# U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment for Columbia Gulf Transmission, Mainline 100, 200 and 300 pipelines located in Williamson and Davidson **Citation:** 09000064818c98a6 **Type / status:** rulemaking / current **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** Not stated DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 August 2014 Columbia Gulf Transmission Company 1700 MacCorkle Ave SE Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 Area - 4 Wilson County Davidson County Area - 3 Area - 2 Williamson County Rutherford County Prepared by Area - 1... Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 • Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would allow Columbia Gulf to continue to operate the 11 pipeline segments at their current MAOP with conditions for... ## Document text <<>> DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 August 2014 Columbia Gulf Transmission Company 1700 MacCorkle Ave SE Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 Area - 4 Wilson County Davidson County Area - 3 Area - 2 Williamson County Rutherford County Prepared by Area - 1 ecology and environment, inc. Global Environmental Specialists 02:1004044.0005.02/Columbia *EA Cover3.ai-8/22/14-GRA <<>> DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 August 2014 Prepared for: COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY 1700 MacCorkle Ave SE PO Box 1273 Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 Prepared by: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, New York 14086 ©2014 Ecology and Environment, Inc. <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table of Contents Section Page List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...iii Acronyms and Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………….………iv 1.0 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 2 3.0 4.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences ................................................. 5 4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................... 6 4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 7 4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 8 4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation ............................................................................................. 8 4.4.2 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species ........................................................................ 9 4.5 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 10 4.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 10 4.7 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 11 4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources .................................................................... 11 4.9 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 15 4.10 Indian Trust Assets ................................................................................................... 16 4.11 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 16 4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 17 4.14 Safety ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.15 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 19 4.16 Topography .............................................................................................................. 20 4.17 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 20 4.18 Floodplains ............................................................................................................... 21 4.19 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 21 5.0 Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative ................... 22 5.1 5.2 5.3 Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions .................................................. 22 Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reduction ....................... 23 Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement ............................ 24 6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 24 ii <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Appendices A Figures B Site Reconnaissance Report C Federally Protected Species List of Tables Table Page 1. Special Permit Segment Areas………………………………………………………………………….………………………2 Nearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area…………………………………………….………………………..….20 2. List of Figures (Appendix A) Figure 1. Project Location 2a. Area 1 Aerial Imagery 2b. Area 2 Aerial Imagery 2c. Area 3 Aerial Imagery 2d. Area 4 Aerial Imagery 3. Land Use/Land Cover 4. Geology 5. Recreational Opportunities 6. SSURGO Soils 7. Water Resources 8. Cultural Resources 9. Ecoregions 10. Seismic Hazard 11. Mineral Resources iii <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Acronyms and Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations Columbia Gulf Columbia Gulf Transmission Company DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure ML Mainline NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PIR Potential Impact Radius ROW Right‐Of‐Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SSA Sole Source Aquifer TDEC‐DNH Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage THC Tennessee Historical Commission TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency U.S.C. Unites States Code USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCB United States Census Bureau USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey iv <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 1.0 Background On March 2, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) granted Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) a special permit (PHMSA-2008-0066) to operate special permit segments of the Mainline (ML) 100, 200, and 300 natural gas transmission pipelines at the current maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), where a change in class locations occurred from Class 1 to Class 3. Furthermore, on April 13, 2010, PHMSA granted Columbia Gulf a special permit (PHMSA-2008-0330) at two additional special permit segments of ML 200 and 300 natural gas transmission pipelines at the current MAOP, where a change in class locations occurred from Class 1 to Class 3. These special permits allow Columbia Gulf to continue to operate these 11 pipeline segments at their existing MAOP without replacement subject to several stringent conditions. Special Permit PHMSA- 2008-0066 applies to nine natural gas pipeline segments on the 30-inch ML 100, 30-inch ML 200 and 36- in ML 300 pipelines operated by Columbia Gulf located in Williamson and Davidson Counties, Tennessee. Special Permit PHMSA-2008-0330 applies to two natural gas pipeline segments on the 30- inch ML 200 and 36-inch ML 300 pipelines operated by Columbia Gulf located in Wilson County, Tennessee. This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Columbia Gulf to assist PHMSA in preparation of their EA in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 – 4375, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500-1508. NEPA requires that federal agencies analyze a proposed federal action to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. Columbia Gulf understands that PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public safety and the environment that could result from their decision to grant or deny the request. As part of this analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences of a pipeline failure as compared to the status quo in the absence of the special permit. PHMSA may grant the special permit request, grant the request with additional conditions, or deny the request. Columbia Gulf developed this EA to assist PHMSA in determining the effects of the permit decision, if any, on the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c) and 49 CFR § 190.341, Columbia Gulf understands that PHMSA may only grant special permit requests that are consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA will impose conditions in the special permit if PHMSA concludes they are necessary for safety, environmental protection, or are otherwise in the public interest. If PHMSA determines that a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety or is not justified, the application will be denied. Provided here is a summary of the three alternatives assessed in this EA. Section 5 provides detailed descriptions of these alternatives and the results of implementation of each. 1 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 • Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would allow Columbia Gulf to continue to operate the 11 pipeline segments at their current MAOP with conditions for increased inspection and monitoring of the segments. This option, with the potential conditions, will provide the least impact to environment, residents, surrounding land uses, operating requirements, and Columbia Gulf’s existing customers. • Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reductions. This alternative would force Columbia Gulf to reduce its MAOP through the pipeline segments and therefore not allow Columbia Gulf to meet its contractual obligations with its current customers. This alternative is thought to be non-viable and is therefore not considered. • Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement. If the special permits are denied, Columbia Gulf would have to replace these 11 segments of the pipeline so that the current MAOP could be maintained and Columbia Gulf could keep its contractual obligations. Unlike the other alternatives, implementing Alternative 3 would impact the environment, residential landowners, scenic views, and county infrastructure. The replacements required in this alternative would require additional financial costs that would increase fees for Columbia Gulf’s existing customers. 2.0 Site Description The ML 100, ML 200, and ML 300 natural gas transmission pipeline system originates near Rayne, Louisiana, and crosses Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky before terminating near Kenova, West Virginia. These special permit requests involve four areas along the pipeline in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. Table 1 details the locations of each, along with the applicable permit number. Figure 1 (all figures are provided in Appendix A) shows the area locations, and Figures 2a through 2d provide aerial imagery of each area. Table 1. Special Permit Segment Areas Pipeline Pipeline Diameter Description County, State Length (feet) Begin Station End Station MAOP Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 30-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, Tennessee 690 1584+69 1591+59 935 ML 200 30-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, Tennessee 1,081 1584+58 1595+39 1008 ML 300 36-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, Tennessee 534 1584+74 1590+08 1008 Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 30-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, Tennessee 10,797 1783+03 1891+00 935 ML 200 30-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, Tennessee 10,525 1785+75 1891+00 1008 ML 300 36-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, Tennessee 9,816 1792+84 1891+00 1008 2 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table 1. Special Permit Segment Areas Pipeline Pipeline Diameter Description County, State Length (feet) Begin Station End Station MAOP Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 30-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, Tennessee 5,567 2210+36 2266+03 935 ML 200 30-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, Tennessee 5,487 2212+41 2267+28 1008 ML 300 36-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, Tennessee 603 2208+45 2214+48 1008 Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330) ML 200 30-inch MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson, Tennessee 1,600 3030+43 3046+43 935 ML 300 36-inch MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson, Tennessee 1,600 3025+55 3041+55 1008 Area 1 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline, a 690-foot section of ML 100, a 1,081-foot section of ML 200, and a 534-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 1 is approximately 1,081 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Franklin, Tennessee, and on the southwestern side of the Forrest Crossing Golf Club. Area 1 is a maintained herbaceous right-of-way (ROW) within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. The topography at Area 1 slopes gently to the northeast, with elevations ranging from 690 to 716 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 1. Area 2 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline: a 10,797-foot section of ML 100, a 10,525-foot section of ML 200, and a 9,816-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 2 is approximately 10,900 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Franklin, Tennessee, and crosses McKay’s Mill Subdivision. Area 2 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. The topography at Area 2 is gently rolling with a steep slope on the northeast end of the ROW. Elevations range from 740 to 1,030 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 2. Area 3 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline, a 5,567-foot section of ML 100, a 5,487-foot section of ML 200, and a 603-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 3 is approximately 5,700 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Nashville, Tennessee, and is adjacent to the Sugar Valley Subdivision. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. The topography in Area 3 is relatively flat and slopes upward to the northeast with elevations ranging from 542 to 579 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 3. Area 4 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0330) includes two segments of pipeline, a 1,600-foot section of ML 200 and a 1,600-foot section of ML 300 for a total length of 1,600 feet for Area 4. This area is 3 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 located adjacent and south of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, and is adjacent to Providence Marketplace, a commercial development. