Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC/EIS-0219D

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cooperating Agencies:

National Park Service

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-417-000

PF07-2-000

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

November 2007

FERC/EIS-0219D

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

 1 

In Reply Refer To: 

 OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2 

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 

Docket No. CP07-417-000 

 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the construction and 

operation of the natural gas pipeline facilities (referred to as the Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project or Project) as proposed by Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas). 

 The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the 

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project, with appropriate mitigating measures as 

recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The draft EIS 

evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives, and pipeline 

alternatives. 

 The purpose of the Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project is to develop and 

provide new pipeline capacity to transport natural gas produced in north-central Arkansas 

to markets served by interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. The Project would be 

capable of transporting 853 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d)1

 of natural gas through 

the proposed Fayetteville Lateral and 751 MMcf/d2

 of natural gas through the proposed 

Greenville Lateral. 

 The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following facilities in Arkansas and Mississippi: 

• 166.2 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White, 

Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas; and Coahoma 

County, Mississippi (Fayetteville Lateral); 

• 96.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, 

Holmes, and Attalla Counties, Mississippi (Greenville Lateral); 

 

1

 Based on 985.2 British thermal units (Btu) per standard cubic feet (scf), 841,000 million Btu per day 

(MMBtu/d) approximately equals 853 MMcf/d. 2

 Based on 1,021.3 Btu/scf , 768,000 MMBtu/d approximately equals 751 MMcf/d. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

 2 

• 0.8 mile of 36-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline in Attalla County, Mississippi 

(Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral); 

• 0.4 mile of 20-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline in Attalla County, Mississippi 

(Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral); 

• a 10,650-horsepower (hp) compressor station at milepost 96.4 on the Greenville 

Lateral in Attala County, Mississippi (Kosciusko Compressor Station); 

• pipe modifications at Texas Gas’s existing Greenville Compressor Station in 

Washington County, Mississippi; and 

• 29 metering and regulating (M&R) stations, 30 interconnects (tie-ins), 21 main 

line valves (MLVs), and three launchers and three receivers. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meeting

 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 we 

receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these 

instructions: 

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

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A 

Washington, DC 20426 

• Reference Docket No. CP07-207-000; 

• Label one copy of your comments to the attention of Gas Branch 2, DG2E; and 

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

before January 7, 2007.

Please note that the Commission encourages the electronic filing (“eFiling”) of 

comments. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s 

web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the “Documents and Filings” link. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

 3 

 In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, we invite you to attend the 

public scoping meeting that will be scheduled for a date prior to the end of the draft EIS 

comment period. We will issue a notice about the time, date, and location of the 

comment meeting.

 The public meeting will be posted on the FERC’s calendar located at 

www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested groups and individuals are 

encouraged to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the 

meeting will be prepared. 

 After the comments are received and 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. 

 The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch 

888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

 A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference identified 

above. In addition, CD copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; 

various federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental 

and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; 

intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an interest in the proposed Project. 

Hard copies of this draft EIS have also been mailed to those who requested that format 

during scoping and comment periods for the Project. 

 

 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 

(http://www.ferc.gov). 

 To access information via the FERC website click on the “eLibrary” link, click on 

“General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 

Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The 

“eLibrary” link provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the 

Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, 

please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

 4 

866-208-3676, or for TTY at (202) 502-8659. 

 In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called “eSubscription” 

which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. 

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

providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to 

these documents. To learn more about “eSubscription” and to sign-up for this service 

please go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

i Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... ES-1 

PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................................................... ES-1 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS ............................................................................. ES-2 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............................................................ ES-3 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... ES-7

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... ES-7

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................1-2

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT ........................................................1-2

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.........................1-3

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT............................................................................1-6

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ..........................................................................1-7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1

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

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities: Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals ...................................2-1

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities.......................................................................................2-4

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................................2-7

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................2-8

2.2.1.1 Rights-of-Way and Temporary Workspaces ....................................2-8

2.2.1.2 Access Roads....................................................................................2-9

2.2.1.3 Pipe Storage/Contractor Yards .......................................................2-10

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................2-12

2.3 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE...................................................................................2-12

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MITIGATION MONITORING.............2-12

2.5 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES..............................................................................2-15

2.5.1 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-15

2.5.1.1 General Pipeline Construction Techniques ....................................2-16

2.5.1.2 Special Construction Techniques ...................................................2-20

2.5.2 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................2-31

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES..............................................2-31

2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-31

2.6.2 Compressor Station and Other Aboveground Facilities ...................................2-32

2.7 SAFETY CONTROLS ..................................................................................................2-32

2.7.1 Pipeline .............................................................................................................2-33

2.7.1.1 Cathodic Protection ........................................................................2-33

2.7.1.2 Emergency Response Procedures...................................................2-33

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ................................................................2-33

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Table of Contents ii 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3-1

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

3.2 PIPELINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................3-3

3.2.1 Existing Pipeline Systems...................................................................................3-3

3.2.2 Other Proposed Pipeline Systems .......................................................................3-4

3.3 PIPELINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND VARIATIONS........................................3-6

3.3.1 Alternatives.........................................................................................................3-7

3.3.2 Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing ............................................................3-13

3.3.3 Agency-Proposed Alternatives .........................................................................3-18

3.3.4 Agency-Proposed Route Variations..................................................................3-21

3.4 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES.......................................................3-32

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-1

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES.............................................................................................4-1

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

4.1.2 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................4-2

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................4-3

4.1.3.1 Seismic Hazards ...............................................................................4-3

4.1.3.2 Active Faults.....................................................................................4-4

4.1.3.3 Soil Liquefaction ............................................................................4-10

4.1.3.4 Karst Potential/Ground Subsidence................................................4-12

4.1.3.5 Bedrock and Blasting......................................................................4-13

4.1.3.6 Slope Failures/Landslides...............................................................4-16

4.1.3.7 Paleontological Resources..............................................................4-18

4.2 SOILS ............................................................................................................................4-18

4.2.1 Soil Types and Characteristics..........................................................................4-18

4.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation......................................................................4-19

4.2.2.1 Prime Farmland ..............................................................................4-19

4.2.2.2 Hydric Soils....................................................................................4-20

4.2.2.3 Compaction Potential .....................................................................4-21

4.2.2.4 Soil Erosion - Highly Erodible Soils ..............................................4-21

4.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential....................................................................4-22

4.2.2.6 Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns.......................................4-23

4.2.2.7 Rocks ..............................................................................................4-23

4.2.2.8 Soil Contamination.........................................................................4-23

4.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-24

4.3.1 Groundwater .....................................................................................................4-24

4.3.1.1 Pipeline Facilities ...........................................................................4-26

4.3.2 Surface Water ...................................................................................................4-28

4.3.2.1 Pipeline Facilities ...........................................................................4-30

4.3.2.2 Operational Impacts........................................................................4-37

4.4 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................4-37

4.4.1 Affected Wetlands ............................................................................................4-39

4.4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities ...........................................................................4-40

4.4.2 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation.........................................4-49

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

iii Table of Contents 

4.5 VEGETATION..............................................................................................................4-50

4.5.1 Habitat/Community Types................................................................................4-50

4.5.1.1 Typical Habitat/Community Types in the Project Area .................4-51

4.5.1.2 Pipeline Facilities ...........................................................................4-52

4.5.2 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern ...................................................4-53

4.5.3 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants.......................................................4-56

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................4-56

4.6.1 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................4-57

4.6.1.1 Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area .............................................4-57

4.6.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation...................................................................4-58

4.6.1.3 Migratory Birds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds.........................4-59

4.6.1.4 Managed Wildlife Areas.................................................................4-60

4.6.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................4-61

4.6.2.1 Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates..................................................4-61

4.6.2.2 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries .........................................4-63

4.6.2.3 Construction Impacts on Aquatic Resources..................................4-63

4.6.2.4 Post-Construction and Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources4-65

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .....4-65

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................4-67

4.7.1.1 Mammals ........................................................................................4-67

4.7.1.2 Birds ...............................................................................................4-68

4.7.1.3 Fish .................................................................................................4-69

4.7.1.4 Mussels...........................................................................................4-70

4.7.1.5 Insects.............................................................................................4-71

4.7.1.6 Plants ..............................................................................................4-71

4.7.2 Candidate for Federal Listing ...........................................................................4-72

4.7.3 Federally Managed Species ..............................................................................4-72

4.7.4 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................4-73

4.7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................4-74

4.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources ................................................................4-75

4.8.1 General Land Use Types...................................................................................4-75

4.8.1.1 Pipeline Rights-of-Way ..................................................................4-76

4.8.1.2 Use of Existing Rights-of-Way ......................................................4-89

4.8.1.3 Additional Temporary Work Spaces ..............................................4-89

4.8.1.4 Aboveground Facilities...................................................................4-91

4.8.1.5 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards ................................................4-91

4.8.1.6 Access Roads..................................................................................4-92

4.8.1.7 Pipeline Easements.........................................................................4-92

4.8.2 Planned Residential and Commercial/Industrial Developments.......................4-92

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Land Uses....................................................................4-96

4.8.4 Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-100

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................4-101

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-102

4.9.1 Region of Influence ........................................................................................4-102

4.9.2 Population .......................................................................................................4-103

4.9.3 Employment and Economy.............................................................................4-104

4.9.4 Local Taxes and Government Revenue ..........................................................4-106

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Table of Contents iv 

4.9.4.1 Sales and Use Taxes .....................................................................4-106

4.9.4.2 Special Contractor Tax .................................................................4-106

4.9.4.3 Property Tax Revenues.................................................................4-106

4.9.4.4 Impacts on Government Revenues ...............................................4-108

4.9.5 Housing...........................................................................................................4-108

4.9.6 Public Services................................................................................................4-111

4.9.7 Transportation/Traffic Impacts .......................................................................4-112

4.9.8 Property Values...............................................................................................4-113

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................4-114

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys..............................................................................4-114

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan ......................................................................4-115

4.10.3 Native American Consultation........................................................................4-115

4.10.4 Compliance with the NHPA ...........................................................................4-116

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE .....................................................................................4-117

4.11.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................4-117

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality .....................................................................4-117

4.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................4-119

4.11.1.3 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation..............................................4-125

4.11.2 Noise...............................................................................................................4-127

4.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................4-127

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels...................................................................4-128

4.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ...................................................4-128

4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................4-130

4.12.1 Planned Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Area ........................4-131

4.12.2 Other Projects and Activities ..........................................................................4-133

4.12.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action ...................................4-135

4.12.3.1 Geology and Soils.........................................................................4-135

4.12.3.2 Water Resources and Wetlands ....................................................4-136

4.12.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife................................................................4-137

4.12.3.4 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources...............................4-138

4.12.3.5 Air Quality and Noise...................................................................4-139

4.12.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................4-139

4.13 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...................................................................................4-139

4.13.1 Pipeline Facilities............................................................................................4-139

4.13.1.1 Pipeline Safety Standards .............................................................4-140

4.13.1.2 Pipeline Accident Data .................................................................4-144

4.13.2 Impact on Public Safety..................................................................................4-146

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1

5.1 summary of the staff’s environmental analysis ...............................................................5-1

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION....................................................5-15

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

 Appendix A DISTRIBUTION LIST

 Appendix B PROPOSED FACILITIES AND ALTERNATIVES MAPS

 Appendix C TABLES OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED RESOURCES

 Appendix D SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN AND 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS AND STORM WATER 

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS FOR ARKANSAS AND MISSISSIPPI

 Appendix F NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

 Appendix G LIST OF PREPARERS

 Appendix H REFERENCES

v Table of Contents 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Table of Contents vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1-1 General Location Map..................................................................................................2-2

Figure 2.2.1-1 Typical 36-Inch-Diameter Pipeline Construction Right-of-Way Cross Section 

without Topsoil Segregation.......................................................................................2-11

Figure 2.5.1-1 Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Sequence .......................................................2-17

Figure 2.5.1-2 Typical Waterbody Crossing ......................................................................................2-23

Figure 2.5.1-3 Waterbody Crossing, Flumed Crossing Method ........................................................2-25

Figure 2.5.1-4 Typical HDD Waterbody Crossing ............................................................................2-26

Figure 2.5.1-5 Typical Saturated Wetland Crossing ..........................................................................2-28

Figure 3.2-1 Fayetteville Lateral Project Area Pipeline Systems and Route Alternatives................3-8

Figure 3.3-1 Greenville Lateral Project Area and Alternative Route................................................3-9

Figure 4.1.3-1 Seismic Source Zones and Known Earthquake Epicenters, Fayetteville Lateral .........4-5

Figure 4.1.3-2 Seismic Source Zones and Known Earthquake Epicenters, Greenville Lateral ...........4-6

Figure 4.1.3-3 Peak Ground Acceleration with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 

Years, Fayetteville Lateral............................................................................................4-7

Figure 4.1.3-4 Peak Ground Acceleration with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 

Years, Greenville Lateral..............................................................................................4-8

Figure 4.1.3-5 Seismic Hazard Zones, Greenville and Fayetteville Lateral.........................................4-9

Figure 4.1.3-6 Shallow Bedrock, Fayetteville Lateral .......................................................................4-14

Figure 4.1.3-7 Shallow Bedrock, Greenville Lateral .........................................................................4-15

Figure 4.8.3-1 Managed and Special Land Use Areas in the Project Area ........................................4-98

Figure 4.12.1-1 Natural Gas Pipeline Projects near the Proposed Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project.....................................................................................................4-134

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

vii Table of Contents 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.3-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations..............................................................1-4

Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process ...................................................1-8

Table 2.1.1-1 Pipeline Facilities .........................................................................................................2-3

Table 2.1.2-1 Aboveground Facilities.................................................................................................2-5

Table 2.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements..................................................................................2-7

Table 2.2.1-1 Land Requirements for Rugged Terrain Crossings ......................................................2-9

Table 3.3.1-1 Comparison of Alternative A to the Corresponding Segment of the Proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral.....................................................................................................3-10

Table 3.3.1-2 Comparison of Fayetteville Lateral to Alternative B..................................................3-11

Table 3.3.1-3 Comparison of Greenville Lateral to Alternative C....................................................3-12

Table 3.3.2-1 Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Fayetteville Lateral ..........................3-14

Table 3.3.2-2 Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Greenville Lateral ............................3-17

Table 3.3.3-1 Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Alternatives to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Project ..............................................................................3-20

Table 3.3.4-1 Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral ..........................................................3-22

Table 4.1.3-1 Range of Earthquake Intensities ...................................................................................4-4

Table 4.1.3-2 Earthquake Epicenters within 35 Miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and 

Greenville Lateral Routes...........................................................................................4-10

Table 4.1.3-3 Fault Zones within 100 Miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral 

Routes.........................................................................................................................4-11

Table 4.3.1-1 Private Water Supply Well Locations Within 150 feet of the Proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral Workspaces ................................................................................4-26

Table 4.3.1-2 Private Water Supply Well Locations Within 150 feet of the Proposed 

Greenville Lateral Workspaces ..................................................................................4-27

Table 4.3.2-1 Watersheds within the Proposed Project Area............................................................4-29

Table 4.3.2-2 Sensitive and Impaired Waterbodies ..........................................................................4-31

Table 4.3.2-3 Known Contaminated Sediments near the Proposed Project Area.............................4-33

Table 4.3.2-4 Major Waterbodies .....................................................................................................4-34

Table 4.3.2-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the Pipeline System .................................4-36

Table 4.4.1-1 Summary of Impacts to Wetland Communities..........................................................4-41

Table 4.4.1-2 Summary of Wetland Impacts to Forested and Scrub-shrub Communities 

within the Maintained Permanent Right-of-Way .......................................................4-46

Table 4.4.1-3 Wetlands Impacted by Additional Temporary Workspaces .......................................4-47

Table 4.4.1-4 Wetlands Impacted by Access Roads.........................................................................4-49

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

the Project Area ..........................................................................................................4-66

Table 4.8.1-1 Summary of Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Project (in miles) .........................4-77

Table 4.8.1-2 Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated with Construction and Operation of 

the Proposed Pipelines (in acres)................................................................................4-78

Table 4.8.1-3 Special Crops Crossed by Temporary and Permanent Rights-of-Way.......................4-82

Table 4.8.1-4 Commercial/Industrial Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Workspaces ........4-87

Table 4.8.1-5 Residential Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Workspaces...........................4-88

Table 4.8.1-6 Summary of Collocated Rights-of-Way .....................................................................4-90

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Table of Contents viii 

Table 4.8.1-7 Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated with Construction and Operation of 

Aboveground Facilities (in acres) ..............................................................................4-93

Table 4.8.1-8 Pipe Yards and Contractor Yards Used for Construction...........................................4-95

Table 4.9.2-1 Population Summary for Counties Crossed by the Proposed Project.......................4-103

Table 4.9.3-1 Economic and Employment Conditions ...................................................................4-105

Table 4.9.4-1 Estimated Property Tax Revenues............................................................................4-107

Table 4.9.5-1 Existing Housing Conditions in Affected Counties (2000)......................................4-109

Table 4.9.5-2 Existing Temporary Housing Conditions in Affected Counties...............................4-110

Table 4.9.6-1 Existing Public Services and Facilities in Affected Counties...................................4-111

Table 4.11.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................4-118

Table 4.11.1-2 Existing Ambient Air Quality Data ..........................................................................4-120

Table 4.11.1-3 Compressor Station Operation Emission Source Information..................................4-122

Table 4.11.1-4 Compressor Station Construction Emission Source Information .............................4-126

Table 4.11.1-5 Project Impacts .........................................................................................................4-127

Table 4.11.2-1 Ambient Existing Noise at NSAs .............................................................................4-128

Table 4.11.2-2 Projected Noise Impact at NSAs for HDD Sites 23 and 25......................................4-129

Table 4.11.2-3 Noise Quality Analysis, Kosciusko Compressor Station..........................................4-130

Table 4.12-1 Existing or Proposed Activities or Projects in the Vicinity of the 

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project ...............................................................4-132

Table 4.13.1-1 Class Locations by Milepost.....................................................................................4-142

Table 4.13.1-2 High Consequence Areas..........................................................................................4-144

Table 4.13.1-3 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause...................................................................4-145

Table 4.13.1-4 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)......................................................4-146

Table 4.13.1-5 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984) ..............................................4-146

Table 4.13.2-1 Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems 

a,b/ ............................................................................................................................4-147

Table 4.13.2-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths a/ .............................................................................4-148

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

ADHHS Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (formerly Arkansas 

Department of Health) 

AGC Arkansas Geological Commission 

AGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

AHPP Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 

ANHC Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

ANHP Arkansas Natural Heritage Program 

ANRC Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 

AOGC Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission 

ANR ANR Pipeline Company 

APCEC Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission 

APE area of potential effect 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AQCR air quality control region 

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act 

ATWS additional temporary workspace 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

AWS American Welding Society 

BA biological assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

bhp brake horsepower 

BMP best management practices 

BO biological opinion 

Btu British thermal unit 

C centigrade 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendment 

CenterPoint CenterPoint Energy 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CI Chief Inspector 

cm centimeter 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

Columbia Gulf Columbia Gulf Transmission Company 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA A-weighted decibel scale 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

ix Table of Contents 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD emergency shut down 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GIS geographic information system 

Gulf South Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P. 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCA high consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drilling 

hp horsepower 

IBWO ivory-billed woodpecker 

INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

kPA kilopascal 

LEC low emission combustion 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

m3

 cubic meter 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area

MLV main line valve 

MMcf/d million cubic feet per day 

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity 

MMNS Mississippi Museum of Natural Sciences 

MP milepost 

MRT Mississippi River Transmission 

MSNHP Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

M&R metering and regulating 

MSOGB Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPL Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

Table of Contents x 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbons 

NNSR nonattainment new source review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

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

Texas Gas Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project and Request for Comments 

on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS U.S. National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI National Rivers Inventory 

NSA noise-sensitive area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 ozone

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

ORV outstandingly remarkable value 

Pb lead 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFO palustrine forested 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than less than 2.5 microns 

PM10 particulate matter less than less than 10 microns 

ppm parts per million 

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Project Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

PSS palustrine scrub shrub 

PTE potential to emit 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RM Richter Magnitude 

ROW right-of-way 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

scf standard cubic feet 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SI spark ignition 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

xi Table of Contents 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TEXAS GAS FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Southern Natural Southern Natural Gas Company

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures 

SQG small quantity generator 

Southwestern Southwestern Energy Company 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

Tennessee Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

Texas Eastern Texas Eastern Transmission Company 

Texas Gas Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 

tpy tons per year 

Trunkline Trunkline Gas Company, LLC 

TSP total suspended particulates 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WHPA wellhead protection area 

WMA wildlife management area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

Table of Contents xii 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project 

(Project) proposed by Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) has been prepared by the staff of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to fulfill the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Commission's implementing regulations (Title 18 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 

implementing NEPA (Title 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The purpose of this document is to make public 

our1

 analysis of the environmental impacts that would likely result from the construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. This document has been prepared in cooperation with the following federal 

agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS); and this state agency: the Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission (ANHC). 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On December 15, 2006, Texas Gas filed a request with the FERC to use its pre-filing process for the 

proposed Project. This request was approved on December 28, 2006, and a pre-filing Docket No. (PF07-

2-000) was established to place information filed by Texas Gas and related documents issued by the 

FERC into the public record. 

On July 11, 2007, Texas Gas filed an application with the FERC for a Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity (Certificate) to construct, operate, and maintain natural gas pipeline, compression, and 

related facilities in Arkansas and Mississippi. The application was filed in Docket No. CP07-417-000 

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. 

We have prepared our analysis based on this application and subsequent filings by Texas Gas, and on 

comments filed about the scope and impact of the Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Project would be designed to transport up to 853 MMcf/d2

 of natural gas through the proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral and up to 751 MMcf/d3

 of natural gas through the proposed Greenville Lateral. The 

proposed facilities would include: 

• 166.2 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White, Woodruff, St. 

Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas; and Coahoma County, Mississippi (Fayetteville 

Lateral); 

• 96.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, Holmes, and 

Attalla Counties, Mississippi (Greenville Lateral); 

• 0.8 mile of 36-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline in Attalla County, Mississippi (Kosciusko 36-inch 

Tie-in Lateral); 

 

1

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. 

2

 Based on 985.2 British thermal units (Btu) per standard cubic feet (scf), 841,000 million Btu per day 

(MMBtu/d) approximately equals 853 MMcf/d. 

3

 Based on 1,021.3 Btu/scf , 768,000 MMBtu/d approximately equals 751 MMcf/d. 

 ES-1 Executive Summary

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• 0.4 mile of 20-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline in Attalla County, Mississippi (Kosciusko 20-inch 

Tie-in Lateral); 

• a 10,650-horsepower (hp) compressor station at milepost 96.4 on the Greenville Lateral in Attala 

County, Mississippi (Kosciusko Compressor Station); 

• pipe modifications at Texas Gas’s existing Greenville Compressor Station in Washington County, 

Mississippi; and 

• 29 metering and regulating (M&R) stations, 30 interconnects (tie-ins), 21 main line valves 

(MLVs), and three launchers and three receivers. 

The Project would be constructed in two phases over about 8 months. Phase I would include construction 

of the first 66 miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and related facilities from Conway County to the Bald 

Knob area of White County, Arkansas. Phase II would include construction of the remaining 100 miles 

of the Fayetteville Lateral from White County, Arkansas to Coahoma County, Mississippi, and the entire 

Greenville Lateral, including the Kosciusko Compressor Station and tie-in laterals. Texas Gas proposes 

beginning construction of both Phases I and II in June 2008. However, Phase I would be placed in 

service by August 1, 2008, and Phase II would be placed in service by January 1, 2009. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

On March 6, 2007, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Texas Gas Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project and Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI explained the pre-filing 

process, described the proposed Project, and provided a preliminary list of environmental issues. The 

intent of the pre-filing process is to initiate scoping early in the project planning process and to encourage 

citizens, governmental entities, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues prior to an 

application being formally filed with the FERC. The NOI was sent to interested parties, including 

affected landowners; federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; 

Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties. We conducted public 

scoping meetings in Lexington, Mississippi, and in Forrest City and Searcy, Arkansas, on March 19, 20, 

and 21, 2007, respectively, to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the environmental 

issues to be addressed in the EIS. 

On July 20, 2007, the FERC issued a Notice of Application for the proposed Project in Docket No. CP07-

417-000. The notice announced that Texas Gas’s application had been filed with the Commission on July 

11, 2007, informed us that pre-filing process had ended, invited additional written comments on the 

proposed Project from the public, and established a closing date for receipt of comments on the 

application of August 13, 2007. 

In response to our notices and scoping meetings, we received 22 written comments and several oral 

comments about the Project. The comments expressed concern about location; safety; easements; use of 

eminent domain; noise; impacts on agriculture, wetlands, soils, water resources, wildlife, vegetation, 

threatened and endangered species, national wildlife refuges, land use, wetland reserve program lands, the 

Natchez Trace Parkway, and residences. This draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and mailed to various federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American 

tribes, newspapers, public libraries; television and radio stations; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; 

and other interested parties (i.e., landowners, miscellaneous individuals, and environmental groups who 

provided scoping comments or asked to remain on the mailing list). A formal notice indicating that the 

draft EIS is available for review and comment will be published in the Federal Register. The public has 

Executive Summary ES-2 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
45 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register to comment on the draft EIS in the form of 

written comments and at public meetings to be held in the project area. All environmental comments 

received on the draft EIS will be addressed in the final EIS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

Construction of the Project would disturb about 5,057.2 acres of land (including the pipeline construction 

rights-of-way, aboveground facility construction workspaces, additional temporary workspaces, access 

roads, and pipe/contractor yards). About 1,731.2 acres would be required for the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way and aboveground facilities. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would have minimal impact on geologic resources and 

geologic hazards are not expected to be an issue for Project construction and operation. About 55 miles 

of the westernmost portion of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross Southwestern Energy 

Company’s (Southwestern) Fayetteville Shale gas production area. Texas Gas has consulted with 

Southwestern to develop a pipeline route through the gas production area to minimize conflicts with 

ongoing development of this resource and to plan locations for tie-ins to interconnect with Southwestern’s 

gathering pipelines. Blasting may be required along portions of the Fayetteville Lateral but would not be 

required for construction of the Greenville Lateral. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would have minimal impact on soils. About 79 

percent of the soil affected by the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would be considered agriculturally 

important, i.e., Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. About 67 percent of the soil that 

would be affected by construction of the Greenville Lateral would be classified as Prime Farmland or 

Prime Farmland when adequately drained. Texas Gas would implement the mitigation measures 

described in our4

 Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) to minimize 

impacts on soils due to construction of the Project. In agricultural and residential areas, up to 12 inches 

of topsoil would be removed and segregated from spoil. Subsoil would be decompacted, if needed, 

topsoil would be returned following construction, and the construction right-of-way would be revegetated 

according to our Plan. Impacts on soils resulting from construction and operation of the proposed 

pipelines would be temporary because the proposed pipeline would be buried and disturbed areas within 

the construction and permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to their preconstruction uses following 

restoration. Operation of aboveground facilities would permanently affect about 58 acres of Prime 

Farmland soil. Based on the prevalence of Prime Farmland soils in the Project area, we do not believe 

this loss to be significant. Texas Gas would use its Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan to minimize 

the spread of invasive plants. 

Construction and operation of the Project would have minimal impact on groundwater resources. No 

public water supply wells would be within 150 feet of the Fayetteville Lateral. Three public water supply 

wells would be within 150 feet of the Greenville Lateral. The Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality has no specific requirements for construction near these wells other than a request that caution be 

observed to avoid damage to the wellheads. Texas Gas would clearly mark the wellheads to prevent 

damage during construction. The greatest potential for impact on groundwater would be from spills, 

leaks, or other releases of hazardous substances during Project construction or operation. Texas Gas 

would use best management practices (BMPs) and implement the procedures of its Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan to prevent and control spills of hazardous materials near 

these wells. 

 

4

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 

 ES-3 Executive Summary

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
The Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (ADHHS) identified three well head protection 

areas within 1 mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral and informed that two watersheds (Brewer Lake 

and Little Red River watersheds) would be crossed. The ADHHS suggested a route variation and 

alternative to move the Fayetteville Lateral out of these watersheds or, alternatively, that Texas Gas 

should provide the ADHHS with its plan for constructing through the watersheds so that ADHHS may 

document any potential impact on the water supply. We analyzed the route variation and alternative 

suggested by the ADHHS but concluded that the corresponding segments of the proposed route were the 

preferred alternatives particularly due to the increased impact on residences along the alternative routes. 

We have, however, recommended that Texas Gas consult with the ADHHS about the construction 

methods it would use to cross the Brewer Lake and Little Red River watersheds so that any additional 

mitigation measures to protect these resources could be identified prior to construction. 

Thirty-seven private water supply wells would be within 150 feet of Project construction workspaces. 

Texas Gas would conduct pre- and post-construction yield and water quality tests on water wells within 

150 feet of construction workspaces, with landowner permission, and would repair any water supply 

systems damaged by construction activities. Texas Gas would provide a temporary source of water if 

water supplies are disrupted until repairs are made. We have recommended that Texas Gas update the 

locations of water wells and springs within 150 feet of construction workspaces prior to construction. 

The Project would impact surface water resources since it would cross a total of 483 waterbodies (70 

perennial and 413 intermittent) including the Mississippi River. To minimize impacts, Texas Gas would 

cross the Mississippi River and 15 other waterbodies by horizontal directional drill (HDD). Texas Gas 

would cross Cadron Creek (a state-designated Extraordinary Resource Waters and a National River 

Inventories [NRI] listed waterbody) by open cut. We have recommended that Texas Gas consult with the 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and NPS about crossing Cadron Creek and to 

file a supplemental site-specific crossing plan based on this consultation. To minimize Project 

construction impacts on surface waters, Texas Gas would implement the measures described in its Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures (Procedures), and the requirements in the permits issued by the other federal and state 

agencies. 

 

Construction of the proposed Project would impact a total of 141.3 acres of wetlands. Of this total, 107.4 

acres would be temporarily impacted during construction and allowed to revert to preconstruction 

conditions. About 33.9 acres of wetlands would be within the 30-foot-wide maintained portion of the 

permanent right-of-way. Of those 33.9 acres, about 13.2 acres would be permanently converted from 

forested and scrub-shrub wetland types to wetlands with herbaceous vegetation. These impacts would 

occur in a 10-foot-wide herbaceous strip Texas Gas would maintain above the centerline to facilitate 

operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The remaining 20.7 acres of impact would be associated with 

the conversion from a forested community to a shrub-scrub or emergent system within two 10-foot-wide 

strips on either side of the centerline strip. To minimize impacts on wetlands, Texas Gas would 

implement the construction, restoration, and maintenance measures described in our Procedures. The 

proposed pipeline routes have been developed in consultation with the U.S. Army corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and would avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands where practicable. Wetland impacts would 

be minimized further by using HDDs to cross several larger wetlands and associated. Texas Gas would 

develop compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts, in consultation with the USACE Little Rock, 

Memphis, and Vicksburg Districts. Compensation may include the purchase of wetland mitigation bank 

credits at a mitigation ratio determined by the USACE, but specific compensation would be finalized 

during the course of the USACE Section 404 permitting for the proposed Project. Also, about 0.2 acre of 

forested wetland would be permanently lost due to operation of the proposed Kosciusko Compressor 

Station. However, we have recommended that Texas Gas reconfigure the site layout to avoid this 

permanent loss. 

Executive Summary ES-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

Twelve federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occur within the proposed Project 

area. These include: one mammal (Louisiana black bear), four birds (bald eagle, interior least tern, 

ivory-billed woodpecker, and woodstork), one fish (pallid sturgeon), four mussels (fat pocketbook, pink 

mucket, scaleshell, and speckled pocketbook), one insect (American burying beetle), and one plant 

(pondberry). In addition, one candidate fish species was identified: the yellow cheek darter. A number 

of state-listed plant and mussel species also were identified within the vicinity of the Project area. The 

FWS and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) recommended that a survey for the listed mussel 

species be conducted in 12 Arkansas waterbodies that would be crossed by the open-cut method. Texas 

Gas completed this survey in October 2007; however, the survey report has not yet been provided to the 

FERC or the FWS. Texas Gas indicates, however, that none of the federally listed mussel species were 

found. The FWS and ANHC are concerned about possible impacts on habitat of the pondberry, and the 

ANHC recommended avoiding its potential habitat. We recommend that Texas Gas identify the milepost 

locations of potential pondberry habitat within or immediately adjacent to construction workspaces and 

explain how it would implement the ANHC’s recommendations to avoid suitable pondberry habitat at 

each location. We believe that, except for the federally listed mussel species, the Project is not likely to 

adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species. A determination on the federally listed 

mussel species would be made only after review of Texas Gas’s pending mussel survey report. We also 

have recommended that Texas Gas not begin construction activities until our consultation with the FWS 

about federally listed threatened or endangered species is concluded. 

 

Agricultural land would be the primary land use affected by construction and operation of the Project. 

Upland and managed forest land use would have the next greatest impact. Open land use types (nonforested rangeland, pastureland, non-agricultural fields, prairie and open land in the early stages of 

succession) and open water, and minor amounts of commercial/industrial land and residential land are the 

remaining land use types that would be affected by the Project. Land use impacts would include 

disturbance of existing land uses within construction work areas during construction and creation of a 

new permanent right-of-way for operation and maintenance of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. 

Most land uses would revert to preconstruction land use during operation. 

The primary impact on agricultural land would be the loss of crops within the work area, and possibly 

immediately adjacent areas, since this land would be taken out of production for one growing season. 

Construction may affect irrigation which may affect crop yields. About 99 acres of the agricultural land 

crossed by the Project has pivot-irrigation and construction activities may interfere with it. Operation of 

the Project would not likely affect pivot irrigation systems. Construction may affect special crops such as 

rice. We have recommended that, prior to construction, Texas Gas provide site-specific plans for crossing 

rice fields impacted by construction since adequate restoration of these fields would be needed to 

reestablish productivity. Following construction, most agricultural land uses would continue within the 

permanent right-of-way and any loss of production would be a short-term impact. However, about 30.6 

acres of orchards would be affected by Project construction, and 15.4 acres within the permanent right-ofway would be lost to orchard production during operation of the Project. Texas Gas would compensate 

landowners for the loss of orchard crops and this land use within the permanent right-of-way. 

The primary impact of construction on forest land and managed forest land by the Project would be the 

removal of trees and shrubs from the construction right-of-way. Following construction, trees and shrubs 

would be allowed to regenerate in temporary workspaces, but since regrowth of forests could take over 20 

years, the impact would be long-term to permanent. The impact on forest land use within the permanent 

50-foot-wide right-of-way would be a permanent change to open land. Texas Gas would compensate 

landowners for loss of timber in accordance with negotiated easement agreements. 

 ES-5 Executive Summary

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
The Project would cross two federally managed areas: the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

in Woodruff County, Arkansas, and the Hillside NWR in Holmes County, Mississippi. Both would be 

crossed by HDD, thereby minimizing impacts. 

The Greenville Lateral would cross one tract that is in the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). 

Impacts to the WRP land would be minimized by avoiding existing wetland habitat as much as possible 

and paralleling an existing road right-of-way. Impacts on WRP lands generally would be temporary. 

Following construction, the right-of-way would be restored to preconstruction conditions, or better. Texas 

Gas would select specific native species for revegetation of the WRP tract in consultation with the 

landowner/tenant and NRCS. Based on our consultation with the NRCS, the proposed route appears 

reasonable. However, the NRCS states that Texas Gas would be required to obtain a subordination of 

NRSC’s easement for this tract prior to construction. We have recommended that Texas Gas complete 

consultation with the NRCS and develop a site-specific restoration plan for the affected WRP land prior 

to construction. 

The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway), which is managed 

by the NPS. Texas Gas would cross the Parkway by HDD to minimize and avoid direct construction 

impacts to the Parkway, its viewshed, and adjacent forested areas. The route across the Parkway and the 

crossing method were developed in consultation with the NPS to minimize impacts on this resource. 

 

Texas Gas consulted with the Arkansas and Mississippi SHPOs and performed cultural resource 

investigations for areas that would be potentially 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 SHPOs’ comments on such studies. 

Texas Gas prepared a Plan 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 proposed Project. 

Conservative modeling for the proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station emission sources indicates that 

the total facility impact would be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, impacts 

on air quality are not expected to be significant. The calculated noise level for the proposed compressors 

would be below 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA). 

To minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Project, 

Texas Gas has developed and would implement several measures and plans including but not limited to: 

• our Plan; 

• our Procedures; 

• BMPs; 

• SPCC Plan; 

• Hydrostatic Test Plan; 

• SWPPP; and 

Executive Summary ES-6 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan. 

Based on our review of these measures, we have determined that they are acceptable and consistent with 

our guidance documents,5

 but we have made several recommendations to further avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate environmental impacts. Also, Texas Gas would be required to obtain and adhere to several 

federal, state, and local permits and authorizations that may include additional requirements to minimize 

and mitigate environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project. Detailed 

descriptions of environmental impacts including cumulative impacts, Texas Gas’s proposed impact 

avoidance and mitigation measures, and our recommendations are included in sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 

5.0 of the draft EIS. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We considered the alternatives of no action or postponed action. While the no action or postponed action 

alternatives would eliminate or postpone the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, the objectives 

of the proposed Project would not be met and Texas Gas would not be able to provide the additional 

infrastructure to support a new source of natural gas supply in the U.S. 

There are no other pipeline systems that would be able to meet this Project’s purpose and need. With 

respect to the pipeline alternatives, we concluded that there were no practicable system alternatives or 

design alternatives. We evaluated eight route alternatives and 24 route variations for the Project that were 

developed during pre-filing. Consultation with federal and state agencies about these route alternatives 

and variations and our analysis resulted in the incorporation of some of them into the pipeline route that 

was ultimately proposed by Texas Gas in its application We identified no other route alternatives or 

variations that would significantly reduce environmental impacts. We have recommended that Texas Gas 

develop an alternative site plan for the Kosciusko Compressor Station that would minimize or avoid 

permanent impact to a forested wetland. 

CONCLUSION 

As part of our review, we developed measures that we believe would appropriately and reasonably avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. We are recommending that these measures be attached as conditions to any authorization the 

Commission may issue. We conclude that if the Project is found to be in the public interest and is 

constructed and operated in accordance with Texas Gas’s proposed mitigation measures and our 

mitigation measures, then the proposed Project would result in a limited adverse environmental impact. 

In support of this conclusion, we offer the following: 

• The Fayetteville Lateral would generally be collocated with or parallel to existing rights-ofway for about 90.5 miles, or 54 percent, of its length. While the Greenville Lateral would 

largely require construction of a new right-way, the proposed route is largely located within 

agricultural land use, minimizing the need to clear more forested areas and wetlands. 

• HDD construction methods would be used to cross many sensitive resources. 

 

5

 The Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan and Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures. 

 ES-7 Executive Summary

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• Texas Gas would implement our Plan and Procedures, BMPs, SPCC Plan, and SWPPP, to 

mitigate impacts on soils, wetlands, and waterbodies. 

• Texas Gas would implement an agency-approved wetland mitigation plan to mitigate for, and 

minimize impacts, on wetlands. 

• Consultation with the FWS, as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would 

be completed, and appropriate mitigation measures would be in-place before construction 

would be allowed to commence. 

• Consultation with the SHPOs and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, would be 

completed before construction would be allowed to commence. 

• Texas Gas would implement an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program 

that would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of any 

FERC authorization. 

Executive Summary ES-8 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On July 11, 2007, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) filed an application with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity (Certificate) to construct, operate, and maintain the Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project 

(Project). The application was filed in Docket No. CP07-417-000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. When completed, the Project would be 

capable of transporting 853 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d)1

 of natural gas through the proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral and 751 MMcf/d2

 of natural gas through the proposed Greenville Lateral. The 

Project would transport gas produced from the Fayetteville Shale in north central Arkansas to markets 

served by Texas Gas and other interstate transportation companies. The pipeline system would consist of 

the following facilities: 

• Fayetteville Lateral. Originating in Conway County, Arkansas, this approximately 166.2-

mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline would extend eastward through Faulkner, Cleburne, 

White, Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas; cross the Mississippi 

River near Helena, Arkansas; and terminate at an interconnection with the existing Texas Gas 

Main Line in Coahoma County, Mississippi. 

• Greenville Lateral. Originating at the existing Texas Gas Greenville Compressor Station in 

Greenville, Mississippi, this approximately 96.4-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline would 

extend southeastward through Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, and Holmes Counties, 

Mississippi, to an interconnection with existing Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf 

South) and Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern Natural) facilities in Attala County, 

Mississippi. 

• Tie-in pipelines. A 0.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline would connect the 

proposed Greenville Lateral to Gulf South’s existing pipeline; and a 0.4-mile-long, 20-inchdiameter tie-in pipeline would connect the proposed Greenville Lateral to Southern Natural’s 

existing pipeline at the Greenville Lateral terminus near Kosciusko, Mississippi. 

• The Kosciusko Compressor Station. One 10,650-horsepower (hp) compressor station 

would be constructed near milepost (MP) 96.4 on the Greenville Lateral in Attala County, 

Mississippi. 

• Piping Modifications. Piping modifications would be made at Texas Gas’s existing 

Greenville Compressor Station in Greenville, Mississippi. 

• Ancillary Facilities. Ancillary facilities including interconnects, metering and regulating 

stations, block valves, etc., would be constructed at various locations along the proposed 

pipelines. 

We3

 have prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impacts 

associated with construction and operation of the Project. 

 

1

 Based on 985.2 British thermal units (Btu) per standard cubic feet (scf), 841,000 million Btu per day 

(MMBtu/d) approximately equals 853 MMcf/d. 2

 Based on 1,021.3 Btu/scf , 768,000 MMBtu/d approximately equals 751 MMcf/d. 

3

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects (OEP). 

1-1 1.0 – Introduction 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
The Project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would include the construction of the first 66 

miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and related facilities from Conway County to the Bald Knob area of 

White County, Arkansas. Phase II would include construction of the remaining 100 miles of the 

Fayetteville Lateral from White County to Coahoma County, Mississippi, and the entire Greenville 

Lateral, including the Kosciusko Compressor Station and tie-ins. Texas Gas proposes beginning 

construction of both Phases I and II in June 2008. However, Phase I would be placed in service by 

August 1, 2008, and Phase II would be placed in service by January 1, 2009. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

Advances in technology have provided natural gas producers with the ability to produce significant 

amounts of natural gas from the Fayetteville Shale in north-central Arkansas. This region, however, 

currently lacks the pipeline infrastructure and capacity to transport this new and increasing natural gas 

supply to markets in the mid-western, northeastern, and southeastern U.S. Texas Gas states that the 

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project is designed to meet the transportation and economic needs of 

these producers by creating new interstate transportation capacity from the north-central Arkansas 

production area to markets served by Texas Gas, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), Columbia 

Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf), ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

Company (Tennessee), and Texas Eastern Transmission System (Texas Eastern). Southwestern Energy 

Company (Southwestern), a natural gas producer and the anchor shipper of the Project, also requires that 

the Fayetteville Lateral route connect its production area to other existing pipeline systems at Bald Knob, 

Arkansas, in order to provide sufficient transportation flexibility. 

Several government studies have demonstrated increasing demand and a need for additional supplies of 

natural gas nationally, and in the Midwest and Southeast specifically (DOE/EIA, 2001, 2004, 2005). The 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) estimates that the total 

energy consumption in the U.S. will increase from 100.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2005 to 131.2 

quadrillion Btu per year in 2030 (DOE/EIA, 2007). To maintain pace with growing energy demands, the 

EIA anticipates that the consumption of natural gas in the U.S. will grow from 22.0 trillion cubic feet 

(Tcf) per year in 2005 to 26.1 Tcf by 2030. The growth in natural gas demand is being driven primarily 

by the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation and industrial applications (DOE/EIA, 2007). 

Natural gas supplies in the U.S. currently come from three main sources: domestic production, pipeline 

imports from Canada and Mexico, and imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Net pipeline imports of 

natural gas from Canada and Mexico are expected to decline in coming years, and although LNG 

represents an increasingly important source of natural gas, LNG imports are expected to account for only 

about 15 percent of the U.S. natural gas consumption by 2030. Domestically produced natural gas will 

continue to account for the majority of U.S. natural gas consumption, with onshore production expected 

to constitute the bulk of that supply, growing to 20.6 Tcf by 2030 (DOE/EIA, 2007). A major portion of 

onshore production of natural gas is expected to come from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight 

sands, and coal bed methane). The DOE/EIA (2007) projects that natural gas produced from 

unconventional sources in the lower 48 states will account for about 50 percent of the total domestic 

production of natural gas by 2030. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for approving the construction and operation of pipeline 

facilities in the U.S. As such, the FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this Draft EIS in 

compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 1500-1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR Part 380). 

1.0 – Introduction 1-2 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Consistent with NEPA and their respective responsibilities and regulations, the Department of the Interior 

(DOI), U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in Tupelo, Mississippi, and the DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Jackson, Mississippi, are 

federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. The Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission (ANHC) is a state cooperating agency for the development of this EIS. 

This Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental issues associated with the Project, presents our 

recommended mitigation measures, and will be used as an element of the Commission’s review of the 

Texas Gas application and will be used to determine whether to authorize the Project. Final approval will 

be granted only if, after consideration of both environmental and non-environmental issues, the FERC 

finds that the proposed Project is in the public interest. 

Our principal purposes in preparing this EIS are to: 

• identify and assess potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the natural and 

human environments that would result from implementation of the proposed action; 

• identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the natural and human environments; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts; 

and 

• facilitate public involvement in identifying significant environmental impacts. 

The analysis presented in this Draft EIS focuses on the facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction 

(i.e., the new pipeline system and ancillary facilities as proposed by Texas Gas). 

The topics addressed in this EIS include geology; soils; water resources; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife, 

fisheries, threatened, endangered, and special-status species; land use, recreation, and visual resources; 

cultural resources; socioeconomics; air quality and noise; cumulative effects; reliability and safety; and 

alternatives. The Draft EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists and the 

environmental consequences of the proposed Project, and analyzes alternatives and variations to the 

Project. The Draft EIS also presents conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

A number of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies have permit or approval authority or 

consultation requirements for portions of the proposed Project (see table 1.3-1). The FERC states in its 

orders that applicants should cooperate with federal, state, and local agencies; however, any state or local 

permits issued with respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions of any 

Certificate the FERC may issue. The FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and 

local authorities, but this does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state and 

local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the 

FERC.4

 

 

4

 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service 

Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC 61,091 

(1990) and 59 FERC 61,094 (1992). 

1-3 1.0 – Introduction 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 1.3-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations 

Federal 

FERC NGA, Section 7(c) (pipeline) – Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) NHPA, Section 106 – Comment on the Project and its effect on 

historic properties 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Memphis 

District, Little Rock District, and Vicksburg District 

Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 – Permit 

Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404 – Authorization 

U.S. DOI 

FWS, Arkansas and Mississippi Field Offices 

Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened and 

endangered species consultation 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act – Consultation 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Easement to traverse 

National Wildlife Refuges 

U.S DOI 

NPS 

Easement to traverse the Natchez Trace Parkway 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV 

and VI 

CWA, Section 401 – Permitting authority delegated to states 

CWA, Section 404 – Oversee issuance of the Section 404 

permit 

CWA, Section 402 – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit (Notice of Intent). Construction 

General Permit – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

NRCS

Easement to traverse Wetland Reserve Program lands 

Arkansas 

Arkansas Resource Conservation Commission (ARCC) Review and permit withdrawals of water for hydrostatic testing 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) Review and comment on the impacts on state-listed species 

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) Review and comment on Project activities potentially affecting 

cultural resources 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) Review and comment on Project activities located within wildlife 

management areas 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Permit to construct and operate facilities with the potential for 

air emissions 

CWA, Section 401, Water Quality Certification, NPDES 

construction storm water discharge general permit, hydrostatic 

discharge general permit (pipeline) 

Arkansas Waterways Commission Consultation 

Levee Districts Letter of no objection (pipeline) 

Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Road opening/access permit, road crossing permits (pipeline) 

1.0 – Introduction 1-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 1.3-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations 

Mississippi 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Sciences (MMNS) of the 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

Review and comment on the impacts to state listed species. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Permit for stream and wetland crossing in conjunction with 

USACE Section 404 permit 

Review and comment on impacts to state groundwater and 

waterbodies 

Section 402 permit for discharge of hydrostatic test water and 

construction dewatering to waters of the state. 

Permit to construct and operate facilities with the potential for 

air emissions 

Notification of withdrawals of water for hydrostatic testing 

required 

Mississippi Department of Transportation Road opening/access permit, road crossing permits (pipeline) 

Mississippi, Department of Archives and History, Division 

of Historic Preservation 

Review and comment of Project activities potentially affecting 

cultural resources 

Levee Districts Letter of no objection (pipeline) 

As the lead federal agency for the Project environmental review, the FERC is required to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). At the federal level, required permits and approval authority outside of the 

FERC’s jurisdiction include compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act, 

and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of 

this document. The major permits, approvals, and consultations required for the Project are identified in 

table 1.3-1. 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any federal 

agency (for example, the FERC) 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 United States Code (USC) Section 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The 

FERC, or Texas Gas as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether any 

federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat occur in 

the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

If, upon review of existing data or data provided by the applicant, the FERC determines that these species 

or habitats may be affected by the proposed Project, the FERC is required to prepare a biological 

assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of potential adverse impact and to recommend measures 

that would avoid the habitat and/or species or would reduce potential impact to acceptable levels. If, 

however, the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or 

their designated critical habitat would be affected by the proposed Project, no further action is necessary 

under the ESA. See section 4.7 of this Draft EIS for the status of this review. 

1-5 1.0 – Introduction 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings on 

properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including 

prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of traditional religious or 

cultural importance to Indian Tribes, and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the 

undertaking. The FERC has requested that Texas Gas, as a non-federal party, assist in meeting the 

FERC’s obligation under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and 

recommendations as required by the ACHP regulations in 36 CFR 800. See section 4.10 of this EIS for 

the status of this review. 

Texas Gas is required to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. The EPA has delegated 

water quality certification (Section 401) to the jurisdiction of individual state agencies, but the EPA may 

assume this authority if no state program exists, if the state program is not functioning adequately, or at 

the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines that is point-source discharged into 

waterbodies will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 

402) issued by the state with EPA oversight. 

The USACE has the responsibility for determining compliance with the regulatory requirements of 

Section 404 of the CWA. The EPA also independently reviews Section 404 dredge and fill applications 

for the USACE and has Section 404(c) veto power for wetland permits issued by the USACE. The 

Section 404 permitting process regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material associated with the 

construction of pipelines across streams and in wetlands. In addition to its CWA responsibilities, the 

USACE has jurisdiction over Section 10 permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 10 

permits would be required for all construction activities performed in navigable waterways. On July 11, 

2007, Texas Gas filed with the appropriate USACE Districts its Preconstruction Notifications and 

requests for authorization of Nationwide Permit Number 12 for the Project for activities subject to Section 

404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction. The FERC, in the NEPA 

review required to prepare this Draft EIS, has analyzed the technical issues required for the Section 404 

(b)(1) guidelines analysis, including analysis of natural resources and cultural resources that would be 

affected by the proposed Project, as well as analyses and route variations that would eliminate or 

minimize the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE may use 

the Draft EIS to support its decision on the request for Nationwide Permits under Section 404 of the 

CWA permit for the proposed Project. See section 4.4 of this EIS for the status of this review. 

Ambient air quality is protected by federal regulations under the CAA. These regulations include 

compliance under new source performance standards (NSPS) and the requirements for the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD). The federal permitting process for the CAA has been delegated to 

individual state agencies. Although applications are reviewed by both states and the EPA, the states 

would determine the need for NSPS and PSD permits. See section 4.11 of this EIS for the status of this 

review. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On December 15, 2006, Texas Gas filed a request with the FERC to use its pre-filing process. At that 

time, Texas Gas was in the preliminary design stage of the Project, and no formal application had been 

filed with the FERC. The request to use the Pre-filing Process was approved on December 28, 2006, and 

a pre-filing docket number (PF07-2-000) was established to place information filed by Texas Gas and 

related documents issued by the FERC into the public record. The pre-filing process provided 

opportunities for interested stakeholders to become involved early in Project planning, facilitated 

interagency cooperation, and assisted in the identification of issues prior to Texas Gas filing its 

application with the FERC. 

1.0 – Introduction 1-6 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
As part of its outreach efforts, Texas Gas mailed notification letters to landowners and to government and 

agency officials, and notified the general public of the proposed Project, inviting them to attend open 

houses held on January 29, 30, and 31 and February 1, 7, and 8, 2007, to learn about the proposed Project, 

ask questions, and express concerns. Notifications of the open houses also were published in the local 

newspapers. The open houses were held in Conway, Searcy, Forrest City, and Helena, Arkansas, for the 

Fayetteville Lateral, and in Belzoni and Lexington, Mississippi, for the Greenville Lateral. The FERC 

staff attended the open houses to explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders and 

accept comments about the proposed Project. The concerns raised by the public at the open houses are 

addressed in this Draft EIS. 

On March 6, 2007, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Texas Gas Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project and Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was sent to interested 

parties, including affected landowners; federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; 

conservation organizations; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested 

parties. The NOI provided a summary of the proposed Project, outlined our NEPA-required 

environmental review process, provided a list of the then currently identified environmental issues, and 

requested comments on the scope of the of the analysis for the Draft EIS. Publication of the NOI opened 

the time period for filing written comments on the Project with the Secretary of the Commission. It also 

established a closing date for filing comments of April 19, 2007, although we continued to review and 

accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

We conducted three scoping meetings in Lexington, Mississippi, and Forrest City and Searcy, Arkansas, 

on March 19, 20, and 21, 2007, respectively, to give the general public an opportunity to comment on 

environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIS. The transcripts of all scoping meetings, as well as 

all written comments received are part of the public record for the proposed Project and are available for 

viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). We received a total of 22 verbal and written comments 

from members of the general public and federal and state resource agencies. The identified issues and 

concerns are summarized in table 1.4-1, which also lists the Draft EIS sections where the issues are 

addressed. 

In addition to the public notice process described above, we consulted with federal and state agencies to 

identify issues that should be addressed in the EIS. We participated in an interagency meeting on April 

24, 2007, with the FWS Arkansas Field Office, USACE Memphis District, NRCS, ANHC, and AGFC. 

This Draft EIS has been filed with the EPA. A formal notice has been published in the Federal Register 

indicating that the Draft EIS is available, and has been mailed to individuals and organizations on the 

distribution list prepared for the proposed Project (see appendix A). In accordance with CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA, the public has 45 days to comment on this Draft EIS. We will review and use the 

comments received to prepare a Final EIS for the proposed Project. All timely comment letters received 

on the Draft EIS will be addressed in the Final EIS. 

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, as part of a decision to certificate jurisdictional facilities, the FERC is 

required to consider all facilities that are directly related to the Project where there is sufficient federal 

control and responsibility to warrant environmental analysis as part of this jurisdictional proceeding. The 

jurisdictional facilities for the Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project include the natural gas pipeline 

system and associated facilities, compressor station, interconnect meter stations, and ancillary facilities. 

These facilities are discussed in detail in this Draft EIS. 

1-7 1.0 – Introduction 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process 

Issue Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Where 

Comments are 

Addressed 

General • Use most current best management practices (BMPs) to limit impacts from 

construction 

1.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 

Alternatives • Avoid wetlands, waterbodies, water supply watersheds; including agency 

suggested route variations and alternatives 

• Collocate with existing utility corridors where possible 

• Use BMPs where water supply watersheds cannot be avoided 

• Cross more waterbodies by horizontal directional drill (HDD)waterbodies 

3.0 

Water Use and 

Quality 

• Minimize impacts by use of HDDs and effective erosion and sediment control 

methods 

• Minimize potential impacts on wells and springs from construction 

• Use a 250-foot-wide riparian buffer between White River and HDD entry and 

exit holes 

3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 

Wetlands • Minimize wetlands crossing impacts by: 

- limiting right-of-way (ROW) width 

- using construction methods that limit disturbance 

- avoiding forested wetlands, including Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) 

- using HDDs 

- consulting with NRCS when crossing Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 

areas 

4.4 

Vegetation, 

Fish, and 

Wildlife 

• Consult with Hillside NWR Manager to identify and minimize impacts 

• Avoid use of herbicides in ROW maintenance 

• Use native species for revegetation 

• Restrict construction near wading bird nesting areas to times outside of nesting 

season 

• Minimize habitat fragmentation by avoiding large tracts of forest and by using 

HDDs and following existing ROWs 

4.5, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 

Threatened, 

Endangered, 

and SpecialStatus Species 

• Consult with FWS on Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), interior 

least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), pallid sturgeon (Scaphrhynchus 

albus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and fat pocketbook mussel 

(Arcidens confragosus) 

4.7 

Land Use, 

Recreation, and 

Visual 

Resources 

• Avoid surface crossing of Natchez Trace Parkway 

• Address concerns about multiple pipeline crossings on individual properties 

and limitations on private property use 

• Address concerns about aboveground facilities near residences 

• Bury pipeline deep enough that agricultural operations are not impacted 

4.8 

Socioeconomics 

• Financial compensation for easements – how determined and landowner’s role 

in process 

• Impacts on tenant farmers’ operations 

• Purchase of easements prior to the FERC certificate approval 

4.9 

1.0 – Introduction 1-8 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process 

Issue Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Where 

Comments are 

Addressed 

Air Quality and 

Noise 

• Concern about odors near pipeline and aboveground facilities 

• Concern about noise from the compressor station 

4.11 

Cumulative 

Impacts 

• Concern about multiple pipelines along a corridor and limitations on land use, 

property values, and loss of trees 

• Consider cumulative impacts on wetlands in determining mitigation needs 

4.12 

Mitigation 

Safety 

• Provide compensatory mitigation for wetlands that cannot be avoided 

• Use appropriate assessment methods to accurately determine mitigation needs 

• Safety of homes near pipeline 

• Impacts on emergency services during construction 

4.4, 5.1 

4.13 

Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the 

FERC. Southwestern, the anchor shipper for this Project, and other gas producer have constructed and 

continue to construct nonjurisdictional facilities related to the production and gathering of natural gas 

from the Fayetteville Shale. These facilities include gas wells, field lines, gas treatment and processing 

facilities, and compressor stations. Construction and operation of these facilities are under the jurisdiction 

of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) pursuant to the authority granted in Arkansas Code, 

Annotated, Title 15, Chapter 72 and the General Rules and Regulations of the AOGC implementing this 

authority. We are not aware of any significant federal control or responsibility over construction or 

operation of these gas production and gathering facilities. Therefore, we believe the Commission’s 

control and responsibility over them are not sufficient to consider them a federal action in this 

environmental review. 

1-9 1.0 – Introduction 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

Texas Gas proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain two pipeline laterals and associated facilities 

in Arkansas and Mississippi. The Project would be constructed in two phases during an 8-month-long 

construction season in 2008. Phase I would consist of the western-most 66 miles of the Fayetteville 

Lateral, from Conway County to Bald Knob, Arkansas. Phase II would include: construction of the 

remaining 100 miles of the Fayetteville Lateral from White County, Arkansas, to the interconnect with 

Texas Gas’s mainline in Coahoma County, Mississippi; the entire Greenville Lateral, including the 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral; and the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station. 

This section describes the proposed pipeline facilities, land requirements, construction procedures, 

construction schedule, environmental compliance and inspection monitoring, operation and maintenance 

procedures, and safety controls. Figure 2.1-1 shows the general location of the proposed Project. More 

detailed maps of the Project are in appendix B. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities: Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals 

Texas Gas proposes to construct a total of about 263.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in 

Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White, Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Philips Counties, Arkansas, and 

Coahoma, Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, Holmes, and Attala Counties, Mississippi. Texas Gas 

also would construct about 0.4 mile of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Attala County, 

Mississippi. Table 2.1.1-1 lists the proposed Project pipelines in each affected county by milepost. 

Fayetteville Lateral

The Fayetteville Lateral would parallel existing pipeline and utility corridors along about 56 percent (87.7 

miles) of its proposed route in Arkansas, and about 100 percent (9 miles) of its proposed route in 

Mississippi. The Fayetteville Lateral pipeline would cross the Mississippi River near Helena, Arkansas, 

and continue to run parallel to an existing Texas Gas right-of-way to its terminus with the existing Texas 

Gas mainline in Coahoma County, Mississippi. 

Greenville Lateral

The Greenville Lateral would create about 96.4 miles of new natural gas pipeline right-of-way, extending 

from Texas Gas’s existing Greenville Compressor Station in Washington County, Mississippi, through 

Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, and Holmes Counties to the southern portion of Attala County, 

Mississippi, where it would terminate at the new Kosciusko Compressor Station. 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral

The 0.8-mile-long Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would begin at the proposed, new Kosciusko 

Compressor Station, extend west to Niles Road and then follow Niles Road, trending generally south to 

tie-ins with a Gulf South pipeline and a Texas Eastern pipeline at MP 0.8. 

2-1 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.1-1

Fayetteville/Greenville

Expansion Project

General Location Map

Woodruff

Conway

White

St. Francis

Lee

Phillips

Sunflower

Holmes Attala

Humphreys

Washington

Faulkner

Cleburne

Kosciusko

Compressor

Station

Proposed Kosciusko

36-inch Tie-in Lateral

Proposed

Kosciusko

20-inch Tie-in Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 2.1.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline Segment 

Diameter 

(inches) 

Milepost 

From Milepost To 

Length 

(miles) County, State 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Steel Natural Gas Pipeline 36 0 7.8 7.8 Conway County, AR 

36 7.8 29.2 21.4 Faulkner County, AR 

36 29.2 41.1 11.9 White County, AR 

36 41.1 41.6 0.5 Cleburne County, AR 

36 41.6 42.5 0.9 White County, AR 

36 42.5 44.2 1.7 Cleburne County, AR 

36 44.2 69.6 25.4 White County, AR 

36 69.6 108.0 38.4 Woodruff County, AR 

36 108.0 116.5 8.5 St. Francis County, AR 

36 116.5 139.2 22.7 Lee County, AR 

36 139.2 157.7 18.5 Phillips County, AR 

36 157.7 166.2 8.5 Coahoma County, MS 

Total Lateral Length 166.2 

Greenville Lateral 

Steel Natural Gas Pipeline 36 0.0 17.3 17.3 Washington County, MS 

36 17.3 20.1 2.8 Sunflower County, MS 

36 20.1 20.3 0.2 Washington County, MS 

36 20.3 46.1 25.8 Humphreys County, MS 

36 46.1 77.7 31.6 Holmes County, MS 

36 77.7 96.4 18.7 Attala County, MS 

Total Lateral Length 96.4 

Total Mainline Pipeline 

Length 262.6 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral 

Steel Natural Gas Pipeline 36 0.0 0.8 0.8 Attala County, MS 

Total 36-inch Tie-in Length 0.8 

Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral 

Steel Natural Gas Pipeline 20 0.0 0.4 0.4 Attala County, MS 

Total Tie-in Length 0.4 

Total Tie-ins Pipeline Length 1.2 

2-3 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral

The 0.4-mile-long Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would begin at the tie-in with Gulf South and extend 

generally south-southeast to a tie-in with a Southern Natural pipeline. 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed aboveground facilities for the Project include one new compressor station, 29 metering and 

regulating (M&R) stations, 30 interconnects (tie-ins), 21 main line valves (MLVs), and three launchers 

and three receivers. Table 2.1.2-1 lists the proposed aboveground facilities by MP and county. 

Descriptions of the proposed facilities are provided in the following subsections. 

Kosciusko Compressor Station

Texas Gas would construct a 10,650-hp compressor station at the eastern terminus of the Greenville 

Lateral. The Kosciusko Compressor Station would contain two Caterpillar 3612 engines driving Arial 

compressors (3,550 hp each) and two Caterpillar 3606 engines driving Arial compressors (1,775 hp each). 

This compressor station would be near Kosciusko, Attala County, Mississippi, and would occupy an 

irregularly shaped 65-acre area. 

Meter and Regulation Stations

Each of the proposed M&R stations and tie-in interconnects to existing pipelines would include meter 

runs consisting of a custody-transfer flow meter, pressure regulator, isolation block valves, and associated 

instrumentation and controls to measure the flow of natural gas from the proposed new pipeline to the 

existing interconnecting pipeline. Texas Gas would construct a total of 29 M&R stations for the Project, 

19 on the Fayetteville Lateral and 10 on the Greenville Lateral. The proposed M&R station locations are 

identified in table 2.1.2-1. 

Main Line Valves, Launchers, and Receivers

MLVs segment a pipeline for safety, operational, and maintenance purposes, in accordance with U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. MLVs are used to shut down gas flow in the pipeline 

and also allow for surface access to the pipeline. Texas Gas would install MLVs at the beginning and end 

of each line, and at intermediate locations as necessary to meet operational and federal regulatory 

requirements. A total of 21 MLVs would be installed, 11 on the Fayetteville Lateral and 10 on the 

Greenville Lateral (including two on the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and one on the Kosciusko 20-

inch Tie-in Lateral). All MLVs would be within the permanent rights-of-way. The proposed MLV 

locations are listed in table 2.1.2-1. 

The MLVs would be installed on the buried pipeline, with the blowdown valve and manual valve operator 

extending aboveground within a fenced, gated, and locked area within the permanent pipeline right-ofway, either on their own or within an associated M&R station or launcher/receiver site. Each MLV would 

be remotely monitored and controlled from a central control facility via the Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition (SCADA) system. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Aboveground Facilities 

Type of Facility/Pipeline 

Lateral Description Milepost County/State 

M& R Stations 

Fayetteville Lateral 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 0.0 Conway County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 3.1 Conway County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 6.7 Conway County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 9.4 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 13.4 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 16.5 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 19.6 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 23.7 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 28.4 Faulkner County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 32.8 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 35.9 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 39.2 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to CenterPoint 

Energy (CenterPoint) 

45.9 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 50.4 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southwestern 55.5 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Natural Gas 

Pipe Line Company of America (NGPL) 

64.1 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to dual Mississippi 

River Transmission (MRT) pipelines 

65.6 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Texas Eastern 65.9 White County, AR 

M&R Station and tie-in to Texas Gas 166.2 Coahoma County, MS 

Greenville Lateral 

M&R Station and tie-in to Texas Gas 0.0 Washington County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Tennessee 0.5 Washington County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to American 

Natural Resources 

1.8 Washington County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Trunkline 6.4 Washington County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Columbia Gulf 28.7 Humphreys County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Tennessee 29.8 Humphreys County, MS 

M&R station and tie-in to Gulf South (via 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral) 

96.4 Attala County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Texas Eastern 

(via Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral) 

96.4 Attala County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Southern 

Natural (via Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in 

Lateral) 

96.4 Attala County, MS 

M&R Station and tie-in to Texas Eastern 96.4 Attala County, MS 

2-5 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Aboveground Facilities 

Type of Facility/Pipeline 

Lateral Description Milepost County/State 

Launchers and Receivers 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Launcher with MLV No. 1 0.0 Conway County, AR 

Receiver 66.0 White County, AR 

Launcher 66.0 White County 

Receiver at Texas Gas M&R Station 166.2 Coahoma County, MS 

Greenville Lateral 

Launcher at Texas Gas’s existing 

Greenville Compressor Station 

0.0 Washington County, MS 

Receiver at Texas Eastern Transmission 

M&R Station at Kosciusko Compressor 

Station 

96.4 Attala County, MS 

MLVs 

Fayetteville Lateral 

MLV No. 1 with launcher 0.0 Conway County, AR 

MLV No. 2 19.6 Faulkner County, AR 

MLV No. 3 38.9 White County, AR 

MLV No. 4 54.2 White County, AR 

MLV No. 5 66.0 White County, AR 

MLV No. 6 85.4 Woodruff County, AR 

MLV No. 7 105.2 Woodruff County, AR 

MLV No. 8 120.2 Lee County, AR 

MLV No.9 136.0 Lee County, AR 

MLV No. 10 153.2 Phillips County, AR 

MLV No. 11 with receiver 166.2 Coahoma County, MS 

Greenville Lateral 

MLV No. 1 with launcher 0.0 Washington County, MS 

MLV No. 2 with Trunkline M&R station 6.4 Washington County, MS 

MLV No. 3 19.4 Sunflower County, MS 

MLV No. 4 29.8 Humphreys County, MS 

MLV No. 5 42.0 Humphreys County, MS 

MLV No. 6 54.0 Holmes County, MS 

MLV No. 7 66.1 Holmes County, MS 

MLV No. 8 73.0 Holmes County, MS 

MLV No. 9 81.8 Attala County, MS 

MLV No. 10 96.4 Attala County, MS 

Compressor Station 

Greenville Lateral 10,650-hp Kosciusko Compressor Station 96.4 Attala County, MS 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-6 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Launcher and receiver facilities would be used to send and receive internal inspection equipment (pigs) 

that travels through the pipeline. Texas Gas would construct two launchers and two receivers on the 

Fayetteville Lateral and one launcher and one receiver on the Greenville Lateral (see table 2.1.2-1). A 

launcher and receiver would be installed at the beginning and end of each lateral, and a launcher and 

receiver would be installed at MP 66.0 of the Fayetteville Lateral. A distillate storage tank would be 

installed at each of the three receiver locations to collect any fluids that might be discharged from the 

pipeline after testing for disposal at appropriate sites. 

To the extent practicable, the aboveground facilities would be constructed near existing roads. Texas Gas 

would construct permanent access roads from the existing roads to the aboveground facility as part of 

facility construction. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

 

Construction of the Project would require a total of 5,057.2 acres of land, including the pipeline 

construction rights-of-way (3,199.6 acres), extra workspaces (635.0 acres), aboveground facilities (113.5 

acres), access roads (162.5 acres), and temporary pipe storage and contractor yards (946.6 acres). Table 

2.2-1 summarizes the land requirements for the Project. A detailed description of the land uses that 

would be affected by construction and operation of the Project is presented in section 4.8. 

TABLE 2.2-1 

Summary of Land Requirements 

Facility Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

Fayetteville Lateral 2,465.4 1,009.1 

Greenville Lateral 1,353.9 586.2 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral 10.4 4.9 

Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral 4.9 2.4 

Aboveground facilities 113.5 113.5 

Pipe storage and contractor yards 946.6 0.0 

Access roads 162.5 15.1 

TOTAL: Project 5,057.2 1,721.6 

Of the 5,057.2 acres of land required for construction, about 1,731.2 acres would be required for 

operation. Of this total, about 1,602.6 acres would be required for the permanent pipeline rights-of-way, 

113.5 acres would be required for operation of the aboveground facilities, and 15.1 acres would be 

required for new access roads. 

About 3,326.0 acres would be affected only during construction of the Project. Following construction, 

they would be restored or allowed to return to their preconstruction cover and land use. 

2-7 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

2.2.1.1

 

Rights-of-Way and Temporary Workspaces 

The Fayetteville Lateral would parallel existing pipeline and utility corridors along about 56 percent (87.7 

miles) of its proposed route in Arkansas and about 100 percent (9 miles) of its proposed route in 

Mississippi. The Greenville Lateral would create about 96.4 miles of new natural gas pipeline right-ofway from the existing Greenville Compressor Station in Washington County, Mississippi, through 

Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, and Holmes Counties to the southern portion of Attala County, 

Mississippi. 

Texas Gas would generally use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. A 75-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way would be used to install the pipeline through wetlands. Texas Gas would require a 150-footwide construction corridor along the path of all proposed horizontal directional drills (HDDs) on both the 

Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals. However, because the HDD method involves installation of the 

pipeline(s) by drilling beneath a waterbody or land surface, there would be minimal land disturbance 

along the path of the HDD; only small areas along the edges of the 150-foot-wide construction right-ofway would be disturbed for placement of the electric grid guide wires used to guide the drill. 

The typical 100-foot-wide pipeline construction right-of-way in upland areas would be divided into a 65-

foot-wide working side and a 35-foot-wide spoil side. Figure 2.2.1-1 is a cross section that shows the 

typical construction and permanent rights-of-way that would be used for the Fayetteville and Greenville 

Laterals. Actual dimensions and the configuration (e.g., spoil storage, equipment travel lane) within the 

construction right-of-way may vary depending on site-specific conditions at the time of construction and 

construction methods used. Where the Project would be collocated adjacent to an existing pipeline, the 

construction right-of-way would be no closer than 15 feet from the existing pipeline to keep construction 

equipment away from the operating pipeline. Texas Gas would use a slightly different workspace 

configuration where the Project would be collocated with the existing CenterPoint pipeline right-of-way 

and with gathering lines. Where the Project would be collocated with the CenterPoint pipeline, Texas 

Gas would use a 40-foot-wide working side and a 60-foot-wide spoil side construction right-of-way 

configuration, which would overlap the existing pipeline easement by 10 feet. The overlapped areas 

would be used for temporary workspace. Where the Project would be collocated with gathering lines, 

Texas Gas would use a 45-foot-wide working side and a 55-foot-wide spoil side construction right-of-way 

configuration. This right-of-way configuration would overlap the existing gathering pipeline easement by 

5 feet. Again, the overlapped area would be used for temporary workspace. Pipeline construction 

methods are described in more detail in section 2.5. 

Additional temporary workspace would be required to safely install the pipeline in rugged terrain. All of 

the identified areas with rugged terrain would be along the Fayetteville Lateral, and table 2.2.1-1 lists 

them by milepost. The land requirement due to construction through rugged terrain would add about 8.8 

acres of temporary impact.1

 When constructing the Project through agricultural land, Texas Gas would 

require an additional 20 feet of temporary workspace along the construction right-of-way, which it would 

use for full topsoil segregation in areas of rice production. See section 4.2 for additional information 

about construction through agricultural land. Texas Gas identified a total of 635.0 acres of temporary 

extra workspace that would be required for construction at wetland, waterbody, HDD, foreign pipeline, 

and road/railroad crossings; and for topsoil segregation, sharp bends in the pipeline, truck turnarounds, 

and staging and fabrication. The locations, sizes, and land use of the identified temporary extra 

1

 The land requirement for extra workspaces in rugged terrain is included in the total land requirement for the 

Project. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-8 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
workspaces and staging areas are listed in table C-1 in appendix C and are shown on the Project location 

maps in appendix B. 

Following construction, Texas Gas would maintain a permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way for operation 

of the pipeline. Generally, there would be a 50-foot separation between the proposed pipeline and any 

adjacent foreign pipeline. About 1,009.1 acres of land for the Fayetteville Lateral and 593.5 acres of land 

for the Greenville Lateral and associated tie-ins would be required for the permanent right-of-way. 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Land Requirements for Rugged Terrain Crossings

County, State Milepost Range Approximate Length 

(feet) 

Additional 

Construction Right-ofway Width 

Additional 

Temporary 

Workspace Acreage

Fayetteville Lateral 

Conway, AR 4.3 to 4.8 2,500 25 1.4 

Conway, AR 7.1 to 7.3 950 25 0.5 

Celburne, AR 41.7 to 41.7 300 50 0.3 

Celburne, AR 42.6 to 43.1 2,350 25 1.3 

White, AR 44.1 to 44.2 450 25 0.3 

White, AR 44.3 to 44.4 525 25 0.3 

White, AR 56.0 to 56.8 850 25 0.5 

White, AR 59.8 to 60.3 2,340 25 1.3 

White, AR 61.4 to 61.6 1,150 25 0.7 

White, AR 62.2 to 62.3 430 25 0.2 

White, AR 62.4 to 62.4 100 25 0.1 

White, AR 62.4 to 62.5 300 50 0.3 

White, AR 62.5 to 62.8 1,625 25 0.9 

White, AR 63.1 to 63.2 250 50 0.3 

White, AR 63.2 to 63.2 200 25 0.1 

White, AR 63.2 to 63.3 600 25 0.3 

Total 14,920 8.8 

2.2.1.2 Access Roads 

Texas Gas would use 160 access roads with a total length of about 59.9 miles to provide access to the 

construction right-of-way for construction materials and equipment. All access roads proposed by Texas 

Gas would be existing dirt, gravel, or paved roads, although some would need modifications. The 

existing access roads may be improved by grading or adding gravel to support movement of construction 

equipment and materials, as required. Following construction, all temporary access roads would, at a 

minimum, be returned to their preconstruction condition. Use of the access roads would temporarily 

affect about 162.5 acres of land during construction. Of that amount, about 15.1 acres of access roads 

would be retained for operation of the Project. The proposed access roads are shown on the Project 

location maps in appendix B. 

2-9 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
2.2.1.3 Pipe Storage/Contractor Yards 

Texas Gas identifies 40 sites that it would use temporarily as pipe storage yards, contractor’s office, and 

equipment/tool room trailers; construction equipment and employee parking areas; equipment laydown, 

warehouse, and maintenance areas; and staging areas for other construction activities. These sites would 

range in size from about 0.2 to 109.0 acres and total about 946.6 acres. Depending upon site conditions 

and their current use, some surface grading, drainage improvements, placement of surface materials (e.g., 

crushed rock), and/or construction of internal roadways may be required. The location of each potential 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-10 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.2.1-1

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Typical 36-inch-Diameter Pipe - Cross Section

Without Topsoil Segregation

NOT TO SCALE

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
yard is shown on the Project location maps in appendix B. All sites would, at a minimum, be returned to 

their preconstruction land use, ground cover, and condition following construction. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Construction and operation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station, M&R stations/interconnect sites, 

MLVs, and launchers/receivers would require about 113.5 acres of land. The compressor station would 

occupy about 65.0 acres; the remaining acres would be occupied by M&R stations. The sizes of M&R 

stations range from 0.9 acre to 2.6 acres. All MLVs and launchers/receivers would be located within the 

pipeline right-of-way and thus are not included in the 113.5 acres of land required for construction and 

operation of aboveground facilities. Each MLV and each launcher/receiver would occupy less than 0.1 

acre. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Texas Gas proposes to construct the pipeline facilities in two phases. Phase I would include construction 

of the first 66 miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and related facilities from Conway County to the Bald 

Knob area of White County, Arkansas. Phase II would include construction of the remaining 100 miles 

of the Fayetteville Lateral from White County to Coahoma County, Mississippi, the entire Greenville 

Lateral and associated tie-in laterals, and the Kosciusko Compressor Station. Texas Gas proposes 

beginning construction of both Phases I and II in June 2008. However, Phase I would be placed in 

service by August 1, 2008, and Phase II would be placed in service by January 1, 2009. Texas Gas would 

be required to obtain written approval to begin service on each segment of the Project. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Texas Gas must receive written authorization from the Director of Office of Energy 

Projects (OEP) before commencing service on each pipeline segment. Such 

authorization would be granted only following a demonstration that rehabilitation and 

restoration of the Project area is proceeding satisfactorily. 

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MITIGATION MONITORING 

To ensure that construction of the proposed facilities would comply with mitigation measures identified 

in Texas Gas’s application, the FERC Certificate, and other permits, Texas Gas would employ at least one 

Environmental Inspector (EI) on each construction spread during construction and restoration. EIs would 

report to the Chief Inspector (CI) who would have overall authority over construction, but would have 

peer status with all other activity inspectors. EIs would have the authority to stop activities that violate 

the environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate, other permits, or landowner requirements, and to 

order appropriate corrective action. At a minimum, the EIs would be responsible for: 

• ensuring and documenting compliance with the requirements of our Upland Erosion Control, 

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the 

Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), the best management practices (BMP), 

the Hydrostatic Test Plan, the environmental conditions of the Certificate, the mitigation 

measures proposed by Texas Gas (as approved and/or modified by the Certificate), other 

environmental permits and approvals, and environmental requirements in landowner 

easement agreements; 

• identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions as necessary to bring an activity 

back into compliance; 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-12 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations of access roads 

are properly marked before clearing; 

• verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the boundaries of sensitive 

resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, noxious weed infestations, and areas with special 

requirements along the construction work area and confirming that the appropriate resource 

monitoring is being conducted to protect these areas; 

• verifying that equipment and vehicles have been cleaned prior to arrival at the work site, and 

are cleaned after working in areas of known noxious weed infestations before moving on to 

other areas; 

• identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas; 

• ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers would not direct water 

into known cultural resources sites or locations of sensitive species; 

• verifying that hydrostatic test dewatering structures are located at approved discharge sites; 

• verifying that trench and hydrostatic test dewatering activities do not result in the deposition 

of sand, silt, and/or sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or waterbody. If such 

deposition is occurring, the dewatering activity would be stopped and the design of the 

discharge would be changed to prevent recurrence; 

• ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and residential areas to measure 

compaction and determine the need for corrective action; 

• advising the CI when conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to restrict 

construction activities to avoid excessive rutting; 

• documenting that materials and wastes are properly handled, stored, transported, and 

disposed of in accordance with the SPCC; 

• documenting that spills are controlled, contained, and cleaned up in accordance with the 

SPCC; 

• ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

• verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have been certified as free 

of noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise approved by the landowner; 

• determining the need for and ensuring that temporary erosion controls are properly installed 

as necessary to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, waterbodies, sensitive areas, and onto 

roads; 

• documenting that seeding, fertilizing, mulching, and tree and shrub planting are carried out in 

accordance with any required reclamation plan; 

• inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control measures at least: 

2-13 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
- on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment operation; 

- on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment operation; and 

- within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall; 

• ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures within 24 hours of 

identification; 

• keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate, 

and the mitigation measures proposed by Texas Gas in its FERC application, and other 

federal, state, or local environmental permits during active construction and restoration; and 

• identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and restoration 

after the construction phase. 

After construction, Texas Gas would conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first 

and second growing seasons to determine the success of revegetation. Revegetation would be considered 

successful in agricultural areas if crop yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same 

field. In other areas, revegetation would be considered successful if, upon visual survey, the density and 

cover of non-nuisance vegetation is similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In all 

cases, construction debris must be removed (unless requested otherwise by the landowner or land 

management agency) and proper drainage must be restored. Texas Gas would submit quarterly reports to 

the FERC for at least two years following construction documenting any problems identified by Texas 

Gas or landowners and describing the corrective actions taken to remedy those problems. 

For a period of at least three years after construction, Texas Gas would monitor the proposed Project area 

annually for noxious weed infestations. Areas where noxious weeds are noted would be further evaluated 

to determine if remedial action or treatment is necessary. Treatment may involve mechanical means (e.g., 

mowing or disking) and/or herbicide application. Treatment methods would be based on site-specific 

conditions and would be coordinated with the landowner and appropriate federal, state, and local 

regulatory authorities. 

After construction, the FERC would continue to conduct oversight inspection and monitoring. If it is 

determined that any of the proposed monitoring time frames are not adequate to assess the success of 

restoration, Texas Gas would be required to extend its post-construction monitoring programs. 

As the lead federal agency for the proposed Project, the FERC may impose conditions on any Certificate 

granted for the proposed Project. These conditions could include additional requirements and mitigation 

measures identified in this EIS to minimize the environmental impact that would result from the 

construction of the proposed Project (see section 5.0). We would recommend to the Commission that 

these additional requirements and mitigation measures (offset with bold type in the text) be included as 

specific conditions to any approving Certificate issued for the proposed Project. If it approves the 

proposed Project, the FERC would require Texas Gas to implement the construction procedures and 

mitigation measures that Texas Gas has proposed as part of the Project unless specifically modified by 

other Certificate conditions. 

We recognize that during or after construction, issues or complaints may develop that were not addressed 

during the environmental proceedings at the Commission, and it is imperative that landowners continue to 

have an avenue to contact Texas Gas’s representatives. We are interested in ensuring that landowner 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-14 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
issues and complaints received during construction are resolved in a timely and efficient manner (if the 

proposed Project is approved). Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. 

The procedure should 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 construction, 

Texas Gas should mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property 

would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Texas Gas should: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

(2) instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Texas Gas’s Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Texas Gas’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement 

Hotline at (888) 889-8030, or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Texas Gas should include in its weekly status report a copy of a table 

that contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected 

property and approximate location by MP; 

(3) the description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, would be resolved, 

or why it has not been resolved. 

2.5 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

This section describes the general construction procedures proposed by Texas Gas for construction of the 

pipeline. Section 4 contains more detailed information about proposed construction, mitigation, and 

restoration procedures as well as additional measures that we are recommending to mitigate 

environmental impacts on specific resources. 

2.5.1 Pipeline Facilities 

The proposed pipeline would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 

federal safety standards that are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent 

natural gas pipeline accidents or failures. These regulations include DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 192, 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. Among other 

design standards, 49 CFR Part 192 specifies pipeline material selection; minimum design requirements; 

protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion; and qualification procedures for welders 

2-15 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and operations personnel. In addition, Texas Gas would comply with the siting and maintenance 

requirements in 18 CFR Part 380.15, Siting and Maintenance Requirements, and other applicable federal 

and state regulations. 

2.5.1.1 General Pipeline Construction Techniques 

Figure 2.5.1-1 shows the typical steps of upland pipeline construction. Standard pipeline construction 

proceeds in the manner of an outdoor assembly line comprising specific activities that make up the linear 

construction sequence. These sequenced operations include survey and staking of the right-of-way, 

clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing and bending, welding and coating, lowering-in and 

backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup. 

In addition to the standard pipeline construction methods described below, Texas Gas would use special 

construction techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be 

used for crossing waterbodies, wetlands, agricultural areas, roads, railroads, foreign pipelines, and 

residential and commercial/industrial areas (see section 2.5.1.2). 

Survey and Staking

Before beginning construction, a civil survey crew would stake the outside limits of the right-of-way, the 

centerline location of the pipeline(s), drainage centerlines and elevations, highway and railroad crossings, 

and any temporary extra workspaces such as laydown areas or at stream crossings. Arkansas and 

Mississippi One Call systems would be contacted, and underground utilities (i.e., cables, conduits, and 

pipelines) would be located and flagged. Affected landowners would be notified prior to surveying and 

staking of the construction right-of-way. 

Clearing and Grading

The construction right-of-way and additional temporary work areas would be cleared of shrubs and trees 

and other obstructions. Timber would only be removed when absolutely necessary for construction 

purposes. Timber and other vegetation debris may be chipped for use as erosion-control mulch, burned, 

or otherwise disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local regulations and landowner 

agreements. Fences would be cut and braced along the right-of-way, and temporary gates would be 

installed to control livestock and limit public access. 

The right-of-way would then be graded where necessary to create a reasonably level working surface to 

allow safe passage of construction equipment and materials. Grading would not take place in wetlands 

unless topographic or other features make the right-of-way unsafe for construction equipment. Where 

applicable, topsoil would be stockpiled separately from excavated subsoil. Conserved topsoil would be 

stockpiled along one side of the right-of-way, allowing the other side to be used for access, material 

transport, and pipe assembly. Temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately after initial 

disturbance of the soil to minimize erosion and would be maintained throughout construction, consistent 

with our Plan. 

Blasting may be required for grading and trenching in areas where bedrock is shallow and where 

mechanical excavation or rock-trenching methods are inadequate. See section 4.1 for additional 

information. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-16 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.5.1-1

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Sequence

NOT TO SCALE

Construction 

Survey

Clearing Grading Topsoil

Stripping

Trenching Padding Trench Bottom

Stringing Bending Lineup Root Bead Welding Fill and Cap Welding

X-Ray and Weld Repair Coating Field 

Welds

Inspection and 

Repair of Coating

Lowering in and Tie-ins As-Built

Survey

Pad and Backfill Hydrostatic Test

and Final Tie-in

Cleanup and Restoration

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Trenching

The pipeline trench would be excavated with a rotary trenching machine, a track-mounted backhoe, or 

similar equipment. The trench would be excavated at least 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe, 

or a minimum of 48 inches for the 36-inch-diameter pipelines. The sides of the trench would be sloped 

(for safety), with the top of the trench up to 20 feet across, depending upon the stability of the native soils. 

The trench would be excavated to a sufficient depth to allow a minimum of 3 feet of soil cover between 

the top of the pipe and the final land surface after backfilling. Excavated soils would be stockpiled along 

the right-of-way on the side of the trench away from the construction traffic and pipe assembly area. 

Where the new pipeline right-of-way would be collocated adjacent to an existing pipeline right-of-way, 

the spoil would be placed on the same side of the trench as, but not directly over, the existing pipeline to 

keep equipment off the operating pipeline. In areas where topsoil stripping is required, the topsoil and 

subsoil would be stored in separate windrows on the construction right-of-way and would be prevented 

from mixing. The landowner would be offered the option of whether to segregate the topsoil across the 

full width for the construction right-of-way, or to segregate just the ditch and spoil-side topsoil. 

Stringing and Bending

Steel pipe for the pipeline would be procured in 40-foot and 80-foot lengths, or “joints,” protected with an 

epoxy coating applied at the factory (the beveled ends would be left uncoated for welding followed by 

field coating) and shipped to strategically located storage areas, or pipe yards. The individual joints 

would be transported to the right-of-way by truck and unloaded by small portable cranes and/or sideboom tractors that would place the joints along the excavated trench. In upland areas, the pipe would be 

placed along the excavated trench in a single, continuous line, easily accessible to the construction 

personnel on the “working” side of the trench, opposite the “spoil” side. At waterbody and wetland 

crossings, the amount of pipe required to span the waterbody or wetland would be stockpiled in 

temporary workspaces at least 50 feet from the waterbody or wetland, as specified in our Procedures. 

Where bending is required to allow the pipe to follow natural grade and direction changes, a trackmounted hydraulic bending machine would bend the individual joints of pipe to the desired angle. In 

certain areas, prefabricated fittings would be used where field bending is not practicable. 

Welding and Coating

After stringing and bending are complete, the pipe joints would be aligned, welded together, and placed 

on temporary supports along the edge of the trench. The ends would be carefully aligned and welded 

together using multiple passes, which would provide for a full-penetration weld. Only qualified welders 

would be permitted to perform the welding. Welders would be qualified according to applicable 

American Welding Society (AWS), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American 

Petroleum Institute (API) and DOT standards. All welds would be inspected, both visually and 

radiographically, for integrity, and any welds that do not meet the design strength requirement would be 

repaired or cut out and rewelded. Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the 

joints would be cleaned and coated with epoxy. The coating on the completed pipe section would then be 

inspected, and any damaged areas would be repaired. 

Lowering-in and Backfilling

After welding and coating are completed, the pipe section would be lifted off the temporary supports and 

lowered into the trench by side-boom tractors. Prior to lowering the pipe, the trench would be inspected 

to ensure that it is free of rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or the coating, and the pipe 

and trench would be inspected to ensure that the pipe and trench configurations are compatible. In rocky 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-18 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
areas, if the bottom is not smooth, a layer of soil may be placed on the bottom of the trench to protect the 

pipe. Foreign pipelines would typically be crossed by installing the proposed pipeline under the foreign 

pipeline. Concrete-coated pipe would be used, if required, for negative buoyancy in saturated soils. 

Bladed equipment or backhoes would be used to push the excavated material back into the trench. No 

construction debris, including wooden supports, welding rods, containers, brush, trees, or refuse of any 

kind, would be permitted in the backfill. Where the previously excavated material contains large rocks or 

other materials that could damage the pipe or coating, clean fill or protective coating would be placed 

around the pipe prior to backfilling. Segregated topsoil would be placed after backfilling the trench with 

subsoil. Following backfilling in open land or specified areas, a small crown of material would be left 

over the pipeline to allow for any future soil settling that might occur. In upland areas, excess soil would 

be distributed evenly on the right-of-way, while maintaining pre-construction contours. 

Hydrostatic Testing

After backfilling, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT Office of Pipeline 

Safety requirements identified in 49 CFR Part 192. Prior to being placed into service, test segments of 

the pipeline would be capped and filled with water, and the water would be pressurized and held for a 

minimum of 8 hours. If a leak or break in the line were to occur during testing, that section of pipeline 

would be repaired and retested until DOT specifications are met. 

Upon completion of the test in one segment of pipe, the water may be pumped to the next pipe segment 

for testing or discharged. After testing is completed, the test water would be discharged through an 

energy-dissipating device and returned to the original source or as otherwise directed in compliance with 

the NPDES Permit conditions. Test water would not be discharged directly into surface waters. Once a 

segment of pipe has been successfully tested and dried, the test cap and manifold would be removed and 

the pipe would be connected to the remainder of the pipeline. Hydrostatic test water for testing the pipes 

within the new Kosciusko Compressor Station and the pipe modifications within the existing Greenville 

Compressor Station would be obtained from nearby municipalities. Test water would contact only new 

pipe. No chemicals would be added to the test water, and no desiccant or chemical additives would be 

used to dry the pipe. Texas Gas would implement section VII of our Procedures regarding hydrostatic 

testing, as well as any specifications in individual state permit guidelines to minimize impacts related to 

water withdrawal and discharge. See section 4.3 for additional information about hydrostatic testing for 

the Project. 

Cleanup/Restoration

Post-construction restoration activities would be performed in accordance with our Plan and Procedures. 

After the segment of pipe has been installed, backfilled, and successfully tested, the right-of-way, 

temporary extra workspaces, and other disturbed areas would be finish-graded to original contours and 

construction debris would be disposed of properly. Permanent soil stabilization efforts would include 

revegetation of all previously vegetated areas that were disturbed by construction. In agricultural areas, 

compacted subsoil would be disked, and the segregated topsoil would be returned to its original horizon. 

Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fencing, diversion 

terraces, and vegetation, would be installed at that time. Private and public property, such as fences, 

gates, driveways, and roads, would be restored to original or better condition. 

Active cropland may be left unseeded at the request of the landowner if preparation of the ground for 

planting is imminent following construction. Pasture would be reseeded with a similar species or 

mixture. Residential and commercial lawns would be reseeded or sodded, depending upon the original 

grass variety. Shrubs and small trees on residential properties would be temporarily transplanted and 

replaced, where practicable and where allowed relative to the permanent right-of-way. Forested areas 

2-19 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
would be allowed to recover naturally, except that no trees would be allowed to grow within the 50-footwide permanent pipeline right-of-way in upland areas to facilitate pipeline inspections. 

Post-Construction Monitoring

The revegetation success would be monitored by Texas Gas. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas 

would be considered successful if upon visual survey the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation 

are similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In agricultural areas, revegetation would 

be considered successful if crop yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. 

Texas Gas would utilize reseeding, fertilizing, and other measures until a cover equivalent to similar 

adjacent areas is achieved. Temporary and interim erosion control measures would be removed at that 

time. 

2.5.1.2 Special Construction Techniques 

Areas where specialized construction techniques would be used include the crossings of agricultural 

areas, waterbodies, wetlands, roads/railroads, foreign pipelines, and residential or commercial/industrial 

areas. Texas Gas would use specialized construction techniques to cross one or a combination of several 

of these areas, as described below. Most waterbodies would be crossed using the open cut method. Most 

major and sensitive waterbodies would be crossed using the HDD method. See section 4.3 for further 

information about waterbody crossing methods and section 4.4 for further information about crossing 

wetlands. All waterbody and wetland crossings would be constructed in accordance with our Procedures. 

Agricultural Areas

Topsoil would be conserved in actively cultivated and rotated cropland, improved pastureland, nonsaturated wetlands, and residential areas. Topsoil would be conserved in pastures if requested by the 

landowner. A maximum of 12 inches of topsoil would be segregated in these areas, as well as in other 

areas at the specific request of the landowner or land management agency. The topsoil and subsoil would 

be temporarily stockpiled in separate windrows within the construction right-of-way, and the topsoil 

would not be allowed to mix with subsoil. Where the topsoil is less than 12 inches deep, the actual depth 

of the topsoil would be removed and segregated. 

Rock would not be used as backfill in rotated or permanent cropland. The depth of the trench would vary 

with the diameter of the pipeline, but in all cases it would be sufficiently deep to allow for at least 3 feet 

of cover on top of the pipe. In actively or previously tilled land and pasture, Texas Gas would leave at 

least 4 feet of cover on top of the pipe. Texas Gas would consult with agricultural land owners or tenants 

to assess if additional depth of burial for the pipeline would be required due to certain agricultural 

practices such as deep tilling. If needed, Texas Gas would install the pipeline at greater depth. 

Texas Gas would consult with landowners before performing construction through rice fields to time 

construction so as to cause the least interference with flooding of these areas. Texas Gas also would 

request landowners not to flood the fields through which construction is planned. This would allow 

sufficient time for the fields to dry so that Texas Gas would be able to use conventional construction 

methods through them. Texas Gas states that any irrigation ditches that are dry at the time of construction 

would be open cut, then repaired to the satisfaction of the landowner. Any irrigation ditches that have 

water flowing at the time of construction would be flumed to maintain water flow when they are crossed. 

After construction activities are completed, all levees, ditches, contours, and grade would be repaired 

and/or restored to original condition. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-20 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Texas Gas states it would compensate landowners for crop loss when the land is out of production during 

construction and for a time following restoration according to individual agreements. Also, Texas Gas 

would enter into specific agreements with landowners with precision-leveled fields. These agreements 

would specify that the landowner would be compensated to restore these fields following construction. 

Waterbodies

Texas Gas would use one of four methods to cross waterbodies along the proposed pipeline route: 

conventional open-cut, flume, dam-and-pump, or HDD. Texas Gas anticipates using the open-cut method 

for all ephemeral and intermittent waterbodies and most perennial waterbodies, unless precluded by 

engineering considerations or environmental sensitivities and associated regulatory requirements. 

For certain environmentally sensitive crossings and for some minor (10 feet wide or less) and smaller 

intermediate (10 to 100 feet wide) crossings, the dam-and-pump or flume dry waterbody crossing 

methods rather than the conventional open-cut method may be feasible. These methods isolate the 

construction workspaces from the water flow, provide for continuous flow, and minimize downstream 

sedimentation and turbidity. Texas Gas anticipates using the HDD method at selected major (greater than 

100 feet wide) waterbodies and other locations where environmental concerns favor the use of this 

technique. 

Figure 2.5.1-2 shows a cross-section of a typical waterbody crossing. A description of each waterbody 

crossing method is provided below. 

Following construction, waterbodies would be restored in a manner consistent with our Procedures. For 

open-cut crossings, waterbody banks would be stabilized and temporary sediment barriers would be 

installed within 24 hours of completing in-stream construction activities. For dry-ditch crossings, 

streambed and bank stabilization would be completed before returning flow to the waterbody channel. 

All waterbody banks would be returned to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of repose. All 

disturbed riparian areas would be revegetated with conservation grasses and legumes or native plant 

species, preferably woody species. Permanent slope breaker(s) would be installed across the construction 

right-of-way at the base of slopes greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet from the waterbody, or 

as needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbody. 

Conventional Open-Cut Method. The open-cut crossing method is proposed for intermediate crossings, 

unless HDD is used. The open-cut crossing method also is proposed for some major waterbodies. 

Open cut waterbody 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 stream 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. Where there are potentially 

saturated wetlands along the banks, the excavator and other heavy equipment would operate off timber 

mats to provide stability and prevent damage to the adjacent wetland where practicable. Trench spoil 

would be stored on the bank of the waterbody above the high-water mark, at least 10 feet from the water’s 

edge (topographic conditions permitting), for use as backfill. A prefabricated segment of pipeline would 

be laid horizontally across the bed of the waterbody and continue at least 10 feet past the high banks on 

each side of the waterbody before raising in elevation to the normal trench level. The pipeline may be 

weighted with concrete weights, screw anchors, and/or concrete coating in order to obtain sufficient 

negative buoyancy. The trench would then be backfilled, the bottom and banks of the waterbody would 

be restored and stabilized, and all foreign objects would be removed from the waterbody. Ditch plugs of 

crushed stone, sandbags, or dry soil also may be used to keep backfill from sloughing in toward the center 

2-21 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
of the stream. Sediment barriers such as silt fencing, staked straw bales, and trench plugs would be 

installed to prevent spoil and sediment-laden water from entering the waterbody. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-22 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.5.1-2

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Typical Waterbody Crossing

NOT TO SCALE

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Flume Method. A flumed or dry crossing of a waterbody involves redirecting stream flow through a 

flume pipe or pipes at the crossing. This allows for trenching, pipe installation, and restoration in 

relatively dry conditions while maintaining continuous downstream flow. For this method to be used 

successfully and safely, soil characteristics must be very stable and stream flow should be low to 

moderate. 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) extends from the inlet side of the 

equipment crossing to the opposite side of the construction right-of-way. An effective seal is created 

around the flume pipe(s) so that water cannot penetrate and possibly wash out channelized dams on both 

the inlet and outlet ends. The flume would not be removed until the pipeline has been installed and the 

stream and banks have been restored. Figure 2.5.1-3 shows a typical flumed waterbody crossing. 

Dam-and-Pump Method. The dam-and-pump method is an “isolated” crossing technique that maintains 

waterbody flows during in-stream activities. Initially, a dam would 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. If a sudden increase in stream flow occurs during the crossing, the flume method would be 

used as an alternative to maintain flow and keep the crossing dry. Once the waterbody crossing site is 

dry, the trench would be excavated, including any upland plugs, and the pipe would be bent, welded, and 

then lowered into the trench. The crossing pipe would then be tied into the upland construction, and 

water flow would be restored. The construction is considered “isolated” because the actual waterbody 

crossing and the upland construction may occur at different times. If the upland construction occurs first, 

the upland pipe would be installed in the trench with temporary end caps in place and a hard earth plug 

left between the upland work completed and the work to be done for the waterbody crossing. 

HDD Method. The HDD method is a trenchless installation process by which pipeline is installed 

beneath obstacles or sensitive resources by using equipment and techniques derived from the oil well 

drilling industry. 

