipeline to ensure 

proper depth of cover and right-of-way stability. In addition to the procedures discussed above, 

landowners would have the option of negotiating with Rockies Express for the use of additional 

mitigation measures as long as those measures would not impact other landowners (without their 

permission) or impact other sensitive resources (e.g., waterbodies, wetlands, protected species, cultural 

sites, or residential areas). Upon commissioning the pipeline, Rockies Express would implement a 

surveillance plan that includes monthly aerial pipeline patrolling to inspect for excavation activities, 

ground movement, wash-outs, leakage, or other changes along the right-of-way. Within one year of 

cathodic protection system installation, Rockies Express would conduct a close internal survey along the 

pipeline route on foot. In addition, Rockies Express would use an outreach program for landowner and 

tenant communication to discuss pipeline location, operation, maintenance, and emergency reporting. We 

believe these measures would ensure right-of-way stability and minimize the potential for operational 

disturbances, including increased erosion. 

Prime Farmland 

Prime farmland soils consist of soils classified as those best suited for the production of food, 

feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils generate the highest yields with the least amount of 

expenditure. Soils currently occupying pastures and fields or otherwise undeveloped forest and open land 

also can be classified as prime farmland soils; lands occupied by surface water or residential, commercial, 

or industrial uses cannot receive this designation. Prime farmland soils generally meet the following 

criteria: they have an adequate water supply from either precipitation or irrigation; contain few or no rock; 

are permeable to water and air; are not excessively erodible or saturated for long periods; and do not flood 

frequently or are protected from flooding. Approximately 66 percent (419.3 miles) of the REX East 

Project route would cross prime farmland soils as designated under these criteria. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-18

Potential impacts on agricultural uses and prime farmland soils from pipeline construction include 

eroding soil; interference with and damage to surface drainage, drain tiles, and irrigation systems; mixing 

of topsoil and subsoil; potential loss of fertile topsoil; and compaction of topsoil. The AIMP was 

developed to minimize the impacts of the pipeline to agricultural soils. Discussion of the AIMP and 

additional analysis of agriculture-related issues is presented in section 4.8.2 of this draft EIS. We 

recommend in this section the pipeline be buried at a minimum depth of five feet. 

Construction of the REX East pipeline facilities would affect approximately 118.5 acres of prime 

farmland soils. While these soil resources would be permanently lost, the acreage affected would not 

significantly reduce agricultural production in the REX East Project area. 

Compaction Potential 

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are compressed. Compaction modifies soil structure 

and can reduce the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of the soil, thus restricting rooting depth. 

Compaction also decreases infiltration and thereby increases runoff and the potential for water erosion. 

The risk for compaction is greatest when soils are wet. Fine-grained soils having poor drainage 

characteristics have the greatest propensity for compaction. Construction equipment traveling over wet or 

saturated soils could disrupt soil structure, reduce pore space, increase runoff potential, and cause 

topsoil/subsoil rutting and mixing. Approximately 13 percent of the soils crossed by the REX East route 

are susceptible to compaction. 

Operating heavy equipment can cause soil compaction in residential and agricultural areas. 

Construction vehicles and heavy equipment could leave ruts and cause excessive soil compaction. 

Rockies Express would mitigate rutting and compaction in agricultural and non-agricultural soils by 

implementing the procedures in its Plan, such as conducting compaction tests across the right-of-way 

using a cone penetrometer or another similar instrument and using a paraplow or other deep-tilling 

equipment in severely compacted agricultural areas. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, the 

subsoil would be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil. In addition, Rockies Express would 

consult with landowners, NRCS, and additional agencies and perform decompaction as required by the 

affected party. To further minimize the potential for soil impacts in residential and agricultural areas, 

Rockies Express indicated that it would modify its construction practices by stopping construction 

activities that would cause irreparable rutting and mixing of the topsoil and subsoil. However, Rockies 

Express has also indicated that it believes the use of full right-of-way topsoil segregation would allow the 

continuation of construction during wet weather. We disagree; the concerns with compaction are not 

limited to topsoil and removing the topsoil would not negate the compaction concern. We believe that 

additional mitigation measures should be implemented to minimize these potential impacts. To further 

mitigate for compaction in agricultural areas during wet weather, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express prepare an Agricultural Wet Weather Contingency Plan to address 

construction practices in agricultural areas during wet weather (i.e., active precipitation 

and/or saturated ground or as otherwise determined by the EI). This plan should 

include, at a minimum: 

a. A determination of the allowable depth of rutting, and allowable working 

conditions, prior to suspension of construction activities based on the type of soil, 

topsoil and subsoil thickness and/or using the Atterberg Field Test Procedure; 

b. Designation of authority for the onsite agricultural inspector to have “stop-work” 

authority in the event that wet weather conditions place topsoil and subsoil at risk; 

and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-19

c. Identification of alternate construction procedures to enable activities to continue 

without risking the loss and/or mixing of topsoil and subsoil and severe compaction 

in the event of an unseasonably wet construction season. 

This plan should be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction. 

The IDOA also strongly supports the development and implementation of an Agricultural Wet 

Weather Contingency Plan. 

Stony-Rocky or Droughty Soils 

Stony soils are identified as soils having more than five percent by weight of particles larger than 

three inches. Stony-rocky soils could interfere with agricultural practices and inhibit revegetation efforts. 

Droughty soils have a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser material and are moderately well 

or excessively drained. As a result, droughty soils may not be able to sustain adequate moisture levels in 

the root zone, making revegetation difficult. 

Approximately five percent of the soils crossed by the REX East facilities are stony-rocky and 

less than one percent of the soils crossed by the REX East facilities are droughty. Construction through 

stony-rocky soil could bring rock to the surface, which could interfere with agricultural practices and also 

hinder revegetation of the right-of-way. 

In the event that blasting is required, Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures allows blast rock to 

be used to backfill the trench up to the level of the preexisting bedrock profile, but requires the removal of 

excess blast/excavated rock, which would be considered construction debris. The Plan and Procedures 

also requires the removal of excess stones and rock in areas where soils off the right-of-way do not 

contain similar materials. In nonagricultural areas, mulch application could be used to conserve soil 

moisture in droughty soils, in addition to providing stability of the soil surface and reducing erosion. 

Based on these procedures, we conclude that Rockies Express’ use of its Plan and Procedures would 

effectively minimize impacts from construction through these types of soils. 

Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as soils that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or 

ponding that took place long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the 

upper horizon. Hydric soils include those developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the 

growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation, and soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial 

measures. Locations where hydric soils are encountered may also contain artificial drainage systems. 

Approximately 20 percent of the soils crossed by the REX East route are designated as hydric 

soils. Construction through hydric soils and wetlands is discussed in sections 2.3.2 and 4.3.7 of this EIS. 

Implementation of the measures contained in Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures would also minimize 

impacts on hydric soils. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-20

Shallow Bedrock 

Soils indicated as consisting of shallow bedrock have the potential for bedrock to occur within 60 

inches of the soil surface. In these areas, specialized mechanical equipment or blasting may be required 

for trench excavation. 

Approximately 13 percent of the soils that would be crossed by REX East facilities have the 

potential for shallow bedrock, mainly on the eastern end of the Project. Approximately 7 percent of the 

shallow bedrock crossed could require blasting. The remaining areas of shallow bedrock are soft enough 

to be ripped with backhoes or bulldozers equipped with rippers. Implementation of Rockies Express’ 

Blasting Plan would minimize the effects of blasting (FERC eLibrary, 2007c). Shallow bedrock impacts 

are discussed in section 4.1.1 of this draft EIS. 

4.2.2 Spill/Contamination Prevention 

Soil contamination along the pipeline route could result from at least two sources: material spills 

during construction and trench excavation of existing contaminated areas. Contamination from spills or 

leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolants, and solvents from construction equipment could impact soils. 

Through its review of national and state regulatory databases, Rockies Express has not identified the 

presence of any existing contaminated sites in the immediate Project vicinity. 

Rockies Express’ Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan includes clean-up 

procedures designed to minimize contamination from accidental spills or leaks of fluids from 

construction-related equipment or materials (FERC eLibrary, 2007e). If an unanticipated area of 

suspected contamination is encountered during construction, Rockies Express would implement the 

procedures set forth in the SPCC Plan to minimize the spread of contamination and to ensure the health 

and safety of construction workers and the general public. 

4.2.3 Topsoil Segregation 

In addition to erosion and compaction, construction activities such as grading, trenching, and 

backfilling can cause mixing of soil horizons. Mixing of topsoil with subsoil, particularly in agricultural 

lands, leaves less productive soil in the root zone, which lowers soil fertility and the ability of disturbed 

areas to revegetate successfully. 

According to section IV.B.1 of its Plan, Rockies Express would use full work area or ditch-plusspoil-side method in (1) actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures, (2) residential areas, 

(3) hayfields, and (4) other areas at the request of landowners or land-managing agencies. 

Rockies Express’ Plan includes measures to prevent or minimize the mixing of topsoil with 

subsoil. In addition, for agricultural areas the AIMP includes directives for topsoil segregation. 

Regarding the depth of topsoil, Rockies Express proposes to strip a maximum of 12 inches in 

actively cultivated or rotated croplands and other areas as requested by landowners or land-managing 

agencies. In areas where the topsoil is less than 12 inches, Rockies Express would attempt to segregate 

the entire topsoil depth. Rockies Express would protect the topsoil piles from loss or mixing with subsoil, 

being used as trench backfill or pipe padding, and from wind and water erosion. Procedures for soil 

segregation and depth of cover in agricultural areas are discussed in the AIMP. 

During scoping we received several comments regarding topsoil segregation in areas of no-till 

farming. Erosion and sedimentation controls described in the AIMP would be implemented to minimize 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-21

impacts in no-till farming areas, in addition to conventional farming areas. By implementing the topsoil 

segregation procedures described in the Plan and Procedures, as well as the AIMP, impacts to soils in notill farming areas would be minimized and would not significantly impact soil quality in the Project area. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-22 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources 

Along the REX East Project route, groundwater is a significant source of drinking water in 

selected areas and is used for agricultural irrigation and industry. Groundwater flow generally reflects 

surface topography. Although depth to groundwater is variable along the proposed pipeline route, 

groundwater is often found near the ground surface, and the Project is likely to encounter groundwater 

during construction activities. 

Major aquifers along the Project route include the Glacial Till, Dissected Till and Residuum, PreWisconsin Drift, New Castle Till, New Castle Till Subsystem, Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous. 

These aquifers underlying the pipeline and aboveground facilities are generally found in geological units 

composed of glacially derived till, alluvium, sand, and gravel. Additional information on the aquifers that 

occur along the Project route, including sole-source aquifers, WPAs, wells, springs, and contaminated 

groundwater is presented below. 

Aquifer Systems 

The Glacial Till Aquifer underlies the pipeline route in Audrain, Ralls, and Pike Counties, 

Missouri. This aquifer is a glacial drift aquifer consisting of sand and gravel. Depths to this aquifer range 

from 0 to below 200 feet and yields range widely, from less than 1 gallon per minute (gpm) to more than 

2,000 gpm (MODNR, 2007a; Miller and Vandike, 1997). Some individual households use the Glacial 

Till aquifer for drinking water, but it is inadequate for municipal drinking supplies. 

Aquifers underlying the pipeline route in Pike, Scott, and Morgan Counties, Illinois are typically 

composed of glacial alluvium. These aquifers are found in unconsolidated deposits of glacial sand and 

gravel varying in thickness and depth. These aquifers range in thickness from about 50 feet to as much as 

150 feet and are capable of yielding 200 to 1,000 gpm for municipal, industrial, and irrigation uses. 

In Sangamon, Christian, Macon, Moultrie, Douglas, and Edgar Counties, Illinois, glacial alluvium 

aquifers are minor. However, in this area of east-central Illinois, small areas of sand and gravel incised in 

Pennsylvanian shales are significant sources of groundwater for small communities and domestic wells. 

These wells have varying yields ranging from less than 1 gpm to 100 gpm at depths of less than 25 feet 

(Wehrmann and Sinclair, 2003). 

Aquifers underlying the pipeline route from Vermillion County through Franklin County, Indiana 

include a combination of glacial alluvium aquifers, Pennsylvanian-age rock unit aquifers, and 

unconsolidated aquifers. In the glacial alluvium aquifer zones, the depth to water and the quantity and 

quality of groundwater are extremely variable. The depth to groundwater ranges from 50 to more than 

550 feet in the Pennsylvanian-age rock unit aquifers. In Decatur and Franklin Counties, Indiana the 

pipeline route would cross four unconsolidated aquifer systems: Dissected Till and Residuum, PreWisconsin Drift, New Castle Till, and New Castle Till Subsystem. Water depths range from 10 to 100 

feet, with the thicknesses of the unconsolidated deposits throughout these counties being quite variable, 

often depending on the underlying bedrock topography (INDNR, 2005). 

Aquifer systems underlying the pipeline route from Butler County, Ohio to the pipeline terminus 

in Monroe County, Ohio include a combination of glacial alluvium, limestone bedrock, Silurian 

carbonate, Niagaran limestone, sedimentary bedrock, abandoned coal mine, and shaley sandstone or 

limestone aquifers. Glacial alluvium aquifers vary in depth to groundwater and tend to be shallower 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-23 

(approximately 200 feet) than bedrock aquifers. In general, glacial alluvium aquifers can be very highyielding, with ranges greater than 1,000 gpm. 

The pipeline’s route in Noble, Belmont, and Monroe Counties, Ohio features unglaciated upland 

areas. The two types of aquifers in these areas are from either shaley sandstone or thin limestone, both of 

varying depths with low yields of less than 1 gpm (Ohio State University Extension, 2007a,b). 

The Lower Tertiary and the Upper Cretaceous aquifers are located beneath the Arlington 

Compressor Station site, in Carbon County, Wyoming. The Lower Tertiary aquifer includes a 

combination of shale, mudstone, siltstone, lignite, and coal. The depth to groundwater ranges from 300 to 

900 feet below the surface (USGS, 1996). Wyoming wells have yields ranging from less than 1 gpm to 

50 gpm, with maximum yields exceeding 1,000 gpm. 

The proposed Bertrand Compressor Station site in Phelps County, Nebraska is underlain by 

Quaternary sand and gravel deposited by glacial and river-related processes, and the Tertiary Ogallala 

Group consisting of lime-cemented sand and gravel, loess-like silt, and unconsolidated sand and gravel. 

Depth to groundwater (with the Quaternary overlying the Tertiary) ranges from less than 50 feet to greater 

than 200 feet below the surface. Well yields can range from 1 to 1,000 gpm or more. Generally, the 

water quality is good, and dissolved concentrations of mineral constituents typically range from 200 to 

500 milligrams per liter (Conservation and Survey Division, 1996). 

Sole-Source Aquifers 

The EPA defines a sole- or principal-source aquifer as one that supplies at least 50 percent of the 

drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines stipulate that such areas can 

have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and economically supply all 

those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water (EPA, 2006). No sole-source aquifers have been 

designated by the EPA in Illinois, Missouri, or Nebraska. In Wyoming, the EPA has designated two solesource aquifers: the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer Stream Flow Source Area and the Elk Mountain 

Aquifer. These aquifers would not be impacted by the compressor station in Carbon County. One solesource aquifer has been designated by the EPA in Indiana; however, it is located in the northern part of 

the state and would not be near the REX East Project facilities. In Ohio, the EPA has designated seven 

sole-source aquifers. The Pleasant City Sole-Source Aquifer is located 1.3 miles south of the pipeline 

route and would not be crossed by the Project. The Miami Valley Buried Sole-Source Aquifer would be 

crossed by the pipeline. It is located in the southwestern part of Ohio and underlies the pipeline route in 

Butler and Warren Counties. Depth to groundwater in most parts of the Miami Valley Buried Aquifer is 

less than 20 feet (GMBA, 2007). If properly constructed, wells may yield more than 1,000 gpm. The 

pipeline route would cross approximately 7.0 miles of land underlain by this sole-source aquifer. The five 

remaining sole-source aquifers in Ohio are located more than 10 miles from the Project and would not be 

impacted. 

Water Supply Wells and Springs

Based on agency consultations, surveys, and an analysis of public and private water supply wells 

and springs, 25 wells and 6 springs have been identified within the vicinity of the pipeline. No public 

water supply wells were identified within 150 feet of Project facilities. The pipeline would be located 

within 150 feet of 2 private water wells in Illinois, 12 private water wells in Indiana, and 11 private water 

wells in Ohio (see appendix G). While no springs were identified in the vicinity of the route in Missouri 

or Illinois, the pipeline would be located within 150 feet of 1 spring in Indiana and 5 springs in Ohio (see 

table 4.3.1-1). Rockies Express is currently in the process of field verifying the occurrence and locations 

of active wells and springs within 150 feet of the pipeline right-of-way. Because surveys are ongoing for 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-24 

active wells and springs, the data that have been filed with the Commission are incomplete. Therefore, 

we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary the locations 

by milepost of all springs, seeps, and wells identified within 150 feet of construction 

work areas.

Table 4.3.1-1 

Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the REX East Proposed Pipeline Route a/

State/County Approximate Milepost

Approximate Distance from 

Centerline (feet)

MISSOURI None Identified N/A 

ILLINOIS None Identified N/A 

INDIANA 

Franklin 401.2 200 

OHIO 

Warren 456.3 139 

Belmont 622.7 105 

Belmont 623.4 5 

Belmont 623.8 35 

Monroe 628.0 33.5 

____________________ 

a/ Spring information is based on civil survey information. 

Wellhead Protection Areas 

WPAs are generally defined as surface and subsurface areas surrounding a water well or wellfield 

supplying a public water system through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and 

reach such water well or wellfield. As such, WPAs are regulated to protect the water supply that is drawn 

by that particular well. Twelve WPAs have been identified along the pipeline route and are listed in table 

4.3.1-2. 

Impacts and Mitigation 

Standard pipeline construction procedures, such as clearing and grading, trench excavation and 

dewatering, fuel handling, and blasting could affect groundwater resources including aquifers, water 

supply wells, springs, and WPAs. Clearing and grading removes vegetation, which could affect overland 

water flow and infiltration rates. Trenching and soil stockpiling activities temporarily alter overland flow 

and groundwater recharge and could result in minor fluctuations in groundwater levels and/or increased 

turbidity. In addition, heavy equipment used for construction could compact soil resources along the 

right-of-way, reducing its ability to absorb water and thus slowing the rate of groundwater recharge and 

increasing surface runoff and the potential for ponding. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-25 

Table 4.3.1-2 

Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Construction Work Area 

State/County Milepost Wellhead Protection Area 

Crossing Length 

(miles) 

MISSOURI a/ 

Audrain 0 – 15.8 Area 1 15.8 

Ralls 15.8 – 19.8 Area 4 4.0 

Pike 19.8 – 43.1 Area 4 23.3 

ILLINOIS 

Douglas 188.0 Arthur Community Water Supply Well 0.3 

INDIANA 

Vermillion 247.0 Hillsdale Water Corporation 1.2 

Morgan 308.3 Indiana American Water-Mooresville 0.3 

Morgan 310.3 Hill Water Corporation-Wells 1.0 

Franklin 393.7 North Dearborn Water Corporation 0.4 

Franklin 393.7 Hoosier Hills Regional Water District 0.2 

OHIO 

Butler 425.3 Southwest Regional District South Plant 0.9 

Warren 453.5 Village of Waynesville 0.1 

Fairfield 531.9 Airport Gun Club Public Water Supply 0.1 

____________________ 

a/ Entire state is a wellhead protection area. 

Rockies Express would minimize or avoid groundwater impacts during construction by 

implementing measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures. Construction of the pipeline would require 

trenching and backfilling to a depth of approximately 7 to 8 feet below the ground surface. In areas 

where the water table is near the ground surface, trench excavation could intersect the water table, 

requiring trench dewatering. Trench dewatering may result in localized, minor changes in the water table, 

as well as on springs and wetland areas. Because pipeline construction at a given location would be 

completed within a short period of time, potential impacts from dewatering would be temporary and water 

table elevations would be expected to quickly re-establish. 

Rockies Express’ Procedures detail measures to mitigate potential impacts on shallow 

groundwater from dewatering, excavation, excessive soil compaction, and removal of vegetation from 

construction, and restoration of the Project. Although surface drainage patterns could be changed during 

construction, Rockies Express’ commitment to return the construction area to its previous contours (as 

practicable) would minimize or eliminate these impacts. 

Potential impacts on wells and springs located within 150 feet of construction work areas could 

include localized decreases in groundwater recharge rates, changes in overland water flow, contamination 

due to hazardous material spills, decreased well yields, decreased water quality, interference with well 

mechanics, or complete disruption of a well’s or spring’s function. These impacts could result from 

trenching, equipment traffic, or blasting activities. 

If springs or seeps are identified that construction activity could impact, Rockies Express would 

treat the spring or seep as a waterbody and avoid or minimize impacts by following its Procedures that 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-26 

include such measures as installation of erosion control devices (i.e., silt fences, hay bales), seep collars 

(e.g., trench plugs), and equipment bridges and culverts, as appropriate. 

Construction of the pipeline necessitates the use of heavy equipment and associated fuels, 

lubricants, and other potentially hazardous substances that, if spilled, could affect shallow groundwater 

and/or unconsolidated aquifers. Potential contamination due to accidental spills or leaks of hazardous 

materials associated with vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, and storage of construction 

materials presents the greatest potential threat to groundwater resources. If not cleaned up, soils 

contaminated by such spills or leaks would continue to leach and add pollutants to groundwater long after 

a spill occurred. 

Rockies Express developed an SPCC Plan to address preventative and mitigative measures that 

would be used to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of hazardous material spills during 

construction. The SPCC Plan specifies preventative measures such as spill training for construction 

personnel, regular inspection of construction equipment for leaks, replacement of deteriorating containers, 

and construction of containment systems around equipment storing hazardous liquids. Rockies Express’ 

SPCC Plan also restricts refueling or other liquid transfer areas to be more than 100 feet from wetlands 

and waterbodies, prohibits refueling within 200 feet of any water supply well and within 400 feet of any 

municipal water supply wells, and provides additional precautions when specified setbacks cannot be 

maintained. The SPCC Plan identifies emergency response procedures, equipment, and clean-up 

measures in the event of a spill, and requires the contractor to complete an inventory of all construction 

fuels, lubricants, and other hazardous materials that may be used, stored, or transferred in designated 

Project areas, and the amount and type of containers that would be used to store these materials. In the 

event soil or groundwater is contaminated during construction, Rockies Express would notify the affected 

landowner and coordinate with the appropriate federal and state agencies as required by its SPCC 

notification requirements. We have reviewed Rockies Express’ SPCC Plan and find that it adequately 

addresses the storage and transfer of hazardous materials and the response to be taken in the event of 

contamination. We believe that the potential for the REX East Project to contaminate local aquifers 

would be minimal. 

Construction through WPAs must protect against the potential for impaired water quality, 

decreased yield, or other disruptions of service. Potential impacts on WPAs would be avoided or 

minimized by the measures described above to prevent impacts on groundwater resources. Rockies 

Express would comply with state and local regulations and its SPCC Plan when working in WPAs to 

protect against the potential for impaired quality, decreased yield, or other disruptions of service. 

However, no consultation with state or local authorities has been filed with the Commission pertaining to 

WPAs, or the measures Rockies Express has agreed to; therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the distance of each WPA area from the proposed construction work area and 

documentation of consultations with applicable municipalities and/or other federal and 

state agencies regarding construction in areas with WPA or other groundwater 

management areas crossed by the pipeline. 

Rockies Express also has committed to documenting the condition (i.e., water quality and flow 

evaluations) of potable water wells within 150 feet of the construction right-of-way prior to the start of 

construction and after construction is completed. In the event that a potable water well is damaged by 

construction activities, Rockies Express has agreed to provide a temporary source of water and would 

restore the well to its original capacity or would provide other mutually agreeable remedies. Adequate 

protection of water supply wells/systems needs to be insured. Therefore, we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-27 

• Within 30 days of placing the pipeline facilities in service, Rockies Express file a report 

with the Secretary identifying all water supply wells/systems damaged by construction 

and how they were repaired. The report should include a discussion of any complaints 

concerning the well yield or quality and how each problem was resolved. 

Construction of compressor stations would not require subsurface work. The development of the 

impervious surfaces and structures in association with these aboveground facilities would result in very 

minor alteration of infiltration/recharge rates, thus resulting in very minor effects to groundwater 

resources. 

Blasting may be necessary along segments of the pipeline route where bedrock is located at or 

near the ground surface. If consolidated rock is encountered during construction that requires blasting to 

attain required trench depths, Rockies Express would use controlled blasting techniques in compliance 

with all federal and state regulations governing the use of explosives. To ensure that blasting would not 

have a significant impact on other environmental resources in the Project area (including water wells), 

Rockies Express has developed a Blasting Specification Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007c). Potential impacts 

from blasting to groundwater and bedrock-based water well systems include temporary changes in water 

level and turbidity. These impacts would be limited to those systems located in close proximity to the 

pipeline construction right-of-way. In accordance with its Blasting Plan, Rockies Express would notify 

nearby landowners at least 48 hours prior to the initiation of blasting activities. Mitigation of impacts 

would include the use of controlled blasting techniques limiting rock fracture to the immediate vicinity of 

detonation, and pre- and post-construction well testing along with any necessary repairs and restoration to 

any well located within 200 feet of a particular blasting location. 

Upon completion of construction, Rockies Express would restore the ground surface as closely as 

practicable to pre-construction contours and revegetate the right-of-way. These measures would ensure 

restoration of overland flow of water and aquifer recharge patterns. Effects, if any, from construction of 

the pipeline on groundwater would likely be localized and temporary. 

No long-term groundwater impacts would be anticipated as a result of constructing and operating 

the Project because disturbances would be temporary, erosion controls would be implemented, and 

ground contours would be restored. The measures that Rockies Express would implement to avoid or 

minimize the potential impacts of construction on groundwater are contained in its Plan and Procedures. 

For the few areas with shallow groundwater that would be crossed by the pipeline route with a depth less 

than 10 feet below the ground surface, temporary, minor impacts could result from construction. The 

greatest threat posed to groundwater resources is that of a hazardous material spill or leak into 

groundwater supplies. However, Rockies Express’ SPCC Plan adequately addresses strategies and 

methods to prevent such contamination and would provide effective responses should a spill occur. 

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

The REX East Project would cross two major watersheds: the Upper Mississippi Regional 

Watershed and the Ohio Regional Watershed. Table 4.3.2-1 provides the approximate location by 

milepost and descriptions of each river basin and watershed crossed by the pipeline and aboveground 

facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-28 

Table 4.3.2-1 

Major River Basins and Watersheds Crossed by the REX East Project a/ 

River Basin or Watershed Approx. 

MP Range Description 

Upper Mississippi Regional 

Watershed 

0.0 – 172.2 The Upper Mississippi Regional Watershed encompasses 189,000 square 

miles within 8 states: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and small 

portions of Indiana, Michigan, and South Dakota. b/ 

Ohio Regional Watershed 171.9 – 639.1 The Ohio Regional Watershed covers approximately 203,940 square miles of 

land within 10 states: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. c/ 

North Platte River Basin Arlington Compressor 

Station 

Beginning at snowmelt, the North Platte River flows northward from northcentral Colorado into central Wyoming where it gradually curls southeast 

before joining the South Platte River. From its source at about 11,000 feet 

above sea level to its confluence with the South Platte, the North Platte River 

traverses approximately 665 miles and drains an area of 34,900 square 

miles. d/ 

Middle Republican Regional 

Watershed 

Bertrand Compressor 

Station 

The Middle Republican Regional Watershed is located in south-central 

Nebraska and north-central Kansas. It covers Franklin, Harlan, Kearney, 

Nuckolls, Phelps, and Webster Counties in Nebraska and Jewell, Phillips, 

Smith, and Republic Counties in Kansas. The surface of the entire watershed 

totals 1,399,835 acres with 961,514 acres in Nebraska and 435,321 acres in 

Kansas. e/ 

____________________ 

a/ Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1994. 

b/ Source: UMRSHNC, 2006. 

c/ Source: StormCenter, 2002. 

d/ Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2006. 

e/ Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007. 

The REX East Project would cross 1,462 surface waters. Specifically, the Project would cross: 

313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral waterbodies; 27 open water areas (e.g., ponds); and 15 

unclassified waters (without state classifications), as follows: 

• Missouri: 13 perennial, 34 intermittent, 0 ephemeral, 3 open water; 

• Missouri/Illinois: 1 perennial, 0 intermittent, 0 ephemeral, 0 open water; 

• Illinois: 61 perennial, 84 intermittent, 23 ephemeral, 6 open water; 

• Indiana: 97 perennial, 125 intermittent, 277 ephemeral, 6 open water; and 5 unclassified; and 

• Ohio: 141 perennial, 192 intermittent, 372 ephemeral, 12 open water, 10 unclassified. 

A complete list of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project is provided in appendix G 

and includes the location, width, state water classification, and crossing method. No surface waters are 

within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the aboveground facility sites. 

By reviewing USGS topographic maps and various databases and consulting with relevant 

agencies, Rockies Express identified the major (i.e., waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide) and/or 

sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline route (as described in table G-5 in appendix 

G). 

Surface waters are generally classified according to a beneficial use classification system as 

developed by each state crossed by the Project. Surface waters are also classified based on size: major 

waterbodies being greater than 100 feet wide, intermediate waterbodies being between 10 and 100 feet 

wide, and minor waterbodies being less than 10 feet wide. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-29 

No waterbodies crossed by the Project are known to have or are suspected of having sediments or 

waters with contaminants in concentrations that pose an unacceptable risk to human health and/or the 

environment. Furthermore, no waterbodies crossed by the Project are known to be or suspected of being 

contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other persistent chemicals. 

Missouri 

The state of Missouri categorizes surface waters according to 15 beneficial use classifications: 

irrigation; livestock and wildlife watering; cold-water fishery; cool-water fishery; protection of aquatic 

life (general warm-water fishery); protection of aquatic life (limited warm-water fishery); human health 

protection; whole-body contact recreation; secondary contact recreation; drinking water supply; industrial 

process and cooling water; storm- and flood-water storage and attenuation; habitat for resident and 

migratory wildlife species; recreational, cultural, educational, scientific, and natural aesthetic values and 

uses; and hydrologic cycle maintenance. 

Of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Missouri, two are classified as major crossings: the 

Salt River (MP 42.5) and the Mississippi River (MP 43.2). The Mississippi River is categorized as 

sensitive due to the presence of special status species, as discussed in section 4.7. Water quality 

impairments (fecal coliform and PCBs) have also been identified at the Mississippi River crossing, while 

impairments from mercury and manganese have been identified at the Salt River Crossing. 

A potable water intake source has been identified 1.6 miles downstream of the tributary to Lake 

Vandalia (MP 22.4) crossing. Because of the beneficial uses of this tributary, this intake source would be 

crossed by dam-and-pump construction methods to reduce sedimentation and turbidity downstream of the 

Project area. Any potential impacts on this intake source would be minimized by Rockies Express 

adhering to its Plans and Procedures. 

Illinois 

The state of Illinois categorizes surface waters into four classifications: general use—protection 

of indigenous aquatic life, primary and secondary contact recreation, agricultural and industrial uses; 

public and food processing water supply; Lake Michigan; and secondary contact and indigenous aquatic 

life use. 

Of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Illinois, three are classified as major crossings: the 

Mississippi River (MP 43.2), Illinois River (MP 71.2), and South Fork Sangamon River (MP 132.1). 

No potable water intake sources have been identified within 3 miles downstream of any of 

pipeline waterbody crossings in Illinois (ILEPA, 2006). 

Indiana 

The state of Indiana categorizes surface waters according to four beneficial use classifications: 

aquatic life use, primary contact recreation, fish consumption, and drinking water. 

Of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Indiana, four are classified as major crossings: 

Wabash River (MP 247.3), White River (MP 315.8), Big Blue River (MP 340.8), and Whitewater Canal 

(MP 394.0). 

The pipeline would cross 74 waterbodies in Indiana that require a floodway crossing license from 

the INDNR Division of Water. Of those 74 waterbodies, 29 qualify for the Utility Line Crossing General 

License, and thus individual licenses would not be required. The remaining 45 of 74 waterbodies would 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-30 

require individual licenses because they are classified as “outstanding waters” or because they do not 

qualify for the general license. Those waterbodies that require a crossing license are identified in table G5 in appendix G. 

Potable water intake sources have been identified 1.6 miles downstream of the pipeline crossing 

at Flatrock River (MP 362.7) and 0.2 mile downstream of the Righthand Fork Salt Creek (MP 375.6) 

crossing. Both waterbodies would be crossed by open-cut construction methods. 

Ohio 

The state of Ohio categorizes surface waters according to beneficial use classifications within a 

three-pronged, broad classification scheme: aquatic life habitat (warm-water, limited warm-water, 

exceptional warm-water, modified warm-water, seasonal salmonid, coldwater, and limited resource 

water); water supply (public, agricultural, and industrial); and recreational (bathing waters, primary 

contact, and secondary contact). 

Of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Ohio, seven are classified as major crossings: Four 

Mile Creek (MP 421.6), Great Miami (MP 430.7), Caesar Creek (MP 459.6), Deer Creek (MP 499.6), Big 

Darby Creek (MP 509.2), Scioto River (MP 514.6), and Muskingum River (MP 577.4). 

Potable water intake sources have been identified 2.5 miles downstream of the pipeline crossing 

at Caesar Creek (MP 459.6) and 0.2 mile downstream at the tributary to Somerset Creek (MP 553.2). 

Caesar Creek would be crossed by HDD construction methods and Somerset Creek would be crossed by 

open-cut construction methods. 

No consultation with the organizations or individuals who withdraw potable water within 3 miles 

of the proposed open-cut crossings of Flatrock River and Righthand Fork Salt Creek in Indiana and 

Somerset Creek in Ohio have been filed with the Commission. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction across Flatrock River (MP 362.7) and Righthand Fork 

Salt Creek (MP 375.6) in Indiana and Somerset Creek (MP 553.2) in Ohio, Rockies 

Express file with the Secretary documentation of consultation with the organizations or 

individuals who withdraw potable water within 3 miles of these proposed open-cut 

crossings.

4.3.3 Impacts on Surface Water Resources 

Pipeline construction could affect surface waters in several ways. Clearing and grading of stream 

banks, instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could result in modification of aquatic 

habitat, increased sedimentation, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, releases of 

chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, and introduction of chemical contaminants such as fuel 

and lubricants. The crossing of irrigation canals could interrupt the flow of irrigation water, which could 

damage crops and reduce crop yields. Further agricultural discussion is provided in the Land Use section 

(section 4.8) of this draft EIS. 

The greatest potential impact on surface waters would result from the temporary suspension of 

sediments during instream construction. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, 

stream velocity, turbidity, bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would determine 

the density and downstream extent of sediment migration. Instream construction could cause the 

dislodging and transport of channel bed sediments and the alteration of stream contours. Changes in the 

bottom contours could alter stream dynamics and increase downstream erosion or deposition. Turbidity 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-31 

resulting from resuspension of sediments from instream construction or erosion of cleared right-of-way 

areas could reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. Instream work could also 

introduce chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Resuspension of deposited organic material 

and inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, resulting in a 

decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations 

could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms and may suffocate less- or non-motile 

organisms within the affected area. 

Rockies Express may require blasting activities in or adjacent to 53 perennial waterbodies along 

the Project right-of-way. Instream blasting could injure or kill aquatic organisms, displace organisms 

during blast-hole drilling operations, and temporarily increase stream turbidity. Rockies Express has 

agreed to file a site-specific Blasting Specification Plan with the FERC before beginning any construction 

where blasting would be required within each waterbody greater than 10 feet wide. 

The clearing and grading of streambanks would make soil vulnerable to erosion and reduce 

riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the waterbody. The use of heavy equipment for 

construction could compact near-surface soils, resulting in an increased runoff into surface waters. The 

increased runoff could transport additional sediment into the waterbodies, resulting in increased turbidity 

levels and sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. 

The HDD method could potentially impact surface waters if drilling fluids were released (fracout) during drilling. Response to and mitigation for such a release is described in Rockies Express’ HDD 

contingency plan, which includes the containment of an inadvertent release of drilling mud. However, 

this HDD contingency plan is not specific to the states that would be crossed by the project. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a revised HDD 

contingency plan that indicates the agencies that would be contacted should a frac-out 

occur.

The drilling fluid would be primarily freshwater, with high-yield bentonite clay added to facilitate 

drill-hole stability. A temporary, localized increase in turbidity could occur from the release and cleanup 

of the release. However, the EPA does not list bentonite as a hazardous substance. Further, an 

inadvertent release of drilling fluids would have no long-term adverse environmental impacts on water 

quality. Because Rockies Express is currently in the process of completing site-specific geotechnical 

surveys and developing site-specific construction diagrams and contingency plans for each HDD location, 

we have not reviewed them. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review the results of its HDD geotechnical 

feasibility investigations, site-specific construction diagrams, and contingency plans for 

each HDD location. If a planned HDD crossing is not feasible, then Rockies Express 

should develop a site-specific alternative crossing plan for each waterbody in 

consultation with all relevant agencies. Rockies Express’ plans and documentation of 

consultations regarding the site-specific HDD plans should be filed with the Secretary 

prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

could create contamination. If a spill were to occur, users immediately downstream could experience 

degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms also could result from 

such a spill. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-32 

The measures Rockies Express would implement to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of 

construction on surface waters are contained in its Procedures and SPCC Plan and are discussed below. 

No long-term impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project because the beneficial use classifications 

would not be permanently affected, the pipeline would be installed beneath the bed and banks of 

waterbodies, erosion controls would be implemented, and the streambanks and streambed contours would 

be restored. 

For each state crossed by the Project, Rockies Express has developed conceptual mitigation and 

restoration plans identifying procedures that would be implemented to minimize impacts on riparian areas 

affected by the Project. These procedures describe site-specific conditions found at wetland and streambank crossings in the respective states along the proposed route, and describe methods for re-seeding, 

planting, and monitoring reclamation success. In response to the plan Rockies Express submitted for 

Missouri, the MDC has requested that crossings with alluvial substrate in the state be identified that 

would possibly require toe protection (i.e., rip rap), which would protect those crossings vulnerable to 

head-cutting of the banks. Rockies Express has committed to consult with appropriate agencies prior to 

installation of the pipeline to ensure adequate toe protection. 

4.3.4 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

As described in appendix G, Rockies Express proposes to use several methods to cross perennial 

waterbodies, including HDD, dam-and-pump, or open-cut. Rockies Express would minimize impacts on 

surface waters by implementing the construction and mitigation procedures contained in its Procedures, 

which include: 

• limiting clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the waterbody to 

preserve riparian vegetation; 

• constructing crossings as close to perpendicular to the waterbody as site conditions allow; 

• maintaining adequate flow rates throughout construction to protect aquatic life and prevent 

the interruption of existing downstream uses; 

• locating areas for equipment staging, soil stockpiles, and refueling at appropriate setbacks 

from surface waters; 

• requiring construction across waterbodies to be completed as quickly as possible and during 

the windows specified in its Procedures or required by applicable permits; 

• developing and adhering to any required site-specific construction plan for each waterbody 

greater than 100 feet wide at the crossing location (major waterbody); 

• requiring temporary erosion and sediment control measures to be installed across the entire 

width of the construction right-of-way after clearing and before ground disturbance; 

• requiring maintenance of temporary erosion and sediment control measures throughout 

construction until streambanks and adjacent upland areas are stabilized; 

• requiring bank stabilization and re-establishment of bed and bank contours and riparian 

vegetation after construction; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-33 

• limiting post-construction maintenance of vegetated buffer strips adjacent to streams; 

• restoring, monitoring, and correcting any drainage or irrigation system problems that have 

resulted from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas; 

• developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize impacts on surface waters 

associated with silt-laden runoff during construction; and 

• implementing its SPCC Plan if contamination occurs during construction. 

In addition to the use of the measures described above, Rockies Express would need to obtain and 

comply with all conditions of its COE Section 404 permit, Section 10 of the Harbors Act, and Section 401 

state water quality certifications. 

In many areas, such as the crossing sites on the Mississippi River and the Illinois River, the U.S. 

Coast Guard and COE should be notified in the event of a spill or leak during construction or operation. 

Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express include the U.S. Coast Guard and COE to the list of agencies contacted 

in the event of a spill or leak as described in the SPCC Plan. Rockies Express should 

file the revised SPCC plan with the Secretary prior to the start of construction. 

A major use of water during Project construction would be to mitigate air quality impacts from 

construction-related dust. Rockies Express would obtain water from municipal sources to use for dust 

control. 

Rockies Express would cross non-sensitive, dry intermittent waterbodies using conventional 

upland construction methods. The depth of cover over the pipeline at intermittent waterbodies would be a 

minimum of 3 feet. After construction, Rockies Express would restore all contours to pre-construction 

conditions. Impacts on dry intermittent waterbodies would be limited to temporary alteration of channel 

beds and banks, and possibly increased sediment load during initial storm events following construction. 

If intermittent waterbodies are flowing at the time of construction, Rockies Express states it would install 

the pipeline using the open-cut method in accordance with its Procedures. For some minor or smaller 

intermediate waterbody crossings with specific environmental sensitivities, Rockies Express proposes to 

use the dam-and-pump method, which would isolate the construction work area from the water flow, 

thereby providing continuous flow and minimizing downstream sedimentation and turbidity. 

4.3.5 Sensitive or Unique Waterbodies 

Numerous waterbodies that are considered sensitive for several reasons, including, but not limited 

to, size, the presence of coldwater fish species, special status species, high-quality recreational or visual 

resources, historic value, or the presence of impaired water or contaminated sediments would be crossed 

by the pipeline. In accordance with its Procedures, Rockies Express has committed to filing site-specific 

crossing plans for these waterbodies. However, because surveys and agency consultations are ongoing, 

these crossing plans have not been provided to the FERC. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary revised site-specific crossing plans that identify specific restoration and 

mitigation measures applicable to each sensitive waterbody crossing (listed in tables 

4.3.3-1 and 4.6.2-1) and any applicable agency consultations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-34 

Potential impacts associated with construction on riparian areas, fisheries, and special status 

species are discussed in sections 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively. 

The pipeline would cross 51 waterbodies that are considered sensitive because of significant 

fisheries resources: one on the border of Missouri and Illinois, one in Illinois, six in Indiana, and 43 in 

Ohio. Table 4.6.2-1 lists these crossings. All of these waterbodies are designated as significant fisheries 

resources based on outstandingly remarkable values, exceptional habitat, or the presence of special status 

species. 

As shown in table 4.3.5-1 below, 52 of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project have 

been designated as impaired waters by the EPA. Examples of impairments commonly found in these 

waterbodies include metals, pathogens, dissolved oxygen, pH, PCBs, total suspended solids (TSS), and 

sedimentation/siltation. None of the waterbodies that would be affected by the Project are known or 

suspected of having sediments or waters contaminated in concentrations that pose an unacceptable risk to 

human health and/or the environment. 

Table 4.3.5-1 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the REX East Project

State/County Milepost Waterbody Name 

Proposed 

Crossing Method Impairment Cause 

MISSOURI 

Pike 42.5 Salt River HDD Mercury, Manganese 

ILLINOIS 

Pike 43.2 Mississippi River HDD Fecal coliform, PCBs 

Pike 61.0 Honey Creek Open-cut Dissolved oxygen, Sedimentation/Siltation 

Pike 63.9 Bay Creek Open-cut 303(d) Impairment – Dissolved oxygen, 

Phosphorus, Sedimentation, Siltation, TSS, 

Fecal coliform 

Scott 71.2 Illinois River HDD PCBs, Mercury 

Sangamon 117.1 Panther Creek Open-cut Sedimentation/siltation 

Sangamon 121.2 Sugar Creek Open-cut Fecal coliform 

Sangamon 125.2 Brush creek Open-cut Dissolved oxygen, Manganese 

Sangamon 126 Horse Creek Open-cut Dissolved oxygen, Manganese 

Sangamon 130.7 Tributary to South 

Fork Sangamon 

River 

Open-cut Iron, Nitrogen, pH, Dissolved oxygen, 

Manganese, Phosphorus, 

Sedimentation/Siltation, TSS, Chlordane 

Sangamon 132.1 South Fork 

Sangamon River 

Open-cut Iron, Nitrogen, pH, Dissolved oxygen, 

Manganese, Phosphorus, 

Sedimentation/Siltation, TSS, Chlordane 

Christian 140.7 Buckhart Creek Open-cut Dissolved oxygen 

Macon 174.9 Tributary to West 

Okaw River 

Open-cut Nitrogen, Fecal coliform, Dissolved oxygen, 

pH, Phosphorus, TSS 

Macon 175.5 Tributary to West 

Okaw River 

Open-cut Nitrogen, Fecal coliform, Dissolved oxygen, 

pH, Phosphorus, TSS 

Douglas 193.4 Kaskaskia River Open-cut Manganese, Fecal coliform, Dissolved oxygen, 

pH, Phosphorus, Sedimentation/Siltation, TSS 

Edgar 198.7 Scattering Fork Open-cut Nitrogen, Phosphorus 

Douglas 201.2 Hackett Branch Open-cut Dissolved oxygen, Phosphorus 

Edgar 202.9 Embarras River HDD Nitrogen, Dissolved oxygen, pH, Phosphorus, 

Sedimentation/Siltation, TSS, Fecal coliform 

Edgar 227.4 Brouiletts Creek Open-cut Fecal coliform 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-35 

Table 4.3.5-1 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the REX East Project

State/County Milepost Waterbody Name 

Proposed 

Crossing Method Impairment Cause 

INDIANA 

Vermillion 246.9 Wabash River HDD E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

Putnam 282.2 Plum Creek Open-cut Biotic Community Status 

Hendricks 286.6 Clear Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Hendricks 288.7 Tributary to Miller 

Creek 

Open-cut Pathogens 

Hendricks 289.7 Tributary to 

Crittenden Creek 

Open-cut Pathogens 

Hendricks 291.8 Mill Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Hendricks 294.3 East Fork Mill Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Hendricks 299.4 Mud Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Morgan 312.4 White Lick Creek HDD E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

Morgan 312.5 Tributary to White 

Lick Creek 

HDD E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

Morgan 314.8 Tributary to White 

Lick Creek 

Open-cut E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

Morgan 315.8 White River Open-cut PCBs, Pathogens, Mercury 

Morgan 317.5 Crooked Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Morgan 318.1 Banta Creek Open-cut Pathogens 

Johnson 323.3 Tributary to North 

Prong Stotts Creek 

Open-cut Pathogens 

Johnson 331.3 Buckhart Creek Open-cut PCBs 

Johnson 336.1 Youngs Creek Open-cut PCBs 

Shelby 337.9 Sugar Creek Open-cut E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

Shelby 340.8 Big Blue River HDD E. coli, PCBs 

Decatur 362.7 Flatrock River Open-cut Mercury, PCBs, Pathogens 

Franklin 392.5 Blue Creek Open-cut E. coli 

Franklin 392.8 Tributary to Blue 

Creek 

Open-cut E. coli 

Franklin 397.5 Big Cedar Creek Open-cut E. coli 

OHIO 

Butler 421.6 Four Mile Creek HDD PCBs 

Butler 422.7 Seven Mile Creek HDD PCBs 

Butler 430.7 Great Miami River HDD PCBs 

Warren 447.3 Clear Creek Open-cut Nutrients, Organic enrichment 

Fayette 480.4 Rattlesnake Creek Open-cut Nutrients, Organic enrichment 

Fayette 486.4 Paint Creek Open-cut Nutrients, PCBs, Siltation, Organic enrichment 

Pickaway 515.9 Walnut Creek HDD PCBs, Mercury, Organic enrichment, Cause 

unknown 

Fairfield 529.6 Hocking River Open-cut PCBs, Metals, Chlorides, pH 

Muskingum 566.1 Moxahala Creek Open-cut pH, Siltation 

Muskingum 577.5 Muskingum River HDD Pathogens, PCBs, Organic enrichment 

The Project would cross five sensitive perennial waterbodies that are listed on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory. These rivers possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values 

judged to be of more than local or regional significance. Two of the five rivers listed on the National 

Rivers Inventory that would be crossed (Big Walnut Creek and Big Blue River) are located in Indiana, 

and the remaining three rivers (Four Mile Creek, Great Miami River, and Paint Creek) are located in 

Ohio. The Big Blue River, Four Mile Creek, and Great Miami River, are all proposed to be crossed by 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-36 

the HDD method. Rockies Express proposes to cross Paint Creek and Big Walnut Creek by the open-cut 

construction method. Rockies Express is continuing its consultation with the NPS for approval of these 

crossings. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary revised site-specific crossing plans for Nationwide River Inventories 

waterbodies and documentation of consultation with the NPS and other applicable 

agencies regarding these finalized plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Federal designation for wild and scenic rivers stems from the WSR of 1968, which protects the 

free-flowing natural condition; water quality; and outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values of the designated rivers. The NPS is responsible for 

reviewing any actions that might disturb the beds or banks of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Two 

Ohio waterbodies, the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek, are designated as National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. At the proposed points of crossing by the pipeline, the specific classifications for these 

rivers under this general designation are scenic river areas, which are regarded as being rivers free of 

impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped 

but accessible in places by roads. 

The state-designated wild and scenic rivers crossed by the proposed pipeline route are also the 

Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek in Ohio. The ODNR administers a state Scenic Rivers Act, 

which—based on the waterbody’s length, adjacent forest cover, biological characteristics, water quality, 

present use, and natural conditions—provides three categories for river classification: wild, scenic, and 

recreational. Both the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek are designated as scenic under this 

classification scheme. 

The Little Miami River is a perennial river that would be crossed at MP 451.3 in Warren County, 

Ohio. The approximately 323-foot-long crossing would be accomplished using the HDD method to 

minimize disturbance to vegetation, stream banks, and streambed. 

Big Darby Creek is a perennial river that would be crossed at MP 509.2 in Pickaway County, 

Ohio. Rockies Express would accomplish the approximately 522-foot-long crossing using the HDD 

method to minimize disturbance to vegetation, stream banks, and streambed. 

At both the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek, Rockies Express has conducted 

geotechnical investigations and determined that conditions are suitable for HDD methods. However, 

there is always a risk that an HDD could be unsuccessful. The geotechnical investigation of the Big 

Darby Creek crossing points out that cobbles and boulder-size materials may be encountered and may be 

problematic during drilling operations. Rockies Express has identified open-cut as the alternative 

construction method that would be used if the HDD failed. An open-cut crossing would cause temporary 

and permanent impacts to the bed and banks of these waterbodies and would not be an acceptable 

crossing in NPS. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express develop a 

contingency plan for the crossings of the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek that 

identifies the alternative routes and crossing locations evaluated in section 3.4.3 and 

3.4.7, respectively, of this draft EIS as the preferred alternative should the HDD of 

either waterbody fail. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary the contingency 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-37 

plans, as well as site-specific construction plans for the alternatives and a list of 

landowners affected by the alternatives. 

Successful HDDs of the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek would eliminate impacts on 

these waterbodies. However, if alternative crossing locations were necessary (as stated in sections 3.4.3 

and 3.4.7 respectively), construction to the proposed HDD entry and exit locations would create greater 

impacts than if just the alternative were constructed. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express successfully complete the HDD crossing of the Little Miami River prior 

to the start of construction between MP 432.9 and MP 467.2. 

Further, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express successfully complete the HDD crossing of the Big Darby Creek prior 

to the start of construction between MP 494.1 and MP 533.9.

Rockies Express lists the Little Miami River as a potential source of hydrostatic test water. Due 

to the presence of state-listed mussels and the recreational and scenic value of the river, we have 

recommended in section 4.8.5 that the Little Miami river not be used as the source of hydrostatic test 

water. 

Mississippi River 

The Mississippi River is the principal feature in the Upper Mississippi Regional watershed that 

would be crossed by the Project (see table 4.3.2-1). The river has been designated as: supporting 

irrigation, livestock and wildlife watering, protection of warmwater aquatic life and human health—fish 

consumption, ‘Class B’ whole body contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, drinking water 

supply, and industrial process and cooling water. Impairments by fecal coliform and PCBs have been 

identified at the Mississippi River Crossing. 

The Mississippi River crossing would be part of a larger-scale crossing, starting in Pike County, 

Missouri, and ending in Pike County, Illinois, where the Salt River and the Mississippi River would be 

crossed at their confluence (totaling about 4,700 feet). At MP 43.2, the Mississippi River’s width is about 

1,800 feet. Rockies Express proposes to cross these waterbodies using the HDD method in two stages. 

The Mississippi River portion of this crossing would begin from Blackburn Island on the west side of the 

Mississippi River and exit east of the Sny Levee, which is located on the east side of the Mississippi 

River. Further analysis of the Sny Levee crossing is located in section 4.8 of this draft EIS. 

By utilizing the HDD method, Rockies Express would minimize the potential impacts on the 

Mississippi River by the Project. Hard limestone formations underlay the substrate of the proposed 

crossing. The design radius that has been chosen for the Project would avoid these formations while 

minimizing the stresses placed on the pipeline itself. 

Crucial to the planned HDD crossing of the Mississippi River would be the dredging operation 

required to achieve sufficient water depth on the east side of Blackburn Island to accommodate barges. 

These barges would be used to transport necessary equipment for the HDD operations that would take 

place on the island. 

Because the HDD crossing of the Mississippi River would require dredging, there are potential 

impacts not only from the dredging itself, but also from the resultant dredge spoils. Potential impacts 

include, but are not limited to: increased turbidity, habitat destruction, noise and air (localized) pollution, 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-38 

thermal stratification disruption within the water column, entrainment of organisms, and release and 

spread of previously sequestered contaminants from the dredged spoils. The spreading of previously 

sequestered contaminants from the dredged spoils has been addressed through consultations with the 

MDNR, the IEPA, and USGS and is not considered a threat because no contaminated sediments were 

identified in the proposed dredging location. Furthermore, the COE has indicated that chemical analysis 

of the sediments to be dredged is unnecessary. Rockies Express has provided a Dredged Material 

Disposal Plan that describes the dredging activities that would be carried out along with the dredging and 

disposal schedule. 

Upon review of Rockies Express’ Dredged Material Disposal Plan, MDNR has concluded that the 

quarry for the disposal of the estimated 4,500 cubic yards of dredge spoils has been identified incorrectly. 

Specifically, the Wayne B. Smith Quarry, as identified in the Dredge Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007h), no 

longer exists, and has been re-permitted as the S-S-S Quarry. The S-S-S Quarry has its own reclamation 

plan. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary an updated Dredged Material Disposal Plan for the Mississippi River, which 

includes the disposal location of this material. 

The MDNR has also noted that the Dredge Plan incorrectly assigns the dredge spoils’ fate for 

“beneficial reuse.” “Beneficial reuse” is a term used for regulated solid waste, and should not be applied 

to the dredged material in question. 

White River and Big Walnut Creek 

The IDEM and FWS have expressed concerns that the proposed open-cut trench through a 

meander of the White River, along with the removal of riparian trees along the river, could speed the 

process of a potential natural adjustment by the river to straighten in this area. IDEM states that impacts 

on this stream from the adjustment would be unforeseeable. Additionally, with the changing hydrology, 

the potential exists for the pipeline to become unearthed in this section. 

The IDEM and FWS are also concerned about the proposed open-cut trench through Big Walnut 

Creek and the amount of tree clearing proposed through its wooded riparian habitat. (Wooded riparian 

corridors are discussed in section 4.4 of this draft EIS). The proposed tree clearing would change the 

vegetation, thereby impacting the viewshed, wildlife, aquatic species, predation, and recreational 

enjoyment. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing plans for the White River (MP 315.8) and Big 

Walnut Creek (MP 281.5). If geotechnical feasibility assessments indicate that HDD 

crossings of the White River and the Big Walnut Creek would not be possible, then 

Rockies Express should consult with IDEM and FWS regarding alternative crossing 

methods and file the results of these consultations with the Secretary along with the 

geotechnical report. 

We recognize that the workspace for our recommended Big Walnut Creek HDD crossing would 

be within a forested area; however, utilizing this construction method would limit the impact to the 

waterbody bed and banks and the riparian habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-39 

Hunter Lake Reservoir 

The area near the proposed Hunter Lake Reservoir, south of Springfield, Illinois, is considered a 

unique area of the Project because it is licensed to be a reservoir. Rockies Express is maintaining ongoing 

consultations with representatives from the City of Springfield’s Office of Public Utilities to ensure that 

the correct measures are taken regarding construction techniques. Through consultations with the City of 

Springfield’s Office of Public Utilities, Rockies Express has agreed to construct through the area near the 

proposed reservoir similar to that of crossing a waterbody. To assure the right-of-way would not 

adversely impact the proposed reservoir, Rockies Express would provide 4 to 5 feet of cover over the 

pipeline, and would weight the pipeline similarly to how it is weighted at a waterbody crossing. Rockies 

Express would provide the City of Springfield an engineering plan to review and, if appropriate, would 

develop additional mitigation measures in coordination with the city. 

4.3.6 Hydrostatic Testing 

Rockies Express would verify the integrity of its pipeline before placing it into service by 

conducting a series of hydrostatic tests. These tests involve filling the pipeline with water, pressurizing it, 

and then checking for pressure losses due to pipeline leakage. Sources of hydrostatic test water are 

expected to be surface waterbodies in close proximity to the pipeline. Rockies Express would require 

approximately 246.3 million gallons (755.9 acre-feet) of water to hydrostatically test the entire mainline. 

Rockies Express identified preliminary hydrostatic test water sources and approximate amounts 

of water required for construction spreads 1 through 7 (see table 4.3.6-1). In accordance with its 

Procedures, Rockies Express has agreed to file a final list of hydrostatic test water sources and discharge 

locations for the review and approval of the Director of OEP prior to construction. 

Table 4.3.6-1 

Project Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing 

State/Spread 

From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Spread 

Length 

(miles) 

Approx. 

Volume 

(gallons) a/ 

Approx. 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

Potential Supply and Discharge 

Sources 

Missouri/Illinois/1 0.0 107.2 107.2 41,100,000 126.1 Grassy Creek 

Salt River 

Mississippi River—east side 

Illinois River—west side 

Little Apple Creek (Seasonal) 

Left Fork of Little Apple Creek 

(Seasonal) 

Illinois/2 107.2 230.3 123.1 47,500,000 145.7 Brush Creek 

South Fork of Sangamon River 

Mosquito Creek (Seasonal) 

Ditch #3 

Ditch #4 

Lake Fork 

Kaskaskia River 

Embarras River 

Brushy Fork 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-40 

Table 4.3.6-1 

Project Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing 

State/Spread 

From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Spread 

Length 

(miles) 

Approx. 

Volume 

(gallons) a/ 

Approx. 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

Potential Supply and Discharge 

Sources 

Illinois/Indiana/3 230.3 334.0 103.7 40,000,000 122.8 Crabapple Creek 

Wabash River 

Little Raccoon Creek 

Big Raccoon Creek 

Big Walnut Creek 

White Lick Creek 

White River-east side 

Indiana/Ohio/4 334.0 424.0 90.0 34,700,000 82.6 Youngs Creek—west side 

Big Blue River—west side 

Flatrock River—west side 

Little Flatrock River—west side 

Salt Creek 

Whitewater River (IN) 

Big Cedar Creek 

White Water River (OH) 

Indian Creek 

Four Mile Creek 

Seven Mile Creek 

Ohio/5 424.0 533.3 109.3 42,200,000 106.5 Great Miami River 

Little Miami River 

Caesar Creek feeding Caesar 

Creek Lake 

Scioto River 

Ohio/6 533.0 587.0 53.7 20,700,000 63.5 Moxahala Creek 

Muskingum River 

Ohio/7 587.0 639.1 52.1 20,100,000 61.7 Wills Creek 

Barnesville Reservoir 

Total 639.1 246,300,000 755.9 

____________________ 

a/ Rockies Express continues to review waterbodies for supply and discharge capacity. 

The withdrawal of large volumes of hydrostatic test water from the surface water sources could 

temporarily affect the recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions comprise a large 

percentage of the source’s total flow or volume. The diversion of large volumes of water from 

waterbodies could also result in temporary changes in habitat, changes in water temperature and dissolved 

oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic organisms. 

Rockies Express would minimize the potential effects of hydrostatic testing on surface water 

resources by adhering to the measures in its Procedures. These measures include screening intake hoses 

to prevent the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms and regulating the rate of withdrawal of 

test water to avoid adverse impact on aquatic resources or downstream users. Rockies Express would not 

add chemicals to the water during testing. Rockies Express would acquire the necessary permits from 

state agencies before withdrawing hydrostatic test water, including specific approvals from applicable 

resource agencies. 

Five of Rockies Express’ proposed hydrostatic test water sources (Mississippi River, Whitewater 

River, Seven Mile Creek, Scioto River, and Muskingum River) are known to contain federally- and stateDocument Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-41 

listed endangered and threatened species. The impacts on federally listed and state-listed species, 

including potential depletion impacts, are discussed in section 4.7. 

Rockies Express would discharge the test water in upland areas unless direct discharge into 

surface waters is determined to be acceptable and permitted by the relevant agencies. Hydrostatic test 

water discharged into waterbodies has the potential to cause erosion of the stream bed and banks, 

resulting in a temporary increase of sediment load and disturbance of habitat. These discharges could 

potentially affect state-designated uses. If discharge into waterbodies is permitted, Rockies Express 

would minimize the potential for these effects through the use of energy dissipating devices that would 

disperse and slow the velocity of any discharges. Final test water discharge locations would be in 

accordance with Rockies Express’ NPDES permit and any state-issued hydrostatic test water discharge 

permits. Water discharged over land would be conducted through containment structures, such as hay 

bale structures or filter bags. Rockies Express has estimated that the discharge rate of the hydrostatic test 

water would be regulated to be between 2,000 and 5,000 gpm using valves and energy dissipation 

devices. Furthermore, Rockies Express continues to review waterbodies for supply and discharge 

capacity, and has agreed to file necessary permits for hydrostatic testing during the third quarter of 2007. 

4.3.7 Wetlands 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of wetland 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). 

Wetlands are found primarily in temporarily flooded sinks, along drainage ways, in shallow basins, and in 

association with riparian areas. 

Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 established standards to minimize impacts to wetlands under the 

regulatory jurisdiction of COE. These standards require avoidance of wetlands where possible and 

minimization of disturbance where impacts are unavoidable to the degree practical. Rockies Express 

conducted field delineations during winter, spring, and summer 2007 in accordance with the methodology 

outlined in COE’s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), which 

constitutes at least 61 percent of the Project right-of-way. In addition, in areas where access was denied, 

Rockies Express used NWI data to identify wetlands crossed by the proposed REX East pipeline right-ofway and aboveground facilities. This information would be included in Rockies Express’ Section 404 

permit application filed with COE. 

Affected Wetlands 

The REX East pipeline route would cross approximately 4.7 miles of wetlands by the proposed 

pipeline right-of-way. Construction of the Project would affect a total of about 66.6 acres including 8.0 

acres of wetlands in Missouri, 10.8 acres in Illinois, 15.1 acres in Indiana, and 32.7 acres in Ohio. No 

wetlands would be affected by the proposed facilities in Nebraska and Wyoming. A description of 

wetland types crossed by the pipeline route is presented in table 4.3.7-1. Wetlands vegetation is discussed 

in section 4.4. 

The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance activities on wetlands 

would be the temporary and permanent alteration of wetland vegetation. These effects would be greatest 

during and immediately following construction. Generally, the palustrine emergent and palustrine scrubshrub wetland vegetation would be temporarily impacted by the construction of the Project and would 

transition back into a community functionally similar to pre-construction wetlands. The Project would 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-42 

Table 4.3.7-1 

Descriptions of Wetland Types Crossed by the Project a/ 

Wetland Type NWI 

Code 

Description 

Palustrine Emergent PEM These are wetlands that are characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding 

mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years 

and is usually dominated by perennial plants. All water regimes are included except subtidal 

and irregularly flooded. Emergent wetlands are known by many names, including marsh, 

meadow, fen, prairie pothole, and slough. In areas with relatively stable climatic conditions, 

emergent wetlands maintain the same appearance year after year. However, in other areas, 

such as the prairies of the central United States, severe climatic fluctuations cause them to 

revert to an open-water phase in some years. Dominant hydrophytic species may include 

Phalaris arundinacea, Polygoum pensylvanicum, Polygonum hydropiper, or Polygonum 

lapathifolium. 

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub PSS These are wetlands that include areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. 

Vegetation forms found in this wetland include true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs 

that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions. All water regimes are included 

except subtidal. Scrub-shrub wetlands may represent a successional stage leading to a 

forested wetland or they may be relatively stable communities. Dominant species may include 

Cornus spp, Salix, Lindera, and immature tree species, such as Acer spp, Fraxinum spp, and 

Ulmus spp. 

Palustrine Forested PFO These are wetlands that are characterized by woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall. All water 

regimes are included except subtidal. Forested wetlands are most common in the eastern 

United States and in those sections of the West where moisture is relatively abundant, 

particularly along rivers and in the mountains. Forested wetlands normally have an overstory 

of trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. Dominant species 

may include Acer spp., Faxinus spp., Platanus spp, Ulmus spp, or Populus spp. 

____________________ 

a/ Source: Cowardin, et al., 1979 

NWI = National Wetlands Inventory 

PEM = Palustrine Emergent 

PSS = Palustrine Scrub-shrub 

PFO = Palustrine Forested

affect about 29.2 acres of forested wetlands, 34.0 acres of emergent wetlands, and 3.4 acres of scrubshrub wetlands. The emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands vegetation would regenerate within 1 to 3 years. 

Forested wetlands would take more than 30 years to regenerate into a forest community. Following 

construction, emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands would regenerate within two to three growing seasons. 

To facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet 

wide would be maintained in an herbaceous state according to the REX East Procedure and in accordance 

with our procedures. Therefore, impact on forested wetlands would be long-term with limited permanent 

alteration to scrub-shrub and herbaceous types (see table 4.3.7-2). 

Table 4.3.7-2 

Wetlands Affected by the REX East Project 

State 

Wetland 

Classification a/ 

Length of 

Wetland 

Crossed 

(miles) 

Wetland Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres) b/ 

Wetland Area 

Affected by 

Operations 

(permanent acres) c/ 

PEM 0.1 2.3 0.0 

PFO 0.5 5.6 0.8 

PSS 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Missouri 

MO subtotal: 0.7 8.0 0.8 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-43 

Table 4.3.7-2 

Wetlands Affected by the REX East Project 

State 

Wetland 

Classification a/ 

Length of 

Wetland 

Crossed 

(miles) 

Wetland Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres) b/ 

Wetland Area 

Affected by 

Operations 

(permanent acres) c/ 

PEM 0.3 4.3 0.0 

PFO 0.8 6.0 2.7 

PSS <0.1 0.5 0.2 

Illinois 

IL subtotal: 1.2 10.8 2.9 

PEM 0.4 7.0 0.0 

PFO 0.4 7.3 1.8 

PSS <0.1 0.8 0.4 

Indiana 

IN subtotal: 0.8 15.1 2.2 

PEM 1.2 20.4 0.0 

PFO 0.7 10.3 4.0 

PSS 0.1 2.0 0.3 

Ohio 

OH subtotal: 2.0 32.7 4.3 

PEM 2.0 34.0 0.0

PFO 2.5 29.2 9.3

PSS 0.2 3.4 0.9

Totals 

Total 4.7 66.6 10.2 

____________________

a/ Wetland Types: 

PEM = Palustrine Emergent 

PFO = Palustrine Forested 

PSS = Palustrine Scrub-shrub 

b/ Area affected during construction (temporary impact) is based upon a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way to reflect the 

maximum potential impact to the wetlands. 

c/ Acreage reflects a maintained permanent right-of-way width of 30 feet in forested wetlands within the 50-foot-wide permanent 

easement and a maintained permanent right-of-way width of 10 feet within the 50-foot-wide permanent easement in scrub-shrub 

wetlands. The remaining area would be restored. Emergent wetlands would not be permanently affected during operation of the 

pipeline, as they would be allowed to revegetate to pre-construction condition. 

Given the tree species that typically dominate forested wetlands in the Project area (red maple, 

American elm, ash, black gum, tupelo gum, and swamp white oak), regeneration may take 30 years or 

more. To facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 

10 feet may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees taller than 15 feet and within 15 feet 

on either side of the pipeline may be selectively cut and removed. By limiting revegetation of a portion of 

forested wetlands, some of the wetland functions would be altered, therefore, permanently altering 9.3 of 

the 29.2 acres palustrine forested wetlands during operations. Additionally, 0.9 acre of scrub-shrub 

wetlands would be converted to emergent wetlands during operations from maintenance activities. 

Clearing activities and disturbance of wetland vegetation would temporarily affect the wetland’s capacity 

to buffer flood flows and/or control erosion. Removal of wetland vegetation could also deprive wildlife 

of valuable habitat and encourage the recruitment of less desirable invasive species. Forested wetlands 

would be converted to scrub-shrub and emergent type. 

Other types of impacts associated with construction of the pipeline could include temporary 

changes in wetland hydrology and water quality. During construction, failure to segregate topsoil over 

the trenchline in non-saturated wetlands could result in the mixing of topsoil with subsoil. This 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-44 

disturbance could result in altered biological activities and chemical conditions in wetland soils and could 

affect the reestablishment and natural recruitment of native wetland vegetation after restoration. In 

addition, inadvertent compaction and rutting of soils during construction could result from the movement 

of heavy machinery and the transport of pipe sections. The resulting alteration of the natural hydrologic 

patterns of the wetlands could inhibit seed germination or increase the potential for siltation. 

No wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of the Project. The aboveground 

facilities proposed for the REX East Project would not be located within wetlands. However, the 

improvement of one temporary access road between county routes 5 and 22 in Clinton County, Ohio 

would affect a palustrine emergent wetland located near MP 470.8. The measures that Rockies Express 

would implement to avoid or minimize these impacts are discussed below. 

Wetlands within Shallow Bedrock 

 

Shallow bedrock exists in 48 of the 351 unique wetland areas identified along the right-of-way. 

Rockies Express may perform blasting in some of these wetland areas. If blasting is performed during 

construction in wetlands areas, Rockies Express would implement the measures in its Blasting Plan to 

avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, as they could be habitat for wildlife species. Areas with shallow 

bedrock with the potential for blasting are discussed in section 4.1.1. Wildlife species potentially 

occurring in these areas are discussed in section 4.5.2. 

Additional Temporary Workspace 

There are 42 proposed additional temporary workspaces located less than 50 feet from a wetland. 

We have recommended in section 2.3.1 that Rockies Express file site-specific justifications for each extra 

workspace within 50 feet of a wetland prior to construction. 

Wetlands of Special Concern or Value 

The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program offering landowners the 

opportunity to sell conservation easements and/or enter into cost-share agreements with NRCS on eligible 

wetlands. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners to protect, restore, and 

enhance the original hydrology, native vegetation, and natural topography. The goal of the program is to 

restore and protect the functions and values of wetlands in the agricultural landscape. The emphasis of 

the program is to attain habitat for migratory birds and wetland-dependent wildlife, including threatened 

and endangered species, protect and improve water quality, attenuate water flows, recharge groundwater, 

and protect native flora and fauna. NRCS-held easements identified along the Project route have been 

avoided, and, therefore, no WRP lands would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Wetlands can be categorized as sensitive and significant because of their ecological quality and 

high level of functionality. This quality and functionality is based on wildlife habitat and hydrologic and 

recreational functions. Two wetlands in Missouri are categorized as sensitive and significant because 

they are both located in the Upper Mississippi COA. One wetland in Indiana and five wetlands in Ohio 

are categorized as sensitive and significant because of their high-functional value. Additional information 

on the high-functioning wetlands (wooded riparian corridors) in Indiana, which are also significant habitat 

features, is discussed in section 4.4.2. No sensitive and significant wetlands have been identified along 

the Project route in Illinois. Table 4.3.7-3 lists each sensitive and significant wetland that would be 

affected by the proposed pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-45 

Table 4.3.7-3 

Sensitive and Significant Wetlands Affected by the REX East Project 

State/County 

Wetland 

Identification 

Wetland 

Type a/ Description 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) b/ 

Permanent

Impact 

(acres) c/ 

Missouri 

Pike d/ WL-MO-43-A PFO Upper Mississippi 

Conservation Opportunity 

Area 

0.0 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-43-B PFO Upper Mississippi 

Conservation Opportunity 

Area 

5.5 0.7 

Indiana 

Putnam WL-IN-265-A PFO High-Functioning Wetland 0.1 <0.1 

Ohio 

Warren WL-OH-437-

AA2 

PFO High-Functioning Wetland <0.1 0.0 

Fayette WL-OH-481-A PEM High-Functioning Wetland <0.1 0.0 

Pickaway d/ WL-OH-505-AA PFO High-Functioning Wetland 0.0 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-553-A PFO High- Functioning Wetland <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-575-B PEM High- Functioning Wetland 0.1 0.0 

Total — — — <6.0 <0.8 

_______________ 

a/ Wetland Types: 

PEM = Palustrine Emergent 

PFO = Palustrine Forested 

PSS = Palustrine Scrub-shrub 

b/ Area affected during construction (temporary impact) is based upon a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way to reflect the 

maximum potential impact to the wetlands. 

c/ Acreage reflects a maintained permanent right-of-way width of 30 feet in forested wetlands within the 50-foot-wide permanent 

easement and a maintained permanent right-of-way width of 10 feet within the 50-foot-wide permanent easement in scrub-shrub 

wetlands. The remaining area would be restored. Emergent wetlands would not be permanently affected during operation of the 

pipeline, as they would be allowed to revegetate to pre-construction condition. 

d/ Would be crossed using the HDD method; therefore there is no impact. 

Two sensitive wetlands (WL-MO-43A and WL-MO-43B) in Missouri are located between the 

Salt River and Mississippi River and are part of Blackburn Island—which is included within the Upper 

Mississippi COA. Blackburn Island is located between the Salt and Mississippi Rivers, which includes 

these two sensitive wetlands that are part of a larger significant, forested wetland system. Rockies 

Express would locate one HDD entry workspace on Blackburn Island for both the westward HDD 

crossing of the Salt River and the eastward HDD crossing of the Mississippi River. Impacts to Blackburn 

Island would be minimized by use of the HDD method, including wetland WL-MO-43A; however, 5.5 

acres of wetland WL-MO-43B would be impacted by the drill entry and additional temporary 

workspaces. The resulting impact would be a 0.7-acre permanent conversion of forested wetland to 

herbaceous emergent wetland. Rockies Express would also use the HDD method to minimize impacts to 

the sensitive wetland WL-OH-505-AA in Pickaway County, Ohio (see table 4.3.7-3). 

Two of the eight significant wetlands identified in table 4.3.7-3 are palustrine emergent and six 

are palustrine forested. The impact to palustrine emergent wetlands would be short-term, whereas the 

palustrine forested wetland impacts would be long-term and limited permanent. Two of the six palustrine 

forested wetlands (WL-MO-43-A and WL-OH-505-AA) would be crossed using the HDD method. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-46 

Therefore, impacts would be avoided. The remaining four palustrine forested wetlands would be allowed 

to revegetate naturally according to Rockies East Procedures. 

In its comments on the Administrative draft EIS, FWS expressed concern about forested wetland 

impacts. Specifically, FWS stated that the wetland impacts on Blackburn Island would occur on property 

owned by COE and managed by MDC for fish and wildlife. FWS recommended that these wetlands 

should be replaced near or adjacent to the Ted Shanks State Conservation Area in order to support 

ongoing conservation and restoration efforts and added that MDC be contacted for information on sites 

that may be suitable for this purpose. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express develop a wetland restoration plan 

for Blackburn Island in consultation with COE, FWS, and MDNR. Rockies Express 

should file this plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP. 

Wetland Construction Procedures 

Rockies Express’ Procedures contain wetland mitigation measures that are designed to minimize 

the overall area of wetland disturbance, minimize the duration of wetland disturbance, reduce the amount 

of wetland soil disturbance, and enhance wetland restoration following construction. Examples of some 

of the wetland impact minimization measures specified in its Procedures are: 

• using existing rights-of-way to overlap previously disturbed corridors; 

• limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to operating only that 

equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration; 

• limiting grading in wetlands to areas directly over the trenchline, except where necessary to 

ensure safety; 

• minimizing the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open; 

• installing trench breakers at the boundaries of wetlands as needed to prevent draining of a 

wetland and to maintain original wetland hydrology; 

• prohibiting storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils within a 

wetland or within 200 feet of a wetland boundary; 

• limiting post-construction maintenance of vegetation within herbaceous wetlands to a 10-

foot-wide strip of vegetation centered over the pipeline; and 

• limiting post-construction maintenance in forested and scrub-shrub areas to vegetation/tree 

removal in those areas that have plant growth taller than 15 feet and within 15 feet of either 

side of the pipeline centerline. 

Rockies Express has attempted to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands to the extent 

practicable by collocating the proposed pipeline route within existing corridors. As discussed previously, 

Rockies Express would also avoid permanent impacts on several wetlands by using the HDD construction 

method. Rockies Express would further minimize wetland impacts by adhering to the measures specified 

in its Procedures, which are in accord with our Procedures. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-47 

Rockies Express would restore wetlands to pre-construction contours and elevations. Within the 

construction right-of-way, Rockies Express would leave existing root systems intact where possible. This 

would encourage regrowth and revegetation of those areas. In areas to be excavated, Rockies Express 

would salvage topsoil removed and replace that material as a source of native seeds and propagules after 

construction. These methods would constitute a passive approach to wetland revegetation in the trench 

and traffic areas. In comments provided to us during the preparation of this draft EIS, federal and state 

agencies recommended that measures be implemented to control the growth of noxious weeds and other 

invasive species in wetlands during construction (see section 4.4.4 for a discussion of noxious weeds and 

invasive species). 

In addition, Rockies Express’ Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007b) include the commitment to 

ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetate with wetland herbaceous and/or woody plant 

species. If revegetation is not successful at the end of 3 years, Rockies Express would develop and 

implement (in consultation with a professional wetland scientist) a remedial plan to actively revegetate 

the wetlands. The remedial program would be implemented and would continue until wetland 

revegetation is considered successful by the federal and state regulatory agencies. In the following 

paragraphs we are requiring Rockies Express to include reforestation of forested temporary work areas 

(additional temporary work spaces, contractor yards, pipe yards, etc.) as part of its wetland mitigation 

plan. 

The REX East Project would affect a total of about 3,101.9 acres of forested lands during 

construction, of this about 29.2 acres would be forested wetlands and 3072.7 acres would be upland forest 

land. About 10.2 acres of the forested wetland would be collocated with other facilities. In its comments 

on the advanced draft EIS, FWS expressed concern about mitigation for impacts to upland/bottomland 

forest areas and non-jurisdictional wetlands. FWS stated that “in order to minimize overall impacts on 

fish and wildlife it is appropriate to mitigate for impacts to all forested habitats and non-jurisdictional 

wetlands.” Impacts to upland forests are discussed in section 4.4 of the draft EIS. Impacts to forested 

wetlands (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) are discussed below. 

Our Procedures require that gas pipeline be built such that wetlands are not permanently lost. 

However, forested vegetation would be converted to herbaceous and scrub-shrub type wetlands. With 

proper planting and restoration practices, this impact can be minimized. Due to safety concerns, the 

entire disturbed right-of-way can not be replanted with trees. As a result, we do not require vegetation 

maintenance over the full width of the permanent right-of-way (50 feet centered over the pipeline). 

However, to facilitate periodic pipeline and corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline 

and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the 

pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent 

right-of-way. 

Alternative Measure to Our Procedures 

Rockies Express has requested to use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in wetlands. 

This alternative measure is requested because of the size of the pipeline (42 inches in diameter), the depth 

of the trench, and the size of equipment required to install a 42-inch pipeline. We have recommended in 

section 2.3.2 that Rockies Express revise its Procedures to use a 75-foot-wide right-of-way for wetlands. 

A 75-foot-wide right-of-way is recommended to reduce impacts on wetlands. It is our experience that a 

42-inch-diameter pipeline can be constructed in a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-48 

Wetland Mitigation 

Impacts to Blackburn Island would be minimized by use of the HDD method, including wetland 

WL-MO-43A; however, 5.5 acres of wetland WL-MO-43B would be impacted by the drill entry and 

additional temporary workspaces. The resulting impact would be a 0.7-acre permanent conversion of 

forested wetland to herbaceous emergent wetland. 

We concur with FWS and believe it is reasonable to require off-site compensatory mitigation for 

the permanent loss of forested vegetation in wetlands that would occur along the permanent right-of-way 

due to maintenance activities. We believe that the off-site mitigation option represents the preferable 

compensation system because it: allows for improvement of existing degraded wetlands; can be 

implemented on a large scale; can be designed to utilize public land; and has the potential to avoid or 

lessen land ownership, long-term protection, and long-term maintenance problems. Therefore we believe 

off-site compensatory wetland mitigation be incorporated into the Project-specific wetland mitigation 

plan for unavoidable forested vegetation in wetlands lost due to permanent maintenance activities. 

Natural gas pipeline projects modify forested wetland vegetation to herbaceous and scrub-shrub 

vegetation, both temporarily and permanently. We believe that on-site restoration should be pursued 

along the temporarily cleared portions of the right-of-way to mitigate long-term impacts to forested 

wetlands. Also, COE (St. Louis District) in its comments on the administrative draft EIS stated that “all 

forested areas shall be replanted, monitored, and managed for reforestation. The monitoring and 

management of these areas should continue for five years.” COE added that on-site areas conducive to 

tree planting could be replanted with native tree species to compensate for temporal loss of replanting and 

for the spatial loss of non-forested areas over the pipeline. Hence we are requiring Rockies Express to 

actively plant native trees to revegetate the right-of-way, excluding the 30-foot-wide permanently 

maintained strip centered over the pipeline, to restore preconstruction forested wetlands affected by the 

REX East Project. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express consult with COE, FWS, and other 

relevant agencies regarding replanting, monitoring, and managing reforestation for all 

temporary and permanent right-of-way, additional temporary workspaces, and 

contractor yards/pipe yards located within forested wetlands. Rockies Express should 

include this information in its Wetland Mitigation Plan. 

Based on the results of the consultations completed to date, Rockies Express has proposed to 

compensate other permanent wetland impacts through purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits. A 

mitigation bank is a wetland area set aside for restoration, establishment, or enhancement for the purpose 

of providing compensation for an unavoidable impact to a wetland impacted by a project. Mitigation 

banks are a form of “third-party” compensatory mitigation, in which the responsibility for compensatory 

mitigation implementation and success is assumed by a party other than the permittee (EPA, 1995). 

Mitigation banking is an approved alternative to onsite mitigation and often provides for greater 

likelihood of success in replacement of wetland function and long-term management of restored wetland 

areas. Rockies Express is already considering the option of wetland mitigation banking as compensatory 

mitigation for wetland impacts. However, FWS has indicated that it does not support the use of wetland 

mitigation banks to mitigate for wetland impacts until more details have been determined. FWS further 

stated that any mitigation through wetland mitigation banks would need to be overseen by the appropriate 

state and federal resource agencies, and added that wetlands should be replaced within the same state and 

watershed in which the impacts would occur, typically in like kind. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express finalize consultations with COE, 

FWS, and appropriate state and federal agencies to develop its Wetland Mtigation Plan; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-49 

and file with the Secretary a draft Wetland Mitigation Plan and the results of its 

consultations with these agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-50 

4.4 VEGETATION 

The REX East Project would extend across several Ecoregions of the United States (EPA, 2007c). 

All ecoregions that would be crossed by the pipeline and aboveground facilities are described below in 

table 4.4-1 with their respective subecoregions and locations. In addition to the pipeline, two compressor 

stations—one constructed in Phelps County, Nebraska and the other in Carbon County, Wyoming—

would be located in separate ecoregions. 

Table 4.4-1 

EPA Ecoregions Crossed by the Project 

Ecoregion 

Location of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area 

(State, Count[ies]) 

Description 

Central Irregular Plains 

Subecoregion

Claypan Prairie

Missouri 

Ralls, Audrain

This ecoregion is less irregular and less forest-covered than the 

ecoregions to the south and east. The potential natural vegetation 

of this region is a grassland/forest mosaic with wider forested 

strips along the streams compared to the north. Tallgrass prairies 

(big bluestem and Indian grass) dominate the scattered white oak 

dry woodland. Currently, the region is mostly used for agriculture 

and pastureland for cattle grazing. 

Interior River Valley 

and Hills 

Subecoregion

River Hills 

Upper Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain 

Western Dissected 

Illinoisan Till Plain

Missouri 

Pike 

Illinois

Pike, Scott, Morgan

This ecoregion comprises old till plains, hills, forested river bluffs, 

major rivers, and valleys containing levees, oxbow lakes, islands, 

and scattered sand sheets and dunes. The region is a transitional 

area between the more forested Ozark Highlands, and the flatter, 

much less forested Central Corn Belt Plains. The potential natural 

vegetation of well-drained upland areas is a mosaic of oak-hickory 

forests and bluestem prairies, while other regions in the area often 

have bottomland hardwood forests, floodplain forests, and 

marshes. Agriculture dominates most of the prairie habitat. 

Central Corn Belt 

Plains

Subecoregion

Illinois/Indiana Prairies 

Illinois 

Morgan, 

Sangamon, 

Christian, Macon, 

Moultrie, Douglas, 

Edgar 

Indiana 

Vermillion 

This ecoregion comprises vast glaciated plains that were once 

dominated by bluestem prairies and oak-hickory forests. At 

present, this region has mostly been converted for crops such as 

corn, wheat, and soybeans. Sycamores, cottonwood, and maple 

are native to floodplain regions. Bulrush sedges and reeds are 

common to prairie potholes and marshes. 

Interior River Lowland 

Subecoregion

Glaciated Wabash 

Lowlands 

Indiana 

Putnam, Parke, 

Vermillion 

This broad, undulating lowland was formed in non-resistant, noncalcareous sedimentary rock. Many wide, flat-bottomed, terraced 

valleys are present and are filled with alluvium, outwash, aeolian, 

and lacustrine deposits. Much of this ecoregion is covered by till 

or windblown silt and sand that is pre-Wisconsinan in age. The 

vegetation in the region has scattered woodlands (predominantly 

beech forest and oak-hickory forest) mixed with prairies. This 

region also supports agriculture, livestock, and surface coalmining activities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-51 

Table 4.4-1 

EPA Ecoregions Crossed by the Project 

Ecoregion 

Location of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area 

(State, Count[ies]) 

Description 

Eastern Corn Belt 

Plains 

Subecoregion

Loamy High Lime Till 

Plains 

Darby Plains 

Indiana 

Putnam, Hendricks, 

Morgan, Johnson, 

Shelby, Decatur, 

Franklin 

Ohio 

Butler, Warren, 

Clinton, Pickaway, 

Fairfield, Fayette, 

Clinton, Pickaway 

This ecoregion is primarily a rolling plain with local end moraines; 

it has more natural tree cover and lighter colored soils than the 

Central Corn Belt Plains. Glacial deposits of Wisconsinan age are 

extensive. Indiana and Ohio counties have beech forests, oaksugar maple forests, and elm-ash swamp forests. Ohio counties 

additionally have a mixture of oak forests, wet-prairie, and tallgrass prairie habitats. Currently, the region is dominated by 

extensive farming, some urban-industrial activity, and livestock 

areas. 

Interior Plateau 

Subecoregion 

Northern Bluegrass 

Indiana 

Franklin 

This ecoregion has rolling to deeply dissected, rugged terrain. 

Land use/land cover is a transition between agriculture, livestock, 

and woodlands of mesophytic and oak-hickory origin. 

Erie/Ontario Drift and 

Lake Plain 

Subecoregion

Low-Lime Drift Plain 

Ohio 

Perry 

Low-lime drift and lacustrine deposits blanket the rolling to level 

terrain of this ecoregion. Lakes, wetlands, and swampy streams 

occur where stream networks are deranged or where the land is 

flat and clayey. 

This region has a mixture of forests (mesophytic forest, mixed oak 

forest, beech forest, oak-sugar maple forest, and elm-ash swamp 

forests), dairy farming, agriculture, gas wells, and coal mining. 

Western Allegheny 

Plateau 

Subecoregion

Permian Hills 

Monongahela Transition 

Zone Unglaciated Upper 

Muskingum Basin 

Ohio/Kentucky 

Carboniferous Plateau 

Ohio 

Perry, Muskingum, 

Morgan, Guernsey, 

Noble, Belmont, 

Monroe 

This extensive, rugged, wooded terrain has mixed mesophytic 

forests, mixed oak forests, oak-sugar maple forests, beech wood 

forests, hemlock hardwoods in ravines, and red maple seepage 

swamps. At present, most of the hilly rugged areas remain as 

forest, while agriculture, dairy, livestock, and residential areas lie 

in lower regions. Gas wells, coal mining, and reclaimed land are 

extensive in this region and are associated with the degradation of 

several streams. 

Wyoming Basin 

Subecoregion 

Rolling Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Wyoming 

Carbon 

This ecoregion is broad, arid, intermontane basin, interrupted by 

hills, low mountains, and dominated by grasslands and 

shrublands. The region also has rolling plains with hills, cuestas, 

mesas, terraces, while near the mountains are footslopes, ridges, 

alluvial fans, and outwash fans. Potential natural vegetation is 

mostly sagebrush steppe, with the eastern edge of the region 

having more mixed-grass prairie. Wyoming big sagebrush is the 

most common shrub with silver and black sagebrush occurring in 

the lowlands and mountain big sagebrush in the higher elevations. 

Frequent fires have affected the sagebrush steppe and some 

areas are dominated by European annual grasses. Most of the 

land is in rangeland, cattle and sheep ranches, or wildlife habitat; 

however, there are also major gas and oil production areas. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-52 

Table 4.4-1 

EPA Ecoregions Crossed by the Project 

Ecoregion 

Location of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area 

(State, Count[ies]) 

Description 

Central Great Plains 

Subecoregion

Rainwater Basin Plains 

Nebraska 

Phelps 

The Central Great Plains is slightly lower, receives more 

precipitation, and is more irregular than the Western High Plains. 

This region has tall-grass and mixed-grass prairies dominated by 

bluestems with scattered low trees and shrubs. Currently, much 

of this ecoregion is now in cropland and is the major winter wheat 

growing area of the United States. Although this region has 

natural wetlands in the North American Central Flyway for 

waterfowl migration, most of the wetlands have been drained for 

cultivation and relatively few areas remain. 

4.4.1 General Vegetation Resources 

Construction of the Project pipeline would affect the following three main vegetative 

communities: agricultural, herbaceous, and forested vegetation as presented in table 4.4.1-1. The major 

vegetation categories are further subdivided into vegetative types (table 4.4.1-1). The pipeline route 

would cross 487.5 miles of agricultural and herbaceous open land and 144.7 miles of forested areas. 

Wetland habitats (emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested) are discussed in section 4.3.7. Agriculture and 

direct impacts associated with croplands are further discussed in section 4.8. Project-related acreage 

impacts for vegetative communities are presented in table 4.4.1-2. 

Project Facilities 

The proposed project would affect 14,226.4 acres of vegetated land during construction and 

4,006.1 acres of vegetated land during operation of the project. Of the acres affected by construction, 

3,101.9 acres would be forested areas, 446.6 acres would be herbaceous (nonforested) areas and 10,677.9 

would be agricultural land. Of the total acres that would be affected during operation about 881.3 acres 

would be forested land, 180.6 would be herbaceous land and 2,944.2 would be agricultural land. See 

more details in table 4.4.1-2 for breakdown of these acres by facility. Acres reported in table 4.4.1-2 

reflect numbers for both upland and wetland areas. Wetland impacts are addressed in section 4.3.7. 

The primary impacts on vegetation from construction of the REX East Project would be the 

cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area. The severity of 

impact would depend on the specific type and amount of vegetation affected, the rate at which vegetation 

would regenerate after the completion of construction activities. Operational impacts would include a 

permanent loss of vegetation where aboveground facilities would be located and long-term impacts on 

forested areas within the 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way where it would take 30 years or 

more for forested vegetation to return to pre-construction conditions. 

The majority of construction-related impacts would be temporary; and cleared vegetation would 

be allowed to return to natural conditions after construction, with the exception of the 10-foot-wide 

corridor centered on the pipeline, which would be maintained in an herbaceous state throughout the life of 

the Project, as well as upland areas where the entire permanent right-of-way would be maintained. 

Additionally, in wetland areas, trees may be selectively cut out another 15 feet from the 10-foot-wide 

corridor. The loss of forested vegetation along the pipeline route would result in forest fragmentation and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-53 

Table 4.4.1-1 

Vegetative Communities Occurring along the Proposed Project Route a/ 

Classification Representative Species Location by State (County) 

Agriculture Land 

Cropland/Pasture Corn, alfalfa, soybean, wheat, hay, 

grasses, clover 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, 

Nebraska (Phelps County) 

Herbaceous 

Tall-grass prairie Big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian 

grass, blue grama, prairie dock 

sideoats grama, golden rod 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

Mixed-grass prairie Blue grama, western wheatgrass, 

June grass, Sandberg blue grass, 

buffalo grass, needle-and-thread, 

bluestem, fringed sage, rabbitbrush 

Wyoming (Carbon County) 

Sagebrush steppe Wyoming big sagebrush, sagebrush 

steppe, silver and black sage brush, 

mixed grass prairie species 

Wyoming (Carbon County) 

Wetlands Bulrush sedge, reed, cord grass, 

cattail 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

Forest 

Riparian forests Sycamore, cottonwood, maple, ash, 

elm, willow, green ash, American elm 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

Deciduous/Mixed forests White oak, black oak, sugar oak, 

hickory, beech, maples, silver oak, 

eastern hemlock, chestnut, black 

cherry, poplar, pine, basswood, bur 

oak, hackberry, mesophytic species 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

Wetlands Ash, red maple, black gum, tupelo 

gum, American elm, white oak 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

Previously Developed Land Areas with ornamental and 

manicured vegetation from 

developed or previously developed 

property; mixture of native and nonnative species 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 

____________________ 

a/ Source: Cowardin et al., 1979 

 EPA, 2007c 

 OSU, 2007 

 Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2007 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-54 

Table 4.4.1-2 

Rockies Express Pipeline-East Project 

Summary of Vegetation Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project by State (in acres) 

Agricultural Forested a/ Herbaceous b/ 

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. 

MISSOURI 

Pipeline c/ 516.8 206.8 112.9 45.1 16.5 6.6 Interconnects and Laterals d/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 211.9 0.0 54.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 Aboveground Facilities f/ 12.8 12.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 22.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 

Subtotal 764.1 219.6 178.6 45.2 26.8 6.6 

ILLINOIS 

Pipeline c/ 2,623.3 1,049.5 217.7 87.3 98.0 39.1 Interconnects and Laterals d/ 5.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 1,090.7 0.0 86.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 Aboveground Facilities f/ 21.2 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 65.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 

Subtotal 3,806.3 1,073.8 304.0 87.3 104.1 39.1 

INDIANA 

Pipeline c/ 1,787.9 715.1 603.6 241.4 115.7 46.2 Interconnects and Laterals d/ 4.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 814.3 0.0 188.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 Aboveground Facilities f/ 26.9 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 62.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 2,696.0 744.3 793.0 241.4 117.5 46.2 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-55 

Table 4.4.1-2 

Rockies Express Pipeline-East Project 

Summary of Vegetation Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project by State (in acres) 

Agricultural Forested a/ Herbaceous b/ 

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. 

OHIO 

Pipeline c/ 2,072.1 828.7 1,257.7 503.0 175.4 70.2 Interconnects and Laterals d/ 18.1 11.8 3.3 1.9 0.2 0.1 Additional Temporary Workspace 1,180.7 0.0 532.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Aboveground Facilities f/ 48.3 48.3 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.4 Contractor/Pipe yards 74.6 0.0 30.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 

Subtotal 3,393.8 888.8 1,826.3 507.4 183.2 73.7 

NEBRASKA 

Aboveground Facilities 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

WYOMING 

Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 

Project Total 10,677.9 2,944.2 3,101.9 881.3 446.6 180.6 

_______________ NOTE: The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the exact sum of the addends in a

0.1 place. 

a/ Forested wetlands are included in these estimates. 

b/ Emergent wetlands are included in these estimates. c/ Assumes 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in all locations. 

d/ Assumes a 70- to 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 45- to 75-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

e/ After 30 years, forested areas would return to pre-construction vegetated conditions. f/ Includes construction and operational impact associated with the compressor stations and meter stations and access roads to compressor stations 

mainline valves would be constructed within the construction right-of-way, land use impacts are accounted for with the pipeline. However, because m

a land use conversion, aboveground totals include permanent impacts associated with mainline valves. Temporary pig launchers and receivers wobe disturbed by the compressor stations. Therefore, land use impacts resulting from these facilities are already accounted for in the construction impa

Const: impacts during construction of project. Oper: Impacts associated with operation of project. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-56 

the loss of conversion of wildlife habitat. Other impacts resulting from the widening of the existing 

corridor or the removal of vegetation include increased erosion, sediment runoff, altered soil chemistry, 

modified infiltration and groundwater recharge rates, and an increased susceptibility to invasive and/or 

exotic species. 

Impacts to agriculture lands and herbaceous communities, such as prairie habitats, would be 

short-term as these vegetation types would return to their herbaceous status within one to three growing 

seasons after the completion of construction activities, cleanup and restoration. Areas planted with field 

crops are typically disturbed by periodic agricultural practices and would be replanted in the next growing 

season. Rockies Express would implement its AIMP to minimize impacts to these lands. Agricultural 

impacts are further discussed in section 4.8. 

In general the clearing of upland forest would result in long-term impacts as upland forest can 

take 30 years or more to return to pre-construction conditions. Impacts to upland areas constitute the 

most significant change in vegetation strata, appearance, and habitat, as mature trees would be replaced 

for a period of years by herbaceous plants, shrubs, saplings, and other successional species. The Project 

would cross areas of unsegmented portions of forest in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. About 59 

percent of the proposed pipeline route is collocated parallel to existing utility corridors. Collocation 

avoids additional fragmentation of large forested areas. We estimate that when the pipeline crosses 

forested area, approximately 48 percent of the route is collocated, for a total of 1,054.4 acres. The 

remaining 1,137.5 acres of forested areas crossed by the pipeline appears to be unfragmented forest. The 

removal of trees from unfragmented forested areas would cause loss of wildlife from habitat conversion. 

Other impacts could include increased erosion from the conversion of deeply rooted vegetation to 

shallow-rooted vegetation on the right-of-way and increased exposure to solar radiation, which could dry 

the soil and stimulate growth of early successional species within and immediately adjacent to cleared 

areas. The removal of trees on the right-of-way could also expose trees growing adjacent to the newly 

cleared areas to higher wind gusts, which may increase the risk of blow downs. 

We have received several comments expressing concern that large areas of forests and timberland 

would be destroyed or fragmented. Impacts to forests and other vegetation would be minimized by 

collocating the pipeline within existing rights-of-way and allowing the vegetation to return to preconstruction cover types and uses where practical. In addition Rockies Express would use HDD for water 

crossings to minimize impact on forested riparian areas. FWS, in its comments on the administrative draft 

EIS, expressed concern about mitigation for impacts to upland/bottomland forest areas and nonjurisdictional wetlands. FWS stated that in order to minimize overall impacts on fish and wildlife, it is 

appropriate to mitigate for impacts to all forested habitats and nonjurisditional wetlands. Therefore, in 

order to further minimize and mitigate forest impacts, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express develop an upland 

forest mitigation plan in consultation with FWS, COE, and appropriate state agencies 

for each state. Rockies Express should file this plan with the Secretary along with 

documentation of its consultation with the agencies involved.

We recognize that some HDD paths, drill entry and exit holes, and associated temporary 

workspaces may be located within forested areas. To minimize impacts to forests, we recommend that: 

• For all HDDs, Rockies Express not clear any trees between the workspace for the drill 

site and the workspace for the exit site. Minor brush clearing, less than 3-foot wide, 

using hand tools is allowed to facilities the use of the HDD tracking system. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-57 

During operation, the use of the REX East Plan would allow for maintenance mowing along the 

permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way every three years; however, impacts to herbaceous communities 

during operational maintenance would be minimal because the vegetation would return to preconstruction conditions. 

In addition, to reduce impacts within the construction and permanent rights-of-way and to 

improve the probability of successful revegetation of disturbed areas, Rockies Express would implement 

the measures included in its Plan and Procedures to ensure successful revegetation of disturbed areas. 

According to its Plan and Procedures, Rockies Express would: 

• provide temporary and permanent erosion control measures; 

• test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural and residential areas 

disturbed by construction activities; 

• segregate topsoil; 

• begin cleanup immediately after backfilling and completion of restoration within 20 days; 

• restore pre-construction contours and natural drainage patterns within the construction rightof-way; 

• fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance with written recommendations obtained 

from the local soil conservation authority, land management agencies, or landowner; 

incorporate recommended soil pH modifier and fertilizer into the top two inches of soil as 

soon as possible after application; 

• implement the NRCS and state agencies’ recommendations and standards for revegetation in 

areas disturbed by the Project; 

• provide barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 

• monitor the revegetation progress of the right-of-way for two growing seasons following 

construction. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The Project would involve the construction of compressor stations, meter stations, MLVs, 

delivery point interconnects, and access roads at various locations along the proposed pipeline route that 

would affect grasslands, sagebrush prairie rangeland (Wyoming), agricultural lands, and forests. 

Aboveground facilities would impact a total of 147.9 acres of vegetated land during construction and 

operation including: herbaceous lands (about 18.4 acres), forested lands (about 2.6 acres), and agricultural 

lands (126.9 acres) (see table 4.4.1-2). Aboveground facilities would be permanent and would remain in 

operation throughout the life of the REX East Project. We do not consider these impacts to be significant 

since the impacted area represents a very small percentage of the total available land of similar type in the 

area surrounding the Project. 

The Project would require the use of temporary contractor pipe yards that would affect a total of 

272.0 vegetated acres, including 43.4 acres of forested areas. As described earlier, removal of trees 

within forested areas would result in long-term impacts due to the length of time needed for the forest to 

mature to pre-construction conditions. Herbaceous and agricultural areas affected by contractor pipe 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-58 

yards would be able to revegetate in shorter timeframes. To minimize impact to forested areas, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express avoid cutting trees at 

or relocate the Bowling Green, Springfield, Green Castle, Middletown, Hamilton, 

Jeffersonville, Pickaway, Lancaster, and Guernsey contractor and pipe storage yards 

where feasible to minimize impacts to forested areas. Environmental information and 

documentation of the revised locations of the pipe storage yards should be filed with the 

Secretary. 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern 

The REX East pipeline would cross vegetation communities of special concern in Indiana and 

CRP lands in Missouri. The communities in Indiana include classified forests and wooded riparian 

corridors. No vegetation communities of special concern have yet been identified in Illinois or Ohio. 

State-managed and conservation areas are discussed in section 4.8. 

Classified Forests 

Classified forests are privately owned lands in Indiana that have been enrolled voluntarily for a 

conservation stewardship program by the landowner in partnership with the INDNR. The Classified 

Forest Program is specially designed to help keep Indiana's private forest regions intact. Classified 

forests that would be crossed by the pipeline route in Indiana are listed in table 4.4.2-1. 

Construction of the REX East Project would temporarily disturb approximately 44.8 acres of 

classified forests in Indiana. Operation of the pipeline would require the conversion of approximately 

17.9 acres of classified forests to scrub-shrub and herbaceous areas from maintenance of the 50-foot rightof-way. The REX East Project has the potential to impact 4.2 acres of classified forest owned by a single 

landowner. Impacts to classified forested areas would be long-term. 

 

Rockies Express would compensate any classified-forest landowner who incurs costs or penalties 

resulting from the construction and operation of the Project. Rockies Express proposes to mitigate these 

areas by replanting trees outside the 50-foot permanent right-of-way (temporary construction right-ofway), at a one-to-one ratio and replanting other native vegetation. Rockies Express is continuing its 

consultations with the classified forest landowners, INDNR, the Division of Forestry, and the local 

District Forester about mitigation and state and local requirements; therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express develop its compensatory mitigation 

plan for classified forest areas in Indiana, in consultation with classified forest 

landowners; INDNR, Division of Forestry; and the local District Forester. This plan 

should be filed with the Secretary along with documentation of related consultation for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Wooded Riparian Corridors 

Indiana has wooded riparian corridors with valuable tree species that are associated with 

bottomlands and waterways. These riparian areas are important waterway buffers and significant habitat 

features. If not revegetated and stabilized properly, removal of riparian vegetation could cause soil 

erosion associated with surface runoff, and streambank depressions could lead to instream sediment 

deposition after construction. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-59 

Table 4.4.2-1 

Classified Forest Areas Crossed by REX East Project Pipeline in Indiana 

County Begin Milepost a/ Length of Crossing 

(feet) 

Temporary Impact 

(acres) b/ 

Permanent Impact 

(acres) c/ 

Parke 253.4 369.4 1.1 0.4 

Parke 258.5 94.4 0.3 0.1 

Parke 260.6 483.1 1.4 0.6 

Putnam 268.6 927.3 2.7 1.1 

Putnam 269.6 341.7 1.0 0.4 

Putnam 269.7 743.8 2.1 0.9 

Putnam 269.8 5.9 <0.1 <0.1 

Putnam 269.8 289.8 0.8 0.3 

Putnam 270.0 693.6 2.0 0.8 

Putnam 270.1 32.7 <0.1 <0.1 

Putnam 270.1 2,727.5 7.8 3.1 

Putnam 272.8 3,337.0 9.6 3.8 

Putnam 273.6 349.2 1.0 0.4 

Putnam 278.7 865.6 2.5 1.0 

Putnam 280.0 134.2 0.4 0.2 

Putnam 282.9 405.8 1.2 0.5 

Shelby 344.6 552.8 1.6 0.6 

Decatur 376.0 667.5 1.9 0.8 

Decatur 376.6 541.8 1.6 0.6 

Franklin 381.7 23.8 <0.1 <0.1 

Franklin 381.8 982.2 2.8 1.1 

Franklin 382.1 212.3 0.6 0.2 

Franklin 382.2 847.9 2.4 1.0 

Total 15,667.9 44.8 17.9 

_______________ 

a/ Mileposts are used for reference and may not reflect actual surveyed distances. 

b/ Temporary impact based on a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way in upland areas. 

c/ Permanent impact based on a 50-foot-wide maintained right-of-way. 

The following waterbody crossings have wooded riparian corridors and would require an INDNR 

permit based on their outstanding waterbody classifications: Wabash River (MP 246.9), Big Walnut 

Creek (MP 281.5), Sugar Creek (MP 337.9), Big Blue River (MP 340.8), and Whitewater River (MP 

393.1) (INDNR, 2007). The White Lick Crossing (MP 311.1) including its wooded riparian area would 

also require a permit because this portion of the pipeline runs parallel to the White Lick Creek for more 

than 50 feet in the floodplain (INDNR, 2007). Rockies Express would comply with the INDNR’s 

permitting requirements regarding floodway licensing and mitigation measures within the temporary 

right-of-way in wooded riparian corridors. These mitigation measures include: replanting trees greater 

than 10 inches in diameter in wooded riparian corridors at a ratio five-to-one; revegetating intermixed 

groundcover within the forested floodway with appropriate herbaceous seed mixes; and mitigating 

disturbed riparian corridor areas greater than 1 acre at a higher ratio. Rockies Express, as part of the flood 

control act permitting requirements, is continuing its consultations with INDNR to develop mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts to floodways and riparian areas. Waterbodies in Indiana that require 

floodway crossing licenses are further discussed in section 4.3.2. Therefore, we recommend that:

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-60 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a copy of its 

Flood Control Permit from INDNR. 

4.4.3 Conservation Reserve Program 

To date a total of 24 tracts of CRP lands have been identified along the REX East pipeline route, 

which includes 518.5 feet (at four crossings) in Missouri (see section 4.8). No CRP lands have been 

identified in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The CRP is managed and administered by the USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) with technical assistance provided by USDA’s NRCS. The program provides 

eligible farmers and ranchers both technical and financial assistance to conserve and protect soil, water, 

and related natural resources on their land. The CRP encourages farmers to convert highly erodible 

cropland or other environmentally sensitive lands to vegetative cover such as native grasses, wildlife 

plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers. 

Temporary and permanent impacts on CRP lands would generally be similar to those described 

previously for vegetation. Rockies Express would negotiate easement terms and conditions with 

individual landowners of CRP lands to minimize and restore temporarily impacted areas to 

preconstruction conditions. Rockies Express also would implement its Plan and Procedures to further 

minimize impacts by reseeding disturbed areas with a seed mix recommended by NRCS, state agencies, 

or landowners specifically for CRP lands. Rockies Express is currently consulting with representatives of 

FSA to confirm the location of these properties and identify any other CRP lands; therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express consult with FSA 

and other applicable federal and state agencies to identify affected CRP lands and to 

develop mitigation measures to protect CRP lands. Rockies Express should file this 

information with the Secretary along with copies of all related correspondence. 

4.4.4 Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are non-native, undesirable native, or introduced species 

that are able to exclude and outcompete desirable native species, thereby decreasing overall species 

diversity. The term “noxious weed” is legally defined under both federal and state laws. Under the 

Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 U.S.C. Sections 2801-

2814]), a noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or 

cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the 

natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.” The Federal Plant 

Protection Act contains a list of 137 federally restricted and regulated federal noxious weeds (per CFR 

Title 7, Chapter III, Part 360), including 19 aquatic and wetland weeds, 62 parasitic weeds, and 56 

terrestrial weeds. Each state is federally mandated to uphold the rules and regulations set forth by the 

Federal Plant Protection Act and manage its lands accordingly. 

Noxious weeds are also addressed by Executive Order (EO) 13112, which directs federal 

agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide for their control; and minimize the 

economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species can cause. The Order further 

specifies that federal agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless it has been determined 

that the benefits of such actions outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species and that all 

feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm would be taken in conjunction with the 

actions. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-61 

Federal, state, and county agencies are responsible for identifying noxious plant species and 

preventing them from becoming invasive. In addition to federal noxious weed lists, each state crossed by 

the REX East Project maintains a list of regulated and prohibited noxious and invasive weed species. 

County weed control boards or districts are present in most counties crossed by the pipeline route. These 

county weed control boards monitor local weed infestations and provide guidance on weed control. 

Following disturbances to the soil caused by the Project, vegetation communities can be 

susceptible to infestations of invasive or noxious weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance 

during construction could create optimal conditions for the establishment of undesirable species. Mobile 

construction equipment can carry weeds into disturbed areas and disperse invasive or noxious weed seeds 

that would propagate and spread through the affected area. Noxious species are most prevalent in areas 

with prior surface disturbance, such as agricultural areas, roadsides, and existing utility rights-of-way. 

Federal and state agencies filed comments requesting that disturbed areas be revegetated with 

native plant species that are currently found in the Project area. Agencies also identified known locations 

of noxious weed infestations in the states the pipeline would cross and provided recommendations for 

seed mixes and erosion control. A list of these noxious weeds is provided in the REX East Weed 

Management Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007f). The NRCS offices in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana provided 

state-specific NRCS Critical Area Planting Conservation Standards. Rockies Express has developed the 

Weed Management Plan based on the agencies’ recommendations to minimize the spread of noxious 

weeds with preventative measures and treatment methods such as ensuring that: 

• all contractor vehicles and equipment would arrive at the work site clean and weed free; 

• straw and hay bales used on the Project for sediment barrier installations or mulch would be 

certified weed-free; 

• soils imported for agricultural or residential use would be certified as free of noxious weeds, 

unless otherwise approved by the landowner; and 

• noxious weeds along the construction right-of-way would be removed by mechanical, 

biological, or chemical methods under the direction of NRCS state offices. 

COE filed a comment requesting that the Japanese hop (Humulus japonicus) be included in the 

Rockies Express Weed Management Plan. Japanese hop is an aggressive, sprawling weed that is 

increasingly prevalent and noxious. It is most prevalent in riparian corridors and has been problematic in 

forested riparian corridors and wetlands restoration projects. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express include the Japanese hop in its Weed 

Management Plan and file the revised Weed Management Plan with the Secretary. 

We believe that Rockies Express’ proposed measures, including the use of its Weed Management 

Plan, our recommendations, and the implementation of mitigation practices recommended by state and 

federal agencies, would minimize the REX East Project’s impacts on vegetation communities and would 

minimize the spread of noxious weeds. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-62

4.5 WILDLIFE 

The REX East Project area encompasses a diversity of animal taxa, including large and small 

mammals, raptors, waterfowl, turtles, and various amphibians. General impacts to these wildlife 

resources are discussed in the following sections. Specific information is also provided for significant 

resources that occur in the Project area, including raptors and migratory birds, as well as managed and 

sensitive wildlife areas that would be affected by the Project. 

4.5.1 General Wildlife Resources 

 

The predominant wildlife habitats in the REX East Project area are open water, agricultural lands, 

forested lands, herbaceous upland, herbaceous wetland, and developed areas. These habitats provide 

local wildlife with areas for foraging, cover, and breeding. Vegetative species within these habitat types 

are described in section 4.3 (wetland habitats) and 4.4 (upland habitats). Table 4.5.1-1 lists common 

game and non-game species that occur within wildlife habitats crossed by the Project. 

Table 4.5.1-1 

Representative Wildlife Species that Potentially Occur in the REX East Project Area 

Habitat Type Representative Species Scientific Name 

Open Water River Otter 

Beaver a/ 

Muskrat a/ 

Mallard a/ 

Wood Duck a/ 

Tundra Swan 

Great Blue Heron 

American Toad 

Snapping Turtle 

Lontra canadensis 

Castor canadensis 

Ondatra zibethica 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Aix sponsa 

Cygnus columbianus 

Ardea herodias 

Bufo americanus 

Chelydra serpentina 

Agricultural Land Virginia Opossum 

Coyote 

Red Fox a/ 

Long-Tailed Weasel 

Striped Skunk 

White-Tailed Deer a/ 

Mallard a/ 

Ring-Necked Pheasant a/ 

Wild Turkey a/ 

Turkey Vulture 

Red-Tailed Hawk 

Horned Lark 

Didelphis marsupialis 

Canis latrans 

Vulpes vulpes 

Mustela frenata 

Mephitis mephitis 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Phasianus colchicus 

Meleagris gallopavo 

Cathartes aura 

Buteo jamaicensis 

Eremophila alpestris 

Forested Upland Virginia Opossum 

Silver-Haired Bat 

Coyote 

Red Fox a/ 

Bobcat 

Striped Skunk 

White-Tailed Deer a/ 

Wood Duck a/ 

Cerulean Warbler 

Hooded Warbler 

Worm-eating Warbler 

Kentucky Warbler 

Wild Turkey a/ 

Great-Horned Owl 

American Toad 

Didelphis marsupialis 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Canis latrans 

Vulpes vulpes 

Lynx rufus 

Mephitis mephitis 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Aix sponsa 

Dendroica cerulean 

Wilsonia citrine 

Helmitheros vermivorus 

Oporornis formosus 

Meleagris gallopavo 

Bubo virginianus 

Bufo americanus 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-63

Table 4.5.1-1 

Representative Wildlife Species that Potentially Occur in the REX East Project Area 

Habitat Type Representative Species Scientific Name 

Forested Wetlands Raccoon a/ 

Silver-Haired Bat 

Coyote 

Bobcat 

White-Tailed Deer a/ 

Mallard a/ 

Wood Duck a/ 

Wild Turkey a/ 

Great-Horned Owl 

American Toad 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Cerulean Warbler 

Hooded Warbler 

Kentucky Warbler 

Procyon lotor 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Canis latrans 

Lynx rufus 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Aix sponsa 

Meleagris gallopavo 

Bubo virginianus 

Bufo americanus 

Protonotaria citrea 

Dendroica cerulean 

Wilsonia citrine 

Oporornis formosus 

Herbaceous Upland Virginia Opossum 

Coyote 

Red Fox a/ 

Long-Tailed Weasel 

Striped Skunk 

Ring-Necked Pheasant a/ 

Turkey Vulture 

Red-Tailed Hawk 

Horned Lark 

American Toad 

Didelphis marsupialis 

Canis latrans 

Vulpes vulpes 

Mustela frenata 

Mephitis mephitis 

Phasianus colchicus 

Cathartes aura 

Buteo jamaicensis 

Eremophila alpestris 

Bufo americanus

Herbaceous Wetland Muskrat a/ 

River Otter 

Long-Tailed Weasel 

Mink a/ 

Snowy Egret 

Northern Harrier 

Swamp Sparrow 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Western Chorus Frog 

Spring Peeper 

Spotted Salamander 

Northern Painted Turtle 

Ondatra zibethica 

Lontra canadensis 

Mustela frenata 

Neovison vison 

Egretta thula 

Circus cyaneus 

Melospiza georgiana 

Protonotaria citrea 

Pseudacris triseriata 

Pseudacris crucifer 

Ambystoma maculatum 

Chrysemys picta 

____________________ 

a/ Species with significant recreational or commercial value. 

Source: NatureServe Explorer, 2006 

Open-water habitats within the Project area include large rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. These 

habitats provide food and water sources, in addition to habitat for species such as wading birds, 

waterfowl, beavers, otters, snakes, and other wildlife species dependent upon an aquatic environment. 

Waterbodies are specifically discussed in section 4.3, and fisheries resources within these waterbodies are 

discussed in section 4.6. 

Agricultural lands within the Project area generally consist of pasture/hay, row crops, and small 

grains. These lands provide cover and foraging opportunities for wildlife species within the crops or 

pastures, or within the small areas of natural vegetation, such as vegetation along streams or small 

forested patches, that sometimes occur within agricultural lands. Although generally not as diverse as 

other habitat types, agricultural lands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. 

Forested lands consist of deciduous, evergreen, and mixed upland forests, as well as forested 

wetlands. Upland forests provide both interior and edge habitats that often attract different species based 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-64

on their habitat preferences. Interior forested habitats are secluded, wetter, and more stable, whereas edge 

habitats are more volatile, experiencing more dramatic environmental change. Exterior forests are 

sunnier, drier, windier, and more prone to disturbance. Forested wetlands comprise diverse vegetation 

assemblages that provide an abundance of cover, foraging, and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species, such as migrating birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. 

Herbaceous uplands include upland grasslands, maintained rights-of-way, fallow fields, and areas 

used for production of hay and small grains. Herbaceous habitats can be important to a variety of species, 

particularly birds and small mammals, by providing edge areas and feeding and rearing habitats. 

Herbaceous wetlands include emergent wetlands, ditches, road and railroad rights-of-way, 

pipeline and powerline utility corridors, fallow fields, and areas used for production of hay and small 

grains where hydric soils are present. Herbaceous wetlands provide an abundance of cover, foraging, and 

nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species including mammals, birds, and reptiles. Emergent 

wetlands also provide resting sites for migratory birds; food sources for waterfowl; and nursery habitat for 

amphibians, crustaceans, and fish. 

Developed land consists of residential, industrial, and other areas developed for active human use. 

Residential land occurs throughout the Project area in varying densities. These areas generally do not 

have diverse vegetative communities or provide substantial forage or cover for wildlife. Although they 

may be used by some wildlife species that are well adapted to human activity, these areas are not 

considered to provide significant value as wildlife habitat. 

4.5.2 General Wildlife Impacts 

Construction of the REX East Project, including additional temporary workspaces, aboveground 

facilities, pipe storage/contractor yards, and laterals, would temporarily disturb 14,226.4 acres of upland 

and wetland vegetation habitats and 26.1 acres of open water. Of this, 3,101.9 acres of forested habitat 

would be disturbed by construction. Of the total 3,101.9 acres about 881.3 acres would either be 

converted to developed land for aboveground facilities or maintained as permanent right-of-way in 

accordance with Rockies Express’ Plans and Procedures (see section 4.5.4). About 237.4 acres of 

managed and sensitive wildlife habitats would be temporarily disturbed by construction. 

The impact of the Project on wildlife species including game species and their habitats, would 

vary depending on the requirements of each species and the existing habitat present along the pipeline 

route. During construction, the more mobile species would be temporarily displaced from the 

construction right-of-way and surrounding areas to similar habitat nearby. Some wildlife displaced from 

the right-of-way would return to the newly disturbed area and adjacent, undisturbed habitats soon after 

completion of construction. Less mobile species, such as small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, as 

well as birds nesting in the right-of-way, may be permanently affected by construction activities due to 

direct mortality or permanent displacement. However, the overall impact on wildlife due to active 

pipeline construction would not be significant because of the relatively small percentage of the available 

forest habitat affected and the short duration of construction. 

The clearing of right-of-way vegetation would reduce cover, nesting, and foraging habitat for 

some wildlife. The degree of impact would depend on the type of habitat affected and the rate at which 

vegetation regenerates after construction. The impact on species that commonly inhabit agricultural lands 

would be relatively minor and temporary because these areas are regularly disturbed and would be 

replanted during the next growing season following pipeline installation. The effect on forest-dwelling 

wildlife species would be greater, as forested lands may take longer to return to pre-construction 

conditions (more than 30 years) and 881.3 acres would be prevented from reestablishing during operation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-65

of the pipeline. All other forested areas impacted during construction would be allowed to re-establish. 

The impacts on species using nonforested areas would be short-term because herbaceous lands, riparian 

vegetation, and vegetated portions of developed lands would recover within 1 to 3 years. See section 

4.3.7 for our recommendations to offset forested wetland impacts. 

Blasting may be required along approximately 6.5 percent of the pipeline route. Blasting could 

result in the removal of adjacent habitat and the direct mortality or injury of wildlife species in the 

vicinity. These impacts would be minimized by adherence to the Rockies Express Blasting Plan (FERC 

eLibrary, 2007c). Rockies Express states that it would develop site-specific blasting plans that contain 

procedures for preventing flying rock and excessive noise. 

Construction and operation of the Project would cause habitat fragmentation, especially in 

forested areas. Fragmentation can alter the species composition in a given community because 

biophysical conditions near the forest’s edge can significantly differ from those found in the center or 

core of the forest. As a result, edge species could recruit to the fragmented area and species that occupy 

interior habitats could be displaced. The disturbance of these areas could create a long-term impact on 

some forest interior species. Species most likely to be adversely affected by the long-term or permanent 

conversion of forested habitat to non-forested habitat include forest interior species such as certain 

migratory birds, as discussed in section 4.5.3, as well as various other birds, mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles. Conversion of intact forested habitats to early successional stages and the increase in forest edge 

that results could adversely affect forest interior species by increasing rates of nest predation, parasitism, 

or interspecific competition; reducing pairing success and nesting areas; increasing destruction of habitat 

of understory species by browsers; inhibiting migration, dispersal, foraging, and other movements of 

forest interior species that are hesitant to cross openings; and encouraging the expansion of non-native 

species. The breeding success of some forest interior bird species has been shown to be limited by the 

size of available unbroken forest tracts (Robbins, 1979; Robbins et al., 1989). Additional loss of forest 

habitat in tracts of already marginal size, in particular where the pipeline would traverse smaller isolated 

woodlots (Galli et al., 1976), could further reduce breeding success. The conversion of forested land may 

also affect woodland amphibians, through lack of cover, changes in ground moisture, and increased 

exposure to the sun. 

Construction of the Project would affect 2,191.9 acres of forested land along the pipeline. Of 

that, roughly 1,054.4 acres would be collocated with existing rights-of-way, resulting in a widening of the 

corridor rather than forest fragmentation. The remaining 1,137.5 acres of forested area would not be 

collocated with other utility corridors. In these areas, construction of the Project could potentially cause 

habitat fragmentation. Forested areas would be allowed to revegetate naturally in the temporary 

construction areas but would be prevented from reestablishing in the permanently maintained right-ofway and where aboveground facilities and access roads are built (634.5 acres). 

In a letter received September 12, 2007, FWS identified numerous forested areas that provide 

breeding habitat for forest birds of conservation concern (BCC) (FWS, 2007d). Specifically FWS 

expressed concern for migratory bird species and forest fragmentation. To minimize fragmentation 

impacts to the identified areas, we have included a recommendation that Rockies Express consult with 

FWS to develop site-specific plans to mitigate fragmentation impacts in these areas (see section 4.5.3). In 

addition, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide wildlife conservation 

strategy, called a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, which identifies species and habitats of 

greatest conservation need and outlines the necessary actions to protect them. Each state’s 

 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-66

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy and the appropriate state coordinator should be consulted 

in order to minimize impacts to wildlife resources. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express consult with 

each applicable Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Coordinator to 

verify that it is in compliance with the state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy to the maximum extent practicable and file with the Secretary 

documentation of this correspondence. 

Species utilizing edge habitat and non-forested lands would return to the disturbed area after 

construction activities have ceased; therefore, impacts on wildlife in these habitats would be minimal. 

Species utilizing forest interior habitat would sustain a moderate impact through lasting habitat loss and 

fragmentation. However, through implementation of our recommendation for site-specific mitigation to 

minimize forest fragmentation, collocating the pipeline with existing rights-of-way to the extent 

practicable, and implementing the Rockies Express Plan and Procedures for the revegetation of wildlife 

habitats, we believe that the Project would not substantially alter local wildlife populations. 

4.5.3 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States and Canada during the summer and 

migrate south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for the 

nonbreeding season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

(16 U.S.C. 703–711) and EO 13186 (66 FR 3853), which serve to protect migratory birds from adverse 

impacts. The EO was enacted, in part, to ensure that the environmental analysis of a federal action 

evaluates the impacts of that action on migratory birds. It states that emphasis should be placed on 

species of concern, priority habitat, and key risk factors. It also prohibits the taking of migratory birds 

without authorization from FWS. Destruction or disturbance of a migratory bird nest, or any eggs or 

young contained within it, is also a violation of the MBTA. 

Portions of the Mississippi Flyway and its principal routes pass through each state crossed by the 

pipeline; thus, migratory birds occur in the Project area. In addition, principal routes of the Central 

Flyway cross through Nebraska and Wyoming, the sites of two proposed compressor stations. FWS 

maintains a list of migratory BCC that was developed as a result of a 1988 amendment to the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates that FWS “identify 

species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation 

actions, are likely to become candidates for listing” under the ESA. The goal of the BCC is to prevent or 

remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and 

conservation actions, and to ensure that these species would be considered in accordance with EO 13186. 

Partners in Flight is an organization with the goal of documenting and reversing population declines of 

neotropical migratory birds and their habitats. Migratory BCC and Partners in Flight priority bird species 

that potentially occur in the Project area are listed in table 4.5.3-1, along with their associated habitats. 

A great blue heron rookery occurs approximately 0.9 mile south of the Scioto River pipeline 

crossing location (MP 514.6) in Pickaway County, Ohio. Rockies Express would cross the Scioto River 

using the HDD method. Although the herons may be present during construction, they are not expected 

to be impacted by the increase in noise because the rookery is almost 1 mile from the HDD site. In 

addition to the known rookery, landowner comments received March 13, 2007, indicated that the 

landowners observed a single heron pair south of the Dry Fork Whitewater River near MP 407.2 and a 

single breeding pair east of Caesar Creek near MP 459.6. However, the ODNR has no record of blue 

heron rookeries within 0.25 mile of these crossing locations. Although the exact location of the two 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-67

heron pairs is unknown, they may potentially suffer from decreased breeding success should they occur in 

close proximity during construction activities. 

Table 4.5.3-1 

Important Migratory Bird Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area a/ 

Migratory Classification by State c/ Species Name PIF 

Status b/ WY d/ NE e/ MO f/ IL f/ IN f/ OH f/

Preferred Habitat 

Peregrine Falcon CS PM PM WR PM PM PM Along mountain ranges, river 

valleys, coastlines, cities 

Short-Eared Owl CC NR, 

WR 

NR, 

WR 

WR WR WR WR Open fields, meadows, marsh, 

prairie, tundra 

King Rail -- PM PM NR PM PM PM Emergent wetlands 

American Golden 

Plover 

-- PM PM PM PMST 

PM PM Natural tributaries 

Hooded Warbler CS PM PM PM PM NR NR Woodlands 

Bewick’s Wren RC NR PM NR PM PM NR, 

PM 

Woodlands 

Chuck-Will’s-Widow RC, CS PM PM NR PM PM PM Woodlands 

Red-headed 

Woodpecker 

CC, RC, RS NR NR NR, 

WR 

NR, 

WR 

NR, 

WR 

NR, 

WR 

Woodlands that support cavity 

nesting 

Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker 

CS PM PM PM PM PM PM Woodlands that support cavity 

nesting 

Acadian 

Flycatcher g/ 

RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodlands near water, along 

rivers or swamps 

Wood Thrush g/ CC, RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodlands 

Bell’s Vireo CC. RC PM NR NR NR NR PM Successional scrub that 

supports ground nesting 

Blue-winged 

Warbler 

CC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Successional scrub that 

supports ground nesting 

Golden-winged 

Warbler 

-- PM PM PM PM PM PM Successional scrub that 

supports ground nesting 

Prairie Warbler CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Successional scrub that 

supports ground nesting 

Cerulean Warbler g/ CC, RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodland midstory or canopy 

Prothonotary 

Warbler g/ 

CC, RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR PM Woodland midstory trees that 

support cavity nesting 

Worm-eating 

Warbler g/ 

CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodland cover to support 

ground nesting 

Swainson’s Warbler CC, RC, CS PM PM PM PM PM PM Woodland cover to support 

ground nesting 

Louisiana 

Waterthrush g/ 

RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodlands along waterbodies 

Kentucky Warbler g/ CC, RC, CS PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodland cover to support 

ground nesting 

Dickcissel CC, RC, CS, 

RS 

PM NR NR NR NR NR Grasslands that support ground 

nesting 

Bachman’s Sparrow CC, RC, CS PM PM PM PM PM PM Woodland cover to support 

ground nesting 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

RC. CS PM NR NR NR, 

WR 

NR, 

WR 

NR Open fields and grasslands 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-68

Table 4.5.3-1 

Important Migratory Bird Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area a/ 

Migratory Classification by State c/ Species Name PIF 

Status b/ WY d/ NE e/ MO f/ IL f/ IN f/ OH f/

Preferred Habitat 

Henslow’s Sparrow CC, RC, CS, 

RS 

PM PM NR NR NR NR Open fields with tall 

herbaceous vegetation 

Smith’s Longspur CS PM PM PM PM PM PM Open areas, beaches, tundra, 

short grass, bare fields 

Rusty Blackbird -- WR WR WR WR WR WR Wet, wooded areas 

Bald Eagle h/ CS NR NR NR NR NR NR Woodland near wetland or 

open water areas 

Scarlet tanager g/ -- PM PM NR NR NR NR Woodlands 

____________________ 

a/ Species in this list are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (FWS, 1989b); FWS Birds of Conservation 

Concern (BCC) (FWS, 2002a); and Partners in Flight (PIF) (Rich et al., 2004). Exceptions: the king rail is protected under the

MBTA only, and the hooded warbler and scarlet tanager are protected under the MBTA and PIF only. 

b/ PIF Species Assessment Listings for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 22 (CC = Continental Concern Species, RC = Regional 

Concern Species, CS = Continental Stewardship Species, RS = Regional Stewardship Species. -- = Not Listed in BCR 22 

c/ Migratory classifications are represented as PM = Passing Migrant, PM-ST = Passing Migrant, Important Staging Area, NR = 

Nesting Resident, WR = Winter Resident 

d/ Arlington Compressor Station 

e/ Bertrand Compressor Station 

f/ Proposed pipeline 

g/ Midwestern forest breeding bird species that are known to be adversely impacted by forest fragmentation. 

h/ The bald eagle is protected under the MBTA and PIF, as well as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Sources: Gough, Sauer, and Iliff, 1998; FWS, 2007c; PIF, 2007 

Bald Eagles 

The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in June 

2007 due to recovery and is no longer protected under the ESA. The species is currently protected under 

both the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and is known to nest in the 

Project area. Federal and state agency consultations have indicated that bald eagles are known to 

overwinter between November 15 and March 15 in Pike and Ralls Counties, Missouri, and that they may 

be summer casuals along this section of the proposed route. A known nest is located on Blackburn Island 

approximately at MP 42.9. In Indiana, bald eagle habitat or nests have been specifically identified at the 

Wabash River (MP 247.3), Sugar Creek (MP 337.9), Big Raccoon Creek (MP 269.9), Big Walnut Creek 

(MP 281.5), and the White River (MP 315.8). One nest was also recorded within 0.1 mile of the 

proposed route at MP 315.5. The lowland areas of the Wabash River in the Project area also serve as 

important wintering habitat for bald eagles. Ohio hosts casual residents through the summer in Pickaway, 

Muskingum, Guernsey, and Noble Counties. Nesting populations have been identified in Morgan 

County, Indiana, including a breeding pair that maintains a nest from February 1 through June 30. In 

addition, bald eagles could establish new nesting sites along the route; however, these sites would 

predominantly be located in riparian areas. 

In their comments on the Administrative draft EIS, FWS expressed concern about HDD noise 

impacts on nesting bald eagles located on Blackburn Island. FWS also recommended that the Applicant 

should identify the location of bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. FWS further stated that the 

use of available current and reliable nesting surveys is acceptable. However, if surveys are not available, 

the Applicant should conduct surveys of bald eagles in the Project area. FWS recommended that where 

nests are located in the vicinity of the pipeline, Draft National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines be 

followed. According to these Guidelines, Category A activities including construction of roads and other 

linear utilities should be conducted outside the nesting season which occurs from February 1 through July 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-69

31. FWS has recommended that surveys be conducted to determine bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the 

Project for areas where current and reliable information is not available. We agree with this 

recommendation. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary, documentations of consultations with FWS to determine the need for bald 

eagle surveys. If surveys are required, Rockies Express should file with the Secretary 

survey reports along with FWS comments on those surveys and documentation of its 

consultation with FWS. 

The Project could temporarily affect aerial foraging and predatory activities if construction occurs 

along waterbodies when roosting eagles are present. Project disturbance could change foraging patterns 

or remove preferred roosting trees. Individual eagles could find other suitable roosts in similar habitat 

surrounding the Project area, and eagles would be expected to return to the Project area when construction 

activity has ceased. Given the linear nature of the clearing associated with the Project and the short time 

frame in which waterbody construction would occur, we believe these impacts would be a minor, 

temporary disruption to foraging individuals. 

Crossing waterbodies using the HDD method may potentially cause noise impacts to nesting bald 

eagles prior to the time that the eagles have fledged. Foraging bald eagles are anticipated to return to the 

area once construction and HDD have been completed; however, an increase in noise near nesting bald 

eagles may cause nest abandonment and subsequent mortality of eggs and young. FWS has developed 

the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (NBEM Guidelines) that would minimize impacts to 

bald eagle nests by implementing site-specific buffers and limiting loud, disruptive construction activities 

(including open-cut and HDD construction methods) to periods outside of the nesting season, which is 

between February 1 and July 31 in the Project area. Rockies Express has agreed to adhere to the NBEM 

Guidelines in the presence of known or newly encountered active nests; however, Rockies Express plans 

to start construction in April 2008. Therefore, construction of the Project as proposed would not be in 

compliance with the NBEM Guidelines. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express implement the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, including 

limitation of construction activities in the vicinity of active bald eagle nests, as 

recommended by FWS between February 1 through July 31. 

With the implementation of our recommendations, and Rockies Express’s stated compliance with 

the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Act to avoid disturbance to the bald eagle, we believe that the 

impact on the bald eagle would be minimal. 

Other Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern 

Additional migratory BCC include the king rail and the prothonotary warbler that occur in the 

COA in Missouri (as discussed in section 4.5.4). The American golden-plover and Smith’s longspur have 

nationally important staging areas in Edgar and Douglas Counties, Illinois. Collocation of the pipeline 

within these counties, and adherence to the Rockies Express Procedures, would minimize impacts to these 

species. 

The potential impacts from forest fragmentation are important for migratory bird species that 

have limited habitat in the Project area or are otherwise more sensitive to disturbance. In a letter received 

September 12, 2007, FWS identified numerous migratory BCC that would be impacted by forest 

fragmentation, such as the cerulean, prothonotary, worm-eating, and Kentucky warblers, wood thrush, 

Acadian flycatcher, and the Louisiana water thrush (see table 4.5.3-1). Many of these birds inhabit a 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-70

breeding habitat within large forested tracts in Indiana and Ohio. Forests in Indiana that are susceptible to 

fragmentation include those between MPs 386 and 388.3, 389.5 and 392, 397 and 398, and 399.3 and 

400. These forests are known breeding sites, or close to known breeding sites, for the cerulean warbler, a 

species of high conservation concern by FWS and Partners in Flight. These forests also likely harbor 

breeding species of conservation concern, such as the hooded, worm-eating, and Kentucky warblers. In 

Ohio, forest fragmentation is a concern because of impacts to breeding cerulean warbler and several other 

forest BCC including worm-eating and hooded warblers, and potential Bewick’s wren occurrence. 

Forests of concern for these species include forests in Perry County, Ohio, in Harrison and Clayton 

Townships; Muskingum County, Ohio, in Clay and Brush Creek Townships and where the pipeline 

crosses the Muskingum River; Belmont County, Ohio, in Somerset, Wayne, and Washington Townships; 

Monroe County, Ohio, in Switzerland Township. As these areas are breeding sites of species of 

conservation concern, fragmentation to them would cause a moderate impact through the loss of habitat to 

the species that use these areas. In section 3.5.10, we have recommended a route variation from MP 

405.1 to 405.9 that would avoid fragmentation of two large forested parcels in Butler County, Ohio. 

Rockies Express is currently consulting with FWS to minimize impacts to the remaining areas of concern; 

however, these consultations have not been finalized. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary, documentation of its finalized consultation with FWS to determine specific 

areas of forest fragmentation that would impact breeding sites and activities for 

migratory birds, and to determine site-specific mitigation for each area of concern. 

The two compressor stations proposed for Nebraska and Wyoming would affect either 

agricultural or herbaceous land, decreasing the amount of habitat available for ground-nesting species 

while avoiding impacts to forested lands that are considered suitable nesting habitat for many migratory 

bird species. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wildlife species in forested areas in Nebraska and 

Wyoming. 

Construction of the Project would start during spring 2008, which would overlap with the nesting 

seasons for many migratory birds. Construction during this time would cause direct and indirect impacts 

on the species that occur in the area. Direct effects would be from the loss or disturbance of nesting trees, 

nests, and young; unfledged birds would likely be lost as habitat is removed. Indirect effects would be 

associated with the noise created by construction, as well as by human presence. Indirect effects would 

not likely cause significant impacts to non-nesting birds, as they likely would be temporarily displaced 

and would return once construction in that area is completed. Construction activities occurring adjacent 

to nesting individuals could result in nest abandonment, which would subsequently result in the chilling 

or mortality of eggs and young, or premature fledging and ejection from the nest. 

We note that EO 13186 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative impacts on 

migratory bird populations. The EO also requires a federal agency to identify where an unintentional 

“take” is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations. Effects on 

nonsensitive bird species (those that do not have significantly reduced populations) would not result in 

long-term or significant population-level impacts, given the stability of local populations, the abundance 

of available habitat outside the Project right-of-way, and the linear nature of the Project over a large 

geographic range. Potential impacts on tree-nesting species would be minor, given the limited amount of 

forested land crossed by the REX East Project, collocation of the pipeline to the extent practicable, and 

our recommendation to consult with FWS to determine site-specific mitigation for each forested area of 

fragmentation concern. 

In addition to implementation of its Plan and Procedures, Rockies Express has stated that it is 

developing an MBTA Conservation Agreement in consultation with FWS to outline the steps that would 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-71

be followed to comply with the MBTA and mitigation measures used to minimize impacts to migratory 

birds. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary its MBTA Conservation Agreement, which should be developed in 

consultation with FWS. Rockies Express should file documentation of related 

consultation with other agencies. 

With the implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures, including limiting right-ofway maintenance to once every three years, and never between April 15 and August 1 to limit impact to 

nesting birds, as well as implementation of our recommendations and the development and 

implementation of the MBTA Conservation Agreement, we believe that the REX East Project would 

minimize impact to migratory bird species. 

4.5.4 Managed and Sensitive Wildlife Areas 

Construction of the Project would cross 11 areas considered to be significant or sensitive wildlife 

habitats (see table 4.5.4-1). Impacts to the habitats and wildlife species would be based on the habitat 

type and crossing methods, as previously discussed. Areas with recreational or special land uses are also 

discussed in section 4.8. Waterbodies judged to contain significant or sensitive habitat or listed species 

are considered to be fisheries of special concern and are discussed in sections 4.3 and 4.6. These 

waterbodies would be affected during construction by increased turbidity, sedimentation, and removal of 

cover (structure and riparian vegetation). USDA-managed lands that would be impacted are discussed in 

sections 4.3 and 4.4. Intact forests and classified forests in Indiana are discussed in section 4.4. 

Table 4.5.4-1 

Significant or Sensitive Wildlife Habitats crossed by the Proposed Project 

Wildlife Habitat County Milepost Habitat Significance 

Missouri 

Grassy Creek Conservation 

Opportunity Area 

Pike 33.4-42.2 Aquatic criteria, biological richness, resource for 

migratory birds 

Upper Mississippi Conservation 

Opportunity Area 

Pike 42.6-42.9 Terrestrial criteria, species of conservation concern, 

resource for migratory birds 

Ohio 

Little Miami Scenic State Park Warren 451.6-451.7 Undeveloped shorelines, special status species 

Caesar Creek State Park Clinton 459.5-459.6 Nature preserve 

Caesar Creek Wildlife Area Clinton 459.6-459.8 Nature preserve 

Deer Creek State Park Pickaway 499.9-500.9 Nature preserve 

Deer Creek Wildlife Area Pickaway 498.8-499.9,

500.8 

Nature preserve 

Perry State Forest Perry 558.5-558.7, 

558.9-559.9

Nature preserve 

Blue Rock State Forest Muskingum 581.6-582.7 Nature preserve 

Captina Creek Preserve Belmont 624.6-625.1 Nature preserve 

Raven Rocks Belmont 628.5-630.3 Nature preserve 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-72

Missouri 

Pipeline construction through Missouri would impact two COAs: Grassy Creek COA and Upper 

Mississippi COA, both of which are part of the Ted Shanks Alluvial Complex, an Important Bird Area (as 

designated by the National Audubon Society). COAs are designated based on the natural community; 

rare or threatened species, their habitat, or opportunity for recovery; and/or stream systems of high 

integrity, minimal alterations, or species diversity. Important bird areas provide habitat for bird species of 

conservation concern, those with restricted ranges, or those that congregate in large numbers. 