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and commercial development. The topography is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 580 to 620 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 4. On August 14 and 15, 2014, a field team consisting of two qualified biologists visited these areas to document environmental resources on or immediately adjacent to the areas. Appendix B contains the site reconnaissance report from this event. There are no schools, libraries, playgrounds, parks, theatres, or hospitals on, or immediately adjacent to, any of the areas. Based on U.S. Census data (USCB 2010), the population of Williamson County was 183,182 in 2010 and the median household income was $91,146. The population of Davidson County was 626,681 in 2010, with a median household income of $46,676. Finally, the population of Wilson County was 113,993 in 2010, with a median household income of $61,353. 3.0 Purpose and Need The purpose of this EA is to identify resources associated with the natural and human environment as they relate to Areas 1 through 4. This EA has been prepared to accompany special permit petitions to PHMSA for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) for Areas 1 through 4, which experienced class location changes from Class 1 to Class 3. Coverage of the identified areas under each special permit will allow the continued operation of the identified segments of the pipeline at the existing MAOP without pipeline replacement and its associated cost and impacts. The existing Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066 and Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0330 contain numerous conditions to ensure and manage the operation, maintenance, design, and integrity threats for the covered pipelines. These special permits impose stringent conditions over not only the special permit segments (the areas identified in each permit where the class changes have occurred), but also an area corresponding to 25 miles on each side of the special permit segments or the closest upstream or downstream pig launcher/receiver. The aggressive assessment, review, and management of the length of pipeline covered under each special permit far outweighs the public safety benefit that would be obtained through the replacement of the relatively small areas of identified Class 3 pipeline. The actions specified in these special permits will help ensure pipeline and public safety to a much larger area than would be gained through pipe replacement. In addition, replacement of the pipeline areas would involve the ground disturbance during excavation for the installation of the new pipe and removal of the old pipe within the vicinity of the identified areas with associated environmental and other impacts. Avoiding outages associated with Class 3 upgrades ensures reliable gas transportation and delivery for customers and avoids the need for gas blow downs to the atmosphere. 4 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.0 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences The following sections provide the potential affected resources and environmental consequences for each area in accordance with PHMSA’s Guidance for Special Permit Applications on Providing Environmental Information (PHMSA n.d.). These are as follows: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Climate Change • Cultural Resources • Environmental Justice • Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources • Hazardous Materials • Land Use • Noise • Recreation • Safety • Socioeconomics • Topography • Transportation • Floodplains • Water Resources • Indian Trust Assets 4.1 Aesthetics The land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas was examined to determine aesthetics or visual character within the vicinity of the areas in questions. The following subsections provide summaries for each of the areas. Figures 3a through 3c show land use/land cover data within the vicinity of the four areas (USDA 2011). There are no scenic highways or trails in the vicinity of the areas, as shown in Figure 4. Area 1. Area 1 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW and is surrounded by hay/pasture and a small area of scrub/shrub at the northeastern end. The northeastern end of Area 1 ends at the Harpeth River with a golf course intermixed with houses on the opposite side of the Harpeth River (USDA 2011). Area 2. Area 2 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape dominated by hay/pasture on the southwestern end and developed, open space; mixed forest; and deciduous forest on the northern end. The central portion of Area 2 traverses McKay’s Mill Subdivision, a residential development (USDA 2011). Area 3. Area 3 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape that is dominated by cultivated crops, developed areas of low intensity, deciduous forest, and hay/pasture. The northern portion of Area 3 abuts Sugar Valley Subdivision, a residential development (USDA 2011). Area 4. Area 4 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW. The southern half of the ROW traverses landscape dominated by shrub/scrub, herbaceous, deciduous forest, and mixed forest. The northern half of the ROW abuts commercial development (USDA 2011). The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to aesthetics. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. 5 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Alternative 3 would result in a temporary, localized impact during the construction of the pipeline replacement. This would be from the construction activities occurring within the areas and any potential access roads or staging areas that would be needed as part of the replacement project. Once construction and restoration is complete, these areas would return to their previous visual character for operation of the pipeline. 4.2 Agricultural Resources Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance have been identified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as areas of major importance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. Prime farmland, as defined by the NRCS, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland soils have properties that are favorable for the economy and produce the highest crop yields with minimal inputs of energy and other economic resources. Farmland of statewide importance, as defined by the NRCS, is land, in addition to prime and unique farmland, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law. Area 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 1,246 feet of Area 1 is underlain by prime farmland soils. This includes the Maury silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded. There are no farmlands of statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 1. Figure 5a details the soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW within Area 1 is not currently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops. Area 2. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 9,787 feet of Area 2 is underlain by prime farmland soils. This includes the following soils: • Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; • Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded; • Egam silt loam, phosphatic; • Huntington silt loam, phosphatic; and • Lindside silt loam, phosphatic. There are no farmlands of statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 2. Figure 5b details the soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW within Area 2 is not currently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops. 6 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Area 3. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 4,753 feet of Area 3 is underlain by prime farmland soils. This includes the following soils: • Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; • Arrington silt loam; • Egam silt loam, phosphatic; and • Lindside silt loam. There are no farmlands of statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 3. Figure 5c details the soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 3 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW within Area 3 is not currently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops. Area 4. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 4 is not underlain by prime farmland soils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5d details the soils within the vicinity of Area 4 as mapped by the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to agricultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Alternative 3 would not result in impacts to agricultural as none of the areas traverse lands with agricultural operations. Upon completion of construction, Columbia Gulf would restore the ROW and the soils so that the ROW could be utilized for agricultural operations in the future. 4.3 Air Quality Neither Williamson, Davidson, nor Wilson Counties, Tennessee, are in nonattainment areas as designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA 2014). Williamson County is designated as being in maintenance status for ozone and lead, and both Davidson and Wilson Counties are designated as being in maintenance status for ozone. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary air impacts due to the use of construction equipment and vehicles. No aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement; therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated for air quality. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to air quality. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary air impacts due to the use of construction equipment and vehicles. No aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement; therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated for air quality. 7 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.4 Biological Resources The following subsections detail the biological resources associated with the Project. They are as follows: • Land Cover/Vegetation; • Wildlife; and • Federal and State Protected Species. 4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation Based on the site visit, ROW vegetation at Areas 1, 2, and 3 are a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. No water resources were traversed by Area 1. Three streams and one small emergent wetland are traversed by Area 2. Two steams and one emergent wetland are traversed by Area 3. Area 4 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and commercial development. Three emergent wetlands were found to be traversed by Area 4. Herbaceous species that were typically found in the maintained herbaceous ROW include yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Indian goosegrass (Eleusine indica), purple passionflower (Passiflora incarnata), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and grasses (Paspalum spp.). Species typically found in the deciduous forests include dogwood (Cornus florida), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Species typically found in the emergent wetlands include late goldenrod (Solidago altissima), cattail (Typha latifolia), sedges (Carex spp., Cyperus spp., and Eleocharis spp.) and, Canada rush (Juncus canadensis). 4.4.2 Wildlife Typical wildlife species in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrins), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and the eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). All species may be found along all segments of pipeline. Typical fisheries species found in the Mill Creek watershed, which traverses Davidson County, include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout 8 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 (Oncorhynchus mykiss), common bream (Abramis brama), blue gill (Lepomis macrochirus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). 4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species A review of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat data, USFWS Endangered Species County Lists, and state natural heritage inventories to determine the federally and state protected species that could potentially occur along the project facilities. No USFWS‐designated critical habitat is crossed by the areas. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), was designed to prevent the extinction of native and foreign species of wild flora and fauna. The ESA defines an endangered species as any animal or plant in danger of extinction and a threatened species as any plant or animal likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future. This act makes it illegal to harass, harm, or kill listed species and to possess, transport, buy, or sell the species or parts thereof in the course of an interstate or foreign commercial activity. A permit authorizing any prohibited activity may be issued following a formal consultation with the USFWS. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage (TDEC‐DNH) oversees the plant program and coordinates activities with other state agencies, while the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) oversees protection of animal species. TDEC‐DNH also administers USFWS‐funded projects designed to conserve and protect animal species of federal concern. Table C‐1 in Appendix C provides a summary of the federally listed species that could occur within the areas. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to biological resources as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3, the pipeline replacement would temporary impacts on vegetation and land use in the area of the replacement and any associated access roads or staging areas that could be required. In addition, under Alternative 3 there is the potential to impact the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) which is currently a candidate species for federal listing. Indiana bats and northern long‐eared bats utilize forested cover types in the summer for roosting habitat. If any trees greater than 3‐inch diameter breast height (dbh) would need to be removed, the USFWS would likely require bat surveys to determine if any trees to be removed are roosting trees for the Indiana bat or Northern long‐eared bat. Although the USFWS considers trees greater than 5‐inch dbh potential roosting trees for the Indiana bat, smaller trees down to 3‐inch dbh can be potential roosting trees for the northern long‐eared bat. The construction of this pipeline replacement would likely be subject to seasonal restrictions in order to minimize impacts to these species. If this alternative was selected, further consultation with the USFWS would be required. 9 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.5 Climate Change The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to climate change. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, no aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement and, therefore, the project would not likely result in impacts to climate change. 