Figure 2.5.1-4 shows a typical HDD waterbody crossing. The primary advantage of the HDD method is 

that there is minimal disturbance of the ground surface between the entry and exit points of the HDD, 

provided there is reasonable access to the entry and exit points for the drilling rig, reaming pipe, and 

fluids handling equipment. The length of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon subsurface 

conditions (geology) and pipe diameter, and is limited by available technology and equipment sizes. 

For most HDD crossings, electric-grid guide wires would be hand-laid along the edges of the 150-footwide pipeline right-of-way to help guide the drill bit along the predetermined HDD route. In thickly 

vegetated areas, 2- to 3-foot-wide corridors may be cut using hand tools to lay these electric-grid guide 

wires, resulting in minimal ground and vegetation disturbance. No large-diameter vegetation would be 

cut to accomplish guide wire installation. Following guide wire installation, an HDD rig would be set up 

and a small-diameter pilot hole would be drilled along a prescribed profile. 

An HDD crossing 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 

drill pipe. The cutting action of the drill head is remotely operated to control its orientation and direction. 

The position of the drill string is electronically monitored, and directional corrections are made as 

necessary to ensure that the drill string maintains the desired alignment. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-24 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.5.1-3

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Waterbody Crossing,

Flumed Crossing Method

NOT TO SCALE

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.5.1-4

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Typical HDD Waterbody Crossing

NOT TO SCALE

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Enlarging the pilot hole is an incremental process accomplished with 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 is then pulled into the completed hole. Bentonite drilling fluid 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 is returned to the entry point. Drilling 

fluid is again used during the reaming process to remove cutting spoil. Drilling fluid circulated through 

the bore hole during the pilot hole drilling and reaming process is collected at the surface and processed to 

remove spoils, allowing the fluid to be reused. Excess spoils and drilling fluid are treated for disposal and 

disposed of at an approved location in accordance with regulatory requirements, agreements, and permit 

conditions. The proposed HDD drilling fluid would consist of water and bentonite. Bentonite is a 

mixture of non-toxic clays and rock particles consisting of about 85 percent montmorillinite clay, 10 

percent quartz and feldspars, and 5 percent accessory materials such as calcite and gypsum. 

A successful HDD operation would result in little or no impact on the waterbody being crossed. The 

HDD method is not without risk, however, as inadvertent drilling fluid releases could result if the fluid 

escapes containment at pits that would be excavated at the HDD entrance and exit points, or if a “fracout” occurs. A frac-out occurs when drilling fluids escape the drill bore hole and are forced through the 

subsurface substrate to the ground surface. Frac-outs occur most often in highly permeable soils during 

the entrance and exit phases of drilling the pilot hole, as this is when the greatest pressures are exerted on 

the bore walls in shallow soils. Drilling fluid pressures in the bore hole and drilling fluid pumping and 

return flow rates would be monitored to detect the potential occurrence of a frac-out. If survey and 

monitoring procedures indicate that a frac-out may have occurred, Texas Gas would implement the 

corrective measures specified in its HDD plan to determine a course of action, including modification of 

drilling fluid parameters or complete suspension of drilling operations. These corrective measures would 

be implemented to minimize or prevent further releases. Any released drilling fluids would be contained, 

clean-up procedures would commence, and the appropriate agencies would be notified. Additional 

information about the potential impacts of this method of construction on waterbodies and wetlands is 

provided in sections 4.3 and 4.4. 

Wetlands

The construction right-of-way width would be 75 feet in wetlands. Operation of construction equipment 

in wetlands would be limited to that needed to clear the right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate the pipe, 

install the pipe, backfill the trench, and restore the right-of-way. Texas Gas would segregate the topsoil 

up to 1 foot in depth in unsaturated wetlands where hydrologic conditions permit this practice. Segregated 

topsoil would be placed in the trench following subsoil backfilling. Restoration and monitoring of 

wetland crossings would be conducted in accordance with our Procedures to help ensure successful 

wetland revegetation. Fuel would not be stored within wetlands. Figure 2.5.1-5 shows a typical saturated 

wetland crossing. 

Wetland construction would be completed in accordance with all applicable permits and our Procedures. 

Site-specific conditions at the time of pipeline installation, including soil stability and soil saturation, 

would determine the specific crossing technique that would be used in each wetland. 

2-27 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 2.5.1-5

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Typical Saturated Wetland Crossing

NOT TO SCALE

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Conventional Lay Method. Soils capable of supporting construction equipment would generally be 

crossed using conventional wetland construction methods. Conventional wetland construction is similar 

to upland construction, as described in section 2.5.1.1. In some areas, site-specific conditions may not 

support construction equipment proposed for conventional wetland construction; in these cases, 

construction mats would be used to minimize disturbances to wetland hydrology and maintain soil 

structure. 

Push/Float Method. The push/float method of construction would be used in inundated lowland or 

saturated wetland areas where the soils and hydrology cannot support conventional pipe-laying equipment 

and where there are sufficient quantities of water to allow for pipe to be floated through the open ditch. 

The pipe trench would be excavated using low-ground-weight equipment, thus limiting the need for 

grubbing and grading activities over the trench line or, for safety reasons, on the working side of the rightof-way. The coated and weighted pipe would be welded together at a staging area. There, floats would 

be attached to the pipe to give it buoyancy in order to allow the welded pipe to then be pushed along the 

water-filled trench until the pipe string is in place. As necessary, “pulling” of the pipe may be required to 

move the pipeline along the trench. The floats would then be cut loose, allowing the pipe to sink to the 

bottom of the trench. The trench would then be backfilled. The push/float construction method 

minimizes the number of equipment passes, reducing wetland impacts and soil compaction. The staging 

areas for this type of wetland crossing, if needed, would be established within the construction corridor. 

Original surface hydrology would be re-established in wetlands by backfilling the pipe trench and grading 

the surface with backhoes or draglines operating from the board road, depending upon the water level, 

degree of soil saturation, and the bearing capacity of the soils. Segregated topsoil would be replaced in 

unsaturated wetlands. Roots and stumps would be removed only in the areas of the pipe trench, allowing 

existing vegetation to recover more rapidly in the remainder of the right-of-way once the board roads and 

spoil piles have been removed. 

Texas Gas would work with the USACE, FWS, state and local agencies, and landowners to develop an 

acceptable wetland revegetation plan prior to commencement of construction. The permanent right-ofway in forested wetlands would be maintained in accordance with our Procedures, which require that the 

permanent right-of-way in forested wetlands be allowed to return to forest except for a 10-foot-wide 

herbaceous corridor centered over the pipeline and a 30-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline 

where trees greater than 15 feet may be selectively cut and removed. 

HDD Method. The HDD method used to cross wetlands is the same as that used to cross waterbodies. 

Bored Crossings

Some waterbodies, and all major highways and railroads would be bored. Boring involves pushing the 

pipe through a hole below the waterbody, road, or railroad. A bore pit is dug on one side of the crossing 

and a receiving pit is dug on the other side of the crossing, and both are excavated to a depth equal to the 

depth of the ditch (at least 5 feet below the road surface and 10 feet below the toe of a railroad 

embankment). The bore pit is then graded so that the bore is at the proper elevation for installation of the 

pipe. A boring machine is then lowered to the bottom of the bore pit and placed on supports. The 

machine cuts a shaft under the crossing using a cutting head mounted on an auger. The pipeline is then 

pushed through behind the auger. 

Roads and Railroads

Construction of the pipeline across hard surfaced roads and railroads would typically be accomplished by 

boring through the road or railroad bed with a borehole on either side of the road or railroad bed 

providing a working area for the equipment (see above). Road crossings would be maintained 

2-29 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
continuously by using steel plates to cover the trench at the crossing or alternate access to minimize 

inconvenience to the public if they are open cut. The pipelines would cross 248 federally, state-, or 

locally maintained roads and 11 railroads. Installation of the pipeline under major paved highways and 

railroads, along which traffic cannot be interrupted, would be accomplished by boring or HDD. 

Crossing most dirt or gravel roads would be accomplished by an open cut. Roads would then be restored 

to preconstruction conditions pursuant to the requirements of the permitting agency. Immediately 

following backfilling, Texas Gas would restore the road surface by topping the disturbed area with dense, 

graded aggregate limestone and a top layer matching the existing roadway. If an open-cut for a road 

crossing requires extensive time, provisions would be made for temporary detours or other measures to 

allow safe traffic flow during construction. All road and railroad crossings would be installed in 

compliance with applicable permits and approvals. Appropriate safety measures such as flag persons, 

signs, barricades, guardrails, and signals would be placed by the contractor. 

Where pipe installation requires a casing, the pipe would be supported on each end of the casing, a vent 

would be installed on each end, and the resistance of the pipe to the casing tested for electrical shorts. 

Existing underground utilities would be protected and normally given a clearance of 24 inches, but with a 

minimum of 12 inches clearance between the gas pipeline and the other utilities. Casings would be 

installed only where specifically required by road/railroad authorities. All road and railroad crossings 

would be installed in compliance with applicable permits and approvals. 

Residential Areas

Where residences would be within 50 feet of the construction work area, Texas Gas would reduce 

pipeline offset or construction workspaces to minimize inconvenience to property owners where 

practicable. If construction requires the removal of private property features such as gates or fences, the 

landowner or tenant would be notified prior to the action. Following completion of construction, the 

property would be restored as requested by the landowner insofar as the landowner’s requirements are 

compatible with Texas Gas’s standards regarding right-of-way restoration and maintenance. 

• In areas where construction would affect residential property, Texas Gas would implement 

the following construction techniques. Texas Gas would notify the landowner(s) prior to 

construction and arrange work hours to take landowner needs into consideration. Dust 

minimization techniques would be used on site, and all litter and debris would be removed 

daily from the construction work area. During construction, the edge of the construction 

work area would be safety fenced for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence to 

ensure that construction equipment and materials, including spoil piles, remain within the 

construction work area. Mature trees and landscaping would be preserved to the extent 

practicable while ensuring the safe operation of construction equipment. Where residences 

are less than 25 feet from the construction work area, the pipe section would be welded, 

inspected, and welds coated prior to any trench excavation. The trench would not be 

excavated until the pipe is ready for installation, and the trench 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. Site-specific construction drawings depicting the temporary and permanent rightsof-way and noting special construction techniques would be prepared. 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-30 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Commercial/Industrial Areas

Impacts on commercial and industrial areas would be limited to the construction and post-construction 

restoration periods, when construction activities can inconvenience business owners, employees, and 

customers. Texas Gas would maintain close coordination with business owners to maintain access, 

decrease construction duration, and generally minimize impacts. 

Foreign Pipeline Crossings

The proposed Project is located in an active oil and gas producing area. In particular, the Fayetteville 

Lateral would be constructed in an area where there is active drilling and construction of gathering 

pipelines. As a result, the Project pipeline would cross numerous foreign pipelines. The Texas Gas 

pipelines would be installed under most existing foreign pipelines at an appropriate depth to meet DOT 

soil cover and separation requirements. Extra workspace would be required at foreign pipeline crossings 

to accommodate the increased excavation depths and avoid placing the spoil or construction equipment 

over the existing pipelines for safety reasons. Texas Gas would notify the owners/operators of foreign 

pipelines when construction activities are near these pipelines. 

2.5.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of aboveground facilities would involve typical industrial facility construction procedures. 

Construction activities and storage of construction materials and equipment would be confined to the 

facility footprint. Following the initial earth work, excavation would be completed as needed for the 

concrete foundations for the metering equipment and any buildings. Subsurface friction piles may be 

required to support foundations, depending upon the bearing capacity of the existing soils and the 

equipment loads. Forms would be set, rebar installed, and the concrete poured and cured in accordance 

with applicable industry standards. Backfill would be compacted in place, and excess soil would be used 

elsewhere or distributed around the site to improve grade. 

The metering equipment and other materials would be delivered to the site by truck, off-loaded using 

cranes and/or front-end loaders, positioned on the foundations, leveled, grouted where necessary, and 

secured with anchor bolts. All components in high-pressure natural gas service would be hydrostatically 

tested, and all controls and safety equipment and systems, including emergency shutdown systems, relief 

valves, and gas and fire detection equipment would be checked and tested before being placed in service. 

Following completion of construction, each site would be fenced and most areas in and around the meters 

and associated piping and equipment would be covered with crushed rock (or equivalent). Permanent 

roads and parking areas may be surfaced with crushed rock, concrete, or asphalt. Other ground surfaces, 

including adjacent areas outside the fence that would surround the facility, would be restored, seeded, and 

revegetated. 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 

2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Texas Gas would operate and maintain the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities in compliance 

with DOT regulations provided at 49 CFR 192, FERC’s regulations at 18 CFR 380.15, and the 

maintenance provisions of our Plan and Procedures. 

A locally based, full-time staff would be assigned to operate and maintain the pipeline. Maintenance 

activities would include monitoring, inspection, and repair of the right-of-way, and cleaning of the 

pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by pipeline personnel would be performed to identify (1) 

2-31 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
soil erosion that may expose the pipe, (2) dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the line, (3) 

unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way such as by buildings, (4) areas requiring revegetation or 

repair of erosion control measures, and (5) other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require 

preventive maintenance or repairs. The pipeline cathodic protection system also would be monitored and 

inspected periodically to ensure proper and adequate corrosion protection. The pipeline has been 

designed to use “smart pig” inspection technology. 

Texas Gas would maintain vegetation on the permanent right-of-way in upland areas by mowing, cutting, 

and trimming. Large brush and trees would be removed periodically from within the operational right-ofway. Trees greater than 15 feet in height or deep-rooted shrubs that could damage the pipeline’s 

protective coating, obscure periodic surveillance, or interfere with potential repairs would not be allowed 

to grow within 15 feet of the pipeline in wetlands or within 25 feet of the pipeline in uplands. The 

frequency of vegetation maintenance would depend upon the growth rates but would not be more frequent 

than dictated by our Plan and Procedures. Vegetation maintenance would not normally be required in 

agricultural or grazing areas. Other than preventing wetland tree growth as described above, vegetation 

maintenance would not normally be required in wetlands. 

The pipelines would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, 

waterbodies, and other key points in accordance with DOT regulations. The markers would clearly 

indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a telephone number and address where a company 

representative could be reached in the event of an emergency or prior to any excavation in the area of the 

pipeline by a third party. Texas Gas would participate in the Arkansas and Mississippi One-Call systems.

2.6.2 Compressor Station and Other Aboveground Facilities 

Compressor station crews would perform operation and maintenance of all 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 devices, fire detection and suppression systems, and gas detection 

systems would be tested for proper operation. Corrective actions would be taken for any identified 

problem. 

The stations would be equipped with combustible gas and fire detection alarm systems and an emergency 

shutdown system. The gas detection system would send an alarm upon detection of 25 percent of the 

lower explosive limit of natural gas in air. Automatic emergency shutdown of the compressor, evacuation 

or venting of gas from the station piping, and isolation of the station from the main pipeline would occur 

following a fire detection alarm or the detection of 50 percent of the lower explosive limit inside the 

station. The compressor station also would be equipped with relief valves or pressure protection devices 

to protect the station piping from over-pressurization if station or unit control systems fail. A telemetry 

system would notify local personnel and personnel at the gas control headquarters in Owensboro, 

Kentucky, of the activation of safety systems and alarms, who would in turn instruct maintenance 

personnel to investigate and take proper corrective actions. 

Routine operation and maintenance also would be performed at all other aboveground facilities by 

qualified personnel. Safety equipment such as pressure relief devices, fire detection and suppression 

systems, and gas detection systems would be maintained throughout the life of each facility. Mainline 

valves also would be inspected, serviced, and tested to ensure proper functioning. 

2.7 SAFETY CONTROLS 

2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 2-32 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
2.7.1 Pipeline 

The pipeline would be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with all applicable federal, 

state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to the DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 

192. 

2.7.1.1

2.7.1.2

Cathodic Protection 

To protect the pipeline from corrosion, cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current 

system supplemented, where necessary, by sacrificial magnesium anodes. An epoxy coating to protect 

the pipe against corrosion would be applied to all buried facilities, and all aboveground facilities would be 

primed and painted. Cathodic protection units would be monitored regularly to maintain required pipe-tosoil potential in accordance with the specifications set forth by DOT regulations. 

Emergency Response Procedures 

Pipeline system emergencies can include gas leaks, fire or explosion, and/or damage to the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities. In accordance with DOT regulations, Texas Gas would develop a plan that would 

address procedures to be followed in the event of a pipeline emergency. This plan would include training 

of employees in emergency procedures; establishing liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other 

community officials; and informing the public about how to identify and report an emergency condition 

along the pipeline route. 

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

At this time, Texas Gas has no plans to expand or abandon any of the pipeline system. However, as 

market conditions evolve, Texas Gas may investigate pipeline expansion opportunities. Expansion or 

abandonment of the pipeline system and associated facilities would be subject to appropriate FERC 

authorization and environmental analysis in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations in effect at that time. 

2-33 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by the NEPA, we have evaluated several alternatives to the proposed Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project to determine whether they would be reasonable and environmentally preferable to the 

proposed action. Our analysis of alternatives includes alternatives proposed by other federal and state 

resource agencies as well as those proposed by the general public. Our analysis also considers the 

environmental differences resulting from each alternative compared to the corresponding portion of the 

proposed Project and the alternative’s ability to achieve the proposed Project’s purpose. 

We considered the No-Action Alternative and Postponed-Action Alternative, the effects of energy 

conservation, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and 

aboveground facility siting alternatives. We also considered the potential impacts on environmental 

resources and land uses in our alternatives analysis and evaluated alternatives that would avoid or 

minimize impacts on them. 

The following evaluation criteria were used to determine whether alternatives would be environmentally 

preferable: 

• significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project, 

• ability to meet the proposed Project’s need and purpose, and 

• technical feasibility. 

3.1 NO-ACTION OR POSTPONED-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The Commission has three alternative courses of action in processing an application. It may (1) deny the 

application, (2) delay approval of the application pending further study, or (3) approve the application 

with or without conditions. 

If the Commission denies the proposal (i.e., selects the No-Action Alternative), the proposed Project 

would not be constructed. Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need 

for the proposed Project; thus, specific shipper needs would not be met. No additional transportation 

capacity would be provided for the substantial volumes of newly produced natural gas in north-central 

Arkansas, which would potentially prevent the production of additional gas supplies from these fields. 

On a broader scale, implementation of this alternative would not meet the stated national goal of 

increasing the production of stable and reliable natural gas supplies in the U.S. (The White House 

National Economic Council, February 2006). If adequate natural gas supplies are not available in the 

U.S., consumers would need to seek other sources of fuel, many of which are potentially more costly and 

could result in greater environmental impacts associated with combustion of other fuels. Natural gas 

shortages also would be possible, since natural gas demand in the U.S. is expected to continue to grow, 

while U.S. production is expected to continue to decline. Analysis by the DOE/EIA indicates that, in the 

lower 48 states, demand is expected to exceed supply by about 8 Tcf by 2010 (DOE/EIA, 2005). Electric 

power generation is expected to become the largest individual component of the growth of natural gas 

consumption (U.S. Natural Gas Markets, 2001). 

If the No-Action Alternative is selected, the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Project 

would be avoided. However, if this Project is not implemented, other projects and activities would be 

needed, and these projects would result in their own environmental impacts. In addition, the beneficial 

3-1 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
impacts of implementing the proposed Project would not occur, including increased employment, income, 

and tax revenues. The No-Action Alternative was rejected for these reasons. 

A delay in approval (the Postponed-Action Alternative) would only defer any construction-related 

environmental impacts to the future. Other gas transportation projects would still be required to meet the 

demand for natural gas and to transport the new Fayetteville Shale natural gas production. Reduction in 

available supply could result in higher natural gas prices, potentially causing switching to less 

environmentally benign sources of fuel or the curtailment of economic growth. Delay in approval would 

not meet the stated purpose of the Project to develop an interstate transportation infrastructure for an 

additional 853 MMcf/d of natural gas from north-central Arkansas to consumer markets served by Texas 

Gas, Trunkline, Columbia Gulf, ANR, Tennessee, and Texas Eastern. 

Energy Conservation Alternatives

An increase in the scope of energy conservation measures employed throughout the market area that 

would be served by the proposed Project could also potentially decrease or slow the amount of increase in 

the nation’s energy demand. However, as noted in section 1.1, energy demand in the United States has 

been increasing steadily, with total energy consumption in the United States estimated to increase from 

100.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2030 (DOE/EIA, 2007). 

Natural gas usage will represent about 22 percent of all energy consumption in the United States by 2025. 

To maintain pace with growing energy demands, the EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in 

the United States will grow from 22.4 Tcf per year in 2005 to 26.1 Tcf by 2030. The growth in natural gas 

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

applications. Given the anticipated increases of energy consumption over the next 20 years, it is unlikely 

that voluntary energy conservation measures would be sufficient to offset increasing demand in general or 

affect the need for the proposed Project in particular. 

Other Energy Alternatives

Other energy sources could be used as short-term and long-term alternatives to the use of natural gas. In 

general, alternative energy sources include coal, oil, nuclear, hydropower, solar, wind, biofuels, and 

geothermal. Most of these alternative energy sources are suitable for electric power generation, but are 

either not suitable or are less suitable for residential heating and some industrial processes. 

Coal is an available fuel alternative for power generation. However, coal combustion results in higher air 

emissions than natural gas combustion on an equivalent basis. In addition, coal mining and coal 

transportation result in environmental impacts. The use of oil (fuel oil) for power generation also results 

in greater air emissions than natural gas. When combusted, natural gas generates 34 percent to 52 percent 

less carbon dioxide (CO2) than other fuels such as oil or coal. Other emissions generated by the 

combustion of natural gas also are significantly lower than those from oil or coal combustion, including 

sulfur oxides (SOX) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Other impacts resulting from the use of oil as a fuel are 

associated with processing and transporting supplies (Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

[INGAA], 2004). These impacts include potential spills and the impacts of constructing and operating 

facilities such as refineries and terminals associated with increased use of crude oil. 

Using nuclear energy for power generation is a potential alternative, although the political, social, and 

regulatory issues associated with the safety and waste management considerations of this technology are 

very substantial and prevent this alternative from being viable, at least in the short and medium term. 

Hydropower is a viable power generation alternative in some geographic areas, but there is not sufficient 

generation capacity in most geographic areas to allow this technology to provide the required levels of 

power generation. In addition, use of this technology results in some environmental impacts. It is 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-2 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
important to note that there is no projected national growth in the supplies of nuclear and hydropower in 

the United States (DOE/EIA, 2004). Though efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower facilities are 

expected to produce incremental additions of power production in the coming years, it is unlikely that 

new and/or significant sources of hydropower would be permitted and brought on-line as reliable energy 

source alternatives to the proposed Project. 

Federal, state, and local initiatives will likely contribute to an increase in the availability and cost 

effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and 

biomass. For example, state and local initiatives have increased the availability of wind power-derived 

energy to local consumers in Texas (Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association, 2006), and 

renewable energy is playing a larger role in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States 

(CSC, 2004; NYSERDA, 1999). Still, the percentage of electricity generated from non-hydropower 

renewable energy sources at the national level is projected to increase to only 3.2 percent by 2025 

(DOE/EIA, 2006a), which would offset only a small portion of the projected national energy demands; 

therefore, we believe that these other energy sources would not be able to meet the overall objectives of 

the proposed Project and as a result are not preferable to the proposed action. 

3.2 PIPELINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, modified, or 

proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. Implementation of a 

system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct the proposed Project, although some 

modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to meet the 

objectives of the proposed Project. Modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems 

would result in environmental impacts that may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated 

with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating 

system alternatives is to determine whether the environmental impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would be avoided or reduced by using existing, modified, or proposed 

pipeline systems. 

Our analysis of pipeline system alternatives included examination of the use of existing and proposed 

pipeline systems to meet the need and purpose of the proposed Project. 

3.2.1 Existing Pipeline Systems 

Fayetteville Lateral

Texas Gas has no existing pipelines in the Project area that could be used “as is” or modified to meet the 

purpose and need of the proposed Project. Other pipeline systems that are located in the general Project 

area include CenterPoint, Texas Eastern, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (NGPL), Mississippi 

River Transmission (MRT), and Ozark (see figure 3.2-1). CenterPoint has an existing 20-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline (Line JM-1) that originates near Bald Knob, Arkansas, and follows a southeasterly 

path to the Mississippi River, where it terminates near Helena, Arkansas. This pipeline is operating at or 

near capacity and does not have capacity to transport the proposed large volume of natural gas from the 

Fayetteville Shale production as proposed, even if additional compression was added to its system. 

Looping1

 CenterPoint’s Line JM-1 would result in impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. A 

pipeline lateral from the Fayetteville Shale natural gas production area to the “CenterPoint loop” also 

would need to be constructed since the purpose of the proposed Project is to connect this developing gas 

 

1

 Looping is constructing a new segment, or loop, of pipeline immediately adjacent to an existing pipeline. Both 

ends of the loop tie into the existing pipeline. 

3-3 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
production area to existing natural gas transportation systems, and in particular to connect it to the 

existing pipeline systems near Bald Knob. CenterPoint has no plans to construct a loop of Line JM-1. 

None of the other existing pipeline systems near the proposed Fayetteville Lateral project area would 

meet the purpose of the proposed Project, unless pipelines such as the proposed Fayetteville Lateral are 

constructed. Any such project would likely have environmental impacts that are similar to those of the 

proposed Fayetteville Lateral. 

Greenville Lateral

There are no existing pipelines that could connect Texas Gas’s mainline with the existing pipelines in the 

Kosciusko area. In order to achieve Texas Gas’s purpose and need for transfer of natural gas to markets 

in the southeastern United States, pipeline construction would be required if the proposed Greenville 

Lateral is not constructed. We found that no other interstate pipeline systems in the region could serve 

Texas Gas’s customers without having to construct additional facilities that would result in environmental 

impacts similar to or greater than those of the proposed Project. 

3.2.2 Other Proposed Pipeline Systems 

East End Expansion Project

Ozark proposes constructing and operating the East End Expansion Project (Docket No. PF-06-34-000)2. 

The East End Expansion Project would include about 180 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline beginning in 

Conway County, Arkansas, at the proposed new 10,000-hp Wonderview Compressor Station. It would 

extend eastward along its existing 20-inch-diameter pipeline right-of-way for about 58.5 miles and then 

along its existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline right-of-way for another 6.1 miles through Faulkner and 

White Counties, to a point near Searcy, Arkansas. At that point, it would divert eastward from its 

pipeline right-of-way onto new right-of-way to the proposed new 20,000-hp Searcy Compressor Station 

in White County. From the proposed Searcy Compressor Station, the East End Expansion Project 

pipeline would continue southeastward through Woodruff, Prairie, Monroe, Lee, and Phillips Counties, 

Arkansas, and Coahoma, Quitman, Panola, Lafayette, and Calhoun Counties, Mississippi, to a terminus 

near Banner, Calhoun County, Mississippi, on new pipeline right-of-way. The East End Expansion 

Project also would include an 8-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline (Noark Extension) from Ozark’s 

existing 16-inch-diameter Noark Pipeline to the proposed Wonderview Compressor Station, all in 

Conway County. The East End Expansion Project would transport about 1,000 MMcf/d of natural gas 

from the new natural gas production areas to proposed new delivery points on existing pipeline systems 

of Texas Gas (in Coahoma County, Mississippi), ANR (in Panola County, Mississippi), and Trunkline (in 

Panola County, Mississippi). 

However, the proposed East End Expansion Project pipeline route would not extend to the Bald Knob, 

White County, Arkansas, area where connections with many of the major existing pipeline systems could 

be made, and where Texas Gas’s anchor shipper, Southwestern, has requested delivery. Texas Gas is 

proposing to tie-in to NGPL (MP 64.1), MRT (MP 65.6), and Texas Eastern (MP 65.9) in the Bald Knob 

area; and is also proposing other tie-ins, including a tie-in to its existing pipeline system in Coahoma 

County, Mississippi, at MP 166.2. While the East End Expansion Project would have interconnections 

with other interstate pipeline systems in Mississippi, including Texas Gas’s pipeline system (East End 

Expansion Project MP 160.0), these interconnections are about 100 miles east of Bald Knob. The two 

 

2

 The East End Project is still in pre-filing; the NOI for it was issued on December 4, 2006. The status of this 

project will be updated in late 2007. The initially proposed in-service date of December 2008 is likely no 

longer achievable since Ozark has not yet filed its certificate application with the FERC. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
proposed project pipelines would be collocated for the first 37 miles of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral, 

and also would be collocated with an existing Ozark pipeline right-of-way. Different in-service dates 

would likely prevent these two projects from being constructed simultaneously. 

Texas Gas System Alternative for Ozark’s East End Expansion Project

We evaluated increasing the capacity of the proposed Project so that it could also carry the proposed 

volumes of gas of the East End Expansion Project. The approximate additional facilities that would be 

required to provide an additional 1,000 MMcf/d of transportation capacity on the Fayetteville and 

Greenville Laterals would require construction of the Fayetteville Lateral and the construction of a 36-

inch-diameter pipeline loop of the entire Fayetteville Lateral plus portions of the proposed East End 

Expansion Project west and east of the proposed termini of the Fayetteville Lateral, about 30 miles of 36-

inch-diameter pipeline loop of the Greenville Lateral, installation of a new compressor station near Bald 

Knob, and the addition of more compression to the existing Greenville Compressor Station in Greenville, 

Mississippi. 

Looping the entire 166.2-mile-long Fayetteville Lateral would mean that two 36-inch-diameter pipelines 

would be installed next to each other for their entire length. This would increase the proposed 

construction right-of-way width for about 166.2 miles from 100 feet to 150 feet, and would increase the 

permanent right-of-way width from 50 feet to 75 feet to allow for a 25-foot-wide offset between the 

pipelines that would be needed for safe operation should either pipeline require maintenance. Land 

requirements for construction along the Fayetteville Lateral route would increase by about 1,007 acres 

and permanent land requirements for operation would increase by about 505 acres. Plus, the segments of 

the East End Expansion Project that would be constructed west of the western terminus of the Fayetteville 

Lateral (west of MP 0.0) and east of the eastern terminus of the Fayetteville Lateral (east of MP 166.2) 

would also need to be constructed as would Ozark’s proposed Noark Lateral so that natural gas receipts 

and deliveries for the Ozark shippers could occur as well. This would add about 13.7, 20, and 8 miles, 

respectively of pipeline construction. Assuming a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way, about 506 

and 253 acres would be added to the land requirements for construction and operation, respectively. This 

would bring the total land requirement for construction of this portion of the system alternative to about 

3,978 acres and for operation to about 1,764 acres. 

Looping about 30 miles of the Greenville Lateral also would have increased land requirements due to the 

wider construction and permanent rights-of-way. The construction right-of-way land requirement would 

increase by about 545.5 acres to about 1,898 acres, and the permanent right-of-way land requirement 

would increase by about 91 acres to 682 acres. 

This system alternative would require3

 about 2,041 more acres for pipeline construction and about 841 

more acres for operation than the proposed Project, or about 5,876 acres for construction and about 2,446 

acres for operation. This system alternative also would require a new compressor station near Bald Knob. 

We assumed that construction and operation of the additional compressor facilities that would be needed 

at Texas Gas’s existing Greenville Compressor Station could be accommodated within the existing 

footprint of this facility. Therefore, we estimated the temporary and permanent land requirements for the 

aboveground facilities for this system alternative to be about 50 acres, bringing the total permanent land 

requirement for this alternative to 2,496 acres. 

 

3

 These land requirements do not include the permanent requirement for the aboveground facility (the proposed 

Kosciusco Compressor Station) or the temporary requirements for storage yards and access roads. 

3-5 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Ozark states in its pre-filing documentation, that the land requirements for construction and operation of 

the 188-mile-long East End Expansion Project would be about 3,603.8 and 1,197.9 acres, respectively. 

Ozark would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation along the pipeline right-of-way, 

and about 66 acres would be required for operation of the compressor stations. 

The land requirements for construction of the 263.8-mile-long proposed Project would be 5,057.23 acres 

which includes about 162.5 acres for temporary access road use. Ozark has not provided any information 

about the temporary impact created by access road use. Thus, for comparison of the alternatives, the 

acreage for access roads was subtracted from the estimated land requirements for construction of the 

proposed Project to get 4,894.1 acres. In comparison, the combined total land requirements of the 

proposed Project and Ozark’s East End Project would be 8,497.9 acres for construction and 3,449.2 acres 

for operation. 

Construction of both the Fayetteville Lateral and the East End Expansion Project as separate projects 

would result in an increase in land disturbance over construction of a single project to meet the purpose 

and needs of both projects. While the reduction in land use impacts would be significant in terms of 

acreage, we do not believe that combining the projects is a viable option. The difficulties in coordinating 

the projects and achieving the objectives of all parties, including producers, shippers, and customers, 

would be quite considerable. The needs of the anchor shippers for both the proposed Project and East 

End Expansion Project vary. The need to provide specific capacities for transporting natural gas to 

specific locations by specific dates would preclude combining these two projects. The potential benefit of 

reducing short-term impacts and reducing total land requirements for operations are not sufficient to 

justify the cost of redesigning the projects and forcing all parties to delay meeting their objectives. 

3.3 PIPELINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND VARIATIONS 

The routes of the two Project laterals were developed by Texas Gas to meet the stated purpose and need 

of the Project. In evaluating pipeline alternatives, we reviewed both alternative corridors and specific 

route variations. For the purposes of this document, we will use the term “alternatives” when discussing 

significantly different corridors or alignments. Also, we will use the term “variations” when discussing 

differences that involve smaller departures for shorter distances than “alternatives.” Route alternatives 

generally follow a different corridor for a portion of the proposed route, and may ultimately terminate at 

different locations. Route variations differ from route alternatives in that they are identified to avoid or 

reduce construction impacts on specific, localized resources that may include cultural resource sites, 

residences, or site-specific terrain conditions. 

During the pre-filing process, both state and federal agencies suggested route alternatives and route 

variations to the pipeline alignment originally proposed by Texas Gas. Based on input received from the 

agencies, Texas Gas integrated many of them into the pipeline routes ultimately proposed for the Project 

in its FERC certificate application. Furthermore, landowners who would be affected by project 

construction and operation were contacted by Texas Gas representatives, and some identified to Texas 

Gas certain pipeline alignment issues relative to their properties. Similarly, some landowners filed 

comments with the FERC or commented during scoping meetings about alignment issues. Texas Gas 

modified the pipeline route, where feasible, based on this input. We examined alternatives and variations 

that could reduce overall environmental impacts associated with the pipeline route and could avoid or 

reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources. Figure 3.2-1 shows the proposed Fayetteville 

Lateral and alternative routes; figure 3.3-1 shows the Greenville Lateral and alternative routes. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-6 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
3.3.1 Alternatives 

As part of its Project development, Texas Gas identified two significant route alternatives for the 

Fayetteville Lateral, Alternatives A and B (see figure 3.2-1), and one alternative for the Greenville 

Lateral, Alternative C (see figure 3.3-1). In addition, during the course of the pre-file process, both the 

USACE and ADHHS proposed route alternatives. These are presented in greater detail below. 

Fayetteville Lateral - Alternative A

Alternative A would provide a more direct route from Cleburne County, Arkansas, to the proposed 

Mississippi River crossing between MP 37 and MP 143. Alternative A would pass to the southwest of 

Bald Knob and is very similar to Ozark’s East End Project route through that portion of Arkansas. 

Alternative A would be about 12 miles shorter than the proposed Project. However, Alternative A would 

require the construction of a separate, 15-mile-long lateral (Bald Knob Lateral) in order to meet the 

Project purpose of connecting to the existing pipeline systems at Bald Knob. Therefore, Alternative A, 

3-7 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE 

EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-417-000 

 PF07-2-000 

Page 3-8 

Figure 3.2-1 Fayetteville Lateral Project Area 

Pipeline Systems and Route Alternatives 

Page 3-9 

 

Figure 3.3-1 Greenville Lateral Project Area 

Pipeline Systems and Route Alternatives

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
with its corresponding interconnection lateral, would actually increase the overall length of the Project by 

about 3 miles. 

Table 3.3.1-1 compares the impacts of Alternative A alone and Alternative A with the 15-mile-long 

lateral to Bald Knob to the corresponding segment of the Project along the Fayetteville Lateral. The data 

show that Alternative A would be collocated with existing pipeline rights-of-way for 21 percent of the 

route compared to 48 percent for the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. In addition, Alternative A would 

cross three more waterbodies, about 1.5 more miles of wetlands, and about 1.2 more miles of managed 

resource areas. A review of landforms with a high probability for containing cultural resources indicates 

that Alternative A could affect more cultural resources than the proposed route. 

Table 3.3.1-1 

Comparison of Alternative A to the Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 37 to MP 142 Alternative A 

Alternative A 

(including Bald 

Knob Lateral) 

Length (mi.) 105 93 108 

Waterbodies (no.) 73 76 87 

 Perennial (no.) 15 14 14 

 Intermittent (no.) 58 62 73 

 Wetlands (mi.) 0.4 1.9 1.9 

Roads (no.) 133 127 148 

Resource Management Lands (mi.) 3.4 4.6 4.6 

 NWR (mi.) a/ 3.4 4.3 4.3 

 State WMA (mi.) b/ 0 0.3 0.3 

Forest (mi.) 14.2 12.1 19.0 

Agriculture Land (mi.) 82.8 63.8 69.5 

Cultural Resource High Probability Areas (mi.) 26 28 32 

Length collocated (mi.) 50 20 20 

 Percentage of miles collocated 48 21 19 

__________ 

a/ Cache River NWR - Apparent crossing distance based on GIS overview mapping. 

b/ Steve N. Wilson/Raft Creek WMA - Apparent crossing distance based on GIS overview mapping. 

Alternative A, including the Bald Knob Lateral, would require crossing one fewer perennial waterbody. 

However, it would affect more of all the other listed resources. It would cross about 1.2 more miles of 

resource management lands, 14 more waterbodies, 1.5 more miles of wetlands, and 15 more roads. It also 

would be about 3 miles longer and would, therefore, have more land requirements associated with 

construction and operation, about 36 mores acres for construction and about 18 more acres for operation 

within the permanent right-of-way. This alternative would have greater land requirements, would affect 

more sensitive environmental resources such as wetlands, and would require more pipeline length with 

less collocation. Therefore, we believe that the disadvantages of Alternative A, with or without the Bald 

Knob Lateral, outweigh the potential advantages, and we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred 

route. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-10 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Fayetteville Lateral - Alternative B

Alternative B would follow the existing CenterPoint pipeline and would be a relatively straight line path 

between MP 65 and MP 106 of the proposed route. Although it would be collocated for most of its 

length, Alternative B would require a crossing of the Cache River NWR that would be 3.0 miles longer 

than the NWR crossing under the proposed route. It also would cross more land enrolled in the NRCS’s 

WRP (see table 3.3.1-2 and figure 3.2-1). The proposed route would be 7 miles longer than Alternative 

B. It would, however, cross the Cache River NWR where the refuge narrows north of the Alternative B 

route, making it possible to cross the Cache River NWR via HDD. The proposed route would cross seven 

fewer waterbodies, 5.8 fewer miles of wetlands, 2.4 fewer miles of a state WMA, and about 1.8 fewer 

miles of forest. The proposed route would, therefore, minimize impacts on the refuge and wetlands and 

would avoid all WRP tracts that Alternative B would impact. 

Because Alternative B would result in greater environmental impacts on the Cache River NWR, wetlands, 

a WMA, forested land, and WRP tracts, we believe that the disadvantages of Alternative B outweigh 

potential advantages due to its shorter length, and we do not recommend the use of Alternative B. 

Table 3.3.1-2 

Comparison of Fayetteville Lateral to Alternative B 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 65 to MP 106 Alternative B 

Length (mi.) 41.0 33.7 

Waterbodies (no.) 32 39 

 Perennial (no.) No Data No Data 

 Intermittent (no.) No Data No Data 

Wetlands (mi.) 2.1 7.9 

Roads (no.) 42 29 

Resource Management Lands (mi.) 3.6 9.2 

 NWR (mi.) a/ 3.6 6.8 

 State WMA (mi.) b/ 0 2.4 

Forest (mi.) 0.5 2.3 

Agriculture (mi.) 37.4 21.8 

Cultural Resource High Probability Areas (mi.) No Data No Data 

Length collocated (mi.) 0.5 c/ 33.1 c/ 

 Percentage of miles collocated 1 98 

__________ 

a/ Cache River NWR - Apparent crossing distance based on GIS overview mapping. 

b/ Steve N. Wilson/Raft Creek WMA - Apparent crossing distance based on GIS overview mapping. 

c/ Collocated with Reliant Energy Pipeline. 

3-11 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Greenville Lateral – Alternative C

We evaluated one route alternative at the eastern end of the proposed Greenville Lateral. This 8.3-milelong alternative would depart from the proposed Greenville Lateral near MP 87.6 and would terminate at 

the eastern terminus of the Greenville Lateral at MP 96.4. Although the proposed route would be about 

0.4 mile longer than Alternative C (a total of 8.7 miles), it would be collocated with an existing power 

line right-of-way for about 4.4 miles and would require significantly less clearing of forest (see table 

3.3.1-3 and figure 3.3-1). Alternative C would be collocated with a pipeline right-of-way for about 3.1 

miles. It would, however, still require more forest clearing than the proposed route. The primary reason 

for evaluation of alternatives in this area was to develop an appropriate location for crossing the Natchez 

Trace Parkway. 

Table 3.3.1-3 

Comparison of Greenville Lateral to Alternative C 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 87.6 to MP 96.4 Alternative C 

Length (mi.) 8.7 8.3 

Waterbodies (no.) 12 8 

 Perennial (no. crossed) 6 4 

 Intermittent (no. crossed) 6 4 

Wetlands (mi.) 0.7 a/ 0.8 

Roads (no.) 9 8 

Resource Management Lands (mi.) 0.2 .1 

 Natchez Trace Parkway b/ 0.2 0.1 

Forest (mi.) 2.2 4.2 

Agricultural (mi.) 3.0 2.1 

Cultural Resource High Probability Areas (mi.) No Data No Data 

Length collocated (mi.) 4.4 c/ 3.1 d/ 

 Percentage of miles collocated 51 37 

__________ 

a/ Incomplete Data Set – Not all wetlands were available. 

b/ Both the proposed route and Alternative C would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway by HDD, resulting in negligible 

surface impacts. 

c/ Collocated with existing power line right-of-way; distance scaled from aerial images; represents length of OCM installation 

adjacent to power line; does not include length of power line right-of-way adjacent to HDD installation. 

d/ Collocated with Texas Eastern Transmission pipeline. 

Natchez Trace Parkway. Several route variations were considered in consultation with the NPS for the 

crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway near MP 92.9 of the Greenville Lateral. The NPS commented that 

the chosen crossing location and crossing method should avoid potentially significant impacts on the 

viewshed from the Natchez Trace Parkway. Issues related to construction feasibility and environmental 

impacts also were considered. The proposed route would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway by a 4,850-

foot-long HDD. It would maximize the use of agricultural areas for the entry and exit points for the HDD 

crossing, follow an existing electric transmission line right-of-way, and minimize the amount of forest 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-12 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
clearing by taking the shortest route across forested areas. Figure 3.3-1 shows the proposed route and a 

previously considered Alternative C. 

Alternative C would require an estimated 6,000-foot-long HDD crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway 

and the Yockanookany River channel, and would impact higher quality forested wetland in the 

Yockanookany River floodplain than the proposed route. Because the HDD route for Alternative C 

would be through a forested area, this alternative would require an extensive amount of forest clearing to 

accommodate the HDD pull string. The proposed route for crossing the Natchez Trace Parkway and the 

Yockanookany River channel would be shorter (about 4,850 feet) and would allow these resources to be 

crossed by HDD, and the HDD staging areas would be established mostly in cleared pasture. 

Construction activities associated with the proposed route would not occur on NPS-managed lands. 

Existing trees would visually screen construction activities and the permanent right-of-way from view 

along the Natchez Trace Parkway and Highway 14; therefore, no significant impacts on visual resources 

would occur as a result of construction of the proposed route. The only activities on NPS lands would be 

a civil survey across the area along the path of the HDD to mark the centerline and the edges of the 

construction right-of-way, and the placement of two drag tracker wires for the HDD along the edges of 

the construction right-of-way. Although these activities may require the removal of a few low-hanging 

tree limbs, no significant impacts would be anticipated. The entry hole for the HDD on the west side of 

the crossing would be about 500 feet from the road. The exit hole for the HDD on the east side of the 

crossing would be almost 4,000 feet from the road and east of the Yockanookany River. Use of the HDD 

crossing technique would reduce impacts on the Natchez Trace Parkway, the Yockanookany River and 

associated wetlands, and forests compared to the use of an open-cut technique since no clearing would be 

required along the path of the HDD. 

 

The proposed pipeline alignment for the Greenville Lateral across the Natchez Trace Parkway was 

developed in consultation with the NPS. Further, because Alternative C would result in greater 

environmental impacts and would involve less collocation, we believe that the disadvantages of 

Alternative C outweigh potential advantages, and we do not recommend the use of this alternative. 

3.3.2 Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing 

In addition to the major route alternatives identified in the project development and route selection 

process, numerous minor route variations for the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals were reviewed 

during pre-filing and adopted into Texas Gas’s proposed pipeline alignments. They were adopted to 

minimize or avoid potential impacts on cultural resources, residences, and various natural resources, and 

to improve constructability and safety during construction. Table 3.3.2-1 summarizes these variations for 

the Fayetteville Lateral, and table 3.3.2-2 summarizes the variations for the Greenville Lateral. 

3-13 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.2-1 

Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Fayetteville Lateral 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

6.48 7.43 Conway, AR 0.95 Forest, Right-of-Way Avoid a pond and managed forest. 

6.58 6.78 Conway, AR 0.21 Forest Avoid a pond. 

7.76 8.85 Faulkner, AR 1.09 Ag Land, Forest, 

Residential 

Avoid a high rock bluff at the Cove 

Creek crossing; and avoid a newly 

installed well pad, gathering lines, and 

gravel access road. 

9.59 9.98 Faulkner, AR 0.39 Right-of-Way, Ag 

Land, Forest 

Avoid environmental features. 

12.55 13.23 Faulkner, AR 0.68 Forest, Ag Land, 

Right-of-Way 

Avoid severe side slopes and potential 

construction safety issues. 

15.10 16.07 Faulkner, AR 0.97 Ag Land, Forest, 

Rural Residential 

Avoid ponds, an underground 

storm/fruit cellar, and a residence. 

20.64 22.84 Faulkner, AR 2.20 Ag Land, Forest Avoid severe side slope and potential 

construction safety issues. 

20.64 22.84 Faulkner, AR 1.82 Ag Land, Right-ofWay, Forest Follow an existing pipeline corridor. 

20.64 22.84 Faulkner, AR 0.44 Ag Land, Forest Avoid severe side slope and potential 

construction safety issues. 

30.23 32.60 White, AR 2.37 Forest, Ag Land, 

Existing Right-ofWay, Grassland 

Avoid new well pad sites and new 

gathering lines. 

32.86 33.97 White, AR 1.12 Forest, Right-of-Way 

Residential, Ag Land 

Avoid a recently installed 10-inchdiameter gathering pipeline, valves, and 

meter station; and avoid ponds and 

residential areas. 

34.29 34.53 White, AR 0.24 Ag Land, Right-ofWay Avoid a recently installed 10-inchdiameter gathering pipeline and valve 

site (SEECO). 

36.27 36.46 White, AR 0.19 Forest, Grassland Facilitate waterbody crossing. 

41.53 42.93 Cleburne, AR 1.40 Right-of-Way, Rural 

Residential, Forest, 

Ag Land 

Avoid a parallel road and residences. 

44.88 46.96 White, AR 2.09 Forest, Ag Land, 

Right-of-Way, 

Grassland 

Avoid environmental features. 

44.88 46.96 White, AR 0.64 Ag Land, Forest, 

Right-of-Way, 

Grassland 

Avoid residential areas. 

48.50 49.08 White, AR 0.58 Ag Land, Forest Avoid environmental features. 

49.72 49.96 White, AR 0.24 Right-of-Way, Ag 

Land, Forest 

Avoid environmental features. 

50.10 50.17 White, AR 0.07 Roadway, Ag Land, 

Forest 

Improve road crossing. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-14 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.2-1 

Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Fayetteville Lateral 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

50.36 50.92 White, AR 0.56 Ag Land, Forest Improve road crossing and avoid a 

residence. 

52.44 53.07 White, AR 0.63 Forest, Ag Land Improve constructability and avoid side 

hill construction. 

53.28 53.53 White, AR 0.25 Forest, Ag Land, 

Residential 

Landowner requirements. 

54.85 58.19 White, AR 3.34 Forest, Grassland, 

Ag Land, Residential 

Avoid vineyards and orchards. 

59.40 59.67 White, AR 0.27 Ag Land, Forest, 

Residential 

Avoid a residence. 

60.23 60.65 White, AR 0.42 Forest, Ag Land Avoid environmental features 

60.81 63.62 White, AR 2.81 Forest, Ag Land, 

Residential 

Avoid residences and improve 

constructability. 

64.10 65.07 White, AR 0.97 Rights-of-Way, Ag 

Land 

Improve two road crossings and avoid a 

residence. 

66.60 67.55 White, AR 0.95 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

70.66 72.79 Woodruff, AR 2.13 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

72.79 74.17 Woodruff, AR 1.38 Ag Land, Forest Avoid environmental features and 

improve constructability of HDD. 

75.82 76.81 Woodruff, AR 0.99 Ag Land Route designed to avoid terrain 

features and to improve constructability. 

78.92 80.21 Woodruff, AR 1.29 Ag Land, County 

Road, Forest 

Avoid federal WRP area. 

80.21 85.63 Woodruff, AR 5.41 Ag Land, Forest, 

Managed Forest 

Minimize impacts on the Cache River. 

86.17 86.38 Woodruff, AR 0.21 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

89.06 89.36 Woodruff, AR 0.30 Managed Forest Minimize impact on trees. 

91.05 92.22 Woodruff, AR 1.17 Ag Land, Forest Minimize impact on forest. 

93.09 93.73 Woodruff, AR 0.64 Forest, Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

94.43 96.61 Woodruff, AR 2.18 Ag Land, Wetland Avoid environmental features and 

improve wetland crossing. 

98.14 98.67 Woodruff, AR 0.53 Ag Land Avoid environmental features and 

improve constructability. 

99.86 100.31 Woodruff, AR 0.45 Ag Land Minimize wetland impact. 

102.71 102.91 Woodruff, AR 0.20 Ag Land Route designed to avoid environmental 

features 

111.05 112.11 St. Francis, AR 1.06 Right-of-Way, Ag 

Land, Wetland 

Improve waterbody crossing and 

constructability. 

116.48 117.71 St. Francis & Lee, 

AR 

1.25 Ag Land, Forest, 

Right-of-Way, 

Residential 

Avoid buildings. 

119.05 119.40 Lee, AR 0.35 Ag Land, Wetland Improve waterbody crossing and 

minimize forest impact. 

3-15 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.2-1 

Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Fayetteville Lateral 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

119.05 119.40 Lee, AR 0.28 Ag Land, Wetland, 

Right-of-Way 

Avoid wetlands and improve waterbody 

crossing. 

120.62 120.88 Lee, AR 0.26 Ag Land, Right-ofWay Minimize forest impact. 

121.73 121.94 Lee, AR 0.21 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

130.38 131.46 Lee, AR 1.10 Ag Land, Right-ofWay Avoid environmental features and 

improve a waterbody crossing. 

135.83 136.22 Lee, AR 0.39 Ag Land, Right-ofWay Avoid environmental features. 

142.55 142.88 Phillips, AR 0.33 Ag Land, Managed 

Forest, Right-of-Way 

Avoid a tree farm. 

144.51 145.53 Phillips, AR 1.02 Ag Land, Right-ofWay, Forest Improve a waterbody crossing and 

avoid environmental features. 

145.90 146.36 Phillips, AR 0.46 Forest, Ag Land, 

Commercial, Rightof-Way 

Avoid residences and aboveground 

storage tanks. 

147.46 147.67 Phillips, AR 0.21 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

149.88 149.33 Phillips, AR 0.45 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

154.50 156.22 Phillips, AR 0.64 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

154.50 156.22 Phillips, AR 0.41 Ag Land Avoid environmental features. 

154.50 156.22 Phillips, AR 1.72 Ag Land Avoid environmental features and 

improve road and waterbody crossings. 

160.89 161.49 Coahoma, MS 0.60 Right-of-Way, Ag 

Land 

Avoid environmental features. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-16 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.2-2 

Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Greenville Lateral 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

6.54 7.97 Washington, MS 1.43 Residential, Ag 

Land, Forest 

Minimize impacts on an agricultural 

resource. 

8.22 9.73 Washington, MS 1.51 Deer Creek, Ag 

Land 

Avoid environmental feature and 

improve HDD constructability. 

10.56 11.61 Washington, MS 1.05 Ag Land, Open 

water 

Improve HDD alignment at Bogue 

Phalia. 

19.01 19.85 Sunflower, MS 0.84 Ag Land Avoid environmental feature. 

20.94 21.20 Humphreys, MS 0.26 Ag Land, Drain Improve crossing of an intermittent 

drain. 

23.41 23.97 Humphreys, MS 0.56 Ag Land, Open 

water 

Improve constructability at crossing of 

Beasley Bayou. 

38.48 40.32 Humphreys, MS 1.84 Ag Land, Forest Improve HDD constructability of west 

levee of Yazoo River. 

40.32 41.49 Humphreys, MS 1.17 Ag Land, Open 

water, Forest 

Improve HDD constructability at 

crossing of Yazoo River. 

41.49 44.82 Humphreys, MS 3.33 Ag Land, Forest Accommodate landowner concerns and 

minimize conflicts with WRP site. 

44.84 48.12 Humphreys and 

Holmes, MS 

3.30 Forested Wetland, 

Ag Land, Open 

water 

Minimize conflicts with WRP sites and 

avoid environmental feature. 

48.85 49.51 Holmes, MS 0.66 Ag Land Avoid environmental feature. 

51.19 51.58 Holmes, MS 0.39 Commercial, Ag 

Land 

Improve HDD constructability at 

crossing of Highway 49 E and the 

Illinois Central Railroad. 

52.42 55.89 Holmes, MS 3.47 Ag Land, Forest Minimize impact on the Hillside NWR 

and environmental features. 

56.43 57.16 Holmes, MS 0.73 Managed Forest, 

Forest, Ag Land 

Avoid environmental feature. 

58.54 59.24 Holmes, MS 0.70 Forest Avoid environmental feature. 

59.58 59.89 Holmes, MS 0.31 Cleared Avoid environmental feature. 

61.88 62.00 Holmes, MS 0.12 Forest, Cleared Avoid geological feature (sinkhole). 

63.43 64.33 Holmes, MS 0.90 Ag Land, l 

Residential 

Avoid golf course and college. 

64.43 65.85 Holmes, MS 1.42 Ag Land, Forest Avoid planned subdivision. 

67.14 67.79 Holmes, MS 0.65 Forest, Ag Land Avoid abandoned cemetery. 

68.59 70.93 Holmes, MS 2.34 Forest, Agriculture Minimize impact on forest and improve 

constructability and access. 

71.33 71.52 Holmes, MS 0.19 Forest Avoid crossing a drain. 

75.20 78.41 Holmes and Attala, 

MS 

2.94 Ag Land, Open 

Land, Forest, Open 

water 

Accommodate landowner concerns. 

80.21 81.58 Attala, MS 1.37 Managed Forest, Ag 

Land 

Accommodate landowner concerns and 

improve constructability. 

3-17 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.2-2 

Route Variations Reviewed During Pre-filing: Greenville Lateral 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

82.22 83.61 Attala, MS 1.39 Forest, Ag Land Avoid a planned building site. 

92.83 95.14 Attala, MS 2.31 Forest, Managed 

Forest, Ag Land 

Improve constructability and minimize 

impact on forestland. 

3.3.3 Agency-Proposed Alternatives 

During the pre-filing process, the USACE Memphis District requested evaluation of four route 

alternatives for the Fayetteville Lateral to minimize impacts on wetlands, particularly forested wetlands. 

The ADHHS also requested evaluation of a route alternative to avoid the Little Red River Watershed, 

which serves as the water supply for the City of Searcy. These route alternatives are presented in 

appendix B-3 and B-4 and in table 3.3.3-1. 

We considered a variety of factors in evaluating these agency-proposed alternatives, including length, 

land requirements, and potential for reducing and minimizing impacts on natural resources, as well as 

considering engineering constraints. 

The ADHHS D1, and USACE U1, U2, and U3 had significant disadvantages when compared to the 

proposed route, and all of these alternatives were longer than the corresponding segment of the proposed 

Project. 

ADHHS Alternative D1

The ADHHS Alternative D1 would extend between MPs 31.0 to 64.3 of the proposed route. A map of 

the alternative route is in appendix B-3. Although it appears the ADHHS Alternative DI would impact 

less wetland and forestland, this was due in large part to the alternative route going through more 

developed areas. It would be within 50 feet of about 146 residences in two communities, but the 

proposed route would be within 50 feet of no residences. The ADHHS Alternative DI would be about 3.6 

miles longer than the proposed route and would, therefore, require about 44 more acres for construction 

and 22 more acres for operation. It would cross about 28 more waterbodies and 16.5 more acres of 

agricultural land than the proposed route. The advantages of the ADHHS Alternative DI are that it would 

cross about 1.6 fewer acres of wetlands and 76.7 fewer acres of forestland. However, the proposed route 

would follow existing right-of-way along about 32 percent of it length, compared to about 5.7 percent for 

the alternative. To avoid impacts on this watershed, the ADHHS requested either modifications to the 

Fayetteville Lateral route or for Texas Gas to provide the ADHHS with its plans for constructing in the 

watershed for review so that ADHHS may document any potential impact on the water supply associated 

with planned activities. Texas Gas would be required to use BMPs and our Plan and Procedures to 

minimize impacts during construction and operation and to consult with the ADHHS to address any 

additional concerns it may have about construction in these areas (see section 4.3). Texas Gas also would 

implement its SPCC Plan to prevent and control any spills of hazardous materials. We believe the 

proposed route, with its more remote location, would have significantly less impact on residences. Its 

greater collocation along more existing right-of-way would minimize new impacts and land requirements. 

Therefore, we believe that the Project could be constructed through the Little Red River Watershed in a 

way that would minimize potential impacts on this resource, and conclude that the proposed route is the 

preferred alternative. The USACE concurs with our conclusion. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-18 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
USACE Alternative U1

The USACE Alternative U1 would extend from about MP 122.4 to 136.0 of the proposed route. Maps of 

the alternative route are in appendix B-4. This route would be about 2.7 miles longer than the proposed 

route and would require about 32.7 more acres for construction and about 16.3 more acres for permanent 

right-of-way. It would not be collocated along an existing right-of-way compared to the proposed route, 

which would be collocated with existing right-of-way along about 86 percent of its length. The USACE 

Alternative U1 would be within 50 feet of 10 more residences than the proposed route and would affect 

about 1.7 more acres of wetlands, 23.6 more acres of agricultural land, and 3.0 more acres of forestland 

than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. The only advantage of this alternative over the 

proposed route would be that it would cross three fewer waterbodies. We believe that the USACE 

Alternative U1 would have greater land requirements and resource impacts than the proposed route and 

that the impact of the corresponding segment of the proposed route would be further minimized by its 

collocation along existing right-of-way for about 86 percent of its length. Therefore, we conclude that the 

proposed route is the preferred alternative. The USACE concurs with our conclusion. 

USACE Alternative U2

The USACE Alternative U2 would extend from MP 110.1 to 122.3. A map of the alternative route is in 

appendix B-4. This route would be about 1.6 miles longer than the proposed route and would, therefore, 

require about 19.4 more acres for construction and about 9.7 more acres for the permanent right-of-way. 

It would be within about 50 feet of three residences, whereas the proposed route would not be within 50 

feet of any residences. The USACE Alternative U2 would cross five fewer waterbodies and 4.1 fewer 

acres of wetlands. However, it would cross about 5.5 more acres of forestland and 1.8 more acres of 

agricultural land. The USACE Alternative U2 would require new right-of-way along its entire length, 

whereas the proposed route would be constructed adjacent to existing right-of-way along about 94.3 

percent of its length. Since the USACE Alternative U2 would have greater impact on residences and 

would create a new utility corridor along its entire length, we conclude that the proposed route is the 

preferred alternative. The USACE concurs with our conclusion. 

USACE Alternative U3

The USACE Alternative U3 would extend from MP 86 to 95.2. Maps of the alternative are in appendix 

B-4. This route would be about 0.2 mile shorter than the proposed route and would require about 2.4 

fewer acres for construction and about 1.2 fewer acres for permanent right-of-way. It would be within 50 

feet of a small community with three residences, whereas the proposed route would not be within 50 feet 

of any residences. The proposed route would cross nine more waterbodies. 0.2 more acre of wetlands, 3.4 

more acres of agricultural lands, and 0.2 more acre of forestland. The proposed route was developed to 

accommodate a proposed HDD crossing of Bayou DeView (part of the Cache River NWR), which 

requires an alignment that approaches the Bayou more nearly at a right angle than does Alternative U3. 

Since Alternative U3 would have greater potential impacts on residential land uses and would require 

modification to the proposed crossing of Bayou DeView, we conclude that the proposed route is the 

preferred alternative. The USACE concurs with our conclusion. 

USACE Alternative U4

USACE Alternative U4 was proposed as an alternative to the original route Texas Gas had proposed and 

would extend from MP 74.7 to 85.2. A map of the alternative is in appendix B-4. The intent of 

Alternative U4 was to minimize impacts on forests and wetlands. Texas Gas changed its earlier route to 

incorporate much of the intent of Alternative U4. While directly incorporating the portion of Alternative 

U4 east of the Cache River, Texas Gas modified its route west of the Cache River to avoid larger 

3-19 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
forested/wetland tracts. Both routes would be about the same length, and neither would follow existing 

right-of-way. Alternative U4 would be within 50 feet of two residences, whereas the original Fayetteville 

Lateral route would be within 50 feet of no residences. Alternative U4 would affect about 2.9 fewer acres 

of wetlands, 6.6 fewer acres of agricultural land, and 8.6 more acres of forestland compared to the 

original route. Alternative U4 would cross one fewer waterbody. As indicated above, Texas Gas 

modified the original route to significantly avoid forestlands. The proposed route also incorporates an 

approved crossing location of the Cache River NWR, whereas Alternative U4 would require a more 

northerly crossing. Since it would reduce impacts on wetlands and waterbodies and cross the Cache 

River and NWR at an agency-recommended location, we conclude that Texas Gas’s proposed route, 

which incorporates the USACE intent in developing Alternative U4, is the preferred alternative. The 

USACE concurs with our conclusion 

Table 3.3.3-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Alternatives to the Corresponding Segments of the Proposed Project 

Potential Impacts

Environmental Parameter Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Segment

(Milepost 31.0 to 64.3) 

ADHHS Alternative 

DI 

Length (mi.) 31.3 34.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 146 

Waterbodies (no.) 45 73 

Number/Wetland (acres) 7/1.6 0 

Agricultural Lands (acre) 55.6 72.1 

Forested Lands (acre) 207.9 131.2 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 10.0 2.0 

Potential Impacts

Environmental Parameter Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Segment

(Milepost 122.4 to 136.0) 

USACE Alternative 

U1 

Length (mi.) 13.6 16.3 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 1 11 

Waterbodies (no.) 11 8 

Number/(acres) 4/1.5 4/3.2 

Agricultural Lands (acre) 156.5 180.1 

Forested Lands (acre) 2.9 5.9 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 11.7 0 

Potential Impacts

Environmental Parameter Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Segment

(Milepost 110.1 to 122.3) 

USACE Alternative 

U2 

Length (mi.) 12.3 13.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 3 

Waterbodies (no.) 10 5 

Number/Wetland (acres) 8/4.6 2/0.5 

Agricultural Land (acres) 137.6 139.4 

Forested Land (acres) 2.2 7.7 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 11.6 0 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-20 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.3-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Alternatives to the Corresponding Segments of the Proposed Project 

Potential Impacts

Environmental Parameter Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Segment

(Milepost 86 to 95.2) 

USACE Alternative 

U3 

Length (mi.) 9.2 9.0 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 2 

Waterbodies (no.) 10 1 

Number/Wetland (acres) 4/1.2 0/1.4 

Agricultural Land (acres) 106.9 103.5 

Forested Land (acres) 1.5 1.3 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts

Environmental Parameter Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Segment

(Milepost 74.7 to 85.2) 

USACE Alternative 

U4 

Length (mi.) 10.6 10.6 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 2 

Waterbodies (no.) 11 10 

Number/Wetland (acres) 10/15.8 6/12.9 

Agricultural Land (acres) 106.6 100.2 

Forested Land (acres) 5.4 14.0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

3.3.4 Agency-Proposed Route Variations 

Route variations differ from system or major route alternatives in that they are identified to solve or 

reduce construction impacts on localized, specific resources such as forested wetlands, cultural resource 

sites, recreational lands, residences, terrain conditions, and to accommodate landowner requests. Because 

route variations are identified in response to specific local concerns, they are usually the result of 

landowner comment, greater field engineering design, or field surveys. While route variations may be a 

few miles in length, most are relatively short and in general proximity to the proposed route. We have 

considered a variety of factors in identifying and evaluating variations, including length, land 

requirements, and potential for reducing and minimizing impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

During the pre-filing process, Texas Gas refined its proposed route based on discussions with landowners, 

resource managers, project engineers, and our input to avoid or minimize impacts on natural or cultural 

resources, reduce or eliminate engineering and constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize 

conflicts with existing land uses. 

During project development, Texas Gas identified a total of 59 minor route variations to its initially 

planned route for the Fayetteville Lateral and 26 minor route variations to its initially planned route for 

the Greenville Lateral. Texas Gas incorporated these variations into the proposed routes for the Project, 

and these are the pipeline routes evaluated in this EIS. These minor route variations are summarized in 

table 3.3.4-1. We have evaluated each of these minor route variations and considered their associated 

environmental consequence as part of our environmental analysis of the proposed Project. We conclude 

that they are reasonable and that their use would be the preferred route. 

3-21 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
In addition to the route variations listed in table 3.3.4-1, it is anticipated that minor alignment shifts would 

be required prior to and during construction to accommodate currently unforeseeable site-specific 

constraints related to engineering, landowner, and environmental concerns. All such alignment shifts 

would be subject to post-Certificate review and approval by the FERC. 

The ADHHS suggested a route variation to minimize construction within the Brewer Lake Watershed. 

The ADHHS route variation would begin about 2 miles north of the western end (MP 0.0) of the 

Fayetteville Lateral and would join the proposed route at about MP 5.2. However, this alternative would 

not allow the Project access to existing gas gathering facilities. ADHHS requested either modifications to 

the Fayetteville Lateral route or for Texas Gas to provide planned construction methods for review so that 

ADHHS can document any potential impact on the water supply associated with planned activities. 

Texas Gas would be required to use BMPs and our Plan and Procedures to minimize impacts during 

construction and operation and to consult with the ADHHS to address any additional concerns it may 

have about construction in these areas (see section 4.3). Texas Gas would also implement its SPCC Plan 

to prevent and control any spills of hazardous materials. We believe the proposed route would meet the 

stated purpose of the Project (to develop natural gas pipeline capacity for receipt, transportation, and 

delivery of new natural gas supplies from the new Fayetteville Shale production area). The ADHHS’s 

suggested route variation would not accomplish the Project’s purpose without the construction of a lateral 

pipeline from the route variation back to the gas gathering facilities, thereby affecting resources similar to 

those that the variation would avoid. Further, we believe that the Project could be constructed through the 

Brewer Lake Watershed in a way that would minimize potential impacts on this resource. Therefore, we 

conclude that the proposed route is the preferred route. 

During the pre-filing period, the FWS identified 22 route variations, ranging from less than 1 mile to 5 

miles in length. The FWS variations were largely developed from review of aerial photographs and 

focused on minimizing impacts on wetlands and potentially high quality ecosystems but did not consider 

constructability, use of adjacent utility rights-of-way, the possibility of cultural resources, or other sitespecific land use issues. Table 3.3.4-1 lists each of the variations identified by the FWS. Of these 20 

variations, Texas Gas incorporated the following five, either completely or in part, into the proposed route 

it filed for its Certificate application: Variations 10 (MPs 89.0 to 89.3), 11 (in part, between MPs 91.1 

and 91.8 only), 12 (MPs 99.6 to 100.6), 15 (MPs 119.1 to 119.4), and 16 (in part, between MPs 120.6 and 

120.9 only). 

Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 15.1 - 16.1 FWS Variation No. 1 

Length (mi.) 1 0.8 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 2 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 1/0.1 

Agricultural Land (acres) 7.1 2.5 

Forested Land (acres) 4.6 2.3 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 32.9 - 33.7 FWS Variation No. 2 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-22 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Length (mi.) 0.8 0.8 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 1 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Lands (acres) 2.2 3 

Forested Land (acres) 6.1 2.8 

Miles of adjacent Utility Right-of-Way 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 42.4 - 42.9 FWS Variation No. 3 

Length (mi.) 0.6 0.6 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 1 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 4.5 4.4 

Forested Land (acres) 2 2 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0.2 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 46.9 - 47.6 FWS Variation No. 4 

Length (mi.) 0.7 0.8 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 3 

Waterbodies (no.) 1 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 0 3.9 

Forested Land (acres) 7.3 1.1 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 55.5 - 58.2 FWS Variation No. 5 

Length (mi.) 2.7 2.5 

Residences (no.) 0 3 

Waterbodies (no.) 2 2 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 14.7 18.7 

Forested Land (acres) 15.8 7.6 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter 

MP 59.1 - 59.4 FWS Variation No. 21 

Length (mi.) 0.3 0.3 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

3-23 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 0 0 

Forested Land (acres) 3.4 3.4 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 63.0 - 65.1 FWS Variation No. 6 

Length (mi.) 2.1 1.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies 2 2 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.2 1/0.1 

Agricultural Land (acres) 18.4 16.9 

Forested Land (acres) 3.4 1.8 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 66.6 - 68.0 FWS Variation No. 7 

Length (mi.) 1.4 1.5 

Residences (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 4 3 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0/1.9 2/0.6 

Agricultural Land (acres) 14.2 17.1 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 74.9 - 76.8 FWS Variation No. 8 

Length (mi.) 1.9 1.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.2 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 22.2 22.2 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 86.2 - 86.8 FWS Variation No. 9 

Length (mi.) 0.6 0.6 

Residences (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.5 0 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-24 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Agricultural Land (acres) 7.2 7.1 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 89.0 - 89.3 FWS Variation No. 10 

Length (mi.) 0.3 0.3 

Residences (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 0.3 0.4 

Forested Land (acres) 3.3 1.4 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 91.1 - 95.0 FWS Variation No. 11 

Length (mi.) 3.9 4.5 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 1 

Waterbodies (no.) 4 4 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 2/0.9 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 45.6 52.7 

Forested Land (acres) 6.2 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 99.6 - 100.6 FWS Variation No. 12 

Length (mi.) 1 1 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 2 2 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.5 1/0.2 

Agricultural Land (acres) 10.4 10.5 

Forested Land (acres) 0.7 0.5 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-way (mi) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 102.7 - 102.9 FWS Variation No. 13 

Length (mi.) 0.2 0.2 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 2.4 2.2 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

3-25 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 111.0 - 113.4 FWS Variation No. 14 

Length (mi.) 2.5 3 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 2 4 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/2.2 1/1.7 

Agricultural Land (acres) 25.4 32.8 

Forested Land (acres) 1.1 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 1.1 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 119.1 - 119.8 FWS Variation No. 15 

Length (mi.) 0.7 0.7 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 7.3 7.8 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0.2 0.2 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 120.2 - 121.9 FWS Variation No. 16 

Length (mi.) 1.7 1.7 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 1 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/1.0 1/1.0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 19 19.1 

Forested Land (acres) 1.6 1.4 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 1.3 0.4 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 127.1 - 127.7 FWS Variation No. 22 

Length (mi.) 0.6 0.6 

Residences (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 1 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.6 1/0.6 

Agricultural Land (acres) 4.8 4.8 

Forested Land (acres) 0.9 0.9 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0 0 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-26 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table 3.3.4-1 

Comparison of the Agency-Proposed Route Variations to the Corresponding 

Segments of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 135.6 - 136.0 FWS Variation No. 17 

Length (mi.) 0.4 0.5 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 1/0.8 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 4.2 5.3 

Forested Land (acres) 1 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0.4 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 140.5 - 145.3 FWS Variation No. 18 

Length (mi.) 4.8 4.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 6 3 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 8/1.3 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 49.1 57.2 

Forested Land (acres) 5.1 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 4.1 0 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 160.7 - 161.5 FWS Variation No. 19 

Length (mi.) 0.8 0.9 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 1 1 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 8.6 9.3 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 0.2 0.9 

Potential Impacts 

Environmental Parameter MP 163.4 - 165.4 FWS Variation No. 20 

Length (mi.) 2 2 

Residences within 50 feet (no.) 0 0 

Waterbodies (no.) 0 0 

Number/Wetlands (acres) 0 0 

Agricultural Land (acres) 21.8 22.3 

Forested Land (acres) 0 0 

Adjacent Utility Right-of-Way (mi.) 2 0.8 

FWS Variation No. 1

3-27 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
FWS Variation No. 1 would extend from MP 15.1 to MP 16.1. A map showing the location of this 

variation is in appendix B-5. This variation would be about 0.8 mile shorter than the proposed route and 

would cross one fewer waterbody, 4.6 fewer acres of agricultural land, and 2.3 fewer acres of forested 

land. It would cross one delineated wetland, affecting about 0.1 acre of wetland. This variation was 

suggested to minimize forest fragmentation. However, Texas Gas states that while the proposed route 

along this segment of the Fayetteville Lateral would require clearing a total of about 2,000 feet of forest, 

most of this clearing would be along the edges of forested areas. Only about 800 feet (about 1.8 acres) of 

this total would be contiguous. Further, if the variation was constructed, additional land requirements 

would be needed for additional temporary workspaces (ATWSs) at two locations where the route 

variation would cross over the CenterPoint and Ozark high-pressure pipelines. Texas Gas estimates that 

four 50-foot by 150-foot ATWSs (about 0.7 acre) would be needed to safely construct the crossovers. 

Constructing pipeline crossovers is feasible, but they are usually minimized to the greatest extent 

practicable because of safety issues during construction and for maintenance during operation. While the 

proposed route would avoid crossovers, it would require about 2.3 acres of additional forest impact. This 

would be about 0.7 percent of the total upland forest impact required for construction of the Fayetteville 

Lateral portion of the Project. Since the proposed route would avoid crossovers and would make a 

minimal contribution to forest fragmentation, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred 

alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 2

FWS Variation No. 2 would extend from MP 32.9 to MP 33.7 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. It would be about the same length as the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route, and no residences would be within 50 feet of either route. The primary 

reason the FWS suggested this variation was to minimize forest fragmentation: FWS Variation No. 2 

would require about 3.3 fewer acres of forest clearing for construction. However, the required tree 

clearing for the proposed route would mainly be next to the existing pipeline right-of-way and would 

affect forest edge areas by expanding the open area along the pipeline corridor. The exception to this 

would be at locations where the proposed route would deviate to the south and away from the existing 

right-of-way to avoid constructing parallel to a waterbody, and to avoid small wetlands and two farm 

ponds. Since the additional forest clearing along the proposed route would minimize impacts on 

waterbodies and wetlands compared with construction immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way, 

we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 3

FWS Variation No. 3 would extend from MP 42.4 to MP 42.9. A map showing the location of this 

variation is in appendix B-5. It would be about the same length as the corresponding segment of the 

proposed route and no residences would be within 50 feet of either route. The primary reason the FWS 

suggested this variation was to minimize forest fragmentation. However, both routes would affect similar 

amounts of forest land. Since the variation would not significantly decrease the amount forest clearing, 

we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 4

FWS Variation No. 4 would extend from MP 46.9 to MP 47.6 of the proposed route. The variation would 

be about 0.1 mile longer than the proposed route. A map showing the location of this variation is in 

appendix B-5. It would be within 50 feet of three residences and would have three road crossings. The 

proposed route would not be within 50 feet of any residences and would require two road crossings. Both 

routes would cross one waterbody. The variation would affect about 3.9 acres of agricultural land, and 

the proposed route would not affect agricultural land. The variation would affect about 6.2 fewer acres of 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-28 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
forest than the proposed route. Some of the forest impact is due to the alignment of the proposed route to 

avoid construction near residences. Since the proposed route would minimize impacts on residences, we 

conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 5

FWS Variation No. 5 would extend from MP 55.5 to MP 58.2 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. It would be about 0.2 mile shorter than the proposed route 

but would be within 50 feet of three residences. The proposed route would not be near any residences. 

Both routes would cross two waterbodies. The FWS commented that this variation was suggested to 

minimize habitat impact. The proposed route would require clearing about 8.2 more acres of forest. The 

variation would travel a more direct path that would cross about 4 more acres of agricultural land. The 

proposed route was developed to avoid impacts on vineyards and residential areas. The variation would 

require clearing about 4 acres of vineyards. Since the proposed route would minimize impacts on 

residential areas and vineyards, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 21

FWS Variation No. 21 would extend from MP 59.1 to MP 59.4 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. There does not appear to be any significant differences 

between the impact of constructing this variation and the proposed route. Therefore, we conclude that the 

proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 6

FWS Variation No. 6 would extend from MP 63.0 to MP 65.1 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about 0.2 mile shorter. No residence 

would be near either route, and both would cross two waterbodies. The reason for the proposed 

alignment along this segment of the Project is to facilitate the crossings of Gladey Creek, Old Russell 

Road, an existing pipeline, Highway 367, the Missouri Pacific Railroad, and U.S. Highway 67. 

Therefore, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 7

FWS Variation No. 7 would extend from MP 66.6 to MP 68.0 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about 0.1 mile shorter than the 

proposed route. The FWS did not indicate why this variation was suggested. Neither route would be 

within 50 feet of any residence, nor would they require forest clearing for construction. There may be 

slightly less wetland impact (about 1.3 fewer acres), but wetland delineation has not been performed 

along the variation and there may be greater or lesser wetland impact than this estimate. The variation 

would affect about 2.9 more acres of agricultural land. Since the variation offers no significant advantage 

over the proposed route, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 8

FWS Variation No. 8 would extend from MP 74.9 to MP 76.8 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about the same length as the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. The FWS did not indicate why this variation was 

suggested. Neither route would be within 50 feet of any residences, nor would they require clearing of 

forests. Both routes would affect about the same amount of agricultural land. The proposed route would 

3-29 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
cross a small wetland within an agricultural area. Since the variation offers no significant advantage over 

the proposed route, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 9

FWS Variation No. 9 would extend from MP 86.2 to MP 86.8 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about the same length as the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. The FWS did not indicate why this variation was 

suggested. Neither route would be within 50 feet of any residences, nor would they require clearing of 

forests. Both routes would affect about the same amount of agricultural land. The proposed route would 

cross a small wetland within an agricultural area. Since the variation offers no significant advantage over 

the proposed route, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 10

FWS Variation No. 10 would extend from MP 89.0 to MP 89.3 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Neither route would be within 50 feet of residences, nor 

would they cross waterbodies or wetlands. The variation would impact about 1.9 fewer acres of forest 

and would require clearing fewer trees with larger diameters. Since there would be no constructability 

issues related to using this alternative, and since larger trees would be avoided, Texas Gas has 

incorporated it into its proposed route. We concur. The FWS Variation No. 10 is the preferred 

alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 11

FWS Variation No. 11 would extend from MP 91.1 to MP 95.0 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about 0.6 mile longer than the 

proposed route and would require about 7.3 more acres for construction (plus additional workspace for 

topsoil segregation where needed) and about 3.6 more acres within the permanent right-of-way. The 

variation would be within 50 feet of one residence. Both routes would cross four waterbodies. The 

proposed route would cross about 0.9 acre of wetland. The variation would affect about 7.1 more acres of 

agricultural land. Texas Gas has incorporated the first 0.7 mile of this variation into its proposed route 

since it would avoid a forested area with forested wetland (about 1.4 acres combined). About 0.7 acre of 

the remaining 3.8 acres of forest along the proposed route has been cleared for agricultural use. Since use 

of the first 0.7 mile of the FWS Variation No. 11 would reduce impacts on forest and forested wetlands, 

we concur that it would be the preferred alternative and that the remaining portion of the variation would 

not be the preferred alternative since it would be longer, would have greater land requirements for 

construction and operation, and would affect a residence. 

FWS Variation No. 12

FWS Variation No. 12 would extend from MP 99.6 to MP 100.6 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Both routes would be about the same length and would 

affect similar amounts of the listed resources. However, about 0.3 acre of wetland impact would be 

avoided by the variation. The original alignment of the pipeline would have crossed a large wetland near 

MP 100. Further, the modified alignment would facilitate the crossing of U.S. Highway 49, the St. Louis 

Southwestern Railway, and County Road 538. Texas Gas has incorporated this variation into its proposed 

route. We concur that FWS Variation No. 12 is the preferred alternative. 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-30 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
FWS Variation No. 13

FWS Variation No. 13 would extend from MP 102.7 to MP 102.9 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. It essentially would follow a straighter path between 

these two points. However, the proposed route was developed to avoid a sensitive environmental feature. 

Therefore, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 14

FWS Variation No. 14 would extend from MP 111.0 to MP 113.4 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. It would be about 0.5 mile longer than the proposed 

route and would require about 6.1 more acres for construction (plus additional workspace for topsoil 

segregation where needed) and about 3.0 more acres of permanent right-of-way. The proposed route 

would follow about 1.1 miles of existing utility right-of-way for about 44 percent of the pipeline route 

along this segment of the Project. The variation would follow no existing right-of-way. The variation 

would cross two more waterbodies and would require a longer HDD crossing of Big Creek and its 

associated wetlands, since this HDD would also include crossing I-40. Big Creek and its associated 

wetlands would be crossed by HDD along the proposed route, but I-40 and an exit ramp would be crossed 

by a separate, shorter HDD, and both HDDs would be close to the existing CenterPoint pipeline right-ofway. Since the variation offers no significant advantage over the proposed route, we conclude that the 

proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 15

FWS Variation No. 15 would extend from MP 119.1 to MP 119.8 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Both routes would be about the same length and would 

affect similar amounts of the listed resources. However, the variation would avoid a wetland, thereby 

reducing wetland impacts. Texas Gas has incorporated this variation into its proposed route. We concur 

that FWS Variation No. 15 is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 16

The FWS Variation No. 16 would extend from MP 120.2 to MP 121.9 of the proposed route. A map 

showing the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Both routes would be about the same length 

and would affect similar amounts of agricultural land and forest. However, the variation would be within 

50 feet of one residence and would be adjacent to 0.9 fewer mile of exiting right-of-way compared to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. Between MP 120.6 and MP 120.9, the variation would 

minimize impact on a wetland. At this location the variation leaves the existing right-of-way and goes 

through an agricultural field and avoids wetland and forest before returning to again follow the right-ofway. Therefore, Texas Gas has incorporated this segment of the variance into its proposed route. The 

remaining portion of the variance would be near a residence and an environmental feature that the 

proposed route would avoid. Since use of the 0.3-mile-long segment of FWS Variation No. 16 would 

reduce impacts on forest and forested wetlands, we concur that it would be the preferred alternative and 

that the remaining portion of the variation would not be the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 22

FWS Variation No. 22 would extend from MP 127.1 to MP 127.7 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Both routes would have similar impacts, with one having 

no apparent advantages or disadvantages over the other. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed route 

is the preferred alternative. 

3-31 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
FWS Variation No. 17

FWS Variation No. 17 would extend from MP 135.6 to MP 136.0 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would leave the proposed route, which 

would follow the existing CenterPoint pipeline right-of-way to avoid about 0.8 acre of wetland and 1 acre 

of forest, and would be about 0.1 mile longer than the proposed route. However, since the proposed route 

would follow the existing pipeline right-of-way through the wetland, no new corridor would be created. 

The variation would not follow any existing right-of-way and would affect about 0.9 more acre of 

agricultural land. Since the proposed route would follow the existing CenterPoint right-of-way along this 

segment, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 18

FWS Variation No. 18 would extend from MP 140.5 to MP 145.3 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The variation would be about 0.1 mile longer than the 

proposed route and would follow no existing rights-of-way. It would affect about 8.1 more acres of 

agricultural land. The proposed route would follow about 4.1 miles of the existing CenterPoint pipeline 

right-of-way (about 85 percent of this segment of the Project). Where the proposed route deviates from 

the existing right-of-way, it would avoid forest and other habitat, thereby minimizing impacts on these 

resources. The proposed route would impact eight small wetlands (about 1.7 acres total) that would be 

across or adjacent to the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way. The proposed route would affect 

about 5.1 more acres of forest than the variation. Since clearing a construction right-of-way along the 

existing cleared corridor would minimize fragmentation and resource impacts by keeping the pipelines 

together, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 19

FWS Variation No. 19 would extend from MP 160.7 to MP 161.5 of the proposed route. A map showing 

the location of this variation is in appendix B-5. The proposed route was developed to avoid a sensitive 

environmental feature. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

FWS Variation No. 20

FWS Variation No. 20 would extend from MP 163.4 to 165.4 of the proposed route. A map showing the 

location of this variation is in appendix B-5. Both routes would be similar in length and impact on 

resources. However, the proposed route would follow existing right-of-way along its entire length, 

whereas the variation would only follow about 0.8 mile of existing right-of-way. Therefore, we conclude 

that the proposed route is the preferred alternative. 

3.4 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the aboveground facilities for the Project to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the use of alternative facility sites. Our 

evaluation involved inspection of aerial photographs and maps, as well as site visits along the proposed 

pipeline corridors. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include one new compressor 

station, 29 M&R stations (see section 2.1.2), 21 MLVs, and three pig launchers and three pig receivers. 

Because the locations of the M&R stations would be linked to the locations of the associated natural gas 

receipt and interconnect points, the search for alternatives was constrained to sites located adjacent to the 

intersection of the proposed Project route and the existing pipeline locations. Similarly, the location of 

3.0 – Alternatives 3-32 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
MLVs would be linked to the location of the proposed Project route and are largely determined by DOT 

regulations, which specify the maximum distance between sectionalized block valves and require that 

these facilities be in readily accessible areas. We did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed 

M&R stations, MLVs, or the pig launcher/receiver facilities that would offer a significant environmental 

advantage to the proposed sites. 

As with the other proposed aboveground facilities, the compressor station location would be constrained 

to sites near the proposed Project route. Specifically, the proposed compressor station site along the 

proposed Project route was largely dictated by engineering and economic design standards and the 

purpose of the Project. Texas Gas initially evaluated compressor station locations along the proposed 

Greenville Lateral based on pipeline hydraulics, the distance to other pipelines, and the proximity of highvoltage lines, which would be used as a power source. Texas Gas also initially evaluated an alternative 

compressor station location for the Greenville Lateral at MP 30.0, near Isola, Mississippi. However, as 

the proposed Project has a different delivery objective from the originally conceived project. When the 

delivery objective changed, the alternative site at MP 30.0 was eliminated from further consideration. 

Based on its analysis, Texas Gas concluded that its proposed location for the Kosciusko Compressor 

Station would be at MP 96.4 on the Greenville Lateral in Attala County, Mississippi. 

The proposed site for the Kosciusko Compressor Station would mainly occupy agricultural land, but 

would be sited next to an existing Texas Eastern compressor station. However, about 0.2 acre of wetland 

would be permanently impacted by site development. With the exception of the minimal wetland acreage 

identified on site, we identified no significant advantages to other adjacent parcels near the terminus of 

the Greenville Lateral. Since the proposed compressor station would be constructed centrally on the land 

parcel and not near the identified wetland resource, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas evaluate an alternate compressor station configuration at the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station to avoid impact on the 0.2 acre of delineated wetland. Texas Gas 

shall file with the Secretary a revised plot plan of the compressor station showing how 

this wetland has been avoided prior to the end of the comment period of the draft EIS. 

Three alternative types of compressors for the Kosciusko Compressor Station on the Greenville Lateral 

were considered: electric-motor-driven turbines, natural-gas-fired turbines, and natural-gas-fired 

reciprocating engines. Texas Gas states that due to the lower reliability of electricity and the higher costs 

of purchasing electricity to operate this facility, the use of electric-motor-driven turbines was eliminated. 

We note that there is little significant difference in environmental impact in terms of air emissions 

between the natural-gas-fired turbines and natural-gas-fired reciprocating engines. However, the naturalgas-fired reciprocating engines have higher control capabilities and lower noise impacts. Therefore, 

Texas Gas proposes using two Caterpillar 3612 and two Caterpillar 3606 reciprocating engine 

compressors (10,650 hp total) to generate the proposed compression for the Greenville Lateral. The 

impacts of using these types of compressors are addressed in section 4.11.1 (Air Quality) and section 

4.11.2 (Noise). We concluded that their operation would not have a significant impact on air quality and 

that there would be no significant adverse noise impacts due to operation. Therefore, we conclude that 

use of the proposed compressors would be reasonable. 

3-33 3.0 – Alternatives 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed 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 condition almost immediately afterward. Short-term impacts could continue for up to 

3 years following construction. An impact was considered long term if the resource would require more 

than 3 years to recover. Permanent impacts could occur as a result of any activity that modifies a resource 

to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction conditions during the life of the Project, such as 

the construction of a compressor station. We considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a 

substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

In this section, we describe the affected environments, general construction and operational impacts, and 

proposed mitigations for each resource. Texas Gas, as part of its proposal, agreed to implement certain 

measures to reduce impacts. We evaluated Texas Gas’s proposed mitigation to determine whether 

additional measures would be necessary to reduce impact. These additional measures appear as bulleted, 

boldfaced paragraphs in the text. We will recommend that these measures be included as specific 

conditions to authorizations that the Commission may issue to Texas Gas. 

Conclusions in this Draft EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impacts and the following 

assumptions: 

• Texas Gas would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.0 of this document; and 

• Texas Gas would implement the mitigation measures included in the application and 

supplemental documents filed with the FERC. 

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

This section describes geologic resources associated with the proposed Project and potential geologic 

hazards that may be encountered as a result of implementing the Project. 

4.1.1 Geologic Setting 

The Project would cross two physiographic provinces: the Arkansas Valley section of the Ouachita 

physiographic province and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain and the East Gulf Coastal Plain sections of the 

Coastal Plains physiographic province. The contact between these provinces is delineated by the Fall 

Line, which is crossed by the proposed Fayetteville Lateral in White County, Arkansas, near MP 63.0. 

The Fall Line delineates the western extent of the Mississippi River alluvial deposits and the eastern 

extent of the Ouachita province. 

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral west of MP 63.3 (in Conway, Faulkner, and Cleburne Counties and the 

western portion of White County, Arkansas) would be within the Ouachita physiographic province. 

Between MP 63.3 and MP 166.2 (in eastern White County and Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips 

Counties, Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi) the Fayetteville Lateral would be within the 

Coastal Plains physiographic province. The bedrock beneath the Arkansas Valley section of the Ouachita 

Province consists of Pennsylvanian-age (323 to 290 million years old) sedimentary deposits comprised 

primarily of thick shale and sandstone deposits. The Mississippi Alluvial Plain of the Coastal Plains 

4-1 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
physiographic province contains unconsolidated and semi-consolidated Holocene-age alluvial deposits of 

the ancestral Mississippi River (Renken, 1998). 

The proposed Greenville Lateral portion of the Project is mapped within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain 

and East Gulf Coastal Plain sections of the Coastal Plains physiographic province. The proposed 

Greenville Lateral would begin near Greenville, Mississippi, and would traverses generally eastsoutheast across the Mississippi Alluvial Plain to about MP 62.5 (in Washington, Sunflower, and 

Humphreys Counties and the western portion of Holmes County, Mississippi). where From MP 62.5 to 

MP 95 (in the eastern portion of Holmes County and Attala County, Mississippi), the proposed Greenville 

Lateral would cross the East Gulf Coast section. The Mississippi Alluvial Plain is underlain by 

unconsolidated and semi-consolidated Holocene-age alluvial deposits of the ancestral Mississippi River 

(Renken, 1998). The sediments underlying the East Gulf Coast section are described as primarily marine 

sedimentary deposits that dip gently toward the Gulf of Mexico (Renken, 1998). 

Elevations along the proposed pipeline route range from 100 to 880 feet above mean sea level. 

Topography in the Project area ranges from flat to very steep, with slopes ranging from 0 to 40 percent 

along the pipeline route (USDA/NRCS, 2003; USDA/NRCS, 2005a). 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Oil and gas well information was obtained from the AOGC and the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board 

(MSOGB). About 250 oil and gas wells are within the counties that would be crossed by the proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral, and about 50 oil and gas wells are within the counties crossed by the proposed 

Greenville Lateral (AOGC, 2007; MSOGB, 2007). Ten oil and gas wells would be within 0.5 mile of the 

Project. Several of these gas wells are currently being developed (drilled) or were recently developed and 

would provide much of the gas supply transported in the Texas Gas pipeline, if approved. 

About 55 miles of the westernmost portion of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross 

Southwestern’s Fayetteville Shale gas production area. Five of the six active oil and gas wells currently 

identified in state databases as being within 0.5 mile of the Fayetteville Lateral route were mapped in 

Conway County along a 6-mile-long stretch between MPs 0.9 and 6.9. Active well drilling and gathering 

line installation was observed during our site visits to this area. Thus, additional wells may be within 0.5 

mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral in the future. Texas Gas has consulted with Southwestern to 

develop a pipeline route through the gas production area to minimize conflicts with ongoing development 

of this resource and to plan locations for M&R stations to interconnect with Southwestern’s gathering 

pipelines. 

Four oil and gas wells would be within about 0.5 mile of the proposed Greenville Lateral. Two of these 

wells would be between MP 80.9 and MP 87.6 in Attala County, Mississippi, and the remaining two wells 

would be between MP 45.5 and MP 46.0 in Humphreys County, Mississippi. All four wells were 

reported as abandoned (MSOGB, 2007). 

The proposed pipeline route would not cross any sources of sand, gravel, or consolidated rock. Sand and 

gravel are the predominant mineral resources found in the Project area in Arkansas. This resource is 

developed as crushed stone from mined consolidated rock, or it is mined from unconsolidated sand and 

gravel deposits. The extraction of these mineral deposits is generally limited to larger cities or strategic 

sites with access to major transportation routes (Arkansas Geological Commission [AGC], 2001). The 

closest resource site is about 500 feet north of MP 56.5 along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. Only one 

stone quarry, located about 0.8 mile north of MP 23.6 of the Fayetteville Lateral, would be near the 

Project (USGS, 2005a). 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-2 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
In Mississippi, no mineral recovery or processing sites were reported within 1 mile of the proposed 

Greenville Lateral (USGS, 2005a). According to the MDEQ, the Greenville Lateral does not cross any 

other economically significant mineral resources (MDEQ, 2004). 

Given that few mineral resources would be in the immediate vicinity of the propose Project, and that 

known sites would be avoided, we believe that no significant impact on mineral resources would occur 

due to construction and operation of the Project. 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

4.1.3.1 Seismic Hazards 

Seismic hazards are characterized in terms of magnitude and intensity. Magnitude measures the energy 

released at the source of the earthquake and is determined by measurements recorded by seismographs. 

Earthquake magnitude is measured using the Richter Magnitude (RM) scale. RM is a logarithmic 

measure of ground shaking based on data collected by seismometers. The RM scale is based on ground 

motion and does not take into account distance from source and structural stability of the subsurface. RM 

is, therefore, not a representative measure of the intensity of the seismic event at a given location. 

Intensity measures the strength of shaking produced by an earthquake at a specific location. Intensity is 

determined from effects on people, man-made structures, and the natural environment. The intensity of a 

seismic event is measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. MMI provides a measure 

of the intensity of ground movement felt in a given area based on damage assessments and eyewitness 

reports. The MMI scale ranges from an earthquake intensity value of I, in which the earthquake is not 

felt, to an intensity value of XII, in which damage is total, large rock masses are displaced, and objects are 

thrown into the air. Table 4.1.3-1 describes a range of earthquake intensities and their potential effects. 

Figures 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2 identify the locations of seismic source zones and known earthquake 

epicenters within the surrounding region. Figures 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4 depict the peak ground acceleration 

with a 10 percent probability of exceedance over a 50-year period, while figure 4.1.3-5 depicts the 

seismic risk zone for the Project area. 

Seismic activity in the region surrounding the proposed pipeline route is closely linked to the New 

Madrid fault system. The New Madrid seismic zone lies within the central Mississippi Valley, extending 

from northeast Arkansas through southeast Missouri, western Tennessee, and western Kentucky and into 

southern Illinois. The center of the New Madrid seismic zone (or area in which the probability of a 

seismic event is greatest) is located about 90 miles generally northeast of the Project area, along the 

adjoining boundaries of Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Historically, that area has been the site of 

some of the largest earthquakes in North America. Between December 1811 and February 1812, three of 

the most powerful earthquakes in United States history originated in the New Madrid seismic zone. Of 

the three major shocks that occurred within the series, historical evidence indicates that none of the 

shocks originated in Arkansas or Mississippi (USGS, 2005b). Since that time, numerous intensity MMI 

V or greater earthquakes have been reported in Arkansas and Mississippi. The majority of these events is 

associated with the New Madrid fault system and did not occur in the vicinity of the proposed Fayetteville 

or Greenville Laterals. 

4-3 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.1.3-1 

Range of Earthquake Intensities 

Intensity 

(MMI) 

RM Scale 

Equivalent 

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. 1.0 – 3.0 

II Felt by only a few persons at rest, especially on the upper floors of buildings. 3.0 – 3.9 

III Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on the upper floors of buildings. 

Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing automobiles may rock 

slightly. Vibrations are similar to the passing of a truck. Duration is estimated. 

3.0 – 3.9 

IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. 

Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sounds. Sensation like heavy 

truck striking building. Automobiles rocked noticeably. 

4.0 – 4.9 

V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. 

Unstable objects are overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. 

4.0 – 4.9 

VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture is moved; a few instances of fallen 

plaster. Damage is slight. 

5.0 – 5.9 

VII Damage is negligible in buildings of good design and construction, and slight to moderate 

in well-built ordinary structures. Considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed 

structures. Some chimneys are broken. 

5.0 – 5.9 

VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary 

substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Damage is great in poorly built structures. 

Chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall. Heavy furniture is 

overturned. 

6.0 – 6.9 

IX Damage is considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures 

are damaged. Damage is great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings 

are shifted off foundations. 

6.0 - 6.9 

X Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed; most masonry and frame structures 

are destroyed along with their foundations. Rails are bent. 

7.0 and higher 

XI Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges are destroyed. Rails are 

bent greatly. 

7.0 and higher 

XII Damage is total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects are thrown into the air. 7.0 and higher 

Source: USGS, 2006a. 

Five significant seismic events having epicenters within a 35-mile radius of the Project have been 

recorded since 1568 (USGS, 2005b). The intensities of these seismic events ranged from MMI III to V, 

or roughly equivalent to 3.8 to 5 RM. The intensities of these events and their locations relative to the 

nearest Project MP are summarized in table 4.1.3-2. The three most recent seismic events were reported 

south of the Fayetteville Lateral route between MP 0.0 and MP 23.0 and had intensities of MMI III to IV. 

The strongest seismic event (MMI V) was reported in 1878, with its epicenter located about 34 miles 

northeast of MP 83.0 of the Fayetteville Lateral. Figures 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4 present the USGS seismic 

hazard estimate for the Fayetteville Lateral route and Greenville Lateral route, respectively. The hazard 

information provided by the USGS confirms that the greatest risk for significant seismic activity is 

associated with the New Madrid fault centered northeast of the Fayetteville Lateral route (USGS, 1997). 

4.1.3.2 Active Faults 

The Fayetteville Lateral and the Greenville Lateral would not cross any identified Quaternary-age faults 

(Haller et al., 2005). However, several fault zones are mapped within 100 miles of the Fayetteville 

Lateral. The fault zones are listed in table 4.1.3-3. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-1

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Seismic Source Zones and

Known Earthquake Epicenters

Fayetteville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-2

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Seismic Source Zones and

Known Earthquake Epicenters

Greenville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-3

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Peak Ground Acceleration with 10% 

Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years

Fayetteville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-4

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Peak Ground Acceleration with 10% 

Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years

Greenville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-5

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Seismic Hazard Zones 

Greenville and Fayetteville Laterals

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.1.3-2 

Earthquake Epicenters within 35 Miles of the 

Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral Routes 

Date Depth 

(km) 

Magnitude/ 

Intensity (RM/MMI) 

Distance from 

Route (miles) 

Nearest 

MP 

Epicenter Location 

Relative to Route 

Fayetteville Lateral 

May 4, 2001 10 4.5/VI 9.8 23 South 

January 21, 1982 3 4.5/VI 11.4 21 South 

January 1, 1969 7 4.5/VI 27.2 0 South-southeast 

November 19, 1878 No Data 4.9/VI 33.7 76 Northeast 

Greenville Lateral 

June 4, 1967 6 4.5/VI 15.1 0 Northeast 

__________ 

Source: USGS, 2005b. 

RM – Richter magnitude scale uses the area in which the event was felt coupled with the amplitude of the shaking to determine 

and assign intensity. 