Grassy Creek Conservation Opportunity Area 

The Grassy Creek COA, also known as the Ted Shanks Conservation Area, is managed by MDC 

and private parties. The Grassy Creek COA is managed for aquatic criteria (stream integrity and fish 

spawning and nursing potential), but has a rich diversity of both aquatic and terrestrial species. The area 

provides abundant migratory stopover and breeding habitat for water and forest birds, such as the piedbilled grebe, king rail, bald eagle, American and least bitterns, common moorhen, and bobolink. This 

area is known to have one of the largest king rail populations in the Midwest; however, the specific areas 

impacted by construction of the proposed pipeline are not considered to be suitable habitat for the king 

rail (FWS, 2007d; MDC, 2007a). The area is approximately 6,705 acres and contains numerous wildlife 

habitats, including bottomland hardwoods and wetlands (MDC, 2007b). Rockies Express would cross the 

Grassy Creek COA between MPs 33.4 and 42.2 using conventional construction methods, and would 

have a long-term, temporary effect on 96.9 acres of forested land, and temporarily affect 9.2 acres of 

herbaceous land and 27.3 acres of agricultural land. Permanent impacts would include 38.8 acres of 

forested land, 3.6 acres of herbaceous land, and 10.9 acres of agricultural land. The pipeline route would 

parallel an existing right-of-way for approximately 7.8 miles of the 8.8-mile in this area, minimizing 

impacts from fragmentation.

Upper Mississippi Conservation Opportunity Area 

The Upper Mississippi COA, located on Blackburn Island, is managed by the MDC. This COA 

contains a vast wetland complex and numerous species of conservation concern, including the 

prothonotary warbler, a migratory bird that likely breeds in the bottomland forests. The area between 

MPs 42.6 and 42.9 would be crossed by HDD, limiting impacts to the clearing of the HDD pit, which 

would have a long-term, temporary impact on 5.4 acres of bottomland forests. Operational impacts would 

result in permanent impacts to 0.5 acre of forested land that would be maintained in an herbaceous state. 

Rockies Express would minimize impacts to the COAs during construction and operation through 

implementation of its Plan and Procedures, including limiting maintenance of the right-of-way to once 

every three years, and never between April 15 and August 1 to limit impact to nesting birds. In addition, 

Rockies Express, in consultation with the MDC, has developed best management practices that would 

limit impacts within the COAs, including utilizing timing restrictions, reducing construction right-of-way, 

reducing riparian clearing, revegetation practices, and invasive species control. With the implementation 

of these measures to minimize impacts to these areas, we do not believe that the REX East Project would 

significantly reduce the amount of quality wildlife habitat available within the Grassy Creek and Upper 

Mississippi COAs, or the associated Important Bird Area. For further discussion on the Grassy Creek and 

Upper Mississippi COA see section 4.8.5. 

Illinois 

No significant or sensitive wildlife habitats are crossed by the Project in Illinois. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-73

Indiana 

No significant or sensitive wildlife habitats are crossed by the Project in Indiana. 

Ohio 

Little Miami Scenic State Park 

The Little Miami Scenic State Park, managed by the ODNR, would be crossed between MPs 

451.6 and 451.7. The park is linear, running along the Little Miami River for approximately 50 miles 

across Ohio and providing various recreational activities, such as fishing and bird watching. The area 

also contains forested lands that are used by great blue heron (ODNR, 2006f). The park would be crossed 

by the HDD and horizontal bore methods, limiting long-term, temporary impacts to approximately 

0.1 acre of forested lands and temporary impacts to 0.1 acre of agricultural lands. In addition, in section 

4.8.5 we have recommended that Rockies Express develop a plan for the construction and restoration of 

the Little Miami Scenic State Park in consultation with the ODNR. 

Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife Area 

The Project would cross both Caesar Creek State Park and the adjacent Caesar Creek Wildlife 

Area (between MPs 459.6 and 459.8), both of which are managed by the ODNR. The park is a 4,700-

acre area containing scattered woodlands, meadows, and steep ravines. The various vegetative 

communities support 65 plant species, as well as animal species such as the red-tailed hawk, white-tailed 

deer, red fox, and box turtles (ODNR, 2006a). The park would be crossed by HDD, eliminating impacts. 

About 2,500 acres of the wildlife area is used by deer, turkey, waterfowl, and rabbits. The wildlife area 

would be crossed by conventional open-cut, impacting 1.4 acres of forested lands and 1.1 acres of 

agricultural lands, and open water (0.1 acre). The operational right-of-way would include 0.4 acre of 

agricultural land, 0.5 acre of forested land, and less than 0.1 acre of open water and would have no 

significant impact on the quality of wildlife habitat in these two areas. In addition, in section 4.8.5 we 

have recommended that Rockies Express develop a site-specific crossing, mitigation, and restoration plan 

for construction through the Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife Areas in consultation with the ODNR. 

Deer Creek State Park and Wildlife Area 

Deer Creek State Park and its adjacent wildlife area are both managed by ODNR. Deer Creek 

State Park would be crossed between MPs 499.9 and 500.9 in Pickaway County, Ohio. Approximately 

2,337 acres of the park provide fishing and hunting opportunities, and the habitat contains various species 

of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds (ODNR, 2006c). The park would be crossed by a 

combination of HDD, open-cut, and horizontal bore methods, resulting in an impact to forested (4.9 

acres) and agricultural (10.2 acres) lands. The wildlife portion of the park is approximately 4,085 acres 

and would be crossed by the Project for 1.1 miles. This area also supports hunting, fishing, and birdwatching activities (ODNR, 2006d). Approximately 16.7 acres would be disturbed by pipeline 

construction and impact forested (4.4 acres) and agricultural (12.3 acres) lands. Permanent impacts to the 

park and wildlife area would be 6.1 and 6.7 acres, respectively. In section 3.4.6, we have recommended a 

route variation be adopted that would collocate the pipeline with an existing right-of-way through the 

entire crossing length of the Deer Creek State Park and Wildlife Area, which would minimize impacts 

from habitat fragmentation. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-74

Perry and Blue Rock State Forests 

The Perry and Blue Rock State Forests are both managed by the ODNR for reforestation efforts 

(ODNR, 2007a,c), habitat preservation, and recreational opportunities (such as hunting and wildlife 

viewing). The Perry State Forest in Perry County would be crossed by conventional methods at two 

locations: between MPs 558.5 and 558.7, and between MPs 558.9 and 559.9. The total impact to these 

areas would include 18.1 acres of forested land; however, the pipeline route would be collocated with 

existing rights-of-way for the entire crossing length, minimizing habitat fragmentation. The Blue Rock 

State Forest in Muskingum County would be crossed by conventional methods between MPs 581.6 and 

582.7, impacting 16.7 acres of forested lands. The forested lands may recover, but the impacts would be 

long-term. Permanent impacts to the Perry and Blue Rock State Forests would be 7.3 and 6.7 acres, 

respectively. In a September 12, 2007 letter, FWS expressed concerns about impacts to migratory birds 

through forest fragmentation in Perry and Muskingum Counties. As the pipeline is collocated through 

Perry State Forest, the existing corridor would be widened during construction, but no further 

fragmentation would occur. Should consultations with FWS, as recommended in section 4.5.3, result in 

the Blue Rock State Forest containing areas of concern, site-specific mitigation would be developed for 

each area. In addition, we have recommended in section 4.8.5 that Rockies Express develop a sitespecific crossing, mitigation, and restoration plan for construction activities through the Perry and Blue 

Rock State Forests. 

We believe, with the implementation of Rockies Express’s Plan and Procedures, AIMP, Weed 

Management Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007f), and our recommendation for site-specific mitigation and 

restoration, the REX East Project would have minimal impacts on the quality of wildlife habitat in Perry 

and Blue Rock State Forests. 

Captina Creek Preserve 

Captina Creek Preserve is a privately owned woodland preserve in Belmont County. The 

Preserve would be crossed between MPs 624.6 and 625.1 by open-cut construction. Temporary impacts 

would occur on 3.8 acres of herbaceous lands. Long-term, temporary impacts would occur on 3.7 acres 

of forested land. Permanent impacts would be limited to 2.8 acres of forested area that would be within 

the permanently maintained right-of-way. We believe with the implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan 

and Procedures, AIMP, and Weed Management Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007f) the REX East Project 

would have minimal impact on the quality of wildlife habitat in the Captina Creek Preserve. FWS 

expressed concerns about impacts to migratory birds through forest fragmentation in Belmont County. 

Should consultations with FWS, as recommended in section 4.5.3, result in the Captina Creek Preserve 

containing areas of concern, site-specific mitigation would be developed for each area. For further 

discussion on the Captina Creek Preserve, see section 4.8.5. 

Raven Rocks 

Raven Rocks, a privately owned preserve, would be crossed by the pipeline between MPs 628.5 

and 630.3 in Belmont County. The area currently preserves approximately 1,260 acres of scenic ravines, 

hills, and woodlands (including high-quality hemlock-hardwood forest). The proposed conventional 

crossing of this area would require the clearing of 25.5 acres of forested land and 1.9 acres of agricultural 

land. The permanent right-of-way would require maintenance of 10.9 acres of land, of which 10.1 are 

forested. Although FWS expressed concerns about impacts to migratory birds through forest 

fragmentation in Belmont County, the pipeline route through Raven Rocks parallels an existing powerline 

right-of-way, and construction would not cross special use areas of the preserve; therefore, construction of 

the REX East Project would have minimal impact on Raven Rocks Preserve. For further discussion on 

Raven Rocks, see section 4.8.5. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-75

Sensitive and significant wildlife areas may support greater numbers and diversity of species 

during certain times of the year. Migratory birds pass through the Project area during spring and fall, 

utilizing many of the sensitive wildlife areas crossed by the Project. As construction of the Project is 

scheduled to commence in the spring of 2008, it would overlap with spring migration, causing impacts to 

more birds through loss or disturbance of nesting habitat and nest abandonment, than would be incurred 

during non-migratory times when fewer birds would be present. Other wildlife species also may be 

present in greater numbers or have vulnerable young during certain times of the year. However, Rockies 

Express has not provided construction schedules through these sensitive wildlife areas. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express consult with 

appropriate jurisdictional agencies regarding construction schedules and any necessary 

mitigation measures for the sensitive wildlife areas identified in table 4.5.4-1 that would 

minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife. Rockies Express should file its 

construction schedule along with documentation of its consultation with the Secretary. 

We believe, with the implementation of our recommendations, use of HDD and bore crossings 

where practicable, and implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures, AIMP, Weed 

Management Plan Citation (FERC eLibrary, 2007f), and Blasting Plan Citation (FERC eLibrary, 2007f), 

the REX East Project would minimize impacts on the quality of wildlife habitat in these managed and 

sensitive wildlife areas in Missouri and Ohio. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-76 

4.6 FISHERIES 

4.6.1 Fisheries Resources 

All waterbodies affected by the Project have been classified as warmwater fisheries. Of the 1,462 

waterbody crossings, 51 would involve fisheries of special concern. No essential fish habitat, as defined 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, would be affected by the Project. 

Some of the more common warmwater fish species that occur within the Project area are bass, 

bluegill, black bullhead, bigmouth buffalo, common carp, catfish, crappie, freshwater drum, saugeye 

(walleye/sauger), gizzard shad, river carpsucker, sunfish, and walleye. Commercially harvested fish 

species are found in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana watersheds. These species include the bigmouth 

buffalo, common carp, channel catfish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, and river carpsucker. 

Construction of the Project including hydrostatic testing could result in several impacts on 

fisheries resources. Potential impacts on fisheries include increased stress due to changes in water 

quality, and the alteration and removal of instream and streambank cover. Removal of cover within and 

adjacent to a waterbody during construction would decrease the habitat value of that waterbody. Removal 

of rocks and branches from the streambed would reduce the structure available for fish to aggregate. Loss 

of riparian vegetation would reduce shading of the waterbody, increasing the temperature of the water at 

that location. Removal of riparian vegetation would also increase the likelihood of streambank erosion 

and the subsequent sedimentation of the waterbody. Overall, these impacts would be minor due to the 

relatively small area in which a waterbody would be affected. 

The extent of impacts on fisheries would depend on the construction method used to cross the 

waterbody, the existing conditions at each crossing location, the duration of instream activity, the 

seasonal timing of instream construction, and the mitigation measures used. 

Rockies Express proposes to use the open-cut method for most of the waterbodies that would be 

crossed by the Project. Open-cut construction could result in increased turbidity and sedimentation in the 

crossing vicinity, potentially decreasing the dissolved oxygen; thereby potentially suffocating the eggs 

and larvae of fish and invertebrates. Sedimentation could displace the more mobile species and 

potentially smother benthic invertebrates, decreasing prey availability for fish. These effects could 

degrade the quality of the habitat, making it unsuitable for spawning and rearing activities. Impacts from 

open-cut construction would be temporary and limited to the crossing location and areas immediately 

downstream. Impacts would generally be limited to a few days, and generally no longer than one month 

after construction ends, depending on conditions at the crossing, the type and amount of suspended 

sediment, and other factors. 

The dam-and-pump crossing method could also be used to cross project waterbodies. This 

crossing method would maintain water flow and decrease impacts from turbidity and sedimentation. 

Temporary impacts from sedimentation and turbidity would generally be limited to periods of active 

construction within a waterbody. Benthic invertebrates located in an area where water is diverted would 

experience direct adverse impacts. Larger, more mobile species would experience little to no impact 

through use of the dam-and-pump method. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross 30 waterbodies using the HDD method (see appendix G). 

Successful use of an HDD crossing would avoid direct impacts on the waterbody. In the event of a fracout, or a release of drilling fluid during an HDD into a waterbody, benthic invertebrates could be 

smothered and the more mobile species could be displaced. These impacts would be minimized by 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-77 

Rockies Express’ continuing geotechnical evaluations of the waterbodies to determine the suitability of an 

HDD crossing and implementation of its HDD Contingency Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007d). 

Rockies Express may require blasting activities in or adjacent to 53 perennial waterbodies along 

the Project right-of-way. Rockies Express has agreed to file a site-specific Blasting Specification Plan 

with the FERC before beginning any construction where blasting would be required within each 

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide. If instream blasting is required, aquatic organisms close to blasting 

activities could be injured or killed. Temporary and minor impacts on aquatic resources from blasting 

activities would be expected. However, the preparation for blasting may cause enough disturbance to 

displace many aquatic organisms from the immediate vicinity of blasting activities. Rockies Express 

would immediately remove all blasted rock from the area to prevent any obstruction or slowing of stream 

flows. 

Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures contains measures that would minimize construction 

impacts on fish and aquatic/streambank habitat. Temporary erosion controls, such as silt fences and 

strawbales, would be installed immediately after vegetation removal, and rootstock would be left in the 

ground where possible to promote revegetation. Rockies Express would also take measures to improve 

the probability of successful revegetation within disturbed areas, as described in its Plan and Procedures. 

Erosion and sediment control measures would prevent sediment from leaving the construction site 

and entering waterbodies. Impacts on the fisheries from erosion would also be minimized by limiting the 

amount of time that construction activities would take within a waterbody. Minor waterbodies (less than 

10 feet wide) and intermediate waterbodies (10 to 100 feet wide) would be crossed in 24 or 48 hours, 

respectively. Major waterbody crossings (greater than 100 feet across) would require a site-specific 

crossing plan. Additionally, streambanks would be stabilized within 24 hours after construction has been 

completed. 

The withdrawal of hydrostatic test water has the potential to affect fisheries from entrainment and 

loss of prey organisms, as well as through the loss of fish and invertebrates during early life stages. 

Rockies Express would withdraw water from local waterbodies for hydrostatic testing (see section 4.3.6 

for details about potential withdrawal locations). The intakes for these withdrawals would be screened 

and located off the stream bottom to minimize the intake of large or benthic organisms and sediment. 

Impacts on fisheries from hydrostatic test water withdrawals would be limited by Rockies 

Express adhering to its Procedures. Specifically, Rockies Express would maintain adequate flow rates in 

order to protect fisheries and generally try to locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and 

riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, our recommendations in sections 2.3.1, 

4.7.1, and 4.8.5 would further limit impacts on fisheries from hydrostatic test water withdrawals. 

After the integrity of the pipeline is established, the untreated hydrostatic test water would be 

discharged back into the source waterbody, if allowed by permit. Otherwise, hydrostatic test water would 

be discharged to upland areas. Water used from municipal or industrial sources would also be discharged 

into well vegetated upland areas. If discharge rates are not carefully controlled, the discharge of large 

volumes of hydrostatic test water into surface waters could temporarily affect the biological uses of the 

resources. Hydrostatic discharges could result in a change in water temperature and dissolved oxygen 

levels, cause an increase in downstream flows and turbidity levels, and contribute to streambank and 

substrate scour. To minimize impacts, Rockies Express would discharge the water at a rate between 

2,000 and 5,000 gpm through an energy-dissipating device to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, and increased downstream flow. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-78 

Fuels and other hazardous materials could spill or leak from storage containers, equipment 

working in or near streams, or fuel transfers. Any spill that reaches a waterbody would be detrimental to 

the fisheries. The chemicals released during spills could have acute, direct effects on fish, or could have 

indirect, chronic effects such as altered behavior, changes in physiological processes, or changes in food 

sources. Large spills also could cause the direct mortality of species within the waterbody and indirect 

effects on the local food chain through ingestion of contaminated prey. To minimize the potential for 

spills, Rockies Express would implement its SPCC Plan Citation (FERC eLibrary, 2007e), which 

specifies preventive measures such as training the personnel that handle fuel and hazardous materials, as 

well as regular equipment inspection and maintenance. Rockies Express would designate restricted 

refueling areas in locations where the typical 100-foot buffer between fueling activities and waterbodies 

could not be maintained. Any activities required in the restricted areas would be verified and approved by 

the EI. If a spill were to occur, adherence to measures in Rockies Express’ SPCC Plan Citation (FERC 

eLibrary, 2007e) would reduce the time Rockies Express would need to control and cleanup a spill, thus 

avoiding or minimizing the effects of a spill on fisheries resources. 

Impacts on fisheries through the resuspension of contaminated sediments would be similar to 

those discussed above. No waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project are listed on the EPA’s 

CERCLIS database of Superfund Information Systems, which list superfund sites, or the EPA’s National 

Priority List, which lists known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants (EPA, 2007b). 

We believe through the use of HDD crossing methods where practicable and implementation of 

the Rockies Express Procedures and our recommendations, impacts on fisheries resources during 

construction of the Project would be minimized. No impacts on fisheries resources would be expected as 

a result of pipeline operations. 

4.6.2 Fisheries of Special Concern 

Fisheries of special concern would include those areas containing exceptional recreational or 

commercial fisheries, specially designated streams or rivers, and waterbodies supporting threatened or 

endangered aquatic species. The REX East Project would cross 51 fisheries of special concern, including 

one waterbody on the border of Missouri and Illinois, one in Illinois, six in Indiana, and 43 in Ohio. 

Information on fisheries of special concern that would be crossed by the Project is provided in table 

4.6.2-1. Threatened or endangered species that occur in these waterbodies are discussed in section 4.7. 

Waterbodies that are listed as having ORVs are listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) and 

discussed in section 4.3.5. 

The season in which construction takes place can influence the degree of impacts associated with 

instream activities. Construction during periods of sensitive fish activity (i.e., spawning and migration) 

could have a greater impact on fish than construction during other periods. Several agencies have 

recommended construction timing restrictions at fish-bearing waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

pipeline. These timing restrictions are designed to prevent disturbance on fish spawning activities and 

limit destruction of instream habitat. As stated in Rockies Express’ Procedures, instream construction 

activities at warmwater fisheries must occur from June 1 to November 30, unless otherwise permitted or 

restricted by the applicable agency. The ILDNR has recommended that construction not be conducted in 

waterbodies within Illinois between March and June to avoid the spawning periods of local fish. INDNR 

has recommended that construction not be conducted in waterbodies within Indiana between April 1 and 

June 30 without the prior written consent of the Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. Rockies Express 

has agreed to adhere to the recommendations of the ILDNR and the INDNR. We believe that adherence 

to these timing restrictions would reduce impacts on the fisheries resources within these waterbodies. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-79 

Table 4.6.2-1 

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project 

Waterbody 

Crossing 

Location 

(MP) a/ 

Width

(feet) 

Waterbody

Type 

Proposed

Crossing

Method b/ 

Reason for 

Designation c/ 

Missouri/Illinois 

Mississippi River 43.2 1,500 Perennial HDD SSS–FC Spectaclecase 

Illinois 

Embarras River 202.9 50 Perennial HDD Biologically significant 

stream 

Indiana 

Big Walnut Creek 281.5 56 Perennial Open-cut ORV–recreation, SSS–

FE clubshell 

Sugar Creek 337.9 40 Perennial Open-cut ORV–ecology, SSS–FE 

clubshell, and INE 

rabbitsfoot 

Big Blue River 340.8 160 Perennial HDD ORV–ecology 

Flatrock River 362.7 60 Perennial Open-cut ORV–ecology, SSS–FE 

clubshell 

Whitewater River 393.1 60 Perennial HDD ORV–ecology and 

recreation, 

SSS–INE variegate 

darter, and INE 

cobblestone tiger beetle 

Little Cedar Creek 394.7 30 Perennial Open-cut SSS–INE variegate 

darter 

Ohio 

Dry Fork Whitewater River 407.2 50 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Lick Run 411.8 7 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Lick Run 412.0 15 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Four Mile Creek 421.6 278 Perennial HDD ORV–recreation and fish, 

EWH 

Seven Mile Creek 422.7 45 Perennial HDD SSS–OHT tongue-tied 

minnow 

Great Miami River 430.7 293 Perennial HDD ORV–recreation, EWH 

Tributary to Clear Creek 448.4 15 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Newman Run 451.2 3 Intermittent HDD EWH 

Little Miami River 451.3 60 Perennial HDD EWH, SSS–OHE 

snuffbox, and OHT 

fawnsfoot 

Tributary to Little Miami River 451.9 3 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 451.9 6 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 452.0 4 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 452.0 3 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 452.3 2 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 452.5 13 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 452.6 8 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 453.3 2 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 453.4 1 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-80 

Table 4.6.2-1 

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project 

Waterbody 

Crossing 

Location 

(MP) a/ 

Width

(feet) 

Waterbody

Type 

Proposed

Crossing

Method b/ 

Reason for 

Designation c/ 

Tributary to Little Miami River 453.4 3 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.1 4 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.2 8 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.4 7 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.4 3 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.5 7 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.5 10 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 454.7 7 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 455.0 2 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 455.0 14 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 455.2 10 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Miami River 455.2 2 Ephemeral Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Shaffers Run 455.4 3 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Sandy Run 458.3 10 Intermittent Open-cut EWH 

Caesar Creek 459.6 134 Perennial HDD Foraging and spawning 

habitat, EWH 

Deer Creek 499.6 100 Perennial HDD Foraging and spawning 

habitat 

Big Darby Creek 509.2 170 Perennial HDD EWH, SSS–FE northern 

riffleshell/ OHE snuffbox/ 

OHT fawnsfoot 

Scioto River 514.6 200 Perennial HDD SSS–FE northern 

riffleshell/ 

FE clubshell/ 

OHE rabbitsfoot/ 

OHE longsolid 

Walnut Creek 515.9 90 Perennial HDD EWH 

Turkey Run 520.2 20 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Tributary to Little Walnut 

Creek 

520.5 15 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Little Walnut Creek 526.6 30 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

Muskingum River 577.2 420 Perennial HDD SSS–OHT fawnsfoot 

Southfork Captina Creek d/ RR 2010 

MP 619.8 + 5.5 

NA NA Open-cut EWH 

Brushy Creek 626.3 20 Perennial Open-cut EWH 

____________________ 

a/ Mileposts (MP) based on a desktop analysis of the proposed pipeline route (may not match those found in Wetland and Waterbody reports) 

b/ HDD = horizontal directional drilling 

c/ ORV=outstandingly remarkable value, EWH=exceptional warmwater habitat, SSS=special status species, FE=federally listed endangered, 

INE=Indiana-listed endangered, OHE=Ohio-listed endangered, OHT=Ohio-listed threatened, FC=federal candidate 

d/ Waterbody is found in the Barnesville reroute and has not been field surveyed. NA = Not Available. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-81 

The REX East Project would cross two Ohio waterbodies with significant spawning 

aggregations—Caesar Creek (MP 459.6) and Deer Creek (MP 499.6). Caesar Creek is one of the larger 

tributaries to Caesar Creek Lake, providing spawning runs for white bass. Likewise, Deer Creek is the 

headwater of Deer Creek Lake and an important tributary for white bass spawning runs. White bass 

migrate upstream to spawn in late April through May. As proposed, impacts on Caesar Creek and Deer 

Creek would be avoided by Rockies Express implementation of the HDD crossing method. Rockies 

Express would conduct HDD crossings to avoid impacts on an additional 13 fisheries of special concern. 

Big Walnut Creek, Sugar Creek, Big Blue River, Flatrock River, and Whitewater River are 

designated as having ORVs for outstanding ecological importance. Big Walnut Creek and the 

Whitewater River also have ORVs for recreation. Big Blue River and Whitewater River would be 

crossed using the HDD method, which would eliminate direct impacts on the waterbody if the HDD is 

successful. Rockies Express proposes to cross Big Walnut Creek, Sugar Creek, and Flatrock River using 

the open-cut method. Mitigation procedures for the open-cut method are described in section 4.3.4. 

However, as stated in section 4.3.5, we are recommending that Rockies Express cross Big Walnut Creek 

using the HDD method. 

We believe that a properly implemented waterbody crossing using an open-cut method, including 

adherence to specific construction time of year restrictions and other measures in the Procedures, would 

adequately minimize impacts to most aquatic resources and their instream impacts. Rockies Express 

currently proposes to open-cut 36 of the waterbodies considered to be fisheries of special concern. 

Rockies Express, as described in its Procedures, proposes to cross fisheries designated by a state as 

“significant” using a dry-ditch technique if the water-to-water width is 30 feet or less at the time of 

construction (unless otherwise permitted by the appropriate state agency). Dry-ditch techniques typically 

refer to the flume or dam-and-pump methods, but a bore or HDD may also be used. Because Rockies 

Express has not provided correspondence with state agencies approving an open-cut technique for any of 

the sensitive waterbodies, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express use a dry-ditch technique, such as flume, dam-and-pump, bore, or 

HDD, to cross any waterbodies that are considered fisheries of special concern with a 

wetted width less than 30 feet, as described in table 4.6.2-1. If a wet-crossing method 

would be used for waterbodies less than 30 feet, Rockies Express should file with the 

Secretary the proposed crossing method along with documentation of approval by the 

appropriate state agency prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-82

4.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Section 7 of the ESA requires the lead federal agency (the FERC) to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally 

listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the 

designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. The agency is required to consult with FWS to 

determine whether any federally listed or proposed species or any critical or proposed critical habitat may 

occur in the Project area, and to determine the potential effects of the proposed actions on these species or 

critical habitats. If the Project would adversely affect a listed species, the agency must report its findings 

to FWS in a BA. The BA would be prepared by the FERC and submitted to FWS, with a request for 

formal consultation as required by section 7 of the ESA. 

To comply with section 7 of ESA, Rockies Express, as the FERC’s non-federal representative, 

has been assisting the FERC by conducting informal consultation with FWS. The FERC also contacted 

and consulted with the FWS about which species under their respective jurisdictions would be potentially 

affected by the Project. In addition to FWS, Rockies Express consulted with the Natural Heritage 

Program and other appropriate state and local agencies to develop a list of state-listed special status 

species in the Project area. Based on these consultations, we developed a list of federally and state-listed 

species that could possibly occur in the Project vicinity. 

Rockies Express initially identified 23 federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate 

species as potentially occurring in the Project area. However, since the initial review started, 10 of those 

species are no longer being evaluated. The bald eagle has become delisted and is now discussed as a 

state-listed species. There is no habitat for the black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, blowout penstemon, and 

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid at the Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming, where these 

species could potentially occur. Similarly, there is no habitat for the black-footed ferret, interior least 

tern, piping plover, or pallid sturgeon at the Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska, 

where these species could potentially occur. The pink mucket pearly mussel and the sheepnose are no 

longer being evaluated, because the Project no longer crosses Morgan County, OH, where these species 

could potentially occur. Table 4.7-1 lists the 10 federally listed threatened or endangered species and 

three candidate species that may occur in the Project area. 

Rockies Express initially identified 27 state-listed threatened or endangered species as potentially 

occurring in the Project area. Sixteen of the 27 state-listed species were eliminated from detailed review 

because they are either transient in the Project area, are unlikely to adversely respond to temporary and 

permanent impacts associated with the proposed facilities, or were determined after the initial review, in 

consultation with the agencies, to probably not occur in the Project area. These species include: the big 

eye chub, little spectaclecase, black sandshell, butterfly mussel, bobcat, scarlet hawthorn, northern 

madtom, mountain madtom, Sloan’s crayfish, Carolina willow, upland sandpiper, rock ramalina, 

American badger, cobblestone tiger beetle, diffuse rush, and white wood-sorrel. The ODNR identified 

additional state-listed species in Ohio. 

A total of 15 state-listed species were identified as potentially affected by the Project, and are 

discussed in section 4.7.2. No state-listed threatened or endangered species would be affected by the 

Project in Carbon County, Wyoming, the location of the proposed Arlington Compressor Station. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-83

Table 4.7-1 

Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project area 

Species Federal Status State Status Counties/State Preferred Habitat 

Mammals 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)

E OH/E All counties crossed by the pipeline route Riparian and upland forests along 

proposed pipeline route

Birds 

Whooping crane (Grus Americana) 

E NE/E Phelps/NE; and IN and OH a/ Winter migrant that nests in wetlan

protective vegetation 

Reptiles

Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) 

C MO, IL, IN, OH/E Clinton, Fayette, Greene, and Warren/OH Crayfish burrows in wetland areas 

Mussels 

Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) 

E OH/E Greene, Pickaway, Fairfield/OH Prefers medium to small waterbod

sand or gravel substrate and low tu

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

E OH/E Muskingum/OH Prefers medium to large waterbod

sand or gravel substrate and low tu

Fat pocketbook (Potomalus capax) 

E Pike, Ralls/MO Found in deep pools of large wate

with silt, mud, and sand substrates 

Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) 

E OH/E Pickaway/OH Firm sand or gravel substrate in va

sized waterbodies and low turbidity 

Rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) 

C OH/E Pickaway, Warren/OH Headwater species that requires lo

turbidity 

Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) 

C IL/T Pike /MO and ILL Large rivers and low turbidity 

Plants 

Decurrent false aster (Boltonia decurens) 

T Pike (MO and ILL), Scott/ILL Prefers moist soil in open areas wi

regular disturbance 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 

T IL, OH/E All counties crossed by the pipeline in ILL. Requires full sunlight, inhabits tall 

calcareous silt/loam or sub-irrigateprairies, including calcareous wetla

Prairie bush clover (Lespedeza laptostachya) 

T All counties crossed by the pipeline in ILL. Found in tall-grass prairies or stee

that have not been converted to pr

Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) 

E Warren/OH Habitat generalist; requires moder

disturbance and cannot tolerate fufull shade 

_______________ a/ This includes an experimental migratory population 

T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered NA = Not applicable – determination does not apply to candidate species 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-84

4.7.1 Federally listed Species 

Indiana Bat 

Background 

The federally endangered Indiana bat is listed as occurring in all of the counties crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route. Since this species was first listed as endangered in 1967, populations have 

declined by nearly 60 percent (FWS, 2002b). The Indiana bat is a temperate, insectivorous, migratory bat 

that utilizes mines, caves, and wooded habitats. Indiana bats use a spectrum of forest habitats that are 

utilized by maternity colonies, as well as male and non-reproductive (juvenile) female Indiana bats. 

Indiana bats can travel up to 300 miles in search of caves that provide the necessary habitat for 

hibernation. It hibernates in mines and caves from mid-October to April and later disperses to reproduce 

and forage in spring and summer in various forested areas associated with streams. The mines and caves 

provide stable cold temperatures. In late March to early June, females leave the caves and migrate to 

roosting areas (ODNR, 2007b). Individuals may roost under the bark of trees in riparian and upland 

forests, generally near perennial waterbodies. During the summer, maternity colonies typically occur 

behind sloughing bark or in cavities, often in, but not limited to, dead trees. Indiana bats forage on insects 

in and around the tree canopy of floodplain, riparian, and upland forests. Waterbodies associated with 

floodplain forests and impounded bodies of water such as ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands are sometimes 

considered preferred foraging habitats for bats (FWS, 2006e). Population declines are caused primarily 

by human disturbance during hibernation and the loss of suitable hibernacula (FWS, 2002b). 

FWS has identified important habitat for this species near the Wabash River, Sugar Creek, Big 

Raccoon Creek, Big Walnut Creek, West Fork White River, and Big Darby Creek along the pipeline 

route. FWS additionally noted that the Indiana bat can be found among the Mississippi River islands and 

floodplain and within the floodplain areas of the Illinois side of the Mississippi River. FWS maintains 

that summer foraging and roosting habitat is likely to be present throughout the Project area (FWS, 

2006c; FWS, 2006d; FWS, 2006e). FWS specifically identified important habitat for this species 

surrounding the Wabash River, Sugar Creek, Big Raccoon Creek, Big Walnut Creek, the West Fork 

White River, and Big Darby Creek. Mississippi River islands and their associated floodplains, as well as 

the Mississippi River floodplains in Illinois along the pipeline route (FWS, 2006d; 2006b). 

There are 11 caves/mines designated as critical habitat for the Indiana bat, including the Blackball 

Mine in LaSalle County and the Slick Crawl Cave in Pike County, Illinois; the Big Wyandotte Cave in 

Crawford County and Rays Cave in Greene County, Indiana; Cave 021 in Crawford County, Caves 009 

and 017 in Franklin County, Pilot Knob Mine in Iron County, Bat Cave in Shannon County, Frankford 

Cave in Pike County, and Cave 029 in Washington County, Missouri. In the counties crossed by the REX 

East Project, there is one record of a Priority IV hibernaculum in Pike County, Missouri (Frankford Cave, 

located 8.5 miles from the REX East centerline), and one historic winter record of Indiana bats in Pike 

County, Illinois (Slick Crawl Cave, located 17.4 miles from the proposed centerline), both of which are 

designated as critical habitat. 

Human activities are a major cause of declining bat populations. Clusters of hibernating bats are 

highly susceptible to disturbance and vandalism. The clearing of forests decreases the amount of summer 

foraging and roosting habitat available to the Indiana bat. Rockies Express would minimize the amount of 

tree cutting and removal in areas documented as Indiana bat habitat. 

Rockies Express completed an Indiana bat survey to include mist net collection sites and roost 

site identification along the Project right-of-way. The mist surveys were conducted from May 14 through 

August 16, 2007. Forty sites were identified as potential habitats for the Indiana bat. An additional 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-85

17 sites are still being analyzed by FWS to determine whether mist surveys would be necessary. These 

17 sites are located in Edgar County, Illinois; Morgan, Johnson, Shelby, Decatur, and Franklin Counties, 

Indiana; and Butler, Warren, Pickaway, Fairfield, and Muskingum Counties, Ohio. Access was denied by 

the landowner for two areas along the route: one habitat unit is located in Pike County and a second 

habitat unit is located in Belmont County. Surveys have yet to be completed in these areas. Rockies 

Express would assume the presence of good Indiana bat habitat within these areas until all surveys are 

complete, as requested by FWS. Forty sites were surveyed and 26 Indiana bats were counted during the 

survey (table 4.7.1-1). 

Table 4.7.1-1 

Indiana Bat Survey Results 

County, State Habitat ID Sex and Maturity of 

Bats Found 

Number of 

Roosts 

Found 

Roosts Located Within Project 

Right-of-way 

Audrain, MO MO-1.0 2 adult females 1 Not located within ROW 

Pike, MO MO-3.0 2 adult females; 

4 adult males 0 No roosts found 

Pike, IL IL-1.0 1 juvenile female a/ 0 No roosts found 

Vermillion, IN IN-0.5 3 adult females 3 1 in ROW; 2 outside of ROW 

Parke, IN IN-11.0 5 adult females; 

2 adult males 5 None located within ROW 

Putnam, IN IN-18.0 1 adult female 

1 adult male 0 No roosts found 

Hendricks, IN IN-19.5 1 adult female; 

1 adult male 3 None located within ROW 

Franklin, IN IN-32.0 1 adult female 0 No roosts found 

Warren, OH OH-10.7 1 adult female 0 No roosts found 

Belmont, OH OH-33.0 1 adult female 1 Not located within ROW 

Totals 

 17 adult females 

1 juvenile female 

8 adult males 

13 roosts 

_______________ 

a/ Due to the small size of the juvenile female, a transmitter could not be attached, but the capture of a juvenile female could be 

an indicator of a maternity colony in the Project area. 

Impact Assessment 

Construction of the pipeline through forested areas known to or capable of supporting Indiana 

bats could result in direct and indirect impacts on the species. Potential direct impacts, or those that have 

immediate impacts on the species or occupied habitat, from the Project on Indiana bats could occur 

through changes to occupied foraging habitat, removal of or changes in potential roost trees in occupied 

habitat, injury or harm to individual bats, and/or disturbances near roosting bats. 

Potential indirect impacts, or those that are caused by or would result from the Project but occur 

later in time, could result from a reduction in potential roost trees, alterations to potential foraging areas 

or migration corridors, and forest fragmentation in potential roosting areas. Potential direct and indirect 

impacts are discussed in the following paragraphs. The discussions below focus on potential Project 

impacts on maternal roosts or reproductive female Indiana bats. Impacts on non-reproductive female or 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-86

male Indiana bats would generally be similar in nature, but typically on a lesser scale as those groups do 

not normally assemble in large colonies and utilize a wider range of habitat since they can occupy trees 

with very limited suitable roost areas. 

As currently proposed by Rockies Express, construction of the REX East Project would start 

during the summer and fall of 2008. This construction period would conflict with FWS recommendation 

that potential roost trees be removed between October 1 and March 31 to avoid the summer roosting 

season for Indiana bats along the Project route. Removal of occupied roost trees between April 1 and 

September 30, when bats may occur along the proposed route, could cause injury or death. In addition, 

the noise associated with construction would disturb bats in the immediate vicinity of the construction 

corridor. 

Loss of maternity roost trees due to clearing incurs a loss of potential summer habitat to 

individuals. Rockies Express proposes that cleared materials such as limbs, brush, and debris be burned 

on site. The smoke from these activities could affect the Indiana bat. Roost trees are by nature, 

ephemeral, changing from season to season in condition. As historically used roost trees are lost due to 

human disturbance or natural events (e.g., wind damage), bats are required to locate alternate roost trees. 

Given that locating alternate roost trees is a typical process for Indiana bats and that the bats typically 

utilize more than one roost tree per season, and up to 20 alternate sites, roost tree availability for maternal 

colonies is not likely to be a limiting factor for occupation within an area, even if a primary roost tree is 

lost. Nonetheless, bats seeking roost trees may be under additional physical stress, potentially during a 

critical time when females are pregnant. However, this stress is not expected to rise to the level of failed 

reproduction or death (FWS, 2007a). Additionally, although roost trees are present in the construction 

right-of-way, no known maternal colony roost trees are present within the construction right-of-way or 

would otherwise be directly affected by the Project. 

Project-related construction activities could directly expose roosting bats to noise and vibrations 

caused by tree clearing activities and pipeline construction equipment. The response of Indiana bats 

exposed to these disturbances while roosting could range from no perceivable response to avoidance of 

the area. In the biological opinion developed for the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) 

Statewide Transportation Program (FWS, 2007a), FWS notes that linear ODOT projects that occur in 

previously disturbed areas within existing roadways would likely have existing vehicle noise and 

additional noise from construction would not likely elicit a measurable response from roosting Indiana 

bats in the surrounding landscape. Although the REX East Project would not be built within road rightsof-way, the route does traverse areas with fairly intensive agricultural use which requires regular seasonal 

use of heavy equipment in open areas surrounding forested stands. Equipment activity in agricultural 

areas, although not particularly heavy in mid-summer, can be regular during the late spring, when bats are 

expected to be returning to roost sites and young are born. 

During May to August 2007, Rockies Express conducted surveys and delineated areas where 

Indiana bat occurs, in accordance with FWS recommendations. The survey included a review of forested 

stands in field surveys, identifying the surrounding landscape, tree diameter, and snag or live-tree 

presence. Trees were also observed for exfoliating bark and/or cavities for potential roosts. Secondly, the 

survey identified areas as low-, medium-, and high-quality habitat based on field reviews which will be 

verified by FWS personnel. Thirdly, Rockies Express conducted mist net surveys as recommended by 

FWS. The mist net surveys were conducted from May 14 through August 16, 2007. Forty sites were 

identified as potential habitats for the Indiana bat. 

Thirteen roost locations were identified during the 2007 survey efforts. Nine are located near a 

road, active agricultural field, or occupied residence, all of which receive at least some level of equipment 

use or activity during the entire summer or at least during the spring roost lactating stage. See table 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-87

4.7.1-1. Of the 40 sites completely surveyed, 26 Indiana bats were counted during the mist net surveys. 

These survey results are identified in table 4.7.1-1. In these areas, it is unlikely that disturbance 

associated with construction activity would cause abandonment or even an alteration in bat use of the 

area. One of the remaining four roosts is within a pasture while the three other roosts were identified 

towards the interior of a forested stand. Only roost trees IN-291A and IN-291C occur in close enough 

proximity to potentially be disturbed by construction activities associated with the Project and only roost 

tree IN-291A would be considered a primary roost tree (≥ 30 bats on more than one occasion according to 

Callahan, et al. 1997). 

With the exception of activities associated with horizontal directional drills of major waterbodies, 

no lights or noise would occur in any areas after dusk or before dawn. Directional drills require 

continuous operation to facilitate successful completion of the bore, reaming, and pull back portions of 

the process. Lights and noise associated with these activities are not expected to affect foraging or 

roosting by Indiana bats, but directional drills would reduce the amount of forested area that would be 

impacted at the waterbody crossings as drill entry and exit pads were generally located outside of riparian 

forests. Construction of the pipeline and use of HDD methods would temporarily increase noise levels. 

This could temporarily deter the Indiana bat from using the Project area during construction activities, 

which would be a short-term adverse affect. The bat would be anticipated to return to the area once 

construction has been completed. 

Fragmentation of forest habitat used for foraging or migration may contribute to population 

declines, as it reduces the area individuals can safely traverse without the heightened threat of predation 

(FWS, 2006d; FWS, 2002e). Additionally, a reduction in the amount of forest habitat available in the 

general vicinity of roost trees or foraging areas, if substantial, could alter use patterns in an area or 

preclude use of an area altogether. 

In order to better understand potential landscape level changes in areas where reproductively 

active female Indiana bats were captured in 2007 and per a recommendation by FWS, Rockies Express 

evaluated the amount of forested area surrounding each mist net site (based on National Land Cover 

Database, 2001) where a reproductively active female Indiana bat was captured. Specifically, Rockies 

Express placed a 2.2-mile-diameter circle around the mist net site and calculated the amount of forested 

area within the circle. Rockies Express then calculated the amount of forested area within the circle that 

would be affected by construction and operation of the REX East Project, see table 4.7.1-2. 

To understand potential impacts on identified roost trees along the route, Rockies Express 

evaluated the amount of forested area surrounding each maternity roost tree within approximately 1 mile 

of the proposed centerline using the same methodology as that described above for mist net sites. Impacts 

were calculated separately such that impact values presented in table 4.7.1-2 for mist nets and roost trees 

are overlapping and should not be considered cumulatively. 

As shown in table 4.7.1-2, almost 37 acres of forest could be temporarily removed within 

1.1 miles of a location where a reproductively active female Indiana bat was captured during the 2007 

field effort (TEH-MN-IN-388B). Up to 11 acres (TEH-MN-IN-388B) of forest would be permanently 

removed (based on a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way maintained in uplands and 10-foot-wide rightof-way maintained in wetlands). By county, the percent change in current forest area and forest area 

following construction in the areas surrounding successful mist net sites ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 percent, 

averaging less than 0.5 percent per area. During a field visit with FWS to one of the sites where a female 

Indiana bat was captured in Ohio (TEH-MN-OH-458A), FWS acknowledged that a pipeline corridor 

through an already fragmented area would not likely alter bat use of the area. Given the fragmented 

nature of the landscape surrounding the majority of the areas where female Indiana bats were captured, 

this minimal reduction in forest is not expected to have a measurable effect on bat use. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-88

Table 4.7.1-2 

Forested Areas and Expected Impacts Around Mist Net Sites Where Reproductively Active Female 

Indiana Bats Were Captured and Associated Roost Trees Along the REX East Project

 Mist Net Sites Roost 

State/County 

Habitat 

ID 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2 milediameter of Mist 

Net (acres) a/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

diameter Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres) a/, b/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

diameter Area 

Affected During 

Operation 

(acres) a/, b/ 

Permanent 

Reduction in 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

Diameter Area of 

Mist Net Site a/, b/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2 

mile diameter of Roost Tree 

(acres) a/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

diameter Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres) a/, b/ 

MISSOURI 

Audrain MO-1.0 331.6 3.1 0.7 0.2% 224.9 0.9 Pike MO-3.0 455.1 8.9 2.6 0.6% No roost tre

ILLINOIS 

Pike IL-1.0 899.0 18.4 3.3 0.4% No roost tre

INDIANA 

Vermillion IN-0.5 666.4 5.3 1.6 0.2% 984.0 11.1 Putnam IN-18.0 979.7 c/ 27.7 c/ 6.4 c/ 0.7% c/ 1,235.3 c/ 27.7 c/ Putnam IN-18.0 855.3 15.2 3.8 0.4% Hendricks IN-19.5 355.3 3.4 0.8 0.2% 377.5 3.4 Franklin IN-32.0 1,569.1 36.5 11.0 0.7% No roost tre

OHIO 

Warren 922.5 13.2 3.9 0.4% No roost treBelmont 1,324.0 28.0 7.0 0.5% Not appl

_______________ a/ Forested area is based on National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2001. 

b/ Amount of forest impacts is based on the proposed construction and operation rights-of-way combined with the NLCD, 2001 data. 

c/ This area encompasses two overlapping 2.2-mile-diameter circles around two mist net sites where Indiana bats were captured and multiple roost trees. Con

was considered to be half the total presented. 

d/ This roost was an occupied residence located more than 1.1 miles from the right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-89

For the four areas where roost trees were identified within 1.1 miles of the proposed centerline, 

the forest area that would be affected by construction ranges from 0.9 acre (TEH-RT-MO-00A) up to 

approximately 14 acres (TEH-RT-IN-272/273 series), and based on the operational right-of-way, between 

0.2 acre (TEH-RT-MO-00A) and 3.2 acres (TEH-RT-IN-272/273 series) of forest could be permanently 

altered. The percent change in current forest area and forest area following construction in the areas 

surrounding identified roost trees ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 percent, averaging less than 0.2 percent. Similar 

to successful mist net sites, the minimal reduction in forest around identified roosts is not expected to 

have a measurable effect on bat use. 

Some areas were not available for mist net survey during the 2007 effort due to a lack of access. 

Additionally, some areas have not yet been evaluated to determine if potential roost trees are present or if 

mist net surveys are necessary. Areas where mist net surveys are required but surveys were not 

completed in 2007 are listed in table 4.7.1-3. Rockies Express evaluated these areas similar to those 

containing maternity roost trees (see table 4.7.1-2). The 2.2-mile-diameter circle was centered on an 

assigned point on the pipeline rather than a maternity roost. A maternity roost is not likely to occur at 

each of these locations, but for purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that a roost tree would be 

identified within 1 mile of the centerline in areas near other sites where Indiana bats were captured during 

the 2007 survey. Based on this assumption, it is anticipated that roost trees would be identified near route 

re-alignments across the Wabash River in Vermillion County, Indiana and around the Barnesville 

Reservoir in Belmont County, Ohio. 

Table 4.7.1-3 

Forested Area and Expected Impacts Surrounding Areas Where Mist Net Surveys 

Could Not be Completed During 2007 

State/County 

Number of Mist 

Net Sites to be 

Completed 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

Diameter of 

Roost Tree 

(acres) a/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

diameter Area 

Affected During 

Construction 

(acres) a/, b/ 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

diameter Area 

Affected During 

Operation 

(acres) a/, b/ 

Permanent 

Reduction in 

Forested Area 

Within 2.2-mile 

Diameter Area 

a/, b/ 

Pike, MO 1 918.0 23.3 4.9 0.5% 

Pike, IL 1 764.2 6.4 4.4 0.6% 

Vermillion, IN 2 2,119.6 26.5 8.8 0.4% 

Fayette and Pickaway, OH 2 743.6 12.3 6.3 0.8% 

Belmont, OH 3 2,484.2 53.7 14.5 0.6% 

_______________ 

a/ Forested area is based on National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2001. 

b/ Amount of forest impacts is based on the proposed construction and operation rights-of-way combined with the NLCD, 2001 data.

Up to 23.3 acres of forest could be temporarily removed within 1.1 miles of a location where mist 

net surveys need to be completed. Up to 4.9 acres of forest would be permanently removed (based on a 

50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way maintained in uplands and 10-foot-wide right-of-way maintained in 

wetlands) within 1.1 miles of a location where mist net surveys need to be completed. The percent 

change in current forest area following construction in the areas surrounding successful mist net sites 

ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 percent, averaging about 0.6 percent per area. Given the fragmented nature of the 

landscape surrounding the majority of the areas where mist netting is to occur, even if Indiana bats are 

captured at each location, this minimal reduction in forest is not expected to have a measurable effect on 

bat use. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-90

In addition, because of the distance from the REX East Project and the designated critical habitat, 

(8.5 miles and 17.4 miles from the REX East centerline, respectively), the Project would not affect or 

alter designated critical habitat. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

During a visit with FWS to a site where two female bats were captured in 2007 (TEH-MN-MO00A/TEH-RT-MO-00A), FWS expressed concern about an extra workspace planned for the area that 

would facilitate the crossing of Littleby Creek at MP 1. The proposed workspace was located within the 

forested stand where the bats were captured and the roost tree was located. Although the workspace 

would not directly impact the roost tree, FWS indicated that a reduced right-of-way through the forest 

stand would help minimize potential impacts on the character of the area. After reviewing the crossing 

location, the construction footprint in the area has been revised from 1.1 acres to 0.5 acre, a reduction of 

0.6 acre of forest impact. 

Rockies Express has proposed to limit specific construction activities (clearing, trenching, 

welding, backfilling, and grading) within 300 feet of roost trees identified during the 2007 field surveys 

from one-half hour before dawn to one-half hour before dusk. This would be in effect for the period of 

tree clearing restriction as identified by FWS (May 15 - September 30) in order to minimize potential 

impacts on foraging Indiana bats during construction. Rockies Express believes that this timing 

restriction would allow ample time for bats to return to roost trees at dawn and time for bats to emerge 

from roosts at dusk. To minimize the potential impacts on the Indiana bat, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express, in consultation with 

FWS and the COE, should develop a project- and site-specific tree clearing plan for the 

Indiana bat that includes the location of any potential maternity roost trees in or 

adjacent to the construction corridor. For forested wetlands, Rockies Express should 

develop the project- and site-specific tree clearing plan for the Indiana bat that includes 

that location of any potential maternity roost trees in or adjacent to the construction 

corridor in consultation with FWS and COE. 

 

• During construction, trees, limbs, brush, and debris should not be burned in the rightof-way within 500 feet of potential Indiana bat habitat to avoid smoke impacts on 

Indiana bats.

All forested habitat along the right-of-way would be considered Indiana bat habitat whether or not 

Indiana bats are currently using these areas. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express not use herbicides or pesticides for maintenance of the permanent 

right-of-way or adjacent forested areas, regardless of whether Indiana bats are present, 

for the life of the Project. 

Rockies Express stated that mist net surveys would be conducted before construction occurs in 

areas where mist net surveys were not completed during 2007 survey efforts. If potential roost trees are 

identified during these efforts, Rockies Express would evaluate the areas to determine habitat quality and 

determine if mist net surveys are warranted, and if so conduct these surveys in accordance with the survey 

methodology approved by FWS. Rockies Express would not construct in these areas until appropriate 

authorizations and concurrences are obtained from FWS and the FERC. 

The potential exists for roost trees to be located within or immediately adjacent to the 

construction right-of-way. However, because the locations of active roost trees may not be known until 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-91

after construction begins and because Indiana bats may switch roost trees and occupy a potential roost 

tree on the right-of-way even after surveys, construction activities could inadvertently disturb a tree being 

used by roosting Indiana bats. Indiana bats in a tree disturbed by construction would be expected to 

vacate the tree and avoid being harmed; however, harassment of the bats would be considered “take” 

under provision of the ESA. If roost trees are identified adjacent to or along the edge of the right-of-way, 

Rockies Express would attempt to avoid the tree during construction. Further, if positive results for 

Indiana bats are determined (i.e. roost tree identification, foraging habitat) Rockies Express would not 

conduct tree clearing within a 300 foot radius unless otherwise approved by FWS and the FERC until 

after September 30, 2008. To further minimize the potential impacts on the Indiana bat, we recommend 

that: 

 

• Prior to construction, Rockies Express not begin construction or cut or remove trees 

until: 

a. Staff have reviewed the results of the Indiana bat surveys, habitat analysis, and any 

comments from FWS regarding the proposed action; 

b. Staff complete any necessary consultation with FWS for the Indiana bat; and 

c. Rockies Express has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction or use of mitigation may begin. 

Adherence to the recommendations presented in section 4.3, Water Resources, relating to sitespecific crossing plans that identify specific restoration and mitigation measures, alternative routes and 

crossing methods, and HDD contingency plans would minimize some of the impacts on the Indiana bat. 

Determination of Effect 

Based on the above discussion and survey information identifying the presence of Indiana bat 

habitat and individuals, we believe the Project is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat and its habitat. 

However, we believe that based on the location of the designated critical habitat from the 

proposed REX East Project corridor, the Project would have no effect on the hibernacula (the designated 

critical habitat) during construction or operation of the Project. 

Whooping Crane 

Background 

The whooping crane is a federally endangered species. The populations of whooping cranes 

utilize the Texas Gulf coast, including Arkansas NWR, Texas, and Bosque del Apache NWR, New 

Mexico, and migration and staging areas through northwestern Montana, the western half of North 

Dakota, central South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and east-central Texas, and a non-migratory 

population in Florida. In addition, a nonessential experimental population of whooping cranes was 

established by FWS. FWS stated that this population migrates between Wisconsin where it summers and 

Florida where it winters (50 CFR 17). Therefore, the whooping crane may have a migratory or staging 

area presence in the Project area at the Bertrand Compressor Station site in Phelps County, Nebraska, as 

well as in portions of Ohio and Indiana. There are five areas of Critical Habitat designated for the 

whooping crane, located in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Iowa, primarily on federal and state 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-92

wildlife management lands. These areas provide roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat for whooping 

cranes as they migrate between their breeding and wintering grounds. 

Whooping cranes generally arrive at their Canadian breeding grounds during late April and 

conduct their southward migration from the breeding grounds from mid September to mid October. They 

are normally on their wintering grounds in the southern United States by mid November. They use a 

variety of habitats during migration including croplands for feeding and large palustrine wetlands for 

nesting. They are also known to roost in riverine habitat, most notably the Platte River, Middle Loup 

River, and Niobrara River in Nebraska; Cimarron River in Oklahoma; and the Red River in Texas. 

Cranes also roost on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels that are isolated from human 

disturbance (NatureServe, 2006). The whooping crane nests in areas around wetlands and shallow ponds 

that have dense vegetation. Females lay eggs in late April to mid May. During migration whooping 

cranes eat grains and small plants from agricultural fields, acorns, berries, insects, and crustaceans. 

Threats to this species include loss of habitat to agriculture, shortened breeding season, collision with 

obstructions during migration, predation, and mortality caused accidentally or intentionally by humans 

(FWS, 2005a). 

Impact Assessment 

The Bertrand Compressor Station site is not located near any designated critical habitat and is 

comprised of agricultural rangeland, which although would be considered marginal foraging habitat, 

could be used by individual whooping cranes during migration. However, additional suitable and higher 

quality foraging habitat is located adjacent to and in the general area surrounding the site. Also, no 

wetlands or waterbodies would be affected by construction of the compressor station. Therefore, Rockies 

Express does not anticipate that whooping cranes typically use the proposed compressor station site 

during migration nor would individuals being encountered during construction. Additionally, as 

discussed in a meeting with FWS, Nebraska ESO on August 23, 2006, Rockies Express was not required 

to survey for this species at the Bertrand Compressor Station site (FWS, 2006f). No surveys have been 

required by FWS at the proposed compressor station site in Nebraska. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

FWS commented on the possibility of encountering the whooping crane during construction of 

the Bertrand Compressor Station. Rockies Express would immediately stop construction and contact 

FWS, and appropriate protection measures would be developed and implemented (FWS, 2006f). 

Due the presence of the nonessential experimental population that migrates between Wisconsin 

and Florida passing over portions of Indiana and Ohio, and FWS recommendation that construction 

should stop immediately if an encounter occurs, we recommend that: 

• During construction, if any whooping cranes are encountered in the immediate vicinity 

during construction of the pipeline or other aboveground facilities in Indiana and Ohio, 

construction should immediately stop in that area, FWS and the FERC should be 

contacted, and appropriate protection measures would be developed and implemented. 

Protection measures should be developed in coordination with FWS. 

Determination of Effect 

Due to the low likelihood of this species being encountered during construction, Rockies Express’ 

commitment to halt construction and correspond with FWS to develop appropriate protection measures if 

an individual is identified near the compressor station site during construction, and the FERC 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-93

recommendation, we have determined that the REX East Project would not likely adversely affect the 

whooping crane. 

Eastern Massasauga 

The eastern massasauga is a candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered. This snake 

species has the potential to occur along the route in Clinton, Fayette, Greene, and Warren Counties, Ohio, 

and is state-listed as endangered in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. It inhabits marshy areas, wet 

prairies, sloughs, vegetation around marshes and lakes, and floodplains of major rivers (FWS, 1998). 

Crayfish burrows are the most common hibernacula for this species. The eastern massasauga has been 

observed within one mile of the Project, in the vicinity of MP 457.9. Hibernacula may exist within 2 

miles of a sighting (ODNR, 2003). 

Landscape fragmentation is expected to result from construction of the Project. As the right-ofway is cleared, open landscape would be present. Although it would be revegetated within 3 years, 

during those 3 years it is possible that the snake would either not use the land or could be easily open to 

predation. However, long-term impacts to the snake population are not expected. Operational impacts 

are not anticipated during the life of the Project. 

Provided hibernacula are avoided if encountered or mitigated for, it is unlikely that this species 

would be adversely impacted. Currently Rockies Express is consulting with FWS regarding appropriate 

mitigation measures during construction to avoid impacts to the snake. These measures could include 

timing restrictions or exclusionary fencing near wetlands determined to be eastern massasauga habitat in 

the four documented counties. Rockies Express would also provide training for its workers and prohibit 

killing or harassment of wildlife. 

Rockies Express consulted with ODNR to determine whether surveys would be needed. The 

ODNR has recommended habitat assessments for the eastern massasuga during fall of 2007, with possible 

follow-up surveys in suitable habitat areas during spring and summer 2008. 

The impact on this species cannot be determined until all surveys and consultation with the 

ODNR have been completed. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary, the completed habitat assessment for the eastern massasauga snake along 

with FWS comments on the habitat survey. 

Mussels and Mussel Beds 

Background 

Four federally listed endangered mussel species (fat pocketbook, clubshell, northern riffleshell, 

and fanshell), and two federally listed candidate mussel species (rayed bean and spectaclecase) have the 

potential to occur along the pipeline route. Three of the four federally endangered species are known to 

occur in Ohio: the clubshell, northern riffleshell, and fanshell. The fourth, the fat pocketbook is known 

to occur in Missouri (FWS, 2006c;e). Mussel larvae, or glochidia, attach themselves to the gills or fins of 

specific fish species. The parasitic relationship minimizes the larval mortality rate by offering protection 

from increased turbidity and predation, as well as a food supply from the water passing though the gills. 

Juveniles eventually drop from the host and mature to adults (Bruenderman, 2002). Juveniles could be 

dispersed to areas with undesirable environmental conditions, thus increasing their mortality. Adult 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-94

mussels typically live on the waterbody floor. Mussels have specific habitat preferences and some cannot 

withstand bottom types other than preferential substrate. 

Fat Pocketbook

• The fat pocketbook is known to occur in Pike and Ralls Counties, Missouri. This freshwater 

mussel is generally found in deep pools of large waterbodies, typically over a mixture of silt, 

mud, and sand (FWS, 1997d; MDC, 2000a). The fat pocketbook prefers sand, mud, and fine 

gravel bottoms of large rivers. It buries itself in the substrates in water ranging in depth from 

a few inches to 8 feet (INHS, 1997a). Within Pike and Ralls counties, Missouri, it is known 

to occur only in three rivers in these counties, none of which would be crossed by the Project. 

In addition, according to NHI Data supplied by the MDC, there are no known observations of 

the mussel within 1 mile of the pipeline route (MDC, 2006). 

Clubshell

• The clubshell, known to occur in only 13 waterbodies throughout its range, has been 

identified in the following counties crossed by the Project route: Greene, Pickaway, and 

Fairfield Counties, Ohio. It is sensitive to disturbance and inhabits areas with low turbidity in 

medium to small waterbodies with loose sand or gravel substrate (FWS, 1997a). This species 

prefers clean, loose sand and gravel in medium to small rivers and streams. This mussel 

would bury itself in the bottom substrate to depths up to 4 inches. It has been identified in 

Sugar Creek, the Flatrock River, Scioto River, and Deer Creek State Park (ODNR, 2006b). 

Northern Riffleshell

• The northern riffleshell is known to occur in Pickaway County, Ohio, where it inhabits firm 

sand or gravel substrates in waterbodies of varying size (FWS, 1997e). This species is found 

in a variety of streams from small to large. It buries itself in bottoms of firmly packed sand 

or gravel. Reproduction requires stable, undisturbed habitat and sufficient host fish for food 

(FWS, 1997e). Dams and reservoirs have flooded most of this mussel’s habitat, reducing its 

preferred gravel sand habitat. Natural heritage data identified it in Big Darby Creek and the 

Scioto River. Rockies Express’ August 2007 survey identified two weathered specimens in 

Walnut Creek (MP 515.9). According to FWS, northern riffleshell is extirpated from Walnut 

Creek and it is not unusual to find weathered shells in streams where mussel species once 

lived. 

Fanshell

• According to the Ohio natural heritage data, the fanshell is known to occur in Muskingum 

County, Ohio. This species is found in medium to large rivers with sand or gravel substrate 

of moderate current (FWS, 1997c). No known populations have been recorded along the 

Project. 

Rockies Express completed surveys for each mussel species along the Project right-of-way and 

did not identify any federally listed mussels species along the Project right-of-way. In May 2007, FWS 

approved a Proposed Mussel Survey Protocol in Ohio and a Proposed Mussel Survey Protocol in the 

Mississippi River prepared by Rockies Express. Rockies Express completed surveys for listed mussel 

species in all waterbodies greater than 20 feet in width crossed by the proposed Project in Ohio during the 

summer of 2007. Of the 87 waterbodies in Ohio qualifying for survey, 70 were surveyed during the 

survey season. The remaining 17 waterbodies were not surveyed due to lack of access by landowners. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-95

No federally listed threatened or endangered mussel species were found during surveys and none of the 

17 waterbodies where survey was denied are known or suspected to contain listed mussel species. In 

addition, through discussions between Rockies Express and FWS, FWS recommended that Rockies 

Express not conduct mussel surveys in Big Darby Creek because another pipeline project with a nearby 

proposed crossing location completed a survey within the waterbody before Rockies Express. FWS later 

indicated that the other survey did not identify listed mussels at Big Darby Creek. In the Mississippi 

River, Rockies Express had experienced malacologists survey the dredge site for mussels and mussel beds 

in May 2007. The survey documented 337 live unionids representing 13 species within the survey area; 

however, no federally threatened or endangered species were encountered. 

Impact Assessment 

Mussels are sensitive to heavy loads of silt, which affect mortality by changing the substrate type. 

Disturbance from construction activities would be short term, as crossing of intermediate waterbodies 

would take approximately two days and minor crossings would take one day. All of the perennial 

waterbodies would be crossed primarily by HDD methods, except for those listed in appendix G, which 

would avoid/minimize impacts to mussels. As requested by FWS, Rockies Express would avoid 

construction activity between April 15 and June 15 in waterbodies containing freshwater mussel beds. 

Rockies Express would implement its Procedures to reduce turbidity and siltation in all 

waterbodies crossed by the Project (FERC eLibrary, 2007b). Procedures for reducing turbidity and 

siltation include: installation of sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way to prevent 

the flow of sediments into the waterbody, and the use of trench plugs at all waterbody crossings to 

prevent the diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline trench. Rockies Express would 

implement measures in its HDD Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007b) at 

HDD crossings to prevent impacts from unexpected frac-outs during HDD operations. 

Following pipeline installation, hydrostatic testing would be performed at the waterbodies listed 

in table 4.3.6-1. To prevent negative impacts on mussels and mussel beds, the test water would be 

withdrawn close to crossing locations. Intake screens would be used to limit or prevent the entrainment 

of mussels, and discharged water would be deposited on upland areas or back into the water body. The 

water uptake rate would be regulated to prevent adverse impacts on the aquatic resources, specifically 

focused on not notably altering downstream instream flows. Energy dissipating devices such as hay bale 

filters or sediment bags would be used to reduce the velocity of the water returning to the streams or 

rivers and limiting the suspended material and associated turbidity of the water. Rockies Express would 

comply with all permit requirements. Minor impacts from negligible decreases in instream flows and 

increases in turbidity are anticipated from withdrawal and release of hydrostatic test water. At test 

locations with known species sightings, Rockies Express would consult with FWS and implement 

mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts on the mussel species. Specific impacts to each mussel 

species are as follows: 

Fat Pocketbook

• Due to the heavy sediment loads regularly transferred throughout the Mississippi River, the 

dredging of 4,500 cubic yards on the eastern side of Blackburn Island would have a minor 

impact on the turbidity in the Mississippi River. 

Clubshell 

• According to information provided by the ODNR, clubshell populations have been identified 

in Big Darby Creek, Sugar Creek, Scioto River, and within Deer Creek State Park, all of 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-96

which would be crossed by the Project (ODNR, 2006e). Big Darby Creek, the Scioto River, 

and Deer Creek would be crossed using the HDD method; therefore, no instream impacts 

associated with pipeline construction are anticipated. 

However, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would require the intake and discharge of water 

from Big Darby Creek, Sugar Creek, Scioto River, and Deer Creek. The intake of water from 

these creeks and the river could directly impact the mussels by entrainment of the glochidia, 

juvenile mussels, or the ichthyoplankton of the host fish or indirectly impact the mussels due 

to water quality degradation or reduction in water quantity in the creek as discussed above. 

Northern Riffleshell

• NHI data identified historical populations of the northern riffleshell in the Scioto River and 

Big Darby Creek (FWS, 2006e). The Scioto River and Big Darby Creek would be crossed 

using the HDD method and no instream impacts associated with pipeline construction are 

anticipated. 

However, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would require the intake and discharge of water 

from Big Darby Creek and Scioto River. The intake of water from the creek and river could 

directly impact the mussels by entrainment of the glochidia, juvenile mussels, or the 

ichthyoplankton of the host fish or indirectly impact the mussels due to water quality 

degradation or reduction in water quantity in the creek as discussed above. 

Fanshell

• Of the perennial waterbodies crossed in Muskingum County, four may be large enough to 

support fanshell populations. However, no known records of fanshell have been reported 

within one mile of the pipeline route (ODNR, 2006e). 

• Hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would require the intake and discharge of water from the 

perennial waterbodies. The intake of water from the waterbodies could directly impact the 

mussels by entrainment of the glochidia, juvenile mussels, or the ichthyoplankton of the host 

fish, or indirectly impact the mussels due to water quality degradation or reduction in water 

quantity in the creek as discussed above. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Adherence to the recommendations presented in section 4.3, relating to site-specific crossing 

plans that identify specific restoration and measures, alternative routes and crossing methods, and HDD 

contingency plans would reduce some of the impacts on the mussels and mussel beds. In addition to the 

recommendations presented in section 4.3, to further reduce potential impacts on the fat pocketbook, 

clubshell, northern riffleshell, and/or fanshell mussels, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing contingency plans for the waterbodies that are 

surrounded by floodplains that provide important Indiana bat habitat, and that would 

be crossed using the HDD method, such as the Mississippi River, Wabash River, Big 

Raccoon Creek, Big Walnut Creek, and West Fork White River. Should HDD fail at 

one of these crossings, the new crossing procedure and mitigation measures should be 

completed in consultation with FWS, and the results should be filed with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-97

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for the Sugar Creek at 

MP 484.3. 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing contingency plans for the Scioto River and Deer 

Creek. If HDD fails at these crossings, the new crossing procedures and mitigation 

measures should be developed in consultation with FWS. Results of such consultations 

should be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP. 

• During construction, Rockies Express not withdraw hydrostatic test water from 

waterbodies where endangered mussels or glochidia/host fish or juveniles could be 

directly impacted. 

In addition, 16 sites were not surveyed because of unsafe field conditions (Moxahala Creek in 

Perry County, Ohio), or time constraints (Paint Creek in Fayette County, Ohio). Final determination of 

the impact on mussel species cannot be made until all surveys and consultations with FWS have been 

completed. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the Secretary 

completed mussel survey reports for the federally listed mussel species, documentation 

of its consultation with FWS and ODNR, and conservation measures necessary to 

minimize impact to mussel beds. 

If listed mussels are identified in waterbodies yet to be surveyed, Rockies Express would 

coordinate with FWS to relocate the mussels out of instream construction work areas to areas of suitable 

habitat upstream of the crossing location. 

Determination of Effect 

Due to the low likelihood of any mussel species being present at any of the river crossings, the 

construction measures and hydrostatic testing methods that would be employed, where survey were 

conducted, and the FERC recommendations, we have determined that the REX East Project would not be 

likely to adversely affect the fat pocketbook, the clubshell, the northern riffleshell, or the fanshell mussels. 

Candidate Species - Rayed Bean and Spectaclecase Mussels 

The rayed bean and spectaclecase are candidate mussel species for federal listing. The rayed 

bean mussel is a headwater species in Warren and Pickaway Counties, Ohio, and FWS has identified the 

spectaclecase as present in the Mississippi River. 

Rockies Express would cross the Mississippi River by HDD, which would avoid any direct 

impacts to mussels or mussel beds. However, limited dredging in the river would be required to install 

the pipeline by HDD. Dredging operations would temporarily increase sediment loads in the water and 

could affect mussels and mussel beds. 

Rockies Express employed qualified malacologists to survey for the presence or absence of 

mussels in the waterbodies. Surveys for each species occurred from June 1 through August 31, 2007. No 

federally listed candidate species of concern were found during the surveys conducted in Missouri or 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-98

Ohio. The Missouri mussel survey report was filed with the Secretary on August 14, 2007. The Ohio 

mussel survey report was filed with the Secretary on August 27, 2007. 

Given the results of the Rockies Express mussel and mussel bed surveys and the conservation 

measures generated through consultation with FWS, we believe it is unlikely that there would be an 

adverse impact on these federal candidate species. 

Running Buffalo Clover 

Background 

The federally endangered running buffalo clover was assumed to be extinct until 1985, when two 

populations of the species were discovered in West Virginia. Running buffalo clover require open habitat 

in rich soils between open forest and prairies. They cannot tolerate full sun or full shade. The species 

requires moderate, periodic disturbance, but it is intolerant to severe disturbances. Successful colonies of 

running buffalo clover can be found in woodlots, mowed areas such as parks and cemeteries, along 

streams and trails, and on the fringe of forests and bottomland meadows (FWS, 1992; 2003). 

Once presumed extirpated within the area affected by the Project, running buffalo clover is now 

found in isolated populations in Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio (DOI, 2005). This species is known to exist 

in areas with appropriate habitat within Warren County, Ohio. The pipeline route crossing of Warren 

County is predominantly comprised of agricultural land, which is unlikely to sustain populations due to 

severe disturbance and exposure and according to information provided by the ODNR, there are no 

known occurrences of this species within one mile of the pipeline route (ODNR, 2006e). 

In order to determine species presence in the Project area and in accordance with FWS 

recommendations, Rockies Express conducted a survey of areas of suitable habitat along the pipeline 

route. On April 26, 2007, the Reynoldsburg ESO provided approval of Rockies Express’ proposed 

survey protocol for the running buffalo clover (FWS, 2006e). Following the plan approved by FWS, 

Rockies Express completed species-specific surveys during the flowering season in 2007, between midApril and June, for the entire route in Warren County with the exception of 11 parcels for which property 

access was denied by landowners. No running buffalo clover individuals or populations were found. As 

stated in the Running Buffalo Clover Survey Report, submitted to FWS in August, 2007, it is unlikely 

that the species occurs in areas of denied access due to suspected poor habitat quality. 

Impact Assessment 

Although records of known occurrences for this species are scarce, areas may be present along 

the pipeline route with the appropriate habitat for running buffalo clover. Based on the results of running 

buffalo clover presence/absence surveys conducted during the flowering season in 2007 and the suspected 

lack of occurrence along the areas of the route yet to be surveyed, Rockies Express believes this species 

would not be impacted by the Project. Additionally, few areas of suitable habitat were identified during 

the survey efforts and of the areas remaining for survey, few are expected to provide suitable habitat. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If individuals or populations of this species are identified during surveys of remaining parcels in 

Warren County, Ohio, Rockies Express stated that it would coordinate with FWS to evaluate potential 

measures to avoid or minimize impacts on the species, such as fencing off plants, transplanting 

individuals, or modifying the construction right-of-way configuration. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-99

No individuals were identified during these surveys. However, 11 of the 75 sites were not 

surveyed because access was denied by the landowners. No surveys were conducted between MP 439.4 

and 452.7. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the Secretary 

the completed survey report for the running buffalo clover along with FWS comments 

on the survey. 

Rockies Express proposes to fence off plants to avoid impacts if running buffalo clover 

populations are encountered during construction. Therefore, we recommended that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a diagram of 

the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to running buffalo clover plants from 

the fence for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Determination of Effect 

Due to the incomplete survey information, we cannot make a final determination for the running 

buffalo clover. However, we believe it is possible that the impact on this species will be minimal. 

Decurrent False Aster 

Background 

The federally threatened decurrent false aster is a big river floodplain species that primarily 

inhabits wetlands and borders of marshes, lakes, oxbows, and sloughs. This species reportedly favors 

sites characterized by moist soil and regular disturbance, which maintains open areas with high light 

levels. Seeds are dispersed primarily by floodwater (MDC, 2000a). Excessive siltation is a major cause 

of this species’ decline. Highly intensive agricultural activities in the region have increased topsoil 

runoff, which smothers seeds and seedlings (FWS, 1997b). Habitat destruction from floodplain 

conversion, channeling of rivers, flood-control measures, and wetland drainage has also contributed to 

reductions of decurrent false aster populations. 

The decurrent false aster has been recorded in Pike County, Missouri, and in Pike and Scott 

Counties, Illinois. NHI database records indicate that the decurrent false aster has not been observed 

within 1 mile of the pipeline route (MDC, 2006a; ILDNR, 2006). However, suitable habitat for this 

species is present in the counties listed above at the Salt, Mississippi, Sny, and Illinois River crossings 

and may also occur in non-riparian areas. 

Impact Assessment 

Construction activities in aquatic and associated floodplain areas could increase sediment 

suspension and downstream displacement, and may contribute to reductions in this species’ reproductive 

success. Temporary impacts on floodplain and river-shore wetlands would occur during staging and 

trenching activities. Rockies Express anticipates no permanent impacts on areas with suitable habitat for 

the decurrent false aster, as no aboveground facilities would be built on floodplains or river-shore 

wetlands in the counties with populations of this species. 

Temporary impacts on suitable habitat, including trampling and soil mixing, may occur during 

staging and construction activities associated with the Project. Individual plants, in part or in whole, may 

be unintentionally removed during construction activities if located in the right-of-way and not 

appropriately identified prior to construction activities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-100

Determination of Effect 

In a meeting held on April 2, 2007, the Marion ESO stated that since the Illinois River, the 

primary area of concern for this species, would be crossed by the REX East Project using the HDD 

method and associated floodplain impacts would be avoided, no impacts on the decurrent false aster are 

expected (FWS, 2007e). Similarly, in an email dated June 26, 2007 from the Columbia ESO, it was 

established that the REX East Project was unlikely to affect the decurrent false aster in Missouri and as 

such, surveys were unnecessary (FWS, 2007b). In addition, if populations are encountered during 

construction, Rockies Express would attempt to fence off the plants to avoid impacts. No surveys were 

required by FWS for the decurrent false aster along the proposed pipeline route. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If decurrent false aster populations are encountered during construction, Rockies Express would 

attempt to fence off the plants to avoid impacts. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express conduct pre-construction surveys for 

decurrent false aster, and file with the Secretary the survey report and if necessary, a 

diagram of the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to plant from the fence 

for review and written approval by the director of OEP. If avoidance is not possible, 

Rockies Express should consult with FWS to develop mitigation measures for this 

species. 

Determination of Effect 

Due to avoidance of the floodplain associated with the Illinois River and a lack of others of 

potential occurrence of the species along the Project corridor, consultations with FWS, adherence to 

Rockies Express procedures, and our recommendations, the REX East Project is not likely to adversely 

affect the decurrent false aster. 

Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid 

Background 

The eastern prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened orchid that occurs in a wide variety of 

habitats, from mesic prairie to wetlands such as sedge meadows, marsh edges, and bogs. This species 

requires full sun and herbaceous habitat with little or no woody encroachment, and may benefit from 

disturbances that expose the soil to this orchid’s seeds, and reduce competition from established plants 

(FWS, 1999). The orchid colonizes areas that have natural patch areas of disturbance or continual 

disturbance events. The eastern prairie fringed orchid requires soil fungi and fire regimes for seeds to 

establish. Mature seed capsules are wind dispersed between late August and late September (FWS, 

2005b). Individual plants regenerate from tubers, which are dormant during the winter (FWS, 1989a). 

This orchid is listed as potentially occurring statewide in Illinois, in all counties containing 

dry/mesic/wet prairies. Historically, Illinois contained the largest population of this species, which 

extended across 33 counties in the northern two-thirds of the state. Known populations currently 

concentrate in the six counties surrounding the Chicago area (FWS, 1989a). Historically threatened by 

the conversion of habitat to cropland, the eastern prairie fringed orchid is currently most threatened by the 

drainage and development of wetlands as well as competition from non-native species (FWS, 2005b). 

According to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (ILDNR) NHI database, there are no known 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-101

occurrences of this species within 1 mile of the pipeline route and there are no prairie regions in the 

general area of the Project (ILDNR, 2006). 

Impact Assessment 

In a meeting held on April 2, 2007, the Marion ESO confirmed that it had no concerns about the 

REX East Project affecting listed plant species in Illinois (FWS, 2007e). In addition, if populations are 

encountered during construction, Rockies Express would attempt to fence off the plants to avoid impacts. 

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

No surveys were required for the eastern prairie fringed orchid along the proposed pipeline route 

by FWS. If populations are encountered during construction, Rockies Express would attempt to fence off 

the plants to avoid impacts. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a diagram of 

the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to prairie fringed orchid plants from 

the fence for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Determination of Effect 

Because this species is not expected to be present along the Project corridor, and based on 

consultations with FWS, adherence to Rockies Express procedures, and our recommendations, the REX 

East Project is not likely to adversely affect the eastern prairie fringed orchid. 

Prairie Bush Clover 

Background 

The federally threatened prairie bush clover is often found on the north-facing slopes of dry 

upland prairies. It is endemic to the tall-grass prairie region of the upper Mississippi River Valley in Iowa, 

Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Throughout this region, the prairie bush clover is known to occur in 

23 counties, where it is restricted to fewer than 40 sites (FWS, 2006g). 

This clover is listed as potentially occurring statewide in Illinois in areas containing 

dry/mesic/wet prairies. However, roughly 90 percent of all known plants occur within a “core area” 

located in Iowa and Minnesota (CPC, 2000). In all 13 known Illinois populations, a total of 

approximately 250 plants remain. The rarity of this endemic species can be attributed primarily to the 

loss of tall-grass prairie habitat, specifically mesic to dry prairie (FWS, 2006h). Surviving populations 

occur primarily in areas that were not converted to cropland because the terrain is too steep or rocky 

(FWS, 2006g). 

Impact Assessment 

According to the ILDNR NHI database, there are no known occurrences of this species within 1 

mile of the pipeline route and there are no prairie regions in the general area of the Project (ILDNR, 

2006). In a meeting held on April 2, 2007, the Marion ESO confirmed that it had no concerns about the 

REX East Project affecting listed plant species in Illinois (FWS, 2007e). No surveys were required along 

the pipeline route by FWS. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-102

Compensation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If the clover is found, Rockies Express would consult with FWS to determine the appropriate 

conservation measures. This could include exclusionary fencing or plant relocation. If encountered, 

Rockies Express would also control nonnative and noxious weeds during revegetation and would initiate 

no-mow periods in late summer. 

If populations are encountered during construction, Rockies Express would attempt to fence off 

the plants to avoid impacts. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a diagram of 

the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to prairie bush clover plants from 

the fence for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Determination of Effect 

Because this species is not expected to be present along the Project corridor, and based on 

consultations with FWS, adherence to Rockies Express procedures, and our recommendations, the REX 

East Project is not likely to adversely affect the prairie bush clover. 

Conclusion 

Based on informal consultation with FWS, 10 federally listed threatened or endangered species 

were identified as potentially occurring in the general vicinity of (within the counties crossed by) the 

Project. Based on a review of the Project data and the results of the surveys completed to date, the FERC 

has made preliminary determinations on the affect to each of the 10 federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. The preliminary determination by species is listed in table 4.7.1-4. 

Table 4.7.1-4 

Summary of Assessment of Project Impacts on Listed Species

Species Listed Status Preliminary Determination 

Indiana bat Endangered Likely to adversely affect 

Whooping crane Endangered Not likely to adversely affect 

Clubshell Endangered Not likely to adversely affect 

Northern riffleshell Endangered Not likely to adversely affect 

Fanshell Endangered Not likely to adversely affect 

Fat pocketbook Endangered Not likely to adversely affect 

Running buffalo clover Endangered Pending 

Decurrent false aster Threatened Not likely to adversely affect 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid Threatened Not likely to adversely affect 

Prairie bush clover Threatened Not likely to adversely affect 

Of the 10 federally listed threatened and endangered species, the Project may adversely affect one 

species, the Indiana bat, and a final determination is still pending on one species, the running buffalo 

clover. We have determined that the Project is not likely to adversely affect the remaining eight species. 

After Rockies Express has completed all threatened and endangered species surveys and the FERC 

has reviewed the survey data, we would initiate formal consultation with FWS on the Indiana bat 

and potentially for the running buffalo clover. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-103

4.7.2 State-listed Species 

Rockies Express consulted with MDC, ILDNR, INDNR, and ODNR regarding state-listed 

species. State-listed species in the REX East Project area that are also federally listed are discussed in 

section 4.7.1 (see table 4.7.2-1). 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle is listed as threatened in Illinois and as endangered in Indiana, and Ohio, and 

Missouri. Wyoming lists the bald eagle as a species of concern. Historically, populations of bald eagles 

were drastically reduced principally due to low productivity as a result of the bioaccumulation of 

pesticides. Since the banning of organochlorine pesticides, bald eagle numbers have been increasing. 

Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle will no longer be federally listed as threatened in the lower 48 

states. However, protection is provided to bald eagle under the BGEPA and the MBTA and will continue 

to remain in place after the species is delisted. The BGEPA and MBTA, known collectively as the “Eagle 

Act” prohibit “disturbance” of eagles, their nests, or eggs. For a detailed discussion of the bald eagle and 

the Project’s potential impacts see section 4.5.3. 

Greater Prairie Chicken 

The greater prairie chicken is listed as an endangered species in Missouri. Historic populations of 

greater prairie chicken have been identified in Audrain County between MPs 1.1 and 3.4, 3.7 and 6.9, and 

16.5 and 17.7. Rockies Express has consulted with the MDC and no preconstruction surveys are 

required. It has been noted that if active leaks are discovered along the proposed route, Rockies Express 

would consult with MDC on appropriate conservation measures. Rockies Express notified 34 landowners 

within potential greater prairie chicken habitat areas to determine if the bird had been identified in the 

Project area. No notified landowners responded with any sightings. The MDC concurs with Rockies 

Express that no further actions are necessary to address the occurrence of the greater prairie chicken 

within the proposed route. 

Provided conservation measures are put in place and leaks, which are seasonal and recurrent, are 

not disturbed, it is unlikely that the Project would adversely affect the greater prairie chicken. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

The loggerhead shrike is endangered in Indiana and threatened in Ohio. Grassy areas with 

scattered shrubs and trees are preferred habitat for this songbird species. The loggerhead shrike uses edge 

habitat with nests along roads, hedgerows, or fence rows in agricultural areas. Indiana historic records 

indicate occurrence of the species near MP 257.5. Ohio historic records place this species along the 

proposed route near MP 478.3 and on the 1-mile distance between MPs 511.4 and 512.4. The ODNR has 

not requested surveys. 

Rockies Express consulted with the ODNR on measures to reduce impacts to the loggerhead 

shrike. The ODNR has requested that Rockies Express avoid construction in grassland or prairie habitat 

during its nesting season April 1 through August 2. Rockies Express is continuing its consultation with 

ODNR. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-104

Table 4.7.2-1 

State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project area 

Species State Status Counties/State Preferred Habitat 

Birds 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

IL/T 

MO, IN, OH/E 

All counties crossed by the pipeline route 

Potential roosting, nesting, and feeding habitat occur along Project route. 

No

Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) 

MO/E Audrain/MO Prefers prairie grasslands No

Loggerhead shrike (Lainus ludovicianus) 

IN, OH/E Clinton, Fayette, Greene, 

Pickaway, and Warren Counties/OH 

Uses edge habitats along roads or fence rows in 

agricultural areas. 

Eliminated from cowith the INDNR. 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

OH/E Greene, Muskingum/OH Wetlands, meadows, prairies, and cultivated 

fields 

No

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) 

OH/E Muskingum/OH Wetlands near rivers, ponds, lakes, and forested 

areas with open canopies 

No

Amphibians

Eastern hellbender OH/E Muskingum/OH Prefers large, swift-flowing rivers with large, flat 

rocks for nesting 

Fish

Toungetied minnow (Exoglossum laurae) 

OH/T Butler/OH Rocky pools and runs in Seven Mile Creek No

Variegate darter (Etheostoma variatum) 

IN/E Franklin/IN Stream riffles with swift currents and large cobble 

to small boulder substrates 

No

Mussels 

Fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis) 

OH/T Warren, Pickaway, Muskingum/OH Large rivers with sand or gravel substrate and low 

turbidity 

No

Long-solid (Fusconaia subrotunda) 

OH/E Pickaway/OH Clear waterbodies with swift current over gravel 

substrate and low turbidity 

No

Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical) 

IN, OH/E Johnson and Shelby/IN, 

Pickaway/OH 

Clear waterbodies with swift current over gravel substrate and low turbidity 

No

Sharp-ridged pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata) 

OH/E Pickaway/OH Large rivers with coarse sand or gravel No

Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) 

IN, OH/E Johnson and Shelby/IN, Warren, 

Pickaway/OH 

Prefers medium- to large-sized waterbodies with clear water over gravel substrate and low turbidity 

No

Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa) 

OH/E Pickaway/OH Large rivers with slow current and mud or 

mudgravel substrate 

No

Plants 

Drummond’s aster (Aster drummundii) 

OH/T Pickaway/OH Prefers semi-open areas, but intolerant of 

overshading; thrives in maintained areas 

No

_______________ T = Threatened E = Endangered 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-105

Northern Harrier 

The northern harrier is an endangered bird in Ohio. It nests and hunts in wetlands, meadows, 

prairies, and cultivated fields (NatureServe 2007). There are no historic records of the northern harrier 

within the project area. The ODNR has not requested surveys. 

Rockies Express consulted with the ODNR on measures to reduce impacts to the northern harrier. 

The ODNR has requested that Rockies Express avoid construction in grassland or prairie habitat during 

its nesting period between May 15 and August 1. Rockies Express is continuing its consultation with 

ODNR.

Trumpeter Swan 

The trumpeter swan is an endangered bird in Ohio. Preferred habitat for the swan includes 

wetlands near rivers, lakes, ponds, forested areas with open canopies, and prairies (FWS 2007g). 

Trumpeter swans build their nests close to the water, including: on the shore, small islands, or near beaver 

or muskrat lodges (FWS 2007g). This species of swan either does not migrate or migrates very short 

distances. The ODNR has not requested surveys 

Rockies Express consulted with the ODNR on measures to reduce impacts to the trumpeter swan. 

The ODNR has requested that Rockies Express avoid construction in wetland habitat during the swan’s 

nesting period of May 1 through August 1. Rockies Express is continuing its consultation with ODNR. 

Eastern Hellbender 

This species of aquatic salamander is threatened in Ohio. Historically it was found from New 

York State to Missouri and Arkansas. It takes up oxygen through tiny vessels in the skin and is therefore 

highly susceptible to pollution and turbidity within the water (Johnson and Briggler, 2004). 

Construction at waterbody crossings can increase turbidity in water. Increased turbidity can 

reduce the eastern hellbender’s ability to uptake oxygen. The ODNR has requested that Rockies Express 

conduct surveys for the hellbender in Muskingum County during fall 2007. If any of the species are 

found, Rockies Express would consult with the ODNR. All of the waterbodies in Muskingum County 

would be crossed by open-cut methods. Depending on potential survey results and agency consultation, 

we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for waterbody crossings in 

Muskingum County that contain eastern hellbenders. 

Tonguetied Minnow 

The tonguetied minnow is listed as threatened in Ohio. The preferred habitat for this species 

includes rocky pools and runs in creeks and small to medium-sized rivers that have vegetation or other 

forms of cover. The tonguetied minnow has been observed in Seven Mile Creek near MP 422.7, and may 

also occur in the tributary to Seven Mile Creek. Loss of habitat due to siltation is the major cause of 

decline for this species (OJS, 1973). 

Rockies consulted with the ODNR on measures to reduce impacts to the tonguetied minnow. 

Rockies Express would avoid in-stream work between March 15 and June 30. The ODNR has not 

requested surveys. Rockies Express has not yet agreed to this construction window.

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-106

With the implementation of conservation measures established by ODNR, it is unlikely that this 

species would be adversely impacted by the Project. 

Variegate Darter 

The variegate darter is listed as endangered in Indiana. This fish is restricted to the Ohio River 

drainage in eastern Indiana and may exist in waterbodies crossed between MPs 382.1 and 398.4. 

Waterbodies in the Project area where this species potentially occurs include Big Cedar Creek, the 

Whitewater River, Little Cedar Creek, and their tributaries. 

Rockies Express conducted surveys for this species. No individuals were identified during the 

surveys. Because no individuals were encountered during the surveys, it is unlikely that this species 

would be adversely impacted by the Project. 

Mussels 

Rabbitsfoot Mussel 

The rabbitsfoot mussel is endangered in Indiana and Ohio. It may occur in the vicinity of MP 

337.9 in Indiana and MP 514.5 in Ohio. The rabbitsfoot was once widespread throughout the Ohio River 

and Mississippi River Valleys. Construction impacts such as increased sedimentation loads downstream, 

could affect either the host fish used by larval stages of the mussel or the substrate used by adults. The 

INDNR indicated in a meeting on January 10, 2007, that Youngs Creek and Sugar Creek were 

waterbodies of concern regarding the rabbitsfoot mussel. Ohio FWS has stated that Rockies Express 

should avoid construction activities in waterbodies containing freshwater mussel beds between April 15 

and June 15. 

The Scioto River in Ohio is proposed to be crossed by HDD; therefore, impacts to aquatic 

resources are not expected for that waterbody. However, Rockies Express is proposing an open-cut 

method to cross Sugar Creek and Youngs Creek, which would increase suspended sediment in the water 

column. We are recommending that Rockies Express conduct dry crossing of Sugar Creek in section 

4.7.1. Depending on potential survey results and based on agency consultation, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for Youngs Creek (MP 336.1) to 

minimize impact to rabbitsfoot mussel. 

Rockies Express conducted surveys of waterbodies in Indiana and Ohio, where suitable habitat 

for rabbitsfoot mussel were identified. No individuals were observed during the surveys. As discussed 

earlier, 17 sites in Ohio are yet to be surveyed because access was denied. 

With the implementation of our recommendations, we believe it is unlikely that there would be an 

adverse impact to the rabbitsfoot mussel. 

Snuffbox, Long-solid, Fawnsfoot, Washboard, and Sharp-ridged Mussels 

The snuffbox is a mussel that may occur in Ohio, where it is endangered, and inhabits 

intermediate to major rivers with clear, gravel riffles (INHS, 1997d). This species has been observed in 

the Little Miami River (south of MP 451.3) and Big Darby Creek (MP 509.2). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-107

The long-solid mussel is an endangered species in Ohio that occurs in major rivers with gravel 

substrates. Historic records indicate that the species has been identified in the Project area in the Scioto 

River (MP 514.6). 

The fawnsfoot is widespread and common throughout most of its range, preferring a sand or 

gravel substrate; however, it is listed as threatened in Ohio (INHS, 1997b). It has been observed in the 

Little Miami River (south of MP 451.3), Big Darby Creek (MP 509.2), and the Muskingum River (north 

of MP 577.3). 

The washboard is an endangered species in Ohio that occurs in major rivers with slow current and 

mud or mudgravel substrate (KDWP 2007). It is believed to be rare in the lower Big Darby River. 

The sharp-ridged pocketbook is an endangered species in Ohio that occurs in large rivers in 

course sand or gravel (INHS 1997c). It is believed to be rare in the Big Darby River. 

Construction at waterbody crossings can increase turbidity in water. Increased turbidity of the 

water can have detrimental effects on mussels. Clouding the water as sediment falls to the surface of the 

streambed can cover the mussel and make the environment inhospitable. Suspended sediment can also 

interfere with the lifecycle of the mussel. Big Darby Creek, the Little Miami River, Muskingum River, 

and Scioto River are known to contain these state-listed species in Ohio, and all of these waterbodies 

would be crossed by HDD. Therefore, direct impacts to mussels and mussel beds would be avoided in 

these rivers. 

Rockies Express conducted surveys from June 1 through August 31, 2007, in waterbodies where 

suitable habitat for the mussels was identified. No individuals were observed during the surveys. 

Therefore, we believe that the Project would not affect the mussel species of concern. 

Drummond’s Aster 

This species is threatened in Ohio. Historical records indicates occurrence of Drummond’s aster 

in the vicinity of MPs 510.1 and 510.2. At this location, a plant community has succeeded in the 

maintained right-of-way corridor through a wooded area. According to the ODNR webpage (ODNR, 

1984), its recovery potential is presumed good. 

Construction impacts related to destruction due to collision could result in mortality. Measures to 

ensure avoidance include a reroute if necessary—placing fencing around plants during construction—and 

consulting with agencies to determine conservation measures. Imported plants on equipment used for 

construction or maintenance during operation could also negatively impact the species. Noxious weeds 

are a threat to this species, and mechanical destruction due to mowing is also a concern. 

Rockies Express performed construction surveys during the week of October 8, 2007. However, 

surveys have not been filed to date. Rockies Express would fence off the plants found on the edge of the 

Project right-of-way during construction. If any species are found to lie within the Project right-of-way, 

Rockies Express would temporarily relocate the species and return it to its approximate locations after 

construction. We recommended that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP, pre-construction survey reports, ODNR comments on 

the survey, and a diagram of the fencing plan for the Drummond’s Aster, including the 

fence perimeter and distance to plants from the fence. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-108

With the implementation of our recommendations, the impact to Drummond’s aster would be 

minimized. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-109 

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The REX East Project would consist of approximately 639.1 miles of natural gas pipeline that 

would cross the states of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Aboveground facilities would include 

13 meter stations, seven compressor stations (including one in Nebraska and one in Wyoming), 36 MLVs, 

11 contractor/pipe yards, and 39.4 miles of access roads. 

This section examines the current uses of the land required for construction and operation of the 

Project, and evaluates the Project-related impacts. In general, lands required for construction would be 

temporarily impacted, while lands required for operation of the Project would be permanently impacted. 

The Project would cross several land use types, the majority of which are agricultural land. This section 

quantifies the acreage of each land use type that would be affected and discusses measures that would be 

taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate land use impacts. Impacts to recreational and special interest areas, 

as well as impacts on visual resources, are also presented. Detailed discussion of vegetation types along 

the Project route is presented in section 4.4, while discussion of waterbodies along the Project route is 

presented in section 4.3. 

For the discussion that follows, impacts are classified as temporary, short-term, long-term or 

permanent based on the time it takes them to recover to pre-construction conditions. Temporary impacts 

are defined as those impacts that would occur during the construction phase only. Short-term impacts 

would extend beyond the timing of construction but no longer than a period of three years. Long-term 

impacts require more than three years to recover but less than the expected lifetime of the project. 

Permanent impacts are defined as lasting as long as the life of the project or longer. 

4.8.1 General Land Use 

Land use and land cover types crossed by the pipeline and facilities include six primary types: 

agricultural, forested, industrial/commercial, residential, open land, and open water. Table 4.8.1-1 

presents the land use impacts that would occur from construction and operation of the Project. The 

primary land use that would be crossed by the pipeline route is agricultural (462.1 miles or about 72 

percent of the total pipeline route). Other land uses that would be crossed by the pipeline route include 

forest land (144.7 miles or 23 percent of the total pipeline route), open land (25 miles or less than 4 

percent of the total pipeline route), open water (1.6 miles or less than 1 percent of the total pipeline route), 

industrial/commercial land (4.0 miles or less than 1 percent of the total pipeline route), and residential 

land (1.3 miles or less than 1 percent of the total pipeline route). Of the estimated 14,348.9 acres affected 

by construction, 67 percent would be for the pipeline right-of-way and 29 percent for additional 

temporary workspaces. Aboveground facilities would impact approximately 149.3 acres (table 4.8.1-1). 

Approximately 59 percent of the pipeline (377.1 miles) would be collocated with existing pipeline rightsof-way. Following construction, lands used for temporary workspace and pipe and contractor yards, 

would be allowed to revert to their pre-construction use type. 

Approximately 99 percent of the Project route would cross privately owned land. One percent of 

the land crossed by the pipeline route is managed or owned by state agencies, federal agencies, or local 

municipalities. Negotiated easements would be used to confer rights-of-way by a landowner to the 

pipeline company, on either a permanent or temporary (usually for construction) basis. The easement 

would give the company the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline within a permanent or 

temporary right-of-way. In return, the company would compensate the landowner for its use of the land. 

Typically, an easement agreement between the company and landowner would specify compensation for 

loss of use during construction, loss of resources, damage to the property, and would specify allowable 

uses for the permanent right-of-way after construction is completed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-110 

Table 4.8.1-1 

REX East Project 

Summary of Land Uses Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project by State (in acres) 

Agriculture a/ Forested b/ 

Industrial/ 

Commercial c/ Residential d/ Open Land e/ Op

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Con

MISSOURI Pipeline g/ 516.8 206.8 112.9 45.1 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 16.5 6.6 4.6 Interconnects and Laterals h/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 211.9 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.1 Aboveground Facilities i/ 12.8 12.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 22.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 764.1 219.6 178.6 45.2 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 26.8 6.6 4.7 

ILLINOIS Pipeline g/ 2,623.3 1,049.5 217.7 87.3 11.8 4.7 2.6 0.9 95.4 38.2 5.8 Interconnects and Laterals h/ 5.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 1,090.7 0.0 86.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Aboveground Facilities i/ 21.2 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 65.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 3,806.3 1,073.8 304.0 87.3 15.1 4.7 2.6 0.9 101.5 38.2 5.8 

INDIANA Pipeline g/ 1,787.9 715.1 603.6 241.4 11.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 115.7 46.2 3.8 Interconnects and Laterals h/ 4.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 814.3 0.0 188.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 Aboveground Facilities i/ 26.9 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 62.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 2,696.0 744.3 793.0 241.4 11.7 4.5 0.1 0.0 117.4 46.2 4.0 

OHIO Pipeline g/ 2,072.1 828.7 1,257.7 503.0 36.4 14.7 18.1 7.2 157.3 63.0 10.6 Interconnects and Laterals h/ 18.1 11.8 3.3 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Additional Temporary Workspace 1,180.7 0.0 532.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 Aboveground Facilities i/ 48.3 48.3 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 Contractor/Pipe yards 74.6 0.0 30.8 0.0 28.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 

Subtotal 3,393.8 888.8 1,826.3 507.4 68.1 16.3 21.4 8.2 161.8 65.5 11.6 

NEBRASKA Aboveground Facilities 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-111 

Table 4.8.1-1 

REX East Project 

Summary of Land Uses Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project by State (in acres) 

Agriculture a/ Forested b/ 

Industrial/ 

Commercial c/ Residential d/ Open Land e/ Op

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Con

WYOMING Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 

Project Total 10,677.9 2,944.2 3,101.9 881.3 96.5 26.0 24.1 9.1 422.5 171.5 26.1 

___________________________ NOTE: The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the exact sum of the addends in all cases. Totals may be off by 0.1 

a/ Agricultural land consists of pasture/hay, row crops, and small grains. 

b/ Forest land consists mainly of deciduous and mixed forest and forested wetlands. Does not include shelterbelts or similar features associated with agricultural areas.

c/ Industrial/Commercial land consists of commercial/industrial developments such as utility stations, rock quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, and major railroad and road crossings (i.e., gr

d/ Residential land consists of existing and planned residential developments. 

e/ Open land consists of grasslands, non-farmed areas, and non-forested wetlands. f/ Open water consists of waterbody crossings 100 feet or greater in width. 

g/ Assumes a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in all locations. 

h/ Assumes a 70- to 120-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 45- to 75-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. i/ Includes construction and operational impact associated with the compressor stations and meter stations and access roads to compressor stations and meter stations. Because main

construction right-of-way, land use impacts are accounted for with the pipeline. However, because mainline valves would result in a land use conversion, aboveground totals include p

valves. Temporary pig launchers and receivers would be used within the area to be disturbed by the compressor stations. Therefore, land use impacts resulting from these facilities aimpacts for aboveground facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-112 

If an easement cannot be negotiated between the company and a private landowner, and the 

project has been certificated by the FERC, Rockies Express may use the right of eminent domain granted 

to it under Section 7(h) of the NGA and the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civic 

Procedure (Rule 71A) to obtain necessary right-of-way and extra workspace areas. In that event, Rockies 

Express would still be required to compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and damages that are 

incurred during construction. Under eminent domain, a court according to applicable state or federal law 

would determine the level of compensation, once Rockies Express had been issued a Certificate. In either 

case, Rockies Express would compensate landowners for use of their land. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Rockies Express has proposed a typical construction right-of-way width of 125 feet. The 

construction right-of-way would be reduced to 100 feet in wetlands. We have recommended that Rockies 

Express reduce the construction right-of-way to 75 feet in wetlands (see section 2.3.2). In addition to the 

pipeline construction right-of-way, Rockies Express proposes to use additional temporary workspaces at 

various points along the pipeline route. The pipe would generally be installed using the trenching method 

in upland areas. Other installation techniques, such as conventional boring or HDD methods, would be 

used to cross some water bodies, roads, and other areas in order to reduce construction-related impacts to 

these features. Section 2.0 provides a description of the different construction methods that would be 

utilized for the Project. The REX East Plan and Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007a,b) describe measures 

that Rockies Express would implement in order to minimize the impacts of construction on the land 

required for the Project. 

Following construction, a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be maintained by Rockies 

Express. The permanent right-of-way may overlap other permanent rights-of-way where the pipeline is 

collocated with existing rights-of-way. Areas within the permanent right-of-way would generally be 

allowed to revert to pre-construction usage with certain restrictions. For example, no permanent 

structures or trees would be allowed within the permanent right-of-way. The permanent right-of-way 

would be maintained as described in the REX East Plan and Procedures. Use of the land for cultivation 

and pasture would be able to resume after construction. Uncultivated areas would be maintained with an 

herbaceous cover. In general, periodic maintenance procedures would prevent forested areas from 

recovering within the permanent right-of-way during operation of the Project. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Aboveground facilities would require 149.3 acres for operation. Of the 42 mainline block valves, 

six would be located entirely within the footprint of a compressor station and would not require additional 

land for operation. The remaining 36 would be located on the right-of-way and would each require <0.1 

acre additional to the right-of-way for operation, requiring 2.2 acres in total. The valves would be located 

within the pipeline right-of-way or within the footprint of a compressor facility, and therefore would not 

require the use of additional land. Of the 149.3 acres for aboveground facilities, 85 percent (126.9 acres) 

would be agricultural land. Construction and operation of aboveground facilities would result in a 

conversion of those lands to commercial/industrial use for the life of the Project. Lands impacted by 

operation of large aboveground facilities such as compressor stations would typically be purchased from 

the current landowners. 

Access Roads 

Rockies Express intends to use 56 existing public and private roads and construct 62 new roads to 

gain access to the pipeline right-of-way during construction and operation of the Project. The project 

would require a total of 121 access roads. The location of new access roads and existing roads to be 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-113 

modified are provided in the FERC e-library (FERC eLibrary, 2007i). Routine road maintenance such as 

grading may be required to maintain the private and public dirt and gravel roads in a passable condition. 

Existing roads may be widened in some areas. Based on an average width of 40 feet, a total of 85.3 acres 

of land would be impacted for maintenance of existing roads. 

Sixty-two new access roads would be constructed by Rockies Express. The length of newly 

constructed roads would range from 528 to 5,808 feet, with an average length of 1,899.1 feet. Based on 

an average width of 40 feet, new permanent roads would occupy approximately 108.1 acres. In section 2, 

a recommendation has been included asking Rockies Express to provide information on which access 

roads would remain in operation and which would be removed after construction (see section 2.2.1). 

Specific impacts of construction and operation of the Project on the different land use types 

affected are discussed below. 

4.8.2 Agricultural Land 

We define agricultural land as areas that are actively cultivated or rotated croplands, pastures, or 

hayfields. Construction of the Project would affect approximately 10,677.9 acres of agricultural land. 

Agricultural land in the Project area is generally used to grow corn, soybean, and alfalfa, and hay or as 

pasture. During operation of the Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground facilities 

would affect 2,944.2 acres of agricultural land. 

General Agricultural Impacts 

Pipeline Facilities 

Rockies Express has proposed a typical construction right-of-way width of 125 feet for 

agricultural lands, with pipe installed using the standard trenching method (see section 2.0). Rockies 

Express has requested additional 35-foot-wide temporary workspaces across agricultural fields for the 

segregation of topsoil. Although we believe some temporary workspaces may be needed in these areas, 

for road, waterbody, and utility crossings, we believe in most cases this additional 35 feet for topsoil 

storage is not justified and have included a recommendation to this effect in section 2.3. 

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, stripping, and backfilling would 

potentially impact agricultural lands by causing soil erosion, by damaging surface or subsurface irrigation 

or drainage systems, and by degrading fertile soils through mixing and compaction. These impacts could 

result in direct loss of crops or pasture, as well as reduced crop productivity in future planting seasons. 

Rockies Express has proposed a number of mitigation measures to address impacts on 

agricultural lands, as described in the REX East Plan and the AIMP (appendix I). Rockies Express 

proposes to restore all disturbed agricultural areas associated with the construction of the REX East 

Project in accordance with the AIMP, its Plan, and all other applicable federal, state, and local permit 

requirements. Typical mitigation measures include topsoil segregation, decompaction, and 

repair/replacement of irrigation and drainage structures. The measures Rockies Express proposes are 

discussed further below. 

Fields would generally be taken out of production for one growing season while the pipeline is 

constructed. Rockies Express would compensate landowners for crop losses resulting from removal of 

standing crops, disruption of planned seeding activities, disruption of general farming activities, or other 

losses resulting from construction of the pipeline facilities as negotiated with the landowners. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-114 

Crops, other than trees, would be allowed to be cultivated within both the construction and 

permanent rights-of-way once construction has been completed. As such, unless the land was used for 

orchards, maple syrup production, or other tree-related farming,1

 no permanent change in land use or a 

permanent reduction in the amount of land available for cultivation would be associated with the pipeline 

facilities. Rockies Express has proposed to compensate landowners for reduced crop yields due to 

construction of the pipeline facilities and use of the easement. Restoration of lands would be considered 

successful if crop yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same lands. Rockies Express 

would conduct post-construction monitoring of revegetation in affected agricultural areas for three years 

after revegetation. We do not believe three years is sufficient. Some issues such as damage to or poor 

repair of drain tiles may take longer to show up due to weather conditions following construction. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express develop and implement a five-year post-construction monitoring 

program to evaluate crop productivity in areas impacted by the construction of the 

Project. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary quarterly reports for a period of 

five years following construction documenting any crop-related problems, including soil 

heating near compressor stations, identified by the company or landowner and 

describing any corrective action taken to remedy those problems. If any landowner 

agrees that revegetation and crop productivity are successful prior to the five year 

requirement, Rockies Express should provide documentation in its quarterly reports, 

indicating which landowners have agreed that monitoring is no longer necessary. This 

documentation should include the landowners’ name, tract number, and the date of 

agreement. 

If crop yields in restored areas are not similar to or greater than those on adjacent undisturbed 

croplands, Rockies Express would develop and implement remedial measures in conjunction with the 

Agricultural Inspector, appropriate agency personnel, and landowners (see appendix I). 

Aboveground Facilities 

Aboveground facilities would require 149.3 acres of agricultural land during construction and 

operation of the Project. The land required for aboveground facilities would be converted to 

commercial/industrial use for the life of the Project. 

Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan and Agreements 

Rockies Express has developed AIMPs for Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (see appendix I for a 

representative example of the AIMP) for dealing with construction and restoration issues unique to 

agricultural areas. Rockies Express has provided no AIMP for Missouri. In an October 18, 2007 filing, 

the MODNR expressed concern that even though the Project would cross agricultural lands in the state, 

Rockies Express had not provided an AIMP for Missouri. MODNR stated that without appropriate 

mitigation, soil conservation practices, some of which are paid for by the State Soil and Water 

Conservation Program, would potentially be permanently impacted. Specifically, MODNR mentioned 

potential impacts to terraces and sediment retention ponds. If pipeline construction crosses these 

sediment control systems, the Project may damage or destroy the structural and hydrologic integrity of 

these sediment control systems unless they are promptly and properly repaired. We agree that agricultural 

 

1

 Removal of trees from the permanent right-of-way would be considered as a permanent impact. Normally trees are 

not allowed to be replanted on the permanent right-of-way. Rockies Express would compensate the landowner for 

the loss of trees for orchards, maple syrup operations, and other tree-related agricultural uses. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-115 

lands in Missouri should also have mitigation similar to that provided in the other states affected by this 

Project. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary, and provide to the MODNR, a state-specific 

AIMP for Missouri prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

We have identified only three differences among the three plans. The Illinois AIMP requires the 

pipeline be buried with at least five feet of cover in croplands and pasture land or other agricultural land 

with prime soils, as recommended by the IDOA. The Indiana and Ohio AIMPs both require only four 

feet of cover. The Ohio AIMP requires repairs be made in accordance with ODNR standards, this AIMP 

also allows for the decompaction of subsoil and the replacement of topsoil as weather permits due to 

generally unsuitable weather in late autumn and winter. The issue of pipeline cover is discussed in 

greater detail further on in this section of the draft EIS. We have identified no issue with requiring repairs 

to meet state standards. 

The purpose of the AIMP is to help protect and conserve agricultural lands that may be affected 

by construction and/or operation of the proposed pipeline. Rockies Express would follow the policies 

outlined in the AIMP for all activities occurring on privately owned farmland. A copy of the AIMP 

would be provided to the landowner, the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the local Farm 

Bureau offices. Landowners may negotiate any action in advance of construction as long as the changes 

are acceptable to Rockies Express, the FERC, and any permitting agency. Prior to the start of 

construction, Rockies Express would provide the landowners with a telephone number and address to 

contact them regarding any work performed on the property or any construction-related concerns. The 

AIMP extends to any future construction and maintenance that may occur. All actions outlined in the 

AIMP would be implemented to the extent that they do not conflict with any federal, state, or local 

regulations. 

The following construction standards and policies would be implemented on all privately owned 

farmlands impacted by the proposed pipeline. The depth of the pipeline would be a minimum of five feet 

in Illinois and 4 feet in Indiana and Ohio where it crosses croplands, pasture lands, and agricultural lands 

classified by USDA as prime soils, unless the pipeline would be within 100 feet of an existing pipeline2

. 

In cropland and pastures with non-prime soils the depth of the pipeline would be three feet. In areas 

where the proposed pipeline parallels an existing pipeline, the same amount of top cover would be used as 

the existing pipeline, but not less than three feet of cover. When the proposed pipeline crosses surface 

drains, diversions, grassed waterways, open ditches and streams, at least 60 inches (5 feet) of cover over 

the pipeline would be maintained. In areas where rock in its natural formation and/or a continuous 

stratum of gravel exceeds 200 feet in length, the minimum depth would be 24 inches (2 feet). 

Prior to trenching, Rockies Express proposes to remove up to 16 inches of topsoil. Upon 

removal, topsoil would be kept separate from removed subsoil to prevent intermixing of the two layers. 

During backfilling of the trench, the subsoil material would be replaced first and all rocks greater than 

three inches would be removed from the surface of all exposed subsoil. In sections of the right-of-way 

crossed by construction vehicles and equipment where the topsoil was stripped, the subsoil would be 

decompacted by ripping the subsoil to a depth not to exceed 16 inches prior to topsoil replacement. After 

ripping has occurred, all rocks greater than 3 inches would be removed. Backfilling and replacement of 

topsoil would be crowned to account for any future soil settling so that original depth and contours of the 

topsoil would be restored. Unless originally present in the topsoil, all rocks greater than 3 inches would 

be removed from the topsoil surface following final restoration. 

 

2

 Depth of cover would be measured from the top of the pipe to the lowest shoulder of the ditch after topsoil is 

stripped. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-116 

No backfilling would be done in water-filled trenches. Any freestanding water would be 

removed prior to backfilling. Pumping of water from the trenches would be done in a manner to 

minimize or avoid damaging adjacent agricultural lands and crops. If damages cannot be avoided, the 

landowner would be compensated. 

If tile lines were affected by the construction of the proposed pipeline, all necessary actions and 

precautions would be taken to insure proper functioning of the tiles. Prior to construction, Rockies 

Express would make an effort to locate all drain tile lines within the right-of-way and contact the 

landowners and the local county Soil and Water Conservation Districts. If drain tile lines are damaged, 

cut, or removed during construction, the lines would be distinctly marked and these markers would not be 

removed until the line has been repaired and approved by the landowner and the Agricultural Inspector. 

Before completing permanent drain tile repairs, all tile lines would be examined on both sides of the 

trench for the entire length within the right-of-way to check for damage that may have occurred due to 

construction equipment. Upon completion of the proposed pipeline, all permanent repairs are to be made 

within 14 days as long as weather and soil conditions permit. 

After completion of the proposed pipeline, the right-of-way would be restored to its original 

elevation and contour. Landowners would be provided with contact information to alert Rockies Express 

of the need to provide further leveling services, with Rockies Express performing these services within 45 

days of the landowner’s written notice. Rockies Express would also work with landowners to find a 

reasonable method to control excessive erosion. Rockies Express would monitor the areas that are subject 

to erosion, checking that the depth to the pipeline does not decrease to less than three feet. 

Landowners would be compensated for any construction related damages caused by Rockies 

Express on or off the construction work area. If there were trees of commercial or other value to the 

landowner that must be removed, Rockies Express would compensate the landowner at a fair market 

value. Removal and disposal of trees and brush would follow the landowners’ wishes and federal, state, 

and local regulations. If the proposed pipeline intersects an operational spray irrigation system, Rockies 

Express would establish with the landowner an acceptable amount of time that the system could be 

offline. If crops were damaged during this time, the landowner would be compensated for the damaged 

crops. 

Routes used to enter and exit the proposed pipeline right-of-way would be agreed upon by 

Rockies Express and the landowner. Temporary roads would be negotiated with the landowner and 

would be designed not to impeded surface drainage and built to minimize soil erosion. If agreed upon by 

landowners, and allowed by regulatory agencies, temporary roads may be left intact after completion of 

the proposed pipeline. If temporary roads are to be removed, the area that the roads were constructed 

through must be returned to its previous use. 

Following placing the pipeline in service or the completion of initial right-of-way restoration, a 

monitoring and remediation period of no less than three years would commence. As we have said 

previously, we do not believe three years is sufficient, we have recommended that monitoring continue 

for up to five years. Rockies Express would be responsible for the cost of monitoring and remediation. 

This phase would be used to identify any remaining impacts due to construction that are in need of 

correction. Conditions to be monitored are topsoil thickness, rock content, trench settling, crop 

production, drainage and repair of fences. Onsite monitoring of agricultural lands would occur at a 

minimum of three times during the growing season. The affected landowners would be periodically 

updated by the Inspector of the duration of remediation. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-117 

Agency Concerns 

Rockies Express submitted the AIMP to various state agencies and agricultural groups. No state 

agricultural agency has approved the AIMP. Comments provided by the IDOA identified the following 

areas of concern: 

• Identification of all encountered, severed, and /or damaged tile lines; 

• Drain tile repair; 

• Pipeline depth of cover; 

• Topsoil segregation; 

• Working in wet fields; 

• Repairing current soil and water conservation structural practices; and 

• Landowner having the ability to negotiate for other/additional mitigation. 

Drain Tile Repair 

Drainage systems, such as drainage tiles or diversion terraces, are used to improve the 

productivity of crops by diverting water from areas subject to saturation. The REX East pipeline would 

cross agricultural lands that make use of such systems. Rockies Express has indicated they would consult 

with landowners, tenants, and drainage district officials prior to construction to identify existing and 

planned drainage systems along the proposed pipeline right-of-way. Rockies Express has proposed to 

restore agricultural drainage systems to their original conditions or better, and would continue restoration 

until systems are operating fully. Specific requirements for drain tile repair are described in the REX East 

AIMP. Terraces and drainage trenches would be restored to their original contours, as much as 

practicable, to ensure proper function. 

Rockies Express has indicated that the pipeline contractor would be given the option of repairing 

the tiles themselves or hiring local drain tile contractors. We do not believe that this is acceptable. The 

design and installation of drain tiles is precision work that should be done by professionals who are 

knowledgeable of both drain tiles and local conditions. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express hire local drain tile contractors to install/repair drain tiles that are 

damaged or need to be rerouted due to construction activities. 

The identification and marking of all encountered, severed, and/or damaged tile lines is important 

for reference in the event of future drainage problems on affected agricultural lands. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• During construction, Rockies Express should identify and mark all encountered, 

severed, and/or damaged tile lines on each affected landowner’s property using GPS 

coordinates accurate to one meter. Rockies Express should provide this information to 

the landowner, the local county Soil and Water Conservation District, and be kept in 

the company’s landowner records for future reference. 

Pipeline Depth of Cover 

In most agricultural fields, Rockies Express proposes to install its pipeline with three (in 

Missouri), four (in Ohio and Indiana) or five (in Illinois) feet of cover. Deeper burial may be required for 

the crossings of underground utilities and drain tiles. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-118 

Following construction, Rockies Express would implement measures to monitor depth of cover 

over the pipeline in agricultural areas. Rockies Express would implement a surveillance plan that 

includes monthly aerial pipeline patrolling to inspect for excavation-related effects, ground movement, 

wash-outs, leakage, and/or other activities. Within one year of installation, a survey would be conducted 

along the pipeline right-of-way. If any excavation activities such as ground movement, wash-out, or any 

other signs of reduction or disturbance of the right-of-way, aside from typical farming practices (e.g., 

planting, discing, harvesting) are observed, Rockies Express would initiate a corresponding depth survey 

in the respective area, and if warranted would take necessary corrective actions including importing 

additional soil material or line lowering. 

In addition to monitoring, Rockies Express would conduct an outreach program that includes 

landowner and tenant communication to address pipeline location, operations, maintenance, and 

emergency reporting. The landowner and tenant outreach program would facilitate ongoing company and 

landowner communications and education, including appropriate land use practices within the permanent 

easement during and after right-of-way restoration. 

As noted above, comments from state agencies that reviewed the AIMP indicated a preference for 

installation of pipeline below three feet. In general, the reason was that drain tiles in the Project area are 

commonly located at a depth of three to four feet, and therefore installation of the pipeline at three feet 

would significantly impact drainage systems. In general, the agencies recommend a depth of cover of 

five feet in agricultural areas. 

Rockies Express has agreed to bury the pipeline five feet deep in cropland and pasture with prime 

farmland soil, as long as it is not within 100 feet of an existing pipeline. We believe that 5 feet of cover is 

the proper depth in the agricultural areas crossed by the proposed pipeline due to the regional agricultural 

practice. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express should bury the pipeline at a minimum depth of five feet where the 

pipeline would cross agricultural fields with prime soils unless otherwise negotiated 

with landowners. 

Topsoil Segregation 

For soil removal and replacement, a qualified agricultural inspector or soil scientist would assess 

the topsoil, determine the depth that needs to be removed, and monitor during the removal phase. When 

construction requires the cut-and-fill of the soil profile across grades, stockpiling of the topsoil would be 

located on the up-slope of the right-of-way. In locations where topsoil cannot be separately stored on the 

up-slope side, right-of-way space would be provided on the down-slope side to ensure the segregation of 

the topsoil. Upon removal, topsoil would be kept separate from removed subsoil to prevent intermixing 

of the two layers. During backfilling of the trench, the subsoil material would be replaced first and all 

rocks greater than three inches would be removed from the surface of all exposed subsoil. In sections of 

the right-of-way crossed by construction vehicles and equipment where the topsoil was stripped, the 

subsoil would be fractured by deep ripping to a depth not to exceed 16 inches prior to topsoil 

replacement. After ripping has occurred, all rocks greater than three inches would be removed. 

Replacement of the topsoil would be done in a way that after settling occurs, the original depth and 

contours of the topsoil would be restored. Unless originally present in the topsoil, all rocks greater than 

three inches would be removed from the topsoil surface following final restoration. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-119 

Working in Wet Fields 

Rockies Express has stated that segregation of topsoil across the entire construction right-of-way 

would allow construction activities to continue even in wet weather. We disagree; subsoil can also be 

damaged by rutting and compaction in wet weather. In addition, full right-of-way topsoil segregation can 

cause extensive ponding on right-of-way increasing issues with runoff of heavily silt-laden water. In 

section 4.2.1 we have recommended that Rockies Express develop an Agricultural Wet Weather 

Contingency Plan to provide for addition mitigation during wet conditions. The IDOA also strongly 

supports the development and implementation of an Agricultural Wet Weather Contingency Plan. 

Landowners Having the Ability to Negotiate for Other/Additional Mitigation 

Rockies Express’ proposed AIMP allows landowners to negotiate for different and/or additional 

mitigation in agricultural areas. We encourage landowners to work with Rockies Express during the 

construction and restoration on their property. 

Other Agricultural Concerns 

Irrigation and Livestock Systems 

Irrigation and/or livestock systems would be crossed by the pipeline route at MPs 17.1 

(irrigation), 17.3 (irrigation), 17.7 (irrigation), 228.3 to 228.5 (livestock), 248.2 (irrigation), 248.6 to 

249.3 (irrigation), 337.4 to 337.9 (irrigation), 604.4 to 604.9 (irrigation and livestock), 606.0 to 606.9 

(livestock), and 636.3 to 636.8 (irrigation). Several construction-related activities may damage or 

interrupt irrigation and/or livestock systems during construction, including clearing, trenching, grading, 

and backfilling. If the flow of water is disrupted for a prolonged period, crops may be damaged and crop 

yields reduced or livestock may be harmed. Rockies Express would coordinate disruption of irrigation 

systems or livestock systems with each landowner and compensate the landowner for damages. Rockies 

Express would also repair damaged irrigation systems and livestock systems. Impact and mitigation 

would be site-specific and based on agreements and/or easement conditions with the affected landowners 

or tenants. Because these impacts would be temporary and/or mitigated, we believe that construction and 

operation of the pipeline would not have a significant adverse affect on irrigation systems. For additional 

discussion of impacts to irrigation systems, see section 4.2. 

Soil Heating 

Heated soils may occur along the pipeline right-of-way in areas near compressor stations. Heated 

natural gas flowing through the pipeline could raise the temperature of the surrounding soil, causing water 

evaporation and thereby reducing crop yields. Gravelly and sandy soils would be the most susceptible 

soil types due to the deeper rooting depths required in these soils. 

Specialty Crops/Land Use 

Wilson Friendly Maple Farm 

The proposed pipeline route would cross the Wilson Friendly Maple Farm between MP 457.3 and 

MP 457.6. Maple syrup production began in 1861. Rockies Express has stated that they would minimize 

the number of maple trees to be removed during construction to the extent practicable; however, they 

have not indicated what they would do. The impacts to the farm would be permanent, as the maple trees 

would not be replanted. Therefore, we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-120 

• Rockies Express file a plan with the Secretary of the crossing of Wilson Friendly Maple 

Farm prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. This plan should include 

avoiding the removal of trees and impacts on the maple syrup operation. For any 

unavoidable impacts Rockies Express should quantify the impact, justify why the 

impact is required, and provide mitigation for the impact. 

A route alternative has been developed that would avoid the maple trees of the Wilson Friendly 

Maple Farm. The alternative is discussed in section 3.5.13 and is called the Jones and Mowrey 

Alternative. The FERC recommends the Jones and Mowrey Alternative to the Project route. 

Conclusions Regarding Agricultural Land Use 

We believe that implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above would minimize or 

mitigate the potential impacts to agricultural land uses. However, construction of the pipeline may affect 

the fertility of the agricultural fields for several years. Operation of the aboveground facilities would 

have a permanent impact on agricultural lands, and operation of the pipeline would impose permanent 

restrictions on some agricultural land uses, including the construction of barns and other structures and 

the planting of windrows or other trees within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

4.8.3 Residential Land 

Pipeline Facilities 

A discussion of construction techniques in residential areas can be found in section 2.3.2. 

Construction of the pipeline would impact residential properties, mainly from increased noise, heavy 

vehicle traffic, and dust. These adverse affects would be short-term in nature, lasting only a few weeks at 

any particular location. Typical concerns of landowners regarding the impact of construction and 

operation of proposed facilities on residences include impacts on landscaping, property use rights, general 

disruption/disturbances/damages, safety issues, and the use of eminent domain. Details regarding the 

measures that would be taken to minimize impacts to residences are discussed below. As discussed 

above, Rockies Express would acquire easements for temporary and permanent right-of-way for 

construction and operation of the Project, respectively. Landowners would be compensated for the use of 

their land through the easement negotiation process. Landowners would have the opportunity to request 

that specific measures be undertaken or that development plans for their property be considered. Most 

existing developed land uses would continue following construction. There will be no restrictions on the 

ability to subdivide a property for inheritance purposes, or otherwise sell or transfer ownership of a 

property. However, there would be some restrictions regarding the use of land in the permanent right-ofway, such as restrictions on the construction of new permanent structures. During easement negotiations, 

landowners would have the opportunity to request that development plans for their property be considered 

during pipeline construction. 

There are 84 residences located within 50 feet of the proposed construction work areas (table 

4.8.3-1). An additional 18 non-residential structures (e.g., grain bins, silos, outbuildings, etc.) have been 

identified within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way. Rockies Express has provided site-specific 

construction plans for 80 of the residences (see appendix D). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-121 

Table 4.8.3-1 

Residences Within 50 ft of Right-of-Way a/ 

State/County Milepost 

Dist from 

Centerline to 

residence (ft) 

Dist from 

construction 

work area (ft) 

Direction 

from 

pipeline Comments Drawing ID 

MISSOURI 

Pike 23.4 229.0 31.0 N Residence MO-PI-016.000 

Pike 25.0 239.0 39.0 N Residence MO-PI-023.000 

ILLINOIS 

Pike 66.5 166.0 31.0 N Residence IL-PK-132.S03 

Scott 79.2 36.0 0.0 N Residence IL-SC-043.000 

Scott 79.6 138.0 12.0 N Residence IL-SC-046.000 

Scott 81.5 133.0 0.0 N Residence IL-SC-054.N01 

Morgan 95.9 241.0 42.0 N Residence IL-MO-040.N01 

Sangamon 126.3 191.0 0.0 S Residence IL-SA-224.001 

Sangamon 131.1 43.0 0.0 S Residence IL-SA-259.000 

Macon 165.7 153.0 0.0 S Residence IL-MC-082.000 

Moultrie 186.6 188.0 27.0 S Residence IL-MU-048.001 

Edgar 234.2 43.0 0.0 S Residence IL-ED-076.000 

INDIANA 

Putnam 270.8 173.0 41.0 N Residence IN-PU-022.N01 

Putnam 272.8 178.0 18.0 N Residence IN-PU-035.000 

Hendricks 292.2 87.0 47.0 S Residence IN-HE-214.000 

Hendricks 294.0 252.0 17.0 N Residence IN-HE-223.000 

Hendricks 296.7 183.0 0.0 S Residence IN-HE-241.N01 

Hendricks 301.7 168.0 43.0 S Residence IN-HE-273.S01 

Hendricks 301.8 176.0 49.0 N Residence IN-HE-274.000 

Franklin 384.3 b 0.0 0.0 Residence on 

P/L 

Franklin 384.4 b 6.0 0.0 N Residence 

Franklin 384.4 130.0 10.0 N Residence IN-FR-053.010 

Franklin 384.5 134.0 14.0 N Residence IN-FR-054.N10 

Franklin 396.1 76.0 36.0 N Residence IN-FR-139.001 

Franklin 401.7 31.0 0.0 S Residence IN-FR-165.000 

Franklin 401.7 165.0 0.0 S Residence IN-FR-166.000 

Franklin 401.8 88.0 0.0 S Residence IN-FR-170.000 

Franklin 402.0 185.0 0.0 S Residence IN-FR-181.S02 

OHIO 

Butler 406.0 86.0 21.0 N Residence OH-BU-006.000 

Butler 406.4 225.0 40.0 N Residence OH-BU-009.N01 

Butler 406.4 47.0 22.0 N Residence OH-BU-009.N02 

Butler 408.2 90.0 5.0 N Residence OH-BU-022.000 

Butler 408.5 119.0 34.0 S Residence OH-BU-027.000 

Butler 408.5 46.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-028.000 

Butler 409.0 115.0 28.0 N Residence OH-BU-039.000 

Butler 409.2 163.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-040.000 

Butler 411.7 79.0 0.0 S Residence OH-BU-059.000 

Butler 418.8 74.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-110.000 

Butler 418.8 183.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-111.000 

Butler 419.8 60.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-119.N01 

Butler 419.9 64.0 0.0 N Residence OH-BU-120.N01 

Butler 423.1 35.0 0.0 S Residence OH-BU-145.000 

Butler 425.9 135.0 0.0 S Residence OH-BU-157.S01 

Butler 431.7 48.0 23.0 N Residence OH-BU-177.000 

Butler 431.7 127.0 0.0 S Residence OH-BU-178.000 

Butler 431.7 60.0 35.0 N Residence OH-BU-179.000 

Warren 444.9 177.0 0.0 S Residence OH-WA-028.000 

Warren 446.8 b/ On P/L / 137 0 / 17 N 2 Residences OH-WA-038.001 

Warren 451.7 91.0 27.0 S Residence OH-WA-066.000 

Warren 451.7 170.0 18.0 N Residence OH-WA-065.N02 

Warren 452.3 43.0 3.0 S Residence OH-WA-075.N02 

Clinton 472.1 56.0 0.0 N Residence OH-CT-074.000 

Greene 474.3 139.0 0.0 S Residence OH-GR-009.000 

Fayette 485.2 175.0 22.0 N Residence OH-FY-026.S01 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-122 

Table 4.8.3-1 

Residences Within 50 ft of Right-of-Way a/ 

State/County Milepost 

Dist from 

Centerline to 

residence (ft) 

Dist from 

construction 

work area (ft) 

Direction 

from 

pipeline Comments Drawing ID 

Fayette 485.2 42.0 2.0 N Residence OH-FY-026.N01 

Pickaway 508.9 105.0 0.0 S Residence OH-PW-048.000 

Pickaway 510.2 150.0 0.0 S Residence OH-PW-060-000 

Pickaway 518.7 98.0 13.0 S Residence OH-PW-103.S01 

Pickaway 518.8 95.0 10.0 S Residence OH-PW-105.000 

Pickaway 527.9 63.0 22.0 S Residence OH-FF-016.000 

Fairfield 536.4 79.0 6.0 S Residence OH-FF-076.000 

Fairfield 540.7 234.0 47.0 N Residence OH-FF-095.N01 

Fairfield 544.8 110.0 25.0 S Residence OH-FF-108.S01 

Fairfield 545.1 81.0 0.0 S Residence OH-FF-118.S04 

Fairfield 545.2 54.0 24.0 S Residence OH-FF-120.S01 

Fairfield 545.8 51.0 21.0 S Residence OH-FF-124.S05 

Perry 550.4 46.0 6.0 N Residence OH-PY-007.002 

Perry 554.5 53.0 13.0 N Residence OH-PY-031.000 

Muskingum 566.9 200.0 30.0 S Residence OH-MK-005.000 

Perry 560.6 100.0 40.0 N Residence OH-PY-051.000 

Perry 561.3 131.0 46.0 S Residence OH-PY-053.000 

Muskingum 566.5 97.0 12.0 S Residence OH-MK-001.000 

Muskingum 566.6 40.0 0.0 S Residence OH-MK-003.000 

Muskingum 567.4 132.0 50.0 S Residence OH-MK-010.000 

Muskingum 568.5 91.0 46.0 N Residence OH-MK-108.000 

Muskingum 576.2 130.0 45.0 S Residence OH-MK-151.000 

Muskingum 576.7 52.0 0.0 N Residence OH-MK-152.000 

Muskingum 578.8 99.0 14.0 S Residence OH-MK-168.S01 

Guernsey 602.0 86.0 1.0 S Residence OH-GN-078.000 

Guernsey 609.0 171.0 0.0 S Residence OH-GN-127.000 

Guernsey 609.9 74.0 0.0 S Residence OH-GN-128.000 

Belmont 622.7 98.0 0.0 S Residence OH-BL-020.000 

Monroe 635.2 18.0 0.0 S Residence

_______________ 

a/ Due to the scale of the project-specific alignment sheets, the temporary construction right-of-way would appear to extend 

across these structures. However, Rockies Express has created site-specific residential mitigation drawings that show the 

construction right-of-way as reduced or 'necked down' to avoid impacting these areas. All site-specific drawings created for 

the project would supersede the construction right-of-way layout shown on the alignment sheets. 

b/ The residence is shown within the permanent easement. We have recommended an alternate route through the area that 

would preserve the structure. 

Rockies Express would adopt the following mitigation measures for residences within 50 feet of a 

construction work area in order to minimize or mitigate impacts on residences: 

• equipment would be required to have mufflers installed to minimize construction noise; 

• access to residences, including emergency access, would be maintained at all times during 

construction; 

• removal of trees and landscaping would be avoided unless necessary to construct the pipeline 

or for the safe operation of the construction equipment; 

• lawns and landscaping within the construction work area would be restored promptly after 

backfilling the trench; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-123 

• construction fencing would be installed and maintained at the edge of the construction work 

area for a distance of 100 feet on either side of a residence during the open trench phases of 

the pipe installation or longer; 

• dust minimization techniques would be used onsite; 

• all litter and debris would be removed daily from the construction work area. 

Although Rockies Express has stated that it would maintain access to all residences during 

construction we have noticed that on some of the site-specific plans the entire driveway for the residence 

is shown within the construction work area. For these residences we cannot determine how access would 

be maintained during active construction, therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period a site-specific explanation of how access would be maintained for each residence 

whose driveway or access would be affected by construction activities. 

In addition we do not know if Rockies Express has discussed these site specific plans with the 

land owners. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express should provide each landowner and tenant whose residence is within 

50 feet of the proposed construction work area with a copy of the site-specific plan for 

construction near their residence at the same time Rockies Express files its 

Implementation Plan with the Commission. 

There are 62 residences within 25 feet of a proposed work area, of which 44 are within 10 feet of 

the proposed work area. Because of the proximity to construction activities we believe that additional 

mitigation is needed. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express file site-specific plans with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to the start of construction that: 

a. Describe the measures that would be taken to minimize construction impacts on 

each residence within 25 feet of a construction work area, including but not limited 

to reduced pipeline separation, centerline adjustment, use of stove-pipe or dragsection techniques, working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, or a 

minor route variation; 

b. Include discussion of how Rockies Express would ensure that the trench is not 

excavated until the pipe is ready for installation and that the trench is backfilled 

immediately after pipe installation; and 

c. Include evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and 

fencing will be located within 10 feet of a residence. 

There are also four residences which would be on the proposed permanent right-of-way. Those 

residences are discussed under site-specific impacts below. 

Noise would also impact residences in the vicinity of the construction. The amount and duration 

of the impact would depend on the construction activity and the distance from that activity. Activities 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-124 

such as HDDs or the construction of a compressor station would produce noise in an area longer than 

normal pipeline construction. In either case, this would be a short-term, temporary impact. 

Operational noise impacts would usually be limited to the operation of the compressor stations. 

These impacts would last for the life of the Project. A more complete discussion of the impact of noise 

on residences is discussed in section 4.11.2 of this draft EIS. 

Site-specific Impacts 

We have received numerous letters from landowners and other stakeholders requesting that the 

proposed route either be changed or the Project denied, however no environmental justification for such 

action was provided. In several cases, these letters were from landowners who have not allowed Rockies 

Express access to their property to survey for the presence of features that may warrant a change in the 

route, identify the need for additional mitigation, or changes in construction technique. Therefore we 

have no basis to evaluate these requests in this draft EIS. If any landowners believe the Project route 

evaluated in this draft EIS does not address their particular concern, we encourage them to either submit 

comments outlining their environmental concerns and/or allow their property to be surveyed to identify 

important resources that may warrant a route variation or additional mitigation. We can then evaluate 

such new information before accepting an alignment in the final EIS. 

We received letters from landowners expressing concern about the pipeline crossing their 

property and damaging various resources or limiting their potential to develop the property in the future. 

In all of these cases, the presence of the resources of concern has not been verified by surveys, typically 

because access to the property has not been granted and there are no plans for development at this time. 

Therefore, this draft EIS is not able to evaluate the need for a route variation and determine where that 

variation would have to go to avoid the stated resources of concern or the development. Instead, we 

address these landowner concerns by including recommendations that require Rockies Express to 

complete all necessary surveys and consultations, and to evaluate appropriate route variations or other 

measures to avoid impacts to those resources, prior to construction (see sections 4.7 and 4.10). 

We do, however, have sufficient environmental justification for evaluating a number of route 

variations based on letters from landowners and other stakeholders, as well as our own independent 

analysis and field visits of the Project route and possible route variations. See section 3.5 of this draft 

EIS. 

We have identified four residences, located at MP 384.3, MP 384.4, and MP 446.8 (2) which 

would be within the proposed permanent right-of-way. Rockies Express has not indicated whether it 

proposes to remove these residences. We believe that there are ways to avoid these residences without 

condemning unwilling landowners. We have examined alternatives which would move the pipeline so 

that the residences would not be on the permanent right-of-way, see section 3.5.17. 

Numerous comments were received from residents in Franklin and Johnson Counties, Indiana, 

concerned with the development potential of property in the south Indianapolis area. Some cited safety 

concerns of a pipeline near developed residential communities. Many of these residents proposed that the 

pipeline be re-routed north of Indianapolis. An alternative to the proposed route that would pass north of 

the city is discussed further in section 3.4.3 but is not considered preferable to the Project route. 

Numerous comments were received from landowners along the pipeline route with a generalized 

concern about the aesthetic impacts of the Project. These concerns are related to the impacts the pipeline 

route would have on vegetation, and consequently on the overall aesthetic or visual impacts to the 

landscape. Rockies Express has developed procedures that will minimize the impacts of construction on 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-125 

vegetation, including collocating the pipeline as much as possible with existing easements. There would, 

however, be visual impacts within the permanent right-of-way in places where mature forest trees would 

be removed. The impacts of the project on vegetation are discussed in detail in section 4.4. 

During a site visit a residence with extensive landscaping was identified in Macon County, 

Illinois (Tract IL-MC-028.051). Rockies Express has agreed to extend the horizontal bore of County 

Road 29 at MP 158.0 in order to preserve the landscaping. However, because Rockies Express has not 

provided a plan for the work in this area we do not know what the impact to the property would be. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary a site-specific 

construction plan for Tract IL-MC-028.051 for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP. 

Property owners in Warren County, Ohio (Tract OH-WA-066.000 to OH-WA-066.002) have 

indicated that pipeline construction would inhibit their ability to build a retirement home on their land. 

The REX East right-of-way crosses the Little Miami River and extends through this linear property along 

the long axis, encumbering much of the lot. Alternative crossings of the Little Miami have been proposed 

in section 3. The right-of-way, as currently proposed, follows the TETCO right-of-way in the vicinity of 

this lot. We reviewed the area to identify a route variation but houses to the north and south prevent a reroute. We also evaluated two major route alternatives which would avoid this property, Little Miami 

Route Alternative (section 3.4.4) and Mowrey Route Alternative (section 3.4.5). These route alternatives 

are not environmentally preferable to the Project route. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file a construction 

plan for the property in Warren County, Ohio on Tract OH-WA-066.000 to OH-WA066.002 that preserves the ability to construct a home, or propose an alternative route. 