4.6 Cultural Resources A preliminary assessment of structures listed by the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (NRHP 2014a, 2014b, 2014c) within one mile of Areas 1 through 4 was conducted. No listed structures are present at or near Areas 3 and 4. The following private historic homes are listed on the NRHP and located within one mile of Areas 1 and 2 (Figure 6). The following NRHP sites are within one mile of Area 1: • Douglass-Reams House was added to the NRHP in 1988 and is currently vacant/not in use (NRHP 2014a). • McGavock-Gaines House was added to the NRHP in 1988 and is currently vacant/not in use (NRHP 2014a). • Robert Hodge House was also known as the Sullivan Farm House. This private historic home was added to the NRHP in 2005 (NRHP 2014b). The following NRHP sites are within one mile of Area 2: • John Herbert House was added to the NRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014b). • Ravenswood was added to the NRHP in 1983 (NRHP 2014c). • John Seward House is also known as Seward Hall. This private historic home was added to the NRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014c). • Joseph Wilson House was added to the NRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014c). Columbia Gulf maintains an annual categorical exclusion agreement with the Tennessee Historical Commission (THC). This agreement allows Columbia Gulf to conduct minor activities in the existing and previously disturbed pipeline ROW without further consultation with THC regarding cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to cultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, Columbia Gulf would need to consult with the THC to determine if any potential work spaces for the pipeline replacement would be sited in areas not previously disturbed by the construction of the original pipeline. If so, cultural resource surveys would likely be required to determine if there are any resources present and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be likely if they are present. 10 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.7 Environmental Justice Area 1 is in U.S. Census Track 509.08, Block 2008. Area 2 is in U.S. Census Track 510.01, Blocks 2002, 2015, 2066, 2069, 3005, 3006, 3007, and 3010, and Group Block 2. Area 3 is in U.S. Census Track 191.14, Group Block 1 and Track 191.15, Group Block 1. Area 4 is in U.S. Census Track 309.01, Block 1004 and 1013. The percent minority population near Areas 1 and 2 is 10.6 percent. The percent minority population near Area 3 is 10.6 percent, while the percent minority population near Area 4 is 11.1 percent. The population of Williamson County was 183,182 in 2010 and the median household income was $91,146. The population of Davidson County was 626,681 in 2010 with a median household income of $46,676. Also taken from U.S. Census data, the population of Wilson County was 113,993 in 2010 with a median household income of $61,353. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to the adjacent communities. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, the construction of the pipeline replacement would be a short-term event and would not be expected to impact adjacent communities. 4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources According to the USEPA (USEPA 2012), Areas 1, 2 and 4 are in the Outer Nashville Basin (71h) and Area 3 is in the Inner Nashville Basin (71i) of the Interior Plateau (Ecoregion 71). The Interior Plateau extends from southern Indiana and Ohio to northern Alabama. This diverse ecoregion is made up of: • Rock types that are distinctly different from the coastal plain sands of western Tennessee ecoregions; • Landscapes of open hills, irregular plains, and prairies; • Mississippian to Ordovician-age limestone, chert, sandstone, siltstone, and shale; and • Oak-hickory forest, with some areas of bluestem prairie and cedar glades. (Arnwine et al. 2000) The Outer Nashville Basin is made up of rolling hills and slightly higher elevations than the Inner Nashville Basin. Limestone rock and soils within the region are high in phosphorus. Commercial phosphorus is mined. The dominant land cover is deciduous forest, pasture, and cropland. The region has areas of urban development, including Nashville, which is located in the northwest portion of the region. Streams are low to moderate gradient, with occasionally high densities of fish (Arnwine et al. 2000). The Inner Nashville Basin is less hilly and lower in elevation than the Outer Nashville Basin. Shallow soils are redder and lower in phosphorous than those of the Outer Basin. Streams are also lower gradient and flow over large expanses of limestone bedrock. Hardwoods are mostly maple, oak, hickory, and ash. Urban, suburban, and industrial land use is increasing from the Outer Nashville Basin (Arnwine et al. 2000). Figure 7 depicts these ecoregions. 11 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Seismic Map (USGS 2008), there is a 2 percent probability in a 50-year period that an earthquake would occur near Areas 1 through 4 at an intensity that exceeds VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (USGS 2013). An earthquake of this intensity would be felt by everyone; people would walk unsteadily; many would be frightened; windows would crack; dishes, glassware, knickknacks, and books would fall off shelves; pictures would fall off walls; furniture would move or overturn; weak plaster, adobe buildings, and some poorly built masonry buildings would crack; and trees and bushes would visibly shake (Richter 1958). Figure 8 illustrates the seismic map. Area 1. According to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (USGS 2011), the southwestern half Area 1 is underlain primarily by calcarenite and secondarily by limestone formed during the Ordovician geologic period. The northeastern half of Area 1 is underlain primarily by limestone and secondarily by bentonite formed during the Ordovician geologic period. Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Area 1. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2014) shows that Area 1 may be underlain by: • Stiversville Silt Loam (StC2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; • Maury Silt Loam (MbB2), 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded; • Maury Silt Loam (MbC2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded and designated as prime farmland, and • Mimosa (MnE), very rocky soils, 20 to 40 percent slopes. The Stiversville series consists of deep, well-drained permeable soils on uplands. The Maury series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in silty material over residuum weathered from phosphatic limestone. This portion of the ROW also falls within an area categorized as prime farmland (NRCS 2014). The Mimosa series consists of well-drained soils formed from clayey, phosphatic limestone. MnE soils are usually severely eroded and low in plant nutrients and moisture capacity. These soils are found throughout steeper or hilly areas of the outer Central Basin (NRCS 2014). Figure 5a shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are three mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. The mineral resources are phosphorus-phosphates mines. Site names include Stauffer Phosphate Deposit No. 1, Dallas, and Dallas Number 431 Pit. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 1. Area 2. According to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (USGS 2011), Area 2 is underlain by the following: • Limestone and secondarily by bentonite formed during the Ordovician geologic period; • Calcarenite and secondarily by limestone formed during the Ordovician geologic period; and • Shale and secondarily by limestone formed during the Ordovician geologic period. 12 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Area 2. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2014) shows that Area 2 may be underlain by: • Stiversville Silt Loam (StB2), 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded; • Stiversville Silt Loam (StC2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; • Stiversville Silt Loam (SrD3), 12 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded; • Stiversville Silt Loam (SrC3), 5 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded; • Huntington Silt Loam (HU), Phosphatic and designated as prime farmland; • Armour Silt Loam (ArB), 2 to 5 percent slopes and designated as prime farmland; • Armour Silt Loam (ArC), 5 to 12 percent slopes; • Armour Silt Loam (ArB2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; and designated as prime farmland; • Armour Silt Loam (ArC2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; • Culleoka Silt Loam (CkE), 20 to 35 percent slopes; • Culleoka Silt Loam (CkD3), 12 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded; • Lindside Silt Loam (LP), Phosphatic and designated as prime farmland; • Gullied Land (GU); • Egam Silt Loam (Eg), Phosphatic and designated as prime farmland; • Ashwood Silty Clay Loam (AwD), 12 to 20 percent slopes; • and Rockland (Rc). The Huntington series consists of very deep, well-drained soils located in floodplains. The Armour series consists of very deep, well-drained soils on stream terraces, foot slopes, and valley floors. The Culleoka series consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils formed in colluvium or residuum from siltstone or interbedded shale, limestone, siltstone, and fine grained sandstone. The Lindside series consists of very deep, moderately well-drained soils located in river valleys. The Egam series consists of very deep, well- drained or moderately well-drained soils that formed in clayey alluvium on flood plains and in depressions. The Ashwood series consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils on uplands. They formed in residuum weathered from phosphatic limestone. The Rockland series consists of well-drained soils formed in loamy colluvium from rotational landslides on slopes of stream valleys and dissections of ground moraines (NRCS 2014). Figure 5b shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. Duplicative soils described in previous areas are provided in those subsections. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are two mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. The mineral resources are phosphorus-phosphates mines. Site names include Monsanto Phosphate Deposit No. 25 and Wilco Number 253 Pit. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 2. Area 3. According to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (NRCS 2011), Area 3 is underlain primarily by limestone and secondarily by bentonite formed during the Ordovician geologic period. Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Area 3. 13 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2014) shows that Area 3 may be underlain by: • Arrington Silt Loam (Ar) and designated as prime farmland; • Armour Silt Loam (AmB), 2 to 5 percent slopes and designated as prime farmland; • Barfield-Rock Outcrop Complex (BbD), 5 to 20 percent slopes; • Lindell Silt Loam (Ld) and designated as prime farmland; • Water (W); and • Stiversville Loam (StD), 12 to 25 percent slopes. Area 3 passes through W, which represents Mill Creek. The Arrington series consists of very deep, well- drained soils with thick dark surface layers. They formed in silty alluvium on floodplains and along drainage ways. The Barfield series consists of shallow, well drained to excessively drained, moderately slow permeable soils that formed in residuum from limestone. These soils are on nearly level to very steep uplands with medium to very rapid runoff. The Lindell series consists of very deep, moderately well-drained soils on floodplains. The soil formed in loamy alluvium (USDA 2014). Figure 5c shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 3 as mapped by the NRCS. Soils previously described in previous subsections areas are provided in those subsections. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 3. Area 4. According to the USGS Mineral Resources State Geologic Maps (USGS 2011), the majority of Area 4 is underlain primarily by limestone and secondarily by bentonite formed during the Ordovician geologic period. The southwestern portion of Area 4 is underlain primarily by calcarenite and secondarily by limestone formed during the Ordovician geologic period. Figure 9 shows the geologic composition within the vicinity of Area 4. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2014) shows that Area 3 may be underlain by: • Talbott Silt Loam (TrC2), 5 to 20 percent slopes, eroded, rocky; • Hampshire Silt Loam (HaC2), 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; and • Hampshire Silty Clay Loam (HaD3), 12 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded. The Talbott series consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils that formed in clayey residuum weathered from limestone. These soils have moderately slow permeability. The Hampshire series consists of deep, well-drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in clayey residuum of interbedded limestone and shale and the underlying residuum of interbedded siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, shale, and limestone (NRCS 2014). Figure 5d shows the soils within the vicinity of Area 4 as mapped by the NRCS. Soils previously described in previous subsections areas are provided in those subsections. 14 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (USGS 2012), there are no mineral resources within a one-mile radius of this area. Figure 10 shows mineral resources as mapped by the USGS nearest to Area 4. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to the geology, soils, or mineral resources in the area. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be temporary impacts to geology and soils during construction associated with the replacement of the pipeline. Soils with prime farmlands would require topsoil segregation or other soil & erosion controls. No impacts are anticipated on mineral resources as part of this alternative. Once the construction is complete the ROW would be restored to preexisting conditions and permanent impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources are not expected. 