MMI – Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale estimates the relative intensity from I to XII of an event in a given area during an event 

based on physical damage and eyewitness reports of ground movement. 

km = kilometer 

Hazards associated with seismicity and faulting include ground-shaking, surface rupture of faults, and 

offsets along normal, reverse, or strike slip faults. Faulting can be especially hazardous to rigid, linear 

structures (e.g., pipelines) along which the ground is not moving the same distance or the in the same 

direction. However, well-maintained pipelines constructed using modern arc welding techniques have 

performed well in seismically active areas of the United States. Only large, abrupt ground displacements 

have caused serious impacts on such facilities. Based on the historical record and magnitude of 

earthquakes near the proposed Project’s corridor, we believe the potential for seismicity and faulting does 

not represent a significant risk to the stability or safety of the proposed Project. 

4.1.3.3 Soil Liquefaction 

Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils (i.e., soils in which the space between individual particles is 

completely filled with water). This interstitial water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences 

how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is 

relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where 

the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of 

the soil decreases and, its ability to support foundations for buildings and bridges is reduced. Because 

liquefaction occurs only in saturated soil, its effects are most commonly observed in low-lying areas near 

bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-10 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.1.3-3 

Fault Zones within 100 Miles of the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral Routes 

Fault Zone 

Distance and 

Direction from 

Proposed Route 

(miles) 

Nearest MP 

Age 

(ybp) 

Maximum 

Movement 

Rate 

(mm/year) 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Reelfoot Scarp and New Madrid Seizmic Zone No. 

1023 

34/NE 83 < 15,000 No Data 

Western Lowlands Liquefaction Features No. 1029 54/NE 79 <15,000 Insufficient 

Data 

Saline River Fault Zone No. 1026 72/SW 152 <15, 000 <0.2 

Monroe Uplift No. 1025 95/SW 155 <15, 000 <0.2 

Gulf Coast Normal Faults, MS (Class B) No. 2655 95/S 166.2 <1,600, 000 <0.2 

Greenville Lateral 

Gulf Coast Normal Faults, MS No. 2655 10.3 41 <1,600, 000 <0.2 

Monroe Uplift No. 1025 17.4 9 <15, 000 <0.2 

Saline River Fault Zone No. 1026 31.8 0 <15,000 <0.2 

Gulf Coast Normal Faults Class LA and AR No. 

1022 

39.7 1 <1,600, 000 <0.2 

__________ 

Source: Haller et al., 2005. 

ybp = years before present. 

mm/year = millimeters per year. 

Areas with the potential for soil liquefaction include locations: 

• underlain by Holocene deposits that are likely to be non-cohesive, such as alluvial, lacustrine, 

and shoreline deposits; and 

• where the water table occurs at 10 feet or less below the surface, and where the USGS Open 

File Report 82-1033 (Algermissen et al., 1982) indicates a 10 percent probability that 

horizontal ground accelerations of 10 percent of gravity or greater would be exceeded in 50 

years (referred to as the “seismic threshold”). 

In the vicinity of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral route, the floodplains of the Mississippi River and 

other rivers and major waterbodies that would be crossed are potentially underlain by Holocene deposits 

(Haley, 1993; Moore, 1969). In addition, the water table below portions of the Project area likely occurs 

at 10 feet or less below the land surface within the floodplain of the Mississippi River and other rivers 

within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain east of MP 63.3. The seismic threshold (horizontal ground 

accelerations of 10 percent or more with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) is exceeded 

along the Fayetteville Lateral between MP 77 and MP 99 in Woodruff County, Arkansas (USGS, 1997). 

4-11 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Therefore, soil liquefaction is considered a hazard in this area. Areas exceeding the threshold for soil 

liquefaction are identified in figure 4.1.3-3. 

In the vicinity of the proposed Greenville Lateral, the floodplains of the Mississippi River and other rivers 

and major waterbodies that would be crossed also are potentially underlain by Holocene deposits (Moore, 

1969). In addition, the water table below portions of the Project area likely occurs at 10 feet or less below 

the land surface within the floodplain of the Mississippi River and rivers within the Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain west of MP 54.5. The seismic threshold, however, is not exceeded in the vicinity of the proposed 

Greenville Lateral (Rukstales, 2002). Therefore, soil liquefaction does not appear to be a significant 

hazard in the vicinity of the proposed Greenville Lateral. 

Newer pipelines exhibit elastic behavior and are significantly less vulnerable to earthquake effects, 

including liquefaction, differential settlement, violent shaking, and ground strain, than the older types of 

pipe installed 50 to 100 years ago. Buoyancy effects are probably of greatest concern in areas such as 

floodplains and river bottoms, where massive liquefaction could take place during a large earthquake. To 

minimize the buoyancy effect upon the pipeline due to liquefaction in areas of saturated soils, the pipeline 

would have concrete coating, concrete weights, or gravel-filled blankets. Today’s pipe has greater ability 

to conform to ground movements resulting from vibration and slippage. Seismic wave propagation 

generally does not have a serious effect on welded buried pipelines in good condition. Some situations 

where wave propagation could lead to damage to the pipeline system include transition zones between 

very stiff and very soft soils, penetration points of pipes into valve boxes, and at branch-connections, pipe 

fittings, and valves. However, the pipeline and associated facilities would be designed and constructed in 

accordance with the standards specified in 49 CFR Part 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the 

Transportation of Natural Gas and other Gas by Pipeline, which should adequately address pipeline 

design where there’s potential for soil liquefaction. Given the seismic risk in the area and the methods 

that would be used to construct the proposed pipeline and associated facilities, we believe that soil 

liquefaction does not represent a significant risk to the stability or safety of the proposed Project during 

construction and operation of the Project. 

4.1.3.4 Karst Potential/Ground Subsidence 

Karst features such as sinkholes, caves, and caverns can form as a result of the long-term action of 

groundwater on soluble carbonate rocks (e.g., limestone and dolostone). Karst features are formed when 

rainwater picks up carbon dioxide from the air (forming carbonic acid) and dead plant debris in the soil 

and then percolates through cracks dissolved in the rock. The bedrock becomes saturated with water at 

some level, and the rock continues to dissolve as the water moves sideways along bedding planes 

(horizontal cracks between rock layers) and joints (or fractures) in the rock itself. These conduits enlarge 

over time and move the water via a combination of gravity and hydraulic pressure, further enlarging the 

conduits through a combination of solution and abrasion of water on the surrounding rock. Underground 

mining also poses risks to engineered structures due to the potential of the overlying strata to collapse into 

the void formed by the extraction of minerals. 

Sinkholes are reported to occur at a rate of less than one for every 100 square miles in Conway, Faulkner, 

Cleburne, and White Counties in Arkansas. These areas represent the highest potential for karst 

development along the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals. All of theses areas are mapped west of the 

Fall Line within the Pennsylvanian bedrock (Renken, 1998). 

Ground subsidence can affect pipelines and aboveground facilities by causing loss of support that would 

result in bending or rupturing of pipeline and weaken the foundation of aboveground facilities. However, 

the pipeline and associated facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards 

specified in 49 CFR Part 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation of Natural Gas 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-12 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and other Gas by Pipeline, which should ensure the integrity of the Project facilities and minimize the 

potential for any pipeline failures due to ground subsidence. In addition, Texas Gas would conduct 

regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way during operations to identify conditions, including areas of 

ground subsidence, that might affect safety or the operation of the pipeline. Based on the lack of 

identified karst features in proximity to the proposed Project corridor, and the specific construction and 

operational measures that would be adhered to by Texas Gas, we do not believe karst to represent a 

significant risk to the stability or safety of the proposed Project. 

4.1.3.5 Bedrock and Blasting 

The pipelines would be installed to allow a minimum cover of 3 feet in areas of shallow bedrock. 

Therefore, the Project was evaluated for areas where bedrock might be encountered above a depth of 80 

inches (conservatively, 3 feet of cover and a 36-inch-diameter pipe). 

Figure 4.1.3-6 identifies the approximate areas where shallow bedrock may be encountered along the 

proposed Fayetteville Lateral; figure 4.1.3-7 presents similar information for the Greenville Lateral. 

Blasting may be necessary along a limited portion of the Fayetteville Lateral. Location-specific 

evaluations would be conducted by Texas Gas’s construction contractor to identify those locations where 

alternatives to blasting are not feasible. Texas Gas does not anticipate needing to blast at any location 

along the Greenville Lateral. 

About 25 percent (38.8 miles) of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross areas with reported depths 

to bedrock of less than 80 inches (based on analysis of the state Soil Survey Geographic [SSURGO] 

database). The soils with reported depth to bedrock of less than 80 inches would be in Arkansas west of 

the Fall Line (near MP 63.3) in Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, and White Counties. The surficial bedrock 

encountered between MP 0.0 and MP 45.0 is expected to be paralithic (i.e., soft); therefore, blasting 

should not be required. However, the surficial bedrock crossed by the proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

between MP 45.0 and the Fall Line at MP 63.3 may require blasting. 

All blasting-related operations would comply with federal, state and local regulations and permit 

conditions and would be conducted by or under the direct supervision of experienced, licensed, and 

certified personnel. To avoid injury to personnel and damage to structures and other features such as 

water wells and existing pipelines, Texas Gas stipulates that the blasting contractor must furnish a sitespecific blasting plan prior to any proposed blasting-related activity. These plans would identify the 

distance and orientation to the nearest structure (both aboveground and belowground) and the procedures 

to be used for storing, handling, transporting, loading, and firing explosives. These site-specific plans 

would be reviewed by Texas Gas and approved by company representative(s) prior to each blast. Further, 

if blasting is needed for construction across a waterbody, Texas Gas would a provide us with a schedule 

identifying when trenching or blasting would occur within each waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, or 

within any designated coldwater fishery, in a manner consistent with our Procedures. 

Blasting for grade or trench excavation would be considered only after all other reasonable means of 

excavation have been evaluated and determined to be unlikely to achieve the required results. Texas Gas 

may specify locations (foreign line crossings, nearby structures, etc.) where consolidated rock would be 

removed by approved mechanical equipment (e.g., rock trenching machines, rock saws, hydraulic rams, 

and jack hammers) in lieu of blasting. 

4-13 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-6

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Shallow Bedrock

Fayetteville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.1.3-7

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Shallow Bedrock

Greenville Lateral

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Pre-construction and post-construction water well surveys would be conducted in any situation where 

blasting would occur within 150 feet of an existing water supply well, with landowner approval. Water 

wells would be tested for yield and water quality prior to beginning construction activities, and upon the 

conclusion of blasting and other activities that may affect well performance. Landowners would be 

contacted by a Texas Gas representative, and a qualified independent contractor would perform the 

testing. If the damage is substantiated, Texas Gas would negotiate a settlement with the landowner to 

have any and all damages repaired or replaced. See additional information about damaged water wells in 

section 4.3.1. 

If blasting is required, Texas Gas would use the minimum explosive charge necessary to fracture bedrock 

and keep shot-rock from leaving the construction right-of-way. Where necessary, excess rock would be 

hauled off site, away from the right-of-way or, subject to landowner approval and applicable permit 

conditions, disposed of on the right-of-way. 

Mitigation measures that would be employed to minimize impacts on sensitive resources and potential 

impacts on residences in proximity to blasting locations would be described by the blasting contractor in a 

site-specific blasting plan. At a minimum, blasting mats or padding would be used on all shots where 

necessary to prevent scattering of loose rock and to prevent damage to nearby structures and overhead 

utilities. The pipeline trench would be excavated by non-blasting, mechanical means where the trench is 

within 150 feet of a residence. Texas Gas has indicated that blasting would not be allowed within 10 feet 

of an existing pipeline unless an incident-specific approval is provided by Texas Gas. All existing 

underground utilities would be staked prior to blasting operations. 

Texas Gas would require the contractor to maintain the maximum allowable vibration limit of 4 inches 

per second of peak particle velocity (ground motion) in the vertical, longitudinal, or horizontal directions 

as measured on the ground directly above any existing pipeline. For any aboveground structure, the 

ground motion would not exceed federal, state, or local regulations. If the measured ground motion at an 

existing pipeline or structure exceeds the allowable limit, blasting would be immediately stopped and 

Texas Gas would require the contractor to modify the blasting plan to reduce the ground motion before 

resuming blasting activities. 

We believe that impacts due to blasting would be minimized by implementing Texas Gas’s blasting 

specifications. Further, Texas Gas has agreed to repair, replace, or compensate landowners for damage 

caused by blasting. 

4.1.3.6 Slope Failures/Landslides 

Landslides are rock, earth, or debris flows on slopes due to gravity. They can occur on any terrain given 

the right conditions of soil, moisture, and angle of slope. Also known as mud flows, debris flows, earth 

failures, slope failures, etc., they can be triggered by rains, floods, earthquakes, and other natural causes, 

as well as human-made causes such as grading, terrain cutting and filling, excessive development, etc. 

Because the factors affecting landslides can be geophysical or human-made, they can occur in developed 

areas, undeveloped areas, or any area where the terrain has been altered for roads, houses, utilities, or 

buildings. They occur in all fifty states with varying frequency, and more than half the states have rates 

sufficient to be classified as a significant natural hazard. Generally flat areas were selected for the 

locations of the proposed compressor and M&R sites; therefore, slope failure is not expected at 

aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and landslides represent a potential hazard along 

portions of the proposed pipeline route that would traverse 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 amounts of precipitation. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-16 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Fayetteville Lateral

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made one Presidential disaster declaration that 

was attributed to landslides in Arkansas since 1956 (FEMA, 2006). The Arkansas disaster declaration, 

which included Woodruff County, was due to a severe storm event on May 7, 2004. Part of the proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral between MP 63.3 and MP 100.2 would cross the area included in the disaster 

declaration. Landslide susceptibility data evaluated for the Fayetteville Lateral route indicates high 

susceptibility to landslides in eastern White County and along both banks of the Mississippi River in 

eastern Phillips County, Arkansas, and western Coahoma County, Mississippi (Godt, 2001). 

The area of potential high susceptibility in White County impacts less than 0.9 mile of the pipeline route. 

Texas Gas indicates that it would inspect the potentially high susceptibility area prior to construction. 

Care would be taken during construction to prevent undercutting unstable horizons. Implementing our 

Plan and Procedures would minimize the potential for slope failure and erosion. Additional mitigation 

measures could involve burial of the pipeline below the potential landslide depth, if feasible, and/or the 

use of drainage controls. Drainage control can include, but is not limited to frequent slope and ditch 

breakers, subsurface gravel or cobble drains, and culverts and drainage ditches to divert water away from 

the right-of-way. 

The banks of the Mississippi River also have been identified as an area of high susceptibility to slope 

failure. Erosion and undercutting of stream banks and levees may result in unstable deposits that would 

eventually fail. However, Texas Gas would cross the Mississippi River by HDD, thereby avoiding this 

hazard. 

Rockfalls are a potential hazard below bedrock outcroppings at or near the top of steep slopes associated 

with the ledge-forming sandstones of the Bloyd Shale and Prairie Grove Member of the Hale formation, 

which is mapped between MP 43.9 and MP 63.3 (McFarland, 1998). These outcrops may be weathered 

by wind or rainfall and become loosened, leading to a violent cascade downhill, often triggering a larger 

landslide. While the landslide potential is high, the incidence is defined as low and often represents less 

than 1.5 percent of the relevant mapped units (Godt, 2001). Landslides are not expected to be a 

significant hazard to construction and operation of the Fayetteville Lateral. 

Greenville Lateral

The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross two areas considered prone to landslides. The first area 

would be between MP 0.2 and 0.6. This area is described as highly susceptible to landslides, with a low 

incidence. The second area is mapped between MP 56.5 and MP 67. This area is described as highly 

susceptible to landslides, with a moderate incidence. 

Construction of the pipeline would be accomplished in accordance with our Plan, which includes 

measures to control runoff and erosion that would minimize the potential for slope failures. In addition, 

inspections before, during, and after construction would identify areas of risk, and continued monitoring 

along slopes would identify any significant landslide hazards before they develop. Based on the 

characteristics of the proposed Project area and Texas Gas’s commitment to installing and monitoring 

appropriate erosion and sediment controls, we believe the potential impacts from slope failure and 

landslides would be minimized and would not be a significant hazard to construction and operation of the 

Greenville Lateral. 

4-17 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.1.3.7 Paleontological Resources 

No areas of special or unusual paleontological resources were identified within the proposed Project 

construction workspaces or within the footprints of associated aboveground facilities. If significant 

paleontological resources are identified during construction Texas Gas would report findings to the AGC 

or the MDEQ. Based on the lack of unusual or significant paleontological resources within the Project 

area, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect 

paleontological resources. 

4.2 SOILS 

4.2.1 Soil Types and Characteristics 

Soils types occurring along the proposed pipeline routes are identified by milepost in table C-1 for the 

Fayetteville Lateral and table C-3 for the Greenville Lateral. Characteristics of soils within the 

construction right-of-way for the Fayetteville and Greenville laterals are described in tables C-2 and C-4, 

respectively. These tables are provided in appendix C. 

Soil characteristics that could affect Project construction include: hydric soils, compaction potential, 

erosion potential, revegetation potential, rocks, and soil contamination. In addition, some soils have been 

designated as Prime Farmland and may be subject to special management considerations. 

Soil interpretations at the broadest scale in the United States are based on Major Land Resource Areas 

(MLRA). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units, usually encompassing tens of 

thousands of square miles, and are characterized by a particular pattern of soils, geology, climate, water 

resources, and land use (USDA/NRCS, 2006a). 

Fayetteville Lateral

In Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi, the Fayetteville Lateral would cross three MLRAs 

recognized by the NRCS: the Arkansas Valley and Ridges, Eastern Part (MLRA 118A); the Southern 

Mississippi Valley Alluvium (MLRA 131A); and the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess (MLRA 134). 

The Arkansas Valley and Ridges, Eastern Part, is comprised mostly of Ultisols. They predominantly 

have a thermic1

 soil temperature regime, a udic2 moisture regime, and their mineralogy is typically mixed 

or siliceous (formed from silicates). They are stony and non-stony and are medium textured. Soils on 

ridgetops, benches, and upper slopes are well drained, shallow and moderately deep. On the middle and 

lower slopes, soils are well drained and deep (USDA NRCS, 2006a). 

The soils of the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium are predominantly Alfisols, Vertisols, Inceptisols, 

and Entisols. The soil temperature regime is thermic in the Project area and the soil moisture regime is 

predominantly aquic3

. The clays typically have high shrink-swell ratios compared to other types of clay. 

The sand and silt mineralogy is mixed. The soils are very deep, predominantly poorly drained, and 

 

1

 The thermic temperature regime is one in which the mean annual soil temperature is 15 degrees Celsius (C) or 

higher but lower than 22 degrees C, and the difference between mean summer and mean winter soil 

temperatures is more than 6 degrees C either at a depth of 50 centimeters (cm) from the soil surface or at a 

densic, lithic, or paralithic contact, whichever is shallower(USDA/NRCS, 2006b). 2

 The udic moisture regime is one in which the soil moisture control section is not dry in any part for as long as 

90 cumulative days in normal years (USDA/NRCS, 2006b). 

3

 The aquic moisture regime is a reducing regime in a soil that is virtually free of dissolved oxygen because it is 

saturated by water (USDA/NRCS, 2006b). 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-18 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
predominantly loamy or clayey. Slopes are nearly level on alluvial flats and backswamps. On other 

landforms, such as natural levees and terraces, slopes are nearly level to gently sloping or undulating. 

Controlling surface water and artificially draining the wet soils are major concerns for cropland 

management (USDA/NRCS, 2006a). 

The Fayetteville Lateral route would cross the western portion of the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess. 

The dominant soil orders here are Alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Ultisols. These soils are deep or 

very deep, are medium textured, and have a thermic soil temperature regime. The soil moisture regime is 

udic, and the mineralogy is mixed. On ridgetops and side slopes, gently sloping to steep, well-drained 

and moderately well drained soils are found. On floodplains, soils are nearly level to very gently sloping 

and range from well drained to poorly drained (USDA/NRCS, 2006a). 

Greenville Lateral

The Greenville Lateral would cross three MLRAs: the Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium (MLRA 

131A), the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess (MLRA 134), and Southern Coastal Plain (MLRA 133A). 

MLRA 131A and MLRA 134 are described above for the Fayetteville Lateral. The Greenville Lateral 

route would cross the eastern portion of the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess, where the loess mantle 

over late Pleistocene loamy terrace material is thinner than in the western portion of this MLRA. 

The soils of the Southern Coastal Plain are predominantly Ultisols, Entisols, and Inceptisols. The soils 

mostly have a thermic soil temperature regime and a udic or aquic soil moisture regime. The sand and silt 

mineralogy is siliceous, and clays typically have a low shrink-swell ratio. These soils generally are very 

deep, somewhat excessively to poorly drained, and loamy (USDA/NRCS, 2006a). 

4.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Some soil characteristics can present limitations on how a given soil can be used and may result in 

problems during construction or in the operation phase of a project unless specific measures are 

implemented to mitigate those limitations. In the case of the proposed Project, there would be no soil 

limitations sufficient to require relocating the Project, but they must be anticipated and steps must be 

taken to minimize impacts on the soil. We evaluated the soils that could affect construction and operation 

of the Project or could increase the potential for soil impacts. Limitations were reviewed with respect to 

the pipeline and aboveground facilities. 

4.2.2.1 Prime Farmland 

Prime Farmland soils are defined by the USDA as those best suited for food, feed, forage, fiber, and 

oilseed crops (USDA/NRCS, 2005b). Prime farmland typically contains few or no rocks, is permeable to 

water and air, is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and is not subject to 

frequent, prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that do not meet the above criteria may be 

considered prime farmland if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., by artificial drainage). Soil map units 

designated as Prime Farmland do not have to be actively cultivated to receive such designation. Prime 

Farmland is an important resource because it provides the highest crop yield per unit of energy expended. 

The Prime Farmland soils encountered along the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals are identified in 

appendix C, tables C-2 and C-4, respectively. 

Forty-nine percent of the soil that would be affected by construction of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

would be classified as Prime Farmland, and another 19 percent is classified as Prime Farmland when 

adequately drained. An additional 8 percent is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, 76 

percent of the soil along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would be considered agriculturally important 

4-19 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
(i.e., Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance). Sixty-seven percent of the soil that would 

be affected by construction of the Greenville Lateral would be classified as Prime Farmland or Prime 

Farmland when adequately drained. 

The proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station would permanently impact up to 30.5 acres of Prime 

Farmland soils. 

Texas Gas would implement the measures included in our Plan to minimize and mitigate any impacts on 

Prime Farmland soils. Virtually all impacts on Prime Farmland soils resulting from construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would be temporary because the proposed pipeline would be buried and 

disturbed areas within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to their 

preconstruction uses following restoration. The footprint of aboveground facilities would permanently 

affect some Prime Farmlands. Operation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station would impact about 30.5 

acres of Prime Farmland. In addition, about 27.5 acres of designated Prime Farmland at the proposed 

M&R stations, MLVs, and other minor facilities would be lost due to operation of these aboveground 

facilities since these areas would be converted to an industrial land use. 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating documentation would not be required for the proposed Project since 

it would not be completed by or with assistance from a federal agency, as specified by the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. Given the prevalence of Prime Farmland soils within the affected counties, the 

permanent impacts on Prime Farmland soils associated with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project’s aboveground facilities would be minimal. 

During pipeline construction in agricultural areas, a maximum of the upper 12 inches of topsoil would be 

excavated and segregated from subsoil trench spoil. The topsoil would be returned following 

construction, and the construction right-of-way would be revegetated according to our Plan. In addition, 

Texas Gas would restore all specialty agricultural areas to their original condition. This would minimize 

impacts on Prime Farmland soils and specialty agricultural areas. 

4.2.2.2 Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing seasons to 

develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil column. These soils under natural conditions 

are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and 

reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation (USDA/NRCS, 2005b). Soils that formed under hydric 

conditions in their unaltered state are still considered hydric when artificially drained or altered for such 

purposes as agricultural use. Hydric soils are typically poorly drained, and the presence of hydric soils is 

one of the criteria used for defining wetlands (USDA/NRCS, 2005b). Hydric soils may be prone to 

compaction and rutting. Some of these soils may include substantial non-hydric inclusions, while some 

non-hydric soils may include hydric inclusions. Hydric soils may indicate the presence of wetlands or 

agricultural drain tiles. The locations where hydric soils would be encountered along the Fayetteville and 

Greenville Laterals are identified in tables C-2 and C-4, respectively. 

About 32 percent of the soil along the Fayetteville Lateral would be considered predominantly hydric. 

Hydric soils are more common in the counties along the eastern portion of the Fayetteville Lateral than in 

counties along the western portion of the route. About 90 percent of the soil along the Greenville Lateral 

route would be considered predominantly hydric or contains significant hydric inclusions. Areas where 

hydric soils would occur with wetland hydrology and vegetation are identified in section 4.4. 

Hydric soils are prone to compaction and rutting due to extended periods of saturation and high clay 

content. If construction of the pipeline system occurs when these soils are saturated, heavy equipment 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-20 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
operation would be impaired, and compaction and rutting could occur. Further, high groundwater levels 

that accompany hydric soils could create a buoyancy hazard for the pipeline. The pipeline would have 

concrete coating and other weighting methods would be used to overcome buoyancy when the pipeline is 

buried so that the buoyancy hazard is minimized during operation. Texas Gas also would install the 

pipeline in accordance with our Procedures and would restore all wetlands back to their original contours 

and elevations. Therefore, with implementation of these measures, we conclude that impacts on hydric 

soils would be minimized during construction and operation of the Project. 

4.2.2.3

4.2.2.4

Compaction Potential 

Soils with a high potential for compaction could be adversely affected during construction activities 

through the repeated movement of machinery across the soil surface. Soils with poor drainage 

characteristics and high shrink-swell potential tend to be susceptible to compaction, particularly when 

wet. In addition to hydric soils, described above, some non-hydric soils may have poor internal drainage 

characteristics that can cause wet conditions when nearby soils are dry. 

Soils with a high shrink-swell potential would underlie about 8 percent of the Fayetteville Lateral, while 

an additional 16 percent would have a moderate shrink-swell potential. Soils with a high shrink-swell 

potential would underlie about 54 percent of the Greenville Lateral, while an additional 13 percent would 

have a moderate shrink-swell potential. 

Formation of hardpans is a potential impact associated with repeated traffic over susceptible soils. The 

formation of hardpans is typically limited to soils with high to very high shrink-swell potential. 

Formation of hardpan in Mississippi is not considered to be a significant concern in this Project due to the 

short construction time frame and the fact that the soils susceptible to hardpan formation are those where 

hardpan already occurs (Adams, 2007; Johnson, 2007). Similar conclusions can be drawn for the 

Arkansas portions of the Project. 

Soil compaction modifies the structure and reduces the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of the soil. 

The degree of compaction is dependent on moisture content and soil texture. Construction equipment 

traveling over wet soils could disrupt soil structure, reduce pore space, increase runoff potential, and 

cause rutting. Compaction and rutting impacts would be more likely to occur when soils are moist or 

saturated. 

The predominantly poorly drained clay and silt soils present along the pipeline right-of-way, especially in 

eastern Arkansas and Mississippi, have the potential to experience some level of soil compaction due to 

construction activities. Soil compaction in some saturated areas would be avoided by the use of HDD 

methods. In addition, board roads and/or low-ground-pressure equipment would be used for construction 

access where needed. In agricultural areas, Texas Gas would implement decompaction measures for 

severely compacted soils, such as para-plowing, deep tillage, or planting and plowing-in a green manure 

crop to improve soil bulk density, in accordance with our Plan. Therefore, we conclude that impacts 

associated with soil compaction would be minimized. 

Soil Erosion - Highly Erodible Soils 

Soil erosion potential is affected by the soil lithology, slope, and exposure to erosion mechanisms. Soil 

erosion increases in inverse proportion to the effectiveness of vegetation cover, i.e., soils with denser 

vegetation cover are less susceptible to erosion. The removal of vegetation during construction activities, 

whether by direct stripping or by other mechanical means, increases erosion potential. Highly erodible 

soils, as classified by the NRCS, are considered very susceptible to erosion by water. Tables C-2 and C-4 

identify the soils with a high potential for erosion by wind or water that would be affected by the Project. 

4-21 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
About 53 percent of the soils along the Fayetteville Lateral would be classified as highly erodible or 

potentially highly erodible. About 26 percent of the soils along the Greenville Lateral would be classified 

as highly erodible or potentially highly erodible, with the occurrence increasing in the Southern 

Mississippi Valley Loess MLRA. 

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbance. Factors that 

influence the degree of erosion include soil texture, structure, length and percent of slope, vegetative 

cover, and rainfall and wind intensity. Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are typified by bare or 

sparse vegetative cover, non-cohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates, and moderate to steep 

slopes. Wind erosion processes are less affected by slope angles. Clearing, grading, and equipment 

movement could accelerate the erosion process and, without adequate protection, result in discharge of 

sediment to waterbodies and wetlands. Soil loss due to erosion could also reduce soil fertility and impair 

revegetation. 

Texas Gas has adopted our Plan and Procedures for erosion and sedimentation control during 

construction. For stream crossings, Texas Gas would use the waterbody crossing methods identified in 

our Procedures and the erosion and sediment control practices specified in the Plan. These erosion 

control measures include the installation of slope breakers, trench plugs, and sediment barriers such as silt 

fence or hay bales, the use of mulch and erosion control fabrics, temporary seeding, and right-of-way 

restoration within 20 days of backfilling the trench, weather conditions permitting, and revegetation. We 

conclude that implementation of these measures would minimize overall soil erosion resulting from 

construction of the Project. 

4.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential 

Several soil characteristics can limit how quickly and successfully disturbed areas can be revegetated. 

Among potentially limiting characteristics are depth, texture, slope, erosion potential, soil pH, moisture 

holding capacity, presence of impermeable layers, and percent organic matter. While some soils within 

the construction corridor would be more easily revegetated than others, there would be no soils that 

present significant limitations to successful revegetation, assuming sound practices for establishing 

vegetative cover are followed. 

Successful restoration and revegetation in areas that are not permanently developed by construction and 

operation of aboveground facilities are important to maintain ecosystem productivity and to protect the 

underlying soil from potential damage such as erosion. Revegetation potential may be inhibited by soil 

erosion, loss of soil productivity through compaction or mixing of topsoil and subsoil, damage to soil 

structure, loss of fertility, damage to drainage systems, and unsuitable seed selection, methods or planting 

conditions. To avoid these conditions, Texas Gas would return the construction right-of-way, temporary 

work spaces, and pipe storage and contractor yards to pre-construction contours to the extent feasible. 

Further, Texas Gas would use appropriate erosion controls, manage spoil to avoid topsoil mixing, conduct 

decompaction where needed, repair damaged drainage systems, and consult with the NRCS and 

landowners about appropriate seed mixes. 

In cultivated areas, seeding and mulching would conform to the areas adjacent to the right-of-way unless 

otherwise requested in writing by the landowner. Unless requested by a landowner, no areas would be 

left unseeded beyond the next available seeding season. Post-construction inspections would be 

conducted in accordance with our Plan and Procedures to ensure that revegetation is adequate. 

Soils along the proposed Project pipelines and at aboveground facilities sites are currently well vegetated, 

unless regularly disturbed for agricultural purposes, and none are predicted to have a low revegetation 

potential following construction. Texas Gas would implement the measures in the Plan and Procedures 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-22 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
for revegetating disturbed areas following construction, in consultation with soil conservation authorities. 

Texas Gas also would maintain erosion control devices until revegetation is successful and would monitor 

disturbed areas for up to 3 years to ensure the success of revegetation. In addition, Texas Gas is 

coordinating with the USACE and other agencies to develop an appropriate wetland restoration plan for 

wetlands affected by Project construction (see section 4.4.3). We conclude that if revegetation is 

conducted in accordance with these measures, areas disturbed by construction would be successfully 

revegetated. 

4.2.2.6

4.2.2.7

4.2.2.8

Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns 

Heavy equipment traffic and trenching along the construction right-of-way could damage existing 

drainage systems or existing drainage patterns, thereby affecting farm management by causing wet, 

unworkable soils. Future crop production would likely be lowered if such damage is not corrected. 

Texas Gas would be responsible for ensuring all areas affected by construction activities are finish graded 

and restored as closely as practicable to preconstruction contours. If active drainage tiles, culverts, or 

other drainage facilities are damaged during construction, Texas Gas would replace or repair them to a 

condition that is equal to or better than preconstruction condition. Although damage to drainage 

structures and patterns would result in short-term impacts, the corrective actions that would be 

implemented by Texas Gas would avoid or minimize any long-term impact. 

Rocks 

Introduction of rocks to surface soil layers would be of concern along the pipeline route in areas where 

shallow bedrock is encountered. Trenching and mixing of excavated materials in these areas could bring 

large rocks to the surface, which would adversely affect soil productivity and agricultural practices. In 

accordance with our Plan, Texas Gas would remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches of soil in 

all rotated and permanent cropland, hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and other areas at the 

landowner’s request. Following construction and restoration, the size, density, and distribution of rocks 

in all construction work areas would be similar to that in adjacent areas not affected by construction. 

Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of pipeline construction through areas of shallow 

bedrock if Texas Gas implements these mitigation measures. 

Soil Contamination 

No areas of soil contamination were identified within proposed Project workspaces, although soil 

contamination could result from construction and related activities. Contamination from spills or leaks of 

fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment could adversely affect soils; however, the 

effects of such contamination would typically be minor because of the low frequency and volumes of 

spills and leaks. Texas Gas would implement its SPCC Plan for the pipelines and aboveground facilities 

(see appendix D, SPCC Plan). This plan describes cleanup procedures that would be used in the event of 

soil contamination resulting from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, coolants, or solvents. Texas Gas and 

its contractors would use the SPCC Plan to prevent and, if necessary, contain accidental spills of any 

material that may contaminate soils and to ensure that inadvertent spills of fuels, lubricants, or solvents 

are contained, cleaned up, and disposed of in an appropriate manner. 

If contaminated or suspect soils (e.g., oil-stained soils) are identified during trenching operations, work in 

the area of the suspected contamination would be halted until notification is sent to appropriate authorities 

and the type and extent of the contamination is determined. The response action would be identified 

based on the type and extent of contamination; the responsible party; and local, state, and federal 

regulations. 

4-23 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Successful use of the SPCC Plan would minimize the potential for spills of contaminated materials to 

occur and would contain spills that might occur during construction of the Project. 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater 

The proposed Project would cross three aquifer systems: a surficial aquifer system, the Mississippi 

Embayment Aquifer System, and the Western Interior Plains confining system. The surficial aquifer 

system consists of the major Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer and three minor alluvial aquifers 

(the Arkansas River, Ouachita-Saline Rivers, and Red River aquifers). The Mississippi Embayment 

Aquifer system comprises six individual aquifers: the Upper Claiborne, Middle Claiborne, Lower 

Claiborne-Upper Wilcox, Middle Wilcox, Lower Wilcox, and McNairy-Nacatoch. The Western Interior 

Plains confining system in Arkansas underlies the Boston Mountains, the highest erosional plateau in 

northern Arkansas, and extends under coastal plain sediments. In places, the Mississippi River Valley 

Alluvial Aquifer directly overlies and is hydraulically interconnected with aquifers of the Mississippi 

Embayment Aquifer system; in such places, water moves freely between the two aquifers (USGS 1998). 

About two-thirds of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would be above the Mississippi River Valley 

Alluvial Aquifer. This is the primary aquifer in the surficial system, underlying about 33,000 square 

miles of the Mississippi River valley in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Alluvial aquifers of the 

surficial aquifer system are characterized by their ability to yield large volumes of water and by their 

hydraulic interconnection with the rivers and streams that cross them (USGS, 1998). Within the 

Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer, properly constructed private wells can commonly yield up to 

500 gallons per minute, and irrigation wells can produce up to 5,000 gallons per minute. Groundwater 

quality within the Mississippi River valley is considered adequate for most uses; however, groundwater 

withdrawals are predominantly used for agriculture and aquaculture purposes. 

The remaining one-third of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would be above the Western Interior Plains 

confining system, which is part of a widespread, thick, geologically complex, poorly permeable, 

sedimentary sequence that extends eastward from the Rocky Mountains to western Missouri and northern 

Arkansas (USGS, 1998). Locally, however, individual geologic units or parts of units within the 

confining system yield as much as 19 gallons per minute to wells, and the confining system is, therefore, 

considered to be a minor aquifer (USGS, 1998). Groundwater quality within the Western Interior Plains 

confining system is deemed variable, meeting nearly all secondary drinking-water standards, but is not 

used as a municipal supply source. 

The western half of the proposed Greenville Lateral would be above the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial 

Aquifer, and the eastern half would be above the Upper Claiborne, Middle Claiborne, and Lower 

Claiborne-Upper Wilcox aquifers of the Mississippi Embayment Aquifer system. The Mississippi 

Embayment Aquifer system is the most widespread system in the Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi 

region. The Middle Claiborne Aquifer is the most extensively used aquifer of the six that comprise the 

Mississippi Embayment Aquifer system. Individual domestic wells in the Middle Claiborne Aquifer 

generally yield from 100 to 300 gallons per minute in Mississippi. Groundwater quality within this 

aquifer can range from less than 500 milligrams per liter dissolved solids (freshwater) to greater than 

35,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids (brine). Calcium bicarbonate and sodium bicarbonate waters 

dominate the exposed and shallow subsurface areas of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer (USGS, 1998). 

Sole-source or principal-source aquifers are defined by the EPA as those that supply a minimum of 50 

percent of the drinking water used in the area overlying the aquifer. The areas served by these aquifers 

may not have readily available alternative water sources. No sole-source aquifers have been designated in 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-24 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Arkansas. One sole-source aquifer exists in Mississippi; however, it is not located in the vicinity of the 

Project. Therefore, no impacts on sole-source aquifers or principal-source are likely to occur as a result 

of the Project. 

No public water supply wells would be within 150 feet of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. Three public 

water supply wells would be within 150 feet of the proposed Greenville Lateral: one along the pipeline at 

MP 62.23 and two in the vicinity of proposed storage yards near MP 37 and MP 72.9. The MDEQ 

confirms that a confining layer of clay would prevent localized infiltration due to Project construction into 

the aquifer utilized for these wells. Texas Gas would clearly mark these wellheads to prevent damage to 

them during construction activities. There are no additional requirements for the proposed Project near 

these wells. 

There would be 15 private supply wells within 150 feet of the construction footprint and three private 

wells within 150 feet of access roads along the Fayetteville Lateral. The private well closest to the 

construction footprint of the Fayetteville Lateral would be about 11 feet southwest of the centerline at MP 

120, in Lee, Arkansas. For the proposed Greenville Lateral, 12 private wells would be within 150 feet of 

the construction footprint, three private wells within 150 feet of access roads, and four private wells 

would be within 150 feet of the storage yards. The private well closest to the construction footprint of the 

Greenville Lateral would be about 48 feet north of the centerline at MP 89.9, in Attala, Mississippi (see 

tables 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.1-2). Additional water wells within 150 of construction workspaces may be 

identified during easement negotiations with landowners. In addition, Texas Gas would conduct a preand post-pipeline construction yield tests on any active wells within 150 feet of the pipeline work area 

with landowner approval. 

The Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (ADHHS) identified three Wellhead Protection 

Areas (WHPA) within 1 mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral (Smith, 2007): Russell Waterworks 

Well No. 1, McCrory Waterworks Well No. 4, and Patterson Waterworks Well No. 1. Based on the 

characteristics of the WHPAs, consultations with the ADHHS, and the potential impacts to WHPAs 

resulting from the proposed construction activities, we believe that the proposed Project would not 

significantly affect the Russell, McCory, and Patterson WHPAs. 

The MDEQ identified three public water supply protection areas within 150 feet of workspaces associated 

with the proposed Greenville Lateral. These protection areas are located at MP 51.3, MP 63.6, and MP 

81.2. MDEQ requested that caution be observed in these areas to avoid damage to the wellhead, but no 

other restrictions were recommended (MDEQ, 2007). Therefore, we believe that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would have minimal, if any, impact on these public water supply 

protection areas. 

No springs have been identified within 150 feet of the proposed Project. However, comments received 

during our March 21, 2007, scoping meeting indicated the potential presence of springs along the 

proposed pipeline route. Concerns were expressed regarding the potential loss or impact to these springs, 

as they may provide a primary source of water for some landowners. The locations of springs within 150 

feet of construction workspaces may be identified during easement negotiations with landowners prior to 

construction, and the locations of water wells may also be known with greater refinement at that time. 

Texas Gas would consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies and the individual landowner to 

minimize any impacts. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas file with the Secretary the MP locations of water wells and springs within 150 

feet of construction workspaces and include their distance and direction from the 

construction workspace, prior to construction. 

4-25 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.3.1-1 

Private Water Supply Well Locations Within 150 feet of the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral Workspaces 

County, State Milepost Distance from 

Workspace (feet) Direction Total Depth of Well 

(feet) 

Faulkner, AR 18.8 81 N 110 

Faulkner, AR 18.8 87 N 60 

Faulkner, AR 21.2 146 S 159 

Faulkner, AR 26.3 69 N 295 

White, AR 44.6 131 NNW 300 

White, AR 62.1 31 ESE 220 

Woodruff, AR 78.7 40 NE 118 

Woodruff, AR 84.6 140 W 116 

Woodruff, AR 92.9 131 WSW 127 

Lee, AR 120 28 E 130 

Lee, AR 120 11 SW 132 

Lee, AR 130 109 WSW 136 

Lee, AR 137.1 52 S -- a/ 

Phillips, AR 140.1 93 ENE 150 

Phillips, AR 145.1 45 E 120 

Within 150 feet of access roads 

Woodruff, AR 71 -- b/ NNE 87 

Lee, AR 135.6 -- b/ NE 145 

Phillips, AR 149.7 -- b/ NE 105 

__________ 

Source: USGS National Water Information System, 2007. 

a/ Data not provided. 

b/ Data originally provided represented well distance from Project centerline, However, Texas Gas determined this access road to 

be within 150 feet of a private water supply well. 

4.3.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

The typical depth of the trench excavation would be shallow (about 10 feet) relative to the depth to the 

aquifers within the Project area (about 25 feet). A typical trench depth would be above most surficial 

aquifers and the completion depth of most water wells in a shallow aquifer. However, construction 

activities could encounter shallow alluvial aquifers and could cause minor fluctuations in groundwater 

levels and/or increased turbidity potentially affecting water quantity and quality. However, most alluvial 

aquifers exhibit rapid recharge and groundwater movement; therefore, it is likely that they would quickly 

re-establish equilibrium and turbidity levels would rapidly subside. Impacts to groundwater would be 

avoided or minimized by following BMPs when working near water wells and in areas of shallow 

aquifers, and by implementing Texas Gas’s proposed mitigation measures as well as the mitigation 

measures outlined in our Plan and Procedures during construction. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-26 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.3.1-2 

Private Water Supply Well Locations Within 150 feet of the Proposed Greenville Lateral Workspaces 

County, State Milepost Distance from 

Workspace (feet) Direction Total Depth of Well 

(feet) 

Washington, MS 0.57 145 E 90 

Washington, MS 2.57 104 NNE 97 

Washington, MS 8.3 145 SW 67 

Humphreys, MS 23.1 92 N 840 

Humphreys, MS 31.5 60 S 115 

Humphreys, MS 31.6 49 S 116 

Holmes, MS 50.9 124 NE 1,148 

Holmes, MS 63.9 122 SSE 800 

Holmes, MS 72.9 121 S 323 

Attala, MS 78.3 135 N 674 

Attala, MS 89.9 48 N 120 

Attala, MS 94.4 68 S 28 

Wells within 150 feet of storage yards 

Humphreys, MS 35.5 -- b/ SSW 120 

Humphreys, MS 36.7 -- b/ SW 790 

Holmes, MS 51.5 -- b/ N 990 

Holmes, MS 72.9 -- b/ N 849 

Wells within 150 feet of access roads 

Washington, MS 9.4 -- b/ NNE 496 

Holmes, MS 50.9 -- b/ N 1,148 

Holmes, MS 59 -- b/ S 95 

__________ 

Source: USGS National Water Information System, 2007. 

a/ Data not provided 

b/ Data originally provided represented well distance from Project centerline, However, Texas Gas determined this access road to 

be within 150 feet of a private water supply well. 

In some areas with shallow groundwater, it may be necessary to dewater the trench by pumping 

accumulated water from the trench prior to installing the pipeline. This dewatering may result in the 

temporary lowering of the groundwater level near the trench. Because of the relatively small amount of 

water removed, the short duration of the activity, and the local discharge of the water, the groundwater 

levels would quickly recover when the dewatering stops. Effects from trench dewatering on groundwater 

would be localized and temporary. Trench dewatering would be conducted in accordance with our Plan 

and Procedures. 

Surficial aquifers could also experience minor impacts from changes in overland water flow and recharge 

caused by clearing and grading of the right-of-way. The soil’s ability to absorb water could be altered 

through near-surface compaction by heavy construction vehicles. This minor impact would be temporary 

and is not expected to significantly affect groundwater resources or quality since the right-of-way would 

be restored and revegetated following construction. Soil compaction mitigation measures would be 

followed according to our Plan. 

4-27 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids during construction could potentially result 

in impacts to groundwater. Spills or leaks of hazardous liquids could contaminate groundwater and affect 

aquifer users. Soil contamination could add pollutants to the groundwater long after the spill has 

occurred. This type of impact would be avoided or minimized by restricting the location of refueling and 

storage facilities and by requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Potential impacts on 

groundwater would be minimized by the use of standard construction techniques and by the 

implementation of erosion control measures contained in our Plan and Procedures. Potential impacts 

associated with spills would be minimized by implementation of Texas Gas’s project-specific SPCC Plan 

for pipeline construction. 

Texas Gas would adhere to the construction practices and mitigation measures outlined in our Plan and 

Procedures to minimize or avoid impacts on groundwater resources. Texas Gas’s SPCC Plan requires 

that no construction equipment, refueling or maintenance equipment, or storage of hazardous substances, 

chemicals, fuels, and/or lubricating oils would be permitted within 100 feet of any stream bank, wetland, 

sensitive plant population, and/or groundwater well. Secondary containment would be provided for all 

stationary fuel storage tanks, pumps, and portable fuel containers, and all tanks would be inspected by the 

construction contractor. Contractor employees and subcontractors would complete spill prevention and 

containment training and would understand response procedures, prior to the start of construction 

activities. Emergency equipment, response coordination, and cleanup and disposal are also outlined in 

the SPCC Plan. Texas Gas would implement an individual SPCC Plan at each aboveground facility that 

stores oil in excess of volumes identified in 40 CFR 112 to protect groundwater sources during operation. 

Texas Gas states that additional data on private water wells is being compiled to identify specific 

locations and minimize potential impacts. Texas Gas would conduct pre- and post-construction 

monitoring to determine whether impacts on active wells have occurred as a result of pipeline 

construction. If any water well or supply system is adversely affected, Texas Gas would repair or replace 

affected potable water supply wells within 150 feet of the construction work area damaged by 

construction activities or would fairly compensate the landowner for damage to potable water supply 

wells that results from pipeline construction. Texas Gas may obtain temporary water supplies from a 

variety of sources, and would continue to supply affected landowners/tenants with a temporary water 

supply until the damaged water well or water supply system is repaired or replaced. We believe that 

implementation of Texas Gas’s proposed mitigation measures and the use of BMPs near water wells 

would minimize impacts to water wells and that construction and operation of the Project would have 

minimal impact on these resources. 

4.3.2 Surface Water 

The Project would be within three major watersheds: the Arkansas-Red-White River Basin; the Lower 

Mississippi River Basin, and the South Atlantic-Gulf Regional Watershed. The Arkansas-Red-White 

River Basin encompasses about 247,000 square miles in parts of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, 

New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and Okalahoma. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross three 

minor watersheds within this basin. The Lower Mississippi River Basin extends 954 river miles from the 

confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers at Cairo, Illinois, to the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral would cross five minor watersheds and the proposed Greenville Lateral would cross 

four minor watersheds within this basin. The South Atlantic-Gulf Regional Watershed covers about 

272,000 square miles of land. Portions of six states are located in this drainage, including North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and eastern Mississippi. The proposed Greenville Lateral 

would cross one minor watershed in this basin. Table 4.3.2-1 identifies these major watersheds by state, 

MP, and county. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-28 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Watersheds within the Proposed Project Area

Watershed Approximate Mileposts County 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

Arkansas-Red-White River Basin 0 to 76 Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White 

 Cadron Creek 0 to 34.5 Conway, Faulkner, White 

 Little Red River 34.5 to 61 White, Cleburne 

 Upper White-Village 61 to 76 White 

Lower Mississippi River Basin 76 to 166.2 Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, Phillips 

 Cache River 76 to 99 Woodruff 

 Big River 99 to 118 Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee 

 L’Anguille 118 to 125 Lee 

 Lower White 125 to 154.5 Lee, Phillips 

 Lower Mississippi-Helena 154.5 to 155.6 Phillips 

Mississippi 

 Lower Mississippi-Helena 157.3 to 166.2 Coahoma 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

Lower Mississippi River Basin 0.0 to 92.3 Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, Holmes, Attala 

 Deer-Steele 0 to 10.3 Washington 

 Big Sunflower River 10.3 to 33.1 Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys 

 Upper Yazoo River 33.1 to 71 Humphreys, Holmes, Attalla 

 Upper Big Black River 71 to 92.3 Holmes, Attala 

South Atlantic-Gulf Regional Watershed 92.3 to 96.41 Attala 

 Upper Pearl River 92.3 to 96.4 Attala 

__________ 

Source: USGS, 2006b. 

The ADHHS also identified two public water supply watersheds (Brewer Lake and Little Red River) 

within 1 mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral route (Smith, 2007). To avoid impacts on these areas 

of concern, ADHHS requested either modifications to the Fayetteville Lateral route or for Texas Gas to 

provide planned construction methods for review so that ADHHS may document any potential impact on 

the water supply associated with planned activities. Route alternatives suggested by the ADHHS to avoid 

Little Red River and Brewer Lake Watersheds were analyzed but not selected (see section 3.3.3). 

However, we believe that Texas Gas should continue to consult with the ADHHS regarding construction 

and mitigation plans within these areas and to provide the ADHHS with an opportunity to comment on 

them. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas consult with the ADHHS about the construction methods that would be used 

to cross the Brewer Lake and Little Red River Watersheds and to file the results of that 

consultation, including any ADHHS-recommended modifications to those methods, with 

4-29 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
the Secretary prior to construction for review and written approval of the Director of 

OEP. 

4.3.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

The Project would cross a total of 483 waterbodies (70 perennial and 413 intermittent). The Fayetteville 

Lateral would cross 278 waterbodies (40 perennial and 238 intermittent), 11 of which would be classified 

as major crossings (i.e., greater than 100 feet wide). The Greenville Lateral would cross 203 waterbodies 

(29 perennial and 174 intermittent), six of which would be classified as major crossings. The Kosciusko 

36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross one perennial and one intermittent stream (see table C-5 in appendix 

C). Texas Gas has provided site-specific plans for major waterbody crossings and HDD crossings which 

illustrate how it would configure the workspaces and construction activities at the crossings. 

No public water intakes would be within 3 miles downstream of any proposed waterbody crossing along 

the Project. 

Special Designation and Impaired Waterbodies 

Table 4.3.2-2 lists waterbodies with special designations and impairments in Arkansas and Mississippi. 

The ADEQ has eight designations for water quality and designated use: Extraordinary Resource Waters, 

Ecologically Sensitive Waterbodies, Natural and Scenic Waterways, Primary Contact Recreation 

(swimmable), Secondary Contact Recreation (wadeable), Fisheries (fishable), Domestic Water Supply, 

and Industrial Water Supply (ADEQ, 2002). Extraordinary Resource Waters, Ecologically Sensitive 

Waterbodies, Natural and Scenic Waterways, and Primary Contact Recreation (swimmable) are 

considered worthy of the highest level of protection by the state because of their beauty, value, or 

beneficial use (ADEQ, 2002). The remaining designations are federally mandated. 

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross three Extraordinary Resource Waters: Cadron Creek, Big 

Creek, and Cache River; three National Rivers Inventory (NRI) waterbodies: Cadron Creek, Big Creek, 

and Bayou DeView; a designated trout fishery stream, Little Red River; and a designated Ecologically 

Sensitive Waterbody, Departee Creek. The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross Big Black River ( 

NRI), and Deer Creek, which is identified as an important aquatic habitat for rare species. 

Waterbodies included in the NRI are considered to possess “outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural 

values judged to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS, 2007). Texas Gas would cross Big 

Creek (MP 46.1), Bayou DeView (MP 96.0), and Big Black Creek (MP 77.7) using HDD to avoid or 

minimize impacts. 

In addition to sensitive waterbodies, eight waterbodies in Arkansas and four waterbodies in Mississippi 

do not meet water quality standards associated with their designated use based on state CWA Section 

303(d) lists. These waterbodies are listed in table 4.3.2-2 as impaired. 

As indicated in table 4.3.2-2, eight of the waterbodies with special designations would be crossed using 

the HDD method to minimize potential impacts on those waterbodies. The remaining waterbodies would 

be crossed using an open-cut method. To ensure that impacts from sedimentation associated with an 

open-cut crossing are minimized, Texas Gas would implement BMPs to minimize construction impacts 

and would implement the mitigation measures identified in our Procedures. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-30 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.3.2-2 

Sensitive and Impaired Waterbodies 

State/County Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Beginning 

Milepost 

Approximate 

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet) 

Crossing 

Method Impairment Sensitive 

Feature 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

Faulkner Cadron Creek 14 105 OCM Siltation/Turbidity EXR, NRI, MC 

Big Creek 46.1 140 HDD Agriculture EXR, NRI, MC 

Little Red River 52.3 200 HDD Unknown, Bacteria TFS, MC 

Overflow Creek 61.9 13 OCM Agriculture, Bacteria NA 

Glaise Creek 66.6 30 OCM Agriculture NA 

White 

Departee Creek 67.9 34 OCM Not listed ECS (near) 

Cache River 82.4 140 HDD Agriculture, Siltation/ 

Turbidity 

EXR, MC 

Bayou DeView 96 250 HDD Agriculture, Siltation/ 

Turbidity 

NRI, MC 

Woodruff 

Caney Creek 100.1 30 OCM Agriculture NA 

St. Francis Big Creek 111.6 72 OCM Agriculture NA 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

Washington Deer Creek 9.3 60 HDD Not listed MSNHP 

Humphreys Yazoo River b/ 40.5 395 HDD Nutrients, Organic 

Enrichment/Low DO 

MC 

Tchula Lake b/ 46.7 160 HDD Nutrients, Organic 

Enrichment/Low DO, 

Sediment/Siltation 

Holmes MC 

Box Creek 72.5 2 OCM Sediment/Siltation NA 

Holmes-Attala Big Black River b/ 77.7 270 HDD Sediment/Siltation NRI, MC 

__________ 

Source: EPA, 2004a. 

a/ Sensitive Features include those that are: listed as MC and resources that are on the NRI (NPS, 2004); are state-designated EXR, 

ECS, or are a TFS (APCEC, 2006); important aquatic habitats for rare species (MSNHP, 2006); and/or do not currently support 

designated uses. 

b/ Found under Section B, of the Mississippi 2006 Section 303(D) List of Impaired Waterbodies. For these waterbodies, no current 

monitoring data indicates impairments exist. MDEQ will monitor these waterbodies to determine their water quality condition before 

removing them from Section B (MDEQ, 2006). 

Key: 

DO = dissolved oxygen 

ECS = ecologically sensitive 

EXR = extraordinary resources 

HDD = horizontal directional drilling 

MC = Major Crossing 

MSNHP = Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

NA = Not applicable 

NRI = Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

OCM = open-cut method 

TFS = trout fishery stream 

4-31 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
According to the EPA’s contaminated sediments database (EPA, 2004b), many waterbodies in the 

Mississippi Delta contain contaminated sediments. Table 4.3.2-3 identifies waterbodies with known 

contaminated sediments that would be crossed by the proposed Project. The proposed Fayetteville 

Lateral would cross six waterbodies containing sediments contaminated primarily with pesticides and 

heavy metals. The sediment sampling locations ranged from 2.2 miles to 37 miles from the proposed 

pipeline crossing locations. Seven waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Greenville Lateral 

contain sediments contaminated primarily with pesticides and heavy metals. Sampling locations within 

these waterbodies ranged from 100 feet to 5.5 miles from the proposed pipeline crossing. Seven of the 13 

contaminated waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed pipelines are classified as major 

waterbodies. Six of these major waterbodies would be crossed using HDD, thereby avoiding sediment 

disruption. In addition, two areas of probable concern were identified in Mississippi: the Big Sunflower 

watershed and the Deer-Steele watershed. 

The MDEQ would require special notification and mitigations (approved by MDEQ) for waterbody 

crossings in waters classified as impaired. Notification/mitigation should include: 

• justification of why the impacts cannot be avoided; 

• proposed BMPs that would minimize the impacts on receiving sensitive waters; and 

• compensatory mitigation, primarily along the same reach of stream or on another impaired 

stream within the same drainage basin. 

The ADEQ, Water Division, does not have specific guidance for the handling of contaminated sediments. 

Texas Gas would file with the Secretary copies of the permits it receives from the ADEQ and MDEQ 

prior to construction. 

Major Waterbody Crossings

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross eleven major waterbodies, including the Mississippi River 

(see table 4.3.2-4). Eight of the major waterbodies would be crossed using the HDD method. The 

proposed Greenville Lateral would cross six major waterbodies, all of which would be crossed by HDD. 

Texas Gas filed acceptable site-specific diagrams for major waterbody crossings, in accordance with our 

Procedures. Texas Gas indicates that consultations with state and federal agencies, for mitigation of 

impacts associated with these crossings, are ongoing and that additional information would be filed with 

FERC as Texas Gas receives it. 

Texas Gas provided site-specific plans for the three major waterbody crossings that would be open cut. 

We concur with the proposed plans for Long Lake Bayou and Phillips Bayou. 

Texas Gas states that the conventional crossing method it would use to cross Cadron Creek would 

minimize the potential for downstream sedimentation. It would allow it to minimize the workspace 

needed to complete the crossing, would confine all work activities to the temporarily dewatered area of 

the waterbody for only the time needed to excavate the trench, place the pipe, and replace the creek bed. 

If Cadron Creek is flowing at the time of the crossing, Texas Gas would cross the waterbody by using 

flumes to conduct and maintain the flow downstream from the disturbed area created by trench 

excavation across the waterbody. If this waterbody is not flowing at the time of the crossing, Texas Gas 

would limit the lateral extent of work activities at the crossing to a 75-foot-wide corridor within the 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-32 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.3.2-3 

Known Contaminated Sediments near the Proposed Project Area 

State/ County Approximate 

Milepost Name of Waterbody Waterbody Classification 

Crossing 

Method 

Approximate Distance 

to Sampling Location a/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

82.09 Cache River Major HDD 19 miles downstream, 37 

miles upstream 

Woodruff 

95.7 Bayou DeView Major HDD 12 miles downstream, 6 

miles upstream 

St. Francis 111.63 Big Creek Intermediate OCM 26 miles downstream 

118.02 Tributary of Larkin 

Creek 

Lee Minor OCM 2.5 miles downstream 

123.34 Tributary of Larkin 

Creek 

Intermediate OCM 4 miles downstream 

Phillips 151.01 Big Creek near Long 

Lake Bayou 

Minor OCM 2.2 miles southwest 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

0.85 Tributary to Main 

Canal 

Minor OCM 3.6 miles downstream 

4.92 Canal to Black Bayou Intermediate OCM 5.5 miles upstream at 

Fish Lake 

5.2 Black Bayou Intermediate OCM 1.8 miles downstream 

Washington 

11.22 Bogue Phalia Major HDD 1.3 upstream and 3.5 

downstream 

Humphreys 20.26 Big Sunflower River Major HDD 0.6 mile downstream 

Holmes 40.4 Yazoo River Major HDD 100 feet north 

54 Fannegusha Creek Major HDD 0.5 mile upstream 

__________ 

Source: EPA, 2001. 

HDD = horizontal direction drilling 

OCM = open cut method 

a/ Straight line distance between sampling location and the proposed pipeline crossing location. 

waterbody buffer zone. For any crossing method use, Texas Gas states that it would complete the 

crossing as quickly as possible to minimize the time a trench is left open across the waterbody. It would 

use bladder dams or other low impact barriers upstream and downstream from the proposed conventional 

crossing if there is any flow in Cadron Creek at the time of the crossing. For Cadron Creek, Texas Gas 

proposes placing an ATWS within the waterbody itself. Since Cadron Creek is an ecological sensitive 

waterbody and listed on the NRI, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas supplement its site-specific plan for crossing Cadron Creek (MP 14 on the 

Fayetteville Lateral) to include additional mitigation measures that would minimize and 

control sedimentation downstream from the proposed crossing. Texas Gas should consult 

4-33 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
with the NPS and ADEQ about the crossing plan and include any NPS- or ADEQrecommended BMPs in the plan. Also, Texas Gas should file with the Secretary the 

supplemented site-specific waterbody crossing plan and the results of its consultation with 

NPS and ADEQ prior to the end of the comment period of this Draft EIS. 

TABLE 4.3.2-4 

Major Waterbodies 

State/County Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Beginning 

Milepost 

Approximate Width at 

Crossing (feet) 

Crossing 

Method a/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

Faulkner Cadron Creek 14 105 OCM 

White Big Creek 46.1 140 HDD 

Little Red River 52.3 200 HDD 

White River 70.3 700 HDD 

Taylor Bay 73.4 215 HDD 

Cache River 82.4 140 HDD 

Bayou DeView 96 250 HDD 

Long Lake Bayou 153 210 OCM 

Woodruff 

Tributary of Long Lake Bayou 154.6 500 HDD 

Arkansas/Mississippi 

Phillips/Coahoma Mississippi River 157.3 4,000 HDD 

Mississippi 

Coahoma Phillips Bayou 160.7 110 OCM 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

Washington Bogue Phalia 11.2 200 HDD 

Washington/Humphreys Big Sunflower River 20.3 250 HDD 

Humphreys Yazoo River 40.5 395 HDD 

Holmes Tchula Lake 46.7 160 HDD 

Fannegusha Creek 54.3 100 HDD 

Holmes/Attala Big Black River 77.7 270 HDD 

__________ 

HDD = horizontal directional drilling method. 

OCM = open-cut method. 

The proposed Project would cross 16 waterbodies by HDD. Texas Gas has not yet completed 

geotechnical investigations to determine if the proposed HDDs could be successfully completed. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas file reports on the geotechnical investigations for all proposed HDDs prior to the 

end of the draft EIS comment period. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-34 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 If an HDD is not completed successfully, Texas Gas would need to obtain permits for an alternate 

crossing plan from the USACE and the appropriate state agency. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas file with the Secretary a site-specific crossing plan for each waterbody if the 

directional drills are unsuccessful. Each site-specific plan should address how Texas Gas 

would seal the abandoned drill hole and should include scaled drawings identifying all areas 

that would be disturbed by construction. Texas Gas should file each plan concurrent with 

its application to the USACE for a permit to construct using this plan and the USACE 

permit when it is obtained. The Director of OEP must review and approve this plan in 

writing prior to construction of the crossing. 

Another concern with an HDD is the potential for a frac-out, which is the unintentional or inadvertent loss 

of drilling fluids from the HDD borehole to the ground surface at locations other than the HDD entry or 

exit points. Of particular concern are frac-outs into waterbodies or wetlands. Texas Gas filed a 

contingency plan for HDDs that includes a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud (a 

frac-out) would be contained and cleaned up. We reviewed this plan and find it acceptable. 

Pipeline construction could affect surface waters in a variety of ways. Clearing and grading of waterbody 

banks, in-water trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could result in modifications to aquatic 

habitat, increased sedimentation and turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, increased water 

temperature, releases of chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, and accidental release of 

chemical contaminants such as fuels and lubricants. The greatest potential impacts for the waterbody 

crossings would result from suspension of sediments caused by in-water trenching and backfilling. The 

extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, water velocity, and sediment particle size at the 

time of construction. These factors would determine the density, extent, and persistence of the sediment 

plume. In general, impacts on water quality are expected to be short term and localized. 

To minimize construction impacts on surface waters, Texas Gas would develop and implement the 

mitigation measures in our Plan and Procedures, as well as the requirements in the permits issued by the 

USACE and state agencies. Our Procedures include provisions for ATWS setbacks, waterbody crossing 

duration constraints, bank stabilization requirements, maintenance of stream flow, sediment control 

procedures, and other erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The SPCC Plan includes 

specifications for hazardous materials transportation, storage and handling, spill prevention and response 

(see the SPCC Plan for pipeline construction in appendix D). Texas Gas would comply with federal and 

state agency requirements and permits when crossing waterbodies during construction of the proposed 

Project. Use of our Plan and Procedures and the SPCC Plan would minimize short- and long-term 

impacts on surface waters. 

Hydrostatic Testing

Prior to being placed into service, the entire pipeline system would be hydrostatically tested to ensure 

structural integrity. The pipeline must be tested to DOT Standards, as listed in 49 CFR Part 192. 

Typically, a pipeline is tested in sections to reduce the amount of water needed at any one time. Smaller 

volumes of water are more easily managed and, generally, reduce the potential for adverse effects on the 

source waterbodies. Upon completion of a test section, the water may be pumped to the next test section 

or discharged. Water for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline system would be obtained from a variety of 

surface waters and municipal sources as shown in table 4.3.2-5. 

In accordance with our Procedures, Texas Gas would screen intake hoses to prevent entrainment of fish, 

discharge hydrostatic test water at controlled discharge rates, and use appropriate energy dissipation 

device(s) and sediment barriers to prevent erosion, scour, suspension of sediments, or excessive stream 

4-35 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
flow. No chemicals would be added to the hydrostatic test water before or after testing. Hydrostatic test 

water withdrawal and discharge would be conducted in accordance with all federal and state regulations 

and permit requirements. The discharge water would be tested in accordance with the applicable 

wastewater discharge permit requirements. 

TABLE 4.3.2-5 

Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the Pipeline System 

Pipeline 

Facility Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location a/ 

(MP) 

Approximate 

Volume (gallons) 

Discharge 

Location (MP) 

Discharge Rate 

(gal/min) 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Cadron Creek 13.9 3,879,000 13.9 >4,000 

Cadron Creek 13.9 4,744,000 13.9 >4,000 

Little Red River 52.1 5,888,000 52.0 >4,000 

Little Red River 52.1 3,823,000 52.0 >4,000 

White River 70.0 1,144,000 69.8 >4,000 

White River 70.0 3,376,000 69.8 >4,000 

Farm Ponds 88.4 1,814,000 88.4 >4,000 

Farm Ponds 88.4 7,143,000 88.4 >4,000 

Larkin Creek 118.9 1,367,000 118.9 >4,000 

Larkin Creek 118.9 2,595,000 118.9 >4,000 

Lick Creek 139.5 3,153,000 139.5 >4,000 

Lick Creek 139.5 1,535,000 139.5 >4,000 

Mississippi River 157.2 3,432,000 157.3 >4,000 

Mississippi River 156.5 2,679,000 157.3 >4,000 

Greenville Lateral 

Big Sunflower 

River 20.3 5,692,000 20.4 >4,000 

Big Sunflower 

River 20.3 2,595,000 20.4 >4,000 

Yazoo River 39.9 2,832,000 39.9 >4,000 

Yazoo River 39.9 4,088,000 39.9 >4,000 

Big Black River 77.3 6,390,000 77.4 >4,000 

Big Black River 77.3 5,190,000 77.4 >4,000 

__________ 

a/ Milepost reflects actual withdrawal/discharge point and is not necessarily at a waterbody crossing. 

Texas Gas would withdraw test water from one waterbody that is listed as a state designated 

Extraordinary Resource Water (Cadron Creek), one waterbody classified as a trout fishery stream (Little 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-36 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Red River), and two waterbodies listed on the NRI (Big Black River and Cadron Creek). Several 

waterbodies that would be used for hydrostatic testing do not meet the water quality standards associated 

with their designated use based on state CWA Section 303(d) lists (i.e., Cadron Creek, Little Red River, 

and Big Black River) or are known to have contaminated sediments (i.e., Yazoo River, Big Sunflower 

River, and Big Black River). Our Procedures require that state-designated exceptional value waters and 

waters that provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species cannot be used for 

hydrostatic test water withdrawal or discharge unless appropriate federal, state, and/or local permitting 

agencies grant written permission (Procedures, section VII.C.2). The use of these waterbodies as 

hydrostatic testing water sources or discharges would be subject to approval pursuant to any required 

NPDES permit. Texas Gas would be required to obtain and comply with the requirements of permits 

issued by the ADEQ, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC), and MDEQ for the withdrawal 

and discharge of hydrostatic test water. The ANRC and MDEQ require prior notification of such 

withdrawals. The ANRC may require permits for some withdrawals. The MDEQ would take into 

account waterbody flows at the time of withdrawal and may require Texas Gas to postpone withdrawals if 

flows are too low. Compliance with the requirements of our Plan and Procedures and the permitting 

requirements from state and local agencies would mitigate potential impacts resulting from the 

withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water. 

4.3.2.2 Operational Impacts 

Following completion of restoration activities and revegetation of disturbed areas as required, no further 

impacts on surface waters would be expected during operation of the proposed pipeline because it is not 

expected that any additional in-stream activities would be performed. Since the pipeline would be 

installed at a sufficient depth below the beds of waterbodies, exposure of the pipeline would not be 

expected. In the event that a pipeline anomaly (e.g., corrosion, dent, rupture) is detected during routine 

inspections that could require pipeline excavation or replacement within a waterbody, impacts would be 

expected to be the same as those described for construction. Operation of proposed aboveground 

facilities, including the Kosciusko Compressor Station, is not expected to affect water resources. 

4.4 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are defined by the USACE and the EPA as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 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. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands 

perform a number of valuable functions, including flood flow attenuation, surface water management, 

filtration of non-point source pollutants and compounds, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion 

control, and sediment and nutrient retention, as well as providing wildlife habitat and recreational 

opportunities. 

The proposed Project would be constructed in areas that support numerous wetlands. Wetland 

delineations for the proposed Project were conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland 

Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) to identify, characterize, and survey the 

boundaries of wetland resources along the pipeline construction right-of-way/corridor and the areas 

identified for aboveground facilities, additional workspaces, and access roads. Based on the Cowardin et 

al. (1979) wetland classification system, three primary wetland types were identified within the Project 

area: palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine forested (PFO), and palustrine scrub shrub (PSS). Wetlands 

identified as containing two or more classifications (i.e., PFO/PEM or PEM/PSS), were categorized into 

one class using the tallest vegetative component. The species that are typically found in each wetland 

classification present in the Project area are identified below. 

4-37 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Palustrine Emergent Wetlands 

PEM wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens 

(Cowardin et al., 1979). Wildlife typically utilizes these areas for nesting and feeding during migratory 

periods. Common vegetative species found in the PEM wetlands that would be traversed by the proposed 

Project construction right-of-way include common rush (Juncus effusus), broomsedge bluestem 

(Andropogon virginicus), broom sedge (Carex scoparia), and giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea). 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands 

PFO wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation, including bottomland hardwoods, that is at least 20 

feet tall (Cowardin et al., 1979). These wetlands provide a diverse assemblage of vegetation and an 

abundance of food and cover for wildlife. Common vegetative species typically found in PFO wetlands 

observed within the proposed Project construction right-of-way include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus 

michauxii), black willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). 

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 

PSS wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall (Cowardin et al., 

1979). PSS wetlands are typically not as structurally diverse as forested wetlands due to the lack of trees 

comprising the canopy. As with PFO wetlands, PSS wetlands supply an abundance of food and cover for 

wildlife. Common vegetative species found in the PSS wetlands observed within the proposed Project 

construction right-of-way include box elder (Acer negundo), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), 

groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), black willow (Salix nigra), and Allegheny blackberry (Rubus 

allegheniensis). 

High-Quality, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wetlands

Wetland Reserve Program

The proposed Project would include the crossing of wetlands managed under the NRCS’s WRP along the 

proposed Greenville Lateral. Section 4.8 provides a detailed description of the WRP. 

The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross one WRP tract, using conventional pipeline construction 

methods, between MP 43.0 and MP 43.3 in Humphreys County, Mississippi. The Greenville lateral 

would be aligned parallel and nest to a road right-of-way and would cross the WRP tract at a location that 

would avoid forested wetland habitats to the north and south of the proposed route and the road. 

Additional information about impact this WRP tract is in section 4.8. 

 

Cache River Wildlife Refuge 

The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty that 

provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise 

use of wetlands and their resources (Ramsar, 2007). Ramsar sites are wetlands that have been selected by 

the Convention’s Contracting Parties and collectively designated as internationally important areas. The 

wetland systems of the Cache River and lower White Rivers, which comprise one of 17 United States 

wetlands on the Ramsar list of Wetlands of International Importance, represent the largest continuous 

expanse of bottomland hardwoods in the lower Mississippi River valley, comprising about one-third of 

the bottomland hardwoods in the Arkansas Delta (Arkansas MAWPT, 2007). The Cache River and 

Bayou De View are also part of the Big Woods complex, a 550,000-acre corridor of floodplain forest that 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-38 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
follows the bayous and rivers that flow into the Mississippi River (TNC, 2007). The Cache River and 

Bayou De View would be crossed by the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. 

The Cache River NWR, a wetland system associated with the Cache River in the lower Mississippi River 

valley, contains about 64,000 acres of wetlands. The refuge is in the 10-year floodplain of the Cache 

River and extends from its confluence with the White River near Clarendon, Arkansas, to Grubbs, 

Arkansas, an air-mile distance of about 70 miles. Habitats within the refuge include 33,000 acres of 

bottomland forest and associated sloughs and oxbow lakes, 4,300 acres of croplands, and 7,500 acres of 

reforested areas (FWS, 2007a). The Cache River system represents the last remaining fragment of the 

once widespread mature forested wetlands of this area (ANHC, 2007a). 

During initial agency coordination for the proposed Project, the FWS recommended avoidance of the 

Cache River NWR and Bayou De View to the extent possible, using HDD methods to cross these 

waterbodies and associated bottomland forests, and following a specific route variation to minimize 

crossing distance. Texas Gas addressed the FWS recommendations by modifying the proposed Project 

route, and committing to crossing these areas by HDD. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross the 

Cache River NWR between MP 82.0 and MP 82.8 and Bayou De View between MP 95.9 and 96.6 by 

HDD. Texas Gas’s use of this construction technique would largely eliminate impacts to bottomland 

hardwood forests in the NWRs. Agricultural fields outside of the refuge boundaries would be used as 

ATWSs to stage HDD activities and equipment and would be used for the drill entry and exit pits. While 

use of HDDs would avoid significant impact to forested wetlands adjacent to the Cache River and Bayou 

De View, the temporary workspaces for the bore pits and pull strings would impact PEM wetlands 

outside the NWR. Texas Gas would minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable to the PEM 

wetlands outside the NWRs by implementing the construction, mitigation, and restoration measures of 

our Procedures. Therefore, we believe that using HDDs to cross the NWRs would minimize and avoid 

most impacts to wetlands in these important resource areas. 

4.4.1 Affected Wetlands 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect a total of 141.5 acres of wetlands. Of 

this total, 107.4 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction and allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. About 33.9 acres would overlap with portions of the permanent right-of-way 

that would be maintained for operational purposes. Of those 33.9 acres, about 13.2 acres would be 

permanently converted from forested and scrub-shrub wetland types to wetlands with herbaceous 

vegetation. These impacts would occur in a 10-foot-wide herbaceous strip Texas Gas would maintain 

above the centerline to facilitate operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The remaining 20.7 acres of 

impact would be associated with the conversion from a forested community to a shrub-scrub or emergent 

system within two 10-foot-wide strips on either side of the centerline strip. Texas Gas has indicated that 

0.2 acre would be permanently lost due to installation and operation of the permanently maintained 

Kosciusko Compressor Station. As indicated in section 3.4, we believe that Texas Gas can avoid 

permanent impacts on the wetland within the Kosciusko Compressor Station property and have requested 

that additional engineering design be undertaken to assess avoidance of this site. 

Table C-6 in appendix C lists each wetland that would be crossed by Project construction and operation 

based on completed field delineation surveys conducted by Texas Gas. Table 4.4.1-1 lists construction 

impacts and permanent conversion of wetland type. USACE verification of the wetland delineations 

conducted for the Project is pending. 

4-39 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-40 

4.4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

The pipelines would cross a total of 12.0 miles (63,124 feet) of wetlands (see table 4.4.1-1). Each 

wetland, including MP, classification, crossing widths and methods, construction impacts, and conversion 

acreage, is listed in table C-6 of appendix C. 

Impacts on wetlands associated with construction and operation of the Project would vary depending on 

the construction techniques used, the sensitivity of aquatic resources to disturbance, and the length of time 

required for wetlands temporarily impacted by construction to be restored. Impacts associated with 

construction of the Project would include the disturbance and removal of wetland vegetation. Following 

construction, temporarily disturbed wetlands would be restored and allowed to revegetate in accordance 

with our Procedures. Impacts associated with operation of the Project would consist of maintenance 

activities of the pipeline right-of-way that would permanently convert forested and scrub-shrub wetlands 

to herbaceous wetland and would maintain shrubs at heights of less than 15 feet, as per our Procedures. 

During the pre-filing process, the FWS, USACE, and state agencies expressed concern about potential 

impacts on forested wetland areas that would be crossed by the proposed Project. The FWS and USACE 

Memphis District recommended adjustments to the proposed pipeline route alignment and ATWSs to 

reduce wetland impacts. The USACE recommended alignments that would bypass forested wetlands 

wherever possible and would instead cross farmland. Specific alternatives and variations suggested by 

the agencies are addressed in section 3 of this EIS. In some cases, Texas Gas modified its initial pipeline 

route as suggested by the agencies (see analysis in section 3.3). Due to the linear nature of pipelines and 

the extent of forested wetlands along linear features such as waterbodies, pipeline alignment would not be 

able to avoid all forested wetland areas. We believe that Texas Gas’s adoption of several of the agencies’ 

specific route modifications, in combination with crossing several waterbodies and wetlands by HDD, the 

use of our Procedures during construction, reducing wetland construction right-of-way widths to 75 feet, 

appropriate and timely restoration, and the use of the right-of-way maintenance protocol described in our 

Procedures during operation of the pipeline and related facilities, as well as the implementation of any 

specific Section 404 permit conditions, would reduce the impacts on all wetlands including forested 

wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. 

Construction Impacts and Mitigation

Construction of the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral and associated facilities would impact a 

total of 57.7 acres and 83.6 acres of wetlands, respectively, for a total of 141.3 acres. Texas Gas has 

indicated that an additional 0.2 acre would be permanently lost due to installation and operation of the 

permanently maintained Kosciusko Compressor Station. As indicated in section 3.4, we believe that 

Texas Gas can avoid permanent impacts on the wetland within the Kosciusko Compressor Station 

property and have requested that additional engineering design be undertaken to assess avoidance of this 

site. 

Temporary impacts resulting from construction activities would occur within the pipeline construction 

work areas, where wetland vegetation would be cleared for equipment movement and installation of the 

pipeline. Additional temporary impacts associated with construction of the pipelines could include 

temporary changes to wetland soils and hydrology. In herbaceous wetlands, the impact on vegetation 

would be short term, since the herbaceous vegetation would regenerate quickly. However, failure to 

properly segregate soil could result in mixing of the soil layers, resulting in altered biological components 

of the wetland. These changes could affect the reestablishment and natural recruitment of native wetland 

vegetation. In addition, inadvertent compaction and rutting of soils during construction could result from 

the temporary stockpiling of soil and the movement of heavy machinery. This could alter the natural 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Summary of Impacts to Wetland Communities 

State 

County Wetland Type a/ Number of Wetlands Crossed Approximate Centerline length crossed (feet) b/ Construction Impacts (acres) c/ 

Permanently 

Converted Wetland 

Types in 10-foot wide 

Area Over Pipeline 

Centerline (acres) d/ 

C

Ty

A

C

ARKANSAS Conway 

PEM 1 51 0.10 n/a 

PFO/PEM 1 23 <0.1 0.01 

Faulkner 

PEM 18 1,399 2.40 n/a 

PSS 4 113 0.1 0.02 

PSS/PEM 2 42 <0.1 0.01 

PFO 2 313 0.6 0.07 

Lee 

PEM 1 658 1.20 n/a 

PFO 9 1,341 2.4 0.31 

PFO/PEM 1 n/a 0.1 n/a 

Phillips 

PEM 2 71 0.20 n/a 

PFO/PEM 3 776 1.4 0.18 

PFO 9 3,334 5.8 0.77 

Saint Francis 

PEM 1 162 0.30 n/a 

PFO/PEM 1 1,255 2.2 0.29 

PFO 1 751 1.3 0.17 

White 

PEM 2 55 0.10 n/a 

PSS 3 984 1.7 0.23 

4-41 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Summary of Impacts to Wetland Communities 

State 

County Wetland Type a/ Number of Wetlands Crossed Approximate Centerline length crossed (feet) b/ Construction Impacts (acres) c/ 

Permanently 

Converted Wetland 

Types in 10-foot wide 

Area Over Pipeline 

Centerline (acres) d/ 

C

Ty

A

C

PFO/PSS 1 9 <0.1 0.002 

PFO/PEM 2 60 0.1 0.01 

PFO 9 1,570 2.7 0.36 

Woodruff 

PEM 14 2,515 4.20 n/a 

PSS/PEM 8 3,597 5.8 0.83 

PFO/PEM 10 1,586 4.3 0.36 

PFO 11 1,727 3.2 0.40 

Total Arkansas 116 22,392 40.2 4.01 

MISSISSIPPI Attala 

PEM 1 37 0.10 n/a 

PSS 2 n/a 0.1 n/a 

PSS/PEM 3 680 2.3 0.16 

PFO/PEM 1 69 0.2 0.02 

PFO/PSS 4 3,637 8.7 0.83 

PFO/PSS/PEM 3 712 1.1 0.16 

PFO 18 4,311 10.1 0.99 

Coahoma 

PFO 16 5,520 17.5 1.27 

Holmes 

PEM 1 n/a <0.1 n/a 

PSS 2 419 0.5 0.10 

PSS/PEM 13 6,230 15.5 1.43 

PFO/PEM 6 5,930 13.5 1.36 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-42 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4-43 

TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Summary of Impacts to Wetland Communities 

State 

County Wetland Type a/ Number of Wetlands Crossed Approximate Centerline length crossed (feet) b/ Construction Impacts (acres) c/ 

Permanently 

Converted Wetland 

Types in 10-foot wide 

Area Over Pipeline 

Centerline (acres) d/ 

C

Ty

A

C

PFO/PSS 4 553 1.3 0.13 

PFO 16 1,825 3.7 0.42 

Humphreys 

PEM 5 700 1.50 n/a 

PSS/PEM 4 90 0.3 0.02 

PFO/PEM 2 0 0.0 n/a 

PFO 14 9,685 24.3 2.22 

Sunflower 

PEM 2 37 0.00 n/a 

Washington 

PEM 2 65 0.10 n/a 

PSS/PEM 2 232 0.5 0.05 

Total Mississippi 121 40,732 101.1 9.16 

TOTAL Project 237 63,124 141.5 13.17 

__________ Notes: These totals were calculated using data provided by Texas Gas in their Resource Report 2 - Water Use and Quality and the PCN Attachm

totals are due to fractional acreages, designated as <0.1 in the original data set. 

a/ Cowardin Classification (Cowardin, et. al., 1979): PEM – palustrine emergent, PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub, PFO – palustrine forested b/ n/a – wetland did not cross proposed Project centerline and, after critical review, it was determined that impacts are largely within temporary 

c/ Temporary construction impacts were determined using a 75-foot-wide corridor centered on the pipeline, plus the areas occupied by access 

temporary workspaces. 

d/ Reflects width of centered right-of-way that may be maintained in a herbaceous state to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion leak surveys. C

crossed was multiplied by 10 feet to obtain area of impact. 

e/ Reflects acreage of permanent right-of-way where trees greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from the permane

Represents 2 10-foot wide strips on either side of the 10-foot wide centerline area. Centerline length crossed was multiplied by 20 feet to ob

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
hydrologic patterns of the wetlands, inhibit seed germination, and increase seedling mortality. Altered 

surface drainage patterns and hydrology could increase the potential for siltation, and increased turbidity 

may result from construction and trenching activities. Construction clearing activities and disturbance of 

wetland vegetation could temporarily affect the wetland’s capacity to buffer flood flows or control 

erosion. Construction activities also have the potential to diminish the recreational and aesthetic value of 

wetlands. However, these functional changes would not be considered a permanent loss of wetlands. 

Construction activities also would result in both short- and long-term loss of wildlife habitat and habitat 

quality. See section 4.6 for a description of wildlife impacts. Implementation of our Procedures, as well 

as other mitigation measures specified in other federal and state permits, would minimize these potential 

impacts. 

Effects to wetlands would vary depending on wetland type. Due to the relatively long period required for 

PFO wetlands to regenerate, up to 30 years or more, impacts on these wetland types would be long-term 

to permanent. Impacts on PSS wetlands would be mostly short term, as regeneration would likely occur 

within two to four years. PEM wetlands, which can regenerate more rapidly, would typically be affected 

only temporarily, as they may become reestablished in one or two growing seasons. 

To minimize construction impacts on wetlands, Texas Gas would develop and implement the measures in 

our Procedures, as well as the requirements in the permits issued by the USACE and state agencies. In 

addition, Texas Gas would comply with the requirements contained in state-issued NPDES permits and 

it’s SPCC Plan. Our Procedures include provisions for ATWS setbacks, wetland crossing duration 

constraints, limitation on pulling tree stumps and grading activities directly over the trenchline, 

segregation of topsoil, sediment control procedures, trench dewatering, restoration, and maintenance 

requirements. The SPCC Plan includes specifications for hazardous materials transportation, storage and 

handling, spill prevention and response (see Texas Gas’s SPCC Plan for pipeline construction in appendix 

D). Use of our Procedures and the SPCC Plan would minimize short- and long-term impacts on wetlands. 

Texas Gas would use the minimum construction equipment necessary within wetlands for clearing and 

grading, trench excavation and backfilling, pipe fabrication and installation, and restoration activities. 

Construction methods for wetland crossings would include conventional open-ditch lay, open-ditch 

push/float lay, and HDD methods. Saturated areas may require use of the open-ditch push/float method to 

minimize wetland disturbance. Site-specific conditions at the time of construction would determine 

method selection. Texas Gas also would minimize impacts on wetlands by implementing the measures 

identified in our Procedures. These measures would include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• limiting tree stump removal and grading to the area directly over the pipeline, unless it is 

determined that safety-related construction constraints require grading or removal of tree 

stumps from under the working side of the construction right-of-way; 

• stripping and segregating topsoil from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum 

depth of 12 inches in unsaturated soils; 

• using sediment barriers to prevent sediment flow into a wetland; 

• dewatering trenches in a way that does not cause sedimentation in a wetland; 

• implementing its SPCC Plan to avoid refueling and fuel storage incidents within the vicinity 

of a wetland; 

• restoring preconstruction contours and vegetation; and 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-44 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• monitoring the success of revegetation. 

In addition to these measures, the USACE requires that all appropriate and practicable actions be taken to 

avoid or minimize impacts, pursuant to its Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which restrict discharges of 

dredged or fill material where a less environmentally damaging and more practicable alternative exists. 

All proposed wetland crossings would be subject to review by the USACE to ensure that potential 

wetland impacts are fully identified and that appropriate wetland restoration and mitigation measures are 

implemented. Texas Gas would comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that may be 

issued by the USACE. 

Operation Impacts and Mitigation

Operation of the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral would permanently affect a total of 13.2 acres 

and 20.7 acres of wetlands, respectively. Table 4.4.1-2 identifies permanent conversion impacts by 

wetland type for the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral. 

In PFO wetlands, trees would be cleared from the construction work areas. Following construction, our 

Procedures specify that vegetation maintenance would not be conducted over the full width of the 

permanent right-of-way in wetlands. During operation, Texas Gas would maintain a 10-foot-wide 

herbaceous strip centered over the pipeline to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys. In 

addition, trees that are within 15 feet of the pipeline and greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and 

removed. These measures would reduce the amount of PFO wetlands that would be permanently affected 

by pipeline construction since an additional 20 feet of the 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline easement 

would be allowed to revegetate naturally after construction. Maintenance activities would not 

significantly affect PEM wetlands since they would recover soon following periodic mowing. Functions 

associated with these wetland types would be altered where PFO or PSS wetlands within the maintained 

portion of the permanent pipeline right-of-way are permanently converted to an herbaceous state. 

However, these areas would still be wetlands since wetland hydrology would be maintained or 

reestablished after construction. 

Any specific mitigation requirements for the conversion of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would be 

established during the USACE Section 404 permitting process. We believe that the use of our Procedures 

during the construction of the proposed Project, and implementation of specific conditions set forth in any 

Section 404 permits that would be issued for the Project, would minimize impacts to wetlands to the 

greatest extent practicable. 

Aboveground Facilities

About 0.2 acres of forested wetlands would be permanently impacted during construction and operation 

of the Kosciusko Compressor Station on the Greenville Lateral. The area for the proposed Kosciusko 

Compressor Station would be permanently cleared and graded, thus 0.2 acres of wetlands within the 

facility boundary would be permanently lost. As indicated in section 3.4, we believe that Texas Gas can 

avoid permanent impacts to the 0.2 acres of forested wetlands within the Kosciusko Compressor Station 

property. We are recommending that Texas Gas modify it site plan to avoid this wetland. 

4-45 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.4.1-2 

Summary of Wetland Impacts to Forested and Scrub-shrub Communities 

within the Maintained Permanent Right-of-Way 

Location Wetland Type a/ 

Permanently Converted Wetland Types 

in 10-foot wide Area Over Pipeline 

Centerline (acres) b/ 

Additional Permanently Converted 

Wetland Types in 30-foot wide 

Area Over Pipeline Centerline 

(acres) c/, d/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

 PSS/PEM 0.84 n/a 

 PSS 0.25 n/a 

 PFO/PEM 0.85 1.70 

 PFO/PSS 0.002 0.004 

 PFO 3.35 6.68 

 Subtotal Fayetteville Lateral 5.29 8.39 

Greenville Lateral 

 PSS/PEM 1.66 n/a 

 PSS 0.10 n/a 

 PFO/PEM 1.38 2.75 

 PFO/PSS 0.96 1.92 

 PFO/PSS/PEM 0.16 0.33 

 PFO 3.63 7.27 

 Subtotal Greenville Lateral 7.89 12.27 

13.17 20.66 

TOTAL Project 

__________ 

Notes: These totals were calculated using data provided by Texas Gas in their Resource Report 2 - Water Use and Quality and the

PCN Attachment B. Variances in totals are due to fractional acreages, designated as <0.1 in the original data set. 

a/ Cowardin Classification (et. al., 1979): PEM – palustrine emergent, PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub, PFO – palustrine forested 

b/ Reflects width of centered right-of-way that may be maintained in a herbaceous state to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion leak 

surveys. Centerline length crossed was multiplied by 10 feet to obtain area impacted. 

c/ Reflects acreage of permanent right-of-way where trees greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from 

the permanent right-of-way. Centerline length crossed was multiplied by 20 feet to obtain area impacted. 

d/ n/a – No conversion of wetland type. 

Additional Temporary Workspaces

Texas Gas proposes using ATWS in wetlands at certain locations. Table 4.4.1-3 identifies these 

locations, their purpose, and the acreage that would be impacted during construction. Acreage impacts 

identified in this table are included in the temporary construction impacts for the Project, provided in 

table 4.4.1-1 and table C-6 in appendix C. About 10.7 acres of wetlands would be temporarily affected by 

these ATWS. Affected wetlands would experience short- to long-term functional changes due to clearing 

activities for equipment movement but would subsequently be allowed to revert to preconstruction 

conditions. Our Procedures require that ATWS be located at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-46 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Texas Gas identified and provided justification for 34 locations where ATWS would come within 50 feet 

of a wetland boundary. 

In compliance with our Procedures, Texas Gas should file site-specific plans for use of each of the ATWS 

in wetlands. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Texas Gas file with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP, a site-specific construction plan for each ATWS with a less than 

50-foot setback from wetland boundaries (except where adjacent upland consists of 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific 

explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback. 

TABLE 4.4.1-3 

Wetlands Impacted by Additional Temporary Workspaces 

Location Activity Nearest 

Milepost 

Cowardin 

Classification a/ 

Temporary 

Impacts (acres) b/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

Woodruff Truck turnaround and fabrication area 82.2 PFO/PEM 0.3 

Woodruff Pull string 83.1 PFO/PEM 1.0 

Woodruff P.I. and fabrication area 83.1 PFO/PEM 0.1 

Woodruff Truck turnaround, P.I., fabrication area, and access 96 PEM/PSS 0.3 

Woodruff Drag section 96.5 PEM/PSS 0.1 

Woodruff P.I. and road crossing 96.5 PEM/PSS 0.1 

Phillips Truck turnaround 156.7 PFO 0.5 

Mississippi 

Coahoma Hydrostatic test area 156.8 PFO 0.5 

Coahoma Hydrostatic test area 157.6 PFO 0.6 

Coahoma Truck turnaround 157.7 PFO 0.5 

Coahoma P.I. and fabrication area 158.1 PFO 0.5 

Coahoma Pull string 158.2 PFO <0.1 

Coahoma P.I. and access 158.2 PFO 0.3 

Coahoma Pull string 158.2 PFO 2.1 

Coahoma P.I. and access 158.2 PFO <0.1 

Coahoma Pull string 158.2 PFO 0.7 

Coahoma P.I. and fabrication area 158.4 PFO 0.3 

Coahoma Truck turnaround and access 158.5 PFO 1.0 

 Subtotal: Fayetteville Lateral 9.0 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

Humphreys Temporary workspace and access road 40.6 PEM/PSS <0.1 

Humphreys Pull string 44.3 PFO 0.2 

Humphreys Fabrication area 44.9 PFO 0.1 

Humphreys Access road and fabrication area 45.5 PFO 0.1 

4-47 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.4.1-3 

Wetlands Impacted by Additional Temporary Workspaces 

Location Activity Nearest 

Milepost 

Cowardin 

Classification a/ 

Temporary 

Impacts (acres) b/ 

Humphreys Waterbody crossing and fabrication area 46.1 PFO 0.2 

Holmes Road crossing and fabrication area 55.1 PFO <0.1 

Holmes Road crossing and fabrication area 59.1 PFO <0.1 

Holmes Waterbody crossing and fabrication area 59.6 PEM/PSS 0.1 

Holmes Road crossing and fabrication area 59.9 PEM/PSS 0.1 

Holmes Road crossing and fabrication area 60.4 PEM/PSS <0.1 

Holmes Pipeline crossing and fabrication area 60.6 PEM/PSS 0.1 

Holmes Pipeline crossing and fabrication area 60.6 PEM/PSS 0.2 

Holmes Access road and fabrication area 77.2 PFO/PEM 0.1 

Holmes Pull string 77.2 PFO/PEM <0.1 

Holmes Truck turnaround and access 77.5 PFO/PEM 0.4 

Attala Access road and fabrication area 78.1 PFO <0.1 

 Subtotal: Greenville Lateral 1.7 

 Project Total: 10.7 

__________ 

Notes: These totals were calculated using data provided by Texas Gas in their Resource Report 2 - Water Use and Quality and the

PCN Attachment B. Variances in totals are due to fractional acreages, designated as <0.1 in the original data set. 

P.I. – Point of Inflection 

a/ Cowardin Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979): PEM – palustrine emergent, PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub, PFO – palustrine 

forested. 

b/ Impact acreage is also accounted for in Table 4.4.1-1. 

Access Roads

Access roads would temporarily impact about 0.8 acre of wetlands (see table 4.4.1-4). These acreage 

impacts are included in the temporary construction impacts for the Project provided in table 4.4.1-1 and 

table C-6 in appendix C. No permanent impacts on wetlands are anticipated as a result of the use or 

modification of existing access roads. 

Based on our review of Texas Gas’s proposal, we believe that these access road modifications would be 

reasonable. Texas Gas would implement any additional requirements regarding these temporary access 

road improvements in wetlands that may be imposed by the USACE. 

Contractor/Pipe Yards

Use of the proposed contractor/pipe yards would not impact any wetlands. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-48 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.4.1-4 

Wetlands Impacted by Access Roads 

Location Access Road Nearest Milepost Cowardin Classification a/ Temporary Impacts 

(acres) 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Arkansas 

Woodruff 64 96 PSS/PEM <0.1 

Lee 27 119.1 PFO <0.1 

 Phillips 52A 156.6 PFO <0.1 

Mississippi

Coahoma 41 158.4 PFO 0.1 

Coahoma 41B 158.4 PFO 0.5 

Coahoma 41A 158.6 PFO <0.1 

 Subtotal: Fayetteville Lateral 0.6 

Greenville Lateral 

Mississippi 

Humphreys AR-15 40.1 PFO <0.1 

Humphreys AR-18 44.3 PFO <0.1 

Humphreys AR-19 45.5 PFO 0.1 

Holmes AR-38 59.6 PEM/PSS <0.1 

Holmes AR-40 60.5 PEM/PSS <0.1 

Holmes AR-60 77.2 PFO/PSS 0.1 

Attala AR-61 78.1 PFO <0.1 

 Subtotal: Greenville Lateral 0.2 

 Project Total: 0.8 

__________ 

Notes: These totals were calculated using data provided by Texas Gas in their Resource Report 2 - Water Use and Quality and the

PCN Attachment B. Variances in totals are due to fractional acreages, designated as <0.1 in the original data set. 

a/ Cowardin Classification (Cowardin et. al. 1979): PEM – palustrine emergent, PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub, PFO – palustrine 

forested. 

4.4.2 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation 

The requirements for wetland restoration measures identified in our Procedures include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• consultation with appropriate land management or state agencies to develop a project-specific 

restoration plan that includes measure for reestablishing herbaceous and woody species; 

• prohibition on the use of herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of a wetland, except as 

allowed by the appropriate agencies; and 

• monitoring of the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first three years after 

construction or until wetland revegetation is considered successful. 

4-49 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Texas Gas would complete wetland permitting, including development of measures of compensatory 

mitigation for all wetland impacts, in consultation with the USACE Little Rock, Memphis, and Vicksburg 

Districts. Texas Gas is proposing to compensate for wetland impacts through purchase of wetland 

mitigation bank credits. Mitigation banking is an approved alternative to on site mitigation and often 

provides for greater likelihood of success in replacement of wetland function and long-term management 

of restored wetland areas. 

Texas Gas would comply with the conditions contained in the permit issued by the USACE and in the 

water quality certification permits issued by ADEQ and MDEQ. 

Further, Texas Gas indicates that it would provide compensation for permanent wetland impacts including 

all impacts on forested wetlands in all construction work areas, including temporary construction work 

areas. A total of 33.9 acres of permanent forested and scrub-shrub conversion impacts would occur due 

to the permanently maintained right-of-way. A total of 0.2 acre of potentially permanently impacted 

forested wetlands has been identified; however, additional engineering design to avoid this site has been 

requested. Mitigation for these wetland impacts would be at a mitigation ratio as determined by the 

USACE. Because the final wetland Mitigation Plan has not yet been finalized, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Texas Gas file with the Secretary a copy of the Section 404/10 

permit issued by the USACE, and the finalized wetland Mitigation Plan developed in 

consultation with the USACE. 

Texas Gas would implement the construction, restoration, and maintenance measures described in our 

Procedures for project construction and operation. The Project pipeline routes have been developed in 

consultation with the USACE and would avoid wetlands where practicable. Wetland impacts would be 

minimized by using HDDs to cross several larger wetlands and associated waterbody crossings since 

wetlands within the path of the HDD would be avoided. Therefore, we believe that the proposed 

Project’s impact on wetlands have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The USACE will 

require compensation for permanent wetland impacts as mitigation. 

4.5 VEGETATION 

4.5.1 Habitat/Community Types 

There would be nine distinct vegetation habitat/community types in the Project area: 

• hardwood upland forest; 

• pine-hardwood upland forest; 

• pine plantation; 

• palustrine forested wetland; 

• palustrine scrub/shrub wetland; 

• palustrine emergent wetland; 

• agricultural; 

• upland pasture; and 

• open water. 

Of these, open water is characterized by a lack of vegetation, and agricultural and upland pastures by 

uniform vegetation. Therefore, these habitat/community types are not addressed in this section. The 

predominant vegetation community in the Project area is agriculture (66 percent), which is addressed in 

section 4.8.1. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-50 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.5.1.1 Typical Habitat/Community Types in the Project Area 

Upland Forest

Upland forest communities in the vicinity of the proposed Project consist of both cold-deciduous, broadleaved forest and needle-leaved evergreen trees. Upland forests comprise about 15 percent of the Project 

area. 

Hardwood Upland Forest 

The hardwood upland forest community is generally found throughout the Project area. The main cover 

type is oak-hickory, where common species include post oak (Quercus stellata), bur oak (Quercus 

macrocarpa), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), white oak (Quercus alba), 

mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Common understory species 

include American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and 

dogwood species (Cornus spp.). Other hardwood upland communities include beech-maple, rich cove, 

and sandpond forests. The federally listed endangered pondberry is known to occur in sandpond 

communities. 