Septic Systems 

Pipeline construction could damage septic systems – including septic tanks, distribution piping, 

and drain fields – during trenching of the pipeline right-of-way. Rockies Express has developed a Septic 

System Contingency Plan describing efforts to avoid septic systems where possible and mitigate or 

restore systems where necessary. If damage occurs during construction, a temporary system sufficient to 

meet existing needs would be provided. Following construction Rockies Express would relocate, restore, 

or replace the septic system depending on the details of the easement negotiated with the individual 

landowner. 

Based on preliminary landowner contacts Rockies Express has currently identified that septic 

systems that would be crossed by the pipeline route at MPs 297.8, 448.9, 449.9, 473.8, 593.5, 595.7, and 

597.1. Rockies Express would continue to verify the locations of septic tanks and, in consultation with 

individual landowners, would develop mitigation measures to prevent or minimize disruptions to these 

facilities during construction. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express identify all septic systems prior to the start of construction, present 

each property owner with a copy of the Septic System Contingency Plan, and restore, 

relocate, or replace all septic systems damaged during construction, whether or not such 

mitigation was part of the easement negotiation. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-126 

Aboveground Facilities 

The aboveground facilities associated with the REX East Project include the seven compressor 

stations. Construction of the seven facilities would have a longer duration than pipeline construction. 

Additionally, the compressor stations have different operational impacts than the pipeline, including 

visual, noise, and air emissions. Analysis of potential noise impacts on residences during construction 

and operation of the compressor facilities found levels to be lower than the EPA’s recommended 

threshold and lower than existing noise levels at the residences. See section 4.11.2 for a detailed 

discussion of noise impacts. See section 4.11.1 for a detailed discussion of air emissions. The visual 

impacts of these facilities are discussed in section 4.8.6 below. 

A group of six property owners in Ohio expressed concerns that the location of the Hamilton 

compressor station was too close to a residential area. They recommend that it be located near the Texas 

Eastern compressor station 2.5 miles to the north. Additional letters with similar concerns were received 

August 17th, 27th, and 28th, 2007. Alternate locations for the Hamilton compressor station are discussed in 

section 3.6.1. In response, Rockies Express has relocated the Hamilton compressor station to a different 

parcel of land that is further from residences on land owned by an existing steel mill. 

An alternative location for the Bainbridge compressor station has been identified, and is discussed 

in section 3.6.2. The original proposed location could have noise impacts on as many as 10 NSA’s, 

whereas the alternative would be fewer. The alternate location for the Bainbridge compressor station is 

recommended. 

Conclusions Regarding Residential Land Use 

The construction impacts of the Project on residential land use, including noise, dust, and vehicle 

traffic would be temporary. They would last only for the duration of construction, which in most cases 

would be no more than one or two weeks at a single location. Rockies Express established procedures to 

minimize these impacts during construction. Rockies Express has also developed mitigation measures for 

potential impacts to septic systems. We believe that the Project would have temporary impacts on 

residences, that the procedures developed by Rockies Express along with the mitigation we have 

recommended would minimize these, and that implementation of the mitigation measures would also 

minimize the impacts of the Project on residences. The permanent easement on residential properties 

would be considered a permanent impact in that it restricts the use of that portion of the property. 

Compressor stations would emit noise for the life of the station. For a further discussion of the noise 

impact see section 4.11.2. 

4.8.4 Planned Residential Developments 

Rockies Express has identified 10 planned residential developments within 0.25 mile of the 

Project right-of-way. Planned development projects would include those that are permitted but not yet 

constructed, or those with submitted permit applications that have been filed but not yet approved. Table 

4.8.4-1 presents the planned developments that would be located within 0.25 mile of the Project. 

Rockies Express has taken the following measures to minimize potential impacts regarding 

planned residential developments: 

• Siting the pipeline route along property boundaries; and 

• Collocating the pipeline with existing rights-of-way, which typically follow lot lines. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-127 

Table 4.8.4-1 

Planned Developments Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State, County MP 

Crossing 

Length 

(miles) 

Development 

Name Comment 

Illinois, Macon 162.8 0.2 Circle Z Addition The housing development is under review with the county. 

Rockies Express sited its pipeline along the southern property line 

to minimize disturbance. 

Indiana, Hendricks 297.5 0.5 Disney Residential 

Development 

The housing development was platted in 1978. No construction 

has begun. Rockies Express has sited its pipeline route along the 

property lines to minimize disturbance. 

Butler, Ohio 430.8 0.3 Tall Oaks Subdivision The residential subdivision is currently under construction. 

Rockies Express is collocated with the existing power line and is 

sited on the property lines. 

Butler, Ohio 431.3 0.4 Todd Glen Reserve The residential subdivision has been platted and has not been 

approved. Rockies Express is collocated with the existing power 

line. 

Warren, Ohio 436.4 1.1 Valley View Farms The residential subdivision has been platted and has not been 

approved. Rockies Express’ proposed route is sited on the 

property lines. 

Fairfield, Ohio 535.5 0.1 Dominion Homes The residential subdivision has been platted and has been 

approved. The development is currently under construction. 

Rockies Express is collocated with Texas Eastern’s existing 

pipeline and the proposed route follows the lot lines. 

Fairfield, Ohio 538.3 0.1 Thomas Vejan 

Homes 

The residential subdivision has been platted and has been 

approved. The development is currently under construction. 

Rockies Express is collocated with Texas Eastern’s existing 

pipeline and traverses the corner of two lot lines. 

Fairfield, Ohio 539.1 0.3 Fairfield Homes The residential subdivision has been platted and has not been 

approved. Rockies Express is collocated with Texas Eastern’s 

existing pipeline and the proposed route follows the lot lines. 

Fairfield, Ohio 539.4 0.2 Thomas American 

(also called Diyanni 

Homes) 

The residential subdivision has been platted and has been 

approved. The development is currently building. Rockies 

Express is collocated with Texas Eastern’s existing pipeline and 

the proposed route follows the lot lines. 

Fairfield, Ohio 544.9 0.2 Holder Properties The residential subdivision has been platted and has not been 

approved. The development is currently building. Rockies 

Express is collocated with Texas Eastern’s existing pipeline and 

the proposed route follows the lot lines. 

We believe that implementation of the identified mitigation measures would minimize or mitigate 

the impacts of the Project on planned residential developments. Construction would result in temporary 

impacts. 

4.8.5 Recreation and Special Land Use Areas 

The proposed REX East facilities would cross recreation and special land use areas in: Missouri 

(3), Illinois (4), Indiana (9), and Ohio (15). These areas are listed in table 4.8.5-1 along with the proposed 

construction methods (discussed in section 2.3) for crossing each. Rockies Express continues to 

coordinate with the landowners and managers of these special interest areas. 

As no recreation or special interest areas were identified within 0.25 mile of any proposed 

aboveground facility, it is not expected that recreational and special use areas would be impacted by the 

proposed aboveground facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-128 

Table 4.8.5-1 

Recreation and Special Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State/County MPs 

Crossing Length (miles) 

Acres Affected 

During Construction/ Acres Affected During Operation (Acres) Name Management/ Ownership 

MISSOURI Pike 33.4 to 42.2 8.8 133.3 / 53.3 Grassy Creek Conservation 

Opportunity Area 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) 

Pike 40.0 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Scenic Byway - Little Dixie Highway 

along State Highway 79 

Missouri Department of Transportation 

Pike 42.6 to 42.9 0.3 0.0 / 0.0 Upper Mississippi (Blackburn Island) 

Conservation Opportunity Area 

Missouri Department of Conservation a/

ILLINOIS Pike 43.5 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Sny Levee Sny Levee Drainage DistricSangamon 122.0 <0.1 2.6 / 0.0 Scenic Highway – U.S. Route 66 Illinois Department of 

Transportation 

Sangamon 125.2 0.7 0.0 / 0.0 Hunter Lake Reservoir City of Springfield, Illinois Douglas 202.9 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Embarras River Illinois Department of Natu

Resources 

INDIANA Vermillion/Parke 247.3 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Indiana Canoe Crossing – Wabash 

River 

Indiana DNR – State of Indiana 

Parke 250.8 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 B&O Trail B&O Trail Association Putnam 268.4 <0.1 0.5 / <0.1 Byrd Branch within Cecil M. Harden 

Lake 

U.S. Army Corps of Engine(COE) 

Putnam 269.9 <0.1 1.8 / 0.1 Big Raccoon Creek within Cecil M. 

Harden Lake 

COE 

Putnam 269.9 <0.1 0.5 / <0.1 Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek - 

within Cecil M. Harden Lake boundary 

COE 

Putnam 281.5 <0.1 2.7 / 0.2 Big Walnut Creek Indiana Department of Nat

Resources (INDNR) 

Hendricks 298.4 to 298.5 0.1 2.6 / 0.0 Historic National Road – U.S. 

Highway 40 

Indiana Department of Transportation 

Morgan 315.8 <0.1 0.1 / <0.01 Indiana Canoe Crossing – Tributary 

to West Fork White River 

Indiana DNR –State of Ind

Shelby 340.8 <0.1 3.2 / 0.0 Big Blue River INDNR Decatur 375.1 to 375.3 0.2 2.6 / 1.2 Camp Woodsmoke Lions Club (private) Franklin 393.2 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Indiana Canoe Crossing – Whitewater 

River 

Indiana DNR – State of Indiana 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-129 

Table 4.8.5-1 

Recreation and Special Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State/County MPs 

Crossing Length (miles) 

Acres Affected 

During Construction/ Acres Affected During Operation (Acres) Name Management/ Ownership 

OHIO Butler 421.6 to 421.7 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Four Mile Creek Ohio Department of Natura

Resources (ODNR) 

Butler 422.7 <0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Seven Mile Creek ODNR Butler 430.7 to 430.8 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Great Miami River ODNR Warren 450.7 0.1 8.3 / 0.0 Scenic Byway – Accommodation Line ODNR Warren 451.3 to 451.4 0.1 0.0 / 0.0 Little Miami River NPS/ODNR Warren 451.6 to 451.7 0.1 0.1 / <0.1 Little Miami Scenic State Park ODNR Clinton 459.5 to 459.8 0.2 2.6 / 1.0 Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife 

Area 

ODNR 

Fayette 486.4 <0.1 0.1 / <0.1 Paint Creek ODNR Pickaway 499.9 to 500.8 1.1 

<0.1 

16.7 / 6.7 Deer Creek Wildlife Area ODNR 

Pickaway 499.9 to 500.8 

500.8 to 500.9 

0.9 0.1 

15.1 / 6.1 Deer Creek State Park ODNR 

Pickaway 509.2 to 509.3 0.1 4.2 / 0.0 Big Darby Creek NPS/ODNR Perry 558.5 to 558.7 

558.9 to 559.9 

0.2 1.0 

18.1 / 7.3 Perry State Forest ODNR 

Muskingum 581.6 to 582.7 1.1 16.7 / 6.7 Blue Rock State Forest ODNR Guernsey 607.7 to 608.5 c/ Unknown b/ Unknown b/ White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve Privately owned Belmont 624.6 to 625.1 0.5 7.5 / 2.8 Captina Creek Preserve Privately owned c/ Belmont 628.5 to 630.3 1.8 27.3 / 10.9 Raven Rocks Privately owned ____________________ a/ Blackburn Island is owned by COE, leased to FWS, and managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation. 

b/ MPs are approximate. A recommendation has been included that Rockies supply additional information on the White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve. 

c/ While Captina Creek Preserve is currently not formally recognized as a preserve we have included it in this analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-130 

General Impacts 

Construction of the Project facilities could impact recreation and special land use areas in several 

ways. First, resident habitats and wildlife may be affected by the clearing of vegetation, the generation of 

noise, and or the generation of dust. Second, construction of the Project facilities could result in a 

disruption of recreational uses potentially including but not limited to hiking, fishing, camping, bird 

watching, picnicking, and environmental education. Disruptions to recreational uses could potentially 

occur if access is reduced due to construction activity or if construction activities change the recreational 

quality of the area. 

Operational impacts would be associated with permanent changes in vegetation associated with 

right-of-way maintenance and potential visual impacts associated with these features and aesthetics. 

At a minimum Rockies Express would implement the requirements and mitigation included in its 

REX East Plan and Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007a,b; also see section 2.3). As discussed throughout 

this draft EIS, implementation of these requirements would generally minimize and to some extent 

mitigate potential impacts to resources and activities in recreation and special use areas. 

Where conventional construction methods are used, construction of the pipeline would typically 

result in disturbances such as noise, dust, and construction-related traffic along the pipeline route. These 

impacts would be temporary, generally lasting between a few days to a few weeks in any given location. 

Conventional construction would involve the clearing of vegetation in the construction right-of-way and 

disturbance of the surface through trenching. In some cases recreational infrastructure, such as trails, may 

be cut or removed during construction. Open-cutting recreational waterbodies would preclude their use 

during construction. 

Following construction, the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be maintained in an 

herbaceous state, while the temporary construction right-of-way would be allowed to return to preconstruction conditions. The duration of recovery for the temporary right-of-way would depend on the 

type of vegetation. For non-forested areas, recovery may occur within five years or less. For forested 

areas, recovery within the construction right-of-way could take twenty to thirty years or more, depending 

on the age and type of trees. Agricultural land, grassland, and open land would typically be allowed to 

return to pre-construction conditions within the construction and permanent right-of-ways. In forested 

areas, the permanent right-of-way would undergo periodic vegetative maintenance in order to maintain 

access to the pipeline. 

Construction techniques such as boring or HDD can be used to avoid impacts to more sensitive 

resources, such as rivers. They can also be used to cross roadways to avoid disturbance to traffic. 

Because these methods involve installing the pipeline without disturbing the surface directly above a 

portion of the pipeline, they avoid impacts to the surface. These methods generally require additional 

temporary workspaces for staging, so while a sensitive resource such as a stream may have less impact, 

there would be additional land affected near the stream. Like the conventional open-cut methods, these 

construction techniques would still have associated noise, dust, and construction traffic. These impacts 

would be temporary and would last up to three months in any given location. The areas would be 

restored and revegetated after construction. Revegetation may take one growing season for herbaceous 

vegetation or decades for trees. Normal right-of-way maintenance activities (mowing) would 

permanently preclude the establishment of trees on the permanent right-of-way. Rockies Express has 

agreed not to mow areas that were crossed by HDD. In addition, we have recommended that Rockies 

Express not cut any trees between the drill work area and the exit work area. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-131 

As the quality of outdoor recreation depends in part on the quality and characteristics of natural 

resources, impacts to natural resources within recreation and special use areas could indirectly impact 

recreation within these areas. As noted above, the impacts to natural resources would vary depending on 

construction technique. If conventional construction is used, there may be permanent changes in natural 

resources associated with vegetation maintenance within the permanent right-of-way. In forested areas, 

recovery of the construction right-of-way could be short-term or long-term, depending on the age and 

type of trees. All other impacts would typically be short-term. If boring or HDD methods would be used, 

then impacts to sensitive natural resources would be avoided, but there would still be impacts to any 

associated temporary workspaces. 

In addition, construction-related noise, dust, and traffic could indirectly impact recreation at these 

special use areas. Impacts due to changes in access could result if traffic flows within a recreation or 

special use area would be disrupted. These impacts would be temporary, lasting a few days to a few 

weeks in any given location. In general, the severity of impacts from noise, dust, and viewscape 

alteration would depend on the distance between the Project and areas where recreationalists would be 

located (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, trails). The timing of Project construction may also be 

important, as recreation is often seasonal. 

Site-specific Impacts 

Location, crossing method, and current land uses impacted are discussed for each recreation and 

special use area. This information is used to determine the expected impact duration. 

To evaluate the magnitude of the potential impacts, we identify the specific resources, or 

recreational activity for which areas are managed and identify potential direct impacts to those resources. 

Indirect impacts are evaluated in light of direct impacts and after considering the proximity of the 

recreation infrastructure to the Project. 

Missouri 

Grassy Creek and Upper Mississippi Conservation Opportunity Areas 

The proposed pipeline route would traverse two areas in Missouri identified as COAs. The MDC 

identifies these tracts of land as places where opportunity exists for wildlife conservation. 

Grassy Creek COA 

The Grassy Creek COA (also referred to as the Ted Shanks COA), contains 6,705 acres, 

consisting of bottomland hardwood timber, freshwater marshes, emergent wetlands, agricultural row 

crops, and oxbow lakes and sloughs, fields, and upland woods. Of the 6,705 acres, 3,827 acres of public 

land are managed by MDC and 2,878 acres of private land managed under a cooperative agreement 

between the MDC, FWS, and COE. Grassy Creek COA contains the Ted Shanks Alluvial Complex, an 

Important Bird Area (IBA) as defined by BirdLife International and the National Audubon Society. Deer 

and waterfowl hunting are common activities at the COA. 

The pipeline route would use conventional upland construction techniques to traverse the Grassy 

Creek COA from MP 33.4 to MP 42.2. Several roads and highways that provide access to the site would 

also be traversed. Construction through this area would impact 9.2 acres of open land, 96.9 acres of 

forested land and 27.3 acres of agricultural lands. As noted above, construction would result in clearing 

of vegetation from the affected land. The permanent right of way would include 38.8 acres of forest 

lands, 3.6 acres of open land, and 10.9 acres of agricultural lands. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-132 

During construction individuals attempting to access the site may experience temporary delays 

associated with construction-related traffic congestion and or construction related detours. Noise and 

activity associated with construction may frighten deer and ducks away from the vicinity of the activities 

temporarily. Most wildlife would return after the completion of construction. Indirect effects associated 

with habitat modification are not expected to affect duck or deer populations or the quality of hunting on 

the site in the long-term. However, the removal of trees may have a long-term or permanent impact on 

wildlife that depends on trees. 

Visual impacts would be primarily to passing users, including hunters, and would be primarily 

short-term in nature lasting one to two weeks during the construction phase in the area. Permanent visual 

impacts would occur as a result of tree removal within the permanent right-of-way as part of operational 

maintenance, which would occur every two to three years over the life of the Project. 

Upper Mississippi COA 

The Upper Mississippi COA (also referred to as Blackburn Island) is an island that separates the 

Mississippi River from the Salt River in Missouri. Blackburn Island is leased to FWS by COE and is 

managed by MDC. Outdoor activities occurring on and around Blackburn Island include fishing, 

waterfowl hunting, bird watching, and boating. 

The pipeline route would cross Blackburn Island from MP 42.6 to MP 42.9. Rockies Express 

would cross both the water bodies on either side of the island (the Mississippi River and the Salt River) 

using HDD. A drill entry workspace would be located on Blackburn Island, approximately 300 feet from 

the Mississippi River. This single drill entry workspace would be used for both the westward HDD 

crossing of the Salt River and the eastward crossing of the Mississippi River. 

MDC has recommended and Rockies Express has agreed to the following mitigation measures 

when crossing the area: 

• Inspect equipment and remove any mud, soil, trash, plants, or animals before leaving a 

waterbody or work area; 

• Drain water from equipment before leaving a waterbody, wash and rinse all equipment with 

hard spray or hot water; 

• Whenever possible, dry equipment in the sun before using it again; 

• Inspect and remove seeds, mowing debris, and soil from tires and tracks, the decks of 

mowers, trailers, and other equipment; and 

• Properly dispose of all plant materials to prevent regrowth or introduction into new areas. 

Construction activities and noise may cause wildlife to leave the area temporarily. Construction 

activities and noise may also impact the public’s ability to enjoy fishing, boating, bird watching, and 

hunting in the vicinity during construction. 

Visual impacts would be primarily to passing users, including hunters and/or river users, and 

would be primarily short-term in nature during the three month construction phase in the area. Use of the 

HDD crossing method would reduce the need for tree removal as part of routine maintenance during 

operation of the pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-133 

We believe that the use of HDD and utilizing a single drill entry workspace on Blackburn Island 

to cross both the Mississippi and Salt Rivers minimizes potential environmental impacts in the area. The 

duration of impacts such as noise, dust, and clearing of herbaceous vegetation would range from 

temporary to short-term. However, the clearing of trees would be a long-term or permanent impact. 

Little Dixie Highway – Scenic Byway 

The proposed pipeline would cross the Little Dixie Highway at MP 40.0 in Pike County, 

Missouri. This scenic highway is located adjacent to the Mississippi River, and offers scenic views of the 

river along the 30-mile stretch of highway. Rockies Express intends to cross the Little Dixie Highway via 

horizontal bore. 

Potential impacts to traffic on the byway would be avoided, as the pipeline would be bored under 

the highway. Scenic views from the road would be impacted during construction, as construction 

activities would be within view of the byway. Because construction activities would take place in an 

agricultural field which would be allowed to return to agricultural production after construction, impacts 

in this area would be short-term. 

There would also be short-term visual impacts to those traveling on the highway as a result of 

construction, which is expected to last about one to two weeks. These visual impacts would be a result of 

construction activities and equipment, and the disturbance of 1.5 acres of agricultural land used for 

additional temporary workspace alongside the highway. Depending on the construction, restoration, and 

rotation schedule the fields may be replanted the year following construction thus there would be no longterm visual impacts. 

We believe that the use of conventional boring methods would minimize impacts on the Little 

Dixie Highway. Impacts would be limited to dust, noise, and views of equipment during construction. 

After construction the surrounding area would appear unchanged to those driving by. 

Illinois 

Sny Levee 

The Project would cross the Sny Levee near MP 43.5 in Pike County, Illinois. The Sny Levee 

was built in the 1870s by the state of Illinois and financed by a state bond act. The term Sny referred to a 

natural arm of the Mississippi that entered the river about 6 miles north of Hannibal, Missouri. The name 

Sny is a shortened English version of a name given by French explorers. The levee has experienced 

several infamous breeches, including the Great Floods of 1880 and 1881 when water levels rose 19 feet 

above the low water mark. In response, the US Congress authorized COE in 1895 to repair the Sny, and 

build two adjacent levees, making the Sny levee system the first federally funded flood control system on 

the Mississippi. More recently, the upper Mississippi experienced another “Great Flood” in 1993. 

The purpose of the Sny Levee is to protect adjacent portions of Illinois from the Mississippi River 

during potential flood stages. The most significant impact to the levee would be if the construction of the 

pipeline affected the integrity of the levee structure. Affecting the integrity of the levee could result in 

long-term or permanent impacts to the surrounding area, if the levee were to fail. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross under the levee with an HDD as part of the Mississippi River 

crossing. The construction plan for the crossing is appendix F of this document. The Sny Levee Board 

has stated that it is concerned the HDD could affect the integrity of the levee, and they have requested that 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-134 

Rockies Express cross the levee by placing the pipeline over top of the levee. This method is commonly 

used to cross levees along the Mississippi River, although recently some pipelines have used the HDD 

method to go under levees. There has been no agreement between Rockies Express and the Sny Levee 

Board to date. Two alternate crossings of the Mississippi have been identified, and are described in 

section 3.4.1. All would require crossing the Sny Levee. At this time, we do not have enough 

information to make a determination about which crossing methods are feasible, which crossing method 

would have the least impact on the levee, and which would be environmentally preferable. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period: 

a. Complete geotechnical information for both crossing methods for the Sny Levee; 

b. A feasibility study of both crossing methods; 

c. A detailed plan for both crossing methods, including detailed information on how 

the levee would be protected during construction; and 

d. Documentation of consultation on these plans with the Sny Levee District and the 

COE. 

Old Route 66 – Scenic Highway 

The Project would cross Old Route 66, a scenic highway, at MP 122.0 in Sangamon County, 

Illinois. The crossing would be located in an agricultural field about 1,000 feet east of Interstate 55. 

Potential traffic delays on Old Route 66 would be avoided by boring under the highway. Because 

agricultural land would be allowed to return to agricultural production, impacts in this area would be 

short-term. Route 66 is listed on the NRHP, but construction procedures would avoid use of heavy 

machinery on the historic roadway, and the Illinois SHPO has concurred with the findings. 

There would be short-term visual impacts to those traveling on the highway as a result of 

construction, which is expected to last about two weeks. These visual impacts would be a result of 

construction activities and equipment, and the disturbance of 2.6 acres of agricultural land adjacent to the 

highway used for additional temporary workspace. Regeneration of this area would likely take one to two 

growing seasons, thus there would be no long-term visual impacts. 

We believe that the use of conventional boring methods would minimize impacts on Route 66. 

Impacts would be limited to dust, noise, and views of equipment during construction. After construction 

the location of the pipeline would not be apparent to a driver on Route 66. 

Hunter Lake Reservoir 

The pipeline would cross the proposed site of Hunter Lake Reservoir at MP 125.2 in Sangamon 

County, Illinois. Hunter Lake Reservoir is a water supply reservoir proposed by the City of Springfield, 

Illinois. The city applied for a permit from COE in 1999 and the final EIS was published on November 

24, 2000. Currently, the permit for the project is still pending approval by COE. The REX East Project 

would traverse lands that would be inundated by the proposed Hunter Lake Reservoir for a distance of 

about 0.7 mile. Since the pipeline would be buried four to five feet deep and no aboveground facilities 

are proposed within the limits of the reservoir, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Rockies Express is 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-135 

planning to install weights on the segments of its pipeline that may be inundated by the proposed 

reservoir to ensure negative buoyancy. Additional details about the proposed reservoir can be found in 

sections 4.3.4 and 4.13. 

Embarras River – Illinois Natural Areas Inventory 

The Embarras River, which would be traversed at MP 202.9 in Douglas County, Illinois, is listed 

on the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, and is identified as a biologically significant stream as well as a 

recreational area. The Embarras River is discussed in further detail in section 4.3. 

Rockies Express intends to cross the Embarras River using the HDD method. The drill entry hole 

and workspace would be located on the eastern side of the Embarras River, separated from the river by 

500 feet of agricultural land and about 200 feet of wetland forest. The drill exit hole and workspace 

located on the western side of the River would be 1,000 feet from the river and separated by wetland 

forest, agricultural land, and open areas. 

The use of HDD to cross the river would avoid disturbance to the streambed, stream banks, 

wildlife, and uplands in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. Locating the temporary workspaces 

associated with the HDD several hundred feet from the river in agricultural areas would minimize 

potential impacts to the public’s use of the river. The public’s ability to travel the river should not be 

impacted during construction. The main temporary impact would be from noise and additional traffic on 

the local roads during construction. Since trees would not be cleared along the banks of the river, after 

construction the location of the pipeline may not be noticeable to a person traveling down the river. 

Although construction activities would be at least 500 feet from the river’s edge, some changes to 

the visual setting would likely be noticeable to those using the river and adjacent areas during the 

approximate three month construction period. The presence of construction equipment and activities 

would result in short-term visual impacts for these users. Use of the HDD crossing method would 

minimize surface disturbance, thus long-term visual impacts would not be expected. 

Indiana 

Indiana Canoeing Trails 

The Project would cross three waterbodies in Indiana that are designated as canoeing trails (the 

Wabash River, the West Fork White River, and the Whitewater River). The Wabash River is crossed in 

Vermillion and Parke Counties (MP 247.3) near the town of Montezuma. The West Fork White River is 

crossed in Morgan County (MP 315.8) near Martinsville. The Whitewater River is crossed in Franklin 

County (MP 393.2) near the town of Brooksville. The Wabash River and Whitewater River are both 

classified as Indiana outstanding rivers. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross the Wabash and Whitewater Rivers using HDD. The proposed 

drill entry and exit holes and their associated temporary workspaces would be located several hundred 

feet from the river in agricultural land that is separated from the river by mature forest. 

The use of HDD to cross the river would avoid disturbance to the streambed, stream banks, 

wildlife, and uplands in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. Locating the temporary workspaces 

associated with the HDD several hundred feet from the river in agricultural areas, would minimize 

potential viewshed alterations. Use of the HDD would allow the public to continue using the waterbodies 

during construction, although noise from construction activities would be noticeable by the public. After 

construction the pipeline should not have impact on the users of these waterbodies. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-136 

Changes to the visual setting along the Wabash and Whitewater Rivers would generally result in 

short-term visual impacts to recreationalists and others using the rivers and adjacent areas during the 

approximately three months of construction. The presence of a dense forest corridor along the banks of 

these rivers would limit the visibility of construction activities and equipment for those recreating along 

side or in the river. Therefore, any potential visual impacts would short-term in nature. 

West Fork White River 

Rockies Express has proposed to cross the West Fork White River using open-cut techniques. 

Open-cutting this waterbody would result in the crossing site being temporarily closed to canoeists and 

others during construction. Rockies Express has indicated that prior to construction it would post 

warning signs regarding waterbody construction both upstream and downstream of the crossing site to 

warn canoeists of construction. We do not believe this is sufficient, therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a plan for setting up a safe portage for 

canoeists who wish to traverse the crossing area of the West Fork White River during 

construction. This plan should include assistance transporting canoes around the work 

area for those who request help. 

Visual impacts at the West Fork River crossing would be more severe, due to the presence of 

construction activities within the river. However, Rockies Express anticipates that the open-cut across the 

river would be completed in approximately two days. Further, Rockies Express has indicated they would 

work to preserve wooded banks and trees where possible and would restore the river bank contours to 

their original condition. Therefore, the removal of about 0.1 acre of forested land would comprise longterm to permanent visual impacts to users of this area. In section 4.3 we have recommended that Rockies 

Express use the HDD method for crossing the West Fork White River avoiding the temporary blockage of 

river traffic and the permanent alteration of the viewshed. 

B&O Trail 

The B&O trail, which includes portions of an abandoned railroad bed, crosses through Parke, 

Putnam, Hendricks, and Marion Counties. The trail is used for biking, hiking, and wildlife viewing. 

Rockies Express states that it would traverse the B&O Trail using conventional boring methods at 

MP 250.8 in Parke County, Indiana, however alignment sheets indicate that a workspace for the crossing 

of County Road 325N would cover the trail. The placement of this workspace would prevent the use of 

the trail, in this location, during construction. Noise and dust during construction would have a temporary 

impact on trail users. It would also result in the clearing of trees along the path, a long-term or permanent 

impact. Rockies Express has indicated that it would pay for any damage to the trail. 

Changes in the visual setting along the trail during construction would have a short-term visual 

impact on trail users. There is also a potential for long-term or permanent visual impacts on trail users due 

to the removal of about 0.5 acre of trees to accommodate ATWS. We believe that in order to preserve the 

public’s use of the trail more needs to be done. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP prior to the start of construction, a plan for the crossing of the B&O Trail. This 

plan should include measures for maintaining public access to the trail and avoidance of 

tree cutting at the crossing location. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-137 

Areas within Cecil M. Harden Lake 

The area within the Cecil M. Harden Lake boundary is managed by COE for recreational 

activities including: boating, camping, fishing, hiking, and picnicking. The area has infrastructure for 

recreational vehicles, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The area is also managed to provide flood 

reduction in downstream areas. The pipeline route would cross three waterbodies in Indiana that are 

located within the Cecil M. Harden Lake boundary: Byrd Branch at MP 268.4, Big Raccoon Creek at MP 

269.9, and tributary to Big Raccoon Creek at MP 269.9. 

Rockies Express has proposed open-cut construction techniques to cross Byrd Branch, Big 

Raccoon Creek, and the tributary to Big Raccoon Creek. As discussed in section 4.3, Rockies Express 

would maintain appropriate flow rates to protect aquatic life and prevent interruption to downstream uses. 

There would be no change to the stream’s capacity during construction. About 0.5 acre of open water 

would be temporarily affected by each crossing and impacted by construction. All three waterbodies are 

bordered by forested land, which would be used for additional temporary workspace. At both the Byrd 

Branch and tributary to Big Raccoon Creek, about 0.5 acre of forest land would be required for temporary 

workspace. The Big Raccoon Creek crossing would require 1.8 acres of forest land. 

Construction impacts on the public’s use of Cecil M. Harden Lake would consist of an increase in 

noise during construction and possibly some silty water entering the lake. People hiking in the vicinity of 

the crossing or traveling on County Road 150 would likely notice noise, equipment, and possibly dust 

during construction. The changes in the visual setting during construction, especially during in-stream 

construction, would likely result in short-term impacts to individuals using these areas. Removal of trees 

in the right-of-way would result in long-term or permanent impacts to these users. 

Big Walnut Creek and Big Blue River – Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NPS maintains the NRI database for river segments that are eligible for federal protection under 

the WSR of 1968. These rivers are valued for their fish, wildlife, and recreational significance and are 

considered Indiana navigable waterbodies. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross two waterbodies in Indiana that are part of the NRI. Big 

Blue River would be crossed at MP 340.8 and Big Walnut Creek would be crossed at MP 281.5. 

The Big Blue River would be crossed using the HDD technique. Approximately 3.2 acres of 

forested land around the waterbody would be used for additional temporary workspace associated with 

drill entry and exit holes. There are three wetlands that are part of the National Wetland Inventory, which 

would be avoided by the drill (see section 4.3.7). 

The use of HDD to cross the river would avoid disturbance to the streambed, stream banks, 

wildlife, and uplands in the immediate vicinity of the crossing and would minimize potential viewshed 

alterations and potential impacts of noise and dust. No direct impacts to the Big Blue River are expected. 

Persons using the Big Blue River for recreation and viewing would likely be temporarily impacted by 

construction activities, including noise and dust. Since the extra workspaces for this crossing are set well 

back from the river and are in agricultural fields, after construction the crossing location should not be 

apparent to river users. Further, the dense forest surrounding the crossing site would help to mitigate 

visual impacts, making construction activities less visible to water-based users. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross Big Walnut Creek using the open-cut method. Big Walnut 

Creek would be crossed in a scenic area about 1.0 mile downstream of a covered bridge. Open-cutting 

this waterbody would prevent floaters and canoeists from continuing through the area during construction. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-138 

Noise and dust from construction, along with silty water could temporarily (during construction and 

restoration) reduce the enjoyment of those using the area for recreation. 

Visual impacts to individuals using Big Walnut Creek and adjacent areas would occur during 

construction due to the use of the open-cut crossing method. Short-term visual impacts would result from 

the clearing of 1.7 acres of forest land and use of 1.0 acre of agricultural land during construction. Longterm visual impacts to users of this area would result from the removal of about 0.2 acre of forested land 

within the permanent right-of-way. The removal of trees at the crossing would impact users by opening 

up the existing canopy. We believe that more can be done to reduce the impact on recreation in this area. 

We have recommended in section 4.3.5 that Big Walnut Creek be crossed using an HDD. In addition, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP prior to the start of construction a site-specific mitigation plan for the HDD 

crossing of Big Walnut Creek that includes a reduction of tree clearing at the crossing 

site, a revegetation plan including the planting of native vegetation, and a portage plan 

for users of Big Walnut Creek, including assistance in moving the canoes/floats around 

the crossing location if needed. 

U.S. Highway 40 – National Historic Road 

The pipeline route would cross U.S. Highway 40, a National Historic Road, at MP 298.4 to 298.5 

in Hendricks County, Indiana. This historic road was once a coast-to-coast route. In recent years, 

however, the entire segment west of Salt Lake City, Utah, has been decommissioned. 

Potential traffic delays on U.S. Highway 40 would be avoided by boring under the highway. 

However, as construction activities would be within view of the highway, scenic views from the road 

would be impacted. Approximately 0.4 acre of forest land and 2.2 acres of agricultural land, used mainly 

for irrigated and non-irrigated winter wheat, wheat, corn and soybeans, on either side of the highway 

would be used to store excavated trench spoil. This area would be permitted to return to its preconstruction state. 

Rockies Express would follow requirements included in its REX East Plan and the REX East 

Procedures. Any and all road damage would be repaired and no permanent structures would be placed 

alongside the highway. We believe that the use of conventional boring methods would minimize impacts 

on Route 40 which would be limited to dust, noise, and views of equipment during construction. After 

construction the surrounding area would be returned to agricultural activities. However, impacts to 

forestland within the permanent right-of-way and subsequent alterations to the viewshed would be 

permanent. 

Camp Woodsmoke 

Camp Woodsmoke is operated by the Lions Club, District 25F, and does not charge admission for 

the Scout groups, churches, and over 6,000 special-needs children who go there yearly. 

The proposed pipeline would cross the camp between MP 375.1 and 375.3. The property would 

be traversed in a forested area at its southern end. Construction work would be greater than 2,000 feet 

from the developed campground areas. Rockies Express intends to use standard upland construction 

techniques, along with conventional boring, to cross Camp Woodsmoke. Construction at any one point 

would last approximately 8 to 12 weeks. Approximately 2.6 acres of forest land would be temporarily 

impacted by construction; this forest land consists primarily of mixed hardwood species including elm, 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-139 

ash, maple, oak, and numerous others. Impacts to the camp during construction would include noise, dust, 

traffic, and machinery emissions, as well as loss of trees. However, since Rockies Express has not 

indicated when construction would take place through the camp and construction impacts would be more 

significant if campers are present, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express work with Camp Woodsmoke to determine a schedule for crossing the 

camp. Rockies Express should discuss with the camp the need for any additional safety 

mitigation (fencing, signs) during construction in the camp. The results of this 

consultation should be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction. 

Short-term visual impacts to visitors to the camp are not anticipated as the proposed crossing 

route is more than 2,000 feet from the camp through a densely forested tract of land. However, others in 

the vicinity of construction may experience short-term visual impacts from the presence of equipment and 

workers associated with construction activities. These visual impacts are expected to last no longer than 

one to two weeks. Permanent visual impacts would occur as the result of tree removal (1.2 acres) within 

the permanent right-of-way as part of operational maintenance, which would occur every two to three 

years over the life of the Project. 

Ohio 

National Wild and Scenic River (Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek) 

Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek are designated National Wild and Scenic River, per the 

provisions of Section 2(a)(ii) of the WSR. Under the authority of Section 2(a)(ii) of the WSR, the State 

of Ohio has the responsibility to manage the Big Darby Creek pursuant to the WSR. The Secretary of the 

Interior, through the NPS, retains jurisdictional authority for certain water resources projects. Section 

7(a) of the WSR affords substantial protection to designated rivers and to congressionally authorized 

study rivers. 

The NPS must prepare a Section 7(a) determination to evaluate whether a proposed water 

resources project would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a designated river was 

established, namely its free-flowing condition, water quality, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

(ORVs). The Little Miami River’s ORVs are recreation and scenery. The Big Darby Creek’s ORVs 

include its diverse fish and mussel communities. 

Little Miami River 

The Little Miami River extends south approximately 100 miles from Clark County, Ohio to the 

Ohio River. The OEPA has classified Little Miami River as a major and sensitive waterbody due to 

special status species and major crossing features. See section 4.3.5 for additional discussion about this 

crossing. 

The Little Miami River would be crossed using HDD. The HDD entry and exit points would be 

in open fields, avoiding impacts to the forested riparian areas along the river bank. We have 

recommended in section 4.4.1 that minor brush clearing may take place within a 3-foot-wide path for the 

HDD tracking system. We further recommend below that another source be identified for the hydrostatic 

test water to protect the forested riparian areas and state-listed protect species (see section 4.7.5). Use of 

the HDD method would avoid disturbance to the streambed, stream banks, and upland in the immediate 

vicinity of the crossing. Following construction these areas would allowed to revert to pre-construction 

conditions. After construction, Rockies Express has agreed not to conduct normal maintenance (mowing) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-140 

on its permanent right-of-way between the entrance and exit points of the drill. Although we believe the 

HDD crossing of the Little Miami would limit temporary construction impacts to noise and dust and 

would result in no permanent impacts we believe other impacts are possible. We have also recommended 

additional mitigation in section 4.3.5. 

In a meeting on July 10, 2007, the NPS expressed concern about the possibility of a frac-out, in 

which the HDD drilling fails and there is an inadvertent release of drilling fluids into the River. In order 

to protect water quality, Rockies Express has established procedures in its HDD Contingency and 

Inadvertent Release Plan for failed drills (FERC eLibrary, 2007d). We believe that Rockies Express’ 

contingency plan is not detailed enough. Among other issues that need to be addressed in the contingency 

plan are: how drilling mud would be contained on site; how the drilling would conducted; would 

operations continue 24 hours a day until completion; how would frac-outs at shallow depths be prevented; 

how would down hole pressure be minimized; how would releases be categorized; what steps would be 

taken to stop and mitigate the release depending on where it occurred; what training would employees 

receive; and how would the area be monitored for releases. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period a site-specific plan for the crossing and restoration of the Little Miami River. 

This plan should include all proposed mitigation; contingency plans for HDD failures, 

frac-outs, and hydrostatic test water source and release; and revegetation. This plan 

should be developed in consultation with the ODNR and the NPS. 

In addition, the tributaries of the Little Miami River are also protected under the Wild and Scenic 

River Act. Rockies Express has indicated that it proposes to open-cut these tributaries. Since impacts to 

these tributaries have the potential to impact the Little Miami River, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific plan for the crossing of each 

tributary of the Little Miami River, developed in consultation with the NPS. These 

plans should include: 

 a. dry-crossing method; 

 b. minimization of tree clearing; 

 c. erosion controls that would minimize down stream siltation; and 

 d. a restoration and revegetation plan. 

Changes to the visual setting along the Little Miami River would generally result in short-term 

visual impacts to people using the river and adjacent areas during construction. A few residences in the 

vicinity of construction may also experience short-term visual impacts from the presence of equipment 

and workers associated with construction activities. Due to the chosen crossing method and the riparian 

forest buffering the construction activities, minimal visual impacts are expected. There would also be 

short-term visual impacts as a result of the disturbance of agricultural land for site access and equipment 

staging areas. Use of the HDD crossing method would minimize surface disturbance, thus long-term 

visual impacts would not be expected. 

Two alternatives for crossing the Little Miami have been identified. They are described in 

section 3 as the Little Miami Alternative (3.4.4) and the Mowrey Alternative (3.4.5). Neither is 

recommended as preferable. We have made a recommendation in section 4.3.2 the Little Miami 

Alternative be used if an HDD cannot be successfully completed at the Proposed route location and that 

Rockies Express successfully complete the drill before the overland pipeline is constructed in the vicinity 

of the Little Miami River. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-141 

Big Darby Creek 

Big Darby Creek would be crossed by the REX East Project at MP 509.2 in Pickaway County. 

Big Darby Creek is designated as both a state and national scenic river. The Creek is nationally noted for 

its biological diversity, and its abundance of aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. The creek’s banks 

are flanked with native vegetation that varies considerably in width; at some points there is only a narrow 

line of trees while other areas exhibit deep and extensive forests. Low lying areas contain floodplain trees 

that tolerate periods of inundation such as buckeye, sycamore, silver maple, and box elder. Species more 

adapted to drier soils such as oak and sugar maple line the valley walls. 

Rockies Express intends to cross Big Darby Creek using the HDD method. Use of HDD would 

avoid disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, and upland in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. 

Big Darby Creek would be crossed west to east with the drill entry point and extra workspace 

approximately 1,000 feet from the waterbody. The nearest residential area would be approximately 650 

feet south of the southeast corner of the workspace. The workspace would overlap with one foreign 

pipeline and would be bordered by three additional foreign pipelines. The exit point and workspace is in 

cultivated agricultural land approximately 400 feet east of the waterbody and 350 to 400 feet south of four 

foreign pipelines. Measuring from the entry hole to the exit hole along the surface the total length of the 

drill path would be 2,128 feet. Approximately 3.3 acres of agricultural land and 0.9 acre of open land 

would be temporarily impacted in association with the entry and exit drill points within the additional 

temporary workspaces. 

During the construction period, visual impacts would occur to creek visitors. Due to the chosen 

crossing method of Big Darby Creek, the dense forest buffering the construction activities, and the 

distance of the construction from the creek, minimal visual impacts are expected. These visual impacts 

would be short-term in nature, resulting from the disturbance of agricultural land while accessing the site. 

Although we believe the HDD crossing of the Big Darby Creek would limit temporary 

construction impacts to noise and dust and would result in no permanent impacts we know other agencies 

have concerns about the crossing of this National Wild and Scenic River. In a meeting on July 10, 2007, 

the NPS, which administers the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program, expressed concern about the 

possibility of a frac-out, in which the HDD drilling fails and there is an inadvertent release of drilling 

fluids into the River. In order to protect water quality, Rockies Express has established procedures in its 

HDD Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan for failed drills (FERC eLibrary, 2007d). 

Rockies Express has filed a draft plan for the crossing of the Big Darby Creek, but we do not 

believe that it contains enough specific details Among other issues that need to be addressed in the 

contingency plan are: how drilling mud would be contained on site; how the drilling would conducted; 

would operations continue 24 hours a day until completion; how would frac-outs at shallow depths be 

prevented; how would down hole pressure be minimized; how would releases be categorized; what steps 

would be taken to stop and mitigate the release depending on where it occurred; what training would 

employees receive; and how would the area be monitored for releases. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period a site-specific plan for the 

crossing and restoration of the Big Darby Creek. This plan should include all proposed 

mitigation; contingency plans for HDD failures, frac-outs, and hydrostatic test water 

source and release; and revegetation. This plan should be developed in consultation 

with the ODNR and the NPS. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-142 

We have also examined a route alternative in section 3.4.7 that would avoid crossing Big Darby 

Creek. We have made a recommendation in section 4.3.5 that this alternative be used if an HDD cannot 

be successfully completed. 

In addition, the tributaries of the Big Darby Creek are also protected under the Wild and Scenic 

River Act. Rockies Express has indicated that it proposes to open-cut these tributaries. Since impacts to 

these tributaries have the potential to impact the Big Darby Creek, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific plan for the crossing of each 

tributary of the Big Darby Creek, developed in consultation with the NPS. These plans 

should include: 

 a. dry-crossing method; 

 b. minimization of tree clearing; 

 c. erosion controls that would minimize down stream siltation; and 

 d. a restoration and revegetation plan. 

In addition, since one of the reasons Big Darby Creek was designated a Wild and Scenic River is 

because of the fish and state- and federally-listed mussels in the stream, we believe that the tributaries 

may also contain these species. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express should consult with the NPS to determine which of the tributaries of 

Big Darby Creek that would be crossed, should be surveyed for mussels and fish 

spawning areas. Rockies Express should file the results of any required surveys with 

the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to the start 

of construction, along with any correspondence with the NPS. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Four Mile Creek, Great Miami River, Paint Creek, and Seven 

Mile Creek 

The pipeline route would cross four waterbodies in Ohio that are listed in the NRI: Four Mile 

Creek at MP 421.6, the Great Miami River at MP 430.7, Paint Creek at MP 486.4, and Seven Mile Creek 

at MP 422.7. 

Four Mile Creek 

Four Mile Creek is listed on the NRI list for its recreational and scenic values as well as for its 

fishery resources. Rockies Express intends to cross Four Mile Creek using the HDD method. Use of the 

HDD method to cross the other waterbodies would avoid disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, and 

upland in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. Using this method would avoid the need for recontouring approaches and stream banks and the challenges of re-establishing vegetation adjacent to these 

features. 

Construction activities would result in temporary impacts on recreational activities. However, 

locating the temporary workspaces associated with the HDD several hundred feet from the rivers in unforested areas would minimize potential viewshed alterations and potential impacts from dust and 

construction equipment. Further, users of Four Mile Creek would be partially shielded from construction 

activities by trees along the banks which would not be impacted. Construction activities should not 

preclude any water-based activities, although construction noise would likely be heard on Four Mile 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-143 

Creek and users may catch glimpses of the construction activities. After construction, the pipeline 

corridor should not be apparent to users of Four Mile Creek. 

Great Miami River 

The Great Miami River is listed for its fish, wildlife, and recreational values. The OEPA has also 

classified it as a major and sensitive waterbody due to exceptional warm-water features. Rockies Express 

intends to cross the Great Miami River using the HDD method. Use of the HDD method to cross the 

other waterbodies would avoid disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, and upland in the immediate 

vicinity of the crossing. Using this method would avoid the need for re-contouring approaches and 

stream banks and the challenges of re-establishing vegetation adjacent to these features. 

The HDD entry site and extra workspace would be on the east side of the Great Miami River 

approximately 1,000 feet from the river and the exit site would be about 500 feet from the river. 

Although both work areas would be in forest, neither would be in the riparian corridor along the river. 

Neither work area should be visible to river users, except possibly in the winter and spring when the 

leaves are off the trees. Temporary impacts to recreational users include noise, dust, additional road 

traffic in the area, and possible season glimpses of construction equipment. Construction activities would 

not preclude recreational activities on the river. The only long-term or permanent impacts would be as 

the result of tree removal for the HDD. 

Painted Creek 

Painted Creek is listed for its fish, wildlife, and recreational values. Rockies Express intends to 

cross Painted Creek using the open-cut methods, adjacent to an existing Texas Eastern pipeline right-ofway. Temporary impacts during construction would include the closure of Painted Creek to recreational 

activities at the crossing location, noise, and dust. Visual impacts to individuals using Paint Creek and 

adjacent areas would occur during construction due primarily to the use of the open-cut crossing method. 

Permanent impacts include the removal of trees to widen the existing corridor. Rockies Express has not 

indicated how it would mitigate for the disruption in the use of this waterbody for recreational activities. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express develop a plan for warning boaters of construction on Painted Creek. 

In addition, the plan should contain provision for a safe portage through the 

construction work area. Rockies Express should provide assistance in moving the boats 

around the construction work area if requested. Rockies Express should file this plan 

with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to the 

start of construction. 

Seven Mile Creek 

Seven Mile Creek is listed on the NRI due to its high quality water. Rockies Express intends to 

cross Seven Mile Creek using the HDD method. Use of the HDD method to cross the waterbody would 

avoid disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, and upland in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. 

Workspaces for the HDD would be at a minimum 600 feet from the waterbody. Changes to the visual 

setting along Seven Mile Creek would generally result in short-term visual impacts to recreationalists and 

others using the rivers and adjacent areas during construction. However, locating the temporary 

workspaces associated with the HDD several hundred feet from the rivers in un-forested areas, would 

minimize potential viewshed alterations and potential impacts from dust and construction equipment. Use 

of the HDD crossing method, along with implementation of the Project’s Procedures should result in no 

temporary or permanent impacts on the water quality in Seven Mile Creek. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-144 

Accommodation Line – Scenic Byway 

The pipeline route would cross U.S Highway 42 at MP 450.7 in Warren County, Ohio. The 

highway at this location is a Scenic Byway known as Accommodation Line. Accommodation Line was 

an early 19th Century stagecoach route dotted by historic farms with a large historic district at each end. 

Large sections of the Accommodation Line were utilized in the Underground Railroad during the 

nineteenth century. 

Rockies Express intends to cross the Accommodation Line using traditional boring. Boring 

would avoid some impacts to the Accommodation Line and the traffic traveling it. Persons using the 

Accommodation Line would be temporarily impacted by construction activities, including noise and dust 

and additional traffic on the road. In addition, short-term visual impacts would occur from the 

disturbance of about 8.3 acres of agricultural land and a small wetland area alongside the highway. There 

should be no significant permanent impacts to the Accommodation Line or travelers on it. 

Little Miami Scenic State Park 

The Little Miami Scenic State Park roughly parallels the Little Miami River and is managed by 

ODNR. It is a linear park with a bicycle path on a former railway bed, and runs parallel to Corwin Road. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 100 feet of the park at MP 451.3 in Warren 

County, Ohio. Rockies Express proposes to cross the park by horizontal bore. This crossing method 

would allow for continued use of the trail during construction and preserve the tree canopy that exists at 

the crossing site. Further, the horizontal bore method helps to reduce the amount of dust, noise, and 

overall disruption of the existing viewscape due to the presence of construction equipment and activities. 

However, since Rockies Express has not provided a site-specific plan for crossing the park, therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction a plan for the construction and 

restoration of the Little Miami Scenic State Park. Rockies Express should also 

include a plan for maintaining safe public access through the construction area and 

revegetating the disturbed areas by planting native vegetation. This plan should be 

developed in consultation with the ODNR. 

Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife Area 

Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife Area would be crossed between MPs 459.5 and 459.8 in 

Clinton County, Ohio. The 4,700 acre state park offers outdoor recreation such as boating, fishing, 

hiking, and camping with a peak season throughout the summer months. The 2,500 acre wildlife area 

offers hunting and fishing, with a peak season of October through December. 

Both Caesar Creek State Park and the Wildlife would be crossed using standard upland 

construction methods. Construction of the proposed pipeline across these lands would temporarily impact 

1.1 acres of agricultural land comprised primarily of winter wheat, wheat, corn and soybeans along with 

an acre of mixed deciduous forests of elm, ash, hickory, birch, maple cherry, cottonwood, oak, willow, 

and/or poplar. In addition a small portion of open water (0.1 acre) and about 1.4 acres of forest land 

would be impacted during the construction phase. 

Caesar Creek itself would be crossed by the HDD method. This crossing would temporarily 

affect about 1.5 acres of agricultural land within the state park and 0.9 acre of agricultural land in the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-145 

wildlife area to be used for additional temporary workspace. Post construction, approximately 0.4 acre of 

agricultural land and about 0.5 acre of forest land and 0.1 acre of open water would remain permanent 

right of way. 

Temporary impacts may include the loss of revenue as the result of potential park visitors who 

decide to stay away during construction. Other visitors may be inconvenience by construction traffic, 

noise and dust during construction. In addition, visual impacts would result from the removal of trees 

during construction. Permanent visual impacts would occur as the result of tree removal within the 

permanent right-of-way as part of operational maintenance, which would occur every two to three years 

over the life of the Project. 

Since Rockies Express has not provided a site-specific plan for crossing these areas, therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing, mitigation, and 

restoration plan for pipeline construction activities in Caesar Creek State Park and 

Wildlife Area developed in consultation with the ODNR. 

Two alternative routes have been developed for this general vicinity and are described in 

section 3. The Mowrey Alternative (3.4.5) would cross more land within Caesar Creek State Park. The 

Little Miami Alternative (3.4.4) would avoid the Park altogether. 

Deer Creek State Park 

Deer Creek State Park is located in Pickaway County, Ohio. The park is managed by COE, 

Huntington District, and intersects the proposed pipeline from MP 499.9 to 500.8 and 500.8 and 500.9. 

Completed in 1968, the 2,337-acre park is centered around the Deer Park Reservoir, formed by a manmade dam, that offers various water activities for visitors. Recreational use of the park includes hunting, 

as well as fishing, swimming, and numerous hiking trails. Deer Creek Wildlife Area, located at MP 498.8 

to 499.9, is adjacent to the park and is managed by the ODNR. 

COE has indicated that the REX East pipeline should be collocated with the existing Texas 

Eastern pipeline corridor through Deer Creek Lake State Park, and we have recommended this in section 

3.4.6. 

Perry State Forest and Blue Rock State Forest 

Perry State Forest is located in Perry County, Ohio between MPs 558.5 and 558.7, and again 

between MPs 558.9 and 559.9. Blue Rock State Forest is located in Muskingum County, Ohio, and 

would be crossed by the project between MPs 581.6 and 582.7. Both of these state forests are managed 

by ODNR for purposes of timber harvest, habitat preservation, and recreational opportunities. 

Rockies Express intends to use standard open-cut construction techniques to cross these areas. 

Approximately 18.1 acres of forested lands, comprised mostly of evergreen and deciduous tree species 

such as pine, spruce, or cedar and elm, ash, hickory, birch, maple, cherry, cottonwood, oak, willow, or 

poplar, would be temporarily impacted during construction through Perry State Forest. Visual impacts to 

park visitors and/or recreationalists would be primarily due to the removal of large specimen trees. 

Impacts from operation of the proposed pipeline would primarily result from the permanent 10 foot wide 

pipeline right-of-way that would be cleared of forest cover and planted with herbaceous cover. Trees and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-146 

large shrubs would not be allowed to re-grow in the permanent right-of-way, which would result in a 

permanent visual impact associated with 7.3 acres of forested land. 

Construction through Blue Rock State Forest would temporarily impact about 16.7 acres of 

forested land of similar composition as described above. Following construction, the 10 foot wide 

permanent right-of-way would result in impacts to approximately 6.7 acres of forested land, in which 

trees would not be allowed to repopulate. 

Temporary impacts may include the loss of revenue as the result of potential park visitors who 

decide to stay away during construction. Other visitors may be inconvenience by construction traffic, 

noise and dust during construction. 

Because Rockies Express has not provided a plan for crossing these state forests, therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing, mitigation, and 

restoration plan for pipeline construction activities in Perry State Forest and Blue Rock 

State Forest. 

White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve 

The Project would cross the White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve at approximately MP 607.7 in 

Guernsey County, Ohio. The property is a privately owned tract (Tract OH-GN-120.000) used for 

recreational hunting. 

The owners of the White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve indicate that they have already lost an 

estimated $20,000 of income as a result of survey activities along the right-of-way in the fall of 2006. 

The FERC expects that any loss of revenue due to the REX East Project will be addressed in the easement 

negotiations. The project would have unknown impacts on vegetation and wildlife. These impacts could 

potentially affect future revenue from the hunting preserve. The environmental impacts to the White Oak 

Exotic Hunting Preserve are unclear, and we have not yet identified a resolution to this issue. Therefore, 

we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing plan for pipeline 

construction activities in the White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve, and that Rockies 

Express work with the land owner to find a time for construction that is minimally 

disruptive to their business. 

Raven Rocks 

Raven Rocks is a privately-owned reserve located between MPs 628.5 and 630.3 in Belmont 

County, Ohio. Raven Rocks, Inc (Raven Rocks) was established in 1970 to preserve about 850 acres of 

scenic ravines, hills, and woodlands. Since then, an additional 410 acres have been added to the preserve. 

The area is known for dramatic rock formations, high bluffs, and spectacular vistas. Several rock arches 

are located nearby. In addition to public education and outreach efforts, the members of Raven Rocks 

raise and sell Christmas trees to support the reserve. The proposed pipeline route crosses a hemlockhardwood forest and non-calcareous cliff community along an existing power line right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-147 

Rockies Express intends to use standard upland construction techniques to cross Raven Rocks 

Reserve. Approximately 0.6 acre of agricultural land primarily consisting of row crops and pasture/hay 

fields, 6.8 acres of open land, and 19.9 acres of forest land comprised of mixed pines and deciduous 

species would be temporarily impacted during construction through Raven Rocks. Following 

construction 0.2 acre of agricultural land, 2.7 acres of open land, and 8.0 acres of forest land would be in 

permanent right-of-way. 

The crossing in Raven Rocks parallels an existing powerline right-of-way, and construction 

would not cross areas of the reserve commonly used for recreational and educational purposes. 

Additionally, the construction of the pipeline would be buffered by forest land so that noise, dust, and 

visibility impacts would be minimized. 

During the construction period, visual impacts to Raven Rocks visitors and/or recreationalists, 

would primarily be limited the presence of construction equipment and vehicles, as the proposed crossing 

is located several hundred feet from activity areas. Further, the proposed pipeline route would be collated 

with an existing right-of-way corridor, which helps to minimize the long-term impacts to the viewshed. 

Due to forestland buffering the construction area, and the distance of the construction from the use areas, 

minimal visual impacts are expected. 

Captina Creek Preserve 

The Captina Creek Preserve is a privately-owned preserve located between MP 624.6 and 625.1 

of the proposed right-of-way in Belmont County, Ohio. The woodland preserve contains Captina Creek, 

one of the few creeks in Ohio that is designated as an exceptional warm-water habitat by the EPA and 

supports many species of aquatic habitat. While the pipeline crosses the preserve, it would not cross 

Captina Creek. 

Rockies Express intends to use standard upland construction techniques to cross the Captina 

Creek Preserve. Construction would temporarily impact 7.5 acres of agricultural land comprised 

primarily of row crops and pasture/hay fields and forest land consisting of mixed pines and deciduous 

species. Following construction, 2.8 acres of both agricultural and forest land would be impacted as part 

of the permanent right-of-way. Agricultural land would be allowed to revert back to pre-construction 

condition while the forested land would be maintained clear of trees and large shrubbery. 

During the construction period visual impacts would occur to preserve visitors. This would be 

most notable with the removal of large specimen trees within the permanent right-of-way which would be 

prevented from re-establishing trees and other large vegetation. 

4.8.6 Visual Resources 

The proposed REX East pipeline right-of-way predominantly crosses privately owned agricultural 

lands. Private lands are not subject to federal or state visual management standards. Visual resources on 

private lands are a function of geology, climate, and historical processes; and are influenced by 

topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, human uses, and development. The topography 

varies along the proposed pipeline route from lowlands in eastern Missouri, flat topography in Illinois, 

Indiana, and Nebraska, to rolling hills in eastern Ohio and Wyoming. 

This section provides a general discussion of visual impacts and specific impacts of above-ground 

facilities. For discussion of specific visual impacts in recreation and special use areas see section 4.8.5 

(table 4.8.5-1). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-148 

Pipeline Facilities 

Rockies Express proposes to use a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the majority of 

the proposed pipeline route, which would be widened in some locations for additional temporary 

workspace areas. Visual impacts associated with the construction right-of-way and additional temporary 

workspace areas would include the removal of existing vegetation and the exposure of bare soils, as well 

as earthwork and grading scars associated with heavy equipment tracks, trenching, blasting, rock 

formation alteration or removal, and machinery and tool storage. Other visual effects may result from the 

removal of large individual trees that have intrinsic aesthetic value; the removal or alteration of vegetation 

that may currently provide a visual barrier; or landform changes that introduce contrasts in visual scale, 

spatial characteristics, form, line, color, or texture. 

Visual impacts would be greatest where the pipeline route parallels or crosses roads, trails, 

recreational waterbodies, overlooks, historic properties and districts, and where the pipeline right-of-way 

may be seen by passing motorists or recreational users. The impacts of which would vary depending on 

vegetation type. The recovery timeframe would be shortest on agricultural and open lands consisting of 

herbaceous and shrub communities, where the re-establishment of vegetation following construction 

would be relatively fast (between one or two growing seasons). Short-term impacts to developed lands 

would also be minor due to the previously disturbed nature of these areas and the quick recovery time. 

The greatest potential for visual impact would be from the removal of large, mature forest, which 

would take a longer time to regenerate than other vegetation types, and would be prevented from reestablishing on the permanently-maintained 50-foot-wide right-of-way. Clearing of forested areas would 

produce long-term and permanent impacts. Clearing would convert existing forested areas to open areas 

and result in a new corridor with distinctive edges. Rockies Express has attempted to collocate the 

pipeline with existing rights-of-way through forested areas, reducing new visual impacts. In general, 

visual impacts would diminish over time as the affected areas gradually blend in with the surrounding 

landscape. 

The landscape setting along the pipeline route is generally flat, and views of the construction 

activities may extend for some distance. However, the construction work areas would be restored as near 

as possible to pre-construction contours and in some areas, revegetation would occur. Once revegetation 

is complete, there would be no significant alteration of the landscape of the region. 

Site-specific Visual Impacts 

Because of these considerations, we conclude that construction of the REX East Pipeline would 

not significantly alter the visual resources of the areas crossed. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Aboveground facilities would be the most visible features constructed as part of the project, and 

would result in a long-term change to the appearance of the landscapes where they are located. 

Aboveground facilities associated with the REX East Project consist of five compressor stations on the 

main REX East route from Missouri to Ohio, and one each in Phelps County, Nebraska and Carbon 

County, Wyoming. Additionally, 20 meter stations would be constructed along the REX East route in 13 

locations, all but four of which would be located within the footprint of a proposed compressor station. 

The project would include 42 MLVs, but these would be relatively small facilities compared to other 

above ground facilities. The compressor stations and meter stations would be more readily visible. These 

facilities are listed in table 4.8.6-1, which also gives the distance to the nearest viewshed that has the 

potential to view the proposed compressor stations and meter stations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-149 

Table 4.8.6-1 

Potential Visual Impacts Associated with Major Aboveground Facilities a/ 

State/County Facility MP 

Nearest 

Public Viewshed Visual Impact 

Distance from

Facility to 

Viewshed (feet) 

MISSOURI 

Audrain Mexico Compressor 

Station 

0.0 Road 441 Highly visible from 

immediate surrounding 

roads 

327 

ILLINOIS 

Christian Blue Mound 

Compressor Station 

144.1 North 1400 East 

Road 

Highly visible from 

immediate surrounding 

roads 

369 

Moultrie NGPL 

Illinois Power Meter 

Station 

178.7 Unnamed Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

158 

Douglas Trunkline Gas 

Company Meter Station 

195.3 Unnamed Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

1,205 

Edgar Midwestern Meter 

Station 

231.5 North 1700th Street Visible from adjacent 

road 

992 

INDIANA 

Putnam Panhandle Eastern 

Pipe Line Company 

Meter Station 

274.5 West Cord 850 

North Road 

Visible from adjacent 

road 

216 

Putnam Bainbridge Compressor 

Station 

277.3 North County Road 

200 East 

Highly visible from 

immediate surrounding 

roads and Walnut 

Creek 

566 

Morgan Citizen Gas & Coke 

Utility Meter Station 

305.9 Greencastle Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

193 

Johnson Indiana Gas Company 

Meter Station 

316.4 Old Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

671 

Shelby ANR Meter Station 342.3 South 600 West 

Road 

Visible from adjacent 

road 

186 

OHIO 

Butler Hamilton Compressor 

Station and AK Steel 

Meter Station 

435.6 Emerald Way Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

1,750 

Warren Lebanon Hub – 

Dominion, TETCO, 

Texas Gas, Vectren, 

and Columbia Gas 

Meter Station 

444.0 Unnamed Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

818 

Pickaway Columbia Gas of Ohio 

Meter Station 

515.0 U.S. Highway 23 Visible from nearby 

road 

947 

Fairfield Columbia Gas Meter 

Station 

539.8 North Glenn Drive 

Northeast 

Visible from adjacent 

road 

925 

Muskingum Chandlersville 

Compressor Station 

575 Irish Ridge Road Visible (moderately) 

from road 

1,250 

Guernsey Tennessee Gas Meter 

Station 

592.4 Spencer Road Visible from adjacent 

road 

67 

Noble Dominion 

Transmission, Inc 

Meter Station 

612.0 Saint John Road Visible from road 1,387 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-150 

Table 4.8.6-1 

Potential Visual Impacts Associated with Major Aboveground Facilities a/ 

State/County Facility MP 

Nearest 

Public Viewshed Visual Impact 

Distance from

Facility to 

Viewshed (feet) 

Monroe Clarington Hub – 

Dominion 

Transmission, 

Dominion East Ohio, 

and TETCO Meter 

Station 

639.1 Township Highway 

964 

Visible from adjacent 

road 

234 

_____________________________ 

a/ The Arlington and Bertrand compressor stations would not have visual impacts. 

The compressor stations would be built at various locations throughout the pipeline right-of-way. 

With the exception of the Hamilton Compressor Station, they would be located on primarily agricultural 

lands with a generally flat topography. The Hamilton Compressor Station would be located on primarily 

agricultural and industrial lands with rolling topography. On flat land, compressor stations would be 

fairly visible due to their height relative to surrounding areas. 

Each of the meter stations would be installed at locations with aesthetics and topography similar 

to that described for the pipeline and any nearby compressor station. The meter stations would be 

installed on primarily agricultural and open land. They would visible from nearby roads, but are not 

expected to create a unique visual impact on the area. Meter stations serve as interconnects with other 

pipeline systems, and would be located close to existing, previously disturbed and cleared pipeline rights 

of way. 

Most MLVs are expected to be located in agricultural or open areas where minor visual impacts 

on nearby viewers may occur. In general, the impacts on visual resources resulting from the construction 

and operation of the MLVs would be minimal as each site would be less than 0.06 acre in size and would 

be operated within the pipeline right-of-way or within a proposed aboveground facility (e.g., compressor 

station site). MLVs would be enclosed in a chain-link security fence. As previously discussed, MLVs 

are relatively small and are not expected to present a significant change in the visual quality of areas 

surrounding the pipeline right-of-way. Rockies Express does not intend to visually screen MLVs as this 

would necessitate a larger land area and may impede current farming practices. Maintaining smaller, yet 

viewable, MLV sites on agricultural land would preclude the need to permanently remove agricultural 

land from production. 

Our review indicates that construction and operation of the REX East Project would not result in 

significant adverse impacts on visual resources. Temporary impacts could result from the presence of 

construction equipment along the right-of-way, but the remote location and short duration of the 

construction sequence would minimize these impacts. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-151 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The REX East Project would involve the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile-long natural 

gas pipeline that would cross 34 counties in four states: Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. Seven 

compressor facilities would also be constructed. Five compressor stations would be constructed along the 

REX East pipeline route in these states, while the two other compressor stations would be constructed in 

Carbon County, Wyoming, and in Phelps County, Nebraska along the REX West pipeline (for a total of 

36 counties). Additional temporary workspaces along the pipeline right-of-way would be necessary at 

multiple locations to support construction activity. Although existing roads would be utilized to access 

the construction right-of-way to the extent practicable, the Project would include the modification and 

extension of some existing roads and the construction of new roads. The use of several contractor/pipe 

yards would also be required during construction. Refer to sections 2.0 and 4.8 for more information 

regarding the Project facilities, their proposed locations, and land requirements. 

For the purposes of this socioeconomics section, the term “Project area” refers generally to the 36 

counties in which Project pipeline and the Project facilities would be located. The following sections 

discuss the existing socioeconomic conditions in the REX East Project area, the anticipated 

socioeconomic impacts of the Project on this area, any planned mitigation measures, our analysis, and our 

recommendations. Potential impacts of the Project on socioeconomic conditions in the Project area 

include potential impacts associated with a Project-related increase in population, potential local and 

regional economic impacts, potential impacts on transportation, and potential impacts on property values. 

Potential impacts associated with Project-related increases in population include impacts on employment, 

housing, and the provision of public services. Potential local and regional economic impacts include 

impacts on tax revenues and economic activities within areas crossed by the Project. Potential impacts on 

transportation include potential disruptions of traffic and potential increases in traffic. Potential impacts 

of property values include changes in property value associated with the presence of the Project facilities. 

In accordance with EO 12898 on Environmental Justice, all public documents, notices, and 

meetings were made readily available to the public throughout the REX East Project area during Project 

development. The mailing list for the Project has been continuously updated during the EIS process. The 

public has been notified of all official proceedings of the various Project components with the issuances 

of Notices of Intent (NOIs) and scoping meetings in the Project area. Section 1.3 of this draft EIS further 

describes the public participation and notification process. Much of the proposed route is collocated with 

other utility or transportation corridors. The REX East Project would not significantly impact urban or 

residential areas, and no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority or low-income communities or Native American tribes have been identified. 

4.9.1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Project Area 

Table 4.9.1-1 presents selected demographic and socioeconomic data existing in the counties and 

states that would be affected by the Project. 

The total population in counties affected by the Project is over 2.2 million. Fewer than half the 

counties (15 of 36) have populations greater than 40,000. The populations among the individual counties 

vary from 5,412 to 350,412. Although the majority of the counties crossed by the Project are moderately 

populated, the Project area includes both rural and metropolitan areas. The average population density for 

all 36 counties within the Project area is 123.8 persons per square mile, although seven counties have 

more than 200 persons per square mile. The average annual per capita income for the states affected by 

the Project is $32,197 compared to an average annual per capita income of $26,848 for the counties 

affected by the Project area. The average county workforce is about 33,000 persons and varies from less 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-152 

Table 4.9.1-1

Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties Crossed by the Project 

State/ 

County 

Population 

a/ 

Population Density 

(persons/square mile) 

a/ 

Per Capita 

Income 

(in annual dollars) 

a/ 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

(persons) b/ c/ 

Unemployment

Rate 

(percentage) b/ c/

Ma

(pe

Missouri 5,842,713 81.2 30,475 3,017,000 5.7 Education, heal

Audrain 25,739 37.3 23,694 11,806 4.6 Manufacturing (23.Ralls 9,925 20.4 25,111 5,400 5.0 Manufacturing (21.Pike 18,566 27.3 21,881 8,707 5..3 Manufacturing (19.

Illinois 12,831,970 223.4 34,721 6,386,000 6.1 Education, heal

Pike 16,840 20.9 25,290 8,605 4.5 Education, health, sScott 5,377 22.1 23,090 2,812 5.3 Education, health, sMorgan 35,666 64.4 26,224 17,800 4.9 Education, health, sSangamon 193,524 217.6 32,736 108,444 4.2 Education, health, sChristian 35,063 49.9 26,605 27,195 6.6 Education, health, sMacon 109,309 197.6 30,667 54,604 5.3 Education, health, sMoultrie 14,383 42.6 26,117 8,175 3.6 Manufacturing (26.Douglas 19,791 47.8 27,461 10,349 4.2 Manufacturing (22.Edgar 19,183 31.6 24,527 10,695 4.8 Manufacturing (27.

Indiana 6,313,520 169.5 30,204 3,160,000 5.3 Manufacturing (

Vermillion 16,645 65.4 26,633 8,216 6.5 Manufacturing (23.Parke 17,021 38.8 23,007 8,015 5.5 Manufacturing (23.Putnam 36,978 75.0 25,113 18,157 5.3 Manufacturing (20.Hendricks 131,204 254.9 32,060 71,508 3.6 Education, health, sMorgan 70,290 164.1 29,485 38,288 4.5 Manufacturing (19.Johnson 133,316 359.8 31,583 72,115 3.9 Education, health, sShelby 44,114 105.3 29,376 24,335 4.4 Manufacturing (28.Decatur 24,948 65.9 27,194 12,631 4.4 Manufacturing (37.Franklin 23,373 57.4 26,908 12,246 5.7 Manufacturing (29.

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-153 

Table 4.9.1-1

Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties Crossed by the Project 

State/ 

County 

Population 

a/ 

Population Density 

(persons/square mile) 

a/ 

Per Capita 

Income 

(in annual dollars) 

a/ 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

(persons) b/ c/ 

Unemployment

Rate 

(percentage) b/ c/

Ma

(pe

Ohio 11,478,006 277.3 31,161 5,884,000 6.3 Manufacturing (

Butler 354,992 712.2 31,332 189,698 5.6 Manufacturing (21.Warren 201,871 396.3 32,745 105,550 4.9 Manufacturing (23.Clinton 43,399 98.7 27,073 24,218 4.8 Manufacturing (20.Greene 152,298 356.5 32,497 77,420 5.1 Education, health, Fayette 28,305 69.9 27,280 16,261 5.0 Manufacturing (24.Pickaway 53,606 105.1 24,842 24,206 5.8 Education, health, 

Manufacturing (16.

Fairfield 140,591 243.0 30,383 74,172 4.8 Education, health, Perry 35,313 83.2 20,484 16,593 7.4 Manufacturing (26.Muskingum 86,125 127.3 25,883 39,092 7.2 Manufacturing (24.Guernsey 40,876 78.2 22,817 20,011 6.5 Manufacturing (21.Noble 14,165 35.2 17,145 5,883 7.2 Manufacturing (23.Belmont 68,771 130.7 25,259 32,494 5.9 Education, health, Monroe 14,606 33.3 22,291 5,105 11.3 Manufacturing (24.

Wyoming 515,004 5.1 34,279 282,000 3.8 Education, heal

Carbon 15,325 2.0 28,438 7,939 3.4 Education, health, 

Nebraska 1,768,331 22.3 32,341 990,000 3.8 Education, heal

Phelps 9,442 18.1 33,305 5,231 2.2 Education, health, 

____________________ Sources: a/ U. S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

b/ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004. 

c/ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006..

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-154

than 3,000 to more than 189,000. The unemployment rate also varies substantially across counties within 

the Project area, from 2.2 percent to 11.3 percent with an average of 5.3 percent. In terms of number of 

persons employed, the two main industries in the Project region are manufacturing and the social services 

industry, which includes education and health. Agricultural production encompasses much of the 

acreage. 

4.9.2 Employment 

Potential impacts of the REX East Project on employment within the Project area could result 

from the influx of construction personnel and operational staff. The civilian labor force and 

unemployment rates for counties within the Project area are shown in table 4.9.1-1. The number of 

civilian laborers per county for counties within the Project area ranges from fewer than 3,000 to more 

than 185,000. Unemployment rates for counties within the Project area are generally comparable to 

corresponding state levels, with the exception of Monroe County, Ohio, which is approximately twice that 

of the state. 

Pipeline construction would occur over seven “spreads,” which are sections of the pipeline that 

would be constructed independently. Construction of the seven spreads would begin simultaneously in 

the spring of 2008, and each would require between 420 and 520 workers. Therefore, the total number of 

construction workers necessary for pipeline construction would be between 2,940 and 3,640. In addition, 

a total of 560 to 700 workers would be needed to construct the seven compressor stations (80 to 100 

workers per site). Construction of the compressor stations would begin in the spring of 2008, except for 

the Chandlersville and Arlington Compressor Stations, which would begin construction in January 2009. 

Construction of meter stations, laterals, and interconnects would not require additional workers beyond 

those estimated above for construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. The total construction 

workforce would be 3,500 to 4,340. The construction workforce estimates are presented in table 4.9.2-1. 

Table 4.9.2-1 

Estimated Construction Workforce 

Number of Workers 

(Local and Non-local) a/ 

Pipeline Facilities 

Construction workforce per spread 420–520 

Total construction workforce (7 spreads) 2,940–3,640 

Aboveground Facilities 

Construction workforce per compressor station 80–100 

Total construction workforce (7 spreads) 560 to 700 

Total Construction Workforce 3,500-4,340 

___________________ 

a/ This includes workforce for the meter stations, laterals, and interconnects. 

Project construction would use local workers supplemented by workers from outside the Project 

area, as required. Pipeline industry labor agreements stipulate that local labor unions must provide at 

least 50 percent of the construction workforce. If non-union labor is used or local unions cannot provide 

at least 50 percent of the necessary workforce, additional non-local workers would be used. Rockies 

Express expects that about half the total construction workforce (between 1,750 and 2,170 workers) 

would be non-local. If the maximum workforce for a single spread is present within a single county, the 

increase in county population due to the influx of non-local workers would range from 0.1 percent to 4.8 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-155

percent during construction. Therefore, we believe that the construction of the REX East Project would 

provide a minor, temporary increase in construction-related employment in the Project area. 

Following construction, 20 permanent full-time employees would be required to operate the new 

pipeline and aboveground facilities. The Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, Chandlersville, 

and Bertrand Compressor Stations each would have three full-time staff, and the Arlington Compressor 

Station would have two full-time staff. The small number of permanent staff required for operation of the 

proposed facilities would be a minor permanent increase in the local employment rate in the Project area. 

4.9.3 Housing 

Potential impacts on housing in the Project area would be from the temporary influx of pipeline 

construction workers and the relocation of permanent non-local employees into the Project area. 

The estimated availability of temporary housing within the Project area is shown in table 4.9.3-1. 

The average number of estimated available units per county is about 3,000, but ranges considerably 

across counties within the Project area, from fewer than 500 units to just over 12,000. 

Table 4.9.3-1 

Temporary Accommodations for Counties within the Project Area 

State/County 

Rental 

Vacancy 

Rate 

(percent) a/ 

Hotel/Motel 

Units b/ 

Mobile 

Home 

Spaces a/ 

Vacant Rental 

Units a/ 

Vacant Units 

for Seasonal, 

Recreational, 

or Occasional 

Use a/ 

Total 

Available 

Units 

Missouri 

Audrain 10.5 162 1,056 299 69 1,586 

Ralls 16.3 485 979 130 437 2,031 

Pike 12.4 64 1,177 238 317 1,796 

Illinois 

Pike 7.3 41 1,024 124 342 1,531 

Scott 6.9 0 342 37 57 436 

Morgan 11.5 298 1,389 542 81 2,310 

Sangamon 10.3 3,351 5,569 2,715 240 11,875 

Christian 9.3 8 939 341 63 1,351 

Macon 11.0 1,178 2,364 1,628 139 5,309 

Moultrie 4.6 165 382 56 31 634 

Douglas 6.2 205 591 115 32 943 

Edgar 8.0 37 675 175 57 944 

Indiana 

Vermillion 8.3 37 794 126 79 1,036 

Parke 6.7 127 1,383 91 592 2,193 

Putnam 5.2 326 1,731 146 409 2,612 

Hendricks 10.1 1,082 1,893 713 168 3,856 

Morgan 7.5 142 2,345 400 168 3,055 

Johnson 10.1 708 2,356 1,124 261 4,449 

Shelby 7.5 445 855 357 94 1,751 

Decatur 6.3 239 861 170 106 1,376 

Franklin 6.1 156 1,451 95 310 2,012 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-156

Table 4.9.3-1 

Temporary Accommodations for Counties within the Project Area 

State/County 

Rental 

Vacancy 

Rate 

(percent) a/ 

Hotel/Motel 

Units b/ 

Mobile 

Home 

Spaces a/ 

Vacant Rental 

Units a/ 

Vacant Units 

for Seasonal, 

Recreational, 

or Occasional 

Use a/ 

Total 

Available 

Units 

Ohio

Butler 7.3 3,850 4,994 2,775 390 12,009 

Warren 7.5 2,909 1,025 973 178 5,085 

Clinton 8.1 248 1,561 422 146 2,377 

Greene 7.0 1,461 871 1,266 270 3,868 

Fayette 7.2 275 680 285 41 1,281 

Pickaway 6.5 219 2,293 312 65 2,889 

Fairfield 6.2 1,315 1,570 711 462 4,058 

Perry 6.4 29 2,464 176 293 2,962 

Muskingum 7.9 597 3,701 738 338 5,374 

Guernsey 8.9 573 3,120 417 1,086 5,196 

Noble 5.7 52 1,175 55 536 1,818 

Belmont 8.5 383 2,760 659 380 4,182 

Monroe 7.1 8 1,454 88 140 1,690 

Wyoming

Carbon 16.9 617 1,678 360 1,050 3,705 

Nebraska 

Phelps 8.6 62 302 96 32 492 

___________________ 

a/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. 

b/ HotelsTravel, 2007. 

 World Wide Web, 2007. 

 Access Vermillion County, 2007. 

 Parke County Chamber of Commerce, 2007. 

 Sullivan Chamber and Economic Development, 2006. 

 Scott County Courthouse, 2007.

Rockies Express estimates that about 50 percent of the total construction workforce would come 

from outside the Project area. This means that 1,750 to 2,170 workers would require temporary housing. 

Over the seven construction spreads, this is an average of 250 to 310 workers requiring temporary 

housing per spread, including compressor station personnel. Non-local workers would likely choose 

various types of temporary accommodations including daily, monthly, and weekly rentals in motels and 

hotels, campgrounds, recreational vehicles and mobile homes, apartments, and houses. Based on past 

pipeline construction experience, Rockies Express expects that about 30 percent of the workers would use 

their own campers or trailers for temporary housing. Therefore, only 175 to 215 units would be required 

per spread, including compressor station personnel. 

For purposes of this analysis, we assume that the workforce associated with an average spread 

would be located within only one county at a time. We then compared the number of available temporary 

housing units in each county to the estimated number of required units (which range from 175 to 215). 

The estimated number of temporary housing units available in each county is greater than the number of 

units required for an average spread. Therefore, we believe that the number of temporary units within the 

Project area would be sufficient to accommodate the temporary housing demand associated with nonlocal construction workers. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-157

The availability of temporary accommodations would vary depending on local activities and 

tourism. Tourist and local activities in the Project area include, but are not limited to, outdoor recreation 

at state parks and National Forests, festivals and concerts, sporting events, and visitation to historical 

activities and sites. Construction activities would occur during the peak visitation period to many of the 

tourist attractions located within the Project area when hotels and campgrounds already have limited 

vacancies. If vacancy shortages occur during times of peak demand, non-local construction workers 

would need to seek accommodations in communities adjacent to the Project area and face a longer 

commute to their worksite. If such shortages occur, we expect that they would be localized and of limited 

duration (such as isolated weekends). We believe that construction of the REX East Project would have a 

minor temporary impact on temporary housing availability in the Project area. 

As noted above, 20 permanent workers would be required for operation of the Project. The 

housing markets of the communities within the Project area would easily accommodate the small number 

of permanent employees seeking new housing. We believe that operation of the Project would result in 

negligible impacts on the housing market. 

4.9.4 Public Services 

Public services in the Project area include law enforcement, fire and emergency response, 

medical treatment, and education. Construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts on 

the provision of public services. The potential impact on public services resulting from Project 

construction and operation would vary from community to community depending on the number of nonlocal workers relocating in each location, the duration of their stay, and the size of the community. 

Table 4.9.4-1 summarizes the educational, medical, police, and fire full-time equivalents (FTE) 

for all counties and states within the Project area. For the services that have the most potential to be 

affected by the Project – medical, police and fire protection public services - there are an average of 181 

medical, 115 police, and 53 fire FTEs in the counties crossed by the Project. Many counties, however, 

have less than 10 FTEs employed in these public services. As table 4.9.4-1 details, there are eight 

counties with less than 10 fire FTEs; 4 counties with less than 10 medical FTEs; and one county with less 

than 10 police FTEs in the Project area. Additionally, there are five counties with zero (0) fire FTEs and 

three with zero (0) medical FTEs. 

Emergency response to potential construction accidents could impact local police and emergency 

medical services. The magnitude of this impact would depend on the frequency and severity of such 

accidents. Rockies Express has stated that it would coordinate with local police, fire, and emergency 

medical services to minimize impacts of Project construction on public services. 

Given Rockies Express’ commitment to coordinate with public service purveyors, we believe that 

impacts related to the need for emergency services during construction of the Project would be minor and 

temporary. 

The influx of non-local workers could result in impacts on public services that are typical for an 

increase in population, such as increased demand for police and fire response, non-emergency medical 

services, and educational services. The degree of impact would vary from community to community 

depending upon the number of non-local workers and any accompanying family members that reside in 

each community, how long they stay, and the size of the community. The total population in the Project 

area is more than 2.2 million, as discussed above. Fewer than 2,170 non-local workers would temporarily 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-158

Table 4.9.4-1 

Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-time Equivalents within the Project Area 

State/County Education 

Health and

Hospitals 

Police 

Protection 

Fire 

Protection 

Total Full-Time Equivalent 

(excluding education) 

Missouri 122,120 12,167 14,380 5,692 32,239 

Audrain 577 1 55 3 59 

Ralls 134 5 18 0 23 

Pike 445 157 58 25 240 

Illinois 251,680 22,108 39,335 15,205 76,648 

Pike 449 52 34 0 86 

Scott 190 0 9 0 9 

Morgan 768 79 90 26 195 

Sangamon 4,080 148 469 242 859 

Christian 993 24 82 40 146 

Macon 2,059 59 255 160 474 

Moultrie 227 4 38 19 61 

Douglas 370 0 28 2 30 

Edgar 484 14 42 16 72 

Indiana 126,426 25,692 12,520 6,316 44,528 

Vermillion 443 201 29 5 235 

Parke 345 23 23 4 50 

Putnam 998 241 45 13 299 

Hendricks 1,946 712 166 94 972 

Morgan 1,450 407 109 43 559 

Johnson 2,135 473 210 91 774 

Shelby 895 387 85 35 507 

Decatur 523 248 47 20 315 

Franklin 338 5 18 1 24 

Ohio 215,400 29,059 27,383 14,160 70,602 

Butler 5,668 293 611 385 1,289 

Warren 2,458 326 243 112 681 

Clinton 849 1,092 78 18 1,188 

Greene 2,739 172 295 171 638 

Fayette 593 271 57 14 342 

Pickaway 996 370 120 121 611 

Fairfield 1,901 69 211 134 414 

Perry 732 64 50 5 119 

Muskingum 1,888 163 196 74 433 

Guernsey 701 38 85 22 145 

Noble 249 35 20 0 55 

Belmont 1,174 145 128 37 310 

Monroe 367 55 45 1 101 

Wyoming 16,430 4,324 1,420 343 6,087 

Carbon 520 167 78 7 252 

Nebraska 42,378 4,577 3,512 1,200 9,289 

Phelps 378 0 20 0 20 

__________________ 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. 

relocate into the Project area during construction, and only 20 workers would relocate during operation of 

the Project. We believe that the relocation of these workers would result in minor temporary (during 

construction) and permanent (during operation) impacts on public services. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-159

4.9.5 Transportation 

Construction activities could result in temporary impacts on transportation infrastructure. These 

impacts could include disruption to traffic flow due to the movement of construction equipment, 

materials, and crew members; construction of pipeline facilities across existing roads and railways; and 

damage to local roads from the movement of heavy construction equipment and materials. 

We expect that the transportation infrastructure would be minimally and temporarily impacted by 

the REX East construction activities. Any temporary impacts would include damage to local unpaved 

roadways and disruption of traffic flow, particularly during initial staging which requires the transport of 

bulk construction equipment and materials to the respective spread areas, as well as disruption associated 

with roads open-cut for pipeline installation. 

To minimize disruption to traffic flow from construction activities taking place across major 

roadways, Rockies Express would install the pipeline by horizontal boring underneath all paved roadway 

crossings, where possible. Where roads are crossed with an open-cut, temporary travel measures, such as 

steel plates, would be available during active construction to allow passage of emergency vehicles. 

Unlike horizontal boring, this technique may impact traffic by requiring road closures or the use of 

detours for the 1 to 2 days normally needed to perform the task. When no feasible detour is available, one 

lane of the road would remain open until full-road closure is necessary to install the pipe. 

Proper signage would be used to notify drivers of construction activity and flaggers would be 

used to direct flow at high traffic road crossings. Road closures during peak traffic periods would be 

avoided to mitigate impacts on road traffic. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express consult with each 

state’s Department of Transportation and local traffic authorities regarding road 

closures and appropriate detours. Rockies Express should file documentation of this 

consultation with the Secretary. 

Project construction could also impact transportation within the Project area through damage to 

roadways or safety concerns from the movement and operation of construction equipment. Rockies 

Express would take several measures to mitigate these impacts including the following: 

• observance of vehicle weight and width restrictions, 

• removal of soil and other materials from roadways, and 

• use of mats or other methods to ensure that equipment would not damage paved roadways. 

We believe that implementation of the measures described above would avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate potential construction-related impacts on transportation infrastructure; these impacts would be 

minor and temporary. 

Another potential impact is an increase in congestion on the roads from construction-related 

traffic. Construction-related traffic would occur each day to and from sites at each spread, and would 

remain relatively constant throughout the construction period. These trips are typically distributed along 

the spread, so areas of concentrated congestion would be avoided. 

Rockies Express provided estimates of daily traffic volume for larger roadways (30 interstates 

and U.S. highways identified as such) that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Because all 

such roadways would be crossed by horizontal boring, potential transportation impacts would be 

primarily related to construction and worker traffic. The average annual daily traffic on these routes is 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-160

30,000 vehicles per day, ranging from 1,230 to 93,130 vehicles per day. Based on the anticipated peak 

workforce for a site, we estimated that on average construction activities would result in an additional 175 

vehicles per day. This results in an average increase in traffic volume of 0.6 percent on the roadways, 

with the volume ranging from a 14.2 percent increase on the least traveled roads to a 0.2 percent increase 

on the most heavily traveled roadways. These increases in construction-related traffic would be small 

relative to existing traffic within the Project area. We believe that transportation impacts resulting from 

construction-related traffic would be temporary and minor. 

Therefore, in general, we believe that during construction, impacts on local traffic levels would 

not be significant because of the short duration of activities located within each construction spread and 

the generally rural locations in which most of the REX East Project would take place. Furthermore, 

pipeline construction work schedules typically begin and end outside of peak commuting hours. 

The only impacts on transportation during Project operations would result from the presence of 

the small number of operational employees within the Project area. We believe that operational 

employees moving into and commuting to the Project area would have a negligible impact on 

transportation. 

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues 

Construction and operation of the REX East Project would impact the economies and tax 

revenues of the Project area. During construction, Project-related spending on local goods and services 

and tax revenues paid for such goods and services would temporarily provide additional income in the 

Project area. During operation, annual property tax revenues would provide additional income to local 

governments. 

However, both construction and operation could adversely impact the local economy through 

disruption to agriculture or commercial properties. These types of impacts are highly correlated with 

impacts on land use, and are discussed further in section 4.8. Another potential economic impact of the 

Project is effects on property values; these are discussed in a separate section below. Finally, revenue of 

parks or other recreational areas could be reduced if the Project resulted in a decrease in tourism and a 

corresponding decrease in user fees. An analysis of the impacts of the Project on recreational and special 

interest areas is discussed in section 4.8. Based on that analysis, we believe that any reductions in user 

fees would be minor. The remainder of this section focuses on the impact of Project-related spending on 

local goods and services and tax revenue. 

During construction, some portion of the construction payroll would be spent locally for the 

purchase of goods and services, such as housing, food, gasoline, entertainment, and luxury items. The 

amount would depend on the number of construction workers and the length of their employment. Some 

portion of the construction materials likely would be purchased locally. These direct payroll and 

materials expenditures would have a positive impact on local economies and would stimulate indirect 

expenditures within the region as inventories are restocked or new workers are hired to meet demands. 

Local sales taxes would be paid on all goods and services purchased with payroll monies or for 

construction materials. 

To estimate the economic impact of workforce payroll, Rockies Express assumes that 30 percent 

of the workforce payroll would be spent locally on goods and services, such as housing, food, fuel, 

entertainment, and luxury items. The increase in expenditures on goods and services would have a direct 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-161

impact on the local economy and could generate local tax revenues estimated up to $3.5 million.1 The 

estimated workforce payroll and associated sales tax revenues are shown in table 4.9.6-1. Using Rockies 

Express’ assumption that 50 percent of the construction workers would be local, the total pay to local 

workers (a maximum of 2,170 workers) during construction would be about $25 million. Therefore, the 

Project would add tax revenues to those states within the Project area during construction, providing a 

temporary and minor positive impact. 

Table 4.9.6-1 

Project Payroll and Sales Tax Revenues by State 

State 

Estimated 

Construction 

Payroll 

(dollars) a/ 

Estimate of 

Spending of 

Construction Payroll 

(dollars) 

Estimated State 

Consumer Use Tax 

Revenues (dollars )b/ 

Estimated Sales Tax

Revenues from 

Workforce 

Local Spending 

(dollars) c/ 

Missouri $11,352,000 $3,405,600 $47,622 $204,336 

Illinois $51,480,000 $15,444,000 $9,286,299 $1,235,520 

Indiana $43,296,000 $12,988,800 $7,810,016 $779,328 

Ohio $61,512,000 $18,453,600 $11,095,937 $1,291,752 

Wyoming $240,000 $72,000 $336,000 $16,800 

Nebraska $240,000 $72,000 $336,000 $16,800 

Total $168,120,700 $50,436,000 $28,911,874 $3,544,536 

____________________ 

a/ Rockies Express estimated construction payroll by multiplying the estimated total payroll by the amount of construction that 

would occur in each state. 

b/ Rockies Express estimated consumer use tax revenues by multiplying estimated use sales tax on average for each state by 

the anticipated costs of non-local materials purchased. 

c/ Rockies Express estimated that the total workforce local spending is equal to 30% of total construction payroll. This amount

was multiplied by the estimated sales tax rate. The sales tax rates used for calculation are 6.9% for Missouri (average 

from range of 4.2% to 9.6%), 7.6% for Illinois (average from range of 6.25% to 9.0%), 6% for Indiana, 6.8% for Ohio 

(average from range of 6.0% to 7.5%), 6% for Carbon County, Wyoming, and 6.25% for Nebraska (average from range of 

5.5% to 7.0%). 

As mentioned in section 4.9.2, Rockies Express anticipates hiring 20 new permanent employees 

to operate the proposed pipeline and compressor station facilities, which would also generate additional 

state and local tax revenues. 

Economic and fiscal impacts during Project operations would result from the property taxes paid 

on underground and aboveground facilities. These ad valorem taxes would vary depending on the size, 

type, and location of the facility. For example, tax revenues paid to localities with compressor facilities 

are larger than those revenues related to the pipeline because of the high capital costs of compressor 

facility construction. The estimated property taxes paid to each state for pipeline and major aboveground 

facilities are shown in table 4.9.6-2. We believe that property taxes paid on underground and 

aboveground facilities would have permanent, minor, and positive impacts on localities within the Project 

area. 

 

1

 The total tax revenues generated by the expenditures of non-local workers within the Project area would depend on 

the temporary housing type that they choose. Taxes would be paid on hotel and motel rooms, but taxes would not be 

paid on rent for an apartment or house. This estimate assumes that all expenditures within the Project area would 

generate sales tax. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-162

Table 4.9.6-2 

Estimated Annual Ad Valorem Taxes (2009—2028) a/ 

Facility/State 

Estimated Annual Ad Valorem 

Taxes Generated 

Pipeline 

Missouri $16,966,000 

Illinois $0 b/ 

Indiana $42,555,000 

Ohio $350,057,000 

Subtotal $409,578,000 

Major Aboveground Facilities 

Carbon County, Wyoming $6,046,000 

Phelps County, Nebraska $6,630,000 

Audrain County, Missouri $26,402,000 

Christian County, Illinois $880,000 

Putnam County, Indiana $11,025,000 

Butler County, Ohio $106,950,000 

Muskingum County, Ohio $68,509,000 

Subtotal $226,442,000 

Total $636,020,000 

_________________ 

a/ Ad valorem taxes are a property tax on public utility equipment. Ad valorem taxes generate revenue for the counties along 

the pipeline route. 

b/ The state of Illinois does not tax pipeline facilities but does tax aboveground facilities. 

4.9.7 Property Values 

Landowners typically have the following concerns regarding potential impacts on property 

values: devaluation of property if encumbered by a pipeline easement; being the responsible party for 

property taxes within a pipeline easement; paying potential landowner insurance premiums for Projectrelated effects; and negative economic effects resulting from changes in land uses. 

Prior to initiating construction, Rockies Express would acquire easements on private lands for 

both the temporary (construction) and permanent (operation) rights-of-way. The easement would provide 

Rockies Express the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline, and establish a permanent 

right-of-way. In return, Rockies Express would compensate the landowners for use of the land and the 

temporary loss of crops or other land use. Where the pipeline route crosses public land, Rockies Express 

would coordinate with the managing agencies to obtain any required easements or permits. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with the landowner and a project has been certificated by the 

Commission, Rockies Express may use the right of eminent domain granted to it under Section 7(h) of the 

NGA to obtain the right-of-way and additional workspaces identified in the Certificate. Section 7(h) 

implies that eminent domain is a remedy of last resort, to be used “when any holder of a Certificate 

cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be 

paid for, the necessary right-of-way.” Under eminent domain, Rockies Express would still be required to 

compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and for any damages incurred during construction. 

However, the level of compensation would be determined by a court according to state law. 

The impact that a natural gas project may have on the value of any land parcel depends on many 

factors, including the size of the parcel, parcel’s current value, land use, and the value of other nearby 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-163

properties. However, subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This is not to say that 

the Project would not affect resale values. Potential purchasers may make a decision based on intended 

future use and, if the presence of the Project would make that use infeasible, it is possible that that 

potential purchaser may not acquire the parcel. However, each potential purchaser has differing criteria 

and means. 

Landowners are responsible for all property taxes levied against parcels, and this responsibility 

would be independent of the existence of any Project-related pipeline easement. However, if a landowner 

felt that the Project, should it be constructed, reduced the value of their property, the landowner could 

appeal the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local property taxation agency. If the 

parcel were re-appraised, the landowner would then be responsible for property taxes based upon an 

appraisal that directly incorporated the easement. 

Regarding the potential for insurance premium adjustments associated with pipeline proximity, 

insurance advisors consulted on other natural gas projects reviewed by the FERC have indicated that 

LNG terminals and associated pipeline infrastructure do not have an impact on homeowner insurance 

rates (FERC, 2004). As such, the FERC believes that homeowners’ insurance rates are unlikely to change 

as a result of construction and operation of the Project facilities. 

As described in section 4.8, construction and operation of the Project would result in a permanent 

conversion of some lands currently used for agriculture or forestry operations to a maintained, utility 

right-of-way. As part of the right-of-way procurement process, Rockies Express would negotiate with the 

affected landowners to obtain an easement agreement that would compensate the landowner for lost 

economic production on agricultural or forested lands. Potential impacts to these types of land are 

discussed further in section 4.8. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-164

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to consider the effects of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of permits, licenses, or authorizations) on historic properties and 

provide ACHP an opportunity to comment. Rockies Express is assisting the FERC in meeting our 

obligations under Section 106 and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800. 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys 

Rockies Express conducted cultural resources surveys for the proposed facilities, including the 

pipeline rights-of-way, laterals, expanded work areas, pipe/contractor yards, compressor stations, meter 

stations, and access roads. Phase I survey reports for surveys completed to date were submitted to the 

FERC and SHPO of each state crossed by the Project. Cultural resources investigations included archival 

research, as well as archaeological and architectural surveys. In general, a corridor 200 to 250 feet wide 

was surveyed along the pipeline route, with block survey at aboveground facilities and yards. Various 

survey methods were utilized as appropriate, including pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and auguring. 

Deep testing was conducted at river crossings and other areas where geomorphological conditions 

suggested the possibility for deeply buried deposits. Historic architecture within or adjacent to the 

proposed project corridor was documented. For both archaeological and architectural resources, 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP was assessed. Rockies Express has not yet completed cultural 

resources investigations. Additional field surveys and evaluations are ongoing. A summary of the status 

of cultural resource surveys to date for the Project is presented in table 4.10.1-1 and described below. 

Table 4.10.1-1 

Cultural Resources Surveys Status as of August 29, 2007 

Factor Missouri Illinois Indiana Ohio Wyoming Nebraska

Number of Miles Surveyed to Date 42.8 186.4 149.3 196.4 N/A N/A 

Percentage of Miles Surveyed 99.5% 95.4% 89.6% 83.7% N/A N/A 

Total Acreage Surveyed to Date 1,296.6 5,917.8 3,205.9 6,267.7 20.0 17.7 

Total Number of Resources Identified 

to Date 88 397 494 469 1 0 

__________________ 

N/A = not applicable 

Missouri 

Pipeline 

Rockies Express conducted cultural resources survey of 42.8 miles (99.5 percent) of the Project 

right-of-way within Missouri. The survey identified 86 archaeological sites. Thirty-five of these sites 

were recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. These included 33 prehistoric sites, 

one historic site, and one site with both prehistoric and historic components. 

Two architectural resources were identified; one farmstead complex (AU-1), and one agricultural 

shed (AU-2). Both structures have been recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No 

cemeteries are located within or immediately adjacent to the Project right-of-way. In letters dated May 1, 

2007 and August 13, 2007, the Missouri SHPO concurred with the recommendations presented in the 

Phase I survey reports. We also concur. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-165

Rockies Express has not yet completed surveys for the remaining 0.5 mile of pipeline, access 

roads, meter stations, laterals, and pipe/contractor staging yards. Rockies Express would complete 

surveys for these areas as well as for any newly identified pipeline reroutes, access roads, or 

pipe/contractor staging yards once permission to survey is obtained from landowners. Survey results 

would be summarized in a supplemental survey report that Rockies Express would file with the FERC 

and submit to the Missouri SHPO. 

Rockies Express is conducting Phase II evaluations for 31 of the 35 sites potentially eligible for 

the NRHP. Results of these investigations are pending and would be filed with the FERC in a 

supplemental report in November 2007 and March 2008. Rockies Express would file with the FERC 

copies of all future correspondence with the Missouri SHPO, including comments on the survey and 

evaluation reports. Because Rockies Express has not indicated it is conducting Phase II evaluation at the 

four remaining sites (23PI1341, 23PI1352, 23PI1379, and 23RA1878), we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially eligible 

sites in Missouri that have not yet been addressed including 23PI1341, 23PI1352, 

23PI1379, and 23RA1878. Rockies Express should file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II report and the SHPO’s 

comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. 

Mexico Compressor Station 

The Mexico Compressor Station was previously surveyed and reported as part of the REX West 

Project (Docket No. CP06-354-000). One ineligible site (23AU141) was recorded within the facility 

boundaries. Rockies Express re-examined a small portion (approximately 8.4 acres) of the planned 

construction footprint and relocated site 23AU141 during the current survey. No historic structures or 

cemeteries are situated within or immediately adjacent to the Mexico Compressor Station. The Missouri 

SHPO concurred that the site does not meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP and no additional 

fieldwork is necessary. We concur as well. 

Illinois 

Pipeline 

Rockies Express conducted cultural resources survey of 186.4 miles (95.4 percent) of the 

proposed pipeline corridor in Illinois. A total of 396 archaeological sites were identified. Fifty-five 

archaeological sites were recommended as eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. These 

include 41 prehistoric sites, two historic sites, and 12 sites with both prehistoric and historic components. 

Five archaeological sites (four prehistoric and one site with both prehistoric and historic components) 

have been recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP (11PK1599, 11PK1595, 11PK1245, 

11SG1344, and 11M245) and one site has been recommended for avoidance (11PK1531). Three of these 

eligible and potentially eligible sites are prehistoric mound sites (11PK1245, 11PK1709, and 11PK1733). 

Rockies Express has developed a plan to avoid the Montezuma Mound Group (11PK1245). In a letter 

dated August 23, 2007, the Illinois SHPO concurred that the proposed reroute would result in no adverse 

effect on the site. To ensure construction does not inadvertently encroach on the mound group, we 

recommend that: 

• Rockies Express fence the right-of-way and provide an archaeological monitor during 

construction in the vicinity of the Montezuma Mound Group (11PK1245). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-166

In a letter dated September 10, 2007, the Illinois SHPO indicated that in accordance with Illinois 

law (Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act [20ILCS 3440]), the other two mound sites (11PK1709 and 

11PK1733) must be avoided as well. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express develop and file with 

the Secretary a plan for avoiding and protecting prehistoric mound sites 11PK1709 and 

11PK1733, and documentation of SHPO comments on the plan. 

Architectural survey within Illinois identified one architectural resource, a farmstead complex 

(PK-2) in Pike County, Illinois. The farmstead complex, recommended as potentially NRHP-eligible, is 

located immediately north of the Project right-of-way and was determined to retain a relatively high 

degree of integrity. Construction is not expected to directly affect the complex, and viewshed impacts 

during construction would be temporary. The Cumberland Sugar Creek Cemetery, a 19th-century-era 

cemetery, was identified in Sangamon County, Illinois. The cemetery is located north of the project rightof-way, and is clearly marked. Therefore, the Project would have no effect on this property. 

Rockies Express identified a segment of the historic U.S. Route 66 that is listed on the NRHP and 

is located immediately adjacent to the Project in Sangamon County. The brick and concrete roadbed may 

be affected by heavy vehicle traffic associated with the Project if used as an access road. Rockies Express 

would limit usage of the road to light-duty vehicle traffic to minimize adverse effects. In letters dated 

June 15, 2007 and September 7, 2007, the Illinois SHPO concurred with the findings of the Phase I 

survey reports. We concur as well. 

Rockies Express has not yet completed cultural resources surveys for the entire pipeline, access 

roads, meter stations, laterals, and pipe/contractor staging yards. Rockies Express would complete 

surveys for these areas and for any newly identified pipeline reroutes, access roads, or pipe/contractor 

staging yards once permission to survey is obtained from the landowner. Survey results would be 

summarized in a supplemental report that Rockies Express would file with the FERC and submit to the 

Illinois SHPO. 

Rockies Express is conducting Phase II evaluations for 37 archaeological sites potentially eligible 

for the NRHP. Results of these investigations are pending and would be filed with the FERC in a 

supplemental report in March 2008. Rockies Express would file with the FERC copies of all future 

correspondence with the Illinois SHPO, including comments on the survey and evaluation reports. 

Because Rockies Express has not indicated it is conducting Phase II evaluation at the 16 remaining sites 

(11E141, 11PK1334, 11PK1597, 11PK1674, and 12 pending site numbers), we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially eligible 

sites in Illinois that have not yet been addressed, including sites 11E141, 11PK1334, 

11PK1597, 11PK1674, and 12 pending site numbers. Rockies Express should file with 

the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II 

report and the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. 

Blue Mound Compressor Station 

Rockies Express surveyed the planned construction footprint of the Blue Mound Compressor 

Station, plus a small buffer zone (approximately 18.3 acres). One archaeological site (11CN497) was 

recorded within the survey area. The site represents a dense concentration of early 20th-century industrial 

artifacts. Rockies Express recommended that the site did not meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP 

and recommended no additional fieldwork. The Illinois SHPO concurred. We also concur. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-167

Indiana 

Pipeline 

Rockies Express conducted cultural resources surveys of 149.3 miles (89.6 percent) of the Project 

within Indiana. A total of 489 archaeological sites have been identified. Of the 489 sites, 37 were 

recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP and seven had pending determinations but 

are being treated as potentially eligible at this time. One previously identified archaeological site mapped 

within the Project corridor, 12FR125b, is a prehistoric mound group eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

The site was not re-identified during the current survey; however, remnants of the mounds could be 

present beneath the ground surface. To ensure construction does not inadvertently encroach on the 

mound group, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express develop and file with 

the Secretary a plan for avoiding and protecting prehistoric mound site 12FR125b. 

Of the 45 archaeological sites eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, 24 are 

prehistoric sites, 12 are historic, and 9 have both prehistoric and historic components. Rockies Express is 

conducting Phase II evaluations for 33 of the 45 sites potentially eligible for the NRHP, and results of the 

evaluations are pending. Rockies is reviewing options for avoiding five sites (12FR125b, 12VE563, 

12VE562, 12PM657, and 12PM350). Results of these investigations are pending and would be filed with 

the FERC in a supplemental report in November 2007 and March 2008. Because Rockies Express has not 

indicated that it is conducting Phase II evaluations at the seven remaining sites (12FR337, 12PM345, and 

the five sites with pending site numbers), we recommend that:

• Rockies Express avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially eligible 

sites in Indiana that have not yet been addressed, including 12FR337, 12PM345, 

12DE776, and the five sites with pending site numbers. Rockies Express should file with 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II report 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. 

In letters dated May 10, 2007 and September 17, 2007, the Indiana SHPO provided comments on 

the survey reports. In addition to the sites listed above, they recommended that site 12DE776 may be 

eligible for listing on the NRHP and should be avoided or receive Phase II evaluation. Rockies Express 

has since submitted Phase II plans for 12DE776. SHPO also requested additional information regarding a 

brick kiln site (2-92) and noted that another site (12SH12) at one time consisted of burial mounds, and 

requested notification of any unanticipated discoveries of human remains at that site. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Rockies Express provide an archaeological monitor during construction for work in the 

vicinity of former mound site 12SH12. 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express address any 

concerns or requests for additional information expressed by the Indiana SHPO in 

comments submitted in letters dated May 10 and September 17, 2007. 

Architectural survey has not been completed for Indiana. Archival research indicated that the 

pipeline would traverse Highway 40, the National Road, at MP 298.4 in Hendricks County. Rockies 

Express indicated it would bore under the road, and recommended that there would be no adverse effects 

to the highway. Additionally, the Project would cross a portion of the abandoned B&O Railroad, which 

has been converted into a hiking trail. The NRHP-eligibility for this resource has not been assessed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-168

However, because Rockies Express would bore under the trail, there would be no impact to the former 

railroad bed. No additional evaluation has been recommended for either of these resources. Three 

cemeteries were identified in the vicinity of the Project right-of-way. The Lane Cemetery is located 

outside the project area approximately 175 feet from the centerline. The project would not impact this 

cemetery. The Brockman Cemetery, a 19th through 20th century community cemetery registered with the 

state, was identified adjacent to the pipeline corridor. Additionally, site 12FR332, a small historic 

cemetery consisting of two marked graves and two possible unmarked graves, was identified within the 

project corridor. The graves represent members of the Beeler family, and one is dated 1878. The survey 

reports recommend avoidance and development of plans for protection of the two cemeteries during 

construction. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express avoid the Brockman Cemetery and Site 12FR332 and prior to the end 

of the draft EIS comment period, develop and file with the Secretary plans for site 

protection from construction activities. 

• Prior to construction, Rockies Express complete architectural surveys for Indiana, file 

with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP a report with the 

survey results, and file with the Secretary SHPO’s comments on the report. 

The Project right-of-way would cross two historic canals in Indiana: the Wabash & Erie Canal 

and the Whitewater Canal. The Wabash & Erie Canal is located at MP 247.6 in Park County. The canal 

is listed on the Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures. Field survey found that canal features in 

this location retain a high degree of integrity. Rockies Express has indicated that it plans to use the opencut method of construction to cross this area. The canal has been recommended for Phase II evaluation to 

assess whether the portion of the canal is eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, we recommend 

that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express avoid or file with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP a Phase II evaluation for the 

Wabash & Erie Canal and the SHPO’s comments on the report. 

The Whitewater Canal is located at MP 394.0 in Franklin County. Although field investigation 

found much of the canal was destroyed by adjacent railroad construction and erosion, the towpath of the 

canal was intact. This portion of the canal was assessed as potentially eligible for the NRHP. Rockies 

Express would HDD beneath the towpath as well as the adjacent railroad and State Highway 52 to avoid 

adverse effects to this resource. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific HDD construction plan that 

describes how the archaeological features associated with the Whitewater Canal would 

be avoided. 

Rockies Express has not yet completed cultural resources survey including access roads, meter 

stations, laterals, and pipe/contractor staging yards, as well as some of the deep testing. Rockies Express 

would complete surveys for these areas and for any newly identified pipeline reroutes, access roads, or 

pipe/contractor staging yards once permission to survey is obtained from the landowner. Survey results 

would be summarized in a supplemental report that Rockies Express would file with the FERC and 

submit to the Indiana SHPO. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-169

Bainbridge Compressor Station 

Rockies Express surveyed the planned construction footprint of the Bainbridge Compressor 

Station, plus a small buffer zone (approximately 19.1 acres). No cultural resources were identified. In a 

letter dated May 10, 2007, the Indiana SHPO concurred with the finding of the survey report. We also 

concur. 

Ohio 

Pipeline 

Rockies Express conducted cultural resources surveys for 196.4 miles (83.7 percent) of the 

project within Ohio. A total of 456 archaeological sites have been identified. Of those, 47 sites were 

found potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. An initial assessment is pending for another 20 sites. 

Two sites, 33PE351 and 33PE362, represent portions of established NRHP-eligible sites. All 69 of these 

sites are being treated as potentially eligible. 

Of the 69 archaeological sites that are eligible or potentially eligible, 41 are prehistoric sites, 11 

are historic, and 17 have both prehistoric and historic components. Avoidance is recommended for the 

two sites (33PE351 and 33PE362) representing portions of established NRHP-eligible sites. If avoidance 

is not practicable, Rockies Express would develop plans for site treatment or mitigation at these locations 

in consultation with SHPO and would file this correspondence with the FERC. In addition, Rockies 

Express is reviewing options for avoiding two sites (33BU1039 and 33WA823). Rockies Express is 

conducting Phase II evaluations for 43 of the 69 sites. Results of the Phase II evaluations are pending and 

would be filed with the FERC in supplemental reports in November 2007 and March 2008. An additional 

10 sites are pending both site numbers and initial determinations. Information on these sites would be 

filed with the supplemental reports. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially eligible 

sites that have not yet been addressed in Ohio. Rockies Express should file with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II report 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. 

In letters dated May 9, 2007 and September 6, 2007 the Ohio SHPO provided their comments on 

the survey reports. They requested additional information for 35 sites in order to make eligibility and 

impacts assessments. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express address the 

comments of the Ohio SHPO contained in letters dated September 6, 2007, and provide 

any information requested by SHPO. 

A total of 13 standing structures, all potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, appear to be 

located within the construction right-of-way. Six buildings comprising two farmsteads and some isolated 

agricultural outbuildings date from the early to mid-20th century. Initial evaluation was not completed 

for the other seven buildings as access to the property was denied. These 13 structures were 

recommended for additional research to determine eligibility or project effects. One of these, the HuntForman Farm, is listed on the NRHP. Access to the property has been denied by the landowner and 

impacts have not been assessed. Additionally, a landowner in Warren County, Ohio commented in a 

letter that the proposed pipeline would cut through maple trees on the Wilson Friendly Farm, a family 

maple farm that has been in operation since the late 19th century. Additional architectural evaluation is 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-170

needed to assess the NRHP eligibility and effects of the Project on that property. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express avoid or file with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP an assessment of eligibility and 

effects for the architectural resources in Ohio, a report summarizing the assessment, 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report. 

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express avoid or conduct and file with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a report with 

additional architectural evaluations of the Wilson Friendly Farm in Warren County, 

Ohio (MP 458) and the SHPO’s comments on the report. 

The pipeline would parallel the NRHP-eligible “Big Inch” and “Little Big Inch” pipelines 

through portions of Ohio. Because these are buried pipelines and Rockies Express construction activities 

would be approximately 50 feet away, the proposed work would have no impact on this historic property, 

and no additional work is recommended. Additionally, the pipeline route would cross U.S. Highway 42, 

in Warren County, Ohio, which was constructed over the Accommodation Line, an early 19th century 

stagecoach route. The Project’s impact on the NRHP-eligibility of the Accommodation Line has not been 

assessed. Because Rockies Express intends to bore under the current highway, no additional evaluation 

of the former stagecoach route is recommended. There are no known cemeteries within proximity of the 

pipeline route in Ohio. 

Because the architectural evaluations are incomplete, the Ohio SHPO has not provided comments 

on the findings and recommendations of the architectural survey to date. Rockies Express would file 

completed architectural evaluations for Ohio, as well as copies of future correspondence with the Ohio 

SHPO including comments on the architectural evaluations. 

Five historic canals would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Ohio; the Warren County 

Canal, the Miami & Erie Canal, the Ohio & Erie Canal, the Hocking Valley Canal, and the Muskingum 

River Improvement Canal. The Ohio SHPO considers the state canal system to be historically significant. 

No trace of the Warren County Canal was identified and no additional fieldwork was recommended. 

Rockies Express is planning to use the open-cut method of construction at this crossing. Identificationphase cultural resources surveys were conducted at the proposed crossings of the other four historic 

canals. Survey found that the embankments, towpath, and prism of the Miami & Erie Canal at MP 430.8 

in Butler County were largely intact. The Ohio & Erie Canal is a National Heritage Corridor. The survey 

indicated that the canal prism at the Ohio & Erie Canal at MP 516.0 in Pickaway County was intact. At 

the Hocking Valley Canal at MP 534.1 in Fairfield County, both the canal prism and towpath were 

reported as intact. The Muskingum River Improvement Canal, located at MP 575.6 in Muskingham 

County, was listed on the NRHP as the Muskingum River Navigation Historic District in February 2007. 

Field investigations found no traces of the canal in the area of the proposed crossing, although the canal 

prism was observed north and south of the crossing location. The canal has likely eroded into the river at 

the location of the proposed pipeline crossing. Rockies Express is planning to horizontally directional 

drill beneath each of these canals, thereby avoiding adverse effects to the structural and visual integrity of 

these properties. In a letter dated September 6, 2007, the Ohio SHPO concurred with the findings and 

recommendations for these historic canals. We also agree. 

Hamilton Compressor Station 

Rockies Express surveyed 34.2 acres for the proposed Hamilton Compressor Station and 

identified two prehistoric sites, 33BU1071 and 33BU1072. Neither site is recommended eligible for the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-171

NRHP. In a letter dated September 6, 2007, the Ohio SHPO concurred with these recommendations. We 

concur as well. 

Chandlersville Compressor Station 

Rockies Express surveyed an area of approximately 23.5 acres that included the proposed 

Chandlersville Compressor Station and a proposed access road. No cultural resources were identified. In 

a letter dated September 6, 2007, SHPO concurred with the recommendations of the survey report. We 

concur as well. 

Wyoming 

Arlington Compressor Station 

The Arlington Compressor Station was previously surveyed for the REX Entrega Project (Docket 

No. CP04-413-000). One isolated prehistoric artifact was identified, and assessed not eligible for NRHP 

listing. Rockies Express filed the relevant sections of that survey report, and the Wyoming SHPO’s 

concurrence dated August 9, 2005 with that report, in a supplemental filing. We concur that no historic 

properties would be affected by this component of the Project. 

Nebraska 

Bertrand Compressor Station 

The Bertrand Compressor Station was previously surveyed for the REX West Project (Docket 

No. CP06-354-000). No cultural resources were identified and no further work was recommended for the 

area. Rockies Express filed the relevant sections of that survey report, and the Nebraska SHPO’s 

concurrence with the report dated July 14, 2006, in a supplemental filing. We concur as well. 

4.10.2 Native American Consultations 

We sent our Notice of Intent for the Project, issued August 16, 2006, to 31 Indian tribes and 

Native American groups who either historically occupied the Project area or who might attach religious or 

cultural significance to sites in the region. Three tribes responded. The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma stated that they were currently unaware of a cultural link to area but wanted to be notified of 

unexpected discoveries. The Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska and the 

Wyandotte Nation both wanted construction to be halted and to be notified in the event of unexpected 

cultural discoveries. 

Rockies Express sent consultation letters to 43 Indian tribes and Native American groups 

regarding the Project (table 4.10.2-1). Second and third attempts were made to contact tribes who did not 

respond to the initial mailing. A total of 22 tribes responded to the Rockies Express contact program. 

Two tribes, the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and the Wea Indian Tribe, wished to participate in the 

consultation process. Three tribes expressed interest in parts of the Project, but have not responded to 

further inquiries. These include the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of 

Oklahoma, and the Tallige Cherokee Nation. Seventeen tribes either declined to participate in the process 

or asked only to be notified if human remains or associated burial items were encountered during 

construction. The remaining 21 tribes have not yet responded. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-172

Table 4.10.2-1 

Tribal Consultations 

Tribe Response Comment 

Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas No No response 

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Yes Declined to participate 

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Yes Wishes to participate in consultation 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma No No response 

Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Forest County Potawatomi Community of Missouri No No response 

Gun Lake Potawatomi No No response 

Huron Potawatomi Nation No No response 

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Wea Indian Tribe Yes Wishes to participate in consultation 

Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana Council No No response 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Loyal Shawnee Tribe No No response 

Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band Yes Expressed interest, but has not provided further detail 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians No No response 

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Declined to participate 

Seneca Nation of Indians Yes Declined to participate 

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Yes Expressed interest, but has not provided further detail 

Cayuga Nation No No response 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Yes Declined to participate 

Tallige Cherokee Nation Yes Expressed interest, but has not provided further detail 

Wyandotte Nation Yes Notify if items falling under NAGPRA are discovered 

Northern Ute Indian Tribe No Contacted September 2007 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe No Contacted September 2007 

Northern Arapahoe Tribe No Contacted September 2007 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe No Contacted September 2007 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma No Contacted September 2007 

Comanche Nation No Contacted September 2007 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council No Contacted September 2007 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council No Contacted September 2007 

Crow Tribal Council No Contacted September 2007 

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma No Contacted September 2007 

Cheyenne-Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma No Contacted September 2007 

Plains Apache Tribe of Oklahoma No Contacted September 2007 

_____________________ 

NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-173

Rockies Express sent copies of survey reports completed as of April 2007 to the Wea Indian 

Tribe and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska on April 10, 2007, at their request. To date, neither 

tribe has responded with comments on the reports. Rockies Express would file with the FERC copies of 

any future correspondence with the Indian tribes and Native American groups, including any comments 

on the survey reports. 

4.10.3 Comments from Other Interested Parties 

The City of Springfield voiced concerns about cultural resources on property associated with the 

Hunter Lake Water Reservoir Project in Sangamon County, Illinois. Similar concerns were raised by the 

Regulatory Affairs Manager for Public Utilities. The Hunter Lake Water Reservoir Project encompasses 

discontinuous tracts between MPs 123.1 and 124.5, MPs 125.7 and 126.2, MPs 127.1 and 127.2, and MPs 

127.5 and 127.8. These areas were surveyed and three isolated artifacts were recorded (11SG1343, 

11SG1333, and 11SG1342), with none recommended as eligible for the NRHP. 

The Decatur County Freedom Trails Association expressed concern about “Underground 

Railroad” sites in Decatur County, Indiana. As described by the Decatur County Freedom Trails 

Association, the Underground Railroad operated between MPs 368.8 and 376.1. A public comment 

received also expressed concern that the proposed pipeline route would cross the National Freedom Trail 

historical site and archaeological study area. Surveys within this area recorded no evidence of 

Underground Railroad activities; archaeological survey identified no historic sites. Three prehistoric sites 

in the area, 12DE694, 12DE701, and 12DE713, were recommended for further testing to determine 

eligibility. Results of additional testing would be filed with the FERC when they become available. 

A landowner of a parcel situated in Johnson County, Indiana between MPs 336.9 and 337.4 

expressed concerns about the effects of the Project on historic properties. The landowner’s concerns have 

been addressed by a reroute of the pipeline. Similarly, a landowner voiced concerns about potential 

impacts on cultural resources on his property between MPs 358.4 and 358.8 in Decatur County, Indiana. 

This was also resolved by a reroute. 

A landowner voiced concerns about potential impacts on cultural resources and a graveyard on 

the property at MP 376.4 in Franklin County, Indiana. The landowner, however, has denied access for 

cultural resource surveys. Rockies Express would continue to work with the landowner to address the 

concerns about historic properties. The results would be filed in a supplemental report as soon as they are 

completed. 

A landowner in Franklin County, Indiana near MP 393.7 expressed concern over a cemetery and 

artifacts on the property. Rockies Express surveyed the area and found two sites. Site 12FR336 is a 

multi-component prehistoric/historic site found not eligible for the NRHP. Site 12FR125b is the 

Magnesia Spring Mound Group discussed above. This prehistoric mound site is eligible for the NRHP. 

Although it is south of the right-of-way and would not be directly affected, we have recommended 

fencing and archaeological monitoring during construction activities in the vicinity of this site. No 

historic cemetery was identified by the survey. 

A resident of Decatur County, Indiana expressed concern over Native American burials on his 

properties. The landowner, however, has denied access for cultural resource surveys. Rockies Express 

would continue to work with the landowner to address the concerns about historic properties. The results 

would be filed in a supplemental report as soon as they are completed. 

 

A property owner in Franklin County, Indiana expressed concerns at a scoping meeting about a 

historic cemetery on his property. The landowner, however, has denied access for cultural resource 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-174

surveys. Rockies Express would continue to work with the landowner to address the concerns about 

historic properties. The results would be filed in a supplemental report as soon as they are completed. 

The landowner of a parcel situated in Warren County, Ohio between MPs 440.8 and 441.3 

expressed concerns about the effects of the Project on historic properties in a letter to the FERC. The 

landowner, however, has denied access for cultural resource surveys. Rockies Express would continue to 

work with the landowner to address the concerns about historic properties. The results would be filed in a 

supplemental report as soon as they are completed. 

NPS expressed concern about potential impacts on several federally designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Natural Landmark properties, and National Historic Landmarks. The REX East Project 

does not affect any of the identified National Natural Landmark properties or National Historic 

Landmarks; however, the Project would cross the Little Miami River and the Big Darby Creek, both Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. Two archaeological sites were identified at the Little Miami River crossing. Neither 

site is eligible for the NRHP, and no additional testing is recommended. At the Big Darby crossing, site 

33PI931 was identified on the eastern bank, but was also determined not eligible for the NRHP. 

A landowner of property situated in Perry County, Ohio between MPs 554.6 and 555.4 voiced 

concerns about the effects of the Project on historic properties and natural geologic resources. The 

cultural resources survey for this area has been completed and three archaeological sites were identified. 

Two of these sites are potentially eligible for the NRHP and additional testing is recommended; the third 

site is not eligible for the NRHP. Rockies Express has modified the right-of-way since the fieldwork was 

completed to avoid this location. Rockies Express would complete the survey of the final route and 

provide the results of that investigation in a supplemental report. 

4.10.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plans 

Rockies Express has developed state-specific Unanticipated Discovery Plans for the Project 

specifying procedures for the handling of unanticipated discoveries of cultural material or human remains 

found during construction. Each state-specific plan has been submitted to the respective SHPO for 

review. On May 14, 2007, the Ohio SHPO concurred with the Ohio Unanticipated Discovery Plan. The 

Indiana and Missouri SHPOs concurred with revised state-specific discovery plans on May 21, 2007 and 

May 24, 2007, respectively. The Illinois SHPO concurred with the Illinois plan on June 18, 2007. 

In Wyoming and Nebraska, Rockies Express submitted Unanticipated Discovery Plans that it 

developed for previous undertakings. In a letter dated August 9, 2005, the Wyoming SHPO concurred 

with the Wyoming plan developed for the REX Entrega Project (Docket No. CP04-413-000) for 

construction of the proposed Arlington Compressor Station. In a letter dated March 29, 2006, the 

Nebraska SHPO concurred with the Nebraska plan prepared for its REX West Project for construction of 

the proposed Bertrand Compressor Station (Docket No. CP06-354-000). These plans were updated for 

the REX East Project and submitted to the respective SHPOs. No additional comments have been 

received to date. 

4.10.5 Impact and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities could affect historic 

properties. Project impacts could be direct or indirect. Direct impacts could include the physical 

destruction or damage to all or a portion of a site, or alteration or removal of a property. Indirect impacts 

could include the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that would diminish the 

integrity of the site or alter settings associated with historic properties. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-175

Mitigation measures may range from data recovery, including the scientific excavation of 

archaeological sites; to detailed documentation, including architectural drawings of historic buildings; to 

the use of landscaping techniques to screen visual intrusions and maintain site settings. 

Because survey and evaluation is ongoing, the FERC has yet to determine whether any historic 

properties would be adversely affected. However, Rockies Express would be required to provide plans 

indicating how impacts on historic properties would be mitigated. The plans would be reviewed and 

approved by the SHPO(s) and the FERC. Implementation of the plans would occur only after the FERC 

issues any certificate for the Project and provides written notification to proceed. 

4.10.6 Compliance with the NHPA 

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA has not been completed for the Project. Survey and 

evaluation is ongoing. If any property listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the NRHP would be 

adversely affected by the Project, the FERC would consult the SHPOs, and other parties, as appropriate, 

to resolve adverse effects, and would afford the ACHP opportunity to participate in accordance with 36 

CFR 800.6(a)(1). Rockies Express would be required to produce site-specific treatment plans for the 

mitigation of unavoidable adverse effects to historic properties. These treatment plans would be reviewed 

and approved by the appropriate parties. Specified treatment measures would be implemented only after 

the Commission issues any order authorizing the Project. The FERC would ensure that treatment is 

carried out before construction is allowed in any given area. 

To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are 

met, we recommend that:

• Rockies Express defer construction and use of facilities, staging, storage, temporary 

work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Rockies Express files with the Secretary all additional required cultural resource 

inventory and evaluation reports, avoidance or treatment plans, and any additional 

information that SHPOs have requested; 

b. Rockies Express files with the Secretary copies of the appropriate SHPO comments 

on all reports and plans; 

c. The ACHP has been provided an opportunity to comment on whether any historic 

properties would be adversely affected; and 

d. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies 

Rockies Express in writing that it may proceed with treatment or construction. 

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.”

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-176

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the Project. Though air emissions 

would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and aboveground 

facilities proposed by Rockies Express, most air emissions associated with the Project would result from 

the long-term operation of the compressor stations. 

The REX East Project would consist of the installation of approximately 639.1 miles of new 

natural gas pipeline, construction of five new compressor stations along the new REX East Project 

pipeline route, construction of one new compressor station located along the REX West Project pipeline 

route, and construction of one new compressor station located along the REX Entrega pipeline route. The 

construction of the Project’s facilities would impact six states: Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Ohio, and Wyoming. Table 4.11.1-1 identifies each of the proposed compressor stations. 

Table 4.11.1-1 

Proposed Compressor Stations 

Pipeline 

Route 

Compressor 

Station Location Total Horsepower 

REX Entrega Arlington MP 237.0, Carbon County, Wyoming 19,794 

REX West Bertrand MP 286.8, Phelps County, Nebraska 34,210 

REX East Mexico MP 0.0, Audrain County, Missouri 41,000 

REX East Blue Mound MP 144.1, Christian County, Illinois 35,174 

REX East Bainbridge MP 277.3, Putnam County, Indiana 41,000 

REX East Hamilton MP 435.7, Butler County, Ohio 35,000 

REX East Chandlersville MP 575.0, Muskingum County, Ohio 19,538 

Rockies Express proposes to construct the Arlington Compressor Station near Arlington in 

Carbon County, Wyoming; the Bertrand Compressor Station near Loomis in Phelps County, Nebraska; 

the Mexico Compressor Station near Mexico in Audrain County, Missouri; the Blue Mound Compressor 

Station near Blue Mound in Christian County, Illinois; the Bainbridge Compressor Station near 

Bainbridge in Putnam County, Indiana; the Hamilton Compressor Station near Hamilton in Butler 

County, Ohio; and to the Chandlersville Compressor Station near Chandlersville in Muskingum County, 

Ohio. 

At the Arlington Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install three Caterpillar 

16CM34 natural-gas fired reciprocating engines rated at 6,598 hp each totaling 19,794 hp, one 

850 kilowatt (kW) natural-gas fired emergency generator, one 0.75 million British Thermal Units per 

hour (MMBtu/hr) natural-gas fired fuel gas heater, and five storage tanks. Rockies Express is currently in 

the process of applying for an air permit to the state of Wyoming. The air dispersion modeling portion of 

the application is currently incomplete. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the completed air dispersion modeling portion of the permit application for 

the Arlington Compressor Station. 

At the Bertrand Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two Caterpillar 12CM34 

and three Caterpillar 16CM34 natural-gas fired reciprocating engines rated at 5,699 hp and 7,604 hp 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-177

respectively, totaling 34,210 hp. Rockies Express also proposes to install a 1,246 hp natural-gas fired 

emergency generator, one 0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater, and five storage tanks. 

At the Mexico Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two Solar Titan 130 gas 

turbines rated at 20,500 hp each, totaling 41,000 hp, a 566 hp natural-gas fired emergency generator, one 

0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater and two storage tanks. 

At the Blue Mound Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two Caterpillar 

12CM34 and three Caterpillar 16CM34 natural-gas fired reciprocating engines rated at 5,860 hp and 

7,818 hp respectively, totaling 35,174 hp. Rockies Express also proposes to install a 1,246 hp natural-gas 

fired emergency generator, one 0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater, and five storage tanks. 

At the Bainbridge Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two Solar Titan 

130 gas turbines rated at 20,500 hp each, totaling 41,000 hp, a 566 hp natural-gas fired emergency 

generator, one 0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater and two storage tanks. 

At the Hamilton Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two electric driven 

centrifugals rated at 17,500 hp each, totaling 35,000 hp, a 355 hp diesel fired emergency generator, and 

one 0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater. Since the proposed Hamilton Compressor Station 

would have electric, motor-driven compressors units, the station would only have short-term, 

construction-related air quality emissions, and very small, long-term operational air quality impacts 

associated with the operation of the heater and generator. 

At the Chandlersville Compressor Station, Rockies Express proposes to install two Caterpillar 

12CM34 and one Caterpillar 16CM34 natural-gas fired reciprocating engines rated at 5,860 hp and 7,818 

hp respectively, totaling 19,538 hp. Rockies Express also proposes to install an 850 kW natural-gas fired 

emergency generator, and one 0.75 MMBtu/hr natural-gas fired fuel gas heater, and storage tanks. 

Rockies Express is currently in the process of applying for an air permit to the state of Ohio. Information 

contained in their air permit application, including the number of storage tanks and the final compressor 

station power rating and their associated emissions is necessary for verification of the air quality analysis. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express file with the 

Secretary the completed air permit application for the Chandlersville Compressor 

Station. 

Rockies Express intends to file the necessary applications for air quality construction permits as 

described in Chapter 1. In general these permits may require that air dispersion modeling be conducted 

for each compressor station. Each station would be required to comply with the federal, state, and local 

air quality permitting requirements. 

Existing Air Quality 

The REX East Project would involve the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile-long natural 

gas pipeline that would cross 34 counties in four states: Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. These 

include: Pike, Scott, Morgan, Sangamon, Christian, Macon, Moultrie, Douglas, and Edgar Counties in 

Illinois; Vermillion, Parke, Putnam, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson, Shelby, Decatur and Franklin Counties 

in Indiana; Audrain, Ralls and Pike Counties in Missouri; and Butler, Warren, Clinton, Greene, Fayette, 

Pickaway, Fairfield, Perry, Muskingum, Guernsey, Noble, Belmont and Monroe Counties in Ohio. Five 

of the seven compressor facilities would be constructed along the proposed REX East pipeline route, 

while the two other compressor stations would be constructed in Carbon County, Wyoming, and in Phelps 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-178

County, Nebraska (for a total of 36 counties). The regional climate along the Project is continental with 

frequent precipitation; however the Arlington Compressor Station located in Wyoming is located in a 

more semi-arid climate and is considerably drier and cooler. Representative annual average maximum 

temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation, and snowfall for each compressor station are presented 

in table 4.11.1-2. 

Table 4.11.1-2 

Representative Annual Average Meteorological Conditions 

at Compressor Station Sites a/ 

Station 

Meteorological 

Monitor Location 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(°F) 

Minimum 

Temperature

(°F) 

Precipitation 

(inches) 

Total 

Snowfall

(inches) 

Arlington Rawlins, Wyoming b/ 55 30 9.0 51.9 

Bertrand Holdrege, Nebraska c/ 63 39 25.2 29.3 

Mexico Mexico, Missouri c/ 65 42 39.6 20.2 

Blue Mound Decatur, Illinois d/ 64 42 39.7 21.9 

Bainbridge Greencastle, Indiana d/ 62 43 44.2 27.0 

Hamilton Middletown, Ohio d/ 62 44 39.7 12.4 

Chandlersville Zanesville, Ohio d/ 63 40 36.7 23.5 

____________________ 

a/ High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2007a;b; Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 2007 

b/ Based on 56 years (1951–2006) 

c/ Based on 59 years (1948–2006) 

d/ Based on 30 years (1971–2000) 

°F = Degrees Fahrenheit 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants for which the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), particulate matter based on a particle size of 10 microns or less (PM10) and a particle size of 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS were developed 

to protect human health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards). Individual state air 

quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. All states the Project crosses have adopted 

the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50 except for Wyoming. Wyoming has standards that differ from the 

federal standards for SO2. Table 4.11.1-3 lists the NAAQS and Wyoming’s ambient air quality standards 

for the criteria pollutants. 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

The Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) were established in accordance with section 107 of 

the CAA, as a means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs). The AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where the 

improvement of the air quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the 

AQCR. Each AQCR, or portion thereof, is designated as attainment (areas in compliance with the 

NAAQS), unclassifiable, maintenance, or non-attainment (areas not in compliance with the NAAQS). 

Areas where the ambient air pollutant concentration is determined to be below the applicable ambient air 

quality standard are designated attainment. Areas where no data are available are designated 

unclassifiable. Unclassifiable areas are treated as attainment areas for the purpose of permitting a 

stationary source of pollution. Areas where the ambient air concentration is greater than the applicable 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-179

Table 4.11.1-3 

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS WAAQS a/ All Other States b/ 

CO 1-Hour c/ 

8-Hour c/ 

35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3

) 

15 ppm (10,000 μg/m3

) 

40,000 μg/m3

10,000 μg/m3 40,000 μg/m3 

10,000 μg/m3

3-Hour c/ 

24-Hour c/ 

0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3

) 

0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3

) 

1,300 μg/m3

260 μg/m3 1,300 μg/m3 

365 μg/m3

SO2

Annual d/ 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3

) 60 μg/m3 80 μg/m3

24-Hour c/ 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM10

Annual d/ None 50 μg/m3

 50 μg/m3

24-Hour e/ 35 μg/m3 Not Applicable 35 μg/m3

PM2.5

Annual f/ 15 μg/m3

 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

NO2 Annual d/ 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 100 μg/m3 0.053 ppm 

O3 8-Hour g/ 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 

Pb 3-Month d/ 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

____________________ 

a/ Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

b/ Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio 

c/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

d/ Arithmetic mean not to exceed 

e/ The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations must not exceed 

f/ The 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentrations from a single or multiple local monitors must not 

exceed 

g/ The 3-year average of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations at each location over a year must 

not exceed 

ppm parts per million 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

( ) value in parentheses is an approximate equivalent concentration 

ambient air quality standard are designated non-attainment. Areas that have been designated nonattainment but have since demonstrated compliance with ambient air quality standard(s) are designated 

maintenance for that pollutant. For permitting of stationary sources, maintenance areas are treated similar 

to attainment areas. However, the state’s approved maintenance plan may contain specific provisions for 

the permitting of stationary sources to ensure that the air quality in the area would continue to comply 

with the NAAQS. 

The compressor stations for the Project would all be located in attainment areas for all criteria 

pollutants with the exception of the Hamilton Compressor Station. The Hamilton Compressor Station 

would be located in Butler County, Ohio, which is currently designated as non-attainment for 8-hour O3

and PM2.5. The pipeline portion of the project would cross multiple non-attainment counties. Hendricks, 

Morgan, and Johnson Counties in Indiana and Warren and Fairfield Counties in Ohio, are currently 

designated non-attainment for both O3 and PM2.5. Shelby County, Indiana and Clinton County, Ohio are 

designated non-attainment for O3. Greene and Belmont Counties, Ohio are currently designated as 

maintenance for O3 and non-attainment for PM2.5. All other project counties are classified as attainment 

for all pollutants. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-180

Air Quality Monitoring 

EPA and state and local agencies have established a network of ambient air quality monitoring 

stations to measure and track the background concentrations of the criteria pollutants across the United 

States. To characterize the background air quality in the regions surrounding the proposed compressor 

stations, data from a number of existing representative air quality monitoring stations were obtained. 

These monitoring stations are located near the proposed compressor station sites and provide information 

on regional ambient air quality conditions. For some criteria pollutants, ambient air quality monitoring 

data in the vicinity of the proposed compressor stations were not available; therefore, the best available 

data were used to represent the air quality at those stations. A summary of the regional background air 

quality concentrations for each natural-gas fired compressor station are presented in tables 4.11.1-4 and 

4.11.1-5. 

Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The CAA, 42 US Code 7401 et seq. as amended in 1977 and 1990, and 40 CFR Parts 50 through 

99 are the basic federal statues governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially 

relevant to the Project include the following: 

• New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); 

• Title V Operating Permits; and 

• General Conformity. 