4.9 Hazardous Materials Construction and maintenance of the natural gas pipelines require the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, explosives, and herbicides. By definition, hazardous materials (substances and wastes) have the potential to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment if spilled or accidentally released, depending on the quantity, concentration, or chemical composition. When stored, used, transported, and disposed of properly as described below, the risks associated with these materials can be reduced and eliminated. The following descriptions provide examples of potential activities that may require hazardous materials management: • Refueling and Servicing. Construction vehicles (trucks, bulldozers, etc.), and equipment (pumps, generators, etc.) generally will be fueled and serviced in designated upland areas at least 100 feet from wetlands or waterbodies. Any hazardous waste materials resulting from refueling and servicing activities are containerized and disposed of properly. • Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Loading and transporting fuels and other hazardous materials will meet the minimum requirements established by the USDOT and other pertinent regulations. Prior to transporting hazardous materials, appropriate shipping papers shall be completed. Vehicle drivers are trained to properly respond to and report spills, leakage, and/or accidents involving hazardous materials. All hazardous materials used for the project will be properly containerized and labeled at all times, including during transportation. Smaller containers will be used on site to transport needed amounts of hazardous materials to a specific location. Transfer of materials from large to small containers will be accomplished using appropriate equipment including pumps, hoses, and safety equipment. These smaller (“service”) containers will also be clearly labeled. Special provisions would apply to the transportation of explosives. • Storage of Hazardous Materials. Materials will be stored only in designated material yards to be identified prior to the initiation of construction. Material yards will be located at least 100 feet away from wetlands, waterbodies, and sensitive areas and shall be able to contain the single largest quantity/unit stored at any one time, plus 10 percent. Cleanup materials, including 15 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 absorbent spill pads and plastic bags, will also be stored in these areas. Hazardous materials will not be stored in areas subject to flooding or inundation. • Container Labeling. Labeling requirements for any container (including tanks) used on site to store accumulated hazardous wastes will comply with proper labeling as required in 22 CFR Section 66262.34(f). Hazardous wastes will be collected regularly and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and practices. Hazardous and universal wastes typically include used oil, used oil filters, used gasoline containers, spent batteries, and other items. The preferred alternative would not involve any construction activities or the need for storage of any hazardous materials; as such, there is no potential for a release of hazardous materials and there would be would be no impact. For Alternative 3, Columbia Gulf would need to replace each segment of pipeline. Hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and Columbia Gulf would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan in case there is a release. This plan would outline measures taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate releases and would include any emergency contact information. By implementing this plan and these measures, Alternative 3 is anticipated to have no impacts from hazardous materials during the construction or operational phase of the project. 4.10 Indian Trust Assets According to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010), there are no federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal reservations in Tennessee. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to Indian Trust Assets or federally recognized Tribal Reservations. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not impact Indian Trust Assets or federally recognized Tribal Reservations given their absence in the vicinity of the areas. 4.11 Land Use The land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas was examined to assess any affects to land use within the areas in questions. The following subsections provide summaries for each of the areas. Area 1. Area 1 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW surrounded by hay/pasture and a small area of scrub/shrub at the northeastern end. The northeastern end of Area 1 ends at the Harpeth River with a golf course intermixed with houses on the opposite side of the Harpeth River. Additionally, the hay/pasture area is surrounded by neighborhoods that are located in areas categorized as developed; open space, developed; medium intensity; and developed, low intensity. Figure 3a shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of Area 1 (USDA 2011). 16 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Area 2. Area 2 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape dominated by hay/pasture on the southwestern end and developed, open space; mixed forest; and deciduous forest on the northern end. The central portion of Area 2 traverses McKay’s Mill Subdivision, a residential development. Figure 3a shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of Area 2 (USDA 2011). Area 3. Area 3 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape that is dominated by cultivated crops; developed areas of low intensity; deciduous forest; and hay/pasture. The northern portion of Areas 3 abuts Sugar Valley Subdivision, a residential development. Figure 3b shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of Area 3 (USDA 2011). Area 4. Area 4 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW. The southern half of the ROW traverses landscape dominated by shrub/scrub, herbaceous, deciduous forest, and mixed forest. The northern half of the ROW abuts commercial development. Figure 3c shows land use/land cover data within the vicinity of Area 4 (USDA 2011). The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to land use. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, temporary impacts would be incurred to residential land uses in Areas 2 and 3. These temporary impacts would occur during replacement of the pipeline. After construction, the ROW would be restored to its pre-existing conditions and no permanent impacts to land use are expected. 4.12 Noise The pipeline is buried and there are no existing aboveground facilities or valves contributing noise; therefore, existing noise levels in the vicinity of the areas are consistent with the land uses traversed such as deciduous forests, residential, and commercial development. Additionally, there are no existing Columbia Gulf compressor stations within 5 miles of each area. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to noise pollution. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For Alternative 3, there would be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels surrounding each area during construction of the pipeline replacement. There would be no permanent impacts on noise during the operation of the project because no new above-ground facilities would be needed and the pipeline would remain below ground. 4.13 Recreation Public lands, parks and recreational areas, golf courses, trails, and boat ramps were mapped in order to assess outdoor recreational opportunities within 0.25 miles of Areas 1 through 4 (Figure 4). The Forrest Crossing Golf Course is located approximately 100 feet from the northeastern edge of Area 1, on the opposite side of the Harpeth River. No other areas traverse or are within 0.25 miles of any of recreational opportunities listed above (ESRI 2010; TWRA 2014; USDOT 2014). 17 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to recreation. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Under Alternative 3, there would be no impacts anticipated on recreation. The Forrest Crossing Golf Course is located on the opposite side of the Harpeth River from Area 1 and would not be traversed during the pipeline replacement, thus avoiding any impacts. 4.14 Safety Would operation under a special permit change the risk of rupture or failure? Continued operation of the four identified areas of pipeline under the special permit would have no significant effect on the risk of pipeline failure or rupture. First, in order to be considered under the special permit, the pipeline must meet PHMSA’s threshold and other requirements for acceptance under a special permit. These requirements include pipeline location, coating, operating specified minimum yield strength, pressure testing, anomaly indications found by in-line inspection, and other pipeline features. The pipeline would also need to meet material and other requirements in order to be considered for acceptance under the special permit. Finally, should the areas in the special permit be renewed, those sections would be subject to numerous conditions to ensure safety and manage the operation, maintenance, design, and integrity threats for the pipeline on an on-going basis. If a failure occurred, would consequences and spill or release volumes be different if PHMSA granted the permit? Increase risk, decrease risk, no change? There would be no difference in the amount of natural gas released or any difference in any other consequences occurring as the result of PHMSA granting the inclusion of the additional pipeline areas into the existing special permit. There would be no physical change to the pipeline or the operating pressure of the pipeline as the result of the renewal of the special permit. If the renewal was not granted, the pipe in the subject areas would likely be replaced with pipe of the same diameter and would operate at the same operating pressure. The amount of natural gas released and failure consequences would be identical under either of these alternatives. Would the Potential Impact Radius (PIR) of a rupture change under the special permit? Would more people be affected by a failure if we granted the permit? No. As there would be no physical change to the pipeline or the operating pressure of the pipeline as the result of the renewal of the special permit, the potential impact radius would not change. In addition, no additional people would be affected by a failure if the permit was renewed. Would operation under the special permit have an effect on pipeline longevity or reliability? Would there be any life cycle or maintenance issues? 18 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Continued operation of the four identified areas of pipeline under the special permit would not be expected to have an effect on the pipeline longevity and reliability, or cause any life cycle or maintenance issues. The pipe in the five identified areas being considered for inclusion into the special permit is characteristic of the other pipe on ML 100, ML 200, and ML 300. This pipe operates as a system. The maximum operating pressure and other factors would not change under the special permit; renewal of the special permit for the four areas would not impact the overall pipeline longevity or reliability and would not cause any life cycle or maintenance issues. 4.15 Socioeconomics The largest population center in close proximity to Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 is Nashville, Tennessee, which is to the north of Area 1, 2, and 3 and west of Area 4. Area 1 is located within a cleared, herbaceous opening encompassed by residential neighborhoods. Area 2 is encompassed by agricultural lands to the west, while the eastern portion is located within undeveloped forest. The center of Area 2 also traverses through a residential neighborhood. Area 3 is adjacent to residential areas to the northeast and southwest, and agricultural lands to the southeast and northwest. Area 4 is located within commercial development to the east and cleared land to the west. There are no schools, libraries, or hospitals on, or immediately adjacent to, any of the areas. Areas 1 and 2 are located within Williamson County, while Areas 3 and 4 are located within Davidson County and Wilson County, respectively. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the population of Williamson County was 183,182 in 2010 and the median household income was $91,146. The population of Davidson County was 626,681 in 2010 with a median household income of $46,676. Also taken from U.S. Census data, the population of Wilson County was 113,993 in 2010 with a median household income of $61,353. The population density in 2010 in the vicinities of Areas 1 and 2 was 314.4 individuals per square mile. The population density in 2010 in the vicinities of Areas 3 and 4 was 1,243.3 and 199.7 individuals per square mile, respectively. The percent minority population in the vicinity of Area 1 and Area 2 is 10.6 percent. The percent minority population in the vicinity of Area 3 is 10.6 percent, while the percent minority population in the vicinity of Area 4 is 11.1 percent. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as such, there would be no impact to socioeconomics. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. Under Alternative 3, construction activities would be temporary and small in scale. There is the potential for a negligible to small positive benefit to the local communities from the construction activities providing to the local economy through local purchases, hotel usages, etc. No impacts are anticipated during operation of the pipeline. 19 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 4.16 Topography The topography at Area 1 slopes to the northeast, with elevations ranging from 690 to 716 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. The topography at Area 2 is gently rolling with a steep slope on the northeast end of the ROW. Elevations range from 740 to 1,030 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. The topography at Area 3 is relatively flat and slopes upward to the northeast with elevations ranging from 542 to 579 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. The topography at Area 4 is gently rolling with elevations ranging from 578 to 627 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to topography as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3, the ROW would be restored to pre-existing conditions once construction is complete. As such, no impacts would be anticipated. 4.17 Transportation Table 2 provides the nearest roads that can provide access to the individual areas in question for this EA. Figures 2a through 2d also depict the location of these roads in relation to the areas. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to transportation as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3, Area 2 would potentially cause short-term impacts to Clovercroft Road, Waverly Place, Gatewick Court, and State Highway 252 as they are crossed by Area 2. Area 3 would potentially cause short-term impacts to Nolensville Pike, Culbertson Road, and Sunnywood Drive as they are crossed by Area 3. Finally, Area 4 would potentially cause short-term impacts to Crossings Circle and an unnamed private road as they are crossed by Area 4. Engineering design and consultation with the Tennessee DOT and counties would need to be completed to determine the crossing method and subsequent impact to transportation. No impacts are anticipated to the roads near Area 1. Table 2. Nearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area Area Nearest Access Road Comments Area 1 U.S. Highway 431/Lewisburg Pike Paved road that crosses the existing ROW approximately 980 feet west of Area 1. Area 2 Oxford Glen Drive Paved road that crosses the existing ROW approximately 1,030 feet west of Area 2. Clovercroft Road Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. Waverly Place Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. Gatewick Court Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. State Highway 252/Wilson Pike Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. Area 3 Nolensville Pike Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 3. Culbertson Road Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 3. Sunnywood Drive Paved road that terminates at the existing ROW and Area 3. Mint Leaf Drive Driveway leads from Mint Leaf Drive to mainline block valves along the existing ROW and Area 3. 20 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table 2. Nearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area Area Nearest Access Road Comments Area 4 Providence Parkway Paved road that terminates at the existing ROW and Area 4. Crossings Circle Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. Unnamed Private Road Paved road that crosses the existing ROW and Area 2. State Highway 171/South Mount Julius Road Paved road that crosses the existing ROW approximately 90 feet east of Area 4. 4.18 Floodplains Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps, Area 1 is outside of, but abuts the 100-year floodplain to the east (FEMA 2006a). Areas 2 and 4 are outside of the 100- year and 500-year floodplain (FEMA 2006b, 2008). Area 3 crosses Mill Creek and a majority of it is within the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain (FEMA 2001). Figures 11a through 11d depict the locations of these floodplains. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to floodplains as a result of this project. For Alternative 3, the ROW would be restored to pre-existing condition once construction is complete and therefore no impacts to floodplains are anticipated. 4.19 Water Resources Exceptional Tennessee Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters. The TDEC Division of Water Pollution Control identifies exceptional waters and outstanding national resource waters as part of the state’s water quality antidegradation policy. In exceptional waters, degradation can only be authorized under certain conditions. In outstanding waters, there can be no net degradation to the waterbody being affected. There is one exceptional water, Mill Creek, in the vicinity of Area 3. There are no other exceptional waters, outstanding waters, or federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinities of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Figure 11c depicts the location of Mill Creek in relation to Area 3. Sole Source Aquifers. A Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) is an aquifer designated by the USEPA as the "sole or principal source" of drinking water for a given service area. A sole source aquifer is one that is used to supply 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a particular area (USEPA 2011). There are no SSAs within the vicinity of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Regarding water wells, data could not be obtained to determine the proximity of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 to water wells. However, no water wells were observed immediately adjacent to Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 during the site visit. Surface Waters. Wetlands are defined jointly by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USEPA as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater, at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (40 CFR 230.3 and 33 CFR 328.3). Executive Order (EO) 11990 of May 1977 was enacted to slow the loss of the nation’s wetlands. This EO 21 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 established a policy “…to avoid to the extent possible, the long‐term and short‐term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands…” On August 14 and 15, 2014, qualified biologists visited Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 to document the presence of surface waters, including wetlands, streams, and ponds. Prior to the site visit, a preliminary desktop review was conducted of wetlands and other surface waters present at both areas. Sources reviewed include NRCS soils data, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps, and available aerial photography. During the site visits is was found that Area 2 traverses three streams and one emergent wetland. Additionally it was found that Area 3 traverses two streams and one emergent wetland; and that Area 4 traverses three emergent wetlands. Through a desktop review a portion of Mill Creek was identified abutting the western boundary and crossing near the center of the Area 3. Figures 11a through 11d show wetlands as mapped by USFWS NWI data and other surface waters near Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Water Quality. Area 1 is in the Harpeth River Watershed Management Group, Areas 2 and 3 are in the Lower Cumberland (Cheatham Lake) Watershed Management Group, and Area 4 is in the Stones River Watershed Management Group as defined by TDEC. As previously stated Areas 2, 3, and 4 traverse or are near wetlands and waterbodies. Mill Creek is within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 05130202 (Lower Cumberland‐Sycamore Watershed) with subsegment code 05130202007_4000. Based on the TDEC Year 2010 303(d) List (TDEC 2010), the designated uses listed by USEPA for this subsegment include fish and aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering and wildlife, and recreation. For each of these designated uses, the USEPA qualifies their statuses as good. The preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As such, there would be no impact to water resources as a result of this project. Alternative 3 the pipeline replacement would likely cause temporary impacts to the streams and wetlands traversed by Areas 2, 3, and 4. Upon completion of construction, the ROW as well as the stream and wetland would be restored to pre‐existing conditions. 5.0 Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative 5.1 Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions Under this alternative, PHMSA would grant a special permit to Columbia Gulf to continue to operate Areas 1 through 4 at their current MAOP. Approving Columbia Gulf’s special permit request would avoid a disturbance to the environment, public roadways, businesses, and homes by eliminating the need for construction activities/impacts required for pipeline replacement. In addition, an approval of this permit would not detrimentally affect delivery of service. 22 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 i. ii. Potential Safety Risks Resulting From Grant of the Special Permits The safety risk with respect to this request for special permits focuses on the integrity of the pipeline and its effect on the increased population in the event of a catastrophic failure of this pipeline. Granting of a special permit does not increase the Potential Impact Radius (PIR). However, Columbia Gulf understands the risk from the increased human population around the pipeline must be adequately mitigated. Special permits PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008- 0330 contain numerous conditions to ensure safety and manage the operation, maintenance, design, and integrity threats for the covered pipelines. Renewal of the sections of pipeline under the special permits would subject these areas to these conditions. The special permits impose stringent conditions over not only the special permit segments (the areas identified in the permits where the class changes have occurred), but also an area corresponding to 25 miles on each side of the special permit segments or the closest upstream or downstream pig launcher/receiver. The aggressive assessment, review, and management of the length of pipeline covered under the special permits far outweighs the public safety benefit that would be obtained through the replacement of the relatively small sections of identified Class 3 pipeline. The actions specified in these special permits will help ensure pipeline and public safety to a much larger area than would be gained through pipe replacement. Potential Environmental Risks Resulting From Grant of the Special Permits As with any class location waiver, when one is considering operating a pipeline above the pressures allowed within the originally approved class designation, the environmental impacts should be examined and addressed as they relate to risks to humans, animals, and the environment. As previously discussed, there would be no impact to these resources as a result of this project. However, should a leak or catastrophic failure take place, impacts to the resources above may occur. Any negative effect to environmental resources due to pipeline failure would be temporary in nature and would not pose a long-term problem to such areas. This is because of the nature of the product in the pipeline. The product is natural gas, which is in a gaseous state, and if a leak would occur, there would be no significant contamination of any water body or soil. Should PHMSA renew these special permits, Columbia Gulf understands increased surveillance and detailed analysis and remediation of the existing pipeline may be required by PHMSA to reduce the risk associated with failure of the pipeline. Remediation of anomalous areas along the pipeline may involve excavation to directly assess the pipeline. However, the extent of any earth disturbance resulting from these anomaly excavations is not anticipated to have a significant effect on any resources listed above. 5.2 Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reduction Another alternative is to require Columbia Gulf to reduce the operating pressure of Areas 1 through 4, namely the Columbia Gulf 30-inch ML 100 pipeline, Columbia Gulf 30-inch ML 200 pipeline, and Columbia Gulf 36-inch ML 300 pipeline from their current MAOP to a level prescribed by Title 49 CFR Section 192 for the appropriate class location. This would reduce the capacity of this portion of the Columbia Gulf pipeline system below its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certificated capacity. Under this alternative, Columbia Gulf would be unable to deliver its contractual commitment to its customers. Although the resulting environmental impacts would be less in this alternative than if 23 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 the operator was required to replace the pipe, this alternative is not practicable due to the capacity reduction. The ML 100, ML 200, and ML 300 system supplies critical natural gas supplies to market. Lowering the MAOP of ML 100, ML 200, and ML 300 in these areas may adversely impact natural gas supplies especially during periods of peak demand. Reducing the maximum allowable operating pressure reduces the PIR. This affects all of the environmental criteria previously discussed and may lessen the risk to human and animal life. The impact on other criteria may be determined by whether the physical attribute is within the new reduced PIR. For those that are still within the PIR, the risk has not diminished. The risk to soils and vegetation, along with geologic effects, are unchanged. However, the impact will be reduced in geographic size. 5.3 Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement PHMSA could deny the request for a special permit, requiring Columbia Gulf to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR § 192.611, effectively forcing Columbia Gulf to replace these sections of pipe. In the absence of the special permits, Columbia Gulf would incur significant costs to replace the pipe in the class location change areas. Replacement of the pipe would involve excavation, post-construction compaction of soils, and an impacted ROW during construction, which would certainly create impacts on the environment surrounding the pipeline ROW. Agricultural operations, biological resources, land use, transportation, and water resources may be temporarily impacted during construction, with limited impacts to areas surrounding the pipeline ROW. Denial of the permits would create an impact to soils and vegetation by excavation, and possibly disrupt natural gas service to the populations the pipeline serves in the vicinity of the areas and further downstream. Additionally, given the potential presence of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the federal candidate Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in the affected counties, surveys and potential mitigation would be required if a replacement would have to be completed in order to offset any impacts to the species if forested areas adjacent to the ROW would have to be cleared for workspaces. Temporary impacts to the waterbodies and wetlands traversed by Areas 2 and 3 would also be incurred by a pipeline replacement. Columbia Gulf contends that the increased environmental impacts can be mitigated and greater benefits would occur should PHMSA grant the special permits with conditions, which would likely include enhanced integrity assessment for the entire special permit inspection areas. 6.0 References Arnwine, Deborah, Joy Broach, Linda Cartwright, and Gregory Denton. 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/docs/wpc/Ecoregion.pdf, accessed on August 20, 2014. ESRI. 2010. Golf, Parks and Recreation and Public Lands. ESRI DVD. accessed August 14, 2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2001. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Map Number 47037C0364F: Panel 364 of 453. Effective Date: April 20, 2001. 24 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 _______. 2006a. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Williamson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 47187C0213F: Panel 213 of 485. Effective Date: September 29, 2006. _______. 2006b. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Williamson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 47187C0220F: Panel 220 of 485. Effective Date: September 29, 2006. _______. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Wilson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 47189C0142D: Panel 142 of 445. Effective Date: February 20, 2008. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 12, 2014. _______. 2014b. _______. 2014c. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2014a. http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/tn/Williamson/vacant.html http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/tn/Williamson/state2.html http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/tn/Williamson/state3.html Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). n.d. Guidance for Special Permit Applications on Providing Environmental Information. Richter, C.F., 1958. Elementary Seismology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp. 135-149; 650-653. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2010b. Year 2010 303(d) List. Retrieved August 17, 2014, from http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/publications/pdf/2010draft303dlist.pdf. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA). 2014. Boat Launches. http://www.tn.gov/twra/gis/boating.html accessed August 17, 2014. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2010. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 190. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. “US Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States”. Last revised: August 14, 2012. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/map, Accessed on August 15, 2014. 25 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 _______. 2011. Combined Geologic Map data for the Conterminous US. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/ accessed on August 13, 2014. _______. 2012. Mineral Resources Geologic Maps. http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/, accessed August 13, 2012. _______. 2013. Earthquake Hazards Program. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/shakemap/, accessed August 18, 2014. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. State and County Quick Facts. Available online: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed August 12, 2014. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Land Use/Land Cover Data. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2014. Scenic Roads. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/, accessed August 17, 2014. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Ecoregions of Tennessee. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/tn_eco.htm, accessed on August 20, 2014. _______. 2011. Region 4 Groundwater Protection. “Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast”. Updated February 9, 2011. Accessed online on August 17, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html _______. 2014. Tennessee Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Revised July 2, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/anayo_tn.html 26 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Appendix A Figures <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_project_location.mxd Cheatham County Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee Davidson County Williamson County Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee 1 0 2 4 Miles Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, NatGeo 2014, ESRI 2014 Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee Date: 8/21/2014 Tennessee Wilson County Ruther ford County Figure 1 Project Location Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_aerial_area1.mxd Date: 8/21/2014 Davidson Wilson Area 1 Williamson Rutherford Lewisburg Pike Holly Hill Dr 50 0 100 200 Feet Figure 2a Area 1 Aerial Imagery Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, ESRI 2012 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_aerial_area2.mxd McEwen Dr Clovercroft Rd Oxford Glen Dr 250 0 500 1,000 Feet Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, ESRI 2012 Gatewick Court Waverly Place Wilson Pike Date: 8/21/2014 Davidson Wilson Area 2 Williamson Rutherford Clovercroft Rd Figure 2b Area 2 Aerial Imagery Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_aerial_area3.mxd Sunnywood Dr Holt Rd Nolensville Rd 250 0 500 1,000 Feet Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, ESRI 2012 Date: 8/21/2014 Davidson Area 3 Wilson Williamson Rutherford Leaf Drive Mint Rd Culbertson Figure 2c Area 3 Aerial Imagery Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_aerial_area4.mxd Date: 8/21/2014 Davidson Wilson Area 4 Crossing Circle Williamson Rutherford S Mount Juliet Rd Providence Pkwy 50 0 100 200 Feet Figure 2d Area 4 Aerial Imagery Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, ESRI 2012 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_lulc_binder.mxd Date: 8/21/2014 3c Davidson Wilson 3b Area 2 Williamson County, Tennessee Williamson Rutherford 3a Area 1 Williamson County, Tennessee 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 3a Land Use/Land Cover Special Permit Segment Barren Land Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Cultivated Crops Deciduous Forest Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands Evergreen Forest Hay/Pasture Herbaceuous Mixed Forest Open Water Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands Source- NiSource 2014, USDA 2011 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_lulc_binder.mxd Date: 8/21/2014 3c Davidson Wilson 3b Williamson Rutherford 3a Area 3 Davidson County, Tennessee 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 3b Land Use/Land Cover Special Permit Segment Barren Land Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Cultivated Crops Deciduous Forest Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands Evergreen Forest Hay/Pasture Herbaceuous Mixed Forest Open Water Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands Source- NiSource 2014, USDA 2011 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_lulc_binder.mxd Date: 8/21/2014 3c Davidson Wilson 3b Williamson Rutherford 3a Area 4 Wilson County, Tennessee 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 3c Land Use/Land Cover Special Permit Segment Barren Land Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Cultivated Crops Deciduous Forest Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands Evergreen Forest Hay/Pasture Herbaceuous Mixed Forest Open Water Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands Source- NiSource 2014, USDA 2011 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_geology.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee ord-cal-lime ord-cal-lime ord-lime-ben ord-lime-ben ord-lime-shale ord-cal-lime Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee ord-lime-ben Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee ord-lime-ben ord-cal-lime Area - 2 ord-shale-lime Williamson County, Tennessee ord-shale-lime miss-chert-shale ord-cal-lime ord-lime-ben 1 0 2 4 Miles Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, USGS 2011, ESRI 2014 Unit Age, Primary & Secondary Rocktype Holocene - water Mississippian - Chert - Shale Ordovician - Calcarenite - Limestone Figure 4 Geology Ordovician - Limestone - Ordovician - Limestone - Bentonite Ordovician - Limestone - Shale Ordovician - Shale - Limestone Quaternary - Sand - Silt Silurian - Limestone - Shale Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_rec.mxd Cheatham County Davidson County Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee Williamson County Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee 1 0 2 4 Miles Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Golf Course Park and Recreation Area Boat Ramp Scenic Byway /Highway Public Land County Boundary Source- NiSource 2014, TWRA 2014, NatGeo 2014, ESRI 2010- 2014 J. Percy Priest Lake Date: 8/22/2014 Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee Wilson County Ruther ford County Figure 5 Recreational Opportunities Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_soils_binder.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 ArB Hu ArA ArB2 Lp McC3 ArB MbB Hu MbB MbB2 MbC2 ArB2 MbA ArB MbB2 MbB2 MbB Eg DoB2 MbB2 MbB Lp DoB2 MbC2 Hu MbB2 MbB MbA ArB DoC2 Du StC2 StD2 StB2 ArB StC2 StD2 La DoC2 MbB2 DoB2 250 0 500 1,000 DoC2 Feet ArC ArB Du CaB2 ArC2 ArB2 Hu TvD SrD3 MbC2 ArC2 Hu ArB HeC2 MbB2 MbC2 Map Index StB2 StC2 6d ArB2 CaC2 Lp McC3 MbC2 StC2 HeC2 MbC2 Wilson TvD ArC2 ArB2 Davidson HeB2 CaB2 ArC2 Lp McC3 MbB2 ArB2 Hu HeC2 MoD Hu MbB2 MbC2 ArA ArC2 6c TvD CaB2 MbB2 Hu W StB2 ArB2 Williamson Rutherford HeC2 Lp CaB2 MbC2 6b TvD ArB2 ArB2 AtC3 SrC3 ArC2 ArB 6a ArB W MbB2 MbB2 MbB2 HeB2 ArB2 Hu W ArA CaC2 MbC2 HeC2 SrC3 ArB2 ArB2 MbC2 ArA HhC3 Hu ArC2 Lp Hs MbC2 MbC2 Rc ArB2 StC2 AtC3 Hu MbB2 W Hu W ArB2 Du Eg ArB2 HhC3 Area 1 MbC2 ArB2 Hu McC3 Williamson County, Tennessee MbB2 Hu Rc ArA CaB2 MoD ArB2 McC3 MbB2 MbA MbB2 Hu CaC2 HeD2 MbC2 ImD Se MbB Lp ArB2 ArB2 ArC2 MbC2 StD2 StD2 Hu Ma Se Se ArB2 W AtC3 W MbC2 DnB2 MoD StB2 Hu W MoD MnE ArB2 DoC2 MbB2 La MbB2 ArA W ArA SrD3 StC2 ArC2 Hu Hu ArB2 DoC2 Eg StD2 ArC2 ArC2 W AtC3 Hu InD3 ArB2 ArC2 ArC2 Se ArC2 ArA ArB2 MbA MbC2 MbB W SrD3 Eg ArC2 SrD3 ArB2 Rc MbB2 ArB StC2 HbC2 MbC2 ArC2 StC2 StB2 SrC3 ArC2 Hu StD2 ImD MbB2 StB2 ArB2 MbB2 ArB2 StB2 StC2 StC2 StC2 ArB2 StB2 AtC3 SrC3 InD3 ArB StC2 DoC2 InE3 ArB2 Gu ArC2 SrC3 StB2 Hu InD3 StB2 Eg StD2 ArC2 Hu StB2 ArC2 Gu StB2 Rc Hu ArC2 HcC3 MbC2 MlD2 SrC3 StC2 StC2 Se StC2 HcC3 ArC2 ArB MoD Hu StD2 MnE StB2 InE3 McC3 ArA MlD2 ArB2 Rc MbC2 Se MnE Rc StB2 MlC2 Gu MbB2 SrD3 MbB2 ArA Rc Hu HbC2 DnC2 ArC2 Rc Se CaA MlC2 ArB Hu ArB2 ArC2 ArC2 ArC2 MbC2 MoD Hu MoD ArB Tb Se ArB Hu Hu ArB2 MbB2 ArB2 AtC3 ArB2 Rb Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System All Areas are Prime Farmland Source- NiSource 2014, SSURGO and ESRI 2014 Traversed Soils AmB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Ar - ARRINGTON SILT LOAM ArB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES ArB2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ArC - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES ArC2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED AwD - ASHWOOD SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES BbD - BARFIELD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES CkD3 - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED CkE - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 20 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES Eg - EGAM SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Gu - GULLIED LAND HaC2 - HAMPSHIRE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED HaD3 - HAMPSHIRE SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED Hu - HUNTINGTON SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Ld - LINDELL SILT LOAM Lp - LINDSIDE SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC MbB2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MbC2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MnE - MIMOSA VERY ROCKY SOILS, 20 TO 40 PERCENT SLOPES Rc - ROCKLAND SrC3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED SrD3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED StB2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StC2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StD - STIVERSVILLE LOAM, 12 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES StD2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED TrC2 - TALBOTT SILT LOAM, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED, ROCKY W - WATER Figure 6a SSURGO Soils Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_soils_binder.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 MoD Rc MoD MoD Eg BrC2 Gu MoD BrB2 StC2 AcB Du StC2 DnB2 Hu Rc MoD CkC StB2 MoD CfD2 StB2 Hu Du CfD2 MoD CkD3 CkC MoD Rc CkC SrC3 StB2 BsC3 CkC Hu SrD3 SrC3 ArC2 AcD2 MnE StB2 Gu Rc ArC2 BsC3 MoD StD2 BrD2 SrD3 StC2 ArC2 SrC3 StC2 ArB2 DnC2 Hu SrC3 StC2 W Hu SrD3 Lp StC2 SrD3 StB2 StC2 StB2 ArC2 StC2 StC2 MoD SrC3 DeD Gu MoD Rc MoD MnE MoD SrC3 SrD3 StB2 Lp MnE ArC2 SrD3 StD2 MhE2 MnE MoD ArC2 FrD DeF Gu MoD CkE SrD3 StC2 Eg StD2 ArC2 AwD CkE McC3 StC2 CkD StB2 CkD3 Eg HeD2 TvD Hu TvD Rc BsD3 MbC2 ArB2 MoD Hu Gu Map Index 6d Gu Wilson Davidson MhC2 ArB2 6c Williamson Rutherford StC2 6b MnE StB2 BsD3 StC2 Hu StD2 StB2 StC2 StB2 StC2 BrC2 6a StC2 Hu ArC2 ArB StC2 ArC2 StD2 CaB2 ArB StC2 SrD3 Hu CkD3 CfE2 CkD HbC2 HcD3 ArC2 MnE Rc MoD HbD2 MoD W MbC2 ArB HbD2 MnE Hu Hu HbD2 MoD Area 2 Rc Williamson County, Tennessee StC2 StD2 ArB Lp StC2 ArC Hu MlC2 HbC2 MkD3 ArC2 MbB2 Gu MhD2 Hu StD2 ArC MoD StD2 Hu CkE CfD2 StC2 SrD3 SrD3 StC2 SrC3 StC2 SrC3 StD2 StD2 CkD ArC2 StB2 CkD StB2 ArB StB2 SrC3 Hu CkE3 StC2 StB2 Hu ArB ArB Rc ArB2 Gu StC2 CkD HeB2 SrD3 CkE3 CkE ArC2 ArB2 CaB2 StB2 Hu StB2 SrC3 StB2 CkD3 CkE3 StB2 ArB2 StC2 StC2 CkD3 ArB ImE Lp HnB2 HhC3 StC2 StB2 StD2 StD2 W Lp SrD3 HbC2 Hu ArC2 HhC3 HeB2 StB2 Lp StC2 TvD HeC2 CkC StD2 Hu HeB2 CkE ArB2 CaB2 Rc CaB2 SrC3 HeC2 StC2 Me ArC2 Me HeB2 HeB2 InD3 CkD StB2 ArC2 ArC2 CkE3 W StC2 CkE TvD TvD CkC StD2 MkE3 Lp CkE W ArC2 HeB2 ArB2 ArC2 ArB2 W CaC2 ArC2 ArC2 Hu Hu StC2 TvD MlD2 ArC2 Me HeB2 StC2 Tb HeC2 ArB2 CkC Hu ArB2 HeC2 HeC2 Hu ArB StC2 ArC StD2 CkE SrD3 ArB2 Rb Eg Hu StC2 Rc CkC Rc CaB2 HeC2 CkE TvD StD2 HhC3 StB2 Me Hu SrC3 ArB2 W CaB2 TsC2 Eg CaB2 HcC3 Lp HnB2 ArB2 ArC2 ArB2 StB2 ArC2 HoC3 CkD Rc ArB2 HhC3 StC2 StB2 StD2 ArC2 TsB2 Hu ImD Rc Eg Du CaC2 StC2 Eg Lp ArB2 TvD Rc StB2 Hu HeB2 SrC3 StD2 StD2 StD2 ArC2 ArC2 SrD3 HnC2 La La Lp AtC3 Gu ArC2 SrD3 HbC2 W HeC2 La Rc Traversed Soils AmB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Eg - EGAM SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Rc - ROCKLAND Figure 6b Ar - ARRINGTON SILT LOAM Gu - GULLIED LAND SrC3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED SSURGO Soils ArB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES HaC2 - HAMPSHIRE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED SrD3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED ArB2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED HaD3 - HAMPSHIRE SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED StB2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ArC - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES Hu - HUNTINGTON SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC StC2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ArC2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED Ld - LINDELL SILT LOAM StD - STIVERSVILLE LOAM, 12 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES AwD - ASHWOOD SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES Lp - LINDSIDE SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC StD2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED Hampshire to Hartsville BbD - BARFIELD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES MbB2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED TrC2 - TALBOTT SILT LOAM, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED, ROCKY CkD3 - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED MbC2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED W - WATER Davidson, Williamson and CkE - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 20 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES MnE - MIMOSA VERY ROCKY SOILS, 20 TO 40 PERCENT SLOPES Wilson Counties, Tennessee SrC3 StC2 MoD Rc ArC2 ArB Hu StD2 250 0 500 1,000 Feet Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System All Areas are Prime Farmland Source- NiSource 2014, SSURGO and ESRI 2014 <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_soils_binder.