Pine-Hardwood Upland Forest 

The pine-hardwood upland forest habitat is found in less anthropologically disturbed areas where the 

forests are allowed to vegetate naturally and mature without much management, leading to the mix of 

hardwoods and pine. This habitat type is more common along the western and eastern portions of the 

Project area. Overstory species in pine-hardwood upland forest are similar to pine upland forest and 

include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), 

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), southern magnolia (Magnolia 

grandiflora), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and species of elm (Ulmus spp.). The understory is 

composed of species such as American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), American hornbeam 

(Carpinus caroliniana), supple jack (Berchemia scandens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus 

quinquefolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), dogwood species (Cornus spp.), 

and yaupon (Ilex vomitoria). 

Pine Plantation 

Managed forests and pine plantations are scattered throughout the Project area. These communities, 

which are dominated by pine, are managed for commercial production and undergo periodic silvicultural 

maintenance.

Wetlands

Palustrine Forested Wetlands 

Palustrine forested wetlands are the most common wetland type crossed by the proposed Project. These 

wetland communities contain bottomland hardwood wetlands, southern floodplain forests, forested 

canebreaks, and cypress-tupelo swamps. The vegetation varies widely among the various wetland types, 

but all are dominated by woody vegetation and usually have hydric soils and wetland hydrology. 

Vegetation found in this habitat includes bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa 

aquatica), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttalii), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and overup oak (Quercus 

lyrata). These wetlands can vary from the semi-permanently flooded cypress tupelo swamp to the never 

inundated mixed pine-hardwood wetlands. 

4-51 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Palustrine Scrub-shrub Wetlands 

The palustrine scrub-shrub wetland community is similar vegetatively to scrub-shrub upland habitat but 

exists where there are hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Vegetation found in this habitat consists of 

species such as marsh elder (Iva annua), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), wax 

myrtle (Myrica cerifera), eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), and various sedges (Carex spp.) and 

rushes (Juncus spp.). 

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands 

Palustrine emergent wetlands are found throughout the Project area. This community can also be found 

in fields that have lain fallow for a few years and have hydric soils and wetland hydrology. The main 

requirement of this habitat type is a lack of woody vegetation. These marshes typically includes species 

such as spikerushes, soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), green flatsedge (Cyperus virens), bushy bluestem 

(Andropogon glomeratus), swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), and maiden cane (Panicum 

hemitomon). 

Wetlands are described in more detail in section 4.4. 

4.5.1.2 Pipeline Facilities 

Fayetteville Lateral

Construction of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral (including construction work areas, access roads, pipe 

yards, and aboveground facilities) would involve the temporary clearing and disturbance of about 3,082.4 

acres of land, including 2,197.7 acres of agricultural land, 432.5 acres of upland and managed forest, and 

452.2 acres of other land and water. The primary wetland vegetative community that would be affected 

by construction would be mixed palustrine forested/emergent wetlands (see section 4.4). 

Greenville Lateral

Construction of the proposed Greenville Lateral pipeline system (including construction work areas, 

access roads, pipe yards, and aboveground facilities) would involve the temporary clearing and 

disturbance of about 1,956.3 acres of land, including 1,020.9 acres of agricultural land, 303.7 acres of 

upland and managed forest, and 631.7 acres of other land and open water. The primary wetland 

vegetative community that would be affected by construction would be mixed palustrine 

forested/emergent wetlands (see section 4.4). 

Kosciusko 36-inch and Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Laterals

Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch and Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Laterals would involve the 

temporary clearing and disturbance of about 12.3 acres and 6.2 acres of land, respectively. About 4.2 

acres of agricultural land and 5.6 acres of forest would be affected by construction of the Kosciusko 36-

inch Tie-in Lateral; the remaining 2.5 acres of land affected during construction of the pipeline would 

consist of other land and water. Construction of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would involve 

temporary clearing and disturbance of 5.6 acres of forest and 0.6 acre of other land. Agricultural land 

would not be affected by construction of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral. 

The primary impact of the proposed Project on vegetation communities would be the removal of 

vegetation along the proposed pipeline routes, at aboveground facilities, and at ATWSs. Cutting or 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-52 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
removal of vegetation for Project construction could lead to increased soil erosion, associated 

sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands, an increase in invasive or exotic plant species, and a 

reduction in wildlife habitat. Clearing and construction activities along the proposed pipeline right-ofway and associated facilities could result in soil compaction. The use of heavy machinery could damage 

riparian vegetation adjacent to sensitive waterbodies, thereby potentially reducing water quality in those 

waterbodies. 

The permanent right-of-way would be maintained in an herbaceous state following construction. There 

would be no long-term impacts on areas with existing herbaceous cover types following restoration. 

Long-term vegetation impacts would occur in forested wetlands and upland forests along the pipeline 

right-of-way where vegetation types would be converted to open land with herbaceous vegetation. 

Routine vegetation maintenance clearing would occur within the existing permanent right-of-way no 

more than once every 3 years. However, to facilitate leak and corrosion surveys in wetlands, a corridor 

no more than 10 feet wide centered on the pipeline(s) may be maintained by mowing or a similar means 

on an annual basis, and trees within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in height may be 

cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way. 

Permanent impacts also would occur at the proposed aboveground facilities, where existing vegetation 

types would be converted to industrial land. The existing vegetation that would be the most affected by 

construction and operation of these facilities would be agricultural, however, some impacts to upland 

forested also would occur. 

To minimize Project-related effects on vegetative communities, Texas Gas would implement our Plan and 

Procedures. Implementation of our Plan and Procedures would aid vegetative restoration and prevent or 

minimize sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands. Following construction, all construction 

work areas would be restored, seeded with conservation grasses, legumes, native plant species or other 

standard erosion control/cover species, where required, and generally allowed to revegetate to preconstruction conditions in accordance with our Plan. The FWS recommends that native or non-persistent 

annual species be used to revegetate works areas. Texas Gas has indicated that it would consult with 

local conservation authorities. 

Project impacts on vegetative communities would vary depending upon disturbance duration, magnitude, 

and vegetation cover type. As described above, long-term and permanent impacts on forested habitat 

would result from construction and operation of the Project. Texas Gas cooperated with federal and state 

agencies to align the pipeline in a manner that avoids or minimizes forested habitat impacts, either 

through facility siting or use of measures such as HDD to cross forested habitat. In addition, Texas Gas 

collocated the proposed pipeline along existing pipeline rights-of-ways to minimize forest fragmentation. 

Furthermore, Texas Gas would minimize impacts on forested areas through implementation of the 

mitigation measures in our Plan and Procedures. Impacts on other vegetation communities such as 

agriculture, pasture, and open land would be considered minimal and limited primarily to the construction 

phase. Based on Texas Gas’s proposed measures to minimize impacts on forested areas, the relatively 

minor impacts on agricultural areas, pastures, and open lands, and the implementation of our Plan and 

Procedures and our recommendations, we believe that impacts on vegetation communities would be 

minimized. 

 

4.5.2 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern 

The NRCS, ANHC, Mississippi Museum of Natural History, and FWS identified several sensitive 

communities that could potentially be impacted by the Project. Specifically, these communities include 

the following: 

4-53 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• WRP land; 

• bluff habitat adjacent to Cadron Creek; 

• wetland corridors along Cache River and Bayou De View; 

• wooded depressional habitat; 

• bald cypress swamps; and 

• bottomland hardwoods. 

Wetland Reserve Program Lands

The WRP is a voluntary program administered by the NRCS that allows landowners to receive financial 

incentives to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal land from 

agriculture. Texas Gas has identified one WRP that would be crossed by the Project along the proposed 

Greenville Lateral between MP 43 and MP 45, in Humphrey’s County, Mississippi. Impacts on WRP 

lands and mitigation are addressed in section 4.8 of this EIS. 

Bluff Habitat Adjacent to Cadron Creek

Cadron Creek is listed on the NRI and the Arkansas Registry of Natural and Scenic Rivers, and is listed 

by the ADEQ as an Extraordinary Resource Water. The ANHC noted that two species of state concern 

may occur on the bluffs along Cadron Creek: the Arkansas alumroot (Heuchera villosa var. arkansana) 

and mock orange (Philadelphus hirsutus). Texas Gas did not identify either of these species during field 

surveys; nonetheless, ANHC recommended that Texas Gas avoid areas where these species are known to 

occur. Texas Gas has determined that it would not be feasible to cross Cadron Creek using HDD methods 

and has proposed crossing Cadron Creek using open-cut crossing methods. Texas Gas would implement 

measures in our Plan and Procedures to minimize impacts associated with this crossing and would 

continue to coordinate with the ANHC to develop measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts on 

this habitat, and we have recommended additional consultation with the NPS regarding the development 

of additional mitigation measures for this crossing since Cadron Creek is NRI listed. Texas Gas also 

would implement any specific conditions associated with the USACE Section 404 permit and the state 

401 Water Quality Certification if, in fact, these permits are issued for the Project. Further information 

about Cadron Creek is in section 4.3, and impacts on sensitive species are addressed in section 4.7. 

Cache River and Bayou De View Wetlands

The wetlands associated with the Cache River and Bayou De View have been identified as wetlands of 

international importance by the Ramsar Convention and as the most important wintering area for mallards 

by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The ivory billed woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) was identified within the Bayou De View portion of the Cache River NWR. The Cache River 

basin contains a variety of wetland communities, including some of the most intact and least disturbed 

bottomland hardwood forests in the Mississippi Valley Region. Texas Gas proposes to use HDDs to 

cross the Cache River, Bayou De View, and associated forested wetlands. We believe that Texas Gas’s 

use of HDDs to avoid impacts to the waterbodies and adjacent forested wetlands, and the use of our 

Procedures would minimize impacts to these resources. 

Wooded Depressional Habitats

ANHC expressed concern over potential impacts on wooded depressional habitats that may support 

pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), a federally listed plant species. The FWS in Mississippi also requested 

that surveys of wooded depressional habitat be completed. Texas Gas conducted surveys of the pipeline 

corridor between November 2006 and May 2007 and did not identify any pondberry species within the 

Project area. Impacts on pondberry habitat are further addressed in section 4.7. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-54 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Bald Cypress Swamp

The proposed Project would cross bald cypress swamp habitat in Woodruff County, Arkansas, and 

Phillips, Humphreys, and Attala Counties, Mississippi. The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

(MSNHP) identified bald cypress swamps as a vegetation community of special concern in Mississippi. 

Bald cypress swamps are found around oxbow lakes and along abandoned stream channels and contain a 

variety of mixtures and densities of bald cypress, black gum, water tupelo, and other hardwood trees. 

Silver and red maple, persimmon, green ash, ironwood, and water oak are occasional associates. Bald 

cypress/gum swamps are considered vulnerable in Mississippi due to historic widespread declines and 

recent losses caused by a wide range of developments that create additional isolation and fragmentation 

(MDWFP, 2005). 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest

The FWS is concerned about potential Project impacts on bottomland hardwood habitats. Bottomland 

hardwood forests are a type of wetland community comprised of both hardwood and softwood species 

that are found along the floodplains of rivers and streams. Only 20 percent to 25 percent of the 

bottomland hardwood forests that occurred across Arkansas prior to European settlement remain today 

(ANHC, 2007b). Potential natural vegetation types in these areas include the southern floodplain forest 

with bottomland forest and woodland components. These forests are predominantly overcup oak, water 

hickory, nuttal oak, willow oak, red maple, green ash, elm, and sweet gum. The riparian forests adjacent 

to the Mississippi River include black willow, cottonwood, river birch, and sycamore. Bald cypress and 

water tupelo are found in the wettest sites. Bottomland hardwoods occur throughout the Project area. 

The largest tracts are crossed by the Project in Phillips and Woodruff Counties in Arkansas, and 

Coahoma, Humphreys, Holmes, and Attala Counties in Mississippi. The White and Cache Rivers along 

the Fayetteville Lateral contain some of the most intact and least disturbed bottomland hardwood forests 

in the Mississippi Valley Region. Texas Gas proposes to use HDD to traverse large tracts of bottomland 

hardwood forested habitat that would be crossed by the Project. 

Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction impacts described in section 4.5.1.2 are applicable to vegetation communities of special 

concern, depending on the vegetation present. During the pre-filing period, the FWS, ANHC, and 

MSNHP commented that construction activities that fragment or destroy certain vegetative communities 

could adversely impact a number of threatened or endangered species. Impacts on threatened and 

endangered species are in section 4.7. Based on our review, the alignment of the proposed Project was 

developed, to the extent possible, to minimize impacts on high-quality habitats, conservation areas, or 

other designated sensitive vegetative communities. Texas Gas has collocated the proposed pipeline with 

existing utility rights-of-way wherever possible in order to minimize forest fragmentation and avoid 

creating new corridors through forested habitat or other sensitive communities. Where these areas cannot 

be avoided, Texas Gas has consulted with the appropriate resource agencies to determine both suitable 

crossing locations and crossing methods. Texas Gas would restore sensitive areas crossed by the Project 

to the extent practicable in accordance with our Plan and Procedures and any other mitigation measures 

required by permitting agencies. Texas Gas would continue to work with the applicable state and federal 

agencies to develop measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts on riparian areas, forested wetlands, 

and other vegetative communities that may provide habitat for federally or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species or species of special concern in Arkansas and Mississippi. 

4-55 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.5.3 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Invasive species can out-compete and displace native plant species, which can alter the appearance, 

composition, and habitat value of affected areas. Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), water hyacinth 

(Eichhornia crassipes), and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) are some of the invasive species that 

could occur within the Project area. 

In order to minimize the impacts of exotic and invasive species, Texas Gas would implement our Plan, 

which includes measures to reduce erosion such as topsoil stripping and specific vegetation restoration 

measures. Soils imported to agricultural and residential areas would be certified as free of noxious weeds 

and soil pests, and only weed-free straw or hay would be used to construct sediment control devices or 

used as mulch applications. 

Texas Gas has also developed an Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan (see appendix E). The plan 

identifies the following management measures to minimize introduction and/or spread of these species: 

• pressure washing of all construction equipment before first entering the construction area, all 

water and material captured from pressuring washing would be contained and properly 

disposed to prevent dispersal of potential seeds or plant parts; 

• monitoring and selective spot treatment/eradication of any exotic or invasive species 

encountered during construction; 

• implementing construction techniques along the pipeline route that minimize the time that 

bare soil is exposed; 

• segregating topsoil and restoring the segregated topsoil to its original location; and 

• seeding exposed areas within a short time to minimize potential for exotic or invasive species 

to become established. 

The temporary removal of vegetation may result in increased opportunities for invasive and exotic species 

to establish themselves in Project rights-of-way and extra workspaces. Adherence to the Exotic and 

Invasive Species Control Plan, in conjunction with consultations with local, state, and federal agencies, 

would minimize the potential for the introduction or establishment of nuisance and exotic species within 

the Project area. Re-establishment of vegetation in all disturbed areas soon after backfilling the trench 

and final grading would minimize the opportunities for invasive species to become established. Texas 

Gas states it would implement our Plan during construction and operation of the Project. The Plan 

requires that final grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent erosion control structures 

within 20 days after backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas). Grading the construction rightof-way would restore pre-construction contours and leave the soil in the proper condition for 

planting/seeding, and Texas Gas would seed disturbed construction workspaces with an appropriate seed 

mix. 

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

This section provides a description of the wildlife and aquatic resources in the Project area. Potential 

impacts on these resources from construction and operation of the Project are described, and proposed or 

additional mitigation measures needed to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts are identified. 

Threatened and endangered species that may occur within the proposed Project area are described in 

section 4.7. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-56 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.6.1 Wildlife Resources 

Wildlife species that may be found within the Project area are typical of the Eastern Temperate Forest 

Eco-region (EPA, 2007). This region is described as having a moderate and mildly humid climate; dense 

and diverse forest cover; high human density; and diverse populations of mammal, birds, fish, reptiles, 

and amphibians. Based on vegetative characteristics, the Project area can be divided into the following 

five basic wildlife habitat/community types: 

• palustrine wetland 

• pasture 

• upland forest/scrub-shrub 

• open water/riparian 

Since each wildlife habitat/community type supports a distinct collection of wildlife species, analysis of 

habitat types, rather than individual species, is provided to meaningfully describe Project-related impacts 

on wildlife resources. An overview of each Project area habitat type that would be impacted is provided 

below. 

4.6.1.1 Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area 

Palustrine Wetlands 

Palustrine wetlands, which include emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitat, provide foraging, 

breeding, migratory, and wintering habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Small emergent 

areas contain less than 0.5 foot of water during the spring and provide habitat for several species of 

amphibians and invertebrates. This habitat supports a species diversity comprised of species such as 

ringed salamander (Ambystoma annulatum), wood frog (Rana sylvatica), ornate box turtle (Terrapenne 

ornate ornate), northern crawfish frog (Rana areolata circulosa), four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium 

scutatum), northern pintail (Arnas acuta), king rail (Rallus elegans), northern harrier (Circus Cyaneus),

southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) (Anderson, 2006; 

AGFC, 2007). 

Pasture 

Upland pasture habitat in the Project area provides foraging area and/or cover for a variety of species. 

Based on the presence of habitat and their regional occurrence, these species may include Henslow’s 

sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Le Conte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus), red milkweed beetle (Tetraopes tetraopthalmus), prairie mole cricket (Gryllotalpa 

major), southern prairie skink (Eumeces septentrionalis), Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), 

prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus 

floridanus) (Anderson, 2006; AGFC, 2007). 

Upland Forest/Scrub-Shrub 

Upland forest/scrub-shrub habitat types provide refuge for a variety of wildlife. Based on the presence of 

habitat and their regional occurrence, these species may include spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), 

bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),

black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), barn 

owl (Tyto alba), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), 

woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), and American woodcock (Scolopax minor) (AGFC, 2007). 

4-57 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Open Water/Riparian 

Open water/riparian areas are valuable resources and provide habitat for numerous species. Riparian 

habit is generally defined as the aquatic and terrestrial habitat adjacent to streams, lakes, estuaries, or 

other waterways. Riparian areas help stabilize stream banks, improve water quality, reduce flooding and 

sedimentation, and enhance wildlife habitat. In the Project area, open water and associated riparian areas 

potentially support numerous species, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mallards (Anas 

platyrhynchos), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and beaver (Castor 

Canadensis). Aquatic species associated with open water habitat are described in more detail in section 

4.6.2. The location of riparian habitat crossed by the proposed pipelines is identified in table C-9 in 

appendix C. 

4.6.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation 

Initial clearing and construction activities would result in the disruption of wildlife habitat comprised of 

palustrine wetland, upland forest/shrub-scrub, cropland and pasture, and open water/riparian habitat. 

Smaller, less-mobile wildlife species could experience direct mortality during clearing and grading 

activities. Other wildlife species would likely leave the Project area when construction begins and 

relocate into similar nearby habitats. Stress related to increased levels of competition could cause 

disruption of breeding cycles of some wildlife species, lower reproductive success, and reduced survival. 

The primary impact of construction and operation of the Project on wildlife would be the temporary 

alteration of habitat in temporary construction work areas. There also would be permanent loss of habitat 

in areas where aboveground facilities would be built, and permanent impacts also would occur where 

forested uplands and wetlands are cleared. Following construction of the pipeline system, all construction 

work areas would be restored to preconstruction contours and revegetated. Areas within the permanent 

right-of-way would be maintained in herbaceous vegetation in accordance with our Plan and Procedures. 

Long-term or permanent impacts would be limited to the conversion of upland and wetland forested areas 

to open grassy areas for the new permanent right-of-way. 

Operation of the pipeline system would result in the conversion of 381.7 acres of upland and wetlands 

forests to open herbaceous habitat. This herbaceous habitat would be of less value to wildlife species that 

prefer forested habitats, but would provide new habitat for those species preferring herbaceous habitats. 

In particular, prairie bird species, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles would be able to utilize these 

restored areas, since they would provide scrub-shrub and grassland habitats. Other negative impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the Project (e.g., noise) are expected to be minimal. 

Although temporary and permanent impacts on food, cover, and water sources may occur, the species 

known to occur in the Project area are not dependent on habitats that would be affected by construction 

for the overall fitness or reproductive viability of the populations as a whole. Many of the mammal, bird, 

reptile, and amphibian species can adapt to changing habitat conditions and have the ability to temporarily 

expand or shift their home ranges to find alternative sources of food, water, and shelter until the 

construction work area habitats become reestablished. The permanent pipeline right-of-way would be 

maintained in an herbaceous state. In wetlands, the right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate naturally 

to preconstruction conditions, except in forested wetlands where a 10-foot-wide corridor centered on the 

pipeline may be maintained in an herbaceous state to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys. 

In addition, trees within 15 feet of the center of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in height may be 

selectively cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way in forested wetlands (see section 4.4). 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-58 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.6.1.3 Migratory Birds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 

Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of and impacts on migratory birds, including their 

nests. Texas Gas identified more than 200 migratory bird species that could potentially occur along the 

proposed Project route. Migratory birds would be expected to occur at least as transients in the proposed 

Project area throughout most of the year. 

Migratory birds follow broad routes called “flyways” between breeding grounds in Canada and the U.S. 

and wintering grounds in Central and South America. The Project would be within the Mississippi 

Flyway, which extends from Alaska and central Canada to Patagonia, South America. Through the U.S., 

this flyway generally follows the Mississippi River. About 40 percent of all North American migrating 

waterfowl and shorebirds use this route. Texas Gas would minimize impacts on migratory birds by 

utilizing HDD methods to cross the Mississippi River and other waterbodies and associated wetlands, 

thereby minimizing impacts on habitats used by migrating birds. 

The wetland system associated with the Cache and Lower White rivers was designated as a Wetland of 

International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, especially for its waterfowl habitat. 

This wetland system is known to support up to 10,000 Canada geese (Branta canadensis), about 100 bald 

eagles (Heliaetus leucocephalus), and hundreds of wood storks (Mycteria Americana). These wetlands 

are considered the most important wintering area for mallards in North America, with an average of 

306,000 individuals. Thousands of southbound Mississippi kites (Ictinia mississippiensis), and hundreds 

of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensus), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), and broad-winged 

hawks (Buteo platypterus) migrate through the region per day during migration. A variety of migratory 

songbirds breed here, including: Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), wood thrush, prothonotary 

warbler (Protonotaria citrea), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and cerulean warbler (Dendroica 

cerulean) (Audubon 2007). In addition, the wetlands along the Cache River and Bayou De View may 

represent habitat for the federally listed as endangered ivory billed woodpecker, believed to have been 

extinct for more than 60 years. Texas Gas would minimize impacts on migratory birds by utilizing HDD 

methods to cross the Cache River, Bayou De View, and their associated wetlands. We believe that Texas 

Gas’s use of HDD methods and use of our Procedures would minimize potential impacts within these 

ecosystems and, therefore, on migratory birds. 

Since some construction along the Project right-of-way would likely occur during the breeding season, 

migratory birds would be affected. Following construction, a corridor (with associated edge habitat) 

would be maintained in an herbaceous state for the life of the Project. Although some migratory birds 

may benefit from the creation and maintenance of edge habitat, other species would be adversely affected. 

Nonetheless, population-level impacts would not be expected, since migratory birds that occur along the 

pipeline route would likely opt for more suitable habitat. Further, creation of new right-of-way corridors 

through forested areas, and particularly forest wetland areas, would be minimized compared to 

conventional pipeline construction methods by the use of HDDs to cross them. 

Colonial Nesting Waterbirds

Colonial nesting waterbirds include a variety of bird species that obtain all or most of their food from 

aquatic and wetland environments and gather in large colonies, or rookeries, during their respective 

nesting seasons (FWS 2002). Colonial nesting waterbirds concentrate in these rookeries on sandbars and 

islands within or along the riparian areas, or along major waterways such as the Mississippi River. Texas 

Gas would cross the Mississippi River using HDD methods. A primary advantage to using HDD is that it 

4-59 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
avoids disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, sandbars, and adjacent upland areas in the immediate 

vicinity of the waterbody crossing. 

No documented rookeries were identified within 0.5 mile of the Project. A wading bird rookery occurs in 

the Hillside NWR at a distance greater than 1 mile from the proposed Greenville Lateral. Texas Gas 

would cross the Hillside NWR by HDD, thereby minimizing disturbance of this resource. Operation of 

the Project would have no effect on this rookery since the NWR would be crossed by HDD, and typical 

right-of-way maintenance activities such as periodic mowing would not be required. If rookeries are 

observed along any portion of the Project during construction, Texas Gas would consult with appropriate 

state and federal agencies to ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to prevent adverse impacts 

on the species utilizing these areas. Therefore, we conclude that the Project would have no effect on 

documented rookeries. 

4.6.1.4 Managed Wildlife Areas 

As previously described, the majority of the Project area consists of agricultural lands. The Project would 

also traverse two federally protected areas, the Cache River NWR in Woodruff County, Arkansas, and the 

Hillside NWR in Holmes County, Mississippi. 

 

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross the Cache River NWR between MP 82.0 and MP 82.8, and 

the Bayou De View portion of the NWR between MP 95.9 and MP 96.6. The NWR, which encompasses 

an area totaling 64,000 acres, supports large concentrations of wintering waterfowl. It is comprised 

largely of bottomland forests and associated sloughs and oxbows, as well as cropland and reforested 

areas. The NWR is recognized as a Wetland of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention and 

the most important wintering area of mallards by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(FWS, 2007). 

The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross the northern tip of the Hillside NWR between MP 54.1 and 

MP 55.9, in Holmes County. The Hillside NWR occupies about 15,572 acres and provides important 

stopover and nesting habitat for over 200 species of neotropical migratory birds. The refuge is home to 

large numbers of wintering waterfowl, at times often exceeding 125,000 birds. A wading bird rookery 

provides nesting and roosting habitat for several species of marsh and wading birds, including white ibis; 

cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis); great blue, little blue (Egretta caerulea), and green-backed herons (Butorides 

striatus); and yellow-crowned night herons (Nyctanassa violacea). The rookery is located more than 1 

mile from the Project area (Loveall, 2007). 

We have consulted with both the Mississippi and Arkansas Field and Refuge Offices of the FWS about 

construction impacts in the NWRs. The NWRs would be crossed by HDD. The HDD exit and entry pits 

would be on private land adjacent to the NWRs. The crossing of these resource areas by HDD would 

minimize direct construction and operation impacts, resulting in minimal, if any, impacts on existing 

vegetation, soils, and wildlife. Construction-related dust and noise would be limited to several days 

during the HDD process and would have a minimal effect on refuge activities. Texas Gas would 

implement any additional recommendations of the FWS to minimize construction impacts and would 

comply with all permit conditions it would obtain. Operation of the Project would have no effect on the 

NWR since it would be crossed by HDD, and typical right-of-way maintenance activities such as periodic 

mowing would not be required. In the event that the HDD attempt fails, Texas Gas would be required to 

consult with appropriate state and federal agencies prior to implementing an alternative crossing method. 

Use of the HDD method to cross the Cache River and Hillside NWRs and implementation of any 

additional mitigation recommended by the FWS would minimize impacts on the NWR due to 

construction and operation of the Project. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-60 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

The 262.6-mile-long Project would cross 483 waterbodies within three major watersheds, including the 

Arkansas-Red-White River Basin, Lower Mississippi Regional Watershed, and South Atlantic-Gulf 

Regional Watershed. The Fayetteville Lateral would cross 278 waterbodies, including 40 perennial and 

238 intermittent waterbodies. The Greenville Lateral would cross 203 waterbodies, including 29 

perennial and 174 intermittent waterbodies. The Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross one 

perennial and one intermittent waterbody. The Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would not cross any 

waterbodies. The ADEQ and MDEQ have developed their own regulatory systems for evaluating, 

classifying, and monitoring their surface waters. 

The following sections provide an overview of the aquatic resources found within the Project area and 

potential impacts on these resources. Any federally or state-listed threatened or endangered aquatic 

species are addressed in section 4.7. 

4.6.2.1 Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates 

Commonly occurring species of fish and invertebrates in waterbodies that would be crossed by the 

proposed Project are typical of species found in waterbodies in Arkansas and Mississippi. Representative 

fish species include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), Alabama 

shad (Alosa alabama), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). 

Representative mussel species in the Project area include the deertoe (Truncilla truncata), elktoe 

(Alasmidonta marginata), rainbow (Villosa iris), and wartyback (Quadrala nodulata). 

Habitat requirements, life history characteristics, and abundance and diversity of aquatic species in 

freshwater rivers and streams reflect a range of habitat features, from water depth, water flow, water 

quality characteristics, abundance of prey, and presence of physical structure such as woody debris and 

submerged aquatic vegetation. Many of the fresh waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed 

Project are ditches with only ephemeral water. This temporary nature reduces the value of the ditches as 

aquatic habitat, as they can be occupied only for a portion of the year. However, the flushing of the 

ditches during fluctuating water levels can release organic detritus and small invertebrate prey into 

perennial waterbodies. Areas of ephemeral surface water also can function as nursery areas for larvae and 

juveniles, where restricted access or shallow water levels may reduce the presence of predatory fish. 

Conversely, the larger perennial waterbodies provide a more consistent year-round habitat, which allows 

for a robust food web that includes large predatory piscivores as well as bottom feeders. In general, the 

rivers and streams that would be crossed by the proposed Project are typical of those found in Arkansas 

and Mississippi. 

Arkansas and Mississippi do not classify waterbodies as either warm-water or cold-water systems. Both 

states have developed regulatory systems for classifying surface waters through assignment of beneficial 

use designations. The Arkansas “Fisheries” designation does include a classification for trout water. 

Waterbodies designated as “trout water” may be de facto cold-water fisheries. Waterbodies without this 

designation may be viewed as warm-water fisheries. Therefore, Texas Gas states the construction timing 

window identified in our Procedures for cold-water fisheries (June 1 through September 30) would be 

implemented for waters classified as “trout water,” and the construction timing window identified in our 

Procedures for warm-water fisheries (June 1 through November 30) would be implemented for all other 

waterbodies. 

The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) defines fisheries of special concern 

as important fisheries of exceptional recreational or commercial value, or as those that provide habitat for 

4-61 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
special status species, i.e., threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (APCEC, 2006). Extraordinary 

Resource Waters are waters with a beneficial use that is a combination of the chemical, physical, and 

biological characteristics of the waterbody and its watershed and which is characterized by scenic beauty, 

aesthetics, scientific values, broad scope recreation potential, and intangible social values. Ecologically 

Sensitive Waterbodies are those waterbodies with segments known to provide habitat within the existing 

range of threatened, endangered, or endemic species of aquatic or semi-aquatic life forms. APCEC also 

defines trout waters as water suitable for the growth and survival of trout. 

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross several waterbodies designated as Extraordinary Resource 

Waters, including Big Creek in White County, Cadron Creek in Faulkner County, and the Cache River in 

Woodruff County. Cadron Creek also is listed on the State Registry of Natural and Scenic Rivers. 

Cadron Creek, Big Creek, and Bayou De View also are listed on the NRI. Waterbodies on the NRI are 

believed to possess one or more outstandingly remarkable (natural or cultural) values judged to be of 

more than local or regional significance. Departee Creek in White County is designated as an 

Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody because it supports the flat floater mussel. Texas Gas would cross Big 

Creek, Cache River and Bayou DeView using HDD methods, thereby minimizing potential impacts on 

these waterbodies. Cadron Creek and Departee Creek would be crossed using conventional open-cut 

methods. The ANHC expressed concern regarding the open-cut crossing of the Cadron Creek and 

recommended that BMPs be implemented to minimize waterbody and adjacent riparian habitat impacts. 

Texas Gas would minimize impacts by implementing our Procedures and would continue to coordinate 

with appropriate agencies about impacts to these waterbody crossings. 

About 50 miles of the Little Red River, from just below Greers Ferry Dam to the Town of Searcy, 

Arkansas, is designated as a Trout Water. The Little Red River is one of the most popular fishing and 

floating streams in Arkansas. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross the Little Red River about 

41 miles downstream of the Greers Ferry Dam. Texas Gas would construct the pipeline across the Little 

Red River by HDD, thereby minimizing potential impacts on this fishery. 

Several waterbodies that would be crossed by the Fayetteville Lateral also support species of special 

concern. Glaise Creek, at MP 66.2 in White County, supports the taillight shiner (Notropis maculates), 

and the White River, crossed at MP 70 in White County, is known to support the hickorynut mussel 

(Obovaria olivaria) The White River would be crossed by HDD, thereby minimizing potential impacts 

on this fishery. Texas Gas would cross Glaise Creek using open-cut methods and would implement the 

mitigation measures of our Procedures, including the construction timing window, to avoid impacts on 

fish during spawning. 

In Mississippi, waterbodies are classified by uses. All of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the 

proposed Project are classified as Fish and Wildlife. A regulatory program that designates fisheries of 

special concern does not currently exist in Mississippi; however, the MDWFP indicates that several 

waterbodies support species of special concern, including Deer Creek and Bogue Phalia in Washington 

County and Big Sunflower River in Washington and Humphreys Counties. Perennial waterbodies in 

Coahoma County may contain potential habitat for the fat pocketbook, an endangered mussel species. 

Streams within the Big Black River, Yazoo, and Mississippi Alluvial Plain drainages also have been 

identified in Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as supporting species of 

greatest conservation need, including the blue sucker and paddlefish (MDWFP, 2005). Texas Gas would 

cross Deer Creek, Bogue Phalia, Big Sunflower River, and Big Black River by HDD, thereby minimizing 

potential impacts on these waterbodies. Perennial waterbodies within the Big Black River, Yazoo, and 

Mississippi alluvial plain drainages would be crossed using conventional open-cut methods. 

Open-cut crossing of waterbodies would be conducted in accordance with our Procedures, and Texas Gas 

would implement the mitigation measures of our Procedures, including the construction timing windows 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-62 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
for cold-water and warm-water fisheries. Texas Gas would implement any additional conditions or 

requirements associated with the USACE Section 404 permit and the state 401 Water Quality 

Certification that may be issued for the Project. Texas Gas indicates that it would continue to coordinate 

with the appropriate agencies about crossing Cadron Creek and would notify us about any additional 

agency recommendations or requirements. 

4.6.2.2

4.6.2.3

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

The Mississippi River supports the most economically significant commercial fisheries in the Project 

area. Commercial fishing in the Lower Mississippi River corridor includes both marine and freshwater 

fisheries. The proposed Project would cross the river 300 river miles upstream of the Gulf of Mexico and 

thus would not impact marine fisheries. The most important freshwater species harvested from the 

Mississippi River include crayfish, catfish, buffalo, and gar (IEC, 2004). Texas Gas proposes to cross the 

Mississippi River by HDD, thereby minimizing any potential impacts on the associated fisheries. 

Although not commercial fishing in the traditional sense, Arkansas and Mississippi both support large 

aquaculture industries. The primary fish species produced is catfish. Aquaculture “crops” are raised in 

man-made earthen ponds that typically rely on groundwater as their primary source of water (Stone and 

Sheldon, 2006). Although catfish ponds are present in the proposed Project area, Texas Gas indicates that 

it has developed its pipeline route to avoid impacting any catfish ponds. 

Commonly occurring recreational fish species found in waterbodies crossed by the Project include: 

largemouth bass, catfish, crappie, and bream. The Little Red River, the only designated trout fishery 

crossed by the Project, is considered a premier-class trout fishery in Arkansas. Recreational fish species 

occurring in the Little Red River include rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout (Arkansas Department of 

Parks and Tourism, 2007). Texas Gas would cross the Little Red River by HDD, thereby avoiding 

impacts on this trout fishery. In addition, Texas Gas would implement measures in our Procedures to 

minimize impacts on recreational fisheries. 

Construction Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

Construction of the pipeline system would result in the temporary alteration of open water and temporary 

disturbance of palustrine wetland habitats (see sections 4.3.3 and 4.4). The use of access roads and extra 

workspaces and pipe storage yards would not result in permanent fill or alteration of waterbodies and 

associated aquatic habitats. However, the use of some access roads and possibly some pipe yards may 

result in temporary disturbance of wetland areas. Operation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station, as 

currently proposed, would result in the permanent loss of some wetlands. The surface water features 

along the proposed pipelines range from narrow man-made ditches to lakes and major rivers. This 

corresponds to a broad range of habitats and species inhabiting those waterbodies. 

The Project would cross a total of 70 perennial waterbodies. Pipeline construction and restoration 

activities within and adjacent to these waterbodies would be conducted in accordance with our Plan and 

Procedures to minimize impacts on fisheries, their habitat, and other aquatic organisms. Texas Gas’s 

proposed waterbody crossings are listed in table C-5 of appendix C. Depending on the construction 

method used, direct impacts on aquatic habitat and species would either be avoided (e.g., by use of an 

HDD to cross the resource) or would occur in localized areas. Waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished using open-cut or HDD methods. The use of the open-cut crossing method would result in 

several temporary effects on aquatic resources, including plankton, aquatic vegetation, amphibians, fish, 

and aquatic invertebrates such as mussels. Impacts on water quality and associated aquatic habitats would 

include sedimentation, turbidity, altered water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels, and possible 

introduction of contaminants, if present, all of which can affect the ability of aquatic life to survive and 

4-63 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
reproduce. Impacts also would include the physical disturbance or destruction of in-stream habitat due to 

trenching and removal of riparian vegetation. Construction activities also would result in blockage of fish 

migration, interruption of spawning activities, as well as entrainment of fishes or reduced stream flows 

during withdrawals for hydrostatic testing. 

Pipeline construction using open-cut methods would result in sedimentation and turbidity in surface 

waters and aquatic habitats. Benthic macroinvertebrates, which typically provide a key food source for 

fishes, may be buried under accumulated sediments along with fish nesting sites containing eggs or 

larvae. However, waterbodies within the Project area tend to have relatively low gradients; and water 

flow velocities tend to be low, indicating that suspended sediments within these waterbodies would be 

transported only over short distances. Some of these impacts would be lessened or avoided by using 

appropriate sediment and erosion controls during construction, minimizing the clearing of riparian 

vegetation, and restoring riparian and wetland areas. 

Clearing overhanging vegetation in riparian and adjacent wetland areas and removal of undercut banks, 

logs, and other streamside features that provide cover for fish would result in decreased shading, 

increased water temperatures, and displacement of fish from disturbed areas. However, streamside 

clearing would be localized and would occur within the construction right-of-way. Overall, these impacts 

would be minor, as they would affect a relatively small length of a much longer, linear, stream feature. 

The open-cut method also would affect fish by blocking migration pathways and interrupting spawning 

activities. Our Procedures require that, in waterbodies with cold-water fisheries, in-stream work be 

completed between June 1 through September 30, and in warm-water fisheries, in-stream work be 

completed between June 1 and November 30. Although construction disturbances would temporarily 

displace fish or hinder migrations in waterbodies, we anticipate that these affects would be localized, 

temporary, and generally minor. 

To avoid direct impacts on aquatic habitat, Texas Gas would cross 17 waterbodies by HDD. The HDD 

method (see section 2.5.1) is considered a preferred method for crossing sensitive habitats because stream 

bottom disruption and subsequent impacts on aquatic habitats along that portion of the pipeline route 

would be eliminated or minimized. Texas Gas has developed an HDD Plan that describes the procedures 

that would be implemented to monitor, contain, and clean up any potential releases of drilling fluids 

during HDD operations. In addition, Texas Gas has developed an HDD Contingency Plan in the event 

that HDD fails. Any modifications to the crossing method would be reviewed and approved by the 

appropriate federal and state resource agencies prior to Texas Gas implementing the modification. Given 

these protective measures, we believe that the use of HDDs at the proposed locations would minimize 

impacts on aquatic habitats and species. 

Pollutants could be introduced into waterbodies and aquatic habitats by the disturbance of contaminated 

soils or sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent release of drilling fluids during HDD operations. 

Pollutants could affect fish and other aquatic life through acute or chronic toxicity, and sub-lethal effects 

could affect reproduction, growth, and recruitment. In addition, pollutants could be introduced during the 

discharge of hydrostatic test waters if any chemicals are added to the test water during this procedure. 

However, Texas Gas has stated that it would not use chemicals during hydrostatic testing of the proposed 

Project. Texas Gas would implement its SPCC Plan to prevent and contain spills of contaminating 

materials that might occur during construction of the Project, and it would comply with our Procedures to 

structure its operations in a manner that reduces the risk of spills or the accidental exposure of fuels or 

hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. The disturbance and resuspension of contaminated soils 

and sediments would result in adverse impacts on water quality and in-stream habitat. Texas Gas would 

coordinate crossings of waterbodies with known contaminated sediments with the ADEQ and MDEQ (see 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-64 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
section 4.3.2). Given these conditions and protective measures, the risks to water quality and aquatic 

species from contaminated sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent releases of drilling fluids is low. 

Entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms could occur during withdrawal of hydrostatic test water 

from the source waterbodies listed in table 4.3.2-5. Texas Gas would prevent or limit impacts from 

hydrostatic testing by implementing the measures in our Procedures. These measures include screening 

to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life during 

withdrawals for hydrostatic testing. 

While the majority of impacts of pipeline construction on fish and other aquatic organisms would be 

expected to be localized and short term, longer-term impacts could occur if habitat is permanently altered. 

We believe that successful implementation of the construction methods and mitigation measures proposed 

by Texas Gas and identified in our Procedures would minimize impacts on aquatic resources during 

construction of the Project. 

4.6.2.4 Post-Construction and Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

Post-construction and operational impacts of the pipeline on aquatic resources would be minimal. 

Restoration of the vegetation within the construction work areas would minimize potential impacts from 

erosion on waterbodies. Minimal impact on fisheries is expected from maintenance mowing or manual 

removal of woody vegetation in the vicinity of the pipeline right-of-way because maintenance activities 

would be performed in accordance with our Plan and Procedures. These require that vegetation 

maintenance adjacent to waterbodies be limited so that a riparian strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured 

from the waterbody’s mean high water mark, would be allowed to permanently revegetate with native 

plant species across the entire construction right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline 

corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in a 

herbaceous state, and trees that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in 

height may be cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way. Adherence to our Plan and Procedures 

would allow for the continued re-growth of vegetation along the edges of the waterbodies, thus 

minimizing long-term effects on the fisheries. We believe that if the maintenance activities described in 

our Plan and Procedures are implemented and if riparian areas are successfully revegetated, then 

operation of the Project would have minimal impact on aquatic resources. 

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Federal agencies are required by Section 7 of the ESA (Title 19 USC Part 1536(c)), as amended (1978, 

1979, and 1982), to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of a federal-listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federal-listed species. A federal 

“endangered” species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. A “threatened” species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their 

biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which 

development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. 

Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA. 

As the lead action agency for the proposed Project, the FERC is required to consult with the USFWS to 

determine whether federal-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are found 

in the vicinity of the proposed Project, and to determine the proposed action’s potential effects on those 

species or critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect 

listed species or designated critical habitat, the federal agency must prepare a BA for those species that 

4-65 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
may be affected. The action agency must submit its BA to the USFWS and, if it is determined that the 

action may adversely affect a listed species, the federal agency must submit a request for formal 

consultation to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. In response, the USFWS would issue a Biological 

Opinion (BO) as to whether or not the federal action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 

Texas Gas informally consulted with the FWS to determine if federal-listed endangered, threatened, or 

candidate species; and Arkansas and Mississippi state listed threatened, endangered, special concern or 

sensitive species could potentially occur in the proposed Project area. The species identified during these 

consultations are listed on table 4.7-1 and described in the following sections. 

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Status Preferred Habitat/ 

Potential Use of the Project Area Determination 

Mammals 

Louisiana black bear 

(Ursas americanus luteolus) 

 E 

MS - SC 

Bottomland hardwood and floodplain forests along the 

Mississippi River and in the southern part of Mississippi. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

Birds 

interior least tern 

(Sterna antillarum 

athalassos) 

E 

AR- SC 

MS- SC 

Sand and gravel bars within wide, unobstructed river channels, 

or open flats along shorelines of lakes and reservoirs. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

ivory billed woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) 

E Thick hardwood swamps and pine forest with large amounts of 

dead and decaying trees. Rediscovered in 2004 in the Big 

Woods of Arkansas within the Bayou De View Management 

Area. Last observed about 11 miles south of the Project. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

wood stork 

(Mycertia Americana) 

E 

MS- SC 

Freshwater wetlands, including ponds, bayheads, flooded 

pastures, oxbow lakes, and ditches. Nest in bald cypress trees 

in swamps. Recent U.S. breeding is restricted to Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina. Potential to occur in counties 

bordering the Mississippi River. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

Mussels 

fat pocketbook 

(Potamilus capax)

E Clean loose sand and gravel in medium to small waterbodies. 

Mississippi: Coahoma County. Arkansas: St. Francis, Lee, and 

Phillips Counties. Perennial waterbodies. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

scaleshell 

(Leptodea leptodon) 

E Occurs in medium to larger rivers with low to medium gradients. 

Primarily inhibits stable riffles and runs with gravel or mud 

substrate and moderate current velocity. Arkansas: Perennial 

waterbodies in St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

speckled.pocketbook 

(Lampsilis streckeri) 

E Course to muddy sand in depths up to 1.3 feet. It has been 

found only in well-oxygenated water with a constant flow. 

Arkansas: Perennial waterbodies in Cleburne County. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

pink mucket 

(Lampsilis abrupta) 

E Found in mud and sand and in shallow riffles and shoals swept 

free of silt in major rivers and tributaries. Arkansas: Perennial 

waterbodies in Woodruff County. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

Insects 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-66 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.7-1 

Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Status Preferred Habitat/ Potential Use of the Project Area Determination 

American burying beetle 

(Nicrophorus americanus) 

E Lives in a variety of habitat, with a slight preference for 

grasslands and open understory oak hickory forests. Carrion 

specialists, they need carrion the size of a dove or chipmunk to 

in order to reproduce. Carrion availability may be the greatest 

factor in determining where the species can survive. Arkansas: 

Cleburne County. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

Fish

pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphrhynchus albus) 

E Adapted for living close to the bottom of large, silty rivers with 

swift currents. Preferred habitat is made up of sand flats and 

gravel bars. Known to occur in the Mississippi River. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

Plants 

pondberry 

(Lindera melisifolia) 

E Poorly drained swampy depressions associated with small sand 

dunes. These depressions are typically underwater (up to 12 

inches) during the spring but are very dry by autumn. Overstory 

vegetation is typically a closed canopy of mature bottomland 

hardwoods. 

Not likely to 

adversely 

affect 

__________ 

Key: 

T = Threatened 

E = Endangered 

SC = Special Concern 

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Based on consultation with the FWS and a review of existing records, we have identified 12 federally 

listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed Project. A 

description of these species, their preferred habitats and potential for occurrence, and our assessment of 

potential impacts on them resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project is provided 

below. 

4.7.1.1 Mammals 

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

The federally threatened Louisiana black bear is one of 16 subspecies of the American black bear (U. 

americanus). A habitat generalist, it often overwinters in hollow cypress trees in or along sloughs, lakes, 

and riverbanks in bottomland habitat. These bears are mobile, opportunistic, largely herbivorous 

omnivores that exploit a variety of foods. Their movements closely track the distribution and abundance 

of foods, particularly mast. Habitat requirements include hard and soft mast, escape cover, denning sites, 

corridor habitats, and some freedom from disturbance by humans (FWS, 1995). 

The Louisiana black bear’s habitat consists primarily of bottomland hardwood timber found in river basin 

habitats. The primary threats to this species are continued loss of bottomland hardwoods and 

fragmentation of remaining forested tracts. Changes in land use and conversion of virgin forest for 

4-67 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
farming combined to bring about the decline of the Louisiana black bear. The Louisiana black bear is 

now primarily restricted to the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins in Louisiana; however, these bears 

make long-range movements and not uncommonly occur in adjacent Mississippi. It is unknown whether 

breeding numbers exist outside of Louisiana. 

The Louisiana black bear occurs primarily in bottomland hardwood and floodplain forest along the 

Mississippi River and in the southern part of Mississippi. According to the FWS, the species is known to 

occur in Humphrey, Holmes, and Attala Counties, Mississippi (FWS, 2006a). In addition, the MDFWP 

reports that the bear may occur in Washington, Sunflower, and Coahoma Counties, Mississippi 

(MDFWP, 2006). 

Adverse impacts on the Louisiana black bear can result from activities that fragment forest corridors or 

remove denning trees. Denning trees are defined as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo gum 

(Nyssa sp.) with visible cavities, having a diameter at breast height of 36 inches or greater, and occurring 

in or along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other waterbodies. In a letter dated April 12, 2007, 

the FWS recommended that Texas Gas avoid cutting or removing actual or candidate denning trees for 

black bears. 

Louisiana black bears were not observed during the field surveys, and no candidate or actual denning 

trees were identified during biological surveys completed along the proposed Project route. To identify 

actual or candidate denning trees within the construction corridors, Texas Gas would continue visual 

surveys using environmental inspectors trained to recognize such trees. In accordance with FWS 

recommendations, Texas Gas would avoid cutting of actual or candidate denning trees during 

construction. If actual or candidate denning trees are discovered within the construction corridor at 

locations where impacts appear unavoidable, Texas Gas would initiate further consultation with the FWS 

to determine an acceptable resolution. Therefore, we have determined that construction and operation of 

the proposed Project would not adversely affect the Louisiana black bear or its critical habitat. 

4.7.1.2 Birds 

Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) 

The endangered interior least tern migrates up the Mississippi River and nests directly on sandbars in and 

associated with the river. The birds may nest together, forming colonies (FWS, 2006b). The primary 

threat to the interior least tern has been the loss of habitat from dam construction and river channelization. 

The breeding season of the interior least tern lasts from May through August, with the peak of the nesting 

season usually occurring from mid-June to mid-July. No rookeries were identified during the initial 

survey of the proposed pipeline route. 

In accordance with FWS recommendations, Texas Gas would cross the Mississippi River by HDD, 

thereby minimizing disturbance of the streambed, stream banks, sandbars, or upland areas in the 

immediate vicinity of the crossing. Based on the Interior Least Tern’s habitat requirements, surveys 

conducted by Texas Gas, and the use of HDD methods to cross the Mississippi River, we have 

determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect 

interior least terns or its critical habitat. 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)

The ivory-billed woodpecker (IBWO) was rediscovered within the “Big Woods” of Arkansas in 2004. 

Until that time, the IBWO was thought to be extinct, as the last confirmed sighting was in 1944. The 

potential range for the IBWO in Arkansas includes contiguous forested habitats in parts of Arkansas, 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-68 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Desha, Jefferson, Lincoln, Monroe, Phillips, Prairie, and Woodruff Counties. Within these counties, the 

IBWO potential range is further defined as the mostly contiguous forest of the lower White River 

floodplain, encompassing the Cache River and White River NWRs, the AGFC’s Dagmar and Wattensaw 

WMAs, and adjacent contiguous forested private lands. The perimeter of the IBWO potential range 

generally follows the edge of large contiguous forests but also includes forested corridors extending 

outward from the edge of core contiguous forest until the width decreases to less than 0.25 mile for a 

distance of more than 0.25. 

Texas Gas states that, based on the lack of evidence that this species is present or has recently inhabited 

the Bayou De View area, and the fact that the proposed Project would be 11 miles north of the 

northernmost boundary of the Bayou De View Managed Access Area, the potential for IBWO habitat 

appears remote. In a letter dated May 2, 2007, the FWS recommended that Texas Gas avoid water quality 

degradation and habitat disturbance by boring under the Cache River, Bayou De View, and their 

associated wetlands. Texas Gas would cross these sensitive habitats by HDD, thereby avoiding impacts 

on potential IBWO habitat. In the event that HDD fails, Texas Gas would re-initiate consultation with the 

appropriate agencies to determine an acceptable alternative crossing method and develop appropriate 

mitigation, if necessary. Based on the information above, we have determined that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect the IBWO or its critical habitat. 

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 

The FWS lists the wood stork as endangered in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina; however, 

wood storks are known to move northward after breeding, as far as Arkansas and Tennessee in the 

Mississippi Valley. 

No wood stork or wading bird rookeries were observed during field surveys; however, the MDWFP 

reported that wood storks have been observed in Mississippi counties bordering the Mississippi River 

(e.g., Coahoma County) and that nesting usually occurs in bald cypress swamps. Coahoma County may 

be on the periphery of the wood stork’s range. Based on wood stork habitat requirements, surveys 

conducted by Texas Gas, the absence of wood stork sightings, and the lack of suitable habitat, we have 

determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect the 

wood stork or its critical habitat. 

4.7.1.3 Fish 

Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphrynchus albus)

The endangered pallid sturgeon, one of the largest fish inhabiting the Mississippi River, requires large, 

turbid, free-flowing riverine habitats. Like other sturgeon, the pallid’s mouth is toothless and positioned 

under the snout for sucking small fish and other food items from the river bottom. Modification of the 

pallid sturgeon’s habitat by human activity has blocked fish movement, destroyed or altered spawning 

areas, reduced food sources or ability to obtain food, altered water temperatures, reduced turbidity, and 

have contributed to the species population decline (FWS, 1993). 

Texas Gas would cross the Mississippi River using HDD methods. Based on habitat requirements for the 

pallid sturgeon, and use of HDD to cross the Mississippi River, we have determined that construction and 

operation of the Project would not likely adversely affect the pallid sturgeon or its critical habitat. 

4-69 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.7.1.4 Mussels 

Fat Pocketbook Pearly Mussel (Potamilus capax)

The fat pocketbook pearly mussel is listed as federally endangered and is known to occur in the large 

perennial waterbodies of Arkansas and Mississippi. This mussel inhabits areas with a mixture of sand, 

silt, and clay substrates, solitarily or in groups with other species. Channel maintenance activities and 

impoundments are the greatest threats to the survival of this species (FWS, 2007c). 

Scaleshell Mussel (Leptodea leptodon)

Listed as federally endangered, the scaleshell mussel is known to occur in medium to large rivers with 

low to medium gradients in Arkansas and Mississippi. The scaleshell is a ridged and elongated mussel 

with a yellow-green or brown shell and faint green rays. This mussel inhabits gravel or mud substrates in 

stable riffles or runs with a moderate water current velocity. High water quality is essential to this 

species’ survival. Spread of the invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), non-point source 

pollution, and reservoir construction are factors known to contribute to the decline of the scaleshell 

population (FWS, 2007c). 

Speckled Pocketbook Mussel (Lampsilis streckeri)

Listed as federally endangered, the speckled pocketbook mussel is known to occur in perennial 

waterbodies in Arkansas. The speckled pocketbook is a medium-sized mussel with a yellow-brown shell, 

v-shaped spots, and chain-like rays. This mussel is known to inhabit coarse to muddy sand substrates in 

consistent flowing water with high dissolved oxygen contents. In 2003, the only known remaining 

population existed in the Middle Fork of the Little Red River. As recently as 2005, however, populations 

were found to have persisted in all forks of the Little Red River. Gravel mining, cattle grazing, non-point 

source pollution, and production of natural gas using river water are factors believed to be contributing to 

the decline of the speckled pocketbook population (FWS, 2007c). 

Pink Mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) 

Listed as federally endangered, the pink mucket mussel is known to occur in perennial waterbodies in 

Arkansas. The pink mucket is a medium-sized mussel with a yellow-green shell and green rays. This 

species is known to inhabit sand and gravel substrates in high-velocity currents, but it also has been found 

in mud and sand substrates in slow-moving waters. Prior to becoming endangered, populations of this 

mussel were known to exist in 25 rivers and tributaries in the Midwest and Southeast U.S. Threats to this 

species include habitat modifications such as impoundments, channelization, and dredging, as well as 

commercial harvesting (FWS, 2007c). 

All waterbodies in Mississippi and six waterbodies in Arkansas that provide potential habitat for mussel 

species would be crossed by HDD. Impacts on mussel species in these waterbodies would be avoided. In 

the event that HDD operations fail, Texas Gas would coordinate alternative crossings methods with the 

appropriate state and federal agencies. 

In accordance with recommendations from the FWS and AGFC, Texas Gas conducted mussel surveys in 

12 specific Arkansas waterbodies that it proposes to cross using conventional open-cut methods. These 

waterbodies include: Cove Creek (MP 7.9), Batesville Creek (MP 12.8), Cadron Creek (MP 14), Piney 

Creek (MP 29.7), Jones Creek (MP 32), Graham Branch (MP 32.9), Brier Creek (MP 48.1), Chinquapin 

Creek (MP 58.9), Glaise Creek (MP 66.5), East Flat Fork Creek (MP 107.7), Big Creek (MP 111.6), and 

Long Lake Bayou (MP 153). The surveys were conducted by a qualified malacologist in September 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-70 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
2007. The surveys extended about 100 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream of each pipeline crossing. 

No threatened or endangered mussel species were identified during the surveys. Texas Gas states that the 

final report of findings will be filed with the FERC and the appropriate agencies. 

Pipeline construction and restoration activities within and adjacent to these waterbodies would be 

conducted in accordance with our Plan and Procedures to minimize impacts on mussels and their habitat. 

Based on the information above, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not likely adversely affect the fat pocketbook pearly mussel, scaleshell mussel, speckled pocketbook 

mussel, or pink mucket mussel or their critical habitat. However, after review of the pending mussel 

survey report, we will make a determination about project impact on these species. 

4.7.1.5 Insects 

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

The endangered burying beetle was recorded historically from at least 150 counties in 35 states in the 

eastern and central U.S., as well as along the southern fringes of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia in 

Canada. Considering the broad geographic range formerly occupied by the American burying beetle, it is 

unlikely that vegetation or soil type were historically limiting. Today, the American burying beetle seems 

to be restricted to areas largely undisturbed by human activities. Carrion availability (appropriate in size 

as well as numbers) may be more important than the type of vegetation or soil structure in determining 

where these beetles occur; however, specific habitat requirements are unknown (FWS, 2007d). 

The FWS reports that the American burying beetle is known to occur in counties west of the Project area. 

ANHC’s online database indicates that this species is known historically from Cleburne County, 

Arkansas, and is ranked as a species of special concern in Cleburne County by the ANHC. However, the 

last known siting in Cleburne County was in 1969. No evidence of the American burying beetle was 

identified during field surveys. Based on this information, we have determined that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect the American burying beetle or its 

critical habitat. 

4.7.1.6 Plants 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)

The endangered pondberry is a deciduous aromatic shrub that grows about 6 feet tall and is known to 

occur in seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, and swampy depressions. It is known 

to occur in the Yazoo delta region of Mississippi and in Clay, Woodruff, Lawrence, and Jackson Counties 

in Arkansas. The FWS and ANHC recommend that a visual survey for pondberry be conducted in 

potential habitat throughout the Project area. The FWS stated that if pondberry is found in any seasonally 

flooded wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed Project, further consultation with the FWS 

would be required. 

Texas Gas did not observe any occurrences of pondberry during Project field surveys. In addition, as part 

of construction, Texas Gas would employ trained environmental inspectors to conduct visual surveys of 

potential pondberry habitat within the construction corridor. If pondberry are encountered within the 

construction corridor, Texas Gas would initiate further consultation with us and the FWS and ANHC. 

The ANHC concurs with Texas Gas’s statement that no pondberry was discovered during field surveys; 

however, it recommend that Texas Gas avoid potential pondberry habitat (i.e., sandpond forest and 

wooded depressional habitat) wherever possible (Osborne, 2007). Texas Gas states that it would attempt 

to minimize the number of crossings in these sensitive areas and would consult with appropriate land 

4-71 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
management agencies to determine suitable crossing methods. We have determined that construction and 

operation of the Project would not likely adversely affect pondberry or its critical habitat. However, to 

address the ANHC’s recommendations that Texas Gas avoid impacts on pondberry habitat, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Texas Gas file with the Secretary a 

table that identifies the milepost locations of potential pondberry habitat within or 

immediately adjacent to construction workspaces and explain how it would implement 

the ANHC’s recommendations to avoid suitable pondberry habitat (i.e., sandpond 

forest and wooded depressional habitat) at each location. Texas Gas should file an 

update of its consultation with the FWS and ANHC about the pondberry. 

4.7.2 Candidate for Federal Listing 

Yellow Cheek Darter (Etheostoma moorei)

The yellow cheek darter is a candidate species for possible listing as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. This species is endemic to and in decline in the Little Red River. Although candidate species are 

not given the protection of the ESA, federal agencies encourage avoidance to minimize impacts on 

candidate species to potentially prevent the need to list the species. Conservation agreements that protect, 

restore, and manage candidate species are highly encouraged (FWS, 2007e). Texas Gas would cross the 

Little Red River by HDD, so impacts on the waterbody and the yellow cheek darter would be avoided or 

minimized. Therefore, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not affect the yellow cheek darter or its critical habitat. 

4.7.3 Federally Managed Species 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle was recently delisted from the federal threatened and endangered species list. However 

the Bald eagle is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. The bald eagle also is listed as a state species of special concern in Faulkner and Cleburne 

Counties, Arkansas, and Coahoma County, Mississippi. Bald eagles are associated with riparian habitat 

along coasts, rivers, and lakes. They are opportunistic foragers, and their diet varies based upon the prey 

species available. 

Bald eagles could potentially nest, migrate, and roost throughout the Project area. Arkansas is considered 

a favorite wintering ground for bald eagles, whose arrival generally coincides with that of migrating 

waterfowl in late October and peaks in January and February. Bald eagles also are known to nest in 

Arkansas from December through January. 

Along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral route, Texas Gas observed a mature bald eagle perched in a large, 

isolated snag about 2.2 miles east of the Bayou De View crossing near MP 95.9; an immature bald eagle 

was observed hunting over a rice field about 1.9 miles southwest of MP 99; and a pair of mature bald 

eagles was observed at a nest in a snag located about 100 feet south of an existing unimproved road that 

may be used as a temporary access road during pipeline construction; however, the section of the road 

that would be used for access is about 0.9 mile south of the observed nest. No bald eagles or nesting 

sites were observed during the initial surveys in the vicinity of the proposed Greenville Lateral route. 

The FWS Arkansas Field Office recommends that it be consulted prior to performing any construction 

activities within 660 feet of Bald Eagle nest trees. Furthermore, Texas Gas should implement the 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-72 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Bald Eagle Guidelines) (FWS, 2007b) to protect bald 

eagles. The FWS Mississippi Field Office recommends that further consultation with the Service may be 

required for any construction activities within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle nest during the nesting season. 

No nesting sites have been observed within 1,500 feet of the construction areas. However, to avoid or 

minimize potential impacts on bald eagles, Texas Gas would conduct visual surveys for nests within 

1,500 feet of the construction corridor. If bald eagle nests are encountered within 1,500 feet of the 

construction corridor during construction activities, and Texas Gas would follow the FWS 

recommendations for avoiding disturbance associated with construction of linear utilities as described in 

the Bald Eagle Guidelines. With implementation of the protective measures identified above, we believe 

that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect the bald eagle or 

its critical habitat. 

4.7.4 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

State-listed threatened and endangered species that are also federally listed are addressed above. The 

remaining state-listed species are addressed below. Texas Gas states that state-listed species were not 

identified during its field surveys. 

Arkansas State Listed Species

Small-Headed Pipewort (Eriocaulon koernickianum). State-listed as endangered, small-headed 

pipewort is known to occur in 11 counties in Arkansas, including Conway County, which would be 

crossed by the proposed Project (NatureServe, 2007). The small-headed pipewort is intolerant of shade 

and can be found in or near permanently moist to wet seepage areas (particularly upland sandstone glade 

seeps), bogs, and prairie stream banks. The small-headed pipewort was not observed during Project field 

surveys. 

Alabama Snow Wreath (Neviusia alabamensis). State-listed as endangered, Alabama snow wreath is a 

deciduous species that typically grows in large clumps up to 1 to 2 meters in height. The Alabama snow 

wreath can be distinguished by its thicket-forming growth habit under an open to completely closed forest 

canopy. The Alabama snow wreath inhabits forested bluffs, talus slopes, and stream banks on blocky 

limestone boulders and along limestone-bedded intermittent streams below the sandstone caprock on the 

Cumberland plateau. Texas Gas reports that the Alabama snow wreath was not observed during field 

surveys. 

Arkansas Alumroot (Heuchera villosa var. arkansana). State-listed as endangered, Arkansas alumroot 

is endemic to Arkansas and is known to exist from the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains in north-central to 

northwestern Arkansas. Arkansas alumroot inhabits bluffs, cliffs, and rocky woods, generally on 

sandstone (ANHC, 2007c). Texas Gas states that the Arkansas alumroot was not observed during field 

surveys. 

Mock Orange (Philadelphus hirsutus). State-listed as endangered, mock orange is a deciduous shrub 

that grows to about 6 feet in height. Mock orange occurs along streams and on bluffs, cliffs, and rocky 

banks. It grows along limestone ledges and in piles of sandstone or quartzite rocks. Mock orange is 

found in eight Arkansas counties, but the Project would pass through only two of these counties, Cleburne 

and Faulkner (ANHC, 2007c). Mock orange was not observed during field surveys. 

Water Parsnip (Sium suave). State-listed as endangered, water parsnip is a hardy perennial that grows 

to about 6 feet tall. Water parsnip is found in shallow water along pond and lake edges, or in other wet 

areas such as swamps and roadside ditches. Water parsnip is found in four Arkansas counties, and the 

Project would cross one, Cleburne (ANHC, 2007c). Water parsnip was not observed during field surveys. 

4-73 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Corkwood (Leitneria floridana). State-listed as endangered, corkwood can be found only in Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas. Corkwood is a tree-like shrub that can grow up to about 20 feet 

tall. Corkwood prefers low, moist, or poorly drained areas with sandy or silty soils in full or partial sun. 

It is extremely flood tolerant and can survive in complete inundation for long spells. Corkwood typically 

inhabits freshwater swamps, wetland thickets, pond habitats, brackish tidal streams, and brackish 

marshes. Corkwood was not observed during field surveys. 

Mississippi State-Listed Species

Ironcolor Shiner (Notropis chalybaeus). State-listed as endangered in Mississippi, the ironcolor shiner 

is found primarily in lowland waterbodies where their reaches are characterized by either abundant 

aquatic vegetation, open swamp habitat, and/or areas draining densely canopied woods. The ironcolor 

shiner is known to occur in Tchula Lake in Holmes County, Mississippi. Texas Gas would cross Tchula 

Lake by HDD, thus avoiding impact on this species. 

Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical). State-listed as endangered, the rabbitsfoot inhabits 

medium to larger rivers in gravel or mixed sand and gravel substrates. It is known to occur in the Big 

Black and Sunflower Rivers in Mississippi (NatureServe, 2007). Texas Gas would cross the Big Black 

and Sunflower Rivers by HDD, thus avoiding impact on this species. 

Alabama Hickorynut (Obovaria unicolor). State-listed as endangered, Alabama hickorynut is most 

commonly found in moderately flowing waters in sand/gravel substrates, but it also can be found in 

almost any habitat type. The Alabama hickorynut is endemic to small streams leading to the Gulf of 

Mexico; it is restricted to large streams in the Mobile Basin and has been extirpated from most of its 

historical range by impoundment and channelization of large stream habitat and/or declining water quality 

(NatureServe, 2007). Based on the current distribution of this species, the Project would not affect the 

Alabama hickory nut. 

Pyramid Pigtoe (Pleurobema rubum). State-listed as endangered, pyramid pigtoe inhabits large rivers 

but may occur in medium-sized lotic environments. Pyramid pigtoe can be found in the Big Black River, 

Big Sunflower River, and Yazoo River drainages of Mississippi. Texas Gas would cross the Big Black, 

Big Sunflower, and Yazoo Rivers by HDD, thus avoiding impact on this species.

Scarlet Woodbine (Schisandra glabra). State-listed as endangered, scarlet woodbine is a woody vine 

with small crimson flowers and is found in rich woods and ravine slopes. Scarlet woodbine occurs in the 

Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains from Arkansas east to North Carolina, south to northern Florida, and west 

to Louisiana. Major threats come from competition from non-native invasive species (e.g., Japanese 

honeysuckle [Lonicera japonica]), land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, and forest management 

practices (NatureServe, 2007). Scarlet woodbine was not observed during field surveys. 

Texas Gas states that it would continue to consult with state agencies to determine whether additional 

surveys are warranted for any species and, if required, develop mitigation measures to avoid or minimize 

potential impacts on these species. 

4.7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 

A variety of measures have been proposed by Texas Gas that would minimize environmental impacts on 

federally and state-listed species, including using HDDs to cross sensitive waterbodies, and forested 

wetlands, and implementing the construction methods and mitigation measures described in our Plan and 

Procedures. These measures would reduce the loss of vegetated habitats, minimize water quality impacts, 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-74 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and lessen delays in restoration of areas temporarily disturbed during construction. While beneficial to 

general wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation in the area, these measures would also benefit listed species 

with potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. Based on the information provided to date, we 

believe that, the Project is not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their critical 

habitat. 

In a letter dated July 27, 2007, the FWS Mississippi Field Office stated that the Project was not likely to 

adversely affect federally listed species in Mississippi, and that unless there are changes in the scope or 

location of the proposed Project, or if federally listed species are discovered during construction, no 

further consultation with the Mississippi Field Office is required. However, if the proposed Project has 

not been initiated within one year of the letter, follow-up consultation should be made with the FWS. 

We have not completed consultation with the FWS in Arkansas. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas not begin construction activities until: 

a. the FERC completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Texas Gas receives written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or implementation of conservation measures may begin. 

If construction of the pipeline system has not begun within 1 year from the date of 

FERC approval of the Project, Texas Gas should consult with the appropriate offices of 

the FWS to update the species list and to verify that previous consultations and 

determinations of effect are still current. Documentation of these consultations, and 

additional surveys and survey reports, if required, and FWS comments on the survey 

and its conclusions, should be filed with the Secretary prior to beginning construction. 

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

In this section we further quantify the land requirements for construction and operation of the proposed 

Project, describe current land use types, and evaluate the significance of Project-related impacts on those 

lands, as well as to specially designated areas, transportation corridors, visually sensitive areas, and 

hazardous waste sites. 

4.8.1 General Land Use Types 

The route of the Project would cross nine general land use types: agricultural land, upland forest, 

managed forest, wetlands, open water, open land, right-of-way, commercial/industrial, and residential. 

Table 4.8.1-1 summarizes the miles of land use types that would be traversed by the Project in each 

county. 

Construction of the proposed Project would temporarily disturb a total of about 5,057.2 acres of land. 

This includes the 3,199.6 acres for construction of the proposed pipeline facilities, 113.5 acres for 

construction of aboveground facilities, 635.0 acres of ATWS, 946.6 acres for pipe and contractor storage 

yards, and 162.5 acres for access roads. Of this total, about 1,731.2 acres would be permanently 

maintained for the pipeline right-of-way and aboveground facilities. 

4-75 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-76 

4.8.1.1 Pipeline Rights-of-Way 

Construction of the Project pipelines would impact a total of about 3,199.6 acres. About 1,602.6 acres of 

the land disturbed for construction would be retained by Texas Gas as permanent pipeline right-of-way to 

operate the pipelines, and about 1,597.0 acres would be affected only temporarily during construction and 

would be restored or allowed to return to pre-construction use and land cover. A detailed breakdown of 

the land use impacts associated with construction and operation of the pipelines is presented in table 

4.8.1-2. Impacts associated with ATWS, aboveground facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards, and 

access roads are described in sections 4.8.1.3 through 4.8.1.6, respectively 

Both the Fayetteville Lateral and the Greenville Lateral would be installed using a nominal 100-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way. In wetland areas, Texas Gas would reduce the right-of-way to 75 feet, in 

compliance with our Procedures. Following construction, a permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way would 

be maintained for operation in upland areas and a 30-foot-wide corridor would be maintained through 

wetlands. In addition to the temporary construction right-of-way, additional temporary workspace areas 

would be required at road and railroad crossings, waterbody crossings, and in areas with steep side slopes 

or other difficult terrain, as well as in areas needed for topsoil segregation, truck turn-arounds, hydrostatic 

test water withdrawal and discharge locations, pipeline crossovers, tie-ins, staging and fabrication areas, 

and at foreign utility crossings (see section 4.8.1.3). 

The Fayetteville Lateral would cross about 112.7 miles of agricultural land, 29.5 miles of upland forest 

land, 10.1 miles of open land, 6.5 miles of wetlands, 3.4 miles of managed forest land, 2.2 miles of 

existing right-of-way land, 1.7 miles of open water, 0.1 mile of commercial/industrial land, and 0.1 mile 

of residential land. The Greenville Lateral would cross about 56.1 miles of agricultural land, about 18.3 

miles of upland forest land, 9.3 miles of open land, 7.8 miles of wetlands, 1.9 miles of right-of-way land, 

1.5 miles of open water, 1.3 miles of managed forest land, and 0.2 mile of residential land use. The 

proposed Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross about 0.3 mile each of agriculture and upland 

forest land, and about 0.1 mile of open and right-of-way land uses. The proposed Kosciusko 20-inch Tiein Lateral would cross about 0.3 mile of upland forest and 0.1 mile of right-of-way land uses. 

All lands used for construction activities would be restored to preconstruction contours and revegetated. 

Land along the permanent right-of-way may return to previous land use where that land use does not 

conflict with operation of the pipeline. 

Agricultural Land

Agricultural land would be the land use most impacted by construction and operation of the Project 

pipelines. A total of about 2,046.6 acres of agricultural land would be disturbed by construction of all 

Project pipelines. Of this total, about 1,027.9 acres would be within the permanent pipeline right-of-way 

Project-wide. Along the Fayetteville Lateral, about 1,363.3 acres of agricultural land would be disturbed 

during construction and about 682.1 acres would be within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. For the 

Greenville Latera, about 679.3 acres of agricultural land would be disturbed during construction 

 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Summary of Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Project (in miles) 

County, State Agriculture Upland Forest Managed Forest Wetlands Open Water Open Land Right- of-way Commercial/ Industrial R

Fayetteville Lateral Conway, AR 1.6 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 Faulkner, AR 10.2 7.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 2.4 0.5 0.1 Cleburne, AR 2.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 White, AR 15.7 14.8 2.1 0.5 0.2 2.6 0.4 0 Woodruff, AR 32.7 0.7 0.0 2.8 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.0 St. Francis, AR 7.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Lee, AR 21.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 Phillips, AR 14.3 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 Coahoma, MS 7.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 

Total 112.7 29.5 3.4 6.5 1.7 10.1 2.2 0.1 

Greenville Lateral Washington, MS 16.6 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 Sunflower, MS 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humphreys, MS 21.4 0.7 0 2.3 0.9 0.1 0.3 0 Holmes, MS 12.1 10.5 0.9 2.9 0.3 4.3 0.5 0 Attala, MS 3.3 6.9 0.4 2.5 0.2 4.6 0.8 0 

Total 56.1 18.3 1.3 7.8 1.5 9.3 1.9 0 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 Kosciusko/ 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 

Project Total 169.1 48.4 4.7 14.3 3.2 19.5 4.3 0.1 

4-77 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated 

with Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipelines (in acres) 

Agriculture Upland Forest Managed Forest Wetlands Open Water Open Land Right-of- Way Commercial/ Industrial Residential 

County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper 

Fayetteville Lateral Conway, AR 20.5 10.0 35.5 18.2 3.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 31.4 15.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Faulkner, AR 121.4 61.3 79.8 43.0 5.8 3.2 4.3 3.5 2.2 1.0 28.2 14.2 16.4 3.4 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 White, AR 188.7 94.6 179.4 89.5 25.3 12.6 6.8 3.3 2.6 1.8 31.7 16.4 6.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 Cleburne, AR 23.8 11.9 27.3 14.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 4.9 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Woodruff, AR 397.6 197.8 8.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 33.9 16.9 3.7 2.6 17.2 8.6 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Francis, AR 

89.0 45.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.5 0.2 0.1 2.0 1.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Lee, AR 263.7 132.0 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 2.3 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 3.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 Phillips, AR 172.8 86.5 10.5 5.2 4.7 2.4 11.1 5.5 9.7 4.9 3.9 2.0 3.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coahoma, MS 

85.8 42.9 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.6 6.3 0.7 0.3 2.6 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 1,363.3 682.1 347.5 178.4 39.5 20.0 78.8 40.4 21.5 11.9 122.7 61.8 38.0 13.4 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.6 

Greenville Lateral Washington, MS 

203.6 101.4 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.6 3.6 1.8 3.2 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sunflower, MS 

32.2 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Humphreys, MS 

258.7 130.4 7.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 13.8 10.6 5.3 1.8 0.8 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Holmes, MS 143.8 75.2 129.8 62.5 10.7 5.3 34.9 17.7 3.0 1.5 51.8 25.9 8.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 Attala, MS 41.0 20.7 83.4 41.7 5.2 2.6 29.8 14.8 3.0 1.2 53.4 27.8 11.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 679.3 343.8 223.5 109.4 15.9 7.9 94.2 46.7 17.6 8.7 110.6 56.3 28.3 12.5 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.9 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-78 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4-79 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated 

with Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipelines (in acres) 

Agriculture Upland Forest Managed Forest Wetlands Open Water Open Land Right-of- Way Commercial/ Industrial Residential 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 4.0 2.0 3.3 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kosciusko 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 0.0 0.0 4.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Project Total 2046.6 1027.9 578.6 291.6 55.8 28.1 173.0 87.1 39.4 20.8 233.7 118.4 67.7 26.7 1.2 0.5 3.0 1.5 

__________ 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

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and about 343.8 acres would be within the permanent right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 36-

inch Tie-in Lateral would affect about 4.0 acres of agricultural land during construction and about 2.0 

acres would be within the permanent right-of-way. No agricultural land would be affect by construction 

or operation of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral. 

The primary impact on agricultural land would be the temporary loss of crops within the work area, and 

possibly immediately adjacent areas, since this land would be taken out of production for one growing 

season. In addition, construction-related activities could damage or interrupt irrigation. If the flow of 

irrigation water is disrupted for a prolonged period, crops outside the Project right-of-way could be 

damaged and crop yields reduced. Following construction, most agricultural land uses would continue 

within the permanent right-of-way. The only locations where this would change would be at the proposed 

aboveground facility sites where land use would change to industrial. Because the right-of-way could be 

used for crop production following construction, any loss of production would be a short-term impact. 

About 99 acres of the agricultural land that would be crossed by the Project is characterized as pivotirrigated crop land. The pivot-irrigated crop land occurs in the four counties listed below for the 

Fayetteville Lateral and the three counties listed for the Greenville Lateral . Also included are the 

approximate temporary and permanent impacts on pivot-irrigated crop land: 

Fayetteville Lateral Route 

• Woodruff County, 19 acres; 

• Lee County, 3 acres; 

• Phillips County, 9 acres; and 

• Coahoma County, 9 acres; 

Greenville Lateral Route 

• Washington County, 31 acres; 

• Sunflower County, 7 acres; and 

• Humphreys County, 21 acres. 

Pivot irrigation involves the use of a central pivot in the irrigation of crops, often creating a circular 

pattern in crops when viewed from above. During construction of the pipelines, the presence of large 

piles of topsoil, an open trench, and construction equipment, etc., would likely make the movement of a 

pivot irrigation system across the pipeline corridor problematic. Texas Gas would need to coordinate 

closely with landowners to ensure that crop irrigation continues by another means if pivot irrigation is not 

feasible during the construction period. Following construction of the pipeline, there would be no 

permanent impacts on any pivot irrigation systems. 

Texas Gas states it would be committed to implementing the mitigation measures in our Plan, and any 

other applicable management plans in order to minimize potential impacts of construction on agricultural 

lands and future crop production. Texas Gas would segregate topsoil in lands with annually cultivated or 

rotated crops, in hayfields, and at the landowner’s request. Texas Gas would implement its agriculture 

compensation program for impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project, 

including compensating landowners for anticipated crop losses resulting from construction and operation 

of the Project. The compensation would be offered prior to construction. Based on the mitigation 

measures that Texas Gas would implement as part of construction and operation of the proposed Project, 

we believe that impacts on agricultural lands would not be significant. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-80 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Conservation Reserve Program. Established by Congress in 1985, the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA’s) 

CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners. 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. It also provides these individuals guidance and assistance in complying with 

federal and state environmental laws, thereby enabling environmental enhancement. The CRP 

encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to 

vegetative cover such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers. 

Participating lands exhibit reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, and enhanced wildlife habitats. 

These areas are afforded special consideration to avoid any breaches in the landowners’ contracts. 

It is expected that disturbances to CRP lands would be temporary during construction because they would 

be restored as soon after final grading as possible to encourage rapid revegetation of herbaceous plant 

cover and discourage the invasion of weed species. Operation of the Project would not change this land 

use. The species selected for revegetation could be determined in consultation with the landowner/tenant; 

however, local agency recommendations would also be taken into consideration. 

Special Crops/Orchards 

Table 4.8.1-3 lists the special crops (e.g., rice, cotton, sorghum) and orchards (e.g., fruit trees, nut trees) 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the Project. About 210.6 acres of special 

crops/orchards would be affected by construction of the Fayetteville Lateral, and 91.2 of these acres 

would be within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Along the Greenville Lateral, about 90.5 acres of 

special crops would be affected by construction, and about 45.1 of these acres would be within the 

permanent right-of-way. There would be no impacts on orchards along the Greenville Lateral. In 

addition, there would be no impact on special crops or orchards along the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in 

Lateral or the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral. Compensation for temporary and permanent crop losses 

would be determined during Texas Gas’s easement negotiations with affected landowners/tenants. 

About 105.1 acres of land used for rice farming would be affected by Project construction, and 48.9 acres 

would be within the permanent right-of-way. However, we expect that pre-construction land uses would 

be reestablished following construction, minimizing long-term impacts. As indicated above in table 

4.8.1-3, rice farming occurs along the Fayetteville Lateral in St. Francis, White, Lee, and Phillips 

Counties and along the Greenville Lateral in Washington and Holmes Counties. Table 4.8.1-3 indicates 

the milepost, temporary workspace acreage impacts, and acreage of rice crops that would be within the 

permanent right-of-way. Due to the micro-leveling farming practices associated with rice farming, Texas 

Gas states that construction through rice fields would begin with notification and discussions with 

landowners prior to construction activities. Construction activities would be planned to occur at a time 

that would minimize impacts on special agricultural practices, which typically include flooding of the 

fields. Texas Gas anticipates requesting that these landowners refrain from flooding fields crossed by the 

proposed route to allow sufficient time for the fields to dry and therefore allow conventional construction 

methods to be used. In order to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place to protect rice 

fields during and after construction, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Texas Gas shall develop site-specific crossing plans in 

consultation with the landowner for each identified rice field impacted by construction 

and file them with the prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

4-81 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-3 

Special Crops Crossed by Temporary and Permanent Rights-of-Way 

Acreage 

within 

Permanent 

Right-of-Way 

County Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Special Land Use Specialty Crop 

Temporary 

Workspace 

Acreage 

Fayetteville Lateral Route 

Faulkner 12.2 12.5 Managed Forest Fruit Tree 3.1 1.6 

Faulkner 15.9 16.3 Managed Forest Fruit Tree 5.2 2.2 

Faulkner 17.1 17.3 Managed Forest Nut Tree 2.2 2.2 

Faulkner 17.1 17.3 Managed Forest Nut Tree 2.2 1.1 

White 36.4 37.1 Managed Forest Fruit Tree 10.5 4.6 

White 54 54.2 Managed Forest Fruit Tree 2.9 1.4 

White 60.2 60.3 Special Cotton 1.3 0.5 

White 64.6 65 Special Cotton 4.6 0.9 

White 66 66.3 Special Cotton 4.7 1.4 

White 66.5 66.5 Special Cotton 0.8 0.3 

White 68 68.2 Special Rice 4.1 1.7 

Woodruff 71.3 72.4 Special Sorghum 15.2 7 

Woodruff 75.9 76.3 Special Sorghum 5 2.4 

Woodruff 77.5 77.7 Special Sorghum 3.1 1.5 

Woodruff 78.7 79 Special Sorghum 3.3 1.5 

Woodruff 85.2 85.5 Special Sorghum 5.3 1.4 

Woodruff 86.2 87.6 Special Sorghum 20.8 8.7 

Woodruff 87.8 87.9 Special Sorghum 1.5 0.8 

Woodruff 90.4 90.7 Special Cotton 3.5 1.6 

Woodruff 92.4 93 Special Cotton 8.1 3.6 

Woodruff 93.5 95.3 Special Cotton/Sorghum 25.8 10.7 

Woodruff 98.1 98.78 Special Cotton/Sorghum 8.6 3.6 

Woodruff 106.7 106.9 Special Cotton 1.8 0.8 

St. Francis 109.3 109.7 Special Sorghum 4.5 2.1 

St. Francis 109.9 111.6 Special Rice 24.7 10.4 

St. Francis 113.7 113.9 Special Cotton 2.5 1 

Lee 119.5 119.8 Special Cotton 3.8 1.8 

Lee 120.3 120.5 Special Rice 3.1 1.4 

Lee 121.2 121.3 Special Rice 1.1 0.5 

Lee 137.6 137.9 Special Rice 4.1 1.9 

Lee 138.2 138.5 Special Rice 3.7 1.5 

Phillips 145.9 146.3 Managed Forest Fruit Tree 4.5 2.3 

Phillips 149.5 150.6 Special Rice 15 6.8 

Total 210.6 91.2 

Greenville Lateral Route 

Washington 4.2 4.7 Special Rice 6.1 3 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-82 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-3 

Special Crops Crossed by Temporary and Permanent Rights-of-Way 

Acreage 

within 

Permanent 

Right-of-Way 

County Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Special Land Use Specialty Crop 

Temporary 

Workspace 

Acreage 

Washington 9 9.2 Special Cotton 3.5 1.7 

Washington 9.3 10.4 Special Cotton 13.5 6.7 

Humphries 25.6 25.9 Special Cotton 4.6 2.3 

Humphries 31.2 31.4 Special Cotton 2.3 1.1 

Humphries 34.3 34.7 Special Cotton 5.9 2.9 

Holmes 46.7 50.2 Special Rice 43.2 21.7 

Holmes 51.4 52.4 Special Cotton 11.4 5.7 

Total 90.5 45.1 

Project Total 301.1 136.3 

About 30.6 acres of orchards would be affected by Project construction, and 15.4 acres would be within 

the permanent right-of-way. Table 4.8.1-3 identifies where fruit and nut tree orchards would occur along 

the Fayetteville Lateral in Faulkner, White, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas. There are no orchards along 

the Greenville Lateral. The primary impact of construction on orchards would be the temporary removal 

of trees from the construction right-of-way. Following construction, trees would be allowed outside of a 

30-foot-wide permanent corridor centered over the pipeline. After final construction cleanup, orchards 

would be restored in accordance with our Plan and landowner requests. 

Following construction, disturbed special crop and special land use areas would be returned to 

preconstruction conditions to the extent feasible. Texas Gas would conduct bi-annual monitoring of 

special crops and special land use areas for two years to determine the success of restoration. If 

successful restoration does not occur, landowners would be compensated for losses. 

Forest Land

Upland Forest. Upland forest includes mixed hardwood and evergreen forests. A total of about 578.6 

acres of upland forest land would be disturbed by construction of all Project pipelines. Of this total, about 

291.6 acres would be maintained as permanent pipeline right-of-way. About 347.5 acres of upland forest 

land would be disturbed during construction, and about 178.4 acres would be maintained permanently as 

open land within the Fayetteville Lateral 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. About 223.5 

acres of upland forest land would be disturbed during construction of the Greenville Lateral, and about 

109.4 acres would be maintained as open land within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would affect about 3.3 acres during construction, 

and about 1.7 acres would be maintained as open land within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

Construction of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would affect about 4.3 acres of upland forest, and 

about 2.1 acres would be maintained as open land within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

The primary impact of construction on forest land by the Project would be the removal of trees and shrubs 

from the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Following construction, trees and shrubs would be 

allowed to regenerate within the areas that would not be retained as part of the 50-foot-wide permanent 

4-83 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
right-of-way. After final construction cleanup, the temporary workspaces would be restored in 

accordance with applicable permit requirements, our Plan, and landowner requests. 

Pipeline construction results in long-term to permanent impacts on forest land use. The impact on forest 

land use within the permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way would be the permanent change to open land. 

Outside of the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, the construction right-of-way would revegate 

naturally. The rate of forest reestablishment would depend upon the type of vegetation, length of growing 

season, and natural fertility of the soils. Early successional species would be anticipated to begin 

colonizing the right-of-way within a few years of construction, followed gradually by the establishment of 

later successional species. Re-growth to the sapling/young tree stage could take 15 to 30 years, while regrowth of forests to mature conditions could take from 50 to 100 years, depending upon the species. 

Texas Gas would compensate landowners for loss of timber in accordance with negotiated easement 

agreements. 

The proposed Project would not involve crossing any old growth forests or sugar maple stands. 

Managed Forest. Managed forest includes forests planted primarily for timber harvest and fruit/nut tree 

orchards. A total of about 55.8 acres of managed forest land would be disturbed by construction of all 

Project pipelines. Of this total, about 28.1 acres would be maintained as permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

About 39.5 acres of managed forest land would be disturbed during construction, and about 20.0 acres 

would be maintained as permanent pipeline right-of-way of the Fayetteville Lateral. About 15.9 acres of 

managed forest land would be disturbed during construction of the Greenville Lateral, and about 7.9 acres 

would be maintained as permanent right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral 

would affect about 0.4 acre during construction, and about 0.2 acre would be maintained as permanent 

right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would not affect any managed forest. 

Orchards traversed by the Project are described in more detail below with special land use areas. 

Similar to upland forests, pipeline construction results in long-term to permanent impacts on managed 

forest land use. Except in areas that would be retained as part of the 50-foot-wide permanent right-ofway, the construction right-of-way would revegate naturally. Since regrowth of forests could take over 

20 years, the impact would be long-term to permanent. The impact on forest land use within the 

permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way would be the permanent change to open land. Texas Gas would 

compensate landowners for loss of timber or orchard crops in accordance with negotiated easement 

agreements. 

Wetlands and Open Water

Impacts on open water and wetlands are addressed in sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Wetland Reserve Program. The WRP is a voluntary NRCS program that provides technical and 

financial assistance to eligible landowners to address wetland, wildlife habitat, soil, water, and related 

natural resource concerns on private lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. 

The program provides an opportunity for landowners to receive financial incentives to restore, protect, 

and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal land from agriculture. Under the WRP program, 

the U.S. government holds an easement (30 years or permanent). The proposed pipeline routes were sited 

to avoid most WRP lands. However, as indicated in section 4.4, one WRP tract would be traversed by the 

Greenville Lateral between MP 43.0 and 43.3 in Humphreys County, Mississippi. 

Where the pipeline would traverse the WRP tract, the pipeline route avoids a number of forested wetlands 

and has been sited to specifically avoid a sensitive environmental resource. The pipeline would parallel 

the south side of an existing road (Mathena Brake Road) within the boundaries of the WRP. The portion 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-84 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
of the WRP tract that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route would not impact wetlands. Highquality forested wetlands within the WRP tract and associated with Mathena Brake are on the north side 

of Mathena Brake Road. Forested wetland habitat also has been identified south of the proposed pipeline 

route within the WRP tract. Impacts from proposed alignment of the pipeline across the WRP tract 

would be minimized by avoiding wetland habitat as much as possible, paralleling Mathena Brake Road, 

and avoiding fragmentation of WRP lands. We believe that the proposed pipeline route would minimize 

potential environmental impacts. Based on our consultation with NRCS, the route as proposed by Texas 

Gas would be acceptable (Bozeman, 2007). 

Impacts on WRP lands would largely be temporary in nature. Following construction, the right-of-way 

would be restored to preconstruction conditions, or better. Texas Gas would select specific native species 

for revegetation of the WRP tract in consultation with the landowner/tenant and NRCS. 

In order to cross the WRP tract, Texas Gas would be required to obtain a subordination of the U.S. 

government easement prior to construction. The subordination would be dependent on the development 

of a restoration plan satisfactory to NRCS. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Texas Gas file with the Secretary the site-specific restoration 

plan for construction and restoration of the WRP tract crossed between MP 43.0 and 

43.3 of the Greenville Lateral developed in consultation with the NRCS. 

Open Land

Open land includes non-forested rangeland, pastureland, non-agricultural fields, prairie, and open land in 

the early stages of succession. A total of about 233.7 acres of open land would be disturbed by 

construction of all Project pipelines. Of this total, about 118.4 acres would be maintained as permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. About 122.7 acres of open land would be disturbed during construction, and about 

61.8 acres would be maintained as permanent pipeline right-of-way of the Fayetteville Lateral. About 

110.6 acres of open land would be disturbed during construction of the Greenville Lateral, and about 56.3 

acres would be maintained as permanent right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in 

Lateral would affect about 0.4 acre during construction, and about 0.3 acre would be maintained as 

permanent right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would not affect any open 

land use. 

Open land could be temporarily disturbed during grading, trenching, and backfilling. The primary impact 

on open land during construction would be the loss of grazing capacity for the duration of the 

construction period and until grasses and herbs could reestablish the following year. After final 

construction cleanup, these areas would be reseeded in accordance with Texas Gas’s project-specific 

mitigation plans, agency requirements associated with applicable permits, and landowner 

recommendations. The majority of grassland uses would continue within the permanent right-of-way. 

Because the right-of-way could be used for grazing following construction, any loss of grazing capacity 

would be limited to a short-term construction impact. 

Rights-of-Way

Right-of-way land uses include roads, railroads, and utility corridors (e.g., pipelines and powerlines) 

perpendicularly crossed by or collocated along the proposed pipelines. A total of about 68.3 acres of 

right-of-way land would be disturbed by construction of all Project pipelines. Of this total, about 26.7 

acres would be maintained as permanent Project right-of-way. About 38.0 acres of right-of-way land 

would be disturbed during construction, and about 13.4 acres would be maintained as permanent Project 

4-85 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
right-of-way of the Fayetteville Lateral. About 68.3 acres of right-of-way land would be disturbed during 

construction of the Greenville Lateral, and about 12.5 acres would be maintained as permanent right-ofway. Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would affect about 1.4 acres during 

construction, and about 0.5 acre would be maintained as permanent Project right-of-way. Construction of 

the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would affect about 0.6 acre of right-of-way land, and about 0.3 acre 

would be maintained within the permanent Project right-of-way. Right-of-way land could be temporarily 

disturbed during grading, trenching, drilling, and backfilling. Texas Gas would obtain any required 

permits for crossing roads or working within road rights-of-way and would coordinate with the 

owners/operators of the utilities to address any issues about working in proximity to their facilities. 

Following final construction cleanup, these areas would be returned to preconstruction conditions, where 

feasible, and agency requirements associated with applicable permits would be adhered to. Impacts on 

this land use would be short-term and temporary. 

Commercial/Industrial

Commercial/industrial land includes utility stations, manufacturing and industrial plants, landfills, mines, 

quarries, and commercial retail facilities. About 1.2 acres of commercial/industrial land would be 

affected by Project construction. About 1.0 acre of industrial land in Faulkner County, Arkansas, would 

be affected by construction of the Fayetteville Lateral, and about 0.5 acre would be affected by its 

operation. About 0.2 acre of commercial/industrial land would be affected by construction of the 

Greenville Lateral in Washington County, Mississippi; no commercial land would be affected by its 

operation. No commercial/industrial land would be affected by construction or operation of the 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral or the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral. Commercial/industrial 

structures within 50 feet of construction workspaces are listed by milepost in table 4.8.1-4. 

Potential impacts on commercial/industrial land uses would include minor traffic flow interruptions and 

short-term use restrictions associated with the construction right-of-way. However, Texas Gas states that 

it would reduce construction activities along public roads during peak traffic times. Construction of the 

proposed Project may have some temporary impacts on commercial/industrial land use, but operation of 

the Project is not anticipated to have any impact on commercial/industrial land use. 

Residential

A total of about 3.0 acres of residential land would be disturbed by construction of all Project pipelines. 

Of this total, about 1.5 acres of residential land would be within the permanent right-of-way. Along the 

Fayetteville Lateral, about 1.2 acres of residential land would be disturbed during construction, and about 

0.6 acre would be within the permanent right-of-way. Along the Greenville Lateral, about 1.8 acres of 

residential land would be disturbed during construction and about 0.9 acre would be within the 

permanent right-of-way. Construction of the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and Kosciusko 20-inch 

Tie-in Lateral would not affect any residential land. Residential structures within 50 feet of construction 

workspaces are listed in table 4.8.1-5. Twenty-two residences would be within 50 feet and 12 residences 

would be within 25 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-86 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-4 

Commercial/Industrial Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Workspaces 

County Milepost 

Approximate Distance 

(feet) from Construction 

Workspaces 

Approximate Direction 

from Pipeline Corridor 

Fayetteville Lateral

-- -- -- 

Greenville Lateral

Washington, MS 7.2 0 East 

Holmes, MS 51.4 41 Southwest 

Holmes, MS 55.1 0 Northeast 

Holmes, MS 55.2 36 Northeast 

Holmes, MS 64.1 2 North 

Holmes, MS 64.2 47 North 

Holmes, MS 75.5 20 Northwest 

Attala, MS 78.7 21 Northeast 

Attala, MS 83.4 0 North 

Attala, MS 92.1 10 South 

Washington, MS 7.2 0 East 

Holmes, MS 51.4 41 Southwest 

Holmes, MS 55.1 0 Northeast 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral

Attala, MS - - - - - - 

Kosciusko/Southern Natural 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral

Attala, MS 1.2 29 East 

Temporary construction impacts on residential areas can include inconveniences caused by some 

increased construction-related traffic on local roads, noise and dust generated by construction equipment, 

the presence of on-site construction personnel, and trenching through roads or driveways; ground 

disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscaped shrubs, or other vegetative screening between 

residences and/or adjacent rights-of-way; potential damage to existing septic systems or wells; and 

removal of aboveground structures such as sheds or trailers from within the right-of-way. These impacts 

would be greatest where construction equipment is operating near homes but would diminish quickly 

once construction activities move away. 

Texas Gas also would install and maintain construction fencing at the edge of the construction work area 

for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence and at a minimum maintain this fencing 

throughout the open trench phases of the pipe installation, as well as maintain a buffer of vegetation, 

leaving mature trees and landscaping within the edge of the construction work areas, where practicable 

and feasible. In addition, Texas Gas would restore all work areas following construction in accordance 

with our Plan. 

4-87 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-5 

Residential Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Workspaces 

County Milepost 

Approximate Distance 

from Construction 

Workspaces 

(feet) 

Approximate Direction 

from Pipeline Corridor 

Fayetteville Lateral

Conway, AR 2.6 46 South 

Conway, AR 2.6-2.7 37 South 

Conway, AR 3.4-3.5 34 South 

Faulkner, AR 10.3 20 South 

Faulkner, AR 26.4 35 South 

White, AR 34.7 0 South 

White, AR 38.9 33 South 

White, AR 38.9 7 South 

White, AR 39.2 27 South 

Cleburne, AR 41.2 32 South 

Cleburne, AR 41.3 20 North 

White, AR 46.9 23 South 

White, AR 49.8-49.9 3 North 

White, AR 49.8-49.9 45 South 

White, AR 54.4 39 North 

White, AR 57 39 Southwest 

White, AR 62.1-62.2 20 East 

White, AR 62.2-62.3 15 Southwest 

Coahoma, MS 163.9 16 South 

Greenville Lateral

Holmes, MS 55.1 0 Northeast 

Holmes, MS 63.6 15 Northeast 

Holmes, MS 65.0 34 South 

Holmes, MS 55.1 0 Northeast 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral

Attala, MS -- - - N/A 

Kosciusko/Southern Natural 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral

Attala, MS -- -- N/A 

Texas Gas would provide site-specific construction details on its construction alignment sheets that would 

be included with Texas Gas’s Project Implementation Plan that would be filed prior to construction. In 

addition, Texas Gas would provide each landowner with a copy of the site-specific construction plan and 

obtain an address and or telephone number for construction notification purposes. However, to better 

address possible issues related to construction on these residential properties, we recommend that: 

• Texas Gas file site-specific plans for the residential properties listed on table 4.8.1-5 of the 

draft EIS prior to the end of the comment period for the draft EIS. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-88 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 With Texas Gas’s implementation of the measures described above, impacts on residences would be 

minimized. 

4.8.1.2 Use of Existing Rights-of-Way 

Fayetteville Lateral

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would parallel existing pipeline and utility corridors, including an 

existing Texas Gas right-of-way, for about 90.5 miles, or 54 percent, of its 166.2-mile length. The 

locations where existing rights-of-way would be used are listed in table 4.8.1-6. 

Greenville Lateral

The Greenville Lateral would utilize primarily new right-of-way for most its entire length. Five isolated, 

short collocations totaling about 6.4 miles would be used, as identified in table 4.8.1-6. 

Kosciusko Tie-in Laterals

The Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-In Lateral and the Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral would utilize new rightof-way for the entire length of each lateral. 

4.8.1.3 Additional Temporary Work Spaces 

In addition to the land required for the construction right-of-way, ATWS of various sizes would be 

required for equipment staging at road and railroad crossings, wetland and waterbody crossings, and in 

areas with steep side slopes or other difficult terrain, as well as areas used for topsoil segregation, truck 

turn-arounds, hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge locations, crossovers, tie-ins, staging and 

fabrication areas, at foreign utility crossings, and wherever special construction techniques would be 

required. Construction of the proposed pipelines would require about 635.0 acres of ATWS, mainly 

affecting 494.5 acres of agricultural and 92.7 acres of forest (both managed and upland forest) land uses. 

The proposed ATWSs would be used only during construction of the Project. Once construction is 

complete, these areas would be returned to preconstruction conditions to the extent feasible. In forested 

areas, temporary workspaces would revegetate naturally, but since regrowth of forests could take over 20 

years, the impact would be long-term to permanent. Table C-7 of appendix C lists the location and 

existing land use of each proposed ATWS. 