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration

NSR refers to the preconstruction permitting programs under Parts C and D of the CAA that must 

be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major modifications to existing major 

sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. This review may include a PSD review. This review 

process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing existing air quality to deteriorate 

beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations. For sources located in non-attainment areas 

the Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the pollutants for which the 

area is classified as non-attainment. The Arlington, Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, and 

Chandlersville Compressor Stations would be located in attainment areas and would potentially be subject 

to PSD review. The Hamilton Compressor Station would be located in a non-attainment area and would 

potentially be subject to NNSR. 

The PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in an attainment area. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a 

“major source” as any source type belonging to a list of named source categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant. A major source under PSD 

can also be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit 

such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing major sources have 

lower emission thresholds, called “significant emission increases”; amounts over these thresholds trigger 

PSD review. The REX East Project would not include facilities or operations included on the list of 

named source categories to which the 100-tpy trigger applies. Also, the REX East Project does not 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-181 

Table 4.11.1-4 

Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations 

CO (ppm) SO2 (ppm) PM10 (μg/m3) PM2.5 (μg/m3) 

Station 1-Hour 8-Hour 3-Hour 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour Annua

Arlington 4.3 3.0 0.025 0.006 0.002 61 26 17 3.9 

Bertrand 5.4 3.1 0.128 0.049 0.003 86 36 23 8.3 

Mexico 4.7 3.0 0.025 0.011 0.002 35 17 37 12.9 

Blue Mound 4.3 1.5 0.039 0.020 0.004 48 22 42 14.5 

Bainbridge 3.1 2.7 0.081 0.022 0.005 59 23 53 19.1 

Hamilton 5.7 2.5 0.072 0.031 0.007 56 27 54 17.9 

Chandlersville 4.4 2.6 0.276 0.071 0.008 85 35 33 13.3 

____________________ Source: EPA, 2007a. Data are based on the years 2004 through 2006. Concentrations for averaging periods of 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour are bas

concentration over the entire 3-year period. 

ppm = parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-182 

Table 4.11.1-5 

Source of Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations 

Station 

CO (ppm) 

1-Hour and 

8-Hour 

SO2 (ppm) 

3-Hour, 24-Hour, 

and Annual 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

24-Hour and 

Annual 

PM2.5 (μg/m3) 

24-Hour and 

Annual 

NO2 (ppm) 

Annual 

Arlington Ft. Collins, CO Site ID 0806991004 Riverton, WY Site ID 560136001 Laramie, WY Site ID 560010801 Antelope Site 3, WY Site ID 560090819 Antelope Site 3, WY Site ID 560090819 

S

Bertrand Lincoln, NE Site ID 311090018 Omaha, NE Site ID 310550053 Cozad, NE Site ID 310470001 Grand Island, NE Site ID 310790004 Kansas City, KS Site ID 202090021 

S

Mexico St. Louis, MO Site ID 295100086 Mark Twain State Park, MO Site ID 291370001 Mark Twain State Park, MO Site ID 291370001 Columbia, MO Site ID 290190004 Alton, MO Site ID 291831002 

S

Blue Mound Springfield, IL 

 Site ID 171670008 

Decatur, IL 

Site ID 171150013 

Nilwood, IL 

Site ID 171170002 

Decatur, IL 

Site ID 171150013 

East St. Louis ID 

171630010 

S

Bainbridge Pittsboro, IN Site ID 180630002 Pittsboro, IN Site ID 180630003 Pittsboro, IN Site ID 180630001 Indianapolis, IN Site ID 180910043 Pittsboro, IN Site ID 180630001 

S

Hamilton Norwood, OH Site ID 390614002 Hamilton, OH Site ID 390170004 Middletown, OH Site ID 390170015 Fairfield, OH Site ID 390170016 Cincinnati, OH Site ID 390610040 

S

Chandlersville Columbus , OH Site ID 390490005 Morgan County, OH Site ID 391150003 Columbus , OH Site ID 390490024 Gifford State Forest, OH Site ID 390090003 Cleveland, OH Site ID 390350060 

S

____________________ Source: EPA, 2007a. Data is based on the years 2004 through 2006. Concentrations for averaging periods of 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour and 2

based on second highest concentration. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-183

include any existing major sources under the PSD program; therefore the Arlington, Bertrand, Mexico, 

Blue Mound, Bainbridge, and Chandlersville Compressor Stations are all subject to the 250-tpy threshold. 

The PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality (noting in particular whether the source would contribute to a violation of 

the NAAQS), and reviews the Best Available Control Technology in order to minimize emissions. The 

PSD regulations contain restrictions on the degree of ambient air quality deterioration that would be 

allowed. These increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD review classification of the area. 

Based on the emissions data available for each proposed station (presented in table 4.11.1-6 

through 4.11.1-12), the estimated potential emission rates for each pollutant would be below the 250-tpy 

threshold. Therefore PSD permitting is not applicable to the REX East Project. 

NNSR also has major source thresholds depending on the pollutant of concern. For O3 and PM2.5

NNSR, a major source is defined as any source with emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), or PM2.5 in exceedence of 100 tpy. As shown in table 4.11.1-11, the potential 

emissions from the electrically driven Hamilton Compressor Station are expected to be well below 100 

tpy of all criteria pollutants and would, therefore, not be subject to NNSR. 

Air Quality Control Regions and PSD 

AQCRs are categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I areas are designated specifically 

as pristine natural areas or areas of natural significance and have the lowest increment of permissible 

deterioration, which precludes development near these areas. Class III designations, intended for heavily 

industrialized zones, can be made only on request and must meet all requirements outlined in 40 CFR 

51.166. The remainder of the United States is classified as Class II. Class II areas are designed to allow 

moderate, controlled growth. All of the Project would be located in Class II areas. However, the 

Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming would be located within 62 miles of two 

Class I areas. The Mount Zirkel Wilderness area is approximately 55 miles south-southwest of the 

proposed compressor station and the Rawah Wilderness area is located approximately 59 miles southsoutheast of the proposed compressor station. A third Class I area, Rocky Mountain National Park, is 

located approximately 83 miles south-southeast of the proposed compressor station. 

Class I areas have special protection under the PSD program. The PSD program established air 

pollution increment increases for new or modified air pollution sources. If the new source is required to 

comply with the PSD program and is near (within 62 miles [100 kilometers] of) a federal Class I area(s), 

the source is required to determine its impacts on that federal Class I area(s). The source is also required 

to notify the appropriate federal land manager(s) of the specific federal Class I area(s). As discussed 

earlier, none of the compressor stations would be subject to the PSD regulations, and therefore would not 

be required to demonstrate compliance with the PSD Class I increments. 

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR Part 60, apply to new, modified, or reconstructed stationary 

sources in specific source categories. NSPS requirements include emission limits, monitoring, reporting, 

and record keeping. The following NSPS requirements were identified as potentially applicable to the 

specified sources at the compressor stations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-184 

Table 4.11.1-6 

Proposed Emissions for the Arlington Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy

Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 44.60 14.87 25.48 1.72 1.72 0.10 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 44.60 14.87 25.48 1.72 1.72 0.10 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 44.60 14.87 25.48 1.72 1.72 0.10 Fuel gas heater 0.34 0.29 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Emergency Generator 0.42 0.61 0.23 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Space Heaters 0.44 0.37 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Storage Tanks 0.0 0.0 2.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sumps 0.0 0.0 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 135.00 45.88 79.56 5.24 5.24 0.30 

Table 4.11.1-7 

Proposed Emissions for the Bertrand Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy

Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 40.72 11.94 22.01 1.47 1.47 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 40.72 11.94 22.01 1.47 1.47 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.34 15.93 29.37 1.96 1.96 0.12 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.34 15.93 29.37 1.96 1.96 0.12 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.34 15.93 29.37 1.96 1.96 0.12 Fuel gas heater 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 1.79 1.37 0.41 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Space Heaters 0.41 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Storage Tanks 0.0 0.0 1.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sumps 0.0 0.0 0.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Emissions 0.0 0.0 1.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 246.97 73.67 136.41 8.92 8.92 0.53 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-185 

Table 4.11.1-8 

Proposed Emissions for the Mexico Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy

Gas Turbine (Solar Titan 130 20502S) 40.16 43.43 4.67 19.79 19.79 2.26 Gas Turbine (Solar Titan 130 20502S) 40.16 43.43 4.67 19.79 19.79 2.26 Fuel gas heater 0.32 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 6.64 1.87 0.09 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Space Heaters 0.41 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Storage Tanks 0.0 0.0 1.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 87.71 89.14 11.98 39.66 39.66 4.55 

Table 4.11.1-9 

Proposed Emissions for the Blue Mound Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy

Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 40.74 11.88 22.07 1.51 1.51 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 40.74 11.88 22.07 1.51 1.51 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.35 15.85 29.44 2.01 2.01 0.12 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.35 15.85 29.44 2.01 2.01 0.12 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 54.35 15.85 29.44 2.01 2.01 0.12 Fuel gas heater 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 1.79 1.37 0.41 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Space Heaters 0.41 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Storage Tanks 0.0 0.0 1.87 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sumps 0.0 0.0 0.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 247.07 73.32 135.69 9.14 9.14 0.53 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-186 

Table 4.11.1-10 

Proposed Emissions for the Bainbridge Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tp

Gas Turbine (Solar Titan 130 20502S) 39.95 40.52 4.64 19.78 19.78 2.26 Gas Turbine (Solar Titan 130 20502S) 39.95 40.52 4.64 19.78 19.78 2.26 Fuel gas heater 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 6.64 0.47 0.09 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Space Heaters 0.41 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.01 Storage Tanks 0.0 0.0 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.14 0.0 Total 87.27 82.11 11.74 39.95 39.95 4.52 

Table 4.11.1-11 

Proposed Emissions for the Hamilton Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tp

Fuel gas heater 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 2.60 0.56 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.17 Total 2.92 0.83 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.17 

Table 4.11.1-12 

Proposed Emissions for the Chandlersville Compressor Station 

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy

Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 39.60 11.87 19.25 0.01 0.01 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 12CM34) 39.60 11.87 19.25 0.01 0.01 0.09 Reciprocating Engine (CAT 16CM34) 52.87 15.86 25.66 0.02 0.02 0.12 Fuel gas heater 0.35 0.31 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Emergency Generator 0.10 0.08 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Total 132.52 39.99 64.39 0.06 0.06 0.29 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-187

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels, lists affected emission sources as storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids. Regulatory 

applicability is dependent on the construction date, size, and vapor pressure of the storage vessel and its 

contents. Subpart Kb applies to new tanks, unless otherwise exempted, that have a storage capacity 

between 75 cubic meters (19,813 gallons) and 151 cubic meters (39,890 gallons) and contain VOCs with 

a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 15.0 kilopascals (kPa). Subpart Kb also applies 

to tanks that have a storage capacity greater than or equal to 151 cubic meters and contain VOCs with a 

maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa. The proposed storage tanks at each of the 

proposed compressor stations would be 10,000 gallons or less, which is below the regulated capacity. 

Therefore, the REX East Project would not be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb standards. 

On June 12, 2006, EPA proposed a new NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ) for stationary spark 

ignition (SI) internal combustion engines. The proposed compressor stations contain natural-gas fired 

compressor engines and/or emergency generators that may be potentially subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart 

JJJJ. The proposed standard for stationary SI engines applies to all new, modified, and reconstructed 

stationary SI engines regardless of size. The pollutants to be regulated by the proposed NSPS for 

stationary SI engines are NOx, CO, and non-methane hydrocarbons. The spark ignition internal 

combustion engines to be installed at the proposed REX East Project compressor stations (reciprocating 

engines) would comply with the applicable requirements of NSPS JJJJ once promulgated. 

On July 6, 2006, the EPA published the final NSPS Subpart KKKK (Standards of Performance 

for Stationary Gas Turbines). NSPS Subpart KKKK applies to new, modified, or reconstructed stationary 

gas turbines with a heat input at peak load of greater than or equal to 10 million British thermal units per 

hour (MMBtu/hr). Two turbines are proposed for installation at both the Mexico and Bainbridge 

Compressor Stations, with each turbine having a total heat input of 144 MMBtu/hr. Thus, both the 

Mexico and Bainbridge Compressor Stations would be required to comply with applicable NSPS Subpart 

KKKK requirements. The NOx emission factor for the Mexico and Bainbridge compressors are designed 

to have an emission factor of 0.059 lb/MMBtu/hr for NOx and 0.0034 pounds of SO2/MMBtu/hr, which 

would meet the Subpart KKKK requirements. In addition, Rockies Express would comply with the 

Subpart KKKK requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

NSPS Subpart GG applies to stationary gas turbines with a heat input at peak load equal to or 

greater than 10 million Btu per hour, based on the lower heating value of the fuel fired. Since the 

stationary gas turbines associated with the proposed Mexico and Bainbridge compressor stations would 

be constructed after February 18, 2005, they would be subject to the requirements of NSPS Subpart 

KKKK. Also, in accordance with §60.4305, stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS KKKK are exempt 

from the requirements of NSPS GG. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates 

only eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. Part 63, 

also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10-tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. MACT standards are intended to reduce emissions of air toxics or HAPs 

through installation of control equipment rather than enforcement of risk-based emission limits. The total 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-188

HAP emissions from all equipment are above the 25 tpy major source threshold for the Bertrand and Blue 

Mound Compressor Stations (as shown in table 4.11.1-7 and 4.11.1-9), and total emissions of 

formaldehyde (the HAP emitted in the greatest amount) are over the 10 tpy threshold for the Arlington 

Compressor Station (11.47 tpy) and Chandlersville Compressor Station (11.32 tpy). 

The turbines would potentially be subject to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart YYYY, which requires 

MACT to reduce emissions of HAPs through the installation of control equipment rather than through 

risk-based emission limits. Natural-gas fired combustion turbines typically have low HAP emissions; 

thus, additional control technologies may not be required for MACT compliance. Neither the Mexico nor 

Bainbridge Compressor Stations are expected to be a major HAP source and therefore would not need to 

demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR Part 63. 

The reciprocating engines would potentially be subject to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ if the 

station is a major source of HAPs or if the engine rating is greater than 500 hp regardless of the size. The 

Arlington, Bertrand, Blue Mound and Chandlersville Compressor Stations would be major sources of 

HAPs and they all have a rating greater than 500 hp and therefore would be subject to the MACT 

standard in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ. Emission rates as shown in table 4.11.1-6 to 4.11.1-12 do not 

reflect these emission reductions for HAPs. Rockies Express would comply with all of the applicable 

requirements of Subpart ZZZZ and demonstrate compliance through the permitting agency. 

Title V Operating Permits

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires sources of air emissions with 

criteria pollutant emissions that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain federal operating permits. 

These permits list all applicable air regulations and include a compliance demonstration for each 

applicable requirement. The major source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of NOx, SO2, CO, 

PM10, PM2.5, and VOC. Emissions of NOx at the Arlington, Bertrand, Blue Mound and Chandlersville 

Compressor Stations and emissions of VOC at the Bertrand and Blue Mound Compressor Stations would 

exceed the 100-tpy criteria pollutant threshold, as shown in tables 4.11.1-6 through 4.11.1-12. Therefore, 

the Arlington, Bertrand, Blue Mound and Chandlersville Compressor Stations would require a Title V 

permit. None of the criteria pollutants would be emitted at the 100-tpy level at the Mexico, Bainbridge, 

or Hamilton Compressor Stations; therefore, Title V permits would not be required for those facilities. 

General Conformity

The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule on November 30, 1993 in Volume 58 of the 

FR Page 63214 (58 FR 63214) to implement the conformity provision of Title I, section 176(c)(1) of the 

CAA. Section 176(c)(1) requires that the Federal government not engage, support, or provide financial 

assistance for licensing or permitting, or approving any activity not conforming to an approved CAA 

implementation plan. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, 

Subpart B, determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. 

A conformity determination must be conducted by the lead federal agency if a federal action’s 

construction and operational activities is likely to result in generating direct and indirect emissions that 

would exceed the conformity threshold levels (de minimis) of the pollutant(s) for which an air basin is in 

non-attainment or maintenance. According to the conformity regulations, emissions from sources that are 

major for any criteria pollutant with respect to the NNSR or PSD permitting/licensing are exempt and are 

deemed to have conformed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-189

Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA (Title 40 CFR 51.853), states that a federal agency cannot approve 

or support any activity that does not conform to an approved SIP. Conforming activities or actions should 

not, through additional air pollutant emissions: 

• cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS in any area; 

• increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or 

• delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions. 

As noted earlier, the Hamilton Compressor Station would be located in Butler County, Ohio, 

which is currently designated as non-attainment for 8-hour O3 and PM2.5. While no other compressor 

stations are located in non-attainment areas, the pipeline route would cross Hendricks, Morgan, and 

Johnson Counties in Indiana and Warren and Fairfield Counties in Ohio, which are currently designated 

non-attainment Subpart 1 Basic for O3 and non-attainment for PM2.5. The pipeline would cross Greene 

and Belmont Counties, Ohio which are currently designated as maintenance for O3 and non-attainment for 

PM2.5. Also, the pipeline route would cross Shelby County, Indiana and Clinton County, Ohio, which are 

designated non-attainment Subpart 1 Basic for O3. Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson, and Shelby Counties, 

Indiana, are all located in the same Indianapolis, Indiana AQCR. Therefore, emissions occurring in these 

counties are combined and compared to the threshold values. Butler, Warren, and Clinton Counties, Ohio 

are all located in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana AQCR, and emissions are combined 

and compared to the threshold values. Greene, Fairfield, and Belmont Counties, Ohio are located in 

Dayton-Springfield, Ohio AQCR, Columbus, Ohio AQCR, and Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio AQCR, 

respectively. 

The O3 Subpart 1 Basic non-attainment general conformity applicability thresholds are 100 tpy 

for either NOx or VOC. The O3 maintenance general conformity applicability thresholds are 100 tpy for 

either NOx, NO2, or VOC. The PM2.5 non-attainment general conformity applicability thresholds are 100 

tpy of PM2.5, SO2, NOx (unless determined not to be a significant precursor), and VOC or ammonia (if 

determined to be significant precursors). 

The emissions estimated to be generated from the construction of the Project in the nonattainment AQCRs were compared to the de minimis levels and are included in table 4.11.1-13. As 

shown, the total construction emissions in each of the AQCRs would be expected to be below the 

applicable thresholds for each pollutant and the requirements of General Conformity would not apply. In 

addition, the estimated annual emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Hamilton 

Compressor Station as shown in table 4.11.1-11 to be located in Butler County would be below the 

applicable thresholds for each pollutant and the requirements of General Conformity would not apply. 

Table 4.11.1-13 

Total Emissions by Non-attainment Air Quality Control Regions 

during the Construction Phase of the REX East Project 

Non-attainment Air Quality Pollutant 

Control Region NOx (tpy) VOC (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) 

Indianapolis, IN 84.53 13.23 17.3 13.10 

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 97.01 17.16 18.7 15.31 

Dayton-Springfield, OH 3.27 0.5 0.67 0.71 

Columbus, OH 29.22 4.6 5.9 6.19 

Wheeling, WV–OH 18.63 2.91 3.8 3.99 

General Conformity Threshold 100 100 100 100 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-190

The construction emissions provided were based on the assumption that the compression-ignition 

construction equipment would be made up of over 40 percent Tier 2 technology, less than 50 percent Tier 

3 technology and no Tier 4 equipment. Spark-ignited equipment was assumed to meet Phase 1 regulatory 

emission standards. Rockies Express has indicated it would require contractors utilizing nonroad 

construction equipment in the non-attainment areas of the project to use the best available nonroad 

construction equipment in their fleets. To ensure the protection of the non-attainment areas and in an 

effort to ensure that the actual project construction emissions generated in the non-attainment areas do not 

exceed the general conformity thresholds, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP the age distribution and emission control 

technology associated with all of its contractor’s fleet equipment for the project. During 

construction, in its filed weekly status reports, Rockies Express shall identify the 

equipment used in the non-attainment areas. 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 

and Wyoming have state air quality regulations. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

manages air quality issues in Wyoming, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality manages air 

quality in Nebraska, MODNR manages Missouri’s air quality, ILEPA manages air quality issues in 

Illinois, in Indiana air quality issues are managed by IDEM, and in Ohio air quality is managed by OEPA. 

Subject to EPA approval these agencies manage the statewide air permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement programs. The Arlington Compressor Station would be operated and be permitted under 

Wyoming’s Permitting Requirements Standards and Regulations as described in Chapter 6, Section 3. 

The Bertrand Compressor Station would be authorized under Nebraska’s Title 129 and would operate 

under conditions of its air quality permit. The Mexico Compressor Station would be authorized under 

MODNR 10 Code of State Regulations 10-6 which incorporates much of the federal regulatory 

requirements for air quality and would be authorized under the conditions of its air permit. The Blue 

Mound Compressor Station would be authorized under ILEPA’s applicable state air regulations contained 

in 35 Illinois Administrative Code Subtitle B under conditions of its air quality permit. The Bainbridge 

Compressor Station would be authorized under Indiana’s Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code 

Article 2 and under the federal air permit conditions. The Chandlersville Compressor Station would be 

authorized under Ohio’s Revised Code for general permits Ohio Administrative Code rule 3745-31-29 

and Ohio rule 3745-35-08 Permit-to-Install and Operate. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of the pipeline and access roads would generate air emissions during grading, 

trenching, backfilling, and operation of construction vehicles along unpaved areas. The Project would use 

existing roads to the extent possible. Some roads used for access would be improved during construction 

by widening or adding drain pipes, gravel, or grading; and some new roads and road extensions would be 

constructed. Some roads would remain after construction to provide access to the pipeline for 

maintenance purposes. These activities could generate dust and particulate emissions from earth-moving 

activities and construction equipment engine exhaust. 

Construction of the compressor stations would be performed with mobile equipment similar to 

that typically used for pipeline and road construction. In addition to the compressor stations, Rockies 

Express would construct other aboveground facilities consisting of M/R stations. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-191

Construction would be expected to cause a minor and temporary impact to local ambient air 

quality as a result of fugitive dust and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. 

Criteria pollutant emissions during operation of the fossil-fueled construction equipment would occur 

from combustion products resulting from the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, primarily NO2, CO, VOCs, 

PM10, small amounts of SO2, and small amounts of HAPs (e.g., formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and 

xylene) produced by the construction equipment engines. Impacts from construction equipment would be 

temporary and would be expected to result in an insignificant impact on air quality. Emissions from 

fugitive dust and construction activities would be controlled through best management practices (e.g., 

intermittent watering of roadways and construction areas). Table 4.11.1-13 shows the construction 

emissions for the non-attainment regions over which the pipeline traverses, which is below de minimis

levels for conformity. Similar emission rates during construction are anticipated for attainment areas. 

Operational Impacts 

Operational emissions resulting from the Project would be associated with the operation of the six 

natural-gas fired compressor stations and one electric compressor station proposed by Rockies Express. 

Combustion emissions from these stations would mainly consist of NOx, CO, HAPs, and VOCs with 

small amounts of SO2 and PM10/PM2.5. Emission would be minimized through the use of natural gas as 

fuel for all compressor units, most emergency generator units, and heaters. 

Each compressor station would include an emergency shut down (ESD) system, pursuant to DOT 

requirements. Activation of the ESD system would vent the piping (expel the natural gas) to the 

atmosphere in case of an emergency. The ESD would be used only in the event of an emergency. 

Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed to relieve pressure when a unit is taken offline. 

Natural gas blowdowns are not part of routine operation. 

Tables 4.11.1-6 through 4.11.1-12 list the anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs 

from the operation of each compressor station. Rockies Express has filed air permit applications or 

notifications for the Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Arlington, and Hamilton Compressor 

Stations with the respective air permitting agencies. Rockies Express is completing the air permit 

application for the Chandlersville Compressor Station and will provide the FERC a copy of the 

application as recommended above. As part of their operational permitting process, emissions 

compliance testing would be required to ensure that the stations would be operating within their federal, 

state, and local permit conditions. 

Rockies Express has conducted air quality modeling for NO2 and CO using EPA’s AERMOD 

modeling system (EPA, 2004) for the Bainbridge, Mexico, Bertrand, and Blue Mound Compressor 

Stations. Also, Rockies Express has provided screening analyses using EPA’s SCREEN3 system for the 

Arlington and Chandlersville Compressor Stations. Table 4.11.1-14 contains the modeling results from 

the six compressor stations. The results show that the impacts from the individual compressor stations, in 

combination with the background concentration for each station’s area, are below the NAAQS for NO2

and CO. The Hamilton Compressor Station was not modeled since there would be no emissions from the 

electric driven compressor units (the primary source of emissions at a compressor station). 

Operation of the aboveground meter stations and block valves would not result in substantial air 

emissions under normal operating conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural gas, called 

“fugitive emissions,” occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites; because such 

emissions are very small, they are not regulated by permit or source-specific requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-192

Table 4.11.1-14 

Air Quality Modeling a/ Impacts and Comparison to National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Six 

Natural-Gas Fired Compressor Stations 

Compressor Station Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period 

Maximum Modeled 

Compressor 

Station Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Compressor 

Impact plus 

Background b/ 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

1-Hour 397.5 6,123.5 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 278.3 3,026.7 10,000 Arlington, Carbon 

County, Wyoming 

NO2 Annual 50.3 59.7 100 

1-Hour 229.1 2,232.8 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 174.4 2,006.4 10,000 Bainbridge, Putnam 

County, Indiana 

NO2 Annual 3.4 65.4 100 

1-Hour 311.6 7,881.6 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 197.8 2,527.8 10,000 Bertrand, Phelps 

County, Nebraska 

NO2 Annual 38.9 53.9 100 

1-Hour 543.5 4,782.5 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 408.7 2,012.7 10,000 

Blue Mound, 

Christian County, 

Illinois NO2 Annual 47.7 75.7 100 

1-Hour 231.2 5,041.0 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 158.0 2,448.4 10,000 

Chandlersville, 

Muskingum County, 

OH NO2 Annual 42.5 83.9 100 

1-Hour 330.2 2,055.2 40,000 CO 

8-Hour 277.3 1,657.3 10,000 Mexico, Audrain 

County, Missouri 

NO2 Annual 19.1 24.8 100 

____________________ 

a/ Arlington and Chandlersville based on SCREEN3 modeling; other compressor stations based on AERMOD. 

b/ Background concentrations are those specified by the state agency for which the air quality modeling was conducted in 

support of obtaining a state air quality permit 

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter 

Use of the access roads for maintenance would generate occasional, minor, and short-term 

increases in dust similar to that generated on other unpaved roads in the area. Use of these roads by 

maintenance and operation personnel would have a negligible effect on air quality. 

Construction of the Project would be expected to result in temporary minor impacts to air quality. 

Operation of the Project would be expected to result in long-term minor impacts to air quality. 

4.11.2 Noise 

Noise would affect the local environment during both the construction of the Project facilities and 

operation of each of the proposed compressor stations associated with the Project. At any location, both 

the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day 

and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing weather conditions and the effects 

of seasonal vegetative cover. Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of 

environmental noise to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level [Leq(24)] and 

the day-night average sound level (DNL). The Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total 

(equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The DNL is 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-193

the Leq(24) with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) added to sound levels between the hours of 

10 p.m. and 7 a.m., to account for people’s greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. The Aweighted scale is used because human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than midrange frequencies. People’s threshold of perception for a change in noise level is considered to be 3 dBA. 

Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA, 1974). This document provides 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The 

EPA has determined that to protect the public from activity interference and annoyance outdoors in 

residential areas, noise levels should not exceed a DNL of 55 dBA. We have adopted this criterion and 

use it to evaluate the potential noise impact from operation of each of the proposed compressor stations. 

Based on a review of state regulations, there were no applicable noise regulations identified for 

natural gas compressor station facilities constructed and operated in Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 

and Wyoming. Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code Subtitle H, Chapter I, Part 900 and Part 901 

contain requirements for noise pollution from a property-line-noise-source in Illinois. The proposed Blue 

Mound Compressor Station would be constructed and operated in compliance with the applicable sound 

emission standards and limitations for property-line-noise-source of Part 901. 

 

In addition, no applicable local (i.e., township, city, county) noise regulations were identified for 

the facilities associated with this project. 

Existing Noise Levels 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as NSAs. NSAs include residences, schools, daycare 

facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks and recreational areas 

specifically known for their solitude and tranquility, such as wilderness areas. Each compressor station 

has been evaluated for adjacent NSAs and surrounding ambient noise levels. 

The Arlington Compressor Station would be located in Carbon County, Wyoming, just north of 

the town of Arlington, Wyoming. The closest NSA (NSA #1) is a residence located approximately 900 

feet southwest of the site center (i.e., the anticipated location where the station would be built) and other 

residences are located further southwest of the site center. Hoover and Keith Inc. (H&K), an acoustical 

consultant for Rockies Express, measured ambient sound on February 2, 2007. At the NSA sound 

measurement positions, the noise associated with the nearby Southern Star Compressor Station 

unaffiliated with the Project, contributed significantly to the measured daytime sound levels although 

there was also some wind-related noise. During the nighttime, the ambient levels should be 

approximately equal to the measured daytime levels since the ambient noise was dominated by the noise 

of the nearby gas pipeline facility, which probably operates 24 hours/day. Measured daytime sound 

levels at NSA #1 ranged from 51.3 to 52.6 dBA with a calculated DNL of 58.4 dBA. 

The Bertrand Compressor Station would be located in a rural area of Phelps County, Nebraska, 

approximately 10 miles west-northwest of Holdrege, Nebraska and approximately 6 miles southeast of 

Bertrand, Nebraska. The land immediately surrounding the site is agricultural. The two closest NSAs 

consist of a home located approximately 1,900 feet northeast (NSA #1) and 3,800 feet northwest (NSA 

#2) of the site center. H&K measured ambient sound on June 6, 2007. At the NSA sound measurement 

positions, the noise of wind blowing in the grass/trees and the sound of birds/cattle were the observed 

noise sources that significantly influenced the measured daytime sound levels. Measured daytime sound 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-194

levels at NSA #1 ranged from 29.9 to 34.4 dBA with a calculated DNL of 37.8 dBA. Measured daytime 

sound levels at NSA #2 ranged from 35.2 to 35.7 dBA with a calculated DNL of 41.2 dBA. 

The Mexico Compressor Station would be located in a rural area of Audrain County, Missouri, 6 

miles northeast of Mexico, Missouri. The land immediately surrounding the site is primarily agricultural. 

The closest NSA is a residence (NSA #1) located approximately 1,700 feet north of the site center. Other 

nearby NSAs are located 2,900 feet southwest and 3,400 feet east-northeast from the site center (NSA #2 

and NSA #3). H&K measured ambient sound on February 1, 2007. At the sound measurement positions 

near the NSAs, the noise of wind blowing in the grass/trees and the sound of birds were the observed 

noise sources that significantly influenced the measured daytime sound levels. At times, the noise of 

high-altitude aircraft and distant farm machinery were also audible. Measured daytime sound levels at 

NSA #1 ranged from 29.3 to 29.8 dBA with a calculated DNL of 35.5 dBA. Measured daytime sound 

levels at NSA #2 ranged from 30.3 to 34.4 with a calculated DNL of 38.5 dBA. NSA #3 was assumed to 

have the same noise level as NSA #1. 

The Blue Mound Compressor Station would be located in a rural area of Christian County, 

Illinois, approximately 8 miles west of Blue Mound, Illinois, and approximately 18 miles southwest of 

Decatur, Illinois. The land immediately surrounding the site is primarily agricultural. One residence 

(NSA #1) is located approximately 2,100 feet south of the site center. Other nearby NSAs are 

approximately 1 mile or more from the site center. H&K measured ambient sound on April 6, 2006. At 

the NSA sound measurement positions, the noise of wind blowing in the grass/trees and the sound of 

birds/cattle were the observed noise sources that significantly influenced the measured daytime sound 

levels. Measured daytime sound levels at NSA #1 ranged from 35.8 to 44.4 dBA, with a calculated DNL 

of 46.6 dBA. NSAs #2 and #3 were assumed to have the same noise level as NSA #1. 

The Bainbridge Compressor Station would be located in a rural area of Putnam County, Indiana 

approximately 1 mile south of Bainbridge, Indiana. The land immediately surrounding the site is 

primarily agricultural. There are a few scattered residences located around the site, and the closest NSAs 

consist of two residences located approximately 1,460 feet west-northwest of the site center (NSA # 1 and 

NSA #2). Other nearby NSAs include residences located 1,980 feet west and 3,220 feet north of the site 

center (NSA #3 and NSA #4). H&K measured ambient sound on January 31, 2007. At the sound 

measurement positions near the NSAs, the noise of distant vehicle traffic, wind blowing in the grass/trees, 

and the sound of birds were the observed noise sources that significantly influenced the measured daytime 

sound levels. At times, the noise of high-altitude aircraft and the sound of distant dogs barking were also 

audible. Measured sound levels at NSA #1 ranged from 36.8 to 37.6 dBA with a calculated DNL of 43.5 

dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #2 ranged from 35.9 to 37.3 dBA with a calculated DNL of 43.8 

dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #3 ranged from 37.2 to 38.3 dBA with a calculated DNL of 45.3 

dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #4 ranged from 39.4 to 42.6 dBA with a calculated DNL of 47.6 

dBA. 

The Hamilton Compressor Station would be located in Butler County, Ohio, approximately 12 

miles northeast of Hamilton, Ohio and approximately 3 miles southeast of Middletown, Ohio. The land 

immediately surrounding the site is primarily industrial with relatively distant residential areas. There are 

a few scattered residences located around the new site of the Station, and the closest NSA consists of 

residences along Cincinnati-Dayton Road, located approximately 2,100 feet southeast of the Station site 

center. H&K measured ambient sound on October 1, 2007. At the sound measurement positions near the 

NSAs, the noise of vehicle traffic was the observed noise source that significantly influenced the 

measured daytime sound levels. At times, the noise of industrial activity, railroad activity, and 

insects/birds were also audible. Measured sound levels at NSA #1 ranged from 56.8 to 60.3 dBA with a 

calculated DNL of 58.2 dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #2 ranged from 55.6 to 55.7 dBA with a 

calculated DNL of 55.6 dBA. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-195

The Chandlersville Compressor Station would be located in Muskingum County, Ohio, 

approximately 7 miles southeast of Zanesville, Ohio. The closest NSAs consist of residences located 

between 1,100 feet to 1,300 feet from the anticipated location of the compressor building. The closest 

NSAs consist of residences located between 700 feet to 850 feet from the site center. H&K measured 

ambient sound on October 2, 2007. At the NSA sound measurement positions, the noise of wind blowing 

in the grass/trees and the sound of birds/cattle were the observed noise sources that significantly 

influenced the measured daytime sound levels. Measured sound levels at NSA #1 ranged from 45.1 to 

45.4 dBA with a calculated DNL of 47.7 dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #2 ranged from 44.1 dBA 

to 44.2 dBA with a calculated DNL of 47.3 dBA. Measured sound levels at NSA #3 ranged from 42.8 to 

43.6 dBA with a calculated DNL of 47.0 dBA. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Construction of the Project is expected to be typical of other pipeline projects in terms of 

schedule, equipment used, and types of activities. Construction would increase sound levels in the 

vicinity and the sound levels would vary during the construction period. Pipeline construction generally 

would proceed at rates ranging from several hundred feet to 1 mile per day. However, due to the 

assembly-line method of construction, activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several 

months on an intermittent basis. Noise associated with construction at the compressor stations would be 

concentrated in the vicinity of the stations. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed 

basis during those periods and would be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise 

impacts. 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be uneffected because most pipeline construction would 

take place only during daylight hours. The possible exceptions would be at the HDD sites (e.g., at the 

crossings of waterbodies and highways). At HDD locations, drilling equipment may operate on a 24-

hour-per-day and 7-day-per-week basis. In addition to EPA’s 55 DNL standard, noise level changes are 

categorized as follows: a 3-dBA increase is considered noticeable, a 6-dBA increase is considered clearly 

noticeable, and a 9-dBA increase is considered significantly noticeable. An acoustical assessment was 

prepared for all of the planned HDD sites with NSAs within 1 mile of HDD locations to show existing 

sound levels and noise levels due to HDD activity. 

H&K performed detailed noise assessments that included both a site ambient sound survey and an 

acoustical analysis for the entry and exit points associated with each of the proposed HDD locations that 

have the potential to exceed 55 DNL. The NSAs, their distance and direction from each site, and the 

measured and estimated noise levels are summarized in table 4.11.2-1. In order to mitigate significant 

impacts due to HDD activity, Rockies Express has committed to using a temporary noise barrier at least 

16 feet high and to ensure any diesel engines associated with HDD activities would include an adequate 

exhaust muffler to reduce noise levels at the nearest NSAs. 

As shown in table 4.11.2-1, the noise levels greater than or equal to 55 DNL associated with the 

HDD activities would be significantly mitigated by implementing the recommended mitigation measures 

documented in the acoustical assessment report and would result in less than a 55 DNL and 9 dBA 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-196

Table 4.11.2-1 

Project Locations with Predicted Horizontal Directional Drill Noise Impacts Greater than 55 DNL a/ 

Milepost 

Location of 

Each HDD Site 

Entry 

or 

Exist 

Point 

Approximate 

Distance 

(feet)/Direction 

from the Drill 

Site to NSA 

Estimated 

DNL if 

Noise 

Mitigation 

Not 

Employed 

Estimated 

DNL if Noise 

Mitigation 

Employed 

Ambient 

DNL 

DNL of 

HDD plus 

Ambient 

Increase 

Above 

Ambient 

42.0 Salt River Entry 900 ft. (SW) 58.3 dBA 48.3 dBA 40.3 48.9 dBA 8.6 dBA 

42.6 Miss River Entry 700 ft. (South) 60.7 dBA 44.2 dBA 39.0 45.3 dBA 6.3 dBA 

70.6 Illinois River Entry 1,000 ft. (NE) 58.4 dBA 50.4 dBA 47.0 52.1 dBA 5.1 dBA 

202.8 Embarras River Entry 1,000 ft. (NE) 58.9 dBA 50.4 dBA 51.2 53.8 dBA 2.6 dBA 

312.3 Pennington Rd Entry 600 ft. (East) 63.7 dBA 53.1 dBA 54.1 56.6 dBA 2.5 dBA 

312.6 Pennington Rd Exit 400 ft. (North) 57.4 dBA 47.3 dBA 43.5 48.8 dBA 5.3 dBA 

340.7 Big Blue River Entry 1,000 ft. (NNE) 58.7 dBA 50.2 dBA 50.1 53.2 dBA 3.1 dBA 

421.4 Four Mile Creek Entry 260 ft. (NW) 73.1 dBA 54.9 dBA 52.2 56.8 dBA 4.6 dBA 

422.4 Seven Mile Crk Entry 400 ft. (South) 69.0 dBA 51.7 dBA 51.9 54.8 dBA 2.8 dBA 

509.0 Big Darby Crk Entry 650 ft. (SSE) 64.9 dBA 53.9 dBA 56.9 58.7 dBA 1.8 dBA 

577.0 Muskingum Riv Entry 800 ft. (East) 58.7 dBA 48.7 dBA 48.2 51.5 dBA 3.3 dBA 

_______________ 

a/ Hoover and Keith, 2007a. 

increase above current ambient noise levels at each of the nearest identified NSAs. Additional noise 

mitigation measures at the proposed HDD locations, if required may include, but would not be limited to: 

• temporary housing in a nearby hotel; 

• compensation to landowner to mitigate inconvenience and disturbance; 

• partial and/or total enclosure of the power unit; 

• partial and/or total enclosure of parts of drilling rig; 

• adequate muffler for engine exhaust systems; and/or 

• silencer for the engine air intake system. 

In section 4.3.5 we recommend Rockies Express cross the White River and Big Walnut Creek 

using HDD. To ensure noise from these new HDD sites, and all other HDD activities does not become 

significant, we recommend that:

• Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP updated site-specific plans for any HDD entry 

or exit site it proposes to implement noise mitigation. The updated plans should identify 

any noise walls or barriers, equipment locations, equipment barriers, or any other 

mitigation measures. 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express should file a noise 

analysis, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, for any new HDD 

sites (including the White River and Big Walnut Creek crossings) or any HDD sites that 

are relocated since the publication of the draft EIS. This analysis should identify any 

NSAs within one half mile of the HDD entry or exit location, and the proposed length of 

time HDD activities would occur. The analysis should also include background noise 

levels and estimated drilling noise contributions at the nearest NSAs at each HDD entry 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-197

and exit location with NSAs within one-half mile, along with any measures Rockies 

Express would implement to control noise from the HDDs. 

Operational Noise 

During operation of the Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the vicinity of the 

new compressor stations. Principal noise sources would include the air inlet, exhaust, and casing of the 

turbines. Secondary noise sources would include yard piping and valves. Noise from the relief valves, 

blowdown stacks, and emergency electrical generation equipment would be infrequent. 

All compressor stations would include design measures to minimize sound generation. Noise 

control measures could be applied to motors and associated compressors and appropriate building 

materials to enclose turbines and engines would be used. Adequate mufflers could be installed for turbine 

exhaust systems or engine exhaust systems and silencers could be installed for the engine or turbine air 

intake system. Acoustical insulation for aboveground piping may be installed if necessary to meet the 

applicable sound criteria. An air ventilation system for electric motors designed and specified to meet 

stringent noise requirements may be installed. Also, unit blowdown silencers may be added to reduce 

noise levels. 

A detailed noise assessment that included both a site ambient sound survey and an acoustical 

analysis was performed at each of the proposed compressor station locations. The results are shown in 

table 4.11.2-2. 

As shown in table 4.11.2-2, the proposed compressor stations with recommended noise mitigation 

measures implemented are expected to comply with the FERC’s 55 DNL noise limit at the nearest NSAs. 

The analysis for the proposed Blue Mound compressor station indicates that the noise attributable to the 

new station should be below the Illinois Noise Regulations. Rockies Express has indicated that if noise 

levels during operation of the proposed compressor stations become an issue with a resident, additional 

noise mitigation measures beyond those recommended for implementation would be considered. 

We note that the addition of the Arlington and Hamilton Compressor Stations, where existing 

ambient noise levels are already at or above 55 DNL, results in an increase in the future noise levels. 

However, the increases shown at these two locations are all approximately 1 dBA or less, and would not 

be significant. Based on the analyses conducted, and the data presented above, we conclude that no 

significant noise impacts would occur with Project operations. 

During operation of the Project, the potential noise impacts from the pipeline would be limited to 

the vicinity of the new valve and metering stations. Principal noise sources would include gas flow 

through valves and metering equipment. Such gas flow noise is typically not noticeable more than a short 

distance from the equipment. Underground sections of the pipeline are not a significant source of noise. 

Minor short-term noise impacts are expected during the Project construction, provided that 

equipment is maintained to the manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise. This assessment 

assumes that temporary noise barriers would be installed at the HDD sites listed in table 4.11.2-1 and that 

mufflers would be installed on engines. 

Minor long-term noise impacts are expected from compressor station operation during the life of 

the Project and would not result in a significant effect on the noise environment. These minor impacts 

would result from the normal operation of compressor station equipment, as well as from blowdown 

events. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-198

Table 4.11.2-2 

Project Estimated Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Areas Near the Proposed Compressor Stations 

Location / NoiseSensitive Area 

(NSA) 

Ambient 

DNL

(dBA) 

Leq 

Attributable 

to New 

Station (dBA) 

DNL 

Attributable to

New Station 

(dBA) 

DNL Attributable 

to New Station 

and Background 

(dBA) 

Noise Increase

at NSA 

(dBA) 

Arlington Compressor Station a/ 

NSA1 58.4 47.1 53.5 59.6 1.2 

Bertrand Compressor Station b/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

37.8 

41.2 

34.1 

42.8 

40.5 

49.2 

42.4 

49.8 

4.6 

8.6 

Mexico Compressor Station c/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

NSA3 

35.5 

38.5 

35.5 

36.9 

31.5 

29.8 

43.3 

37.9 

36.2 

44.0 

41.2 

38.9 

8.5 

2.7 

3.4 

Blue Mound Compressor Station d/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

NSA3 

46.6 

46.6 

46.6 

42.0 

31.4 

30.7 

48.4 

37.8 

37.1 

50.6 

47.1 

47.1 

4.0 

0.5 

0.5 

Bainbridge Compressor Station e/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

NSA3 

NSA4 

43.5 

43.8 

45.3 

47.6 

44.0 

40.3 

40.3 

35.9 

50.4 

46.7 

46.7 

42.3 

51.2 

48.5 

49.1 

48.7 

7.7 

4.7 

3.8 

1.1 

Hamilton Compressor Station f/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

58.2 

55.6 

37.8 

33.3 

44.2 

39.7 

58.4 

55.7 

0.2 

0.1 

Chandlersville Compressor Station g/ 

NSA1 

NSA2 

NSA3 

47.7 

47.3 

47.0 

43.6 

42.6 

41.6 

50.0 

49.0 

48.0 

52.0 

51.2 

50.6 

4.3 

3.9 

3.6 

_______________ 

a/ Hoover and Keith, 2007b. 

b/ Hoover and Keith, 2007c. 

c/ Hoover and Keith, 2007h. 

d/ Hoover and Keith, 2007d. 

e/ Hoover and Keith, 2007e. 

f/ Hoover and Keith, 2007f. 

g/ Hoover and Keith, 2007g. 

To ensure that noise levels from operation of the Project facilities do not adversely impact 

surrounding areas, therefore, we recommend that: 

• Rockies Express make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from the 

Arlington, Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and Chandlersville 

Compressor Stations are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file noise surveys showing 

this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing each of the Arlington, 

Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and Chandlersville Compressor 

Stations in service. However, if the noise attributable to the operation of the Arlington, 

Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, or Chandlersville Compressor 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-199

Stations at full load exceeds a DNL of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Rockies Express 

should file a report on what changes are needed and should install additional noise 

controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Rockies Express should 

confirm compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise survey with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-200

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is flammable at 

concentrations between 5.0 percent and 15.0 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are 

not explosive. However, a flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an 

ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

4.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, U.S.C. Chapter 601. The 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 

administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management 

that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of 

pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards which set the level of 

safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This 

work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety 

program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while section 5(b) 

permits a state agency that does not qualify under section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and 

monitoring functions. A state may also act as the DOT's agent to inspect interstate facilities within its 

boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the states have 

either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR Parts 190–199. Part 192 of 49 CFR 

specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993, between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive authority to 

promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of 

the FERC's regulations require that an applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, 

operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a certificate is requested in accordance with federal 

safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection, or shall certify that it has been granted a 

waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional 

safety standards other than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or 

potential safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert the DOT. The 

Memorandum also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments 

and the general public involving safety matters related to pipelines under the Commission's jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-201

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 

49 CFR Part 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent 

natural gas accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, minimum 

design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is 

an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1 mile length of pipeline. 

The four area classifications are defined as follows: 

Class 1: Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2: Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 3: Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. 

Class 4: Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 

locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 

36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil or 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 10 miles 

in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness and 

pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of welds, and 

frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated 

areas. 

Preliminary class locations for the REX East Project have been developed based on the 

relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and manmade features. Table 4.12.1-1 

shows the area classifications for the Project. Approximately 89 percent of the proposed pipeline route 

would cross Class 1 locations, approximately 9 percent of the route would cross Class 2 locations, and 

only 2 percent of the route would cross Class 3 locations. No Class 4 areas would be crossed by the REX 

East Project.

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location for the pipeline, Rockies Express would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe 

of sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required to comply with the DOT code of regulations for the new 

class location. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-202

Table 4.12.1-1 

Pipe Class Location by County 

State County 

Class 1 

(miles) 

Class 2 

(miles) 

Class 3 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Audrain 15.8 0.0 0.0 15.8 

Ralls 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 

MISSOURI 

Pike 23.3 0.0 0.0 23.3 

Subtotal 43.1 0.0 0.0 43.1 

Pike 27.8 0.0 0.4 28.2 

Scott 15.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 

Morgan 20.1 0.0 0.0 20.1 

Sangamon 26.3 0.0 0.0 26.3 

Christian 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.4 

Macon 21.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 

Moultrie 15.4 0.0 0.0 15.4 

Douglas 25.9 0.0 1.3 27.2 

ILLINOIS 

Edgar 23.5 0.0 0.0 23.5 

Subtotal 193.5 0.0 1.7 195.2 

Vermillion 8.1 0.6 0.0 8.7 

Parke 19.6 1.1 0.3 21.0 

Putnam 19.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 

Hendricks 11.3 5.8 0.4 17.5 

Morgan 12.6 2.0 0.0 14.6 

Johnson 20.3 0.0 0.0 20.3 

Shelby 19.4 0.0 0.0 19.4 

Decatur 18.2 0.0 0.0 18.2 

INDIANA 

Franklin 24.5 3.3 0.0 27.8 

Subtotal 153.0 12.8 0.7 166.5 

Butler 13.2 12.7 6.0 31.9 

Warren 14.9 6.0 1.9 22.8 

Clinton 14.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 

Greene 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 

Fayette 21.5 1.9 0.0 23.4 

Pickaway 21.5 2.3 0.3 24.1 

Fairfield 9.5 12.3 2.7 24.5 

Perry 14.1 3.2 0.7 17.9 

Muskingum 23.0 2.4 0.0 25.4 

Guernsey 19.6 0.0 0.0 19.6 

Noble 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 

Belmont 14.3 1.5 0.0 15.8 

OHIO 

Monroe 3.7 1.6 0.0 5.3 

Subtotal 179.0 43.8 11.5 234.3 

Project Total 568.6 56.6 13.9 639.1 

Per Rockies Express’ request, PHMSA granted a waiver of compliance from the pipeline safety 

regulation that prescribes the design factor to be used in the design formula for steel pipe (FR, July 11, 

2006). Rockies Express requested a variance to increase the design factor for a natural gas pipe from a 

design factor of 0.72 to a design factor of 0.80 (i.e., decreasing pipe wall thickness) in Class 1 locations. 

A higher design factor allows Rockies Express to increase pressures and therefore improve pipeline 

efficiency. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-203

The waiver also grants Rockies Express relief from equipment requirements for pressurerelieving and limiting stations. The Grant of Waiver provides all of the required conditional control and 

prevention measures (supplemental safety criteria) necessary to mitigate the increased risks associated 

with using a thinner wall pipe. Rockies Express would follow the measures set forth in the Grant of 

Waiver. 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the Nation's pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December, 2002. No later than December 17, 2004, gas transmission 

operators must develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements 

described in § 192.911 and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. 

Specifically, the law established an integrity management program that applies to all high consequence 

areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as they relate to 

the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as defined in 

§192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002, to May 26, 2004, (69 FR 29903), that 

defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property and 

requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition 

satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 U.S.C. 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method an HCA includes: 

• Current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius1

 is greater than 660 feet and there 

are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle;2

 or 

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site.3

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• Twenty or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• An identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at § 192.911. The HCAs have been 

determined based on the presence of Class 3 locations. Of the 639.1 miles of proposed pipeline route, 

 

1

 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline 

in psi multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 

2

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

3

 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in 

any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks 

in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or 

would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-204

Rockies Express has identified approximately 14 miles that would be classified as an HCA. The pipeline 

integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline HCAs every 7 years. 

Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Under § 192.615, each 

pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards 

in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures for: 

• Receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and 

natural disasters; 

• Establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and 

coordinating emergency response; 

• Emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service; 

• Making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; 

and 

• Protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials. Rockies Express would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel 

before the pipeline is placed in service. No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would 

be required to handle pipeline emergencies. 

Comments were received regarding the safety of the pipeline and blasting at nearby quarries that 

exist near MP 347.5 in Shelby County, Indiana. The effects of blasting from a source, such as a quarry, 

should not compromise the integrity of the pipeline, or present a danger to health or to the environment, 

provided the blasting pattern used is designed by qualified professionals. Furthermore, Rockies Express 

has established procedures to address possible damages that may result from blasting near the pipeline. 

These procedures include specifications for damage inspection, repair, and leakage surveys to verify the 

integrity of the pipeline. Other comments received cited concerns on the effects of earthquakes on 

pipeline safety. Please see section 4.1.3 for a discussion on earthquake effects on pipelines. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-205

Comments were received concerning the safety of the pipeline that would be horizontally 

directionally drilled (HDD) under the Sny Levee (associated with the Mississippi River crossing). Like 

other HDD crossings for the Project, Rockies Express would use a heavy wall pipe with a thickness of 

0.888 inch, providing a diameter-wall thickness ration (D/t) of 47. This value is more conservative than 

the industry accepted D/t maximum of 60. Additional discussion of this issue is provided in Section 3.4.1 

and Section 4.8.5 including a recommendation for additional geotechnical information about the crossing. 

After installation of the pipeline, Rockies Express would install survey monuments on the levee for 

settlement monitoring. Rockies Express has indicated that these surveys would be conducted every six 

months for a period of two years and the results of the surveys would be provided to the Sny Levee 

District. However, to ensure the reliability and safety of the pipeline and Sny Levee, we recommend 

that: 

• Rockies Express file with the Secretary and the Sny Levee District the survey results for 

levee settlement monitoring every six months for a period of five years after installation 

under the levee. 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR Part 191 has required all operators of transmission and gathering 

systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a report on form F7100.2 within 20 

days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• Caused death or a personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• Required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• Resulted in gas ignition; 

• Caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

• Required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

• Occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• In the judgment of the operator was “significant,” even though it did not meet the above 

criteria. 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. 

Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, 

injury, death, release of gas, or those that are otherwise considered “significant” by the operator. Table 

4.12.2-1 presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent incident 

data for 1986 through 2005, recognizing the difference in report requirements. The 14.5-year period from 

1970 through June 1984, which provides a larger universe of data and more basic report information than 

subsequent years, has been subject to detailed analysis, as discussed in the following sections.4

 

4

 Jones, D.J., G.S. Kramer, D.N. Gideon, and R.J. Eiber. 1986. An analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas 

Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. (NG-18 Report No. 158.) Pipeline Research 

Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-206

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 300,000 

total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, defined as 

failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period with no clear 

upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. Correction of 

test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 4.12.2-1 provides a percentage distribution of the causal factors as 

well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service. 

Table 4.12.2-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause 

1970 – 1984 1986 – 2005

Incidents per 1,000

Miles of Pipeline Percentage Incidents per 1,000 Miles of Pipeline Percentage 

Outside force 0.70 53.8 0.10 38.5 

Corrosion 0.22 16.9 0.06 23.1 

Construction or material defect 0.27 20.8 0.04 15.4 

Other 0.11 8.5 0.06 23.1

Total 1.30 100% 0.26 100% 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents. 

Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and 

backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as 

winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 4.12.2-2 shows that human error in 

equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since April 

1982, operators have been required to participate in “One Call” public utility programs in populated areas 

to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The “One Call” program is a 

service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) 

to provide pre-construction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground 

location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2005 data show that the portion of incidents 

caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent. 

Table 4.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970–1984) 

Cause Percent 

Equipment operated by outside party 67.1 

Equipment operated by or for operator 7.3 

Earth movement 13.3 

Weather 10.8 

Other 1.5 

The pipelines included in the data set in table 4.12.2-2 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, 

and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a 

specific segment of pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-207

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe 

generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a 

disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside forces 

incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth 

movements. 

Table 4.12.2-3 clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the 

incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The use of both an external protective coating and a 

cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the 

rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe. The data show that bare, cathodically 

protected pipe actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

Table 4.12.2-3 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970–1984) 

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 Miles per Year 

Non-bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in table 4.12.3-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes 

with widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks, 

and the remaining one-third were classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 4.12.3-1 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission and 

gathering lines from 1970 to 2005. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and nonemployees, to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the general public. Of the 

total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year over this period. The 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

nonemployees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 

decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-208

Table 4.12.3-1 

Annual Average Fatalities—Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems a/, b/ 

Year Employees Nonemployees Total 

1970 – June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984 – 2005 c/ - - 3.6 

1984 – 2005 c/ - - 2.8 d/ 

____________________ 

a/ 1970 through June 1984 – Jones, et al. 1986. 

b/ United States Department of Transportation, 2006. 

c/ Employee/nonemployee breakdown not available after June 1984. 

d/ Without 18 offshore fatalities occurring in 1989 -- 11 fatalities resulted from a fishing vessel striking an offshore pipeline and 

7 fatalities resulted from explosion on an offshore production platform. 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in table 4.12.3-2 to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas pipelines. Direct 

comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because individual 

exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 2.6 public fatalities 

per year are relatively small considering the approximately 301,000 miles of transmission and gathering 

lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of magnitude (100 

times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, and earthquakes. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in service, the rate of public fatalities for the 

nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. 

Using this rate, the REX East Project might result in a public fatality every 156-plus years. This would 

represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

Table 4.12.3-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a/ 

Type of Accidents Fatalities 

All accidents 90,523 

Motor vehicles 43,649 

Falls 14,985 

Drowning 3,488 

Poisoning 9,510 

Fires and burns 3,791 

Suffocation by ingested object 3,206 

Tornado, flood, earthquake, etc., (1984–93 average) b/ 181 

All liquid and gas pipelines, 27 

Gas transmission and gathering lines, Nonemployees only (1970–84 average) c/ 2.6 

____________________ 

a/ All data, unless otherwise noted, reflect 1996 statistics from the “Statistical Abstract of the United States 118th Edition” (United 

States Census Bureau, 1998). 

b/ U.S. Department of Transportation, “Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar Year 1987” 

c/ Jones, et al. 1986 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-209

4.12.4 Terrorism 

We received comments during scoping regarding the susceptibility of the Project to terrorist 

attack. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under the FERC’s jurisdiction. The FERC, like other federal 

agencies, is faced with a dilemma in how much information can be offered to the public while still 

providing a significant level of protection to energy facilities. Consequently, the FERC has removed 

energy facility design plans and location information from its internet Web site to ensure that sensitive 

information is not readily available (Docket Nos. RM02-4-000 and PL02-1-000, issued February 20, 

2003). 

Since September 11, 2001, the FERC has been involved with other federal agencies in developing 

a coordinated approach to protecting the energy facilities of the United States, and continues to coordinate 

with these agencies to address this issue. In addition, interstate natural gas companies are actively 

involved with several industry groups to chart how best to address security measures in the current 

environment. A Security Task Force has been created and is addressing ways to improve pipeline 

security practices, strengthen communication within the industry and the interface with government, and 

extend public outreach efforts. 

Increased security awareness has occurred throughout the industry and the nation. The Office of 

Homeland Security was established with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive 

departments and agencies to detect, prepare for, prevent, and protect against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks within the United States. The FERC, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and 

industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts to protect the energy infrastructure, including the 

approximately 300,000 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. The pipeline system would 

be inspected by air and on the ground in accordance with DOT surveillance requirements as discussed in 

section 4.12.2. Security measures at the aboveground facilities would include secure fencing, locked 

buildings, security lighting, and automated alarm systems. Employees would be required to wear 

identification cards, and approved visitors would need to sign in and sear identification badges. 

Safety and security are important considerations in any action undertaken by the FERC. The 

attacks of September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators bust 

consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. However, the 

likelihood of future attacks of terrorism or sabotage occurring along the Project, or at any of the myriad of 

natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States is unpredictable given the disparate 

motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to support the future 

natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such future acts. Moreover, the 

unpredictable possibility of such acts does not support a finding that this particular project should not be 

constructed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-210

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

4.13.1 Introduction 

The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require the FERC to consider the potential 

cumulative impacts associated with construction and operation of the REX East Project. Cumulative 

impacts are defined in the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7 as “the impact on the environment that 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions.” These actions can include previously approved or conducted actions as well as pending actions 

with the FERC or other federal, state, and local agencies, plus privately financed projects when they have 

overlapping impacts on the environmental resources that the REX East Project would substantially 

impact. 

The commonly accepted reasons for completing a cumulative impact analysis are to use its results 

to reconsider and modify alternatives if adverse cumulative impacts have been identified and may be 

avoidable; to determine if additional or more appropriate Project mitigation is necessary; and to include 

effective monitoring of any impact(s) of concern in Project implementation. 

Consequently, to meaningfully address and achieve these purposes and to avoid lengthy 

discussions of inconsequential impacts and projects, the cumulative impact analysis for the REX East 

Project was conducted in the following manner. 

• The geographic scope and time frame of the cumulative impacts analysis varied depending on 

the environmental resource category under consideration. For example, some resource 

impacts, such as water quality, forest fragmentation, wetlands, air quality, and wildlife, could 

occur far beyond the proposed pipeline corridor and thus a larger geographic area was used 

for analysis. 

• The temporal range, or how far into the future the analysis looked, was based on whether the 

effects would be temporary, long-term, or permanent. Most impacts would occur during the 

construction phase of the REX East Project, projected to occur from May 2008 to December 

2008, plus six additional months for two compressor stations to be completed. The temporal 

range was extended for any impacts due to construction or operation of the REX East Project 

that would result in long-term or permanent impacts. Examples of long-term or permanent 

impacts include conversion or loss of forests or forested wetlands and habitat fragmentation. 

• Other federal, state, and local government and private actions having impacts on resources 

that overlapped with impacts predicted as a result of the REX East Project were identified 

from information provided by Rockies Express, field reconnaissance, internet research, 

scoping comments, and communications with federal, state, and local agencies. Where the 

analysis indicated a potential for cumulative impacts, information has been quantified to the 

extent feasible (e.g., acres of disturbed wetlands); however, the potential impacts from some 

actions can be described only qualitatively, especially those in the reasonably foreseeable 

future that are not yet clearly defined. In addition, not all quantitative information is additive 

because of different methodologies or regions of influence. 

• Potential cumulative impacts are discussed for each resource category analyzed in the draft 

EIS. For each resource, first the direct and indirect impacts of the REX East Project are 

briefly summarized. Then, any past impacts from other projects on that resource are 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-211

described. Finally, any potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions are considered. 

4.13.2 Other Actions 

Following is a description of existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that are expected to occur 

within the geographic and temporal boundaries set for the analysis and that therefore may contribute to 

cumulative impacts. Table 4.13.2-1 provides a summary of these actions including general locations, 

descriptions of the activities, and construction schedules. 

Table 4.13.2-1 

Other Projects and Activities Within the General Area of the Project 

Project or 

Activity 

Intersecting 

State/ 

County Description 

Anticipated Date of 

Construction/ 

Project Status 

Energy Projects 

Texas Eastern 

Incremental Market 

Expansion II 

(TIME II) Project 

OHIO 

 Monroe 

 Pickaway 

Replacement of 4 miles of natural gas 

pipeline 

Completion in 2008 

Panhandle 

Eastern’s (PEPL) 

Tuscola East 

Replacement 

Project 

ILLINOIS 

 Douglas 

INDIANA 

 Parke 

Replacement of 31.3 miles and 

removal of 29.4 miles of natural gas 

pipeline and installation of new pig 

launchers/receivers 

Construction began in summer 

2007 

Eastern Market 

Expansion Project 

OHIO 

 Hocking 

Expansion of storage field capacity A Notice of Availability was 

issued on October 1, 2007; 

completion estimated by spring 

2009 

REX West NEBRASKA 

 Phelps 

WYOMING 

 Carbon 

Construction of a 795.6-mile natural 

gas pipeline 

Began late spring 2007; 

completion in December 

2009/under construction 

Keystone Oil 

Pipeline Project 

MISSOURI 

 Audrain 

Construction of a 1,845-mile petroleum 

pipeline from Canada to the 

midwestern United States 

Begin in 2008/under construction 

Continuation of 

REX East Pipeline 

to Princeton, New 

Jersey 

OHIO 

 Monroe 

Construction of 375-mile pipeline from 

the terminus of the REX East pipeline 

in Clarington, Ohio, to Princeton, New 

Jersey 

Issued a non-binding open 

season in October 2007; service 

on the proposed pipeline 

expected to start in late 2010 

Dresden Energy 

Electric Facility 

OHIO 

 Muskingum 

500-megawatt combined-cycle gas 

turbine electric generating facility 

Completion in 2007 

Phelps County 

Ethanol LLC (PCE) 

NEBRASKA 

 Phelps 

100-million gallon per year ethanol 

production plant 

Began construction in July 2007 

Other Small-scale 

Energy Projects 

Project-wide Construction of various energy 

projects, such as electronic 

transmission lines, electronic 

generating facilities, or intra-state 

pipelines 

Varies 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-212

Table 4.13.2-1 

Other Projects and Activities Within the General Area of the Project 

Project or 

Activity 

Intersecting 

State/ 

County Description 

Anticipated Date of 

Construction/ 

Project Status 

Highways and Roads 

I–69 INDIANA 

 Morgan 

 Johnson 

Construction of a 2,100-mile long 

interstate highway 

Tier 2 draft EIS in progress 

Macon County 

Southeast Beltway 

ILLINOIS 

 Macon 

Construction of a highway that would 

pass by the south side of Mt. Zion 

Village, Illinois 

Right-of-way acquisition to begin 

in 2009 

Small-scale 

Transportation 

Projects 

Project-wide Construction to expand existing road 

capacity (e.g., expand two lanes into 

four) 

Varies 

Other Projects 

Residential and 

Commercial 

Development 

Project-wide Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings 

Varies 

COE Lock-anddam Projects MISSOURI 

 Pike 

 Ralls 

Expansion of lock chamber capacity 

from 600 feet to 1,200 feet 

Consideration for expansion in 

progress 

Hunter Lake Water 

Supply Project 

ILLINOIS 

 Sangamon 

Construction of a 3,010-acre 

supplemental water supply reservoir 

Section 404 permit pending 

Energy Projects 

Texas Eastern Incremental Market Expansion II Project 

On April 4, 2006, Texas Eastern filed its application with the FERC for a Certificate for the 

Texas Eastern Incremental Market Expansion II (TIME II) project (FERC Docket No. CP06-115). The 

TIME II Environmental Assessment was issued on March 30, 2007. The purpose of this project would be 

to construct, replace, and operate pipeline facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania to provide a capacity of 

150,000 Dth/d. The facilities would be in Pickaway and Monroe Counties, Ohio, and Somerset, Bedford, 

Franklin, Bucks, Fayette, and Adams Counties, Pennsylvania. The REX East Project would cross through 

Pickaway and Monroe Counties, Ohio. 

The TIME II project has a proposed construction completion date in 2008. The TIME II project 

would include the removal of 6.3 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and replacement with 36-inchdiameter pipeline in Pickaway County, Ohio at the Five Points Discharge area, and construction of a 4- 

mile-long, new 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Monroe County, Ohio at the Berne Discharge area 

(FERC, 2007a). The REX East Project would run parallel to the TIME II pipeline for all 6.3 miles of 

pipeline in Pickaway County and in close proximity to the 4 miles of pipeline in Monroe County. 

Tuscola East Replacement Project on the PEPL Pipeline 

PEPL’s Tuscola East Replacement project along the existing PEPL pipeline (FERC Docket No. 

CP06-428) was approved by the FERC on May 4, 2007. The Tuscola East Replacement project will 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-213

consist of replacing about 31.3 miles of pipeline and abandoning or removing about 29.4 miles of existing 

pipelines corresponding to the new replacement lines in Douglas County, Illinois and Parke, Marion, 

Boone, and Hamilton Counties, Indiana. The REX East Project would run parallel to the PEPL pipeline, 

where the Tuscola East Replacement project will occur, through the majority of Douglas County, Illinois 

and Parke County, Indiana. 

In June 2007, Panhandle Eastern began construction for the Tuscola East Replacement Project, 

which includes the following activities: 

Douglas County, Illinois – Tuscola 100- and 200-Line 

• replacing 6.7 miles of existing 20-inch-diameter pipeline with 36-inch-diameter pipeline;

• replacing 1.9 miles of existing 36-inch-diameter pipeline with 20-inch-diameter pipeline; and

• installing a new pig launcher/receiver.

Parke County, Indiana – Montezuma 100-Line 

• replacing 6.6 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline with 36-inch-diameter pipeline; and 

• installing a new pig launcher/receiver. 

Eastern Market Expansion Project 

On November 7, 2006 the NOI for Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation’s Eastern Market 

Expansion project (FERC Docket No. PF06-35) was issued (CP07-367; certificate application filed on 

May 3, 2007). The Environmental Assessment was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2007 

(72 FR 57321). The project would consist of expanding storage field capacity in Hocking County, Ohio 

and Kanawha County, West Virginia; installing additional horsepower at compressor stations in West 

Virginia; and constructing three sections of a 26- to 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop for a total of 15.5 

miles in Clay and Randolph Counties, West Virginia and Warren, Clarke, and Fauquier Counties, 

Virginia. Columbia Gas anticipates beginning construction by April 2008 with an in-service date of April 

2009. The REX East Project would be located in Fairfield County, Ohio, which is directly north of 

Hocking County, Ohio. Both projects would cross the Hocking watershed and impacts would be 

cumulative if the construction schedules overlap, as described in the analysis below. 

REX West Project 

The REX West Project consists of facilities proposed by three interstate pipeline companies in 

three separate certificate applications filed with the FERC. Rockies Express (Docket No. CP06-354-000) 

proposes the construction and operation of pipeline, compression, and ancillary facilities in Colorado, 

Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. TransColorado (Docket No. CP06-401-000) proposes 

construction and operation of new and expanded compression stations on its existing interstate natural gas 

pipeline system in New Mexico and Colorado. Overthrust, a wholly owned subsidiary of Questar 

Pipeline Company (Docket No. CP06-423-000) proposes construction and operation of pipeline, 

compression, and ancillary facilities in Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. We view these 

three applications as related projects that are necessary components of a larger, combined natural gas 

transportation project referred to as the REX West Project. The FERC certificate for the REX West 

Project was issued on April 19, 2007; the REX West Project is under construction and has an estimated 

in-service date of December, 2007. 

The purpose of the REX West Project is to provide natural gas transportation service from supply 

basins in the Rocky Mountains to demand-intensive markets in the Midwest. The REX West Project will 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-214

transport natural gas from the Cheyenne Hub in Colorado to its terminus at the PEPL Company 

interconnect in Audrain County, Missouri, which would allow deliveries to various markets in the 

Midwest including Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago. Along the proposed route, Rockies Express will 

construct five interconnects for deliveries from the REX West Project pipeline to other pipeline systems. 

The REX West Project includes construction and operation of about 795.6 miles of natural gas pipeline 

and a total of 237,320 hp of new compression. Following completion of construction, the REX West 

Project will transport up to 1.5 million Dth/d of natural gas (or about 1.5 bcf/d). Cumulative impacts in 

areas where the REX West Project and the REX East Project would occur are described below. These 

locations would be in: Phelps County, Nebraska, for the REX East Project Bertrand Compressor Station; 

Carbon County, Wyoming for the REX East Project Arlington Compressor Station; and Audrain County, 

Missouri, for the REX East Project Mexico meter station. 

Keystone Oil Pipeline Project 

The proposed Keystone Oil Pipeline would extend about 1,845 miles from Hardisty, Alberta, 

Canada, to midwestern markets in Wood River and Patoka, Illinois. It would have an initial nominal 

capacity to transport about 435,000 barrels per day of crude oil. The Keystone Oil Pipeline project rightof-way would be collocated with the proposed REX West pipeline right-of-way. Potential cumulative 

impacts from these two pipeline projects are addressed in the REX West Final EIS.1

 The proposed 

Keystone Oil Pipeline project and the REX East Project both would be in Audrain County, Missouri and 

the construction schedules would likely overlap. The projects would not be collocated along a shared 

right-of-way as the REX East Project starts east of Mexico, Missouri and the proposed Keystone Oil 

Pipeline would progress at a southeasterly route west of Mexico, Missouri. The draft EIS for the 

Keystone Oil Pipeline project was published in the Federal Register August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44908). 

Dresden Energy Electric Facility2

OPSB granted Dresden Energy a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need on 

February 12, 2001 for the construction of a 500-megawatt combined-cycle gas-turbine electric generating 

facility in northern Muskingum County, Ohio (OPSB, 2001). Construction of the facility has progressed 

slowly, but the facility is expected to become fully operable sometime in 2007 (OPSB, 2007). 

Construction remains incomplete at the main facility’s administration building but has been completed for 

the water processing facility, which includes a pump house on the Muskingum River. The underground 

pipes that deliver the water to this facility have also been completed; the pipes draw water from the 

Muskingum River (OPSB, 2007). On August 20, 2007, the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility 

and Public Need was transferred from Dresden Energy, LLC to American Electric Power (AEP) 

Generating Company, which purchased the facility earlier that month (OPSB, 2007; AEP, 2007). The 

REX East Project also plans to withdraw and discharge hydrostatic test water from and into the 

Muskingum River in Muskingum County, Ohio. 

Phelps County Ethanol, LLC 

Phelps County Ethanol, LLC is developing and constructing an ethanol plant on an 88-acre site 

southwest of Holdrege, Nebraska. Construction was scheduled to begin in July 2007. With an estimated 

annual grind of 40 million bushels, Phelps County Ethanol, Inc. will produce 100 million gallons of 

 

1

 The REX West Project was approved by the Commission in Docket Nos. CP06-354-000, CP06-401-000, and 

CP06-423-000 on April 19, 2007. 

2

 The Dresden Energy Electric Facility is also commonly referred to as American Electric Power (AEP) Muskingum 

River Power Plant. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-215

ethanol per year at this facility. This facility would be located about 1 to 2 miles from the proposed 

Bertrand Compressor Station. 

REX East Pipeline Extension 

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Sempra Energy are proposing a 375-mile extension of the 

REX East Project pipeline from its terminus in Clarington, Ohio, to Princeton, New Jersey. In October 

2007 the companies issued a non-binding open season, soliciting bids from interested customers for 

contract terms of 10 years or more. Service on the proposed pipeline extension would start in January 

2011. No indications of a timeline for pre-filing with the FERC have been given for this proposed 

project. Additional potential pipeline projects that may connect to the REX East Project pipeline, if built, 

are described in section 2.7. None of these projects has yet initiated pre-filing with the FERC. 

Highways and Roads 

Interstate 69 

Interstate 69 (I-69) is part of a national proposal to connect the United States to Canada and 

Mexico by means of an interstate highway located in Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. This national corridor, designated by Congress in the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Act of 1991, extends more than 2,100 miles. Near the proposed project area, I-69 

runs through Morgan and Johnson Counties, southeast of Indianapolis, Indiana. The REX East Project 

would cross I-69 in Morgan County, and both the REX East Project and the I-69 project would pass 

through Johnson County.

In December 2003, a final Tier 1 EIS for I–69 was issued; in March 2004, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) selected alternative 3C as the preferred alternative in its Record of Decision 

(FHWA, 2003, 2004). Alternative 3C runs from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana and is one of the 

easternmost alternatives analyzed in the final Tier 1 EIS. Alternative 3C was selected in part because it 

had the fewest impacts of the alternatives considered. For example, alternative 3C had the lowest impact 

on wetlands and farmland, and about 35 percent of this alternative would include upgrading an existing 

road, State Road (SR) 37, which would minimize social and environmental impacts. 

Since 2004, Indiana’s DOT (INDOT) has been conducting additional environmental surveys 

(INDOT, 2007). Analyses are currently being conducted for the Tier 2 draft EIS, which will examine 

three or four additional alternative highway routes and provide a more indepth analysis of the 

environmental impacts. The publication date for the Tier 2 draft EIS has not been finalized, although it 

may occur in the summer of 2008 (HNTB Corp., 2007). Therefore, the construction of the I-69 project 

would occur after the REX East Project has been constructed, if approved by the FERC. 

Macon County Southeast Beltway 

The REX East Project would cross Macon County, Illinois, to the south of the Village of 

Mt. Zion. This alignment would be in the same area as the county’s proposed Southeast Beltway. The 

alignment for the beltway, although not final, is fairly certain at this time, and purchase of the right-ofway may begin in 2009. 

Other Transportation Infrastructure Projects 

Additional transportation projects that would result in new or expanded roadways have been 

identified in many of the counties that would be crossed by the REX East Project. However, most of 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-216

these projects are relatively small, and would not result in significant impacts on the resources analyzed in 

this cumulative impacts analysis. Therefore, they are not described in individual detail in the analysis 

below. Examples of these smaller construction projects include the following: 

• MacArthur Boulevard Extension project in Sangamon County, Illinois. The MacArthur 

Boulevard Extension project began construction in 2007 and will take about two years to 

complete. The project consists of 3.6 miles of a new, four-lane road with a new interchange 

at I-72 south of Springfield, Illinois (ILDOT, 2007). 

• SR 73 in Clinton County, Ohio. SR 73 began construction in November 2006 and should be 

completed by November 2007. This project includes the construction of 1.4 miles of new 

road along the relocated SR 73 and the widening of U.S. 22/3 from two to four lanes 

(OHDOT, 2007). 

Residential and Commercial Developments 

The REX East Project would cross through several areas of ongoing and future residential 

development. The majority of these areas have been converted from farmland into residential 

developments, and to a lesser extent, forests and wetlands have also been directly and indirectly affected 

by such development (Johnson County Planning and Zoning, 1997; MDC, 2007c). The REX East Project 

would cross 10 planned residential and commercial developments that have been permitted but not yet 

constructed, many of which are located near waterbodies and other natural resources that would be 

affected by the REX East Project (see table 4.8.4-1). There has been rapid residential and urban growth 

in many areas outside of the REX East Project right-of-way. For example, from April 2000 to July 2004, 

there was a 12.6 percent increase in the number of new housing units in Johnson County, which is about 

double the statewide average of 6.3 percent (STATS Indiana, 2005). 

Navigation Projects 

The REX East Project would cross the Mississippi River at its confluence with the Salt River. As 

part of a larger navigation proposal, the COE’s existing Lock-and-dam Projects that are located on the 

Mississippi River both upstream and downstream from the proposed pipeline crossing location are under 

consideration for expansion. The upstream Lock-and-dam is located at Saverton, Missouri and would be 

about 14 miles upstream from the Project. About 9 miles downstream from the REX East Project would 

be the COE’s Lock-and-dam at Clarksville, Missouri. The COE’s proposed expansions would extend the 

lock chambers from their current length of 600 feet to 1,200 feet to accommodate larger barges. A 

funding request for the proposal has been submitted to Congress. The construction period for the lockand-dam projects are unlikely to overlap with the construction period for the REX East Project. 

Construction for the lock expansion may occur several years later, if all approvals and funding are 

received. 

Hunter Lake Water Supply Project 

The City of Springfield Office of Public Utilities in Sangamon County, Illinois, has proposed 

developing Hunter Lake, a 3,010-acre supplemental water supply reservoir, for the city (COE, 2007). An 

EIS was prepared for the Hunter Lake project and published in the Federal Register [65 FR 70568] on 

November 24, 2000 (COE, 2000). Currently, the COE Section 404 permit is pending but expected to be 

issued in 2007 (City of Springfield Office of Public Utilities, 2007). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-217

4.13.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Geology 

Mineral Resources 

Over the past 200 years, the REX East Project area has experienced impacts on and losses of 

geological resources due to resource extraction and development, including: building and crushed stone, 

sand and gravel, clay, peat, fluorite, lead, zinc, oil and gas, lead, coal, salt, and mercury. Future mineral 

development would be permanently prohibited within the REX East Project right-of-way, and likely 

within a certain distance from the right-of-way due to safety reasons. Appropriate compensation for loss 

of geologic resources would be negotiated with affected landowners. 

Generally, linear projects, such as pipeline and roadway construction, in the affected region 

would have impacts on mineral resources similar to those of the REX East Project. Mineral resources are 

not commercially exploited in areas where the REX West and the Eastern Market Expansion projects 

would be in the vicinity of the REX East Project. The preferred alternative in the Tier 1 final EIS for the 

I-69 project would pass through areas containing mineral resources such as oil, gas, sand reserves, 

limestone, coal, shale, clay, and gypsum. In the area where I-69 and the REX East Project would 

intersect, both projects would cross areas with sand and gravel pits. In Macon County, Illinois, where the 

Macon County Southeast Beltway project would be located, the REX East Project would not cross areas 

with sand and gravel pits; sand, gravel, or crushed stone; or oil and gas wells. 

Construction and operation of the Dresden Energy Electric Facility would not have an impact on 

local mineral resources. 

The Hunter Lake project would potentially limit access to geologic resources under the reservoir. 

The COE Lock-and-dam projects are not expected to impact geologic resources at the sites. Future urban 

and suburban development projects as well as small-scale transportation projects would also potentially 

have an impact on access to geologic resources. 

We do not believe that the construction and operation of the REX East Project would add 

significantly to the cumulative impacts to mineral resources because of Rockies Express’ proposed and 

our recommended mitigation plans. 

Paleontological Resources 

Historically, the affected region’s paleontological resources have been affected by development, 

road construction, resource extraction, and unauthorized collection (MODNR, 2002; ILDNR, 2007a; 

Indiana Geology Survey, 2007; ODNR, 2007f). 

As described in section 4.1.4, the Illinois State Museum identified areas in Illinois where the REX 

East route crosses potentially significant fossil assemblages. The potential to affect these paleontological 

resources would occur in the vicinity of other Illinois construction projects, such as the Tuscola East 

Replacement Project, Macon County Southeast Beltway, and the Hunter Lake Project. These projects 

could have adverse cumulative impacts as a result of the exposure and potential loss of scientifically 

valuable fossils. However, we have recommended mitigation for the REX East Project which would 

reduce its potential for adverse impact. 

Other pipeline projects, including TIME II and REX West; energy projects, including Dresden 

Energy Electric Facility; transportation projects, including I-69; and the COE Lock-and-dam projects 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-218

would not lead to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources because they occur in areas with 

relatively low density fossiliferous formations. 

The Eastern Market Expansion Project would impact marine limestone and terrestrial fossils 

associated with coal beds. However, these fossils are not rare, and are not geographically limited to 

Hocking County. Therefore, the impacts would be minimal. Future urban development projects and 

small-scale transportation projects would potentially have an impact on paleontological resources if they 

were to be built in areas where the resources occur. 

We do not believe that the construction and operation of the REX East Project would add 

significantly to the cumulative impacts to paleontological resources because Rockies Express and the 

other projects would not necessarily cross the same fossil beds. In addition, we have recommended 

mitigation that would reduce impacts to the paleontological resources that Rockies Express would cross. 

Soils 

Historically, soils in the REX East Project area have been affected by erosion and sedimentation, 

decreased soil productivity, and soil loss due to agricultural activities, development, and resource 

extraction (MODNR, 2007b; Illinois Department of Agriculture, 2001; Indiana Department of 

Agriculture, 2007; ODNR, 2007e).

Other pipeline projects would have impacts similar to those of the REX East Project. Adverse 

cumulative impacts to soils could occur in areas where the REX East pipeline would be located near the 

Keystone Oil Pipeline, collocated with TIME II and the Tuscola East Replacement projects, or where the 

REX East Project interconnects with the REX West project. The Eastern Market Expansion project will 

temporarily affect soils and the Keystone project would cross areas with poor soil drainage along much of 

its proposed route in central Missouri. 

Construction of the Dresden Energy Electric Facility in Muskingum County will also have a 

temporary impact on soils from grading activities and swale-and-ditch construction, but this would not 

occur during the same time period as construction of the REX East pipeline. The Hunter Lake Water 

Supply project would permanently impact 3,781 acres of cropland. The I-69 project, other smaller-scale 

transportation projects, and urban and suburban development would potentially impact soils and increase 

erosion due to cleared vegetation and bare soils. 

Cumulative impacts from these projects and the REX East Project could occur, especially if the 

period of construction is similar and if activities occur in areas with highly erodable soils. Temporary or 

short-term increases in soil erosion could occur during construction. However, the REX East project and 

the other pipeline projects would mitigate these impacts by implementing their own construction and 

mitigation plans. 

In addition, projects with aboveground structures (buildings, including compressor stations) or 

pavement (roads or parking lots) would have a permanent impact on soils, by either permanent removal or 

covering of topsoil. This would include projects such as: REX East Project (compressor and meter 

stations); I-69 (road); Dresden and Phelps (buildings); and housing developments (residences). 

Therefore, although we believe our mitigation would reduce the impacts on soils, construction 

and operation the REX East Project would add to the cumulative impacts to soil resources. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-219

Water Resources 

Groundwater 

Prior to 1900, groundwater in the REX East Project area was used primarily to supply the 

agriculture-driven economy. During the first half of the twentieth century, industry that relied upon 

groundwater supplies, such as mining and thermoelectric power plants, grew rapidly and began to 

adversely affect the groundwater supply. This trend continued through the twentieth century and water 

levels continued to decline into the 1950s. 

Construction of the TIME II, REX West, Keystone, Tuscola East, and other pipeline projects 

could cause impacts similar to those described for the REX East Project. These impacts could include 

altering overland flow and groundwater recharge and contaminating groundwater from spills and HDD 

frac-outs. Cumulative impacts could occur in areas where the REX East pipeline would be collocated 

with or near another pipeline that is under construction. 

The Dresden Energy Electric Facility would obtain water for operations from the Muskingum 

River. Depending on flow conditions within this river, withdrawal could affect the amount of water 

available for groundwater recharge. 

Two locations were analyzed to estimate the impacts of the Hunter Lake project on local 

groundwater levels, and this analysis concluded that there would be no impacts to the local water table 

due to development and operation of this project (Anliker, 1997). 

Surface Water 

Historical impairment and degradation of waterbodies within the REX East Project area have 

occurred primarily as a result of agricultural runoff, pollution from industry, channel modification, habitat 

modification, and resource extraction. 

The REX East Project would cross 1,462 surface waters including 313 perennial, 

435 intermittent, 672 ephemeral, 27 open water, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Thirty-eight of these 

crossings would occur at major or sensitive waterbodies (see appendix G) and Rockies Express proposes 

to cross 27 of them using the HDD method. 

Impacts to surface water resources due to construction of the REX East Project and other pipeline 

projects would generally be similar. Instream construction would cause temporary increases in 

sedimentation. These impacts would be reduced by the mitigation measures required for the project, 

including setbacks, sediment barriers, and streambank stabilization. Further, our Procedures include 

restoration and revegetation measures. 

The REX East Project and TIME II project would cross several of the same waterbodies in 

Pickaway County, Ohio, including Dry Run; Big Darby Creek, a designated National Wild and Scenic 

River and an Outstanding State Water in the Ohio State Scenic Rivers Program; and tributaries to Big 

Darby Creek. Rockies Express and TIME II would use the HDD method to cross Big Darby Creek, 

thereby minimizing or avoiding impacts to the riparian corridor, stream banks, or surface water quality of 

Big Darby Creek. However, cumulative impacts could occur if both projects experience frac-outs, which 

would result in a short-term increase in sedimentation and turbidity. The Time II project would minimize 

these impacts through implementation of its Frac-Out Contingency Plan. Similarly, Rockies Express 

would use its HDD Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007d). Both the REX 

East Project and the TIME II project plan to cross Dry Run and the tributaries to the Big Darby Creek 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-220

using the open-cut method. Cumulative impacts on water quality impacts could result if construction for 

both projects occur within a similar timeframe. Implementing both projects’ mitigation plans during 

construction would minimize impacts. 

The Hocking River, an impaired waterbody, would be crossed by the REX East Project in 

Fairfield County, Ohio and by an Eastern Market Expansion project well line in Hocking County, Ohio. 

Rockies Express proposes to cross the Hocking River using the open-cut method and Columbia Gas 

would employ either the open-cut or a dry crossing method. Temporary cumulative impacts could occur 

if the projects’ construction schedules overlap; however, such impacts would be minimized by 

implementing each company’s Plan and Procedures. 

Rockies Express would use the Muskingum River as a supply and discharge source for 

hydrostatic test water and the Dresden Energy Electric Facility will use the Muskingum River as a 

permanent water supply for operations. Rockies Express anticipates that the water withdrawal and 

discharge rate would be approximately 334 cubic feet per minute (2,500 gpm) from the Muskingum 

River. Rockies Express would not add any chemicals to the water. The Dresden Energy Electric Facility 

will withdraw a maximum of 13.3 cubic feet of water per second, which is approximately 0.2 percent of 

the river’s average flow rate. The facility would discharge 4.5 cubic feet of water per second after proper 

treatment (OPSB, 2001). Potential cumulative impacts on surface water from the withdrawal and 

discharge of water may include the alteration of river flow and changes to water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen levels. 

Residential and commercial development and transportation projects, including the I-69 project, 

occurring near surface waters that would be crossed by the REX East Project could result in adverse 

cumulative impacts on water quality. For example, an EPA study of an Ohio watershed found that 

residential, industrial, and commercial construction projects were the major sources of stress (i.e., 

sedimentation, interference with flow regime, pollution) on the watershed which can result in adverse, 

long-term effects (EPA, 2000). 

Constructing and operating the Hunter Lake Reservoir would result in a lake, which would 

change the surface water’s physical conditions. For example, there may be a stronger temperature 

gradient and decreased dissolved oxygen levels. COE Lock-and-dam projects would have localized 

effects on water quality from dredging activities. Such impacts would include increased turbidity and 

sedimentation. 

Construction of the described projects would contribute to the cumulative impact of the REX East 

Project. Impacts may result directly from disturbance of a waterbody due to in-stream construction and 

spills of hazardous materials and indirectly due to sediment transport from disturbed upland areas into 

waterbodies. However, the various projects would implement appropriate erosion controls, mitigation 

measures, and spill prevention to minimize or avoid these impacts. Furthermore, the REX East Project 

would cross several waterbodies by HDD which would further reduce impacts on surface water, thereby 

reducing cumulative impacts. Operation of the pipeline and road construction projects would not have 

long-term impacts on surface waters. Therefore, we believe cumulative impacts to surface water 

resources due to construction and operation of these projects would not be significant. 

Wetlands 

Historically, the great majority of wetlands in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio have been 

converted or lost. For example, from the late 1700s to the mid-1980s, the percentage of wetlands lost in 

Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio has been 85, 87, 87, and 90 percent, respectively (Dahl, 1990). The 

wetland loss in these states is approximately 32 to 37 percent above the national average within the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-221

continental United States (Dahl, 1990). Most historical wetland loss has been due to the draining of 

wetlands for agriculture (INDNR, 1996; OHEPA, 2007; MDC, 2004; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). 

Current threats to wetlands include residential and urban development, hydrologic alteration, increased 

pollution, and competition from non-native species. Because of the extreme amount of historical wetland 

loss in the Midwest, natural resource agencies have determined that all remaining wetlands in Missouri, 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio should be considered important for conservation (INDNR, 1996; ILDNR, 

2007b; MDC, 2004). 

The REX East Project would permanently convert 10.2 acres of forested and scrub-shrub wetland 

to emergent wetlands, 9.3 acres of which are ecologically valuable palustrine forested wetlands and 0.9 

acre of which are palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. When construction is completed, these wetlands 

would eventually transition back to a functionally similar wetland. However, it may take 50 to 100 years 

or longer for forested wetlands to regenerate and 1 to 3 years for scrub-shrub wetlands to regenerate. 

Therefore, impacts to forested wetlands are considered long-term. Wetlands would be permanently 

affected by periodic maintenance activities within the permanent right-of-way. 

The REX East Project and the Time II project would be collocated in Pickaway and Monroe 

Counties in Ohio and both projects proposed to cross Big Darby Creek at a similar location and time. 

There would be cumulative impacts to wetlands from the REX East Project and the Time II project (see 

table 4.13.3-1). Both projects would cross Big Darby Creek using the HDD method and would be 

collocated. This would minimize impacts to the riparian corridor. If each project would cross Big Darby 

separately, but during similar timeframes, re-disturbance of the area by the second pipeline crossing could 

increase the length of time needed to restore and re-vegetate the area to its pre-construction condition. 

Table 4.13.3-1 

Cumulative Wetland Impacts from the REX East Project and the Time II Project 

in Pickaway and Monroe Counties in Ohio 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison Wetlands 

Temporary 

Impacts 

Long-term and 

Permanent 

Impacts 

Time II Project a/ Pickaway and Monroe 

Counties 

Palustrine emergent Less than 0.3 acre 0.1 acre 

REX East Project Pickaway and Monroe 

Counties 

Palustrine emergent 

Scrub-shrub 

Forested 

1.9 acres 

0.1 acre 

2.1 acres 0.8 acre 

_______________

a/ FERC, 2007a 

The REX East Project and the Tuscola East Replacement project along the PEPL pipeline would 

be collocated in Douglas County, Illinois and Parke County, Indiana. Table 4.13.3-2 summarizes 

wetlands affected by these projects. Both projects would permanently affect less than one acre of 

wetlands and both projects would implement their Plans and Procedures to mitigate impacts to wetlands. 

The REX East Project and the Keystone Oil Pipeline project would both occur in Audrain 

County, Missouri, but would not be collocated. Table 4.13.3-3 shows the wetland impacts that would 

occur from both projects in Missouri. Impacts to forested wetlands by the Keystone Oil Pipeline project 

would require 6:1 compensatory mitigation for conversion and temporal loss. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-222

Table 4.13.3-2 

Cumulative Wetland Impacts from the REX East Project and the Tuscola East Replacement Project 

in Douglas County, Illinois and Parke County, Indiana 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison Wetlands 

Temporary 

Impacts 

Long-term and 

Permanent 

Impacts 

Tuscola East Replacement 

Project a/ 

Douglas County and 

Parke County 

Palustrine emergent

Scrub-shrub 

0.2 acre 

Less than 0.1 acre 

REX East Project Douglas County and 

Parke County 

Palustrine emergent 

Forested 

1.3 acres 

0.7 acre 0.2 acre 

_______________

a/ FERC, 2007b 

Table 4.13.3-3 

Cumulative Wetland Impacts from the REX East Project and the 

Keystone Oil Pipeline Project in Missouri a/ 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison Wetlands 

Temporary 

Impacts 

Long-term and 

Permanent Impacts 

Keystone Oil Pipeline Missouri All wetlands

Forested 

141 acres 31 acres 

47 acres 

REX East Project Missouri All wetlands

Forested 

8.0 acres 0.8 acre 

5.6 acres 

_______________

a/ DOS, 2007 

The REX East Project would cross I-69 in Morgan County, Indiana and both the REX East 

Project and I-69 would pass through Johnson County, Indiana. Impacts to wetlands from I-69 would be 

different than pipeline projects because the permanent right-of-way would be wider and wetlands would 

be permanently removed rather than temporarily affected or converted. Wetland impacts from the 

projects are summarized in table 4.13.3-4. If construction for both I-69 and the REX East Project occur 

Table 4.13.3-4 

Cumulative Wetland Impacts from the REX East Project and I-69 in Morgan County 

and Johnson County, Indiana 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison Wetlands 

Temporary 

Impacts 

Long-term and 

Permanent 

Impacts 

I-69 Preferrred 

Alternative a/ b/ 

Indiana All wetlands 

Forested 

wetlands 

Scrub-shrub 

75 acres 

65 acre 

5 acres 

REX East Project Morgan and Johnson 

Counties 

Emergent 0.8 acre 

_______________

a/ The preferred location for I-69 may be revised in the Tier 2 draft EIS (HNTB, 2007). Therefore, the amount of affected wetlands 

may change. 

b/ FHWA, 2003 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-223

within a year or two of each other, re-disturbance of wetlands in the area where the projects cross in 

Morgan County could increase the length of time needed to restore and re-vegetate the area to its preconstruction condition. 

The REX East Project would cross the Hunter Lake project in Sangamon, Illinois. Wetland 

impacts from the two projects are summarized in table 4.13.3-5. Wetlands in the Hunter Lake project 

area would be permanently inundated by the enlarged Hunter Lake (COE, 2000). The Hunter Lake 

project and REX East Project construction and operation would result in adverse cumulative impacts on 

wetlands within the Horse Creek and Brush Creek watersheds. 

Table 4.13.3-5 

Cumulative Wetland Impacts from the REX East Project and the 

Hunter Lake Project in Sangamon, Illinois 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison Wetlands 

Temporary 

Impacts 

Long-term and 

Permanent Impacts 

Hunter Lake project a/ Horse and Brush 

Creeks watersheds 

All wetlands 

Forested 

102 acres 

77.8 acres 

REX East Project Horse and Brush 

Creeks watersheds 

Scrub-shrub 

Forested 

0.2 acre 

0.1 acre 

_______________

a/ COE, 2000 

Residential and urban development is one of the main threats to wetland conversion and 

deterioration (OHEPA, 2007). The land and water interface associated with the location of wetlands 

make them a desirable area for development, which often results in the direct loss and conversion of 

wetlands. Development could also increase indirect cumulative impacts on wetlands because changes to 

the land contours and increases in impervious surfaces can alter local hydrologic conditions over the 

longer term. In addition, runoff near urbanized areas often contains a higher amount of pollutants, 

nutrients, and pesticides that can degrade wetland habitats. Given the past trend of wetland loss from 

residential and urban development, and future predictions in residential growth within watersheds similar 

to those crossed by the REX East Project, residential and urban development would likely cause adverse 

cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

Given the widespread historical loss of wetlands, the projected development of pipelines and 

reservoirs, increased residential developments along the REX East Project right-of-way, and the Project’s 

long-term and permanent impacts to forested wetlands, we believe that adverse cumulative impacts to 

wetlands would occur. However, we have minimized wetland impacts by reducing the construction rightof-way and evaluating alternative routes to avoid wetlands where practicable. Appropriate wetland 

compensation plans would be developed pursuant to COE permit requirements. 

Vegetation 

Historically, substantial loss of forested land has occurred in the REX East Project area. In the 

midwestern United States, the amount of forested land decreased substantially from the 1800s to the 

1900s. Much of the original forested land has been converted for agriculture, urban/suburban 

development, roads and highways, utility corridors, and other uses, which has resulted in the direct loss of 

forests and increased forest fragmentation. 

Construction for the REX East Project would temporarily disturb a total of 14,247.7 acres of 

vegetated lands, of which, 10,606.3 acres (74 percent) are agricultural land; 3,102.0 (22 percent) are 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-224

forested lands; and 539.4 acres (4 percent) are herbaceous vegetation. Impacts would be short-term on 

herbaceous vegetation and agricultural lands, as they would regrow within 1 to 3 years. Impacts would be 

long-term with limited permanent impacts for forested areas, and it may take 50 to 100 years or longer to 

return to pre-construction conditions. Operations of the REX East Project would impact approximately 

4,010.5 acres of vegetated land, of which, 2,919.0 acres (73 percent) are agricultural land; 882.1 (23 

percent) are forested lands (including forested wetlands); and 209.4 acres (4 percent) are herbaceous 

vegetation (grassland areas including pasture land and emergent wetlands). 

There is a higher likelihood of cumulative impacts to forested areas because these areas would 

require the greatest amount of time to regenerate and because, as compared to agriculture and herbaceous 

areas, forested areas are the least abundant vegetation type that would be impacted by the REX East 

Project. The REX East Project would cause adverse impacts to forested land within the Project area. 

Conventional construction would involve the clearing of vegetation in the construction right-of-way and 

disturbance of the surface through trenching. Following construction, the 50-foot-wide permanent rightof-way would be maintained in an herbaceous state, while the temporary construction right-of-way would 

be allowed to return to pre-construction conditions. The exception to this would be in wetland areas 

where a 30-foot-wide corridor would be maintained. 

The TIME II project and the REX East Project would affect forests as presented in table 4.13.3-6. 

Collocating the projects would minimize the conversion of forest acres, as well as the amount of new 

forest edge that would be created. In certain areas, Rockies Express proposes to leave a 10-foot wide strip 

in between it’s and the adjacent pipeline. Rather than centering its pipeline within the 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way, Rockies Express would place it 40 feet from the abutting pipeline right-of-way. 

In section 2.2.1 we recommend that Rockies Express center the pipeline within permanent right-of-way in 

areas where it is presently shown within 10 feet of the edge of the permanent right-of-way. 

Table 4.13.3-6 

Cumulative Forest Impacts from the REX East Project and the Time II Project 

in Pickaway and Monroe Counties in Ohio 

Project 

Area of 

Comparison 

Long term and Limited 

Permanent Impacts Permanent Impacts 

Time II project a/ Pickaway County 

Monroe County 

4.5 acres 

21.6 acres 

4.2 acres 

19.2 acres 

REX East Project Pickaway County 

Monroe County 

53.6 acres 

88.1 acres 

21.4 acres 

22.5 acres 

_______________

a/ FERC, 2007a 

The Tuscola East Replacement project on the PEPL pipeline and the REX East Project would 

parallel each other through Douglas County, Illinois and Parke County, Indiana. Because the Tuscola 

East Replacement project would be within an existing ROW, no forested areas would be affected by the 

PEPL pipeline in Douglas County, Illinois and Parke County, Indiana. The REX East Project would be 

collocated with the PEPL pipeline in these counties. Collocation of the right-of-ways would minimize the 

cumulative impacts to forests in these areas. 

The REX West Project would involve clearing of trees within upland forest communities, which 

would result in adverse impacts to vegetation in forested areas. However, the effects would generally be 

small relative to the available habitat in the region. The Keystone Oil Pipeline project would have a longDocument Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-225

term impact on 538 acres of upland forests and permanently impact 119 acres of upland forests in 

Missouri. 

The REX East Project would cross I-69 in Morgan County and both the REX East Project and 

I-69 would pass through Johnson County, Indiana. Both projects would increase fragmentation due to the 

linear nature of the disturbances. The preferred alternative for I-69 (alternative 3C) would directly affect 

1,150 acres of forest and indirectly affect 325 to 400 acres of forest between Evansville and Indianapolis 

(FHWA, 2003). I-69 would also bring increased access to previously undeveloped locations, which may 

in turn induce secondary development in the area, such as the development of truck stops, restaurants, 

motels, residential communities, additional roads, utilities and associated power lines, and other 

infrastructure associated with suburban development. The REX East Project would temporarily affect 

20.0 acres and 74.6 acres of forest during construction, and 7.7 acres and 26.1 acres of undisturbed forest 

would be permanently converted in Johnson and Morgan Counties, respectively. Adverse cumulative 

impacts due to forest loss and fragmentation could occur in Morgan and Johnson Counties, depending on 

the additional development that may occur if I-69 is built. Other small-scale transportation projects and 

urban and suburban development would likely cause adverse impacts to vegetation through site clearing 

for construction.

The proposed alignment for the REX East Project in Macon County, Illinois would pass around 

the south side of the Village of Mt. Zion, which is close to the area where the county’s Southeast Beltway 

is proposed for construction. Construction of the Southeast Beltway would result in some direct loss of 

forests and would increase forest fragmentation. Additional permanent impacts and forest fragmentation 

in the REX East Project area would be likely to continue as urbanization often leads to new roads, utilities 

and associated power lines, additional residences, and other infrastructure. In Macon County, Illinois, the 

REX East Project would affect 13.9 acres of forest during construction and 5.6 acres would be 

permanently converted to maintain the permanent easement. 

The REX East Project would cross the site of the proposed Hunter Lake Reservoir in Sangamon 

County, Illinois. The proposed reservoir would permanently convert 1,526 acres of existing forest into 

aquatic habitat (COE, 2000). This amount of forest represents a substantial portion of the existing forest 

within the Horse Creek and Brush Creek watersheds (COE, 2000). The REX East Project would cross 

3,960.0 feet of undisturbed forest in Sangamon County, which would have a long-term effect on 11.3 

acres and permanently convert 4.4 acres of forest to open habitat. The vegetation along this segment of 

the REX East Project would be re-disturbed permanently by the subsequent construction and operation of 

the Hunter Lake project. Most cumulative impacts on vegetation would be short-term and not significant 

since most of the affected vegetation would be agricultural and herbaceous. However, due to the historic 

reduction of forests in the REX East Project area and because temporary disturbance of this resource 

would be long-term, cumulative impacts would be adverse. However, REX East Project development 

included evaluation of alignments that would minimize forest clearing and fragmentation, and the use of 

HDDs to cross several waterbodies would further minimize impacts on riparian areas. Further, we are 

recommending that Rockies Express develop a plan for planting trees within temporary workspaces to 

replace forest cleared for construction by the Project. Therefore, although cumulative impacts on forest 

would be adverse, Rockies Express’ proposed and our recommended mitigation would minimize 

cumulative impacts to the greatest extent practicable. 

Given the historical loss and fragmentation of forested areas, the projected development of 

pipelines and reservoirs, increased residential development along the REX East Project right-of-way, and 

the Project’s long-term and permanent impacts to forest, cumulative impact to forested areas would occur. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-226

Wildlife 

General Wildlife Resources 

Activities that have contributed to the historical decline of wildlife and wildlife resources within 

the Project area include unregulated hunting, fishing, and trapping, as well as extensive tracts of forests 

that been converted into agricultural land. Loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in recent decades is 

primarily a result of the increase in residential and suburban development. 

Construction and operation of the REX East Project along with other linear projects mentioned in 

table 4.13.2-1, such as pipelines and roadways, would temporarily displace mobile species and may result 

in direct mortality to immobile species. Long-term and permanent impacts to forested areas would result 

in a decline of habitat quality because of increased fragmentation. Impacts to wildlife from loss and 

fragmentation of forested habitats may adversely affect certain species of fauna and flora because 

biophysical conditions near the forest’s edge can be significantly different from those found in the center 

or core of the forest. In addition, cleared areas may increase vulnerability and prevent some wildlife from 

safely migrating to various patches of forest and therefore impede the ability of some wildlife to forage, 

breed, or find refuge from predators. This potential for adverse impacts is greater for species that have 

limited habitat in the project area or are otherwise more sensitive to disturbance. Collocating pipelines 

reduces the amount of new edge habitat that is created. 

The Hunter Lake project would directly and permanently affect wildlife because the terrestrial 

and aquatic habitat in the area would be altered significantly. Most of these affected wildlife species are 

mobile, wide-spread and relatively common in Illinois. 

I-69 and the Macon County Southeast Beltway would result in long-term and permanent loss of 

forested habitats. Direct impacts to wildlife would occur during operations if wildlife are struck by 

vehicles. Other small-scale transportation projects and urban and suburban development could cause 

similar adverse impacts to wildlife through forest fragmentation and loss of habitat, but on a smaller scale. 

Construction and operation of these projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts on 

wildlife in general. Impacts would be more adverse where permanent or long-term impacts to forests or 

forested wetlands would occur, particularly where more forest edge would be created. However, the REX 

East Project would be collocated along existing rights-of-way where possible to minimize fragmentation 

to the extent practicable. 

Raptors and Other Migratory Birds 

In the past, forest fragmentation in the REX East Project area from land development and 

deforestation has resulted in a substantial decline in habitat availability and decline for migratory birds. 

In addition, there has been a concurrent decline in some species of migratory birds that are most sensitive 

to such habitat alteration. Migratory BCC within the Project area that are sensitve to habitat fragment 

include the king rail and the prothonotary warbler in Missouri; the American golden-plover and Smith’s 

longspur, which have nationally important staging areas in Edgar and Douglas Counties, Illinois; and the 

cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warblers, wood thrush, Acadian 

flycatcher, and the Louisiana water thrush, which occupy breeding habitat within large forested tracts in 

Indiana and Ohio (see section 4.5.3). 

In a letter received on September 12, 2007, FWS noted that the American golden-plover and 

Smith’s longspur have nationally important staging areas in Edgar and Douglas Counties, Illinois, where 

the Tuscola East Replacement project on the PEPL pipeline and REX East Project would be collocated. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-227

Construction activities occurring adjacent to nesting individuals could result in nest abandonment, which 

would subsequently result in the chilling or mortality of eggs and young, or premature fledging and 

ejection from the nest. Long-term and permanent impacts to forested habitats in this area would result in 

a cumulative impact on habitat quality in important breeding areas. Collocation of the pipelines within 

these counties, and adherence to the REX East Plan and Procedures, would minimize impacts to these 

species. As described in section 4.5, we are recommending that Rockies Express consult with FWS to 

identify specific areas where forest fragmentation would impact breeding sites and activities for migratory 

birds, and to determine site-specific mitigation for each area of concern. The forests that FWS is most 

concerned about for various migratory birds BCC are described in section 4.5.3. We are also 

recommending that Rockies Express file its draft MBTA Conservation Agreement and that it be 

developed in consultation with FWS, as described in 4.5.3. 

Because multiple bald eagle nests have been identified along the proposed right-of-way, a more 

detailed analysis for this species is described below. 

Bald Eagles

Historically, there may have been as many as 100,000 nesting bald eagles in the United States 

prior to the 1800s. By the 1940s, the population precipitously declined primarily due to loss of nesting 

habitats and hunting. In addition, the introduction of DDT had a large effect on the eagle population, as 

contaminated eagles failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during incubation. In recent 

years, the bald eagle population has greatly increased in part due to the ban of DDT in 1972 and from 

protection afforded under the ESA. For example, the number of documented breeding pairs from 1963 to 

2006 has increased from 487 to 9,789. Due to the recovery of this species, the bald eagle was removed 

from the Endangered Species list on June 28, 2007. 

Pipeline construction would have impacts on the bald eagle that are similar to those of the REX 

East Project. These impacts could include temporary displacement as a result of disturbing construction 

activities and the removal of roost trees. In addition, construction near waterbodies may temporarily 

disrupt foraging individuals. Transient bald eagles could be present in the area where the TIME II project 

pipeline would be collocated with the REX East Project. In part because the bald eagles are transient and 

would likely avoid the Project areas during construction, the Ohio Field Office of FWS indicated that no 

impacts to this species are anticipated. The Tuscola East Replacement project along the PEPL pipeline, 

which is also collocated with the REX East Project, is not likely to adversely impact bald eagles, and 

there are no known bald eagle nests within the vicinity of both projects (FERC, 2007b). The Keystone 

Oil Pipeline project would cross through areas of bald eagle roosting habitat in Audrain County, Missouri. 

To mitigate potential cumulative impacts to bald eagles, we are recommending that Rockies Express 

consult with FWS and ODNR if bald eagles are observed in the Project area during construction activities 

as described in section 4.5.3. 

There may be direct impacts adversely affecting bald eagles associated with the risk of death 

from vehicle collisions after the I-69 highway is constructed and becomes operational. I-69 may also 

impact bald eagles as a result of tree clearing in critical habitat and declining water quality due to 

increased erosion, sedimentation, contamination from pesticides, or other accidental chemical spills that 

could lower the abundance and diversity of fish that bald eagles prey on. Bald eagles were not reported in 

Morgan or Johnson Counties, Indiana where I-69 would cross the REX East Project. However, most bald 

eagles along the proposed highway were reported near White River, which the REX East Project would 

cross. Other small-scale transportation projects and urban and suburban development could cause similar 

adverse impacts to bald eagles. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-228

Fisheries 

The REX East Project would cross 1,463 waterbodies, all of which are warmwater fisheries and 

51 of which are designated as fisheries of special concern, as defined by the MSFCMA. Temporary 

impacts to fisheries could result during construction from sedimentation, turbidity, blasting, erosion, 

water contamination from spills and frac-outs, and water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing or dust 

control. These impacts would not be significant as Rockies Express would mitigate impacts by 

implementing its Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007a) and Procedures (FERC eLibrary, 2007b), Blasting Plan 

(FERC eLibrary, 2007c), HDD Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007d), and 

SPCC Plan (FERC eLibrary, 2007e) as described in detail in section 4.6. As one mitigation measure, 

Rockies Express would not withdraw water from any state-designated exceptional waters; waterbodies 

which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species; or waterbodies designated as 

public water supplies (unless granted written permission from the appropriate federal, state, or local 

agency). As another measure, Rockies Express would designate restricted refueling areas in locations 

where the typical 100-foot buffer between fueling activities and waterbodies could not be maintained. 

Historically, fisheries in the affected region have been adversely impacted by urban development, 

increased non-point source pollution, increased stormwater runoff, and the introduction of invasive 

species (MDC, 2007c; INHS, 2007; INDNR, 2007a; ODNR, 2007d). 

Pipeline projects, including the Tuscola East Replacement project, the TIME II project, and the 

Keystone Oil Pipeline project would have temporary impacts on local fisheries during the construction 

period and depending on the construction method used for crossing; but, longer-term adverse impacts 

would be minimal once construction was completed. Adverse impacts potentially include sedimentation 

and turbidity, removal of stream cover, introduction of water pollutants, entrainment of fish, or the 

introduction of new species. Hydrostatic testing in any of the pipelines would also have temporary 

impacts on fisheries due to withdrawal and discharge of the test water. Specifically, the TIME II project 

and the REX East Project would cross the Big Darby Creek, which would potentially impact the health of 

the Darby Creek fisheries. However, this waterbody would be crossed by HDD. We are recommending 

that Rockies Express file a site-specific HDD plan for crossing this waterbody, as described in 

section 4.3. The REX East Project would cross Sugar Creek, which is recognized for having outstanding 

ecological importance in Indiana. We are recommending that it be crossed by a dry crossing method to 

minimize impacts. The REX West Project in the vicinity of the REX East Project does not impact any 

sensitive fisheries. Operation of these projects would not have significant cumulative impacts on fisheries. 

Disturbed construction work areas would be minimized and appropriate erosion controls would be 

installed and maintained. 

The Dresden Energy Electric Facility, located in Muskingum County, Ohio could also potentially 

cause adverse impacts. It would divert 13.3 cubic feet per second of water, a diversion of 0.2 percent of 

the total average flow rate of the Muskingum River during operation. However, the Ohio Power Siting 

Board would approve the final route map, mitigation measures, and construction techniques for the water 

intake and discharge structures. These plans would place special emphasis on design features intended to 

minimize impingement and entrapment of aquatic organisms and to lessen any adverse impacts on aquatic 

life. Therefore, there would likely be mitigation measures to lessen the adverse impacts on fisheries and 

aquatic species during operation. 

Construction of the I-69 project could cause adverse impacts to fisheries. I-69 may have channel 

impacts, including channel realignments. Both direct disturbances at the construction site and habitat 

disruption from sediment downstream may result from in-stream work. Future residential and 

commercial development such as the Macon County Southeast Beltway project and small transportation 

projects completed near fisheries would also have similar potential impacts on fisheries health.

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-229

The Hunter Lake project is expected to cause major adverse impacts to local fisheries due to 

construction of new impoundments to convert the free-flowing stream to a lake-like condition. Species 

that require flowing water, well-oxygenated gravel/sand riffles for egg deposition, or other natural stream 

attributes would potentially be reduced in numbers or eliminated. Qualitative changes in the 

phytoplankton and periphyton flora are expected. A sewer pipeline that is part of the Hunter Lake project 

would also have potential fishery impacts at 18 stream crossings. The COE Lock-and-dam projects 

would have impacts on fisheries where the expansion changes the water flow conditions.

Cumulative impacts on fisheries could occur if there is a decrease in water quality in waterbodies 

that would be affected by the construction and operation of the REX East Project and the identified other 

projects, as described in the surface water section. If these other projects have construction schedules that 

differ from the REX East Project, cumulative impacts on fisheries would be minimized. However, if 

construction is concurrent, it could contribute to cumulative sedimentation impacts on fisheries. 

However, these impacts would be short-term due to each project’s use of mitigation measures and other 

revegetation plans and construction techniques to minimize impacts while crossing waterbodies, such as 

using equipment bridges, controlling sediments and erosion and, using crossing procedures. Therefore, we 

believe that although there would be a cumulative impact on fisheries it would not be significant. 

Special Status Species 

Consultation with FWS and field studies indicates that multiple federal special status species may 

be located within the REX East Project area. Cumulative impacts from other projects could result if 

special status species occur in areas where multiple projects occur in the same area. Lead agencies for 

federal projects would be required to consult with federal, state, and local agencies to determine which 

species may occur within its project area, evaluate potential impacts on those species as a result of 

construction and operation, and implement measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on special 

status species and their habitats. Our analysis indicates that the cumulative impacts to federal special 

status species are most likely to occur for the Indiana bat and various threatened and endangered mussel 

species, as described in more detail below. 

Indiana Bat 

Human activities have been a major cause of declining bat populations throughout the REX East 

Project area. The decline of the Indiana bat is due in part to commercialization of roosting caves, human 

disturbance, and possible insecticide poisoning. The present total population of this species is fewer than 

360,000 with more than 85 percent hibernating at only nine locations in Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky. 

Within the range of the Indiana bat, there is currently less forest land than there was prior to European 

settlement (Smith et al., 2003). In addition, the loss of continuous core habitat in highly fragmented 

forests may result in degraded habitat quality for Indiana bats, especially near roosting habitats (FWS, 

2007). Some studies have shown that Indiana bats rely upon forested travel corridors when leaving and 

returning to roosting nests (Sparks et al., 2005). 

The Indiana bat is federally endangered and listed as occurring in every county that would be 

crossed by the REX East Project. In addition, summer foraging and roosting habitat is known to be 

present along the pipeline route. 

We are recommending that Rockies Express develop a tree clearing plan in consultation with 

FWS and the COE, where appropriate. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-230

Residential and commercial development could have a cumulative indirect impact on Indiana bat 

habitat resulting in the loss of habitat and a decline in habitat quality with the increase in fragmentation. 

The current greatest single cause of forest conversion within the range of Indiana bat habitat is 

urbanization and development (USFS, 2007). A study by Sparks et al. (2005) suggests that Indiana bats 

avoid highly populated residential and urban areas. Given the past trend of habitat loss from residential 

and urban development and future predictions in residential growth in areas surrounding the REX East 

Project corridor, residential and urban development may contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on the 

Indiana bat. 

The TIME II project would cross Big Darby Creek adjacent to the REX East Project right-of-way. 

In an initial survey near the proposed crossing, six Indiana bats were found, and four of the six were 

lactating (FERC, 2007a). In addition, FWS identified Big Darby Creek as important habitat for the 

Indiana bat. The presence of lactating females may indicate maternity colonies, which would be 

vulnerable to direct and indirect impacts from construction activities while crossing Big Darby Creek and 

working within the riparian zone. Construction of the pipeline and HDD would temporarily increase 

noise levels, and deter the Indiana bat from the REX East Project area. This temporary adverse impact 

would be long-term if both projects cross the Big Darby Creek during a similar, but non-overlapping 

timeframe. The TIME II project proposes to use HDD to cross the creek and has stated that no trees 

would be cleared in the Big Darby Creek riparian zone. Rockies Express would not affect the forested 

areas along Big Darby Creek since this waterbody would be crossed by HDD and the entrance and exit 

points for the HDD would lie in open fields. However, the temporary noise impacts from construction of 

the REX East and TIME II projects contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on the Indiana bat in this 

area. 

The REX West Project would affect Indiana bat habitat primarily in Missouri. REX West is 

evaluating avoidance measures in coordination with FWS and MDC and they would not initiate 

construction in areas identified as potential summer roosting areas from April 1 through September 31. 

Thus, adverse impacts would be minimized. The Keystone Oil Pipeline project would also have impacts 

similar to the REX West Project. The REX East Project would also affect Indiana bat habitat in Missouri. 

In consultation for the Tuscola East Replacement project on the PEPL pipeline, FWS 

(Bloomington, Indiana and Marion, Illinois) stated that the PEPL pipeline is within the range of the 

Indiana bat and suitable habitat occurs in several areas along the right-of-way in Indiana. FWS suggested 

that PEPL refrain from clearing trees from April 1 to September 30 to avoid incidental take from removal 

of an occupied roost tree. However, adverse impacts to suitable habitat may still occur. 

The Eastern Market Expansion project would potentially impact Indiana bats. A mist net survey 

would be completed in its project area at appropriate locations, and the results would be provided to FWS 

for further evaluation and consultation. 

The Indiana bat would potentially inhabit or use the Dresden Energy Electric Facility project site 

for foraging, but individuals were not identified during project surveys. To minimize species impact 

during construction, no trees with exfoliating bark would be removed during the roosting season. Since 

the facility site is larger than 17 acres, FWS recommended that project construction should occur in the 

area only from November 15 through March 31, and a survey must be completed to evaluate the 

percentage of suitable habitat that would remain within a 2-mile radius from the project center. 

Otherwise, a mist net survey must be completed. No impacts on Indiana bat populations are expected 

after construction is completed. 

The I-69 project may result in the following direct and indirect impacts to the bat and its habitat: 

forest conversion and fragmentation could lead to loss of roosting and foraging habitat; construction noise 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-231

and vibration may cause bats to leave roosts, increasing predation; high-speed traffic could increase road 

kills; and hibernacula may be at greater risk of vandalism. In a revised Biological Opinion, FWS (2007a) 

determined that the I-69 project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or its critical habitat. The 

acreages affected represents less than 1 percent of the available foraging and roosting habitat and the 

FHWA’s proposed mitigation and conservation measures would be implemented. I-69 would have 

temporary adverse impacts from construction noise, which would temporarily disturb the bats from their 

foraging and potential roosting habitat. 

The Macon County Southeast Beltway, other small-scale transportation projects, and urban and 

suburban development, would also have potential adverse impacts on Indiana bat habitat as a result of 

construction activities. It would affect the bat if project construction results in disturbance to local caves 

and mines, small riparian corridors, or upland forest areas. 

The environmental analysis for the Hunter Lake project did not identify any impacts on the 

Indiana Bat. 

Construction of COE Lock-and-dam projects would potentially temporarily adversely impact 

summer roosting habitat. 

Although, we have recommended mitigation the REX East Project is likely to adversely affect the 

Indiana bat and would add to cumulative impacts on the species. 

Mussels 

Historically, mussel species in the United States have been threatened by river damming, the 

introduction of chemicals and artificial nutrients from runoff, increased sedimentation due to changes in 

land use and urban development, and the introduction of exotic species to their habitat. 

Along the proposed route, four species of mussels are federally listed as endangered: clubshell, 

northern riffleshell, fanshell, and fat pocketbook. There are also mussels that are candidate species and 

mussels listed as threatened and endangered by various states. 

Clubshell and northern riffleshell populations have been identified within 1 mile of the pipeline 

route, but fat pocketbook and fanshell populations have not. Waterbodies which have not yet been 

surveyed are not likely to contain listed mussel species, so impacts on mussels are not expected. All of 

the perennial waterbodies with potential protected mussel species would be crossed by HDD methods, 

except for those listed in section 4.3.2. We are recommending that all waterbodies with mussels be 

crossed by a dry crossing method rather than open cut. Crossing waterbodies using the open-cut method 

would temporarily adversely affect mussels. If a frac-out occurs during an HDD crossing, localized 

mortality for mussels in the immediate area of the frac-out may result due to increased turbidity. The 

Mississippi River crossing would involve the combined use of HDD techniques and in-stream dredging 

on the Missouri side of the river, and dredging on the eastern side of Blackburn Island would have a 

minor impact on the turbidity in the Mississippi River, which may affect mussels. 

Due to the low likelihood any mussel species being present at any of the river crossings, the 

construction measures and hydrostatic testing methods that would be employed, and our 

recommendations, we have determined that the REX East Project would not likely adversely affect the fat 

pocketbook, the clubshell, the northern riffleshell, or the fanshell mussels. 

The TIME II project would potentially have adverse effects on both the federally listed clubshell 

and riffleshell mussels, the state-listed fawnsfoot and snuffbox mussels, as well as the rayed bean mussel 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-232

that may also be present in Big Darby Creek. However, a mussel survey would be completed for this 

project prior to construction, and mussel relocation would occur if any species were found. Big Darby 

Creek would not be used as a water source during hydrostatic testing. 

Other pipeline and energy projects, including the Tuscola East Replacement project, the Keystone 

Oil Pipeline project, and the Eastern Market Expansion project would not adversely affect mussel species. 

The clubshell and rayed bean mussels have a range that includes Parke County, Indiana, but they have not 

been identified in the project area. The Dresden Energy Electric Facility would implement special 

precautions at its intake and discharge locations on the Muskingum River to minimize impacts on 

sensitive aquatic species during operation. 

The I-69 EIS evaluated the potential impacts on two federally endangered mussel species that are 

also being evaluated for the proposed Project: fanshell mussels and the fat pocketbook. It concluded that 

no federally or state-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern mussels are in the area. After 

consulting with FWS, FHWA concluded that the construction and maintenance of the I-69 project are not 

likely to adversely affect these mussels. 

The Macon County Southeast Beltway, other small-scale transportation projects, and urban and 

suburban development could cause adverse impacts on mussel species during construction and operation 

if they contribute sediment to waterbodies containing mussels. 

Special status mussel species would not be affected by the creation of the reservoir for the Hunter 

Lake project. COE Lock-and-dam expansion projects would have a localized, temporary effect on water 

quality, which would potentially impact downstream mussel populations during construction, if mussels 

are present in the area. If mussels are present where the dredging occurs, the dredging activities would 

cause direct impacts and mortality. 

Cumulative impacts on mussels may occur if water quality declines due to the REX East Project 

and other project construction. Increased development and infrastructure construction around affected 

surface waters may result in a decline in water quality. For example, an EPA study found that in a 

watershed system in Ohio, residential, industrial, and commercial construction projects contributed to a 

decline in water quality and an increase in sedimentation and turbidity (EPA, 2000). Increased 

sedimentation can lead to eutrophication and loss of special status species such as threatened and 

endangered mussels. The REX East Project has developed Procedures to control erosion and 

sedimentation and by following these Procedures, Rockies Express would limit its indirect impact on 

mussels. Direct impacts to mussels would be minimized by the proposed HDD crossings of certain 

waterbodies with mussels and our recommendation that all waterbodies with mussels be crossed by a dry 

crossing method. Hydrostatic test water would not be withdrawn from waterbodies with protected species. 

Surveys would be completed to identify additional areas with freshwater mussels which will allow us to 

complete our consultation with FWS. Therefore, we do not expect significant cumulative impacts on 

federally listed mussel species. 

Other Special Status Species 

Federally listed special status species identified in section 4.7, other than Indiana bat or mussels 

listed above, include the whooping crane, eastern massasauga, spectaclecase mussel, decurrent false aster, 

eastern prairie fringed orchid, prairie bush clover, and the running buffalo clover. State-listed special 

status species identified in section 4.7 include the bald eagle, greater prairie chicken, the loggerhead 

shrike, northern harrier, trumpeter swan, eastern hellbender, tonguetied minnow, variegate darter, 

drummond’s aster, and the fawnsfood, long-solid, rabbitsfoot, sharp-ridged pocketbook, snuffbox, and 

washboard mussels. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-233

Historically, special status species in the REX East Project region have been affected by habitat 

destruction and land use change due to urban and suburban development; agricultural encroachment; 

over-hunting; water pollution from urban, industrial, and agricultural runoff; the construction of 

impoundments, channeling structures, and reservoirs; and the introduction of exotic species. 

Federally Listed Species

Whooping cranes would potentially be encountered at the proposed REX East Bertrand 

Compressor Station during migration. A nonessential experimental population also migrates through the 

REX East Project area in Indiana and Ohio, and would potentially be affected by construction activities in 

the vicinity. The REX West Project will also have potential impacts on the whooping crane in parts of 

Nebraska in which hydrostatic testing would lower the water levels of waterbodies important to the 

species. However, we expect minimal cumulative impacts. 

The eastern massasauga has the potential to occur along the route in Clinton, Fayette, Greene, and 

Warren Counties, Ohio. It is state-listed as endangered in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. This 

snake species has been observed within 1 mile of the proposed Project. Landscape fragmentation is 

expected to result from construction of the REX East Project and temporary habitat fragmentation is 

expected to result from Project construction. The eastern massasauga has a range that overlaps with the 

REX West pipeline in Missouri, but it does not overlap with the counties included in the REX East 

Project where this snake has a potential to occur. Therefore, we do not expect long-term cumulative 

impacts to the snake population. 

The eastern prairie fringed orchid is listed as potentially occurring statewide in Illinois, in all 

counties containing dry/mesic/wet prairies. However, there are no known occurrences of this species 

within 1 mile of the pipeline route and there are no prairie regions in the general area of the REX East 

Project. The REX East Project is not likely to adversely affect the eastern prairie fringed orchid. The 

Tuscola East Replacement Project would potentially intersect east prairie fringed orchid populations in 

Douglas County, Illinois. However, mitigation and avoidance measures would be used to protect the 

species. Therefore, we do not expect adverse cumulative impacts to this species. 

There are no known occurrences of prairie bush clover within 1 mile of the REX East pipeline 

route, and no impacts are expected. Prairie bush clover populations may be crossed by the Tuscola East 

Replacement project in Douglas County, Illinois. However, mitigation and avoidance measures would be 

used to protect the species. Therefore, we do not expect significant cumulative impacts to this species. 

State-Listed Species

Historic populations of greater prairie chicken have been identified in Audrain County, Missouri. 

The REX West Project could potentially adversely impact the greater prairie chicken during its nesting 

season in areas of Nebraska and Missouri. Impacts would result from construction and increased 

exposure to human activity. The greater prairie chicken population in Audrain County, Missouri would be 

monitored and conservation measures developed in cooperation with MDC would be used. In other 

locations, mitigation and avoidance measures would be used, and construction in counties where the REX 

East Project would also be routed would not occur at the same time. The Keystone Oil Pipeline project 

could potentially affect the greater prairie chicken. However, construction is not likely to affect nesting, 

brood-rearing, or foraging greater prairie chickens, as this species is not likely to occur within the rightof-way of this project. We expect no significant cumulative impacts for this species. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-234

The drummond’s aster has historically been found in the REX East Project area. The 

drummond’s aster has a habitat range that also overlaps with the TIME II pipeline. However, no aster 

populations were identified during surveys. If aster plants are identified during construction, fences 

would be placed around the plants to limit impacts. We expect no significant cumulative impacts for this 

species. 

EIS or EAs published for the projects listed in table 4.13.2-1 do not indicate that there would be 

impacts to the following species: northern harrier, the trumpeter swan, the tonguetied minnow, loggerhead 

shrike, eastern hellbender, the variegated darter, the snuffbox, long-solid, fawnsfoot, washboard, 

rabbitsfoot, rayed-bean, sharp-ridged mussels, running buffalo clover, and the decurrent false aster. The 

Macon County Southeast Beltway, other small-scale transportation projects, and urban and suburban 

development could have cause adverse impacts on these species during construction and operation if the 

species are present in the project areas. 

Land Use and Visual Resources 

Land Use 

General Land Use

The majority of land in the project area is used for agriculture. Since early settlement, 

agricultural land has been one of the most valuable natural resources within the four states, and it 

continues to be. Three of the four states within the REX East area, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, have more 

than 50 percent of their land area classified as prime farmland. The current trend in the past several years 

is a loss of farmland in each state. 

In general, projects that have a permanent aboveground component, such as buildings, pavement, 

or lakes (which would inundate the land), would have more significant impact on agricultural land since 

they would preclude the use of the land for agriculture. For example, construction of the Phelps County 

Ethanol, Inc. (PCE) project would result in the permanent loss of 88 acres of farmland and the Bertrand 

Compressor Station, which would also be located in Nebraska, would result in permanent loss of 17.7 

acres of agricultural land. 

The I-69 project would permanently affect 4,500 acres of agriculture land although not all of the 

land would be paved; most interstate rights-of-way are fenced off from adjacent agricultural fields. 

The Hunter Lake Project would permanently alter current land use practices in its project area. 

Terrestrial lands would become aquatic, which would decrease agricultural uses and potentially increase 

recreational uses associated with the reservoir. 

Pipeline projects, except for the aboveground facilities (valves, compressor stations, and meter 

stations), would have only a short-term or temporary impact on agricultural land. In addition, since the 

aboveground facilities are relatively small (20 acres or less) in comparison to other projects in the area 

and the thousands of acres of farmland in the Midwest, their contribution to the cumulative impact is not 

significant. 

Construction of projects may affect nearby residences. Pipeline construction would have 

temporary impacts including increased noise and dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. These impacts are 

localized and since construction of these projects is not expected to occur in the same area at the same 

time, the effects of construction impacts would not be cumulative. Long-term impacts would include 

noise and air emissions. See the noise and air quality sections (below) for a further discussion. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-235

The cumulative effect of multiple contiguous easements is more apparent through forested areas 

than through agricultural lands. Multiple easements through agricultural areas would normally not impair 

the continued use of the land for cultivation or pasturing. That is, pipeline easements in agricultural areas 

typically continue in their function with little in the way of restrictions on the landowner. However, if 

land use conversion was intended as a future use, the landowner would face restrictions on structural 

development over the pipelines. Consequently, there would be some cumulative impact to landowners 

that are facing the addition of a new easement on their property. 

Recreation and special land use areas could be temporarily impacted by construction noise and 

dust, and permanently impacted along the right-of-way by vegetative clearing for maintenance. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The REX East Project and the TIME II Project would cross Big Darby Creek, a designated 

National Wild and Scenic River and an Outstanding State Water in the Ohio State Scenic Rivers Program, 

in the same area. Since both the REX East Project and Time II Project would cross Big Darby Creek 

using the HDD method, the riparian corridor, stream banks, surface water quality, special status species 

residing in or near the waterbody, and the waterbody’s free-flowing condition would not be impacted. If 

the projects do not cross during similar timeframes, re-disturbance of the area by Rockies Express 

construction could increase the length of time needed to restore and re-vegetate the area to its preconstruction condition. Visual impacts would occur to creek visitors and recreationists during and 

immediately after the construction period at the HDD sites; however, the impacts would be temporary and 

minor, as revegetation would occur at the workspace sites and use of the HDD methods to cross this 

waterbody would minimize or avoid impacts since right-of-way clearing across the waterbody would not 

be required. If a frac-out were to occur, the potential adverse impacts would be minimized through the 

Time II Project’s Frac-Out Contingency Plan and The Rockies Express HDD Contingency and 

Inadvertent Release Plan (FERC, 2007a). Therefore, the cumulative impact from the two projects would 

not be significant. 

 

Visual Resources 

The visual landscape of the Project area has changed dramatically over time, and has been most 

recently affected by increased development of both residential and commercial buildings. Industrial 

activities have also diminished visibility due to emissions haze. Roadbuilding requiring the removal of 

vegetation and the creation of the roadway have contributed to impacts on the beauty of historic and 

scenic locations.

Visual impacts associated with the REX East Project construction right-of-way and additional 

temporary workspace areas would include the removal of existing vegetation and the exposure of bare 

soils, as well as earthwork and grading scars associated with heavy equipment tracks, trenching, blasting, 

rock formation alteration or removal, and machinery and tool storage. Visual impacts would be greatest 

where the pipeline route would parallel or cross roads, trails, recreational waterbodies, overlooks, historic 

properties and districts, and where the pipeline right-of-way may be seen by passing motorists or 

recreational users. There would be permanent visual impacts in forested areas where the permanently 

maintained right-of-way would be a different vegetation type (lower lying herbaceous plants) than the 

surrounding area (tall trees in forested habitats). There would also be permanent visual impacts at 

aboveground facility sites. However, Rockies Express would build the aboveground facilities on sites 

that are less than 0.06 acre in size and in areas that are sparsely populated and generally remote. About 

59 percent of the proposed Project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way and about 72 

percent would cross agricultural land. This would minimize visual impacts during operation since 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-236

permanent changes to vegetation would be minimized. Therefore, the REX East Project would not 

significantly alter the visual resources of the areas crossed. 

Energy projects, including the Eastern Market Expansion project, Keystone Oil Pipeline project, 

the Tuscola East Replacement Project, and TIME II project would primarily have visual impacts that are 

similar to those of the proposed Project. However, the Tuscola East Replacement project would have 

minimal visual impacts, because it would replace an existing pipeline and would affect a previously 

disturbed area and any aboveground structures built would be small. TIME II and Keystone Oil Pipeline 

would remove some vegetation from the pipeline corridor, and new facilities would become new visual 

impairments on the landscape. The Eastern Market Expansion Project would pass near the Appalachian 

Trail, several cemeteries, one church, one campground, and a scenic byway. Visual impacts related to its 

construction would be minimized since it would loop its existing pipelines. 

The Dresden Energy Electric project is expected to become operational in 2007. It would require 

vegetation removal and construction on 30 acres of land. Two transmission lines will be constructed, 

primarily along previously disturbed areas. The new facility buildings would be visible from some 

locations, as would the intake and discharge sites along the western bank of the Muskingum River. The 

intake and discharge sites would disturb less than 0.25 acre of land, including a limited amount of riparian 

trees. 

The preferred alternative for the I-69 project would affect 5,860 acres of land, including 4,470 

farmland acres and 1,150 forest acres. It would cross predominately rural rolling to hilly terrain, passing 

through agricultural and grazing lands. The new roadway would pass through or near Oakland City, 

Petersburg, Washington, Plainville, Elnora, Newberry, Cincinnati, Stanford, Bloomington, Martinsville, 

and Waverly Woods. It also would pass near Karst Farm Park, Indiana University, Cascades Community 

Park, Morgan-Monroe State Forest, and Cikana State Fish Hatchery. All newly constructed sections of the 

roadway would create new aboveground visual elements in the landscape. Lighting from roadway lights, 

interchanges, and vehicles would create new night-time visual impacts. The Macon County Southeast 

Beltway and other smaller-scale transportation projects would have similar visual impacts, though for a 

smaller area. 

The Hunter Lake project would change the viewshed from bottomland forests and farm fields to 

an aquatic landscape. The COE lock-and-dam expansion projects would also have visual impacts along 

the riverbanks and downstream of the project during the time of construction. It would change the 

landscape adjacent to current facilities from vegetated areas to dam facilities due to expansion of the 

existing facility. This would not add new visual elements to the landscape, since existing facilities would 

be involved. 

Future urban and suburban development and would also affect the visual resources of the project 

area through removal of vegetation or change of land use. 

The proposed project is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on visual resources. 

Socioeconomics 

The REX East Project would temporarily affect employment, housing, property values, 

transportation, and the local economy and tax revenue in areas along the right-of-way during construction. 

Operation of permanent facilities would require a total of 20 employees which would not significantly 

impact long-term population, housing, transportation, and economic trends in the area since this would be 

a relatively small increase. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-237

Historically, the economy of the affected area has been supported by agriculture, manufacturing, 

resource extraction, service, education, tourism, and technology fields (Missouri Department of Economic 

Development, 2007; State of Illinois, 2007; IEDC, 2007; ODOD, 2007). 

Transportation projects, including the I-69 Project, would greatly impact the socioeconomic 

characteristics in the Project area, both adversely and beneficially. The preferred alternative for the I-69 

Project could permanently beneficially impact transportation patterns in the area. It would have both 

benefits and adverse impacts on residences and commercial businesses depending on how it changed the 

flow of traffic around those areas, and it would adversely affect cemeteries and Amish communities. 

Construction activity would have a beneficial impact through substantial increases in employment. 

The other pipeline projects, the TIME II Project, the Keystone Oil Pipeline Project, and Tuscola 

East Replacement Project, are expected to have impacts similar to the REX East Project. In counties 

where the REX East Project would overlap with the REX West project, socioeconomic impacts are 

expected to be beneficial, based on the tax revenue that would accrue to the counties where the facilities 

would be located and on the new jobs created to run the compressor stations. Potentially negative impacts 

include temporary agricultural crop losses during construction, and increased demands on local highways 

and emergency services. Some disruption of traffic flows would be expected. Potentially adverse 

socioeconomic effects would include increased demand for public services and inexpensive housing could 

disproportionately affect lower income areas. 

The Dresden Energy Electric Facility and the Eastern Market Expansion Project in Ohio would be 

permanent working facilities. The Dresden facility has displaced seasonal cottages and housing trailers 

along the water intake area. After the completion of construction the facilities would create 

approximately 12 to 24 new permanent jobs in the region. This small increase in jobs would not have 

significant impacts on local public services or facilities. 

The Macon County Southeast Beltway project would occur only in a small section of the entire 

project area, and its is expected to have moderate positive socioeconomic impact on transportation 

patterns, residential areas and commercial businesses, but could also have adverse socioeconomic impacts 

if it moves traffic flow away from some businesses or into residential areas. 

The Hunter Lake Project is expected to result in permanent adverse socioeconomic impacts from 

property tax loss and the displacement of 69 residences. However, the project would have beneficial 

impacts through increased employment. The REX East Project would have small permanent impacts on 

the socioeconomics in the area where the two projects occur, but would not result in any residential 

displacement. Thus, the REX East Project would have a very small incremental contribution to 

cumulative impacts in the Hunter Lake project area. Construction of the COE Lock-and-dam expansion 

Projects would cause temporary adverse impacts on housing and transportation, and temporary beneficial 

impacts through employment increases with the influx of construction workers but would not have longterm socioeconomic impacts. 

The proposed Project would not contribute cumulatively to adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Cultural Resources 

Historically, cultural resources have been adversely affected by agriculture and land development 

activities, including the construction of buildings, roads, railroads, and utilities. Since NHPA was enacted 

in 1966, federally regulated projects, such as the pipeline projects described above, Hunter Lake, and the 

I-69 Project, have been required to conduct cultural resources surveys and identify historic properties that 

may be affected by those projects. In accordance with 36 CFR 800, the ACHP’s regulations for 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-238

implementing Section 106 of the NHPA, the lead federal agencies for those projects would consult with 

the appropriate SHPOs, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties, and mitigate impacts on any historic 

properties that may be adversely affected. Non-federal actions would need to comply with any 

identification procedures and mitigation measures required by the state. 

Rockies Express has not yet completed the cultural surveys for the proposed access roads, meter 

stations, laterals, and pipe/contractor staging yards, and for areas along the proposed right-of-way where 

access has been denied. To date, the REX East Project Phase I cultural surveys have identified 35, 55, 44, 

and 69 sites recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio, respectively. 

The cultural resources survey for the TIME II pipeline project found three archeological sites that 

were potentially NRHP-eligible, and one of those sites contained human remains, mostly likely of Native 

American origin. TIME II agreed to avoid all three sites. The human remains would be reburied 

following consultation with Native American groups. In a letter dated July 13, 2006, Ohio SHPO found 

that the TIME II project would not adversely affect any of the three archeological sites. 

The Tuscola East Replacement project would have minimal impacts to cultural resources, 

because construction activities would occur on an existing right-of-way that has already been disturbed 

during previous construction. Illinois did not require cultural resources surveys, and no archeological 

sites were found during surveys for the Montezuma and Zionsville pipelines in Indiana. Cultural resource 

reports were submitted to the Indiana SHPO in November of 2006, and the SHPO's comments are 

pending. 

The Eastern Market Expansion project could potentially cause adverse impacts to cultural sites 

through construction activities. Surveys for the project identified 3 aboveground architectural resources 

and one archaeology site in Ohio that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP. The company is currently in 

consultation with the Ohio SHPO regarding impacts to the archaeological site. 