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 AmC3 AmC3 TrC StC StD StC StC StC AmC3 AmB AmB HbC2 CkE InD3 Rc Rc CkE HmC TrC BbD Hu Rc Eg HmD RtC TvD InD3 ImC CkE HnC2 Gu InD3 CkE TrC Ld RtC Gu HmC TvD Hu CkE Eg ArC2 HbC2 Hu InD3 HbC2 TvD ImC InD3 250 0 500 1,000 AcD2 HeC2 Rc Rc Rc ImD Feet Rc InD3 TrC AmB TrC TrC TvD BbD AmC3 RtC TbC TrC AmB Eg Eg TvD HmB2 StC ArB StD StD W Ar AmB StC RtC Ar AmB Rc ArC2 Ma Hu TvD AmB Ld BbD Ar StC AmB Ar Ar CaB AmB StD StD AmB Ld Area 3 Davidson County, Tennessee AmB Ar W HmD Ar StC Ar Map Index 6d AmB TbC Wilson Davidson Ar AmB 6c Williamson Rutherford BbD 6b 6a HmD Ld TrC W Ar TbC BbD StD HmD TrC Wo BbD BbD HmD HmC HmC HmD StD Ar AmB StC StD TrC HmD W TbC W Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System All Areas are Prime Farmland Source- NiSource 2014, SSURGO and ESRI 2014 Traversed Soils AmB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Ar - ARRINGTON SILT LOAM ArB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES ArB2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ArC - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES ArC2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED AwD - ASHWOOD SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES BbD - BARFIELD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES CkD3 - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED CkE - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 20 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES Eg - EGAM SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Gu - GULLIED LAND HaC2 - HAMPSHIRE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED HaD3 - HAMPSHIRE SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED Hu - HUNTINGTON SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Ld - LINDELL SILT LOAM Lp - LINDSIDE SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC MbB2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MbC2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MnE - MIMOSA VERY ROCKY SOILS, 20 TO 40 PERCENT SLOPES Rc - ROCKLAND SrC3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED SrD3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED StB2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StC2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StD - STIVERSVILLE LOAM, 12 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES StD2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED TrC2 - TALBOTT SILT LOAM, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED, ROCKY W - WATER Figure 6c SSURGO Soils Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_soils_binder.mxd MaC2 TrC2 TrC2 GaC TaC2 StC2 TrC2 StC2 InD2 InD2 StB W StC2 TaC2 InE2 StB ArC2 HaC2 TrC2 TaC2 InD2 InD2 HaB2 InC2 250 StB InD2 0 500 1,000 Feet GaC HaC2 InD2 GaC LoC2 TrC2 HaD2 ByC2 W HaC2 StB MaB2 TaB2 MaC2 Ld MaC2 MaB2 W HaD2 W AnC HaC2 Area 4 HaB2 Wilson County, Tennessee AnC HaD3 HaD2 HaD3 W TaB2 MaC2 W HaC2 StB LoC2 TaC2 StB TrC2 TaC2 LoB BaD Ld TrC2 GaC GaC InC2 TaC2 HaD2 BrC2 HaC2 HaC2 TrC2 StD2 HaD2 GaC TaC2 W TrC2 MaB2 HaC2 InC2 MrC2 TaC3 Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System All Areas are Prime Farmland Source- NiSource 2014, SSURGO and ESRI 2014 Traversed Soils AmB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Ar - ARRINGTON SILT LOAM ArB - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES ArB2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ArC - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES ArC2 - ARMOUR SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED AwD - ASHWOOD SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES BbD - BARFIELD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES CkD3 - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED CkE - CULLEOKA SILT LOAM, 20 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES Eg - EGAM SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Gu - GULLIED LAND HaC2 - HAMPSHIRE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED HaD3 - HAMPSHIRE SILTY CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED Hu - HUNTINGTON SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC Ld - LINDELL SILT LOAM Lp - LINDSIDE SILT LOAM, PHOSPHATIC MbB2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MbC2 - MAURY SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED MnE - MIMOSA VERY ROCKY SOILS, 20 TO 40 PERCENT SLOPES Rc - ROCKLAND SrC3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED SrD3 - STIVERSVILLE CLAY LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, SEVERELY ERODED StB2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StC2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED StD - STIVERSVILLE LOAM, 12 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES StD2 - STIVERSVILLE SILT LOAM, 12 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED TrC2 - TALBOTT SILT LOAM, 5 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED, ROCKY W - WATER Date: 8/22/2014 BrB2 Map Index 6d Wilson TaC2 TaC2 Davidson W 6c Williamson Rutherford ByB 6b CaB 6a HaC2 ByB CaB MaB2 MaC2 ArB MaB2 MaB2 MaC2 StB HaB2 HaC2 InD2 StC2 InE2 HaD2 TaB2 TrC2 Figure 6d SSURGO Soils Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_water_resources_binder.mxd PFO1C PFO1C M cG a vock Cr e e k 700 700 700 C otton G in B ranc h Area 1 Williamson County, Tennessee PEM1C D onelso n Cr e ek PUSCx 700 700 PUBHx 700 PUBHx 700 800 800 250 0 500 1,000 Feet 700 Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, NHD, NWI, FEMA and ESRI 2014 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone Surface Waterbody Wetland Elevation Contour (100 foot interval) Elevation Contour (20 foot interval) 700 Date: 8/22/2014 700 Map Index 7d 700 Wilson Davidson 700 7c Williamson Rutherford 7b 7a Robinson Lake PUBHh H arpet h R iver 700 F ivemi l e k ree C Figure 7a Water Resources Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_water_resources_binder.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 900 S outh Pro n g Spenc e r C reek PUBHh 800 900 900 Area 2 Williamson County, Tennessee So u t h Seward H i lls Branch PUBHh PUBHh 1000 1000 1000 W ils 900 o n Pike Creek 800 900 PUBHh East W i lson Pi k e Creek PUBHx PUSCx 1000 PUBHh PUBHx PUBHh 900 Wa tson 800 B ranch PUBHh PUBHh PUBHh PUBHh 250 0 500 1,000 Feet PUBHh PUBHx PUBHh PUBHh PUBHh W i l son Pike Creek 1000 Map Index 7d PUBHh 900 Wilson Davidson 900 7c Williamson Rutherford 7a 800 H erbert C ree k 800 7b k ver c roft Cre e o Cl Clovercroft Lake PUBHh PUBHh 800 Figure 7b Water Resources Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, NHD, NWI, FEMA and ESRI 2014 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone Surface Waterbody Wetland Elevation Contour (100 foot interval) Elevation Contour (20 foot interval) Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_water_resources_binder.mxd 700 PUBHh PUBHh 600 600 600 Holt Cree k 600 Mill C ree k 600 700 700 700 700 PUBHx O wl C re e k 250 0 500 1,000 Feet Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, NHD, NWI, FEMA and ESRI 2014 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone Surface Waterbody Wetland Elevation Contour (100 foot interval) Elevation Contour (20 foot interval) Area 3 Davidson County, Tennessee PUBHh 600 600 PUBHh Date: 8/22/2014 7b 600 Map Index 7d Wilson Davidson 7c Williamson Rutherford 7a 600 Indian C r eek PUBHh PUBHh 700 PUBHh PUBHh Figure 7c Water Resources Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_water_resources_binder.mxd PUBHx PUBHx 600 PUBHh 600 PUBHh PUBHh 600 PUBHh PUBHh 600 PUBHh PUBHx PUBHx PUBHh PUBHh Area 4 Wilson County, Tennessee PEM1C 600 PUBHh PUBHh PUBHx PUBHh PUBHh 600 PUBHh PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx North Creek 250 0 500 1,000 Feet 600 Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, NHD, NWI, FEMA and ESRI 2014 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone Surface Waterbody Wetland Elevation Contour (100 foot interval) Elevation Contour (20 foot interval) PUBHh 600 600 PUBF PUBF PUBHh 600 PUBHx PUBF Date: 8/22/2014 Map Index 7d Wilson Davidson PUBHx 600 7c Williamson Rutherford 7b 7a 600 600 Figure 7d Water Resources Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_cultural.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee Ravenswood McGavock--Gaines House Herbert, John, House Hodge, Robert, House Wilson, Joseph, House Sewerd, John, House Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee Douglass--Reams House 1 0 2 4 Miles Figure 8 Cultural Resources Special Permit Segment Source- NiSource 2014, NRHP 2014, ESRI 2014 Columbia Gulf Pipeline System National Register of Historic Places Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_eco_regions.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee 1 0 2 4 Miles Figure 9 Ecoregions Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Source- NiSource 2014, EPA 2012, ESRI 2014 Inner Nashville Basin Outer Nashville Basin Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Date: 8/22/2014 Columbia Gulf SIMP Scottsville- Transmission. A NiSource Company Grovel )ak Tompkinsville 8-10 Fort The Lakes nd Between Fort Campbell ampbell Saint Rec Are a Bethlehem Portland Clarksville 224 m Tennessee Spring ield MACON STEWART MONTCOMERY Standing louse Thite SUMNER 317 m Greenbrier State Park Stone 30-40 Sidgetop: Gallatin, Living Area - 4 ICK SON Area - 3 OVERTO HOUSTON Davidson County, Tennessee Gobdlettsville Wilson County, Tennessee Madison SMI 10-12 18-20 Nashville Cookeville BENTON 20-30 DICKSON Write 200 Waverly Fluff Dickson PUTNAM HUMPHREYS 13 m Brentwood La Vergne 14-16 Smyrna DE KALE Franklin WHITE Murfreesb oro TENNESSEE 529 m Woodbury Centervi pring 3001 CANNON Hill RUTHERF Area - 1 Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee WARREN AN sons Williamson County, Tennessee BUREN lecaturville MAURY 307-m- Beechgrove Hol 12-14 604 m _ 57-1-m - Shielbyville 333 m Lewis burg 14-16 MARSHALL GRUNDY Tullahoma En 16-18 Waynes elopment Ctr neering 20 Miles 16-18 567 m DORE 18-20 Special Permit Segment % Ground Acceleration* 10-12 14-16 18-20 30-40 Figure 10 Seismic Hazard Columbia Gulf Pipeline System 8-10 12-14 16-18 20-30 40-50 2008, NatGeo 2014, ESR/ 2014 Source- NiSource 2014, USGS *This laver displays probabilistic ground motion for Davidson, Williamson and Hampshire to Hartsville year probability of exceedance. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 2% in 50 Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Document Path: C:\VPN_WORK\active_projects\Columbia_Pipeline_Inspection\maps\mxds\report_figures\tn_mineral_resources.mxd Date: 8/22/2014 Area - 4 Wilson County, Tennessee Area - 3 Davidson County, Tennessee Wilco Number 253 Pit - Past Producer - Area - 2 Williamson County, Tennessee Monsanto Phosphate Deposit No.25 - Dallas Number 431 Pit - Past Producer - Dallas - Prospect Stauffer Phosphate Deposit No.1 - Area - 1 Williamson County, Tennessee 1 0 2 4 Miles Figure 11 Mineral Resources Special Permit Segment Columbia Gulf Pipeline System Mineral Resources Mineral Resources within 1 mile Source- NiSource 2014, USGS 2012, ESRI 2014 Hampshire to Hartsville Davidson, Williamson and Wilson Counties, Tennessee <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Appendix B Site Reconnaissance Report <<>> Site Reconnaissance Report Columbia Gas Transmission Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 Special Permit Segments August 14 – 15, 2014 Introduction On August 14 and 15, 2014, a field team consisting of two qualified biologists (Rebecca Dutton and Tiara Thanawastien) visited the PHMSA Special Permit Segments associated with Special Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 to document environmental resources on or immediately adjacent to the areas. This was done as part of the effort to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the renewal of this Special Permit. Overall Site Description The Mainline (ML) 100, ML 200, and ML 300 natural gas transmission pipeline system originates near Rayne, Louisiana, and crosses Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky before terminating near Kenova, West Virginia. These special permit requests involves four areas along the pipeline in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. Table 1 details the locations of each. Table 1. Special Permit Segment Areas Pipeline Description County, State Length (feet) Begin Station End Station MAOP Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, TN 690 1584+69 1591+59 935 ML 200 MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, TN 1,081 1584+58 1595+39 1008 ML 300 MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy 431 Williamson, TN 534 1584+74 1590+08 1008 Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, TN 10,797 1783+03 1891+00 935 ML 200 MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, TN 10,525 1785+75 1891+00 1008 ML 300 MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson, TN 9,816 1792+84 1891+00 1008 Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066) ML 100 MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, TN 5,567 2210+36 2266+03 935 ML 200 MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, TN 5,487 2212+41 2267+28 1008 ML 300 MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson, TN 603 2208+45 2214+48 1008 Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330) ML 200 MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson, TN 1,600 3030+43 3046+43 935 ML 300 MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson, TN 1,600 3025+55 3041+55 1008 Site Characterization Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Area 1 includes three sections of pipeline, a 690-foot section of ML 100, a 1,081-foot section of ML 200, and a 534-foot section of ML 300. This area is located within B-1 <<>> the municipal limits of Franklin, Tennessee, on the southwestern side of the Forrest Crossing Golf Club. The area is a maintained herbaceous right-of-way (ROW) within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. Forested areas are dominated by trees less than 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). The topography in Area 1 slopes gently to the northeast, with elevations ranging from 690 to 716 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for mean sea level. Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Area 2 includes three sections of pipeline, a 10,797-foot section of ML 100, a 10,525-foot section of ML 200, and a 9,816-foot section of ML 300. This area is located within the municipal limits of Franklin, Tennessee, and crosses McKay’s Mill Subdivision. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. Three streams and one wetland are traversed by Area 2. The first stream starting from the east end of Area 2 is a swale located in a residential lawn. The ephemeral channel is 2 feet deep from top of bank, and 5 feet wide from top of bank. The second stream is an ephemeral channel between a railroad and access road. The channel is 10 feet deep from top of bank, and 20 feet wide from top of bank. A small emergent wetland is located alongside a roadside. A third medium perennial stream is traversed by the ROW with clear water flowing south with small fish present. The channel is 3 feet deep from top of bank, and 8 feet wide from top of bank. The topography is gently rolling, with elevations ranging from 720 to 920 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Area 3 includes three sections of pipeline, a 5,567-foot section of ML 100, a 5,487-foot section of ML 200, and a 603-foot section of ML 300. This area is located within the municipal limits of Nashville, Tennessee, and is adjacent to the Sugar Valley Subdivision. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. Two steams and one wetland were found to be traversed by Area 3. The first small ephemeral stream is located on the northeast portion of the area with no water present. Stream bank height is 5 feet with 10 feet bank width. The second medium perennial stream had water present flowing east. The stream bank width is 15 feet with banks varying in height with the low bank depth of 1 foot and high bank depth of 8 feet, and 60 feet wide from top of bank. Cloudy water present with the presence of crayfish, fish, snails, and clams. The emergent wetland is located at the high banks of the perennial stream, and continues along the stream banks off the ROW. The topography in Area 2 is gently rolling with a steep slope on the northeast end of the ROW. Elevations range from 740 to 1,030 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Area 4 includes two sections of pipeline, a 1,600-foot section of ML 200 and a 1,600-foot section of ML 300. This area is located adjacent and south of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, and is adjacent to Providence Marketplace, a commercial development. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and commercial development. Forested areas dominated by trees less than 10 inches DBH. Three emergent wetlands were found to be traversed by Area 4. The first wetland is an emergent wetland with no visible inflow or outflow and mostly dead vegetation. The second emergent B-2 <<>> wetland is located between two slopes and continues outside of the ROW. This wetland likely serves as a stormwater drainage area for surrounding commercial businesses. The third wetland is an emergent wetland between slopes, draining roads, and commercial businesses and continues outside of the ROW. The topography is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 580 to 620 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. B-3 <<>> Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0795/GIS point PH-019: Overview photo of right-of- way (ROW) in Area 1 facing northeast. Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0796/GIS point PH-020: Overview photo of steep slope on ROW in Area 1 facing east. B-4 <<>> Area 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0797/GIS point PH-020: Overview photo of hay field on ROW in Area 1 facing west. Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0798/GIS point PH-021: Overview photo of ROW in Area 2 facing west. B-5 <<>> Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0799/GIS point SS-009-1: Ephemeral stream facing south. Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0800/GIS point SS-010-1: Ephemeral stream facing south. B-6 <<>> Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0801/GIS point WW-009-1: Emergent wetland facing southeast. Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0802/GIS point SS-011-1: Perennial stream facing north. B-7 <<>> Area 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0803/GIS point PH-022: Overview photo of ROW in Area 2 facing east. Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0804/GIS point PH-023: Overview photo of ROW in Area 3 facing south. B-8 <<>> Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0805/GIS point SS-012-1: Ephemeral stream facing west. Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0806/GIS point WW-010-1: Emergent wetland facing south. B-9 <<>> Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0807/GIS point SS-013-1: Perennial stream facing west. Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0808/GIS point PH-025: Barn at east edge of ROW. B-10 <<>> Area 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066). Photo number 100_0809/GIS point PH-025: Overview photo of ROW in Area 3 facing north. Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Photo number 100_0810/GIS point PH-026: Overview photo of ROW in Area 4 facing northeast. B-11 <<>> Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Photo number 100_0811/GIS point WW-011-1: Emergent wetland facing southwest. Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Photo number 100_0812/GIS point WW-012-1: Emergent wetland facing northwest. B-12 <<>> Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Photo number 100_0813/GIS point WW-013-1: Emergent wetland facing northwest. Area 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330). Photo number 100_0814/GIS point PH-027: Overview photo of ROW in Area 4 facing southwest. B-13 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Appendix C Federally Protected Species <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table C-1. Federally Protected Species Known to Occur in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee Known Occurrence in Project Areas Counties Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing Summary of Habitat Requirements Williamson County Davidson County Wilson County Potential Habitat in the Vicinity of Project Areas Mammals Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E - Indiana bats hibernate during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines. For hibernation, they require cool, humid caves with stable temperatures, under 50° F but above freezing. After hibernation, Indiana bats migrate to their summer habitat in forested areas where they roost under the loose tree bark of dead or dying trees. Indiana bats also forage in or along the edges of forested areas. X X X Yes Northern long- eared bat Myotis septentrionalis PE - Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in large caves or mines with large passages and entrances, constant temperatures, and high humidity with no air currents. During summer, northern long- eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. X X X Yes Gray bat Myotis sodalist E - Gray bats live in caves year-round. During the winter gray bats hibernate in deep, vertical caves. In the summer, they roost in caves which are scattered along rivers. These caves are in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. They do not use houses or barns. - - X No C-1 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table C‐1. Federally Protected Species Known to Occur in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee Known Occurrence in Project Areas Counties Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing Summary of Habitat Requirements Williamson County Davidson County Wilson County Potential Habitat in the Vicinity of Project Areas Aquatic Invertebrates Nashville crayfish Orconectes shoupi E ‐ 1st‐order & larger streams, generally with bedrock bottom, under slabrock; endemic to Mill Creek watershed; Davidson & William. cos X X ‐‐ No Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta E ‐ This mussel is found in mud and sand and in shallow riffles and shoals swept free of silt in major rivers and tributaries. This mussel buries itself in sand or gravel, with only the edge of its shell and its feeding siphons exposed. ‐ ‐ X No Insect Baker Station cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus insularis C ‐ Baker Station cave beetle typically occur in twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near streams or drip areas. They are often found under rocks or debris. ‐ X ‐ Yes Plants Short's bladderpod Physaria globosa E ‐ Short's bladderpod flowers between March and May and can be found in open rocky areas, shale at cliff bases, open talus, ledges, open cedar glades in elevations of 300‐1,000 feet ‐ X ‐ No Price's potato‐ bean Apios priceana T ‐ This plant prefers lightly disturbed areas such as forest openings, wood edges and where bluffs descend to streams. It also grows along highway rights‐of‐way and power line corridors X X ‐ Yes Leafy prairie‐ clover Dalea foliosa E E This plant is found in prairie remnants along the Des Plains River in Illinois, in thin soils over limestone substrate. In Alabama and Tennessee it lives in prairie‐like areas on the edges of cedar glades. It favors sites with a wet spring and fall and a dry summer. X X X No C‐2 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table C-1. Federally Protected Species Known to Occur in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee Known Occurrence in Project Areas Counties Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing Summary of Habitat Requirements Williamson County Davidson County Wilson County Potential Habitat in the Vicinity of Project Areas Butternut Juglans cinerea - T It is native to moist bottomlands, lowland forests and some drier limestone soils in Eastern and Midwestern North America. It typically occurs in rich woods and along streams in all but the far western parts of the state. - - X Yes Glade Cleft Phlox Phlox bifida ssp. stellaria - T Glade Cleft Phlox is an inhabitant of calcareous barrens, cliffs and open, sandy or gravelly slopes where sterile, sandy or rocky soils persist. Often forms extensive mats and may be a dominant aspect on limestone barrens, appearing in full sun or in open stands of Juniper or Juniper mixed with upland hardwoods. The soil of open glades is typically thin, heavy and rocky, overlying flat- bedded limestone. - X X No Yellow Sunnybell Schoenolirion croceum - T Yellow Sunnybell flowers from April to mid- May in north, becoming dormant by late June. Generally found in rock outcrops and moist pinelands in elevations of 0-1,300 feet - X X No Pope's Sand- parsley Ammoselinum popei - T A herbaceous species that occurs in upland areas. - - X Yes Braun's Rockcress Arabis perstellata E E Braun's Rockcress are often found around rock outcrops, protected sites at the downslope side of tree bases, and sites of natural disturbance, such as talus slopes and animal trails. - - X No Svenson's Wild- rye Elymus svensonii - T Found in limestone bluffs in areas of shallow soils, especially on rocky slopes and ledges where it gets full sun or perhaps some light shade. Often found along river corridors. Will also occupy freshly disturbed areas such as road cuts. - - X Yes C-3 <<>> Hampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment August 2014 Table C-1. Federally Protected Species Known to Occur in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee Known Occurrence in Project Areas Counties Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing Summary of Habitat Requirements Williamson County Davidson County Wilson County Potential Habitat in the Vicinity of Project Areas Eastern Yampah Perideridia americana - E Eastern Yampah is found in rocky open woods, on limestone and chert substrata, bluffs, glades and flowers between April and July. X X - No Spring Creek bladderpod Lesquerella perforata E - Typically found on creek floodplains (of Spring Creek, Bartons Creek and Cedar Creek), but also in agricultural fields, flooded pastures and glades (open spaces with few or no trees). - - X No C-4 ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `regulations-gov` - SHA-256: `2c6bd3eb671e299cf8799182c171787e3a48a37dfeebad69a8bf82510851b2c6` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T02:22:46.679Z - Exported: 2026-08-27T05:21:49.755Z - Document slug: `regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98a6` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "regulations_gov_agency_attachment", "parentDocumentId": "regulations-gov-document-phmsa-2008-0330-0008", "regulationsGovDocumentId": "PHMSA-2008-0330-0008", "docketId": "PHMSA-2008-0330", "attachmentId": "09000064818c98a6", "format": "pdf", "authorshipClass": "agency_authored", "rightsClass": "federal_work", "ingestionDecision": "ingest", "decisionBasis": [ "organization:U.S DOT/PHMSA", "title:U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment for Columbia Gulf Transmission, Mainline 100, 200 and 300 pipelines located in Williamson and Davidson" ], "summaryEligibility": "eligible", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```