TABLE 4.8.1-6 

Summary of Collocated Rights-of-Way 

Length of 

Right-of-Way 

Collocations (miles) 

State County Name Begin MP End 

MP 

Fayetteville Lateral 

AR Conway Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 0.5 6.5 6.0 

AR Conway Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 7.4 7.8 0.4 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 7.8 7.8 0.0 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 7.8 8.7 0.9 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 8.7 9.2 0.5 

4-89 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-6 

Summary of Collocated Rights-of-Way 

Length of 

Right-of-Way 

Collocations (miles) 

State County Name Begin MP End 

MP 

AR Faulkner Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 9.2 9.7 0.5 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 9.8 10.9 1.1 

AR Faulkner Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 10.9 11.4 0.5 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 11.4 12.6 1.2 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 12.6 13.2 0.6 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 13.2 15.1 1.9 

AR Faulkner Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 15.6 16.1 0.5 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 16.1 16.4 0.3 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 16.4 19.7 3.3 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 19.7 20.1 0.4 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 20.1 21.8 1.7 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 22.3 22.8 0.5 

AR Faulkner Ozark Pipeline right-of-way 22.8 23.6 0.8 

AR Faulkner Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 23.6 23.7 0.1 

AR Faulkner CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 23.7 29.2 5.5 

AR White CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 29.2 30.3 1.1 

AR White Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 30.3 32.4 2.1 

AR White CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 33.9 34.3 0.4 

AR White Desoto Gas Pipeline right-of-way 34.3 34.5 0.2 

AR White CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 34.5 41.1 6.6 

AR Cleburne CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 41.1 41.5 0.4 

AR Cleburne CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 43.0 44.2 1.2 

AR White CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 44.2 45.0 0.8 

AR White Road right-of-way 49.1 49.7 0.6 

AR White Road right-of-way 50.0 50.1 0.1 

AR Woodruff Road right-of-way 76.9 80.2 3.3 

AR Woodruff CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 105.5 108.0 2.5 

AR St. Francis CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 108.0 111.1 3.1 

AR St. Francis CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 112.0 112.2 0.2 

AR St. Francis CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 112.7 113.4 0.7 

AR St. Francis CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 114.5 116.4 1.9 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 117.7 119.0 1.3 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 119.4 120.6 1.2 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 120.9 125.6 4.7 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 126.8 130.4 3.6 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 130.8 135.8 5.0 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 136.2 138.4 2.2 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-90 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-6 

Summary of Collocated Rights-of-Way 

State County Name Begin MP

Length of 

Right-of-Way 

Collocations (miles) 

End 

MP 

AR Lee CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 138.6 139.2 0.6 

AR Phillips CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 139.2 142.5 3.3 

AR Phillips CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 142.9 144.5 1.6 

AR Phillips CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 145.5 145.9 0.4 

AR Phillips CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 146.4 148.9 2.5 

AR Phillips CenterPoint Pipeline right-of-way 149.3 154.5 5.2 

AR Phillips Texas Gas Pipeline right-of-way 156.7 157.7 1.0 

MS Coahoma Texas Gas Pipeline right-of-way 157.7 160.9 3.2 

MS Coahoma Texas Gas Pipeline right-of-way 161.7 163.3 1.6 

MS Coahoma Texas Gas Pipeline right-of-way 165.0 166.2 1.2 

Subtotal: 90.5 

Greenville Lateral 

MS Washington Texas Gas Pipeline right-of-way 0.0 0.4 0.4 

MS Humphreys County Road 55 right-of-way 22.9 23.4 0.5 

MS Humphreys Road right-of-way (Name Unknown) 28.0 28.4 0.4 

MS Humphreys Methena Road right-of-way 43.0 43.3 0.3 

MS Attala Illinois Central Railroad right-of-way 85.3 85.8 0.5 

MS Attala Electric Transmission Line 88.1 92.4 4.3 

Subtotal: 6.4 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral 

MS Attala NA 0.0 0.8 0 

Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral 

MS Attala NA 0.0 0.4 0 

Total 96.9 

4.8.1.4 Aboveground Facilities 

Texas Gas’s proposed aboveground facilities would include one new compressor station, 29 M&R 

stations, 29 interconnects (tie-ins), 21 MLVs, and six pig launchers/receivers. Table 2.1.2-1 lists the type 

and location of all proposed aboveground facilities. The size of M&R stations would vary from 0.9 acre 

to 2.6 acres. The size of each MLV and launcher/receiver would be less than 0.1 acre. 

Table 4.8.1-7 identifies land uses that would be affected by construction and operation of aboveground 

facilities. The principal land use that would be impacted by construction and operation of the compressor 

station and M&R stations would be agricultural land (80.6 acres). As indicated in table 4.8.1-7, other 

land uses that would be impacted by the aboveground facilities include upland forest (15.5 acres), open 

land (5.3 acres), and right-of-way (5.2 acres). Operation of the aboveground facilities would permanently 

convert the preconstruction land use to industrial land use. 

4-91 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-92 

4.8.1.5

4.8.1.6

4.8.1.7

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

A total of 43 contractor and pipe storage yards, totaling about 946.6 acres, would be used temporarily 

during Project construction. The contractor and pipe storage yards would be used to set up offices, 

stockpile pipe, fabricate weights, and concrete-coat joints, as necessary. Table 4.8.1-8 lists the proposed 

pipe storage and contractor yards. As indicated in table 4.8.1-8 the principal land uses that would be 

impacted by construction and operation of the pipe storage and contractor yards would be agricultural 

land and, to a lesser extent, industrial and open land. These yards would be temporarily impacted during 

construction and restored to preconstruction conditions, or better, following the completion of 

construction. 

Access Roads 

Texas Gas’s use of access roads would affect about 162.5 acres of land. Of this total, about 15.1 acres 

would be maintained for operation of the Project. To the extent practicable, Texas Gas would use 

existing roads to provide access for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline. 

Roads that are paved or graveled would likely not require modification for this purpose. Routine road 

maintenance such as grading could be required to maintain dirt roads. Table C-8 in appendix C lists the 

proposed access roads and any anticipated modifications that may be required to make the roadways 

serviceable. Texas Gas would use existing roads to provide access for construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the Project facilities. Significant amounts of new land would not be necessary, and 

minimal existing land uses would be altered to accommodate access. 

Pipeline Easements 

Land use impacts associated with installation of the pipeline include disturbance of existing land uses 

within construction work areas along the pipeline corridor during construction as well as creation of a 

new permanent right-of-way for operation and maintenance of the facilities. Texas Gas would obtain an 

easement from landowners to construct and operate the pipeline and associated facilities. The easement 

would give the company the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline and establish a 

permanent right-of-way. In return, the company would compensate the landowner for use of the land. 

Easement agreements between the company and the landowner typically specify compensation for loss of 

use during construction, loss of non-renewable or other resources, and allowable uses and restrictions on 

the permanent right-of-way after construction. These terms can include restrictions on the construction of 

aboveground structures, including house additions, garages, patios, pools, and any other object not easily 

removable from the right-of-way, and the planting and cultivating of trees and orchards. The areas used 

as temporary construction right-of-way and temporary extra workspaces would be allowed to revert to 

pre-construction uses with no restrictions. The acquisition of an easement is a negotiable process that 

would be carried out between Texas Gas and individual landowners. The details and content of these 

agreements are beyond the scope of this EIS. 

4.8.2 Planned Residential and Commercial/Industrial Developments 

Along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral, no planned developments have been filed with local planning 

boards within 0.25 mile of the Project corridor within Conway County (Gibson, 2007), Faulkner County 

(Scroggin, 2007), Woodruff County (Simmons, 2007), or Lee County (Keasler, 2007) in Arkansas, or 

Coahoma County (Stubbs, 2007) in Mississippi. In northern White County, near MP 55.9, a proposed 8-

inch-diameter water line is currently under construction; however, this Project should be completed well 

before Texas Gas constructs the proposed pipeline. No other planned developments were identified in 

White or Cleburne Counties (Hargan, 2007). Along the proposed Greenville Lateral, no planned 

developments have been filed with local planning boards within 0.25 mile of the Project corridor in 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-7 

Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated 

with Construction and Operation of Aboveground Facilities (in acres) 

Agriculture Upland Forest Managed Forest Wetlands Open Water Open Land Right-of-Way Comme

Indus

County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const 

Fayetteville Lateral Conway, AR 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Faulkner, AR 3.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 White, AR 15.4 15.4 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 Cleburne, AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Woodruff, AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Francis, AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lee, AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phillips, AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coahoma, MS 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Total 22.2 22.2 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.3 5.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 

Greenville Lateral Washington, MS 8.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Sunflower, MS 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Humphreys, MS 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Holmes, MS 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Attala, MS 46.9 46.9 15.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 4.8 4.8 0.0 

Total 58.4 58.4 15.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 5.2 5.2 0.0 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 

4-93 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 Environmental Analysis 4-94 

TABLE 4.8.1-7 

Summary of Land Use Impacts Associated 

with Construction and Operation of Aboveground Facilities (in acres) 

Agriculture Upland Forest Managed Forest Wetlands Open Water Open Land Right-of-Way Comme

Indus

County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const 

Kosciusko 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral Attala, MS 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Project Total 80.6 80.6 20.3 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 0.0 

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

construction impacts are within the construction ROW for the proposed pipeline route and are also included in the impact calculations identified in Table 

__________ 

4.0 –

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-8 

Pipe Yards and Contractor Yards Used for Construction 

County, State Pipe Yard 

Number Milepost Size  (acres) Land Use 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Conway, AR 1 5.6 13.4 Open 

Faulkner ,AR 4 15.4 23.5 Agricultural 

Cleburne, AR 5 22.8 41.2 Agricultural 

Faulkner, AR 5 22.8 8.1 Agricultural 

Faulkner, AR 6 29.1 11.4 Agricultural 

White, AR 6 29.2 11.2 Agricultural 

White, AR 18 50.2 1.5 Open 

White, AR 18 50.3 22.6 Open 

White, AR 17 50.4 11.4 Agricultural 

White, AR 17 50.5 4.1 Agricultural 

White, AR 9 57.2 18.5 Agricultural 

White, AR 16 65.4 24.4 Agricultural 

White, AR 16 65.4 2.9 Agricultural 

White, AR 10 65.6 24.9 Agricultural 

Woodruff, AR 11 88.1 34.2 Agricultural 

St. Francis, AR 12 111.6 45.9 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13B 127.7 79.4 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13B 127.9 0.5 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13B 128.0 0.4 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13C 128. 0.5 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13C 128.0 0.5 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13C 128.1 0.5 Agricultural 

Lee, AR 13C 128.2 62.2 Agricultural 

Phillips, AR 14 151.3 0.1 Agricultural 

Phillips, AR 14 151.3 26.9 Agricultural 

Phillips, AR 14 151.3 0.2 Right-of-Way 

Coahoma, MS 15 159.1 21.4 Agricultural 

Sub Total 491.8 

Greenville Lateral 

Washington, MS 1 0.1 48.8 Open 

Washington, MS 2 8.9 5.2 Open 

Washington, MS 3 10.5 12.8 Agriculture 

Humphries, MS 4 20.4 14.8 Open 

Humphries, MS 5 29.4 20.6 Agriculture/Open 

Humphries, MS 6 29.3 4.8 Open 

Humphries, MS 7 29.6 28.0 Open 

4-95 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.8.1-8 

Pipe Yards and Contractor Yards Used for Construction 

County, State Pipe Yard 

Number Milepost Size 

 (acres) Land Use 

Humphries, MS 8 35.4 109.0 Industrial 

Holmes, MS 10 51.4 17.9 Agriculture 

Holmes, MS 11 52.0 7.9 Industrial 

Holmes, MS 12 73.0 28.7 Industrial 

Holmes, MS 14 73.0 63.3 Open 

Holmes, MS 15 54.8 93.0 Agriculture/Open 

Sub Total 454.8 

Kosciusko 36-Inch Tie-in Lateral 

Attala, MS None - - - - - - 

Kosciusko 20-Inch Tie-in Lateral 

Attala, MS None - - - - - - 

Project Total 946.6 

Washington County (Hart, 2007) or Attala County (Taylor, 2007) in Mississippi. Local planning boards 

in St. Francis and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, along the Fayetteville Lateral, and in Sunflower, 

Humphreys, and Holmes Counties, Mississippi, along the Greenville Lateral, have not commented about 

planned developments. The Project in these counties would pass through mainly agricultural land, and 

we anticipate that this land use would not change in the near future. Therefore, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have any impact on planned residential or 

commercial development. 

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Land Uses 

Recreation and special land uses generally include federal, state, and county/city parks and forests; 

conservation lands; wildlife habitat management areas; hunter management areas; natural landmarks; 

scenic byways; designated trails; recreational rivers; and campgrounds. Major and sensitive waterbodies 

are addressed in section 4.3; unique, sensitive, or significant wildlife habitats are addressed in section 4.7; 

and historic or culturally significant areas are addressed in section 4.10. 

The Project would not cross any federally or state-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, national 

landmarks, trails, campgrounds, or public parks and forests. However, the Project would cross three 

waterbodies in Arkansas (Cadron Creek, Big Creek, and Bayou De View) and one waterbody in 

Mississippi (the Big Black River) that are listed on the NRI as having outstandingly remarkable values 

(ORVs), which potentially qualifies them for National Wild and Scenic River designation, and several 

recreational and special land use areas in Arkansas. The locations of these areas are indicated on figure 

4.8.3-1. 

Fayetteville Lateral 

The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would be near one recreational area and would cross four special land 

use areas. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-96 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Woodruff County Fairgrounds. The Woodruff County Fairgrounds is in McCrory, Arkansas, and 

would be within 0.25 mile of the Fayetteville Lateral, east of the pipeline between approximate MP 85.9 

and MP 86.2. The fairgrounds is on Hwy 64B between McCrory and Patterson. The Three County Fair 

occurs annually in the second week of September at the fairgrounds. This event draws less than 3,000 

people annually (Bradford, 2007). Other activities that occur at the fairgrounds during the year include 

activities associated with the Woodruff County Agricultural Extension, the annual Agricultural Expo, 

local 4H activities, and other similar community events. Because the permanent right-of-way would not 

cross any portion of the fairgrounds and because the events that occur throughout the year do not result in 

large volumes of people or traffic accessing the fairgrounds, there would be no impact on this resource 

from construction and operation of the Project. 

Cache River NWR. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross the Cache River NWR between MP 

82.0 and MP 82.8, and the Bayou De View portion of the NWR between MP 95.9 and MP 96.6. The 

Cache River NWR contains a variety of wetland communities, including some of the most intact and least 

disturbed bottomland hardwood forests in the Mississippi valley region. These unique and valuable 

wetlands are protected by the Ramsar Convention as “Wetlands of International Importance” (FWS, 

2007a). At present, the NWR encompasses over 56,000 acres in non-contiguous tracts in Jackson, 

Woodruff, Monroe, and Prairie Counties, Arkansas. Recreational activities in the NWR include yearround boating and fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography (FWS, 2007a). 

To minimize impacts on the Cache River NWR, Texas Gas would cross this resource by HDD. The HDD 

exit hole would be on private land at MP 82.3, the HDD entry hole would be on private land at MP 83.0, 

and the length of the HDD would be about 4,118 feet. The Project would cross under the Cache River at 

MP 82.7 and would avoid direct impact on the waterbody. Similarly, the Bayou De View element of the 

Cache River NWR would be crossed by HDD. The HDD exit hole would be on private land at MP 95.6, 

the HDD entry hole would be on private land at MP 96.2, and the length of the HDD would be about 

2,376 feet. The Project would cross under Bayou De View at MP 95.9, avoiding direct impact on the 

waterbody. The proposed HDD crossings of the Cache River NWR would avoid impact on the NWR that 

otherwise would result from clearing a construction right-of-way through forest, forested wetland, and 

other habitat and would avoid disturbance of the Cache River and Bayou De View. Impacts on about 7.1 

acres4

 of land along the Cache River HDD and impacts on about 4.1 acres along the Bayou De View 

HDD path would be avoided. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would have minimal 

impact on the Cache River NWR. 

NRI Waters. The NRI is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States 

that are believed to possess one or more natural or cultural ORV judged to be of more than local or 

regional significance. For a waterbody to be listed in the NRI, it must exhibit at least one of nine ORVs 

related to scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, prehistory, history, culture, and “other values,” 

which may include hydrology, paleontology, and botany resources. 

Bayou De View flows through Monroe and Woodruff Counties, Arkansas, and would be crossed by the 

Fayetteville Lateral between MP 95.9 and MP 96. It is eligible for NRI listing because of these ORVs: 

scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, and other values that exist within the river. Big Creek flows through 

Cleburne, White, and Independence Counties, Arkansas, and would be crossed by the Fayetteville Lateral 

at MP 46. It is eligible for NRI listing because of these ORVs: scenery, recreation, and geology. Cadron 

Creek flows through Conway, Van Buren, Faulkner, and Cleburne Counties, Arkansas, and would be 

crossed by the Fayetteville Lateral between MP 13.9 and MP 14. It is eligible for NRI listing because of 

these ORVs: scenery, recreation, geology, fish, and wildlife. 

 

4

 Assuming a nominal 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

4-97 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A

R

K

A

N

S

A S

A

R

K

A

N

S

A S

M I S

S I S

S I P

P I

M I S

S I S

S I P

P I

TT EE NN NN EE SS SS EE EE

LL OO UU II SS II AA NN AA

Flatside

Wilderness

Pine Bluff

Arsenal

Camp Joseph

T. Robinson

Sardis

Lake

Nimrod Lake

Lake

Ouachita

Grenada Lake

Greers

Ferry Lake

Enid Lake

DeGray

Lake

Dardanelle

Lake

Cache River

Mitigation Project

Arkabutla

Lake

Little

Rock Air

Force Base Saint Francis

National Forest

Ozark

National

Forest

Ouachita

National

Forest

Kisatchie

National

Forest

Holly Springs

National

Forest

Delta

National

Forest

Hot Springs

National Park

Arkansas Post National Park Holly Springs

National Forest

Tombigbee

National Forest

K & R

Park

Arkabutla State

Waterfowl Refuge

301 Ball

Park

Pecan

Grove Park

Wall Doxey State Park

Village Creek

State Park

Stuart Springs Park

Miller Park

John W Kyle State Park

Winterville

State

Park

Leroy Percy

State Park

Hugh White

State Park

Holmes

County

State Park

White Oak Lake State Park

Stephens

Park

Moro Bay State Park

Mc Cloy Park

Lake Chicot

State

Park

Woolly Hollow

State Park

Trulock

Park

Toltec

Mounds

State Park

Tar

Camp

Park

Rising Star Park

Pinnacle Mtn

State Park

Palarm Park

Little Rock

Reservior Park

Little

Bayou

Meto Park

John Cain

Municipal

Park

Friendly Acres Park

Camp Robinson

State Wma

Petit Jean State Park

M J Hickey

Park

Lake

Catherine

State Park

Hill Wheatley

Park

Arkadelphia

Central

Park

Nimrod State Game

Management Area

Ed Gordon/ Pt.

Remove WMA

Ring Slough WMA

Trusten Holder WMA

White Hall WMA

Lee County WMA

Dagmar WMA

Seven Devils WMA

Bayou Des Arc WMA

Piney Creek WMA

Beryl Anthony / Lower Ouachita WMA

Big Creek WMA

Poison Spring State

Forest / WMA

Ethel Tract WMA

Rex Hancock / Black Swamp WMA

Choctaw Island WMA

Winona WMA

Cypress Bayou WMA

Cutt-Off WMA

Departee Creek WMA

Henry Gray/ Hurricane

Lake WMA

Prairie Bayou WMA

Bayo Meto WMA

Wattensaw WMA

Little Bayou WMA

TALLAHATCHIE NWR

BALD KNOB NWR

CACHE RIVER NWR

COLDWATER RIVER NWR

DAHOMEY NWR

FELSENTHAL NWR

FELSENTHAL NWR

HOLLA BEND NWR

MORGAN

BRAKE

NWR

MATHEWS BRAKE NWR

NOXUBEE NWR

OVERFLOW NWR

PANTHER SWAMP NWR

TALLAHATCHIE NWR

WHITE RIVER NWR

WHITE RIVER NWR

WAPANOCCA NWR

YAZOO NWR HILLSIDE NWR

Pine Tree WMA

Nanih Waiya WMA

Sunflower WMA

John W. Starr Memorial WMA

Stoneville WMA

Malmaison WMA

Calhoun

County WMA

Chickasaw WMA

O'Keefe WMA

Upper Sardis WMA

Graham Waterfowl Area

Hell Creek WMA

Woodruff

County

Fairgrounds

Holmes County

Country Club

Big Creek Cadron Creek

Bayou De View

Big Black River

Natchez

Trace

Parkway

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #002381.TT11.01

\\BUFSDL4\GIS\Buffalo\Texas_Gas\Maps\MXD\Special_Landuses.mxd 9/13/2007

0 12.5 25

Miles

T X

K S M O

O K A R

I L

A L

L A

M S

I N

T N

K Y

Source:

ESRI, 2007; Texas Gas, 2007; PennWell MapSearch, 2000; US FWS, 2001;

National Wilderness Preservation System, 2005; FGDC, 2005; AR Highway &Transportation Dept, 2006

Figure 4.8.3-1

Managed Land and Special Land Use Areas

in the Project Area

Point of Interest

Proposed Texas Gas Route

NRI ORV Waters

National Parkway

State Game Land

Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

Wilderness Area

Department of Defence

National Forest

National Park

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)

Local Park

County

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Bayou De View and Big Creek would be crossed by HDD, thereby avoiding impacts on their ORVs. 

Cadron Creek would be crossed by open-cut at a location where the Fayetteville Lateral would be 

collocated with an existing Ozark pipeline. Collocation would result in a wider pipeline corridor at the 

Cadron Creek crossing, but it would not result in a new pipeline corridor; therefore, new impacts on this 

waterbody would be minimized by using this crossing location. Texas Gas would comply with the rightof-way maintenance measures in our Procedures, which limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to 

waterbodies to allow a riparian strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody’s mean high 

water mark, to permanently revegetate with native plant species across the entire construction right-ofway. We have recommended that Texas Gas coordinate with NPS and ADEQ to further minimize 

impacts related to construction across this waterbody. Texas Gas would implement any additional 

requirements the NPS and ADEQ may have to address this issue. Therefore, impacts related to 

construction and operation of the Fayetteville Lateral across NRI waters would be minimized to the 

greatest extent practicable. 

Greenville Lateral 

The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross three recreation and special land use areas. No recreation or 

special interest areas would be within 0.25 mile of the proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station site at MP 

96.4. 

Holmes County Country Club. Holmes County Country Club would be crossed by the Greenville 

Lateral between MP 63.4 and 63.5. The Holmes County Country Club management anticipates that no 

facilities at the property would be impacted by the Greenville Lateral. Therefore, construction and 

operation of the Project would have minimal impact on recreational activities at the Holmes County 

Country Club. 

Hillside NWR. The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross the northern tip of the Hillside NWR 

between MP 54.1 and MP 55.9, in Holmes County. The NWR, which was named for its unique 15,572-

acre location along the base of bluffs in Holmes County, provides stop-over and nesting habitat to 

thousands of migratory birds. The NWR was created when lands associated with a USACE flood control 

project were transferred to the FWS in 1975. To avoid impacts on Hillside NWR, Texas Gas would cross 

the NWR by HDD. The HDD exit hole would be on private land at MP 54.6, the HDD entry hole would 

be on private land at MP 54.0, and the length of the HDD would be about 3,326 feet. The Greenville 

Lateral would cross under Fannegusha Creek (MP 54.2), which flows through the NWR. The proposed 

HDD crossing of the Hillside NWR would avoid impacts on about 7.6 acres of land in the NWR that 

otherwise would result from clearing a construction right-of-way through forest, forested wetland, and 

other habitat. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would have minimal impact on the 

Hillside NWR. 

Natchez Trace Parkway. The Natchez Trace Parkway (the Parkway) is a 444-mile parkway system that 

connects southern portions of the Mississippi River valley, northern Alabama, and central Tennessee. 

Recreational opportunities associated with the parkway include scenic driving, hiking, biking, horseback 

riding, and camping. The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway from MP 

92.8 to MP 93.0 in Attala County, Mississippi. Several alternatives were evaluated to cross the Natchez 

Trace Parkway, and a preferred crossing was chosen in consultation with the NPS where no developed 

recreational or service features were identified within 0.25 mile of the pipeline corridor. Figure 4.8.3-1 

shows the proposed Greenville Lateral route relative to the Natchez Trace Parkway. Appendix F presents 

a detailed assessment of the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

4-99 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Texas Gas would use an HDD to cross the Natchez Trace Parkway to minimize and avoid direct 

construction impacts due to disturbance of vegetation and soil. Use of an HDD to cross the Natchez 

Trace Parkway would not create a new utility corridor and would not widen an existing corridor, thereby 

minimizing the visual impact of Project construction in this area. Construction-related dust and noise, 

which would be limited to a period of several days during the HDD process, would have minimal effect 

on recreational activities or traffic along the Natchez Trace Parkway. Texas Gas would work with the 

NPS on the timing of construction and other ways to minimize construction impacts 

One of the primary concerns in crossing public areas is the impact that pipeline construction and 

operation can have on recreational activities. Disruption and noise during construction could be a 

nuisance to hikers, hunters, fishermen, sightseers, and campers, and could cause disturbance to wildlife, 

especially in protected management areas. Since pipeline construction is generally scheduled for 

summer, when recreational activities are typically at their peak, this impact would be unavoidable. Since 

the Parkway would be crossed by HDD, construction noise would be centered around the activities at the 

HDD entry and exit hole workspaces and would be short-term. Operation of the Project would have no 

effect on the Natchez Trace Parkway since there would be no surface maintenance of the permanent rightof-way at the road crossing along the path of the HDD. 

NRI Waters. Big Black River would be crossed by the proposed Greenville Lateral between MP 77.7 

and 77.8. This river flows through Claiborn, Warren, Hinds, Yazoo, Madison, Holmes, Attala, Carroll, 

and Montgomery Counties, Mississippi, and is eligible for NRI listing because it possesses ORVs related 

to scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, history, and culture. 

Big Black River would be crossed by HDD, thereby avoiding impacts on its ORVs. Therefore, impacts 

related to construction and operation of the Greenville Lateral across NRI waters would be minimized to 

the greatest extent practicable. 

Kosciusko Tie-in Laterals 

The Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-In Lateral would not cross any 

recreational or special land use areas. 

4.8.4 Visual Resources 

Pipeline Right-of- Way

Visual impacts associated with the construction right-of-way and ATWS would include the removal of 

existing vegetation and exposure of bare soils, as well as tracks resulting from the use of heavy equipment 

to perform earthwork and grading activities, trenching, blasting, rock formation alteration or removal, and 

machinery and tool storage used during construction. Other visual impacts could result from the removal 

of large individual trees that have intrinsic aesthetic value; the removal or alteration of vegetation that 

could provide a visual barrier; or landscape changes. Visual impacts would be greatest where the Project 

would parallel or cross roads, trails, or prominent observation points, and where the pipeline right-of-way 

would be obvious to passing motorists or recreational users. The greatest potential visual impact would 

result from the removal of large specimen trees, which would take much longer than other vegetation 

types to regenerate and would be prevented from re-establishing on the permanently maintained 50-footwide right-of-way. Topographic alterations such as side hill cuts, which could be necessary for 

construction, would be re-contoured and re-vegetated during right-of-way restoration. The visibility of 

such alterations would diminish over time as the affected areas are restored and begin to blend in with the 

surrounding landscape. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-100 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
To minimize construction impacts on visual resources, the Project would be collocated adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way where feasible. This alignment would minimize impacts on visual sightlines and 

intrinsic value by minimizing the creation of new corridors. In areas where right-of-way collocation is 

not feasible for engineering and/or construction reasons, Texas Gas would align the Project to avoid 

aesthetic features, including large, mature trees, to the extent practicable. Further, much of the area where 

new pipeline corridors are proposed would be in agricultural or open land use areas, so minimal tree 

clearing would be needed for pipeline construction. Clearing trees to create utility corridors has a longterm to permanent impact on visual resources due to this alteration of the landscape. Therefore, 

construction and operation of the proposed Project pipeline facilities would have minimal impact on 

visual resources. 

Aboveground Facilities

Texas Gas would construct 19 M&R stations, 11 MLVs, two pig launchers, and two pig receivers along 

the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. In addition, Texas Gas would construct one new compressor station (at 

MP 96.4), 10 M&R stations, 10 MLVs, one pig launcher, and one pig receiver along the proposed 

Greenville Lateral. These aboveground structures would be permanent and remain in operation 

throughout the life of the pipelines. 

The impacts on visual resources resulting from construction and operation of the M&R stations, MLVs, 

and launcher and receiver assemblies would be minimal due to the small size of each facility. M&R 

stations would range in size from about 0.9 acre up to 2.6 acres. Each MLV and each launcher/receiver 

would be less than 0.1 acre in size. Landscaping would be added where feasible around the new M&R 

stations, MLVs, and launcher and receiver assemblies to further help these facilities blend in to the 

surrounding landscape. 

The Kosciusko Compressor Station would be at the eastern end of the Greenville Lateral, and would 

impact about 65 acres during operation. The compressor station would be surrounded primarily by forest 

and agricultural land and would be adjacent to an existing Texas Eastern compressor station. Visual 

impacts associated with this facility would not be considered substantial due to the topography of the 

area, which consists of vegetated rolling hills, which provide natural screening. Construction of the 

facility would have limited visual effects on off-site resources or land uses, as only a limited number of 

potential viewers would have a direct line of sight of the facility and would notice the change in land use 

from forest and agricultural land to developed land due to its remote location. Landscaping around the 

new compressor station would further help diminish its presence and would be implemented as feasible. 

Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would have a permanent 

impact on visual resources, but this impact would be minimized by vegetative screening, topography, and 

remote location. 

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste 

Fayetteville Lateral

Review of published federal and state databases identified one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) small quantity generator (SQG) north of MP 128 and one underground storage tank (UST) north 

of MP 58, about 1,500 feet and 900 feet, respectively, from the proposed Fayetteville Lateral corridor. 

No violations have been reported for either site. Therefore, we believe that the potential for 

contamination from these sites to impact the Project is low. 

4-101 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Greenville Lateral

The Greenville Lateral would be connected to the upstream end of the Greenville Compressor Station at 

MP 0.0. Texas Gas’s existing mainline pipeline system at the Greenville Compressor Station is currently 

identified as regulated for PCBs. However, previous monitoring of pipeline fluids at this compressor 

station indicated PCB concentrations were less than 10 parts per million (ppm) for twelve consecutive 

quarterly monitoring events and never exceeded the EPA standard of 50 ppm. The Greenville 

Compressor Station would be downstream of the proposed Greenville Lateral tie-in. Therefore, we do not 

believe PCB contamination to pose a significant risk at this location for the proposed Project. 

The existing Texas Eastern Kosciusko Compressor Station, a former National Priorities List (NPL) site, 

would be near the terminus of the Greenville Lateral and Texas Gas’s proposed Kosciusko Compressor 

Station. While PCB contamination has been identified at Texas Eastern’s facility, it would be down 

gradient from Texas Gas’s proposed compressor station. Therefore, we do not believe that PCB 

contamination to pose a significant risk at this location for the proposed Project. 

Kosciusko 36-inch and 20-inch Tie-in Laterals

The Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross Little Conehoma Creek, which was previously 

remediated for PCBs by Texas Eastern. The site was removed from the NPL in 1998, but it is still under 

state jurisdiction. Files reviewed at the MDEQ indicated that sediments in the creek had been remediated 

to less than 1 mg/kg PCBs, while soils along stream banks had been remediated to less than 5 mg/kg. 

Texas Gas sampled surface soil, stream sediment, and subsurface soil to characterize the current 

distribution of PCBs in the area of the Little Conehoma Creek crossing. All PCB concentrations were 

less than 1 mg/kg. Based on available information, we do not believe that PCB levels in Little Cohoma 

Creek are significant. In the event that petroleum-stained soil was identified during excavation in the 

vicinity of Little Conehoma Creek, it would be segregated, properly characterized for disposal, and 

managed appropriately in accordance with all applicable regulations and handling protocols. Since Texas 

Gas would have appropriately trained environmental inspectors on site during construction to implement 

these protocols if they are needed, and since Texas Eastern completed site remediation, we conclude that 

possible PBC contamination would not be a significant risk at this location for the propose Project. 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Several potential socioeconomic effects may result from construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. Some of these potential effects are related to the number of local and non-local workers who 

would work on the construction-phase of the Project, payrolls and local expenditures, and impacts on 

population, public services, and housing during the construction period. Other potential effects related to 

construction include increased traffic or disruption of normal traffic patterns in the Project vicinity and 

increased expenditures for construction materials by Texas Gas. Potential economic impacts associated 

with operation of the Project include increased property tax revenue, increased job opportunities and 

income, and ongoing local expenditures by the operating company. 

4.9.1 Region of Influence 

The Fayetteville Lateral would cross eight counties in Arkansas (Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White, 

Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips) and Coahoma County in Mississippi. The Greenville Lateral 

would cross five counties in Mississippi (Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, Holmes, and Attala). The 

proposed compressor station and tie-in laterals also are located in Attala County. For the purposes of our 

socioeconomic analysis, we define these counties as the region of influence for the proposed Project. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-102 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.9.2 Population 

Table 4.9.2-1 provides a summary of the population characteristics for the counties that would be affected 

by the proposed Project. 

TABLE 4.9.2-1 

Population Summary for Counties Crossed by the Proposed Project 

2006 Population 

Estimate c/ County, State 2000 Population a/ 2000 Population Density (persons/square mile) b/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Cleburne, AR 24,046 43.5 25,485 

Conway, AR 20,336 36.6 20,694 

Faulkner, AR 86,014 132.9 100,685 

Lee, AR 12,580 20.9 11,379 

Phillips, AR 26,445 38.2 23,331 

St. Francis, AR 29,329 46.3 27,535 

White, AR 67,165 65.0 72,560 

Woodruff, AR 8,741 14.9 7,905 

Coahoma, MS 30,622 55.3 28,420 

Fayetteville Lateral Total 305,278 50.4 317,994 

Greenville Lateral 

Attala, MS 19,661 26.7 19,644 

Holmes, MS 21,609 28.6 20,866 

Humphreys, MS 11,206 48.5 10,393 

Sunflower, MS 34,369 49.5 31,833 

Washington, MS 62,977 87 58,007 

Greenville Lateral Total 149,822 48.1 140,743 

__________ 

Sources: 

a/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a. 

b/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b. 

c/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007.

The counties along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral had a total estimated population of 317,994 for the 

year 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). This represents an increase of 12,716, or 4.17 percent, since the 

year 2000. Faulkner County is the most densely populated county affected by the proposed Fayetteville 

Lateral, with a population density of nearly 133 people per square mile in the year 2000, more than 

double that of Arkansas as a whole (51.3 people per square mile). The city of Searcy in Faulkner County, 

and the city of Conway in White County are the largest population centers in the Fayetteville Lateral 

region of influence. However, the proposed Fayetteville Lateral route is located away from both the cities 

of Searcy and Conway. The other counties along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral are comprised of 

scattered small towns and agricultural communities. 

The counties that would be crossed by the proposed Greenville Lateral had an estimated population of 

140,743 in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). This represents a decrease of 9,079, or 6.06 percent, since 

4-103 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
the year 2000. Washington County is the most densely populated county crossed by the proposed 

Greenville Lateral, with a population density of 87 people per square mile in the year 2000, which is 

slightly greater than the state average of 60.6 people per square mile. The City of Greenville, in 

Washington County, is the largest population center in the Greenville Lateral region of influence. 

The population within the region of influence would increase temporarily during construction, which 

would occur between June 2008 and January 2009. The peak construction workforce would be 1,800 

workers, of which an estimated 90 (5 percent) would be hired locally. Construction of the pipeline and its 

associated facilities would be conducted simultaneously using several spreads and require varied labor 

skills. The Fayetteville Lateral would be constructed in four spreads, with a peak employment of 225 

workers in each spread, and another spread involving 450 workers would construct the Mississippi River 

crossing; the Greenville Lateral would be constructed in two spreads, with a peak employment of 225 

workers in each spread. These workers would be distributed along the length of the proposed Project 

route and throughout the region of influence, minimizing the potential population-level and demographic 

effects on any individual county. In addition, given the short duration estimated for construction of the 

pipeline facilities (June 2008 to January 2009), it is unlikely that workers would relocate to the Project 

area with their families. Based on the construction workforce data presented, the only population impact 

that would result from the Project would be a minor, temporary population increase confined to the period 

of construction. 

Following construction of the Project, Texas Gas would add about four full-time positions to maintain 

and operate the new pipeline and aboveground facilities. These positions would be filled by hiring either 

current local residents or non-local personnel. This small increase in permanent residents would not have 

an adverse impact on the overall population of the area. 

4.9.3 Employment and Economy 

The civilian labor force within the 14-county region of influence of the Project totaled 194,990 persons 

for the years 2006/2007. Current economic and employment conditions in the counties along the Project 

are presented in table 4.9.3-1. 

The major employment sectors along both routes include manufacturing, educational, health and social 

services. The average unemployment rate for the Fayetteville Lateral region of influence (10.7 percent) is 

almost double the 2006/2007 Arkansas average of 5.8 percent. The average unemployment rate along the 

Greenville Lateral (11.5 percent) is also higher than the Mississippi state average of 7.0 percent. 

Texas Gas expects to use a predominately non-local workforce for construction of both laterals. Because 

of the specialized nature of gas pipeline construction, construction personnel would be hired by one or 

more gas pipeline contractors. Most of the personnel would be part of the contractors’ regular crews and 

hired from outside the Project area. It is anticipated that only about 5 percent of the construction 

workforce would be hired from within the Project area, comprising about 471 worker-months. There may 

be increased local economic activity in the hospitality and transportation sectors due to construction 

activity. The relatively high unemployment rate in both Project areas suggests that any employment in 

these sectors could be accommodated from within the existing employed workforce. The local jobs and 

any indirect employment from the Project would represent a temporary and minimal increase in 

employment opportunities within the region of influence. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-104 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.9.3-1 

Economic and Employment Conditions 

County, State 

2000 Per 

Capita 

Income (U.S. 

dollars) a/ 

2000 Civilian 

Labor Force 

(persons) b/ 

2006/2007 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

(persons) c/ 

2000 

Unemployment 

Rate 

(percent) d/ 

20006/2007 

Unemployment 

Rate (percent) 

c/, e/ 

2000 Major 

Employment by 

Industry (percent) f/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Cleburne, AR $17,250 10,237 11,375 4.9 6.1 Manufacturing (22.3) 

Conway, AR $16,056 9,154 9,750 6.6 5.2 Manufacturing (20.7) 

Faulkner, AR $17,988 45,556 52,075 6.7 4.6 Educational, health 

and social services 

(22.6) 

Lee, AR $10,983 4,133 3,375 13.2 10.9 Educational, health 

and social services 

(22.3) 

Phillips, AR $12,288 10,062 8,700 11.3 9.9 Educational, health 

and social services 

(23.9) 

St. Francis, AR $12,483 11,201 10,625 11.3 9.6 Educational, health 

and social services 

(18.4) 

White, AR $15,890 32,836 32,250 11.3 7.7 Educational, health 

and social services 

(20.3) 

Woodruff, AR $13,269 3,775 3,450 8.0 13.2 Educational, health 

and social services 

(18.9) 

Coahoma, MS $12,558 11,257 11,600 10.1 11.6 Educational, health 

and social services 

(23.2) 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Total County 

$11,342 138,211 143,200 12.81 10.71 N/A 

Greenville Lateral 

Attala, MS $13,782 13,782 7,230 7.0 8.6 Manufacturing (21.2) 

Holmes, MS $10,683 7,599 7,080 17.3 12.8 Manufacturing (24.6) 

Humphreys, MS $10,926 4,126 4,020 11.4 13.5 Manufacturing (22.3) 

Sunflower, MS $11,365 11,899 11,070 12.8 12.4 Educational, health 

and social services 

(21.7) 

Washington, MS $13,430 25,765 22,390 11.9 11 Manufacturing (19.2) 

Greenville Lateral 

Total County 

$12,419 63,171 51,790 12.2 11.5 N/A 

__________ 

Sources: 

a/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c. 

b/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000d. 

c/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000e. 

d/ U.S. Department of Labor, n.d. 

e/ ADWS, 2007. 

f/ MDES, 2006. 

4-105 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-106 

During the operations phase, it is estimated that four permanent employees would be hired to maintain the 

pipeline right-of-way and the compressor and M&R stations. Two of these employees would be 

employed in Arkansas and two would be employed in Mississippi. These employees would be hired from 

either the existing local workforce or from outside the area. Because of the short duration of the 

construction period and the small staff hired to maintain the pipeline, no permanent decrease in the 

unemployment rate would be expected as a result of the Project. 

Construction of the Project would increase economic activity within the region of influence through the 

sum of three effects: (1) the direct effect, i.e., the hiring of local construction workers and purchases of 

goods and services from local businesses; (2) the indirect effect, i.e., the additional demands for goods 

and services, such as replacing inventory from the firms that sell goods and services directly to the 

Project; and (3) the induced effect, i.e., the spending of disposable income by the construction workers at 

local businesses, which in turn order new inventory from their suppliers. The resulting total, temporary 

increase in economic activity resulting from the sum of these three effects would provide a positive 

economic impact for the region. 

4.9.4 Local Taxes and Government Revenue 

Tax revenues from several sources would accrue to state and local governments during construction and 

operation of the Project. During construction, tax revenue would accrue due to sales taxes on local 

purchases and, in the case of Mississippi, to a state contractor’s tax. Once the Project is completed, 

property taxes would be assessed based on the value of the pipeline and related facilities. 

4.9.4.1

4.9.4.2

4.9.4.3

Sales and Use Taxes 

Purchases of non-labor goods and services within the region during construction of the pipeline and 

related facilities would generate a significant amount of tax revenue in both Arkansas and Mississippi. 

The total amount of sales and use taxes generated during construction would depend on the specific types 

of non-labor goods purchased but would typically be associated with the purchase of vehicle and 

construction equipment, fuel, and other miscellaneous expenditures Texas Gas estimates that the Project 

would generate for state and local governments a total of $1,723,000 from local purchases: $912,000 in 

Arkansas and $811,000 in Mississippi. In addition, while not included in this total, non-local workers 

would be assumed to spend part of their payroll income for local temporary lodging and food, which 

would generate, by induced effect, additional local sales tax revenue. 

Special Contractor Tax 

The State of Mississippi levies a 3.5 percent tax on the value of all major construction projects during the 

first year of construction. Based on the estimated $322 million cost of the proposed Greenville Lateral 

plus the cost of the portion of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral that would be located in Coahoma 

County, Mississippi, this tax would provide a payment of $12.2 million to the State of Mississippi. 

Property Tax Revenues 

Construction and operation of the Project would generate additional revenues for the governmental 

entities with tax jurisdiction over the facilities associated with the Project (see table 4.9.4-1). Based on a 

total assessed value of $828,379,000 for both the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals and their associated 

facilities, the Project would generate about $8,175,000 in property tax revenue per year. It is estimated 

that about $2,510,576 per year in Arkansas and $5,663,951 per year in Mississippi would be paid in 

property taxes to the counties located along the pipeline routes. This calculation assumes that the annual 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4-107 

TABLE 4.9.4-1 

Estimated Property Tax Revenues 

County 

Percentage of 

Route 

(percent) 

Estimated Right-ofWay Value in County Estimated M&R Value in County Estimated Compressor Value in County Total Value In Cou

Fayetteville Lateral Cleburne, AR 1.4 $6,706,000 -- $6,706,000 Conway, AR 4.7 $22,782,000 $3,081,000 -- $25,863,000 Faulkner, AR 12.9 $62,608,000 $6,161,000 -- $68,769,000 Lee, AR 13.7 $66,473,000 -- $66,473,000 Phillips, AR 11.1 $54,204,000 -- $54,204,000 St. Francis, AR 5.2 $25,096,000 -- $25,096,000 White, AR 22.9 $111,658,000 $9,242,000 -- $120,900,000 Woodruff, AR 23.1 $112,390,000 -- $112,390,000 Coahoma, MS 5.1 $24,715,000 $1,027,000 -- $25,742,000 

Fayetteville Lateral Total 

County 

100.0 $486,631,600 $19,511,000 -- $506,143,000 

Greenville Lateral Attala, MS 20.4 $55,379,294 $5,296,000 $37,388,000 $98,063,000 Holmes, MS 32.4 $87,938,980 -- $87,939,000 Humphreys, MS 26.4 $71,798,281 $ 2,648,000 -- $74,446,000 Sunflower, MS 2.9 $7,792,061 -- $7,792,000 Washington, MS 17.9 $48,700,384 $5,296,000 $53,996,000 

Greenville Lateral Total 

County 

100.0 $271,609,000 $13,239,110 $37,388,000 $322,236,000 

Arkansas Total -- $461,916,600 $18,484,000 -- $480,401,000 

Mississippi Total -- $296,324,000 $14,266,110 $37,388,000 $347,978,000 

Total $758,241,000 32,750,000 $37,388,000 $828,379,000 

Source: Texas Gas, 2007. __________ 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
tax revenues produced by the pipeline system would depend on the assessed value and the tax rates in the 

jurisdictions crossed by the pipelines. 

4.9.4.4 Impacts on Government Revenues 

During construction of the Project, public services, including police services, emergency medical 

services, and permitting and inspections, would be required from local government entities. In addition, 

there may be incurred costs due to uncompensated damages to local and state roads and highways and 

energy costs associated with traffic delays due to construction activities. Given the length of the Project 

and the number of affected local governments, the incremental cost to provide these additional public 

service and transportation infrastructure requirements cannot be easily quantified. Local government 

revenues associated with construction and operation of the Project, including the direct, indirect, and 

induced economic impacts from workforce wages, sales, and use taxes; special contractor taxes; and 

property taxes would generate a projected $1.7 million in sales taxes, and $12.2 million from 

Mississippi’s Special Contractor’s Tax. In addition, it is estimated that the Project would generate about 

$8.1 million in property taxes per year for the municipalities located along the Project route. While a 

definite expense cannot be estimated for the costs incurred by local governments for providing the 

services needed to facilitate the Project, it is assumed that those costs are less than the revenues that 

would be generated by local governments as a result of the Project. 

4.9.5 Housing 

Table 4.9.5-1 presents housing statistics for the counties along the proposed Project route. There were 

127,367 housing units in the Fayetteville Lateral area in 2000, of which almost 12 percent were vacant. 

There were 55,935 housing units in the Greenville Lateral area in 2000, of which almost 10 percent were 

vacant. 

In addition table 4.9.5-2 describes the temporary housing conditions in the counties that would be crossed 

by the proposed Project. Based on the most current data, there are 44 hotel/motels within the nine 

counties along the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. The majority of these are in the larger cities and towns 

along the western portion of the Fayetteville Lateral (cities of Conway and Searcy). The rest are in 

Mariana, Forrest City, and West Helena along the eastern portion of the pipeline route. There are only a 

limited number of hotel/motel rooms available in Attala, Sunflower, and Washington Counties, 

Mississippi (12 hotels/motels) along the proposed Greenville Lateral. The cities of Winona and 

Greenwood (Carroll County), which are about 25 to 30 miles north of the Greenville Lateral, have 12 

additional hotels/motels. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not be expected to have significant direct or 

indirect impacts on housing stocks. Housing impacts would vary from community to community, 

depending on the number of non-local workers that temporarily reside in each community, the duration of 

their stay, and the size of the community. Although these factors are too indeterminate and variable to 

accurately predict the magnitude of impact, the effects would be short term and, therefore, are not 

expected to be significant. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-108 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.9.5-1 

Existing Housing Conditions in Affected Counties (2000) 

State, County Total Housing 

Units a/ 

Occupied Housing 

Units b/ 

Vacant Housing 

Units c/ 

Homeowner 

Vacancy Rate 

(percent) d,e,f/ 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Cleburne, AR 13,732 10,190 3,542 3.1 

Conway, AR 9,028 7,967 1,061 1.9 

Faulkner, AR 34,546 31,882 2,664 2.6 

Lee, AR 4,768 4,182 586 2.4 

Phillips, AR 10,859 9,711 1,148 2.9 

St. Francis, AR 11,242 10,043 1,199 2.1 

White, AR 27,613 25,148 2,465 2.8 

Woodruff, AR 4,089 3,531 558 2.1 

Coahoma, MS 11,490 10,553 937 1.8 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Total 

127,367 113,207 14,160 2.4 

Greenville Lateral 

Attala, MS 8,639 7,567 1,072 1.7 

Holmes, MS 8,439 7,314 1,125 1.5 

Humphreys, MS 4,138 3,765 373 0.7 

Sunflower, MS 10,338 9,637 701 1.6 

Washington, MS 24,381 22,158 2,223 1.6 

Greenville Lateral Total 55,935 50,441 5,494 1.4 

__________ 

Sources: 

a/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000f. 

b/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000g. 

c/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000h. 

d/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000i. 

e/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000j. 

f/ U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. (1) 

4-109 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.9.5-2 

Existing Temporary Housing Conditions in Affected Counties 

State, County 

Rental Vacancy 

Rate 

(percent) a,b,c/ 

Hotel/Motels 

d,e/ 

Vacant Housing Units 

for Rent f/ Mobile Home Spaces g/ 

Fayetteville Expansion Lateral 

Cleburne, AR 10.4 8 2,169 232 

Conway, AR 10.0 3 1,544 1,757 

Faulkner, AR 8.7 10 956 5,795 

Lee, AR 11.1 3 190 698 

Phillips, AR 10.5 9 498 1,049 

St. Francis, AR 11.2 8 464 1,733 

White, AR 9.7 8 731 5,405 

Woodruff, AR 7.4 1 98 500 

Coahoma, MS 4.9 2 231 996 

Fayetteville Lateral 

Total 

9.9 44 6,150 12,760 

Greenville Lateral 

Attala, MS 6.6 3 120 1,698 

Holmes, MS 3.5 NA 71 2,265 

Humphreys, MS 6 NA 92 514 

Sunflower 5.2 4 203 751 

Washington, MS 8.1 5 794 2,102 

Arkansas 9.6 NA 33,740 174,831 

Mississippi 9.2 NA 29,486 192,749 

Greenville Lateral 

Total 

6.8 12 1,280 7,330 

__________ 

Sources: 

a/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000k. 

b/ U.S. Census Bureau, 2000l. 

c/ U.S. Census Bureau, n.d. (2) 

d/ Hotels Travel, 2007. 

e/ Google Maps, 2007. 

f/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000m. 

g/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2000n. 

Because the workforce for the Project would be largely comprised of non-local contract workers and the 

work would be completed in less than a year, worker housing would likely consist of existing temporary 

housing facilities. With most workers likely returning to their out-of-area homes on weekends and 

holidays, the housing demand would likely focus on motels. Some contract construction workers use 

travel trailers and thus would require camp sites or trailer park spaces. Workers who would be employed 

for several months might use rental housing, but given the fairly short duration of construction, this would 

involve a limited number of units. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-110 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
No other known major construction projects or major tourist events that might compete for temporary 

housing units would occur within the Project area during the anticipated July 2008 to March 2009 

construction period. At present, it is reasonable to assume that the housing facilities available near the 

Project would be able to accommodate the expected workforce. No long-term impacts on local housing 

would be anticipated once the Project is completed and operational. 

4.9.6 Public Services 

The Project areas of both the Fayetteville and Greenville laterals have well-developed infrastructures 

capable of providing health, schooling, police, fire, and emergency services. Table 4.9.6-1 identifies the 

number of full-time police, fire, and medical departments or facilities in each of the Project areas. Since 

the Project would not result in an increase in local populations or any subsequent growth in school-aged 

populations, educational services have not been included in the examination of public services. 

TABLE 4.9.6-1 

Existing Public Services and Facilities in Affected Counties 

State/County Police/Sheriff 

Departments a/ Fire Departments a/ Medical Facilities a, b, c/ 

Fayetteville Expansion Lateral 

Cleburne, AR 3 7 1 

Conway, AR 2 9 1 

Faulkner, AR 4 14 2 

Lee, AR 2 3 0 

Phillips, AR 5 8 2 

St. Francis, AR 3 4 1 

White, AR 7 19 2 

Woodruff, AR 4 3 0 

Coahoma, MS 4 2 2 

Fayetteville Lateral Total 34 69 11 

Greenville Expansion Lateral 

Attala, MS 3 3 1 

Holmes, MS 8 0 1 

Humphreys, MS 4 1 1 

Sunflower, MS 8 2 2 

Washington ,MS 6 5 2 

Greenville Lateral Total 29 11 7 

__________ 

Source: 

a/ Capitol Impact, 2007. 

b/ Mississippi Hospital Association, 2007. 

c/ Arkansas Hospital Association, 2007. 

4-111 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Minor temporary impacts on public services and facilities would likely occur during construction, but not 

during operation, of the proposed Project. The majority of the Project area is lightly populated and relies 

on nearby population centers for public services and infrastructure. However, the entire area is covered 

by emergency “911” service. The cities of Clarksdale, Helena, Forrest City, Searcy, Heber Springs, 

Conway, Greenville, Winona, Greenwood, Yazoo City, and Louisville are all within about 20 to 30 miles 

of the proposed Project area and have a wide array of public services and infrastructure. Texas Gas 

would work directly with local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services to 

coordinate effective emergency response. Further, under 49 CFR 192.615, Texas Gas would be required 

to establish an Emergency Response Plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural 

gas pipeline emergency. 

Because the non-local workforce would be small relative to the current population of the area, 

construction of the Project would result in only minor temporary, or no impact to local community 

facilities and services such as police, fire, medical, and waste disposal services. Local communities have 

adequate infrastructure and community services to meet the needs of the small increase of non-local 

workers that would be required for the Project. Other construction-related demands on local agencies 

could include increased enforcement activities associated with issuing permits for vehicle load and width 

limits, local police assistance during construction to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical 

services to treat injuries resulting from construction accidents. 

We conclude that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in significant 

impacts on local public services in the Project area. 

4.9.7 Transportation/Traffic Impacts 

Short-term impacts on roads, highways, and railroads are anticipated during construction, but not 

operation, of the proposed Project. Most roads and railroads would be crossed by boring beneath them. 

Boring typically requires additional temporary workspace areas on both sides of the crossing for 

excavating bore pits while the road or railroad remains in operation. Therefore, little or no disruption of 

traffic would be expected at road or railroad crossings that are crossed using boring methods. 

Smaller or unpaved rural roads may be open-cut where permitted by local authorities or landowners. The 

open-cut crossing method might require temporary closure of a road and establishment of detours. If no 

reasonable detour is feasible, at least one lane of a road would be kept open to traffic, except for brief 

periods when it is essential to close the road to install the pipe. Texas Gas would avoid road closings 

during peak traffic hours. Open-cut crossings of roads would typically be completed in 1 to 2 days. 

To maintain safe conditions, Texas Gas would direct its construction contractors to comply with vehicle 

weight and width restrictions and to remove soil that is left on road surfaces by the crossing of 

construction equipment. In addition, when it is necessary for equipment to move across paved roads, 

mats or other appropriate measures would be used to prevent damage to the road surface. Contractors 

would employ flagmen at high-traffic roadway crossings. At all road crossings, appropriate construction 

notification signage would be displayed. In limited instances, detours or obstructions in traffic flow due 

to the presence of large vehicles or construction of pipeline road crossings may require short-term 

assistance from local police. Significant project-related demands on local police workloads would not be 

expected. 

The movement of construction equipment and materials from contractor and pipe storage yards to the 

construction work area would result in an additional short-term impact on the transportation network. 

Several construction-related trips would be made each day (to and from the job site) on each spread. This 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-112 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
level of traffic would remain fairly constant throughout the construction period, and would typically occur 

at early morning and evening hours. 

Road congestion caused by construction workers commuting to the job site could be significant during the 

peak months of Project construction. This could result in significant congestion if each of the several 

hundred workers used a personal vehicle to travel to the work site and if most of this travel took place 

during peak traffic hours. However, pipeline construction work would be scheduled to take advantage of 

daylight hours; therefore, most workers would commute to and from the sites during off-peak hours. This 

impact also could be limited because temporary workers would be concentrated in the relatively few 

nearby population centers offering temporary lodgings. Construction workers often carpool from these 

centers to the job site, greatly reducing the peak traffic impacts. Furthermore, workers would be 

distributed along the length of the construction spread, which would tend to reduce the impact on traffic at 

any one location. Therefore, the Project should not add significantly to road congestion. 

Minimal traffic would be associated with operation and maintenance of the right-of-way, compressor 

station, and auxiliary facilities associated with the Fayetteville and Greenville laterals, since only a 

limited number of permanent workers would be employed during the operational phase. Therefore, the 

Project would not have any measurable impacts on road congestion during operation. 

4.9.8 Property Values 

Individuals frequently comment about project impacts on property values. These concerns generally 

center on four topics: devaluation of property if encumbered with a pipeline easement; identification of 

the party responsible for property taxes within a pipeline easement; Project effects on landowner 

insurance premiums; and the potential for reduced property values associated with lost timber and 

agricultural production. 

The impact that a project may have on the value of any land parcel depends on many factors, including 

the size of the parcel, the parcel’s current value and land use, and the value of other nearby properties. 

Subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals, but this is not to say that the Project would 

not affect resale values. Potential purchasers may make a decision based on landowner insurance 

premiums; and the potential for reduced property values associated with lost timber and agricultural 

production. 

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 proposed Project, should it be constructed, reduced the value of their property, he or she would appeal 

the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local property taxation agency. If the parcel were 

reappraised, the landowner would then be responsible for property taxes based upon an appraisal that 

directly incorporated the easement. 

As described in section 4.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a 

temporary loss of timber and agricultural productivity and a permanent conversion of some lands used for 

forestry operations to maintained right-of-way. Texas Gas would compensate landowners at fair market 

value for any adverse impacts on property values resulting from the Project, and during easement 

negotiations, compensation for any loss of current or future agricultural and timber production would be 

considered. 

4-113 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of certificates) on properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the 

NRHP and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Texas Gas, as a nonfederal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under Section 106 and the implementing 

regulations in 36 CFR 800 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and recommendations. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project could potentially affect historic properties (i.e., 

cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP). These historic properties could include 

prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, building, structures, and objects, as well as locations 

with traditional value to Native Americans or other groups. Such historic properties generally must 

possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must 

meet one or more of the criteria specified in Title 36 CFR 60.4. 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys 

Texas Gas performed Phase I cultural resource investigations for the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals. 

For archaeological resources, a 300-foot-wide corridor was surveyed for the pipelines. In addition, 

compressor stations, access roads, temporary workspaces, and pipe storage and contractor yards were 

surveyed. For architectural resources, areas adjacent to and within the line-of-sight of the 300-foot-wide 

corridor for the pipelines and the construction/operation footprints for related facilities were surveyed. 

Two pipe storage yards remain to be surveyed for the Fayetteville Lateral in Arkansas. The Phase I 

cultural resources investigations also included geomorphologic surveys. The reports for these surveys 

were provided to the FERC and the Arkansas and Mississippi State Historic Preservation Offices 

(SHPOs). Texas Gas also prepared an HDD Contingency Plan for Cultural Resources for sites that would 

be avoided by the HDD method. 

In Arkansas, 185 cultural resources were identified along the Fayetteville Lateral, including 110 

archaeological sites and 75 historic architectural resources (including one cemetery—historic architectural 

resource 38) (Haag and Bergman 2007). Of these, 38 were recommended as potentially eligible for the 

NRHP (36 archaeological sites and historic architectural resources 46 and 71), and 147 were 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP (74 archaeological sites and 73 historic architectural 

resources). Of the 38 potentially NRHP-eligible cultural resources, 37 would be avoided by realignments, 

deviations, or through the use of HDD crossing methods; seven of these 37 cultural resources would be 

further protected by placing site boundaries on construction mapping, placing orange protective fencing 

around site boundaries, and monitoring by an Environmental Inspector during work activities. In 

addition, the cemetery would be avoided by a realignment and is currently approximately 1,300 feet from 

the proposed pipeline centerline. One archaeological site, Site 20E-1, cannot be avoided, and Phase II 

NRHP-eligibility testing was recommended for this site. Texas Gas is currently conducting Phase II 

testing at Site 20E-1. Once testing is completed, Texas Gas would file a report with the Arkansas SHPO 

and the FERC. 

Although no buried cultural resources were identified during the geomorphologic survey of the 

Fayetteville Lateral corridor, a total of 87 areas with the potential to contain buried cultural resources 

were identified; 46 of these are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. Texas Gas would conduct 

archaeological monitoring during work activities in these sensitive areas. 

In a letter dated August 21, 2007, the Arkansas SHPO commented on the Phase I survey report for the 

Arkansas portion of the Fayetteville Lateral. The SHPO requested additional information and revisions to 

the report and agreed with the recommendations that architectural resources 46 and 71 were eligible for 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-114 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
inclusion in the NRHP; however, the SHPO also indicated that architectural resources 38 (the abovementioned cemetery) and 39 were eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The SHPO recommended that 

these four architectural resources be avoided and protected during Project implementation. Texas Gas has 

not yet provided a revised report or addressed the SHPO’s comments regarding avoidance and protection 

of the four historic architectural resources. 

In Mississippi, 201 cultural resources were identified along the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals, 

including 180 archaeological resources and 21 historic architectural resources (Goodwin and Bergman, 

2007). On the Fayetteville Lateral, 20 archaeological resources and three historic architectural resources 

were identified, with two of the archaeological resources recommended as potentially NRHP-eligible. On 

the Greenville Lateral, of 178 cultural resources, 21 were listed, eligible for listing, or recommended as 

potentially eligible for the NRHP (16 archaeological sites, one cemetery [22Ho1188], and four historic 

architectural resources, including the Natchez Trace, a potentially NRHP-eligible historic property 

administered by the NPS that is in the process of being nominated to the NRHP); one was undetermined 

(22Ho1189, a historic cemetery); and 156 were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP (144 

archaeological sites and 12 historic architectural resources, including two cemeteries). All of the 23 

NRHP-listed, -eligible, or potentially eligible cultural resources (including the Natchez Trace and 

22Ho1188) and the one undetermined cemetery would be avoided by realignments, deviations, or the use 

of HDD crossing methods; seven of these 24 cultural resources would be further protected by placing site 

boundaries on construction mapping, placing orange protective fencing around site boundaries, and 

monitoring by an Environmental Inspector during work activities. In addition, the two cemeteries 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP would be avoided. The NPS has reviewed the Phase I survey 

report and found it meets their requirements, and it has approved the HDD crossing of the Natchez Trace 

Parkway historic property. We are currently awaiting the SHPO’s comments on the Phase I survey 

report. 

Although no buried cultural resources were identified during the geomorphologic survey of the Greenville 

Lateral corridor, a total of 115 areas with the potential to contain buried cultural resources were 

identified; 72 of these are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. Texas Gas would conduct 

archaeological monitoring during work activities in these sensitive areas. 

Texas Gas consulted the Mississippi SHPO regarding the work at the existing Greenville Compressor 

Station. Texas Gas has not yet provided the SHPO’s comments. 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

Texas Gas prepared a Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties and Human Remains 

during construction. We requested revisions to the plan, and Texas Gas has provided a revised plan. 

 

4.10.3 Native American Consultation 

Texas Gas contacted the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town (Creek Nation of Indians), the Absentee 

Shawnee Tribe, the Caddo Nation, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, 

the Delaware Nation, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Kialegee Tribal Town, the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma (letters dated November 10, 

2006) to request their consultation on the proposed undertaking and to elicit any concerns about the 

proposed Project in Arkansas. Follow-up contact with each tribe was conducted on April 30, 2007. The 

following responses have been received to date: the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town (Creek Nation of 

Indians) indicated that they will not be providing comments on the Project; the Absentee Shawnee Tribe 

of Oklahoma indicated that they will not be providing comments on the Project as it is not located in 

counties of interest to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe; the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma requested a copy 

4-115 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
of the notification of the Project with a list of Arkansas Project area counties (they have no interest in the 

Mississippi portion of the Project); the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requested a copy of the notification 

of the Project, indicated they have an interest in projects in Arkansas and Mississippi, and requested a 

copy of the Phase I cultural resource investigation report when it is completed; the Delaware Nation is 

researching their files for the notification of the Project; the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

indicated they would be providing a response; and the Kialegee Tribal Town indicated that they received 

notification of the Project, although they did not provide a response. 

Texas Gas also contacted the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 

the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, the Chickasaw Nation, the 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (letters 

dated November 10, 2006) to request their consultation on the proposed undertaking and to elicit any 

concerns about the proposed Project in Mississippi. Follow-up contact with each tribe was conducted on 

April 30, 2007. The following responses have been received to date: the Chickasaw Nation requested an 

additional copy of the notification; the Jena Band of the Choctaw Indians requested a copy of the 

notification of the Project; the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma requested a copy of the notification of the 

Project, provided tribal consultation procedures, and requested a copy of the SHPO review letter for both 

the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals, the cultural resources investigation report, and a fee to cover the 

consultation process; the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town requested a copy of the notification of the Project; the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma provided “no interest” and “no objection” 

responses, but also requested to be contacted if any remains, artifacts, or other items are inadvertently 

discovered; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes indicated no interest in the Project occurring in 

Arkansas and Mississippi.

4.10.4 Compliance with the NHPA 

The Arkansas SHPO has requested additional information and revisions to the Phase I survey report for 

Arkansas; the Mississippi SHPO has not yet commented on the Phase I survey report or the Greenville 

Compressor Station in Mississippi. In addition, two pipe storage yards in Arkansas remain to be 

surveyed. Consequently, we have not completed the process of complying with Section 106 of the 

NHPA. When additional information is provided and the surveys are completed, the FERC, in 

consultation with the Arkansas and Mississippi SHPOs, the NPS (for the Natchez Trace Parkway historic 

property), and other consulting parties, as appropriate, will determine whether construction of the 

proposed Project would affect any properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP. If a property 

would be adversely affected, mitigation would be proposed. 

To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are met, we 

recommend that: 

• Texas Gas defer construction of the pipelines, compressor stations, meter stations, and 

use of all staging, storage, and temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access 

roads until: 

a. Texas Gas addresses the Arkansas SHPO’s comments on the Arkansas Phase I 

survey report, including addressing the SHPO’s comments regarding avoidance and 

protection of historic architectural resources 38, 39, 46 and 71, and files a revised 

Phase I report and the Arkansas SHPO’s comments on the report; 

b. Texas Gas files a Phase II NRHP-eligibility testing report for Site 20E-1 in Arkansas 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report; 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-116 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
c. Texas Gas files the Mississippi SHPO’s comments on the Mississippi Phase I survey 

report; 

d. Texas Gas files the Mississippi SHPO’s comments on the existing Greenville 

Compressor Station; 

e. Texas Gas files a Phase I survey report for the two pipe storage yards on the 

Fayetteville Lateral in Arkansas, any newly identified areas requiring survey, and 

the SHPOs’ comments on the report(s); 

f. Texas Gas provides interested Native American tribes with any requested 

information; 

g. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; 

h. Texas Gas files any required treatment/mitigation plans and the SHPO’s and NPS’, 

 as appropriate, comments on the plans; and 

i. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies Texas 

Gas in writing that it may proceed with treatment/mitigation 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.”

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Though air 

emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by Texas Gas, most air emissions associated with the proposed Project 

would result from the long-term operation of the proposed compressor station. 

Texas Gas proposes to construct the Kosciusko Compressor Station in Attala County, Mississippi. At the 

station, Texas Gas would install two Caterpillar G3612 natural-gas-fired reciprocating engines, each rated 

at 3,550 brake horsepower (bhp), two Caterpillar G3606 natural-gas-fired reciprocating engines, each 

rated at 1,775 bhp, one 500 bhp emergency generator, one fuel gas heater, and five storage tanks. 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

The proposed Project would be constructed in portions of Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, White, Woodruff, 

St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, and Coahoma, Greenville, Washington, Sunflower, 

Humphreys, Holmes, and Attala Counties, Mississippi. These counties are characterized by temperate 

and subtropical climates, with hot and humid summers. The area typically receives ample precipitation 

throughout the year, with an average annual precipitation of 55.95 inches. The Project area has average 

annual temperatures of 60 to 54 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Mississippi is frequently subjected to severe weather, and tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are not unusual 

for the Project area. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Storm Events Database, numerous tornados, hurricanes, and tropical storms have occurred in the Project 

area. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants for which the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

4-117 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) or with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb) 

were set to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary standards). State air 

quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. The NAAQS are codified in 40 CFR Part 50 

and are summarized in table 4.11.1-1. 

TABLE 4.11.1-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Period Primary NAAQS 

μg/m3

 (ppm) 

Secondary NAAQS 

μg/m3

 (ppm) 

NO2 Annual a/ 100 (0.053) 100 (0.053) 

SO2 Annual a/ 80 (0.03) None 

24-hour b/ 365 (0.14) None 

3-hour b/ None 1,300 (0.5) 

PM10 24-hour c/ 150 None 

PM2.5 Annual d/ 15 15 

24-hour e/ 35 35 

CO 8-hour b/ 10,000 (9) 10,000 (9) 

1-hour b/ 40,000 (35) 40,000 (35) 

O3 8-hour f/ 157 (0.8) 157 (0.8) 

Pb Quarterly a/ 1.5 1.5 

__________ 

a/ Not to be exceeded. 

b/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

c/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

d/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 

e/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3

 (effective December 17, 2006). 

f/ To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

The NAAQS are used in conjunction with ambient monitoring data to determine whether air quality is 

better than the standards, known as attainment, or worse than the standards, known as nonattainment. 

Nonattainment areas are required to prepare air quality plans that include strategies for achieving 

attainment. The control strategy may include stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and 

transportation control measures. Newly constructed sources of air pollutant emissions may be required to 

install expensive air pollution controls. 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status

Air quality control regions (AQCRs) are areas established for air quality planning purposes in which 

implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained. 

AQCRs were established by the EPA and local agencies, in accordance with Section 107 of the CAA, as a 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through State Implementation Plans. The 

AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air 

quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-118 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
a portion thereof, is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under 

three categories as follows: “attainment” (areas in compliance with the NAAQS); “nonattainment” (areas 

not in compliance with the NAAQS); or “unclassified”, which refers to areas with insufficient data to 

make a determination. The counties in which the proposed Project would be located are designated as 

“attainment” or “unclassified” for all criteria pollutants. 

Air Quality Monitoring

The 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 

station, data from a number of existing representative air quality monitoring stations were obtained. 

These monitoring stations are located near the proposed compressor station site 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 the compressor station is presented in table 4.11.1-2. 

4.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations

The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq., amended in 1977 and 1990 and codified at 40 CFR Parts 50-99, are the 

basic federal statutes and regulations governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are 

potentially relevant to the proposed 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 are made 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 

nonattainment areas, the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the 

pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. The proposed Project would be located in 

attainment areas. Consequently, NNSR is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

4-119 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.11.1-2 

Existing Ambient Air Quality Data 

Pollutant Monitoring Site Site ID Year Averaging Period Concentration 

μg/m3 (ppm) 

PM2.5 Jackson, MS 280490010 2004 24-hour 31 

Annual 12.2 

2005 24-hour 48 

Annual 13.1 

2006 24-hour 29 

Annual 12.1 

PM10 Tupelo, MS 280810005 2004 24-hour 32 

Annual 18 

Pascagoula, MS 280590006 2005 24-hour 31 

Annual 18 

2006 24-hour 70 

Annual 23 

SO2 Jackson, MS 280490018 2004 3-hour (0.028) 

24-hour (0.006) 

Annual (0.001) 

2005 3-hour (0.016) 

24-hour (0.006) 

Annual (0.001) 

Pascagoula, MS 280590006 2006 3-hour (0.037) 

24-hour (0.012) 

Annual (0.002) 

O3 Jackson, MS 280490010 2004 1-hour (0.081) 

8-hour (0.072) 

2005 1-hour (0.088) 

8-hour (0.079) 

2006 1-hour (0.097) 

8-hour (0.085) 

NO2 480 Mill Pond Road near Slayden, 

MS 280930001 

2004 Annual (0.002) 

2005 Annual (0.004) 

Pascagoula, MS 280590006 2006 Annual (0.007) 

CO Jackson, MS 280490018 2004 1-hour (4.6) 

8-hour (3.0) 

2005 1-hour (3.6) 

8-hour (3.3) 

Little Rock, AR 2006 1-hour (3.1) 

8-hour (2.6) 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-120 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4-121 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

The PSD 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 

(PTE) 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated criteria pollutant. A major source under PSD also 

can be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit criteria 

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 proposed Project would not include facilities or operations included on the list of 

named source categories to which the 100-tpy trigger applies. In addition, the proposed Project would not 

include any existing major sources under the PSD program; therefore, the proposed new Kosciusko 

Compressor Station is 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 any violation of the 

NAAQS) and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) 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. 

The new Kosciusko Compressor Station would not exceed emissions of 250 tpy of any criteria pollutant 

(see table 4.11.1-3). Therefore, PSD permitting is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

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 essentially 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. The proposed Project would be located in a Class II area. No 

Class I areas are located within 62 miles of the proposed compressor station location. 

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60, establish requirements for new, modified, or reconstructed units 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 station. 

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 (m3) (19,813 gallons) and 151 m3

 (39,890 gallons) and contain volatile organic compounds 

(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 m3

 and contain VOCs with a 

maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa. The proposed compressor station would 

be equipped with tanks with capacities of 4,200 gallons or less, which is below the regulated capacity. 

Therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb standards. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.11.1-3 

Compressor Station Operation Emission Source Information 

Annual Potential Emissions (tpy) 

Emission Unit Rating Units Operating Hours NOX CO VOCs SO2

 Environmental Analysis 4-122 

PM10 /PM2.5 Formalde

Engine No. 1 G3606 1,775 bhp 8,760 12.00 2.57 1.85 0.031 0.53 0.69 Engine No. 2 G3606 1,775 bhp 8,760 12.00 2.57 1.85 0.031 0.53 0.69 Engine No. 3 G3612 3,550 bhp 8,760 24.00 5.14 3.70 0.062 1.05 1.37 Engine No. 4 G3612 3,550 bhp 8,760 24.00 5.14 3.70 0.062 1.05 1.37 Emergency Generator 500 bhp 500 0.55 0.47 0.12 5.9E-04 0.01 0.053 Fuel Gas Heater 1 MMBtu/

hr 

8,760 0.43 0.36 0.024 0.003 0.033 3.2E-04 

Tank TK01 4,200 gallons 8,760 — — 0.013 — — — Tank TK02 4,200 gallons 8,760 — — 3.9E-10 — — — Tank TK03 2,100 gallons 8,760 — — 1.3E-10 — — — Tank TK04 2,100 gallons 8,760 — — 1.3E-09 — — — Tank TK05 4,200 gallons 8,760 — — 3.9E-10 — — — 

Total 72.98 16.25 11.26 0.19 3.20 4.17 

4.0 –

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
On June 12, 2006, the 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 (NMHC). Texas Gas has indicated it would fully comply 

with the requirements in the proposed Sub JJJJ NSPS. 

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 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. In addition, all 

area sources would be subject to Subpart ZZZZ, regardless of the engine size. The proposed units would 

meet the requirements of this subpart. 

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. None of the criteria pollutants would be emitted at the 100-tpy level at the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station; therefore, Title V permits would not be required. 

General Conformity

40 CFR parts 51 and 93 define the requirements for determining conformity for federal actions to state or 

federal implementation plans. A conformity analysis is required for each criteria pollutant where the total 

of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a federal action would 

equal or exceed any of the rates specified in the applicable implementation plan. The proposed Project 

would not be located in any nonattainment areas; therefore, the general conformity requirements do not 

apply to the proposed Project. 

State Regulations

In addition to the federal regulations described above, the compressor station also would be subject to 

certain state air quality regulations. Subject to EPA approval, the MDEQ manages the statewide air 

permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs. These regulations may apply to new or existing 

sources. The Kosciusko Compressor Station would be authorized under MDEQ’s construction and 

4-123 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
operating permit. The following Mississippi Air Pollution Control regulations were evaluated for their 

applicability. 

APC-S-1 Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants

APC-S-1 includes specifications for specific pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, certain specific sources 

of pollutants, notification of emission events, and stack heights. Section 3 contains criteria for sources of 

particulate matter, including opacity limitation, open burning prohibition, and nuisance prohibition. 

Section 4 contains criteria for SO2 emissions. APC-S-1 also incorporates by reference the federal NSPS 

program. The compressor station’s MDEQ permit would require compliance with all applicable federal 

and state air regulations. 

APC-S-2 Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operations of Air Emissions Equipment

APC-S-2 contains the requirements for obtaining permits prior to constructing new equipment and for 

obtaining state permits to operate, including public notice and participation requirements. The Project 

would obtain the required permits prior to commencing construction. 

APC-S-3 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes

APC-S-3 defines air pollution alerts, warnings, and emergencies and establishes requirements for 

operators of certain sources to prepare plans for responding to these three levels of air pollution episodes. 

The Project would prepare an Emission Control Action Program in accordance with Section 4. 

APC-S-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards

APC-S-4 incorporates, by reference, the Primary and Secondary NAAQS, 40 CFR Part 50. In addition, it 

states that no odorous substances shall be released into the ambient air in concentrations that could 

adversely affect human health and well-being, affect plant or animal life, or interfere with the use or 

enjoyment of property. 

APC-S-5 Prevention of the Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality

APC-S-5 incorporates, by reference, the PSD of Air Quality Program, 40 CFR 52.21. The Project would 

not be a PSD source. 

APC-S-6 Air Emissions Operating Permit Regulations for the Purposes of Title V of the Clean Air Act

APC-S-6 defines the requirements for Title V permits, including major source categories and levels, 

permit applications, issuance, fees, and insignificant activities. The Project is not subject to Title V. 

APC-S-8 Air Toxics Regulations 

APC-S-8 regulates, on a case-by-case basis, MACT applicable to facilities affected by the requirements of 

Section 112(g) of the CAA, Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 63. The Project would not be a major source of 

HAPs and would not be subject to this regulation. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-124 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.11.1.3 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Emissions

Construction of the pipeline and access roads would generate air emissions during grading, trenching, 

backfilling, and operation of construction vehicles along unpaved areas. The proposed Project would use 

existing roads to the extent practicable. 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 permanent 

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 station would be performed with mobile equipment similar to that 

typically used for pipeline and road construction. Construction would be expected to cause a minor and 

temporary impact on 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. Pipeline 

construction would be a constantly moving process, and impacts would occur only in the vicinity of 

active construction in the pipeline corridor. Construction of the Kosciusko Compressor Station would 

likely take a few months, with impacts occurring only in the vicinity of the compressor station site. Table 

4.11.1-4 lists the estimated emissions from construction equipment activities for the compressor station. 

Impacts from construction equipment would be temporary and would be expected to result in an 

insignificant impact on air quality. 

Texas Gas would employ proven construction practices to control fugitive dust emissions during 

construction. All areas disturbed by construction would be stabilized; therefore, fugitive dust emissions 

during construction would be minor and of short duration. Dust suppression activities (e.g., watering) 

would be used as necessary to minimize these potential impacts. Should open burning occur during 

construction, requirements of contractors would include: on-site equipment to prevent the spread of fire, 

a specified level of attention required by contractor personnel during burning, acquisition of all required 

permits, and compliance with all state and local regulations, including APC-S-1, Section 3.7. 

Operations Emissions

The four natural-gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines used to provide the necessary gas 

compression, which are assumed to operate 8,760 hours at 100 percent load, would be equipped with 

state-of-the-art NOX low-emission combustion (LEC) control technology integral to their design. These 

engines also would be equipped with oxidation catalyst systems to reduce emissions of CO, NMHC, and 

hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde. 

4-125 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.11.1-4 

Compressor Station Construction Emission Source Information 

Annual Potential Emissions (tpy) 

Emission Source NOX CO SO2 PM10 /PM2.5 VOC Total HAPs 

E-1 100-ton Crane 0.133 0.029 0.009 0.009 0.011 1.14E-04 

E-2, 20-ton Cherry 

Picker 0.316 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.025 2.71E-04 

E-3 20-ton Cherry 

Picker 0.316 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.025 2.71E-04 

E-4 330 Backhoe 0.316 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.025 2.71E-04 

E-5 330 Backhoe 0.316 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.025 2.71E-04 

E-6 330 Backhoe 0.316 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.025 2.71E-04 

E-7 D6 Bulldozer 0.215 0.046 0.014 0.015 0.017 1.84E-04 

E-8 D6 Bulldozer 0.215 0.046 0.014 0.015 0.017 1.84E-04 

E-9 D6 Bulldozer 0.215 0.046 0.014 0.015 0.017 1.84E-04 

E-10 D6 Bulldozer 0.215 0.046 0.014 0.015 0.017 1.84E-04 

E-11 Side Boom 0.186 0.040 0.012 0.013 0.015 1.59E-4 

E-12 Side Boom 0.186 0.040 0.012 0.013 0.015 1.59E-4 

E-13 Forklift 0.253 0.055 0.017 0.018 0.020 2.17E-04 

E-14 Generator 0.298 0.064 0.020 0.021 0.024 2.55E-04 

E-15 Welding Rig 0.093 0.020 0.006 0.007 0.007 7.96E-05 

E-20 Welding Rig 0.093 0.020 0.006 0.007 0.007 7.96E-05 

Painting — — — 0.054 — 0.023 

Open Burning 0.28 9.8 — 1.19 1.33 — 

Fugitive Dust — — — 1.35 — —

Total 3.96 10.59 0.24 2.85 1.62 0.03 

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. 

Table 4.11.1-3 lists the anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs from the operation of the 

compressor station. Texas Gas modeled the proposed emission sources at the compressor station using 

the SCREEN3 model, which is the EPA-approved model for most screening-level analyses. The 

SCREEN3 dispersion model (version 96043) is used to estimate pollutant concentrations in simple and 

complex terrain. It also can estimate the near-field effect of building downwash on stack emissions for 

both cavity and wake regions surrounding a facility. Results of the modeling analysis are presented in 

Table 4.11.1-5. When the maximum impacts for each emission source at the facility are conservatively 

assumed to occur at the same location, the total facility impact is below the NAAQS. Actual impacts 

would be expected to be significantly lower, since SCREEN3 is a conservative model, worst-case 

meteorological conditions were used, and the maximum impact for each source could be expected to 

occur at different locations. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-126 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.11.1-5 

Project Impacts 

Engine No. 1 

G3606 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Engine No. 2 

G3606 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Engine No. 3 

G3612 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Engine No. 4 

G3612 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Emergency 

Generator 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Fuel Gas 

Heater 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Facility 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

EPA 

NAAQS 

Standard 

(μg/m3) 

Maximum Impact using 

1 gm/sec emission rate 417.2 417.2 157.3 157.3 2395 938.5 Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

NO2 

Annual maximum using 

proposed Project 

emission rates 

11.52 11.52 8.69 8.69 53.11 0.93 96.63 100 

CO 

1-hour maximum using 

proposed Project 

emission rates 

31.01 31.01 23.28 23.28 564.31 9.70 682.59 40000 

8-hour maximum using 

proposed Project 

emission rates 

21.71 21.71 16.30 16.30 395.01 6.788 477.8 10000 

__________ 

a/ 8-hour and annual impacts calculated using scaling factors of 0.7 and 0.08, respectively, per EPA guidance (EPA, 1992). Screening 

Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, October 1992, EPA-454/R-92-019. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC). 

4.11.2 Noise 

Noise would affect the local environment during both construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of ambient noise may vary considerably over the 

course of the day and throughout the week due, in part, to 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 sound level (Ldn). 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 Ldn is 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 A-weighted scale is used 

because human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. People’s 

threshold for perception of a change in noise level is considered to be 3 dBA. 

4.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published its 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 an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity noise 

interference. We have adopted this criterion and used it to evaluate the potential noise impact from 

operation of the compressor facilities. 

No applicable state, county, or local noise regulations were identified for the project area. 

4-127 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as noise-sensitive areas (NSAs). NSAs include residences, 

schools and day-care facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks 

and recreational areas (e.g., wilderness areas) valued specifically for their solitude and tranquility. 

The Kosciusko Compressor Station would be located in Attala County, Mississippi. Three NSAs were 

identified within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station site. Texas Gas 

conducted an ambient noise monitoring survey on March 13 and March 14, 2007 at the three NSA 

locations to establish baseline noise levels in the area. Existing noise sources in the area during the day 

included the existing Texas Eastern compressor station, local traffic, birds and insects, barking dogs, and 

rustling leaves. Ldn noise levels were calculated for each of the two noise monitoring days using the 

short-term noise measurements. The Ldn levels at each location are summarized in table 4.11.2-1 and 

were used as the baseline noise levels for this analysis. 

 

TABLE 4.11.2-1 

Ambient Existing Noise at NSAs 

Existing Noise Level (dBA) 

NSA 

Distance to 

Station 

(feet) Leq (day) Leq (night) Ldn

NSA3-1 1,800 50 44 52 

NSA3-2 3,300 48 42 50 

NSA3-3 4,350 46 33 45 

4.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Construction of the proposed 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 of proposed Project activities, and the sound levels would vary during the construction period, 

depending on the construction phase. 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, 

construction activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent 

basis. Construction-related noise at the compressor station would be concentrated in the vicinity of the 

construction activity. 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 unaffected 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 basis. In addition to the EPA’s 55 dBA 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 NSAs within 1 mile of HDD locations to determine existing sound levels at each site and the projected 

levels from HDD activity. Since it is not known at this time precisely what type or model of HDD would 

be used, as a conservative measure for this analysis, future noise levels were based upon use of a Ditch 

Witch JT8020 Mach 1 Directional Drill (constructed by the Charles Machine Works, Inc.). This HDD rig 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-128 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
is the largest and most powerful offered by this leading manufacturer and would be appropriate for a 

project of this scale. 

The results of the noise prediction for the proposed HDD drill sites indicate that, of the 21 unique HDD 

drill sites, nine had potential NSAs within a 0.5-mile screening distance. The closest receptor to a 

planned HDD site is 600 feet. Of the nine potential NSAs, two had predicted noise levels that would 

exceed 55 dBA Ldn (HDD sites 23 and 25). Potential impacts at these two sites are shown in table 4.11.2-

2. Twenty-four hour drilling operations is usually reserved for long drill distances, typically those over 

2,000 feet in length. Locations with shorter drill lengths would probably not require nighttime operations 

and, therefore, would have a lower Ldn value. The two NSA locations with predicted levels above 55 

dBA Ldn would have drill lengths less than 1,500 feet and may not require 24-hour drilling. However, 

because construction activities associated with HDDs have the potential for significant short-term noise 

level impacts, we recommend that 

• For the HDD locations listed in table 4.11.2-2 with projected noise levels above 55 dBA Ldn

at the closest NSA, Texas Gas file noise mitigation plans with the Secretary for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP, prior to construction. The noise mitigation plan should 

include either a commitment to daytime drilling only or provide mitigation measures to 

reduce noise levels at the NSAs. 

Table 4.11.2-2 

Projected Noise Impact at NSAs for HDD Sites 23 and 25 

HDD 

Site 

Ambient Noise 

Levels (Ldn) 

Noise Levels due to 

HDD Activity (Ldn) 

Total Projected Noise 

Level (Ldn) 

Increase over 

Ambient (dBA) 

23 50.7 60 60.5 9.8 

25 53.3 65 65.3 12.0 

Operational Noise

During operation of the proposed Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the vicinity of the 

new compressor station. 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. 

The compressor station would include design measures to minimize sound generation. Silencers or 

mufflers would be installed on the exhausts, and silencers would be installed on the air intakes. The walls 

of the compressor building would be comprised of acoustical panels. 

Texas Gas calculated the expected increases in noise levels associated with operation of the compressor 

station based on the proposed total power rating for the Kosciusko Compressor Station (10,650 hp) and 

the distance to the NSAs. The projected operational noise levels, as determined by Texas Gas are 

presented in table 4.11.2-3. 

4-129 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.11.2-3 

Noise Quality Analysis, Kosciusko Compressor Station 

Existing Noise Level (dBA) Future Noise Level (dBA) Distance to 

Station 

(feet) Leq 

(day) 

Leq

(night) 

NSA 

Ldn

Additional 

Ldn

Total Ldn Increase 

NSA3-1 1,800 50 44 52 39 52 0 

NSA3-2 3,300 48 42 50 25 50 0 

NSA3-3 4,350 46 33 45 22 45 0 

In summary, the calculated noise levels anticipated from operation of the compressor station would be 

below the FERC level of 55 dBA Ldn at all of the nearby NSA locations, and there would be no increase 

over existing Ldn levels. However, to ensure that noise levels from operation of the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station would not adversely impact surrounding areas, we recommend that

• Texas Gas make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels from the 

Kosciusko Compressor Station are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file with the Secretary 

noise surveys showing this no later than 60 days after placing the Kosciusko Compressor 

Station in service. However, if the noise attributable to operation of the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Texas Gas 

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. Texas Gas 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. 

4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impact results when impacts associated with a proposed project are superimposed on, or 

added to, impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the area 

affected by the proposed project. Although the individual impacts of the separate projects may be minor, 

the effects from the projects taken together could be significant. 

The purpose of this cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would 

potentially result from implementation of the proposed Project. This cumulative impact analysis 

generally follows the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ, 1997; EPA, 1999). Under these 

guidelines, inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on identifying commonalities of 

impacts from other projects to potential impacts that would result from the proposed Project. For an 

action to be included in the cumulative impacts analysis, it must: 

• impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project; 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed Project area; or 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the time span for the potential impact from the 

proposed Project. 

For the purposes of this cumulative impact analysis, we consider the Project area to be the counties 

traversed by the proposed Project. The effects of more distant projects are not assessed because their 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-130 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
impact would be localized in their project areas and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative 

impact in the proposed Project area. 

The actions considered in this cumulative impact analysis may vary from the proposed Project in nature, 

magnitude, and duration. The actions included in this analysis are based on likelihood of completion, and 

only projects with either ongoing impacts or that are “reasonably foreseeable” future actions were 

evaluated. The anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and other actions are presented 

below. 

This section describes the estimated impact associated with the Project and one other proposed interstate 

natural gas pipeline project and the overall impact that could be expected to accumulate if both projects 

were constructed. More distant proposed or recently approved interstate natural gas pipeline projects are 

not assessed because their impact would generally be localized elsewhere and, therefore, would not 

contribute significantly to cumulative impacts in the immediate Project area. 

Table 4.12-1 lists ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may also contribute 

to cumulative impacts on resources that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. 

4.12.1 Planned Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Area 

Cumulative impacts in this section are limited to the Fayetteville Lateral since no other natural gas 

projects have been identified in proximity to the Greenville Lateral. 

We are aware of only one other interstate pipeline project that has been proposed for construction in the 

vicinity of the Fayetteville Lateral, Ozark’s East End Expansion Project (Docket No. PF06-34-000). The 

East End Expansion Project is in the pre-filing stage and is being evaluated by the FERC, but it has not 

yet been approved. 

The East End Expansion Project would include about 180 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline beginning in 

Conway County, Arkansas, at the proposed new 10,000-hp Wonderview Compressor Station and 

extending along Ozark’s existing 20-inch-diameter pipeline right-of-way for about 58.5 miles. It would 

then extend eastward along its existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline right-of-way for another 6.1 miles 

through Faulkner and White Counties, to a point near Searcy, Arkansas. At that point it would divert 

eastward from the existing pipeline right-of-way onto new right-of-way to the proposed new 20,000-hp 

Searcy Compressor Station in White County. From the proposed Searcy Compressor Station, the East 

End Expansion Project pipeline would continue southeastward through Woodruff, Prairie, Monroe, Lee, 

and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, and Coahoma, Quitman, Panola, Lafayette, and Calhoun Counties, 

Mississippi, to a terminus near Banner, Calhoun County, Mississippi, on new pipeline right-of-way. The 

East End Expansion Project also would include an 8-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline (Noark 

Extension) extending from Ozark’s existing 16-inch-diameter Noark Pipeline to the proposed 

Wonderview Compressor Station, all in Conway County. The East End Expansion Project would 

transport about 1.0 bcf/d of natural gas from new natural gas production areas to proposed new delivery 

points on existing pipeline systems of Texas Gas (in Coahoma County, Mississippi), ANR (in Panola 

County, Mississippi), and Trunkline (in Panola County, Mississippi). 

4-131 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.12-1 

Existing or Proposed Activities or Projects in the Vicinity of the 

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project 

Primary Environmental Impact 

Activity/Project Description 

Water Resources 

Wetlands 

Wildlife/Vegetation 

Recreation 

Socioeconomics 

Land Use 

Transportation 

Air Quality/Noise 

Proposed Action 

Texas Gas 

Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project, 

CP07-417-000 

Construction of the Fayetteville Lateral: about 

166.2 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in 

Faulkner, Cleburne, White, Woodruff, St. Francis, 

Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, and 

Coahoma County, Mississippi; and the Greenville 

Lateral: about 96.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter 

pipeline in Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, 

Holmes, and Attala Counties, Mississippi; about 

0.8 mile of 36-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline and 

0.4-mile of 20-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline in 

Attala County; and a 10,650-hp compressor 

station near Kosciusko in Attala County. Total 

length of pipeline would be 263.8 miles. 

Anticipated time frame for construction is 8 

months, from June 2008 to January 2009. 

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects or Activities 

Ozark East End 

Expansion Project, 

PF06-34-000 

Construction of about 180 miles of 36-inchdiameter gas pipeline in Conway, Faulkner, 

White, Woodruff, Prairie, Monroe, St. Francis, 

Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, and 

Coahoma, Quitman, and Panola Counties, 

Mississippi; 8 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline 

(Noark Extension) in Conway County; the 20,000-

hp Searcy Compressor Station in White County; 

the 10,000-hp Wonderview Compressor Station 

in Conway County. Anticipated time frame for 

construction has not been determined. 

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Present Projects or Activities 

Agriculture: row crops 

and livestock/poultry 

Growing cotton, soybeans, rice, small grains; 

raising beef cattle and poultry 

9 9 9 9 9

Gas Exploration Ongoing Fayetteville Shale production. Well 

drilling; and gathering pipeline, gas treatment, and 

compression facilities construction (as needed) 

and operation. 

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

The Fayetteville Lateral and the East End Expansion Project pipeline would be collocated for the first 37 

miles of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. Different in-service dates would likely prevent these two 

projects from being constructed simultaneously. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-132 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Figure 4.12.1-1 shows the general location of the East End Expansion Project and the 

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project, as well as the locations of other pending or recently approved 

interstate natural gas pipeline projects in the Arkansas-Mississippi-Louisiana region. We note that 

expansions of natural gas transmission systems are proposed in Texas, Louisiana, and southern 

Mississippi. For informational purposes, these proposed pipelines are presented on figure 4.12.1-1; 

however, since these projects are well removed from the Project area considered in this EIS, they would 

not contribute to the cumulative impacts for the proposed Project; therefore, no further information is 

provided about them.

4.12.2 Other Projects and Activities 

The Fayetteville Lateral would transport natural gas supplies from the developing Fayetteville Shale 

production area. Southwestern and other producers are currently developing the Fayetteville Shale in 

northern Arkansas, primarily in Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Independence, Johnson, St. Francis, Prairie, 

Van Buren, White, and Woodruff Counties. In August 2004, Southwestern announced that its wholly 

owned subsidiary, SEECO, Inc., had successfully drilled test wells targeting the Fayetteville Shale and 

had commercially produced gas from the shale. As of May 1, 2006, SEECO had drilled a total of 148 

wells in 18 pilot areas in seven separate counties. SEECO has established production from two other gasbearing formations (the Moorefield and Chattanooga Shales) that lie geologically beneath the Fayetteville 

Shale production area. Gas-gathering pipelines, gas treatment, and compressor facilities have been 

constructed to transport and process the gas produced from this production area to the existing interstate 

pipeline systems. Wells are actively being drilled, and gas-gathering pipelines to connect the new 

production are being constructed as needed. Well drilling and construction and operation of gathering 

facilities are not under FERC jurisdiction. The AOGC has jurisdiction over gas production facilities in 

Arkansas. Potential well drilling and gathering line construction would result in temporary and minor 

impacts during construction but should be conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts on 

wetlands, waterbodies, species of concern, and other sensitive resources pursuant to the requirements of 

the AOGC. 

Possible new gas production or gathering facilities might be constructed near the proposed Project in 

these same counties since the Project would cross about 55 miles of the Fayetteville Shale production 

area. Table 2.1-2 lists the 14 interconnects the proposed Project would have with the Southwestern 

system in Conway, Faulkner, and White Counties. Texas Gas has consulted with Southwestern to 

develop a pipeline route through the gas production area to minimize conflicts with ongoing development 

of this resource and to plan locations for M&R stations to interconnect with Southwestern’s gathering 

pipelines. 

Construction of facilities related to gas production and gathering would have impacts similar to those 

identified for the proposed Project. However, gathering pipelines generally are smaller in diameter than 

the 36-inch-diameter of the proposed pipeline; therefore, a narrower construction right-of-way would be 

required for their construction. Use of appropriate erosion and sediment controls would minimize off-site 

impacts on undisturbed areas and waterbodies and wetlands. State regulatory review and issuance of 

necessary permits and approvals would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. Specific 

information about where and when future gathering facilities might be constructed is not available. 

Therefore, these activities are not included in the cumulative impact analysis provided in this section. 

4-133 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Location

Map

 ̄

Louisiana

O

kla

h

o

m

a

Mis

sis

sip

pi

Legend

Te

x

a

s

Ark

a

n

s

a

s

0 37.5 75 150 225 300

Miles

Ala

b

a

m

a

Figure 4.12.1-1

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Approximate Location of 

 near the

Proposed Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects

East Texas to Mississippi

Midcontinent Express Carthage to Perryville

Southeast Supply Header

Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion

Ozark East End Expansion

Southeast Expansion

Gulf Crossing

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Agricultural activities (mainly related to planting and harvesting crops) occur throughout most of the 

Project area along both the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals (see section 4.8). The removal of 

vegetation (crops) from fields and soil disturbance may result in erosion and sedimentation that may be 

considered as a cumulative impact with the Project. Agricultural activities can contribute to cumulative 

impacts on water resources, land use, socioeconomics, and air quality. Impacts from agricultural 

activities would generally be localized and temporary and, therefore, would not contribute significantly to 

cumulative impacts in the immediate Project area. As such, agricultural activities are not included in the 

cumulative impact analysis provided in this section. 

4.12.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest where the proposed Project and other projects or activities would 

be adjacent to or in proximity to each other. The East End Expansion Project would be adjacent or in 

proximity to the proposed Project in Conway, Faulkner, and White Counties, Arkansas, between MP 0.0 

and about MP 37 of the Fayetteville Lateral. Construction schedules also would affect the extent and 

duration of cumulative impacts. Projects located adjacent to each other, which are constructed at the 

same time, may have greater short-term impacts but similar long-term impacts. Since the schedule for the 

East End Expansion Project has not been updated, it is not certain to what extent timing would affect 

impacts on any resource along this segment of the Project. However, we assume that Ozark’s East End 

Expansion Project would begin construction later than Texas Gas’s proposed Project (if both are approved 

by the FERC) since Ozark has not yet filed a certificate application for it with the FERC. The planning 

process has not been completed for Ozark’s East End Expansion Project. Therefore, much of the 

description about the cumulative impacts in this section will be of a general and conditional nature. 

4.12.3.1 Geology and Soils 

Geology

The impacts of the Fayetteville Lateral and the East End Expansion Project on geological resources are 

not considered to be significant. Mineral resources are not present in large quantities and known sites 

would likely be avoided. Both projects would cross areas of active natural gas exploration and 

development related to production of the Fayetteville Shale natural gas reserves. Texas Gas proposes 

interconnections with Southwestern’s existing gas gathering system to transport this production to 

markets east of the production area. Ozark may plan similar interconnections, but, at this time, this is not 

known since Ozark’s project is still in development. Communication and coordination with the natural 

gas producers concerning their plans for new wells and gathering pipelines would minimize conflicts with 

natural gas production. Therefore, we conclude that the cumulative impact of both projects on mineral 

resources and gas production would not be significant. 

In the areas where the projects would be collocated, risk due to geologic hazard would be similar: no 

significant seismic, subsidence, or landslide risk. The lack of unusual or significant paleontological 

resources results in a low risk of significant impacts by the proposed projects on such resources. 

Although bedrock near the surface will require blasting in areas of the Fayetteville Lateral and the East 

End Expansion Project, impacts due to blasting would be minimized by implementing appropriate 

blasting specifications. Therefore, we conclude that the cumulative impact of both projects related to 

geologic risk and blasting would not be significant. 

Soils 

Both projects would disturb soils during construction. Texas Gas and Ozark would implement the 

mitigation measures described in our Plan and Procedures to control erosion and sedimentation, to 

4-135 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
minimize impacts to soils, and to restore construction workspaces. These measures include topsoil 

segregation and decompaction in appropriate areas, rock removal, consultation with landowners and local 

soil resource agencies about seeding, and monitoring the success of revegetation. Texas Gas and Ozark 

would be responsible for ensuring all areas affected by construction activities were finish graded and 

restored as closely as practicable to preconstruction contours. If active drainage tiles, culverts, or other 

drainage facilities are damaged during construction, Texas Gas and Ozark would replace or repair them to 

a condition that is equal to or better than preconstruction condition. Although damage to drainage 

structures and patterns would result in short-term impacts, the corrective actions that would be 

implemented by Texas Gas and Ozark would avoid or minimize any long-term impact. Further, both 

Texas Gas and Ozark would repair any damaged irrigation systems. 