The REX West project completed archeological and historic surveys. In Wyoming, three 

archaeological sites were recommended eligible for the NRHP. The REX West project avoided one 

prehistoric site, and would have no effect on two historic properties, the historic Lincoln Highway and the 

Historic Union Pacific Railroad. None of the 19 archeological sites identified in Nebraska were eligible 

for the NRHP. In Missouri, five potentially eligible archaeology sites and one historic cemetery were 

identified within the pipeline corridor. Construction will attempt to avoid all culturally significant sites 

and monitoring will be done to guarantee that the sites were not adversely affected. 

Eleven archeological sites, none of which are NRHP-eligible, are located within one mile of the 

Dresden Energy Electric Facility. Only one of the archeological sites is within the construction area for 

the facility. Another two potentially significant prehistoric sites fall along the water intake pipeline for 

the facility, and would require a Phase II survey. 

The Keystone Oil Pipeline project would avoid all sites that are listed in or potentially eligible for 

listing in the NRHP based on operational plans that have been filed with Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri 

SHPOs. 

The preferred alternative for the I-69 project would pass near 14 sites potentially eligible for the 

NRHP, one current National Register property, one Historic District, and one potentially eligible district. 

It would also pass near 190 recorded archaeological sites, of which 158 are prehistoric, six are historic, 16 

have both historic and prehistoric components, and 10 are of undetermined cultural affiliation. The 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-239

Macon County Southeast Beltway and other small-scale transportation projects could have adverse 

impacts on archeological sites if construction occurs in areas with sensitive cultural areas. 

The Hunter Lake Project includes 117 historic properties that are potentially eligible for the 

NRHP, 89 of which are located within inundation or shoreline impact areas. Historic properties within 

these impact areas cannot be avoided and would require a determination of effect. The additional 28 

potentially eligible historic properties are located in upland areas where impacts are unlikely. Surveys 

would still need to be conducted for large areas of this project. The COE Lock-and-dam expansion 

projects would also have impacts on archeological sites if they fell within the expansion project. But, 

since these projects are still in development, their impact on cultural resources has not been assessed. 

Urban and suburban development could also have adverse impacts on archeological sites if the projects 

are constructed in areas with sensitive cultural and historical resources. 

Although Phase I cultural resource surveys have not yet been completed for the proposed Project, 

surveys conducted to date have identified numerous sites that may be eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Evaluation of eligibility and consultation with the various state SHPOs is ongoing. We anticipate that 

most NRHP-eligible sites would be avoided. For those eligible sites that cannot be avoided, appropriate 

consultation, plans for documentation or data recovery to mitigate the adverse effects would be 

developed. Therefore, we do not expect significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources due to 

construction and operation of the proposed Project.

Air Quality and Noise 

Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Construction of these projects would temporarily impact air 

quality by generating emissions from operation of fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust 

from land clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads. 

However, the majority of impacts to air quality would occur during operation of these projects. 

Construction of the TIME II, Tuscola East Replacement, Eastern Market Expansion, Keystone 

Oil Pipeline, Macon County Southeast Beltway, COE Lock-and-dam, and Hunter Lake Projects would 

occur in the same counties or air quality management districts (AQMDs) as portions of the proposed 

project that would contain pipeline construction which are designated as attainment. The REX West 

Project would contain pipeline construction in the same attainment AQMDs as the Arlington and 

Bertrand Compressor Stations. The two compressor stations would have localized construction related 

emissions for the duration of construction and permanent operating emissions which would meet all 

applicable air quality standards. Pipeline construction-related air emissions would be temporary and local 

in these areas. For these reasons, we believe the proposed Project would be unlikely to contribute 

significantly to cumulative air quality impacts in these areas. 

The I-69 corridor in Indiana would occur in the same Indianapolis, Indiana non-attainment AQCR 

as a portion of the proposed Project. This region is currently proposed for redesignation to 

attainment/maintenance. The construction emissions associated with the proposed Project in this region 

were compared with the General Conformity de minimis levels and were below, therefore, not requiring a 

full General Conformity Determination. Also, proposed Project facilities in this region would not include 

any new permanent emission sources (only construction related emissions). Therefore, due to the 

construction-related, temporary and local emissions, comparison with General Conformity thresholds, the 

potential for redesignation to attainment, and no permanent emissions sources, the proposed Project 

would be unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts in this area. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
4-240

The Dresden Energy Electric Facility would be located in Muskingum County, Ohio, the same 

attainment AQCR as the Chandlersville Compressor Station and a pipeline portion of the proposed 

Project. The Dresden Energy Electric Facility would equip its natural gas turbines with low NOx 

combustors and selective catalytic reductions to reduce NOx emission to 3.5 ppmvd and 21.9 ppmvd with 

fuel oil. The facility would run primarily on natural gas and would use inlet-air fogging when operating 

on fuel oil to control NOx emissions. Also, the facility would install a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to monitor the emissions concentrations. The Chandlersville Compressor Station would use 

natural gas fired reciprocating engines that would have emissions below all standard required emissions 

levels for CO, SOx, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and lead. Also, a preliminary screening analysis for the 

Chandlersville Compressor Station indicates that emissions would not cause an exceedence of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The pipeline portion of the proposed Project would 

not contribute any permanent operating sources. Due to the control devices or mitigation measures, the 

attainment status of the AQCR, the requirement for each facility to meet all applicable federal and state 

air quality standards and air permitting requirements, and the screening results for the Chandlersville 

Compressor Station we believe that the cumulative impact to air quality due to the proposed Project 

would be relatively minor. 

The Phelps County Ethanol plant would be located in the same attainment AQCR (Phelps 

County, Nebraska) as the Bertrand Compressor Station. The Bertrand Compressor Station would use 

natural gas fired reciprocating engines that would meet all emission requirements. A Detailed dispersion 

modeling analysis, using EPA’s approved AERMOD modeling system, indicates emissions from the 

Bertrand Compressor Station would be well below the NAAQS. Furthermore, each of these two facilities 

would be required to meet all applicable federal and state air quality standards and air permitting 

requirements. Therefore, we believe that the proposed Project would be unlikely to contribute 

significantly to cumulative air quality impacts in this area. 

Noise 

Potential noise impacts associated with the REX East Project and those projects listed in table 

4.13.2-1 would occur during construction and operation. Because of the linear nature of these projects, 

construction-related noise impacts would tend to be of short duration in a given area. Furthermore, 

because most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, construction-related noise 

impacts would not occur at night for the most part. The REX East Project would cause potential impacts 

at NSAs near HDD sites. However, Rockies Express has committed to mitigation measures including a 

temporary noise barrier at least 16 feet high during HDD activities at sites with potential impacts. 

Potential noise-related impacts during operation of the proposed Project and other projects listed 

in table 4.13.2-1 would primarily be limited to the vicinity of the associated compressor stations. As 

described in section 4.11.2, the estimated noise that would be generated by each of the proposed 

compressor stations would meet acceptable levels at the nearest NSAs, and we are recommending 

monitoring to ensure that no impacts occur. Noise emissions from compressor station operations may be 

additive with noise-generating elements of other reasonably foreseeable future projects if they are located 

near a common NSA. However, no other compressor station, roadway improvement, or other noisegenerating source for the identified projects would be located within 1 mile of any of the proposed 

compressor stations. Therefore, we believe that cumulative impacts resulting from additional noise would 

be negligible. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

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

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed in consultation with the 

appropriate regional offices of the COE, FWS, NRCS, and the ILDOA, as cooperating agencies. 

Our review of the information provided by Rockies Express and further developed from data 

requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, 

state, and local agencies and individual members of the public indicates that the REX East Project would 

result in mostly temporary, short-term, long-term and potentially permanent environmental impacts 

during construction and operation. We also conclude that with construction and operation of the REX 

East Project would result in a significant unavoidable long-term, and potentially permanent impact to 

upland forest and forested wetland vegetation, which is habitat for the federally listed Indiana bat and 

many species of migratory birds. However, the mitigation measures proposed by Rockies Express and 

staff’s recommended mitigation would ensure that forest tracts along the Project area are adequately 

minimized and/or mitigated to acceptable levels. We conclude that if the REX East Project was 

constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Rockies Express’ proposed 

mitigation, and the additional mitigation recommendations presented below, the Project would result in 

mostly limited adverse environmental impact, and would be an environmentally acceptable action. 

As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the 

environmental impact that would otherwise result from construction and operation of the Project. The 

additional studies or field investigations that we recommend would result in site-specific mitigation and 

further reduce impacts; therefore, we are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as 

conditions to any Certificate issued by the Commission. These mitigation measures are presented in 

section 5.2. A summary of the anticipated Project impacts and our conclusions is provided below by 

resource area. 

5.1.1 Alternatives 

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternatives, system alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative would eliminate the short-term, or 

long-term and potentially permanent environmental impacts identified in the EIS, the objectives of the 

Project would not be met, and new sources of Rocky Mountain natural gas would not be available to 

supply the midwestern and eastern U.S. markets. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing and proposed 

natural gas systems would meet the proposed Project objectives, which would have to be able to transport 

1.8 bcf of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain basins directly to markets in the Midwest and East. We 

are unaware of any existing pipeline systems that could be expanded to meet the purpose of the REX East 

Project; therefore we conclude that the use of existing pipeline systems is not a viable alternative. 

We evaluated nine major route alternatives to determine if impacts could be avoided or reduced 

on environmentally sensitive resources, such as population centers, recreation and designated scenic 

areas, and wildlife and natural habitat management areas that would be crossed by the Project. Two of 

these are alternative routes for crossing the Mississippi River, both of which offer a range of advantages 

and disadvantages to the Project route. Another is an alternative route through Deer Creek Lake State 

Park, which we conclude is environmentally preferable and we recommend it be incorporated into the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-2

Project route. We conclude that the other major route alternatives – including two alternative routes 

north of Indianapolis, an alternative route south of Caesar Creek Lake, and alternative crossings of the 

Little Miami River, Big Darby Creek, and Wabash River – do not offer clear environmental advantages 

over the Project route and we do not recommend them. 

We evaluated route variations for minimizing impacts at 17 different segments of the Project 

route. The evaluation of these variations was based on comment letters received from landowners or 

other stakeholders. We conducted field visits, collected information from Rockies Express, and used 

various desktop resources, including aerial imagery, to identify technically feasible variations that could 

minimize environmental impacts. Of the 17 segments we evaluated, we have recommended that 14 be 

incorporated into a revised Project route (see table 3.7-1). The variations would increase the overall 

project length by less than one mile. Because some of the recommended changes to the Project route 

were recently developed, we are seeking input from affected landowners before adopting these 

recommendations into the final EIS. 

We considered alternative aboveground site locations for compressor and meter stations to avoid 

or minimize impacts to forested land, wetlands, and waterbodies, and to locate the facility as far as 

practicable from NSAs. For most of the compressor and meter stations, the Project compressor and meter 

station sites are on agricultural land, far from NSAs and residential developments, and would not 

adversely affect sensitive environmental resources. 

Of the seven compressor stations proposed for the Project, we received landowner comments on 

two locations: the Hamilton and Bainbridge Compressor Stations. For the other five sites, we did not 

receive any landowner comments or identify any significant issues which would require further 

evaluation of alternative locations. The change to the Hamilton Compressor Station site is discussed 

further in section 3.6.1 to address landowner comments that we received on the original proposed 

location. The change to Bainbridge Compressor Station site is discussed in section 3.6.2, as are two 

alternative locations for the site added in response to landowner concerns about potential noise impacts 

from operation of the station. We are requesting additional information from Rockies Express and from 

affected landowners on the proposed and alternative sites. 

5.1.2 Geology 

Most of the Project would be located in the Central Lowlands and Appalachian Plateau 

physiographic provinces. The majority of the pipeline route would cross areas of unconsolidated glacial 

deposits, but 13 percent of the route would be in areas of shallow bedrock that may require trenching or 

blasting. Several sand and gravel pits and quarries are located within 1,500 feet of the Project, but 

construction of the Project would not prevent operation of these facilities. Seven oil or gas wells are 

located within the pipeline construction right-of-way. To mitigate impacts to these wells, we recommend 

that Rockies Express file site-specific protection plans for oil and gas wells located in the construction 

right-of-way/work area, prior to construction. 

Seismicity, landslides, subsidence, and flooding are geologic hazards identified in the Project 

area. Although the pipeline does not cross any active faults, it could be affected by the New Madrid and 

Wabash Valley seismic zones. However, due to the low intensity of potential seismic events, as well the 

use of arc-welding techniques and design in accordance with CFR Parts 192 and 193, we do not expect 

seismic hazards to pose significant risks to the Project. Approximately 27.5 percent of the proposed route 

lies in areas susceptible to moderate to severe landslides. In such areas, Rockies Express would employ 

mitigation measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-3

Subsidence could occur in the Project areas due to karst features or abandoned underground 

mines. About 23 percent of the pipeline route has the potential for karst features from 10 to 200 feet 

below the ground surface (see table 4.1.3-2). To address karst-related subsidence, we recommend that 

Rockies Express file, prior to the start of construction, a plan for the identification of karst features and 

mitigation for crossing any such features. In order to further minimize impacts on pipeline construction 

in karst terrain, we recommend that prior to construction, Rockies Express file a contingency plan for 

HDD technology in the karst areas identified on table 4.1.3-2. The plan would include pre-construction 

identification of the potential for subsurface karst features, and if a solution void is intercepted during an 

HDD, a plan to limit the amount of mud lost to successfully complete the drill. 

To address subsidence from underground mines, we recommend that Rockies Express file prior to 

the start of construction a plan for monitoring areas where the pipeline would cross underground mines. 

This monitoring should continue for the life of the Project. 

Blackburn Island, on the Mississippi River is prone to seasonal flooding. This island is proposed 

to be used as a staging area for the HDD rigs and will be utilized during construction. In order to mitigate 

impacts of a flooding event during construction, we recommend that, prior to the start of construction, 

Rockies Express include measures in its site-specific HDD contingency plan for the Mississippi River to 

address the potential for a flooding event during construction on Blackburn Island. Also see section 5.1.4 

(Water Resources) and section 5.1.9 (Land Use) for further discussion of the Mississippi River. 

It is possible that during construction, paleontological resources may be encountered, although 

the areas disturbed would be relatively small and are not thought to contain high densities of fossils. We 

recommend that Rockies Express file, prior to construction, a plan for the identification of paleontological 

material found during construction and criteria for the determination of significance. 

Based on Rockies Express’ proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures, and 

our recommended mitigation measures, we believe impacts to geological resources will be adequately 

minimized and would not be significant. 

5.1.3 Soils 

Soil types crossed by the Project were analyzed using the STATSGO database. The specific soil 

characteristics evaluated were the potential for erosion by wind and water, shallow bedrock, prime 

farmland designation, compaction, and the percentage of stones/rocks, droughty soil, and hydric soil 

present. Approximately 28 percent of the soils crossed by the Project are highly susceptible to water 

erosion, and 0.5 percent are highly susceptible to wind erosion. To minimize soil erosion, Rockies 

Express would employ mitigation measures as identified in its Plan and Procedures. About 65 percent of 

the Project route would cross prime farmland soils. Rockies Express developed the AIMPs to minimize 

the impacts of the pipeline on these agricultural soils. See section 5.1.9 (Land Use and Visual Impacts) 

for further discussion and staff’s recommendation regarding state AIMPs. 

Soil compaction is also a concern in some areas of the Project, particularly those containing finegrained poorly-drained soils. To mitigate compaction in agricultural areas during wet weather, we 

recommend that prior to construction, Rockies Express prepare an Agricultural Wet Weather Contingency 

Plan. In addition to erosion and compaction, mixing of topsoil with subsoil during construction could 

have negative impacts on soil resources. To reduce the likelihood of mixing topsoil with subsoil, Rockies 

Express would implement topsoil segregation procedures as outlined in its Plan and AIMP. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-4

Based on Rockies Express’ proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures, and 

our recommended mitigation measures, we believe impacts to soils will be adequately minimized and 

would not be significant. 

5.1.4 Water Resources 

Along the REX East Project route, groundwater is a significant source of drinking water in 

selected areas and is used for agricultural irrigation and in industry. One sole source aquifer (the Miami 

Valley Sole Source Aquifer in Ohio) would be crossed by the Project. Twenty-five wells and six springs 

have been identified within the vicinity of the pipeline. No public water supply wells were identified 

within 150 feet of Project facilities. Because surveys are ongoing for active wells and springs, the data 

that have been filed with the Commission are incomplete. Therefore, we recommend that prior to 

construction, Rockies Express file locations by milepost of all springs, seeps, and wells identified within 

150 feet of construction work areas. 

Rockies Express would minimize or avoid groundwater impacts during construction by 

implementing measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures. In order to effectively evaluate impacts on 

WPAs, we recommend that prior to the end of the draft EIS public comment period, Rockies Express file 

the distance of each WPA from the pipeline construction work areas and document consultations with 

applicable municipalities. In addition, we are recommending that Rockies Express file a report identifying 

all water supply wells damaged by construction and how they were repaired, within 30 days of placing the 

pipeline facilities in service. 

The REX East Project would cross 1,462 surface waters in two major watersheds: the Upper 

Mississippi Regional Watershed and the Ohio Regional Watershed. The Project would cross 51 

waterbodies designated as sensitive by state agencies (see table 4.6.2-1). Crossing methods proposed for 

these waterbodies include dry open-cut crossings, dam-and-pump, and HDD. Rockies Express has 

committed to filing site-specific crossing plans for these waterbodies. However, several crossing plans 

have not yet been provided for our review. In order for us to complete our evaluation of impacts on these 

waterbodies, we recommend that Rockies Express file prior to the end of the draft EIS public comment 

period, revised site-specific crossing plans that identify specific restoration and mitigation measures 

applicable to each waterbody crossing and any applicable agency consultations. 

Impacts to surface water resources may result from clearing and grading of stream banks, 

instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling. The greatest potential impact on surface waters 

would result from the temporary suspension of sediments during instream construction. Rockies Express 

may require blasting activities in or adjacent to 53 perennial waterbodies along the Project right-of-way. 

Instream blasting could injure or kill aquatic organisms, displace organisms during blast-hole drilling 

operations, and temporarily increase stream turbidity. The HDD method could potentially impact surface 

waters if drilling fluids were released (frac-out) during drilling. Therefore, we recommend that Rockies 

Express file a revised HDD contingency plan that indicates the agencies that would be contacted if a fracout occurs. We also recommend that Rockies Express file the results of its HDD geotechnical feasibility 

investigations prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. Rockies Express would minimize the 

potential effects of hydrostatic testing on surface water resources by adhering to the measures in its 

Procedures. 

The Project crosses five waterbodies designated on the NRI, and Rockies Express is consulting 

with the NPS regarding construction across these waterbodies. In order for us to further evaluate impacts 

on NRI designated waterbodies, we recommend that Rockies Express file, before the close of the draft 

EIS comment period, site specific crossing plans for NRI-designated waterbodies, and documentation of 

consultation with the NPS and other applicable agencies regarding these plans. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-5

The Project would also cross two designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Ohio: the Little Miami 

River and Big Darby Creek. Rockies Express proposes to cross these waterbodies via HDD; however, 

there is concern that this method would not be successful due to geologic features at the proposed 

locations. Therefore, we recommend that Rockies Express develop a contingency plan for crossing the 

Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek that identifies alternative pipeline route variations and crossing 

locations of the waterbodies, should the HDD crossing of either of these waterbodies fail. We also 

recommend that Rockies Express successfully complete the HDD crossing of the Little Miami River prior 

to constructing between MP 432.0 and MP 467.2; and complete the HDD crossing of the Big Darby 

Creek, prior to constructing between MP 494.1 and MP 533.9. 

The Mississippi River would also be crossed via HDD. This crossing would require dredging to 

take place around Blackburn Island to create sufficient draft for working barges. In order for us to further 

evaluate impacts associated with dredging, we recommend that prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period, Rockies Express file an updated Dredge Material Disposal Plan, which includes the disposal 

location of the material. In addition, because the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers are navigable and are 

regulated by both the COE and the U.S. Coast Guard, we recommend that prior to the start of 

construction, Rockies Express file its revised SPCC Plan to include the COE and U.S. Coast Guard to the 

list of agencies contacted in the event a spill or leak occurs within these rivers. 

For further discussion and staff recommendations regarding impacts on Big Darby Creek, Little 

Miami and Mississippi Rivers, see sections 5.1.9 (Land Use and Visual Resources) and 5.1.13 (Reliability 

and Safety). 

Due to agency concerns at the White River and Big Walnut Creek crossings, we recommend that 

Rockies Express investigate the feasibility of using the HDD method at these crossings in consultation 

with FWS and IDEM, and file its results prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period. 

The REX East pipeline route would cross approximately 4.7 miles of wetlands, totaling 66.6 

acres including: 8.0 acres in Missouri, 10.8 acres in Illinois, 15.1 acres in Indiana, and 32.7 acres in Ohio. 

The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance activities on wetlands would 

be the long-term and permanent conversion of wetland vegetation. These effects would be greatest during 

and immediately following construction. Generally, the wetland vegetation community that would be 

impacted by the construction of the Project would transition back into a community functionally similar 

to pre-construction wetlands. Impacts to herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands generally would be 

temporary or short-term. There would be impacts to 9.3 acres of forested wetlands, which would likely 

be long-term or potentially permanent due to the slow regeneration time of forested areas. 

Rockies Express would implement wetland mitigation measures that are designed to minimize the 

overall area of wetland disturbance, minimize the duration of wetland disturbance, reduce the amount of 

wetland soil disturbance, and enhance wetland restoration following construction. In addition, Rockies 

Express has attempted to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands to the extent practicable by collocating 

the proposed pipeline route adjacent to existing corridors. We recommend three specific measures to 

reduce impact on wetland vegetation, including that Rockies Express finalize its consultations with 

appropriate agencies regarding wetland impact mitigation and monitoring procedures, including any plans 

for onsite or offsite mitigation. 

Based on Rockies Express’ proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures, and 

our recommended measures, we believe impacts to water resources will be adequately minimized and 

would not be significant. We also believe impacts to herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands will generally 

be temporary or short-term and would not be significant. Impacts to forested wetlands would result in 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-6

long-term to permanent impacts, which are considered significant. However implementation of Rockies 

Express’ Procedures, in addition to our recommended measures, would ensure that impacts on forested 

wetlands are adequately minimized and/or mitigated to acceptable levels. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

Construction of the REX East Project pipeline would affect three main vegetative communities: 

agricultural, forested, and herbaceous vegetation. The pipeline route would cross 487.5 miles 

(11,124.5 acres) of agriculture and herbaceous open land and 144.7 miles (3,101.9 acres) of forested 

areas. The primary impacts on vegetation from construction of the Project would be the cutting, clearing, 

and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area. 

The majority of construction-related impacts would be temporary; and cleared vegetation would 

be able to return to natural conditions after construction, with the exception of the 10-foot-wide corridor 

centered on the pipeline, which would be maintained in an herbaceous state throughout the life of the 

Project. The clearing of upland forest would result in long-term and limited permanent impacts as upland 

forest and can take up to 30 years or more to return to pre-construction conditions. Impacts to forests and 

other vegetation would be minimized by collocating the pipeline adjacent to existing rights-of-ways and 

allowing the vegetation to return to existing cover types and uses where practical. 

The Project would cross areas of contiguous forest in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The 

loss of vegetation in unfragmented forest lands may cause loss of wildlife due to habitat conversion. 

FWS is concerned for the loss of forested vegetation and loss of wildlife that depend on it. Therefore, we 

recommend that Rockies Express develop an upland forest mitigation plan in consultation with FWS, 

COE, and appropriate state agencies. To further minimize impacts on forested areas, we recommend that 

Rockies Express limit tree clearing between HDD entry and exit workspaces, to minor brush clearing, less 

than 3-feet-wide, using hand tools. 

Aboveground facilities and contractor pipe yards would also have impacts on vegetation. To 

minimize impact to forested areas, we recommend that prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, 

Rockies Express relocate the locations, where feasible, of its contractor and pipe storage yards to areas 

that avoid or minimize impacts to forested areas, and file new information reflecting any changes in 

locations. 

The REX East pipeline route would cross vegetation communities of special concern in Indiana 

and CRP lands in Missouri. Construction of the Project would temporarily disturb approximately 44.8 

acres of classified forests in Indiana. We recommend that Rockies Express develop its compensatory 

mitigation plan for classified forest areas in consultation with classified forest landowners and appropriate 

agencies. To date a total of 24 tracts of CRP lands have been identified along the pipeline route in 

Missouri. We recommend that Rockies Express consult with the FSA and other applicable agencies to 

identify mitigation measures to protect CRP lands. In addition, per COE recommendation that Japanese 

hop, a noxious weed, be included in Rockies Express Weed Management Plan. Also see section 5.1.9, 

Land Use and Visual Resources, for discussion of special-use lands. 

We believe impacts to herbaceous vegetation generally will be temporary or short-term and 

would not be significant. Impacts to agricultural vegetation are more fully addressed in Soils (section 

5.1.3) and Land Use and Visual Resources (section 5.1.9). Impacts to tracts of forest and potential 

fragmentation would result in long-term and limited permanent impacts, which are considered significant. 

However implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan, in addition to our recommended measures, would 

ensure that impacts on forest tracts along the Project area are adequately minimized and/or mitigated, to 

acceptable levels. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-7

5.1.6 Wildlife 

The predominant wildlife habitats in the REX East Project area are open water, agricultural lands, 

forested lands, herbaceous upland, herbaceous wetland, and developed areas. The impact of the Project 

on wildlife species, including game species, and their habitats, would vary depending on the requirements 

of each species and the existing habitat present along the Project route. The clearing of right-of-way 

vegetation would reduce cover, nesting, and foraging habitat for some wildlife. The degree of impact 

would depend on the type of habitat affected and the rate at which vegetation regenerates after 

construction. As previously stated, we recommend that Rockies Express develop an upland forest 

mitigation plan to address fragmentation issues. To further minimize impacts on forest habitat, we 

recommend that Rockies Express consult with each state’s applicable comprehensive conservation 

strategy coordinator to verify compliance with each state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy to the extent practicable. 

Portions of the Mississippi Flyway and its principal routes pass through each State crossed by the 

pipeline; thus, migratory birds would occur in the Project area. The bald eagle was removed from the 

federal list of threatened and endangered species in June 2007 due to recovery and is no longer protected 

under the ESA. However, the species is currently protected under both the MBTA and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act, and is known to nest in the Project area. We recommend that Rockies 

Express file documentation of consultations with FWS to determine the need for bald eagle surveys in the 

Project area, and implement the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. In addition, FWS 

identified three wooded locations along the construction right-of-way that may be breeding sites for 

known migratory birds. We recommend that Rockies Express file documentation of its consultations with 

FWS to determine if construction in these areas would impact breeding sites and activities for migratory 

birds, and to determine site-specific mitigation for each area of concern. Finally, we recommend that 

Rockies Express file its MBTA Conservation Agreement document developed in consultation with FWS. 

To further minimize impacts on wildlife areas, we also recommend that Rockies Express coordinate with 

jurisdictional agencies for construction schedule in sensitive wildlife areas. 

Construction of the Project would cross 11 areas considered to be significant or sensitive wildlife 

habitats in Missouri and Ohio. We believe that, following existing corridors, where practicable; the use 

of HDD methods; and implementation of Rockies Express’ Plan and Procedures, AIMP, Weed 

Management Plan, and Blasting Plan, with the implementation of our recommendations, the REX East 

Project would not significantly impact wildlife habitat in these managed and sensitive wildlife areas. In 

areas of forest, the proposed and recommended measures would ensure that impacts on these tracts are 

adequately minimized and/or mitigated, to acceptable levels. 

5.1.7 Fisheries 

All waterbodies affected by the Project have been classified as warmwater fisheries. Of the 1,462 

waterbody crossings, 51 would involve fisheries of special concern. No essential fish habitat, as defined 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, would be affected by the Project. 

Construction of the Project including hydrostatic testing could result in several impacts on 

fisheries resources, including increased stress due to changes in water quality, decreased habitat and 

habitat value, loss of shading, and likelihood of streambank erosion. Overall, these impacts would be 

minor due to the relatively small area of the waterbody that would be affected. 

Rockies Express proposes to use open-cut methods for a majority of the waterbody crossings. 

The dam-and-pump crossings method could also be used to cross Project waterbodies. Rockies Express 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-8

proposes to cross 30 waterbodies using the HDD method. A successful HDD would avoid direct impacts 

on the waterbody and aquatic resources. 

Rockies Express may require blasting activities in or adjacent to 53 perennial waterbodies along 

the Project right-of-way. Instream blasting could injure or kill aquatic organisms close to blasting 

activities. Rockies Express would file for our review a site-specific Blasting Specification Plan before 

beginning any construction where blasting would be required within each waterbody greater than 10 feet 

wide. 

The intake of hydrostatic test water also has the potential to affect fisheries from the entrainment 

and loss of prey organisms, as well as through the loss of fish and shellfish during early life stages. 

However impacts on fisheries from hydrostatic test water intake would be limited by adhering to Rockies 

Express’ Plan and Procedures. 

The Project would cross 51 fisheries of special concern, including one waterbody on the border of 

Missouri and Illinois, one in Illinois, six in Indiana, and 43 in Ohio. Because Rockies Express has not 

provided correspondence with state agencies approving an open-cut technique for any of the sensitive 

waterbodies, we recommend Rockies Express use a dry-ditch technique to cross significant waterbodies 

with a wetted width less than 30 feet. If a wet-crossing method would be used for waterbodies less than 

30 feet, Rockies Express should file documentation of appropriate state agency approval prior to the end 

of the draft EIS comment period. 

Based on Rockies Express’ proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures, and 

our recommended mitigation, we believe impacts to fisheries would be adequately minimized. 

5.1.8 Special Status Species 

Agency consultations resulted in the identification of 10 federally listed threatened or endangered 

species (Indiana bat, whooping crane, the clubshell, fanshell, fat pocketbook, and northern riffleshell 

mussels, decurrent false aster, eastern prairie fringed orchard, prairie bush clover and running buffalo 

clover) and 3 candidate species (eastern massasauga, rayed bean mussel, and spectaclecase mussel) for 

federal listing that potentially occur in the Project area. Based on a survey report filed by Rockies 

Express, the Indiana bat is likely to be adversely affected by the Project. Bats were captured in multiple 

locations along the Project area. Stress could arise for bats looking for roost trees that have been 

removed. However, this temporary stress is not expected to negatively impact reproduction. Any bats in 

trees that are disturbed by construction would be expected to leave the tree. In order to minimize impacts 

during construction, Rockies Express would limit activities such as clearing, trenching, welding, 

backfilling, and grading within a 300 foot radius of roost trees identified during surveys. This would 

occur one-half hour before dusk and one half-hour before dawn during the period of tree clearing 

restriction that was indicated by FWS (May 15- September 30). Areas where surveys were unable to be 

completed because of denied access would be surveyed before construction begins. 

As currently proposed by Rockies Express, construction of the REX East Project would start 

during the spring of 2008. This construction period would conflict with FWS recommendation that 

potential roost trees be removed between October 1 and March 31 to avoid the summer roosting season 

for Indiana bats along the Project route. Removal of occupied roost trees between April 1 and September 

30, when bats may occur along the proposed route, could cause injury or death. In addition, the noise 

associated with construction would disturb bats in the immediate vicinity of the construction corridor. 

We recommend that Rockies Express develop a Project-specific tree clearing plan for the Indiana bat. 

We restricted burning in Indiana bat habitat and recommended that Rockies Express not use any 

herbicides or pesticides. Since the Project is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, we would initiate 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-9

formal consultation with FWS. Hence, no construction activities would be allowed until we complete 

formal consultation with FWS. In all, we recommend eight specific measures that would minimize 

impacts on potential roost trees and potential Indiana bat habitat and individuals. 

Because Indiana bats were captured in multiple locations along the REX East Project corridor; 

and alternate maternity colony roost trees could be used during construction activities where activities 

could result in adverse impacts of Indiana bats, we determine that the REX East Project is likely to 

adversely affect this species. Therefore, with the issuance of this draft EIS and our BA, we will request 

formal consultation with FWS and request that FWS prepare a biological opinion. However, we 

determine that the Project would have no effect on the hibernacula (the designated critical habitat) during 

construction or operation of the Project. 

The whooping crane is not likely to occur, but is transient in the Project area. Even though the 

whooping crane is a transient species in the Project area, based on FWS’ concern, we have recommended 

that if whooping cranes are found in the immediate vicinity of the Project construction activities should 

stop. Rockies Express conducted surveys for federally listed mussels in 2007. No federally-listed mussels 

were found. However, if listed mussels are identified in waterbodies not yet surveyed, Rockies Express 

would use a qualified malacolgist to relocate mussels out of instream construction activities to areas 

upstream. 

Hydrostatic testing the pipeline could adversely affect mussels or glochidia/host fish or juveniles. 

Intake screens would be used to limit the entrainment of fish; however these screens may not adequately 

protect mussel species. Therefore, to ensure that hydrostatic testing activities do not adversely affect 

federally listed mussels, we recommend Rockies Express avoid withdrawal of hydrostatic test water from 

waterbodies known to contain federally listed mussel species. 

Surveys were not originally required for the decurrent false aster, the eastern prairie fringed 

orchid or the prairie bush clover; however, we recommend that Rockies Express conduct pre-construction 

surveys in potential habitat to ensure no individual or communities are found, and file a diagram of its 

fencing plan before construction. If either the aster or orchid plant is found, fencing off the plants and 

working around them would avoid impacts if populations are encountered during construction. If the 

clover is found, we recommend that Rockies Express consult with FWS to determine appropriate 

conservation measures. 

In summary, we have determined that the Project would not affect one federally listed species and 

is not likely to adversely affect eight species based on the survey results and information filed by Rockies 

Express. Surveys are pending for the running buffalo clover in areas where access was denied. However, 

areas of suitable habitat were identified during the 2007 surveys. Therefore, our determination is pending 

for this species. We recommend that Rockies Express not begin any construction activities until we have 

completed the required consultation with FWS. 

Survey report for the federal candidate eastern massasauga snake is pending. We recommend 

that Rockies Express file the surveys before the end of the draft EIS comment period. The two other 

federal candidate species were not found during surveys in 2007. We believe there would be no impact to 

these species. 

The Natural Heritage Databases of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio identified 27 species of 

concern that may occur in the Project area. Sixteen were eliminated because they are either transient in 

the Project area; are unlikely to adversely respond to temporary and permanent impacts associated with 

the proposed facilities; or were determined after the initial review, in consultation with the agencies, to 

probably not occur in the Project area. Rockies Express continues to consult with the state agencies with 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-10

regards to minimizing impacts on state-listed and special-status species. In response to concerns 

identified by the ODNR and INDNR, we recommend four mitigation measures to further reduce impacts 

for the eastern hellbender; rabbitsfoot mussel; and Drummond’s aster. With implementation of Rockies 

Express proposed mitigation, along with our recommended measures, we believe impacts on state-listed 

and special-status species would be minimized. 

5.1.9 Land Use and Visual Resources 

Construction of the Project would affect approximately 14,348.9 acres of land, including 9,683.0 

acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way; 149.3 acres for the aboveground facilities; 32.4 acres for 

interconnects and laterals; and 4,484.2 acres for extra workspaces, pipe storage and contractor yards, and 

access roads. Agricultural land comprises about 72 percent of the Project area and 23 percent is forest 

land. Commercial/Industrial land, open water, open land, and residential land account for the remaining 

five percent of this acreage. Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way and aboveground facility sites would be restored and allowed to revert to pre-construction 

conditions and uses. During operation of the Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way would consist 

of approximately 3,873.2 acres, and the aboveground facility sites and permanent access roads would 

permanently convert about 149.3 acres to commercial/industrial use. 

The Project would impact approximately 10,677.9 acres of agricultural land. Based on 

consultation with federal and state agencies, as well as comments from landowners, we identified five 

areas of primary concern: drain tile repair, pipeline depth of cover, topsoil segregation, working in wet 

fields, and landowner having the ability to negotiate for other/additional mitigation. Rockies Express 

developed an AIMP to address these, and other potential impacts to agricultural lands. However, we 

believe the AIMP does not fully address the issues outlined above, thus we have made several 

recommendations to ensure that agricultural lands, and the respective properties’ owners, are minimally 

impacted. The first recommendation requires Rockies Express to extend their proposed post-construction 

monitoring period to cover the five years following construction activities. Also, we recommend that 

Rockies Express bury the pipeline at a depth of five feet to minimize damage to drain tiles. In cases 

where drain tile damage is unavoidable, we recommend that Rockies Express hire local drain tile 

contractors to install/repair drain tiles that are damaged or need to be rerouted due to construction 

activities. We also recommend that Rockies Express compensate landowners where crop yields may be 

impacted by soil heating downstream of compressor stations. Finally, due to the presence of a specialty 

crop along the pipeline route, the Wilson Friendly Maple Farm, we recommend that Rockies Express 

develop a site-specific crossing plan to reduce the taking of trees, impacts on farm operation, and provides 

justification for impacts that cannot be avoided, and identifies additional mitigation. 

Rockies Express identified 84 residences and 18 non-residential structures within 50 feet of the 

construction right-of-way. Four of the residences are currently within the proposed permanent right-ofway. Rockies Express is currently considering alternative routes through these areas that would preserve 

the structures. Additionally, we included a recommendation in section 4.8.2 to address the issue. 

The Project would potentially affect 35 recreational and special interest areas, including COA 

lands administered by the MDC and containing the Ted Shanks Alluvial Complex; the Sny Levee, several 

scenic by-ways, various rivers listed as having significant habitat and/or recreational values; recreational 

trails (B&O Trail and Accommodation Line), state forests and parks, Raven Rocks, and Camp 

Woodsmoke. At the time of publication of this draft EIS, Rockies Express has not yet provided sitespecific crossing plans for many of these sites. In other cases, we have found their draft plans to be 

incomplete. Therefore, we are making several recommendations for Rockies Express to provide or revise 

and include these plans, feasibility studies, safety mitigation and portage plans, as well as restoration 

plans these recreation and special-use areas. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-11

Consultations continue with the NPS regarding the pipeline crossing of Big Darby Creek and the 

Little Miami River. The NPS contends that tributaries of these Wild and Scenic Rivers require special 

measures to ensure that sedimentation and proper erosion controls are employed to minimize down stream 

siltation. Therefore, we recommend that prior to construction, Rockies Express file site-specific plans to 

cross each tributary of the Big Darby Creek and Little Miami River. The plan would include: use of drycrossing method; minimization of tree clearing at the crossing; erosion controls that would minimize 

down stream siltation, and a restoration and revegetation plan. 

In addition, NPS requested that Rockies Express consult with the NPS to determine which of the 

tributaries of Big Darby Creek require surveys for mussel and fish spawning areas. Therefore, we 

recommend that prior to construction, Rockies Express consult with the NPS to determine which 

tributaries may require surveys, along with any correspondence with the NPS. 

Visual resources along the Project route would be adversely affected, particularly during the 

construction phase. There are several existing pipelines in the vicinity of the Project, and the Rockies 

Express pipeline would parallel some of these existing right-of-ways, however only about 60 percent of 

the pipeline would be collocated. While some areas along the Project are either inaccessible or do not 

provide long-range unobstructed views, public viewpoints are present along many of the rivers and 

roadways. In addition, areas such as Raven Rocks offer unique viewing opportunities in the area. 

Based on Rockies Express’ proposal, along with our recommended measures to reduce impacts 

on special-interest lands, land use, and land requirements, we believe impacts to land use, special-interest 

lands, and visual resources would be minimized, and would not be significant.

5.1.10 Socioeconomics 

Construction of the Project would have a minor, temporary impact on local transportation, and 

provide minor, temporary stimulatory increases to local populations, housing, employment, and taxes. 

Rockies Express has stated it would coordinate with the local emergency response services (police, 

medical, and fire) to minimize impacts of Project construction on local agencies. Operation of the 

Project, which would permanently employ 20 FTEs, would have a negligible effect on local spending and 

employment. Local taxes, in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, would be paid annually to counties 

for the life of the Project. 

5.1.11 Cultural Resources 

Rockies Express consulted with the Wyoming, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio 

SHPOs and performed cultural resource investigations for areas that would be potentially affected by 

construction and operation of the Project. In Missouri, survey identified 88 archaeological sites and 

architectural resources. To date, 35 of these sites have been recommended as potentially eligible for 

listing on the NRHP. In Illinois, 397 archaeological sites and architectural resources were identified. 

Fifty-five of these have been recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. In Indiana, 494 

archaeological and architectural resources have been identified. To date, 37 were recommended as 

potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP and seven had pending determinations but are being treated as 

potentially eligible at this time. Within Ohio, a total of 469 archaeological and architectural sites have 

been identified. Of those, 47 sites were found eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. An 

initial assessment is pending for another 22 sites. All 69 of these sites are being treated as potentially 

eligible. In Nebraska, no cultural resources survey were identified at the compressor station site. In 

Wyoming, one archaeology site was identified at the compressor station site; however, the site is not 

eligible for the NRHP. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-12

Rockies Express would develop plans to avoid and protect sites that may contain human remains 

such as prehistoric mound sites and historic cemeteries. Site protection may include fencing and/or 

providing an archaeological monitor for construction activities in the vicinity of these sites. Additionally, 

we recommend that Rockies Express avoid or develop treatment plans to mitigate impacts to all other 

NRHP-eligible resources. Rockies Express is currently reviewing routing alternatives for 11 sites that 

have been assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Rockies Express also has agreed to bore under or 

use HDD to avoid impacts to other potentially NRHP-eligible sites including several historic roads and 

canals. 

Since survey and evaluation is ongoing, the FERC has not yet determined the number of historic 

properties that would be adversely affected. Rockies would be required to produce site-specific treatment 

plans for the mitigation of adverse effects at historic properties that cannot be avoided, to be reviewed and 

approved by the appropriate parties. The FERC would ensure that treatment is carried out according to 

the terms of the MOA before construction is allowed in any give area where an historic property would be 

affected. 

In order to assure that the ACHP would have the opportunity to comment on any historic 

properties that might be identified by the on-going studies, we recommend that Rockies Express not be 

allowed to construct any facilities, use any staging, storage, or temporary work areas, or use any access 

roads, until it files the survey reports, required treatment plans, and the SHPOs’ comments with the 

Commission, and is given written authorization to proceed by the Director of the OEP. 

Rockies express contacted 43 Native American Tribes with cultural links to the Project area. In 

total 22 tribes responded. Five tribes asked to participate in the consultation process, and an additional 17 

tribes asked to be notified if human remains were found. 

Rockies Express prepared Plans for the Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties and 

Human Remains during Construction for the Project, to be used in the event that any unanticipated 

historic properties (consisting of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources) or human remains are 

encountered during construction of the Project. 

5.1.12 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the Project would include emissions from 

fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. However, such air quality impacts would 

generally be temporary and localized and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. Rockies Express would require its contractors to use their best available 

nonroad construction equipment in their fleets in the nonattainment areas. Additionally, we recommend 

monitoring of the equipment to ensure to protection of the nonattainment areas. 

The proposed Arlington, Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and 

Chandlersville Compressor Stations would emit air pollutants as a result of combustion of natural gas to 

drive the compressor units and associated equipment. However, screening analyses of these stations 

indicates air emissions associated with operation of these facilities would meet federal and state ambient 

air quality standards. Rockies Express has filed for air permit applications for all compressor stations 

except the Chandlersville Compressor Stations. Therefore, we recommend Rockies Express file a copy of 

this application to verify emission sources at the stations and emission calculations. An air permit was 

filed for the Arlington Compressor Station; however, it was incomplete. We recommend Rockies Express 

complete its air dispersion modeling portion of the permit application for the Arlington Compressor 

Station, and file this information prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-13

Impacts to noise levels associated with construction of the Project would generally be temporary, 

minor, and limited to daylight hours, except at HDD sites, where drilling and related construction 

equipment would likely operate on a continuous basis for up to several weeks. As a result of this 

continual operation, noise levels at 11 of the 40 evaluated HDD sites could be significantly increased at 

nearby NSAs. To minimize this potential increase in noise levels and the resulting impacts to NSAs at 

the 11 sites, Rockies Express has committed to using a temporary noise barrier at least 16 feet high along 

with other noise mitigation measures. With these mitigation measures, noise impacts due to HDD 

activities would not be significant. However, we are recommending that Rockies Express provide site 

specific plans for the use of the mitigation measures at the HDD sites and file the appropriate noise 

analyses for any new or moved HDD sites, including the White River and Big Walnut Creek. 

The proposed new compressor stations would generate noise on a continuous basis during 

operation. However, the predicted noise levels attributable to operation of the Arlington, Bertrand, 

Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and Chandlersville Compressor Stations should not result in 

significant impacts on the NSAs nearest to those facilities. To ensure that actual noise levels resulting 

from Project operation would not exceed significant levels, we are recommending that Rockies Express 

file post-construction noise survey reports for all compressor stations. 

With implementation of Rockies Express’ proposed mitigation and our recommendations, we 

believe impacts on air quality and noise would be minimized. 

5.1.13 Reliability and Safety 

The Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed all DOT 

safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, Rockies Express would also initiate a 

pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The Project would result in 

only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

Rockies Express has proposed to cross the Sny Levee associated with the Mississippi River 

crossing using the HDD method. There are concerns with the safety and reliability of the levee should it 

be crossed by HDD. The majority of these concerns are addressed with a recommendation made in 

section 4.8.5 requiring geotechnical information, a feasibility study, and detailed plans including 

protection of the levee. In addition to the previous recommendation, we recommend that following 

construction Rockies Express monitor the levee for evidence of settling. 

5.1.14 Cumulative Impacts 

We identified 12 present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would potentially result 

in a cumulative impact when considered in conjunction with the REX East Project. These projects 

include other natural gas transmission pipelines, electronic generating facilities, ethanol plants, 

transportation and other infrastructure projects, residential and urban development, COE Lock-and-dam 

projects, and water supply projects. Significant cumulative impacts associated with these projects are 

most likely to occur to wetlands, forested areas, wildlife that are particular sensitive to habitat 

fragmentation, federally and state-listed endangered and threatened species, soils, and land use. We 

included recommendations in this draft EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with 

the Project. Similarly, each of the other actions considered in our cumulative analysis has been or would 

be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-14

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission approves the REX East Project, we recommend that the following measures be 

included as specific conditions of the Certificate. We believe that these measures would further mitigate 

the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. 

1. Rockies Express shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in their respective applications, supplemental filings (including responses to staff 

data requests), and as identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Commission’s Order. 

Rockies Express must: 

a. Request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing 

with the Secretary; 

b. Justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. Explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. Receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure 

the protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the REX 

East Project. This authority shall allow: 

a. The modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. The design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary 

(including stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the 

environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary an affirmative 

statement, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and 

contractor personnel will be informed of the EI's authority and have been or will be trained 

on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs 

before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, 

Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment 

maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities 

approved by the Commission’s Order. All requests for modifications of environmental 

conditions of the Commission’s Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

Rockies Express’ exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in 

any condemnation proceedings related to the FERC Order must be consistent with these 

authorized facilities and locations. Rockies Express’ right of eminent domain granted 

under NGA section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-15

to accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a 

commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility 

relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that 

would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the 

Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For 

each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, 

documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by 

the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by Rockies Express’ Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, and/or minor field realignments per 

landowner needs and requirements which do not affect other landowners or sensitive 

environmental areas such as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility 

location changes resulting from: 

a. Implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. Implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. Recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. Agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of its Certificate and before the start of construction, 

Rockies Express shall file an initial Implementation Plan for the review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP describing how Rockies Express will implement the 

mitigation measures required by the Commission’s Order. Rockies Express must file 

revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. How Rockies Express will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid 

documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and 

construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to on-site 

construction and inspection personnel; 

b. The number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that 

sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. Company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-16

d. The training and instructions Rockies Express will give to all personnel involved 

with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the project 

progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in 

the training session(s); 

e. The company personnel (if known) and the specific portion of Rockies Express’ 

organization having responsibility for compliance; 

f. The procedures (including use of contract penalties) Rockies Express will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

g. For each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling 

diagram), and dates for: 

i. The completion of all required surveys and reports; 

ii. The mitigation training of on-site personnel; 

iii. The start of construction; and 

iv. The start and completion of restoration. 

7. Rockies Express shall file updated status reports prepared by the lead EI on a weekly basis 

until all construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete. These 

status reports shall also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities upon request. Status reports shall include: 

a. The current construction status of each spread, work planned for the following 

reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally sensitive areas; 

b. A listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed 

by the EIs or the third-party compliance monitors during the reporting period (both 

for the conditions imposed by the FERC and any environmental conditions/permit 

requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies); 

c. A description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

d. The effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. A description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance 

with the requirements of the Commission’s Order, and the measures taken to satisfy 

their concerns; and 

f. Copies of any correspondence received by Rockies Express from other federal, state, 

or local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Rockies 

Express’ response. 

8. Rockies Express shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution 

procedure that remains active for at least 3 years following the completion of construction 

for the respective project. The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple 

directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns 

during construction of the project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-17

construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary the environmental complaint 

resolution procures and mail the environmental complaint resolution procedures to each 

landowner whose property would be crossed by the respective project: 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Rockies Express shall: 

i. Provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter should indicate how soon to expect a response; 

ii. Instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Rockies Express’ Hotline, as applicable; the letter should indicate 

how soon to expect a response; and 

iii. Instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Rockies Express’ Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement 

Hotline at (888) 889-8030, or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary weekly status reports that 

include a table that contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

i. The identity of the caller and the date of the call; 

ii. The identification number from the certificated alignment sheet(s) of the affected 

property and appropriate location by milepost; 

iii. A description of the problem/concern; and 

iv. An explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

9. Rockies Express must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before 

commencing service the project. Such authorization will only be granted following a 

determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas of 

project-related disturbance are proceeding satisfactorily. 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Rockies Express shall file 

an affirmative statement, certified by a senior company official: 

a. That the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, 

and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. Identifying which of the Certificate conditions Rockies Express has complied with or 

will comply with. This statement also shall identify any area affected by the project 

where compliance measures were not property implemented, if not previously 

identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

11. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary prior to the end of the comment period for 

the draft EIS, a description of the nonjurisdictional facilities needed for the operation of 

the Hamilton Compressor Station, maps showing the locations of those facilities, and a 

discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the construction of those facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-18

If no nonjurisdictional facilities are required for the operation of the Hamilton Compressor 

Station, discuss how the power requirements would be met. (page 1-8) 

12. Rockies Express shall revise its construction plans in order to overlap, for spoil storage 

purposes, 15 feet of the existing Panhandle Eastern permanent right-of-way, and 

incorporate these revisions to its pre-construction planning, revising the REX East right-ofway configurations as necessary. Rockies Express shall file the revised right-of-way 

configurations with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

(page 2-5) 

13. Rockies Express shall revise its construction plans to center the pipeline within the 

permanent right-of-way in areas where it is presently shown within 10 feet of the edge of 

the permanent right-of-way, and incorporate these revisions to its pre-construction 

planning, revising the REX East right-of-way configurations as necessary. Rockies 

Express shall file the revised right-of-way configurations with the Secretary prior to the 

end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 2-6) 

14. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP the proposed use and site-specific justification 

for the size of each of its proposed extra temporary workspaces. (page 2-6) 

15. Rockies Express shall store topsoil within the 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary prior to the start of construction a revised 

right-of-way configuration that does not include continuous 35-foot-wide temporary 

workspaces and shall file revised tables indicating acreage of area disturbed. (page 2-6) 

16. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary a list of the new access roads that would be needed during the operation of the 

Project, indicating the purpose of each. In addition, Rockies Express shall describe how the 

temporary access roads would be removed and restored after construction. Rockies 

Express shall justify leaving in place any new access road not needed for the operation of 

the Project. (page 2-6) 

17. Rockies Express shall revise its Plan and Procedures to be consistent with tables 2.3-1 and 

2.3-2 of the draft EIS. Rockies Express shall file its revised Plan and Procedures with the 

Secretary prior to the start of construction. (page 2-9)

18. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP a site-specific justification for each extra workspace which is within 50 

feet of a wetland or waterbody, prior to the start of construction. (page 2-9) 

19. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a Bulk Material Disposal Plan for excess rock, 

trees, brush, and other construction debris. (page 2-13) 

20. Rockies Express shall develop a Hydrostatic Testing Plan that includes, but is not limited 

to, the following information: 

a. The screen size proposed for use on intake hoses to prevent entrainment of fish; and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-19

b. Documentation that appropriate federal and state agencies have been consulted 

regarding the establishment of water withdrawal rates to ensure the withdrawals would 

have minimal impact on flows, fisheries, and downstream water users. 

This Hydrostatic Testing Plan shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of the OEP, prior to the start of construction. (page 2-15) 

21. Rockies Express shall revise its Procedures to use a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

for wetlands. Rockies Express shall incorporate these revisions in its pre-construction 

planning, revising the REX East construction alignment sheets, as necessary, to 

accommodate the revised work areas. For wetlands that Rockies Express believes would 

require a right-of-way width greater than 75 feet, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary, site-specific justification in its implementation plan for the Project for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, prior to the start of construction. (page 

2-18) 

22. Rockies Express shall include in each of its site-specific HDD plans an estimate of the 

volume and a description of the method of disposal of cutting spoil and drilling fluid, prior 

to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 2-19)

23. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP a draft third-party environmental monitoring program and obtain proposals 

from potential contractors to provide monitoring services, and file the program and 

proposals with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP at 

least 60 days prior to the anticipated start of pipeline construction. The monitoring 

program shall include: 

a. The employment by the contractor of one to two full-time on-site monitors per 

construction spread; 

b. The employment by the contractor of a full-time compliance manager to direct and 

coordinate with the monitors, manage the reporting system, and provide technical 

support to the FERC staff; 

c. A systematic strategy for the review and approval by the contract compliance manager 

and monitors of variances to certain construction activities as may be required by 

Rockies Express based on site-specific conditions; 

d. The development of an internet website for posting daily or weekly inspection reports 

submitted by both the third-party monitors and Rockies Express’ EIs; and 

e. A discussion of how the monitoring program can incorporate and/or be coordinated 

with the monitoring or reporting that may be required by other Federal and state 

agencies. (page 2-24) 

24. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the Deer Creek Lake State Park Route Alternative from MP 496.9 to MP 502.6, as depicted 

in figure 3.4.6-1. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets 

(including incorporation of an HDD crossing of Deer Creek Lake) and updated land use 

and resource tables. (page 3-25) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-20

25. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the McCarroll property from MP 291.0 to MP 291.3, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-1. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-33) 

26. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Rogers property from MP 300.5 to MP 301.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-2. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-33) 

27. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Parker properties from MPs 318.1 to 318.8, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-3. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-34) 

28. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Alverson properties from MPs 370.0 to 370.6, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-4. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-34) 

29. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Yane property from MPs 380.4 to 380.6, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-5. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets and 

updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-35) 

30. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Morgan property from MPs 384.1 to 385.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-6. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-36) 

31. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the White property from MPs 395.1 to 395.8, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-7. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets and 

updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-36) 

32. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate the route variation 

for the Schulte and Oetzel properties located between MPs 401.5 and 402.0, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-8. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express shall consult and 

coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new landowner information. (page 

3-37) 

33. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate the route variation 

for the Schoenharl and Minges properties located between MP 405.1 and MP 405.9, as 

depicted in appendix J, figure J-9. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated 

alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express shall consult 

and coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new landowner information. 

(page 3-37) 

34. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary documentation of consultations of the Project route and the route variation from 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-21

MPs 452.7 to 453.8, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-10, with the Village of Waynesville, 

Ohio Waste and Water Division of the Utilities Department, and other applicable agencies 

regarding construction in the WPA. (page 3-38) 

35. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Mowrey and Jones properties located between MPs 458.1 and 

458.9, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-11. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary 

updated alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-39) 

36. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Kile property from MPs 477.1 to 477.5, as depicted in appendix 

J, figure J-12. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets and 

updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-39) 

37. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the Noll Route Variation A, as depicted in appendix J, figure J-13. Rockies Express shall 

file with the Secretary revised alignment sheets and updated land use and resource tables. 

Rockies Express shall consult and coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file 

new landowner information. (page 3-41) 

38. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variation for the Shaffer property from MPs 623.3 to 624.4, as depicted in 

appendix J, figure J-14. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment 

sheets and updated land use and resource tables. Rockies Express shall consult and 

coordinate with any newly affected landowners and file new landowner information. (page 

3-41) 

39. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall incorporate into the Project route 

the route variations at MPs 384.3, 384.4, and 446.8, as depicted in appendix J, figures J-15 

and J-16. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary updated alignment sheets and 

updated land use and resource tables. (page 3-42) 

40. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall provide a 

revised list of landowners within 0.5 mile, and updated resource analyses for the two 

alternative compressor sites at MP 276 and 282.9 for the Bainbridge Compressor Station, as 

depicted in figure 3.6.2-1. The information provided should be consistent with the 

requirements for compressor stations, as outlined in FERC’s Minimum Filing 

Requirements for Environmental Reports (18 CFR 380.12). (page 3-46) 

41. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a site-specific protection plan for oil or gas 

wells within the construction work area, both active and abandoned. These plans shall 

include details on how the wells would be protected and monitored during construction. 

Rockies Express shall also discuss how it would determine if any damage attributable to 

construction activities occurred to the aboveground equipment, casing, or plug (for 

abandoned wells). The plans shall also discuss how any damage would be mitigated. (page 

4-4) 

42. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for the identification of karst features 

and mitigation for crossing any such features identified during construction. This plan shall 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-22

also indicate how areas with these features would be monitored during the life of the 

Project and what steps would be taken if the area were to destabilize in the future. (page 

4-9) 

43. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a contingency plan for HDDs in the karst 

areas identified on table 4.1.3-2. This plan shall include pre-construction identification of 

the potential for subsurface karst features and identify what Rockies Express would do if a 

solution void is intercepted to limit the amount of mud lost and successfully complete the 

drill. (page 4-10) 

44. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for monitoring areas where the pipeline 

would cross underground mines that includes the steps that would be taken if the area were 

to destabilize in the future. The monitoring shall continue for the life of the Project. (page 

4-11) 

45. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a High Water Contingency Plan for the 

construction of the Mississippi River crossing. This plan shall be developed in consultation 

with the COE. (page 4-12) 

46. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for the identification of paleontological 

material found during construction. Rockies Express shall also provide criteria for the 

determination of significance. (page 4-12) 

47. Rockies Express shall prepare an Agricultural Wet Weather Contingency Plan to address 

construction practices in agricultural areas during wet weather (i.e., active precipitation 

and/or saturated ground or as otherwise determined by the EI). This plan shall include, at a 

minimum: 

a. A determination of the allowable depth of rutting, and allowable working conditions, 

prior to suspension of construction activities based on the type of soil, topsoil and 

subsoil thickness and/or using the Atterberg Field Test Procedure; 

b. Designation of authority for the onsite agricultural inspector to have “stop-work” 

authority in the event that wet weather conditions place topsoil and subsoil at risk; and 

c. Identification of alternate construction procedures to enable activities to continue 

without risking the loss and/or mixing of topsoil and subsoil and severe compaction in 

the event of an unseasonably wet construction season. 

This plan shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP prior to the start of construction. (page 4-18) 

48. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary the 

locations by milepost of all springs, seeps, and wells identified within 150 feet of 

construction work areas. (page 4-24) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-23

49. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the distance of each WPA area from the proposed construction work area and 

documentation of consultations with applicable municipalities and/or other federal and state 

agencies regarding construction in areas with WPA or other groundwater management 

areas crossed by the pipeline. (page 4-26) 

50. Within 30 days of placing the pipeline facilities in service, Rockies Express shall file a 

report with the Secretary identifying all water supply wells/systems damaged by 

construction and how they were repaired. The report shall include a discussion of any 

complaints concerning the well yield or quality and how each problem was resolved. (page 

4-27) 

51. Prior to the start of construction across Flatrock River (MP 362.7) and Righthand Fork 

Salt Creek (MP 375.6) in Indiana and Somerset Creek (MP 553.2) in Ohio, Rockies 

Express shall file with the Secretary documentation of consultation with the organizations 

or individuals who withdraw potable water within 3 miles of these proposed open-cut 

crossings. (page 4-30) 

52. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a revised 

HDD contingency plan that indicates the agencies that would be contacted should a frac-out 

occur. (page 4-31) 

53. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review the results of its HDD geotechnical 

feasibility investigations, site-specific construction diagrams, and contingency plans for 

each HDD location. If a planned HDD crossing is not feasible, then Rockies Express shall 

develop a site-specific alternative crossing plan for each waterbody in consultation with all 

relevant agencies. Rockies Express’ plans and documentation of consultations regarding 

the site-specific HDD plans shall be filled with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft 

EIS comment period. (page 4-31)

54. Rockies Express shall include the U.S. Coast Guard and COE to the list of agencies 

contacted in the event of a spill or leak as described in the SPCC Plan. Rockies Express 

shall file the revised SPCC plan with the Secretary prior to the start of construction. 

(page 4-33)

55. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary revised site-specific crossing plans that identify specific restoration and 

mitigation measures applicable to each sensitive waterbody crossing (listed in tables 4.3.3-1 

and 4.6.2-1) and any applicable agency consultations. (page 4-33) 

56. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary revised site-specific crossing plans for Nationwide Rivers Inventory waterbodies 

and documentation of consultation with the NPS and other applicable agencies regarding 

these finalized plans. (page 4-36) 

57. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall develop a 

contingency plan for the crossings of the Little Miami River and Big Darby Creek that 

identifies the alternative routes and crossing locations evaluated in section 3.4.3 and 3.4.7, 

respectively, of this draft EIS as the preferred alternative should the HDD of either 

waterbody fail. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary the contingency plans, as well 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-24

as site-specific construction plans for the alternatives and a list of landowners affected by 

the alternatives. (page 4-36) 

58. Rockies Express shall successfully complete the HDD crossing of the Little Miami River 

prior to the start of construction between MP 432.9 and MP 467.2. (page 4-37) 

59. Rockies Express shall successfully complete the HDD crossing of the Big Darby Creek

prior to the start of construction between MPs 494.1 and MP 533.9. (page 4-37) 

60. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary an updated Dredge Material Disposal Plan for the Mississippi River, which 

includes the disposal location of this material. (page 4-38) 

61. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing plans for the White River (MP 315.8) and Big Walnut 

Creek (MP 281.5). If geotechnical feasibility assessments indicate that HDD crossings of 

the White River and the Big Walnut Creek would not be possible, then Rockies Express 

shall consult with IDEM and FWS regarding alternative crossing methods and file the 

results of these consultations with the Secretary along with the geotechnical report. (page 

4-38) 

62. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall develop a site-specific wetland 

restoration plan for Blackburn Island in consultation with the COE, FWS, and MDNR. 

Rockies Express shall file this plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP. (page 4-46) 

63. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall consult with the COE, FWS, and 

other relevant agencies regarding replanting, monitoring, and managing reforestation for all 

temporary and permanent right-of-way, additional temporary workspaces and contractor 

yards/pipe yards located within forested wetlands. Rockies Express shall include this 

information in its Wetland Mitigation Plan. (page 4-48) 

64. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall finalize consultations with the 

COE, FWS, and appropriate state and federal agencies to develop its Wetland Mitigation 

Plan; and file with the Secretary a draft Wetland Mitigation Plan and the results of its 

consultations with these agencies. (page 4-48)

65. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall develop an 

upland forest mitigation plan in consultation with FWS, COE, and appropriate state 

agencies for each state. Rockies Express shall file this plan with the Secretary along with 

documentation of consultation with the agencies involved. (page 4-56)

66. For all HDDs, Rockies Express shall not clear any trees between the workspace for the drill 

site and the workspace for the exit site. Minor brush clearing, less than 3-foot-wide, using 

hand tools is allowed to facilitate the use of the HDD tracking system. (page 4-56) 

67. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall avoid cutting 

trees at or relocate the Bowling Green, Springfield, Green Castle, Middletown, Hamilton, 

Jefferson, Pickaway, Lancaster, and Guernsey contractor and pipe storage yards, where 

feasible, to minimize impacts to forested areas. Environmental information and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-25

documentation of the revised locations of the pipe storage yards shall be filed with the 

Secretary. (page 4-58) 

68. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall develop its compensatory 

mitigation plan for the classified forest areas in Indiana, in consultation with the classified 

forest landowners; INDNR, Division of Forestry; and the local District Forester. This plan 

shall be filed with the Secretary along with documentation of related consultation for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP. (page 4-58) 

69. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a copy of 

its Flood Control Permit from INDNR. (page 4-60) 

70. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall consult with 

FSA and other applicable federal and state agencies to identify affected CRP lands and to 

develop mitigation measures to protect CRP lands. Rockies Express shall file this 

information with the Secretary along with copies of all related correspondence. (page 4-60) 

71. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall include the Japanese hop in its 

Weed Management Plan and file the revised Weed Management Plan with the Secretary. 

(page 4-61) 

72. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall consult with 

each applicable Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Coordinator to verify that it 

is in compliance with the state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to the 

maximum extent practicable and file with the Secretary documentation of this 

correspondence. (page 4-66) 

73. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary, documentation of consultations with FWS to determine the need for bald eagle 

surveys. If surveys are required, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary survey 

reports along with FWS comments on those surveys and documentation of its consultation 

with FWS. (page 4-69) 

74. Rockies Express shall implement the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, 

including limitation of construction activities in the vicinity of active bald eagle nests, as 

recommended by FWS between February 1 through July 31. (page 4-69) 

75. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary, documentation of its finalized consultation with FWS to determine specific areas 

of forest fragmentation that would impact breeding sites and activities for migratory birds, 

and to determine site-specific mitigation for each area of concern. (page 4-70) 

76. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary its MBTA Conservation Agreement, which shall be developed in consultation 

with FWS. Rockies Express shall file documentation of related consultation with other 

agencies. (page 4-71) 

77. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall consult with 

appropriate jurisdictional agencies regarding construction schedules and any necessary 

mitigation measures for the sensitive wildlife areas identified in table 4.5.4-1 that would 

minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife. Rockies Express shall file its 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-26

construction schedule along with documentation of its consultation with the Secretary. 

(page 4-75) 

78. Rockies Express shall use a dry-ditch technique, such as flume, dam-and-pump, bore, or 

HDD, to cross any waterbodies that are considered fisheries of special concern with a 

wetted width less than 30 feet, as described in table 4.6.2-1. If a wet-crossing method 

would be used for waterbodies less than 30 feet, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the proposed crossing method along with documentation of approval by the 

appropriate state agency prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 4-81) 

79. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express, in consultation with 

FWS and COE, shall develop a project- and site-specific tree clearing plan for the Indiana 

bat that includes the location of any potential maternity roost trees in or adjacent to the 

construction corridor. For forested wetlands, Rockies Express shall develop the projectand site-specific tree clearing plan for the Indiana bat that includes the location of any 

potential maternity roost trees in or adjacent to the construction corridor in consultation 

with FWS and COE. (page 4-90)

80. During construction, trees, limbs, brush, and debris shall not be burned in the right-of way 

within 500 feet of potential Indiana bat habitat to avoid smoke impacts on Indiana bats. 

(page 4-90) 

81. Rockies Express shall not use herbicides or pesticides for maintenance of the permanent 

right-of-way or adjacent forested areas, regardless of whether Indiana bats are present, for 

the life of the Project. (page 4-90)

82. Rockies Express shall not begin construction or cut or remove trees until:

a. Staff have reviewed the results of the Indiana bat surveys, habitat analysis, and any 

comments from FWS regarding the proposed action; 

b. Staff complete any necessary consultation with FWS for the Indiana bat; and 

c. Rockies Express has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction or use of mitigation may begin. (page 4-91) 

83. During construction, if any whooping cranes are encountered in the immediate vicinity 

during construction of the pipeline or other aboveground facilities in Indiana and Ohio, 

construction shall immediately stop in that area, FWS and the FERC shall be contacted, and 

appropriate protection measures would be developed and implemented. Protection 

measures shall be developed in coordination with FWS. (page 4-92) 

84. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary, the completed habitat assessment for the eastern massasauga snake along with 

FWS comments on the habitat survey. (page 4-93) 

85. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing contingency plans for waterbodies that are 

surrounded by floodplains that provide important Indiana bat habitat, and that would be 

crossed using the HDD method, such as the Mississippi River, Wabash River, Big Raccoon 

Creek, Big Walnut Creek, and West Fork White River. Should HDD fail at one of these 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-27

crossings, the new crossing procedure and mitigation measures shall be completed in 

consultation with FWS, and the results shall be filed with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction. (page 4-96)

86. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for the Sugar Creek at MP 484.3. 

(page 4-97) 

87. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary site-specific HDD crossing contingency plans for the Scioto River and Deer 

Creek. If HDD fails at these crossings, the new crossing procedures and mitigation 

measures shall be developed in consultation with FWS. Results of such consultations shall 

be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to 

construction. (page 4-97) 

88. During construction, Rockies Express shall not withdraw hydrostatic test water from 

waterbodies where endangered mussels or glochidia/host fish or juveniles could be directly 

impacted. (page 4-97) 

89. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary completed mussel survey reports for the federally listed mussel species, 

documentation of its consultation with FWS and ONR, and conservation measures 

necessary to minimize impact to mussel beds. (page 4-97) 

90. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the completed survey report for the running buffalo clover along with the FWS 

comments on the survey. (page 4-99) 

91. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a diagram 

of the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to running buffalo clover plants from 

the fence for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. (page 4-99) 

92. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall conduct pre-construction surveys 

for the decurrent false aster, and file with the Secretary the survey report and if necessary, a 

diagram of the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to plant from the fence for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP. If avoidance is not possible, Rockies 

Express shall consult with FWS to develop mitigation measures for this species. (page 4-

100) 

93. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a diagram 

of the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to prairie fringed orchid plants from 

the fence, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. (page 4-101) 

94. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a diagram 

of the fencing plan indicating perimeter and distance to prairie bush clover plants from the 

fence for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. (page 4-102) 

95. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for waterbody crossings in 

Muskingum County that contain eastern hellbenders. (page 4-105)

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-28

96. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the feasibility of using a dry crossing method for Youngs Creek (MP 336.1) to 

minimize impact to rabbitsfoot mussel. (page 4-106) 

97. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and approval by the Director of OEP, pre-construction survey reports, ODNR comments on 

the survey, and a diagram of the fencing plan for the Drummond’s Aster, including the 

fence perimeter and distance to plants from the fence. (page 4-107) 

98. Rockies Express shall develop and implement a five-year post-construction monitoring 

program to evaluate crop productivity in areas impacted by the construction of the Project. 

Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary quarterly reports for a period of five years 

following construction documenting any crop-related problems, including soil heating 

near compressor stations, identified by the company or landowner and describing any 

corrective action taken to remedy those problems. If any landowner agrees that 

revegetation and crop productivity are successful prior to the five year requirement, 

Rockies Express shall provide documentation in its quarterly reports, indicating which 

landowners have agreed that monitoring is no longer necessary. This documentation shall 

include the landowners’ name, tract number, and the date of agreement. (page 4-114) 

99. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary, and provide to the MODNR, a state-specific 

AIMP for Missouri prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 4-115)

100. Rockies Express shall hire local drain tile contractors to install/repair drain tiles that are 

damaged or need to be rerouted due to construction activities. (page 4-117) 

101. During construction, Rockies Express shall identify and mark all encountered, severed, 

and/or damaged tile lines on each affected landowner’s property using GPS coordinates 

accurate to one meter. Rockies Express shall provide this information to the landowner, the 

local county Soil and Water Conservation District, and be kept in the company’s landowner 

records for future reference. (page 4-117) 

102. Rockies Express shall bury the pipeline at a minimum depth of five feet where the pipeline 

would cross agricultural fields with prime soils unless otherwise negotiated with 

landowners. (page 4-118) 

103. Rockies Express shall file a plan with the Secretary of the crossing of Wilson Friendly 

Maple Farm prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. This plan shall include 

avoiding the removal of trees and impacts on the maple syrup operation. For any 

unavoidable impacts Rockies Express shall quantify the impact, justify why the impact is 

required, and provide mitigation for the impact. (page 4-120) 

104. Rockies Express shall file with Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period a site-specific explanation of how access would be maintained for each residence 

whose driveway or access would be affected by construction activities. (page 4-123) 

105. Rockies Express shall provide each landowner and tenant whose residence is within 50 feet 

of the proposed construction work area with a copy of the site-specific plan for construction 

near their residence at the same time Rockies Express files its Implementation Plan 

with the Commission. (page 4-123) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-29

106. Rockies Express shall file site-specific plans with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to the start of construction that: 

a. Describe the measures that would be taken to minimize construction impacts on each 

residence within 25 feet of a construction work area, including but not limited to 

reduced pipeline separation, centerline adjustment, use of stove-pipe or drag-section 

techniques, working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, or a minor route 

variation; 

b. Include discussion of how Rockies Express would ensure that the trench is not 

excavated until the pipe is ready for installation and that the trench is backfilled 

immediately after pipe installation; and 

c. Include evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and fencing 

will be located within 10 feet of a residence. (page 4-123) 

107. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary a sitespecific construction plan for Tract IL-MC-028.051 for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP. (page 4-125) 

108. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file a 

construction plan for the property in Warren County, Ohio on Tract OH-WA-066.000 to 

OH-WA-066.002 that preserves the ability to construct a home, or propose an alternative 

route. (page 4-125) 

109. Rockies Express shall identify all septic systems prior to the start of construction, 

present each property owner with a copy of the Septic System Contingency Plan, and 

restore, relocate, or replace all septic systems damaged during construction, whether or not 

such mitigation was part of the easement negotiation. (page 4-125) 

110. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period: 

a. Complete geotechnical information for both crossing methods for the Sny Levee; 

b. A feasibility study of both crossing methods; 

c. A detailed plan for both crossing methods, including detailed information on how the 

levee would be protected during construction; and 

d. Documentation of consultation on these plans with the Sny Levee District and the 

COE. (page 4-134) 

111. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a plan for setting up a safe portage for 

canoeists who wish to traverse the crossing area of the West Fork White River during 

construction. This plan shall include assistance transporting canoes around the work area 

for those who request help. (page 4-136) 

112. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction, a plan for the crossing of the B&O 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-30

Trail. This plan shall include measures for maintaining public access to the trail and 

avoidance of tree cutting at the crossing location. (page 4-136)

113. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction a site-specific mitigation plan for the 

HDD crossing of Big Walnut Creek that includes a reduction of tree clearing at the crossing 

site, a revegetation plan including the planting of native vegetation, and a portage plan for 

user of Big Walnut Creek, including assistance in moving the canoes/floats around the 

crossing location if needed. (page 4-138) 

114. Rockies Express shall work with Camp Woodsmoke to determine a schedule for crossing 

the camp. Rockies Express shall discuss with the camp the need for any additional safety 

mitigation (fencing, signs) during construction in the camp. The results of this consultation 

shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP

prior to the start of construction. (Page 4-139)

115. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment 

period a site-specific plan for the crossing and restoration of the Little Miami River. This 

plan shall include all proposed mitigation; contingency plans for HDD failures, frac-outs, 

and hydrostatic test water source and release; and revegetation. This plan shall be 

developed in consultation with the ODNR and the NPS. (page 4-140)

116. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific plan for the crossing of each 

tributary of the Little Miami River, developed in consultation with the NPS. These plans 

shall include: 

a. dry-crossing method; 

b. minimization of tree clearing; 

c. erosion controls that would minimize down stream siltation; and 

d. a restoration and revegetation plan. (page 4-140) 

117. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period a site-specific plan 

for the crossing and restoration of the Big Darby Creek. This plan shall include all 

proposed mitigation; contingency plans for HDD failures, frac-outs, and hydrostatic test 

water source and release; and revegetation. This plan shall be developed in consultation 

with the ODNR and the NPS. (page 4-141) 

118. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific plan for the crossing of each 

tributary of the Big Darby Creek, developed in consultation with the NPS. These plans 

shall include: 

a. dry-crossing method; 

b. minimization of tree clearing; 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-31

c. erosion controls that would minimize down stream siltation; and 

d. a restoration and revegetation plan. (page 4-142) 

119. Rockies Express shall consult with the NPS to determine which of the tributaries of Big 

Darby Creek that would be crossed, should be surveyed for mussels and fish spawning 

areas. Rockies Express shall file the results of any required surveys with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to the start of construction,

along with any correspondence with the NPS. (page 4-142) 

120. Rockies Express shall develop a plan for warning boaters of construction on Painted Creek. 

In addition, the plan shall contain provision for a safe portage through the construction 

work area. Rockies Express shall provide assistance in moving the boats around the 

construction work area if requested. Rockies Express shall file this plan with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to the start of construction. 

(page 4-143)

121. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the start of construction a plan for the construction and 

restoration of the Little Miami Scenic State Park. Rockies Express shall also include a plan 

for maintaining safe public access through the construction area and revegetating the 

disturbed areas by planting native vegetation. This plan shall be developed in consultation 

with the ODNR. (page 4-144) 

122. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express should file with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing, mitigation, and 

restoration plan for pipeline construction activities in Caesar Creek State Park and Wildlife 

Area developed in consultation with the ODNR. (page 4-145) 

123. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing, mitigation, and 

restoration plan for pipeline construction activities in Perry State Forest and Blue Rock 

State Forest. (page 4-146) 

124. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific crossing plan for pipeline 

construction activities in the White Oak Exotic Hunting Preserve, and that Rockies Express 

work with the land owner to find a time for construction that is minimally disruptive to 

their business. (page 4-146) 

125. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall consult with 

each state’s Department of Transportation and local traffic authorities regarding road 

closures and appropriate detours. Rockies Express shall file documentation of this 

consultation with the Secretary. (page 4-159) 

126. Rockies Express shall avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially 

eligible sites in Missouri that have not yet been addressed, including 23PI1341, 23PI1352, 

23PI1379, and 23RA1878. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II report and the SHPO’s comments on 

the report, prior to the start of construction. (page 4-165)

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-32

127. Rockies Express shall fence the right-of-way and provide an archaeological monitor during 

construction in the vicinity of the Montezuma Mound Group (11PK1245). (page 4-165) 

128. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall develop and 

file with the Secretary a plan for avoiding and protecting prehistoric mound sites 11PK1709 

and 11PK1733, and documentation of SHPO comments on the plan. (page 4-166) 

129. Rockies Express shall avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially 

eligible sites in Illinois that have not yet been addressed, including sites 11E141, 

11PK1334, 11PK1597, 11PK1674 and 12 pending site numbers. Rockies Express shall file 

with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II 

report and the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. (page 

4-166)

130. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall develop and 

file with the Secretary a plan for avoiding and protecting prehistoric mound site 12FR125b. 

(page 4-167) 

131. Rockies Express shall avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially 

eligible sites in Indiana that have not yet been addressed, including 12FR337, 12PM345, 

12DE776, and the five sites with pending site numbers. Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of the OEP the Phase II report 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. (page 4-167) 

132. Rockies Express shall provide an archaeological monitor during construction for work in 

the vicinity of the former mound site 12SH12. (page 4-167) 

133. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall address any 

concerns or requests for additional information expressed by the Indiana SHPO in 

comments submitted in letters dated May 10 and September 17, 2007. (page 4-167) 

134. Rockies Express shall avoid the Brockman Cemetery and Site 12FR332 and prior to the 

end of the draft EIS comment period, develop and file with the Secretary plans for site 

protection from construction activities. (page 4-168) 

135. Prior to construction, Rockies Express shall complete architectural surveys for Indiana, 

file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a report with 

the survey results, and file with the Secretary the SHPO’s comments on the report. (page 

4-168) 

136. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall avoid or file with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a Phase II evaluation for the 

Wabash & Erie Canal and the SHPO’s comments on the report. (page 4-168) 

137. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific HDD construction plan that 

describes how the archaeological features associated with the Whitewater Canal would be 

avoided. (page 4-168) 

138. Rockies Express shall avoid or conduct Phase II evaluation testing for any potentially 

eligible sites that have not yet been addressed in Ohio. Rockies Express shall file with the 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-33

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP the Phase II report and 

the SHPO’s comments on the report, prior to the start of construction. (page 4-169) 

139. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall address the 

comments of the Ohio SHPO contained in letters dated September 6, 2007 and provide any 

information requested by the SHPO. (page 4-169) 

140. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall avoid or file with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP an assessment of eligibility and 

effects for architectural resources in Ohio, a report summarizing the assessment, and the 

SHPO’s comments on the report. (page 4-170) 

141. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall avoid or conduct and file with 

the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a report with

additional architectural evaluations of the Wilson Friendly Farm in Warren County, Ohio 

(MP 458) and the SHPOs comments on the report. (page 4-170) 

142. Rockies Express shall defer construction and use of facilities, staging, storage, temporary 

work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. Rockies Express files with the Secretary all additional required cultural resource 

inventory and evaluation reports, avoidance or treatment plans, and any additional 

information that SHPOs have requested; 

b. Rockies Express files with the Secretary copies of the appropriate SHPO comments on 

all reports and plans; 

c. The ACHP has been provided an opportunity to comment on whether any historic 

properties would be adversely affected; and 

d. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies Rockies 

Express in writing that it may proceed with treatment or construction. (page 4-175) 

All material filed with the Commission that contains 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.” (page 4-175) 

143. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the completed air dispersion modeling portion of the permit application for the 

Arlington Compressor Station. (page 4-176) 

144. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file with the 

Secretary the completed air permit application for the Chandlersville Compressor Station. 

(page 4-177) 

145. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP the age distribution and emission control 

technology associated with all of its contractor’s fleet equipment for the project. During 

construction, in its filed weekly status reports, Rockies Express shall identify the equipment 

used in the non-attainment areas. (page 4-190) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-34

146. Prior to the start of construction, Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP updated site specific plans for any HDD entry 

or exit site it proposes to implement noise mitigation. The updated plans shall identify any 

noise walls or barriers, equipment locations, equipment barriers, or any other mitigation 

measures. (page 4-196) 

147. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Rockies Express shall file a noise 

analysis, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, for any new HDD sites 

(including the White River and Big Walnut Creek crossings) or any HDD sites that are 

relocated since the publication of the draft EIS. This analysis shall identify any NSAs 

within one half mile of the HDD entry or exit location, and the proposed length of time 

HDD activities would occur. The analysis shall also include background noise levels and 

estimated drilling noise contributions at the nearest NSAs at each HDD entry and exit 

location with Noise Sensitive Areas within one half mile, along with any measures Rockies 

Express will implement to control noise from the HDDs. (page 4-196)

148. Rockies Express make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from the 

Arlington, Bertrand, Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and Chandlersville 

Compressor Stations are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file noise surveys showing this 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing each of the Arlington, Bertrand, 

Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, and Chandlersville Compressor Stations 

in service. However, if the noise attributable to the operation of the Arlington, Bertrand, 

Mexico, Blue Mound, Bainbridge, Hamilton, or Chandlersville Compressor Stations at full 

load exceeds a DNL of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Rockies Express shall file a report on 

what changes are needed and shall install additional noise controls to meet the level within 

1 year of the in-service date. Rockies Express shall confirm compliance with this 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

it installs the additional noise controls. (page 4-198) 

149. Rockies Express shall file with the Secretary and the Sny Levee District the survey results 

for levee settlement monitoring every six months for a period of five years after 

installation under the levee. (page 4-205) 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-1

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Advisory Council on History Preservation 

 Office of Federal Agency Programs 

 Laura Henley Dean 

Don L. Klima, Director 

Director of Cultural Resources 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Office of the Chief of Army Engineers 

 Huntington District 

 Ginger Mullins 

 Lee Pittman 

 Louisville District 

 Max Hagan 

Timothy R. Smith 

James Townsend 

Pittsburgh District 

 Mike Cummings 

Rock Island District 

 Charlene Carmack 

Donna Jones 

Jeff Sniadach 

Eugene Walsh 

St. Louis District 

 Robert Gramke 

 Matt Hunn 

 Katy Manar 

 Danny McClendon 

 Lynn Neher 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Council on Environmental Quality 

 Dina Bear, General Counsel 

 Horst Greczmiel, Associate 

Director for NEPA Oversight 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Farm Service Agency 

David Anderson, Scott County

Anthony Augustine, Vermillion 

County 

Roger Bailey, Putnam County, 

Hendricks County 

 Brian Catt, Johnson County 

Dave Cornwell, Edgar County 

 Dustin Cruit, Christian County 

 Larry DeSutter, Macon County 

 William Graff, State Office 

 Susan Houston, Shelby County 

 Robert Irlam, Sangamon County 

 Mike Kidwell, Parke County 

Steve Niemann, Douglas County 

 Scott Pahlmann, Morgan County 

Phil Short, Moultrie County 

John Stevenson, Ohio State 

Randy Utter, Decatur County 

Tom Weisenborn, Pike County 

 Terry Wilds, Franklin County 

 Forest Service 

Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System 

Director of Lands 

 Ecosystem Management 

 Coordination 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 National Environmental Coordinator 

Karen Brinkman, Palmyra Area 

Office 

Lindsay Carter, Area 5 Office 

Chris Cochran, Charleston MLRA 

Office 

 Terry Cosby, Ohio State Office 

 Elizabeth Crane 

Donald Donovan 

James B. Johnson, Illinois State 

Office 

 Randy Jordan, Area 3 Office 

Matthew Judy, Central Technical 

Center 

Bob Mcleese, Illinois State Office 

 Ron Miller 

Byron Nagel, Hoosier Hills MLRA 

Office 

Kevin Norwood, Indianapolis 

MLRA Office 

Jerry Roach, Scottsburg Service 

Center 

Robert Tegeler, Springfield MLRA 

Office 

 Clifford Thornton, Area 4 Office 

 Office of Finance and Management 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Karen Abrams, Office of Habitat 

 Protection 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

 Director, Ecology and 

 Conservation 

 Office of the Secretary 

Sloan Rappoport, Senior Policy 

Advisor 

U.S. Department of Defense 

 Air Force 

Office of Deputy Secretary 

Environment, Safety and 

Occupational Health 

Gerald Johnson, AFRPA/DD 

 Real Property Agency 

Army 

Paul E. Mason, Office of Assistant 

Chief of Staff for Installation 

Management 

Chip Smith, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works) 

 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

Robert Uhrich, Installations and 

Environment 

 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

Philip Grone, Principal Assistant 

Deputy Under Secretary for 

Defense, Installations and 

Environment 

Sonny White 

 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-2

U.S. Department of Energy 

Harvey Harmon, Director for Import/Export 

Activities 

Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

 Robert Corbin, Manager 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Office of Intergovernment Affairs 

 Steve Lerner 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

 Coast Guard 

 Thomas H. Collins, Commandant 

David Scott, Office of Operating 

and Environmental Standards 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 Director of Environment 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 Land and Natural Resources Division 

U.S. Department of Labor 

 Office of Regulatory Economics 

U.S. Department of State 

 Office of Environment/Health 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management 

Don Hinrichsen, National Science 

& Technology Center 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

Joyce Collins, Region 3, Marion 

Ecological Services Office 

Forest Clark, Bloomington ES 

Office 

Jeff Gosse, Region 3 

Mary Knapp, Region 3, 

Reynoldsburg Ecological 

Services Field Office 

Heidi Kuska, Columbia Ecological 

Services Field Office 

Richard Nelson, Region 3, Rock 

Island Ecological Services 

Field Office 

Scott Pruitt, Region 3, Bloomington 

Ecological Services Field 

Office 

Charlie Scott, Region 3, Columbia 

Ecological Services Field 

Office 

Angela Zimmerman, Region 3, 

Reynoldsburg Ecological 

Services Field Office 

Minerals Management Service 

Walter Cruickshank, Deputy 

Director 

Patricia E. Morrison, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals Management 

National Park Service 

Nick Chevance, Midwest Regional 

Office, Division of Planning and Compliance 

Sue Jennings, Midwest Regional 

Office, Division of Planning and Compliance 

 Ernest Quintana, Midwest Region 

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

 Director 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

Karen Butler 

Alex Dankanich, Eastern Region 

Kimbra Davis, Community 

Assistance/Technical 

Services 

 Tom Fortner 

Stacy Gerard, Research and 

Special Programs 

Administration 

William H. Gute, Director, East 

Region, Eastern Region - 

DPS-24 

Camille Mittelholtz, Environmental 

Policies Team Leader 

Mike Schwarzkopf 

Harold Winnie 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration 

Research and Special Programs 

Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials 

Enforcement, SW Region 

James K. O'Steen, Deputy 

Associate Administrator for 

Pipeline Safety, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 Office of Federal Activities 

Region 5 

 Jerri-Anne Garl 

 Virginia Lasewski 

 Kenneth Westlake 

 Region 7 

 Joe Cothern 

Gale Hutton 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 Hallie M Borichan 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

 Chief Energy and Environment 

Library of Congress 

 Madison Building 

U.S. Senate 

 Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES AND 

SENATORS

Illinois

Representative Phil Hare 

Representative Tim Johnson 

Representative Ray LaHood 

Representative John Shimkus 

 

Senator Richard J. Durbin 

Senator Barack Obama 

Indiana

Representative Dan Burton 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-3

Representative Steve Buyer 

Representative Mike Pence 

Representative Brad Ellsworth 

Senator Evan Bayh 

Senator Richard G Lugar 

Missouri

Representative Kenny C. Hulshof 

Senator Christopher Bond 

Senator Claire McCaskill 

Ohio

Representative John Boehner 

Representative Steve Chabot 

Representative David Hobson 

Representative Jean Schmidt 

Representative Zack Space 

Representative Michael Turner 

Representative Charlie Wilson 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

Senator George Voinovich

STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS

Illinois

Representative Richard Brauer 

Representative Roger Eddy 

Representative Robert Flider 

Representative Gary Hannig 

Representative Bill Mitchell 

Representative Raymond Poe 

Representative Chapin Rose 

Representative Jil Tracy 

Representative Jim Watson 

Senator Larry Bomke 

Senator Bill Brady 

Senator Deanna Demuzio 

Senator Dale Righter 

Senator John Sullivan 

Senator Frank Watson 

Indiana

Representative Robert W. Behning 

Representative Robert J. Bischoff 

Representative Brian Bosma 

Representative Timothy N. Brown 

Representative Charles Woody Burton 

Representative Bob Cherry 

Representative Cleo Duncan 

Representative Sean Eberhart 

Representative Ralph M. Foley 

Representative David N. Frizzell 

Representative F. Dale Grubb 

Representative Thomas Knollman 

Representative Milo Smith 

Representative Amos Thomas 

Representative Jeff Thompson 

Senator Richard Bray 

Senator Phil Boots 

Senator Robert N. Jackman 

Senator Connie Lawson 

Senator Patricia L. Miller 

Senator Johnny Nugent 

Senator Tim Skinner 

Senator Greg Walker 

Senator Brent Waltz 

Senator Michael Young 

Missouri

Representative Rachel Bringer 

Representative Steve Hobbs 

Representative Paul Quinn 

Representative Terry Witte 

Senator Wes Shoemyer 

Ohio

Representative Jim Aslanides 

Representative Bill Coley 

Representative Courtney Combs 

Representative David Daniels 

Representative Kevin DeWine 

Representative Dan Dodd 

Representative John Domenick 

Representative Jennifer Garrison 

Representative Shannon Jones 

Representative Allan Sayre 

Representative John Schlichter 

Representative Michelle Schneider 

Representative Gerald Stebelton 

Representative Jimmy Stewart 

Representative Shawn Webster 

Representative Chris Widener 

Senator Steve Austria 

Senator John Carey 

Senator Gary Cates 

Senator Joy Padgett 

Senator Tim Schaffer 

Senator Robert Schuler 

Senator Jason Wilson

NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS

Dale Anderson, Huron Potawatomi Nation 

Deanne Bahr, Sac and Fox of the Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska 

Nancy Bear, Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas 

Johnathan Buffalo, Sac and Fox Tribe of the 

Mississippi in Iowa 

Kent Collier, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma 

Oliver Collins, Tallige Cherokee Nation 

Charles Dawes, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-4

Louis DeRoin, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 

Jerry Dilliner, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma 

John Dunnagan, Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana 

Council 

Kade M. Ferris, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

Indians 

Jeremy Finch, Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

Tamara Francis, Delaware Tribe of Western 

Oklahoma 

Harold Frank, Forest County Potawatomi Community 

of Wisconsin 

John P. Froman, Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma 

Raul Garza, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

Ray Haffner, Wea Indian Tribe 

Clint Halftown, THPO, Cayuga Nation 

Rey Kitchkumne, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians 

Sandra Kaye Massey, Sac and Fox Nation of 

Oklahoma 

Dorothy McCormick, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Kathy McCoy, The Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians 

John Miller, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of 

Michigan 

Kathleen Mitchell, Seneca Nation of Indians 

Julie Olds, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 

Victor Robidoux, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

D.K. Sprague, Gun Lake Potawatomi 

James Squirrel, Loyal Shawnee Tribe 

Ted Watson, Jr., THPO, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Kathleen Welch, Wyandotte Nation 

Janice Wilson, Wyandotte Nation 

STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Illinois

 

Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor 

Janice Dale, Advisor, Attorney General's Office 

Marvin Hanson, State Attorney 

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General 

Brad Paisley, State Attorney 

Illinois Department of Agriculture 

 Steve Chard 

 Chuck Hartke, Director 

 Terry Savko 

 Jared Thornley 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic 

Opportunity 

 Jack Lavin, Director 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

 Sam Flood, Director, 

Gary Clark, Springfield Office of Water 

Resources 

Rick Pietruszka, Springfield Office of Water 

Resources 

Tom Flattery, Division of Resource Review 

and Coordination, Office of Realty and 

Environmental Planning 

Tara Keininger, ORC-Illinois Natural 

Heritage Database 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

 Susan Graham 

 Timothy Martin 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

 Douglas Scott, Director, 

Jim Ross, Bureau of Air, Division of Air 

Pollution Control 

Don Sutton, Bureau of Air, Division of Air 

Pollution Control 

Daniel Heacock, Bureau of Water 

Al Keller, Bureau of Water, Watershed Unit, 

Permits Section 

Blaine Kinsley, Bureau of Water 

Bruce Yurdin, Bureau of Water, Watershed 

Unit, Permits Section 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, State Historic 

Preservation Office 

 Anne E. Haaker 

 David Halpin 

 William Wheeler 

Illinois State Treasurer 

 Alexi Giannoulias 

Indiana

Mitch Daniels, Governor 

Steve Carter, Attorney General 

Rebecca Skillman, Lt. Governor 

Indiana Auditor of State 

 Tim Berry, Treasurer 

Indiana Department of Agriculture 

Ken Klemme, Assistant Director of 

Economic Development 

Andy Miller, Agriculture Director 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Eric Levenhagen, Legislative and Business 

Relations Liaison 

Nisha Sizemore, Office of Air Quality, 

Permitting Branch 

Jed Wolkins, Office of Air Quality 

Debbie Dubenetzky, Office of Water Quality, 

Compliance Branch 

Martha Clark Mettler, Office of Water Quality 

Jason Randolph, Office of Water Quality 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

 Robert E. Carter Jr., Division Director 

Cathy Draeger, Division of Historic 

Preservation and Archaeology 

Jon Eggen 

Andrea Gromeaux-Schnaith, Division of 

Water, Environmental Unit 

Jim Hebenstreit, Environmental Unit 

Ronald Hellmich, Division of Nature 

Preserves, Natural Heritage Data 

Center 

Kyle Hupfer, Division of Historic 

Preservation and Archaeology 

 Ron McAhron 

Jon Smith, Division of Historic Preservation 

and Archaeology 

 Christie Stanifer, Environmental Unit 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-5

Miriam Widenhofer, Division of Historic 

Preservation and Archaeology 

Indiana Office of Energy & Defense Development 

John Clark, Director 

Ryan West, Director 

Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor 

 Robert G Mork, Deputy Consumer 

Counselor for Federal Affairs 

Indiana Secretary of State 

 Todd Rokita 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission 

 William Boyd, Pipeline Safety Division 

 William Divine 

Mary Beth Fisher-Johnson 

 David Lott Hardy 

 Ann Marie Robertson 

Missouri

Missouri Department of Conservation 

 Corie Atchley, Northeast Region Office 

 Doyle Brown, Northeast Region Office 

Dorothy Butler, Natural Heritage Program 

Brian Flowers, Central Region 

Missouri Department of Environmental Quality 

Peter Goode, Water Quality Control, 

Permitting 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

 Dru Buntin 

 H. Floyd Gilzow 

 Alan Moreau 

 Robert Stout 

James Kavanaugh, Air and Land Protection 

Division, Air Pollution Control Program 

Mark Miles, Division of State Parks, State 

Historic Preservation Office 

Jim Alexander, Geological Survey and 

Resource Assessment, Missouri Water 

Resource Center 

Doyle Childers, State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Sarah Fast, Water Protection and Soil 

Conservation Division, Water Pollution 

Control Branch 

Missouri Public Service Commission 

 Lera Shemwell, Deputy General Council 

Ohio

Ted Strickland, Governor 

Marc Dann, Attorney General 

Mark Shanahan, Energy Advisor, Governor's office 

Board of Park Commissioners 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce 

 Bill Triick 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

Mike Bailey, Executive Director, Office of 

Farmland Preservation 

 Robert J. Boggs, Director 

Ohio Department of Development 

 Lee Fisher 

Jim Zuber 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Chad Amos, Soil and Water Conservation 

District, Southeast Area 

 Lynn Boydelatour, Chief Naturalist, 

 Kim Caris, Division of Parks and Recreation 

 Liz Cline, Soil and Water 

 Bob Gable, Scenic Rivers 

 Blaine Gerdes, Soil and Water 

 Dennis Hall, Division. of Geological Survey 

 David Hanselmann, Chief 

Steve Hawkins, Soil and Water 

Conservation District , Southern Area 

 Kirk Hines, Soil and Water 

Daniel Huss, Division of Wildlife, District 1, 

Franklin County 

 Becky Jenkins, Division of Wildlife 

Eric Lane, Division of Wildlife, District 4, 

Perry County 

Ted Lozier, Division of Water, Water 

Resources Section 

Brian Mitch 

 Don Norman 

 Sam Spcek, Director 

 Mac Swinford, Geological Survey 

Dave Warner, Division of Wildlife , District 5, 

Greene County 

 Dan West, Division of Parks and Recreation 

Debbie Woischke, Division of Natural Areas 

and Preserves, Natural Heritage 

Program 

 Scott Zody 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Paul Braun, Division of Air Pollution Control, 

Permitting Section 

Tom Harcarik, Permitting and Compliance 

Section 

 Charles Korleski, Director 

Steve Malone, Permitting and Compliance 

Section 

Paul Novak, Division of Surface Water, 

Permitting and Compliance Section 

 Jennifer Seifert 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical 

Society 

 Mark J. Epstein 

 Dave Snyder 

Rachel Tooker 

 Ohio Power Siting Board 

 Kelli Albanese 

Klaus Lambeck, Chief 

 Randy Sanders 

 Alan Schriber 

Raymond Strom, Facilities Siting and 

Environmental Analysis Division 

 Kim Wissman, Executive Director 

 William Wright 

Public Utilities Commission Siting Board of Ohio 

 Jim O'Dell 

State of Ohio 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-6

Wyoming

State Highway Commission of Wyoming 

Transportation Commission of Wyoming 

 

COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Christian County, IL

Timothy Butcher, Christian County Board Member 

Timothy Carlson, Christian County Board Member 

Donna Castelli, Christian County Circuit Clerk 

John Curtin, Christian County Board Chairman 

Linda Curtin, Christian County Clerk/Recorder 

Chas DeClerck, Christian County Board Member 

Michael Drea, Christian County Board Member 

Ron Finley, Christian County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

Carol Foli, Christian County Board Member 

Clifford Frye, Christian County Engineer 

Mike Gleason, Christian County Board Member 

Colleen Hadley, Christian County, Treasurer 

Robert Kindermann, Christian County Sheriff 

Joseph Marley, Christian County Board Member 

Chad Mitchel, Christian County Board Member 

Brad Paisley, Christian County, State's Attorney 

Jack Pearce, Christian County Board Member 

Darrell Robertson, Christian County Board Member 

Paul Schmitz, Christian County Board Member 

Margaretha Strawn, Christian County Board Member 

Lloyd Washburn, Christian County Board Member 

Laura Wilkinson, Christian County Board Member 

Tony Woods, Christian County Board Member 

Douglas County, IL

Rena Cain, Douglas County Supervisor of 

Assessments 

Jim Crane, Douglas County Highway Department 

Douglas County Sheriff's Office 

Charles Edmundson, Douglas County Board Member 

Tom Glenn, Douglas County Board Member 

Jim Ingram, Douglas County Clerk/Recorder 

Chuck Knox, Douglas County Board Member 

Marlene Lincoln, Douglas County Board Member 

Charlie McGrew, Douglas County Sheriff 

Julie Mills, Douglas County Circuit Clerk 

Don Munson, Douglas County Board Member 

Bobbi Murray, Douglas County, Treasurer 

Kevin Nolan, Douglas County, State's Attorney 

Kathy Rhodes, Douglas County Board Member 

Wayne Schable, Douglas County Board Member 

Edgar County, IL

Timothy Crippes, Edgar County Sheriff 

Katherine Cutright, Edgar County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

Verlin Funkhouser, Edgar County Board Member 

Karen Halloran, Edgar County Circuit Clerk 

Ben Jenness, Edgar County Board Member 

James Keller, Edgar County Board Member 

Rebecca Kraemer, Edgar County Clerk and Recorder 

Jeff Poynter, Edgar County Board Member 

Dale Rasmussen, Edgar County Highway 

Department 

Monte Spillman, Edgar County Board Member 

Matthew Sullivan, Edgar County, State's Attorney 

Peter Templeton, Edgar County Coroner 

Kevin Trogdon, Edgar County Board Member 

Dan Winans, Edgar County Board Member 

Don Wiseman, Edgar County, Treasurer 

Macon County, IL

Jack Ahola, Macon County, State's Attorney 

Keith Ashby, Macon County Board Member 

Stephen Bean, Macon County Clerk 

Bruce Bird, Macon County Highway Department 

Patricia Cox, Macon County Board Member 

Michael Day, Macon County Coroner 

Jerry Dawson, Macon County Sheriff 

David Drobisch, Macon County Board Member 

Jay Dunn, Macon County Board Member 

Mary Eaton, Macon County Recorder 

Steve Grimm, Macon County, Treasurer 

Phillip Hogan, Macon County Board Member 

Kathy Hott, Macon County Circuit Clerk 

Mervil Jacobs, Macon County Board Member 

Daniel Lightner, Macon County Planning and Zoning 

Linda Little, Macon County Board Member 

Joe McLaughlin, Macon County Board Member 

Kevin Meachum, Macon County Board Member 

Daysa Miller, Macon County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

William Oliver, Macon County Board Member 

Jerry Potts, Macon County Board Member 

Robert Sampson, Macon County Board Chairman 

Bryan Smith, Macon County Board Member 

John Snyder, Macon County Board Member 

Amy Stockwell, Macon County Auditor 

Verzel Taylor, Macon County Board Member 

Don Westerman, Macon County Board Member 

Melverta Wilkins, Macon County Board Member 

David Williams, Macon County Board Member 

David Wolfe, Macon County Board Member 

Edward Yoder, Macon County Board Member 

Karen Zaiz, Macon County Board Member 

Morgan County, IL

Dusty Douglas, Morgan County Regional Planning 

Commission 

Barbara Gross, Morgan County Clerk 

Calvin Hance, Morgan County Highway Department 

Gayla Hornbeek, Morgan County, Treasurer 

Jeff Lair, Morgan County Coroner 

Theresa Lonergan, Morgan County Circuit Clerk 

Bill Meier, Morgan County Commissioner 

Dick Rawlings, Morgan County Commissioner 

Chris Reif, Morgan County, State's Attorney 

James Robson, Morgan County Sheriff 

Allen Vogt, Morgan County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-7

Bradley Zeller, Morgan County Commissioner 

Moultrie County, IL

Arlene Aschermann, Moultrie County Board Member 

Cynthia Braden, Moultrie County Circuit Clerk 

Doug Delong, Moultrie County Highway Department 

Larry Edwards, Moultrie County Board Member 

Georgia England, Moultrie County Clerk/Recorder 

Bob Haegen, Regional Planning Commission - 

Moultrie County 

Marvin Hanson, Moutrie County, State's Attorney 

Bob Harris, Moultrie County Board Member 

Cindy Kidwell, Moutrie County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

David McCabe, Moultrie County Board Member 

Kevin McReynolds, Moultrie County Board Member 

Lynn Reed, Moultrie County Coroner 

Cheryl Rich, Moultrie County Board Member 

Gary Smith, Moultrie County Board Member 

Jeffrey Thomas, Moultrie County Sheriff 

Marci Thompson, Moutrie County, Treasurer 

Ron White, Moultrie County Board Member 

Gail Wolfe, Moultrie County Board Member 

Pike County, IL

Cleve Curry, Pike County Board Member 

Mr. Davenport, Pike County Board Member 

Debbie Dugan, Pike County Circuit Clerk 

Donnie Epps, Pike County Clerk/Recorder 

Jeff Gerard, Pike County, Treasurer 

Robert Kenn, Pike County Board Member 

Frank McCartney, Pike County, State's Attorney 

Mark Mountain, Pike County Board Member 

Don Peebles, Pike County Board Member 

Richard Peebles, Pike County Board Member 

Paul Petty, Pike County Coroner & Sheriff 

Randall W. Ruble, Pike County Local Emergency 

Planning Committee 

Sandy Schacht, Pike County Sheriffs Department 

Cindy Shaw, Pike County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

James Sheppard, Pike County Board Member 

Scott Syrcle, Pike County Board Chair 

Howard Timmons, Pike County Engineer 

Harry Wright, Pike County Board Member 

Sangamon County, IL

Joe Aiello, Sangamon County Clerk 

Susan Boone, Sangamon County Coroner 

John Buecker, Sangamon County Board Member 

Clyde Bunch, Sangamon County Board Member 

Tom Cavanagh, Sangamon County, Treasurer 

John Dawsko, Sangamon County Board Member 

Jennifer Dillman, Sangamon County Board Member 

Abe Forsyth, Sangamon County Board Member 

Harry Fraase, Sangamon County Board Member 

John Fulgenzi, Sangamon County Board Member 

Linda Fulgenzi, Sangamon County Board Member 

Andrew Goleman, Sangamon County Board Member 

Craig Hall, Sangamon County Board Member 

Dave Kamper, Sangamon County Board Member 

Dave Killiman, Springfield-Sangamon County 

Regional Planning Commission 

Mary Ann Lamm, Sangamon County Recorder 

Anthony Libri, Sangamon County Circuit Clerk 

Joe Lindley, Sangamon County, Supervisor of 

Assessments 

Rosemarie Long, Sangamon County Board Member 

Ryan McCardle, Sangamon County Administrator 

David Mendenhall, Sangamon County Board 

Member 

Sam Montalbano, Sangamon County Board Member 

Tim Moore, Sangamon County Board Member 

William Moss, Sangamon County Board Member 

Sarah Musgrave, Sangamon County Board Member 

John O'Neill, Sangamon County Board Member 

Paul Palazzolo, Sangamon County Auditor 

George Preckwinkle, Sangamon County Board 

Member 

John Schmidt, Sangamon County, State's Attorney 

Todd Smith, Sangamon County Board Member 

Sam Snell, Sangamon County Board Member 

Don Stephens, Sangamon County Board Member 

Greg Stumpf, Sangamon County Board Member 

Mike Sullivan, Sangamon County Board Member 

Joel Tjelmeland, Sangamon County Board Member 

Doris Turner, Sangamon County Board Member 

Andy VanMeter, Sangamon County Board Chairman 

Linda Douglas Williams, Sangamon County Board 

Member 

Neil Williamson, Sangamon County Sheriff 

Timothy Zahrn, Sangamon County Highway 

Department 

Scott County, IL

David Cherry, Scott County, State's Attorney 

Matthew Coultas, Scott County Engineer 

Joni Garrett, Scott County Circuit Clerk 

David King, Scott County Sheriff & Coroner 

Craig Lashmett, Scott County Board Member 

Eric Little, Scott County Board Member 

Barbara McDade, Scott County Clerk/Recorder 

Donna Montgomery, Scott County Treasurer 

Elmer Whitmer, Scott County Board Member 

Decatur County, IN

Ernest Gauck, Decatur County Council 

Kenny Hooten, Decatur County Council 

Geneva Hunt, Decatur County Council 

Rheadawn Metz, Decatur County Council 

Larry Meyer, Decatur County Council 

Kenneth Owens, Decatur County Council 

Franklin County, IN

Martha Bergman, Franklin County Council 

Larry J. Franzman, Franklin Planning Director 

Joe Gillespie, Franklin County Surveyor 

Jeff Koch, Franklin County Council 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-8

Carroll Lanning, Franklin County Council 

Eric Roberts, Franklin County Commissioner 

Kenneth Rosenberger, Franklin County Council 

Hollie Sintz, Franklin County Council 

Bradley Spurlock, Franklin County Council 

Don Vonder Meulen, Franklin County Commissioner 

Donald "Butch" Williams, Franklin County Council 

Thomas Wilson, Franklin County Commissioner 

 

Hendricks County, IN

Hursel Disney, Hendricks County Council 

Dave Gaston, Hendricks County Surveyor 

Kenneth Givan, Hendricks County Council 

Larry Hesson, Hendricks County Council 

Nancy Johnson, Hendricks County Council 

Phyllis Palmer, Hendricks County Commissioner 

Jay Puckett, Hendricks County Council 

Richard Thompson, Hendricks County Council 

Eric Wathen, Hendricks County Commissioner 

Brad Whicker, Hendricks County Council 

David Whicker, Hendricks County Commissioner 

Johnson County, IN

Beth Boyce, Johnson County Council 

Charles Canary, Johnson County Council 

Steve Hollenbeck, Johnson County Council 

Tom Kite, Johnson County Commissioner 

Anita Knowles, Johnson County Council 

Douglas Lechner, Johnson County Surveyor 

Josh McCarty, Johnson County Council 

R. J. McConnell, Johnson County Commissioner 

John Price, Johnson County Council 

Michael Ripley, Johnson County Commissioner 

Ronald West, Johnson County Council 

Morgan County, IN

Don Adams, Morgan County Council 

Terry Brock, Morgan County Surveyor 

Bryan Collier, Morgan County Council 

Brian Goss, Morgan County Commissioner 

Kenneth Hale, Morgan County Council 

James Hensley, Morgan County Council 

Robert O'Neal, Morgan County Council 

Paul Prather, Morgan County Council 

Jeffrey Quyle, Morgan County Commissioner 

Tony Ross, Morgan County Council 

Norman Voyles, Morgan County Commissioner 

Warren Waymire, Morgan County Soil and Water 

Conservation District 

Parke County, IN

Dale Crooks, Parke County Surveyor 

Roger Fisher, Parke County Council 

Larry Gambaiani, Parke County Council 

Dale Gerrish, Parke County Council 

Jim Meece, Parke County Commissioner 

George Nicholas, Parke County Commissioner 

John Pratt, Parke County Council 

James Rahn, Parke County Council 

Guy Max Williams, Parke County Council 

Putnam County, IN

Jim Baird, Putnam County Commissioner 

Gene Beck, Putnam County Commissioner 

H. Keith Berry, Putnam County Council 

Roger Deck, Putnam County Council 

Joseph Fogle, Putnam County Council 

Jim Malayer, Putnam County Farm Bureau 

Larry Parker, Putnam County Council 

David Penturf, Putnam County Surveyor 

Mitch Proctor, Putnam County Council 

Darrel Thomas, Putnam County Council 

Donald Walton, Putnam County Council 

Kristina Warren, Putnam County Commissioner 

Shelby County, IN

Margaret Brunk, Shelby County Council 

Robert Carmony, Shelby County Council 

Thomas DeBaun, Shelby County Council 

Brent Fuchs, Shelby County Council 

Tami Grubbs, Shelby County Council 

Roger Laird, Shelby County Commissioner 

David Mohr, Shelby County Commissioner 

Tony Newton, Shelby County Commissioner 

Linda Sanders, Shelby County Council 

Terry Smith, Shelby County Council 

Taylor Sumerford, Shelby County Surveyor 

Vermillion County, IN

John Cheesewright, Vermillion County Council 

Ed Cole, Vermillion County Economic Development 

Michael Costello, Vermillion County Council 

Harry Crossley, Vermillion County Commissioner 

Fred Daniels, Vermillion County Council 

Jared Dreher, Vermillion County Surveyor 

Jerry Hawkins, Vermillion County Council 

Dennis Marietta, Vermillion County Commissioner 

Lavonna Mattick, Vermillion County Council 

Timothy Wilson, Vermillion County Commissioner 

John Yoho, Vermillion County Council 

Audrain County, MO

Thomas Groves, Audrain County Commission 

Richard Webber, Audrain County Commission 

Roger Young, Audrain County Commission 

Pike County, MO

 

Danny Miller, Pike County Commission 

Curt Mitchell, Pike County Commission 

Paul Niemeyer, Pike County Water District 

Roy Sisson, Pike County Commission 

Ralls County, MO

George Lane, Ralls County Commission 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-9

James Thompson, Ralls County Commission 

Steven Whitaker, Ralls County Commission 

Belmont County, OH

Fred F. Bennet, Belmont County Engineer 

Joseph A. Gaudio, Belmont County Treasurer 

Gordie W. Longshaw, Belmont County 

Mary C. Nixon, Belmont County Recorder 

Joesph Pappano, Belmont County Auditor 

Charles R. Probst, Belmont County 

Mark A. Thomas, Belmont County 

Butler County, OH

The Board of County Commissioners of Butler 

County, Ohio 

Cindy Carpenter, Butler County Clerk of Courts 

Danny Crank, Butler County Recorder 

Donald Dixon, Butler County Commissioner 

Charles Furmon, Butler County 

Greg Jolivette, Butler County 

Nancy Nix, Butler County Treasurer 

Kay Rogers, Butler County Auditor 

Gregory Wilkens, Butler County Engineer 

Clinton County, OH

Wanda Armstrong, Clinton County Auditor 

Joyce Atley, Clinton County Treasurer 

Joann Chamberlin, Clinton County Clerk of Courts 

Mike Curry, Clinton County 

Lisa Hipke, Clinton County 

Brenda J. Huff, Clinton County Recorder 

Darleen Myers, Clinton County 

Randy Riley, Clinton County 

David R. Stewart, Clinton County Commissioner 

William Temple, Clinton County Engineer 

Fairfield County, OH

Frank Anderson, Fairfield County 

Barbara Curtis, Fairfield County Auditor 

Brooks Davis, Fairfield County Regional Planning 

Commission 

George Hallaran, Fairfield County 

Lindel Jackson, Fairfield County Department of 

Service and Safety 

Mike Kiger, Fairfield County 

Jon Myers, Fairfield County 

Perry Orndorff, Fairfield Soil and Water Conservation 

Judith Shupe, Fairfield County 

Jon Slater, Fairfield County Treasurer 

Gene Wood, Fairfield County Recorder 

Fayette County, OH

Tony Anderson, Fayette County 

Jack DeWeese, Fayette County 

Susan Dunn, Fayette County Treasurer 

Steven Luebee, Fayette County Engineer 

Bob Peterson, Fayette County 

Michael D. Smith, Fayette County Auditor 

Cathy Templin, Fayette County Recorder 

Greene County, OH

Alan Anderson, Greene County Commissioner 

Luwanna Delaney, Greene County Auditor 

Robert Geyer, Greene County Engineer 

Ralph Harper, Greene County 

Mary Morris, Greene County Recorder 

Rick Perales, Greene County 

James Schmidt, Greene County Treasurer 

Guernsey County, OH

Steve Allen, Guernsey County 

Anthony Brown, Guernsey County Auditor 

James Caldwell, Guernsey County Treasurer 

Delmar George, Guernsey County Engineer 

Dave Gombeda, Guernsey County Commissioner 

Thomas Laughman, Guernsey County 

Colleen Doutt Wheatley, Guernsey County Recorder 

Monroe County, OH

Francis Block, Monroe County 

Judy Gramlich, Monroe County Treasurer 

Pandora Neuhart, Monroe County Auditor 

John Pyles, Monroe County Commissioner 

Martha Louise Reid, Monroe County Recorder 

Bill Thompson, Monroe County Commissioner 

Lonnie Tustin, Monroe County Engineer 

Morgan County, OH

Dean Cain, Morgan County 

Rebecca Cooley, Morgan County Recorder 

Stevan Hook, Morgan County Engineer 

Donald Reynolds, Morgan County Commissioner 

Rick Shriver, Morgan County 

Kaye Tatman, Morgan County Treasurer 

Gary Woodward, Morgan County Auditor 

Warren Waymire, Morgan Soil and Water 

Conservation 

 

Muskingum County, OH

John Bates, Muskingham County Recorder 

Doug Davis, Muskingham County Engineer 

Brian Hill, Muskingham County 

Dorothy Montgomery, Muskingham County 

Phillip Murphy, Muskingham County Treasurer 

Noble County, OH

John Carter, Noble County Commissioner 

Charles Cowgill, Noble County 

John Foreman, Noble County Engineer 

Becky Hendershot, Noble County Treasurer 

Phyllis Stritz, Noble County Recorder 

Virgil Thompson, Noble County Commissioner 

Alice Warner, Noble County 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-10

Perry County, OH

Kenton Cannon, Perry County 

Thad Cooperrider, Perry County 

Barbara Fox, Perry County Recorder 

Larry Householder, Perry County Auditor 

Fred Shriner, Perry County 

Lonnie Wood, Perry County 

Pickaway County, OH

Melissa Betz, Pickaway County Auditor 

Ellery Elick, Pickaway County Treasurer 

Joyce Gifford, Pickaway County Recorder 

Ula Jean Metzler, Pickaway County 

Robert Parker, Pickaway County Engineer 

Glenn Reeser, Pickaway County 

Jay Wippel, Pickaway County 

Warren County, OH

James Aumann, Warren County Treasurer 

Tina Davis, Warren County Clerk 

Beth Deckard, Warren County Recorder 

Larry Easterly, Warrne County Parks 

Michael Kilburn, Warren County 

Nick Nelson, Warren County Auditor 

Pat Arnold South, Warren County 

Neil Tunison, Warren County Engineer 

David Young, Warren County 

TOWN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Illinois

James Allman, Monticello City Council 

Helen Baldwin, Jacksonville Alderman 

Fred Barrett, Shiloh Township 

David A. Beck, Auburn Township 

Paul Belobrajdic, Jacksonville Alderman 

Larry Bonn, Pleasant View Township 

Tom Bozarth, Taylorville Alderman 

D.L. Bradshaw, Jacksonville Alderman 

Jerry Branson, Paris City Council Member 

George R. Brown, Divernon Township 

Jack Brown, Taylorville Alderman 

Michael Brown, Monticello City Council Member 

Sam Cahnman, Springfield Alderman 

Michael Carrigan, Decatur City Council Member 

Dan Caulkins, Decatur City Council Member 

Dan Chamberlin, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Debbie Cimarossa, Springfield Alderman 

Dan Cleland, Tuscola City Council Member 

Ernest Cleveland, Waverly Mayor 

Mike Coop, Jacksonville Alderman 

Chris Corrie, Monticello City Council Member 

Gary Cummins, Embarrass Township 

Eugene Damon, Atlas Township 

Jim Daniels, Jacksonville Alderman 

Tim Davlin, Springfield Mayor 

Cheryl Day, Winchester Alderman 

Bernard Declerck, Stonington Township 

Douglas Delaunois, Elbridge Township 

Ernie Dorchinecz, Taylorville Alderman 

Steve Dove, Springfield Alderman 

Phil Dunn, Winchester Alderman 

William Eddinger, Unit Road District #5 

Frank Edwards, Springfield Alderman 

Randy Edwards, Unit Road District #11 

Shad Edwards, Decatur City Council Member 

Richard Ervin, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Larry Evans, Jacksonville Alderman 

Dave Farris, City of Springfield, EH&S 

Roger Faulk, Paris City Council Member 

J.D. Fearneyhough, Unit Road District #4 

Francis Fitzgerald, Murrayville Village Clerk 

Steve Fox, Tuscola City Council Member 

Steve Frank, City of Springfield, Supervisor of Land 

and Water Resources 

Steve Garman, Decatur City Manager 

Frank Givens, Paris City Council Member 

William Graham 

Tom Gray, Chatham Village President 

Tim Griffin, Springfield Alderman 

Tom Grojean, Jacksonville Alderman 

Bill Hagen, Sullivan City Council Member 

John Hale, Prairie Township 

Robert Alan Hale, Edgar Township 

Larry Harbison, Unit Road District #3 

John Hayden, Pittsfield Mayor 

Tim Hayes, Monticello City Council 

Tom Helm, Montezuma Township 

Boyd Henderson, Tuscola City Council 

David Hill, Ross Township 

Jim Hill, Jacksonville Alderman 

Kevin Hiller, Monticello City Council 

J. Drew Hoel, Tuscola City Manager 

Harry Hughes, Paris City Council Member 

Michael D. Hutchins, Mosquito Township 

E. Elton Ingram, Ross Township 

Clifford E. Johnson, Lowe Township 

Bruce Jones, Taylorville Alderman 

Steve Jones, Camargo Township 

Charles Kelly, Spring Creek Township 

Olen D. Kibler, Newman Township 

Ronald Kinnaman, Brouilletts Creek Township 

Mike Kirk, Sullivan City Council Member 

Daniel J. Kleiss, Tuscola Mayor 

Vince Kuetemeyer, Monticello City Council Member 

Frank Kunz, Springfield Alderman 

Stephen Ladage, Talkington Township 

Patrick Laegeler, Decatur City Council Member 

Judy Landeck, Tuscola City Council Member 

Jeff Lane, Sullivan City Council Member 

Stanley Lederbrand, Pawnee Township 

Frank Lesko, Springfield Alderman 

Norman L. Lillpop, Milam Township 

J.A. Lowe, Martinsburg Township 

Mark Mahoney, Springfield Alderman 

Orvil "Punch" Martin, Marrowbone Township 

Martinsburg Mayor 

Frank Mathon, Taylorville Mayor 

Marty Mau, Ball Township 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-11

Scott McCleery, Winchester Alderman 

Mike McElroy, Decatur City Council Member 

Mike McHale, Monticello City Council 

Bill McLaughlin, Winchester Alderman 

John McNary, Regional Superintendent of Schools 

Michael Meyer, Tuscola Township 

Bill Mitze, Monticello Mayor 

Montezuma Mayor 

William Moore, Mount Auburn Township 

Mike Mossman, Sullivan City Council Member 

William Murray 

Dave Newman, Winchester Mayor 

Paul Osborne, Decatur Mayor 

David Owen, Chrisman Mayor 

Earl Peterson, South Wheatland Township 

John Podeschi, Taylorville Alderman 

Jerry Potts, Mount Zion Township, Village 

Administrator 

Phil Pratt, Winchester Alderman 

Charles Ratliff, Jr., Unit Road District #1 

E. Phillip Revis, Blue Mound Township 

Bill Richardson, Dora Township 

Jeff Richey, Taylorville Alderman 

Donald Robinson, Mt. Zion Mayor 

Chuck Rose 

Archie Ruble, Hardin Township 

Larry Ruble, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Bill Scheiwe, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Tim Seip, Tuscola City Council Member 

Shiloh Township 

Ann Short, Sullivan Mayor 

Gail Simpson, Springfield Alderman 

David Slaughter, Tuscola City Council Member 

Bruce Smith, Pleasant Hill Township 

Craig Smith, Paris Mayor 

Darryl Smith, City of Franklin Mayor 

Monte Smith, Winchester Alderman 

Steve Smothers, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Richard Stevens, Jacksonville Alderman 

Betsy Stockard, Decatur City Council Member 

Duane E. Stone, Unit Road District #13 

Madonna Strawn, Cotton Hill Township 

Rod Sturgen, Alsey Mayor Village President 

Edward Swisher, Garrett Township 

Ron Tendick, Jacksonville Mayor 

Kris Theilen, Springfield Alderman 

Phyllis Truitt, Tuscola City Council Member 

Pete Vanderkloot, Monticello City Council 

Bob Vukelich, Tuscola City Council Member 

Ed Weybright, Blue Mound Mayor 

John E. Wheeler, Mount Zion Township 

Perry Wheeler, Pearl Township 

Don Williams, Taylorville Alderman 

Tony Williams, Jacksonville Alderman 

Robert Wilson, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Duane Winter, Unit Road District #9 

Scott Wise, South Macon Township 

Kevin Wombles, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Robert Wood, Pittsfield City Council Member 

Shane Workman, Chatham Township 

Terry Wright, Taylorville Alderman 

Indiana

 

Michael Buening, Franklin City Engineer 

Shannon L. Buskirk, Martinsville Mayor 

Dennis Capozzi, Whiteland Town Manager 

Rich Carlucci, Plainfield Town Manager 

Joe Ciskos, City of Franklin, Department of Planning 

Allen Cobb, Montezuma Town Council 

Joseph Csikos, City of Franklin, Department of 

Planning 

Tim Currens, Council Lawyer 

Edinburgh Community School Corporation 

Rick Fledderman, Mayor - Batesville 

Roger Ford, Whiteland Town Council 

Scot Ford, Whiteland Plan Commission 

Scott Furgeson, Shelbyville Mayor 

Jason Hartman, Bainbridge Clerk & Treasurer 

Charles Henderson, Greenwood Mayor 

Brenda Jones-Matthews, Franklin Mayor 

Laura Lowe, Bargersville Town Council 

Frank P. Manus, Greensburg Mayor 

Mike McCarthy, Bargersville Town Manager 

Nancy Michael, Greencastle Mayor 

Town of Mooresville 

Kathy Morgan, Montezuma Town Council 

Tom Warthen, Mooresville Town Council President 

Missouri

Raymond Barnes, Vandalia Mayor 

Billy Perkins, Bowling Green Mayor 

Virginia Robertson, Mexico Mayor 

Alan Winders, City of Vandalia 

Ohio

Richard Anders, Jasper Township 

Dwight Andrews, City of Lancaster, Council-At-Large 

Henry J. Angelo, City of Woodsfield 

John Apperson, Richland Township (Guernsey) 

George Arledge, Chester Township 

Jeffery Aylor, City of Lebanon Council Member 

Loron Baker, Sunsbury Township 

Delmas Ball, Westland Township 

The Village of Barnesville 

Rose Bates, Wayne Township 

Burton Beardsley, Harrison Township 

James Beathard, Jackson Township 

Katherine A. Becker, City of Hamilton 

James Bell, Jefferson Township 

Stephen Bell, Harrison Township 

Donald Berry, St. Clair Township Trustee 

Dale Betts, Somerset Township 

Randy Beyer, Richland Township Trustee 

Gayle Blankenship, City of Ashville Council Member 

Diane Blattler, Somerset Township 

Richard Bowers, Brush Creek Township 

Blue Rock Township 

Amy Brewer, City of Lebanon 

Max Brill, Rich Hill Township 

Gayle Brown, City of Bloomingburg 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-12

Patricia Bruhn, City of St. Clairsville, Council 

President 

Gary Buchanan, Salt Creek Township 

Marc Cain, City of Ashville 

City of Caldwell 

Doug Cannon, City of Crooksville 

Village of Carlisle 

Rick Carpenter, Beaver Township 

Ellis Christman, Millwood Township 

Jim D. Chrisman, City of Washington Court House, 

Council Member 

Franklin Christman, Walnut Township Administrator 

Douglas Clark, Harrison Township 

Timothy L. Claypool, Hocking Township Trustee 

Ronnie Clifton, Muhlenberg Township 

Darryl Coffman, Wayne Township 

James E. Coffman, Wayne Township Trustee 

Ben Cole, City of Lebanon Council Member 

Steve Collett, Chester Township 

James V. Collins, Massie Township Trustee 

Jewel Collins, St. Clair Township Trustee 

Wilbur C. Conley, Massie Township Trustee 

Dennis H. Conrad, Reily Township Trustee 

Janine Conrad, City of New Lexington 

Fred Cook, Paint Township 

Lloyd E. Cook, Township Trustee 

lloyd E. Cook, Walnut Township 

Robert Copeland, Morgan Township Trustee 

Robert Copeland, Morgan Township Trustee 

Gary Couch, St. Clair Township Trustee 

David Crisenbery, Massie Township Trustee 

Elsa Croucher, Lemon Township Trustee 

Laura L. Curliss, City of Wilmington 

Alan Daniel, Madison Township Trustee 

Tim Danielson, Harrison Township 

Phyllis Darragh, Franklin Township Trustee 

Patrick M. Davidson, Wayne Township Trustee 

William Davis, Wayne Township 

Clayton Dawson, Rich Hill Township 

Kevin Deal, Salt Creek Township 

Roger A. Deal, Village of Barnesville 

Joesph Denen, City of Washington Court House, City 

Manager 

Timothy S. Derickson, Hanover Township Trustee 

Jerry Dettra, Richland Township 

Curt Ditter, Brush Creek Township 

Freddie Dixon, Harrison Township 

David Dorn, Madison Township 

Donald Dornon, Sunsbury Township 

Kristine Dorsey, Harrison Township 

Jean Droste, City of Circleville 

Elizabeth Duche, Richland Township 

Joyce Dunn, Switzerland Township 

Daniel Durant, Wayne Township 

Gary Earley, Liberty Township 

Donald E. Edwards, Wayne Township Trustee 

Gail V. Ellinger, Hocking Township Trustee 

Garrison Emery, Beaver Township 

James Emmert, Reading Township 

Timothy Emmert, Reading Township 

Fred S. Ertel, City of Wilmington, President of Council 

Lee Esprit, City of Xenia, President of Council 

Ivan Ety, Liberty Township 

Richard Fisher, Clayton Township 

Christopher D. Flaig, City of Hamilton Council 

Member 

Charleen Mehaffie Flick, City of Lebanon Council 

Member 

Linda Fliehman, Jefferson Township 

Tim L. Fogt, City of Washington Court House 

Larry Forgrave, Reading Township 

Darren Founds, Rich Hill Township 

City of Franklin 

Rhonda Freeze, City of Trenton 

Larry Frimerman, Oxford Township 

Dan R. George, Turtlecreek Township Trustee 

Village of Germantown 

Matthew Gibson, Jackson Township 

Paul Gillespie, Milford Township Trustee 

Glenarm 

Chester Gloyd, City of Ashville Council Member 

Loretta Goddard, Washington Township 

Dave Gombeda, Jackson Township 

Daniel Green, Jackson Township (Pickaway) 

Elizabeth Hadley, Liberty Township 

Rick Hagan, Wayne Township 

George C. Hallarn, Greenfield Township Trustee 

Ruth Hampp, Blue Rock Township (Muskingum) 

Harrison Township 

Rebecca Harrison, Clay Township 

Ted Hawk, City of Washington Court House, Council 

Member 

Dwight E. Hedrick, City of Washington Court House, 

Council Member 

Ronald Hendershot, Switzerland Township 

Bruce Henry, Hanover Township Administrator 

Roger Hickman, Wayne Township 

Fritz Highley, Pleasant Township Trustee 

Harry Hiles, City of Lancaster 

Harry Hiles, Councilman Fifth Ward 

Patrick Hiltman, Liberty Township Trustee 

John Robert Hizey, Greenfield Township Trustee 

Ed Hlad, Jackson Township 

Bob Hoelle, Wayne Township Trustee 

Robert Hoelle, Wayne Township 

George Hoover, Sunsbury Township 

Barbara Hopper, City of Ashville Council Member 

Jeffery Hoppes, Jefferson Township 

Darryl Huff, Morgan Township Trustee 

Robert Huffer 

Robert A. Ison, Milford Township Trustee 

Steve Jackson, City of Lancaster Council-At-Large 

Steven R. Jennings, City of Washington Court House, 

Council Chairman 

Doug Johnson, Hanover Township Trustee 

Dan Jones, Turtlecreek Township Trustee 

Paul Kanzigg, Washington Township 

Kenneth Kelly, Paint Township 

Robin Kelly, Westland Township 

William T. Kennel, Wayne Township Trustee 

William Kennel, Wayne Township Trustee 

Andrew Kenney, Wilson Township 

David Kern, Liberty Township Trustee 

Robert Kindelberger, Sunsbury Township 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-13

Becky King, Clayton Township 

Ann Kitzmiler, City of Lancaster, Councilman Third 

Ward 

Mark Klingler, Jefferson Township 

Bruce Knipe, Rich Hill Township 

Jerry Koblentz, Clayton Township 

Joseph J. Kremmerer, Pleasant Township 

Joseph J. Kemmerer, Township Trustee 

Dale Lamb, Clearcreek Township 

Carol Langley, Jasper Township 

Jerry Lanich, St. Clair Township (Butler) 

Richard Lehman, Switzerland Township 

Rob Leichman, City of Trenton 

Tina Leisure, Wilson Township 

Carl Lindsey, Muhlenberg Township 

Thomas Lindsey, Madison Township 

Tim Linkhorn, Liberty Township 

Jerry Lippert, Millwood Township 

Jay Liver, City of Hamilton 

Dale E. Lynch, City of Washington Court House, 

Council Member 

Dolores Mahon, Harrison Township 

Donna Mallett, Jackson Township 

Brad Markwood, Richland Township Trustee 

Gary Mason, Liberty Township 

Christine Matacic, Liberty Township Trustee 

Duane Matthews, Paint Township 

Deloris Mayhaughn, Harrison Township (Muskingum) 

Joesph McAbee, Fairfield Township Trustee 

Junior McCutcheon, Harrison Township 

Greg McDonald, Clearcreek Township Trustee 

James McDonough, Oxford Township 

Louis McFarland, City of Circleville 

William McGuire, Madison Township Board of 

Trustees 

Earl McIntire, Spencer Township 

Russell McMillian, Milford Township Trustee 

George V. McNally, City of Hamilton Council Member 

John Melvin, Madison Township 

Jim Miller, Amanda Township 

Kevin Miller, Clay Township 

Matt Miller, Clay Township 

Tim Miller, Reily Township Trustee 

Dina Minneci, Liberty Township Administrator 

Eugene Mock, Salt Creek Township 

Pat Moeller, City of Hamilton Council Member 

Village of Monroe 

Jeffery Monroe, City of Lebanon Council Member 

Nancy Montell, Liberty Township 

Carol Moore, Bloom Township 

Gary Moore, Monroe Township 

Jeff Moore, Wayne Township 

Keith Moore, City of Ashville Council Member 

Michael Moore, Beaver Township 

Stacy Moore, Wayne Township 

Terry Moore, City of Ashville Council Member 

Steve Morgan, Fairfield Township Trustee 

Bill Myers, Rushcreek Township Trustee 

David L. Myers, Rushcreek Township Trustee 

Nancy Myers, Richland Township (Guernsey) 

Charles Neptune, Westland Township 

James R. Noonan, City of Hamilton Council Member 

James Norris, City of Lebanon Council Member 

Brian Oliver, Richland Township Trustee 

Phyllis Pennewitt, City of Xenia 

Merle Perkins, Washington Township 

Keith Peters, Harrison Township 

David Petty, Bloom Township Trustee 

Richard Phillips, Monroe Township 

Dennis Pickett, Clearcreek Township Administrator 

Robert Plaisted, Clayton Township 

Nancy Poe, Morgan Township Trustee 

Mark Pontius, Amanda Township 

Walter Edward Pool, Rushcreek Township Trustee 

Walter D. Pool, Township Trustee 

Barney Printz, Harrison Township 

Jack Pursley, Jasper Township 

Michael Rahall, Fairfield Township Administrator 

David L. Raizk, City of Wilmington 

Carol Ramsey, Walnut Township 

Brian E. Randles, Bloom Township Trustee 

Robert Rasor, Jackson Township 

Tim Ratliff, Greenfield Township Trustee 

Brian Reed, Jefferson Township 

Russell Rich, Chester Township 

Greg Rinehart, Wayne Township 

Benjamin G. Roby, City of Washington Court House, 

Council Vice-Chairman 

Matt Rodriguez, City of Lebanon Council Member 

Larry Roe, Richland Township 

Ted Rogers, Monroe Township 

Elmo Rose, Franklin Township Trustee 

Village of Roseville 

Michael Rossi, Lemon Township Trustee 

Ron W. Ruppert, Franklin Township Trustee 

Donald V. Ryan, City of Hamilton 

Sam Salupo, City of Cambridge 

Ed Sampson, Westland Township 

Amy Schenck, Madison Township 

Paul Schorr, City of West Rushville 

Mayor Paul Schorr 

Nicholas (Nick) Schwab, Reily Township Trustee 

Danny Searls, Wayne Township 

Doug Shaw, Hocking Township Trustee 

Vicky Sheets, Monroe Township 

Edward Shelton, City of Hamilton Council Member 

Fred Shimp, City of Cambridge, President of Council 

Janice L. Siefert, Pleasant Township Trustee 

David S. Smith, City of Lancaster 

Fred Smith, Switzerland Township 

John Smith, City of Lancaster, Councilman First 

Ward 

Joseph E. Smith, Bloom Township Trustee 

Robert Snook, Lemon Township Trustee 

James Snyder, Pleasant Township 

Gary Solman, Oxford Township 

Sara Sowers, Brush Creek Township 

Warren Spangler, Walnut Township Trustee 

Gail Stalder, Madison Township Trustee 

Rick Stanforth 

Robert Steele, Jefferson Township 

Jeffery Stephens, Millwood Township 

Sandy Stevens, Turtlecreek Township 

John Stevenson 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-14

Fred Stitssinger, Hanover Township Trustee 

Tom Stoughton, City of Lancaster, Councilman 

Fourth Ward 

Jesse Street, Washington Township 

Shawn O. Strosnider, Madison Township Trustee 

Ronald Stryker, Liberty Township 

R. Stan Summers, Muhlenberg Township 

Mark Sutton, Fairfield Township Trustee 

Ann Sweeney, Reading Township 

Carl Tatman, City of Lancaster Council President 

Tim Taylor, Wayne Township Trustee 

Ed Teets, Morgan Township Zoning Office 

Ron Thornberry, Sommerset Township Trustee 

Ronald Thornberry, Somerset Township 

Patrick Titterington, City of Trenton 

Rudy Touvell, City of Lancaster, Councilman Sixth 

Ward 

Suzanne Trego, Harrison Township 

Melissa Tremblay, Amanda Township 

Bill Truck, Middletown Chamber of Commerce 

Gerald Tyo, Wayne Township 

Jim VanDeGrift, Turtlecreek Township Trustee 

John Van Wey, Clay Township 

Robert Vincenzo, City of St. Clairsville 

Ed Wade, Clearcreek Township 

Dwight Walter, Madison Township Trustee 

Jomi Ward, Jefferson Township 

Robert Ward, Madison Township Trustee 

Alice Warner 

Wayne Township Trustees 

Nancy Wehr, Beaver Township 

Richard Weingart, Spencer Township 

Bob Wells, City of Middletown 

Jay Welsh, Jackson Township 

Paul Welsh, Harrison Township 

Krista West, Wayne Township 

William West, Wayne Township 

Ed Wetherell, Madison Township Trustee 

George Wharton, Amanda Township 

Paul Whittington, Wilson Township 

Ronald L. Wilhelm, Clearcreek Township Assistant 

Administrator/Public Safety 

Randy Williams, Salt Creek Township 

Thomas E. Wilsey, Ross Township Trustee 

Michael Wilson, Brush Creek Township 

J. Winland, Somerset Township 

Chuck Wise, City of Ashville 

Richard Wood, Jasper Township 

Jerry Woodgeard, City of Lancaster Council-At-Large 

Chris Wright, Jefferson Township 

Rebecca Writsel, Muhlenberg Township 

Raymond Wurzelbacher, Ross Township Trustee 

Nate Wutrick, Spencer Township 

John Yanosik, Millwood Township 

Dale Yerian, Spencer Township 

Ellen Yordy, Ross Township Trustee 

Charles Young, City of Hamilton 

City of Zanesville 

John Zekas, City of Lancaster, Councilman Second 

Ward 

Howard Zwelling, City of Zanesville 

LIBRARIES

District of Columbia

Library of Congress 

Illinois

Decatur Public Library 

Elizabeth Titus Memorial Library 

Jacksonville Public Library 

Lincoln Library 

Paris Carnegie Public Library 

Pittsfield Public Library 

Taylorville Public Library 

Tuscola Public Library 

Winchester Public Library 

Indiana

Brookville Community Library 

Danville Public Library - Hendricks County 

Franklin - Johnson County 

Greensburg Library - Decatur County 

Main Branch - Morgan County 

New Port-Vermillion - Vermillion County 

Putnam County Library - Putnam County 

Rockville Public Library - Parke County 

Shelby County Library - Shelby County 

Missouri

Bowling Green Free Public Library 

Mexico Branch 

Ralls County Public Library 

Ohio

Caldwell Public Library 

Carnegie Public Library - Washington C.H. 

Fairfield County District Library 

Greene County Public Library- Xenia 

Guernsey County District Public Library 

Hamilton Main Library 

Kate Love Simpson - Morgan County Public Library 

Lebanon Public Library 

Monroe County District Public Library 

Muskingham County Library- Zanesville 

Perry County District Library 

Pickaway County District Public Library 

St. Clairsville Public Library 

Wilmington Public Library of Clinton County 

MEDIA

Colorado

Sandy Shore, The Associated Press 

District of Columbia

Lauren O’Neil, Energy Intelligence Press 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-15

Illinois

Arcola Record-Herald 

Arthur Graphic-Clarion 

Assumption Golden Prairie News 

Atwood Herald 

Auburn Citizen 

Barry 

Blue Mound Leader 

Bluffs Tri-County Times 

Champaign News-Gazette 

Charleston Times-Courier 

Chatham Clarion 

Chrisman Leader 

Danville Commercial News 

Decatur Herald and Review 

Decatur Tribune 

Divernon News 

Edinburg Herald-Star 

Farm Week 

Franklin Times 

Georgetown Independent News 

Illinois Times 

Illiopolis Sentinel 

Jacksonville Journal-Courier 

KHQA 

Mattoon Journal-Gazette 

Morrisonville Times 

Mt. Zion Region News 

New Berlin County Tribune 

Newman Independent 

Pana News-Palladium 

Paris Beacon News 

Pawnee Post 

Pike Press 

Pleasant Hill Weekly Messenger 

Pleasant Plains Press 

Quincy Herald-Whig 

Riverton Register 

Scott County Times 

State Journal-Register 

Sullivan News-Progress 

Taylorville Breeze-Courier 

Tuscola Review 

Villa Grove News 

Virden Recorder 

Waverly Journal 

WAND 

WBBA 

WBGL 

WBUI 

WCIA 

WDWS 

WDZ 

WEFT 

WEIC 

WEIU 

WEJT 

WFMB 

WGCA 

WGEM 

WICD 

WICS 

WJIL 

WKIO 

WLBH 

WLDS 

WLRW 

WMAY 

WPGU 

WPRS 

WSOY 

WTAD 

WTAX 

WTIM 

WUIS 

Indiana

Banner-Graphic 

Brookville Democrat 

Daily Journal 

Danville Republican 

Franklin Challenger 

Greensburg Daily News 

Hendricks County Flyer 

Indiana Business Journal 

Indianapolis Star - Daily Newspaper 

Inside Indiana Business 

Martinsville Reporter Times 

Parke County Sentinel 

Shelbyville News 

The Herald-Tribune 

The Hoosier State Press Assn. 

The Shelbyville News 

The Times 

WENS-FM - Shelbyville 

WFBQ-FM - Indianapolis 

WFCI 

WFMS-FM - Indianapolis 

WGRE 

WIBC-AM - Indianapolis 

WIJY 

WISH-TV - Indianapolis 

WKWH 

WREB 

WRTV-TV - Indianapolis 

WTHR-TV - Indianapolis 

WTPI-FM - Indianapolis 

WTRE 

WTTV-TV - Indianapolis 

 

Missouri

Bowling Green Times 

Louisiana Press-Journal 

Hannibal Courier-Post 

Mexico Ledger 

New London Ralls Co. Herald-Enterprise 

Vandalia Leader 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-16

Ohio

Barnesville Enterprise 

Cincinnati Business Courier 

Dayton Business Journal 

Dresden Transcript 

Journal-Leader 

Marietta Times 

Morgan County Herald 

New Concord Leader 

Perry County Tribune 

Pulse-Journal 

Springfield News-Sun 

The Cincinnati Enquirer 

The Cincinnati Post 

The Circleville Herald 

The Columbus Dispatch 

The Daily Jeffersonian 

The Dayton Daily News 

The Eagle Gazette 

The Journal-News 

The Middletown Journal 

The News Record 

The Star Republican 

The Times Leader 

The Times Recorder 

The Western Star 

The Wilmington News-Journal 

The Xenia Daily-Gazette 

Washington C.H. Record Herald 

WCPO-TV 

Yellow Springs News 

ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

Alabama

Gail E. Dunn 

Arizona

Franklin D. Clayton Trust 

Harriet L. Etter 

 

California

Bruce Ballard 

Bruce Ballard Trust 

Debbie A. Helms 

Roberta Anne Richmond 

The Roberta Richmond Trust 

Colorado

Jones H. Eliz Atkinson Life Estate 

Diane Burrell Ratliff 

David R. Coblentz 

Leah Coblentz 

Richard Derryberry, Colorado Interstate Gas 

Company, Wyoming Interstate Company, LTD, 

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC 

Jones H. Elizabeth Trust 

Terry D. Martin Jr. 

Pete Morton, The Wilderness Society 

Craig V Richardson, Colorado Interstate Gas 

Company, Wyoming Interstate Company, LTD, 

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC 

Keith M Sappenfield, EnCana Corporation 

 

District of Columbia

Jon L Brunenkant, Brunenkant & Cross, LLP 

Lynn Carpenter, The Wildlife Management Institute 

David D'Alessandro, Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP 

William F Demarest, Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin 

LLP 

Joel L Greene, Jennings, Stross & Salmon, PLC 

Kenneth W Irvin, McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

Douglas John, John & Hengerer 

Carrie Martin, American Red Cross 

James T. McManus, Wright & Talisman, P.C. 

James F Moriarty, Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP 

J. Patrick Nevins, Hogan & Hartson LLP 

Dave Parker, American Gas Association 

C Todd Piczak, Hogan & Hartson LLP 

Sharon R Theodore, Columbia Gas Transmission 

Corporation 

Steven A Williams, Wildlife Management Institute 

Florida

Joseph L. Bearden 

U/T/A of Mary H. Bessone dated September 7, 1994 

Alice M. Clodfelter 

Max R. Clodfelter 

Max R. Clodfelter & Alice M. Clodfelter Joint 

Revocable Trust dated 09/29/95 

CSX Transportation, Inc. 

Richard A & Marian C Elkowitz Trust 

Helen C. Elliott 

Lotus H. Elliott 

Alicia Jacobs Hamilton 

Alicia Jacobs Hamilton 

Bert Hamilton 

Carolyn J. Harshey 

James D. Harshey 

J K J Inc. 

Benita B. Jacobs Trust 

Earl Paul Jacobs 

Merrill Stevens 

Rena Stevens 

Elizabeth Strong 

Elizabeth Ann Johnson Strong 

Lee Strong 

David L. Viars 

Lisa A. Viars 

WFLP Family Limited Partnership 

Helen O. Wilder Estate 

Tim A. Wilder 

 

Georgia

Kenton M. Frier 

Linda T. Frier 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-17

Idaho

Joyce A. Dunn 

Thomas Dunn 

Steve Schuh 

Illinois

American Red Cross 

Garland Akers 

Glen H. Alexander 

Glenn H. Alexander Life Estate 

Shirley Ann Alexander Life Estate 

Herman Allensworth 

Aaron Allison 

Linda Allison 

Mary J. Allison 

Donald E. Alvies 

Amy M. Anderson 

David Earl Anderson 

Sandra Sue Anderson 

E. Wayne Angel 

Ruth Ann Angel 

Jenny Antocacci, American Red Cross 

Dean H. Artman 

H. Dean Artman 

Charles J. Aschauer 

Dale E. Aupperle 

Paul C. Ayers 

Betty R. Bafford Trust dated September 23, 1996 

Fae L. Bafford Estate 

Donna J. Bailey 

Richard Bailey 

Bailey Baker 

Donna J. Baker 

Dale E. Barkley 

Diana K. Barkley 

John Barnett 

Jim Barr, Decatur Audubon Society 

The Clella Barrett Trust dated 6/1/98 

Clella Barrett Trust 

Janet L. Barrett 

John E. Barrett 

Bauer Phil, Inc. 

Frederick C. Bauer 

Glenna L. Bauer 

Janice Bauer 

John Andrew Bauer 

Ronnie Bauer 

John A. Bauer, Jr. 

David E. Beachy 

Emma Beachy 

Donna Leah Beerup 

Harry A. Best 

Richard Eric Bilbrey 

Sandra M. Bilbrey 

Jeffrey L. Birch 

Bruce H. Bird 

Jim Birge, Sangamon County Farm Bureau 

Jim Birge, Illinois Farm Bureau, Sangamon County 

Dick Bishop, Sierra Club, Prairie Group 

Micheal Blankenship 

Bledsoe Farm Management 

Carolyn Bollman 

Jerald D. Bollman 

Brady Borrowman 

Jason A. Bosch Farms, Inc. 

John M. Bosch Farms, Inc. 

Timothy M. Bosch Farms, Inc. 

Daniel Boston 

Steve Bright, Bright Farms 

Bruce A. Brockelsby 

Stephen O. Brockelsby 

Michael M. Brokaw 

Ralph K. Brooks 

Norma Jean Brothers 

Paul E. Brothers 

David Brown 

David B. Brown Revocable Living Trust 

Judith A. Brown 

Karen R. Brown 

M. Genevieve Brown Life Estate 

Mildred Genevieve Brown 

Robert H. Brown 

Roberta M. Brown 

Ronald J. Brown 

Stephen Brown 

Donald Bruder 

Mary A. Brunk 

John S. Bruntjen 

Larry Bumgarner 

Linda Bumgarner 

Eric Burbridge 

Bettie L. Burtle 

Donna J. Burtle 

Esther Burtle 

Robert J. Burtle 

Samuel J. Burtle 

Walter Jerome Burtle 

Julia Butler 

Paul Butler 

Brenda K. Campbell Revocable Trust 

Roy Campbell 

William Reginald Campbell Revocable Trust 

Jim Carleton, Morgan County Farm Bureau 

Carpenter's Acres, Inc., a Deleware Corporation 

Kenneth Carpenter 

William Carpenter 

Cindy Chamberlain 

Wayne Chamberlain 

Christian County Farmers’ Supply Company 

Rosemary Clark 

Wayne Robert Clark 

Rich Clemons, Illinois Farm Bureau 

Vickey Coccoluto 

Cold Run Creek, LLC 

Shirley Cohen 

Walter J. Coleman 

Donald Collard 

Connieland Farms, Inc. 

Sandra K. Cook 

William Coontz 

Louise Coop 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-18

Robert I. Corman Revocable Trust 

Charles C. Craver III 

Doris E. Creviston 

Patricia Susan Crow 

Wayne Keith Crow 

Aaron R. Dain Revocable Trust dated 3/17/98 

Ralph David Cruzan 

Alice Louisa Current 

Jewel Mae Danford 

Jack Darin, Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter 

Carol A. Davidson 

Charles S. Davidson 

Erwin B. Davidson 

Tina R. Davidson 

James R. Davis 

Jeffrey D. Davis 

Cheryl Day, Illinois Association of Fire Districts 

Eric Decher 

The Dennis Corporation 

James Derby 

Kathie Derby 

Jerry Dewitt 

Thomas Dewitt 

John Dickey, American Red Cross 

Stacy Dietz, Piatt County Farm Bureau 

Ronda Sue Dill 

Dorothy N. Dorsey 

Donald Dean Dowson 

Doyle Family Trust 

Kevin V. Dyer 

Lewis Richard Dyer 

Norma Jean Dyer 

Betty Edington 

Kenneth R. Edwards 

Larry Edwards 

Dennis Eller, American Red Cross 

Elliott and Follett Family Ag. Svs. 

Daniel E. Epperson 

Vicki J. Epperson 

Sue Ellen Fairfield 

Ginny Fanning, Jacksonville Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Christine Favilla, Sierra Club, Pisa Palisades Group 

Harold Fayl 

Federal National Mortgage Association 

George W. Fiersten 

First National Bank of Decatur Trust 4295 dated 

2/1/1995 

Willard G. Flagg Trust 

Barbara S. Fleenor 

Bill Fleischli, Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Robert Flider 

Calvin E. Forgy 

Judy H. Forgy 

Forsythe Family Farms II LLC 

Gerald R. Forsythe 

Bill Foster, Township Officials of Illinois 

Anne Fox, American Red Cross 

Randall S. Fransen, 

Linda Sue Frioli 

Deb Fruitt 

George F. Furnish 

Gerald L. Furnish 

Howard L. Furnish 

Larry L. Furnish 

Terry A. Furnish 

G & C Farms, Inc. 

GST Trust 

Lois Britton Garrett 

Nathan Garrett 

Joe M Geick 

Nancy E. Gerberding 

Richard German 

William K. Gibson 

Cheryl E. Ginder 

George David Ginder 

Joe M. Glick 

Dorothy J. Glintz Revocable Living Trust dated 

8/26/96 

Jonathon Goldman, Illinois Environmental Council 

Jim Graham 

Linda Grant 

Marcia Grant 

Robert B. Grant 

Greanis Farms 

Ann M. Griffeth 

Richard L. Griffeth 

Jake Gronewold, Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

Allen Grosboll, Environmental Groups 

William P. Gross 

Judith Guftafson 

Cathy L. Gunterman 

Edward L. Gunterman 

Gyorr Properties LLC 

William Hack Trust 

Carol L. Halloran 

Helen Hambuch 

Julie Hamm 

Thomas Ross Hamman 

Toni Hamman 

Morris Hardy 

Roger Hardy, Cass-Morgan Farm Bureau 

Virginia Hardy 

Colleen Harms 

David Harms 

Marja J. Harris 

Marja Harris Farms 

Harrison Farm Trust 

John Harrison Family Trust 

Mary Elizabeth Harrison 

Betty W. Harryman 

Rick L. Hartman 

Paul Hawkins 

Lyle Wesley Hayden 

F. Alan Heaton 

Heinz Farm 

Dennis A. Helms 

Dorothy Helms 

Charles Heminghous 

Sandra H. Heminghous 

Sandra L. Heminghous Trust 

Pamela Sue Hemingway 

Frank Heyler 

Charlotte A. Hill 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-19

Dianne Hill 

Howard B. Hill 

Larry Hill 

Ronald Hill 

Teresa Hill 

Michael C. Hogan 

Last Will and Testament of Paul M. Hogan 

Thomas J. Hogan 

John Holley, American Red Cross, Edgar County 

Ruth Holman 

Illinois National Bank 

Illinois Valley Paving Co. 

Catherine A. Ingram 

Deloris J. Ingram 

Gregory D. Ingram 

Michael D. Ingram 

Hazel F. Inman 

JDJ Farms LLC 

Bonnie Jacobs 

Richard L. Jacobs 

Charles Jared 

Patsy Jared 

Eric Johnson, Christian County Farm Bureau 

Larry Kallenbach 

Linda Kallenbach 

Velma Kallenbach 

W. A. Kamm 

Phillip C. Kappes 

Willard E. Kearns 

Don Kerley 

Jack F. Kerwin 

Lois K. Kesterson 

Connie S. Kindred 

James L. Kindred 

Kara Kinney, Moultrie County Farm Bureau 

Kara Kinney, Douglas County Farm Bureau 

Carrie Kinsell, Sierra Club, Sangamon Valley 

Arnold E. Kochman 

Judith D. Koonce 

Rodney C. Koonce 

Louise Rickard Kumler 

William C. Kunkler 

Delmar Ladage 

Douglas S. Lake 

Jack Lanter 

Clara B. Lara 

Steven W. Launius 

Dora Lee Special Needs Trust 

Helen Leetham 

Leroy Leetham 

Thomas B. Lemons 

Thomas B. Lemons Trust 

Miriam Levine 

Miriam Levine Revocable Living Trust 

Dan Lightner 

Helen D. Logan 

Jim R. Logan 

R. Logan 

Jerry L. Lomelino 

Carroll Dean Long 

Mary Alice Long 

Nona Harrison Long 

Ruth Irene Long 

Wilma D. Long 

Andre Lovelace 

Nelson A. Lovelace 

Mike Lowder 

Earl Loyd 

Evelyn Maguire 

Evelyn Maguire Revocable Living Trust 

Todd Maisch, Illinois State Chamber of Commerce 

Marine Bank of Springfield Trustee Trust 53-1468 

Marshall Farms 

Martin Farm 

Doris Marie Mateer 

Ralph W. Mateer 

Maurice J. Martin 

JR Mattix 

Danny Maycroft, Laborers International Local 159 

McClelland Farm Trust 

Alice E. McCreery 1993 Trust 

James R. McCoy 

Steve L. McCoy 

Loretta V. McKinney 

H. Eugene McMillan 1997 Trust 

John McNary, Regional Superintendent of Schools 

Bonita M. McWhood 

Dorothy Meade 

Patti Mefford, American Red Cross 

Deborah Jo Megginson 

Theodore Clarke Megginson 

Theodore Clarke Megginson Trust 

Meisenbach Real Estate Trust dated 11/29/77 

Katherine Meisenbach Real Estate Trust dated 

11/29/77 

Diana Lucille Miller 

Elizabeth Miller Trust 

Elizabeth Miller 

Eric S. Miller 

Katy L. Miller 

Millikin University Farm 10 

Marilyn A. Minder 

Walter L. Minder 

Minne Mirts 

Paul Mirts 

Paula R. Mitchell 

Caroline L. Monroe 

James T. Monroe 

Michael N. Mooney 

Mary Beth Moore 

James R. Mosses 

George Muirheid 

Irwin H. Muncy 

Linda L. Murphy Trust Agreement dated 1/2/96 

Richard C. Myers 

Phyllis Newcomb 

Garry L. Niemeyer 

Marcia Jo O'Brien Trust 

John P. O'Shea 

Sarah E. O'Shea 

Osbernville Grain Company 

Peggy Ottwell 

Wilbur E. Oxley 

Mabel Pate 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-20

Ray Payne, Illinois Farm Bureau 

Donald Pence 

Randy Pettus 

Robert L. Phelan 

Wendy K. Phelan 

Lois W. Pitchford 

Raymond L. Pitchford 

Patrick Poeppins 

Thomas D. Porter 

Wilma E. Porter 

Michael P. Poulos 

David L. Pranger 

Carol Pratt 

Victor Pratt 

Randy Prince, Greater Decatur Chamber 

Geno A. Puccetti 

Marian R. Puccetti 

Marjorie B. Randall 

Gail Record 

Chris Reed 

Helen E. Reeter 

Regions Morgan Keegan Trust - Edith Hill Trust and 

Kenneth Kinser Trust 

Revocable Living Trust of John Charles Reed dated 

12/03/1998 

Mike Reuter, The Nature Conservancy 

Terry L. Rhoads 

Jerry S. Rhodes 

Roberta Anne Richmond 

Delford M. Richter 

James E. Richter 

Louada J. Richter 

Riddle Hill Corporation 

Dwight W. Ridgley 

Frances Riley 

Walter Roach 

Charles E. Robbins 

Donna Joan Robbins 

Mark Owen Roberts 

Michael Robertson 

Molly Rockford, Illinois Association of County 

Engineers 

Blake Roderick, Pike/Scott County Farm Bureau 

Dorothy S. Rogers 

George Rogers 

Levi M. Rogers 

Richard H. Rogers 

Stevan Rogers 

Helen A. Root 

Dorothy Rothermel 

Robert Rothermel 

Kevin Rund, Illinois Farm Bureau 

Linda L. Rund 

Theodore J. Rund 

Donna M. Ruyle 

Norma Kathleen Ryan 

Stanley Keith Ryan 

Barbara H. Sallenger 

K. D. Sauder Trust 

Katherine L. Sayre 

Max Sayre 

Rebecca J. Schable 

The Wayne C. Schable Self Declaration of Trust 

Dated 6/6/05 

Nancy J. Schaljo 

Raymond Scheiter, Regional Superintendent of 

Schools 

Cinda S. Schien 

Richard Schleyhahn 

Susan Schleyhahn 

Mary Margaret Schroeder 

Carl E. Schultz 

Susan J. Schultz 

Douglas E. Sea 

Seay Family Trust dated 5/25/1995 

Helen Seay 

Nathan Seiz, Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

Elizabeth F. Shaw Revocable Trust Agreement No. 

092219 

William R. Shaw Revocable Trust Agreement No. 

090730 

Dick Shelby, Regional Superintendent of Schools 

Theresa L. Shinn 

Barbara J. Smith 

Billy E. Smith 

David P. Smith 

Della K. Smith 

Donald L. Smith 

Francis Leon Smith 

John Smith Estate 

Oliver M Smith 

Sandra Smith 

Sharlene C. Smith 

Linda J. Snow 

Gerald M. Spengler 

Denise Lynn Sperry 

Gregory Springer, Regional Superintendent of 

Schools 

Hazel Stanberry 

Peggy Ann Steele 

Frances J. Stengel 

Frances J. Stengel Trustee under Declaration of Trust 

dated May 5, 1992 

Barbara Stevens 

Tim Stock, Macon County Farm Bureau 

Warren Shane Summers 

Charlotte F. Sutman 

Harold Swartz 

Ray Swartz 

William Swartz 

Rob Swinger 

Hamer Tate 

Jenny Tate 

Myrtle R. Tharp 

Raymond F. Thomas 

Christine Thompson 

Jeffry Thompson 

Linda Thompson Profitt 

Jeanette Thoms 

Michael E. Thoms 

Deborah Kaye Thornton 

Mary E. Thornton Residuary Trust 

Jesecca E. Titone 

Thomas A. Titone 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-21

Helen Tolan, Regional Superintendent of Schools 

Jim Torricelli 

Allan L. Towles 

Kelly K. Towles 

Ben S. Tracy 

Cathy Traxler 

Larry Traxler 

Tri-D, Inc. 

Trust A Under Steensland Family Trust 

Trust Agreement dated 11/18/04 known as Joint & 

Mutual Revocable Trust No. 020724 

Trust No. 283 

Trust Number 189 

Trust Number 403-282 

Helma Vigneri 

Sarah Virgin, Edgar County Farm Bureau 

Joan Vits 

Alma C. Walsh Trust 

Brad Warren, Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

Richard F. Watts Life Estate 

George R. Webster 

Merlene Webster 

John W. Weissberg 

John E. Wheeler 

Steven Wheeler 

Elmer White 

Laverne White 

Gary D. Williams 

Jackie Williams 

Jewel Mae Williams 

Lilburn Lee Williams 

Rickey Ray Williams 

Virginia Mae Williams, Life Estate 

Carole G. Wilson 

Irene Wilson 1999 Trust 

Ione Winters 

Fred Wolf Estate 

Wombles Farm, Inc. 

Dorothy Mae Wombles 

Gary Wombles 

Mark Allen Wombles 

Steven Wombles 

Cynthia Susan Wood 

Allan Worrell 

Don Wright 

Guy Wesley Yeaman 

Jo Ann Yeaman 

Howard M. Yoder 

John Yoder 

Linda L. Yoder 

Mervin H. Yoder 

Wayne M. Yoder 

Donald R. Young 

Indiana

Doug Abney 

Joe Acher 

Brenda G. Acker 

Eric S. Acker 

Ruth Ann Acker 

Sharyn L. Albertson 

Frances Joan Alcorn, 

Harold Raymond Alcorn 

Ron Alcorn 

Jerry D. Aldrich 

Marcia Aldrich 

Mark Aleski 

Mark Alesri 

Nelson Alexander 

Aline Life Estate 

Bernice Alverson 

Sheldon Alverson Trust 

Virginia L. Alverson 

Cox Amda 

American Red Cross, Greater Indianapolis 

American Red Cross, Johnson County Service Center 

Tracy Amsrud 

Gary W. Andis 

Lou Ann Andis 

Debra Ankenbauer 

Thomas Asbury 

Mike Ashburn 

Phillip R. Asher 

Donald D. Asiala 

Kathryn E. Asiala 

April A. Askrew 

Lowell Atkinson 

Noel Atkinson 

Lynn A. Ayers 

B+G LaGrange Inc. 

Mark Bacon, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Daniel W. Baird 

Jenny P. Baird 

Jim Baird 

Michael Baise, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Michael Baise 

Bakers Camp Ranch Inc. 

Andy Jones Baker 

Donnie Baker 

Ralph B. Baker 

Rita J. Baker 

Bob Bane 

Bobby W. Bane 

Vergie Bane 

Wanda J. Bane 

Teresa A. Banks 

Betty Barger 

Betty M. Barger 

Gary L. Barger 

Michael A. Barker 

Mark Dane Barnes 

Michael Harry Barnes 

Barbara Barnett 

Dennis E. Barr 

Thomas Barr 

Valerie J. Barr 

John Beardsley 

Tricia Bechman, Franklin Chamber of Commerce 

Beck Family Partnership 

Denese C. Beck 

Gene R. Beck 

Gerald Beck 

James Beck 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-22

Lana Beck 

Randy J. Beck 

Oksoo Becker 

Charles W. Bell 

Vivian L. Bell 

Darrell L. Beltz 

Lynne E. Beltz 

David Bennett 

Jeff Bennett 

Dave Benson, Amos W. Butler Audobon Society 

William Beranek, Earth Day Indiana, Inc. 

Marvin Dale Berry 

Patricia Berry 

Beyer Family Trust 

Maurice F. Beyer 

Gregory P. Biggerstaff 

Lori C. Biggerstaff 

Leigh Ann Bische 

Ron Blankenship 

Lora L. Bledsoe 

James Boggs 

James D. Boles 

John C. Boller 

Julie A. Bollman 

Roger Bommer, Franklin County Farm Bureau 

Judy D. Borron 

Andrew C. Boston 

Carol S. Bottom 

Robert W. Bottom 

Mark Bowling 

Carmen Gail Branson 

Jacquelyn Sedam Branson 

Orville Branson 

Todd Allen Branson 

Nora A. Brant 

Todd E. Brant 

Jimmy L. Brattain 

Sherrill P. Brattain 

Richard D. Bray 

Breneman Farms, Inc. 

Roy Breneman 

Anne L. Brenton 

Danny R. Brenton 

Joshua Brewster, B&O Trail Association, Inc. 

Marshall Brock 

Carl E. Brogan 

Dashiella B. Brogan 

Daniel L. Brook 

Tracey L. Brook 

Brookville/Franklin County Chamber of Commerce 

James Douglas Brown 

Laura Brown 

Lori A. Brown 

Nathaniel Brown 

Teresa Brown 

William Brown 

Margaret A. Bryant 

Robert L. Bryant 

Janet E. Buckley 

William R. Buckley 

Brad Buening, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Brad Buening 

Buescher Farms LLC 

John R. Buker 

Judy D. Buker 

Greg Burnett 

Lindy L Burris, Sommer Barnard PC 

Corbett Burton 

Genevieve Burton 

H. James Busenbark 

Harold J. Busenbark 

Harold James Busenbark 

James Busenbark 

Jason Busenbark 

Jim Busenbark Corporation 

Vickie L. Busenbark 

William L. Bush 

James K. Butler 

Bill Campbell 

Larry E. Campbell 

Margaret A. Campbell 

Neva Campbell 

Ralph Campbell 

Life Estate Virginia Sue Campbell 

Arlene F. Canary 

Charles W. Canary 

Rebecca A. Canary 

William O. Canary 

Daniel T. Cansdale 

William T. Cansdale 

Keith Cardill 

Donald Carlton 

Jeralee Carlton 

Lucinda L. Carnes 

Roy W. Carnes 

Dovie J. Carpenter 

Dovie J. Carpenter Revocable Living Trust dated 

3/29/04 

John Carr 

William Gordon Carson 

Nancy B. Cassidy 

Von A. Cassidy 

Keith Caudill 

Ben Chadd 

Michael N. Chapman 

Donna P. Chastain 

Lloyd Leon Chastain 

John Cheesewright, Vermillion County Farm Bureau 

Ricky W. Church 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. 

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 

Citizens For Appropriate Rural Roads 

Agnes G. Clapp 

Alice J. Clapp 

Donald L. Clapp 

Michael Lee Clapp 

Robert Clark, Sommer Barnard PC 

Rosemary Clark 

Theresa Clark 

Wilbert F. Clark 

C. Jack Clarkson 

Jacqueline L. Clarkson 

Steven M. Clarkson 

Vickie L. Clarkson 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-23

Margaret H. Clarkston 

Steve Clearwater 

Jimmie G. Clifford 

Nancy A. Clifford 

Max R. Clodfelter and Alice M. Clodfelter Joint 

Revocable Trust dated September 29, 1995 

Marjie Coates 

Robert L. Coffey 

Beverly J. Collins 

Debby Collins 

Diana B. Collins 

Mark A. Collins 

Steve Collins 

Carrie Comican-Pickens, Vermillion County Chamber 

of Commerce 

Peter P. Cook 

Brenda Cooper 

Charles A. Cooper 

David Cooper &/or Barbara F. Cooper Revocable 

Living Trust dated 12/7/92 

Gerardine Cooper 

Jeffrey A. Cooper 

Keith Cooper 

Mattie Cooper 

Sue Ann Cooper 

Thelma Cooper 

Dwayne M. Copeland 

Mary Jane Copeland 

Michael R Cord 

Adam Costedder 

Charles P. Coulter 

Kenni F. Coulter 

Charlotte Jean Cox 

Gene Cox, Sierra Club 

Harlan D. Cox 

Ilonka M. Cox 

J. V. Cox 

Jared R. Cox 

Kevin Cox, Parke County Farm Bureau 

Linda Cox 

Martha J. Cox 

Merle Dane Cox 

Terrance Cox 

Terry Cox 

James D. Coy 

Marijane A. Coy 

Stan Cramer 

Crane Flatrock Farms, Inc. 

Joyce C. Crane 

William B. Crane 

Craven, Hoover, & Blazek, P.C. 

Maria E. Crawford 

Randy J. Crawford 

Gary P. Crews 

Sherry L. Crews 

Dale Crooks 

Crouch Development, Inc. 

Hubert L. Crouse 

Norma Crouse 

Thomas Robert Crowe 

Thomas A. Crowell 

CSX Transportation, Inc. 

Ernest Cullison 

Rhonda L. Cullison 

Steven L. Cullison 

Howard Cupp 

L. Wayne Cupp 

Ron Cupp 

Terry J. Cupp 

Wilma Jean Cupp 

Timothy Currens 

Greg Cutsinger 

D & K Properties LP 

Jeff Dannemiller 

John Michael Davern 

Martha Jane Davern 

Ken Davies, Harris Stone Service 

William Davies Farms, Inc. 

Wm. Davies Farms, Inc. 

John Davis 

Joyce Davis 

Joyce A. Davis 

Lynn Davis, Shelby County Chamber of Commerce 

Lynna Davis 

Michael Davis, Indiana Chamber of Commerce 

Robert Davis 

Thomas C. Davis 

Tom Davis 

George L. Davison 

Juanita L. Davison 

Nancy Day 

Steve De Hart 

Linda Faye Dean 

Daylene Debolt 

Holly J. L. Deckard 

Thomas H. Deer 

Beth A. Dehart 

Don DeHart 

John W. Dehart 

Joseph E. Dehart 

Susan J. Dehart 

Troy Alan Dehart 

Dema Delp 

Jay E. and Dema K. Delp Trust dated 4/23/99 

Robert R. Delp 

Robert R. Delp, Sr. and Rosemary D. Delp Revocable 

Trust dated 5/21/2002 

Teresa L. Deston-Reese 

Eli Detweiler 

Glen Detweiler 

Jacob J. Detweiler 

Karen Detweiler 

Malinda Detweiler 

Susie Detweiler 

James A. Dickerson 

Jerome J. Diehl 

Sandra E. Dierkman 

Mark C. Dietel 

Margaret J. Dillman 

Wayne Dillman 

Hursel C. Disney 

Jim Disney 

Heidi Dixon-White, Central Indiana Wilderness Club 

Toby Dolen 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-24

Candi Donaldson 

Gary G. Dorman 

Nancy L. Dorman 

Bill Dory, Greencastle/Putnam County Development 

Center 

Susan O. Douglas 

Joe Doul 

Brenda R. Dowers 

David L. Dowers 

David Downard 

Barbara Downing 

Wayne Downing 

Deborah Driskell, Indiana Township Association 

Alan Duett 

Ronald L. Dunaway 

Cheryl L. Dunn 

Timothy R. Dunn 

Daniel Duran 

Aura May Durham 

Gary Dutcher 

Eagles Landing 

Gary Joe Earl 

Sharon L. Earl 

Kimberly J. Earles 

Sara Earles 

Stephen W. Earles 

Chris Eason 

Tina Eason 

Daniel Lee Eckstein 

Karen Jean Eckstein 

Edmondson Liberty Farms 

Barbara Edmondson 

Sherry L. Edwards 

Elder Farm Trust 

Cheryl A. Elmore 

Chill W. Elmore 

Ennis 

William B. Ensor 

Karen F. Erhart 

Vincent W. Ernstes 

Joyce Erway 

Carol A. Eslinger 

James A. Eslinger 

Janet Esteb 

Joann Esteb 

Ray D. Esteb 

John Edward Estes 

John Estridge 

Robert E. Etter 

David F. Everts 

James Facemine 

Margaret E. Fain 

Mary Jane Fall 

Jim Farr 

Debbie Farrington 

Tom Farrington 

Vicky A. Fee 

William H. Fee 

Deborah R. Ferrell 

George H. Ferrell 

Larry A. Ferris 

Linda L. Ferris 

Bill Ferrond 

Judith Fewell 

G.H. Fields Family Limited Partnership 

David D. Fiesbeck 

Sally M. Fiesbeck 

Tim Findley 

Emanuel Fisher 

Lena B. Fisher 

Melvin L. Fisher 

Suvilla L. Fisher 

Faye J. Fitzgerald 

Harold N. Fix 

Phyllis Marie Fix 

Richard Fix 

Andrea Flaspohler 

Charles J. Fledderman 

Teresa L. Fledderman 

Charles Flodder 

Florence I. Revocable Trust 

Gene Fogle 

Barbara L. Ford Irrevocable Trust of 01/23/04 

Dennis R. Fordice 

Maurice Fordice 

Alex Foreman 

John Foreman 

Theodore K. Forslund 

Toni G. Forslund 

Margie J. Foster 

Sharon Foster 

William R Fozz 

Carl Frey 

Cora Frey 

Ed Frey 

Danny P. Fruchtnicht 

Joni Sue Fruchtnicht 

Kenneth L. Fruchtnicht 

Paul J. Fullenkamp and Dorothey R. Fullenkamp 

Living Trust 

Albert James Fuller 

James Fuller 

Mike Gahimer, Duke Realty Corporation 

Steve Gardner, Shelbyville Rotary Club 

Cynthia Dawn Garrett 

John M. Garrett 

Joyce E. Garrett 

Marianne Garrett 

Carlone K. Geiger 

Richard E. Geiger 

Bob Giger 

Margo Giger 

Ann E. Gilbert 

Bryan D. Gilbert 

Carl Joseph Gilbert 

Jennifer M. Gilbert 

Mary Loretta Gilbert 

Joe Gillespie 

Pat Gillespie 

Dale L. Gladden 

George L. Gladden 

Julie A. Gladden 

Mary Anne Gladden 

Mary L. Gladden 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-25

Morey H. Gladden 

Glenn's Valley Conservation Club, Inc 

Barbara J. Golay 

Talmage Golay 

William E Good 

Linda M. Goodin 

Jean Goodman 

Martin Goodman 

Henry W. Gookins 

Nancy L. Gookins 

John R. Goss, Indiana Wildlife Federation 

Harvey Clara Grace Revocable Trust 

Joanna Gras, Heartwood 

Allen K. Graves 

Dan Graves 

Judith A. Graves 

Myra Faye Graves 

Gray Brothers Inc. 

Robert B. Green 

Greensburg Rotary Club 

Michael R. Gregory 

Tammie R. Gregory 

Maria A. Gribben 

Michael S. Gribben 

Brian Griffin 

Genola Griffin 

Juanita Griffin 

John D. Griffith 

David A. Grinley 

Anthony S. Griswold 

George Guerrattaz 

Shirely J Guerrattaz 

John Haaq, Wabash Valley Audobon Society 

Mike Habeck, EcoIndiana 

William H. Hack 

Donald M. Hale 

Linda S. Hale 

Billie Ruth Hall 

Gary G. Hall 

Joan Hall 

Brenda Hammond 

Russell A. Hamner 

Daniel L. Harbison 

DeAnne L. Harbison 

Gregory A. Harbison 

Susan H. Harbison 

D. L. Hardamon 

Gerry D. Hardamon 

Michael B. Hardamon 

Stacey V. Hardamon 

Mark D. Hardebeck 

Shari M. Hardebeck 

Barbara J. Harder 

Neal W. & Barbara J. Harder, Revocable Living Trust 

Neal W. Harder 

Kevin Hardie, Friends of the White River 

C. Jack Hardin 

Harlan Development Company, L.L.C., an Indiana 

Limited Liability Company 

Christopher D. Harness 

Carol Harrell 

Beth Ann Harrison 

Gerald Harrison 

John J. Harrison 

Connie J. Hartman 

Dennis A. Hartman 

Lois Diane Hartman 

Richard D. Hartman 

Juanita L. Hasty 

Jo Anne Hatton Irrevocable Trust 

Linda L. Hatton 

Rayburn K. Hatton 

Daniel L. Hawkins 

Joseph A. Hawkins Living Trust 

Kathyleen I. Hawkins Living Trust 

Marian Maxine Hayes 

Ann M. Hazelgrove 

Donald E. Hazelgrove 

Justin Hazlett, Sierra Club, Heartlands Group 

Connie J. Heavin 

Robert A. Heavin 

James L. Heflin 

James Lawson Heflin 

Julia Francis Heflin 

Lawson J. Heflin 

Carolyn J. Hellyer 

David J. Hellyer 

Debra B. Hendrickson 

Richard E. Hendrickson 

Roxie Henley 

Thomas G. & Edna L. Herbert Family Trust 

Heritage Brookhaven Development 

Gina Renee Hertel 

Mark Louis Hertel 

Donald G. Hewitt 

Rita F. Hewitt 

Florence Hicks 

Hazel Hicks 

Lloyd Hicks 

Omer Hicks 

John Higgins 

Raymond F. Hine 

Natalie Kroovand Hipple 

Robert Hipple Jr. 

Robert F. Hipple 

David F. Hobson 

Milton Hobson 

James A. Hodges 

Dianne Hoffman 

Donald Hoffman 

Lois L. Hoffman 

Hoge Family Trust dated 6/6/85 

Donald Hohman 

Jennifer N. Hoke 

Mark R. Hoke 

William R. Hoke, Jr. 

Ross Holbert 

Emery O. Hollingsworth 

Max O. Hollingsworth 

Roy L. Hollingsworth 

Florence I. Hommel 

Ralph S. Hommel 

Arvin M. Hopkins 

Mary L. Hopkins 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-26

Mary C. Horninger 

Thomas D. Horninger 

Mark D. Horton 

Rebecca S. Horton 

John Houseworth 

Virginia Howard, Sheldon Alverson Trust 

James M. Howe 

Sandra Howe 

Julie R. Howrey 

Matthew W. Howrey 

Carmack P. Hudnall 

Donna S. Hudnall 

Pat Hudnall 

David Huey 

Linda Huey 

Angela K. Huffine 

Richard R. Huffine 

Ruth Ann Hughes 

Jerome G. Huneke 

Karen Ellis Huneke 

Amy Hutson, Indiana Farm Bureau (Parke, 

Vermillion) 

Eileen M. Hyde Living Trust dated September 28, 

1995 

James A. Hyde Living Trust dated September 28, 

1995 

James Hyde 

Scot Imus, Indiana Petroleum Marketers & 

Convenience Store Association 

Arlene F. Inabnitt 

Indiana Forest Alliance 

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. 

Gerald W. Isaacs Revocable Trust dated March 25, 

1993 

Donna Isaacs 

Edward Isaacs 

John H. Isaacs 

Ruth L. Isaacs 

Christopher S. Ison 

Jennifer L. Ison 

Tommy Ison 

J.J. & M.J. Farm Trust 

James R. Jackson 

John P. Jackson 

Rhonda Jackson 

Benita B. Jacobs 

Dorothy Jacobs 

Earl Paul Jacobs 

Ellen Jacquart, The Nature Conservancy, Indiana 

Field Office 

Michael S. Jansen 

Liz A. Jenkins 

Rick W. Jenkins 

Dale Jessup 

Matilda Jessup 

James Jewell 

Janet Jewell 

Cary T. Johnson 

Larry D. Johnson 

Sheila E. Johnson 

Terry Johnson 

Thomas L. Johnson 

Dane Jones 

Deborah L. Jones 

Joseph Albert Jones Life Estate 

Ruth Jones 

Bruce Justice 

Vickie Justice 

Patty Kale 

Bill Kashahn 

Letty W. Kasting 

Joseph E. Kaufman 

Steven F. Kaufman 

William A. Kautz 

William W. Kautz 

Cindy Kawamoto 

Kehrein Orchards, Inc. 

David R Keith 

Henrieta E. Kelley 

Larry E. Kelley 

William Harold Kelley 

Dale Kelly 

Jackie Kelly 

Kellum Farm LLC 

Judith L. Kennedy 

Randy Kennedy 

Keith Kidwell 

Susan Kidwell 

John W. Kindred 

Christian M. King 

Katie Ann King 

Donna Kinman 

Michael Kinman 

R. E. Kissell 

Sue A. Kissick 

Ruth Ann Kite 

Thomas A. Kite 

Jill E. Koehne 

Michael G. Koehne 

Daniel A. Kraft 

Martha K. Kraft 

Donald A. Kramer 

Donald A. Kramer 

Kathleen Kramer 

Philip L. Kramer 

Ted Kramer 

George E. Kraus 

Al Krebs 

Ellen Krebs 

Bryan J. Krieger 

Norma J. Krieger 

Melissa Kriegerfox, Indiana Recycling Coalition 

Elizabeth Kuester 

Andrew J. Kuhn 

Amy Jo Kunkel 

Evelena L. Kuntz 

Kenneth J. Kuntz 

Chree M. Kysar 

Peter Lachmann 

Lake Santee Property Owners Association, Inc. 

Shawn Lambert 

Duane R. Lane 

Patricia J. Lane 

Melvina E. Langston 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-27

Michael R. Langston 

Ingrid L. Laurendine 

Warren W. Laurendine 

John Lawrence, Sassafras Audobon Society 

Don Lawson, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Juliana Lawson 

Chris Leach, Parke County Chamber of Commerce 

Linda D. Le Masters 

Matthew D. Le Masters 

Krista L. Leatherman 

Ted J. Leatherman 

Betty C. Lecher 

Robert G. Lecher 

The Lefflers 

Eva M. Lehr 

Kelly T. Lehr 

Jerry A. Leonard Trust 

Lisa B. Leonard Trust 

Susan Leonard, Martinsville Rotary Club 

Bill Leser 

Isaac Lewis 

Pamela J. Lindamood 

Harry Linder 

Michael A. Linder 

Norma J. Lingenfelter 

Shaw Lingenfelter 

Donald Livingston 

Scott Logsdon 

Earl Loiston 

David Losekamp 

William J. Losekamp Trust 

William J. Losekamp 

Jim Loughmiller, Hendricks County Farm Bureau, 

Office 1 

Jim Loughmiller, Hendricks County Farm Bureau, 

Office 2 

Jim Loughmiller, Hendricks County Farm Bureau, 

Office 3 

Michael J. Lucas 

Jane Ludwig 

Geneva Lundy 

Odell Lundy 

Steven G Luther 

John T. Lynch 

Judith C. Lynch 

M & S Fischer Farms, Inc., an Indiana Corporation 

Tracy Mabry, Johnson County Farm Bureau, Office 1 

Tracy Mabry, Johnson County Farm Bureau, Office 2 

Tracy Mabry, Johnson County Farm Bureau, Office 3 

Jack D. Major 

Sandra Majors 

Jim Malayer, Putnam County Farm Bureau 

Charla S. Malone 

Esther A. Malone Life Estate 

Larry Malone 

Lawrence M. Malone 

Jack Maloney 

Tim Maloney, Hoosier Environmental Council 

David B. Mannix 

Ruthanne D. Mannix 

Karl R. Marcum 

Stephanie M. Marcum 

Stephen A. Mark 

Loree L. Marley 

Shane L. Marley 

Charlotte G. Martin 

John Martin 

Jon Martin 

Lee H. Martin 

Johanna L. Martindale 

Kathleen A Mason, Century 21 Realty Group 

Robert Ivan Mathas 

Mary K. Mathes 

William Mathes 

Jane A. Mauck 

Mark A. Mauck 

Michael Maurer, Indiana Economic Development 

Corporation 

Jacqueline Mauser 

John Mauser 

Janet G. McCabe, Improving Kids' Environment 

Sally Sue Spencer Mcafee 

Betty McCain 

David Lee McCarroll 

Rick McCarty 

Mildred M. McCrea 

Ruth McDaniel 

Jacquelyn McGaughey 

James L. McGaughey 

Hubert McGaughery 

Gregg McGuire 

Lynn McGuire 

Tammy McGuire 

Joan M. McKamey 

Jon P. McKamey 

James McLaughlin 

Vicki L. McLaughlin 

Alvin McMillan 

Emma K. McMillan 

Jerry McMullen 

Catherine D. McNabney 

Raymond F. McNabney 

Maggie McShane, Indiana Petroleum Council 

Aubrey C. Meador 

C. K. Meal 

Colleen K. Meal 

Deborah M. Meal 

James R. Meal 

R. D. Meal 

Robert D. Meal 

Medgo Inc. 

Medsker Family Trust 

Mary Mellu 

Maryann Metz 

Brett A. Meunier 

Carrie V. Meunier 

Letha E. Meyer Revocable Trust 

Frank Michael 

Barbara A. Mickler 

William J. Mickler 

Lew Middleton, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Allan L. Miller 

Kathleen E. Miller 

Kenneth L. Miller 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-28

Sharon A. Miller 

Stanley Miller Trust 

Steve Miller 

Steven N. Millikan 

Heidi Millspaugh 

John Millspaugh 

Randy Milner 

Suzanne Mittenthal, Hoosier Hikers Council 

SueAnne Moeland 

Jeff Mohr 

Tammy Mohr 

Mark Mongin, Indiana Lakes Management Society, 

Inc. 

Keith Monroe 

Wanda Monroe 

David W. Moody 

Susan W. Moody 

Jill A. Moon 

Sue Anne Moreland 

Carolyn F. Morgan 

Gary B. Morgan 

Sheila Morgan 

Theodore E. Morgan 

Andy Morris 

Annette Morris 

Bill Morris 

Bruce Morris 

Ed Morris 

Eugene W. Morris 

Joyce Morris 

Lloyd Morris 

Revae Morris 

David W. Morrison 

Karen Ann Morrison 

Bethany Mortashed 

Michael Mortashed 

Gary E. Muldoon 

Teresa E. Muldoon 

Marguerite Mullindore 

Howard M. Mullis 

Howard M. Mullis Family Limited Partnership dated 

9/2/99 

Robert Murphy 

Vera M. Murphy 

Lorraine Murray 

Charles J. Myers 

Deanna Kay Myers 

Edwin Dale Myers 

James M. Myers 

Janet S. Myers 

Joseph L. Myers 

Mildred L. Myers 

Nellie A. Myers 

A. E. Narburgh 

Naumburg-Cedar Hts. Farm 

Colleen Neal 

James Neal 

Robert Neal 

Diana B. Neimeyer 

Maxwell E. Neimeyer 

Billie R. Newland 

Patsy E. Newland 

Anita Nicholson 

Bill Nicholson 

Phillip L. Nicholson 

Tom Nicholson 

Ray R. Nickel, Helen Nickle Life Estate 

Mark Nigh, Shelby County Farm Bureau 

Arthur W. Niles 

Penie L. Niles 

Karla J. Norman 

Wayne D. Norman 

Norton Grain Corporation 

Daisy Norton 

James Norton 

Mary Obermeyer 

Daniel L. O'Connor 

Monte O'Connor 

Molly O. Odom 

Bill Oakes, Franklin Rotary Club 

David L. Oetzel 

Jocelyn S. Oetzel 

Nancy L. O'Neal 

Doug Orman 

Carolyn Orschell 

Lee W. M. Orschell 

Cathy L. Oschman 

Steven E. Oschman 

Linda C. Ott 

Robert P. Ott 

Jeff Owen 

Deanna Pacilio 

Joseph D. Pacilio 

Durene L Palmore Trust Agreement 

Douglas K. Parent 

Staci J. Parent 

Kermit Paris, Indiana Farm Bureau (Franklin, Shelby 

Decatur) 

Bill Parker 

Dan Parker 

Danny K. Parker 

Jan Parker 

Margaret E. Parks 

Raymond E. Parks 

Anita N. Paschke 

Lutz D. Paschke 

Connie J. Patrick 

Garry Patrick 

James W. Patrick 

Joseph R. Payne 

Mary Ann Payne 

Harold Ray Pearman 

Jim Pease 

Patti B. Pease 

Michelle K. Pelham 

William T. Pelham 

Mary Janet Penrod 

C. Darlene Perkins 

Perry-Fisher Group, LLC 

Barbara J. Perry 

Eugene D. Perry 

Barbara Jane Peters 

Michael V. Peters 

N. Michael Peters 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-29

Barry Peterson 

Lee Ann Peterson 

Gary C. Pettijohn 

Ruth A. Pettijohn 

Brenda K. Phelps Irrevocable Trust dated 01/23/04 

Dawn R. Phillips 

Leonard E. Phillips 

Robert Scott Phillips 

Virginia I. Phillips 

Danny E. Pierson 

Carol Pikosz 

Ronald E. Pikosz 

Janet Planker 

Laura D. Plue 

Michael J. Plue 

Frank Edwin Poe 

Keegan Poe, Indiana Farm Bureau (Johnson, 

Morgan, Hendricks, Putnam) 

Keegan Poe 

Penny Lynn Poe 

Stanley E. Poe 

Andra J. Poehls 

Andrea J. Poehls 

Ralph D. Poehls 

Henry W. Poitio 

Wilma Jean Poynter 

John Pratt 

Premier Boxboard Limited, L.L.C. 

Richard Oliver Prescott 

Ruth Ann Prescott 

Eldon Proctor 

Alta Agnes Proffitt 

Herbert Ralph Proffitt 

Edgar R. Prosser 

Lisa L. Prosser 

Alan Puett 

Melissa Putnick 

Richard Putnick 

R & L Clapp General Partners 

Michael L. Rager 

Brenda Rains 

Buster Rains 

Glen M. Rains 

Betty Raminler 

Ramp Locust Grove Farm, Inc. 

Jim Ramp 

James R Ramsy 

Randall K. Sons, et al. 

Donna Rash 

Sherman Rash 

Donald Ratcliff 

James G. Rawls 

Darrell Ray Custon Builder Inc. 

Jerry Reamer 

Tami Reamer 

Marvin W. Reatherford 

Sharon D. Reatherford 

Charlotte Redeker 

Redman Farms, Inc. 

Kelley Redman 

Robert O. Redman 

Michael L. Reese 

Betty Remmler 

Ruth Evelyn Remmler 

ReRoute Rex, Inc. 

Arthur David Reynolds 

Phyllis Reynolds 

Virginia Reynolds 

Betty F. Rice 

Betty F. Rice Revocable Trust Agreement dated 

12/09/96 

Richards Farms of Morgan Co Inc. 

Tow Richardson 

Fred Rick Farms Inc. 

John Ricke 

Joyce E. Ricke 

Mark C. Ricke 

Robert J. Ricke 

Tammy Ricke 

Joni L. Ridgway 

David J. Riedel 

Debra K. Riedel 

Randal J. Riggen 

Eric R. Ripperger 

Myra Ripperger 

Myra Jean Ripperger Living Trust 

Robert Ripperger 

Robert Julius Ripperger Living Trust 

Sherry A. Ripperger 

Alice Rose Risch 

James Risch 

Raymond E. Risch 

Joe Robb, The Wildlife Society, Indiana Chapter 

Roy Robbins 

Edwin D. Roberts 

Ursula C. Roberts 

Lori Robertson 

Rock A. Robertson 

Robinson Resources, Inc. 

Donovan L. Robinson 

Joyce A. Robinson 

Gary E. Roderick 

Margaret E. Roderick 

Gary L. Rogers 

Karen L. Rogers 

Louise Rogers 

Otis Rogers 

Robert E. Rogers 

Harold Rohb 

James K. Rollins 

Sandra K. Rollins 

Michael W. Romweber 

Teresita A. Romweber 

Rosenfeld Family Farm, LLC, an Indiana limited 

liability company 

Betty Jo Rothenberger 

John Rothenberger 

James Roush 

Kenton Roush 

The Rowls Family Revocable Trust 

John Rulfs 

Laura Jean Russell 

Mark E. Russell 

Roger Russell 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-30

Joseph F. Rust 

Susan A. Rust 

Reta Rutledge, Central Indiana Land Trust Inc. 

Sharen K. Ryland 

Stanley E. Ryland 

Fred J. Sacksteder 

Gus Sacopulos 

Angeline Salisbury 

Hal Arthur Salisbury 

Pamela Sanders 

Robert A. Sando 

Sally M. Sando 

Don Sandre 

Bob Sauer 

Norma Sauter 

William Sauter 

Sawyer Family Limited Partnership 

Beverly G. Scellato 

Robert A. Scellato 

David W. Schafer 

Rhonda J. Schafer 

Alan R. Schaub 

Tamara J. Schaub 

Rhonda K. Scheibler 

Russler Scheibler 

Glenda Schillings 

Rae Schnaap 

Justin Schneider, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Jonathan F. Schuck 

Mary M. Schuck 

Barbara A. Schulte 

Harry A. Schulte 

Eugene M. Schultz 

Gene Schultz 

Richard C. Schultz 

Aline Scott 

Brent Scott 

Cloyd J. Scott 

Lassy Scott 

Lawrence M. Scott 

Loshell & Phyllis J. Scott Trust dated 12/9/97 

Natalie J. Scott 

Thomas E. Scott 

William B. Scott 

Marcus Selig, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Owen Sensenbrenner 

Rebecca Sensenbrenner 

Audrey M. Settles 

Howard E. Setzer 

Magda I. Setzer 

Joan M. Sexlon 

John W. Shaffer 

Leslie A. Shaffer 

Edwin Sharp 

Michael Sharp 

Milton L. Sharp 

Shirley Sharp 

Steven D. Shaul 

John Shaw 

Lori Shaw 

Dennis W. Shell 

Edgar Shell 

Hazel Mae Shell 

Ayers L. Shelley 

Diane M. Shelton 

Richard D. Shelton 

Alma Edith Shepherd 

William Shepherd 

Charles E Shirk 

Teresa Shobe 

William Shobe 

Candy B. Short 

Jeffrey A. Short 

James H. Shrout 

Nina Shrout 

Edwin J. Simcox, Indiana Energy Association 

Steve Sizemore 

Harold Skutsweller, Hendricks County Economic 

Development Partnership 

Chad H. Smallman 

Chad P. Smith 

Grant Smith, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana 

JoAnn Smith 

Loren E. Smith 

Louise Smith 

Mike Smith 

Paul H. Smith Trust 

Paula Jo Smith 

Phyllis A. Smith 

Roy C. Smith 

William O. Smith 

Woodard Smith 

Barbara Snepp 

Don Snepp 

Don N. Snepp Family Trust 

Elizabeth Snepp 

John Snepp 

Pamela Snepp 

Robert Dale Snepp 

Douglas D. Snyder 

Jesse D. Snyder 

Larry E. Snyder 

Starrletta F. Snyder 

Jay Springbrook Farms, Inc. 

Marie N. Sprong 

Katherine M. Stamper 

Steven W. Stamper 

Marie A. Stanley 

Raymond L. Stanley 

Dale D. Stanton 

Patricia S. Stanton 

Patricia E. Stevens 

Brenda L. Stewart 

Dennis Stewart 

Dewey W. Stewart 

Rebecca L. Stewart 

Rosemarie Stiffler 

Barbara Stillabower 

Cheryl L. Stillabower 

Merrill L. Stillabower 

Cindy L. Stine 

Roger W. Stine 

Andrew K. Stirn 

Arlen H. Stirn 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-31

Connie J. Stirn 

Donald Stirn 

Ronald A. Stirn 

Barbara K. Stoltzfus 

Isaac E. Stoltzfus 

Linda L. Stone 

Steve W. Stone 

William P. Stone 

Michael G. Stout 

Garry Strode 

Glen L. Strohmier 

Vivien Lee Strohmier 

James B. Sturges 

Jennifer Sturges, Greensburg/Decatur County 

Chamber of Commerce 

Resa Sucietto 

Rick R. Sucietto 

Robert D. Summers 

Brenda F. Sumner 

Stanley G. Sumner 

Anita Surber 

Edward Surber 

Chip Sutton, The Nature Conservancy, Indiana Field 

Office 

Beatrice Sweet 

Cleo Sweet 

Deborah Lynn Sweet 

Randy Sweet 

Mac A. Swem 

Swinford Farms, Inc. 

TOA USA, Inc. 

Gary E. Taylor 

John Taylor, Morgan County Economic Development 

Corporation 

Mindi Taylor, Greater Mooresville Chamber of 

Commerce 

Tom Taylor, International Union of Operating 

Engineers 

William Tennell 

Dale Tessup 

Jeffrey M. Thomas 

Lucille Thomas 

Robert S. Thomas 

Roberta L. Thomas 

Sean Christopher Thomas 

Tammy K. Thomas 

Joan Thompson 

Kevin Thompson 

L. P. Thompson 

Mark Thornburg 

Mark Thornburg, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Mark Thornbury, Indiana Farm Bureau 

Karen J. Thorpe 

Ronnie L. Thorpe 

Dennis Tibbetts, Sierra Club, Winding Waters Group 

Michael Tindera 

Deann H. Tomlinson 

Stanley Townsend 

Bill Tranter 

Bobbie Tranter 

Colleen A. Tressler 

Wilbur E. Tressler 

Tri State Improvement Company 

Donald D. Trusty 

Marcia Trusty 

Bette Patricia Turner 

Patricia Turner 

Robert Lee Turner 

Diane M. Tutas 

Rowena Umbarger 

Christopher B. Underwood 

Gary Underwood 

Rebecca Sue Underwood 

Robin Underwood 

Vannice Revocable Living Trust 

Sandra Sue Vannice 

William Allen Vannice 

Joseph A. Vennemann 

Helen L. Vogt 

Richard Vonnegut, Hoosier Rails to Trails Council 

Brian A. Wade 

Stephen B. Wagner 

Jimmy Walker 

Thelma Wallace Testament Trust 

Dylan Walmsley 

Kathryn Walmsley 

L. Kathryn Walmsley 

Rachel E. Walmsley 

Carl Walter 

Chrystia M. Wanner 

Thomas J. Wanner 

Tom Wanner 

Ward Family Revocable Trust 

Carolyn J. Ward 

Phil Ward, Indiana Water Resources Association 

William J. Ward 

James N. Warren 

Keith A. Warren 

Winifred A. Warren 

Richard H. Washburn 

Joseph William Wasson 

Kevin M. Watkins 

Robert Wayman 

Becky Waymire 

Normam Wayne 

Irene Webster 

Robert Webster 

David Welch, 

Jeremy C. Welch 

Mary Ruth Welch-Staadt 

Daniel L. Wells 

Tracy A. Wells 

Welter Estates, Incorporated 

Karen P. Welty Trust dated 1/8/96 

William W. Welty Trust dated 1/8/96 

Constance A. Wendel 

James F. Wendel 

Rachael M. Werner 

Ralph E. Werner 

Syble M. West 

Gary Westveer 

John E. Wheeler 

Mary Ellen Wheeler 

John Wheler 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-32

Maryellen Wheler 

Bonnita K. Whicker 

David Whicker 

Timothy A. Whicker 

Debbie K. Whitacre 

James D. Whitacre 

David A. White 

Karen White 

Laura White 

Paula A. White 

Robin A. White 

John Edward Whitely Life Estate 

Denise A. Whitfield 

Treva Whitis 

Varner J. Whitis 

Kathleen A. Whitney 

Robert I. Whitney 

Annette Willhelm 

David J. Willhelm 

Brenda J. Williams 

Chad Williams 

Debbie Williams 

Donald Williams 

Donald Williams Life Estate 

Glenn Harlan Williams 

John James Williams 

Kevin Williams 

Larry V. Williams 

Ronald Williams 

Scott Williams 

Terry D. Williams 

Terry G. Williams 

Tim Williams 

Vivian Williams 

Joseph M. Willsey 

Don Willvock, Indiana Farm Bureau 

Charles V. Wilson 

D. Diane Wilson 

Harve R. Wilson 

Michael Wilson, Morgan County Farm Bureau, Office 

1 

Elizabeth Ann Winder 

Christine Rhae Wise 

Paul S. Wise 

Nancy Witty 

Michael S. Wolff 

Andrew J. Wolschlager 

Linda L. Wolschlager 

Edith M. Woodard 

William A. Wooden 

Harold Woods 

Eark Wortson 

Linda M. Wright 

Wrightsman Farm Manangement, Inc., an Indiana 

Sub-Chapter S Corporation 

John M. Wrightsman 

Pamila Wrightsman 

James Writt 

James Allen Writt Revocable Trust 

Eric Wymer 

Melissa Wymer 

Donald F. Yager 

Don Yager, Decatur County Farm Bureau, 

Kimberly L. Yager 

Gary Yane 

Monica Yane 

Gerald R. Yarnell 

Ruth Yarnell 

Kent Yeager, Indiana State Farm Bureau 

Brian Young 

Virginia L. Young 

John R. Zeiner 

Daryl W. Zimmer 

Gretchen L. Zimmer 

Bennie Z. Zook 

Fannie Zook 

Jocklene D. Zweifel 

Mark J. Zweifel 

Iowa

Bledsoe Farm Management Family Limited 

Partnership 

Walter A. Bledsoe, Jr. Trust No. 1 Instrument dated 

12/13/76 

Frances B. Clark 

William C. Kunkler, Jr. 1006 Trust 

Loren E. Smith 

Kansas

Larry D. Cooper 

Kentucky

Roy N. Coblentz 

Harold Lewis 

Mary Russell 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. 

Craig A. Vanselow 

Karen S. Vennemann, 

Williams Gas Processing – Wamsutter Company 

Williams Natural Gas Company 

Michael Yarmuth 

Louisiana

J. D. Lormand, American Pipeline Contractors 

Association 

Maryland

Bruce Ballard 

Stephen Keith Ballard 

Eric Eisen, Eisen & Shapiro 

Michael Hutchines, The Wildlife Society 

Richard Klein, Community and Environmental 

Defense Services 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-33

Michigan

Great Lakes National Resource Center 

Susan L. Konieczny 

Meijer, Inc., Subsidiaries & Affiliates 

Hesper M. Mohr Living Trust 

Molly M. Shaw 

Missouri

Lillian V Abel 

Pat Amick, Missouri Economic Development Council 

A P Green Industries, Inc. 

Charlotte Azdell 

Frank Becker, Pike County Farm Bureau 

Ellen Benitz, Missouri Turkey Wildlife Foundation 

Francis N. Berry 

Helen L. Berry 

Robert Berry 

Vivetta June Bohac 

Aubrey Bradley 

June Bradley 

Edward C. Burkart 

Janice L. Burkart 

H. Robert Burns 

Henry R. Burns, Jr. Trust est by Revocable Living 

Trust Indenture dated February 24, 1999 

Izelle L. Burns Trust est by Revocable Living Trust 

Indenture dated February 24, 1999 

Sue Caine, Mexico Area Chamber of Commerce 

Lyle Cannon 

Lynn Cannon 

Michael T Cline, Laclede Gas Company 

Jannie J. Cook 

Jannie L. Cook Revocable Trust U/T/A dated April 10, 

2003 

Otto J. Cook 

Otto J. Cook Revocable Trust U/T/A dated April 10, 

2003 

Malcolm M. Coose 

Norma Jean Coose 

Amy L. Craighead 

David L. Craighead 

Harold Crowder 

Phyllis Elizabeth Crowder 

Jerry Crutchfield 

Ellen Cuno 

Larry Gene Cuno 

Sharon A. Cuno 

William W. Cuno 

Randal Eugene Dahl 

Trey Davis, Missouri Chamber of Commerce & 

Industry 

Derek R. Deters Revocable Living Trust, dated 

February 15, 2005 

Eugene H. Doebelin 

The Eugene H. Doebelin Revocable Living Trust 

dated March 16, 1994 

Margaret J. Eddington Life Estate 

Kathy Engel, Bowling Green Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Karen L. Eshraghi Trust 

Mark H. Eshraghi Trust 

Cynthia C. Evans U/T/A dated March 18, 1994 

James E. Evans Revocable Inter Vivos Trust U/T/A 

dated August 10, 1995 

Myrtle A. Evans Revocable Inter Vivos Trust U/T/A 

dated 8/10/95 

Paul E. Evans U/T/A dated March 18, 1994 

Ashlee B. Falconer 

Sherry K. Fehr Revocable Trust dated May 10, 1999 

Vernon G. Fehr Revocable Living Trust U/T/A dated 

May 2, 1994 

Beverly Florence 

Barbara Forster 

Jo Tom Forster 

Earl H. Gray and Iva Jean Gray Joint Revocable 

Living Trust Agreement 

Jason Gibbs 

Nancy J. Gibbs 

Rachelle Gibbs 

Robert D. Gibbs 

Wendy Gibbs 

Tim Gibbons, Missouri Rural Crisis Center 

William J. Godier 

Irene A. Gores 

Joyce Marie Guinn 

Linda Hallows, Louisiana Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Susan Harris, Nature Conservancy 

James H. Hartung 

Garrett Hawkins, Missouri Farm Bureau 

Sandra K. Heinetz 

Ted Heisel, Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Constance A. Hesse 

Kerry Hesse 

Dorothea B. Hestererg, Trustee UTA dated March 13, 

1979 

Blane Heumann, Nature Conservancy, Lower Ozarks 

Project 

Billie Hobbs 

Carolyn Hobbs 

Othel Dean Hobbs 

Steven D. Hobbs 

Leslie Holloway, Missouri Farm Bureau 

Lena Jo Holt U/T/A dated January 23, 1999 

Penny Holtzmann, Sierra Club 

Jim Howald, Ralls County Farm Bureau 

Julia Anne Huff-Moore 

Hufford Living Trust dated 4-18-97 

Bonnie Ingram 

Phyllis Naïve Ingram 

J & J Dirt Farm, Inc. 

Sara D. Jensen 

Jerry Johnson 

Christine M. Jones 

Keith Kinne, Nature Conservancy, Dunn 

Ranch/Pawnee Prairie 

Carla Klein, Sierra Club, Ozark Chapter 

Lisa D. Lalor 

Tony LaRue, Ducks Unlimited 

Nellie M. Lewis 

Orie L Lewis 

Littleby Methodist Church Cemetery Assoc. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-34

Gladys L. Love Revocable Living Trust 

Eugenia Dale Lovell 

Jon Martin, Quails Unlimited 

Dena Mebruer 

Gary Mebruer 

Gary Mebuer 

Janet Mertz 

Allen Ray Miller 

Barbara Ann Miller 

Daniel Miller 

Mollet Family Trust 

Mollet Survivors Trust Dated June 8, 1995 

Deborah Moore 

Rex Moore 

Kenneth Porter Morris, U/T/A dated October 1, 1980 

John Donley Morris U/T/A, dated December 30, 1986 

Shirley A. Morris U/T/A, dated December 30, 1986 

The Vern and Mary Moses Revocable Living Trust 

U/A, dated May 17,2000 

Phyllis Ingram Naïve 

Kenneth J Neises, Laclede Gas Company 

Roy Niemeyer 

Marilyn Oster 

Peabody Development Land Holdings LLC 

Pike Grain, Inc. 

Michael H. Pollock 

Pamela J. Pollock 

James A. Pound Family Limited Partnership 

Mildred L. Randolph 

Phillip W. Raufer Declaration of Trust, dated 

08/03/1991 

Robert L. Reading 

L. Dwane Rees 

Louis M. Rees 

Nadine Rees 

Revocable Trust Agreement U/T/A dated August 9, 

1990 

Helen S. Rice 

Riechers Revocable Trust UTA dated 1/16/2004 

Charles E. Riechers 

Cherylyn Riechers 

George H. F. Riechers Trustee UTA dated 1/07/1981 

Harry H. Riechers 

David J. Ries, MoGas Pipeline LLC 

Alan D. Robertson 

Debra K. Robertson 

Jessica L. Robertson 

James A. Robinson Trust dated November 1, 2005 

Tony Robyn, Audubon Society, Center/Sanctuary 

Glenn E. Roethemeyer U/T/A dated July 24, 1979 

Marcella Roethemeyer U/T/A dated July 24, 1979 

Charles Ruckins 

Joe Salois, Vandalia Area Chamber of Commerce 

Jo Beth Schlemmer, U/T/A dated February 5, 1999 

John F. Schlemmer, U/T/A dated February 5, 1999 

Muriel A. Schmaltz 

Thomas M. Schmaltz 

Joan F. Schoneboom 

Ted H. Schoneboom 

Gary L. Sendelweck 

William W. Sheppard 

Gwen Shirkey, Nature Conservancy, Kansas City 

Philanthropy Office 

Smith Family Trust 

Bill Sonwalt 

Roger Still, Audubon Society, State Office 

Cathy C Curran Stirnemann 

Double E Stock Farm, Inc. a Missouri Corporation 

Cathy Sutton 

Mark Sutton 

Michael J. Tabaka 

Vicki Diane Thompson 

Traynor & Traynor, LTD, an Arizona Corporation 

Ronald Wayne Turnbull and Yvonne Marie Turnbull 

Revocable Living Trust dated October 7, 1998 

William Arlie Turnbull and Roice Fern Turnbull Family 

Partnership 

William Arlie Turnbull Family Partnership, L.P. 

U/T/A dated 3/22/1983 

UTA dated March 22, 1983 

Betty Jo Whittaker 

Josephine Wilhelmi Living Trust dated July 21,1997 

Barb Wilson, Audrain County Farm Bureau 

Loren E. Worsdell 

Wilma E. Worsdell 

Jeff Wright 

Sherry Wright 

Teresa Gail Wright 

Nebraska

Robert M. Bertsch 

TrustA, TrustB, TrustC established under the 

Revocable Living Trust for Gladys M. Forsyth 

Gary France 

Dann V. Freburg 

Linda S. Johnson 

Robert J. Linder 

S. Jean Linder 

Heather E. Morse 

James A. Morse 

Jonathan D. Morse 

Nancy M. Morse 

James G. Swartz 

Karen R. Swartz 

Leland E. Thorell 

Shirley Thorell 

New Hampshire

Mark A. Haney 

New Jersey

First National Bank Arcola 453 

E. Richard Nightingale 

Terry Asphalt Materials, Inc. 

New Mexico

J B Smith, Yates Petroleum Corporation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-35

New York

National Audubon Society 

 

North Carolina

Edgar County Bank Trust 455-183 

James R. Gadd 

Gwen N. Steele 

James F. Steele 

 

Ohio

 

AK Asset Management Company 

AK Steel Corporation 

Dorothy L. Ackers 

Michael Adamik 

Donald D. Adams 

Moyer Adams 

Melissa L. Adelsperger 

Steven L. Adelsperger 

Chris Agnitsch, Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, 

Fairfield County 

Harold L. Albert 

Kathleen A. Aleshire 

Mark A. Aleshire 

Kevin Alexander 

Melissa Alexander 

Ruth Anne Alexander 

Trevor Alexander, Calfec, Halter and Greiswold 

Gail Alford 

Ronald Alford 

Betty Allen 

Gayle J. Allen 

Mark D. Allen 

Phillip Allen 

Jesse Allmyer 

Christina A. Alonso 

Orlando A. Alonso 

American Red Cross, Central Ohio 

Betsy Anderson, Ohio Farm Bureau, Belmont County 

Vickie Anderson 

Chris Angel 

Rhonda Angel 

Harold R. Ansel 

Louella J. Ansel 

Denise Antognoli 

John D. Antognoli 

Linda Lou Arick 

William R. Arick 

Gary M. Armstrong 

Kimberly A. Armstrong 

Marc Armstrong, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Dale Arnold, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Sarah Arseneau, Lebanon Chamber of Commerce 

(Warren County) 

Marilyn Furnas Asbury 

David J. Atkins 

Barbara Atley 

Dennis Atley 

Richard G. Au 

James Matthew Augustus 

James A. Axe 

Virginia M. Axe 

B H Rivers & Sons 

BSI Group Holdings LLC 

Arnold E. Babb 

Carol S. Babb 

Shirley L. Babbert 

Robert Bader 

Vicki Bader 

Mikki Bahl 

William E. Bahl 

Kris D. Baikov 

Yuri Baikov 

Karen Bailey 

Nelson Bailey 

Sammie R. Bailey 

Susan Bailey 

Adam Baker 

Charles J. Baker 

Cherie Baker 

Jean R. Baker 

Kenneth R. Baker 

Lois A. Baker 

Ruth Baker 

Darren Baldwin 

Melissa Baldwin 

Donald E. Balthaser 

Dorothy E. Balthaser 

Kellie Banks 

Michael Banks 

Floyd L. Barker 

Gregory Barker 

Helen Louise Barker 

Julie Barker 

Mildred E Barker 

William M. Barker 

Barnes Farms, Inc. 

Michael A. Barnes 

James D. Barton 

Jennif Barton 

Larry Bartram 

Amy L. Bates 

Carol E. Bates 

Ronald F. Bates 

Rose Marie Bates 

William E. Bates 

Joseph S. Bathalter 

Elizabeth Bauer 

Jake Bauer 

David L. Baughn Trust 

David L. Baughn 

Doug Baumann 

Donavin Baumgartner 

Howard Baur 

Howard J. Baur Trust, under Trust Agreement dated 

February 12, 1992 

Ruth A. Bay 

Mike Beachler 

Cheryl M. Bean 

Robert M. Bean 

Sara L. Beauman 

Linda L. Beavers 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-36

Carol Beckett 

Kim A. Beckman 

Jeffrey Becraft 

Jennifer Becraft 

Dorothy A. Bednarski 

Lorrie Beedie 

Clara J. Beiter 

George A. Beiter 

Eileen G. Beldean 

Eugene V. Beldean 

Beverly A. Bell 

Patricia A. Bell 

Robert G. Bell 

Stephen A. Bell 

Belmont County Farm Bureau 

Janet L. Benes 

Philip C. Benes 

Bonnie S. Bennett 

Rodney I. Bennett 

Debra Bennington 

Robert Bennington 

Paul L. Benoit 

Amanda Bensick 

Perry Bensick 

Mary Bentonte 

Kenneth Bentonte 

Thomas M. Berg 

Robert C. Bergin 

David R. Bergman 

Linda Bergman 

Berns Development Group 

Bern's Greenhouse & Garden 

Michael Berns 

Helen K. Berry 

Jeanne R. Berry 

David C. Betts 

Nedra J. Betts 

Susan K. Betts 

Basavaraja Bharathi 

Allen Bickel 

Michael Bigelow 

Pamela J. Bigham 

Richard Lee Bigham 

Jason Bihl, Ohio Farm Bureau, Clinton County 

Bob Billings 

Donald L. Bivens 

Florence D. Bivens 

Gail Black 

Jerry Black 

Rocky Black, Ohio Farm Bureau 

Roger Blackburn, Fayette County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Roger Blake 

Sherri Blake 

James Blankenship 

Patricia Blankenship 

Clayton Blanton 

Michael Blanton 

Neoma Blanton 

Angel Blevins 

Phillip Blevins 

Joy L. Bliss 

Robert H. Bliss 

Edward Bloom 

Elaine Blount 

John Blount 

Gene Bock 

James F. Bohren 

Janet Bohren 

Clyde L. Bondy 

Mark A. Bonifield 

Pamela L. Bonifield 

Mary Lou Bontrager 

Ralph L. Bontrager 

Betty Bost 

Charles Bost 

Rikki J. Boston 

Tom Boston 

Lawrence H. Bourne 

Tamara L. Bourne 

William Bowling 

Angela Bowser 

Colin Bowser 

Robert D. Boyd 

Cindy Boyer 

Dale E. Boyer 

Daniel Boyer 

Ruby K. Boyer 

J. Bradburn 

Samantha D. Bradburn 

Kevin S. Bradley 

David Brandenburg 

Paula Brandenburg 

Dickie Brandon 

Spring Brandon 

Norman E. Brehm Living Trust dated June 1, 1998 

Homer Bridges 

Rita Bridges 

Diane Kay Britch 

Deanna M. Broermann 

Nicholas J. Broermann 

Elaine H. Brooks 

Mary Brooks 

Terry Brooks 

Anna P. Brown 

Barbara A. Brown 

Carl Brown 

Dan L. Brown 

Gail Brown 

Gary L. Brown 

Harley L. Brown 

Jack Brown 

Margaret Brown 

Mary Ann Brown 

Pamela Brown 

Wm Brown 

Bruner Land Company 

Jeffrey A. Brunn 

Theresa M. Brunn 

Scott A. Bryan 

Janice Bryant 

Ralph Bryant 

Clare Buchanan 

George A. Buchanan 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-37

Timothy E. Buchanan 

Tonya M. Buchanan 

Jim Buehil 

Dick Bulach 

Elaine M. Bulach 

John J. Bulach 

Kenneth L. Bulach 

Martha C. Bulach 

Richard G. Bulach 

Susan J. Bulach 

Patricia Burch-Webster 

Cathy J. Burns 

Todd A. Burns 

Christopher Burson 

Jill Burson 

Gerald E. Burton 

Mae A. Burton 

Jean M. Burwinkle 

Joseph J. Burwinkle 

Betty J. Bush 

Danny Lee Bush 

Dianne Bush 

Donald O. Bush 

Mark Bush 

Crystal R. Bussart 

Kenneth L. Bussart 

Butler County Farm Bureau 

Butler County Planning Commission 

Gerald G. Butler 

Lisa Butler 

Marvin Butler 

Devonne R. Calabrese 

Joseph P. Calabrese 

Judy Calder 

Robert Calder 

Patricia Cannon 

Richard Max Cannon 

William T. Cannon 

Barbara A. Cappel Trust 

Capstone Holding Co. 

Irvan D. Carberry 

Faye Carey 

Meagan M. Carey Trust 

Charles Fred Carmichael 

Christopher Carnes 

Gretchen Carnes 

Conrad Carpenter 

Marie Carpenter 

Don Carrelli 

Gary A. Carter 

Norma Carter 

Deborah Cartwright 

John M. Cartwright 

Kevin Cartwright 

Keith J. Caruso 

Shannon R. Caruso 

Karen M. Casey 

Keith W. Casey 

Jennifer Cassidy 

Cleo V. Caton 

Carlos Cattani 

Marjorie Cattani 

Cordelia Caudill 

Harold Caudill 

Anita Celesti 

John Centers 

Kristina Centers 

Joshua Chafin 

Leslie Chafin 

Chandlersville Woods LLC 

Sue Chear 

Peter Cherevas 

Clara Belle Christman 

Clara Belle Christman 

Nancy Hargis Claibourne 

Ronald L. Claibourne 

Kenny Clark, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce 

(Butler County) 

Susan C. Clear 

Roger L. Clevinger 

Clifton Brothers 

James P. Climer 

Ethel L. Cline 

Leslie U. Cline 

Lisa Cline 

Clinton County Farm Bureau 

Linda S. Clontz 

Wendell D. Clontz 

John L. Clouse 

Katharine K. Clum 

Michael J. Clum 

Darrell E. Coakley 

Cochran Indian Creek Acres II PLL 

Angela D. Cochran 

John W. Cochran 

Jim Cochran 

Cohen Brothers Inc. 

Onica Cole 

Robert E Coleman 

Aaron Andrew Collins 

Beverly Ann Collins 

Jacqueline K. Collins 

Kenneth C. Collins 

CL Colliver 

Timothy L. Colliver 

Matthew G. Colson 

Sheri L. Colson 

Beth Ann Combs 

Isabella C. Combs 

Jerry Lee Combs 

Kelly Combs 

Thomas B. Conaway 

William J. Confer 

Fredde R. Conkle 

Patsy A. Conkle 

Betty J. Conley 

James F. Conley 

Jim Conley 

Catherine C. Conner 

Brooke Anna Conrad 

Cole Conrad 

Elizabeth T. Cook 

Mary Jo Cook 

Randall S. Cook 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-38

Linda Cooperstein 

William Cooperstein 

Virginia Corder 

Patricia Corrick 

Dean L. Cory 

Phyllis J. Cory 

Carol Joyce Costello 

James G. Costello 

Carl Cottongim 

Cindy Cottomgim 

Garland B. Cottrell 

Linda L. Cottrell 

Cathy L. Couch 

Charles R. Couch 

Gary R. Couch 

Janet K. Cox 

Roy L. Cox 

Ida Elizabeth Craig Inter Vivos Trust Agreement dated 

October 14, 2005 

Robert Craig 

Warren Craig 

Cristo Homes Inc. 

Cheryl Crowder 

Phillip Crowder 

Angela M. Cunningham 

Thomas M. Cunningham 

Jennifer Curlis 

Aaron M. Curry 

Marilyn Curry 

Kelly K. Cymanski 

Mark T. Cymanski 

Amy M. Cyrus 

Brian Cyrus 

Emma J. Dailey 

Peter Dame 

John R. Dammaun 

Eugene Dangel 

Irene Dangel 

Eula M. Darrah 

Judith Darrah 

Larry Darrah 

Lenzy R. Darrah 

Anup Das 

Christie Davidson 

Kenneth R. Davidson 

The Davis Family Living Trust (Trust B) dated 

February 13, 1992 

Deborah Davis 

Eleanor J. Davis 

Gary Davis 

Judith A. Davis 

Kristi Davis 

Larry D. Davis 

Mary W. Davis 

Phillip Davis 

Sherry E. Davis 

DDH Inc. 

Michael Dearing 

Rebecca Dearing 

Mildred Dearth Trust 

Jennifer Deaton 

Roberta L. Deckerd 

Craig E. Decuir 

David A. Delaney 

Mary Jane Delaney 

Kara DeLong 

Tatum W. Dennis 

Brenda Jo Dennon 

Chris Depew 

Delores Depew 

Cheri C. Dersom 

Craig A. Dersom 

Erma K. Desarro 

Erma K. DeSarro 

Mary J Detcher 

Helen Detling 

Hollie Detling 

J.J. Detweiler Enterprises Inc. 

John N. Detweiler 

Sarah J. Detweiler 

James G. Diersing 

Lisa L. Diersing 

James Diersing 

Fred A. Dilley 

Keith M. Dilley 

Julianna Doane 

Melvin N. Doane 

Christina Dobbins 

Timothy Dobbins 

David Dolan 

Donna Dolan 

Edward G. Donahue 

Sandra K Donahue 

Bertha L. Doolittle 

Loretta June Dorn 

Roger L. Dorn 

Peggy Sue Douglass 

Joseph Douthett 

Rebecca Douthett 

Norman Dresbach 

Patricia J. Dresbach 

Donald Wayne Duche 

Elizabeth Ann Duche 

Adam R. Dudley 

Jaylynn M. Duncan 

Kimberley S. Duncan 

Rose A. Duncan 

Timothy W. Duncan 

Tonia Dunlap 

Walter Dunlap 

Joyce A. Dunn 

Thomas Dunn 

Bruce Dunzweiler 

Alice G. Dupler 

Ricky A. Dupler 

Pearl A. Durst 

Crystal M. Dyckes 

Robert E. Dyckes 

Anita Dye 

Glenn Dye 

The Eakin Family Trust 

Peggy J. Eakin 

Robert D. Eakin 

Donald M. Earley 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-39

Helen L. Earley 

Keith M. Earley 

Donald M. Earnhart 

Helen L. Earnhart 

Mavis Schaal Edwards 

Daniel Earl Ehlerding 

Howard F. Ehlerding Trust 

R. Ehlerding Farm Partnership 

Melinda A. Eichenlaub 

William F. Eichenlaub 

Frances R. Eikleberry 

Larry G. Eikleberry 

James Elam 

Craig Elliott 

Robin Elliott 

Amy Elsea, Pickaway Chamber of Commerce 

Nathan J. Elter 

Betty L. Emenaker 

Edward L. Emenaker 

Matthew H. Engel 

Doris E. English Estate Planning Trust 

Enyart Family Revocable Living Trust 

Lisa Esau 

Timothy Esau 

Estate of James C. Enyart 

Mary K. Enyart 

Brocha Evans 

John Evans 

Mary Ann Evans 

Michael Evans 

Roger D Evans 

Steven Evans 

Jewel E. Eveland 

Monte D. Eveland 

Denise Eversole 

Steve Eversole 

Christina C. Evick 

Ralph L. Evick 

Charles D. Ewing 

Tammy Ewing 

Fadel Fadel 

Joan Fahnestock 

Michael A. Fahnestock 

Fairfield County Farm Bureau 

Family Fun Holding LLC 

Thomas Farley 

Adam Fath 

Tracy Fath 

Barbara R. Fathman 

Ronald J. Fathman 

Fayette County Farm Bureau 

Joan M. Fehrman Revocable Living Trust, UAD 11 

December 2000 

Roy Fehrman 

Sondra Fehrman 

George K. Feisel 

Karen S. Feisel 

Jason Feldner, Ohio Farm Bureau, Noble County 

Lloyd Feltner 

Veronika Feltner 

Craig Fennel, Fenco Development Co 

Carol Ferguson 

Monica L. Ferguson 

Stephen Ferguson 

Fonda Gay Fichthorn 

Allison Fickus 

Matthew Fickus 

Glenn Fields 

Helen Fields 

Judith S. Fisher 

Nelson Fisher 

Vincent C. Fisher 

William D. Fisher 

Patricia J. Fitzpatrick 

Li Flack 

Linda Flack 

Terry A. Flack 

Dana E. Flesher 

Teresa J. Flesher 

Kimberley S. Fletcher 

Lance Fletcher 

Larry J. Fliehman 

Roy R. Fliehman 

Fay A. Fluharty 

James A. Foglesong 

Sally A. Foglesong 

Michael E. Foley 

Richard Foppiano 

Jorge Forero 

Traci Forero 

John M. Forman 

Dale E. Forni 

Stella E. Forni 

Waldo C. Forni 

Heide Fought, Ohio Township Association 

Virgil Founds 

Chad Fox 

Jack Fox 

Jennifer Fox 

Jon C. Fox 

Joseph C. Fox 

Kristie Fox 

Mary E. Fox 

Robert A. Fox Family Trust dated July 6, 2005 

Nora M. Fraley 

Robert G. Fraley 

Ruth A. Fraley 

Thomas L. Fraley 

David J. Frericks 

Jay Frick 

Lois Friday 

Gay Nelle Fridley 

Sebert Clayton Fridley 

Brenda Frye 

Corey L. Frye 

Don R. Frye 

Mary Sallie Frye 

Richard Frye 

Timothy Frye 

Joseph C. Gabbard 

Arnold D. Gabriel 

Diana M. Gabriel 

Juliette Gaffney-Dame 

Kenneth Galdeen 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-40

Mary Galdeen 

Charles Gall 

Kathy Gall 

Charlene L. Gallagher 

Francis J. Gallagher 

Phillip M. Gardner 

Tressie B. Gardner 

Mike Garrettson 

Tina Garrettson 

Michael Gassaway 

Larry Gearhardt, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Donald L. Gehres 

Sandra K. Gehres 

Dora Gentry 

Henry Gentry 

Deon A. Gephart 

Jennifer Gephart 

Alan R. Gibbs 

Petra Gibbs 

Thomas W. Gibbs 

Vickie L. Gibbs 

Angela Gibson 

Scott Gibson 

Alyce S. Giles 

C. Richard Giles 

Kathy A. Gill 

Karen M. Glade 

Stephen R. Glade 

Mark A. Glennon 

Michelle L. Glennon 

Robert Glick 

Traci Glick 

Michael Ray Glover 

Phyllis Goldsmith 

Richard L. Goldsmith 

Geri Gorman 

James C. Gorman 

Michael W. Gorman 

Christine Graham 

Louis R. Graham 

Barber Gray 

Debra L. Gray 

Denny L. Gray 

James A. Gray 

Kenneth O. Gray 

David Greber 

Anthony Greco 

Cara L. Greco 

Greene County Farm Bureau 

Claire Green 

Donald L. Green, Co-Trustee 

Lon Green 

Patrick R. Green 

Rosetta Green, Co-Trustee 

Martha L. Greene 

Patricia Greene 

The Greenfield Corp. 

Greentree Limited Partnership 

Gene Greh 

Brenda Gress 

Jerry K. Gress 

Scott Griffin 

Glen G. Griffiths 

Nancy M. Griffiths 

Douglas E. Griggs 

John R. Groff 

Maryann L. Groff 

David Groth 

Katie Grove, Ohio Farm Bureau, Warren County 

Gary Grubb 

June A. Grubb 

Guernsey County Farm Bureau 

Lester Hacker 

Thelma Hacker 

Amanda E. Hagan 

Linda M. Hagan 

Rick D. Hagan 

Ryan J. Hagan 

Scott D. Hagan 

Tawnya T. Hagan 

Dennis D. Hagler 

Brian Haines 

Danny Haines 

Julia Halcomb 

Halderman Farm Management 

Karen Haley, Wilmington Chamber of Commerce 

Craig S. Hall 

Dwain C. Hall 

Mildred K. Hall 

Nancy C. Hall 

Ronald E. Hall 

Victoria Hall 

William A. Hambrick 

Jonda C. Hamilton 

Thomas G. Hamilton 

Allen E. Hamler 

Carson Harless 

Ron Harlman 

Carol C. Harman 

Harold C. Harney 

Harper & Hazlett Attorneys at Law 

Charles E. Harris 

Gene R. Harris 

Jeffrey D. Harris 

Maurice Allen Hartley 

Wilbur C. Harveysburg 

Jessica L. Hasty 

Mitchell L. Hatfield 

Amos Haugh 

Jennifer Hawkins 

Noami M. Hay 

Cristy Hayes 

Jeffery Hayes 

Donald G. Headley 

Ruth E. Headley 

David H. Hedges 

Barbara Heepe 

Karen Hein 

Russ Hein 

Beth C. Heineman 

James P. Heineman 

Duane A. Heintzelman 

Katherine N. Heintzelman 

David Heismann 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-41

Bonnie L. Heister 

Raymond E. Heister 

Susan H. Helgeson 

Betty L. Helton 

Rex K. Helton 

Ted Hemmelgarn 

Carol L. Henderson 

Kevin E. Henderson 

Robert Henderson 

Rob Hedrick, Fayette County Department of 

Economic Development 

Debra Hendrickson 

Kenneth B. Hendrickson 

Robert Hendrickson 

Steven A. Hendrix 

Mildred Henkelman 

Joel Henning 

Stephen D. Henning 

Kyle Hensley 

Melinda Hensley 

Gay Henson 

Steven T. Herbert Trust 

Trust Agreement for Alan A. Hermann and Suzanne 

J. Herman 

Alan A. Herrmann 

Suzanne J. Herrmann 

Janet I. Herron 

Wade H. Herron 

John C. Hesford 

Linda S. Hesford 

Donald C. Hessler 

Sue A. Hessler 

Diane M. Heyob 

John J. Heyob 

Harold Hickenbottom 

James O. Hickenbottom 

Martha Hickenbottom 

Patricia A. Hickenbottom 

Richard V. Hickenbottom 

Virginia Hickenbottom 

Paul Higgins 

Rita Hiles 

Alice A. Hill 

Dexter W. Hill 

Kimberly Marie Hill 

Robert Wayne Hill 

Joanne Hillman Life Estate 

Joanne Hillman 

Susan Hillman Maxwell 

William Himabeck 

Daniel Hinkel 

Diana Hinkel 

Elmer Hinkle 

John R. Hizey 

Isra Hmidan 

Bonita L. Hobbs 

Steven C. Hobbs 

Charles W. Hobby 

Jennifer I. Hobby 

Randall L. Hock 

Randy Hock 

Tiffany Hofmann-Rees 

Jennifer Holbein 

Donna Holbrook 

Stephen M. Holbrook 

Holder Properties LLC 

Debora Holland 

Jennifer Holland 

Johnnie R. Holland 

Karen Holland 

Michael Holland 

Myron Hollin 

Charlotte Hollyfield 

Erick Hollyfield 

Homebuying Options LLC 

Carol Hornbaker 

Lori F. Horvarth 

James Horvath 

Jeffrey Horvath 

Lori Horvath 

Lori E. Horvath 

Joan N. Hostettler 

Jim Howalt 

Carl Howard 

Jenny Howard 

Michelle C. Huff 

Mitchell G. Huff 

Linda L. Huggins 

Ross Huggins 

Debra A. Hultgren 

Robert E. Hultgren 

Joseph E. Huml 

Robyn A. Huml 

Judith K. Humphrey 

Theodore Humphrey 

Mary Hunt 

Anna M. Hunter 

Curt Hunter 

Ira Hunter 

Patricia Hunter 

Huntington National Bank Trust 

Janet M. Hurley 

Sheryl Hurrell 

William Hurrell 

David Huss 

Michelle Huss 

Barbara L. Hutchinson 

Jill Ann Marie Hutchinson 

Michael Thomas Hutchinson 

Richard A. Hutchinson 

Pat R. Huth 

John A. Hyde 

Arlene Imes 

James Imes 

Donald N. Isaly 

Jeanette Isaly 

J W Voska Development Co. Inc. 

JA Development LLC 

Gloria M. Jackson 

Julie Jackson 

Richard L. Jackson 

Antionette Jankowski 

Kristine Jankowski 

Jennifer R. Jarvis 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-42

K. Michael Jarvis 

Becky Jenkins 

Patricia A. Jenny 

Paul C. Jenny 

Ann Marie Johnson 

Eugene N. Johnson 

Frederick Johnson 

Marcus Johnson 

Ted A. Johnson 

Teresa Johnson 

William Thomas Johnson 

Ann E. Jones 

Anna Jones 

Danny Jones 

Elisa Jones 

J.W. Jones Materials 

Jason Jones 

Junav Jones 

Keith A. Jones 

Kenneth H. Jones 

Mary C. Jones 

Paul Johnson 

Michael Joy 

Mary Beth Kakaris 

Stephen Kakaris 

Paul Kalmbach 

James B. Kaufman 

Victor Alden Kean 

Bo Keck, 

William C. Keefer 

Eric Keller 

Hope Ann Keller 

Elizabeth K. Kelley 

Robert L. Kelley 

Cheryl Kelly 

Paul Kelly 

Richard M. Kemp 

Martha A. Kendrick 

Trisha Kent-Swartz 

Nada S. Kerr 

James B. Kessinger 

Dina M. Kidd 

Timothy J. Kidd 

Edward L. Kiefer 

Phyllis Kile 

Ronald Kile 

Donald R. Kimes 

Troy D. King 

William L. King 

Cecil H. Kinney 

Miriam Kinney Life Estate 

H. Ralph Kinney Life Estate 

Raymond E. Kirkbride 

Valarie S. Kirkbride 

Stephen M. Klema 

Mary Lou Knau 

William C. Knau 

Knecht Farms, Inc. 

Richard Knuchel 

Shirley Knuchel 

Dan Koeninger 

J. Koloszar 

Karen Koloszar 

Doris K. Koop 

Michael J. Koop 

Klement Kotoff 

Harold R. Kovalchik 

Larry Kovalski 

Dennis M. Kowallek 

Diane M. Kowallek 

Paul Kras 

Eliz Kristoff 

Karen M Kristoff 

Joseph Kulifay 

Janet D. Kunkel 

Edward D. Lacey 

Kimberly E. Lacey 

M. Jean Lacey 

Thomas E. Lacey 

William C. Lagergren 

Lewis W. and Naomi Laird Living Trust Agreement 

Lewis W. Laird 

Naomi Laird 

Lamb Farms, Inc. 

Robert Franklin Lamb 

Undine H. Lamb 

Eric M. Lane 

Fay Z. Lane 

Martin Lane Family Trust 

Zella Fay Lane 

Ronald L. Lang 

Joann P. Langdon 

Jerry Lanich 

Eugene F. Lanuzza 

Ruth Ann Lanuzza 

Daniel J. Larkin 

Darlene K. Larrick 

Keith A. Larrick 

Robert M. Lasko 

James P. Lauzon 

Lorie R. Lauzon 

Janet Leahy 

Robert Leahy 

Faye Leap 

Walter Leap 

Eugene Lefever 

Larry Leger 

Joel Lehman 

Kathleen Lehmkuhl 

Sean Lehmkuhl 

Rob Leichman 

Randy Leis 

Curtis E. Lenhart 

Roberta L. Lenhart 

Susan D. Lenhart 

David E. Lewis 

Marie L. Lewis 

Rebecca M. Lewis 

Bev Lietismann 

William Lietismann 

Connie Lindsey 

Leslie Lindsey 

Thomas L. Lindsey 

Helen Linn 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-43

Nancy Jo List 

Robert E. List 

William Listermann 

Kitty K. Little 

Tamara C. Littleton 

Thomas W. Littleton 

John Liver 

Mike Lloyd, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce 

Kay M. Long Co-Trustee 

Melissa Long 

Michael D. Long, Co-Trustee 

Edward D. Love 

Sharon G. Love 

Lawrence Lovejoy 

Robert E. Luallen 

Shirley J. Luallen 

Betty L. Lucas 

Robert E. Lucas 

Albert J. Luehrmann 

Linda G. Luehrmann 

John K Lutsch 

Kelly A. Lynch 

Albert A. Mack 

Georganna Mack 

Rhonda Mack 

Roy A. Mack 

Kari Mackenbach, EMH&T, Planning and Mitigation 

Dow Maddew 

Danette S. Maddux 

Kevin R. Maddux 

Deborah Madrigal 

Robert Mahaffey 

Gary Major 

Joanne Major 

June Malicote 

Daniel E. Mallett 

Geraldine Mallett 

M. Geraldine Mallett 

Heather L. Malley 

Frances June Mallicote 

William H. Mallicote 

Jo Ann Malone 

Joseph L. Malone 

The Malone Trust dated October 24, 1997 

Don T. Maloney Revocable Trust 

Kathleen G. Maloney Revocable Trust 

Marilyn J. Mancini 

Edward Mangus 

Donna Marie 

Carol A. Marlyne 

Theodore R. Marlyne 

Sarah Elizabeth Martens 

Jack Martin 

Joan Martin 

Roger Lynn Martin 

Bonnie Y. Marvin 

Jerry R. Marvin 

Don Mason 

Kenneth Mason 

Louise F. Mason 

Patricia Waidelich Mast 

Flora M Matthews 

Edgar H. Maus 

Sara Jane Maus 

Keith Mautz 

Estate of D. Keith Mautz 

Bonita May 

Noah May 

Tracey N. Mazuk 

Burl E. McCafferty 

Eleanor L. McCafferty 

Jeffery L. McCarty 

Maureen McCarty 

Margaret F. McClain 

Roy A. McClain 

Jeannine McClary 

The Jeannine McClary Living Trust Agreement dated 

December 9, 2003 

Hannah B. McClelland 

Wilma Darlene McClintock 

Charles A. McClure Trust 

Susan M. McClure Trust 

Robert E. McConaha 

Patrick A. McCort 

Kirby McCoy 

Margaretha E. McCoy 

Robert McCulley 

Susan McCulley 

Laura Anne McDaniel 

Terry Allen McDaniel 

McDonald Farms, Inc. 

Kenneth McDonough, Ohio Power Company 

Bon McFarland 

Bonnie McFarland 

Eric McFarland 

Louis A McFarland 

Jeffrey A, Mcgee 

Marissa E. McGee 

Patricia Lou McGlumphy 

Wilbur E. McKay 

Florence McKinley 

Don McNutt 

Anna Meade 

Ron Meade 

Gregory Keith Meadows 

Paula Sue Meadows 

Donna Mealey 

Richard Mealey 

Clarence J. Mercer 

Janet G. Merritt 

Jennifer Merritt 

Kimberly A. Merritt 

Michael Merritt 

Carl Messerly 

Wilma Messerly 

Beth A. Meyer 

Joan Meyer 

Linda S. Meyer 

Michael H. Meyer 

Michael V. Meyer 

James M. Miceli 

Leon Michiline 

Sumiko Michiline 

Mid-Miami Healthcare Foundation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-44

Mid-Ohio Acres, Inc. 

Midland Acres, Inc. 

Miller Breweries East, Inc. 

A. Marie Miller 

Brian Lee Miller 

Constance Miller 

Derek Brett Miller 

Harold Lee Miller 

Harold P. Miller 

Howard L. Miller Family Trust 

Howard W. Miller 

J. Kenneth Miller 

John R. Miller 

Karen E. Miller 

Kenneth J. Miller 

Loretta B. Miller 

Marie A. Miller 

Marvin Miller 

Misty R. Miller 

Nelda J. Miller 

Randy L. Miller 

Richard Miller 

Sue R. Miller 

Susan L. Miller 

Leo R. Minges 

Mildred R. Minges 

R. Mildred Minges 

John S. Minton 

Carol Miracle 

Ricky Miracle 

Grant Mitchell 

Teresa Mitchell 

Bryan Mock 

Carl M. Monahan 

Mary A. Monahan 

Monroe County Farm Bureau 

Monroe County Chamber of Commerce 

Randall Monroe 

Valerie Monroe 

Beverly Moore 

Carole S. Moore 

Deborah K. Moore 

Donna Y. Moore 

Dorothy M. Moore 

Gary L. Moore 

James E. Moore 

Kathryn Moore Life Estate 

Neal W. Moore 

Norman L. Moore 

Robert M. Moore 

Vicki Moore 

Elizabeth T. Morbitzer 

Richard L. Morbitzer 

Morgan County Farm Bureau 

John Morgan, Raven Rocks 

Daron Morris 

Sharon Renee Morris 

Brenda K. Mossbarger 

Jay E. Mossbarger 

Dean Mowrey 

Nancy Mowrey 

Amanda Muennich 

Elaine Mullens 

Jerry Mullens 

M. Mullins 

Elizabeth Murray 

James M. Murray 

Muskingum County Farm Bureau 

Melissa Kay Myers 

NGO Tranmission, Inc. 

Richard E. Naber Trust 

Dean Matthew Nahrup 

Janet Lee Nahrup 

Matthew Dean Nahrup 

Iris Nance 

Georgia Narburgh 

Carla Nasnas 

Zack Nasnas 

Donald Neal 

Jean Neal 

Kevin Neal 

Chris Neff 

Gay Nenson 

Pandora J. Neuhart 

David A. Nevin 

Pam R. Nevin 

Michael Newdigate 

Darlene P. Nicholson 

Donald L. Nicholson 

Chad W. Niehaus 

Annel Nieves 

Krystal D. Nieves 

Noble County Farm Bureau 

Noble County Chamber of Commerce 

Eddie C Noce 

V Kate Noce 

Chris Noel 

Carolyn M. Noll 

Christopher Noll 

David J. Noll 

Deborah Noll (Strohl) 

Edward Noll 

James P. Noll 

Margaret Noll 

Patrick C. Noll 

Susan E. Noll 

NVR Inc. 

Ann O’Neill 

Oakland Farms 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Butler County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Fayette County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Greene County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Guernsey County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Monroe County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Morgan County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Muskingum County 

Ohio Farm Bureau, Pickaway County 

Ohio Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store 

Association 

Ohio Power Company 

Ohio Riders Farms, Inc. 

Roy W. Ohlinger 

Susie A. Ohlinger 

Old Stone Riding Center Ltd 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-45

Julianna Olden 

Phillip P. Olden 

Mary Oliver 

Rickey L. Oliver 

Perry Orndoff 

Alfred F. Osborn 

Gloria A. Osborn 

Tangee M. Overly 

Pamela L. Oxley 

Steven C. Oxley 

Francis Pahr 

Robert Earl Paine 

Amy Palmer 

Deborah Palmer 

Kent Palmer 

John A. Palmer 

Alicia Papageorge 

Jeffrey Parker 

Missy Parker 

Robert Parker 

Wanda Parker 

David Ralph Parsley 

Mary Ann Parsley 

Tiffany Pattison, Perry County Farm Bureau 

Jodi K. Paul 

Michael D. Paul 

Connie Peavley 

James Peavley 

J. Pelfrey 

Johnny T. Pendleton 

Vicki L. Pendleton 

Michael A. Perkins 

Mitchell G. Perkins 

Phillip J. Perkins 

Yvonne A. Perkins 

Jessee Persinger, Jr. Life Estate 

M. Peterson 

Robert Peterson 

David W. Petitt 

Carolyn Sue Pettit 

Cindy Pettit 

David L. Pettit 

Elmer Pettit 

Ann L. Phillabaum 

Kelly Phillips 

Louise E. Phillips 

Mary Phillips 

Monte Phillips 

Brenda D. Philpot 

William D. Philpot 

Pickaway County Farm Bureau 

Dennis Pickett 

Luci Pierce, Barnesville Chamber of Commerce, 

Belmont County 

Robert L. Pitcock 

Suzanne Pitts 

Timothy Pitts 

Gerald L. Plants 

Veronica L. Plants 

Dale S. Plumly 

David A. Plumly 

Perry J. Plumly 

Roger L. Plumy 

Nancy J. Poe 

Tim Poorman, Muskingum-Zanesville Chamber of 

Commerce 

Connie Sue Porter 

John Potts 

Sharon Potts 

Kay Preston 

Arleen Price 

Brett Price 

Jack Price 

Kathleen Price 

Daniel E. Proeschel 

David A. Proeschel 

Judith L. Proeschel 

Robert E. Proeschel Trust dated September 24, 1997 

Scott W Pschirer 

Buster Pugh 

Rebecca S. Pugh 

Thelma Pugh 

Thomas E. Pugh 

Tianying Qian 

Grace A. Quinn 

John V. Quinn 

R & C Rivers Farms LP 

R & F Coal Company 

Beverly L. Radenheimer 

Rodney F. Radenheimer 

Ashley Rahe 

Barbara Ramsey 

James Robert Ramsey 

Janice Randall 

Richard Randall 

Randles 

Elaine Rasey 

William Rasey 

Karen S. Rayl 

Kevin G. Rayl 

Susan B. Reams 

Thomas B. Reams 

Janet Rector 

James B. Redfield 

Marica A. Reece 

Charles C. Reed 

Edwin K. Reed 

Mary L. Reed 

Rebecca J. Reed 

Robert L. Reed 

Kimberly Reedy 

Thomas Charles Reedy 

Richard Rees 

Christopher J. Reichley 

Teresa R. Reichley 

John W. Reid 

Denise M. Reier 

Charles H. Reifsteck 

Geneva R. Reifsteck 

Frances Reiley 

John William Renick 

Kathryn E. Renick 

Ruth B. Renick 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-46

Larry Rentschler, Perry County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Rachel Reynolds 

Ty Reynolds 

David L. Rhoads 

Penny A. Rhoads 

Donald E. Rhodehamel 

Gay F. Rhodes Family Trust 

Roger Rhude 

Bobby G. Rice 

Harold Rice 

Shanee Lynn Rice 

Joseph Richard 

Naomi Richard 

Bob Richardson 

Brian Riffe 

Christine Riffe 

Everett Rigel 

Mary Ann Rigel 

Suzan S. Riley 

Terry Lee Riley 

Sandra Ritz 

Rivers B H & Sons 

Ronald O. Rivers 

Charles E. Robbins 

Jean M. Robbins 

Clifton Roberts 

Judy Roberts 

Linda G. Roberts 

Stephen Roberts 

Victor L. Roberts 

Kimberly Robertson 

Stephen Robertson 

Dustin Rock 

John Rocker 

Lori Rockwell 

Darryl Rockwell 

Betty Roe 

Dean Roe 

Everett W. Roffee 

Lena K. Roffee 

Donald E. Rogers 

Gary W. Rogers 

Mary Rolfsen 

Norb Rolfsen 

Candyce L. Roos 

John Rose 

Nancy Rose 

Elizabeth J. Ross 

Frederick C. Rote 

Doris Rothfuss 

Dolores Rothwell 

Larry Rothwell 

Wayne Rothwell 

Michelle Rotz 

Ralph Rotz 

Catherine H. Rowe 

John Rowe 

Richard L. Ruff 

Anne Rumpf 

Johann Rumpf 

Amy D. Russell 

Robert Russell 

Don L. Rye 

Julie Ann Rye 

Mary Beth Rye 

John Saliga 

Sally Saliga 

Salt Creek Beagle Club, Inc. 

Julie Salyers 

Robert Salyers 

Thomas R. Sampson 

Jonathan Sams 

Julia Sams 

Scott Sanders 

Robert S. Sanderson 

Janice Santefort 

Mike Santoro 

Nancy Santoro 

Glenn E. Sauerland 

Margie L. Sauerland 

David Sayre 

Tina Sayre 

John M. Schafer Trust 

Linda B. Schafer Trust 

April Scheid 

Charles Scheid 

Brandi L. Schmitt 

Michael G. Schmitt 

Allison Schneidler 

Robert Schneidler 

Muriel Schoenharl 

Paul G. Schoenharl 

Matthew Schroeder 

Trisha Schroeder 

Marilyn R. Schumacher 

Robert L. Schumacher 

Harold E. Schweikert 

Nellie M. Schweikert 

Pete Schwiegeraht 

Linda S. Scothorn 

Thomas C. Scothorn 

Tim Scott 

James I. Scott 

Susan Searls 

Steven H. Sedgwick 

Toinette Doty Sergent 

Callie P. Sevastos 

Peter J. Sevastos 

Horace E. Sexton 

Josephine V. Sexton 

Robert Seyerle 

Sandra Seyerle 

Ada M. Shaeffer 

Paul E. Shaeffer 

B. Shafer 

William Shafer 

Darren C. Shaffer 

Debra A. Shaffer 

Donna Shaffer 

Joanna Shaffer 

John Shaffer 

Mary Shaffer 

Gregory Shaner 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-47

Jack Shaner, Ohio Environmental Council 

Adam Sharp, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Timothy Shartzer 

Cathy A. Shaw 

Phillip T. Shaw 

Steven S. Shaw 

Deborah Shearer-Stillion 

Terry E. Shearer-Stillion 

Rena Y. Shepherd 

Joyce Shilling 

Pat Shinkle 

William P. Shinkle 

Curtis M. Shonk 

David Shubert 

Mary Ann Shubert 

William Lee Shubert 

Bernedette E. Shumaker 

Kenneth E. Shumaker 

Sharleen Shumaker 

Steven K. Shumaker 

Janeen A. Shumate 

Joseph W. Shumate 

Virginia Shumate 

William Shumate 

Dorothy L. Shumway 

J. R. Shumway 

Ann L. Shutts 

Karl E. Shutts 

Carol L. Sieliet 

Travis R. Sieliet 

Herbert L. Sims 

Kennison A. Sims 

Linda L. Sims 

Shirley M. Sininger 

Steven W. Sininger 

Paul Sink 

Whittney Sink 

Shirley M. Sinninger 

Steven W. Sinninger 

Kevin Slack 

Mabel Slevin 

Donald G. Slorp 

Marilyn J. Slorp 

Smith Family Real Estate Ltd 

Alda Smith 

Betty J. Smith 

E.H. Smith Properties LLC 

Jennifer Lee Smith 

Jerry Smith 

John L. Smith 

Kenneth Perry Smith 

Lois D. Smith 

Lydella Ann Smith 

Marion L. Smith 

Mark Todd Smith 

Meredith S. Smith 

Meredith I. Smith 

Vicki Smith 

Connie Snelling 

Ken Snelling 

Michael R. Snider 

Anne Snowden 

Raymond Snowden 

Martin Snyder 

Debrah Solsvig 

Gary Solsvig 

South Central Power Company 

Southgate Petroleum Corp 

Elizabeth Spaeth 

William Spaeth 

Deborah L. Sparks 

Kenneth W. Sparks 

Brenda Spisak 

Clyde D. Spisak 

The Rodney and Phyllis Spohn Living Trust dated 

March 29, 1996 

Mary Sue Spurlock 

Robert Spurlock 

Betty Stacy 

Walter Stacy 

James Staggs 

Michelle Staggs 

Harold Stahl 

Martha Staley 

Shirley P. Stambaugh 

Patricia L. Stanbery 

Paul J. Stanbery 

Dorothy M. Stang Living Trust dated 3-30-98 

Donna Stanley 

Jeffrey R. Stanley 

D. C. Stearns 

Elizabeth Stearns 

Russell Stearns 

William E. & Fleeta Stearns Trust 

Harold Stebelton 

Robert L. Stebelton 

Marvin D. Steed 

Carol Steele 

Donna L. Steele 

Randolph R. Steele 

Heidi Bibile Stegemiller 

Mark E. Stegemiller 

Mark S Stemm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 

Jody Stenger 

Mark R. Stenger 

D. Cyrus Stephens Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated 

March 8, 2000 

Elizabeth Stephens 

Linda Stephens 

Michael Stephens 

Tom Stephens 

Merrill Stevens 

Rena Stevens 

Gerald L. Stewart 

Rita A. Stewart 

David C. Stickley 

Elizabeth J. Stiers 

Myron Thomas Stiers 

Nan Still, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Jack L. Stillinger 

Victoria D. Stillinger 

James H. Stillion 

Mary B. Stillion 

Virgil Stillion 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-48

Keith Stimpert, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Steven Stofel 

Vickie Stofel 

Edward L. Stoffregen 

Joe Stokes 

William Stolarik 

Velma Stoll 

Virginia E. Stotler 

Beverly L. Stout 

Carl Stout 

Elesa L. Stout 

Scott K. Stout 

Scott Strom 

David Stromberg 

Donald W. Stryker 

Jennifer Stryker 

Stephanie Stuart 

Dale E. Stubbs 

Cheryl Stump 

Curtis Stump 

S. Joe Summers 

Mary Sunberg 

William Sunberg 

Mary Surface 

Robert Surface 

Jacqueline A. Sutton 

Dallas Swaro 

Linda Swarthwood 

James H. Swartz 

Mark Swartz 

Andrea Swift 

Randy Swift 

Swingle Drilling 

Diane Swingle 

Diane Szydel 

Michael Szydel 

Freddie L. Tabler 

Jason E. Tackett 

Karen Tanner 

Rick Tanner 

Jeff Tatarek 

Nancy Tatarek 

Dale W. Taylor 

Guadalupe Taylor 

Karen R. Taylor 

Michael D. Taylor 

Trevor J. Teagarden 

Karen M. Tennant 

Robert C. Tennant 

Antonia Testa 

Sharon Testa, 

Edward G. Thomas 

Kenneth W. Thomas 

Kenneth R. Thomas 

Leigh C. Thomas 

Linda S. Thomas 

Patricia A. Thomas 

Phyllis D. Thomas 

J. Dwight Thompson 

Jesse Thompson 

Renee Thompson 

Thorman Construction, Inc. 

Juanita Thornberry 

Ronald Thornberry 

Debra J. Thornburg 

Thomas N. Thornburg 

Thornton & Roshon Properties, Inc. 

Neal Thurmon Estate 

Ronald J. Tilford 

Susan R. Tilford 

Aaron Till 

Elizabeth Till 

Timco, Inc. 

Charles Timmons 

Shirley Timmons 

Jerry Tinianow, Audubon Ohio 

Gary Todd 

Marcia L. Todd 

Harriett J. Tolley 

William Ray Tolley 

Kimberly R. Tooms 

Mark C. Tornow 

Jan M. Torres 

John Torres, Ohio Farm Bureau, Fairfield County 

Mario Torres 

Lenora Belle Toth 

Max David Toth 

Jestice Townsend 

Joan Townsend 

James A. Trainer 

Mary Lou Trainer, 

Charisse A. Traska 

Fran Traska 

Frank Traska 

Lawrence Travis 

Patricia Travis 

Charles Trees 

Ramona Trees 

Christopher Treon 

Tri State Improvement Company 

Bill Triick, Middletown Chamber of Commerce 

Vicky True 

Wayne True 

Carron Truman 

Jerry Truman 

George Trumpore Trust 

Linda Trumpore Trust 

Donald Tucker 

James Tucker 

Rebecca Tucker 

Judy M. Turnbill 

Randall S. Turnbill 

Catherine Turner 

Chad Turner 

Garry Turner 

Clara I Tysinger 

Delmar Tysinger 

UA dated February 18, 1991 

Melissa Upthegrove, Fayette County Rotary Club 

Carol Upvall 

George Upvall 

Jeanne A. Valerio 

Aaron Vance 

Cathy Vance 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-49

Elson VanFossen 

Mary VanFossen 

Priscilla L. Vaughan 

Roger D. Vaughan 

Kevin Vert 

Sherry Vert 

Anna M. Vonderhaar Living Trust 

Anna M. Vonderhaar Trust 

Nathan K. Voorhis 

Vonnie J. Voorhis 

Paul W. Wacker 

Barbara Sue Wagner Trust 

Nancy Jo Waidelich 

Flora E. Waldorf 

Frank L. Walker 

Randall B. Wallace 

Hilda Walther Trust dated July 21, 2004 

Hilda Walther 

Carolyn Walton 

James R. Walton 

Richard E. Walton 

Traci L. Walton 

Daryl Ward 

Ward Family Farm, Ltd 

Brian Keith Warehime 

Cora Warehime 

Paul Warehime 

Daniel D. Warfield 

William Warfield 

Warren County Farm Bureau 

Marlene Waters 

Catherine A. Watson 

John E. Watson 

Larry A. Watson 

Laura A. Watson 

Kevin Weaver 

MaryAnn Weaver 

John Weed 

Kimberly Weed 

Peggy S. Well 

Rodney O. Well 

Welsh Development Company Inc. 

Roy L. Wesselman 

Sondra A. Wesselman 

Larry K. West 

Cheryl Westman 

John Westman 

Ed Wetherell 

Phillip J. Whalen 

Luella Naomi Wharff 

Jeffrey A. Wheeler 

Ronald McKay Whitacre 

Sheri White 

Carless Whitt 

Joan Whitt 

Carl Whuler 

Clarence Dennis Wilcox 

Oneta Wilcox 

Wilkins Farm LLC 

David Wilkerson 

Williams Living Trust 

Anita Williams 

Bonnie Williams 

Charles Williams 

Darrell Williams 

Dawn Williams 

Dennis Williams 

Douglas A. Williams 

Eva M. Williams 

Irene Williams 

Michael Williams 

Paula Williams 

Richard Williams 

Rodney G. Williams 

Yvonne E. Williams 

Mirian Williams-Elam 

Carolyn Willoughby 

James Willoughby 

Amber Wilson 

Betty R. Wilson 

Buddy Wilson 

Cynthia Wilson 

Danny Wilson 

Gary W. Wilson 

Gregory A. Wilson 

Janet S. Wilson 

John W. Wilson 

Rhonda K. Wilson 

Clare R. Winegardner 

Donald Winegardner 

Wayne B. Winegardner 

Geraldine Smith Winfough 

Carolyn Winland 

Reginald Winland 

Everett Winston 

Valerie Winston 

Michael W. Wintgens 

Otto A Wintgens 

Rebecca Wintgens 

Valerie M. Wintgens 

E. James Witmer 

James Witmer, Captina Creek Preserve 

David Witt 

Rachel Witt 

Billie M. Wolfer 

Jack E. Wolfer 

Jane Ellen Wood 

Wooded Pines LLC 

George C. Woods 

Karen Woods 

Switzer Woods 

Theresa Woodward 

William Woodward 

Wilbur Woolland 

Betty J. Wright 

Lillian G. Wright 

George W. Wunderlich 

Linda Wunderlich 

Christine Wurzelbacher Trust Agreement dated 

February 18, 1991 

David Wurzelbacher Trust Agreement dated February 

18, 1991 

Benita Yaekle 

Peter L. Yaekle 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-50

Chyon-Hwa Yeh 

Dave Yoder 

Elizabeth L. Yoder 

Emma Yoder 

Joe S. Yoder 

John Yost 

Deborah Young 

Thomas G. Young 

Constance Zaidain 

Barb Zajbel, Xenia Chamber of Commerce 

Mary Catherine Zanon 

Ray Zehler 

Peggy A. Zeller 

George Ziefle 

Roseanne Ziefle 

Steve Zureick 

Oklahoma

Williams Field Services Company, LLC 

Oregon

Herbert Baumgarten 

Allyn J. Tews 

Carol A. Tews 

Pennsylvania

Consolidated Rail Corp. 

The East Ohio Gas Company 

David A Estes, Dominion Resources Services, Inc 

Norfolk Southern Railroad 

William H Roberts, Dominion Resources Services, 

Inc. 

David C. Shannon 

Elizabeth A. Shannon 

Cecelia Toohey 

Wampum Hardware Co. 

 

South Carolina

Robert F. Hall 

Gloria A. Shoemaker 

Robert E. Snyder Revocable Trust 

South Dakota

David Pope, Missouri River Basin Association 

Texas

Bob Bookstaber, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

Trent Bryan 

Marcy F Collins, Texas Eastern Transmission LP 

Chuck Cook, Chevron Natural Gas 

Harold Dean Edwards 

Kevin P Erwin, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

Gene B. Goforth 

William W Grygar, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 

Company 

Lisa A Herrmann, Chevron Global Gas 

Garth Johnson, Texas Eastern Transmission LP 

Thomas G Joyce, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

Linda Darlene Katt 

Frederick Kolb, BP American, Inc 

Michael Langston, Panhandle Eastern Pipeline 

Marine Trust Bank of Springfield 

Timothy James Mudd 

Stuart E Nance, Ultra Resources, Inc. 

Carlos Oblitas, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, a Deleware 

corporation 

Estate of Charles W. Reed 

Porter K Ryan, El Paso Marketing, LP 

Steve Tarpey, BP Energy Company 

Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 

J Patrick Tielborg, Pipeline Contractors Association 

Trust Number 81-0310 

Stephen T Veatch, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 

Company 

David Welch 

Mary Ruth Welch-Staadt 

Nancy Witty 

Utah

Dixie S. Harris 

Dixie Harris Trust 

Vermont

Elizabeth O'Dowd Parker 

Wayne Eugene Parker 

Virginia

Shirley Atkinson 

Georgia B Carter, Dominion Transmission, Inc. 

David DeWalle, American Water Resources 

Association 

Jennifer S. Dingus 

John E. Dingus 

Mike Kowalski, American Water Resource 

Association 

Cynthia Lewin, National Wildlife Federation 

Larry Schweiger, National Wildlife Federation 

Washington

Lynne A. Ayers 

Hallie M. Klump 

Jobyann Renick 

Sandra L. Shreves Revocable Trust 

Gretchen M Strasburger 

 

West Virginia

Edward K. Chiu 

Serena S. Chiu 

Fredric J George, NiSource Corporate Services 

Kurt L Krieger, NiSource Corporate Services 

Gary W. Nau 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 A-51

Wisconsin

Steven A. Davidson 

Robert Johnson 

Russell D. Keske 

Wyoming

Arlington Outpost 

Bear Creek Cattle Company 

Audrey I. Brokaw 

Grace Brokaw 

Howard Brokaw 

Brian Jeffries, Wyoming Pipeline Authority 

Lazy Y-S Ranch 

Overland Trail Inn 

Carolyn S. Rabidue 

Gerald E. Rabidue 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Trustee to the L.W.&T. of 

Domingo Echeverria 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX B

Maps

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

Route Alignment

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-1

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B2

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B3

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B4

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B5

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B6

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B7

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B8

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B9

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-10

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-11

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-12

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-13

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-14

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-15

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-16

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-17

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-18

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-19

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-20

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-21

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-22

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-23

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-24

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-25

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-26

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-27

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-28

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-29

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-30

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-31

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-32

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-33

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-34

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-35

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-36

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-37

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-38

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-39

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-40

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-41

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-42

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-43

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-44

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-45

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-46

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-47

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-48

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-49

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-50

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-51

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-52

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-53

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-54

Inserted #52 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-55

Inserted #53 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-56

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-57

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-58

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-59

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-60

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-61

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-62

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-63

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-64

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-65

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-66

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-67

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-68

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-69

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-70

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-71

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-72

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-73

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-74

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-75

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-76

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-77

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-78

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-79

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-80

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-81

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-82

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-83

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-84

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-85

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-86

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-87

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-88

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-89

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-90

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-91

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-92

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-93

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-94

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-95

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-96

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-97

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-98

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-99

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-100

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-101

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-102

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-103

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-104

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-105

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-106

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-107

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-108

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-109

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-110

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-111

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-112

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-113

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-114

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-115

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-116

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-117

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-118

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-119

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-120

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-121

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-122

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-123

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-124

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-125

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-126

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-127

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-128

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-129

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-130

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-131

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-132

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-133

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-134

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-135

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-136

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-137

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-138

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-139

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-140

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-141

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-142

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-143

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-144

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-145

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-146

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-147

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-148

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-149

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-150

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-151

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-152

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-153

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-154

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-155

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-156

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-157

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-158

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-159

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-160

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-161

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-162

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-163

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-164 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-165 

Contractor/Pipe Yards

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-166 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-167

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-168

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-169

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-170

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-171

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-172

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-173

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-174

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-175

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 B-176

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Sections 

 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
C-1 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline Collocated with an Existing Foreign Pipeline

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
C-2 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline Collocated with 

the Existing Panhandle Eastern Pipeline (PEPL) 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline Collocated with an Existing Foreign Pipeline 

within the Proposed 100-Foot Wetland Easement 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
C-3 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline Collocated with the Existing 

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline (PEPL) within the Proposed 100-Foot Wetland Easement 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section for a 42-Inch-Diameter Pipeline within the 

Proposed 100-Foot Wetland Easement 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX D 

 

Site-specific Construction Plans for Residences 

within 50 feet of the REX East Project 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-1 

Residential mitigation plan 1

Residential mitigation plan 2

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-2 

Residential mitigation plan 3

Residential mitigation plan 4

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-3 

Residential mitigation plan 5

Residential mitigation plan 6

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-4 

Residential mitigation plan 7

Residential mitigation plan 8

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-5 

Residential mitigation plan 9

Residential mitigation plan 10

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-6 

Residential mitigation plan 11

Residential mitigation plan 12 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-7 

Residential mitigation plan 13

Residential mitigation plan 14

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-8 

Residential mitigation plan 15

Residential mitigation plan 16

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-9 

Residential mitigation plan 17

Residential mitigation plan 18

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-10 

Residential mitigation plan 19

Residential mitigation plan 20

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-11 

Residential mitigation plan 21 

Residential mitigation plan 22

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-12 

Residential mitigation plan 23

Residential mitigation plan 24

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-13 

Residential mitigation plan 25

Residential mitigation plan 26

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-14 

Residential mitigation plan 27 

Residential mitigation plan 28

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-15 

Residential mitigation plan 29

Residential mitigation plan 30

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-16 

Residential mitigation plan 31

Residential mitigation plan 32

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-17 

Residential mitigation plan 33

Residential mitigation plan 34

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-18 

Residential mitigation plan 35 

Residential mitigation plan 36

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-19 

Residential mitigation plan 37 

Residential mitigation plan 38

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-20 

Residential mitigation plan 39 

Residential mitigation plan 40

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-21 

 Residential mitigation plan 41

 Residential mitigation plan 42

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-22 

 Residential mitigation plan 43

 Residential mitigation plan 44

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-23 

 Residential mitigation plan 45

 Residential mitigation plan 46

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-24 

 Residential mitigation plan 47

 Residential mitigation plan 48

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-25 

Residential mitigation plan 49

 Residential mitigation plan 50

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-26 

 Residential mitigation plan 51

 Residential mitigation plan 52

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-27 

 Residential mitigation plan 53

 Residential mitigation plan 54

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-28 

 Residential mitigation plan 55

 Residential mitigation plan 56

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-29 

 Residential mitigation plan 57

 Residential mitigation plan 58

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-30 

 Residential mitigation plan 59

 Residential mitigation plan 60

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-31 

 Residential mitigation plan 61

 Residential mitigation plan 62

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-32 

 Residential mitigation plan 63

 Residential mitigation plan 64

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-33 

 Residential mitigation plan 65

 Residential mitigation plan 66

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-34 

 Residential mitigation plan 67

 Residential mitigation plan 68

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-35 

 Residential mitigation plan 69

 Residential mitigation plan 70

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-36 

 Residential mitigation plan 71 

 Residential mitigation plan 72

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-37 

 Residential mitigation plan 73

 Residential mitigation plan 74

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-38 

 Residential mitigation plan 75 

 Residential mitigation plan 76

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-39 

 Residential mitigation plan 77

 Residential mitigation plan 78

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
D-40 

 Residential mitigation plan 79

Residential mitigation plan 80

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E 

Summary of REX Route Changes 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-1 

Table E-1 

Proposed REX East Pipeline Route Changes Incorporated Before Filing Application on April 30, 2007 

Segment/Variation 

Number 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP 

Original 

Filed 

Route 

(Miles) 

Route 

Alternative 

(Miles) Reason Comments 

Route 

Incorporated 

Base Pipeline Route 

ILLINOIS 

Waverly Lake 

Alternative 

97.5 104.5 6.8 7.0 Avoid residential 

areas located 

between Waverly 

Lake Road and 

Waverly Dam. 

The total length of 

wetlands crossed would 

be reduced by 572 feet. 

There would be two fewer 

waterbody crossings, four 

fewer road crossings, and 

no pipeline construction 

at the base of the 

Waverly Dam. However, 

the total length of 

forested land crossed 

would be increased by 

660 miles and the extent 

of collocation with an 

existing pipeline right-ofway would be reduced by 

5.3 miles. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

avoided wetlands, 

waterbodies, and 

the Waverly Dam.

Glenarm Alternative 115.8 129.3 13.4 13.5 Bypass an 

existing meter 

station site, a 

residential area, 

and a cemetery. 

The Zion Cemetery would 

be avoided as well as 

outbuildings associated 

with a large farm. 

However, this route will 

cross more wetlands. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

avoided a 

residential area 

and the Zion 

Cemetery. 

INDIANA

Indy West 1 271.6 317.6 46.2 46.0 Avoid several 

developing 

residential, 

commercial, and 

industrial areas 

on the western 

side of 

Indianapolis, IN. 

This alternative increases 

the number of wetland 

crossings. 

No; the 

alternative route 

was inferior to 

Indy West 2. 

Indy West 2 271.6 317.6 46.2 46.0 Avoid several 

developing 

residential, 

commercial, and 

industrial areas 

on the western 

side of 

Indianapolis, IN. 

This alternative provides 

the shortest route and 

involves the least amount 

of additional temporary 

workspace. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

provided the 

shortest route and 

crosses the 

fewest NWImapped 

wetlands, 

agricultural lands, 

and roads. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-2 

Table E-1 

Proposed REX East Pipeline Route Changes Incorporated Before Filing Application on April 30, 2007 

Segment/Variation 

Number 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP 

Original 

Filed 

Route 

(Miles) 

Route 

Alternative 

(Miles) Reason Comments 

Route 

Incorporated 

Brookville 364.9 389.5 23.8 24.6 Constructability; 

portions of the 

Base Pipeline 

Route right-ofway were steepsloped. 

From a construction 

standpoint, the Base 

Pipeline Route is not 

feasible as steep slopes 

would require terracing in 

portions and more land 

use for extra temporary 

workspaces for the 

handling of topsoil and 

subsoil. Also, fewer 

residences within 100 

feet would be passed. 

However, this alternative 

crosses a significantly 

greater number of 

wetlands and forested 

wetlands, and has more 

waterbody crossings, two 

more road crossings, and 

crosses 1.1 acres more of 

agricultural land. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

used less land, 

passes fewer 

residences within 

100 feet, and 

crosses 0.4 fewer 

acres of forested 

land. Most 

importantly, this 

alternative route 

was incorporated 

on the basis of 

constructability. 

OHIO

Hamilton 400.9 451.6 46.4 50.7 Avoid crossing 

Caesar Creek 

State Park Lake 

and bypass highly 

developed areas 

between 

Cincinnati and 

Dayton, Ohio. 

This alternative would 

reduce the length in 

Caesar Creek State Park 

by 0.9 mile and avoid the 

lake. It would bypass a 

large, active quarry, 

several commercial or 

industrial areas, cross 

fewer roads, have a 

shorter length in forested 

land, and pass 76 fewer 

residences within 100 

feet. However, this 

alternative would involve 

six more waterbody 

crossings and its length in 

forested wetland 

agricultural lands would 

be greater. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

reduced the 

length in Caesar 

Creek State Park. 

Lancaster North 498.0 554.8 56.1 56.8 Avoid steep rocky 

terrain and 

congested rightof-way along the 

TETCO pipeline 

corridor with 

which it would be 

collocated 

between the 

towns of Little 

Walnut and 

Somerset, OH. 

This alternative would 

avoid steep rocky terrain 

and congested right-ofway along the TETCO 

pipeline system between 

the towns of Little Walnut 

and Somerset, Ohio, and 

would reduce the number 

of waterbodies crossed 

and the amount of NWImapped wetlands 

crossed. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

was selected for 

constructability 

reasons to avoid 

steep rocky 

terrain and 

residential areas. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-3 

Table E-1 

Proposed REX East Pipeline Route Changes Incorporated Before Filing Application on April 30, 2007 

Segment/Variation 

Number 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP 

Original 

Filed 

Route 

(Miles) 

Route 

Alternative 

(Miles) Reason Comments 

Route 

Incorporated 

Lancaster South 498.0 554.8 56.1 56.8 Avoid steep rocky 

terrain and 

congested rightof-way along the 

TETCO pipeline 

corridor with 

which it would be 

collocated 

between the 

towns of Little 

Walnut and 

Somerset, OH. 

This alternative would 

avoid steep rocky terrain 

and congested right-ofway along the TETCO 

pipeline system between 

the towns of Little Walnut 

and Somerset, Ohio. 

No; the 

alternative route 

greatly increased 

the number of 

wetlands crossed.

Senecaville Lake 

North 

554.8 622.0 67.2 61.1 Avoid steep, 

rocky terrain 

between the town 

of Crooksville, 

OH and the 

terminus of the 

Project in 

Clarington, OH. 

This alternative would 

avoid extremely rocky, 

steep, irregular terrain 

along the Base Route 

between Crooksville, 

Ohio and the terminus of 

the REX East Project 

pipeline in Clarington, 

Ohio. However, it has the 

greatest length of 

wetlands and forested 

wetlands crossed, the 

greatest length of 

agricultural and forested 

lands crossed, and the 

greatest number of 

waterbody crossings. 

The flatter topography 

should allow for 

environmentally 

preferable construction 

techniques. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

was accepted, 

because the Base 

Pipeline Route is 

not feasible from 

a construction 

standpoint. 

Senecaville Lake 

South 554.8 622.0 61.0 61.1 

Avoid steep, 

rocky terrain 

between the town 

of Crooksville, 

OH and the 

terminus of the 

Project in 

Clarington, OH 

This alternative would 

avoid extremely rocky, 

steep, irregular terrain 

along the Base Route 

between Crooksville, 

Ohio and the terminus of 

the REX East Project 

pipeline in Clarington, 

Ohio. 

No; the 

alternative route 

was inferior to 

Senecaville Lake 

North. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-4 

Table E-1 

Proposed REX East Pipeline Route Changes Incorporated Before Filing Application on April 30, 2007 

Segment/Variation 

Number 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP 

Original 

Filed 

Route 

(Miles) 

Route 

Alternative 

(Miles) Reason Comments 

Route 

Incorporated 

Preliminary Pipeline Route

MISSOURI/ILLINOIS

Mississippi River 41.0 43.8 2.8 2.7 To enable the 

crossing of the 

Mississippi by 

HDD as well as to 

avoid congested 

residential 

development and 

steep slopes 

along the west 

side of the river 

This alternative would 

avoid congested 

residential development 

and steep slopes on the 

west side of the 

Mississippi River. Also 

would improve the 

alignment for a 

successful crossing of the 

Mississippi River using 

the HDD crossing 

method. However, the 

length of forested wetland 

crossing would still be 

950 feet due to HDD 

drilling activities on 

Blackburn Island. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

allowed for an 

HDD crossing, 

but increased 

forested wetland 

impacts and may 

have to cross the 

Sny Levee. 

INDIANA

Highway 63 

Alternative 

239.6 247.0 N/A 7.4 To avoid steep 

slopes on the 

east side of State 

Route 63 and to 

bypass a 

cemetery and 

compressor 

station 

This alternative would 

avoid steep slopes 

located on the east side 

of State Route (SR) 63, a 

cemetery located east of 

SR 63 and north of U.S. 

Highway 36, and the 

Panhandle Eastern 

Pipeline Company 

(PEPL) compressor 

station. It also bypasses 

a cemetery, involves one 

less road crossing, and 

shortens the length in 

agricultural land by 0.3 

mile. However, this 

alternative would pass 

through 466 more feet of 

wetlands, 2,530 more 

miles of forested land, 

and result in two more 

waterbody crossings. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

was selected for 

constructability 

reasons, including 

that it allowed for 

an alignment that 

has a more 

feasible location 

for an HDD 

crossing of the 

Wabash River. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-5 

Table E-1 

Proposed REX East Pipeline Route Changes Incorporated Before Filing Application on April 30, 2007 

Segment/Variation 

Number 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP 

Original 

Filed 

Route 

(Miles) 

Route 

Alternative 

(Miles) Reason Comments 

Route 

Incorporated 

Big Walnut Creek 

Alternative 

273.1 287.1 14.0 14.2 To avoid the 

2,700-acre Big 

Walnut Creek 

Nature Preserve 

This alternative would 

avoid crossing the Big 

Walnut Creek Nature 

Preserve, a 3,000-acre 

area managed by the 

Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources – 

Division of Nature 

Preserves and The 

Nature Conservancy. 

Also would reduce 

impacts on National 

Wetland Inventorymapped wetlands, forest 

land, and the number of 

residences located within 

100 feet of the pipeline 

centerline. However, this 

alternative would involve 

two more waterbody 

crossings and 0.6 mile 

more agricultural land. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

bypassed the Big 

Walnut Creek 

Nature Preserve. 

Johnson County 

Alternative 

307.4 338.9 31.5 35.0 To avoid platted 

residential and 

commercial 

developments 

located south of 

Indianapolis, IN 

and to respond to 

stakeholder 

concerns 

This alternative would 

avoid planned residential 

and commercial 

developments and 

increase the percentage 

of pipeline route 

collocated with existing 

rights-of-way. The 

number of waterbody 

crossings, 

residences/buildings 

within 100 feet of the 

pipeline centerline, and 

road crossings would also 

be reduced. However, 

this alternative would be 

longer and pass through 

longer stretches of 

wetlands, forested 

wetland, and forested 

land. 

Yes; the 

alternative 

reduced the 

number of houses 

crossed within 

100 feet of the 

centerline and 

avoided additional 

planned 

development 

areas. 

OHIO

Crooksville 

Alternative 

547.9 554.9 7.0 5.3 To reduce impact 

on wetlands and 

waterbodies and 

to reduce the 

length of the 

pipeline 

This alternative would 

reduce the pipeline 

length, minimize impacts 

on wetlands and 

waterbodies, and 

significantly reduce the 

amount of forested land 

cleared, thereby reducing 

impact on potential 

habitat for the federally 

endangered Indiana bat. 

Yes; the 

alternative route 

reduced the 

overall pipeline 

length and 

potential impact 

on a federally 

endangered 

species. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-6 

Table E-2 

Rockies Express Pipeline Route Revisions from April 30 Application to July 6, 2007 Supplemental Filing

Number County Begin MP End MP 

Length 

(miles) Reason 

MISSOURI 

1 Pike 28.9 31.3 2.4 Improve alignment and add ATWS because of steep and rugged 

terrain 

2 Pike 35.6 35.7 0.1 Route has been modified to avoid crossing a pond 

ILLINOIS 

3 Pike 58.1 58.8 0.7 New survey permission resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

4 Pike 62.6 63.1 0.5 Route has been modified to avoid crossing a pond 

5 Pike/Scott 70.6 71.9 1.3 Improve alignment and add ATWS to improve crossing location of 

Illinois River 

6 Scott/Morgan 86.0 86.8 0.8 Improve alignment for road crossing 

7 Morgan 105.4 105.6 0.2 Improve alignment for pipeline crossover 

8 Sangamon 112.0 112.8 0.8 Improve alignment to avoid foreign pipeline crossing 

9 Sangamon 0.0 121.5 121.5 Improve alignment to lessen forest impacts 

10 Christian 133.3 134.0 0.7 New survey permission resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

11 Moultrie 174.8 175.3 0.5 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at waterbody crossing 

12 Douglas 193.1 193.5 0.4 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at Cascade River crossing 

13 Douglas 197.2 197.8 0.6 Improve alignment for road crossing 

14 Douglas 213.2 213.5 0.3 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at Rush Creek crossing 

15 Edgar 230.7 231.8 1.1 Improve alignment to avoid existing pipeline 

16 Edgar 233.2 233.8 0.6 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at Crabapple Creek 

crossing 

17 Edgar 235.5 236.6 1.1 Improve alignment for road crossing 

INDIANA 

18 Vermillion 242.0 242.2 0.2 Improve alignment to avoid trees and lessen wetland impacts 

19 Vermillion 246.6 247.1 0.5 Improve alignment and add ATWS to facilitate Wabash River 

crossing 

20 Parke 266.2 266.6 0.4 Improve alignment and add ATWS because of steep and rugged 

terrain 

21 Putnam 269.9 270.9 1.0 Improve alignment and add ATWS because of steep and rugged 

terrain 

22 Putnam 272.8 273.4 0.6 Improve alignment and add ATWS to lessen impacts at 

waterbody crossing 

23 Putnam 276.8 277.5 0.7 Improve alignment and add ATWS for Bainbridge Compressor 

Station 

24 Putnam 278.3 280.5 2.2 Improve alignment and add ATWS for Bainbridge Compressor 

Station 

25 Putnam 281.6 282.1 0.5 Improve alignment to lessen forest impacts at Big Walnut Creek 

and avoid steep and rugged terrain 

26 Hendricks 287.5 290.7 3.2 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at two waterbody crossings 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-7 

Table E-2 

Rockies Express Pipeline Route Revisions from April 30 Application to July 6, 2007 Supplemental Filing 

Number County Begin MP End MP Length 

(miles) Reason 

27 Hendricks 291.6 292.4 0.8 Improve alignment to avoid impacts to State Hwy 71, 

railroad, and several houses 

28 Hendricks 295.4 297.8 2.4 Improve alignment to avoid impacts to Disney development 

29 Hendricks 302.5 303.4 0.9 New survey data resulted in route change to avoid several 

houses 

30 Morgan 305.3 305.6 0.3 Improve alignment to lessen forest impacts 

31 Morgan 306.8 307.3 0.5 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a waterbody 

32 Morgan 308.8 309.5 0.7 Improve alignment and relocate ATWS to lessen impacts at 

White Lick Creek 

33 Morgan 311.4 313.0 1.6 Improve alignment and eliminate a point of intersection. 

34 Morgan 313.2 314.0 0.8 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a subdivision 

35 Morgan 315.0 317.0 2.0 Johnson County realignment 

36 Morgan 317.2 318.4 1.2 Johnson County realignment 

37 Morgan/ 

Johnson 

318.5 323.3 4.8 Johnson County realignment 

38 Johnson 323.5 324.6 1.1 Johnson County realignment 

39 Johnson 325.9 326.7 0.8 Johnson County realignment 

40 Johnson 326.8 327.5 0.7 Johnson County realignment 

41 Johnson 327.6 328.9 1.3 Johnson County realignment 

42 Johnson 329.9 330.2 0.3 Johnson County realignment 

43 Johnson 330.5 331.0 0.5 Johnson County realignment 

44 Johnson 333.1 339.2 6.1 Johnson County realignment 

45 Shelby 340.1 340.3 0.2 Johnson County realignment 

46 Shelby 343.4 343.6 0.2 Johnson County realignment 

47 Shelby 344.2 344.6 0.4 Johnson County realignment 

48 Shelby 354.2 357.4 3.2 Improve alignment to lessen impacts at Lewis Creek 

crossing and new survey data resulted in route change for 

better construction conditions 

49 Decatur/ 

Franklin 

376.1 377.2 1.1 Franklin County realignment 

50 Franklin 377.6 378.2 0.6 Franklin County realignment 

51 Franklin 380.3 381.0 0.7 Franklin County realignment 

52 Franklin 383.2 383.7 0.5 Franklin County realignment 

53 Franklin 383.9 384.8 0.9 Franklin County realignment 

54 Franklin 387.2 387.6 0.4 Franklin County realignment 

55 Franklin 388.0 389.0 1.0 Franklin County realignment 

56 Franklin 392.2 392.5 0.3 Franklin County realignment 

57 Franklin 393.5 395.7 2.2 Franklin County realignment 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
E-8 

Table E-2 

Rockies Express Pipeline Route Revisions from April 30 Application to July 6, 2007 Supplemental Filing 

Number County Begin MP End MP Length 

(miles) Reason 

OHIO 

58 Butler 420.0 420.7 0.7 Improve alignment to avoid deep ravine and power line Xover 

59 Butler 422.8 424.5 1.7 Improve alignment and ATWS for 4 waterbody crossings 

60 Butler 426.3 426.5 0.2 Improve alignment and add ATWS to allow for spoil storage 

and because of steep and rugged terrain. 