At this time, about 37 miles of the Fayetteville Lateral (from MP 0.0 to MP 37) and Ozark’s East End 

Project would be collocated along existing pipeline right-of-way. If both projects are approved, Ozark’s 

project would likely be constructed about a year after Texas Gas’s project. It’s construction would redisturb some of the restored Fayetteville Lateral construction right-of-way. This would extend the time 

that soils and land uses would be affected in this area by about a year. Since the remaining 129 miles of 

the Fayetteville Lateral would not be collocated with the remaining 143 miles of the East End Expansion 

Project, re-disturbance of the restored construction right-of-way would not be an issue in those areas. 

However, since both project sponsors would implement our Plan and Procedures and any additional 

mitigation we may recommend, impacts on soils would be minimized and cumulative impacts on soils 

would not be significant. 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment could 

adversely affect soils; however, the effects of such contamination would typically be minor and widely 

dispersed because of the low frequency and volumes of spills and leaks. Texas Gas and Ozark would 

implement their SPCC Plans for the pipelines and aboveground facilities (see appendix D, Texas Gas’s 

SPCC Plan). Successful use of the SPCC Plans would minimize the potential for spills of contaminated 

materials to occur and would contain spills that might occur during construction of each project; 

therefore, the cumulative impact would not be considered significant. 

4.12.3.2 Water Resources and Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would result in 278 waterbody crossings. For eight of 

the 11 major waterbody crossings, Texas Gas would use HDD methods (see table 4.3.2-4) to avoid and 

minimize direct impacts on waterbodies and riparian vegetation, including associated wetlands, at these 

crossings. Any inadvertent release of drilling fluids (frac-out) or accidental fuel and chemical spills 

would be greatly reduced by implementation of Texas Gas’s HDD Plan and SPCC Plan. The East End 

Expansion Project would traverse a total of 721 waterbodies, of which 25 are defined as major 

waterbodies. Four of the 25 waterbodies would be crossed using HDD methods. Both Texas Gas and 

Ozark would use our Plan and Procedures to construct, operate, and maintain their projects. 

Because the two projects would be within the same major watersheds (in the areas where they would be 

collocated), and because both projects would likely involve direct and indirect waterbody impacts, the 

projects would, in combination, result in some cumulative impacts on waterbodies. These temporary 

impacts could include runoff from construction areas, temporary and localized increases in turbidity and 

sedimentation associated with in-water construction, and withdrawal and discharge of waters for 

hydrostatic testing of pipeline segments. These impacts would be greater if construction of both projects 

were to occur within the same time frame. However, if approved, Ozark’s project likely would not begin 

construction in 2008, the year Texas Gas plans to begin construction. As described in section 4.3, 

impacts due to construction of the proposed Project would be relatively minor and would be further 

minimized by the use of HDDs to cross most of the major waterbodies and implementation of our Plan 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-136 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and Procedures and our recommendations; therefore, we believe that cumulative impacts on waterbodies 

would be minimized and cumulative impacts would not be significant. 

Construction and operation of the projects would result in both short-term and long-term impacts on 

waterbodies and wetlands. Short-term impacts such as soil and sediment disturbance would dissipate 

over a period of weeks, while longer-term impacts such as the regrowth of forested wetlands within the 

temporary construction right-of-way would persist for months or years. The primary impacts on wetlands 

and waterbodies during operation of the proposed projects would be associated with the routine right-ofway maintenance. All maintenance would comply with our Plan and Procedures but would continue 

throughout the life of the projects. 

If approved and constructed, the proposed Fayetteville Lateral and the East End Expansion Project would 

impact wetlands. Construction of the proposed Fayette Lateral and associated facilities would affect 

about 57.7 acres of wetlands, including about 33.5 acres of PFO wetlands (see table 4.4.1-1). 

Construction of the proposed East End Expansion Project would affect a total of about 108.2 acres of 

wetlands, of which about 74.6 acres would be PFO wetlands. Impacts to wetlands would be minimized 

by implementing the appropriate mitigation measures in our Procedures which reduces the construction 

right-of-way width to 75 feet and which reduces the maintained corridor through wetlands to 30 feet 

centered over the pipeline. The narrowed maintenance corridor allows for the restoration of more wetland 

area. However, impacts to PFO wetlands would be permanent within the maintained right-of-way since 

PFO wetlands would be converted to PEM or PSS wetlands; but, they would still retain wetland function 

since wetland hydrology would be reestablished. 

Elements of both projects with the potential to affect wetlands and waterbodies would be subject to 

review and approval under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. Discharges to wetlands and other surface 

waters associated with construction and operation would require review, approval, and mitigation, if 

necessary, under state storm water discharge programs. All permanent or long-term impacts on wetlands 

and waterbodies would be appropriately mitigated to offset anticipated adverse impacts, as determined by 

the USACE. Texas Gas will be required by the USACE to develop a wetland compensation plan for 

these impacts and would likely require Ozark to develop a similar plan. Since wetland impacts would be 

minimized by the use of appropriate mitigation measures and the USACE will require compensation for 

long-term and permanent wetland impacts, we conclude that the cumulative impacts on wetland would 

not be significant. 

4.12.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral and the East End Expansion Project would cause a 

cumulative impact on native vegetation and associated wildlife. These cumulative impacts would be most 

significant if the projects were constructed at or near the same time and within proximity of one another. 

Either circumstance would increase the direct impact acreages and would lengthen the recovery time for 

the affected vegetative communities, particularly if construction of the East End Expansion Project 

follows construction of the proposed Project. It is possible that previously disturbed and restored 

construction workspaces would be disturbed again by the subsequent construction of the East End 

Expansion Project along the 37-mile-long segment where these projects would be collocated. 

Cumulative impacts within a region, such as lost acreage of forestland, are additive. Furthermore, many 

wildlife species depend on mature contiguous tracts of forest to sustain their migratory and reproductive 

cycles. These species include dozens of migratory songbirds and terrestrial mammals that are not 

migratory but that require large tracts of forest to support their home ranges. The impacts of 

fragmentation can be immediate and significant because population levels for many such species are low 

and on the decline. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral and associated facilities, if approved, would mainly 

4-137 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
affect agricultural land (about 112.7 miles, or 2,197.7 acres) during construction. Impacts on native 

vegetative communities during construction would affect 29.5 miles (389.4 acres) of upland forest and 4.3 

miles (43.1 acres) of managed forest. The East End Expansion Project would impact about 17.0 miles 

(275.4 acres) of upland forest and 3.0 (66.4 acres) miles of managed forest. 

The extent and duration of the cumulative impact on wildlife habitats associated with construction of the 

two projects would be minimized by using existing maintained rights-of-way and other disturbed areas as 

much as possible. The proposed Project pipeline route would be collocated with or parallel to the existing 

Ozark and CenterPoint rights-of-way where possible (about 90 miles, or about 54 percent of the proposed 

route), thereby minimizing impacts on undisturbed vegetation. About 76 percent of the proposed 

Fayetteville Lateral would traverse agricultural, industrial, and open lands and pastures and other areas 

that would typically experience rapid revegetation after construction is completed, and only 18 percent of 

the proposed Fayetteville Lateral route would traverse upland forest. Texas Gas and Ozark would 

implement the mitigation measures outlined in our Plan and Procedures to encourage the regrowth of 

native vegetation and discourage the spread of exotic or noxious plants. The East End Expansion Project 

would be collocated for about 33 percent of its proposed route, and only 10 percent of the East End 

Expansion Project would traverse upland forest or managed forest. We believe that since forest impact 

would be minimized along both project routes by collocation along existing rights-of-way and by 

developing pipeline routes that would mainly cross agricultural and more open land use types, cumulative 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife have been minimized and would not be significant. 

Both projects have the potential to impact federally or state-listed threatened and endangered species 

and/or special status species. As described in section 4.7, we believe that the proposed Project would not 

significantly affect federally listed species. We and the project sponsors have consulted with the federal 

and state resource agencies concerning the need to implement specific conservation and mitigation 

measures to protect threatened, endangered, and other special-status species. To the extent possible, 

Texas Gas has integrated agency recommendations by conducting appropriate surveys to identify and 

locate listed species and their potential habitat and to develop project locations that would 

minimize/avoid impacts to these species or their habitats as needed. Consequently, we believe that the 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife resources would not be significant. 

4.12.3.4 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable projects would result in temporary 

and permanent changes in land use within the Project area. The proposed Fayetteville Lateral and 

associated facilities would affect a total of about 3,082.4 acres of land during construction. The proposed 

East End Expansion Project would impact 2,472.0 acres of land during construction. As indicated in 

section 4.12.3.3, about 72 percent of these impacts would be on agricultural lands for the Fayetteville 

Lateral. Less than 1 percent of both projects would impact commercial, industrial, or residential lands. 

Unlike highway transportation projects, which would permanently convert thousands of acres of land to 

paved impervious surfaces, much of the land use affected during construction of these projects would be 

restored and allowed to revert to preconstruction uses and conditions once pipeline installation is 

complete. Because non-woody vegetation would be expected to return to preconstruction conditions over 

the short term, impacts on acreage classified as agriculture, pastures, and open land would be minor and 

short term. Long-term impacts on cleared forestlands located outside the permanently maintained rightsof-way would take many years to return to preconstruction conditions, with recovery time dependent on 

the types and ages of the trees removed. However, given the prevalence of these land uses and cover 

types within the affected counties, we believe that cumulative impacts on land use would not be 

significant. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-138 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
4.12.3.5 Air Quality and Noise 

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-fuel-powered construction equipment and fugitive dust 

from land clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads. 

While Ozark has identified two future compressor stations associated with the East End Expansion 

Project, the Fayetteville Lateral has no compression associated with it; therefore, no cumulative 

operational air impacts would occur. Because construction-related activities would be temporary and 

localized in nature, they would be unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts. 

Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Project and other reasonable foreseeable projects 

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 generally not occur at night. The projects could cause minor temporary impacts at NSAs 

near HDD sites. As indicated in section 4.11, we have recommended that Texas Gas develop site-specific 

mitigation plans if potential noise impacts are identified in conjunction with the identified HDD sites. 

While Ozark has identified two future compressor stations associated with the East End Expansion 

Project, the Fayetteville Lateral has no compression associated with it; therefore, no cumulative 

operational noise impacts would occur. 

4.12.4 Conclusions 

If the proposed Project and the East End Expansion Project are certificated, the effects of their 

construction could overlap in time from the years 2008 through 2010. In addition, the type of project, 

construction methods, and impacts would be similar. Any identified significant but unavoidable impacts 

on sensitive resources resulting from construction or operation of the proposed Project or the East End 

Expansion Project would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to avoidance or minimization of 

cumulative impacts. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and the East End 

Expansion Project would be minimized by careful project alignment, utilization of HDD techniques to 

avoid and minimize impacts on some sensitive resources such as waterbodies and wetlands, and 

implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is 

anticipated when the impacts of the proposed Project are added to reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in the area. 

4.13 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

4.13.1 Pipeline Facilities 

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 asphyxiant, posing only a slight inhalation hazard. It is lighter than air and, 

therefore, tends to disperse upwards into the atmosphere rather than concentrating at ground level. 

Methane has an auto-ignition temperature of 1,000o Fahrenheit and is flammable at concentrations 

between 5.0 percent and 15.0 percent in air. 

4-139 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. Methane’s lighter-than-air condition does not 

allow it to concentrate, but at a flammable concentration within an enclosed space and in the presence of 

an ignition source, it can cause explosion. The specific gravity of methane is 0.55, so it is buoyant at 

atmospheric temperatures. 

4.13.1.1 Pipeline 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, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA, 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. The 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 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 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 FERC becomes aware of an existing or potential safety problem, 

there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert 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 whether proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed 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 facility 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 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-140 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
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 on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-

month period. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories above ground 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. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (i.e., 10.0 miles in 

Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness and 

pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable operating pressure, inspection 

and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys also must conform to higher 

standards in more populated areas. 

Class locations along the proposed Project route have been determined in accordance with the DOT 

Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR Part 192 for the pipe classifications along the Project. 

Class locations for the Fayetteville Lateral and Greenville Lateral are listed by milepost in table 4.13.1-1. 

The 0.8-mile Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and the 0.4-mile Kosciusko/Southern Natural 20-inch Tiein Lateral are located entirely in a Class 1 area. No portions of the pipeline routes would be in Class 4 

areas. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in class 

location for the pipeline, Texas Gas would be required to reduce the maximum allowable operating 

pressure 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. 

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 

were required to develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the 

elements described in section 192.911 and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline 

segment. Specifically, the law establishes an integrity management program that applies to all high 

consequence areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 Federal Register 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 section 192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

4-141 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.13.1-1 

Class Locations by Milepost 

Feature Class 1 Class 1 

Length 

Class 2 

Length Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Length 

Fayetteville Lateral 

From To From To From To 

Class 1 0.0 46.5 46.5 

Class 2 – Residential 46.5 47.6 1.1 

Class 1 47.6 61.0 13.4 

Class 2 – Residential 61.0 63.1 2.1 

Class 1 63.1 145.9 82.8 

Class 2 - Residential 145.9 146.6 0.7 

Class 1 146.6 166.2 19.6 

Total Class 1, Fayetteville Lateral 162.3 

Total Class 2, Fayetteville Lateral 3.9 

Total Class 3, Fayetteville Lateral 0.00 

Greenville Lateral 

Class 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Class 3 - Apartment Complex 0.1 0.4 0.3 

Class 1 0.4 63.3 62.9 

Class 2 - Population Density 63.3 65.2 1.9 

Class 1 65.2 78.1 12.9 

Class 2 - Population Density 78.1 79.1 1.0 

Class 1 79.1 82.4 3.3 

Class 2 - Population Density 82.4 83.6 1.2 

Class 1 83.6 94.7 11.1 

Class 2 - Population Density 94.7 95.0 0.3 

Class 1 95.0 96.4 1.4 

Total Class 1, Greenville Lateral 91.7 

Total Class 2, Greenville Lateral 4.4 

Total Class 3, Greenville Lateral 0.3 

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: 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-142 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• current Class 3 and 4 locations, 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius5 is greater than 660 feet and there 

are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle6

, 

or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site.7 

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or 

• an identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs along 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. 

HCAs for the proposed Project have been determined in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal 

Safety Standards in 49 CFR Part 192 for the pipe classifications along the proposed route, and are 

summarized in table 4.13.1-2. No HCAs were identified along the proposed 0.8-mile Kosciusko 36-inch 

Tie-in Lateral or the 0.4-mile Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral. 

The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline in 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 Section 192.615, each pipeline 

operator also must 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 

 

5

 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the maximum allowable 

operating pressure of the pipeline in psi multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 

6

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

7

 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. 

4-143 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

TABLE 4.13.1-2 

High Consequence Areas 

HCA Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Length 

(miles) Description 

Fayetteville Lateral 

 No HCAs on Fayetteville Lateral 

Total HCA Fayetteville Lateral 0.0 

Greenville Lateral 

HCA 0.0 0.4 0.4 Apartment Complex 

HCA 64.0 64.5 0.5 Church Complex 

HCA 73.1 73.6 0.5 Church Camp 

HCA 76.4 76.5 0.1 Manufacturing Building 

Total HCA Greenville Lateral 1.5 

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 also must 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. 

Texas Gas 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. 

4.13.1.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Starting February 9, 1970, 49 CFR Part 191 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 a death or 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. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-144 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. Since 

that date, operators must report only incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, injury, 

death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. Table 4.13.1-3 presents 

a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent incident data for 1986 

through 2003, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.5-year period from 1970 

through June 1984, which provides a larger data set and more basic report information than subsequent 

years, has been subject to detailed analysis (Jones et al., 1986), as described in the following sections. 

TABLE 4.13.1-3 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause 

Incidents per 1,000 miles of Pipeline (percentage) 

Cause 1970-1984 1986-2005 

Outside force 0.70 (53.8) 0.10 (38.4) 

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 0.26 

__________ 

Source: Jones et al. (1986); USDOT, OPS http//ops.dot.gov/stats.htm (2006) 

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, 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 4.13.1-3 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. The pipelines included in the data 

set in table 4.13.1-3 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. 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents in the 

1970–1984 period and 38.4 percent in the 1986–2003 period. 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 4.13.1-4 shows that human error in equipment usage was responsible for about 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 preconstruction information to contractors 

or other maintenance workers regarding the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 

1986 through 2003 data show that the portion of incidents caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.4 

percent. 

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 

4-145 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe generally uses more 

advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

TABLE 4.13.1-4 

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 

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 4.13.1-5 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 shows 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 4.13.1-5 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984) 

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 miles per Year 

None-bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

4.13.2 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in table 4.13.1-3 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes with 

widely varying consequences. About two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks, and the 

remaining third classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 4.13.2-1 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission and 

gathering lines from 1970 to 2003. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and non-employees, 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 

non-employees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2003 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-146 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
decreased to 3.8 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 2.9 fatalities per year for this period. 

TABLE 4.13.2-1 

Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems a,b/ 

Year Employees Non-employees Total 

1970-June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984-2006 3.2 

1984-2006 2.6 

__________ 

a/ 1970 through June 1984 - American Gas Association, 1986. 

b/ DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). 

c/ Employee/non-employee 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 man-made and natural hazards are listed in 

Table 4.13.2-2 in order 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 of 2.6 public 

fatalities per year is relatively small considering the more than 300,000 miles of transmission and 

gathering lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is about two orders of magnitude (100 

times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, earthquakes, etc. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on about 300,000 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 about 1,000 miles of pipeline. 

Using this rate, the proposed Project might result in a public fatality every 380 years. This would 

represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

4-147 4.0 – Environmental Analysis 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE 4.13.2-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a/ 

Type of Accident 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) 

181 

All liquid and gas pipelines 

 (1978-87 average) b/ 

27 

Gas transmission and gathering lines 

 Non-employees only (1970-84 average) c/ 

2.6 

__________ 

a/ All data, unless otherwise noted, reflects 1996 statistics from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 

118th edition. 

b/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar 

Year 1987. 

c/ American Gas Association, 1986. 

4.0 – Environmental Analysis 4-148 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Texas Gas Fayetteville/Greenville 

Expansion Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts based on information provided 

by Texas Gas and information developed from data requests; our field investigations; literature research; 

alternatives analysis; comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from public groups and 

individual citizens. 

As part of our review, we developed measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. We are, therefore, recommending that 

our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. A 

summary of the anticipated Project impacts and our conclusions are provided below by resource. We 

believe that if the proposed Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations, Texas Gas’s proposed mitigation, and our additional recommended mitigation measures, it 

would be an environmentally acceptable action. 

Geology 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would have minimal impact on geologic resources. 

About 55 miles of the westernmost portion of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross 

Southwestern’s Fayetteville Shale gas production area, and 10 active wells would be within 0.5 mile of 

the Project. Active well drilling and gathering line installation was observed during our site visits to this 

area. Therefore, additional wells may be within 0.5 mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral in the 

future. Texas Gas has consulted with Southwestern to develop a pipeline route through the gas 

production area to minimize conflicts with ongoing development of this resource and to plan locations for 

M&R stations to interconnect with Southwestern’s gathering pipelines. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect development of oil and 

gas in the area. Operation of the Project could assist in developing this resource since the purpose of the 

Project is to provide pipeline capacity to transport the new natural gas supplies being developed from the 

Fayetteville Shale gas production area. 

The Project would cross an area of relatively low seismic risk, and the potential for damage to the 

pipeline from earthquake or soil liquefaction hazard would be minimal. There are no areas prone to 

landslides or sinkhole development along any of the proposed pipeline routes or at any proposed 

aboveground facility site. Geologic risk associated with construction and operation of the Project would 

not be significant. Blasting may be required along portions of the Fayetteville Lateral but would not be 

required for construction of the Greenville Lateral. Blasting for grade or trench excavation would be 

considered only after all other reasonable means of excavation have been evaluated and determined to be 

unlikely to achieve the required results. Texas Gas may specify locations (foreign line crossings, nearby 

structures, etc.) where consolidated rock would be removed by approved mechanical equipment (e.g., 

rock trenching machines, rock saws, hydraulic rams, and jack hammers) in lieu of blasting. All blasting 

activities would comply with federal, state and local regulations and permit conditions and would be 

conducted by or under the direct supervision of experienced, licensed, and certified personnel. If blasting 

is required, Texas Gas would use the minimum explosive charge necessary to fracture bedrock and keep 

shot-rock from leaving the construction right-of-way in accordance with its blasting specifications (see 

section 4.1.3.5). Where necessary, excess rock would be hauled off site, away from the right-of-way or, 

subject to landowner approval and applicable permit conditions, disposed of on the right-of-way. We 

5-1 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
believe that impacts due to blasting would be minimized by implementing Texas Gas’s blasting 

specifications, and further, Texas Gas has agreed to repair, replace, or compensate landowners for damage 

caused by blasting. 

No areas of special or unusual paleontological resources were identified within the proposed Project 

construction workspaces or within the footprints of associated aboveground facilities. If significant 

paleontological resources are identified during construction, Texas Gas would report findings to the 

Arkansas Geologic Commission or the MDEQ. Based on the lack of unusual or significant 

paleontological resources within the Project area, we believe that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would not significantly affect paleontological resources. 

Soils 

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, as well as the movement of 

equipment along the construction right-of-way, may result in adverse impacts on soil resources. These 

impacts would include soil mixing, compaction, and erosion by water and wind. To minimize mixing of 

topsoil and subsoil during pipeline construction in agricultural areas, and residential areas where 

requested, a maximum of the upper 12 inches of topsoil would be excavated and segregated from subsoil 

trench spoil. The topsoil would be returned during right-of-way restoration. Texas Gas would implement 

decompaction measures such as para-plowing, deep tillage, or planting and plowing-in a green manure 

crop to improve soil bulk density for severely compacted soils. Appropriate erosion control measures, 

including the installation of slope breakers and sediment barriers such as silt fence or hay bales, the use of 

mulch and erosion control fabrics, and the restoration of the right-of-way within 20 days of backfilling the 

trench, weather conditions permitting, would be used to minimize and control erosion. If active drainage 

tiles, culverts, or other drainage facilities are damaged during construction, Texas Gas would replace or 

repair them to a condition that is equal to or better than preconstruction condition. No areas of soil 

contamination were identified within the construction footprint of the Project area. 

About 32 percent of the soil along the Fayetteville Lateral and about 90 percent of the soil along the 

Greenville Lateral are considered hydric. Areas where hydric soils would occur with wetland hydrology 

and vegetation are identified in section 4.4. Hydric soils are prone to compaction and rutting due to 

extended periods of saturation and high clay content. If construction occurs when these soils are 

saturated, heavy equipment operation would be impaired and compaction and rutting could occur. Texas 

Gas would decompact soils during restoration to alleviate compaction. High groundwater levels that 

accompany hydric soils could create a buoyancy hazard for the pipeline. The pipeline would have 

concrete coating and would be weighted to overcome buoyancy when the pipeline is buried so that the 

buoyancy hazard would be minimized during operation. Texas Gas also would install the pipeline and 

restore the right-of-way in accordance with our Plan and Procedures; therefore, we conclude that impacts 

on hydric soils would be minimized during construction and operation of the Project. 

Water Resources 

Groundwater

Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities could affect groundwater in several ways. 

Clearing, grading, trenching, and soil stockpiling activities could temporarily alter overland flow and 

groundwater recharge. Near-surface soil compaction caused by the operation of heavy construction 

equipment could reduce the soil’s ability to absorb water, which could increase surface runoff and the 

potential for ponding and could alter aquifer recharge. However, these impacts would be localized and 

temporary. Upon completion of construction, Texas Gas would restore the ground surface as closely as 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-2 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
practicable to original contours, conduct decompaction where appropriate, and revegetate the right-ofway to restore preconstruction overland flow and recharge patterns. 

Unconfined aquifers and shallow groundwater areas could be vulnerable to contamination caused by 

inadvertent surface spills of hazardous materials used during construction. Texas Gas has developed its 

SPCC Plan (appendix D), which conforms to section IV.A of our Procedures, to address preventive and 

mitigative measures to avoid or minimize the potential for hazardous material spills during construction. 

We have reviewed the 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 a spill. 

No public water supply wells would be within 150 feet of the Fayetteville Lateral. Three public water 

supply wells would be within 150 feet of the Greenville Lateral workspaces. The MDEQ has no specific 

requirements for construction near these wells other than a request that caution be observed to avoid 

damage to the wellheads. Texas Gas would clearly mark the wellheads to prevent damage during 

construction activities. Texas Gas also would use BMPs and implement the procedures of its SPCC Plan 

if any spill of hazardous materials occurs during construction. 

The ADHHS identified three WHPAs and water supply watersheds (Brewer Lake and Little Red River 

watersheds) within 1 mile of the proposed Fayetteville Lateral. The ADHHS suggested a route variation 

and alternative, respectively, to move the Fayetteville Lateral out of these watersheds or for Texas Gas to 

provide the ADHHS with its plan for constructing through the watersheds so that ADHHS may document 

any potential impact on the water supply. We analyzed the route variation and alternative suggested by 

the ADHHS but concluded that the corresponding segments of the proposed route were the preferred 

alternatives (see section 3.3.3). We are, however, recommending that Texas Gas consult with the 

ADHHS about the construction methods it would use to cross the Brewer Lake and Little Red River 

watersheds so that any additional mitigation measures to protect these resources could be identified prior 

to construction. 

Fifteen private water supply wells would be within 150 feet of construction workspaces, and three private 

wells would be within 150 feet of access roads along the Fayetteville Lateral. For the proposed 

Greenville Lateral, 12 private wells would be within 150 feet of the construction footprint, three private 

wells would be within 150 feet of access roads, and four private wells would be within 150 feet of storage 

yards. Texas Gas would conduct pre- and post-construction yield and water quality tests on water wells 

within 150 feet of construction workspaces, with landowner permission, and would repair any water 

supply systems damaged by construction activities. Texas Gas would provide a temporary source of 

water if water supplies are disrupted until repairs are made. 

No workspaces would be within 150 feet of springs. However, they may be identified during easement 

negotiations with landowners prior to construction, and the locations of water wells may also be known 

with greater refinement at that time. Therefore, we are recommending that Texas Gas update the 

locations of water wells and springs within 150 feet of construction workspaces prior to construction. 

If Texas Gas uses BMPs during Project construction and operation, implements the mitigation measures 

in our Plan and Procedures and in its SPCC Plan, then impacts on groundwater resources would be 

minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 

Surface Water

The Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals and the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross a total of 

70 perennial and 413 intermittent waterbodies. No waterbodies would be crossed by the Kosciusko 20-

5-3 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
inch Tie-in Lateral. No potable water intakes would be within 3 miles downstream of any proposed 

waterbody crossing. The Project pipelines would cross 13 waterbodies that may contain contaminated 

sediments, six by the Fayetteville Lateral and seven on the Greenville Lateral. Of these waterbodies, 

seven would be crossed by HDD methods, thereby avoiding sediment disruption. The remaining six 

waterbodies would be crossed by conventional open-cut methods. The ADEQ and MDEQ would require 

Texas Gas to coordinate with them about crossing these waterbodies and would require appropriate 

construction, notification, and mitigation procedures in any permits they issue for the Project. Texas Gas 

would file these permits with the FERC when they are received. 

The proposed pipelines would cross nine ecologically unique or significant waterbodies, seven in 

Arkansas and two in Mississippi. In addition, the proposed pipelines would cross 12 waterbodies that do 

not meet water quality standards associated with their designated uses, eight in Arkansas and four in 

Mississippi. Eight of these waterbodies would be crossed by HDD, which would minimize the potential 

for impact on the ecologically significant or unique waterbodies and would minimize the potential for 

further degradation of water quality in waterbodies that have suspected impairment. The remaining 

waterbodies would be crossed using an open-cut method. The ADEQ and MDEQ have recommended no 

additional mitigation measures. We are recommending additional mitigation be developed for crossing 

Cadron Creek (see below). 

The proposed pipelines would cross four waterbodies listed on the NRI: Big Creek (MP 46.1), Cadron 

Creek (MP 14) and Bayou De View (MP 96.0) on the Fayetteville Lateral; and Big Black River (MP 

77.7) along the Greenville Lateral. With the exception of Cadron Creek, Texas Gas proposes to cross 

these waterbodies by HDD. We believe use of the HDD method to cross these NRI-listed waterbodies 

would minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable. We are recommending that Texas Gas consult 

with the NPS and ADEQ about its proposed site-specific crossing plan for crossing Cadron Creek by 

open-cut and to file a supplemental site-specific plan with additional mitigation measures that would 

minimize and control sedimentation downstream from the proposed crossing for review and inclusion in 

the final EIS. 

The proposed pipelines would cross 17 major waterbodies, including the Mississippi River. Of these 

waterbodies, 14 would be crossed by HDD. The remaining waterbodies would be crossed using open-cut 

methods. Texas Gas has not yet completed geotechnical investigations to determine if the proposed 

HDDs could be successfully completed. Therefore, we are recommending that Texas Gas file the reports 

for these investigations prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. If an HDD is not completed 

successfully, Texas Gas would need to obtain permits for an alternate crossing plan from the USACE and 

the appropriate state agency. Therefore, we are recommending that if any of the HDDs are unsuccessful, 

Texas Gas should file with the Secretary a site-specific alternative crossing plan for each waterbody 

where the planned HDD could not be completed. Texas Gas would implement its proposed HDD 

Contingency Plan to minimize impacts in the event that HDD attempts fail. We reviewed this plan and 

find it acceptable. 

Texas Gas would hydrostatically test its pipeline prior to operation in compliance with DOT regulations. 

No chemicals would be added to the water during testing. Texas Gas has identified 12 waterbodies as 

potential hydrostatic test water source and discharge locations. Some of these waterbodies are identified 

as ecologically significant (Big Black River and Cadron Creek), a trout fishery stream (Little Red River), 

as not meeting water quality standards (Cadron Creek, Little Red River, and Big Black River), or are 

known to have contaminated sediments (Yazoo River, Big Sunflower River, and Big Black River). Our 

Procedures require that state-designated exceptional value waters and waters that provide habitat for 

federally listed threatened or endangered species cannot be used for hydrostatic test water withdrawal or 

discharge unless appropriate federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies grant written permission 

(Procedures, section VII.C.2). The use of these waterbodies as hydrostatic testing water sources or 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-4 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
discharges would be subject to approval pursuant to any required NPDES permit. Texas Gas would be 

required to obtain and comply with the requirements of permits issued by the ADEQ, ANRC, and MDEQ 

for the withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water. Compliance with the requirements of our Plan 

and Procedures and the permitting requirements from state and local agencies would mitigate potential 

impacts resulting from the withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water. 

We believe that impacts due to construction and operation of the Project on surface water resources would 

be minimized by implementation of BMPs and our Procedures. 

Wetlands 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect a total of 141.5 acres of wetlands, of 

which 107.4 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction and allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. The remaining 33.9 acres would be permanently altered to some degree within 

the maintained permanent right-of-way. Of those 33.9 acres, about 13.2 acres would be permanently 

converted from forested and scrub-shrub wetland types to wetlands with herbaceous vegetation. These 

impacts would occur in a 10-foot-wide herbaceous strip Texas Gas would maintain above the centerline 

to facilitate operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The remaining 20.7 acres of impact would be 

associated with the conversion from a forested community to a shrub-scrub or emergent system within 

two 10-foot-wide strips on either side of the centerline strip. Texas Gas has indicated that 0.2 acre would 

be permanently lost due to the installation and operation of the permanently maintained Kosciusko 

Compressor Station; however, we are recommending that Texas Gas evaluate an alternative compressor 

station configuration to avoid impact on the 0.2-acre of wetland. Of the remaining acreage, about 13.2 

acres would be permanently converted from forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to herbaceous vegetation 

since Texas Gas would maintain a 10-foot-wide herbaceous strip above the centerline to facilitate 

operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The remaining 20.7 acres of impact would be associated with 

the conversion from a forested community to a shrub-scrub or emergent system within 15 feet of either 

side of the pipeline centerline. 

Texas Gas would use BMPs and the measures identified in our Procedures and in any permit that may be 

issued by other agencies to minimize impacts on wetlands during construction and operation of the 

Project. All wetlands in temporary construction workspaces would be allowed to revegetate and return to 

preconstruction conditions. Within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, maintenance activity would 

be limited to annual mowing along a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline and to selective cutting 

of vegetation that is more than 15 feet tall within a 30-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline 

centerline. This would allow an additional 20 feet of wetland restoration to occur, thereby further 

minimizing permanent impacts on wetlands. 

Texas Gas proposes using ATWSs in wetlands at certain locations, affecting about 10.7 acres of wetlands. 

Our Procedures require that an ATWS be located at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, and the 

proposed ATWSs would not have a 50-foot setback. In compliance with our Procedures, Texas Gas must 

file site-specific plans for use of each of the ATWSs in wetlands. We are recommending that, prior to 

construction, Texas Gas file a site-specific construction plan for each ATWS with a less than 50-foot 

setback from wetland boundaries (except where adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 

50-foot setback. 

The USACE will verify the potential wetland impacts due to Project construction as part of its permitting 

process. Texas Gas would provide compensation for any permanent loss of wetland resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project, as well as long-term conversion of forested wetlands 

to non-forested conditions. Texas Gas would develop compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts, 

5-5 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
in consultation with the USACE Little Rock, Memphis, and Vicksburg Districts. Texas Gas is proposing 

to compensate for wetland impacts through purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits, but specific 

compensation would be finalized during the course of the USACE Section 404 permitting for the 

proposed Project, if approved. Mitigation for these wetland impacts would be at a mitigation ratio as 

determined by the USACE. We have recommended that Texas Gas file the final wetland Mitigation Plan 

it develops with the USACE prior to construction. 

Texas Gas would implement the construction, restoration, and maintenance measures described in our 

Procedures for Project construction and operation. The Project pipeline routes have been developed in 

consultation with us and the USACE and would avoid wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. 

Wetland impacts would be further minimized by using HDDs to cross several larger wetlands and 

associated waterbodies since wetlands within the path of the HDD would be avoided. Therefore, we 

believe that the proposed Project would have minimal impact on wetlands. 

Vegetation 

Project impacts on vegetative communities would vary depending upon disturbance duration, magnitude, 

and vegetation cover type. Most of the affected land would be in actively cultivated agricultural land 

(3,222.8 acres), which is regularly disturbed. The other primary vegetative types include upland forest 

(688.0 acres) and managed forest (59.4 acres). The remaining affected land would be in other land and 

open water (1,087 acres). The primary wetland community impacted would be palustrine 

forested/emergent (see above for a summary of wetland impacts). Long-term to permanent impacts 

would occur on forested habitat due to construction and operation. Although temporarily disturbed 

forested areas would be allowed to revegetate, it may take over 20 years for this type of vegetation to 

recover, depending on the age of the cleared trees. Following construction, all construction work areas 

would be restored, seeded with conservation grasses, legumes, native plant species or other standard 

erosion control/cover species, where required, and generally allowed to revegetate to preconstruction 

conditions in accordance with our Plan. The FWS recommends that native or non-persistent annual 

species be used to revegetate works areas. We are recommending that Texas Gas consult with the NRCS 

or other local soil conservation authorities regarding seeding and revegetation practices for the proposed 

Project and to file any agency-recommendations about this issue. The permanent right-of-way would be 

maintained in an herbaceous state following construction. In areas other than those with active 

cultivation, the permanent right-of-way would be maintained by mowing or vegetative clearing in 

accordance with our Plan and Procedures. There would be no long-term impacts in areas with existing 

herbaceous cover types following restoration. However, about 340 acres of upland forest and about 33.9 

acres of forested wetlands would be permanently converted from forest land to an herbaceous cover. 

The wetlands associated with the Cache River and Bayou De View have been identified as wetlands of 

international importance by the Ramsar Convention and as the most important wintering area for mallards 

by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The ivory billed woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) was identified within the Bayou De View portion of the Cache River NWR. The Cache River 

basin contains a variety of wetland communities, including some of the most intact and least disturbed 

bottomland hardwood forests in the Mississippi Valley Region. The White River area also contains 

bottomland hardwood forests. Texas Gas proposes to use HDDs to cross the White and Cache Rivers and 

Bayou De View and their associated forested wetlands. We believe that Texas Gas’s use of HDDs to 

avoid impacts on these waterbodies and adjacent forested wetlands and their use of our Procedures would 

minimize impacts on these vegetative resources. 

The temporary removal of vegetation may result in increased opportunities for invasive and exotic species 

to establish themselves in Project rights-of-way and extra workspaces. Adherence to Texas Gas’s 

proposed Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan, in conjunction with consultations with local, state, 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-6 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
and federal agencies, would minimize the potential for introduction or establishment of nuisance and 

exotic species within the Project area. Reestablishment of vegetation in all disturbed areas soon after 

backfilling the trench and final grading would minimize the opportunities for invasive species to become 

established. We believe that Texas Gas’s use of its Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan would 

minimize the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Wildlife

Direct impacts of construction on wildlife would include displacement of wildlife from the right-of-way 

and direct mortality of some individuals. The cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation 

would involve temporary alteration and permanent loss of habitat. In general, these effects are not 

expected to have a significant impact on wildlife populations because all of the habitats that would be 

affected are relatively abundant elsewhere in the proposed Project area, and about 64 percent of the land 

use that would be affected by the Project is already disturbed by agriculture. Furthermore, Texas Gas’s 

implementation of our Plan and Procedures and use of seed mixes prescribed by the local NRCS offices 

or the appropriate land management agency would improve the potential for successful revegetation of 

the right-of-way after construction. Habitat loss in agricultural land and pasture would not have a 

significant effect on wildlife in the area because of the abundance of these types of habitat in the vicinity 

of the proposed Project and the limited value of these habitat types to wildlife. 

The permanent pipeline right-of-way would be revegetated after construction has been completed. 

Although temporary and permanent impacts on food, cover, and water sources may occur, none of the 

species identified within the Project area are specialized in such a way that construction of a pipeline 

would inhibit the overall fitness or reproductive viability of the populations as a whole. Many of the 

mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian species are adaptive to changing habitat conditions and have the 

capability of temporarily expanding or shifting their home ranges to find alternative sources of food, 

water, and shelter until the right-of-way habitats become reestablished. 

The Project would be within the Mississippi flyway and the eastern edge of the Central flyway in Texas 

for migratory birds. Texas Gas would minimize impacts on migratory birds and their habitats by crossing 

the Mississippi River, White River, Cache River, Bayou De View, and their associated riparian habitats 

by HDD. 

The Project corridor includes areas of emergent marsh and riparian habitat that could provide habitat for 

colonial nesting waterbirds. However, no documented rookeries would be within 0.5 mile of the Project. 

Given the abundant adjacent areas that can provide alternative habitat, we conclude that there would be 

minimal impact on colonial nesting waterbirds. 

The proposed Pipeline would cross two NWRs: the Cache River NWR in Woodruff County, Arkansas, 

and Hillside NWR in Holmes County, Mississippi. Texas Gas proposes to cross under the NWRs by 

HDD, thereby avoiding impacts on these resources. In the event that the HDD attempt fails, Texas Gas 

would be required to consult with appropriate state and federal agencies prior to implementing an 

alternative crossing method. 

Aquatic Resources

The proposed Project would cross 70 perennial waterbodies. Potential impacts on aquatic resources from 

Project construction and operation include those associated with and pipeline construction across 

waterbodies and through wetlands. Waterbody crossings would be accomplished using open-cut or HDD 

5-7 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
methods. Impacts on fisheries resources resulting from open-cut pipeline construction activities at 

waterbody crossings can include sedimentation and turbidity, alteration or removal of in-stream and 

stream bank fish cover, introduction of water pollutants, and entrainment of small organisms during 

hydrostatic testing. Generally, pipeline construction through waterbodies results in temporary impacts, 

and there are no long-term effects on water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, benthic invertebrate 

populations, or fish populations. The open-cut method would also affect fish by blocking migration 

pathways and interrupting spawning activities. Our Procedures require that, in waterbodies with coldwater fisheries, in-stream work be completed between June 1 through September 30; and in waterbodies 

with warm-water fisheries, in-stream work be completed between June 1 and November 30. Although 

construction disturbances would temporarily displace fish or hinder migrations in waterbodies, we 

anticipate that these affects would be localized, temporary, and generally minor. 

Overall impacts on the fishery resources in the Project area generally would be minimal and short-term. 

Pipeline construction and restoration activities within and adjacent to waterbodies would be conducted in 

accordance with our Plan and Procedures to minimize impacts on fisheries, their habitat, and other aquatic 

organisms. In addition, Texas Gas would implement additional protective measures as may be required 

by state and federal agencies as part of their permitting processes. 

Direct spills of petroleum or other toxic products into waterbodies during construction and facility 

operation could be harmful to aquatic organisms, depending on the type, quantity, and concentration of 

the spill. To reduce the potential for direct surface water contamination, Texas Gas would implement the 

procedures in its SPCC Plan, including restrictions on refueling equipment and storing fuel and other 

potentially toxic materials at least 100 feet from waterbodies during construction. 

Post-construction or operational impacts of the pipeline would be minimal. Restoration of the vegetation 

along the pipeline construction work areas would minimize erosion potential relative to waterbodies. 

Minimal impact on fisheries would be expected from maintenance mowing or manual removal of woody 

vegetation since maintenance activities would be conducted in accordance with our Plan and Procedures. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Based on the presence of habitat and historical records of occurrence, 12 federally listed endangered and 

threatened species potentially occur within the proposed Project area. These include: one mammal 

(Louisiana black bear), four bird species (bald eagle, interior least tern, ivory-billed woodpecker, and 

woodstork), one fish species (pallid sturgeon), four mussel species (fat pocketbook, pink mucket, 

scaleshell, and speckled pocketbook), one insect (American burying beetle), and one plant species 

(pondberry). In addition, one candidate fish species was identified: the yellow cheek darter. A number 

of state-listed plant and mussel species also were identified within the vicinity of the Project area. 

The FWS and AGFC recommended that a survey for the listed mussel species be conducted in 12 specific 

Arkansas waterbodies that would be crossed by the open–cut method. Texas Gas completed this survey 

in October 2007; however, they have not yet provided the report about the survey to the FERC or the 

FWS. Texas Gas has indicated, however, that none of the federally listed mussel species were found. 

No federally or state listed species were observed during field surveys of the Project area. The FWS and 

ANHC have expressed concern regarding impacts on habitat of the pondberry, and the ANHC has 

recommended avoiding its potential habitat. We are recommending that Texas Gas identify the milepost 

locations of potential pondberry habitat within or immediately adjacent to construction workspaces and 

explain how it would implement the ANHC’s recommendations to avoid suitable pondberry habitat (i.e., 

sandpond forest and wooded depressional habitat) at each location. We believe that, except for the 

federally listed mussel species, the Project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-8 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
endangered species. A determination on the federally listed mussel species would be made only after 

review of Texas Gas’s pending mussel survey report. We are recommending that Texas Gas not begin 

construction activities until our consultation with the FWS about impacts on federally listed threatened or 

endangered species is concluded. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Construction of the Project would disturb about 5,057.2 acres of land, including about 3,199.6 acres 

during construction of the proposed pipeline facilities, 113.5 acres during construction of aboveground 

facilities, 635.0 acres for ATWS, 946.6 acres for pipe and contractor storage yards, and 162.5 acres for 

access roads. About 1,731.2 acres would be required for the permanent pipeline right-of-way and 

aboveground facilities. Agricultural land would be the primary land use affected by construction (3,222.8 

acres) and operation (1,108.5 acres) of the Project. Upland and managed forest land use would have the 

next greatest impact (747.4 acres during construction, 340 acres during operation). Open land use types 

include non-forested rangeland, pastureland, non-agricultural fields, prairie, and open land in the early 

stages of succession. Upland forest impact would be followed by open land use (437.4 acres during 

construction, 124.3 acres during operation). About 174.8 acres of commercial/industrial land use would 

be impacted by the Project, of which about 0.5 acre would be required for the permanent pipeline rightof-way. The remaining land use affected includes other land and open water (474.8 acres during 

construction, 157.9 acres during operation). Texas Gas would obtain an easement from landowners to 

construct and operate the pipeline and associated facilities. 

The primary impact on agricultural land would be the loss of crops within the work area, and possibly 

immediately adjacent areas, since this land would be taken out of production for one growing season. In 

addition, construction-related activities could damage or interrupt irrigation. If the flow of irrigation 

water is disrupted for a prolonged period, crops outside the Project right-of-way could be damaged and 

crop yields reduced. Following construction, the majority of agricultural land uses would continue within 

the permanent right-of-way. Because the right-of-way could be used for crop production following 

construction, any loss of production would be a short-term impact. About 99 acres of the agricultural 

land that would be crossed by the Project has pivot-irrigation. During construction of the pipelines, the 

presence of large piles of topsoil, an open trench, and construction equipment, etc., would likely make the 

movement of a pivot irrigation system across the pipeline corridor problematic. Texas Gas plans to 

coordinate closely with landowners about the feasibility of pivot irrigation during the construction period. 

Following construction of the pipeline, there would be no permanent impacts on any pivot irrigation 

systems. 

Texas Gas would segregate topsoil in lands with annually cultivated or rotated crops, in hayfields, and at 

the landowner’s request. Texas Gas would implement its agriculture compensation program for impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project, including compensating landowners for 

anticipated crop losses. Based on the mitigation measures that Texas Gas would implement as part of 

construction and operation of the proposed Project, we believe that impacts on agricultural lands would 

not be significant along the proposed permanent pipeline right-of-way. However, where aboveground 

facilities such as the proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station, are sited on agricultural land, the land use 

would be permanently changed from agricultural to developed (industrial) land. In addition, some 

activities within the permanent right-of-way, such as planting of trees and shrubs, would be prohibited. 

The primary impact of construction on forestland by the Project would be the removal of trees and shrubs 

from the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Following construction, trees and shrubs would be 

allowed to regenerate within the areas that would not be retained as part of the 50-foot-wide permanent 

right-of-way. After final construction cleanup, the temporary workspaces would be restored in 

accordance with our Plan, agency requirements associated with applicable permits, and landowner 

5-9 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
requests. The impact on forest land use within the permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way would be the 

permanent change to open land. Texas Gas would compensate landowners for loss of timber in 

accordance with negotiated easement agreements. 

Pipeline construction results in long-term to permanent impacts on managed forest land use. Temporary 

workspaces would revegetate naturally, but since regrowth of forests could take over 20 years, the impact 

would be long-term to permanent. The impact on managed forest land use within the permanent 50-footwide right-of-way would be the permanent change to open land. Texas Gas would compensate 

landowners for loss of timber in accordance with negotiated easement agreements. 

Texas Gas identified the locations of special crops (e.g., rice, cotton, sorghum) and orchards (e.g., fruit 

trees, nut trees) that would be crossed by the Project. About 270.5 acres of special crops would be 

affected by Project construction, with 120.9 acres occurring within the permanent rights-of-way. About 

30.6 acres of orchards would be affected by Project construction, with 15.4 acres occurring within the 

permanent rights-of-way. Texas Gas would compensate landowners for the loss of orchard crops. Since 

rice fields would need precision leveling during restoration to restore productivity, we are recommending 

that, prior to construction, Texas Gas develop site-specific crossing plans in consultation with the 

landowner for each identified rice field impacted by construction. 

The proposed Project would cross one tract of land enrolled in the WRP. Coordination with the NRCS is 

ongoing about crossing this area. The NRCS states that Texas Gas would be required to obtain a 

subordination of NRSC’s easement for this tract prior to construction. We are recommending that Texas 

Gas complete consultation with the NRCS and develop a site-specific restoration plan for the affected 

WRP land prior to construction. Based on our consultation with NRCS, the proposed route through the 

WRP tract would be acceptable. 

Affected land uses include roads, railroads, and utility corridors (e.g., pipelines and powerlines) 

perpendicularly crossed by or collocated along the proposed pipelines. These areas could be temporarily 

disturbed during grading, trenching, drilling, and backfilling. Texas Gas would obtain any required 

permits for crossing roads or working within road rights-of-way, and would coordinate with the 

owners/operators of the utilities to address any issues about working in proximity to their facilities. 

Following final construction cleanup, these areas would be returned to preconstruction conditions, where 

feasible, and agency requirements associated with applicable permits would be adhered to. Impacts on 

this land use would be short-term and temporary. 

Twenty-two residences have been identified within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline construction work 

areas. Of these, 12 would be within 25 feet of proposed construction workspaces. Texas Gas states that it 

would file site-specific plans for all residences within 50 feet of construction workspaces prior to 

construction. However, we are recommending that Texas Gas file these site-specific plans prior to the 

end of the draft EIS comment period. Texas Gas also would install and maintain construction fencing at 

the edge of the construction work area for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence and, at a 

minimum, maintain this fencing throughout the open trench phases of pipe installation, as well as 

maintain a buffer of vegetation, leaving mature trees and landscaping within the edge of the construction 

work areas, where practicable and feasible. In addition, Texas Gas would restore all work areas following 

construction in accordance with our Plan. To ensure that all landowner concerns are identified and 

resolved during construction, we are recommending that Texas Gas develop a complaint resolution 

procedure. 

Construction of the proposed Project would have some short-term impacts on industrial land use, but 

operation of the Project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on this land use. 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-10 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
The proposed Fayetteville Lateral would cross the Cache River NWR between MP 82.0 and MP 82.8, and 

the Bayou De View portion of the NWR between MP 95.9 and MP 96.6. To minimize impacts on the 

Cache River NWR, Texas Gas would cross this resource by HDD. The proposed Greenville Lateral 

would cross the northern tip of the Hillside NWR between MP 54.1 and MP 55.9, in Holmes County. To 

avoid impacts on Hillside NWR, Texas Gas would cross the NWR by HDD. The Natchez Trace Parkway 

is a 444-mile parkway system that connects southern portions of the Mississippi River valley, northern 

Alabama, and central Tennessee. Recreational opportunities associated with the parkway include scenic 

driving, hiking, biking, horseback riding, and camping. The proposed Greenville Lateral would cross the 

Natchez Trace Parkway from MP 92.8 to MP 93.0 in Attala County, Mississippi. To minimize impacts, 

Texas Gas consulted with the NPS to develop an appropriate crossing location and method. Impacts to 

the Natchez Trace Parkway would be minimized by crossing it by HDD. The NRI-eligible Big Black 

River would be crossed by the proposed Greenville Lateral near MP 77.7. It possesses ORVs related to 

scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, history, and culture. Big Black River would be crossed by HDD, 

thereby avoiding impacts on its ORVs. 

Visual impacts would result from the removal of existing vegetation along construction workspaces and 

by the construction of the permanent aboveground facilities. Visual impacts would be greatest where the 

Project right-of-way would parallel or cross roads, trails, or prominent observation points, and where the 

pipeline right-of-way would be obvious to passing motorists or recreational users. Visual impact on the 

Natchez Trace Parkway would be minimized by crossing this historic feature by HDD. Topographic 

alterations such as side hill cuts, which could be necessary for construction, would be re-contoured and 

re-vegetated during right-of-way restoration. The visibility of such alterations would diminish over time 

as the affected areas are restored and begin to blend in with the surrounding landscape. The primary 

Project components that could have a visual impact on the surrounding areas would be the aboveground 

facilities. However, existing topography and vegetation would conceal them in most instances, and 

landscaping would be added where feasible around the new M&R stations, MLVs, and launcher and 

receiver assemblies to further help these facilities blend into the surrounding landscape. Therefore, 

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would have a permanent impact on 

visual resources, but this impact would be minimized by vegetative screening, topography, and remote 

location. 

The Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral would cross Little Conehoma Creek, which was previously 

remediated for PCBs by Texas Eastern. Based on available information, we do not believe that PCB 

levels in Little Cohoma Creek are significant. If petroleum-stained soil is identified during excavation 

near Little Conehoma Creek, it would be segregated, properly characterized for disposal, and managed 

appropriately in accordance with all applicable regulations and handling protocols. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction and operation of the Project would result in short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts. 

The construction workforce for the pipeline is expected to average 1,800 workers over a 9-month period. 

About 95 percent of the workforce would be comprised of non-local workers migrating into the Project 

area. The temporary influx of the construction workforce would cause a short-term increase in population 

but should not have any adverse impact on housing or public services. 

 

Temporary and permanent fiscal benefits would result from construction and operation of the Project in 

the form of additional tax revenues paid to local jurisdictions. Texas Gas would employ four full-time 

workers to maintain and operate the Project. 

5-11 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Cultural Resources 

Texas Gas consulted with the Arkansas and Mississippi SHPOs and performed cultural resource 

investigations for areas that would be potentially affected by construction and operation of the Project. 

 

In Arkansas, surveys to date for the Fayetteville Lateral have identified 110 archaeological sites and 75 

historic architectural resources. Of these, 36 archaeological sites and 2 architectural resources have been 

recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. Thirty-seven of these would be avoided by 

deviations, realignments, or HDD, and one is currently undergoing additional testing. The Arkansas 

SHPO has requested additional information. 

In Mississippi, surveys to date for the Fayetteville and Greenville Laterals have identified 180 

archaeological sites and 21 historic architectural resources. Of these, 18 archaeological sites and 5 

architectural resources are or have been recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP, and one 

architectural resource is undetermined. All of these would be avoided by deviations, realignments, or 

HDD. We are currently awaiting the Mississippi SHPO’s comments. 

Some surveys are outstanding and the consultation process for the Project is not yet complete. Therefore, 

we are recommending that construction not be authorized until the required studies have been completed 

and we have received the SHPOs’ comments on such studies. 

Texas Gas prepared a Plan 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 proposed Project. 

Air Quality and Noise 

Air emissions resulting from construction of the Project would not significantly affect air quality in the 

region. Air pollutant emissions from the operation of vehicles and the generation of fugitive dust during 

construction activities are expected to be minor and temporary. Texas Gas would maintain vehicles so 

that emissions are minimized and would minimize fugitive dust by the use of dust suppression techniques 

such as watering. 

No impacts to air quality would result from the operation of the pipeline facilities. Emissions associated 

with the operation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station would be below the NAAQS. 

Noise would be generated during construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Construction 

activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent, as-needed 

basis. While individuals in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities would experience an 

increase in noise, this effect would be temporary and local. Nighttime noise is not expected to increase 

during construction because most construction activities would be limited to daytime hours. Noise levels 

associated with HDD activities could potentially exceed 55 dBA at the closest NSAs. Therefore, we are 

recommending that Texas Gas develop specific mitigation plans if HDD activities result in exceedances 

of 55 dBA at the nearest NSAs. Permanent noise impact would result from operation of the proposed 

Kosciusko Compressor Station. Calculated noise levels anticipated from operation of the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station would be below 55 dBA. No adverse, long-term impacts would, therefore, be 

anticipated. However, to ensure that noise levels from operation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station do 

not adversely impact the surrounding area, we are recommending that Texas Gas make all reasonable 

efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels are not exceeded at nearby NSAs. 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-12 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to Texas Gas’s proposed pipeline project, one other major project has been proposed for 

construction in the vicinity of the Fayetteville Lateral, Ozark’s East End Expansion Project. This project 

is being reviewed in the pre-filing process and no certificate application has been filed with the FERC. 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest where the proposed Project and the East End Expansion Project 

would be adjacent or in proximity to each other in Conway, Faulkner, and White Counties, Arkansas. If 

the proposed Project and the East End Expansion Project are both approved, the effects of their 

construction could overlap in time from the years 2008 through 2010. 

Although each of the unrelated projects would result in temporary and minor effects during construction, 

each project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wetlands, waterbodies, species of 

concern, and other sensitive resources. In addition, any identified significant but unavoidable impacts on 

sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to 

avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Therefore, we consider the cumulative impacts of 

these two projects currently under our review to have been, or would be, minimized. The environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed Project and the East End Expansion Project would be minimized by 

careful project routing, utilization of HDD techniques to avoid and minimize impacts on some sensitive 

resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, only a small 

cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed Project are added to reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in the area. 

Reliability and Safety 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project would 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 facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, 

minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Therefore, we believe that the proposed Project would be operated safely. 

Alternatives Considered 

We evaluated the No-Action or Postponed-Action alternatives, the effects of energy conservation, system 

alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, aboveground facility site alternatives, and aboveground 

facility alternative configurations. We also considered the potential impacts on environmental resources 

and land uses in our alternatives analysis and evaluated alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts 

on environmental resources such as forests, wetlands, and waterbodies. 

Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed Project. 

While the No-Action Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, Texas 

Gas’s customers would be denied access to the new natural gas transportation capacity that would be 

created by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Other gas transportation projects would 

still be required to meet the demand for natural gas and to transport the new Fayetteville Shale 

production. If other natural gas facilities are approved and constructed, each project would result in its 

own set of specific impacts that could be greater than, equal to, or less than those associated with the 

current proposal. The use of alternative energy sources is infeasible because solar, wind, hydroelectric, 

and other energy sources such as geothermal or fuel cells are either not physically or commercially 

available in the market region or have not been developed to the point where they would be viable 

substitutes for natural gas. In addition, the purpose of the proposed Project is to transport new supplies of 

natural gas being produced from the Fayetteville Shale production area to market areas by constructing 

5-13 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
new pipeline capacity in this capacity-constrained area; thus, the use of alternative energy sources would 

not meet the Project’s purpose. A delay in approval (Postponed-Action Alternative) would only defer any 

construction-related environmental impacts to the future. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an examination of existing and proposed natural gas systems 

that currently or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and considered 

whether those systems would meet the proposed Project’s need and purpose while offering an 

environmental advantage over the proposed Project. None of the additional existing pipeline systems in 

the Project area are located in the appropriate area to meet the purpose and need of the proposed Project, 

unless major laterals and aboveground facilities similar to those proposed in this Project are constructed. 

Construction and operation of these alternative facilities would have environmental impacts similar to 

those identified and analyzed for the proposed Project. We did not identify any existing pipeline system 

or proposed pipeline system whose expansion would be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

facilities. Therefore, we eliminated other pipeline system alternatives from further consideration. 

In evaluating pipeline alternatives, we reviewed both alternative corridors and specific route variations. 

These alternatives were evaluated during the pre-filing period and were critical to development of the 

Project as it was ultimately filed with the FERC in Texas Gas’s certificate application. As part of its 

Project development and route selection process, Texas Gas identified two significant route alternatives to 

the Fayetteville Lateral, Alternatives A and B, and one alternative to the Greenville Lateral, Alternative 

C. 

Prior to and during pre-filing, Texas Gas identified 59 minor route variations to the initially planned route 

for the Fayetteville Lateral and 26 route variations to the initially planned route for the Greenville Lateral 

through consultation with affected landowners and subsequent field surveys. These were incorporated 

into the proposed Project that was evaluated in this EIS. The advantages of these variations include lower 

potential impacts on the environment, cultural resources, and residences; lower cost; and improved safety 

conditions during construction. 

Consultation with federal (USACE and FWS) and state (ADHHS) resource agencies resulted in analysis 

of five route alternatives and 23 route variations. These were suggested to evaluate their potential to 

minimize impacts on various resources, but primarily forests and wetlands. One of the route alternatives 

(USACE Alternative 4 [in part]) and five of the route variations (FWS Variations 10, 11 [in part], 12, 15, 

and 16 [in part]) were incorporated by Texas Gas into its proposed Project. The others were not selected 

for various reasons, including the proposed route followed existing utility corridors more closely, avoided 

residential areas, avoided cultural resources, avoided side hill construction, or improved constructability 

at waterbody/road/railroad crossings. We concur that use of this route alternative and five route 

variations would be preferred routes. The USACE and FWS agree with our assessment of these 

alternatives. The ADHHS suggested a route alternative and variation that would move the Fayetteville 

Lateral out of the Little Red River and Brewer Lake watersheds, respectively. It also commented that, if 

its suggested route alternative and variation were not used, Texas Gas should provide the ADHHS with its 

plans for construction methods for review and to consult with it regarding construction within the Little 

Red River and Brewer Lake watersheds. We are not recommending these alternatives since they would 

be longer and would impact many more residential areas compared to the proposed route. We are, 

however, recommending that Texas Gas continue to consult with the ADHHS to address any additional 

concerns it may have about construction in these areas. 

We looked at alternative sites for M&R stations, MLVs, and pig launchers/receivers. The locations of 

many of these facilities would be determined by the locations of the interconnections with other pipelines 

and DOT regulations. No comments were filed about the locations of aboveground facilities. We 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-14 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
concluded that alternative sites offered no environmental advantages and we eliminated them from further 

consideration. 

The Kosciusko Compressor Station would be located on largely agricultural land, although 0.2 acre of 

wetland would be permanently impacted by site development. With the exception of the minimal wetland 

acreage identified on site, we identified no significant advantages to other adjacent parcels near the 

terminus of the proposed Greenville Lateral. We are, however, recommending that Texas Gas evaluate an 

alternative compressor station configuration to avoid permanent wetland impacts. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission issues a Certificate for the proposed Project, we recommend that the Commission’s 

Order include the following specific conditions. We believe that these measures would further mitigate 

the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project: 

1. Texas Gas shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in 

its application, supplemental filings (including responses to staff information requests), 

and as identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Order. Texas Gas 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 Project. This authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions to the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary 

(including stop work authority) to ensure 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, Texas Gas shall file an affirmative statement with the 

Secretary, 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, and shall include all of the staff's recommended facility locations. As 

soon as they are available and before the start of construction, Texas Gas shall file 

with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not 

5-15 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
smaller than 1:6,000, with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All 

requests for modifications of environmental conditions of this Order or site-specific 

clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these alignment 

maps/sheets. 

Texas Gas’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in 

any condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these 

authorized facilities and locations. Texas Gas’s right of eminent domain granted under 

Section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to 

accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a 

commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Texas Gas 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, and 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 prior to construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations required herein or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requirements that 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 acceptance of the Certificate and prior to the start of construction, 

Texas Gas shall file an initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP describing how Texas Gas will implement the 

mitigation measures required by the Order. Texas Gas must file revisions to the plan as 

schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Texas Gas 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; 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-16 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
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; 

d. the training and instructions Texas Gas 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 specific portion of Texas Gas’s organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Texas Gas will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or Program Evaluation and Review Technique 

(PERT) chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of on-site personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Texas Gas shall employ one or more EIs per construction spread. The EIs shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract and any other authorizing 

document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of 

the Order and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of this 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by 

other federal, state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

5-17 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
8. Texas Gas shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all 

construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete for each phase of 

the Project. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and 

state agencies with permitting responsibilities. 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 EI(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the 

Commission 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 Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; 

and 

f. copies of any correspondence received by Texas Gas from other federal, state, or 

local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Texas Gas’s 

response. 

9. Texas Gas must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before 

commencing service on each pipeline segment. Such authorization will only be granted 

following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the project area is 

proceeding satisfactorily. (page 2-12) 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Texas Gas shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, 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 Texas Gas has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project 

where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously 

identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

11. Texas Gas shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution 

procedure. 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 construction, 

Texas Gas shall mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would 

be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Texas Gas shall: 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-18 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

(2) instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Texas Gas’s Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Texas Gas’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline 

at (888) 889-8030, or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Texas Gas shall include in its weekly status report a copy of a table that 

contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected 

property and an approximate MP; 

(3) the description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. (page 2-15) 

12. Texas Gas shall evaluate an alternate compressor station configuration at the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station to avoid impact on the 0.2 acre of delineated wetland. Texas Gas 

shall file with the Secretary a revised plot plan of the compressor station showing how 

this wetland has been avoided prior to the end of the comment period of the draft 

EIS. (page 3-33) 

13. Texas Gas shall file with the Secretary the MP locations of water wells and springs 

within 150 feet of construction workspaces and include their distance and direction from 

the construction workspace, prior to construction. (page 4-25) 

14. Texas Gas shall consult with the ADHHS about the construction methods that would be 

used to cross the Brewer Lake and Little Red River Watersheds and shall file the results 

of that consultation, including any ADHHS-recommended modifications to those 

methods, with the Secretary, prior to construction, for review and written approval of 

the Director of OEP. (4-29) 

15. Texas Gas shall supplement its site-specific plan for crossing Cadron Creek (MP 14 on 

the Fayetteville Lateral) to include additional mitigation measures that will minimize and 

control sedimentation downstream from the proposed crossing. Texas Gas shall consult 

with the NPS and ADEQ about the crossing plan and include any NPS- or ADEQrecommended BMPs in the plan. Texas Gas also shall file with the Secretary the 

supplemented site-specific waterbody crossing plan and the results of its consultation 

with NPS and ADEQ prior to the end of the comment period of this Draft EIS. (page 

4-33) 

5-19 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 16. Texas Gas shall file reports on the geotechnical investigations for all proposed HDDs 

 prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 4-34) 

17. Texas Gas shall file with the Secretary a site-specific crossing plan for each waterbody if 

the directional drills are unsuccessful. Each site-specific plan shall address how Texas 

Gas would seal the abandoned drill hole and shall include scaled drawings identifying all 

areas that would be disturbed by construction. Texas Gas shall file each plan concurrent 

with its application to the USACE for a permit to construct using this plan and the 

USACE permit when it is obtained. The Director of OEP must review and approve this 

plan in writing prior to construction of the crossing. (page 4-35) 

18. Prior to construction, Texas Gas shall file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP a site-specific construction plan for each ATWS with a 

less than 50-foot setback from wetland boundaries (except where adjacent upland 

consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a sitespecific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback. (page 4-47) 

19. Prior to construction, Texas Gas shall file with the Secretary a copy of the Section 

404/10 permit issued by the USACE and the finalized wetland Mitigation Plan developed 

in consultation with the USACE. (page 4-50) 

20. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Texas Gas shall file with the 

Secretary a table that identifies the milepost locations of potential pondberry habitat 

within or immediately adjacent to construction workspaces and explain how it will 

implement the ANHC’s recommendations to avoid suitable pondberry habitat (i.e., 

sandpond forest and wooded depressional habitat) at each location. Texas Gas shall also 

file an update of its consultation with the FWS and ANHC about the pondberry. (page 4-

72) 

21. Texas Gas shall not begin construction activities until: 

a. the FERC completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Texas Gas receives written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or implementation of conservation measures may begin. 

If construction of the pipeline system has not begun within 1 year from the date of FERC 

approval of the Project, Texas Gas shall consult with the appropriate offices of the FWS 

to update the species list and to verify that previous consultations and determinations of 

effect are still current. Documentation of these consultations, and additional surveys and 

survey reports, if required, and FWS comments on the survey and its conclusions, shall 

be filed with the Secretary prior to beginning construction. (page 4-75) 

22. Texas Gas shall develop site-specific crossing plans in consultation with the landowner 

for each identified rice field impacted by construction and file them with the prior to the 

end of the draft EIS comment period. (page 4-81) 

 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-20 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
23. Prior to construction, Texas Gas shall file with the Secretary the site-specific restoration 

 plan for construction and restoration of the WRP tract crossed between MP 43.0 and 43.3 

 of the Greenville Lateral developed in consultation with the NRCS. (page 4-85) 

24. Texas Gas file site-specific plans for the residential properties listed on table 4.8.1-5 of 

 the draft EIS prior to the end of the comment period for the draft EIS. (page 4-88) 

 

25. Texas Gas shall defer construction of the pipeline, compressor station, meter stations, and 

use of all staging, storage and temporary work areas and new or to-be improved access 

roads until: 

a. Texas Gas addresses the Arkansas SHPO’s comments on the Arkansas Phase I 

survey report, including addressing the SHPO’s comments regarding avoidance and 

protection of historic architectural resources 38, 39, 46 and 71, and files a revised 

Phase I report and the Arkansas SHPO’s comments on the report; 

b. Texas Gas files a Phase II NRHP-eligibility testing report for Site 20E-1 in Arkansas 

and the SHPO’s comments on the report; 

c. Texas Gas files the Mississippi SHPO’s comments on the Mississippi Phase I survey 

report; 

d. Texas Gas files the Mississippi SHPO’s comments on the existing Greenville 

Compressor Station; 

e. Texas Gas files a Phase I survey report for the two pipe storage yards on the 

Fayetteville Lateral in Arkansas, any newly identified areas requiring survey, and the 

SHPO’s comments on the report(s); 

f. Texas Gas provides interested Native American tribes with any requested 

information; 

g. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; 

h. Texas Gas files any required treatment/mitigation plans and the SHPO’s and NPS’, as 

appropriate, comments on the plans; and 

i. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all reports and plans and notifies Texas 

Gas in writing that it may proceed with treatment/mitigation or construction. (page 

4-117) 

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.” 

26. For the HDD locations listed in table 4.11.2-2 with projected noise levels above 55 dBA 

Ldn at the closest NSA, Texas Gas shall file noise mitigation plans with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP, prior to construction. The noise 

5-21 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
mitigation plan shall include either a commitment to daytime drilling only or provide 

mitigation measures to reduce noise levels at the NSAs. (page 4-129) 

27. Texas Gas shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels from the 

Kosciusko Compressor Station are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file with the 

Secretary noise surveys showing this no later than 60 days after placing the Kosciusko 

Compressor Station in service. However, if the noise attributable to operation of the 

Kosciusko Compressor Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby 

NSAs, Texas Gas 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. Texas 

Gas 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-

130) 

5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-22 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-1 

 DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST

Federal Government Agencies

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

 Michael Miller, Vickburg District 

 Joyce Perser, Little Rock District 

 Reginald Wuornos, Memphis District 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

 Jim Caudle, Assistant State Conservationist, Arkansas 

 Al Garner, Assistant State Conservationist, State WRP Coordinator, 

 Mississippi 

 Matthew Judy, Ecologist, Environmental Compliance Specialist, Fort 

 Worth, Texas 

 Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer, Mississippi 

 Kalven L. Trice, State Conservationist, Arkansas 

 Homer L. Wilkes, State Conservationist, Mississippi 

 

Department of Interior (DOI) 

 National Park Service (NPS) 

 Natchez Trace Parkway 

 Stennis Young, Superintendent 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge 

 Robert Alexander, Refuge Manager 

 Cache River National Wildlife Refuge 

 Keith Weaver, Project Leader, Central Arkansas Refuges 

 Hillside National Wildlife Refuge 

 Landon Loveall, Refuge Manager 

Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office 

 Jennifer Ballard, Section 7 Consultant 

 Margaret Harney, Team Leader Federal Projects 

 Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office 

 David Felder, Biologist 

 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 Alan Drake, Region 4 

 Keith Goff, Region 4 

 Richard Greene, Region 6 Administrator 

 David Neleigh, Region 6, Chief, Air Permits Section 

 J.I. Palmer, Region 4 Administrator 

 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-2 

Federal Representatives and Senators

Arkansas 

Rep. Marion Berry (1st District) 

 Rep. Vic Snyder (2nd District) 

 Dexter Pearson, District Aide 

 

 Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln 

 Sen. Mark Pryor 

Mississippi 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (2nd District) 

 

 Sen. Thad Cochran 

 Sen. Trent Lott 

State Representatives and Senators

Arkansas 

Rep. Nancy Duffy Blount 

Rep. Jerry R. Brown 

Rep. Leroy Dangeau 

Rep. David Dunn 

Rep. Clark Hall 

Rep. Eddie Hawkins 

Rep. Mark Pate 

Rep. Lance Reynolds 

Rep. Bill H. Stovall, III 

Rep. Arnell Willis 

Sen. Gilbert Baker 

Sen. Jack Critcher 

Sen. Jack B. Crumbly 

Sen. Steve Higginbothom 

Sen. Bob Johnson 

Sen. Jim Luker 

Sen. Hank Wilkins, IV 

Mississippi 

Rep. Willie L. Bailey 

 Rep. Clara Henderson Burnett 

 Rep. Bryant W. Clark 

 Rep. Chuck Espy 

 Rep. John W. Hines 

 Rep. Bobby B. Howell 

 Rep. Robert E. Huddleston 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-3 

 Rep. John M. Mayo 

 Rep. Ferr Smith 

 Rep. Sara R. Thomas 

 

 Sen. Gary Jackson 

 Sen. Robert Jackson 

 Sen. David Jordan 

 Sen. Johnnie E. Walls, Jr. 

State Government Agencies

Arkansas 

 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

 Public Outreach and Assistance Division 

 Kelly Robinson, Environmental Program Manager 

 Arkansas Department of Transportation 

 Joe Barnett, District Engineer 

 Frank Russenberger, District Engineer 

 Lyndal Waits, District Engineer 

 Ray Woodruff, District Engineer 

 Arkansas Forestry Commission 

 John Shannon, State Forester 

 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) 

 Loren Hitchcock, Deputy Director 

 Bob Leonard 

 Arkansas Geologic Commission 

 Bekki White, Director 

 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 

 George McCluskey 

 Arkansas Levee District 

 Twig Satterfield, President 

 Arkansas National Heritage Program 

 Cindy Osborne 

 Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 

 Michael Borengasser 

 Ken Brazil, P.E., Engineer Supervisor 

 J. Randy Young, P.E., Executive Director 

 Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission 

 Lawrence Bengal, Director 

 Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission 

 Thomas Schueck, Chair 

 Arkansas Waterways Commission 

 Keith Garrison, Executive Director 

Mississippi 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-4 

 Pamela Epworth 

 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

 Environmental Permits Division 

 Thomas Kelly 

Office of Land and Water 

 Lisa May-McKenzie 

 Office of Pollution Control 

 Mississippi Department of Health 

 Mississippi Department of Transportation 

 Jimmy Dickerson, District Engineer 

 Walter Lyons, District Engineer 

 Dub Wilson, ROW Engineer 

 Wade Yates, ROW Engineer 

 Mississippi Forestry Commission 

 Charlie Morgan, State Forester 

 Mississippi Levee Board 

 Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer 

 Mississippi Natural Heritage Commission 

 Matthew Hicks 

 Mississippi Public Service Commission 

 Robert G. Waites, Executive Director 

 Mississippi Soil & Water Conservation Commission 

 Don Underwood, Executive Director 

Local Government Agencies

Arkansas 

Cleburne County Office of Emergency Services 

 Tony Porter 

 Cleburne County Road Department 

 Hank Mercer 

 City of Elaine 

 Poindexter Fiser, Mayor 

 Lee County Judge 

 Jim Keasler 

 City of Lexa 

 David Frensley, Mayor 

 City of McCrory 

 Doyle Fowler, Mayor 

 Phillips County 

 Don Gentry, Judge 

 Town of Rosebud 

 Joe McBroom, Mayor 

 St. Francis Arkansas Levee District 

 Robert Rash 

 St. Francis County 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-5 

 Craig Jones, Assessor 

 City of Searcy 

 Belinda LaForce, Mayor 

 White County 

 Michael Lincoln, Judge 

 Bob Parish, Judge 

 White County Quorum Court 

 George “Bud” Osborn 

 Woodruff County 

 Beryl Simmons, Judge 

Mississippi 

 Attala County 

 Christian Gardner, Engineer 

 Troy Hodges, County Supervisor 

 Sheriff 

 City of Belzoni 

 Wardell Walton, Mayor 

 Coahoma County 

 David Evans, Engineer 

 Coahoma County 

 Katherine Furr, County Supervisor 

 Andrew Thompson, Jr., Sheriff 

 Holmes County Economic Development Authority 

 Holmes County 

 Wayne Morrison, Engineer 

 Willie March, Sheriff 

 Humphreys County 

 Wayne Holloway, Sheriff 

 Wayne Morrison, Engineer 

 Richard Stevens, County Supervisor 

 Sunflower County 

 Ron Cassada, County Engineer 

 Sunflower County 

 James Haywood, Sheriff 

 Washington County 

 Milton Gaston, Sheriff 

 Marcus Hooker, County Engineer 

 Alfred Rankins, Sr., County Supervisor 

 Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District 

Libraries

Arkansas 

 Cleburne County Library 

 Conway County Library 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-6 

 Forrest City Public Library 

 Lee County Public Library 

 Phillips County Library 

 West Helena Public Library 

 White County Public/Searcy City Library 

 Woodruff County Library 

 

Mississippi 

Attala County Library 

 Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library (Clarksdale) 

 Henry M. Seymour Library (Belzoni) 

 Isola Public Library 

 Leland Public Library 

 Lexington Public Library 

 William Alexander Percy Memorial Library (Greenville) 

 

Media

Arkansas 

 Forrest City Times-Herald 

Heber Springs Sun-Times 

 Helena Daily World 

 Log Cabin Democrat 

 Searcy Daily Citizen 

Mississippi 

Delta Democrat Times (Greenville) 

Native American Tribes

Absentee Shawnee Tribe 

 Larry Nuckolls, Governor 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

 Tarpie Yargee 

Caddo Nation 

 LaRue Parker, Chairperson 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

 Chad Smith, Principal Chief 

Chickasaw Nation 

 Bill Anoatubby, Governor 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

 Greg Pyle, Chief 

Delaware Nation 

 Edgar L. French, Chief 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Charles Enyart, Chief 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-7 

Jena Band of the Choctaw Indians 

 Christine Norris, Principal Chief 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

 Gary Bucktrot, Town King 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

 Phillip Martin, Chief 

Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma 

 A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

 John Berrey, Tribal Chairperson 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

 Pare Bowlegs, THPO 

Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Ron Sparkman, Tribal Chairman 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

 George Scott, Town King 

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana 

 Earl J. Barbry, Sr., Tribal Chairman 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma 

 George Wickliffe, Chief 

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 

 Gary McAdams, President 

Organizations

Arkansas 

 Arkansas Audubon Society 

 Arkansas Sierra Club 

 Glen Hooks, Associate Regional Representative 

 Bald Knob Chamber of Commerce 

 Conway Chamber of Commerce 

 Forrest City Area Chamber of Commerce 

 Greenbrier Chamber of Commerce 

 Dr. Joe Crain, Director 

 Heber Springs Chamber of Commerce 

 Helena County Chamber of Commerce 

 Marianna Chamber of Commerce 

 Phillips County Chamber of Commerce 

 Rosebud School District 

 Jeff Williams 

 Searcy Chamber of Commerce 

 Walnut Ridge Chamber of Commerce 

Mississippi 

Belzoni Chamber of Commerce 

 Clarksdale-Coahoma County Chamber of Commerce 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-8 

 Greenville Chamber of Commerce 

 Holmes County Chamber of Commerce 

 Jean Carson 

 Indianola Chamber of Commerce 

 Jackson Audubon Society 

 Kosciusko Chamber of Commerce 

 Lexington Chamber of Commerce 

 

Landowners

 

Arkansas 

Betty Allen 

Sandra T. Booker 

Frankie Carl Brogdon 

Ruby Cassey 

Esther Carter 

Gary Childers 

Kenneth Wayne Cook 

Sylvia Davis 

Mountain Top Water Systems 

 Nancy Duren 

Roger D. & Delores M. Ellington 

Donald & Barbara Foster 

Larry Frealy 

 David & Tammy Gerrard 

Pat F.L. Hambrick 

Jesse D. & Irene R. Herron 

Donald & Mary Hutchison 

Randall Jackson 

Seneca Jacobs 

Marilyn Jones 

Fletcher E. & Elizabeth F. Lewis 

Reggie Lindsey 

Harry & Kathy Mackay 

Dennis W. Murray 

Monhall Communications, Inc. 

 Joe Peacock 

Roger & Robyn Pratt 

Fred E. & Julia Reed 

Timothy H. Roach 

Jon Kent & Ruby Roetzel 

Rufus Comer Farms 

Robert Shaver 

Shelly Skinner 

K. Grant & Jennifer E. Slane 

Ransom Smith 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
A-9 

 Betty Turner-Jackson 

 Charles Van Winkle 

Dennis J. Widner 

 Catherine Wilson 

Jonathon Windley 

Joye Wright 

Mississippi 

Mark P. Atwood 

Jim Blaine 

Claire J. Cooper Burchfield 

Lazy C Ranch 

 Joe & Harriet Cheek 

Jessie M. & Lucille Crosby 

 Bill Davis 

Robert Davis 

Marianne Dempsey 

Frankie Farmer 

George A. Hayes 

Elsie Wilsford Heaton 

Thelma Culpeper Life Estate 

 Lynda Irby 

Eddie & Ida Mae Jordan 

Samuel Lewis 

Vonda Mayfield 

Dudley B. Milton 

Walter & Sylvia Montgomery 

Bobbie J. Moore 

Wayne Colby Moore, Sr., et ux 

Flora O. Pilgram 

Roberts Farms, Inc. 

Greta Sue Shumaker-Temple 

Richard D. Still 

Carl J. & Tony H. Walbert 

Percy L. & Glenda Washington 

Other States (AL, CA, GA, IL, TN and TX) 

Circle J Farms of Lee County, LLC 

 John Byrd 

Chartie Manning 

Thomas McGrady, Jr. 

William Nikolis 

 Norman Richards 

Gene Thomas & Pauline Smith 

Tijuana McKnight Thomas 

 Gary H. & Aimee Woolverton 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX B 

PROPOSED FACILITIES AND ALTERNATIVES MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE 

EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-417-000 

 PF07-2-000 

Appendix B 

Proposed Facilities and Alternatives Maps 

B-1: Fayetteville Lateral Pipeline Facilities Locations 

Pages 1 through 34 

B-2: Greeneville Lateral Pipeline Facilities Locations 

Pages 1 through 17 

B-3: Fayetteville Lateral Pipeline 

Agency-Proposed Route Alternatives 

Pages 1 and 2 

 

B-4: Fayetteville Lateral Pipeline 

Agency-Proposed Route Alternatives 

Pages 1 through 4 

B-5: Fayetteville Lateral Pipeline 

Agency-Proposed Route Variations 

Pages 1 through 9 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C 

TABLES OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED RESOURCES

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

FAYETTEVILLE LATERAL SOIL MAP 

UNITS BY MILEPOST 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

0 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

0.1 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

0.2 0.3 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

0.4 0.5 23 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

0.6 1.1 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

1.2 24 Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

1.3 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

1.4 2 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

2.1 2.3 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

2.4 2.5 13 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

2.6 2.8 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

2.9 14 Leadvale silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

3 3.9 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

4 38 Water 

4.1 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

4.2 4.8 24 Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

4.9 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

5 5.1 24 Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

5.2 9 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

5.3 5.4 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

5.5 5.7 23 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

5.8 22 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

5.9 6.1 24 Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

6.2 6.3 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

6.4 6.6 23 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

6.7 6.8 17 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

6.9 23 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

7 7.3 24 Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

7.4 7.5 16 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

7.6 7.7 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

7.8 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

7.9 2 Amy soils, frequently flooded 

8 31 Spadra fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

8.1 8.2 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

8.3 23 Ouachita silt loam, occasionally flooded 

8.4 8.5 10 Linker fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

8.6 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

8.7 23 Ouachita silt loam, occasionally flooded 

8.8 8.9 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

9 9.1 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

9.2 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

9.3 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

9.4 9.5 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

9.6 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

9.7 10 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

10.1 10.2 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

10.3 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

10.4 11 3 Enders gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

11.1 11.5 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

11.6 11.7 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

11.8 11.9 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

12 12.2 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

12.3 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

C-1

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

12.4 12.7 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

12.8 12.9 31 Spadra fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

13 19 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

13.1 13.4 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

13.5 13.8 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

13.9 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

14 14.7 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

14.8 14.9 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

15 15.2 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

15.3 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

15.4 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

15.5 15.6 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

15.7 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

15.8 16.4 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

16.5 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

16.6 17 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

17.1 35 Water 

17.2 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

17.3 17.5 18 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

17.6 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

17.7 17.8 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

17.9 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

18 18.1 18 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

18.2 18.5 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

18.6 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

18.7 8 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

18.8 19 18 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

19.1 19.4 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

19.5 19.9 18 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

20 20.1 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

20.2 8 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

20.3 20.5 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

20.6 8 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

20.7 21.4 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

21.5 21.6 10 Linker fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

21.7 21.9 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

22 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

22.1 22.2 32 Taft silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

22.3 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

22.4 8 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

22.5 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

22.6 22.7 12 Linker fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

22.8 23 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

23.1 23.2 31 Spadra fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

23.3 8 Leadvale silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

23.4 31 Spadra fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

23.5 24.2 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

24.3 24.5 19 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

24.6 24.8 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

24.9 25 19 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

25.1 25.7 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

25.8 26 18 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

26.1 26.3 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

C-2

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

26.4 19 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

26.5 26.6 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

26.7 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

26.8 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

26.9 27.1 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

27.2 27.3 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

27.4 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

27.5 27.6 20 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes 

27.7 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

27.8 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

27.9 28.5 11 Linker fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

28.6 28.7 17 Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

28.8 29 19 Mountainburg very stony fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 

29.1 29.5 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

29.6 29.7 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

29.8 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

29.9 30 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

30.1 30.2 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

30.3 30.4 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

30.5 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

30.6 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

30.7 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

30.8 30.9 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

31 31.1 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

31.2 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

31.3 31.5 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

31.6 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

31.7 31.8 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

31.9 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

32 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

32.1 32.7 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

32.8 33.1 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

33.2 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

33.3 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

33.4 33.5 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

33.6 34.5 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

34.6 34.7 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

34.8 35 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

35.1 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

35.2 35.3 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

35.4 35.5 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

35.6 36 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

36.1 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

36.2 36.4 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

36.5 36.9 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

37 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

37.1 37.4 33 Steprock-Linker Complex, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

37.5 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

37.6 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

37.7 37.9 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

38 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

38.1 30 Sidon Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

38.2 38.3 18 Leadvale Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

C-3

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

38.4 38.6 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

38.7 W Water 

38.8 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

38.9 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

39 39.1 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

39.2 18 Leadvale Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

39.3 39.5 25 Sidon fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

39.6 39.9 10 Enders-Steprock complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes 

40 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

40.1 32 

Steprock-Mountainburg-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 60 percent 

slopes 

40.2 40.9 9 Enders-Steprock complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

41 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

41.1 41.3 9 Enders-Steprock complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

41.4 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

41.5 41.6 9 Enders-Steprock complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

41.7 10 Enders-Steprock complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes 

41.8 16 Linker gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

41.9 10 Enders-Steprock complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes 

42 42.1 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

42.2 19 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

42.3 16 Linker gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

42.4 42.7 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

42.8 42.9 33 Steprock-Nella-Mountainburg complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes 

43 43.1 19 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

43.2 31 Steprock-Mountainburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

43.3 19 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

43.4 18 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

43.5 33 Steprock-Nella-Mountainburg complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes 

43.6 19 Linker-Mountainburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

43.7 44 21 Nauvoo fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

44.1 44.3 24 Nauvoo Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

44.4 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

44.5 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

44.6 45.1 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

45.2 35 Taft Silt Loam, 0 To 2 Percent Slopes 

45.3 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

45.4 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

45.5 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

45.6 45.8 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

45.9 46.1 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

46.2 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

46.3 46.6 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

46.7 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

46.8 18 Leadvale Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

46.9 47 10 Enders Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

47.1 18 Leadvale Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

47.2 47.9 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

48 48.1 13 Guthrie Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

48.2 48.4 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

48.5 48.6 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

48.7 49.1 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

49.2 49.3 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

49.4 49.7 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

C-4

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

49.8 8 Enders Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

49.9 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

50 50.1 10 Enders Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

50.2 50.4 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

50.5 51.2 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

51.3 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

51.4 51.7 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

51.8 51.9 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

52 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

52.1 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

52.2 27 Rexor Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

52.3 52.4 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

52.5 53 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

53.1 54 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

54.1 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

54.2 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

54.3 54.4 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

54.5 54.6 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

54.7 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

54.8 55.4 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

55.5 30 Sidon Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

55.6 55.8 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

55.9 56.3 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

56.4 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

56.5 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

56.6 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

56.7 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

56.8 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

56.9 57 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

57.1 57.4 29 Sidon Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

57.5 57.6 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

57.7 58.2 1 Allen Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

58.3 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

58.4 1 Allen Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

58.5 58.6 30 Sidon Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

58.7 58.8 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

58.9 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

59 59.1 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

59.2 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

59.3 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

59.4 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

59.5 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

59.6 1 Allen Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

59.7 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

59.8 59.9 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

60 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

60.1 34 Steprock-Mountainburg Complex, 8 To 12 Percent Slopes 

60.2 60.3 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

60.4 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

60.5 2 Barling Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

60.6 60.7 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

60.8 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

60.9 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

C-5

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

61 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

61.1 30 Sidon Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

61.2 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

61.3 61.4 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

61.5 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

61.6 61.7 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

61.8 62 23 Mountainburg Stony Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 12 Percent Slopes 

62.1 62.2 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

62.3 62.6 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

62.7 20 Linker Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

62.8 63 32 Steprock-Enders Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

63.1 19 Linker Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

63.2 63.4 11 Enders-Steprock Complex, 12 To 30 Percent Slopes 

63.5 8 Enders Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

63.6 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

63.7 8 Enders Fine Sandy Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes 

63.8 63.9 17 Leadvale Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

64 64.2 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

64.3 64.4 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

64.5 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

64.6 64.7 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

64.8 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

64.9 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

65 65.4 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

65.5 66 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

66.1 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

66.2 21 Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

66.3 66.5 26 Oaklimeter Silt Loam, Frequently Flooded 

66.6 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

66.7 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

66.8 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

66.9 67.4 4 Calhoun Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

67.5 67.8 5 Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

68.2 69.5 16 Kobel Silty Clay, Frequently Flooded 

69.6 70 6 Commerce Silty Clay Loam, Frequently Flooded 

70.1 28 Robinsonville Fine Sandy Loam, Frequently Flooded 

70.2 70.3 W Water 

70.4 TbB Taylorbay silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

70.5 71 YpB Yancopin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

71.1 KlA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

71.2 TpB Tipp silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

71.3 71.5 YpB Yancopin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

71.6 71.7 KlA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

71.8 72.1 YpB Yancopin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

72.2 KlA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

72.3 72.4 YpB Yancopin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

72.5 72.6 KlA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

72.7 YpB Yancopin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

72.8 73.4 KlA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

73.5 73.9 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

74 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

74.1 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

74.2 WvB Wiville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

C-6

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

74.3 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

74.4 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

74.5 KoA Kobel silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, ponded 

74.6 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

74.7 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

74.8 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

74.9 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

75 WvA Wiville fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

75.1 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

75.2 75.3 WvB Wiville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

75.4 75.5 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

75.6 WvA Wiville fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

75.7 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

75.8 75.9 WvA Wiville fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

76 76.2 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

76.3 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

76.4 76.6 WvB Wiville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

76.7 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

76.8 76.9 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

77 77.6 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

77.7 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

77.8 78.1 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

78.2 BsA Teksob loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

78.3 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

78.4 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

78.5 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

78.6 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

78.7 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

78.8 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

78.9 79 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

79.1 79.2 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

79.3 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

79.4 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

79.5 79.6 WvB Wiville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

79.7 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

79.8 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

79.9 80 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

80.1 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

80.2 80.3 BsA Teksob loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

80.4 80.5 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

80.6 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

80.7 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

80.8 81 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

81.1 81.2 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

81.3 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

81.4 81.5 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

81.6 DbC Dubbs silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

81.7 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

81.8 DbC Dubbs silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

81.9 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

82 BsC Teksob loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

82.1 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

82.2 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

C-7

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

82.3 82.6 TuA Tuckerman silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

82.7 W Water 

82.8 82.9 TuA Tuckerman silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

83 83.1 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

83.2 83.5 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

83.6 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

83.7 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

83.8 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

83.9 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

84 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

84.1 84.4 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

84.5 85 BsC Teksob loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

85.1 85.4 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

85.5 85.6 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

85.7 85.8 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

85.9 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

86 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

86.1 86.3 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

86.4 86.6 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

86.7 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

86.8 BsC Teksob loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

86.9 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

87 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

87.1 87.2 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

87.3 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

87.4 87.5 BuC Bulltown loamy fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 

87.6 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

87.7 LfA Lafe silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

87.8 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

87.9 BsA Teksob loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

88 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

88.1 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

88.2 88.3 BsC Teksob loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

88.4 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

88.5 LfA Lafe silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

88.6 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

88.7 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

88.8 89 GuC Grubbs silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

89.1 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

89.2 89.5 GuC Grubbs silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

89.6 89.7 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

89.8 90 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

90.1 90.2 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

90.3 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

90.4 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

90.5 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

90.6 90.7 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

90.8 90.9 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

91 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

91.1 91.2 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

91.3 91.6 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

91.7 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

91.8 92 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

C-8

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

92.1 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

92.2 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

92.3 92.5 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

92.6 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

92.7 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

92.8 93 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

93.1 GuC Grubbs silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

93.2 93.3 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

93.4 WvB Wiville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

93.5 93.6 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

93.7 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

93.8 McA McCrory fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

93.9 94 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

94.1 94.2 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

94.3 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

94.4 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

94.5 94.6 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

94.7 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

94.8 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

94.9 95 BsA Teksob loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

95.1 BsC Teksob loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 

95.2 FdA Forestdale silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

95.3 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

95.4 TuA Tuckerman silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

95.5 AsB Askew fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

95.6 95.9 TuA Tuckerman silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

96 96.1 BsB Teksob loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

96.2 96.4 TrA Tuckerman loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

96.5 97 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

97.1 97.2 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

97.3 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

97.4 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

97.5 DuA Dundee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

97.6 98 DbA Dubbs silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

98.1 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

98.2 DbB Dubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

98.3 FbA Foley-Bonn complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

98.4 AmA Amagon silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

98.5 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

98.6 99.1 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

99.2 99.3 JpA Jackport silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

99.4 99.9 OvA Overcup silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

100 100.1 TcA Tichnor silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

100.2 GrC Grenada silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

100.3 100.4 ClA Calloway silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

100.5 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

100.6 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

100.7 100.8 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

100.9 101 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

101 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

101.1 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

101.2 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

101.3 101.4 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

C-9

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

101.5 101.7 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

101.8 ClB Calloway silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

101.9 102 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

102.1 GrB Grenada silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

102.2 102.5 HeA Henry silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

102.6 102.7 GrB Grenada silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

102.8 102.9 ClB Calloway silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

103 ClA Calloway silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

103.1 HeA Henry silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

103.2 ClB Calloway silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

103.3 104 HeA Henry silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

104.1 ClB Calloway silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

104.2 HeA Henry silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

104.3 104.4 TcA Tichnor silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

104.5 HeA Henry silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

104.6 TcA Tichnor silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

104.7 ClA Calloway silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

104.8 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

104.9 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

105 105.4 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

105.5 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

105.6 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

105.7 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

105.8 105.9 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

106 106.1 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

106.2 106.3 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

106.4 TcA Tichnor silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

106.5 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

106.6 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

106.7 106.8 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

106.9 107.1 CaA Calhoun silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

107.2 107.3 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

107.4 107.5 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

107.6 107.7 TcA Tichnor silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

107.8 107.9 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

108 108.1 HmA Hillemann silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 

108.2 108.4 GuB Grubbs silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

108.5 110.5 HmA Hillemann Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

110.6 111.2 He Henry Silt Loam 

111.3 CwA Crowley Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

111.4 111.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

111.7 111.8 Za Zachary Silt Loam 

111.9 112.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

112.2 ClB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

112.3 112.7 CwA Crowley Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

112.8 ClB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

112.9 113 CwB Crowley Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

113.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

113.2 113.3 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

113.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

113.5 113.6 CwB Crowley Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

113.7 CwA Crowley Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

113.8 114 Za Zachary Silt Loam 

C-10

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

114.1 LgC2 Loring Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes, Eroded 

114.2 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

114.3 ClB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

114.4 114.7 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

114.8 LgB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

114.9 115 He Henry Silt Loam 

115.1 ClB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

115.2 He Henry Silt Loam 

115.3 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

115.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

115.5 LgB2 Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes Eroded 

115.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

115.7 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

115.8 He Henry Silt Loam 

115.9 ClA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

116 116.1 LgB2 Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes Eroded 

116.2 116.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

116.5 116.6 LgB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

116.7 116.8 He Henry Silt Loam 

116.9 117 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

117.1 117.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

117.4 117.6 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

117.7 118 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

118.1 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

118.2 118.4 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

118.5 119.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

119.2 119.3 LoC2 Loring Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes, Eroded 

119.4 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

119.5 119.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

119.7 119.9 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

120 He Henry Silt Loam 

120.1 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

120.2 120.5 He Henry Silt Loam 

120.6 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

120.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

120.8 120.9 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

121 121.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

121.4 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

121.5 121.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

121.8 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

121.9 122.1 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

122.2 122.3 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

122.4 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

122.5 122.7 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

122.8 123.8 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

123.9 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

124 124.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

124.2 MeB Memphis Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

124.3 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

124.4 124.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

124.7 124.9 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

125 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

125.1 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

C-11

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

125.2 125.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

125.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

125.5 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

125.6 125.7 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

125.8 126 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

126.1 126.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

126.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

126.5 He Henry Silt Loam 

126.6 127.1 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

127.2 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

127.3 127.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

127.7 128 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

128.1 MeB Memphis Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

128.2 128.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

128.5 128.6 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

128.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

128.8 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

128.9 He Henry Silt Loam 

129 129.1 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

129.2 129.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

129.5 129.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

129.8 130.2 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

130.3 Za Zachary Soils, Frequently Flooded 

130.4 130.6 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

130.7 130.8 Za Zachary Soils, Frequently Flooded 

130.9 Fa Falaya Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded 

131 131.3 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

131.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

131.5 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

131.6 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

131.7 132.1 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

132.2 132.3 La Lagrange Fine Sandy Loam 

132.4 132.6 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

132.7 132.8 He Henry Silt Loam 

132.9 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

133 133.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

133.2 133.4 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

133.5 133.8 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

133.9 134.1 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

134.2 134.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

134.5 134.7 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

134.8 He Henry Silt Loam 

134.9 135.6 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

135.7 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

135.8 135.9 Ma Marvell Fine Sandy Loam 

136 136.1 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

136.2 136.3 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

136.4 136.5 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

136.6 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

136.7 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

136.8 136.9 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

137 137.2 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

137.3 137.5 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

C-12

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

137.6 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

137.7 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

137.8 138 He Henry Silt Loam 

138.1 138.3 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

138.4 138.6 Fo Foley-Bonn Complex 

138.7 138.9 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

139 Ca Calhoun Silt Loam 

139.1 139.3 CbA Calloway Silt Loam, 0 To 1 Percent Slopes 

139.4 Za Zachary Soils, Frequently Flooded 

139.5 139.7 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

139.8 140 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

140.1 140.2 He Henry Silt Loam 

140.3 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

140.4 140.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

140.8 140.9 Fo Foley Silt Loam 

141 He Henry Silt Loam 

141.1 141.2 Fo Foley Silt Loam 

141.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

141.4 Fo Foley Silt Loam 

141.5 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

141.6 141.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

141.8 GrB Grenada Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

141.9 142.3 He Henry Silt Loam 

142.4 142.6 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

142.7 He Henry Silt Loam 

142.8 143 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

143.1 143.2 He Henry Silt Loam 

143.3 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

143.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

143.5 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

143.6 He Henry Silt Loam 

143.7 143.8 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

143.9 He Henry Silt Loam 

144 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

144.1 He Henry Silt Loam 

144.2 144.3 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

144.4 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

144.5 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

144.6 144.7 Fa Falaya Silt Loam 

144.8 144.9 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

145 Fa Falaya Silt Loam 

145.1 145.3 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

145.4 He Henry Silt Loam 

145.5 CbB Calloway Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

145.6 146.2 He Henry Silt Loam 

146.3 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

146.4 146.5 MeB Memphis Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

146.6 146.7 LoB Loring Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

146.8 MeB Memphis Silt Loam, 1 To 3 Percent Slopes 

146.9 MeC2 Memphis Silt Loam, 3 To 8 Percent Slopes, Eroded 

147 Fa Falaya Silt Loam 

147.1 147.4 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

147.5 147.6 Fo Foley Silt Loam 

C-13

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-1 Fayetteville Lateral Soil Map Units by Milepost 

Starting 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Map Unit 

Symbol Soil Map Unit 

147.7 148.8 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

148.9 Du Dundee Silt Loam 

149 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

149.1 149.3 Fo Foley Silt Loam 

149.4 149.8 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

149.9 Co Convent Silt Loam 

150 150.4 Je Jeanerette Silt Loam 

150.5 151.3 Sh Sharkey Silty Clay 

151.4 NeU Newellton Silty Clay, Gently Undulating 

151.5 Sh Sharkey Silty Clay 

151.6 NeU Newellton Silty Clay, Gently Undulating 

151.7 152 Sh Sharkey Silty Clay 

152.1 152.2 Tn Tunica Silty Clay 

152.3 Ne Newellton Silty Clay 

152.4 152.9 Cm Commerce Silt Loam 

153 W Water 

153.1 Cm Commerce Silt Loam 

153.2 153.5 Ne Newellton Silty Clay 

153.6 153.7 Sh Sharkey Silty Clay 

153.8 154.3 Cm Commerce Silt Loam 

154.4 Sh Sharkey Silty Clay 

154.5 156.3 Ro Robinsonville Fine Sandy Loam 

156.4 Ff Fluvaquents, Frequently Flooded 

156.5 156.8 Nf Newellton Soils, Frequently Flooded 

156.9 Cr Crevasse Soils, Frequently Flooded 

157 157.2 W Water 

157.5 157.8 MSW Water 

157.9 160.7 MS001 Commerce-Robinsonville-Crevasse 

160.8 166.2 MS029 Dundee-Forestdale-Dubbs 

Note: Rounding to nearest 0.1 mile may result in multiple identification mileposts. 