61 Butler 428.6 429.1 0.5 Improve alignment to avoid impacts to landfill area and allow 

for point of intersection 

62 Butler/Warren 436.2 436.9 0.7 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

63 Warren 437.7 439.6 1.9 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

64 Warren 442.5 444.4 1.9 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

65 Warren 457.9 459.0 1.1 Improve alignment to avoid multiple creek crossings 

66 Fairfield 533.4 534.2 0.8 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

67 Perry 550.9 551.4 0.5 Improve alignment and modify ATWS to avoid impacting a 

church 

68 Muskingum 573.9 574.1 0.2 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

69 Muskingum 574.4 575.5 1.1 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions 

70 Muskingum 585.4 585.8 0.4 Improve alignment to avoid impacting an oil well 

71 Guernsey 599.7 601.3 1.6 Improve alignment and add ATWS because of steep and 

rugged terrain. 

72 Guernsey 608.6 608.8 0.2 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a water trough 

73 Guernsey 612.4 612.7 0.3 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a house 

74 Noble 613.1 613.4 0.3 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a house 

75 Noble 613.6 614.0 0.4 Improve alignment to avoid impacting a house 

76 Noble 616.0 617.0 1.0 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions. 

77 Belmont 631.2 631.4 0.2 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions. 

78 Monroe 636.8 638.4 1.6 New survey data resulted in route change for better 

construction conditions. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

APPENDIX F 

Mississippi River and Sny Levee HDD 

Crossing Construction Plan 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-1 

ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE COMPANY LLC 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND SNY LEVEE HDD 

CROSSING 

CONSTRUCTION PLAN 

September 2007 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3

WORKSPACE AND EQUIPMENT LAYOUT ................................................................................3

HDD PROFILE..............................................................................................................................3

DRILL FLUID.................................................................................................................................4

PILOT HOLE DRILLING ...............................................................................................................4

DOWNHOLE PRESSURE MONITORING....................................................................................5

REAMING .....................................................................................................................................6

PULLBACK ...................................................................................................................................6

GROUTING...................................................................................................................................7

SETTLEMENT MONITORING......................................................................................................7

DURATION OF WORK .................................................................................................................7

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-3 

INTRODUCTION 

This document will describe the construction plan that will be followed for the installation 

by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) of the pipeline crossing of the Mississippi River 

and Sny Levee for the Rockies Express Pipeline-East (REX-East) Project. 

The plan calls for an HDD crossing for a 42-inch-outside-diameter steel pipeline 

beginning on Blackburn Island on the west side of the Mississippi River and ending east 

of the Sny Levee, which is located on the east side of the river. The horizontal length of 

the crossing will be approximately 4,690 feet. 

The integrity of the levee will be protected by installing the HDD crossing as deep as 

possible within the critical area surrounding the levee as defined by the COE 

engineering manual (EM) 1110-2-1913. In addition, the latest drill fluid monitoring and 

management technology will be used to further mitigate any remaining risk to the levee. 

WORKSPACE AND EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 

This crossing will be a large scale HDD installation, with a significant amount of 

workspace required at both ends of the crossing. The workspace will be required for 

drilling of the HDD borehole, and welding and testing of the pipeline section that will be 

installed. The workspace limits are shown on drawing 1280-D-SX-SK-013 Rev 2 which 

was filed with the FERC on July 6, 2007. 

The details of the type of equipment and its layout will be determined by the HDD 

contractor. However, an installation of this size typically requires the use of two large 

HDD drill rigs, one on either end of the crossing. Included with each drill rig is typically 

drill fluid mixing, recycling and pumping equipment. 

HDD PROFILE 

The vertical profile followed by the HDD crossing is critical to both the success of the 

installation and preventing any impact on the river and associated flood control projects. 

Key parameters in the design of the profile are the radius of curvature, the depth of 

cover beneath both the river and the levee, and the entry and exit angles. These 

parameters must be examined with a view to the subsurface conditions that will be 

encountered during the installation. 

A design radius of 4,200 feet has been selected to minimize the stresses imposed on the 

pipeline while avoiding the hard limestone formations that are present beneath the 

crossing. 

The profile provides a depth of cover of approximately 40 feet beneath the current river 

bottom. This depth is considerably greater than the depth of 30 feet that is normally 

used to ensure that there is no impact to the river. Hence the risk of impact to the river 

is very slight. 

This profile remains at maximum depth under the entire width of the critical area 

surrounding the levee. The depth of cover in the critical area is approximately 75 feet. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-4 

This is a large amount of cover, which will serve to protect the levee from any impact 

resulting from the HDD installation. 

DRILL FLUID 

Throughout the three major phases of the HDD installation (pilot hole drilling, reaming 

and pullback), drill fluid is pumped under pressure into the borehole. The drill fluid fulfills 

the following functions: 

• cools and lubricates the drill string and downhole tools; 

• stabilizes the borehole to help prevent collapse; 

• provides a seal around the circumference of the borehole to prevent the 

escape of drill fluid and the ingress of ground water; 

• transports cuttings from the drilling and reaming operations to the surface; 

and 

• provides buoyancy and lubrication to the pipeline section as it is pulled 

into the borehole. 

Typically the drill fluid consists of a mixture of bentonite and water. The concentration of 

bentonite is selected based on the type of soils being drilled and varies between 12 and 

17 pounds per barrel of fluid. 

The properties of the drill fluid are optimized through the use of environmentally benign 

additives. The key properties that are monitored and managed throughout the 

installation are viscosity, density and gel strength. 

Throughout all three phases of the installation, after being pumped downhole via the drill 

string, the drill fluid flows to the surface along the annular space between the drill string 

and the inside of the borehole. The fluid carries with it the cuttings that have been 

generated. 

The cuttings laden fluid is collected in a pit at surface. A recycling unit is used to 

separate the cuttings from the fluid and the clean fluid is then reused and pumped back 

downhole. 

PILOT HOLE DRILLING 

It is likely that the HDD profile will pass through the shale formations that are present in 

the area and that it will be necessary to use rock cutting bits and downhole motors to drill 

the pilot hole. Final selection of the downhole equipment will be made by the HDD 

contractor. Typically a pilot hole diameter between 9-7/8-inch and 12-1/4-inch is used. 

Required drill fluid flow rates will be determined by the choice of downhole motor that is 

used to drive the drill bit. Typical drill fluid flow rates are in the order of 400 gallons per 

minute. 

The risk of hydrofracture is greatest during the pilot hole drilling operation. This is due to 

the relatively small cross sectional area of the annular space through which the drill fluid 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-5 

returns flow and the fact that the blind hole provides only one path for the fluid to return 

to the surface. Generally, if the pilot hole can be drilled without a hydrofracture occurring 

then the rest of the installation can also be completed without a hydrofracture. 

DOWNHOLE PRESSURE MONITORING 

The latest in HDD technology will be used to ensure that a hydrofracture does not occur. 

This technology is downhole pressure monitoring. It involves the used of a pressure 

transducer incorporated with the bottom hole assembly used for the pilot hole operation. 

This transducer measures the fluid pressure in the annular space surrounding the 

bottom hole assembly, immediately behind the drill bit. It is this pressure that must be 

contained by the surrounding soil formations in order to prevent hydrofracture from 

occurring. 

Prior to beginning the HDD installation an annular pressure diagram will be developed 

for the crossing. This diagram will show, for every point along the length of the planned 

profile, the maximum annular pressure that can safely be resisted by the formations. 

This pressure is known as the confining pressure. The curve will also show the 

predicted drill fluid pressure that will be required to push the cuttings laden drill fluid back 

to the surface via the annular space. 

Throughout the pilot hole drilling operation the annular drill fluid pressure measured at 

the bottom hole assembly will be continuously monitored. The measure pressure will be 

compared with the predicted and allowable pressures shown on the annular pressure 

curve. The following three scenarios are possible: 

1) Measured pressure approximately equal to predicted pressure 

This is an indication that conditions are normal and the driller will be allowed to 

proceed with the pilot hole drilling. 

2) Measured pressure greater than predicted pressure 

This is an indication that the annular space behind the drill bit is becoming 

plugged with cuttings or that the concentration of cuttings in the drill fluid returns 

is too high. The driller will be required to implement measures to clean the 

annular space and or reduce the concentration of cuttings. This typically involves 

“swabbing” the borehole by slowly retracting the drilling assembly while pumping 

clean drill fluid into the bore to flush out cuttings and replace the cuttings laden 

fluid with clean, less dense fluid. The composition of the drill fluid pumped into 

the bore may also be modified to improve its cuttings carrying capacity. 

At no point during drilling beneath the critical area around the levee will the 

measured pressure be allowed to approach the confining pressure 

3) Measured pressure less than predicted pressure. 

If the measured pressure is significantly less than the predicted pressure this is 

normally an indication that some of the drill fluid is escaping from the borehole. It 

is extremely important to note that having fluid escape from the borehole is not 

necessarily an indication that hydrofracture has occurred or is about to occur. It 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-6 

is quite normal to have a significant amount of fluid lost to the surrounding 

formation without hydrofracture occurring. 

Nevertheless, if the measured pressure is less than the predicted pressure and in 

particular if this is the result of a sudden drop in pressure the contractor will be 

required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate the loss of drill fluid from 

the borehole. One measure that may be implemented is the use of Lost 

Circulation Materials (LCM) to plug a fissure in the formation. The use of 

additives to improve the sealing properties of the drill fluid is another measure. 

REAMING 

Once the pilot hole has been completed it will be necessary to enlarge the borehole to a 

diameter large enough to accommodate the pipeline. The final borehole diameter will be 

selected by the HDD contractor. However, the maximum allowable diameter is 60 

inches and the minimum allowable diameter is 54 inches. 

The diameter of the borehole will be increased in several increments or “passes”. The 

number of passes and their incremental diameters will be determined by the contractor. 

Typically 3 or 4 passes are used for a borehole of this diameter. 

Again, the type of formation through which the borehole will pass will dictate the type of 

downhole tools that will be used during the reaming operation. Typically, reamers 

equipped with mill tooth roller cones are used for cutting through soft bedrock and fly 

cutters are used for formations that consist only of soft soils. 

As during drilling the pilot hole, during the reaming operation, drilling fluid is pumped 

downhole and is used to transport cuttings to the surface and stabilize the borehole. 

Typical pumping rates are 500-800 gpm. Due to the much larger cross sectional area of 

the annular space, the velocity of the cuttings laden drill fluid returning to the surface is 

much lower during the reaming operation than during the pilot hole drill operation. The 

lower fluid velocity results in a correspondingly lower annular pressure. For this reason 

the added complexity of using downhole pressure monitoring is not warranted during 

reaming. 

The effectiveness of cuttings transport during reaming is diminished by the low velocities 

of the drill fluid returning through the annular space. Hence it is usually necessary to 

make additional passes of reaming tools through the borehole in order to agitate and 

flush cuttings from the borehole. Nevertheless it is normal to have a significant amount 

of cuttings left in the bore at the end of the reaming operation. These remaining cuttings 

will be accommodated by the difference between the borehole final diameter and the OD 

of the 42-inch pipeline. 

PULLBACK 

Prior to the completion of the reaming operation the pipeline segment that will be 

installed in the HDD crossing will have been welded into a single continuous string. The 

string will be inspected and tested in accordance with project specifications. The string 

will be supported on rollers along a line that is an extension of the crossing alignment. A 

prefabricated pullhead will be welded to the leading end of the pipeline string. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-7 

It is critical that the pullback operation begin immediately once the reaming operation is 

complete in order to minimize the risk of borehole collapse. Hence the pipeline welding, 

inspection and testing will be scheduled to be complete somewhat in advance of the 

planned completion of the reaming operation. 

The pullback is accomplished by having the drill rig positioned at the entry point of the 

crossing pull the pipeline section through the borehole using the string of drill pipe that 

will remain in the borehole when the reaming is complete. The drill string will be 

connected to the pipeline section by means of a swivel. The swivel will allow rotation of 

the drill string without imparting torsional loads onto the pipeline. Typically a reamer is 

installed in the drill string immediately ahead of the swivel. The reamer removes any 

material that may have dropped into the borehole as a result of partial cave ins. 

As during the pilot hole drilling and reaming operations clean drill fluid will be pumped 

into the borehole throughout the pullback operation. The fluid will help stabilize the 

borehole, provide buoyancy and lubrication to the pipeline, and help flush away material 

that may lay in the borehole in front of the pullhead. 

The HDD contractor may choose to counteract the buoyant forces acting on the pipeline 

by adding ballast to the pipe section as it is being pulled into the borehole. This is 

typically accomplished be pumping water into the pipe. The positioning of the ballast 

water may be controlled by using large diameter plastic pipe as a ballast tank inside the 

pipeline. 

GROUTING 

The contractor may be required to install a grout plug at either or both ends of the 

crossings. This will depend on whether or not a layer of clay and or silty sand that 

serves as an impermeable barrier to seepage is present. Although it is unlikely that 

having the HDD borehole penetrate an impermeable barrier will have any effect on the 

levee, the HDD contractor would be required to pump a grout plug consisting of a thick 

bentonite slurry into the annular space for a length of 50 feet along the length of the 

borehole at both the entry and exit points of the crossing. This bentonite plug would 

effectively seal off the annular space and prevent any water flow to or from the surface 

at both ends of the crossing. 

SETTLEMENT MONITORING 

Rockies Express will install survey monuments on the levee for the purpose of 

settlement monitoring. A baseline survey will be established. After completion of the 

HDD pullback the positions and elevations of the monuments will again be surveyed and 

recorded by Rockies Express. The data will be provided to the Levee District. Every 6 

months, for a period of two years thereafter the surveying will be repeated, by Rockies 

Express, and the survey data provided to the Levee District. 

DURATION OF WORK 

The total duration of the work will be approximately 110 shifts. The contractor may 

perform the work on a one or two shift per day basis; however, a two shift per day basis 

is most likely. The estimated total duration for the work will be approximately 55 

calendar days. An estimate of the number of shifts appears below. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
F-8 

Rockies Express Pipeline – East Project 

Duration of Work Estimate for Mississippi Drill 

Activity Estimated shifts Activity Estimated shifts 

Rig up 3 4th ream 21 

Drill pilot hole 12 Swab 3 

1st ream 21 Pullback 3 

2nd ream 21 Grouting 2 

3rd ream 21 Rig down 3 

 Total 110 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 APPENDIX G 

Waterbody and Wetland Tables 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-1 

Table G-1 

 

Water Well Locations Within 350 Feet of the Pipeline Centerline a/

State/County Milepost Distance from the Centerline (feet) Direction 

ILLINOIS 

 Scott 77.2 273 North 

 Morgan 89.5 50 North 

 Moultrie 178.9 220 South 

 Moultrie 180.4 325 North 

 Douglas 199.0 293 North 

 Edgar 234.2 100 South 

INDIANA 

 Franklin 378.6 43 North 

 Franklin 383.5 50 North 

 Franklin 388.9 70 North 

 Franklin 399.6 61 North 

 Franklin 400.2 26 South 

 Franklin 401.2 97 North 

 Franklin 401.2 94 North 

 Franklin 403.2 84 South 

 Franklin 403.2 81 South 

 Franklin 403.2 81 South 

 Franklin 403.2 78 South 

 Franklin 403.2 75 South 

OHIO 

 Butler 433.4 94 South 

 Warren 450.4 28 South 

 Warren 450.4 18 South 

 Clinton 470.2 78 North 

 Greene 475.3 130 South 

 Pickaway 515.6 87 South 

 Fairfield 529.4 140 North 

 Fairfield 538.6 84 South 

 Fairfield 538.7 32 South 

 Muskingum 586.1 101 South 

 Guernsey 598.5 255 North 

 Belmont 622.2 110 North 

_________________ 

a/ Wells locations based on civil surveys of the pipeline route with approved access. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-2 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Audrain 1.0 WB-MO-00-A NA NA Littleby Creek 40 P Dam & Pump Audrain 2.6 WB-MO-02-A NA NA Tributary to Littleby Creek 8 I Open Cut Audrain 4.5 WB-MO-04-A NA NA Tributary to West Lick Creek 12 I Open Cut Audrain 6.1 WB-MO-06-A NA NA Tributary to Middle Lick Creek 3 I Open Cut Audrain 6.5 WB-MO-06-B NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 4 I Open Cut Audrain 7.0 WB-MO-06-C NA NA Tributary to Middle Lick Creek 5 I Open Cut Audrain 7.2 WB-MO-07-A NA NA Middle Lick Creek 20 P Dam & Pump Audrain 8.3 WB-MO-08-A NA NA Tributary to Middle Lick Creek 8 I Open Cut Audrain 9.4 WB-MO-09-A NA NA Tributary to East Lick Creek 2 I Open Cut Audrain 13.9 WB-MO-13-A NA NA Tributary to Spencer Creek 8 I Open Cut Audrain 14.6 WB-MO-14-A NA NA Tributary to Spencer Creek 3 I Open Cut Ralls 16.4 WB-MO-16-A NA NA Tributary to Spencer Creek 12 P Dam & Pump Ralls 18.0 WB-MO-17-B NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 6 I Open Cut Ralls 21.4 WB-MO-21-A NA NA Tributary to Spencer Creek 1 I Open Cut Pike 21.7 WB-MO-21-B NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 6 I Open Cut Pike 22.3 WB-MO-22-B NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 12 I Open Cut Ralls 22.4 WB-MO-22-A NA NA Tributary to Lake Vandalia 8 P Dam & Pump Ralls 23.5 WB-MO-23-A NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 12 I Open Cut Ralls 24.5 WB-MO-24-A NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 5 I Open Cut Ralls 25.1 WB-MO-24-B NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 8 I Open Cut Pike 25.8 WB-MO-25-B NA NA South Spencer Creek 20 I Open Cut Pike 26.2 WB-MO-25-A NA NA Tributary to South Spencer Creek 8 P Dam & Pump Pike 27.0 WB-MO-26-A NA NA Unnamed 8 I Open Cut Pike 28.8 WBD-MO-28-B NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 15 I Open Cut Pike 28.9 WBD-MO-28-A NA NA Open Water Area 246 OW Open Cut Pike 29.7 WB-MO-29-AAA NA NA Peno Creek 20 P Open Cut Pike 30.1 WB-MO-29-BBB NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 30.2 WB-MO-29-CCC NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 30.7 WB-MO-30-BBB NA NA Open Water Area 101 OW Open Cut Pike 30.7 WB-MO-30-AAA NA NA Open Water Area 82 OW Open Cut Pike 30.9 WB-MO-30-CCC NA NA Railroad Branch 8 P Open Cut Pike 31.0 WB-MO-30-DDD NA NA Tributary to Railroad Branch 3 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-3 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Pike 31.3 WB-MO-31-C NA NA Gailey Branch 8 P Dam & Pump Pike 31.6 WB-MO-31-D NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 31.7 WB-MO-31-A NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 32.4 WB-MO-31-B NA NA Tributary to Gailey Branch 2 I Open Cut Pike 32.6 WB-MO-32-A NA NA Tributary to Gailey Branch 8 I Open Cut Pike 33.2 WB-MO-32-B NA NA Tributary to Peno Creek 3 I Open Cut Pike 34.0 WB-MO-33-C NA NA Grassy Creek 5 P Dam & Pump Pike 34.2 WB-MO-33-B NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 4 I Open Cut Pike 34.6 WB-MO-33-A NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 3 I Open Cut Pike 35.2 WB-MO-34-A NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 4 I Open Cut Pike 36.7 WB-MO-36-A NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 30 I Open Cut Pike 38.4 WB-MO-37-A NA NA Cains Creek 8 P Dam & Pump Pike 38.8 WB-MO-38-A NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 39.8 WB-MO-39-A NA NA Tributary to Grassy Creek 5 I Open Cut Pike 40.9 WB-MO-40-A NA NA Grassy Creek 30 P Dam & Pump Pike 41.7 WB-MO-41-A NA NA Tanyard Branch 10 I Open Cut Pike 42.5 WB-MO-42-A NA NA Salt River 320 P HDD IRR, LPike 42.7 WB-MO-43-A NA NA Tributary to Salt River 50 P HDD IRR, LPike/Pike 43.2 WB-IL-43-BBB NA NA Mississippi River 1,500 P HDD IRR, LWPike 43.4 WB-IL-43-AAA NA NA Open Water Area 250 OW HDD Pike 43.6 WB-IL-43-B NA NA Irrigation Ditch 2 I Open Cut Pike 43.6 WB-IL-43-C NA NA Irrigation Ditch 2 I Open Cut Pike 43.6 WB-IL-43-CCC NA NA Irrigation Ditch 3 I Open Cut Pike 43.7 WB-IL-43-DDD NA NA Irrigation Ditch 10 I Open Cut Pike 43.8 WB-IL-43-D NA NA Irrigation Ditch 10 I Open Cut Pike 43.9 WB-IL-43-EEE NA NA Plum Point Slough 35 P Open Cut Pike 44.3 WB-IL-43-A NA NA Plum Point Slough 40 P Open Cut Pike 45.4 WB-IL-44-A NA NA Irrigation Ditch 5 I Open Cut Pike 46.3 WB-IL-45-A NA NA Sand Slough 30 P Open Cut Pike 47.3 WB-IL-47-AAA NA NA The Sny Canal 50 P HDD APike 48.9 WB-IL-48-A NA NA Tributary to Towhead Lake 2 E Open Cut Pike 49.8 WB-IL-49-A NA NA Tributary to Towhead Lake 35 P Open Cut Pike 50.0 WB-IL-49-B NA NA Irrigation Ditch 5 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-4 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Pike 52.0 WB-IL-51-AAA NA NA Tributary to Sixmile Creek 3 I Open Cut Pike 52.6 WB-IL-51-B NA NA Sixmile Creek 30 P Open Cut Pike 52.6 WB-IL-51-C NA NA Tributary to Sixmile Creek <10 I Open Cut Pike 53.2 WB-IL-53-CCC NA NA Tributary to Dry Fork Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 53.5 WB-IL-53-AAA NA NA Tributary to Dry Fork Creek 5 I Open Cut Pike 53.9 WB-IL-53-BBB NA NA Dry Fork Creek 3 P Open Cut Pike 55.3 WBD-IL-55-AA NA NA Tributary to Bay Creek <10 P Open Cut Pike 56.9 WB-IL-56-B NA NA Cold Run 12 P Open Cut Pike 57.7 WBD-IL-57-BB NA NA Drainageway <10 E Open Cut Pike 57.8 WB-IL-57-A NA NA Drainageway <10 E Open Cut Pike 58.7 WBD-IL-58-BB NA NA Buckeye Creek 50 P Open Cut Pike 59.2 WB-IL-59-AAA NA NA Tributary to Buckeye Creek 2 I Open Cut Pike 59.5 WB-IL-58-A NA NA Tributary to Honey Creek <10 I Open Cut Pike 60.2 WB-IL-59-C NA NA Tributary to Honey Creek 6 P Open Cut Pike 60.3 WB-IL-59-B NA NA Tributary to Honey Creek <10 E Open Cut Pike 60.5 WB-IL-59-A NA NA Drainageway 2 I Open Cut Pike 61.0 WB-IL-60-A NA NA Honey Creek 30 P Open Cut Pike 62.1 WB-IL-61-A NA NA Tributary to Honey Creek <10 I Open Cut Pike 63.7 WB-IL-62-A NA NA Tributary to Bay Creek <10 I Open Cut Pike 63.9 WB-IL-63-A NA NA Bay Creek 25 P Open Cut ALS - N/SPike 64.1 WB-IL-64-AAA NA NA Tributary to Bay Creek 6 I Open Cut Pike 64.9 WB-IL-64-CCC NA NA Tributary to Bay Creek 4 E Open Cut Pike 65.0 WB-IL-65-AAA NA NA Tributary to Bay Creek 3 E Open Cut Pike 65.2 WB-IL-64-A NA NA Tributary to Moore Creek <10 I Open Cut Pike 70.2 WB-IL-68-A NA NA Tributary to Illinois River <10 I Open Cut Pike 70.5 WB-IL-69-A NA NA Tributary to Illinois River 3 I Open Cut Scott 71.2 WB-IL-69-B NA NA Illinois River 500 P HDD ALS - FuScott 74.3 WB-IL-72-A NA NA Little Sandy Creek 5 P Open Cut Scott 75.7 WB-IL-74-D NA NA Drainageway <10 E Open Cut Scott 75.8 WB-IL-74-C NA NA Drainageway <10 E Open Cut Scott 76.0 WB-IL-74-B NA NA Drainageway 3 E Open Cut Scott 76.3 WB-IL-74-A NA NA Drainageway <10 I Open Cut Scott 76.3 WB-IL-75-A NA NA Drainageway <10 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-5 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Scott 76.5 WB-IL-75-B NA NA Tributary to Big Sandy Creek <10 I Open Cut Scott 76.9 WB-IL-75-C NA NA Drainageway 2 E Open Cut Scott 77.3 WB-IL-76-A NA NA Tributary to Big Sandy Creek <10 E Open Cut Scott 77.4 WB-IL-76-B NA NA Tributary to Big Sandy Creek 8 I Open Cut Scott 78.3 WB-IL-77-A NA NA Tributary to Big Sandy Creek <10 E Open Cut Scott 78.6 WB-IL-77-B NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 6 I Open Cut Scott 79.3 WBD-IL-79-BB NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek <10 I Open Cut Scott 79.7 WB-IL-78-A NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 3 I Open Cut Scott 80.1 WB-IL-78-B NA NA Tributary to Little Sandy Creek 1 I Open Cut Scott 80.3 WB-IL-80-BB NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 8 I Open Cut Scott 81.1 WB-IL-81-CCC NA NA Open Water Area 200 OW Open Cut Scott 81.1 WB-IL-79-A NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 1 I Open Cut Scott 81.3 WB-IL-79-B NA NA Tributary to Little Sandy Creek 2 I Open Cut Scott 81.8 WB-IL-80-A NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 5 I Open Cut Scott 82.8 WB-IL-82-BB NA NA Tributary to North Little Sandy Creek 4 I Open Cut Scott 82.9 WB-IL-82-AA NA NA North Little Sandy Creek 20 P Open Cut Scott 83.5 WB-IL-83-AAA NA NA Open Water Area 25 OW Open Cut Scott 84.0 WB-IL-82-A NA NA Open Water Area 100 OW Open Cut Morgan 87.8 WB-IL-86-A NA NA North Little Sandy Creek 1 I Open Cut Morgan 89.3 WB-IL-88-A NA NA Tributary to Coal Creek 2 I Open Cut Morgan 89.5 WB-IL-88-B NA NA Tributary to Coal Creek 1 I Open Cut Morgan 90.6 WB-IL-90-AAA NA NA Tributary to Coal Creek 8 I Open Cut Morgan 90.7 WB-IL-90-BBB NA NA Tributary to Coal Creek 2 E Open Cut Morgan 90.8 WB-IL-90-CCC NA NA Coal Creek 12 P Open Cut Morgan 91.7 WB-IL-91-AA NA NA Tributary to Lick Creek 3 E Open Cut Morgan 92.4 WB-IL-91-A NA NA Lick Creek 1 I Open Cut Morgan 92.9 WB-IL-92-AAA NA NA Open Water Area 110 OW Open Cut Morgan 93.1 WB-IL-93-AA NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 10 I Open Cut Morgan 93.3 WB-IL-93-DD NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 8 I Open Cut Morgan 93.3 WB-IL-93-CC NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 2 E Open Cut Morgan 94.3 WB-IL-94-AA NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 5 I Open Cut Morgan 94.7 WB-IL-94-AAA NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 1 I Open Cut Morgan 94.8 WB-IL-94-BBB NA NA Tributary to Little Apple Creek 3 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-6 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Morgan 94.8 WB-IL-94-CCC NA NA Little Apple Creek 15 P Open Cut Morgan 95.4 WB-IL-95-DDD NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 3 I Open Cut Morgan 95.4 WB-IL-95-CCC NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 2 E Open Cut Morgan 95.6 WB-IL-95-BBB NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 3 I Open Cut Morgan 95.7 WB-IL-95-AAA NA NA Drainageway 2 E Open Cut Morgan 95.9 WB-IL-95-AA NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 2 I Open Cut Morgan 96.1 WB-IL-96-AA NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 2 I Open Cut Morgan 96.5 WB-IL-96-BB NA NA Mooney Branch 10 P Open Cut Morgan 96.5 WB-IL-96-CC NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 6 I Open Cut Morgan 96.9 WB-IL-96-BBB NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 2 E Open Cut Morgan 97.0 WB-IL-96-AAA NA NA Tributary to Mooney Branch 2 E Open Cut Morgan 99.2 WB-IL-97-A NA NA Tributary to Left Fork Apple Creek 3 I Open Cut Morgan 99.5 WB-IL-98-A NA NA Left Fork Apple Creek 20 P Open Cut Morgan 99.6 WB-IL-99-AAA NA NA Tributary to Left Fork Apple Creek 3 I Open Cut Morgan 101.1 WB-IL-99-A NA NA Tributary to Woods Creek 5 I Open Cut Morgan 101.1 WB-IL-99-B NA NA Tributary to Woods Creek <10 E Open Cut Morgan 101.4 WB-IL-100-B NA NA Tributary to Woods Creek <10 I Open Cut Morgan 101.5 WB-IL-100-A NA NA Tributary to Woods Creek 2 I Open Cut Morgan 101.9 WB-IL-100-C NA NA Woods Creek 35 P Open Cut Sangamon 107.8 WB-IL-106-A NA NA South Fork Lick Creek <10 I Open Cut Sangamon 109.3 WBD-IL-109-AA NA NA South Fork Lick Creek 10 P Open Cut Sangamon 112.3 WB-IL-112-AAA NA NA Johns Creek 20 P Open Cut Sangamon 117.1 WB-IL-115-A NA NA Panther Creek 15 P Open Cut Sangamon 120.4 WB-IL-120-AAA NA NA Tributary to Sugar Creek 5 I Open Cut Sangamon 120.7 WB-IL-120-BBB NA NA Tributary to Sugar Creek 4 I Open Cut Sangamon 121.2 WB-IL-121-AAA NA NA Sugar Creek 50 P Open Cut Sangamon 125.2 WB-IL-123-A NA NA Brush Creek 20 P Open Cut ASangamon 126.0 WB-IL-124-A NA NA Horse Creek 35 P Open Cut Sangamon 127.3 WB-IL-125-A NA NA Tributary to Horse Creek 3 I Open Cut Sangamon 127.7 WB-IL-125-B NA NA Tributary to Horse Creek 3 E Open Cut Sangamon 127.9 WB-IL-126-A NA NA Tributary to Horse Creek <10 I Open Cut Sangamon 130.7 WB-IL-129-A NA NA Tributary to South Fork Sangamon River <10 I Open Cut ALS - N/SSangamon 131.5 WBD-IL-131-BB NA NA Tributary to South Fork Sangamon <10 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-7 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Sangamon 132.1 WB-IL-131-AA NA NA South Fork Sangamon River 100 P Open Cut ALS - N/SChristian 132.9 WB-IL-132-AAA NA NA Tributary to South Fork Sangamon River 3 I Open Cut Christian 133.0 WB-IL-132-BBB NA NA Tributary to South Fork Sangamon River 4 I Open Cut Christian 140.7 WB-IL-138-A NA NA Buckhart Creek <10 I Open Cut Christian 141.7 WB-IL-139-A NA NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 4 I Open Cut Christian 142.3 WB-IL-140-B NA NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 5 I Open Cut Christian 142.9 WB-IL-140-A NA NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 3 I Open Cut Christian 143.9 WB-IL-142-A NA NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 5 P Open Cut Christian 145.2 WB-IL-143-A NA NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 4 P Open Cut Christian 148.5 WBD-IL-148-AA NA NA Coon Creek <10 I Open Cut Macon 151.8 WB-IL-149-A NA NA Spring Creek 4 P Open Cut Macon 152.4 WB-IL-150-B NA NA Mosquito Creek 12 P Open Cut Macon 152.7 WB-IL-150-A NA NA Spring Creek 10 P Open Cut Macon 153.0 WB-IL-151-A NA NA Spring Creek 10 P Open Cut Macon 156.5 WBD-IL-156-AA NA NA Tributary to Mosquito Creek <10 I Open Cut Macon 160.6 WB-IL-158-A NA NA Tributary to Sangamon River <10 E Open Cut Macon 161.5 WB-IL-159-A NA NA Tributary to Sangamon River <10 I Open Cut Macon 162.7 WBD-IL-162-AA NA NA Sand Creek 20 P Open Cut Macon 164.9 WB-IL-162-A NA NA Tributary to Finley Creek 2 E Open Cut Macon 164.9 WBD-IL-164-AA NA NA Finley Creek 20 P Open Cut Macon 165.3 WBD-IL-165-AA NA NA Tributary to Finley Creek <10 I Open Cut Macon 168.4 WB-IL-166-B NA NA Tributary to Big Creek 8 P Open Cut Macon 168.6 WB-IL-166-A NA NA Tributary to Big Creek 6 I Open Cut Macon 174.9 WB-IL-174-BBB NA NA Tributary to Okaw River 6 I Open Cut Macon 175.1 WB-IL-174-AAA NA NA Tributary to Okaw River 6 I Open Cut Macon 175.5 WB-IL-173-B NA NA Tributary to Okaw River 20 P Open Cut Macon 175.6 WB-IL-173-C NA NA Open Water Area 150 OW Open Cut Moultrie 178.7 WB-IL-176-A NA NA Mutual Ditch #3 15 P Open Cut Moultrie 178.9 WB-IL-176-B NA NA Mutual Ditch #4 4 P Open Cut Moultrie 181.6 WB-IL-179-A NA NA Hammond Mural Ditch 5 P Open Cut Moultrie 183.7 WB-IL-181-A NA NA Unity Ditch #3 4 I Open Cut Douglas 188.1 WBD-IL-187-AA NA NA Lake Fork 50 P Open Cut Douglas 190.5 WB-IL-188-A NA NA Dry Fork Creek 12 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-8 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Douglas 193.4 WB-IL-193-AAA NA NA Kaskaskia River 75 P Open Cut Douglas 193.5 WB-IL-193-BBB NA NA Tributary to Kaskaskia River 1 I Open Cut Douglas 198.7 WB-IL-198-AAA NA NA Scattering Fork 4 P Open Cut Douglas 200.3 WB-IL-198-A NA NA Hayes Branch 5 P Open Cut Douglas 201.2 WB-IL-199-A NA NA Hackett Branch 6 P Open Cut Douglas 202.9 WBD-IL-202-AA NA NA Embarras River 50 P HDD ALS - FulDouglas 208.3 WB-IL-206-B NA NA Tributary to Brushy Fork 4 P Open Cut Douglas 208.4 WB-IL-206-A NA NA Tributary to Brushy Fork 3 P Open Cut Douglas 212.7 WB-IL-210-A NA NA Tributary to Brushy Fork 12 I Open Cut Douglas 213.3 WB-IL-211-A NA NA Brushy Fork 30 P Open Cut Douglas 214.4 WB-IL-212-A NA NA Tributary to Brushy Fork 5 P Open Cut Edgar 217.2 WB-IL-215-A NA NA McCown Creek 15 P Open Cut Edgar 218.2 WB-IL-216-A NA NA Hughes Drain 15 P Open Cut Edgar 219.8 WB-IL-217-A NA NA Silioh #2 Drain 6 I Open Cut Edgar 220.9 WB-IL-218-A NA NA Brushy Fork 15 P Open Cut Edgar 223.7 WB-IL-221-A NA NA Brushy Fork <10 I Open Cut Edgar 227.4 WB-IL-225-A NA NA Brouilletts Creek 30 P Open Cut Edgar 228.7 WB-IL-228-AAA NA NA Brouilletts Creek 35 P Open Cut Edgar 229.1 WB-IL-228-CCC NA NA Tributary to Brouilletts Creek 3 I Open Cut Edgar 231.8 WB-IL-229-A NA NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 5 I Open Cut Edgar 232.4 WB-IL-232-AAA NA NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 4 I Open Cut Edgar 232.7 WB-IL-232-DDD NA NA Crabapple Creek 60 P Open Cut Edgar 233.0 WB-IL-232-EEE NA NA Crabapple Creek 40 P Open Cut Edgar 233.1 WB-IL-233-AAA NA NA Crabapple Creek 25 P Open Cut Edgar 234.2 WB-IL-232-A NA NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 3 I Open Cut Edgar 234.3 WB-IL-232-B NA NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 4 I Open Cut Edgar 235.5 WB-IL-235-AAA NA NA Salt Fork 25 P Open Cut Edgar 235.5 WB-IL-235-BBB NA NA Tributary to Salt Fork 5 I Open Cut Vermillion 238.6 WB-IN-236-A NA NA Tributary to Goose Creek 2 P Open Cut Vermillion 242.1 WB-IN-242-AAA 27 NA Tributary to Buck Creek 2 E Open Cut Vermillion f/ 243.2 WBD-IN-WR1 NA NA Unknown <10 NA Open Cut Vermillion f/ 243.3 WBD-IN-WR2 NA NA Buck Creek 25 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-9 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Vermillion f/ 245.1 WBD-IN-WR3 NA NA Little Raccoon Creek 20 NA Open Cut Vermillion f/ 245.5 WBD-IN-WR4 NA NA Unknown <10 NA Open Cut Parke f/ 246.9 WBD-IN-WR5 NA NA Wabash River 300 P HDD ALS - FullParke f/ 247.1 WBD-IN-WR7 NA NA Unknown <10 NA Open Cut Parke f/ 247.2 WBD-IN-WR6 NA NA Unknown 19 NA Open Cut Parke 248.2 N/A NA NA Wabash & Erie Canal 30 I Open Cut Parke 249.7 WB-IN-249-AA 14 NA Tributary to Wabash River 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 249.8 WB-IN-249-BB 33 NA Tributary to Wabash River 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullParke 250.2 WB-IN-250-AAAA 44 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 5 I Open Cut Parke 250.2 WB-IN-250-BBBB 14 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Parke 250.3 WB-IN-250-CCCC 28 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Parke 250.6 WBD-IN-250-AA NA NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek <10 E Open Cut Parke 250.7 WB-IN-250-AA NA 64 Leatherwood Creek 20 P Open Cut Parke 251.1 WB-IN-248-B 46 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 10 I Open Cut Parke 251.1 WB-IN-248-G NA NA Open water area 149 OW Open Cut Parke 251.7 WB-IN-248-C 36 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 I Open Cut Parke 251.8 WB-IN-248-D 13 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Parke 251.8 WB-IN-248-E 28 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 5 E Open Cut Parke 251.9 WB-IN-248-F 18 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 E Open Cut Parke 251.9 WB-IN-249-B NA 55 Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 5 P Open Cut Parke 252.5 WB-IN-249-A 16 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 I Open Cut Parke 252.7 WB-IN-249-D 39 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 3 I Open Cut Parke 253.0 WB-IN-250-A 59 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 6 P Open Cut Parke 253.1 WB-IN-250-B NA 29 Rocky Run 5 P Open Cut Parke 253.3 WB-IN-250-C 60 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 6 P Open Cut Parke 253.4 WB-IN-253-AAA 11 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 3 E Open Cut Parke 253.5 WB-IN-253-CCC 28 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 6 E Open Cut Parke 253.7 WB-IN-253-DDD 40 NA Tributary to Rocky Run 20 E Open Cut Parke 253.8 WB-IN-250-D NA NA Open water area 129 OW Open Cut Parke 254.1 WB-IN-251-A 36 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 5 P Open Cut Parke 255.8 WB-IN-252-A 11 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 256.0 WB-IN-253-A 26 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 256.2 WB-IN-256-DDDD 66 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 P Open Cut ALS - Fu

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-10 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Parke 256.2 WB-IN-256-EEEE 26 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 256.9 WB-IN-256-CCCC 14 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 256.9 WB-IN-256-BBBB NA NA Open water area 120 OW Open Cut Parke 257.0 WB-IN-256-AAAA 14 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 257.1 WB-IN-257-AAAA 67 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 257.2 WB-IN-257-BBB 10 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 257.4 WB-IN-257-CCC 15 NA Tributary to Williams Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.0 WB-IN-257-EEE 50 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 6 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.1 WB-IN-258-EEE 59 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 6 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.1 WB-IN-258-GGG 41 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.1 WB-IN-258-DDD 59 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 6 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.1 WB-IN-258-HHH 31 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.3 WB-IN-258-III 15 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.4 WB-IN-258-KKK 27 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.4 WB-IN-258-JJJ 25 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.4 WB-IN-258-LLL 24 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.5 WB-IN-258-MMM 25 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.5 WB-IN-258-NNN 26 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.6 WB-IN-258-OOO 35 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.8 WB-IN-258-AAA 25 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.8 WB-IN-258-BBB 62 NA Sand Creek 12 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.9 WB-IN-258-BBBB 13 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 258.9 WB-IN-258-AAAA 28 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 259.0 WB-IN-258-CCC 17 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 259.6 WB-IN-256-B NA NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 3 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 259.6 WB-IN-256-C NA NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 259.9 WB-IN-259-AAA 21 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 259.9 WB-IN-259-BBB 19 NA Tributary to Sand Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 260.1 WB-IN-257-A 36 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 260.4 WB-IN-257-C 55 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 8 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 260.6 WB-IN-260-DDD NA 76 Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 45 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 260.6 WB-IN-260-CCC 47 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 4 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 260.9 WB-IN-257-B 31 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 4 E Open Cut ALS - Fu

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-11 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Parke 261.0 WB-IN-258-A NA 69 Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 8 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.0 WB-IN-258-B 39 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 8 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.4 WB-IN-261-BBB 24 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.4 WB-IN-261-CCC 20 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.5 WB-IN-261-DDD2, DD2 14 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.6 WB-IN-261-EEE 17 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FuParke 261.9 WB-IN-258-H 30 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 262.0 WB-IN-258-G 45 NA Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FuParke 262.7 WB-IN-259-C NA 60 Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek 9 P Open Cut ALS - FuParke 264.6 WB-IN-261-B NA NA Troutman Branch 5 P Open Cut ALS - N/EParke 264.6 WB-IN-261-A NA NA Tributary to Troutman Branch 2 I Open Cut ALS - FullParke 265.8 WB-IN-262-A NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 5 P Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.6 WB-IN-263-B 40 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 5 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.6 WB-IN-263-C 38 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 6 I Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.8 WB-IN-263-D 62 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 6 P Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.8 WB-IN-263-E 39 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.9 WB-IN-263-G NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FullParke 266.9 WB-IN-263-F NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.0 WB-IN-263-H 72 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 8 P Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.0 WB-IN-267-AAA 46 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.2 WB-IN-267-BBB 31 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.3 WB-IN-267-CCC 17 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.4 WB-IN-267-DDD 24 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.5 WB-IN-267-EEE 25 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 5 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.7 WB-IN-267-FFF 25 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullParke 267.7 WB-IN-264-A NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 268.1 WB-IN-265-B 55 NA Tributary to Byrd Branch 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 268.1 WB-IN-265-C 35 NA Tributary to Byrd Branch 4 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 268.4 WB-IN-265-A NA 86 Byrd Branch 15 P Open Cut Putnam 268.7 WB-IN-265-D 39 NA Tributary to Byrd Branch 2 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 268.8 WBD-IN-268-AA NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek <10 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 268.9 WBD-IN-268-BB NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 15 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.0 WBD-IN-268-CC NA NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 15 E Open Cut ALS - Full

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-12 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Putnam 269.2 WB-IN-266-E 74 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 4 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.2 WB-IN-266-D 19/84 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.4 WB-IN-266-C 13 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.4 WB-IN-266-B 25 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.4 WB-IN-266-A 44 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 5 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.8 WB-IN-266-G 52 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 5 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.8 WB-IN-266-H 47 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 269.9 WB-IN-266-I NA 65 Big Raccoon Creek 45 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.0 WB-IN-269-AAA 15 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.1 WB-IN-270-GGG 32 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.2 WB-IN-270-FFF 17 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.2 WB-IN-270-EEE 19 NA Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.3 WB-IN-267-E 35 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 5 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.4 WB-IN-267-D 61 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 6 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.4 WB-IN-267-C 15 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.6 WB-IN-267-B NA 53 Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 10 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 270.7 WB-IN-270-AAA 15 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 271.5 WB-IN-268-A and A2 NA 67 Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 10 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 271.6 WB-IN-268-B 52 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 271.6 WB-IN-268-C 15 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 271.8 WB-IN-268-E 54 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 8 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 272.1 WB-IN-269-A 37 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 3 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 272.2 WB-IN-269-B NA 49 Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 7 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 272.8 WB-IN-269-D 83 NA Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek 10 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 272.9 WB-IN-269-E 59 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.1 WB-IN-270-A 30 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 4 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.2 WB-IN-270-B 68 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 7 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.2 WB-IN-270-C 88 NA Peters Creek 15 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.3 WB-IN-273-AAAA 30 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 2 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.7 WB-IN-273-CCC 13 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 273.7 WB-IN-270-E 43 NA Tributary to Peters Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 274.9 WB-IN-271-A 34 NA Tributary to South Ramp Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 275.0 WB-IN-271-B 14 NA Tributary to South Ramp Creek 2 I Open Cut ALS - Full

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-13 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Putnam 278.8 WB-IN-278-BBB 23 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 278.8 WB-IN-278-CCC 44 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 278.8 WB-IN-278-AAA 76 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 12 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 278.9 WB-IN-278-DDD 39 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 279.0 WB-IN-278-EEE 32 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 6 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 279.0 WB-IN-278-FFF 17 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 279.3 WB-IN-279-AAA 17 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 279.8 WB-IN-276-A 14 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 3 E Open Cut ALS – N/Putnam 279.9 WB-IN-276-B 67 NA Bledsoe Branch 5 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 280.0 WB-IN-276-C 72 75 Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 16 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 280.1 WB-IN-276-E 67 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 11 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 280.4 WB-IN-276-D 26 NA Tributary to Bledsoe Branch 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 280.7 WB-IN-277-H 39 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 280.8 WB-IN-277-I 20 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 281.1 WB-IN-277-E 13 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 281.1 WB-IN-277-D 49 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 4 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 281.2 WB-IN-277-C 13 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 281.4 WB-IN-277-B 13 NA Tributary to Big Walnut Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 281.5 WB-IN-277-A 69 62 Big Walnut Creek 56 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.2 WB-IN-278-A 69 51 Plum Creek 26 P Open Cut ALS – N/Putnam 282.2 WB-IN-282-AAA 37 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.4 WB-IN-278-B 14 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.4 WB-IN-278-D 14 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.4 WB-IN-278-C 16 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.6 WB-IN-282-BBB 13 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.6 WB-IN-278-E 15 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.9 WB-IN-279-A 52 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 4 P Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 282.9 WB-IN-279-B 19 NA Tributary to Plum Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 283.9 WB-IN-283-AAA 10 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 285.3 WB-IN-281-A 66 55 Tributary to Clear Creek 16 P Open Cut Putnam 286.4 WB-IN-282-A 24 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullPutnam 286.6 WB-IN-282-B 75 60 Clear Creek 20 P Open Cut Putnam 286.6 WB-IN-282-C 20 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 3 E Open Cut ALS - Full

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-14 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Hendricks 287.6 WBD-IN-287-AA NA NA Tributary to Clear Creek 10 I Open Cut Hendricks 288.0 WBD-IN-287-BB NA NA Tributary to Clear Creek 10 I Open Cut Hendricks 288.7 WB-IN-288-AAA 64 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 8 P Open Cut Hendricks 289.7 WB-IN-289-AAA 34 NA Tributary to Crittenden Creek 2 I Open Cut Hendricks 290.4 WB-IN-290-CCC 21 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 4 E Open Cut Hendricks 290.4 WB-IN-290-DDD 15 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 3 E Open Cut Hendricks 290.4 WB-IN-290-BBB 35 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 3 I Open Cut Hendricks 290.5 WB-IN-290-EEE 25 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 2 E Open Cut Hendricks 290.7 WB-IN-290-AAA 21 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 3 E Open Cut Hendricks 290.9 WB-IN-290-AAAA 16 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 1 P Open Cut Hendricks 291.0 WBD-IN-290-BB NA NA Tributary to Mill Creek <10 E Open Cut Hendricks 291.8 WB-IN-291-AAA NA 60 Mill Creek 11 P Open Cut Hendricks 292.3 WB-IN-291-BBB 32 NA Tributary to Mill Creek 12 I Open Cut Hendricks 293.6 WB-IN-289-A NA 67 Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 2 I Open Cut AHendricks 293.7 WB-IN-289-B NA NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 2 I Open Cut AHendricks 294.3 WB-IN-290-A NA 58 East Fork Mill Creek 6 I Open Cut AHendricks 294.3 WB-IN-290-B 69 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 10 I Open Cut AHendricks 294.7 WB-IN-290-D NA NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 3 E Open Cut AHendricks 294.7 WB-IN-290-C 68 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 8 I Open Cut AHendricks 295.0 WB-IN-291-A 80 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 16 I Open Cut AHendricks 295.2 WB-IN-291-B NA NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 5 E Open Cut AHendricks 295.6 WB-IN-291-C 58 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 5 I Open Cut AHendricks 295.8 WB-IN-292-B 58 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 4 I Open Cut Hendricks 295.9 WB-IN-292-A 65 NA Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek 8 I Open Cut Hendricks 297.5 WB-IN-297-AAAA 46 NA Tributary to Mud Creek 2 I Open Cut Hendricks 299.4 WB-IN-295-A NA 48 Mud Creek 10 P Open Cut Hendricks 299.9 WB-IN-295-B NA NA Tributary to Mud Creek 20 I Open Cut Hendricks 301.4 WB-IN-301-BBB 13 NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 1 E Open Cut Hendricks 302.0 WB-IN-297-A NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 1 E Open Cut Hendricks 303.2 WBD-IN-302-AA NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 15 P Open Cut Hendricks 303.8 WB-IN-299-A NA 54 Tributary to McCracken Creek 3 I Open Cut Hendricks 303.8 WB-IN-299-B NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 2 E Open Cut Hendricks 303.9 WB-IN-299-C NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 8 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-15 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Hendricks 303.9 WB-IN-299-D NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 8 E Open Cut Hendricks 304.0 WB-IN-299-E NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 8 E Open Cut Hendricks 304.0 WB-IN-299-F NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 8 E Open Cut Hendricks 304.3 WBD-IN-303-AA NA NA McCracken Creek 50 P Open Cut Morgan 304.4 WB-IN-304-AAAA NA 69 McCracken Creek 40 P Open Cut Morgan 304.6 WB-IN-300-A 67 NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 16 I Open Cut Morgan 305.0 WB-IN-300-B NA 60 Tributary to McCracken Creek 15 P Open Cut Morgan 305.0 WB-IN-300-C NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 10 E Open Cut Morgan 305.4 WB-IN-301-A NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 5 E Open Cut Morgan 305.4 WB-IN-301-B NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 2 E Open Cut Morgan 305.5 WB-IN-301-C NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 2 E Open Cut Morgan 305.6 WB-IN-301-D NA NA Tributary to McCracken Creek 2 E Open Cut Morgan 306.4 WB-IN-302-A 33 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 3 I Open Cut Morgan 306.4 WB-IN-302-B 33 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 3 I Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 307.7 WB-IN-303-A 55 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 6 I Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 308.1 WB-IN-303-B 63 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 12 I Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 308.3 WB-IN-303-C NA NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 308.4 WB-IN-304-A 39 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 7 E Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 308.6 WB-IN-304-C NA NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 15 E Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 309.4 WB-IN-309-AAA 52 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 5 I Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 311.0 WBD-IN-308-AA NA NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 202 P Open Cut Morgan 311.4 WB-IN-311-BBBB 40 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 5 P Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 311.7 WB-IN-311-AAAA 46 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 6 P Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 312.2 WB-IN-312-BBBB 11 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 1 E Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 312.2 WB-IN-312-AAAA 30 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullMorgan 312.4 WB-IN-312-DDD 80 NA White Lick Creek 20 P HDD ALS - FullMorgan 312.5 WB-IN-312-CCC 32 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 2 E HDD ALS - FullMorgan 312.5 WB-IN-312-AAA 51 NA Tributary to White Lick Creek 1 E HDD ALS - FullMorgan 312.5 WB-IN-312-BBB NA NA Open water area 100 OW HDD ALS - FullMorgan 313.0 WBD-IN-311-EE NA NA Tributary to White Lick Creek <10 E Open Cut ALS - ParMorgan 314.8 WBD-IN-313-AA NA NA Tributary to West Fork White River <10 E Open Cut ALS - Par

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-16 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Morgan 315.8 WB-IN-315-AAA NA 52 White River 225 P Open Cut ALS - ParMorgan 315.9 WB-IN-315-AAAA NA NA Open water area 120 OW Open Cut ALS - ParMorgan 317.0 WBD-IN-315-BB NA NA Tributary to Crooked Creek <10 E Open Cut Morgan 317.3 WB-IN-317-AAAA 21 NA Tributary to Crooked Creek 2 P Open Cut Morgan 317.5 WBD-IN-315-EE NA NA Crooked Creek 10 P Open Cut Morgan 317.7 WBD-IN-316-AA NA NA Tributary to Banta Creek <10 E Open Cut Morgan 317.9 WBD-IN-316-BB NA NA Tributary to Banta Creek <10 E Open Cut Morgan 318.1 WBD-IN-316-CC NA NA Banta Creek 10 P Open Cut Johnson 321.3 WB-IN-321-AAAA 65 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 20 I Open Cut Johnson 321.9 WBD-IN-320-AA NA NA Tributary to Henderson Creek <10 E Open Cut Johnson 322.3 WB-IN-322-BBBB 33 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 6 E Open Cut Johnson 322.5 WB-IN-322-CCCC 43 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 6 E Open Cut Johnson 322.6 WB-IN-322-EEEE 19 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 3 E Open Cut AJohnson 322.6 WB-IN-322-FFFF 14 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 3 E Open Cut AJohnson 322.7 WB-IN-322-GGGG 75 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 30 P Open Cut AJohnson 323.2 WB-IN-323-BBBB 14 NA Tributary to Slotts Creek 3 E Open Cut AJohnson 323.3 WBD-IN-321-BB NA NA Tributary to North Prong Softts Creek <10 E Open Cut AJohnson 323.4 WBD-IN-321-CC NA NA Tributary to North Prong Softts Creek 10 I Open Cut AJohnson 325.0 WBD-IN-323-AA NA NA Tributary to North Prong Softts Creek <10 E Open Cut AJohnson 325.3 WBD-IN-323-BB NA NA Tributary to North Prong Softts Creek <10 E Open Cut AJohnson 328.3 WB-IN-327-AAA 15 NA Tributary to Ray Creek 2 E Open Cut Johnson 328.5 WB-IN-327-BBB 16 NA Tributary to Ray Creek 1 E Open Cut Johnson 328.9 WB-IN-328-AAA 68 NA Tributary to Ray Creek 13 P Open Cut Johnson 330.1 WB-IN-330-AAAA 29 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 3 E Open Cut Johnson 330.4 WB-IN-329-AAA 51 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 4 I Open Cut Johnson 331.0 WB-IN-330-AAA 41 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 2 E Open Cut Johnson 331.2 WB-IN-330-BBB 66 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 4 I Open Cut Johnson 331.3 WB-IN-330-CCC NA 61 Buckhart Creek 5 P Open Cut Johnson 331.7 WB-IN-330-DDD 15 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 3 E Open Cut Johnson 331.9 WB-IN-331-AAA 67 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 10 P Open Cut Johnson 332.2 WB-IN-331-BBB 54 NA Tributary to Tucker Creek 7 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-17 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Johnson 333.1 WB-IN-332-AAA 40 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 3 I Open Cut Johnson 333.1 WB-IN-332-BBB 14 NA Tributary to Buckhart Creek 2 E Open Cut Johnson 335.9 WBD-IN-333-AA NA NA Tributary to Youngs Creek <10 E Open Cut Johnson 335.9 WB-IN-335-CCCC 40 NA Tributary to Youngs Creek 9 I Open Cut Johnson 335.9 WB-IN-335-BBBB 32 NA Tributary to Youngs Creek 6 E Open Cut ALS - Full; Johnson 336.0 WB-IN-335-AAAA 17 NA Tributary to Youngs Creek 2 E Open Cut ALS - Full; Johnson 336.0 WBD-IN-333-EE NA NA Tributary to Youngs Creek <10 E Open Cut ALS - Full; Johnson 336.1 WB-IN-336-AAAA 32 NA Tributary to Youngs Creek 6 E Open Cut ALS - Full; Johnson 336.1 WB-IN-336-BBBB NA 72 Youngs Creek 30 P Open Cut ALS - Full; Johnson 337.9 WB-IN-337-BBBB NA 66 Sugar Creek 40 P Open Cut AJohnson 338.7 WBD-IN-336-BB NA NA Tributary to Sugar Creek <10 E Open Cut AShelby 340.3 WBD-IN-338-AA NA NA Tributary to Big Blue River <10 E Open Cut AShelby 340.8 WB-IN-340-AAA NA 78 Big Blue River 160 P HDD AShelby 341.6 WB-IN-340-ZZZ 28 NA Tributary to Big Blue River 4 E Open Cut AShelby 342.4 WBD-IN-340-DD NA NA Tributary to Big Blue River <10 E Open Cut AShelby 342.9 WB-IN-342-BBBB 27 NA Tributary to Big Blue River 3 E Open Cut AShelby 343.0 WB-IN-342-AAAA 17 NA Tributary to Big Blue River 2 E Open Cut AShelby 344.6 WB-IN-343-ZZZ 35 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 1 E Open Cut ALS – N/Shelby 345.1 WB-IN-344-AAA 52 NA Tributary to Slash Creek 9 E Open Cut ALS – N/Shelby 345.4 WB-IN-344-BBB NA 32 Tributary to Slash Creek 12 P Open Cut ALS – N/Shelby 345.9 WB-IN-345-AAA NA 44 East Fork Slash Creek 30 P Open Cut Shelby 349.5 WB-IN-339-A 66 NA Little Ditch 15 I Open Cut Shelby 349.8 WB-IN-339-B NA 42 Van Pelt Ditch 25 P Open Cut Shelby 350.2 WB-IN-339-C 67 NA Thompson Ditch 14 I Open Cut Shelby 350.7 WB-IN-340-A 57 NA Tributary to Thompson Ditch 6 I Open Cut Shelby 351.5 WB-IN-351-AAAA 75 NA Lewis Creek 15 P Open Cut Shelby 352.2 WB-IN-341-A NA NA Tributary to Little Lewis Creek 5 P Open Cut Shelby 353.0 WB-IN-352-AAA NA 80 Little Lewis Creek 22 P Open Cut Shelby 353.4 WB-IN-352-BBB NA 48 Little Lewis Creek 15 P Open Cut Shelby 353.4 WBD-IN-351-BB NA NA Tributary to Little Lewis Creek 10 I Open Cut Shelby 353.6 WBD-IN-351-CC NA NA Tributary to Little Lewis Creek <10 E Open Cut Shelby 355.1 WB-IN-354-AAA 42 NA South Fork Lewis Creek 4 I Open Cut Shelby 356.2 WBD-IN-353-AA NA NA Conn's Creek 25 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-18 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Shelby 357.2 WB-IN-356-AAA NA 58 Deer Creek 18 P Open Cut Shelby 357.4 WB-IN-356-BBB 42 NA Tributary to Deer Creek 8 I Open Cut Shelby 357.6 WBD-IN-355-DD NA NA Tributary to Deer Creek <10 E Open Cut Decatur 359.8 WB-IN-349-A NA 80 Mill Creek 20 P Open Cut Decatur 360.1 WBD-IN-357-BB NA NA Tributary to Mill Creek <10 I Open Cut Decatur 361.2 WB-IN-350-A 58 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 6 I Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 361.6 WB-IN-360-AAA 25 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.4 WB-IN-362-GGGG 17 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.4 WB-IN-362-HHHH 17 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.4 WB-IN-362-IIII 19 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 4 E Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.6 WB-IN-362-CCCC 30 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 1 I Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.6 WB-IN-362-BBBB 88 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 9 P Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.6 WB-IN-362-DDDD 28 NA Tributary to Flatrock River 3 E Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 362.7 WB-IN-362-AAAA NA 74 Flatrock River 60 P Open Cut ALS - FullDecatur 363.5 WB-IN-362-AAA 16 NA Tributary to Hurricane Creek 2 E Open Cut Decatur 363.8 WB-IN-353-B 73 NA Tributary to Hurricane Creek 10 I Open Cut Decatur 363.8 WB-IN-353-A 78 NA Hurricane Creek 12 I Open Cut ALS - FuDecatur 363.8 WB-IN-363-AAA 33 NA Tributary to Clifty Creek 5 E, I Open Cut Decatur 363.9 WB-IN-363-CCC 16 NA Tributary to Hurricane Creek 3 E Open Cut Decatur 364.0 WB-IN-363-BBB 18 NA Tributary to Hurricane Creek 2 E Open Cut Decatur 364.2 WB-IN-353-C NA 78 Little Flatrock River 55 P Open Cut Decatur 366.7 WB-IN-365-AAA 51 NA Tributary to Clifty Creek 7 I Open Cut Decatur 367.3 WB-IN-356-A NA 84 North Branch Clifty Creek 25 P Open Cut Decatur 369.1 WB-IN-358-A 73 NA Tributary to Clifty Creek 10 E Open Cut Decatur 369.5 WB-IN-358-B NA 81 Middle Branch Clifty Creek 20 P Open Cut Decatur 370.1 WBD-IN-367-AA NA NA Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty Creek 15 P Open Cut Decatur 371.1 WB-IN-360-A 54 NA Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty Creek 3 E Open Cut Decatur 372.5 WB-IN-371-AAA 23 NA Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty Creek 4 E Open Cut Decatur 372.5 WB-IN-371-BBB 31 NA Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty Creek 3 E Open Cut Decatur 372.8 WB-IN-372-AAA NA 63 Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty Creek 18 P Open Cut Decatur 375.6 WB-IN-374-AAA NA 41 Right Hand Fork Salt Creek 10 P Open Cut Decatur 376.0 WB-IN-375-FFF 45 NA Tributary to Right Hand Fork Salt Creek 5 E Open Cut Decatur 376.0 WB-IN-375-GGG 38 NA Tributary to Right Hand Fork Salt Creek 5 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-19 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Decatur 376.0 WB-IN-375-EEE 29 NA Tributary to Right Hand Fork Salt Creek 4 E Open Cut Decatur 376.1 WB-IN-375-DDD 39 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Decatur 376.1 WB-IN-375-CCC 13 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Decatur 376.2 WB-IN-375-BBB 16 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Decatur 376.3 WB-IN-375-AAA 23 NA Tributary to Right Hand Fork Salt Creek 3 E Open Cut Decatur 376.7 WB-IN-376-AAAA 32 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 6 E Open Cut Decatur 376.8 WB-IN-376-BBBB 32 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 6 E Open Cut Franklin 377.0 WB-IN-376-CCCC 41 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 I Open Cut Franklin 377.1 WB-IN-377-AAAA 18 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 377.2 WBD-IN-374-JJ NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 377.4 WB-IN-376-AAA 18 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 377.5 WB-IN-376-CCC 20 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 377.5 WB-IN-376-DDD 20 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 377.6 WB-IN-376-EEE 30 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Franklin 377.7 WB-IN-377-EEEE 14 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 377.7 WB-IN-377-DDDD 14 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 377.8 WB-IN-377-BBBB 17 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 377.8 WB-IN-377-CCCC 27 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 378.3 WB-IN-367-C 13 NA Tributary to Long Branch 2 E Open Cut Franklin 378.4 WB-IN-367-D 62 NA Tributary to Long Branch 2 P Open Cut Franklin 378.4 WB-IN-367-G 23 NA Tributary to Long Branch 3 E Open Cut Franklin 378.5 WB-IN-367-H 23 NA Tributary to Long Branch 3 E Open Cut Franklin 378.6 WB-IN-367-I 72 NA Long Branch 10 P Open Cut Franklin 378.8 WB-IN-367-J 13 NA Tributary to Long Branch 3 E Open Cut Franklin 379.0 WB-IN-367-K 79 NA Tributary to Long Branch 5 P Open Cut Franklin 379.1 WB-IN-368-A 23 NA Tributary to Long Branch 3 I Open Cut Franklin 379.3 WB-IN-368-B NA NA Tributary to Long Branch 2 E Open Cut Franklin 379.4 WB-IN-368-C NA NA Tributary to Long Branch 1 E Open Cut Franklin 379.4 WB-IN-368-D NA NA Tributary to Long Branch 1 E Open Cut Franklin 379.5 WB-IN-368-E 64 NA Tributary to Long Branch 7 I Open Cut Franklin 379.6 WB-IN-368-F 63 NA Tributary to Long Branch 3 I Open Cut Franklin 379.7 WB-IN-368-G NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 4 E Open Cut Franklin 379.7 WB-IN-368-H NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-20 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Franklin 379.7 WB-IN-368-I NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Franklin 379.8 WB-IN-368-J NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Franklin 379.8 WB-IN-368-K NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Franklin 379.8 WB-IN-368-L NA NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 E Open Cut Franklin 379.9 WB-IN-377-AA 26 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 3 I Open Cut Franklin 380.0 WB-IN-377-BB 16 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 380.1 WB-IN-377-CC 47 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 4 I Open Cut Franklin 380.1 WB-IN-377-DD 16 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 380.4 WB-IN-380-AAAA 14 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 380.4 WB-IN-380-BBBB 13 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 380.4 WB-IN-380-CCCC 19 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 380.5 WB-IN-380-DDDD 16 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 380.7 WB-IN-379-AAA 19 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 380.7 WB-IN-379-BBB 60 NA Tributary to Bull Fork 4 I Open Cut Franklin 380.8 WB-IN-380-III1, III2, III3 60 NA Tributary to Freemont Branch 4 I Open Cut ALS - N/EFranklin 380.9 WB-IN-380-HHH 13 NA Tributary to Freemont Branch 1 E Open Cut ALS - N/EFranklin 381.0 WB-IN-380-GGG 14 NA Tributary to Freemont Branch 1 E Open Cut Franklin 381.6 WB-IN-380-AAA 15 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 382.1 WB-IN-370-A 76 NA Salt Creek 40 P Open Cut Franklin 382.4 WB-IN-371-A 15 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 3 E Open Cut Franklin 382.6 WB-IN-371-C 13 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 383.1 WB-IN-371-I 21 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 383.2 WBD-IN-380-AA NA NA Tributary to Whistle Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 383.3 WBD-IN-381-AA NA NA Tributary to Whistle Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 383.4 WB-IN-383-AAAA 13 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 383.5 WB-IN-383-CCCC 13 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 383.6 WB-IN-383-EEEE 11 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 383.6 WB-IN-383-FFFF 20 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 383.6 WB-IN-383-DDDD 65 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 8 P Open Cut Franklin 384.0 WBD-IN-381-EE NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 384.5 WBD-IN-382-BB NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 384.6 WBD-IN-382-DD NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 10 I Open Cut Franklin 384.7 WBD-IN-382-EE NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 10 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-21 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Franklin 384.7 WBD-IN-382-FF NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 384.9 WBD-IN-382-HH NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 384.9 WBD-IN-382-II NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 385.0 WB-IN-373-B 39 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 2 I Open Cut Franklin 385.1 WB-IN-373-A 19 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 385.2 WB-IN-374-B 29 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 4 I Open Cut Franklin 385.3 WB-IN-374-A 13 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 385.4 WB-IN-374-C 19 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 2 E Open Cut Franklin 385.5 WB-IN-374-D 60 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 3 I Open Cut Franklin 385.6 WB-IN-374-F 45 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 1 E Open Cut Franklin 385.8 WB-IN-374-G 48 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 4 I Open Cut Franklin 386.0 WB-IN-374-H 71 NA Tributary to Walnut Fork 10 I Open Cut Franklin 386.0 WBD-IN-383-AA NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 386.1 WBD-IN-383-BB NA NA Tributary to Walnut Fork <10 E Open Cut Franklin 386.4 WBD-IN-384-AA NA NA Open water area 50 OW Open Cut Franklin 386.5 WB-IN-375-A 76 NA Walnut Fork 20 P Open Cut Franklin 386.6 WB-IN-375-B 69 NA Pipe Creek 55 P Open Cut Franklin 386.8 WB-IN-375-C 38 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 4 E Open Cut Franklin 386.9 WB-IN-375-D 14 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 386.9 WB-IN-375-F 13 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 386.9 WB-IN-375-E 13 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 387.0 WB-IN-375-G 13 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 387.1 WB-IN-375-H 13 NA Tributary to Pipe Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 387.2 WB-IN-386-AAA 58 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 6 E Open Cut Franklin 387.3 WB-IN-386-BBB 58 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 5 E Open Cut Franklin 387.5 WB-IN-386-CCC 89 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 6 I Open Cut Franklin 387.5 WB-IN-386-DDD 33 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 387.7 WB-IN-386-EEE 84 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 15 I Open Cut Franklin 387.8 WB-IN-387-AAA 56 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 10 E Open Cut Franklin 388.1 WB-IN-387-CCC 14 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 388.2 WB-IN-387-DDD 13 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 388.4 WB-IN-387-FFF 18 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 388.5 WB-IN-387-GGG 43 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-22 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Franklin 388.7 WB-IN-387-HHH 33 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 3 E Open Cut Franklin 389.1 WB-IN-388-BBB 26 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 389.3 WB-IN-388-EEE 22 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 389.3 WB-IN-388-FFF 54 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 3 E Open Cut Franklin 389.4 WB-IN-388-GGG 35 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 389.9 WB-IN-389-QQQ 20 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.0 WB-IN-389-OOO 13 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.0 WB-IN-389-NNN 20 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.0 WB-IN-389-MMM 23 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.0 WB-IN-389-LLL 13 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.1 WB-IN-389-KKK 20 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 390.1 WB-IN-389-JJJ 20 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.1 WB-IN-389-HHH 22 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 390.2 WB-IN-389-GGG 23 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 390.2 WB-IN-389-FFF 15 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.2 WB-IN-389-EEE 15 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 390.3 WB-IN-389-DDD 14 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.4 WB-IN-389-CCC 20 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.7 WB-IN-389-BBB 62 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 4 I Open Cut Franklin 390.7 WB-IN-389-AAA 81 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 10 P Open Cut Franklin 390.9 WB-IN-390-BBB 23 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 390.9 WB-IN-390-AAA 90 NA Wolf Creek 12 P Open Cut Franklin 391.1 WB-IN-390-CCC 51 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 391.3 WB-IN-390-DDD 13 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 391.4 WB-IN-390-FFF 84 NA Tributary to Blue Creek 6 I Open Cut Franklin 391.7 WB-IN-390-EEE 20 NA Tributary to Blue Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 392.5 WBD-IN-390-AA NA NA Blue Creek 60 P Open Cut Franklin 392.8 WB-IN-392-AAA NA 64 Tributary to Blue Creek 25 P Open Cut Franklin 393.1 WB-IN-392-BBB NA 63 Whitewater River 60 P HDD Franklin 394.0 N/A NA NA Whitewater Canal 119 I Open Cut Franklin 394.6 WB-IN-394-BBBB 32 NA Tributary to Whitewater River 6 E Open Cut Franklin 394.7 WB-IN-394-AAAA NA 64 Little Cedar Creek 30 P Open Cut Franklin 395.3 WBD-IN-393-AA NA NA Tributary to Richland Creek <10 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-23 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Franklin 395.3 WBD-IN-393-BB NA NA Tributary to Richland Creek 15 I Open Cut ALFranklin 395.6 WBD-IN-393-CC NA NA Tributary to Richland Creek <10 E Open Cut ALFranklin 395.8 WB-IN-395-AAAA 81 NA Tributary to Little Cedar Creek 25 P Open Cut Franklin 395.9 WB-IN-395-BBBB 17 NA Tributary to Whitewater River 2 E Open Cut Franklin 396.1 WB-IN-396-CCCC 40 NA Tributary to Whitewater River 3 E Open Cut ALFranklin 396.3 WB-IN-396-BBBB 17 NA Tributary to Whitewater River 3 E Open Cut ALFranklin 396.8 WB-IN-396-AAAA 32 NA Tributary to Whitewater River 6 E Open Cut ALFranklin 397.0 WB-IN-397-FFFF 38 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 9 E Open Cut ALFranklin 397.1 WB-IN-397-EEEE 54 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 10 E Open Cut Franklin 397.4 WB-IN-397-BBBB 45 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 9 E Open Cut Franklin 397.4 WB-IN-397-DDDD 38 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 9 E Open Cut Franklin 397.4 WB-IN-397-AAAA 50 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 9 E Open Cut Franklin 397.5 WBD-IN-395-BB NA NA Big Cedar Creek 30 P Open Cut Franklin 398.2 WBD-IN-396-AA NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.2 WBD-IN-396-BB NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.3 WBD-IN-396-DD NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.4 WBD-IN-396-EE NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.6 WBD-IN-396-FF NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.6 WBD-IN-396-GG NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.6 WBD-IN-396-HH NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 398.8 WBD-IN-396-II NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 10 E Open Cut Franklin 399.0 WBD-IN-396-JJ NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 399.1 WBD-IN-396-KK NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 399.1 WBD-IN-396-LL NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 399.2 WBD-IN-397-AA NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 399.3 WB-IN-399-GGGG 20 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 3 E Open Cut Franklin 399.4 WB-IN-399-FFFF 53 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 10 I Open Cut Franklin 399.6 WB-IN-399-EEEE 31 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 4 E Open Cut Franklin 399.7 WB-IN-399-DDDD 52 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 7 E Open Cut Franklin 399.8 WB-IN-399-BBBB 79 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 30 I Open Cut Franklin 399.8 WB-IN-399-CCCC 22 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 3 E Open Cut Franklin 399.8 WB-IN-399-AAAA 22 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 400.3 WB-IN-388-A 14 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-24 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Franklin 400.6 WB-IN-388-I 24 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 400.7 WB-IN-388-H 28 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 400.7 WB-IN-388-F 41 NA Tributary to Wolf Creek 7 E Open Cut Franklin 400.8 WB-IN-388-E 13 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 400.8 WB-IN-388-C 60 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 10 P Open Cut Franklin 400.8 WB-IN-388-G 15 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 1 E Open Cut Franklin 400.8 WB-IN-388-B 14 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 2 E Open Cut Franklin 401.2 WB-IN-389-B 39 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 4 I Open Cut Franklin 401.5 WB-IN-389-A 30 NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek 3 I Open Cut Franklin 402.3 WB-IN-390-A 57 NA Sater Run 5 I Open Cut Franklin 403.0 WBD-IN-400-AA NA NA Tributary to Big Cedar Creek <10 E Open Cut Franklin 403.4 WB-IN-391-C 44 NA Tributary to Sater Run 2 I Open Cut Franklin 403.9 WB-IN-391-B 58 NA Tributary to Sater Run 4 P Open Cut Franklin 404.0 WB-IN-392-A 34 NA Tributary to Sater Run 5 E Open Cut Franklin 404.1 WB-IN-392-B NA 63 Tributary to Sater Run 22 P Open Cut Butler 404.7, 

404.8 

WB-OH-392-A 36 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 4 E Open Cut 

Butler 405.1 WB-OH-393-F 20 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 3 E Open Cut Butler 405.3 WB-OH-393-E 81 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 7 I Open Cut Butler 405.3 WB-OH-393-D 23 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 2 E Open Cut Butler 405.7 WB-OH-393-C 11 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 2 E Open Cut Butler 405.7 WB-OH-393-A 51 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 6 I Open Cut Butler 405.7 WB-OH-393-B 47 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 4 E Open Cut Butler 406.1 WB-OH-394-E 17 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 2 E Open Cut Butler 406.2 WB-OH-394-C 54 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 3 E Open Cut Butler 406.2 WB-OH-394-D 24 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 1 E Open Cut Butler 406.3 WB-OH-394-B 20 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 1 E Open Cut Butler 406.4 WB-OH-394-A 16 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 1 E Open Cut Butler 407.2 WB-OH-395-D NA 66 Dry Fork Whitewater River 50 P Open Cut Butler 407.3 WB-OH-395-C 23 NA Tributary to Dry Fork Whitewater River 2 E Open Cut Butler 407.5 WB-OH-395-B 55 NA Tributary to Buck Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 407.8 WB-OH-395-F 35 NA Tributary to Buck Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 407.9 WB-OH-395-G 59 NA Tributary to Buck Run 13 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-25 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Butler 408.2 WBD-OH-406-AA NA NA Tributary to Buck Run <10 E Open Cut Butler 408.9 WB-OH-396-C 76 NA Tributary to Buck Run 11 P Open Cut Butler 409.0 WB-OH-397-B 62 NA Tributary to Buck Run 4 P Open Cut Butler 409.1 WB-OH-397-A 32 NA Tributary to Buck Run 6 P Open Cut Butler 409.4 WBD-OH-407-CC NA NA Tributary to Buck Run <10 E Open Cut Butler 409.7 WBD-OH-407-DD NA NA Buck Run 15 P Open Cut Butler 410.8 WB-OH-398-A 11 NA Tributary to Lick Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 411.8 WB-OH-411-AAA 29 NA Tributary to Lick Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 411.8 WB-OH-399-B NA 77 Lick Run 7 P Open Cut Butler 411.9 WB-OH-411-BBB 45 NA Tributary to Lick Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 412.0 WB-OH-411-CCC NA 55 Lick Run 15 P Open Cut Butler 412.1 WB-OH-411-DDD 35 NA Tributary to Lick Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 412.5 WB-OH-400-C 25 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 412.9 WB-OH-400-A NA 80 Indian Creek 50 P Open Cut SButler 413.0 WB-OH-400-B 17 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 1 E Open Cut Butler 413.7 WB-OH-401-B 36 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 4 E Open Cut Butler 413.7 WB-OH-401-A 16 NA Tributary to Indian Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 414.4 WB-OH-402-A 39 NA Tributary to Beals Run 4 E Open Cut Butler 414.5 WB-OH-402-B 27 NA Tributary to Beals Run 1 E Open Cut Butler 414.5 WB-OH-402-C NA NA Open Water Area 112 OW Open Cut Butler 414.7 WB-OH-402-D NA 62 Beals Run 15 P Open Cut Butler 414.8 WB-OH-402-F 28 NA Tributary to Beals Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 414.9 WB-OH-402-G 30 NA Tributary to Beals Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 414.9 WB-OH-402-H 13 NA Tributary to Beals Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 415.0 WB-OH-402-I 22 NA Tributary to Beals Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 415.0 WB-OH-402-J 22 NA Tributary to Beals Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 415.2 WB-OH-403-L 28 NA Tributary to Beals Run 1 E Open Cut Butler 415.3 WB-OH-403-M 44 NA Tributary to Beals Run 4 I Open Cut Butler 415.5 WB-OH-403-N NA 66 Tributary to Beals Run 8 P Open Cut Butler 415.7 WB-OH-403-K NA NA Open Water Area 119 OW Open Cut Butler 415.8 WB-OH-413-DD 32 NA Tributary to Beals Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 416.0 WB-OH-413-CC 23 NA Tributary to Beals Run 1 E Open Cut Butler 416.1 WB-OH-413-BB 32 NA Tributary to Beals Run 3 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-26 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Butler 416.1 WB-OH-413-AA 34 NA Tributary to Beals Run 5 I Open Cut Butler 417.0 WB-OH-404-A NA NA Open Water Area 169 OW Open Cut Butler 417.7 WB-OH-405-C 23 NA Tributary to Becketts Run 1 E Open Cut Butler 418.2 WB-OH-405-A NA 49 Tributary to Becketts Run 15 I Open Cut Butler 418.2 WB-OH-405-B NA 73 Becketts Run 10 P Open Cut Butler 418.2 WB-OH-418-AAAA 28 NA Tributary to Becketts Run 4 E Open Cut Butler 418.4 WB-OH-406-B 61 NA Tributary to Becketts Run 6 E Open Cut Butler 418.5 WB-OH-406-C 16 NA Tributary to Becketts Run 3 E Open Cut Butler 418.7 WB-OH-406-A 23 NA Tributary to Becketts Run 2 E Open Cut Butler 419.3 WB-OH-407-A 15 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 419.3 WB-OH-407-B 39 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 4 E Open Cut Butler 419.4 WB-OH-407-C 23 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 419.5 WB-OH-407-E 52 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 419.5 WB-OH-407-D 68 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 5 I Open Cut Butler 419.5 WB-OH-407-F 13 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 1 E Open Cut Butler 419.6 WB-OH-407-G 24 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 419.6, 

419.7 

WB-OH-407-H 14 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 1 E Open Cut 

Butler 419.8 WB-OH-407-I 15 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 420.0 WB-OH-407-J 39 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 420.0 WB-OH-407-K 23 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 420.1, 

420.2, 

420.3 

WB-OH-407-L NA 83 Tributary to Four Mile Creek 20 P Open Cut 

Butler 420.2 WB-OH-407-N 11 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 420.2 WB-OH-407-M 55 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 4 I Open Cut Butler 420.3 WB-OH-408-A NA 87 Tributary to Four Mile Creek 20 P Open Cut Butler 420.5 WB-OH-420-GGGG 32 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 5 E Open Cut Butler 420.5 WB-OH-420-FFFF 80 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 10 I Open Cut Butler 420.5 WB-OH-420-EEEE 47 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 6 E Open Cut Butler 420.6 WB-OH-420-DDDD 13 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 420.6 WB-OH-420-CCCC 25 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 420.6 WB-OH-420-BBBB 15 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-27 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Butler 420.6 WB-OH-420-AAAA 43 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 5 E Open Cut Butler 421.1 WBD-OH-418-AA NA NA Open Water Area 178 OW Open Cut Butler 421.3 WBD-OH-418-BB NA NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 10 I Open Cut Butler 421.5 WB-OH-420-AAA 29 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 421.6 WB-OH-409-C NA 66 Four Mile Creek 278 P HDD Butler 421.9 WB-OH-409-B 14 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 422.2 WB-OH-409-A 14 NA Tributary to Four Mile Creek 2 P Open Cut Butler 422.7 WB-OH-410-A NA 60 Seven Mile Creek 45 P HDD WButler 423.0 WB-OH-410-B 49 NA Milton Run 10 I Open Cut Butler 424.2 WB-OH-411-A 83 69 Cotton Run 20 P Open Cut Butler 425.7 WB-OH-423-AA 40 NA Tributary to Seven Mile Creek 7 I Open Cut Butler 426.2 WB-OH-425-AAA 13 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 2 E Open Cut Butler 426.2 WB-OH-425-BBB 17 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 2 E Open Cut Butler 426.3 WB-OH-414-A1 64 NA Tributary to Seven Mile Creek 7 I Open Cut Butler 426.4 WB-OH-414-A2 64 NA Tributary to Seven Mile Creek 7 I Open Cut Butler 428.7 WB-OH-426-AA 35 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 3 E Open Cut Butler 429.5 WB-OH-427-BB NA NA Open Water Area 51 OW Open Cut Butler 429.5 WB-OH-427-AA 48 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 4 I Open Cut Butler 430.7 WB-OH-417-B NA NA Great Miami River 293 P HDD EWButler 430.8 N/A NA NA Miami & Erie Canal 30 I HDD Butler 430.8, 

430.9 

WB-OH-417-A 33 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 3 E HDD 

Butler 431.0 WB-OH-418-C NA NA Open Water Area 302 OW Open Cut Butler 431.1 WB-OH-418-B 33 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 2 E Open Cut Butler 431.2 WB-OH-418-A 14 NA Tributary to Great Miami River 3 E Open Cut Butler 432.4 WB-OH-419-A 19 NA Tributary to Dicks Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 432.7 WB-OH-419-B 43 NA Tributary to Dicks Creek 4 I Open Cut Butler 433.4 WB-OH-432-AAA 13 NA Tributary to Dicks Creek 2 E Open Cut Butler 433.6 WB-OH-420-A 14 NA Tributary to Dicks Creek 3 E Open Cut Butler 435.5 N/A N/A N/A Shaker Creek unknown N/A Open Cut Warren 436.7 WBD-OH-434-BB NA NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 10 I Open Cut Warren 437.2 WB-OH-436-AAA 31 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 1 E Open Cut Warren 438.3 WB-OH-437-BBB 41 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 6 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-28 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Warren 439.1 WB-OH-437-DDD 26 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 4 E Open Cut Warren 439.1 WB-OH-437-EEE 25 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 2 E Open Cut Warren 440.0 WB-OH-437-AA 15 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 2 E Open Cut Warren 440.3 WB-OH-437-BB 18 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 3 E Open Cut Warren 440.4 WB-OH-437-CC 17 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 2 E Open Cut Warren 441.2 WBD-OH-438-AA NA NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 10 I Open Cut Warren 441.8 WB-OH-440-AAA 15 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 2 E Open Cut Warren 441.8 WB-OH-440-BBB 46 NA Tributary to Shaker Creek 4 E Open Cut Warren 442.7 WB-OH-428-C 9 NA Tributary to Turtle Creek 1 E Open Cut Warren 442.7 WB-OH-428-B 25 NA Tributary to Turtle Creek 2 I Open Cut Warren 442.7 WB-OH-428-A 25 NA Tributary to Turtle Creek 2 I Open Cut Warren 442.7 WB-OH-428-D 33 NA Tributary to Turtle Creek 5 E Open Cut Warren 444.5 WB-OH-430-A1 57 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 6 P Open Cut Warren 444.5 WB-OH-430-A2 57 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 6 P Open Cut Warren 446.6 WB-OH-432-A1 69 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 12 P Open Cut Warren 446.6 WB-OH-432-A2 69 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 12 P Open Cut Warren 446.9 WBD-OH-443-AA NA NA Open Water Area 57 OW Open Cut Warren 447.1 WBD-OH-443-BB NA NA Tributary to Clear Creek <10 E Open Cut Warren 447.3 WBD-OH-443-DD NA NA Tributary to Clear Creek <10 E Open Cut Warren 447.3 WBD-OH-443-CC NA NA Clear Creek 20 P Open Cut Warren 447.3 WBD-OH-443-EE NA NA Tributary to Clear Creek <10 E Open Cut Warren 447.8 WB-OH-433-A 52 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 5 P Open Cut Warren 448.4 WB-OH-434-A 59 NA Tributary to Clear Creek 15 I Open Cut Warren 450.3 WB-OH-446-AA 39 NA Tributary to Newman Run 4 E Open Cut Warren 451.2 WB-OH-436-C 55 NA Tributary to Newman Run 3 I HDD Warren 451.3 WB-OH-436-A 65 NA Little Miami River 60 P HDD EWWarren 451.9 WB-OH-448-CC 29 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 3 P Open Cut Warren 451.9 WB-OH-448-AA 77 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 6 I Open Cut Warren 452.0 WB-OH-448-BB 50 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 4 E Open Cut Warren 452.0 WB-OH-448-DD 27 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 3 E Open Cut Warren 452.3 WB-OH-437-A 46 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 2 E Open Cut Warren 452.5 WB-OH-438-B NA 66 Tributary to Little Miami River 13 I Open Cut Warren 452.6 WB-OH-438-C 70 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 8 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-29 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Warren 453.3 WB-OH-438-A 54 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 2 I Open Cut Warren 453.4 WB-OH-439-A 29 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 1 I Open Cut Warren 453.4 WB-OH-451-AAA 11 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 3 E Open Cut Warren 454.1 WB-OH-439-C 53 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 4 I Open Cut Warren 454.2 WB-OH-450-AA 59 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 8 P Open Cut Warren 454.4 WB-OH-452-AAA 41 NA Tributary to Caesar Creek 7 I Open Cut Warren 454.4 WB-OH-452-BBB 29 NA Tributary to Caesar Creek 3 E Open Cut Warren 454.5 WB-OH-451-LL 28 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 7 I Open Cut Warren 454.5 WB-OH-451-HH 41 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 10 P Open Cut Warren 454.7 WB-OH-453-CCC 83 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 7 P Open Cut Warren 455.0 WB-OH-453-BBB 14 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 2 E Open Cut Warren 455.0 WB-OH-451-EE NA 80 Tributary to Little Miami River 14 P Open Cut Warren 455.2 WB-OH-451-DD 61 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 10 P Open Cut Warren 455.2 WB-OH-453-AAA 14 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 2 E Open Cut Warren 455.4 WB-OH-451-BB 33 NA Tributary to Shaffers Run 3 P Open Cut Warren 455.4 WB-OH-451-AA NA 66 Shaffers Run 23 P Open Cut Warren 456.5 WB-OH-453-DD 60 NA Tributary to Furnas Ditch 5 I Open Cut Warren 457.1 WB-OH-453-CC 32 NA Tributary to Furnas Ditch 2 I Open Cut Warren 457.4 WB-OH-453-BB 65 NA Tributary to Sandy Run 9 P Open Cut Warren 457.6 WB-OH-454-DD NA 63 Tributary to Sandy Run 8 E Open Cut Warren 458.1 WB-OH-454-AA 15 NA Tributary to Sandy Run 3 E Open Cut Warren 458.3 WBD-OH-454-AA NA NA Sandy Run 10 I Open Cut Warren 458.6 WBD-OH-455-AA NA NA Tributary to Little Miami River <10 E Open Cut Warren 458.6 WB-OH-455-AA 18 NA Tributary to Little Miami River 2 E Open Cut Clinton 459.6 WB-OH-458-AAA NA 52 Caesar Creek 134 P HDD EWClinton 459.9 WBD-OH-456-BB NA NA Tributary to Caesar Creek <10 E Open Cut Clinton 460.0 WBD-OH-456-CC NA NA Tributary to Caesar Creek <10 E Open Cut Clinton 460.2 WB-OH-445-A 18 NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 1 E Open Cut Clinton 460.2 WB-OH-445-B 13 NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 2 E Open Cut Clinton 461.1 WB-OH-446-B 13 NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 2 E Open Cut Clinton 462.1 WB-OH-447-D 64 NA Tributary to Buck Run 5 I Open Cut Clinton 462.2 WB-OH-447-C 40 NA Tributary to Buck Run 2 I Open Cut Clinton 462.4 WB-OH-447-A1 41 NA Tributary to Buck Run 1 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-30 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Clinton 462.4 WB-OH-447-A2 41 NA Tributary to Buck Run 1 I Open Cut Clinton 463.0 WBD-OH-459-AA NA NA Tributary to Buck Run <10 E Open Cut Clinton 463.0 WBD-OH-459-BB NA NA Tributary to Buck Run <10 E Open Cut Clinton 466.1 WB-OH-462-BB 39 NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 5 I Open Cut Clinton 466.3 WB-OH-462-AA 29 NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 4 E Open Cut Clinton 466.8 WBD-OH-463-CC NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork 20 P Open Cut Clinton 466.8 WBD-OH-463-DD NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork <10 E Open Cut Clinton 466.9, 

467.0 

WBD-OH-463-EE NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork <10 E Open Cut 

Clinton 467.0 WBD-OH-463-FF NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork <10 E Open Cut Clinton 468.1 WBD-OH-464-BB NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork <10 E Open Cut Clinton 468.9 WBD-OH-465-AA NA NA Tributary to Anderson Fork <10 E Open Cut Clinton 469.1 WB-OH-467-AAA 44 NA Trubutary to Love Run 9 E Open Cut Clinton 469.8 WB-OH-468-AAA NA 39 Anderson Run 30 P Open Cut SClinton 470.7 WBD-OH-467-AA NA NA Grassy Branch 20 P Open Cut Clinton 471.7 WBD-OH-468-AA NA NA Grassy Branch 20 P Open Cut Fayette 479.1 WB-OH-464-A 67 NA Grassy Branch 15 P Open Cut Fayette 480.4 WB-OH-465-A NA 52 Rattlesnake Creek 40 P Open Cut Fayette 483.7 WB-OH-468-A NA 67 Missouri Ditch 10 P Open Cut Fayette 484.3 WB-OH-469-A NA 57 Sugar Creek 30 P Open Cut Fayette 486.4 WB-OH-484-AAA NA 32 Paint Creek 24 P Open Cut Fayette 490.3, 

490.4 

WBD-OH-486-AA NA NA Tributary to East Fork Paint Creek <10 E Open Cut 

Fayette 490.4 WBD-OH-487-AA NA NA Tributary to East Fork Paint Creek <10 E Open Cut Fayette 490.5 WBD-OH-487-BB NA NA Tributary to East Fork Paint Creek <10 E Open Cut Fayette 490.9 WBD-OH-487-CC NA NA East Fork Paint Creek 25 P Open Cut Fayette 493.0 WB-OH-478-A 63 NA Dews Run 12 P Open Cut Fayette 494.3 WB-OH-492-AAA NA 54 Compton Creek 18 P Open Cut WFayette 494.6 WBD-OH-491-AA NA NA Tributary to Compton Creek 15 I Open Cut Fayette 496.6 WB-OH-481-A NA 77 North Fork Paint Creek 30 P Open Cut Fayette 497.8 WB-OH-482-A 38 NA Lick Run 2 I Open Cut Fayette 498.7 WB-OH-483-A 45 NA Tributary to Deer Creek 1 I Open Cut Fayette 499.0 WB-OH-497-AAA 29 NA Tributary to Deer Creek 3 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-31 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Fayette 499.4 WB-OH-497-BBB 59 NA Tributary to Deer Creek 10 I Open Cut Fayette 499.6 WB-OH-498-AAA NA NA Deer Creek 100 P HDD WWFayette 499.8 WB-OH-498-BBB 16 NA Tributary to Deer Creek 2 E Open Cut Pickaway 500.2 WB-OH-498-CCC 62 NA Tributary to Clark Run 3 I Open Cut Pickaway 500.7 WB-OH-499-AAA 17 NA Tributary to Clark Run 2 E Open Cut Pickaway 500.8 WB-OH-499-BBB 78 NA Clark Run 15 P Open Cut Pickaway 500.8 WB-OH-499-CCC 34 NA Tributary to Clark Run 3 E Open Cut Pickaway 504.5 WB-OH-501-CC 66 NA Tributary to Buskirk Creek 9 I Open Cut Pickaway 504.5 WB-OH-501-BB 40 NA Tributary to Buskirk Creek 7 I Open Cut Pickaway 504.6 WB-OH-501-EE NA 89 Buskirk Creek 20 P Open Cut WPickaway 504.6 WB-OH-501-DD 11 NA Tributary to Buskirk Creek 2 E Open Cut Pickaway 504.7 WB-OH-501-AA 39 NA Tributary to Buskirk Creek 3 E Open Cut Pickaway 506.0 WB-OH-490-A 47 NA Tributary to Dry Run 4 I Open Cut Pickaway 506.4 WB-OH-491-A 27 NA Tributary to Dry Run 1 E Open Cut Pickaway 507.1 WB-OH-491-B NA 64 Dry Run 25 P Open Cut Pickaway 509.1 WB-OH-505-AA 44 NA Tributary to Big Darby Creek 3 E HDD Pickaway 509.2 WB-OH-493-A NA 60 Big Darby Creek 170 P HDD SRWPickaway 509.9 WB-OH-508-CCC 26 NA Tributary to Big Darby Creek 2 E Open Cut Pickaway 509.9 WB-OH-494-A 25 NA Tributary to Big Darby Creek 3 E Open Cut Pickaway 510.1 WB-OH-508-BBB 57 NA Tributary to Big Darby Creek 20 I Open Cut Pickaway 510.2 WB-OH-508-AAA 18 NA Tributary to Big Darby Creek 1 E Open Cut Pickaway 512.7 WB-OH-497-A 44 NA Tributary to Scioto River 3 E Open Cut Pickaway 513.5 WB-OH-498-B 70 NA Tributary to Scioto River 4 P Open Cut Pickaway 513.7, 

513.9 

WB-OH-498-A 65 NA Tributary to Scioto River 7 P Open Cut 

Pickaway 514.6 WB-OH-499-A NA 54 Scioto River 200 P HDD SRW, Pickaway 515.5 WB-OH-500-A 57 NA Mud Run 10 P Open Cut Pickaway 515.9 WB-OH-500-B NA 61 Walnut Creek 90 P HDD Pickaway 516.0 NA NA NA Ohio & Erie Canal 30 I HDD Pickaway 519.0 WB-OH-503-A NA 63 Bull Run 10 P Open Cut Pickaway 520.2 WB-OH-504-A NA 71 Turkey Run 20 P Open Cut Pickaway 520.5 WB-OH-505-A NA 78 Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 15 P Open Cut Pickaway 523.1 WBD-OH-519-AA NA NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 15 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-32 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Fairfield 525.6 WB-OH-510-D NA 54 Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 20 P Open Cut Fairfield 525.6 WB-OH-510-E 32 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 3 I Open Cut Fairfield 525.9 WB-OH-510-A 16 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 526.0 WB-OH-510-B 9 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 526.2 WB-OH-510-C 40 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 6 I Open Cut Fairfield 526.6 WB-OH-511-A NA 77 Little Walnut Creek 30 P Open Cut Fairfield 527.3 WB-OH-511-C 20 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 4 E Open Cut Fairfield 527.6 WB-OH-512-A 64 NA Tributary to Little Walnut Creek 5 P Open Cut Fairfield 528.7, 

528.8 

WB-OH-513-A 54 NA Tributary to Hocking River 6 E Open Cut 

Fairfield 529.6 WB-OH-514-B 13 NA Tributary to Hocking River 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 529.6, 

529.9 

WB-OH-514-A 38 NA Hocking River 4 P Open Cut 

Fairfield 530.4 WB-OH-514-C NA 27 Hocking River 8 P Open Cut Fairfield 531.2 WB-OH-515-A 22 NA Tributary to Ohio Canal 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 531.4 WB-OH-515-B 36 NA Tributary to Ohio Canal 3 P Open Cut Fairfield 531.9 WB-OH-516-A 62 NA Tributary to Ohio Canal 3 P Open Cut Fairfield 532.6 WB-OH-517-B NA 47 Tributary to Ohio Canal 4 P Open Cut Fairfield 533.1 WB-OH-517-A 28 NA Tributary to Ohio Canal 4 I Open Cut Fairfield 534.0 WBD-OH-530-AA NA NA Hocking Valley Canal 30 P HDD Fairfield 534.1 WB-OH-532-AAA NA 44 Tributary to Hocking River 12 P Open Cut Fairfield 534.6 WB-OH-519-A 76 NA Tributary to Hocking River 10 I Open Cut Fairfield 536.6 WBD-OH-532-BB NA NA Tributary to Hocking River <10 E Open Cut Fairfield 536.6 WBD-OH-533-AA NA NA Tributary to Hocking River <10 E Open Cut Fairfield 536.7 WB-OH-521-B 37 NA Tributary to Hocking River 3 I Open Cut Fairfield 536.8 WB-OH-521-C 41 NA Tributary to Hocking River 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 538.0 WB-OH-522-B NA 45 Fetters Run 15 I Open Cut Fairfield 538.5 WB-OH-522-C 75 NA Baldwin Run 6 I Open Cut Fairfield 539.5 WB-OH-535-AA NA 75 Tributary to Ewing Run 4 P Open Cut Fairfield 539.8 WB-OH-536-FF 56 NA Tributary to Ewing Run 6 P Open Cut Fairfield 539.8 WB-OH-536-EE 28 NA Tributary to Ewing Run 2 I Open Cut Fairfield 540.0 WB-OH-536-DD 56 NA Ewing Run 8 P Open Cut Fairfield 540.1 WB-OH-536-CC1 18 NA Tributary to Ewing Run 1 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-33 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Fairfield 540.1 WB-OH-536-CC2 45 NA Tributary to Ewing Run 2 E Open Cut Fairfield 540.3 WB-OH-536-AA 32 NA Tributary to Ewing Run 3 I Open Cut Fairfield 540.8 WB-OH-525-A 20 NA Tributary to Pleasant Run 1 E Open Cut Fairfield 541.4 WB-OH-525-B 60 NA Pleasant Run 4 P Open Cut WWFairfield 541.8 WB-OH-526-A 21 NA Tributary to Pleasant Run 1 P Open Cut Fairfield 543.6 WB-OH-528-A 25 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 1 I Open Cut Fairfield 544.5 WB-OH-528-B 72 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 8 P Open Cut Fairfield 545.3 WB-OH-529-A 65 63 Tributary to Little Rush Creek 4 I Open Cut Fairfield 546.2 WB-OH-544-AAA 39 NA Little Rush Creek 6 E Open Cut Fairfield 546.3 WB-OH-530-A NA 38 Little Rush Creek 4 P Open Cut Fairfield 546.8 WB-OH-531-A 24 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 4 I Open Cut Fairfield 546.9 WB-OH-531-B 25 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 3 I Open Cut Perry 548.7 WBD-OH-545-AA NA NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek <10 E Open Cut Perry 548.8 WB-OH-545-BB 45 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 3 P Open Cut Perry 549.2 WB-OH-545-AA 34 NA Tributary to Little Rush Creek 3 P Open Cut Perry 550.3 WB-OH-534-A 19 NA Tributary to Rush Creek 2 E Open Cut Perry 551.3 WB-OH-549-CCC 10 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 1 E Open Cut Perry 551.5 WB-OH-549-BBB 10 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 1 E Open Cut Perry 551.5 WB-OH-549-AAA 61 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 10 I Open Cut Perry 551.8 WB-OH-548-CC 61 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 5 P Open Cut Perry 552.1 WB-OH-548-AA 44 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 3 I Open Cut Perry 552.1 WB-OH-548-BB 25 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 2 I Open Cut Perry 553.0 WB-OH-549-AA 26 NA Tributary to Somerset Creek 2 P Open Cut Perry 553.0 WB-OH-549-BB 55 NA Tributary to Somerset Creek 4 P Open Cut Perry 553.2 WB-OH-549-EE NA 61 Somerset Creek 16 P Open Cut Perry 553.5 WB-OH-549-CC 20 NA Tributary to Somerset Creek 1 E Open Cut Perry 553.8 WB-OH-550-BB 27 NA Tributary to Somerset Creek 2 E Open Cut Perry 554.0 WB-OH-550-AA 30 NA Tributary to Somerset Creek 2 I Open Cut Perry 554.7 WBD-OH-551-AA NA NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 10 I Open Cut Perry 555.5 WB-OH-539-A 25 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 1 I Open Cut Perry 555.8 WB-OH-540-A 28 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 3 I Open Cut Perry 556.0 WB-OH-540-B 13 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 1 E Open Cut Perry 556.3 WB-OH-540-C 61 NA Center Branch Rush Creek <10 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-34 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Perry 556.6 WB-OH-540-D 50 NA Tributary to Center Branch Rush Creek 10 I Open Cut Perry 557.5 WB-OH-541-B 13 NA Tributary to Painter Creek 0 E Open Cut Perry 557.8 WB-OH-542-A 37 NA Tributary to Painter Creek 5 P Open Cut Perry 558.1 WB-OH-542-B 43 NA Painter Creek 5 P Open Cut SPerry 559.3 WB-OH-543-D 55 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 4 E Open Cut Perry 559.5 WB-OH-543-E 47 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 559.7 WB-OH-543-F 50 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 4 E Open Cut Perry 559.9 WB-OH-544-C 62 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 4 I Open Cut Perry 560.3 WB-OH-544-B 48 NA Tributary to Buckeye Fork 3 I Open Cut Perry 560.3 WB-OH-544-A 64 NA Tributary to Buckeye Fork 2 E Open Cut Perry 560.7 WB-OH-544-D NA 61 Buckeye Fork 8 P Open Cut Perry 560.8 WB-OH-544-F NA NA Open Water Area 421 OW Open Cut Perry 560.9 WB-OH-545-A 45 NA Tributary to Buckeye Fork 2 P Open Cut Perry 561.5 WB-OH-559-AAA NA NA Open Water Area 150 OW Open Cut Perry 561.5 WB-OH-559-BBB 65 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 8 I Open Cut Perry 561.7 WB-OH-560-AAA 29 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 561.8 WB-OH-560-BBB 28 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 562.5 WB-OH-546-A 43 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 I Open Cut Perry 562.6 WB-OH-546-B 13 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 562.6 WB-OH-546-D 13 NA Tributary to Burley Run 1 E Open Cut Perry 562.7 WB-OH-546-C 24 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 E Open Cut Perry 562.7 WB-OH-546-E 66 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 P Open Cut Perry 562.7 WB-OH-546-F 38 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 I Open Cut Perry 562.8 WB-OH-546-G 56 60 Tributary to Burley Run 4 P Open Cut Perry 563.0 WB-OH-561-GGG 78 NA Tributary to Burley Run 4 I Open Cut Perry 563.0 WB-OH-561-FFF 10 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 E Open Cut Perry 563.2 WB-OH-561-EEE 19 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 563.2 WB-OH-561-CCC 50 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 E Open Cut Perry 563.3 WB-OH-561-BBB 56 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 563.4 WB-OH-561-AAA 53 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 I Open Cut Perry 563.6 WB-OH-562-CCC 31 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 563.8 WB-OH-562-DDD 13 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 563.8 WB-OH-562-BBB 11 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-35 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Perry 563.9 WB-OH-562-EEE 12 NA Tributary to Burley Run 3 E Open Cut Perry 564.0 WB-OH-548-B 45 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 I Open Cut Perry 564.1 WB-OH-548-A 28 NA Tributary to Burley Run 5 E Open Cut Perry 564.5 WB-OH-562-FFF 10 NA Tributary to Burley Run 2 E Open Cut Perry 564.9 WB-OH-563-BBB 11 NA Tributary to Moxahala Creek 3 E Open Cut Perry 565.1 WB-OH-563-CCC 47 NA Tributary to Moxahala Creek 12 I Open Cut Perry 565.2 WB-OH-563-DDD 12 NA Tributary to Moxahala Creek 1 E Open Cut Perry 565.4 WB-OH-563-FFF 17 NA Tributary to Moxahala Creek 1 I Open Cut Perry 565.6 WB-OH-563-GGG NA NA Open Water Area 120 OW Open Cut Perry 566.1 WB-OH-548-C NA 56 Moxahala Creek 30 P Open Cut Muskingum 566.3 WBD-OH-562-AA 17 NA Tributary to Elk Run <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 566.5 WBD-OH-562-BB NA NA Tributary to Elk Run <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 566.6 WB-OH-552-A 64 NA Elk Run 5 P Open Cut Muskingum 566.6 WB-OH-552-B 28 NA Tributary to Elk Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 566.6 WB-OH-552-C 18 NA Tributary to Elk Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 566.8 WB-OH-552-D NA NA Open Water Area 271 OW Open Cut Muskingum 566.8 WB-OH-552-E 43 NA Tributary to Elk Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 566.9 WB-OH-552-F 79 NA Tributary to Elk Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 567.1 WB-OH-552-G 57 NA Tributary to Rider Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 567.1 WB-OH-552-H 55 NA Tributary to Rider Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 567.2 WB-OH-552-I 71 NA Tributary to Rider Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 567.3 WB-OH-565-AAA 21 NA Tributary to Elk Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 567.5 WB-OH-552-J 51 NA Tributary to Rider Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 567.5 

567.6 

WB-OH-553-A1 56 NA Tributary to Rider Run 5 P Open Cut 

Muskingum 567.6 WB-OH-553-A2 56 NA Tributary to Rider Run 5 P Open Cut Muskingum 567.8 WB-OH-553-B 79 NA Tributary to Rider Run 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 568.2 WB-OH-554-B 75 NA Tributary to Rider Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 568.3 WB-OH-554-A 52 NA Rider Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 568.7 WB-OH-554-E 70 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 568.7 WB-OH-554-F NA 63 Tributary to Brush Creek 4 P Open Cut Muskingum 568.8 WB-OH-554-G 14 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 568.9 WB-OH-554-J 37 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 1 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-36 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Muskingum 568.9 WB-OH-554-I 55 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 569.1 WB-OH-569-AAAA 28 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 569.1 WB-OH-569-BBBB 27 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 569.7 WB-OH-569-DDDD 46 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 569.7 WB-OH-569-CCCC 21 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 569.9 WB-OH-555-C 11 NA Tributary to Goose Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 569.9 WB-OH-555-A 76 NA Tributary to Goose Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 569.9 WB-OH-555-B 50 NA Tributary to Goose Run 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 570.3 WB-OH-556-A 58 NA Tributary to Goose Run 2 P Open Cut Muskingum 570.4 WB-OH-568-DDD 34 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 7 I Open Cut Muskingum 570.5 WB-OH-568-EEE NA NA Open Water Area 150 OW Open Cut Muskingum 570.6 WBD-OH-566-CC NA NA Tributary to Goose Run <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 570.8 WBD-OH-567-AA 30 NA Tributary to Goose Run 10 E Open Cut Muskingum 571.0 WB-OH-569-BBB 30 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 571.1 WB-OH-569-AAA 35 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 9 E Open Cut Muskingum 571.2 WBD-OH-567-CC NA NA Brush Creek 20 P Open Cut Muskingum 571.5 WBD-OH-567-EE NA NA Tributary to Brush Creek <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 571.5 WBD-OH-567-FF NA NA Tributary to Brush Creek <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 571.8 WB-OH-570-AAA 69 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 5 I Open Cut Muskingum 572.7 WB-OH-558-B 31 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 572.8 WB-OH-558-C 21 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 572.8 WB-OH-558-A 74 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 3 P Open Cut Muskingum 573.0 WB-OH-571-AAA 22 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 5 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.0 WB-OH-558-D 56 NA Tributary to Brush Creek 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 573.3 WB-OH-571-BBB 35 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 8 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.3 WB-OH-559-B 45 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 573.3 WB-OH-559-C 13 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.4 WB-OH-559-D 23 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.5 WB-OH-559-I 44 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.5 WB-OH-571-DDD 35 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 8 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.6 WB-OH-571-EEE 39 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 6 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.6 WB-OH-559-P 15 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 573.7 WB-OH-559-N 75 NA Duncan Run 4 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-37 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Muskingum 573.7 WB-OH-572-AAA 93 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 573.9 WB-OH-572-BBB 78 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 9 I Open Cut Muskingum 573.9 WB-OH-559-J 13 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.0 WB-OH-572-CCC 29 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 6 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.0 WB-OH-559-R 28 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 4 P Open Cut Muskingum 574.1 WB-OH-559-Q 63 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.2 WB-OH-560-H 52 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 574.5 WB-OH-572-DDD 60 NA Tributary to Turkey Run 6 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.6 WB-OH-573-KKK 13 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.6 WB-OH-573-JJJ 35 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.9 WB-OH-573-HHH 71 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 574.9 WB-OH-573-NNN 23 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 575.2 WB-OH-561-B 46 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 575.4 WB-OH-561-A 86 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 3 P Open Cut Muskingum 575.5 WB-OH-573-CCC 19 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 5 E Open Cut Muskingum 575.5 WB-OH-573-AAA 46 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 10 E Open Cut Muskingum 575.5 WB-OH-573-BBB 19 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 575.6 WB-OH-574-AAA 34 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 575.7 WB-OH-561-D NA 65 Duncan Run 8 P Open Cut Muskingum 575.8 WB-OH-561-E 78 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 576.1 WB-OH-561-G 15 NA Tributary to Duncan Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 576.4 WB-OH-562-A 25 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 576.5 WB-OH-574-CCC 28 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 576.6 WB-OH-575-CCC 67 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 5 E Open Cut Muskingum 576.6 WB-OH-575-DDD 47 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 577.2 WB-OH-575-AAA NA 48 Muskingum River 420 P HDD WMuskingum 577.4 WBD-OH-573-EE NA NA Tributary to Muskingum River <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 577.6 WB-OH-563-C 49 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 577.9 WB-OH-563-A 52 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 2 P Open Cut Muskingum 578.0 WB-OH-563-B 51 NA Tributary to Muskingum River 5 I Open Cut Muskingum 578.5 WBD-OH-574-AA NA NA Tributary to Muskingum River 15 I Open Cut Muskingum 578.5 WBD-OH-574-BB NA NA Tributary to Muskingum River <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 579.2 WB-OH-577-DDD 30 NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-38 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Muskingum 579.4 WB-OH-577-CCC 36 NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 579.6 WB-OH-578-AAA 32 NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 579.8 WB-OH-578-BBB NA 68 Manns Run 40 P Open Cut Muskingum 580.3 WBD-OH-576-DD NA NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 580.4 WBD-OH-576-EE NA NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 580.4 WBD-OH-576-FF NA NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek 15 I Open Cut Muskingum 580.7 WB-OH-580-BBBB 28 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 581.4 WBD-OH-577-DD NA NA Tributary to Salt Creek 10 I Open Cut Muskingum 581.8 WB-OH-580-KKK 26 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 581.9 WB-OH-580-MMM 15 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 581.9 WB-OH-580-LLL 62 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.1 WB-OH-580-DDD 28 NA Tributary to Manns Fork Salt Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.2 WB-OH-580-OOO 85 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 15 I Open Cut Muskingum 582.2 WB-OH-580-PPP 28 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.3 WB-OH-580-GGG 25 NA Tributary to Williams Fork Salt Creek 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.3 WB-OH-580-QQQ 67 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 582.5 WB-OH-580-III 30 NA Tributary to Williams Fork Salt Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.5 WB-OH-580-JJJ 35 NA Tributary to Williams Fork Salt Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.5 WB-OH-581-LLL 56 NA Tributary to Williams Fork Salt Creek 6 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.6 WB-OH-581-KKK 14 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.7 WB-OH-581-JJJ 19 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.7 WB-OH-581-PPP 10 NA Tributary to Salt Creek 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.7 WB-OH-581-HHH 17 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.8 WB-OH-581-GGG 11 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.9 WB-OH-581-EEE 35 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 4 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.9 WB-OH-581-FFF 14 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 582.9 WB-OH-581-DDD NA 79 Tributary to Buffalo Creek 40 P Open Cut Muskingum 583.2 WB-OH-581-CCC 29 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 583.3 WB-OH-568-A 28 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 583.5 WBD-OH-579-EE NA NA Tributary to Williams Fork <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 583.6 WBD-OH-580-AA NA NA Tributary to Williams Fork 10 I Open Cut Muskingum 584.0 WB-OH-582-AAA 32 NA Williams Fork Salt Creek 5 I Open Cut Muskingum 584.1 WB-OH-580-AA 27 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 1 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-39 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Muskingum 584.4 WB-OH-569-A NA 59 Williams Fork 8 P Open Cut Muskingum 584.5 WB-OH-570-B 32 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 584.6 WB-OH-570-A 33 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 585.0 WB-OH-570-C 13 NA Tributary to Lepage Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 585.3 WB-OH-585-CCCC 12 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 585.5 WB-OH-585-AAAA 61 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 585.7 WB-OH-571-A 32 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.0 WBD-OH-582-AA NA NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.2 WBD-OH-582-BB NA NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork <10 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.3 WB-OH-582-BB 22 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.3 WB-OH-582-AA 30 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.6 WB-OH-583-EE 44 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 3 I Open Cut Muskingum 586.6 WB-OH-583-FF 46 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 4 I Open Cut Muskingum 586.6 WB-OH-583-DD 43 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 586.7 WB-OH-583-CC 25 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.8 WB-OH-583-AA 21 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 586.8 WB-OH-586-AAAA 22 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.1 WB-OH-585-AAA 60 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 9 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.4 WB-OH-585-CCC 65 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 9 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.4 WB-OH-585-DDD 28 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.4 WB-OH-585-EEE 28 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.5 WB-OH-586-BBB 11 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 587.7 WB-OH-586-CCC 26 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 588.1 WB-OH-573-D 54 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 588.2 WB-OH-573-A 70 NA Tributary to Williams Fork 4 I Open Cut Muskingum 588.9 WB-OH-574-E 13 NA Tributary to Yoker Creek 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 588.9 WB-OH-574-D 13 NA Tributary to Yoker Creek 2 E Open Cut Muskingum 588.9 WB-OH-574-C 78 NA Tributary to Yoker Creek 6 P Open Cut Muskingum 589.1 WB-OH-574-A 28 NA Tributary to Yoker Creek 1 I Open Cut Muskingum 589.1 WB-OH-574-B 84 NA Yoker Creek 6 P Open Cut Muskingum 589.5 WB-OH-574-F 22 NA Tributary to Sims Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 589.5 WB-OH-574-G 47 NA Tributary to Sims Run 2 I Open Cut Muskingum 589.6 WB-OH-575-A 58 NA Sims Run 7 P Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-40 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Muskingum 589.8 WB-OH-575-B 28 NA Tributary to Sims Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 590.0 WB-OH-575-C 35 NA Tributary to Sims Run 4 I Open Cut Muskingum 590.3 WB-OH-575-D 61 NA Tributary to Sims Run 5 P Open Cut Muskingum 590.6 WB-OH-576-A 19 NA Tributary to McKee Run 0 I Open Cut Muskingum 591.0 WB-OH-587-AA 67 NA McKee Run 5 P Open Cut Muskingum 591.4 WB-OH-588-AA 62 NA Tributary to Bee Run 4 P Open Cut Muskingum 591.5 WB-OH-588-CC 14 NA Tributary to Bee Run 1 E Open Cut Muskingum 591.6 WB-OH-588-EE 44 NA Tributary to Bee Run 3 E Open Cut Muskingum 591.6 WB-OH-588-DD 19 NA Tributary to Bee Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 591.9 WB-OH-577-B 18 NA Tributary to Flat Run 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 592.1 WB-OH-577-A 29 NA Tributary to Flat Run 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 592.5 WB-OH-589-AA 26 NA Tributary to Flat Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 592.6 WB-OH-589-BB 26 NA Tributary to Flat Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 593.0 WB-OH-591-AAA 76 NA Tributary to Mannon Run 12 I Open Cut Guernsey 593.1 WB-OH-591-BBB N/A 64 Tributary to Mannon Run 5 I Open Cut Guernsey 593.3 WB-OH-591-DDD 14 NA Tributary to Mannon Run 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 593.5 WB-OH-592-AAA 57 NA Tributary to Mannon Run 4 I Open Cut Guernsey 593.6 WB-OH-592-BBB 39 NA Tributary to Mannon Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.0 WB-OH-592-CCC 18 NA Tributary to Mannon Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.0 WB-OH-592-DDD 32 NA Tributary to Crane Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.1 WB-OH-592-KKK 19 NA Tributary to Crane Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.2 WB-OH-592-JJJ 19 NA Tributary to Crane Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.3 WB-OH-592-III 89 NA Tributary to Crane Run 12 I Open Cut Guernsey 594.4 WB-OH-592-HHH 65 NA Tributary to Crane Run 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 594.4 WB-OH-592-FFF 13 NA Tributary to Crane Run 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.4 WB-OH-592-GGG 14 NA Tributary to Crane Run 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.6 WB-OH-593-AAA 46 NA Tributary to Crane Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.7 WB-OH-593-BBB 70 NA Tributary to Crane Run 5 P Open Cut Guernsey 594.7 WB-OH-593-CCC 24 NA Tributary to Crane Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.8 WB-OH-594-CCCC 24 NA Tributary to Crane Run 5 E Open Cut Guernsey 594.9 WB-OH-594-AAAA 9 NA Tributary to Crane Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 595.1 WB-OH-580-A 19 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 595.2 WB-OH-580-B 78 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 2 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-41 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Guernsey 595.3 WB-OH-580-C 16 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 595.4 WB-OH-580-D 17 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 595.9 WB-OH-581-F 67 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 P Open Cut Guernsey 596.0 WB-OH-581-E 56 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 4 P Open Cut Guernsey 596.0 WB-OH-581-D 16 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 I Open Cut Guernsey 596.1 WB-OH-581-C 19 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 I Open Cut Guernsey 596.1 WB-OH-581-B 29 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 I Open Cut Guernsey 596.2 WB-OH-581-A 41 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 1 I Open Cut Guernsey 596.2 WB-OH-592-AA 55 NA Tributary to Buffalo Fork Creek 4 I Open Cut Guernsey 596.8 WB-OH-595-III 25 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 596.8 WB-OH-595-HHH 25 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 597.0 WB-OH-595-FFF 14 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 597.2 WB-OH-595-BBB 49 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 4 I Open Cut Guernsey 597.2 WB-OH-595-CCC 68 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 597.2 WB-OH-595-AAA 61 N/A Tributary to Wills Creek 5 I Open Cut Guernsey 597.3 WB-OH-595-DDD 55 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 4 E Open Cut Guernsey 597.5 WB-OH-596-AAA 72 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 6 I Open Cut Guernsey 597.5 WB-OH-596-CCC 47 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 597.5 WB-OH-596-BBB N/A 72 Tributary to Wills Creek 6 P Open Cut Guernsey 597.6 WB-OH-596-DDD 50 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 597.7 WB-OH-596-EEE 26 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 597.9 WB-OH-596-FFF 81 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 5 I Open Cut Guernsey 598.0 WB-OH-596-GGG 15 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 598.0 WB-OH-596-HHH 25 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 598.3 WB-OH-594-AA 35 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 3 P Open Cut Guernsey 598.4 WB-OH-595-AA 28 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 598.5 WB-OH-595-BB 46 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 598.8 WB-OH-595-CC 28 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 598.8 WB-OH-595-DD 23 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 599.2 WB-OH-597-CCC 31 NA Tributary to Buffalo Creek 4 E Open Cut Guernsey 599.2 WB-OH-597-BBB 64 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 4 I Open Cut Guernsey 599.4 WB-OH-597-AAA 25 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 599.7 WB-OH-598-BBB 23 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 4 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-42 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Guernsey 600.0 WB-OH-598-CCC NA 39 Wills Creek 40 P Open Cut Guernsey 601.0 WB-OH-601-AAAA 18 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 601.4 WBD-OH-598-AA NA NA Tributary to Wills Creek <10 I Open Cut Guernsey 601.7 WB-OH-598-AA 57 NA Tributary to Wills Creek 4 P Open Cut Guernsey 602.3 WB-OH-598-BB 19 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 602.6 WB-OH-599-AA 41 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 3 P Open Cut Guernsey 603.2 WB-OH-599-BB 37 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 3 P Open Cut Guernsey 603.4 WB-OH-601-AAA 32 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 603.5 WBD-OH-600-CC NA NA Tributary to Soggy Run <10 E Open Cut Guernsey 603.6 WBD-OH-600-AA NA NA Tributary to Soggy Run <10 E Open Cut Guernsey 603.8 WBD-OH-600-BB NA NA Soggy Run <10 I Open Cut Guernsey 604.1 WB-OH-600-AA 63 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 604.2 WB-OH-600-BB 42 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.2 WB-OH-600-CC 25 NA Tributary to Soggy Run 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.5 WB-OH-601-AA 47 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.6 WB-OH-601-BB 39 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.7 WB-OH-603-HHH NA NA Middle Tributary to Wills Creek <10 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.8 WB-OH-603-GGG 18 NA Middle Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.8 WB-OH-603-EEE 27 NA Middle Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.8 WB-OH-603-FFF 26 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 604.8 WB-OH-603-DDD 57 NA East Tributary to Wills Creek 5 I Open Cut Guernsey 605.2 WB-OH-603-BBB 34 NA Tributary to Infirmary Run 4 E Open Cut Guernsey 605.2 WB-OH-601-CC 27 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 P Open Cut Guernsey 605.7 WB-OH-602-AA 16 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 605.9 WB-OH-602-BB 35 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 606.0 WB-OH-604-AAA 55 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 6 I Open Cut Guernsey 606.7 WB-OH-605-FFF 15 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 606.7 WB-OH-605-EEE 25 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 606.9 WB-OH-605-CCC 17 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 607.1 WB-OH-605-AAA 56 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 607.1 WB-OH-605-BBB 20 NA West Tributary to Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 607.6 WB-OH-605-GGG 41 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 607.9 WB-OH-606-FFF 40 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-43 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Guernsey 608.0 WB-OH-606-EEE 37 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 608.2 WB-OH-606-DDD 57 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 608.3 WB-OH-606-CCC 18 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 608.4 WB-OH-606-BBB 16 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 608.4 WB-OH-606-AAA 50 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 608.5 WB-OH-604-AA 28 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 608.9 WB-OH-605-AA 32 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 609.0 WB-OH-605-BB 74 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 7 I Open Cut Guernsey 609.0 WB-OH-605-CC 22 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 609.2 WB-OH-605-DD 32 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 1 E Open Cut Guernsey 609.4 WB-OH-607-FFF 44 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 E Open Cut Guernsey 609.4 WB-OH-607-BBB 27 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 609.5 WB-OH-607-AAA 51 NA Tributary to Seneca Fork Wills Creek 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 609.7 WB-OH-608-BBB 26 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 609.9 WB-OH-608-AAA 29 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 610.0 WB-OH-608-GGG 46 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 610.1 WB-OH-608-EEE 27 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 610.2 WB-OH-608-DDD 35 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 I Open Cut Guernsey 610.2, 

610.3 

WB-OH-608-III 50 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 6 I Open Cut 

Guernsey 610.3 WB-OH-608-CCC 30 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Guernsey 610.7 WB-OH-595-A 46 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 611.1 WB-OH-596-A 36 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 I Open Cut Guernsey 611.2 WB-OH-596-B 46 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 4 I Open Cut Noble 611.9 WB-OH-610-AAA 92 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 10 P Open Cut Noble 612.2 WB-OH-610-BBB 27 NA Tributary to Depue Creek 2 E Open Cut Noble 612.5 WB-OH-610-CCC 19 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Noble 612.5 WB-OH-610-DDD 56 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 4 E Open Cut Noble 612.5 WB-OH-610-EEE 20 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 1 E Open Cut Noble 612.5 WB-OH-610-GGG 28 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 1 E Open Cut Noble 613.6 WB-OH-610-AA 42 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 4 I Open Cut Noble 613.9 WB-OH-610-BB 19 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 E Open Cut Noble 614.0 WB-OH-610-CC 68 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 6 I Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-44 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Noble 614.1, 

614.4 

WB-OH-610-DD NA 72 Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 4 P Open Cut 

Noble 614.2 WB-OH-610-FF 39 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Noble 614.3 WB-OH-610-GG 23 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 1 E Open Cut Noble 614.7 WB-OH-611-AA 25 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 3 E Open Cut Noble 614.7 WB-OH-611-DD 58 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 4 I Open Cut Noble 615.5 WB-OH-612-AA 50 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 P Open Cut Noble 615.5 WB-OH-612-BB 50 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 P Open Cut Noble 616.0 WBD-OH-612-CC NA NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 20 I Open Cut Noble 616.4 WB-OH-614-AAA 33 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 1 I Open Cut Noble 616.6 WB-OH-615-EEE 38 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Noble 616.6 WB-OH-615-DDD 57 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 P Open Cut Noble 616.7 WB-OH-615-AAA 22 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 2 E Open Cut Noble 616.7 WB-OH-615-BBB 37 NA Tributary to Leatherwood Creek 1 P Open Cut Noble 617.2 WB-OH-613-AA 29 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 3 E Open Cut Noble 617.4 WB-OH-613-BB 75 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 7 I Open Cut Noble 617.8 WB-OH-614-AA 26 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 3 E Open Cut Noble 617.9 WB-OH-614-BB 33 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 2 I Open Cut Belmont 618.1 WBD-OH-614-AA NA NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 10 I Open Cut Belmont 618.5 WB-OH-617-CCC 50 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 5 E Open Cut Belmont 618.6 WB-OH-617-BBB 82 NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 5 P Open Cut Belmont 618.8 WBD-OH-615-BB NA NA Tributary to Beaver Creek 10 I Open Cut Belmont 619.0 WB-OH-619-AAAA 20 NA Tributary to Batesville Creek 2 E Open Cut Belmont 619.1 WB-OH-619-BBBB 56 NA Tributary to Batesville Creek 5 E Open Cut Belmont 619.2 WB-OH-617-DDD 37 NA Tributary to South Fork Captina Creek 3 E Open Cut Belmont g/ 620.0 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 622.0 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 622.4 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 623.1 NA NA NA Slope Creek unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 623.9 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 624.2 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 624.8 NA NA NA Unknown unknown NA Open Cut Belmont g/ 625.3 NA NA NA South Fork Captina Creek unknown NA Open Cut EW

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-45 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Belmont 625.6 WB-OH-609-E 29 NA Tributary to Brushy Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 625.9 WB-OH-610-A 54 NA Tributary to Brushy Creek 4 E Open Cut Belmont 625.9 WB-OH-610-C 37 NA Tributary to Brushy Creek 3 E Open Cut Belmont 626.0 WB-OH-610-B 28 NA Tributary to Brushy Creek 3 E Open Cut Belmont 626.2 WBD-OH-622-AA NA NA Tributary to Brushy Creek <10 E Open Cut Belmont 626.3 WBD-OH-622-BB NA NA Brushy Creek 20 P Open Cut Belmont 626.7 WB-OH-610-D NA 51 Tributary to South Fork Captina Creek 9 I Open Cut Belmont 627.3 WB-OH-611-C 75 NA Tributary to South Fork Captina Creek 10 I Open Cut Belmont 627.4, 

627.5 

WB-OH-611-A 83 NA Tributary to South Fork Captina Creek 6 I Open Cut 

Belmont 627.4 WB-OH-611-B 37 NA Tributary to South Fork Captina Creek 2 E Open Cut Belmont 628.1 WB-OH-612-B 37 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 628.4 WB-OH-612-C 25 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 628.5 WB-OH-612-D 92 74 Tributary to Piney Creek 15 P Open Cut Belmont 628.6 WB-OH-612-F 26 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 628.6 WB-OH-612-E 17 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 628.6 WB-OH-612-G 26 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 629.2 WB-OH-627-AAA 52 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 I Open Cut Belmont 629.7 WB-OH-628-AAA 31 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 629.8 WB-OH-628-BBB N/A 65 Piney Creek 30 P Open Cut Belmont 629.9 WB-OH-628-CCC 80 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 8 I Open Cut Belmont 630.2 WB-OH-628-DDD 28 NA Tributary to Piney Creek 2 I Open Cut Belmont 630.7 WB-OH-614-A 67 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 4 I Open Cut Belmont 630.9 WB-OH-614-B 20 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 2 E Open Cut Belmont 630.9 WB-OH-615-A 45 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 3 I Open Cut Belmont 631.1 WB-OH-615-C 28 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 631.1 WB-OH-615-B 50 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 3 I Open Cut Belmont 631.2 WB-OH-615-D 25 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 631.9 WB-OH-616-A NA 76 Crabapple Creek 12 P Open Cut Belmont 632.0 WB-OH-616-D 13 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 632.0 WB-OH-616-B 29 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 3 E Open Cut Belmont 632.0 WB-OH-616-C 22 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 1 E Open Cut Belmont 632.2 WB-OH-616-E 44 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 5 E Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-46 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

Belmont 632.4 WB-OH-616-F 43 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 3 E Open Cut Belmont 632.6 WB-OH-616-G 36 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 2 E Open Cut Belmont 632.7 WB-OH-616-H 50 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 6 E Open Cut Belmont 632.8 WB-OH-616-I 42 NA Tributary to Crabapple Creek 2 I Open Cut Belmont 633.1 WB-OH-617-A 57 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 4 I Open Cut Belmont 633.1 WB-OH-617-B 50 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 4 E Open Cut Belmont 633.3 WBD-OH-629-AA NA NA Tributary to Peavine Creek <10 E Open Cut Belmont 633.4 WBD-OH-629-BB NA NA Tributary to Peavine Creek <10 E Open Cut Belmont 633.5 WBD-OH-630-AA NA NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 20 P Open Cut Belmont 633.7 WB-OH-617-C 68 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 7 I Open Cut Monroe 634.1 WB-OH-618-C 14 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 2 I Open Cut Monroe 634.2 WB-OH-618-B 39 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 1 E Open Cut Monroe 634.2 WB-OH-618-A 39 NA Tributary to Peavine Creek 1 E Open Cut Monroe 634.6 WB-OH-631-DD 29 NA Tributary to Cat Run 3 E Open Cut Monroe 634.8 WB-OH-631-CC 27 NA Tributary to Cat Run 3 E Open Cut Monroe 635.3 WB-OH-631-AA 72 NA Cat Run 7 P Open Cut Monroe 635.3 WB-OH-631-BB 24 NA Tributary to Cat Run 2 E Open Cut Monroe 635.6 WB-OH-632-AA 17 NA Tributary to Cat Run 3 E Open Cut Monroe 635.8 WB-OH-632-BB 73 NA Tributary to Cat Run 8 P Open Cut Monroe 635.8 WB-OH-632-CC 32 NA Tributary to Cat Run 3 E Open Cut Monroe 636.0 WB-OH-632-EE 32 NA Tributary to Big Run 3 E Open Cut Monroe 636.3 WB-OH-634-AAA 91 NA Tributary to Cat Run 6 P Open Cut Monroe 636.4 WB-OH-634-BBB 54 NA Tributary to Cat Run 2 E Open Cut Monroe 636.6 WB-OH-635-AAA 83 NA Tributary to Cat Run 5 P Open Cut Monroe 637.0 WB-OH-635-BBB 84 NA Tributary to Cat Run 6 P Open Cut Monroe 637.7 WB-OH-636-FFF 26 NA Tributary to Big Run 2 E Open Cut Monroe 637.8 WB-OH-636-DDD 54 NA Tributary to Big Run 2 E Open Cut Monroe 637.9 WB-OH-636-CCC 67 NA Tributary to Big Run 5 I Open Cut Monroe 638.0 WB-OH-636-HHH 20 NA Tributary to Big Run 1 E Open Cut Monroe 638.1 WB-OH-636-GGG 14 NA Tributary to Big Run 1 E Open Cut Monroe 638.9 NA NA NA Tributary to Big Run unknown NA Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-47 

Table G-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route 

County 

Mile 

Post a/ 

Unique 

Feature ID b/ 

HHEI 

Score

QHEI 

Score

Waterbody 

Name 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type c/ 

Preferred 

Crossing 

Method d/

______________________

a/ Mileposts based on a desktop analysis of proposed pipeline route. Mileposts will not match those found in Wetland and Waterbody Reports. Please 

 specific to individual features. Those waterbodies that list more than one milepost are crossed more than once by the centerline. 

b/ Feature IDs correspond to Wetland and Waterbody Reports, where available. Those that include a "D" in the initial identifier were identified in a desk

 topographic maps, and NWI records, and actual field conditions have not been observed. To be delineated at a later date. All waterbodies without th delineated. c/ P = perennial; I = intermittent; E = ephemeral; OW = Open Water 

d/ HDD = horizontal directional drill; Where multiple crossing methods are listed, they will be considered as options in the order in which they are listed. 

 construction will depend upon site conditions (i.e. flow) at the time of construction. e/ Missouri State Water Quality Classifications – Irrigation (IRR), Livestock and Wildlife Watering (LWW), Protection of Warmwater Aquatic Life and Hum

 (AQL), Cool Water Fishery (CLF), Cold water Fishery (CDF), Whole Body Contact Recreation (WBC – Class A and B), Secondary Contact Recreatio

 (DWS), Industrial process and cooling water (IND)  Illinois State Water Quality Classifications – Full (fully supporting), Partial (partially supporting), N/S (non support), N/A (not assessed) 

 Indiana State Water Quality Classifications - Full (fully supporting), Partial (partially supporting), N/S (not supporting) - The N/S identifier pertains to tr

 designation, N/E (not established - not classified by Indiana Department of Environmental Management)  Ohio State Water Quality Classifications – State resource water (SRW), Warmwater habitat (WWH), Exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH), Limited r

 supply (PWS), agricultural water supply (AWS), Industrial water supply (IWS), Primary contact recreation (PCR), Not assessed (N/A), Superior high q

 state water based on ecological values (OSW-E)  ALS = Aquatic Life Support; Fish Cons. = Fish Consumption; Prim. Cont. = Primary Contact f/ Waterbodies are found in the Wabash reroute. They have not been field surveyed. 

g/ Waterbodies are found in the Barnesville reroute. They have not been field surveyed. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-48 

Table G-3 

Major and Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County Waterbody Name Milepost 

Flow 

Type b/ Width (feet) c/

Crossing 

Method d/ Sensitive Feature of Waterbody 

MISSOURI 

Pike Tributary to Lake Vandalia 22.4 P 8 Dam & Pump Potable Surface Water Intake 

Pike Salt River 42.5 P 320 HDD Major Crossing 

Pike Mississippi River 43.2 P 1,500 HDD Major Crossing / Special Status Species 

ILLINOIS 

Pike The Sny Canal 47.3 P 50 HDD ALS / Fish Cons. 

Scott Illinois River 71.2 P 500 HDD Major Crossing / Federally Navigable Water

Sangamon South Fork Sangamon River 132.1 P 100 Open Cut Major Crossing / ALS / Fish Cons. 

Douglas Embarras River 202.9 P 50 HDD Listed on Illinois’ Natural Areas Inventory / 

ALS / Fish Cons. / Recreational 

INDIANA 

Vermillion/ 

Parke 

Wabash River 

3.99 

P 300 HDD Major Crossing / Outstanding River / Indiana 

Canoe Trail/Federally Navigable Water / 

ALS / Fish Cons. 

Parke Wabash & Erie Canal e/ 248.2 I 30 Open Cut Historic Canal 

Putnam Big Walnut Creek 281.5 P 56 Open Cut Listed on Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory/Outstanding River / ALS / Fish 

Cons. 

Morgan White River 315.8 P 225 Open Cut Major Crossing / Indiana Navigable Water/ 

Indiana Canoe Trail / ALS / Fish Cons. 

Shelby Youngs Creek 336.1 P 30 Open Cut Mussel Resources / Intact Forest f/

Shelby Sugar Creek 337.9 P 40 Open Cut Outstanding River / Indiana Navigable 

Water / ALS / Fish Cons. / Mussel 

Resourcesf

Shelby Big Blue River 340.8 P 160 HDD Major Crossing / Listed on Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory / Outstanding River/Indiana 

Navigable Water / ALS / Fish Cons. 

Shelby Conns Creek 356.2 P 25 Open Cut Indiana Navigable Water / ALS / Fish Cons.

Decatur Flatrock River 362.7 P 60 Open Cut Outstanding River/Indiana Navigable Water 

/ ALS / Fish Cons. / Potable Surface Water 

Intake 

Decatur Righthand Fork Salt Creek 375.6 P 10 Open Cut Potable Surface Water Intake 

Franklin Whitewater River 393.1 P 60 HDD Outstanding River/Indiana Navigable Water/ 

Indiana Canoe Trail / Special Status 

Species / ALS / Fish Cons. 

Franklin Whitewater Canal e/ 394.0 I 119 Open Cut Major Crossing / Historic Canal 

OHIO 

Butler Four Mile Creek 421.6 P 278 HDD Major Crossing / Listed on Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory / Exceptional Warmwater 

Butler Seven Mile Creek 422.7 P 45 HDD Superior High Quality Water / Special Status 

Species 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-49 

Table G-3 

Major and Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route a/ 

State/County Waterbody Name Milepost 

Flow 

Type b/ Width (feet) c/

Crossing 

Method d/ Sensitive Feature of Waterbody 

Butler Great Miami River 430.7 P 293 HDD Major Crossing / Listed on Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory / Superior High Quality 

Water / Exceptional Warmwater 

Butler Miami and Erie Canal e/ 430.8 I 30 HDD Historic Canal 

Warren Little Miami River 451.3 P 60 HDD National Wild and Scenic River / Ohio State 

Scenic Rivers Program / Outstanding State 

Water / Special Status Species 

Clinton Caesar Creek 459.6 P 134 HDD Major Crossing / Tributary to Little Miami 

River / Exceptional Warmwater / Superior 

High Quality Water / Potable Surface Water 

Intake 

Fayette Paint Creek 486.4 P 24 Open Cut Listed on Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

Pickaway Deer Creek 499.6 P 100 HDD Major Crossing / Superior High Quality 

Water / Exceptional Warmwater / 

Outstanding State Water / Special Status 

Species 

Pickaway Big Darby Creek 509.2 P 170 HDD Major Crossing / National Wild and Scenic 

River / Ohio State Scenic Rivers Program / 

Outstanding State Water / Special Status 

Species 

Pickaway Scioto River 514.6 P 200 HDD Major Crossing / Special Status Species / 

Superior High Quality Water 

Pickaway Walnut Creek 515.9 P 90 HDD Exceptional Warmwater / Prim. 

Cont.Recreation 

Pickaway Ohio and Erie Canal e/ 516.0 I 30 HDD Historic Canal 

Fairfield Hocking Valley Canal e/ 534.0 P 30 HDD Historic Canal 

Perry Tributary to Somerset Creek 553.0 P 4 Open Cut Potable Surface Water Intake 

Muskingum Muskingum River 577.2 P 420 HDD Major Crossing / Federally Navigable River / 

Superior High Quality Water / Special Status 

Species 

__________________ 

a/ Major waterbodies are those that are 100 feet or greater in width. Sensitive waterbodies include those that: are designated as National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (including tributaries) or listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory; are state-designated high quality or outstanding natural 

resource waters; provide habitat for threatened and/or endangered species; have potable surface water intakes located within 3 miles 

downstream of the pipeline crossing; and/or do not currently support designated uses. 

b/ P = perennial; I = intermittent

c/ Field delineated channel width was determined at the time of survey and may be variable depending on water flow. 

d/ HDD = horizontal directional drill. 

e/ The historic canals are proposed to be crossed using the open-cut or HDD method. However, the final crossing method will be determined in 

consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. 

f/ Mussel resources and intact forest identified by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Nature Preserve during a January 

10, 2007 interagency meeting (see Appendix 3A). Salt Creek (MP 382.1) was also surveyed for mussel resources. No mussel resources were 

found, and it is not considered to be a sensitive waterbody. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-50 

Table G-4 

 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State/County Milepost Waterbody Name 

Proposed Crossing 

Method a/ Impairment Cause 

MISSOURI b/ 

 Pike 42.5 Salt River HDD Mercury, Manganese 

ILLINOIS c/ 

 Pike 43.2 Mississippi River HDD Fecal coliform, PCBs 

 Pike 61 Honey Creek Open cut Dissolved oxygen, Sedimentation/Siltation 

 Pike 

63.9 Bay Creek Open cut 303(d) Impairment – Dissolved oxygen, Phosphorus, 

Sedimentation, Siltation, Total suspended solids, Fecal 

coliform 

 Scott 71.2 Illinois River HDD PCBs, Mercury 

 Sangamon 117.1 Panther Creek Open cut Sedimentation/siltation 

 Sangamon 121.2 Sugar Creek Open cut Fecal coliform 

 Sangamon 125.2 Brush Creek Open cut Dissolved oxygen, Manganese 

 Sangamon 126 Horse Creek Open cut Dissolved oxygen, Manganese 

 Sangamon 130.7 Tributary to South 

Fork Sangamon 

River 

Open cut Iron, Nitrogen, PH, Dissolved oxygen, Manganese, 

Phosphorus, Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended 

Solids, Chlordane 

 Sangamon 132.1 South Fork 

Sanagmon Rive 

Open cut Iron, Nitrogen, PH, Dissolved oxygen, Manganese, 

Phosphorus, Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended 

Solids, Chlordane 

 Christian 140.7 Buckhart Creek Open cut Dissolved oxygen 

 Macon 175.5 Tributary to West 

Okaw River 

Open cut Nitrogen, Fecal coliform, Dissolved oxygen, PH, 

Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids 

 Douglas 193.4 Kaskaskia River Open cut Manganese, Fecal coliform, Dissolved oxygen, PH, 

Phosphorus, Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended 

Solids 

 Edgar 198.8 Scattering Fork Open cut Nitrogen, Phosphorus 

 Douglas 201.2 Hackett Branch Open cut Dissolved oxygen, phosphorus 

 Edgar 202.9 Embarras River HDD Nitrogen, Dissolved oxygen, PH, Phosphorus, 

Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended Solids, Fecal 

coliform 

 Edgar 227.4 Brouiletts Creek Open cut Fecal coliform 

INDIANA d/ 

 Vermillion 247.3 Wabash River HDD E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

 Putnam 282.2 Plum Creek Open cut Biotic Community Status 

 Hendricks 286.6 Clear Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Hendricks 288.7 Miller Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Hendricks 289.7 Crittenden Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Hendricks 291.8 Mill Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Hendricks 294.3 East Fork Mill 

Creek 

Open cut Pathogens 

 Hendricks 299.4 Mud Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Morgan 311 White Lick Creek Open cut E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

 Morgan 311.1 Tributary to White 

Lick Creek 

Open cut E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

 Morgan 312.4 Tributary to White 

Lick Creek 

HDD E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

 Morgan 315.8 West Fork White 

River 

Open cut PCBs, Pathogens, Mercury 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-51 

Table G-4 

 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State/County Milepost Waterbody Name 

Proposed Crossing 

Method a/ Impairment Cause 

 Morgan 317.5 Crooked Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Morgan 318.1 Banta Creek Open cut Pathogens 

 Johnson 322.7 

North Prong Stotts 

Creek Open cut 

Pathogens 

 Johnson 331.3 Buckhart Creek Open cut PCBs 

 Johnson 336.1 Youngs Creek Open cut PCBs 

 Shelby 337.8 Sugar Creek Open cut E. coli, PCBs, Mercury 

 Shelby 340.8 Big Blue River HDD E. coli, PCBs 

 Decatur 362.7 Flatrock River Open cut Mercury, PCBs, Pathogens 

 Franklin 392.5 Blue Creek Open cut E. coli 

 Franklin 392.8 Blue Creek Open cut E. coli 

 Franklin 397.5 Big Cedar Creek Open cut E. coli 

OHIO e/ 

 Butler 421.6 Four Mile Creek HDD PCBs 

 Butler 422.7 Seven Mile Creek HDD PCBs 

 Butler 430.7 Great Miami River HDD Nutrients, Organic Enrichment 

 Warren 446.6 Clear Creek Open cut Nutrients, Organic Enrichment 

 Fayette 480.4 Rattlesnake Creek Open cut Nutrients, PCBs, Siltation, Organic enrichment 

 Fayette 486.4 Paint Creek Open cut PCBs, Mercury, Organic Enrichment, Cause 

 Pickaway 515.9 Walnut Creek HDD Unknown 

 Fairfield 529.6 and 

529.9 

Hocking River Open cut PCBs, Metals, Chlorides, PH 

 Muskingum 529.6 Moxahala Creek Open cut PH, Siltation, 

 Muskingum 577.2 - 

577.3 

Muskingum River HDD Pathogens, PCBs, Organic Enrichment 

 

a/ HDD = horizontal directional drill 

b/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Corrected 2002 Missouri 303(d) List. 

 http://www.epa.gov/rgytgrnj/water/MO-303d_corrected_list.pdf. 

c/ Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Appendix A Illinois’ 2006 303(d) List (Category 5 Impaired Waters). 

 http://www.epa.state.il.us/water. 

d/ Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2006. 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for Indiana. 

 http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/water/303d/index.html 

e/ Ohio Administrative Code – OAC Chapter 3745-1. 2006. Water Quality Standards. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dws/rules/3745-1.html. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-52 

Table G-5 

Waterbodies Requiring a Crossing License from the INDNR 

County Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name License Type 

Vermillion 238.6 WB-IN-236-A Tributary to Goose Creek General 

Vermillion 243.4 WB-IN-243-CCCC Buck Creek Individual 

Vermillion 244.9 WBD-IN-244-EE Little Raccoon Creek Individual 

Vermillion/Parke 247.3 WB-IN-246-AA Wabash River Individual 

Parke 250.7 WB-IN-250-AA Leatherwood Creek General 

Parke 256.2 WB-IN-256-DDDD Williams Creek Individual 

Parke 257.1 WB-IN-257-AAAA Tributary to Williams Creek General 

Parke 258.7 WB-IN-258-BBBB Sand Creek Individual 

Parke 260.4 WB-IN-257-C Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek General 

Parke 260.6 WB-IN-260-DDD Little Raccoon Creek General 

Parke 261.0 WB-IN-258-A Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek General 

Parke 262.7 WB-IN-259-C Tributary to Little Raccoon Creek General 

Putnam 268.4 WB-IN-265-A Byrd Branch Individual 

Putnam 269.9 WB-IN-266-I Big Raccoon Creek Individual 

Putnam 270.6 WB-IN-267-B Tributary to Big Raccoon Creek Individual 

Putnam 273.2 WB-IN-270-C Peters Creek Individual 

Putnam 281.5 WB-IN-277-A Big Walnut Creek Individual 

Putnam 282.2 WB-IN-278-A Plum Creek Individual 

Putnam 285.3 WB-IN-281-A Clear Creek General 

Putnam 286.6 WB-IN-282-B Monarchs Fork Clear Creek General 

Hendricks 288.7 WB-IN-288-AAA Miller Creek General 

Hendricks 291.8 WB-IN-291-AAA Mill Creek Individual 

Hendricks 293.6 WB-IN-289-A Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek Individual 

Hendricks 294.3 WB-IN-290-A East Fork Mill Creek Individual 

Hendricks 299.4 WB-IN-295-A Mud Creek General 

Hendricks 303.2 WBD-IN-302-AA Tributary to McCracken Creek Individual 

Morgan 304.4 WB-IN-304-AAA McCracken Creek Individual 

Morgan 311.0 Not available White Lick Creek Individual 

Morgan 312.4 WB-IN-312-DDD Tributary to White Lick Creek General 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-53 

Table G-5 

Waterbodies Requiring a Crossing License from the INDNR 

County Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name License Type 

Morgan 315.8 Not available West Fork White River Individual 

Morgan 317.5 WBD-IN-315-EE Crooked Creek Individual 

Morgan 318.1 WBD-IN-316-CC Banta Creek General 

Johnson 321.3 WB-IN-321-AAAA Henderson Creek Individual 

Johnson 322.7 WB-IN-322-GGG North Prong Stotts Creek General 

Johnson 328.9 WB-IN-328-AAA Ray Creek Individual 

Johnson 330.4 WB-IN-329-AAA Vandiver Ditch Individual 

Johnson 331.3 WB-IN-330-CCC Buckhart Creek General 

Johnson 332.2 WB-IN-331-BBB Tucker Creek Individual 

Johnson 336.1 WB-IN-336-BBBB Youngs Creek Individual 

Johnson 337.8 WB-IN-337-BBBB Sugar Creek Individual 

Shelby 340.8 WB-IN-340-AAA Big Blue River Individual 

Shelby 345.4 WBD-IN-343-BB Slash Creek General 

Shelby 345.9 WBD-IN-343-CC East Fork Slash Creek General 

Shelby 349.8 WB-IN-339-B Van Pelt Ditch Individual 

Shelby 350.2 WB-IN-339-C Thompson Ditch General 

Shelby 351.5 WB-IN-351-AAAA Lewis Creek Individual 

Shelby 353.0 WB-IN-352-AAAA Little Lewis Creek Individual 

Shelby 353.4 WBD-IN-351-BB Tributary to Little Lewis Creek Individual 

Shelby 355.1 WBD-IN-354-AAAA South Fork Lewis Creek General 

Shelby 356.2 WBD-IN-353-AA Conns Creek Individual 

Shelby 357.2 WB-IN-356-AAA Deer Creek Individual 

Decatur 359.8 WB-IN-349-A Mill Creek Individual 

Decatur 362.6 WB-IN-362-CCC Trib to Flatrock River General 

Decatur 362.7 WBD-IN-360-DD Flatrock River General 

Decatur 363.8 WB-IN-353-A Hurricane Creek Individual 

Decatur 364.2 WB-IN-353-C Little Flatrock River General 

Decatur 367.3 WB-IN-356-A North Branch Clifty Creek Individual 

Decatur 369.5 WB-IN-358-B Middle Branch Clifty Creek General 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-54 

Table G-5 

Waterbodies Requiring a Crossing License from the INDNR 

County Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name License Type 

Decatur 370.1 WBD-IN-367-AA Tributary to Middle Branch Clifty 

Creek 

Individual 

Decatur 375.6 WB-IN-374-AAA Righthand Fork Salt Creek General 

Franklin 377.1 WBD-IN-374-JJ Bull Fork General 

Franklin 378.6 WB-IN-367-I Long Branch General 

Franklin 382.1 WB-IN-370-A Salt Creek General 

Franklin 386.5 WB-IN-375-A Walnut Fork Creek Individual 

Franklin 386.6 WB-IN-375-B Pipe Creek General 

Franklin 390.9 WB-IN-390-AAA Wolf Creek Individual 

Franklin 392.5 WBD-IN-390-AA Blue Creek Individual 

Franklin 392.8 WB-IN-392-AAA Blue Creek Individual 

Franklin 393.2 WBD-IN-391-AA Whitewater River Individual 

Franklin 394.7 WB-IN-394-AAA Little Cedar Creek Individual 

Franklin 395.8 Not available Tributary to Richland Creek Individual 

Franklin 397.5 WBD-IN-395-BB Big Cedar Creek General 

Franklin 399.6 WBD-IN-396-HH Tributary to Big Cedar Creek Individual 

Franklin 404.1 WB-IN-392-B Sater Run Individual 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-55 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

MISSOURI 

Audrain WL-MO-00-B 0.3 50 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-02-A 2.3 14 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-04-A 4.8 37 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-09-A 9.4 57 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-10-B 10.0 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-10-A 10.8 31 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-12-A 12.9 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-14-B 14.3 24 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-14-C 14.7 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Audrain WL-MO-15-A 15.3 101 I PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Ralls WL-MO-19-A 19.5 169 I PEM N/A 0.3 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-22-A 23.2 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-24-A 24.8 57 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-25-B 25.7 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-30-BBB 30.7 0 I PSS N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-30-AAA 30.7 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-30-CCC 31.0 39 J PEM/PSS N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-31-A 31.6 0 I PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Pike WL-MO-34-A 34.7 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-36-A 37.0 50 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-37-A 38.4 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-39-A 40.2 0 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pike i/ WL-MO-41-A 42.1 544 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Pike i/ WL-MO-43-A 42.4 1280 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Pike WL-MO-43-B 42.7 1078 J PFO N/A 5.5 0.7 

ILLINOIS 

Pike i/ WL-IL-43-AAA 43.3 915 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Pike WL-IL-43-A 44.3 361 J PEM N/A 1.8 0.0 

Pike WL-IL-44-A 44.7 16 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike i/ WL-IL-47-AAA 47.3 84 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-56 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Pike WL-IL-47-A 48.1 65 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike WL-IL-49-A 49.8 112 J PEM N/A 0.3 0.0 

Pike WL-IL-68-A 69.8 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Pike i/ WL-IL-71-BBB 71.1 280 J PEM N/A 0.0 0.0 

Scott i/ WL-IL-70-A 71.3 379 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Scott i/ WL-IL-70-B 71.4 175 J PEM N/A 0.0 0.0 

Morgan WL-IL-94-AAA 94.7 39 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Morgan WL-IL-96-A 98.2 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Morgan WL-IL-99-AAA 99.5 30 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Morgan WL-IL-98-A 99.7 8 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Sangamon WL-IL-112-AAA 112.3 11 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Sangamon WL-IL-118-A 120.1 48 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Sangamon WL-IL-119-B 121.1 2 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Sangamon WL-IL-121-A 123.4 127 J PSS N/A 0.2 <0.1 

Sangamon WL-IL-124-A 126.0 0.0 J PFO N/A <0.1 0.0 

Sangamon WL-IL-131-AA 132.1 38 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Christian WL-IL-131-BB 132.2 6 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Christian WL-IL-131-CC 132.2 19 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Christian WL-IL-132-AAA 133.0 16 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Christian WL-IL-138-A 140.7 71 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Christian WL-IL-138-C 140.7 116 J PFO N/A 0.2 0.1 

Christian WL-IL-138-B 140.7 80 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Christian WL-IL-139-A 141.7 379 J PFO N/A 0.8 0.3 

Macon WL-IL-150-A 152.6 21 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Macon WL-IL-154-AAA 154.7 15 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Macon WL-IL-154-BBB 154.8 29 I PEM N/A 0 0 

Macon WLD-IL-164-AA 164.9 749 J PFO N/A 2.1 0.5 

Douglas WL-IL-187-A 189.2 16 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Douglas WL-IL-193-AAA 193.4 232 J PFO N/A 0.4 0.2 

Douglas WL-IL-193-CCC 193.7 64 J PSS N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Douglas WL-IL-196-A 198.8 0 J PSS N/A <0.1 0.0 

Douglas i/ WLD-IL-202-AA 202.8 496 J PFO N/A 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-57 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Douglas WL-IL-209-A 211.6 496 I PFO N/A <0.1 0.0 

Douglas WL-IL-210-A 212.7 32 J PFO N/A 0.2 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-225-A 227.3 61 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-228-AAA 228.7 23 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-228-BBB 228.7 240 J PFO N/A 0.5 0.2 

Edgar WL-IL-233-AAA 233.2 22 J PFO N/A 0.4 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-231-B 233.4 0 J PSS N/A <0.1 0.0 

Edgar WL-IL-233-BBB 233.5 30 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Edgar WL-IL-233-A 235.4 45 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-235-AAA 235.5 37 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Edgar WL-IL-234-A 237.1 267 J PEM N/A 0.8 0.0 

INDIANA 

Vermillion i/ N/A 

- 

2.1 159 J PFO NA 0.4 0.11 

Vermillion i/, j/ N/A 

- 

3.9 360 J PFO NA 0.0 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-249-AAA 249.5 0 I PFO 53 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-249-BBB 249.5 0 I PFO 50 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-248-A 251.1 0 J PEM 26 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-249-A 252.5 24 J PEM 29 0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-252-A 255.8 15 J PEM 38 0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-255-AAA 256.0 32 I PFO 14 0.1 <0.1 

Parke WL-IN-256-AAA 256.2 0 J PFO 32 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-256-AAAA 256.9 32 J PEM 47 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-257-BBB 257.1 0 J PEM 21 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-257-CCC 257.1 8 I PEM 8 0.2 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-257-DDD 257.4 25 J PEM 27 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-258-AAA 258.7 0 J PFO 30 <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-256-B 259.3 17 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-256-A 259.6 0 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-257-A 260.9 0 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Parke WL-IN-258-B 261.4 0 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Parke WL-IN-262-A 265.9 6 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-58 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Parke WL-IN-263-A 267.0 0 J PFO N/A <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-265-A 268.1 12 J PFO 61 0.1 <0.1 

Putnam WL-IN-270-CCC 270.3 0 J PFO 48 <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-270-BBB 270.6 0 J PFO 74 <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-272-AAA 272.8 82 J PFO 64 0.2 0.1 

Putnam WL-IN-276-A1 279.7 102 J PEM N/A 0.4 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-276-A2 279.7 0 J PSS 14 <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-283-AAA1 283.9 0 J PEM 19 <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-283-AAA2 283.9 0 J PEM 19 <0.1 0.0 

Putnam WL-IN-281-A1 285.2 214 J PFO 22 0.5 0.1 

Putnam WL-IN-281-A2 285.3 115 J PEM 22 0.3 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-289-AAA 289.7 112 J PEM 45 0.2 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-290-AAAA 290.9 87 J PEM 63 0.1 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-288-A 292.3 311 J PEM N/A 0.6 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-296-B 300.8 48 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-296-A 301.0 0 J PSS 50 <0.1 0.0 

Hendricks WL-IN-297-A 302.0 0 J PSS 23 <0.1 0.0 

Morgan WL-IN-301-A 305.6 0 J PFO 11 <0.1 0.0 

Morgan WL-IN-306-AAA 307.0 138 J PSS 24.5 0.1 <0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-303-A 308.4 12 J PFO N/A <0.1 <0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-304-A2 308.4 80 J PFO 55 0.1 0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-304-A1 308.5 171 J PFO 55 0.6 0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-311-AAAA 311.4 4 J PSS 25 <0.1 <0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-315-BBBB 315.0 134 J PFO 83 0.3 0.1 

Morgan WL-IN-315-AAAA 315.3 219 J PFO 88 0.5 0.2 

Morgan WLD-IN-314-AA 315.7 0 J PFO N/A 0.8 0.0 

Morgan WL-IN-315-AAA 316.1 99 J PFO 41.5 0.2 0.1 

Morgan WLD-IN-315-AA 316.9 84 I PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Morgan WLD-IN-316-AA 317.9 105 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Morgan WLD-IN-316-BB 318.1 0 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Johnson WL-IN-323-AAAA 323.2 4 J PEM 28 <0.1 0.0 

Johnson WLD-IN-322-AA 324.3 44 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-59 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Johnson WLD-IN-322-BB 324.6 0 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Johnson WL-IN-332-AAA 333.1 0 J PEM 39 <0.1 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-340-BB 342.2 62 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-340-DD 342.6 31 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-344-AA 346.9 13 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-344-BB 346.9 67 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-345-AA 347.3 90 I PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-345-BB 348.0 15 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Shelby WL-IN-349-AAAA 349.5 36 J PEM 26.5 0.1 0.0 

Shelby WL-IN-342-A 352.5 158 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-351-AA 353.7 67 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Shelby WL-IN-356-AAA 357.1 0 J PEM 23 <0.1 0.0 

Shelby WLD-IN-354-BB 357.2 0 J PFO N/A 0.1 0.0 

Decatur WLD-IN-357-AA 360.1 80 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Decatur WL-IN-360-AAA 361.6 93 J PEM 41 0.3 0.0 

Decatur WL-IN-362-AAAA 362.6 8 J PFO 55 <0.1 <0.1 

Decatur WL-IN-352-A 362.0 0 J PFO 38 0.3 0.0 

Decatur WL-IN-363-AAA 364.0 0 J PSS 23 <0.1 0.0 

Decatur WLD-IN-362-AA 365.1 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Decatur WL-IN-355-B 365.9 0 I PEM 8 <0.1 0.0 

Decatur WLD-IN-368-AA 370.3 0 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WLD-IN-374-AA 377.2 45 J PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Franklin WL-IN-376-AAA 377.4 11 J PEM 23 <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WL-IN-376-BBB 377.4 0 I PEM 22 <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WLD-IN-382-AA 384.7 0 J PFO/PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WL-IN-374-A 385.6 52 J PSS 42 <0.1 <0.1 

Franklin WLD-IN-384-AA 386.5 171 J PFO N/A 0.9 0.1 

Franklin WL-IN-388-AAA 389.1 40 J PEM 54 <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WL-IN-389-AAA 390.0 10 J PEM 57 <0.1 0.0 

Franklin WLD-IN-390-AA 392.5 184 J PFO N/A 0.5 0.1 

Franklin WLD-IN-393-AA 395.6 85 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Franklin WLD-IN-395-AA 397.5 134 J PFO N/A 0.4 0.1 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-60 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Franklin WLD-IN-396-AA 398.9 59 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Franklin WL-IN-390-A 402.3 0 J PSS 20 0.1 <0.1 

OHIO 

Butler WL-OH-394-A 406.4 0 J PEM 32 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-395-B 407.2 0 I PEM 36 0.3 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-395-A 407.3 0 J PEM 21 0.2 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-397-A 409.0 0 J PFO 36 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-397-B 409.0 0 J PEM 24 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-397-C 409.1 0 J PEM 25 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WLD-OH-407-AA 409.6 93 J PFO N/A 0.2 0.1 

Butler WL-OH-399-A 411.5 0 I PEM 15 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-400-A 412.5 0 J PFO 45 <0.1 <0.1 

Butler WL-OH-401-B 413.3 0 I PEM 29 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-401-A 413.4 58 I PEM 29 0.2 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-402-A 415.1 0 I PSS 20 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-414-AA 416.6 50 J PFO 37 0.1 <0.1 

Butler WL-OH-407-A 419.6 0 J PSS 34 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-413-A 425.5 0 I PEM 30 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-413-B 425.7 0 I PFO 31 0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-414-A 426.5 89 J PEM 15 0.2 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-426-AA 428.7 0 J PFO 43 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-427-AA 429.5 218 J PFO 42 0.6 0.1 

Butler WL-OH-417-B 430.4 128 J PFO 47 0.2 0.1 

Butler WL-OH-418-B 431.2 0 J PEM 45 0.1 0.0 

Butler WL-OH-418-D 431.9 13 J PEM 8 <0.1 0.0 

Butler WLD-OH-433-AA 436.3 77 J PFO N/A 0.2 0.1 

Butler WLD-OH-434-AA 436.6 337 J PFO N/A 0.9 0.2 

Warren WLD-OH-434-DD 436.7 184 J PEM N/A 0.5 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-437-AA2 440.5 0 I PFO 60 <0.1 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-440-AAA 441.8 0 J PSS 24 <0.1 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-428-B 442.7 100 J PEM 30 0.3 0.0 

Warren WLD-OH-443-AA 446.9 49 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-61 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Warren WLD-OH-443-BB 447.3 144 J PFO N/A 0.6 0.1 

Warren WLD-OH-444-AA 447.5 36 I PFO N/A 0.1 <0.1 

Warren WL-OH-434-A 448.4 54 I PFO 44 0.1 <0.1 

Warren WLD-OH-447-AA 450.6 0 J PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-438-A 452.4 30 I PEM 26 0.1 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-438-B 452.5 33 J PEM 46 <0.1 0.0 

Warren WL-OH-456-AAA 458.1 47 I PFO 55 <0.1 <0.1 

Warren WL-OH-456-BBB 458.1 104 I PFO 59 0.2 0.1 

Clintoni WL-OH-458-AAA 459.6 10 J PEM 53 0.0 0.0 

Clinton WL-OH-462-AA 466.3 0 J PEM 29 <0.1 0.0 

Clinton WLD-OH-464-AA 468.1 0 I PEM N/A <0.1 0.0 

Clinton WLD-OH-465-AA 468.9 109 J PEM N/A 0.3 0.0 

Clinton WLD-OH-467-AA 470.6 194 J PEM N/A 0.5 0.0 

Clinton WLD-OH-468-AA 471.7 77 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Fayette WL-OH-465-A 480.3 150 J PFO 34 0.3 0.1 

Fayette WL-OH-469-A 484.3 0 J PFO 33 <0.1 <0.1 

Fayette WL-OH-470-A 485.0 59 I PEM 26 0.1 0.0 

Fayette WL-OH-484-AAA 486.4 152 J PEM 30 0.4 0.0 

Fayette WL-OH-472-B 486.9 40 J PFO 52 0.1 <0.1 

Fayette WLD-OH-484-AA 488.3 0 I PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Fayette WLD-OH-486-AA 490.3 675 J PEM N/A 1.4 0.0 

Fayette WLD-OH-487-AA 490.5 124 J PEM N/A 0.3 0.0 

Fayette WLD-OH-487-BB 490.9 40 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Fayette WL-OH-481-A 496.5 0 J PEM 60 <0.1 0.0 

Fayette i/ WL-OH-497-AAA 499.3 125 J PFO 94 0.0 0.0 

Fayette i/ WL-OH-497-CCC 499.4 28 J PFO 90 0.0 0.0 

Fayette i/ WL-OH-497-BBB 499.5 30 J PEM 61 0.0 0.0 

Pickaway WL-OH-489-A 505.2 23 I PEM 9 0.2 0.0 

Pickaway i/ WL-OH-505-AA 509.1 14 J PFO 85 0.0 0.0 

Pickaway WLD-OH-507-AA 510.6 47 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Pickaway WLD-OH-507-BB 510.7 71 J PEM N/A 0.2 0.0 

Pickaway WL-OH-499-A 514.2 0 J PEM 22 <0.1 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-62 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Pickaway WL-OH-499-D 514.8 0 J PFO 43 0.1 <0.1 

Pickaway WL-OH-499-C 514.9 600 J PFO 49 1.2 0.4 

Pickaway i/ WL-OH-500-A 515.9 11 I PFO 33 0.0 0.0 

Pickaway WL-OH-501-A 516.8 0 I PFO 30 0.2 <0.1 

Pickaway WL-OH-501-B 516.9 303 I PFO 28 0.6 0.2 

Pickaway WL-OH-502-A 517.4 353 I PEM 44 0.8 0.0 

Pickaway WL-OH-502-B1 517.5 22 J PEM 25 <0.1 0.0 

Pickaway WL-OH-502-B2 517.5 0 J PSS 25 0.1 0.0 

Pickaway WLD-OH-519-AA 522.6 164 J PEM N/A 0.3 0.0 

Pickaway WLD-OH-520-AA 523.7 0 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-511-B 526.9 42 J PEM 30 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-515-A 530.8 0 J PEM 24 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield i/ WL-OH-532-AAA1 533.9 114 J PSS 45 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield i/ WL-OH-532-AAA2 533.9 360 J PEM 45 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield i/ WL-OH-532-AAA3 534.0 200 J PFO 45 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield i/ WL-OH-532-BBB1 534.0 149 J PEM 38 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield i/ WL-OH-532-BBB2 534.0 0 J PFO 38 0.0 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-519-A 534.8 90 I PEM 27 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-522-A 537.8 89 I PFO 47 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-536-AA 540.3 0 I PEM 39 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-526-A 541.8 0 J PEM 25 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-528-A 543.6 29 J PEM 30 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-529-A 545.5 0 J PEM 45 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-529-B 545.6 41 J PEM 40 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-529-C 545.6 0 J PEM 37 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-530-A 546.3 0 J PEM 30 0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-531-A 547.1 0 I PFO 55 <0.1 0.0 

Fairfield WL-OH-531-B 547.2 170 I PEM 45 0.4 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-534-B 550.1 128 J PEM 45 0.3 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-534-A 550.2 0 J PEM 35 0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-546-AA 550.3 96 J PSS 51 0.2 <0.1 

Perry WLD-OH-551-AA 554.7 0 J PFO N/A 0.1 0.1 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-63 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Perry WL-OH-540-A 556.0 4 J PEM 13 0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-541-A 557.1 73 J PEM 9 0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-542-A 558.1 0 J PFO 41 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-543-C 559.5 335 J PFO 41 0.3 0.2 

Perry WL-OH-543-D 559.7 67 J PEM 34 0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-544-C 559.9 18 J PFO 43 0.1 <0.1 

Perry WL-OH-544-A 560.3 0 J PEM 57 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-544-D 560.6 225 J PEM 23 0.5 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-559-AAA 561.5 0 J PFO 52 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-560-AAA 561.8 61 J PFO 53 0.1 <0.1 

Perry WL-OH-560-BBB 561.9 0 I PFO 71 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-546-A 562.0 0 I PSS 11 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-546-B 562.2 0 J PEM 20 <0.1 0.0 

Perry WL-OH-563-AAA 565.1 28 I PFO 56 0.1 <0.1 

Perry WL-OH-548-B 565.8 404 J PSS 46 1.0 0.1 

Muskingum WL-OH-553-A 567.6 0 J PFO 62 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-554-B 568.2 4 J PEM 11 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-554-A 568.2 9 J PEM 30 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-555-A 569.9 0 J PSS 59 0.1 <0.1 

Muskingum WL-OH-568-AAA 570.5 27 J PFO 67 <0.1 <0.1 

Muskingum WL-OH-558-A 573.0 0 J PEM 25 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum i/ WLD-OH-573-AA 577.3 67 J PEM N/A 0.0 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-563-A 578.2 0 I PEM 17 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-581-AAA 582.7 0 J PSS 41 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-581-BBB 582.7 0 I PFO 38 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WLD-OH-579-BB 583.5 560 J PFO/PEM N/A 1.3 0.4 

Muskingum WLD-OH-580-AA 583.7 0 J PEM N/A 0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-570-A 584.6 151 J PEM 27 0.3 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-571-A 585.7 37 J PEM 24 0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-582-AA 586.3 11 J PEM 35 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-585-AAA 587.4 0 I PSS 56 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-586-CCC 587.6 0 I PEM 37 <0.1 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-64 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Muskingum WL-OH-586-BBB 587.6 0 I PEM 50 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-586-AAA 587.6 0 I PEM 45 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-573-A 588.2 0 J PEM 34 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-574-C 588.7 0 I PEM 38 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-574-B 588.8 0 J PEM 34 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-574-A 589.1 0 J PEM 17 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-574-D 589.3 27 I PEM 22 0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-574-E 589.4 14 I PEM 25 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-575-A 589.6 5 J PEM 57 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-575-B 589.7 0 J PEM 69 0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-575-C 590.3 0 J PEM 35 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-576-A 590.6 120 J PEM 26 0.3 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-587-AA 591.0 0 J PEM 38 <0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-587-BB 591.1 37 J PEM 51 0.1 0.0 

Muskingum WL-OH-587-CC 591.4 0 J PEM 51 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-577-C 592.1 24 I PEM 23 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-577-B 592.1 0 J PEM 26 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-577-A 592.2 0 I PEM 34 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-589-CC 592.6 79 J PEM 35 0.2 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-589-DD 592.6 188 J PEM 36 0.2 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-591-AAA 593.2 56 J PEM 33 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-592-AAA 593.5 46 J PEM 27 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-594-AAAA 594.9 28 J PEM 42 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-580-A 595.0 0 I PEM 34 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-580-B 595.6 7 J PEM 36 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-581-D 595.9 13 I PEM 56 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-581-C 596.0 29 J PEM 28 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-581-B 596.1 26 J PEM 30 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-581-A 596.2 0 J PEM 37 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-596-AAA 597.5 37 J PEM 66 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-595-AA 598.4 70 J PEM 52 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-598-AAA 599.6 131 J PEM 20 0.5 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-65 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Guernsey WL-OH-598-EEE 599.7 32 J PEM 26 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-598-DDD 600.1 0 I PEM 32 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-598-CCC 600.2 459 I PEM 37 1.0 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-598-BBB 600.3 19 J PEM 33.5 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-603-CCC 604.8 9 I PFO 54 <0.1 <0.1 

Guernsey WL-OH-603-BBB 604.8 0 J PFO 63 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-601-AA 605.2 110 J PEM 51 0.3 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-605-CCC 606.7 37 J PEM 33 0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-605-AAA 606.9 0 J PEM 27 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-607-CCC 609.3 0 I PFO 49 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-607-BBB 609.3 14 I PFO 52 <0.1 <0.1 

Guernsey WL-OH-607-AAA 609.5 0 I PFO 55 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-608-CCC 609.7 0 J PEM 40 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-608-AAA 609.9 0 I PEM 32 <0.1 0.0 

Guernsey WL-OH-608-DDD 610.2 50 J PFO 71 0.1 <0.1 

Guernsey WL-OH-609-AAA 610.7 0 J PFO 57 <0.1 <0.1 

Noble WL-OH-610-AAA 611.9 0 I PFO 61 <0.1 <0.1 

Noble WL-OH-611-AAA 612.7 0 I PEM 35 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-609-AA 612.9 0 I PEM 23 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-611-CCC 613.2 0 I PEM 42 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-611-BBB 613.2 44 I PEM 37 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-612-AAA 613.6 21 J PEM 38.5 0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-612-BBB 613.7 0 I PEM 43 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-612-CCC 613.8 0 I PEM 47 0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-611-AA 614.6 0 I PEM 41 0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-614-AA 617.8 0 J PEM 41 <0.1 0.0 

Noble WL-OH-616-AAA 617.9 0 J PEM 48 <0.1 0.0 

Belmont WL-OH-617-CCC 619.2 0 J PEM J <0.1 0.0 

Belmont WL-OH-612-A 627.8 36 J PEM 55 0.1 0.0 

Belmont WL-OH-612-B 628.6 0 J PFO 57 0.3 0.0 

Belmont WL-OH-627-AAA 628.8 0 J PEM 32 <0.1 0.0 

Belmont WL-OH-628-AAA 630.2 0 J PEM 44 <0.1 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
G-66 

Table G-6 

Wetlands Affected by the Project 

State/ 

County Wetland ID a/ 

Begin 

MilePost b/ 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) c/ 

Isolated or 

Jurisdictional 

(I/J) d/ 

Wetland 

Classification e/

ORAM 

Score f/ 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) g/ 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) h/ 

Belmont WL-OH-615-A 631.2 0 J PEM 57 0.1 0.0 

Monroe WL-OH-618-A 634.1 83 J PEM 58 0.2 0.0 

Monroe WL-OH-636-BBB 637.8 26 J PEM 21 <0.1 0.0 

Monroe WL-OH-636-AAA 637.8 16 J PEM 35 <0.1 0.0 

Monroe WL-OH-636-CCC 638.0 0 J PEM 35 <0.1 0.0 

_____________________

a/ Feature IDs correspond to Wetland and Waterbody Reports. Those that include a “D” in the initial identifier were identified in a 

 desktop review using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and NWI records and actual field conditions have not been 

 observed. To be delineated at a later date. "Digital NWI Data" represents areas that have not been surveyed. 

b/ Mileposts will not match those found in Wetland and Waterbody Reports. Please use Unique Feature ID to locate data specific 

 to individual features in the Wetland and Waterbody Reports. 

c/ Crossing widths of zero represent wetlands that occur within the survey corridor but which are not crossed by the proposed 

 centerline. 

d/ Isolated/Jurisdictional determination based on surface connectivity to other “waters of the U.S.” via an Ordinary High Water Mark 

 or the wetland’s adjacency to other “waters of the U.S.” Classifications are only available for non-digital NWI data wetlands at 

 this time. 

e/ NWI Wetland Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979): PEM = Palustrine emergent, PFO = Palustrine forested, PSS = Palustrine 

 scrub-shrub. All acreages were counted based on the first classification listed. 

f/ ORAM Scores based on Ohio EPA Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0, February 1, 2001. 

g/ Temporary impact is based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

h/ Permanent impacts are based on maintaining a 30-foot-corridor centered over the pipeline in an emergent state in PFO and a 

 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline in PSS wetlands. PEM wetlands will be allowed to revegetate to preconstruction 

 conditions. 

i/ Wetland will be avoided by use of the horizontal directional drill method. No impact. 

j/ Wetland based on NWI data from Wabash Reroute. Will be field delineated at a later date. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX H 

Preliminary Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Environmental Assessment 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-1 

ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE COMPANY LLC 

ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE – EAST PROJECT 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ENVIROMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

April 2007 

Preliminary 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-2 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................4

2.0 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT ...................................................................................4

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................4

3.1 Little Miami River......................................................................................................5

3.1.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Floral and Fauna ..................................................5

3.1.2 Historic and Archaeological .......................................................................6

3.1.3 Geologic ....................................................................................................6

3.1.4 Scenic and Recreational............................................................................7

3.2 Big Darby Creek .......................................................................................................7

3.2.1 Fish and Mussels (federally listed and non-listed species)........................8

4.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODS ..........................................................................................8

4.1 Waterbody Crossing Methods ..................................................................................8

4.1.1 Horizontal Directional Drilling Method........................................................9

4.1.2 Open Cut Method ......................................................................................9

4.1.3 Dry Flume Method ...................................................................................10

4.1.4 Dam and Pump Method...........................................................................10

4.2 Surface Water Uses During Construction ..............................................................10

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON FREE FLOWING CONDITIONS, WATER 

QUALITY AND DESIGNATED ORVS.............................................................................11

5.1 Potential Impacts on Free Flowing conditions........................................................11

5.2 Potential Impacts on Water Quality ........................................................................12

5.3 Potential Impacts on Oustandingly Remarkable Values ........................................14

5.3.1 Little Miami River .....................................................................................14

5.3.2 Big Darby Creek ......................................................................................16

6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................17

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 3.1.1-1 Common Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in or Adjacent to the Little 

Miami River Crossing 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A Table A-1, Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route Designated 

as National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

 Project Route Maps 

 Waterbody Field Data Sheets 

APPENDIX B National Park Service Letter, dated October 6, 2006 

APPENDIX C Site-specific HDD Crossing Plans 

 Typical Waterbody Crossings Plans 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-3 

APPENDIX D Material Safety Data Sheet of Commonly Used Horizontal Directional Drilling 

Fluid 

 Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan 

APPENDIX E REX-East Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

 REX-East Project Upland Erosion Control Revegetation and Maintenance 

Plan

APPENDIX F Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-4 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) proposes to construct and operate a 

natural gas pipeline, compression, and ancillary facilities to transport natural gas produced in 

the Rocky Mountain basins for delivery primarily to other pipelines and distribution customers 

located in the upper Midwest and Eastern United States (U.S.). The project, referred to as the 

Rockies Express-East (REX-East) Project, will consist of: 

• approximately 637.8 miles of new pipeline facilities in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio; 

• five new compressor stations located along the REX-East Project pipeline route, 

one new compressor station located along Rockies Express’ REX-West pipeline 

route, and one new compressor station located along Rockies Express’ REXEntrega pipeline route; and 

• ancillary facilities consisting of approximately 42 mainline valves, 20 meter 

stations and interconnects, 4 temporary pig launchers, and 4 temporary pig 

receivers. 

Rockies Express proposes to commence construction of the REX-East Project in spring 

of 2008. The pipeline and its related facilities are expected to be in-service by December 2008 

with the exception of two compressor stations (Arlington and Chandlersville), which will be inservice by June 2009. 

2.0 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 

In Ohio, the proposed pipeline will cross two rivers that are components of the National 

Wild and Scenic River System pursuant to section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was enacted in 1968 by the U.S. Congress to protect certain 

selected rivers that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values and their immediate environments for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Section 1(b) requires that these rivers 

be preserved in free-flowing condition, and further declares that dam and other construction at 

appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy 

that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to 

protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. 

Section 7(a) states that no department or agency of the United States shall recommend 

authorization of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the 

values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its 

administration (WSRA, 1968) 

On behalf of the U. S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service (NPS) will 

conduct a section 7(a) evaluation of the potential impacts on national wild and scenic rivers that 

could result from construction of the REX-East Project. 

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The REX-East Project will cross the following two wild and scenic rivers: Little Miami 

River in Warren County, Ohio and Big Darby Creek in Pickaway County, Ohio. Additionally, 

various tributaries to these waterbodies will be crossed by the proposed pipelines. Little Miami 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-5 

River and Big Darby Creek are also listed by Ohio as state scenic rivers. Table A-1 included in 

Appendix A lists the wild and scenic rivers and their tributaries that will be crossed by the REXEast Project pipeline facilities. Also included in Appendix A are project route maps and field 

data sheets for all waterbodies included in table A-1. 

3.1 Little Miami River 

The Little Miami River will be crossed by the pipeline facilities at approximate milepost 

(MP) 449.8 where the width between river banks is 65 feet. The pipeline is collocated with an 

existing pipeline right-of-way (Texas Eastern Transmission Company) at the river crossing. In 

addition, the pipeline will cross 11 perennial tributaries (including Shaffers Run, Sandy Run, and 

Caesar Creek), 12 intermittent tributaries, and 3 ephemeral tributaries to the Little Miami River. 

The majority of the tributaries that will be crossed are located east of MP 449.8. The Little 

Miami River is classified as exceptional warmwater habitat by the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Little Miami River is recognized as possessing 

the following outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs): Aquatic and Terrestrial Floral and 

Fauna, Historic and Archaeological, Geologic, Scenic and Recreational as identified in a letter 

from the NPS dated October 6, 2006 (see Appendix B). A summary of these ORVs is provided 

below: 

3.1.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Floral and Fauna 

More than 87 species of fish, 36 species of mussels (including 5 state endangered 

species), and numerous species of breeding birds reside within the river valley (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), 2007a). 

The most abundant fish species in the Little Miami River and its tributaries based on 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency surveys are emerald shiner, golden redhorse, gizzard 

shad, shorthead redhorse, common carp, and northern hogsucker (Mishne, 2006). The 

tonguetied minnow is an Ohio-listed species that is broadly distributed in Little Miami River 

system. Two special status mussel species, the snuff box, an Ohio-listed endangered species, 

and the fawnsfoot an Ohio-listed threatened species have been observed in the Little Miami 

River south of MP 449.8. 

In addition to aquatic species, typical terrestrial wildlife species that may occur in the 

vicinity of the Little Miami River crossing include those listed in table 3.1.1-1. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-6 

TABLE 3.1.1-1 

Common Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in or Adjacent to the Little Miami River Crossing 

River Otter 

Beaver 

Mallard 

Wood Duck 

Tundra Swan 

Great Blue Heron 

American Crow 

American Toad 

Snapping Turtle 

Virginia Opossum 

Coyote 

Red Fox 

Long-tailed Weasel 

Striped Skunk 

White-tailed Deer 

Ring-necked Pheasant 

Wild Turkey 

Turkey Vulture 

Red-tailed Hawk 

Horned Lark 

Silver-haired Bat 

Bobcat 

Great-horned Owl 

___________________ 

Source: NatureServe Explorer, 2006 

The Little Miami flows through several natural areas, which highlight the wide diversity of 

Ohio's ecology. Boreal relicts such as hemlocks, junipers, red baneberry, Canada yew, arborvitae, and mountain maple more common to climates much farther north occur on the high 

dolomite cliffs at Clifton Gorge State Nature Preserve, and more than 340 species of wildflowers 

including the rare snow trillium are found in the preserve (ODNR, 2007a). 

Vegetation types at the proposed pipeline crossing include mature deciduous forest 

flanking the riverbanks with a fill area west of the river and cultivated land occurring beyond the 

east river bank. No special status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur 

where the pipeline facilities cross Little Miami River. 

3.1.2 Historic and Archaeological 

The wooded lands along Little Miami River were home to several early Ohio Indian 

cultures. Fort Ancient, a world famous mound builders site, was built by the Hopewell Indians 

who inhabited the area from 300 B.C. to 600 A.D. In more recent history, this area was 

inhabited by the Miami Indians and the Shawnee. Tecumseh, the renowned Shawnee Chief, 

was born in the valley, and Daniel Boone spent time along the river. Following the War of 1812, 

the area attracted settlers, and numerous mills were developed on the river bank, several of 

which still stand. Indian mounds and relics, historic buildings, grist mills and stagecoach trails 

can still be found in this historic river valley (ODNR, 2007a, b). 

Cultural resource surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the Little Miami River 

crossing. Two sites were found; however, both were isolated, non-diagnostic finds, and no 

further work was recommended. 

3.1.3 Geologic 

Near Clifton, the river changes character suddenly where it cuts through dolomite 

bedrock, creating steep sheer walls. Moving south, the river grows in size and the valley widens 

again until reaching Caesar Creek where bluffs as high as 300 feet line the river. Nearing 

Hamilton and Clermont Counties, the flood plain widens to 2 to 3 miles in places (ODNR, 

2007a). Clifton Gorge State Nature Preserve contains one of the finest examples of post-glacial 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-7 

canyon cutting in Ohio that includes scenic waterfalls and rapids on the headwaters of the Little 

Miami River and spectacular dolomite and limestone gorges. At one point, the river funnels 

through a deep, narrow channel, which was apparently formed by the enlarging and connecting 

of a series of potholes in the resistant Silurian dolomite bedrock. In other sections of the gorge, 

cliff overhangs have broken off forming massive slump blocks scattered along the valley floor 

(ODNR, 2007c). John Bryan State Park also contains a remarkable limestone gorge cut by the 

Little Miami River. A portion of the gorge is designated as a national natural landmark (ODNR, 

2007d). 

At the REX-East Project pipeline crossing, the Little Miami River flows adjacent to a 

steeply sloping bank on the west side of the river with moderately sloping banks and generally 

level agricultural lands east of the river crossing. 

The ODNR, DGS staff identified an area near the Little Miami River (MPs 447.6 to 

449.8) with the potential to contain Ohio’s official fossil (trilobite genus Isotelus). No other 

significant geological resources were identified within the project area in the vicinity of the Little 

Miami River crossing. 

3.1.4 Scenic and Recreational 

The Little Miami River provides many scenic vistas and recreational opportunities. Near 

Clifton, the river suddenly changes character from a small meandering stream when it cuts 

through dolomite bedrock, creating vistas of sheer walls. Moving south, the river grows in size 

and the valley widens again until reaching Caesar Creek where bluffs as high as 300 feet line 

the river (ODNR, 2007a). Clifton Gorge State Nature Preserve, registered as a National Natural 

Landmark in 1968, encompasses a two-mile stretch of the Little Miami State and National 

Scenic River. John Bryan State Park is considered to be the most scenic state parks in western 

Ohio, containing a remarkable limestone gorge cut by the Little Miami River. A portion of the 

gorge is designated as a national natural landmark (ODNR, 2007d). Little Miami State Park is 

a trail-corridor that includes a portion of the 63-mile paved Little Miami Scenic Trail, that roughly 

parallels the east bank of the Little Miami River. The corridor provides access to canoeing the 

Little Miami River and offers numerous recreational opportunities including bicycling, hiking, 

cross-country skiing, rollerblading, backpacking and horseback riding. 

The REX-East Project will cross the about 100 feet of Little Miami State Park including 

the Little Miami Scenic Trail on the east side of the river crossing.

3.2 Big Darby Creek 

Big Darby Creek will be crossed by the pipeline facilities at approximate milepost 507.6 

where the width between river banks is about 522 feet. Similar to the Little Miami River 

crossing, the pipeline is collocated with an existing pipeline right-of-way (Texas Eastern 

Transmission Company) at the Big Darby Creek crossing. One intermittent and three 

ephemeral tributaries to Big Darby Creek will also be crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

The Darby Creek watershed covers an area of 556.6 square miles. The creek is 

characterized by gently rolling topography in the upper reaches to relatively steep, heavilywooded topography in lower portions where it flows through rich agricultural bottomland of 

Union, Madison, Franklin, and Pickaway Counties. Big Darby Creek is noted nationally for its 

tremendous diversity and abundance of both aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. The 

creeks banks are flanked with native vegetation varying considerably in width; from only a 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-8 

narrow line of trees to deep and extensive forests. Floodplain trees such as buckeye, 

sycamore, silver maple and box elder tolerate periods of inundation. Species more adapted to 

drier soils such as oak and sugar maple line the valley walls. Remnant prairie species such as 

purple coneflower, the threatened prairie false indigo and Indian paintbrush inhabit the slopes 

and bluffs along the streams. Numerous species of birds and mammals depend upon this linear 

strip of undisturbed habitat for their existence. (ODNR, 2007e). 

As identified by the NPS, the ORVs associated with Big Darby Creek under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act, include Fish and Mussels (federally listed and non-listed species) (see 

Appendix B). A summary of these ORVs is provided below: 

3.2.1 Fish and Mussels (federally listed and non-listed species) 

Of the 86 species of fish that occur in Big Darby Creek, five are considered endangered 

in Ohio (ODNR, 2007e). The most abundant species in Big Darby Creek are spotfin shiner, 

bluntnose minnow, longear sunfish, golden redhorse, central stoneroller, and gizzard shad. 

Several darter species that are intolerant of pollution, such as the banded darter, greenside 

dater, variegated darter, and rainbow darter have been collected in fairly large numbers within 

Big Darby Creek (Mishne, 2006). Forty-one species of freshwater mollusks are known to occur 

within Big Darby Creek (ODNR 2007e). 

No special status fish species were identified as potentially occurring within the REXEast Project area. A population center of the snuffbox, which is endangered in Ohio and 

individuals of fawnsfoot, a threatened species in Ohio were identified in the vicinity of the Big 

Darby Creek crossing. Additionally, historic populations of northern riffleshell, a federally listed 

endangered species, were identified by the Natural Heritage Inventory as occurring in Big Darby 

Creek. 

4.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODS 

4.1 Waterbody Crossing Methods 

Waterbodies along the REX-East Project pipeline route will be crossed using one of four 

waterbody crossing methods: horizontal directional drill (HDD), conventional open cut, flume, or 

dam and pump. Site-specific HDD crossing plans for the Little Miami River and Big Darby 

Creek, and figures depicting typical conventional open cut, flume, or dam and pump crossings 

are included in Appendix C. 

Little Miami River, Caesar Creek (tributary to Little Miami River), and Big Darby Creek 

are proposed to be constructed using the HDD crossing method. Rockies Express anticipates 

that the open-cut method will be used for all ephemeral and intermittent waterbodies and the 

majority of perennial waterbodies, unless precluded by engineering considerations or 

environmental sensitivities and associated regulatory requirements. For certain environmentally 

sensitive minor or intermediate waterbodies, the dry flume or dam and pump methods may be 

feasible. Table A-1 in Appendix A lists the proposed crossing method for the two designated 

wild and scenic river crossings and each of its tributaries. A description of each waterbody 

crossing method is provided below. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-9 

4.1.1 Horizontal Directional Drilling Method 

HDD installation involves drilling a pilot hole along a predetermined path, enlarging the 

drilled hole to a finished diameter by reaming along the path, and pulling the prefabricated 

section of pipe into the finished hole. Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, 

a slurry made of naturally occurring non-toxic materials, such as bentonite clay and water, will 

be circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the 

hole open. This slurry is referred to as drilling mud. Drilling equipment and materials will be 

deployed only in approved workspace. Drilling mud containment and disposal will be in 

accordance with applicable permit requirements. 

The HDD method is a common crossing technique for large streams and those with 

particularly sensitive resources associated with the stream. A primary advantage to using HDD 

is that it avoids disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, and upland in the immediate 

vicinity of the crossing. Hence, the need for re-contouring approaches and stream banks is 

avoided, as are the challenges of re-establishing vegetation adjacent to these features. A Draft 

Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan describing the drilling 

operations, the potential for drilling failures, and procedures for handling potential impacts 

associated with an inadvertent release of drilling fluid (known as a frac-out) is located in 

Appendix D. 

4.1.2 Open Cut Method 

Open cut crossings involve trench excavation within the stream channel with no 

containment or redirection of water flow, should water be present. A backhoe, clam dredge, 

dragline, or similar equipment will be used for trench excavation. The following stipulations will 

apply to open cut waterbody crossings: 

• material excavated from the trench will be stockpiled above the stream banks; 

• excavated trench material will generally be used as backfill unless federal or 

state permits specify otherwise; 

• any excess material will be removed from the waterbody; and 

• the stream bed will be returned to its pre-construction contours to the extent 

practicable. 

Where feasible, pipe segments may be welded together and temporarily strung above 

and across the waterbody feature until the pipeline is installed. The pipeline will not obstruct the 

highest expected flow of the waterbody and will be weighted to prevent flotation, as required. 

The pipe will be welded together in the staging areas and then carried or floated along the rightof-way. After the pipe is lowered into the trench, previously excavated material will be used as 

backfill, unless precluded by permit requirements. 

The pipeline will be placed at sufficient depth under the stream bed (below the 

anticipated scour depth) to maintain the standard minimum cover requirement, provided rock is 

not encountered. Flow, if present at the time of construction, will be maintained at all waterbody 

crossings and no alteration of the stream's capacity is anticipated as a result of pipeline 

construction. Crossings will be perpendicular to water flow, to the extent practicable. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-10 

To limit the time required for in-stream activities, the construction right-of-way will be 

prepared on either side of the waterbody prior to in-stream construction. Where banks are 

wooded, trees will be preserved where possible. In accordance with the REX-East Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (REX-East Procedures) (see Appendix C), 

in-stream construction activities (except for blasting and other rock-breaking measures) will 

generally be completed within 24 hours at minor waterbodies (i.e., 10 feet wide or less) and 

within 48 hours at intermediate waterbodies (i.e., greater than 10 feet wide and less than or 

equal to 100 feet wide). Temporary erosion control measures will be used as appropriate if the 

construction of a waterway crossing is appreciably delayed. 

After the completion of construction, streambeds will be restored to their former 

elevations and grades or to a stable angle of repose. Spoil, debris, piling, cofferdams, 

construction materials, and any other obstructions resulting from or used during construction of 

the pipeline will be removed to prevent interference with normal water flow and use. Any 

excavated material not used as backfill will be disposed of in a manner and at locations 

satisfactory to the applicable jurisdictional agencies. Following grading and in accordance with 

permit requirements, stream banks will be restored to prevent subsequent erosion. 

4.1.3 Dry Flume Method 

A flumed crossing of a waterway is an “isolated” or “dry ditch” crossing technique that 

involves redirecting stream flow through a flume pipe or pipes near the crossing. This allows for 

trenching, pipe installation, and restoration in relatively dry conditions, while maintaining 

continuous downstream flow. The construction is considered “isolated” as the actual water body 

crossing and the upland construction occur at different times. If the upland construction occurs 

first, the upland pipe will be installed in the trench with temporary end caps in place and a hard 

earth plug is left between the work completed and the work to be done, usually starting at the 

top of bank. Soil characteristics must be very stable and stream flow should be low to moderate 

for this method to be used successfully and safely. The flume pipe(s) must be long enough to 

accommodate a potential increase in trench width due to sloughing during excavation. Ideally, 

the flume pipe(s) will extend from the inlet side of the equipment crossing to the opposite side of 

the construction right-of-way. An effective seal will be created around the flume pipe(s) so that 

water will not penetrate and possibly wash out channelized dams on both the inlet and outlet 

ends. The flume will not be removed until the pipeline has been installed and the stream and 

banks have been restored. 

4.1.4 Dam and Pump Method 

The dam and pump method is also an “isolated” or “dry ditch” crossing technique that 

maintains waterbody flows during in-stream activities. Initially, a dam will be created upstream 

of the crossing and the water then re-rerouted over upland surfaces using a pump and hose to 

the downstream side of the crossing. In the event a sudden increase in stream flow occurs 

during the crossing, the flume method will be used as an alternate method to maintain flow and 

keep the crossing dry. Once the waterbody crossing site is dry the trench will be excavated, 

including any upland plugs; the pipe bent and welded; and then lowered into the trench. The 

crossing pipe will be tied into the upland construction and water flow restored. 

4.2 Surface Water Uses During Construction 

Rockies Express will hydrostatically test the pipeline after construction. The pipeline will 

be segmented by the temporary installation of valves and test headers. Each segment will be 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-11 

filled with water and the requisite operating pressure will be maintained throughout the test. In 

addition, each HDD pipe section will also be hydrostatically tested prior to installation. 

Hydrostatic test water will be appropriated from various sources. After hydrostatically testing 

the pipe, the hydrostatic test water will generally be discharged to upland areas or, if the water 

was appropriated from surface water, it will be returned back to the source from which it was 

obtained. Hydrostatic test water discharged to upland areas will be directed through 

containment structures such as hay bale structures or filter bags to prevent erosion. Water 

discharged into a waterbody will be directed through energy dissipation devices and sediment 

barriers and the discharge rate will be regulated as necessary to prevent erosion, streambed 

scour, suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow. No chemicals will be added to the 

test water during hydrostatic testing or pipeline dewatering. Surface waters will also be used 

during HDD operations to mix the drilling mud slurry. 

Rockies Express has identified the Little Miami River and Caesar Creek (tributary to 

Little Miami River) as potential sources of hydrostatic test water. Rockies Express estimates it 

will require 29.1 million gallons from these waterbodies to complete testing of the mainline. 

Hydrostatic testing of the HDD pipe sections will require approximately 150,000 gallons for the 

Little Miami River HDD, 107,950 gallons for the Caesar Creek HDD, and 150,000 gallons for the 

Big Darby Creek HDD. Similar quantities of water will be required to conduct drilling operations 

at each of the HDD crossings. Water for testing the HDD pipe strings and for drilling operations 

is proposed to be appropriated from each of the waterbodies that are being crossed. 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON FREE FLOWING CONDITIONS, WATER 

QUALITY AND DESIGNATED ORVS 

Pipeline construction across waterbodies can result in both short-term and long-term 

adverse environmental impacts if not properly mitigated. 

5.1 Potential Impacts on Free Flowing conditions 

Pipeline construction is not expected to affect the free flowing conditions of any streams 

crossed by the project because no permanent dams or water diversion structures are proposed. 

Regardless of the construction method, stream flow will be maintained during the waterbody 

crossing. An HDD crossing will not affect stream flows. In the case of an open-cut crossing, the 

stream flow would be allowed to flow across the construction site during the crossing. A dam 

and pump crossing would isolate the stream flow and direct it around construction site during 

the crossing using pumps and hoses. During a flumed crossing, the stream flow would be 

directed across the construction area through flume pipes, while the pipeline is installed beneath 

the isolated stream flow. Natural stream flow through the construction area would be restored 

following construction of the crossing, which will generally be completed within 24 hours at 

minor waterbodies (i.e., 10 feet wide or less) and within 48 hours at intermediate waterbodies 

(i.e., greater than 10 feet wide and less than or equal to 100 feet wide). 

The free flowing condition on rivers designated as wild and scenic will not be affected by 

hydrostatic testing operations. Water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing purposes will be in 

accordance with applicable permits and the withdrawal rate will be controlled to avoid impacts 

on aquatic resources. Moreover, the water appropriation for hydrostatic testing will be a nonconsumptive use. Following testing the water will be discharged back to the same watershed or 

waterbody from which it was appropriated. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-12 

5.2 Potential Impacts on Water Quality 

In general, use of the HDD crossing method will avoid short and long term impacts on 

water quality. As currently proposed, the HDD entry and exit sites are located within the 

adjacent cultivated areas over 400 feet from the river crossing such that construction activities 

will avoid impacts on the riverbanks, associated riparian vegetation, as well as the stream flows. 

The greatest potential for water quality impacts resulting from an HDD crossing is an inadvertent 

release of drilling mud (frac-out) directly or indirectly into the river. Drilling mud may leak 

through previously unidentified fractures in the material underlying the river bed, in the area of 

the mud pits or tanks, or along the path of the drill due to unfavorable ground conditions. 

Drilling mud is typically comprised of 95 percent water and 5 percent nontoxic materials, such 

as naturally occurring bentonite clay. Appendix D includes material safety data sheets 

identifying the components of a common drilling mud product. Although drilling mud consists of 

naturally occurring nontoxic materials, such as bentonite clay and water, in larger quantities the 

release of drilling mud into a waterbody could affect fisheries or other aquatic organisms by 

settling in and temporarily inundating the habitats used by these species. The probability of an 

inadvertent release is greatest when the drill bit is working near the surface (i.e., near the entry 

and exit points). Because the staging areas for the proposed HDDs would be set back from the 

banks of the river, the potential for an inadvertent release to occur in the water would be 

minimized. Geotechnical investigations are currently being conducted by Rockies Express at 

the three river crossings to determine feasibility of a successful HDD crossing and to develop 

the final design. As previously discussed, site-specific drilling plans are included in Appendix C 

Implementation of Rockies Express Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency and 

Inadvertent Release Plan, which prescribes monitoring of drilling pressures, fluid returns and the 

drill path for signs of a potential frac-out; the stockpiling of adequate containment materials 

should a frac-out occur; and procedures to contain a frac-out, will minimize the potential impacts 

on water quality in the event of a frac-out. The Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency and 

Inadvertent Release Plan is included in Appendix D. 

 If the HDD crossings were to fail, temporary impacts on water quality could result if the 

rivers were crossed via one of the other crossing methods described. Temporary impacts on 

water quality from in-stream trenching across a flowing waterbody (e.g., open-cut crossing 

method) include a short-term increase in the sediment load in the waterbody during the period 

of trenching and backfilling, increased vulnerability of streambanks to erosion, and, without 

proper mitigation, increased potential for sediment input from the construction right-of-way. 

Sustained periods of exposure to high levels of suspended solids can cause fish egg and fry 

mortality, reduced natural fish movements, fish vacating areas of high suspended solids, and 

other deleterious impacts on fisheries resources. Fine silts and colloids that cloud waterbodies 

could result in diminished visual aesthetics for anglers and other recreational users; these 

materials could also impact potable water supplies drawn from surface water intakes. For dam 

and pump or flumed crossings, similar types of impacts could potentially occur during the 

removal of the temporary dams and restoration of stream flow across the construction site; 

however, these effects would be minimal considering the short timeframe over which the stream 

flow is in contact with the newly disturbed streambed. Similar impacts during the crossing of 

tributaries to wild and scenic rivers could affect the water quality of the wild and scenic rivers; 

however, most crossing occur well above the confluence with the Little Miami River and Big 

Darby Creek, and as a result, the crossings are not expected to affect water quality wild and 

scenic rivers. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-13 

Long-term impacts on water quality can result from alteration of streambanks and 

removal of riparian vegetation. If not stabilized and revegetated properly, soil erosion 

associated with surface runoff and streambank sloughing can lead to in-stream sediment 

deposition after construction is completed. 

To avoid short term impacts on water quality, Rockies Express will adhere to the 

measures contained in the REX-East Procedures (see Appendix E), including, but not limited to: 

• install and maintain sediment barriers to prevent silt-laden water from entering 

waterbodies; 

• Hard or soft trench plugs will be maintained in the trench until just prior to 

installation of the pipe crossing section. 

• restore original contours; and revegetate disturbed areas; 

• complete all in-stream work within 24 hours for all minor waterbody crossings 

and within 48 hours for intermediate waterbody crossings. 

The construction method utilized for each waterbody crossing will be compatible, to the 

extent practicable, with the waterbody’s environmental sensitivity, flow regime, and channel and 

substrate characteristics. 

To avoid long term impacts on water quality, Rockies Express will ensure that all 

disturbed areas successfully revegetate with appropriate herbaceous and/or woody plant 

species by implementing the REX-East Upland Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan and 

REX-East Procedures. If necessary, specialized, site-specific construction practices and plans 

will be developed in areas where standard construction practices are not sufficient to protect a 

resource. For open-cut crossings, waterbody banks will be stabilized and temporary sediment 

barriers will be installed within 24 hours of completing instream construction activities. For dryditch crossings, streambed and bank stabilization will be completed before returning flow to the 

waterbody channel. Waterbody banks will be returned to preconstruction contours or to a stable 

angle of repose. Rockies Express will continue to consult with state agencies during the 

permitting process to identify site-specific mitigation measures. Rockies Express will also obtain 

and adhere to the requirements of the permits required for the project. Revegetation will be 

considered successful if upon visual survey the density and cover of vegetation are similar in 

density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. Rockies Express will conduct follow-up 

inspections of disturbed areas after the first and second growing seasons to determine the 

success of revegetation and will continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is successful. 

Restoration will be considered successful if the right-of-way surface condition is similar to 

adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is removed (unless requested otherwise by the 

landowner), revegetation is successful, and proper drainage has been restored. 

Additional temporary workspaces will be required on both sides of all waterbodies to 

stage construction, fabricate pipeline installation, and store materials. Rockies Express will 

locate most additional temporary workspaces at least 50 feet away from the water’s edge or to 

the edge of crop field as described in REX-East Procedures. 

The use of heavy equipment to complete pipeline installation across waterbodies 

increases the potential for accidental releases of fuels, lubricants, and coolants. Such releases 

could adversely affect aquatic species and contaminate public water supplies that rely on 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-14 

surface water intakes located downstream of the waterbody crossing. Rockies Express will 

minimize the potential impact of spills of hazardous materials by adhering to its Spill Prevention, 

Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan), which will be available in the field during 

construction. The SPCC Plan describes preventive measures such as personnel training, 

equipment inspection, and refueling procedures to reduce the likelihood of spills; and mitigative 

measures, such as containment and cleanup, to minimize potential impacts should a spill occur. 

Rockies Express will provide advance notification to the operators of surface water intakes 

regarding waterbody construction schedules and will notify the operators of any accidental 

releases of hazardous materials that may impact their water supply. 

The withdrawal of large volumes of water from surface water sources could temporarily 

affect the recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large 

percentage of the source’s total flow or volume. Hydrostatic test water withdrawals could also 

result in the temporary loss of habitat, changes in water temperature and dissolved oxygen 

levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic organisms. During water 

appropriation, Rockies Express will screen the intakes to avoid withdrawing fish from the 

waterbody, and the withdrawal rates will be controlled to avoid impacts on aquatic resources in 

accordance with applicable permits. The discharge of large volumes of hydrostatic test water to 

surface water sources could temporarily affect the biological uses of the resource. Hydrostatic 

discharges could result in a change in water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels and 

increase downstream flows. If discharge rates are not carefully controlled, discharges into 

surface waters could cause erosion of the stream banks and stream bottoms, resulting in a 

temporary increase of sediment load and destruction of habitat. Rockies Express will minimize 

the potential for these effects through the use of energy-dissipating devices (e.g., filter bag, 

straw bale structure, splashboard) during discharges that will disperse and slow the velocity of 

any discharges. Additionally, the discharge of hydrostatic test water into surface waters is not 

expected to affect water quality because only new pipe will be tested and not chemicals will be 

added to the hydrostatic test water. 

Rockies Express will minimize the potential effects of hydrostatic testing on surface 

water resources by obtaining and adhering to the stipulations outlined in its NPDES permits 

when discharging hydrostatic test water. 

5.3 Potential Impacts on Oustandingly Remarkable Values 

5.3.1 Little Miami River 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Floral and Fauna 

The proposed HDD crossing method will not disturb or alter aquatic or streambank 

habitat at the Little Miami crossing. However, frac-out could cause localized sedimentation and 

smothering of benthic communities immediately downstream of the waterbody crossing. If a 

frac-out event should occur during construction activities, Rockies Express will adhere to the 

containment guidelines as discussed above and described in the Horizontal Directional Drill 

Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan (see Appendix D). 

If the HDD crossing method were to fail, the river would be crossed using one of the 

other crossing methods (i.e., open cut, dam and pump or flume). The open-cut crossing method 

is typically the quickest crossing method, thereby minimizing the time of active in-stream 

disturbance. However, there is a potential for direct impacts resulting from the open-cut 

construction method including increased sedimentation, substrate removal or alteration, and 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-15 

habitat alteration due to the removal or disturbance of streamside vegetation and other types of 

cover for fish. The effects of these changes on aquatic biota could include reductions in the 

abundance and diversity of macrophytes and benthic macroinvertebrate communities, and 

displacement and possible reductions in fish populations (Reed, 1977; Murphy et al., 1981; 

Lenart et al., 1981). Reductions in fish numbers could occur if spawning or nursery areas are 

covered by sediment (Karr and Schlosser, 1978). These impacts will be limited mainly to areas 

at or just downstream of the trenched area. If construction is completed during a low flow 

period, sediment-related impacts will be localized. These impacts are generally temporary, 

lasting only during the period of active in-stream construction. 

Rockies Express is consulting with the ODNR regarding the need to conduct surveys for 

he tonguetied minnow. If surveys are conducted and individuals are found, Rockies Express 

will coordinate with the ODNR to determine appropriate conservation measures. The REX-East 

Project is not likely to change the population status of the tonguetied minnow. 

Rockies Express will consider using a dry crossing method (i.e., flume or dam and 

pump) at waterbodies containing sensitive mussel species, which will limit the duration and 

extent of higher than normal sedimentation. Preliminary results of completed field surveys are 

being used to identify suitable habitat for mussels and mussel beds. In waterbodies identified 

as having suitable habitat, Rockies Express will conduct surveys using experienced 

malacologists to determine presence or absence and species composition of mussels within 

these waterbodies. During the Ohio interagency meeting held on June 22, 2006, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that Rockies Express will be required to avoid work in 

waterbodies with freshwater mussel beds between April 15 and June 15. If sensitive mussels 

are identified in waterbodies crossed by the project, Rockies Express will consult with the FWS 

and ODNR to determine appropriate conservation measures to avoid negative impacts on these 

species. Due to the commitment to survey for mussel species and develop conservation 

measures in coordination with the FWS and ODNR as appropriate, the REX-East Project is not 

likely to change the population status of mussel species. 

Additionally, the crossing of Little Miami River via a method other than HDD would result 

in long term and permanent impact on terrestrial flora and fauna. To conduct an open-cut, dam 

and pump, or flume crossing, forested vegetation along the riverbanks would be cleared over 

the construction right-of-way resulting in long term impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. A 

permanent conversion of vegetation types and wildlife habitat would occur over the maintained 

portions of the permanent right-of-way. 

Historic and Archaeological 

As discussed above, no historical or archaeological features or sites are anticipated to 

be affected at the Little Miami River crossing location. If unanticipated historical or 

archaeological sites are encountered during construction, Rockies Express will implement its 

Ohio Unanticipated Discoveries Plan. 

Geologic 

No significant geological features or geological hazards were identified at the Little 

Miami River crossing; therefore, no impacts on geological resources are expected. As 

discussed above, the pipeline route crosses an area near the Little Miami River (MPs 447.6 to 

449.8) with the potential to contain Ohio’s official fossil (trilobite genus Isotelus). However, the 

ODNR, DGS staff also stated that, although these specimens are rare, there is no need for 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-16 

precaution with regard to construction (Shrake, 2007). Based on the consultations discussed 

above, construction of the proposed project will not likely have significant impacts on 

paleontological resources. In addition, Rockies Express’ Environmental Inspectors will be 

instructed to take note of any significant paleontological materials encountered during trenching 

operation, and will notify the appropriate personnel if significant fossil materials are 

encountered. 

Scenic and Recreational 

Because the pipeline will be installed via the HDD crossing method and the associated 

workspaces will be set back a minimum of 400 feet from the waterbody crossings, no visual 

impacts are anticipated at the Little Miami River crossing a result of this project. If the HDD 

crossings were to fail and a dry or wet open-cut crossing was conducted, forested vegetation 

along the riverbanks would be cleared over the construction right-of-way resulting in long term 

visual impacts. In addition, right-of-way maintenance activities over the maintained portion of 

the right-of-way would result in a permanent change in vegetation type and therefore result in 

permanent impacts on visual resources. While there is the potential for permanent impacts on 

visual resources if the pipeline is installed using a method other than HDD, the pipeline is 

collocated with an existing pipeline right-of-way at the Little Miami River crossing; therefore, the 

pipeline right-of-way will be consistent with the adjacent land use. 

The pipeline will cross about 100 feet of Little Miami State Park including the Little Miami 

Scenic Trail adjacent to the east side of the river crossing. Because the Little Miami Scenic 

Trail will be bored, trail use will not be restricted during construction. Although construction 

activities across the park and under the trail crossing may reduce the enjoyment of trail by 

recreational users, these impacts will be temporary and limited to the area in the vicinity of the 

pipeline crossing. 

5.3.2 Big Darby Creek 

Fish and Mussels (federally listed and non-listed species) 

Freshwater mussels rely on host fish and are sensitive to siltation. Instream construction 

can increase suspended sediment and could affect fish and freshwater mussel species. As 

discussed for Little Miami River crossing, the proposed HDD crossing method will not disturb or 

alter aquatic or streambank habitat at crossings where used. However, a frac-out could cause 

localized sedimentation and smothering of benthic communities in the waterbody being crossed. 

If a frac-out event should occur during construction activities, Rockies Express will adhere to the 

containment guidelines stated in the Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency and Inadvertent 

Release Plan (see Appendix D). 

If the HDD should fail and an open-cut crossing is necessary, Rockies Express will 

consider using a dry crossing method (i.e., flume or dam and pump) at waterbodies containing 

sensitive mussel species, which will limit the duration and extent of higher than normal 

sedimentation. In waterbodies identified as having suitable habitat, Rockies Express will 

conduct surveys using experienced malacologists to determine presence or absence and 

species composition of mussels within these waterbodies. During the Ohio interagency meeting 

held on June 22, 2006, the FWS stated that Rockies Express will be required to avoid work in 

waterbodies with freshwater mussel beds between April 15 and June 15. If sensitive mussels 

are identified in waterbodies crossed by the project, Rockies Express will consult with the FWS 

and ODNR to determine appropriate conservation measures to avoid negative impacts on these 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
H-17 

species. Due to the commitment to survey for mussel species and develop conservation 

measures in coordination with the FWS and ODNR as appropriate, the REX-East Project is not 

likely to change the population status of mussel species.

6.0 REFERENCES 

Karr, J. R., and I. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water Resources and the Land-Water Interface. Journal 

of Science, Vol. 201. 

Mishne, D. 2006. Email communication on October 20, 2006 between J. Madejczyk (Natural 

Resource Group, Inc.) and D. Mishne (Aquatic Biologist, Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, dennis.mishne@epa.state.oh.us). 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Letter dated October 6, 2006 from E. Quintana (NPS) to 

M. Salas (FERC). 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2007a. Little Miami State and National Scenic 

River website access on April 19, 2007. Available online at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/dnap/sr/lmiami.htm

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2007b. Little Miami State Park website 

accessed on April 19, 2007. Available online at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/lilmiami.htm

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2007c. Clifton Gorge State Nature Preserve 

website accessed on April 19, 2007. Available online at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/dnap/location/clifton.html

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2007d. John Bryant State Park website 

accessed on April 19, 2007. Available online at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/jhnbryan.htm

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2007e. Big Darby Creek State and National 

Scenic River website accessed on April 19, 2007. Available online at: 

http://www.ohiodnr.com/dnap/sr/bdarby.htm

Reed, J.R. 1977. Stream Community Response to Road Construction Sediments. Virginia 

Water Resources Research Center Bulletin 97, 61 pp. 

Shrake, D. L. 2007. Email Communication on March 6 between S. Holden (Natural Resource 

Group, Inc.) and D. L. Shrake (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Letter dated August 7, 2006, from Mary 

Knapp (FWS-Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural 

Resource Group, Inc.). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). 1968. WSRA accessed on April 19, 2007. Available 

online at: http://www.rivers.gov/wsract.html

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I 

 

Draft Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plans 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-1

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-2

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-3

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-4

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-5

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-6

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-7

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-8

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-9

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-10

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-11

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-12

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-13

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-14

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-15

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-16

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
I-17

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 18 IDocument Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX J 

FERC Route Variation Maps 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-1

Figure J-1 

McCarroll Route Variation 

MP 291.0 to 291.3 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-2

Figure J-2 

Rogers Route Variation 

MP 300.5 to 301.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-3

Figure J-3 

Parker Route Variation 

MP 318.1 to 318.8 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-4

Figure J-4 

Alverson Route Variation 

MP 370.0 to 370.6 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-5

Figure J-5 

Yane Route Variation 

MP 380.4 to 380.6 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-6

Figure J-6 

Morgan Route Variation 

MP 383.1 to 384.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-7

Figure J-7 

White Route Variation 

MP 395.1 to 395.8 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-8

Figure J-8 

Schulte and Oetzel Route Variation 

MP 401.5 to 402.0 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-9

Figure J-9 

Minges and Schoenharl Route Variation 

MP 405.1 to 405.9 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-10

Figure J-10 

Frye Route Variation 

MP 452.7 to 453.8 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-11

Figure J-11 

Mowrey and Jones Route Variation 

MP 458.1 to 458.9 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-12

Figure J-12 

Kile Route Variation 

MP 477.1 to 477.5 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-13

Figure J-13 

Noll Route Variation 

MP 555.4 to 557.3 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-14

Figure J-14 

Steele Route Variation 

MP 623.3 to 624.4 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-15

Figure J-15 

House at MP 384.3 and 384.4 Route Variation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
J-16

Figure J-16 

House at MP 446.8 Route Variation 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX K 

References 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-1

Access Vermillion County. 2007. Access Vermillion County. http://www.vermillionco.org (accessed 

on March 29, 2007). 

AEP (American Electric Power). 2007. Newsroom: AEP agrees to purchase gas-fired power plant under 

construction in Ohio from Dominion. 

http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/default.asp?dbcommand=displayrelease&ID=1389. 

Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L. Hanson, and B. L. Bender. 1982. Probabilistic 

Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity on Rock in the Contiguous United States. 

Open-File Report 82-1033. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological 

Survey. Washington, DC. 

Anliker, M. A. 1997. Report on the Impacts on Local Ground-Water Levels at Two Locations by the 

Proposed Hunter Lake. ISWS Letter Report. 

Bruenderman, S. et al. 2002. Missouri’s Freshwater Mussels. Conservation Commission of the State of 

Missouri. 

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana 

bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Jour. Mammal. 78: 818-825. 

City of Springfield Office of Public Utilities. 2007. Personal communication on May 23, between 

Thomas, J. (ICF) and Murray, W. (Office of Public Works) concerning the Hunter Lake Project. 

COE (United States Army Corp of Engineers). 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Proposed 

Water Supply Reservoir Hunter Lake. Rock Island, Illinois. 

COE (United States Army Corp of Engineers). 2007. Public Notice – Notice Number CEMVR-OD-P2007-327. http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/Documents/2007-3271.pdf 

Conservation and Survey Division. 1996. Summaries of Nebraska’s Groundwater Geology from 

Domestic Well - Water Quality in Rural Nebraska (A data-analysis report for the Nebraska 

Department of Health compiled by D.C. Gosselin and others) – Groundwater Region 4. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: FWS (United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service), Biological Service Program. 

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation). 2000. CPC National Collection Plant Profile: Lespedeza 

leptostachya. http://www.centerforplantconservation.org. (accessed on August, 2006). 

Crowell, D. L., C. E. Banks, and J. McDonald. 2006. Abandoned Underground Mines of Ohio. 

Obtained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey on 

November, 2006. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States: 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

DOE (United States Department of Energy). 2005. Untitled. Unpublished Data. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-2

DOE (United States Department of Energy). 2006. Top Ten Utility Green Power Programs. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/topten.shtml. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2006a. Annual Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030 (Early 

Release). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2007a. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (Early Release). 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2007b. Natural Gas Year-in-Review 2006. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2007/ngyir2006/ngyir2006.pdf 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report 

Y-87-1, NTIS No. AD A176 912. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 

Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare 

with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Prepared March, 1974. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Wetlands Mitigation Banking Factsheet. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact.16.html. (accessed on October 10, 2007). 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Big Darby Creek Case Study: A Profile 

of Watershed Threats and Protection in a Midwest Landscape. Washington, DC. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. User’s Guide for the AMS EPA 

Regulatory Model AERMOD, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions 

Monitoring and Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-454/B-03-001. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=SSA. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. AirData Query. Air Quality System 

Data. http://www.epa.gov/aqspubl. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007b. Personal communication on September 9, 2007 

between Ms. Carly Lapin (NRG) and Ms. Kelly Madalinski (EPA – Superfund Sediment 

Resource Center) regarding waterbodies with contaminated sediments or waters. 

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007c. Western Ecology Division. Corvallis, 

Oregon. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ecoregions.htm (accessed on April, 2007). 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). 2005a. Rivers GIS spatial data in ESRI Data & 

Maps: StreetMap Pro, 2005 United States and Canada. 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). 2005b. Waterbodies GIS spatial data in ESRI Data 

& Maps: StreetMap Pro, 2005 United States and Canada. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2004. Tractebel Calypso Pipeline Project FEIS. 

Office of Energy Projects. Washington, DC. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-3

FERC (Federal and Energy Regulatory Commission). 2007a. Environmental Assessment for the Texas 

Eastern Incremental Market Expansion II Project. Washington, DC. 

FERC (Federal and Energy Regulatory Commission). 2007b. Environmental Assessment for the Tuscola 

East Replacement Project. Washington, DC. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2003. I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Tier 1 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. EIS #: FHWA-IN-EIS-02-01-F. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Tier 1 Record 

of Decision. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Determination of Threatened Status for Eastern and Western Prairie Fringed Orchids. Federal 

Register. Volume 54, Number 187. Rules and Regulations, 50 CFR Part 17. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/mbta.html (accessed on February, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Running Buffalo Clover. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2RE (accessed on April 30, 2007) 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997a. Clubshell. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode

=F01D (accessed on October 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997b. Decurrent False Aster. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/d-f-aster.pdf (accessed April 30, 2007). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997c. Fanshell. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/fansh_fc.html (accessed on October, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997d. Fat Pocketbook. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/fatpo_fc.html (accessed on October, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997e. Northern Riffleshell. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/n-riffleshell.htm. (accessed on October, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Status for the Eastern massasauga. Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/990929.pdf (accessed on October, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf (accessed on October, 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-4

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Indiana Bat. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/reynoldsburg/endangered/pdf/inbat_3.pdf (accessed on November, 

2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Running Buffalo Clover. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/runningb.html (accessed on November, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005a. Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Draft 

Revised International Recovery Plan. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/050111.pdf 

(accessed on January, 2007). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005b. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Chicago/epfospotlight.htm (accessed on October, 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006a. Email dated April 26, 2007, from Sarena Selbo, 

FWS-Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural Resource 

Group LLC). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006b. Email dated November 30, 2006, from Angela 

Zimmerman (FWS-Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Field Office) to Delia Kelly (Natural 

Resource Group, Inc.). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006c. Letter dated August 3, 2006, from Joyce Collins 

(FWS-Marion Suboffice Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural Resource 

Group, Inc.). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006d. Letter dated August 4, 2006, from Scott Pruit 

(FWS-Bloomington Indiana Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural 

Resource Group, Inc.). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006e. Letter dated August 7, 2006, from Mary Knapp 

(FWS-Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural Resource 

Group, Inc.). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006f. Meeting on August 23 involving FWS-Grand 

Island Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and 

Rockies Express West Project Management. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006g. Prairie Bush Clover. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/prairieb.html (accessed on April 2006). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Biological opinion on the Ohio Department of 

Transportation’s Statewide Transportation Program for the federally listed endangered Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis). January 26, 2007. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. Email dated June 26, 2007 from Heidi Kuska 

(FWS-Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office) to Jeff Thommes (Natural Resource 

Group LLC). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-5

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007c. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Draft Recovery 

Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota: FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070416.pdf. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007d. Letter from Mr. Jeffrey Grosse, FWS, to Mr. Jeff 

Thomas, Natural Resource Group, regarding migratory birds. September 12, 2007. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007e. Meeting on April 2 involving FWS - Marion 

Illinois Ecological Services Field Office, Rockies Express, and Natural Resource Group LLC. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007f. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) GIS spatial 

data. http://wetlandswms.er.usgs.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=extract_tool (accessed on October 5, 

2007). 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007g. Trumpeter Swan, Wildlife Species Information. 

http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_swan.html (accessed on October 30, 2007). 

Galli, L. 1992. The Status of Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville, NC. 

GMBA (Great Miami Buried Valley Aquifer). 2007. Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater 

Consortium. http://www.gwconsortium.org/GMBVA.html. 

Godt, J. W. 1997. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. United States 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-289. 

http://landslides.usgs.gov/learningeducation/nationalmap/index.php. 

Google Earth. 2007. Satellite imagery. http://earth.google.com/ (accessed on October 8, 2007). 

Gough, G. A., J. R. Sauer, M. Iliff. 1998. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version 97.1. 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/infocenter.html. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2007a. Historical Climate Data Summaries. (Illinois, Indiana, 

Ohio). http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/ 

High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2007b. Historical Climate Data Summaries. (Wyoming, 

Nebraska). http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/. 

HNTB Corp. 2007. Personal communication on August 20, between Moser, M. (ICF) and Worley, M. 

(HNTB, Section 6 Engineer), concerning the impacts and construction schedule for I–69. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007a. Acoustical Assessment of the Planned HDD Sites for the New Natural 

Gas Pipeline Associated with the Proposed Rockies Express Pipeline-East Project. Report No. 

2095. March 15, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007b. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Revised Acoustical 

Analyses for a New Natural Gas Compressor Station Associated with Entrega Gas Pipeline but 

being Installed as a Part of the Rockies Express Pipeline – East Project. Report No. 2084 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-6

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007c. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Revised Acoustical 

Analyses for a New Natural Gas Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express 

Pipeline – East Project. Report No. 2085. June 26, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007d. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Revised Acoustical 

Analyses for a New Natural Gas Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express 

Pipeline – East Project. Report No. 2120. June 27, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007e. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Acoustical Analyses for the 

New Site of the Bainbridge Gas Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express 

Pipeline-East Project. Report No. 2116. June 25, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007f. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Acoustical Analyses for a 

New Natural Gas Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express Pipeline – East 

Project. Report No. 2089. March 15, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007g. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Revised Acoustical 

Analyses for the Chandlersville Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express 

Pipeline – East Project. Report No. 2090. June 26, 2007. 

Hoover and Keith Inc. 2007h. Results of an Ambient Site Sound Survey and Revised Acoustical 

Analyses for a New Natural Gas Compressor Station Associated with the Rockies Express 

Pipeline – East Project. Report No. 2119. 

HotelsTravel. 2007. HotelsTravel. http://www.hotelstravel.com (accessed on March 29, 2007). 

IEDC (Indiana Economic Development Corporation). 2007. Indiana Employment Stats. 

http://www.in.gov/iedc/workforce.htm. 

ILDNR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources), Natural Heritage Database. 2006. Letter dated April 

17 from T. Kieninger (Illinois Natural Heritage Database) to D. Kelly (Natural Resource Group, 

Inc.). 

ILDNR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources). 2007a. http://dnr.state.il.us/. 

ILDNR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources). 2007. Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

Wetlands Web Site. http://dnr.state.il.us/wetlands/. 

ILDOT (Illinois Department of Transportation). 2007b. Email from C.H. Perino (Illinois DOT) to J. 

Thomas (ICF) concerning future and current transportation projects near the Project’s right-ofway in Illinois. May 4, 2007. 

ILEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Illinois Water Quality Report—Bureau of 

Water. Appendix B-1 – Specific Site Assessment Information for Streams. 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/ water/water-quality. 

Illinois Department of Agriculture. 2001. TBY 2000: Soil Conservation for the 21st Century. 

http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LandWater/tby2000.html. 

Indiana Geology Survey. 2007. Indiana Geology. http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/index.cfm. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-7

Indiana State Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil Conservation. 2007. Division of Soil 

Conservation Publications. http://www.in.gov/isda/2384.htm. 

INDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources). 1996. Indiana Wetlands Conservation Plan. 

Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 

INDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources), Division of Water. 2005. Unconsolidated and 

Bedrock Aquifer Systems of Decatur County, Indiana. 

http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/ground_water/ ground_water_assessment/decatur/index.html. 

INDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources), Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Fishing. 

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/fish/ 

INDOT (Indiana Department of Transportation). 2007. I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Tier 2 Studies 

Web Site. http://www.i69indyevn.org/index.html. 

INHS (Illinois Natural History Survey). 1997a. Fat Pocketbook. 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page128_9.html (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

INHS (Illinois Natural History Survey). 1997b. Fawnsfoot. 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page116_7.html (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

INHS (Illinois Natural History Survey). 1997c. Pocketbook. 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page158_9.html (accessed on October 30, 2007). 

INHS (Illinois Natural History Survey). 1997d. Snuffbox. 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page162_3.html (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

INHS (Illinois Natural History Survey). 2007. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/ 

Jensen, W. E. 2007. Missouri Waterbirds and Working Lands: Technical Report 2007. National 

Audubon Society, Inc. 

Johnson County Planning and Zoning. 1997. Comprehensive Plan Johnson County, Indiana. 

Johnson, T. R., and J. Briggler. 2004. Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. 

http://mdc.mo.gov/documents/nathis/herpetol/amphibian/hellbend.pdf. 

Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for 

Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. NG-18 Report No. 

158. Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

KDWP (Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks). 2007. Washboard Mussel. 

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/other_services/threatened_and_endangered_species/species_in

_need_of_conservation_sinc/species_information__1/washboard_mussel_megalonaias_nervosa 

(accessed on October 30, 2007). 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2000a. Decurrent False Aster: Best Management 

Practices. http://www.mdc.mo.gov/documents/nathis/endangered/aster.pdf (accessed on October 

19, 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-8

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2000b. Fat Pocketbook: Best Management Practices. 

http://www.mdc.mo.gov/documents/nathis/endangered/pocketbook.pdf (accessed on October 19, 

2006). 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2004. Missouri Wetlands. 

http://www.mdc.mo.gov/landown/wetland/wetmng/. 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2006. Heritage Review Report Dated April 5 from S. 

Cave (Missouri Department of Conservation) to D. Kelly (Natural Resource Group, Inc.). 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2007a. Personal Communication between Mr. Doyle 

Brown (MDC) and Ms. Jennifer Slate (ENTRIX, Inc) regarding king rail populations in the Ted 

Shanks Conservation Area. October 10, 2007. 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2007b. Ted Shanks Conservation Area. 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/moatlas/AreaSummaryPage.aspx?txtAreaID=7011&txtAre

aNm=ted%20shanks%20conservation%20area&txtCounty=PIKE&txtRegion=&txtUserID=guest

&txtDivision=. 

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2007c. MDC Library: Streams and Watersheds. 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/MDCLibrary/MDCLibrary2.aspx?NodeID=118. 

Midwestern Regional Climate Center. 2007. Climate Summaries (Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio). 

http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/. 

Miller D. E. and J. E. Vandike. 1997. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources 

Report No. 146, Groundwater Resources of Missouri. 

Missouri Department of Economic Development, Economic Research and Information Center. 2007. 

http://ded.mo.gov/researchandplanning/ 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New 

York. 

MODNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Collecting Missouri Fossils. 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub665.pdf. 

MODNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources). 2007a. Northeast Missouri Groundwater 

Province. 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/groundwater/education/provinces/nemissouripro vince.htm. 

MODNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources). 2007b. Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Celebrate Stewardship. News Release 175. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr07_175.htm. 

National Atlas of the United States. 2007. http://www.nationalatlas.gov. 

NatureServe. 2006. Whooping Crane. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm (accessed June 3, 

2007). 

NatureServe Explorer. 2007. http://natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm (accessed on October 30, 2007). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-9

NLCD (National Land Cover Database). 2001. http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp. 

Obermeier, S. F., and A. J. Crone (Compilers). 1994. Fault number 1024, Wabash Valley Liquefaction 

Features, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. United States Geological 

Survey. http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 1984. Drummond’s Aster. 

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/dnap/Abstracts/A/astedrum.htm (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2003. Eastern Massasauga. 

 http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/PDF/pub377.pdf (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006a. Caesar Creek State Park. 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/caesarck.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006b. Clubshell. 

 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/clams/clubs_fc.html (accessed on April 30, 2007). 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006c. Deer Creek State Park. 

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/parks/parks/deercrk.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006d. Deer Creek Wildlife Park. 

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/wildlife/Hunting/wildlifeareas/central/centralwa.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006e. Letter dated April 27 from D. Woischke (Ohio 

Natural Heritage Program, Ohio DNR) to D. Kelly (Natural Resource Group, Inc.). 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2006f. Little Miami State Park. 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/lilmiami.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2007a. Blue Rock State Forest. 

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/forestry/forests/bluerock.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resource). 2007b. Indiana Bat. 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/wildlife/speciesguide/indianabat.htm (accessed on October 5, 

2007). 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 2007c. Perry State Forest. 

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/forestry/forests/perry.htm. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources), Division of Wildlife. 2007d. Fishing. 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/tabid/6518/Default.aspx. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources), Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 2007e. One 

Stop for Ohio Soils Information. 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/soilandwater/default/soils/default/tabid/9051/Default.aspx. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources), Ohio Geology Survey Division. 2007f. GeoFact 

No.17, Fossil Collecting in Ohio. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/7874/default.aspx. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-10

ODOD (Ohio Department of Development). 2007 

http://www.odod.state.oh.us/EconomicDevelopment.htm. 

OHDOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). 2007. 2007 Ohio Road Construction Projects – 

Southwest Region 

 http://www.dot.state.oh.us/roadConstruction/pdfregions/southwest_07.pdf. 

OHEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Ohio EPA Protecting Wetlands Web Site. 

 http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/wetlands/html/wetland.html. 

OJS (Ohio Journal of Science). 1973. Vol 73. No 5. Rare and Endangered Vertebrates of Ohio. 

September 1973. 

Ohio State University Extension. 2007a. Belmont County Ground-Water Resources. AEX-490.07. 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/lines/ennr.html#EWATR. 

Ohio State University Extension. 2007b. Monroe County Groundwater Resources. Fact Sheet AEX490.56. http://ohioline.osu.edu/lines/ennr.html#EWATR. 

OPSB (Ohio Power Siting Board). 2001. Opinion, Order, and Certificate for the Dresden Energy Power 

Plant in Muskingum County, Ohio. 

http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/TiffToPDf/PXKG6O9HCKO@YHY8.pdf. 

OPSB (Ohio Power Siting Board). 2007. 00-0686-EL-BGN: Dresden Energy, 550 MW Electric 

Generating Facility. http://www.opsb.ohio.gov/OPSB/cases/case.cfm?id=4066. 

O’Rourke, T. D. and M. C. Palmer. 1996. Earthquake performance of gas transmission pipelines. 

Earthquake Spectra. 12(3) 493-527. 

OSU (Ohio State University). 2007. Forests of Ohio. Ohio State University. 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/forests/forst_5.html. 

Parke County Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Parke County Chamber of Commerce, Parke County, 

Indiana. http://www.parkecountychamber.com (accessed on March 29, 2007). 

Partners in Flight. 2007. http://www.partnersinflight.org. 

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. 

Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. 

Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners 

in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Robbins, C. S. 1979. Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Bird Populations. In: Management of North 

Central and Northeastern Forests for Nongame Birds. 

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat Area Requirements of Breeding Forest 

Brids of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs. 

Scott County Courthouse. 2007. Regarding temporary accommodation in Scott County, Illinois. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-11

Smith, W. B., P.D. Miles, J.S. Vissage, and S. A. Pugh. 2003. Forest resources of the United States, 

2002. General Technical Report NC-241. 137 pp. St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 

Sparks, D. W., C. M. Ritzi, J. E. Duchamp, and J. O., Jr. Whitaker. 2005. Foraging habitat of the Indiana 

bat, (Myotis sodalis) at an urban-rural interface. Journal of Mammalogy 86 713-718. 

State of Illinois. 2007. Illinois Facts: Economy. http://www.illinois.gov/facts/economy.cfm. 

STATS Indiana. 2005. Estimates of Housing Units, 2004. 

 http://www.stats.indiana.edu/web/county/houseunits_ctyest2004.html. 

Stiff, B. J. 1997. Areas Mined for Coal in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey. 

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/browse/statewide/coalmines_py.e00. 

StormCenter Communications. 2007. National Watersheds – Ohio River Basin. 

http://wrc.iewatershed.com/index.php?pagename=ow_regionalWatersheds_05. 

Sullivan Chamber and Economic Development. 2006. Sullivan Chamber and Economic Development. 

http://www.sullivanchamber.com (accessed on March 29, 2007). 

UMRSHNC (Upper Mississippi River Sub-basin Hypoxia Nutrient Committee). 2006. Background on 

Upper Mississippi River Basin. http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/subbasins/upper/index.htm. 

United States Census Bureau. 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 118th Edition. Bernan 

Press. 

United States Census Bureau. 2000. State and County Quickfacts. 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html (accessed on March 23, 2007). 

United States Census Bureau. 2004. 1997 Census: 1991 Federal, State, and Local Governments, CountyArea Finance and Employment. http://harvester.census.gov/finance/asp/finance.asp (accessed on 

April 3, 2007). 

United States Census Bureau. 2007. American Factfinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed on 

March 23, 2007). 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) Database. http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo. 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nebraska 

Watershed Information. http://www.ne.nrcs.usda.gov/CSP2006/Middle_Republican.html. 

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Regions, States, & Areas at a 

Glance-State Wide Data. http://www.bls.gov/lau/ (accessed on September 12, 2007). 

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Regions, States, & Areas at a 

Glance-County Data. http://www.bls.gov/lau/ (accessed on September 12, 2007). 

United States Department of the Interior. 2005. Notice of Availability of the Running Buffalo Clover 

(Trifolium stoloniferum) Draft Recovery Plan. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 155. 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-12

United States Department of Transportation. 1987. Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar Year 

1987. 

United States Department of Transportation. 2006. Office of Pipeline Safety. Pipeline Statistics. 

http://ops.dot.gov/stats.html. 

USFS (United States Forest Service). 2007. NCRS: The Changing Midwest Assessment Web Site. 

 http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/deltawest. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1994. Hydrologic Units Maps of the Conterminous United 

States. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1996. Groundwater Atlas of the United States—Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. HA 730-I. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2001. Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) GIS spatial data. 

http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/MRLC/viewer.php (accessed on October 5, 2007). 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Platte River 

Ecology Study. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/plriveco/index.htm. 

Wehrmann, H. A., S. V. Sinclair, and T. P. Bryant. 2003. An Analysis of Groundwater Use to Aquifer 

Potential Yield in Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 2004-11. Groundwater 

Section Illinois State Water Survey. 

WorldWeb.com. 2007. Western Illinois Where to Stay. 

http://www.westernillinois.worldweb.com/WheretoStay (accessed on March 29, 2007). 

Wyoming Game and Fish. 2007. Grassland Ecosystems and Species. 

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/nongame/LIP/Grasslands/index.asp (accessed on April, 2007). 

Documents Available on the FERC’s e-Library 

FERC eLibrary. 2007a. REX East Project Upland Construction Plan. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession 

No. 20071030-4007. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551024 

(Posted on October 30, 2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007b. REX East Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 20071030-4009. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551026 (Posted on October 30, 

2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007c. REX East Project Blasting Plan. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 

20071030-4002. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551010 

(Posted on October 30, 2007). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
K-13

FERC eLibrary. 2007d. REX East Project HDD Contingency and Inadvertent Release Plan. Docket No. 

CP07-208. Accession No. 20071030-4003. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551012 (Posted on October 30, 

2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007e. REX East Project Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan. 

Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 20071030-4006. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551022 (Posted on October 30, 

2007. 

FERC eLibrary. 2007f. REX East Project Weed Management Plan. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession 

No. 20071030-4008. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551025 

(Posted on October 30, 2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007g. REX East Project Plans for Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties and 

Human Remains. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 20071030-4004. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551019 (Posted on October 30, 

2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007h. REX East Project Dredge Plan. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 

20071030-4000. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13550950 

(Posted on October 30, 2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007i. REX East Project Road and Railroad Crossings and Locations of Access Roads. 

Docket No. CP07-208. Accession No. 20071030-4005. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551021 (Posted on October 30, 

2007) . 

FERC eLibrary. 2007j. REX East Project Additional Temporary Workspace. Docket No. CP07-208. 

Accession No. 20071030-4001. 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13550998 (Posted on October 30, 

2007). 

FERC eLibrary. 2007k. Soil Types Crossed by the REX East Project. Docket No. CP07-208. Accession 

No. 20071030-4010. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13551028 

(Posted on October 30, 2007). 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX L 

List of Preparers 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
L-1 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Turner, Laura – Project Manager, Geology, Land Use and Visual Resources, Alternatives, 

Cumulative Impacts, Soils, Socioeconomics, Water Resources 

B.S., Geology, 1974, Indiana University 

Cefalu, Janine - Land Use and Visual Resources, Socioeconomics

 M.E.S., Environmental Studies, 2005, The Evergreen State College 

B.A., International Relations, 1996, San Francisco State University 

Kochhar, Medha – Wetlands, Vegetation, Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Ph.D., Plant Ecology, 1974, North Carolina State University 

M.S., Botany, 1968, B.I.T.S., Pilani, India 

B.S., Biology and Chemistry, 1966, University of Delhi 

Laffoon, Danny – Water Resources, Fisheries 

B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife, 2000, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Manco, Magdalene – Air and Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

Martin, James – Alternatives

 M.S., Environmental Science, 1990, Indiana University 

 M.P.A., 1990, Indiana University 

 B.S., Biology, 1987, Indiana University 

Saint Onge, Ellen – Cultural Resources 

M.A., Applied Anthropology, 1994, University of Maryland 

B.A., Anthropology, 1988, University of Maryland 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
L-2 

ICF International

Carr, Ed – Air Quality 

M.S., Atmospheric Science, 1983, University of Washington 

B.S., Meteorology, 1979, San Jose ́ State University 

Coate, David – Noise 

M.S., Energy Technology, 1980, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

B.A., Mathematics, 1978, Westminster College 

B.A., Physics, 1978, Westminster College 

B.A., Chemistry, 1978, Westminster College 

Cuddy, Tom – QA/QC Lead, Land Use and Visual Resources

Ph.D., Anthropology, 2000, Columbia University 

M.A., Anthropology, 1996, Columbia University 

B.S., Sociology and Anthropology, 1992, Virginia Commonwealth University 

Davis, Ken – Geology, Soils 

M.S., Geological Sciences, 2003, University of California, Santa Barbara

B.S., Geology, 2001, The College of William and Mary 

Fadely, Karen – Project Manager, Alternatives 

M.E.M., Conservation Science and Policy, 2005, Duke University 

B.S., Biology, 1999, Bucknell University 

Farfel, Shaina – Alternatives, Appendices 

B.S., Biology, 2007, College of William and Mary 

Gardiner, James – Proposed Action, QA/QC Review 

M.S., Chemical Engineering, 1998, University of Bradford, Great Britain 

B.S. (Hons.), Chemistry, Management and Industry, 1996, University of York, Great 

Britain 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
L-3 

Hammer, Don – Project Manager, Executive Summary 

B.S., Geology, 1983, Colorado State University 

Jones, Don – Graphic Artist 

A.A.S., Computer Graphic Design, 1994, Northern Virginia Community College 

A.S., General Studies, 1993, Northern Virginia Community College 

Kellar, Penelope – Document Management 

M.S., Ecology, 1978, University of California, Davis 

B.S., Conservation of Natural Resources, 1974, University of California, Berkeley 

Messenger, Wendy – Cultural Resources 

M.U.P.P., 2006, University of Illinois-Chicago 

B.S., Environmental Design, 2001, Auburn University 

Moelter, Christopher – QA/QC Review, Appendices 

M.S., Environmental Management, 2003, University of Queensland 

B.S., Zoology, 2001, University of Wisconsin 

Najor, Pamela – Technical Editor 

B.A., French, English Literature, Communication Arts, 1992, Aquinas College 

Pauley, Melissa – QA/QC Review 

M.S., Environmental Science and Management, 2004, Duquense University 

B.S., Environmental Studies, 2002, Bucknell University 

Moser, Michelle Rome – Deputy Project Manager, Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Biological Sciences, 2005, Stanford University 

B.S., Environmental Science, 2002, Brown University 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
L-4 

Smith, Michael –Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Sociology, 1998, Utah State University 

M.A., Geography, 1994, University of Wyoming 

B.A., Environmental Studies, 1991, University of California, Santa Cruz 

Teepe, Adam – Alternatives 

M.E.S.M., Environmental Science and Management, 2004, University of California, 

Santa Barbara 

B.S., Environmental Geology, 2001, College of William and Mary 

Thomas, Jennifer – Introduction, Cumulative Impacts, Public Involvement 

B.A., Political Science, 2006, Tulane University 

B.S., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 2006, Tulane University 

B.S., Environmental Studies, 2006, Tulane University 

Wyngarden, Steven – Alternatives 

M.E.M., Environmental Management, 1982, Duke University 

B.S., Applied Biology, 1980, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Zelasko, Elizabeth –Introduction, Reliability and Safety 

M.S.E.S., Water Resources, 2005, Indiana University 

M.P.A., Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management, 2005, Indiana 

University 

B.S., Biology, 2002, University of Dayton 

ENTRIX, Inc.

Allen, Anne – Water Resources, Vegetation 

B.S., Business Administration, 2001, Minor, Philosophy, University of Florida 

Bunn, Jeremy – Geology, Soils 

M.S., Geological Sciences, 2003, University of Washington 

B.S., Conservation and Resource Studies, 1989, University of California, Berkley 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
L-5 

Byrd, Heath – Socioeconomics, Land Use and Visual Resources 

M.S., Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, 2004, Colorado State University 

B.S., Environmental Economics and Management, 1998, University of Georgia 

James, Lisa - Special Status Species 

B.S., Bioenvironmental Sciences, 2001, Texas A&M University – College Station 

Loveday, H. Trevor – Deputy Project Manager, Biological Resources Lead, Special Status 

Species 

M.S., Aquatic Biology, 1995, Stephen F. Austin State University 

B.B.A., Finance, 1990, Baylor University 

Slate, Jennifer –Wildlife, Fisheries 

B.S., Marine Biology, 2004, Texas A&M University – Galveston 

Ward, Jennifer – Socioeconomics, Land Use and Visual Resources

M.S., Resource Economics and Policy, Expected 2007, University of Maine, Orono 

B.A., Mathematics, 2001, University of North Carolina, Asheville 

Wildermuth, Lori – Water Resources 

M.S., Environmental Biology, 2001, University of Pennsylvania 

B.S., Biology, 1998, Cabrini College 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
APPENDIX M 

Index

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
abandoned wells, 4-4, 5-21 

aboveground facility, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-

22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-36, 2-37, 2-41, 2-43, 3-1, 3-

42, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-11, 4-

12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-22, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 

4-41, 4-44, 4-50, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-92, 4-99, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-120, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-130, 4-

134, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-154, 4-

155, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-176, 4-

190, 4-192, 4-198, 4-201, 4-209, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-239, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-10, 5-26 

access road, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-31, 

2-32, 2-40, 3-4, 3-42, 3-46, 4-44, 4-55, 4-57, 

4-65, 4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-116, 4-

164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-168, 4-171, 4-175, 4-

190, 4-192, 4-238, 5-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-18, 5-

33 

accidents, 1-7, 157, 4-200, 4-201, 4-203, 4-208 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), 1-3, 1-8, 1-10, 1-14, 4-164, 4-175, 

4-237, 5-12, 5-33 

Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AIMP), 2-

25, 2-26, 2-35, 3-17, 3-28, 3-31, 4-14, 4-18, 

4-20, 4-56, 4-74, 4-75, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 

4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 5-3, 5-7, 5-10, 5-28 

Agricultural inspector (AI), 2-35, 2-38, 114, 116 

agriculture, 1-4, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 1-14, 2-25, 2-

26, 2-28, 2-29, 2-31, 2-32, 2-35, 2-38, 2-40, 

3-7, 3-10, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23, 3-25, 3-28, 3-29, 

3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 

3-49, 4-3, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 

4-20, 4-22, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-44, 4-50, 

4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-60, 4-61, 

4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-86, 

4-92, 4- 98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-103, 4-104, 

4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-

115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-4-

130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-137, 4-

138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-144, 4-147, 4-148, 4-

150, 4-154, 4-160, 4-163, 4-164, 4-169, 4-

193, 4-194, 4-215, 4-216, 4-218, 4-219, 4-

221, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-233, 4-

234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 

5-7, 5-10, 5-22, 5-28 

air pollutants, 178, 179, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-

184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-

191, 4-192, 4-240, 5-12 

air quality, 1-4, 4-33, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-

179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-189, 4-

190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-210, 4-234, 4-239, 4-

240, 5-12, 5-13 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR), 4-178, 4-

183, 4-189, 4-239, 4-240 

alternative energy, 1-7, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 

alternatives, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-

35, 2-37, 2-39, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-

10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 

3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 

3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 4-23, 

4-31, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-47, 4-48, 4-70, 4-73, 

4-91, 4-96, 4-120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 

4-140, 4-142, 4-145, 4-192, 4-210, 4-215, 4-

217, 4-222, 4-223, 4-225, 4-236, 4-237, 4-

238, 5-1, 5-2, 5-5, 5-10, 5-12, 5-19, 5-20, 5-

21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-28, 5-29 

American Petroleum Institute (API), 2-29, 2-37 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), 2-29 

ANR Pipeline Company, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 3-18 

aquifer, 1-7, 3-31, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 

5-4 

Arlington Compressor Station, 2-17, 2-19, 2-23, 

4-16, 4-23, 4-28, 4-68, 4-82, 4-154, 4-155, 4-

171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184, 4-

188, 4-190, 4-193, 4-198, 4-214, 5-12, 5-33 

Bainbridge Compressor Station, 2-17, 2-18, 2-

23, 3-42, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 4-16, 4-149, 4-169, 

4-176, 4-177, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-190, 4-

194, 4-198, 5-2, 5-21 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEPA), 4-68, 5-7 

Barnesville Reservoir, 3-4, 4-40, 4-89 

Bertrand Compressor Station, 2-17, 2-19, 2-23, 

4-16, 4-23, 4-28, 4-68, 4-82, 4-91, 4-92, 4-

155, 4-171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-184, 4-190, 4-

193, 4-198, 4-214, 4-215, 4-233, 4-234, 4-

239, 4-240 

Best Management Practices, 4-72, 4-191 

Big Blue River, 2-34, 4-29, 4-35, 4-40, 4-59, 4-

79, 4-81, 4-128, 4-137, 4-196 

Big Darby Creek, 2-34, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-49, 

4-30, 4-36, 4-37, 4-80, 4-84, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 

4-106, 4-107, 4-129, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-

174, 4-219, 4-221, 4-228, 4-230, 4-232, 4-

235, 5-2, 5-5, 5-11, 5-23, 5-30 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Big Walnut Creek, 4-35, 4-38, 4-40, 4-59, 4-68, 

4-79, 4-81, 4-84, 4-96, 4-128, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-196, 5-5, 5-13, 5-24, 5-26, 5-29, 5-34 

Biological assessment (BA), 1-14, 82, 4-198, 5-

9 

Birds of conservation concern (BCC), 4-65, 4-

66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-226, 4-227 

Blasting Specification Plan, 4-27, 4-31, 4-77, 5-

8 

Blue Mound Compressor Station, 2-17, 2-18, 2-

23, 4-16, 4-149, 4-166, 4-176, 4-177, 4-185, 

4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-193, 4-194, 4-198 

Blue Rock State Forest, 1-12, 4-71, 4-74, 4-129, 

4-145, 4-146, 5-31 

boring method, 2-31, 4-73, 4-75, 4-81, 4-87, 4-

112, 4-123, 4-125, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-

134, 4-136, 4-138, 4-144, 4-159, 4-167, 4-

170, 5-12, 5-25, 5-28 

carbon monoxide (CO), 178, 179, 4-181, 4-182, 

4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-191, 4-

192, 4-240 

cathodic protection, 2-40, 4-17, 4-207 

Central Flyway, 4-52, 4-66 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

(Certificate), 1-1, 1-4, 1-9, 1-15, 2-37, 2-42, 

3-1, 4-1, 4-112, 4-162, 4-175, 4-200, 4-212, 

4-213, 4-214, 5-1, 5-13, 5-15, 5-17 

Chandlersville, 1-6, 1-13, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 

2-37, 3-42, 4-16, 4-149, 4-154, 4-155, 4-171, 

4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-

183, 4-186, 4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-

195, 4-198, 4-240, 5-12, 5-13, 5-33, 5-34 

Chandlersville Compressor Station, 1-6, 2-17, 2-

18, 2-19, 2-23, 2-37, 3-42, 4-16, 4-149, 4-171, 

4-176, 4-177, 4-180, 4-183, 4-186, 4-188, 4-

190, 4-191, 4-195, 4-198, 4-240, 5-12, 5-13, 

5-33, 5-34 

Cheyenne Hub, 1-1, 4-214 

Chief Inspector, 2-38 

Citizen Gas and Coke Utility, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 

3-18 

Clean Water Act (CWA), 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-

12, 4-33, 4-41, 4-212, 4-216 

Coal bed methane, 1-3, 4-5 

Columbia Gas Transmission, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 

4-213 

compensatory mitigation, 1-7, 4-48, 4-58, 4-109, 

4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-119, 4-162, 4-

163, 4-196, 4-217, 4-221, 4-223, 5-6, 5-10, 5-

24 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information 

System (CERCLIS), 4-78 

compressor station, 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 

2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-36, 

2-37, 2-41, 2-42, 3-2, 3-3, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-

45, 3-46, 4-16, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-50, 4-55, 

4-57, 4-66, 4-68, 4-70, 4-82, 4-91, 4-92, 4-

109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-119, 4-124, 4-

126, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-154, 4-155, 4-

156, 4-161, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-169, 4-

170, 4-171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-

179, 4-180, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-

187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-

193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-197, 4-198, 4-210, 4-

213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-218, 4-233, 4-234, 4-

237, 4-239, 4-240, 5-2, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 

5-17, 5-21, 5-28, 5-33, 5-34 

Conoco-Phillips, 1-1 

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA), 3-4, 3-

10, 3-12, 4-44, 4-45, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-128, 

4-131, 4-132, 5-10 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 1-7, 2-

25, 2-40, 3-29, 4- 58, 4-60, 5-6, 5-25 

contamination, 1-7, 3-4, 4-14, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 

4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 4-38, 78, 

4-227, 4-228 

Council on Environmental Quality, 1-3 

cultural resources, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-14, 2-25, 2-

38, 3-28, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-

237, 4-238, 4-239, 5-11, 5-15, 5-33 

cumulative impacts, 1-4, 4-1, 4-210, 4-211, 4-

214, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-

221, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-

228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-

234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-239, 4-240, 5-13 

Dominion East Ohio, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 4-150 

Dominion Transmission, Inc., 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 

2-23, 2-42, 3-21, 4-11, 4-16, 4-127, 4-149, 4-

150 

Dredged Material Disposal Plan, 4-38 

Duke Energy Ohio, 3-31 

earthquake, 1-7, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-204, 4-208, 5-2 

easement, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14, 3-12, 3-23, 

3-30, 3-31, 3-39, 3-48, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-60, 

4-109, 4-112, 4-114, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-

122, 4-125, 4-126, 4-146, 4-162, 4-163, 4-

225, 4-235, 5-29 

Embarras River, 2-34, 4-34, 4-39, 4-79, 4-128, 

4-135, 4-196 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
emergency response, 1-7, 2-37, 2-41, 3-12, 4-17, 

4-26, 4-118, 4-122, 4-157, 4-159, 4-176, 4-

177, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-191, 4-

197, 4-200, 4-204, 4-237, 5-11 

Emergency Shut Down (ESD), 4-191 

Emergency Watershed Protection – Floodplain 

Easement (EWPP-FP), 3-12 

eminent domain, 1-4, 1-7, 3-30, 4-112, 4-120, 4-

162, 5-14 

emissions, 4-126, 4-139, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-

180, 4-183, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-

191, 4-193, 4-234, 4-235, 4-239, 4-240, 5-12, 

5-33 

employment, 2-35, 2-38, 2-39, 3-16, 4-17, 4-97, 

4-140, 4-141, 4-151, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-

160, 4-161, 4-207, 4-208, 4-220, 4-231, 4-

236, 4-237, 5-2, 5-3, 5-11, 5-19 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 1-8, 1-9, 1-14, 

4-66, 4-68, 4-82, 4-91, 4-227, 5-7 

Energy Information Administration (EIA), 1-1, 

1-3, 3-1, 3-2 

Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Entrega), 2-18, 2-19, 

4-171, 4-174, 4-176 

Environmental Compliance Monitoring and 

Reporting Program (ECMR Program), 2-39 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 1-1, 1-3, 

1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-14, 2-16, 2-17, 

2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-32, 2-34, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 

2-41, 2-42, 3-2, 3-4, 3-28, 3-32, 3-38, 3-42, 3-

46, 4-1, 4-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-26, 4-30, 4-

31, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 

4-75, 4- 81, 4-90, 4-93, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-

105, 4-106, 4-115, 4-120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-

125, 4-130, 4-134, 4-140, 4-141, 4-151, 4-

159, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-176, 4-

177, 4-196, 4-210, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-

216, 4-217, 4-222, 4-232, 4-234, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 

5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-17, 

5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 

5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33 

Environmental Inspector (EI), 2-38, 4-12, 4-18, 

78, 5-14, 5-16, 5-22 

erosion, 1-7, 2-24, 2-25, 2-28, 2-29, 2-31, 2-36, 

2-40, 2-41, 3-14, 3-16, 3-30, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 

4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-26, 4-27, 

4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-41, 4-43, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 

4-61, 4-76, 4-77, 4-113, 4-116, 4-140, 4-142, 

4-168, 4-218, 4-220, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-

232, 5-3, 5-7, 5-11, 5-15, 5-30 

Executive Order (EO), 4-60, 4-66, 4-70, 4-151 

extra workspaces, 2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-32, 2-36, 

2-40, 4-44, 4-45, 4-48, 4-56, 4-64, 4-90, 4-

109, 4-112, 4-113, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-

134, 4-135, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-

145, 4-148, 4-150, 4-225, 4-235, 5-10, 5-15, 

5-18, 5-24 

Farm Service Agency (FSA), 60, 5-6, 5-25 

farmlands, 1-11, 3-7, 3-17, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-

17, 4-18, 4-115, 4-118, 4-215, 4-216, 4-234, 

4-236, 5-3 

Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), 1-9, 1-

10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 4-178, 4-180, 4-187, 4-

188, 4-189 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 4-

215, 4-222, 4-225, 4-231, 4-232 

FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures (our Procedures), 

2-24, 2-30, 2-34, 4-14, 4-46, 4-219 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 4-66 

floodplains, 1-7, 1-11, 1-12, 3-12, 3-35, 4-50, 4-

59, 4-84, 4-93, 4-96, 4-99, 4-100, 4-141, 5-26 

Four Mile Creek, 2-34, 4-30, 4-35, 4-40, 4-79, 

4-129, 4-142, 4-196 

General Conformity, 4-180, 4-188, 4-189, 4-239 

geology, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 2-25, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-

32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-37, 2-40, 3-1, 3-14, 3-

16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-27, 3-29, 3-36, 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 

4-7, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 

4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-41, 4-44, 4-46, 4-51, 4-56, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-64, 4-76, 4-77, 4-83, 

4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-

119, 4-132, 4-141, 4-147, 4-148, 4-159, 4-

201, 4-206, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-

228, 4-232, 4-235, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-

10, 5-22, 5-28 

gravel pit, 1-7, 4-4, 4-6, 4-38, 4-111, 4-204, 4-

217, 5-2 

Great Miami River, 2-34, 4-30, 4-35, 4-40, 4-79, 

4-129, 4-142, 4-143 

groundwater, 1-7, 1-11, 3-31, 4-9, 4-22, 4-23, 4-

24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-41, 4-44, 4-56, 4-219, 

5-4, 5-22 

Hamilton Compressor Station, 1-8, 2-17, 2-18, 

2-19, 2-23, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 4-16, 4-149, 4-

150, 4-170, 4-176, 4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-

183, 4-186, 4-188, 4-189, 4-191, 4-194, 4-

197, 4-198, 5-2, 5-17 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 4-187, 4-188 

hazardous waste site, 4-20 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
health and safety, 4-20 

high consequence area (HCA), 4-203 

Hocking Valley Canal, 2-35, 4-170 

horizontal directional drilling (HDD), 2-34, 3-4, 

3-7, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 

3-25, 3-27, 3-31, 3-49, 4-10, 4-11, 4-30, 4-31, 

4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-45, 4-46, 

4-48, 4-56, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 

4-76, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-87, 4-91, 4-95, 

4-96, 4-97, 4-100, 4-106, 4-107, 4-112, 4-124, 

4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-

135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 14-40, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-168, 4-170, 4-

195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-205, 4-219, 4-220, 4-

221, 4-225, 4-228, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-

235, 4-240, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-12, 

5-13, 5-19, 5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-29, 

5-30, 5-32, 5-33 

human disturbance, 4-84, 4-86, 4-92, 4-229 

Hunter Lake, 1-7, 4-39, 128, 134, 173, 4-212, 4-

216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-223, 4-

225, 4-226, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-234, 4-

236, 4-237, 4-239 

hydric soils, 4-14, 4-19, 4-64, 5-3 

hydrostatic test, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-30, 2-

31, 2-37, 4-37, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-76, 4-77, 

4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-201, 

4-214, 4-220, 4-228, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 5-4, 

5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-18, 5-27, 5-30 

Illinois Department of Agriculture (ILDOA), 1-

3, 1-7, 1-11, 4-218, 5-1 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

(ILDNR), 1-11, 4-78, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-

103, 4-128, 4-217, 4-221 

Illinois Department of Transportation (ILDOT), 

1-11, 128, 4-216 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

(ILEPA), 1-7, 1-11, 4-29, 4-190 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 1-11 

Illinois Power Company, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23 

Illinois River, 2-34, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 4-39, 99, 

100, 4-196, 5-5 

Illinois State Geological Survey, 4-12 

Illinois State Museum, 4-12, 4-217 

Indiana Department of Agriculture (INDOA), 1-

6, 1-7, 4-218 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), 1-6, 1-12, 4-38, 4-190, 

5-5, 5-24 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

(INDNR), 1-6, 1-11, 4-22, 4-29, 4-58, 4-59, 

4-60, 4-78, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-128, 4-221, 

4-228, 5-10, 5-24, 5-25 

Indiana Geological Survey, 4-12 

Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures, 

4-168 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), 

1-6 

Indiana’s Department of Transportation 

(INDOT), 4-128, 4-215 

interconnecting pipelines, 1-1, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 

2-20, 2-42, 3-3, 3-4, 3-18, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-

110, 4-150, 4-154, 4-214, 4-218, 5-10 

Interstate 69 (I-69), 4-215, 4-217, 4-218, 4-220, 

4-222, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-230, 4-

232, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239 

invasive species, 1-7, 4-43, 4-47, 4-53, 4-56, 4-

60, 4-65, 4-72, 4-100, 4-221, 4-228, 4-231, 4-

233 

invertebrates, 4-12, 4-76, 4-77 

karst, 3-28, 3-35, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-236, 5-3, 5-

21 

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Kinder 

Morgan), 1-1, 2-42, 4-215 

land use, 1-4, 1-7, 2-19, 2-24, 3-14, 3-25, 3-32, 

3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 

4-14, 4-30, 4-51, 4-55, 4-71, 4-109, 4-110, 4-

111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-

126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-

147, 4-160, 4-162, 4-231, 4-233, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-236, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-

19, 5-20, 5-21 

landslide, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9 

Lebanon Hub, 2-17, 4-149 

liquefied natural gas (LNG), 1-3, 4-163 

Little Miami River, 2-34, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-31, 3-48, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 4-73, 4-79, 4-80, 

4-106, 4-107, 4-125, 4-129, 4-139, 4-140, 4-

144, 4-174, 5-2, 5-5, 5-11, 5-23, 5-30 

Little Miami Scenic State Park, 4-71, 4-73, 4-

129, 4-144, 5-31 

mainline valve (MLV), 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-36, 

2-41, 4-55, 4-57, 4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-148, 

4-150, 4-191, 4-201 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT), 4-187, 4-188 

maximum allowable operating pressure 

(MAOP), 2-30, 4-201, 4-203 

Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas 

Transportation Facilities (Memorandum), 4-

200 

methane, 1-3, 4-5, 4-187, 4-200 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Mexico Compressor Station, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-

19, 2-23, 3-2, 3-3, 4-16, 4-149, 4-165, 4-176, 

4-177, 4-185, 4-190, 4-194, 4-198 

Miami & Erie Canal, 2-34, 4-170 

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, 2-16, 

2-18, 2-23 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 4-66, 4-68, 

4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-103, 4-227, 5-7, 5-25 

Mississippi Flyway, 3-12, 66, 5-7 

Mississippi River, 1-1, 2-34, 3-1, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-47, 4-11, 4-

12, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-45, 4-79, 4-84, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-

101, 4-106, 4-132, 4-133, 4-205, 4-216, 4-

231, 5-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-13, 5-22, 5-24, 5-26 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), 

1-7, 3-4, 4-32, 4-46, 4-72, 4-94, 4-99, 4-103, 

4-128, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-216, 4-221, 4-

228, 4-230, 4-233, 5-10 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

(MODNR), 1-7, 4-12, 4-22, 4-114, 14-15, 4-

190, 4-217, 4-218, 5-28 

Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area, 4-183 

Muskingum River, 2-35, 4-30, 4-35, 4-40, 4-70, 

4-80, 4-107, 4-170, 4-214, 4-219, 4-220, 4-

228, 4-232, 4-236 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), 4-178, 4-179, 4-183, 4-189, 4-191, 

4-192, 4-240 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP), 4-180, 4-187 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1-

1, 1-3, 3-1, 4-210 

National Heritage Corridor, 4-170 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 1-8, 

1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 164, 175, 4-

237 

National Park, 1-6, 1-9, 4-183 

National Park Service (NPS), 1-6, 1-9, 1-14, 3-

18, 3-25, 4-36, 4-129, 4-137, 4-139, 4-140, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-174, 5-4, 5-11, 5-23, 5-30 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 

2-30, 4-41 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 1-

14, 4-134, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-

238, 4-239, 5-11, 5-12 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), 3-3, 3-27, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-137 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 3-7, 3-10, 3-

12, 91 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 4-35, 4-78, 4-137, 

4- 142, 5-23 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NACPRA), 4-172 

Native Americans, 1-5, 1-7, 3-34, 3-39, 4-151, 

4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-238, 5-12 

Natural Gas Act (NGA), 1-1, 1-3, 1-8, 1-9, 1-14, 

2-37, 3-1, 4-112, 4-162, 5-14 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company and Illinois 

Power, 2-16 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 2-

18, 2-23 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, 4-200 

Natural Heritage Program, 4-82 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), 1-3, 1-6, 3-12, 3-14, 3-16, 4-14, 4-

15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-44, 4-57, 4-60, 4-61, 

5-1 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 4-

180, 4-183, 4-187 

New Source Review (NSR), 180 

noise, 1-4, 1-7, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 4-37, 4-65, 4-4-

66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-86, 4-87, 4-120, 4-122, 

4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-

133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-

139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-

145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-

195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-230, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-239, 4-240, 5-2, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13, 5-33, 

5-34 

noise-sensitive area (NSA), 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 

126, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-

198, 4-240, 5-2, 5-13, 5-34 

Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR), 

4-180, 4-183, 4-188 

Notice of Intent, 1-5, 1-6, 4-171, 4-213 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP), 1-3, 2-21, 2-

24, 2-28, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-39, 2-40, 4-4, 4-

9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-39, 4-46, 4-58, 4-

91, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-

107, 4-123, 4-125, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-

140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-

146, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-

170, 4-175, 4-190, 4-196, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-

17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-26, 5-27, 

5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), 4-200, 4-203 

Ohio Department of Development, 1-7 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

(ODNR), 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-12, 4-12, 4-36, 4-

66, 4-73, 4-74, 4-82, 4-84, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 

4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-115, 4-129, 4-140, 4-141, 4-144, 4-145, 4-

217, 4-218, 4-227, 4-228, 5-10, 5-27, 5-30, 5-

31 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA), 1-7, 1-8, 1-12, 3-18, 4-139, 4-143, 4-

190 

Ohio Farm Bureau, 1-7 

Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), 1-7, 1-8, 4-

214, 4-220, 4-228 

Ohio Regional Watershed, 4-27, 4-28, 5-4 

operation and maintenance, 2-41 

Paint Creek, 4-35, 4-97, 4-129, 4-142, 4-143 

palustrine emergent wetland, 4-41, 4-44, 4-45 

palustrine forested wetland, 4-43, 4-45, 4-221 

palustrine scrub-shrub wetland, 4-41, 4-221 

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (PEPL), 

2-16, 2-18, 2-20, 2-23, 3-3, 3-14, 4-16, 4-149, 

4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-221, 4-224, 4-

226, 4-227, 4-230, 5-17 

Partners in Flight, 4-66, 4- 68, 4-70 

Perry State Forest, 1-12, 4-71, 4-74, 4-129, 4-

145, 4-146, 5-31 

Pig launchers/receivers, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 2-37, 

4-55, 4-111, 4-211, 4-213 

pipe storage and contractor yards, 2-20, 2-21, 2-

22, 4-47, 4-48, 4-58, 4-64, 4-109, 14-64, 5-6, 

5-10, 5-14, 5-24 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), 4-200, 4-202 

pipeline right-of-way, 1-7, 1-9, 1-14, 2-19, 2-20, 

2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 

2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-40, 

3-3, 3-4, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-

18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 

3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 

3-40, 3-41, 3-44, 3-48, 3-49, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, 4-

8, 4-9, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 4-

24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-31, 4-32, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-52, 4-55, 4-56, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-70, 

4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-77, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 

4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-107, 4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-

114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-

120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-

126, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-137, 4-138, 4-

139, 4-140, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-

148, 4-150, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-

166, 4-168, 4-169, 4-173, 4-174, 4-201, 4-

214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-221, 4-222, 4-

223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-230, 4-

233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-238, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 

5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-16, 5-17, 5-

18, 5-24, 5-26, 5-31 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), 4-29, 4-34, 4-

35, 4-37 

Pre-Filing Process, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 2-41, 2-42, 

4-215 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), 

180, 4-183, 4-188 

Rockies Express Eastern Phase Project (Rex 

East Project, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 

1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-29, 2-31, 

2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-43, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-10, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 

3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 

3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 4-1, 4-3, 4-

4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-

13, 4-14, 4-17, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 

4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 

4-45, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 

4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-66, 4- 67, 4- 68, 4- 69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-

72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 

4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-

106, 4-107, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-

113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-118, 4-120, 4-124, 4-

125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-

133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-139, 4-141, 4-143, 4-

145, 4-146, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-

154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-

160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-

166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-

174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-

180, 4-183, 4-187, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-

192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-

201, 4-202, 4-205, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-

211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-

217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-

223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-

229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 5-1, 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-

11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 

5-22, 5-26, 5-28 

Raven Rocks, 4-71, 4-74, 4-129, 4-146, 4-147, 

5-10, 5-11 

Rawah Wilderness area, 4-183 

Record of Decision, 4-215 

recreational activities, 1-7, 1-14, 3-18, 3-20, 3-

32, 3-48, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 

4-40, 4-44, 4-63, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-78, 4-79, 

4-81, 4-109, 4-127, 4-128, 4-130, 4-131, 4-

132, 4-135, 4- 137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-142, 4-

143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-

155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-160, 4-193, 4-208, 4-

226, 4-227, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 5-1, 5-10 

Re-route (RR), 80 

REX East Upland Construction Plan (REX East 

Plan), 2-24, 4-14, 4-57, 4-112, 4-113, 4-130, 

138, 4-227 

REX East Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures (REX East 

Procedures), 2-24, 4-14, 4- 138 

REX West, 1-1, 2-18, 2-39, 3-1, 3-3, 4-150, 4-

165, 4-171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-211, 4-213, 4-

214, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-224, 4-228, 4-

230, 4-233, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239 

Rockies Express Blasting Plan, 2-28, 2-36, 4-20, 

4-65 

Rockies Express Western Phase Project (REX 

West Project), 1-1, 2-39, 165, 171, 174, 176, 

4-213, 4-214, 4-224, 4-228, 4-230, 4-233, 4-

239 

Rocky Mountain National Park, 4-183 

Rocky Mountains, 1-1, 3-1, 3-3, 4-213 

route variation, 1-5, 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7, 3-10, 3-

11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 

3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 

3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 4-70, 4-73, 4-

120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-142, 5-1, 5-2, 5-5, 

5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-28 

runoff, 1-12, 2-32, 4-8, 4-14, 4-18, 4-24, 4-31, 

4-33, 4-56, 4-58, 4-99, 4-119, 4-219, 4-223, 

4-228, 4-231, 4-233 

safety, 1-4, 1-7, 2-24, 2-28, 2-29, 2-35, 2-36, 2-

37, 2-40, 2-41, 3-7, 3-41, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-20, 

4-46, 4-47, 4-120, 4-124, 4-139, 159, 4-193, 

4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-

207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-217, 5-5, 5-10, 5-13, 5-

30 

Salt River, 2-34, 3-4, 4-11, 4-29, 4-34, 4-37, 4-

39, 4-45, 4-132, 4-133, 4-196, 4-216 

Scioto River, 2-35, 3-25, 4-30, 4-40, 4-66, 4-80, 

4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-106, 4-107, 5-26 

scoping, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 3-1, 3-39, 4-20, 4-151, 4-

173, 4-209, 4-210, 5-1 

Sempra Pipelines and Storage, 1-1, 2-42, 4-215 

Seven Mile Creek, 2-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-79, 4-104, 

4-105, 4-129, 4-142, 4-143 

shallow groundwater, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27 

Sny Canal, 2-34 

Sny Levee, 3-7, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 4-37, 4-128, 4-

133, 4-134, 4-205, 5-10, 5-13, 5-29, 5-34 

socioeconomics, 1-4, 1-7, 150, 151, 4-236, 4-

237, 5-11 

soil compaction, 1-7, 4-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-

25, 4-44, 4-57, 4-113, 4-119, 5-3, 5-22 

soil contamination, 4-14, 4-20 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

Plan (SPCC Plan), 3-38, 4-20, 4-26, 4-27, 4-

32, 4-33, 4-78, 4-228, 5-5, 5-23 

spills, 3-38, 4-14, 4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-31, 

4-33, 78, 4-219, 4-220, 4-227, 4-228, 5-5, 5-

23 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), 1-

6, 1-10, 1-14, 4-134, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-

167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174, 4-

175, 4-238, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33 

State implementation plan (SIP), 4-189 

State road (SR), 1-9, 180, 4-215, 4-216 

State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO), 4-

14, 5-3 

stormwater, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-25, 4-

33, 4-228 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

2-25, 4-33 

subsidence, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 5-2, 5-3 

surface water, 1-7, 2-30, 3-11, 3-38, 4-17, 4-28, 

4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

77, 4-219, 4-220, 4-229, 4-232, 4-235, 5-4 

Ted Shanks Conservation Area, 4-72 

Temporary workspaces, 2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-32, 

2-36, 2-40, 3-21, 4-4, 4-17, 4-38, 4-44, 4-45, 

4-47, 4-48, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-64, 4-90, 4-

109, 4-110, 4-112, 4-113, 4-130, 4-131, 4-

132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-148, 4-150, 4-

225, 4-235, 5-15, 5-18, 5-24 

Tennessee Gas Company, 2-17, 2-18 

terrorism, 1-7, 4-209 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Texas Eastern Incremental Market Expansion II 

(TIME II), 4-211, 4-212, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 

4-224, 4-227, 4-228, 4-230, 4-231, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239 

Texas Eastern Transmission Company 

(TETCO), 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 3-14, 3-23, 

3-30, 3-31, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-48, 

4-11, 4-16, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-143, 4-145, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-211, 4-212 

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23 

threatened and endangered species, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 

1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 2-25, 2-28, 3-12, 

3-14, 3-17, 3-21, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 

3-38, 3-39, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 4-41, 4-44, 4-68, 

4-71, 4-72, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 

4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-

100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-

106, 4-107, 4-139, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-

230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 5-1, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-9, 5-10, 5-15, 5-26, 5-27 

Title V, 180, 4-188 

topsoil, 1-7, 2-21, 2-25, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 

2-35, 4-14, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-43, 4-46, 

4-47, 4-57, 4-99, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 

4-118, 4-119, 4-218, 5-3, 5-10, 5-18, 5-22 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 4-34 

transportation, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 1-

13, 2-24, 2-28, 2-29, 2-41, 2-42, 3-3, 4-14, 4-

30, 4-31, 4-37, 4-44, 4-86, 4-128, 4-151, 4-

159, 4-160, 4-200, 4-205, 4-208, 4-212, 4-

213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-217, 4-218, 4-220, 4-

225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-231, 4-232, 4-

234, 4-236, 4-237, 4-239, 5-1, 5-11, 5-14, 5-

31 

Trunkline Gas Company, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 4-

149 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 1-3, 1-6, 

1-9, 1-10, 3-4, 3-7, 3-11, 3-12, 3-23, 3-25, 3-

49, 4-12, 4-33, 4-38, 4-41, 4-46, 4-48, 4-56, 

4-61, 4-90, 4-128, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-137, 4-145, 4-212, 4-216, 4-217, 4-

220, 4-223, 4-225, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-

236, 4-237, 4-239, 5-1, 5-5, 5-6, 5-22, 5-23, 

5-24, 5-26, 5-29 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1-14 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1-3, 1-

6, 1-10, 1-11, 4-3, 4-14, 4-28, 4-60, 4-71, 4-

115, 4-218 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 3-2, 3-16 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1-6, 

1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-30, 4-86, 4-128, 4-

159, 4-191, 4-200, 4-201, 4-203, 4-205, 4-

208, 4-209, 4-215, 5-13, 5-31 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

1-1, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 

4-23, 4-31, 4-34, 4-48, 4-50, 4-53, 4-78, 4-

126, 4-147, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-187, 4-

188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-193, 4-195, 4-220, 4-

232, 4-240 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 1-3, 1-6, 

1-8, 1-9, 1-14, 3-4, 3-7, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-

16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-33, 3-37, 

3-40, 4-38, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-56, 4-65, 4-66, 

4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-82, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 

4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-

102, 4-105, 4-106, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-

226, 4-227, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 5-1, 

5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 3-1, 3-3, 3-10, 

3-16, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-40, 4-12, 4-23, 

4-28, 4-38 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan, 4-174 

United States Code (U.S.C.), 1-1, 1-14, 4-60, 4-

66, 4-200, 4-203 

Upper Mississippi Regional Watershed, 4-27, 4-

28, 5-4 

Upper Mississippi River Sub-basin Hypoxia 

Nutrient Committee (UMRSHNC), 4-28 

Vectren Company, 2-18 

visual resources, 1-4, 4-33, 4-109, 4-124, 4-126, 

4-130, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-

137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-

144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-235, 4-

236, 5-11 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), 4-183, 4-

184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-191 

Wabash River, 2-34, 3-12, 3-13, 4-29, 4-35, 4-

40, 4-59, 4-68, 4-84, 4-89, 4-96, 4-128, 4-135, 

5-2, 5-26 

water resources, 1-4, 1-7, 2-30, 4-27, 4-30, 4-40, 

4-77, 4-81, 4-91, 4-95, 4-106, 4-139, 4-219, 

4-220, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-8 

Wellhead Protection Area (WPA), 3-38, 3-49, 4-

24, 4-25, 4-26, 5-4, 5-20, 5-22 

wells, 1-7, 3-30, 3-32, 4-4, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-

25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-51, 4-217, 5-2, 5-4, 5-21, 5-

22 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), 1-7, 4-44 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
wetlands, 1-4, 1-7, 2-19, 2-21, 2-24, 2-26, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-40, 3-3, 3-4, 3-

10, 3-11, 3-14, 3-16, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 3-25, 

3-27, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 

3-42, 3-44, 3-49, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-25, 

4-26, 4-32, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 

4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 4-56, 4-60, 

4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-68, 4-72, 

4-77, 4-80, 4-83, 4-84, 4-87, 4-89, 4-90, 4-92, 

4-93, 4-99, 4-100, 4-104, 4-105, 4-111, 4-112, 

4-131, 4-135, 4-137, 4-144, 4-210, 4-215, 4-

216, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-

226, 5-1, 5-2, 5-5, 5-7, 5-15, 5-18, 5-24, 5-26 

Whitewater River, 2-34, 4-40, 4-59, 4-66, 4-79, 

4-81, 4-106, 4-128, 4-135, 4-136 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR), 1-9, 1-14, 

4-36, 4-137, 4-139 

Wilderness Area, 4-183, 4-193 

wildlife, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-14, 3-7, 

3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 3-25, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-37, 4-29, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 

4-47, 4-51, 4-52, 4-56, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-66, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 

4-78, 4-91, 4-93, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 

4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-

146, 4-147, 4-210, 4-226, 5-1, 5-6, 5-7, 5-25, 

5-31 

Wildlife Management Area, 1-7 

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007
Document Content(s)

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF....................................1

Table_of_Contents.PDF.....................................................5

Executive_Summary.PDF....................................................18

Section_1_Introduction.PDF...............................................26

Section_2_Proposed Action.PDF............................................41

Section_3_Alternatives.PDF...............................................69

Section_4_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ...................................119

Section_5_Conclusions.PDF...............................................359

Appendix_ A.PDF.........................................................393

Appendix_B Maps1.PDF....................................................445

Appendix_B Maps2.PDF....................................................462

Appendix_B Maps3.PDF....................................................477

Appendix_B Maps4.PDF....................................................493

Appendix_B Maps5.PDF....................................................512

Appendix_B Maps6.PDF....................................................533

Appendix_B Maps7.PDF....................................................552

Appendix_B Maps8.PDF....................................................573

Appendix_B Maps9.PDF....................................................592

Appendix_B Maps10.PDF...................................................607

Appendix_C.PDF..........................................................623

Appendix_D.PDF..........................................................627

Appendix_E.PDF..........................................................668

Appendix_F.PDF..........................................................678

Appendix_G.PDF..........................................................687

Appendix_H.PDF..........................................................754

Appendix_I.PDF..........................................................772

Appendix_J.PDF..........................................................791

Appendix_K.PDF..........................................................808

Appendix_L.PDF..........................................................822

Appendix_M.PDF..........................................................828

Document Accession #: 20071123-4000 Filed Date: 11/23/2007