Map units are presented in order of occurrence along route centerline. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SSURGO database 

C-14

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-2 

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH SOIL 

MAP UNIT CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED 

FAYETTEVILLE LATERAL 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
TABLE C-2 Soil Characteristics for Each Soil 

Map Unit Crossed by the Proposed Fayetteville Lateral 

County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

White Allen Allen fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

0.18% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

Phillips, 

Woodruff 

Amagon Amagon silt loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes 

1.33% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained stream 

Faulkner Amy Amy soils, 

frequently flooded 

0.16% Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood 

Woodruff Askew Askew fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 3 

percent slopes 

1.42% Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 depres

White Barling Barling silt loam, 

occasionally 

flooded 

1.45% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Moderately well 

drained 

flood 

Woodruff Bulltown Bulltown loamy 

fine sand, 1 to 8 

percent slopes 

2.43% Yes Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 depres

Lee, 

While, 

Woodruff 

Calhoun Calhoun silt loam 3.61% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained stream 

Lee, St. 

Francis, 

White, 

Woodruff 

Calloway Calloway silt loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes 

8.66% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

stream 

Lee, 

Phillips, 

St. 

Francis, 

Woodruff 

 Calloway silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

terra

Phillips Commerce Commerce silt 

loam 

0.47% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

natura

Phillips Convent Convent silt loam 0.18% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

natura

C-15

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Phillips Crevasse Crevasse soils, 

frequently flooded 

0.07% No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Excessively 

drained 

flood 

St. Francis Crowley Crowley silt loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes 

0.24% No Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

stream 

St. Francis Crowley silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

 No Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

stream 

Woodruff Dubbs Dubbs silt loam, 0 

to 1 percent slopes 

2.70% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained natural 

stream t

Woodruff Dubbs silt loam, 1 

to 3 percent slopes 

 Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

 depres

Woodruff Dubbs silt loam, 3 

to 8 percent slopes 

 No Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained natural 

stream t

Phillips, 

Woodruff 

Dundee Dundee silt loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes 

0.98% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

natura

White Enders Enders fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

2.91% Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 depres

Faulkner Enders gravelly 

fine sandy loam, 3 

to 8 percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Conway Enders gravelly 

fine sandy loam, 8 

to 12 percent 

slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained h

White Enders stony fine 

sandy loam, 3 to 

12 percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Cleburne Enders-Steprock 

complex, 8 to 20 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

White Enders-Steprock 

Complex, 12 to 30 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

C-16

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Cleburne Enders-Steprock 

complex, 20 to 40 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsid

mounta

ridg

Phillips Falaya Falaya silt loam 0.25% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

flood 

Lee Falaya silt loam, 

occasionally 

flooded 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

draina

Phillips Fluvaquent

s 

Fluvaquents, 

frequently flooded 

0.03% Unrank

ed 

Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 

Phillips Foley Foley silt loam 1.73% Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained stream 

Lee, 

Woodruff 

 Foley-Bonn 

complex, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

 Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained stream 

Lee, 

Phillips, 

Woodruff 

Grenada Grenada silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

1.57% Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

 depres

Woodruff Grenada silt loam, 

3 to 8 percent 

slopes, eroded 

 No Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

terra

Woodruff Grubbs Grubbs silt loam, 1 

to 3 percent slopes 

2.36% Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

 depres

Woodruff Grubbs silt loam, 3 

to 8 percent 

slopes, eroded 

 No Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

terra

escarp

White Guthrie Guthrie silt loam, 0 

to 1 percent slopes 

0.15% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained depre

Lee, 

Phillips, 

St. 

Francis, 

Woodruff 

Henry Henry silt loam 7.28% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained terra

Woodruff Hillemann Hillemann silt 

loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

1.22% No Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

terra

C-17

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Woodruff Jackport Jackport silty clay 

loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

0.94% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained terra

Lee Jeanerette Jeanerette silt 

loam 

0.97% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

stream 

Woodruff Kobel Kobel silty clay 

loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes, 

frequently flooded 

0.83% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained and 

either protected from flooding or 

not frequently 

flooded during 

the growing 

season 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood p

backsw

Woodruff Kobel silty clay 

loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes, 

ponded 

 Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Very poorly 

drained 

oxbo

backsw

White Kobel silty clan, 

frequently flooded 

 Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained backs

Woodruff Lafe Lafe silt loam, 0 to 

1 percent slopes 

0.04% No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

terra

Lee Lagrange LaGrange fine 

sandy loam 

0.33% Yes All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained alluvi

Conway, 

Faulkner, 

White 

Leadvale Leadvale silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

5.14% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

valley 

Cleburne, 

Conway, 

White 

 Leadvale silt loam, 

3 to 8 percent 

slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

valley 

Faulkner Linker Linker fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 3 

percent slopes 

10.68% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

Cleburne, 

Conway, 

Faulkner, 

While 

 Linker fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

C-18

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Conway, 

Faulkner, 

White 

 Linker fine sandy 

loam, 8 to 12 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained mounta

Cleburne, 

While 

 Linker gravelly fine 

sandy loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsi

benches

Cleburne LinkerMountainburg 

complex, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsi

benches

ledg

Cleburne LinkerMountainburg 

complex, 8 to 20 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained benc

hillsides, 

ridg

Lee, 

Phillips, 

St. 

Francis, 

White 

Loring Loring silt loam, 1 

to 3 percent slopes 

5.53% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

loess 

St. Francis Loring silt loam, 1 

to 3 percent 

slopes, eroded 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

terr

White Loring silt loam, 3 

to 8 percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

terr

St. 

Francis, 

Lee 

 Loring silt loam, 3 

to 8 percent 

slopes, eroded 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

loess 

Lee Marvell Marvell fine sandy 

loam 

1.26% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained stream 

Woodruff McCrory McCrory fine 

sandy loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

1.73% Yes Farmland of 

statewide 

importance 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 depres

Lee, 

Phillips 

Memphis Memphis silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

0.56% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained loess 

Phillips Memphis silt loam, 

1 to 3 percent 

slopes, eroded 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained loess 

C-19

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Conway, 

Faulkner 

Mountainb

urg 

Mountainburg 

gravelly fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

6.92% No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Faulkner Mountainburg 

stony fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 12 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained h

Conway, 

Faulkner 

 Mountainburg 

gravelly fine sandy 

loam, 8 to 12 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Faulkner Mountainburg very 

stony fine sandy 

loam, 8 to 12 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Conway Mountainburg 

stony fine sandy 

loam, 12 to 40 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained bench, h

Faulkner Mountainburg very 

stony fine sandy 

loam, 12 to 40 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained h

Cleburne, 

White 

Nauvoo Nauvoo fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

0.39% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained rid

Phillips Newellton Newellton silty clay 1.70% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

slackw

Phillips Newellton silty 

clay, gently 

undulating 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

slackw

Phillips Newellton soils, 

frequently flooded 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

slackw

White Oaklimeter Oaklimeter silt 

loam, frequently 

flooded 

0.06% No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Moderately well 

drained 

flood 

C-20

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Faulkner Ouachita Ouachita silt loam, 

occasionally 

flooded 

0.11% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained flood 

natura

Woodruff Overcup Overcup silt loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes 

1.36% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained terra

Woodruff Patterson Patterson fine 

sandy loam, 0 to 2 

percent slopes 

0.02% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

terra

depres

White Rexor Rexor silt loam, 

occasionally 

flooded 

0.01% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained flood 

Phillips Robinsonvi

lle 

Robinsonville fine 

sandy loam 

0.10% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained natura

White Robinsonville fine 

sandy loam, 

frequently flooded 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained flood 

Phillips Sharkey Sharkey silty clay 0.40% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained backs

White Sidon Sidon loam, 1 to 3 

percent slopes 

1.78% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

rid

Cleburne, 

White 

 Sidon fine sandy 

loam, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Moderately well 

drained 

rid

Faulkner Spadra Spadra fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 3 

percent slopes 

0.41% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained stream 

White Steprock Steprock-Enders 

Complex, 12 to 30 

percent slopes 

6.67% No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

White Steprock-Linker 

Complex, 3 to 8 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hills

White SteprockMountainburg No Not Prime Farmland Highly erodible land Well drained hills

C-21

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Complex, 8 to 12 

percent slopes 

Cleburne SteprockMountainburg 

complex, 8 to 20 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsides

Cleburne SteprockMountainburgRock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 60 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsid

mounta

ridg

Cleburne Steprock-NellaMountainburg 

complex, 20 to 40 

percent slopes 

 No Not Prime 

Farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Well drained hillsid

mounta

ridg

Conway, 

Faulkner, 

White 

Taft Taft silt loam, 0 to 

2 percent slopes 

1.00% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

depre

Woodruff Taylorbay Taylorbay silt 

loam, 0 to 3 

percent slopes, 

frequently flooded 

0.12% Yes Prime Farmland 

if protected from 

flooding or not 

frequently 

flooded during 

the growing 

season 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained flood 

Woodruff Teksob Teksob loam, 0 to 

1 percent slopes 

2.90% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained terra

Woodruff Teksob loam, 1 to 

3 percent slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained terra

Woodruff Teksob loam, 3 to 

8 percent slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Potentially 

highly erodible 

land 

Well drained terra

C-22

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

Woodruff Tichnor Tichnor silt loam, 0 

to 1 percent 

slopes, frequently 

flooded 

0.75% Yes Prime Farmland 

if drained and 

either protected from flooding or 

not frequently 

flooded during 

the growing 

season 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood 

Woodruff Tipp Tipp silty clay 

loam, 0 to 3 

percent slopes, 

frequently flooded 

0.03% Yes Prime Farmland 

if protected from 

flooding or not 

frequently 

flooded during 

the growing 

season 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained flood 

Woodruff Tuckerman Tuckerman loam, 

0 to 1 percent 

slopes, frequently 

flooded 

1.90% Yes Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood p

stream t

Woodruff Tuckerman Tuckerman silty 

clay loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes, 

frequently flooded 

 Yes Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood p

stream t

Phillips Tunica Tunica silty clay 0.01% No Prime Farmland 

if drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained backs

Woodruff Wiville Wiville fine sandy 

loam, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

1.08% No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained dun

Woodruff Wiville fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 3 

percent slopes 

 No All areas are 

Prime Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Well drained dun

Woodruff Yancopin Yancopin silty clay 

loam, 0 to 3 

percent slopes, 

frequently flooded 

1.06% No Prime Farmland 

if protected from 

flooding or not 

frequently 

flooded during 

the growing 

season 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Somewhat 

poorly drained 

flood 

C-23

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

Description 

Percent 

of Route 

by Series Hydric 

Prime 

Farmland Erodibility Drainage 

Topog

Sett

St. Francis Zachary Zachary silt loam 0.18% Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood 

Lee Za Zachary soils, 

frequently flooded 

 Yes Not Prime 

Farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Poorly drained flood 

C-24

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-3 

SOIL ASSOCIATIONS BY MILEPOST, 

GREENVILLE LATERAL 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-3 Soil Associations by Milepost, Greenville Lateral 

Begin MP End MP SOIL NAME 

0 1.1 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

0 1.5 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

0 6.9 Sharkey-Tunica-Dundee 

1.6 Tunica clay, nearly level phase 

1.7 3.3 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

3.4 3.5 Sharkey clay, level phase 

3.6 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

3.7 4.4 Sharkey clay, level phase 

4.5 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

4.6 4.8 Sharkey clay, level phase 

4.9 5.7 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

5.8 6.1 Sharkey clay, level phase 

6.2 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

6.3 Sharkey clay, level phase 

6.4 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

6.5 Sharkey silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

6.6 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

6.7 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

6.8 7 Sharkey clay, level phase 

7 10.6 Dundee-Askew-Sharkey 

7.1 Sharkey silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

7.2 Dundee silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

7.3 7.6 Tunica clay, nearly level phase 

7.7 Dundee silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

7.8 Dundee very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

7.9 8.2 Bosket very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase (askew) 

8.3 8.6 Dundee very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

8.7 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

8.8 8.9 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

9 9.1 Dundee silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

9.2 Dundee very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

9.3 9.8 Bosket very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase (askew) 

9.9 10.3 Dundee very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

10.4 10.5 Sharkey silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

10.6 11.4 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

10.7 11.1 Sharkey-Tunica-Dundee 

11.2 16.6 Forestdale-Dundee-Sharkey 

11.5 11.7 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

11.8 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

11.9 12 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

12.1 Forestdale silty clay, gently sloping phase 

12.2 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

12.3 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

C-25

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-3 Soil Associations by Milepost, Greenville Lateral 

Begin MP End MP SOIL NAME 

12.4 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

12.5 12.9 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

13 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

13.1 13.2 Forestdale silty clay, gently sloping phase 

13.3 14.1 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

14.2 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

14.3 14.5 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

14.6 Dowling soils (Sharkey) 

14.7 Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

14.8 Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

14.9 16.5 Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

16.6 Forestdale silty clay loam, gently sloping phase 

16.7 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

16.7 23.1 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

16.8 Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

16.9 17.1 Dowling clay (Sharkey) 

17.2 17.3 Alligator clay, nearly level phase 

20.1 20.2 Alligator clay, gently sloping phase 

20.3 Water 

23.2 26.2 Forestdale-Dundee-Sharkey 

26.3 27.8 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

27.9 29.6 Forestdale-Dundee-Sharkey 

29.7 29.8 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

29.9 35.7 Forestdale-Dundee-Sharkey 

35.8 40.9 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

41 43.8 Forestdale-Dundee-Sharkey 

43.9 47.2 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

47.3 Dundee-Forestdale-Dubbs 

47.4 48.9 Alligator-Sharkey-Forestdale 

49 51.6 Dundee-Forestdale-Dubbs 

51.7 61.6 Morganfield-Adler-Convent 

61.7 62.4 Memphis-Natchez-Collins 

62.5 65 Memphis-Loring-Collins 

65.1 66.4 Morganfield-Adler-Convent 

66.5 66.7 Memphis-Loring-Collins 

66.8 67.9 Morganfield-Adler-Convent 

68 68.1 Memphis-Loring-Collins 

68.2 68.4 Morganfield-Adler-Convent 

68.5 70.1 Memphis-Loring-Collins 

70.2 75.4 Smithdale-Providence-Collins 

75.5 76.6 Grenada-Calloway-Gillsburg 

76.7 78.5 Arkabutla-Chenneby-Stough 

78.6 80.3 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

80.4 81.6 Providence-Smithdale-Saffell 

81.7 82.1 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

C-26

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-3 Soil Associations by Milepost, Greenville Lateral 

Begin MP End MP SOIL NAME 

82.2 84.5 Providence-Smithdale-Saffell 

84.6 85.2 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

85.3 85.4 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

85.5 86 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

86.1 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

86.2 86.5 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

86.6 88.1 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

88.2 88.7 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

88.8 89 Smithdale-Providence-Collins 

89.1 89.4 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

89.5 92.9 Smithdale-Providence-Collins 

93 93.7 Ariel-Gillsburg-Oaklimeter 

93.8 96.3 Smithdale-Sweatman-Providence 

C-27

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-4 

GREENVILLE LATERAL SOIL MAP UNITS 

AND CHARACTERISTICS 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-4 Greenville Lateral Soil Map Units and Characteristics

County 

Dominant 

Series Map Unit Description Drainage Farmland 

Hydric 

Soil Erodibility 

S

P

Holmes Adler Adler silt loam, occasionally flooded 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes, Humphreys, Sunflower, Washington Alligator Alligator clay, level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land V

 Alligator clay, frequently flooded 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Alligator silty clay loam, occasionally flooded 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Alligator silty clay, occasionally flooded 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Alligator clay, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Alligator clay, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Alligator clay, nearly level overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Alligator silty clay, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Alligator silty clay loam, nearly level overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Alligator silty clay, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Alligator-Dowling clays, overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Alligator, Dowling, and Forestdale soils, overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Ariel Ariel silt loam, occasionally flooded 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Washington Bosket 

Bosket very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase (askew) 

Moderately 

well drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Bruno Bruno sandy loam, frequently flooded 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Bruno sandy loam, occasionally flooded 

Somewhat 

poorly 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

C-28

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-4 Greenville Lateral Soil Map Units and Characteristics

County 

Dominant 

Series Map Unit Description Drainage Farmland 

Hydric 

Soil Erodibility 

S

P

drained 

Attala Calhoun Calhoun silt loam 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained 

Prime farmland, 

if drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Calloway Calloway silt loam 

Moderately 

well drained 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Chenneby 

Chenneby silt loam, frequently flooded 

Hydric 

Soil 

Holmes Deerfield Deerfield-Bonn complex 

Hydric 

Soil 

Holmes, Humphreys, Sunflower, Washington Dowling Dowling clay (sharkey) 

Very poorly 

drained 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land V

 Dowling clay, overflow phase 

Very poorly 

drained 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Dowling soils (sharkey) 

Very poorly 

drained 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Dowling soils, overflow phase 

Very poorly 

drained 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Dubbs Dubbs silt loam 

Moderately 

well drained Prime farmland 

 Dubbs silt loam 

Moderately 

well drained Prime farmland 

Humphreys Dubbs Dubbs very fine sandy loam 

Well 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes, Humphreys, Sunflower, Washington Dundee 

Dundee silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Dundee silty clay loam, nearly level shallow phase 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Dundee silty clay loam, gently sloping phase 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

C-29

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-4 Greenville Lateral Soil Map Units and Characteristics

County 

Dominant 

Series Map Unit Description Drainage Farmland 

Hydric 

Soil Erodibility 

S

P

Dundee silt loam, gently sloping phase 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Dundee very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

Somewhat 

poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Holmes Falaya Falaya silt loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Holmes Fausse Fausse clay, depressional 

Poorly 

drained 

Humphreys, Sunflower, Washington Forestdale 

Forestdale silty clay, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, nearly level shallow phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silty clay loam, gently sloping overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silt loam, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silt loam, nearly level overflow phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silt loam, nearly level moderately shallow phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale silt loam, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Forestdale very fine sandy loam, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Partially 

hydric 

Not highly 

erodible land 

C-30

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-4 Greenville Lateral Soil Map Units and Characteristics

County 

Dominant 

Series Map Unit Description Drainage Farmland 

Hydric 

Soil Erodibility 

S

P

Attala Gillsburg 

Gillsburg silt loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil M

Holmes Memphis Gullied Land-Memphis complex 

Hydric 

Soil Severely eroded 

Humphreys Iberia Iberia clay 

Poorly 

drained 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Attala Kinston Kinston loam, occasionally flooded 

Hydric 

Soil M

Attala Kirksville Kirksville loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil M

Holmes Loring Loring silt loam, 2 to 5% slopes 

Loring silt loam, 5 to 8% slopes, eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Eroded 

Loring silt loam, 5 to 8% slopes, severely eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Severely eroded 

Loring silt loam, 8 to 12% slopes, eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Eroded 

Loring silt loam, 8 to 12% slopes, severely eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Severely eroded 

Attala Mantachie Mantachie loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil M

 Mantachie loam, frequently flooded 

Hydric 

Soil 

Holmes Memphis Memphis Natchez association 

Hydric 

Soil 

 Memphis silt loam, 0 to 2% slope Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Memphis silt loam, 12 to 40% slope, severely eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Severely eroded 

 Memphis silt loam, 2 to 5% slope Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Memphis silt loam, 5 to 8% slope, eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Eroded 

Memphis silt loam, 8 to 12% slope, eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Eroded 

Memphis silt loam, 8 to 12% slope, severely eroded 

Hydric 

Soil Severely eroded 

Holmes Morganfield 

Morganfield silt loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

C-31

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-4 Greenville Lateral Soil Map Units and Characteristics

County 

Dominant 

Series Map Unit Description Drainage Farmland 

Hydric 

Soil Erodibility 

S

P

Attala, Holmes Oaklimiter 

Oaklimiter silt loam, occasionally flooded Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Attala Providence 

Providence silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded Prime farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Providence silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land 

Providence silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land 

Holmes Rosebloom Rosebloom silt loam, depressional 

Hydric 

Soil 

Washington Sharkey Sharkey clay, level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land V

 Sharkey clay, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

 Sharkey clay, gently sloping phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Potentially highly 

erodible land 

Sharkey silty clay loam, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Not highly 

erodible land 

Attala, Holmes Smithdale 

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land 

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land 

 Smithdale-Providence association 

Hydric 

Soil 

Attala Sweatman 

Sweatman loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land M

Holmes Tensas Tensas silty clay loam Prime farmland 

Hydric 

Soil 

Attala Tippah 

Tippah silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded Prime farmland 

Highly erodible 

land 

Tippah silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 

Partially 

hydric 

Highly erodible 

land 

Washington Tunica Tunica clay, nearly level phase 

Poorly 

drained Prime farmland 

Not highly 

erodible land V

Attala Chenneby 

Chenneby-Rosebloom complex, Yockanookany River bottoms 

Hydric 

Soil V

C-32

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-5 

WATERBODIES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR 

OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Fayetteville Lateral Arkansas 

Conway 0.2 SRM001 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor-7 ft OConway 0.3 SRM002 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor-7 ft OConway 1.3 SRM003 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OConway 1.8 SRM004 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OConway 2.1 srm005 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OConway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OConway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OConway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OConway 2.1 srm007 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OConway 2.5 srm008 Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OConway 3.6 srm009 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OConway 5.0 srm012 Tributary to Cedar Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OConway 5.0 srm012 Tributary to Cedar Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OConway 5.5 srm015 Tributary to Hog Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OConway 5.7 srm016 Hog Branch (Intermittent) Intermediate- 13 ft OConway 5.8 srm017 Tributary to Hog Branch (Intermittent) Intermediate- 23 ft O

Faulkner 7.9 srm014 Cove Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 49 ft OFaulkner 9.3 SCL 002 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 9.6 SCL 005 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 9.9 SCL 007 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 10.0 SCL 009 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 8 ft OFaulkner 10.9 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 014 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-33

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Faulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 11.2 SCL 016 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OFaulkner 11.4 SCL 020 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 11.9 SCL 029 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 12.3 SCL 032 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 12.6 SCL 037 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Perennial) Minor- 8 ft OFaulkner 12.8 SCL 038 Batesville Creek (Perennial) Minor- 8 ft OFaulkner 12.9 DLS S1 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Perennial) Minor- 6 ft OFaulkner 13.1 SCL 042 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 14.0 SCL 053 Cadron Creek (Perennial) Major- 105 ft OFaulkner 14.4 SCL 058 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 14.6 SCL 059 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 14.8 SCL 061 Wolf Branch of Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 10 ft OFaulkner 15.3 SCL 066 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 6 ft OFaulkner 15.6 SCL 068 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor 4 ft OFaulkner 15.8 SCL 070 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 16.0 SCL 072 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 16.5 SCL 077 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 17.6 SCL 086 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 17.6 SCL 087 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 17.7 SCL 091 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 17.8 SCL 092 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft OFaulkner 17.9 SCL 093 Stillhouse Branch (Perennial) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 17.9 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 18.0 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 18.0 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 18.5 SCL 099 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-34

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Faulkner 18.7 SCL 100 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft OFaulkner 19.1 SCL 103 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 19.6 SCL 106 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 20.2 SCL 111 King Branch (Perennial) Minor- 4 ft OFaulkner 20.6 SCL 119 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 20.7 SCL 118 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor-1 ft OFaulkner 20.9 SCL 120 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft OFaulkner 21.3 DLS ditch Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 21.3 DLS ditch 2 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OFaulkner 22.1 tdh ditch Tributary to Nichols Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1ft OFaulkner 22.1 tdh ditch Tributary to Nichols Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1ft OFaulkner 23.1 SCL 132 Tributary to Mortar Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OFaulkner 23.2 SCL 139 Tributary to Mortar Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 12 ft OFaulkner 23.3 SCL 140 Mortar Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 30 ft OFaulkner 24.3 SCL 145 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 24.6 SCL 147 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft OFaulkner 24.9 SCL 149 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 26.3 SCL 153 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Minor-3 ft OFaulkner 26.3 SCL 155 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 26.9 SCL 161 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 27.2 SCL 165 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 10 ft OFaulkner 27.6 SCL 167 Tributary to Brier Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 6 ft OFaulkner 27.8 SCL 169 Tributary to Brier Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 27.8 SCL 171 Tributary to Brier Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OFaulkner 28.2 SCL 173 Tributary to Strain Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 28.2 SCL 173east Tributary to Strain Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 3ft OFaulkner 28.5 SCL 174 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek (Perennial) Minor- 3 ft OFaulkner 28.9 SCL 175 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek (Intermit) Minor- 3 ft O

White 29.6 SCL 179 Tributary to Piney Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 29.7 SCL 180 Piney Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 15 ft OWhite 30.2 SCL 181 Blakey Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft O

C-35

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

White 30.5 SCL 183 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek (Intermit) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 30.7 SCL 185 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek (Intermit) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 31.3 SCL 186 Tributary to Jones Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWhite 32.0 SCL 191 Jones Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 20 ft OWhite 32.0 SCL 191 Jones Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 20 ft OWhite 32.4 SCL 194 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWhite 32.8 SCL 196 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 32.9 SCL 199 Graham Branch (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OWhite 33.0 TDH S2 Tributary to Graham Branch (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OWhite 34.3 SCL 212 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 34.5 SCL 214 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 34.6 SCL 215 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 6 ft OWhite 35.1 SCL 216 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 35.4 SCL 217 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 35.4 SCL 218 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 35.5 SCL 220 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 36.1 SCL 225 Big Hollow Tributary (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 36.4 SCL 227 Big Hollow Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 15 ft OWhite 37.2 SCL 230 Hyde Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 37.2 SCL 230 Hyde Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 37.2 SCL 230 Hyde Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 37.6 SCL 232 Chaney Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWhite 38.1 SCL 234 Tributary to Chaney Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 39.2 SCL 243 Mill Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 4 ft OWhite 39.3 SCL 244 Tributary to Mill Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 39.3 SCL 244 Tributary to Mill Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 39.8 SCL 246 Tributary to Mill Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft O

Cleburne 42.8 SCL 267 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OCleburne 42.8 SCL 258 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OCleburne 43.0 SCL 260 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OCleburne 43.5 SCL 263 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-36

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Cleburne 43.5 SCL 264 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft O

White 45.1 SCL 276 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWhite 45.3 acer int st Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1ft OWhite 46.1 TDH S7 Big Creek (Perennial) Major- 140 ft HWhite 47.2 srm041 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 6 ft OWhite 48.1 srm039 Brier Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 16 ft OWhite 48.5 srm037 Owl Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 16 ft OWhite 48.8 tdh ar s3 Tributary to Owl Creek (Perennial) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 50.0 srm036 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWhite 52.3 srm040 Little Red River (Perennial) Major- 200 ft HWhite 54.5 srm035 Tributary to Owl Creek (Perennial) Minor- 3 ft OWhite 55.1 srm035a Tributary to Owl Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWhite 56.6 srm034 Onion Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 15 ft OWhite 58.9 srm031 Chinquapin Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 12 ft OWhite 59.4 srm030 Tributary to Lake Bald Knob (Intermittent) Minor- 8 ft OWhite 59.8 srm029 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 10 ft OWhite 60.3 srm028 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 35 ft OWhite 60.5 srm027 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWhite 61.0 srm026 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Perennial) Minor- 5 ft OWhite 61.8 srm033 Overflow Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 13 ft OWhite 62.4 srm032 Big Mingo Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 10 ft OWhite 63.2 tdh int st Tributary to Big Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OWhite 63.7 srm021 Gladey Creek (Intermittent) Minor-3 ft OWhite 64.3 srm020 Tributary to Gladey Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 13 ft OWhite 65.2 srm019w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OWhite 65.5 srm018w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OWhite 65.7 srm017w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OWhite 66.5 srm016w Glaise Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 30 ft OWhite 67.2 tdh int st Tributary to Glaise Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWhite 67.4 tdh int st Tributary to Glaise Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWhite 67.9 TDH S3 Departee Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft O

C-37

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

White 69.5 tdh int st Tributary to White River (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft O

Woodruff 70.3 White R. White River (Perennial) Major- 700 ft HWoodruff 71.3 ag ditch Tributary to Bear Slough (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 71.5 TDH S5 Bear Slough (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft OWoodruff 71.9 ag ditch Tributary to Bear Slough (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 72.4 C. to Tayl Canal to Taylor Bay (Intermittent) Intermediate- 40 ft OWoodruff 72.8 ag ditch Tributary to Taylor Bay (Intermittent) Minor- 3ft OWoodruff 72.9 ag ditch Tributary to Taylor Bay (Intermittent) Minor- 3ft OWoodruff 73.4 TDH S4 Taylor Bay (Perennial) Major-215 ft HWoodruff 75.9 JAV-S28 Tributary to Cypress Brake (Intermittent) Minor- 6 ft OWoodruff 77.1 JAV-S27 Tributary to Maple Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 77.5 JAV-S26 Tributary to Maple Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 78.6 JAV-S25 Tributary to Maple Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 79.9 TDH S1 Canal to Maple Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 8 ft OWoodruff 80.0 JAV-S23 Tributary to Maple Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 81.9 JAV-S29 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 82.4 Cache Rive Cache River (Perennial) Major-140 ft HWoodruff 83.1 JAV-S35 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 83.5 JAV-S36 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWoodruff 85.9 JAV-S32 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWoodruff 85.9 JAV-S33 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWoodruff 86.1 JAV-S34 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWoodruff 87.6 JAV-S31 Tributary to Mill Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 88.3 JAV-S30 Mill Ditch (Intermittent) Intermediate- 15 ft OWoodruff 90.4 tdh int st Tributary to Miller Branch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 91.7 ag ditch Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 91.7 ditch Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 92.1 JAV-S20 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 92.4 JAV-S19 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 92.4 JAV-S18 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-38

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Woodruff 93.0 JAV-S17 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 93.0 JAV-S16 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWoodruff 93.3 JAV-S11 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OWoodruff 93.4 JAV-S12 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 93.5 JAV-S13 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 93.7 JAV-S14 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 94.0 JAV-S15 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWoodruff 95.2 ag ditch Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 96.0 Bayou de V Bayou de View (Perennial) Major- 250 ft HWoodruff 96.0 ag ditch Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 96.7 JAV-S6 Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 97.0 JAV-S7 Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWoodruff 97.3 JAV-S8 Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 98.4 JAV-S1 Tributary to Upper Seibert Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 98.4 ag ditch Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 99.7 JAV-S3 Tributary to Caney Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 99.8 JAV-S4 Tributary to Caney Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWoodruff 100.1 JAV-S5 Caney Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 30 ft OWoodruff 101.7 ag ditch Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 102.2 tdhs1 Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate - 16 ft OWoodruff 103.5 ag ditch Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 104.3 tdhs2 Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 104.6 ag ditch Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OWoodruff 107.7 jr-s2 East Flat Fork Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 20 ft O

St. Francis 109.7 ag ditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 109.9 ag ditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 109.9 ag ditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 110.7 ag ditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 111.2 ag ditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 111.6 Big C 2 Big Creek (Perennial) Major- 115 ft O

C-39

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

St. Francis 112.2 DLS agditch Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OSt. Francis 113.9 jr-s1 Hog Tusk Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 15 ft O

Lee 118.2 jo intSTRM Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OLee 119.1 No Name #2 Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OLee 120.4 jo agditch Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OLee 120.5 jo agditch Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OLee 121.3 ag ditch Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OLee 123.6 jr-s3 Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 15 ft OLee 125.2 ag ditch Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OLee 129.0 jo agditch Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OLee 130.1 jo agditch Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OLee 130.3 jo S01 Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 13 ft OLee 130.4 jo wwc Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OLee 130.8 tdh S02 Big Cypress Creek (Perennial) Minor- 8 ft OLee 131.1 tdh agditc Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OLee 133.0 tdh agditc Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OLee 134.1 tds ditch Tributary to Big Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OLee 136.7 jo/tds wwc Tributary to Caney Creek (Intermittent) Minor -2 ft OLee 137.3 jo/tdh wwc Tributary to Big Cypress (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OLee 137.3 jo/tdh wwc Tributary to Big Cypress (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

Phillips 139.7 tdh S03 Lick Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft OPhillips 140.2 tdh rrditc Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 140.8 tdh int st Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OPhillips 140.8 tdh int st Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OPhillips 141.2 tdh wwc Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 143.7 jo agditch Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 144.7 jo S03 Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 50 ft OPhillips 144.7 jo wwc Tributary to Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 144.7 jo wwc Tributary to Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 144.7 jo wwc Tributary to Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 146.0 jo wwc Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-40

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Phillips 146.4 jo INT st Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OPhillips 147.8 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 147.8 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 147.8 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 147.8 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 148.0 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 148.2 jo agditch Tributary to Hurricane Ditch (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 149.1 jo agditch Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 149.5 jo S04 Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Intermediate- 10 ft OPhillips 149.6 jo agditch Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 150.0 jo agditch Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 150.0 jo agditch Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 150.6 jo agditch Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 150.7 jo agditch Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 150.7 jo wwc Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 151.2 jo wwc Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 151.3 jo INT st Tributary to Chaney Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OPhillips 151.5 jo S05 Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 8 ft OPhillips 151.6 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 153.0 Long L. Long Lake Bayou (Perennial) Major- 210 ft OPhillips 153.7 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 153.9 jo wwc Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 154.0 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 154.4 int st Tributary to Long Lake (Perennial) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 154.6 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Major 500 ft OPhillips 154.9 jo wwc Tributary to Mississippi River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 155.2 DLS ditch Tributary to Mississippi River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 155.2 DLS ditch Tributary to Mississippi River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 155.4 DLS ditch Tributary to Mississippi River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 155.5 DLS ditch Tributary to Mississippi River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OPhillips 157.3 Miss River Mississippi River (Perennial) Major- 4000 ft H

C-41

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Mississippi 

Coahoma 160.0 tdh int st Rowen Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OCoahoma 160.5 tdh agditc Tributary to Moon Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OCoahoma 160.7 tdh Strm Phillips Bayou (Perennial) Major- 110 ft OCoahoma 161.9 tdh agditc Tributary to Muddy Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

Greenville Lateral 

Washington 0.8 ML-D1 Tributary to Main Canal (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 2.1 ML-D2 Canal to Swiftwater Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 3.3 ML-D3 Canal to Swiftwater Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 3.4 ML-D4 Canal to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 3.7 ML-D5 Canal to Widow Bayou (Intermittent) Minor-3 ft OWashington 3.9 ag ditch Tributary to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 4.7 ML-D6 Canal to Widow Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 4.9 ML-D7 Canal to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Intermediate- 26 ft OWashington 5.2 B. Bayou Black Bayou (Perennial) Intermediate- 60 ft OWashington 5.3 B. Bayou Black Bayou (Perennial) Intermediate 35 ft OWashington 5.5 B. Bayou Black Bayou (Perennial) Intermediate 90 ft OWashington 6.0 ML-D9B Canal to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWashington 6.2 ML-D11 Canal to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWashington 6.4 ag ditch Tributary to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 6.7 ag ditch Tributary to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 7.1 ML-D12 Canal to Black Bayou (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OWashington 9.3 ML-D13 Deer Creek (Perennial) Intermediate – 60 ft HWashington 11.2 ML-D15 Bogue Phalia (Perennial) Major- 125 ft HWashington 11.9 ML-D17 Tributary to Bogue Phalia (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWashington 14.7 Canal to B. Phalia Canal to Bogue Phalia (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OWashington 16.9 Trib. of Sixmile Tributary to Sixmile Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft O

Sunflower 17.8 ML-D18 East Sixmile Bayou (Intermittent) Intermediate- 33 ft OSunflower 18.3 ML-D19 Canal to Bogue Phalia (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft O

C-42

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Sunflower 18.6 ML-D20 Cypress Slough (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft O

Washington 19.4 tdh ditch 2 Tributary to Melton Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OWashington 19.4 tdh ditch 3 Tributary to Melton Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft O

WashingtonHumphreys 20.3 ML-D21 Big Sunflower River (Perennial) Major- 250 ft H

Humphreys 20.9 ML-D22 Tributary to Big Sunflower River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 21.1 ML-D23 Canal to Big Sunflower River (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 23.6 ML-S8 Beasley Bayou (Perennial) Intermediate- 98 ft OHumphreys 25.3 ML-D24 Canal to Big Sunflower River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 26.1 ML-S10 Beasley Bayou (Perennial) Intermediate 50 ft OHumphreys 26.7 ML-D25A Tributary to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 26.9 ML-D25B Tributary to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 27.3 Jackson B Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 27.6 ML-D26 Tributary to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 27.9 ML-D27 Tributary to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 29.4 ML-D28 Canal to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 29.5 ML-D29 Canal to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 31.3 jr int12 Little Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Intermediate- 25 ft OHumphreys 31.5 J-D1 Canal to Cold Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 31.8 J-D2 Canal to Cold Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 33.1 J-D3 Canal to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 34.0 J-D5 Tributary to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 34.3 J-D6 Canal to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 34.8 J-D7 Tributary to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 34.9 J-D8 Canal to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 35.2 J-D9 Canal to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 35.4 J-D9 Canal to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 35.6 jr int13 Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHumphreys 36.2 J-D10 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 36.4 J-D11 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 36.5 J-D12 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft O

C-43

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Humphreys 36.7 J-D13 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 37.0 J-D15 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 37.2 J-D17 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 39.6 J-D19 Canal to Yazoo River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 40.5 Yazoo Yazoo River (Perennial) Major- 395 ft HHumphreys 41.1 ag ditch Tributary to Toney Brake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 41.4 J-D21 Tributary to Toney Brake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 41.7 J-D22 Tributary to Toney Brake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHumphreys 42.6 J-D23 Canal to Mathena Brake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft O

Holmes 46.7 Tchula Tchula Lake Major- 160 ft HHolmes 49.5 J-D29 Canal to Tchula Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 49.8 J-D30 Canal to Tchula Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 50.2 J-D31 Canal to Tchula Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 50.5 J-D32 Canal to Tchula Lake (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 51.3 tdh ms ditch Tributary to Old Fannegusha Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OHolmes 51.5 tdh ms ag ditch Tributary to Old Fannegusha Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OHolmes 51.8 tdh ms ag ditch Tributary to Old Fannegusha Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3 ft OHolmes 54.3 Fannegusha Fannegusha Creek (Perennial) Major-100 ft HHolmes 54.5 tdh ms ag ditch Tributary to Fannegusha Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 3ft OHolmes 54.8 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Blissdale Swamp (Intermittent) Minor- 3ft OHolmes 55.8 J-D43 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 56.3 int st Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 57.1 kp int5 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 57.9 JS1 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 57.9 wwc2 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 58.0 wwc1 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 58.3 J-D44 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 58.5 J-D45 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 58.5 J-D46 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 58.6 J-D47 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft O

C-44

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Holmes 58.9 J-D48 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 58.9 J-D50 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 59.6 J-D51 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 60.1 J-D53 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 60.5 JS2 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 13 ft OHolmes 60.6 JWWC-4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 60.9 JS3 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 10 ft OHolmes 61.1 JS11 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 10 ft OHolmes 61.2 JS6 Black Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 58 ft OHolmes 61.7 JWWC-11 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 61.8 JWWC-10 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 61.9 WWC-9 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 62.0 JS5 Tributary of Black Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 23 ft OHolmes 62.3 JS4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 13 ft OHolmes 62.8 WWC5 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 62.9 WWC4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 63.4 JWWC-12 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 63.7 int st Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 63.8 jr s1 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 6ft OHolmes 64.5 ditch-1 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 65.2 JS7 Gourdvine Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft OHolmes 66.0 WWC15 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.3 JWWC-27 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.4 JWWC-26 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.4 WWC25 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.5 JS9 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 7 ft OHolmes 66.6 JWWC-24 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.7 JWWC-23 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.8 JWWC-21 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 66.8 JWWC-22 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 67.0 JS8 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 16 ft O

C-45

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Holmes 67.1 JS8 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 16 ft OHolmes 67.4 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 67.5 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 67.6 JWWC-35 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 67.6 JWWC-36 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 67.7 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 68.0 WWC34 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 68.3 JS10 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 16 ft OHolmes 68.6 JWWC32 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 68.7 JWWC31 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 68.9 jr s2 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 69.3 jr s3 Tarrey Creek (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 70.8 jr int4 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 70.9 Trib. to Tarrey Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 71.1 strm9b Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 71.2 strm9a Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 71.4 tdh-wwc13 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 71.7 tdh stream 3 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Intermediate- 15 ft OHolmes 71.8 tdhditch2 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OHolmes 71.9 tdh wwc 12 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 72.0 tdhwwc11 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 72.5 tdh wwc 10 Box Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 72.9 tdh wwc9 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 73.2 tdh wwc8 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 73.3 tdh-wwc8 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 73.4 strm7 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 73.8 tdh stream 2 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 73.9 tdh-stream 1 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 73.9 tdhwwc 7 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-46

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Holmes 74.0 tdh int 5 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 74.3 tdh wwc6 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 74.7 tdh stream 1 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 75.0 tdh int stream 4 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OHolmes 75.5 jr int6 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft OHolmes 76.1 tdh int st Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OHolmes 76.2 Trib. 2 Big 

Black 

Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 9 ft O

Holmes 77.7 Big Black Big Black River (Perennial) Major- 270 ft HHolmes 77.9 tdh ms s1 Tributary to Big Black River (Perennial) Minor- 9ft O

Attala 78.4 tdh wwc 15 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 78.5 tdh wwc 14 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 78.9 tdh wwc 4 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 79.1 tdh int stream 3 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 79.2 tdh int stream 2 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 79.3 tdh int stream 2 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 79.5 tdh wwc3 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 80.1 tdh wwc2 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 80.3 tdh ditch 1 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OAttala 80.7 tdh int stream 1' Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 80.8 tdh wwc1 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.4 KWWC-41 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.4 KWWC-42 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.5 KWWC-40 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.6 KWWC-38 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.6 KWWC-39 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 82.8 KWWC-37 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft O

C-47

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Attala 83.0 KWWC-36 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 83.6 KWWC-35 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor-2 ft OAttala 83.7 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 83.8 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 83.9 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 84.0 KWWC-31 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 84.0 KWWC-32 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 84.0 KWWC-33 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 84.6 Kditch10 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OAttala 84.8 Kditch9 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OAttala 84.9 KS6 Station 1 Long Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 30 ft OAttala 85.2 KWWC-29 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 85.7 KS6 Station 2 Long Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft OAttala 85.9 Kditch8 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 1 ft OAttala 86.3 KS5 Long Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 43 ft OAttala 86.9 KWWC-30 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 87.3 KS4 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 87.8 jr int7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 87.8 jr s4 Long Creek (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OAttala 87.9 jr s5 Tributary to Long Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 12 ft OAttala 88.3 jr int9 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 88.7 jr int10 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 89.1 jr s6 Tributary to Long Creek (Perennial) Minor- 9 ft OAttala 90.1 jrint1 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 90.1 Trib. 4 Long C Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 90.6 ditch Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 91.3 jrint2 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 91.8 jrint3 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 2 ft OAttala 92.7 jrint4 Tributary to Yockanookany River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 93.1 jrs7 Yockanookany River (Perennial) Intermediate- 50 ft HAttala 93.7 tdh ms int s1 Tributary to Yockanookany River (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft O

C-48

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-5 Waterbodies Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipeline Route

County 

Approximate 

Milepost at 

Crossing a/ Field ID Waterbody Name and Type b,c/

Size and Estimated 

Width of Stream 

Crossing d/ 

Cro

Met

Attala 95.0 int st Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 95.1 Conehoma Conehoma Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 20 ft OAttala 96.0 kp int1 Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft O

Kosciusko 36” Pipeline 

Attala 0.3 kp int1 Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Minor- 5 ft OAttala 0.7 Little Cone. Creek Little Conehoma Creek (Perennial) Intermediate- 20 ft O

Kosciusko/Southern Natural 20” Pipeline 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

a/ Milepost based on desktop analysis of proposed pipeline route.

b/ Intermittent and Perennial designations determined by site reconnaissance and USGS name.

c/ Perennial waterbodies in St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips counties and Coahoma County, Mississippi may contain potential habitat for the fat pocketbook; perenn

Phillips counties, Arkansas may contain potential habitat for the scaleshell; perennial waterbodies in Cleburne County, Arkansas may contain potential habit

waterbodies in Woodruff County, Arkansas may contain potential habitat for the pink mucket; large waterbodies in St. Francis County, Arkansas may contain potend/ Minor stream is less than 10 feet wide, Intermediate streams are between 10 and 99 feet, and Major are over 100 feet.

e/ HDD = horizontal directional drill, OCM = open cut method 

f/ Arkansas State Water Quality Classifications (found within project area) –Extraordinary Resource Waters (ERW), Ecologically Sensitive Waterbodies (ES

Streams (CDES), Primary Contact Recreation (PC), Secondary Contact Recreation (SC), Domestic, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies (DIA), Trout FPerennial Fishery (PF) Mississippi State Water Quality Classifications – Fish and Wildlife (FW), Shellfish Harvesting (SH), Recreation (R), Ephemeral Stream (ES), Public Water Supply (

g/ Environmental Sensitivity = Extraordinary Resource Water (ERW), Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), Trout Fisheries Stream (TFS)

C-49

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-6 

WETLANDS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION 

CORRIDOR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Fayetteville Lateral

Arkansas

Faulkner WET 112 20.1 282 PFO OCM 0.5 0.06 Faulkner WET 138 23.1 31 PFO OCM 0.1 0.01 

White WET 222 35.5 20 PFO OCM <0.1 0.00 White wrm012 47.8 839 PFO OCM 1.5 0.19 White wrm007 65.4 229 PFO OCM 0.4 0.05 White wrm006 65.6 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a White wrm004 66.4 195 PFO OCM 0.3 0.04 White wrm003 66.5 107 PFO OCM 0.2 0.02 White th w11 67 77 PFO OCM 0.1 0.02 White th w6 67.9 103 PFO OCM 0.2 0.02 White th w5 70.1 156 PFO HDD ** ** 

Woodruff th w9 71.4 75 PFO OCM 0.1 0.02 Woodruff tdh ar w2 73.3 19 PFO OCM 0.2 0.00 Woodruff th w7 73.4 405 PFO HDD   Woodruff th w8 74.4 1,100 PFO OCM 1.9 0.25 Woodruff th w2.1 82.4 2,453 PFO HDD **  ** Woodruff th w2.2 82.9 450 PFO HDD   Woodruff JAV-W38 83.9 232 PFO OCM 0.3 0.05 Woodruff JAV-W31 84 42 PFO OCM 0.2 0.01 Woodruff tdh bdv w2 95.5 1,911 PFO HDD **  ** Woodruff tdh bdv w3 95.9 83 PFO HDD ** ** Woodruff tdh ar w3 100.1 259 PFO OCM 0.5 0.06 

Saint Francis jr-w4a 116.1 751 PFO OCM 1.3 0.17 

Lee jr-w2c 116.7 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Lee jr-w3 117 41 PFO OCM 0.1 0.01 Lee jr-w1 117.4 n/a PFO OCM 0.1 n/a Lee jo W03* 119.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Lee jo W02 120 427 PFO OCM 0.7 0.10 Lee tdhw1 124.3 28 PFO OCM <0.1 0.01 Lee tdhw4 126.8 151 PFO OCM 0.3 0.03 Lee tdhw5 127.5 352 PFO OCM 0.6 0.08 Lee jo/tdh W05 135.6 342 PFO OCM 0.6 0.08 

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

C-50

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Phillips jo/tdh W07 141.1 35 PFO OCM <0.1 0.01 Phillips jo W07 143.4 30 PFO OCM 0.1 0.01 Phillips jo W06 143.5 121 PFO OCM 0.2 0.03 Phillips jo W08 151.4 415 PFO OCM 0.7 0.10 Phillips jo W09 152.9 204 PFO OCM <0.1 0.05 Phillips jo W10 154.3 518 PFO HDD ** ** Phillips jo W11 156.4 2,529 PFO OCM 4.3 0.58 Phillips jo W11* 156.6 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Phillips jo W11* 156.6 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a 

9,036 16 2.07 

White wrm011 48.1 9 PFO/PSS OCM <0.1 0.00 

9 0 0.00 

Conway tdh ar w1 7.3 23 PFO/PEM OCM <0.1 0.01 

White WET 210^ 34.1 n/a PFO/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a White WET 219 35.3 60 PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 0.01 

Woodruff JAV-W24 81.9 36 PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 0.01 Woodruff th w10 82 176 PFO/PEM OCM 0.4 0.04 Woodruff th w2 82.2 599 PFO/PEM OCM 1.1 0.14 Woodruff th w2* 82.2 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 0.3 n/a Woodruff tdh w2.3 83 70 PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 0.02 Woodruff tdh w2.3* 83.1 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 1 n/a Woodruff tdh w2.3* 83.1 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Woodruff JAV-W29 85.4 594 PFO/PEM OCM 1 0.14 Woodruff JAV-W25 88.1 n/a PFO/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Woodruff tdh bdv w1 95.1 111 PFO/PEM OCM 0.2 0.03 

Saint Francis DLS W2 111.5 1,255 PFO/PEM OCM 2.2 0.29 

Lee tdhw3 125.8 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a 

Phillips jo/tdh W09 140.8 121 PFO/PEM OCM 0.2 0.03 Phillips jo/tdh W12 142 105 PFO/PEM OCM 0.3 0.02 Phillips jo/tdh W15 142.2 550 PFO/PEM OCM 0.9 0.13 

3,700 8.1 0.85 

Faulkner WET 062 14.8 n/a PSS OCM <0.1 n/a Faulkner WET 144 24.2 32 PSS OCM <0.1 0.01 Faulkner WET 148 24.8 62 PSS OCM 0.1 0.01 

Subtotal - PFO/PSS Wetlands

Subtotal - PFO Wetlands

Subtotal - PFO/PEM Wetlands

C-51

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Faulkner WET 170 27.7 19 PSS OCM <0.1 0.00 

White WET 231 37.1 n/a PSS OCM <0.1 n/a White wrm010 63.6 122 PSS OCM 0.2 0.03 White wrm005 67.5 862 PSS OCM 1.5 0.20 

1,097 1.8 0.25 

Faulkner WET 015 10.9 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Faulkner WET 060 14.8 42 PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 0.01 

Woodruff JAV-W18 76.1 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Woodruff JAV-W23a 81.8 187 PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 0.04 Woodruff JAV-W37 83.8 391 PSS/PEM OCM 0.6 0.09 Woodruff tdh bdv w4 96 3,019 PSS/PEM OCM 4.5 0.69 Woodruff tdh bdv w4* 96 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.3 n/a Woodruff tdh bdv w4* 96 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Woodruff tdh bdv w4* 96.5 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Woodruff tdh bdv w4* 96.5 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a 

3,639 5.8 0.84 

Conway wrm001 2.1 51 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

Faulkner WET 041 13 26 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 045 13.3 8 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 057 14.2 33 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Faulkner WET 063 14.8 41 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 064 15 n/a PEM OCM 0.1 -- Faulkner WET 071 15.7 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 076 16.5 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner Wet 081 16.8 374 PEM OCM 0.7 -- Faulkner WET 104 19.1 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 108 19.7 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 109 20 43 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Faulkner WET 141 23.2 532 PEM OCM 0.8 -- Faulkner WET 151 25.2 104 PEM OCM 0.2 -- Faulkner WET 157 26.4 103 PEM OCM 0.2 -- Faulkner WET 158 26.6 41 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Faulkner WET 160 26.7 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Faulkner WET 164 26.8 70 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

Subtotal - PSS/PEM Wetlands

Subtotal - PSS Wetlands

C-52

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Faulkner WET 176 28.8 24 PEM OCM <0.1 -- 

White WET 188 31.6 22 PEM OCM <0.1 -- White WET 192 32 33 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

Woodruff JAV-W14 79.7 440 PEM OCM 0.5 -- Woodruff JAV-W17 79.8 52 PEM OCM 0.4 -- Woodruff JAV-W20 80.9 57 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Woodruff JAV-W21 81.6 8 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Woodruff JAV-W23b 81.8 70 PEM OCM 0.2 -- Woodruff th w3 82 711 PEM OCM 1.2 -- Woodruff JAV-W32 83.2 154 PEM OCM 0.3 -- Woodruff JAV-W33 83.4 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Woodruff JAV-W39 83.4 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 -- Woodruff JAV-W34 83.6 206 PEM OCM 0.3 -- Woodruff JAV-W35 83.7 116 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Woodruff JAV-W26 86.5 386 PEM OCM 0.6 -- Woodruff JAV-W8 93.7 240 PEM OCM 0.4 -- Woodruff JAV-W1 99.6 75 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

Saint Francis jrw6 113.8 162 PEM OCM 0.3 -- 

Lee DLS W1 120.4 658 PEM OCM 1.2 -- 

Phillips jo/tdh W08 140.8 7 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Phillips jo/tdh W10 140.9 64 PEM OCM 0.2 -- 

4,911 8.5 0.00 

Mississippi

Coahoma jo w11* 156.8 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Coahoma jo w12 157.5 1,891 PFO OCM 3.2 0.43 Coahoma jo w12* 157.6 n/a PFO OCM 0.6 n/a Coahoma jo w12* 157.7 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158 3,629 PFO OCM 7.2 0.83 Coahoma jo w13 158.1 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.2 n/a PFO OCM 2.1 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.2 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.2 n/a PFO OCM 0.7 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.2 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.2 n/a PFO OCM 0.3 n/a 

Subtotal - PEM Wetlands

C-53

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Coahoma jo w13 158.4 n/a PFO OCM 0.3 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.4 n/a PFO OCM 0.1 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.4 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.5 n/a PFO OCM 1 n/a Coahoma jo w13 158.6 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a 

5,520 17.5 1.27 

Total Fayetteville Lateral Wetlands 27,912 57.70 5.28 Greenville Lateral

Mississippi

Humphreys ML-W13B 27.4 52 PFO OCM 0.2 0.01 Humphreys ML-W14 28.8 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Humphreys ML-W15 29.3 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Humphreys JAV-W5 37 870 PFO OCM 2 0.20 Humphreys JAV-W6 39.6 427 PFO HDD ** ** Humphreys JAV-W7 40.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 0.00 Humphreys kp w-3 40.9 552 PFO HDD ** ** Humphreys tdh ms w3 44.3 8,763 PFO OCM 21.4 2.01 Humphreys tdh ms w3* 44.3 n/a PFO OCM 0.2 n/a Humphreys tdh ms w3* 44.3 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Humphreys tdh ms w3* 44.9 n/a PFO OCM 0.1 n/a Humphreys tdh ms w3* 45.5 n/a PFO OCM 0.1 n/a Humphreys tdh ms w3* 45.5 n/a PFO OCM 0.1 n/a Humphreys tdh ms w3* 46.1 n/a PFO OCM 0.2 n/a 

Holmes jr w9 west 47.4 210 PFO OCM <0.1 0.05 Holmes jr w9 east 47.5 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Holmes kp w-4 54.2 427 PFO HDD ** ** Holmes kp w-5 54.4 287 PFO HDD ** ** Holmes tdh ms w5* 55.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes tdh ms w6 55.3 168 PFO OCM 0.4 0.04 Holmes JW1 57.3 192 PFO OCM 0.4 0.04 Holmes kp w-8 59.1 412 PFO OCM 0.4 0.09 Holmes kp w-8* 59.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes JW5 62.2 157 PFO OCM 0.4 0.04 Holmes JW4 62.9 24 PFO OCM 0.1 0.01 

Subtotal - PFO Wetlands

C-54

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Holmes tdh ms w8 64.6 22 PFO OCM <0.1 0.01 Holmes JW8 67.7 286 PFO OCM 0.6 0.07 Holmes JW7 68.1 43 PFO OCM 0.1 0.01 Holmes jr w1 70.5 224 PFO OCM 0.6 0.05 Holmes tdh ms w1 5/23 77.7 87 PFO OCM 0.2 0.02 

Attala tdh ms w3 5/23* 78.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Attala tdh ms w3 5/23* 78.1 n/a PFO OCM <0.1 n/a Attala tdh ms w3 5/23 78.1 145 PFO OCM 0.2 0.03 Attala JW15west 82.2 17 PFO OCM <0.1 0.00 Attala JW15east 82.3 184 PFO OCM 0.5 0.04 Attala KW16 85.4 1,260 PFO OCM 2.3 0.29 Attala jr w10 88.7 731 PFO OCM 1.6 0.17 Attala jr w4 89.1 653 PFO OCM 1.5 0.15 Attala jr w5 90 87 PFO OCM 0.3 0.02 Attala jr w6 90.9 463 PFO OCM 1.1 0.11 Attala jr w8 91.3 718 PFO OCM 1.6 0.16 Attala jr w11 91.5 n/a PFO HDD ** ** Attala tdh ms w11 92.9 1,242 PFO HDD   Attala tdh ms w11.2 93.1 1,229 PFO HDD **  ** Attala tdh ms w11.3 93.4 944 PFO HDD ** ** Attala tdh ms w12 93.5 n/a PFO OCM 0.5 n/a Attala kp w-1 96.1 53 PFO OCM 0.3 0.01 Attala kp w-1* 96.2 n/a PFO OCM 0.2 n/a 

15,821 38.1 3.63 

Humphreys JAV-W9c 40.5 19 PFO/PEM HDD ** ** Humphreys JAV-W8c 40.4 360 PFO/PEM HDD ** ** 

Holmes tdh ms w7 64.6 n/a PFO/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes tdh ms w10 76.5 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 4.4 n/a Holmes tdh ms w10* 77.2 n/a PFO/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes tdh ms w9* 77.2 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Holmes tdh ms w9* 77.5 n/a PFO/PEM OCM 0.4 n/a Holmes tdh ms w9 77.6 5,930 PFO/PEM OCM 8.6 1.36 

Attala tdh ms w2 5/23 78 69 PFO/PEM OCM 0.2 0.02 

Subtotal - PFO/PEM Wetlands 5,999 13.7 1.38 

Subtotal - PFO Wetlands

C-55

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Holmes TDHW-5 72.4 160 PFO/PSS OCM 0.4 0.04 Holmes TDH-W4 72.5 393 PFO/PSS OCM 0.8 0.09 Holmes tdh ms w4 75.7 n/a PFO/PSS OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes tdh ms w9* 77.2 n/a PFO/PSS OCM 0.1 n/a 

Attala KW19 84.5 1,876 PFO/PSS OCM 4.1 0.43 Attala KW18 84.9 145 PFO/PSS OCM 0.2 0.03 Attala KW23 82.5 1,616 PFO/PSS OCM 3.7 0.37 Attala KW15 85.7 n/a PFO/PSS OCM 0.7 n/a 

4,190 10 0.96 

Holmes kp w-7 59.1 356 PSS OCM 0.4 0.08 Holmes JW6 68.2 63 PSS OCM 0.1 0.01 

Attala KW22 83.4 n/a PSS OCM <0.1 n/a Attala KW17 85.3 n/a PSS OCM 0.1 n/a 

419 0.6 0.10 

Washington ML-W1A 5.2 127 PSS/PEM OCM 0.3 0.03 Washington ML-W1B 5.4 105 PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 0.02 

Humphreys ML-W11 27.3 56 PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 0.01 Humphreys JAV-W2 31.2 34 PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 0.01 Humphreys JAV-W9d 40.6 59 PSS/PEM HDD ** ** Humphreys JAV-W9d* 40.6 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a 

Holmes JAV-W4 35.5 44 PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 0.01 Holmes JW13 59 2,223 PSS/PEM OCM 5.9 0.51 Holmes JW14 59.6 1,986 PSS/PEM OCM 4.5 0.46 Holmes JW13* 59.6 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Holmes JW13* 59.6 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes JW14* 59.9 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Holmes JAV-W18 60.2 1,263 PSS/PEM OCM 2.9 0.29 Holmes JAV-W18* 60.4 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes JAV-W18* 60.5 n/a PSS/PEM OCM <0.1 n/a Holmes JW2* 60.6 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.1 n/a Holmes JW2* 60.6 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 n/a Holmes JW2 60.6 665 PSS/PEM OCM 1.2 0.15 Holmes JW2east 60.6 49 PSS/PEM OCM 0.4 0.01 

Attala KW13 85.8 n/a PSS/PEM OCM 0.8 n/a 

Subtotal - PFO/PSS Wetlands

C-56

Subtotal - PSS Wetlands

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

Attala KW11 86.3 586 PSS/PEM OCM 1.3 0.13 Attala KW10 86.5 94 PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 0.02 

7,232 18.6 1.66 

Attala KW20 84.4 n/a PFO/PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 n/a Attala KW20east 84.4 n/a PFO/PSS/PEM OCM 0.2 n/a Attala KW14 85.6 712 PFO/PSS/PEM OCM 0.7 0.16 

712 1.1 0.16 

Washington ML-W5 14.6 65 PEM OCM 0.1 -- Washington ML-W7 20.3 28 PEM HDD ** ** 

Sunflower ML-W6A 17.7 23 PEM OCM <0.1 -- Sunflower ML-W6B 17.7 14 PEM OCM <0.1 -- 

Humphreys ML-W7east 20.3 26 PEM HDD ** ** Humphreys ML-W9 24.3 446 PEM OCM 1 -- Humphreys ML-W12A 27.3 n/a PEM OCM 0.2 n/a Humphreys ML-W12B 27.3 226 PEM OCM 0.2 -- Humphreys JAV-W23 58.4 28 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

Holmes JW3 63.2 n/a PEM OCM <0.1 n/a 

Attala jr w7 91.2 37 PEM OCM 0.1 -- 

839 1.7 0.00 

Total Greenville Lateral Wetlands 35,212 83.80 7.89 

TOTAL Project Wetlands 63,124 141.5 13.2 

2Cowardin Classification (et. al., 1979): PEM – palustrine emergent, PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub, PFO – palustrine forested4temporary construction impacts include a nominal 75-foot wide construction corridor, as well as access roads and additional temporary workspaces

*Wetlands within ancillary work spaces** Use of HDD construction methods are expected to result in no significant temporary or permanent impacts within wetland communities.^It was determined, after critical review, that 10 feet of this wetland would incur conversion impacts within the 30 foot corridor. 

5reflects width of centered ROW that may be maintained in a herbaceous state to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion leak surveys. Centerline 

length crossed was multiplied by 10 feet.

6reflects acreage of permanent ROW where trees greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent ROW. 

Centerline length crossed was multiplied by 20 feet. Acreage excludes the 10-foot maintenance width over the pipeline. 

1n/a – wetland would not cross proposed Project centerline and impacts would largely occur within temporary workspaces

Notes: These totals were calculated using data and mapping provided by Texas Gas in their Resource Report 2 - Water Use and Quality and 

the PCN Attachment B. Variances in totals are due to fractional acreages, designated as <0.1 in the original data set.

3Crossing method: OCM - open cut method, HDD - horizontal directional drill

Subtotal - PFO/PSS/PEM Wetlands

Subtotal - PEM/PSS Wetlands

Subtotal - PEM Wetlands

C-57

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
County GPS-Field ID

Approximate 

Start Milepost

Approximate 

Centerline length 

crossed (feet)1 Wetland Type2

Crossing 

Method3

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)4

Permanently Conver

Wetland Types in 10-f

wide Area Over Pipel

Centerline5

Table C-6 Wetlands Identified Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Project

--No conversion of wetland type

C-58

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-7 

TEMPORARY WORK SPACE AREAS 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Fayetteville Lateral Route 

Conway FABRICATION AREA 0.0 0.0 0.3 Conway FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 0.0 0.0 1.0 Conway ACCESS 0.0 0.1 0.3 Conway STAGING AREA 0.0 0.1 2.5 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 0.1 0.1 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 0.1 0.1 0.1 Conway ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 0.2 0.2 0.2 Conway ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 0.2 0.2 0.2 Conway 

STAGING AREA, ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION 

AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 0.3 0.3 0.9 

Conway ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 0.3 0.3 0.2 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 0.3 0.4 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 0.3 0.4 0.5 Conway ACCESS 0.5 0.6 0.1 Conway 

ACCESS 

0.6 0.6 0.0 

Conway ACCESS 0.6 0.6 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 1.2 1.2 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 1.3 1.3 0.2 Conway ROAD CROSSING 1.6 1.7 0.3 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 1.7 1.8 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 1.8 1.8 0.1 Conway ACCESS 1.9 1.9 0.3 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 2.0 2.0 0.2 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 2.1 2.1 0.2 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 2.2 2.2 0.2 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 2.4 2.4 0.2 

C-59

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 2.5 2.5 0.1 Conway P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 2.6 2.6 0.3 Conway P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 2.7 2.7 0.1 Conway ROAD CROSSING 2.7 2.7 0.2 Conway FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 3.1 3.1 0.5 Conway ROAD CROSSING 3.3 3.4 0.2 Conway ROAD CROSSING 3.4 3.4 0.1 Conway P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 3.4 3.5 0.3 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 3.6 3.6 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 3.7 3.7 0.1 Conway P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 3.9 4.0 0.3 Conway P.I. 4.0 4.0 0.2 Conway SIDE SLOPE 4.3 4.7 1.4 Conway SIDE SLOPE 4.7 4.8 0.1 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 5.0 5.0 0.2 Conway ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 5.1 5.2 0.1 Conway 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN 

LINE CROSSING 5.3 5.4 0.3 

Conway 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 5.6 5.7 0.9 

Conway P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 5.7 5.7 0.2 Conway WATERBODY CROSSING 5.8 5.8 0.1 Conway 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 5.9 5.9 0.9 

Conway P.I. 5.9 5.9 0.2 Conway P.I. 6.4 6.5 0.4 Conway P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 6.6 6.7 0.4 Conway ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 6.7 6.8 0.5 Conway P.I. 7.0 7.1 0.2 

C-60

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Conway P.I. 7.0 7.1 0.1 Conway P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 7.1 7.3 0.5 Conway P.I. 7.4 7.5 0.4 Conway FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 7.5 7.6 0.3 Conway 

P.I., SPREAD FLOP, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 7.7 7.8 0.5 

Conway DRAG SECTION 7.7 7.7 0.3 Conway 

P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, & SPREAD FLOP 7.7 7.8 0.3 

Faulkner 

P.I., SPREAD FLOP, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 7.8 7.8 0.0 

Conway TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I. & STAGING AREA 7.8 7.8 0.0 

Faulkner TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I. & STAGING AREA 7.8 7.8 0.9 Faulkner 

P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, & SPREAD FLOP 7.8 7.8 0.1 

Conway 

P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, & SPREAD FLOP 7.8 7.8 0.0 

Faulkner 

P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, & SPREAD FLOP 7.8 7.8 0.1 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 7.9 8.0 0.3 Faulkner 

TRUCK TURNAROUND & STAGING AREA 

8.0 8.0 0.9 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 8.2 8.3 0.2 Faulkner ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 8.2 8.3 0.1 Faulkner ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 8.3 8.3 0.0 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 8.3 8.3 0.0 Faulkner ACCESS & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 8.3 8.3 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 8.5 8.6 0.2 Faulkner 

P.I., FABRICATION AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 

& SPREAD FLOP 8.7 8.8 0.6 

Faulkner 

P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA 

& SPREAD FLOP 8.7 8.8 0.5 

Faulkner DRAG SECTION 8.8 8.8 0.3 

C-61

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner 

FABRICATION AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

ROAD CROSSING 9.2 9.2 0.6 

Faulkner 

FABRICATION AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

ROAD CROSSING 9.2 9.2 0.1 

Faulkner 

FABRICATION AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

ROAD CROSSING 9.2 9.2 0.0 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 9.3 9.3 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 9.3 9.3 0.1 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 9.4 9.5 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 10.0 10.0 0.3 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 10.1 10.1 0.3 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 10.1 10.2 0.2 Faulkner P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 10.3 10.3 0.5 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 10.5 10.5 0.1 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 10.5 10.6 0.5 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING, P.I., & FABRICATION AREA 10.6 10.7 0.4 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 10.7 10.7 0.1 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 10.9 10.9 0.0 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 10.9 10.9 0.0 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 10.9 10.9 0.2 Faulkner 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 11.4 11.4 0.3 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 11.6 11.7 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 11.7 11.7 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 11.7 11.7 0.0 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 11.7 11.7 0.1 Faulkner ACCESS 12.2 12.2 0.2 Faulkner 

P.I., SPREAD FLOP, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 12.5 12.6 0.6 

Faulkner P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 12.5 12.6 0.5 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 12.6 12.7 0.1 

C-62

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 12.7 12.7 0.1 Faulkner P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 12.7 12.7 0.4 Faulkner P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 12.7 12.8 0.3 Faulkner P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 12.7 12.8 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 12.8 12.9 1.1 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

TRUCK TURNAROUND 13.0 13.0 1.3 

Faulkner 

P.I., FABRICATION AREA, WATERBODY CROSSING, 

SPREAD FLOP, & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 13.1 13.2 0.4 

Faulkner DRAG SECTION 13.1 13.2 0.3 Faulkner P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 13.2 13.3 0.6 Faulkner P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 13.2 13.2 0.4 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 13.5 13.5 0.2 Faulkner TRUCK TURNAROUND 13.6 13.7 0.9 Faulkner FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 13.7 13.8 0.5 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 13.9 14.0 0.1 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA 

& HYDRO TEST AREA 14.0 14.1 1.5 

Faulkner 

FABRICATION AREA, P.I., STAGING AREA & TRUCK 

TURNAROUND 14.2 14.3 1.7 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 14.4 14.4 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 14.4 14.5 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 14.5 14.6 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 14.6 14.6 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 14.7 14.8 0.5 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 14.9 14.9 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 15.0 15.1 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 15.1 15.2 0.5 Faulkner P.I. 15.1 15.2 0.1 

C-63

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 15.2 15.3 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 15.3 15.3 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 15.3 15.4 0.6 Faulkner P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 15.5 15.6 0.5 Faulkner P.I. 15.9 15.9 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 16.0 16.1 0.6 Faulkner P.I. 16.0 16.1 0.2 Faulkner P.I. 16.4 16.4 0.2 Faulkner 

ROAD CROSSING, P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 16.4 16.5 0.7 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 16.5 16.6 0.3 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 16.5 16.6 0.3 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 16.6 16.6 0.0 Faulkner FABRICATION AREA & PULL IN 16.6 16.7 0.5 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 16.9 16.9 0.5 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 17.0 17.1 0.5 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 17.1 17.1 0.6 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 17.1 17.1 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 17.3 17.3 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 17.5 17.5 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 17.8 17.8 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 17.8 17.9 0.4 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 18.0 18.0 0.2 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

ROAD CROSSING 18.2 18.4 0.9 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 18.4 18.5 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 18.5 18.5 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 18.7 18.7 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 18.7 18.7 0.1 

C-64

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 19.0 19.0 0.2 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 19.1 19.1 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 19.2 19.2 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 19.5 19.6 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 19.6 19.6 0.3 Faulkner P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 19.6 19.8 1.0 Faulkner P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 19.7 19.7 0.2 Faulkner P.I., & FABRICATION AREA 19.8 19.8 0.4 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 19.9 19.9 0.1 Faulkner 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & STAGING 

AREA 19.9 20.0 1.1 

Faulkner FABRICATION AREA 20.0 20.0 0.1 Faulkner P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 20.1 20.1 0.4 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 20.3 20.3 0.3 Faulkner 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 20.6 20.7 0.6 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 20.9 20.9 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 21.0 21.0 0.1 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 21.0 21.1 0.3 Faulkner 

STAGING AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, 

WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 21.2 21.3 2.7 

Faulkner 

STAGING AREA, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

SPREAD FLOP & P.I. 21.3 21.4 3.9 

Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & SPREAD FLOP 21.3 21.5 0.7 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & SPREAD FLOP 21.4 21.4 0.1 Faulkner P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 21.7 21.8 0.7 Faulkner P.I. 21.8 21.8 0.0 Faulkner P.I. 21.8 21.8 0.3 Faulkner 

P.I., ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 22.0 22.1 0.7 

C-65

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 22.0 22.1 0.6 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 22.1 22.1 0.2 Faulkner P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 22.1 22.2 1.0 Faulkner P.I. 22.2 22.2 0.1 Faulkner P.I. 22.2 22.3 0.1 Faulkner P.I. 22.2 22.3 0.2 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 22.5 22.5 0.3 Faulkner ACCESS 22.6 22.6 0.0 Faulkner ACCESS 22.6 22.6 0.0 Faulkner ACCESS 22.6 22.7 0.2 Faulkner FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 22.8 22.8 0.5 Faulkner P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & SPREAD FLOP 22.8 22.8 0.2 Faulkner P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 22.8 22.9 0.4 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 22.8 22.9 0.8 Faulkner FABRICATION AREA 23.1 23.1 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 23.2 23.2 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 23.3 23.3 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 23.4 23.5 0.6 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS 23.5 23.5 0.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS 23.5 23.5 0.0 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS 23.5 23.5 0.0 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS 23.5 23.6 0.2 Faulkner P.I., FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 23.6 23.7 0.9 Faulkner P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 23.7 23.8 0.3 Faulkner P.I., & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 23.7 23.8 0.2 Faulkner 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 24.1 24.2 0.5 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 24.7 24.8 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 25.0 25.0 0.2 

C-66

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 25.0 25.1 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 25.1 25.2 1.0 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 25.5 25.5 0.4 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING 25.5 25.5 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 26.2 26.3 0.6 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & PULL IN 26.4 26.4 0.1 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 26.4 26.5 0.4 

Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 26.5 26.6 0.4 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 26.6 26.8 0.8 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 26.7 26.8 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 26.8 26.8 0.0 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 26.9 27.0 0.4 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 27.0 27.1 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 27.3 27.3 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 27.3 27.3 0.1 Faulkner 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 27.3 27.3 0.4 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 27.6 27.7 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 27.7 27.7 0.2 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 27.8 27.8 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 28.1 28.2 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 28.2 28.2 0.1 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 28.2 28.3 0.2 Faulkner P.I. 28.3 28.4 0.4 Faulkner FABRICATION AREA 28.4 28.4 1.1 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 28.4 28.5 0.3 Faulkner ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 28.5 28.5 0.1 Faulkner P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 28.5 28.6 0.3 Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 28.8 28.8 0.2 

C-67

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Faulkner WATERBODY CROSSING 28.9 28.9 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

TRUCK TURNAROUND 29.4 29.5 1.1 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 29.8 29.8 0.1 White FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 29.8 29.9 0.9 White WATERBODY CROSSING 30.2 30.2 0.1 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 30.2 30.3 0.6 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 30.5 30.5 0.1 White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA 30.5 30.6 0.3 

White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA 30.6 30.6 0.1 

White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION AREA 30.6 30.7 0.7 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 30.8 30.8 0.5 

White 

STAGING AREA, FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK 

TURNAROUND 30.9 31.0 4.3 

White ROAD CROSSING 31.0 31.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 31.2 31.3 0.1 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 31.5 31.6 0.2 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 31.6 31.6 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 31.6 31.6 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 31.6 31.6 0.1 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 31.9 32.0 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING 32.0 32.0 0.1 White P.I. 32.1 32.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 32.1 32.2 0.5 

C-68

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White P.I. 32.1 32.1 0.3 White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 32.2 32.2 0.0 

White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I. & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 32.2 32.3 0.6 

White P.I. 32.6 32.7 0.2 White FABRICATION AREA 32.8 32.8 1.0 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 32.8 32.8 0.3 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 32.9 33.0 0.7 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 33.2 33.3 0.5 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 33.7 33.9 1.1 White P.I. 33.8 33.8 0.1 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 33.8 33.9 0.2 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 33.9 33.9 0.2 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 33.9 33.9 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING 33.9 34.0 0.3 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 34.2 34.3 0.3 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 34.2 34.3 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 

& FABRICATION AREA 34.3 34.3 0.4 

White ROAD CROSSING 34.4 34.4 0.2 White 

ROAD CROSSING, P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

WATERBODY CROSSING 34.5 34.5 0.4 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 34.6 34.6 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 34.7 34.7 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 34.9 34.9 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 35.0 35.0 0.4 White WATERBODY CROSSING 35.1 35.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 35.1 35.2 0.1 

C-69

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White TRUCK TURNAROUND 36.2 36.2 0.9 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 36.2 36.3 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING 36.4 36.5 0.3 White TRUCK TURNAROUND 36.5 36.5 0.9 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 37.2 37.2 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 37.2 37.3 0.4 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 37.3 37.3 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 37.3 37.3 0.0 

White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 37.5 37.5 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING 37.6 37.6 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 37.9 38.0 0.2 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING 

38.3 38.3 0.2 

White FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 38.3 38.4 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING 38.4 38.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.6 38.7 0.6 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.7 38.7 0.7 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.7 38.7 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.9 38.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.9 38.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.9 38.9 0.0 White 

ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 

38.9 39.0 0.2 

White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.9 38.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 38.9 38.9 0.1 White FABRICATION AREA 39.1 39.1 0.5 

C-70

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 39.1 39.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 39.3 39.3 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING 39.7 39.7 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 39.8 39.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 39.9 40.0 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 40.1 40.1 0.0 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 40.1 40.1 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 40.1 40.1 0.1 White P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 40.5 40.6 0.3 

Cleburne ROAD CROSSING 41.4 41.4 0.2 Cleburne ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 41.4 41.6 0.6 Cleburne P.I. 41.5 41.6 0.1 

White P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 41.7 41.7 0.4 White P.I. & SIDE CUT 41.8 41.8 0.4 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 42.0 42.1 0.4 White P.I. 42.2 42.2 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 42.3 42.4 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 42.3 42.4 0.2 

Cleburne P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 42.6 42.8 0.4 Cleburne P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 42.8 43.1 0.9 Cleburne FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 43.3 43.3 0.1 Cleburne WATERBODY CROSSING 43.4 43.5 0.1 Cleburne WATERBODY CROSSING 43.5 43.5 0.0 Cleburne WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 43.7 43.7 0.5 Cleburne ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 43.8 43.9 0.7 Cleburne ROAD CROSSING 44.0 44.0 0.2 Cleburne FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 44.1 44.1 0.3 Cleburne SIDE SLOPE 44.1 44.2 0.2 

White SIDE SLOPE 44.2 44.2 0.1 

C-71

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 44.2 44.3 0.3 White SIDE SLOPE 44.3 44.4 0.3 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 44.8 44.9 0.4 White P.I., ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 45.0 45.0 0.4 White P.I., ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 45.0 45.0 0.1 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 45.1 45.1 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 45.1 45.1 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 45.1 45.1 0.1 

White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 45.2 45.3 0.4 White ROAD CROSSING 45.2 45.3 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 45.3 45.3 0.1 White 

ROAD CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

WATERBODY CROSSING 45.3 45.3 0.3 

White P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 45.4 45.4 0.0 White P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 45.4 45.4 0.1 White P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 45.4 45.4 0.0 White P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 45.4 45.6 0.4 White P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 45.4 45.5 0.1 White P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 45.5 45.5 0.1 White P.I. 45.5 45.6 0.1 White P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 45.6 45.7 0.2 White P.I. 45.6 45.7 0.1 White P.I. & PULL STRING 45.7 45.8 0.4 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 45.7 45.8 0.2 White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

TRUCK TURNAROUND 45.9 46.0 2.5 

White HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 46.0 46.0 0.9 

C-72

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 46.3 46.3 0.9 White P.I. 46.3 46.4 0.3 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 46.3 46.4 0.2 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 46.4 46.4 1.2 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 46.5 46.6 0.7 White P.I. 46.5 46.6 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 46.6 46.6 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING 46.8 46.8 0.1 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 46.9 46.9 0.1 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 46.9 46.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 46.9 47.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 46.9 46.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 46.9 47.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 46.9 47.0 0.0 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING 

47.2 47.2 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING 

47.2 47.2 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING 

47.2 47.3 0.1 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 47.2 47.3 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 47.7 47.8 0.4 White FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 47.7 47.8 0.2 White FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 47.8 47.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 47.8 47.8 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 47.8 47.9 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 47.9 47.9 0.2 

C-73

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 48.1 48.1 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 48.1 48.1 0.3 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 48.4 48.4 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 48.4 48.4 0.1 

White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 48.5 48.5 0.4 White WATERBODY CROSSING 48.5 48.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 48.8 48.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 48.8 48.9 0.5 White ROAD CROSSING 49.0 49.1 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING 49.0 49.1 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & SPREAD FLOP 49.1 49.1 0.2 White P.I. 49.7 49.7 0.0 White P.I. 49.7 49.8 0.5 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 49.7 49.8 0.6 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 49.9 49.9 0.4 White P.I. 49.9 50.0 0.4 White WATERBODY CROSSING 50.0 50.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 50.0 50.1 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 50.3 50.4 0.2 White P.I. 50.7 50.7 0.1 White P.I. 50.7 50.7 0.1 White P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 51.1 51.5 1.2 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & SIDE SLOPE 51.3 51.5 0.6 White P.I. 51.8 51.8 0.2 White P.I. 51.8 51.8 0.1 White TRUCK TURNAROUND 52.0 52.1 0.7 White HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 52.1 52.1 0.9 

C-74

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White HYDRO TEST AREA & ACCESS 52.1 52.2 0.1 White HYDRO TEST AREA 52.2 52.2 0.1 White HYDRO TEST AREA 52.2 52.2 0.0 White HYDRO TEST AREA 52.2 52.3 0.3 White HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 52.3 52.4 0.9 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 52.3 52.4 0.6 White P.I. & TRUCK TURNAROUND 52.4 52.4 0.2 White SIDE SLOPE 52.4 52.9 1.4 White P.I., PULL IN & FABRICATION AREA 52.9 53.0 0.7 White SIDE SLOPE 52.9 53.0 0.2 White P.I. & PULL IN 53.0 53.1 0.3 White P.I. 53.2 53.3 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 53.3 53.4 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING 53.3 53.4 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING & SPREAD FLOP 53.4 53.4 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 53.4 53.5 1.0 White P.I. 53.5 53.5 0.1 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 53.8 53.9 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 54.2 54.3 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 54.2 54.3 0.5 White ROAD CROSSING 54.3 54.3 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 54.3 54.3 0.1 White FABRICATION AREA 54.6 54.7 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING 54.7 54.8 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 54.8 54.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 54.9 54.9 0.1 White P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 55.1 55.1 0.4 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 55.1 55.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 55.1 55.1 0.1 

C-75

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White ROAD CROSSING 55.5 55.5 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING 55.5 55.5 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 55.5 55.5 1.0 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 55.5 55.6 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 55.5 55.6 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 55.5 55.6 0.2 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 55.8 55.8 0.2 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 55.8 55.8 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 55.9 55.9 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 55.9 55.9 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 55.9 55.9 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 56.0 56.0 0.2 White SIDE SLOPE 56.0 56.2 0.5 White P.I. 56.1 56.2 0.1 White 

P.I. 

56.2 56.2 0.1 

White P.I. 56.4 56.4 0.2 White P.I. 56.5 56.5 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 56.6 56.6 0.3 White P.I. 57.0 57.0 0.1 White P.I. 57.0 57.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 57.1 57.1 0.1 White SIDE SLOPE 57.6 57.9 0.7 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 58.2 58.2 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 58.2 58.3 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 58.2 58.2 0.2 White WATERBODY PULL IN & FABRICATION AREA 58.5 58.6 0.3 White WATERBODY PULL IN 58.6 58.7 0.2 

C-76

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 58.8 58.9 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 58.9 58.9 0.2 White P.I. 59.0 59.0 0.1 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 59.0 59.0 0.3 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 59.0 59.0 0.2 White P.I. 59.0 59.1 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING 59.3 59.3 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING 59.4 59.4 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 59.5 59.5 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 59.5 59.6 0.2 White P.I. 59.5 59.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 59.6 59.7 0.6 White WATERBODY CROSSING 59.7 59.7 0.1 White SIDE SLOPE 59.8 60.2 1.2 White SIDE SLOPE 60.2 60.2 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 60.2 60.3 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 60.3 60.4 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 60.3 60.4 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 60.4 60.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 60.4 60.5 0.5 White WATERBODY CROSSING 60.5 60.5 0.1 White P.I. 60.8 60.8 0.4 White WATERBODY CROSSING 61.0 61.0 0.1 White P.I. 61.1 61.1 0.4 White P.I. 61.1 61.1 0.1 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 61.4 61.4 0.3 White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 61.4 61.4 0.1 

C-77

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 61.4 61.6 0.4 White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 61.6 61.7 0.2 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 61.6 61.7 0.2 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 61.7 61.7 0.2 White ROAD CROSSING 61.7 61.7 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING 61.7 61.7 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING 61.7 61.7 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 61.7 61.8 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 61.7 61.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 61.8 61.8 0.3 White ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 61.8 61.8 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 62.1 62.1 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING 62.1 62.1 0.0 White WATERBODY CROSSING 62.1 62.1 0.0 White WATERBODY CROSSING 62.2 62.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING, SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 62.2 62.3 0.3 White P.I. 62.2 62.3 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.3 62.3 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.3 62.3 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.3 62.3 0.0 White WATERBODY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE 62.3 62.4 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & SIDE SLOPE 62.4 62.4 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 62.4 62.5 0.4 White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 62.5 62.6 0.4 White P.I. 62.5 62.5 0.1 White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 62.6 62.7 0.2 White SIDE SLOPE & P.I. 62.7 62.8 0.3 White P.I. 62.7 62.8 0.2 

C-78

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White ROAD CROSSING 62.9 62.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.9 62.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.9 62.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 62.9 62.9 0.1 White P.I. 63.0 63.0 0.4 White P.I. 63.0 63.0 0.0 White P.I. 63.0 63.0 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 63.1 63.2 0.3 White WATERBODY CROSSING 63.1 63.2 0.1 White SIDE SLOPE 63.2 63.2 0.1 White P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 63.2 63.3 0.4 White P.I. 63.3 63.3 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 63.6 63.6 0.5 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 63.6 63.6 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 63.7 63.7 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 63.7 63.8 0.1 White 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 63.8 63.8 0.4 

White ROAD CROSSING 63.8 63.8 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 63.8 63.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 63.9 63.9 0.0 White ROAD CROSSING 63.9 63.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 63.9 63.9 0.1 White 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, P.I., ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 64.0 64.1 0.5 

White FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 64.0 64.1 0.3 White 

FABRICATION AREA 

64.1 64.1 1.0 

White ROAD CROSSING & RAILROAD CROSSING 64.1 64.2 0.3 

C-79

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White ROAD CROSSING 64.2 64.2 0.1 White 

ROAD CROSSING, RAILROAD CROSSING, P.I., 

FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 64.2 64.3 0.8 

White P.I. 64.2 64.3 0.2 White DRAG SECTION 64.2 64.3 0.3 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 64.3 64.3 0.1 White 

ROAD CROSSING, RAILROAD CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA 64.3 64.4 1.3 

White 

ROAD CROSSING, RAILROAD CROSSING, P.I., 

FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 64.3 64.4 0.8 

White P.I., ROAD CROSSING, & FABRICATION AREA 64.7 64.8 0.6 White P.I., ROAD CROSSING, & TRUCK TURNAROUND 64.8 64.8 1.3 White ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 64.9 64.9 0.4 White 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA 64.9 65.0 2.0 

White DRAG SECTION 64.9 65.0 0.4 White WATERBODY CROSSING 65.2 65.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 65.2 65.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 65.3 65.3 0.1 White 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 65.5 65.6 0.4 

White FABRICATION AREA 65.6 65.6 0.5 White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 65.6 65.7 0.1 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 65.7 65.7 0.3 

White 

WATERBODY CROSSING & FOREIGN LINE 

CROSSING 65.7 65.7 0.1 

White FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 65.9 65.9 0.4 White FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 65.9 66.0 1.5 

C-80

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & FOREIGN 

LINE CROSSING 66.0 66.0 0.4 

White 

ROAD CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 66.0 66.0 0.8 

White SPREAD BREAK 66.0 66.1 1.8 White ROAD CROSSING 66.1 66.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 66.4 66.4 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 66.5 66.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 66.5 66.5 0.2 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 66.6 66.6 0.2 White P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 66.6 66.6 0.3 White P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 66.7 66.8 0.4 White P.I. 66.8 66.8 0.1 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 66.8 66.9 0.3 White P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 66.8 66.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 66.9 66.9 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 66.9 66.9 0.1 White FABRICATION AREA 67.0 67.0 0.3 White FABRICATION AREA 67.1 67.1 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.2 67.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.2 67.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.2 67.2 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.2 67.3 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.3 67.3 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.3 67.3 0.1 White P.I., DRAG SECTION & FABRICATION AREA 67.4 67.5 2.0 White WATERBODY CROSSING 67.4 67.4 0.1 White P.I. 67.5 67.6 0.2 White FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 67.7 67.8 0.5 

C-81

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

White FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 67.7 67.8 0.2 White WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 67.8 67.9 0.3 White 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

WATERBODY CROSSING 67.8 67.9 0.5 

White WATERBODY CROSSING 68.0 68.0 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 68.0 68.0 0.1 White 

P.I. 

68.1 68.1 0.4 

White P.I. 68.1 68.1 0.1 White P.I. 68.5 68.5 0.4 White P.I. 68.5 68.5 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 68.9 69.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 68.9 69.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 69.0 69.0 0.1 White ROAD CROSSING 69.0 69.0 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 69.4 69.4 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 69.5 69.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 69.5 69.5 0.1 White WATERBODY CROSSING 69.5 69.5 0.1 

Woodruff P.I. 69.7 69.7 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 69.7 69.7 0.1 Woodruff P.I., TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 69.8 70.0 2.3 Woodruff P.I. 69.9 70.0 0.2 Woodruff HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 70.0 70.0 0.9 Woodruff HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 70.4 70.5 0.9 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 70.4 70.5 1.3 Woodruff ACCESS & P.I. 70.6 70.7 0.3 Woodruff P.I. 70.6 70.7 0.4 

C-82

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff 

PULL STRING 

70.7 71.0 2.4 

Woodruff P.I. 70.9 71.0 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 70.9 71.0 0.1 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 71.2 71.3 0.5 Woodruff P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 71.3 71.3 0.1 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 71.4 71.5 0.4 Woodruff P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 71.4 71.5 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.5 71.5 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.5 71.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.9 71.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.9 71.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.9 71.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 71.9 72.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 72.4 72.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 72.4 72.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 72.4 72.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 72.4 72.4 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 72.6 72.7 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 72.7 72.7 0.1 Woodruff 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 72.8 72.8 0.4 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 72.8 72.8 0.1 Woodruff 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

TRUCK TURNAROUND 72.8 72.9 0.9 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 72.9 72.9 0.1 Woodruff ACCESS 73.3 73.3 0.6 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND 73.3 73.3 0.8 

C-83

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 73.3 73.3 0.9 Woodruff HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 73.6 73.6 0.9 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND, & FABRICATION AREA 73.6 73.6 1.1 Woodruff ACCESS 73.7 73.8 0.3 Woodruff ACCESS 73.9 73.9 0.0 Woodruff ACCESS 73.9 73.9 0.0 Woodruff ACCESS 73.9 74.0 0.4 Woodruff ACCESS 73.9 73.9 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 74.1 74.2 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 74.1 74.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 74.2 74.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 74.2 74.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 74.3 74.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 74.3 74.4 0.6 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 74.6 74.9 1.6 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 74.8 74.9 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 74.9 75.0 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 74.9 74.9 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 75.6 75.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 75.6 75.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 75.6 75.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 75.6 75.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 75.9 75.9 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 75.9 75.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 75.9 75.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 75.9 76.0 0.1 Woodruff DRAG SECTION 76.1 76.1 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 76.9 76.9 0.2 

C-84

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff P.I. 76.9 76.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.1 77.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.1 77.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.1 77.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.1 77.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.4 77.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.4 77.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.5 77.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 77.5 77.5 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 77.9 77.9 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 77.9 77.9 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 78.0 78.0 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 78.0 78.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.3 78.3 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.3 78.4 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.4 78.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.4 78.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.6 78.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.6 78.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.6 78.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 78.6 78.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 78.9 78.9 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 78.9 79.0 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 79.0 79.0 0.6 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 79.0 79.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 79.6 79.8 0.9 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 79.7 79.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 79.9 79.9 0.1 

C-85

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 79.9 80.0 0.5 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 80.1 80.1 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 80.1 80.1 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 80.1 80.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 80.1 80.3 0.6 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 80.2 80.2 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 80.7 80.8 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 80.7 80.8 0.1 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 80.8 80.9 0.3 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 80.9 81.0 0.3 Woodruff P.I. 81.1 81.2 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 81.1 81.2 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 81.5 81.6 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 81.5 81.6 0.1 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 81.6 81.6 0.2 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 81.6 81.7 0.2 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 81.7 81.8 0.8 Woodruff P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 81.9 82.0 0.5 Woodruff P.I. 81.9 82.0 0.2 Woodruff P.I., ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 82.0 82.0 0.0 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 82.2 82.3 0.3 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 82.2 82.3 1.0 Woodruff HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 82.2 82.3 0.9 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 83.0 83.2 1.7 Woodruff HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 83.0 83.1 0.9 Woodruff HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 83.0 83.0 0.0 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 83.1 83.1 0.2 

C-86

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 83.1 83.1 0.1 Woodruff PULL STRING 83.1 83.1 1.0 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 83.1 83.3 0.7 Woodruff PULL STRING 83.1 83.3 3.8 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 83.3 83.4 0.4 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 83.5 83.7 1.1 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 83.8 83.8 0.3 Woodruff P.I. 84.1 84.1 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 84.1 84.1 0.1 Woodruff P.I., FABRICATION AREA & SPREAD FLOP 84.4 84.6 0.9 Woodruff P.I. & SPREAD FLOP 84.4 84.4 0.3 Woodruff P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FABRICATION AREA 84.7 84.7 0.1 Woodruff P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FABRICATION AREA 84.7 84.7 0.0 Woodruff P.I., SPREAD FLOP & FABRICATION AREA 84.7 84.8 0.4 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 85.1 85.2 0.4 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 85.2 85.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 85.2 85.3 1.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 85.3 85.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 85.3 85.3 0.0 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 85.3 85.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 85.4 85.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 85.4 85.4 0.9 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 85.4 85.5 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 85.5 85.5 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 85.6 85.6 0.0 Woodruff P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 85.6 85.6 0.1 Woodruff P.I., FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 85.6 85.9 0.7 Woodruff P.I. 85.6 85.7 0.1 

C-87

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 85.8 85.9 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 85.9 86.0 0.1 Woodruff 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA, 

RAILROAD CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 86.0 86.1 0.7 

Woodruff RAILROAD CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 86.1 86.1 0.1 Woodruff 

ROAD CROSSING, RAILROAD CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & TRUCK TURNAROUND 86.1 86.1 0.9 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 86.2 86.2 0.2 Woodruff 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & STAGING 

AREA 86.2 86.2 1.3 

Woodruff 

RAILROAD CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA 86.2 86.3 0.4 

Woodruff P.I. 86.2 86.4 0.5 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 86.3 86.5 0.6 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 86.7 86.8 0.5 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 87.4 87.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 87.4 87.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 87.4 87.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 87.4 87.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 88.1 88.2 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 88.1 88.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 88.3 88.3 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 88.3 88.3 0.1 Woodruff 

WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

ROAD CROSSING 88.3 88.4 0.6 

Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 88.3 88.4 0.2 

C-88

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 88.4 88.5 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 88.4 88.5 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 88.5 88.6 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 88.5 88.6 0.1 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.6 88.6 0.5 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.6 88.6 0.0 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.6 88.8 0.8 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.7 88.7 0.0 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.7 88.7 0.5 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.8 88.8 0.1 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 88.8 88.8 0.1 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA 89.0 89.0 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 89.0 89.1 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 89.1 89.3 0.7 Woodruff P.I. & SIDE SLOPE 89.3 89.4 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 89.3 89.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 90.4 90.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 90.4 90.4 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 90.4 90.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 90.4 90.5 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 90.7 90.7 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 90.7 90.7 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 90.7 90.7 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 90.7 90.7 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 91.0 91.1 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 91.0 91.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 91.6 91.7 0.4 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 91.7 91.7 0.1 

C-89

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 91.7 91.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 91.7 91.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.0 92.1 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.0 92.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.1 92.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.1 92.1 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.4 92.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 92.4 92.4 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.4 92.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 92.5 92.5 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 92.7 92.8 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 92.7 92.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 93.0 93.0 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.0 93.0 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 93.0 93.1 0.5 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 93.0 93.1 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 93.1 93.1 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 93.1 93.2 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.3 93.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.3 93.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 93.3 93.3 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.3 93.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.4 93.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 93.4 93.4 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.5 93.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.5 93.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 93.5 93.7 0.8 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.5 93.6 0.1 

C-90

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 93.6 93.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.8 93.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 93.8 93.8 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 93.9 94.0 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 93.9 94.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 94.0 94.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 94.0 94.0 0.1 Woodruff 

ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 

94.3 94.4 0.4 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 94.4 94.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 94.4 94.4 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 94.4 94.5 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 94.5 94.5 0.5 Woodruff P.I. 94.5 94.5 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 94.9 94.9 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 94.9 94.9 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 95.0 95.0 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 95.0 95.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 95.1 95.2 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 95.1 95.2 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 95.2 95.2 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 95.2 95.2 0.1 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 95.2 95.3 0.4 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 95.2 95.3 0.4 Woodruff TRUCK TURNAROUND 95.5 95.5 0.9 Woodruff HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 95.5 95.6 0.9 Woodruff HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 96.0 96.0 0.9 

C-91

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS 96.0 96.0 0.7 

Woodruff 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS 96.0 96.1 0.3 

Woodruff DRAG SECTION 96.5 96.5 0.2 Woodruff DRAG SECTION 96.5 96.5 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 96.5 96.6 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 96.6 96.6 0.4 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 96.6 96.6 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 96.7 96.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 96.7 96.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 96.7 96.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 96.7 96.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.0 97.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.0 97.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.0 97.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.0 97.0 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 97.3 97.3 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.3 97.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.3 97.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.3 97.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 97.5 97.6 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 97.6 97.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 97.6 97.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 97.6 97.6 0.1 Woodruff FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 97.7 97.7 0.1 Woodruff FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 97.7 97.7 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 98.3 98.4 0.2 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 98.3 98.4 0.3 

C-92

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 98.4 98.4 0.1 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 98.4 98.4 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.5 98.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.6 98.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.6 98.6 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.6 98.6 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 98.7 98.7 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 98.7 98.7 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.7 98.8 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 98.8 98.8 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 99.6 99.6 0.1 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 99.6 99.6 0.4 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 99.7 99.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 99.7 99.7 0.3 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 99.7 99.7 0.2 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 99.7 99.7 0.0 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & HYDRO TEST AREA 99.7 99.8 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 99.7 99.8 0.4 Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 99.8 99.8 0.5 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 99.8 99.9 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & HYDRO TEST AREA 99.8 99.9 0.5 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & HYDRO TEST AREA 99.9 99.9 0.0 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & HYDRO TEST AREA 99.9 99.9 0.0 Woodruff P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 100.1 100.1 0.1 Woodruff P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 100.1 100.1 0.5 Woodruff DRAG SECTION 100.1 100.1 0.6 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 100.2 100.2 0.3 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 100.2 100.2 0.1 Woodruff 

P.I., ROAD CROSSING, RAILROAD CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA, PUSH/PULL SITE & STAGING 100.3 100.4 1.8 

C-93

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

AREA 

Woodruff P.I., RAILROAD CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 100.3 100.4 0.2 Woodruff 

RAILROAD CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 100.4 100.5 0.6 

Woodruff 

RAILROAD CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, STAGING 

AREA & HYDRO TEST AREA 100.4 100.4 1.3 

Woodruff HYDRO TEST AREA 100.4 100.4 0.4 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 100.5 100.6 0.4 Woodruff P.I. 100.5 100.6 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 101.2 101.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 101.2 101.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 101.2 101.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 101.2 101.2 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 101.7 101.7 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 101.7 101.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 101.7 101.8 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 101.7 101.8 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 102.0 102.1 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 102.0 102.0 0.1 Woodruff P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 102.2 102.2 0.2 Woodruff P.I. & ROAD CROSSING 102.2 102.2 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 102.2 102.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 102.2 102.3 0.1 Woodruff P.I. 102.7 102.7 0.2 Woodruff P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 102.7 102.9 1.4 Woodruff P.I. 102.9 102.9 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 103.2 103.2 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 103.2 103.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 103.3 103.3 0.1 

C-94

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 103.3 103.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 103.5 103.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 103.5 103.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 103.5 103.5 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 103.5 103.5 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 104.2 104.2 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 104.2 104.2 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 104.3 104.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 104.3 104.3 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 104.6 104.6 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 104.6 104.6 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 104.6 104.7 0.1 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING 104.6 104.7 0.1 Woodruff ACCESS 104.7 104.7 0.1 Woodruff ACCESS 104.7 104.7 0.0 Woodruff ACCESS 104.7 104.8 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING & MLV SITE 105.2 105.2 0.2 Woodruff FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 105.2 105.2 0.5 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 105.3 105.3 0.1 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 105.3 105.3 0.1 Woodruff P.I., FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 105.4 105.5 0.6 Woodruff P.I. & FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 105.4 105.5 0.2 Woodruff DRAG SECTION 105.5 105.6 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 105.6 105.6 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 105.6 105.6 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 106.7 106.7 0.2 Woodruff ROAD CROSSING 106.7 106.8 0.2 

C-95

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Woodruff ACCESS 106.9 106.9 0.2 Woodruff ACCESS 106.9 106.9 0.0 Woodruff ACCESS 106.9 106.9 0.2 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 107.6 107.7 0.5 Woodruff WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 107.7 107.8 0.2 Woodruff P.I. 107.8 107.9 0.3 

St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 108.1 108.1 0.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 108.2 108.2 0.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 108.3 108.4 0.5 St. Francis 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 108.4 108.5 0.3 

St. Francis ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 109.6 109.7 0.4 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 109.7 109.7 0.2 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 109.8 109.9 0.4 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 109.9 109.9 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 110.6 110.7 0.3 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 110.7 110.7 0.3 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 111.0 111.0 0.3 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 111.0 111.2 0.6 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 111.1 111.2 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 111.2 111.2 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 111.2 111.2 0.1 St. Francis FABRICATION AREA & DRAG SECTION 111.3 111.5 1.6 St. Francis P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 111.5 111.6 0.4 St. Francis P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 111.5 111.6 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 111.8 111.9 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 111.9 111.9 0.4 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 112.2 112.3 0.4 St. Francis P.I. 112.2 112.3 0.2 

C-96

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 112.4 112.4 0.1 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 112.4 112.4 0.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 112.4 112.4 0.1 St. Francis 

STAGING AREA, TRUCK TURNAROUND, ROAD 

CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 112.4 112.5 1.2 

St. Francis HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 112.5 112.5 0.9 St. Francis HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 112.8 112.8 0.9 St. Francis TRUCK TURNAROUND 112.8 112.9 0.4 St. Francis TRUCK TURNAROUND 112.8 112.9 0.5 St. Francis PULL STRING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 113.0 113.4 2.4 St. Francis PULL STRING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 113.4 113.4 0.0 St. Francis PULL STRING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 113.4 113.4 0.1 St. Francis FABRICATION AREA 113.5 113.5 0.4 St. Francis 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, RAILROAD CROSSING, 

ROAD CROSSING & STAGING AREA 113.5 113.6 1.0 

St. Francis RAILROAD CROSSING 113.5 113.6 0.2 St. Francis 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, ROAD CROSSING & STAGING 

AREA 113.6 113.7 1.0 

St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 113.6 113.7 0.2 St. Francis 

ROAD CROSSING, FOREIGN LINE CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 113.7 113.8 0.8 

St. Francis FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 113.7 113.7 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 113.8 113.8 0.1 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 113.8 113.8 0.2 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 113.9 113.9 0.3 St. Francis WATERBODY CROSSING 113.9 113.9 0.1 St. Francis TRUCK TURNAROUND 113.9 114.0 0.7 St. Francis 

SPREAD BREAK, ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA 114.2 114.3 3.0 

St. Francis 

SPREAD BREAK, ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & 

FABRICATION AREA 114.2 114.3 1.9 

C-97

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

St. Francis 

SPREAD BREAK, ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION 

AREA 114.3 114.4 4.2 

St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 114.3 114.3 0.1 St. Francis P.I. 114.4 114.5 0.1 St. Francis P.I., FABRICATION AREA & AIRSTRIP CROSSING 114.4 114.6 0.6 St. Francis P.I., FABRICATION AREA & AIRSTRIP CROSSING 114.6 114.6 0.1 St. Francis P.I., FABRICATION AREA & AIRSTRIP CROSSING 114.6 114.6 0.1 St. Francis AIRSTRIP CROSSING 114.6 114.6 0.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 115.7 115.8 0.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 115.8 115.8 0.2 St. Francis FABRICATION AREA & ROAD CROSSING 115.9 116.1 1.2 St. Francis ROAD CROSSING 116.3 116.3 0.2 St. Francis P.I. 116.5 116.5 0.1 St. Francis P.I. 116.5 116.5 0.1 

Lee P.I. 116.5 116.6 0.3 Lee P.I. 116.5 116.5 0.0 Lee P.I. 116.8 116.9 0.2 Lee P.I. 116.9 116.9 0.1 Lee P.I. 116.9 117.0 0.2 Lee P.I. 116.9 117.0 0.1 Lee P.I. 117.2 117.3 0.2 Lee P.I. 117.2 117.3 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 117.4 117.4 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 117.4 117.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 117.5 117.5 0.2 Lee P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 117.7 117.8 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING 118.2 118.2 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 118.2 118.3 0.2 

C-98

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Lee ROAD CROSSING 118.5 118.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 118.5 118.6 0.2 Lee P.I. 118.7 118.8 0.2 Lee 

P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

HYDRO TEST AREA 119.0 119.1 0.7 

Lee 

P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

HYDRO TEST AREA 119.1 119.1 0.1 

Lee 

P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

HYDRO TEST AREA 119.1 119.1 0.3 

Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 119.1 119.2 0.3 Lee P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 119.2 119.3 0.4 Lee P.I. 119.3 119.3 0.1 Lee P.I. 119.4 119.4 0.1 Lee P.I. 119.4 119.4 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING 119.8 119.8 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 119.8 120.0 0.9 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 120.1 120.2 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 120.2 120.3 0.9 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 120.3 120.4 0.6 Lee P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 120.5 120.6 0.6 Lee P.I. 120.6 120.7 0.1 Lee P.I. 120.7 120.8 0.3 Lee P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 120.8 120.8 0.4 Lee P.I. 120.8 120.8 0.0 Lee P.I., FABRICATION AREA & ACCESS 120.8 120.9 0.5 Lee ACCESS 121.0 121.0 0.3 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 121.2 121.3 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 121.3 121.4 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 121.5 121.6 0.2 

C-99

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Lee ROAD CROSSING 121.6 121.6 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 122.1 122.2 0.3 Lee ROAD CROSSING 122.2 122.2 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 122.9 122.9 0.5 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 122.9 123.0 0.5 Lee ACCESS 123.1 123.1 0.2 Lee ACCESS 123.1 123.1 0.0 Lee ACCESS 123.1 123.1 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 123.5 123.5 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 123.6 123.6 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 124.4 124.4 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 124.4 124.4 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 124.6 124.6 0.5 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 124.6 124.7 0.4 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 125.1 125.2 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 125.2 125.2 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 125.4 125.4 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 125.4 125.5 0.2 Lee P.I. 125.6 125.7 0.4 Lee P.I. 125.6 125.7 0.2 Lee P.I. 125.9 125.9 0.0 Lee P.I. 125.9 126.0 0.1 Lee P.I. 126.0 126.0 0.0 Lee P.I. 126.0 126.0 0.1 Lee P.I. 126.0 126.0 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 126.3 126.4 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 126.4 126.4 0.1 

C-100

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 126.4 126.4 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 126.4 126.4 0.3 Lee ROAD CROSSING 126.7 126.7 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 126.7 126.7 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 126.7 126.8 0.3 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 126.7 126.8 0.2 Lee FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 126.8 126.8 0.6 Lee FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 127.4 127.5 0.6 Lee FABRICATION AREA 127.6 127.7 0.5 Lee ROAD CROSSING 128.0 128.0 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 128.0 128.1 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 128.4 128.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 128.5 128.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 128.6 128.7 0.5 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 128.7 128.7 0.5 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 129.0 129.0 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 129.0 129.0 0.2 Lee FABRICATION AREA 129.2 129.2 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 129.3 129.3 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 129.3 129.3 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 129.4 129.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 129.5 129.5 0.2 Lee FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 129.9 129.9 0.3 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 130.1 130.1 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 130.1 130.1 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 130.2 130.3 0.4 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 130.3 130.4 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING 130.4 130.4 0.2 

C-101

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Lee ROAD CROSSING 130.4 130.4 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 130.5 130.5 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 130.5 130.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 130.5 130.5 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 130.5 130.6 0.4 Lee P.I. 130.6 130.6 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 130.7 130.8 0.3 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 130.8 130.8 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 130.8 130.8 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 130.8 130.9 0.4 Lee 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

TRUCK TURNAROUND 131.0 131.0 1.2 

Lee WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 131.1 131.1 0.3 Lee TRUCK TURNAROUND 131.1 131.2 1.0 Lee ROAD CROSSING 132.0 132.0 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 132.0 132.1 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 132.3 132.3 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 132.3 132.4 0.2 Lee P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 132.8 132.8 0.4 Lee P.I. 132.8 132.9 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 133.0 133.1 0.4 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 133.1 133.2 0.5 Lee ACCESS 133.2 133.2 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 133.5 133.6 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING 133.6 133.6 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 134.0 134.1 0.2 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 134.1 134.1 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 134.8 134.8 0.2 

C-102

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Lee ROAD CROSSING 134.8 134.9 0.2 Lee FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 135.5 135.6 0.6 Lee FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 135.7 135.8 0.7 Lee P.I. 135.8 135.9 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 135.9 136.0 0.6 Lee ROAD CROSSING 136.0 136.0 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 136.0 136.1 0.4 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 136.0 136.1 0.1 Lee P.I. 136.2 136.2 0.1 Lee P.I. 136.2 136.2 0.2 Lee P.I. 136.2 136.2 0.0 Lee P.I. 136.2 136.2 0.0 Lee P.I. 136.2 136.2 0.0 Lee 

P.I. 

136.2 136.2 0.2 

Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 136.6 136.7 0.1 Lee WATERBODY CROSSING 136.7 136.7 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 137.0 137.0 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING 137.0 137.0 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 137.2 137.3 0.5 Lee ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 137.3 137.4 0.7 Lee FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 137.8 137.8 0.3 Lee FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 138.0 138.0 0.3 Lee P.I. 138.3 138.4 0.4 Lee P.I. 138.4 138.4 0.1 Lee ROAD CROSSING 138.5 138.5 0.2 Lee ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 138.5 138.7 0.9 Lee ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 138.5 138.6 0.3 

C-103

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 139.6 139.7 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & HYDRO TEST AREA 139.7 139.8 0.9 Phillips 

P.I., RAILROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS 140.1 140.1 0.8 

Phillips RAILROAD CROSSING & TRUCK TURNAROUND 140.1 140.2 0.3 Phillips 

P.I., RAILROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, TRUCK 

TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 140.2 140.3 1.3 

Phillips ROAD CROSSING 140.3 140.3 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 140.6 140.8 0.9 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 141.1 141.2 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 141.2 141.3 0.2 Phillips ACCESS 141.4 141.4 0.2 Phillips 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION 

AREA 141.8 141.9 0.6 

Phillips 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION 

AREA 141.9 141.9 0.0 

Phillips 

WATERBODY CROSSING, ACCESS & FABRICATION 

AREA 141.9 142.0 0.5 

Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 142.4 142.5 0.6 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 142.5 142.5 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 142.5 142.6 0.4 Phillips P.I. 142.5 142.6 0.1 Phillips FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 142.7 142.7 0.5 Phillips P.I. 142.7 142.8 0.1 Phillips P.I. 142.7 142.8 0.5 Phillips P.I. 142.8 142.9 0.4 Phillips P.I. 142.8 142.9 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 143.0 143.1 0.4 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 143.1 143.2 0.4 

C-104

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips FABRICATION AREA 143.3 143.3 0.5 Phillips FABRICATION AREA 143.4 143.5 0.4 Phillips FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 143.6 143.6 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 143.7 143.7 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 144.2 144.2 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 144.2 144.2 0.2 Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 144.5 144.6 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 144.5 144.6 0.2 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 144.6 144.6 1.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 144.7 144.8 0.3 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 144.7 144.8 0.1 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 144.8 144.8 0.9 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 145.3 145.3 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 145.3 145.3 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 145.3 145.3 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 145.3 145.4 0.2 Phillips P.I. 145.5 145.5 0.1 Phillips FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 145.5 145.6 0.4 Phillips P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 145.8 145.9 0.5 Phillips 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, P.I., RAILROAD CROSSING, 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 146.3 146.4 1.4 

Phillips 

RAILROAD CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA, P.I. & STAGING AREA 146.4 146.6 1.6 

Phillips ROAD CROSSING 146.9 147.0 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 147.0 147.0 0.2 Phillips P.I. 147.4 147.5 0.4 Phillips P.I. 147.5 147.5 0.1 

C-105

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 147.5 147.6 0.4 Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 147.6 147.6 0.0 Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 147.6 147.8 1.2 Phillips P.I. 147.6 147.7 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 147.8 147.8 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 148.0 148.0 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 148.0 148.0 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 148.2 148.2 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 148.2 148.2 0.0 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 148.2 148.3 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 148.5 148.5 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING 148.5 148.6 0.2 Phillips P.I. 148.8 148.9 0.4 Phillips P.I. 148.9 148.9 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 149.0 149.1 0.3 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 149.0 149.1 0.3 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 149.1 149.1 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 149.1 149.1 0.1 Phillips P.I. 149.1 149.2 0.2 Phillips P.I. 149.2 149.2 0.1 Phillips P.I. 149.3 149.3 0.1 Phillips P.I. 149.3 149.4 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 149.5 149.5 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 149.6 149.6 0.5 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 149.6 149.7 0.2 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 149.9 150.0 0.4 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 150.0 150.0 0.2 

C-106

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 150.5 150.6 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 150.6 150.6 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 150.7 150.7 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 150.7 150.7 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 151.1 151.1 0.1 Phillips 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, WATERBODY 

CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 151.1 151.3 1.0 

Phillips 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 151.4 151.4 0.6 

Phillips ROAD CROSSING 151.5 151.5 0.1 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 151.6 151.6 1.0 Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 151.6 151.7 0.6 Phillips 

WATERBODY CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & 

ACCESS 152.9 153.0 0.6 

Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & ROAD CROSSING 153.0 153.1 0.6 Phillips 

ROAD CROSSING, FABRICATION AREA & STAGING 

AREA 153.1 153.2 1.7 

Phillips FABRICATION AREA & WATERBODY CROSSING 153.3 153.5 1.1 Phillips FABRICATION AREA, P.I. & WATERBODY CROSSING 153.7 153.9 0.6 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 153.9 153.9 0.2 Phillips PULL STRING & ACCESS 154.0 154.3 1.7 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.0 154.0 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 154.0 154.1 0.2 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 154.2 154.3 1.5 Phillips HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 154.3 154.3 0.9 Phillips HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 154.5 154.5 0.9 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND & FABRICATION AREA 154.5 154.6 1.3 Phillips P.I., WATERBODY CROSSING & FABRICATION AREA 154.5 154.6 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.6 154.6 0.1 

C-107

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 154.6 154.7 0.6 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.9 154.9 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.9 154.9 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.9 154.9 0.1 Phillips WATERBODY CROSSING 154.9 154.9 0.1 Phillips FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 155.0 155.0 0.3 Phillips FOREIGN LINE CROSSING 155.0 155.0 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.1 155.2 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.1 155.2 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.2 155.2 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.2 155.2 0.1 Phillips ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING & P.I. 155.4 155.4 0.2 Phillips 

ROAD CROSSING, WATERBODY CROSSING, 

FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 155.4 155.4 0.5 

Phillips PULL STRING 155.5 155.7 1.7 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.5 155.5 0.2 Phillips ROAD CROSSING & WATERBODY CROSSING 155.5 155.5 0.1 Phillips P.I. 155.7 155.7 0.2 Phillips P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 155.7 155.8 0.4 Phillips P.I. 155.7 155.7 0.1 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 156.0 156.1 0.9 Phillips HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 156.1 156.1 0.9 Phillips HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 156.6 156.6 0.9 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 156.7 156.8 0.4 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 156.7 156.8 0.5 Phillips HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 156.8 156.8 0.9 Phillips HYDRO TEST AREA 156.8 156.9 0.5 Phillips HYDRO TEST AREA 156.9 156.9 0.1 

C-108

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Phillips HYDRO TEST AREA 157.5 157.6 0.1 Phillips HYDRO TEST AREA 157.6 157.7 0.6 Phillips HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 157.7 157.7 0.9 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 157.7 157.7 0.1 Phillips TRUCK TURNAROUND 157.7 157.7 0.0 

Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 157.7 157.8 0.4 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 157.7 157.8 0.5 Coahoma P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 158.1 158.1 0.1 Coahoma P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 158.1 158.1 0.0 Coahoma P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 158.1 158.2 0.2 Coahoma P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 158.2 158.2 0.3 Coahoma PULL STRING 158.2 158.7 2.7 Coahoma P.I. & ACCESS 158.2 158.3 0.3 Coahoma P.I. & ACCESS 158.2 158.3 0.3 Coahoma P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 158.4 158.5 0.3 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND & ACCESS 158.5 158.6 1.0 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND & ACCESS 158.5 158.6 0.3 Coahoma HDD SITE - ENTRY HOLE 158.5 158.6 0.9 Coahoma HDD SITE - EXIT HOLE 159.1 159.1 0.9 Coahoma 

TRUCK TURNAROUND, ROAD CROSSING, STAGING 

AREA, & FABRICATION AREA 159.1 159.2 1.2 

Coahoma 

ROAD CROSSING, P.I., FABRICATION AREA & 

STAGING AREA 159.2 159.2 1.4 

Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 159.2 159.3 0.5 Coahoma PULL STRING & ROAD CROSSING 159.2 159.8 3.5 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING 159.8 159.9 0.2 Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING 159.9 160.0 0.2 Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING 160.0 160.0 0.1 

C-109

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING 160.4 160.4 0.1 Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING 160.5 160.5 0.1 Coahoma 

FABRICATION AREA, P.I., ACCESS & WATERBODY 

CROSSING 160.6 160.7 0.6 

Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING & ACCESS 160.8 160.8 0.4 Coahoma P.I. 160.9 160.9 0.3 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 161.5 161.5 0.2 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 161.5 161.5 0.4 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 161.6 161.6 0.1 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & ACCESS 161.6 161.6 0.0 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & ACCESS 161.6 161.6 0.2 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 161.6 161.6 0.0 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 161.6 161.7 0.6 Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING 161.9 161.9 0.1 Coahoma WATERBODY CROSSING, P.I. & FABRICATION AREA 161.9 162.1 1.1 Coahoma ACCESS 162.1 162.2 0.4 Coahoma P.I. 162.7 162.7 0.3 Coahoma P.I. 163.3 163.3 0.4 Coahoma P.I. 163.3 163.3 0.1 Coahoma P.I. 163.8 163.8 0.1 Coahoma FABRICATION AREA & P.I. 163.8 163.8 0.6 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 163.8 163.9 0.3 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 163.8 163.9 0.1 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 163.8 163.9 0.5 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & RAILROAD CROSSING 163.9 163.9 0.2 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & ACCESS 163.9 164.0 0.3 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING 163.9 164.0 0.1 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND 164.0 164.0 0.9 

C-110

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Coahoma ACCESS 164.7 164.7 0.4 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING & P.I. 164.9 165.0 0.5 Coahoma P.I. 164.9 165.0 0.1 Coahoma ROAD CROSSING 165.0 165.1 0.2 Coahoma 

FOREIGN LINE CROSSING, ROAD CROSSING & 

FABRICATION AREA 165.2 165.3 1.1 

Coahoma ROAD CROSSING 165.4 165.4 0.4 Coahoma ACCESS 165.9 166.0 0.3 Coahoma TRUCK TURNAROUND, TIE-IN & FABRICATION AREA 166.1 166.2 0.9 Coahoma 

ACCESS, FABRICATION AREA, TIE-IN & STAGING 

AREA 166.2 166.2 2.1 

Greenville Lateral Route 

Washington FABRICATION AREA 0.1 0.1 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 0.4 0.4 0.1 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 0.5 0.6 0.6 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 0.5 0.6 0.5 Washington FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 0.7 0.7 0.1 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 0.8 0.8 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 0.9 0.9 0.2 Washington FITTING / ROAD CROSSING 1.6 1.6 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 1.6 1.6 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 1.6 1.6 0.2 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 1.7 1.8 0.7 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 1.8 1.8 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 2.0 2.0 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 2.1 2.1 0.2 Washington FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 2.2 2.2 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 2.5 2.5 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 2.5 2.6 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 2.6 2.6 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 2.6 2.6 0.1 

C-111

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Washington SPECIAL CROP 2.6 3.7 2.6 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 2.9 2.9 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 2.9 3.0 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 3.4 3.4 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 3.4 3.5 0.2 Washington FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 3.5 3.6 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 3.7 3.7 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 3.7 3.7 0.2 Washington SPECIAL CROP 3.7 4.2 1.3 Washington ROAD CROSSING 4.2 4.2 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 4.2 4.3 0.2 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 4.9 4.9 0.1 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 4.9 4.9 0.1 Washington WATERBODY CROSSING 4.9 4.9 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 5.0 5.0 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 5.1 5.1 0.2 Washington WETLAND CROSSING 5.2 5.3 0.7 Washington WETLAND CROSSING 5.3 5.5 0.8 Washington WETLAND CROSSING 5.4 5.4 0.5 Washington WETLAND CROSSING 5.5 5.6 0.7 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 6.2 6.2 0.2 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 6.2 6.3 0.2 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 6.4 6.5 0.3 Washington FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 6.4 6.5 0.1 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 7.0 7.1 0.2 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 7.1 7.1 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 7.1 7.1 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 7.1 7.1 0.1 Washington FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 7.5 7.5 0.1 Washington FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 8.0 8.0 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 9.0 9.0 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 9.0 9.0 0.2 Washington HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 9.1 9.2 1.4 

C-112

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Washington HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 9.5 9.7 2.9 Washington ROAD CROSSING 10.5 10.5 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 10.5 10.5 0.1 Washington HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 11.0 11.1 1.4 Washington HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 11.3 11.6 2.9 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 11.9 11.9 0.2 Washington WATER BODY CROSSING 11.9 11.9 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 12.4 12.4 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 12.4 12.4 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 14.1 14.1 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 14.1 14.1 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING / WETLAND CROSSING 14.6 14.6 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 14.6 14.7 0.3 Washington ROAD CROSSING / FITTING 14.7 14.7 0.1 Washington ROAD CROSSING 15.1 15.1 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 15.1 15.2 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 16.1 16.2 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 16.3 16.3 0.2 Washington ROAD CROSSING 17.3 17.3 0.2 

Sunflower ROAD CROSSING 17.3 17.4 0.2 Sunflower WATERBODY CROSSING 17.7 17.7 0.3 Sunflower WATERBODY CROSSING 17.8 17.8 0.3 Sunflower WATERBODY CROSSING 18.3 18.3 0.2 Sunflower WATERBODY CROSSING 18.3 18.3 0.2 Sunflower ROAD CROSSING / FITTING 19.4 19.4 0.2 Sunflower ROAD CROSSING 19.4 19.4 0.1 Sunflower ROAD CROSSING 19.4 19.4 0.2 

Washington/ 

Sunflower HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 19.8 20.2 3.4 

Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 20.4 20.4 0.1 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 20.5 20.6 1.4 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 20.9 20.9 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 20.9 20.9 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 21.1 21.1 0.2 

C-113

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 21.1 21.1 0.2 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 21.6 21.6 0.1 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 21.6 21.6 0.1 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 22.2 22.3 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 22.3 22.3 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 22.8 22.9 0.2 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 22.9 22.9 0.1 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 22.8 22.8 0.1 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 23.4 23.4 0.6 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 23.6 23.7 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 23.7 23.7 0.1 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 23.7 23.7 0.2 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 24.2 24.3 0.9 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 24.4 24.5 1.0 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.0 25.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.0 25.1 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.5 25.5 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.5 25.5 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.7 25.7 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 25.8 25.8 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 26.0 26.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 26.0 26.0 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.1 26.1 0.5 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.2 26.2 0.5 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 26.3 26.3 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 26.3 26.3 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.6 26.6 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.7 26.7 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.9 26.9 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 26.9 26.9 0.2 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 27.2 27.3 0.9 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 27.4 27.5 0.9 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 27.5 27.6 0.2 

C-114

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 27.8 27.9 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 27.9 27.9 0.2 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 28.3 28.4 0.2 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 28.4 28.4 0.1 Humphreys FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 28.6 28.7 0.4 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 28.7 28.8 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING / WETLAND CROSSING 28.8 28.8 0.7 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 28.8 28.9 0.5 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 29.0 29.0 0.1 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 29.3 29.3 0.5 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 29.4 29.4 0.5 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 29.5 29.5 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 29.2 29.9 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 30.0 30.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 30.0 30.0 0.2 Humphreys FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 30.5 30.5 0.3 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 31.2 31.2 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 31.2 31.2 0.2 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 31.3 31.3 0.5 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 32.8 32.8 0.1 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 33.6 33.6 0.5 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 33.7 33.8 0.5 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 34.3 34.3 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 34.3 34.3 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 34.8 34.9 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 34.9 35.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 35.5 35.5 0.2 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 35.5 35.5 0.5 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 35.6 35.6 0.5 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 35.8 35.8 0.1 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 35.4 35.4 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 36.0 36.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 36.0 36.0 0.2 

C-115

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 36.2 36.2 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 36.3 36.3 0.2 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 36.7 36.7 0.1 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 37.0 37.0 0.9 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 37.2 37.3 0.9 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 37.7 37.7 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 37.8 37.8 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 38.3 38.3 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 38.4 38.4 0.2 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 38.5 38.5 0.1 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 38.9 38.9 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 39.0 39.0 0.2 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 39.4 39.5 1.1 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 39.7 39.7 0.1 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 39.9 40.3 3.0 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 40.2 40.4 4.0 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 40.6 40.6 4.4 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 40.8 40.9 5.9 Humphreys HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 41.1 41.4 3.5 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 42.0 42.0 0.2 Humphreys ROAD CROSSING 42.0 42.0 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 42.6 42.6 0.1 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 42.6 42.7 0.1 Humphreys WETLAND CROSSING 42.8 43.0 1.1 Humphreys FABRICATION AREA 44.1 44.3 1.1 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 44.3 44.3 0.1 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 44.3 44.3 0.1 Humphreys FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 44.8 44.9 0.1 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 44.3 44.3 0.2 Humphreys WATERBODY CROSSING 44.4 44.4 0.2 Humphreys ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 45.5 45.5 0.1 Humphreys FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 46.1 46.2 0.7 

Holmes HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 46.3 46.5 5.1 

C-116

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 46.8 46.9 1.4 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 47.2 47.2 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 47.4 47.5 0.7 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 47.6 47.7 0.9 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 48.9 49.0 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 49.0 49.0 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 49.1 49.1 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 49.1 49.2 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 49.4 49.5 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 49.5 49.5 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 51.2 51.2 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 51.2 51.2 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 51.4 51.4 0.1 Holmes FITTING / ROAD CROSSING 51.4 51.4 0.1 Holmes RAILROAD CROSSING 51.4 51.5 0.2 Holmes RAILROAD CROSSING 51.5 51.5 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 51.8 51.9 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 52.4 52.4 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 52.4 52.4 0.1 Holmes HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 53.3 54.0 9.5 Holmes HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 54.6 54.7 1.4 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 55.1 55.1 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 55.1 55.1 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 55.2 55.3 0.1 Holmes FITTING / ROAD CROSSING 55.3 55.3 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 55.3 55.3 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 55.3 55.4 0.3 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 55.4 55.5 0.3 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 55.5 55.6 0.5 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 55.7 55.7 0.5 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 56.1 56.2 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 56.2 56.2 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 56.3 56.3 0.1 

C-117

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 56.6 56.6 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 56.9 56.9 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 57.1 57.1 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 57.1 57.2 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 57.1 57.2 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 57.2 57.2 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 57.3 57.4 0.7 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 57.5 57.5 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 57.5 57.5 0.3 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 57.8 57.9 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 57.9 57.9 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 58.2 58.2 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 58.4 58.4 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 58.5 58.5 0.5 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 58.5 58.6 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 58.6 58.6 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 58.6 58.6 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 58.8 58.9 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 58.9 58.9 0.3 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 58.9 58.9 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 58.9 59.0 0.3 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 59.1 59.1 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 59.6 59.6 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 59.7 59.8 0.7 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 59.9 69.9 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 60.1 60.2 0.7 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 60.5 60.5 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 60.5 60.6 1.6 Holmes FOREIGN PIPELINE CROSSING 60.6 60.7 0.5 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 60.8 60.9 0.9 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 60.8 60.8 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 60.9 60.9 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 61.1 61.1 0.1 

C-118

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes ROAD CROSSING 61.1 61.1 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 61.1 61.2 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 61.1 61.1 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 61.2 61.2 0.5 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 61.3 61.3 0.5 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 61.9 61.9 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 61.9 61.9 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 61.9 61.9 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING 62.0 62.0 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 62.0 62.0 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 62.1 62.1 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 62.2 62.2 0.5 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 62.3 62.3 0.5 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 62.8 62.8 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 62.9 62.9 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 62.9 63.0 0.3 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 63.0 63.0 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 63.2 63.2 0.7 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING / ROAD CROSSING 63.3 63.4 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING / ROAD CROSSING 63.3 63.4 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 63.4 63.4 0.2 Holmes FITTING / ROAD CROSSING 63.6 63.6 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 63.6 63.6 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 63.6 63.6 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 63.7 63.7 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 63.8 63.8 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 64.1 64.1 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 64.1 64.1 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 64.2 64.2 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 64.3 64.3 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 64.4 64.5 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING / ACCESS ROAD 64.5 64.5 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 64.6 64.6 0.2 

C-119

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 64.6 64.7 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 64.7 64.8 0.5 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 64.9 64.9 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 64.9 64.9 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING / ACCESS ROAD 65.2 65.2 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 65.2 65.2 0.2 Holmes ACCESS ROAD / FABRICATION AREA 65.6 65.6 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 66.0 66.0 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 66.0 66.0 0.1 Holmes FITTING / ACCESS ROAD 66.1 66.1 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 66.5 66.5 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 66.5 66.5 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 66.6 66.6 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 66.7 66.7 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 66.8 66.8 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 66.9 67.0 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 67.0 67.0 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 67.1 67.2 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 67.5 67.6 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 67.6 67.6 0.2 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 67.7 67.8 0.6 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 67.8 67.9 0.7 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING / ACCESS ROAD 67.8 67.9 1.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 68.1 68.1 0.5 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 68.2 68.2 0.9 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 68.3 68.3 0.5 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 68.5 68.6 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 68.8 68.9 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 68.9 68.9 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 68.9 68.9 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 69.0 69.0 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 69.2 69.2 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 69.2 69.2 0.2 

C-120

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 69.3 69.3 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 69.4 69.4 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 70.3 70.3 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 70.5 70.6 0.7 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 70.7 70.7 0.7 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 70.8 70.8 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 70.8 70.8 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 70.9 70.9 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 71.1 71.1 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 71.3 71.3 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 71.3 71.3 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 71.4 71.4 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 71.5 71.5 0.1 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 71.7 71.7 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 71.9 72.0 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 72.0 72.0 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 72.2 72.2 0.1 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 72.4 72.4 0.9 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING 72.6 72.7 0.5 Holmes WETLAND CROSSING / ROAD CROSSING 72.6 72.7 1.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 72.7 72.8 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 72.7 72.8 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 72.8 72.8 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 73.5 73.5 0.3 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 73.5 73.6 0.3 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 73.7 73.7 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 73.8 73.8 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 73.9 73.9 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 73.9 74.0 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 74.0 74.0 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 74.0 74.0 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 74.2 74.2 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 74.3 74.3 0.2 

C-121

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 74.7 74.7 0.2 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 74.7 74.7 0.2 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 75.1 75.1 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 75.2 75.2 0.2 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 75.7 75.7 0.1 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 75.7 75.7 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 75.7 75.7 0.1 Holmes FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 75.8 75.8 0.1 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 75.9 75.9 0.3 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 76.1 76.1 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING 76.1 76.1 0.2 Holmes ROAD CROSSING / FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 76.1 76.1 0.3 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING 76.2 76.2 0.5 Holmes WATERBODY CROSSING / FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 76.4 76.4 0.6 Holmes ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 77.2 77.2 0.1 Holmes HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 77.2 77.6 2.1 

Attala HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 77.8 77.9 1.4 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 78.0 78.1 0.3 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 78.0 78.1 0.2 Attala ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 78.1 78.2 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 78.2 78.2 0.2 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 78.2 78.2 0.3 Attala ROAD CROSSING 78.6 78.6 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING / FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 78.6 78.6 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 78.6 78.7 0.2 Attala ACCESS RD / FABRICATION AREA 78.9 78.9 0.1 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 79.9 80.0 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 80.1 80.2 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 80.2 80.2 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 80.2 80.2 0.1 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 80.2 80.2 0.1 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 80.6 80.7 0.1 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 80.7 80.7 0.2 

C-122

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 80.8 80.8 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 81.1 81.1 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 81.1 81.2 0.2 Attala ACCESS ROAD 81.6 81.6 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 81.8 81.8 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 81.8 81.8 0.2 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 82.2 82.2 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 82.2 82.3 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 82.3 82.3 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 82.4 82.4 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 82.4 82.5 0.5 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 82.5 82.6 0.5 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 82.9 83.0 1.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 83.4 83.4 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 83.4 83.4 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 83.4 83.5 0.2 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 83.5 83.5 0.1 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 83.6 83.6 0.1 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 83.6 83.7 0.3 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 84.0 84.0 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 84.1 84.1 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 84.2 84.2 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 84.2 84.2 0.2 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 84.3 84.4 0.5 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 84.4 84.4 0.5 Attala ROAD CROSSING 84.8 84.9 0.2 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 84.9 85.0 0.5 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 85.0 85.1 0.5 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 85.2 85.3 1.0 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 85.9 86.0 0.7 Attala POWER LINE / RAILROAD CROSSING 85.9 86.3 1.9 Attala POWER LINE / RAILROAD CROSSING 86.1 86.3 1.0 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 86.6 86.7 2.1 

C-123

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 87.5 87.5 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 86.2 86.2 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 87.6 87.6 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 87.7 87.7 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 87.8 87.8 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 87.9 87.9 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 88.0 88.0 0.2 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 88.0 88.1 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 88.7 88.7 0.3 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 88.9 88.9 0.3 Attala ROAD CROSSING 88.9 89.0 0.1 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 89.0 89.0 0.1 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 89.1 89.1 0.2 Attala WETLAND CROSSING 89.3 89.4 0.5 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 90.0 90.1 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 90.1 90.1 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 90.6 90.6 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 90.6 90.6 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 90.9 90.9 0.3 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 91.0 91.1 0.3 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 91.2 91.2 0.2 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 91.3 91.4 0.3 Attala WATERBODY CROSSING 91.5 91.6 0.4 Attala ROAD CROSSING 92.1 92.1 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 92.2 92.2 0.5 Attala ROAD CROSSING 92.3 92.3 0.1 Attala HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 92.6 92.6 1.4 Attala HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 93.6 94.7 7.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 94.3 94.3 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 94.3 94.3 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 94.8 94.8 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 94.8 94.8 0.1 

C-124

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-7 Temporary Work Space Areas 

County Name Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Size 

 (in acres) 

Attala ROAD CROSSING 96.1 96.1 0.2 Attala FITTING / FABRICATION AREA 96.1 96.1 0.1 

Kosciusko 36” Lateral 

Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.3 0.4 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.4 0.4 0.3 Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.4 0.4 0.1 Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.4 0.4 0.1 

Kosciusko 20” Lateral 

Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.2 0.2 0.2 Attala ROAD CROSSING 0.2 0.3 0.2 

C-125

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-8 

ACCESS ROADS 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-8 

Access Roads 

Road ID 

Number County Milepost (in miles) Modification Modify Type

Length 

(in feet)

Width 

(in feet)

Temporary (T) 

or Permanent 

(P) Land 

Requirement

Temporary or 

Permanent 

Land 

Requirement 

(in acres)

Fayetteville Lateral (AR counties except as indicated) 

55 Conway 0 Yes 3 688 20 P 0.3 

55A Conway 0.1 Yes 3 8 20 T 0 

48 Conway 0.6 Yes 3 1,699 20 T 0.8 

49 Conway 1.9 Yes 3 2,112 20 T 1 

56 Conway 3.1 Yes 2 1,582 20 P 0.7 

54 Conway 5.2 Yes 3 346 20 T 0.2 

50A Conway 6.7 Yes 3 91 20 P 0 

50 Conway 6.7 No 1,818 20 T 0.8 

1 Faulkner 8.3 No 2,346 20 T 1.1 

57 Faulkner 9.4 Yes 3 77 20 P 0 

2 Faulkner 12.2 Yes 3 2,753 20 T 1.3 

3 Faulkner 12.9 Yes 2 3,626 20 T 1.7 

67 Faulkner 13.4 Yes 3 14 20 P 0 

68 Faulkner 16.5 Yes 3 49 20 P 0 

58 Faulkner 19.6 Yes 3 567 20 P 0.3 

5 Faulkner 22.7 Yes 2 579 20 T 0.3 

59 Faulkner 23.5 Yes 2 484 20 T 0.2 

59A Faulkner 23.5 Yes 3 729 20 P 0.3 

6 Faulkner 27.4 Yes 2 671 20 T 0.3 

76 Faulkner 28.5 Yes 3 288 20 P 0.1 

7 White 30.6 No 1,643 20 T 0.8 

69 White 31.6 No 1,583 20 T 0.7 

60 White 32.8 Yes 3 1,586 20 P 0.7 

70 White 35.9 Yes 3 14 20 P 0 

78 White 38.9 Yes 2 54 20 P 0 

71 White 39.2 Yes 3 41 20 P 0 

77 White 45.9 Yes 3 1,494 20 P 0.7 

9 White 48.4 Yes 2 5,215 20 T 2.4 

72 White 50.4 Yes 3 15 20 P 0 

10 White 52.2 Yes 2 11,653 20 T 5.4 

11 White 52.2 Yes 2 11,690 20 T 5.4 

79 White 54.3 Yes 3 94 20 P 0 

73 White 55.5 Yes 3 14 20 P 0 

12 White 56.4 Yes 2 1,128 20 T 0.5 

13 White 63.8 Yes 2 229 20 T 0.1 

74 White 64.1 Yes 3 13 20 P 0 

62A White 64.4 Yes 3 2,626 20 T 1.2 

62 White 64.6 Yes 1 132 20 T 0.1 

14 White 65 Yes 2 2,774 20 T 1.3 

63 White 65.9 Yes 3 729 20 P 0.3 

C-126

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-8 

Access Roads 

Road ID 

Number County Milepost (in miles) Modification Modify Type

Length 

(in feet)

Width 

(in feet)

Temporary (T) 

or Permanent 

(P) Land 

Requirement

Temporary or 

Permanent 

Land 

Requirement 

(in acres)

15 Woodruff 70.6 Yes 2 & 4 16,740 20 T 7.7 

16 Woodruff 72.8 Yes 2 2,113 20 T 1 

75 Woodruff 73.3 Yes 3 1,708 20 T 0.8 

17 Woodruff 73.7 Yes 2 4,313 20 T 2 

17B Woodruff 73.9 Yes 2 1,233 20 T 0.6 

17A Woodruff 74.2 Yes 2 162 20 T 0.1 

18 Woodruff 77.1 Yes 2 87 20 T 0 

19 Woodruff 78 Yes 2 65 20 T 0 

80 Woodruff 85.4 Yes 3 39 20 P 0 

20 Woodruff 95.2 Yes 2 2,600 20 T 1.2 

64 Woodruff 96 Yes 2 188 20 T 0.1 

64 Woodruff 96 Yes 2 188 20 T 0.1 

21A Woodruff 104.6 Yes 2 862 20 T 0.4 

21 Woodruff 104.7 Yes 2 3,437 20 T 1.6 

81 Woodruff 105.3 Yes 3 90 20 P 0 

22 Woodruff 106.8 Yes 2 435 20 T 0.2 

23 St. Francis 109.9 Yes 2 622 20 T 0.3 

24 St. Francis 110.7 Yes 2 3,394 20 T 1.6 

24A St. Francis 110.7 Yes 2 2,162 20 T 1 

25 St. Francis 111 Yes 2 5,289 20 T 2.4 

26A St. Francis 112.9 Yes 3 & 4 913 20 T 0.4 

26 St. Francis 113.4 Yes 2 4,326 20 T 2 

27 Lee 119.1 Yes 2 2,855 20 T 1.3 

28 Lee 119.1 Yes 2 3,857 20 T 1.8 

82 Lee 120.2 Yes 3 25 20 P 0 

29 Lee 120.8 Yes 2 3,293 20 T 1.5 

29A Lee 121 Yes 2 569 20 T 0.3 

30 Lee 123 Yes 2 492 20 T 0.2 

31 Lee 133 Yes 2 2,898 20 T 1.3 

31A Lee 133.2 Yes 2 745 20 T 0.3 

83 Lee 136 Yes 3 14 20 P 0 

32 Phillips 140.2 Yes 2 253 20 T 0.1 

33 Phillips 141.4 Yes 2 3,848 20 T 1.8 

33A Phillips 141.9 Yes 2 2,688 20 T 1.2 

35 Phillips 146.4 Yes 3 356 20 T 0.2 

36 Phillips 146.4 Yes 2 106 20 T 0 

37 Phillips 150 Yes 2 2,446 20 T 1.1 

38 Phillips 153 Yes 2 4,853 20 T 2.2 

84 Phillips 153.2 Yes 3 53 20 P 0 

65A Phillips 153.8 Yes 2 4,146 20 T 1.9 

65 Phillips 154 Yes 2 5,365 20 T 2.5 

C-127

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-8 

Access Roads 

Road ID 

Number County Milepost (in miles) Modification Modify Type

Length 

(in feet)

Width 

(in feet)

Temporary (T) 

or Permanent 

(P) Land 

Requirement

Temporary or 

Permanent 

Land 

Requirement 

(in acres)

66 Phillips 154.7 Yes 3 & 4 1,942 20 T 0.9 

52B Phillips 156.3 Yes 1 6,172 20 T 2.8 

52 Phillips 156.4 Yes 2 7,713 20 T 3.5 

52A Phillips 156.6 Yes 4 1,538 20 T 0.7 

41 Coahoma, MS 158.3 Yes 4 7,895 20 T 3.6 

41B Coahoma , MS 158.5 Yes 4 1,010 20 T 0.5 

41A Coahoma, MS 158.6 Yes 4 2,245 20 T 1 

51 Coahoma, MS 158.8 Yes 1 & 4 3,908 20 T 1.8 

53 Coahoma, MS 160.7 Yes 1 5,908 20 T 2.7 

43 Coahoma, MS 160.8 Yes 1 6,722 20 T 3.1 

45 Coahoma, MS 161.6 Yes 2 65 20 T 0 

44 Coahoma, MS 162.2 Yes 1 3,433 20 T 1.6 

46 Coahoma, MS 164.7 Yes 1 393 20 T 0.2 

47A Coahoma, MS 166.1 Yes 2 1,284 20 T 0.6 

47 Coahoma, MS 166.2 Yes 2 4,012 20 P 1.8 

47B Coahoma, MS 166.2 Yes 2 555 20 P 0.3 

Greenville Lateral (MS counties) 

0 Washington 1.6 Yes 1, 4 800 25 P 0.5 

1 Washington 4.9 Yes 1, 3 3,800 25 T 2.2 

2 Washington 7.1 Yes 1 5,200 25 P 3.1 

3 Washington 9.4 Yes 1 3,900 25 T 2.2 

5 Washington 17.3 Yes 1 5,400 25 T 3.1 

6 Washington 17.9 Yes 1 5,000 25 T 2.9 

7 Washington 20.0 Yes 1, 3, 4 3,900 20 +/- T 1.8 

8 Humphreys 20.4 Yes 1 1,300 25 T 0.7 

9 Humphreys 21.6 Yes 1 2,800 25 T 1.6 

10 Humphreys 26.2 Yes 1 1,300 25 T 0.7 

11 Humphreys 28.4 Yes 1, 2 300 12 T 0.1 

12 Humphreys 29.5 Yes 1, 2 1,300 12 +/- T 0.4 

12A Humphreys 29.8 Yes 1, 4 1,000 25 P 0.6 

13 Humphreys 32.8 No 1,000 25 T 0.6 

14 Humphreys 36.7 Yes 2, 1 2,600 20 +/- T 1.2 

15 Humphreys 39.7 Yes 1 3,300 25 P 1.9 

16 Humphreys 40.6 No 200 25 T 0.1 

17 Humphreys 43.0 Yes 1 100 25 T 0.1 

18 Humphreys 44.3 Yes 1 4,000 25 T 2.3 

19 Humphreys 45.5 Yes 1, 2 6,200 25 T 3.6 

22 Holmes 51.2 Yes 1 350 25 T 0.2 

23 Holmes 51.8 Yes 1 3,900 25 T 2.2 

24 Holmes 52.4 No 6,500 25 T 3.7 

24A Holmes 54.0 Yes 1 1,200 25 P 0.7 

C-128

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-8 

Access Roads 

Road ID 

Number County Milepost (in miles) Modification Modify Type

Length 

(in feet)

Width 

(in feet)

Temporary (T) 

or Permanent 

(P) Land 

Requirement

Temporary or 

Permanent 

Land 

Requirement 

(in acres)

25 Holmes 54.2 No 2,700 25 T 1.5 

26 Holmes 55.3 Yes 1, 2 100 25 T 0.1 

30 Holmes 55.7 Yes 1, 2 300 25 T 0.2 

31 Holmes 56.1 Yes 1 200 25 T 0.1 

32 Holmes 56.6 Yes 1 1,300 25 T 0.7 

33 Holmes 56.9 Yes 1, 2 4 1,200 25 T 0.7 

34 Holmes 57.2 Yes 1 250 25 T 0.1 

35 Holmes 57.8 Yes 1 500 25 T 0.3 

36 Holmes 58.2 Yes 1 200 25 T 0.1 

37 Holmes 59.1 Yes 1 450 25 T 0.3 

38 Holmes 59.6 Yes 1 500 25 T 0.3 

39 Holmes 59.9 Yes 1 350 25 T 0.2 

40 Holmes 60.5 Yes 1 600 25 T 0.3 

41 Holmes 60.8 Yes 1 350 25 T 0.2 

42 Holmes 60.9 Yes 1 200 25 T 0.1 

43 Holmes 61.2 Yes 1, 3 500 25 T 0.3 

44 Holmes 62.8 Yes 1, 3, 4 3,800 25 T 2.2 

45 Holmes 64.5 Yes 1, 2 1,000 25 T 0.6 

47 Holmes 65.6 No 300 25 T 0.2 

47A Holmes 66.1 Yes 1, 4 200 25 P 0.1 

48 Holmes 66.8 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 2,100 25 T 1.2 

49 Holmes 67.0 Yes 1, 3, 4 900 25 T 0.5 

50 Holmes 67.1 Yes 1, 3, 4 500 25 T 0.3 

51 Holmes 67.7 Yes 1, 2, 3 800 25 T 0.5 

52 Holmes 67.9 Yes 1, 2, 3, 1,100 25 T 0.6 

53 Holmes 68.2 Yes 1, 2, 3 1,000 25 T 0.6 

54 Holmes 68.5 Yes 1, 2, 3 1,900 25 T 1.1 

55 Holmes 70.3 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 900 25 T 0.5 

56 Holmes 71.1 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 1,800 25 T 1.0 

57 Holmes 71.7 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 2,300 25 T 1.3 

58 Holmes 72.2 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 400 25 T 0.2 

58A Holmes 73.0 Yes 1, 4 100 25 P 0.1 

59 Holmes 75.1 Yes 1, 3 600 25 T 0.3 

59A Holmes 75.8 Yes 1, 3, 4 2,200 25 P 1.3 

60 Holmes 77.2 Yes 1, 2, 3 2,200 25 P 1.3 

61 Attala 78.1 Yes 1, 2 2,100 25 T 1.2 

62 Attala 78.9 No 700 25 T 0.4 

62A Attala 80.4 Yes 1, 2, 4 600 25 T 0.3 

62B Attala 80.6 Yes 1, 2, 4 3,500 25 T 2.0 

C-129

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-8 

Access Roads 

Road ID 

Number County Milepost (in miles) Modification Modify Type

Length 

(in feet)

Width 

(in feet)

Temporary (T) 

or Permanent 

(P) Land 

Requirement

Temporary or 

Permanent 

Land 

Requirement 

(in acres)

63 Attala 81.6 Yes 1, 3, 4 750 25 T 0.4 

64 Attala 86.2 Yes 1 500 25 T 0.3 

65 Attala 86.7 Yes 1, 2 2,700 25 T 1.5 

66 Attala 89.9 Yes 1, 2 2,100 25 T 1.2 

67 Attala 90.4 Yes 1, 2 800 25 T 0.5 

68 Attala 91.6 Yes 1, 2 4,100 25 T 2.4 

69 Attala 92.6 Yes 1, 2 2,000 25 T 1.1 

Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral 

 Attala N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Kosciusko 20-inch Tie-in Lateral 

 Attala N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

__________ 

Notes: Modification Type 1 - Maintain; 2 - Add gravel/widen; 3 - Construct with gravel/maintain; 4 - Board matting/install culvert 

C-130

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX C-9 

RIPARIAN ZONE DESCRIPTIONS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION 

CORRIDOR OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Fayetteville Lateral Arkansas 

Conway 0.2 SRM001 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 0.3 SRM002 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 1.3 SRM003 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 2.1 srm005 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 2.1 srm006 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 2.1 srm007 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 3.6 srm009 Tributary to Cypress Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 5.0 srm012 Tributary to Cedar Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 5.0 srm012 Tributary to Cedar Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 5.5 srm015 Tributary to Hog Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 5.7 srm016 Hog Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Conway 5.8 srm017 Tributary to Hog Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

Faulkner 7.9 srm014 Cove Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Faulkner 9.3 SCL 002 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 9.6 SCL 005 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 9.9 SCL 007 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 10.0 SCL 009 Tributary to Cove Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 10.9 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 014 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 013 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-131

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Faulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.0 SCL 011 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.2 SCL 016 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.4 SCL 020 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 11.9 SCL 029 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 12.3 SCL 032 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Intermittent) Evergreen forest Faulkner 12.6 SCL 037 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Faulkner 12.8 SCL 038 Batesville Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Faulkner 12.9 DLS S1 Tributary to Batesville Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Faulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 13.8 SCL 052 Tributary to Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 14.0 SCL 053 Cadron Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest Faulkner 14.4 SCL 058 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 14.8 SCL 061 Wolf Branch of Cadron Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 15.3 SCL 066 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 15.6 SCL 068 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 15.8 SCL 070 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 16.0 SCL 072 Tributary to Wolf Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest to south, Evergreen forest to 

north 

Faulkner 17.6 SCL 086 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 17.6 SCL 087 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 17.7 SCL 091 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 17.8 SCL 092 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 17.9 SCL 093 Stillhouse Branch (Perennial) Deciduous forest Faulkner 17.9 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 18.0 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 18.0 SCL 094 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 18.5 SCL 099 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest 

C-132

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Faulkner 18.7 SCL 100 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 19.1 SCL 103 Tributary to Stillhouse Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 20.2 SCL 111 King Branch (Perennial) Deciduous forest Faulkner 20.6 SCL 119 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 20.9 SCL 120 Tributary to King Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 23.1 SCL 132 Tributary to Mortar Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 23.2 SCL 139 Tributary to Mortar Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 23.3 SCL 140 Mortar Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Faulkner 24.3 SCL 145 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 24.6 SCL 147 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Faulkner 24.9 SCL 149 Tributary to Buck Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 26.9 SCL 161 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 27.2 SCL 165 Tributary to Clear Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Faulkner 27.6 SCL 167 Tributary to Brier Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest to west, Mixed forest to 

east 

Faulkner 28.5 SCL 174 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek 

(Perennial) 

Mixed forest 

Faulkner 28.9 SCL 175 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek 

(Intermittent) 

Mixed forest 

White 29.6 SCL 179 Tributary to Piney Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 29.7 SCL 180 Piney Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 30.5 SCL 183 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek 

(Intermittent) 

Evergreen forest 

White 30.7 SCL 185 Tributary to East Fork of Cadron Creek 

(Intermittent) 

Evergreen forest 

White 31.3 SCL 186 Tributary to Jones Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 32.0 SCL 191 Jones Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 32.0 SCL 191 Jones Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 32.4 SCL 194 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 33.0 TDH S2 Tributary to Graham Branch (Perennial) Mixed forest 

C-133

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

White 34.6 SCL 215 Tributary to Graham Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 35.1 SCL 216 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 35.4 SCL 217 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 35.4 SCL 218 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 35.5 SCL 220 Tributary to Brush Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 36.1 SCL 225 Big Hollow Tributary (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 36.4 SCL 227 Big Hollow Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest to west, Evergreen forest to 

east 

White 37.2 SCL 230 Hyde Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 38.1 SCL 234 Tributary to Chaney Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 39.2 SCL 243 Mill Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 39.3 SCL 244 Tributary to Mill Branch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 39.8 SCL 246 Tributary to Mill Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

Cleburne 42.8 SCL 267 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Cleburne 42.8 SCL 258 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Cleburne 43.0 SCL 260 Tributary to Little Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Cleburne 43.5 SCL 263 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Cleburne 43.5 SCL 264 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

White 45.1 SCL 276 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 45.3 acer int st Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 46.1 TDH S7 Big Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest White 47.2 srm041 Tributary to Big Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 48.1 srm039 Brier Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest to west, Evergreen forest 

to east 

White 48.5 srm037 Owl Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 52.3 srm040 Little Red River (Perennial) Deciduous forest White 54.5 srm035 Tributary to Owl Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 55.1 srm035a Tributary to Owl Creek (Intermittent) Evergreen forest White 56.6 srm034 Onion Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 58.9 srm031 Chinquapin Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest 

C-134

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

White 59.4 srm030 Tributary to Lake Bald Knob (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 59.8 srm029 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 60.3 srm028 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 60.5 srm027 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest White 61.0 srm026 Tributary to Overflow Creek (Perennial) Evergreen forest to west, Mixed forest to 

east 

White 61.8 srm033 Overflow Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 62.4 srm032 Big Mingo Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest White 63.2 tdh int st Tributary to Big Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 64.3 srm020 Tributary to Gladey Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 65.2 srm019w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 65.5 srm018w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 65.7 srm017w Tributary to Little Mingo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest White 66.5 srm016w Glaise Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest White 67.9 TDH S3 Departee Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Woodruff 70.3 White R. White River (Perennial) Deciduous forest Woodruff 71.5 TDH S5 Bear Slough (Perennial) Deciduous forest Woodruff 73.4 TDH S4 Taylor Bay (Perennial) Deciduous forest Woodruff 82.4 Cache Rive Cache River (Perennial) Deciduous forest Woodruff 85.9 JAV-S32 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 85.9 JAV-S33 Tributary to Cache River (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 88.3 JAV-S30 Mill Ditch (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 90.4 tdh int st Tributary to Miller Branch (Intermittent) Mixed forest Woodruff 91.7 ag ditch Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 93.4 JAV-S12 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 93.7 JAV-S14 Tributary to Buffalo Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 96.0 Bayou de V Bayou de View (Perennial) Deciduous forest Woodruff 96.0 ag ditch Tributary to Bayou de View (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 100.1 JAV-S5 Caney Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Woodruff 101.7 ag ditch Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest 

C-135

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Woodruff 104.3 tdhs2 Tributary to East Flat Fork Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest 

St. Francis 111.6 Big C 2 Big Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Lee 118.2 jo intSTRM Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Lee 121.3 ag ditch Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Lee 123.6 jr-s3 Tributary to Larkin Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest 

Phillips 139.7 tdh S03 Lick Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest Phillips 140.8 tdh int st Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 141.2 tdh wwc Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 143.7 jo agditch Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 144.7 jo S03 Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 144.7 jo wwc Tributary to Crooked Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 146.0 jo wwc Tributary to Lick Creek (Intermittent) Evergreen forest Phillips 149.5 jo S04 Tributary to Beaver Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 151.5 jo S05 Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 151.6 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 153.0 Long L. Long Lake Bayou (Perennial) Deciduous forest Phillips 153.7 jo agditch Tributary to Long Lake Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Phillips 154.4 int st Tributary to Long Lake (Perennial) Deciduous forest Phillips 157.3 Miss River Mississippi River (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Mississippi 

Coahoma 160.5 tdh agditc Tributary to Moon Lake (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Coahoma 160.7 tdh Strm Phillips Bayou (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Greenville Lateral 

Washington 4.9 ML-D7 Canal to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Washington 6.0 ML-D9B Canal to Black Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Washington 7.1 ML-D12 Canal to Black Bayou (Perennial) Deciduous forest Washington 9.3 ML-D13 Deer Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest Washington 11.2 ML-D15 Bogue Phalia (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

C-136

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

WashingtonHumphreys 20.3 ML-D21 Big Sunflower River (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Humphreys 20.9 ML-D22 Tributary to Big Sunflower River (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 21.1 ML-D23 Canal to Big Sunflower River (Perennial) Deciduous forest Humphreys 26.1 ML-S10 Beasley Bayou (Perennial) Deciduous forest Humphreys 27.6 ML-D26 Tributary to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 29.5 ML-D29 Canal to Jackson Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 31.5 J-D1 Canal to Cold Lake (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 34.0 J-D5 Tributary to Wasp Lake (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 36.7 J-D13 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 37.0 J-D15 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 37.2 J-D17 Canal to Fish Bayou (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Humphreys 40.5 Yazoo Yazoo River (Perennial) Deciduous forest 

Holmes 54.3 Fannegusha Fannegusha Creek (Perennial) Deciduous forest Holmes 54.5 tdh ms ag 

ditch 

Tributary to Fannegusha Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest 

Holmes 54.8 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Blissdale Swamp (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Holmes 55.8 J-D43 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Holmes 56.3 int st Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Holmes 57.1 kp int5 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 57.9 JS1 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 57.9 wwc2 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.0 wwc1 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.3 J-D44 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.5 J-D45 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.5 J-D46 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.6 J-D47 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.9 J-D48 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 58.9 J-D50 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-137

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Holmes 59.6 J-D51 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 60.5 JS2 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 60.6 JWWC-4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 60.9 JS3 Tributary of Black Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 61.1 JS11 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 61.2 JS6 Black Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 61.7 JWWC-11 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 61.8 JWWC-10 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 61.9 WWC-9 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 62.0 JS5 Tributary of Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 62.3 JS4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest to west, Deciduous forest to 

east 

Holmes 62.8 WWC5 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 62.9 WWC4 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 63.4 JWWC-12 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 63.7 int st Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 63.8 jr s1 Tributary to Black Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 65.2 JS7 Gourdvine Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 66.0 WWC15 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.3 JWWC-27 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.4 JWWC-26 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.4 WWC25 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.5 JS9 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.6 JWWC-24 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.7 JWWC-23 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.8 JWWC-21 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 66.8 JWWC-22 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.0 JS8 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.1 JS8 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.4 tdh ms int Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-138

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

stream 

Holmes 67.5 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.6 JWWC-35 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.6 JWWC-36 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 67.7 tdh ms int stream Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 68.0 WWC34 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 68.3 JS10 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 68.6 JWWC32 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 68.7 JWWC31 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 68.9 jr s2 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 69.3 jr s3 Tarrey Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Holmes 70.8 jr int4 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 70.9 Trib. to 

Tarrey 

Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

Holmes 71.1 strm9b Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 71.2 strm9a Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 71.4 tdh-wwc13 Tributary to Tarrey Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 71.7 tdh stream 3 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 71.8 tdhditch2 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 71.9 tdh wwc 12 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 72.0 tdhwwc11 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 72.5 tdh wwc 10 Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 72.9 tdh wwc9 Tributary to Box Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 73.2 tdh wwc8 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 73.3 tdh-wwc8 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 73.4 strm7 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 73.8 tdh stream 2 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 73.9 tdh-stream 1 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-139

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Holmes 73.9 tdhwwc 7 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 74.0 tdh int 5 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 74.3 tdh wwc6 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 74.7 tdh stream 1 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 75.0 tdh int stream 4 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 75.5 jr int6 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 76.1 tdh int st Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Holmes 76.2 Trib. 2 Big 

Black 

Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

Holmes 77.7 Big Black Big Black River (Perennial) Deciduous forest Holmes 77.9 tdh ms s1 Tributary to Big Black River (Perennial) Mixed forest 

Attala 78.4 tdh wwc 15 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 78.5 tdh wwc 14 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 79.1 tdh int stream 3 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 79.2 tdh int stream 2 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 79.5 tdh wwc3 Tributary to Big Black River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 80.1 tdh wwc2 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 80.7 tdh int stream 1' Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 82.4 KWWC-42 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 82.4 KWWC-41 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 82.5 KWWC-40 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 82.6 KWWC-38 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 82.6 KWWC-39 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 82.8 KWWC-37 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 83.0 KWWC-36 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 83.6 KWWC-35 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 83.7 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-140

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Attala 83.8 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 83.9 KS7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 84.0 KWWC-31 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 84.0 KWWC-32 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 84.0 KWWC-33 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 84.6 Kditch10 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 84.8 Kditch9 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 84.9 KS6 Station 

1 

Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest 

Attala 85.7 KS6 Station 

2 

Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest 

Attala 85.9 Kditch8 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 86.3 KS5 Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 86.9 KWWC-30 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 87.3 KS4 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 87.8 jr int7 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 87.8 jr s4 Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 87.9 jr s5 Tributary to Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 88.3 jr int9 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 88.7 jr int10 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 89.1 jr s6 Tributary to Long Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 90.1 jrint1 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Deciduous forest Attala 90.1 Trib. 4 Long 

C 

Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest to west, Deciduous forest to 

east 

Attala 90.6 ditch Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 91.3 jrint2 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 91.8 jrint3 Tributary to Long Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 92.7 jrint4 Tributary to Yockanookany River (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 93.1 jrs7 Yockanookany River (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 93.7 tdh ms int s1 Tributary to Yockanookany River (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

C-141

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Table C-9 Riparian Zone Descriptions Within the Construction Corridor of the Proposed Pipelin

County Milepost Stream ID Waterbody Name and Type b/ Riparian Zone Description 

Attala 95.0 int st Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 95.1 Conehoma Conehoma Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest Attala 96.0 kp int1 Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest 

Kosciusko 36” Pipeline 

Attala 0.3 kp int1 Tributary to Conehoma Creek (Intermittent) Mixed forest Attala 0.7 Little Cone. Creek Little Conehoma Creek (Perennial) Mixed forest 

Kosciusko/Southern Natural 20” Pipeline 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

a/ Based on field and desktop analyses of proposed pipeline route with 2006 aerial photographs, 2001 National Land Cover Definitions and 199

b/ Intermittent and Perennial designations determined by site reconnaissance and USGS name. 

c/ HDD = horizontal directional drill, OCM = open cut method 

d/ Riparian zones crossed by HDD will not be impacted 

C-142

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX D 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE 

PLAN

AND

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS AND STORM 

WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS 

FOR ARKANSAS AND MISSISSIPPI

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX D-1 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

COUNTERMEASURE PLAN

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-1

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-2

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-3

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-4

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-5

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-6

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-7

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-8

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-9

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-10

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-1-11

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX D-2 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 

 AND STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 

FOR ARKANSAS 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-1

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-2

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-3

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-4

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-5

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-6

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-7

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-8

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-9

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-10

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-11

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-12

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-13

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-14

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-15

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-16

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-17

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-18

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-19

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-20

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-21

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-22

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-23

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-24

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-25

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-26

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-27

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-28

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-29

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-30

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-31

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-32

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-33

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-34

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-35

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-36

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-37

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-38

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-39

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-40

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-41

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-42

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-43

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-44

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-45

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-46

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-47

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-48

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-49

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-50

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-51

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-52

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-53

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-54

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-55

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-56

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-57

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-58

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-59

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-60

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-61

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-62

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-63

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-64

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-65

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-66

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-67

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-68

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-69

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-70

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-71

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-72

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-73

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-74

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-2-75

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX D-3 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 

 AND STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 

FOR MISSISSIPPI 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-1

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-2

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-3

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-4

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-5

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-6

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-7

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-8

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-9

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-10

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-11

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-12

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-13

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-14

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-15

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-16

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-17

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-18

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-19

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-20

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-21

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-22

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-23

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-24

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-25

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-26

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-27

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-28

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-29

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-30

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-31

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-32

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-33

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-34

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-35

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-36

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-37

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-38

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-39

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-40

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-41

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-42

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-43

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-44

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-45

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-46

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-47

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-48

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-49

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-50

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-51

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-52

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-53

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-54

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-55

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-56

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-57

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-58

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-59

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-60

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-61

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-62

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-63

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-64

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-65

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-66

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-67

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-68

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-69

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-70

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-71

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-72

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-73

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-74

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-75

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-76

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-77

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-78

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-79

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-80

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-81

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-82

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-83

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-84

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-85

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-86

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-87

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-88

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-89

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-90

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-91

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-92

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-93

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-94

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-95

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-96

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-97

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-98

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-99

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-100

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-101

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-102

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-103

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-104

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-105

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-106

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-107

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-108

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-109

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-110

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-111

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-112

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-113

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-114

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-115

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-116

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-117

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-118

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-119

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-120

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-121

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-122

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-123

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-124

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-125

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-126

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
D-3-127

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX E 

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
E-1

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
E-2

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
E-3

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX F 

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-1 

1.0 NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This appendix was developed to address the proposed 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway) by Texas Gas Transmission, LLC’s (Texas 

Gas) proposed Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion Project (Project). Although this appendix 

incorporates by reference other sections within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), our 

intent was to consolidate the most pertinent information relevant to the Parkway in this appendix, 

including an overview of the alternatives considered. The Parkway is managed by the National 

Park Service (NPS), which requires a distinct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

evaluation before deciding whether to allow the proposed crossing. In order for the Project to 

cross Parkway property, the NPS would have to grant a right-of-way and issue an easement. It is 

anticipated that the information and analyses included in this appendix and the EIS would address 

NPS’s NEPA requirements. 

The Parkway is a 444-mile roadway system that connects southern portions of the Mississippi 

River, through Alabama, to central Tennessee (NPS 2006). Recreational opportunities associated 

with the parkway include scenic driving, hiking, biking, horseback riding, and camping. The 

Parkway was authorized by Congress in 1938 and commemorates the historic Old Natchez Trace. 

The Old Natchez Trace was historically used for centuries by Native Americans, traders, military 

personnel, and early settlers as a pathway connecting the mid-South with the lower Mississippi 

River. The Congressionally designated purpose of the Parkway is to provide and maintain a 

scenic and recreational roadway. The Parkway also is designated as a National Scenic Byway and 

All-American Road due to the presence of significant archeological, cultural, historic, natural, 

recreational, and scenic qualities. 

The proposed Greenville Lateral is the segment of the project that would cross the Parkway. It is 

an approximately 96.4 mile-long pipeline extending from the existing Texas Gas existing 

Greenville Compression Station in Greenville, Mississippi through Washington, Sunflower, 

Humphreys, and Holmes Counties, Mississippi, to an interconnection with a Boardwalk Pipeline 

subsidiary, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), in Attala County, Mississippi. The 

Greenville Lateral would cross the Parkway at Parkway milepost (MP) 157 between pipeline MP 

92.8 and MP 93.0 in Attala County, Mississippi (see figure G-1). Alternatives were evaluated for 

crossing the Parkway and a preferred crossing was chosen in consultation with the NPS where no 

developed recreational or service features would be within 0.25 mile of the pipeline corridor. 

Additionally, the alignment of the Greenville Lateral and ultimately the location where the 

Parkway would be crossed was determined by the location of the existing Greenville Compressor 

Station which is on a Texas Gas mainline, and the proposed pipeline terminus near Kosciusko, 

Mississippi. The generally east-west trending proposed route for the Greenville Lateral between 

these end points would minimize the overall length of the pipeline, thereby reducing potential 

environmental impacts and costs. 

1.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The primary purpose of the Project is specified in detail in section 1.1 of the EIS. In general, the 

need is to meet the transportation needs of producers of natural gas from the Fayetteville Shale 

production area in north-central Arkansas, a region that currently lacks the pipeline infrastructure 

and capacity to transport this new natural gas supply, to markets in the mid-western, northeastern, 

and southeastern U.S., by creating new interstate transportation capacity and interconnection to 

existing intrastate and interstate pipeline systems. Specifically with respect to the Parkway, any 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-2 

interstate natural gas pipeline that would extend in an east to west fashion through Mississippi 

would likely encounter the Parkway, which extends diagonally across most of the State in a 

southwest to northeast direction. Therefore, it would be difficult or impossible to completely 

avoid crossing the Parkway. 

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Texas Gas proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain two pipeline laterals and associated 

facilities in Arkansas and Mississippi. The Project would be constructed in two phases during an 

8-month-long construction season in 2008. Phase I would consist of the western-most 66 miles of 

the Fayetteville Lateral, from Conway County to Bald Knob, Arkansas. Phase II would include: 

construction of the remaining 100 miles of the Fayetteville Lateral from White County, Arkansas, 

to the interconnect with Texas Gas’s mainline in Coahoma County, Mississippi; the entire 

Greenville Lateral, including the Kosciusko 36-inch Tie-in Lateral and the Kosciusko 20-inch 

Tie-in Lateral; and the Kosciusko Compressor Station. 

The proposed crossing of the Parkway would be near Parkway MP 157. Parkway MPs begin at 0 

near Natchez, Mississippi; increase sequentially as the roadway proceeds generally to the 

northeast; and end at MP 444 near Nashville, Tennessee. The crossing location would be along 

the proposed Greenville Lateral between pipeline MP 92.8 and MP 93.0. The proposed Greenville 

Lateral would approach the Parkway boundary from the west through actively cultivated 

agricultural land. It would be installed across NPS-managed land by using horizontal directional 

drill (HDD) methods. The proposed HDD would be about 4,850 feet in length and would avoid 

direct impact to the Parkway and Yockanookany River and forested areas within its floodplain. 

The entry and exit drill holes would be on private land with agricultural land use. 

The proposed route would to follow an existing electric transmission line right-of-way thereby 

minimizing the amount of tree trimming that would be required, and it would also be the shortest 

route across forest land. It would also maximize the use of agricultural areas for the entry and 

exit points of the HDD crossing. The drill hole for the HDD on the west side of the crossing 

would be about 500 feet from the Parkway roadbed. The exit hole for the HDD on the east side of 

the crossing would be almost 4,000 feet from the Parkway roadbed. 

If an HDD was not used to cross the Parkway, Texas Gas would need to clear a construction 

right-of-way to the shoulder of the Parkway and install the pipeline beneath the Parkway using a 

bored crossing method of construction. A 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would 

permanently convert the forest land use to open land use along the pipeline corridor. Due to 

potential visual impacts to the Parkway this crossing method would create, it was not considered 

a viable option. Based on the distance from the Parkway, and the use of existing agricultural 

lands for workspaces to accommodate the equipment needed for the HDD, we believe there 

would be no significant impacts to visual resources as a result of the construction of this 

alignment by HDD during construction or operation of the Project. 

Most of the proposed construction activities would not occur on NPS-managed lands. Existing 

trees would visually screen the construction workspaces from the Parkway and Highway 14. 

Since the HDD method involves installation of the pipeline by drilling beneath a waterbody or 

land surface, there would be minimal land disturbance along the path of the HDD; only small 

areas along the edges of the 150-foot-wide construction right-of-way would be disturbed for 

placement of the electric grid guide wires used to guide the drill and for the civil survey. 

Therefore, minimal clearing of woody vegetation for the placement of tracker wires for the HDD 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-3 

crossing and the civil survey would be needed. Although these activities may require removal of 

a few low-hanging tree limbs to establish line-of-sight, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

1.4 SCOPING 

The level of scoping, as well as agency and public involvement, is describes in detail in section 

1.4 of the EIS. In specific regard to the Parkway, the NPS agreed to be a cooperating federal 

agency in the development of the EIS. NPS was consulted about its concerns about Project. 

Texas Gas representatives also communicated with the NPS staff to develop the proposed route. 

The NPS representatives expressed a preference for the proposed crossing location and that the 

HDD method be used to cross the Parkway. 

1.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We considered several route variations in conjunction with the crossing of the Parkway. 

Consultation with the NPS indicated a need to avoid potentially significant impacts to the 

viewshed at this crossing, which largely eliminated the feasibility of a conventional bore of the 

Parkway. Some route variations suggested by the NPS were not considered viable because of 

significant construction feasibility limitations and because they would have resulted in 

unacceptable environmental impacts associated with existing soil contamination. 

Three alternatives, in addition to the proposed route (preferred route), were considered in relation 

to the proposed Project: the No Action Alternative, the Postponed Action Alternative and 

Greenville Lateral - Alternative C. 

1.5.1 No-Action or Postponed-Action Alternative 

If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) denies the proposal (i.e., 

selects the No-Action Alternative), or if the NPS denied the proposed crossing of the Parkway, 

the proposed Project would not be constructed (see section 3.1 of the EIS). Selection of the NoAction Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the proposed Project; thus, specific 

shipper needs would not be met. No additional transportation capacity would be provided for the 

substantial volumes of newly produced natural gas in north-central Arkansas, which would 

potentially prevent the production of additional gas supplies from these fields. On a broader 

scale, implementation of this alternative would not meet the national goal of increasing the 

production of stable and reliable natural gas supplies in the U.S. (The White House National 

Economic Council, February 2006). If adequate natural gas supplies are not available in the U.S., 

consumers would need to seek other sources of fuel, many of which are potentially more costly 

and could result in greater environmental impacts associated with combustion of other fuels. 

Natural gas shortages also would be possible, since natural gas demand in the U.S. is expected to 

continue to grow, while U.S. production is expected to continue to decline. Analysis by the 

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) indicates that, in the 

lower 48 states, demand is expected to exceed supply by about 8 trillion cubic feet by 2010 

(DOE/EIA, 2005). 

If the No-Action Alternative is selected, the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 

Project would be avoided. However, if this Project is not implemented, other projects and 

activities would be needed, and these projects would result in their own environmental impacts. 

In addition, the beneficial impacts of implementing the proposed Project would not occur, 

including increased employment, income, and tax revenues. The No-Action Alternative was 

rejected for these reasons. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-4 

A delay in approval (the Postponed-Action Alternative) would only defer any constructionrelated environmental impacts to the future. Other gas transportation projects would still be 

required to meet the demand for natural gas and to transport the new Fayetteville Shale natural 

gas production. Reduction in available supply could result in higher natural gas prices, 

potentially causing switching to less environmentally benign sources of fuel or the curtailment of 

economic growth. Delay in approval would not meet the stated purpose of the Project to develop 

an interstate transportation infrastructure for natural gas from north-central Arkansas to consumer 

markets served by intrastate and interstate pipelines. 

1.5.2 Preferred Route 

The preferred route for crossing the Parkway is identified in figure G-1 and is the proposed route 

Texas Gas filed in its certificate application with the FERC. While slightly longer than the 

alternative route evaluated below, this alignment would parallel an existing electric transmission 

line right-of-way and provides the opportunity to establish workspaces for the HDD drill holes 

within agricultural land. On a larger scale, the alignment of the Greenville Lateral, and to a 

smaller degree the crossing the Parkway, were determined by the location of the existing 

Greenville Compressor Station along the Texas Gas mainline where the proposed Greenville 

Lateral would originate and the proposed terminus near Kosciusko. The east-west alignment of 

the Greenville Lateral between these end points would minimize the overall length of the 

pipeline, thereby reducing potential environmental impacts and costs. 

1.5.3 Greenville Lateral – Alternative C

One route alternative at the eastern end of the Greenville Lateral was evaluated. This 8.3-milelong route alternative would deviate from the proposed Greenville Lateral at MP 87.6 and would 

terminate at an interconnect southwest of the proposed Kosciusko Compressor Station. 

Alternative C would require an estimated 6,000-foot-long HDD crossing of the Parkway and the 

Yockanookany River channel, and would impact higher quality forested wetland in the 

Yockanookany River floodplain than the proposed route. Because the HDD route for Alternative 

C would be through a forested area, this alternative would require an extensive amount of forest 

clearing to accommodate the HDD pull string. The preferred route for crossing the Parkway and 

the Yockanookany River channel would be shorter (about 4,850 feet) and would allow these 

resources to be crossed by the HDD, and the HDD staging areas would be established mostly in 

cleared pasture. 

Existing trees would visually screen construction activities and the permanent right-of-way from 

view along the Parkway and Highway 14; therefore, no significant impacts on visual resources 

would occur as a result of construction of the preferred route. The only activities on NPS lands 

would be a civil survey across the area along the path of the HDD to mark the centerline and the 

edges of the construction right-of-way, and the placement of two drag tracker wires for the HDD 

along the edges of the construction right-of-way. Although these activities may require the 

removal of a few low-hanging tree limbs, no significant impacts would be anticipated. The entry 

hole for the HDD on the west side of the crossing would be about 500 feet from the road. The 

exit hole for the HDD on the east side of the crossing would be almost 4,000 feet from the road 

and east of the Yockanookany River. Use of the HDD crossing technique would reduce impacts 

on the Parkway, the Yockanookany River and associated wetlands, and forests compared to the 

use of an open-cut technique since no clearing would be required along the path of the HDD. 

 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-5 

Based on the protection of the visual resources associated with the Parkway and reduced 

environmental impacts associated with the HDD of the Parkway and the Yockanookany River, 

we believe that the proposed route offers significant environmental benefits over Alternative C. 

We conclude that the proposed route is the preferred route. 

1.6 AFFECTED RESOURCES, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 

This section of describes the resources that would be affected by the proposed crossing of the 

Parkway, as well as affected resources in adjacent areas. 

1.6.1 Soils 

The soils at the proposed crossing of the Parkway are comprised of the Smithdale-ProvidenceCollins soil association and are best described as a silty loam. These soils typically have low 

erosion potential, are not hydric, have good revegetation potential, and usually are not subject to 

soil compaction. The drainage characteristics of these soils range from moderately well drained to 

well drained. Because Texas Gas would use an HDD to cross the Parkway, no soils within the 

NPS-managed Parkway would be disturbed since the surface disturbance would be avoided along 

the path of the proposed HDD. The workspaces and drill holes for the HDD would be on private 

land beyond the Parkway. Texas Gas would implement its HDD Contingency Plan to further 

minimize potential impacts during construction of the HDD across the Parkway. To minimize 

potential impacts due to construction and operation of the Project, Texas Gas would also 

implement the measures described in its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to 

address handling hazardous materials and to address instances where there are spills; its Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan; our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan; and our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures. Use of the preferred alternative is not expected to result in an impairment to soil 

resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.2 Water Resources and Wetlands 

Significant wetland areas, including forested wetland, associated with the Yockanookany River 

occur east of the Parkway. The proposed HDD crossing method would also avoid significant 

impacts to these wetlands and the Yockanookany River. Use of the preferred alternative is not 

expected to result in an impairment to wetland or water resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Vegetation types occurring within the Parkway boundary that could be affected by the proposed 

Project include maintained grass adjacent to the roadway, scattered forested land, and some 

agricultural areas. By establishing the workspaces for the HDD entry and exit holes outside the 

limits of the NPS-managed Parkway, impacts to vegetation would be largely avoided. 

Construction activities may require removal of a few low-hanging tree limbs to place the guide 

wires and to conduct civil surveys for the HDD crossing, but no significant clearing would occur. 

The wildlife species present in the vicinity of the proposed Parkway crossing would be typical of 

the modified edge habitats. These species are relatively tolerant of human activity. Impacts to 

habitat resulting from the proposed crossing of the Parkway would be temporary or short-term, 

and relatively minor overall. Increased activity associated with the HDD crossing could result in 

some short-term displacement of wildlife since wildlife may avoid areas where there would be 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-6 

human and construction-related activity and noise; but these communities would be expected to 

quickly reestablish following completion of construction. 

No federally protected species of concern have been identified in proximity to the Parkway, and 

based on the existing land uses; none would be expected to occur where the proposed Project 

would cross the Parkway. Implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to result in 

an impairment to vegetation and wildlife resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.4 Roads and Transportation 

The Parkway and Highway 14 are both paved two-lane roads that provide access and 

transportation routes to local residents. Commercial traffic is prohibited on the Parkway, and the 

speed limit is 50 miles per hour. The Parkway is used for sightseeing and tourism given its status, 

associated historic attractions, and views. 

The proposed pipeline crossing would not affect traffic flow along the Parkway. The pipeline 

installation would be accomplished by HDD beneath the Parkway, with no need for road closure 

or construction activity on the road surface or adjacent side slopes. Other than survey vehicles, no 

Project use of the Parkway would be anticipated based on the prohibition of commercial traffic. 

Impacts to traffic flow along Highway 14 would be relatively minor and temporary. Although the 

level of traffic on Highway 14 would be minimal due to the rural nature of the area, Texas Gas 

would utilize flagmen, as necessary to manage traffic flow and to provide safe travel during 

construction. We believe that based on the lack of impacts on the Parkway and the temporary and 

relatively minor impacts to surrounding local roads, no significant impacts to transportation 

would occur as a result of construction of the proposed Project. Implementation of the preferred 

alternative is not expected to result in an impairment to roads or transportation resources of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway. 

1.6.7 Visual Resources 

The primary visual resources associated with the proposed Parkway crossing include those areas 

and objects visible to motorists using the Parkway. These areas include the roadway itself, the 

grassy side slopes immediately adjacent to the roadway, agricultural fields located near the 

Parkway, and small scattered forested areas. Secondary visual resources, which include views of 

the Parkway and its associated property from Highway 14 or other adjacent areas, are virtually 

identical to the primary resources identified. 

The proposed Project pipeline would be a narrow linear feature that would primarily be 

constructed below ground using the HDD method, which would not require any physical 

disturbance to the Parkway or side slopes. Also, equipment, supplies, and personnel would not be 

positioned in the immediate vicinity of the Parkway. Therefore, visual impact on the Parkway is 

considered negligible. Texas Gas would establish a workspace for the HDD drill about 500 feet 

west of the Parkway. This workspace would be in an agricultural field and screened from the 

Parkway by scattered forest land. Direct line of sight to construction related activities could 

potentially occur, but this impact would be of short term duration and seen from only an isolated 

perspective on the Parkway. Following completion of the HDD crossing, no visual remnants of 

construction would likely be visible from the Parkway. By using agricultural lands for the HDD 

workspaces, there would be no long term alternation of visual resources from the Parkway. 

Therefore, we believe that given the nature of the resources present, and the largely temporary 

nature of the impacts anticipated, implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to 

result in an impairment to visual resources of the Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-7 

1.6.8 Noise 

The existing noise environment at the proposed crossing location reflects the predominately rural 

landscape. The agricultural areas near the Parkway support wildlife capable of making noise in a 

natural setting, such as birds and insects. Human influence such as farming activity would also 

result in periodic noise associated with operation of tractors, other equipment, and light trucks. 

Vehicular traffic on the Parkway and Highway 14 would also result in intermittent noise, 

although traffic volume in this rural area is light to moderate and commercial traffic is prohibited 

on the Parkway. The proposed crossing would result in construction noise during daylight hours 

for a limited time period and would mainly be associated with completing the HDD. This noise 

would result from operation of heavy equipment, some minor increase in traffic volume on local 

roads, and the presence of personnel at the site. However, this increase in noise would be 

temporary and extremely localized. It could be noticeable to motorists using the Parkway for a 

short duration, estimated at approximately 1 minute or less, assuming that the vehicle passed the 

site at the speed limit of 50 miles per hour. Given the temporary, minor, and transient nature of 

the impacts anticipated, we believe that implementation of the preferred alternative is not 

expected to result in an impairment to noise resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.9 Cultural Resources 

The Parkway has been found to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP in its entirety as “a 

designed cultural landscape” and is in the process of being nominated to the NRHP (NPS 2006i, 

Goodwin and Bergman, 2007). The Old Natchez Trace was historically used first by Native 

Americans, and then by traders and early settlers. The Old Natchez Trace provided an early and 

valuable transportation route connecting the lower Mississippi River and Gulf Coast to areas 

located well inland as far north as Tennessee. No cultural resources were identified within that 

portion of the project area that would cross the Parkway or at the proposed HDD workspaces 

(Goodwin and Bergman, 2007). The NPS accepted this finding without comment (Keel, 2007b). 

Therefore, implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to result in an impairment 

to cultural resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.10 Air Quality 

The primary air quality impacts for the Project will be from equipment located at the proposed 

Kosciusko Compressor Station on the Greenville Lateral in Attala County, Mississippi. The 

Compressor Station would be about 3 miles east of the Parkway at Greenville Lateral MP 96.4. 

The air quality impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project pipeline and 

aboveground facilities in the vicinity of the Parkway would be minimal. Therefore, 

implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to result in an impairment to air 

quality resources of the Parkway. 

1.6.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impact results when impacts associated with a proposed project are superimposed on, 

or added to, impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects 

within the area affected by the proposed project. Although the individual impacts of the separate 

projects may be minor, the effects from the projects taken together could be significant. The 

Fayetteville Lateral portion of the Project would end in western Mississippi, several counties 

away from the Parkway and would not cross it. Another pending major natural gas pipeline 

project, Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC’s East End Expansion Project (FERC Docket Number 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
F-8 

PF06-34), would be constructed near the Fayetteville Lateral. The East End Expansion Project 

would terminate in western Mississippi far from the Parkway and would not cross it. 

Four other gas (three natural gas and one carbon dioxide) pipeline projects would cross the 

Parkway and are either are pending or under construction. All of these projects would be north of 

the proposed Greenville Lateral crossing of the Parkway at Parkway MP 157. The Denbury 

Carbon Dioxide Pipeline will cross it at Parkway MP 117. The East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project (FERC Docket Number CP06-446-000) was approved by the FERC on June 

18, 2007, is currently under construction, and will cross the Parkway at Parkway Milepost 73. 

The Southeast Supply Header Project (FERC Docket Number CP07-44-000) was approved by the 

FERC on September 20, 2007. It will cross the Parkway at Parkway MP 49. Lastly, an EIS is 

being prepared for the Midcontinent Express Pipeline Project (FERC Docket Number CP08-6-

000). That project would cross the Parkway at MP 80.5. 

Since the closest of these projects would be about 40 miles from the Greenville Lateral. No other 

major projects in the vicinity of the Greenville Lateral or that would cross the Parkway, have 

been identified, therefore we anticipate no significant cumulative impacts to the Parkway. 

1.6.12 Conclusion 

Based on our review of the selected route and crossing location, the resources present, potential 

impacts including cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures, we conclude that construction 

and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the Natchez Trace 

Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE/GREENVILLE 

EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-417-000 

 PF07-2-000 

Appendix F 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

Page F-9 

Figure F-1 

Greenville Lateral Project Area, 

Proposed Route and Alternative Route 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX G 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
G-1 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Kerrigan, Jennifer – Project Manager, Alternatives, Land Use, Geology 

M.S., Geology, 1979. West Virginia University 

B.S., Geology, 1975. Marietta College 

Manco, Magdalene – Air and Noise Analysis, Safety 

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004. Pennsylvania State University 

Peconom, John – Water Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

B.S., Biology and Management, 2000. University of California at Davis 

Boros, Laurie – Cultural Resources 

B.A., Anthropology, Archeology, 1980. Queens College, City University of New 

York

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

Michael Donnelly - Project Manager: Proposed Action 

 M.E.M., Environmental Management, 1988. Duke University 

 B.S., Applied Biology, 1987. Xavier University 

David Weeks - Deputy Project Manager: Proposed Action, Alternatives, Reliability and 

Safety 

M.S., Forestry, 1980. University of Massachusetts 

B.S., Resources Management, 1975. State University of New York College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse 

Kane, Michael - Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

M.U.P., Urban Planning, 1995. State University of New York at Buffalo 

B.A., Urban and Public Policy Studies, 1992. State University of New York at Buffalo 

Moore, Kari – Vegetation, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources, Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

M.S., Environmental Science, 1992. State University of New York College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse 

B.S., Environmental Sciences, 1991. Hartwick College 

Parsons, Amy – Water Resources, Wetlands 

M.S., Environmental Management, 2004. University of Maryland University College 

B.S., Environmental Resource Management, 1998. Pennsylvania State University 

Snyder, Natasha – Cultural Resources 

B.A., Anthropology/Environmental Science, 1997. State University of New York at 

Buffalo 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
G-2 

Bochenek, Ronald – Socioeconomics 

M.U.P., Urban Planning, 2005. State University of New York at Buffalo 

B.A., Political Science, 2001. State University of New York at Buffalo 

Siener, Thomas - Noise 

B.S., Biology, 1971. Purdue University 

Vasil, William – Air Quality 

M.S., Meteorology, 1988. Rutgers University 

B.S., Psychology, 1972. St. Peter’s College 

Werth, Marcy – Geology 

B.S., Environmental and Natural Resource Policy Studies, 1995. Michigan State 

University 

Sander, John – Technical Editor 

B.A., History, 1977. State University of New York at Buffalo 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
APPENDIX H 

REFERENCES

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-1 

 References 

Adams, Frank. 2007. Telephone conversation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi (601-965-5424). June 20, 2007. 

Algermissen, S.T. et al. 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, D.C. 98 pp 

plus map. 

Anderson, J.E. 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2002. Arkansas Extraordinary 

Resource Stream Designations Classified by Geographic Region. 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/pdfs/wqs_extraordinary_resource_str

eam_designations_011001.pdf

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2006. Arkansas Reviews: Water 

Quality Standards. A guide to ADEQ Water Quality Protection. 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/pdfs/wqs_guide_adeq_water_protecti

on_020604.pdf

Arkansas Department of Workforce Services (ADWS). 2007. Labor Market Information, Local 

Area Profile: March 2007. 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2007. Wildlife and Conservation page, available 

online at: http://www.agfc.com/wildlife-conservation/default.aspx. Accessed September 

2007. 

Arkansas Geological Commission (AGC). 2001. Arkansas Mineral Resources Map. Available 

online at: http://www.state.ar.us/agc/arminmap.pdf. 

Arkansas Hospital Association. http://www.arkhospitals.org/. Accessed March 23, 2007. 

Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team (MAWPT). 2007. Wetlands in Arkansas. 

Available online at: www.mawpt.org/wetlands/. Accessed 9/11/07. 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2007a. Natural Areas. Cache River Natural 

Area (58). Available online at: www.naturalheritage.com/areas/detail.asp?map_num=58. 

Accessed on September 17, 2007. 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) 2007b. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Page, 

available at: http://www.naturalheritage.com/resources/education/bottomland/, last 

accessed August 2007. 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2007c. Rare Species of Arkansas page, 

available online at: http://www.naturalheritage.com/program/rare-species/. Accessed 

August 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-2 

Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC). 2007. Oil and Gas well data download, 

http://www.aogc.state.ar.us. 

Arkansas Parks and Tourism. 2007. Arkansas Rivers page, available at: 

http://www.arkansas.com/lakes-rivers/rivers_intro.asp. Accessed October 20, 2007. 

Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC). 2006. Regulation No. 2, 

Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of 

Arkansas. Amended April 28, 2006. 

Audubon. 2007. Cache-Lower White Rivers Important Bird Area page available online at: 

http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=1979&navSite=state. Accessed 

August 2007. 

Bozeman, Decunda. 2007. USDA NRCS, Jackson, Mississippi, telephone conversation with 

David Weeks, Ecology and Environment, Inc., October 2007. 

Bradford, Stephanie. 2007. Woodruff County Agricultural Extension, personal communication 

with Mike Kane, Ecology and Environment, Inc., October 5, 2007. 

Capitol Impact. 2007. http://www.capitolimpact.com. Accessed February 21, 2007. Does not 

include special law enforcement units for universities, volunteer, district, city, and town 

fire departments. 

Connecticut Siting Council (CSC). 2004. Review of Connecticut Electric Utilities Ten-Year 

Forecasts of Load and Resources. 

Cowardin, et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131pp. 

Delta Farm Press. 2007. Arkansas to restore wetlands for wildlife. February 8, 2007. Available 

on line at: www.deltafarmpress.com/news/070208-wetlands-wildlife/index.html. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2006. Declared Disasters Areas by Date, 

State and County. Available online at: 

http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema. 

Gibson. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Godt, J.W. 2001. Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility in the Conterminous United States: 

USGS Open-File Report 97-289, USGS, Reston, Virginia. Available online at: 

http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html. February, 2001. 

Google Maps. 2007. http://maps.google.com/maps. Accessed March 22, 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-3 

Haag, Crista and Christopher Bergman. 2007. Phase I Survey of the 157 Mile 

Fayetteville/Greenville Lateral Expansion Project in Conway, Faulkner, Cleburne, 

White, Woodruff, St. Francis, Lee, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas (AHPP Tracking No. 

61583). Prepared by URS Corporation, Cincinnati Ohio. Prepared for Texas Gas 

Transmission, LLC, Ownsboro, Kentucky. 

Haley, Boyd, R. 1993. Geologic Map of Arkansas. Arkansas Geological Commission and the 

USGS, Reston, Virginia. Revised. 

Haller, K., R. Dart, and S. Rhea. 2005. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: 

National Atlas of the United States, USGS, Reston, Virginia, January 2005. 

Hargan, Mitzi. 2007. White River Planning and Development District, personal communication, 

email correspondence with Rachel Smith, Planner, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 

October, 5, 2007. 

Hart, Tommy. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Holmes, C.C. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Hotels Travel. 2007. http://www.hotelstravel.com. Accessed February 22, 2007. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEC). 2004. Economic Profile of the Lower Mississippi River Region. 

IEC, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). 2004. An Updated Assessment of 

Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure for the North American Gas Market: Adverse 

Consequences of Delays in the Construction of Natural Gas Infrastructure. INGAA 

Foundation. 

Johnson, Delaney. 2007. Telephone conversation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi (601-965-4311). June 20, 2007. 

Jones, D.J., et al. 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. 

Keasler, Jim. 2007. County Judge, Lee County. Personal communication with URS Corporation 

regarding planned development. August 31, 2007. 

Loveall, Landon 2007. Telephone conversation on September 11, 2007, between Landon Loveall 

(Refuge Manager, Hillside National Wildlife Refuge, FWS) and Kari Moore (Ecology 

and Environment, Inc.). 

McFarland, J.D. 1998. Stratigraphic Summary of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission, 

Little Rock Arkansas. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-4 

Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES). 2006. Labor Market Information, 

Unemployment Rates, Labor Market Data: December 2006. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004. The Mineral Industry of 

Mississippi. Office of Geology/USGS. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2006. Mississippi 2006 Section 

303(D) List of Impaired Water Bodies. 

http://www.mdeq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/TWB_2006_303d_List_draft_April_1_06. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2007. Phone conversation between 

Crawford (MDEQ) and Texas Gas on June 20-21, 2007. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP). 2005. Mississippi’s 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 2005- 2015, Version 1.1. Mississippi 

Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP). 2006. Conservation and 

Management of Black Bears in Mississippi. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 

MDWFP, Jackson, Mississippi. 

Mississippi Hospital Association. 2007. http://mhanet.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1. 

Accessed February 21, 2007. 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Natural Heritage Program (MSNHP). 2006. Letter dated 

October 19, 2006, from Matthew Hicks (MSNHP, Jackson, MS) to Allan Hale (URS 

Corp.). 

Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB). 2007. Oil and Gas well data download, available 

online at: http://www.ogb.state.ms.us.

Moore, W.H. 1969. Geologic Map of Mississippi. Mississippi Geological Survey and the USGS, 

Reston Virginia. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Coastal Services Center. 

2007. Historical Hurricane Tracks. Available online at: 

http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.html

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. Nationwide Rivers Inventory – Eligibility Descriptions. 

Available online at: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/eligb.html Accessed 

February 26, 2007. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Available online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/. Accessed September 20, 2007. 

National Science Foundation (NSF). 2007. The Paleontology Portal. Available online at: 

http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space§ionnav=map. 

NatureServe 2007. NatureServe Explorer, available online at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. Accessed August 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-5 

New York State Energy research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 1999. Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resource Development Potential in New York State. 

Osborne, Cindy. 2007. Telephone conversation on September 11, 2007, between Cindy Osborne 

(Data Manager/Environmental Review Coordinator, ANHC) and Kari Moore (Ecology 

and Environment, Inc.). 

Ramsar. 2007. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Available online at: www.ramsar.org. 

Accessed September 11, 2007. 

Renken, R.A. 1998. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 5: Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi. USGS. 

Scroggin. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Simmons. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Smith, Daniel. 2007. Communication between Daniel Smith, Arkansas Department of Health and 

Human Services (ADHHS), and Texas Gas. 

Stone, Nathan and George Seldon. 2006. Aquaculture Alternatives in Arkansas, FSA 9055-PD-5-

06N. University of Arkansas Extension Service, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. 

Stubbs, Hugh Jack. 2007. Coahoma County. Personal communication with URS Corporation 

regarding planned development. August 31, 2007. 

Taylor, Gerry. 2007. Specified in Texas Gas Transmission, LLC Abbreviated Application for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project, Resource Report 8. 

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas). 2007. Resource Report 5, Socioeconomics, 

Fayetteville/Greenville Lateral Expansion Project (Docket No. CP07-2). July 2007. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. The Big Woods of Arkansas. Available online at: 

www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arkansas/preserves/art11123.html. 

Accessed on September 11, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. (1). Glossary, Homeowner Vacancy Rate = (Number vacant units for 

sale/(Owner-occupied units + Number vacant units for sale)*100. 

U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. (2). Glossary, Rental Vacancy Rate = (Number vacant units for 

rent/(Renter-occupied units + Number vacant units for rent)*100. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. American Factfinder. Population Estimates Program - Get Data. 

2005 Population Estimates. Detailed Tables. State – County 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-6 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Summary File 1, Access To All Tables, (SFf 1) 100 – Percent Data – 

List All Tables, Gct – Ph1, State – County - Census Tract 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Summary File 3 (SF3) - Sample Data, P82, State – County - Census 

Tract- Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau 2000d. Summary File 3 (SF3) - Sample Data, P43, State – County - Census 

Tract- Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000e. Summary File 3 (SF3)- Sample Data, P49, State – County - Census 

Tract- Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000f. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H1, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000g. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H3, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000h. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H3, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000i. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H5, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000j. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H4, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000k. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H5, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000l. Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 Percent Data, H4, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000m. Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data, QT-H1, State – County – 

Census Tract – Block Group.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000n. Summary File 3, Summary File 3 (SF 3) – Sample Data, H 30, State 

– County – Census Tract – Block Group. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. American Fact Finder, 2006 Population Estimates. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov Accessed on September 13, 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2003. 

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online at: 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2005a. 

NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (STATSGO) Database. Available online at: 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/STATSGO/. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-7 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2005b. 

National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2006a. 

Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the 

Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 

296. http://soils.usda.gov/contact/mlra_offices/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2006b. 

Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 10th ed. Available on line at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001 U.S. Natural 

Gas Markets. Recent Trends and Prospects for the Future. Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/naturalgas/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. Energy 

Supply Forecast. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005. Energy 

Supply Forecast. DOE/EIA-0131. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. Annual 

Energy Outlook. DOE/EIA-0383. 

U.S. Department of Labor. n.d. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Glossary, Unemployment Rate = 

(Number persons unemployed/Number persons in labor force)*100. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and 

Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared under contract by Bolt, 

Beranek & Newman, Boston, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health And Welfare With an Adequate Margin of 

Safety. Available online at: http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Screening Procedures for Estimating the 

Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, October 1992, EPA-454/R-92-019. 

Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. National Sediment Quality Survey Database 

1980 to 1999. EPA-823-C-01-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. Review of Arkansas’ 2004 Section 

303(d)List. http://www.epa.gov/Region6/6wq/npdes/tmdl/303d/ar/2004-listrod_final.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004b. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment 

Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: 

Second Edition. EPA-823-R-04-007. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-8 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Ecoregion Maps and GIS Resources page, 

available online at: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ecoregions.htm. Accessed 

August 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Colonial-Nesting Waterbirds Fact Sheet. Available 

online at: http://www.fws.gov/birds/Waterbird-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed August 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus). Prepared by the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Team, FWS Region 

6, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan, FWS 

Southeast Region, Atlanta Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006a. Letter dated November 2, 2006, from David Felder 

(FWS Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office) to Joey VanSkaik (URS Corp). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006b. Letter dated November 1, 2006, from David Felder 

(FWS Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office) to Joey VanSkaik (URS Corp). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a. Cache River National Wildlife Refuge. Natural 

History. Available online at: www.fws.gov/cacheriver. Accessed on September 11, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, 

May 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007c. Endangered Species: Freshwater Mussels: 

Information page, available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/clams/index.html. Accessed July 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007d. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus 

americanus) page, available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/BEETLE.HTM. Accessed July 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007e. Candidate Species: Section 4 of the Endangered 

Species Act Fact Sheet, available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/factsheets/candidate_species.pdf. Accessed July 

2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Hazard Maps of the U.S.: USGS Open-File Report 97-

131 and 97-130. Available online at: ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/hazmaps/gis/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Segment 5- 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi. HA 730-F. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005a. Mineral Resources Data System. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia, available online at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005b. Significant United States Earthquakes, 1568-2004: 

National Atlas of the United States, Reston, Virginia, January, 2005b. Available online 

at: http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
H-9 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Available online 

at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/mercalli.php. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Water Resources of the United States – Boundary 

Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units. 

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Accessed March 15, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. National Water Information System. Available online at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis

White House National Economic Council. 2006. Advanced Energy Initiative. Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/energy_booklet.pdf, 19 pages. 

February 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007
Document Content(s)

Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF................................................1

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF....................................3

Table_of_Contents.PDF.....................................................7

Executive_Summary.PDF....................................................19

Section_1_Introduction.PDF...............................................27

Section_2_Description_of_the_Proposed_Action.PDF ........................36

Section_3_Alternatives.PDF...............................................69

Section_4_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ...................................101

Section_5_Conclusions_and_Recommendations.PDF...........................249

Appendix_A_Distribution_List.PDF........................................271

Appendix_B_Proposed_Facilities_and_Alternatives_Maps.PDF ...............281

Appendix_C_Tables_of_Potentially_Affected_Resources.PDF.................283

Appendix_D_SPCC_Plan.PDF................................................435

Appendix_E_Exotic_and_Invasive_Species_Control_Plan.PDF.................652

Appendix_F_Natchez_Trace_Parkway.PDF ...................................656

Appendix_G_List_of_Preparers.PDF........................................666

Appendix_H_References.PDF...............................................669

Document Accession #: 20071116-4000 Filed Date: 11/16/2007